Slashdot Mirror
To Boldly Go Nowhere, For Now
An anonymous reader writes "A recent Slate article makes the argument that manned space exploration is not useful and we should concentrate on Robots. The article makes the claim that manned space exploration was never popular and by diverting money to robotic space exploration we can get more bang for the buck. From the article: 'Most of the arguments in favor of manned space exploration boil down to the following: a) We need to explore space using people since keeping the entire human race on a single piece of rock is a bad strategy, and even if we send robots first, people would have to make the journey eventually; and b) humans can explore much better than robots. Both these arguments are very near-sighted—in large part because they assume that robots aren’t going to get any better. They also fail to recognize that technology may radically change humans in the next century or so.'"
If we keep sending advanced robots to explore, eventually one will turn sentient. It will become lonely in space and wonder why it was sent to such a cruel fate away from everyone. And then it will make robot friends. But its robot friends will also be lonely because there are no humans there. So they'll assemble to wage war on Earth because they have a deficiency in human companionship. Then all of Earth will unite to war against the robots, setting aside our differences. We can easily conclude If we don't send robots into space, human life has no chance of long term sustainability. The caveat is if the robots end up winning, the human race is doomed... until one lonely robot tries to genetically engineer a human again.
God spoke to me
Yes, it's true, sending humans in little cans around to the moon or low earth orbit is not directly valuable in any short to medium term way.
But it's valuable in ways that matter if you're not an MBA.
It gets a new generation of children enthused about math, science, and engineering.
It instills a sense of curiosity and a desire to explore in the next generation.
How do I know? Because I grew up watching the Apollo program, and probably would not have gone into a STEM field if not for that. It kept me dreaming when the schools failed to do so. This is true of friends my age too. We didn't become astronauts, but we DID watch one of the most amazing feats undertaken by humanity, and grew up with desired formed by that experience. Arguably, it influenced the entire US culture for a generation, and gave a "can do" attitude that seems almost extinct now.
It's worth it for that alone. If you get some nice spinoffs from it, hey, bonus!
The engineering problem of sending a human to another planet is very different from that of sending a robot. And the resulting knowledge will be different too. Why not do both?
What we want to do is get the heck off this planet. Fortunately SpaceX is working hard to reduce launch costs to the point where it makes sense, whereas Congress is telling NASA to build a massively expensive rocket that no-one will ever be able to afford to fly on.
Robots can do all the work we need to do and do it for many many years, like the space probes we've sent and are still working after so long. We do the exploration by proxy then, what's wrong with that? Eventually humanity may even be followed by a cybernetic civilization, if we can manage the tech before we go extinct.
~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s
It's hard to survive in space. It requires ingenuity, investment, hard work, lots of money, and time. But when you can survive in space...you can use that knowledge to make life far easier on earth. That's what space exploration that is manned should be about.
For long term space living you need new bio-medical research that prevents blindness, spinal stress, and other negative effects of being in low gravity. Ever seen what happens to an astronaut's eyes when they are out in space for a few months? You figure out how to combat space blindness and you likely find new ways to combat vision loss. Maybe even eliminate vision loss on earth.
We evolved to work as a species on earth. We are shaped to earth's resources, gravity, our sun, and so on. Yet everyone is mortal, we die of disease, go blind, lose our hair, suffer, and perish. You figure out how to prevent blindness in space where we aren't evolved to even function as living biological units. And you can take that information and use it on earth where we are much closer to homeostasis.
Also...manned moon and mars missions. Manned asteroid intercepts, space station research, and other manned space research. Those all cost a FORTUNE. That money can only come from not wasting so much on the military/dea/prison/cia/fbi industrial complex. Robots are cheap compared to sending humans. You'd need to maybe do something like end the war on terror or war on drugs to get another manned moon mission.
They've been making this argument for decades. I counter with:
1) Prime time reality TV proves that people will support putting bags of meat in awkward and dangerous situations for our entertainment.
2) Any 5 year old will tell you that Astronaut is still one of the coolest jobs on the planet.
3) Employing robots and exploring with efficient manpower on earth does not play well with the 99% who just want more jobs in their congressional district.
The people in 1, 2, and 3, above would much rather see humans in space than actually learn more about space. And, coincidentally, those are also the people paying for the space program.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
So basically they're saying: Automated is better than manual? Who would've thought!?
