Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 iproxtaco wrote:
Getting to Mars 'half cocked', as you say, is part of the process. We didn't put man on the moon on our first journey beyond our planet's atmosphere.

As I explained multiple times when this thread started months ago, when we did put a man on the moon, nothing followed other than a handful more government funded missions to the moon. Compare that to Columbus, where his voyage was followed by large numbers of other countries and private interests making trips, setting up colonies and changing the world in a very short period of time.

The difference, you see, is that when Columbus made his trip there was economic capacity and motivation for lots more people to do the same, and so his trip was a trigger for a world changing event. But while the moon landing was perhaps the greatest scientific achievement in history, there simply wasn't the economic capacity and motivation for repeated efforts - the moon is really far away and really expensive to get to, and there's nothing there to justify that kind of cost.

And Mars is the same. That's what would be 'half-cocked' about going to Mars - we are simply miles away from the economic capacity and motivations needed to turn a trip to Mars in to a sustainable industry.

 sebster wrote:

 iproxtaco wrote:
Getting to Mars 'half cocked', as you say, is part of the process. We didn't put man on the moon on our first journey beyond our planet's atmosphere.

As I explained multiple times when this thread started months ago, when we did put a man on the moon, nothing followed other than a handful more government funded missions to the moon. Compare that to Columbus, where his voyage was followed by large numbers of other countries and private interests making trips, setting up colonies and changing the world in a very short period of time.

The difference, you see, is that when Columbus made his trip there was economic capacity and motivation for lots more people to do the same, and so his trip was a trigger for a world changing event. But while the moon landing was perhaps the greatest scientific achievement in history, there simply wasn't the economic capacity and motivation for repeated efforts - the moon is really far away and really expensive to get to, and there's nothing there to justify that kind of cost.

And Mars is the same. That's what would be 'half-cocked' about going to Mars - we are simply miles away from the economic capacity and motivations needed to turn a trip to Mars in to a sustainable industry.

Exactly. The Apollo missions put a dozen men on the moon, and it's been forty years since and we haven't been back. As far as establishing a lunar colony goes, the Apollo missions were a complete failure. If you want a Mars colony, you need something smarter in mind than trying to repeat Apollo's failure.

 sebster wrote:

 iproxtaco wrote:
Getting to Mars 'half cocked', as you say, is part of the process. We didn't put man on the moon on our first journey beyond our planet's atmosphere.

As I explained multiple times when this thread started months ago, when we did put a man on the moon, nothing followed other than a handful more government funded missions to the moon. Compare that to Columbus, where his voyage was followed by large numbers of other countries and private interests making trips, setting up colonies and changing the world in a very short period of time.

The difference, you see, is that when Columbus made his trip there was economic capacity and motivation for lots more people to do the same, and so his trip was a trigger for a world changing event. But while the moon landing was perhaps the greatest scientific achievement in history, there simply wasn't the economic capacity and motivation for repeated efforts - the moon is really far away and really expensive to get to, and there's nothing there to justify that kind of cost.

And Mars is the same. That's what would be 'half-cocked' about going to Mars - we are simply miles away from the economic capacity and motivations needed to turn a trip to Mars in to a sustainable industry.

Sigh...

The Age of Discovery was not this massive, overnight socioeconomic boom you describe it as, but rather a relatively slow progression starting in the early 15th century and ending in the 17th century; it was not an instant revolution in the way humanity operated. The Age of Discovery was one of the most significant global events, but let us not forget that it also brought us the rise of European nation-states, colonial empires, diseases, and other scourges upon humanity, many of which took centuries (or never) to recover from.

Look at aviation: the first sustained, powered heavier-than-air flight happened in 1903. Sixty-six years later, less than a lifetime, mankind was traveling to another celestial body and returning safely. That is a revolution.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the American space program produced substantial economic benefits and was worth the money my country spent. To deny that is simply wrong.

Yeah, I believe the total right now is 8 dollars comes out of every 1 dollar that is spent by NASA. Not sure how that doesn't produce substantial economic benefits.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Sigh...

The Age of Discovery was not this massive, overnight socioeconomic boom you describe it as, but rather a relatively slow progression starting in the early 15th century and ending in the 17th century; it was not an instant revolution in the way humanity operated.

Yeah... but it was a constant process, with capacity constantly expanding through organic systems. Whereas the race in to space is a government program to put a man on the moon, followed by some more government trips to the moon, followed by some different government programs for other types of space exploration (ISS etc), which at no point began producing a return that brought more money in to the program than went out, and at no point paved the way for other groups to start self-sustaining programs of their own.

The Age of Discovery was one of the most significant global events, but let us not forget that it also brought us the rise of European nation-states, colonial empires, diseases, and other scourges upon humanity, many of which took centuries (or never) to recover from.

Yeah, that's what change does, lots of good and lots of bad. Whether the change is worth it or not is one up for debate but nothing to do with this debate, which is about whether or not another big space project will bring about any kind of real change.

Look at aviation: the first sustained, powered heavier-than-air flight happened in 1903. Sixty-six years later, less than a lifetime, mankind was traveling to another celestial body and returning safely. That is a revolution.

Yeah, aviation was a revolution. A series of advancements building one on the next, as a wide range of organisations in a wide range of countries built a powerful new industry and form of travel where none had existed before. Which of course changed the world and how many of us live.

How you can see that, and then not see how far removed that is from the state of space travel is beyond me.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the American space program produced substantial economic benefits and was worth the money my country spent. To deny that is simply wrong.

