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

[UmbralRaptor]

If there is enough funding and/or launches are cheap enough, this is a silly question. Just see the benefits of satellite servicing (notably Hubble, but also LDEF), and the geology (selenology?) done in the later Apollo missions. But there is not enough funding, nor any reason to expect there to be enough in the future. NASA's overall budget has been flat for years, though at the year to year level there has been a great deal of uncertainty. Successive administrations revising goals also doesn't help. (Mars! SSTO RLV! Apollo on steroids! Bring a NEO to EML-2!) Even if the budget were stable, can SLS/Orion get people anywhere before being cancelled for the next big thing?

Servicing/recovery missions are (well, were) more tractable, but only seem worthwhile for the most expensive craft. Hubble ($2.5+ billion) was justified, but many were too low budget to even be considered. eg: Shuttle launches ran somewhere between $500 million and $2 billion depending on accounting, while WISE will be $300-350 million, including the Delta II, NEOWISE, and MaxWISE. Pick intermediate cost missions as desired, but keep in mind that something like JWST or Spitzer would require

I'm comparatively unclear on the research that was/is done on Skylab, the various Salyuts, MIR, and the ISS. The telescopes on the oldest stations seem to have been there to be manually operated, but because vibrations that seemed to end in the 1970s. AMS is just attached to the ISS for the large solar panels. The biological experiments are intriguing, but seem very-much applied research for a use case that requires a sharp reduction in launch costs. (See also why I don't trust that SLS/Orion will result in a Moon/Mars landing. Or asteroid rendezvous.)

Finally, using a crewed vehicle to launch probes is silly. See launching Galileo on the Shuttle for the canonical example.

[Nibb31]

The only justification for sending humans into space is to study how to send humans into space, which is circular reasoning.

Any other rational goal, such as science or exploration, can be done much more efficiently through telepresence. And the irrational goals, such as "inspiration" or "prestige" are just excuses for a certain entertainment value for a minority of geeks.

I love the inspiration and the prestige just as much as everyone here, but I struggle to find a justification for the cost and risk of it all. I really wish we could.

The Hubble servicing missions were justified by the fact that it was designed to be serviced by the Shuttle. Another circular justification. The high cost of Hubble was mostly due to the extra complexity of designing it to be serviceable in space. If they had made Hubble non-serviceable, it would have been much cheaper to just launch a few new ones instead of fixing it.

[DunaRocketeer]

The justification is human survival; not putting all our eggs in one basket yadda yadda yadda...

The cost of human spaceflight is well within the budgetary capabilities of the richest nations, but because we don't live in an ideal world, we spend it on cosmetics, movies/games, military and banks, all of which imho ranks lower than a civilisation-ending asteroid in our list of priorities. It makes me so angry that things are skewed in this way.

And yet we hear about such grand plans from the likes of NASA, when everyone knows they don't have the money for it.

Bottom line, we should be doing much more, or none at all, because this half assed approach has gotten old.

[Nibb31]

The justification is human survival; not putting all our eggs in one basket yadda yadda yadda...

Debunked long ago.

[DunaRocketeer]

How so?

[Nibb31]

First of all, there isn't anything that would totally exterminate the human species. Even if a killer asteroid wiped off 99.99% of the population, you will still have a bottleneck population of a few million inhabitants somewhere on the planet, which is more than we were a mere 500 years ago. Even a few thousand survivors would be more than you will ever have in a space colony before a very very long time.

Secondly, even if we became capable of building self-sufficient habitats on Mars or the Moon that could survive without constant supplies from Earth, we would also be capable of building the same self-sufficient habitats on a scorched Earth. Survival on a dilapidated Earth will always be easier for us than survival on another planet. We are highly adaptable and capable of surviving pretty much anything in large enough numbers that our genome isn't at risk.

Finally, even if we are exterminated, it's no big deal in the grand scheme of the universe. The human species isn't any more valuable than the other thousands of species that disappear every year. We are an insignificant drop in the ocean of life on this planet, which itself is an insignificant spec of dust in the universe. It's not like there will be anyone around to complain that we are all gone. Nobody is going to judge us or to give us brownie-points for achievements. Nothing lives forever, and we will not escape going extinct or evolving into something else at some point, just like every other living organism. Preserving the "human species" makes no sense when we are constantly evolving. In a few thousand years, we will probably have evolved socially and biologically enough for you to not even recognize us as human any more if you were to come back. Even more so if those humans need to adapt to a off-world environment. Our descendants living in underground habitations on Mars in 100,000 years wouldn't be the same "human species" that you wanted to preserve in the first place.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Nibb31

[DunaRocketeer]

I agree with you that we could use the technology to build a space colonies to survive catasrophe's on earth, but I don't like the idea that our technological civilization can be sustained long enough to maintain such a capability, especially in our increasingly globalized world. Better to spread technological civization about, especially on the Moon and Mars where a high technology civilisation is necessary for survival.

I don't agree with your assertion that humanity is insignificant. We are the only self aware species on the planet, and the same hopefully goes for whatever we evolve into. That's precious, and it should be protected.

[Aanker]

There isn't a solid entirely rational argument for why we should let humans explore Mars, or any other place. But then, there isn't a solid entirely rational argument for why we should send a probe there (why do science? It's a waste of resources when we could all live happily like Stone Age people), congratulate our relatives on their respective birthdays or, you know, live at all. The whole 'there is no rational argument' argument isn't an argument at all because it doesn't state what we should do, it merely repeats value void facts, of no interest to your average empathic, emotional normal human being. Since we are human and live in human societies, it just makes sense to deal with it and not try to artificially reason like some cynical genius whose ultimate conclusion - taken to its extreme - means that there is no justification for anything. We should try to go to Mars because it makes us feel good, will inspire others and generally contribute to the morale of society. There, I said it. Only when discussing the when and the how should we involve so-called rational arguments.

Finally, even if we are exterminated, it's no big deal in the grand scheme of the universe. The human species isn't any more valuable than the other thousands of species that disappear every year. We are an insignificant drop in the ocean of life on this planet, which itself is an insignificant spec of dust in the universe. It's not like there will be anyone around to complain that we are all gone. Nobody is going to judge us or to give us brownie-points for achievements. Nothing lives forever, and we will not escape going extinct or evolving into something else at some point, just like every other living organism. Preserving the "human species" makes no sense when we are constantly evolving. In a few thousand years, we will probably have evolved socially and biologically enough for you to not even recognize us as human any more if you were to come back. Even more so if those humans need to adapt to a off-world environment. Our descendants living in underground habitations on Mars in 100,000 years wouldn't be the same "human species" that you wanted to preserve in the first place.

Fortunately most humans don't think this way.

[Frozen_Heart]

I think its important, but while space has this level of will and funding its not going to happen and we should focus our efforts on remote spaceflight rather than manned.

[Nibb31]

Fortunately most humans don't think this way.

Because most humans are self-centered and don't step back to look at the big picture. Everything is relative.

I enjoy following human spaceflight as much as anyone else here. It's inspiring, and entertaining, but then so are movies, books, sports, or TV shows... Personally, I'm quite happy to see my government money being spent on space for my personal entertainment (much more than to see similar amounts spent on stadiums sport infrastructure for example), but it's hard to justify it at a political level, which is where the spending decisions are made.

[Bill Phil]

Humans have a bottleneck in space that limits their use. It's the space suits. They have limited mobility especially in the hand area, hampering a humans useability to operate tools. If we could mitigate this problem, then humans would have a better use in space. Keeping something serviced by humans is a good idea, since humans come up with ideas all the time and have universal grabbing tools ( hands) that allow us to hold onto almost anything in a certain size range, not to mention handles and other similar things that allow us to move larger objects.

[Aanker]

Because most humans are self-centered and don't step back to look at the big picture. Everything is relative.

I enjoy following human spaceflight as much as anyone else here. It's inspiring, and entertaining, but then so are movies, books, sports, or TV shows... Personally, I'm quite happy to see my government money being spent on space for my personal entertainment (much more than to see similar amounts spent on stadiums sport infrastructure for example), but it's hard to justify it at a political level, which is where the spending decisions are made.

If it's an argument from practical, political considerations, then sure, enacting expensive policies now to send a human on a dangerous mission to Mars tomorrow makes little sense. But all nations need prestigeous flagship programs to attract skilled scientists and draw the attention of the financial and political world, which is why a long-running plan to put human footprints on Mars is a sensible endeavour. If history has taught us anything, it is that nations willing to "take the next step" have been the most successful.

[Kryten]

Yes, flagship programmes can help attract talent; that doesn't justify a flagship programme that has minimal benefits and has a significant chance of never even happening. Uncrewed planetary or astrophysics flagships get plenty of useful data for a lot less cost, and still attract the talent.

[Dkmdlb]

LDEF

I get irritated when this gets used as an example of why the shuttle was great, or why we need people in space, etc because those arguments have it backward - we didn't need a crewed shuttle to do LDEF, we had a crewed shuttle, so we did LDEF in a way that fit the available resources.

