Does anyone know what the utility of sending humans in space is, beyond what you can do with probes? Every time I read about a human space program I am struck by what seems like a massive amount of risk on part of the human to do something that can be done with a probe if a little bit more investment is made automating these systems. I know some people have an interest in learning how to perform habitable space flight , but I just don’t see the point of that or even a space colony. The human is a terrible earth animal to go into space. We need expensive environmental controls, we are quite large, and space is amazingly hostile outside the magnetosphere. You have Apollo astronauts reporting seeing flashes; thats from space based radiation hitting their retinas after leaving the protection of the magnetosphere. That same radiation is bombarding their DNA. We report significantly higher levels of cancer from flight attendants, imagine the rates from regular astronauts if human space flight becomes a routine practice. And for what exactly, pride, ego, I’m not sure, because I can’t imagine a situation where you need a human hand in outer space and not a mechanical one.
Near term, if something goes wrong with those probes, they're a lot easier to fix when humans are lightseconds or lightmilliseconds away than when they're lightminutes or lighthours away - and human personnel can typically do the job better and easier anyway if they're present.
Medium term, moving as much industry as possible off of Earth is a vital release valve for mitigating our destruction of Earth's biosphere. No other celestial body (to our current knowledge) has any biosphere whatsoever, and only a small number could even hypothetically support one. Strip-mining the Moon or Mars or Ceres or the umpteen-bajillion asteroids and gas giant moons entails no demolition of rain forests, no extinctions of animal species, no displacement of indigenous peoples.
Long term, moving as many humans as possible off Earth permanently resolves the risk of us destroying it. The end-game is for Earth to be a preserve, allowed to heal from the wounds we've inflicted upon it over the centuries.
Super long term, the stakes are the continued survival and existence of the human race, once increasing solar luminosity renders this planet uninhabitable, in a billion or two years.
Short term, heck, I'd take the risk just to experience microgravity for a good while. Tourism and pleasure itself is utility.
As for this NASA project: the unspoken subtext for doing this is that the US doesn't want China to in effect own the moon uncontested.
> Does anyone know what the utility of sending humans in space is, beyond what you can do with probes?
Looks to me you're trying to express your disapproval of human space exploration, but you are veiling it as a question. We are friends here on HN, no need for rhetorical detours.
> I can’t imagine a situation where you need a human hand in outer space and not a mechanical one.
I suppose you imagine that robots can do everything that humans can do. Maybe in theory, but in practice it's not even close.
Till 3 years ago they did not have vehicle to transport bodies to orbit but counted on Russians to do the orbit taxi for 10 years.
So US living mission to the moon will not happens as never happened out of Kubrick's movies reality series...50 years ago...
At the moon landings they left behind a mirror anyone can use to shine a laser against that was used to calculate the speed of light between the earth and the moon. I’m not sure why so many people are so insistent the moon landings are fake when you can prove they aren’t with a telescope and a fucking laser
[+] [-] kjkjadksj|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yellowapple|2 years ago|reply
Medium term, moving as much industry as possible off of Earth is a vital release valve for mitigating our destruction of Earth's biosphere. No other celestial body (to our current knowledge) has any biosphere whatsoever, and only a small number could even hypothetically support one. Strip-mining the Moon or Mars or Ceres or the umpteen-bajillion asteroids and gas giant moons entails no demolition of rain forests, no extinctions of animal species, no displacement of indigenous peoples.
Long term, moving as many humans as possible off Earth permanently resolves the risk of us destroying it. The end-game is for Earth to be a preserve, allowed to heal from the wounds we've inflicted upon it over the centuries.
[+] [-] vikingerik|2 years ago|reply
Short term, heck, I'd take the risk just to experience microgravity for a good while. Tourism and pleasure itself is utility.
As for this NASA project: the unspoken subtext for doing this is that the US doesn't want China to in effect own the moon uncontested.
[+] [-] elsonrodriguez|2 years ago|reply
The Apollo 17 rover covered 20 miles in 4 hours.
Ego and the human spirit aside, humans are better at exploring than robots, even with 50 years of advances in robotics.
[+] [-] credit_guy|2 years ago|reply
Looks to me you're trying to express your disapproval of human space exploration, but you are veiling it as a question. We are friends here on HN, no need for rhetorical detours.
> I can’t imagine a situation where you need a human hand in outer space and not a mechanical one.
I suppose you imagine that robots can do everything that humans can do. Maybe in theory, but in practice it's not even close.
[+] [-] tpchnmy|2 years ago|reply
Humans innovate, adapt, and overcome.
[+] [-] helaoban|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elguyosupremo|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orange-mentor|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yanko|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shawnj2|2 years ago|reply