+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ramble City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=44)
+--- Thread: La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale (/showthread.php?tid=5819)
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - Darunia - 25th June 2010
The Future of NASA
I have said it many times... that NASA went from virtually NOTHING to LANDING A MAN ON THE MOON, with their very limited technology in the 1960s. Just think about it... in one decade, WE LANDED MEN ON THE MOON. Chances are, none of us were alive while there have been men on the moon.
Now WHY--SOMEONE TELL ME WHY--does it take SO LONG FOR THEM TO PLAN ANYTHING TODAY? With the quantum leaps made in recent decades in all manners and fields of science, shouldn't these space voyages be getting quicker, cheaper and easier?
FIRST SATELLITE: 1957.
FIRST MAN ON THE MOON: 1969.
FIRST MAN ON MANS: (Tentatively) (Maybe) 2030's.
WTF
I DON'T WANT TO BE 900 years old when this happens!
Fuck, I'll be 45 years old in 2030! And you know damn well that if the federal government of today plans to do something in 2030, it MIGHT actually get done in 2045...
Fuck it all.
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - EdenMaster - 25th June 2010
Because in the 60's we were getting to the moon because we were racing there with the Soviets. There's no pressing need to go there now. I think we've got enough pressing matters going on in our own little rock in space, let's sort some of those out before we go looking at other ones. Unless the cure for Cancer or the Fountain of Youth is definitively found on Mars or elsewhere, I'll happily settle for a get-there-when-we-get-there time frame. Are we in that much of a hurry for dust, rocks, and...more rocks?
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - Weltall - 25th June 2010
It reminds me of when people say THE FUTURE SUCKS WHERE'S MY FLYING CAR.
Flying cars, like a manned mission to Mars, are entirely feasible with modern technology. Neither, however, are practical.
A manned Mars mission is orders of magnitude more difficult than to the Moon, insofar as logistics are concerned. And, of course, it's basically just a huge desert.
I'm content in the knowledge that we could easily do it, if there was a reason other than just to brag that it was done.
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - Darunia - 25th June 2010
English Settler: Hey, man... I was thinking of going to the New World and maybe starting a colony... for posterity... opening up whole new trade routes, starting a new world... braving the elements... exploring the unknown, pressing the envelope of humanity... making a name for myself, blazing a trail...
16th Century Stupid Luddite Schmuck: Nah. Let's worry about 16th century English problems. There's no need or hurry to do that.
English Settler: Well, I mean---like... it's...
16CLS: Who cares. Trees and hostile natives. Unless they have cities of gold let's worry about the tithes and the inquisition first. Get your mind out of the clouds and focused onto my down-to-earth and mundane things. There is no reason to go there. Besides, have you seen how big the ocean is? The logistics of sailing across it are mind-boggling. It's not like crossing the Thames.
English Settler: Yea, you're right. Boy was I foolish.
Aren't you glad people haven't always been so narrow minded about the future?
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - alien space marine - 25th June 2010
Darunia Wrote:The Future of NASA
I have said it many times... that NASA went from virtually NOTHING to LANDING A MAN ON THE MOON, with their very limited technology in the 1960s. Just think about it... in one decade, WE LANDED MEN ON THE MOON. Chances are, none of us were alive while there have been men on the moon.
Now WHY--SOMEONE TELL ME WHY--does it take SO LONG FOR THEM TO PLAN ANYTHING TODAY? With the quantum leaps made in recent decades in all manners and fields of science, shouldn't these space voyages be getting quicker, cheaper and easier?
FIRST SATELLITE: 1957.
FIRST MAN ON THE MOON: 1969.
FIRST MAN ON MANS: (Tentatively) (Maybe) 2030's.
WTF
I DON'T WANT TO BE 900 years old when this happens!
Fuck, I'll be 45 years old in 2030! And you know damn well that if the federal government of today plans to do something in 2030, it MIGHT actually get done in 2045...
Fuck it all.
In all likeliness the Chinese will be sending manned missions to the moon in the very near future, While they are sort of "baddies" for being a authoritarian police state that now has moved to free market capitalism, The Chinese will hopefully trigger enough penis envy in the old U.S of A to motivate you into jump-starting a next Gen Apollo mission.
![[Image: xin_101002170637398276610.jpg]](http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-11/04/xin_101002170637398276610.jpg)
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - Darunia - 25th June 2010
The Chinese will hopefully trigger enough penis envy in the old U.S of A to motivate you into jump-starting a next Gen Apollo mission.
That seems likely. I don't know why it takes so much goddamned prodding to capture the American interest... in the grand scheme of things... is $1 billion better spent LANDING ON MARS, A COLOSSAL MILESTONE AMONGST ALL TERRESTRIAL LIFE... or feeding illegal immigrants for a month? In the enormity of the US budget, there should always be enough money set aside to keep pushing the envelope. I feel that these past decades, since 1969, are all just wasted time.
