It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
AS LONG as people have looked up at the night sky, they have wondered whether humanity is alone in the universe. Of places close enough for people to visit, Mars is the only one that anybody seriously thinks might support life. The recent confirmation of a five-year-old finding that there is methane in the Martian atmosphere has therefore excited the hopes of exobiologists—particularly as the sources of three large plumes of the gas now seem to have been located. These sources are probably geological but they might, just, prove to be biological.
The possibility of life on Mars is too thrilling for mankind to ignore. But how should we explore such questions—with men, or machines? Since America is the biggest spender in space, its approach will heavily influence the world’s. George Bush’s administration strongly supported manned exploration, but the new administration is likely to have different priorities—and so it should.
They did not sent anyone, they only paid for some guy that thought that he was going to India.
Originally posted by RFBurns
Because Ferdinan and Izabella didnt send a dove to discover America.
Originally posted by Ridill
We could comfortably do both with a cut to outrageous wasted defense spending. Space exploration is expensive by everyday terms, but its a drop in a bucket compared with other areas of the budget.
Not really, sending people does not solve any robot survival problems because robot needs are not the same as human needs.
Originally posted by apacheman
When you send people, you solve both robot and people survival problems: medical, social and technological breakthroughs occur.
I did not understood that you meant that, it makes sense but I think it could only be applied to larger missions.
Originally posted by apacheman
What makes you think a manned mission wouldn't include robots to extend the mission's capabilities? It would be foolish not send robots, either ahead or contemporaneously.
Sorry, I am not understanding what missions you are talking about, space shuttle missions, for example?
Remember the reason manned missions are more expensive: they are solving tougher problems, with correspondingly higher payoffs.
Sure, but, as in everything, there must be a weighing of the pros and cons for each situation, I am sure that if there was the need for a more "hands on" mission any space agency would send a manned mission.
Sometimes, being societally expensive is a good thing, making progress farther, deeper and broader.
It wouldn't make any sense to send a robot to study human physiology, the techonology that we (common people) gained from that was just a side effect, a positive side effect that we should not get with unmanned missions, but it was not that the reason for doing those missions.
Originally posted by apacheman
The Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions brought great strides in understanding human physiology, some which might never otherwise have been discovered. We made breakthroughs in food preservation and communications technology.
Yes, and that applies to any human achievement.
It is safe to say that the world as we know it would not exist if it were not for those manned missions.
Well, I do not see it that way, but I was only six years old when the "Eagle landed", so I do not know how things were before the Apollo missions.
As far as the manned missions vs soviet robots goes, if you don't comprehend the difference, I really don't know what to say. Men brought back something no robot ever could.....a new viewpoint: