Why we should embrace the end of human spaceflight?

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I think your issue at bottom is not with decline vs greatness or social engineering vs big challenges.

It's about human vs machine, or more precisely about pencil pushing, volvo driving tech elites (Obama's top contributors: Google and big science universities) vs righteous God fearing ex-military spacemen.

That tension was always inherent (I'm sure you've read "The Right Stuff") in the space program, and I say again, the nerds won.

It's about pushing the frontiers. It makes for a stronger nation and a stronger people. Once we stop looking outward, we start looking inward, and I think most all of us can admit that no good has come out of that.

Man in space inspires, drives and keeps us focused on our true manifest destiny.

Otherwise, we're sewer rats crawling through the wreckage...

 

[rosco rathbone]

It's about pushing the frontiers. It makes for a stronger nation and a stronger people. Once we stop looking outward, we start looking inward, and I think most all of us can admit that no good has come out of that.

Man in space inspires, drives and keeps us focused on our true manifest destiny.

Otherwise, we're sewer rats crawling through the wreckage...

In the past, human will, courage and sweat were important when it came time to push frontiers. Now that the machines are ascendant, what matters is logic, abstraction and programming ability (for now, until they become homeostatic and learn self-reprogramming).

The revenge of the nerd may very well have a weakening effect on the national moral fiber. That's too bad, but there's no getting in the way of technological inevitability.

 

[lustatopia]

News flash for the Frisco Slug. Uncle Sam is broke. Obama bust the bank.

We might want to kick back and let the Chinese waste a trillion or so to put a bloke on the moon just so they can join the club. Could be more inspirational than sputnik in the end.

The thing about space is that is always going to be there.

We were first on the moon, what's that worth today? Not much, but fond memories. The space shuttle program cost 200 something billion. A replacement program would likely cost close to a trillion smackeroos without the inevitable cost overruns.

Maybe, it's a good decade to quit showboating and do some real science in space in preparation while technology evolves and the cost/benefits ratio of putting people in space slowly ripens for the pickin'. Then make our move.

The kids will thank us.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Like I said...

A nation in decline focusing inward on social programs.

I predict the robots will be gone soon too...

Let the private sector do it.

No, wait, the private sector is being looted in the name of social justice.

I KNOW!!! Let's build windmills! That will solve all our problems...

*Atlas Shrug*

I should just shut up and join the League of Smart Men and declare, we've learned everything we possibly can about sending a man to space, now it's time to worry about women's reproductive health and forcing insurance to pay for it thusly lowering all our costs...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

In the past, human will, courage and sweat were important when it came time to push frontiers. Now that the machines are ascendant, what matters is logic, abstraction and programming ability (for now, until they become homeostatic and learn self-reprogramming).

The revenge of the nerd may very well have a weakening effect on the national moral fiber. That's too bad, but there's no getting in the way of technological inevitability.

Like I just said...

In Obama's next administration, he'll declare that we've learned all we can from robots in space and that it's just not cost efficient to keep shooting off our rockets, after all, we have newer types of really cool telescopes and cleaner air to see through now that we're all motoring about in golf carts...

 

[rosco rathbone]

Like I just said...

In Obama's next administration, he'll declare that we've learned all we can from robots in space and that it's just not cost efficient to keep shooting off our rockets, after all, we have newer types of really cool telescopes and cleaner air to see through now that we're all motoring about in golf carts...

Your robot prediction will turn out to be wrong.

Our high tech sector and its government backing are booming. Check out the DARPA journal sometime.

The problem is the rest of the country.

 

[LiveInHD]

http://www.sffaudio.com/images09/TANTORMEDIATheUnincorporatedMan500.jpg

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Your robot prediction will turn out to be wrong.

Our high tech sector and its government backing are booming. Check out the DARPA journal sometime.

The problem is the rest of the country.

Don't let Congress find out...

They are strapped for cash and still on a spending binge...

 

[rosco rathbone]

Don't let Congress find out...

They are strapped for cash and still on a spending binge...

The dirty secret of the Pentagon is that it's the back door to funding any and every program that could be vaguely construed to have some potential military utility. If the TOP wanted to break the back of the big science-university-tech-elite network, they'd start with their beloved Defense budget. Your big government, Keynesian, industrial policy bureaucrats have uniforms and Colonel's insignia.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The military is the only thing capable of being cut politically, so it will be...





Peacenik Obama is not helping by bombing Momar.

