Crewed or uncrewed space mission

[bearnard00]

What kind of space missions do you support crewed or uncrewed missions? Nowadays space technology is developing so rapidly as you can see. Personally, I support uncrewed missions. It's much easier and more important secure to send uncrewed missions ( we just don`t have to risk the crew) But still, there is a lot of important stuff in particular missions machines cannot do without humans what do you think about that?

[AntennaGuy]

Both.

[smp]

Both.

Amen to that!

smp

[bearnard00]

Both.

Now both type of missions are important because robotic missions cannot do some things yet, so humans must take part in some missions. But still I guess in some time we will be able to use only uncrewed missions in space exploration. Because they are cheaper and more secure for people.

[notFritzArgelander]

What exactly can a robotic mission NOT do that a human mission can? So far no one has come up with any specific function or capability in these discussions. The only things I can see that a crewed mission can do that a robotic mission can’t are things like gratifying human wanderlust, providing political talking points, etc.

I defy anyone to come up with any scientific function that a robotic mission can’t do. The only reason for crewed missions is that someone gets kicks and giggles out of it. Don’t be vague! What can’t a robot do that a human can except please irrational human emotions?

[helicon]

Uncrewed missions can clearly do more science and probably at a deeper level. With crewed missions a large percentage of the resources are expended on making sure that the crew is safe and can survive the rigors of space travel and the effects on the body of a non-gravitational situation. Instrumentation does not have this requirement. Still, for expanding our horizons and basically the self-aggrandizement of the human species we pursue manned missions.

[notFritzArgelander]

Uncrewed missions can clearly do more science and probably at a deeper level. With crewed missions a large percentage of the resources are expended on making sure that the crew is safe and can survive the rigors of space travel and the effects on the body of a non-gravitational situation. Instrumentation does not have this requirement. Still, for expanding our horizons and basically the self-aggrandizement of the human species we pursue manned missions.

Yep. Thanks for the honest answer.

[AntennaGuy]

...The only reason for crewed missions is that someone gets kicks and giggles out of it. Don’t be vague! What can’t a robot do that a human can except please irrational human emotions?

Well, I think you may have missed or forgotten one of the many lessons in Fiddler on the Roof?

Hodel, oh Hodel, have I made a match for you.
He's handsome! He's young! All right, he's 62.
But he's a nice man, a good catch. True? True!
I promise you'll be happy. And even if you're not,
There's more to life than that. Don't ask me what!

In short, it would make me and many other humans happy to see our fellow human beings succeed in traveling to and establishing colonies on other worlds. The Moon, Mars, the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, asteroids, etc., all come to mind. I don't object to sending all sorts of robots in advance and/or along for the ride. There's no shortage of room for everybody, both man and machine. Space is the final frontier. If we don't destroy ourselves first, it is also our destiny. Just a matter of time, really. Yes, it could be a long time. Life (of some kind or other) on Earth has been around for perhaps as long as a billion years. If it takes a few hundred years more or so, or even if it takes another thousand years, for us to seriously expand to other worlds, that's really just a blink of an eye on such a timescale.

[notFritzArgelander]

...The only reason for crewed missions is that someone gets kicks and giggles out of it. Don’t be vague! What can’t a robot do that a human can except please irrational human emotions?

Well, I think you may have missed or forgotten one of the many lessons in Fiddler on the Roof?

Hodel, oh Hodel, have I made a match for you.
He's handsome! He's young! All right, he's 62.
But he's a nice man, a good catch. True? True!
I promise you'll be happy. And even if you're not,
There's more to life than that. Don't ask me what!

In short, it would make me and many other humans happy to see our fellow human beings succeed in traveling to and establishing colonies on other worlds. The Moon, Mars, the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, asteroids, etc., all come to mind. I don't object to sending all sorts of robots in advance and/or along for the ride. There's no shortage of room for everybody, both man and machine. Space is the final frontier. If we don't destroy ourselves first, it is also our destiny. Just a matter of time, really. Yes, it could be a long time. Life (of some kind or other) on Earth has been around for perhaps as long as a billion years. If it takes a few hundred years more or so, or even if it takes another thousand years, for us to seriously expand to other worlds, that's really just a blink of an eye on such a timescale.

I think that I haven't forgotten the "lesson" at all. I am questioning the assertion that crewed missions can do anything except kicks and giggles that robot missions can. The only value of the crewed mission is emotional.

I am skeptical of the assertion that space is our destiny. I look at the resources required versus resources at hand and it doesn't look terribly promising. Massive exploration needs excess capital and I think the peak of available resources is behind us. If there was a time when a permanent presence on the Moon or Mars could have been resourced affordably it would have happened already. Instead, the opportunity was wasted.

[AntennaGuy]

...The only reason for crewed missions is that someone gets kicks and giggles out of it. Don’t be vague! What can’t a robot do that a human can except please irrational human emotions?

Well, I think you may have missed or forgotten one of the many lessons in Fiddler on the Roof?

Hodel, oh Hodel, have I made a match for you.
He's handsome! He's young! All right, he's 62.
But he's a nice man, a good catch. True? True!
I promise you'll be happy. And even if you're not,
There's more to life than that. Don't ask me what!

In short, it would make me and many other humans happy to see our fellow human beings succeed in traveling to and establishing colonies on other worlds. The Moon, Mars, the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, asteroids, etc., all come to mind. I don't object to sending all sorts of robots in advance and/or along for the ride. There's no shortage of room for everybody, both man and machine. Space is the final frontier. If we don't destroy ourselves first, it is also our destiny. Just a matter of time, really. Yes, it could be a long time. Life (of some kind or other) on Earth has been around for perhaps as long as a billion years. If it takes a few hundred years more or so, or even if it takes another thousand years, for us to seriously expand to other worlds, that's really just a blink of an eye on such a timescale.

I think that I haven't forgotten the "lesson" at all. I am questioning the assertion that crewed missions can do anything except kicks and giggles that robot missions can. The only value of the crewed mission is emotional.

I am skeptical of the assertion that space is our destiny. I look at the resources required versus resources at hand and it doesn't look terribly promising. Massive exploration needs excess capital and I think the peak of available resources is behind us. If there was a time when a permanent presence on the Moon or Mars could have been resourced affordably it would have happened already. Instead, the opportunity was wasted.

You don't have to go. I'm younger than you, but I'm already too old to go. But somebody who wants to go will eventually have, and will devote, sufficient time and resources to accomplishing it. People buy big boats that they don't really need too. They are "what they must be." After all:

[Ylem]

I'm a robot mission guy myself.
Sure, I hope to see humans on Mars, but not at the expense of robotic missions.

We are a hero based society, so I understand the push for human space travel.

What I want to see are submarine probes to some of the moons of the outer planets.
Crash one through the ice and see if anything lurks below.

[notFritzArgelander]

Well, I think you may have missed or forgotten one of the many lessons in Fiddler on the Roof?

In short, it would make me and many other humans happy to see our fellow human beings succeed in traveling to and establishing colonies on other worlds. The Moon, Mars, the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, asteroids, etc., all come to mind. I don't object to sending all sorts of robots in advance and/or along for the ride. There's no shortage of room for everybody, both man and machine. Space is the final frontier. If we don't destroy ourselves first, it is also our destiny. Just a matter of time, really. Yes, it could be a long time. Life (of some kind or other) on Earth has been around for perhaps as long as a billion years. If it takes a few hundred years more or so, or even if it takes another thousand years, for us to seriously expand to other worlds, that's really just a blink of an eye on such a timescale.

I think that I haven't forgotten the "lesson" at all. I am questioning the assertion that crewed missions can do anything except kicks and giggles that robot missions can. The only value of the crewed mission is emotional.

I am skeptical of the assertion that space is our destiny. I look at the resources required versus resources at hand and it doesn't look terribly promising. Massive exploration needs excess capital and I think the peak of available resources is behind us. If there was a time when a permanent presence on the Moon or Mars could have been resourced affordably it would have happened already. Instead, the opportunity was wasted.

You don't have to go. I'm younger than you, but I'm already too old to go. But somebody who wants to go will eventually have, and will devote, sufficient time and resources to accomplishing it. People buy big boats that they don't really need too. They are "what they must be." After all:

There’s nothing personal about this at all. It’s no secret that since the mid twentieth century the excess capital available for a grand space adventure (or wars) has been declining faster than the costs of the same. I don’t see anyone with the deep pockets to buy that big a boat. Furthermore the folks spending on it aren’t spending as though they are serious about accomplishing the task. :shrug:

Anyway when resources were more available humanity preferred to spend on war.

[helicon]

I'm not really against human space travel, but at my age (50 and turning 51 next week) it hasn't accomplished a whole lot since the Apollo missions, which I don't really remember other than the fact that we used to have TANG around the house when I was a little kid. We can afford to wait awhile though since the sun will not be a red giant for quite some time, that is unless an asteroid or comet happens to impact earth before that. The unmanned missions give more bang for the buck.

[AntennaGuy]

It’s no secret that since the mid twentieth century the excess capital available for a grand space adventure (or wars) has been declining faster than the costs of the same. I don’t see anyone with the deep pockets to buy that big a boat. Furthermore the folks spending on it aren’t spending as though they are serious about accomplishing the task.

"Excess capital?" I'm not sure what that means. "Declining?" Do you mean to say that you think the world is poorer than it used to be, or something like that? https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/worl ... -millennia

Elon Musk seems to be putting his money where his mouth is. Now, I don't know if he has enough, or if he will ever devote enough even if he does have enough or if he will ever acquire enough! But, if not him, then somebody else. Or some country. The Earth has plenty of minerals to use to build spacecraft. Plenty of people, too. Plenty of scientists and engineers (not as many good ones as ideal, but some). Plenty of dreamers with big ambitions. Just a matter of time until somebody or some group or some series of somebodies or groups, make it all happen.

[notFritzArgelander]

It’s no secret that since the mid twentieth century the excess capital available for a grand space adventure (or wars) has been declining faster than the costs of the same. I don’t see anyone with the deep pockets to buy that big a boat. Furthermore the folks spending on it aren’t spending as though they are serious about accomplishing the task.

"Excess capital?" I'm not sure what that means. "Declining?" Do you mean to say that you think the world is poorer than it used to be, or something like that? https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/worl ... -millennia

Elon Musk seems to be putting his money where his mouth is. Now, I don't know if he has enough, or if he will ever devote enough even if he does have enough or if he will ever acquire enough! But, if not him, then somebody else. Or some country. The Earth has plenty of minerals to use to build spacecraft. Plenty of people, too. Plenty of scientists and engineers (not as many good ones as ideal, but some). Plenty of dreamers with big ambitions. Just a matter of time until somebody or some group or some series of somebodies or groups, make it all happen.

Excess capital and resources is in decline. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

I’m not going to argue with you on this point. The resources aren’t there and they are decreasing. The time for big dreams is always. The time for realizing them is past. Musk will not make it to Mars.

[Bigzmey]

The space exploration has been dominated by robots for the past few decades. Since robots are getting better and cheaper, I don't believe it will change.

However, I don't see why people can't go to space for other reasons. Space tourism for instance. If I had money and required physical stamina I would not mind going to the Earth orbit or spending some time on the Moon. I think space hotels will happen faster than getting humans to Mars.

[bearnard00]

Actually I do support more uncrewed mossion too and. Especially, when we talk about missions to the red planet. I guess now we can get any information we need with robotic missions. Now our technology is too weak to send humans to Mars and bring them back, putting them under threat of death.

[Refractordude]

helicon hit the nail right on the head.

[Starship201]

It's hard to give a clear answer. I mean that sometimes crewed missions are better than uncrewed, and vice versa. However, I often think that risking people's lives makes no sense until we don't have an urgent need to colonize other planets.

[bearnard00]

It's hard to give a clear answer. I mean that sometimes crewed missions are better than uncrewed, and vice versa. However, I often think that risking people's lives makes no sense until we don't have an urgent need to colonize other planets.

With technology that is developed every day the need of sending people in space is getting smaller. To make a space exploration mission successful we don`t have to make a crewed mission as we can send a robotic mission and get a successful result. We can take the Perseverance rover as an example