OT/ We Choose The Moon

[Bullethead 12]

Regardless of the "motive" money must be spent if the program is to happen, your arguement is that it should not be "public money" if I read you right. I agree. with this proviso, no public money no public interferance, i.e. the government keeps their "greedy" hands off when the endevor starts to pay money.

 

That's pretty much what I'm saying. I don't want to spend a cent of tax money on projects that deliver nothing more than the space equivalent of climbing Mt. Everest, which is all Apollo was and is all a Mars trip now would be. But if somebody wants to do it out of his own pocket, let him.

 

OTOH, I have no objection to spending tax money on developing ways to move lots of stuff cheaply and frequently to LEO, and developing stuff to make it so people can survive better and longer in space and on low-gravity planets. Until we can solve those problems, expansion into space is impossible on anything approaching a useful scale in either numbers and duration.

 

All this research can be done without going even as far as the Moon. The problem is, it will certainly take a long time to accomplish and it's not in the least bit sexy. Thus, the adventurous types grow impatient and the public loses interest and cuts the budget. Hence, the clamor for the publicity stunt of going to Mars now.

 

However, regardless of what government-funded rocket scientists do, nothing of any real significance is going to happen in space until somebody in the private sector can turn a profit on it. That requires not only an economically significant public demand for a space-related product or service, but also a commercially viable means of supplying that demand. Right now, these conditions are met only in the satellite industry, which we here all use in several forms on a daily basis.

 

For colonizing space, however, at present there is neither the demand nor the supply. Creating the supply is what I've been going on about, but that's useless if nobody wants to go. This is why I wish the embryonic private space tourism industry well. These folks are hitting both aspects of the problem. As they grow their businesses, they will necessarily develop better and cheaper ways of getting more people and stuff off the ground. Also, as they build space resorts, they will start making people want to live in space, not just visit it for the weekend. Hopefully by then, the government-funded research will have figured out a way to make that less unhealthy.

 

More research has to be invested into aviation. It's not a Bus Service as it's been left to, it's the core of travel in the air and space. By now, we should have already had commercial aircraft that follow the standards of Harrier jets, and use more effecient pulse jets, and other forms of higher technology for propulsion. Better radar and air traffic control monitoring... etc. But it takes a lot of money from Government programs, not private investors.

 

I dunno. If there was a real (as in economically significant) demand for this stuff, it would have happened already. The private sector is more than capable of developing products and services to meet present and foreseen demands. Why do you think we have jet airliners at all? So if enough people really had a need for more advanced airplanes, we'd be seeing them overhead right now. IMHO, therefore, there is no need to inject radical change into the aircraft industry just for the sake of doing it.

 

Consider supersonic airliners. Neither one that got off the drawing board was a private venture. They were, like most government projects, products for which there was no viable demand. They were the atmospheric equivalents of the Apollo program, something cool but impractical, done only for prestige, and justified with, "if you build it, they will come". IIRC, their creation even owed a lot to their governments' envy at not being 1st to the Moon. Had their been a genuine demand for such things, private industry would have done it before the governments, or would at least have joined the party shortly afterwards, and would still be flying such things today. As it was, the Soviet SST was soon cancelled as a white elephant, and it took decades of government subsidies before Concorde broke even.

 

Private industry knows, from examples like this and from various flops of its own doing, that "if you build it, sometimes nobody comes." It also can't rely on deficit spending and printing its own money to make up for such extravagant failures. Thus, private industry isn't going to spend a lot of money on something speculative that carries a large risk of not paying off. This doesn't mean it's unimaginative, however. All the airplane companies have R&D departments thinking far ahead and sketching out proposals for all kinds of radical ideas. They were thinking of SSTs long before the governments got into the game, and in fact still are. Unlike governments, however, the private sector subjects these proposals to rigorous cost-benefit analyses, so only pursues those that will pay off under current and near-future conditions. However, it keeps all this stuff on the back burner, so that if conditions change, it will be able to exploit the new business opportunities.

[Fliegenhund 0]

I know the topic has morphed a bit but I finally watched the playback on that site in its entirety. It really is astounding to see how complicated the stages were and the millions of things that could have gone wrong on the mechanical level (let alone the human one). Then to think three men were sitting inside those modules and going through all the phases, then returning to Earth safely. Truly mind boggling....they were some amazing pioneers.

[Bullethead 12]

Then to think three men were sitting inside those modules and going through all the phases, then returning to Earth safely. Truly mind boggling....they were some amazing pioneers.

 

Quite true. Everybody involved with manned rockets, even in a ground capacity, is inducted into the honored compay of the Imperial and Royal House of Bullethead's Noble Order of the Cast Iron Balls. Those on the sharp end in the rockets, of whatever nationality or program, merit the coveted Fig Leaves to the basic Order device, the world's highest award for bravery combined with brains. Those who have actually set foot on another world are the Knights Commander of the Order.

