Why we should embrace the end of human spaceflight?

[Colonel Hogan]

Replica of Wright brothers' 1910 plane crashes, 2 die

"Police identified the dead men as Don Gum, 73, and Mitchell Cary, 65, both from Ohio. The plane in Saturday's fatal crash, known as "Silver Bird," was a flyable look-alike of Wilbur and Orville Wright's first production aircraft, the Wright Model B Flyer. It was designed and built by volunteers from Wright 'B' Flyer Inc., a nonprofit organization based at Dayton-Wright Brothers Airport in Miami.

"Both pilots had extensive experience flying the biplane, built by a company that uses the planes to promote public awareness of Dayton as the birthplace of aviation. There have been at least four other crashes in last decade of replicas or reproduction Wright brothers planes, including one in the Dayton area that left a man seriously injured, Dayton Daily News reported."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...0-plane-crashes-2-die/articleshow/9436552.cms

I was in Dayton a few years ago and one of those replicas flew directly overhead at several hundred feet altitude. It was very slow and very loud. I thought then about what would happen in an engine failure. I'm not sure about the glide ratio and trim characteristics of wood and canvas wings and fuselage with a lawn mower engine mounted on the front.

 

[renard_ruse]

The question mark is mine -- I've always been pro-spaceflight, but the commentator is one I take seriously...

I always try to look at the message not the messenger. I guess that is what makes me open minded and intellectually honest.

 

[tactful]

Sure we have it down pat, a bit, but lets straighten out the house first, moving on will come soon enough.

 

[badbabysitter]

I always try to look at the message not the messenger. I guess that is what makes me open minded and intellectually honest.

that's the funniest thing I've heard all day

 

[richard_daily]

The weaponization of space is already here.

What business is it if yours if free people decide to explore space with their own money, for either success or failure?

Yes, Dr. Evil and his satellite with it's death ray...

Is the sky ever not falling where you live?

 

[John Doe]

We've already done the exploration -- enough to raise serious doubts about the viability of the next steps, exploitation and colonization. In economic terms, there's nothing in space to exploit that can't be gotten here cheaper. And the challenges of living in microgravity and outside Earth's atmosphere are much greater than anticipated.

It's only cheaper if you don't count blood as a cost.

 

[John Doe]

Sure we have it down pat, a bit, but lets straighten out the house first, moving on will come soon enough.

-Why?

 

[stephen55]

It's interesting to go back to "Predictions for the Future" that were written years ago. Scientific American, which has been publishing since 1845, has a column that goes back and looks at was was written 50, 100 and 150 years ago.


Futurists are noted for really only one thing and that is their record of being wrong in nearly all cases. Even when prediction are partially true, they usually come true for reasons the original author never considered.

"Electricity from nuclear power will be so cheap we won't even bother metering it!!"

"Infectious diseases, even cancer will be a thing of the past!!"

"You won't own a car; you will own your own hovercraft!!"

"The internal combustion engine will be the savior of mankind"

"The Green Revolution will be the end of hunger!!"

A funny thing happened to all of these predictions. It's called the reality of the real world.

"The future of humanity lies in the stars!!"

My guess is that the future of humanity is here on Earth. As I said in a different thread, we should look after the planet we have. It's a nice place to live and we are already here.

 

[KingOrfeo]

"The Green Revolution will be the end of hunger!!"

Well, it was, barring politics. That is, there's enough food in the world, now, for every mouth, distribution is the problem.

 

[John Doe]

It's interesting to go back to "Predictions for the Future" that were written years ago. Scientific American, which has been publishing since 1845, has a column that goes back and looks at was was written 50, 100 and 150 years ago.


Futurists are noted for really only one thing and that is their record of being wrong in nearly all cases. Even when prediction are partially true, they usually come true for reasons the original author never considered.

"Electricity from nuclear power will be so cheap we won't even bother metering it!!"

"Infectious diseases, even cancer will be a thing of the past!!"

"You won't own a car; you will own your own hovercraft!!"

"The internal combustion engine will be the savior of mankind"

"The Green Revolution will be the end of hunger!!"

A funny thing happened to all of these predictions. It's called the reality of the real world.

"The future of humanity lies in the stars!!"

My guess is that the future of humanity is here on Earth. As I said in a different thread, we should look after the planet we have. It's a nice place to live and we are already here.

Like every other Earth Firster you don't realize that we're already in the stars and we're not nearly so safe as you would like to think.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

The question mark is mine -- I've always been pro-spaceflight, but the commentator is one I take seriously and has some solid points.

From Salon:



Well? Do you see anything here that he doesn't?

In the half-billion years until then, the chances of war, plague or global warming producing the total extinction of a species as numerous, widespread and versatile as humanity are pretty low. A sufficiently large asteroid or comet impact like the one that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs could do the job. But if a massive bolide threatened the Earth, we would send unmanned spacecraft, not Robert Duvall or Bruce Willis, to steer it away or destroy it.

That right there discredits his entire argument on so many levels.

We should always keep pushing and not give up on manned space flight. He can play Mr. Give It Up but I hope he's not dictating space policy.

 

[John Doe]

That right there discredits his entire argument on so many levels.

We should always keep pushing and not give up on manned space flight. He can play Mr. Give It Up but I hope he's not dictating space policy.

Indeed. We have no such capability as he proposes and probably won't have it for decades.

 

[stephen55]

Like every other Earth Firster you don't realize that we're already in the stars and we're not nearly so safe as you would like to think.

What is an Earth Firster? Oh...that radical environmental group that thinks mainstream environmentalists are a bunch of pansies.

Not me, please and thank you. And what do you mean we're already in the stars? The last time I looked, the nearest star was 150 million kilometers away. The closest one beyond that is a mere 4.2 light-years away.

As for not being nearly so safe as I would like to think...I'm reasonably sure that I have more to worry about from economic meltdown, global unrest and the misery of psoriasis than I do from...what am I supposed to be worried about? Getting conked by an asteroid?

I'm an amateur astronomer. I watch them all the time. I know that I'm more likely to be struck by lightning, while holding the winning lottery ticket and being kissed by the Duchess of Cambridge than I am of getting offed by an asteroid strike. The same goes for you.

Asteroids whiz by the earth on a regular basis. Back in February, a lot of people got upset because an asteroid came within 5,500 kilometers of the Earth and wasn't detected until a mere day before it happened. The thing was about one meter in size and would have made a lovely light show if it had hit our atmosphere. It would likely have gone up in an amazing burst of light (and sound) called a bolide. Objects about one meter in size hit Earth's atmosphere several times a week.

I know about Near-Earth Objects. I know that there are a lot of them. I know that they do hit the Earth. I also know that the ratio of the size of these objects versus the occurrence rate (of hitting Earth) follows a power-law distribution that convinces me not to worry about it.

Seriously troublesome asteroid impacts come from ones that are a few kilometers in size. They come around about every one hundred million years. While I don't go around trying to attract lightening, I do buy the occasional lottery ticket. I'll win before I get offed by an asteroid, and the Duchess of Cambridge has nothing to worry about from me.

 

[John Doe]

What is an Earth Firster? Oh...that radical environmental group that thinks mainstream environmentalists are a bunch of pansies.

No.

Not me, please and thank you. And what do you mean we're already in the stars? The last time I looked, the nearest star was 150 million kilometers away. The closest one beyond that is a mere 4.2 light-years away.

As for not being nearly so safe as I would like to think...I'm reasonably sure that I have more to worry about from economic meltdown, global unrest and the misery of psoriasis than I do from...what am I supposed to be worried about? Getting conked by an asteroid?

I'm an amateur astronomer. I watch them all the time. I know that I'm more likely to be struck by lightning, while holding the winning lottery ticket and being kissed by the Duchess of Cambridge than I am of getting offed by an asteroid strike. The same goes for you.

Asteroids whiz by the earth on a regular basis. Back in February, a lot of people got upset because an asteroid came within 5,500 kilometers of the Earth and wasn't detected until a mere day before it happened. The thing was about one meter in size and would have made a lovely light show if it had hit our atmosphere. It would likely have gone up in an amazing burst of light (and sound) called a bolide. Objects about one meter in size hit Earth's atmosphere several times a week.

I know about Near-Earth Objects. I know that there are a lot of them. I know that they do hit the Earth. I also know that the ratio of the size of these objects versus the occurrence rate (of hitting Earth) follows a power-law distribution that convinces me not to worry about it.

Seriously troublesome asteroid impacts come from ones that are a few kilometers in size. They come around about every one hundred million years. While I don't go around trying to attract lightening, I do buy the occasional lottery ticket. I'll win before I get offed by an asteroid, and the Duchess of Cambridge has nothing to worry about from me.

Then why are you obsessed with asteroids?

 

[stephen55]

There is another kind of Earth Firster?

As for being obsessed with asteroids, I'm not. In fact, looking at them is kind of boring. All I see with my telescope is a small blur of light that moves (slowly) against the background of stars. I spend far more time observing the Moon. You can actually see something that's interesting.

Along with telling me about the other kind of Earth Firster, please let me in on what it is I'm supposed to be worried about, already being in the stars, that is.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The question mark is mine -- I've always been pro-spaceflight, but the commentator is one I take seriously and has some solid points.

From Salon:



Well? Do you see anything here that he doesn't?

Well, it seems to me to be a high-tech form of isolation. As noted Scientist Steven Hawking has submitted, for us to survive, we have to escape this planet. Now while robots are cheap, and free up social spending, they are certainly no substitute for man being in space, learning how to exist, learning to adapt and meeting new challenges, and it is in the latter, not to go all Trekkie on everyone, that we, as humans, are at our best; we need a challenge, we need a frontier, this is what makes us great. The failure was not the failure to go boldly, but as of late, the brakes put on by the very government that sponsors, to go safely, greenly and as cheaply as possible while politically diluting the mission and its resources into:

1. Excite children about science,
2. Study "Climate Change, and
3. Make Islam feel great about its contributions to science.

Now I ask you, what is more exciting, to tell a child that they can be on a robot assembly team and possibly drive the game-boy joystick, or to tell a child, you could be part of the first moon colony...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

"If there is no compelling argument for government-sponsored human spaceflight, there is no convincing rationale for private commercial spaceflight, either."



The above is bullshit. There's plenty of rationale for government spaceflight, namely, national security. The weaponization of space is inevitable. Only liberals believe our enemies are benevolent.

There's just as much rationale for commercial spaceflight as there was a rationale for Columbus to set sail, or any other form of exploration; However fevered liberal minds bent on consuming all that is produced to support the non hacking, non productive strata of society, see no room for the freedom to engage in the enterprise of one's choosing.

Indeed, nothing is as chilling as listening to the Russian proclaim they own space now.

But, it is Obama himself who ran on running away from space and refusing to weaponize it...

“I’m the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it. Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. And I will institute an independent “Defense Priorities Board” to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending. Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”

Barack Obama

He really sounds like a Return of the Primitive type in his thinking.

 

[John Doe]

There is another kind of Earth Firster?

As for being obsessed with asteroids, I'm not. In fact, looking at them is kind of boring. All I see with my telescope is a small blur of light that moves (slowly) against the background of stars. I spend far more time observing the Moon. You can actually see something that's interesting.

Along with telling me about the other kind of Earth Firster, please let me in on what it is I'm supposed to be worried about, already being in the stars, that is.

There's nothing to worry about just from being in the stars, not any time soon anyway.

You think you're putting the Earth first by abandoning space programs. Ironically, none of the problems you listed can't be solved by such programs (including psoriasis). Stagnation has always been dangerous to humanity and I see no reason for that to change any time soon.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I have been making the same arguments for months that Lind does in his article. And as one who has been sharply critical of some of his political articles you've posted here, I have to say that he has hit the bull's eye on this subject far better than I ever have.

Humans are piss poor measuring instruments within the space environment. Electronic data collector's on unmanned probes "see," "hear," "smell," and "feel" a far greater range of sensory input at a far lesser cost than man could ever hope.

If one is going to evaluate the worthiness of scientific investment (i. e. "exploration") on the basis of potential scientific return (i.e. "knowledge") then this one is a no-brainer. Unmanned vehicles make a stronger case for their use proportional to the distance the desired exploration takes place from Earth, up to a point where manned exploration is no longer a participant in the debate simply on the grounds of possibility.

