Interesting comments from Lori Garver

Page 2 - 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

raptorborealis

Guest
Re: More comments from Lori Garver

sftommy":hd8blrdo said:
The "Plan" is....

Long term plan is colonization, what we're doing and planning to do are incremental steps along that path....

.
What long term plan is there for colonization of what by whom?
 
U

uberhund

Guest
If I may quote myself from a post to another thread:
[H]umans will never colonize again, this side of Armageddon.

Consequently, it's time to put aside the toys of long term HSF, and focus on securing the planet from NEO impacts, and learn a little science while we're still around to enjoy the wonders of the Universe.
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
uberhund":30qsp958 said:
If I may quote myself from a post to another thread:
[H]umans will never colonize again, this side of Armageddon.

Consequently, it's time to put aside the toys of long term HSF, and focus on securing the planet from NEO impacts, and learn a little science while we're still around to enjoy the wonders of the Universe.
And what makes you think that Earth will forever be the nice hospitable place it is now? Why don't we do more instead of just focus on one budget item?
 
U

uberhund

Guest
Yuri_Armstrong":17nzcy2v said:
And what makes you think that Earth will forever be the nice hospitable place it is now?
Er. The days of Earth being a nice, hospitable place are already long gone for 3/4 of the planet's population. The rest of us have a few more decades I suppose. When quality of life (as opposed to Standard of Living) declines, it's very hard to detect - like the proverbial frog in a pan of increasingly hot water. But there's no doubt livability will diminish for us all, and we will eventually become extinct. There's no stopping this rule of the universe.

With that said, allow me to re-phrase my request above:

Consequently, it's time to put aside the toys of long term HSF, and focus on securing the planet from NEO impacts, and learn a little science while we're still around to enjoy the wonders of the Universe.
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
uberhund":1ggrk3ix said:
Er. The days of Earth being a nice, hospitable place are already long gone for 3/4 of the planet's population. The rest of us have a few more decades I suppose. When quality of life (as opposed to Standard of Living) declines, it's very hard to detect - like the proverbial frog in a pan of increasingly hot water. But there's no doubt livability will diminish for us all, and we will eventually become extinct. There's no stopping this rule of the universe.
Hm, it's not a given that the environmental situation is irreversable. But even if so, colonization of other worlds in our solar system is the only way to keep the human race going. We can do a lot to protect the Earth's habitability, but some forces of nature are simply too powerful to stop. I guess we are mostly agreeing on this point but it seems to me like you have simply given up and are assuming the world will end in a few more decades.

With that said, allow me to re-phrase my request above:

Consequently, it's time to put aside the toys of long term HSF, and focus on securing the planet from NEO impacts, and learn a little science while we're still around to enjoy the wonders of the Universe.
By toys I'm assuming you mean manned space infrastructure. A lot of the technology we use today are a direct result of the space race and manned spaceflight. When and if the asteroid mission comes about we have an oppurtunity to learn more about possible ways of deflecting such an impact (which seem unlikely right now). We can learn a lot of science from manned space flight and I don't think humans will ever be content to stay where they are for too long. A society without frontiers is a society in decay, and we will always be pushing the next frontier until it has been tamed and settled and then we move on to the next one. Thanks to the commercial spaceflight industry "taming" the frontier of LEO seems likely to happen over the next two decades. And if the politicians can get it together hopefully we will move our base from the ISS to the moon and beyond.

This all sounds pretty optimistic but judging by history one would be wise to assume that we will continue our manned exploration of the unknown.
 
D

DarkenedOne

Guest
uberhund":9tyuqmzl said:
Yuri_Armstrong":9tyuqmzl said:
And what makes you think that Earth will forever be the nice hospitable place it is now?
Er. The days of Earth being a nice, hospitable place are already long gone for 3/4 of the planet's population. The rest of us have a few more decades I suppose. When quality of life (as opposed to Standard of Living) declines, it's very hard to detect - like the proverbial frog in a pan of increasingly hot water. But there's no doubt livability will diminish for us all, and we will eventually become extinct. There's no stopping this rule of the universe.

With that said, allow me to re-phrase my request above:

Consequently, it's time to put aside the toys of long term HSF, and focus on securing the planet from NEO impacts, and learn a little science while we're still around to enjoy the wonders of the Universe.
Man I do not know how you live with that attitude. It is the nature of human beings to hope for a better tomorrow. Doing so helps keep us striving forward rather than fall into self-destructive despair.

