Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?

(Derek Lyons) wrote:

"Norm D. Plumber" wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote:

Howard Brazee wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:16:17 -0800 (PST), Ilya2 wrote:

Yes, it is "hogwash" in the sense that Apollo 13 did not stop the
program or even came close to stopping it, but the answer to your
question -- because it was Cold War. Demonstrating US technological
superiority over USSR was a specific, identifiable goal. No such goal
exists today.

Actually such a goal *does* exist today - for countries such as China
and India.

Except their goal is "proving we are a Real Spacefaring Nation by
doing what Real Spacefaring Nations have done in the past".

Difficult to say what China's goal is with respect to a space program.

Not really if you actually observe their space program and compare and
contrast it with other programs.

They already have the bulk of the planet's rare-earth deposits, maybe
they want to be sure things stay that way in case there are
significant rare-earth deposits on the moon. Maybe they just need
something that will keep their population too busy to revolt.

Since they don't have the bulk of rare earth deposits...


"China now produces over 97% of the world's rare earth supply, mostly
in Inner Mongolia,[9][10] even though it has only 37% of proven
reserves."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_ea...l_distribution


"As far as we know there is rare earth ore in California, Canada,
South Africa, Brazil, Vietnam and Australia. There's even some in
Greenland.

But the mother lode is sitting under the mountains 50km (30 miles)
north of the Inner Mongolian city of Baotou, in the Bayan Obo mine.

In addition to Bayan Obo, China has also found massive deposits in
Sichuan."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight...reat_game.html


I suppose you want to quibble over "proven reserves".

Given that theirs is the most robust economy around just now, it doesn't
seem like there would be much point in their spending effort on
"becoming legitimate".

Maybe not to you, but you've already demomnstrated acute and epic fail
at understanding what's going on.

And here once again you demonstrate that you are an egotistical prick
who values usenet-points more than honest discussion.

--
"the source of prosperity is disposable income" -Epicromulus

David Johnston wrote:

On Jan 21, 3:00*am, "Norm D. Plumber" wrote:
(Derek Lyons) wrote:
Howard Brazee wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:16:17 -0800 (PST), Ilya2 wrote:

Yes, it is "hogwash" in the sense that Apollo 13 did not stop the
program or even came close to stopping it, but the answer to your
question -- because it was Cold War. Demonstrating US technological
superiority over USSR was a specific, identifiable goal. No such goal
exists today.

Actually such a goal *does* exist today - for countries such as China
and India.

Except their goal is "proving we are a Real Spacefaring Nation by
doing what Real Spacefaring Nations have done in the past".

D.

Difficult to say what China's goal is with respect to a space program.

Not really. Having a space program proves that they have missiles
that can strike anywhere on the planet.

I think that depends on the precison and accuracy of their targeting
systems. Somewhere on the planet, sure. Anywhere it might happen to
land, or anywhere they want it, those are different things.

--
"the source of prosperity is disposable income" -Epicromulus

Howard Brazee wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:28:49 -0500, Jeff Findley
wrote:

US corporations are overcoming a shortage of engineers by off-shoring as
much engineering as possible. I hear this story repeatedly from just
about every engineer I talk to.

US corporations (and other organizations - including state
universities), are overcoming a shortage of money by off-shoring as
much expensive labor as possible.

change/overcoming/temporarily overcoming/

--
"the source of prosperity is disposable income" -Epicromulus

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:34:21 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

How much could we have achieved spending that kinda dough on dumb-ass,
retarded, incapable robots?

Since 'science' isn't something you can put a precise price tag,
arguing 'how much would have been obtained' is much like arguing 'how
high is up'.

To put a value on any process, we need to first agree upon our goals
and put a value on those goals.

Otherwise, we can ask "what's the value of life?". As it is, we
have tough choices in whether to fund cures for diseases based upon
how common they are, whether cures are profitable, whether the disease
is in danger of morphing to epidemics, how costly it is to care for
those stricken, whether it is a disease of children or old folks,
etc...

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

On Jan 21, 11:34*am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
DouhetSukd wrote:
At the risk of repeating myself, how much do we have to show for the
+/- $100B spent to date on the ISS? *Any significant science you can
quote? *Comparable in magnitude to the outlay?

How much science has the LHC produced? Any significant science you can
quote? *Comparable in magnitude to the outlay?

LHC was just completed and a one year hiatus due to helium cooling.

The jury is very much out on whether LHC will be worth the cost, I
agree. Still, if you search for ISS and or LHC on scientific american
or bbc sites, you will see comparable number of results. LHC has a
lot of chatter about its problems, ISS has a lot of chatter about its
astronauts.

Third, LHC budget is on the order of $10B, not $100B. Not a small
difference, I am sure you'll agree.

Fourth, LHC may or may not be the cat's pajamas in particle physics,
but I have not heard of an alternative to big accelerators IF you want
to explore particle physics. Space however has an astronaut/robot
option, on which I tend to prefer robots. Don't mistake it for "I
don't care about space science".


(Hint: *Until recently the ISS was under construction - and only the
hopelessly ignorant or extremely biased ask why a facility under
construction hasn't produced anything.)

