Man reachs to the stars once more

HaVoC

Just heard on the news, there that one of bushs election promises is to re start the space race. Leaving out that this is probably BS and that he is a muppet. This thread is more about the subject and ur opnion. What do you think about the idea?

His promises where:

1) Colony on the moon
2) Maned landing on mars

I think its a really cool idea and a rebirth of man spirt to explore, What ever happen to that anyway? The whole money thing i guess, but how much did it cost for Columbus to get to america ? sure a great deal money by stanards of the day


Some may see it a waste of money that could be better spent back on earth
what do u think?

simu

Probably just empty election promises but the sci-fi fan in me says "cool"!

Better to spend money on exploring space than on invading more countries.

Exit

Well, in my opinion, the quest for knowledge is one of the things that vast amounts of money should be spent on. People in the US will complain that there are people there who need the money more, and why don't they spend the money solving problems like that. Well, how come nobody complains about the vast amounts that are spent on military equipment? That's something which should be cut back on, not exploration.

Tommy Vercetti

Send Bush to Mars and ****ing leave him there I say.

woosaysdan

nah send him to uranus altogether:)

davej

This renewed interest in space faring is a very thin cover for the real issue: ensuring american military dominance of space. However if, as an offshoot of this, some real exploration or scientific discoveries take place I suppose it won't be all bad.

davej

bizmark

ya dav is right

The peoples republic of china now has the money people technology and militry might to take space around earth

yanks cant let that happen so they start a new space race to take the moon and land on mars (a race china cant win because their still 20-40 years behind the usa)

All in all bush will be gone intime though and hopefuly american will reture to the defenders of freedom that they used to be and space technology will be pushed ahead again by this new space race

dr_manhattan

I can't but agree with any ideas of pushing back 'the final frontier' - however, a moon base is probably not the best way of doing it for a few reasons:

1) escape velocity from the moon will use a lot of energy, and it could be said that a direct mars shot from earth would be more economical. Although lunar resources could be used to build a mars flight, I'm not sure if it's that much of a saving.

2) seeing as the lunar base would take so long and tell us a lot that we don't know, why not just say 'we're going back to the moon' and see where that takes us? Why must mars be the objective?

3) I know this is off topic, but the motives involved in these shots are very dubious. Check out the manifesto of the insane 'project for the new american century' and see what I mean: rumsfeldt and his flaky fundamentalist posse are playing risk from the moon.

So yeah, it's great to see such technology and resources utilised for non-military reasons, all I can say is lets hope the military has disappeared by the time we reach mars, and it doesn't have to be an issue.

Live long and prosper,

bizmark

escape velocity from the moon will use a lot of energy,

eh the gravity is lower on the moon why would it be more expensive

dr_manhattan

what I mean is, going earth-moon-mars is almost twice the energy of going earth-mars direct, if you get me:

Although the moons gravity is less, it's still a lot more than say, launching a ship from an orbital station in outer orbit.

Naturally, the economics of shuttling to and from the moon for a mars shot may work out in the end if a moonbase can give us more back in terms of resources and workspace, I'm not 100% sure - but it does strike me that an orbital platform was always the way to go....?

Anyways, mars is my planet. Hands off!

bizmark

True it would be expensive getting the rocket to the moon from earth but i guess they need some reasion to build a base in the first place

dr_manhattan

heh - they already have the reason, dropping bombs on johnny foreigner with greater speed and accuracy ;-)

They need a *pretend* reason....

bizmark

lol well i guess the missles might push forword heat sheild technology and nav tech

dr_manhattan

heh, yeah: they'll have to get iraqis to mars though so they can have something to target the launch at ;-)

maybe if the objective was to blow the **** out of mars...?

;-)

sanvean

Originally posted by HaVoC
The whole money thing i guess, but how much did it cost for Columbus to get to america ? sure a great deal money by stanards of the day

Because *that* was such a sucess. I'm currently undecided on the whole. If there can be some benefit to mankind, some knowledge that can help us progress or solve some of the many problems, then I would of course support it in theory. But it depends on the negatives, I would think.

I'm unsure of whether mankind's desire for exploration has moved beyond the more base desire to colonise and consume.

bizmark

I'm currently undecided on the whole. If there can be some benefit to mankind,

WHAT! how could improved space technology not be a benfit to mankind ? earth currently has 6 billion people before long we will HAVE TO build on the moon or mars and use the resources of those planets and the astroroid feild

for exploration has moved beyond the more base desire to colonise and consume.

oh please :rolleyes: thats the main reasion to explore this isnt star trek

Silent Bob

Originally posted by bizmark
WHAT! how could improved space technology not be a benfit to mankind ? earth currently has 6 billion people before long we will HAVE TO build on the moon or mars and use the resources of those planets and the astroroid feild

Go have a look at a population density image of the Earth. It is nowhere near crowded. There's plenty of room left right here.

dr_manhattan

'right here' being the operative word: I'd imagine lots of our european neighbours would find it funny that irish people, rather than lose a few % on it's lowest population density in europe by letting in a few johnny foreigners, would rather get behind a mars mission ;-)

Just kidding. But bob's right: we have plentyplentyplenty space right here: if we hadn't made such a habit of making our cash out of scrapping each other we could all live in it too...pity.

But I originally missed the columbus comment: to whoever made it, please realise that to a LOT of people in the world (like south america for instance) columbus was a disease carrying, thieving, pillaging holocaust. And Hernan cortes had his fair crack of it too. It's a real big point that, 500 years on, pretty much every people that the settlers met have been wiped out, or live in reservations, or are the bottom of the social ladder in their own countries.

So yeah seanvean speaks the truth.

Specky

The International Space Station would be the launch platform for a mission to Mars...as it would be for future missions to the moon...the vehicles use on either journey would most likely be assembled at the ISS using components shuttled up from Earth. They certainly wouldn't be looking to fly moon-mars, it's not like it's very much closer.

