Who should explore space: Man or Machine?

There has been A LOT of spillover into other threads about who should explore space, so hopefully this'll stabilize it.

Just post your thoughts, keep in mind others have thier opinions, and keep it civil.

Personally, I believe man should explore space. Why? Because humans have the ability to think on the fly, and make decisions without sending data back and waiting for a response. Despite that, I also believe probes should be sent out first, in order to familiarize humanity with the location's properties.

Now I've seen quite a few really great posts representing both sides. Mine is not a model in anyway, unless the model is one of a not too great statement. Have at it!

[edit on 10/24/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]

I'm all for both. Why just choose one or the other? Robots and probes are good for going to new areas first. Less risky that way and also more affordable. But I don't think the human element should ever be taken out. The more we do it, the better we'll get at it. It would also probably become less expensive as time goes on and the technology advances more.

I'm not too keen on the title of this thread. Explore is one thing Expolit is another. I personally think its time for mankind to start exploiting space. We could start to build solar collector farms in space to get all that free energy from the sun. This move would take much pressure off the natural resources remaining on the Earth and would be non-polluting. It would expedite things if we had a heavy lift vehicle that enabled us to build the needed solar panels on the Moon.

Not to downplay exploration. I think mankind should continue exploring the Solar System with both men and machines. The basic problem with exploration is its expense, which is currently made necessary by the need to launch everything in space up out of Earth's gravity well. One of our first priorities should be to lessen the expense of both exploration and exploitation by establishing a permanent base on the Moon from which spacecraft could be dispatched. With minimal manufacturing capabilities in place on the Moon, the components of needed spacecraft could be assembled either on the Moon or in orbit around it (or for that matter in orbit around the Earth if the necessary materials were sent back to Earth for assembly).

With such a capability on the Moon, the long-term costs of space exploration could be greatly reduced. Further the exploitation of resources in the Asteroid belt could commence. There are more resources out there than on the entire Earth and extracting them for use would not pollute the Earth.

There are many reasons to run a space program from the Moon instead of the Earth all it takes is the will to do it.

Probes and rovers are capable of enduring harsh climates humans cannot and half a mission-life span that a human could not match. It is quite simple, machine. Cost less, safer, faster and more effecient. You always go with productivity, not what is cool. So far, man's exploration on his own is limited to the earth. The astronauts have been able to bring back rocks from the moon and study the effects of microgravity on the human body and that is about it.

Astronomer68 - I to think that we should exploit it, we are conctantly puting money into it...why not get a return on our investment.

As for the topic... I like both methods...but the standard should be robots go first...humans go second.

Frosty
Cost less, safer, faster and more effecient.

true / true / true / False

3 outta 4 aint to bad. I dont know why you seem to think there more efficient...Spirit got stuck in the sand and took weeks to get out...a human would of took 5 seconds. Same goes for climbing to the top of a hill to get great panoramic pics. We would bring all the stuff with use to so the science, and likely bring a rover so we can cruise around on the planet, at a speed that makes the Mars rover seem like an ant. You have to map every path you take on the rover, and be sure to dodge rocks that look to big...and if something breaks...your boned.
Robots dont have AI, they cant think on there toes, they are slow and very inefficient.

[edit on 25-10-2005 by Murcielago]

Only reason why we should do so is that all of our eggs are in one basket and if we are compacent then we are inviting disaster, an Asteroid is going come by and say "All you base are belong to us" and that will be that. No more Humanity.

If we get to the point where the only thing we are sending up from earth to a lunar staging area(for a mars mission) are Humans it will have a secondary effect of creating an infrastructure up there that can sustain itself.

A common argument is that we lack the necessary technology to achieve such a feat, well a counter to that would be if we don't actively work towards that end then why both to send anything into space besides IT Satellites because the technology will most likey not appear out of thin air.

With that said I still think we should put more of an emphasis on both realms of robotics and Human settlement. All endevors will provide jobs, technology and even brand new markets! We should never put all of our hopes in one avenue of growth.

