OT a bit - fly to the moon or Mars?

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:-))

Hi,

I am very interested in this topic. However (and this is a general
comment), if anyone feels the need to start the Subject to "OT", why not
just find the appropriate newsgroup and post it there? It seems that not
only do we get trolls here, but here in a 'piloting' NG, we get politics,
space, etc.

Hilton

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.

The moon is the ideal place for an electric mass driver. That would
open up the entire solar system, and perhaps more.

If the robots turn up something absolutely
extraordinary, that could change.

By then it would be too late. Somebody else would be there.

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.

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:-))

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.

"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)

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.

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:-))

"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

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.