Even within the realm of the possible, the question has to be asked, "what is the first man to stand on Mars going to tell you about that planet that we don't already know?"

Now that men from the United States and Russia have thoroughly demonstrated how to live and work in space, the technology is freely there for anyone else to copy. The least significant characteristic of future men working in space will most certainly be their ethnicity or national identity.

Continuing to place a national priority on manned spaceflight is to entertain a lust born of vanity while attempting to mask itself as some lesser embarrassing motivation.

Okay, we've visited the New World, we know it's there, now, let's focus on the Middle East...



... why send any more ships? It's not civilized and it's really expensive, why there's not enough silver in the known world to pay for it!

 

[kbate]

Indeed, nothing is as chilling as listening to the Russian proclaim they own space now.

But, it is Obama himself who ran on running away from space and refusing to weaponize it....

Obama has given American Space Exploration to the unstoppable forces of the Free Market. That's bad?

If there's a profit to be made in space - the market is better at finding it than government. Isn't it?

If space weapons become necessary - shouldn't the free market build them and sell them to the government rather than having the government stifle creativity in the field by taking charge?

Why aren't you out there trying to raise capital for a space launch company to replace the shuttles? There must be a market for satellite delivery systems?

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

Here ya go.

http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Okay, we've visited the New World, we know it's there, now, let's focus on the Middle East...



... why send any more ships? It's not civilized and it's really expensive, why there's not enough silver in the known world to pay for it!

What's wrong with you? Lind already destroyed that argument.

Equally silly is the comparison between the exploration of America by Europeans and the exploration of outer space. The Americas had native people to be enslaved by greedy Europeans, abundant resources and lots of pleasant places to live -- to say nothing of breathable air and drinkable water. That's why the European powers fought to control the Western Hemisphere, while ignoring the continent of Antarctica.

It should not be overlooked that those "abundant resources" included a seemingly endless diversity and supply of plant and animal life. Millions of square miles of fertile soil for agriculture.

And as for Hawking's absurd notion that we must leave Earth in order to survive,

In the event some other natural catastrophe -- a supervolcano, a nearby supernova -- rendered the surface of the Earth temporarily or permanently uninhabitable, it would be cheaper and easier to build and maintain underground bunkers than to use the same technology to do the same thing at vastly greater cost on the moon or other planets or in space stations. By the same token, if humanity had the technology to "terraform" the surface of Mars, it would have the power to make the ruined surface of a dead Earth habitable again, making the colonization of Mars unnecessary.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Human spaceflight has been irrelevant for some time now. The robots are improving all the time, it's just that no one is paying much attention anymore. They're bringing all kinds of sci-fi shit online now, like ion drives, solar sails, and what not.

 

[stephen55]

Indeed, nothing is as chilling as listening to the Russian proclaim they own space now.

But, it is Obama himself who ran on running away from space and refusing to weaponize it...

I come to the General Board whenever I feel worried that there just might be too much truth and common sense in this world.

Frisco; you are about to join ami and JBJ in being elevated to the Moron Club.

The United States signed the Outer Space Treaty, the basis of international space law, back in 1967. Among its precepts are...

1) Outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;

2) States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;

Obama was six years old when the US agreed to the terms of this treaty, so the lack of weaponizing space is all his fault...yup, yup, yup...



While Russia still has a means of getting to and from the ISS, it hardly means they own space and they don't even bother to say so. They (the USSR) signed the treaty on the same day as the US.

Do you really think that if a twenty megaton thermonuclear bomb goes off in your neighborhood that it makes a serious difference if it arrived there by an ICBM as opposed to a space based platform?

Do you think that dialing back the threat of nuclear Armageddon is a bad idea?

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I come to the General Board whenever I feel worried that there just might be too much truth and common sense in this world.

Frisco; you are about to join ami and JBJ in being elevated to the Moron Club.

ROTFLMAO, you do realize Frisco has gone by about 20 different alts, each having racked up a post count that rivals his current one, right? Audra jenny, Fawkin' Injun, scintil8, Cap'n Amatrixca, and several others.

Frisco is the founding member of the moron club.