Mars Voyage too Soon?

[rockoon]

It's so clear there isn't a need for an explanation.

Note to self:

Radrook makes claims but cannot explain the reasoning behind them.

 

[Radrook]

Note to self:

Radrook makes claims but cannot explain the reasoning behind them.

They are not my claims. They are yours. So you explain them.

 

[rockoon]

They are not my claims. They are yours. So you explain them.

You made the claim....

I am willing to let you redefine why you think that nasa is immoral, such that your reasoning does not apply to nearly every risk humanity has ever taken on. Would you like to do that?

The simple fact of the matter is that "unnecessary risk" is a part of life, for we humans have the capacity to compare risk versus reward and decide for ourselves if the risks outweigh those rewards.

If your real arguement is that in this case, in your own opinion, the risks outweigh the reward then you should have said so.

For the future betterment of yourself, if you wish to get your idea across but feel you must use generalizations then you should qualify those generalizations with the specific circumstances that it actually applies to and address why it doesnt apply to others. From there, the person you are communicating with can reason about your idea without guessing about its scope.

 

[Radrook]

You made the claim....

I am willing to let you redefine why you think that nasa is immoral, such that your reasoning does not apply to nearly every risk humanity has ever taken on. Would you like to do that?

The simple fact of the matter is that "unnecessary risk" is a part of life, for we humans have the capacity to compare risk versus reward and decide for ourselves if the risks outweigh those rewards.

If your real arguement is that in this case, in your own opinion, the risks outweigh the reward then you should have said so.

For the future betterment of yourself, if you wish to get your idea across but feel you must use generalizations then you should qualify those generalizations with the specific circumstances that it actually applies to and address why it doesnt apply to others. From there, the person you are communicating with can reason about your idea without guessing about its scope.

Non of the premises you are using are mine. They are yours. Neither did I use vague generalities which should normally lead to confusion. I was very clear that I am criticizing the manner in which a scientist expressed himself on the show "Mars Rising".

You then accused me of saying that all risk is immoral and that NASA is disgusting. If indeed I said what you are claiming I said: then cite my post where I said the things you claim I said. For YOUR betterment, I suggest thast you divest yourself of the tendency to create strawman arguments.

BTW
If indeed NASA ESA or any other space agency plans to risk those lives on whether there is or there isn't a sandstorm on Marse at the moment of departure for earth instead of providing a redundancy because it is more expensive to do so, then the policy is disgusting in my view just as the scientist's nonchalant mention of their possible death due to this was. Thev same scientist, mind you that showed extreme concern about adding safety measures for a safer landing due to cost. I bet if his mama was on that trip he wouldn't be thinking about cost.

 

[rockoon]

Non of the premises you are using are mine. They are yours.

I shall quote you.

Neither did I use vague generalities which should normally lead to confusion.

I shall quote you.

I was very clear that I am criticizing the manner in which a scientist expressed himself on the show "Mars Rising".

Actualy, it was clear in your summary that you were criticizing their decision, not their manner:

In short, it's more acceptable that the astronaut's perish either by crashing onto the surface or because of getting stranded for an extra six months than provide additional fuel for rocket-breaking descent or providing an extra abode as a redundancy to cover that stranding possibility due to sudden Martian bad weather.

Disgusting!

You then accused me of saying that all risk is immoral and that NASA is disgusting.

No, I then pointed out that you neglected to mention that the men taking the risks are volunteers.

YOU then made this claim:

Willingness to risk life or go along with a policy which unnecessarily risks lives doesn't morally justify the policy. So your premise is all skewed.

..you had introduced both the ideas of morality and unnecessary risk. I then pointed out that you have not shown that NASA's decisions are immoral, to which you then made the completely generalized statement:

If the risk taken is unnecessary then it constitutes immortality.

..which confirmed my suspcious that you infact did mean that NASA is immoral and defined precisely why you thought so. Nice typo, BTW.

If indeed I said what you are claiming I said: then cite my post where I said the things you claim I said.

Done.

For YOUR betterment, I suggest thast you divest yourself of the tendency to create strawman arguments.

A strawman arguement is one which misrepresents the arguement it is trying to confront. I have tried to addressed the arguement you presented:

"If the risk taken is unnecessary then it constitutes immortality."

 

[Radrook]

I shall quote you.

Actualy, it was clear in your summary that you were criticizing their decision, not their manner:

Both decision and manner are disgusting. Hope that clears it up to your satisfaction.

No, I then pointed out that you neglected to mention that the men taking the risks are volunteers.

To which I responded that it is irrelevant to the morality or immorality of the decision. A response which you choose to ignore in order to plow ahead.

..you had introduced both the ideas of morality and unnecessary risk. I then pointed out that you have not shown that NASA's decisions are immoral, to which you then made the completely generalized statement:

Umm, then you took the argument to an extreme absurd conclusion which sheds light on nothing and only serves to cloud the issues which should be clear by now if you weren't hoist on your own petard.

[..which confirmed my suspcious that you infact did mean that NASA is immoral and defined precisely why you thought so. Nice typo, BTW.Done.

I could not have meant NASA because NASA isn't the only participant in this effort. It will be an international venture. If the decision is reached to leave the astronaut's at the mercy of Martian weather, then all those individuals who approved of the policy and proceeded to institute it are at fault. Your inability to see the immorality involved in such a policy proves only your inability and nothing more.

A strawman arguement is one which misrepresents the arguement it is trying to confront. I have tried to addressed the arguement you presented:

"If the risk taken is unnecessary then it constitutes immortality."

Your efforts at making my "risk" premise seem to be invariably applicable despite my assertions to the contrary is a waste of time and constitutes strawman since you are attacking a premise you yourself created and are trying to pass off as mine. True, it needs a qualifier. But my clarification of my intended meaning should be suffice. A person believing that all risk is equal to immorality is either insane or retarded. Neither of which I am at present.

BTW

You make nice typos too:

Actualy, suspcious, infact, arguement, arguement, arguement,....

 

[uruk]

Not to put gasoline on fire here, but people have always placed cost against risk in everything we do. Even we are guilty of it.

Youre car could be made safer with a four point harness, a roll cage and crash bars. but we don't. Why? Money.

We could design and build airliners that could have the whole passenger and crew cabin break away from the rest of the plane and land safley using huge parachutes, but we don't. Why? Yep, money again.

There are alot of things in our lives that could be made safer except that we are not willing to spend the cash.

I think the show's attitude has more to do with sensationalisim for TV ratings sake than the actuall feelings of the "interviewees".

 

[Gonzo Skeptic]

I will, in all probability, will never even get to LEO but I would not want to deny that experiance to others.

I wouldn't deny them that either as long as they are the ones paying for it, not me.

And at least a person who has been there would be able to give a better concept of the experiance than just watching videos and pictures.

We've had dozens of people in space. I think we already have a pretty good idea of what their experience is like.

Do you mean to imply that there is no room for pure scientific exploration?

No. But robotic probes can do scientific exploration better and (a lot) cheaper.

Eventually corporations will take over the exploitation part while NASA can continue with the science. But often, in the past, the government will help to establish an infrastructure that then corporations and the public can get a start or take advantage of. That is one of the purposes of government today. Look at the railroads and highway system.

Railroads, highways, dams, and so on built by the government were done because there was a clear and immediate benefit obvious to the voters. Space exploration isn't like that.

Before the government starts wasting a trillion dollars on sending humans to Mars, someone will need to think of a strong and compelling answer to the question "WHY?"

 

[uruk]

I wouldn't deny them that either as long as they are the ones paying for it, not me.

Then you'll be glad to know that the mearest fraction of a cent from your taxes actually goes to NASA. NASA's budget is miniscule compared to most other government projects. NASA's budget pales in comparision to Social programs, social security, the military, corporate bail out funds, presidential campaign funds, infrastructure and so forth.

The amount of money you personal spend on NASA's budget is far less than what is under your sofa cushion.

Maybe you could send a request to the IRS to make sure none of your tax money goes to NASA. I'm sure NASA won't miss the urinal cake.

We've had dozens of people in space. I think we already have a pretty good idea of what their experience is like.

We've had dozens of robotic probes and telescopes focused on space, I think we already have a pretty good idea of what is out there.
No need to waste money on taking pictures we had since the 70's

No. But robotic probes can do scientific exploration better and (a lot) cheaper.

Cheaper but not better. Nothing like having a human brain there making spontaneous decisions. Let me know when artificial intellegence get developed.

Railroads, highways, dams, and so on built by the government were done because there was a clear and immediate benefit obvious to the voters. Space exploration isn't like that.

You are right. Right now the space program is just exploration at this point. Just pure science. But people are begining to see the practical aspects ( That's not including the technological and medical benefit so far gained)

Everything that we are doing now is for the benefit of our decendants. It will take centuries to exploit space the same way we are exploiting Earth. It is an investment in our future And we gain benefits along the way. I am truely sorry that you can't see that. But then that is your fault.

Before the government starts wasting a trillion dollars on sending humans to Mars, someone will need to think of a strong and compelling answer to the question "WHY?"

Well the next time we spend a few billion dollars to put another rover on Mars someone will need to think of a strong and compelling answer to the question "WHY?"

 

[Radrook]

Not to put gasoline on fire here, but people have always placed cost against risk in everything we do. Even we are guilty of it.

Youre car could be made safer with a four point harness, a roll cage and crash bars. but we don't. Why? Money.

We could design and build airliners that could have the whole passenger and crew cabin break away from the rest of the plane and land safley using huge parachutes, but we don't. Why? Yep, money again.

There are alot of things in our lives that could be made safer except that we are not willing to spend the cash.

I think the show's attitude has more to do with sensationalisim for TV ratings sake than the actuall feelings of the "interviewees".

I feel differently. I think that the scientists on the show are expressing exactly what the policy is intended to be at present. I really see no gain for scientists to be in collusion with TV networks since they are not on the network's payroll. If they do gain some monetary compensation it certainly isn't sufficient to induce them to risk peer ridicule or to place their reputations for scientific accuracy and dependabiulity in jeaopardy via their serious misrepresention of space agency policies.

As for risk, I am not denying that risk is taken and that money is a factor in other things we attempt to accomplish. What I am saying, ad infinitum and to apparently no avail or hope of being understood clearly though I am speaking English and not Swahili, is that I consider it immoral for the lives of the astronaut's to be dependent on whether there is or there isn't a Martian dust storm at the time of return to earth. And that's where I guess we differ. You see nothing wrong with such a policy and I do. So I guess we should just call it even and leave it at that.

BTW

The comparison of need and risk and duty to provide additional safety in air travel for thousands of travelers with the need and risk and duty to provide redundancy of habitat in the case of Martian sandstorm at the time of astronaut return to earth constitutes a false analogy since its far easier to provide the redundancy of an additional habitat than to redesign all our aircraft with the accomodations you mention.


But let's suppose that both were equally easy to implement. Then I would have to consider the refusal to provide the prachutes as an imorality. What you seem to be missing is the duty part of ethical reasoning.

 

[uruk]

I feel differently. I think that the scientists on the show are expressing exactly what the policy is intended to be at present. I really see no gain for scientists to be in collusion with TV networks since they are not on the network's payroll. If they do gain some monetary compensation it certainly isn't sufficient to induce them to risk peer ridicule or to place their reputations for scientific accuracy and dependabiulity in jeaopardy via their serious misrepresention of space agency policies.

I don't think it is so much that the scientists are in collusion witht he producers but rather that the scientists are trying to make the producer happy. And there is alot to be said for editing.

As for risk, I am not denying that risk is taken and that money is a factor in other things we attempt to accomplish. What I am saying, ad infinitum and to apparently no avail or hope of being understood clearly though I am speaking English and not Swahili, is that I consider it immoral for the lives of the astronaut's to be dependent on whether there is or there isn't a Martian dust storm at the time of return to earth. And that's where I guess we differ. You see nothing wrong with such a policy and I do. So I guess we should just call it even and leave it at that.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I am just saying that we have always made compromises where cost is concerned. We can't predict weather all to well on Earth and so it is with Mars. You can try and land in the off season, or develop contingency plans. Anyhoo, The atmosphere is so thin on Mars that a dust storm, even though some are global, do not have the same kind of effect there as they do here where the air is denser. Blowing over is not you fear, but getting buried in sand is.
And how long has the rovers been up there? They still haven't been buried yet.

BTW

The comparison of need and risk and duty to provide additional safety in air travel for thousands of travelers with the need and risk and duty to provide redundancy of habitat in the case of Martian sandstorm at the time of astronaut return to earth constitutes a false analogy since its far easier to provide the redundancy of an additional habitat than to redesign all our aircraft with the accomodations you mention.

That was not the point of the analogy. There are many things we can do in the case of a sandstorm. The most simplist on eis take along extra consummables and provisions (NASA usually does that anyway, just in case) and wait it out.

But let's suppose that both were equally easy to implement. Then I would have to consider the refusal to provide the prachutes as an imorality. What you seem to be missing is the duty part of ethical reasoning.

I was not questioning the morality of the decisions, just that we do it anyway. Actually I find it insane that we can build a car that can protect a person in a 200 mile an hour crash but we won't develop a car that can keep people from getting killed in a 50 mile an hour crash because of costs.

 

[patnray]

I just watched the first 6 parts of "Mars Rising". I still believe that for scientific purposes, robotic exploration is sufficient. However, I can accept that mankind may one day attempt human exploration of Mars as a romantic adventure. In keeping with the original theme, I do believe it is too early to attempt in the next few decades. That time should be used in overcoming the technical issues. Furthermore, given the risks and enormous distances, I do not believe a single mission with 6 astronauts is sufficient. Planning an extended stay with multiple manned crews will actually reduce the risks.

Radrook is right. It is unconscionable to say that if a dust storm prevents the crew from leaving within the launch window they are SOL. An ethical mission plan must anticipate such contingencies. There must be redundant return craft in Mars orbit. There must be sufficient supplies to sustain a crew for an additional 26 months if any problem causes them to miss the return window. Psychological risks can be reduced by sending multiple habitat modules to allow more privacy during the extended stay on Mars. 6 people probably do not have sufficient skills for such a mission. You need scientists, doctors, lots of technicians, and other support personnel.

All of this argues for a more extended mission with a half dozen or more crews over many years and enough infrastructure to sustain them. For example, the trip between Earth and Mars could be done with two ships at a time, spaced far enough apart for safety, but close enough together so rescue is possible in case of a catastrophic failure (as in Apollo 13).

None of it will be possible without developing reliable robotic systems (fuel factories, power reactors, rovers, etc). And the landing problem is exceedingly difficult for all but the smallest payloads. Mars' atmosphere is too thin to sufficiently slow a lander, yet thick enough to create aerodynamic problems for a rocket powered landing. We should work to developing the support structures and solving the engineering problems. It is too early to tell what those solutions will look like, so therefore too early to plan a manned mission except in the most general sense.

Manned exploration should be undertaken only after we have developed the solutions and infrastructure and are able to commit the resources for an extended mission to reduce the risks and maximize the return.

 

[Radrook]

I don't think it is so much that the scientists are in collusion witht he producers but rather that the scientists are trying to make the producer happy. And there is alot to be said for editing.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I am just saying that we have always made compromises where cost is concerned. We can't predict weather all to well on Earth and so it is with Mars. You can try and land in the off season, or develop contingency plans. Anyhoo, The atmosphere is so thin on Mars that a dust storm, even though some are global, do not have the same kind of effect there as they do here where the air is denser. Blowing over is not you fear, but getting buried in sand is.
And how long has the rovers been up there? They still haven't been buried yet.

That was not the point of the analogy. There are many things we can do in the case of a sandstorm. The most simplist on eis take along extra consummables and provisions (NASA usually does that anyway, just in case) and wait it out.


I was not questioning the morality of the decisions, just that we do it anyway. Actually I find it insane that we can build a car that can protect a person in a 200 mile an hour crash but we won't develop a car that can keep people from getting killed in a 50 mile an hour crash because of costs.

Thanx for the feedback. The program presented data in a way I found disturbing. Beyond that, well, each has his own view. When I first posted this thread I was all for the present schedule since I want to be alive when this takes place. But on second and third thought, I have to agree with the patnray who believes that we should continue with robotics until the mission can be implemented in a more responsible and humane manner. A trip to Mars shouldn't have to be as terrifying and uncomfortable and precarious as it would be if we proceed with the present technology. Where human lives are concerned, then expenditure should be of lesser importance.