There's no reason you can't do LDEF with a deployable bay on an unmanned vehicle.

The justification is human survival; not putting all our eggs in one basket yadda yadda yadda...

There's almost nothing that could happen that would make some other place in the solar system a better option than earth. Short of the planet being hit with something incredibly massive and literally rending it in half, the Earth is still the best option. Mars is horribly inhospitable and it is the next best place.

[Camacha]

First of all, there isn't anything that would totally exterminate the human species. Even if a killer asteroid wiped off 99.99% of the population, you will still have a bottleneck population of a few million inhabitants somewhere on the planet, which is more than we were a mere 500 years ago. Even a few thousand survivors would be more than you will ever have in a space colony before a very very long time.

This is false. There are asteroids called 'life enders', which render the surface of a planet uninhabitable for any known species. There might be some germs surviving deep in mines or something, but the surface will again be a molten pool of lava.

Finally, even if we are exterminated, it's no big deal in the grand scheme of the universe. The human species isn't any more valuable than the other thousands of species that disappear every year. We are an insignificant drop in the ocean of life on this planet, which itself is an insignificant spec of dust in the universe.

The point is, we are here now, and we care. We feel it is important that humans survive, because we are humans. It is a basic natural urge. Some do not have it and I gather those will be less successful, but pretending it is not one of the most basic and urgent desires and quests does not help anything.

There's almost nothing that could happen that would make some other place in the solar system a better option than earth. Short of the planet being hit with something incredibly massive and literally rending it in half, the Earth is still the best option. Mars is horribly inhospitable and it is the next best place.

Personally, I do not see space colonisation as a backup strategy. I see it as the logical next step in human (or even life's) evolution. We belong between the stars. Initially, space will be incredibly hostile to us. But Earth itself is too. Yet we adapted in culture, technology and our bodies themselves. Now we live everywhere, from the deserts to the poles. Space is just the next step. We will adapt. Leaving Earth is just our birth. It is merely the beginning of a much, much larger endeavour.

The beauty is, even if we make little headway ourselves, and struggle to adapt to life in space (which is unlikely), nature will shape our bodies to suit the needs of space flight sooner or later. Like the seas reshaped the dolphin and the whale, the void will shape the human race. Space is only hostile because we never were never evolved and allowed to thrive in it.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Camacha

[peadar1987]

Amazing achievements are worth pursuing for their own sake. We don't need any other reason.

[Karriz]

At least as much as we currently have, to keep things rolling.

It just gives me hope that there's a future for humanity out there. If we stop human spaceflight then the future suddenly looks very boring.

Manned exploration isn't so much about pure science in my opinion, and that's fine. That's what probes are for.

[Camacha]

Manned exploration isn't so much about pure science in my opinion, and that's fine. That's what probes are for.

I would argue it is driven by pure science, based on the fact that science itself is formalized curiosity*. The facts are what they are, but the drive to want to discover and the curiosity that drives it is not as rational as the science data itself.

*It is a little known fact that cat society never took off because of this. Too many good cats were killed in the line of duty.

[Kryten]

This is false. There are asteroids called 'life enders', which render the surface of a planet uninhabitable for any known species. There might be some germs surviving deep in mines or something, but the surface will again be a molten pool of lava.

This is only true because Ceres, Vesta and co. are still formally asteroids. The chance of something in that class being unknown and in an orbit that makes it a threat to earth is nil.

[Camacha]

This is only true because Ceres, Vesta and co. are still formally asteroids. The chance of something in that class being unknown and in an orbit that makes it a threat to earth is nil.

I assume you have a source to back that statement up?

Besides, perturbations still knock rocks around and we have not mapped everything around yet. Even if it is true now, we will not know whether it is still true in the future. Finally, you do not really need a rock of that size to wipe humans off the Earth.

[Kryten]

I assume you have a source to back that statement up?

You're the one claiming these things exist, the burden of proof is on you.

EDIT: besides, the largest NEOs we know are only in the same rough class as the Chixlub impactor (~10km) which clearly did nothing of the sort. How is an object that size supposed to have been missed by the Victorians and Georgians that found the largest NEOs, nevermind modern surveys like NEOWISE?

Edited August 17, 2015 by Kryten

[Karriz]

I think if we had the technology to colonize space we could definitely also knock any harmful asteroids to less dangerous trajectories. All it takes is a little change in velocity and it misses Earth. Assuming it's a 10+km asteroid we'd detect it decades in advance.

