Manned Space Exploration...Why?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

It doesn't matter.


The people qualified and brave enough to go.


Who decided who went on wagon trains to California?

Sounds like you are most concerned for yourself and don't consider the history of humanity.


Which is fine. I suppose if you haven't thought deeply about what consciousness and knowledge is.

a reply to: luthier

You would be sorely mistaken if you think I'm thinking of myself. Sorely.

Don't deflect.

I asked a question...who will decide who goes? And, what gives them that authority to decide?

Answer that for me please.

ETA...You see, on Earth you never have to make that decision because everyone is allowed to stay, and this is the big (massive) difference comparing Earth to another planet. So who get's to go to the 'brave new world'???

ETA II...please do not speculate about something you have no knowledge of, like what I may have considered about consciousness and knowledge. I'm reasonably certain you would be mistaken there as well.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

That's a lot of assumptions. Let's take them one by one:

6 months of journey... check.

We need stuff there to work with... check.

25-30 launches for our stuff... whoa, Nellie!

Believe it or not, Mars has resources too. Current research is primarily focused on using native materials to get what we need. The vast bulk of our 'stuff' will be technology which is pretty darn small.

Difficulty of landing... oops, there's another bad assumption!

The truth is that landing is only difficult because it's impossible to test thoroughly. The mechanisms used are relatively simple, as far as space travel goes.

30 shuttles of gear... nope, see two assumptions above.

Asteroid is heading to Earth... what?

What exactly would be the benefit of NOT sending those ten people to Mars at that point? You are making quite an assumption here, that we expect to somehow be ready within a year (6 months there, 6 months till ELE) and that we would be better off by not sending anyone to Mars.

In reality, the odds of any ELE happening within a year is microscopic. It is true that there will someday be an ELE, but we don't know if that will happen tomorrow or 100,000 years from now. How ironic would it be if we decided not to send the mission because of that argument, then 10 years later decided to go ahead and send it... and then the ELE happened 6 months into the mission instead of 10 1/2 years into it?

Moving 7.6 BILLION people... another oopsy!

No one is even contemplating that. No one is seriously contemplating leaving Earth. The idea behind populating another planet to escape an ELE is based on species survival, not on individual survival.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: luthier

You would be sorely mistaken if you think I'm thinking of myself. Sorely.

Don't deflect.

I asked a question...who will decide who goes? And, what gives them that authority to decide?

Answer that for me please.

ETA...You see, on Earth you never have to make that decision because everyone is allowed to stay, and this is the big (massive) difference comparing Earth to another planet. So who get's to go to the 'brave new world'???

Who decides when an earthquake kills people in japan?

The fact people survive somewhere else makes human life continue.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Okay, let's just stick to the landings for a moment.

Presumably you have looked into this, correct?

Then you know that one of the primary difficulties landing on Mars is the thin atmosphere. After de-orbit you are traveling way faster than on Earth, and you have to slow down. But slowing down is not easy in Martian atmosphere, right? You can't carry a parachute large enough to decelerate (nothing has to date). Because you de-orbit so quickly you have little knowledge of the terrain (okay, we could map every sq. cm. of the planet). Anyway, just pure physics is your worst enemy here. You have a small, high velocity, mass being attracted by a much larger mass, ,through a very thin atmosphere. This is not an easy equation...at all! Look at all the attempts, and how many failures. This is actually a very big challenge.

It's not like the Moon, with no atmosphere at all. You can come down to the Moon in almost any orientation, but on Mars you have heat and resistance from the atmosphere (just not a lot of it). Again, this is not a small problem.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: luthier

You would be sorely mistaken if you think I'm thinking of myself. Sorely.

Don't deflect.

I asked a question...who will decide who goes? And, what gives them that authority to decide?

Answer that for me please.

ETA...You see, on Earth you never have to make that decision because everyone is allowed to stay, and this is the big (massive) difference comparing Earth to another planet. So who get's to go to the 'brave new world'???

Who decides when an earthquake kills people in japan?

"God" or fate; certainly not another human being!!!

The fact people survive somewhere else makes human life continue.

This is irrelevant.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Boy you don't really get it.

If some humans are not on earth and earth goes boom. Some humans survive.


If humans in Japan die and those in American don't sine humans survive.

The more spread out people are the more chance a pocket survives. This is very easy to understand and one would have to be very set on their ways to not get this.

If people only live in Japan and not America and Japan goes up in flames all humans die.


Get it?

a reply to: luthier

Oh, believe me, I get it! I get the math. I get the probabilities you refer to. I get the theory. I really do.

Unfortunately though, it is you who doesn't "get it".

