Forty years after Apollo, human spaceflight is somewhat stalled, yet even many robotics geeks think we need to do better at sending humans beyond Earth orbit. See our special report, THE MOON: Then, Now, Next.
- Status
Option 4: humans where appropriate and real-time decision making and dexterity are needed, robots where all you need are sensors and claws.
I picked 50/50 because like most polls, the real options aren't listed. I figure about 80% robotic/20% manned would accomplish exploration the best.
k
The point to exploration is too go there. If human exploration was all done by robotics I can't decide if we would still be in caves or trees. Sending a robot for recon is fine, but its not explored until there are boots on the ground.
Besides, getting humans off the planet should be a goal.
And I mean colonization of the Solar System and beyond.
adba
The point to exploration is too go there. If human exploration was all done by robotics I can't decide if we would still be in caves or trees. Sending a robot for recon is fine, but its not explored until there are boots on the ground.
Besides, getting humans off the planet should be a goal.
And I mean colonization of the Solar System and beyond.
adba
Splitting it 50/50 IS the definition of stupid.
It wastes resources and creates entitlements towards spending more to complete robotic missions. We can't just say lets stop this 500 million dollar robo-thing, when we've already spent 250 on it. Another illustration: if you spend 100 million on a Mars Rover mission, guess what? You're gonna spend another 300 million on another Mars Rover mission! And so on it goes. It lacks focus, and what lacks focus - lacks interest.
Furthermore, human missions encompass a greater number of industries utilized in their completion. Benefits we see today from the Apollo missions come from the fact that they were developed during the Apollo Era for humans, so naturally they are able to help humans today. Whereas technologies developed for robots have little use in helping humans.
It wastes resources and creates entitlements towards spending more to complete robotic missions. We can't just say lets stop this 500 million dollar robo-thing, when we've already spent 250 on it. Another illustration: if you spend 100 million on a Mars Rover mission, guess what? You're gonna spend another 300 million on another Mars Rover mission! And so on it goes. It lacks focus, and what lacks focus - lacks interest.
Furthermore, human missions encompass a greater number of industries utilized in their completion. Benefits we see today from the Apollo missions come from the fact that they were developed during the Apollo Era for humans, so naturally they are able to help humans today. Whereas technologies developed for robots have little use in helping humans.
Manned missions will get more of the public interested in space exploration, which will create more funding from the government/commercial world.the general public is bored with robots and probes, but everyone would be watching if we sent a human to Mars.
The only reason robotic probes are used because human travel to that particular object is not possible. Of course human space travel is equally important. It provides motivation, confidence & creativity for the current & the upcoming generations. Human space exploration will encourage more kids to study science or at least understand the scientific method. The whole world needs more science graduates than business or law students!
"The only reason robotic probes are used because human travel to that particular object is not possible. "
I don't believe that is true. Certainly for some locations (the outer solar system, it is at that time) but the function of the current lunar robotic missions (yes really, even orbiters are robotic) is to research the safety and targets for future human exploration. In fact that is the primary (first year) mission of the LRO and LCROSS.
In a sense, the Mars landers are perfoming the same missions, investigation the future potential targets for human missions.
I don't believe that is true. Certainly for some locations (the outer solar system, it is at that time) but the function of the current lunar robotic missions (yes really, even orbiters are robotic) is to research the safety and targets for future human exploration. In fact that is the primary (first year) mission of the LRO and LCROSS.
In a sense, the Mars landers are perfoming the same missions, investigation the future potential targets for human missions.
I agree with DOCM. I think NASA should focus more on manned missions and let smaller entities and partners cover the robotic missions. NASA needs to be on the forefront, robotics have been proven and need to be passed on to the private sector.
Lets not forget why we need manned space missions and why we need to establish colonies on other worlds. It is to preserve our specis. It is not wise to put all you eggs in one basket. One large asteroid or comet and it's game over for the Earth. Unless you can incorporate human DNA in robots the only possible solution is manned (and womened!) exploration/colonization.