3 outta 4 aint to bad. I dont know why you seem to think there more efficient...Spirit got stuck in the sand and took weeks to get out...a human would of too 5 seconds. Same goes for climbing to the top of a hill to get great panoramic pics. We would bring all the stuff with use to so the science, and likely bring a rover so we can cruise around on the planet, at a speed that makes the Mars rover seem like an ant. You have to map every path you take on the rover, and be sure to dodge rocks that look to big...and if something breaks...your boned.

How hard would it be to use the fast rover used to transport humans as the transport system for a completely robotic mission? also, "efficiency" and "cost less" are very much related in my book. You can think of efficiency as cost/reward and you might think of it as speed that exploration/exploitation of space commences at.

We could start to build solar collector farms in space to get all that free energy from the sun. This move would take much pressure off the natural resources remaining on the Earth and would be non-polluting. It would expedite things if we had a heavy lift vehicle that enabled us to build the needed solar panels on the Moon.

It would be easier to place them on floating barges out in the ocean. It would be easier to live completely underground and have solar panels covering as much of the planet as we would require. It would be easier and less expensive to use air-ships.

With minimal manufacturing capabilities in place on the Moon, the components of needed spacecraft could be assembled either on the Moon or in orbit around it (or for that matter in orbit around the Earth if the necessary materials were sent back to Earth for assembly).

If the moon has limited manufacturing capabilities, how do you assemble a spacecraft? If you have Earth making components, you are going to have to lift the mass out of Earths gravity anyway and then also out of the moon's. The moon will have a limited amount of water that is probably pretty low. It is quite possible that the available water could only support a few launches in the form of rocket fuel. A moon base could cost a lot to maintain even with maximum potential self-sustainability.

Only reason why we should do so is that all of our eggs are in one basket and if we are complacent then we are inviting disaster, an Asteroid is going come by and say "All you base are belong to us" and that will be that. No more Humanity.

It would be 5 times easier to live underground (impervious to even the largest asteroid) than to live on the moon. “Building up” and “Building down” could support human population growth for centuries. It would also be a lot easier to terra-form post-asteroid/post-pollution Earth to habitability than another planet. It would also be easier to just shoot down asteroids.

A common argument is that we lack the necessary technology to achieve such a feat, well a counter to that would be if we don't actively work towards that end then why both to send anything into space besides IT Satellites because the technology will most likely not appear out of thin air.

I think eventually the technology might. All it needs is one propulsion advance to make space exploration very cheap. There is a company building air-ship rocket platforms for space. It might be wiser to forget about land based rockets until that technology develops.

I think some peoples vision is that all the exploitation and exploration of space will be done by robots. This might not be too inaccurate. In 50 years, it is possible that every job would be done by robots and we would be living in a communist one world government where the fruits of the robots labors is distributed equally.

[edit on 25-10-2005 by kilendrial]

I don't have to post anything anymore, Atstronomer68 said it already.


To summarize:

Machines are expendable and can be used to do things that man can't. We need to utilize them to do things beyond our limit, or too risky. From telescopes to testing, machines are easier to come by and are necessary for the future.

Mankind needs to take a bigger interest in his universe. Part of this is simply from intellectual curiosity. But part of it is because so much can be done if we simply take advantage of what has been given to us. Man needs to go out and grasp the nearly limitless bounty that is around him.

Originally posted by Murcielagotrue / true / true / False

I used three to come up with effeciency. Mission duration and cost to productivity give a bigger check mark (effeciency) to the machines over humans.

Spirit got stuck in the sand and took weeks to get out...a human would of too 5 seconds.

Maybe so, but how long can humans stay on a planet or celestial body and continue to send back information compared to humans? We are talking about a difference of year to weeks. iF the robot becomes unorperatable, so be it build a new one. You cannot (re)build a new human.

Robots dont have AI, they cant think on there toes, they are slow and very inefficient.

When humans collected rocks on the moon they did not do anaylisis right away on the rocks, it took months for that to happen. Most of what is obtained is studied for months or years even not just 'on the spot'.

Originally posted by sardion2000
Only reason why we should do so is that all of our eggs are in one basket and if we are compacent then we are inviting disaster, an Asteroid is going come by and say "All you base are belong to us" and that will be that. No more Humanity.

That isn't exploring.

If we get to the point where the only thing we are sending up from earth to a lunar staging area(for a mars mission) are Humans it will have a secondary effect of creating an infrastructure up there that can sustain itself.

How is this exploration?

[qluote]
A common argument is that we lack the necessary technology to achieve such a feat, well a counter to that would be if we don't actively work towards that end then why both to send anything into space besides IT Satellites because the technology will most likey not appear out of thin air.

No we don't, we lack a reason to do anything but send unmanned machines into space.


[edit on 25-10-2005 by Frosty]

Originally posted by kilendrial
It would be 5 times easier to live underground (impervious to even the largest asteroid) than to live on the moon. “Building up” and “Building down” could support human population growth for centuries.

Most People do not want to live underground and allot of people I know do not want to live in high rises. Human's need space and territory to call their own not be crammed in like sardines. Oceanic settlement is much more likely IMO. It will be the precurser to fully fledged solar system settlement because we KNOW there are vast amounts of resources in our solar system. Enough to support our civilization for millenia.

It would also be a lot easier to terra-form post-asteroid/post-pollution Earth to habitability than another planet.

If anyone is left to pick up the pieces then no it wouldn't. Only way to ensure that is to leave the cradle.

It would also be easier to just shoot down asteroids.

No serious effort is going into prevention or disaster planning for smaller strikes let alone ELE strikes.

I think eventually the technology might. All it needs is one propulsion advance to make space exploration very cheap.

Space Tether is looking more and more feasible every day.

There is a company building air-ship rocket platforms for space. It might be wiser to forget about land based rockets until that technology develops.

Aerostats can realistically carry a rocket fully fueled to maybe 75,000 ft. We need much better polymers so we can use Vacuum Filled aerostat to get some extra altitude.

I think some peoples vision is that all the exploitation and exploration of space will be done by robots. This might not be too inaccurate.

Robots can barely drive a car let alone fully explore a planet. We have barely scratched the surface of both Mars and the Moon, if we get permanent settlements setup by say 2040 Humans and Robots will be able to work side by side without any time delay. People want to live on another planet because it is widely excepted as the next frontier. I agree and would be on the first boat if it were up to me

In 50 years, it is possible that every job would be done by robots and we would be living in a communist one world government where the fruits of the robots labors is distributed equally.

The future is not going to be that simple post-singularity but that is another topic alltogether. Much more likely by 2050 groups of Humans will be planning to set off on decades long trips to habitable planets out there somewhere(of which we will be able to detect next decade ) As for the communist nwo ... I highly doubt that would happen, many reasons for this but not the thread to get into it.

If the moon has limited manufacturing capabilities, how do you assemble a spacecraft?

How much moon rock have we sampled? How much He-3 did we find? We need to learn to harness that and also we need to develop more prospector probes to see whats underneath the surface.

If you have Earth making components, you are going to have to lift the mass out of Earths gravity anyway and then also out of the moon's. The moon will have a limited amount of water that is probably pretty low. It is quite possible that the available water could only support a few luanches in the form of rocket fuel. A moon base could cost a lot to maintain even with maximum potential self-sustainability.

Helium-3 and other elements may be presant within deposites beneath the surface. More prospecting is need for sure but even if it lacks extreme longevity it will still prove to be a valuable jumping off point.

www.space.com...

Prospector, in fact, found tantalizing evidence of water by detecting large amounts of hydrogen at the moon's poles. Hydrogen is one of two elements in water. The other is oxygen, which is plentiful in the moon's gray soil.

Large amounts denotes more then just a few launches.

www.asi.org...

Moon dust is a mixture of many different minerals, and nearly all of them contain oxgyen in considerable abundance. One of the most common lunar minerals is ilmenite, a mixture of iron, titanium, and oxygen. (Ilmenite also often contains other metals such as magnesium which we'll blithely ignore here.) For this discussion, we'll concentrate on extracting oxygen from ilmenite because there's lots of the stuff available, and because the chemical processes involved are fairly straightforward.

There is also lots of Titaniam on the moon which we could use to build spacecraft/robots/probes/rovers and even the settlement itself!

When humans collected rocks on the moon they did not do anaylisis right away on the rocks, it took months for that to happen. Most of what is obtained is studied for months or years even not just 'on the spot'.

The later Apollo astronauts went through extensive geology training so they could analyze the geography and pick return samples that were of relatively large importance to understanding the geology of the moon. NASA went as far as putting people with doctorates in geology on the moon. The reason of course is that cameras back in that day were not the best tool for pulling in as much information as your eyes can (higher resolution/detail, better color, 3d). Cameras now-a-days can be stereoscopic, higher resolution, give more color detail, and work in more wavelengths of light.

Analysis of moon rocks is still on-going as better analysis methods/technology is developed and they still have apollo samples.

No we don't, we lack a reason to do anything but send unmanned machines into space.

Well, some people want manned space exploration. They want it because it is thrilling. Unmanned space exploration is either for exploration/learning or for exploitation. Those just fulfill our fancies as well. Why do we want He3? So we can have more power for things like big screen TVs, cars, etc. None of this is essential really and we do it because we like modern life. It seems like peoples vision of post-modern life has developed to include living in space. Also, learning about and exploring the solar system or the rest of the universe. if you take a sole utilitarian purpose for it, is there for exploitation too, which is in the end about fulfilling our fanciful ideas of the way we need to live like.

This idea of "machines" can do it better should not encompass living our lives as well. Should they then be the exclusive things LIVING in space? It is even questionable that when machines out-perform humans at all jobs (already done for accountants, teachers, bank tellers, miners, industrial workers), we should ultimately be over-come completely by the efficiency of production and only have machines work while we laze around all day. This idea of who can do it better is a questionable idea and perhaps is taking utilitarianism too far. Perhaps exploitation of space is taking utilitarianism too far as well. For instance, should we really terra-form mars if we could. Do we want a blue planet instead of a red planet?

Large amounts denotes more then just a few launches.

Large amounts of Hydrogen and Oxygen are used in liquid fuel rocket launches.

There is also lots of Titaniam on the moon which we could use to build spacecraft/robots/probes/rovers and even the settlement itself!

Hmm, this might be little unrelated to your own thoughts, but there has been the misconception that Titanium on the moon would be beneficial for importation to Earth. This is un-true. Titanium is one of the most abundant elements in the Earth's crust. The problem is it is hard to extract. This difficulty of getting to it is multiplied by quite a bit if you import from the moon because of transpiration costs.

Most People do not want to live underground and allot of people I know do not want to live in high rises. Human's need space and territory to call their own not be crammed in like sardines. Oceanic settlement is much more likely IMO. It will be the precurser to fully fledged solar system settlement because we KNOW there are vast amounts of resources in our solar system. Enough to support our civilization for millenia.

You would be living under-ground on the moon or mars for protection from radiation and meteorites. Plus, if man-kind lives under-ground, you can always take a super-fast futuristic elevator to the pristine wild-life refuge of the surface to be comfortable in our naturally selected habitat. Living under-ground could be quite comfortable if you have a highly industrialized economy that could make it so. Moon/Mars colonies would most likely be pretty cramped unless if you have an even bigger industrial economy.

No serious effort is going into prevention or disaster planning for smaller strikes let alone ELE strikes.

