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

[Kryten]

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

There's nothing that big out there on a potential impact course. NEOWISE would've found it if there was.

[Albert VDS]

Humans can do more tasks and do them more quickly than a rover could.

[Camacha]

There's nothing that big out there on a potential impact course. NEOWISE would've found it if there was.

Who says nothing has been found?

[Kryten]

Who says nothing has been found?

That's a ~1km body. The Chicxulub impactor would make that look like a firecracker, and didn't do anything remotely close to 'melting the earth's surface'.

[TheSaint]

Very interesting conversation. So, there's no logical reason to send people to Mars. There's also no logical reason to climb Mount Everest, or dive to the Titanic, or scuba dive, or mountain climb, or sail to Fiji, or hike to Macchu Picchu. But people spend exorbitant sums on these activities and even risk their lives to accomplish them all the time. This is the impulse that drives human spaceflight. We want to go because it is there. If we didn't have this impulse, this urge to see what is over the next hill, we would still be knapping flint knives in Olduvai Gorge. If the governments won't pay for it, private individuals will.

I think that eventually, as technology progresses, population pressure will push the issue even harder and you'll start to see terraforming lead the way to a major emigration to Mars. Some people just want to be free, no matter what the cost. And as this planet becomes more and more crowded, there will be less and less opportunity for that here. So they will go somewhere else. And, as has been demonstrated many times in the past, these people don't care if the place they are going to is life-threateningly dangerous.

[Camacha]

That's a ~1km body. The Chicxulub impactor would make that look like a firecracker, and didn't do anything remotely close to 'melting the earth's surface'.

Do not forget about comets, which are still being knocked into our system on a regular basis, or even rogue planets. Though it is all beside the point, the argument remains valid. Even if it just kills all humans, it is pretty bad for the human race - which was the point.

It is saddening how much nonsense turns up when you try to find an actual documentary. Niburu, electrical universe, all that jazz. Really, internet? Really?

Edited August 17, 2015 by Camacha

[Aanker]

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.

Not at all on the same magnitude as manned landings. I don't even think I need to back that up with hard evidence, lol. Everyone knows people landed on the Moon, hardly anyone knows a probe went to Titan. End of story for this argument.

The Apollo Moon landings defined a nation. If NASA hadn't done it, the Russian equivalent might have been what we thought of whenever someone said "space travel". Now it's NASA. That's what inspires kids.

[Camacha]

Besides, no matter how many fancy robots we shoot into space, we are still stuck on this rock. Not since we moved out of Africa has our territory not expanded any more. It only makes sense that would not change.

[Kryten]

Not at all on the same magnitude as manned landings. I don't even think I need to back that up with hard evidence, lol. Everyone knows people landed on the Moon, hardly anyone knows a probe went to Titan. End of story for this argument.

Irrelevant to your point. A good amount of people in the US think the entire space programme ended with shuttle; but there is no personnel crisis in aerospace (outside of Moscow-based Russian firms, but that's a whole different kettle of fish). Everyone is doing just fine with the amount of 'inspiration' we have now.

[Camacha]

Everyone is doing just fine with the amount of 'inspiration' we have now.

Many engineers that work now have been inspired either by Soviet or US space race achievements, or by for instance the Space Shuttle program. No amount of magical orbs can predict what a lack of flagship missions will mean for the near-ish (but for us distant) future, but I can only assume it does little good.

[Kryten]

Many engineers that work now have been inspired either by Soviet or US space race achievements, or by for instance the Space Shuttle program. No amount of magical orbs can predict what a lack of flagship missions will mean for the near-ish (but for us distant) future, but I can only assume it does little good.

I can only assume you're clutching at straws if this is all you have left. If people were this desperate for multi-billion 'flagship' programmes for inspiration, most fields of human endeavour would be lying fallow. Why is spaceflight supposed to be uniquely deserving of this kind of stuff?

[Camacha]

I can only assume you're clutching at straws if this is all you have left. If people were this desperate for multi-billion 'flagship' programmes for inspiration, most fields of human endeavour would be lying fallow. Why is spaceflight supposed to be uniquely deserving of this kind of stuff?

