the drive to explore

wrote:
wrote:
But you don't spend your life exploring - you spend it talking
about
exploring, far as I can tell.

And you're an idiot to make that assumption. I spend a tiny fraction
of
my overall time "talking about exploring." I've spent far more time
exploring.


But not all your time, clearly, even though you said it's what matters
to you above food, etc. etc. I didn't say that - you did. So follow
through or retract it. I judge people by what they =do= not what they
say. So you can talk about how important it is until you're blue in
the face, but if you don't actually do it, you don't really mean it.


Have you quit your job and sold
everything you own to go off exploring full-time?

Why the hell should I? I'd rather accumulate enough funding so that I
can one day, explore places no human has heretofore set foot.

There are plenty of places on the Earth that no human has set foot on -
especially at the bottom of the sea. Let me remind you that -you- are
the one who said the drive to explore outweighed all your other needs -
but you're conveinetly dodging actually having to follow through.

So again, your "drive to explore" is pretty weak - you're willing to
put it on hold until you can what, buy a ticket to Mars? That's not a
very strong drive. Even so, if you're willing to go hungry to feed
your drive, I would assume -all- your money is going into the funding,
not just some of it. You live in one-room with a bath down the hall,
you have no electronics, no phone line, because your drive is -so-
overwhelming that you don't spend money on anything else. Again, you
claimed the priority, not me.





Nah. I'm betting
you have a job and a house or apt and certainly an internet
connection
and don't worry about your next meal - exploring isn't your
passion,
it's a hobby.

A ridiculous attempt at semantic games. "Hobby" or not, I have a
drive
to explore -- and so do many other people. It's about time that you
admit it.

You claimed it was the most important thing to you, above food. Now
it's just a side interest? Not much of a drive from where I sit. You
have an interest in exploring (actually in tourism, but more on that in
a later post) but it's clearly not -anywhere- near a drive.


I have, in fact, explored such places. I've taken several long trips
to
Central and South America, and explored various jungles and
archaeological ruins. Such environments are not exactly the safest,
believe me.

But you're back now, aren't you? If your drive is so strong, you'd
still be there. This is laughable, really. You've taken occassional
vacatations and you think you're exploring, when you're really just a
tourist.


And let me remind you that I hadn't posted on this group for what -
over a year? And that you not only posted a reply to my long-ago
postings, but emailed me your response and gave me directions on
the
best way to respond to this thread - seems a bit hypocritical to
call
me out and then call me a troll.

No, you're definitely a troll of some sort. That you *repeatedly*
claim
no humans have an urge to explore - despite overwhelming evidence to
the contrary - shows you to be a troll.

Uh - trolls post a lot more often than once a year, and you've
repeatedly demonstrated that you have no drive to explore, because,
well, here you are. Why aren't you out exploring if it's a drive that
is stronger than food and comfort to you?


By the way, are you the same John Ordover who edited Star Trek books?
If so, what a bizarre irony. Someone who claims that people have no
desire to explore -- having *anything* to do with Star Trek!

I used to edit Trek books, yes - but they are -fiction- and no one is
more aware of the conceits and technobabble than someone who works with
Star Trek. If you look at what the Federation is actually doing
(fictionally, though) it's hunting constantly for new resources, just
as Horatio Hornblower, which Trek was based on, was. Kirk is getting
planets to hook up with trade agreements, looking for new sources of
dilithium, etc. etc., confronting enemies - just like in the Hornblower
books, there's a lot of -talk- about exploring for exploring's sake,
but they don't actually do much of it. Picard did even less, DS9 none,
VGR none, ENT hardly worth talking about.

The glory of exploration was alwasy propaganda. People went off to sea
to make their fortunes, not just to see what was over the horizon.

And in


the case of Mars it is a bleak frozen Desert.


I see a fascinating world with majestic deserts, magnificent mountain
ranges, sprawling subterranean caverns, an interesting weather system,
and the possibility of alien life waiting to be sought out.

And gee, how do you happen to see it? Why, because it's -already been
explored-. Not sure whaere you're getting the caverns, unless you
meant "canyons." I haven't seen any evidence of caves at all. The
possibility of alien life on Mars above the bacterial is very low at
this point, and could be far more cheaply determined by robot probes
than by a manned mission.

The scientists have already satisfied most of the urge.


I disagree. The primal urge to explore can be only superficially
satisfied by watching some robot take snapshots. *Being there* and
exploring firsthand is what will speak to that need.

Then what are you doing on the internet, when you could be exploring
for, say, dinosaur fossils or searching the bottom of the Ocean? There
is no such need or drive.

Not so: the probes have taken a few snapshots and a few samples. That
is the barest preliminary exploration at best. There are many aspects
of exploration that probes and robots are not even capable of.

....and many that people aren't capable of - like running on Mars for
months and months without air. People would be very limited as to what
they could accomplish on Mars, if they even got there alive.


If you think the Mars probes have done more than a *tiny* fraction of
the exploring that humans can do, you're living in a fantasy world.

Actually, that pesky "don't need to eat or drink or breathe" thing puts
robots way ahead of what humans could accompllish on Mars, as does the
"doesn't care about coming home" thing and the "doesn't mind being
trapped in space for three years minimum" deal. I'm all for more
robots with more flexibility, but people would be far more constrained
on Mars than robots would be. If you think people would be more
effective on Mars, you're living in a fantasy world. People would only
be more effective if it wasn't such a long, mentally and physically
taxing trip and if air and food were available for free everywhere they
walked - the Lewis and Clark expedition, for example, fed itself from
the land and by trading with the natives. Try that on Mars, when the
water, the food, and the natives don't exist.

So the conclusion is that you don't have much of a drive to explore,
and you can't face the real world when it comes to exploring other
planets. Heck, we went to the Moon a bunch of times - and stopped
going when the pointlessness sank in. We know far more about the Moon
from scanning it than from the few hundred feet the astronauts left
footprints on - even the Moon rocks wound up telling us very little,
save there is no reason to go to the Moon.

wrote:


We know far more about the Moon
from scanning it than from the few hundred feet the astronauts left
footprints on - even the Moon rocks wound up telling us very little,
save there is no reason to go to the Moon.

Actually, the returned material was invaluable, and told us much
that remote sensing could not. It's not clear that having humans
there to collect it was all that valuable, though (things like
the 'Genesis Rock' notwithstanding.)

Paul

wrote:


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?

AH HA! You are Jordan Bassior and I claim my =A35!

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?

How fast do commercial jet aircraft routinely fly in 2005 compared to,
say, the DeHaviland Comet in 1955?

While a lot of technology has changed dramatically, we've got some
pretty clear indicators of where certainly technological trends hit
limits of diminishing returns. Now, on occasion we get a new
technology that comes along, but I'm personally not holding out for FTL
and Star Trek like Transporters.

They and other similar "easy" intersteller travel routes are likely to
remain in the SF realm.

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.

But it's rarely realistic, just "hard", there's a difference. Al
Reynolds writes Hard SF as does Stephen Baxter - but they often invoke
a little "magic" to get around difficult problems.

True space stories
don't sell well either.

Tell that to the hard sf authors who make a comfortable living.

I have actually. Have you?

Dave

wrote:


I see a fascinating world with majestic deserts, magnificent mountain
ranges, sprawling subterranean caverns, an interesting weather system,
and the possibility of alien life waiting to be sought out.

You mean microbes. Big deal. It will cost a great deal to see this
magnificent vista. Should the public be taxed so your breath can be
taken away by the glory of it all.

Bob Kolker

On 22 May 2005 13:01:02 -0700, wrote (in part):


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?

In case you've never noticed, we still get into space with a
chemical reaction technology that nearly three millenia ago powered
Chinese fireworks. Huge solar arrays powering a mass driver 'engine',
the reaction mass coming from the moon and asteroids is hard science,
antimatter drive is not.


Sure it is. I refer you to the book "Mirror Matter" by the late Dr.
Forward.

It's a very tough engineering problem, and I'd guess it will be a century
or two before we can put a solar-powered antimatter factory somewhere off in
the wilds of the solar system (to satisfy the NIMBYs), so it's far from
economically feasible. But the science is solid.

Christopher P. Winter wrote:
On 22 May 2005 13:01:02 -0700, wrote (in
part):


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?

In case you've never noticed, we still get into space with a
chemical reaction technology that nearly three millenia ago powered
Chinese fireworks. Huge solar arrays powering a mass driver
'engine',
the reaction mass coming from the moon and asteroids is hard
science,
antimatter drive is not.


Sure it is. I refer you to the book "Mirror Matter" by the late
Dr.
Forward.

It's a very tough engineering problem, and I'd guess it will be a
century
or two before we can put a solar-powered antimatter factory somewhere
off in
the wilds of the solar system (to satisfy the NIMBYs), so it's far
from
economically feasible. But the science is solid.

Touche. Thank you for the correction, I was wrong to dismiss it out of
hand. Certainly antimatter, or atleast fusion, is going to be
necessary if we are ever to send out any intersteller probes in some
century hence.
I think however in the context of exploring interplanetary space,
reaction drives powered by solar energy are realistic hopes given
enough funding, and the basic physics of the first step of getting into
space is the same as a bottle rocket, and likely to be for some time.
Mr. a...@ has a theme that compares the human exploration of Mars to
Lewis and Clark. The difference amounts to a half trillion dollars and
three years in the volume of a rest room. Something is to be said for
seeing it real, but I think the space suit would diminish this. There
is something to be said for armchair astronauts who support machine
explorers with their taxes. There are obviously men of means who are
willing to pay millions for a space adventure, but mars is beyond
anything but the combined wealth of nations, and I don't think the
drive to explore will open their wallets that wide.
A manned mission to mars isn't short of the human drive to explore,
it's short of the cash.

wrote:

No comment, Brenda?



Your posts are far too long and wordy -- I rarely read more than
one or two screens. Allow me to cut and paste.



"I'll say it again: as a sci-fi writer, you should be the last person
to discount this fascination with the unknown. It has been and
continues to be an *important* motive behind exploration.


You seem to believe that fiction's use is to grind an axe -- to
shill for a political or social end. This is not an unknown use
of the form (UNCLE TOM'S CABIN comes to mind) but it is not what
I write. My interests, and my books, revolve around moral and
social dilemmas. If I am not fascinated by the unknown, why
should I write about it? Only a subset of science fiction
actually involves exploration of space, and my published works
do not fall into that subset.

I will also mention that within the genre the term 'sci-fi'
properly refers to things like Star Trek -- fantasy or horse
opera thinly guised as SF.

Brenda






--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/

Recent short fiction: PARADOX, Autumn 2003
http://home.nyc.rr.com/paradoxmag//index.html

Upcoming short fiction in FIRST HEROES (TOR, May '04)
http://members.aol.com/wenamun/firstheroes.html

Dave O'Neill wrote:

wrote:



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?


AH HA! You are Jordan Bassior and I claim my £5!




ROFL!

Brenda


--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/

Recent short fiction: PARADOX, Autumn 2003
http://home.nyc.rr.com/paradoxmag//index.html

Upcoming short fiction in FIRST HEROES (TOR, May '04)
http://members.aol.com/wenamun/firstheroes.html

wrote:
No comment, Brenda?

I'm especially curious as to your response to the following:

"I ask again: if people aren't fascinated with the unknown, and
willing
to invest their money, why do they buy sci-fi and fantasy? Both
genres
tap into exactly that fascination.

If life in a submarine isn't punctuated by international crises, a
book about it won't sell, the same holds true for a realistic marts
mission.

"Sci-fi and fantasy novels and RPGs tap into this sense of wonder
with
the unknown. Sure, they represent an escape, but it's an escape into
an
unknown world for the player to explore. There is typically a great
deal of emphasis on exploration and discovery. This is why
sci-fi/fantasy worlds are usually so detailed, including histories
and
maps and so on. That's one reason authors engage in worldbuilding:
"if
you build it, they will come." They come to explore, because they are
fascinated. This all taps into the human fascination with the
unknown,
and your apparent inability to see this is a mystery in itself.

What do you expect to find on mars to elicit the same sense of
wonder or adventure? Why don't we still have those emotions toward our
moon.

"NASA relies partly on popular support, and if people weren't
fascinated with the great beyond, that support would be much weaker."

And it could become stronger, enough to support rovers that can
drill beneath the surface for water or perhaps microbial life.

"National assets typically come from multiple hands, both "public"
and
"private." As a result, national projects are rarely monocausal.
When
something is financed on a national scale, you're usually going to
have
multiple sources of finance. There are as many motivations as the
financiers who are involved. Some will be motivated by fascination
with
the unknown; some by profit motive; some by nationalism or religion,
some by a combination of these factors, and so on.

The space program has been soley funded by the government. The
programs of other nations the same way. The cost has been defrayed by
satellite launches. Where is the profit motive in going to mars?

"Meriwether Lewis was clearly motivated, in part, by a sense of
adventure. He left behind his wealthy plantation so he could satisfy
his fascination with the unknown. Other members of his entourage had
varied motivations, with wonder and adventure prominent among them.
They spent time, money, and often blood in pursuit of this adventure.

"Lewis and gang were far from rare in this regard.

Lewis was Jefferson's secretary. The middle of the continent had
been purchased from France and was still unexplored. Even in modern
dollars, the corps of discovery cost a pittance.
How much do you expect your mars exploration to cost?

"I'll say it again: as a sci-fi writer, you should be the last person
to discount this fascination with the unknown. It has been and
continues to be an *important* motive behind exploration.

"If everyone simply found the unknown to be deadly dull, space
exploration would get far less funding. The masses would have far
less
interest, and their representatives would be far less likely to
appropriate money for space exploration."

I would like to see more than ten billion spent for exploration of
the solar system, and bigger space telescopes. Mars would eat up that
budget for twenty or thirty years, just so a few humans could leave
their foot prints in the dust.