Which kind of space exploration do you support? I mean crewed or uncrewed space mission. 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?

Most(ALL) of the long range missions are unsuitable for manned exploration.
( except we get some quantum leap progress in propulsion systems.)

Duration ( Rosetta needed 10+years just to get to its target),
Radiation ( think Cassini ),
cost ( ALL ).

That said i would go to space if offered even if it'd kill me. Too much SF in my veins )

Money for the space program doesn't flow in order to fill textbooks with data. Saying that we could have done so much more with unmanned missions for the money is nonsense, because that money wouldn't have existed in the first place. Anti humans in space people have no idea why anyone would want to go and can't understand why somebody would want to look out the spaceship window when they could get a better picture on a monitor.
And to be a little more on thread topic, a human could do more research and data gathering on Mars in a week than a rover could do in ten years.
Understanding early geophysical processes on Mars really interests about .001% of the population. Being part of a species that lives on more than one planet would be a large part of how pretty much everybody views humanity.

Uncrewed missions can generate significant publicity too. ESA's Rosetta mission was talked about more than their ISS astronauts at the time. Though arguably astronauts can have more of a long term impact by appearing in interviews later on. "Firsts" also tend to be remembered for longer when astronauts were involved (e. g. first man on the moon vs. first robotic lander on the moon).

Both crewed and robotic missions are affected by boring people once they get repetitive, though. Public attention for the last moon landing was much less than for the first one.

I support uncrewed missions especially in Mars exploration area. Our technology is too weak to deliver humans on the surface of the red planet and bring them back. Moreover, we should take into consideration harsh environment ( low temperatur and high radiation ) of Mars and low gravity.

Luckily we are transitioning away from fully government exploration to private, as the East India Company (and others) did for nautical manned exploration/trade many moons ago. I doubt SpaceX is the last private enterprise, even over the coming decade, to work to put people in space, and to Mars without a lot of government supervision/delays.

This question remind me of the SF show Stargate Universe.

The ancient sent out an un-crewed fleet first with the intentioned of following up with crewed beings. That being said, they never got to the crewed portion.

Hope human race survive long enough to chase after our own un-crewed explorers.



bt

bearnard123 wrote:

Our technology is too weak to deliver humans on the surface of the red planet and bring them back.

Hopefully he full scale ion propulsion engines is not two far off.

That would make travel to Mars much faster. Something like comparing the trans Atlantic steam ship vs sailing ships.

Reduce travel time from months to weeks.

bt

Unmanned is all well and good, and great for certain missions.

But until you’ve put a human in its place, it’s just not the same.

Rosetta is a great example. Remarkable achievement, and impossible to send humans. But I’d still wager that in 100 years, Neil Armstrong will still be a household name while very few outside of scientific circles will remember Rosetta.

People are interested when it’s one of them who achieves something. Not a robot that looks a bit Like a glorified vacuum.

I am interested to see how the two can work together though. Sending unmanned equipment in advance preparation for a mars landing, for example. That’s why I don’t think it’s a manned vs robot situation. It’s all about how we can use the robot to benefit the man.

A central irony of the limited experience we have so far, as stated Apollo 11 will always be remembered, possible because the nation that did it was prepared, mostly, to have the political will and public support to do it.
When the exploration part, after incremental improvements of two further flights, really kicked in with the J missions (Apollos 15, 16 and 17), that will and support was no longer there, including to further develop and build on the hardware.
Only something new, with the promise of being relatively cheaper that another Administration could claim as it's own, could carry on US manned spaceflight.

As also mentioned, the advent of Space X and others, with NASA's help, direction and often key seed funding, is looking like a game changer. It already has on hauling cargo and humans to LEO.
I don't mind if Starship is never approved for crew flight, it could still totally transform space exploration in sheer lifting ability and economics, be it for putting modules and boosters for beyond LEO manned flights, constellations of unmanned probes, large, medium or small, with few restraints on boosters for them and remote explorations, cheaply putting up all manner of space telescopes.

If it works, Starship, even uncrewed, could transform our knowledge and expand manned exploration, more in two decades than the preceding six of the space age so far.

To echo the responses so far: When you put a robot somewhere, its "nifty", but when you put a human somewhere, suddenly the rest of humanity thinks "Hey, that could be me!"

Spare me the arguments of the harsh environments and "even McMurdo Station needs support", etc. the point of human exploration is to push the boundaries. People will die, history will be written, and it will be awesome. Might as well invest money in protecting humans from harsh environments given our willingness to ignore global warming. The fight is coming to us. Do we want to figure out how do deal with keeping people alive in harsh environments or not?

GDB wrote:

A central irony of the limited experience we have so far, as stated Apollo 11 will always be remembered, possible because the nation that did it was prepared, mostly, to have the political will and public support to do it.
When the exploration part, after incremental improvements of two further flights, really kicked in with the J missions (Apollos 15, 16 and 17), that will and support was no longer there, including to further develop and build on the hardware.

The Apollo moon landings had already waned in the publics eyes by Apollo 13, but in reality the program had already been cancelled before Apollo 11 - follow on orders for Saturn V rockets post-Apollo 20 had been cancelled in the late 1960s, before Apollo 11 even took off. The political will had already died.

moo wrote:

GDB wrote:

A central irony of the limited experience we have so far, as stated Apollo 11 will always be remembered, possible because the nation that did it was prepared, mostly, to have the political will and public support to do it.
When the exploration part, after incremental improvements of two further flights, really kicked in with the J missions (Apollos 15, 16 and 17), that will and support was no longer there, including to further develop and build on the hardware.

The Apollo moon landings had already waned in the publics eyes by Apollo 13, but in reality the program had already been cancelled before Apollo 11 - follow on orders for Saturn V rockets post-Apollo 20 had been cancelled in the late 1960s, before Apollo 11 even took off. The political will had already died.

Yes, the running down of Apollo Applications from 1967, however the axe fell on Saturn V production for sure in 1970, reflecting as you say that lack of support.
Which brings me to the other great irony of that program, being essentially a Cold War competition, the other main one of the time culminating in the vast commitment in both lives and treasure in SE Asia, the costs of which could no longer be covered up by 1967.
The axe fell on the last two standard V's (AS516-17) and a proposed series with upgraded F1's and J2's, (AS518-25), however it really became inevitable and irrevocable once production was finally ordered to be halted.

We are in a sort of competition now, China clearly has designs on Lunar exploration, even if the real one right now is between different companies and to an extent, an agency, despite for example Space X being effectively saved by NASA a decade ago.

texl1649 wrote:

Luckily we are transitioning away from fully government exploration to private, as the East India Company (and others) did for nautical manned exploration/trade many moons ago. I doubt SpaceX is the last private enterprise, even over the coming decade, to work to put people in space, and to Mars without a lot of government supervision/delays.

Actually, many private space companies use uncrewed missions for their space projects because they are much cheaper than crewed missions. Also, some of private space companies promote satellite technology ( to be more accurate microsatellites )
https://www.skyrora.com/

Exploration is driven by science. Colonization is driven by profit.

The colonization of the Americas would not be possible if the cost of the trans Atlantic journey is less than the potential profit to be had from the resources in the new world.

Just like Antarctica, until there is a protential for resources aquisition, you will only see a small scientific outpost that gets a few tourists now and then.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Just like Antarctica, until there is a protential for resources aquisition, you will only see a small scientific outpost that gets a few tourists now and then.

bt

Technically, Antarctica is protected from commercial exploitation through international treaties. However, the past would indicate that such arrangements are discarded as soon as someone sees an opportunity for personal profits (e. g. discovering oil in a national park). So it's likely that Antarctica is safe from exploitation simply because it's unprofitable.

However, I don't see what Mars in particular would offer that's worth mining. Asteroids, sure, but Mars doesn't seem to have an abundance of minerals / elements that are rare on Earth.

I personally don't support exploitation of Marsian resources. It's the planet most similar to Earth, and humans on Earth seem to act with no consideration for sustainability or peaceful sharing of resources. It'd be just a matter of time until Marsian warming or the First Marsian War become a problem.

mxaxai wrote:

However, I don't see what Mars in particular would offer that's worth mining.

Unless there are elements out there that can aid human in interstellar travel, I see the only commercial venture out there that may be profitable would be space tourism and the ancillary industry such as space farming to provide food for the tourists and scientists.

The other endevor may be space solar farms to collect energy for terrestrial and orbital use.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

However, I don't see what Mars in particular would offer that's worth mining.

Unless there are elements out there that can aid human in interstellar travel, I see the only commercial venture out there that may be profitable would be space tourism and the ancillary industry such as space farming to provide food for the tourists and scientists.

The other endevor may be space solar farms to collect energy for terrestrial and orbital use.

bt

The long term commercial prospects might not be so narrow, once automation/machines/AI can be used in the mining/assembly of structures.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 93886.html

mxaxai wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Just like Antarctica, until there is a protential for resources aquisition, you will only see a small scientific outpost that gets a few tourists now and then.

bt

Technically, Antarctica is protected from commercial exploitation through international treaties. However, the past would indicate that such arrangements are discarded as soon as someone sees an opportunity for personal profits (e. g. discovering oil in a national park). So it's likely that Antarctica is safe from exploitation simply because it's unprofitable.

However, I don't see what Mars in particular would offer that's worth mining. Asteroids, sure, but Mars doesn't seem to have an abundance of minerals / elements that are rare on Earth.

I personally don't support exploitation of Marsian resources. It's the planet most similar to Earth, and humans on Earth seem to act with no consideration for sustainability or peaceful sharing of resources. It'd be just a matter of time until Marsian warming or the First Marsian War become a problem.

We actually don`t have proof that Mars doest have any valuable fossils. We need to make some drilling company to check it out. If something valuable will be found on Mars, I don`t think it`s a good idea to deliver it on Earth because it can cause different conflicts among the countries.

At one time, I though an incentive would be to find a diamond astroid out there that would make space mining profitable. But now they can manufacture diamond so cheaply on earth that such thought is futile.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

At one time, I though an incentive would be to find a diamond astroid out there that would make space mining profitable. But now they can manufacture diamond so cheaply on earth that such thought is futile.

bt

I`ve read one article about an asteroid that consists completely of gold. And it was even an idea to bring somehow this asteroid on Earth. As far as you understand this is no real and secure way how to bring this asteroid on Earth)

bearnard123 wrote:

I`ve read one article about an asteroid that consists completely of gold. And it was even an idea to bring somehow this asteroid on Earth. As far as you understand this is no real and secure way how to bring this asteroid on Earth)

Psyche 16, a core material asteroid.
.. as published from the super competent scientific peer reviewed TheSun.co.uk