Why Space Exploration is Important

qso1 · Jun 22, 2006

Mental_Avenger: The exploration of space and the eventual settlement of off-Earth places such as Mars... Me: When one looks at current or near term possibilities, one can see how one would be discouraged. But looking long term, possibly a century or more, then the settlement of other planets seems more within the realm of being doable. <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>

scottb50 · Jun 23, 2006

Is there no such thing as a pragmatic philosopher? I think everything we can relate to follows the same rules. A sub-sub- sub Quark, to an Atom to a Molecule to a Star, to a Galaxy or to a Universe, it all works the same way. Mass has Gravity and attracts other mass. As all the big bangs cooled smaller ones sprang up from the cooling gasses, until matter and a lot of liquids and gasses started to come out forming Solar Systems. Like the big round things at the fourth of july displays. Except the planets fall to the ground as scraps of cardboard. The bottom line is there is one law and that's Gravity. We have proven man can live and work in Space it's time to exploit it. That's pretty pragmatic if you ask me. If Space and Space travel has no value, why waste our time talking about it? I think there are a lot of reasons to exploit Space and 90% of them could produce revenue, at some point. I also think if we start out with simple, cheap and safe access to LEO Commercial Space could be very profitable. Once you get to and can live in LEO anywhere else is relative. Something that provides a habitat in LEO will work just as well in deep Space or on the surface of a planet or other body. I made it quite a ways in math as a Chemistry major, a number of years ago, but I always wanted to fly, which I did. The basic rules that govern Navigation are the same anywhere in the Universe because they all relate to Gravity. I don't think I have to have an intimite relationship with my Navigation system, I put in a few simple numbers, or better yet let the numbers be fed in by a commercial service and boom, I'm in orbit around asteroid 31285-002. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mental_avenger · Jun 23, 2006

For an answer that is not limited in scope, please see my 754 page dissertation. Meanwhile, a clever and convoluted answer is not necessary. The driving forces behind colonization will be a combination of political and economic events, probably more coincidental than direct. Whatever the case, it is unlikely that we could have much influence on those driving forces. What is important is how the situation is handled once those forces are in motion. For instance, the first permanent manned base should be on Mars. The initial colony should consist of at least 200 people, men and women, with diverse training and abilities. No “flag and footprints” missions, no visit and return mission, but 200 people on the very first ship, most of them committed to remaining on Mars for the long term. We could have a viable, self sufficient colony on Mars within 5 years of the initial landing. Any other approach would be very slow and very very expensive in comparison. Git ‘r done! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Jun 23, 2006

I think space is important, and that we will expand into space, if for no other reason than our ever growing population will have to have someplace to go, That will never happen. Even with CATS, relocating people into space would be many orders of magnitude too expensive and difficult. We can’t even afford to relocate excess population from one area on Earth to another. Starting new colonies which will grow normally is one thing. Reliving overcrowding on Earth by transporting the people off-world will not be done. Ever. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Jun 23, 2006

When one looks at current or near term possibilities, one can see how one would be discouraged. But looking long term, possibly a century or more, then the settlement of other planets seems more within the realm of being doable. We currently have the technical ability and the resources to build and populate a viable colony on Mars. We are lacking only the incentive. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Jun 23, 2006

It may be biologically impossible to live off the planet [Earth]for more than one generation. I seriously doubt that. While the 1/6th gravity of the Moon may be too little for long term health, I believe that the .38 gravity of Mars will be sufficient. There is a major difference between the zero-G of LEO and the .38G of Mars. I am confident in the body’s ability to adapt to extreme conditions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

qso1 · Jun 23, 2006

Mental_Avenger: We currently have the technical ability and the resources to build and populate a viable colony on Mars. We are lacking only the incentive. Me: You got it. I call it the cost barrier and as long as the public and Congress balk at funding such an activity, the barrier remains. Of course, setting up shop on Mars is a long way from going to the stars and I hope the bridge in between will be something along the lines of what I mentioned previously, or something better. <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 23, 2006

I agree, the low gravity may not be a problem. But the long term high levels of radiation exposure will be. Currently a conjunction class mission results in crews receiving close to the life time dose for astronauts from cosmic rays. This means that people will have to spend most of their life underground. Growing food under such conditions will be difficult as well. There a lots of maybes of course! Maybe with research cosmic ray exposure will prove less damaging than thought. Maybe better antiradiation drugs will be developed. Maybe spending most of our life underground is acceptable. Maybe there will be incredible shielding materials invented. Maybe synthetic foods can be developed. Maybe food production in high radiation environments is not going to be a problem. Maybe underground food production under full spectrum lights will be OK. Maybe some kind of genetic engineering will lead to better human resistance to radiation damage. Maybe medical advances will improve treatment of radiation induced damage. Maybe people will accept the price of shoter lives for the change of develop a new world. But maybe not. Maybe all we can ever have on Mars is crew rotations though research stations. One purpose for such stations will be to see whether they can lead to anything more. I think it is better to rise to the challenge and fail than not try at all! 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>

mental_avenger · Jun 23, 2006

That is a lot of IF’s. I have always considered living underground on Mars as a given. The very first habitats could be the prefitted hulls of robotic cargo vessels sent to Mars with supplies before the first colonists arrive. They could be maneuvered into ravines or trenched and covered with dirt. Almost certainly the underground volume needed for growing food would require caves or at least tunnels. One of the first pieces of heavy equipment on Mars should be an NTBM. Many people already live in what amounts to being underground in large cities. They rarely leave the confines of one building or another, some of them actually underground. I believe that the right group of people could get by very well in properly designed underground cities on Mars. The only problem I see is the really slow internet connections. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

spacester · Jun 23, 2006

Looks like we need a new thread on Man at Mars. Looks like holmec is not going to be around to do the dialog thing as I'd hoped. I issued a challenge for just one person here to join me in a discussion which I would lead. The failure of this board to produce this one person leads credence to my contention that no one here can set their ego aside, even for a short time, even for a high purpose. heavy sigh. :-( <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mental_avenger · Jun 23, 2006

You might want to take a step back and look at the situation again. I don’t think that most people here have any idea what you are trying to do, I know I don’t. This isn’t about egos or lack of intelligence. Simply put, most people aren’t going to want to play games. If you have a plan, present it. Then people will agree or disagree, comment or ignore as they wish. I doubt that there is any plan that requires a convoluted, structured discussion in order to be either effective or understandable. Start a new thread in which you lay out your idea/plan/proposal/concept. Let the members make their own decisions on their own time table. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

qso1 · Jun 23, 2006

I tried to interest you in taking your idea to a more public forum but you never responded to my posts. Some of us cannot be here all the time and I realize this also applies to you but you passed over my posts. <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 24, 2006

I agree that people live the equivalent to underground dwellings already. However whether people will accept living their entire life of ~70 years underground on Mars in exchange for 3-4 years of surface time as a desirable lifestyle remains to be seen. Maybe virtual exploration will suffice. A lot depends on what people are doing with the rest of their lives as well of course. Are there unique challenges and opportunities that would make people want to do that? I would not worry about slow internet speeds. By the time that people settle Mars a lot of information would be hosted on Mars already. And the delays to contributing to a fora such as this would be no more than experienced in through different time zones now. Amazxing though it may seem, there is more to life than the internet <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> 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>

lampblack · Jun 24, 2006

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. If you already have the "one-sentence answer," you should simply go ahead and share it -- and forego the charade of a pseudo-dialogue. Actually, it was good ol' Socrates (and not Plato, one of his protoges) who employed the famous technique of using questions and answers for seeking truth. Thus the name, "Socratic Method." Placing oneself in the role of Socratic-style questioner is to assert that one's own opinion -- like Socrates' -- is the only one possessing any actual value in the dialogue. Surely the sort of unremitting arrogance that this kind of assertion would imply is not what you intend. Placing yourself in the role of Socratic questioner is a trick you can get away with only if you're a world-renowned philosopher whose name will be remembered for millenia -- and who is truly smarter than everybody else in the room (or in the forum, as the case may be). If you fall into that particular category, then by all means proceed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Just tell the truth and let the chips fall... </div>

kdavis007 · Jun 24, 2006

Good enough reasons for me...

spacester · Jun 26, 2006

(I've only time for quick responses right now . . . ) Actually, lampblack, I quite purposely stated that I'm looking for a Platonic Dialog, which is NOT the same thing as the Socratic method. I reject the latter for the reasons you cite. However, Plato transformed the method into a much more open style of discussion, where the 'master' led the discussion, but the idea was kicked around from all possible perspectives. Much more to my liking. All of the Mars Settlement threads and Arobie's Lunar Colony thread were Platonic Dialogs. IMO Plato was 10 times the Philosopher as his master. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacester · Jun 26, 2006

. . . but you never responded to my posts. Um, I'm sorry but the last words on this thread from you that seem to be directed at me were "thanks for responding" . . . I don't see any PMs from you . . . . um so I don't know what you're talking about . . . I'm not reading all the threads these days . . . . If you want to play along with my little game I promise to be nice . . . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacester · Jun 26, 2006

On with the dialog then By what measure does mankind, collectively, estimate its own value? OK, that's pretty abstract . . . what I'm going for is one word that completes the following sentence: "Mankind measures its worth in terms of the degree to which it is __________________ " OK, that's still going to be tough for someone to match my wavelength here, but I'll throw that out there to keep things going. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

webtaz99 · Jun 26, 2006

This is ridiculus. "Mankind" as a name for a species is OK, but "mankind" as a collective viewpoint is BS. As Robert Heinlein said, "More than three people can't agree on where to have lunch." Everyone has their own perspective. Also, "worth" and "value" are subjective concepts. One man's trash is another man's treasure. If you have some simple, one-sentence answer to "Why is space exploration important?", then spit it out. Put up or shut up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacester · Jun 26, 2006

". . . but "mankind" as a collective viewpoint is BS." Well like you say everyone has their own viewpoint and that's yours. Whatever . .. I'll put up all right, but on my own schedule. Feel free to stay away, I'll let you know when it's safe to return. If "'mankind' as a collective viewpoint is BS", then how do you explain cities? My one sentence answer is only 6 words long; if I just spit it out, no one will see the intellectual underpinnings. The word I currently seek is the sixth word. Anyone else? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

arobie · Jun 26, 2006

spacester, Ok, well I'm not quite sure where you are leading and you've stumped me with your fill in the blank, so I'm gonna toss out some thoughts here. (I'm no good at fill in the blank, especially without a work bank. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />) By what measure does mankind, collectively, estimate its own value? Nevermind, my thoughts aren't working. So I have a question. I need more info before I can proceed. How are we judging value? Are you talking about our value to ourselves? Our value to each other? Our value to the universe? I assume you mean our value to ourselves, but then I can't think of any way of which we can measure it. I can't think of any standards to compare us to. Do we measure our value by our success, by our ability to survive?

spacester · Jun 26, 2006

Hi Arobie, I've just time for a quick answer before going offline for the evening. I'm reaching here and I know it - I don't think I could come up with the answer to my own question if I didn't know already. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> But that's kinda the point - if I'm right about how we measure our value (that is to say if I find that at least some people agree with me) then I've laid the foundation for my 6-word answer to have an intellectual impact. IOW people will see the significance if they see the reasoning. It's called the discovery method of learning, at least that's what they called it when I was younger. If you 'discover' the answer yourself, it has much more impact and so you internalize it. And that is my objective here - to get at least a few people to internalize my answer to the title question. My 6-word answer is not something I came up with all by myself - it is a product of my careful processing of the ideas of others. It is a derived answer, not an inspired answer. As such, I wish to try to lead others thru the derivation process, thus increasing its credibility. The question of what the value is relative to is very well put. In my view at least, the 6th word of my answer is able to encompass all those perspectives: value to self; value to others; value to the universe. We'll need to get that word out on the table before we can see if my claim is valid. Your last question is going in my desired direction . . . I will respond with another question: Once we secure survival, what is the measure of our success? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jesoph · Jun 26, 2006

Speed, agility, and opposable thumbs would have done much more toward the dinosaurs' survival effort. My question is: Why are astronauts generally from Ohio? Is there some reason Ohioans want to escape from Earth more than everybody else?

arobie · Jun 26, 2006

Once we secure survival, if that is possible, the measure of our success is then our ability to adapt to changing situations and environments to continue our survival.

j05h · Jun 26, 2006

>> ". . . but "mankind" as a collective viewpoint is BS." /> Well like you say everyone has their own viewpoint and that's yours. Whatever . .. Homo Sapien's viewpoint is the same as any other life: Survival. We have a knack for thriving, but in the end survival matters. I'm not very political but "mankind" is kinda 19th Century. /> If "'mankind' as a collective viewpoint is BS", then how do you explain cities? Emphasize that point: While the individual is soveriegn, people do generate collective views and efforts. To suggest otherwise is deceptive. /> My one sentence answer is only 6 words long; if I just spit it out, no one will see the intellectual underpinnings. The word I currently seek is the sixth word. I'd like to read your sentence. Space is important because it offers us a chance for long term survival. No amount of single-planet living ensures that. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

Why Space Exploration is Important

qso1

Guest

scottb50

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

qso1

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

spacester

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

qso1

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

lampblack

Guest

kdavis007

Guest

spacester

Guest

spacester

Guest

spacester

Guest

webtaz99

Guest

spacester

Guest

arobie

Guest

spacester

Guest

jesoph

Guest

arobie

Guest

j05h

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page