Question: since the findings of unmanned missions are many times what are gained by manned space missions why does the public care less about unmanned missions (which cost much less and go farther into space)?
How can the major findings of unmanned space missions be made more of interest?
Gloria Lee Mcmillan An excellent question.
I suspect that it's difficult (?!) for people to empathize with an inanimate object. Those missions that have given their craft some kind of anthropic 'face' (usually via their interaction with social media) seem to have had the deepest engagement.
I'm thinking of Opportunity, Philae, and to a lesser extent Hayabusa 1 and 2.
But just slapping a pair of googly eyes on an anime-esque cartoon of a lander is just that - a facile but shallow 'connection'. I think that robotic probes will continue to play second-fiddle to crewed missions - until that happy day when our metal pals will speak with their own voice, and holding our hands in their claws, head off on their own adventures.
Gloria Lee Mcmillan An excellent question.
I suspect that it's difficult (?!) for people to empathize with an inanimate object. Those missions that have given their craft some kind of anthropic 'face' (usually via their interaction with social media) seem to have had the deepest engagement.
I'm thinking of Opportunity, Philae, and to a lesser extent Hayabusa 1 and 2.
But just slapping a pair of googly eyes on an anime-esque cartoon of a lander is just that - a facile but shallow 'connection'. I think that robotic probes will continue to play second-fiddle to crewed missions - until that happy day when our metal pals will speak with their own voice, and holding our hands in their claws, head off on their own adventures.
Gloria, while I agree with James generally that it is hard for people to empathise with 'inanimate objects', I don't think the issue is quite so black and white.
I think most people have lost interest in what's happening on the Space Station, despite there being humans involved. I'm sure the research done there is important, but there's nothing to see - in a dramatic sense.
By contrast, the photos from the Voyager probes, the images from the Mars Rovers, and the Rosetta/Philae comet rendezvous, I feel, all generated a lot of public interest, because they were all going where no one had been before, showing us better, closer images than available from Earth, and doing things that we previously never thought we could do.
This is an old debate. 'Mere' scientific research will never attract the public interest unless it is something new and exciting. Human missions will, because we can relate to them, personally. It might not be me up there, but it's someone like me, and isn't it incredible that we can do that.
That's what opens the doors to Government funding for all sorts of other space research. People want to see something for their money.
And if we don't put people into space, and open the possibility of living on other worlds, then there are a lot of people out there ready to dismiss all space research as a waste of money - everyone from those who don't want to believe any of it was real in the first place, to the Green lobbies who want to know why we're wasting money on such stuff when the world is in so much trouble.
Dear Colleague Kathleen,
You hit on some of the most persuasive and truly important reasons. Thanks for your insightful comments. And we welcome more from any of you. What might cause environmentalists to budge on their opinion of not wishing to study outer space? Can you think of a logical case for them? These people are not uneducated. They hold degrees. Maybe they will be able to see the point of study of space if logic is used?
I think more emphasis should be placed on less expensive unmanned missions. The money thus saved should be directed toward real world problems such as global warming, pollution, water, hunger and the environmental research. It is time to stop the space race sometimes conducted for the sake of bragging rights.
James, I think a modified version of your excellent answer about how we might prevent an asteroid hitting earth could be useful for this question as well.
The issues you raise also make a good argument on the need for further space research and for an ongoing presence - human or otherwise - beyond the limits of this planet.
I do intend to write more re Srini's comments when I can spare the time.
Because the general public knows nothing about the realities of space exploration, and is more enthralled by the excitement generated by movies and TV shows that speculate about human exploration of space, and hold out the false hope that we can actually visit other stars and galaxies. The fact that human exploration is, though of some use in particular circumstances, so expensive and dangerous that a thousand unmanned missions could be launched for the cost of a single manned mission doesn't register on the logical part of their brains.
- Badges
- Science topic