You can give me all the theoretical math you want about diversity in populations, physical separation and all manner of other theories...BUT, you can't put those people somewhere "else", and neither can any other group of humans on planet Earth! Period.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: luthier

Oh, believe me, I get it! I get the math. I get the probabilities you refer to. I get the theory. I really do.

Unfortunately though, it is you who doesn't "get it".

You can give me all the theoretical math you want about diversity in populations, physical separation and all manner of other theories...BUT, you can't put those people somewhere "else", and neither can any other group of humans on planet Earth! Period.

Lol,

Prove it.

Just like we couldn't walk out of Africa.

Ever heard of falsifiability?

No?

Didn't think so..

a reply to: luthier

Luthier, allow me to make another comparative analogy for clarity...

Suppose we all believed it would be a good idea to build a bridge between Hong Kong and LA, across the Pacific Ocean. Suppose this was in the best interest of mankind (despite how ridiculous the concept).

If we started today, we could toil for decades to come up with the technology to construct that bridge, little by little each decade. The challenges would be immense, weather, depths, etc. We could have this same argument about this bridge, and what a great idea it was for humanity, but the reality is, it's simply not practical.

AND, even if this bridge was completed (however unlikely) it would take weeks to drive across it. People would say, why didn't you just fly? Don't you see? This is what we're talking about here. We're contemplating building a bridge across space, but we don't have the technology for "humans" to fly (not really fly).

That's all I'm saying.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You make no sense.


None.

a reply to: luthier

All due respect, but please don't predispose my intelligence, and I won't predispose yours!

Okay?

I might have been born at night, but not last night!

a reply to: luthier

And right back at ya!

Sorry.

ETA...you are certainly entitled to your opinion, right or wrong.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I must. Since people are building to land on Mars and not for a bridge.


Anyhow nice chat. It doesn't matter what you believe. Freedom allows people to invent machines to land on Mars.

Did you see those two space x rockets land at the same time. Almost like he is planning to land on Mars.

Humans want to explore, it's ingrained in our nature. Without exploration, Europeans would've never set foot in America.

It's a mistake to consider planet Earth our only home; the whole of the Solar System is our home.

I think this short film narrated by Carl Sagan sums it up well: www.youtube.com...

(Sigh) I've spent all day defending a concept which wasn't even my subject.

(well, not "all" day, as I had stuff to do around the ranch, but "a while").

Sadly, I feel like all those with so much zeal for space and space travel have missed my real point. My point was never about stopping exploration of space (despite how many times I've said just this). My point was never about quitting the quest for knowledge, the quest to understand the physical world.

I guess "blinded by the light" would be fitting here. I used the word "cool" in my OP, and now I feel that word choice was probably the best of all. It seems some people are absolutely unable to disassociate themselves from the blinding light of coolness vs. practical realities. This is unfortunate, and speaks volumes going forward for the human race.

I am just a man. I am not immortal. The human race is not immortal, even though some think it is. We should be the best we can be as humans, but we don't own the universe. Humans are not "entitled" to survival, and we should not be so arrogant to think we are. We will live and exist or we will become extinct, just like so many creatures before us. How foolish are we to think we should be clawing at the stars to preserve this simple form of life on some little asteroid orbiting a relatively dim star in a distant part of a galaxy, in an even more distant part of a monstrously larger universe?

It just baffles me.

a reply to: luthier

Yes, I did see that, and with great interest too!

In my opinion, that event was probably one of the greatest achievements in the past 30 years of space exploration!

I will be the first to say Space X ROCKS!!

...big fan of Space X

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

They aren't rocks.

Trust me.

a reply to: Phage

LOL...you knew what I meant!

I heard on the tv show ancient aliens that astronauts in space revert to a Martian cycle or day not an Earth day with a lack of normal visual signals. It's possible our species once lived on Mars. If that is the case, maybe we have a biological urge to return home. On the bad side if we destroyed our home planet ages ago and survivors made it here, then there is the question if we are getting ready to repeat history. We may feel the urge to travel to another planet as if we know we need to do it.

I believe technology will rapidly advance to more easily allow travel by humans. To think that humans can't travel out into the universe I believe is simply a lack of understanding by humans of other forms of travel. I do enjoy watching science fiction but I believe science fiction often becomes science facts. In the early 1900's, science fiction involved flying. No one flew. People thought it was impossible. As far as why not simply send robots to explore planets? We have. However to more easily get funding to explore space, we need plans to send humans because sending robots to explore space doesn't get enthusiastic public funding. It makes economic sense to use robots but the public doesn't appear interested in space exploration unless humans are involved.