One Step Closer......
-
@coliver said:
@g.jacobse said:
@ajstringham said:
@g.jacobse said:
@ajstringham
In some regard Earth has become uninhabitable...The moon is uninhabitable, space is uninhabitable.. and yet - there we are.. There are resources that are there that we would be able to harvest for the next step.
Mount Everest is uninhabitable, and yet thousands of people clammer up it's slopes - risking death or serious injury for the glory, the adventure, and the curiosity..
True. But consider this: satellites orbit earth from space, and the moon is only something like 3 days away. Mars is supposed to be something like 8 months away. I get that going to Mars would be amazing, but the expression "long ways from home" doesn't even begin to cover it. If something goes wrong, well, you're on your own.
And climbing Everest is cool but foolish IMHO.
It is very much an 'argument' that could go both ways... Climbing Everest or exploring space (inner or outer) - It's cool, It's neat, It's exciting, It's dangerous, it's pointless, its,..
If we do not venture into space, we are limiting our species to a slow painful death because we would stagnate. The human mind is mapped for exploration, excitement, and finding new things. Our minds would shut down if we didn't go.
Not to mention - We are just but a small speck in the Galactic Ocean of Space - If would be such a waste to NOT go. Think of Christopher Columbus and discovery of the New World.. Where would we Americans be had he not ventured into the unknown and the dangerous waters of monsters and myth.
Christopher Columbus probably isn't the best example... just saying.
Exactly my point.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
I was about to say the same thing. You just need to look at the technologies introduced by NASA around that time and decades later to know it was worth it.
Actually found a list by NASA (http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html).
NASA didn't need to go to the moon to develop good tech. They could have developed all of the same, at lower cost, without going.
And more important is the cost of lost opportunity - what did we not develop because we were focused on those things instead?
Could NASA have developed those items and a lower cost? Sure,..It wasn't and still isn't going to happen the minute you say Living Cargo. The moment you state that you going to launch a human your risks and your cost jump exponentially ,....
-
@g.jacobse said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
I was about to say the same thing. You just need to look at the technologies introduced by NASA around that time and decades later to know it was worth it.
Actually found a list by NASA (http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html).
NASA didn't need to go to the moon to develop good tech. They could have developed all of the same, at lower cost, without going.
And more important is the cost of lost opportunity - what did we not develop because we were focused on those things instead?
Could NASA have developed those items and a lower cost? Sure,..It wasn't and still isn't going to happen the minute you say Living Cargo. The moment you state that you going to launch a human your risks and your cost jump exponentially ,....
Some things also have to be invented. Things that do not yet exist. So yeah, it takes money time and resources.
-
@ajstringham said:
@g.jacobse said:
@ajstringham said:
@g.jacobse said:
@ajstringham
In some regard Earth has become uninhabitable...The moon is uninhabitable, space is uninhabitable.. and yet - there we are.. There are resources that are there that we would be able to harvest for the next step.
Mount Everest is uninhabitable, and yet thousands of people clammer up it's slopes - risking death or serious injury for the glory, the adventure, and the curiosity..
True. But consider this: satellites orbit earth from space, and the moon is only something like 3 days away. Mars is supposed to be something like 8 months away. I get that going to Mars would be amazing, but the expression "long ways from home" doesn't even begin to cover it. If something goes wrong, well, you're on your own.
And climbing Everest is cool but foolish IMHO.
It is very much an 'argument' that could go both ways... Climbing Everest or exploring space (inner or outer) - It's cool, It's neat, It's exciting, It's dangerous, it's pointless, its,..
If we do not venture into space, we are limiting our species to a slow painful death because we would stagnate. The human mind is mapped for exploration, excitement, and finding new things. Our minds would shut down if we didn't go.
Not to mention - We are just but a small speck in the Galactic Ocean of Space - If would be such a waste to NOT go. Think of Christopher Columbus and discovery of the New World.. Where would we Americans be had he not ventured into the unknown and the dangerous waters of monsters and myth.
Ummm...Christopher Columbus didn't discover the New World. In all technicality, the Vikings did. But in any case...
Earth alone won't stagnate the growth of the human race. They are looking to explore deep space but there is still a huge portion of the earth that is completely foreign to mankind. They haven't completed one task before moving on to another.
Yes yes - quite true. In that regard - splitting hairs
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
I'm sure the same was said about the transcontinental railroad or prepping ships for the new world. Not saying that the cold war wasn't also a driver here but Space exploration is the final frontier.
I agree. But all of those others were done organically when it made economic sense for people to voluntarily invest because they had a predicted return value. Space exploration was forced on us early through a government welfare program which wasted valuable resources at a time when we were not ready for the burdens of space flight. We are only just becoming ready today to go to the moon in a sensible way. We wasted an immense number of resources pushing to do something too early.
-
@g.jacobse said:
Could NASA have developed those items and a lower cost? Sure,..It wasn't and still isn't going to happen the minute you say Living Cargo. The moment you state that you going to launch a human your risks and your cost jump exponentially ,....
But they are saying that for Mars without sending someone. They could have prepared to go to the moon and not actually done it with the same results.
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
Some things also have to be invented. Things that do not yet exist. So yeah, it takes money time and resources.
But they didn't just focus on the invention, they used them in a very expensive, impractical way unnecessarily.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Bill-Kindle said:
Some things also have to be invented. Things that do not yet exist. So yeah, it takes money time and resources.
But they didn't just focus on the invention, they used them in a very expensive, impractical way unnecessarily.
Using them for their intended purpose was impractical? No. They were design for a purpose, and then those items found even more domestic practical applications.
Not to get off subject, but wasn't @Plantronics mics used for communications in the space suits?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Bill-Kindle said:
I'm sure the same was said about the transcontinental railroad or prepping ships for the new world. Not saying that the cold war wasn't also a driver here but Space exploration is the final frontier.
I agree. But all of those others were done organically when it made economic sense for people to voluntarily invest because they had a predicted return value. Space exploration was forced on us early through a government welfare program which wasted valuable resources at a time when we were not ready for the burdens of space flight. We are only just becoming ready today to go to the moon in a sensible way. We wasted an immense number of resources pushing to do something too early.
Look at all the jobs that were created in building up NASA. NASA paved the way for outfits like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic, which are private companies.
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
Using them for their intended purpose was impractical? No. They were design for a purpose, and then those items found even more domestic practical applications.
Absolutely, the intended purpose was wholly impractical. A complete waste of time, money and resources. The only value to them seems to be in the ancillary uses since that time. I think there is no doubt that the lunar landings were impractical, the question is did their ancillary value offset that waste? My answer is no, not in the least. All of their benefit was available without the waste, so yes, the intended uses since they were wasteful, were a waste.
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
Look at all the jobs that were created in building up NASA. NASA paved the way for outfits like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic, which are private companies.
All included in my point. Yes social welfare programs have benefits. But there were far, far better ways to spend that money and employ those people. We could have invented more, produced more important things, done more for humanity than just prove we could be as wasteful as we wanted.
-
Look at the space program like a business. What I am talking about is the cost of lost opportunity. The amount of invention, the amount of employment, the amount of good for human kind, the amount of advancement that couldn't happen because resources were thrown at the space program were staggering and remain staggering today. We lost so much that we will never know because we put it all into a rocket and lit our resources on fire for nothing.
-
Here's a bit of "interesting" IT history.
When man was put on the moon, the return involved hitting a spot the size of an envelope. Too high? Off into space. Too low? Burn up on reentry.
The computing power we had could only calculate where the moon was to within about a mile.
-
Yeah, it was absolutely crazy and terrifying.
-
Can't we concentrate on fixing our issues here like homelessness, disease and famine before we start taking our issues somewhere else?
-
@nadnerB we are taking the IT approach of turning it off and back on
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Yeah, it was absolutely crazy and terrifying.
Which is why (at least I think) the phrase "Flying by the seat of your pants" was coined....
Long / Deep space exploration is impractical because of the amount of fuel, water and Oxygen that would need to be bottled and hauled with. You'd have to build a Bio-sphere type system.. a 'Mini Earth'
But I'm no rocket scientist..
-
I love that she mentions the Cornell food study in this article. One of Scott and my first dates was attending a talk at Cornell given by a professor there who was working with NASA to figure out what would be the best foods to take on a Mars mission, and he talked about the "food fatigue" that the commander mentions. NASA, Cornell, and Disney's hydroponic labs at Epcot have been working on this for years.
I'm impressed that they chose a 34 year old to be the commander of the mission, because that is a high position, but I would imagine that they are thinking towards the future, and you simply HAVE to have young men and women on this mission due to the amount of time.
-
@g.jacobse said:
Think of Christopher Columbus and discovery of the New World.. Where would we Americans be had he not ventured into the unknown and the dangerous waters of monsters and myth.
You did NOT just go there with Christopher Columbus. SMH, didn't you read the Christopher Columbus thread from the other day? Check out the real story.
-
@Dominica said:
@g.jacobse said:
Think of Christopher Columbus and discovery of the New World.. Where would we Americans be had he not ventured into the unknown and the dangerous waters of monsters and myth.
You did NOT just go there with Christopher Columbus. SMH, didn't you read the Christopher Columbus thread from the other day? Check out the real story.
Exactly what I was thinking...lol
