Is Space Travel Worth the Investment When Earth Needs Attention?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the debate over the value of space exploration versus addressing urgent issues on Earth. Critics argue that billions spent on NASA could be better allocated to solving problems like global warming, cancer research, and poverty. Proponents highlight that space exploration has historically led to technological advancements that benefit life on Earth, such as improvements in medical imaging and agriculture monitoring. They assert that the quest for knowledge and human curiosity drive space programs, which can yield unexpected benefits. Ultimately, the conversation reflects a tension between immediate earthly needs and the long-term benefits of exploring the cosmos.
  • #31
I think we are all convinced already, but there is another reason to go into space: for the science.

A great number of experiments can only easily be carried out in space, requiring no gravity and a high vacuum. And cosmology is an essential part of fundamental physics as most of the new, deep physics requires observations of situations that are just impractical on earth. Looking at supernovae, CMB, frame dragging and so on tells us much about the laws of the universe, which also work on Earth. As as for global warming research and so on... Much of that data came from, you guessed it, satellites.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
Originally posted by FZ+
I think we are all convinced already, but there is another reason to go into space: for the science.

A great number of experiments can only easily be carried out in space, requiring no gravity and a high vacuum. And cosmology is an essential part of fundamental physics as most of the new, deep physics requires observations of situations that are just impractical on earth. Looking at supernovae, CMB, frame dragging and so on tells us much about the laws of the universe, which also work on Earth. As as for global warming research and so on... Much of that data came from, you guessed it, satellites.

And how did they repair the Hubble space telescope when it was discovered that the mirror had a design fault...? They sent HUMANS to repair it!

Integral, your point about:

Before a man is sent to Mars we must be able to launch and return with absolute confidence. No unexplained lose of communications. No unexplained failed missions, each mission must be accomplished with scientific assurance and precision.

..is a non starter. What technology is 100% fail safe? Let's stop flying planes, driving cars, walking down the road...

When problems occur in space, humans are ingenious beings. Look at the Apollo 13 mission. How many of the failed Mars missions would have remained as failed missions if Humans had been there to carry out repairs as needed?
 
  • #33
The Apollo repair was carried out with duct tape and luck, the only reason it was necessary was because there WERE humans on board. While no technology is perfect we did not start by building 747s either. We started low and slow and worked our way up. There is still much to be learned about Mars and the journey there, a single all your eggs in one basket mission is a recipe for disaster.

Further the technology needed for the robotic missions is way cooler then that needed to build a bigger air tight box.

I think this repair underway argument is way over rated. As I have said before BECAUSE the the payload is devoted to supporting the tourists there will be limited analysis tools available and there will be NO REAL test equipment. Any repair will have to be directed by EARTH BASED humans as it was in APOLLO 13. So if it is a failure similar to what is now happening with Spirit it will mean humans dead on the surface of Mars. If human ingenuity is required to complete the mission it was a failure. I certainly hope "Well you can figure that out when you get there" is not part of mission planning.

We must understand these failures and be able to travel to Mars and back with scientific precision before a human ever leaves the surface of the planet.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by Adrian Baker
And how did they repair the Hubble space telescope when it was discovered that the mirror had a design fault...? They sent HUMANS to repair it!
And I suppose you propose leaving one astronaut up there with the telescope, looking through a viewfinder, repositioning manually and send down sketches of what he sees?:wink:
 
  • #35
Originally posted by LURCH
I think that particular incident does more to support Adrian's statement than to refute it. It took an entire day to get the rover turned around by guiding it from Earth. If a human had been standing on that platform and looked down to see a problem with the ramp, he simply would have turned and walked down the other ramp. The delay would have been 2 or 3 seconds, rather than 24 hours.
Nope. The decision process works the same either way: call your team of engineers and discuss it for a day. The Apollo 13 crew nearly died because they couldn't react faster than that. Just diagnosing the problem took hours during which time their craft quite literally bled to death.

The only reason you wouldn't discuss it and simulate it is because the humans don't have as much time to waste (and die faster, as Integral said). In a mission where time wasn't critical (a long-term colony) you really would keep the decision making process the same.

For Spirit, they could have sent the command right away to rotate the craft. But why would they? It doesn't gain them anything by rushing. Time really isn't that critical.
...and I just heard on the news that NASA has lost contact with it now!

