Why we should embrace the end of human spaceflight?

[KingOrfeo]

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

Not as absurd as Hawking's notion that any ETs who discovered us would be like the Europeans to the Indians. The Indians had things the Europeans wanted. On our planet's surface, what could we possibly have that ETs would want and couldn't get more easily elsewhere? They wouldn't be able to eat us, or eat anything that grows here, or have sex with us. Using us as slaves would be too much trouble, we'd need special life-support systems to live in their atmosphere. Any ET civilization capable of getting here is capable of mining asteroids for minerals and has no need of ours. They would need to . . . xenoform the Earth before they use it as shirtsleeve living space, and that's cost-prohibitive and takes centuries, if it's anything like terraforming.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Not as absurd as Hawking's notion that any ETs who discovered us would be like the Europeans to the Indians. The Indians had things the Europeans wanted. On our planet's surface, what could we possibly have that ETs would want and couldn't get more easily elsewhere? They wouldn't be able to eat us, or eat anything that grows here, or have sex with us. Using us as slaves would be too much trouble, we'd need special life-support systems to live in their atmosphere. Any ET civilization capable of getting here is capable of mining asteroids for minerals and has no need of ours. They would need to . . . xenoform the Earth before they use it as shirtsleeve living space, and that's cost-prohibitive and takes centuries, if it's anything like terraforming.

I'm trying to figure out how a genius like Hawking got so dumb all of a sudden?

 

[stephen55]

I'm not the slightest bit worried about extra-terrestrials arriving here on Earth. It's not that I believe they would very unfriendly, refusing to show us how to cure cancer or build a toaster that lasts more than six months. It's just that if they are anywhere in the galactic vicinity, they would seriously question the need to show up here in the first place. I suspect that before they arrived, they would have watched our broadcasts of Survivor and listened to Glenn Beck's radio program. Any civilization capable of interstellar space travel would leave us alone for fear of being contaminated.

 

[Peregrinator]

I'm trying to figure out how a genius like Hawking got so dumb all of a sudden?

There seems to be a propensity for experts in one area to suddenly start saying crazy shit in other areas. I've never understood it.

 

[Peregrinator]

I'm not the slightest bit worried about extra-terrestrials arriving here on Earth. It's not that I believe they would very unfriendly, refusing to show us how to cure cancer or build a toaster that lasts more than six months. It's just that if they are anywhere in the galactic vicinity, they would seriously question the need to show up here in the first place. I suspect that before they arrived, they would have watched our broadcasts of Survivor and listened to Glenn Beck's radio program. Any civilization capable of interstellar space travel would leave us alone for fear of being contaminated.

I read a short story once to the effect that there was this warlike race on a distant planet that every few hundred years would develop interstellar travel and then set about trying to conquer everything and generally being a pain in the ass until the Federation Of Other People (whatever it was called) swatted it back again, destroying its technology and whatnot. Making it primitive again.

It was the humans that were the bad guys.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

There seems to be a propensity for experts in one area to suddenly start saying crazy shit in other areas. I've never understood it.

Yeah, but it's not like his day job is a golf pro. He's a physicist fer chrissakes!! I would think he would be marginally familiar with the various forces acting detrimentally upon manned space flight and colonization.

 

[Peregrinator]

Yeah, but it's not like his day job is a golf pro. He's a physicist fer chrissakes!! I would think he would be marginally familiar with the various forces acting detrimentally upon manned space flight and colonization.

I know, and that's the only reason anyone listens to him. There's this thought in the back of my head that maybe he knows even better than the rest of us.

 

[stephen55]

I'm trying to figure out how a genius like Hawking got so dumb all of a sudden?

It's what can happen when really bright people speak out on a subject that's far from their area of expertise. Hawking is arguably the most brilliant mathematical physicist since Isaac Newton. Cambridge is not known to place dummies as Lucasian Chair of Mathematics. (Newton himself was the second Lucasian Professor.) That doesn't make him an expert on possible extra-terrestrial psychology.

That said, I really don't think that Hawking was all that dumb with his comments about the possible bad outcome for us humans if we were ever to be visited by extra-terrestrials (commenting that things didn't work out so well for the original North Americans when the Europeans showed up).

Hawking certainly was right, from the native American point of view. I think he was simply commenting on the idea that there is no reason to believe that a civilization capable of interstellar space travel is necessarily going to have benign intent.

Think of it this way. If we ever develop the capability of interstellar space travel, I pity the poor habitable planets that we might come across.

 

[Peregrinator]

I read a short story once to the effect that there was this warlike race on a distant planet that every few hundred years would develop interstellar travel and then set about trying to conquer everything and generally being a pain in the ass until the Federation Of Other People (whatever it was called) swatted it back again, destroying its technology and whatnot. Making it primitive again.

It was the humans that were the bad guys.

Think of it this way. If we ever develop the capability of interstellar space travel, I pity the poor habitable planets that we might come across.

Yeah, that.

 

[kbate]

I'm trying to figure out how a genius like Hawking got so dumb all of a sudden?

Perhaps because he does not see the issue the same way you see the issue and you assume that you see the issue rightly? A common human failing. A failing each of us possesses, including you and Hawking.

Too many assumptions about costs, motives, and needs in Orfeo's post to even consider. Just assuming that Einstein's rules hold for the entire universe is a bad starting point. Assuming that ETs would not be similar to humans is a bad argument. Assuming they are not 'wealth seekers' is a bad argument (after all, nearly all human exploration was for the purpose of finding wealth). Assuming we have nothing they need - is a bad argument as is assuming they can find it elsewhere; perhaps they seek oxygen or tuna? Perhaps they are warlike assholes bent on conquest of all things.

Perhaps we are alone in the universe - a true freak occurrence. Perhaps the god folk are right.

Until we know, it is all theory.

 

[lustatopia]

Humans (or post-humans) will colonise the solar system. No if's or buts. All the reasons suggested here that we won't or shouldn't are based on today's level or technology, economics and socio-cultural evolution.

Of course, we might nuke ourselves back to the stone age first, but even then it will only postpone the inevitable until after a dark age or two. Maybe the massive degradation of the Earth's biosphere that might result from a nuclear holocaust combined with weaponized nanotech/ gene sliced organisms gone feral could well be make space look friendly.

Human extinction isn't really a possibility, IMO. Only two out of the billions of us have to survive and there would be a new swarming billion of us in a few thousand years. Intelligent life might be like cockroaches. Once it gets going on a planet it's very hard to snuff out sort of a massive asteroid impact.

Moreover, we are only a few decades away from producing sentient intelligence which could exist and procreate without our help. The evolution of sentience is about to jump to a new Promethean level, a new kind of nature. If you're prone to spirituality, (I'm not) it could be the whole reason why humanity came to exist in the first place. See the Gaia Hypothesis. We live in the most remarkable age of all history, but we ain't nothing yet.

Or say we don't live in The End Times, as our Green Alarmist friends imagine. Then the sky's the limit and the first wave of exploration of space must be robotic. Robots, even in a future post-human world with major colonies on the moon and Mars, will always be the vanguard feeling the way forward from moon to moon with human-derived life to follow.

As for the economic arguments against space colonisation.... Sure, today's numbers don't add up to tidy quarterly returns for any kind of proposed lunar colonial development. But if you look at the global economic system of capitalism and free markets which is the bloody foundation of our civilization, for better or worse, it seems eminently designed for the conquest of space. The competitive race for innovation and advantage that defines our existence, if not derailed, must lead to space, if for no other reason than it will eventually become economically profitable.

Resources on Earth are limited. We only have two choices: One is to continue on with rapid economic and technological evolution driven by free market competition leading eventually to space conquest or Two, revert back to some kind of serf-based collectivism with Green high priests and an aristocracy which enforce strict adherence to a dogma that regards all innovation and cultural evolution beyond the groupthink as heresy to be punished most severely.