Are we talking about what should be done or what is being done in this thread? I say that if we did what should be done and prepared for asteroid/comet strikes, the idea that we need to go into space to protect against them does not make much sense. It is therefore an alternative and probably a lot cheaper.

If anyone is left to pick up the pieces then no it wouldn't. Only way to ensure that is to leave the cradle.

We could ensure survival by living under-ground which will eventually happen to a degree IMO when population density over the whole land mass of the Earth exceeds the population density of Tokyo, New York, or Hong Kong now (15,000 to 25,000 per square kilometer I think). People will start to see that building arcologies and high-rises is becoming a little bit prohibitive and start building equivalent sized holes in the ground much cheaper. Food production might be moved underground with light supplied by fusion power.

The future is not going to be that simple post-singularity but that is another topic alltogether. Much more likely by 2050 groups of Humans will be planning to set off on decades long trips to habitable planets out there somewhere(of which we will be able to detect next decade ) As for the communist nwo ... I highly doubt that would happen, many reasons for this but not the thread to get into it.

The future sociological and political structure of human civilization has many effects on the future of exploration. This is a robots vs. humans thread so the future of robotic technology is important too. So, this might be the thread to talk about it.

I think there are many reasons why the Earth will become like that. First capitalists will invest in the growing economy of robotics vs. humans. At a point, there will be no agricultural, manufacturing and service jobs for humans (robots cutting hair, repairing cable connections) There would be intellectually based jobs like scientists, writers, business men, and investors. Super computers would eventually be put together that will rival and supercede these thinkers. You now have the poor eternally poor because they can't afford as many robotic manufacturers like the rich and the rich are eternally rich. This is ripe ground for communist revolution. Also, the basis of capitalistic thought in that you reap what you sow no longer really applies, because people aren't working. Also, you have lots of people who have nothing to do. A politically active human population would develop, which will develop something more like a direct democracy from current democracies. Within that direct democracy, the rich will be at the whim of the poor. Eventually, they will likely vote for communism as you don't need incentive to work for the economy to work (robots would work anyway). I am sure the robotic intellectuals will recommend this.

That takes care of democracies. What about dictatorships. Dictatorships will be over-thrown by democracies through their robotically controlled armies. Democracies will be much less fearful of war if they have technological superiority over the enemy and it is easy to figure out if you do. Democracies are more stable. Dictatorships will eventually "decay" into democracies like an unstable atom decays into a more stable atom and you see a migration. For one, a dictatorship is largely dependant on one man's heart-beat. Also, there is more of an under-current of dissent in a dictatorship. The democracies formed will eventually turn into communism.

Ohh, and the few countries with the other form of government (communism), are already communist.

Whether communism will form into splintered countries or a much larger whole is debatable. I really don't know.

This world I described might be the end result of the idea that robots can do it better than ourselves so therefore, we should let them take it over. It very much applies to the debate over robotic exploration of space vs. human exploration. I don’t want to look racist, but maybe we shouldn’t be required to hire robots for jobs even if they can do it just as well as us? Maybe there should be some “racism” in the system in that regard? Call it “human power” or “human pride”.

more recently NASA has had to use unmanned probes and orbiters to promote it's manned space program. When it used ot be the otherway around, having a manned space program promoting the unmanned space program

Exploring space should be done by robots just be sheer cost effectivness and reduced risk. But robots are limited in what they can do based on thier design and programming. I trained geologist could probly walk around on mars and by jsut lookign a the surface of the rock, know what type of rock it is, and how it was formed. While a robot probe has to clean the surface of the rock, and stick a microscope on it, as well as other devices.

There was so much done with the apollo mission and it's moon landings that were impossible for robots to do at the time. But more and more robots are able to do the same tasks as humans. so what is the real need of humans in space exploring? Pride and to shake our tiny fist, stop around on some alien dirt and with a tiny tiny shout into the universe say "We were here! Look at what we were able to do!"

as said before, I think we at at the cusp of being able to break the bonds of earth easily enough for commecial expansion of space. Until that can be achive it is best to send the robots out, until we can easily get there ourselves

man...

for the obvious reasons...

