Mars Voyage too Soon?

[uruk]

Anything you can do, they can do better.

Let me know when they can think on thier own.

 

[uruk]

There are other threats, of course, supervolcanoes and asteroids being the most likely non-human-initiated extinction events, and nuclear winter being another. One might be able to make a case for some kind of "Silent Running" space spore, a "Nasa's Ark" from which we could re-seed life if that ever became necessary. There's no reason that I can see to place such a thing anywhere but in earth orbit; certainly, putting it on Mars would be counter-productive.

Hey, wouldn't it be better if there was a thriving colony on the Moon and/or Mars?

Hey, wouldn't it be great that what we learned from living on a harsh, inhospitable world could be applied to repopulating or re-seeding the Earth?

It would have been great except people though that manned space exploration was expensive, dangerous and silly.

 

[bokonon]

All great and good. Science for science sake is a wonderful thing. But none of it is any more important than learning how to survive and live in space and on other planets in our solar system.
Learning how to make an inhospitable place like the Moon or Mars livable will have practical benefits on Earth also.

Name three.

I am not denying the benefits of robotic exploration. I am not against robotic exploration. The robotic missions got a start because of the manned space program.

Nonsense. Both got a start because military hardware (large rockets) could be used to launch something other than explosives. The first satellites (Sputnik and Explorer) were on scientific missions relating to the International Geophysical Year. Most of the hardware developed in the space program has been to conduct scientific research, not to support a manned presence.

None of which would have gotten started without the manned space program. Robotic mission cannot give us physiological or psycological knowledge nor direct human experiance. Or are you denying the importance of human experiance as well?

I'm sure it has great value to the handful who have the experience, but it really has very little value to the rest of humanity.

It's too dangerous or expensive? When has that ever stopped us from doing all the dangerous expensive things?
Why is space any different?

It isn't. I don't think taxpayer money should be spent on snowboarding or hang gliding R&D either. Let the adventurers themselves foot the bill for their adventures.

The freeze drying food process. Cooling systems for those who suffer from a condition where they can't regulate thier body temperature such as quadroplegics, the microcomputer, miniturized electronics, and these were just some of the few that were developed for the Apollo program.

That's really only two, since the computer and miniaturization spin-offs don't depend on a manned presence.

I think the explorers should be the ones who decide what risks they should take or not.

As long as they're paying for it, you'll get no argument from me. If they're using public money, I'm going to want to see some benefit to the public. I'm just selfish that way.

 

[uruk]

You know what challenge would significantly improve our lives? Energy independence from the Middle East. If such independence could be achieved by methods that were less polluting than pumping, transporting, refining, and burning petroleum, it would be a 2-for-1 benefit.

Research into medicines and techniques which could selectively kill harmful viruses and antibiotic-resistant bacteria should also be high on the list.

Transportation systems which don't turn a 20-minute drive into an hour-long commute during rush hour.

Methods for reliably bringing rain to drought-stricken areas. Methods for preventing floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes.

Techniques for economically removing pollution from the atmosphere on a large scale, including long-term storage of greenhouse gases.

A way to reduce waste, improve recycling, get all the plastic and other trash out of the oceans.

And how does stopping manned space exploration help those things?
The researching and developing the technologies for manned space flight might even help some of those things. You really can't predict the future.

There is no shortage of challenges which will have a DIRECT effect on quality of life for billions of people. Why settle for vague, uncertain "spin-off" benefits from a task which has no intrinsic value beyond bragging rights?

Apollo was essentialy for bragging rights but it still gave us quite a bit technology wise. NASA had intended for Apollo to become an actual scientific program but it got shut down right when the science mission were starting. The last Apollo mission was the first to have an actual geologist on the Moon. Harrison Schmitt.

The early explorers had clear and worthwhile goals. Initially, it was to find a more economical route to the Indies, a place they already knew they had compelling reasons to visit, and were in fact already visiting regularly by less-economic means.

The big payoff came because the lands that were discovered by accident were capable of providing resources (metals, land for colonization, crops, etc.) which more than offset the cost of travel.

As the infrastructre and economies of scale come into play, the same will apply to resources harvested from our solar system.

We are not likely to discover new lands by accident on our way to Mars, and Mars can't offer us any prospect of exploitable resources. We'll be mining asteroids before we're mining Mars, if ever. We'll be colonizing the moon before we colonize Mars, if ever. Any crop we could grow there could be grown more economically on earth.

Hey one step at time. No one is saying we go for everything all at once. Things become cost effective as scarcity goes up and infrastructure developes and set in place.

Other than increasing our scientific knowledge of Mars itself, there's just no reason to go there, and it is more economical to increase our knowledge by using unmanned probes than by mounting a huge effort to send people there.

But there will always be a limit to robots where human experiance is concerned. But then noone is talking about going to Mars next week. It will happen over time but it will never happen if we give up on manned space exploration now.

Me too. I think it's short-sighted to send people to Mars to fulfill some childhood "Star Trek" fantasy of being space explorers. We need to have enough long-range vision to know that Mars will still be there 200 or 2000 years from now, when new technologies might make it economical to go there in person.

Agreed. But if we don't start or keep up with the effort the technologies and economics will never happen.
That's the problem with putting things off for "tomorrow" because sometimes "tomorrow" never comes.

Because there's a shortage of water and oxygen on earth, and we can get it from Mars cheaper than we can get it here?

No. I said that technologies being developed for extracting water on other planets could apply here also if the need should arise.

I have no objection whatsoever to private companies who want to "invest" time, people, and money to research the possibility of sending people to Mars. I vehemently object to public funding of such pipe dreams at this time.

Sometimes it takes a governemt program to make it possible for corporations to see the possibilities and get started.
The government has also been resposinble for getting infrastructure started. Take the highway system for example. Would corporations have started somethimg like that on thier own? Would you want private corporations to have sole control or operate unregulated on something like the highway infrastructure?

Anyhoo, who do you think recieves some of that money spent on these projects?

Remember, the government subcontracts everything.

 

[bokonon]

Hey, wouldn't it be better if there was a thriving colony on the Moon and/or Mars?

There is no prospect of a "thriving" colony in either location. Both are exposed to cosmic radiation and solar storms which even an asteroid-ravaged or volcano-blanketed earth would be protected from. Neither has a breathable atmosphere or liquid water.

Hey, wouldn't it be great that what we learned from living on a harsh, inhospitable world could be applied to repopulating or re-seeding the Earth?

Hey, wouldn't it be great if we could learn the same things by colonizing the Sahara? Wouldn't it be cheaper, safer, and more beneficial to a larger number of people right here on earth, even if an extinction event never happened?

It would have been great except people though that manned space exploration was expensive, dangerous and silly.

It would have been great if those people weren't absolutely correct.

 

[uruk]

Name three.

a better understaning of an enclosed ecosystems, new developments in agriculture in an enclosed environment. Recycling techniques, Extracting oxygen and water from the elements in the soil, radiation protection,
energy managment.

And, of course, direct human exploration of the planet. Not having to deal with the communication time delay.

Nonsense. Both got a start because military hardware (large rockets) could be used to launch something other than explosives. The first satellites (Sputnik and Explorer) were on scientific missions relating to the International Geophysical Year. Most of the hardware developed in the space program has been to conduct scientific research, not to support a manned presence.

NASA's mandate is, amoung other things, to develope a human presence in space.
http://history.nasa.gov/

Russia always had intentions to put a man in space. Sputnik was quickly followed by Sputnik2 which had a dog in it.

The Saturn V was specificaly designed for manned space flight

I'm sure it has great value to the handful who have the experience, but it really has very little value to the rest of humanity.

I do not share that opinion.

It isn't. I don't think taxpayer money should be spent on snowboarding or hang gliding R&D either. Let the adventurers themselves foot the bill for their adventures.

But it's ok to spend government money to send robots into space? Isn't pure research best left up to the universities and not he government? Let the universities foot the bill for robotic space exploration.

That's really only two, since the computer and miniaturization spin-offs don't depend on a manned presence.

The DSKY computer was specificaly developed for the Apollo space program. It really is the grandfather of the personal computer. The block diagrams are eerily similar to early 8088 computers although the 8088 was many times more powerfull that the DSKY computer.

Radar rangefinding navigation system which was and still is used for docking and landing. was developed for Apollo. Robotic landers such as Viking actually benefitted from it.

As long as they're paying for it, you'll get no argument from me. If they're using public money, I'm going to want to see some benefit to the public. I'm just selfish that way.

But you are ok with public money being spent on robotic missions. Sounds like a double standard to me.

 

[bokonon]

If they're using public money, I'm going to want to see some benefit to the public. I'm just selfish that way.

But you are ok with public money being spent on robotic missions. Sounds like a double standard to me.

It isn't. There are benefits to the public from scientific research. While the same benefits can be obtained by manned research as by unmanned research, the costs of manned research are much higher. It's not a double standard, merely an evenhanded application of the law of diminishing returns. If there were huge benefits which would result from sending men rather than machines, perhaps the added expense and risk could be justified, but I don't think there are.

Mars will still be there 1000 or 10,000 or 100,000 years from now. If people manage to survive and thrive for 100,000 years on the planet which offers the best prospect for it, maybe the technology we develop in that time will facilitate the kind of exploration you're proposing. Right now, though, I think there are dozens of more pressing problems to solve than "how can we enable people to live in zero-G while being bombarded by radiation?"

 

[uruk]

There is no prospect of a "thriving" colony in either location. Both are exposed to cosmic radiation and solar storms which even an asteroid-ravaged or volcano-blanketed earth would be protected from. Neither has a breathable atmosphere or liquid water.

Again challenges to overcome. Have you ever looked into colonization? All the ideas and possibilities that are being looked into and researched?
It is something that is not going to be viable anytime soon to be certain, but it is a long term goal that would give us a direction and provide much knowledge and benefits along the way. Anyhoo's colonization is still on the drawing boards and back burner untill the technology comes along so you don't have to worry about that right now. Everything we are doing and learning now helps to make that goal come one step closer.

Hey, wouldn't it be great if we could learn the same things by colonizing the Sahara? Wouldn't it be cheaper, safer, and more beneficial to a larger number of people right here on earth, even if an extinction event never happened?

Again, out comes that fear. Yes you could but you would still be having all you eggs in one basket. And the Sahara hardly simulates the conditions on Mars or the Moon. So you would miss out on that knowldege.

Do you know about computer network security. One of the first and most important things they tell you is to alway have a copy of your back ups and a back up server in another physical location away from your place of business. That is so that all your data and your network will be safe and functioning if something happen to the building.
Do you know why all those companies that were in the WTC tower survived when the building collapsed? Because they had backup servers with all their data safely somewhere else.

It would have been great if those people weren't absolutely correct.

Who said they were correct? Expense and danger never stoped us before. Why should it now?
Cowardice perhapse?

 

[Belz...]

Moon hoax discussion split to:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3190558

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

That's a weird avatar, chill. Plus, there seems to be missing a huge chunk of the image !!

 

[uruk]

It isn't. There are benefits to the public from scientific research. While the same benefits can be obtained by manned research as by unmanned research, the costs of manned research are much higher. It's not a double standard, merely an evenhanded application of the law of diminishing returns. If there were huge benefits which would result from sending men rather than machines, perhaps the added expense and risk could be justified, but I don't think there are.

But it is a double standard. it ok to spend money on sending robots into space (which is still expensive BTW), but it's not ok to send people into space because it is more expensive?
I don't deny that manned space exploration is expensive. But we do get different information from it than what you can get with just robots. And there were big returns from Apollo. There could have been even greater returns if the Government had not killed it right when actual science was starting to be done and the manufacturing techniques were being worked out. It would have gotten relativley cheaper.

There was a big hiatus for manned flight between skylab and the space shuttle. And the space shuttle was a big boondogle. The manned space program suffered from big mistakes like killing Apollo before it time and the shuttle fiasco. (Skylab was a good idea manned presence on the cheap, but it ran into an accident during launch which forced it into a decaying orbit. It slammed into a good piece of Australian realestate)

But anyhoo, the cost and risk of manned space exploration won't be diminished by playing around on the ground. You do have to go there. you have to test and actualy use the technologies and techniques.

Mars will still be there 1000 or 10,000 or 100,000 years from now. If people manage to survive and thrive for 100,000 years on the planet which offers the best prospect for it, maybe the technology we develop in that time will facilitate the kind of exploration you're proposing. Right now, though, I think there are dozens of more pressing problems to solve than "how can we enable people to live in zero-G while being bombarded by radiation?"