None of the things you suppose are actually things said by me or others or arguments used. People merely observed that manned flagship missions create a inspiration and energy, which might inspire (and has inspired) new generations, accelerating development en growth. In a time where attraction people to STEM fields is seen as a priority, it sounds like a pretty sensible and desirable thing, though it is far from the only or main reason to engage in such a project.

Why is space flight special, you ask? Because it is one of our frontiers. Like I said, our territory has expanded ever since we left Africa and this is only a logical continuation.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Camacha

[UmbralRaptor]

Well, this is disappointing. Even within pure research humans don't seem to be of much value.

In a time where attraction people to STEM fields is seen as a priority, it sounds like a pretty sensible and desirable thing, though it is far from the only or main reason to engage in such a project.

I just want to point out that the STEM shortage seems to be a myth (if anything there are more graduates in the various subfields than new jobs).

[Camacha]

I just want to point out that the STEM shortage seems to be a myth (if anything there are more graduates in the various subfields than new jobs).

See, we need flagship missions! Those people need jobs!

I think that is best reserved for another thread, it is somwhat a complex matter.

[tater]

Let me preface this by saying that from a scientific exploration standpoint, I agree with you completely, Nib31. Robots beat people (soon they will for most tasks on earth as well, frankly).

That said...

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 entirely circular. In order to ever have a substantial % of humanity elsewhere, we have to start someplace. If you never bother to start, then you are 100% correct for all time. If we gain the capability, then we gain the capability. We can argue the value of being off-world in general, but a cataclysm is a non-zero probability.

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.

Assuming the remaining people happen to be the ones capable of spacefaring and doing this. If we do not figure out how to build such habitats, then the probability of building them after a planetary apocalypse is zero. If the only continent to survive is Africa, for example. Game over. This is as circular as your first statement.

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.

This is simply nonsense at multiple levels, even if strictly speaking true ( ). Your own life doesn't matter in the grand scheme, either, why not just end it? I can think that human life in general is mostly dumb people that the world would be better off without---should we just bump off whole regions filled with people the world would be better off without (say, authoritarian, regressive, misogynistic societies that haven't contributed anything meaningful to the human race for many hundreds of years?)?

Preserving the species is a fine goal, I'm all for it. People that disagree are welcome to start with themselves.

I'm for manned spaceflight, and I wish more of my tax dollars were spent on it---they can take the money needed from social programs, which are really just throwing good money after bad, IMO. At least I get to see something interesting here and there from NASA. If the mission is strictly science, then robots are vastly more cost effective, though, with more money, then throw humans into the mix. For the most part, manned flight is going to be a nationalistic stunt, but if not spaceflight, then it would simply be something else. Spaceflight beats many alternatives.

You keep bringing up humanity as an animal like any other, and I agree completely that we are. I don't question why beavers make dams the way they do, and people do things for their own reasons. Some want to explore space---with squishy cargo. Their reasons are their reasons, so what difference does it make?

If you try and argue the money should be spent on something else... I simply don't care. Everyone can have an opinion about that, and I'd rather buy cool stuff than give it to deadbeats who can only impact me in a negative way if ever at all.

- - - Updated - - -

Some reality checks.

ESA's budget is ~4 billion USD, NASA is on track for ~18 billion, Roscosmos is around 6 billion.

The public school system here in Albuquerque spends 2.7 billion a year. A town of 500,000. The NYC public schools spend more than 10X this amount I think.

Space exploration right now is chump change.

Edited August 17, 2015 by tater

[jwenting]

Very interesting conversation. So, there's no logical reason to send people to Mars. There's also no logical reason to climb Mount Everest, or dive to the Titanic, or scuba dive, or mountain climb, or sail to Fiji, or hike to Macchu Picchu. But people spend exorbitant sums on these activities and even risk their lives to accomplish them all the time. This is the impulse that drives human spaceflight. We want to go because it is there. If we didn't have this impulse, this urge to see what is over the next hill, we would still be knapping flint knives in Olduvai Gorge. If the governments won't pay for it, private individuals will.

Why leave the oceans? That dry place has such a harsh environment, nothing can survive there for long...