My point was that we'd go everywhere possible ourselves. If we can't, for financial or practical reasons, then we send probes! The primary objective is to gather information about the object, not just only for us to travel there.
I think for manned missions, with should stick with LEO, the Moon, Mars, and maybe a Venus fly-by. When we get that mastered down (which probably won't be in any of our lifetimes) then we should try a manned mission to the asteroids and possibly the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.
As for robotic missions, those are useful as well. We certainly wouldn't want to send a manned craft as far out as the Voyager probe. We wouldn't be able to bring them back. Use robots for everything we are not willing to use manned missions for.
As for robotic missions, those are useful as well. We certainly wouldn't want to send a manned craft as far out as the Voyager probe. We wouldn't be able to bring them back. Use robots for everything we are not willing to use manned missions for.
MeteorWayne":3sz4srk4 said:
I was thinking 60/40 or 70/30, with the larger portion going to manned, because manned costs more, but is more beneficial, as far as I'm concerned anyway.
Douglas
http://thespaceadvocate.blogspot.com/
If Man (and I definitely include the female of the species!) is NOT to "boldly go", then what is the point of sending robotic probes on ahead? Obviously, there are places that robot probes can go that Man can't go...at least at present...or may never be able to go due to conditions (the "surface" of Jupiter, for example). But what is the point of spending the money to send robots to places where Man him/herself can go eventually, if not to show the way?
The question often asked is should we go to Earth's Moon, OR Mars, OR the asteroids, etc. That, IMHO, is the WRONG question. It is not whether, but how soon? What should our ultimate objective be? THE UNIVERSE! The Moon, Mars, the asteroids, the Jovian and Saturnian moons are but waystations to the stars!
And WE MUST go out there..."thataway"...if we are to be true to our own human nature...to advance beyond our present state of being; to improve our lives; to satisfy the curiosity about what is "over the next hill", which is what makes us Human!
I can't say what proportion of available money we should devote to each, but we definitely need to proceed beyond Low Earth Orbit. And, if we Americans don't, believe me, the Chinese, Japanese and Indians will, not to mention the Russians!
Ad LEO! Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!
The question often asked is should we go to Earth's Moon, OR Mars, OR the asteroids, etc. That, IMHO, is the WRONG question. It is not whether, but how soon? What should our ultimate objective be? THE UNIVERSE! The Moon, Mars, the asteroids, the Jovian and Saturnian moons are but waystations to the stars!
And WE MUST go out there..."thataway"...if we are to be true to our own human nature...to advance beyond our present state of being; to improve our lives; to satisfy the curiosity about what is "over the next hill", which is what makes us Human!
I can't say what proportion of available money we should devote to each, but we definitely need to proceed beyond Low Earth Orbit. And, if we Americans don't, believe me, the Chinese, Japanese and Indians will, not to mention the Russians!
Ad LEO! Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!
I didn't know the site was so full of space cadets. Regarding the thrill of it, can anyone please name a human mission more thrilling than Cassini, in the past, let's say 25 years. Unfortunately, you cannot, and you still won't be able to, even in 2015, when New Horizons meets Pluto and you will be celebrating some nonsense like the 700th or 800th human into space.
Robots can be the scouts, but there are things we do better - witness Harrison Schmitt's performance during Apollo, both in training others to perform well and during Apollo 17.
It takes a sharp, well trained eye to do geology well. While the robots on Mars have done an admirable job, humans on a rover could have done a better and faster job of discriminating what to look at.
It takes a sharp, well trained eye to do geology well. While the robots on Mars have done an admirable job, humans on a rover could have done a better and faster job of discriminating what to look at.
Robots are lab rats minus PETA and ACLU. They should prove the basics of planets and asteroids viability for exploration by humans. As with say Spirit on Mars, it can't yet get out of a sand pit. Humans at JPL are working on that. I love what that rover and Opportunity have done. But on the Moon during Apollo, those guys in a similar situation would use know how to get out of a problem like that.
