Editing Interplanetary spaceflight (section)

==Reasons for interplanetary travel==
[[File:Mars sample returnjpl.jpg|thumb|Launch concept of an interplanetary [[Mars sample-return mission]].]]
The costs and risk of interplanetary travel receive a lot of publicity—spectacular examples include the malfunctions or complete failures of probes without a human crew, such as [[Mars 96]], [[Deep Space 2]], and [[Beagle 2]] (the article [[List of Solar System probes]] gives a full list).

Many astronomers, geologists and biologists believe that exploration of the [[Solar System]] provides knowledge that could not be gained by observations from Earth's surface or from orbit around Earth. However, they disagree about whether human-crewed missions justify their cost and risk. Critics of human spaceflight argue that robotic probes are more cost-effective, producing more scientific knowledge per dollar spent; robots do not need costly life-support systems, can be sent on one-way missions, and are becoming more capable as artificial intelligence advances.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Rees |first1=Martin |author-link1=Martin Rees |last2=Goldsmith |first2=Donald |date=2022 |title=The End of Astronauts: Why Robots Are the Future of Exploration |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uKZcEAAAQBAJ |publisher=Belknap Press |isbn=978-0674257726}}</ref> Others argue that either astronauts or spacefaring scientists, advised by Earth-based scientists, can respond more flexibly and intelligently to new or unexpected features of whatever region they are exploring.<ref>{{cite journal | url=http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~iac/spaceflight.html | title=The Scientific Case for Human Spaceflight | last=Crawford | first=I.A. | date=1998 | journal=Astronomy and Geophysics | pages=14–17 | access-date=2007-04-07 | archive-date=2019-04-06 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190406172932/http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~iac/spaceflight.html | url-status=live }}</ref>   

Some members of the general public mainly value space activities for whatever tangible benefits they may deliver to themselves or to the human race as a whole. So far the only benefits of this type have been "spin-off" technologies which were developed for space missions and then were found to be at least as useful in other activities. However, public support, at least in the US, remains higher for basic scientific research than for human space flight; a 2023 survey found that Americans rate basic research as their third-highest priority for NASA, after monitoring Earth-endangering asteroids and understanding climate change. Support for scientific research is about four times higher than for human flight to the Moon or Mars.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/07/20/americans-views-of-space-u-s-role-nasa-priorities-and-impact-of-private-companies/ |title=Americans' Views of Space: U.S. Role, NASA Priorities and Impact of Private Companies |last1=Kennedy |first1=Brian |last2=Tyson |first2=Alec |date=July 20, 2023 |website=Pew Research Center |access-date=2024-06-22}}</ref>

Besides spinoffs, other practical motivations for interplanetary travel are more speculative. But [[science fiction]] writers have a fairly good track record in predicting future technologies—for example [[Geosynchronous orbit|geosynchronous communications satellites]] ([[Arthur C. Clarke]]) and many aspects of computer technology ([[Mack Reynolds]]).

Many science fiction stories feature detailed descriptions of how people could extract minerals from [[asteroid]]s and energy from sources including orbital [[Photovoltaic module|solar panel]]s (unhampered by clouds) and the very strong [[magnetic field]] of Jupiter. Some claim that such techniques may be the only way to provide rising standards of living without being stopped by pollution or by depletion of Earth's resources (for example [[peak oil]]).

There are also non-scientific motives for human spaceflight, such as adventure or the belief that humans have a spiritually fated destiny in space.<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/memagazineselect/article-abstract/126/11/37/379040/The-Urge-to-ExploreIt-Brought-the-First-Creatures?redirectedFrom=fulltext | title=The Urge to Explore | last1=Aldrin | first1=Buzz | last2=Wachhorst | first2=Wyn | date=2004 | journal=Mechanical Engineering | volume=126 | issue=11 | pages=37–38 | access-date=2024-06-22 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S009457651631222X | title=Myth-free space advocacy part I--The myth of innate exploratory and migratory urges | last=Schwartz | first=James | date=2017 | journal=Acta Astronautica | pages=450–460 | access-date=2024-06-22 }}</ref>

Finally, establishing completely self-sufficient colonies in other parts of the Solar System could, if feasible, prevent the human species from being exterminated by several possible events (see [[Human extinction]]).  One of these possible events is an [[asteroid impact]] like the one which may have resulted in the [[Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event]]. Although various [[Spaceguard]] projects monitor the Solar System for objects that might come dangerously close to Earth, current [[asteroid deflection strategies]] are crude and untested. To make the task more difficult, [[carbonaceous chondrite]]s are rather sooty and therefore very hard to detect. Although carbonaceous chondrites are thought to be rare, some are very large and the suspected "[[Chicxulub Crater|dinosaur-killer]]" may have been a carbonaceous chondrite.

Some scientists, including members of the [[Space Studies Institute]], argue that the vast majority of mankind eventually will live in space and will benefit from doing so.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://ssi.org/?page_id=2 | title=A Space Roadmap: Mine the Sky, Defend the Earth, Settle the Universe | last=Valentine | first=L | date=2002 | publisher=Space Studies Institute, Princeton | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070223030553/http://ssi.org/?page_id=2 | archive-date=2007-02-23 }}</ref>