[Camacha]

Space exploration right now is chump change.

It really is. Even when you add all the budget NASA has ever had, it is still less than the spendings on some departments. That is not even seriously trying.

[PakledHostage]

I am firmly in the "pro space exploration camp" but I find most of the arguments for manned spaceflight in this thread to be a bit ridiculous. We are a long way away from emigrating to self sustaining off world colonies and there is no where in the Solar System that is more habitable than the LEAST HABITABLE places on Earth. Sure we should work towards eventually leaving the "cradle of humanity" behind and all of that, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

If the only continent to survive is Africa, for example. Game over.

Erm, why?

This is simply nonsense at multiple levels, even if strictly speaking true ( ). Your own life doesn't matter in the grand scheme, either, why not just end it?

Reductio ad absurdum.

[Camacha]

I am firmly in the "pro space exploration camp" but I find most of the arguments for manned spaceflight in this thread to be a bit ridiculous. We are a long way away from emigrating to self sustaining off world colonies and there is no where in the Solar System that is more habitable than the LEAST HABITABLE places on Earth. Sure we should work towards eventually leaving the "cradle of humanity" behind and all of that, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

Is that not the point? You have to start out somewhere to get to the good bits. If you never start out, you never get there.

Reductio ad absurdum.

Quite on the contrary, it is spot on. That is the point. Saying humans as a species do not need to survive, because no one will be left to mourn us is very much like not fearing or caring for death because you will not be there to regret it. It might not be relevant in the grand scheme of things, but to us, as humans, it is one of the most relevant things there is.

[tater]

Erm, why?

How many spacefaring countries are in Africa? (for clarity: the idea he proposed is that any society capable of making a sustainable Mars habitat can make an earth habitat after a catastrophe, so really the question is, what countries survive capable of an extended Mars mission? Then add in, how good will they be at that in a post-apocalyptic world? )

Reductio ad absurdum.

Yes, exactly. As was Nib31's post I was replying to. He was saying that humanity doesn't matter in the grand scheme, so we should;t bother worrying about preserving the species. Humanity is already infinitesimal compared to the cosmos, I dropped it from 7 billion/infinity to 1/infinity. No difference, that was my point (since he wanted to go that route ).

Edited August 17, 2015 by tater

[Camacha]

How many spacefaring countries are in Africa?

How many spacefaring countries were there in the world 80 years ago? I do not see why Africans (if there even is such a thing) would not do the same.

Though technically space flight was achieved by Africans, as we all come from that continent.

[tater]

How many spacefaring countries were there in the world 80 years ago? I do not see why Africans (if there even is such a thing) would not do the same.

Though technically space flight was achieved by Africans, as we all come from that continent.

Read the conversation.

Nib31 was saying that any society that can make a Mars colony can survive after an asteroid impact, etc.

Are you suggesting that Africa will have the capability to have a Mars Colony instantly upon an asteroid impact? because that's how much time they will have to gain that capability.

Only a society with that capability ready to be used NOW, emergently would be able to use it in the wake of such a catastrophe.

PS--Africans are people who live in Africa. The only continent without any manned spaceflight capability (the subcontinent will have this soon, but we'll call them "asia" for now).

Edited August 17, 2015 by tater

[Camacha]

Calm down, everyone, the tone of this conversation is needlessly fierce. Let us have fun

[Kryten]

PS--Africans are people who live in Africa. The only continent without any manned spaceflight capability.

Only Asia has crewed spaceflight capability, if we're arbitrarily dividing by continent. Europe, South America and Oceania have never had it.

[youkofoxy]

Not at all on the same magnitude as manned landings. I don't even think I need to back that up with hard evidence, lol. Everyone knows people landed on the Moon, hardly anyone knows a probe went to Titan. End of story for this argument.

The Apollo Moon landings defined a nation. If NASA hadn't done it, the Russian equivalent might have been what we thought of whenever someone said "space travel". Now it's NASA. That's what inspires kids.

Nice point, today everbody says: NASA computer, NASA technology, NASA scientist, etc.

Now imagine if the Russians managed to land on the moon first.

Rocosmo Computer...