We should spend a lot and send humans, rather than waste time and taxpayers money with small Robotic missions that discover very little and have an alarming failure rate.
Our failure rate with Mars probes has been roughly 1 in 3. Setting aside for a moment FZ+'s quite valid point about humans and failures, the economics doesn't make sense either. The total cost for the two landers was $820 million. We could send a thousand for about the same cost as sending a single manned mission.

Scientifically, the vast majority of the benefit of space exploration has come from unmanned missions simply because robots do things and go places people can't.
Russ kinda touched on it - $10k/kg (well, he said 'pound', but we'll forgive his lapse) to get something into LEO
$10,000 a pound is the usual quote I hear.
Can anyone tell me of any meaningful science done by the Astronauts on the Moon? They went a long for the ride and brought back a suitcase full of rocks. Sounds like tourists to me.
Ding, ding. I'm glad they went, but it was entirely a political exercise.
Then there's the risk for human explorers, death and all that. Just 'cause it's dangerous and several people get killed, there's no law stopping you going mountain climbing or hang gliding, or ... So long as you're a big girl, why shouldn't you choose to try to go to the Moon on your own? Of course, you'd need at least as much money as Richard, Steve, or Larry, but it's their life, and their money, so why not?
The risk in the shuttle was calculated before the program began at an extimated 1 catastrophic failure per 100 missions and that was deemed acceptable (a test pilot barely flinches at those odds). So far, its been pretty close. A Mars crew would jump at the chance to risk their lives on a 1:10 failure probability. Clearly though, that is not acceptable politically.
Yes the costs of space flight now are horrendous, but how is it going to get cheaper if we just keep sending the same old stuff up to Mars with the same old technology?
Recent Mars probes far exceed the capabilities of past ones. And we haven't actually sent all that many either. There is nothing old about it.
And how did they repair the Hubble space telescope when it was discovered that the mirror had a design fault...? They sent HUMANS to repair it!
At $500 million per servicing mission, it'd be cheaper to send up a new one ever 5 years.
How many of the failed Mars missions would have remained as failed missions if Humans had been there to carry out repairs as needed?
I don't know, but with only a half dozen or so failures, its pocket change compared with a manned mission to send up a new robot probe. Spirit/opportunity are a great example. $810 million for a probe - and a twin!
We must understand these failures and be able to travel to Mars and back with scientific precision before a human ever leaves the surface of the planet.
I wonder if our current plans take that into account. Sending a dozen probes to the moon, each building on the experience of the last takes only a couple of years (and let's not forget, the manned program was a series of small steps as well). The same learning curve for Mars would take several decades. Cutting out the testing to save time would be a very bad idea.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Originally posted by Integral
One is why go to space at all. The only real reason I can come with is for my grand children's grand children. We must realize that the Earth has a finite amount of resources. Over the last 100yrs we have harvested the majority of those that are easy to get to. The first oil wells in Pennsylvania were surface pools. How many surface pools of oil do you suppose are left in the world? If we want our descendent's to have a chance at what we consider a reasonable standard of living we must learn to mine the resources of the Solar system. If we fail to achieve that goal, we doom our decedents to retreat to 1850s technology simply because there are insufficient resources for anything else.
Dunno, Integral, I think its more likely we'll find other ways than mining in space. We do have an essentially limitless source of energy at our disposal and the only reason we aren't using it is its a little bit more expensive than using non-renewable resources.
 
  • #37
Originally posted by Integral
The Apollo repair was carried out with duct tape and luck, the only reason it was necessary was because there WERE humans on board. While no technology is perfect we did not start by building 747s either. We started low and slow and worked our way up. There is still much to be learned about Mars and the journey there, a single all your eggs in one basket mission is a recipe for disaster.

Because humans were on board, NASA were able to diagnose and say how to fix the problem. This helps the learning process. What have we learned from the failed Beagle mission? Nothing! No one knows what went wrong, so how do we 'improve' on this?




I think this repair underway argument is way over rated.

I don't! :wink:
 
  • #38
Integral,

The Apollo repair was carried out with duct tape and luck,

Don't knock duct tape. It worked. And the ability to improvise is exactly my point.

the only reason it was necessary was because there WERE humans on board.

