This is true, or false, in either case. If we cannot afford to spend billions of dollars to explore the Solar System in person because there are higher priorities back home, we cannot afford to spend what is still billions of dollars (albeit fewer in an absolute sense though not necessarily so in a productive sense) sending robots. If we feel we should be spending our money on exploring the Solar System, either method is a tiny fraction of the Federal budget. The real questions come down to: should we be spending our money on this at all (yes, in my opinion), and if so, what will ultimately give you the best results for your money (long-term human expeditions with scientists on sight, in my opinion).

Either we can afford to explore the Solar System or we can’t. If we decide we can, than we need to ask the last question above. I think we’ve been coming to the wrong answer, and we’re free to debate that. But, saying we sending clockwork robots to do basic reconnaissance has value while relatively detailed exploration like Apollo does not is absurd.

— Donald

Exploration doesn’t begin and end with scientific inquire. There is artistic exploration, and financial exploration. I make this point because, when you say “Other than pure exploration” you really saying anything.

The truth is that manned spaceflight and robotic spaceflight serve 2 different purposes. Robot spaceflight is there for basic inquire and understanding. Manned spaceflight is there for development and utlization

As for your claim that there is no economic justification for manned science missions, well, yes that true, but science isn’t the only reason to go into space.

Sometime next decade, the explosion of private space enterprizes will cause substantial changes in the economy, much like the internet did in the 1990s.

You should have been at the Space Investment Summit in San Jose… I think you would have found that your belief would not have matched reality.

Don’t hold your breath. Many space fans would welcome a carefully restricted “debate” — one that took for granted the end of getting into space as far and fast as possible, and debated the merits of various means. But I doubt that many would welcome a truly fundamental, open-ended debate: the risk is too great that it might lead to a new consensus around “what’s the rush?”

By the same token, the argument that “NASA and Big Aerospace are broken and can’t be fixed, direct the money to New Space instead” has a downside: if you get the public at large involved, they might just agree with you on the first part — but then conclude “hey, private enterprise means private investment, right?”

IOW, be careful what you wish for.

Good luck. Maybe a decade ago, you could succeed, politically, in withdrawing from human spaceflight. There’s not a political chance in hell of that happening today. That said, starving the program via unwise decisions clearly is possible.

My key piece of evidence for the above statement is all the talk that’s going on in politics on this very issue. Anonymous is probably right to be cynical, but it is also true that spaceflight has a far higher political visibility, and viability, today than it did, say, a decade ago. I’ve discussed what I think the reasons for that is before, so suffice it to say, it’s a different world now with people of my generation running the show. (That said, I’m rather dubious that this new-found interest will survive into the generations growing up today.)

— Donald

The debate needs to be on whether we need a piloted space program whatsoever. A robust debate on that would be refreshing.