I’m happy to see that you read the report. You may be right about my quote mining. Given that the statement was in the “General” section, I thought that it was indicative of general mood of the report. My bad (god, I hate that expression).

I’m so happy tp hear that you have been to Antarctica. Bravo for you. I’m all for the science that is being done there. But notice that there is absolutely no discussion of “colonizing” it.

I’m also sure that you are right that there are many scientists willing to risk their lives for manned space missions. My point is that it is no longer cost effective. Even if robotic missions are not as fruitful, which I debate, so what. All we do then is make better robots. If they fail, so what? We simply try again with improved tools having learned from the mistakes.

Please note that the greatest return we get from space missions already come from unmanned missions. Note the many communications, weather and earth mapping satellites.

You are right, robotics does have its limitations today. But, at the risk of repeating myself, what about tomorrow? We have already come a long way. Witness the mars rovers, deep sea ROVs, Dexter, the Canadian robot on the ISS, etc., etc. Just imagine the development potentials if NASA invited private enterprise to bid on advanced robotic devices. We might even get to have a “robonaut”.

All I am saying is that smart tools like robots are a natural extension of our bodies. Look at what we have already achieved with dumb tools that HAVE to be operated by a person. Our lives have been improved immeasurably. Now extend that to smart tools and the possibilities are astounding. Why, even medicine is using robots to do what doctors used to do. Every time we use a tool, we leverage our natural capabilities and so are able to do more and at less cost.

The oil rig analogy is a good one and for the following reasons. 1) The manned operations are done from the surface of the ocean. 2) Divers notwithstanding, they are only used in shallow waters. 3) Really deep drilling is ALL done from the surface. The technology being used to solve problems down deep by sending tools down the bore hole are amazing.

…John

I’ve been to Antarctica as a tourist and we had former Antarctic explorers/researchers as “guides” and we spoke to people currently manning the stations. Many had done multiple tours. All enjoyed the experience in spite of the hardships. The found it challenging, exciting and educational. Can you imagine have what it was like to have a glacier pointed out to you by the man the glacier is named for? These people love what they do and did. They’re so passionate about what they did they will spend a month with a bunch of tourists to pass on their experiences. They will have no problems finding scientists equally as driven to man expeditions to Mars.

I don’t think your oil rig analogy is a good one. If the oil rig was remotely operated maybe but the rig itself is manned and sits over the oil field. A drill isn’t exactly a good example of remote operation. In fact I used to know a diver that operated from oil rigs in Bass Strait off Australia. So obviously they there is still stuff that can’t be done robotically there too.

You say: “He may be right but I hope we actually do relocate. It is the only way to insure those bodies(bio-chemical robots of exceptional complexity) can survive any likely disaster scenario.”
Just HOW does relocation INSURE survival. This is an unfounded assertion. In contrast, our survival of likely disaster scenarios is insured first by preventative measures to forestall disasters followed up by appropriate defensive measures in the event of disasters. Relocating to a highly hostile, unknown alternative planet at ruinous cost is no guarantee.

You say: “Cost to access space will continue to decline,…” Experience with the shuttle program contradicts you sir. In fact, the cost is rising.

You say: “…but it will only happen if there’s money to be made…”
Absolutely right. Now, please provide some plausible scenarios.

You say: “Referring to humanity as a “cancer” on the eco-system is a knee jerk woo-woo response to our species success. ”
What I said was that I could ARGUE that mankind was a cancer on the face of the planet. Our vaunted success and the tremendous ecological cost associated with it is very much akin to the way a cancer grows and ultimately destroys its host and therefore itself.

You say: “That’s how Columbus got his point across. ”
Absolutely right. He had a known destination. he knew about the riches/resources to be exploited because the Portuguese were already getting rich by going there the long way around the bottom of Africa. Columbus sold Ferdinand and Isabella on a shortcut. That was my point earlier in this thread. Accordingly, the whole Columbus analogy does NOT apply to manned space exploration. I repeat, you are, in effect, comparing apples to oranges and as such the comparison is invalid.

No, the mammals that replaced the dinosaurs were not and are not a cancer for they have not upset the natural balance. We, in contrast, seem bent on destroying the fine tuned balance of nature and we do so at our peril. Also, they did NOT fill every eco-niche left behind by the dinosaurs. Most of the spots were filled by birds which are the direct descendants of the dinos.

You say: “We WILL settle the high frontier, if for no other reason than to escape from the IDiots here on earth,,,and to make a buck, …”
Did you really mean IDiots? Or did you mean Idiots? The best was to escape them is though education rather than running away. Suppose you do try to run away from them, how are you going to insure that they won’t sneak onto your fleet of space faring Arcs? Will you have some sort of IDiot test? And as to making a buck, again, I ask, how? Don’t you think that the free enterprise system would already have figured this out by now? ow come it hasn’t?

Lastly, your comparison with respect yo your father and Saudi Arabia suffers the same problem as you comparison of Columbus’ voyages into the “unknown” an so is equally invalid.

If you haven’t already, I invite you to follow the link I posted above for further discussions on the problems with manned space missions .
Here it is again… http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/06/29/science-vs-mars/

..John

Ah yes, the old, …”¥ou’re such a dreamer,,,”. Somewhat equivalent to ” You’re such a liberal,,,”. Both are dismissive statements.

Yes! I’m a Dreamer and a Progressive/Liberal.
For me, the only time the glass is half empty is when I’m filling it up.

My Son is a software engineer who believes we’ll be uploading our consciousness to computers, which will eliminate the necessity to actually relocate our bodies to space. He may be right but I hope we actually do relocate. It is the only way to insure those bodies(bio-chemical robots of exceptional complexity) can survive any likely disaster scenario. Being restricted to a single planet is just asking for extinction.

Cost to access space will continue to decline, but it will only happen if there’s money to be made. That’s how Columbus got his point across.

Referring to humanity as a “cancer” on the eco-system is a knee jerk woo-woo response to our species success. We are what we are and we are at least as successful as those early mammals that took over when the dinos. went belly up. You’ll note that in a mere 65 million years, those mammals and their descendants have spread into every eco-niche on the planet. Were those early successors a “cancer” too?

We WILL settle the high frontier, if for no other reason than to escape from the IDiots here on earth,,,and to make a buck, as my father did when he chose to work in Saudi Arabia back in the ancient 1940s. It was nearly equivalent to living in a “tin can” in space. That was a half century ago and now most people working in Arabia have much more comfortable lodgings. I expect it will be somewhat similar to settling space. Tough in the beginning. Much easier in a century or so.

GAry 7

Phil is even mentioned!

…John

It’s title is …
Antarctic Exploration Parallels for Future
Human Planetary Exploration:
A Workshop Report

In the section titled “3.0 DISCUSSION TOPICS AND PARTICIPANT RESPONSES” we find, …

Here are some of the questions asked of veteran Antarctic explores …

General
· Why take risks to gather scientific data?

· If you had a chance to go to Mars, what would you do and why?

on Page 21 we find …
GENERAL
Question: Why take risks to gather scientific data?
Answer: Twenty-five-year-olds don’t think of risk, they think of adventure.

on Page 22 we find ….
Question: If you had a chance to go to Mars, what would you do and why? (as
Answer: Fifty years ago I would have leapt at the chance, for most of the same reasons I leapt at
the chance to go to Antarctica. Now I would decline, with thanks, for pretty much the
same reasons that I would never winter over in Antarctica again — too long away from
home and family (I never wintered over again after IGY).

Here is the link to the entire report …
http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/TP-2002-210778.pdf

I’ve taken exepts that support my views. See if you can find ones that support your views. Hint: hey talk about robotics v. manned missions.

…John

You say, about nature … “If it can’t get at you who cares? ” Have you forgotten that YOU had said that we can control it? We can, and do in fact, provide ourselves with shelter. But this in no way suggests that we can control it (your earlier claim).

You say, about undersea exploration: “there is a lot of undersea exploration by manned submersibles – Alvin for example.”
Actually, Alvin is old and infrequently used. ROVs are all the rage now. Witness the magnificent views of the Titanic.

You say: “Columbus hoped to get to the Indies – it was pure speculation as to whether he’d hit pay dirt. ”
Actually, it was more than pure speculation. As I had said, the Portuguese had already been bringing ritches back by going the long way around. So all he was betting on was a short cut. The same is true, BTW about the search for the North West Passage and look what happened to the mighty Franklin expedition! It got crushed by the ice. It is only now, with the melting of the ice sheets that the passage is being considered as a short cut.

You say: “Anyway it is the exploitation that will require a manned presence.”
Not so fast, we already exploit the sea bed without a manned presence. Now, we do it with nasty trawlers that drag massive nets along the sea bed but that is besides the point. We also drill deep into the sea bed to extract oil and we do it all from the surface. You may have noticed the odd floating oil rig out in the Gulf of Mexico. You know, the ones that get destroyed by hurricanes like Katrina that we can’t control and cause the gas prices to go zoom “to the moon”. Even on land, nobody goers down to an oil deposit to exploit it. The exploitation is all done from the surface. We send extensions of ourselves down there (i.e. our tools). No manned presence required or desired.

You say: “Cook’s travels though were purely scientific expeditions with a bit of flag waving thrown in so the analogy is appropriate I think.”
Yes, the analogy is approprite. However, you are choosing to ignore or have forgotten that I had said that the difference between then and now is that NOW we have a choice. We can send manned missions or robotic missions.

@Nemo
Okay, Okay I’ll stop using the number, although I hardly think that it is meaningless. It may be wrong but how is it meaningless. It, or any other number is a means of expressing the relative difficulty of the one versus the other environment. Would you at least agree that the degree of difficulty is orders of magnitude greater?

…John