Apologies for the tone. I did not mean for it to be snide.

Oh well…

Til next time.

Cheers.

OK, so it’s just that NASA should not spend any resources at all investigating such scientific frontiers and it should be the sole responsibility of private investors who will likely have a primarily economic interest in it. Gotcha.

So, your suggestion is to not spend any money at all on manned missions outside of our lovely little planet Earth?

Even talking about all this seems a bit goofy to me, but hey, if we’re talking all Mad Max and the like, I’m for surviving right here where we are. The Starship Enterprise version of survival holds no romance for me.

However, going from inhospitable planet to inhospitable planet is not the smartest idea. Neither is “surviving” in a tin can in space.

So, what do you propose?

I prefer to believe that if we should trust in something to “save” us, we should trust in our own ingenuity and thirst for knowledge.

Agree, of course.

However, going from inhospitable planet to inhospitable planet is not the smartest idea. Neither is “surviving” in a tin can in space.

I’m sorry but when I hear crypto-apocalyptic talk like this I am reminded of those purple Nike wearing dupes looking to go catch a flight to other side of Hale-Bopp.

I wasn’t aware that I was being crypto-apocalyptic. I thought I was just following a logical train of thought, that, at some point in the distant future, Earth is not going to be a very hospitable place to live. Now, we can certainly sit and twiddle our thumbs while watching some comet or asteroid zip by our probes and robots, on course to park at Joe’s down the street, then go “Oh, woe is me. This place is a sucky place to live right now” when it gets here. Or, we can make some measure of effort to see about moving house. Quite apart from those things that humans can only experience first-hand, the economic opportunities, the entertainment opportunities, etc.

And, as Gary mentioned, the Heaven’s Gate cult believed in a higher power (aliens) that were hovering in a saucer behind Hale-Bopp, just paying a visit to save them from the impending doom of Earth. I prefer to believe that if we should trust in something to “save” us, we should trust in our own ingenuity and thirst for knowledge.

Anyone here ever read “MacroScope”, by Piers Anthony? The main point of the story is that there is a narrow window of opportunity in any techno society, during which that society has both the technical knowledge and the excess resources to enable space resources development. Wait too long and the excess resources end up being consumed rather than invested and the species ends by devastating their environment.

We are currently in that window of opportunity. We have the knowledge and, for a few more years at least, the excess resources available to invest. We move to the high frontier now,,,,or die,,,

Gary 7

…it may be precipitated by some crisis (incoming asteroid or comet that cannot be destroyed/deflected). Should we therefore wait until some event occurs that can not be ignored to start working on manned space travel? It’s going to take a long time to overcome a lot of hurdles, cost and safety being only two of those. Why not start now and be that much further along and better prepared for when a real need to get off the planet arises?

There will come a time when, for one reason or another, here will be a need for people to go into space, at least to the moon, but likely farther.

Todd W…

I’m sorry but when I hear crypto-apocalyptic talk like this I am reminded of those purple Nike wearing dupes looking to go catch a flight to other side of Hale-Bopp.

Livable planets: places where the inhabitants don’t have to do anything to maintain the ecological balance.

Asteroid colonies: places where the inhabitants are expected to assist in maintaining the ecological balance,,,

,,,ah yes, now I understand the planetary chavinism,,,it’s for people too lazy to run the eco-machine,,,or too fearful,,,

AMANDA: Risk of human life? Hey, it’s MY life and I’ll risk it however I please. Taking risks is what it really means to LIVE. Then you can look in the mirror and say,”Yee Haw! I’m still ALIVE!”

GAry 7

Think about it – say they were able to send a probe to the Americas and it sent back data about other living creatures and plants (which it certainly would) – it would give the people a reason to go.

And, if they did not have the technology to get people to that new land with all the living creatures and plants already in development, it would take even longer to get there. If they had started developing the technology while all these probes and such were going out, then they would be ready once that other place was found. The same thing applies to manned space exploration. It is going to take decades, at least, for long-distance manned space travel to be feasible. There are, as I mentioned earlier, a number of hurdles to overcome and questions to be answered. If we discover next week, for example, another Earth-like planet, with living creatures, breathable atmosphere, plants and so on, it probably would not be until around 2040 or later that we would even be ready to send people on extended missions, and even then, we would probably need to develop waypoints en route. We probably would not actually be able to send people to that planet until sometime next century.

So, my analogy still holds up.

@SLC

Space ships, along with sailing ships and covered wagons, are relics of bygone eras.

I need to echo Charles Boyer, here. This is a pretty silly thing to say as a critique of manned space exploration. Sailing ships were supplanted by steamships (also people-carriers), which were supplanted by even more advanced ships. Covered wagons were supplanted by automobiles (again, people-carriers). Airplanes then came along, further making such modes of distance-travel obsolete. Increasing the scale still are space ships. They are all modes of travel for people. Probes and robots are great and all, but they don’t move people around.

Fail for Mr. Park.

Nixing the development of manned space missions and exploration is, in my mind, incredibly short-sighted. Go ahead and send probes and robots out. They can get much farther, much sooner than any person can currently, and they will expand out knowledge a great deal. But also work to surmount the blocks to manned flight. There will come a time when, for one reason or another, here will be a need for people to go into space, at least to the moon, but likely farther.

Unmanned probes led the way to the Moon, they also will also lead the way to the planets and beyond.

And as always, men will get there and say, “Hmmm, yep, looks just like it looked when Spirit was here!”

That’s in the top ten of stupidest things I have ever read or heard. Frankly, I rank that with Thomas Watson (IBM’s former CEO) saying “I think that there is a market for maybe four or five computers in the world.” How did that work out?

The truth is that Space Race 2.0 is well underway, that the US and the former USSR are no longer the only serious spacefaring nations, that manned space flight has been one of the catalysts for techonological development that spurred on American economic dominance in the latter 20th century and that failure to continue upon the path will lead to technological retardation in the 21st.

People often point to space travel, admittedly in its infancy, as “useless” because they fail to see to collateral payoffs that have been harvested as a result from the basic research and development of the past space efforts. Instead, they focus on what they label as meager science payoffs, when even that is a questionable point of view.

The American car industry is dying because it is run by accountants with very little engineering training. Their competition, on the other hand, is run by engineers that have extended their skills into running businesses. That seemingly unrelated development is actually indicative of America as a whole: we are a country run by bean counters with less imagination and analytical skill than your average mouse. Sure, they can make money, but they are blind to the big picture and its long term ramifications.

Having a dual space program of manned and unmanned probes makes simple common sense and the two are not mutually exclusive. Unmanned probes led the way to the Moon, they also will also lead the way to the planets and beyond.

“A generation that is ignorant of history has no past and no future.” – Robert H. Heinlein.

3. NASA REGRESSION: THE TRANSITION IS NOT GOING SMOOTHLY.
NASA is a thorny problem for Obama. NASA administrator Mike Griffin is focused on the Constellation program, the much delayed, way-over-budget and thoroughly useless moon rocket, which seems to be the U.S. entry in a space-race with emerging nations. The Orlando Sentinel reports a squabble between Griffin and Lori Garver, a former NASA associate administrator for policy, who heads the Obama NASA-transition-team. Griffin says she’s unqualified. She has no background in science or technology. It’s past time for a complete restructuring of NASA focusing on the future, not the past. Cede the Moon to China and the ISS to India. Space ships, along with sailing ships and covered wagons, are relics of bygone eras. There’s a universe out there to learn about, let’s get on with it.

Why risk it right now, when the benefits are so much lower than the costs?

Well, as many in these very pages have essentially said, “Because it’d be so cool!”

And actually, I’m not at all against a bunch of entrepreneurial(sp?) billionaires doing their damnedest to put the first man on Mars. Knock yourself out.

They will, of course, do little more than walk around and say, “Far out!” but honestly, I’d watch it and think it cool also. And hey, they can also make themselves feel better believing they are saving the human race. ;^}

In the end though, I think NASA has bigger, better things to do.

Think about it – say they were able to send a probe to the Americas and it sent back data about other living creatures and plants (which it certainly would) – it would give the people a reason to go.

We send probes out and get back evidence of rock, metal, and inaccessible water. Why should we send people there? If we get evidence of life or a hospitable environment (or at least good potential for them), then it would make more sense. Lives are lost during close-to-home missions, and while it is inevitable that more will sacrifice their lives to explore new places in the universe, that risk should be taken only when the benefit is worth it. The farther out we go, the greater the risk – looking at rocks that we can see via robotics is not really worth loss of human life, in my opinion. (I know some will disagree.)

If the early explorers got back nothing but rock, they would have made the right decision in not following them… I don’t think anyone is rationally saying, “no manned missions, ever!” Currently, all the evidence points to environments and situations that we are not adequately prepared for. Should we plan and prepare and work toward lowering those risks? Yes, of course.

Too often we forget that a major cost of manned spaceflight is, at times, human lives. Why risk it right now, when the benefits are so much lower than the costs?

Don’t forget TANG!

But seriously… all those things are nice, but they did not require space flight. There are infinitely more things that benefit mankind that were invented wholesale, or accidentally discovered right here on Earth. The argument that we should continue manned flight “because… well ya never know!” doesn’t work for me.

“There is no infinite survival of any race in the Universe, humans or not. Eventually, the Universe will decay to entropy.”

Only in the accepted model. There is reason to believe in the Big Bounce theory. The upcoming Plank satellite might be able to actually see a remnant of this in the CMB. So whose to say the race can’t live forever?