Adam Selene
Roving Rocketeer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,724
- Reaction score
- 1
EXACTLY! Couldn't have said it better myself!My thinking is similar to Joe's - I think we do need a permanent base on the Moon. We should also have permanent satellites (note the plural) around both the Earth and the Moon. That would give us not only the practice for staying on a foreign body for an extended period of time, but would also give us a launching point to get to Mars and beyond.
I also believe that we need to get off the Earth and onto other planets, if for no other reason than self preservation. If something happens to the Earth, we need a good genetic base to restore it after a catastrophe. If we had permanent colonies on the Moon and on Mars, complete with genetic banks on both, we would be that much further along in protecting our species' (and a lot of other support species) survival into the long term future. This doesn't even count the technology advances that building colonies on the Moon and Mars would create here on Earth. The technology for growing sustainable food supplies there would also help improve food supplies here on Earth. That is why the short sighted argument that we need to stop "messing around with space travel" and focus our resources here on Earth drive me so batty. One big asteroid and all those resources we saved by not going into space are for squat!
If Mars were made of money the private sector would have been there 40 years ago.If only mars was made of money... if it was so NASA would have sent thousants of missions there![]()
Okay, let me repeat my suggestion:If only mars was made of money... if it was so NASA would have sent thousants of missions there![]()
The choices in the survey are bad ones. You are offered a choice of _manned_ moon missions, _manned_ Mars missions or nothing. I want a large number of robotic missions to everywhere that's interesting, easily paid for by an end to the ISS and manned space flight. Push artificial intelligence and robotics beyond their current limits, thereby developing technology that would be highly useful on earth, too. And unmanned spacecraft in earth orbit that are designed to be serviced over time should be serviced via telepresence until robotics and AI can take over.
I disagree completely. The two compliment one another not cancel each other out. Robots make fine scouts but humans still make complex decisions better and are much more versatile when confronted with adverse circumstances. Hubble was fixed by humans not robby robot. Pathfinder was brilliant but think what a trained geologist could do. Manned space inspires and think how many young engineers who have enriched our nations were inspired by Apollo. Who in the heck remembers Ranger?I agree with Winston. Manned spaceflight is an idea from the 60s. It is still suited for orbital activities (like fixing the Hubble telescope), but not for space exploration.
It is time we take another look at our approach for space exploration. Just look at all we learned from the two Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity... and that's already dated technology.
In any case, I doubt we can afford building a manned based anywhere![]()
Yeah and one example: Aluminium takes alot of electricity to refine from ore. Its just not quite practical, especially for the quantities needed to make anything out of. This is at least a 100 year project at the minimumThe materials and the power are already there. We just need to bite the bullet and do it.
My best argument against this idea is to compare Apollo 11 to the somewhat recent Mars mission that crashed into a mountain because of a programming error. Even with AI, we cannot program a robotic explorer to figure its way out of every situation that might come up - we cannot even foresee some situations until they happen. But with a "pilot at the wheel", the astronaut can make last second decisions and changes that could spell the difference between a successful mission and a total failure.I agree with Winston. Manned spaceflight is an idea from the 60s. It is still suited for orbital activities (like fixing the Hubble telescope), but not for space exploration.
It is time we take another look at our approach for space exploration. Just look at all we learned from the two Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity... and that's already dated technology.
In any case, I doubt we can afford building a manned based anywhere![]()
OK, That's one good example in favor of your position. However you can build ten of those unmanned missions before you match the cost of one manned one.My best argument against this idea is to compare Apollo 11 to the somewhat recent Mars mission that crashed into a mountain because of a programming error. Even with AI, we cannot program a robotic explorer to figure its way out of every situation that might come up - we cannot even foresee some situations until they happen. But with a "pilot at the wheel", the astronaut can make last second decisions and changes that could spell the difference between a successful mission and a total failure.
The debate would be about whether we send the telemarketers first, or the lawyers. I would vote for the lawyers.Okay, let me repeat my suggestion:
How about sending telemarketers to Mercury?
Doing so would help us to develop the hardware and expertise needed to send human beings around the solar system, and we'd be able to develop that capacity it without putting human beings at risk. In addition, there wouldn't be any problem raising the funds needed: we could do it using nothing but freely given donations. I'm sure even PETA would be willing to chip in.
A friend of mine, who was actually in the astronaut mission specialist corps for a while (but he never got to fly) used to be popular on the SF con circuit as a NASA lecturer. One of his most popular bits was a slide presentation he called "Senator's in Space" - starring Sen. William Proxmire. Of course, the routine ended up with the Honorable Senator being "accidentally" lost in space!The debate would be about whether we send the telemarketers first, or the lawyers. I would vote for the lawyers.![]()
I agree. The amount of pure science that can be accomplished with unmanned probes will far surpass what can be done with manned missions and for a fraction of the costs. This should be a priority.The choices in the survey are bad ones. You are offered a choice of _manned_ moon missions, _manned_ Mars missions or nothing. I want a large number of robotic missions to everywhere that's interesting, easily paid for by an end to the ISS and manned space flight. Push artificial intelligence and robotics beyond their current limits, thereby developing technology that would be highly useful on earth, too. And unmanned spacecraft in earth orbit that are designed to be serviced over time should be serviced via telepresence until robotics and AI can take over.
Lots of folks want to send people into the space and doI agree. The amount of pure science that can be accomplished with unmanned probes will far surpass what can be done with manned missions and for a fraction of the costs. This should be a priority.
If the American people want to continue to send people into space, it should be done more for national pride, not as a scientific venture.
We could do both if people are willing to pay for it, but I would say they should develop a series of standardized probes and fling them out all over the place.
I think I get what Buzz is after. We (humans) have always been at our best when we are pushed to do things that some think are impossible. Doing what is technologically possible with current technology is easy (though not necessarily inexpensive), proves nothing and we don't learn much. Pressing for the difficult things, even the impossible things, causes us to research, innovate and invent. The Cleveland Indians used a phrase a few years ago that I think fits here.I saw Buzz Aldrin last week at a book signing for his new book, "Magnificent Desolation" and he spoke to the group about his thoughts on the future of space exploration. He opined that we should not go back to the moon because it is too close, and the problem is that the people we would send there would not stay very long. Instead, he advocates building a permanent presence of Mars where the explorers would have to stay at least a year and a half because of the planetary alignments creating launch windows during which to travel.
I'm not sure I agree with his logic, it seems to me we would want to perfect the travel, exploration and settlement skills on the closest possible body before venturing further. That being said, the presence of water on the moon (not yet confirmed) would add weight to the argument that a permanent lunar presence is practical. In the long run, the success of a permanent presence on either body will depend on whether resources can be returned to the Earth in an economically feasible way, or it ends up as a moon-doggle.
While I see your point, I'd rather NASA not model itself after the 31-49, last place Indians. :blush:The Cleveland Indians used a phrase a few years ago that I think fits here.
Go big, or go home!
True, but FWIW that particular year they won the pennant. They stink but we all have to have dreams. Some are just bigger than others...:roll:While I see your point, I'd rather NASA not model itself after the 31-49, last place Indians. :blush: