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?
Because sending the human currently costs hundreds of times as much as sending the robot. And the media will be full of stories for months after you kill a human crew in deep space, whereas a failed unmanned mission makes a brief story on page ten for a day.
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?
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.
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.
Hiking to the top of that mountain costs a lot more energy than sitting at home looking at pictures of it on Wikipedia, but the cost isn't really the point now, is it?
+1 Disagree
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?
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!
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"
Back in the real world, that money comes from taxpayers, who can think of many better things to do with it.
Yeah, like spend it on the military.
Oh I'm sorry, were you under the impression that the taxpayers got to decide where the money goes?
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?
American taxpayers love the military. At least most of those I know.
Let's clear something up here (Disclosure: I am a military veteran):
Americans love the military solider, sailor, airman, coastie, and marine. They love the really bad-assed hardware (well, most guys do). They love the sense of self-testing, charater-forging and adventure that often accompanies service. Hell, nothing was more exciting to the 22-year-old kid I was than to tweak and tune a multi-million-dollar aircraft capable of doing heavy damage on anything that you care to point it at.
Now - that said: Americans (*especially* those who served in the military) most definitely do not love the chain-of-command, the privations, the suspension of rights required to serve, or the really fucked-up ways in which the aforementioned chain-of-command often expresses themselves.
TL;DR? "Loving" the military is too simplistic. Try something other.
Here's an idea: you go and stand for Congress on a pledge of giving $500,000,000,000 to NASA to put an astronaut on Mars. Let's see how it goes.
It's a mere question of priority. I'm willing to wager that if a comet were projected to slam into the Earth in 5 years, Congress would quickly spend 100x that sum, just to put as many people on Mars (and Moon, and orbital colonies, etc) as they humanly could.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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.
Some people would want to spend money to find a way to stop the comet, some comet sceptics would oppose them because the chance that it'll miss can't be ruled out and spending money affects them, and some would come up with plans like spending the money to send people to die on lifeless rocks, not understanding that even after the impact Earth would be a paradise of easy living compared to every other known place, so just build a bunker right here and wait there until the ecosystem recovers.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
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
...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.
-- George Mallory
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.