But if only some of us chose to become God-fearing "People of Gaia", while another billion or so people in Asia carry on the great race of free market competition. It will still lead them to the stars eventually.

 

[lustatopia]

Hawking's has a point....going out of our way to attract the notice of an alien civilisation by beaming signals into space is about as clever as Caribe indians on an island waving down Hernan Cortez's fleet on its way to conquer Mexico.

His reasoning goes like this: However improbable, the only kind of being (or more likely machine) that is likely to be out roving between stars in stealth mode is some kind of predator. Why else bother to leave your home system? (Unless you were cast out for unspeakable crimes...)

We have good reason to suspect if anyone is in our neighbourhood they are definitely in stealth mode, because 40 years of searching has revealed not even a single sign of life. Assuming that there is intelligent life in our half of the galaxy, why is everyone out there so deadly silent?

Hawking doesn't believe in God. His model of the universe assumes that it wasn't intelligently design, thus he has eliminated the possibility that the universe might be a projection of some kind or a vast computer model and that we are alone inside of it, like bugs in a petri dish. Hawking knows that in his model of a materialistic, natural universe unfolding from the big bang that it is mathematically impossible that we are alone in our galaxy, much less the whole frigging universe.

Hawkings can't except that the evidence, thus far, is that there's no one out there, because then everything we know about cosmology crumbles. I don't believe in intelligent design either, but the evidence doesn't rule it out. Of course, our search for alien life is hardly been comprehensive.

Nevertheless, since life vastly more technological advanced then ourselves is not only possible, but necessary if our model of the universe is correct, then we better fucking well proceed with caution now that we know the galaxy isn't full of bright neon road signs, billboards and interstellar sitcoms broadcasts. It might be more like Afghanistan out there than a road trip between LA and Vegas.

Of course, there are other more benign (and more likely) reasons we haven't found our galaxy littered with alien chatter. I'm sure Hawkings is aware of them, but perhaps he feels a this point in history its better to err on the side of caution.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Perhaps because he does not see the issue the same way you see the issue and you assume that you see the issue rightly? A common human failing. A failing each of us possesses, including you and Hawking.

Too many assumptions about costs, motives, and needs in Orfeo's post to even consider. Just assuming that Einstein's rules hold for the entire universe is a bad starting point. Assuming that ETs would not be similar to humans is a bad argument. Assuming they are not 'wealth seekers' is a bad argument (after all, nearly all human exploration was for the purpose of finding wealth). Assuming we have nothing they need - is a bad argument as is assuming they can find it elsewhere; perhaps they seek oxygen or tuna? Perhaps they are warlike assholes bent on conquest of all things.

Perhaps we are alone in the universe - a true freak occurrence. Perhaps the god folk are right.

Until we know, it is all theory.

I'm not making any assumptions about aliens or that Einstein's rules hold true for the entire universe.

But I am assuming that Einstein's rules hold true for us, and that they are likely to for an awfully long time. Until such time as they don't, Hawking is making suggestions about colonizing space to a global constituency totally incapable of taking his advice to heart.

But apart from the question of whether or not we will ever be able to is the very relevant questioned addressed by Lind as to why would we want to? If colonizing space holds the key to our survival, as Hawking suggests, what is the cataclysmic event we are trying to escape? Environmental? Can anyone seriously imagine an environmental disaster on Earth that would make living on the environmental disasters known as the moon or Mars more desirable?

Whatever man would need do to make those environments inhabitable should be as easily accomplished on a poisoned Earth to make IT inhabitable, thus negating the need to leave Earth at all. When it comes to creating artificial habitats, one barren rock ought to be as good as another.

As Stephen Stills advised, "Love the one you're with."

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Resources on Earth are limited.

No kidding. Is there somewhere you know of where they are more plentiful?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Think of it this way. If we ever develop the capability of interstellar space travel, I pity the poor habitable planets that we might come across.

I just hope they have those greenskinned Orion Slave Girls!

 

[KingOrfeo]

Hawking doesn't believe in God. His model of the universe assumes that it wasn't intelligently design, thus he has eliminated the possibility that the universe might be a projection of some kind or a vast computer model and that we are alone inside of it, like bugs in a petri dish. Hawking knows that in his model of a materialistic, natural universe unfolding from the big bang that it is mathematically impossible that we are alone in our galaxy, much less the whole frigging universe.

Who knows? There's the Drake Equation, but too many of the variables are unknown.

 

[stephen55]

I'm happy to accept that Einstein's rules apply to the whole universe. After all, he simply said that the laws of physics apply everywhere and so far, no one has shown otherwise.

What reason would there be to assume otherwise? If f=ma in this neck of the universe, why wouldn't it apply on the other side? If E=mc^2 around here, why not over there?

As for interstellar or intergalactic space travel, if c, the speed of light in a vacuum, is a constant and a finite universal speed limit (Star Trek not withstanding) vast distances might as well be infinite distances. A trip to M31, the Andromeda Galaxy which is about 2.5 million light-years away, would take 2.5 million years at light speed. That's impossible, unless you and your space craft consists of a single photon, so let's reduce the speed a bit.

Hummm...now it's going to take longer than 2.5 million years. Possible in theory but highly unlikely. That distance might as well be 2.5 billion light years. While getting there won't take forever, it will take...well...more time than I'm prepared to invest in the outing.

The universe is big, as in really, really big. Things on the other side may be worth seeing. But as Samuel Johnson said of the Giant's Causeway, a natural land formation in Ireland, "It is worth seeing, but it is not worth going to see."

 

[stephen55]

Hawking knows that in his model of a materialistic, natural universe unfolding from the big bang that it is mathematically impossible that we are alone in our galaxy, much less the whole frigging universe.

Hawkings can't except that the evidence, thus far, is that there's no one out there, because then everything we know about cosmology crumbles.

My guess is that Hawking doesn't agree with you at all about his beliefs. Mathematically unlikely and mathematically impossible are very different concepts. Are there other intelligent civilizations in our galaxy? The Drake equation is fun to play with but a proper answer is very easy to state. The answer is either yes or no. So far, we don't have an answer.

So far, there is no evidence and Hawking, being a scientist, has no problem accepting that so far, there is no evidence. That doesn't equate to eliminating the possibility any more than it equates to guaranteeing the possibility.

In another thread on this type of question, I proposed the theoretical existence of a civilization similar to ours, at about the same level of scientific and technological development as ours, on the far side of the universe. Propose a distance of ten billion light-years. What evidence would we have of their existence? Would we ever have evidence of their existence? I feel the answers are simple. No, we would have no evidence and never would, at least in the next ten billion years.

A signal leaving today would take ten billion years to traverse the known universe and would be a tad faint when it got here. Personally, I'm not prepared to wait.

As for all of our cosmology knowledge crumbling if we have no evidence of extra-terrestrial civilizations...you should reconsider your definition of cosmology.

 

[lustatopia]

I'm happy to accept that Einstein's rules apply to the whole universe. After all, he simply said that the laws of physics apply everywhere and so far, no one has shown otherwise. [/B][/I]

So am I.

And so does every scientist. In fact, the assumption that the basic rules of physics apply UNIVERSALLY is probably the most fundamental assumption of science possible. Even if our current understanding of what those basic rules are in error, we still assume when (or if) we find them they'll be universal.

If we some day discover the rules of physics are NOT universal, then the argument for intelligent design will receive a bit more attention as we might well expect discontinuity in a fabricated universe, just as one expects seams in a dress or patches in software.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I'm happy to accept that Einstein's rules apply to the whole universe. After all, he simply said that the laws of physics apply everywhere and so far, no one has shown otherwise.

What reason would there be to assume otherwise? If f=ma in this neck of the universe, why wouldn't it apply on the other side? If E=mc^2 around here, why not over there?

As for interstellar or intergalactic space travel, if c, the speed of light in a vacuum, is a constant and a finite universal speed limit (Star Trek not withstanding) vast distances might as well be infinite distances. A trip to M31, the Andromeda Galaxy which is about 2.5 million light-years away, would take 2.5 million years at light speed. That's impossible, unless you and your space craft consists of a single photon, so let's reduce the speed a bit.

Hummm...now it's going to take longer than 2.5 million years. Possible in theory but highly unlikely. That distance might as well be 2.5 billion light years. While getting there won't take forever, it will take...well...more time than I'm prepared to invest in the outing.

The universe is big, as in really, really big. Things on the other side may be worth seeing. But as Samuel Johnson said of the Giant's Causeway, a natural land formation in Ireland, "It is worth seeing, but it is not worth going to see."

I agree 100%. I just wanted to dispense with this scientific argument in favor of making a generic rational one that didn't depend on science.

But, yes, even at the impossible to attain speed of light, most interstellar journeys are still impossible for normal humans to make. Slowing down to some theoretically attainable speed less than that of light merely increases the duration of the impossible journey by whatever multiple (2X, 10X, 100X, etc.) is representative of the slower speed.

 

[lustatopia]

My guess is that Hawking doesn't agree with you at all about his beliefs. Mathematically unlikely and mathematically impossible are very different concepts. Are there other intelligent civilizations in our galaxy? The Drake equation is fun to play with but a proper answer is very easy to state. The answer is either yes or no. So far, we don't have an answer.

So far, there is no evidence and Hawking, being a scientist, has no problem accepting that so far, there is no evidence. That doesn't equate to eliminating the possibility any more than it equates to guaranteeing the possibility.

In another thread on this type of question, I proposed the theoretical existence of a civilization similar to ours, at about the same level of scientific and technological development as ours, on the far side of the universe. Propose a distance of ten billion light-years. What evidence would we have of their existence? Would we ever have evidence of their existence? I feel the answers are simple. No, we would have no evidence and never would, at least in the next ten billion years.

A signal leaving today would take ten billion years to traverse the known universe and would be a tad faint when it got here. Personally, I'm not prepared to wait.

As for all of our cosmology knowledge crumbling if we have no evidence of extra-terrestrial civilizations...you should reconsider your definition of cosmology.

OK, I'll stand corrected, a mathematical improbability is better said.

Still, if we consider the theoretical premise is that we are truly alone in the universe (and of course, there is no way to know that) then our cosmological model of the universe falls apart at the most fundamental level, because we know the laws of physics combined with evolution, both stellar and biological, predict intelligent life all over the place. If we're all alone, then suddenly the whole frigging universe becomes all about us. A deeply spooky thought.

Hawkings, aware of this implication of his own cosmology, is thus loath to settle for the evidence thus far that the universe isn't teaming with life. I think his kind of weird comment about fearing alien life was his way of hand-waving off the eerie silence of our local cluster.

After all why is space so silent if it is teaming with alien civilizations unless they are afraid to signal where they are or they don't actually exist at all?

And if they don't exist is there any way to explain that within the current cosmological model?

 

[stephen55]

Stephen Hawking has amongst his many gifts, a wickedly perverse sense of humour. He is (in)famous for his oft-made statement, "When I hear of Schrödinger's cat, I reach for my pistol." Perhaps it partly stems from his physical disability and thus his inability to get his points across in anything except a painfully slow fashion. He's been known to drive other physicists around the bend with his uber-cerebral cognitive but practical jokes.

At his sixtieth birthday party celebration (a long-standing tradition amongst physicists) balding American physicist Leonard Susskind complained that when he first started taking on Hawking in intellectual battles, he still had all of his hair! (Susskind and Hawking carried on a decades long battle over some of the most esoteric points in quantum mechanics. Hawking felt that any information lost into a black hole is gone forever. Susskind disagreed. It took him 28 years to get Hawking to admit academic defeat. Susskind then wrote the book The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics. Several of Hawking's closest friends will say that Hawking never truly accepted Susskind's proof.)

Hawking's comments about the possible dangers of contacting alien civilizations must be weighed against the very real possibility that he was merely having another one over on us. It would hardly be the first time.

