Slashdot Mirror
The Real Reason for Sending Astronauts into Space
Puneet writes "An article on New York Times discussing the need for astronauts for carrying out experiments in space. Too many of the planned experiments depend on crew operations when they could more effectively be done without them. In many cases, the crew is needed only to deploy an autonomous experiment."
Even before Columbia was destroyed, NASA was losing the skilled workforce through attrition. The problem extends further than just NASA. Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine has had a series of well-considered articles on "The Crisis in Aerospace" over the years.
But NASA seems to be in a particularly tough spot on this issue. The combination of decades-old technology, endless paperwork, and job insecurity makes it very difficult to attract and retain top engineers to work on Shuttle and other manned space projects.
It's sad that none of my NASA and contractor friends will support the Intl Space Station as anything but a means of retaining capability. In other words, we're marching in place until something better comes along.
Human exploration of space can happen naturally in a few centuries, when the technology has caught up with human desires.
Yes, but technology doesn't grow in a vacuum. It grows to address a problem only when exerted a problem. To use an imperfect but still appropriate analogy, you can't say, "I'm too weak to lift weights. I'll wait until I'm stronger, and then do it."
Long term: our great grandchildren will be living on mars. Probes don't live, they're just expensive remote controls. The dinosaurs never got around to going anywhere... what is our excuse? Or are we just going to wait for the next big thing (meteor, or whatever)?
"Sorry, but the long term survival of our species costs too much."
"Oh, bummer. Then I guess I'll just go watch reality tv."
We've been napping in cradle Earth long enough; we can't quit now that we're learning how to crawl.