Manned Space Exploration...Why?

originally posted by: ZombieZygote
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Because it is an enormous taxpayer fund that they can use for various Black Ops and D.U.M.B.S., while giving us crappy, cheap C.G.I. in return. The return on investment for TPTB (With our money!) is astounding.

The NASA budget is about 1 percent of the defence budget and even less compared to entitlements.

Any body doing r and d knows how expensive it is. Doesn't mean it can't be made more efficient bit the NASA budget is fractional.

a reply to: luthier

If you could take a team of 100 modern men back 200k years could you teach a society to make a Chevy factory?

Well, let's think about that... I'm going to change it the Ford Model A.

We'd need steel and copper and rudimentary plastics. To get the steel we'd need a source of heat to refine and alloy it. So we'd have to start with fire (easy enough) and create bronze, which we could use to then create facilities for refining iron. We'd still need ore, and that means digging, so we'd have to develop explosives and mine it.

Copper (for the rudimentary electrical system) would come along naturally... just different ore and lower temperatures. Of course, we'd have to develop machinery to draw it into wires. Plastic would be another issue. We'd really need crude oil and a rudimentary refinery, although we might be able to accomplish something with plant oils. Or we could just say keep it simple and use cloth for the trim and insulation. Of course, that means developing the spinning wheel and loom.

And we'd need a power source to power the factory. Water? Wind? Both are more needs for steel and copper. And on and on and on... the things we take for granted today would be horribly difficult.

We stand on the backs of giants as we reach for the stars.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You're right that space travel is not a necessity. You're also right that the distances in space are absurd & that we already have an amazing planet that's perfectly hospitable.

Manned Space Exploration... Why?

Using remote controlled tools is nice, but nothing can replace the observations, interpretations, and interactions made by actual humans. Imagine if a new massive Amazon-sized jungle were discovered on Earth. Yeah, we could send in drones and observe it through satellites and they could detect and measure things. But sending actual humans there would open up many more possibilities.

Now for the other points.

1. I think you're underestimating technology. NASA already has tech to derive oxygen from water, as well as tech to transform gases into water and methane gas (like a Sabatier processor mentioned in this NASA article).

2. I think you mean that Earth's surface is around 75% water. Water only represents a measly 0.05% of Earth's total mass (HERE). Now compare that to this NASA article (HERE) that claims that a single specific ice deposit on Mars contains as much water as Lake Superior, the largest of the US's Great Lakes! Not so daunting now, is it?

3. When dealing with science, it's never smart to say "never". It was less than 130 years ago when countless scientists and engineers believed that "heavier than air" flying machines was impossible.

The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers’ flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”, only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later.

www.newscientist.com...

4 & 5. That's only the reality when dealing with our current technology and techniques. It's as naive as people a few centuries ago believing that the vast global distances meant that real-time communication between people on different continents would be impossible. Those beliefs would be true for their eras because of their primitive technology. But it's literally child's play to teleconference with people on the other side of the planet now. All space travel needs is a similar new technology to change the entire dynamic of what we think is possible.

Remember, it wasn't too long ago when entire caravans and camel trains were only traveling 10-25 miles a day during long voyages. A trip that would've taken weeks back then can now be done by plane in a matter of hours because of the incredible advances in traveling technology.

6. LOL Now you just sound like you're nitpicking. Humans live in plenty of naturally occurring habitats right here on Earth that require vast sums of work, tools, technology, and adaptation techniques for us to merely survive there. Drop a naked human into the Arctic and he/she will die quickly. Drop them in any desert and the same will happen. Drop them in the ocean and the same will happen. But through technology, tools, custom coverings/clothing, determination, teamwork, and ingenuity, humans can live for years in submarines, in frozen igloo-filled communities, in desert "metropolises", and more.

Most of the UAE was bare desert land just a century ago. But with massive amounts of money, labor, and technology, humans were able to turn many of the emirates into incredible, modern, high tech havens unless you're a poor migrant worker there. Doing the same thing to a settlement on the Moon or on Mars seems like the next logical step (ok, technically, doing the same on the ocean floor would be the next step but whatever).

7. So we shouldn't do something just because it's "hard"? You should probably look up a lot of the early flying machine tests and automobile tests. What was originally hard eventually became so routine that the processes can now be automated. Now you sound like you're against R&D lol.