Both

Machines are cheaper to send and can gather alot of information at no risk to life, but there is a limit to what they can do. When the machines have completed what they can, then humans should be sent.

Good thread

Well, initially I think we should send probes/robots to a place, give ourself a little familiarisation with it, than send a manned mission.


What I really think we should do (when it becomes more cost effective) is send a probe/robot to the place of exploration, for my scenario, it will be a planet, than send a manned mission to the plaent, but not landing, just orbiting it, and send more supplies and eventually have a space station around the planet, than when there are more people there, than send people down to the planet to explore it more thoroughly, eventually creating a colony on the planet, that way to, you wouldnt need as much fuel, my logic in this being, that instead of having to have enough fuel to get into orbit from the colony than head towards the destination, you would be able to send ship to there destination fomr orbit, and yes I realise it wouldnt work to well when you are sending people up from the surface, but in the long run it would cut down on the amount of fuel needed for interplanetary travel and commerce.

iori, that is one of the ideas for a Mars mission. Launch a robot lander that starts processing the soil for Hydrogen and Oxygen, and then when the Humans show up they have ready source of fuel that they didn't need to take with them from earth.

Tho for any mission beyond the orbit of earth would require that method to be used when all you have that can provide the neccesary Delta-V is reaction engines

Originally posted by kilendrial
It would be easier to place them on floating barges out in the ocean. It would be easier to live completely underground and have solar panels covering as much of the planet as we would require. It would be easier and less expensive to use air-ships.

Indeed it would be easier to place them on floating barges and even easier to place them in the middle of some desert; however, these schemes also have drawbacks. First of all, they would only receive less than half as much sunlight as they would in space. Second, the quality of the sunlight in space is better (i.e., the light is more intense and it contains components that don't make it down to the surface of the Earth very well). Third, on the Earth you have clouds & dust & other pollutants that tend to block sunlight and over time coat the collectors and render them less able to collect power. Fourth, in the case for ocean based farms, you have the problem of movement and the hostile corrosive atmosphere to contend with, not to mention storms, etc., while in the desert you have sandstorms & such. Fifth, the components for an earth based system have to be heavier and sturdier just to resist gravity, not to mention the effects of wind, rain, etc. Further there is the problem of distribution of the power once collected. On the Earth this requires heavy cables, suspension posts, etc.. The distribution problem doesn't go away in space, but it is easier to manage since the power can be sent back to earth as modulated radiation. There are additional reasons, but I'll stop with these.

Offsetting the advantages of a space based solar collector farm is the difficulty of getting the components to the assembly point(s). If all the components have to be hauled up out of Earth's gravity well it will be expensive and time consuming. If, on the other hand, the solar panels could be manufactured on the Moon from readily available Lunar materials, the cost would be greatly reduced. I have not attempted a break-even analysis for either, but I'm willing to bet the Moon made solar collector farm components would work out cheaper over the long haul.

If the moon has limited manufacturing capabilities, how do you assemble a spacecraft? If you have Earth making components, you are going to have to lift the mass out of Earths gravity anyway and then also out of the moon's. The moon will have a limited amount of water that is probably pretty low. It is quite possible that the available water could only support a few launches in the form of rocket fuel. A moon base could cost a lot to maintain even with maximum potential self-sustainability.

The assembly part is easy, the manufacturing part is hard. At 1/6th's Earth's gravity, it doesn't take much to launch needed things into space. Conventional rocektry could do it, mass drivers could do it, or something you don't often think about is the possibility of constructing a true space elevator on the Moon--compared to trying to construct one on Earth it would be a piece of cake.

Fuel, water and air could be taken from the Moon if there is indeed water available there--and lets face it, these are by far the heaviest things that will be needed. Structural components could also be made on the Moon from Lunar material. Any such components would not be as well made as those that could be made on Earth, but they could certainly be functional. Further, by using Ion Drives, as supplementary power, the spacecraft could make inter-planetary trips faster & cheaper since many of them could be attached to any spacecraft in just about any location.

Necessary Earth originated components would not have to first go down to the surface of the moon and then be re-boosted into Lunar orbit. They could just be injected into Lunar orbit from Earth or with secondary control over them from the Moon.

It would be 5 times easier to live underground (impervious to even the largest asteroid) than to live on the moon. “Building up” and “Building down” could support human population growth for centuries. It would also be a lot easier to terra-form post-asteroid/post-pollution Earth to habitability than another planet. It would also be easier to just shoot down asteroids.

While I will certainly agree that going underground has advantages and may even become necessary if we keep using up the available surface real-estate, I'm not so sure about the "impervious to even the largest asteroid" comment. Some of those asteroids are pretty damn big and the impact & residual damage they could cause are capable of literally extinguishing almost all life on the Earth and it wouldn't make much difference where it was located either.

Peace.

[edit on 27-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

[edit on 27-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

Originally posted by sardion2000
Most People do not want to live underground and allot of people I know do not want to live in high rises. Human's need space and territory to call their own not be crammed in like sardines.

Exactly how do you think people would live in space or on other planets?

Originally posted by sardion2000
If anyone is left to pick up the pieces then no it wouldn't. Only way to ensure that is to leave the cradle.

Spare us your romantic space fantasies and develop some realism. You haven't given a single good argument as to counter his argument. I'll give you a good argument why your idea wouldn't work: the costs would be way too high and the benefits way too low.

Originally posted by sardion2000
Space Tether is looking more and more feasible every day.

Feasible doesn't mean it can be realized for sure.

Originally posted by sardion2000
Aerostats can realistically carry a rocket fully fueled to maybe 75,000 ft. We need much better polymers so we can use Vacuum Filled aerostat to get some extra altitude.

"Vacuum filled"? That's a contradiction in terms, I'm not even going to start on that one.

Robots can barely drive a car let alone fully explore a planet.

The cost of making one that can seems to lie a lot lower than it would cost to put a man on another planet, which needs oxygen, water, food, pressurized hull, radiation protection, preferably some artificial gravity and a whole lot of other precious goodies that cost launch mass and a whole lot of money. processor technology is still developing exponentially according to Moore's law.

Helium-3 and other elements may be presant within deposites beneath the surface.

helium 3 is useless as long as there is no working nuclear fusion reactor and even if one exists, the temperature for "burning" deuterium-helium3 is around ten times higher than that of a deuterium-tritium mixture so even then it might never work. Not to mention helium-3 can currently be produced on earth as well and that even with deuterium-helium3 fusion you have neutrons and hence radioactivity (although less neutrons than in case of deuterium-tritium fusion) so the benefit doesn't seem remotely worth the costs.

Prospector, in fact, found tantalizing evidence of water by detecting large amounts of hydrogen at the moon's poles. Hydrogen is one of two elements in water. The other is oxygen, which is plentiful in the moon's gray soil. Large amounts denotes more then just a few launches.

Just great, like we have no hydrogen, oxygen and titanium on earth. To extract it, you need some mining equipment and energy source, preferably a nuclear reactor. With all that mass and equipment that would need costly development and even costlier maintenance and/or replacement, for all you know it might be cheaper just to launch it from earth.


There is no good reason to risk human lives at this point in space exploration technology and for the future I only expect the advantage of robots over humans to increase as technology develops and computer power increases exponentially.

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by sardion2000
Most People do not want to live underground and allot of people I know do not want to live in high rises. Human's need space and territory to call their own not be crammed in like sardines.

Exactly how do you think people would live in space or on other planets?

In space you get one hell of a view.....In the ground...not so much.
Inflatable structures are the way to go, for space, and Mars.