The single most important youtube video ever made

[rtxoff]

We are closing in for 2015 and this video is IMO still the most important youtube video ever made featuring the most important image ever taken.

Everyone agrees?

[megatiger78]

not until we land on mars and beyond no

[Kinglet]

not until we land on mars and beyond no

There is no reason to do a manned mars landing. You only get a hyper expensive mission that is not worth the price. We did a manned moon landing because our robots were quite simple. But now, robots can do almost all scientific experiments a human can do.

[Bilfr3d]

But now, robots can do almost all scientific experiments a human can do.

ALMOST all scientific experiments. That's why manned expeditions are sent, to conduct experiments that a robot cannot or simply does not have the capacity and functionality to do. I am not sure of the exact name of said experiments, but I believe there are some that robots do not have the functionality to do.

[megatiger78]

also, mars landings lead to mars colonisation

[Kinglet]

also, mars landings lead to mars colonisation

Do we have moon colonies? No. Will we have them in the next 10 years? No.

[PakledHostage]

not until we land on mars and beyond no

I disagree. Landing humans on Mars doesn't change our perspective on where we stand in the universe. Images, captured for the first time ever, showing the immensity of the universe and revealing, in no uncertain terms, our own insignificance in it are far more important to our collective psyche. They should be both humbling and frightening. Remember that it was only AFTER Einstein's General Relativity was published that we discovered that there was a universe filled with galaxies outside what we now call the Milky Way. Many people still regard Einstein's discovery of GR as relatively recent, but the discoveries of extragalactic astronomy are even more recent.

The Hubble deep sky images featured in that video reveal that there are even more galaxies outside our own unremarkable galaxy than we had ever imagined. Those photos, together with the Apollo images of the Earth and the various "Pale Blue Dot" images give us a perspective that we have never before had in our history. They open our eyes for the first time.

Edited November 6, 2014 by PakledHostage

[Kinglet]

I disagree. Landing humans on Mars doesn't change our perspective on where we stand in the universe. Images, captured for the first time ever, showing the immensity of the universe and revealing, in no uncertain terms, our own insignificance in it are far more important to our collective psyche. They should be both humbling and frightening. Remember that it was only AFTER Einstein's General Relativity was published that we discovered that there was a universe filled with galaxies outside what we now call the Milky Way. The Hubble deep sky images featured in that video reveal that there are even more galaxies outside our own unremarkable galaxy than we had ever imagined. Those photos, together with the Apollo images of the Earth and the various "Pale Blue Dot" images give us a perspective that we have never before had in our history. They open our eyes for the first time.

And many spaceflight advancements were done for harmful or stupid reasons. First object in space: A missile made to kill people. Moon landing: Counties wanting bragging rights.

[Streetwind]

Ultra Deep Field in 240p flash video?

gpisic pls

y u do dis

[Kulebron]

Ultra Deep Field in 240p flash video?

gpisic pls

y u do dis

me like this more.

Worth watching, there's 3d animation of the field.

[Beowolf]

There is no reason to do a manned mars landing. You only get a hyper expensive mission that is not worth the price. We did a manned moon landing because our robots were quite simple. But now, robots can do almost all scientific experiments a human can do.

Only from a specific perspective. Humans are much faster and much smarter. The Apollo 16 crew covered in three days about as much territory as Curiosity has in two years, and brought their samples home to be analyzed in a thousand different experiments. Let's not forget that manned missions come with sample return built-in for free (Mars One being the major exception). Getting samples back to Earth completely dwarfs the science that can be done in-place by either robot or man, so no fair ignoring it. Any robotic mission that doesn't include sample return is automatically producing far less science than an equivalent manned one.

But most importantly, we fix things. Curiosity can't fix it's dying wheels; a human would patch that damage in an hour. Galileo's stuck antenna? One quick space walk, and done.

Robotic missions are definitely more cost-effective, though. Life support's a real pain.

[Beowolf]

Do we have moon colonies? No. Will we have them in the next 10 years? No.

No, though we're at the point where we can as soon as we have a good reason. The boost in scientific knowledge we'd get from a permanent moon colony isn't worth the cost to most people. Hell, I'm a space nut and even I don't think it's worth it. Until we have reusable boosters, a tiny colony would cost tens of billions a year. Much as I love space exploration other fields would provide a far better return from that level of science funding.

But give us reusable boosters and some exploitable resource worth the investment, and we'll put colonies wherever we need them. Helium-3 for commercial fusion? Industrial quantities of anti-protons trapped in Jupiter's magnetic field? Increasing energy costs making orbital solar power a practical option? There will be something, and even if most of the work's done by robots having humans nearby to fix problems and eliminate lightspeed lag will be necessary to outperform your competitors.

Geez, I just recreated the plot for the movie, "Moon", didn't I? Let's hope for a better solution than theirs!

[KerikBalm]

This one is pretty cool too:

http://www.timeslive.co.za/scitech/2014/09/05/watch-we-re-in-an-immeasurable-heaven-in-lanikea-supercluster

We did a manned moon landing because our robots were quite simple. But now, robots can do almost all scientific experiments a human can do.

I'm pretty sure we did it because politics.

The soviets brought back moon rocks with unmanned probes.

If anything, the mun is even more suited to unmanned operation, because of the very short communication delay, and the much more abundant solar power.

Comparing Apollo 16 to curiosity is not really a good comparison - The rocket was much bigger, the destination much closer (lower dV requirement).

[Jovus]

"So, we go about our daily lives, collating data from extragalactic observations whose distance from the telescope is measured in megaparsecs..."

Protip: size does not correlate with importance.

[ZedNova]

This video also features the most important singer ever.

There is no reason to do a manned mars landing. You only get a hyper expensive mission that is not worth the price. We did a manned moon landing because our robots were quite simple. But now, robots can do almost all scientific experiments a human can do.

Sure, but there's something cool about having a human land on a new world.

The sun would be an exception, it definitely would not be "Cool" to land there.

[NASAFanboy]

There is no reason to do a manned mars landing. You only get a hyper expensive mission that is not worth the price. We did a manned moon landing because our robots were quite simple. But now, robots can do almost all scientific experiments a human can do.

We also didn't have a reason to study nature and physics.

[Kinglet]

Well, this is not the most important YouTube video because it's just a important fact presented in a annoying way. (Reading and looking at pictures is better than listening to someone talk while looking at spiny zooming.)

[Kulebron]

^^ Look at the link in the end of page 1, that vid is much better.