The Age of Space Exploration

If you want to explore Mars... by Pan+T.+Hose · 2004-03-29 01:02 · Score: 5, Funny

...then hurry up before it's completely terraformed!

--
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."

I, for one, would prefer... by turnstyle · 2004-03-29 01:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

I, for one, would prefer more robotics and AI, and less "people in space" for the time being.

--
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda

Re:I, for one, would prefer... by turnstyle · 2004-03-29 01:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Let me explain a bit more...
Bush's call for a manned mission to Mars is mostly a publicity stunt. And since the PR polling that followed his announcement indicated luke-warm support, you'll not be hearing make too much more noise on the subject.
Personally, I don't see such a need to send people into space, apart from the admittedly spectacular gee-whiz factor.
I've been amazed at what the Mars rovers have been doing, for months, on their own, and I also think that the application of robotics and AI "in the field" will wind up having practical uses back home.
All the "people in space" talk also winds up at odds (for share of a limited budget) with the "real" science that is trying to figure out the nature of the physical universe.

--
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Re:I, for one, would prefer... by Channard · 2004-03-29 01:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

I, for one, would prefer more robotics and AI, and less "people in space" for the time being.
And I, for one, would prefer to see more the money spent - or some of it at least - on deep sea exploration. Perhaps we could compromise and have the depths probed by giant robot squid?
Re:I, for one, would prefer... by turnstyle · 2004-03-29 03:11 · Score: 1

"And I, for one, would prefer to see more the money spent - or some of it at least - on deep sea exploration."
Excellent point.
It's amazing how little of the Oceans have been cloesly explored, and there is presumably a lot of potential medicine (and perhaps materials) to be discovered... oh yeah, and great bug-eyed monsters too...

--
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Re:I, for one, would prefer... by Wyatt+Earp · 2004-03-29 03:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

"I've been amazed at what the Mars rovers have been doing, for months, on their own."

But they are not on thier own.

They are controlled from California and what one of them has done in 3 months could have been accomplished in a matter of hours by a human.

Walk out, grab rocks, take rocks back to lab module, walk out, grab rocks.

On Apollo 17 the Astronauts were able to walk around in locations much too rough for a rover to move.
Re:I, for one, would prefer... by turnstyle · 2004-03-29 03:37 · Score: 1

"They are controlled from California and what one of them has done in 3 months could have been accomplished in a matter of hours by a human."
Don't forget that the Mars rovers self-navigate with the help of 3D terrain maps that they build with their stereoscopic vision, and can travel unguided over considerable distances, and that's a big plus given the amount of time that it takes to transfer information between Earth and Mars.
Obviously people can still do lots of things better than robots, but the robots are getting better, and the loss of a robot is a heck of lot more acceptible than the loss of a person (or people).
AND better robot/AI tech has tons of practical uses here.

--
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Re:I, for one, would prefer... by Wyatt+Earp · 2004-03-29 03:45 · Score: 1

Considerable for them is about dozen meters at this point.

"Opportunity flipped 115 meters (377.3 feet) on its odometer during the latest drives along the current soil survey campaign, surpassing the total drive distance of 1997's Sojourner rover."

"Spirit completed a 15-meter (49.2 feet) blind drive followed by a 3-meter (9.8 feet) auto-navigation drive around the south rim of "Bonneville" crater toward a drift named "Serpent." Once there, Spirit completed post-drive science observations and a miniature thermal emission spectrometer study of the atmosphere, ground and future drive direction."

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statuste xt only.html
Re:I, for one, would prefer... by turnstyle · 2004-03-29 03:52 · Score: 1

"Considerable for them is about dozen meters at this point."
Well, first off you cited a distance from the Spirit site, which is quite a lot tougher than the Opportunity site -- my guess is that we'll be seeing much longer "blind" drives from Opportunity in the next few weeks.
Furthermore, note that the Opportunity site is now a much more likely repeat-visit candidate than the Spirit site.
Also, compare even that Spirit blind-drive distance to what Pathfinder could do a few years ago, and think about what may be reasonable to expect next time...

--
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Re:I, for one, would prefer... by flewp · 2004-03-29 03:59 · Score: 1

Just what kind of materials? And how do you plan on bringing them back up to the surface at a reasonable cost?

Sure, you could attach big inflatable balloons to chunks of these materials, but I still fail to see what kind of new materials we're going to see underwater.

--
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
Re:I, for one, would prefer... by turnstyle · 2004-03-29 04:47 · Score: 1

"Just what kind of materials?"
I can imagine all sorts of stuff -- mostly assorted chemical byproducts of living organisms that woldn't necessarily be used for medicinal purposes -- a few quick examples include glow in the dark chemicals, glues, anti-freezes, and so on.

--
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Re:I, for one, would prefer... by Smallpond · 2004-03-29 06:09 · Score: 1

... and I, for one, would prefer to see a little more NASA money spent on protecting the Earth from being hit by big rocks. It may not be fun, but it sure could have a big payoff in the long run. I wouldn't want to be under the next Shoemaker-Levy.
Re:I, for one, would prefer... by abradsn · 2004-03-29 06:40 · Score: 1

It would be easier than bringing something back from mars.
Re:I, for one, would prefer... by red+floyd · 2004-03-29 10:08 · Score: 1

On Apollo 17 the Astronauts were able to walk around in locations much too rough for a rover to move.

It's highly unlikely that an unmanned rover would have discovered the "fire beads" that Schmidt found in Shorty crater.

--
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Re:I, for one, would prefer... by greening · 2004-03-29 10:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

There are many reasons for a call to have manned missions to the moon and mars. Ever since we got to the moon (and eventually stopped), the US as a country doesn't have a common goal to set forth on. We did in the 60's. That's one of the few things that I will praise JFK for. Plus, there are massive inventions that took place then. A lot you enjoy still today (microwave oven, computers, et al). While sending up rovers to do the work is not a bad idea, it isn't the same as sending actual astronauts. Bush set forth the Mars plan as a very long-term goal. We are still a long time away from Mars. But, the moon is still possible with in a decade. (Maybe even less considering we are more technologically advanced than we were back then)

--
Are you telling me that you don't see the connection between government and laughing at people? - Interviewer
Re:I, for one, would prefer... by SB9876 · 2004-03-29 10:59 · Score: 1

Well, for one, it's easier than getting stuff back from Mars. Also, something like 80-90% of the world's hydrocarbon reserves are locked up in methane clathrates deposits at the bottom of the ocean along with massive quantities of precious metal-rich nodules. There's also entire branches of life that we haven't even begun to study that can give lots of insight into our own evolution and the history of this planet.

Basically most of the stuff we are going to do on Mars is similar to what we'll get from the sea floor.

Don't get me wring - I'm very much in favor of human Mars exploration. However, the poor funding for ocean studies and utilization is just sad.
Re:I, for one, would prefer... by tmortn · 2004-03-29 17:58 · Score: 1

But still the point about what someone in a space suit could do in the same time is valid.

The difficulty of robotic probes is getting them to do the same things a human can do.

The difficulty in manned missions is getting the human "probe" there.

Currently there is no amount of money you could expend to get a human equivalent probe. Thus they compromise by making probes with limited capacity. If you really try to pack in the abilities both the cost and chance of failure go up. Rapidly.

This is not to say manned missions are more cost effective. But given equal time manned missions are far more capable.

--
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
Re:I, for one, would prefer... by adeyadey · 2004-04-01 19:50 · Score: 1

Its true that Bushs plan is about self-promotion but if we can acheieve low-cost space access, then all sorts of things become possible/worthwhile/economic to do, manned and unmanned. Smaller military budgets and bigger space ones would be a start too..

--
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"

Incomplete and out of date. by FTL · 2004-03-29 01:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

To illustrate how quickly things can change in the field of planetary exploration, the details for the 'Messenger' probe to Mercury are already out of date. Liftoff has been postponed from May to July, and it will take a different route to get to Mercury. It won't get there until 2011.

The list only includes NASA, ESA and JAXA. Completely missing are the upcoming probes from China and India . Oddly, Russia doesn't seem to have anything planned.

--
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.

Re:Incomplete and out of date. by Zarhan · 2004-03-29 01:18 · Score: 4, Informative

Also, New Horizons is not an orbiter, it will simply fly past Pluto and get the data. Afterwards it may check out some nearby KBO as well.
Re:Incomplete and out of date. by VanillaCoke420 · 2004-03-29 02:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

There's another Mercury probe too, BepiColombo. And I'm surprised we haven't heard more about the Japanese asteroid sample return mission in the mainstream media. It's more interesting than that.
Re:Incomplete and out of date. by CheshireCatCO · 2004-03-29 02:49 · Score: 4, Informative

That doesn't illustrate how quickly things are changing, the postponing only occured a few days ago. It just represents unfortuante timing for the release of the article.

However, there is at least one glaring (to me) error: Cassini. Cassini doesn't arrive until July, so postpone your orbital insertion parties from June (which is what the article claims). And don't hold your breath on Huygens's launch into Titan: that doesn't occur until, I believe, the fourth orbit. (This is a change of plan from the original orbital plan. When they discovered the failure to account for the Doppler shift in the probe transmitter, they adjusted the first several orbits to make everything work out. However, the change of plan occured about two years ago, so it's a bit odd that the author of the article didn't find this out.)

A bit optimistic by hyperherod · 2004-03-29 01:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Mars Science Laboratory: Still in its planning phase, this mission would establish a long-term roving laboratory on Mars dedicated to studying the planet's environment and composition. The launch could take place as early as 2009.

I know it states that's the earliest date, but doesn't that seem a bit too optimistic? 2009 isn't that far away, and if it's a 'long-term roving laboratory' I'd imagine it would take longer than five years to set up - and just how long is long-term, anyway?

Re:A bit optimistic by johnjay · 2004-03-29 02:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

If they design it right, all they need to design thoroughly are "long term" and "roving". The lab could be relatively simple at first. They can send more and better lab modules later. The rover would just go to the landing site, swap modules and continue on it's work.

"Long term rover" seems do-able today. Use the currentrover's platform and convert it to nuclear power.

(The thing that continually impresses me about the rover missions is that, regardless of how much great science the current rovers are doing, NASA seems to finally have a good system for getting probes to Mars. If I ran the world NASA would have Mars-Rovers coming out of factories and firing those things over to Mars twice a month. Every state university in the country would have its own rover it could order around.)
Re:A bit optimistic by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 02:37 · Score: 0

No, 5 years is not too short a time. MER was done in much less. Plus, they take semi-mature technologies when they design it, not brand-spanking new. And 'long term' means they would design it to run for 1 Martian year (~ 2 earth year). As you might know, if its designed for one, it will probably work for 2 or 3 (Mars = 4 to 6 Earth).

Details here:
http://centauri.larc.nasa.gov/msl/
Re:A bit optimistic by GileadGreene · 2004-03-29 02:38 · Score: 4, Informative

Mars Exploration Rover (aka Spirit and Opportunity) managed to go from "approval to proceed" to launch in around 3 years (mid-2000 to mid-2003). And they built two of them. If MSL is already in the planning phase (actually it's been in the planning phase for a while now) then there's a reasonable chance that they could get something built within the 5 year timeframe suggested by a 2009 launch date. Hopefully with a little less stress on the project team than the MER team faced :-)
I don't recall exactly what the intended mission duration of MSL is, but IIRC "long-term" counts as anything that is significantly longer than the 90 sol lifetime MER. My understanding is that MSL will be returning to using radio-isotope thermoelectric generators (rather than photovoltaic cells) as the primary power source for the rover - thus the long life compared to the curent set of rovers.
Re:A bit optimistic by tgd · 2004-03-29 03:48 · Score: 1

The thing that made Opportunity and Spirit short termed labratories is the solar power.

From what I've read, they're going to use nuclear generators like Cassini used (and, for that matter, the Viking landers) to allow the rovers to work for potentially years on the surface.

In that case, its just an evolutionary change from the current rover technology. 2009 doesn't seem at all farfetched, especially given how quickly the current rovers were developed.
Re:A bit optimistic by flewp · 2004-03-29 04:01 · Score: 2, Funny

If I ran the world NASA would have Mars-Rovers coming out of factories and firing those things over to Mars twice a month. Every state university in the country would have its own rover it could order around.

"Battlebots: Mars" anyone?

--
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
Re:A bit optimistic by another_henry · 2004-03-29 09:46 · Score: 1

If I ran the world NASA would have Mars-Rovers coming out of factories and firing those things over to Mars twice a month.
Sadly the launch window is only roughly every 18 months, at least if you want to use an efficient Hohmann transfer orbit. Probes -could- be launched on less efficient orbits but the cost would be substantially higher and presumably the extra fuel load would mean less rover.
Of course there's little reason not to send a dozen probes at every opportunity, you might have to expand the Deep Space Network infrastructure to handle communicating with them all at once though. Or you could have some stay in a parking orbit around Mars and be released over a period of time. Would need a bit more fuel for orbit insertion of course.

--
"Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
Re:A bit optimistic by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-30 01:17 · Score: 0

How about a 2-5 year mission!
Re:A bit optimistic by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-30 03:30 · Score: 0

Fortunately, JPL has been working on the MSL for quite some time. "Long-term" implies years; MSL - in addition to solar power - will utilize two small nuclear cores, which are currently under design. And "long-term" leads to a need for a WELL-DESIGNED software infrastructure. For this reason, the work on the Mission Data System has been intense. The decision on which of the competing MDS implementations to use is scheduled for 2005. One of the possible implementations is real-time Java.

Physics by dolo666 · 2004-03-29 01:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Let's face it, the use of rockets and pressure-based engines is why we can't really get to deep space yet. Until we find a really safe method for infinite travel (mass transfer) I have to agree that robotic probes are the way to go, until infinite travel is possible. Flying hulks of mass through space, and requiring that these ships support human life is the bottleneck for research. We don't need people anymore, whereas in the 60's we did.

Soon we'll know all about the space around us, and maybe then we'll find some intelligent extraterrestrial life to sponge from! :)

Re:Physics by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 02:00 · Score: 1, Interesting

What the hell?!?!

Let's face it, the use of rockets and pressure-based engines is why we can't really get to deep space yet.

What is deep space? Outside the solar system? We can get there, it just takes a while ;)

Until we find a really safe method for infinite travel (mass transfer)

I say again: what the hell?!?!? What is infinite travel? Does it have something to do with perpetual motion machines? Or travelling at the speed of light? Both of which, BTW, are impossible unless you're, like, a photon or something.

And what the hell is mass transfer? I did a google search on it, and got the following definition:

"Absorption, Distillation, Stripping, Drying, Extraction are mass transfer operations."

So we can travel in to deep space by... .dripping our way there? Great! Thanks for coming out, bud!
Re:Physics by turgid · 2004-03-29 02:06 · Score: 3, Funny

Marvel Comics are rarely a good source of scientific education.

--
Stick Men
Re:Physics by sotonboy · 2004-03-29 02:37 · Score: 1

Its a bit strange, because I understood exactly what he was trying to say. Admittedly the terminology was somewhat unconventional, but the point was good. On the other hand, your post indicated nothing useful whatsoever. Go and do a google search for "I am an Idiot". I dont know what will show up, but at least you'll get some practise typing it.
Re:Physics by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 05:47 · Score: 0

If you thought the point was good A) you didn't understand what he was trying to say or B) you don't understand physics.

BTW, maybe you should get some practice typing "practice". You seem to need it.

(While you're at it, also try "it's", and "don't" as well).
Re:Physics by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 07:48 · Score: 0

"Infinite" is a bit - well, "broad".

I thought he meant "mass driver" - look that up.

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter by tverbeek · 2004-03-29 01:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Scheduled for launch by NASA in August 2005, this orbiter will be equipped with what NASA calls the "most powerful camera ever flown on a planetary exploration mission." It will take extreme close-up images of Mars' surface.

With Spirit and Opportunity practically shoving their lenses into the dirt, I'm not sure that "extreme close-up" is the best way to describe photos taken from orbit.

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/

Re:Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter by guy-in-corner · 2004-03-29 03:16 · Score: 1

Sure Beagle 2 wins the prize for extreme close-up of the Mars surface?

I don't think it could have got much more up-close-and-personal if they'd tried.
Re:Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter by tverbeek · 2004-03-29 10:35 · Score: 1

Sure Beagle 2 wins the prize for extreme close-up of the Mars surface?
The Russians got that close first. Their "Mars 2" lander's brakes didn't work and it crashed on the surface, way back in 1971.

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/

why we need space-exploration by N3wsByt3 · 2004-03-29 01:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

We all heard the reasoning for abolishing space-exploration (particulary human-based) before, and I think the major flaw in all these 'arguments' why we shouldn't go into space is that they always set economic factors as a premise.

But, although economic viability is important to create a mass-usuage of space(travel), I fail to see why it should be the only possible motive to start exploring space. It's a pretty narrowminded, materialistic and typical capitalistic view on things. It's the same view that makes progress on medication for very rare diseases, or for diseases that are prevalent in continents that are poor, so slow: corporations can't see how they are ever going to get profit out of it, so they all turn their backs on it.

If ppl (including states) are only going to do something when they are sure of an immediate profitable return, the world has become a sad place. (And we should leave it the sooner ;-)

Arguments based on such a viewpoint fail to recognise other incentives apart from economical ones.

The reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonise with robots. The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages.

A species that doesn't colonise new territory and adapt, will perish. I think it's paramount that humans always keep their adventurage spirit and keep exploring and expanding, because the moment we will go "ah, let's sit back in our sofa's and let our robots/droids do it", we're basically finished, even when not being aware of it at that moment.

--
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---

Re:why we need space-exploration by filekutter · 2004-03-29 01:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

This makes me think of humanity-as-virus and the need to find fresh hosts to perpetuate the species. Could this 'will to explore' also be an instinctive trait within the viral forms we fight daily here within our own bodies? We consume natural resources and so far, NOT to the benefit of the host. Is this not the actions of a virus? Though I admit that to go to the stars has been a deep and obsessive wish of mine, I am also concerned about allowing such a dangerous life-form to escape the gravity-well. Being self-aware does not mean we have carte-blanche to infect the solar system and then the galaxy. A self-aware virus would inherently view its own perpetuation as a good and natural progression, regardless of the actual outcome of its spread.

--
I call computer-illiteracy job security
Re:why we need space-exploration by rm007 · 2004-03-29 02:12 · Score: 1, Insightful

We all heard the reasoning for abolishing space-exploration (particulary human-based) before, and I think the major flaw in all these 'arguments' why we shouldn't go into space is that they always set economic factors as a premise.

I fully agree with you that the narrow focus on economic rationales for space programs, and well, pretty much anything else. Our lives - and our societies - are more than a pareto optimality with the end result prefaced by a dollar sign. The problem for policy makers is, among other things, how do you spend money on grand space visions when social security is running out of money, public services have little money and millions of Americans are without primary healthcare? For the moon program, there was the political justification Cold War competition with the Soviet Union. It would be difficult to fit space exploration into the current national security focus on terrorism. Should China finally get it's act together, there might be something in that, but Sino-US rivalry would have to develop well beyond what it is now.

The problem as I see it is, that while money is easy to measure - which is why everyone defaults to metrics based on money - and national security never seems to need hard data to launch a vision, on what basis do you make a substantial national commitment to space exploration that will get broad support. While it would not be too difficult to get support from the likes of Slashdot readers for the kinds of reasons that you cite:

The reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonise with robots. The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages

How do you get broad popular support behind a vision like this and sustain in for the time required to see it though? A vision like the one articulated earlier this year by President Bush is largely meaningless because the long time-frame suggested that it was a commitment for other presidents to keep and fight for the budget appropriations. In contrast, while JFK's decade long vision would have extended beyond a second term, a sizable proportion of the program would have been completed under his administration. A commitment that you do not have to keep is not really a serious commitment and even this painless promise did not really take off - although, of course, it does not look like there will be any serious political capital expended on it.

Perhaps the problem boils down to how to ignite a real vision in this area when the country is split down the middle poltically, every thing becomes a partisan issue and so becames part of the "Culture Wars" and fewer and fewer Americans are actively engaged in the poltical process. With all this, what is the argument that is going to make the case for space exploration and who is going to make it?

--

I've finally got around to changing my sig
Re:why we need space-exploration by JWW · 2004-03-29 03:11 · Score: 1

I thought Neo destryoed you Agent Smith.

That argument is just so damn lame.
Re:why we need space-exploration by SEWilco · 2004-03-29 03:21 · Score: 1

There are also economic arguments toward going into space. One which could have a significant effect is mining in space. Although best done by automation due to long travel times, having heavy metals available in free space would allow more activities in space by humans. Even simple iron or steel would have many uses. The large amount of fissionables available from asteroid mining would certainly be a useful power source. Although just having water would also be necessary.
Humans need to get into space simply because Earth is not a closed system. We can't keep all our eggs in this basket at the bottom of a gravity well. The solar system affects us and has more resources than are available on Earth.
Incidentally: " 03/26/04 - SpaceDev Seeks Top Spacecraft Program Managers and Engineers"
Re:why we need space-exploration by cas2000 · 2004-03-30 09:51 · Score: 1

the solution is obvious: un-President Bush can declare that the martians have weapons of mass destruction, and have to be stopped regardless of cost.

when it becomes obvious even to the American public that they don't actually have the weapons, Bush can change the story to regime change for the purpose of rescuing martian princesses.

Do I hear you proposing.... by millahtime · 2004-03-29 01:16 · Score: 4, Funny

"Until we find a really safe method for infinite travel"

Do I hear you proposing an open source warp engine project?????

--
Evolution or ID?

Interesting trends by spellraiser · 2004-03-29 01:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

"The '80s were very dark for exploration," said Friedman. "We only started to see a resurgence in the '90s under (then NASA administrator) Dan Goldin."

Friedman attributed the Reagan administration's focus on manned spaceflight as the primary reason for the lack of planetary missions in the 1980s.

Interesting that this decade NASA seems to be focusing on both unmanned and manned missions.

Let's just hope there will be funds available for all these plans; although I personally would sacrifice manned projects in favor of unmanned ones if it came to that. We have plenty of time later to take such bold strides - for one thing, we really need better methods for entering orbit than the current, wasteful method of simply burning loads and loads of fuel that has been practised since the inception of space flight. This would, of course, benefit unmanned missions as well, but in my view it is absolutely crucial for the viability of manned missions.

--
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots

Re:Interesting trends by ec_hack · 2004-03-29 03:38 · Score: 1

Friedman attributed the Reagan administration's focus on manned spaceflight as the primary reason for the lack of planetary missions in the 1980s.

Friedman is taking a cheap shot at a president he didn't like. The 80s had few planetary missions because the paradigm that planetary science used then was to build huge, multi-billion dollar probes to the outer planets. This took up all the space science dollars. Oh, and that little thing called the Hubble was developed in the 80s.

The emphasis now is on smaller probes that address questions raised by previous probes, with a billion dollar probe only now and then.
Re:Interesting trends by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 04:44 · Score: 0

So which presidental candidate would be a better choice to promote funding of the space program in the next 4 years?

Here's hoping for JIMO by Mukaikubo · 2004-03-29 01:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

I really, really want to see a nuclear-powered orbiter studying the Jovian system for years on end...

Re:Here's hoping for JIMO by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 01:47 · Score: 0

Oddly enough, it seems that due to political connections this project might be one of the more likely to suceed. NASA is contracting with Naval Reactors to build the reactor for the orbiter. Rumor has it that since NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe used to be Secretary of the Navy during the old Bush administration, he might be trying to 'hook up old friends'.
Re:Here's hoping for JIMO by CheshireCatCO · 2004-03-29 02:40 · Score: 1

Yeah, but given that it isn't even supposed to arrive until something like 2020, it's not suprising that it wasn't mentioned.
Re:Here's hoping for JIMO by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 19:42 · Score: 0

jimo won't be 'studying the Jovian system for years on end,' it will only spend a couple of months at each moon (radiation damage)

Space... by Paddyish · 2004-03-29 01:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

Not to be corny, (too late, I know) but it seems that the bright periods in human history are often during the full-scale exploration of a new frontier.

I certainly hope that, despite the article's point that manned exploration takes away from true exploration, eventually this trend of new probes leads to more of a human presence beyond the pale blue dot. I want my kids / descendants to look across a huge expanse of space back at their home and think how strange it must have been to be limited to a single planet.

Re:Space... by 3vi1 · 2004-03-29 13:00 · Score: 1

>> Not to be corny, (too late, I know) but it seems that the bright periods in human history are often during the full-scale exploration of a new frontier.

I think you might get some disagreement from native Americans, Incans, and the others that were already habitating a lot of those new frontiers.

Imagine pissing off space-indians with neutron death rays and Vogon poetry. The horror... the horror.

Right... by Short+Circuit · 2004-03-29 01:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

And how many of these are going to actually go to completion?

Funding, politics, it's all horrible.

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)

Re:Right... by johnjay · 2004-03-29 02:52 · Score: 1

And how many of these are going to actually go to completion?
If we are not made aware of these missions, if we do not get excited about them, then funding will be easy to cut. Look at the possible reprieve that may be granted to the Hubble due to public outcry.

So a few of them may be cut for funding/political reasons... The history of space exploration has always been one of starry-eyed optimism bruised by the unfortunate realities of politics and engineering limitations. Without the vision and the optimism there is nothing.

Funding, politics, it's all horrible.
No argument there, but it's also reality. In my view you may as well say: "Earth's gravity well--it's horrible."

wait a second! by Digitus1337 · 2004-03-29 01:24 · Score: 1

They forgot that Jupiter mission in '01!

V'ger by Mick+Ohrberg · 2004-03-29 01:32 · Score: 2, Funny

I wonder if we'll ever see a Voyager 6...

--

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

Re:V'ger by JohnnyCannuk · 2004-03-29 02:39 · Score: 1

Offtopic? Are the mods on Slashdot really that young?

Man, go rent Star Trek, the movie. It came out in 1979. Watch the movie.

Now, shouldn't a comment that makes reference to fictional space probe from a geek classic movie in a story about a flotilla of space probes being launched be considered at least a little relevant?

--
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha

Solid State Age by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 01:35 · Score: 1, Interesting

Why does everyone always consider this the Space Age? When you look at the technology around you (heck, look at the technology you are looking AT right now) and it is all because of an advanced understanding of the solid state of matter.

Re:Solid State Age by Tmack · 2004-03-29 02:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Last I heard, we were in the middle of the information age. The Space Age started back when Sputnik was launched and ran through the 70s when the cold war was pushing the race to the moon etc... The information age then took over with microprocessor developement in the 70's, TCP/IP and fiber optics.
Tm

--
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org

Re:Planet of the Apes by Rune+Berge · 2004-03-29 01:39 · Score: 2, Funny

But if we send monkeys, maybe one day they will be the dominating species, then invade earth and become president

But will anyone notice the difference?

Space. The final frontier ... by gomel · 2004-03-29 01:41 · Score: 2, Funny

(complete the punch line)

Space. The final frontier ...

--
Fight Frist Psoting!
Browse Slashdot with 'Newest First'!

Re:Space. The final frontier ... by Killjoy_NL · 2004-03-29 02:56 · Score: 1

Space. The final frontier ...

Next is the ALT

--
This is the sig that says NI (again)

Re:Martian butt exploration... by OwlWhacker · 2004-03-29 01:41 · Score: 0

Why is this a "Troll"? Hell, the Martians have been doing it to us for years, so why the hell wouldn't the people of Earth want to get even by using unmanned anal probes (hell, you wouldn't want to man an anal probe would you)? This is damn serious!

--
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News

Probes certinally make more sense.....but by MrIrwin · 2004-03-29 01:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

In the "race to space" NASA put all it's efforts into putting a man on the moon, whilst the russians (with more modest resources) launched higher risk unmanned spacecraft and probably learnt more.

They did not get a man to the moon but they did get thier explorer there, learnt that there was nothing much to learn there, and left it to the US to go and play golf.

Now the US and ESA are into probes, learning more at low cost, but not able to send anybody into space.

Ironically the russians, whilst lagging behind NASA and ESA in probes, are now the only ones able to reliably transport people.

There is a lot more collaboration nowdays of course, but I still think a lot more is needed to get the right contrast between men and probes. Perhaps different agencies should take up different specialities.

We now have a constant shower of probes on mars.....but whenever they **may** have found something interesting we are told that only a **manned** mission can really confirm the facts.

Dare I say that perhaps the quickest and cheapest way to get a man to mars would be to pay the russians to do it?

--

And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)

Re:Probes certinally make more sense.....but by cosmo7 · 2004-03-29 02:04 · Score: 4, Informative

This is so profoundly wrong. If the Russians didn't want to land men on the moon, why did they announce in 1962 that they intended to do just that?

The Russians did not land men on the moon because their plans were politically hashed and once they had developed a vehicle it was too late.
Re:Probes certinally make more sense.....but by bluGill · 2004-03-29 02:16 · Score: 1

The US learned a lot from space exploration in the 60s. Not, IMHO enough to justify the cost, but there was a lot learned. How to build big rockets for instance. Sure the Russians can get small payloads into space, but not big ones. They don't have rockets with the ability to get men and all their support gear to the moon and back. The Saturn V was a large rocket.
Re:Probes certinally make more sense.....but by linoleo · 2004-03-29 02:24 · Score: 1

whenever [unmanned probes] **may** have found something interesting we are told that only a **manned** mission can really confirm the facts.

We are told that by the same administrators who have to justify raping, pillaging, and plundering the budget for future unmanned space probes in order to divert funds barely adequate to conduct fig-leaf concept studies towards one anti-intellectual politician's "vision" that has more to do with his getting re-elected than any actual plans for space exploration. A *huge* grain of salt is called for here.

--
Be faithful to your obsessions. Identify them and be faithful to them, let them guide you like a sleepwalker. JG Ballard
Re:Probes certinally make more sense.....but by MrIrwin · 2004-03-29 02:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think the current state of the art is that the russians **do** have a mothballed but tested project that is up to manned lunar mission standards.
They are also able to shuttle people back and forth between the ISS.
NASA has managed to lose the plans to Saturn V, and has a space shuttle that is semi-retired long before a sccessor will be available.
Meanwhile, back in Europe, they can launch lots of little payloads but have never been anywhere near manned mission like payload, and don't appear to have any interest in developing for manned missions.
That's how I see it.....but I live in a country that has never made it's own spacerocket and has no national pride.