Moving on...

P. J. E. Pebbles, Albert Einstein Professor of Science at Princeton University and a modern pioneer in the field of cosmology, wrote a standard textbook of the subject. He defines (physical) cosmology as "the attempt to make sense of the large-scale nature of the material world around us, by methods of the natural sciences." It can be considered the study of the structure, evolution and and space-time relationships of the universe. Strictly speaking, consideration of the origin of the universe is cosmogony and is a separate, but closely related field. Evolution of the universe is a term strictly meaning the ongoing changes in the universe and has no biological tones at all.

I disagree that the physical evolution (changes) of the universe, taken with our understanding of biological evolution (species decent with modification) here on Earth have any predictive power that would imply intelligent life all over the place. One does not imply the other. In fact, given the very large number of factors necessary for any life on Earth (temperature, plate tectonics and vulcanism, presence of water and an oxidizing atmosphere, the presence of a large moon to stabilize earth's orbit, a planetary crust with abundant minerals and many others) it can be argued that extra-terrestrial life, if any, will be very rare. The helpful factor is that even if life can only come about on a pitifully small percentage of planets, there are likely many trillions of planets.

When Hawking said, "To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational. The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like." I'm sure that's what he had in mind.

Even if on average there is only going to be one intelligent civilization per galaxy, according to one image from the Hubble Space Telescope, there are two hundred billion galaxies in our part of the universe alone. As our universe is thought to be 13.9 billion years old, we can only see 13.9 billion light-years in any direction. This is our horizon. If the cosmologists are right, the total universe is likely about 78 billion light years in diameter (if we postulate that the universe is finite in size due to its having a nontrivial topology. ie; spacetime is highly curved at cosmological scales).

Then there is the cosmological concept of inflation, which taken at face value, predicts multiple universes.

That's a whole lot of galaxies!!

 

[amicus]

Lustatopia...just wanted to thank you for your Posts on this Thread; your expressions of the human spirit and soul and your sincere complaints about the overall tone, that of myopia.

I am recalling the exploits of Chuck Yeager and other test pilots who risked their lives to surpass the so-called 'sound barrier' of the late 40's...there are experiments ongoing to discover how to transcend the K of light speed and although physics denies the possibility, I cannot but suspect that mankind will find a method of space travel that exceeds the speed of light.

I offer this little scribble for your consideration:

The Wanderer
The wanderer travels but he knows not why,
as he follows the sun down an azure sky.

The Minstrel holds forth and tells of his woe,
then he too packs his flute and makes ready to go.

Sailor and Soldier, the Hunter, all three
out into the world, always open and free.

The Wanderer travels but he knows not why
as he rides through the mist of an evening sky.

Gypsy and Nomad from out of the past,
into the four winds their future is cast.

What spark of unquenchable fire must burn
in the hearts of those so fated to yearn?

The Wanderer travels but he knows not why,
following the moon down a star studded sky.

Their women left waiting cry out in despair
and dream ever hopeful of life without care.

In books you read of them, their travels, their tales.
Who are they? Where do they place on mankind’s scales?

Yes, the Wanderer travels on, he knows not why,
as he follows a dream down an endless sky.​

(Copyrighted)

regards

ami

 

[stephen55]

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.

I'm a huge fan of space programs. I'm all for them. Not being an American taxpayer, I also don't have the slightest quibble about paying for them. An unfortunate part of space programs is that they are fiendishly expensive. At a time when the Americans are 14 trillion in the hole and your congress sees bringing the country to the very brink of financial ruin as The Political Game of the Century, perhaps postponing a manned mission to Mars until your financial house is in order can be viewed as a necessary annoyance.

Obama made it clear that he supports America's space program in the long term. He also made it clear that spending around a trillion on a Mars mission at this point, when America is barely recovering from a disastrous recession and is facing bankruptcy, would be foolish.

Americans can be such an interesting lot.

"Less spending!! Less taxes!! Less government!!

Obama: "We're going to have to put a Mars mission on hold. The money simply isn't there right now."

"Spend the money!! How dare you cut spending!! Americans must go to Mars!! Save NASA!! What's one more trillion!!"

In jest, I listed the misery of psoriasis among the problems I should worry about more than getting conked by an asteroid. The others were global unrest and economic meltdown. Space programs do provide wonderful results. I'm just not certain that the solution to these particular problems are among those results.

The height of the American space program was the Apollo era. I recall a great deal of global unrest at the time. I also recall a great deal of internal American unrest. While the Apollo program was certainly not the cause of the unrest, it most certainly didn't supply any solutions.

A space program solution for psoriasis? Interesting...

I'd advocate increased spending on space programs as a way to stimulate the economy but that would run afoul of Tea Party economic wisdom, which holds government spending as the root of all evil. Just ask ami.

He thinks space programs should be run by private free enterprise. Perhaps it might work. After all, the first man in space was put there by a godless communist government, fifty years ago. The American government managed to do it just three weeks later. The first person into space aboard a private spacecraft was...Mike Melvil on June, 21, 2004. He barely squeaked into space (by the American standard of getting up above 100 kilometers) by getting up to 100.124 kilometers. The craft, SpaceShipOne, went on to win the Ansari X Prize, by being the first private craft to get into space twice, within a time of two weeks. (Both sub-orbital flights, just above 100 kilometers, about 24 minutes long.) The prize paid out a cool ten million. All it cost Paul Allen and Burt Rutan to win the prize was one hundred million.

In reality, I'm all for space programs. As a kid I sat glued to the tube watching liftoffs and I still remember watching Neil Armstrong's first one small step. The chance to watch broadcasts from en route to Mars would be great. Watching broadcasts from Mars would be better.

"If I had a trillion dollars...(if I had a trillion dollars)
I'd buy you a trip to Mars (but not a real trip, that'd be cruel)"

Anyone remember the Barenaked Ladies?

 

[amicus]

I am going to ramble a little here until Willie Geist and 'Way too Early" comes on, followed by "Morning Joe", I just love watching Mika Breszhinski make a fool of herself and the line-up of Lefties is unequalled anywhere....(know thine enemies or is it enema's?) While waiting, I am kinda watching and listening to, "Destiny in Space" a 1994 production narrated by Leonard Nimoy, 'Spock' on Startrek...

Physicians are often well educated men, I have met and admired several; Universal men, conversant in many disciplines, but usually open and tolerant, not so closed minded and myopic as you, perhaps a Canadian trait?

You often refer to me, in passing, when it comes to free market concepts, which you seem to abhor, or at least think to be impractical in the larger scheme of things...and I wonder about that. Where did you acquire that pungent distaste for Capitalism?

Without the Manhattan Project, there probably wouldn't be Atomic Energy, although Germany, Russia and Japan were all researching, and of course that research was all government funded as a military necessity.

You can also make a case for Queen Isabella and Columbus, and a host of other explorers funded by Kings and Queens...government, to be sure, but then, when the private market has all its surplus confiscated by government, there ain't much left for 'pure' research.

Barnie Franks was on the Tube today, whining that medical research was being cut and that the private market, without a profit motive, would never do the research necessary....a false argument as private pharmaceuticals are doing research all the time for new drugs based on a profit motive.

Yes, government can do it all, do everything, but seldom does government do it well and never efficiently or cost effective and worst of all, government does it with other peoples money, which translates to work, time, energy, wealth, the confiscation of which is hurtful to everyone.

You should cherish me and the few like me, who offer opposition to your concept, whatever it is, of the proper function of government in society. Perhaps that is why you refer to me from time to time, to just get a glimmer of what it means to be a purist and an advocate of maximum human freedom and minimum government activities.

It is the dreamers that will take humanity into space; not the sterile, cost/benefit ratio adherents to pragmatism. Perhaps another Howard Hughes will show up, another Donald Trump with a larger vision, but only in a free society are such people possible.

Amicus Veritas