If say Columbus could of sent a few rovers west, he might of chosen Florida or New York.
If say Columbus could of sent a few rovers west, he might of chosen Florida or New York.
More funding in general, just a bad question. We need the probes to remain our main means of scouting, but it is just it looking where we are going to be. Because of the length of many of these probes journeys it is important that we continue to develop and launch probes. Ideally at an even higher rate than now, our rate of discovery in the years to come depends on it.
Being flooded with date for the next 20 years as our manned space program, getting the funding and interest it deserves, continues to push the human aspect. There are plenty of manned mission that are doable if they had the funding, Mars is on this list as well as a long term settlement on the Moon, and as they are doing them our wonderful little eyes in the sky continue to get closer to the next destination of our race.
Being flooded with date for the next 20 years as our manned space program, getting the funding and interest it deserves, continues to push the human aspect. There are plenty of manned mission that are doable if they had the funding, Mars is on this list as well as a long term settlement on the Moon, and as they are doing them our wonderful little eyes in the sky continue to get closer to the next destination of our race.
I voted for human exploration. Yes, exploration is dangerous. Is the debate stupid? Not by any means. Fifty-fifty? Robotic missions can be done cheaper and more frequently. Robots can go first. Humans can follow. We still have to get back to the moon, Luna, or whatever name one wishes. Mars, mine the asteroid belt, then check out Titan and Jupiter's moons as well. The big, gas planets are just as dangerous. We need to be considering long term trips and stays on these sites. One needs to consider the death of Earth and the potential for survival elsewhere.
When the first failure happens during a manned mission to the moon and seveal more people are lost and the entire moon mission is set back a decade, as was the space shuttle, then you will realize that everything humans can do so can robots of one form or another. They might be slower, so then send more, but they work 24 hors a day 365 days a year. They cost little as compaired to a manned mission and many of them could be sent to hundreds of places that interest scientists the world over. I'd bet if only scientists were to be asked this same question then they too would want more exploration not just go to the moon and start digging up rocks and return them to the Earth. That has already been done and there's nothing on the moon that is of any REAL VALUE. Helium 3 isn't that necessary for anything...period. The rest of the minerals are found here on earth so why go all the way there just for minerals we have here.
It would be more prudent to get a mission to Mars in preperation and that would be more worthwhile, to me. But in the meantime let us not waste time and money and LIVES on trips to the moon, please! Let us advance robotics and explore many places as yet unexplored to find out as much as we can for as little in cost but high in safety. Thank you for reading this and whatever the outcome , I really hope safety is the prime directive during any mission anywhere humans go.
It would be more prudent to get a mission to Mars in preperation and that would be more worthwhile, to me. But in the meantime let us not waste time and money and LIVES on trips to the moon, please! Let us advance robotics and explore many places as yet unexplored to find out as much as we can for as little in cost but high in safety. Thank you for reading this and whatever the outcome , I really hope safety is the prime directive during any mission anywhere humans go.
even though I agree with option 3, which is the obvious choice, and splitting hairs saying 60/40 etc basically means you are saying the same thing as option 3, I voted for option 1 simply because I think we should all be doing as much as we can to push for human exploration and take more chances. we don't hesitate to send thousands of soldiers off to war and loose some of them, but we are so risk adverse that we are afraid of loosing a few people in a space accident? I think most of you here would agree, that death is a possibility if you go into space on rockets, and I'll bet 99% of you would gladly risk it if you had the chance. so the more people out there who push for humans in space, on the moon and Mars,and beyond, the better. we will always have the robots, they make great sense and have done some truly amazing things so far, but the more people out there who push for human exploration of the moon, and mars and beyond, the better. so vote #1! call your representatives and tell them about how inspired you were when Neil was on the moon and that we as a country need to do this again, or be left behind the russians and chinese who are going all out now. make it a patriotic issue, tell your senators and reps that we are falling behind and need to lead the world in human space exploration, on to Mars! Plant that flag on Mars, make history record that it was the U.S. that first went to the moon, and first landed on Mars. The senators might listen to that.
Maybe I am on the 50/50 side. But I am not sure so I have not voted. But I did sign up so that I could post my thoughts on the topic.
First off, I do believe that there are advantages of sending robotic systems in to space ahead of humans. It would be foolish to go somewhere and not have any information on the destination prior to arrival. On this note I am all in favor for the Mars rovers and the probes that we have sent into the deep. However. I also think it would be a waste to send another robot to Mars where its major function was to take a couple scoops of dirt, or maybe dig a few inches into the ground.
In my opinion a plan is what is needed, maybe something like a business plan . Maybe there is one written up that is the "NASA" plan. Not toeing to public plan, but an actual plan. Did I say business? I do mean that in a fiscally responsible sense. i am sure that if someone were to explain to me why so many hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on the robot (maybe most of it went to the rocket fuel...idk) I would understand, and happily post an apology. But as I see it if a company were to run things the way NASA does, it would have flat-lined a long time ago.
What is a robot going to do for us at Mars? I for one, do not want to see humans sent to Mars if they have to put everything together themselves. I fully believe that we are quite capable of building robots that have the capability to do, at the least, some minor preparation for a human party. Even if it is digging a whole in the ground for people to craw into during a dust storm. I know at one point there was some work on a contest for robots to assemble a pipeline of sorts under mock-Mars conditions. I like contests, I think this one had merit as well as many others. Can a path (or even a plan) be outlined here?
On that note I would like to congratulate all of the teams that have participated in any robotic contests over the years, and especially to the high schools that allow students to participate in them. Good Job to all of you!
Human exploration? I do not think that human exploration is practical at this junction. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HUMANS HAVE NO PLACE IN SPACE. I think that humans are what is needed to provide the "touch" to a specific experiment. We just do not need to have to do all of the grunt work to get there.
I feel I could say much more, but...well...this post has gotten long enough.
First off, I do believe that there are advantages of sending robotic systems in to space ahead of humans. It would be foolish to go somewhere and not have any information on the destination prior to arrival. On this note I am all in favor for the Mars rovers and the probes that we have sent into the deep. However. I also think it would be a waste to send another robot to Mars where its major function was to take a couple scoops of dirt, or maybe dig a few inches into the ground.
In my opinion a plan is what is needed, maybe something like a business plan . Maybe there is one written up that is the "NASA" plan. Not toeing to public plan, but an actual plan. Did I say business? I do mean that in a fiscally responsible sense. i am sure that if someone were to explain to me why so many hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on the robot (maybe most of it went to the rocket fuel...idk) I would understand, and happily post an apology. But as I see it if a company were to run things the way NASA does, it would have flat-lined a long time ago.
What is a robot going to do for us at Mars? I for one, do not want to see humans sent to Mars if they have to put everything together themselves. I fully believe that we are quite capable of building robots that have the capability to do, at the least, some minor preparation for a human party. Even if it is digging a whole in the ground for people to craw into during a dust storm. I know at one point there was some work on a contest for robots to assemble a pipeline of sorts under mock-Mars conditions. I like contests, I think this one had merit as well as many others. Can a path (or even a plan) be outlined here?
On that note I would like to congratulate all of the teams that have participated in any robotic contests over the years, and especially to the high schools that allow students to participate in them. Good Job to all of you!
Human exploration? I do not think that human exploration is practical at this junction. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HUMANS HAVE NO PLACE IN SPACE. I think that humans are what is needed to provide the "touch" to a specific experiment. We just do not need to have to do all of the grunt work to get there.
I feel I could say much more, but...well...this post has gotten long enough.
I voted 50/50 but not stupid debate.
Sending human to Mars and beyond is a great idea, but not till after 30 years. We need faster space transportation if any of our human become seriously ill that need to seek medical attention less than 30 days. A flight to return home from Mars which will take longer than 30 days with our current technology. We need space station orbiting at mars with skilled doctors and medical bay.
