How much (if any) crewed spaceflight should there be?

[PakledHostage]

I guess we will have to settle with you agreeing with that and me disagreeing, because as long as fair points have been made without being countered, I cannot agree.

Fair points have been made by both sides, over and over again. Not just by you and I but by several others on this thread too. When neither side is convincing the other of their position, there is no choice but to agree to disagree and move on. You're certainly welcome to keep trying to convince me and the others on my side of the debate though.

[TheSaint]

Fair points have been made by both sides, over and over again. Not just by you and I but by several others on this thread too. When neither side is convincing the other of their position, there is no choice but to agree to disagree and move on. You're certainly welcome to keep trying to convince me and the others on my side of the debate though.

Agreed. We've reached the point of debating who's speculation is more valid, which is entertaining, but ultimately pointless.

[tater]

The OP question was how much manned spaceflight should there be. It's going to boil down to opinion, honestly, unless the question is reworded, or the OP statement includes some definitions that include which roles we are talking about, or even so that people are all on exactly the same page.

Ie:

What percentage of effort/budget should be expended for manned spaceflight to achieve basic (non-medical) science goals?

While still opinion, it is much easier to characterize as you would have to demonstrate that any manned version was more cost effective to achieve a specific goal (which would be impossible, because it's just not).

Should human beings explore space in person, and why?

That's the pure opinion question, and people can be convinced one way or another based upon argument (or agree to disagree).

My personal answer to the second question is: exploration/adventure for its own sake justifies manned spaceflight. People who have given up on that sense of exploration are broken, IMO . I prefer a world where at least some people bother to strive for incredibly difficult goals like landing on another world, "because it's there." Honestly, as more and more terrestrial endeavors become fodder for deep learning systems and robots, this will become even more attractive to me.

[Nibb31]

My personal answer to the second question is: exploration/adventure for its own sake justifies manned spaceflight. People who have given up on that sense of exploration are broken, IMO . I prefer a world where at least some people bother to strive for incredibly difficult goals like landing on another world, "because it's there." Honestly, as more and more terrestrial endeavors become fodder for deep learning systems and robots, this will become even more attractive to me.

I think that puts you in the "space exploration for entertainment" category, which is fine. As a person who is inspired by observing space exploration, I'm pretty much in that category too. The question then becomes who should foot the bill for that entertainment?

[tater]

I think that puts you in the "space exploration for entertainment" category, which is fine. As a person who is inspired by observing space exploration, I'm pretty much in that category too. The question then becomes who should foot the bill for that entertainment?

As a US taxpayer, I'm entirely fine with what we spend, and I'd happily cut some money wasted on other things to spend more. What other countries choose to do is their own business, I would never presume to tell them how to spend their own money.

You should clarify by saying that I'm in the MANNED spaceflight for entertainment category. Unmanned is for actual science. Distantly, I can see the point in the "not all eggs in one basket" case, but that is nothing like near term (but you have to start someplace, there would have been no "Age of Exploration" had earlier peoples never bothered to invent sailing).

Edited August 19, 2015 by tater

[Nibb31]

As a US taxpayer, I'm entirely fine with what we spend, and I'd happily cut some money wasted on other things to spend more. What other countries choose to do is their own business, I would never presume to tell them how to spend their own money.

Sure, you would. I would too.

However, I'm pretty sure football fans would rather see that money spent on stadiums. Farmers would prefer that we spend money of farming subsidies. Religious folks think subsidizing churches is way more important. The military wants to replace their aging Hummers. Teachers want more books.

What justifies spending money on something that us space geeks appreciate, but isn't shared by most of our compatriots. Genuine question.

[tater]

Sure, you would. I would too.

However, I'm pretty sure football fans would rather see that money spent on stadiums. Farmers would prefer that we spend money of farming subsidies. Religious folks think subsidizing churches is way more important. The military wants to replace their aging Hummers. Teachers want more books.

What justifies spending money on something that us space geeks appreciate, but isn't shared by most of our compatriots. Genuine question.

Dunno.

In the US, there is a difference between Federal (national) and State spending (they are nearly equal, I think in total dollars). Farming subsidies should never have been a thing in US government (IMO), farming is big business, they can survive just fine. Subsidizing churches is not possible (1st Amendment). Education is mostly State/local money. The military in the US is about 50% of discretionary federal spending, but discretionary spending is only about 1/3 of total US Federal spending. The bulk of fed spending here is "Programmatic" spending, which is social programs (largely Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid). This has been true for decades, contrary to what I imagine many outside (and inside) the US think the US spends money on as I see people saying that we spend half out money on the military all the time, when in fact it's closer to 20% (much of which is payroll, and medical, actually).

NASA right now gets ~0.5% of Federal spending.