Men on Mars
Bush floated his Mars initiative. My gut reaction to this is that I want humans in space, lots of them. I've heard some interesting reactions, the suddenly fically responsible Dems saying no. Some left wing enviromentalists say no because they don't want anyone escaping the apocolyptic catastrophe they believe is coming. Libertarian enviromentalists saying yes because of the potential development of resources off planet making fewer holes in the ground here. Anti-Capitalists want it done by the state, anti-Statists want it done by private industry. Everyone is re-focusing their ideology to try to fit this in. It is enormous. Now its my turn.
I'm worried about the Bush plan for a number of reasons. The first is the money. UT posted a paragraph by Andrew Sullivan in another thread and he makes a good point. We are leaving the next generation some awful financial liabilities and this is just one more. Another is this administrations affection for croney capitalism. Huge contracts will build the infrastructure for these projects and connected companies will get those contracts and quite possibly the infrastructure itself when all is said and done. That needs to be addressed. Will the government provide a bridge to space for humanity or will it act as gate keeper controlling access to space? Another worry is Cheneys stated goal of having military superiority in space. Defense is important but an arms race in space would divert funds from the goal of populating space and create more negative impressions of an increasingly militarized America. I like that Bush was willing to say out loud that we need to shut down the shuttle program (why not sell it off though?) and the International Space Station.
We don't need humans on Mars. Why can't we design robots to do the job?
My reaction to Bush's Mars proposal was a big eye roll. I like Bush as a person and as a leader but his idea just reeked of "here's a grand idea from me and its BIG and BOLD and VISIONARY and Kennedy-like!"
Despite whatever merit the idea might have, I don't think now is the time and I really don't think we need to send humans to Mars yet. Consider, just for a moment, what would happen if we lost a crew on Mars. Are we ready for that risk? Not in my opinion.
I think that getting a breeding population of humans off planet is a biological necessity... I don't know that this is the way to go about it though.
Losing a Mars crew in a risk adverse society which sues over hot coffee...
Originally posted by Griff
...the suddenly fically responsible Dems...
Someone think of the ficus!
I think instead of Mars, Bush should have pushed for the Moon first. Assuming that this isn't just '04 rhetoric (*coughbullshitcough*), the Moon is a hell of a lot closer, a hell of a lot easier to reach (who wants a space elevator? I DO!), and lots easier to rescue people from. Plus, if we really wanted to militarize, we could just set up a catapult on the Moon and drop rocks on folks (a la 'The Moon is Harsh Mistress').
Let's take baby steps (if you can c all 240K miles a baby step).
And Griff, keep your fical matter out of the threads ;)
Yeah, let's go with the space elevator!! Was that even mentioned???
Oh and I'm highly dubious on sending people to Mars. It just doesn't feel like the right time. But I'm definitely in favor of the part where they ditch the shuttles. Not only are they ancient technology, I see absolutely no benefits to futzing around in low earth orbit.
Originally posted by headsplice
I think instead of Mars, Bush should have pushed for the Moon first.
Actually, he did.
Space elevator not space modulator.
"In 15 years we could have a dozen cables running full steam putting 50 tons in space every day for even less, including upper middle class individuals wanting a joyride into space. Now I just need the $5 billion, Edwards added. We're going to Mars because we think thats where Bin Ladin and Iraqs weapons of mass destruction are.
Bush is on a crusade and will hunt down the evil followers of islam, and the terrorists to the end of the galaxy.
Originally posted by Beestie
Despite whatever merit the idea might have, I don't think now is the time and I really don't think we need to send humans to Mars yet. Consider, just for a moment, what would happen if we lost a crew on Mars. Are we ready for that risk? Not in my opinion.
circa 1490s Spain: Should we be sending people to the Orient over the ocean? What if they drop off the edge of the earth? Are we ready for that risk?
dar512 wrote:circa 1490s Spain: Should we be sending people to the Orient over the ocean? What if they drop off the edge of the earth? Are we ready for that risk?
If King Ferdinand/Queen Isabella could have sent a ship that could sail by itself at 1/20th the cost and accomplish the same thing (stealing gold from the Aztecs :-) I daresay they would have. The mission to "India" was to make international trade more efficient.
I don't get the sense that the purpose of a Mars mission is anything other than the "because its there" reason. Additionally, what can an astronaut do on Mars that a robot can't?
Griff suggests that we need to start laying the groundwork to get humans colonizing elsewhere. I fully support that. I also fully support the idea of exploring Mars for a number of scientific reasons. Part of my problem is that I'm not sure I trust NASA to be able to manage a project like that any more.
This isn't 1490±. We have alternatives. But, even in 1490, there was a cost/benefit/alternative feasibility study. At the time, setting sail was the correct answer. I don't see how that decision at that time under those circumstances binds us to make the exact same decision under completely different circumstances 500 years later.
Someday? Yes! Today? What are my choices?
Didn't Bush Sr. make this same promise during his term?
Originally posted by Kitsune
Didn't Bush Sr. make this same promise during his term?
Too many presidents want to do what Kennedy did. Reagan wanted the hypersonic airplane and star wars. Now called myths. George Sr proposed missions to the moon. In each case, that president forgot to do what Kennedy did. First learn facts. Too many leaders want the 'big picture' - facts be damned (ie Iraq). So they find themselves an Oliver North or Edward Teller - and that constitutes an intelligent inquiry.
Yes, George Sr also made the same promise. Then real costs were discovered. At George Jr's $400 billion price tag (same price as liberating Iraqis), instead, estimate about $4 trillion. That in part because much technology needed is not being developed or is not found in America (such as rocket technology) - since capturing Saddam and building a military larger than the entire world combined is more important ... advances mankind [cough]. Also called testosterone based thinking. Science be damned.
In the meantime, Hubble Space Telescope will be scrapped to put men on the moon. Hubble was scheduled for upgrade next year. Most all the work having been done or being finished on earth. That would have made Hubble good for another 10 years. But instead, it is more important to think with emotion (as an MBA) rather than use logic (as science demands). Hubble is to be destroyed because an MBA president has emotional goals - science and logic be damned.
We cannot even get a space station working. Same management is so technically incompetant as to even stifle engineers who suspected Columbia was in danger. At $8billion, ISS still does not do any real science - and, now, is not even scheduled to do irrelevant science for many years. ISS now is operating without knowing even its air quality - which is also leaking at what may be a dangerous rate. Astronauts now burning an emergency oxygen generating candle every day because of air problems in ISS. All this money because science - such as the super collider - is not glorious enough for politicians who refuse to think as Kennedy did.
Kennedy first learned facts before making a decision. A complete reverse of what George Jr does. Kennedy spent major time interviewing virtually every relevant person before making his declaration. Decisions based upon existing realities? Such is not necessary to an MBA - such as George Jr. His mission to the moon is based first upon politics - not upon science and logic.
Hubble is dead. Long live Hubble. Assasinated by an MBA president who even lies about Iraq. His 'men on the moon' nonsense only demonstrates a thought process that, like an MBA, need only see a spread sheet.
No wonder he killed the Oslo Accords as predicated by Euroean foreign ministers. Oslo Accords were Clinton. Therefore they too must have been wrong. Realities and facts being irrelevant. MBA president knows everything. We realists just get in the way. The man on moon mission is silly when it undermines good and much less expensive science - such as Hubble.
Originally posted by tw
... Assasinated ...president ...he killed the ...Euroean foreign ministers. ...Clinton...too must have been wrong. MBA president ... just get in the way. The man ...undermines good...
Quick! Call the cops.
TW, isn't there a replacement for the Hubble scheduled?
Have you ever been to Rome? If not, don't bother. There are plenty of photographs out there, which is just as good as going in person. Right?
Exploration is the search for the unexpected, but robot explorers like the Mars rovers can only effectively deal with the expected. They can't improvise, and they can't observe what they're not designed to be able to observe. Perhaps on the Martian surface there is a voice on the wind yelling "Over here!"occasionally, but if the robot isn't equipped with a microphone, and contantly monitoring it for specific sounds, then no one will know.
I think it's important that we send people to Mars at some point. An educated human with tools is the best Mars rover that NASA could develop. And Mars is the next logical stepping stone in human space exploration... If we don't go to Mars, then we don't go beyond Mars, and we miss out on some damn interesting stuff. Risk? Lots of skilled people will step up eagerly, despite the risk.
Besides, the long-distance space travel technology could save our lives one day. Who knows when an errant meteor may need to be redirected... it is not just the stuff of science fiction, a random meteor could kill everyone. The worst time to stop and think is when Death is a stride behind you.
Every time the Guv'ment has pushed for big science, it has flopped. The exceptions to this rule have been when there was some external push to keep momentum - as in the Cold War for the moon, or WWII for the Manhattan Project. Let's look...
The Superconducting Supercollider is just a big hole in the ground that cost millions and does nothing.
The space shuttle has from day one been too expensive. It has done much but at way too much expense, and danger.
Even the moon was a flop in the sense that yes, we made it, but then when real science was going to begin after all the engineering was perfected, they cut the program. That turned the whole thing into big stunt. Now to even get to the moon we have to reinvent the wheel.
Then we have the International Space Station.
All the science has been squeezed out of it by budget cuts. We are left with two astronauts in space performing so much maintainence they have no time for science. Now they want to kill the ISS after we have spent millions (probably billions) on it.
I laughed when Bush the first said we were going to Mars. It sounded like pure wishful thinking. Bush II is doing the same thing for me.
I want a functioning space program so badly, and yet even I see that Bush's plan for Mars is going to be a money pit. It is going to run overbudget at least by 300% and then give us squat.
The thing that kills the science every time is the drive to put people in space.
I agree that the eventual grand picture would have humanity colonize the whole solar system -- and beyond, if we can.
But for now, the most productive, scientifically worthy projects are not manned missions. They are robotic missions, launched for a few million apiece, that can afford to be lost. Beagle didn't call home? A bunch of scientists and engineers in England are crying into their beers, but no-one died. It's a success/failure ratio we can live with. We don't have to massively overdesign a vehicle so as to not take "unacceptable" risks with astronaut's lives.
When we can do it reasonably safely, and for a reasonable price, we should go to Mars. Till then, let the robots have it.
- Pie
..after we've fully explored the possibility of setting up viable full-time settlements in the Antarctic, the Sahara, the ocean, etc. Places that are plenty dangerous and are comparatively much easier to pull people out of should there be a problem with the artificial environment.
Much as I think we need, truly need, to be working towards the colonization of other planets, unless we take the more controlled risk of fully using this planet, I don't see how space colonization can be supported.
Putting Mars and the moon back into the news is (IMO) Bush's way of saying, "Uh-oh..this war thing's not going quite the way I hoped..umm...uh..LOOK! THE MOON!" :rolleyes:
I'd hate to see space left to the bureaucrats and connected scientists. I want space to be that frontier saftey valve that keeps folks from flipping out under the saddle of authoritarians. That is why SDs space elevator is so appealing. Lifting on the scale that your small business could be in asteroid mining or habitat construction. Regular people in space.
Originally posted by Elionwyr
..after we've fully explored the possibility of setting up viable full-time settlements in the Antarctic, the Sahara, the ocean, etc. Places that are plenty dangerous and are comparatively much easier to pull people out of should there be a problem with the artificial environment.
Just you try to move to the Antarctic... you'd be stepped on like a bug. (not by nature either)
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
TW, isn't there a replacement for the Hubble scheduled?
The Webb telescope will not be ready until sometime after 2010. Also it will not do same as Hubble. One hope was to have both Hubble and Webb working in concert. But an MBA has now destroyed that hope with his silly political agenda.
NASA Cancels Trip to Supply Hubble, Sealing Early Doom
Robots cannot improvise? Who is still living in the early 20th Century? Then I guess that Martian rover is still stuck on the platform - obstructed by air bags. Then I guess those Honda robots do not play soccer.
Man on scene is really not necessary since man still needs his robots. Man cannot see the many frequencies that his robots see. Man cannot measure fundamental science paramaters without his robots. Called scientific equipment when in the man's hand. Man not longer does so much advanced work - such as the human genome project made possbile only because robots did the work.
Therein lies science. The person who knows how best explore space is the scientists - not some self serving politiician who never even ran a successful company.
In the meantime, Hubble is clearly far more useful than a man 'scratching for water' on the moon. And yet we would kill an inexpensive and useful tool to make a president look good? MBAs. The Hubble has no value. It was depreciated on the spread sheets. Better to write it off. MBA thinking from a politician. Someone whose presidency started with "if it was from Clinton, then it must be wrong". So much brainpower would even destroy expensive space craft - only for the greater glory of that president. No wonder we are also wasting $billions on another anti-ballistic missile system that will not work.
Originally posted by tw
Robots cannot improvise? Who is still living in the early 20th Century? Then I guess that Martian rover is still stuck on the platform - obstructed by air bags. Then I guess those Honda robots do not play soccer.
Man on scene is really not necessary since man still needs his robots. Man cannot see the many frequencies that his robots see. Man cannot measure fundamental science paramaters without his robots. Called scientific equipment when in the man's hand. Man not longer does so much advanced work - such as the human genome project made possbile only because robots did the work.
It seems that you and I are operating with differing definitions on the term "robot." I'm referring to a programmable automaton, where your defintiion seems to include any technological tool, such as a desktop computer, infrared imaging systems, etc. To me, if it's not automated, if it requires human input to be useful, it's a "tool," not a "robot."
Robots as they exist today cannot improvise, because improvisation requires intelligence and creativity. A robot can
appear to improvise, but one of two things is really happening... A) It is behaving as it was pre-programmed to do in a situation which was anticipated, or B) A human controller intervened and improvised on behalf of the robot. Such intervention is possible on Mars missions, though slow (takes 3-4 minutes each way to transmit data between Earth and Mars), so if something requires a quick reaction, and the robot doesn't have suitable pre-programming to react appropriately, the robot fails. At even greater distances, that communication latency becomes more and more problematic. A lot can happen during that delay.
One day, we may possess the technology to grant artifical intelligence and creativity to machines, enough that they really can improvise and make problem-solving decisions on faraway planets without human intervention. But by that time, the intelligent entitiy embodied by the robot would be a unique, valuable being, and we'd have no more right risking it's existence than we do risking human lives, so we have the same problem.
I'm not saying that we need to go to Mars NOW, but soon. Some people will never be satisfied with the risk, or with the price tag, but there are a lot of such people at the cusp of every major effort in history, and those people with the determination continue the effort despite them. I don't even particularly like Dubya, but I happen to agree with him that putting men on Mars is a worthwhile goal.
Originally posted by hot_pastrami
It seems that you and I are operating with differing definitions on the term "robot." I'm referring to a programmable automaton, where your defintiion seems to include any technological tool, such as a desktop computer, infrared imaging systems, etc. To me, if it's not automated, if it requires human input to be useful, it's a "tool," not a "robot."
Robots as they exist today cannot improvise, because improvisation requires intelligence and creativity. A robot can appear to improvise, but one of two things is really happening... A) It is behaving as it was pre-programmed to do in a situation which was anticipated, or B) A human controller intervened and improvised on behalf of the robot.
It does not matter whether controlled in the man's hand or by hands some million miles away. The better answer is "what is more cost effective" - requiring a scientific and not a political decision. What you call robots are simply more scientific tools doing what man cannot. Do we send men up with the wrong tools and then expect him to modify those tools? Not up there. Man on Mars doing less for tens of times more cost and risk.
Example of a robot. No mechanical movement. A meter that figures out what electricity it is measuring, adjusts the circuits accordingly, then reports all relevant numbers. Man alone could do none of this. Man with simpler tools would be less efficient or cost effective - or even damage the tool. It is not a mechanical robot. It is an electronic robot. Nothing more than another scientific tool.
Robots in the lab doing genome research or robots on Mars doing mineral, water, and geological research. Today, the more productive man does his work through robots or simpler 'robots' such as PCs, multimeters, scanners, and radio wave devices. Man today cannot do research without his robotic (intelligent) tools. It matters little where or how far away those tools are. Some want to glorify tools and call them robots. Fine. But they are still connected to a hand somewhere in the universe and they are still nothing more than flexible science tools.
Astronomers no longer go the telescope. Astronomy is done via electronics - robotically. Welcome to more robots. It is too expensive and difficult to haul men up the mountains in Hawaii. Today, telescope 'robots' in Hawaii, Chile, etc do the work while men analyze back in the universities. It is how research is now done - more with robots and less with man on site.
If man must be on site, then why is the ISS not loaded with telescopes? Because robots - Hubble - do a better job when men are not 'hands on'. The new way of doing science is very difficult for a president who makes science decisions to advance his politics. He only understands the old way: men must always be at the telescope to do astronomy research? Only when it is for political gain - science be damned.
Robots do on Mars far more than a man could do. Will we have a man live on -60 degree Mars for one year awaiting his return trip? Do you realize how technically impossible that is with the early 21st Century science? What is necessary to put a man on Mars? It starts with the research that was not done in a super collider - and other science best decided by those who come from where the work gets done. We have too much to do down here before we can even consider a man on Mars.
Worst decisions are made by an MBA president who never learned science nor how to run a successful company.
Well, if monetary cost is the only consideration, then yes, sending a robot is the better answer. But monetary cost is not the only consideration, otherwise we wouldn't even bother with sending the robots.
There is a cost/reward ratio that must be considered, and that is where most people decry sending people to Mars... for a lot less money, we can send autonomous robots, and learn almost as much as sending humans wih all of the same instruments. But that asssumes that learning about Mars is the only motivation, which it is not. We are also motivated by a desire to progress our space program, so that we can move even farther. The moon was the first logical step, and Mars is the second. Next would be the moons of Jupiter... etc.
In 15-20 years we could easily have the technology developed to get people to Mars (and back if desired). Before the mission departs, they would just send a payload with all of the fuel and supplies the astronauts would need for their stay and return trip, then after getting confirmation that those supplies arrived safely at Mars, you'd send the explorers. The tech is not that much more advanced than the Apollo missions, the main concern is loss of bone mass in astronauts due to prolonged stay in zero-gravity, but that problem is not unsolvable.
Your robotic telescope example is flawed, because putting a human at the telescope does not put the human in the environment he/she is observing. Putting people on Mars does, which has very real advantages.
Like I said, I don't necessarily think that we need to go to Mars TODAY, but soon. If the world always waited for the skeptics to be ready, we'd never get anything done.
I read several months ago that in order to keep the Hubble active the shuttle would have to be put back in service. For some reason they have to go service it and had one more trip scheduled but it hinged on the shuttle.
It does not matter whether controlled in the man's hand or by hands some million miles away.
Define "lag".
A recent email explains why we really need to send humans to mars and what we'll find when we get there.
Originally posted by hot_pastrami
Well, if monetary cost is the only consideration, then yes, sending a robot is the better answer. But monetary cost is not the only consideration, otherwise we wouldn't even bother with sending the robots.
There is a cost/reward ratio that must be considered, and that is where most people decry sending people to Mars... for a lot less money, we can send autonomous robots, and learn almost as much as sending humans wih all of the same instruments. But that asssumes that learning about Mars is the only motivation, which it is not.
Learning about Mars IS the only motivation - when logic and science applies. There is not yet one good reason to send a man. Robots on Mars do just same as robots everywhere including on Hawaii telescopes. To assume otherwise is to not understand the point of that previous post. Where the man happens to be (and even "lag") is totally irrelevant. The only thing important is technical facts - what science needs - which is why robots continue to be moreso every year a better alternative.
If being inside the environment is so important to observe it, then show me the man inside a nuclear reactor or inside a microprocessor? That need to be 'inside the environment' is political mumbo gumbo for those among us who believe Rush Limbaugh when he talks about McNabb.
A micro intelligent president is more concern with those among us who use emotion - rather than reality - to think with. The Mars idea is for the ill-informed who also believe Saddam had a part in the WTC attack. After all, Cheney said so repeatedly, so it must be true!!! Emotion rather than reality is more important to these people. Their vote is more important to George Jr than the advancement of America.
Monetary considerations are only part of the equation to determine cost benefit. There is no benefit to sending a man to Mars, scientifically. And costs would simply be at the expense of other real science - ie. the super collider that would have advanced science to make that Mars journey more practical.
Someday we will put men back on the moon and on Mars. It will be when science finds logical reasons to do so - or when George Jr decides so spend so much more money we don't even have.
Monetary and other science based factors are why we send robots to Mars - and not humans. We want to do as much successful science as possible which means humans do not (yet) belong on Mars. There is too much advanced science to do now - and before we could ever send a man to Mars. No place - not any - room for emotion in that decision.
But then logic will eventually take hold. People will then forget the stupid George Jr Mars idea (as they have the hypersonic airplane idea). Idea that will rank right up there with the George Jr anti-ballistic missile system- so that Osama bin Laden cannot fire missiles at the US. We have the leader we deserve - which is why this manned Mars mission is being discussed. With an intelligent President, this discussion would not even exist.
Did Vulcans ever go space-faring in their own vessels?
Whenever I see a post in which the poster claims (or implies) that he is the only one using logic, it raises a red flag for everything in their post.
There are good reasons to expand the space program and to send men and women to the moon and mars.
1) Investing in science like this always pays off. We're still coasting on the technology developed for the space program of the 60s. Most of the high tech gadgets that we use today can be traced back to the space program. I admit that much of this would be true for unmanned missions, but not to the same extent. The harder the problem solved, the more good stuff falls out of it.
2) Robot missions are limiting. A robot mission can only do what we can think for it to do ahead of time (more or less). Whatever we hope to accomplish has to already be built into the robot. And that means you can only find out stuff you expect or hope to find.
3) I think mankind needs a frontier - something that excites the imagination. Otherwise we will shrivel up and waste away. It's the racial equivalent of old guys who shrivel up after they retire because they can't think of anything to do.
4) Mother earth is a fragile blue marble. If man or nature ruins it, I'd like to think that mankind had a hope of going on.
I don't have any objections to starting with robots, as long as we continue after that with manned missions.
The whole political argument is bogus as far as I'm concerned. Manned missions are a good idea no matter whether Bush advocates it or not. Even an idiot like Bush hits the mark by accident once in a while.
NOTE: I typed most of this up a few hours ago, but was called away on an emergency before I could finish it. Sorry that it rehashes some points that dar512 already made.
I don't really see any cohesive counterpoints in your posting, tw, just contradiction peppered with some insults towards Dubya. I don't care much for the man either, but the merit of sending men to Mars isn't based solely on one man's intelligence... he didn't dream up the idea, he's just promoting it. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Well, OK... there is a counterpoint, which mysteriously appeared after I refreshed:
Originally posted by tw
If being inside the environment is so important to observe it, then show me the man inside a nuclear reactor or inside a microprocessor? That need to be 'inside the environment' is political mumbo gumbo for those among us who believe Rush Limbaugh when he talks about McNabb.
These ridiculous analogies do not reinforce your argument. Can a man
even fit inside a microprocessor? No. THAT'S why we don't put men inside of them, NOT because of financial limitations. Not to mention that we know everything that is in there, in exacting detail... because WE put it in there. Here's a more applicable analogy...say your car breaks down, and you contact your mechanic for help. Can he more capably help you if you A) Mail him some photos taken under the hood of your car, or B) Have him come over and take a look? He'll charge for the visit, yes, but he can learn more in an hour on-site than he might with a hundred photos. He may even be able to warn you of some looming problems which you didn't expect.
You state that learning about Mars itself is the ONLY motivation to send explorers there. But it's not. You are overlooking some important ones:
1. Improve our space-travel capabilities and methods, which will be necessary when we eventually travel BEYOND Mars.
2. Allow the execution of scientific tests which robots cannot be designed to feasibly perform (core samples, etc).
3. National pride in the accomplishment.
4. All the incidental knowledge which is gathered by such intense, focused research (like the TONS of useful everyday stuff that was developed using data from the Apollo missions).
Whether or not you agree that these are
worthwhile motivations, they are for many, including myself. Fifteen years from now, if we haven't at least
started on an effort to put a few explorers on Mars, then we suck.
The most important commodity that Mankind (tm) has is its imagination.
Without it, we would have never decided to bang two rocks together. Try to think of sending men to Mars as the modern equivalent of banging two rocks together, and there is no limit to where it might lead.
Originally posted by Griff
Just you try to move to the Antarctic... you'd be stepped on like a bug. (not by nature either)
Ummmm...hmm?
Point being: we have areas on this planet that are harsh and inhospitable. Makes more sense to try to populate those areas, where 'colonists' have a better chance of being rescued should something go wrong, than someone living on another planet.
Originally posted by Elionwyr
Point being: we have areas on this planet that are harsh and inhospitable. Makes more sense to try to populate those areas, where 'colonists' have a better chance of being rescued should something go wrong, than someone living on another planet.
Well, the reason we want to go to Mars isn't because it's inhospitable, nor to colonize (at least not in the near future). We want to go because no one has ever been there before, and it is a unique environment to study and learn from. Also, developing the technology to go to Mars will significantly increase the area of explorable space.
That's the reason research teams went to Antarctica in the first place. They learn a lot from scientific visits, but the environment isn't hospitable enough to set up permananet residence. Mars would be the same.
I think that Griff was referring to the negative reaction one might get from a number of nations as a result of setting up a permanant colony on Antarctica... ownership of the landmass is debatable.
I think Bush is trying to stir up something Americans can be proud of. All you see in the news is Enron, Kobe & MJ, Iraq, jobs exported, ad infinitum.
Originally posted by hot_pastrami
That's the reason research teams went to Antarctica in the first place. They learn a lot from scientific visits, but the environment isn't hospitable enough to set up permananet residence. Mars would be the same.
Man originally went to Anarctica to learn - good and logical reason. No robots then. And with each visit, more science was learned. So much so that good reasons were found to put men and a permanent station at the South Pole. All done for good scientific reasons.
One thing learned is that we still cannot maintain life in a harsh environment without massive amounts of outside support. And that does not even include massive amounts of oxygen and water. Not just to keep men alive but massive amounts more to make equipment work. Mars is an atmosphere of sulfur, chlorine, and dangerous radiation. Tropical compared to Anarctica (where science learning and testing would also make space flight possible). So do we also cut off all funding for Anarcitic research to pay for this boondoogle to Mars? Or do we keep doing research even in Anarctica so that a future and productive Mars mission is eventually possible?
How does one sell any problem to the masses? Often the science is too complex for sound bytes. So we tell the masses we are going only because it exists. Nonsense. But the masses will buy it. IOW the selling of a manned mission to Mars is really an insult to the intelligence of American citizens.
Eventually, when robots find a reason, then man will go to Mars. Either because good reason exists or because a president seeks more votes by promoting a boondoogle. Another self serviing agenda where the mission is promoted, then reasons for the mission are sought later. Sounds like this president's reasoning and very characterisitc of extremists.
Good science first finds a good logical reason. None (as usual) was put forward by this extremist president.
Originally posted by hot_pastrami
You are overlooking some important ones:
1. Improve our space-travel capabilities and methods, which will be necessary when we eventually travel BEYOND Mars.
2. Allow the execution of scientific tests which robots cannot be designed to feasibly perform (core samples, etc).
3. National pride in the accomplishment.
4. All the incidental knowledge which is gathered by such intense, focused research (like the TONS of useful everyday stuff that was developed using data from the Apollo missions).
1) Space travel capabilities are found in fundamental science that we would be doing today had the super collider not been canceled by another boondoogle - the ISS. Other fundamental research would also be quashed by misdirected $trillions, using conventional technologies (application research) to put a man on Mars. It is nonsense to think fundamental research will occur because application research eats all the money. But that is what George Jr would have us think.
Before a man on Mars is reasonable, we have so much fundamental research still to do. Research that would have human travel on Anarctica and so deep in the oceans routine and simple.
Furthermore what is better to develop new space travel capabilities? Robots. Lots of robots trying out many new and different technologies while seeking new science. All those many robot missions would be canceled to pay for a single man on Mars mission. Did we not see this already with Hubble? Already fundamental science destroyed so that boondoogles such as ISS can continue.
2) Virtually every significant science test we do today requires something that man cannot do. That includes what we do inside microprocessors and nuclear power plants. Without his robots, man cannot take those "core samples". Without man, robots can still take the same core samples - and many more. More because a human requires too much overhead. How to identify those who love the status quo. They still think a man's presence is required. Innovators say, "Put one man to take a few core samples or hundreds of robots to take thousands of core samples." Don't understand why anyone would think a man's hand does a better job when it still requires a robot attached to the end of it. Too many still think in the myopic concepts of science based upon early 20th Century perspectives. They still think, like the miner John Henry, that man will always do a better job than machines. Its the 21st Century. And yet even in the 20th Century, too many John Henrys were even stifling computer technology (ie Xerox).
Get out of 20th Century thinking. Don't be so myopic. Stop thinking battleships are more important than aircraft carriers. Don't let such old men like me be so much more progressive. Robots are the future.
3) National pride is the bullshit we hand to those who also think Listerene does something. There is just as much national pride in Spirite - a robot -that is doing more to advance mankind than any human could in that environment. Emotions are what an extremist president used to intentionally kill the Oslo Accords, to invade a sovereign nation, and to have us thinking that terrorists are still behind every door (when no other nation can find any evidence of all these recent terrorist plots). Emotion and flag waving are for manipulating the less intelligent masses. The real patriots are the innovators - who make machines do work better than man ever could do in harsh environments such as Mars.
4) All that benefit from the Apollo missions? What technologies? The basic research was done regardless of whether Apollo existed or not. It is outright lie to think velcro or the 8080 microprocessor was developed due to Apollo. But again, it is what we tell the masses that would not know better. Where is Tang today? Same place it was before those space missions. Show me the intense research profits that Apollo created. Apollo was application research. Even the rocket technology used was scrapped. Technology made obsolete by better technology that was required by robots - also called space satellites.
Where is one good reason in all this to justify a man on Mars. The best reasons, such as new technologies as from Apollo, are myths that we told the masses. Emotion - again nonsense for the masses. And then there is reality - all the fundamental research (stuff with far more benefit) that must be canceled so that we can put a man on Mars.
I can understand why George Jr would believe all this. I am just amazed that Cellar dwellers would by taken in by these myths. George Jr presents not one good reason to justify men on the moon or Mars. But that is how he does everything - including destruction of the Oslo Accords. Facts be damned. This Mars mission is really a question about the intellect of and lies from George Jr - extremist.
Welcome to democracy, where "the masses" are what make the decisions.
You seem incapable of leaving Dubya out of this question. Whether he wants to do it or not really has no relevance on the merit of going in the first place. None. Zero.
I'm not going to spend the time to reply point-by-point to your posts, because they are bloated with mistruths, ill-supported facts, non-relevant commentary, perpendicular "parallels," and incorrect assumptions. I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Originally posted by hot_pastrami
Welcome to democracy, where "the masses" are what make the decisions.
You seem incapable of leaving Dubya out of this question. Whether he wants to do it or not really has no relevance on the merit of going in the first place. None. Zero.
I'm not going to spend the time to reply point-by-point to your posts, because they are bloated with mistruths, ill-supported facts, non-relevant commentary, perpendicular "parallels," and incorrect assumptions. I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
:thumb: Nicely said.
Originally posted by hot_pastrami
You seem incapable of leaving Dubya out of this question. Whether he wants to do it or not really has no relevance on the merit of going in the first place. None. Zero.
Its not possible to talk about a man to Mars mission and not talk about why the idea exists. George Jr is mentally incapable of doing what Kennedy did. But then George Jr is an MBA. The man to Mars missions is classic MBA thinking. Big on idea. Devoid of reality. Spend money with no limit. All problems can be solved by throwing money at it - like a grenade. First decide to do it. Then learn facts to justify the decision. Reality be damned.
Man on Mars is classic George Jr thinking. No way around that fact. Provided is not one logical reason - from George Jr or hot_pastrami - to send a man to Mars. Justify a $trillions project by "national pride"? Do any reasonable humans still exist? Eliminate the 'national pride' angle and not one reason exists to send a man to Mars. What remains? Only more reasons to send robots.
Show me responsible science organizations that advocated this silly mission at such costs. You can't. Quite bluntly - you can't because the logical reasons do not exist! Demonstrated by hot_pastrami's implicit concession: advancement of science is not a reason for this mission. National pride is. Reasons for sending a man to Mars is best found in fiction books - in how George Jr makes decisions - and in his legacy. Not possible to leave George Jr out. He is why a technically naive Mars mission is being promoted - mankind and basic research (ie Hubble) be damned.
Mission will not happen. But 'the' reason why this Mars mission is even discussed - this president's intellect. Its not about Mars. Its about an extremist and MBA president making decisions. His need for a Kennedy type legacy. A distorted decision making process; where reality is not part of the decision. Classic MBA management. No way to leave George Jr's thought process out of this topic. He and his legacy justify fiction; where money is something to be spent freely and without regard to reality. Sounds more like an Enron CEO; not a responsible world leader. George Jr - not science - is why a Mars mission was proposed.
Originally posted by tw
Demonstrated by hot_pastrami's implicit concession: advancement of science is not a reason for this mission.
Oh, brother. I conceded no such thing, implicitly or otherwise. I asserted that there are reasons to send men to Mars
in addition to the advancement of science.
In this discussion, you have made the following, and only the following, quite clear:
1. You don't like George W. Bush (neither do I).
2. You think anybody with an MBA is a moron.
3. You don't know what a "robot" is.
4. You don't like Tang.
5. You question the effectiveness of Listerine.
6. Antarctica is a harsh environment.
7. You like to use long words like "boondoggle," but you don't know how to spell them ("boondoogle?").
8. You like to use the word "logic" but you fail to demonstrate any in your argument.
9. You think "the masses" are all dim bulbs.
10. Aircraft carriers are more important than battleships.
Some of these points are valid, but none has anything to do with whether we should go to Mars. Despite what you may think, the president is NOT the first person to conceive of sending people to Mars, so his views on it are a non-issue when discussing the worthiness of such a mission. That's like saying you don't like the Internet because Al Gore invented it. As far as I can tell, if Dubya had decried sending people to Mars, you'd probably side with me on this argument.
Just because something is difficult does not mean it's not worth doing. There are lots of reasons to send people to Mars within the next twenty or so years, and I, for one, think it's worth doing. You don't. And that's ok. But if you want to affect anyone's opinion on the matter, you'd best start using some of that logic you keep talking about.
By the way, tw, your habit of posting something, and then going back a little while later and altering it significantly... it's very annoying. If you have new thoughts after posting, how about just posting a new reply? Editing an existing post's content, aside from correcting grammar and spelling, is obnoxious and misleading. It doesn't say much for the strength of your argument to have to go back and edit, either.
Originally posted by tw
Its not possible to talk about a man to Mars mission and not talk about why the idea exists.
The idea of and the desire to go to other planets existed long before Dubya was born. Dubya is not "why the idea exists."
Originally posted by tw
Provided is not one logical reason - from George Jr or hot_pastrami - to send a man to Mars.
<Using Inigo voice>
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
</Inigo>
Originally posted by tw
Quite bluntly - you can't because the logical reasons do not exist! Demonstrated by hot_pastrami's implicit concession: advancement of science is not a reason for this mission.
This is an obviously bogus argument for two reasons. First, many here have given reasons why manned missions would "advance science" more than unmanned missions. So, saying that HP has implictly conceded so is untrue.
Secondly, you have implicitly defined "logical reasons" == "advancement of science". I don't buy this definition. There are many things that are logical to do in this world that don't advance science.
Originally posted by tw
snip...Do any reasonable humans still exist?....snip
Just you TW, just you. All alone, like the man in the moon.
battleships vs aircraft carriers: both suck. There are only two types of military boats in the ocean: submarines, and submarine targets.
We did not originally go to Antarctica for the advancement of science. We went there for glory, riches, and curiousity.
Most of the tech that we use these days has roots in World War I, World War II, or the space program.
-----
I think that tw knows some stuff and could have very interesting posts. Unfortunately, he has fallen into a rut and has only a handful of significant ideas anymore. He seems to bring these narrow ideas into EVERY post. He needs to be jolted into thinking some new thoughts. He needs to stop making posts which contain all the same ideas, every single time, which we all already know. Perhaps you could write a handful of articles on these subjects, host or post them somewhere, and reference them?
Undertoad, could you put a filter on the Cellar which prohibits tw from posting the following strings:
MBA
George Jr.
Dubya
Dichead
logic
emotion
extremist
Thanks.
Originally posted by Torrere
Undertoad, could you put a filter on the Cellar which prohibits tw from posting the following strings:
MBA
George Jr.
Dubya
Dichead
logic
emotion
extremist
Openly criticize the mental midget president and I will not have to. Even when it is obvious that he lied about WMD, still, the many here remain silent rather than call a spade a spade. Here, most cannot see (or at least do not post) the difference between a stupid president who would waste $4trillion on a boondoogle, and Richard Nixon - another president in the same mold who also advocated destruction in America. Both even openly lied so as to attack a sovereign nation without provocation! How can a good president like George Sr have a son so bad like George Jr.
Ironic since I was posting some years previous how George Jr was a compassionate conservative who worked even better with the opposition party. How wrong I was then. When a president would advocate wasting money everywhere to the detriment of America - just like Nixon - then I cannot be silent about that mental midget.
At no time ever - and over a decade of the Cellar demonstrates this - have I ever been so critical of any leader - ever. UT - when did I ever in the entire history of the Cellar find something more evil than George Jr? Never. Even Barak was not this bad.
It been decades since we had a president so destructive and devisive. He even made America's allies into adversaries. No president - even Nixon - did that. When so many like this destructive president, then I cannot be silent. Man on Mars further demonstrates a bad president.
A silly Mars mission bluntly demonstrates how destructive leaders think. It is not about science - as demonstrated here by not one good example of why a Mars mission would advance science. Mars is about the greater glory of George Jr who finds no problem with even destroying the most productive space science tool in the history of the world - Hubble. Hubble's death is directly traceable to top management - George Jr. One cannot be silent about that either.
Originally posted by tw
It is not about science - as demonstrated here by not one good example of why a Mars mission would advance science.
I, personally, think that the MOST important reason to go to mars is what we would learn about MANNED space missions.
not so much mars, more about what it takes to put PEOPLE in a position to explore the only thing left to explore. baby steps.
And if you had paid attention, tw, you'd have noticed that hp mentioned this. I realize that you are too busy spouting about logic and emotion and robots, ( which, for reasons i can well imagine are apparently very near and dear to your heart) but the fact remains, that because YOU don't see a reason as valid, does not make it invalid.
[SIZE=1]edited to remove unneccessary shot at tw. sorry.[/SIZE]
Originally posted by tw
At no time ever - and over a decade of the Cellar demonstrates this - have I ever been so critical of any leader - ever. UT - when did I ever in the entire history of the Cellar find something more evil than George Jr? Never. Even Barak was not this bad.
First off Bush Sr. was not that good a president. Second, nothing can be done RIGHT NOW about the fact that Bush Jr. is a moron. As far as I can tell no one is arguing with you on the fact that Bush Jr. is a stupid president. Just because a monkey is dumb doesn't mean it cant find its ass once in a while. Yes the current president sucks, yes he is a moron, But the proposal to go to Mars IS A GOOD ONE. By the time we are able to go to Mars, Bush Jr. will not even be in office any more, and some other president (hopefully a good one) will be the one pushing for funding of the mission.
If you don't like the president then don't vote for him for a second term. RIGHT NOW he is in office and there is nothing that can be done about it. Good or bad he is our president, and we all have to live with it, even those (like me) who voted against him. Thats what the United States of America is all about, yes sometimes the country votes a bad person into office, the beauty of the system is they don't stay in office very long. We only have to deal with him till November and then god willing someone better can step up and try and fix the mess he put us in.
Point is just because a stupid leader proposed putting man on Mars it doesn't mean its a bad idea. And frankly man going to Mars is a good 10-15 years away so really its not worth worrying about right now. Nothing can be done right now about Hubble because right now Bush Jr. IS our president, comparing the plight of Hubble to the Mars Mission is like comparing apples and oranges. One is happening RIGHT NOW and the other wont happen for 10-15 years. One will not affect the other, and one is not the cause of the other.
Get over your Bush hating and move on with your life, there is no point giving yourself a stroke worrying about a president that we can't change right now.
I apologize for the thread-jacking.
Originally posted by tw
Openly criticize the mental midget president and I will not have to. Even when it is obvious that he lied about WMD, still, the many here remain silent rather than call a spade a spade. Here, most cannot see (or at least do not post) the difference between a stupid president who would waste $4trillion on a boondoogle, and Richard Nixon - another president in the same mold who also advocated destruction in America.
Add 'mental midget' to my list.
I've mostly given up criticizing Bush on the Cellar, because I've already given my spiel and it's become boring to bash Bush -- too easy. It's much more challenging trying to defend Bush, and even more challenging (but the most fun!) trying to find the reasons behind why he acts as he does.
However, on other forums or in spoken conversation, I still regularly bash Bush. I had a discussion with a LaRouche-movement girl a few days ago where we tried to come to an agreement as to who the most awful and blame-worthy person associated with Bush was: I argued in favor of Karl Rove (the Nixon-CREEP prodigy), she in favor of Dick Cheney ("the Beast-Man").
Both even openly lied so as to attack a sovereign nation without provocation! How can a good president like George Sr have a son so bad like George Jr.
"Tyrant" was originally a favorable term. The first generation of tyrants were generally good rulers. The second generation sucked. I had thought that it was a rule of thumb that the son of a good prince is a bad prince (there are exceptions). The "Five Good Emperors" of Rome (under whom the Mediterranean enjoyed the
Pax Romana were all adopted. Rome's fall began when the son of the last of the Five Good Emperors inherited (as described in the movie "Gladiator").
Ironic since I was posting some years previous how George Jr was a compassionate conservative who worked even better with the opposition party. How wrong I was then. When a president would advocate wasting money everywhere to the detriment of America - just like Nixon - then I cannot be silent about that mental midget.
No. You cannot. But you could refrain from repeating yourself to the point of inanity. You could try to convince people that aren't in the choir that Bush is a bad president. Failing that, you could try to convince the people who are in the choir to do something about it; you ought to be organizing the secret meetings, purchasing white suits with pointy hats, finding wood that burns well, and getting the congregation into the streets.
At no time ever - and over a decade of the Cellar demonstrates this - have I ever been so critical of any leader - ever. UT - when did I ever in the entire history of the Cellar find something more evil than George Jr? Never. Even Barak was not this bad.
Sharon
It been decades since we had a president so destructive and devisive. He even made America's allies into adversaries. No president - even Nixon - did that. When so many like this destructive president, then I cannot be silent.
Man on Mars further demonstrates a bad president.
A silly Mars mission bluntly demonstrates how destructive leaders think. It is not about science - as demonstrated here by not one good example of why a Mars mission would advance science. Mars is about the greater glory of George Jr who finds no problem with even destroying the most productive space science tool in the history of the world - Hubble. Hubble's death is directly traceable to top management - George Jr. One cannot be silent about that either. [/B]
I agree and disagree. On the one hand, Man on Mars would be good. We have so much money right now that it's incredible how frivilously we spend it, when we could be going to Mars!
On the other hand, it sounds like desperation. Bush knows that the tide is going to surge against him, and he has to postpone that until after November. Americans have grown to docile to revolt against him -- if he gets re-elected, he will probably be able to remain in power for another four years and possibly retain his reign until death (even if indirectly).
He's done two wars, he's currently advocating a glorious space program (all-win, no loss: he gets a lot of support for doing nothing but making a speech: his plan calls for his successors to act) and he has enough money to do a lot of things that I predict will be difficult to conceive of today.
It actually reminds me of the Argentinian junta in the 1980s. Trying to stave off their fall, they diverted the nation's attention by invading the Falkland Islands, delivering a dose of national pride for good measure. The British defeated them, and the junta fell.
Even if we can evict Bush, America might be due for a tumble.
Originally posted by hot_pastrami
1. You don't like George W. Bush (neither do I).
Also like to point out that right there HP said he didn't like the president. What was it you were saying TW about no one openly saying they didn't like him?
Originally posted by tw
It is not about science - as demonstrated here by not one good example of why a Mars mission would advance science.
No one can know before hand all the useful things that will come out of the Mars Mission. No one knew all the advancements that would come from the Apollo missions before they happened. Unless someone on this list can predict the future we have no way to see all the possible benefits to a Mars landing. Its called a leap of faith, you trust that because other great things were discovered in other space programs that this one will yield the same results.
Originally posted by Brigliadore
No one can know before hand all the useful things that will come out of the Mars Mission. No one knew all the advancements that would come from the Apollo missions before they happened.
We knew, in the ballpark, what would come from those Apollo missions. They delivered just about what we expected. Not much science, but some interesting lessons. The difference between then and now - leadership first learned from those who come from where the work gets done. As Paul O'Neill demonstrates in his book, this president's eyes glaze over when anything new is introduced. He has no clue.
Before we can go to Mars, we must have a strategic objective - as any good military man understands. That is the problem. This president does not have the mental abilities nor ability to understand things technical to define a strategic objective - which is why he provides none. Why go to Mars? No scientific (logical) reasons provided.
Clinton did not do it - therefore is must be right? A joke - but just barely. This president does not make decisions based upon learned facts be it from science or history - ie a threatened war over a silly spy plane, all but banning stem cell research, the mythical weapons of mass destruction, destruction of the Oslo Accords, destruction of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and the constuction of an anti-ballistic missile system that does not even work in test).
Hubble sticks out like a sour thumb. Push science for political gain, and better science is killed. Again, the world's most successful space science tool is being destroyed because we tried to do too many other things too fast - (ie ISS). How much more good science will be killed by a Mars mission? Do we advance science by letting the scientists first say what is best next done - or do we promot the legacy of George Jr - science be damned? Promoting George Jr's Mars mission is like sending the US military into VietNam. It was a sin against good military people and it will be a sin against mankind's advancement of science.
Originally posted by lumberjim
I, personally, think that the MOST important reason to go to mars is what we would learn about MANNED space missions.
We already have our hands full both learning how to put man in space (being done on ISS) and so many other functions that would be necessary for long duration spaceflight (being tested by robots). The failure of so many robots to Mars demonstrates we still have too much to learn about long duration spaceflight. Even the Wright Bros did not go to Kitty Hawk until they had done substantial testing and development. Successful because they did not try to do too much too fast. We don't even know how to protect astronauts from radiation hazards. Even the most simple technology still requires more basic research. We must do the science - not promote the legacy of a president.
If not obvious from ISS - we don't have the technology for long duration space flight. Low orbit long duration spaceflight is still not reliable - obvious from ISS. We tried to do too much too fast for the wrong reasons - thereby even destroying the world's most successful space science mission - Hubble. Destruction of Hubble demonstrates that much more good science will be destroyed by a Mars boondoogle.
Time is the great cure-all. Eventually we will have the need and abilities to put a man on Mars - when science tells us. It will be sooner if science - and not dictates of an MBA educated president - makes this decision. This president, with a three year history of repeatedly lying, is the last person to say when it is time to go to Mars.
Other important projects should be done first. One might be the X-39 - an unmanned cargo ship. That still only for low earth space flight. But then low earth orbit that is where our long duration manned abilities lie. Still too much basic research required before we can spend big bucks on application research for a Mars mission. Basic research verses application research? As Paul O'Neill demonstrates, this is when George Jr stops listening to what he does not comprehend. His Mars mission is not based upon what science says. It is based on the same thinking that said Saddam had WMD.
Liberate science. Do not make science a slave to an MBA president. Science - not the president - should be saying what is best done in space. Then we would not be destroying Hubble. (this is where we start singing the Freedom music - god save us from this president).
i'm with you on the george bush is an idiot and a liar, but this is about putting more emphasis on the space program. period.
you say that gwb is the last person that should say when it's time to go to mars. let me ask you this: who the fuck else would the whole country hear and listen to? Regis? Larry King? If the president says " let's go to mars", then....fuckin A! let's go to mars. It doesn't really matter that it's mars or the moon or jupiter. the fact that there is money being spent in that area is a positive. I think( you're sometimes a little bit hard to follow) you say we should first perfect low orbit manned sattelites before we go galavanting off to mars. Why? the ships we send won't be orbiting mars or the earth during the journey, will they? That's like honing your knife to a razor edge to cut ice cream. we just need to get there and be able to lift back off with enough juice to make it back here. there are lots of ways to do that, and I don;t think low orbit satellites would be involved in many scenarios.
When science has a goal, and we're employing application research, the focus is on results. This minimizes tangental time wasting research and at the same time increases productivity of research because more people are paying attention. We will hit obstacles on the road to mars, and really smart people will invent things to overcome them. that's where you get your velcro's and tangs. The president announcing it just gives it legs. you shouldn't let your emotions carry you away like that. Your hatred for gwb has clouded your vision.
Originally posted by lumberjim
.When science has a goal, and we're employing application research, the focus is on results. This minimizes tangental time wasting research and at the same time increases productivity of research because more people are paying attention. We will hit obstacles on the road to mars, and really smart people will invent things to overcome them. that's where you get your velcro's and tangs. The president announcing it just gives it legs. you shouldn't let your emotions carry you away like that. Your hatred for gwb has clouded your vision.
Well Said!!
Originally posted by tw
Time is the great cure-all. Eventually we will have the need and abilities to put a man on Mars - when science tells us.
Thank you for agreeing with what we have all been saying. NO ONE is saying we need to go to Mars tomorrow, we are all saying its a real possibility in 10-15 YEARS! HOW DO YOU know that in 10 years we wont have a need to go to Mars? Wouldn't it be better to start planning for it now then in 10 years when a "need" arises?
Originally posted by tw
This president does not have the mental abilities nor ability to understand things technical to define a strategic objective - which is why he provides none.
Again you show us all the the only reason you don't think we should go to Mars is because George W. said we should. Thats not a good reason, because by the time we go to Mars HE WILL NO LONGER BE PRESIDENT. When we do go to Mars a new president (we probably will have had several) will be in power and will have been able to work out the holes and gaps in the current President's plan. You seem to think George W. is the first person to propose going to Mars, he is not. Stop fighting so hard against this for one second to realize the only reason you don't like it is because bush proposed it.
Also as I said before the Hubble has no relevance on the Mars Mission. Right now the a big reason George W. is scraping the Hubble project is because our country has no money, he blew it all on a war and other silly things. Yes the Hubble would have been a much better thing to spend the money on but what's done is done. We get another president like Clinton (not saying he was the best but he did help the country financially) and we can afford to do things like Hubble AND the Mars mission. Good science like Hubble is not necessarily going to be sacrificed for the Mars mission. If our country can do well with its finances and not have a president piddle them away then we should be able to afford both.
Originally posted by tw
Eventually, when robots find a reason, then man will go to Mars.
Scientific American Magazine, has an article titled
Why go to Mars? that has some of those "logical" reasons that TW is looking for on why to send humans to Mars vs robots. For those that don't want to read the 4 page article I am posting some quotes relevant to what we have been discussing.
"...A thorough hunt for any Martian life that might be hanging on--—despite the present harsh conditions--would also have to be undertaken by humans, according to some experts. Such life will be hidden and probably microscopic, says Pascal Lee, a research associate at the NASA Ames Research Center. "Finding it will require surveying vast tracts of territory," he explains. "It will take a high degree of mobility and adaptability." Robots might be up to the task sometime in the distant future, Lee concedes. But relying on them to survey Mars completely for life would take an unrealistically long time--"decades if not centuries," he believes.
To accomplish the same scientific goals as a series of human missions, far more robotic missions--and therefore launches--would be required. The greater number of launches would mean that the robotic program would take much longer, because opportunities to travel from Earth to Mars are rather limited. They occur only once every 26 Earth-months, when the planets are positioned so that the trip takes less than a year...."
"...Another reason why humans may have to be on site to conduct a thorough search for life stems from the fact that if any such life exists it is probably deep underground. Mars's atmosphere contains trace quantities of a strong oxidizing agent, possibly hydrogen peroxide. As a result, the upper layers of the soil are devoid of organic matter. So most strategies for microbe hunting involve digging down to depths where life or organic matter would be shielded from the oxidizing agent as well as from searingly high levels of ultraviolet light.
Upcoming probes will be equipped with robotic assemblies that can bore several centimeters into rocks or dig a few meters down into the soil. But barring any discoveries at those shallow depths, researchers will have to bring up samples from hundreds of meters below the surface, maybe even one or two kilometers down, before they can declare Mars dead or alive. Drilling for samples at such depths "most likely will require humans," says Charles Elachi, director of the Space and Earth Sciences Program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif...."
"...Although a human mission would be more expensive, it would also be more cost-effective, Zubrin insists. He concedes that sending astronauts to collect geologic samples and bring them to Earth would cost about 10 times more than sending robots. But by his calculations the human mission would return 100 times more material gathered from an area 10,000 times larger.
