the drive to explore

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
lclough wrote:
And the one about Iraq being behind 9-11 -- how many
Americans still believe that?

Haven't seen any recent polls on that. But in March 2003, polls showed
~45% of Amricans believed Hussein was personally involved.[1]

Why should they,

They shouldn't have, of course. Joe 6-pack would have just as easily and
more readily believed the terrorists were Palestinians, if authorities
had claimed that was the case. [2]

or why should they ever have, since no one ever told them it was?

1) In Sept '01, ~3% polled extemporaneously named Iraq or Hussein.
2) By March '03, ~45% polled thought Hussein was responsible for 9-11.
3) The focus of blame for 9-11 from Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda to
Hussein and Iraq after the war in Afghanistan is so improbable that to
imply the shift never happened, or that it was not orchestrated, is
disingenuous.

The Bush administration has used standard rhetorical and psychological
devices to perform the persuasion, as indicated in the March 2003
Christian Science Monitor article, quoted in part, below:

"In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost
solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He
referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same
breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president.
Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists
among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a
direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows
that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally
involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

....

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were
asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3
percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes
had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans
reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were
Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero."

[1] http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

[2] An excellent popular account of psychological manipulation and the
persuasiveness of "appeal to authority" may be found in "Influence: The
Psychology of Persuasion" by Robert B. Cialdini. Chapter 6 "Authority:
Directed deference" is most relevant to this point, but I highly
recommend the whole book.

On Sun, 22 May 2005 03:12:33 GMT, in a place far, far away, lclough
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

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.

Ahhh, someone else unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "lie."

And the one about Iraq being behind 9-11 -- how many
Americans still believe that?

Why should they, or why should they ever have, since no one ever told
them it was?

The strawmen continue, though.

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.

Well, it depends on how quickly you want to get there. We've already
sent out two interstellar probes, both called Voyager. They're just
going to take a heck of a long time to get to another star system.


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.

Exploring interplanetary space is not all that expensive if you do what
I proposed - start a long term project to place sensor satelites in
orbit around all objects of interest in the solar system, followed by
landers if the satelites find something worthwhile, followed by a
retrieval missions if the thing found is worth it, followed by humans
if there's a good reason for it. More flexible, more versatle, better
equipped robots is the way to go for exploring the solar system - IMHO.



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.

It's more than that - it's also that we're just as happy to see digital
footage of a place and save a ton of money as to actually go there. If
the recent Mars landers had run into a herd of Martian animals loping
along, that'd be a different thing. But we're already exploring Mars,
virtually, and haven't run into anything worth sending people there
for.

wrote:
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.

Well, it depends on how quickly you want to get there. We've already
sent out two interstellar probes, both called Voyager. They're just
going to take a heck of a long time to get to another star system.

Touche. Even at a million mph it would take about 650 years to
reach alpha centauri. A lot has been made of the Voyager's exit of our
solar system, including the plaque, unfortunatly it won't be able to
tell us what it finds.

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.

Exploring interplanetary space is not all that expensive if you do
what
I proposed - start a long term project to place sensor satelites in
orbit around all objects of interest in the solar system, followed by
landers if the satelites find something worthwhile, followed by a
retrieval missions if the thing found is worth it, followed by humans
if there's a good reason for it. More flexible, more versatle,
better
equipped robots is the way to go for exploring the solar system -
IMHO.

A very practical proposal, we could start with a couple of very
capable rovers on the moon, the HD video could be broadcast live in
case you don't have anything better to do at 2am. It might even come
accross a few interesting rocks that viewers could bid for and place a
down payment for some future recovery mission.
A ring explorer that is actually right in the ring, robot
'bouncers' that explore the surface of asteroids, landers for europa,
ganymede and callisto, all for a fraction of the cost of a manned
mission to mars.


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.

It's more than that - it's also that we're just as happy to see
digital
footage of a place and save a ton of money as to actually go there.
If
the recent Mars landers had run into a herd of Martian animals loping
along, that'd be a different thing. But we're already exploring
Mars,
virtually, and haven't run into anything worth sending people there
for.

I think the human element of exploration is exaggerated. Mastering
large scale solar collection, mass drivers, recycling and sustainable
life support ought to be the aims of a human presense in space but it
should be kept close to low orbit for safty and supply.
Your suggestion would not only generate interest in the wonders of
the solar system, which would generate votes in congress, but it could
even wet the public appatite for artifacts which could become a source
of revinue.
BTW, a four inch telescope would be able to resolve cars at 300
miles. Letting viewers operate the camera for several dollars a minute
and selling advertising might make viewing earth a favorite pastime and
a self supporting venture.

Thanks for your post, it's good to see some common sense brought to
the arguments of this thread.

Well, it depends on how quickly you want to get there. We've
already
sent out two interstellar probes, both called Voyager. They're
just
going to take a heck of a long time to get to another star system.


Touche. Even at a million mph it would take about 650 years to
reach alpha centauri. A lot has been made of the Voyager's exit of
our
solar system, including the plaque, unfortunatly it won't be able to
tell us what it finds.

Correction, it would take just shy of 3000 years to reach the nearest
star. It raises an interesting question of how to handle the situation
if a civilization is found on a planet. Perhaps the craft could make
an assessment of how advanced the inhabitants are. If it appears that
they do not yet have telecopes, it could drop into low orbit and
reflect the rays of the sun (star) back out into space to hide itself,
sort of like hiding in the shadow. As it determines that larger
telescopes are being built it elevates its orbit untill when the
civilization reaches the 20th century stage it hides itself near an
asteroid or commet.
Now imagine the reverse, a robot craft that has been observing earth
for say 3000 years. Our own explorers come across it and it must
destroy itself to prevent technological contamination, but before it
does it shares with us the extensive historical archives of the great
battles, the seven wonders of the world while under construction,
earthquakes and volcanos etc. If it had a telescope ten meters in
diameter it would be able to make out detail down to about two inches
from 300 miles up.
Who knows?



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.

Exploring interplanetary space is not all that expensive if you do
what
I proposed - start a long term project to place sensor satelites in
orbit around all objects of interest in the solar system, followed
by
landers if the satelites find something worthwhile, followed by a
retrieval missions if the thing found is worth it, followed by
humans
if there's a good reason for it. More flexible, more versatle,
better
equipped robots is the way to go for exploring the solar system -
IMHO.

A very practical proposal, we could start with a couple of very
capable rovers on the moon, the HD video could be broadcast live in
case you don't have anything better to do at 2am. It might even come
accross a few interesting rocks that viewers could bid for and place
a
down payment for some future recovery mission.
A ring explorer that is actually right in the ring, robot
'bouncers' that explore the surface of asteroids, landers for europa,
ganymede and callisto, all for a fraction of the cost of a manned
mission to mars.


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.

It's more than that - it's also that we're just as happy to see
digital
footage of a place and save a ton of money as to actually go there.
If
the recent Mars landers had run into a herd of Martian animals
loping
along, that'd be a different thing. But we're already exploring
Mars,
virtually, and haven't run into anything worth sending people there
for.

I think the human element of exploration is exaggerated.
Mastering
large scale solar collection, mass drivers, recycling and sustainable
life support ought to be the aims of a human presense in space but it
should be kept close to low orbit for safty and supply.
Your suggestion would not only generate interest in the wonders
of
the solar system, which would generate votes in congress, but it
could
even wet the public appatite for artifacts which could become a
source
of revinue.
BTW, a four inch telescope would be able to resolve cars at 300
miles. Letting viewers operate the camera for several dollars a
minute
and selling advertising might make viewing earth a favorite pastime
and
a self supporting venture.

Thanks for your post, it's good to see some common sense brought
to
the arguments of this thread.

On Tue, 24 May 2005 03:17:00 -0000, in a place far, far away, Jim
Logajan made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Haven't seen any recent polls on that. But in March 2003, polls showed
~45% of Amricans believed Hussein was personally involved.[1]

Why should they,

They shouldn't have, of course. Joe 6-pack would have just as easily and
more readily believed the terrorists were Palestinians, if authorities
had claimed that was the case. [2]

or why should they ever have, since no one ever told them it was?

"In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost
solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He
referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same
breath with Sept. 11.

Because it was all involved in the war against Islamic and Arab
fascism.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president.

Exactly.

Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists
among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a
direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows
that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally
involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Many people believe the sun goes around the earth. Do you blame Bush
for that, too?

wrote in message
ups.com...

I'm not so sure about that. I can see some monarchies exploring
motivated solely by the monarch's (and others') curiosity.

More for glory of the empire than personal curiousity, but that might be
splitting hairs. The point is that monarchs can command an expedition to be
sent, and explorations to be made, but they cannot successfully command
large numbers of people to engage in widescale colonization.

Therefore, when people make arguments to the effect that Mars will become
the second home of humanity because me and some of my friends are intensely
curious about what's there, it's not a very strong or realistic argument.

And there
have been colonization efforts motivated at least *partly* by the urge
to explore for curiousity's sake.

Name a successful colonization program in which the urge to explore was at
all noteworthy in relation to people pursuing economic opportunities.

Money has not been the only
motivator--there have been other strong motivations, with curiosity
among these.

If you're only arguing that people colonize for a mix of reasons, and
curiosity can be listed among them, I wouldn't disagree with that. I would
only argue that the component which we might call "the indomitable urge to
explore" is a small one in comparison to people just seeking better lives
(read: economic opportunities) for themselves and their families.

My point is that taxpayers routinely
finance ventures that bring them no immediate profit (or no likely
profit *ever*).

But I don't think any succesful colonization efforts have ever been
tax-funded.

Most 3rd-worlders are not starving, and in my experience, one need not
be some middle-class white male westerner to be fascinated by other
worlds.

I certainly understand that, which is why I said a _starving_ 3rd Worlder
(discussing a specific subset of the set). I wasn't trying to make any
point about ethnicity or even culture, but about economic situation.

For that matter (even though the poorest in America are a far cry from the
poorest in the world at large), I've observed that poor Americans don't see
much point in space exploration either, and frequently decry is as a waste
of government funds.

If you're exploring the Amazon and find that your food pack has rotted
out, you can't exactly drop by the nearest 7/11. But people *have*
explored the Amazon -- at the risk of life and limb.

I wasn't arguing that no one is willing to risk hardship or even death to
explore. I was arguing that somebody mostly concerned with where their next
meal is coming from doesn't demonstrate much interest in space exploration
for the simple reason that they are too distracted with concerns about where
their next meal is coming from.


--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.

wrote in message
oups.com...
lclough wrote:

Historically, there are only three engines that drive
exploration.

False, and laughably so. The human motivations involved can hardly be
reduced to three.

Perhaps not reduced to 3, but it remains that these are the _big_ 3. Any
other consideration isn't even a close trailer.

Do you think the Apollo missions were motivated *solely* by
nationalism, to the exclusion of the sense of wonder, exploration,
fascination with the unknown, etc.? If so, you are completely out of
touch with reality.

The Apollo missions were motivated *largely* by nationalism, and if you
can't see that, then you're out of touch with political realities.

Did you even wonder why the purse-strings snapped shut so quickly? It can't
be because we completed lunar exploration and thus sated our exploritory
urge, because we didn't even get started, properly. The support dried up
because most of the support was simply to beat the Russians to the moon,
which was acomplished with Apollo 11. Everything past that was just
institutional momentum.

If the drive to explore was anything close to even a small yet significant
part of the mix, Apollo wouldn't have ended with 17.

Religious reasons come in third, and supply a handy
cloak to cover the naked ambition of the first two motives. We
want to convert the heathens to Christianity, or teach the
natives about Islam.

Again, this hardly excludes other motivations.

We aren't arguing that any of this excludes other motivations. We're
arguing that these are the _major_ motivations, and that the urge to explore
is down on the list of minor motivations.

Obviously false. You really shouldn't say something so silly, because
it damages your credibility. If people weren't fascinated with the
unknown, you'd see *far* less support for the space program.

We are seeing far less support for the space program. Far less support than
what's need to get any kind of colonization going.

Why do you
think they even showed the moon landing on television? People were
fascinated with our unchartered, faraway moon being explored for the
first time.

Yes, but how quickly did that interest wane? By 13 (only 2 flights beyond
the first), TV networks were reluctant to preempt "I Dream of Jeanie".

Are you really dense enough to believe that fascination
doesn't enter the picture?

We're not trying to argue that it doesn't enter the picture. We're trying
to get you to see that, rhetoric aside, it's a very small part of the
picture.

Now, as it happens, I agree with you that humans have a natural instinct to
see what's over the next hill. It's an instinct which had survival value
for our ancestors, and will once again for our descendents. We're just
pointing out that in the broad scheme of large-scale colonization efforts
mounted by entire nations, it's a relatively small part of the mix of
motivations.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.

In article om,
says...

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.

This would be a really good time to describe some of your explorations.
Where have you been, and what did you discover? And for that matter,
who are you?

Because the way things stand, it is reasonable for people here to
assume you are all talk, with nothing behind it but some loser with
a big imagination.


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.

This would be a good time to describe some of your fund-raising efforts.
How much have you raised, and from what sources? More importantly, what
have you done with what you have raised so far, and how do you plan to
build on that for the next stage? In other words, who are you that
anyone else should give their hard-earned money when there are so many
other more credible exploratory ventures at hand?

Because the way things stand, it is reasonable for people here to
assume that all you are capable of is whining about how nobody will
buy you a spaceship so you can fly to Mars.

And especially after the past year, that doesn't cut it any more.
If you don't want people to laugh at you, the time to make the
big speeches about the Glorious Human Drive To Explore, is *after*
you've shown us some of what you can actually do.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

On Tue, 24 May 2005 12:26:42 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Mike
Combs" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Money has not been the only
motivator--there have been other strong motivations, with curiosity
among these.

If you're only arguing that people colonize for a mix of reasons, and
curiosity can be listed among them, I wouldn't disagree with that. I would
only argue that the component which we might call "the indomitable urge to
explore" is a small one in comparison to people just seeking better lives
(read: economic opportunities) for themselves and their families.

FWIW, I don't have an "indomitable urge to explore" but I do have an
indomitable urge to see large numbers of people (including me) living
off the planet, or having the opportunity to do so. But I do think
that exploration is highly overrated as a motivator. Very few people
are that interested in it, per se.