I suggest by building moon base to let astronauts physical experience around the moon, also find a way to shield themselves from random harmful radiations showers and minerals on the moon. Build Mars transport ship on moon which might take less fuel to take off from moon.
We need more Science educations in schools.
Sending human to Mars and beyond is a great idea, but not till after 30 years. We need faster space transportation if any of our human become seriously ill that need to seek medical attention less than 30 days. A flight to return home from Mars which will take longer than 30 days with our current technology. We need space station orbiting at mars with skilled doctors and medical bay.
I suggest by building moon base to let astronauts physical experience around the moon, also find a way to shield themselves from random harmful radiations showers and minerals on the moon. Build Mars transport ship on moon which might take less fuel to take off from moon.
We need more Science educations in schools.
I tend to agree with many others that all one way or the other or even 50/50 is simplistic.
Further to that I have some other thoughts. I am a big space fan ever since I heard Sputnik from orbit beeping at us, watched the first few Americans in space, John Glenn and all of other Mercury and Apollo programs...
So... what I say may not be popular and might seem out of place for such a forum, but I do think men in space are largely a detriment to efficient exploration of it, and far more knowledge can be gained by the likes of Cassini, Galileo and Hubble and the like, than mere "Boots on the Ground" and flag planting ceremonies. It is all bang for the buck...
Further I have other ideas that may not fit well for some, but I hope it provokes thought and a decent debate, and is not just a bunch of back slapping and agreement. I would hate to see a bunch of money spent on sending people to Mars so we just cross it off our list, saying, "Been there, Done that, now we can cross it off our list for another 50 years", like has happened with Apollo.
A few points...
I don't remember if many long term studies were done 40 years ago to "prove" men were able to survive the trip to the moon. We sent them anyway. Back then there were only 3 or 4 billion people on this planet, now there are about twice as many. Many say here they would volunteer in a heartbeat if they were given the opportunity to go to Mars. I think likely the first humans to go to Mars may not make it back, but if they do, they will not last long. I suspect that after they spend 6 months getting there and a month or so in 1/3 gravity and another 6 months or so returning... they will likely be barely able to stand up on Earth again before they succumb to radiation sickness. But they will have tried, I hope, knowing the risks involved.
I agree with many others that these experiments where we simulate a trip to Mars by locking up some candidates in a pseudo Mars craft, show little about what may happen. The group of candidates that do these tests are what determine if they are successful or not. Replacing any one of them of several may totally change the outcome. The knowing that you are still safely on this planet and could issue an alarm that let you out of it in minutes is always an option. A better test would to be in a situation a few kilometers under the ocean knowing that if ever the pressure containment failed, you would be instantly incinerated as the adiabatic effects would instantly raise the temperature a few thousand Kelvins, let alone begin a bad hair day...
To be truly relevant, for such experiments, I would say you would need to also add a CAT scan each day, or inflict a full body X-ray every hour or so, to mimic the effects of the situation on the participants, with their knowledge, of course, so they have something real to stress them out. This is otherwise little more than flagpole sitting if the real hazards are not properly inflicted on the subjects.
I won't echo folks from a hundred years ago that said that if God meant man to fly he would have given us wings. And, nowadays, I would have to say that if God meant we should go live on Mars, then He would have adapted us to a lack of gravity, and made us impervious to cosmic radiation and solar flares. That is heresy and politically incorrect in such company as here, however true it may be.
I still feel some problems with many that say we MUST leave Earth to better our chances of survival as a species, and that unless we leave Earth we will be destroyed by some big rock, that only by hurrying up to get our boots onto some other planet we are all doomed. Really? If the Big Rock from Space means that The Sky is Falling, do you really think human civilization will be preserved if there are a few survivors on the Moon and Mars? We lose much if that happens, but I don't see how human culture is necessarily preserved because we abandoned a few people on Mars or the moon during the next few decades. Great Sci-Fi themes, but not paid for well by book sales.
