|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
" said: Incidentally, what-iffers may not be the only people interested in BBC 7 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbc7/drama/7thdimension.shtml - re-running the radio serial dramatisation of Stephen Baxter's _Voyage_ (again), next Mon-Fri. This is the one where a nuclear Mars rocket programme is launched after President Kennedy opens his damfool mouth during TV coverage of Apollo 11 and says they should do that. Robert or Edward? Or was John defeated in 1964, and then elected again in 1968? -- William December Starr |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
L. Merk wrote:
Paul Dietz, John Ordover, Brenda Clough and other Exploration Deniers claim that humanity has no urge to explore. However, they are insular nobodies attempting to project their own inner death upon humankind. Kindly keep your personal problems to yourself. Psychologists agree that the drive to explore is a quintessential human need. That's part of your problem, listening to psychologists. The drive to explore is a need common to _all_ life, as you cite below. Most adult explorers throughout time -- including many famous ones like Meriwether Lewis and Marco Polo -- were motivated substantially by these urges. Like Holocaust Denial, to deny these truths is not "revisionism" -- it is outright Denial. Careful, you're skirting Godwin's Law here. The following is a great article from great minds -- real explorers. It affirms the truths that the bigoted Dietzes and Cloughs of the world so hatefully deny. "Living systems cannot remain static; they evolve or decline. They explore or expire. The inner experience of this drive is curiosity and awe-the sense of wonder. Exploration, evolution, and self-transcendence are only different perspectives on the same process." First two sentences, fine. Remainder, philosophical beard-mumbling. snip What you absolutely refuse to accept is that for the exploring organism to continue to survive, there must be a return on the effort invested in the exploration _greater than the investment_. Exploration occurs to acquire resources. If an organism expends more resources than it gets back in any situation including exploration, the organism dies. At our current level of technology, any conceivable effort expended in human-presence space exploration simply won't return more than the investment because humans have to carry along with them bulky, complex, _expensive_ life-support hardware. Meanwhile, we look through bigger and better telescopes, send robotic avatars, etc. _because they don't need life-support hardware_. There's an old SF short story along these lines; _The Cold Equations_. Read it. If you don't like that, fine, neither do I, but what I like and don't like doesn't affect reality. But whining about being denied a "sense of wonder" changes nothing until the technology advances. Mark L. Fergerson |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On 2005-06-09, William December Starr wrote:
In article .com, " said: Incidentally, what-iffers may not be the only people interested in BBC 7 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbc7/drama/7thdimension.shtml - re-running the radio serial dramatisation of Stephen Baxter's _Voyage_ (again), next Mon-Fri. This is the one where a nuclear Mars rocket programme is launched after President Kennedy opens his damfool mouth during TV coverage of Apollo 11 and says they should do that. Robert or Edward? Or was John defeated in 1964, and then elected again in 1968? (Former) President John F. Kennedy, if my memory serves. Crippled but not killed in Dallas, and presumably stands down in favour of Johnson; the politics here aren't made clear. Regardless, by '69 he's in a wheelchair and annoying the hell out of Nixon by stealing all the reflected glory from Apollo... -- -Andrew Gray |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Fergerson wrote:
L. Merk wrote: Paul Dietz, John Ordover, Brenda Clough and other Exploration Deniers claim that humanity has no urge to explore. However, they are insular nobodies attempting to project their own inner death upon humankind. Kindly keep your personal problems to yourself. Psychologists agree that the drive to explore is a quintessential human need. That's part of your problem, listening to psychologists. The drive to explore is a need common to _all_ life, as you cite below. Most adult explorers throughout time -- including many famous ones like Meriwether Lewis and Marco Polo -- were motivated substantially by these urges. Like Holocaust Denial, to deny these truths is not "revisionism" -- it is outright Denial. Careful, you're skirting Godwin's Law here. The following is a great article from great minds -- real explorers. It affirms the truths that the bigoted Dietzes and Cloughs of the world so hatefully deny. "Living systems cannot remain static; they evolve or decline. They explore or expire. The inner experience of this drive is curiosity and awe-the sense of wonder. Exploration, evolution, and self-transcendence are only different perspectives on the same process." First two sentences, fine. Remainder, philosophical beard-mumbling. snip What you absolutely refuse to accept is that for the exploring organism to continue to survive, there must be a return on the effort invested in the exploration _greater than the investment_. Exploration occurs to acquire resources. If an organism expends more resources than it gets back in any situation including exploration, the organism dies. At our current level of technology, any conceivable effort expended in human-presence space exploration simply won't return more than the investment because humans have to carry along with them bulky, complex, _expensive_ life-support hardware. Meanwhile, we look through bigger and better telescopes, send robotic avatars, etc. _because they don't need life-support hardware_. There's an old SF short story along these lines; _The Cold Equations_. Read it. If you don't like that, fine, neither do I, but what I like and don't like doesn't affect reality. But whining about being denied a "sense of wonder" changes nothing until the technology advances. There's another factor, too - not cost compared with return, but cost compared to collective income. If it cost $1000, almost every space enthusiast could and probably would finance an expedition. If it cost $1000000, a few wealthy idealists would do it. If it cost 100 million, there might be a mad billionaire with more money than sense who does it - but since it costs many billions, it would need a collective effort. And collective efforts only happen if there is some hope of a nice return. That return need not be money, but the public must be convinced it's worth it. There have been idealists, dreamers, enthusiasts of any kind in the past who followed their curiosity to unknown places, although most expeditions in the age of exploration were motivated by a desire for gold that was quite unhealthy in its obsessiveness, and not at all spiritual or even revitalizing. In the age of exploration, idealism might have been enough. These days, it's not. Things are, as yet, too expensive. Kepler was one of the first who proposed building spaceships - that was in the late 16th century. 400+x years later we still can't live in space for extended periods of time, or even travel about it with a reasonable level of discomfort, which would be a prerequisite for the drive to explore to take hold. I'm convinced it will happen, eventually, if humanity survives - there's no other chance for long-term survival IMO. But I'm not convinced it will happen in my lifetime. Werner Mark L. Fergerson |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for posting this, L. A great essay by a great explorer.
,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
L. Merk wrote:
ocean of light, to those worlds within worlds where the star-children wait. We can't get there from here. It is too far. By the way the landings on the Moon have nore more long range import than Lief Ericksohn making landfall in Newfoundland. What counts is long term settlement, not leaving foot prints in a desolation. The true frontier is not Out There but In Here. Finding out how are brains really work so we can produce something that is -really- intelligen. Our three pound globs of goo living between our ears have limitations which we must overcome. If we do, then getting Out There will be a side effect. Bob Kolker |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
You are missing the point.
Even if we stipulate that a manned mission to Mars is so cool that cost is irrelevant, and that anyone who would disagree with you on this point is mentally ill-- You're not going to convince anyone to fund such a venture by insulting them. "Give me many trillions of dollars or you're an autistic, defective, subhuman!" usually doesn't work, for some reason. PS 1: The stipulations are BIG assumptions. In particular, the idea that only a mentally ill person could be deterred by the high cost of a manned Mars expedition is...dubious. PS 2: If you really feel this way, quit denouncing people as mentally ill on Usenet, and go out and find some way to earn the umpteen trillion dollars it'd take to get to Mars. IE, get off your lazy butt and explore, instead of whining at people on Usenet. (Yeah, cost suddenly becomes relevant when you're thinking of spending your OWN money, doesn't it?) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Mark Fergerson" wrote in message news:hyXpe.5626$6s.252@fed1read02... At our current level of technology, any conceivable effort expended in human-presence space exploration simply won't return more than the investment because humans have to carry along with them bulky, complex, _expensive_ life-support hardware. Meanwhile, we look through bigger and better telescopes, send robotic avatars, etc. _because they don't need life-support hardware_. This is wrong. What's holding us back isn't the "mass of the life support hardware", but the high cost of launching *anything* into space. When costs are in the $10,000 per lb to LEO range, *everything* you launch costs a lot of money. What's needed are new vehicles that bring launch costs down to a reasonable multiple of the cost of fuel. We're a long way from that. Hopefully small companies like Space-X will help the situation, because EELV's and shuttle derived launch vehicles aren't going to lower launch costs. There's an old SF short story along these lines; _The Cold Equations_. Read it. You're not doing much better than the original poster. Old sci-fi isn't usually the best place to look for an explanation of why spaceflight is so expensive. Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Jeff Findley wrote:
"Mark Fergerson" wrote in message news:hyXpe.5626$6s.252@fed1read02... At our current level of technology, any conceivable effort expended in human-presence space exploration simply won't return more than the investment because humans have to carry along with them bulky, complex, _expensive_ life-support hardware. Meanwhile, we look through bigger and better telescopes, send robotic avatars, etc. _because they don't need life-support hardware_. This is wrong. What's holding us back isn't the "mass of the life support hardware", but the high cost of launching *anything* into space. When costs are in the $10,000 per lb to LEO range, *everything* you launch costs a lot of money. I just love it when critics contradict themselves: What's needed are new vehicles... Did you not read what I wrote? Did you miss the part about "our current level of technology"? There's an old SF short story along these lines; _The Cold Equations_. Read it. You're not doing much better than the original poster. Old sci-fi isn't usually the best place to look for an explanation of why spaceflight is so expensive. Ever actually read _The Cold Equations_? Mark L. Fergerson |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
This is wrong. What's holding us back isn't the "mass of the life support
hardware", but the high cost of launching *anything* into space. When costs are in the $10,000 per lb to LEO range, *everything* you launch costs a lot of money. But the point about the fragility of human life and the "added extras" necessary to keep a human alive in space for any length of time as opposed to a robot probe is well-taken. What's needed are new vehicles that bring launch costs down to a reasonable multiple of the cost of fuel. We're a long way from that. Hopefully small companies like Space-X will help the situation, because EELV's and shuttle derived launch vehicles aren't going to lower launch costs. True, but it will -always- be more expensive to keep humans alive in space than to send robots - drop the price to orbit, you make robots cheaper to send too. There would have to be a profitable reason that humans -have- to be there to make it worth sending humans up. Can't think off hand of anything humans can do in space that a probe can't do better, and at -zero- risk to human life. For example, think of how many times more expensive it would have been to send a manned probe to Titan as opposed to what we did do, send an unmanned probe. That multiplier effect is going to stay in place no matter how low you get the price-to-space. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
the drive to explore | [email protected] | Policy | 662 | July 13th 05 12:19 AM |
AUTISM = "no drive to explore" | [email protected] | Policy | 38 | June 9th 05 05:42 AM |
Israeli-Indian satellite to explore moon | Quant | History | 16 | February 2nd 04 05:54 AM |
Students and Teachers to Explore Mars | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | July 18th 03 07:18 PM |