Starship Asterisk*

fatcitymax wrote:Clearly you are an expert at ignorance.

My thoughts as well, Fatcity.

Martin, if you think that trying to achieve sustainability on the only planet that isn't horribly destructive to life as we know it constitutes "ignorance," well, I am just not sure what to tell you.

Here's my impression of your point of view: you think humans should expand into space as soon as possible, and anyone who "gets in the way" must be doing so out of ignorance.

You and Mr. Skeptic are no doubt "astronomy geeks," such as myself, so I have no need to describe the myriad of ways space travel and the solar system's other worlds are hostile to human life.

You could build a suburban development deep in Antarctica, if you wish. I doubt you would sell many houses. The irony is that even though the poles are among the most hostile places on earth they are paradise compared to the places in which you think humans can thrive off this planet.

There isn't any other planet well-suited for human life; there isn't anywhere else to go. The idea that cutting funding to manned missions "dooms" us here on this planet is frankly silly, because there isn't anywhere else for humans to move to that wouldn't be vastly more difficult to survive than here.

The comparisons to westward expansion in the 1900's or crossing the Atlantic in the 1500's are pretty weak, as well. Because remember, the lands our ancestors were heading towards weren't that much different, cosmically speaking, than the lands they left.

Forgive my "ignorance," but I believe that human space travel is pretty far down the priority list. For humanity to expend vast resources so that a tiny handful of individuals might get Mars dust on their shoes while the vast majority of our people (yes, humanity, no political labels in this paragraph) gain nothing from this endeavour is...ludicrous. At best.

Now you could argue how much we all gain from exploring the universe. Normally I would always support such gains in knowledge. But again, at what cost? I can't shirk social responsibility no matter how much I love astronomy.

As Mr. Skeptic pointed out, resources alone won't solve our problems. But spending what resources we have on "fun, cool" endeavors certainly won't move us any closer.

In a nutshell, you have to pay your rent before you can buy toys.

Martin, I understand your fascination with space travel; since I was a kid there have been few interests that compare to astronomy for me. I simply feel that we have other responsibilities before we can make space travel such as in "2001 A Space Odyssey" a reality.

In the mean time, robotics gives us a cheap way to gather information...not as an end but as a means; after all, the more data we collect, the more likely we will succeed when we do venture out into space.

Martin, if you think that trying to achieve sustainability on the only planet that isn't horribly destructive to life as we know it constitutes "ignorance," well, I am just not sure what to tell you.

I do not recall calling anyone ignorant for wanting to or trying to sustain life here on Earth. This seems like a foolish statement on your part Orca, however I will humor you.

My point was to bring light to probable consequences of going down the wrong path. Forgive my frustration but the problem and solution seem rather simple to (apparently) myself. Although Earth can currently sustain all necessary life for our existence it is far from being "non destructive". It would also be incorrect to say that Earth cannot suffer the consequences of a multitude of violent scenarios. Rendering it's lifeforms helpless and extinct. If you disagree with this then I hope you are not in a position to deny progress.


Here's my impression of your point of view: you think humans should expand into space as soon as possible, and anyone who "gets in the way" must be doing so out of ignorance.

I believe that is the impression I wanted to give. But I wouldn't give everyone who "gets in the way" the credit of being solely ignorant. It is also possible that they could be uneducated with the subject or not sympathetic towards our continued existence. Perhaps, there may even be possible benefits for some to want robotics to consume our ability to explore and travel.


You and Mr. Skeptic are no doubt "astronomy geeks," such as myself, so I have no need to describe the myriad of ways space travel and the solar system's other worlds are hostile to human life.

This is exactly why we must continue manned missions, so that we may learn to achieve the capability of sustaining human life in hostile conditions. Am I missing your point here Orca? What you just describe space travel and other worlds as being -is exactly what will happen to the Earth eventually. Making this planet one of those "other worlds". The point here is nobody knows when. Every decade that passes is one decade closer to a fate we as a species are not prepared for. The list of catastrophes that our planet will and may suffer from is undeniable.


You could build a suburban development deep in Antarctica, if you wish. I doubt you would sell many houses. The irony is that even though the poles are among the most hostile places on earth they are paradise compared to the places in which you think humans can thrive off this planet.

The last time I checked we do not currently posses the technology to accomplish this. We are seasonal visitors at best! And what we would have to build there, to survive year round, could never be confused with a "house". Again your making my case for me; You don't even posses a vocabulary to describe the structure or technology required to accomplish this. And "thriving" at the poles would be the easier task vs colonizing space or other worlds.


There isn't any other planet well-suited for human life; there isn't anywhere else to go. The idea that cutting funding to manned missions "dooms" us here on this planet is frankly silly, because there isn't anywhere else for humans to move to that wouldn't be vastly more difficult to survive than here.

Again you are right Orca for there isn't anywhere for us to go because we have developed no (zero) options to ensure the continued existence of our species. Do you really want to call on politics as a rebuttal here? Do you really want to use examples of funding "silly" programs as a reason to argue the importance of our continued existence. Are you under the impression that our government doesn't waste money on a myriad of things less important than the continuance of our species? Exactly what is this objective worth to you Orca?

Do you have any children? If you do or if you are going to have children, hell even if you won't have children; are you capable of realizing that there exist a vast number of people on this planet that desire a life that our children can live? I am one who realizes that the love I feel for my children and the pain I would feel if they had no ability to continue to live -is exactly how my children will feel for their children and so on and so on. I am not so special or self absorbed that I can't realize that we have entered an era where we must quickly learn that we have a responsibility for humanity.

I clearly agree with your last statement. Anywhere else would be vastly more difficult. Mostly because we have been sitting on our fat as*** and using a joystick to control robotic equipment. Let's not forget the fact that we have the time right now to find the least difficult places. And we have the opportunity to further our technology so that we may have options. I never said let's just abandon ship and fly away tomorrow. Do you understand that right now we have the luxury of debating this and at some point in the future humans will not have the luxury of debating this.


The comparisons to westward expansion in the 1900's or crossing the Atlantic in the 1500's are pretty weak, as well. Because remember, the lands our ancestors were heading towards weren't that much different, cosmically speaking, than the lands they left.

Keep in mind that in the 1400's they knew not what they were headed towards. Some thought they would surely die attempting such a ridiculous voyage. Some even said "why go, stay here where it is safe."
But the dream of riches and power led them anyway. Now we are quite opposite that scenario, are we not? Now it will cost too much "riches" and the reality is if we don't begin to learn how to accomplish this voyage then we will surely "die". How IRONIC is that!


Forgive my "ignorance," but I believe that human space travel is pretty far down the priority list. For humanity to expend vast resources so that a tiny handful of individuals might get Mars dust on their shoes while the vast majority of our people (yes, humanity, no political labels in this paragraph) gain nothing from this endeavor is...ludicrous. At best.

I forgive your ignorance but I cannot forgive your continued choice to neglect my children's children.

Are you under the impression that this very large planet we inhabit does not posses the materials and resources necessary to push a heap of metal into space? Oh wait I think your cell phone is ringing or is that ringing coming from your satellite fed television?

Is it really because we don't have the "vast" (lol) resources available to learn how to achieve this or is it that the resources that belong to Earth and all of it's inhabitants are being exploited to the extent that we can't print enough paper to give to the gate keepers?

Now this last one was hard, very hard -I admit. And wow I still can't figure out what possibly could humanity gain or learn from martian dust getting on a few individuals shoes.........hmmmm still thinking.........
I bet you thought of at least three while reading this. And if you respond back that you can't then I no longer hope that you are not in a position to deny progress -I am praying that your not!


Now you could argue how much we all gain from exploring the universe. Normally I would always support such gains in knowledge. But again, at what cost? I can't shirk social responsibility no matter how much I love astronomy.

Well I certainly couldn't ask you to pause from your pilgrimage to save society - I maybe asking too much from you there, eh? And for what, to merely save humanity-absurd how dare I?

Costs, eh? Let me ponder on this for a half a second..... Do I really need to point out the COSTS of ignorance? What are we worried about here, is it the paper and the gate keeper thing again?


As Mr. Skeptic pointed out, resources alone won't solve our problems. But spending what resources we have on "fun, cool" endeavors certainly won't move us any closer.

Resources alone won't solve our problems -I agree Orca. We must actually use them in a meaningful way first. Then perhaps our resources may accumulate to help solve something? Perhaps, if we ever reach a level of higher intellegnce we may one day solve something that will save ourselves.

I don't know what kind of Disney dream trip your imagining for a crew going to Mars but I get the impression that you think it will be a wonderful and joyful trip full of cartoon characters and pictures of the crew sitting at the pool bar? A wasted expenditure of resources, eh? However, many would argue that currently entertainment is the #1 motivator. You may be on to something here Orca.

And are you restating your position that we won't learn anything from a manned mission except for the obvious one.....like how to keep a human alive for an extended period while traveling in a hostile enviroment?


In a nutshell, you have to pay your rent before you can buy toys.

Don't worry Orca, I will still somehow respect you in the morning


Martin, I understand your fascination with space travel; since I was a kid there have been few interests that compare to astronomy for me. I simply feel that we have other responsibilities before we can make space travel such as in "2001 A Space Odyssey" a reality.

Fascination + kid -what interesting words you have chosen. Are you thinking of that all inclusive Disney trip again? We do have other responsibilities don't we, I almost forgot about them. Thank you for reminding me! Unfortunately us humans are unable to multitask so we better focus on just one thing at a time. Perhaps, our victory in Iraq, eh? Now here is a perfect example of why we shouldn't have an exit plan.


In the mean time, robotics gives us a cheap way to gather information...not as an end but as a means; after all, the more data we collect, the more likely we will succeed when we do venture out into space.

Yeah, right after I turn into a robot I will rest assured that humanity can safely launch me to another world.

Look Orca I am not suggesting that we cease robotic exploration. Quite the opposite, in fact, we should do more. I am saying that this should not become a substitute for manned missions. We need to LEARN from manned missions -can you hear me now?

In a nutshell, you have to pay your rent before you can buy toys

Do you realize this is a hard-core socialist statement?

Who gets to set the rental rate? When is the rent paid, when every one in the world has a 10 room house and a Hummer?

If all parents of the world waited until they could afford their children, humans would become extinct.


There is a responsible balance, the question is where should the line be drawn.

Ummm... okay, there was some misunderstanding about this thread, I am re-opening it.

Thank you Makc. I agree with your final conclusion.

I would like to see if anyone can constructively comment on my response to Orca. Perhaps Orca himself could?

I don't think man will ever colonise the planets in the Solar System. I do believe that eventually man will set up operations of some type on the moons and some of the planets and asteroids. Some time in the far future maybe a planet on another stellar system may be habitable and some type of colony may be set up there. But for now; it's all still in the exploration stages.
I can see where Martin is coming from. before 1900; the population of the Earth was less than one billion. in one hundred years the population is now over six billion and growing. At that rate man has to develop resources at an ever increasing pace. Where does he get the material for this? Maybe the sea; Maybe the planets! Who knows.
Orin

Forget all the talk about preservation of the species, science, derived technologies and all that. Knowing how dunes form on Mars and having satellite communications are nice justifications and fairly concrete, but I personally want to keep doing what we're doing (both manned and unmanned) because it's cool. Really. Freaking. Cool. If you tried to plot coolness on a graph, then the column for walking on the moon would literally be about as high as the moon.

Certainly that alone makes the space program equally as deserving of public funding as art museums or public holiday activities, which deal only in aesthetics and civic pride, with a short-term boost in economic activity to justify it to the budget conscious. All of these are considered fringe benefits of NASA's work.

Another non-traditional angle is welfare. People frequently complain about the excess of going to the moon on public funding when there are poor and hungry, but which is the more distasteful form of socialism:

Taking money from the general public and giving it to people in the form of food stamps, for which they hardly need contribute anything back to society?

or

Taking money from the general public and creating jobs with it, from which the excess money buys products and services that create further jobs throughout the middle and lower class economnic groups (and enables science, spin-off technologies, and expanded human presence)?

NASA's 2006 budget was $16 billion dollars. In comparison, Social Security spent $9.5 billion on administrative costs alone. Health and Human Services spent $640 billion...16 times NASA's budget...mostly on welfare programs such as medicaid.

Thank you, iamluck13 & orin stepanek. Your replies could not have come soon enough. I wish everyone would post a reply to this. I believe it to be a very important topic.

I tend to agree that robotic missions make financial sence right now as Robots don't require food, water or air to survive and operate for years on foreign planet surfaces (only power). And that likewise the fuel required to send the robotic mass to its destination is far less than what would be needed to send manned missions with all the life sustaining necessities.

But I certainly wouldn't mind setting foot there myself.

We should instead look towards returning to the moon as a means to test, hone, and refine our methods of space travel. If we could build a ship to travel in that could operate independantly in both atmospheric and vaccuum conditions, and develope a constant 1g of thrust (electricly) then travel to other planets would become affordable. So Lets practice with the moon for a while, and save the expenditure for saving the planet (for now).

News Headline: "By 2040 there could be no more ice at the North pole."

Does everyone understand the implications of this?

BMAONE23 -I agree the moon is the closest and safest place to start. Mars/moon it doesn't matter really let's just start doing it again.

Back to the finances point again I see. If something were to happen where we were able to see an impending doom on the horizon -would you then still care about finances? Would you be wishing at that point that we didn't care about the finances now?

From your reply it doesn't sound like you would prevent manned missions but it doesn't sound like you would strongly support them either.

I am totally in favor of Manned missions everywhere, I just think that, as a species, we are only crawling to other planets now, and that we should learn to walk short distances before we start running everywhere else. Also, we should have our own house in order before we consider taking up residence (and begin messing up) other places.

If we are in order here then we might not mess up other places.

Martin, if you'd like to continue the discussion about manned space travel as a means of species preservation, I'll go ahead and chime in my thoughts.

You focus on species preservation as the most important aspect of space travel, because something really bad has to happen sooner or later. That's fair enough. Even if we dodge all odds and don't get wiped out by a comet or whatever, the sun will still die out in 5 billion years.

But what makes survival of the species more important than survival (through what Orca termed "social responsibility) of an individual, perhaps even with a prudent level of excess (beyond food, water, shelter). Most certainly it is so that the species can yield more individuals to live out their own lives. Therefore, we have just as much right to live comfortable lives as future generations should, and our efforts to build redundancy into the race are entitled to be balanced with our efforts to make a good life for ourselves.

Obviously, many of us disagree on where that balance lies, and I don't care to address that disagreement to closely, but I will touch on it briefly with two points.

First, we would never be where we are today if we hadn't acted as somewhat selfish individuals. We couldn't even have serious conversations about going to another planet if people like Robert Goddard had fussed solely on saving the world from influenza rather than tinkering with liquid fueled rockets. We couldn't hold this discussion and engineers and scientists couldn't as effectively share designs for rockets and data on places to go if others hadn't taken DARPA's work on networked computers resilient to a nuclear attack and expanded it into the internet for personal reasons. We'd still be burning coal for heat in the average home if the desire for electric lights hadn't built up a global power infrastructure. In short, slacking in seemingly unrelated pursuits to species survival will very probably leave us behind in the long run.

Second, despite our best efforts, we may still fail. We could pour every resource we have into countering every known threat, only to have a gamma ray burst or miniature black hole wipe us out on Tuesday. Certainly we should work to reduce the number of threats, but we also can't lose focus on today.

The mix of opinions on what we should allow ourselves today and what we should focus on for tomorrow, frankly, should be expected.

What is so special about the human species?
Why should the human species be preserved at the cost of thousands of other life form species?

To answer the topic, robotic missions are what to do until our space medicine and habitat designs enable us to travel and stay healthy in space for over a year at a time. Then we can begin to do manned missions to Mars and the Moon and maybe the asteroids.
----------

Religion without Science is like; humorous, . . . a joke.

If we are going to continue this conversation, perhaps it should move to the thread Martin started in the Cafe? I could sure use a pan-galactic latte anyway...

You're probably right...we've rather wandered away "possible water errosion" haven't we?

And isn't it a pan-galactic gargle blaster? The best drink in the galaxy? They say it's like getting smacked in the head with a brick wrapped in a lemon.

A gold brick in fact! But apparently the Cafe doesn't sell alcoholic beverages...especially anything with Arcturian Mega-Gin!

For those who are curious, here's the official recipe for a pan galactic gargle blaster!

kovil wrote:What is so special about the human species?
Why should the human species be preserved at the cost of thousands of other life form species?

<devils advocate mode> Because we can? </devils advocate mode>

Of course... Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. Having found the means to destroy it, in our position we have a unique responsibility to preserve this planet. The dolphins and the mice will have left long before then, so they'll be no help to us.

why should it matter to me if humanity survives in the distant future, or mice and dolphins, if I myself will 100% die in 50 years? why should I give a ef-you-see-key about ice shrinking and ocean pollution, if I was born dying? these all things do not matter at all

Well ckam,
Consider Harry, and others views of a recycling universe and apply it to your immortal etherial self. You may be born again and again into new lives to experience new things and ideas, (reincarnation). What kind of world do you want to leave yourself in your next incarnation? And do you want to take the chance that you could be mistaken about only living once and give yourself a messed up world for your own future lives?

Even if there would actually be such thing as "my next incarnation", think about it: this entity has no physical connection to me, e.g. it has none of my memories, nothing in common with my body, possibly not even the same life form, and the only connection between me and this thing is that it came alive because I died. Under these circumstances, I would hate my next incarnation and wish it all the worst EDIT: to make my post a bit less worthless than that, I will add that in my oppinion there are much more important tasks in everybody's lifes that need our attention right now than outer planets exploration or extinctions prevention. Planets were there unexplored and species dying out for billions of years, and god's supreme galactic government has not seen that as a problem.

http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... 0400#80400

ckam wrote:why should it matter to me if humanity survives in the distant future, or mice and dolphins, if I myself will 100% die in 50 years? why should I give a ef-you-see-key about ice shrinking and ocean pollution, if I was born dying? these all things do not matter at all

Because selfishness offends some people?

I really should just let this thread wither and die off-topic, but I guess one could make the argument that others have contributed to the quality of your life (not just those who haven't personally destroyed the world, but the inventors, entreprenuers, engineers, parents, etc who give us what we have) so you should pay it forward.

There's also theological reasons offered by most religions, but again, I'm only contributing to the wandering of this thread by even saying it.

Martin, you were sying manned mission could happen in x*100 years from now, but how do you know that in (x*100-1) years from now it will not suddenly become pointless?

iamlucky13, I think "inventors, entreprenuers, engineers, parents, etc" are pretty well payed already. Every time I buy some thing I pay extra value that results into patentholders and entreprenuers profit. additionally, I am employee, so my compensation is less than the value I myself create in my daily labour, and so they get even more. finally, my parents are still alive, so I can pay them back directly with personal care. In the end of the day, I just do not feel myself "owing" anything to anyone, and no theological reason can change that.

i am old enough to remember that science has repeatedly stated that due to mars low gravity all water on mars had to have evaporated and dissappeared into space with the loss of the atmosphere half a billion years ago.....

unless water can be found on mars it is impossible with todays tech to go there and stay any length of time

the mars colonization problem is this....... a 50 ton supply ship has to leave earth orbit for Mars ever three months....... it takes 2 years to get there....... thats 16 space cargo ships you would need and boosting the needed material to orbit...... this is not includeing the immense amount of water needed....

you also need a delivery system on the mars end..... all this is impossible financially with todays tech.....

All of what you say sounds truthful lewishb. I don't believe anyone is second guessing the requirements needed for a manned exploration or base on Mars. However, this does not mean that we should just sit with idle hands and not rise to the challenge of securing the continued existence of our species.

Most people will not prioritize this correctly due to a false sense of security. However, when one seriously considers the viability of the threats and the timelines involved -well there can only be one solution! We must not waiver from furthering our presence in space. There can be no sound argument against this.