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.
2013/12/17 05:20:19
Subject: Re:The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: 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.
That's not what I asked. I asked for hard numbers showing that manned missions did more to motivate people than robot missions. Yes, people were inspired by the space race, but people have also been inspired by the awesome robot missions we've done recently. So do you have hard numbers that human passengers are required to inspire people?
And I'm not accusing the people of bias, I'm saying that you can't single out one cause of the growth of the aerospace industry. The size of an industry depends on a lot of complex factors like the economic situation, military contracts, etc. It doesn't matter if people are really inspired if the industry is in financial trouble and the jobs don't exist for them. Likewise it doesn't matter if people aren't very inspired in a good market, since people will become engineers to get a nice paycheck. So while I'm sure there are anecdotes about individual people choosing that career path because of the space race it's a lot harder to apply that to the industry as a whole.
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.
So you admit that human passengers have no practical value on an exploration mission, and you want to send them for the sole purpose of happy feelings?
Nowhere did I claim it was the penultimate achievement of manned spaceflight.
No, but that's how it will be treated if you focus on manned exploration. The manned element has little or no practical value, so the only reason to include it is to check off the "sent people to mars" achievement. Any manned mission to mars will necessarily be focused around this goal rather than on more practical things, so once the big achievement is done you've got a mission with limited remaining value. Just like with the space race the excitement fades, and the whole thing is canceled.
Humans in space are not pointless and it offers "real world benefits," you just discount them.
You have yet to name any practical benefit besides some vague happy feelings about how cool it is to have people in space.
You are also making the claim that solving the problems on humanity and manned space exploration are mutually exclusive, but they aren't.
Not inherently, but in the real world they are. We clearly have limited resources that we're willing to spend on improving the world, so spending more on one thing means spending less on others. Which gives us a choice: we can work on problems on earth and send efficient robotic missions to explore space, or we can dump massive amounts of resources into manned space missions so we can have vague happy feelings about sending people into space.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2013/12/17 06:54:15
Subject: Re:The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
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.
I've read everything you've said. I've listed what we benefited from the Apollo program and the paradigm shift it brought. Books have been written on the subject, I'd encourage you to read them. I am all for everything you want to say you would like to spend time and money to research, on top of what I believe we should do. You are committing to a false dilemma (on top of other fallacies) to which I am not going to argue with you over.
It recently occurred to me that your government does not have a space agency In fact it is the only country in OECD that doesn't. I find that disappointing (considering Australia was the seventh country to send a satellite into orbit), and so should you because you are losing your brightest and most talented students. They are taking their knowledge and going to work in other countries. It would be of great benefit to the Australian people to enter in the exploration of space (manned or otherwise).
Here is a pretty interesting read on the subject: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/10/ten-reasons-why-australia-urgently-needs-a-space-agency/
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2013/12/17 07:00:50
Subject: Re:The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I am all for everything you want to say you would like to spend time and money to research, on top of what I believe we should do. You are committing to a false dilemma (on top of other fallacies) to which I am not going to argue with you over.
Except it isn't a false dilemma because that's how it works in the real world. If you don't account for the reality of current politics then your proposals are nothing more than wishful thinking.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2013/12/17 07:02:21
Subject: Re:The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
So you admit that human passengers have no practical value on an exploration mission, and you want to send them for the sole purpose of happy feelings?
No, but that's how it will be treated if you focus on manned exploration. The manned element has little or no practical value, so the only reason to include it is to check off the "sent people to mars" achievement. Any manned mission to mars will necessarily be focused around this goal rather than on more practical things, so once the big achievement is done you've got a mission with limited remaining value. Just like with the space race the excitement fades, and the whole thing is canceled.
You have yet to name any practical benefit besides some vague happy feelings about how cool it is to have people in space.
Those were written by someone more knowledgeable than you and myself. Enjoy.
Not inherently, but in the real world they are. We clearly have limited resources that we're willing to spend on improving the world, so spending more on one thing means spending less on others. Which gives us a choice: we can work on problems on earth and send efficient robotic missions to explore space, or we can dump massive amounts of resources into manned space missions so we can have vague happy feelings about sending people into space.
See above.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/17 07:03:55
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2013/12/17 07:34:16
Subject: Re:The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
Finally you actually mention some real arguments instead of vague happy feelings. But those articles suffer from some problems:
1) They seem to be assuming a 1:1 ratio between manned and robotic missions, when in reality the vastly superior payload capacity of a robotic mission (since you don't have to waste mass on passengers, life support, or fuel for the return trip) means that for every human you land for a short mars mission you have several robots operating for years or potentially even decades.
2) They're comparing the results (paper citations) of primitive 1960s-70s robotic missions to manned missions instead of looking at the potential of modern and near-future technology. I'm not going to deny that back then the gap between humans and robots was significant, but robots have improved a lot since then. And if you take the money you'd spend on hauling passengers around and invest it into better robots you'll close that gap even more.
3) They're focusing on volume of samples returned and assuming that it's a result of having a manned mission rather than having a round-trip mission with high payload capacity. In reality a robot mission designed specifically for sample return would bring back a lot more samples because it doesn't have to waste payload capacity on humans and their life support equipment. Every pound spent on passengers is a pound of rocks that you have to leave behind.
4) They're assuming that the manned component is a sunk cost and all you have to pay for is adding science to the flag-planting mission. This is a bad assumption to make when the question is whether to send a manned mission at all. And they even admit it:
The lesson seems clear: if at some future date a series of Apollo-like human missions return to the Moon and/or are sent on to Mars, and if these are funded (as they will be) for a complex range of socio-political reasons, scientists will get more for our money piggy-backing science on them than we will get by relying on dedicated autonomous robotic vehicles which will, in any case, become increasingly unaffordable.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2013/12/17 08:26:15
Subject: Re:The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
Finally you actually mention some real arguments instead of vague happy feelings. But those articles suffer from some problems:
1) They seem to be assuming a 1:1 ratio between manned and robotic missions, when in reality the vastly superior payload capacity of a robotic mission (since you don't have to waste mass on passengers, life support, or fuel for the return trip) means that for every human you land for a short mars mission you have several robots operating for years or potentially even decades.
2) They're comparing the results (paper citations) of primitive 1960s-70s robotic missions to manned missions instead of looking at the potential of modern and near-future technology. I'm not going to deny that back then the gap between humans and robots was significant, but robots have improved a lot since then. And if you take the money you'd spend on hauling passengers around and invest it into better robots you'll close that gap even more.
3) They're focusing on volume of samples returned and assuming that it's a result of having a manned mission rather than having a round-trip mission with high payload capacity. In reality a robot mission designed specifically for sample return would bring back a lot more samples because it doesn't have to waste payload capacity on humans and their life support equipment. Every pound spent on passengers is a pound of rocks that you have to leave behind.
4) They're assuming that the manned component is a sunk cost and all you have to pay for is adding science to the flag-planting mission. This is a bad assumption to make when the question is whether to send a manned mission at all. And they even admit it:
The lesson seems clear: if at some future date a series of Apollo-like human missions return to the Moon and/or are sent on to Mars, and if these are funded (as they will be) for a complex range of socio-political reasons, scientists will get more for our money piggy-backing science on them than we will get by relying on dedicated autonomous robotic vehicles which will, in any case, become increasingly unaffordable.
I've offered the same opinion of these articles before. Numerous times, actually. But nonetheless, the basis of the argument still stands: human spaceflight and robotic missions are both needed. It is not an either-or scenario like you are making it sound. Despite the advances, the gap between humans and robotic probes is sill massive. However, no one, especially not me, is denying they can do things that humans can't (case in point: Voyager and Pioneer) nor that they shouldn't continue or even expand in scope.
We clearly aren't going to convert each other (unfortunately), so you can have your opinion and I'll have mine, I'll at least take comfort that it is shared by people like Stephen Hawking, Neil de Grasse Tyson, the Royal Astronomical Society, and large portions of the planetary science community.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2013/12/17 08:42:28
Subject: Re:The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: But nonetheless, the basis of the argument still stands: human spaceflight and robotic missions are both needed.
What basic point? If you accept the criticism I just presented then the basic point is pretty badly damaged. The surviving argument in favor of manned missions is a pretty weak one, and pretty much depends on the assumption that we're going to do a flag-planting mission no matter what so we might as well do some science as well.
It is not an either-or scenario like you are making it sound.
Of course it is. Outside of fantasy worlds where NASA gets more funding than the military the simple fact is that there's a limited budget for space exploration and spending huge amounts of money on a manned mission means sacrificing the robot missions that could have been done instead.
Despite the advances, the gap between humans and robotic probes is sill massive.
And the extra payload capacity required to launch a manned mission is also massive. Obviously a manned mission is better if you're comparing them at a 1:1 ratio, but you can't just ignore the fact that you can launch lots of robots for the same cost and effort as sending a single manned mission.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2013/12/17 09:23:38
Subject: The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
There's actually quite a lot more that manned missions can be good for over long distances, such as redundancies in emergencies (ALA apollo 13). However, we also need to keep researching the human body in space as well.
The thing is, robotized missions and manned missions are two differing payloads, and would be used in different types of mission.
2013/12/17 09:43:58
Subject: Re:The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: But nonetheless, the basis of the argument still stands: human spaceflight and robotic missions are both needed.
What basic point? If you accept the criticism I just presented then the basic point is pretty badly damaged. The surviving argument in favor of manned missions is a pretty weak one, and pretty much depends on the assumption that we're going to do a flag-planting mission no matter what so we might as well do some science as well.
It is not an either-or scenario like you are making it sound.
Of course it is. Outside of fantasy worlds where NASA gets more funding than the military the simple fact is that there's a limited budget for space exploration and spending huge amounts of money on a manned mission means sacrificing the robot missions that could have been done instead.
Despite the advances, the gap between humans and robotic probes is sill massive.
And the extra payload capacity required to launch a manned mission is also massive. Obviously a manned mission is better if you're comparing them at a 1:1 ratio, but you can't just ignore the fact that you can launch lots of robots for the same cost and effort as sending a single manned mission.
You have tried to (incorrectly) characterize my argument as manned > robotic when it has been manned =/= robotic. The argument for manned missions is strong and backed by people with extensive knowledge in the related fields, as evidenced by the links I have provided. All you have done is offer your dissenting opinion in bullet point-style to everything I've said with nothing backing it up.
I'm not ignoring the fact that you can launch lots of robots for the same cost as one manned mission. The evidence suggests that more can be gained from that one manned mission than the multiple robotic missions, hence the benefits of manned spaceflight. According to the experts, miniaturization of the robotics will decrease the scientific payload to the point that it isn't worth it. We can have a person do it, do it better, do it more efficiently, and have the added benefit of being a human and all the pros that come with it. At that point, I feel a manned mission is even more valuable even if there is a higher ratio of robotic missions.
You're still making it a black-and-white argument, and even without a "fantasy world" of a massive NASA budget, it just isn't.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2013/12/17 10:01:08
Subject: The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
Doctadeth wrote: There's actually quite a lot more that manned missions can be good for over long distances, such as redundancies in emergencies (ALA apollo 13).
If Apollo 13 had been an unmanned mission, it would not have been an emergency. The "success" of Apollo 13 was only that the crew did not all die - the mission itself was a failure. If not for the crew, they could have smashed the thing into the moon and been no worse off than their "success".
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
2013/12/17 10:10:44
Subject: The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
AlexHolker wrote: If Apollo 13 had been an unmanned mission, it would not have been an emergency. The "success" of Apollo 13 was only that the crew did not all die - the mission itself was a failure. If not for the crew, they could have smashed the thing into the moon and been no worse off than their "success".
Exactly. A robot mission can use some of its extra payload capacity to carry redundant backup systems, and since it doesn't have life support at all there are fewer absolutely vital systems that could fail and end the entire mission. And when a robot suffers a fatal failure it's an annoying loss of some time and effort, not a tragic death.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2013/12/17 10:19:18
Subject: Re:The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
The weather reports are calling for cloudiness (at least in Northern Virginia, where I live) but I hope to be able to catch a break in the clouds to watch it. I watched a Minotaur rocket launch from Wallops Island on the roof at my work back in November, it was pretty cool.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/17 10:20:24
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2013/12/17 10:20:11
Subject: Re:The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: The argument for manned missions is strong and backed by people with extensive knowledge in the related fields, as evidenced by the links I have provided.
And, as I've explained, those links present a bad argument. One is from almost 20 years ago and therefore doesn't reflect modern technology, one is based almost entirely on the volume of rock samples returned by the Apollo mission and ignores the fact that a dedicated robot sample return mission could bring even more rocks back, and the third one openly admits that it's an argument about including science on a flag-planting mission and not about replacing robots with manned missions.
I'm not ignoring the fact that you can launch lots of robots for the same cost as one manned mission.
But that's exactly what you're dong. Your articles (which is all we have, since you haven't presented any argument of your own besides vague happy feelings about humans in space) compare single robot missions to single manned missions.
According to the experts, miniaturization of the robotics will decrease the scientific payload to the point that it isn't worth it.
No, you just misunderstood that argument. The "problem" with miniaturization the article mentions is that there's a lower limit on the practical size of a vehicle because you need it to be able to travel a reasonable distance across rough terrain, and therefore arguments about "robots will keep getting smaller and smaller" have a limit. This argument ignores the potential to use those advances in miniaturization to pack more scientific equipment into a single large vehicle, which will still require vastly less payload capacity than a manned mission.
We can have a person do it, do it better, do it more efficiently, and have the added benefit of being a human and all the pros that come with it.
Except that "efficiency" is the whole problem. Yes, a human on mars is probably more efficient than a robot with the same scientific equipment, but you're ignoring the massive efficiency problems in getting the human there in the first place. You have to have a round-trip mission (and for a whole spacecraft, not just a box of mars rocks), you have to bring food/water/etc to support the human, you have to bring other humans to keep them from going insane, you have to design everything with much better safety margins, and then you have to bring all the extra fuel to haul all of that stuff around. And then you throw away all of your efficiency gains because the human can't stay on mars very long, while the robot will happily spend years there working at its slower pace.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2013/12/17 10:39:13
Subject: Re:The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: The argument for manned missions is strong and backed by people with extensive knowledge in the related fields, as evidenced by the links I have provided.
And, as I've explained, those links present a bad argument. One is from almost 20 years ago and therefore doesn't reflect modern technology, one is based almost entirely on the volume of rock samples returned by the Apollo mission and ignores the fact that a dedicated robot sample return mission could bring even more rocks back, and the third one openly admits that it's an argument about including science on a flag-planting mission and not about replacing robots with manned missions.
I'm not ignoring the fact that you can launch lots of robots for the same cost as one manned mission.
But that's exactly what you're dong. Your articles (which is all we have, since you haven't presented any argument of your own besides vague happy feelings about humans in space) compare single robot missions to single manned missions.
According to the experts, miniaturization of the robotics will decrease the scientific payload to the point that it isn't worth it.
No, you just misunderstood that argument. The "problem" with miniaturization the article mentions is that there's a lower limit on the practical size of a vehicle because you need it to be able to travel a reasonable distance across rough terrain, and therefore arguments about "robots will keep getting smaller and smaller" have a limit. This argument ignores the potential to use those advances in miniaturization to pack more scientific equipment into a single large vehicle, which will still require vastly less payload capacity than a manned mission.
We can have a person do it, do it better, do it more efficiently, and have the added benefit of being a human and all the pros that come with it.
Except that "efficiency" is the whole problem. Yes, a human on mars is probably more efficient than a robot with the same scientific equipment, but you're ignoring the massive efficiency problems in getting the human there in the first place. You have to have a round-trip mission (and for a whole spacecraft, not just a box of mars rocks), you have to bring food/water/etc to support the human, you have to bring other humans to keep them from going insane, you have to design everything with much better safety margins, and then you have to bring all the extra fuel to haul all of that stuff around. And then you throw away all of your efficiency gains because the human can't stay on mars very long, while the robot will happily spend years there working at its slower pace.
The "vague happy feelings" are as important as the science, I'm sorry you discount them. You have made it a point to demand that I give you proof of my opinions (instead of using the newfangled Google on the internet machine for yourself) and you have failed to return the favor. You think my argument is weak and that's fine; I think yours is weaker. You are simply arguing from a short-sighted viewpoint, which is fine because it does have its merits, but you instantly attempt to discredit everything I have brought to the conversation. You think your opinion is correct, I respect that.
Again, you can continue with your bullet-point retorts all you like, they seem to make you happy. My opinion, shared by numerous experts in the field, will stand.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/17 10:58:30
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2013/12/17 11:01:28
Subject: The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
Doctadeth wrote: Except that due to humans being on apollo 13, they managed to fix the craft, and get home, salvaging the mission.
The mission was to land on the moon and return to Earth. The mission failed. The only success in the mission was avoiding a failure state which can not happen to an unmanned craft.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
2013/12/17 13:33:34
Subject: Re:The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
A robotic mission will never have the adaptability of a manned mission.
However, robotic missions are cheaper and easier and as has been mentioned, robotic missions can deliver a lot more robotic equipment for the same mass and volume required for a manned mission. There is a real place for both in space exploration and at the moment I would say that robotic exploration and manipulation of extra-terrestrial bodies is the most important.
I think manned missions will pick up once we learn and have been able to nudge mineral rich asteriods into a relatively close orbit, can strip mine them and turn the minerals/rock/etc into components and ships. When the majority of the construction and work is done in space, you cut out vast amounts of cost sending everything into space in the first place...
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I've read everything you've said. I've listed what we benefited from the Apollo program and the paradigm shift it brought. Books have been written on the subject, I'd encourage you to read them.
Then, from all those books, name one benefit that came directly from traveling to the Moon. Not a side benefit developed while figuring out how to get to the Moon, but an actual benefit that putting men on the Moon gives us. And not a vague notion of being inspired, because that puts the space program right up there with that guy who kept trying to play college football despite being really small. An actual, real benefit to people, in the way that satellites give us superior weather predictions and constant telecommunications.
I am all for everything you want to say you would like to spend time and money to research, on top of what I believe we should do. You are committing to a false dilemma (on top of other fallacies) to which I am not going to argue with you over.
There's no fallacy in pointing out that human time and resources are in fact finite, that you do have to choose one thing over another.
It recently occurred to me that your government does not have a space agency In fact it is the only country in OECD that doesn't. I find that disappointing (considering Australia was the seventh country to send a satellite into orbit), and so should you because you are losing your brightest and most talented students. They are taking their knowledge and going to work in other countries. It would be of great benefit to the Australian people to enter in the exploration of space (manned or otherwise).
Here is a pretty interesting read on the subject: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/10/ten-reasons-why-australia-urgently-needs-a-space-agency/
I agree that we need a space agency. Our current attitude of being too small makes little sense in the modern world of joint national projects. Certainly when you consider how many countries use Australia for rocket testing and similar, it's bizarre to think we'd can't leverage that to form joint projects with other space programs.
But that is nothing to do with whether or not manned missions to Mars will change anything.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/12/18 03:10:35
Subject: Re:The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I've read everything you've said. I've listed what we benefited from the Apollo program and the paradigm shift it brought. Books have been written on the subject, I'd encourage you to read them.
Then, from all those books, name one benefit that came directly from traveling to the Moon. Not a side benefit developed while figuring out how to get to the Moon, but an actual benefit that putting men on the Moon gives us. And not a vague notion of being inspired, because that puts the space program right up there with that guy who kept trying to play college football despite being really small. An actual, real benefit to people, in the way that satellites give us superior weather predictions and constant telecommunications.
I am all for everything you want to say you would like to spend time and money to research, on top of what I believe we should do. You are committing to a false dilemma (on top of other fallacies) to which I am not going to argue with you over.
There's no fallacy in pointing out that human time and resources are in fact finite, that you do have to choose one thing over another.
It recently occurred to me that your government does not have a space agency In fact it is the only country in OECD that doesn't. I find that disappointing (considering Australia was the seventh country to send a satellite into orbit), and so should you because you are losing your brightest and most talented students. They are taking their knowledge and going to work in other countries. It would be of great benefit to the Australian people to enter in the exploration of space (manned or otherwise).
Here is a pretty interesting read on the subject: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/10/ten-reasons-why-australia-urgently-needs-a-space-agency/
I agree that we need a space agency. Our current attitude of being too small makes little sense in the modern world of joint national projects. Certainly when you consider how many countries use Australia for rocket testing and similar, it's bizarre to think we'd can't leverage that to form joint projects with other space programs.
But that is nothing to do with whether or not manned missions to Mars will change anything.
The benefits must of course be measured in terms of national economics. The problem is that when looking at things on a nation-wide scale, you can no longer calculate the effect down to dollars and cents. Still, the studies that I have read on the subject arrive at the conclusion that the return that far outstrips the investment, for simple reasons:
Rocket technology, space technology, large-scale manufacturing and core elements of modern information technology such as computers, networks and data transmission experienced a massive boost in those years, not least thanks to the large sums invested into research in these fields. Take rocket science: it is remarkable just how rapid progress was and how quickly launchers evolved from a kind of oversized firecracker to powerful, reliable backbones of spaceflight. All the points listed above are enabling technologies; they render other technologies possible, such as satellite communications, space-based meteorology, earth observation and satellite navigation - each of these items are key technologies offering almost endless potential.
The public perception of science and technology changed dramatically, re-kindling a renewed interest especially among the young generation who started studying science again ... this is indispensable for any technologically leading nation. Only scientifically advanced societies will maintain their wealth and keep up with the pace of progress. President Eisenhower specifically took note of this when he accepted the challenge posed by the Soviet space activities in the wake of the Sputnik shock.
Sure - nobody can prove that all of this would not have happened also without Apollo. But that is beside the point. The issue is that thanks to Apollo there were these benefits on a societal scale, so the Apollo program was of benefit to society. Period.
Again, feel free to do some reading on the subject, you find yourself a little more enlightened.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2013/12/18 03:30:37
Subject: Re:The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
sebster wrote: Then, from all those books, name one benefit that came directly from traveling to the Moon. Not a side benefit developed while figuring out how to get to the Moon, but an actual benefit that putting men on the Moon gives us. And not a vague notion of being inspired, because that puts the space program right up there with that guy who kept trying to play college football despite being really small. An actual, real benefit to people, in the way that satellites give us superior weather predictions and constant telecommunications.
ScootyPuffJunior, this is the point you keep dodging. Nobody is disputing that the development of space technologies have useful effects. But that does not mean using those space technologies to put someone on the moon was useful. You will have nothing worthwhile to say as long as you keep dancing around this point.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
2013/12/18 03:43:25
Subject: Re:The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
sebster wrote: Then, from all those books, name one benefit that came directly from traveling to the Moon. Not a side benefit developed while figuring out how to get to the Moon, but an actual benefit that putting men on the Moon gives us. And not a vague notion of being inspired, because that puts the space program right up there with that guy who kept trying to play college football despite being really small. An actual, real benefit to people, in the way that satellites give us superior weather predictions and constant telecommunications.
ScootyPuffJunior, this is the point you keep dodging. Nobody is disputing that the development of space technologies have useful effects. But that does not mean using those space technologies to put someone on the moon was useful. You will have nothing worthwhile to say as long as you keep dancing around this point.
See above. Or you know, read a book.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2013/12/18 04:05:23
Subject: The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
Yeah, I'm still of the opinion that it's profoundly ignorant of anyone not to realize the benefits of space exploration, and the inherent technological advances that have directly resulted in the past.
As a side note, I realize that to the highly evolved internet warrior the idea that people need to be inspired seems foreign and silly, but to the slack jawed simians that clearly make up the rest of the unwashed masses sometimes having a transcendent goal really does make a difference in productivity and dedication.
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
2013/12/18 04:18:33
Subject: The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
AlexHolker wrote: Feth it, I'm out of here. It's like trying to educate a brick wall.
I couldn't agree more.
Imagine how these people feel:
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2013/12/18 07:17:15
Subject: The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
Direct benefits of landing men on the moon - we learnt wr could do it, we learnt more about manned space flight, we learnt more about what it would take to live on another body in space and in space itself, we learnt about some of the potential dangers and faults in equipment design... the list goes on. A lot of the 'direct' benefits are limited to the moon and space flight, as you would expect, but as mentioned the drive to put men on the moon spawned a lot of technology and so on that have benefitted us all.
Again, feel free to do some reading on the subject, you find yourself a little more enlightened.
This is what I asked for;
"Then, from all those books, name one benefit that came directly from traveling to the Moon. Not a side benefit developed while figuring out how to get to the Moon, but an actual benefit that putting men on the Moon gives us. And not a vague notion of being inspired, because that puts the space program right up there with that guy who kept trying to play college football despite being really small. An actual, real benefit to people, in the way that satellites give us superior weather predictions and constant telecommunications."
You replied with;
Rocket technolgy (a benefit developed while figuring out how to get to the Moon), large-scale manufacturing (a benefit developed while figuring out how to get to the Moon) and modern information technology such as computers (a benefit developed while figuring out how to get to the Moon).
So to conclude this yet again - research is good, in fact it's completely awesome. The actual physical process of going to the moon, or now talking about going to Mars... doesn't actually do anything useful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote: Yeah, I'm still of the opinion that it's profoundly ignorant of anyone not to realize the benefits of space exploration, and the inherent technological advances that have directly resulted in the past.
And before this thread I wasn't of the opinion that a reasonable number of people were completely incapable of sensibly assessing nation building projects, and now I am and it's made me a bit sad.
As a side note, I realize that to the highly evolved internet warrior the idea that people need to be inspired seems foreign and silly, but to the slack jawed simians that clearly make up the rest of the unwashed masses sometimes having a transcendent goal really does make a difference in productivity and dedication.