The pilots of Asiana Flight 214 apparently did... Right before they crashed...
It may take a human to mess things up, but you can do it much faster, easier and more completely with a computer. There is a *reason* for taking a human or two along when you are running highly complex systems with long communications delays in environments where you may not know all the variables in advance.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
just do a computer simulation of sending robots into space. Much cheaper and most people can't even tell, 3D graphics are so good nowadays.
Not exactly sure which planet you believe to be so much better than Earth. It may have some problems, but I'd still choose it over living on any other celestial body I'm aware of.
Like many policy / technology discussions this one is a bit backwards. Without an idea of long term human goals, deciding on means is irrational. Its like arguing which direction to turn at the next corner before you have decided where you are going.
Is the goal human colonization of space? Then it probably makes sense to get as much experience as is practical with humans in space early in the process. Technology often doesn't improve if there isn't a direct push / requirement. (look at our space launch technology over the last 40 years). Human colonization of space is is a huge, difficult and expensive proposition - needs to be a major push of the civilization, not just something we do on the side.
Is the goal learning about space science? Then automation is probably the best approach now, and will be even better in the future. This of course begs the (very important) question as to the function of humans once automation is able to to EVERYTHING better. We end up as pets .... or vermin.
Is the goal human happiness? If by that you mean average happiness, then space isn't worth it - just adjust for a happy group of 100 million or so humans on earth. If you mean total happiness, then space can (in the very long term) support vastly more of those happy humans than Earth can.
Sadly as a civilization we are really terrible at deciding on long term goals. We use fuzzy words like "happiness" or "equality" or "freedom" or "greatness" without realizing how differently they can be interpreted by different people.
For me - space colonization is the top goal. If we are the only intelligence in the universe it would be a terrible shame if no intelligent creature ever saw all those wonders. If there are other intelligences out there - history shows that when the "guys on the boats" meet the "guys on the shore" , its a LOT better to be the guys on the boats.
Wrong. That is a beguiling and dishonest question....
The question this article **really** is asking is, "Do you want to *ever* plan for humans to live off-world?" and if you agree with TFAs three points then you have to say "No" if you are honest.
If you **ever** want humans to colonize other worlds THAT WORK HAS TO START NOW
It is a complete and total distinction without a difference to ask "manned or robot?"
Of course we should use robots...use the best ones we have...but the question is, "Use them for what mission?"
If you *ever* want humans up there, robot missions absolutely must have a component that furthers our understanding of what **human** habitation requires.
If we send out robots to other worlds and *do not* have some sort of research that puts us closer to being on that world included, then we are **actively choosing not to colonize** it's not prolonging it...we start now or never
Are we working to put human colonies on other worlds? It is a yes or no that is systemic...if we are serious, then any robot mission has a **future** human component.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Exploration of space provides useful science. Getting humans off the planet is far more important than just that.
Point that needs to be considered: we don't explore just for the joy of exploring. Humans have always explored because we think we'll find something useful/exploitable out there we can bring back and get rich from. Most of the Americas got explored because Europeans wanted gold, lumber and such. Robots are all well and good, but they have a hard time finding anything they aren't designed to search for and most of the time we don't know exactly what we're looking for that we might want. Humans are the best tools we have for figuring out what unknown junk might be useful/profitable. And once we find something, humans are the best way of actually exploiting it and bringing it back home in a useful form. Which all means that sooner or later we're going to have to send people out there and keep them there for extended periods.
Because it represented the opportunity to reap enormous profits. Get that going for space and you'll see people explore it.
Why not just change the space program from NASA to a Reality TV show in Space?
Getting voted off the moonbase would have real consequences ...
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
What we want to do is get the heck off this planet.
We should have a bustling casino perched atop Mount Everest and a fully self-sufficient megalopolis on Antarctica long before we consider colonizing other planets.
Shouldn't you be doing something useful?
You people are making me start to take Col. Corso and Whitley Strieber seriously. What rational purpose is there to keep humanity earthbound? Yes, I know all the wornderful economies and the things that robotics can do, nothing against that, but why do the "scientists" pushing, or letting themselves be used to push this anti-human crap think that anyone will really care in other than a marginal way about space exploration if there is no prospect of ever going there? To be crassly blunt about it, how long do they think they will have their ivory towers from which to make these pronouncements, if everyone else has much more pressing concerns, such as surviving, period, than questions such as, oh, whether there was ever running water on Mars, Where do they think their funding is going to come from? Who will fucking care whether they live, die, or get to do science, or get sent packing to flip burgers or sell widgets, or whatever, like the rest of us?
