Space, the painfully expensive frontier

[jeriendhal]

All right, with Atlantis on its final flight and Discovery and Endeavour making their last runs later this year, we're going to have a mumble-mumble years gap in the USA until the next manned spacecraft, either Orion or more likely something else goes into service, leaving us using the Soyuz Taxi Service to the ISS for the foreseeable future.

But the question is, why are we going? What's up there for us that can't be just as easily done with robot probes? Yeah, going to Mars to look at rocks ourselves might produce data more quickly than with remote controlled probes, at an order magnitude greater expense and with the possibility several human being dying very far from home. So why go at all?

[Poll #1565947]

Comments

[mjkj.livejournal.com]

Awww....

...but I wanted to vote for Unobtanium mining... ;)

*sighs*

*does not like being smacked and refrained therefore*

*sighs*

mjkj

[kodi]

You forgot "hubris."

[scarfman]

I think "national prestige" covers that.

[jeriendhal.livejournal.com]

I was about to say the same...

[kodi]

Well, I just don't. I wish you'd give me a little more to go on as to why you think the two are equivalent. Do you believe that any undertaking to increase national prestige is necessarily an example of hubris? Do you believe that any undertaking by a nation founded on hubris must necessarily be an attempt to increase national prestige?

Perhaps what I'm misunderstanding is who the "we" is in the question posed. Sure, if the "we" is "The Government of the United States of America," then perhaps hubris and "national prestige" are necessarily entangled, although even then I don't think that's the case. Is it that space exploration is so inherently prestigious that any exploration motivated by pride must also be motivated by national prestige?

I don't know; I'm obviously outnumbered on this one, and I apologize for casting aspersions on the quality of the poll, but I respectfully disagree that "national prestige" and "hubris" are synonymous, here.

[secoh.livejournal.com]

I lol'd

[woodwardiocom.livejournal.com]

Because the notion that humanity should remain confined to 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe is ludicrous on its face.

I also note that the constant advance of technology means that manned space flight gets cheaper and safer all the time . . .

[mehhayperson.livejournal.com]

I agree on the "exploring the universe" part. It's just so BIG! Of course we should explore, and only using robots, well, that'd be like saying watching travel documentaries are equivalent to going on holiday.

Also I am fully warped - in a good way - by shows such as Doctor Who, Star Trek and Stargate, so of COURSE we go into space. Of course it's worth the cost and the danger.

[mishalak (from livejournal.com)]

There is nearly an unlimited supply of stupidity. Therefore people will keep spouting the same buzz words that the promoters generate and so more money will be dumped into the money pit until it is full enough that someone will finally make an actual profit instead of just redistributing money from the suckers. We will go to space because people do deeply stupid things.

[feonixrift.livejournal.com]

Because it's out there. Because we're wired to need a frontier. Because we may not have a warp drive, but we've got a puzzle drive - until we know what's out there with our own eyes and hands, I don't expect us to ever let it go.

[jeriendhal.livejournal.com]

Agreed on your sentiments.

Smacks

Still, I warned you about the He3 thing.

[feonixrift.livejournal.com]

I was just reading about fusion powered engines in proposed interstellar travel designs... He3 is mentioned in a serious context. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus

[chewipaka.livejournal.com]

Go read "Death from the Skies" by Phil Plait, and you too will want space colonies. But mostly a good space program. Because knowing when the next asteroid will hit is important. Because space and the universe are out to kill us.

Also, I want to go to the moon.

[mishalak (from livejournal.com)]

Knowing when the next rock might hit and being able to do something about it does not imply a manned space program. In fact, rather the opposite, because despite what Hollywood has told you the best response is not to send plucky astronauts with nukes.

[chewipaka.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm not saying it's necessary to have a manned space program (though I guess I did imply that), I just want to make sure that we give space programs lots of money to be able to research these things.

And we should re-man the space program when we have a viable way to get to mars or something. Because space colonies=totally cool.

[secoh.livejournal.com]

Why build expensive telescopes? Why do any science at all? Because we as a species are wired to progress. We are the petulent children of the universe that immediately asks "why?" when told we cannot have or do something.

The politics of space is largely centred around NASA which started as a dream and has become a beureaucratic white elephant.

[mmegaera.livejournal.com]

We have to find Beta Colony. And Barrayar.

But not, by preference, Jackson's Whole [g].