What's the use of manned space exploration?

Question

We've gotten lots of great science from unmanned space probes, the Hubble telescope, etc., but manned space exploration gives very little extra science for a huge extra price tag. What's the point?

Don't tell me we're getting ready to live in space after the Earth becomes uninhabitable. First, any space colony will depend on supplies from Earth for the forseeable future. If our society collapses, the space colony is toast. Second, it's not credible that the government is planning for the distant future when space colonies can become self-sufficient, when they're not even bothering to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now!

Answer 1

Good, tough question. I like those. :>

You are right on about the cost-benefit ratio of manned vs unmanned space. I'm all for space industry and colonization, but I've reached the conclusion that the manned program, at least, is really little more than a PR show, at best.

At it's very best, it helps keep the value of our exports up, and provides business to various high tech / aerospace contractors.

This benefit shouldn't be automatically dismissed: China, for example, has significant problems with it's growing economy, and with poverty, but is choosing to go ahead with a significant manned space effort now, for economic and national security reasons. (1.)

However. I don't think this is the best argument to support our tech sector. NASA needs the political capital that comes from manned spaceflight - nothing grabs eyeballs like folks floating around in spacesuits.

BUT actually *having* affordable manned access to space, costs big time in research. We've spent as much on the Shuttle as on Apollo by this point, but the money was all spread out. We've blown those funds on operating a magnificent and hideously pricy medium-lift launch vehicle that takes 20,000 people to rebuild after every flight.

We didn't actually put those funds into the mundane problem of affordably, safely putting people and other cargo into orbit. In a narrow political sense it was "cheaper" to stay with the Shuttle.

We got into this fix because there's been no political will to do better, and in the absence of that, Congress was more than happy to vote funds for big NASA facilities in their districts, and for International Space Station hardware to be contracted and subcontracted to their constituents as well.

And because Big Aerospace - BoeNorLock - likes their cost-plus contracts. I think their Washington lobbyists are partial to them, too.

Anyway. I'm sure you see my point here. Manned space "exploration" really isn't, which is why it doesn't seem to measure up. Like trying to compare apples to rutabagas, basically.

As for what is a satisfactory employment of men and women in space.. how does

1. Energy independence and net energy exporter status for the U.S.

2. Harvesting of platinum group metals on a trillion-dollar scale

3. Development of industrial infrastructure containing highly toxic or radioactive processes, away from Earth's biosphere

Etc. You may not agree that any of these are best served by going into space, but it's been argued by folks far wiser than I. For a quick view try source (2.) but I actually recommend the very well-argued book by space colonization grandfather Dr. Gerard O'Neill. (3.)

In any event, we'd need people to go out there, in order to bring those products / services back to Earth. I do not endorse or agree with the notion of "abandoning Earth for space." That's a last-ditch, loser option, in my books.

The bottom line is, space is a very tough environment, still very difficult to get to. It's almost, not quite, impossible to escape Earth's gravity with chemical engines, I read once.

But at the same time, it's not impossible. It takes as much fuel to fly a kilogram of mass from LA to Sydney as it does to get that kilo to orbit, and airline operations are, what, five or six times fuel costs?

Why then do we expect space travel to be the exclusive domain of governments?

Imagine you're living in the year 1935. You know there are certain benefits of flying, say, at 40,000 feet. You reason there's much less air turbulance up there, less fuel consumption, and perhaps you could take advantage of 200 MPH jet streams (which were known in the 1930s)

Fat lot of good it'll do you. No plane could fly that high. And besides, you'd need a pressurized cabin, folks won't put on diving suits to take an intercontinental trip!

Kind of like how we have our astronauts put on their pressure suits when we send them into orbit.

Fortunately, we had the NACA - the National Advisory Committee on Astronautics. They underwrote the commercial aerospace research we use today to fly.

They were also the predecessor to NASA. Guess which one I'd pick to research space transport today?

Answer 2

Commander Swigert of the Apollo programme came to NZ and I asked him this question at a lecture. He replied; suppose the Martians sent an unmanned probe to Earth and it landed in the Nevada desert. It would take some photos, analyse some soil samples but if there were Martians on board, they'd discover that just over the horizon was the city of Las Vegas. OK, automatic probes are more intelligent now than they were back then in 1972 but the same argument still applies. But I agree with Nick S who says soon TV etc will be so good that it will be just like being there. Remember that movie The Incredible Voyage, about some doctors shrinking themselves and taking a submarine ride through a patient's bloodstream? Soon we'll be able to do better than that. With holographic TV, haptics (reproduction of the sense of touch) and a few other innovations, you'll be able to control a microscopic sub, or interstellar probe, or drive around Titan without the danger of actually being there but with all the sensory inputs.

Answer 3

I see there are many very good answers already.
I would add just a small observation: time delay of signals.
The robotic vehicles on Mars were difficult to control remotely from the Earth because of that, while a human driver would have solved the problems in real time.
Automation and robotics have made gigantic advances and yet nothing still is even remotely comparable to the human brain.
Apart from budgetary trade-offs, I am convinced that the humanity is bound to conquer Space, sooner or later.
As the pioneers headed West did, we shall not and will not wait until everything is perfect.
Exploration is written in our genes. Why, if not, people risk their life to climb mountains, to explore underground caves, oceans and test any imaginable limit?
It is an evolutionary strategy common to all living creatures to spread and diversify in order to avoid an irreparable "single point failure", in our case the Earth.
It is not wise to wait until the Earth faces an imminent disaster to start building a "space arc" as Noah did.
We should perfectionate the technology and solve logistical problems to create self-sufficient space colonies, long before anything really serious happens to the Earth.
Also, in order to preserve the Earth it is necessary to release some of the demographic pressure on it.

Answer 4

Good question.

I am divided. For excitement, nothing can replace humans actually walking on the planets. However, I believe that the technological advances in robotics and communications are quickly overtaking the technology for life support systems, which would need much more advancement to get men to Mars and beyond.

People need to step back and think where it is going. Anyone can at this point go on the interenet and find hundreds of close up photos of Mars. And its free to anyone.

I believe the technology will get so good that in decades to come anyone with a TV will be able to feel that they are on Mars or the moon, or wherever.

That means that when the media becomes so realistic that we feel we are actually in the show, it will be like we are all going into space, rather than the few lucky ones.

Incidentally, those who deny the Apollo moon landings because they know nothing about them, have no idea the amount of time and money spent on life support. Just the space suit was a billion dollar effort, 5 year effort to get it right.

And of course these idiots who deny the moon landings would know nothing about that.

Answer 5

Eventually, yes...we should get back into manned space exploration. However the real advantage of such is experimenting with actually having humans live, say, on other planets. If we could, say, create an atmosphere on the Moon, find or create water, and have people live there instead of, say, on the Space Station I'd say go for it! --------------------------------------... Unfortunately we are not at that point...and virtually all of the experiments men are performing in space can be duplicated with robots at a fraction of the risk and cost. Not to mention the fact the ancient Space Shuttle is like a time bomb with a history of exploding and killing highly trained professional Astronauts (not exactly the kind of people America "needs" to lose). ****************************************... It's not a question to me of simply saving money that could be used for other things...but more a question of what extra gain are we getting by having men in space UNLESS we plan to actually create a second civilization. **************************************... Personally, it's my belief NASA needs to stand back for 5 or so years and design a new Spacecraft from scratch which is capable of taking humans to the nearest planet which could eventually sustain human life (Mars or otherwise). Yes I (like you and others) have likely had dreams since childhood of seeing man "conquer space"...but I also think America needs to build the foundation of its space program (IE replace the shuttle and find out more about other planets possible for civilization before shooting for it). Let's do it right this time around!

Answer 6

Space exploration is necessary if we are going to get enough people off the planet to establish a viable breeding population before some disaster destroys Earth. This must be accomplished before we reach a point where the necessary resources can no longer be allocated. If we keep all our eggs in one basket (Earth) we will doom Humanity.

Answer 7

Manned space is important because man is the measure of all things. Because it is a great adventure. Because I would like to visit the Moon. Because things like sports, art, music and space exploration are what makes people better than the animals.

Answer 8

Read Mitchner's book "Space". The only reason for insisting on manned space flights is because the policitians would not put up money without people on board.

It is an extravagant waste of money and people.

Answer 9

It does seem like a good idea to try to make Earth habitable for humans before we take on other planets.

Answer 10

The vicarious thrill of it all.