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - Dark Jaguar - 25th June 2010
Darunia, I think I agree there. Yes, we have real world issues to deal with, but exploration is it's own reward. What's the point of living if you can't live for the future?
That said, exploration of space CAN be done with robots, and they are doing a better longer job of exploring Mars than any human explorer would have been able to manage. As far as getting science done, human explorers are superfluous. However, the spirit of exploration is a bit more than just the science.
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - EdenMaster - 25th June 2010
Darunia Wrote:English Settler: Hey, man... I was thinking of going to the New World and maybe starting a colony... for posterity... opening up whole new trade routes, starting a new world... braving the elements... exploring the unknown, pressing the envelope of humanity... making a name for myself, blazing a trail...
16th Century Stupid Luddite Schmuck: Nah. Let's worry about 16th century English problems. There's no need or hurry to do that.
English Settler: Well, I mean---like... it's...
16CLS: Who cares. Trees and hostile natives. Unless they have cities of gold let's worry about the tithes and the inquisition first. Get your mind out of the clouds and focused onto my down-to-earth and mundane things. There is no reason to go there. Besides, have you seen how big the ocean is? The logistics of sailing across it are mind-boggling. It's not like crossing the Thames.
English Settler: Yea, you're right. Boy was I foolish.
Aren't you glad people haven't always been so narrow minded about the future?
Your analogy is flawed.
The New World had untapped resources, and there a pressing reason to leave the oppression of their homeland. We have no such need to go to Mars, nor is there much of anything of such value there to offset the cost of bringing it back, at least not with the current methods of getting to and from. It'd be a huge money vacuum that would, in all reality, give us nothing in return but the ability to say "We did that. Go us."
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - Darunia - 25th June 2010
I'm glad we've found some common ground DJ.
Weltall spoke of the difficulty of logistics... a fact that is not lost upon me... and while I know it would be difficult, it is certainly feasible. The reason why we haven't been on Mars for the past three, or even four decades, is that people just don't care. People in today's America are so focused on what is best for themselves, that they don't care about advancing humanity as a whole. We are living at the threshold of what should be the greatest evolutionary step of any self-sentient being: moving from the nursery of its homeworld, out into space. No matter what planet life comes from, isn't that mandatorily the greates epoch of conceivable evolution? Think of it on a GRANDER SCHEME... withdraw from the pettiness of your single life, and view humanity as a whole on a timeline... where will the next milestone be? 2030? 2060? 2100? Or maybe there will be no more milestones, and maybe 1969 truly did, legitimately, empirically, mark the PINNACLE OF HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT... after that date, humanity lost the gleam of wonder in his eyes, and society stagnated into a decadent, self-satisfying cesspool.
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - EdenMaster - 25th June 2010
Darunia Wrote:I'm glad we've found some common ground DJ.
Weltall spoke of the difficulty of logistics... a fact that is not lost upon me... and while I know it would be difficult, it is certainly feasible. The reason why we haven't been on Mars for the past three, or even four decades, is that people just don't care. People in today's America are so focused on what is best for themselves, that they don't care about advancing humanity as a whole. We are living at the threshold of what should be the greatest evolutionary step of any self-sentient being: moving from the nursery of its homeworld, out into space. No matter what planet life comes from, isn't that mandatorily the greates epoch of conceivable evolution? Think of it on a GRANDER SCHEME... withdraw from the pettiness of your single life, and view humanity as a whole on a timeline... where will the next milestone be? 2030? 2060? 2100? Or maybe there will be no more milestones, and maybe 1969 truly did, legitimately, empirically, mark the PINNACLE OF HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT... after that date, humanity lost the gleam of wonder in his eyes, and society stagnated into a decadent, self-satisfying cesspool.
The Pinnacle of Human Achievement, as you call it, was pretty much the end result of a dick waving contest between the United States and the Soviet Union. Without that, we probably wouldn't have gone to the moon for several more years, decades even. We still may not have.
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - Weltall - 25th June 2010
I think that if the New World were nothing but dead, dry rock, nobody would have cared to go . . .
I also think that there are better things to do with our time and money than go to Mars. The Moon landing was significant because it was truly something new in human experience--men walking on the surface of a non-earth body for the first time.
We already know we can make it to Mars. The effect would be nowhere near as spectacular as the moon landing, because success is likely and precedents exist. The thing is, there's no reason to do it, except to say it was done.
I don't know what the big rush is, anyway. I think many of us will live to see Mars colonized--if colonizing Mars is ever feasible. I'd rather wait until there's a legitimate reason first. For now, let's focus on more important scientific achievements. Like nanotechnology. ;D
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - Fittisize - 25th June 2010
Space flight is also still very risky. Lots of astronauts died in the period starting from the foundation of NASA to Apollo 11, and many have died since. The Columbia disaster tells us that much work still needs to be done in regards to safety technology before we send somebody to Mars. Astronauts aren't expendable.
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - Dark Jaguar - 25th June 2010
Actually all it tells us is that the shuttle is too complex. That's why the shuttle project has been scrapped. The main goal lately has been much simpler craft that can accomplish the same goals.
On another somewhat more controversial note, while I would never be for risking someone ELSE'S life, if an explorer is fully aware of the risks involved, every precaution is taken, and they still wish to travel, then by all means allow them to do so. Sometimes lives are worth risking for the sake of exploration, so long as it's your own.
Also, I want to be clear here. JUST going back to the moon or "touching down" on Mars is not good enough. The long term plan should be for a permanent outpost, first on the moon and then on other worlds. Again, this is long term. I agree that nanotechnology is a worthwhile thing, but Weltall the thing is, nanotechnology is no more "a thing" than "medicine" is. There's countless types of nanotechnology, and each new invention that's "nano" will blend directly into the next. We already have a lot of nanotechnology as it is, and more is on the way, but it's just barely scratching the surface. Nano is a category, not a single end-goal. There's also still plenty of room "at the top", plenty of inventions at larger scales yet to be invented. If we're going to get that borg style thing going, the big invention is somehow finding a way to "copy" a brain's total state and simulating it electronically. A FULL physics and chemistry simulation is insane, we can barely model a single cell as it is. Better to find a way to simulate the full litany of EFFECTS of those interactions in some simpler form, but it'd have to cover everything from the full set of electrical interactions possible between neurons, to the set of operations a neuron performs other than that, to the effects of all the various chemicals floating around in the brain (hormones and so on) that directly affect how neurons interact with each other. If there's a way to break that down into something much simpler than a full physics simulation, then so be it, but it is not going to be an easy task. In fact it'll probably be the most difficult endeavor ever accomplished, more so than a "mere" theory of everything (basic laws are complex as it is, but the complexity that can arise from those laws is far greater).
Suffice it to say there are PLENTY of worthwhile endeavors. I think the question "how will it benefit us?" is shortsighted as it is. Again, Maxwell's equations were simply the result of raw science for it's own sake. Had anyone back then suggested to cede all funding for "some old guy playing around with light", we wouldn't have radio, television, wi-fi, satellite, or anything else that practically defines the modern age. There's no telling where something like settling on Mars could take us, I still say it's a worthwhile goal.
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - alien space marine - 25th June 2010
A manned mission to mars is pointless, Its costly and more dangerous then sending robots,Robots can stay longer and collect vastly more data with fewer expenses then humans.
The only manned mission of any sense, Is going back to the moon and setting up a permanent outpost on it, The recent discovery of "ice" on the moon means there is a potential source of drinking water.
The ISS is a retarded obsolete project, The moon is the ultimate space station, It actually has some gravity and won't be vulnerable to space debris.
The two things I necessary advance into the final frontier, Is artificial gravity and faster propulsion that does not need "fossil fuel" .
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - Darunia - 25th June 2010
The Pinnacle of Human Achievement, as you call it, was pretty much the end result of a dick waving contest between the United States and the Soviet Union.
----Edenmaster
A manned mission to mars is pointless...
----Alien Space Marine
I also think that there are better things to do with our time and money than go to Mars.
----Weltall
I know that to all of you, I am little more than a pompous, comical, tyrannical cartoon mascot... but I implore you to take the following post seriously, objectively, and read it in its entirety.
I cannot comprehend such a blase position towards something so remarkable. Honestly, I cannot. We are clearly two very different people, on a fundamental level. You say to-may-toe, I say to-mah-toe... I see glorious human evolution, you see floppy penises.
The more I live, the more that I come to realize that my view on space exploration is out-dated... old-fashioned, campy and romantic. I view the universe as something to be explored and exploited.
Why explore Mars and the universe?
BECAUSE IT IS THERE.
Fittisize speaks of risks... yes, there are risks... Columbia was within living memory... Challenger before that... but I hardly even need to bring up that every day our lives are fraught with untold risks... being hit by a car, or cancer, or gang violence, or hurricanes, or earthquakes, or carbon monoxide... heart disease, aneurisms... driving to work we take a heightened, and arguably, unnecessary risk... going outside we run higher risks than living indoors... going swimming, we take comparatively high risks and introduce ourselves to many opportunities to die... auto racing, recreational shooting, mountain climbing... all things we do for fun that come with heightened risks... now, I ask you, do ANY of them even STACK UP next to EXPLORING THE COSMOS?