 

[stephen55]

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

Ami, I wonder if you play golf. I wonder because you use too much club. I play golf (badly) and I know that around the greens, a delicate touch is required. The only club you seem to use is your driver. If you actually play golf, I'll guess that you use your driver badly. Don't even have it in your bag. Leave it at home or better yet, toss it into a water hazard.

I'm trying to decide what to write about you calling me closed minded and myopic. I doubt that listing reasons why your mind appears hermetically sealed and why your eyes are those that will not see is going to get either of us anywhere.

I'm well aware that you represent only yourself so I won't pretend that your one dimensional take on all the world and everything in it represents an American trait.

I have no pungent distaste for capitalism. I doubt that Paul Allen has that either. I do wonder about how he felt about being a partner in a one hundred million dollar enterprise that won a ten million dollar award, after which SpaceShipOne was promptly mothballed. When a private attempt at space travel falls ninety million into the hole, my guess is that Donald Trump is going to stick to real estate and casinos.

My taste for capitalism runs more towards pharmaceutical company stocks. Many years ago I heard my first talk on sildenafil citrate. That afternoon I called my stock broker (hows that for a distaste for capitalism?) and placed a buy for Pzifer. Ever heard of Viagra? It paid for both my boats and the summer cottage.

I'm happy to listen to talks on up and coming new medications. I recently sold Hoffman-La Roche as Accutane has been getting a lot of bad press. I bought it when Accutane was still isotretinoin and was initially being touted as a cancer treatment. It never was a big player in chemotherapy but, Hot Damn!! Every patient on the stuff saw whatever acne they had disappear. I have several mounted trophies and a very full gun safe, all paid for by Hoffman-La Roche.

Warren Buffett is a personal hero. I wish I could meet the guy. He taught those who would listen that...

a) never be afraid to take a profit. I live fearlessly with profit.
b) never invest in something you don't understand. I understand pharmaceuticals. I don't understand why Paul Allen was part of an effort that spent one hundred million to win a ten million prize. And no, I didn't invest in SpaceShipOne.

BTW, medical research and pharmaceutical research are very different beasts. The difference is the profit motive. Pharmaceutical companies will only pursue new drugs that have a very high chance of being big sellers. That means...

a) the targeted medical problem is common. Think hypertension, type II diabetes and of course, erectile dysfunction. (Maybe not all that common but those that have it will gladly pay fifteen bucks for a tablet that costs a few pennies to make. Damn, I like my boats!!)
b) the targeted medical condition is chronic. It's all about cash flow. A seven day script for an antibiotic gets filled once. Type II diabetes is forever.

Research into medications for rare conditions, temporary problems and especially into potentially dangerous medications is almost always the sole purvey of university labs and publicly funded research foundations.

As for research into basic medicine, pharmaceutical companies leave that strictly alone. Unless there is serious money to be made, it is poorly funded or not at all. I don't have a clue who Barnie Franks is but his argument was sound. Re-read what you yourself wrote about the "false argument". I say that the profit motive absolutely precludes the private market from going after research that has no potential profit. Have you ever tried to buy stock in a non-profit medical foundation? Neither has Donald Trump.

No ami, the government can't do it all, doesn't want to do it all and what it does do, it must do with tax or other revenues. If the work government did was profitable, it wouldn't need taxes. But then, I really wouldn't like government to run the military on a for-profit basis. (PSSTTT....North Korea...your nukes are pipsqueaks...care to buy a few twenty megaton big ones? Buy three and I'll toss in a fourth at no extra cost...hey, it works for the tire shop down the street...)

I doubt I'll ever cherish you, even if you had the slightest inkling of what I consider to be the proper role of government in society. What you think you know about me sure isn't what you know about me. It's a trait common to the closed minded.

As for the dreamers being the ones who will take humanity into space, cross Paul Allen and Burt Ratan off your list. Losing ninety million can wake you up. Incidentally, the Russians were part of the first private space launch back in 1992.

Space Flight Europe-America 500 was a goodwill mission conceived in 1992 as the first private spaceflight by the Russian Foundation for Social Inventions and Photon, a Russian rocket-building company, to increase trade between Russia and USA, and promote use of technology once reserved only for military forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Flight_Europe-America_500

The first commercial space launch company, Arianespace, was created back in 1980. It's an offshoot of the European Space Agency. If it's a private commercial satellite whizzing over your head, chances are it was launched by Arianespace.