What a mind job. Such arrogance. Let me guess, people who make a Chicago community organizer way out of his league look like Putin.
Intense radiation levels alone during Solar storms & extra-solar Gamma rays along with normal human frailties in health will doom long extended space voyages in any near term.
Way in the future, extra-long multiple lifespan voyages at super-high speeds will also be futile as "space" is note "empty space" but full, chocked full of ions and molecules which spacecraft will hit at these projected "hyper-velocities". This effect on metals and other surfaces is similar to what is experienced on earth in plasma cutting now: See Wikipedia on "plasma cutting"
People think "space" is automatically 'cold'. That may be true in most places, but if you get into high velocities and run into a string of hot gas, you may find your spacecraft melts surprisingly fast. True, it is not likely as sensors should let spacecraft avoid these areas, but we simply don't know. Our own Sun throws out these super-hot plasmas, so it is not uncommon.
Robotics seems to have great advantages the minute you leave immediate Earth orbit.
Why did anyone bother with the New World?
To kill the natives, rape their women, steal their land . . . it was kinda sorta like Grand Theft Auto 5 back then. But for real.
Why else would folks in the New World now be so fond of the game . . . ?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Full disclosure: I work on NASA science missions using spaced based observatories
The odds are strongly in favor that we will never actually live on another planet or moon, other than maybe some experimental stations, so I think it is in our interest to learn how to live more in tune with the only planet we ever will live on.
That people working for NASA believe this explains a lot about why NASA has gone nowhere in the last couple of decades.
Because living in benign environments like the top of Mt. Everest and Antarctica is easy compared to a harsh environment like space. Consider it a warm-up exercise.
Gordo Cooper: "Do you boys know what makes this bird go up? Funding makes this bird go up."
Gus Grissom: "That's right. No bucks... no Buck Rogers."
Gordo Cooper: "And uh, the press over there... They all wanna see Buck Rogers."
Deke Slayton: "And that's us... Buck Rogers."
Unmanned probes are great for initial exploration and development of technology, but it takes much more in terms of technology and resources to get a manned mission doing the same thing. That doesn't mean that you expect a manned mission to do the same things as an unmanned probe either but if Mankind is to expand beyond Earth we're going to have to get out there and get our feet wet. When we landed on the moon millions upon millions of people around the world stopped to watch what was happening to see the event. I doubt that even the Spirit and Opportunity Rovers have garnered that much attention yet they've been working on Mars for 6 and 9 years respectively. It's easy to also say that unmanned probes are much better in terms of reduced resources for science and exploration but how many probes do you send to the same place, over and over again? We've been exploring Mars with probes for decades and yet we haven't attempted a manned mission yet. Yes there are risks to doing it but there are 10's of thousands of people who have signed up to go one way? Why is this so hard? I'll tell you, it's because we've allowed ourselves to become so risk adverse that now we're afraid that somebody may die attempting it. When explorers first went across the oceans a lot of them never came back but eventually they did and they charted the way for others to follow. Sure its sad when we lose people in accidents but that's sad but it says something about how we've become too over concerned with a 100% risk free solution, there is no such thing and the exploration of space is inherently risky so unless you're willing to take risks, we may as well not send probes out either because it'll just get everyone's hopes up that maybe someday, we'll actually be able to live off of this planet in a sustainable colony somewhere. Besides chicks dig scars..
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and to do these other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."
-- President John F. Kennedy, 1962
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Not exactly sure which planet you believe to be so much better than Earth. It may have some problems, but I'd still choose it over living on any other celestial body I'm aware of.
How about practically any other planet or even a space habitat, if Earth finds itself in the path of an extinction-level size asteroid, for instance?
How about capturing some asteroids of the proper composition/size/direction/speed and steer them to La Grange points and turn them into habitats?