The "if it breaks, throw it away" philosophy is bad engineering and bad administration. Whatever happened to "Make it so!"

While no technology is perfect we did not start by building 747s either. We started low and slow and worked our way up.

Yes, we started with Mercury, then Gemini, then Apollo -- then we quit.

There is still much to be learned about Mars and the journey there,

Agree absolutely. I'm not talking about the President's initiative, but about eventual travel and even colonization of the Moon and Mars.

a single all your eggs in one basket mission is a recipe for disaster.

And write that philosophy large, leaving all the human species on one planet is equally a recipe for disaster.
 
  • #39
Lets see, population of the planet in 1928 ~ 2 Billion...by the eighties ~4 billion...by the ninties ~ 5 billion...now...past 6 Billion and climbing...Hummm, how many square feet of surface area (usable) are there, available, on the face of a planet 70% covered in water??

Really good articles, in some of the past issues of the Journal Science, concerning population growth figures, and our immediate collective futur...

Need some more 'elbow' space, anyone?

(If we don't start soon enough...and you know the rest)
 
  • #40
N
Because humans were on board, NASA were able to diagnose and say how to fix the problem. This helps the learning process. What have we learned from the failed Beagle mission? Nothing! No one knows what went wrong, so how do we 'improve' on this?

It is a stretch to call the Apollo 13 band aid, which barely allowed the crew to return alive a repair. A repair would have allowed them to complete the mission. I don't think those of you pounding human intervention theme truly understand the complexity of the equipment involved nor the technical knowledge and equipment required to complete a REPAIR. As a technician repairing moderately complex tools in a wafer fab, I may be closer to the real world then you. The only way to learn the cause of the failure of Spirit or Beagle is to attempt to land another robotic mission nearby and examine the carcases.


We did not start with Mercury, we started with the Wright Flyer, and many died on the way to a 747. Now, however when you get in your car it starts with scientific precision, when you get in an airliner it takes off and lands with scientific precision. Are there failures, yes, but there is always a well understood cause. We do not have planes simply falling out of the sky due to unknown causes. The more trips to Mars we can make the more likely we are to find the reason for the failures. Once again an all your eggs in one basket huge human carrying mission is not only a waste of resources it is simply stupid.

I am not really concerned about the cost in human life, there will always be fools willing to die for such glory. I am more concerned about sacrificing scientific knowledge simply to be able to say "We did it"

As soon as men are included in the mission we will have to leave behind invaluable analysis tools due to payload restrictions. I say send the tools leave the men behind, they serve no purpose. If the best you can come up with is so they can "fix" things then indeed you have only given a reason for them NOT to go.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
*cough* Havn't you noticed that we can't survive on Earth forever? We have:

1) There are asteroids and such- while the probability is low that a significant one will hit, given enough time it will.
2) Right now our environment may be getting screwed.
3) Human population is growing exponentially... We can't do that forever in a limited space (Earth).

No species can survive indefinitely if they stay on one planet. We have to go to space in order to survive- and it's better to start now than to look up at the huge burning asteroid in the sky and say "I knew we should have built that moon colony!".

Now before we get to the point where space travel is NECESSARY (when we are facing an inability to continue as we are on Earth alone), there are the extra benefits noted by so many others in this thread. Plus there are things to mine, riches... Same reason we went to America.
 
  • #42
Can we start to quantify some of our discussion (thanks Mr Parsons)?

Cost of an Apollo mission: $?? million
Cost of Clementine (or virtually any robot one) mission: $? million
Cost of a Mars mission (Spirit, Mariners, Beagle, ..):
Estimated cost of a human mission to Mars:
Estimated historical cost of building a Hubble-type observatory that didn't need the Shuttle to fix it (this is pure revisionism):
...

If we can agree on the basic cost blocks, we can construct scenarios and do OOM cost estimates. Isn't this what engineers do for a living? Russ, show us the way!
 
  • #43
Originally posted by iKwak
I never understood space programs and the need of NASA. Someone help me.
What is the point of spending billions of dollars to get an expensive craft out of Earth and various space programs?
What is water exists on Mars? What is we find living organisms on other planets?
Shouldn't the U.S. and other super country worry about the planet Earth that we live in? Spend the money to discover new technologies- how to reduce global warming, reduce traffic congestion and air condition, expedite cancer research, start an agriculture program in third countries and lot more.


