h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

If this topic has already been brought up somewhere else. Please let me know.
That being said....

After the disaster of the Columbia some people have begun to demand a rethinking or even complete abandonment of the manned space program as unsafe, expensive, and inefficient.

I'm interested to see what various people's opinions on this issue.

I have some opinions of my own on this issue which I'll post later (so not to slant the conversation from the get-go.)


Blizita

Not.

I joined a group called the Planetary Society who are interested in space exploration, but I left quickly when I discovered it is their aim to send a human to Mars. For the price of sending such a mission, we could probably fund about a hundred robot trips.

There are gains to be made by exploring the solar system, but I think that before we start sending people out there, we should do it all with robots. If we lose a few, so what? About 1 in 10 of space flights is a disaster. I just made up that statistic, but it is a lot more than people think. So we shouldn't expend lives needlessly. When space travel is safe, then we can think about sending up people.

I think the biggest problem with the current programme is that it's pointless.

I can see the argument for a manned mission to Mars: it would be even more expensive, and enormously inefficient compared to robot probes, but it would catch the imagination of many people, and would give a concrete result: people walking on another world.

For all that the Apollo moon programme was expensive, inefficient and dangerous, it was also one of the greatest feats mankind has ever achieved.

... and only three astronauts died, in the Apollo 1 cockpit fire.

'About 1 in 10 of space flights is a disaster. I just made up that statistic'

Hmmm. I dunno. Robot exploration is important, but theres got to be a human side to keep the publics imagination. People will be much more happy to know that their taxes 'put a man on Mars' then that they're taxes 'put 10 robots on Mars'. Its the old human achievement biscuit again...

I'd prefer to have a complete map of Mars, with photos and rock samples, done by robots, than to know that a man stood on one bit of Mars but didn't see much.

One view point however is that in other ways the Apollo programme paid for itself in the end through the civilian and industrial application of many of the technologies and materials developed specifically for the programme...

I've heard the same claim about the Cold War. The development of military technology to fight against those Russkies had important spin-offs in terms of civilian technology - for example the whole of the electronics needed for modern computers and the electronic life we lead.

But I don't think that justifies either the Cold War or the Apollo program.

Well, I think formula 1 is a waste of time but you have to admit that the expenditure on development there (admittadly tiny in comparison) does have an effect on normal road car design and safety aswell as the technology they use to run

The two arguments so far seem to be: 'There's no point, it's dangerous and we can get more information from robots', and 'But it's a good exercise in public relations'. Well, it is dangerous, we can get more information from robots and it is a good execise in public relations. But aren't we forgotting the most important thing? People want to go.

We want to run to the top of the next hill just to see what's over the other side, and to hell with the costs, both economic and human.

Even with the chances of survival as low as 50%, I would do anything to get on that flight to Mars. This is the benefit to the individual, to me, this argument is strong enough on it's own, but I realise some people would need to see a benefit for mankind to justify a flight of such a nature.

So, robots can only do so much, I'm not saying that they're useless, just that their usefulness is limited. We already have a map of Mars, and we have many pictures from the surface, later this year Beagle 2 will attempt to land and make all sorts of rock analysis in it's on-board lab. If it is successful, it will answer a lot of questions we have about the planet.

But to really understand Mars, we will need to send humans, our ability to make assumptions puts us way ahead of robots in terms of usefulness, even if the assumptions turn out to be wrong. The best (and most likely) scenario is that we will use both humans and robots, a human team controlling various robot projects would be perfect because you get the best of both worlds.

As for the risks to human life, well, nobody is forcing the astronaughts to go.

Agreed...

Another angle to consider is this: colonization. With the population on earth expanding, with natural resources shrinking the only way the human race can carry on is to establish bases on the moon, Mars and anywhere is which is suitable. It's either that or do some radical pruning of the human race by some means or like the Chinese put a cap on how many children a couple can have or even allow only some sections of mankind to have children and sterilize the rest.

Initially it is not important for humans to travel to the moon or Mars as robots/computers can do the initial surveying work and rock analysis, etc. but eventually a human will have to go.

I disagree that population explosion is a reason to colonise another world. I just can't imagine the mechanisms needed to transfer enough people to mars each day that the population on earth would stabilise.

I think Nasa have the idea that although there will be colonies on the Moon and Mars one day, it's not really going to be huge cities in glass bubbles, rather farms for growing food, etc. The amount of land we are using up is the main problem.

So these martian farms would be used to feed earth? If so, how do you move that much food?

Some sort of spaceship I suppose. Of course, it's all very nice for Nasa to come up with these theoretical future plans, but what I've never heard them say is how they would pay for it. I imagine it would cost billions per time.

But by the time there are colonies or farms on the moon, or mars, or where ever, the chances are that there will be a single world government or somesuch thing and they will tax us heavily to pay for the thing.

We need to colonize, but not because of population. The reason is that Earth is too vurnerable. A nuclear war or a god-sized asteroid impact could destroy civiliztion. We need a cuple of self-supporting colonies in system as backup.

Also, we could mine asteroids and the moon and put factories in orbit. This would certainly make a lot of environmentalists happy.

Also, solar power satelites culd be used as a clean source of over.

"This would certainly make a lot of environmentalists happy."

Not this environmentalist - we mucked up this planet so we'll dump our crap over there...sounds like a nimby arguement not an environmentalist one

The population of most countries in Europe is falling slightly, so it is perfectly possible to achieve a stable population without using extreme measures like sterilisation or punishing people who produce too many children.

With a stable population, there's no reason why we can't start tidying up this world and making it self-sustaining, rather than spreading our mess even further.

When the human race has shown that it is capable of looking after its own planet, I'll allow them to start colonising other planets.

First of all, I didn't say all.

Second of all, please not that there is a complicated ecosystem on Earth that H. Sapiens has been systematicly wrecking for the last couple of centuries. There isn't life o the moon or on asteroids.

Its more like moving our trash away frm other peoples' houses. If we make a mess, at least we don't have to mess up the planet for other species.