When Nixon killed the space program Isaac Asimov wrote an impassioned piece on why we should continue to fund exploration. Besides the countless advances in medicine and technology driven by the moon race he correctly pointed out that we did not spend all that money on the moon–we spent it right here on earth. He estimated that Nixon put over 200,000 people out of work with that brilliant move.
I’m in favor of continuing space research, I just don’t know why we should bother putting another man on the moon. We know we CAN do it; likewise we know we CAN put a man on Mars, if we’re willing to spend the money and find volunteers for a three-year round trip (that is, it would IDEALLY be a round trip). But why SHOULD we? What could we accomplish, what could we learn, that we can’t do more cheaply and safely with orbiting probes and robots?
If the only rationale for putting a man on Mars is “So we can say we’ve been there” (or even worse “Because we have to be FIRST!”), then that’s a tremendous waste of resources. Let’s renew/revitalize our shuttle fleet rather than start building Mars landers. Would that be as “sexy” as a manned Mars mission? Is that “old hat”? Maybe, but there’s a much better chance of finding out things that are worth knowing.
I recently read the speech Nixon had prepared had the Apollow 11 mission failed to return from the moon. It was quite moving. Happy he never had to use it.
With remote cameras, we can tell the robot to look more closely at anything the technicians find interesting. With orbital cameras, we can get a wide-range view of any place that it might prove worthwhile to send the robot. There’s a lag in reaction time with earth-based controls, but there’s no indication that there’s anything on Mars which requires a quick-reaction time; we hardly need motion sensors.
If we ever DO send a manned mission to Mars, they won’t be able to go exploring very far from their landing site, so if there’s anything we don’t know about ahead of time, we’d have to be AWFUL lucky if we chanced to land near it. A robot can go places a human explorer can’t. A robot won’t go stir-crazy on an 18-month trip out. A robot can stay out there a lot longer. If a robot suffers a mechanical failure, the stakes are low; we can just send another robot. And of course we don’t have to worry about bringing a robot back safely.
Keith Messamer about 15 years ago
The resources are in space.
And let’s fight our wars in space. What sane person would fight a war on the planet where people live?
McGehee about 15 years ago
If we waited until everything else was fixed before pursuing the future, there never would have been a second generation of human beings.
William Sutton Premium Member about 15 years ago
When Nixon killed the space program Isaac Asimov wrote an impassioned piece on why we should continue to fund exploration. Besides the countless advances in medicine and technology driven by the moon race he correctly pointed out that we did not spend all that money on the moon–we spent it right here on earth. He estimated that Nixon put over 200,000 people out of work with that brilliant move.
briankblough about 15 years ago
Because BO needs another celestial orb to ruin when he’s done with this one!
Potrzebie about 15 years ago
Sandor, bad idea. Can you imagine blackwater and halliburton in space?
fritzoid Premium Member about 15 years ago
I’m in favor of continuing space research, I just don’t know why we should bother putting another man on the moon. We know we CAN do it; likewise we know we CAN put a man on Mars, if we’re willing to spend the money and find volunteers for a three-year round trip (that is, it would IDEALLY be a round trip). But why SHOULD we? What could we accomplish, what could we learn, that we can’t do more cheaply and safely with orbiting probes and robots?
If the only rationale for putting a man on Mars is “So we can say we’ve been there” (or even worse “Because we have to be FIRST!”), then that’s a tremendous waste of resources. Let’s renew/revitalize our shuttle fleet rather than start building Mars landers. Would that be as “sexy” as a manned Mars mission? Is that “old hat”? Maybe, but there’s a much better chance of finding out things that are worth knowing.
ChukLitl Premium Member about 15 years ago
Well said, Carmen.
Re:spiwsu Those were also good paying, high tech jobs.
Re: fritzoid Robots can only see what they were designed to look for. Humans might find something we didn’t know to look for.
Saucy1121 Premium Member about 15 years ago
I recently read the speech Nixon had prepared had the Apollow 11 mission failed to return from the moon. It was quite moving. Happy he never had to use it.
fritzoid Premium Member about 15 years ago
With remote cameras, we can tell the robot to look more closely at anything the technicians find interesting. With orbital cameras, we can get a wide-range view of any place that it might prove worthwhile to send the robot. There’s a lag in reaction time with earth-based controls, but there’s no indication that there’s anything on Mars which requires a quick-reaction time; we hardly need motion sensors.
If we ever DO send a manned mission to Mars, they won’t be able to go exploring very far from their landing site, so if there’s anything we don’t know about ahead of time, we’d have to be AWFUL lucky if we chanced to land near it. A robot can go places a human explorer can’t. A robot won’t go stir-crazy on an 18-month trip out. A robot can stay out there a lot longer. If a robot suffers a mechanical failure, the stakes are low; we can just send another robot. And of course we don’t have to worry about bringing a robot back safely.