OT a bit - fly to the moon or Mars? [Archive]

Austin Gosling

May 7th 07, 10:05 PM

This is a subject very near and dear to me, and one that I constantly
discuss with my sons as a way of trying to impart my view of things to them.

Humankind eventually becoming extinct or leaving this planet is
inevitable. The sun has only around 4 billion years or so left, and will
probably render the Earth uninhabitable before then. This is not really
a practical argument, but rather one of principal. Knowing that there is
a limit to the time the Earth can remain habitable in its current place
in the galaxy means that in principle, not just in practical terms, we
will have to leave it sometime, or perish. I think that our brains have
finally evolved to the point where they dominate evolutionary
developments, and do not expect major refinements of our bodies, so I
presume we will leave the planet physically much as we are now.

Given that we will, eventually leave the planet, the only remaining
question is "When?". Many arguments could be made about waiting until we
are in a better position to do so, etc. My counter argument would be
that the best way we can get ourselves into that "better position" is to
strive for the goal itself, starting now. Striving for something
ancillary to the principal goal, such as improving technology, waiting
for a breakthrough in propulsion, raising the standard of living to the
point where most of the human race can be productive in the pursuit of
the goal, and other similar, seemingly rational sounding arguments don't
carry too much weight with me, as I have seen projects go that way
before, and they invariably fizzle out or become something else - the
principal goal changes to a secondary goal, and is eventually forgotten.
In short, we are leaving someday, so let's start now! What are we
waiting for? Lindbergh flew across the Atlantic when his airplane was
"good enough", not when it was perfect.

Regarding the WOW factor, that is what I live for, and what I wish more
children were brought up to appreciate. Thinking WOW is one of the most
enjoyable mental states I know, and when it is combined with something I
have done or had a part in, it is amplified one hundred fold. I try to
give my boys something to WOW about every day, and mostly succeed.

Think of this during your next takeoff, as about a ton of redefined
matter that would otherwise be dirt and rocks somewhere manages to carry
you on a precise balancing act through the air, defying millions of
years of evolution that has determined what our bodies are physically
capable of. WOW! Let's extend that to manipulate matter to free us from
the very environment that created us.

I have only one requirement for manned versus robotic spaceflight: Send
human beings into space and bring them back so they can tell everyone
"What is it like?" No machine can do that. Human beings are extremely
good serendipity processors, able to notice and take advantage of things
previously not considered. This has allowed us to survive sabre-tooth
tigers, plagues, genocides and the existence of enough nuclear weapons
to destroy the planet. Let's take advantage of that observational power.

We won't really know what Mars is good for until we go there to find
out. We didn't know what airplanes were good for until we had them, and
people started thinking "Hey, I could get the mail to the next state
overnight", "I could drop bombs on my enemies from this", or "People
would pay a lot to get from A to B very quickly".

Most of my argument probably reduces to climbing the mountain because it
is there, but for me, that is sufficient.

Regards,
Austin

ManhattanMan wrote:
> Why?
>
> The first race to the moon, and that's exactly what it was, got us braggin
> rights, a few hundred pounds of rocks, some great technology for terrestrial
> applications (that probably could have evolved anyway), and??
> I'm old enough to have watched it all on the boob tube as an adult, and was
> awed by the WOW factor, but now what?
>
> The ISS turned into a cash black hole just keeping it habitable, never mind
> useful; but, I suppose there is still potential for something, and it is in
> the neighborhood so to speak.
>
> A trip back to the moon is ridiculous IMHO, and apparently most of the world
> agrees cause I don't see anybody but us even mentioning it.
>
> A trip to Mars would bring what?? Another set of rocks to place beside the
> moon rocks in museums?
> Certainly not a lifeboat when our planet is poisoned beyond repair
> (Hollywood makes it look easy) - even lifeboats need support sooner or
> later.
>
> A mining operation? For? And we'd get it back here how?
>
> A stepping off base? To? And we'll start breeding in space for the time
> travel to another uninhabitable place?
>
> A corporate "entitlement fund", for the already well to do? Hey, a trillion
> here (Iraq before we're done) and a trillion 'there', pretty soon it starts
> to add up. However, there is the trickle down effect, and it is a trickle..
>
> I'm totally in favor of manned exploration of our corner of the universe,
> that has practical, obtainable benefits and goals, but it just seems the
> efforts might better directed within, keeping what we have liveable, rather
> than a Star Trek script. If the robots turn up something absolutely
> extraordinary, that could change.
>
> Just MHO, probably short sighted on my part, I also thought the hula hoop
> was a dumb idea. I can understand the "climb the mountain because it's
> there" mentality up to a point, but I'd sure like a better reason in this
> case than "just because"....
>
> There, I feel better. Rant mode off, asbestos shorts on...... d:->))
>
>

Gene Seibel

May 7th 07, 11:32 PM

On May 7, 1:44 pm, "ManhattanMan" > wrote:
> Why?
>
> I'm totally in favor of manned exploration of our corner of the universe,
> that has practical, obtainable benefits and goals, but it just seems the
> efforts might better directed within, keeping what we have liveable, rather
> than a Star Trek script. If the robots turn up something absolutely
> extraordinary, that could change.
>
> Just MHO, probably short sighted on my part, I also thought the hula hoop
> was a dumb idea. I can understand the "climb the mountain because it's
> there" mentality up to a point, but I'd sure like a better reason in this
> case than "just because"....
>

The same could be said about most of the aviation we participate in.
Few of us can justify the expense in terms of cost vs benefit. I
believe when we stop reaching out, for new experiences, we begin to
die. I know that my interest in avaition can be traced directly to the
Mercury, Gemini and Apollo flights of the 60's. I believe that it's no
coincidence that GA is declining today. We need something to inspire a
new generation.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

Bob Fry

May 8th 07, 01:55 AM

>>>>> "AG" == Austin Gosling > writes:
AG> I think that our brains
AG> have finally evolved to the point where they dominate
AG> evolutionary developments, and do not expect major refinements
AG> of our bodies, so I presume we will leave the planet
AG> physically much as we are now.

Amusing how the talk of the moon or Mars assumes that when we
establish a regular outpost there we'll have much the same brains and
bodies as we do now.

I say not a chance. With our current brains we're making good
progress towards real genetic engineering, and one of the first things
we'll do is make ourselves smarter (as well as healthier, stronger,
and so forth)...and then when we're smarter we'll do even better
genetic and/or machine intelligence, etc. This idea is called the
"singularity" and once you ponder it a bit you can see how it's
inevitable, assuming civilization isn't terminated first by some
suicidal nutcases with nukes or bugs.

So a hundred years from now humankind--at least the fraction that can
pay for these engineered changes...will be much changed, and only
superficially similar to who we are now.

My guess is at that point, our much smarter selves will have gone way
beyond visiting moons or planets in this solar system, and may be
beyond physical bodies for intelligence anyway. But assuming we are
still in physical containers of some sort, we might well be searching
other stars. The solar system will seem pretty old hat.
--
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support
rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)

Jose

May 8th 07, 02:13 AM

> With our current brains we're making good
> progress towards real genetic engineering, and one of the first things
> we'll do is make ourselves smarter (as well as healthier, stronger,
> and so forth)...

You mean, we'll make somebody else's children smarter... than us.
Assuming we don't screw up. By accident or on purpose.

> and then when we're smarter we'll do even better
> genetic and/or machine intelligence, etc.

No. When =they= are smarter, they will do whatever they want. Maybe
we'll be in the way. Maybe we'll have thought of that beforehand.

> So a hundred years from now humankind [...] will be much changed

Not a chance. There won't be time in a hundred years to see whether we
screwed up or not. If humankind is "much changed", we who remain will
be exterminated. If humankind is =not= much changed, then I was right.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

ManhattanMan

May 8th 07, 02:50 AM

Bob Fry wrote:
>
> So a hundred years from now humankind--at least the fraction that can
> pay for these engineered changes...will be much changed, and only
> superficially similar to who we are now.
>

I really doubt if humankind is much different today, than a century ago, two
centuries, or three centuries, from a "human" perspective. Not counting
some differences in physical stature from diet, etc.. Our USA founding
fathers displayed more fundamental human knowledge hundreds of years ago,
than we could ever expect from our American Idol bunch of dolts today. Can
you imagine what sort of horse**** legislation would come out of the same
situation now???

> My guess is at that point, our much smarter selves will have gone way
> beyond visiting moons or planets in this solar system, and may be
> beyond physical bodies for intelligence anyway. But assuming we are
> still in physical containers of some sort, we might well be searching
> other stars. The solar system will seem pretty old hat.

Our much smarter technosavy selves, has yet to go out of body, at least
until the hit wears off, so could you expand on where this increased
'awareness' is derived from?

I'm always looking for new and improved life forms. Thanks!!

d:->))

Peter Dohm

May 8th 07, 02:55 AM

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 7, 1:44 pm, "ManhattanMan" > wrote:
> > Why?
> >
> > I'm totally in favor of manned exploration of our corner of the
universe,
> > that has practical, obtainable benefits and goals, but it just seems the
> > efforts might better directed within, keeping what we have liveable,
rather
> > than a Star Trek script. If the robots turn up something absolutely
> > extraordinary, that could change.
> >
> > Just MHO, probably short sighted on my part, I also thought the hula
hoop
> > was a dumb idea. I can understand the "climb the mountain because it's
> > there" mentality up to a point, but I'd sure like a better reason in
this
> > case than "just because"....
> >
>
> The same could be said about most of the aviation we participate in.
> Few of us can justify the expense in terms of cost vs benefit. I
> believe when we stop reaching out, for new experiences, we begin to
> die. I know that my interest in avaition can be traced directly to the
> Mercury, Gemini and Apollo flights of the 60's. I believe that it's no
> coincidence that GA is declining today. We need something to inspire a
> new generation.
> --
> Gene Seibel
> Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
> Because I fly, I envy no one.
>
>

When we stop reaching out for new experiences, there can be no further
justification for our existance.

Peter

ZikZak

May 8th 07, 02:59 AM

Mars differs from the Moon in that it is actually or could be made to
be permanently habitable by a large number of humans. Mars has plenty
of its own natural energy sources, such as solar and geothermal heat,
making it fine as a "lifeboat" for our own planet (although hopefully
it won't come to that). A Mars colony could without a doubt be self-
sufficient. One of my firends from graduate school is proving that
right now on Devon Island, Canada (which has roughly the same climate
as Mars: see www.marsonearth.org). As for sending industrial products
back to Earth, it's much easier and cheaper to fly from Mars to Earth
than it is the other way around. There's no reason to think that a
Mars colony could be self sufficient almost immediately and then
(after some long time) eventually profitable.

ManhattanMan

May 8th 07, 03:30 AM

ZikZak wrote:
> right now on Devon Island, Canada (which has roughly the same climate
> as Mars: see www.marsonearth.org).

""No place on Earth is truly like Mars. Although Mars can be characterized
at present as a cold desert, not even the polar deserts of the Earth achieve
the extremes in minimum temperature, dryness, low atmospheric pressure and
harsh radiation conditions that the surface of Mars currently experiences.
Many aspects of the geologic and potential biologic evolution of Mars are
likely to have been different or remain uncertain enough that any comparison
with the Earth must be conducted with caution. ""

>As for sending industrial products
> back to Earth, it's much easier and cheaper to fly from Mars to Earth
> than it is the other way around. There's no reason to think that a
> Mars colony could be self sufficient almost immediately and then
> (after some long time) eventually profitable.

This is news. Unless the propulsion system is something we haven't heard
about, maybe similar to something that keeps on ticking like nuclear (?),
breakdowns and maintenence minimal (no Rockets-R-Us stores), not to mention
a few thousand other obstacles, like totally astronomical set up costs
topping the list, I don't think we're going there anytime soon. My great
grand daughters (2 &4) may witness the event of the first landing, but I'm
not really too optomistic of that.

Don Poitras

May 8th 07, 03:49 AM

ZikZak > wrote:
> Mars differs from the Moon in that it is actually or could be made to
> be permanently habitable by a large number of humans. Mars has plenty

I don't see why. In either case, we'd have to live in pressurized environments.

> of its own natural energy sources, such as solar and geothermal heat,

The Moon beats Mars by a long shot for solar power.

> making it fine as a "lifeboat" for our own planet (although hopefully
> it won't come to that). A Mars colony could without a doubt be self-
> sufficient. One of my firends from graduate school is proving that

I have a doubt. I have many of them. The supply line is just too long.
If you could send everything a colony would ever need in one ship, then
I guess it would be possible, but that's a big 'if'.

> right now on Devon Island, Canada (which has roughly the same climate
> as Mars: see www.marsonearth.org). As for sending industrial products

It's "roughly" the same climate as the Moon too. In other words, not
"roughly" the same at all.

> back to Earth, it's much easier and cheaper to fly from Mars to Earth
> than it is the other way around. There's no reason to think that a

Unless there happens to be a Kennedy Space Center on Mars, I think
you'd have trouble making that case.

> Mars colony could be self sufficient almost immediately and then
> (after some long time) eventually profitable.

A colony on Mars is untenable for many reasons. The major one being
its distance. The Moon is a quarter of a million miles away. We can get
there in 3 days. Mars is 44 million miles away. The best guess for a manned
Mars mission would take 5 months travel.

We've proven we can go to the Moon. There are lots of ideas out there to
even make it profitable (look up Helium 3). Going back to the Moon makes
good sense, scientifically and economically. Let's not make the same
mistakes again and spend money on doomed and unsound projects such as
the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. Mars sounds nice, but
it would be a boondoggle at the expense of true space exploration and
colonization.

--
Don Poitras

Mutts[_2_]

May 8th 07, 10:30 PM

I am another pretty passionate about this topic.

Lil ol NASA is way way down there on where our money gets spent. Entitlements
is what you should be upset about.
This chart shows how small NASA spending is...........

http://www.federalbudget.com/chart.gif

We should not have stopped going to the moon. And never should have abandoned
the Saturn V.

But hindsight is twenty twenty. And I will say we have not wasted ourselves by
any stretch on those space endevours since Apollo.

We are now at a time when shuttles is nearing its end.
But it has done things only the shuttle could have done.
We may very well live in an age where there will never again NOT be a human
presence in space. Remarkable.

Shuttle taught us things we simply cannot learn any other way.
We learn by doing. WE learn from our mistakes as well. I wont defend shuttles
costs or failures to fulfill all its ambitious goals.

The ISS teaches us much as well because we are excercising those muscles in
the real world. Nothing replaces actually doing something. We all know that as
pilots.

But we move on.

Astronauts bring back the visions of space, they bring back what its like to
see our earth as an outsider. They bring back what its like to be a child of
earth. To see our world as it truly is, an oasis in a vast black expanse.

They take human presence beyond our world.
They teach us that the sky is not the limit, that there ARE no limits.

They keep an American/western world presence in space. If we dont. Someone
else will certainly take the lead. China is seeking the high ground now.

There are reasons why this nation is where it is today.
Reasons why any of us are here at all. Brave people took the risks and went
beyond the horizon. They did so on ships they knew may not return and on
imperfect wings.

"A ship in harbor is safe -- but that is not what ships are built for."
-John A. Shedd

The oceans are littered with vessels of discovery.

Astronaut Story Musgrave.....

"We have been a frontier culture. We were born out of exploration, we were
born out of adventure. We were born out of the plains and the mountains. We've
been a very physical kind of culture. And so, if you look at adventure, if you
look at exploration, if you look at immersion in nature, a physical culture,
and all those things, you can see directly how space flight relates to the way
America has been born and how it evolved."

"You have to keep pushing the frontier not
just because it's there, but because that's how we find things that end up
changing humanity," -Paul Hill, Mission Control

Why Space, Why Explore?
Astronaut Story Musgrave...........

We have no choice, Sir. It is the Nature of Humanity, it is the Nature of Life

The Globe was created and Life Evolved, and you look at every single cubic
millimeter on this Earth, You can go 30,000 feet down below the Earth surface,
You can go 40,000 feet up in the air and Life is There. When you look at the
globe down there, you see Teeming Life Everywhere

It is the Power of Life, And maybe I am not just a Human up here, you know.
Now Life is Leaping off the Planet. It is heading to other parts of the Solar
System, other parts of the Universe

There are those kinds of Pressures. It isn't simply politics, it is not simply
technology, it is really not just the essence of humanity, but it is sort of
also, you could look at it as maybe the Essence of Life. I think Teilhard de
Chardin, in Phenomenon of Man, I believe he put that incredibly well. So those
kind of Forces are at Work. It is the nature of humans to be exploratory and
to Push On

Yes, it costs resources and it does cost a lot, and there is a risk, there is
a penalty, there is a down side, but Exploration and Pioneering, I think those
are the critical things, it is the Essence of what Human Beings are, and that
is to try to understand their Universe and to try to participate in the entire
Universe and not just their little Neighborhood -Story Musgrave

One of my most convincing arguments for space exploration is the analogy that
Earth itself is a spacecraft. Everything we learn about how to function and
live in space applies directly to our spacehip
Earth. How to recycle air, water, how to generate and use power efficiently,
how to grow food in closed ecosystems. All of it is important. All of this can
benefit mankind in a world with a fast growing population. Understanding other
worlds is how we understand OUR world better, to understand how it formed and
where it is going. Its our only home for now.

"We must not cease from exploration, and at the end of all our exploring will
be to arrive where we began, and to know it for the first time."
T.S. Eliot

Gallup survey.....

"More than three-fourths (77%) of the American public say they support a
newplan for space exploration that would include a stepping-stone approach to
returnthe space shuttle to flight, complete assembly of the space station,
build areplacement for the shuttle, go back to the Moon and then on to Mars
and beyond"

Q: Why should America send astronauts to Mars?

NASA Administrator Mike Griffin ........

A: I can give you a bunch of different answers that matter to me. But why did
Spain bankroll Magellan to leave port with five ships and head out around the
world, two of which never made it past the Canary Islands and two more of
which were lost on the way? They got one ship back three years later with
something like 20 or so people out of an initial crew of 122 across all the
ships. Why'd they do that? It is in the nature of humans to find, to define,
to explore and to push back the frontier. And in our time, the frontier is
space and will be for a very long time.

Give me a counter example to the statement I'm about to make. When the history
books are written, the nations that are preeminent in their time are those
nations that dominate the frontiers of their time. The failed societies are
the ones that pull back from the frontier. I want our society, America,
western society, to be preeminent in the world of the future and I want us not
to be a failed society. And the way to do that, universally so, is to push the
frontier.

Now we don't do that with every dollar we've got. Obviously, most of our money
has to be spent on today's concerns. But we're talking about something here
that uses six tenths of a percent of the federal budget. This is not exactly
spending money like a drunken sailor. This is an investment for our
grandchildren's grandchildren.

I could make a very good argument on the basis of economics, that the European
investment in the New World didn't pay off, really, for Europeans for 400
years. I could make an argument for you that the biggest payoff of European
investment in the New World was the existence of America to bail them out of
World War 2. Europe would have sunk into a dark age in the 20th century with
the set of political activities and behaviors that led to World War 1 and then
World War 2, which followed from that. Without the investment in the New
World, there would not have been another society elsewhere on the planet to
prevent Europe from falling back into a second dark age. And I could make an
argument that European investment in the New World was a net loss for hundreds
of years and finally was worth the effort.

These kinds of activities, as I say, they're not large in the grand scheme of
things, although it looks large when you write down the budget numbers, and
they don't pay off today. They pay off for our grandchildren's grandchildren.
And I care about that and I think everyone else should, too. -NASA
Administrator Mike Griffin

A note was found from the Challenger commander in his breifcase after the
accident...
Excerpted from Silver Linings : Triumph of the Challenger 7. by June Scobee
Rodgers and June Scobee Rogers.

"We have whole planets to explore, we have new worlds to build. We have a
solar system to roam in. And if only a tiny fraction of the human race reaches
out toward space, the work they do there will totally change the lives of all
the billions of humans who remain on earth, just as the strivings of a handful
of colonists in the new world totally changed the lives of everyone in Europe,
Asia & Africa."
<p>

Had Dick left the note in his briefcase for us to find if something happened?
Did he write it on scratch paper to use to quote in a speech? All we'll ever
know is that when we most needed a message, it was there. He left for us his
dream for the world, his vision for space exploration."

Please consider the above. It is about so much more then you think.
Humanity is just getting started. Mere baby steps so far.

The civilizations that lead on the frontier, end up dictating the course of
human history.

And that work continues. New designs are being worked on and tests are
beginning now.
This... is what is next for NASA.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vZ8RIcmWAk

Lunar helium 3 may end up powering fusion reactors on earth someday.
You never know what is going to matter and change the world.

We learned of lunar helium 3 because of our exploration efforts there.

We must push forward, challenge and improve and yes sometimes manage risk.
Always.

As pilots we all know what that means personally. And we all know what it
means when we do not do these efforts.
It is no different as a nation or a species.

Moon, Mars and beyond are no different from the frontiers of the past that
called and challenged us and formed who we are today. It is simply hard coded
in our being to do these things.

Bob Fry

May 8th 07, 11:39 PM

>>>>> "MM" == ManhattanMan > writes:

MM> Bob Fry wrote:
>> So a hundred years from now humankind--at least the fraction
>> that can pay for these engineered changes...will be much
>> changed, and only superficially similar to who we are now.
>>

MM> I really doubt if humankind is much different today, than a
MM> century ago, two centuries, or three centuries,

Not even from a few thousand years ago...evolution needing more
generations than that to work. But so what? I'm talking about
deliberately engineered changes to DNA, not natural selection.

>> My guess is at that point, our much smarter selves will have
>> gone way beyond visiting moons or planets in this solar system,
>> and may be beyond physical bodies for intelligence anyway. But
>> assuming we are still in physical containers of some sort, we
>> might well be searching other stars. The solar system will
>> seem pretty old hat.

MM> Our much smarter technosavy selves, has yet to go out of body,
MM> at least until the hit wears off, so could you expand on where
MM> this increased 'awareness' is derived from?

Engineered genetic changes. Not "awareness". Where did that quote
come from?

--
If I ever went to war, instead of throwing a grenade, I'd throw
one of those small pumpkins. Then maybe my enemy would pick up
the pumpkin and think about the futility of war. And that would
give me the time I need to hit him with a real grenade.
- Jack Handey

Austin Gosling

May 9th 07, 12:18 AM

Well put - and great quotes!

My alltime favorite quote (somewhat loosey quoted):

"We choose to go to the moon not because it is easy, but because it is
hard" - JFK

Austin

Mutts wrote:
> I am another pretty passionate about this topic.
>
>
> Lil ol NASA is way way down there on where our money gets spent. Entitlements
> is what you should be upset about.
> This chart shows how small NASA spending is...........
>
> http://www.federalbudget.com/chart.gif
>
> We should not have stopped going to the moon. And never should have abandoned
> the Saturn V.
>
> But hindsight is twenty twenty. And I will say we have not wasted ourselves by
> any stretch on those space endevours since Apollo.
>
> We are now at a time when shuttles is nearing its end.
> But it has done things only the shuttle could have done.
> We may very well live in an age where there will never again NOT be a human
> presence in space. Remarkable.
>
> Shuttle taught us things we simply cannot learn any other way.
> We learn by doing. WE learn from our mistakes as well. I wont defend shuttles
> costs or failures to fulfill all its ambitious goals.
>
> The ISS teaches us much as well because we are excercising those muscles in
> the real world. Nothing replaces actually doing something. We all know that as
> pilots.
>
> But we move on.
>
> Astronauts bring back the visions of space, they bring back what its like to
> see our earth as an outsider. They bring back what its like to be a child of
> earth. To see our world as it truly is, an oasis in a vast black expanse.
>
>
> They take human presence beyond our world.
> They teach us that the sky is not the limit, that there ARE no limits.
>
>
> They keep an American/western world presence in space. If we dont. Someone
> else will certainly take the lead. China is seeking the high ground now.
>
>
> There are reasons why this nation is where it is today.
> Reasons why any of us are here at all. Brave people took the risks and went
> beyond the horizon. They did so on ships they knew may not return and on
> imperfect wings.
>
> "A ship in harbor is safe -- but that is not what ships are built for."
> -John A. Shedd
>
>
> The oceans are littered with vessels of discovery.
>
>
> Astronaut Story Musgrave.....
>
>
> "We have been a frontier culture. We were born out of exploration, we were
> born out of adventure. We were born out of the plains and the mountains. We've
> been a very physical kind of culture. And so, if you look at adventure, if you
> look at exploration, if you look at immersion in nature, a physical culture,
> and all those things, you can see directly how space flight relates to the way
> America has been born and how it evolved."
>
>
> "You have to keep pushing the frontier not
> just because it's there, but because that's how we find things that end up
> changing humanity," -Paul Hill, Mission Control
>
>
>
> Why Space, Why Explore?
> Astronaut Story Musgrave...........
>
>
> We have no choice, Sir. It is the Nature of Humanity, it is the Nature of Life
>
>
> The Globe was created and Life Evolved, and you look at every single cubic
> millimeter on this Earth, You can go 30,000 feet down below the Earth surface,
> You can go 40,000 feet up in the air and Life is There. When you look at the
> globe down there, you see Teeming Life Everywhere
>
>
> It is the Power of Life, And maybe I am not just a Human up here, you know.
> Now Life is Leaping off the Planet. It is heading to other parts of the Solar
> System, other parts of the Universe
>
>
> There are those kinds of Pressures. It isn't simply politics, it is not simply
> technology, it is really not just the essence of humanity, but it is sort of
> also, you could look at it as maybe the Essence of Life. I think Teilhard de
> Chardin, in Phenomenon of Man, I believe he put that incredibly well. So those
> kind of Forces are at Work. It is the nature of humans to be exploratory and
> to Push On
>
>
> Yes, it costs resources and it does cost a lot, and there is a risk, there is
> a penalty, there is a down side, but Exploration and Pioneering, I think those
> are the critical things, it is the Essence of what Human Beings are, and that
> is to try to understand their Universe and to try to participate in the entire
> Universe and not just their little Neighborhood -Story Musgrave
>
>
>
>
>
> One of my most convincing arguments for space exploration is the analogy that
> Earth itself is a spacecraft. Everything we learn about how to function and
> live in space applies directly to our spacehip
> Earth. How to recycle air, water, how to generate and use power efficiently,
> how to grow food in closed ecosystems. All of it is important. All of this can
> benefit mankind in a world with a fast growing population. Understanding other
> worlds is how we understand OUR world better, to understand how it formed and
> where it is going. Its our only home for now.
>
>
>
> "We must not cease from exploration, and at the end of all our exploring will
> be to arrive where we began, and to know it for the first time."
> T.S. Eliot
>
>
> Gallup survey.....
>
>
> "More than three-fourths (77%) of the American public say they support a
> newplan for space exploration that would include a stepping-stone approach to
> returnthe space shuttle to flight, complete assembly of the space station,
> build areplacement for the shuttle, go back to the Moon and then on to Mars
> and beyond"
>
>
>
>
> Q: Why should America send astronauts to Mars?
>
>
> NASA Administrator Mike Griffin ........
>
>
> A: I can give you a bunch of different answers that matter to me. But why did
> Spain bankroll Magellan to leave port with five ships and head out around the
> world, two of which never made it past the Canary Islands and two more of
> which were lost on the way? They got one ship back three years later with
> something like 20 or so people out of an initial crew of 122 across all the
> ships. Why'd they do that? It is in the nature of humans to find, to define,
> to explore and to push back the frontier. And in our time, the frontier is
> space and will be for a very long time.
>
>
> Give me a counter example to the statement I'm about to make. When the history
> books are written, the nations that are preeminent in their time are those
> nations that dominate the frontiers of their time. The failed societies are
> the ones that pull back from the frontier. I want our society, America,
> western society, to be preeminent in the world of the future and I want us not
> to be a failed society. And the way to do that, universally so, is to push the
> frontier.
>
>
> Now we don't do that with every dollar we've got. Obviously, most of our money
> has to be spent on today's concerns. But we're talking about something here
> that uses six tenths of a percent of the federal budget. This is not exactly
> spending money like a drunken sailor. This is an investment for our
> grandchildren's grandchildren.
>
>
> I could make a very good argument on the basis of economics, that the European
> investment in the New World didn't pay off, really, for Europeans for 400
> years. I could make an argument for you that the biggest payoff of European
> investment in the New World was the existence of America to bail them out of
> World War 2. Europe would have sunk into a dark age in the 20th century with
> the set of political activities and behaviors that led to World War 1 and then
> World War 2, which followed from that. Without the investment in the New
> World, there would not have been another society elsewhere on the planet to
> prevent Europe from falling back into a second dark age. And I could make an
> argument that European investment in the New World was a net loss for hundreds
> of years and finally was worth the effort.
>
>
> These kinds of activities, as I say, they're not large in the grand scheme of
> things, although it looks large when you write down the budget numbers, and
> they don't pay off today. They pay off for our grandchildren's grandchildren.
> And I care about that and I think everyone else should, too. -NASA
> Administrator Mike Griffin
>
>
>
> A note was found from the Challenger commander in his breifcase after the
> accident...
> Excerpted from Silver Linings : Triumph of the Challenger 7. by June Scobee
> Rodgers and June Scobee Rogers.
>
> "We have whole planets to explore, we have new worlds to build. We have a
> solar system to roam in. And if only a tiny fraction of the human race reaches
> out toward space, the work they do there will totally change the lives of all
> the billions of humans who remain on earth, just as the strivings of a handful
> of colonists in the new world totally changed the lives of everyone in Europe,
> Asia & Africa."
> <p>
>
> Had Dick left the note in his briefcase for us to find if something happened?
> Did he write it on scratch paper to use to quote in a speech? All we'll ever
> know is that when we most needed a message, it was there. He left for us his
> dream for the world, his vision for space exploration."
>
>
>
> Please consider the above. It is about so much more then you think.
> Humanity is just getting started. Mere baby steps so far.
>
> The civilizations that lead on the frontier, end up dictating the course of
> human history.
>
>
>
> And that work continues. New designs are being worked on and tests are
> beginning now.
> This... is what is next for NASA.......
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vZ8RIcmWAk
>
>
> Lunar helium 3 may end up powering fusion reactors on earth someday.
> You never know what is going to matter and change the world.
>
> We learned of lunar helium 3 because of our exploration efforts there.
>
> We must push forward, challenge and improve and yes sometimes manage risk.
> Always.
>
> As pilots we all know what that means personally. And we all know what it
> means when we do not do these efforts.
> It is no different as a nation or a species.
>
> Moon, Mars and beyond are no different from the frontiers of the past that
> called and challenged us and formed who we are today. It is simply hard coded
> in our being to do these things.
>

Peter Dohm

May 9th 07, 01:02 AM

"Mutts" > wrote in message
...
>
> I am another pretty passionate about this topic.
>
>
> Lil ol NASA is way way down there on where our money gets spent.
Entitlements
> is what you should be upset about.
> This chart shows how small NASA spending is...........
>
> http://www.federalbudget.com/chart.gif
>
> We should not have stopped going to the moon. And never should have
abandoned
> the Saturn V.
>
> But hindsight is twenty twenty. And I will say we have not wasted
ourselves by
> any stretch on those space endevours since Apollo.
>
> We are now at a time when shuttles is nearing its end.
> But it has done things only the shuttle could have done.
> We may very well live in an age where there will never again NOT be a
human
> presence in space. Remarkable.
>
> Shuttle taught us things we simply cannot learn any other way.
> We learn by doing. WE learn from our mistakes as well. I wont defend
shuttles
> costs or failures to fulfill all its ambitious goals.
>
> The ISS teaches us much as well because we are excercising those muscles
in
> the real world. Nothing replaces actually doing something. We all know
that as
> pilots.
>
> But we move on.
>
> Astronauts bring back the visions of space, they bring back what its like
to
> see our earth as an outsider. They bring back what its like to be a child
of
> earth. To see our world as it truly is, an oasis in a vast black expanse.
>
>
> They take human presence beyond our world.
> They teach us that the sky is not the limit, that there ARE no limits.
>
>
> They keep an American/western world presence in space. If we dont. Someone
> else will certainly take the lead. China is seeking the high ground now.
>
>
> There are reasons why this nation is where it is today.
> Reasons why any of us are here at all. Brave people took the risks and
went
> beyond the horizon. They did so on ships they knew may not return and on
> imperfect wings.
>
> "A ship in harbor is safe -- but that is not what ships are built for."
> -John A. Shedd
>
>
> The oceans are littered with vessels of discovery.
>
>
> Astronaut Story Musgrave.....
>
>
> "We have been a frontier culture. We were born out of exploration, we were
> born out of adventure. We were born out of the plains and the mountains.
We've
> been a very physical kind of culture. And so, if you look at adventure, if
you
> look at exploration, if you look at immersion in nature, a physical
culture,
> and all those things, you can see directly how space flight relates to the
way
> America has been born and how it evolved."
>
>
> "You have to keep pushing the frontier not
> just because it's there, but because that's how we find things that end up
> changing humanity," -Paul Hill, Mission Control
>
>
>
> Why Space, Why Explore?
> Astronaut Story Musgrave...........
>
>
> We have no choice, Sir. It is the Nature of Humanity, it is the Nature of
Life
>
>
> The Globe was created and Life Evolved, and you look at every single cubic
> millimeter on this Earth, You can go 30,000 feet down below the Earth
surface,
> You can go 40,000 feet up in the air and Life is There. When you look at
the
> globe down there, you see Teeming Life Everywhere
>
>
> It is the Power of Life, And maybe I am not just a Human up here, you
know.
> Now Life is Leaping off the Planet. It is heading to other parts of the
Solar
> System, other parts of the Universe
>
>
> There are those kinds of Pressures. It isn't simply politics, it is not
simply
> technology, it is really not just the essence of humanity, but it is sort
of
> also, you could look at it as maybe the Essence of Life. I think Teilhard
de
> Chardin, in Phenomenon of Man, I believe he put that incredibly well. So
those
> kind of Forces are at Work. It is the nature of humans to be exploratory
and
> to Push On
>
>
> Yes, it costs resources and it does cost a lot, and there is a risk, there
is
> a penalty, there is a down side, but Exploration and Pioneering, I think
those
> are the critical things, it is the Essence of what Human Beings are, and
that
> is to try to understand their Universe and to try to participate in the
entire
> Universe and not just their little Neighborhood -Story Musgrave
>
>
>
>
>
> One of my most convincing arguments for space exploration is the analogy
that
> Earth itself is a spacecraft. Everything we learn about how to function
and
> live in space applies directly to our spacehip
> Earth. How to recycle air, water, how to generate and use power
efficiently,
> how to grow food in closed ecosystems. All of it is important. All of this
can
> benefit mankind in a world with a fast growing population. Understanding
other
> worlds is how we understand OUR world better, to understand how it formed
and
> where it is going. Its our only home for now.
>
>
>
> "We must not cease from exploration, and at the end of all our exploring
will
> be to arrive where we began, and to know it for the first time."
> T.S. Eliot
>
>
> Gallup survey.....
>
>
> "More than three-fourths (77%) of the American public say they support a
> newplan for space exploration that would include a stepping-stone approach
to
> returnthe space shuttle to flight, complete assembly of the space station,
> build areplacement for the shuttle, go back to the Moon and then on to
Mars
> and beyond"
>
>
>
>
> Q: Why should America send astronauts to Mars?
>
>
> NASA Administrator Mike Griffin ........
>
>
> A: I can give you a bunch of different answers that matter to me. But why
did
> Spain bankroll Magellan to leave port with five ships and head out around
the
> world, two of which never made it past the Canary Islands and two more of
> which were lost on the way? They got one ship back three years later with
> something like 20 or so people out of an initial crew of 122 across all
the
> ships. Why'd they do that? It is in the nature of humans to find, to
define,
> to explore and to push back the frontier. And in our time, the frontier is
> space and will be for a very long time.
>
>
> Give me a counter example to the statement I'm about to make. When the
history
> books are written, the nations that are preeminent in their time are those
> nations that dominate the frontiers of their time. The failed societies
are
> the ones that pull back from the frontier. I want our society, America,
> western society, to be preeminent in the world of the future and I want us
not
> to be a failed society. And the way to do that, universally so, is to push
the
> frontier.
>
>
> Now we don't do that with every dollar we've got. Obviously, most of our
money
> has to be spent on today's concerns. But we're talking about something
here
> that uses six tenths of a percent of the federal budget. This is not
exactly
> spending money like a drunken sailor. This is an investment for our
> grandchildren's grandchildren.
>
>
> I could make a very good argument on the basis of economics, that the
European
> investment in the New World didn't pay off, really, for Europeans for 400
> years. I could make an argument for you that the biggest payoff of
European
> investment in the New World was the existence of America to bail them out
of
> World War 2. Europe would have sunk into a dark age in the 20th century
with
> the set of political activities and behaviors that led to World War 1 and
then
> World War 2, which followed from that. Without the investment in the New
> World, there would not have been another society elsewhere on the planet
to
> prevent Europe from falling back into a second dark age. And I could make
an
> argument that European investment in the New World was a net loss for
hundreds
> of years and finally was worth the effort.
>
>
> These kinds of activities, as I say, they're not large in the grand scheme
of
> things, although it looks large when you write down the budget numbers,
and
> they don't pay off today. They pay off for our grandchildren's
grandchildren.
> And I care about that and I think everyone else should, too. -NASA
> Administrator Mike Griffin
>
>
>
> A note was found from the Challenger commander in his breifcase after the
> accident...
> Excerpted from Silver Linings : Triumph of the Challenger 7. by June
Scobee
> Rodgers and June Scobee Rogers.
>
> "We have whole planets to explore, we have new worlds to build. We have a
> solar system to roam in. And if only a tiny fraction of the human race
reaches
> out toward space, the work they do there will totally change the lives of
all
> the billions of humans who remain on earth, just as the strivings of a
handful
> of colonists in the new world totally changed the lives of everyone in
Europe,
> Asia & Africa."
> <p>
>
> Had Dick left the note in his briefcase for us to find if something
happened?
> Did he write it on scratch paper to use to quote in a speech? All we'll
ever
> know is that when we most needed a message, it was there. He left for us
his
> dream for the world, his vision for space exploration."
>
>
>
> Please consider the above. It is about so much more then you think.
> Humanity is just getting started. Mere baby steps so far.
>
> The civilizations that lead on the frontier, end up dictating the course
of
> human history.
>
>
>
> And that work continues. New designs are being worked on and tests are
> beginning now.
> This... is what is next for NASA.......
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vZ8RIcmWAk
>
>
> Lunar helium 3 may end up powering fusion reactors on earth someday.
> You never know what is going to matter and change the world.
>
> We learned of lunar helium 3 because of our exploration efforts there.
>
> We must push forward, challenge and improve and yes sometimes manage risk.
> Always.
>
> As pilots we all know what that means personally. And we all know what it
> means when we do not do these efforts.
> It is no different as a nation or a species.
>
> Moon, Mars and beyond are no different from the frontiers of the past that
> called and challenged us and formed who we are today. It is simply hard
coded
> in our being to do these things.
>

Many great quotes!

Peter

ManhattanMan

May 9th 07, 01:37 AM

Mutts wrote:
> [much]

Totally agree as to humankinds imagination and spirit to conquer.

> Moon, Mars and beyond are no different from the frontiers of the past

Except in the past they didn't have to carry their own atmosphere, water &
food were usually available in some form, temperatures didn't vary
plus/minus hundreds of degrees, radiation was unheard of (not counting
sunburn), and if something broke you could generally stop to fix it, even if
it took a year or two, and there might even be another living being to
assist..

A very large portion of the early conquering of our noble terrestrial world,
was to pad the bank account of the conqueror with pillaged gold, slaves,
short cuts for trade routes, etc. (sometimes not that particularly noble no
matter how herculean the effort), many simply to become famous and hopefully
rich, and many just for the sheer experience.

I'm not saying eliminate space exploration, only use some common sense as to
balance what we have for resources (both monetary & technical), what we
actually need to accomplish the goal, what we might practically benefit/gain
from the endeavor vs. pure political bull**** and waste. I think we're
presently pushing the envelope for our present state of everything
concerned. A little later, or a lot later, who knows what'll happen..

ManhattanMan

May 9th 07, 01:54 AM

Bob Fry wrote:

>
> >> My guess is at that point, our much smarter selves will have
> >> gone way beyond visiting moons or planets in this solar system,
> >> and may be beyond physical bodies for intelligence anyway. But
> >> assuming we are still in physical containers of some sort, we
> >> might well be searching other stars. The solar system will
> >> seem pretty old hat.
>
>> Our much smarter technosavy selves, has yet to go out of body,
>> at least until the hit wears off, so could you expand on where
>> this increased 'awareness' is derived from?
>
> Engineered genetic changes. Not "awareness". Where did that quote
> come from?

What quote? I was noting that if we were devoid of a physical body, what's
left besides 'awareness'?
This can be accomplished by messing with DNA? Where will the DNA exist?

Jose

May 9th 07, 03:29 AM

>>Moon, Mars and beyond are no different from the frontiers of the past
> Except in the past they didn't have to carry their own atmosphere

But in the past they did have to build their own roads, and they didn't
have power tools. We have more technology now, so we can accomplish
more kinds of exploration. It's no different.

> A very large portion of the early conquering of our noble terrestrial world,
> was to pad the bank account of the conqueror with pillaged gold...

.... and a large portion of our present exploration is to establish a
presence before others do, and prevent us from ever going there. It's
another form of padding the bank account, where power is currency, and
the outlook is longer term.

> what we might practically benefit/gain
> from the endeavor vs. pure political bull**** and waste.

"political bull****" is just politics you don't agree with, no?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

ManhattanMan

May 9th 07, 02:25 PM

Jose wrote:
>>> Moon, Mars and beyond are no different from the frontiers of the
>>> past
>> Except in the past they didn't have to carry their own atmosphere
>
> But in the past they did have to build their own roads, and they
> didn't have power tools. We have more technology now, so we can
> accomplish more kinds of exploration. It's no different.

Well, a different different. That pioneer spirit remains, but roadside
repairs or finding an island with fresh water will be a little more
difficult now..

>
>> A very large portion of the early conquering of our noble
>> terrestrial world, was to pad the bank account of the conqueror with
>> pillaged gold...
>
> ... and a large portion of our present exploration is to establish a
> presence before others do, and prevent us from ever going there. It's
> another form of padding the bank account, where power is currency, and
> the outlook is longer term.
>

If not mistaken, haven't taken the time to verify this, but I believe
there's an international agreement that nobody can lay claim to anything in
outer space, contrary to the good ole days when you could paddle up to some
beach, plant a flag, and claim it for King George - while the native
inhabitants look on in disbelief (just before being enslaved to work in the
gold mine).... So lord knows nobody would have the audacity to breach an
international agreement, set up SAM sites on the moon, etc., right??
:)))))))))

>> what we might practically benefit/gain
>> from the endeavor vs. pure political bull**** and waste.
>
> "political bull****" is just politics you don't agree with, no?
>

Absolutely! And that covers about 95% of it lately............

Jose

May 9th 07, 02:35 PM

> Well, a different different. That pioneer spirit remains, but roadside
> repairs or finding an island with fresh water will be a little more
> difficult now..

An unimportant difference. And btw "roadside repairs" are made all the
time to spacecraft, in the form of new computer instructions beamed up
from Earth. The tools have changed, but concept remains true.

> I believe there's an international agreement
> that nobody can lay claim to anything in
> outer space

Yes, there is such an agreement - words on paper - and it will hold true
until there is no competition. Then space will "belong" to whoever is
actually there. Waddayagonnadoboudit?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

ManhattanMan

May 9th 07, 05:17 PM

Jose wrote:
>> Well, a different different. That pioneer spirit remains, but
>> roadside repairs or finding an island with fresh water will be a
>> little more difficult now..
>
> An unimportant difference. And btw "roadside repairs" are made all
> the time to spacecraft, in the form of new computer instructions
> beamed up from Earth. The tools have changed, but concept remains
> true.

Apollo 13 would have disagreed, and had they been half way to Mars it most
likely wouldn't have ended as happily.
Computer script can't repair/replace big holes in the spacecraft, or a
multitude of other significant mechanical, electromechanical, electronic
failures that demand a physical replacement. Pre-space explorers usually
had the option of attempting a repair on the spot, even if it took days,
weeks, months "out of the box", and if push came to shove, get out and walk
or float, in later times fire off an SOS, enable the locator beacon, light a
fire, etc., and wait for help. Of course there were/are/will be exceptions,
but generally speaking, if the situation wasn't a cataclysmic event (broken
wheel, leaky boat, ate your last sled dog, etc.), they had other ways out.
If you're ten or twenty million miles from the garage and break down in the
most hostile, unforgiving enviornment ever imagined, you're pretty much SOL,
and that does make it very different in that regard, at least to me -
however, the indubitable spirit to go where no man has gone before, risk
taking, etc., lives on, and that'll never change.
Later our technology may catch up with our dreams, but can't see it
happening for a long time. Not counting all the fascinating information
coming from our robotic missions, I'm much more concerned about what's
happening in the space around the earth, than beyond the moon.

Jose

May 9th 07, 05:39 PM

> Apollo 13 would have disagreed, and had they been half way to Mars it most
> likely wouldn't have ended as happily.

The colonial pioneers were not immune to disaster. Roadside repairs
didn't help the Donner party either. My point remains, and is still
valid, that there is nothing fundamentally different between the
colonial pioneers and spacefaring equivalents. There are details, and
people will die in both cases. They will die of different things, no
doubt, but =no= pioneering is safe.

> If you're ten or twenty million miles from the garage and break down in the
> most hostile, unforgiving enviornment ever imagined, you're pretty much SOL,
> and that does make it very different in that regard...

You speak as if mechanical breakdowns are the main problem for pioneers.
I don't think that's true at all. And even so, what do you do when
you're in a wooden boat a thousand miles from shore in the middle of a
raging storm? Some things you can fix, some things you can't fix, and
some things you can't fix in time.

No fundamental difference.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Austin Gosling

May 9th 07, 06:17 PM

>
> You speak as if mechanical breakdowns are the main problem for pioneers.
> I don't think that's true at all. And even so, what do you do when
> you're in a wooden boat a thousand miles from shore in the middle of a
> raging storm? Some things you can fix, some things you can't fix, and
> some things you can't fix in time.
>
> No fundamental difference.
>
> Jose

I agree completely. The really important thing is that knowing this
might happen doesn't stop people from getting into boats.

EridanMan

May 9th 07, 09:25 PM

> When we stop reaching out for new experiences, there can be no further
> justification for our existance.
>
> Peter

Amen

Gig 601XL Builder

May 9th 07, 09:37 PM

ManhattanMan wrote:
>>
> Apollo 13 would have disagreed, and had they been half way to Mars it
> most likely wouldn't have ended as happily.

That's is specifically why the first trip and probably follow on trips to
Mars should be made by 2 separate ships flying together. Both with enough
room to carry the crew of the other if one ship fails.

EridanMan

May 9th 07, 10:14 PM

MM - Great post, even though I passionately disagree.

I have 2 responses to add to the (very good) stuff thats already been
said:

You continually speak of the danger of human space exploration as a
bad thing. I could not disagree more.

As a culture, we are becoming ever more complacent. Ever more sheep.
Ever more tied up in the irrational and insignificant peddling of day
to day life. Without a frontier to inspire us, humans are trapped
believing that the only thing significant is the here and now, the
mundane reality of their individual existences. Yes, religion and
faith does help somewhat to alleviate this... but I'm not sure it does
so in particularly helpful ways (forcing people to focus on life after
death, instead of caring about what they make of their life). Also,
for many of us, the religious of our childhood have simply failed to
live up to the level of intellectual scrutiny we were raised to apply
to the world around us.

Either way... The simple fact is, without frontier - without the
calling of the unknown, and the passion for bettering the human
condition, we as a species tend to get caught up instead in trivial
nonsense and abject terror. If there is nothing else than the here
and now, I will not and cannot risk doing that which might jeopardize
it... I must be safe! I must not expose myself to risk of any kind!
Not now! Not ever!

Look around you - look at how pathetic we've become. We measure our
cars by the number of airbags they have. We no longer teach our
children "look both ways before you cross the street", we tell them
"NEVER EVER EVER CROSS THE STREET!". We plead with our government to
oppress us, to take away our options in life lest we become deluded,
distracted, or otherwise unaware and make a bad choice.

The concept of personal responsibility, risk management, and the value
of experience over safety has all been tremendously skewed over the
past 60 years... and its something I attribute directly to the 'loss
of frontier'... When we're kids we dream... when I was a kid, I
dreamed of exploring space, no matter what the cost. I learned to
value a calling beyond myself and my own wellbeing - that of bettering
humanity... and I would still, tomorrow, volunteer on a mission to
mars even if my odds of survival were only 50:50... Hell, the
original new world explorers odds were nearly that good... how quickly
we forget the risks they faced while we live the rewards of those
risks.

Its pathetic. We're pathetic, and if we don't find a new frontier
soon, and allow those of us who still possess the explorers instinct
to go do their thing before the instinct itself goes extinct... I hold
zero hope for the future of the human race.

Humanistic philosophy aside... the other side of the coin for me is
the technical:

I think you severely underestimate the amount of engineering and
technology from NASA that has filtered down into our lives... Never
mind the computer that you are using currently (transistor technology
was designed as a replacement for vacuum tubes that were to heavy and
power hungry for spacecraft). As a Silicon Valley Engineer, I can
with virtual certainty tell you that was it not for NASA and the
technologies developed during Apollo, the entire Web revolution would
not have happened.

But hell, that's just an extreme example... It comes down the
engineering constraints. Engineering revolutions, while expensive,
generally come when they are put to rather extreme constraints, beyond
the general needs of day to day life... otherwise engineering tends to
be evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. Spaceflight offers one
particular for am extreme engineering constraints...

The results of those engineering revolutions are often extremely
difficult to predict... but historically they've been pretty
spectacular... why not spend a fraction of our resources (and NASA
really is a fraction, compared to what we spend on farm subsidies, or
Iraq (not to mention the military, which does have a certain trickle-
down technological effect as well)... NASA is a relatively small
portion of the US budget... considering the potential for both long
term humanistic inspiration and short-term technical revolutions to
spin off from it, methinks its a wise, small, although comparatively
high-risk investment.

Mutts[_2_]

May 9th 07, 10:49 PM

In article >, says...
>
>Mutts wrote:
>> [much]
>
>Totally agree as to humankinds imagination and spirit to conquer.
>
>> Moon, Mars and beyond are no different from the frontiers of the past
>
>Except in the past they didn't have to carry their own atmosphere, water &
>food were usually available in some form, temperatures didn't vary
>plus/minus hundreds of degrees, radiation was unheard of (not counting
>sunburn), and if something broke you could generally stop to fix it, even if
>it took a year or two, and there might even be another living being to
>assist..
>
>A very large portion of the early conquering of our noble terrestrial world,
>was to pad the bank account of the conqueror with pillaged gold, slaves,
>short cuts for trade routes, etc. (sometimes not that particularly noble no
>matter how herculean the effort), many simply to become famous and hopefully
>rich, and many just for the sheer experience.
>
>I'm not saying eliminate space exploration, only use some common sense as to
>balance what we have for resources (both monetary & technical), what we
>actually need to accomplish the goal, what we might practically benefit/gain
>from the endeavor vs. pure political bull**** and waste. I think we're
>presently pushing the envelope for our present state of everything
>concerned. A little later, or a lot later, who knows what'll happen..
>
>

Again, mining lunar helium 3 may have a huge impact on mankind.

Some speculate another space race for this very reason.

We ought to spend a bit more if you ask me on such things.

Why explore desert islands?
To learn to find the beautiful ones.

but we will learn to build some along the way too, at least stepping stones.

Terra forming Mars?

Now something like that is very very far off I know. And there is a giggle
factor.
But there was a giggle factor about the X-Prize for many years. Nobody is
giggling now.

Perhaps terraforming small caverns? Small steps.

Some will point out that nobody lives under the sea or at the south pole (in
large numbers anyways) why go into space?

Because we already have a solid human presence on earth.

The reasons are numerous why humans have explored and lived in places that are
far from easy.

But the challenge to our nature was the same, it wasnt any easier for them in
their time, simply it looks easier to us today.

Many died or did not come back failing utterly. and there was little immediate
conventional reward for those that did succeed. Was that easy? The challenge
was in most ways even greater then what we face today to explore our little
backyard in space if you look at it that way.

Sure the technology changes, the frontiers change, and some of the reasons to
do it change.

But whatever it is that compells us forward into risky endeavours is hardcoded
into us. That will never change.

Clearly it is a key reason why our species is 6.5 billion strong today.

And it truly is not very much money compared to all the other moneys spent by
our government. And we do get a return on developed spinoff technology as
well.

And we must not dismiss the high likelyhood of revolutionary propulsion
breakthroughs to come. Those kinds of things can initate great leaps forward
in a short time. What seems realistically out of reach today could change
overnight. Think of the leaps forward in aviation alone. From a mad dream even
once doubted by one of the Wright bros to blaise airline travellers griping
about food, all in a time span of mere decades.

I like flowery quotes about such things, I am a pretty typical unemotional
guy. I think I have about four emotions. Hunger, that is an emotion right?
Does that count?

Anyways.....

"For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see, saw the vision of the
world, and all the wonder that would be." --Alfred Lord Tennyson ...

"The visions we present to our children shape the future. It matters what
those visions are. Often they become self-fulfilling prophecies. Dreams are
maps"............. "Our children long for realistic maps of a future they
(and we) can be proud of. Where are the cartographers of human purpose?" -Carl
Sagan

NASA, the things they do and plan to do,
are indeed "cartographers of human purpose".

It is no different from taking someone up for the first time flying in GA
aircraft, or even seeing a planet through a backyard telscope for the first
time.
You open up another world and they see things in an entirely new way and their
world got just a little bigger. They don't forget it.
We need this stuff.

ManhattanMan

May 9th 07, 11:05 PM

Austin Gosling wrote:
>> You speak as if mechanical breakdowns are the main problem for
>> pioneers. I don't think that's true at all. And even so, what do
>> you do when you're in a wooden boat a thousand miles from shore in
>> the middle of a raging storm? Some things you can fix, some things
>> you can't fix, and some things you can't fix in time.
>>
>> No fundamental difference.
>>
>> Jose
>
> I agree completely. The really important thing is that knowing this
> might happen doesn't stop people from getting into boats.

But if the boat sinks, you probably have a life jacket, life raft, life
boat, maybe people in the area to assist, etc., in other words you might
survive without the boat or ship. Yes, everything we do has some degree of
danger, you can have a brain aneurysm straining on the toilet, etc., but
that logic has nothing to do with anything.

My *primary* point the last few posts, has been odds of survival, and living
to fight another day, not how or why someone got in that situation to begin
with - I think you might agree that a line forms immediately when you offer
extreme adventure, fame, possibly fortune, and saving mankind always brings
some veneration. *Staying alive* is the main problem for pioneers,
regardless of inspiration or motivation. Without a life support cocoon in
deep space, you're an instant freeze dried piece of meat, and rescue,
assistance, or just hanging on, isn't an option - period. Doesn't matter if
it's a break down, debris strike, or whatever else could happen, there is NO
Plan B without the cocoon. If it dies, you die.
Apollo 13 were the luckiest three guys imaginable when theirs hung on long
enough to get back home! You mentioned Lindbergh (Lucky Lindy!), and I kind
of remember reading he landed with fumes (?) left in his gas tanks;
however, if he had run out, he still had a good chance, ok - fair chance in
the Spirit of STL :), of gliding down to a safe landing, Plan B, and maybe
Plan C would follow Plan B if he ditched in the ocean and was left floating
around, Plan D if the rescue craft sunk, and so on. Not to detract from his
historic flight, but the point being, he had an alternative if his aircraft
lost the ability to continue.

I'd love to believe there was another inhabitable piece of real estate
besides earth, but so far I haven't seen a shred of evidence, and going
beyond our solar system for anything besides observation and probes would
truly be SciFi at our primitive state. Sending humans 44 million miles with
a gigantic payload, after our robotic rovers and mapping satellites have
shown Mars to be another Death Valley on steriods just doesn't make a lot of
sense to me. Plus the robots don't insist on a round trip ticket or need
life support 24/7. My manned explorer itch doesn't need scratched at this
point, unless new data is found. But to each their own.. If we all thought
the same, it'd be a really, really boring life.

ManhattanMan

May 9th 07, 11:23 PM

EridanMan wrote:
>
> You continually speak of the danger of human space exploration as a
> bad thing. I could not disagree more.
>

No really a bad thing, it just seems that the chance of surviving a mistake
or a bout of
Murphys Law has risen exp

EridanMan

May 9th 07, 11:37 PM

> But if the boat sinks, you probably have a life jacket, life raft, life
> boat, maybe people in the area to assist, etc., in other words you might
> survive without the boat or ship. Yes, everything we do has some degree of
> danger, you can have a brain aneurysm straining on the toilet, etc., but
> that logic has nothing to do with anything.

Now-a-days you might have a boat that could respond to save you... but
thats a VERY recent development. Hell, even the titanic sunk with a
loss of 2/3rds of the souls aboard... Imagine what it was like for
the oceanic explorers a mere 400 years ago plying the Atlantic in
wooden boats with absolutely zero chance of rescue should the **** hit
the fan... And at least a decompression death would only last a few
seconds;)

Yes, there is an inherent risk to anything... I'm just tremendously
thankful that the explorers who laid the foundation for the modern
world had a much different tolerance for risk than we do today...
otherwise we'd never have left our caves in africa.

> My *primary* point the last few posts, has been odds of survival, and living
> to fight another day

Your primary point has been based on a modern understanding of
exploration utterly irrelevant to the world in which the explorers who
tamed our world existed. I read some where that your odds of
surviving to have children as a new world explorer who settled
bordered on near 50% or less for the first hundred years... Yes the
risks now are worse... but our technology and ability to predict is
better... either way- I don't think you can argue that for a certain
segment of the population, it is a worthy risk.

> I'd love to believe there was another inhabitable piece of real estate
> besides earth, but so far I haven't seen a shred of evidence, and going
> beyond our solar system for anything besides observation and probes would
> truly be SciFi at our primitive state. Sending humans 44 million miles with
> a gigantic payload, after our robotic rovers and mapping satellites have
> shown Mars to be another Death Valley on steriods just doesn't make a lot of
> sense to me.

Even if there was a world that supported life as we know it, any
attempt to settle would be impossible... Microbes from an alien world
would (probably) bet uttlerly beyond the capacity of the human immune
system to tolerate... the first hundred or two years of orbiting an
earth-like planet around another star would be spent merely trying to
engineer humans to survive in the new environment...

That doesn't mean we shouldn't go. That doesn't mean the struggle of
trying to sustain a colony in a sub-standard environment can't yield
valuable insight into how to maintain a sustainable colony here on
Earth. It doesn't mean that the process of trying to adapt the human
animal on an alien world wouldn't give us valuable insight into the
workings of the human body, in context of universal (as opposed to
terran) biology.

Challenge yields learning. Challenging brings risk. The risk isn't
"worth it" to you... ok, we understand. Stop trying to make that
judgement for the rest of us...

We don't agree... that's cool... but don't tell those of us willing to
risk our mortality on advancing the human species that we are wrong.

> Plus the robots don't insist on a round trip ticket or need
> life support 24/7. My manned explorer itch doesn't need scratched at this
> point, unless new data is found.

And robot's don't experience... They don't "Understand"...
Fundamentally, that's the only thing that we humans do that makes us
notably different than the rest of the mass in the universe.

> But to each their own.. If we all thought the same, it'd be a really, really boring life.

Oh so true:)

EridanMan

May 9th 07, 11:42 PM

> No really a bad thing, it just seems that the chance of surviving a
mistake
> or a bout of Murphys Law has risen exp

The risks to survival have increased, as have our models for
predicting those risks... seems to be a fair tradeoff to me.

Hell... exploring space might even make us accept the near 50%
mortality risks that our predecessors who settled our world faced...
I just pray that we accept that risk before the instinct of those of
us who are willing to take it are bred out of the population...
because only then are we truly damned to an existence of
insignificance.

ManhattanMan

May 9th 07, 11:47 PM

ManhattanMan wrote:
> EridanMan wrote:
>>
>> You continually speak of the danger of human space exploration as a
>> bad thing. I could not disagree more.
>>
>
> No really a bad thing, it just seems that the chance of surviving a
> mistake or a bout of
> Murphys Law has risen

damn spastic mouse -

as I was saying

It just seems the chance of surviving a serious mistake or round of Murphys
Law has increased ten fold when dealing with outer space, as compared to the
"old fashioned" ways. On terra firma you usually have some wiggle room,
literally, and possible alternatives, but up there the margin is cut way
down.

I'm all for manned missions when it's obvious that that's the only way we'll
get the desired results. Something like Mars in on a scale that by the time
the hardware and technology are ready, I really doubt if I'll be around to
see it, IF it comes about at all. It would be a fantastic adventure, for
adventures sake, but is it REALLY necessary? I don't know..

I realize many great things for the grounded masses evolved from the space
program, and mentioned that in my first post. I've always wondered how many
things might have evolved anyway, and at what cost.. We'll never know..

Kev

May 9th 07, 11:47 PM

On May 9, 5:49 pm, (Mutts) wrote:
> Terra forming Mars?
>
> Now something like that is very very far off I know. And there is a giggle
> factor.

I recall an article (Popular Science? Discover?) about a decade ago,
which detailed how to terraform Mars. At the time, they figured it
would take 50-100 years, at a mere $150 million a day (one third to
one half the cost of the Iraq war). Costly, but if shared by all the
nations, quite doable... and the result is more or less another Earth,
with thinner air.

Just think of the vacation possibilities. Heck, I've seen Earth
tourist hotels that probably took more effort ;-)

ManhattanMan

May 10th 07, 12:26 AM

EridanMan wrote:
>
> Challenge yields learning. Challenging brings risk. The risk isn't
> "worth it" to you... ok, we understand. Stop trying to make that
> judgement for the rest of us...
>
> We don't agree... that's cool... but don't tell those of us willing to
> risk our mortality on advancing the human species that we are wrong.
>

Whooaaaa! Au contraire Eridan - I've just been tossing around some very non
scientific opinions, and checking the pulse of others. Obviously yours has
risen. I'm NOT making a judgement for anybody, or telling anybody they're
wrong about anything, just simply giving another viewpoint from what yours
or theirs might be.

Half my posts circulated around Jose and I trying to determine if space
exploration and conventional (?) exploration didn't have some degree of
being 'different' (not the primal urge to be doing it, but the physical act
itself, or that's the way I saw it), and as anyone can see, we agreed to
disagree, as you do.

Sorry if I pinched a nerve!

Cheers'n Beers... [_])
Don

Jose

May 10th 07, 12:56 AM

> But if the boat sinks, you probably have a life jacket, life raft, life
> boat, maybe people in the area to assist, etc., in other words you might
> survive without the boat or ship.

This might be true if the Queen Mary sinks today. It wasn't true when
the Niña, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria sailed. They had each other,
and that was about it.

=They= were pioneers. People on the Queen Mary are tourists.

> My *primary* point the last few posts, has been odds of survival

What were the odds of survival of the Pilgrims? (based on the number
that survived, vs the number that died enroute or in the first, say,
year) What are the odds of survival of an astronaut? (based on number
who died in flight, or in the first year of their colonization of a new
planet)

> You mentioned Lindbergh (Lucky Lindy!), and I kind
> of remember reading he landed with fumes (?) left in his gas tanks;
> however, if he had run out, he still had a good chance, ok - fair chance in
> the Spirit of STL :), of gliding down to a safe landing, Plan B, and maybe
> Plan C would follow Plan B if he ditched in the ocean and was left floating
> around, Plan D if the rescue craft sunk, and so on.

Actually, somebody took off before Lindburgh. They had three people
(IIRC), three motors (a tri-motor Folker), and never made it. So much
for "good chance - ok, fair chance..."). Lindburgh had a one-in-four
chance (in hindsight).

> I'd love to believe there was another inhabitable piece of real estate
> besides earth, but so far I haven't seen a shred of evidence

There's at least as much evidence as there was to Columbus.

> Sending humans 44 million miles with
> a gigantic payload, after our robotic rovers and mapping satellites have
> shown Mars to be another Death Valley on steriods just doesn't make a lot of
> sense to me.

Then don't go. But don't try to stop others from going... even on
your... well I was going to say "dime" but really, it's "tenth of a
hundreth of a penny".

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose

May 10th 07, 01:01 AM

> Half my posts circulated around Jose and I trying to determine if space
> exploration and conventional (?) exploration didn't have some degree of
> being 'different' (not the primal urge to be doing it, but the physical act
> itself, or that's the way I saw it), and as anyone can see, we agreed to
> disagree, as you do.

Uh... I didn't agree to anything (though I still disagree :)

Sure, there are differences. There are always differences. I just
don't think they are fundamental differences.

Important, yes. But fundamental? Not a chance.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

ManhattanMan

May 10th 07, 01:09 AM

Jose wrote:
>> Half my posts circulated around Jose and I trying to determine if
>> space exploration and conventional (?) exploration didn't have some
>> degree of being 'different' (not the primal urge to be doing it, but
>> the physical act itself, or that's the way I saw it), and as anyone
>> can see, we agreed to disagree, as you do.
>
> Uh... I didn't agree to anything (though I still disagree :)
>
> Sure, there are differences. There are always differences. I just
> don't think they are fundamental differences.
>
> Important, yes. But fundamental? Not a chance.
>

Ok, I agree, half way....... d:->))

ManhattanMan

May 10th 07, 03:23 AM

Jose wrote:
>> But if the boat sinks, you probably have a life jacket, life raft,
>> life boat, maybe people in the area to assist, etc., in other words
>> you might survive without the boat or ship.
>
> This might be true if the Queen Mary sinks today. It wasn't true when
> the Niña, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria sailed. They had each other,
> and that was about it.

If one, or all, of the ships had sunk, some may have survived in a long
boat, or even a hunk of mast floating, but the *point* being, they weren't
instantly, automatically doomed when the ship sunk. They still had a
chance, and giving odds of those chances are totally out the window, as
simply having any chance beats no chance.

> =They= were pioneers. People on the Queen Mary are tourists.
>
Yeah, no argument there, how'd the QM get in this? I have NO argument
against any bona fide explorer (there have been some frauds) or pioneer who
ever lived, or ever will live - my position is that the ones operating on
terra firma (or to a lesser degree water) have an advantage over someone
operating in a vacumn @ plus/minus 2-300º (or whatever) millions of miles
from earth. That's it! It's not NASA blaspheme, or condemning space
travel, or setting back the human race. Trust me. I think the folks in the
past have done an unbelievable job - there is absolutely no doubt their
ideas of what was looming ahead was a hell of a lot scarier than what we
have, since we have a damn good idea what's there, and precisely where it's
at, we just don't know what's going to happen en route.
>
> Actually, somebody took off before Lindburgh. They had three people
> (IIRC), three motors (a tri-motor Folker), and never made it. So much
> for "good chance - ok, fair chance..."). Lindburgh had a one-in-four
> chance (in hindsight).
>
If Lindy would have stayed on course and run out of fuel, he may have at
least been over Ireland, or within sight of France - again 1:4 beats 0:0
odds if your machine quits.

>> I'd love to believe there was another inhabitable piece of real
>> estate besides earth, but so far I haven't seen a shred of evidence
>
> There's at least as much evidence as there was to Columbus.
>
>> Sending humans 44 million miles with
>> a gigantic payload, after our robotic rovers and mapping satellites
>> have shown Mars to be another Death Valley on steriods just doesn't
>> make a lot of sense to me.
>
> Then don't go. But don't try to stop others from going... even on
> your... well I was going to say "dime" but really, it's "tenth of a
> hundreth of a penny".
>

How the hell would I stop others?

But by George, now you've done it! I wouldn't go now if they begged me!
You could even throw in a book deal, and I will NOT take it. A guest
appearance on Bowling For Dollars, maybe..... d:->))

Jose

May 10th 07, 04:42 AM

> I'm all for manned missions when it's obvious that that's the only way we'll
> get the desired results. Something like Mars in on a scale that by the time
> the hardware and technology are ready...

Those explorers will meet a cadre of Martians who came from Earth before
the hardware and technology was ready.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose

May 10th 07, 04:56 AM

> If one, or all, of the ships had sunk, some may have survived in a long
> boat, or even a hunk of mast floating, but the *point* being, they weren't
> instantly, automatically doomed when the ship sunk.

So there you are, floating on a hunk of mast, a thousand miles from
anywhere, in the middle of the ocean - an ocean nobody has crossed
before and most people think is close to the big waterfall at edge of
the world. You have three days before you die of thirst, a week or
three before you starve.

Oh. There are sharks.

What's your point? It's better to die slowly?

> how'd the QM get in this?

The QM is how we think of ocean travel now. It was harder back in the
days when the world was flat.

> my position is that the ones operating on
> terra firma (or to a lesser degree water) have an advantage over someone
> operating in a vacumn @ plus/minus 2-300º (or whatever) millions of miles
> from earth.

But the ones operating in a vacuum have the advantage of NASA.

You pick your tools to match your challenge. That's all.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

ManhattanMan

May 10th 07, 05:29 AM

Jose wrote:
>
> So there you are, floating on a hunk of mast, a thousand miles from
> anywhere, in the middle of the ocean - an ocean nobody has crossed
> before and most people think is close to the big waterfall at edge of
> the world. You have three days before you die of thirst, a week or
> three before you starve.
>
> Oh. There are sharks.
>
> What's your point? It's better to die slowly?

No - it's better to stage your hypothetical ship wreck closer to a beautiful
hypothetical tropical island, just over the horizon from where your
dimwitted skipper sailed by yesterday, and you're found on the beach by
these knock out gorgeous babes that think you're a god, and give you
anything you want. Geez, you need to develop some optimistic imagination
Jose.......

>
>> how'd the QM get in this?
>
> The QM is how we think of ocean travel now. It was harder back in the
> days when the world was flat.
>
>> my position is that the ones operating on
>> terra firma (or to a lesser degree water) have an advantage over
>> someone operating in a vacumn @ plus/minus 2-300º (or whatever)
>> millions of miles from earth.
>
> But the ones operating in a vacuum have the advantage of NASA.
>
> You pick your tools to match your challenge. That's all.
>

But their tools are millions of miles away... opps...
I agree that without some outreach to things that might be, could be, may
be, we'd be in trouble. It's just that today we have so much advance
knowledge of what it is.. What is more worrysome than go or nogo to Mars is
near space, and I have no qualms about being dominant there, no matter what;
but, I've already said that, or at least that it was my main concern.

Jose

May 10th 07, 06:36 AM

>>You pick your tools to match your challenge. That's all.
> But their tools are millions of miles away...

Don't be silly. Their tools are right at hand - they didn't launch for
Mars without technology, foresight, and backup. Now, like the ship in
the storm, it may not be enough. That's part of what it means to
explore. But if they do make it, the whole solar system is opened up.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

ManhattanMan

May 10th 07, 02:41 PM

Jose wrote:
> Those explorers will meet a cadre of Martians who came from Earth
> before the hardware and technology was ready.
>

That couldn't get back home, and are so mutated from radiation, inadequate
oxygen and water, they really do look like four foot green men with bug eyes
and three fingers... :)

Kev

May 11th 07, 03:43 AM

On May 9, 6:05 pm, "ManhattanMan" > wrote:
> Apollo 13 were the luckiest three guys imaginable when theirs hung on long
> enough to get back home! You mentionedLindbergh(Lucky Lindy!), and I kind
> of remember reading he landed with fumes (?) left in his gas tanks; [..]

Not a comment on anything you wrote, except to make sure the record is
straight as far as Lindbergh's Paris flight goes: No fumes at all.
He left out radios and many other things just to make sure he had LOTS
of reserve fuel. In fact, after his 33 hour flight, he still had over
16 hours of fuel remaining. He was a master of fuel conservation and
went on later to teach Pacific WW-II combat pilots how to stay aloft
far longer than anyone thought possible.

Kev

Montblack

May 11th 07, 05:50 AM

("Austin Gosling" wrote)
> My alltime favorite quote (somewhat loosey quoted):

> "We choose to go to the moon not because it is easy, but because it is
> hard" - JFK

President John F. Kennedy
Delivered in person before a joint session of Congress
May 25, 1961

http://tinyurl.com/2rmcsy
(same link as below)

<find> ........ May 25, 1961 <click on it>
<click> ...... "Listen to excerpt of this speech"
<click> ...... "Change Media Prefferences"
<click> ...... "Choose an Audio Player"
<click> ...... "Download this File"

<http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/Speeches+of+John+F.+Kennedy.htm>

President John F. Kennedy
Delivered in person before a joint session of Congress
May 25, 1961

IX. SPACE

Finally, if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world
between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which
occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the
Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men
everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they
should take. Since early in my term, our efforts in space have been under
review. With the advice of the Vice President, who is Chairman of the
National Space Council, we have examined where we are strong and where we
are not, where we may succeed and where we may not. Now it is time to take
longer strides--time for a great new American enterprise--time for this
nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many
ways may hold the key to our future on earth.

I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts
of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or
marshalled the national resources required for such leadership. We have
never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our
resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment.

Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket
engines, which gives them many months of leadtime, and recognizing the
likelihood that they will exploit this lead for some time to come in still
more impressive successes, we nevertheless are required to make new efforts
on our own. For while we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first, we
can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last. We
take an additional risk by making it in full view of the world, but as shown
by the feat of astronaut Shepard, this very risk enhances our stature when
we are successful. But this is not merely a race. Space is open to us now;
and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of
others. We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men
must fully share.

I therefore ask the Congress, above and beyond the increases I have earlier
requested for space activities, to provide the funds which are needed to
meet the following national goals:

First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the
goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning
him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more
impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of
space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. We propose
to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We
propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger
than any now being developed, until certain which is superior. We propose
additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned
explorations--explorations which are particularly important for one purpose
which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first
makes this daring flight. But in a very real sense, it will not be one man
going to the moon--if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an
entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there.

Secondly, an additional 23 million dollars, together with 7 million dollars
already available, will accelerate development of the Rover nuclear rocket.
This gives promise of some day providing a means for even more exciting and
ambitious exploration of space, perhaps beyond the moon, perhaps to the very
end of the solar system itself.

Third, an additional 50 million dollars will make the most of our present
leadership, by accelerating the use of space satellites for world-wide
communications.

Fourth, an additional 75 million dollars--of which 53 million dollars is for
the Weather Bureau--will help give us at the earliest possible time a
satellite system for world-wide weather observation.

Let it be clear--and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress
must finally make--let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the
country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action, a course
which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs: 531 million
dollars in fiscal '62--an estimated seven to nine billion dollars additional
over the next five years. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our
sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to
go at all.

Now this is a choice which this country must make, and I am confident that
under the leadership of the Space Committees of the Congress, and the
Appropriating Committees, that you will consider the matter carefully.

It is a most important decision that we make as a nation. But all of you
have lived through the last four years and have seen the significance of
space and the adventures in space, and no one can predict with certainty
what the ultimate meaning will be of mastery of space.

I believe we should go to the moon. But I think every citizen of this
country as well as the Members of the Congress should consider the matter
carefully in making their judgment, to which we have given attention over
many weeks and months, because it is a heavy burden, and there is no sense
in agreeing or desiring that the United States take an affirmative position
in outer space, unless we are prepared to do the work and bear the burdens
to make it successful. If we are not, we should decide today and this year.

This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and
technical manpower, materiel and facilities, and the possibility of their
diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly
spread. It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline which
have not always characterized our research and development efforts. It means
we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of material or talent,
wasteful interagency rivalries, or a high turnover of key personnel.

New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems. They could in
fact, aggravate them further--unless every scientist, every engineer, every
serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his
personal pledge that this nation will move forward, with the full speed of
freedom, in the exciting adventure of space.

Montblack

Austin Gosling

May 11th 07, 07:32 PM

This is odd - I know for certain that I have seen a video, where JFK
said (as best I can remember) "We choose to got to the moon
[cheering],... we choose to go to the moon and do the other things, not
because they are easy, but because they are hard." That text isn't in
this one.

Aah - here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz9OXE91fP0

Montblack wrote:
> ("Austin Gosling" wrote)
>> My alltime favorite quote (somewhat loosey quoted):
>
>> "We choose to go to the moon not because it is easy, but because it is
>> hard" - JFK
>
>
> President John F. Kennedy
> Delivered in person before a joint session of Congress
> May 25, 1961
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2rmcsy
> (same link as below)
>
> <find> ........ May 25, 1961 <click on it>
> <click> ...... "Listen to excerpt of this speech"
> <click> ...... "Change Media Prefferences"
> <click> ...... "Choose an Audio Player"
> <click> ...... "Download this File"
>
> <http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/Speeches+of+John+F.+Kennedy.htm>
>
> President John F. Kennedy
> Delivered in person before a joint session of Congress
> May 25, 1961
>
> IX. SPACE
>
> Finally, if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world
> between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which
> occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the
> Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men
> everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they
> should take. Since early in my term, our efforts in space have been under
> review. With the advice of the Vice President, who is Chairman of the
> National Space Council, we have examined where we are strong and where we
> are not, where we may succeed and where we may not. Now it is time to take
> longer strides--time for a great new American enterprise--time for this
> nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many
> ways may hold the key to our future on earth.
>
> I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts
> of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or
> marshalled the national resources required for such leadership. We have
> never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our
> resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment.
>
> Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket
> engines, which gives them many months of leadtime, and recognizing the
> likelihood that they will exploit this lead for some time to come in still
> more impressive successes, we nevertheless are required to make new efforts
> on our own. For while we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first, we
> can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last. We
> take an additional risk by making it in full view of the world, but as shown
> by the feat of astronaut Shepard, this very risk enhances our stature when
> we are successful. But this is not merely a race. Space is open to us now;
> and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of
> others. We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men
> must fully share.
>
> I therefore ask the Congress, above and beyond the increases I have earlier
> requested for space activities, to provide the funds which are needed to
> meet the following national goals:
>
> First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the
> goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning
> him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more
> impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of
> space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. We propose
> to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We
> propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger
> than any now being developed, until certain which is superior. We propose
> additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned
> explorations--explorations which are particularly important for one purpose
> which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first
> makes this daring flight. But in a very real sense, it will not be one man
> going to the moon--if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an
> entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there.
>
> Secondly, an additional 23 million dollars, together with 7 million dollars
> already available, will accelerate development of the Rover nuclear rocket.
> This gives promise of some day providing a means for even more exciting and
> ambitious exploration of space, perhaps beyond the moon, perhaps to the very
> end of the solar system itself.
>
> Third, an additional 50 million dollars will make the most of our present
> leadership, by accelerating the use of space satellites for world-wide
> communications.
>
> Fourth, an additional 75 million dollars--of which 53 million dollars is for
> the Weather Bureau--will help give us at the earliest possible time a
> satellite system for world-wide weather observation.
>
> Let it be clear--and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress
> must finally make--let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the
> country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action, a course
> which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs: 531 million
> dollars in fiscal '62--an estimated seven to nine billion dollars additional
> over the next five years. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our
> sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to
> go at all.
>
> Now this is a choice which this country must make, and I am confident that
> under the leadership of the Space Committees of the Congress, and the
> Appropriating Committees, that you will consider the matter carefully.
>
> It is a most important decision that we make as a nation. But all of you
> have lived through the last four years and have seen the significance of
> space and the adventures in space, and no one can predict with certainty
> what the ultimate meaning will be of mastery of space.
>
> I believe we should go to the moon. But I think every citizen of this
> country as well as the Members of the Congress should consider the matter
> carefully in making their judgment, to which we have given attention over
> many weeks and months, because it is a heavy burden, and there is no sense
> in agreeing or desiring that the United States take an affirmative position
> in outer space, unless we are prepared to do the work and bear the burdens
> to make it successful. If we are not, we should decide today and this year.
>
> This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and
> technical manpower, materiel and facilities, and the possibility of their
> diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly
> spread. It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline which
> have not always characterized our research and development efforts. It means
> we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of material or talent,
> wasteful interagency rivalries, or a high turnover of key personnel.
>
> New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems. They could in
> fact, aggravate them further--unless every scientist, every engineer, every
> serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his
> personal pledge that this nation will move forward, with the full speed of
> freedom, in the exciting adventure of space.
>
>
> Montblack
>
>