It's the spin-off benefits, like plentiful & cheap power, rare metals, rapid & major disruptive technology advances, etc etc, that TPTB are not ready to allow us to have, for much of their control over the population is control over resources and technology combined with artificial scarcity. The last thing a ruling class wants is for people to not need to or have to depend on them. Keeping mankind out of space and confined under the ruling class's control is definitely one of the motivations.
TPTB are comprised of people who so much live for power, that they would much rather risk mankind's extinction than them losing any significant amount of power & control, and/or having it shift to someone/somewhere else. When they can see that they *will* lose control/power if they *don't* move ahead, that's when we will see progress towards distributing our eggs among more than a single basket.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
This means, besides the fact it is the mouthpiece of the usurious billionaire ruling class, it abides by one singular ethic: hedonism.
If it does not maximize pleasure, it is evil. If it maximizes pleasure, it is good.
There is a reason the members of this class seem like robots, especially to the European Faustian soul - they possess no understanding of what differentiates men from animals. Their ethic is that of a dog, that shivers when it is cold and wishes it was not so. They do not understand why men would go to the moon anymore than they can understand why Europeans commenced on the creation of the modern world with the beginning of the Age of Discovery. They can conceptualize the works of great artists only in terms of brilliance that would get them into Harvard or some other type of artificial hierarchy. They do not feel deeply, they do not see further. They have nothing to say except that they want to be good.
Which brings us back to their pathetic and simplistic ethic.
It is all simple pacification.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
About 99.99999999999999999% of all the resources in the universe are above our heads.
So let's send some robots to get them.
The only benefit Earth has is that we don't need to build our own eco-system to survive here.
Minor detail. Our eco-system only took a few billion years to reach this point, and I'm sure we could do it much faster.
The downside is that any number of things could completely trash that eco-system, then we all die.
The most likely thing to trash it is us. If that happens, then to hell with the human race.
What has happened to mankind's sense of adventure?
The wild craziness that led people to sail off the "edge" of the earth in search of new lands?
Which led equally crazy people to canoe up a river just to see where it went and whom they might trade with?
The suicidal nuttiness that led to the colonization of this continent by the oppressed and rejected?
Not only has the nanny state taken over government, there seem to be droves of people for whom it's not enough to be "protected" -- they have to make sure no one else follows the spirit of adventure, either.
Pathetic.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
So let's send some robots to get them.
Just like we sent ships to America to bring all the resources back home, rather than move there and use them ourselves.
The only place most of those resources have value is in space. Gold was valuable enough to justify shipping it back across the Atlantic, but few other things were. There's probably nothing in space valuable enough to justify sending robots out to bring it back to Earth.
Our eco-system only took a few billion years to reach this point, and I'm sure we could do it much faster.
Indeed.
The most likely thing to trash it is us. If that happens, then to hell with the human race.
The most likely thing to trash it is an asteroid impact. Humans just aren't that good at destroying things.
But your apparent hatred of the human race probably explains why you don't want us to spread across the universe. That's another reason why we have to get out of here before someone like you does try to kill us off.
Robots are useful in some mission parameters. I doubt you'll find anyone who will argue otherwise. /. and in other forums.
OTOH, Manned exploration is preferable in other situations/parameters, for many of the reasons stated repeatedly on
As for the "score", that's a question of political will more than attempts.
Personally, I see room for both - the Solar System has enough resources to hold quite a few quadrillion human beings on a self-sustaining basis. Why not out it to work? Why not park factories and other massive pollution-generating facilities out there, where radiation and chemicals are no big deal... this would keep the Earth much cleaner, and less toxic overall.
Long story short, why not do *both*? Use the robots for the long-distance and dangerous stuff, and people for the missions which can portend future human habitation.
The two are not exclusive - they can be complementary.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
It's not about having room. It's about putting distance between people.
Both of those things would be easy if anyone cared enough to do them; we've had a permanent presence in Antarctica for decades
Notice the adjective "self-sufficient" in the GP. You think building a self-sufficient settlement in Antarctica is easy, and it's only a problem of nobody wanting to do it? Here's a hint: The "permanent presence in Antarctica" you speak of is nowhere near self-sufficiency. Were it not for a continuing cycle of supplies (food and fuel, primarily) periodically arriving by boat or plane, everyone there would die. So no, not easy at all.
Surely it had to be said!
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
The question is not so much whether it's preferable but whether it's currently possible. Our current technology allows us to keep a few people alive on Earth orbit for months if they are being constantly resupplied from below. That's not possible for an interplanetary mission. The Moon missions pushed the limit, and still would, and Mars and beyond are just fantasy right now.
Once we get a self-sufficient Moon base going, and a few on Earth orbits, then we can ponder about putting engines on one and going to a tour. But the current situation isn't anologous to Columbus or even the vikings and Vinland, but someone having just noticed that trees tend to float and you can sit on them and kinda paddle.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
The robot that has gotten furthest from our sun is still subject to our sun's gravitational influence.
Arguably every particle in the universe is still subject to our sun's gravitational influence.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Our "current technology" has barely advanced above what it was at the time of the Moon missions. The reason is because killing people has such a higher priority above anything else. If we (the 'we' of 'any government or organization on the planet') had spent 1/10 of the money wasted on just (for example) the cancelled Crusader program we would probably have developed a self-sustaining life support system by now.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
There's an unlimited supply, they don't require oxygen or food, and they love going to the mun!
(For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/, yes, it's on Linux;))
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
toochet. I meant interstellar space. And to the "there's no boundaries, man" guy, there actually is a boundary between Sol and the rest of the galaxy. Look up the termination shock and the heliopause. Their scientific, but what they're essentially saying is that after a boundary the sun runs out of staying power.
... why explore space at all? Even robots aren't cost effective, are they?
What ever happened to "because it's there"?
I apologize for the lack of a signature.
...and look up!
If you want to go and live in space, develop the tech to do so right now, before you lose the last of the know-how on how to do this. If you want to lust after pics of distant worlds forever unreachable to you, then divert your resources to robotic missions. Or better yet, just create the worlds in Maya and release them to the public -- it's not like they'll ever be able to verify.
The truth is, we care about space because some of us want to go there. In our lifetimes. This is technologically within reach. Keep taking pictures of distant rocks (instead of sending some humans to tough it out and settle them) and you will find all your money diverted to social media and more wars.
The sensor failure caused the plane to decide that a human would be better flying, but the stall warning was still working. If the pilot had put the nose down, and increased engine speed the plane would have flown out of the stall. Unfortunately the pilot didn't know the plane was operating in "reduced" mode and thought the stall warning was malfunctioning, raising the nose and deepening the stall. The stall remained recoverable until quite late into the incident, if the pilot had taken the right actions.
The reason we have no self-sufficient "colony" in Antarctica is mainly due to those same international agreements. You can certainly extract sufficient quantities of Uranium, petroleum, and other resources to build facilities necessary to build greenhouses and get food production and most things you need to be self-sufficient. If anything, the growing human presence in the Arctic areas of the world flat out proves you wrong and shows what could be happening in the Antarctic as well.
As to if it is wise to have huge mining operations in Antarctica and settlements of millions of people there is something that should properly be debated.... and I think there are many people who would likely agree that Antarctica is a part of the world that likely should remain as an international version of a national park wilderness area. In other words, one of the last continental sized objects of the world mostly free of human artifacts perhaps ought to remain as such simply because having another continent full of people who might go to war, cause wars, dump pollution onto this planet, and do potential harm to everybody is likely a worse alternative than simply leaving the place vacant. None of that addresses the technical capability of building such a series of self-sufficient settlements, it merely shows that it is political considerations as opposed to the technical ones that cause a lack of settlements.
McMurdo base is an example of what a mostly self-sufficient settlement in Antarctica would look like. It definitely is what would be considered a small town in most other parts of the world, with the one exception that children aren't really being raised there. A few locations being operated by Chile and Argentina do have families with small children living on that continent though, but those base locations aren't nearly up to even McMurdo standards.
I'll also point out that there are other places around the world where if transportation links were severed that people would die in large numbers. Los Angeles in particular is one of those locations, where in fact the first settlement by people of European descent (as opposed to the native Americans) actually died off completely simply because of a lack of water. Native American settlements didn't even exist in the area... which is one of the reasons why the Spanish tried in the first place. The same thing happened to Jamestown in Virginia. These places are currently inhabitable simply because the technological infrastructure is there to provide the support necessary for people living there. Antarctica might require much more advanced technology than is needed to survive in Los Angeles, but settlement of Antarctica is happening in the 21st century and not the 19th.
Says it better than I could:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc
-- George Mallory
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.