Crewed or uncrewed space missions

Forums:
Email this Topic • Print this Page

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?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 4 • Views: 935 • Replies: 48

I think both are important.

Uncrewed missions can go places we can't currently send crews. I'd like to see a Cassini-style orbiter sent to Uranus, and eventually one to Neptune too.

But I like that we have the International Space Station, and I would like to see the international community build a permanent moon base as well.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

That is a good point. Nowadays, we don`t have such an advanced technology that can make all space missions without humans takink part in them. I support them because of the fact that they are cheaper and more important secure for the crew. But still, to make missions more succesfull people still have to take part in space missions and experiments.

0 Replies

I think uncrewed missions could go on for some time without the need of sending expensive crewed missions, especially as technology improves and becomes capable of doing things that would currently require humans.

1 Reply

@hightor,

I guess you are right. It would be an excellent achivement and it would be much easier and cheaper way to explore space. We already have such stuff like microsatellites which is develiping so fast ( and made satellite technology cheaper ) and easier and if it keeps going in the such way, we will get what we want.

1 Reply

@bearnard45,

The expense to send humans into space is very high. You need a lot of systems and weight that don't add to the mission but drive up costs dramatically. IMO, much better to send out ten unmanned missions rather than one manned one.

1 Reply

To my mind as far as taxpayer and taxation revenue, I’d rather send money to find solutions for homelessness and food scarcity than space exploration. Private money for missions to Mars and the like would and should be encouraged. Utilization of Tax revenues would be fine if homelessness and food scarcity is addressed first.

2 Replies

@Ragman,

The whole "national pride" aspect really bothers me, as well. And with an unprecedented global climate crisis steadily accelerating it's likely that advanced technological resources might be better employed on this planet.

I'm not opposed to space exploration but I'd like to see more international cooperation instead of "gotta beat the Chinese".

1 Reply

@engineer,

Yeah, you are right but still, there are space missions where technology cannot oparate alone without humans taking part in them. At that moment and I quess in the next decade humans will have to take part in space exploration missions.

0 Replies

@Ragman,

I agree with you that there are a lot of problem on Earth that could be solved with those money that are spend on space exploration project like the journey to Mars but still we need to go forward in the are of space and reach new goals.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

The whole "national pride" aspect really bothers me, as well.

To say nothing of anthropic chauvinism.

1 Reply

@bearnard45,

Quote:

... but still we need to go forward in the are of space and reach new goals.

Why would that be?

1 Reply

@knaivete,

Quote:

To say nothing of anthropic chauvinism.

Yeah — first we infest the earth, then the solar system, then the galaxy — let's pollute the universe!

1 Reply

@hightor,

Humans consum a lot of energy and afterwards make a lot of wastes. Colonization of other planet has an aim to find fossils or another usfull stuff that can be valuable. That is imminent and we actually can do nothing.

0 Replies

@knaivete,

knaivete wrote:

Why would that be?

In the short term, the reason why we should colonize the solar system is the same as the reason why it was good for our ancestors to spread across Africa and then spread across the world. Why should we stay crowded on Earth when there is all that open land on the Moon that we can colonize?

In the long term, our sun has a finite lifespan. At some point it will be a very good idea to move humanity to a different star system. And then move on again when that star also runs out of fuel.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

I agree with you. But our ancestors didn`t have such problems like we have with Mars colonization. And I am still convinced that Mars is that the best planet for humans to be colonized.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

In the short term, the reason why we should colonize the solar system is the same as the reason why it was good for our ancestors to spread across Africa and then spread across the world.

Why was it "good"? Survival isn't a matter of "good" vs "bad". They moved in search of food and water. Production of food is no longer a problem. (Distribution is a different thing.) While water resources are finite, they can be managed. There is neither food nor water on Mars.

Quote:

Why should we stay crowded on Earth when there is all that open land on the Moon that we can colonize?

Because the earth isn't really "crowded" and the "open land" on the moon is inhospitable to human life. Population density on earth can be managed through smarter development and family planning.

Quote:

At some point it will be a very good idea to move humanity to a different star system. And then move on again when that star also runs out of fuel.

At some point we just have to admit that the game is up. It's over. It's neither good nor bad. Sayonara.

2 Replies

@bearnard45,

bearnard45 wrote:

And I am still convinced that Mars is that the best planet for humans to be colonized.

Why is that? What do you think is on Mars that is valuable enough for humans to make up for the lack of breathable atmosphere, the deleterious effects of low gravity, etc?

2 Replies

@engineer,

Also, I`d like to add that Mars has high level of radiation and low temperature that makes Mars colonization more impossible. But still, I guess that humans still have to make a shot

1 Reply

@bearnard45,

But why? If you want to mine metals, the moon is way closer and the expense of bringing back metals from Mars would be prohibitive. You can't really grow food. There is plenty of space on Earth for population growth so you don't need the room. There is no compelling reason to put humans on Mars that I can see.

2 Replies

Forums
» Crewed or uncrewed space missions

Read Question
Reply to All

Crewed or uncrewed space missions

Quick Links

My Account

able2know