Is there any scientifically meaningful reason to focus on manned spaceflight besides "To see if we can do it"? I know that the long-term goal will be for the establishment of extraterrestrial colonies but that has more to do with a mixture of sentimentality and the long-term survival of the species. As far as expanding our scientific understanding in a purely practical sense, is there any reason to actually send humans into space?
http://www.luf.org/
>>7737257
http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/21/spacex-successfully-lands-a-giant-falcon-9-rocket-for-the-first-time/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000591
>>7737207
You have any idea how empty hospitals would be with out space exploration?
>>7737257
I don't disagree with this at all, but it's not really related to my question. I'm asking if there's any scientific reason to focus on human spaceflight. As in, is there anything we can learn from sending people to space that we can't from sending machines?
>>7737207
>is there any reason to actually send humans into space?
>ignore all the reasons I mentioned as well as other actual reasons
fuck off retard.
>>7737288
People are more adaptable and can get more work done in a shorter period of time, at least for the time being.
Machines are currently pretty slow at their jobs.
A human could achieve more in an afternoon on Mars than all the rovers sent to date.
>>7737288
Robots are very limited in the amount of research they can do, there is a limit to the amount of instruments we can put on them. Humans are more versatile and can adapt, they could potentially do more science with the same instruments.
For now it's still cheaper to send a dozen of robots than one human, which means still more science per buck.
But with reusable rockets that will change.
Besides some research stations on Mars like we have on Antarctica I don't see human colonies on Mars anytime soon. Even if we can protect everyone from the harsh Mars environment and radiation, we still have the problem of low gravity fucking up the development of any martian kids.
We might dream of going to Mars, but martian kids will dream of going to Earth. A thing they will never be able to do because their bodies can't handle Earth's gravity.
Space station colonies would be better since we can fake gravity with centrifuges.
>>7737207
It's just real fucking cool.
It also means developing a more cost effecting launch system.
>>7737360
We don't actually know how badly 1/4 g will affect human development yet, because we haven't tested it out. It may be the case that native Martians could come to Earth and only experience minor difficulties.
The simulated zero-g of LEO is bad for our physiology and development, yes, but we've only ever had people exposed to either earth gravity or microgravity for extended periods of time. We don't know how intermediate gravitational pulls will affect us in the long term.
>>7737207
>Is there any scientifically meaningful reason to focus on manned spaceflight besides "To see if we can do it"?
Interplanetary communications suffer from inherently massive latency limitations. While there are certainly ways of working around this for certain experiments, a handful of qualified scientists conducting/controlling experiments in-situ or from nearby outposts could potentially improve the speed and efficiency with which research is conducted, as opposed to that of a robot controlled by operators on Earth.
>>7737207
>focus on manned spaceflight
Yes, indirectly.
This is a golden age for research but the scientists are paid peanuts and recruiting will go down, more so when MBA in ponzi schemes are what people aspire to.
The manned space program reinvigorated science and engineering as respectable careers in the US and led to mass recruitment that later on was important for establishing the US as leading in tech.
>>7737360
You're assuming giant leaps in rocket technology but for robotics to be stuck at its current level? Given that robotics has extensive uses here on Earth, there's much more reason to believe that technology in that area will grow faster than will rocket tech.
>>7738058
When did the space program become the only branch of science? Everything you mentioned could be achieved investments in other areas. The only thing space has going for it over the rest of science is the public's belief in Star Trek.
Well, as you said, the long-term goal of space exploration is to establish self-sustaining human colonies away from Earth.
Before that's possible, there's a whole lot of shit we have to learn about how to make space/other planets hospitable for humans, and one of the best ways to do that is to get people into space and see what happens.
>>7737207
Scientifically? No. If your aim is primarily to advance scientific understanding, then unless the scientific understanding you hope to gain is what happens to humans in space, robots are the better option just about every time.
People who advocate for manned space exploration and settlement generally have properties besides science.
>>7738977
>When did the space program become the only branch of science?
And when did I state that?
> Everything you mentioned could be achieved investments in other areas.
You missed the point entirely, well done. The thing is that investment is limited and salaries reflect this. The people making the decisions are no scientists.
I did a PhD in physics and worked as a scientist for a few years ... until the need to pay down student loans became sufficiently pressing that I left for industry and experienced for the first time in my life the strange concept of "disposable income".
You can live on pennies and short term contracts for a few ywears and you get results and things look good. Over time however people will realise that R&D is a slaveship worse than being a programmer for Electronic Arts.
So yes, investments would be good. And that requires prestige more than science and when investments come there will be more people spending more time in research.