Sparks

Originally posted by Specky
The International Space Station would be the launch platform for a mission to Mars...as it would be for future missions to the moon...the vehicles use on either journey would most likely be assembled at the ISS using components shuttled up from Earth. They certainly wouldn't be looking to fly moon-mars, it's not like it's very much closer.

Not much closer distance-wise, but far cheaper in both dollar and energy terms. Time to go read The High Frontier and other related works Specky...

Specky

Not much closer distance-wise, but far cheaper in both dollar and energy terms. Time to go read The High Frontier and other related works Specky...

? Sorry I don't have time right now to read that but perhaps you could enlighten me as to how it is cheaper in energy terms to launch from the surface of the moon....as opposed to 0G space?

dr_manhattan

Hmmm...

"far cheaper in both dollar and energy terms"?

I'm curious: I haven't really seen the figures on this, but as I said above, as far as I read it, energy wise, sending people from earth to the moon to mars is, say, 1.8 (as in, almost twice) times the energy to get direct from earth.

i would count an orbital station as pretty much 'direct from earth', as there's no huge mass to create gravity to escape from. The moon, whilst low gravity, still needs a burn to get away from...

So if anyone else has the figures, cool - if not I'd contend that building a moonbase (instead of finishing the space base) and then using is as a terminal for mars flights is absurdly expensive in both dollar AND energy terms, unless the moon can provide it's own resources to help and make it better than an orbital platform...

obviously these type of moves are the type of thing that are supposed to prove economical over 50-100 years, and business has never been my strong point. But i would ask the question: if the moon is the cheaper way to the solar system, why has the whole world been wasting billions on the international space platform? Does Dubya have info nobody else has?

Very interested to hear about this, cheers

Sparks

Specky, Dr_M, the figures are in The High Frontier (amongst other books, including Zubrin's The case for Mars), but to quickly summarise the "how" - it's in situ resource usage. O'Neill wasn't suggesting that we launch stuff from here to the moon and then from the moon to mars - he was suggesting that we go to the moon, construct a base, then mine the regolith for metals and so on (there's a lot of them it turns out) and launch this material into lunar orbit and construct the ship there. It turns out to be cheaper in the medium term and far cheaper in the long term, because launching from the lunar surface to lunar orbit is exceptionally cheap compared to launching from the earth's surface to LEO, both because of the gravity and because of the lack of atmosphere on the moon (meaning you can use more esoteric and efficent launching mechanisms like railguns and so on).

dr_manhattan

Sparks, much obliged:

after a brief perusal of the book info on amazon.com (sadly out of stock - I bet before this press conference it was available, journalists are probably ordering these books by the caseful) I'm intrigued: only a physicist born in the earlier half of the century, IMHO, has the realistic knowledge to speak on such terms - these days we just don't encounter the obstacles on such a scale as they did back when.

So, in short, i'll pick up a copy: I was aware the moon was fairly mineral rich, but to be honest I figured the extraction process would be hugely expensive... as long as this book isn't some publishing wing of the project for the new american century, LOL.

So tell me, do you know was the international space station constructed with such a plan in mind?

on an off-topic note, a mate of mine's father, a 60s era engineer who commands my total respect, has all the baseball caps from all the apollo launches, which he was present for... I don't think I've ever coveted anything as much as those hats, heh - not just pieces of history, but pieces of history that make you look like you just walked off the SS Nostromo ;-)

cheers for the info

sanvean

Originally posted by bizmark
WHAT! how could improved space technology not be a benfit to mankind ? earth currently has 6 billion people before long we will HAVE TO build on the moon or mars and use the resources of those planets and the astroroid feild

And this is your main argument for how space technology is *obviously* a benefit to mankind? To fail to deal with the problem at hand, and merely export it to the moon?

:rolleyes: brilliant.

Specky

Hmm...still not entirely convinced I'm afraid...always have been a little spectacle...I mean sceptical...

Sure I can see why this might be a long term goal but it requires:

- putting up huge amounts of material into LEO from earth in the first place to transfer to the new operation on the moon (a vehicle for the people if we're sending them, surveying machines, mining machines, processing machines, assembly machines etc...all before we actually know precisely what we're going to be doing with them)
- developing mining machinery and techniques for the moon (an all but unknown environment...sure you could use remote controlled vehicles but even so, we don't currently have them sitting somewhere waiting to go)
- need to do extensive geological surveys of the moon to find ideal sites in which to set up the operation. May have been done to some extent before but we get this wrong quite frequently here on earth...my guess is we can get it at least equally wrong on the moon.
- need to develop low gravity techniques (not the same as 0 gravity techniques developed for the ISS) for processing the raw materials and the assembly of parts into sub-assemblies
- probably need to set up a manned operation on the moon to control all of this as it would be just too cumbersome to control from earth with the radio delay etc

etc etc

Alternatively if just go direct to mars (which is all we're talking about here) it is a hell of a lot cheaper in materials and energy to:

- mine the raw materials on earth in mines we already have and with machines we've already developed
- process the raw materials here on earth where we know what we're doing
- transfer them to the ISS for assembly in 0g which we're working in already
- push the burn button once and wait til we see the big red thing out of the window

Sure we have to design the vehicle to get a crew there and back (hopefully) but this wouldn't be a hell of a lot different from the vehicle we'd have to design to get the mining crew to the moon anyway.

The aspirational may not match the politically motivated desires of those in the race. The race for space may not wait for the aspirational, it never has in the past.

bizmark

And this is your main argument for how space technology is *obviously* a benefit to mankind? To fail to deal with the problem at hand, and merely export it to the moon?

I know sure we should just stop all technology advanment and spend all our money fighting issues that you bleve in eh ? :rolleyes: after all if you or some other people dont bleave its a benfit it just cant be! "yawn"

Space is where humans are desented to go explore created colonys and use the resources of the solor system and maybe someday the extended galaxy to put it off because some parts of earth are haveing a bad time is stupid

Sparks

Thing is specky, it's cheaper to build in LEO for one ship and a "footprints-n-flags" mission. If you plan, however, to do it right (several ships, commercial exploitation, and finally starting our permenant presence out there), it's cheaper and more sensible to go to the moon first.

Specky

but that's all you're going to get whilst the missions are politically driven (as they are likely to be for the foreseeable future).

Do you really think the American public are going to support a programme that doesn't give them something cool to look at on CNN or FoxNews reasonably rapidly? Don't think so. Sure, in the background the scientific community may be planning something more long term but there will need to be a PR mission first to give the public a taste of the dream and a sense that the race is on and worth winning.

That's what Bush is proposing, just like the original announcements from the US about putting a man on the moon before the end of the decade. It's going to be a demonstration of US-led supremacy. That's all. Economics and politics make the world go around, not scientific endeavour...unfortunately...perhaps...

Capt'n Midnight

It's all about weight (and it's relation to mass etc.)

Rocket motors need two things to work - energy and reaction mass. (Chemical rocket Fuel just happens to contain both.) Energy call also come from the sun or from nuclear gererators - but you still need a reaction mass. 90% of the weight of rocket at the earths surface is Fuel (actually less 'cos you have two stages), at the moons surface this falls to about 50% - on mars it's inbetween.

But on the moon you could catapult material into orbit to be used as fuel - no need to cary it from earth. Also you only carry H2 to mars - because there you can use energy from the sun (or nuclear reactor) to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen and methane - which you then use as fuel to get you back into orbit.
2H2 + C02 = CH2 + O2
2 Kg of Hydrogen produces 44Kg of fuel + oxidiser

Sparks

Not to worry Specky, it costs less money to do it this way. Which is why it'll be done, end of story.

Specky

The object is for the US to put a man on the surface of Mars.

If we already had all the infra-structure in place, sure, it would require less effort to do all the work on the moon and, as you say, assemble the parts in orbit above the moon. However, we don't. To put the infra-structure in place will cost hundreds of billions of nice US dollars and will take probably the next 50 years. The way will be paved with bad headlines such as lost exploration vehicles, failed experiments, delayed/over budget projects and almost certainly multiple deaths of stolid looking good old American astronauts.

Whether going to the moon or to mars we still have to build the one ship you mention, probably at the ISS from parts shipped up from earth. Actually they're going to have to make dozens of ships in this manner to do what your books suggest. Having one of these redirected to Mars wouldn't cost a great deal more in relative terms. I'd imagine (hope) that work is well underway on the design of a general purpose vehicle for use in space that would be suitable for shuttling back and forth between the moon and ISS that would be possibly suitable for also shuttling to Mars (obviously it's a longer journey and gravity is higher on Mars, facts which would affect the payload carrying requirements of the vehicle but I'd kinda hope they'd be thinking about this...given that we might want to launch missions to nearby asteroids etc in a similar time frame...)

The "get there first at any cost" attitude that took US astronauts to the moon wasn't much of a success in exploration terms. They soon stopped going and haven't been back for what, 30 years? But man stepping on the moon for the first time was a defining moment in human history. I am old enough to have been allowed to stay up late to watch it on TV and I definitely still remember the excitement very clearly...followed by the obligatory assembly of my Airfix Saturn V model...Now that the race has moved beyond the moon I don't think the US could even consider the possibility that an new Neil Armstrong would not be the first with this next defining moment in human history. This is about the conquest of space, just like any other piece of exploration in the past, it is about getting there first and very little else. Politicians will attempt to justify the mission to the public by talking up the potential for exploiting Mars once they've got a man there but that exploitation will come later...probably much later....possibly very very much later...

Mean time anyway, I'd stake my pants...even my best pants, that if the US commits to a manned mission to Mars the first vehicle will leave from earth not from the moon (no hair splitting here. The pants remain mine if they use some gravity assist from the moon to propel the vehicle along the way).

dr_manhattan

Hmm, having changed my mind here to a degree based on hypothetical info, I'd just like to make a few points in support of my new position, ahem ;-) -

Basically, the idea of running a single manned mars shot with nothing out there to support it is insane: not that the moon is 'out there' as far as mars is concerned, but now that I think about it, support for the shot (as in, for example, comprehensive sattelite coverage on mars, and a heavy amount of supplies dropped all over the red planet for emergencies) would be the most important thing:

So assuming resources for this support network was there on the moon, yeah I can see it would be a better angle.

As regards the political nature of such an endeavour, well the original post did say "besides the fact that dubya is a twat" basically. I have huge doubts here, but if we're talking pure scientific endeavour, then sure, the moon does seem good.

howver, as regards man's desire to explore: exploration is one thing, but colonisation is another. Colonisation is a specific thing, and we should have learned our colonial lessons in the past 150 years. If we are going to create colonies, we will have to think about how they work, otherwise we are simply putting the blueprints together for future trade wars and colonial troubles. A colony separated from earth by that distance would have to have some degree of autonomy from the start, and not be an extension of an 'old earth' power.

My 2 cents ;-)

mr_angry

Originally posted by bizmark
to put it off because some parts of earth are haveing a bad time is stupid

I disagree entirely. As the saying goes: "Put your own house in order first". There isn't much out there in the solar system that is of any real benefit to the people of this planet except more room. And frankly, I don't see the Americans using the space program to alleviate overcrowding in Bangladesh, do you?

Sure, exploration is a valid reason for going into space, but not when you're going to spend a few trillion dollars going to a big, empty rock. The money could be used far more wisely. What is a man on Mars going to do? My guess: walk around and have a look. What will that accomplish that a robot couldn't?

Give me a valid reason why this kind of venture will be of any benefit to humanity, and I'll consider my opinion, but I'm afraid I don't see one at the moment.

dr_manhattan

as far as the benefits of space travel goes, I have to say that benefits of scientific reaches are not always apparent. The internet is just beginning to provide help to people in developing countries as far as recieving medical attention and keeping in touch. In the future it does look like africa will benefit from web based (and GSM based) technology.

The web was developed by the US military and DARPA, to the best of my knowledge.

Like it or not, the social advances alone that WW2 accidentally brought about (equality in the workplace, for both race and sex) are at least equal to the technological benefits. It's about challenging ourselves, no?

The computing advances that the 60s space race brought about, and other advances in materials and engineering, cannot be ignored also. So yes, I agree we *should* get our own house in order, but that is not going to happen today, tomorrow, or indeed any time soon. I honestly don't think a race to mars will change that.

Simply because right now, people don't spend the small amounts of money needed to balance the world. And if we never go to mars, I don't think it'll free up cash to help our problems: nasty but true IMHO.

But I do believe that scientific progress, above all else, as in, showing people what they are capable of, giving humanity perspective, has had the most effect in terms of helping our situation here on earth. People may fight *using* science, but when was the last time a war started over the specific weight of magnesium?

The publication of the first orbital photos of earth made a big difference to the way people thought. just like discovering the world was not flat did. And if we head out to space we are going to find out more of these things.

It may seem unjust, and seem like we're leaving our brother man behind in a rush for new territories, but that seems to be the way we work: my way of looking at it is, perhaps the NASA budget will eat into the stealth programmes, maybe the new generation of pilotless attack aircraft will be delayed by a mars shot.

As long as it's not a move towards conflict, basically, I';m in favour...

more rants ;-), sorry about that heh.

mr_angry

The web was developed by the US military and DARPA, to the best of my knowledge.

Correct...

just like discovering the world was not flat

But did these things come at a cost of billions, neigh trillions, of dollars? No.

The computing advances that the 60s space race brought about, and other advances in materials and engineering, cannot be ignored also.

Right enough, they can't be ignored, but I think its unfair to say they wouldn't have happened anyway. An interesting article on this kind of subject is Vannevar Bush's "As We May Think", which was written in 1945 - its well worth a read.

People may fight *using* science, but when was the last time a war started over the specific weight of magnesium?

I'm not trying to go on a rant against your post here, but the atomic, and hydrogen bombs spring to mind. In fact, discoveries such as these are still causing conflict today, e.g. Iran-Pakistan, North Korea, etc.

Simply because right now, people don't spend the small amounts of money needed to balance the world. And if we never go to mars, I don't think it'll free up cash to help our problems: nasty but true IMHO.

I agree. But that's not to say we shouldn't use the money for a better purpose. And that's what these forums are all about - opinion. There's mine!

dr_manhattan

Agreed re: opinions, it's actually kind of rare to meet someone in an online forum that actually respects anothers ;-)

Anyways, some points you made:

"But did these things (discovery the world wasn't round) come at a cost of billions, neigh trillions, of dollars? No."

Well, if you think about it, the cost of getting columbus over there, and then resupplied with troops and the like must have been excessive relative to the average peasant's wages back then: certainly the colonisation process was. One thing that I'd be certain of is that the colonial powers involved spent *as much as they could* in order to get as far afield as possible. Admittedly, as now, the reasons were greed. But the results of global exploration were considerable in terms of dividend. Hell, there's be no potatoes here for starters, LOL.

Fact is, there weren't any dollars around - but i do think the principle remains the same. Sending colonists to the new world to build ports with the limited knowledge of navigation and weather systems that they had was, IMHO, quite close to the idea of a mars endeavour...

" I'm not trying to go on a rant against your post here, but the atomic, and hydrogen bombs spring to mind. In fact, discoveries such as these are still causing conflict today, e.g. Iran-Pakistan, North Korea, etc."

As I said, people fight WITH science, e.g. nuclear bombs, but they don't fight OVER science: politics and religion is the reason that nuclear proliferation is an issue, the atom bomb was developed for the purpose of duplicating the firestorms that were already created in Dresden, Cologne and Hamburg with one bomb.

What I mean is, science has been used to fight wars, but it's never caused any.

And I'm assuming by "iran-pakistan" you mean "india-pakistan"? because that, IMHO, is a cut and dried religious conflict. When war occured previously over kashmir, it was not ballistics science that was to blame, though bullets did cause the casualties.

Thing is, I kind of agree with you as regards the idea that we should fix earth first: my point is that if history teaches us nothing (which it has, hahahah) then it at least shows us that we do not tend to sort out our difficulties, instead we forge ahead and things improve slowly... dunno where I'm going with this but hey, my 2 cents anyway.

Sparks

Originally posted by mr_angry
I disagree entirely. As the saying goes: "Put your own house in order first".

One of the main reasons given for cancelling Apollo and not returning to the moon over two decades ago was that social problems on earth needed attention and resources. It's been 20 years. Have things gotten any better?
Simple fact is, we can stay here and watch resources run out, wars get worse and just let the whole thing fall over - or we can go out and fix the problem.

There isn't much out there in the solar system that is of any real benefit to the people of this planet except more room.

What a load of hooey. Try free clean energy from solar power satellites, more metals and materials in one asteroid than we could use in a century, and scientific knowlege that can improve our quality of life beyond our current imagined futures. Hell, you're reading this on a PC that wouldn't exist except for the Gemini and Apollo programmes!

And frankly, I don't see the Americans using the space program to alleviate overcrowding in Bangladesh, do you?

I didn't see them starting the original programmes for anyone's benefit at all, but guess what? We all benefited from it anyway - that's the nature of basic research.

Sure, exploration is a valid reason for going into space, but not when you're going to spend a few trillion dollars going to a big, empty rock. The money could be used far more wisely. What is a man on Mars going to do? My guess: walk around and have a look. What will that accomplish that a robot couldn't?

One month of walking about with a trained geologist is the equivalent of just over 46 years of the Spirit rover operating continously. (Thanks Robert Zubrin). The simple fact is that if it's just a big dead rock, we'll only learn about the origin of the solar system and our planet - if we find even one microbe, we could learn where we came from, and if that microbe is native to mars and not based on DNA, it'd be the greatest discovery in the history of biology since DNA was found - and perhaps greater, since it would contribute more to biology. And biology feeds medecine, don't forget.

Give me a valid reason why this kind of venture will be of any benefit to humanity, and I'll consider my opinion, but I'm afraid I don't see one at the moment.

It's called basic research. Do it and be where we are - don't do it and grass huts, fire and cooked food are a dream you'll never attain.

mr_angry

Sending colonists to the new world to build ports with the limited knowledge of navigation and weather systems that they had was, IMHO, quite close to the idea of a mars endeavour...

Well, the Portugeese and Spanish weren't that worried at the time about presenting the image of a harsh, imperialisitic society with no regard to the rest of humanity. However, that is the image that the Americans seem to be trying to portray (e.g. one giant step for man). If the Americans really want to do something exceptional for humanity, why don't they do it here?

Besides, at least the Portugeese and the Spanish had the hope of finding something worthwhile on the other side of the world. I have no idea what the Americans expect to gain from going to Mars specifically. There are many scientific advances that may be necessary along the way, but they are not the stated objective here, nor are they set in any kind of concrete plan that would validate the funding for this project. Mars itself is a big, cold rock (as is the moon, pretty much). There may be some untapped metals there, but the cost of mining and putting those metals to use far outweighs the return on investment.

If I'm not mistaken, it was the science behind the atomic bomb, and the Allies refusal to give it to Stalin that sparked off the Cold War? Alright, Stalin had some ideas on invading Europe, but since when have two people who agreed on everything had a war? I'd call it a valid example of science (albeit the science of destruction, or physics!) causing a war. Anyway, that's not my real point, so I'll quit while I'm ahead.

I think the overall point of this thread is for people to give their opinions on what is being done vs. what they think should be done. So far nobody has been able to show me that what is being done outweighs the benefits of what should be done. Even you yourself (dr_manhattan) are semi-agreeing with me. You aren't showing me the benefit of what we're doing now, you're just saying "This is the way its always been done". In historical examples, benefits have come out of this kind of evdevour, but as I pointed out before, I dispute some of their relevance. Tell me - what exactly is an excursion to Mars and a moon base going to do for us?

dr_manhattan

You have a number of valid points, but all I can say is, "if we knew what benefits were involved we wouldn't have to go there" - seriously, I know what you mean as regards attending to other issues, but stopping research is a flawed idea, and research is how I see the mars shot...

As has been said already, these endeavours have huge byproducts in terms of research and development. Even the robotics involved in unmanned martian landings has benefits:

"that is the image that the Americans seem to be trying to portray (e.g. one giant step for man)"

Listen, plenty of people often accuse the US of A of trying to seem one way or other - fair enough accusation, but the fact is we all know they're not what they try to appear to be. Every single country and politician in the world claims they're benefitting humanity, hell even Hitler did. The spanish and portuguese probably said somehting similar (I think at the time the phrase was "for christendom" as opposed to "makind", leaving out all the "savages" conveniently, heh)

Whatever the pretend motivations of the US, fact is they're doing it for the US. For US aerospace industry, yadayadayada, for the military industrial complex, for the MAN ;-) We all know this. My angle is, better the US spends its cash on mars than on ICBMs and stealth bombers.

because there is NO WAY the US is gonna spend on anything else: it has never happened and never will. Nor has any other country spent heavily on anything other than their own asses. Ever.

" Besides, at least the Portugeese and the Spanish had the hope of finding something worthwhile on the other side of the world."

Err... that's not my reading of it. I think we know where mars is a HELL of a lot better than they knew where america was. Not only that, but we probably have a better chance of surviving a disaster in the mission than they did.

"If I'm not mistaken, it was the science behind the atomic bomb, and the Allies refusal to give it to Stalin that sparked off the Cold War?"

Err, so if they'd handed the technology over, then there would have been no cold war? Because Stalin was best mates with everyone and not an insane despot? Come on, I get what youre saying, but the cold war was about ideology, not nukes. It was kept alive by nukes, but nobody was fighting for the right to have, worship or freely associate with nukes ;-)


And finally your question, which I addressed above:

"Tell me - what exactly is an excursion to Mars and a moon base going to do for us?"

I would turn your question around and ask you what *specific* plan you think should be done that would cost as much and give as much benefit. No multilateral peace plans, please.

And as far as benefits, I'd say -

Physics generally from robotics to electronics to communincations technology: the first ever JPEG was sent from viking one.

Medicine, particularly in the areas of muscle development, radiation poisoning, et al.

As well as other less tangible benefits, such as the aforementioned perspective provided by reaching the moon.

Damn! gotta go, I admit that's a crappy list, but interesting discussion.

later folks...

mr_angry

Thank you Sparks for at least trying to answer a couple of my points. I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but I'm just going to examine a couple of yours, to get a better understanding.

It's been 20 years. Have things gotten any better?

I'd say things have gotten considerably better. Europe is in a far, far better condition than it was 20 years ago, and not just economically. Socially, the EU has advanced things massively - I work with several foreign people who came to Ireland under the Erasmus and Socrates schemes - something that would never have been likely 20 years ago. That isn't a wonderful example, but I think its unfair to say that things aren't any better.

Try free clean energy from solar power satellites, more metals and materials in one asteroid than we could use in a century, and scientific knowlege that can improve our quality of life beyond our current imagined futures.

Ok, how much "free clean energy from solar power satellites" is actually being put to use? Very little. But it is a worthwhile cause, I'll give you that. But how is this expidition going to help us mine asteroids, or even catch one in the first place? I don't see the link, beyond the fact that both exist in space. Will this research really improve our quality of life (and I'm talking about the mission objective itself, not the improvements along the way. If you want to talk about them, then please bring them up specifically, and tell me why those discoveries will be possible during this mission only, rather than having funding applied to those sciences directly.

One month of walking about with a trained geologist is the equivalent of just over 46 years of the Spirit rover operating continously.

That is a valid point, but you have to consider the cost and infrastructure involved in each of them. This plan (to put a man on Mars) is significantly less cost-effective than the robot, but will bring speedier results. Is that enough to warrant it?

It's called basic research. Do it and be where we are - don't do it and grass huts, fire and cooked food are a dream you'll never attain.

I'll let you in on some personal details - I am a postgraduate researcher. That is my job. In order to do this properly, I have to set out realistic goals for my projects, I have to explain exactly what I'm going to do (when, where, why), and then explain how it will benefit human understanding in that area. That is what I have to do to justify my funding. That is what I'm asking for from this project.

So far, in the list of stated benefits I see:
"Lets get a man with an American flag onto Mars". Cost: Billions. Benefits to humanity: "Some, but we haven't been bothered to set those out yet".

You can add to that the point about the geologist (thats a very good one). Unfortunately, its been set out by you, and not the people in charge of the project.

I love space exploration, but I can't throw my full support behind a project of this magnitude until those in charge of the project show me that it will actually benefit the people of this world.

Specky

I think the overall point of this thread is for people to give their opinions on what is being done vs. what they think should be done. So far nobody has been able to show me that what is being done outweighs the benefits of what should be done. Even you yourself (dr_manhattan) are semi-agreeing with me. You aren't showing me the benefit of what we're doing now, you're just saying "This is the way its always been done". In historical examples, benefits have come out of this kind of evdevour, but as I pointed out before, I dispute some of their relevance. Tell me - what exactly is an excursion to Mars and a moon base going to do for us?

I think this is really a completely different topic.

I really don't think that if the US cancel the space programme somebody over there will say..."oh look...loads of money...I know, let's give it to the needy nations..."

If the space programme is cancelled the money will be spent on defence, offence, whatever.

If we were to be purely aspirational and take the "let's solve the problems of the world" approach then the problems could be solved without all that money and without cancelling real, hard scientific research (which is after all essential in order to find solutions to problems people will argue about solving in 50 years time when the world's population is considerably larger than it is now and probably ravaged by a whole new range of diseases/ailments that have not yet emerged).

mr_angry's anti-space exploration/anti-us standpoint is not one I find very compelling I'm afraid. It's just plain silly to contend that nothing can be learned from space exploration (much could also be learned through detailed exploration of the seabed, the arctic/antarctic, the sub-atomic universe and a whole lot more I'd have to add, but this is about space exploration).

As I stated earlier I don't believe the race for space is really about colonisation or scienctific discovery in just the same way as columbus did not sail across the Atlantic to discover the American continent, colonise it and give birth to the early 21st century's only superpower (using this as an example not as a statement of historical fact so don't split hairs on the discovery of America...).

One day there will I am sure be colonies on the moon, in earth orbit, on Mars and beyond and I truly wish I could be around to see it all happen and be a part of the discoveries that will result from such endeavour. But I won't. However, I may see a man walk on Mars. I may even see him make it back to earth and the resulting endless TV coverage that will provide...

So. Mr_Angry. Should the Irish government cancel the Dublin Port Tunnel, the Luas, the airport light rail, close the national laboratory, shut down the universities and cancel third level education until all of the homeless are off the streets of our citites? Should they concentrate instead on eradicating poverty and disease from the children of our nation? Perhaps they should disband the defence forces and sell all their land and weapons of war and spend the money more charitably? Sure, we don't need any of it. Who's going to invade little old us?

If you believe truly in all of this then get off your computer and go stand by your convictions instead of sitting there blathering self righteous clap trap.

(are you really angry yet??)

Faust

Originally posted by Specky
I
So. Mr_Angry. Should the Irish government cancel the Dublin Port Tunnel, the Luas, the airport light rail, close the national laboratory, shut down the universities and cancel third level education until all of the homeless are off the streets of our citites? Should they concentrate instead on eradicating poverty and disease from the children of our nation? Perhaps they should disband the defence forces and sell all their land and weapons of war and spend the money more charitably? Sure, we don't need any of it. Who's going to invade little old us?

If you believe truly in all of this then get off your computer and go stand by your convictions instead of sitting there blathering self righteous clap trap.

(are you really angry yet??)

Wow... you make little sense my friend . The luas,port tunnel,airport and light rail are all part and going to be part of our infrastructure. And the better the infrastructure the more jobs and the less people in poverty. YEY! So why would people shut it down?
The trip to mars which i heard today would cost a trillion dollars does not have the same reprecussions. Although there would be some invaluable information found ( if it even got there) could it really compare to improving things in America such as social welfare and other things?And unlike the universities which do valuable research in medicine etc.. the information found during the expedition to mars would not be as valuable.
I also have a feeling that this proposal is just one of those election promises used to sway those who have an interest in the planets.
And just because you do not agree with someone does not mean you can call what they say "blathering self righteous clap trap". Even though what i say probably is..

regards, Faust

Typedef

I'm sure the desire to build a moon base, is ostensibly military, as the then space-race was.

None of this is an issue, as it is man's destiny to colonise the solar system and later outside of the solar system.

Eventually terran life will proliferate throughout the nearby region of space or we will encounter a hostile civilisation or ELE[1] and be wiped out.


[1] Extinction Level event.

Faust

Originally posted by Typedef
None of this is an issue, as it is man's destiny to colonise the solar system and later outside of the solar system.

Eventually terran life will proliferate throughout the nearby region of space or we will encounter a hostile civilisation or ELE[1] and be wiped out.


[1] Extinction Level event.

Okay.... Can you back this up somehow??

Sparks

Originally posted by mr_angry
I'd say things have gotten considerably better. Europe is in a far, far better condition than it was 20 years ago, and not just economically. Socially, the EU has advanced things massively - I work with several foreign people who came to Ireland under the Erasmus and Socrates schemes - something that would never have been likely 20 years ago. That isn't a wonderful example, but I think its unfair to say that things aren't any better.

Yes, europe is better off - but that's totally irrelevant. Fact is, the US stopping it's space programme affected the US only - and they've not gotten better in 20 years than they would have given the rate of normal technological development. In fact, they're way behind where they would be, had they continued the programme. The rate of scientific and technical progress during the space race has only ever been equalled by times of war. People require a goal to aim for, a motivation - as the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention. For example, it was necessary that Gemini and Apollo spacecraft be able to do orbital mechanics on-board the spacecraft, and that made it necessary to invent smaller computers. Which is why we're reading this on PCs rather than dumb terminals linked over the phone to mainframes.

Ok, how much "free clean energy from solar power satellites" is actually being put to use? Very little.

None actually, since there are no solar power satellites - yet. The designs and benefits have been on the drawing board for over 30 years, but the political go has never been there to build them. But with that go, you could have the first one inside three years.

But it is a worthwhile cause, I'll give you that. But how is this expidition going to help us mine asteroids, or even catch one in the first place?

Because the plan calls for a manned lunar base before the mars shot. Turns out, that makes everything cheaper by orders of magnitude. O'Neills The High Frontier gives the basic economic and technical analyses if you want to read more on it. Basicly it boils down to in-situ resources.

Will this research really improve our quality of life (and I'm talking about the mission objective itself, not the improvements along the way.

Sorry, that's not how research works. Most of the time, the objective fails competely, but we find something totally new and unique along the way. It's called research for a reason, after all. (As Einstein said, "It's called research when I don't know what I'm doing").
The best I can tell you is that we've never ever wasted money on basic research. Ever. In the entire history of science.

rather than having funding applied to those sciences directly.

And what exactly will that funding pay for? Field science needs the field, after all.
Look, if I told you in 1950 that we needed to go to the moon so we'd know what happened to the dinosaurs, I'd have been a crackpot. But that's one of the things we learnt from the actual objective mission itself. IT was impossible to predict, and if you could have predicted it, you wouldn't have had to go there. But now we know more about our world, what happened to it, what is still happening to it, and where we came from. We knew to go look for the K-T boundrary and how to interpret it when we found it, we knew what shoemaker-levy nine represented and we know now of a threat to our entire species that we didn't know even existed in 1950.
And none of it was predictable beforehand. But we knew we'd learn some important things by going. And today, we can't predict what we'll find, but we know we'll learn important things by going. There are big questions to answer - and their answers will lead to bigger questions and so on, as it always has done, and always will do. Who are we? Where do we come from? How do we work? All of those have answers and some of them are out there on Mars and the Moon and in space. And while some answers are right here, we don't have the perspective yet to recognise them. Hell, in 1950, Meteor Crater in arizona was thought to be a long-extinct volcano, as were the craters on the moon, because it was then believed by all but a few crackpots that meteor bombardment ended around the time the earth cooled - and was in fact the reason that the earth cooled. Now we know different - but we had to go to the moon and collect specimens to do so.

That is a valid point, but you have to consider the cost and infrastructure involved in each of them. This plan (to put a man on Mars) is significantly less cost-effective than the robot, but will bring speedier results. Is that enough to warrant it?

How is it less cost-effective? How much would 46.5 years of rover time on Mars cost? And how much would it cost to do the research to make the robot as capable as a human? I've worked in a robotics lab for the last seven years - trust me, humans will be quite cost-effective for this task, if you send a trained human and give him enough time to work.

I'll let you in on some personal details - I am a postgraduate researcher.

Ditto

That is my job. In order to do this properly, I have to set out realistic goals for my projects, I have to explain exactly what I'm going to do (when, where, why), and then explain how it will benefit human understanding in that area. That is what I have to do to justify my funding. That is what I'm asking for from this project.

And as I do the same thing, I can tell you that you're not telling everyone the catch - that grant proposal is then reviewed, and more often than not, it's not scientific merit or practicality of the project or even feasability that gets you the cash - it's to do with political considerations and the economy at the time. I've seen reviews that were not only self-contradictory, but contradicted the project proposal submitted in major areas.
Didn't mean the project itself wasn't sound...

So far, in the list of stated benefits I see:
"Lets get a man with an American flag onto Mars". Cost: Billions. Benefits to humanity: "Some, but we haven't been bothered to set those out yet".

That's neither accurate nor fair. In fact, it's blatently wrong. You're missing out the benefits that come from a focussed national policy on scientific achievement, the investing of large sums into basic research, the benefits of improving the perception of science and engineering as career areas, as well as the direct benefits of the programme itself - a lunar base, the development of in-situ resource utilisation techniques and so forth. It would take a book to list them all in any kind of detail (and hundreds of books have been written on the subject, at all levels from Transactions-level papers to popular science books to kindergarden books).

You can add to that the point about the geologist (thats a very good one). Unfortunately, its been set out by you, and not the people in charge of the project.

Which would be whom? NASA has made no announcement, in fact the only ones to do so have been the white house - and in fact, they haven't talked to NASA about it, this pretty much comes from Marburger, the presidential science advisor, if the scuttlebutt is to be believed in any fashion (and it's been quite accurate so far).

I love space exploration, but I can't throw my full support behind a project of this magnitude until those in charge of the project show me that it will actually benefit the people of this world.

He said, typing on a personal computer, before going home to watch TV news from around the globe via satellite, weather forcasts based on satellite observations, to drink coffee flown in from Kenya on a jet plane that owes it's existance to earlier NACA projects that encountered the same resistance and perhaps to take a headache pill that costs several hundred times it's production price because it's not a commodity product becuase the R&D wasn't done in the public sector...

Specky

Woohooo! A reaction!

Thanks Faust for slapping my down so tenderly...

ok, I let my fingers do the walking a little there and they went off with themselves.

Actually space exploration (or the offshoots that come as a result) have the potential to create huge numbers of jobs...and the potential to automate out of existence lots more jobs that are currently done under near slave labour conditions around the world.

As somebody else pointed out earlier the whole PC industry sprung from technology developed for early space missions. This will continue to provide new technologues that will be exploited commercially for earthbound products. No doubt whatsoever of this.

Also there are lots of pharmaceutical and engineering processes that are either only possible in 0g or are made a lot easier if performed in 0g...or that are very dangerous and would be nicer to contemplate if done away off in space. Now, they won't be done "on the way to mars" (I actually suspect that MB Games are producing a 0g version of Travel Scrabble in order to keep the astronauts amused on their long journey...they may need an extra large bag of Opal Fruits too...), but the work required in order to put together the mission will almost undoubtedly contribute to the knowledge and experience that will make possible these off world pharma and engineering processes.

So in short, I disagree that space exploration can make no positive contribution to wealth creation and therefore to the reduction of poverty....ok, in the real world the wealth that is created may not directly benefit those who live below the poverty line but that isn't really the fault of space exploration and we can only hope that by the time benefits begin to flow the world will be a more equitable place (hope....)

My point about the DPT, Luas etc and the closure of third level institutions was a little bit tangentially obscure...like many of my points (they make sense to me, honest). I most certainly do not advocate cancelling or closing any of these things. I'm actually a little dubious as to whether building the Spire has contributed to the wealth of the nation and I'd certainly have to say some of the other projects mentioned are perhaps badly planned or somewhat misguided resulting in bad value for money for the country...which is certainly not helping create wealth but may be creating jobs in the short term at least.

However, it looked to me that Mr_Angry was the one who was actually following the "don't do research because we need to look after the starving millions" line, which sort of leads to the "don't do anything that isn't immediately necessary because human life is more valuable" line. Which is the anti-globalisation, anti-commercial line that would have little regard for things like the Luas, DPT, etc etc anyway.

Interesting to now learn that Mr_Angry is himself a research post grad. Does his research immediately provide benefits to the underprivelidged and repressed peoples of the world I wonder? Well maybe from his viewpoint it does....if it does not, however, I would expect him to stand by his point of view, give up immediately, give back any money he has received to support the research and head off to foriegn climes where he can do some good...for the kids....

Typedef

Originally posted by Faust
Okay.... Can you back this up somehow??

It's only logical.

The point of life being proliferation of it's DNA to the widest extent and being as difficult to kill off as possible.

Ergo, 'planting the planet's seed' far and wide is the only logical conclusion of Darwinian theory, no?

mr_angry

Why yes Specky, I am a bit annoyed with your post, right enough. Mostly because you've dismissed my questions with a wave of the self-rightous wand, rather than attempt to answer them.

mr_angry's anti-space exploration/anti-us standpoint is not one I find very compelling I'm afraid.

What a load of crap. I love space exploration and I have nothing against the US, particularly the scientists, who I have the utmost respect for. But I am also a realist. What have we got so far? We've been told some American bloke is going to Mars, most likely to stick an American flag there. Have we been told anything about the scientific research being done there? No. Have we been told anything about what scientific discoveries will be made in other disciplines along the way? No. What have we been told? They're gonna throw a trillion dollars at it.

Does that sound like a satisfactory, genuine proposal to you? If I was in charge of that trillion dollars, and a proposal like that was put to me, I would probably respond with "Get the f*ck out of my office". I'm not speaking out against space exploration in any way - I'm speaking out against bollocks yee-ha proposals with money thrown at them, no plans, and an agenda relating more to election campaigning than science. Nothing more.

What's more, people keep bringing up the spin-off benefits. That's fine, except for 2 things:
1. Nobody has come up with a real, genuine scientific reason for the principle mission of having a living human on Mars, except for the geologist proposal.
2. This is all being suggested by you guys, and not the people in charge of the project.

The fact is that the Science Foundation of America should be presenting this project (and in a professional manner), not George Bush.

So. Mr_Angry. Should the Irish government cancel the Dublin Port Tunnel, the Luas, etc, etc.

You're trying to totally sensationalise the argument there. Serious scientific research should always be continued. But not this kind of statement should be ignored until real scientists give us real facts, real estimates, and real benefits. And next time, try not to sensationalise the issue, paraphrase me, or piss me off with coments like this:

instead of sitting there blathering self righteous clap trap

We're having a real debate, if you don't mind.

Faust

Originally posted by Typedef
It's only logical.

The point of life being proliferation of it's DNA to the widest extent and being as difficult to kill off as possible.

Ergo, 'planting the planet's seed' far and wide is the only logical conclusion of Darwinian theory, no?

I tihnk that's changed. It may be a natural urge to do this but since contraceptives and sexual morals exist i find it very difficult to believe that "spreading our seed) is our prerogative in these modern days.

Faust

Actually space exploration (or the offshoots that come as a result) have the potential to create huge numbers of jobs...and the potential to automate out of existence lots more jobs that are currently done under near slave labour conditions around the world.

I disagree i think the money would be better placed in other far worthy projects. It should be considered as an investment though. I think it should be used to reduce poverty in the u.s personally. But that's just meh