I spit at your risks.
If given the opportunity to go to Mars, even if it were a 1 in 10 chance of dying, I'd take it.
If you truly are against taking risk, then the best life for you is living in an air-conditioned and environmentally sterile padded cell, taking all your meals by a straw... place the cell deep underground so that nothing can harm you... if you live anyway other than this, you are arguably taking unnecessary risks to survival.
We all take risks because we must. There is no other way in life. Not doing something as grand and extravagant as reaching for the stars, for Europa and Titan and Mars, because of risk... is simply asinine.
Better not shower, either... there's always a chance you could slip and bash your head open.
The human population is expanding exponentially. Our resources are either dwindling, or bitterly contested. Why not expand off-planet?
Mars CAN be terraformed. Think of the obscene monetary opportunities. A whole new planet to divide and sell... stake claims... nobody can even rightly say what endless resources of untold value may lay hidden beneath its rusty sands.
And that's just Mars.
It's a mathematical certainty that there are hundreds of thousands--nay, millions--of unique planets in our galaxy alone... millions of galaxies... countless billions of planets... certainly, billions of them inhabited... of these, certainly many million spawning intelligence... out of these, a handful evolve to the point of being able to physically exploit their environments to evolve so far as to go out into space... of these, fewer are able to carry it out... of these, now relatively few, we are one... and we just DON'T FUCKING CARE ENOUGH TO DO IT?
I'm just throwing out numbers now... but say 1 in 500,000 worlds spawns intelligence... maybe 1 in 1,000,000 survives long enough to evolve to master the sciences and enter into an industrial revolution... 1 in 5,000,000 achieve the level and complexity necessary for space travel... maybe 1 in 6,500,000 avert self-destruction from nuclear holocaust long enough to unite and reach to the stars... of these, we could be one...
but nah... you're right...
that money is better spent on Welfare checks, Iraq, and Social Security. All things that won't matter worth A FUCK in a thousand years.... but touching Mars... reaching Alpha Centauri... in the grand scheme of things... that is of galactic importance. That is greatness... that legacy is as close to immortality as any of us may ever achieve.
On the other hand, who needs the entirety of the cosmos when we can bury our heads in the sand and overpopulate this one, vulnerable rock.
I wonder if the natives of Rigel have Welfare.
Furthermore, every day that goes by, and every waking hour, humanity is at risk of annihilation. Stephen Hawking and I agree on this much: don't place all your eggs in one basket. We may or may not be able to avert global catastrophe by something like an asteroid collision... but any asteroid that may destroy Earth, or at least sterilize it, would have no impact on Mars.
It could happen tomorrow: you turn on CNN, and there's a UN meeting... President Obama is urging calm in the face of global annihilation. Fanciful, yes--but certainly possible. Nobody can say it isn't. Quite contrarily, it's virtually a mathematical certainty that, one day, be it next Wednesday, or a Wednesday five millions years from now... Earth will get a wallop from deep space. These things ARE BOUND to happen.
A self-sustaining Mars virtually guarantees human survival, regardless of Earth.
Finally... and forgive me for being sappy... but don't you ever just look at the stars, and realize... that they are real-life places... they are extant locales, with extant planets... it is virtually conclusively certain, via mathematical certainy and probability, that there is, out there, another intelligent being, looking up at a different set of constellations. Maybe one of the white dots he sees is the star we call the Sun. There are now, after all, over 400 catalogued planets since the 1990's... the new Kepler mission may have just uncovered an additional 700! Not a month goes buy, in our age, that NEW PLANETS are not discovered... they're finding new worlds so fast, that they can barely keep up to date with all of them!
Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia
Just look at this graph posted below... go ahead, open it... it is increasing exponentially every year... imagine what it will look like in fifty years, if it increases at this rate---and there's no reason why it shouldn't! As of the time I am writing this, 12:54am June 26th, 2010, it lists 463 planets... but by the end of the year, I promise you, it will have increased substantially. Every planet in that catalogue may be just a name to you--an abstract idea---but to me each on represents a real, solid and tangible location to be explored. And this catalogue... a paltry 463 out of COUNTLESS BILLIONS... PERHAPS TRILLIONS...!
You may notice that they're referred to as 'candidates', but don't worry---nearly all of them are scientifically confirmed by empirical data.
Extrasolar Planets by Year
Weltall speaks of there being better things to do with money. He is thinking, and living in the here and now. By contrast, I am living in the then and there... the future, and off-planet. I think of humanity objectively, and I long to see it go further, press on ahead... expand and multiply... take those fanciful science fiction stories and actually make them happen... the only thing stopping us, not counting the pace of technological evolution, is people like you all who think that it's all a waste of time.
How the aspect... just the idea of exploring these planets cannot incapacitate someone with an awesome stupor... I cannot fathom... these are all real planets, as real as you and I and the chair you're sitting in... you can go to them and touch them... and while many of them are gas giants, that is only because our still developing technology is not yet so acute as to be able to easily pick out rockier worlds like out own---but that day is not far off...
If the Nixon, Reagan and Bush I presidencies had had their priorities straight, and I feel you'll all agree with me, we could absolutely have men on Mars right now... on Europa, Io, and Titan... all that lost time makes my heart sick. Lost time, lost potential... there is nothing more tragic in my mindset than all that time... gone for nothing...
Every year that we do not expand to the stars, we STILL come up with ways to spend our GDP... every year the federal government rakes in, and promptly wastes, SO many billions of dollars on ephemeral things... things that have no lasting impact on humanity... these things, like paving roads, and housing the elderly, are important and they SHOULD BE FUNDED... we DO need social services... but space exploration SHOULD NOT be such a low priority... it MUST be near the top, along with SS and defense expenditures.
What remains of Rome long after its people have died is not the expenditures spent on bread and circuses.. it is the colossal achievements that stand the test of time, that are remembered... the Colosseum and their roads... their amphitheaters and aqueducts... these are to them what Mars and Europa OUGHT to be to us.
At the rate of sending probes to Mars and Europa once a decade, we'll never achieve anything.
JUST IMAGINE FOR ONE MOMENT: Everything... all that you have EVER known and experience in your life... all that you have seen, smelt, heard and touched originated from this ONE planet... isn't it just mind-boggling that there are countless BILLIONS more planets with sights to see, scents to smell, things to touch, exploits to conquer? Can't you just imagine what wonders they contain? What exotic fauna and flora will have evolved on these strange, distant worlds? This is less science fiction and more science fact with every passing day.
Astrobiology
If you do not feel the same way as I do about these tantalizing and fantastic things, then I have even less in common with you all than I previously thought.
There is nothing I am more adamant about than space exploration.
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - EdenMaster - 25th June 2010
I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. We just don't have a pressing need to do it RIGHT NOW. Especially considering anything beyond a jaunt to the moon is still a decade-long journey only going one way.
Once science progresses to the point of faster, more efficient, and most importantly stable engine technology (which, who knows, may be in a folder on the desk of the NASA president as we speak) that could be implemented in the next generation of shuttles, as if memory serves, our current fleet is due for retirement soon.
Have you seen the national debt, Darunia? Perhaps the disaster currently still unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico. The millions of children who will die of starvation and diseases that we have cures for. We have pressing, very real, and very important issues that need to be settled here, they are as pressing to our future as well. As much as your starry-eyed dreams might have you believe otherwise, money makes the world go round, and there simply isn't enough of it to invest in such an enterprise. If Obama came on television today, in the midst of the economy as it is now, and said he was going to put a few hundred billion dollars into space exploration, he'd be tarred and feathered on the White House lawn.
As for risks, well, yes, everything you do in your life involves a certain level of risk. For most, including most of your examples, the risk is so minuscule as to be insignificant. Space flight involves very real risks. I'm sure every astronaut who has died would also be proud to have given his life for such a noble cause, but that doesn't make it right.
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - Darunia - 25th June 2010
I once happened upon a man who was yelling at a rock. Why, I asked, are you yelling at this rock? He informed me that it was not a rock, but rather, a large and menacing hippopotamus. It was plain to me that he was mistaken... what he was in fact yelling at was nothing more than a common, every day igneous rock, no larger than a grapefruit. 'You're mistaken', I told him. 'That is merely a rock'. But, he was unswayed, and maintained that it was a hippopotamus. He could not be made to see reason, and so I left him to himself.
Pray tell, Edenmaster, if the landing of men on the moon was as nothing but a penis contest, then what to you is the pinnacle of human accomplishment?
There is nothing I can do to change your opinion. As I said before, we are just two different people and we view the world very differently. I had hoped that in so plainly pouring out my heart I may have swayed you to maybe see things differently, but I was wrong. Rather than argue and go back and forth on what consitutes a greater budgetary priority, I will find something else to do. I have said all that I need to say.
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - Weltall - 25th June 2010
Quote:Weltall speaks of there being better things to do with money. He is thinking, and living in the here and now.
Not even slightly true. I simply believe that mass space travel is not a feasible project in the year 2010, and the undertaking of a manned mission to Mars must have a point greater than bragging rights.
In point of fact, I am in favor of technological advancement at the fastest possible speed, so that we can undertake these kinds of enterprises with better tools, equipment, and ultimately, people.
You want to know why now isn't the time? I think one of the reasons we haven't gone to the moon in 40 years is because, when we were going, we lacked the capacity to do anything once we got there. We could plant a flag, collect some lunar rocks, and leave some garbage behind, but we were nowhere near ready to locate, much less exploit water sources, or any of a dozen other limitations that made establishment of a lunar base completely impossible in 1972. We stopped going because there literally wasn't anything to do on the moon at the time. It is only very recently that we've developed the proper technologies to make the idea of a lunar base possible . . . but, the powers that be aren't very interested because of the long-held notion that the Moon is just a dead dustball in the night sky. We landed on the dustball in 1969, but we've spent almost a half-century asking "okay . . . now what?" The moon is no longer the mystical goal it once was. The fact that we've been there is something everybody takes for granted now.
Essentially, we got too excited too quickly, and now that we find ourselves able to potentially make an enterprise out of the Moon, nobody cares anymore.
We're not even close to being ready to establish a Mars base, because Mars has an obstacle much greater than the Moon: it takes close to a year to traverse the Earth-Mars distance. That's extremely tenuous for safety reasons, and a nightmare for logistics. Consider: to build a base on Mars would require transportation of all the necessary materials. They would all have to arrive at the same time. Most likely, there would have to be extras of everything, to account for nearly a year's worth of potential disasters. Such a mission would be fantastically expensive, and the rewards would take ages to realize.
Whereas, if we waited thirty or so years, we may find ourselves equipped with vastly improved transportation methods and systems over what we have now. We'd have to wait longer, but the operation would go more smoothly and would progress with fewer pitfalls.
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - EdenMaster - 25th June 2010
You dismissed my post and glossed over my points whilst addressing none of them. This alone proves you're too enamored with your dream world to even consider an alternate, realistic viewpoint.
I'm sorry your rose-tinted fantasies have clouded your view of what is feasible and necessary in our current society. In time, the exploration of space and the expansion of humanity will be a priority, be it by necessity, avarice, or bragging rights. That time is not now.
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - Darunia - 26th June 2010
Good Master d'Eden, I do declare, that I believe it was I who posted in the first, and then you posted a rebuttal, in which you rebuked several of my levy of points. I posted my stance and it has not changed. You charge me with glossing over your points, but that you rebuked my lengthy rant with a paragraph would suggest that you glossed over my post, and then summarized two or three arguments. I took an hour to write my post, and if you're going to throw back a curveball that took you 3 minutes to write... not worth my time.
/raspberries
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - EdenMaster - 26th June 2010
I'd argue the fact that I did spend about 20-30 minutes making that post, but it's obvious this isn't worth my time either. I'd hoped for some modicum of mature debate on the topic. I see it's not possible. It's realist vs dreamer and it will never advance beyond that. Have fun.
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - Darunia - 26th June 2010
Your condescending diatribe does not phase me. I cannot respectfully argue with you when you gloss through my comment, and pick out a few choice points you wish to rebuke.
So I'll do it without respect.
"We just don't have a pressing need to do it RIGHT NOW."
I cannot see this logic. If anything, we should have done it decades ago. The technology has been feasible for a long time... the idea was brought up during the Nixon administration, but he like you saw more down-to-earth (pun intended) priorities as being more important.
"Especially considering anything beyond a jaunt to the moon is still a decade-long journey only going one way."
I'm glad you said that, because you discredited the entirerty of your position with that ludicrous assertion. Your figures are woefully innaccurate... they're not driving a Studebaker to Mars, this is a (relatively) high-speed rate of travel. By even throwing out such a ridiculous figure as a decade, you've proven how little you know about this... "Again, the details depend on the rocket velocity and the closeness of the planets, but 260 days is the number I hear most often give or take 10 days. Some high-speed transfer orbits could make the trip in as little as 130 days. "
4-8 months one way. 8-16 months round trip.
No, Eden. Not twenty years. Try 1.5 years, at most... optimistically, 8 months round trip.
Earth to Mars in 260 Days
"Once science progresses to the point of faster, more efficient, and most importantly stable engine technology ..."
I can agree that technology can always be better, but it won't develop unless we actually work at it. It's such a low priority now, and it ought to be higher. Faster would be greater--but even at current statistics, 130 days one-way (260 round trip) is only about 8-9 months. Efficiency would be troublesome, but not insurmountable.
Have you seen the national debt, Darunia? Perhaps the disaster currently still unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico.
The debt I can admit as a valid point... but... what does the oil spill have to do with not going to Mars? We can't go to Mars as long as there is oil in the ocean? I don't get it.
