This looks ilke it might be interesting. It might even be interesting in a way unanticipated by the folks at The Economist.
If you read the summary, it sounds like the standard media template — humans to the moon versus robots. But I’m pretty sure that Mike Gold is all in favor of sending humans to the moon — he’s probably just opposed to NASA doing it the way they propose to do it. I suspect that the debate will not be at all about humans versus robots, but about the best way to get people back to the moon. Which is a much more useful debate, but it may not be the one that the people who are putting it together intended. I wonder how the debaters were chosen?
It will be interesting if it an actual debate. So many “debates” are repeated restatements of thesis and antithesis, with no real attempt at critique or synthesis.
I could live with a government space “program” not landing humans on the moon for a while, if in exchange there were (for example):
Missions for in situ resource production from NEO, or perhaps Phobos / Deimos.
Propellant depots at a variety of useful energy levels (LEO, libration points, Phobos / Deimos).
Maturation of nuclear energy / propulsion for spacecraft (hat tip: our host, NewSpace 2009).
Development of long-duration (meaning shielded) habitats and infrastructure on Luna, Mars, Phobos, Deimos, and low V2-accessible NEO.
It might even be interesting in a way unanticipated by the folks at The Economist.
Not necessarily. The Economist has taken a frequent editorial position against NASA’s manned space program but in favor of private human spaceflight. They may know exactly what they’re doing.
They may know exactly what they’re doing.
They may, but you wouldn’t know it from the summary description of the debate. It’s couched in terms of humans versus robots.