Research is almost always good, and brings in vast amounts of additional economic benefit. Please understand that I am not saying we shouldn't study space, or study any of the other incredibly useful research projects at NASA or any other government funded scientific agency.

What I am trying to explain to you (again, after you gave up last time) is that research dollars are finite, and so they should be put towards projects that in and of themselves are likely to benefit society, beyond the side benefits. As I explained earlier in the thread, research terraforming here on Earth and you'll get all the benefits that a few billion in R&D investment will get you, and you might get the technology to expand our viable farming land, which could open up a whole new industry that greatly expands our total area of food producing land. Research a trip to Mars and you'll get all the benefits that a few billion in R&D investment will get you, and maybe a guy goes to Mars then comes back... followed by the same amount of nothing that followed the moon landing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Yeah, I believe the total right now is 8 dollars comes out of every 1 dollar that is spent by NASA. Not sure how that doesn't produce substantial economic benefits.

That's what research does. That's why research is great and important. But that applies to all research. Throw a few hundred milion in to making the largest flag pole in the world and you'll get side benefits, but it'll be stupid waste of our very finite research dollars because there'll be no primary benefit at all.

By the logic of 'we'll develop some random stuff along the way' you've got the justification for every pointless, random R&D project that could ever exist. What you want out of your R&D is all those nice side discoveries, and a final project that actually improves lives. Sending a guy to Mars is incredibly unlikely to achieve that second thing.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the American space program produced substantial economic benefits and was worth the money my country spent. To deny that is simply wrong.

We're not talking about the space program, we're talking about a manned landing. What has the Apollo program achieved of value that could not have been achieved by doing the research so you could go to the moon, and then not actually going to the moon?

 AlexHolker wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the American space program produced substantial economic benefits and was worth the money my country spent. To deny that is simply wrong.

We're not talking about the space program, we're talking about a manned landing. What has the Apollo program achieved of value that could not have been achieved by doing the research so you could go to the moon, and then not actually going to the moon?

Doing all the research to go to the moon without going to the moon would be about the same as all the Cold Fusion research going on.... Sure it "works" in theory. And that's one of the things that makes the men/women of that era so badass. going up to some bloke saying, "hey, we THINK this should work, we'd love to send you up to the moon. which should work based on our calculations, however there is still a significant chance you will die" and the reply is, "'Murica! Feth Yeah!" (ok, not really.. but the fact that the first men launched into space had some serious cajones, and a broken "fear sensor" speaks volumes)

Yeah... but it was a constant process, with capacity constantly expanding through organic systems. Whereas the race in to space is a government program to put a man on the moon, followed by some more government trips to the moon, followed by some different government programs for other types of space exploration (ISS etc), which at no point began producing a return that brought more money in to the program than went out, and at no point paved the way for other groups to start self-sustaining programs of their own

NASA has always contributed more the the American economy that it has taken from it. Since our country was/is willing and able to share in our technological achievements (even during the height of the Space Race), we insured that all peaceful nations could be included. The knowledge gained from the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle Orbiter programs also helped spur the advancement of private spaceflight, which will be a key ingredient to continued human presence in space.

Yeah, that's what change does, lots of good and lots of bad. Whether the change is worth it or not is one up for debate but nothing to do with this debate, which is about whether or not another big space project will bring about any kind of real change.

It will bring about real change. I apologize that the past evidence is not enough for you.

Yeah, aviation was a revolution. A series of advancements building one on the next, as a wide range of organisations in a wide range of countries built a powerful new industry and form of travel where none had existed before. Which of course changed the world and how many of us live.

How you can see that, and then not see how far removed that is from the state of space travel is beyond me.

It is not done changing the world and human spaceflight is the most important cog in that wheel.

Research is almost always good, and brings in vast amounts of additional economic benefit. Please understand that I am not saying we shouldn't study space, or study any of the other incredibly useful research projects at NASA or any other government funded scientific agency.

What I am trying to explain to you (again, after you gave up last time) is that research dollars are finite, and so they should be put towards projects that in and of themselves are likely to benefit society, beyond the side benefits. As I explained earlier in the thread, research terraforming here on Earth and you'll get all the benefits that a few billion in R&D investment will get you, and you might get the technology to expand our viable farming land, which could open up a whole new industry that greatly expands our total area of food producing land. Research a trip to Mars and you'll get all the benefits that a few billion in R&D investment will get you, and maybe a guy goes to Mars then comes back... followed by the same amount of nothing that followed the moon landing.

Human spaceflight and the technological advancement of humanity is the benefit. There really is no easier way to explain it.
Sorry, claiming nothing occurred following the Apollo program is categorically incorrect. Why, despite the evidence that myself and others have shown, you still believe that is beyond me.
As far as your farming argument: there is not a problem of having enough food, but getting to the people that need it. That is a problem for politicians, not scientists and engineers. Unfortunately, those same politicians are also in control of the space program. So good luck.

We're not talking about the space program, we're talking about a manned landing. What has the Apollo program achieved of value that could not have been achieved by doing the research so you could go to the moon, and then not actually going to the moon?

Read those two papers and one article, they specifically address the Apollo program.

I also feel there is a gross misunderstanding here on exactly how much the Apollo program cost America. This might clear that up a little.

This is how spaceflight has changed society:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Doing all the research to go to the moon without going to the moon would be about the same as all the Cold Fusion research going on.... Sure it "works" in theory. And that's one of the things that makes the men/women of that era so badass. going up to some bloke saying, "hey, we THINK this should work, we'd love to send you up to the moon. which should work based on our calculations, however there is still a significant chance you will die" and the reply is, "'Murica! Feth Yeah!" (ok, not really.. but the fact that the first men launched into space had some serious cajones, and a broken "fear sensor" speaks volumes)

If nations were built on bad-ass individuals, Russia would be... something other than an oppressive kleptocracy. Nations are built on bad-ass individuals doing stuff that the rest of us can take advantage of afterwards.

And just to clarify, I'll say it again, the moon landing was probably the greatest scientific achievement in human history. And it was a really good idea, because it could have led to a massive new opportunities and changed society massively. But it didn't, and knowing that doubling down on sending some astronaughts even further just seems foolish.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
NASA has always contributed more the the American economy that it has taken from it.

Of course, outside of a handful of exceptions, large scale research always contributes massively to the economy and technological progress. If you were trying to make a case for expanding NASA, then I'd be on your side, and listing all the great research work NASA is doing right now. But you're trying to make a case for flying to Mars, and that's a completely fething different thing.

It will bring about real change. I apologize that the past evidence is not enough for you.

Past evidence - moon landings happened. Then nothing - no follow ups from other parties, no ability of NASA to generate value from further landings to fund expansion or even just maintenance of existing operations.

There is very little capacity and zero economic motive to put people in to space... it's really fething expensive to put people out there, and what's out there isn't valuable enough for people to try bringing it back here. When that looks likely to change, then space travel will become something more than a prestige project, and it will be worthwhile pursuing. But this is not that time.

It is not done changing the world and human spaceflight is the most important cog in that wheel.

No, there's no fething cogs in wheels or any vague nonsense like that. Talk in specifics, talk in reality. You're trying to make your point simply by alluding to a really vague kind of timeline

Human spaceflight and the technological advancement of humanity is the benefit. There really is no easier way to explain it.

And, once again, I'll explain to you that 'human spaceflight' only counts when the economic capacity and incentives are there so that others follow in the wake of the initial effort.

Sorry, claiming nothing occurred following the Apollo program is categorically incorrect. Why, despite the evidence that myself and others have shown, you still believe that is beyond me.

There was no continued spaceflight. fething read, please.

As far as your farming argument: there is not a problem of having enough food, but getting to the people that need it. That is a problem for politicians, not scientists and engineers. Unfortunately, those same politicians are also in control of the space program. So good luck.

Sure, there's a problem with distribution, but to state that's all the problem is woefully simplistic. Simply put, brute force matters and the more excessive the food supply is, the less distribution matters. And if you change the amount of farming land, you can also change what is grown without fearing about a decrease in total food production, moving away from more intensive crops (which are often unsustainable long term).

Not that any of that matters, because the point was never 'do terraforming' - it was do something where the end product of the research is useful in and of itself. If that isn't terraforming, then find something else. The point is that you can't justify research just by arguing that there'll be some kind of side benefits, you have to argue for the benefit of the main project, and there simply is no benefit to flying to Mars right now.

Of course, outside of a handful of exceptions, large scale research always contributes massively to the economy and technological progress. If you were trying to make a case for expanding NASA, then I'd be on your side, and listing all the great research work NASA is doing right now. But you're trying to make a case for flying to Mars, and that's a completely fething different thing.

One and the same.

Past evidence - moon landings happened. Then nothing - no follow ups from other parties, no ability of NASA to generate value from further landings to fund expansion or even just maintenance of existing operations.

It should never has stopped, but based on the political climate of the United States at the end of Apollo, it is easy to understand why. Again, NASA has always demonstrated value, but short-sighted politicians who fear populism and the election cycle decide how much money is give to NASA, and by extension, what gets funded.

There is very little capacity and zero economic motive to put people in to space... it's really fething expensive to put people out there, and what's out there isn't valuable enough for people to try bringing it back here. When that looks likely to change, then space travel will become something more than a prestige project, and it will be worthwhile pursuing.

Again, the amount of money to put men and equipment in to is trivial compared to what my country (and others) spend on various other projects, most of which have questionable value. Space is valuable, both in raw material to be exploited and knowledge to be gained.

But this is not that time.

Now is the perfect time. Ten years ago was the perfect time. Twenty years ago was the perfect time.

And, once again, I'll explain to you that 'human spaceflight' only counts when the economic capacity and incentives are there so that others follow in the wake of the initial effort.

They do, you just refuse to accept it (despite evidence to contrary).

Sure, there's a problem with distribution, but to state that's all the problem is woefully simplistic. Simply put, brute force matters and the more excessive the food supply is, the less distribution matters. And if you change the amount of farming land, you can also change what is grown without fearing about a decrease in total food production, moving away from more intensive crops (which are often unsustainable long term).

The problem still is distribution. We can already fix all the "problems" you list, but policy needs to change. This is still a policy argument, whether you believe it or not. Bring on the GMOs.

Not that any of that matters, because the point was never 'do terraforming' - it was do something where the end product of the research is useful in and of itself. If that isn't terraforming, then find something else. The point is that you can't justify research just by arguing that there'll be some kind of side benefits, you have to argue for the benefit of the main project, and there simply is no benefit to flying to Mars right now.

Exploration would be useful. The "side benefits" would be useful. The entire project would useful.

By the logic of 'we'll develop some random stuff along the way' you've got the justification for every pointless, random R&D project that could ever exist. What you want out of your R&D is all those nice side discoveries, and a final project that actually improves lives. Sending a guy to Mars is incredibly unlikely to achieve that second thing.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you're wrong.

Please feel free to view the videos I posted in a previous reply, Dr. Tyson explains it better than I could.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
One and the same.

No, they're not. NASA is currently undergoing large amounts of research in geo-mapping, global climate research, supporting local climate research (I read an interesting thing on salt mapping that NASA has done that our CSIRO is desperate to apply to our farming land that affflicted with salinisation) and all sorts of other stuff.

It should never has stopped, but based on the political climate of the United States at the end of Apollo, it is easy to understand why. Again, NASA has always demonstrated value, but short-sighted politicians who fear populism and the election cycle decide how much money is give to NASA, and by extension, what gets funded.

No, how are you still not getting this. At some point for any of this to matter someone other than government has to be putting their money behind it. The New World didn't get colonised because Spain kept paying for Columbus to keep making trips. The airplane didn't change the world because governments kept funding the Wright brothers and other groups around the world. Once the initial breakthrough was made the rest happened through private groups who saw economic potential.

That economic potential doesn't exist with flying to the Moon, or to Mars.

Again, the amount of money to put men and equipment in to is trivial compared to what my country (and others) spend on various other projects, most of which have questionable value. Space is valuable, both in raw material to be exploited and knowledge to be gained.

The amount spent to get one flight to Mars is trivial, sure. But that's true of all R&D - any one project in isolation is minute compared to total GDP.

The point, again, is that doing it once means nothing in the grand scheme of the world. Not one fething thing at all beyond a lot of people watching on TV saying 'awesome'. Because there will be no flood of private groups following up with extraction or colonisation missions, because at this point that stuff is nowhere near commercially viable.

Now is the perfect time. Ten years ago was the perfect time. Twenty years ago was the perfect time.

For it to be the perfect time you need to make a case that doing it now would mean someone, anyone, would follow up with repeated trips for some kind of purpose. You haven't done that, because you can't do that, because there is no chance at all of that happening.

They do, you just refuse to accept it (despite evidence to contrary).

No, it doesn't. If the Wright brothers flew their plane, and people tried to repeat it but no-one could ever figure out how to make a plane that was more effective, then their flight would have been a novelty and nothing more. If Columbus had reached the New World but found nothing of value worth repeating the trip, then it would have been an historical footnote and nothing more.

It's when that effort opens the door for lots of other people to take advantage of that it matters.

The problem still is distribution. We can already fix all the "problems" you list, but policy needs to change. This is still a policy argument, whether you believe it or not. Bring on the GMOs.

Once again, you still aren't getting how examples work, and more to the point, we can both see the need for policy to change (though I'll have to point out thinking of it as policy is woefully simplistic, the issue is a combination of system and culture, not designed policy) but that is seperate to any potential for increases in total farmable land.

Exploration would be useful. The "side benefits" would be useful. The entire project would useful.

Exploration?!
"Hey, we found an incredible mineral deposit, worth trillions if we could get it home?"
"Can we get it home?"
"No, it's on fething Mars."

The side benefits, once again, are true of all projects. Build a 40 mile high Space Marine and in figuring out how to do that you'll discover all kinds of incredible other stuff because that's how R&D works. That doesn't mean building a 40 mile high Space Marine isn't really fething stupid, because that's R&D dollars that could have been spent on projects that are actually useful in and of themselves.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you're wrong.

That's not an answer at all. If you have any real kind of explanation for why manned space travel, unique among all R&D projects, just inherently produces side benefits despite having an end goal of its own that is entirely useless, then give it. Explain how 'flying to Mars' produces new technology in a way that '40 mile tall Space Marine' doesn't.

No, they're not. NASA is currently undergoing large amounts of research in geo-mapping, global climate research, supporting local climate research (I read an interesting thing on salt mapping that NASA has done that our CSIRO is desperate to apply to our farming land that affflicted with salinisation) and all sorts of other stuff.

I know. Those things can be done congruently with manned spaceflight, like they always have.

No, how are you still not getting this. At some point for any of this to matter someone other than government has to be putting their money behind it. The New World didn't get colonised because Spain kept paying for Columbus to keep making trips. The airplane didn't change the world because governments kept funding the Wright brothers and other groups around the world. Once the initial breakthrough was made the rest happened through private groups who saw economic potential.

You really love this New World stuff, huh? I'm sorry you don't know the reason why manned spaceflight in the United States has suffered since the end of Apollo; politicians and public opinion, both of which are short-sighted.

That economic potential doesn't exist with flying to the Moon, or to Mars.

Yes, it does.

The amount spent to get one flight to Mars is trivial, sure. But that's true of all R&D - any one project in isolation is minute compared to total GDP.

It isn't just "one project" but a part of an overlapping, broad-reaching space policy.

The point, again, is that doing it once means nothing in the grand scheme of the world. Not one fething thing at all beyond a lot of people watching on TV saying 'awesome'. Because there will be no flood of private groups following up with extraction or colonisation missions, because at this point that stuff is nowhere near commercially viable.

Sorry, wrong again. That may be the case for you, but for the next generation of astronauts, engineers, and scientists, it will be a wake up call to achieve more, not just for our nation but for humanity. Strikingly similar to what happened in the 60s, if you took the time to actually study the subject.

For it to be the perfect time you need to make a case that doing it now would mean someone, anyone, would follow up with repeated trips for some kind of purpose. You haven't done that, because you can't do that, because there is no chance at all of that happening.

Humans will go back to the moon and then on to Mars and it will happen in my lifetime, that I am sure. I've already stated the purpose, which you ignore, so that's cool.

No, it doesn't. If the Wright brothers flew their plane, and people tried to repeat it but no-one could ever figure out how to make a plane that was more effective, then their flight would have been a novelty and nothing more. If Columbus had reached the New World but found nothing of value worth repeating the trip, then it would have been an historical footnote and nothing more.

There is value in space and human spaceflight. I'm sorry you fail to understand it.

Once again, you still aren't getting how examples work, and more to the point, we can both see the need for policy to change (though I'll have to point out thinking of it as policy is woefully simplistic, the issue is a combination of system and culture, not designed policy) but that is seperate to any potential for increases in total farmable land.

"If you support ongoing human spaceflight, you are no longer supporting using government agencies to solve problems on earth such as sustainable agriculture."
You are essentially using farmable land as a strawman, congratulations.

Exploration?!
"Hey, we found an incredible mineral deposit, worth trillions if we could get it home?"
"Can we get it home?"
"No, it's on fething Mars."

How is that cynicism working out for you?

The side benefits, once again, are true of all projects. Build a 40 mile high Space Marine and in figuring out how to do that you'll discover all kinds of incredible other stuff because that's how R&D works. That doesn't mean building a 40 mile high Space Marine isn't really fething stupid, because that's R&D dollars that could have been spent on projects that are actually useful in and of themselves.

So building a giant space marine is the equivalent of a comprehensive manned spaceflight policy?

lolwut?

That's not an answer at all. If you have any real kind of explanation for why manned space travel, unique among all R&D projects, just inherently produces side benefits despite having an end goal of its own that is entirely useless, then give it. Explain how 'flying to Mars' produces new technology in a way that '40 mile tall Space Marine' doesn't.

I've already offered plenty of reasons why manned spaceflight is not useless, with my own opinions on it and also through the use of YouTube videos and relevant articles on the subject.


Look, this is not the Space Race nor should it be. The driving force of the Space Race was beating the Soviets to the Moon, and while we accomplished that, we ultimately let ourselves down by not expanding our reach into space (which could have been even greater with the combined effort of Russia and the United States). The social and political climate in the United States (and Russia) at the end of the Space Race did not allow that to happen, and I see it as one of the greatest lost opportunities of the 20th century. Please, feel free to read any number of books written on the subject, I could even recommend some to you.
The bottom line is that a comprehensive manned spaceflight policy is good for the economy, good for technology, and good for humanity. The study and exploration of space must go on. Myself and others have offered numerous reason why, and despite the evidence supporting them (i.e.- it already happened once) you have done nothing but refute them with poor logical fallacies or outright denial. I am sorry that you feel that way, I really am, but there is nothing you could ever say to convince me otherwise. I know you think you "won" the last time this was discussed, so if it makes you feel better, you can claim victory here as well.

If you would like to continue to discuss some of the current missions being carried out by NASA, ESA, CNSA, RKA, or IRSO, please feel free.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
So building a giant space marine is the equivalent of a comprehensive manned spaceflight policy?

Yes, exactly. Like it or not there is very little value in spending huge amounts of money and sacrificing payload capacity to send humans instead of robots. You can talk all you want about vague "make everyone happy and optimistic" goals all you want, but I'd rather send a robotic mission (with way more scientific equipment than an equivalent manned mission can carry) to every planet than do another useless flag-planting mission to the moon.

The bottom line is that a comprehensive manned spaceflight policy is good for the economy, good for technology, and good for humanity.

No. A spaceflight program is great for those things. Adding humans to the mission just wastes valuable payload capacity.

The study and exploration of space must go on.

I agree. We should significantly increase our investment in robotic missions to explore space. These missions provide amazing new scientific work on a very efficient budget, and it should be a national embarrassment that we're even considering cutting them.

Yes, exactly. Like it or not there is very little value in spending huge amounts of money and sacrificing payload capacity to send humans instead of robots. You can talk all you want about vague "make everyone happy and optimistic" goals all you want, but I'd rather send a robotic mission (with way more scientific equipment than an equivalent manned mission can carry) to every planet than do another useless flag-planting mission to the moon.

It isn't about making everyone happy and optimistic, that is a gross trivialization of the point I was conveying. Talk to someone or read a book by someone that was inspired to do what they did because of the our space program in the 60s (Magnificent Desolation by Buzz Aldrin or Failure Is Not An Option by Gene Kranz are good places to start). Again, we aren't spending huge amounts of money and we never have. I feel human exploration is more than flag-planting; I refuse to take that much of nihilistic point of view about it.

No. A spaceflight program is great for those things. Adding humans to the mission just wastes valuable payload capacity.

In your opinion. We will see humanity making permanent footholds outside of Earth before we see a machine than can operate in the same capacity as us.

I agree. We should significantly increase our investment in robotic missions to explore space. These missions provide amazing new scientific work on a very efficient budget, and it should be a national embarrassment that we're even considering cutting them.

It is an embarrassment.

If America had spent the money it has used to send its armed forces on various holidays around the world in the last 40-50 years on NASA, we would probably have FTL by now

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Talk to someone or read a book by someone that was inspired to do what they did because of the our space program in the 60s (Magnificent Desolation by Buzz Aldrin or Failure Is Not An Option by Gene Kranz are good places to start).

And talk to the current generation of people who were inspired by some random person at NASA posting twitter updates from a robot on mars. Space is already awesome and inspiring enough as it is, you don't need to waste valuable payload capacity on sending human passengers.

I feel human exploration is more than flag-planting; I refuse to take that much of nihilistic point of view about it.

The point is that manned exploration right now is just flag-planting. What you're talking about is repeating the mistakes of the space race. If you send human passengers without any real purpose besides your vague "inspiration" you end up with missions that are little more than checking off "sent someone to mars" and that doesn't produce sustainable development. Once the goal is complete and people get bored the funding disappears and we're left with a cool accomplishment and not much else.

In your opinion. We will see humanity making permanent footholds outside of Earth before we see a machine than can operate in the same capacity as us.

Unlikely. Robots keep getting more and more capable, while there still doesn't seem to be any real point to sending passengers along with the robot (other than "because it's cool" and "because country X is doing it too"). And remember, with all the extra payload capacity you get by not hauling passengers around you can take much nicer robots.

How about for the sole reason of species self preservation? We can't survive an extinction event if we are still all stuck here can we?

It'll be a long process to build up sufficient numbers on other planets/moons, so why not start now?

 Peregrine wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Talk to someone or read a book by someone that was inspired to do what they did because of the our space program in the 60s (Magnificent Desolation by Buzz Aldrin or Failure Is Not An Option by Gene Kranz are good places to start).

And talk to the current generation of people who were inspired by some random person at NASA posting twitter updates from a robot on mars. Space is already awesome and inspiring enough as it is, you don't need to waste valuable payload capacity on sending human passengers.

I feel human exploration is more than flag-planting; I refuse to take that much of nihilistic point of view about it.

The point is that manned exploration right now is just flag-planting. What you're talking about is repeating the mistakes of the space race. If you send human passengers without any real purpose besides your vague "inspiration" you end up with missions that are little more than checking off "sent someone to mars" and that doesn't produce sustainable development. Once the goal is complete and people get bored the funding disappears and we're left with a cool accomplishment and not much else.

In your opinion. We will see humanity making permanent footholds outside of Earth before we see a machine than can operate in the same capacity as us.

Unlikely. Robots keep getting more and more capable, while there still doesn't seem to be any real point to sending passengers along with the robot (other than "because it's cool" and "because country X is doing it too"). And remember, with all the extra payload capacity you get by not hauling passengers around you can take much nicer robots.

The inspiration for people to join the aerospace industry is not vague, it's provable with hard numbers; it is In an article I posted earlier. Sending humans into space is not a waste. We will never make a machine anywhere near as complex as a human if our lifetime, probably ever. I am not talking about repeating the Space Race. Quite the contrary, we need to be mindful of the mistakes made during the Space Race, specifically a narrow-minded goal (like just getting to the moon). Landing a person on Mars is not the penultimate achievement of a sustained manned spaceflight program, just the first of many steps. This also isn't an America-only adventure, it will require the full cooperation of all willing parties to achieve and maintain. Plus, it has the added advantage of making us realize we shouldn't blow each other up when we could be working together.

You and I will not agree; you think manned spaceflight is useless, I don't. I am sorry you don't see the importance of the human factor. There really isn't much else to discuss at this juncture, but if you feel the need to make counterpoints to anything I have offered, feel free.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25378313

Between this and China, we may well see that most important element of motivation for NASA- a threatening country seeking to do it first.

There are a plethora of problems facing long term manned space flight, primarily bone density loss and insanity. Both are rapidly being studied and worked on, but it will take serious advances in those fields before two way space travel becomes a viable possibility. Much more likely are limited corporate ventures, like asteroid mining, and publicity stunts like Mars One- the chance to be one of the first people to die on Mars.

How convenient, I spent the entire weekend playing Kerbal Space Program, I guess you could say that makes me an expert in astronautics ;P

 Breotan wrote:

cadbren wrote:
Mars has no breathable atmosphere, it would require terraforming before true colonisation could take place.

Terraforming Mars is a bigger pipe dream than the whole colony thing. You'd need a LOT of snow from the outer Solar System to make the atmosphere as well as an abundance of Nitrogen for plants. Where you gonna get enough to make a liveable atmosphere? How you gonna get it to Mars? How you going to get it all down onto Mars without making massive impact craters? How are you going to get the soil to provide enough nutrients for crops to grow? Even if 3/4 of Mars' surface becomes covered with water, that's still a lot of chemicals you need to find and import. And none of it can be taken from Earth because we're still using the stuff we have here.

The bigger issue is that Mars lacks a magnetosphere and has a gravitational pull of 1/3 Earth. In other words, whatever atmosphere you import will be quickly stripped away by solar wind.

Re: terraforming in general (for all the talk its getting in this thread), there isn't a planet or moon in this solar system that is a viable candidate for a terraforming mission. The only planet that really fits would be Venus (which basically has the opposite problem of Mars) if you could find a way to export most of its existing atmosphere and deal with any additional gaseous byproduct caused by ongoing geological activity.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25378313

Between this and China, we may well see that most important element of motivation for NASA- a threatening country seeking to do it first.

There are a plethora of problems facing long term manned space flight, primarily bone density loss and insanity. Both are rapidly being studied and worked on, but it will take serious advances in those fields before two way space travel becomes a viable possibility. Much more likely are limited corporate ventures, like asteroid mining, and publicity stunts like Mars One- the chance to be one of the first people to die on Mars.

Iran isn't really a threatening nation to anyone in the know.

 sebster wrote:
Build a 40 mile high Space Marine and in figuring out how to do that you'll discover all kinds of incredible other stuff because that's how R&D works. That doesn't mean building a 40 mile high Space Marine isn't really fething stupid, because that's R&D dollars that could have been spent on projects that are actually useful in and of themselves.

I feel sorry that you lack the strength to dream.

I was kind of hoping this thread would become a place to discuss the tech involved in this latest endeavour, developments and things like that, despite the original premise of the thread.

Was just reading, apparently the first half dozen or so Russian attempts to make a controlled landing on the moon ended in failure. Which, makes the Chinese attempt fairly impressive despite the obvious advances in computing power and materials technology that have come in the intervening years.

Quite an interesting write-up on the NASA website:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/12/china-jade-rabbit-lunar-arrival/

 Pacific wrote:
I was kind of hoping this thread would become a place to discuss the tech involved in this latest endeavour, developments and things like that, despite the original premise of the thread.

Was just reading, apparently the first half dozen or so Russian attempts to make a controlled landing on the moon ended in failure. Which, makes the Chinese attempt fairly impressive despite the obvious advances in computing power and materials technology that have come in the intervening years.

Quite an interesting write-up on the NASA website:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/12/china-jade-rabbit-lunar-arrival/

The Jade Rabbit lunar rover is awesome, and it is a huge step for the Chinese people and their space program. As Popular Science described it: If you're under 37, this is the first time in your life a spacecraft has sent images from the moon's surface to Earth.

Here is the video of the landing (which is awesome):

Between this and China, we may well see that most important element of motivation for NASA- a threatening country seeking to do it first

NASA cannot (and does not) operate that way. That was one of the failures of the original Space Race, and any country would be wise not to repeat it.

Will China fake their moon landing? Only time will tell...

I predict re-used footage of the original moon landing, but with expert digital editing of the flag.

I think it'll get more interesting if/when we get our first private organisation "Moon Landing".

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
The inspiration for people to join the aerospace industry is not vague, it's provable with hard numbers; it is In an article I posted earlier.

Really? So there's hard numbers that more people joined the aerospace industry out of inspiration from the manned missions than out of inspiration from the mars robot on twitter? And these hard numbers somehow aren't biased by economic or technological factors that determine how many aerospace industry jobs exist?

Sending humans into space is not a waste. We will never make a machine anywhere near as complex as a human if our lifetime, probably ever.

Ok, fine. Let's get specific now: what useful tasks can a human perform that a robot can't? When answering please keep in mind the huge payload capacity required to send human passengers. For example, the ability of a human to repair a broken spacecraft is much less important than you might initially think because the extra payload capacity of a robotic mission allows you to include multiple redundant backup systems to the thing that the human would be repairing.

Landing a person on Mars is not the penultimate achievement of a sustained manned spaceflight program, just the first of many steps.

But that's exactly how you're setting it up. If you want to do useful scientific exploration you send robots. The primary reason for sending a human to mars is to check off the "sent a human to mars" accomplishment, and once that's done you probably have the same outcome as the Apollo missions.

Plus, it has the added advantage of making us realize we shouldn't blow each other up when we could be working together.

You know what could also do that? Everyone uniting to fight disease/starvation/etc. Except that also has some real-world benefits beyond just realizing that we can cooperate, something you can't really say for sending useless passengers on space exploration missions.

Except that in the process of actually having them sent, we will discover. In the process of sending them, we will discover.

If you took the time to send a manned mission to the asteroids, or to mars, its not just about the quantitive aspects, like economy, research. Its about the fact that those involved will come back fecking heroes. We will have another generation that dream to become astronaughts. you CANNOT put a price on that. What it comes down to, is that people will sacrifice everything for that dream.

Yes, we have a lot of problems here on earth. That is undeniable. But to stop dreaming, to stop exploring, that should be criminal. Yes, It costs a lot to get out into space. But the same could be said for military deployments.

There's three drivers for progress in this world. Religion, Fear of death, and economic gain. Think about how much we could gain from interplanetary travel. If we got to the asteroid belt, we could mine them. There's TRILLIONS of dollars worth of resources there. that could bail out the USA, complete debt wipe. Imagine that. the USA's bank debt wiped out.

And not just that. Mars - the research on everything there. Perhaps even going to europa, see how evolution there has worked. Find new minerals and elements. To look back on earth, as a speck of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.

To get the the point of Mining Asteroids is a long process, Nasa Came about in a large economic boom, where money was plentiful. We have problems, here on earth, that need money now and are not making any money on potential gain, POTENTIAL. IF I came up and said "Give me X money, IT will pay off in 200 years" You would laugh at me. And the whole "Dream" aspect wasnt made solely by space exploration, it was made by a change in the middle class brought on by a large economic boom, so say the NASA was the only driving force for dreamers is just stupid

 Peregrine wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
The inspiration for people to join the aerospace industry is not vague, it's provable with hard numbers; it is In an article I posted earlier.

Really? So there's hard numbers that more people joined the aerospace industry out of inspiration from the manned missions than out of inspiration from the mars robot on twitter? And these hard numbers somehow aren't biased by economic or technological factors that determine how many aerospace industry jobs exist?

You may feel they are biased, but the sense of inspiration young people felt during the Space Race (fueled in part by the NDEA and the patriotism of the time) contributed to the exponential growth of the American aerospace industry and the increase of scientist, engineers, and mathematicians of all fields. Feel to read or listen to the people of that generation or, you know, discount their opinions and insert your own bias. That's cool too.

Sending humans into space is not a waste. We will never make a machine anywhere near as complex as a human if our lifetime, probably ever.

Ok, fine. Let's get specific now: what useful tasks can a human perform that a robot can't? When answering please keep in mind the huge payload capacity required to send human passengers. For example, the ability of a human to repair a broken spacecraft is much less important than you might initially think because the extra payload capacity of a robotic mission allows you to include multiple redundant backup systems to the thing that the human would be repairing.

Robots cannot experience the sensation and thrill of the exploration of a new frontier, nor can they think and feel like us. Only humanity has the capacity to feel that, that is what makes us unique and I refuse to discount it. It may be altruistic, but I make no apologies for it. It is clearly a point of view you don't share and while I feel sorry for you, I respect it. I don't know what you do for a living, but I hope someone doesn't deem your profession "useless" and replace you with a robot.

Landing a person on Mars is not the penultimate achievement of a sustained manned spaceflight program, just the first of many steps.

But that's exactly how you're setting it up. If you want to do useful scientific exploration you send robots. The primary reason for sending a human to mars is to check off the "sent a human to mars" accomplishment, and once that's done you probably have the same outcome as the Apollo missions.

Nowhere did I claim it was the penultimate achievement of manned spaceflight.

Plus, it has the added advantage of making us realize we shouldn't blow each other up when we could be working together.

You know what could also do that? Everyone uniting to fight disease/starvation/etc. Except that also has some real-world benefits beyond just realizing that we can cooperate, something you can't really say for sending useless passengers on space exploration missions.

Yes, space is a big place. The solar system is vast.
http://www.noao.edu/education/peppercorn/pcmain.html


NASA came about because people were frightened in the cold war, they were terrified by sputnik. We got men on the moon because we worried about communists on the moon (ironic isn't it).

And the amount of money we at the moment are spending on space research is about 1/14th of a penny on the tax dollar. Thats right, Each dollar you spend of tax, 1/14th of a penny goes to NASA. Even in the heyday of space travel, the funding still was not even a penny on the dollar. So how dare you say we don't have the money. Our most important research program is underfunded, undermanned and about to close without the help of the Military.

In my opinion, we should increase funding, go the full penny on the dollar. We need to get out there, there are so many wonders in space. The dangers will be beyond imagining, but so too will be our responses. Its innovations like space flight that kickstart our research, that we can indirectly stimulate new technologies, and other industries.

The path to space, leads back to improvement, not just in space, but for people on earth as well.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I know. Those things can be done congruently with manned spaceflight, like they always have.

The time of smart, highly educated people is in fact finite. If you ramp up research in to manned space flight you have to draw resources away from other projects. This is not something that should have to be explained.

You really love this New World stuff, huh?

I love economic history, studying how human society has changed.

I'm sorry you don't know the reason why manned spaceflight in the United States has suffered since the end of Apollo; politicians and public opinion, both of which are short-sighted.

I am absolutely bewildered that you still cannot understand that in order for space flight to really mean something, it needs to be done by groups other than government

Sorry, wrong again. That may be the case for you, but for the next generation of astronauts, engineers, and scientists, it will be a wake up call to achieve more, not just for our nation but for humanity. Strikingly similar to what happened in the 60s, if you took the time to actually study the subject.

That's just vague non-thinking. The kind of babble that causes disfunctional management to book motivational days for their staff. Being 'inspired' doesn't mean gak if there's no achievable end goal, no underlying system that encourages and reinforces behaviour., then that motivation just peters away.

Exactly like the space program did.

Humans will go back to the moon and then on to Mars and it will happen in my lifetime, that I am sure. I've already stated the purpose, which you ignore, so that's cool.

And you keep fething not getting it. At some point some group or another, for some reason or another, may return to the moon, or even go to Mars. It'll be an awesome scientific achievement, and it will also be pointless. Because it will not be followed by a colony or any other kind of operation that produces more resources than it costs, that sort of thing is way beyond the scope of our current technology.

And no matter how dutifully you try to keep ignoring that it remains true.

There is value in space and human spaceflight. I'm sorry you fail to understand it.

And so I'll ask, again, for you to name that value. Explain what is out there that is so valuable as to justify the expense of going there.

"If you support ongoing human spaceflight, you are no longer supporting using government agencies to solve problems on earth such as sustainable agriculture."
You are essentially using farmable land as a strawman, congratulations.

One of two things is possible, either you don't understand how examples work, and think the example of terraforming research was a specific... or you don't understand how opportunity cost works, and fail to understand that when you put resources in to one thing you can't put those same resources in to another thing.

Whichever it is, go away and learn how those things work.

How is that cynicism working out for you?

I'm not cynical at all. I believe there's a bright shiny future out there, if we make smart choices. But making smart choices means being realistic about what future investment and research has a chance of paying off, and which are stupid boondoggles.

Guess which one flying to another planet is.

So building a giant space marine is the equivalent of a comprehensive manned spaceflight policy?

lolwut?

In terms of useful benefits to humanity, they're the same. Both will give humanity exactly zero benefit from their primary missions.

I've already offered plenty of reasons why manned spaceflight is not useless, with my own opinions on it and also through the use of YouTube videos and relevant articles on the subject.

And now it becomes clear that for all your posts you haven't actually read one word of my argument. You still have no idea how side technologies are the product of any research project, and that to justify a project you need to make some sort of argument for the actual research project itself. Which you still can't do. You cannot give a single benefit that came from Neil Armstrong landing on the moon and coming home again.

And until you do that, the argument for putting a man on Mars simply doesn't exist.

The bottom line is that a comprehensive manned spaceflight policy is good for the economy, good for technology, and good for humanity.

Your bottom line is completely wrong, and from that all your other errors flow.

But seriously, if you have some actual benefits to the economy or to technology other than 'we figured out some other stuff while researching how to do this' then by all means list them. Just name one thing that wouldn't flow from any other research project in to anything, and then, after six pages, we'll have the start of your argument.