Are Manned Missions Really Necessary?

[Jouni]

Strawmen, really. Nokia isn't involved in space travel, and neither is Chernobyl.

My point was that $200 billion isn't that much money, the US is just one country, and a temporary setback for a couple of generations isn't such a big deal after a few centuries.

Space travel is cheap compared to what? According to Forbes, it's about 10,000$ a pound to put anything in LEO. It's 10 times that to put a pound of anything on the Moon.

The Apollo program cost around $10 billion a year (present value). Government space budgets worldwide are around $120 billion a year. Most of that goes military and intelligence stuff, as people consider that more interesting or important than launching canned monkeys to space. In the private sector, satellite manufacturing is a $15 billion business, while satellite launches produce about $5 billion a year (a large fraction of those sums comes from government contracts). Services produced by satellites account for $120 billion a year, while ground equipment used with satellites accounts for $55 billion a year.

Some comparisons from outside the space industry: Video game industry revenues are between $65 billion and $95 billion a year, depending on who you believe. Music is more marginal stuff, with revenues ranging from $15 billion to $20 billion a year. Consumer electronics are much bigger, with estimates for worldwide industry revenues ranging from $500 billion to $1 trillion a year. Illegal drugs are probably worth hundreds of billions a year. Tourism is around a trillion. Military spendings are $1.75 trillion a year. Oil is in single-digit trillions (quick googling didn't reveal more accurate numbers). Healtcare is around $7 trillion.

Most people on this forum probably believe that playing KSP is more important than actual space travel, or at least they have spent more money on playing KSP than advancing space travel. Other people probably have similar priorities. That's why we have these fancy computers but no permanent Moon colonies.

[drakesdoom]

Are Manned Missions necessary?

Is living on the same rock as someone who would ask that question necessary?

Science is not for science sake, it is to find new ways to get things done. I would like to think a stable population will be able to leave this rock permanently one day and dilly dallying with probes and greed and fighting over real-estate that is down well is just a petty distraction.

[Seret]

Space exploration will either live or die with manned expeditions

Well, since exploration has been proceeding exceedingly well since the end of manned exploration it looks like it'll live.

The whole manned/unmanned thing is a bit of a pointless distinction IMO. If you take a systems view of an exploration project there are always humans in the loop. From a strictly technical point of view it's most efficient to have the humans sitting back here on Earth overseeing the actions of the remote part of the system. Our probes aren't sophisticated enough to be fully autonomous yet, they're essentially humans exploring by telepresence.

[KerbMav]

Most people on this forum probably believe that playing KSP is more important than actual space travel, or at least they have spent more money on playing KSP than advancing space travel. Other people probably have similar priorities. That's why we have these fancy computers but no permanent Moon colonies.

You have a point here.

[MoeMelek]

If we really want manned exploration of space I think we should ask ourselves a different question... How can we make manned space exploration feasible? The problem we face today is that manned missions are incredibly expensive and complicated. A manned mission to Mars for example would likely be a single no-repeat affair, even if we could handle the problems involved. It would just be another political footprint.

To really become a space faring civilization we need to rethink. Cheaper launchers will mean more missions. Better engines for shorter transit times will reduce complexity of the missions, and thus cut costs and risks. I think we should focus on improving our technology and cutting costs before we go manned if we want an enduring presence in space.

Look at aircraft. In 1903 the Wright Flyer with a crew of one flew 120 feet. An amazing feat at the time, but since then aircraft has evolved and we can now cheaply and routinely fly 500 people in a single aircraft to a place halfway around the world. There are about 100000 flights each day, and very few accidents. Rockets however have evolved little since the 60's. We need to rethink and innovate. At present I only see SpaceX doing this successfully. What they have achieved in the 12 years since the company was founded is truly amazing.

[cantab]

As pointed out, the general public don't much care for space exploration. Sure, people will cheer on the missions, but give them a choice between a manned Mars landing and an income tax cut or a bunch of new schools and hospitals and they'll vote to cancel the Mars landing every time.

What people very much are interested in though is travelling themselves. International tourism's a trillion-dollar industry, and that's not even counting domestic tourism as well. Virgin Galactic are following the line of space tourism and I'm sure they're not the only one. I would not be surprised if the first Mars landing ends up made by a company CEO planning on taking paying customers to the red planet.

[Skyler4856]

Well, since exploration has been proceeding exceedingly well since the end of manned exploration it looks like it'll live.

Space exploration is still in its infancy, and manned exploration is still very alive...

And the public as a whole cares very little about planetary science, whereas they care greatly (all things being relative) about manned travel, and the public votes!

[Seret]

manned exploration is still very alive...

I don't really count LEO as "exploring", do you?

[mdatspace]

I don't really count LEO as "exploring", do you?

Human Spaceflight has not gone very far compared to robotic exploration since Apollo. We still know nothing about partial gravity and we do not have closed life support. And we have no way to get out of LEO. LEO is not exploring. It gives us an environment to test technology, but that is it. Edited May 26, 2014 by mdatspace

[Nibb31]

Aren't robotic probes built and driven by humans? It's senseless to oppose them. They are just extension tools for us humans to interact with an environment where we cannot go.

[metaphor]

It really depends on how you measure "science". There isn't really a way you can quantize it. You can't really say this rover did twice as much science as this other one.

[Seret]

Aren't robotic probes built and driven by humans? It's senseless to oppose them. They are just extension tools for us humans to interact with an environment where we cannot go.

Exactly. Exploring other worlds in shirtsleeves FTW.

[Nibb31]

It really depends on how you measure "science". There isn't really a way you can quantize it. You can't really say this rover did twice as much science as this other one.

Well, you can count the number of published scientific papers that used the results from each mission. That gives you a quantitative measure. It's harder to get a qualitative measure.