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.

sebster wrote:Columbus was a a buffoon who got staggeringly lucky. And he wasn't the first to reach the New World either. His trip changed things in a way that other efforts to reach the New World didn't, though, because behind Columbus there was a new European economy with the ability and economic capacity to start making regular commercial journeys to the New World. Those trips made money, increasing the capacity to make more and more trips and so on. Before you know mercantilism is born and the world will never be the same again.

Compare that with Armstrong landing on the moon, which ushered in an age of some other people taking government paid flights to the moon that petered out over time, ultimately leaving us with a remarkable human achievement, but nothing materially different in our day to day lives.

I challenge anyone to tell me why a trip to Mars would be more like Columbus and less like Armstrong.

sebster wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Your original quote was stating that Apollo gave humanity nothing other than Neil Armstrong walking on the moon, which is wrong.

Holy gak. You misread what I said the first time, so I quoted it for you again, and you still got it wrong. Here it is, for a third time "ultimately leaving us with a remarkable human achievement, but nothing materially different in our day to day lives."
It's not like its long, the whole quote comes in at 18 words. My whole first post came in at 160 words, and that might sound like a lot, but The Very Hungry Caterpillar is 222. So there really just is no excuse for you to still have no idea what I typed. Just fething read it please, because I'm getting really bored of explaining to you over and over again that I haven't said any of the nonsense you keep pretending I've said.

Umm... were did he miss read, you even ask to be showed as wrong. He just do what you asked.

bodazoka wrote:
Can you imagine mining one of the pure diamond/gold asteroids floating around! One trip there and back and you will mine more gold than the combined total of all human history!

There are no such asteroids, we wouldn't be able to bring back more than we've mined today (close to two hundred thousand tons, or the launch weight of sixty Saturn Vs), and it would cost more to bring it back than the gold is worth. That's zero out of three.

Let's talk about Mars when we have an actual sustainable presence in orbit or on the moon where we have the capacity to build actual space faring ships. Barring some future technological marvel, serious space exploration won't happen from the surface of Earth.

And don't bother thinking it's a good idea to turn the moon into a mining penal colony. They'll eventually break free, declare themselves an independent nation, and hurl rocks at us from orbit.

 Frazzled wrote:
Thermal balankets and TANG don't add up to the billions and billions spent on the program. Lets get real here. The only reason we went to the moon was the Cold War.

I agree that the Cold War was a major factor, but Spanish Imperial expansion was also a major motivation for sponsoring Columbus' trip. Despite that, it changed the world forever in ways the Spanish couldn't have possibly conceived.

Similarly, reaching the moon could have changed the world. It could have turned out that space travel was much cheaper than it actually is. It was, I think, a worthwhile endeavour based on what it might have led to. But it's done now, we know how hard and how expensive space travel actually is, so there's no point in picking some place that's even further away and trying to go there, in the hope that somehow this trip will be different.

Out of the 9000 NEOs, there are currently a dozen that are prime targets for mining with our existing technology... except, to mine them safely and efficiently, we have to move them to the L1 or L2 Lagrangian points. While feasible, doing that opens up a whole new slew of complications. So it isn't as "easy" as you claim, this isn't going to a McDonald's drive-thru. Massive amounts of work is still needed to achieve that somewhat "basic" goal, and guess what: that same technology can be used to go to Mars.

I read what he explained, and I still disagree. Anyone can argue that progress would have been made with or without the Space Race. However, since the acceleration of human technological advancement has been directly correlated with the Space Race, that argument is moot. We know what the outcome of an undertaking of that magnitude are so we can have reasonable expectations that it will happen again.

Again, if you actually do research on the topic, NASA made money with the Apollo program. The reason Apollo was canceled wasn't just to "save money," that is a gross oversimplification of what happened. They canceled missions Apollo 17-20 because public interest had waned (when you have things like Vietnam, campus protests, and general civil unrest, that will happen) and Congress, not NASA, told them not to spend money on it (even though their budget at that time was less than 2% of the national budget). So they did what they were told to appease the public and built Skylab, which ushered in the end of the Space Race. They had intended on stopping at Apollo 20 anyway, moving on to AAP (Apollo Applications Programs) and pushing manned spaceflight further out in to the solar system.

 Easy E wrote:
Well, we never really were able to exploit the Moon economically because of the Cold War. Trying to build anything up their by anyone would have been dangerously provocative. I think there was even a Treaty mitigating the Super Powers use of the Moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

Granted, the treaty does not necessarily mean that you can't use it for business/tourist purposes but I'm sure it put a wet blanket on such plans.

I think the bigger problem is that the moon is a really long way to go to gather minerals in a non-breathable atmosphere.

 Frazzled wrote:
Thermal balankets and TANG don't add up to the billions and billions spent on the program. Lets get real here. The only reason we went to the moon was the Cold War.

NASA didn't invent Tang (or Velcro, or Teflon...). Plus, they contributed much more to the public than thermal blankets. I just used that as an easily identifiable example. Again, NASA returned more money than they spent on Apollo.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The consumer tech spawned from the Space Race greatly affect our day to day lives... Satellites, the microprocessor, the various materials used in the creation of the craft itself.

Yes, many technological devices used today would have happened anyway, but the Armstrong trip/NASAs breakthroughs in technology greatly increased the speed with which we have them.

I've just been through this with that other poster.

The point is, you don't do invest billions into some pointless endeavour then figure that's okay because you'll end up with some spin off tech. Research something useful and count the spin off tech as a bonus to doing something actually useful.

And to repeat myself, again, I'm not knocking the race to the moon. For all they knew it could have changed the world. It didn't and that's okay, because you never know how these things will turn out will you start them. No-one had any clue what Columbus trip was about to set in motion. But once you've done it, and discovered that with the current tech and economic factors, repeat space travel just isn't going to happen... then picking some other place even further away is just stupid... and doing it just because in spending billions of dollars you hope you'll discover some other new tech is even crazier.

It's like if Columbus had made his journey, and then... nothing. They figured out how to make a faster boat and some other nice things, but no-one was willing to repeat his journey because the cost was too great for what you could bring home... so they decide that they need to invest in another journey to a place that's even further away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Don't bother, he doesn't think any of those things count. Apparently the United States putting a man on the moon was just a remarkable human achievement that achieved nothing.

I've explained to you multiple times now that there is nothing magical about space research, compared to other research, when it comes to producing spin off technology. Spend a billion dollars on a research project, and you'll get spin off tech, whether you're trying to fly in to space or not. You haven't replied to that, just kept re-asserting your original claim that spin off technology justifies it. Whether this is because you haven't bothered to read my post, can't understand, or are just too lazy to actually try debating the point I'm not sure.

And once again, I'll copy paste my original statement, in the hopes that this time you'll understand what I actually said "ultimately leaving us with a remarkable human achievement, but nothing materially different in our day to day lives". Any chance you'll spend some time thinking about the difference between 'achieved nothing' and 'nothing materially different in our day to day lives'? Any chance at all?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Noir wrote:
Umm... were did he miss read, you even ask to be showed as wrong. He just do what you asked.

He misread in thinking I claimed that landing on the moon achieved nothing, rather than what I actually claimed, that it changed nothing material in our day to day lives, a standard that 'faster computing in the midst of a still on-going revolution in computing speed' really, really doesn't make the standard.

And more than that, he totally missed the point in the comparison of Columbus and the moon landing. The first changed the whole way the world's economy worked, produced a massive expansion in trade and made mercantile powers immensely powerful, eventually leading to capitalism and the modern world. That's the standard that justifies massive undertakings like another attempt at landing people on another planet.

And it's fair enough that we tried, but once we've done and seen that it didn't change the world, it'd be fething stupid to go somewhere even further away and harder to get to, and hope this time will be different.

Except it did make our every day lives different, I offered proof. You claim it didn't, offered nothing but purely hypothetical musings.

Using your logical reasoning, I believe that if the Europeans had left the Americas well enough alone, the indigenous people would have eventually expanded and made contact with Europe. International trade routes would have been established and the world as we know it today would still have arisen.

We invest in massive projects like the Space Race because it gives a purpose to drive innovation, a reason to make things happen. People just don't throw money in to research for no reason, governments are not that altruistic. Look at the sad state of NASA now; my government hasn't really given them anything to do and now they a stymied by an ignorant public who sees them as a waste of money, yet the receive 0.5% of the total federal budget. If they were to be given a task to accomplish, and that task can be sold to the American public (like it was during the Space Race), there is no reason to believe that we couldn't enter a new era of scientific and technological achievement (...again).

Go read about the picture "The Blue Marble" and resulting environmentalism movement. If you honestly believe that man landing on the moon didn't change the world and the way we look at it (and the universe), I feel sorry for you. I would hate to live with a world outlook like that.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Out of the 9000 NEOs, there are currently a dozen that are prime targets for mining with our existing technology...

Which is plenty. Unless you're an incompetent engineer you don't start with a dozen simultaneous missions. The first mission to mine an asteroid will teach us important lessons, the second will apply those lessons and learn new ones, etc. By the time you've exploited those dozen prime targets it's a long time in the future and you've had plenty of time to prepare your next mission.

While feasible, doing that opens up a whole new slew of complications.

And it's still easier than mining on Mars. If you can't mine an asteroid without moving it closer to Earth then how exactly do you plan to mine anything on Mars, which is just as far away and at the bottom of a planetary gravity well?

and guess what: that same technology can be used to go to Mars.

No it can't, because one of the hardest parts about going to Mars is landing on Mars.

However, since the acceleration of human technological advancement has been directly correlated with the Space Race, that argument is moot.

Correlation is not the same as causation.

We know what the outcome of an undertaking of that magnitude are so we can have reasonable expectations that it will happen again.

No we can't. Apollo required the development of entirely new computer technology, building rocket technology up from its most primitive origins, etc. A mission to Mars would be done with relatively "mature" technology and it's incredibly idealistic to assume that it would provide significant benefits outside of the narrow field of "technology for manned space travel".

Landing on Mars isn't really the problem. its taking off again.

You don't need as many landing thrusters and you can also basically eliminate the need for large take off thrusters with an Asteroid.

Plus you can simply attach some thrusters to it and bring it back to Earth for the actual mining.

Asteroid mining would also have relatively immediate payoffs compared to going to Mars. Asteroids are already in space. Anything valuable on Mars needs to be extracted, lifted into orbit, and then taken back to Earth. Asteroid mining basically skips the first 2 steps.

Martian mining will be most useful once we've actually established a permanent colony and it needs material for its own use. It wouldn't be practical to ship stuff back to Earth.

Which is plenty. Unless you're an incompetent engineer you don't start with a dozen simultaneous missions. The first mission to mine an asteroid will teach us important lessons, the second will apply those lessons and learn new ones, etc. By the time you've exploited those dozen prime targets it's a long time in the future and you've had plenty of time to prepare your next mission.

I don't disagree with that at all.

And it's still easier than mining on Mars. If you can't mine an asteroid without moving it closer to Earth then how exactly do you plan to mine anything on Mars, which is just as far away and at the bottom of a planetary gravity well?

I've never said mining Mars is the reason to go there, I have only suggested it is a future possibility (and perhaps a necessity for establishing a long-term or permanent settlement) worth consideration. Still, the current plan to tow asteroids into an easier-to-reach orbit has significant drawbacks. Many prominent, past and present, scientist (including the great Carl Sagan) have voiced concern over a project such as that.

No it can't, because one of the hardest parts about going to Mars is landing on Mars.

Agreed. Landing on anything is hard, including Mars (especially considering the surface conditions). I was referring to propulsion technology.

Correlation is not the same as causation.

The Space Race caused the acceleration of human technological advancement. Happy?

No we can't. Apollo required the development of entirely new computer technology, building rocket technology up from its most primitive origins, etc. A mission to Mars would be done with relatively "mature" technology and it's incredibly idealistic to assume that it would provide significant benefits outside of the narrow field of "technology for manned space travel".

Not every technology needed to push humanity into the solar system is mature. Chemical rocket technology is not efficient enough or economically practical for deep space exploration. There are other propulsion methods being developed that are still in their infancy; some that are flight-proven, some that lab-verified, and some that are still in a conceptual form. I think it's incredibly cynical to assume the only reason for going to another planet is to plant a flag.

What are these concerns over asteroid mining?

Are they worried they might accidentally toss one into Earth

 Grey Templar wrote:
What are these concerns over asteroid mining?

