Why Space Exploration is Important

ldyaidan · Jun 18, 2006

Wow! I know I haven't posted much lately, just haven't had time, but I do still try to come in and read the boards when I can. Spacester, I'm really sorry you're feeling the way you are now. I thought the Lunar Colony and the Mars Colony threads were awesome. Both were well thought out, had a lot of very good ideas and possibilities. I enjoyed the work we started on ACCESS, and would love to see that sort of effort continued. I know that there are those on any message board that seem to be there only to stir things up, but overall, most of the posts I've seen lately are still intelligent, enthusiastic people all wanting the same things that we do. Maybe I missed something. I know a lot of different ideas are discussed, many of them very good ones. But I also know it's a big step to go from discussing things, to actually having the money, infrastructure, and resources to put them into action. Is this where your anger is coming from? That we have not put those ideas into action? I for one, would not even know where to start with that. I do value your input, ideas, and hard work that you have put into our previous discussions. I would love to see the ideas that were presented in the Moon/Mars threads implemented, but, again, that takes resources that the average person just does not have. Rae

rfoshaug · Jun 18, 2006

Spacester, I can't remember what you have posted and re-posted about this topic, and frankly, I don't care. This was a discussion about an article dealing with why space exploration is important. It was a good discussion until you came along and hijacked the thread with your own pathetic bitterness over something that obviously was said on this forum a long time ago. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I have a very straightforward, yet all-encompassing reason for space travel. It amazes me that no one here ever discusses it, no matter how many times I re-post it. I guess I've got it figured out and y'all are just unable to engage your mind when the concept is too broad. Either that or y'all are too proud to discuss a real answer to the central question of future spaceflight simply because you didn't come up with the answer yourself. I'll check back later on this thread to see if anyone is actually intrerested in a substantive answer to this critical question. Based on experience, I expect not.<hr /></blockquote> If you have a very straightforward all-encompassing reason for space travel, then you should enlighten us all with it, as you obviously believe it to be the approach to this question. If you have posted it many times in the past without getting the response or attention you want, then you should post it again - maybe someone will listen this time. If you're convinced that nobody will - then do not post it. But this "i know and could tell, but you all aren't smart enough" attitude of yours is offending, ignorant and rude. Speaking of being rude, you continue with: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I asked for a participant, not just a listener who goes away when the intellectual challenge rises above the bumper sticker level. Read my post again please. I'm looking for a committment from at least one individual before I waste my energ</blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------My minds have many opinions </div>

TheShadow · Jun 18, 2006

I have posted comments regarding Moderator actions in general, and mlorrey specifically in an appropriate thread in Suggestions Forum. All further comments regarding either should be made there, not here. Thank you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </div>

dragon04 · Jun 18, 2006

I think space exploration is important as well. But we have far too many terrestrial issues requiring resolution to get too aggressive about off world activities. One step at a time, folks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

spacester · Jun 19, 2006

"My statement is a recognition of reality of the forum. Some of us here are involved in space industry and science. A few are in a position to input into policy in some way. None of us, to my knowledge are senior researchers, managers, or policy people. So the influence of the forum as a whole in these fields is very small. How then is my statement poppycock? How is this in any way elitist? " Thank you Jon for an answer I can process - you have responded to my words with relevant words as I have asked. As a result we can hope to make some progress here. Your statement of "reality" is true for you, for your perspective. Others have other perspectives. Mine differs; but I allow for the existence of your perspective while you cannot allow for even the possibility that my perspective could one day be operative. The people with the funny colored names have virtually assured that my original mission here will fail. (Can you even allow for the idea of somebody outside the normal circles of power making a substantial difference? Do you insist that all the important players are already at the table and there is no room for innovation in organizational structure?) The nature of oppressive closed-mindedness is to force your perspective on everyone else. By adopting policies here which restrict the participation of free-thinking individuals, these boards have become skewed towards the most conventional thinkers. In addition, and not coincidentally IMO, if one were to select a representative cross section of the posters from the days when these boards were great, one would NOT have come up with the list of folks we have as authority figures. They are all noted - to my observation - as the ones most counted on to defend the status quo in any given instance. That's fine, defend the status quo, I don't blame you, after all it's a lot easier, but if you take over the boards by slow attrition and direct policy, driving off those who would challeng <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacester · Jun 19, 2006

Hi mattblack: I haven't posted in months until the last few days. I tried to calm down but I know I'm right and I'm back to see if the powers that be here can be made to even see my point; until then I'm going to stay angry. I completely support VSE / ESAS and have said so many times. I re-iterate that support; I am a Griffin fan and I trust him. I question and challenge authority figures but if they prove themselves worthy, I will show them the greatest loyalty they will find. I very much like your statement and have read it several times and you are one of the people I look to when I want to confirm my decision to treat Dr. Griffin as one of the most worthy individuals on the scene. I might note that my impression is that the support for VSE / ESAS by others here has been less steadfast than mine, excepting that I've been gone for a while. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

qso1 · Jun 19, 2006

spacester: The people with the funny colored names have virtually assured that my original mission here will fail. Me: Only you will virtually assure your own mission failure. I posted a response that I never saw you respond to. And that was, why preach to the choir, you should take your message to a more public venue. For starters, I'm sure you have heard of Jeff Bell, a columnist for Space Daily IIRC. Most folks here have heard of him because he is an "Anti humans in space" type. AFAIK, there is no counter to Jeff Bell, that is no pro human space flight activist that can argue for human spaceflight at a grass roots level. And, advocate it from a new position. A position you say you have but I havn't seen yet because I havn't been posting on the boards that long. Like it or not, if you have a message worth being seen, it has to be repeated often first off to assure everyone knows its yours, and to assure newer people to the boards like me, get to see it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

spacester · Jun 19, 2006

frodo, I understand your position and please understand that I don't think there is any reason for you to have to justify your participation - or lack of it - on any thread. Hopefully my latest message to Jon clarifies why I even brought those threads up at all. As I said earlier, no doubt most or all of you will write off this attitude of mine as being strictly on the personal level - hurt feelings and such. Yes, I am human and some of that is going on but I ASSURE YOU that my reason for doing this runs MUCH deeper. I hope to get back on the track towards showing that shortly, but I owe my fellow posters some more answers. "But over quite sometime now I have not seen him express anything but rampant sarcasm against anything traditional such as the space shuttle, ISS ,and VSE." You are wrong sir. Wrong, wrong, wrong. For starters "for some time now" doesn't apply to a person who hasn't posted in months. In any case, you WILL NOT be able to substantiate that statement no matter when you look. I conclude that you have me confused with someone else. I challenge anyone to substantiate that statement and I ask for a retraction from you, kind hobbit. My argument with the status quo does not equate to a problem with NASA's activities. My argument is with those forces I see lined up against real progress, and those forces have little to do with NASA - now that Dr. Griffin is in charge, I have faith that whatever quibbles I have with NASA are being dealt with and I do not expect the bureaucratic inertia to be easily overcome. You ask for specific, substantial ideas. I counter that I have offered them before but they fell on deaf ears. I had the most success in expressing my innovative ideas when I took the time to prepare my audience, and allow them time to absorb some new concepts. So I ask you to ponder my new sig line for a while. Do you believe it to be true? If not, why not? Along those same lines, I ask y'all t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacester · Jun 19, 2006

Hi Rae, nice to 'see' you again. I do not think such threads are possible here anymore. Maybe I'm wrong, so that's not why I'm angry. I'm not angry that action has not been taken. I'm angry that the status quo spectators have taken over these boards. I'm angry that their personal perspectives have no room for mine. I'm angry that any thoughts of Joe Public being an active participant in the development of space flight is still an absurdity to the spectator types. It is a self-fulfilling negative prophesy: if the people who are most interested in space flight - visitors here might easily assume that those with the funny colored names at the most obvious URL for learning about these things are those most interested - are content with the status quo and the current pace of development, then everyone else will just sit on their rear ends no matter what and no innovative approaches, no matter how brilliant, have a chance of gaining traction. The alternative is for some of the colored-name types to lead, follow or get out of the way. Right now, they're in the way because of their tacit yet universal endorsement of the status quo. In other words, when was the last time you saw a colored-name type here write anything in support of innovative approaches that involve the average US citizen? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

frodo1008 · Jun 19, 2006

Then perhaps you should contact spacester, as I was just trying to be nice and answer him. In actuality I really don't care about the ban on Mlorrey one way or the other. I also thought that my answer on the process of banning was very kind towards the MODS and the process itself. Sorry if I upset you somehow, that wasn't my purpose!

spacester · Jun 19, 2006

OK, rfoshaug, it's your turn. Thank you for your substantive response. That's what I'm talking about! Yes I'm being rude. I'm doing it on purpose and it's a completely new thing for me. I like to think that prior to this escapade, I was one of the most polite posters ever here. I have the right to be rude, and my sense of duty to my mission has caused me to be this way temporarily. I’ve asked Jon before to show me the respect of getting my user_id correct. If he wants to refute the charge of elitism, it would be a good start to show me that respect. I don’t call him John or jonny, and I take care to get everyone else’s name right too, I always have. To me it’s a sign of respect, and it’s easy for me to conclude that if Mr. Clarke can’t be bothered to show me some respect, it’s because he considerers himself ‘above’ me. I apologize for hijacking this thread. I feel confident that this is the very first time I have done so in 5+ years without asking permission first. Seriously; I keep track of these things; I take this activity seriously. I might note that if you want to identify the worst offenders at hijacking threads – or at least at taking them totally off topic – you might be astonished to observe how many times it’s the people with the funny colored names that are the worst offenders. Not that I really care, but that’s my observation. Really, go look, they do it all the time. At any rate, I am trying to get back on subject here, I don’t suppose my answer is going to live up to my billing after all the delay, but for the sake of the future of space flight – certainly not for the sake of my ego – please hang in there. I see some name-calling in your post but I don’t care. Just for the record. I apologize if I went over the line, this angry mode makes me sloppy. If I demonstrate several things that I do that others don’t, and that those things lead to superior discussions, I can fairly make my claim of <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

TheShadow · Jun 19, 2006

You continue to characterize this as some sort of group effort, a “we against them” situation. I do not see that at all. What I have seen on these boards are a lot of individuals, each making up their own mind. Challenge the viewpoint of any one individual and they will usually defend that viewpoint personally before they defend it with backup information. If a majority of the current members happen to agree on a particular issue, that isn’t necessarily “group think”. More likely they simply all came to the same conclusion based on the evidence they have seen. Granted, there are a few who may post what they think everyone wants to hear in order to be “popular”, but they are certainly not the majority. Not here. Not agreeing with your viewpoint or your opinion is not “closed-mindedness”. I am certain that everyone here has their own valid reasons for believing as they do. And disagreeing with your arguments does not necessarily mean they have not considered your viewpoint. You have been here long enough to know that accusing someone of not being open-minded is one of the most often claimed, and most often false accusations used on Uplink. The fact is, many of us have been around long enough to have been over this ground again and again. We look at the situation, weigh the evidence, compare it to our experience, and formulate an opinion. At some point, if the argument does not change, and the evidence does not change, and the procedure does not change, our opinion does not change either. This is a discussion forum, where everyone is allowed to express their opinion. There is no oppression of opinions or thought. You refer to the restriction of participation of free-thinking individuals. Perhaps you would care to explain what restriction you are talking about. As for the Mission Control Team members and Moderators, we are members of Uplink too. If we do not respond to one of your comments, perhaps it is because we hav <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </div>

spacester · Jun 19, 2006

thedream, thank you for making the effort to understand my position. Yes, that's on my list of cultural mores that need to be changed: when newbs show up they often are belittled and if any of them dare to dream, they are quickly 'put in their place' and told that their dreams are impossible. Yes, many times their ideas are in fact completely unworkable, but IMO we should try to establish an ethic of encouraging them rather than shutting them down. I tried to set an example there too, but seemingly all the people who joined me in that effort are gone and I gave up. Perhaps I'm exaggerating, I haven't been around enough lately to know if maybe it's gotten better. I don't see why it would have though, I don't expect that such a thing matters to the status quo types. In any case, it’s not at the top of my list of grievances because it is a symptom and I’m going after the disease. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

qso1 · Jun 19, 2006

spacester: My argument with the status quo does not equate to a problem with NASA's activities. My argument is with those forces I see lined up against real progress, and those forces have little to do with NASA... Me: This status quo you mention...the real forces that lined up against NASA, even against what your calling status quo here. These forces are not the ones your mentioning. This is a message board that has existed for maybe a decade, hardly an influentual lobby. The real problem is "No bucks, no Buck Rogers" to coin a phrase from the movie "The Right Stuff". You make it sound as though this board or members with funny colored names, has a great deal of influence on space policy. It does not. There have been plenty of folks posting here both mainstream and maverick. Human space flight progresses slowly despite this. The people who make space policy made it three plus decades ago when many of the ideas floating around now, were floating around then. Bases on the moon and mars, shuttles, heavy lift vehicles. All axed but the shuttle by President Nixon at Apollos end. Nixon responded to a sluggish economy and folks who said we could take money spent on Apollo and spend it on things right here on Earth. This view still prevails among many Americans three plus decades and annual NASA budgets greater than 50 percent less than Apollo spending. Were not going to get human space flight on the right track by some new tech proposal that chances are, is an old one dressed in new clothes. As I see it, were never going back to the glory days of Apollo in the same way we did then. We have to see now if private enterprise can do what NASA cannot do. I'm banking on that unless you do indeed have a better idea. Why is space exploration important? Why not start by explaining your position to us here on the board now that we know your anger at moderators and those of us with small brains (I know mines small, LOL). You can always pos <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

TheShadow · Jun 19, 2006

Now that is what I call a true double standard. You DEMAND “respect”, right down to getting the case of the “s” in your userid correct, and yet you cast your own admitted form of derision on a whole group of people because you “don’t know” if they are or are not doing anything wrong (by your standards). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </div>

TheShadow · Jun 19, 2006

Please read again what I posted only a few hours ago in this thread. “I have posted comments regarding Moderator actions in general, and mlorrey specifically in an appropriate thread in Suggestions Forum. All further comments regarding either should be made there, not here. Thank you. Please notice that means ALL further comments. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </div>

spacester · Jun 19, 2006

TheShadow, that is a very measured and thoughtful response. I am honored by your attention to my grievances in such a calm and even informative manner. I would like to take some time to read it again and ponder it more before responding. The hour is late and I want to get back on subject at long last. Two posters have stepped up to the plate by sending me PMs accepting my challenge for someone whom I can lead on a dialog designed to derive an answer to the title question. One requests that we do it on PMs or email and that's not what I want to do at all. I thank you for the kind words nevertheless. holmec has accepted and understands that I'm looking for someone willing to carry on an extended conversation. That's terrific, thank you very much! holmec, are you familiar with Plato's dialogs? Socrates started the practice, and Plato perfected it. A Platonic dialog tries to look at big-picture stuff from every possible angle and weigh the relative merits of alternate viewpoints with no emphasis on ultimately deciding what is "right" and what is "wrong". These dialogs are directed by the leader in his desired direction. I'm going to try to create such a dialog with your help. Of course, everyone is welcome to participate, Platonic Dialogs have multiple participants. In doing so, first I am going to try to lay a little groundwork so that when we finally derive my one-sentence answer to the title question, the full meaning may possibly be grasped. Question the first in our attempted Platonic dialog: Does mankind have value? /safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacester · Jun 19, 2006

Yes, I am guilty of applying a double standard here. So, for the record, double standards are bad in your book? If I were to find examples of double standards on your part, or on the part of your fellows, would that bother you to the point of investigating them and trying to correct them? I mean, it would be a double standard to apply a double standard, right?

spacester · Jun 19, 2006

No comment

spacester · Jun 19, 2006

qso1: "You make it sound as though this board or members with funny colored names, has a great deal of influence on space policy." You make it sound like that is an immutable fact of nature and not something that can be changed through concerted effort of human free will and human intellect through human cooperation. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> Didja see the sig line? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

qso1 · Jun 19, 2006

spacester: You make it sound like that is an immutable fact of nature and not something that can be changed through concerted effort of human free will and human intellect through human cooperation. Me: Not necessarily, I did mention we've only been around a decade and sometimes it takes time for a small group of people to effect change. "Human free will and human intellect through human cooperation" as you pointed out (As part of your quote) is part of that process. The process itself can get nitty gritty which often happens here or anywhere else numerous people have any sort of input but as I also mentioned, there is a larger group of people who are having a much greater effect on human spaceflight right now than we pro human space flight folks are having and thats where our priorities should be focused which is where someone with good ideas comes in. BTW, thanks for responding. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

JonClarke · Jun 19, 2006

A swad of stuff, I will try and pick the eyes out hopefully in order. "Thank you Jon for an answer I can process - you have responded to my words with relevant words as I have asked." I always do. "Can you even allow for the idea of somebody outside the normal circles of power making a substantial difference?" Of course I do. "Do you insist that all the important players are already at the table and there is no room for innovation in organizational structure?" Of course not, I don't know of anybody here who thinks this. "By adopting policies here which restrict the participation of free-thinking individuals, these boards have become skewed towards the most conventional thinkers." Assertion without evidence. Which specific policies? "In addition, and not coincidentally IMO, if one were to select a representative cross section of the posters from the days when these boards were great, one would NOT have come up with the list of folks we have as authority figures." Who would you choose? Name them. "if you take over the boards by slow attrition and direct policy, driving off those who would challenge the status quo, well, that's just cheating. It's downright immoral in my book. " IMHO the only people who have been "driven off" have been those who refuse to abide by the rules of polite and constructive discourse. Name one person who was banned for other reasons. "You asked for groupthink examples. I gave them. You choose not to respond to them. " Since you have not provided any examples, only baseless assertion, there is not much to respond to. What factual content you have actually supplied I have responded to. "Do you agree but cannot bring yourself to further discuss it?" You have still very short of facts to discuss, only lots of assertions. "What are your selection criteria when you choose what to respond to?" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Jun 19, 2006

I have numbered your assertions of "Group Think". 1. Some people think that these boards can serve a higher purpose than mere discussions. Some don't. The latter group is so certain of the correctness of their point of view that they have instituted rules and cultural mores which precludes any possibility of the other camp proving them wrong. 2. For those that think all these words amount to nothing more that cute attempts by rank amatuers to keep up with their betters, this closing down of the opposition holds no importance. 3. Those of who think the 'experts' can learn something from outside the inbred culture of Aerospace contracting and its alliance with ivory tower science think that this whole process looks a lot like intentional suppression by the powers that be in space flight development. After all, $Billions are at stake, so one need not be overly cynical to think such things. 4. I do not think it is intentional, but it sure looks like it. I think there is a still a chance that the folks with the special colored names will be so kind as to allow those who are trying to push the envelope to do their thing without the controllers' precious sense of orderly discussion winning the day everytime. 5. Maybe the whole point is that the captains of industry and the heads of space agencies are not the ONLY people who matter to the future of space flight. Maybe the possibility of a grass-roots space program ought not to be dismissed so readily by those who think "the range of subjects is broad enough for me, so they should be broad enough for everybody." Please provide evidence for these assertions by links to specific posts. Should be easy for someone of superior intellect. Without these facts then you are just sounding off. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

nyarlathotep · Jun 19, 2006

**Off topic comments deleted. Please repost in appropriate thread** Please provide evidence for these assertions by links to specific posts. Should be easy for someone of superior intellect. Without these facts then you are just sounding off. Further evidence isn't required, you've just provided it for him in the above posting.

spacester · Jun 19, 2006

"I always do. " I beg to differ. It seems to me that you will take the time to do so only when goaded into it by whatever means. I can either stroke your ego or piss you off, otherwise, you come across as too elite to respond. "I don't know of anybody here who thinks this. " Read your own post earlier in the thread . . . And then you launch into the old "prove it" technique (as perfected by mental_avenger). Sheer evasiveness. Prove the Big Bang. Prove the existence of dark matter and dark energy and the Higgs Boson. Prove a negative. Which policies? The "off to Phenomena if we don't like it" policy The utter refusal to let us in on any of the details of the banning of members policy. The utter refusal to include those outside the inner circle in deliberations as to future policies policy. That's just a start off the top of my head. Then you try to get me to name names whilst cautioning me against ad hominems. I invoke the immortal words of General Akbar: "It's a trap!" I'm not going there. "In case you haven't noticed everyone who knew you in the past believes your approach was successful" It is my own definition of success which matters to me. If I let others set the success criteria, I would be backsliding into groupthink mode. I'm not going there either. I repeat that if I was successful in any degree whatsoever, that my previous answer to the title question would be on the table and I would not be in the position of throwing a tantrum and launching an extended dialog just to get my point across. "Give specific examples. Not fact-free assertions." (In response to my question as to whether you see the elitism yet? Read your own posts earlier in the thread wherein you asserted that the impact of these boards cannot be significant. I take it you still don't see the elitism inherent in your approach? You try to evade this whole discussi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Why Space Exploration is Important

ldyaidan

Guest

rfoshaug

Guest

TheShadow

Guest

dragon04

Guest

spacester

Guest

spacester

Guest

qso1

Guest

spacester

Guest

spacester

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

spacester

Guest

TheShadow

Guest

spacester

Guest

qso1

Guest

TheShadow

Guest

TheShadow

Guest

spacester

Guest

spacester

Guest

spacester

Guest

spacester

Guest

qso1

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

nyarlathotep

Guest

spacester

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page