There are of course other threats we can't stop in near-ish future, like gamma ray bursts and supervolcanoes.

The backup humanity is a valid argument for space colonization, but I think more importantly it's about expanding the scope of humanity.

[Nibb31]

This is false. There are asteroids called 'life enders', which render the surface of a planet uninhabitable for any known species. There might be some germs surviving deep in mines or something, but the surface will again be a molten pool of lava.

Even after being hit by a life ender, the Earth would still be more hospitable than Mars or the Moon.

Of course, anything is possible... but what are the chances of that happening over the next few thousand years? At our current tech level, we could probably survive any of the asteroid impacts that have hit the Earth in the past. If we were really interested in preserving the human species, we could build hundreds of pre-equipped underground vaults around the world for a fraction of the cost of colonizing Mars. If only a couple of them make it through the impact, then the species will be ok.

Also if we had the technology to send thousand of colonists to Mars, we would also have the technology to deflect an asteroid.

The point is, we are here now, and we care. We feel it is important that humans survive, because we are humans. It is a basic natural urge. Some do not have it and I gather those will be less successful, but pretending it is not one of the most basic and urgent desires and quests does not help anything.

My point is that if we fail to survive, it will be no big deal, because there will be nobody around to feel bad about it. It might make you sad to anticipate the sadness of not existing anymore, but that's just silly, because nobody will feel sad about it afterwards. It's best to just enjoy the life that we have and make the most of it, rather than to lament about something that nobody will ever experience.

Personally, I do not see space colonisation as a backup strategy. I see it as the logical next step in human (or even life's) evolution.

Well, I guess that's the philosophical idea of having a destiny. I don't think that there is such thing. I think we are simply organisms that have evolved to fill a niche in a specific environment. If the environment changes or if that niche is no longer available to us, we will either go extinct or adapt. If we go extinct, then life will undoubtedly find a way and something else will fill that niche. Either way, we will no longer be the species known as "homo sapiens", so it doesn't really matter in the long run.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Nibb31

[jwenting]

Debunked long ago.

so you claim that we should just sit back and wait for the ELE to wipe us out? Just like the dinosaurs did...

- - - Updated - - -

mankind is curious, we're explorers. Space is among the last places left to explore. That alone is enough reason to go there.

The moment we lose that curiosity we're dead as a species, will have lost the will to live and will decline into obscurity and eventual extinction.

Expanding to other planets, eventually other stars, building permanent settlements in space, is the only way for mankind to survive, to not atrophy and go the way of the dinosaurs and dodos, becoming extinct from either an external event or internal lack of a will to survive (which is already hitting Europe and north America, as well as parts of Asia, all of which see a negative population growth when not taking immigration from developing nations into account).

[Camacha]

Even after being hit by a life ender, the Earth would still be more hospitable than Mars or the Moon.

With a properly big asteroid, the Earth's surface will melt. No solid surfaces remain.

Of course, anything is possible... but what are the chances of that happening over the next few thousand years? At our current tech level, we could probably survive any of the asteroid impacts that have hit the Earth in the past. If we were really interested in preserving the human species, we could build hundreds of pre-equipped underground vaults around the world for a fraction of the cost of colonizing Mars. If only a couple of them make it through the impact, then the species will be ok.

You are missing the point. Digging in might work, it might not work. But humans have always looked over the horizon, despite overwhelming risks and odds stacked against them. They travelled the globe, not because it was the wisest option, but because they were not satisfied just knowing what they knew.

My point is that if we fail to survive, it will be no big deal, because there will be nobody around to feel bad about it. It might make you sad to anticipate the sadness of not existing anymore, but that's just silly, because nobody will feel sad about it afterwards. It's best to just enjoy the life that we have and make the most of it, rather than to lament about something that nobody will ever experience.

I must admit, it makes a great argument, but unfortunately it falls apart. If this were true, people would not care about dying. What is there to fear, you would be dead anyway? Yet almost the whole entirety of evolution is slated towards not dying. The only logical conclusion it that it does matter, at least in some shape or form. QED.

Well, I guess that's the philosophical idea of having a destiny.

Assuming some sort of destiny has nothing to do with it. Humans make their own destiny, that is the point.

You're the one claiming these things exist, the burden of proof is on you.

The original quote comes from NASA scientists in a documentary, I will see whether I can dig it up. Meanwhile, you made some statements too, so I assume you will substantiate those or withdraw the statement.

Edit: sigh, you cannot do honest search without getting bogged down by Niburu/electric universe FUD.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Camacha