Time to End Human (as opposed to probe) Space Exploration?

[Tubbsalot]

So then why do anything designed to create a sustaining society? Why research anything if you won't directly benefit from it?

Because I care about other people.

But again, I don't care whether the species exists for one billion years or two. At some point humanity will cease to exist.

I'm willing to let the scientists tell me what they need to do their science, if that's humans going up into space and doing space-science I would suggest listening to them. Because, and it feels somewhat ridiculous that I have to point this out, they are the experts.

No scientists are suggesting manned space exploration. It's a waste of money we could be using for, let's say, additional probes.

So you would refuse a blood transfusion, huh? No CPR for you?

If someone wants to extend their own lifespan by 20%, sure. But extending the lifespan of humanity by 20% is pretty much just allowing more people to be born - and while you can value that if you like, I don't see why you'd attempt to maximise the number of humans who exist. Doesn't seem like a sane metric.

Care about humans, yet uninterested in preventing numerous deaths due to asteroid impact, bio mechanical plague, evolution of the Sun, etc?

Species-lethal asteroid impacts essentially won't happen on the timescales we're talking about (i.e. we will colonise other planets eventually, but who cares whether we get there 500 years earlier?). Bio-mechanical plague is the plot of a fiction novel. The Sun is going to be fine for billions of years.

The risk of Earth eventually being incapable of supporting life on it's own is 100%

That goes for literally everything. What's your point?

[WestRedMaple]

So then why do anything designed to create a sustaining society? Why research anything if you won't directly benefit from it?

Because I care about other people.

But again, I don't care whether the species exists for one billion years or two. At some point humanity will cease to exist.

I'm willing to let the scientists tell me what they need to do their science, if that's humans going up into space and doing space-science I would suggest listening to them. Because, and it feels somewhat ridiculous that I have to point this out, they are the experts.

No scientists are suggesting manned space exploration. It's a waste of money we could be using for, let's say, additional probes.

So you would refuse a blood transfusion, huh? No CPR for you?

If someone wants to extend their own lifespan by 20%, sure. But extending the lifespan of humanity by 20% is pretty much just allowing more people to be born - and while you can value that if you like, I don't see why you'd attempt to maximise the number of humans who exist. Doesn't seem like a sane metric.

Care about humans, yet uninterested in preventing numerous deaths due to asteroid impact, bio mechanical plague, evolution of the Sun, etc?

Species-lethal asteroid impacts essentially won't happen on the timescales we're talking about (i.e. we will colonise other planets eventually, but who cares whether we get there 500 years earlier?). Bio-mechanical plague is the plot of a fiction novel. The Sun is going to be fine for billions of years.

The risk of Earth eventually being incapable of supporting life on it's own is 100%

That goes for literally everything. What's your point?

Why don't you seem to care about the generations of people living when the Earth no longer supports life? I thought you said you cared about human lives?

Species-lethal asteroid impacts are most likely going to happen multiple times during the time period I'm talking about. 500 years could be the difference. I agree that mankind isn't successfully colonizing beyond Earth in my lifetime, but whether it occurs in the year 2500 or 3000 could certainly make the difference.

[The Two Jerseys]

We can satisfy our curiosity with mechanical probes without risking the lives of our best and brightest, whose talents and funding would be better employed on Earth's problems.

And exactly what, pray tell, use would we have for astronauts back on the ground?

[Wisconsin9]

We can satisfy our curiosity with mechanical probes without risking the lives of our best and brightest, whose talents and funding would be better employed on Earth's problems.

And exactly what, pray tell, use would we have for astronauts back on the ground?

Well, a lot of them used to be combat and/or test pilots, right? We gotta have somebody to risk their lives bombing hospitals and testing things that will allow even more hospital-bombing.

[Galactic Russian Empire]

We can still find other worlds using probes, however, it comes down to man VS. machine.

The problem with machine is they're just not to the point were they are conscious enough to adapt to their environment in terms of mannerisms the way a human can if placed on a foreign world. If we have no idea what we're dealing with on a planet, we may have better chances getting a man back than a machine, because machines are only limited to how we design them and we cannot get a definitive answer if this probe will work in the sandy deserts which may actually be rocks on Celsior 26.

However, man is not as suited to survive the journey to a new world as a probe is.

[The Two Jerseys]

And exactly what, pray tell, use would we have for astronauts back on the ground?

Well, a lot of them used to be combat and/or test pilots, right? We gotta have somebody to risk their lives bombing hospitals and testing things that will allow even more hospital-bombing.

That's pretty much a waste of their talents though. There's plenty of combat and test pilots, but how many people have the physical/mental ability to be an astronaut, plus have the balls to actually volunteer for it?

[Tubbsalot]

Why don't you seem to care about the generations of people living when the Earth no longer supports life? I thought you said you cared about human lives?

At some point humans will die out. It's going to happen exactly once. Why should I care when that happens?

Species-lethal asteroid impacts are most likely going to happen multiple times during the time period I'm talking about.

Then you have dramatically overestimated the time until planetary colonisation becomes feasible.

500 years could be the difference. I agree that mankind isn't successfully colonizing beyond Earth in my lifetime, but whether it occurs in the year 2500 or 3000 could certainly make the difference.

We've been around for hundreds of thousands of years. The last major asteroid impact was 65 million years ago. 500 years will not make the difference.

[Seno Zhou Varada]

Why don't you seem to care about the generations of people living when the Earth no longer supports life? I thought you said you cared about human lives?

At some point humans will die out. It's going to happen exactly once. Why should I care when that happens?

Species-lethal asteroid impacts are most likely going to happen multiple times during the time period I'm talking about.

Then you have dramatically overestimated the time until planetary colonisation becomes feasible.

500 years could be the difference. I agree that mankind isn't successfully colonizing beyond Earth in my lifetime, but whether it occurs in the year 2500 or 3000 could certainly make the difference.

We've been around for hundreds of thousands of years. The last major asteroid impact was 65 million years ago. 500 years will not make the difference.

Knowing the universe right now (a big jerk that if you even look at one millimeter of it's foot you die) it probably does.

[Wisconsin9]

Well, a lot of them used to be combat and/or test pilots, right? We gotta have somebody to risk their lives bombing hospitals and testing things that will allow even more hospital-bombing.

That's pretty much a waste of their talents though. There's plenty of combat and test pilots, but how many people have the physical/mental ability to be an astronaut, plus have the balls to actually volunteer for it?

No, I agree, it's stupid. What I was saying that, if we bring them back to avoid putting them at risk, we'll likely throw them right back into danger.

[Shaggai]

500 years could be the difference. I agree that mankind isn't successfully colonizing beyond Earth in my lifetime, but whether it occurs in the year 2500 or 3000 could certainly make the difference.

We've been around for hundreds of thousands of years. The last major asteroid impact was 65 million years ago. 500 years will not make the difference.

It certainly could. It just wouldn't be likely to be due to purely natural causes. No, we won't get hit by an asteroid. But we could get wiped out in a nuclear war, or turned into paperclips.

[United States of The One Percent]

Did NASA invent Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)?

No, NASA did not invent MRI technology, but it has contributed to its advances over the years, and elements of NASA technology have been incorporated into MRI techniques. In the mid-1960s, as a prelude to NASA’s Apollo Lunar Landing Program, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory developed the technology known as digital image processing to allow computer enhancement of Moon pictures. Digital image processing has found a broad array of other applications, particularly in the field of medicine, where it is employed to create and enhance images of the organs in the human body for diagnostic purposes. Two of these advanced body imaging techniques are CT or CATScan and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).

Other than the first sentence your whole quote works against you.

Not if the point is that digital image processing is not a spinoff of sending humans into space, which it is not. It was developed beforehand. QED.

[United States of The One Percent]

Space colonization is a pipe dream. There are no suitable planets anywhere nearby* for humans to spread their infectious violence and greed, thank whatever gods may be.

What makes only the Solar System close enough?

The speed of light.

[Shaggai]

What makes only the Solar System close enough?

The speed of light.

Generation ships are a possibility. Or the Alcubierre drive, depending on how far into the future you're looking.

[United States of The One Percent]

If Humans are to avoid going extinct, then we need to colonize other planets.

Why not just go extinct? Millions of other species have. What is so special about humans that they should seek to infect other planets?

[United States of The One Percent]

The people on the ISS aren't exploring shit, and it would be very difficult to automate what they're doing.

What would be the point of automating X-raying mice, breeding fruit flies or making Legos in space? The people on the ISS have to get there and back again, and that has turned out very badly for too many of them to justify the meager results.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Ending Human space exploration is a very bad idea. If Humans are to avoid going extinct, then we need to colonize other planets. It is never a good idea to have all of our eggs in one basket, as their are numerous catastrophes that can happen to Earth, such as an asteroid impact.

Also OP, about you saying that space colonization is a "pipe dream", people in the past said the same thing about cars, airplanes, and computes, yet they were all wrong. If you wish to stay on this rock and die, feel free, but don't try to stop the rest of us from making progress.

So much this.

Further human exploration of space will help ensure the survival of the species and allow our understanding of our place is the cosmos grow once we're able to see other worlds first hand. Willfully trapping ourselves on this planet will not solve anything in the long run once resource scarcity and over population starts becoming a big problem. The human race needs to spread its wings and fly.

[United States of The One Percent]

Also OP, about you saying that space colonization is a "pipe dream", people in the past said the same thing about cars, airplanes, and computes, yet they were all wrong. If you wish to stay on this rock and die, feel free, but don't try to stop the rest of us from making progress.

Cars, airplanes (at least early ones) and computers -- also ocean voyages to uncharted lands -- don't involve having to bring your own atmosphere to breathe with enough pressure to keep you from boiling off and heat to keep you from freezing solid.

[United States of The One Percent]

We will always have our eggs in one basket, which is the universe. We will die out eventually. I don't see any pressing need to ensure self-replicating blobs exist for 20% longer than they otherwise might.

Then there isn't much of a point in doing anything is there?

There is a point in trying to make life on Earth as pleasant as possible until our inevitable end rather than bleeding off resources and talent into the vacuum of space.

[Shaggai]

If Humans are to avoid going extinct, then we need to colonize other planets.

Why not just go extinct? Millions of other species have. What is so special about humans that they should seek to infect other planets?

Hell, why not just have a nuclear war, make everything extinct? It's not like there haven't been mass extinctions before.

[United States of The One Percent]

The risk of world-destroying asteroid impacts and whatever is enormously overstated.

Yes. And that makes me cry.

[Wintony]

What I believe the OP is missing is the idea that human technology CAN, in fact, progress beyond its current limits. The only way to do this is through experimentation and despite what you might think, there is a lot of valuable research going on. Sure, NASA is in a bit of a slump at the moment but that's got more to do with the management than the purpose behind it.

And if all you focus on is the now, then of course what we do in the future doesn't matter. The people who have died in the space program knew the risks and went ahead with it anyway because they believed in a brighter future for mankind. To dump the space program because of their deaths is an insult to their memory.

The human race will surely die out if we don't experiment with the possibilities of outer space exploration/colonization but you can't say for sure what it will happen if we do. The truth of the matter is that we don't know everything about the cosmos and you can't just say "it doesn't matter because we're going to die anyway." In fact, if we are going to die anyway, then what do we have to lose?

If you really care about human beings, you're won't deprive them of the future that the space program is trying to deliver. Thinking in the short term is never a good idea when it comes to the human race because its the long term effects that really matter.

[Wisconsin9]

Also OP, about you saying that space colonization is a "pipe dream", people in the past said the same thing about cars, airplanes, and computes, yet they were all wrong. If you wish to stay on this rock and die, feel free, but don't try to stop the rest of us from making progress.

Cars, airplanes (at least early ones) and computers -- also ocean voyages to uncharted lands -- don't involve having to bring your own atmosphere to breathe with enough pressure to keep you from boiling off and heat to keep you from freezing solid.

Keeping cool is actually a bigger problem in space than staying warm. At least this close in.

[United States of The One Percent]

I'm willing to let the scientists tell me what they need to do their science, if that's humans going up into space and doing space-science I would suggest listening to them. Because, and it feels somewhat ridiculous that I have to point this out, they are the experts.

Do you think that if we funded science aimed at, oh, finding a vaccine against the Ebola virus at the same level we funded X-raying space mice or making space Legos, the expertise of our scientists might be put to better ends?

[Wisconsin9]

I'm willing to let the scientists tell me what they need to do their science, if that's humans going up into space and doing space-science I would suggest listening to them. Because, and it feels somewhat ridiculous that I have to point this out, they are the experts.

Do you think that if we funded science aimed at, oh, finding a vaccine against the Ebola virus at the same level we funded X-raying space mice or making space Legos, the expertise of our scientists might be put to better ends?

Put too many people on one thing and they'll just step on each other's toes, and ignore potentially revolutionary avenues of research.

[United States of The One Percent]

We can satisfy our curiosity with mechanical probes without risking the lives of our best and brightest, whose talents and funding would be better employed on Earth's problems.

And exactly what, pray tell, use would we have for astronauts back on the ground?

They wouldn't have to be astronauts, they could be physicists, doctors and scientists solving problems of greater benefit to more actual living human beings than breeding space flies or blowing soap bubbles in zero-G.