I question the whole premise that a 20 mile rock would wipe us out as a species forever. I could see that we may lose all but a fraction of a percent of the current population in the worst case, but 6 billion lowered to a few million is not a complete wipeout. The gene pool is still there, but may be widely spread.
To say we will, of course, suffer the fate of the dinosaurs is evidence that those that think that are not much smarter than they were, and deserve to be wiped out. I am tired of people saying my survival skills as an individual or ours as a species are no better than some big lizards 65 million years ago! If they think they are that helpless then I suspect they WILL be in the 99% that could be wiped out.
There are no nice planets in this solar system that would also welcome human life like Earth has done. We are a very long way from even IDENTIFYING a good a planet in some other star system that would be another replacement for Earth. And once we find one, it will take us centuries to get there and make friends with the natives and establish anything that looks like our current civilization that we have here.
In the meantime, we are better off identifying threats to this planet, and trying to implement ways to thwart them. Some real research into how to prevent an asteroid hitting us at all would be far more productive than walking about Mars for a week or two and not going back for several more decades. I also think we need a paradigm shift from basing our society of the consumption of non renewable resources to a form of true sustainability. To tell me that we need to colonize Mars or the moon or Europa to survive the next several million years is at best foolish, and at worse, one of the biggest Fairy Tales we are being fed. To say, further, that we inevitability shall so pollute or ruin this planet, and therefore need another to move to survive is defeatist thinking that I hope is wiped out if the big rock does come.
I realize my view is not popular with many other true space fans, but I am sorry if I don't march to the same drummer as others do. I am a keen fan of space exploration, and few can say they are more so. And I welcome any one to try to tell why what I think is wrong. Feel free to read my profile if you think I should worship someone's sacred cows, or that I am not willing to point out the Emperor has no clothes.
I hope others can respond and either agree or disagree on the merits of the arguments. I cannot see how us putting boots on the ground gets us much more than dusty boots on some place we will never stay long on. Robots like Cassini and hubble last longer than most astronauts' careers do. They provide more data for use to analize than we are willing to pay for the help to do so in real time. We will see things in pictures that Hubble took years ago that we haven't got the human 'manpower yet to keep up with.
Further to that I have some other thoughts. I am a big space fan ever since I heard Sputnik from orbit beeping at us, watched the first few Americans in space, John Glenn and all of other Mercury and Apollo programs...
So... what I say may not be popular and might seem out of place for such a forum, but I do think men in space are largely a detriment to efficient exploration of it, and far more knowledge can be gained by the likes of Cassini, Galileo and Hubble and the like, than mere "Boots on the Ground" and flag planting ceremonies. It is all bang for the buck...
Further I have other ideas that may not fit well for some, but I hope it provokes thought and a decent debate, and is not just a bunch of back slapping and agreement. I would hate to see a bunch of money spent on sending people to Mars so we just cross it off our list, saying, "Been there, Done that, now we can cross it off our list for another 50 years", like has happened with Apollo.
A few points...
I don't remember if many long term studies were done 40 years ago to "prove" men were able to survive the trip to the moon. We sent them anyway. Back then there were only 3 or 4 billion people on this planet, now there are about twice as many. Many say here they would volunteer in a heartbeat if they were given the opportunity to go to Mars. I think likely the first humans to go to Mars may not make it back, but if they do, they will not last long. I suspect that after they spend 6 months getting there and a month or so in 1/3 gravity and another 6 months or so returning... they will likely be barely able to stand up on Earth again before they succumb to radiation sickness. But they will have tried, I hope, knowing the risks involved.
I agree with many others that these experiments where we simulate a trip to Mars by locking up some candidates in a pseudo Mars craft, show little about what may happen. The group of candidates that do these tests are what determine if they are successful or not. Replacing any one of them of several may totally change the outcome. The knowing that you are still safely on this planet and could issue an alarm that let you out of it in minutes is always an option. A better test would to be in a situation a few kilometers under the ocean knowing that if ever the pressure containment failed, you would be instantly incinerated as the adiabatic effects would instantly raise the temperature a few thousand Kelvins, let alone begin a bad hair day...
To be truly relevant, for such experiments, I would say you would need to also add a CAT scan each day, or inflict a full body X-ray every hour or so, to mimic the effects of the situation on the participants, with their knowledge, of course, so they have something real to stress them out. This is otherwise little more than flagpole sitting if the real hazards are not properly inflicted on the subjects.
I won't echo folks from a hundred years ago that said that if God meant man to fly he would have given us wings. And, nowadays, I would have to say that if God meant we should go live on Mars, then He would have adapted us to a lack of gravity, and made us impervious to cosmic radiation and solar flares. That is heresy and politically incorrect in such company as here, however true it may be.
I still feel some problems with many that say we MUST leave Earth to better our chances of survival as a species, and that unless we leave Earth we will be destroyed by some big rock, that only by hurrying up to get our boots onto some other planet we are all doomed. Really? If the Big Rock from Space means that The Sky is Falling, do you really think human civilization will be preserved if there are a few survivors on the Moon and Mars? We lose much if that happens, but I don't see how human culture is necessarily preserved because we abandoned a few people on Mars or the moon during the next few decades. Great Sci-Fi themes, but not paid for well by book sales.
I question the whole premise that a 20 mile rock would wipe us out as a species forever. I could see that we may lose all but a fraction of a percent of the current population in the worst case, but 6 billion lowered to a few million is not a complete wipeout. The gene pool is still there, but may be widely spread.
To say we will, of course, suffer the fate of the dinosaurs is evidence that those that think that are not much smarter than they were, and deserve to be wiped out. I am tired of people saying my survival skills as an individual or ours as a species are no better than some big lizards 65 million years ago! If they think they are that helpless then I suspect they WILL be in the 99% that could be wiped out.
There are no nice planets in this solar system that would also welcome human life like Earth has done. We are a very long way from even IDENTIFYING a good a planet in some other star system that would be another replacement for Earth. And once we find one, it will take us centuries to get there and make friends with the natives and establish anything that looks like our current civilization that we have here.
In the meantime, we are better off identifying threats to this planet, and trying to implement ways to thwart them. Some real research into how to prevent an asteroid hitting us at all would be far more productive than walking about Mars for a week or two and not going back for several more decades. I also think we need a paradigm shift from basing our society of the consumption of non renewable resources to a form of true sustainability. To tell me that we need to colonize Mars or the moon or Europa to survive the next several million years is at best foolish, and at worse, one of the biggest Fairy Tales we are being fed. To say, further, that we inevitability shall so pollute or ruin this planet, and therefore need another to move to survive is defeatist thinking that I hope is wiped out if the big rock does come.
I realize my view is not popular with many other true space fans, but I am sorry if I don't march to the same drummer as others do. I am a keen fan of space exploration, and few can say they are more so. And I welcome any one to try to tell why what I think is wrong. Feel free to read my profile if you think I should worship someone's sacred cows, or that I am not willing to point out the Emperor has no clothes.
I hope others can respond and either agree or disagree on the merits of the arguments. I cannot see how us putting boots on the ground gets us much more than dusty boots on some place we will never stay long on. Robots like Cassini and hubble last longer than most astronauts' careers do. They provide more data for use to analize than we are willing to pay for the help to do so in real time. We will see things in pictures that Hubble took years ago that we haven't got the human 'manpower yet to keep up with.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 169
-
-
Voyager 1 spacecraft phones home with transmitter that hasn't been used since 1981- Started by Admin
- Replies: 5
-
Apollo 11 moonwalker Buzz Aldrin endorses Trump for president
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
Stare into the 'blood-soaked eyes' of 2 spooky galaxies in new Hubble, JWST images (video)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Earth is wobbling and days are getting longer — and humans are to blame
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 75
-
Star Trek: Lower Decks' Season 5 episode 3: Why are nanites causing havoc in a luxury space hotel?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gravity does not cause any light bending, NASA scientist claims. But what does ?
- Latest: Classical Motion
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram