Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Comgen & Dr. Socks' love child
12544 Followers
NewsMeBack
6468 Followers
John Selby
1192 Followers
bobosmitor
5469 Followers
Away for a while
3984 Followers
Russ Smith
18390 Followers
Michael Pinto
6328 Followers
michaelpintoJul 30, 2011
The Hubble telescope couldn't have happened without the shuttle and humans — and that one achievement discovered countless planets outside of our own. We should stop be so cheap about space exploration, it's the only thing we'll be remembered for after we're dead.
dusanmalJul 30, 2011
Not only cheap but risk-less. Space exploration is the cutting edge of technology, science and human achievement - we must stop fussing about it. There are many brave people qualified and ready to take greater risks in space for greater reach. We should change that aspect of modern space flight too. No risk no gain.
Rouge77Jul 30, 2011
No, we should not if we ever want to be a species living on multiple worlds, as I hope.
biofriendlyblogJul 30, 2011
I think both are key to exploring the solar system. There are some aspects robots could handle, but explorations by humans could prove (and has proven) key as well.
anomaly100Jul 30, 2011Submitter
We need to explore together, especially for trust purposes if they develop free will and become...<gasp>...CYLONS!
leland1Jul 30, 2011
Agree. Although there is also the possibility that the probe that was once programmed to sterilize soil samples might have its programming somehow altered, then return to the Earth to...
sterilize imperfections, Sterilize imperfections, STERILIZE imperfections,
STERILIZE ... STERILIZE ... STERILIZE ...
and we imperfect humans will be toasted by the probe unless Leonard Nimoy could help us.
: )
Rouge77Jul 30, 2011
No, we should not if we ever want to be a species living on multiple worlds, as I hope.
gkiltzJul 31, 2011
Beyond Mars, ther is no reason not to. And one HUGE reason to!: Space 101: There's a lot of space in space!!
vitriolandangstJul 31, 2011
We should seriously do both....
... this whole meme of "we've got to cut back -- not want so much -- lower our expectations...."
>> We didn't get to the moon with this "can't do" attitude -- and we are merely going to go out with a whimper and settle for less as we shortchange our future.
Investing in science and technology and pure research not only is a good economic decision -- it's helps inspire our society to do the improbable.
isaac7719Jul 30, 2011
I was fortunate enough to be talking to Neil deGrasse Tyson several years ago, and at one point he told me that we shouldn't leave exploration of the solar system to robots, because "Robots don't inspire humans".
We need our explorers to be built of flesh and blood to inspire the next generation to explore and understand the Cosmos.
Robots just aren't good at making motivational phrases, either. How inspirational does "One relatively short distance travelled for a robot, one relatively long distance travelled for machines" sound to you?
cantstopwontstopJul 30, 2011
yes, we should cede solar system exploration to the robots. the only time we should have to leave the earth is to colonize a suitable world or establish an outpost there...and even manned outposts wouldn't really be necessary. a robot can do the same thing a human would need to do in space, and more. especially as robots become more autonomous.
the universe is vast, so vast that we have to come to the understanding that in order to explore it, you need to do is as quickly and cheaply as possible.
even if we were capable of light speed, it would only open up mostly just our solar system to us, and the closest stars to us, and that's assuming we have the technology to deflect impacts along the way at light speed (a small particle can hit you with the force of a nuclear bomb) and protect from radiation. currently, a 6 month trip to mars would deliver lethal doses of radiation to astronauts, let alone 4 years one way trip to the closest star. and making a ship to block that radiation would be costly and make it a very heavy ship to launch.
even if the technical aspects of transporting life safely were much cheaper, unmanned exploration would still be a better option.
starmanjonesJul 30, 2011
>the only time we should have to
>leave the earth is to colonize a
>suitable world or establish an
>outpost there...
if we don't spend time in space doing off earth things then we can't gain the knowledge we'd need to colonize elsewhere. the need to get lots of people living other places than earth is now a higher priority than exploring. we could be made extinct in a matters of hours on a really bad day. although i don't advocate we stop exploring.
>and even manned outposts
>wouldn't really be necessary. a
>robot can do the same thing a human
>would need to do in space, and
>more.
no. not true. humans on mars would resolve the issue of "is there life on mars" in a few weeks. our bots might never find out.
>a 6 month trip to mars would
>deliver lethal doses of radiation
>to astronauts, let alone 4 years
>one way trip to the closest star.
>and making a ship to block that
>radiation would be costly and make
>it a very heavy ship to launch.
here's one way... not the only way... build an inflatable spacecraft out of kevlar... inflate it with water from the moon... let it freeze.
that would create a radiation proof, impact resistant, self sealing spacecraft.
cantstopwontstopJul 31, 2011
"if we don't spend time in space doing off earth things then we can't gain the knowledge we'd need to colonize elsewhere."
we can gain that knowledge in orbit of earth, and have. the developments we make in space travel won't be done in outer space, but here on earth in the form of technology.
"humans on mars would resolve the issue of "is there life on mars" in a few weeks. our bots might never find out."
and exactly how are they going to do that any better than a robot? put the proper equipment on a robot, and it can dig deeper, collect samples, and analyze them on the fly or send back the data/material to be analyzed. finding life on mars is more dependent on the locations you look than who you send to do it, whether man or machine.
even if we could send people to mars in 2 weeks (which would negate many of the dangers of a long trip), it wouldn't be prudent. and we can send people to mars in 2 weeks if we used a nuclear powered ship with an ion engine. it's already proven and functional technology. but even then, you could just send a robot there in 2 weeks at less of a cost. for one manned mission you might be able to afford several robotic missions.
sending people to mars would serve no true purpose other than saying we have people up there.
and don't get me started on colonization.
starmanjonesJul 31, 2011
>>"can't gain the knowledge we'd need
>>to colonize elsewhere."
>we can gain that knowledge in orbit
>of earth, and have. the
>developments we make in space
>travel won't be done in outer
>space, but here on earth in the
>form of technology.
sorry, doesn't work like that. before mir... if the question of a fire on board a spacecraft came up the best advice is to kiss your ass good bye. but humans put it out.
do you know the real reason we beat the russians to the moon? here it is. the russians invested in pilots as the last resort. we invested in pilots flying spacecraft. armstrong and aldrin took control of the LM flew over a boulder field and landed. had they not done that it would have been a bad day.
the russians did send robotic rovers... to the moon. they got to the moon shortly after sputnik in fact. but the apollo missions deployed science thats still working today. they dug in the ground... they found what they were looking for. they brought it back.
the apollo astronauts traveled further in the few short days on the moon than both rovers have in 5 years on mars.
by the time the decision was made to drive a rover into a crater on mars a human could have walked down and surveyed it with their eyes in better detail than the rovers have the capability to do.
bots should go first. we should explore. but my point was this.
we must get as many people as we can as fast as we can living off the earth. the thing we didn't know before was just how tentative our existance is.
we have the technical expertise to build colonies. the hold up is getting people off the earth. with the new private space ventures we will soon have the ability to get lots of people off the earth.
pick your poison. we are either s**tting in our own backyard or we are a duck in shooting gallery and tomorrow could be the last day for humans in the universe. we know how to avoid that fate now. that is our first priority.
>>"humans on mars would resolve the
>>issue of "is there life on mars" in
>>a few weeks. our bots might never
>>find out."
>and exactly how are they going to
>do that any better than a robot?
in fact, i was quoting steven squires p.i. for the rovers when i said astronauts could do more in a week and probably would have found life if its there. we can go in caves. we can look at the ground and see a water seep. the rovers would avoid it for fear of getting stuck. don't forget to wipe off the solar panels...
bots aren't very flexible. they can't go where we go and they can't see and process information like we can. one astronaut with a microscope is a better deal than all the bots we've sent.
>sending people to mars would serve
>no true purpose other than saying
>we have people up there.
we need to put people where ever people want to go. mars included. this is the human imperative. get off the earth or go extinct. we can do it now there are no good excuses to put human kind in jeopardy one more decade.
>and don't get me started on
>colonization.
here's your colonization... and don't get me started. these are 1970's technology.
nasa design summary circa 1975
http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/75SummerStudy/Table_of_Contents1.html
the technology is basic bridge building technology. they look like this.
http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/70sArt/AC75-1086f.jpeg
http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/70sArt/AC75-1883f.jpeg
cantstopwontstopJul 31, 2011
a robot can just as easily have a microscope. like I said, it depends more on where you look than who/what you send to look.
most people that think human exploration of space is a good idea, don't fully understand all of the simple dangers of outer space or the vastness of it. did you know that moon dust is highly corrosive, so much in fact that it can destroy equipment, and even erode its way into suit seals? did you know that if inhaled, it can cause serious illness? mars dust can do the same thing.
this isn't star trek, we aren't going to have replicators or gravity plating or shields any time soon. mars gravity is less than 2/5th's that of earth. even techniques to simulate gravity won't be enough to block the side effects. no one could actually live on mars for very long. It wouldn't really be a colony if people need to rotate out constantly.
and it's not like we're terraforming the planet. even if we did, it would take thousands of years, perhaps millions. it would never be 100% stable, and would eventually revert back, and would require constant massive support from earth. mars doesn't even have enough gravity to hold on to its water in liquid form.
if we put say a million people on mars in habitats, and earth exploded, those people on mars would essentially be doomed to death. it's not like they're going to be able to thrive forever or even very long. the lack of gravity will probably get them before anything else. thus, humanity would still die out.
it's not like they're going to magically have robots that last forever, can do everything they need, and never break down beyond repair. it's not like they're going to somehow invent gravity plating on the fly, or replicators, or even be able to do something as simple as expand when needed. but since the lack of gravity would get them first, expansion would be the last of their worries. humans aren't going to magically adapt to 2/5ths earth gravity.
and ultimately, what purpose would they serve being there? the results wouldn't justify the cost of such an undertaking. there would be very little results beyond saying we have people there, and that's it.
and remember, the universe is VAST. are we to do this with every single planet or star system? when you think of the long term, the pointlessness of manned space exploration becomes clear. it only serves to slow us down. and I haven't even scratched the surface.
if there are any advanced civilizations out there, many have probably come to the same conclusion.
we'd be better off putting our resources into fixing and protecting our planet than putting people on other worlds.
starmanjonesJul 31, 2011
>a robot can just as easily have a
>microscope. like I said, it depends
>more on where you look than
>who/what you send to look.
steven squires the principal investigator over spirit and opportunity disagrees with you.
i do to.
a human with trained eyes can see better, evaluate faster and better and go places robots wouldn't risk going to. just a fact.
lets be clear here. i'm not against robots... the issue is that you are against humans. robots are not likely to become as sophisticated as humans for some time.
>most people that think human
>exploration of space is a good
>idea, don't fully understand all of
>the simple dangers of outer space
>or the vastness of it.
well, i do. as well as anyone.
>did you know that moon dust is
>highly corrosive, so much in fact
>that it can destroy equipment, and
>even erode its way into suit seals?
>did you know that if inhaled, it
>can cause serious illness? mars
>dust can do the same thing.
this is a reason to stay away from the moon? mars? people die everyday on earth from inhaling noxious gasses and particulate materials...
>this isn't star trek, we aren't
>going to have replicators or
>gravity plating or shields any time
>soon.
if you were to ask michio kaku who is probably hier appearent to carl sagan... those things are 50 years off.
but, what does that have to do with people in space? being able to make any element or object we like out of the fabric of space isn't going to save us from that gamma ray burst if we are all on earth.
the same goes for that comet or asteroid that suprises us.
it won't save us from the time the earth decides to go into the deep freeze or we screw up and it cascades to something like venus.
