Starship Asterisk*

Posted: **Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:04 pm**

neufer wrote: One wouldn't want to send humans for all sorts of reasons

Jim Leff wrote:
Such as?

neufer wrote:
"Putting a man in space is a stunt: the man can do no more than an instrument, in fact can do less."

That's not a reason not to go. That's the denial of a reason to go.

And it's absurd. Human beings are more than data gathering instruments. And a camera is not a human eye.

We didn't need to send men to the moon; we could have sent robots. But that would not have inspired a generation of children, or yielded the poetic descriptions of Alfred Worden or the ecstacies of Edgar Mitchell. When a human being leaps beyond, we all step with him.

Posted: **Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:23 pm**

But what reason more is there to go than to inspire? The people sent to the moon got to come back. People even to Mars might never come back. The people sent to the next star will surely never make it, much less come back. If the ship itself survives, it will be their children who arrive. Children who know nothing about Earth or why they should be inspired or be inspiring other than what they gain from books, which they'll have a LOT of time to read and go insane over. Going to the moon was a triumph. Sending someone anywhere else is psychological torture beyond any other thing we've tried to accomplish.

I think what I dislike most about the idea that is it gives a lot of people an excuse to not hold anything back here on Earth. They figure we can simply trash the place and move on to a new one. That might happen but as I see it now it's far from certain. We can't assume it will eventually happen because it's quite possible that it's impossible. Much as I'd love for it to happen and for me to not be so negative about it, given the choice I'd choose not to make the journey. It's surely not going to be Star Trek.

Posted: **Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:43 pm**

geckzilla wrote:But what reason more is there to go than to inspire?

Because, again, a human being, unlike a robot, can take the rest of us with him. Leaps and steps.

geckzilla wrote: Sending someone anywhere else is psychological torture

.
One man's meat is another man's poison. I'd go in a second, as would any number of others.

geckzilla wrote: I think what I dislike most about the idea that is it gives a lot of people an excuse to not hold anything back here on Earth. They figure we can simply trash the place and move on to a new one.

You speak as if that weren't already a fait accompli.

Posted: **Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:09 pm**

Given the current state of our technology, the humans that start out will not be the ones that arrive. We cannot attain even 1/10 light speed yet. If we could, the trip would still take 45 - 50 years or so (given time to accelerate/decelerate) you would need to leave with sufficient numbers of humans to maintain a stable population for the trip there and back should nothing habitable be discovered there. Those 5 generations would require Food, Water, Medical assistance, exercise, waste management, etc. over their potential 100 year odyssey and that is only if we find a way to attain 1/10c and the protection that the ship would require at that speed. Until we can attain a speed of at least 66,960,000 mph it wouldn’t happen. Probes require no food or water and can be made to travel for hundreds of years in silence. It is still too far for current technologies.

Posted: **Fri Oct 19, 2012 3:16 pm**

Jim Leff wrote:
That's not a reason not to go. That's the denial of a reason to go.

A reason not to go:

public money shouldn't be squandered on expensive stunts.

Jim Leff wrote:
And it's absurd. Human beings are more than data gathering instruments. And a camera is not a human eye.

Human beings are far inferior to data gathering instruments.

Cameras are far superior to human eyes.

Jim Leff wrote:
We didn't need to send men to the moon; we could have sent robots.

That would have been neat too

Jim Leff wrote:
But that would not have inspired a generation of children,

Of course, it inspired everyone!

However, if it had failed (like the Challenger & the Columbia)
then it would have greatly depressed everyone.

Why spend all the money, lives, & resources for a crap shoot?

Jim Leff wrote:
or yielded the poetic descriptions of Alfred Worden or the ecstacies of Edgar Mitchell.

I wonder how many poets one could have employed for life for the cost of a single Shuttle flight.
(Or how many unemployed scientists who were originally inspired by Apollo for that matter.)