In any case there is no basis of any of your claims. There is no reason to believe the Earth as well as the humans on it who have lived for millions of years evolving are suddenly going to disappear. In the mean time we are becoming ever better at detecting and eliminating the threats to our existance.

Also there is no reason to believe whatsoever that humans will not colonize space. It is the nature of life to spread. Humans have spent the last few tens of millions of years to inhabit every part of Earth that is habitable. Now that we are beginning to make space habitable as well there is no reason why we will not spread there too.
 
D

DarkenedOne

Guest
uberhund":3vp23m73 said:
I'm torn on this one neutrino. On the one hand you have Eisenhower's excellent Interstate Highway system that could not have been accomplished without his government leadership. From that example, infrastructure seems to be government's strong suit.

More recently, the US government left a vacuum in the development of cellphone infrastructure, and the US has the scrambled-egg mess of multiple, redundant towers in each cell, none that talk to each other, as a result. Compare that to the development of comparatively elegant GSM, which has had 3G for a decade, in other countries.

I dunno. I'm usually a supporter of laissez-faire, but the evidence seems to recommend against entrusting infrastructure to the commercial agenda.
"infrastructure seems to be government's strong suit"

First of all we must remember that the government hired private contractors to build them and operate them, and most likely design them. The government has always been a great funding agent since they have lots of money.
 
R

rcsplinters

Guest
Actually, the highway system is built by contractors on a cost plus basis at the specific request of state highway departments, often to plans provided by state engineers or specific designs on a cost plus basis. The roads are maintained by state crews or contracted for specific repairs on a cost plus basis. The rules of the road are policed by state and local law enforcement and only in the most rare of cicumstances contracted at all. Bottom line is the highway system is a state and federal infrastructure and contracting is totally cost plus. Probably a better analogy to space flight would be a military campaign where the specific campaign is totally under federal control and waged by federal employees (military) using equipment which is provided on a cost plus basis. I don't think we'd want toys-r-us conducting military operations.

It appears that there is 50 billion on the table for infrastructure projects along with some 200 billion in tax breaks for corporate investment. I presume that SpaceX will be precluded from getting ANY of these additional stimulus funds though the reason for this defies rational explanation. Instead the corporate charity will likely be squeezed from the NASA turnip which is already short on funding.

There's a way for the commercial HSF federal charity and a more fully funding NASA to co-exist here and we are missing the boat. The incumbent party has the cash faucets on full in an attempt to salvage things in November and NASA is not going to be allowed a sip. NASA leadership (yes, Ms Garver, I'm talking to you since Mr. Bolden seems not to be talking at all) is not being politically savvy.
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
DarkenedOne":39flxgj2 said:
Man I do not know how you live with that attitude. It is the nature of human beings to hope for a better tomorrow. Doing so helps keep us striving forward rather than fall into self-destructive despair.

In any case there is no basis of any of your claims. There is no reason to believe the Earth as well as the humans on it who have lived for millions of years evolving are suddenly going to disappear. In the mean time we are becoming ever better at detecting and eliminating the threats to our existance.

Also there is no reason to believe whatsoever that humans will not colonize space. It is the nature of life to spread. Humans have spent the last few tens of millions of years to inhabit every part of Earth that is habitable. Now that we are beginning to make space habitable as well there is no reason why we will not spread there too.
Great post darkenedone! I couldn't have said it better.
 
U

uberhund

Guest
DarkenedOne":92yk90jz said:
There is no reason to believe the Earth as well as the humans on it who have lived for millions of years evolving are suddenly going to disappear.
There's every reason to believe humans will suddenly disappear. Had they the ability, creatures of the Cretaceous, and then your favorite dinosaur, to name only two examples, would have agreed with you. Look where that line of thinking got them.
How many sudden species kill-off examples do you need?

DarkenedOne":92yk90jz said:
Also there is no reason to believe whatsoever that humans will not colonize space.
Again, there's every reason to believe humans will never colonize space, at least not beyond LEO. The reasons, again, are 1) physics, 2) economics, 3) engineering, and 4) ethics.
How many reasons did you need?

DarkendOne":92yk90jz said:
It is the nature of life to spread.
Yes. And then, to die. The number of species that have followed this inevitable life cycle is too numerous to list.
How many examples did you need?

DarkendOne":92yk90jz said:
There is no reason to believe the Earth as well as the humans on it who have lived for millions of years evolving are suddenly going to disappear.
Er. No. Humans may or may not be evolving, but the oldest current estimate for the human race is, what, a mere 200,000 years, give or take. It's probable that innumerable species have existed for less time on this planet. But even successful species in our history are mostly dead now (if you found a survivor on this list in your kitchen, you'd shoot and/or squash it). The others? Gone and forgotten. I don't make up these facts of life. I just make my peace with them and move on, grateful to have had my own time in the sun, and to have been able to engage in dialogs like this.

DarkendOne":92yk90jz said:
Now that we are beginning to make space habitable as well there is no reason why we will not spread there too.
We have begun to do no such thing. Space is as uninhabitable as ever. The ISS can't even get its toilets and air conditioners to work properly. Microgravity and radiation conspire to limit occupancy of the ISS to a few months. The ISS must be resupplied constantly from Earth.

How many examples do I need before I would agree that humans can live sustainably in space?

One.
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
uberhund":3h8pqvu8 said:
DarkenedOne":3h8pqvu8 said:
There is no reason to believe the Earth as well as the humans on it who have lived for millions of years evolving are suddenly going to disappear.
There's every reason to believe humans will suddenly disappear. Had they the ability, creatures of the Cretaceous, and then your favorite dinosaur, to name only two examples, would have agreed with you. Look where that line of thinking got them.
How many sudden species kill-off examples do you need?
Yes, but we, unlike those countless others, have the ability to use technology and tools to our advantage.

DarkenedOne":3h8pqvu8 said:
Also there is no reason to believe whatsoever that humans will not colonize space.
Again, there's every reason to believe humans will never colonize space, at least not beyond LEO. The reasons, again, are 1) physics
How does physics prohibit human spaceflight?

2) economics
It is costly but the plan is to reduce these costs through private competition and improved technologies. Compared to trillion spent on the "war on terror", the $20 billion or so that NASA gets every year is very much worth it!

3) engineering
The space programs hire the finest engineers in the world. Whenever a seemingly impossible problem has come up, our pilots and engineers have found a way to resolve it. This is perhaps the "easiest" thing to deal with when it comes to manned spaceflight.

4) ethics.
Ethics? You've got to be kidding me. Human spaceflight is as ethical and responsible as any charity program. By exploring and settling places like Luna and Mars we are giving the gift of a new world to future generations. What could be more responsible? It is up to us, the people of the present, to make access to LEO cheap and reliable, and to settle and colonize other worlds in case some disaster strikes home. Haven't you ever heard of Carl Sagan's "two planet" rationale?

How many reasons did you need?
Actually, the ones you listed are not the problems of manned spaceflight. The problem is pessimists and misanthropes who constantly oppose anything that can expand human presence in space. Without them things would go much smoother.

DarkendOne":3h8pqvu8 said:
Now that we are beginning to make space habitable as well there is no reason why we will not spread there too.
We have begun to do no such thing. Space is as uninhabitable as ever. The ISS can't even get its toilets and air conditioners to work properly. Microgravity and radiation conspire to limit occupancy of the ISS to a few months. The ISS must be resupplied constantly from Earth.
What are you talking about? The ISS is a massive, beautiful engineering marvel, the most complex and amazing achievement of human engineering. It is far better than Skylab, Almaz, and Mir. It can have more modules added to it and has been running very efficiently for 12 years. Sure, it may have mechanical problems every now and then but with a machine that complex in such a hostile environment that is to be expected. It's really great that they haven't had any fatal accidents aboard.

With missions to the moon, asteroids, and Mars ahead by the various space agencies of the world space will become more habitable for people. The ISS only needs resupply from Earth because it is in space and can not use ISRU. But that problem will not exist on the moon and Mars, where a base could produce many of its own resources.

And remember that no person or state is ever completely self sufficient. We all rely on other nations for imports, exports, and our families to provide financial assistance.

How many examples do I need before I would agree that humans can live sustainably in space
We've been doing it for 12 years non stop now. If you despise manned spaceflight so much then why are you in a forum that discusses not the rationale for human spaceflight but the technologies and programs involved with it?
 
U

uberhund

Guest
Yuri_Armstrong":bxyph6az said:
Yes, but we, unlike those countless others, have the ability to use technology and tools to our advantage.
And our disadvantage. Using this technology, we will continue to extend our lifespans and eventually breed ourselves to death, if an asteroid doesn't take us out in the meantime. You heard it here first. Film at 11.

Yuri_Armstrong":bxyph6az said:
How does physics prohibit human spaceflight?
It doesn't. It does, however, prohibit colonization of anywhere not on this planet (let's agree to define a colony as a self-sustaining entity, that can survive without support from the outside).

Yuri_Armstrong":bxyph6az said:
Compared to trillion spent on the "war on terror", the $20 billion or so that NASA gets every year is very much worth it!
Amen to that, brother. No argument there.

Yuri_Armstrong":bxyph6az said:
It is up to us, the people of the present, to make access to LEO cheap and reliable, and to settle and colonize other worlds in case some disaster strikes home. Haven't you ever heard of Carl Sagan's "two planet" rationale?
Carl Sagan? You mean the guy that wrote a novel about aliens sending us plans to build a warp engine/time machine? That Carl Sagan? What I haven't heard of is a world that we could possibly dream of colonizing. If you are going to assemble the world's greatest engineers to solve a problem, I'd start there. Engineers don't do well with ambiguity. Spoiler alert: there aren't any.

Yuri_Armstrong":bxyph6az said:
[Engineering] is perhaps the "easiest" thing to deal with when it comes to manned spaceflight.
It's always easy for people not doing the work. Engineers, Apollo is a good example, only make it look easy. That's why I love 'em.

Yuri_Armstrong":bxyph6az said:
The problem is pessimists and misanthropes who constantly oppose anything that can expand human presence in space. Without them things would go much smoother.
Wait a minute now. That's Mr. Misanthrope to you, Yuri. Why, I'll have you know that skepticism is necessary to the scientific method. It can separate mythology from truth. Galileo is my recent example. Don't make me turn on my Rene Descartes signature again. Oh, HSF fans will have much much bigger problems to overcome than a misanthrope who loves scientists, pilots, physicists, engineers, and continent of literate readers. Come to think of it, I'm really not a very competent misanthrope.

Yuri_Armstrong":bxyph6az said:
We've been doing it for 12 years non stop now.
Er. No. The space station is not a sustainable colony (see my definition above). And I wouldn't even call it very efficient. As far as I can recall, it has failed to make a single one of its original design goals. Could be wrong on that. I'll have to check.

Yuri_Armstrong":bxyph6az said:
If you despise manned spaceflight so much then why are you in a forum that discusses not the rationale for human spaceflight but the technologies and programs involved with it?
Well, they seem a little interrelated to me, but in any case, I am far, far, from despising manned spaceflight. In fact, I would still give the proverbial left body part to be able to fly on the Shuttle or anything into orbit. Somehow, however, NASA prefers people like Lisa Nowak to someone like me who has actual passion for flight, engineering, design, and discovery. So I remain earthbound with all my glands intact.

What I despise is senseless waste of resources, as should we all.
 
D

DarkenedOne

Guest
uberhund":2oaay35g said:
DarkenedOne":2oaay35g said:
There is no reason to believe the Earth as well as the humans on it who have lived for millions of years evolving are suddenly going to disappear.
There's every reason to believe humans will suddenly disappear. Had they the ability, creatures of the Cretaceous, and then your favorite dinosaur, to name only two examples, would have agreed with you. Look where that line of thinking got them.
How many sudden species kill-off examples do you need?
What your saying does not make sense. Yes there are some evolutionary dead ends. However there is every reason to think we are not one of them.

uberhund":2oaay35g said:
DarkenedOne":2oaay35g said:
Also there is no reason to believe whatsoever that humans will not colonize space.
Again, there's every reason to believe humans will never colonize space, at least not beyond LEO. The reasons, again, are 1) physics, 2) economics, 3) engineering, and 4) ethics.
How many reasons did you need?
Those are fields of study not reasons.

uberhund":2oaay35g said:
DarkendOne":2oaay35g said:
It is the nature of life to spread.
Yes. And then, to die. The number of species that have followed this inevitable life cycle is too numerous to list.
How many examples did you need?
Incorrect! Unsuccessful species die, but successful species evolve. Its called evolution. Humans are clearly among the most successful species in the history of this planet. For our size and category I would say we are definitely the most successful known species.

uberhund":2oaay35g said:
DarkendOne":2oaay35g said:
There is no reason to believe the Earth as well as the humans on it who have lived for millions of years evolving are suddenly going to disappear.
Er. No. Humans may or may not be evolving, but the oldest current estimate for the human race is, what, a mere 200,000 years, give or take. It's probable that innumerable species have existed for less time on this planet. But even successful species in our history are mostly dead now (if you found a survivor on this list in your kitchen, you'd shoot and/or squash it). The others? Gone and forgotten. I don't make up these facts of life. I just make my peace with them and move on, grateful to have had my own time in the sun, and to have been able to engage in dialogs like this.
Once again successful species evolve. True humans in their current form will not always exist. Does that mean that they will be dead. No. They are simply the ancestors of another species in our case probably one more adapted to space travel.

uberhund":2oaay35g said:
DarkendOne":2oaay35g said:
Now that we are beginning to make space habitable as well there is no reason why we will not spread there too.
We have begun to do no such thing. Space is as uninhabitable as ever. The ISS can't even get its toilets and air conditioners to work properly. Microgravity and radiation conspire to limit occupancy of the ISS to a few months. The ISS must be resupplied constantly from Earth.

How many examples do I need before I would agree that humans can live sustainably in space?

One.
"Space is as uninhabitable as ever."

This proposition is not even worth disproving. Just 70 years ago we were not capable of sending anything into space, and that now we have 6 people spending 4-6 months at a time. If you do not consider that progress than I do not what is.
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
uberhund":3l01su0y said:
]And our disadvantage. Using this technology, we will continue to extend our lifespans and eventually breed ourselves to death, if an asteroid doesn't take us out in the meantime. You heard it here first. Film at 11.
You are accepting this as an inevitability, which it is not. And if you're worried about asteroids then manned spaceflight is probably THE best option to stop them! Send a ship out there and divert its coures to keep it from impacting us.

It doesn't. It does, however, prohibit colonization of anywhere not on this planet (let's agree to define a colony as a self-sustaining entity, that can survive without support from the outside).
Have you even read the plans for Mars settlements yet? Like I said before, nothing is every completely self sufficient. We all rely on imports from other nations. We all rely on our families for financial/emotional support. Why would we set up a Mars colony and then cut them off from Earth? It would not make sense.


Carl Sagan? You mean the guy that wrote a novel about aliens sending us plans to build a warp engine/time machine? That Carl Sagan?
uberhund, how could somebody on a science board possibly discredit Sagan on account of a FICTION book he wrote.

What I haven't heard of is a world that we could possibly dream of colonizing. If you are going to assemble the world's greatest engineers to solve a problem, I'd start there. Engineers don't do well with ambiguity. Spoiler alert: there aren't any.
Here's two: Robert Zubrin and Richard Wagner.

Er. No. The space station is not a sustainable colony (see my definition above). And I wouldn't even call it very efficient. As far as I can recall, it has failed to make a single one of its original design goals. Could be wrong on that. I'll have to check.
My point was, that space is as safe as ever for people. Sending one man into orbit was a huge accomplishment that will be remembered for centuries. But now we have space shuttles that carry SEVEN people into orbit and 6 people on board a space station continously for 12 years! Space is not as "uninhabitable as ever".

Wait a minute now. That's Mr. Misanthrope to you, Yuri. Why, I'll have you know that skepticism is necessary to the scientific method. It can separate mythology from truth. Galileo is my recent example. Don't make me turn on my Rene Descartes signature again. Oh, HSF fans will have much much bigger problems to overcome than a misanthrope who loves scientists, pilots, physicists, engineers, and continent of literate readers. Come to think of it, I'm really not a very competent misanthrope.

Well, they seem a little interrelated to me, but in any case, I am far, far, from despising manned spaceflight. In fact, I would still give the proverbial left body part to be able to fly on the Shuttle or anything into orbit. Somehow, however, NASA prefers people like Lisa Nowak to someone like me who has actual passion for flight, engineering, design, and discovery. So I remain earthbound with all my glands intact.

What I despise is senseless waste of resources, as should we all.
Everything you say here is completely contrary to what you've said before. "let's give up the toys of HSF", "humans will never colonize again this side of armageddon", etc.

What you are saying is that we are inevitably doomed to die on Earth, will never make any progress beyond LEO, and either should not or can not colonize other planets (you also seem to have a peculiar dislike for SETI). If you are really as interested in discovery as you say you are, then what makes you hold such views? You are accepting too many things as inevitabilities that can not be accomplished by us. I bet you would've been one of the people saying you can't break the sound barrier or live normally in weightlessness back in the 40's and 60's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY