The value of manned space flight?

[UngainlyTitan]

It is valuable and worth doing, just not as valuable, or as worth doing as the unmanned sensor platforms and robotic probes to other planets. The ISS does valuable work, I am very unconvinced that redoing the lunar missions is of much value though.

 

[MarkB]

I have heard the tired argument that we can use that money to fix things on Earth for my entire life. The western economies have massively spent more money.

Things have gotten worse.

We absolutely should spent money on manned space flight.

There are enormous resources in space and the key to clean energy. Factories and data centers can be moved.

We can build O’Neal type colonies at the Lagrange points to have full gravity.

Manned space travel and colonization is key to building a post scarcity future.

Spending that money here will never fix things. The planet has finite resources and room and it is clear that the massive amounts of social spending has not moved the needle at all.

Even if space exploration turns out to be a viable solution for the survival of mankind as a whole, it isn't going to be a solution for the vast majority of mankind as individuals. We'll never be able to economically lift more than a tiny percentage of the world's population off the planet.

So for the sake of the vast majority of people who are and will forever be stuck here it's a good idea to actually try to fix things rather than writing off the entire planet.

 

[Ryujin]

Even if space exploration turns out to be a viable solution for the survival of mankind as a whole, it isn't going to be a solution for the vast majority of mankind as individuals. We'll never be able to economically lift more than a tiny percentage of the world's population off the planet.

So for the sake of the vast majority of people who are and will forever be stuck here it's a good idea to actually try to fix things rather than writing off the entire planet.

The two are not mutually exclusive and I would argue that things like off planet manufacturing and resource acquisition can assist with putting things right here.

 

[fnordland]

Space is a hostile environment. I suggest that space is hostile to all life developed in a gravity well. To survive in space over time we must understand how to transcend our biology. Control of biology & the long term transformation of life to survive in space may well require substantial social change. Through this control of biology we may establish a much greater understanding of good physical and mental health.

In the future the space faring part of humanity may describe itself:

‘We are a culture that intends to be space faring through deep time. In order to survive the harsh environment of space we will change and develop new technology that is biologically & culturally sustainable. Our change will bring forward people, places and policies that we do not recognise in the present. They are all part of the culture that comes itself human. Through deep time we will meet cultures from other places that do not have human origins. They will be completely different. We may not understand or recognise their sentience. They are space faring cultures. They will have control of their biology. This control will allow space dwelling cultures to negotiate contact and live alongside each other through deep time’.

Control of our biology may be the cultural signal that extraterrestials are looking for to make formal contact with Earth. A complete understanding of space medicine may be one of the most historically important actions humanity can achieve. This may be a singularity, a transformation of life. We have seen these before, the Agricultural Revolution, the Industrial Revolution. What does the world look like with a biological revolution? Where good mental health and physical health are the default.

Mankind is relentlessly curious, people want to explore the unknown. Space exploration is going to be a lot harder and take a lot longer than is imagined in film and tv. Those are shows made for an earth bound culture. Its stories are driven by conflict and drama. What stories can humanity tell in a new world driven by biological possibility?

 

[payn]

 

[robertsconley]

Even if space exploration turns out to be a viable solution for the survival of mankind as a whole, it isn't going to be a solution for the vast majority of mankind as individuals. We'll never be able to economically lift more than a tiny percentage of the world's population off the planet.

So for the sake of the vast majority of people who are and will forever be stuck here it's a good idea to actually try to fix things rather than writing off the entire planet.

What you’re not considering is that expansion into space isn’t primarily about moving people off Earth. It’s about expanding resources and opportunities available to human civilization, and those benefits rebound back to Earth.

You are right that only a small fraction of people will leave the planet; the history of the Americas and Europe supports that. But this doesn’t mean the impact is small. We’ve seen this pattern before. Starting when we first set foot out of Africa, generations ago. New frontiers start marginal, but over time, they reshape us and the world.

In the near term, outer space will be limited and difficult to survive in. But as our capabilities improve, projects that currently require the resources of a nation will become accessible to smaller groups. That shift alone changes what is possible and feasible.

The question isn’t how many people leave Earth. The question is whether expanding into space increases humanity's total resources and options. If it does, then it directly contributes to solving problems here.

 

[ART!]

Aside from the value, return on the dollar, etc., short of some truly global collapse/catastrophe, humans are not going to stop exploring space. Exploring is just one of the things we do.

 

[Tigris]

Not broken down between manned and unmanned projects, but in 2023, NASA had a budget of about $25 billion.

In that year, NASA generated a $75 billion boost to the economy.

Threefold return on investment seems pretty good to me.

Have you compared it to other types of research?

Its not uncommon for science universities to have an economical boost of 5 times or higher. I just looked up the university I studied at. They have abudget of 1.5 billion and an economical boost factor of 5.4, so 80% higher than NASA.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

As far as I know, it's mainly focused on satellite launches and research. It's sent a few astronauts up on US space flights, and built parts of US space vehicles, and Branson has (had?) some commercial sub-orbital stuff going on, but no human launch capability of its own. Also the UK is at a terrible latitude for rocket launches--you need to be as near the equator as possible, ideally, which is why the US ones are usually in the southern latitudes of that country.

But yeah, the US NASA budget is 25 times the UK budget. It's not really comparable.

In a better timeline, there would be a lot more international cooperation in space. Maybe in the future.

 

[Morrus]

Have you compared it to other types of research?

Its not uncommon for science universities to have an economical boost of 5 times or higher. I just looked up the university I studied at. They have abudget of 1.5 billion and an economical boost factor of 5.4, so 80% higher than NASA.

Well by that logic we should only research one thing ever. Whatever gives the highest ROI. We should not research anything which gives a lower ROI than that one thing.

Bad news, folks, all research in the world will now solely be on the effervescence of Fizzy Sharks.*

*I have no idea what the best research ROI in the world is, so I'm guessing at Fizzy Sharks.