15
   

It's been forty frikkin' years!

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2014 04:42 pm
Hoping to pick a fight, David? If Max says our mission goals are to study Mars, when there is a mission on the way to Pluto, and Dawn is in its second phase, travelling from Vesta to Ceres, that's a good deal more than the study of Mars. It's not personal to observe that Max seems not to be well informed.

But you love to think that you can pick fights with people, right David?
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2014 05:19 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I don't argue with Setanta. It ain't worth it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2014 05:24 pm
That's certainly reasonable when what you say is wrong.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2014 06:41 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Hoping to pick a fight, David?
I can take it or leave it, Setanta; 5O/5O. I don t care.




Setanta wrote:
If Max says our mission goals are to study Mars, when there is a mission on the way to Pluto,
and Dawn is in its second phase, travelling from Vesta to Ceres,
that's a good deal more than the study of Mars.
Yes. Your points are well taken qua the Space Program.
1 thing about u, Setanta: u r not stupid
(regardless of your falsely accusing almost everyone of idiocy).



Setanta wrote:
It's not personal to observe that Max seems not to be well informed.
That assertion is error.
( U emulate C. I. in his eternal bleat
that whoever he maligns is "Ignorant".)
That is not an on-topic statement concerning the Space Program,
but rather it turns its scrutiny to MAX; ergo, it IS personal,
your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.



Setanta wrote:
But you love to think that you can pick fights
with people, right David?
I know that it IS possible
to do that, but it entails assuming a demeanor that,
most of the time, I prefer to avoid. Yours is a unique case.

I don t wish to be seen as the tuff-guy, bad guy of A2K,
as u appear to like, judging from your chronic insolence
of almost all & sundry.

I 'm not an expert on psychology,
but I 've always been magnetically drawn
to its consideration; to me, its fascinating.
Several of the posters in A2K are mentally
so disorganized as not to be able
to assemble a cognizable concept in their writings.
At lease one (that I put on Ignore), is so badly incapacitated
as not to be able to construct an intelligible sentence in his posts.
On the other hand, even tho we fundamentally disagree,
candor moves me to admit that Setanta is able to reason.
Maybe he just has Tourette's Syndrome.
Brandon9000
 
  3  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2014 08:15 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I don't see the ultimate goal of present space activity is to make the human race a spacefaring species...

...Machines are much better than humans at getting to Mars.

Well, I do see that as the ultimate goal. Machines are not better than humans at human colonization. With 100-400 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy alone, it seems absurd for us to remain confined to this little speck of dust forever. It's as though a caveman had said that the human race should remain confined to the veldt in Africa forever. Why not go out and find new sights and new places to live?
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2014 08:29 pm
@maxdancona,
I don't meant to diminish the value or success of the Mars Rovers. They are impressive machines (with remote human crews) and have done what they were designed to do. But what they were designed to do is extremely extremely limited in comparison to what a human in a similar situation would have been able to accomplish in a tiny fraction of the time. The big difference is in cost and safety, not effectiveness.

If there is something on Mars to find, then a couple of humans in a Mars Buggy and a trunk full of equipment would have found it already (certainly within the time the Rovers have been there). And even more importantly, they would discover things they weren't programmed to search for because they can think, an arguably irreplaceable skill in an environment where we don't really know what is there to find.

I'm a big believer in using machines when cost and safety are limiting factors, and I believe in the distant future machines will close the gap on our skills and may even become more effective than we are, but they are not there yet. And for now, there is tremendous value (in time saved and potential for discovery) in putting actual biological brains into the environment we want to explore. And just as soon as we can allocate the money and do it safely, we should do it.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2014 08:44 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
They are impressive machines (with remote human crews) and have done what they were designed to do


Sort of...the scientists are pissed that NASA spends most of the time driving them around, very little time letting them work. Sounds like the space station and skylab before it, where almost all of the time is sucked up in things other than science work.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2014 08:53 pm
@rosborne979,
I disagree with you on the value of humans in this environment. You are right that humans can do what these rovers have done in a fraction of the time that the rovers took. But the humans would have only had a fraction of the time that the rovers had.

The rovers have been working now for 6 years. Humans would not have been there 6 weeks (or maybe even 6 days). Combine that fact with of the incredible cost added by humans (including a trip back).

It is very clear (to me at least) that the machines are a far better choice than humans for our current round of space exploration.

I am not sure if we should ever send humans for exploration. I am certain that t our current stage of technology and knowledge, we should stick with robots.



maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2014 08:57 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon,

I make a very big distinction between exploration and colonization. The goal of space exploration is to expand our scientific knowledge and to map out the other bodies in our solar system. Technological advancement is a necessary part of this.

When I say that exploration is best done by unmanned robots, I am not talking about colonization (which will be done by humans). There is an argument that if we sent humans now it will mean we are better prepared when we are ready for colonization. But, given the cost and risks involved in human space flight, and given the capability of unmanned missions (with human operators), I don't think human space flight for exploration makes any sense.

I don't think we are ready for colonization. When we are (or if we are) ready to start a colony, I will strongly support the effort.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2014 09:25 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
I don't meant to diminish the value or success of the Mars Rovers. They are impressive machines (with remote human crews) and have done what they were designed to do. But what they were designed to do is extremely extremely limited in comparison to what a human in a similar situation would have been able to accomplish in a tiny fraction of the time. The big difference is in cost and safety, not effectiveness.

If there is something on Mars to find, then a couple of humans in a Mars Buggy and a trunk full of equipment would have found it already (certainly within the time the Rovers have been there). And even more importantly, they would discover things they weren't programmed to search for because they can think, an arguably irreplaceable skill in an environment where we don't really know what is there to find.

I'm a big believer in using machines when cost and safety are limiting factors, and I believe in the distant future machines will close the gap on our skills and may even become more effective than we are, but they are not there yet. And for now, there is tremendous value (in time saved and potential for discovery) in putting actual biological brains into the environment we want to explore. And just as soon as we can allocate the money and do it safely, we should do it.
I 'd really LOVE to see American colonies on the Moon and on Mars.





David
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2014 09:39 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Brandon,

I make a very big distinction between exploration and colonization. The goal of space exploration is to expand our scientific knowledge and to map out the other bodies in our solar system. Technological advancement is a necessary part of this.

When I say that exploration is best done by unmanned robots, I am not talking about colonization (which will be done by humans). There is an argument that if we sent humans now it will mean we are better prepared when we are ready for colonization. But, given the cost and risks involved in human space flight, and given the capability of unmanned missions (with human operators), I don't think human space flight for exploration makes any sense.

I don't think we are ready for colonization. When we are (or if we are) ready to start a colony, I will strongly support the effort.


Better, but why not start a colony on Mars now to get good at it, and, frankly, just to be out there? Maybe it's not worth the money to some people, but it's worth the money to me, at least as much as many other things my taxes go for.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2014 09:46 pm
@Brandon9000,
I STRONGLY AGREE with your sentiments!





David
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2014 09:50 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Maybe it's not worth the money to some people, but it's worth the money to me, at least as much as many other things my taxes go for.


after income covers current expenses we can talk about adding new expenses. We were $680 BILLION short FY 2013.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2014 03:50 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Maybe it's not worth the money to some people, but it's worth the money to me, at least as much as many other things my taxes go for.


after income covers current expenses we can talk about adding new expenses. We were $680 BILLION short FY 2013.

And why does NASA get singled out for this distinction? Are we now going to refuse to fund anything and everything until we balance the budget? Cancel some other program to pay for it. I'm sure there are any number I'd gladly sacrifice to pay for starting the expansion of the human race to other worlds.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2014 04:00 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Translation, you are eager to pick a fight, and are willing to waste large amounts of bandwidth in the attempt. Good luck with that.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2014 04:20 am
I'm not really impressed with what they've done with the rovers on Mars. As i noted earlier, they're confined to a very small area of the Vastitas Borealis. Very likely, that's because it's about the safest place to have set them down, being flat and largely free of large rocks. As for evidence of water, the planet abounds in evidence of either flowing water or flowing ice on scales to dwarf anything on earth. Such as the Noctis Labyrinthus, which in this image is filled with an early morning mist caused by frost sublimating in the light of the "rising" sun:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Noctis_Labyrinthus.jpg

The Noctis Labyrinthus ("the Labyrinth of Night") stretches for more than 1200 miles from the equator to the Tharsis bulge.

The Valles Marineris are even more impressive, stretching more than 2000 miles from west to east:

http://www.arcadiastreet.com/cgvistas/images/mars_valles_marineris_east_v2_600.jpg

http://admin.fridayfunfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/vm_usa.jpg

There are far more interesting things to see on Mars than the Vastitas Borealis, which, as i've said, i think was chosen because it would be easy and safe.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2014 06:04 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Translation, you are eager to pick a fight,
and are willing to waste large amounts of bandwidth in the attempt. Good luck with that.
No. U exaggerate, tho I have enjoyed our earlier disagreements.
YOU are the only person in the world to whom I relate that way.
All of my other acquaintances r polite and r treated accordingly.

I think its more fun to be friendly, but I respect your right to take a different vu.





David
P.S.
Incidentally, those r really beautiful Martian pictures!
Thanx for them.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2014 06:27 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
It is very clear (to me at least) that the machines are a far better choice than humans for our current round of space exploration.
I agree with this for this moment in history, but I think/hope that equation will change when we are able to get humans onto Mars and return them safely. Once that happens I think we will get far more from our human explorers than we have from the rovers.

My primary point with all this is that machines are not yet as good "explorers" as we are. We gather information in a very different way and our mobility and sensory inputs and "awareness" can not be matched.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2015 07:08 pm
The main reason for going into space is that it's stupid to stay here on this little speck of dust, playing with our video games and cell phones, while ignoring the other 10^22 stars in the visible universe. It's like saying that there's no reason to ever leave one's town, because it contains everything necessary to sustain life.

However, another reason is survival. Sooner or later, something bad is going to happen to the Earth, such as an impact by a large meteorite, and we really need to have some humans living somewhere else as an insurance policy if we want our species to survive.
0 Replies
 
HesDeltanCaptain
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2015 09:45 am
@Lustig Andrei,
"Aliens told em to knock that off, so we knocked it off."

Good California Cheese commercial years back about it, where the silent narration mentioned the last Moon mission confirming the Moon isn't made of cheese. Last caption says like, "And we haven't gone back since." Smile

Think we'll go back once we figure out a need for helium-3. At the very least, we outta make a 'seed and dna repository' on the Moon. Have them Earthside, but the Earth isn't as stable as the Moon with all the human critters running around fouling their own nest as it were. Smile

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Interstellar - Question by Brandon9000
A Flight Through the Universe - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Should NASA go to Mars or back to the Moon? - Discussion by rosborne979
Does Space Exploration Make Sense? - Question by thegalacticemperor
Juno Space Probe to Orbit Jupiter - Discussion by oralloy
NASA's plan for a floating city above Venus - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/22/2019 at 04:51:26