>mars gravity is less than 2/5th's
>that of earth. even techniques to
>simulate gravity won't be enough to
>block the side effects. no one
>could actually live on mars for
>very long. It wouldn't really be a
>colony if people need to rotate out
>constantly.
you are right. we don't know if the gravity of mars or the moon will sustain the health of humans. we won't until we get there.
here is the flaw in your analysis. you assume that people don't know that they won't be able to come back to earth after living on mars. they do. that is precisely why it is a colony. there is no going back. they will survive.
they will overcome any physical issues with no more thought to it than we do over smog or too much sugar in our diet or climate change. they will terra form mars over a couple generations. they will call mars home and so will there kids.
>and it's not like we're
>terraforming the planet. even if we
>did, it would take thousands of
>years, perhaps millions. it would
>never be 100% stable, and would
>eventually revert back, and would
>require constant massive support
>from earth.
earth can't provide anything towards terraforming mars. the most knowledgable experts beleive that warming mars in anyone of a number of ways would reconstitue a thicker atmosphere in as short as a couple decades. the long haul is changing it from co2 to something we can breath.
heres something to think about. maybe if a civilization understands from the beginning that they must cultivate their atmophere they won't do what we are doing to earths and become more sustainable.
as an aside... there is plenty of ice around... in the rings of saturn... else where... that could be used to add to mars atmosphere over a millennia.
>mars doesn't even have
>enough gravity to hold on to its
>water in liquid form.
i haven't wanted to insult you... but this is a softball. mars hasn't lost its liquid water because it doesn't have enough gravity. its mostly frozen in the ground and glaciers. the reason there isn't liquid water on the surface is that the pressure is so low it sublimates.
>if we put say a million people on
>mars in habitats, and earth
>exploded, those people on mars
>would essentially be doomed to
>death.
i'm not advocating putting a million people on mars and i'm not an advocate of colonizing mars. but that is a silly statement. there is no reason why people can't live on mars without resupply from earth. in fact, there are no plans made by anyone that count on resupply from earth. even the exploration missions being planned are counting processing resources on mars for consumables.
here is reality. the biggest obstacle in putting a million people on mars is getting them off the earth and to mars. we understand the basics of everything else.
>it's not like they're going to be
>able to thrive forever or even very
>long. the lack of gravity will
>probably get them before anything
>else. thus, humanity would still
>die out.
your assumptions may be true- but there isn't anything that indicates that they are true- and every reason to think the gravity is enough.
however, the reason i prefer o'neill colonies is that we can standardize on 1G. it may be important for health. it may not. to me that is important so that we can move between colonies... people living on mars or other low gravity places can't go to a higher gravity place. i think over the long haul that will be the most important factor of all.
>it's not like they're going to
>magically have robots that last
>forever, can do everything they
>need, and never break down beyond
>repair. it's not like they're going
>to somehow invent gravity plating
>on the fly, or replicators, or even
>be able to do something as simple
>as expand when needed. but since
>the lack of gravity would get them
>first, expansion would be the last
>of their worries. humans aren't
>going to magically adapt to 2/5ths
>earth gravity.
all this is a non sequitur. its science fiction.
>and ultimately, what purpose would
>they serve being there? the results
>wouldn't justify the cost of such
>an undertaking. there would be very
>little results beyond saying we
>have people there, and that's it.
there really doesn't need to be anymore purpose than having people there. what cost is too much for the survival of the our species and the biology of earth?
>and remember, the universe is VAST.
>are we to do this with every single
>planet or star system? and I
>haven't even scratched the surface.
aaaa... more non sequitur. why does getting enough people off earth to insure the survival of humans and earths biology lead to the need to go to or colonize every planet or star system? me thinks its maybe you who is watching too much star trek.
>when you think of the long term,
>the pointlessness of manned space
>exploration becomes clear.
why do we need to go to every planet or star system to make human space flight not pointless?
>it only serves to slow us down.
slow us down from what? it serves to insure our survival. there are other benefits but that one trumps all others. whats the point of not slowing down if we are doomed by the next extinction event?
>if there are any advanced
>civilizations out there, many have
>probably come to the same
>conclusion.
here is a statement that is 100% true. any civilization that doesn't become spacefaring and colonize off their home is or will become extinct. that is an absolute. they will disappear from the universe like they never existed.
>we'd be better off putting our
>resources into fixing and
>protecting our planet than putting
>people on other worlds.
here is another 100% truth. if we stay here and live off the earths resources they will become fewer and fewer and more expensive. the have not will out number the haves and there will be no chance of saving ourselves eventually. it will take too much of the remaining resources.
let me leave you this thought.
the meek will inherit the earth. jones out.
notigJul 31, 2011
As much as I find space exploration fascinating I would never go myself because of the way it destroys your body. I Do believe if people want to go though and they are qualified they should have a right to do as they wish.
The thing is space has been there for a long time... and we are just now getting the technology to go there. And....... it costs us an arm and a leg. If we simply waited a few more hundred years (which in the grand scheme of things is nothing considering how long it has already been) it will become immensely easier and cheaper to explore space because of the improved technology. So I am against the public funding of such endeavors.
starmanjonesAug 1, 2011
here is the argument that i believe trumps all objections. in the last couple decades we've learned just how fleeting the existence of humans can be.
there have been many extinction events that have basically reset the clock for life on earth. we only came about because of the extinction event that did in the dinosaurs.
modern humans have lived for 100,000 years. until 10,000 ago we were just another animal... now we understand a lot about the universe including the fact that earth can naturally become a hostile place for humans to live... asteroids and comets can come crashing down, end our existence and we can't stop them... the universe can spray earth with enough lethal radiation to disintegrate us with no warning at all- gone from the universe like we never existed.
but we have also learned how to keep that from happening. we've only learned that in the last few decades. with that knowledge we understand that we are in a race to save ourselves. it could literally happen tomorrow. there is evidence thats not an extreme or bet on something that can only happen in the far future.
the super volcano in yellow stone is over due to erupt. that could cause the equivalent of a nuclear winter and kill most humans and life and create a mad maxx world where their is no chance escaping because the resources are just not there.
everything i've said is absolutely true without exaggeration. thats why we have an obligation to all the humans that might live in the future and an obligation to all biology of earth to secure ourselves in as many places as we can... to spread earths life in as many place as we can.
if survival of humans and earth life is important then it has to be the most important thing we do right now. because tomorrow could literally never come.
there is a factor in the drake equation for calculating the number of intelligent species. the factor is "what is the life span of a technological civilization." right now our life span as a technological civilization is 500 years and we can see the end could come on any day. we could do ourselves in on any day.
we don't have all the time in the world...
prasetio30Jul 31, 2011
The era has change and technology controlled everything. Robot is good example.
vitriolandangstJul 31, 2011
UPSIDE: You can cover a lot more area and lower costs with robots.
DOWNSIDE: Very advanced robots will inevitably meet the super advanced robots from alien races, and report back; "Didn't find anything interesting at all..."
We'll be in the year 2412, and eventually, some HUMAN will get suspicious; "We've got have found SOMETHING of interest out there..."
brassbudJul 31, 2011
It is part of the human condition to want to experience through our own natural senses, and so I suspect that we will never be satisfied with our knowledge of space until we can experience it as such.
That said, we lack the technology to accomplish this. I believe robotic missions, such as the cancelled JIMO, are the best way to develop this technology. Unfortunately, in this time of increaced scarcity, I must be willing to go without my favorite public programs just as I require others to go without theirs. As a result, I do not expect any signifigant advance in our knowledge of other world's or our ability to experience them first hand within my lifetime.
Pictures of Mars will have to do.