Yikes! You are being pretty pessimistic about man's ingenuity. Especially thinking that we won't be ready to go for another 100,000 years.

Besides I'm not talking about going to Mars next tuesday. It will take decades to work out all the problems. Everything will have to go step by step. First lets concentrate on going back to the Moon. That will be a great place to practice and to test technologies close to home

Going step by step, we will start to solve problems like radiation protection and the physiological problem of zero-G.

There is a saying. "You build a boat on land, but you are going to have to put it on water sooner or later."

 

[Corsair 115]

I'm still not hearing any reason why anybody has to get off this rock, or, why getting our rocks off means we should go to Mars.

I find the idea of humanity remaining only on the Earth for the next thousand or ten thousand years a rather depressing one. No urge anymore for us to explore? To expand our horizons?

There is also the more practical matter of the Earth having a finite amount of resources. And that's only going to get more critical if the population keeps growing as it has.

The solar system is filled with the kinds of resources humanity can use. The mineral wealth locked up in the asteroid belt is estimated to be enough to write every person currently alive on the Earth a cheque for $100 billion dollars.

 

[dacium2007]

That's a flawed argument. How many people actually drive cars every day? What proportion get killed? I recently read that the safety rating for space shuttle missions is currently 1:70 (which I assume somehow relates to fatalities), compared to 1:20,000 for civil aviation. In other words space shuttle missions need to become around 285 times safer to meet current aviation safety standards, thereby allowing 'civil' flights.

That was my point exactly. Because there are so few people who do fly space missions, we can accept a substantially higher risk. No matter what the risk (even near 100% failure risk) the low number of space flights deaths would effect the total number of transportation deaths insignificantly. I was not claiming space flight was safer, I am claiming that it should be less safe for the benefit of progress, especially when so many people would willingly accept the higher risk.

 

[bokonon]

the Sahara hardly simulates the conditions on Mars or the Moon. So you would miss out on that knowldege.

You can't overcome the challenges on Mars or the moon unless you can overcome the challenges in the Sahara. There, the two big problems are excess heat and lack of water, both of which would also be problems on the Moon. Since a colony on the moon is a necessary pre-requisite to a colony on Mars, I'd say a colony in the Sahara should be a necessary pre-requisite to a colony on the moon. It has a breathable atmosphere, bones won't decay because of lack of gravity, and (at least until the magnetosphere collapses) isn't unduly threatened by cosmic rays.

If the periodic reversal of the earth's magnetic field does threaten us with increased exposure to cosmic rays and solar storms, then that's research we need to be doing to keep things viable here on earth. Once we solve the problem here, that's one less hurdle that needs to be overcome on the way to Mars.

We have big problems here, and this is where I think we need to focus our research efforts. Not on ways to clean up enough water to keep a dozen people alive, but on ways to clean up massive amounts of water, to keep hundreds of thousands alive. That research can be done without going to Mars, or the moon, and solving those problems here can diminish the problems we'll need to solve to make Mars exploration viable.

I'm not saying it should never happen, but it's the wrong thing to focus on now just to fulfill some space cowboy fantasies spawned by science fiction.

 

[Belz...]

Cowboy fantasies ? Can you say "meteor" ?

 

[bokonon]

Cowboy fantasies ? Can you say "meteor" ?

Sure, I can say meteor. I can also say that life seems to have survived 4.5 billion years of collisions (since the event that presumably created our moon), including the one that may have killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. I can also say "supervolcano eruption," and "nuclear winter." None of those scenarios render earth less inhabitable than Mars is today. We have abundant water, a thick atmosphere which contains the gases we need to live, and a magnetic field which protects us from cosmic rays. Mars has none of these things. The moon has none of these things.

Any technologies which could be used to make Mars or the moon inhabitable could be used to enable humans to survive on earth in the event of a cataclysm. That leaves "cowboy fantasies" as the only real motivation for human exploration of the planets.

 

[uruk]

You can't overcome the challenges on Mars or the moon unless you can overcome the challenges in the Sahara. There, the two big problems are excess heat and lack of water, both of which would also be problems on the Moon. Since a colony on the moon is a necessary pre-requisite to a colony on Mars, I'd say a colony in the Sahara should be a necessary pre-requisite to a colony on the moon. It has a breathable atmosphere, bones won't decay because of lack of gravity, and (at least until the magnetosphere collapses) isn't unduly threatened by cosmic rays.

Actually the arctic would make a better challenge. There are areas in the Arctic or Anartic that are more arid than the Sahara. And we are doing experiments already. Things will happen step by step. And I never said that we shouldn't try doing those things here on Earth first. I just said that eventually you will have to put the technologies and techniques to the test in space.

If the periodic reversal of the earth's magnetic field does threaten us with increased exposure to cosmic rays and solar storms, then that's research we need to be doing to keep things viable here on earth. Once we solve the problem here, that's one less hurdle that needs to be overcome on the way to Mars.

I think the magnetic field reversal is not going to be the catastrophic event the doomsayers claiming. It has happenened several times in the past and life continued on unabaited.
The research would yield benefits for both the Earth and the manned space program. That is what I have been saying all along. You get a "two for" for the money you are spending on manned space exploration.

We have big problems here, and this is where I think we need to focus our research efforts. Not on ways to clean up enough water to keep a dozen people alive, but on ways to clean up massive amounts of water, to keep hundreds of thousands alive. That research can be done without going to Mars, or the moon, and solving those problems here can diminish the problems we'll need to solve to make Mars exploration viable.

These are the things that can be benefited from the research and developement in manned space program. When you find a solution to one, the solution can be applied to the other.

Sometimes research into solving the problems here on Earth are limited or inhibited because of socio-polititical issues. That research would be done at all if it was not for the manned space program.

The feul cell that we are just starting to put in cars was developed to be used as a power source on the Apollo spacecraft and Space shuttle.
What was keeping it from being used to power electric cars back then? Why is it just beginning to be used now?

I'm not saying it should never happen, but it's the wrong thing to focus on now just to fulfill some space cowboy fantasies spawned by science fiction.

Well I think I see one of your issues withthe space program. You seem to think that manned space flight is nothing more than a fantasy or science fiction. Recent history has shown that not to be the case. You need to move beyond that predjudice and see the bigger picture.

 

[uruk]

Sure, I can say meteor. I can also say that life seems to have survived 4.5 billion years of collisions (since the event that presumably created our moon),

You seem to be confused there. There was no life on the Earth when the event that created our moon happened. According to the theorists, the Earth was still forming when that happened.

including the one that may have killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

Note, there are no more dinosaurs alive today. that's why they call it an extinction level event.

I can also say "supervolcano eruption," and "nuclear winter." None of those scenarios render earth less inhabitable than Mars is today.

But they sure to have the capability to wipe mankind off the face of the Earth. Now if there we peole living elswhere in the solar system or orbit. that might be a safe guard against humanity's extinction.

We have abundant water, a thick atmosphere which contains the gases we need to live, and a magnetic field which protects us from cosmic rays. Mars has none of these things. The moon has none of these things.

Challenges to met and delt with. And we gain so much knowledge, undestanding, and technology in the processe

Any technologies which could be used to make Mars or the moon inhabitable could be used to enable humans to survive on earth in the event of a cataclysm. That leaves "cowboy fantasies" as the only real motivation for human exploration of the planets.

I think you would want to develope those technologies before the cataclysm happens. After would be too late.

Some of that technology might not get developed at all if there wasn't a need to develop them inorder to help man survive in inhospitable environments like Mars or the Moon.

 

[bokonon]

These are the things that can be benefited from the research and developement in manned space program. When you find a solution to one, the solution can be applied to the other.

Yes, but when the solutions you're seeking have the goal of making life on earth more comfortable, not only is there more value in reaching the goal, but the cost of each solution on the way to the goal is a fraction of what it would have been if the goal was "colonization of Mars."

Sometimes research into solving the problems here on Earth are limited or inhibited because of socio-polititical issues. That research would be done at all if it was not for the manned space program.

Nonsense. People will always be motivated to solve human problems.

The feul cell that we are just starting to put in cars was developed to be used as a power source on the Apollo spacecraft and Space shuttle.
What was keeping it from being used to power electric cars back then? Why is it just beginning to be used now?

It wasn't, and isn't, cost effective for terrestrial travel. If and when other fuel sources become too scarce or too expensive to be viable, fuel cells, solar power, and other alternatives will receive more attention.

The research into geothermal power, wind power, and tidal power has not been driven by the space program, manned or otherwise. It's pure fallacy to argue that improvements to battery storage, solar power, and fuel cells would not have occurred if there had been no space program. People have always had a natural drive to improve the human condition.

Well I think I see one of your issues withthe space program. You seem to think that manned space flight is nothing more than a fantasy or science fiction. Recent history has shown that not to be the case. You need to move beyond that predjudice and see the bigger picture.

The bigger picture is that the goal of planting people on Mars is not worth the effort. There are many more useful, but no less exotic, ways to spend government research dollars. Genetic engineering, nanotechnology, alternative fuels, materials engineering, medical diagnostic and therapeutic technology, water purification, pest and disease control -- there are dozens of paths more worthy of exploration than sending men to walk on an extraterrestrial dustball.

 

[bokonon]

[Several potential events may] have the capability to wipe mankind off the face of the Earth. Now if there we peole living elswhere in the solar system or orbit. that might be a safe guard against humanity's extinction. Challenges to met and delt with. And we gain so much knowledge, undestanding, and technology in the processe

No. I said it before, but I'll say it again for those who missed it the first time: any technology which could be used to make an airless, waterless location which is bombarded by cosmic rays and has an average temperature below -50 degrees centigrade habitable could more easily and more economically be used to make a meteor-smacked or volcano-belched earth habitable, for a vastly wider range of genetic diversity.

I think you would want to develope those technologies before the cataclysm happens. After would be too late.

And they can be developed and deployed in extreme locations here on earth, with less expense, easier deployment, faster and broader feedback, nimbler turnaround, and a bigger base of motivated designers. If you want to advance another reason for the "necessity" of manned space exploration, feel free; "insurance against global disaster" doesn't cut it.

 

[uruk]

Yes, but when the solutions you're seeking have the goal of making life on earth more comfortable, not only is there more value in reaching the goal, but the cost of each solution on the way to the goal is a fraction of what it would have been if the goal was "colonization of Mars."

The initial research will have to be done on the Earth but the research might not be done at all if there wasn't the goal of going to Mars.

Nonsense. People will always be motivated to solve human problems.

That's right, the space program was one of those things that some people did with the purpose of tring to improve the human condition.
But there are people, who for economic or political reasons resist certain research. Take global warming for instance. The government and special interest groups are still duking it out over wether it exists or not. Don't you think the government should be doing more about global warming? Why should they when the ones in power at the moment deny that we are responsible for it?

It wasn't, and isn't, cost effective for terrestrial travel. If and when other fuel sources become too scarce or too expensive to be viable, fuel cells, solar power, and other alternatives will receive more attention.

Honda has just release a fuel cell car: http://www.honda.com/power-of-dream...10608:nqshp0GvMUIAAGirA28AAAAX:20071204044919
The fuel cell was used in Apollo and the space shuttle for many years. The fuel cell was specifically designed for the manned space program. It would not have been developed into a practical device without the manned space program.

The research into geothermal power, wind power, and tidal power has not been driven by the space program, manned or otherwise. It's pure fallacy to argue that improvements to battery storage, solar power, and fuel cells would not have occurred if there had been no space program. People have always had a natural drive to improve the human condition.

I never said they were. And I agree that some people do want to improve the human condition. The space program was one of thosse things.

The bigger picture is that the goal of planting people on Mars is not worth the effort. There are many more useful, but no less exotic, ways to spend government research dollars. Genetic engineering, nanotechnology, alternative fuels, materials engineering, medical diagnostic and therapeutic technology, water purification, pest and disease control -- there are dozens of paths more worthy of exploration than sending men to walk on an extraterrestrial dustball.

I see all those fields are worthy except for the manned space program?

Learning how to live and work and exploit our solar system is not a worthy effort?

Why is that? Simply because it is expensive? Because it sounds like Buck Rodgers?

The research in all those fields are also expensive. The Super colliders they are building aren't cheap by any means. The Super collider they were planning to build in Texas was expected to reach 12 billion dollars, That is slightly less that NASA's expected operating budget for 2007. (15 billion) Robotic space exploratin is not cheapeither. It costs millions to develop the probes and millions to launch. And it all adds up.