U.S. citizens support space exploration

Contrary to what many participants in this forum say, the U.S.
population is highly interested in increasing the U.S. effort.

75% of Americans Strongly Agree or Agree that it is worthwhile to
increase NASA’s percentage of the federal budget to 1 percent to fund a
mission to Mars.

54% of Americans believe that settlement of Mars should not be left to
privately-funded private sector efforts and that there should be a
strong NASA role.

84% of Americans support sending humans to Mars if Curiosity finds signs
of past or present life.


The only problem is that the opinion of the population doesn't count at
all in the U.S.

See the survey at:

http://www.exploremars.org/wp-conten...rch-7-2013.pdf

On 1/10/2014 6:16 PM, jacob navia wrote:
Contrary to what many participants in this forum say, the U.S.
population is highly interested in increasing the U.S. effort.


If the US population as a whole were as well informed as many of the
participants in this forum are, I suspect those poll numbers would be
very different.

Making public policy via polling is almost as bad as passing laws
promoted by bereaved parties. A personal tragedy, although regrettable,
usually does not translate well to the public as a whole without a
significant detriment to our shared liberties.

In most cases I will pick liberty over a false sense of safety and
informed policy over polling.

Dave

On 1/10/2014 6:30 PM, David Spain wrote:
In most cases I will pick liberty over a false sense of safety and
informed policy over polling.


Sorry, my previous statement is provably wrong!

In ALL cases I will pick liberty over a false sense of safety and
informed policy over polling.

;-)

Dave

Le 11/01/2014 00:30, David Spain a écrit :
Making public policy via polling is almost as bad as passing laws
promoted by bereaved parties.

Yes, of course. The population are ignorants that have nothing to say.

I thought that "democracy" as a way of government meant that the
population should decide how things are done but I see that those views
are completely inexistent in this forum.

An enlighhtened elite of well informed people should decide then.

Then, the rest of the population should pay for those decisions
with their taxes.

Great!

I am of course a minority here since I agree with all those points

o it is worthwhile to increase NASA’s percentage of the federal budget
to 1 percent to fund a mission to Mars.

o settlement of Mars should not be left to privately-funded private
sector efforts and that there should be a strong NASA role.

o I am for sending humans to Mars if Curiosity finds signs of past or
present life.

On 1/10/2014 6:46 PM, jacob navia wrote:
Le 11/01/2014 00:30, David Spain a écrit :
Making public policy via polling is almost as bad as passing laws
promoted by bereaved parties.

Yes, of course. The population are ignorants that have nothing to say.


Ignorance and speech are not antonyms. Ignorant people ramble on
publicly all the time. Do you own a TV?

I thought that "democracy" as a way of government meant that the
population should decide how things are done but I see that those views
are completely inexistent in this forum.


We in the US do not practice democracy as a way of (national)
government. This US is a republic.

An enlighhtened elite of well informed people should decide then.


That is the guiding principle of a republic. Otherwise you could do away
with the middlemen.

Then, the rest of the population should pay for those decisions
with their taxes.

Great!

Or change the leadership if they are unhappy with their choices.
If you don't like paying taxes, go live somewhere else.

I am of course a minority here since I agree with all those points


I don't necessarily disagree with those goals. But the polling document
you quote goes on for 76 pages and I haven't had time yet to read it
all. But some of the questions could use some further discussion.

o it is worthwhile to increase NASA’s percentage of the federal budget
to 1 percent to fund a mission to Mars.


Is that sufficient to actually fund a crewed mission to Mars? Where are
the studies? Of course I'm just Joe Six-Pack. I have no idea, but if you
ask me that as a question, I'll just go along and suppose that you know
what you are talking about and that the 1% figure is all it will take!
So sure, sounds good to me! (Except no, it doesn't sound good to ME).

o settlement of Mars should not be left to privately-funded private
sector efforts and that there should be a strong NASA role.


Curiously that question only garners a slim majority at 54%. Something
been at work over the past decade or so? Don't you find it curious that
40 years ago that question would not even have had to be asked?

o I am for sending humans to Mars if Curiosity finds signs of past or
present life.

Why that over sample return? No, that to my mind is not a good enough
reason. What this figure show me is that 84% of Americans need a better
understanding of how scientific research is conducted.

Dave

Le 11/01/2014 00:59, David Spain a écrit :
We in the US do not practice democracy as a way of (national)
government.

Yes, obviously the U.S. is not a democracy.

Government by the rich, for the rich. A plutocratic republic
if you wish.

Even if I do not agree with a manned Mars mission before we are
sure that no life exists in Mars, the intent is clear of all the people
that participated to the poll:

1) they are interested in space,
2) they would like more emphasis in scientific research and
3) They support space exploration

A cheap way of going there has been proposed by Zubrin and
others for many years. It would have costed much less than what
U.S. taxpayers have invested in saving the banks.

But you (and the people that think like you) say that the population
is "not informed".

Well, it is you that is not informed: they know more than what you
think.

But I will stop here since POTUS is listening to this conversation
with his big ears :-)

You are 100% right:

We in the US do not practice democracy as a way of (national)
government.

How true!

---
* POTUS: President Of The United States

On 1/10/2014 7:18 PM, jacob navia wrote:
Le 11/01/2014 00:59, David Spain a écrit :
We in the US do not practice democracy as a way of (national)
government.

Yes, obviously the U.S. is not a democracy.

Government by the rich, for the rich. A plutocratic republic
if you wish.


Historically speaking, how many governments have actually survived based
on the principle of by the poor, for the poor? But that is more a
rhetorical question and beside the point.

Even if I do not agree with a manned Mars mission before we are
sure that no life exists in Mars,

Well that last question was phrased differently and actually after
giving it some more thought, the implication behind the question is
somewhat absurd in my opinion. It would make, to me, far more sense to
send humans to Mars to RESOLVE the question of life on Mars. It makes
far less sense to send humans AFTER the question has been answered. No?

the intent is clear of all the people
that participated [in] the poll:


1) they are interested in space,
2) they would like more emphasis in scientific research and
3) They support space exploration


- All - of the people? Really? And if they weren't interested in those
topics they would not have participated in the poll? If so, how is that
even a mathematically valid poll for the above points you are trying to
make? If x% of space enthusiasts support space exploration, does that
mean that 100-x% of space "enthusiasts" do not? Eh? Are you suggesting
that 100% of the population (of the US presumably) supports space
exploration? Really? Cite?

A cheap way of going there has been proposed by Zubrin and
others for many years. It would have cost[] much less than what
U.S. taxpayers have invested in saving the banks.

Cites? Links to figures? Define cheap.

Dave

David Spain used his keyboard to write :
On 1/10/2014 6:30 PM, David Spain wrote:
In most cases I will pick liberty over a false sense of safety and
informed policy over polling.


Sorry, my previous statement is provably wrong!

In ALL cases I will pick liberty over a false sense of safety and informed
policy over polling.

But there's _always_ at least one more case to test than has been
tested, so I'm not convinced you've proved your original statement
wrong.

/dps

--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

Le 11/01/2014 06:02, David Spain a écrit :
Even if I do not agree with a manned Mars mission before we are
sure that no life exists in Mars,

Well that last question was phrased differently and actually after
giving it some more thought, the implication behind the question is
somewhat absurd in my opinion. It would make, to me, far more sense to
send humans to Mars to RESOLVE the question of life on Mars. It makes
far less sense to send humans AFTER the question has been answered. No?

The contamination risk

If life exists in Mars (as it is probable underground) those organisms
could be deadly proliferating if transplanted to earth. Like desert life
here on earth, it would try to reproduce as much as possible so long
good conditions exists. In mars, they wouldn't last long, on earth they
would last forever.

The risk of planet earth contamination would be too big, and we would
have to go with one way robotic explorers.

Otherwise:

If life exists on Mars, humans would contaminate the planet making it
impossible to distinguish clearly between Mars life and imported
bacterial life from earth. To avoid this problem we would have to send
sterile machines to explore the planet.

On Saturday, January 11, 2014 1:01:09 AM UTC-8, jacob navia wrote:
Le 11/01/2014 06:02, David Spain a �crit :

Even if I do not agree with a manned Mars mission before we are

sure that no life exists in Mars,



Well that last question was phrased differently and actually after

giving it some more thought, the implication behind the question is

somewhat absurd in my opinion. It would make, to me, far more sense to

send humans to Mars to RESOLVE the question of life on Mars. It makes

far less sense to send humans AFTER the question has been answered. No?



The contamination risk



If life exists in Mars (as it is probable underground) those organisms

could be deadly proliferating if transplanted to earth. Like desert life

here on earth, it would try to reproduce as much as possible so long

good conditions exists. In mars, they wouldn't last long, on earth they

would last forever.



The risk of planet earth contamination would be too big, and we would

have to go with one way robotic explorers.



Otherwise:



If life exists on Mars, humans would contaminate the planet making it

impossible to distinguish clearly between Mars life and imported

bacterial life from earth. To avoid this problem we would have to send

sterile machines to explore the planet.

Indeed, ET microbes could spell the end of human and other life as we know it. Our ability to adapt to these new microbes may be too little too late for millions and possibly billions of us. Obviously the oligarchs and bilderbergs will get to survive.

It will always be risky business going off-world, even for China exploiting the failsafe innards of our moon.