this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2026
75 points (94.1% liked)
askchapo
23253 readers
157 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this is such a bad take
I'm not fully on board but robotic/drone-manned space crafts does make far more sense to me. I mean a central problem for every venture is the damn hygiene/plumbing system and that is before you factor in the dangers to the astronauts.
I'm glad to see the US public sector get some funding and publicity for a change - I definitely don't want Space X calling all the shots when it comes to space exploration (or weaponization, more likely).
I assume you mostly disagree with capitalism having to be fully conquered before humanity beings to conquer the next frontier?
Decolonize space and arm the Greys in their liberatory fight against the oppressive humans
why though
people can do stuff robots can't, people doing it inspires the kids more than robots. ~~there's a 0.0000001% chance i win some seat lottery and get to go~~
yeah but i think theres the risk / benefit analysis. especially with things like going to mars, would the risks really be worth the science? people dying in space is not super inspiring.
Surely that risk/benefit calculation ought be left to the ones actually being put at risk, the Astro/Cosmo/Taikonauts in question.
I'm sure there's a number of those who would be absolutely giddy to do a Mars Landing, so long as the risk was low enough to be possible at all.
I love astronomy, I have like 300 hours in Kerbal Space Program and I think it's super cool that we are sending people to the moon - unfortunately, super cool is just about all there is to it. I realize that NASA's budget is miniscule in comparison to all the other awful things our tax money is paying for, but that doesn't change the fact that this is really only being done so we can say we did it.
Any kind of practical application to sending humans to other celestial bodies are hundreds of years away, at minimum, unless by some miracle we unlock the secret to FTL travel (which is likely impossible).
It made sense in the 60s and 70s to send crewed missions because we didn't have robotics, computers and miniaturization that we do now - and even then they sent probes and stuff fo like Venus and we haven't since then. I've heard there's some very limited science stuff that could use a human crew close by, I can't elaborate because I can't remember. Otherwise, drones and rovers can do more for probably less cost and mass than sending people could. Besides the cool factor, I don't get the need to send people either.