7. Dead astronauts.
The space shuttle was a bad idea and dangerous from the start. Bring on the robots!
The space shuttle was a bad idea and dangerous from the start. Bring on the robots!
See, that ain't no way to run a civilization. Without taking (calculated) risks, we're nothing.
Automation is good for rote tasks. People are good at improvising.
During the mission to correct Hubble's lens problem, the supplied tools and procedure failed. The mission specialist utilized scissors and a plastic cover from a log book to correct the problem.
Without that improvisation, the mission to fix Hubble's lens would have been a loss.
What we gain from having people in space depends on what you want to _do_ in space.
If it's all just drones mapping planets and space telescopes then investing in automation makes sense.
If it's manufacturing, settlement, getting some of our eggs out of this basket, then we need people out there, learning how to live off-planet.
The expense in either case, might possibly be the same.
Automation isn't cheap, missions that have to be redone because the automation fails are costly.
I think the example of Hubble actually works in my favor on this point. Hubble is a relic of an old technological age. Earth-based telescopes surpassed Hubble's capabilities not too long after it was launched, and have now pretty much left it in the dust. At a fraction of the cost.
Hubble's replacement (James Webb) is quite a leap ahead, and as an IR scope it really does need to be in space, unlike Hubble. But you'll note that its location will be off-limits to humans, and it is accordingly designed to be remotely maintained.
In short, the age of low-earth-orbit, high-maintenance space telescopes is, and should be, over. I argue that other space-based platforms that require human intervention should likewise be curtailed for similar reasons.
>"Automation isn't cheap, missions that have to be redone because the automation fails are costly."
It is still orders of magnitude cheaper than sending people, and the cost of a "failed" space endeavour with people on board is infinitely greater. In cases where it's not currently feasible to use robots, it would be worth our while to wait until it is, instead of trying to use humans now.
I feel that Mars is another example in my favor. Cost estimates for sending humans to Mars are so high and so speculative that they're essentially useless outside of the insight that we cannot afford it. Compare that with the cost of robotic exploration, which is both quite affordable and spectacularly successful so far.
Philosophy and art do indeed require lots of human intervention. Thankfully, they are cheap, as is much of the basic science research that we should be prioritizing ahead of, say, super sexy space stations.
Kidney dialysis machines for example. And basic research on bone loss which has been a huge help for Osteoperosis patients.
I think the issue here isn't that we know that putting humans in space is expensive, it is, in time as well as resources. I think the issue is that if we don't put humans in space we'll never know what advances we could have made by doing it.
Your two examples are instructive. I guarantee you that these medical advances would have been made in the absence of a space program. It's not a matter of if, but when. The best that be said about the scientific contribution of human bodies in orbit is that it has provided some acceleration of progress -- I know of no evidence to the contrary.
The crucial question is, what are we willing to pay for that acceleration?
As far as I am concerned, I want human uploads in space. Durr.
The shuttle program was an unmitigated disaster that set back space exploration a generation. By trying to build a "reusable" space plane we ended up with the most complex machine ever built-- and complexity is dangerous-- that does nothing especially well.
Too complex, too expensive, not best at any one thing.
But a sight to see.
Before anyone jumps on me, I'm absolutely not saying those lives are not valuable. Of course they are, I regret their loss, and I wish that those accidents did not happen. But pushing the envelope is a risky business, and every astronaut knows the odds but gets in the capsule/cockpit anyway. Because if we are not losing lives now and then for reasons unknowable at that time, then we are no longer pushing the envelope and that would be cause for concern.
The execution was flawed.
Shuttle had wings thanks to the Air Force joining the project, then the Air Force dropped out, but Shuttle still had wings.
Of all the problems with Shuttle the wings bother me the most.
Or at least in the last forty years.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/North_America...
First prototype completed 100 days after the contract signed. In contrast it took decades to build the Eurofighter. Granted a more complex aircraft, but they didn't have CAD back then either.
The most important, I think, is that Mustang wasn't a government project, but one designed and built by a private company to meet an existing wartime need.
Eurofighter by contrast was a government job start to finish, built by three companies in three countries. Starting with a DNA like that delays and cost overruns are baked into the process.