OT a bit - fly to the moon or Mars?

Well, a different different. That pioneer spirit remains, but roadside
repairs or finding an island with fresh water will be a little more
difficult now..

An unimportant difference. And btw "roadside repairs" are made all the
time to spacecraft, in the form of new computer instructions beamed up
from Earth. The tools have changed, but concept remains true.

I believe there's an international agreement
that nobody can lay claim to anything in
outer space

Yes, there is such an agreement - words on paper - and it will hold true
until there is no competition. Then space will "belong" to whoever is
actually there. Waddayagonnadoboudit?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
Well, a different different. That pioneer spirit remains, but
roadside repairs or finding an island with fresh water will be a
little more difficult now..

An unimportant difference. And btw "roadside repairs" are made all
the time to spacecraft, in the form of new computer instructions
beamed up from Earth. The tools have changed, but concept remains
true.

Apollo 13 would have disagreed, and had they been half way to Mars it most
likely wouldn't have ended as happily.
Computer script can't repair/replace big holes in the spacecraft, or a
multitude of other significant mechanical, electromechanical, electronic
failures that demand a physical replacement. Pre-space explorers usually
had the option of attempting a repair on the spot, even if it took days,
weeks, months "out of the box", and if push came to shove, get out and walk
or float, in later times fire off an SOS, enable the locator beacon, light a
fire, etc., and wait for help. Of course there were/are/will be exceptions,
but generally speaking, if the situation wasn't a cataclysmic event (broken
wheel, leaky boat, ate your last sled dog, etc.), they had other ways out.
If you're ten or twenty million miles from the garage and break down in the
most hostile, unforgiving enviornment ever imagined, you're pretty much SOL,
and that does make it very different in that regard, at least to me -
however, the indubitable spirit to go where no man has gone before, risk
taking, etc., lives on, and that'll never change.
Later our technology may catch up with our dreams, but can't see it
happening for a long time. Not counting all the fascinating information
coming from our robotic missions, I'm much more concerned about what's
happening in the space around the earth, than beyond the moon.

Apollo 13 would have disagreed, and had they been half way to Mars it most
likely wouldn't have ended as happily.

The colonial pioneers were not immune to disaster. Roadside repairs
didn't help the Donner party either. My point remains, and is still
valid, that there is nothing fundamentally different between the
colonial pioneers and spacefaring equivalents. There are details, and
people will die in both cases. They will die of different things, no
doubt, but =no= pioneering is safe.

If you're ten or twenty million miles from the garage and break down in the
most hostile, unforgiving enviornment ever imagined, you're pretty much SOL,
and that does make it very different in that regard...

You speak as if mechanical breakdowns are the main problem for pioneers.
I don't think that's true at all. And even so, what do you do when
you're in a wooden boat a thousand miles from shore in the middle of a
raging storm? Some things you can fix, some things you can't fix, and
some things you can't fix in time.

No fundamental difference.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

You speak as if mechanical breakdowns are the main problem for pioneers.
I don't think that's true at all. And even so, what do you do when
you're in a wooden boat a thousand miles from shore in the middle of a
raging storm? Some things you can fix, some things you can't fix, and
some things you can't fix in time.

No fundamental difference.

Jose

I agree completely. The really important thing is that knowing this
might happen doesn't stop people from getting into boats.

When we stop reaching out for new experiences, there can be no further
justification for our existance.

Peter

Amen

ManhattanMan wrote:

Apollo 13 would have disagreed, and had they been half way to Mars it
most likely wouldn't have ended as happily.

That's is specifically why the first trip and probably follow on trips to
Mars should be made by 2 separate ships flying together. Both with enough
room to carry the crew of the other if one ship fails.

MM - Great post, even though I passionately disagree.

I have 2 responses to add to the (very good) stuff thats already been
said:

You continually speak of the danger of human space exploration as a
bad thing. I could not disagree more.

As a culture, we are becoming ever more complacent. Ever more sheep.
Ever more tied up in the irrational and insignificant peddling of day
to day life. Without a frontier to inspire us, humans are trapped
believing that the only thing significant is the here and now, the
mundane reality of their individual existences. Yes, religion and
faith does help somewhat to alleviate this... but I'm not sure it does
so in particularly helpful ways (forcing people to focus on life after
death, instead of caring about what they make of their life). Also,
for many of us, the religious of our childhood have simply failed to
live up to the level of intellectual scrutiny we were raised to apply
to the world around us.

Either way... The simple fact is, without frontier - without the
calling of the unknown, and the passion for bettering the human
condition, we as a species tend to get caught up instead in trivial
nonsense and abject terror. If there is nothing else than the here
and now, I will not and cannot risk doing that which might jeopardize
it... I must be safe! I must not expose myself to risk of any kind!
Not now! Not ever!

Look around you - look at how pathetic we've become. We measure our
cars by the number of airbags they have. We no longer teach our
children "look both ways before you cross the street", we tell them
"NEVER EVER EVER CROSS THE STREET!". We plead with our government to
oppress us, to take away our options in life lest we become deluded,
distracted, or otherwise unaware and make a bad choice.

The concept of personal responsibility, risk management, and the value
of experience over safety has all been tremendously skewed over the
past 60 years... and its something I attribute directly to the 'loss
of frontier'... When we're kids we dream... when I was a kid, I
dreamed of exploring space, no matter what the cost. I learned to
value a calling beyond myself and my own wellbeing - that of bettering
humanity... and I would still, tomorrow, volunteer on a mission to
mars even if my odds of survival were only 50:50... Hell, the
original new world explorers odds were nearly that good... how quickly
we forget the risks they faced while we live the rewards of those
risks.

Its pathetic. We're pathetic, and if we don't find a new frontier
soon, and allow those of us who still possess the explorers instinct
to go do their thing before the instinct itself goes extinct... I hold
zero hope for the future of the human race.

Humanistic philosophy aside... the other side of the coin for me is
the technical:

I think you severely underestimate the amount of engineering and
technology from NASA that has filtered down into our lives... Never
mind the computer that you are using currently (transistor technology
was designed as a replacement for vacuum tubes that were to heavy and
power hungry for spacecraft). As a Silicon Valley Engineer, I can
with virtual certainty tell you that was it not for NASA and the
technologies developed during Apollo, the entire Web revolution would
not have happened.

But hell, that's just an extreme example... It comes down the
engineering constraints. Engineering revolutions, while expensive,
generally come when they are put to rather extreme constraints, beyond
the general needs of day to day life... otherwise engineering tends to
be evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. Spaceflight offers one
particular for am extreme engineering constraints...

The results of those engineering revolutions are often extremely
difficult to predict... but historically they've been pretty
spectacular... why not spend a fraction of our resources (and NASA
really is a fraction, compared to what we spend on farm subsidies, or
Iraq (not to mention the military, which does have a certain trickle-
down technological effect as well)... NASA is a relatively small
portion of the US budget... considering the potential for both long
term humanistic inspiration and short-term technical revolutions to
spin off from it, methinks its a wise, small, although comparatively
high-risk investment.

In article , says...

Mutts wrote:
[much]

Totally agree as to humankinds imagination and spirit to conquer.

Moon, Mars and beyond are no different from the frontiers of the past

Except in the past they didn't have to carry their own atmosphere, water &
food were usually available in some form, temperatures didn't vary
plus/minus hundreds of degrees, radiation was unheard of (not counting
sunburn), and if something broke you could generally stop to fix it, even if
it took a year or two, and there might even be another living being to
assist..

A very large portion of the early conquering of our noble terrestrial world,
was to pad the bank account of the conqueror with pillaged gold, slaves,
short cuts for trade routes, etc. (sometimes not that particularly noble no
matter how herculean the effort), many simply to become famous and hopefully
rich, and many just for the sheer experience.

I'm not saying eliminate space exploration, only use some common sense as to
balance what we have for resources (both monetary & technical), what we
actually need to accomplish the goal, what we might practically benefit/gain
from the endeavor vs. pure political bull**** and waste. I think we're
presently pushing the envelope for our present state of everything
concerned. A little later, or a lot later, who knows what'll happen..





Again, mining lunar helium 3 may have a huge impact on mankind.

Some speculate another space race for this very reason.

We ought to spend a bit more if you ask me on such things.

Why explore desert islands?
To learn to find the beautiful ones.

but we will learn to build some along the way too, at least stepping stones.

Terra forming Mars?

Now something like that is very very far off I know. And there is a giggle
factor.
But there was a giggle factor about the X-Prize for many years. Nobody is
giggling now.

Perhaps terraforming small caverns? Small steps.

Some will point out that nobody lives under the sea or at the south pole (in
large numbers anyways) why go into space?

Because we already have a solid human presence on earth.

The reasons are numerous why humans have explored and lived in places that are
far from easy.

But the challenge to our nature was the same, it wasnt any easier for them in
their time, simply it looks easier to us today.

Many died or did not come back failing utterly. and there was little immediate
conventional reward for those that did succeed. Was that easy? The challenge
was in most ways even greater then what we face today to explore our little
backyard in space if you look at it that way.

Sure the technology changes, the frontiers change, and some of the reasons to
do it change.

But whatever it is that compells us forward into risky endeavours is hardcoded
into us. That will never change.

Clearly it is a key reason why our species is 6.5 billion strong today.

And it truly is not very much money compared to all the other moneys spent by
our government. And we do get a return on developed spinoff technology as
well.

And we must not dismiss the high likelyhood of revolutionary propulsion
breakthroughs to come. Those kinds of things can initate great leaps forward
in a short time. What seems realistically out of reach today could change
overnight. Think of the leaps forward in aviation alone. From a mad dream even
once doubted by one of the Wright bros to blaise airline travellers griping
about food, all in a time span of mere decades.



I like flowery quotes about such things, I am a pretty typical unemotional
guy. I think I have about four emotions. Hunger, that is an emotion right?
Does that count?

Anyways.....

"For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see, saw the vision of the
world, and all the wonder that would be." --Alfred Lord Tennyson ...


"The visions we present to our children shape the future. It matters what
those visions are. Often they become self-fulfilling prophecies. Dreams are
maps"............. "Our children long for realistic maps of a future they
(and we) can be proud of. Where are the cartographers of human purpose?" -Carl
Sagan


NASA, the things they do and plan to do,
are indeed "cartographers of human purpose".


It is no different from taking someone up for the first time flying in GA
aircraft, or even seeing a planet through a backyard telscope for the first
time.
You open up another world and they see things in an entirely new way and their
world got just a little bigger. They don't forget it.
We need this stuff.

Austin Gosling wrote:
You speak as if mechanical breakdowns are the main problem for
pioneers. I don't think that's true at all. And even so, what do
you do when you're in a wooden boat a thousand miles from shore in
the middle of a raging storm? Some things you can fix, some things
you can't fix, and some things you can't fix in time.

No fundamental difference.

Jose

I agree completely. The really important thing is that knowing this
might happen doesn't stop people from getting into boats.

But if the boat sinks, you probably have a life jacket, life raft, life
boat, maybe people in the area to assist, etc., in other words you might
survive without the boat or ship. Yes, everything we do has some degree of
danger, you can have a brain aneurysm straining on the toilet, etc., but
that logic has nothing to do with anything.

My *primary* point the last few posts, has been odds of survival, and living
to fight another day, not how or why someone got in that situation to begin
with - I think you might agree that a line forms immediately when you offer
extreme adventure, fame, possibly fortune, and saving mankind always brings
some veneration. *Staying alive* is the main problem for pioneers,
regardless of inspiration or motivation. Without a life support cocoon in
deep space, you're an instant freeze dried piece of meat, and rescue,
assistance, or just hanging on, isn't an option - period. Doesn't matter if
it's a break down, debris strike, or whatever else could happen, there is NO
Plan B without the cocoon. If it dies, you die.
Apollo 13 were the luckiest three guys imaginable when theirs hung on long
enough to get back home! You mentioned Lindbergh (Lucky Lindy!), and I kind
of remember reading he landed with fumes (?) left in his gas tanks;
however, if he had run out, he still had a good chance, ok - fair chance in
the Spirit of STL , of gliding down to a safe landing, Plan B, and maybe
Plan C would follow Plan B if he ditched in the ocean and was left floating
around, Plan D if the rescue craft sunk, and so on. Not to detract from his
historic flight, but the point being, he had an alternative if his aircraft
lost the ability to continue.

I'd love to believe there was another inhabitable piece of real estate
besides earth, but so far I haven't seen a shred of evidence, and going
beyond our solar system for anything besides observation and probes would
truly be SciFi at our primitive state. Sending humans 44 million miles with
a gigantic payload, after our robotic rovers and mapping satellites have
shown Mars to be another Death Valley on steriods just doesn't make a lot of
sense to me. Plus the robots don't insist on a round trip ticket or need
life support 24/7. My manned explorer itch doesn't need scratched at this
point, unless new data is found. But to each their own.. If we all thought
the same, it'd be a really, really boring life.

EridanMan wrote:

You continually speak of the danger of human space exploration as a
bad thing. I could not disagree more.


No really a bad thing, it just seems that the chance of surviving a mistake
or a bout of
Murphys Law has risen exp