4 thoughts on “An Out-Of-This-World Debate Question”

  1. Which leaves aside the question of… WHY!?

    There is little to nothing that humans can do beyond Earth orbit that robots cannot do much more cost-effectively.

    I see a commenter there is ranting on the lack of need for humans in space. I wonder why they ignore the totality of human technology on Earth. If I want to travel thousands of miles, I don’t walk, but use machines. However, each of these machines with a few minor exceptions (such as escalators), requires a human to control it.

    If I want to pound a nail in, I don’t use my hand, but rather a device specialized for the role, such as a hammer. But I hold the tool. It doesn’t operate independent of me.

    In other words, robot-only technology isn’t more cost-effective for the most part here on Earth.

    Finally, it’s worth noting the implicit low expectations of the author here. First, he’s restricting his attention to If I send only a few hundred kilograms to Mars, every few years, then it makes sense to use robots. A human and support systems can’t fit in that mass restriction. But that means you have to be satisfied with the little bit that this sort of mission can provide. If I’m sending thousands of tons of mass to Mars, then there are more cost effective means for many mission profiles (such as the traditional exploration and science roles), involving people on site, than a pure robotic mission.

    Sure, if you never expect much, then a few robotic missions are the most cost effective way to do token stuff in space. But why should we expect human activity in space to remain at or below the past?

  2. I fisked some of his inane comments and was rewarded with more inanity. As expected, unfortunately. When confronted with facts, twist the argument until the facts no longer fit.

    I’ve said this before but it bears repeating:
    Correcting trolls on the ‘net is like mud-wrestling a pig. You both get dirty and after a while you figure out the pig likes it.

  3. Karl: that’s because it’s quite cheap to deploy and sustain a human worker on Earth (with some uncommon exceptions). In space, that’s not the case at all, and won’t be for a long time, even with improvements.

  4. I know what the world needs to sort out this mess. We need a catastrophic, but long-range(maybe 15 years), threat from space – the obvious one being a Dinosaur Killer – that absolutely requires a significant space presence in order to combat it.

    Or perhaps a more immediate but smaller threat, that is realised far too late and is actually realised – say something like the rock that carved out Meteor Crater, landing near but not on a major city. And people will ask “why didn’t you see it” and the answer will be “because nobody paid us to look”. The total global budget for space defense is probably less than the coffee budget of the Pentagon.

Comments are closed.