Can you redefine "hopelessly ignorant or extremely biased"? Seems
somewhat nasty in tone, considering that you are somewhat off the mark
yourself.

The ISS seems to be nearing the end of its original design life. So
if 100B$ only recently saw it completed, then "Houston we have a
problem".

ref (straight from the equine's alimentary intake passage):

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/...entially-2028/

synopsis:

"Previously due to be deorbited in around 2016, the ISS gained an
extension to 2020"




How much could we have achieved spending that kinda dough on dumb-ass,
retarded, incapable robots?

Since 'science' isn't something you can put a precise price tag,
arguing 'how much would have been obtained' is much like arguing 'how
high is up'.

I dunno about that. Popular perception matters (are the taxpayers
seeing a return?). And number of quotes in peer reviewed papers is a
useful proxy for "useful results". That allows you to gauge, roughly,
a return on investment. You can fool some of the people some of the
time, but at some point people are going to ask why you are spending
major cash on projects that don't pay back.

You can very well put a price tag on science, it was done with the
LHC, the ISS and also the new fusion research reactors being planned.
I sure as hell hope the Mars mission gets to justify its existence
through the expected ROI metric.

My point is, I did not see much bang for Canada's taxpayers buck from
ISS and have no wish to see that happen again on Mars.

Spend the same amount of money, or more, on space, but be very, very
choosy about involving astronauts.

On Jan 20, 11:32*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ilya2 wrote:
On Jan 20, 2:26*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ilya2 wrote:
On Jan 20, 1:54 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:
better to do something affordable that explores, might have some
scientific payoff, doesnt risk human life, remember the chilling after
effects of apollo 13?

If people aren't going, what's to explore? And no, I DON'T remember
said "chilling".

the near disaster of a dead crew, is the root cause of the cancelation
of the final lanings.

What utter hogwash! Explain, then, why there were another five
flights over the next two and a half years?

Yes, it is "hogwash" in the sense that Apollo 13 did not stop the
program or even came close to stopping it, but the answer to your
question -- because it was Cold War. Demonstrating US technological
superiority over USSR was a specific, identifiable goal. No such goal
exists today.

We'd already done that as of Apollo 11. *No flights after that were
necessary to "demonstrate US technological superiority over USSR".

Doing it only once would have looked like a stunt or a fluke. Doing it
six or seven times removed all doubt.

Utter self-justifying poppycock.



Apollo was never about science. It was about Cold War. There is a
reason of 12 men who walked on the Moon only one was a professional
scientist, and the rest muilitary pilots.

Of the twelve men who actually went to the Moon, two were non-military
(including the first, Neil Armstrong). *They were largely military
test pilots because it was a dangerous flight program.

However, your way of viewing things tells us much about the RUSSIAN
space program's outlook.

Are you telling me Apollo would have happened without Cold War?

However, your way of viewing things tells us much about the RUSSIAN
space program's outlook.

Are you telling me Apollo would have happened without Cold War?- Hide

Sadly Apollo would of never happened without thje cold war

But while some think a nuke plant is wonderful, lets not forget their
legacy

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-revisited/ a fascinating site

and realize every nuke plant is a terrorist target. we were lucky, if
just one of the 9 11 airliners had been targeted at a nuke plant life
in the USA would be very different.

and worse the spent core cooling pools arent in hardened buildings,
and cooling water must always cover the nuke waste. otherwise there
will be a nuke waste fire that will release far more radiation than
chernobyl....

On 1/21/11 3:48 PM, wrote:
However, your way of viewing things tells us much about the RUSSIAN
space program's outlook.

Are you telling me Apollo would have happened without Cold War?- Hide

Sadly Apollo would of never happened without thje cold war

But while some think a nuke plant is wonderful, lets not forget their
legacy


Fewer deaths and injuries in operation than any other major power
generation scheme?


http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-revisited/ a fascinating site

and realize every nuke plant is a terrorist target. we were lucky, if
just one of the 9 11 airliners had been targeted at a nuke plant life
in the USA would be very different.

Yes, we'd be laughing at them. One of those airliners hitting the
containment vessel of a nuke plant would probably do minimal damage.
Those containment vessels are *TOUGH*.



--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

:: if just one of the 9 11 airliners had been targeted at a nuke plant
:: life in the USA would be very different.

: "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
: Yes, we'd be laughing at them. One of those airliners hitting the
: containment vessel of a nuke plant would probably do minimal damage.
: Those containment vessels are *TOUGH*.

"Excuse me, sir, can you direct us to the naval base in Alameda?
It's where they keep the nuclear wessels."
--- Pavel Andreievich Chekov

Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

On 1/21/11 3:57 PM, Wayne Throop wrote:
:: if just one of the 9 11 airliners had been targeted at a nuke plant
:: life in the USA would be very different.

: "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
: Yes, we'd be laughing at them. One of those airliners hitting the
: containment vessel of a nuke plant would probably do minimal damage.
: Those containment vessels are *TOUGH*.

"Excuse me, sir, can you direct us to the naval base in Alameda?
It's where they keep the nuclear wessels."

Well, yes, but I was talking about the containment Vessels, not the
naval nuclear Wessels!


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com