The value of manned space flight?

[Ryujin]

Spun off from the "Project: Hail Mary" thread.

Is there value in manned space flight, or is it some sort of expensive vanity project? Should we be spending that money "at home" instead?

From my point of view the technological advantages earned by the effort, alone, make it well worthwhile. The tech that's been developed for space travel has had very real benefits here, on Earth. There are manufacturing methods that will only really work in zero G. And, ultimately, while understanding the universe itself is worth the effort, what's the ultimate point if we don't go there?

 

[trappedslider]

To be flippant about it space travel is the ultimate "Because we can" but seriously, space travel and and colonizing other planets/moons sounds like a good idea because that way when/if we screw up earth to the point of no longer being able to live here,we'll have other humans elsewhere that are still alive.

 

[GMMichael]

Is there value in manned space flight, or is it some sort of expensive vanity project? Should we be spending that money "at home" instead?

Are you referring to moon/planet landings? I'd hope the ISS operations speak for themselves, regarding orbital scientific value.

what's the ultimate point if we don't go there?

Knowledge is power. And I think you just rewrote the slogan of the Elder Scrolls games.

 

[The Firebird]

From my point of view the technological advantages earned by the effort, alone, make it well worthwhile. The tech that's been developed for space travel has had very real benefits here, on Earth. There are manufacturing methods that will only really work in zero G. And, ultimately, while understanding the universe itself is worth the effort, what's the ultimate point if we don't go there?

I believe this. The question for me is, do those benefits outweigh what we would have gotten by spending the same money on earth-based science research? The Apollo program had a lot of spinoffs, but any science program spending 4% of the GDP would have gotten us useful stuff.

Space based manufacturing is intriguing because you could do something genuinely new. But making that work at a reasonable cost will require many robots.

I think the romantic angle is also the most defensible one.

 

[VashVet]

Coincidentally, this article came out on Gizmodo a few weeks ago, and while not strictly about manned space flight or more about Mars colonization, I think it applies.

New Research on Muscle Loss Suggests Humans Will Really Suffer on Mars

Wanna colonize Mars? You may find these latest findings a bit discouraging.

gizmodo.com

I was struck by the last paragraph of the article though:

She hopes future studies will not only help validate and refine the 0.67 g threshold in humans but also investigate how this threshold differs for bone deterioration, how exercise shifts the threshold, and come up with practical implications for this information. Such work could bring us closer than ever to a sustainable human presence on the Moon, Mars, and beyond.

I had the opposite reaction - such work is telling us that space and the other planets within reasonable grasp are deadly to us: a big flashing warning sign saying “Do Not Enter.” Colonization and long range space flight are mind boggling enormous challenges but there’s an aspect of them that feels like people giving up on Earth’s challenges, which obviously are numerous and also big. I think the difference is space and Mars and all that feel like “do overs.” Oh well, we can’t fix the Earth - let’s try again elsewhere.

 

[Deset Gled]

Is there value in manned space flight, or is it some sort of expensive vanity project? Should we be spending that money "at home" instead?

All science must be studied for the sake of knowledge, not commercial investment.

Furthermore, IMNSHO the idea that the amount of money we currently spend on space flight is "expensive" is fairly out of whack with reality. Let's just say NASAs budget is not impressive, and only a fraction of it is spent on manned space flight. That's why we unfortunately need billionaire space hobbyists to pay some of the bills (because no one else is right now). But discussing that further may be a bit too political for these forums.

 

[Ryujin]

Coincidentally, this article came out on Gizmodo a few weeks ago, and while not strictly about manned space flight or more about Mars colonization, I think it applies.

New Research on Muscle Loss Suggests Humans Will Really Suffer on Mars

Wanna colonize Mars? You may find these latest findings a bit discouraging.

gizmodo.com

I was struck by the last paragraph of the article though:



I had the opposite reaction - such work is telling us that space and the other planets within reasonable grasp are deadly to us: a big flashing warning sign saying “Do Not Enter.” Colonization and long range space flight are mind boggling enormous challenges but there’s an aspect of them that feels like people giving up on Earth’s challenges, which obviously are numerous and also big. I think the difference is space and Mars and all that feel like “do overs.” Oh well, we can’t fix the Earth - let’s try again elsewhere.

How about, "We're screwing up Earth so how about moving the stuff that we're screwing it up with to some rock that will never have life"?

 

[Ryujin]

All science must be studied for the sake of knowledge, not commercial investment.

Furthermore, IMNSHO the idea that the amount of money we currently spend on space flight is "expensive" is fairly out of whack with reality. Let's just say NASAs budget is not impressive, and only a fraction of it is spent on manned space flight. That's why we unfortunately need billionaire space hobbyists to pay some of the bills (because no one else is right now). But discussing that further may be a bit too political for these forums.

Not only is it not impressive, it's been cut again.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Hard science research that doesn't have an immediately obvious commercial application is something that only governments can do, since businesses will never drop tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on speculative science for decades without a guaranteed promise of return.

But that research, in the end, almost always ends up with tons of wildly practical applications. GPS, smartphones, the internet, fancy athletic gear, too much more to list.

According to a 2025 Texas A&M study, 20-25% of the United States' GDP since World War II is due to non-defense government R&D spending.

Not only is government-funded science worth it, we should be doing a lot more of it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Coincidentally, this article came out on Gizmodo a few weeks ago, and while not strictly about manned space flight or more about Mars colonization, I think it applies.

A CITY ON MARS

Earth is not well. The promise of starting life anew somewhere far, far away—no climate change, no war, no Twitter—beckons, and settling the stars finally seems within our grasp. Or is it? Critically acclaimed, bestselling authors Kelly and Zach Weinersmith set out to write the...

acityonmars.com

A City on Mars will pretty much convince you that humans going to Mars, with near-term technology, and especially living there, is an incredibly bad idea.

That said, this isn't like FTL technology. We can and almost certainly will figure out ways to address many of these challenges eventually. And what we learn along the way will be incredibly valuable for everyone back on Earth, in ways we can't even imagine today.