Jim Leff wrote:
When a human being leaps beyond, we all step with him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon_fodder wrote:
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
<<Cannon fodder is an informal, derogatory term for military personnel who are regarded or treated as expendable in the face of enemy fire. The term is generally used in situations where soldiers are forced to deliberately fight against hopeless odds (with the foreknowledge that they will suffer extremely high casualties) in an effort to achieve a strategic goal. An example is the trench warfare in World War I.

The concept of soldiers as nothing more than "food" to be consumed by battle dates back to at least the sixteenth century. For example, in William Shakespeare's play Henry IV, Part 1 there is a scene where Prince Henry ridicules John Falstaff's pitiful group of soldiers. Falstaff replies to Prince Henry with cynical references to gunpowder and tossing bodies into mass grave pits, saying that his men are "good enough to toss; food for powder, food for powder; they’ll fill a pit as well as better [men]..."

The supposedly first attested use of the expression "cannon fodder" belongs to a French writer, François-René de Chateaubriand. In his anti-Napoleonic pamphlet "De Buonaparte et des Bourbons", published in 1814, he criticized the cynical attitude towards recruits that prevailed in the end of Napoleon's reign: "On en était venu à ce point de mépris pour la vie des hommes et pour la France, d'appeler les conscrits la matière première et la chair à canon" — "the contempt for the lives of men and for France herself has come to the point of calling the conscripts 'the raw material' and 'the cannon fodder'.">>

Posted: **Fri Oct 19, 2012 3:56 pm**

geckzilla wrote:
I think what I dislike most about the idea that is it gives a lot of people an excuse to not hold anything back here on Earth. They figure we can simply trash the place and move on to a new one. That might happen but as I see it now it's far from certain. We can't assume it will eventually happen because it's quite possible that it's impossible. Much as I'd love for it to happen and for me to not be so negative about it, given the choice I'd choose not to make the journey. It's surely not going to be Star Trek.

I share many of geckzilla's fears. Perhaps it has something to do with my religious background.

I can see a similar "lack of respect" for the Earth among some people who dream of space. Please understand, Jim, that I'm absolutely not referring to you. Another person who is often seen here at Starship Asterisk*, and whose posts I always enjoy, is Rob Stevenson. He, too, dreams of humanity going to space. I most certainly understand that just because people want humanity to venture out into space doesn't mean they don't love our unique planet, the Earth. And a part of me can even share their dreams. I, too, have watched Star Trek. However, I feel convinced that the real universe is nothing like the Star Trek version of it.

For all of that... I'm all for the robotic exploration of our solar system and beyond, if that is possible. I'm less certain of the cost-benefit question of sending people to space, let alone to another solar system.

Bottom line, for me, is that I love to know more about space but I love to live on this fantastic planet, the Earth. And I think that taking care of our own planet should be our first priority.

Ann

Posted: **Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:02 pm**

BMAONE23 wrote:Given the current state of our technology, the humans that start out will not be the ones that arrive.

I don't think anyone out there is suggesting we travel to Alpha Centauri using current technology. I gave a link in my first posting to a wikipedia page listing a multitude of potential technologies for trimming the flight time. And to a UC astronomer who posits that it may eventually be doable in a single lifetime.

Posted: **Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:19 pm**

neufer wrote: A reason not to go: public money shouldn't be squandered on expensive stunts.

I don't know a single person who concludes this about say, the Apollo program. So it appears that society does, in fact, value what you term "expensive stunts", though by labeling them as such as a foregone conclusion, you're engaging in tautology.

Jim Leff wrote:Human beings are more than data gathering instruments. And a camera is not a human eye.

neufer wrote: Human beings are far inferior to data gathering instruments. Cameras are far superior to human eyes.

Neufer, you're a very intelligent man, and I always enjoy your postings. So it must be that you are willfully choosing not to meet my argument.

It's interesting to me that when left-brain oriented people stake out a left-brain, anti-emotional argument (e.g. "space exploration is a purely scientific enterprise, so there's no reason to inject damned human beings into it"), their logic often unravels in their emotional defense of that position. It happens a lot. It's sort of a leaking-through.

neufer wrote: However, if it had failed (like the Challenger & the Columbia) then it would have greatly depressed everyone. Why spend all the money, lives, & resources for a crap shoot?

ibid

Posted: **Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:30 pm**

Ann, I'm actually more adamant on that same point than you are. In fact, the only argument I would buy for not sending humans into space is that humanity is a destructive virus which ought to be contained. I'm not a complete misanthrope, though; I really admire when people sporadically transcend the murderous, selfish, highly-competitive nature millennia of evolution has bred into us.

But if it's out there, we will go. It's what we do. We will not just send our robots. And that spirit springs from our more transcendent nature, even though the consequence will be metastasization of our viral nature.

Posted: **Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:36 pm**

The last sentence in the explanation is "Still, estimates indicate that planetary orbits would be stable within the habitable zone of Alpha Cen B, at about half the Earth-Sun distance ..." I wonder if there was intended to be more after "distance" but it got missed out? It just seems an odd ending to the sentence otherwise, as if there should really be a full stop after "distance". Please note that I am not moaning about the writing style, as my query is genuine.

Posted: **Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:06 pm**

Jim Leff wrote:
neufer wrote:
A reason not to go: public money shouldn't be squandered on expensive stunts.
I don't know a single person who concludes this about say, the Apollo program.

The Apollo Program was a special "Cold War" case.

It was less of an "expensive stunt"
than a test between the U.S.A & U.S.S.R.
to see who had the best German rocket scientists.

Jim Leff wrote:
So it appears that society does, in fact, value what you term "expensive stunts",
though by labeling them as such as a foregone conclusion, you're engaging in tautology.

Society does, indeed, value what I term "expensive stunts." But I don't have to.

________ Scientific American JUNE 1960

"As yet the American people do not understand the
distinctions, and we in this country are prone to rush, for a time, at
any new thing. I do not discard completely the value of demonstrating
to the world our skills. Nor do I undervalue the effect on morale of
the spectacular. But the present hullabaloo on the propaganda
aspects of the [Apollo] program leaves me entirely cool."

Posted: **Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:35 pm**

neufer wrote:
It was less of an "expensive stunt" than a test between the U.S.A & U.S.S.R. to see who had the best German rocket scientists

That explains your takeaway from the Apollo program. Mine is that it was an inspiring accomplishment, and would have been equally so without the cold war element.

But, wait, no. We don't disagree on this at all. You said, a couple postings up, "Of course, it inspired everyone!" So I guess the only difference between you and me is the priority level you assign to inspirational pursuits. For me, it's really high. For you, that sort of thing deserves contemptuous dismissal. Different strokes!

Posted: **Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:56 pm**

Perhaps, Jim, you should ask yourself why our robotic missions fail to inspire you. Is it really because the humans are not present or is it because you find it more difficult (or fail completely) to understand what monumental achievements they themselves are?

Posted: **Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:09 pm**

Trailer

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

Movie

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

Yeah everyone knows Germany had the best German Rocket Scientists

Posted: **Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:11 pm**

DavidLeodis wrote:The last sentence in the explanation is "Still, estimates indicate that planetary orbits would be stable within the habitable zone of Alpha Cen B, at about half the Earth-Sun distance ..." I wonder if there was intended to be more after "distance" but it got missed out? It just seems an odd ending to the sentence otherwise, as if there should really be a full stop after "distance". Please note that I am not moaning about the writing style, as my query is genuine.

I'm guessing English may not be your original language, so I'll try to explain this:

Ellipses (... or "dot dot dot") can be used at the end of a sentence (or sometimes in the middle) to indicate "trailing off" in thought, in other words, let your own mind or imagination finish the thought for you. Where I believe he was going with this specifically was that you could jump to the conclusion that since it's physically possible for a stable orbit to exist in this system within the habitable "Goldilocks" zone, that there just might be a planet there that meets our own criteria for habitability. Being within the goldilocks zone is by no means the only criteria for habitability though, hence he decided to leave off any conclusion and decided to let the reader wonder about the possibility themselves.

Does that make any sense?

Posted: **Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:46 pm**

StarCuriousAero wrote:
DavidLeodis wrote:The last sentence in the explanation is "Still, estimates indicate that planetary orbits would be stable within the habitable zone of Alpha Cen B, at about half the Earth-Sun distance ..." I wonder if there was intended to be more after "distance" but it got missed out? It just seems an odd ending to the sentence otherwise, as if there should really be a full stop after "distance". Please note that I am not moaning about the writing style, as my query is genuine.
I'm guessing English may not be your original language, so I'll try to explain this:

Ellipses (... or "dot dot dot") can be used at the end of a sentence (or sometimes in the middle) to indicate "trailing off" in thought, in other words, let your own mind or imagination finish the thought for you. Where I believe he was going with this specifically was that you could jump to the conclusion that since it's physically possible for a stable orbit to exist in this system within the habitable "Goldilocks" zone, that there just might be a planet there that meets our own criteria for habitability. Being within the goldilocks zone is by no means the only criteria for habitability though, hence he decided to leave off any conclusion and decided to let the reader wonder about the possibility themselves.

Does that make any sense?

Thanks StarCuriousAero. English is my only language (sad I admit!). I know the use of three dots (an ellipsis) but it just did not seem appropriate here (well at least to me!) though as it was 3 dots/full stops I probably should have realised it was an ellipsis and not that the authors had simply forgotten to put something more (or end it). The space immediately after "distance" added to my uncertainty as I think there should be no gap when using an ellipsis. I'm slightly

for querying it but I'm still

ing.

Posted: **Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:19 pm**

geckzilla wrote:Perhaps, Jim, you should ask yourself why our robotic missions fail to inspire you.

What I'm asking myself is where I said any such thing!

Lots of things inspire me, including robotic missions. I stayed up all night for Curiosity's landing, and thrilled at its success. But it was absolutely nothing like seeing a human being set foot on Mars. I never would have imagined that was a debatable point....until this discussion!

Posted: **Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:54 pm**

My mistake, then. I've talked to a few people who view the robotic missions not only without inspiration but with contempt. They call them a waste of money and then say we should be focusing on propulsion systems to get humans out there... somewhere... I asked where we should go and got no response.

Posted: **Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:06 am**

Jim Leff wrote:Lots of things inspire me, including robotic missions. I stayed up all night for Curiosity's landing, and thrilled at its success. But it was absolutely nothing like seeing a human being set foot on Mars. I never would have imagined that was a debatable point....until this discussion!

Personally, I would not be more inspired by a human walking on Mars than by a robot. In fact, in today's world, I'd be very disappointed in seeing a human being walking on Mars. So I guess that point, at least, is debatable.

Posted: **Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 am**

Chris Peterson wrote: in today's world, I'd be very disappointed in seeing a human being walking on Mars.

There was similar talk during Apollo's development. Though very few seem to have regretted it in retrospect. And "Today's World" has always seemed to have more pressing concerns. But it's not either/or. And the inspiration delivered by manned exploration (most people don't share your human/silicon inspiration parity) pays its way in greater public interest, which keeps budgets for other space projects healthy.

A certain guy in this discussion http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=26849&p=167924 put it very articulately:

Chris Peterson wrote:Seriously, there's no chance that money which doesn't go to NASA would ever be used to build a subway line.... It's a mistake to think that you can't invest in space exploration without also investing in other areas of research. And realistically, if we were not spending this money on Mars, I doubt very much we'd be spending it on disease research. That's not really how scientific budgeting, or budgeting in general, works in this country.

Posted: **Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:49 am**

Jim Leff wrote:
geckzilla wrote:
Perhaps, Jim, you should ask yourself why our robotic missions fail to inspire you.
What I'm asking myself is where I said any such thing!

Lots of things inspire me, including robotic missions. I stayed up all night for Curiosity's landing, and thrilled at its success. But it was absolutely nothing like seeing a human being set foot on Mars.

In that case, I really think that you are being extremely selfish to demand that the public also pays for something vastly more expensive & dangerous than the MSL when the primary motivation appears to be your own personal high.

I, myself, feel a little guilty that the general public pays for so much science that I am able appreciate far more than most of them ever will. It really doesn't seem fair in a way.

I personally loved watching ALL the Apollo missions and was deeply disappointed when the public seemed to only really appreciate watching Apollo 11 & Apollo 13 because of the high life & death drama they provided. Rather than send humans to Mars or Alpha Centauri (with their minimal science bang for the buck) perhaps there could be public funding for something like a real Hunger Games. Then I wouldn't feel so guilty about the enjoyment I personally get from expensive space probes like MSL (or PBS for that matter) and everyone could then be happy.

Posted: **Sat Oct 20, 2012 4:27 am**

Jim Leff wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote: in today's world, I'd be very disappointed in seeing a human being walking on Mars.
There was similar talk during Apollo's development.

Not relevant to me. It was a different world when the Apollo missions were mounted. And the money spent on Apollo did not diminish other space science. It was allocated beyond existing research projects.

And the inspiration delivered by manned exploration (most people don't share your human/silicon inspiration parity) pays its way in greater public interest, which keeps budgets for other space projects healthy.

So I hear some people say. But I don't see evidence of it. I think this idea of manned space flight creating public inspiration is vastly overstated. The public was bored with Apollo after the first mission.

A certain guy in this discussion http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=26849&p=167924 put it very articulately:
Chris Peterson wrote:Seriously, there's no chance that money which doesn't go to NASA would ever be used to build a subway line.... It's a mistake to think that you can't invest in space exploration without also investing in other areas of research. And realistically, if we were not spending this money on Mars, I doubt very much we'd be spending it on disease research. That's not really how scientific budgeting, or budgeting in general, works in this country.

The thing is, money for manned space projects these days does come from the same pool as robotic projects. There is no scientific value to a man on Mars. His performance will be, in every way, vastly inferior to what a robot can do. But dozens of robotic projects could be mounted for the same money. The ISS and Shuttle programs cost mankind dearly in lost scientific knowledge, as they sucked money from programs with real value. Unless something changes radically in the world, new manned lunar or Martian programs would do the same.

Posted: **Sat Oct 20, 2012 4:50 am**

neufer wrote:In that case, I really think that you are being extremely selfish to demand that the public also pays for something vastly more expensive & dangerous than the MSL when the primary motivation appears to be your own personal high.

Holy crap. You're actually serious, aren't you?

Ok, I'm out.

Posted: **Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:08 pm**

Aye, there's the rub, Jim! The people on this forum who are against putting people in space will just gang up on anyone who says otherwise, until you (and I) give up talking about it. But of course, there are other forums where reasonable discussion of the issue can take place.

Since Mars is perhaps the only place our current technology can put us and support us, you might want to drop in on newmars.com and have a look around. Lots of good stuff there.

Rob

Posted: **Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:19 pm**

I don't see how any of this discussion was unreasonable. I'm searching for a reason to send people into space but all I get is "it's inspirational" and other vague sentiments. And I think Art's point about the failures resulting in depression is very true. I still get depressed when I think about any of the failed missions resulting in the deaths of our astronauts. I get it, though. You want a dream. You want humanity to achieve greater things and you know we can and just because it's hard doesn't mean we shouldn't try. But at some point you have to consider that the risk vastly outweighs the rewards, don't you?

Starship Asterisk*

APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)

Re: APOD: A View from Next Door (2012 Oct 18)