Can I ask someone to rebuttal my argument against human space flight?

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
The only reason for the Apollo program was to show the world we were superior to the Soviets. It worked well, they went under in 1991. There was no compelling scientific reason to go to the Moon that would have justified the enormous expense. There is no compelling reason to put humans on Mars at this point in our evolution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ken Fabian
The only reason for the Apollo program was to show the world we were superior to the Soviets. It worked well, they went under in 1991. There was no compelling scientific reason to go to the Moon that would have justified the enormous expense. There is no compelling reason to put humans on Mars at this point in our evolution.

Bill, for all your knowledge and experience that I grant you have, you have grave trouble seeing a progressive entropy (a progressive decline) that must be reversed or else. And the historians Will Durant and Newt Gingrich, and the physicists Stephen Hawking and Gerard K. O'Neill (among other notables in varying fields), foretell must be begun now or else be too late for us to do at all...! China, for just one, is apparently listening! It knows it made its biggest mistake between 600 and 700 years ago when it backed out and left a fabulously rich vacuum for Western Europe to fill.

Mod Edit
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The only reason for the Apollo program was to show the world we were superior to the Soviets. It worked well, they went under in 1991. There was no compelling scientific reason to go to the Moon that would have justified the enormous expense. There is no compelling reason to put humans on Mars at this point in our evolution.
Wouldn't that be more of a point of view?

If first is/was what denoted superiority; then hey the Russians beat us to both the launching of a space vehicle and the first human in space.

Getting to the moon was our first and it showed us that using the technology of the time it was indeed an expensive venture.

If first and or space races are over; then China's aim toward getting a human to Mars first is not and will not be a concern to Americans.

Except that I believe our driving engine is because we can and getting there first is just us proving to ourselves that we haven't lost our moxie.
 
Bill, for all your knowledge and experience that I grant you have, you have grave trouble seeing a progressive entropy (a progressive decline) that must be reversed or else. And the historians Will Durant and Newt Gingrich, and the physicists Stephen Hawking and Gerard K. O'Neill (among other notables in varying fields), foretell must be begun now or else be too late for us to do at all...! China, for just one, is apparently listening! It knows it made its biggest mistake between 600 and 700 years ago when it backed out and left a fabulously rich vacuum for Western Europe to fill.

I feel like China only cares about proving they're superior to Artemis countries, and the military application of Earth orbit. IIRC, there's nothing stopping a country from signing the Artemis Accords and the ILRS, but they all sign one or the other based on geopolitics. I also recall that China spends less on space than the U.S.A.

My point is that I disagree with the idea that China sees the value of space colonization as opposed to the U.S.A. in the space race and today. I think they're doing the same thing, but people are less crazy than they were during The Cold War.

I am the opposite of an authority on this matter, though. I don't follow Chinese space nor relevant politics closely, and I likely have a bias against China due to the country where I was raised. I also didn't note where I heard most of this, so I don't have sources.

I'd also like to remind everyone that this forum is for discussing science, not politics, so try to keep rebuttals focused on disproving my point in my 2nd paragraph.

Completely unrelated and pedantic: people talk about countries "signing China's ILRS" but that parses to "signing China's International Lunar Research Station". You can't sign a station that doesn't exist. We don't say "signed NASA's Lunar Gateway", we say "signed the Artemis Accords". Similarly, we should call the organization "the U.S.A.'s N.A.S.A."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I feel like China only cares about proving they're superior to Artemis countries, and the military application of Earth orbit. IIRC, there's nothing stopping a country from signing the Artemis Accords and the ILRS, but they all sign one or the other based on geopolitics. I also recall that China spends less on space than the U.S.A.

My point is that I disagree with the idea that China sees the value of space colonization as opposed to the U.S.A. in the space race and today. I think they're doing the same thing, but people are less crazy than they were during The Cold War.

I am the opposite of an authority on this matter, though. I don't follow Chinese space nor relevant politics closely, and I likely have a bias against China due to the country where I was raised. I also didn't note where I heard most of this, so I don't have sources.

I'd also like to remind everyone that this forum is for discussing science, not politics, so try to keep rebuttals focused on disproving my point in my 2nd paragraph.

Completely unrelated and pedantic: people talk about countries "signing China's ILRS" but that parses to "signing China's International Lunar Research Station". You can't sign a station that doesn't exist. We don't say "signed NASA's Lunar Gateway", we say "signed the Artemis Accords". Similarly, we should call the organization "the U.S.A.'s N.A.S.A."
I will repeat!

"A nation that has too many laws is lawless!" -- Cicero (A system that has too many rules is without rule! A tyranny of anarchies! An anarchy of tyrannies! As Cicero observed, a far more savage state than civilized state. . . a far more naturally brittle state than naturally flexible state.)
----------------------

the "Outer Space Treaty" as Communistic as it was has long been considered an 'Iron Curtain' barrier to the opening of the space frontier, thus turning the world into an 'Iron Curtain' totalitarian world and the United States of America into an 'Iron Curtain' country within that world. Also, though we did not sign the "Moon Treaty" as such, it has not stopped this country from long following the dictates set in that dictatorial treaty.

Both of those treaties established the absolute power of the state over the space frontier . . . and thus over a then closed systemic Earth within that totalitarian closed systemic space frontier! Mankind has been imprisoned in -- enslaved to -- a world class prison system Earth and a class of "Alpha Elites." You should know what kind of society, and economy, a prison has.

"Power corrupts! Absolute power corrupts absolutely!"

To borrow from and paraphrase Helmuth von Moltke:
The advantages which a government thinks it can attain through continued bureaucratic interventions is largely illusory. By engaging in them it assumes tasks which really belong to others, whose effectiveness it thus destroys. It also multiplies its own tasks to a point where it can no longer fulfill the whole of them . . . or any of them well.
----------------------

"The government can do something for the people only in proportion as it can do something to the people." -- Thomas Jefferson

"We both love the people, but you love them as infants (adult children) whom you are afraid to trust without nurses (Alpha elites), and I as adults whom I freely leave to self-government." -- Thomas Jefferson to a French aristocrat friend just prior to the French Revolution.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of the world being on fire, some in congress seem to to mighty worried about some security matter. And they think it's important to expose it now. We might get something tomorrow after a briefing.

Some rumors tonight suggest nuclear weapons might be in orbit.

Of course this is an election year. It might be a smear against current foreign policies. Or it might be a cover up until after the election. The spin will be interesting.

How will the UN, the EU, and India, China respond to a security threat? Will there be an ultimatum? Or decades of arms and resource competition? Space, the last battle ground.

We ain't gonna have any money for manned space exploration. Space army comes first.

I was hoping for something more like an alien craft had been recovered.
 
Yeah, its nice to show our moxie but we have not done our chores yet. The world in on fire. See: "News, The".
Sadly, a true short coming of humanity. It can be led to the bridge that leads to the promised land, but it cannot be forced to use it.

So that we can cross over the schism that threatens to burn us to a cinder. Is that really cause to do nothing on the things we can accomplish?
 
Yes, we should not devote our limited resources to a lifeboat when that action will guarantee we need it. We should stabilize Earth first.
Still don't get it, Bill?! Or am I misreading you? Breaking out to "Space Frontier" . . . opening up the "Space Frontier" . . . is the stabilizer! The only stabilizer there is or will ever be!!!! A great dilution of complexity and chaos in a vast spreading out of complexity and chaos!
 
Limited only by the belief that a/or the solution can only be found in the here and now (short foreseeable future) not in the great unknown ... which is not necessarily right here on Terra Ferma.
Image you had a jar full of infinite money, and you're dangling over a fire by a thread. Do you open the jar first, or save your own life? No one here thinks that human spaceflight is useless. What I think billslugg is saying is that we can't realistically solve our problems with spaceflight in a manner that's superior to conventional solutions. To disprove him, you'd have to define what these vague issues are, and compare their solutions.
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Please excuse the following clarification: :)

Insure, ensure, and assure are related verbs with different meanings. Insure means 'protect against loss, damage, or injury' or 'provide or obtain insurance on'. Ensure means 'make certain that something will occur'. Assure means 'convince' or 'give confidence to'.


Cat :)
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
I assume you're clarifying post #30:

Correct # incorrect selection:

We should insure the survival of the human race right up until the universe ends.

It would be rather difficult to find any company to insure this.
Come to that, it would be difficult to ensure this right up to the end.
Many might add that we'll destroy ourselves long before we get to colonise Mars. (Global warming, etcetera). This assumes the colonise meaning of actually settling, rather than just visiting.

Cat :
 
Image you had a jar full of infinite money, and you're dangling over a fire by a thread. Do you open the jar first, or save your own life? No one here thinks that human spaceflight is useless. What I think billslugg is saying is that we can't realistically solve our problems with spaceflight in a manner that's superior to conventional solutions. To disprove him, you'd have to define what these vague issues are, and compare their solutions.
Are you meaning you can assure us of solutions ridding a closed systemic world (short space frontier breakout and opening) of all "strange attractors of chaos" . . . most particularly, most especially -- per "Murphy's Law" in a closed systemic world -- including any and all of your "conventional solutions"?!
 
And additionally (#67), yet again, global warming physics to the hilt sets the world up to rapidly collapse into 'Great Ice Ages'. Simple history realized! . . . simple physics realized (massive change in the Atlantic current, realized)!

ONE overdue awesome and natural ("fast long fall off over and down the cliff") "strange attractor of chaos"!
 
Last edited:
Are you meaning you can assure us of solutions ridding a closed systemic world (short space frontier breakout and opening) of all "strange attractors of chaos" . . . most particularly, most especially -- per "Murphy's Law" in a closed systemic world -- including any and all of your "conventional solutions"?!
I don't understand half of your posts. I'm assuming English isn't your first language. My meaning is that billslugg and arturo.v.dominguez@gmail. were uselessly arguing in a small circle. billslugg would say "space is too slow/expensive, conventional means are the best solution, at least in the short term", then arturo.v.dominguez@gmail. Would say, "conventional means are too slow/impossible. Space is the best solution." but neither had specified the issue, nor quantified the feasibility and cost of the solutions, and doing so might be against the rules.
 
I don't understand half of your posts. I'm assuming English isn't your first language. My meaning is that billslugg and arturo.v.dominguez@gmail. were uselessly arguing in a small circle. billslugg would say "space is too slow/expensive, conventional means are the best solution, at least in the short term", then arturo.v.dominguez@gmail. Would say, "conventional means are too slow/impossible. Space is the best solution." but neither had specified the issue, nor quantified the feasibility and cost of the solutions, and doing so might be against the rules.
Too bad, really. It has always been a problem I've had to live with. Some see and think and speak 1-dimensionally while others see and think and speak 2- and 3-, and more, dimensionally (I'm tested a "visual mathematician", aka a good "logician"). I'm just not a 1-dimensional being. It's been tough being a stranger in a strange land all my life but the older I've got (76+ years), the more widely/deeper read and understanding I've become, the more I've realized the difference, the better I've liked it.
 
Last edited:
Too bad, really. It has always been a problem I've had to live with. Some see and think and speak 1-dimensionally while others see and think and speak 2- and 3-, and more, dimensionally (I'm tested a "visual mathematician", aka a good "logician"). I'm just not a 1-dimensional being. It's been tough being a stranger in a strange land all my life but the older I've got (76+ years), the more widely/deeper read and understanding I've become, the more I've realized the difference, the better I've liked it.
Sigh! I guess I've got to sing and dance for my supper once more:

1.) An Einstein-like traveler takes a mind's eye trip toward the speed of light. He finds time seeming to slow down for him toward spontaneous concurrent REALTIME (t=0) on the way.

2.) He looks to the fore through his fore-screen, his windshield, and observes time to be seemingly accelerating in speed into future histories, the future light cone of SPACETIME (t=-1 from the collapsed cosmological constant (/\) of the relatively distant Horizon Mirror (t=0)).

3.) He looks to the rear into his aft-screen, his rearview mirror, and observes time to be seemingly accelerating in speed into past histories, the past light cone of SPACETIME (t=+1 from the collapsed cosmological constant (/\) of the relatively distant 'Horizon Mirror'(t=0)).

4.) Grand total of verses . . . MULTIVERSE! Grand total dimensionality . . . multi-dimensionality. Direction of travel, infinities of horizon universes in the speed of light constant forward out of the futures (t=-1) and rearward into the pasts (t=+1) of the infinite horizon 'set' of the distant Horizon Mirror (t=0) (spontaneous concurrent REALTIME (t=0)).
 
Last edited:
I don't understand half of your posts. I'm assuming English isn't your first language. My meaning is that billslugg and arturo.v.dominguez@gmail. were uselessly arguing in a small circle. billslugg would say "space is too slow/expensive, conventional means are the best solution, at least in the short term", then arturo.v.dominguez@gmail. Would say, "conventional means are too slow/impossible. Space is the best solution." but neither had specified the issue, nor quantified the feasibility and cost of the solutions, and doing so might be against the rules.
I have to believe your failure to understand where Billslugg and I are coming from may be that you are not following the conversation from where we start and where our individual conversations with each other and others in this thread intersect and interact with each other.

My entry into this thread starts at #29 as an enjoinment to H2Forge’s at #1. I take note of Billslugg’s case in point entry at #30.

Later on, on #37 I offer a counter point for Pogo’s #27. Next on #39 Billslugg makes an entry which appears to be in line with my response to Pogo’s #27

Following that I offer a rejoiner #46 for Billslugg’s #39. On # 47 I offer a rejoiner to your #41.

Then on #48 Atlan0001 makes an entry that appears to introduce a concern about my #46. For which I offer a counter point #49. Followed by Atlan001’s # 50 rejoiner to my #47.

Followed by an entry #51 by Billslugg to which I offer a rejoiner #53. After which Billslugg in #54 offers a counter point. To which I enter a rejoiner # 59 To Billsluggs # 54. Followed by Billslugg’s entry # 60. To which I offer a counter point #62.

Which brings us to my wanting to the present. Which is that you might be drawing the wrong conclusion on Billslugg’s and my entries as stated by your #69 rejoiner to Atlan0001’s #67.

For my part I assume that Billslugg recognizes I am not debating on a strictly cost related basis. The truth is that at the moment both avenues present an expensive and almost identical monetary problem.

Which in my view is not worth debating because it detracts from the reason, we each might have for our point of view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pogo and Atlan0001
I have to believe your failure to understand where Billslugg and I are coming from may be that you are not following the conversation from where we start and where our individual conversations with each other and others in this thread intersect and interact with each other.

My entry into this thread starts at #29 as an enjoinment to H2Forge’s at #1. I take note of Billslugg’s case in point entry at #30.

Later on, on #37 I offer a counter point for Pogo’s #27. Next on #39 Billslugg makes an entry which appears to be in line with my response to Pogo’s #27

Following that I offer a rejoiner #46 for Billslugg’s #39. On # 47 I offer a rejoiner to your #41.

Then on #48 Atlan0001 makes an entry that appears to introduce a concern about my #46. For which I offer a counter point #49. Followed by Atlan001’s # 50 rejoiner to my #47.

Followed by an entry #51 by Billslugg to which I offer a rejoiner #53. After which Billslugg in #54 offers a counter point. To which I enter a rejoiner # 59 To Billsluggs # 54. Followed by Billslugg’s entry # 60. To which I offer a counter point #62.

Which brings us to my wanting to the present. Which is that you might be drawing the wrong conclusion on Billslugg’s and my entries as stated by your #69 rejoiner to Atlan0001’s #67.

For my part I assume that Billslugg recognizes I am not debating on a strictly cost related basis. The truth is that at the moment both avenues present an expensive and almost identical monetary problem.

Which in my view is not worth debating because it detracts from the reason, we each might have for our point of view.
I apologize. I didn't mean that everything you two posted in this thread was part of the "useless small circle of argument". I was just pointing out the repetition in #54, #59, #60, and #62.

When I said cost, I meant "A negative consequence or loss that occurs or is required to occur.", not just monetary cost.

I've never seen nor heard the word "rejoiner" before reading your post, and I can't find a definition of the word "rejoiner" that makes sense in the context of your post, so could you help me out?