Last week's poll: is there a place for humans in space?
Share
Our poll last week either showed an admirable hard-nosed practicality among readers of The Engineer, or it proved that most of you have no trace of romance, sense of adventure or pioneer spirit in your souls. Asked whether there is still a place for humans in spaceflight, we had one of the largest responses ever — and almost 60 per cent of you said that human spaceflight is an expensive, risky irrelevance. The other three options each received roughly equal backing: 15 per cent thought that the ability of human spaceflight to focus attention on science and technology made it worthwhile; 14 per cent thought that the adapability of humans meant that they could do more, and more complex, tasks than robots; and 13 per cent said that human spacefligh recognised that mankind’s ultimate destiny must be away from Earth.
So, are spacesuits a waste of time and energy? Were the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab and Shuttle programmes money down the drain? Should Neil Armstrong have stuck to test-flying fighter planes? And is the goal of sending people to Mars ultimately pointless? Let us know what you think.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (24)
Mat Twain | 18 Sep 2012 1:45 pm
Systems designed to keep humans alive are ultimately a waste of space and resources in a sector where every kg of payload counts. Robots and machines are more reliable, work 24/7, and can explore and experiment for years and years.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Editor's comments | 18 Sep 2012 1:45 pm
Conversely, Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmidt went further and did more science in three afternoons on the Moon with Apollo 17 than all the Mars rovers have yet managed, as well as bringing samples back.
Sue Braden | 18 Sep 2012 1:49 pm
The romantic side of space exploration is well and truly over. The race to the moon was a PR stunt none of the superpowers could afford to lose. Sending humans to the moon did not further our understanding of the universe and yielded no practical results.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Steve Jordan | 18 Sep 2012 1:53 pm
From an evolutional perspective, humans are not fit for space travel for any length of time. A trip to Mars would take years (for a return trip) with no guarantees that they would survive.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Brat Pickenfield | 18 Sep 2012 1:56 pm
Who would want to pay for a Mars mission that would cost billions of dollars if the Americans can't even finance a return to the moon?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David Graham | 18 Sep 2012 2:07 pm
Oh dear what a terrible load of cynicism. The ultimate goal is to get off this planet in significant numbers as I fear sooner than later we will no longer be able to live here due to natural disaster or man made problems. And if that is not the goal then why even spend the money on robotic or unmanned exploration at all.
I say forget the "big green gravy train" that will ultimately do nothing for us.
I say spend the money on the big rocket to get us out of here!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18 Sep 2012 2:15 pm
If Henry the navigator, Christopher Columbus, or James Cook, could have sent a robot, would they?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stephen Mosley | 18 Sep 2012 2:27 pm
Where would we be without the heroes who inspire us by their acts? Would we have come half the distance we have from living in caves by an open fire if not led by those with a thirst for adventure and personal discovery? Where is this aspect of the human spirit amongst the nay-sayers? It is foolish to take risks that cannot be minimised to an acceptable level, a waste to spend a lifetime in pursuit of a trivial and unfulfilling goal, and irresponsible not to consider possible negative consequences. However, I would suggest, there are two ways to live and these cannot be used as an excuse to shy away from the grand adventure of "life." Sputnik WAS remarkable, Gagarin IS inspirational.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Phil Mollenstein | 18 Sep 2012 2:59 pm
Robots have come a long way since we sent humans to the moon. The latest Mars Rover is capable of (what I recall) a 2 year mission (and we don't have to ferry it back). If we sent humans to Mars, how long could their life be sustained on the red planet before they had to come back?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Martha Wiggens | 18 Sep 2012 3:08 pm
At Astrium we are all passionate about space and driven by the great adventure of our time. However, people have to be realistic on how far humans are ever likely to travel. One thing is for sure we will always be limited to our own solar system.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Will Gardener | 18 Sep 2012 3:17 pm
Interesting comments above.
Here at the UK space agency, space and its exploration are always regarded in the context of a cost-benefit analysis. Unfortunately, to sustain human life form in space requires systems that are difficult to raise finance for, particularly under the current government.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment