Do we still need a space program?

[Insidious Rex]

oh and by the way one of the really good reasons to establish a base on the moon is because we really would benefit by puting the next space telescope there. right smack dab on the dark side of the moon using the next generation of technology. It will make hubble look like a set of toy binoculars. its actually pretty key we do this soon. because with the shuttle scrapped the hubble will no longer get servicing which it needs periodically. So probably in the next 5 years youll see the hubble go out of commision. now if we put a much more powerful space telescope (and they are already developed) on the dark side of the moon my god the things we could see with that. and a small base around it could easily service it when needed. so say what you want about how stupid and passe the moon is but its a great place to look out over the heavens.

[Valandil]

But there's really no 'dark side' of the moon. The moon orbits the earth every 28-29 days, with the same side facing earth at all times. Each part of the moon's surface spends half that time in the sunlight and half in the dark.

[Nurvingiel]

I think the idea of having a base or a telescope there is still a valid one though.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Valandil
But there's really no 'dark side' of the moon. The moon orbits the earth every 28-29 days, with the same side facing earth at all times. Each part of the moon's surface spends half that time in the sunlight and half in the dark.

ok work with me here now... spare me the nitpicking. the fabled "dark side of the moon" is well known as the "far side of the moon". Because its the portion that always faces away from us. Therefore its an ideal place to place the telescope because its pointing "out" if you will. understand?

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Valandil
I disagree with those who think that the future of mankind is in space. Our future is right here, baby - so we better take care of what we've been given. Even if a suitable habitat for humans was found (or made) off-earth, the apparent costs of transportation for each person, PLUS what is needed to keep them alive - would be just exhorbitant. MUCH more expensive than taking care of a wonderful planet that we're so blessed to have!

Hear hear! In space, no-one can hear you complain about the relentless soap operas being beamed into your hydroponic cubicle from mission control. By all means, explore the solar system, but at this rate the Earth will be a toilet centuries before we're able to take off and live on mars.

Haven't we learned the lessons space research so far?
- that technology is NOT on an inevitable upward curve
- that you can't solve technical problems just by throwing money at them
- that it's prohibitively expensive to send people to the moon
- that you get better value for money from unmanned exploration

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Hear hear! In space, no-one can hear you complain about the relentless soap operas being beamed into your hydroponic cubicle from mission control. By all means, explore the solar system, but at this rate the Earth will be a toilet centuries before we're able to take off and live on mars.

Haven't we learned the lessons space research so far?
- that technology is NOT on an inevitable upward curve
- that you can't solve technical problems just by throwing money at them
- that it's prohibitively expensive to send people to the moon
- that you get better value for money from unmanned exploration

Good thing the great inventors and explorers of the world didn't listen to people like you. We would still be trying to figure out how to use stones for hunting.

I would also really like to see an example fo where it has been demonstrated that technological advances have stopped. Technology breeds other technologies - it's the way it has always been and the way it will always be. It's sort of funny - it was declared in the early 1900's that all that could be invented had been invented. I wish that person was still alive to see the technology he claimed would never be invented.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Good thing the great inventors and explorers of the world didn't listen to people like you. We would still be trying to figure out how to use stones for hunting.

Polite as ever. No, it's just as well they did listen to people like me. That's why they figured out how to make useful tools which served a purpose.

I never said that technology stopped; what I meant was that technological determinism is pretty much dead, and should not be revived.

Lots of things have helped kill it off, such as Hiroshima and the Cold War (at last we realise that just because we can do something does not mean that we have to do it, and that we have to restrain technology with informed choices), but also the Apollo programmes (some technology is just too expensive).

But perhaps a better example is genetic engineering: the progress in genetic research is much slower than was promised in the early days, principally because every time a gene is identified it throws up a whole raft of new questions regarding how it works, when and in combination with what, what the consequences of messing about with it are, etc. So, the more we find out about something, the more we need to know about it in order to harness it. The "upward curve" of technology slopes off towards the horizontal over time.

This "normal science" is all well and good with stuff you can do in laboratories, but when you're talking about doing it in outer space, it just gets preposterously impractical.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
No, it's a good idea they did listen to people like me. That's why they did figure out how to make useful tools which served a purpose.

There is a purpose - future purposes. When Edison invented most of his things - there was no purpose - he saw how they could be used later on.

Quotes from John F Kennedy...

There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction.
John F. Kennedy

All this will not be finished in the first hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first thousand days, nor in the life of this administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.
John F. Kennedy

America has tossed its cap over the wall of space.
John F. Kennedy

In a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there.
John F. Kennedy

The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were.
John F. Kennedy

Things do not happen. Things are made to happen.
John F. Kennedy

Those who dare to fail miserably can achieve greatly.
John F. Kennedy

And finally the most famous space quote of all...

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things. Not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
John F. Kennedy

[Valandil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Good thing the great inventors and explorers of the world didn't listen to people like you. We would still be trying to figure out how to use stones for hunting.

I would also really like to see an example fo where it has been demonstrated that technological advances have stopped. Technology breeds other technologies - it's the way it has always been and the way it will always be. It's sort of funny - it was declared in the early 1900's that all that could be invented had been invented. I wish that person was still alive to see the technology he claimed would never be invented.

I have a somewhat open mind on all this... and am not opposed to dreaming or reaching beyond where we are now. However, we DO need to analize the situation closely and see both the similarities and differences between the previous 'Age of Exploration' and what we're talking about here.

One big difference: The places those previous explorers went to were hospitable enough climes for human habitation. It would take overwhelming effort to provide an artificial hospitable clime for someone on a remote, barren planet. It would take enormousely more to attempt to make that entire planet hospitable for humans. We'd be better off working on THIS place - because no matter how bad it gets, it'll always be closer to where we need to get back to - than whatever we have to start with on another place sundered from us by many millions of miles, intense radiation and gravitational fields (not to mention the cold vacuum of space).

If we ever have to get humanity off of this rock to ensure our survival... good luck to us! Once heard the mathematical problem given: If you could march all the people of the earth past a certain point, four rows wide, would you ever get everyone across? The problem is that you have a constantly growing population waiting to cross... and the line may just get longer the more time goes by. Now imagine trying to march all those people continuously onto ships that can take them into space, to a safe destination somewhere 'out there'... and imagine making the ships fast enough to keep the people moving. It's a losing battle all around...

[jerseydevil]

I see gaffer you edited your stuff after I posted.

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Polite as ever. No, it's just as well they did listen to people like me. That's why they figured out how to make useful tools which served a purpose.

I already addressed this one - but I guess your original wording which I quoted in the post above wasn't sarcastic enough.

I never said that technology stopped; what I meant was that technological determinism is pretty much dead, and should not be revived.

Why shouldn't we look at technology even if it doesn't have an immediate benefit? We have no idea where a particular technology may lead and what technologies may come out of the knowledge we gain. For all we know - the money spent on the the new space program could lead to something which will help in solving our energy and pollution problem.

Lots of things have helped kill it off, such as Hiroshima and the Cold War (at last we realise that just because we can do something does not mean that we have to do it, and that we have to restrain technology with informed choices), but also the Apollo programmes (some technology is just too expensive).

And what would have happened if the Soviet Union or Germany had gotten the bomb before the US did? Yes - we are the only one two have used the bomb on a country - a country which we were at war with. But - do you think that the Soviet Union or Germany was thinking - "hmmm - we should look at this from the stand point of mankind?" No - the technology of the bomb was needed by the US to keep ahead of the countries which were trying to destroy western civilization. And the understanding we gained in developing the nuclear bomb - we use for power everyday. So it didn't kill off the technology - we just use the technology in other areas.

As for the Apollo program. We gained a lot of knowledge and MANY MANY advances in science came through that. Many medical advances that help people everyday even. The technology that the Apollo program bred is invaluable and we take it for granted today.

But perhaps a better example is genetic engineering: the progress in genetic research is much slower than was promised in the early days, principally because every time a gene is identified it throws up a whole raft of new questions regarding how it works, when and in combination with what, what the consequences of messing about with it are, etc. So, the more we find out about something, the more we need to know about it in order to harness it. The "upward curve" of technology slopes off towards the horizontal over time.

That is one example - but that isn't even a good example. Many medicines and breakthroughs are being developed based on our knowledge of genetics. I didn't realize there was a scheduled time when we were supposed to be just flipping on and off genes. We only just mapped the entire Human Genome.

This "normal science" is all well and good with stuff you can do in laboratories, but when you're talking about doing it in outer space, it just gets preposterously impractical.

Of course it is now - and if we don't to it today - tomorrow it will be just as expensive. You can't do anything - without first putting out the time and money to get it moving.

Traveling across the Atlantic in the beginning was also prohibitively expensive. Only the surviving and successful sea captains are remembered and celebrated. The others' ships are today playgrounds for divers and treasure hunters.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Valandil
I have a somewhat open mind on all this... and am not opposed to dreaming or reaching beyond where we are now. However, we DO need to analize the situation closely and see both the similarities and differences between the previous 'Age of Exploration' and what we're talking about here.

One big difference: The places those previous explorers went to were hospitable enough climes for human habitation. It would take overwhelming effort to provide an artificial hospitable clime for someone on a remote, barren planet. It would take enormousely more to attempt to make that entire planet hospitable for humans. We'd be better off working on THIS place - because no matter how bad it gets, it'll always be closer to where we need to get back to - than whatever we have to start with on another place sundered from us by many millions of miles, intense radiation and gravitational fields (not to mention the cold vacuum of space).

Well then again - with that attitude - we will never get to discover the stars and other planets. The problems that the early explorers went through seem easy to us - we do it all the time. It was incrediblyu dangerous. They had no weather radar or anything. If a hurricane was coming toward them - they had no idea- until it was there. They were in the middle of the Atlantic or the Pacific with no one around - no help. It took months for them to cross the ocean. It's easy to look at the past explorers as having it easy - when we are flying millions of people all over the world in hours.

If we ever have to get humanity off of this rock to ensure our survival... good luck to us! Once heard the mathematical problem given: If you could march all the people of the earth past a certain point, four rows wide, would you ever get everyone across? The problem is that you have a constantly growing population waiting to cross... and the line may just get longer the more time goes by. Now imagine trying to march all those people continuously onto ships that can take them into space, to a safe destination somewhere 'out there'... and imagine making the ships fast enough to keep the people moving. It's a losing battle all around...

That's just the "doom sayers" view. Why do we have to look at the future as being doom and gloom. You seem to think the only reason we are doing this is so we can all get off Planet Earth in case it becomes unlivable. But who knows what may happen - maybe in a hundred or two hundred years there will be a meteor that crashes into earth and will wipe out all life. It might be good to have someplace we can fall back on.

We will never get to that point with these "it's too impossible and impracticle".

[Valandil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well then again - with that attitude - we will never get to discover the stars and other planets. The problems that the early explorers went through seem easy to us - we do it all the time. It was incrediblyu dangerous. They had no weather radar or anything. If a hurricane was coming toward them - they had no idea- until it was there. They were in the middle of the Atlantic or the Pacific with no one around - no help. It took months for them to cross the ocean. It's easy to look at the past explorers as having it easy - when we are flying millions of people all over the world in hours.

Very true... I guess I'm thinking at least they could breathe the air!

That's just the "doom sayers" view. Why do we have to look at the future as being doom and gloom. You seem to think the only reason we are doing this is so we can all get off Planet Earth in case it becomes unlivable. But who knows what may happen - maybe in a hundred or two hundred years there will be a meteor that crashes into earth and will wipe out all life. It might be good to have someplace we can fall back on.

Thanks for reminding me... I actually think of THIS as one of the best reasons to continue development of a space program. The odds on any object striking the earth in the next 10,000 or so years seem very slim... but if one WOULD, the results would be outright catastrophic. Even a highly expensive space program would be very cheap insurance if it could ensure that we can track objects and knock out anything that could potentially endanger us all... whether a manned or automated system (here I prefer having someone on board). A low-level nuke hit, when one of those big, nasty dirty iceballs is still a hundred million miles away... and BAM! - we're all back in business!

So - I guess I'm thinking some kind of 'Solar System Patrol'... kinda like a 'Coast Guard in Space'

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I see gaffer you edited your stuff after I posted.
...Why shouldn't we look at technology even if it doesn't have an immediate benefit?

That wasn't my point. Yet again, you have replied as if I'd said something completely different. In fact, none of your answers have addressed the points I was making.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
That wasn't my point. Yet again, you have replied as if I'd said something completely different. In fact, none of your answers have addressed the points I was making.

What were your points then? And how could you say that NONE of my answers addressed your points? You must not have read my answers - or just want to think I didn't address your points. Maybe this particular one I was unsure about what you were saying - since all you really did was supply a link to someone's website.

[Insidious Rex]

I never said that technology stopped; what I meant was that technological determinism is pretty much dead, and should not be revived.

Im confused as to why you are using this argument to say we shouldn’t spend much money exploring the universe. This seems completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

One big difference: The places those previous explorers went to were hospitable enough climes for human habitation. It would take overwhelming effort to provide an artificial hospitable clime for someone on a remote, barren planet. It would take enormousely more to attempt to make that entire planet hospitable for humans. We'd be better off working on THIS place - because no matter how bad it gets, it'll always be closer to where we need to get back to - than whatever we have to start with on another place sundered from us by many millions of miles, intense radiation and gravitational fields (not to mention the cold vacuum of space).

If we ever have to get humanity off of this rock to ensure our survival... good luck to us! Once heard the mathematical problem given: If you could march all the people of the earth past a certain point, four rows wide, would you ever get everyone across? The problem is that you have a constantly growing population waiting to cross... and the line may just get longer the more time goes by. Now imagine trying to march all those people continuously onto ships that can take them into space, to a safe destination somewhere 'out there'... and imagine making the ships fast enough to keep the people moving. It's a losing battle all around...

I think someone has already touched on this but PLEASE keep in mind that we aren’t exploring space so that we can escape earth. That’s a massive fallacy (as you point out by your use of numbers. You cant evacuate the earth. It’s a physical impossibility). We should explore space because ITS THERE. Our species simply needs to push the envelope of its given environment. Whether its from the cradle of humanity in Africa by foot to other places or from ancient Europe in ships over vast oceans. Its just how we are. That’s how weve best survived by exploring and discovering (at the expense of many lives sure but that’s all a part of the equation) and its worked fabulously well for us. That’s why there are 6 billion of us now covering every nook and crany of the earth. Its about spreading outward ultimately. Not migrating. But the spreading is not the purpose. Its just a side effect. Just like some of us here are Americans, some day we will be martians. And some day beyond that we will be alpha centurians. And earth wont be abandoned, it will still be here. But others will have followed their instincts and found their own place in a new environment. It’s a simple inevitability assuming we can survive as a species that long.

[The Gaffer]

Well, the arguments in favour of manned missions to Mars and the like seem to be along the lines of:
- because it's there
- because humans are exploratory and expansionist by nature
- because it'll help technology to develop

Those points again:

Technological determinism is the belief that technical development is inevitable and part of "progress", a "reified" thing in itself which is over and above the specific areas being developed. I'm portraying this as an aspect of the argument that we as a species have to continuously expand. I put the link in so that people can explore the background to that if they want.

Anyhoo, the point would be that technology develops where we invest in it, and that putting lots of money into one area would deprive another. Like renewable energy, for example. Can we say that if we spent the money needed to send a manned mission to Mars on renewable energy we would not get more benefit from it?

Hiroshima taught us that our technology could destroy us all. It is immaterial (to this very important lesson) who was first to drop the bomb. IMHO, it was justified: it probably saved more lives than it cost by ending the war. But the point was that we sobered up a bit and realised that we need to be careful to control technology.

Genetic research: Of course it takes time to develop. What I'm saying is that it is one thing to "map" the genome, it is another to develop applications and yet another to prove that they do more good than harm. This process is taking longer than we were promised ten years ago, for very good reasons. Pharmaceutical companies and biotechs are finding this out and hitting real problems because of it.

We actually know of about 42 genetic differences which affect how we respond to drug treatments, and this body of knowledge is growing. What is less clear is how to get such knowledge translated into real improvements in drugs and hence improve treatments."

(Prof D Goldstein, professor of genetics at University College London)

So, my argument would be that we can't justify manned space flight in terms of technological advancement: it's simply not efficient. It would take so long and consume so much effort that other, more important and pressing things, would suffer as a result.

Since we're all fans of Thomas Edison, we should look to his example:

I never perfected an invention that I did not think about in terms of the service it might give others...

It may well be that it IS worth doing "just because it's there", but I think we should not fool ourselves that it would be a sound investment in terms of technological advancement.

[Earniel]

Don't tell me they're giving up Hubble to get enough funds together for these new missions! After all the trouble they went through to get it fixed? After all those images it sent us? Just to let it burn up now in the atmosphere? What a bloody waste.

[Insidious Rex]

Anyhoo, the point would be that technology develops where we invest in it, and that putting lots of money into one area would deprive another. Like renewable energy, for example. Can we say that if we spent the money needed to send a manned mission to Mars on renewable energy we would not get more benefit from it?

But Gaff this is a pipe dream. It’s a perfect example of something that sounds good in theory but its bogus in practice. Do you for a second think that if we scrapped NASA today that every penny of its budget would suddenly go to feeding the homeless and researching solar energy or some such? No chance. Knowing how the American system works that money would be defused to a thousand different things of which about 85% would be labeled as “pork”. Taking money away from space research will never result in scientists suddenly turning all their efforts to renewable energy. It will simply mean the precious few dollars that are for once going into something wonderful and with massive potential would disappear into the political system and two years later we would still be saying “we don’t have enough money to do stuff! Cut something!” I say fight for dear life for something as important as the space program AND for renewable resource research. We DON’T have to pit the good things against each other. I have never understood that mentality. We should not be enemies on this issue. We should be allies. Im for both. Are you?

It may well be that it IS worth doing "just because it's there", but I think we should not fool ourselves that it would be a sound investment in terms of technological advancement.

Well considering the incredible work and unique development that have to be manufactured to allow space travel and to satisfy the physics of landing an earthling on an alien world I cant think of ANY other endeavors with the POTENTIAL for technological advancement then space engineering and space sciences. It may not be a “sound investment” for you and me but it may be for our great grandchildren. And is that such a horrible thing? To think of other generations over ours for once? Personally im not one of these folks who says space travel will give us a cure to cancer in 10 years. But then Im not attracted to it for profit motive like you are suggesting. I want to do it because it calls me. It beacons. And I simply cant resist.

Don't tell me they're giving up Hubble to get enough funds together for these new missions! After all the trouble they went through to get it fixed? After all those images it sent us? Just to let it burn up now in the atmosphere? What a bloody waste.

no hun. They are giving it up because 1. its constantly in need of repair and upgrading which we can no longer do for it because the space shuttle will become obsolete soon. And without a shuttle to get to the hubble we cant really do much about it. And 2. as wonderful as it has been its rather antiquated compared to what we can do now as far as space telescope technology. That’s why putting one on the moon would mean opening up our universe 1000 fold (or even a nice new one in orbit). I was a little shocked to when I heard this because I don’t think of the hubble as very old (in fact Ive had cars longer ). But I didn’t hear anything about them having it burn up in the atmosphere. Would it simply fall out of orbit that quickly if its not taken care of?

[Earniel]

I guess I heard it wrong then. I don't really realise how old Hubble is, I suppose.

An orbiting satellite should normally have an orbit that will stay stable for quite a while but I thought they would steer Hubble purposefully in re-entry in the atmosphere to burn up like what happened with poor old Mir. In a way, that's a useful way to avoid the space around earth to become cluttered with decommisioned pieces of technology.

But I still think it's a shame to put him out of business now. That telescope on the moon may be better in the technological sense but we're still a long way off of getting it installed there.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Eärniel

But I still think it's a shame to put him out of business now. That telescope on the moon may be better in the technological sense but we're still a long way off of getting it installed there.

High cost of service calls as well!