Private space companies are alive and well, making a good return for their investors. It's a shame that the USA isn't on board. Okay, that was unfair. Boeing and Lockheed-Martin came up with their joint venture United Launch Alliance (ULA) not quite five years ago. So far, their track record is not so good. Perhaps that's why NASA is going with Arianespace to launch their latest and greatest space telescope.

 

[John Doe]

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?

I'm glad you're in favor of space programs but why are you still stuck on Mars? I'm not interested in going there. Even aside from the exorbitant cost it's just not feasible.

Anyway, I could not disagree more about the effect of the Apollo program.

 

[stephen55]

I'm glad you're in favor of space programs but why are you still stuck on Mars? I'm not interested in going there. Even aside from the exorbitant cost it's just not feasible.

Anyway, I could not disagree more about the effect of the Apollo program.

I'm not stuck on Mars. Personally, I feel that NASA has gotten the biggest return with its unmanned missions. As an amateur astronomer, I'm seriously in awe of what Hubble has accomplished, albeit with a little human tweaking every now and then. If the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) flies, it will be be even better. I've read that with it's proposed resolution, if it was parked twenty-five light years from Earth, it could see us. Trust me, that's resolution!

NASA has always been at the mercy of congress and the taxpaying public. It's hard to impress the public with everyday, bread and butter science. Even though most of the components of the JWST are already complete (and most of the capital budget already spent) it may be mothballed because any member of congress who wants to make a name as a "protector of the taxpayers dollar" can decide to "stop the insane waste of money...Damned straight..." Michele Bachmann comes to mind. Tea Party types would rather spend the money teaching Creationism in public schools.

BTW, that moronicity of all moronicities has raised it's ugly head yet again, in some place called Springboro.

http://www.wlwt.com/education/28732495/detail.html

Tea Party types and Creationists are loathe to finance basic science. Their own existence is dependent on keeping the masses in ignorance.

I agree that Mars is a very expensive proposition. A manned mission will likely cost about a cool trillion. The only reason to spend that kind of money would be to show that getting there and back is possible. Apollo brought back Moon rocks which settled some basic questions about the Moon. Today, Mars rocks could be brought back by unmanned probes at considerable less than a trillion. However, there is little gee whiz publicity in that.

Tell me, please, besides doing great science, what did Apollo do about global and internal US unrest? I already know what it did for psoriasis!

 

[KingOrfeo]

In the past, human will, courage and sweat were important when it came time to push frontiers. Now that the machines are ascendant, what matters is logic, abstraction and programming ability (for now, until they become homeostatic and learn self-reprogramming).

The revenge of the nerd may very well have a weakening effect on the national moral fiber. That's too bad, but there's no getting in the way of technological inevitability.

Going from courage & sweat to logic & abstraction is the opposite of "a weakening effect on the national moral fiber."

 

[lustatopia]

Going from courage & sweat to logic & abstraction is the opposite of "a weakening effect on the national moral fiber."

Actually, King O, the people who put a man on the moon were courageous, not afraid of sweat and - since they only had the computational power I'm packing with my iPhone - were pretty fucking good at logical abstract thinking as well.

 

[John Doe]

I'm not stuck on Mars. Personally, I feel that NASA has gotten the biggest return with its unmanned missions. As an amateur astronomer, I'm seriously in awe of what Hubble has accomplished, albeit with a little human tweaking every now and then. If the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) flies, it will be be even better. I've read that with it's proposed resolution, if it was parked twenty-five light years from Earth, it could see us. Trust me, that's resolution!

NASA has always been at the mercy of congress and the taxpaying public. It's hard to impress the public with everyday, bread and butter science. Even though most of the components of the JWST are already complete (and most of the capital budget already spent) it may be mothballed because any member of congress who wants to make a name as a "protector of the taxpayers dollar" can decide to "stop the insane waste of money...Damned straight..." Michele Bachmann comes to mind. Tea Party types would rather spend the money teaching Creationism in public schools.

BTW, that moronicity of all moronicities has raised it's ugly head yet again, in some place called Springboro.

http://www.wlwt.com/education/28732495/detail.html

Tea Party types and Creationists are loathe to finance basis science. Their own existence is dependent on keeping the masses in ignorance.

There are thousands of tea parties, most of which have nothing in common except a dissatisfaction with the status quo, whatever that may be.

I agree that Mars is a very expensive proposition. A manned mission will likely cost about a cool trillion. The only reason to spend that kind of money would be to show that getting there and back is possible. Apollo brought back Moon rocks which settled some basic questions about the Moon. Today, Mars rocks could be brought back by unmanned probes at considerable less than a trillion. However, there is little gee whiz publicity in that.

Tell me, please, besides doing great science, what did Apollo do about global and internal US unrest? I already know what it did for psoriasis!

Yes, it would be expensive, but that's not why it would be unfeasible. There's no point in a manned mission to anywhere if you arrive there dead.

It changed our perspective. If someone as intelligent as you hasn't already noticed that then there's no way to explain it further. It's like gestalt.

 

[stephen55]

Oops, double post...

 

[John Doe]

Oops, double post...

Newscopter 1 reporting heavy traffic.

 

[stephen55]

I'm not sure if it's my laptop or Lit's server, but I'm having a real slow day here at Lit. Posts are taking a while and even going back and forth through the threads is slow.

I really don't believe that the various agencies that would put together a manned mission to Mars would send out a handful of astronauts if they were likely to arrive dead. Bored out of their minds perhaps, but not dead. A tad irritable with each other, most certainly and for the Nth time, wondering why they signed on...guaranteed!!

From what I've read, the greatest danger (cannibalism aside) is radiation. Seeing as how thick walls make great radiation shielding but thick walls means extra mass to lift into a Mars interjection trajectory, it's a question of what you use for shielding.

One author had a somewhat different but realistic idea. The mission would take months, so food is a priority. Food stored in the outer wall would make an effective shield. But what happens as the food is consumed? Well... we all know what happens to food as it is consumed. Enter the poop Easy Bake Oven!!

Feces would be baked into tiles. The tiles would be swapped out for food over the journey. As the author stated, the astronauts would go out in a can of food and return in a can of poop.

Which explains why the astronauts would be wondering why they ever signed up!!

 

[lustatopia]

From what I've read, the greatest danger (cannibalism aside) is radiation. Seeing as how thick walls make great radiation shielding but thick walls means extra mass to lift into a Mars interjection trajectory, it's a question of what you use for shielding.

One author had a somewhat different but realistic idea. The mission would take months, so food is a priority. Food stored in the outer wall would make an effective shield. But what happens as the food is consumed? Well... we all know what happens to food as it is consumed. Enter the poop Easy Bake Oven!!

Feces would be baked into tiles. The tiles would be swapped out for food over the journey. As the author stated, the astronauts would go out in a can of food and return in a can of poop.

Which explains why the astronauts would be wondering why they ever signed up!!

A more elegant (no pun intended) solution is to generate an electro-magnetic field around the space craft using the energy from the solar wind itself to every so slightly bend the breeze around the spacecraft, which is analogous to what the Earth does with the Van Allen Belts....results would be a funny looking winged sailship with a huge nano-membrane alloy cone pointing toward the sun, maybe a kilometer long.

Beats shit tiles.

Another solution which obviously can't be considered until much later this century is to engineer the human body so that it repairs DNA/RNA/mitochondrial damage and thus can tolerate long term exposure to radiation at low to medium levels. This will have to happen no matter what because all space-based human activity is going to cause high rates of cancer if you put a lot of people on the moon or any where else for that matter.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

So, my League of Very Smart Men, the doctor, lawyer and EMT have no further comment abut how stupid smart men can be when speaking outside of their field...






... did I say EMT? I meant climatologist...

 

[lustatopia]

So, my League of Very Smart Men, the doctor, lawyer and EMT have no further comment abut how stupid smart men can be when speaking outside of their field...






... did I say EMT? I meant climatologist...

Dude, have another cup of coffee on your continent and I'll have a glass of single malt on mine and may the twain always meet.

Cheers!

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I AM Paracelsus!





*chin thrust*



:cleft:

Earth, the Final Frontier...

 

[KingOrfeo]

A more elegant (no pun intended) solution is to generate an electro-magnetic field around the space craft using the energy from the solar wind itself to every so slightly bend the breeze around the spacecraft, which is analogous to what the Earth does with the Van Allen Belts....results would be a funny looking winged sailship with a huge nano-membrane alloy cone pointing toward the sun, maybe a kilometer long.

What if you want to sail towards the sun? How does a sailing-spaceship tack -- where's the second force-vector (analogous to the resistance of the water, for a sailing-ship with a rudder and keel)?

 

[lustatopia]

I AM Paracelsus!





*chin thrust*



:cleft:

Earth, the Final Frontier...

Whatever you say, Rosenkreutz. Maybe I should have the coffee and you the single malt.