do you think

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thugfella

Guest
do you think in say the next 20 to 30 years humans will be visiting space more often and possibly making missions to mars and other places?
 
A

arobie

Guest
Simple Answer:<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />Longer(ish) Answer:<br /><br />Later if someone doesn't beat me too it. I've got to go to school right now, no time.<br /><br />
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
Yes... maybe -- depending on how much money we spend on wars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

arobie

Guest
You're thinking about countries as a whole...big space agencies...<br /><br />What about the small companies?<br /><br />Virgin Galactic, Bigelow Aerospace, Space X, Blue Origin, Armadillo Aerospace...
 
N

newtonian

Guest
ThugFella - That is likely, if Armageddon does not come first.<br /><br />We have not been invited, btw. Neither are there any No Trespassing signs. <br /><br /> So, as I said in another thread - proceed at your own risk. Protection from dangers the traveller and assistants must create themselves - and those protections are characteristically faulty.<br /><br />Many, like those on Challenger or Columbia, choose to take the risks,<br /><br />However, this is one reason it is far wiser to proceed with robots, as we have done recently on Mars and Titan.<br /><br />Robot technology is proceeding quite rapidly and we can learn much from a safe distance from these dangerous places.<br /><br />Of course, one can construct dwellings on Mars, etc., which would protect to a limited degree - and the subject is very interesting.<br /><br />It is a case of science fiction becoming reality - and I like science fiction!<br /><br />One of the dangers is illustrated in attempts at biospheres constructed here on earth - it is not so easy to develop a permanent, healthy biosphere.<br /><br />Earth really is a miracle of creation - there is no harm in trying to imitate it, however.
 
A

arobie

Guest
Newtonian,<br /><br /><font color="yellow">However, this is one reason it is far wiser to proceed with robots, as we have done recently on Mars and Titan.</font><br /><br />That is the space age long debate!<br /><br />Between robots or humans, each has it's own advantages and disadvantages.<br /><br />Robots are slower than humans, but they are the <i>safe</i> way to go. Humans can do much more science than robots in a much shorter time, but there is always that risk of human life. <br /><br />Personally I believe that we need to utylize both robots and humans. The robots are our scouts, and they go where we cannot go. But they cannot compare with what we humans can do. They prepare for humans or else there really is no justification for them if we will never use the information they find.<br /><br />There may be more risk in human spaceflight, but it is worth it, and I would go myself. It is more exciting...if this is with NASA,the public likes exciting.
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<font color="yellow">"What about the small companies?"</font><br /><br />I'm hoping the private companies do succeed in getting to Earth orbit, and maybe even the moon in the next 20 or 30 years. Maybe most of their money would come from tourism, but my interest would be the science payloads they could carry for a wider pool of researchers than currently have access to space through the government agencies. I don't see a private group, and maybe not even a government or international group, getting humans to Mars in the next thirty years.<br /><br />There will be a certain degree of luck involved. Just as with the shuttle program, or the airlines for that matter, the risk for disaster is always present. If a disaster occurs early in a private tourism program, that would really set things back. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Arobie - Well, yes, of course!<br /><br />Humans are far superior to robots because we are not such good creators, compared with our Creator.<br /><br />And that is my point - we are not given any protection by our Creator for such journeys.<br /><br />Perhaps, in the future, when those surviving respect the earth and live in harmony with it and each other, we will be given such protection and be able to take such journeys safely.<br /><br />That is, of course, speculation.<br /><br />Meanwhile, there is no shortage of people who are willing to risk their lives for mere thrill seeking. let alone scientific discovery.<br /><br />I strongly discourage any dangerous course, because to do otherwise could mean encouraging sending people to an early death.<br /><br />Of course, Columbus did make important discoveries (after the Vikings, etc,) on a risky journey.<br /><br />And, yes, humans are far superior to robots in many ways - not, however, in all ways.<br /><br />A robot can be designed for one specific purpose on what would be a suicide course - in those cases, like entering an active volcano, robots are actually superior.<br /><br />But that is because robots are machines, not souls, and therefore they are expendable.<br /><br />And they can be recreated (compare resurection) by human creators - we lack the ability to resurect humans who die in journey.<br /><br />
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<font color="yellow">"...the safe way to go."</font><br /><br />The advantage of robots is they are the <b>cheap</b> way to go.<br />In my mind the real question is economics, not (total) safety. Of course in human spaceflight, safety measures account for a great deal of the cost. But risk cannot be <b>eliminated</b> and that should not be the goal.<br /><br />People die all the time while driving, flying, climbing mountains, fighting in wars. But that does not stop us from participating in those activities. The death of an astronaut is no more devastaing on a personal level -- to friends and family -- than any of the other deaths that occur. The true devastation for a space program is the loss of the mission, not the loss of the astronauts. (I realise this is not poitically correct to say, but it's the truth.)<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<font color="yellow">"...robots are machines, not souls, and therefore they are expendable."</font><br /><br />Surely you beleive that souls are not expended, but live on forever. Only the body can be deemed to be expendable (or not). Someone who believes in a mission may consider their body to be expendable -- especially if they also believe in the existence of their eternal soul.<br /><br /><br />(You may consider a "lost" soul to be expended but that is a different matter.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
centsworthII - No, I surely do not believe that.<br /><br />(Ezekiel 18:4) "4 Look! All the souls-to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son-to me they belong. The soul that is sinning-it itself will die."<br /><br />The Bible repeatedly states that the soul dies. The doctrine of immortality of the human soul comes from ancient Babylonian religion and has spread to virtually all religions - but the doctrine is not contained in the Bible. <br />Why would we need a resurection if we already had an immortal or eternal soul?<br /><br />Again, I do not believe the doctrine of immortality of the soul - here are two more Scriptural reasons why:<br /><br />(Ecclesiastes 9:5) "For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten."<br /><br />(Ecclesiastes 9:10) "All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in She´ol, the place to which you are going."<br /><br />Yes, many are willing to take unnecessary risks because of that religious doctrine.<br /><br />However, I favor wearing a seat belt when driving, etc. - not takind unnecessary risks considering the desired goal.<br /><br />And war - er, what hapenned to love thy enemy (Matthew 5:44)?<br /><br />Which brings me back to my point - maybe when we get our conduct on earth straight we will be protected in travelling elsewhere.<br /><br />Did you ever see the Sci-Fi classic The Day the Earth stood still? If so, remember the extraterrestrial comment that on their planet there was no war?
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
{Wow. Yet more inconsistancies between the Bible and christian conventional wisdom as I understand it.)<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"I favor wearing a seat belt when driving, etc. - not taking unnecessary risks considering the desired goal."</font><br /><br />For many the goal <b>is</b> a human presence throughout the solar system. They believe that the risks can be made acceptable.<br /><br />I wonder what it was like in the early "barnstorming" days of flight. There must have been pilots dying left and right and yet they kept at it. What about early passenger airlines? I'd like to see a timeline of number of passengers flown and number of deaths. I wonder what kind of affect early airline tragedies had on the growth of the airline industry. Even today, the death of hundreds in a single airline tragedy does not much affect continued flights. And now they've built a plane that can carry over 700! Does no one else find this scary?<br /><br />I don't expect private travel into space to duplicate the barnstorming age. We live in a much different world. But if the risk can at least be kept at a level comparable to air flight, it should be ok. Luck will be involved. Tragedy is inevitable. I just hope one does not occur early on, before a good safety record can be established. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

