Humans in space

[gofer]

spayss, <br />Actually, now I think a sort of 'in-species' natural selection would probably occur on Mars, and the 'weaker' (in Mars terms) adult humans/newborns will die as the colonists wont' be able to treat them/keep them alive either because of insufficient local medical science, knowledge, or simply resources and means, and sine a trip to Earth with its advanced medical facilities is a year away and costs a lot of money... no matter how much the colonists wish to keep them alive. Pretty nasty. <br /><br />(hopefully, they won't actually have to fight each other for the scant resources there in the lowest form of 'survival of the fittest')

 

[arkady]

Oh ye of little faith <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Just a few comments ..<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Colonization with fully human people but doomed to wear life support systems for life if they want to take a walk outside their stuffy bases? Isn't that even crueler? I don’t' even consider that colonization.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br /><br />Why stuffy bases ? Build huge(!) domes, possibly utilize some geological feature (crater, mohole, etc). Pure speculation I admit. <br />Terraforming is still a bit too much sci-fi for me, and I can't see why it has to precede colonization. <br />Hmm, in fact I do if you imagine your Mars habitat being confined to simple stuffy barracks. I'm imagining habitats able to support thousands of people. Now I'm not imagining Nasa starting to contemplate any such plans in any near future, but at some point in history someone will, who knows when. Its what we've written books and made movies about for over 50 years. I refuse to believe that it doesn't go any deeper than because it sounds cool. It's human nature. Sometimes I wonder if the writers of the world is in many ways dictating our future, in that we can only move forward along paths we can imagine. <br /> <br /><br />I agree with Thalion's point that mankind going into space isn't likely to make all our problems go away. That would be naive. In fact it presents a whole set of new possible issues to disagree upon on top of everything else. However I do think that it will affect our perception of the world, and ultimately ourselves. Maybe I got a little carried away in my previous post, but if I did it's only because i feel so strongly for this subject. Confining human presence in space to just a question of gathering of data and planting the American flag simply disappoints me. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[gofer]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>As of now its pretty much a matter of belief I reckon. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />(This is a fascinating subject, btw. )<br /><br />It’s not a matter of beliefs. Although you do have to convince the potential colonists and their families, and instill them with confidence somehow. The half hazard approach (we'll figure something out once we get there) won’t work here, because you'll need to bring ALL the supplies with you in advance. It’s a matter of recognizing and anticipating problems of profound importance to who we are as humans, and seeing whether it’s all worth it. I’ve toched on the philosophical implications (would the entire species split in two? perhaps we can't control it anyway and people just go and colonize and adapt as best as they can.) <br /><br />But the practical and lifestyle ones are as enourmous. “Just put me on a boat to the new world, and come what may” worked with colonization of America but this is Mars we are talking about here, picking the most human friendly planet. Extreme temperature, no breathable atmosphere, if you fall down a break the visor on your helmet or poke a hole in your space suit, dead. Want to drink – turn on the urine distilling machine (I made this up but they’ll have to use something like that at least at first). Want a bite to eat – well there is some kind of green goo in a tube over the freezer. Or some local grown veggies (who knows how they will mutate and affect people?) And to top it off - a dreary landscape to stare at. And that’s for life! No walk in the park, no going to a baseball game with friend, no drive to the beach, etc… Ah, what? You want back? To Earth? Well you can’t. The next ship arrives in 5 month, and then it’ll take another year to get there. If you get a seat. <br />You can’t seriously consider subjecting people to what will amount to life in hell knowing well in advance about it and not considering the implications.<br></br>

 

[grooble]

I think the moon and mars will be a good training ground just because of how hard they are. Think of all the new tech that could be developed. I think mass colonisation is out of the question though, that should be saved for future Earth type worlds around other stars.<br /><br />We need to develop a good interstellar spacecraft too.

 

[arkady]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Heh, I know I come across as a professional sceptic on this, but this is the first time I really sat down and tried to think it over.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />And rightly so. Suppose I'd fall under the hopeless dreamer category <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It’s a matter of recognizing and anticipating problems of profound importance to who we are as humans, and seeing whether it’s all worth it.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I suspect its the other way around really. That its a matter of recognizing whether its worth it. I actually agree with most of the points you are making. Why should people choose to live in inhuman environments. <br />I simply entertain the idea that given enough time, technological advances will make it a viable scenario, and that the actual colonization will be a natural consequence. <br />I don't see it as a conscious process really, but rather a logical development dictated by circumstances, should these ever occur at any given time in history. I dont necessarily imagine sending huge ships to Mars carrying thoundsands of people with the sole purpose of colonizing (at first anyways), but rather a slow build-up starting with the first base.<br /><br />Now this is actually bringing us back to the original posters subject. This is in my opinion why we should focus on the human presence in future space missions. Not only because they are able to contribute to exploration and science in a much more flexible and dynamic way than robots, but because it will help lay the foundation for human migration onto other worlds. Without these efforts the circumstances I mention would never occur, thus confining human presence in the Universe to planet Earth.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[askold]

These posts have suggested a rational and reasonable approach to human space travel - in contrast to the irrational exuberance (to quote Greenspan) of the early days of the space program.<br /><br />If we take the view that people visiting Mars or even a return trip to the moon will take a century or more, then the pressure will be off NASA. What's the hurry? These places have been around a billion years; they're not going anywhere.<br /><br />In the meantime, I think we should continue to improve our technology and revisit the issue of putting people in space once our grasp has equaled to our reach.

 

[lunatic133]

Once a guy who was an astronaut came to my school, and gave a lecture about space flight. He was an all around nice guy -- an astronaut, yes, but always a human being first. Anyway, one of my classmates asked him why we should bother going to space to begin with.<br /><br />He replied, that we don't know the benefits of going into space, until we actually go. We may go for the stated reasons -- scientific value, helium-3 for energy, the earth is about to explode and we need to save our arses, any other of the many reasons that have been listed and argued for and against. But just because those are the reasons for going, doesn't mean that it is the only benefit we are going to find by going. When the old explorers went to the Americas for the first time, they went searching for gold. And they found gold. And it was all well and good, they found gold, happy yay. But gold was not the only thing that was discovered during the early days of exploration.<br /><br />They also discovered chocolate. Now, you might not think that chocolate is a horribly important part of human civilization. But think of it this way. When Columbus and his buddies brought all the goods back to Spain, they brought gold. The King and Queen kept some for themselves, of course, but a lot also went to the crew of the ships, the people of Spain, the gold went all over the place. The Chocolate, however, was jealously horded. For close to a century, nobody other than the royal family of spain was allowed to drink chocolate, as it was a heavenly drink reserved only for royalty. Then the English came along and stole the secret family recipe and then everybody could have chocolate and the rest is history. But the point still stands. Chocolate may not be the deciding factor of the success or failure of civilization, but then again, neither is gold. But let's face it, everyone loves Chocolate. And the Spanish didn't go to the Americas looking for sweet sweet brown stuff. They didn't even go looking for the Amer

 

[askold]

I'm not against space exploration, I'd just put a moratorium on human space travel for a while.<br /><br />The American public has become very risk-averse recently. We want perfectly safe prescription drugs, we want cars that can roll over in a violent crash and have the occupants walk away, and we want perfectly safe space travel.<br /><br />When a Mars probe goes awry, we all collectively say "oh crap" and move on (does anybody even remember the names of the crafts that slammed into Mars - I don't). But when we lose an astronaut all hell breaks loose.<br /><br />I think that at this point in time, human space travel is a distraction. Were getting tremendous benefit from communication satellites, GPS, environment scans, etc. We're gathering data from robotic probes that will take years to analyse. I don't think we collectively have the stomache for humans in space right now.

