Since the cost of manned spaceflight is so high and the will of the public is not sufficient to fund the manned space program. Wouldn't it be better to increase unmanned space exploration? Perhaps even build a base on the moon with robots? Then when a base is established restart the manned space program in 10 or 15 years later.
2006-12-05 10:02:07 · 11 answers · asked by timespiral 4 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
NASA has already been "increasing unmanned space exploration", and will continue to do as robots gain intelligence and sophisication. However, we still need to send people into space, and we won't learn if we don't try.
2006-12-05 10:05:08 · answer #1 · answered by Scythian1950 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unmanned space exploration is cheaper and can do a lot. But the real motivation of humans was always to "get there". The maned exploration catches more attention and helps to increase support from congress to allocate money. So, let´s go to the Moon and Mars.
2006-12-05 10:12:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think so! And exactly for the reason you give.
It is very expensive.
I read some years ago a book from James Michener called Space, I think.
He told precisely that and many other things.
You must know that even if it was written as a roman, like all his other books, like most of his books, it was quite accurate as he has work for the government.
I think he was a diplomat. Sorry, I am not sure.
He said also, it was more a question of prestige than anything else therefore, I don't think ir is clever at all to even restart it.
And don't forgrt the pollution...
2006-12-05 10:32:11 · answer #3 · answered by klaartedubois 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So the War in Iraq is more important than the future of Space.
I don't think IRAQ has enough freely available land to hold the next 50 years of people we are expected to make.
By the year 2,100, UNLESS some virus kills us off, we are expected to reach close to 18 billion people.
Eventually we will have more people than rice, potatoes and beef.
At that point in time we become canibals or we start wars over food.
Wouldn't you rather be on MARS sitting that one out!
2006-12-05 10:40:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think there is room for both manned and unmanned. There are just some things that human-kind needs to experience in real-time. Unmanned missions can prove theories and technologies, but humans will need to be there too.
2006-12-05 10:11:23 · answer #5 · answered by Slightlynorth 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. Manned spaceflight is necessary. It's what keeps us humble as a civilization. It inspires us to reach for goals that are *just* out of reach. It teaches us that there is so much more out there than this pale blue dot that we live on.
Most importantly, it shows us what we're truly capable of when we work together.
2006-12-05 14:12:16 · answer #6 · answered by Javed 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, having manned space flight tells us sooo much more than robots. The public may not have any desire for it, but the scientist do.
2006-12-05 10:10:02 · answer #7 · answered by londonhawk 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nutters like Obama theorize the moon landing was only propaganda and never really happened. He's from Chicago and believes that everyone gets a cut from phony projects. He didn't his cut so the project is no more.
2016-05-22 22:17:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
unless a worldwide catastrophe ensues, people will continue to explore. it seems to be our nature. i think a combination of manned and not is the way.
2006-12-05 10:10:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no we should not!!!what would we do with all money?,feed our hungry?
2006-12-05 10:11:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