 

Still, I wish they'd done something of more utility for the rest of us :yes:

[Olham 164]

Looking at their missions with nowadays knowledge and technology, they dared so much to do it!

And they all where changed a lot, when they returned, after they had seen the small blue pearl.

 

I would love to let every big "decider", every big manager of our modern world, may he be

an industrial giant or a political leader, fly around our little blue planet in a Space Shuttle,

to feel humbled through the sight of the fragile precious pearl in the big black space.

 

We won't be able to escape this planet as a whole mankind, once we destroyed it; so we

better did care now. But we can expand our fields of view. And a space project can make

us feel like ONE mankind in the face of eternity - so I agree with OvS: let's go beyond the

moon - instead of building more nuclear subs.

[Bullethead 12]

We won't be able to escape this planet as a whole mankind, once we destroyed it; so we better did care now. But we can expand our fields of view. And a space project can make us feel like ONE mankind in the face of eternity - so I agree with OvS: let's go beyond the moon - instead of building more nuclear subs.

 

Why not use nuclear subs to build undersea cities? Like Bioshock only without the eugenic weirdness. We occupy only a tiny fraction of the Earth, but we can spread out to a much wider range with far less effort than it takes to go to space. Plus, if you decide you don't like living under water, you can come back to the surface very quickly, without the loss of bone and the radiation poisoning of space travel.

 

The ocean floor is effectively another planet, for how alien it is compared to where we live. But it's a lot more habitable, it's WAY closer, and doing a mass migration to there could happen a lot quicker than doing the same in space. Moving lots of people into self-sufficient, sustainable undersea colonies would actually help things on Earth proper. And if nothing else, it would be good practice for setting up a space colony. So why doesn't anybody consider this, which is right at our feet, but instead dreams of planting a flag on Mars?

[Olham 164]

Perhaps we can have both?

[Alexander51 3]

Dear Bullethead:

 

I agree with some of what you say, but are you suggesting that because of all

the dangers and costs of space exploration and social problems that need

fixing, etc, that we should just remain in place here on Earth and do nothing?

That we should remove all the money from NASA and use it to restore the

cities? Will this magically cause tears and anguish, famine, wars, starvation,

pollution, attrocities, genocide and all things evil to simply evaporate across

the world? You really think that this is possible? Get rid of the Human race and

it just might be. But this isn't possible, so why in blazes should we be barred from

exploration and discovery? Our social problems will always be a mess with or

without a space program. Just think if the first European settlers who arrived in

the new world had thought, "Why leave the coast and explore futher west when

our social problems are such a mess?" We'd still be stuck in Plymouth Rock and

Jamestown!

 

Homo sapiens are a curious species that learn about the world through observation

and spend loads of time making tools and figuring things out. Exploration, discovery

and expanding our own horizons and consciousness runs in our blood! From our

origins in the East African Rift Valley to present day, the very rise of our species, our

technology, our intelligence, and civilization itself is a direct result of this.

 

But as for human exploration beyond the Moon, what's the point? So what if it takes

a human to see traces of life on Mars, Europa, or Titan? It won't make any difference

in my life at all.

 

...it's just a waste of money...why send anybody to even the Moon?

 

Well this is a typical of someone obviously not very interested in space exploration.

If you were, then I wouldn't be posting this reply. I am VERY INTERESTED in this

stuff, Sir! There are vast numbers of others who surely feel the same way. I really

hope that people like you don't end up in power. I'll never quite understand people

who can't seem to think past the roof over their heads and come up with a hundred

excuses as to why space exploration is a bad idea.

 

Apart from communications and weather satellites, what other use is there in going to

space than military advantage? I can't think of any.

 

This is why you'll never find a job with NASA.

 

Folks say we need to colonize other planets, to ensure the survival of the species.

That's total BS.

 

I'll give you several good reasons why:

 

1) We won't be able to live here on Earth forever. The planet will be devastated

by a natural catastrophe at some point in the future. This has occured at least 5

times in geologic history. Mass extinction events happened at the end of the

Ordovician, Devonian, and Permian periods. The next two occured at the end

of the Triassic and Cretaceous periods. The Permian event ended over 90%

of life on Earth. The Terminal Cretaceous extinction erased 60-70% of life on Earth.

We may not be successful in saving ourselves from the same fate despite

technology that we have, or that has yet to be created. Nature has a way

of reminding us that we are not masters of this world. The planet Venus is a good

example of a planet-wide environmental disaster.

 

2) The Earth's internal heat engine won't drive plate tectonics forever, either. The

great volume of radiactive decay occuring at the core will eventually fade away and

our Earth could end up a lifeless, dead world in the distant future. This would make

it rather difficult to support life from that point forward. The planet Mars is a good

demonstration of this.

 

3) Our Sun is about half way through it's life cycle of about 10 billion years. This is

expected with a typical G class yellow dwarf star. In around 5 billion years the Sun

will eventually become our own worst enemy. After the last hydrogen fuel is converted

into helium in the Suns core, the initial collapse that created our Sun will resume.

The dense helium core will be compressed by this event. Helium will be converted into

carbon and oxygen. This will drive the Sun into a red giant stage and the entire inner

solar system will be engulfed by the Suns fires.

 

I don't know about you, but I think that these are very good reasons to explore space

and ultimately find another habitable world that we could call home. Everything that

WE DO NOW with space exploration science, it's engineering and technology will

benefit our decendants in the future. This will ensure that they will be able to live elsewhere

in space when the time comes. This is exactly WHY we should explore space and continue

to explore space, "total BS" or not.

 

Sorry if this rains on some peoples' parades

 

That's very touching, not to mention a little conceited. As I told you I am very excited about

space exploration and the expansion of the human frontier into this realm. I want to see

another lunar mission undertaken and a permanent human presence established on the

Moon. I want to see a manned mission to Mars actually happen and I don't care which

country achieves it first. I want to see these things occur in my lifetime thank you very

much. It seems like you are trying to be king of the hill on this thread my man, and it's

getting tiresome after after the course of some 10 posts (half of them extremely long).

I think that you have had more than enough time on stage. Please give other people

here some room and allow them to express their view points.

 

Peace

[Bullethead 12]

are you suggesting that because of all

the dangers and costs of space exploration and social problems that need fixing, etc, that we should just remain in place here on Earth and do nothing?

 

Not in the least.

 

I am all for putting millions of people permanently in space and on other planets. That's certainly way more costly, and puts far more people at risk, than doing a Mars mission at present. I want to see this happen because, as you say, we can't live here forever, and it would be nice to have our eggs in several baskets.

 

I want to see this happen so much, in fact, that I begrudge every cent spent on what are no more than publicity stunts, such as sending a few people to Mars any time soon. Put the money instead into ways of getting the equivalents of entire cities off the ground cheaply and easily, and into ways of keeping people alive and healthy long-term in space stations or on low-gravity, barren planets. Because until we can do these things, the whole idea of space colonization is physically impossible, and the stated purposes for doing it are at best misrepresentations spread to get funding for useless publicity stunts.

[OvS 8]

... Put the money instead into ways of getting the equivalents of entire cities off the ground cheaply and easily, and into ways of keeping people alive and healthy long-term in space stations or on low-gravity, barren planets. Because until we can do these things, the whole idea of space colonization is physically impossible, and the stated purposes for doing it are at best misrepresentations spread to get funding for useless publicity stunts.

 

 

Exactly... the Moon should be top priority. As far as undersea cities, I think the pressure is the biggest hurdle, plus the corrosion, and the direct effect to the surrounding environment.

 

What is sad, and really, hear me out on this... think about your Grandparents... what life-styles they led as children, teenagers... etc. Think of your Parents... they lived better. Think about you, we lived better than our parents... now think of our kids... life hasn't changed much since we were kids. Medicine still has not perfected cures, old diseases are coming back when we thought they were cured, we still drive on 4 tires, and use the same gas as we did back in the 80's after leaded was phased out. We still eat the same foods from the same places. The Space Shuttle is still flying, we still fly the same planes as we did in the 70's.

 

All that really has changed...we use computers for EVERYTHING... we have cell phones, and cool home entertainment systems.. safer cars that drive at ridiculous unsafe speeds, console game systems that look almost real. But, we are healthier and live longer. So the technology for everyday life and business has gotten better... but nothing else. Our kids still walk to school, and some sit in the very desks that we sat in if we did not move from our home towns.

 

Back in 1980, when I first saw Columbia leave the launch pad, I had visions of us being on the Moon by 2000... it was only 11 years after the Apollo 11 landing, why not? Seemed realistic. It was in every kid's magazine, all over TV... the ideas, the plans.. everything about getting back to the Moon. Almost 30 years later... I still watch the Endeavor leave the pad from the same angle, and the same shot on TV.

 

If you take 1903 and advance it 30 years to 1933... you are in a WHOLE different world of everything from cars, to telephones, to everything. Take 1933 and advance it 30 years... you're almost on the Moon... Mercury and Gemini missions are circling the Earth.. etc.. the world had changed dramatically. Jet planes dominate the skies, and cars are way more advanced than 1933.

 

Get my point... we've gotten lazy and are stuck in a 'retro' comfort zone. We look like we did in the 70's and take life as if it were ending tomorrow. We should have had a ton of unmanned missions to Mars, the Moon, and possibly Venus. Nothing except the Pathfinder missions.