The pay is good for those doing it and the rank and file are easily separated from their money. Why were those technicians hooping for joy when Spirit landed? Job security.
 
  • #44
As much as we can learn from robots, we can learn more about ourselves in the challenges of accomplishing the tasks, ourselves.
 
  • #45
As far as human Physiology goes, we have learned about all there is to learn from our years aboard Mir and and now SSI. As far as challenges and human bravado go, isn't there plenty of death wish heroics left on earth? Why should we spend billions so some wanta be hero can rocket to the surface of Mars, simply to repair his craft so he can return? Makes no sense. The men capable of doing any real science will be sitting on Earth receiving transmitted data whether it be gathered by a robot or a hero. The hero will add nothing to mission other then reducing the scientific payload.
 
  • #46
Originally posted by russ_watters
Dunno, Integral, I think its more likely we'll find other ways than mining in space. We do have an essentially limitless source of energy at our disposal and the only reason we aren't using it is its a little bit more expensive than using non-renewable resources.

Ya' know I have always thought mining was an obvious reason for going to space. But when I get down to details, I cannot think of anything worth the expense that could be mined from space. We do not need minerals we need energy. Energy is freely available from low Earth orbit or the moon.

Speaking of energy, the Solar energy constant of Mars will be way smaller then that of earth, so collecting solar energy will be even more difficult on Mars then Earth. So in order to establish a colony on Mars we will need to find a significant source of energy on Mars. It simply will not be economically feasible to ship energy sources from earth.
 
  • #47


Originally posted by Vosh
The pay is good for those doing it and the rank and file are easily separated from their money. Why were those technicians hooping for joy when Spirit landed? Job security.

Fortunately, this sick corporate mentality hasn't taken over scientific organisations just yet.
 
  • #48
Originally posted by iKwak
I never understood space programs and the need of NASA. Someone help me.
What is the point of spending billions of dollars to get an expensive craft out of Earth and various space programs?
What is water exists on Mars? What is we find living organisms on other planets?
Shouldn't the U.S. and other super country worry about the planet Earth that we live in? Spend the money to discover new technologies- how to reduce global warming, reduce traffic congestion and air condition, expedite cancer research, start an agriculture program in third countries and lot more.

Personally, at this stage in the chaos of the human race I am against spending monies on such useless projects as this. I mean, suppose they find that Mars is full of diamonds, or gold, or whatever, how on Earth could you ever get it back to earth? You couldn't. Why not spend money on medical research, such as finding cures for Cancer, etc. Why not spend the money, also, for developing effective alternate forms of energy? On and on and on.
 
  • #49


Originally posted by timejim
Personally, at this stage in the chaos of the human race I am against spending monies on such useless projects as this. I mean, suppose they find that Mars is full of diamonds, or gold, or whatever, how on Earth could you ever get it back to earth? You couldn't. Why not spend money on medical research, such as finding cures for Cancer, etc. Why not spend the money, also, for developing effective alternate forms of energy? On and on and on.

As I posted above, minerals will not provide any economic advantage. But it may well be that there could be many medical advantages to zero gravity. (Our current high acceleration rockets are not absolutely necessary to space travel). And as far as energy goes it is essential that we establish our selfs in space that one thing that is readily available. All we need is improvements of photo-voltaic technology to make it possible. Of course for that resource it would make more sense to travel toward the sun rather then away.

Reliable rocketry could easily solve the problem of long term radioactive by products of nuclear power generation, you simply launch the materials into a decaying solar orbit.

It is undeniable that there are many reasons to develop space technology, just what role humans in space will play remains to be seen.

Perhaps the key reason for traveling into space will be tourism, and a lot of that will depend upon any advantages weightlessness will give to certain activities of humans.
 
