Hawking $ Space Exploration

[BillyJoe]

.
Stephen Hawking calls for Moon and Mars colonies


http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13748-stephen-hawking-calls-for-moon-and-mars-colonies.html

The Moon is a good place to start because it is "close by and relatively easy to reach", Hawking said. "The Moon could be a base for travel to the rest of the solar system," he added. Mars would be "the obvious next target", with its abundant supplies of frozen water...

A goal of a base on the Moon by 2020 and of a manned landing on Mars by 2025 would reignite the space programme and give it a sense of purpose in the same way that President Kennedy's Moon target did in the 1960s," he said.

we should make interstellar travel a long-term aim," he said. "By long term, I mean over the next 200 to 500 years."

He prefers manned to robotic missions;

"Robotic missions are much cheaper and may provide more scientific information, but they don't catch the public imagination in the same way, and they don't spread the human race into space, which I'm arguing should be our long-term strategy," Hawking said. "If the human race is to continue for another million years, we will have to boldly go where no one has gone before."

So, this the argument between robotic and manned exploration of space.
Does anyone have an opinion?


Robotic space exploration is much cheaper and much safer, but it doesn't engage the public, and hence the politicians, as much as manned space exploration.

 

[Ziggurat]

Does anyone have an opinion?

If the relevant time scale is a million years, or even just a thousand years, why does it matter if we do manned missions or robotic missions for the next fifty?

I say stick with robots for now.

 

[BillyJoe]

I think the argument is along the lines of:

If we send robots rather than astronauts into space, we will not excite the imagination of the public and, as a result, the politicians will not be be goaded by the voting public into supplying the cash to fund these enterprises.
Therefore, even though sending men into space is much more expensive and dangerous than sending robots and, even though a whole lot more could be achieved for the same money, manpower and effort if we just sent robots, it is still better to send astronauts.

Or something like that.

 

[Rob Lister]

I think the argument is along the lines of:

If we send robots rather than astronauts into space, we will not excite the imagination of the public and, as a result, the politicians will not be be goaded by the voting public into supplying the cash to fund these enterprises.
Therefore, even though sending men into space is much more expensive and dangerous than sending robots and, even though a whole lot more could be achieved for the same money, manpower and effort if we just sent robots, it is still better to send astronauts.

Or something like that.

I'm for a lot of robots and at least some people. Colonizing (better put: permanently manning) the moon and mars are fine very long-term goals (50+ years) but each would require a somewhat more global effort and advancements in technological means.

In that same 50+ years, we could send a few robot to Alpha Centauri system, just for a close-up look-see.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

.Robotic space exploration is much cheaper and much safer, but it doesn't engage the public, and hence the politicians, as much as manned space exploration.

There's a manned program going on right now with people continuously in space right now. If the public is "engaged" I really can't see the benefit of it. Keep sending robots and working on cheap, reliable access to space.

 

[Dragoonster]

There's a manned program going on right now with people continuously in space right now. If the public is "engaged" I really can't see the benefit of it. Keep sending robots and working on cheap, reliable access to space.

Pretty much my thoughts too. I doubt most of the public even knows about Mir, and if "Apollo 13" is accurate they even lost interest in manned lunar missions after the big first one.

Of course, I'd love to both robot and manned missions greatly expanded. But I think public interest is overestimated in some areas and underestimated in others. The Mars rovers and surveyors, Jovian+ surveyors were well-received. Or the levi-shoemaker comet coverage. Something like the search for microbes on the asteroids from ten or so years ago even got the public interested. And by far the biggest interest:cost project of the last 30 year, the Hubble combined great PR for the space program with great science.

I don't think the public needs astronauts. As with most things, it responds mainly to spectacular events and images, with some also interested in science. It'll get bored with redundant things, and lack of interest in Mir reflects this. The public is far more interested in maintenance of Mir (through shuttle trips), just because there are two high-profile events for each mission.

So, realistically I'd rather see $$$ used on robotic missions, and only $ used on acclimating humans to extended <1g until they get that problem sorted out.

 

[BillyJoe]

There's a manned program going on right now with people continuously in space right now. If the public is "engaged" I really can't see the benefit of it. Keep sending robots and working on cheap, reliable access to space.

Hawking is talking about manned missions to, and the colonisation of, the Moon (followed by manned missions to, and the colonisation of, Mars from the colonies established on the Moon, and in the distant future manned missions to other solar systems).

I think that a plan to colonise the Moon would engage the public much more than a plan to send robots to andromeda for instance.

 

[Dragoonster]

Hawking is talking about manned missions to, and the colonisation of, the Moon (followed by manned missions to, and the colonisation of, Mars from the colonies established on the Moon, and in the distant future manned missions to other solar systems).

I think that a plan to colonise the Moon would engage the public much more than a plan to send robots to andromeda for instance.

For a short time, yah. But the public would at some point take Moon colonization for granted, and frankly the Moon is boring. There's no awesome things to reveal if a colonist takes a buggy trip down the local mare, just more grey dust and rocks. Robots to Andromeda could bring with them a dozen new incredible pictures each day, which the public would put as screensavers or avatars or poster on their walls, or which programs would use as part of an educational attempt.

Mars is a bit different as it's less known/revealed than the Moon, and more evocative to the layman. I don't see manned missions/colonization of the Moon being an amazing draw for the public. Both would be great, all including robots would be great. But robots can do the job well enough for the moment. When problems with human space travel and long-term habitation are solved, then the debate can begin. But robots are ready-made, no issues, and can get results now.

 

[Tubbythin]

I think that a plan to colonise the Moon would engage the public much more than a plan to send robots to andromeda for instance.

I don't think robots are gonna be leaving for Andromeda anytime soon.