Manned explorations the way?

Dave & Janelle wrote:

"John Popelish" wrote in message
...

That they may be inevitable does not support the argument that they
are necessary. By the way, how can you know that the junk (and
biological contamination) we left on the Moon will not cause some
problems at some time in the future? At the very least, the
contamination will not be spread by wind. Such is not the case on a
planet with an atmosphere, like Mars. Again, you have the foresight
of a grave robber.


So - we should stay home, because otherwise we will probably co-immigrate
with some bacteria? Earth has been exchanging organic matter with many other
celestial bodies for billions of years, via impacts.

This is a good working hypothesis, but until the science has been done
a lot more thoroughly than it is done so far, that is all it is. Once
there is the dust of human waste blowing around the planet, Mars, it
will be very difficult to prove or disprove that and many other
hypotheses. If it takes another few hundred or thousand years before
we decide that the colonization of other planets outweighs all other
considerations what is the loss? If we rush into that enterprise, we
may not ever be able to know what we traded for that rush. Remember,
the next unspoiled solar system is a very long way off.


--
John Popelish

Dave & Janelle wrote on Sat, 27 Dec 2003 10:23:52 -0700:

J On paper, a manned mission to Mars is easily subsumed within NASA's existing
J budget. In practice - has a large-scale NASA project *ever* come in within
J budget?

You mean like the Apollo project did? It actually came in *UNDER*
budget. Perhaps you've forgotten about Apollo, seeing as it happened
only about 35 years ago....

Jim.

Jim Scotti
Lunar & Planetary Laboratory
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721 USA http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/

wrote in message
...

You mean like the Apollo project did? It actually came in *UNDER*
budget. Perhaps you've forgotten about Apollo, seeing as it happened
only about 35 years ago....

I remember Apollo well... with the last mission about 31 years ago. NASA has
changed hugely since, and not for the better.

---
Dave Boll
http://www.daveboll.com/

That they may be inevitable does not support the argument that they
are necessary. By the way, how can you know that the junk (and
biological contamination) we left on the Moon will not cause some
problems at some time in the future? At the very least, the
contamination will not be spread by wind. Such is not the case on a
planet with an atmosphere, like Mars. Again, you have the foresight
of a grave robber.

--
John Popelish

ok.. so your argument for not having manned missions is because of the
bacteria that we may carry to another world, which may or may not have any
real effect on that planet.

Probes carry bacteria too, based on your reasoning, we shouldn't be doing
those either.



Ahab

"John Popelish" wrote in message
...

Once
there is the dust of human waste blowing around the planet, Mars, it
will be very difficult to prove or disprove that and many other
hypotheses.

Maybe not so hard. Earth bugs on the surface, Martian bugs within rock - at
least for a while. Also - the Earth bugs will look familiar.

If it takes another few hundred or thousand years before
we decide that the colonization of other planets outweighs all other
considerations what is the loss? If we rush into that enterprise, we
may not ever be able to know what we traded for that rush.

In my current view, bringing life to a dead place is an act of creation, not
an act of destruction.

Remember, the next unspoiled solar system is a very long way off.

Very true.

---
Dave Boll
http://www.daveboll.com/

Ahab wrote:

ok.. so your argument for not having manned missions is because of the
bacteria that we may carry to another world, which may or may not have any
real effect on that planet.

The fact that we don't know what information may be most important to
us in the future about other planets behooves us to be humble about
out immediate goals.

Probes carry bacteria too, based on your reasoning, we shouldn't be doing
those either.

I am suggesting that we should be cautious and thoughtful rather than
just do something as soon as we can. Taking care to eliminate
contamination from robotic missions is just many orders of magnitude
simpler than doing the same thing for manned missions. Besides, I
would like to see development of robotic technology more than the
development of technology for keeping people in cans for long periods.

--
John Popelish

Sending humans to do planetary exploration makes less sense than

I have a suggestion.
Instead of sending entire humans, just send human heads.
--big time weight savings---

M.

John Popelish wrote:

Ahab wrote:

With so many probes failing, maybe a manned mission would be a better way to
collect information on Mars.
(snip)

Sending humans to do planetary exploration makes less sense than doing
archeology with dynamite. One of the most important differences
between Earth and some other planet is that the other planet has not
been altered by Earth's life forms. When they can absolutely
guarantee the sterility of a manned mission it might begin to make
sense as an information gathering mechanism.

Manned missions to other planets are to science what grave robbers are
to archeology.

--
John Popelish

On a sunny day (Sun, 28 Dec 2003 05:51:19 GMT) it happened John Popelish
wrote in :


Probes carry bacteria too, based on your reasoning, we shouldn't be doing
those either.

I am suggesting that we should be cautious and thoughtful rather than
just do something as soon as we can. Taking care to eliminate
contamination from robotic missions is just many orders of magnitude
simpler than doing the same thing for manned missions. Besides, I
would like to see development of robotic technology more than the
development of technology for keeping people in cans for long periods.

--
John Popelish
Wrong viewpoint, when Columbus entered America some bacteria
came along.
Look at America now.

OK maybe we will wipe out some life forms..... on some planets.
Or their viruses will wipe out us.
Humanity (humans) will likely not last for ever, considering evolution etc..
A tin can on a planet with wheels and some instruments will not help the
human race expand.
And that expansion is what it is all about.
So, manned missions, fast as possible, using nuclear power or whatever is
the best, and a planet for the objectors, maybe some moon as a colony for the
anti science anti nuclear anti wheel (yes they are the same ones that were
against it too in the long past times), they can live with woolen shirts on
Europa perhaps.
Its hard, its challenging, but it is reality.

I have a suggestion.
Instead of sending entire humans, just send human heads.
--big time weight savings---

Finding volunteers might a bit. hard and what do these volunteers do when
they get back. Just hang around in a jar.

Ahab

After losing so many robots, it would be foolish to take such a chance on
losing a team of people. The solution to the Mars landing problem is to
over-design the autonomous probes.

"Ahab" wrote in
:

With so many probes failing, maybe a manned mission would be a better
way to collect information on Mars.

Probably more productive in the long run and lends towards gaining
valuable experience in doing future planet explorations.

We have to do it sooner or later anyways. Be more interesting to watch
on TV rather than wars, deaths and fear.