The millions of children who will die of starvation and diseases that we have cures for.
The United States is not responsible for feeding the world's poor. Their respective governments are. Their failure to take care of their own is not a reason for us not to be able to land men on Mars.
"there simply isn't enough (money) to invest in such an enterprise."
That is, of course, an opinion. I could just as easily say "there isn't enough money to pass an economic stimulus bill." But there always is enough money in a country that doesn't care to balance its budget. Furthermore, it wouldn't cost so much as you seem to think. It'd be on a scale of billions, yes, but that's a drop in the bucket... we waste hundreds of billions of dollars yearly on ephemeral crap that has no lasting effect. Furthermore, why not make this great endeavor a join venture with all major foreign space services, like the ISS? Share the price tag, and have foreign astronauts all comprise the crew?
If Obama came on television today, in the midst of the economy as it is now, and said he was going to put a few hundred billion dollars into space exploration, he'd be tarred and feathered on the White House lawn."
First of all, it wouldn't be hundreds of billions. But you're probably right... if he said that. It wouldn't be a popular idea amongst nay-sayers like you. But he wouldn't need to say that. NASA already has some funding going into the development of similar projects. He would have to raise additional funding, on the scale of tens of billions. This pricetag could be, if an international venture, split across the globe. Yet---it'd take a brave president with long-sightedness, resilience, tenacity... a president we don't have.
As for risks, well, yes, everything you do in your life involves a certain level of risk. For most, including most of your examples, the risk is so minuscule as to be insignificant. Space flight involves very real risks.
So does going to Afghanistan and risking your life everyday... June '10 is setting records for casualties. It certainly entails a higher risk of mortality than space exploration. If we MUST go there, and brave risks, then space too is an acceptable risk. The benefits outweight the risks.
"I'm sure every astronaut who has died would also be proud to have given his life for such a noble cause, but that doesn't make it right."
Make it right? Are you conjecturing that risking your life for space exploration is morally wrong? Wtf? Firstly, everyone has a unique moral compass...and if risking one's life to voyage to Mars is morally "wrong" to you... yours is askew.
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - EdenMaster - 26th June 2010
So I'll do it without respect.
Fair enough.
I cannot see this logic. If anything, we should have done it decades ago. The technology has been feasible for a long time... the idea was brought up during the Nixon administration, but he like you saw more down-to-earth (pun intended) priorities as being more important.
They are more important. To my knowledge, Mars nor the galaxy is going anywhere. I'm of the mind to get your ducks in a row before crossing the street.
No, Eden. Not twenty years. Try 1.5 years, at most... optimistically, 8 months round trip.
I admit my error and rescind that part of my post. Still, logistically, that's a huge undertaking with great risk for relatively little reward. Lets assume there are vast riches on Mars. The amount of money we would spend getting those resources back to us would almost certainly offset what we may bring back, if it successfully makes both trips. The track record NASA has for missions to Mars is abysmal. I'd like to see some more stable technology before we start sending some of the best humanity has to offer on a year-long journey that could end up a smoking crater on Mars or worse, just as about 2/3 of their unmanned probes have. The irony is, finding such riches on Mars would likely be the thing that spurs the creation of the such technology I would like to see. Nothing advanced progress like greed.
The debt I can admit as a valid point... but... what does the oil spill have to do with not going to Mars? We can't go to Mars as long as there is oil in the ocean? I don't get it.
Again, the subject of getting your priorities at home straight first. The spill is one of the worst ecological disasters in history, I think it's worth our time to, yunno, stop it before it gets worse.
The United States is not responsible for feeding the world's poor. Their respective governments are. Their failure to take care of their own is not a reason for us not to be able to land men on Mars.
So I guess when you said "humanity" you meant "American" when you speak of advancing civilization.
First of all, it wouldn't be hundreds of billions. But you're probably right... if he said that. It wouldn't be a popular idea amongst nay-sayers like you. But he wouldn't need to say that. NASA already has some funding going into the development of similar projects. He would have to raise additional funding, on the scale of tens of billions. This pricetag could be, if an international venture, split across the globe. Yet---it'd take a brave president with long-sightedness, resilience, tenacity... a president we don't have.
McCain wouldn't have done it either, nor did Bush, nor likely would Kerry or Gore. Because it's not a priority in the face of the very real issues here on Earth.
So does going to Afghanistan and risking your life everyday... June '10 is setting records for casualties. It certainly entails a higher risk of mortality than space exploration. If we MUST go there, and brave risks, then space too is an acceptable risk. The benefits outweight the risks.
Again you speak of benefits. There is no tangible benefit. There is the ability to say "we went there"...and that's it. That's all well and good but there has to be more. That's simply not enough.
Make it right? Are you conjecturing that risking your life for space exploration is morally wrong? Wtf? Firstly, everyone has a unique moral compass...and if risking one's life to voyage to Mars is morally "wrong" to you... yours is askew.
The people who go up into space are easily the best specimens of humanity that could grace the Earth. I'd rather not see them turned to ash, no.
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - Darunia - 3rd August 2010
I have to go to an interview in 48 minutes. But, I am resurrecting this thread in response to EM. I am restoring it to the top of the pile. When I am next able to sit down and debate, I will post a response to EM here.
La Mort de l'Exploration Spatiale - Darunia - 3rd August 2010
They are more important. To my knowledge, Mars nor the galaxy is going anywhere. I'm of the mind to get your ducks in a row before crossing the street.
If you're placing mundane matters before space exploration, then it'll never happen again. Try as your bleedin- heart liberals want, you'll never solve all the world's problems. And even if you could, it's not the job of the US government. World food aid, etc., should be directed by the UN. The US ought to be leading the way in cutting-edge frontiers as it always has, as in space. If you're going to get all your ducks in a row, you'll be spending a while, because there'll always be more ducks coming and coming, looking for government money.
I admit my error and rescind that part of my post. Still, logistically, that's a huge undertaking with great risk for relatively little reward. Lets assume there are vast riches on Mars. The amount of money we would spend getting those resources back to us would almost certainly offset what we may bring back, if it successfully makes both trips.
Not immediately, which is why the technology has to be advanced and refined to the point where it will be cheaper to move things through space.
The track record NASA has for missions to Mars is abysmal. I'd like to see some more stable technology before we start sending some of the best humanity has to offer on a year-long journey that could end up a smoking crater on Mars or worse, just as about 2/3 of their unmanned probes have.
Nobody wants to see another Challenger or Colombia, but more people will die in space. It is inevitable. Better safety regulations and all that are great, we can all agree on that. But fundamentally, there will be risk. The astronauts know that. Just like soldiers fighting abroad know that. They have risky jobs. But if they are willing to do them, then let them do them.
Again, the subject of getting your priorities at home straight first. The spill is one of the worst ecological disasters in history, I think it's worth our time to, yunno, stop it before it gets worse.
The spill clean-up is the responsibility of BP. This sounds a lot like your ducks-lined-up rebuke, so I'll leave it at that.
So I guess when you said "humanity" you meant "American" when you speak of advancing civilization.
Just the same as when we landed on the moon, it was on behalf of humanity; then, as now, there are starving people in Africa. You would have it, apparently, that we have no moral right, as a sovereign nation and the world's only super power, to explore space as long as there are hungry people. There will always be hungry people. You want to see the deficit really grow? Try air-shipping 500 million happy meals to Africa every day for five centuries. The UN, and not the US, should help Africa. Some things are worth doing. And at any rate, we could do both if we wanted to. Our national income is vast enough that we could support foreign countries and advance space exploration. Space exploration would not break the federal budget by any means.
McCain wouldn't have done it either, nor did Bush, nor likely would Kerry or Gore. Because it's not a priority in the face of the very real issues here on Earth.
They probably wouldn't have. There you go making this a partisan argument. It is not. Don't drag politics into this. And if it's not a priority now, it might as well never be one. As I said, you bleeding hearts will ALWAYS find a cause that YOU care about more. Feeding orphaned puppies, or planting trees in Quebec, or some damn fool feel-good thing.
Again you speak of benefits. There is no tangible benefit. There is the ability to say "we went there"...and that's it. That's all well and good but there has to be more. That's simply not enough.
Here we have an irreconciliable difference. It is worth it. Your short-sightedness bars you from seeing it fully developed. You think it'd be "oh we're at Mars, not, la-dee-da, no big deal." But the idea must be developed. Mars would only be an early phase of an ever-growing, ever-rewarding reach out across space. There's a reason why 2001: A Space Odyssey is called '2001'. Because experts like Arthur C. Clarke foresaw that that was where we ought to have been by that time. All that time, lost.
The people who go up into space are easily the best specimens of humanity that could grace the Earth. I'd rather not see them turned to ash, no.
That's their decision, not yours. By contrast, are the lives of soldiers abroad worth anything less to you? One could argue that they're dying in droves, and for no tangible gain. Who knows, this could be another Vietnam. But they're dying in numbers that would render those of space exploration totally meaningless. Thousands and thousands. They die, for what I believe is something far less real than the challenge of space. Indeed, who knows whether or not anyone would even die on the way to Mars. Nobody died on the way to the moon (in the testing phases, yes, but not actually going there and back.) The hypothetical risk of someone maybe dying is enough to keep humanty forever grounded to the Earth in your eyes?