|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#62
May 22nd 05, 04:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#63
May 22nd 05, 05:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
lclough wrote:
wrote: lclough wrote: Stephen Horgan wrote: We shall see if the Mars mission survives the political dance required to take it off the drawing board. In general, orbital space is being exploited on the back of real commercial activity in the provision of satellites. If you mean the United States going to Mars, I would not bet on this. A Mars drive will certainly not even begin in the next decade, and probably will not happen in the lifetime of anyone over forty. (My son may live to see it, but I will not.) The US government is currently wallowing in stupendous debt, and faces huge deficits in the not-distant future. To pry Mars money away from the old folks' pensions, the collapsing health-care system and the highway fund, a really cogent and powerful reason will have to be presented. Surrrrrrrrre. Just as "a really cogent and powerful reason" was required to spend *hundreds of billions* on the newest Iraq War. Of course there was in fact no cogent reason to go to Iraq. Why do you think they had to lie? There are more weapons of mass destruction in your local 7-11 than apparently there were in Iraq. And the one about Iraq being behind 9-11 -- how many Americans still believe that? So, IOW, there was no cogent reason* to go to Iraq, and yet we have spent hundreds of billions on it. There are countless cogent reasons to go to space: 1) Provide a healthy outlet for the human urge to explore 2) Pursue the secrets of the universe, including possible alien life 3) Create new jobs and technological development 4) Provide a new frontier for pioneers 5) Develop access to vast material resources, far more than are available on earth etc. People do have curiosity and an urge to explore. It's just that many satisfy these urges with fantasy, and feel like they would never have a *real* chance of going into space. To the average American, space is something that "they" (a few experts) get to do. But this shouldn't be mistaken for a lack of interest in space. If the average American actually saw going into space as realistic path in his/her life, I guarantee that there'd be even far more open interest in going. *There were reasons, i.e., make a few corporations richer, feed the military-industrial complex, provide an outlet for sadism, etc., but they were *not* the reasons articulated to the American public.
|
|
#64
May 22nd 05, 05:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#65
May 22nd 05, 06:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
lclough wrote in
news  dOje.676$gl1.614@trnddc09:Stephen Horgan wrote: We shall see if the Mars mission survives the political dance required to take it off the drawing board. In general, orbital space is being exploited on the back of real commercial activity in the provision of satellites. If you mean the United States going to Mars, I would not bet on this. A Mars drive will certainly not even begin in the next decade, and probably will not happen in the lifetime of anyone over forty. (My son may live to see it, but I will not.) The US government is currently wallowing in stupendous debt, and faces huge deficits in the not-distant future. Though we landed on the Moon two and a half decades after our public debt peaked at 120% of GDP; it's currently at about 60%, not all that different from where it was when Kennedy aimed us at the Moon. (Not that 60% is a good thing, by any means.) I'm not expecting a crewed Mars mission any time soon-- we don't have the motivation that drove the Space Race, and I don't see any prospect of that changing, for better or worse-- but not because we couldn't afford it in absolute terms. Mike -- Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
|
|
#66
May 22nd 05, 06:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hmm ... It appears that both sides are talking past each other. Of
course the urge to explore is a primal one. On a much lesser level, many chocolate lovers have a strong and basic attachment to chocolate as well. However, if chocolate cost a million dollars a pound people would be satisfying other needs instead. The problem is not that the drive is not real, but the fulfillment of the drive is so prohibitory expensive, both in terms of dollars and personal risk. That practically everything the nay-sayers point out is correct. That being said, not everybody, not even every government official, thinks in realpolitick terms and there will be Manned Mars Mission in my lifetime. There is of course a very good realpolitick reason to explore and that is the same reason why a nation as poor on a per capita basis as China is willing to lose billions to hold the Olympics in Beijing. Status. Any conspicuous display of consumption/achievement implies your nation has confidence to burn. Lastly I would point out that the environments that are left to explore (such as the deep ocean floor and Mars) are so hostile to human life, that they have already been explored -- by unmanned probes. And in the case of Mars it is a bleak frozen Desert. The biggest psychological obstacle to a manned mission to Mars is the urge to explore itself. The scientists have already satisfied most of the urge. Think about it; most people do not think that the astronaut will actual find anything or do anything besides plant a flag and go home. Where is the exploration in that? And if you can't name the benefits of course everybody else is going to name the costs.
|
|
#67
May 22nd 05, 06:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#68
May 22nd 05, 07:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
lclough wrote:
[deletia] Hi Brenda. How's it going? Nice weather for this time of year wouldn't you say? This thread has grown to a surprising length, a thread that seems to have nothing to do with alternative history. If you and the other participants were considering taking it further, it would be a kindness if you checked the headers and only posted to the appropriate group. [follow-ups set] - Syd
|
|
#69
May 22nd 05, 07:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote: lclough wrote: wrote: Otherwise, why would embittered clowns like yourself have to spend so many hours trying to refute the obvious? Historically, there are only three engines that drive exploration. Right, just those three motivations; that's all! Personal glory, a sense of excitement, adventure, and wonder, the search for knowledge, exploration for its own sake, etc., *never* enter into it. Nevermind that many explorers themselves speak of these motivations; they must all be lying, just so your nonsense can be true. Nevermind that virtually every child I've ever seen explores *everything* out of a sheer sense of wonder; they don't count. We're all just like you; we grow up and completely bury that sense of wonder. Yeah, right. I just want to emphasize that I'm astounded an apparent *scifi author* could pretend that the human drive to explore does not exist. People open their wallets to buy your books *because* of this very drive. However, considering that you not only lack a sense of wonder but project the same failing upon all humanity, your books must be pretty disappointing. Count me out as a potential customer. Take a look at what most of those sf stories are about. Star Trek and Star Wars are about magic technology, other habitable worlds and civilizations with light years between. There is precious little realistic space sf because there is no market. True space stories don't sell well either. I don't think Jim Oberg has ever made the best seller list, but he ought to have if space exploration were really a popular interest. How many followed the Apollo landings after Buzz and Neil landed? A bigger space telescope, rovers on the moon with HD cameras, asteroid hoppers with laser spectrometers, a mars driller, a saturn ring explorer that orbits within the ring and cameras that orbit earth and take video from an angle, not just straight down, these machines can explore more effectively and at lower cost than a human in a space suit, and the experience can be shared by all humanity.
|
|
#70
May 22nd 05, 09:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
wrote: lclough wrote: wrote: Otherwise, why would embittered clowns like yourself have to spend so many hours trying to refute the obvious? Historically, there are only three engines that drive exploration. Right, just those three motivations; that's all! Personal glory, a sense of excitement, adventure, and wonder, the search for knowledge, exploration for its own sake, etc., *never* enter into it. Nevermind that many explorers themselves speak of these motivations; they must all be lying, just so your nonsense can be true. Nevermind that virtually every child I've ever seen explores *everything* out of a sheer sense of wonder; they don't count. We're all just like you; we grow up and completely bury that sense of wonder. Yeah, right. I just want to emphasize that I'm astounded an apparent *scifi author* could pretend that the human drive to explore does not exist. People open their wallets to buy your books *because* of this very drive. However, considering that you not only lack a sense of wonder but project the same failing upon all humanity, your books must be pretty disappointing. Count me out as a potential customer. Take a look at what most of those sf stories are about. Star Trek and Star Wars are about magic technology, other habitable worlds and civilizations with light years between. Do you have any evidence that Star Trekkish technology could never exist? Technology tends to advance over time, in case you've never noticed. The more we do things in space, the faster space tech will advance. Even with present (or hell, 1970s) technology, we can build Orion style spaceships that can traverse the solar system at decent speeds. We already can make antimatter and contain it. Why are you so pessimistic about the possibilities? There is precious little realistic space sf because there is no market. Not true. There's a lot of "hard" sf and it's discussed right in these groups. True space stories don't sell well either. Tell that to the hard sf authors who make a comfortable living. I don't think Jim Oberg has ever made the best seller list, but he ought to have if space exploration were really a popular interest. How many followed the Apollo landings after Buzz and Neil landed? It's a popular interest, but since so many people feel they can never personally explore space, they often get disillusioned with the real space program. They turn to sci-fi/fantasy to slake their curiosity regarding the unknown. Once the space program is sufficiently developed that more than a few "experts" can participate directly, the popular interest will be much more evident. A bigger space telescope, rovers on the moon with HD cameras, asteroid hoppers with laser spectrometers, a mars driller, a saturn ring explorer that orbits within the ring and cameras that orbit earth and take video from an angle, not just straight down, these machines can explore more effectively and at lower cost than a human in a space suit, and the experience can be shared by all humanity. More effectively is nonsense; they don't have the ingenuity and flexibility of a human. But most importantly, they can't bring the visceral experience of actually *being there*. Humans have a drive to explore, and repressing this can only lead to stagnation.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Celestron Celestar C8 Dec Drive Motor / Hand Controller | dean | UK Astronomy | 3 | January 15th 05 12:27 AM |
| Mars Exploration Rover Update - November 8, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 9th 04 05:13 PM |
| Getting a Edmund 6 newt clock drive to work | robertebeary | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 23rd 04 05:07 AM |
| Problems with Celestron 11" Ultima clock drive | Charles Burgess | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 20th 04 11:51 PM |
| Spirit Ready to Drive Onto Mars Surface | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 15th 04 04:09 PM |
Linear Mode