8. I already answered that in the 2nd paragraph of my response. But to summarize, robots can't sense or detect nearly as wide of a variety of things as humans can. We literally have to design different machines and/or apps/software for them to do each single thing.

Drop a random machine on an unknown plot of land and it can do nothing. If it's programmed to drive forward and backwards, it will do just that unless a simple obstacle inhibits it. We would have to add features, sensors, and/or tools to allow it to take pictures; to allow it to measure specific chemicals; to allow it to track its position; to "teach" it how to monitor its energy usage; to give it the ability to convert solar or mechanical energy into usable energy, etc. In other words, it's still just a tool and its capabilities will be greatly lacking.

Now drop a random but healthy human on that same unknown plot of land and you'll get far more usable info and pretty much effortlessly. The human can automatically detect many chemicals in the air (smell) including both helpful odors (like flowers ripe fruit) and potentially harmful ones (like smoke, some toxic gases, or the urine of large animals). The human can immediately "see" the world around him/her and give usable info on the basic composition of that plot of land (is it sandy or rocky, watery or dry, filled with lifeforms or completely barren of life, etc). The human can also move around obstacles far easier than even our most sophisticated land drones; can naturally climb, dig holes, and knock down minor obstacles; can see/hear a storm or danger approaching and seek shelter (aka hide) without needing confirmation; can automatically navigate the terrain and remember landmarks to keep track of its location, etc.

And if you want to be Machiavellian about it, sending humans to that uninhabited plot of land can also be a great test of the lethality of a situation. There may be viruses or compounds in the air/water/sand that can kill or mutate other lifeforms. A machine won't know to check for radiation or specific biological activity unless it has the appropriate sensors and software built into it. In other words, a machine won't even "know" what to look for or if something exists unless it's specifically programmed to observe/calculate it. But the human body has so many automatic sensors and defense mechanisms that live feedback is literally priceless in these situations.

9. This may be true or it may not be.

a reply to: Saint Exupery
Why do we date? I could give you a different answer since a good 80% of my patients became my patients as a the result of online interactions.

Sometimes because you can do something doesn't mean you should do that thing. (My lousy sense of humor, not being snarky.)

I don't believe that I would have a problem understanding the answers to the questions I have about space exploration. It is purely my opinion, but space exploration is a expense that I don't believe is justified at this stage of our development.

It is fine to think about all the amazing possibilities, but again, until we are ready to accept all those possibilities, the good and the bad, I think Earthlings and Extraterrestrials alike, would be better served if we stuck to Earth exploration for the time being.

We are still fighting over the validity of our Constitution, I don't think we are ready for the construction of a Prime Directive.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: Saint Exupery
Why do we date? I could give you a different answer since a good 80% of my patients became my patients as a the result of online interactions.

Sometimes because you can do something doesn't mean you should do that thing. (My lousy sense of humor, not being snarky.)

I don't believe that I would have a problem understanding the answers to the questions I have about space exploration. It is purely my opinion, but space exploration is a expense that I don't believe is justified at this stage of our development.

It is fine to think about all the amazing possibilities, but again, until we are ready to accept all those possibilities, the good and the bad, I think Earthlings and Extraterrestrials alike, would be better served if we stuck to Earth exploration for the time being.

We are still fighting over the validity of our Constitution, I don't think we are ready for the construction of a Prime Directive.

The scientists who are advancing knowledge probably read Locke.

Illeterate people and corrupt politicians debate the constitution. It has no relevance here.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Saint Exupery

So basically your reasoning is...because it's cool. And, because you want to. Not because you "need" to.

Okay.

My, aren't we dismissive? Oh what a superior intellectual you must be!

Nowhere did I write about "need". My ancestors did not "need" to come down from the trees, or leave Africa, or get on ships to cross the ocean. They did, however, see an advantage in doing so. Were they being "cool" because they were seeking a new life that might be better but might get them killed? Getting killed - either from an evolutionary standpoint or by direct experience is not "cool"; but some of those that took the risk thrived (otherwise I wouldn't be here writing over-insulting prose. Christ, when did I get so angry?).

Why does a cat show mild interest on a string getting dragged across the floor, but when it is pulled out of sight around a corner, they are compelled to chase it?

It's not about "cool", whatever you mean by that (in a most supercilious, denigrating fashion). That curiosity, that drive, that compulsion to see what's around the corner or over that hill or beyond the horizon is fundamental to who we are. It was an evolutionary imperative before we achieved sentience. Because of that, we often cannot articulate our reasons for doing these things; we simply know that they are important.

"There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."
- John F. Kennedy

a reply to: ZombieZygote

Because it is an enormous taxpayer fund that they can use for various Black Ops and D.U.M.B.S., while giving us crappy, cheap C.G.I. in return. The return on investment for TPTB (With our money!) is astounding.

Please, allow me to give you an idea how much money it takes to create that gizmo that people want...much less send someone to another planet.

I own and operate a small workshop/lab here. That lab cost me a few thousand dollars to build. In it is a small single-unit machine shop (Mill/drill/lathe) that is actually inadequate for many of my needs. I use it to keep me from having to send out minor work, like drilling holes or sizing material, that it can do. That cost me a hair over $5k by itself. Now let's talk saws, routers, grinders, cutters... that's a few thousand more, and we're not to the electronics part yet. That's just to make cases and bodies.

Any machine shop work I send out typically runs anywhere from $60-$200 an hour.

I have oscilloscopes, VOMs, digital testers, analyzers, breadboards, and a cache of small parts that alone cost thousands of dollars. Add to that a computer capable of running the simulation software, and of course the simulation software itself. I have SolidWorks, AutoCAD, MultiSim, MatLab, Altera Quartus, Altium, and several more program suites just designed to run simulations... that's over and above the 'normal' program suites like Office and Adobe. I'd be afraid to total up the cost for all these programs.

The boards I am working on right now use a bunch of SOT23-6 chips that I am soldering in by hand, simply because I can't afford a reflow solderer. What's an SOT23-6, you ask? Well, if you'll look very closely at a computer motherboard, you'll find some tiny black boxes scattered here and there with three even tinier pins coming out, 2 on one side, one on the other. That's an SOT23. The SOT23-6 is the same size, but it has three pins on each side. There is no way any human can manufacture a circuit board with traces that small by hand, so I have to have most boards outsourced... cheaper than setting up a silkscreen in house; I checked. So every time I need a circuit board made, it costs me anywhere from $25 to $500. On top of that, it takes a special soldering iron (mine is an Antec 12W), board holders, and magnifiers. I have worked on chips that required a microscope to see which pin is marked as #1!

That also means more time... the tinier a part is, the longer it takes to make sure it is soldered correctly.

So once i get a board made, will it work? A lot of the high-frequency components can't be breadboarded, because surface mount parts don't have leads to fit in the holes. Plus the stray wires in a breadboard destroy the frequency response. So I spend $50 on a small board, another $100 for components, a week designing the board and stuffing parts, and what do I get? Maybe it works. If it doesn't, I figure out why and do it all over again.

All that time, the bills are coming due, both for my house utilities, shop utilities, food, gas, etc.

If I am working in a University under a grant, the University also takes 50% of the grant right off the top, before I get to my stipend, materials, equipment, etc. And most grants are only available through Universities.

That's where the research money is going... not into CGI and Black Ops. That money comes from the $600 toilet seats.

TheRedneck

a reply to: luthier

The relevance is in the fact that it is extremely difficult for humans to agree on what is best for our planet and what is best for mankind. If something as basic as our Constitution can cause a divide, I think it is fair to say that we are not ready to accept extraterrestrial lifeforms, not even to just say hello, or to shake hands.

Scientist and advancing knowledge has not always done what is best for this planet. I think we should be especially careful of how we proceed in space.

Again, that is just me.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I broght up the thought experiment because it's similar to colonizing new world's. We will have better artifacts in that case I understand.

However I think if you thought about it. A 100 person team sent back to 200k years ago with current knowledge that includes geographical and resource locations and planning, the task becomes more reasonable. It would however be a tall task and the unfortunate aspect of the human conditions of greed and fear would of coarse be a factor.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

It is fine to think about all the amazing possibilities, but again, until we are ready to accept all those possibilities, the good and the bad, I think Earthlings and Extraterrestrials alike, would be better served if we stuck to Earth exploration for the time being.

That is torture for me. To dream about something without pursuing a way to make it possible is the exact definition of masochism. I may fail, but I have to try.

Perhaps it is different for you, but understand such ambivalence about possibilities simply isn't even imaginable for others.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: luthier

The relevance is in the fact that it is extremely difficult for humans to agree on what is best for our planet and what is best for mankind. If something as basic as our Constitution can cause a divide, I think it is fair to say that we are not ready to accept extraterrestrial lifeforms, not even to just say hello, or to shake hands.

Scientist and advancing knowledge has not always done what is best for this planet. I think we should be especially careful of how we proceed in space.

Again, that is just me.

Meh. You think to highly of people. And too lowly at the same time.

Evolution is messy whether natural or guided.

There is nothing humans could do to the universe that matters that we need be careful and walk on egg shells.

Our Constitution is mostly propped up by people with no philosophy in their back round. Most people have no idea what or why the social contract exists. Including those who believe the constitution is infallible.

a reply to: luthier

That outlook makes sense. Yes, it would be Herculean, but still much more feasible than trying it without the knowledge we have.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

And, I guess that's my whole point; the human race doesn't need manned space exploration for survival of the species,

Yes, it does.

That's the basic issue. If you don't understand THAT, you'll never understand why at all. Sooner or later there will be an "Extinction Level Event." We need to be off this planet when that happens. Sooner or later there will be an Extinction Level Event for the solar system itself. We need to be on another star system when that happens. Whether individuals want this to happen or not, the Human Race as a whole does. There also will always be people who don't want to cross the river because it's 'dangerous.' Fine. Stay home, but don't begrudge those who want to go.

It's not rocket science.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: luthier

That outlook makes sense. Yes, it would be Herculean, but still much more feasible than trying it without the knowledge we have.

TheRedneck

I don't get people waiting for perfection to happen. That is my main point.

Life itself is messy. Why should humans be perfect to advance forward?

Crazy talk imo. Sounds like you feel the same. I appreciate your point of view more all the time. A scholar redneck is my favorite kind of person. Down to earth bit reaching for the stars with your feet on the ground.

a reply to: luthier

Giant: one who has both feet firmly on the ground, but their head in the clouds.



TheRedneck

Why is so that mankind can survive a BS argument? Do you not believe stars have a point where they go boom? What are supernovae in that case?

The Sun is always ticking down to its last gasp and if humans don't have a ticket to ride by then, the species is over.

a reply to: Saint Exupery

Well, I'd counter it was you who kind of asked for a snippy rejoinder with your "stuff it!" remark preceding mine, but I digress.

While this may surprise you (as you seem ready to get in an argument about this subject), but I'm actually not dismissing your argument or posture. You've said the same thing twice now. I used the word "Cool", but it wasn't intended to be sarcastic. 'Cool' was intended to imply a broader sense of 'curiousity', much like you have eluded to in a cat with string. Would you be happier if I used "human curiosity"?

What I am trying to distinguish here is the difference between human curiosity for the sake of understanding, and the concept of exploration for the sake of finding a planet for the human race to "escape" to. I've said this repeatedly. I have also repeatedly stated that I'm all for science and exploration (even in space), but I think including the human in the space travel equation only serves one purpose...to satisfy "curiosity", not to provide a viable solution for the human race. And further, including the human in the space travel equation actually hinders and exponentially complicates what SHOULD be the prime directive...exploration.

Better?

a reply to: schuyler

Sorry, I disagree completely.

Clearly we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this subject.

Oh, and it actually IS rocket science! In fact, that is exactly what it is, literally and metaphorically.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Perhaps it is different for you, but understand such ambivalence about possibilities simply isn't even imaginable for others.

I admit that my view of humankind hangs somewhere in the middle. On a weekly basis I get to see the absolute best of our species demonstrated and I get to see the absolute worse.

I see the results of actions taken blindly based on only faith in possibilities, lies, and perceptions; even truths, can turn sour with traumatic outcomes. Not being knowledgeable or aware of a danger, does not mean that it does not exist.

It is a good thing that we have those that have adventurous spirits and are willing to risk life and limb on a possibility. Dreams can be great motivators. I guess it is just the nurse, mamma hen part of me that forces me to utter words of caution.

a reply to: luthier


Or extrapolate further. If you could take a team of 100 modern men back 200k years could you teach a society to make a Chevy factory?


Awesome . That is worthy of a thread of its own.

It wouldn't happen in a single generation, but if those hundred had, and educated children, I think it could be done in 100-200 years.