On Friday, June 7, 2013 7:02:56 PM UTC-7, Martha Adams wrote:
On 5/5/2008 9:28 PM, BradGuth wrote:

On Apr 2, 8:18 pm, wrote:

Can anyone refer me to papers/reports which study

when one might need manned spaceflight? What

tasks can't robots do?



In a biologically toxic, physically extreme and often gamma plus X-ray

saturated environment, unless you're talking about a one-way human

style expedition as having no budgetary or time limitations of getting

that expendable astronaut onto such remote locations, whereas instead

rad-hard and robust robotics are not likely 1% the cost, as well as in

most instances representing the one and only viable option.



In other words, 10 robots for 10% the cost of one astronaut seems far

better, of much faster deployments and by far cheaper per required

science feedback.

. - Brad Guth


================================================== ======


I think the money argument is true as far as it goes, but that it

doesn't go far enough. Spend money / save money: send out machines.

Where my problem with this is, *for why?*



Which makes this argument a root of my belief the most practical use for

space, is *for people*. If you look from that point of view,

exploration comes into focus and you can see where it's going. For

people. But for reason I do not see, nearly everyone thinking about

space seems to come up to some variation on "Man was meant to explore"

and never notices how us humans live in a human environment and when we

grow and expand somehow, human environment is the first part of what's

new. Thus "space exploration" needs to come to "people Out There" asap,

and that's not an intellectual exercise.



As I try to picture it, the big picture, this universe is a dangerous

place, not our friend at all; and if we stay around for a while depends

entirely upon ourselves and luck. The style nowadays seems to leave all

that up to luck: a real bad strategy. So I'd like to see today's

robotics explorers set into a perspective where what we're up to, is to

get *ourselves* out to Luna, to Mars, to the asteroids, and etc. Then

when astronomical or social catastrophe strikes here on Terra, we don't

have all our historical and racial eggs in this one target, I mean, Terra.


Titeotwawki -- Martha Adams [Fri 2013 Jun 07]

Robotic science is not only quicker and far safer for both worlds, and it's even faith-based correct as well as nearly politically neutral, but it has also been doable for decades.

Without knowledge of what another planet or moon has to offer, such as via close encounter inspections by our robotics, we have no business going there in person.

Applied technology should also vastly increase the range and scope of what sorts of off-world places are Goldilocks suitable, just like right here on Earth where applied physics and our best technology gives us access to extreme environments that would otherwise be instantly lethal to Goldilocks (except Tardigrades, diatoms and a few other microbes might actually survive and even somewhat adapt to such terrestrial extremes).

Even exploiting our physically dark and naked moon should have been accomplished by now, with TBMs excavating their way into its paramagnetic basalt crust, providing a nearly ideal underground habitat that could accommodate most every living thing on Terra, should the need arise, and thereby at least some of our eggs having another shot at surviving in spite of humans manage to do to Earth or how greatly damaged by an asteroid impact it gets.

What planet(s) or moon(s) should be focused upon next?

How about Venus?