--
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
Re:Probes certinally make more sense.....but by GooberToo · 2004-03-29 02:32 · Score: 1

Wasn't that the project that used a billion engines which was begging for horrible failure? If I am remembering correctly, it's much more likely that it would of been a horrible death trap rather than a success story.
Re:Probes certinally make more sense.....but by kirkjobsluder · 2004-03-29 02:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

They did not get a man to the moon but they did get thier explorer there, learnt that there was nothing much to learn there, and left it to the US to go and play golf.

I just got done reading The Big Splat by Dana Andrews. The book is a history of human knowledge about the moon with a focus on the impact theory of the moon's origins. It highlights the fact that we really did not know much about what the moon was made of, until the Apollo missions recovered geologic specimens. What we learned from Apollo was a necessary prerequisite for all of the planetary science that followed.
Re:Probes certinally make more sense.....but by GileadGreene · 2004-03-29 02:45 · Score: 3, Informative

You do realise that NASA launched a metric crapload of probes in the early days of the "space race", right? Things like Pioneer (of which there were several), and Mariner (of which there several). The Surveyor (IIRC) probe that the Apollo 12 mission deliberately landed near. Others I can't remember right now. To characterize the early US space program as focusing on manned missions only, is a gross distortion of the facts.
Re:Probes certinally make more sense.....but by BTWR · 2004-03-29 02:52 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I hate grammar police, but I love how this guy can use the word "whilst" in his comment to sound sophisticated, and then use the word "certinally" in his title (likely not a typo, since the 'a' comes two letters late and the 'l' is used twice). Ha!
Re:Probes certinally make more sense.....but by JWW · 2004-03-29 03:07 · Score: 1

You know if we manage to get this oppsing political party stuff right, maybe we can stop all manned missions and all the unmanned ones too!!

@#$%!$#% politics.
Re:Probes certinally make more sense.....but by MrIrwin · 2004-03-29 03:42 · Score: 2, Informative

I was reffering to Energia which was slightly more powerful than Saturn V but less payload (Russians have a bit of offset from the equator!), and it was succesfully launched.
I think strictly it is considered a booster, anyway, see the link for the details.
AFAIK, this was used to lift the Russian clone of the shuttle, but I think Glasnost put an end to that program.

--
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
Re:Probes certinally make more sense.....but by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 03:49 · Score: 0

Probes certinally make more sense
Hehehe - I read that as cretinally at first ...
Re:Probes certinally make more sense.....but by lommer · 2004-03-29 05:59 · Score: 2, Informative

Um, if you read the page you linked to, it says that the four test-launches of the N1 that they did were all miserable failures - maybe this also had something to do with their decision to kill the plans?
Re:Probes certinally make more sense.....but by another_henry · 2004-03-29 10:39 · Score: 3, Informative

NASA has managed to lose the plans to Saturn V
This is an urban myth which I would like to dispel.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SATURN V PLANS Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, the Saturn V blueprints have not been lost. They are kept at Marshall Space Flight Center on microfilm. The Federal Archives in East Point, GA also has 2900 cubic feet of Saturn documents. Rocketdyne has in its archives dozens of volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program. This effort was initiated in the late '60s to document every facet of F-1 and J-2 engine production to assist in any future re-start. The problem in re-creating the Saturn V is not finding the drawings, it is finding vendors who can supply mid-1960's vintage hardware (like guidance system components), and the fact that the launch pads and VAB have been converted to Space Shuttle use, so you have no place to launch from. By the time you redesign to accommodate available hardware and re-modify the launch pads, you may as well have started from scratch with a clean sheet design.

--
"Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."

Don't you just love it! by gloth · 2004-03-29 01:41 · Score: 1

This orbiter will be equipped with what NASA calls the "most powerful camera ever flown on a planetary exploration mission"

Technology advances, now that's a surprise! Of course it's better than what Mars Express has now. Of course Mars Express itself is more sophisticated than Mars Odyssey. Of course Mars Odyssey is fancier than <insert name of previous probe>. Of course <continue as desired> ...

Why would you spend that sort of money if not for new results, huh? Those marketing droids, just got to love 'em!

Re:Don't you just love it! by robsimmon · 2004-03-29 02:01 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually, the current record for "most powerful camera" around mars goes to Mars Global Surveyor's Mars Orbital Camera, launched in 1996, which itself was a duplicate of an instrument on the failed Mars Observer (1993).
Re:Don't you just love it! by gloth · 2004-03-29 02:22 · Score: 3, Informative

Darn, I'll admit, you got me there...
The best achievable resolution is apparently better for Mars Global Surveyor, if not by much though: 1.5m vs 2m. The claim to fame of Mars Express seems to be the way that these hi-res shots are embedded in the low-res shots that they take to map the whole planet, which allows them to actually pin-point where the hi-res shots were taken, which, as some claim, is often difficult for the Margs Global Surveyor shots.
Anyway, good point made!

No Europa missions ? by EpsCylonB · 2004-03-29 01:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

I was sure that I read something about NASA planning a probe to go and study europa but this list doesn't seem to mention it. Potentially this is one of the most interesting places in out solar system, it would be great to get some more infomation about it.

Also it is nice to see a Venus mission, I personally think Venus is a much more interesting planet than mars. It would be cool for mars to attempt a venus rover despite the obvious challenges.

Re:No Europa missions ? by linoleo · 2004-03-29 02:45 · Score: 1

NASA planning a probe to go and study europa but this list doesn't seem to mention it.

I couldn't RTFA (/.ed) but JIMO includes a study of Europa. Europa lander/driller/submarine missions such as this are in the early conceptual stages.

would be cool for mars to attempt a venus rover despite the obvious challenges

Such as Mars not having intelligent life, much less space technology? :-)

--
Be faithful to your obsessions. Identify them and be faithful to them, let them guide you like a sleepwalker. JG Ballard
Re:No Europa missions ? by EpsCylonB · 2004-03-29 02:47 · Score: 2, Funny

Such as Mars not having intelligent life, much less space technology? :-)

Doh!, I meant of course that it would be cool for NASA to attempt some kind of venus lander/rover.
Re:No Europa missions ? by red+floyd · 2004-03-29 03:36 · Score: 2, Funny

would be cool for mars to attempt a venus rover despite the obvious challenges

Such as Earth blocking the view? Where's that Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator? Delays, delays!

--
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Re:No Europa missions ? by Biotech9 · 2004-03-29 05:24 · Score: 2, Funny

"All these worlds are yours except Europa - do not attempt a landing there" Signed, God
Re:No Europa missions ? by groot · 2004-03-29 05:48 · Score: 1

SEMI - The Search of Extra-Martian Inorganics

would be cool for mars to attempt a venus rover ... They would obviously would not want to waste their limited resources by send a probe to such viral and life-ridden planet as Earth. //

--
"Just remember, it takes a village idiot." -- The Motley Fool.
Re:No Europa missions ? by QuantumFTL · 2004-03-29 22:30 · Score: 1

I personally think Venus is a much more interesting planet than mars. It would be cool for mars to attempt a venus rover despite the obvious challenges.

Mars has so far demonstrated an excellent proficiency for destroying planetary space probes, however historically it has not been known to build them.

Perhaps when it finds out Venus is a chick?

Cheers,
Justin

WTF? by Moderation+abuser · 2004-03-29 01:45 · Score: 2

"Infinite travel"? How do these things get modded insightful?

--
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.

Re:WTF? by BDew · 2004-03-29 01:56 · Score: 4, Funny

Because it's slashdot. Anything that says robots are better than humans gets modded up.

--
"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong," said Rep. Billy Tauzin. Gore - 50,999,897 Bush - 50,456,002
Re:WTF? by turgid · 2004-03-29 02:08 · Score: 1

Maybe the moderators are on the same drugs at the same rave as the poster?

--
Stick Men
Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 02:19 · Score: 0

And it's also probably why people think that jokes like "I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords" would still be funny.
Re:WTF? by GileadGreene · 2004-03-29 02:40 · Score: 1

"Never underestimate the power of Human stupidity"
-- Robert A. Heinlein

why? by al.cx · 2004-03-29 01:54 · Score: 1

Because it's cool, dammit.

Yeah, I realise "cool" doesn't pay the bills, but quite frankly, people come out with the most contrived justifications for space exploration.

not at all by N3wsByt3 · 2004-03-29 01:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

The treat to conquer new grounds is not a tell-tale sign of a virus, but of life in general.

And frankly, the exploration of earth (or its ecology) is hardly that of a virus killing it's host, though the ultra-greens may often portray it that way. Earths' ecology ALWAYS changes; species appear and dissapear, and those that are most suited (and have spread the most around the globe) have the most chance of surviving.

The fact that a lot of current change is done by humans, may give it an air of artificiality, but to that idea I don't subscribe. Humans are still biological identies, and as such, need an ecology to survive in. 'Nature' or 'the world' does not care what particular ecology it sustains; as long as there is biological life, it exists, period.

Your premise that being self-aware is not a reason to colonise the solar system and then the galaxy is based on...what? I would claim it DOES (though it would not excuse us from being responsable - to alien life - while colonising).

If alien life is not omni-present on the planet, but only in small niches, I think it's worth considering to protect those niches, or create articial enclosures to preserve it - but still go on with the colonisation. Things would only be different if it's a planetwide alien ecology, or if there is alien sentient life involved.

As for your argument that it does not benefit the host; allow me to contradict. The mere fact that we would colonise other planets and introduce earths' ecology there, would augment the chances of earths' 'nature' to survive...therefor, it would benefit from our actions.

Infact, viewed from the point of 'Nature' (if it had a viewpoint, that is ;-), we, humans, could be seen as merely the spermcells of Earth, and are the means to propagate itself so that the galaxy will eventually contain myriads of earths.

--
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---

Looks kinda dull... by thrill12 · 2004-03-29 01:55 · Score: 1

...here.
So why isn't there a bit more excitement in this 'brave new age of space exploration' and why won't people use this excitement in JPL, NASA et al. to start their working day a bit earlier, say 5:00 am ?

The security guard that left the light on at least keeps up with the pace.

--
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd

Age of the Train by turgid · 2004-03-29 02:00 · Score: 0, Offtopic

"This is the age of the train." - Jimmy Saville.

--
Stick Men

Re:Age of the Train by OwlWhacker · 2004-03-29 02:09 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Have you been drinking too?

--
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Re:Age of the Train by turgid · 2004-03-29 02:34 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Have you been drinking too?
Not since Saturday night, and I only had one can of Stella and 3 glasses of wine.

--
Stick Men

Thoughts by dolo666 · 2004-03-29 02:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

> "Infinite travel"? How do these things get modded insightful?

Likely the same way gripes about moderation are modded as Troll.

To clarify what I meant by Infinite travel, I will say that travelling through space is the problem; we are still very point-a-to-point-b in our logic. The correct method of space travel is likely developing a system that would enable us to find a coordinate and APPEAR there (kinda like Dune). That's what I meant by infinite space travel.... when you are going point-a-to-point-b, you have resources to look at that are all very finite. While these things may seem strange or like science fiction to you, they are possible; because in the 50's if you told them we would put robots on Mars, they'd have Trolled you down as being a fricking nutbar too.

Re:Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 03:26 · Score: 1, Insightful

While these things may seem strange or like science fiction to you, they are possible; because in the 50's if you told them we would put robots on Mars, they'd have Trolled you down as being a fricking nutbar too.

Sorry, this argument doesn't hold water: it suffers from the inductive fallacy. (i.e.
Because people did not beleive technological feat X was possible, and X turned out to be possible, therefore every technological feat people don't beleive is possible will be possible).

If you want to convince me, try harder.
Re:Thoughts by flewp · 2004-03-29 04:12 · Score: 1

Your arguement is flawed as already mentioned.

As for you general idea that rocket based technology is not the way to go, WELL NO FUCKING SHIT.

You won't find one single NASA engineer who thinks rockets are the way to get to another star system or anything like that. That's why they're working with things like ion propulsion and whatnot. Sure, it's no space/time warp thing, but the fact of the matter remains, we don't have the technology nor do we understand enough physics and how the universe works to actually develop those technologies. That's why you slowly improve. Remember, it's only been ~50 years since we've been going into space.

It's like saying "We need to reduce dependancy on fossil fuels, what we need to do is plug an electrical cord into the sun, or, we need to have air provide us free energy." (I was making a point, so don't go on about solar panels and windmills) To say something is wrong and then suggest something that is completely out of the question at this point in human evolution/understanding/knowledge/technology is just downright pointless.

--
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?

indeed by N3wsByt3 · 2004-03-29 02:33 · Score: 1

While I'm in principle all for democratic values and the lot, you cite the one major drawback of democratic governments.

If the pharao's had been presidents, and had had to pass their idea of a tombe (and the budget for it) through parliament and senate, we would never have had the pyramids.

Democracies are really bad in creating and sustaining truelly grand projects and visions.

That said, the populace isn't really totally opposed to the idea of spacetravel, otherwise it wouldn't be popular to say so (by politicians) and NASA would have closed down a long time ago.

In any case, it's not my job to sell it to people; I only want to point out the fallacies used when argumenting against it with motives that are purely based on economic motives.

--
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---

Re:indeed by Eccles · 2004-03-29 03:39 · Score: 1

If the pharaohs had been presidents, and had had to pass their idea of a tomb (and the budget for it) through parliament and senate, we would never have had the pyramids.

Would you be willing to pay (say) an extra $10K a year in taxes for a 1000 foot diameter hemispherical tomb for GWB? I wouldn't. These "grand visions" to someone's ego may fascinate us now, but they were a huge diversion of resources from the people of the time.

--
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.

but we don't need humans in space by kipsate · 2004-03-29 02:39 · Score: 2, Informative

Upfront: I am against manned space flight at the current state of the art.

Cost. Manned space missions are an order of magnitude more expensive than unmanned missions. This means that for the price of (God forbid) a manned space mission to Mars, ten or so smaller missions such as stated in the article could have been performed.

Effectiveness. Manned space missions are not as effective as often thought. The extra weight that the Space Shuttle has to carry just to accommodate the astronauts in space already consumes a significant part of its available payload capacity. This is at cost of available room for experimental equipment. Most experiments can be designed such that they can be done by robots.

Danger. Why risk lives?

I know that GWB in his Great Vision would like to see the flag of the U.S.A. proudly wave on Mars. This would cost billions of dollars - if it is possible at all (for starters, two years of accumulated radiation would surely kill the astronauts). And the main reason would be prestige, just like it was for the moon missions, as NASA admits:

"the most persistent justification for the moon race was the matter of prestige" .

NASA's budget is crippled by the costs of the manned space station ISS - which are between 60 and 100 billion dollars. Enough is enough!

--
My karma ran over your dogma

Re:but we don't need humans in space by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 04:26 · Score: 0

Perhaps we should leave manned space travel to the private sector instead. That way it will happen on smaller budgets, adventurism, and the true spirit of exploration. It will happen for profit. I am sure that even the government agencies could do manned space travel much cheaper than now, but let's face it - it's the freaking government; when was the last time they did something cost effective? I'm definitely not against humans in space, never were and never will be. I would sell a kidney if it could take me to the moon.
Re:but we don't need humans in space by DrMaurer · 2004-03-29 04:37 · Score: 1

Cost: The question of cost is really one of how much value we place on knowledge and the possiblities that it could give us. That's, of course, if you go with the assumption that we'll get something valuable out of the whole scenario.

Effectivness: Uhh, I might be able to plan a decent Mars mission, might being if I were trained and so forth, but to react to something unusual or to notice something "over there" and just go investigate, there's not a robot yet that can do these tasks.