  • #50
Originally posted by Integral
As far as human Physiology goes, we have learned about all there is to learn from our years aboard Mir and and now SSI. As far as challenges and human bravado go, isn't there plenty of death wish heroics left on earth? Why should we spend billions so some wanta be hero can rocket to the surface of Mars, simply to repair his craft so he can return? Makes no sense. The men capable of doing any real science will be sitting on Earth receiving transmitted data whether it be gathered by a robot or a hero. The hero will add nothing to mission other then reducing the scientific payload.
We might stand to continue to learn from experiances in 1/6th G physiologically speaking, but I would tend to agree with the idea of mining for exportation, probably not worth the price unless it is esoteric enough and cannot be made on the Earth.

As for the Bravado part I am not for that for it's own sake, but I do understand that 'Pioneers' have need of such, as being the first does require some Bravery...like it or not, and the ones who usually have a bit more of that, and therefore 'qualify', tend to be in that category of personality...

As for tourism perhaps 'Explorativism'...willing to learn, willing to go out peacably...means must have demonstrated the ability to control themselves...be at peace, especailly in GroUps...we cannot be the Agreesive insergent into space, an infection, in, and of, The agressions of life, cause life itself is aggressive, but humans can choose to not be ...
 
  • #51


Originally posted by cragwolf
Fortunately, this sick corporate mentality hasn't taken over scientific organisations just yet.


That is just precious innocence!
 
  • #52
Wow, thanks for all the input.
 
  • #53
Why Space
improves aerospace technology, we can put up satellites that help with broadcasting, communication,
Sapce travel will improve our other sciences astro-science, astro biology
Also launching ships into space and putting up satellites make better weather forecasting.
There are military benefits
It also might have design spin-offs that help improve industry, and the economy.
Keeps people employed
And gives the people of the nation a sense of pride
 
  • #54
I agree completely with Stellar Tourist. Great Post :smile:

I mean, what if the money for Christopher Columbus's journey had been diverted? Can you imagine?
 
  • #55
Originally posted by M.C.
I agree completely with Stellar Tourist. Great Post :smile:
I mean, what if the money for Christopher Columbus's journey had been diverted? Can you imagine?
Sure, easy, someone else would have done it, instead of Columbus, who didn't know where he was going...we do!...that changes things...knowledge...just a little...
 
  • #56
err umm well I meant.. what if the journey had never been made. obviously if we don't go into space now, somebody else may go too. but then we wouldn't have the pride it would give, and we wouldn't go down in the history books as columbus did.
 
  • #57
iKwak said:
Spend the money to discover new technologies- how to reduce global warming...


Talk about wasting money. Global warming doesn't exist but I sure can see Mars out there.
 
  • #58
presentghost said:
Talk about wasting money. Global warming doesn't exist but I sure can see Mars out there.

:rolleyes: You've been listening to too much Limbaugh.

The average global temperature has risen by over 1 degree since the beginning of the 20th century. There is little to debate about that.

What you can debate is the conclusions of the temperature increase.
 
  • #59
Money doesn't improve anything. Cancer research takes time. You can pour all the money you want into it, but things won't speed up. I'm sure they already have enough money. The only reason they want more is to get paid more just like all the other greedy idiots running around.

The bottom line is... spending 500 billion dollars in an already well funded industry will get you nowhere.

Another thing, when people say Astronomy/Cosmology/TOE is a waste of time. I think being an Accountant/Financial Analyst/CEO/Burger Flipper/Athlete/Painter/Actor/Model/Nose Picker/Banker/Bus Driver/Bartender, etc... is a bigger waste of time.

We do it because we want to. Besides, I personally think Biology and all that stuff is boring. Of course, I'm not ignorant about the subject and will in fact read articles about it.

The real problem is ignorant people who think smart people are stupid for studying science.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Could women be better suited for long distance space travel?
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
13K
  • Sticky
Kerbal Space Program Tutorial Series - Open Access to 1.7
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
66K
"Mysterious "Chaos Cloud" Headed Toward Earth"
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
11K
Writing: Read Only What Does Great Lakes Earth Look Like from Space?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
The First Spaceship: A Cost-Effective & Modular Multi-Purpose Craft
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
When will the first Space Wars happen?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
Is a Planet-Dissolving Chaos Cloud Really Headed Towards Earth?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
Mars Mission - an act of Lunacy or Science?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
Orbital Space Plane Program - Pros and Cons
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
Was America's moon expedition a fake?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
8K