And if the people working at agencies like NASA were slack jawed simians... then you'd have a good point. But they're actually highly educated professionals with a demonstrated ability to perform extremely well whether we're putting people in the rockets or just robots, and as such you have no point.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/18 08:14:39
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/12/18 08:16:16
Subject: Re:The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
And, again, the point you keep ignoring is that those side benefits could happen with other projects. In fact, those benefits your quote mentions aren't even unique to manned missions, sending robot probes to the moon could have produced the same advances in rocket technology, satellite technology had nothing to do with manned missions (or even the moon missions really), etc. So we're left with the absurdity of pursuing a goal of extremely limited inherent value (putting humans on mars instead of robots) in the desperate hope that by doing so we'll produce vague unknown side benefits. Which is a stupid plan compared to just working on those side benefits directly.
Plus there's a problem with this approach now in 2013. Apollo produced a lot of results because it happened in a rapidly developing field. When the space race started rocket technology hardly existed, computers took up entire rooms, etc. But you don't have that situation anymore. Rockets are fairly well understood, computers are a mature technology, etc. It will take a lot of engineering work to apply that technology to do things like building a modern equivalent of the Saturn V*, but you're talking about subtle refinements of existing technology, not revolutionary breakthroughs.
*Which we don't do because there's no current need for one, not because we aren't able to do it.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: The "vague happy feelings" are as important as the science, I'm sorry you discount them.
And you have yet to explain why those happy feelings can't come from robot missions, an assumption that contradicts the excitement we've seen about robot mars missions recently.
You have made it a point to demand that I give you proof of my opinions (instead of using the newfangled Google on the internet machine for yourself) and you have failed to return the favor.
No, I've asked you to offer opinions at all. You just kept referring to vague "benefits" and ignored my request to explain what exactly the manned mission can do that the robots can't. You can't have a constructive discussion when one side refuses to even explain what their position is.
You are simply arguing from a short-sighted viewpoint, which is fine because it does have its merits, but you instantly attempt to discredit everything I have brought to the conversation.
Of course I attempt to discredit it, because it's wrong. What am I supposed to do, bow down before you and beg you to accept my apology for not immediately recognizing your superior wisdom?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote: As a side note, I realize that to the highly evolved internet warrior the idea that people need to be inspired seems foreign and silly, but to the slack jawed simians that clearly make up the rest of the unwashed masses sometimes having a transcendent goal really does make a difference in productivity and dedication.
You know what also motivates people? Paychecks. If the aerospace industry is profitable then its needs for engineers will be met. If the aerospace industry is not profitable then those jobs will disappear no matter how inspired people are.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/12/18 08:21:51
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2013/12/18 08:22:18
Subject: The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
SilverMK2 wrote: Direct benefits of landing men on the moon - we learnt wr could do it, we learnt more about manned space flight, we learnt more about what it would take to live on another body in space and in space itself, we learnt about some of the potential dangers and faults in equipment design... the list goes on. A lot of the 'direct' benefits are limited to the moon and space flight, as you would expect, but as mentioned the drive to put men on the moon spawned a lot of technology and so on that have benefitted us all.
Direct benefits of building a 40 mile high space marine - we learnt we could do it, we learnt more about building other 40 mile high statues, we learnt what it would take to build statues that are even bigger, and we learnt about some of the potential dangers and faults in the equipment we used to build the statue.
Seriously, that kind of stuff just comes out of doing anything that hasn't been done before. What you want out of a project is an actual specific benefit in and of itself. It's like when people justify building a road because of all the jobs it will create... well sure, but just getting people to dig a big hole and fill it in again will create jobs... what you want is to end up with a road that significantly improves travel times for a lot of people.
It's the same with research - any project will help you learn how to do something similar in future, or how to undertake even more ambitious projects of a similar kind later on. What makes a project actually worthwhile in and of itself is if it provides a direct material benefit, or that it paves the way for a whole new field of human endeavour.
The Panama Canal is an example of a project with a direct material benefit - it greatly reduced the travel time by ship from the West Coast of the US to Europe, and from the East Coast to Asia.
The Wright brothers plane is an example of a project that paved the way for others - showing it was possible and how it was possible was a vital step in developing commercial air travel.
Manned flights to the Moon or to Mars don't do either of those things. There is no direct benefit to us from having a few people on Mars for a short time before flying back. And having a few people do it once won't trigger a massive flood of other people colonising the Red Planet.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/12/18 08:48:07
Subject: Re:The Space exploration & technology discussion thread
SilverMK2 wrote: Direct benefits of landing men on the moon - we learnt wr could do it, we learnt more about manned space flight, we learnt more about what it would take to live on another body in space and in space itself, we learnt about some of the potential dangers and faults in equipment design... the list goes on. A lot of the 'direct' benefits are limited to the moon and space flight, as you would expect, but as mentioned the drive to put men on the moon spawned a lot of technology and so on that have benefitted us all.
Direct benefits of building a 40 mile high space marine - we learnt we could do it, we learnt more about building other 40 mile high statues, we learnt what it would take to build statues that are even bigger, and we learnt about some of the potential dangers and faults in the equipment we used to build the statue.
Seriously, that kind of stuff just comes out of doing anything that hasn't been done before. What you want out of a project is an actual specific benefit in and of itself. It's like when people justify building a road because of all the jobs it will create... well sure, but just getting people to dig a big hole and fill it in again will create jobs... what you want is to end up with a road that significantly improves travel times for a lot of people.
It's the same with research - any project will help you learn how to do something similar in future, or how to undertake even more ambitious projects of a similar kind later on. What makes a project actually worthwhile in and of itself is if it provides a direct material benefit, or that it paves the way for a whole new field of human endeavour.
The Panama Canal is an example of a project with a direct material benefit - it greatly reduced the travel time by ship from the West Coast of the US to Europe, and from the East Coast to Asia.
The Wright brothers plane is an example of a project that paved the way for others - showing it was possible and how it was possible was a vital step in developing commercial air travel.
Manned flights to the Moon or to Mars don't do either of those things. There is no direct benefit to us from having a few people on Mars for a short time before flying back. And having a few people do it once won't trigger a massive flood of other people colonising the Red Planet.
And, again, the point you keep ignoring is that those side benefits could happen with other projects. In fact, those benefits your quote mentions aren't even unique to manned missions, sending robot probes to the moon could have produced the same advances in rocket technology, satellite technology had nothing to do with manned missions (or even the moon missions really), etc. So we're left with the absurdity of pursuing a goal of extremely limited inherent value (putting humans on mars instead of robots) in the desperate hope that by doing so we'll produce vague unknown side benefits. Which is a stupid plan compared to just working on those side benefits directly.
Plus there's a problem with this approach now in 2013. Apollo produced a lot of results because it happened in a rapidly developing field. When the space race started rocket technology hardly existed, computers took up entire rooms, etc. But you don't have that situation anymore. Rockets are fairly well understood, computers are a mature technology, etc. It will take a lot of engineering work to apply that technology to do things like building a modern equivalent of the Saturn V*, but you're talking about subtle refinements of existing technology, not revolutionary breakthroughs.
*Which we don't do because there's no current need for one, not because we aren't able to do it.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: The "vague happy feelings" are as important as the science, I'm sorry you discount them.
And you have yet to explain why those happy feelings can't come from robot missions, an assumption that contradicts the excitement we've seen about robot mars missions recently.
You have made it a point to demand that I give you proof of my opinions (instead of using the newfangled Google on the internet machine for yourself) and you have failed to return the favor.
No, I've asked you to offer opinions at all. You just kept referring to vague "benefits" and ignored my request to explain what exactly the manned mission can do that the robots can't. You can't have a constructive discussion when one side refuses to even explain what their position is.
You are simply arguing from a short-sighted viewpoint, which is fine because it does have its merits, but you instantly attempt to discredit everything I have brought to the conversation.
Of course I attempt to discredit it, because it's wrong. What am I supposed to do, bow down before you and beg you to accept my apology for not immediately recognizing your superior wisdom?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote: As a side note, I realize that to the highly evolved internet warrior the idea that people need to be inspired seems foreign and silly, but to the slack jawed simians that clearly make up the rest of the unwashed masses sometimes having a transcendent goal really does make a difference in productivity and dedication.
You know what also motivates people? Paychecks. If the aerospace industry is profitable then its needs for engineers will be met. If the aerospace industry is not profitable then those jobs will disappear no matter how inspired people are.
Again, my "wisdom" (or opinion, as I like to call it) is based on people who know more than you and I combined on this subject. I don't want you to "bow down" to me, I've already stated that you have your opinion, which I fully respect, and I have mine, which you just ignore because your opinion is "right" (lolwhut?) and apparently can't handle the fact that someone might think differently.
The crux of your entire argument has been, "it could have happened without Apollo." That is pretty convenient for you because it could never be proven true, therefore you are arguing from ignorance; I cannot prove you wrong, so you must be correct. You win the internet. Enjoy it, I hope you like pictures of cats.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/18 08:49:04
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."