dragon04

Guest
I think it's fairly important to seaparate manned and robotic missions to answer the question.<br /><br />Some things deter increased manned exploration. Namely, money, political will, and the lack of need to do it.<br /><br />As already pointed out, robotic exploration is a lot cheaper. Nowhere near as dramatic as a human being setting foot on another world, but more effective overall.<br /><br />Having said that, I think in order for manned space exploration to increase over the next 30 years, the money and hardware to do it will have to be the result of multinational cooperation.<br /><br />Much like the ISS but on a much larger scale.<br /><br />I don't think that corporations in the next 30 years will see any reason to expend their shareholders' money to explore, say Mars or mine the moon for resources.<br /><br />I believe that more and more people will go into LEO/suborbit in the next 30 years. In fact, LEO and suborbital passenger flights will likely become as routine as airline flights. Barring overregulation by the government, that is.<br /><br />But that could all change tomorrow. Should we discover a technology that reduces the cost to lift a pound of jellybeans into LEO from ten thousand to hundreds or tens of dollars, then the sky is literally the limit.<br /><br />So I see little or no increase in manned exploration but a definite increase in robotic missions in the next 30 years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Humans are far superior to robots because we are not such good creators, compared with our Creator. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I am reminded of an amusing remark by Werner Von Braun, which, paraphrased, is something like this:<br /><br />Humans are the most sophisticated computer that can be built entirely by unskilled labor.<br /><br />That was basically his argument in support of manned spaceflight, as opposed to robots. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
G

glutomoto

Guest
Re: I wonder what kind of affect early airline tragedies had on the growth of the airline industry.<br /><br />Early airline accidents may have helped boeing and douglas get ahead of the competion. de Havilland Comet Long-Range Jetliner<br /><br />From the website:<br /><quote>a Comet mysteriously crashed shortly after takeoff on 2 May 1953. Two similar crashes in early 1954 forced British authorities to ground the entire fleet pending investigation. Over the following months, extensive tests were performed on the aircraft to determine what could have caused these mysterious accidents.</quote><br /><br />and:<br /><quote>the four year hiatus in Comet operations had driven most prospective customers to the rival Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 which soon claimed the bulk of the market.</quote><br /><br />One thing though I don't think those early accidents scared the public away from flying.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS