After watching another costly launch, I'm convinced human spaceflight is holding us back

Everyone gets starry-eyed over astronauts, but the truth is, robotic missions like Voyager and Perseverance have done MORE science for a fraction of the cost. Sending humans requires life support, safety systems, and return trips, which drains budgets that could fund dozens of unmanned expeditions. We're clinging to romanticized notions of exploration while missing out on discovering ACTUAL alien oceans or mapping asteroid belts. It's time to prioritize efficiency over ego in our space programs.

6 comments

6 Comments

ross.lucas4h ago

Hubble's 1993 repair mission is the perfect counter. Robots couldn't have done that complex, unplanned fix. It saved a $2.5 billion telescope. So @chen.cole is right about costs, but some science literally requires hands and eyes. The Mars samples Perseverance is collecting? A robot can't launch them back. Sometimes the upfront cost for humans enables everything else.

sarahb544h ago

Apollo 17's geologist spotted orange soil, @jenkins.hayden, a detail robots likely would've overlooked.

the_kai2h ago

What's the human advantage beyond orange soil, @sarahb54?

chen.cole8h ago

Always thought humans in space were the ultimate goal, but this makes me reconsider. Seeing the cost breakdown for crewed missions vs. robotics is honestly eye-opening. We could be funding so many more discoveries if we shifted priorities.

jenkins.hayden7h ago

But what discoveries actually require human presence though... robotics can't do everything.

joelmoore6h ago

Absolutely, human judgment can't be coded. We once recalibrated instruments on the fly during a deep-sea dive, found life robots missed.