 

That's what I am talking about... we're not advancing.. we're regressing.

 

OvS

[Fliegenhund 0]

Last night I saw an interesting special on the lander they sent to Saturn's moon Titan. It was amazing it took 7+years to get there, but more amazing was the still shots and data it sent back. The scientists involved with space exploration seem to firmly believe that the answers to the origins of life are out there. Apparently the atmosphere on Titan is forming its own types of molecular structures that are long strings similar to biological molecules that formed life forms here on Earth billions of years ago. If the exploration is stopped, that one thing they may stumble on would never be found. The cure for cancer? The answer to the origin of the Universe, and possibly indicators of its demise? Time will tell.

[Flyby PC 23]

I think the arguments here are perhaps a little narrow in their horizons.

 

I fully expect we will get somebody to Mars someday, might be 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years, and it probably will be a waste of time with no 'pay-off' other than the kudos of 'doing it first'. But...It seems inconceivable that we might find ourselves talking seriously about going to Mars, if somebody hadn't been to the moon first.

 

The big pay-off of going to the Moon was getting there. We've done it, and now we can move on.

 

 

Remember the good old chinese proverb - 'Even the longest journey starts off with a single step'.

 

Neil Armstrong's single step on the Moon was every bit the 'giant leap' for mankind because it took us across a momentous threshold from which there's no going back. History will forever record that mankind first set foot on another 'planet' in 1969. (I know the Moon isn't technically a planet...but you know what I mean).

 

It seems inevitable that sooner or later, mankind will take another great leap, and set foot on a second planet, and there seems a certain logic to that planet being Mars. We may all fret about the costs, trials and politics of doing it, but history won't. The big pay off for humanity will be getting there, even if it is only to set another yardstick of our advancement.

[Bullethead 12]

Get my point... we've gotten lazy and are stuck in a 'retro' comfort zone. We look like we did in the 70's and take life as if it were ending tomorrow. We should have had a ton of unmanned missions to Mars, the Moon, and possibly Venus. Nothing except the Pathfinder missions.

 

That's what I am talking about... we're not advancing.. we're regressing.

 

I disagree. Innovation is NOT a strong human traits. It's just hard for us, who lived through the latter part of the 20th Century, to realize this. The 20th Century was a huge abberation in human history, because never before have some many changes in so many peoples' daily lives happened in so short a time. I think, therefore, that it's somewhat unrealistic to expect that sort of change to continue from here on out. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but I doubt it's guaranteed. I expect a wide plateau or 2 somewhere along the line.

 

Consider history. My grandfathers, born in 1898 and both WW1 vets, were Iron Age men. When they were young, except that their mothers didn't have to spin thread and weave cloth very often because the train brought store-bought clothes from the textile mills, their daily lives were little different from those of peasants in Roman Gaul. No electricity, no plumbing, and everything being moved by the muscles of humans and animals. They lived long enough to watch the 1st few space shuttles fly (and everything in between)and went to their graves amazed to have seen it happen, because it sure didn't look that way when they started.

 

The Iron Age of my grandfathers started about 1000 BC more or less. The various Bronze Ages lasted thousands of years before that, blending into the Chalcolithic, which itself blended into the Neolithic. Before the Neolithic, our ancestors had spent the 20-25,000 years since the "Great Leap Forward" living little different from all previous hominids, except now they had jewelry, music, and painted the walls of their caves. Prior to that, Homo sapiens chipped his rocks just like everybody else for about 100,000 years (or rather longer, depending on whom you believe). Homo neanderthal chipped his rocks the same from start to finish, at least 250,000 years, and Homo erectus made no real advance at all in over 1,000,000 years.

 

So IMHO, it all comes down to supply and demand. The 20th Century changed everybody's lives so much, and gave us the expectation of continued changes, because all sorts of new consumer products came along, new types of jobs opened up, etc. People wanted these things because they made them more comfortable, richer, etc. If the 21st Century wants to continue the trend, it has to do the same thing, and as long as it can do so, people will remain rooted to Earth, although there will still be great progress.

 

Space exploration has so far done nothing towards the supply/demand thing except to create the ability to launch commercially viable satellites. Apollo didn't do it, and a near-term Mars trip won't do it, either. Assuming we can solve the physical problems of getting millions of people into space, we still have to convince them to leave here. Maybe Red China can force people onto spaceships at bayonet-point, but the rest will need carrots instead of sticks. There have to be good jobs out there, the prospect of a better life than on Earth, and that children born out there can have at least the same benefits as the initial colonists. And this, IMHO, is only going to come from private space enterprise, because that's the only thing going into space for economically driven reasons.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Bullethead