Many, many single-purpose rovers can be sent in the place of a human mission with no risk to human life. There is no scientific justification for sending humans on a science mission, it's mostly just adventurism.
I think I'd feel better about the suggestion for a manned mission if it talked about 1) what value a human would offer in collecting samples and analyzing data over a robot 2) how that value would compare to mass of air, water, and food as well as life-support systems and radiation shielding; the additional fuel and oxidizer to move the mass of the crew and supporting systems 3) the ethics of sending someone capable of doing this important research to their probable deaths rather than an unmanned mission and 4) the cost-benefit to funding this versus other non-space exploration efforts.
What also gets to me is that clearly people have done this cost-benefit analysis before - people that know a lot more about the topic than me. It lacks humility to ignore their reasoning (see https://spacenews.com/independent-report-concludes-2033-huma...).
Highly doubt this, but I am no expert. A human is just very flexible and the rovers up there look super complicated while only been capable of very simple tasks. A lot of scientific progress happened because somebody took a risk, not in the name of adventurism, but in the name of science.
Interesting. Indeed the wording is not great but a human would get the idea :-) I did notice that quite a few times when i write that i want space exploration and expansion it gets downvoted. So there may also be a crowd that thinks we should solve all problems on earth before going to space, as if thats possible or achievable.
A batch of those people roll through every space related post and downvote things, but then the tide shifts later in the day. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the users here are strongly in favor of getting humanity into space
> I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the users here are strongly in favor of getting humanity into space
How do we turn this into a meaningful political movement? My strongest pro argument in a political context is resource security and not having to rely on adversarial states. Economically, it means and endless supply of sources we need to build our increasingly complex devices. Also jobs. I see this as an existential benefit for advanced societies. But how do you bring this is front of average joes with the same intensity as current issues.
> These days, there seems to be nowhere left to explore. Victims of their very success, the explorers now, pretty much, stay home. Maybe it's a little early- maybe the time is not quite yet- but those other worlds, promising untold opportunities, beckon. Just now, there a great many matters that are pressing in on us that compete for the money it takes to send people to other worlds. Should we solve those problems first, or are they a reason for going? Our planet and our solar system are surrounded by a New World ocean: the depths of space. It is no more impassable than the last. - Carl Sagan
Man, that's an interesting idea.. I just figured the financial prospects of being first to access unlimited wealth would be plenty of motivation to get us to space
I feel like space investments are a lot more valuable than most of the stuff politicians care about nowadays, though, so I'd be interested to support a movement like that
“We need boots on the ground to back the good science behind these findings.”
Why is wanting to send people to mars to confirm or leverage these findings so offensive?