On the other hand, Arden L. Albee, a former chief scientist at JPL and the project scientist for the Global Surveyor mission, cites a 1986 study by NASA's Solar System Exploration Committee that determined that a robotic mission could have accomplished all the geologic sampling carried out on the moon during Apollo 15. In one day during that mission, astronauts David R. Scott and James B. Irwin drove a rover 11.2 kilometers, collecting samples at five stations. They picked up 45 rocks, 17 loose soil samples and eight firmly packed soil "cores." A robotic rover could perform much the same work, the study found, but it would take 155 days to do so..."
I rest my case.
You're resting your case on Glenn Zorpette's opinion?
:)
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
You're resting your case on Glenn Zorpette's opinion?
:)
No, but I was suddenly possessed by a dead lawyer toward the end of that post.
Have you ever tried to get dead lawyer off your clothing? Man thats a stain thats hard to Shout out.
Originally posted by Brigliadore
Scientific American Magazine, has an article titled Why go to Mars? that has some of those "logical" reasons that TW is looking for on why to send humans to Mars vs robots.
Exactly the type of reasoning that fits description of 'logical reasoning'. Back to the point. It was not found in George Jr's proposals in part because the history of this leader is to not consult facts and reality.
Unfortunately the article is questionable based upon current and future technology. If life will be that rare and hard to find, then robots would be the only solution. Atmospheres of chlorine and sulfur make humanized searches extremely limited and difficult. Even attached picture - a moon type lander - is not practical in Mars' so extremely harsh environment. Mars makes wide area human searches unreasonable and robotize searches more practical. In that environment, only robots and advance technology sensors attached to robots could accomplish wide area searching.
However that is secondary to the point. The point is our leader (whoever it might be that makes proposals like this) is defective. Required is a strategic objective that is technically reasonable. None was provided. Man on Mars is not the issue. The quality of leadership - not even providing a reasonable strategic objective - is the issue.
Mankind is still struggling with LEO (low earth oribit) space. We cannot even get an ISS working. We cannot even maintain essential space tools (Hubble) designed explicitly for such maintenance. LEO is the simplist of space travel. It it took 30 aggressive years to get this far. Suddenly we will skip all the next challenges in 12 years?
Space Shuttle was started in early 1970s; working in the 1980s and 1990s. Shuttles should be moving to retirement. We should be designing for MEO travel or maybe even HEO - which is a major challenge. X-39 should do MEO - but I don't even know if that is being planned. IOW replacements for space shuttle, if started today, will not be ready for well after 2010. Space craft take on the order of 10 years to develop for simple missions such as LEO and robots to Mars. That means two generation vehicles after Shuttle starts about 2020 for use in 2030 and 2040. Only then are we really to discuss interplanetary missions.
Mankind is working only in earth orbits. Technology procedes in steps. HEO manned flight (as Shuttle does LEO today) will be a major accomplishment. Currently we cannot even get halfway to our communicaton satellites, let alone ship massive cargo to an LEO ISS. Long before we do a moon or Mars mission, HEO travel must be as practical as Space Shuttle is today. Well beyond 2015.
Much technology to be advanced and conquered. It requires a leader who can propose 'real world' strategic objectives. Which keeps coming back to the same problem - leadership. The missing strategic objective that should be planning both a purpose and replacements for Space Shuttle.
Look at those dates. Where is a Mars mission possible in 2015. Therein lies the great leadership failure of a president who failed to even first consult the experts. His name happens to be George Jr. That name being irrelevant. The problem being that an American leader is so incompetant as to not first learn our technology abilities and difficulties.
Currently we are so barely in space that the ISS is 'dragged down' by earth's atmosphere. ISS must be repeatedly put back up by the shuttle - because we are hardly in space. Man is only in LEO because we have so much work to do. Any responsible leader would have understood this. Many a great nation has been destroyed by following leaders who worship fiction - no real vision as demonstrated by this Mars mission.
Its not about man on Mars. Its about a leader who cannot even be bothered to first learn the facts. A Mars mission in 2015 is unreasonable. A leader would define purpose and design of a next generation space craft for the next 30 years - so that man can get out of LEO - low earth orbit.
Meanwhile, kudos to Brigliadore for posting logical reasoning. Now we must teach our leader the concept.
Originally posted by tw
Meanwhile, kudos to Brigliadore for posting logical reasoning.
She linked to an article that basically said what many of us, including myself, have been saying throughout this discussion. Does the appearance of information in a magazine suddenly cement it as fact in your mind? The argument for Mars is no more logical just because it appeared in printed media, you've just chosen to ignore the logic in this thread.
Kudos to everyone else for posting logical reasoning. Now we must teach tw the concept.
For someone who evangelizes logic, doesn't tw seem overly emotional at times?
I had the good fortune of sitting down at the computer at exactly the right time ...
Live NASA TV was broadcasting mission control.
VERY cool.
I think the martians will get this one too, though.
Syc pointed me to it just a minute after it landed... very cool.
My RealPlayer connected just as it was landing...fucking awesome!
Should we be concerned about the fact that Al Gore and Ahnold are at the JPL right now?
Originally posted by hot_pastrami
She linked to an article that basically said what many of us, including myself, have been saying throughout this discussion.
The article provided numbers - not wild speculation such a 'launch for Mars in 2015'. Article provided factual background which those other posts did not. Not to say the article drew valid conclusions. But at least the author could draw from hard reality - not wild speculation.
For example, using those hard facts, we add that a moon robot could spend 115 days, many times over, collecting and analyzing samples whereas the men must grab only what they can find right then, and run. Men in the example were in a relatively mild environment - vacuum. Men being far more limited in a chlorine and sulfur environment that robots can thrive in. These hard facts added to what the SciAm article posted meaning hard conclusions can be drawn.
Men cannot stay and keeping working. Men cannot collect subsurface samples; machines being required anyway. Ok. When the article was written, some abovev facts were not yet known. But facts provided by that article can be used for further analysis because they were not based upon speculation, wild assumption, or popular myth.
Again take the 1 man doing 115 times more work. It assumes robots will not advance. Already robots are playing soccer - which was not even considered possible when that SciAm article was written. Already the 1 man day verse 115 robot days has substanically diminished.
Those other posts instead used a "John Henry" reasoning that machines will never replace man. Replacement is happening everywhere from telescopes to deep ocean study, to inside microprocessor development, to nuclear power operations, to deep space exploration because man can no longer do the jobs well enough. Men can no longer go where robots do. Example. Automobiles no longer can be constructed by man. Some environments too hazardous either to man or man too hazardous to the product. Tolerances no longer possible by man even running the machine. Computerized robots are now the only way to make or assemble many car parts. 'Robots are superior' also applies to current and 2015 Mars missions. That conclusion does not even consider the extraordinary less cost.
IOW because the article bases conclusions on solid examples and facts, then the errors in those conclusions can be logically discussed.
The article does provide logical reasonings for its conclusions. That was not the case in challenged posts. One hard fact made most obvious - a Mars flight in 2015 is not even close to reality - if only based on time it takes for simple robotic spaceflights. In fact a 2015 spaceflight is so far from reality that only a fiction writer (and not a leader) could have proposed it. Even a space telescope takes twelve years to build - not including upfront planning - for operation in an environment that is, relatively, extremely friendly. Notice the difference. Hard facts are provided to justify a conclusion.
Real world examples on which a conclusion is based. No wild speculation that because we went to the moon in 1970, then going to Mars will also be simple in 2010. That is junk science reasoning; not used in the Scientific American article. Big difference in what some posted here and what that Sciam article said - even though that Sciam article did not know of or forgot to mention other important points. Example: the robot at now less than 1/10th cost can stay there working for far more than 115 days - thereby doing more productive work. A point we can now make because the author provided a basic fact - with numbers. Hard facts that those 'speculations leading to conclusion' posts did not provide.
Please fee free to post numerical facts proving that robots cannot do the job. Please don't insult me by reposting 1990 robots as proof that 2010 robots cannot do the job. If a robot cannot do the job, then put up good technical facts. Show us how a robot with IR, UV, visible, X-ray, Radar, and sub-IR vision can locate and find less than a human.
hot_pastrami - you posted four reasons why we should put a man on Mars. They were all wild speculation without any supporting facts. One was based on classic myth. Note the difference between how the SciAm article supported its claims and how you reached mostly for popularly held beliefs - or myths. The SciAm article used hard facts to reach a conclusion. You simply speculated, as demonstrated by four reasons to put a man on Mars. That is the difference between your post and what she posted.
Well it did use numbers. Whether they are good numbers (hard facts) or not, is worth investigating. These numbers had to have sources. Hopefully the sources had no axe to grind.:)
Originally posted by tw
hot_pastrami - you posted four reasons why we should put a man on Mars. They were all wild speculation without any supporting facts.
Well, let's revisit my "List O' Wild Speculations," shall we?:
Originally posted by hot_pastrami
1. Improve our space-travel capabilities and methods, which will be necessary when we eventually travel BEYOND Mars.
2. Allow the execution of scientific tests which robots cannot be designed to feasibly perform (core samples, etc).
3. National pride in the accomplishment.
4. All the incidental knowledge which is gathered by such intense, focused research (like the TONS of useful everyday stuff that was developed using data from the Apollo missions).
The first statement is obviously true, even to the dimmest bulb on the strand. We WILL learn more about human space travel by developing space travel. This is not "wild speculation."
The second statement is supported by the linked article, the one which you say is "logical":
...researchers will have to bring up samples from hundreds of meters below the surface, maybe even one or two kilometers down, before they can declare Mars dead or alive. Drilling for samples at such depths "most likely will require humans," says Charles Elachi, director of the Space and Earth Sciences Program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif
The third, I guess you could call speculation, though not really all that "wild." It's a damn safe bet to speculate that the nation will feel pride if Americans tread on Mars. I know I would, and I know a huge majority did when man walked on the moon.
The fourth, the incidental knowlege, is also pretty much a given, which has been demonstrated time and time again... focused scientific research DOES provide all kinds of useful technology... atomic bomb research brought us nuclear reactors, the space program has brought us
TONS of stuff (besides Tang and velcro), etc.
The fact of the matter is, all of your posts on this thread are primarily made up of two kinds of statements.... off-topic statements, and demonstratably false statements. You ignore most of everyone else's points except those which you (wrongly) think you can effectively argue.
I am bored of arguing wth you about this. It is verbal masturbation, and it is accomplishing nothing.
Originally posted by Beestie
We don't need humans on Mars. Why can't we design robots to do the job?
My reaction to Bush's Mars proposal was a big eye roll. I like Bush as a person and as a leader but his idea just reeked of "here's a grand idea from me and its BIG and BOLD and VISIONARY and Kennedy-like!"
Despite whatever merit the idea might have, I don't think now is the time and I really don't think we need to send humans to Mars yet. Consider, just for a moment, what would happen if we lost a crew on Mars. Are we ready for that risk? Not in my opinion.
Completely agree. Why not focus on what people NEED to have right now? More money for funding for medical research and new technology in the medical field and having it more accessable to doctors and hospitals (major personal interest in that). And maybe a faster turnaround time in research...people need medications
NOW not 10 years from now.
Here's another eye roll to people that want to spend big money on big ideas that not everyone is even going to be able to take advantage of. :rolleyes:
He is focusing on needs. He NEEDS to get re-elected. :)
Originally posted by ladysycamore
Here's another eye roll to people that want to spend big money on big ideas that not everyone is even going to be able to take advantage of. :rolleyes:
I believe that the often-eloquent
James Lileks said it very
aptly:
The Strib’s editorial page had some anti-space program cartoons on Sunday. You could predict the lame japery – looking for WMDs on Mars, Gitmos on the Moon, etc. This one by Toles summed up the whole stay-on-earth-until-the-sun-novas idea. It shows a little girl in a wheelchair reading the news, saying “They’re prepared to spend how much so a man can walk on Mars?” The scribbled dingbat in the corner – you know, Toles’ own commentary on his own commentary – says “some things just inspire us.”
Yes, we could make that little fictional girl walk if only we spent the money. But curing spinal cord injuries wouldn’t inspire us. Maybe it’s a stem-cell funding research reference – a valid jibe, I suppose, if this was an either-or thing, and people had deeply-held moral objections to a Mars mission. It just strikes me as the same old provincial jibe I dimly recall from the Apollo era: why are we going to the Moon when there are so many problems here?
Because there’s an entirely different set of problems up there.
And the answers might come in handy.
Some are steamed because the Hubble’s been tanked ahead of schedule, and I’m not pleased about that either. But you could say that every dollar spent on the Hubble thus far could have gone towards Toles’ crudely drawn paralyzed girl. Would the artist insist we had never sent the observatory in the first place, then? For that matter: there were paralyzed children in the 60s. Would Toles have preferred that the government shut down the Apollo program and throw all the millions into spinal-cord regeneration research? Will I never stop asking loaded rhetorical questions?
No. Some more:
France isn’t going to the moon. What stops them from curing spinal-cord injuries? Germany isn’t going to the moon. What stops them from curing spinal-cord injuries? Britain isn’t going to the moon. What stops them from curing spinal-cord injuries? And so forth. It’s not a zero-sum game; America is not the world. But America is best suited to leave this world for another. If that idea leaves you cold, fine.
But I can’t shake the suspicion that we were put here to leave.
As I have noted from time to time, I’m a Lutheran Deist. By some peculiar coincidence my concept of God flatters my own conceptions of the universe; imagine that. If I were king of the forest, and I set this blue-green ball up to follow my dictates, I would have made the night sky inky black - if you want the bald apes below to follow your lead, don't give them stars; they;ll only make up stupid stories. But the night is alive; there are a billion blazing stars above. A challenge? A warning? A promise? We don’t know, but they are so very tempting. And we are notoriously bad at turning temptation away. Haven't you ever looked up at the great dark beyond and felt you were being drawn from where you stood, carried into something greater? Every night the sky is an invitation. Who can look up and see nothing but a roof?
To put it all in Rumsfeld lingo: it’s the known unknown. Space is to humans what Beethoven is to dogs. I don’t think we have the slightest idea what we don’t yet understand.
Just thought of something: What holds the paraplegic in their chairs? What keeps them from shooting around the room, stopping their progress with a finger, floating from desk to desk?
Gravity.
And gravity isn’t a big issue . . . where?
If we try to solve all of Earth's problems before we go exploring, then we're all stuck here forever.
[size=1]
Edit: Oops, clicked "Submit" rather than "preview" before I was done.[/size]
Originally posted by juju
He is focusing on needs. He NEEDS to get re-elected. :)
LMAO, that's a good one and you're right! :D
Originally posted by hot_pastrami
If we try to solve all of Earth's problems before we go exploring, then we're all stuck here forever.
Why look at it as "stuck"? There's only a certain percentage of people who are
really interested in space exploration and going to places that perhaps "we" have no business really going to (just to say we've gone there).
I suppose I'm saying that my personal priorities doesn't include worrying about if and when we'll go back to the Moon or populate Mars and such. It'll probably all happen after I'm gone anyway and I'd rather leave something behind that will benefit people who are like me culturally, medically, etc.
Originally posted by Beestie
dar512 wrote:
I don't get the sense that the purpose of a Mars mission is anything other than the "because its there" reason. Additionally, what can an astronaut do on Mars that a robot can't?
He can fix the damn robot without a light-hour's signal lag, for one thing. Manned missions are expensive, yes, but you buy flexibility with that, and with it, survivability. In a hostile environment, that's beyond price.
Be careful of your attributions UG. Those aren't my words. I'm in favor of manned missions to Mars.
Originally posted by Urbane Guerrilla
He can fix the damn robot without a light-hour's signal lag, for one thing. Manned missions are expensive, yes, but you buy flexibility with that, and with it, survivability. In a hostile environment, that's beyond price.
That man on Mars would be standing around waiting for someone on earth to deduce the problem, and then wait more while a man on earth erased the defective EEPROM. Men on Mars could not fix any of it. Show me the last time you reprogrammed an EEPROM in your disk drive? And you have access to more equipment than a man on Mars?
What is the most flexible solution? Wait for new code from Asia for your drive - or wait for the next spacecraft with new hardware? Where is the flexibility?
Things worked just fine because some dumb human (or Martian) mechanic did not stick his hand under the hood to fix it. The best place to fix it was from earth. All that Martian 'flexibility' would only have made things worse - and more expensive.
A point repeatedly addressed to the most common reason for failure. George Jr does things without even basic knowledge of what exists, what can be accomplished, or what is reality. Last year's State of the Union was "No child left behind" providing w/o funding to create "More children left behind"; increases in both local school and state taxes.
Due to a 2004 State of the Union:
from Expert warns NASA can't afford Mars plan
(AP) -- An aerospace executive warned a presidential commission Wednesday that NASA does not have enough money -- or bright young stars -- to achieve President Bush's goal of returning astronauts to the moon and flying from there to Mars.
"It would be a grave mistake to undertake a major new space objective on the cheap. To do so, in my opinion, would be an invitation to disaster," said Norman Augustine, retired chairman of Lockheed Martin Corp. and head of a panel that examined the future of the space program for the first President Bush.
...
Augustine pointed out that during the next decade, NASA will still have the enormous cost of running all its centers, the space shuttle fleet and the international space station, not to mention conducting research. He said the nation traditionally has underestimated the cost of big programs.
Kennedy consulted these people
before proposing a Manned Moon landing. What any responsible leader would first do. But an extremist president speculates decisions, and then goes looking only for facts to support that fiction. Even his own blue ribbon commission has serious doubts. IOW other budgets, such as DoD would need be raided. Just another reason to borrow from Social Security. Oh, sorry. That money was already spent.
When does George Jr propose something based upon reality? Roadmap for Peace? Anti-ballistic missile system? Saddam's WMB? Federal Debt will be cut by one-half in the next four years? Now big bucks to put a man on Mars - reality or purpose irrelevant. Why is it that only 'tax and spend' Democrats can run a government on budget and with realistic objectives?