Are they worried they might accidentally toss one into Earth

With the current most feasible plan, yes, but it is not the most major of concerns. None of the proposed Near-Earth objects are large enough to cause any real threat to the planet. The problem is that objects orbiting at Lagrangian points tend to be unstable and would have to constantly make adjustments to keep them in place.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thermal balankets and TANG don't add up to the billions and billions spent on the program. Lets get real here. The only reason we went to the moon was the Cold War.

NASA didn't invent Tang

Rei did.*

The only way I could see any of this advancing technology is if someone walked into NASA and said, "damn it, we're going to bring an asteroid back here whether you like it or not but your budget depends on it being worth doing."

*I'm Sorry.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Except it did make our every day lives different, I offered proof. You claim it didn't, offered nothing but purely hypothetical musings.

Are you kidding me? How many times do you want me to point out the difference between Columbus reaching the New World revolutionising international economics, and the moon landing having a spin off technology in slightly faster computing? How many times do you want me to repeat the word 'material'?

Using your logical reasoning, I believe that if the Europeans had left the Americas well enough alone, the indigenous people would have eventually expanded and made contact with Europe. International trade routes would have been established and the world as we know it today would still have arisen.

Umm, no. None of that would have happened. 'expanding' is not just an automatic, linear thing, where each step is an inevitable next point in a game of Civilisation. What Columbus did mattered because of when he did it, because of the state of the European economy at that time.

And you still haven't understood the point I keep repeating to you - major projects should be tried, and tried all the time. The moon landing was a good idea because for all we knew it could have triggered economic and social changes as great as as Columbus reaching the New World. But it didn't, and now we know a hell of a lot more about the limitations of space travel. So instead we need to put that research money in to other blue sky projects that could just change the world, instead of doubling down on one that we know won't with current technology.

We invest in massive projects like the Space Race because it gives a purpose to drive innovation, a reason to make things happen.

No, else we'd be just as keen to invest billions in to building a 100 metre tall Space Marine. Achieving that would drive innovation, and make things happen. But we aren't building a 100 metre tall Space Marine because we actually expect the project, and not the spin off technology, to achieve something in and of itself with the billions invested into it.

That was what was hoped for with the race to the moon. In achieving that we would be opening up a vast host of possibilities in space. But it didn't.

And that's okay, because not every blue sky project can be certain of changing the world. But when we try it, and it doesn't change the world... we fething stop doing it. We don't natter about useful minor stuff we discovered along the way, and try to do something even harder and more expensive, somehow expecting that if travel to the moon was too expensive for people to commercialise, then an even more expensive trip to Mars must be ripe with opportunity.

Look at the sad state of NASA now; my government hasn't really given them anything to do and now they a stymied by an ignorant public who sees them as a waste of money, yet the receive 0.5% of the total federal budget. If they were to be given a task to accomplish, and that task can be sold to the American public (like it was during the Space Race), there is no reason to believe that we couldn't enter a new era of scientific and technological achievement (...again).

NASA are an invaluable part of the modern research landscape. The field of climate change would be close to non-existant without NASA's contribution.

If you honestly believe that man landing on the moon didn't change the world and the way we look at it (and the universe), I feel sorry for you. I would hate to live with a world outlook like that.

I would hate to live in a world where I never read anything anyone else wrote, and instead trapped myself in strange arguments with pretend people and the things I thought they were saying.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I've never said mining Mars is the reason to go there, I have only suggested it is a future possibility (and perhaps a necessity for establishing a long-term or permanent settlement) worth consideration.

It's a FAR future possibility. There is no current realistic plan to get there, and no compelling reason to start working on a plan other than flag planting.

Agreed. Landing on anything is hard, including Mars (especially considering the surface conditions). I was referring to propulsion technology.

Propulsion technology is irrelevant to the bigger problem here: getting from Mars orbit to the surface of Mars is much harder than getting from asteroid orbit to the surface of an asteroid. The ability to get to Mars pretty much guarantees the ability to get to an asteroid, the ability to get to an asteroid does NOT guarantee the ability to get to Mars.

Also, it has nothing to do with surface conditions and everything to do with required delta-V. Getting into and out of the planetary gravity well is by far the most difficult part of a Mars mission, a problem that does not exist at all with an asteroid.

The Space Race caused the acceleration of human technological advancement. Happy?

No, because that's a much stronger claim that you can't defend. The space race correlated with advancement, but you can't just declare that none of it would have happened without the space race.

Not every technology needed to push humanity into the solar system is mature. Chemical rocket technology is not efficient enough or economically practical for deep space exploration.

Of course it is. Why do you think that we're sending probes all over the solar system already? The technological problems with getting to Mars have very little to do with rocket design and a lot to do with keeping the delicate and heavy human passengers alive over a period of months/years.

And besides that, incremental improvements in well-understood rocket designs are not likely to lead the kind of fundamental revolution in technology that the Apollo computer research contributed to.

I think it's incredibly cynical to assume the only reason for going to another planet is to plant a flag.

Sorry, but that's what it is. The only real reason to go to Mars instead of building on the moon as the first step is to plant the flag. Which is probably why nobody has a serious proposal to go to Mars.

It's a FAR future possibility. There is no current realistic plan to get there, and no compelling reason to start working on a plan other than flag planting.

I see it as a massive accomplishment for humanity, not a propaganda move.

Propulsion technology is irrelevant to the bigger problem here: getting from Mars orbit to the surface of Mars is much harder than getting from asteroid orbit to the surface of an asteroid. The ability to get to Mars pretty much guarantees the ability to get to an asteroid, the ability to get to an asteroid does NOT guarantee the ability to get to Mars.

Also, it has nothing to do with surface conditions and everything to do with required delta-V. Getting into and out of the planetary gravity well is by far the most difficult part of a Mars mission, a problem that does not exist at all with an asteroid.

Surface conditions can definitely complicate a landing on Mars, ask any of the mission planners of the various robotic missions to the planet. Martian dust storms and wind are extremely dangerous to any craft in the atmosphere. So yes, getting to Mars has challenges, those challenges then increase once try to land. Your fixation of gravity wells is bothersome. No one yet has said that going to Mars is just like taking a Sunday stroll in the park. It is hard, we have all agreed on it. At the same time, you are oversimplifying the underlying difficulty of going to an asteroid and coming back. Yes it is "easier" in the grand scheme of things, which is why it is an important step in preparing for the more difficult task of Mars. I've mentioned this already.

No, because that's a much stronger claim that you can't defend. The space race correlated with advancement, but you can't just declare that none of it would have happened without the space race.

I can and have defended it, you just refuse to accept it. But what do I know, right?

Of course it is. Why do you think that we're sending probes all over the solar system already? The technological problems with getting to Mars have very little to do with rocket design and a lot to do with keeping the delicate and heavy human passengers alive over a period of months/years.

No, it isn't. Take for instance the Voyager program. They are extraordinarily far away right now, but it still debated whether or not it has even passed the boundary of the Solar System... something that has taken over 36 years. It's good enough to get relatively small payloads around the solar system, but still prohibitively inefficient for deep-space, heavy payloads, or sustained long distance spaceflight. It has more to do with rocket design than you think. Lifting heavy and delicate life support systems would be too costly with current technology, hence the need to use cheaper, more efficient propulsion methods.

And besides that, incremental improvements in well-understood rocket designs are not likely to lead the kind of fundamental revolution in technology that the Apollo computer research contributed to.

See above.

Sorry, but that's what it is. The only real reason to go to Mars instead of building on the moon as the first step is to plant the flag. Which is probably why nobody has a serious proposal to go to Mars.

Again, I never advocated missions Mars in lieu of the Moon. I would absolutely love humans to go back to the Moon. I wish we never stopped. It is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the most logical step in our expansion in the Solar System, no one is debating that. I'm just not willing to cast aside Mars because "it's too hard." I think you need to understand that I agree with almost all of what you are saying, except that going to Mars is a useless endeavor.


The bottom line is this:
We can go back and forth quoting each other with points and counterpoints, but make no mistake about it; there are serious pros and cons about the entire subject. Your cynicism allows you see the cons outweigh the pros and my idealism allows me to let the pros outweigh the cons.

New idea. Why don't we just get the kerbals to do it.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I see it as a massive accomplishment for humanity, not a propaganda move.

Whether you call it "flag planting" or "a massive accomplishment for humanity" you're still talking about an entirely symbolic victory where little, if anything, of practical consequence happens.

Your fixation of gravity wells is bothersome.

Sorry, but that's how things work in space. Here's a nice chart for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fileelta-Vs_for_inner_Solar_System.svg . Notice how the cost of getting from Earth to Mars surface is much higher than the cost of getting from Earth to Deimos, or even low Mars orbit. That means vastly higher fuel costs (in terms of mass, not money), extra mass and complexity for reentry protection, extra fuel to haul all that protection, etc.

At the same time, you are oversimplifying the underlying difficulty of going to an asteroid and coming back.

No, I'm not. I'm saying it's simple relative to going to Mars. And it is, because you have much lower delta-V required and don't need to go through a planet's atmosphere to get there.

I can and have defended it, you just refuse to accept it. But what do I know, right?

There's a big difference between "investing in NASA produced X" and "investing in NASA was necessary to produce X". Nobody is disputing that various advances came as a result of the Apollo program. The point we're trying to make is that you can NOT just assume that those advances wouldn't have been made in the absence of Apollo, especially when you could dump all of the Apollo funding directly into computer research.

It's good enough to get relatively small payloads around the solar system, but still prohibitively inefficient for deep-space, heavy payloads, or sustained long distance spaceflight.

Oh hey, you just discovered one of the reasons why robots are awesome. Not only do they not need all that expensive (in mass terms) life support stuff they don't complain about boredom if you use a slow maximum-efficiency route to get them to their destination.

But I guess if you want to plant the flag have a major human accomplishment you might need to speed things up a bit, or the taxpayers might get bored and cut your funding.

Lifting heavy and delicate life support systems would be too costly with current technology, hence the need to use cheaper, more efficient propulsion methods.

Nope. NASA was giving serious thought to manned missions to Mars and Venus (a flyby, at least) using existing Apollo hardware with limited modifications, at least until their budget was cut. Yes, you would need to build a heavy-lift rocket that doesn't currently exist (because nobody needs one), but building more Saturn Vs with modern computers is hardly going to drive a revolution in technology.

I'm just not willing to cast aside Mars because "it's too hard."

You don't cast it aside indefinitely, you cast it aside for now. Mars is irrelevant as a goal right now, other than flag-planting, because by the time you've accomplished the easier steps you're dealing with a new generation of hardware and lots of experience. Any Mars plans made now would be thrown out anyway if/when we succeed at getting back to the moon/asteroid mining/etc.

Sorry, but that's how things work in space.

I'm well aware of how delta-v works and it's limitations on spaceflight. Like I have already explained, we can lessen those burdens with cheaper, more efficient propulsion.

The point we're trying to make is that you can NOT just assume that those advances wouldn't have been made in the absence of Apollo

In that case, you can't assume that they would have come about without the Apollo program, especially since the people that created them have said there was no reason to except for the spacecraft.

Oh hey, you just discovered one of the reasons why robots are awesome.

I know why robots are awesome, when did I ever say to abandon robotic probes? Oh that's right, I didn't. I called them "important vanguards to human exploration of space."

NASA was giving serious thought to manned missions to Mars and Venus.

Yeah, it was called AAP and I went over it already. That doesn't prove your point.

taxpayers might get bored and cut your funding.

That is one of the fundamental problem with our society. The public views science, mathematics, and technology as "boring" unless they can get a new iPhone out of it. By expanding the industry and creating more high-paying jobs in the astronautics we can rekindle the passion for SEM in the public eye.

All of this brings me back to my original point of contention: the fact remains that the Apollo changed the world in similar degree that Columbus did.
Columbus wasn't the first European to get on a boat nor was the first to visit the New World. What he did was prove that it could be done reliably (of course he also wrought destruction on the people already living here, but that's besides the point) with existing technology for the benefit of his people. He didn't personally change the world instantly, but it gradually changed as more people started to come the New World, thus establishing a trans-Atlantic trade route. That is a direct parallel to the Apollo program. Besides have the awesome effect of the greatest achievement in the history of man, they proved you could adapt new technology to meet goals never before thought of. The simple fact remains that what they did with integrated circuits in computers in Apollo led to the development of microchips which led to the foundation of our society in the 21st century.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I'm well aware of how delta-v works and it's limitations on spaceflight. Like I have already explained, we can lessen those burdens with cheaper, more efficient propulsion.

And that still doesn't change anything. Any improvement that makes a Mars mission easier also makes an asteroid mission easier, keeping the relative difficulty the same.

In that case, you can't assume that they would have come about without the Apollo program, especially since the people that created them have said there was no reason to except for the spacecraft.

Remember, your fundamental premise here is that we should fund space exploration to get the side benefits of improving technology. If the government had simply dumped the Apollo money into computer research there would have been a reason, and it would have been a much more efficient way of doing things if your primary goal is to improve computers. You go to the moon because you want to get to the moon, not because you hope that going to the moon will coincidentally help some other thing you want to accomplish.

I know why robots are awesome, when did I ever say to abandon robotic probes?

You didn't, but you are arguing for manned space travel. Which is already of questionable value now, and will only continue to lose value as robots get better and better. The primary argument in favor of having humans on the mission seems to be the ability to plant the flag.

Yeah, it was called AAP and I went over it already. That doesn't prove your point.

Yes it does. 1970s rocket technology was already good enough to reach the destination, even without a dedicated from-scratch design. The primary difficulty in a manned Mars/asteroid mission isn't the engines, it's the life support. Therefore the most likely outcome of that mission technology-wise is incremental improvements in engine design, not a major revolution. A new Saturn V with modern computers and engines would be pretty cool, but it isn't going to change society in any meaningful way.

Remember, your fundamental premise here is that we should fund space exploration to get the side benefits of improving technology. If the government had simply dumped the Apollo money into computer research there would have been a reason, and it would have been a much more efficient way of doing things if your primary goal is to improve computers. You go to the moon because you want to get to the moon, not because you hope that going to the moon will coincidentally help some other thing you want to accomplish.

No, my fundamental premise for funding space exploration is my love for outer space and my belief that humanity is destined to expand from Earth. Everything else we get from it is a bonus. That being said, unfortunately not everyone feels that way so I think that the side benefits are what should be sold to the public, so they know their $9 a year accomplishes something.

You didn't, but you are arguing for manned space travel. Which is already of questionable value now, and will only continue to lose value as robots get better and better. The primary argument in favor of having humans on the mission seems to be the ability to plant the flag.

I don't feel that even highly advanced robots are a substitute for the human experience. I believe humans are intrinsically linked to the universe on a fundamental level and no robot could truly replace us.

And that still doesn't change anything. Any improvement that makes a Mars mission easier also makes an asteroid mission easier, keeping the relative difficulty the same.

I've already said going to an asteroid should be done before a mission to Mars, it is a logical step. You and I pretty much agree on this.

it isn't going to change society in any meaningful way.

That is just where I plain disagree. Every advancement is meaningful.

By the way, do you work a night shift?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
All of this brings me back to my original point of contention: the fact remains that the Apollo changed the world in similar degree that Columbus did.
Columbus wasn't the first European to get on a boat nor was the first to visit the New World. What he did was prove that it could be done reliably (of course he also wrought destruction on the people already living here, but that's besides the point) with existing technology for the benefit of his people. He didn't personally change the world instantly, but it gradually changed as more people started to come the New World, thus establishing a trans-Atlantic trade route. That is a direct parallel to the Apollo program. Besides have the awesome effect of the greatest achievement in the history of man, they proved you could adapt new technology to meet goals never before thought of.

And now you're aping my first post, but still missing the point. Yes, what Columbus did was pave a way for others to follow. But the point that I've been explaining to you since you first tried to argue with me is that others actually did follow Columbus, because travelling to the new world to trade and set up colonies was clearly and immediately a good way to make money, and that money was then re-invested in more ships, and that's how you get capital expansion, and that changes the world.

Whereas since Armstrong, there were a few more government funded trips to the moon, and nothing else. No mining expeditions, no colony. Not even space tourism. Because the tech and economy just isn't there to support that kind of stuff. As a result, there just hasn't been a change in the world, even though you just assert that there has, with some vague notion of 'proving you can adapt technology'... which was an idea that no-one had understood before that, at all.

When someone lands on Mars, or lands on the moon again, and people see it and think 'holy gak, the clever way they did that is something we can offer to lots of people in a self-sustaining industry', then that's changed the world.

The simple fact remains that what they did with integrated circuits in computers in Apollo led to the development of microchips which led to the foundation of our society in the 21st century.

You can continue to claim that the only way anyone could possibly have developed integrated circuits was if they were being put on a rocket, but the rest of us will continue to consider that ridiculous, especially because IC had been theorised in various forms for more than a decade before NASA even formed, and were of great interest to the US airforce for a lot of purposes other than flying to the moon.

 sebster wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
All of this brings me back to my original point of contention: the fact remains that the Apollo changed the world in similar degree that Columbus did.
Columbus wasn't the first European to get on a boat nor was the first to visit the New World. What he did was prove that it could be done reliably (of course he also wrought destruction on the people already living here, but that's besides the point) with existing technology for the benefit of his people. He didn't personally change the world instantly, but it gradually changed as more people started to come the New World, thus establishing a trans-Atlantic trade route. That is a direct parallel to the Apollo program. Besides have the awesome effect of the greatest achievement in the history of man, they proved you could adapt new technology to meet goals never before thought of.

And now you're aping my first post, but still missing the point. Yes, what Columbus did was pave a way for others to follow. But the point that I've been explaining to you since you first tried to argue with me is that others actually did follow Columbus, because travelling to the new world to trade and set up colonies was clearly and immediately a good way to make money, and that money was then re-invested in more ships, and that's how you get capital expansion, and that changes the world.

Whereas since Armstrong, there were a few more government funded trips to the moon, and nothing else. No mining expeditions, no colony. Not even space tourism. Because the tech and economy just isn't there to support that kind of stuff. As a result, there just hasn't been a change in the world, even though you just assert that there has, with some vague notion of 'proving you can adapt technology'... which was an idea that no-one had understood before that, at all.

When someone lands on Mars, or lands on the moon again, and people see it and think 'holy gak, the clever way they did that is something we can offer to lots of people in a self-sustaining industry', then that's changed the world.

The simple fact remains that what they did with integrated circuits in computers in Apollo led to the development of microchips which led to the foundation of our society in the 21st century.

You can continue to claim that the only way anyone could possibly have developed integrated circuits was if they were being put on a rocket, but the rest of us will continue to consider that ridiculous, especially because IC had been theorised in various forms for more than a decade before NASA even formed, and were of great interest to the US airforce for a lot of purposes other than flying to the moon.

Nevermind.

 Frazzled wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I'm also totally cool with setting up the moon as a way-station, though from why I understand from cartoons, Deceptions will try to overtake it. It might be best to try and work on Dinobots first.

GRIMLOC WANT CUP TO TELL STORY!


And my goodness, the amount of e-peen going on in this thread is staggering

GRIMLOC SMASH GRAVITY WELL IN FACE!

It would be interesting to tell the many many many people in the world without running water, you'd rather spend trillions sending a VW bus to Mars then help them have running water and indoor plumbing.

Call me crazy, but if people want to complain about gaking in a bucket,maybe they should move. I also get a bit annoyed at how the rest of the worlds problems have to fall on America to fix. We need to advance the sciences just add much as fix indoor plumbing.

Fair point. Then I'll rephrase. it would be interesting to tell the many people barely making payments, crying in frustration that they can't send their kids to college an take care of their parents, theat we're going to spend trillions to send a monkey to Mars.

 Frazzled wrote:
Fair point. Then I'll rephrase. it would be interesting to tell the many people barely making payments, crying in frustration that they can't send their kids to college an take care of their parents, theat we're going to spend trillions to send a monkey to Mars.

Or we could let then know that NASA budget is less then 4% of the US budget at it peak time and normal less then 2%. We are taking less then 2% the yearly Military budget. Why are you worryed about the maybe 20 million they might get on NASA's best year, hell just give them a billion form the Military budget. Then NASA good for 50 years. I don't know maybe people barely making payments should ask why we need to spend so much on the military, first.

It won't be 4% if you're talking going to Mars.

The military budget is being reduced. Don't expect the pace of that decline to lessen any time soon.

NASA's budget is 0.5% of the federal budget. The average taxpayer gives NASA about $9 a year.