So how come we want to learn about our Universe but so hesitant to launch humans into deep space?

Question

Sure we have machines and probes but that is no replacement for humans, theres no time delay, machines cost money, humans r free.

Answer 1

The problem with sending humans on long journeys into space is keeping them alive.

Sure, you can give them space suits which will protect them from the vaccume and cold of space, but humans also have to eat and drink enough food and water to stay alive. These things must be stored in a way that they won't spoil during the journey. They also take up space and add weight to the craft.

Also, the weightlessness of spce has an unhealthy effect on our skeletal and muscular systems. Astronauts that went to the moon lost about 20% of their bone density during their short trip there and back, if my memory serves me correctly. The shuttle astronauts and the ones that manned the space station had to do specific excercises to keep reasonably fit while in zero gravity, and even then there was some negative effect.

Imagine a seven month long journey to mars (one way). Imagine how much food and water would have to be brought along and properly stored. It just isn't feasible.

Another factor is that in space, humans have no protection from radiation from the sun. On earth, the atmosphere and the magnetic field are enough to shield us from this radiation. If my memory serves me correctly, earth's atmosphere is equivelant to about 15 feet of lead. And still some radiation gets through.

If a solar flare erupted on the sun in the direction of an astronaut, he would literally be cooked the moment it hit him.

Out in space, there is no one to help if there is an accident.

Answer 2

Sure, you can count the humans as free if you like, but the air they breathe isn't if you have to ship it out there with them. Besides, they need to be protected from the environment, so they can't directly experience things, and need to interface with the environment somehow.

So if a guy is in outer space reading information off of instruments, how is that any different from him sitting in an office back on Earth?

Instead of designing machines to keep him alive, we can focus on designing machines to complete the mission.

Answer 3

we just don't know how to do it, without fuel as we know it. (and then , there's the oxygen factor.) Aren't we having a hard enough time getting cameras and probes out there? Even as far as Pluto, pictures come back fuzzy. How far is deep space, or infinity? If it ever can be done, our scientists, will have to figure out the details. I believe there is another source of "propelling" into space, other than fossil fuels. There's got to be another source of energy, that we haven't thought of.

Answer 4

I came up with the solution to revive the space program. We need to show some evidence that there are weapons of mass destruction on Mars or something...highly believable too. I've seen those sketchy Ack Ack aliens from Mars attacks.

Answer 5

Now this is simple that's because of the risk in losing human lifes in space . you wouln't want a universe full of rotting carcasses would u?.....
and like what u have jus said there is no replacement for a human life so if someone dies theres no replacement!

Answer 6

Humans are free? Maybe if you don't care if they come back alive. However, if you are concerned with that *minor* detail, then launching humans is significantly more expensive than sending machines.

Answer 7

launching humans into space is a cost-ineffective way to find things out.

Robots much cheaper.

Answer 8

Unfortuntely, humans are not made to spend long timesin no gravity and become ill. Besides, would YOU like to spend 50 years doing nothing but watching some planet ors tar gettingcloser?

Answer 9

But space junk in the solar system could tear our ships apart and instantly kill whoever is inside. it's not easy to navigate through space with those dangers.

Answer 10

humans dont want to risk geting lost in space. in space food will run out. if something goes wrong