 

[arkady]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But when we lose an astronaut all hell breaks loose. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Let me be the cynic here.<br /><br />In essence its not much different than an airplane crash. Thousands of people die each day in traffic around the world. We know the risks of getting into a car and we gladly accept it.<br /><br />The reason the loss of astronauts is different is many I suppose. Firstly because they have been put there by politicians that need to be reelected. Secondly because their deaths seems pointless to many people, or should I say easily avoidable by not going in the first place. <br /><br />Hundreds of pioneer pilots died a century ago trying to master flight, if only for a few 100'. I would suspect their deaths would seem equally pointless to their contemporaries, but look where it brought us today.<br /><br />Also the sheer interest of space exploration insures huge media focus in the case of loss of life due to these initiatives.<br /><br /><br /> <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> I think that at this point in time, human space travel is a distraction. Were getting tremendous benefit from communication satellites, GPS, environment scans, etc. We're gathering data from robotic probes that will take years to analyse. I don't think we collectively have the stomache for humans in space right now. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I see your point. I'm not a scientist, and I have no way of judging whether human spaceflight holds great promises in the near future. On the other hand I cannot see why one approach should exclude the other. I'll give you that as of present only one organization is comitting fully to space exploration, and thus the different projects are competing for funds. I'm sure this will change. Allready we are seeing private projects emerging. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[lunatic133]

I still agree with what other people said -- if were not going to use any of the knowledge we gain by taking pictures of mars, then what is the point? I know I just said that unexpected things can be found by exploration, but even if robots discover new and wonderful things, what is the purpose of it if they are of no use to us because we cant GO There? I don't think that the problem of risk aversity is a reason not to go, I merely think we need to pass the baton to those who are less risk averse (Scaled Composites I Love You).<br /><br />True. Progress will happen much more slowly if private industry does it. But the point is that it will happen.

 

[arkady]

Science and the pursuit of knowledge is a goal in itself.<br /><br />Human selfishness plays significant part in this aswell. We'd all like to see all these exciting things come to pass within our own lifetime. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[thalion]

^<br />Ditto to both points.<br /><br />I agree with the assessment of risk-aversity, but I think that it stems from two main causes:<br /><br />1.) Manned space exploration is very expensive, so any loss of life is going to be seen as a waste of life *and* money. <br /><br />2.) Because it's a national enterprise (so to speak <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ), success or failure in space is closely bound to national prestige. When a NASA project fails, people at home and abroad think the entire organization is at fault, and as a federal agency it ultimately reflects back on the government. Hence, ultimately it's the government that wants to save face by making space travel be as risk-free as possible.<br /><br />These two aren't going together with any long-term manned exploration initiative, IMO. Just wait until the first human dies on the Moon, Mars, or en route to either--and if we're serious about this, then it *will* happen eventually--and if it's a NASA venture, you'll probably see public and official support for M2M evaporate like MC Hammer's career. We've lost two shuttles, and both losses hamstrung NASA for years. How much worse will it be when we're dealing with deep space?<br /><br />If I were to prescribe a solution to this problem of risk aversity, it would be simply:<br /><br />1.) Develop CATS. This is by far the most important.<br /><br />2.) Lease space work out to contractors and other private interests with heavy subsidies. There is a Machiavellian reason behind this; any failures will reflect badly on the company, not NASA or whoever. The subsidies will keep investors and shareholders from getting cold feet about a risky investment.<br /><br />Of course, if CATS comes about, then every loss won't be such a big fiscal hit after all, so it's a double bonus.

 

[arkady]

CATS ?<br /><br />Sorry, I'm relatively new to these boards and I constantly run into space-lingo I don't understand. Google tells me its a four-legged furry creature. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[grooble]

cheap access to space i believe.<br /><br />I think there is a specific figure for it too, like $100/lb.<br /><br />But then cheap is a relative term <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <br /><br />Still, imagine save $1000 for shedding 10lbs of excess fat?<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[thalion]

I'm not hip on some of the lingo myself. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />CATS= cheap access to space, referring to any method that is able to get people and cargo into space at a cost much less than today's (today, I think it's something like $10,000 a pound to low-Earth orbit).

 

[arkady]

Ah yes, thanks. The holy grail of spacetravel. Cheap and safe acces to orbit. <br /><br />My mind has been contemplating this matter for years, as I'm sure a million others have. The giant rocket approach always did bother me. A bit like having your eggs delivered by Airmail. Haven't been able to imagine any sane alternative yet of course short of the space elevator. I did see an interview with a Russian scientist claiming he could alter gravity slightly in an experiment he was conducting. That was years back however, so I take it he was wrong. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[grooble]

Surely there must be a way to repel a craft away from the earth with some magnetic field or weird device that alters the space around it.

 

[henryhallam]

No.

 

[spayss]

thaloin, excellent post (your one that starts "Ditto to both points. )<br /><br /> What is also interesting in the whole spade exploration discussion is the 'timetable'. What is the imperative of going anywhere. Not strong. There is no imminent need to return to the Moon or go to Mars, etc. There are valid reasons for exploration but nothing that jumps out at us and demands immediate action.<br /><br /> Does it matter if man first steps on Mars in 2095 or 2195?...or has some rudimentary base on the Moon 100 years from now instead of 50 years from now?<br /><br /> Most of the necessity for exploration is one of emotion from folks like us on these boards. Space exploration will proceed quicker if there is a culture of science in a society and technology gains a sort of reverence it had with flight, the automobile, nuclear weapons, the space Race, etc.<br /><br /> I'm a big advocate the quickest way to get 'get out there' in whatever form is through more science and technology investment in education from grade school through the big institutions. A lot of the cutting edge gray matter in the last 25 years has gone into system technology and it's be great to see a lot of it return to nuts and bolts engineering technology. The two aren't exclusive but there has been a creative brain drain.

 

[arkady]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Does it matter if man first steps on Mars in 2095 or 2195?...or has some rudimentary base on the Moon 100 years from now instead of 50 years from now? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The short answer would be no. Other than selfish reasons of course. <br /><br />Personally I believe we should go when we have the means. This is perhaps where the real difference of opinion lies.<br /><br />I'll assume most people would agree that going to the Moon and Mars represents very important goals to the efforts we put into the space program. As such it would mean going as soon as we can agree we have a valid plan and the means to see it through.<br /><br />Consider an amateur building a house on a small uninhabited island somewhere, with no acces to information on how to go about it what so ever. A fairly complex undertaking. There's a multitude of things to consider; weather, materials, geology, physics, resident biology, etc, etc. Now I'm sure you wouldn't expect him to spend decades trying to theorize on meterology, physics and engineering all while he's still sleeping outside in the rain. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />In a sense thats the feeling many of us are experiencing with space exploration today. Lets just build the damn thing, and sit comfortably on the porch of our newly built home considering these very ideas of construction. Chances are our homebuilder will actually learn more from constructing the house itself than he would theorizing about it.<br /><br />Now I'm not saying that we should plunge ourselves into this venture headlessly. We might very well end up with the roof falling on our heads so to speak. But lets not overcomplicate things by insisting to contemplate each and every possible aspect of spacetravel.<br /><br />Many believe we have the means and knowledge by now, and that the time is ripe for proceeding to the stage of actual planning and construction. Personally I have too little knowledge <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[frodo1008]

I am sorry, but anybody who thinks that humanity can just wait until some kind of catastrophe in either the form of a meteorite/supervolcano strikes against mankind is like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand!! Wake up people!! If mankind does not move its eggs out of this very limited basket in quite a short time (our entire lifetimes are very short in comparison to geologic times) there will be NO future for mankind, in space or otherwise!!!<br /><br />Let us take just one of these disasters one at a time, starting with meteors/asteroids. We know that anything that hits the earths atmosphere up to the size of a small boulder gets burned up with relatively little damage on the ground. However, once the object(s) get bigger than this the damage goes up exponentially. Several times in the last decade or so there have been objects big enough to cause the same type of damage as small nuclear weapons (without the radioactivity), Luckily these objects were only glancing blows to the earth’s atmosphere, and caused practically no damage. However, there is absolutely no guarantee that the next one will not come into the atmosphere in such a manner as to reach the ground and cause the same kind of damage as a Hiroshima type bomb or even greater. At this time there is no defense against such objects whatsoever.<br /><br />The other day I saw a program on the Discovery Science channel on objects as large as small buildings on up to objects as large as a football field. In the simulation such an object strikes New York (although any large city anywhere in the world will do) the damage such a strike would cause to a city like New York would make the damage of 9/11 be like a child playing with matches next to a child with a small nuke!! Any large city struck by such an object would simply cease to exist as a functioning city. Millions would be killed outright, and tens of millions would be injured. The total amount of damage to a large city anywhere in the worl

 

[arkady]

I agree that the possibility of a cataclysmic event happening on Earth is one of the key motives behind human expansion onto other worlds. That's why you'll see concepts like "natural evolutionary process" in some of my earlier posts.<br /><br />However be careful not overemphazise the possibity of such an event in timeframe in question. The odds are microscopic really, and if you submit to this line of thinking why not consider other possible cataclysmic events on a larger scale. Events that could destroy the entire solar system or galaxy for that matter.<br /><br />I truly sympathize with the point you are making, but to present it as an immediate threat that should be the key motivator for the space program would be pushing it to be honest. As much as I'd like to see a significant boost in space exploration, I don't think this is a good way to promote it. <br /><br />//edit: <br />Hmm, I actually regret the way my post turned out seeing it in black and white. As I said I <i>absolutely</i> agree with the point you're making. Just be careful not to hit people on the head with your arguments thereby alienating the people you're trying to convince <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />On another note, I tried rereading the entire thread and I'm afraid we're starting to go in circles here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[askold]

I'm more concerned that a nuclear-capable North Korea could set off a chain of events that results in the destruction of civilization next month than I am that a 1/2 mile asteriod will hit Earth in the next million years.<br /><br />Or that the CDC will misplace another batch of virus vials ....<br /><br />We need to balance our use of resources - mostly going to solving problems in the here-and-now, and some going to visit other worlds when our technological development allows it.

 

[frodo1008]

Please read the first part of my post. The city destroying event level has been calculated to be in the 100 year category(such as the one that occured in Russia in 1908), not thousands or millions of years. The smaller meteors outnumber the larger asteroids by factors of thousands. We have only even noted some 30% of the larger asteroiods yet.<br /><br />Please also note what I said about these statistical times, they may or may not represent reality.<br /><br />Also, while I do think that small nuclear devices could possibly be sent to US ports in container ships (which our government in its usual stupidity, examines less than 0.01% of such cantainers). No country with even the kind of leadership as Iran or North Korea is going to launch missiles at the US. We may not be able to stop such missiles, but we have a nuclear arsenal big enough to make a radioactive slag pile of any country that would be stupid enough to try!! This was called Mutually Assured Destruction(MAD) and worked quite well during the 40+ years of the cold war. It is just as much in place now as it was then.<br /><br />On the other hand the universe simply does not care what gets wiped out on the earth or any other body. If you want evidence of this just take a look at the moon with even a small telescope some night. Remember that the Earth has a gravity well some 6x larger than that of the moon!!<br /><br />Also, I am NOT saying that the only reason for human space developement is the possibility of catastrophic events. There are plenty of other good reasons as brought out on this thread. It is just that some people on these boards do not seem to have any knowledge or regard for a VERY violent universe.

 

[spayss]

If I thought for a second some super asteroid was going to hit the Earth I'd say the %$&* with Space and put 100% effort into saving my family here on Earth.<br /><br /> We can make the Earth multiples more habitable to humans post any theoretical disaster than some cave on Mars.