Danger: The only life you risk is your own. I have no problem with people risking their lives (in this or in any other arena) as long as they are aware of the dangers and the distinct possiblity of unforseen dangers. If they would let me go, I'm reasonably certain I would, even knowing I'll may not make it back to Earth alive, or even dead, for that matter. I know I can't be the only one with this frame of mind. Hell, we found men who had "the right stuff" to go to the moon with these traits, knowing the possiblities, knowing that some of their comrades had died in persuit of what they were doing. Not to mention their exploring predecessors.

Mars is not the moon. The moon is a chunk of rock that may be useful, but Mars is a far bigger chunk of rock that may be useful. We just have to mean it.

The argument that we shouldn't colonate the solar system is based usually on the premise that we're doing something totally horrible and unworthy. Which is possible. But, really, what does it matter? We have a solar system, and a bit more of the galaxy right around us that seems, to me, to be mostly empty. Let's go!

It's inevitable that this will not matter, that humanity will be extinct, that we all will die, all we have is the hope that we can do something that will extend this life, this existence just a little longer.

Fuck all the rest.

All the money in the world ain't gonna bring you back to life, yet. We're here, and everything you do should be done to make the most of your time here.

Unless you believe that this physical universe isn't all there is, that is. Then I can't help you with this line of reasoning/ranting.

--
Dan
Re:but we don't need humans in space by snake_dad · 2004-03-29 08:45 · Score: 1

Danger. Why risk lives?
This argument always annoys me. You risk your life every day when you step into your car (or, if you're not old enough to drive, a car or a bicycle). Judging from your nick you're from Holland, there were some quite deadly accidents in the news even today. Why do you take that risk? Because the benefits of your trip outweigh the risk, at least in your judgement.
There are enough posts in this story that mention some of the benefits of human spaceflight. Factor in the as of yet unknown benefits that will probably also result, and you will find people to whom those benefits outweigh the risk they take.
Not doing anything considered risky by anyone would stop our advancement. It would make life incredibly dull. Personally, I think human spaceflight is absolutely necessary, and so is robotic exploration. They can go side by side, and complement each other. Wether this is achievable by NASA is a political question, not a technical or financial, IMHO.

--
karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
Re:but we don't need humans in space by Rich0 · 2004-03-30 08:28 · Score: 1

Ah, the first flag planted on Mars won't belong to any nation - but to MegaCorp (TM).

MegaCorp will be an All-American (TM) company of course. Or, at least the top-level execs will be.

Granted, the rovers will be made in Mexico and designed in Japan. Mission control will be outsourced to Singapore. The guidance software will be written in India. The rocket itself will be made in Bangledesh, but will be stolen from a French design. And, of course, the astronauts will be Chinese.

And while the American taxpayers will kick in some serious subsidies to help out MegaCorp, any spinnoff technologies will be the sole property of the company.

Yup, gotta love the American corporate way...

mackenzie not andrews by kirkjobsluder · 2004-03-29 02:39 · Score: 2, Funny

Should not post before first coffee of the morning. The Big Splat is by Dana Mackenzie, not Dana Andrews.

of course not by N3wsByt3 · 2004-03-29 02:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

We don't need the pyramids neither, nor all those great buildings and artworks, nor any luxery, etc.

The only thing we 'need' is food and shelter.

Based on what we truelly 'need' thus, we should go back living like cavemen.

But ofcourse, we don't, and the reason is that we, as humans, look beyond our immediate needs and have (and should have) grander visions.

What you say is what I already indicated: economics (and also the ratio of costs/science output) is less good with human spacetravel then robotic ones. Contrary to some zealots, I do not dispute that.

But, as I have said, I do not think one should measure everything in terms of economic benefits. Even if you could send a hundred, or a thousand robots for the price of one human mission, it still would not change the fact that robots can't colonise planets, and augment the survival chances of the human race (and earths' ecology) through interplanetary spreading.

--
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---

Re:of course not by kipsate · 2004-03-29 03:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

You talk about interplanetary spreading and the fact that robots can't colonize planets. You are implying that a single, very expensive manned Mars mission would be the first step into colonization and interplanetary spreading, and that they augment the survival chances of the human race.

This really is hogwash. With what we know now, we can not terraform Mars, nor can we routinely transport many people from earth to Mars. Note that in my original post, I talked about the "current state of the art". In the future, yes, who knows. But not now. Putting someone on Mars is not going to change that. It is not going to increase the survival chances of the human race one little bit.

FYI: Mars is almost as hostile an environment for humans as is the Moon. High radiation, almost no atmosphere, no air pressure. There might be water, but that's also true for the moon.

Your arguments about not needing houses and so on are demagogical. No, we do not need anything besides food, some heat and air. But surely, life becomes a lot more pleasant with houses, cars, tv's and internet. Now, how would life become more pleasant when a man walks on Mars? For the cost, other research which has much higher impact scientifically, and thus also in terms of space exploration, than one Mars mission. How about research in ion-engines, or other methods to thrust space vehicles that can reach speeds that may make travels to other solar systems once possible? How about detecting earth-like planets with a successor of the Hubble? We need to make choices.

I would have agreed with you if you would have admitted that men on Mars gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside on yet another great achievement of the Human race, and, if you are from the USA, on yet another great USA achievement. Maybe this feeling is worth to you a lot. Maybe for many people. But please do not try to defend it with hogwash arguments about interplanetary spreading and survival of the human race.

--
My karma ran over your dogma
Re:of course not by G-funk · 2004-03-29 12:21 · Score: 1

In the future, yes, who knows. But not now. Putting someone on Mars is not going to change that. It is not going to increase the survival chances of the human race one little bit.

And how exactly will we advance the state of the art? It's not going to happen by itself, we need to work with what we have now if we want things to evolve. Or is there some magic point where you'll tell us "ok guys, technology is good enough, we can start sending people out to explore the universe now". Where is that point?

--
Send lawyers, guns, and money!

Japan is attacking the moon?! by shiwala · 2004-03-29 03:11 · Score: 2, Funny

"Lunar-A: Originally scheduled to be launched in 1999 by Japan's Institute of Space and Aeronautical Science, this lunar orbiter mission was delayed because of a failure during testing. When it is finally launched this August, the orbiter will map the surface of the moon and lob two missile-like probes designed to penetrate and study the moon's interior."

WTF?! Did they clear this with anyone?! I guess the thing that catches my attention is the phrase "missile-like". I wonder if the probes will be Aibos?

correct by N3wsByt3 · 2004-03-29 03:45 · Score: 1

And they form a huge income of (tourist)resources to Egypt now.

--
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---

Re:correct by flewp · 2004-03-29 04:25 · Score: 1

Psssst. The pyramids weren't designed to be tourist attractions designed to generate income thousands of years later.

--
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?

Space exploration is not expensive by Decaff · 2004-03-29 04:26 · Score: 1

The problem for policy makers is, among other things, how do you spend money on grand space visions when social security is running out of money, public services have little money and millions of Americans are without primary healthcare?

Space travel - even manned space travel - is not expensive. The Apollo missions cost a mere fraction of a percent of gross national product of the USA. Even a manned Mars mission would be inexpensive compared with defence spending. Its just a matter of priorities. If defence spending were cut, even by a little, there would be plenty of money for both public services and space.

Trying Harder by dolo666 · 2004-03-29 04:28 · Score: 1

Okay, how about the principle of rocket propulsion. It's just flawed in space, because in space the force exerted is unreasonable, due to the law of diffusion; in that particles expanding into a vaccuum require far greater effort to push a vehicle at speeds required (safely), that the kind of speed required is impossible due to thrust dissipation. For example, if I swing at you and hit, I exert less energy than if I swing at you and miss. Rockets are pushing objects but the rockets are applying force against nothing at all. They would be better to push against objects, like maybe grapple through space somehow. Therefore rocket science is flawed in non-atmospheric places, where pressure is non-existant. Therefore the correct method of travel is by finding a way to convert mass to energy and transfer energy (like sunshine) to another star system, and maybe harness wormholes or other celestial phenomena along the way. That's all... it's not rocket science!!! :)

Re:Trying Harder by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 04:55 · Score: 0

OMFG it's PhysicsGenius reborn! Begone!
Re:Trying Harder by BiggerIsBetter · 2004-03-29 05:14 · Score: 1

Oh please. Rockets work because "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" - they don't work by pushing against the atmosphere, they work by throwing mass out the back of the rocket. Given the F=MV^2, current work is mostly about increasing the velocity of the mass output. Ion drives are a good example of this.
Go learn some physics before spouting off about bending space-time around a vehicle. Heres's a kiddies link about rocket motors to get you started: http://science.howstuffworks.com/rocket1.htm

--
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Re:Trying Harder by Iron+Sun · 2004-03-29 05:16 · Score: 1

Hmm. You are either a physics troll or you fell asleep in class. I'm guessing a little from column A, a little from column B.

Just in case your jedi mind tricks have an effect on the weak minded, here's the skinny on rockets: They don't work by pushing against anything. Newtonian mechanics states the old saw "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". If you have a mass and eject part of that mass in one direction, the remaining mass will move in the opposite direction. The fundamental limit of chemical rockets has nothing to do with "thrust dissipation" or whatever you're on about, and everything to do with the limits of how much energy can be imparted to the reaction mass. Rockets are in fact more efficient in vacuum than in atmospheres, as there is no friction to be countered.

BRW, you're also dead wrong with your swinging fist example. You expend the same amount of energy accelerating your fist in both cases, it's just transferred abruptly if you hit something, and arrested by mechanical limitations of your musculature if you don't connect. Same total energy in both cases.

Sure, I'm rising to the bait. But I'd rather look like a troll tragic than risk someone taking this seriously :-P

If your science fantasy (not even science fiction, IMHO) about warp drives is just "That's all... it's not rocket science!!!", then show us how and pack your Swedish phrasebook, you're off to Stockholm. And I'm eating my hat.
Re:Trying Harder by turgid · 2004-03-29 07:38 · Score: 1

This link may appeal to your style of reasoning and this internationally renowned public speaker, investigator and mystic may be able to help you find someone who can help you build your hyperspace drive.
That's all... it's not rocket science!!! :)
Quite.

--
Stick Men
Re:Trying Harder by dolo666 · 2004-03-29 23:28 · Score: 1

they work by throwing mass out the back of the rocket
I'm sorry, but where in what I said did you think I *wasn't* saying this? Having a reduction of mass is limited space travel, because your rocket needs to release particles into a void; and therefore quite limited, even using Ions.

That's my point... if you are pushing particles into a void, you're not getting maximum thrust. That's my only point, and I can't understand why nobody gets it... *sigh*

Why do rockets move faster when they are pressed against the ground? Why not launch them from a flotilla? Because the ground acts as a brace. Any first year physics student understands that...

Furthermore, physics on Earth is far different from physics in space. We are arrogant people that believe we know everything, when we are just knats experiencing a few seconds of life before keeling over.
Re:Trying Harder by dolo666 · 2004-03-29 23:37 · Score: 1

They don't work by pushing against anything.
I didn't suggest they did. I said they would work better if they had something to push from. When you launch a rocket, the particles eject against a hard surface that resists. What I was saying was that diffusion into a void is not a very efficient theory from which to use as a ray into the deep future; we need to refine it heavily, and that includes thoughts pertaining to Ion travel... it's just inefficient. Yes it's more efficient than what we have, but that's not saying much.

BRW, you're also dead wrong with your swinging fist example.

Go ask a fighter and see what they tell you. I'm sure you'd find that *you* are wrong. Why? Your body does more when you miss, and therefore you exhert more energy... more energy therefore dissipates. Why do you do more? Because you are not hitting anything. When a fighter connects, the connection splits the energy 1/2 into the fighter hit and 1/2 back up the arm of the fighter... so he gets 1/2 his energy back with each hit and loses it all with each miss.

The flaw with rocket science is that there is no energy recovery, which would enable rockets to go much further. We have to learn how to break Newton's laws in order to achive this kind of recovery, not follow them. :-)
Re:Trying Harder by turgid · 2004-03-30 21:58 · Score: 1

It sounds to me like you're getting conservation of energy and conservation of momentum mixed up.

--
Stick Men
Re:Trying Harder by dolo666 · 2004-03-31 00:19 · Score: 1

I think I was saying that relying on momentum is the flaw of rockets, imho. Relying on any kind of force is the problem because of F=MA, you can't add back to the system, so the force expended is used up and the rockets fall short, or you would require enough energy to power a sun to go longer distances, which is unlikely. Yes rockets build up great momentum through space, but it's still not where it could be in terms of getting from point A to point B. Energy conversions might be the way; convert mass to energy on a total scale so that there is no mass (only force and accelleration), and that's when you get maximum potential, right?

But even then it's a flawed system of long distance travel, imho, because it relies on theories made from one point in space only; we need to make theories from billions of points in space (ie: live on billions of different worlds) before we can truly master celestial travel. So, uh, see you in 10,000 years.

warm, fuzzy feelings by N3wsByt3 · 2004-03-29 04:32 · Score: 1

Warm fuzzy feelings, like, say, when having a house, cars, tv's and internet? ;-) And you *did* say 'need', not more pleasant (and even then, are the pyramids making your life more pleasant?)

I'm not USA, and in fact, am not pro-USA at all (certainly not with the current government), so we can keep nationalistic feelings out of it. Would I feel it's a great accomplishement of/for the human race? Well certainly. But the main reason for my pro-stance is exactly that, which I have argumented in my above posts. I therefor take a bit of offence to the tone of your post.

You seem to be implying that your argumentation, which is primarely based on the economic benefits/science output is somehow worth more then my arguments. Well, that's rather easy. I could just say your reasoning is hogwash too, but it's rather meaningless as an argumentation. The truth is, it all comes down on how much one values one premise above another, and economic efficiency of spacetravel can be regarded as worthless or worthwhile as anything else. The values given to it are subjective.

And, btw, I already knew your 'FYI'.

Furthermore, you seem to mix two points: indeed, I am implying that a manned Mars mission would be the *FIRST STEP* for colonization. I fail to see how it wouldn't be a first step, since, obviously, one has to go to a planet a first time, if one ever want to colonise it.

That said, I did not imply that the very first marsmission will have the result of immediate colonisation of a planet. Hence; first step. You have to walk before you can run. Will additional research, in first instance robotic in nature, be necessary? Certainly. Contrary to some, I'm not claiming robotic probes should be abolished because it drains on human-based initiatives; rather I think they both have their place. But robots should be used to serve the goals of humans, and in my view, the ultimate goal is not being economical proficient or have the maximal science-output just for the sake of science, but for humans to colonise other planets and augment the chances of the human race and earths' ecosystem.

One objective does not exclude the other, IMHO, but it does mean there remains a hierarchy of priorities.

Now, I do understand your argument of 'maybe later, when things will be cheaper', and it has some validity. But then again, one can not claim the drive for expanding the human presence in space is alive and kicking, when you completely halt human exploration. And, in fact, the argument used that it's not economical beneficial in regard to robotic probes is ALWAYS going to be true: when hardware/etc costs are going to be only a 10th of today in the future, it STILL will be far more expensive to send humans then to simply send robotic probes.

So the argument is mute, in the sense that, if you accept the premisse, it's always going to be true. The real question thus becomes: what do you want to spend on human exploration, first steps or not? Clearly you seem to think the price is too high, while I think it's not. It does not follow, however, that my argumentation is false and 'hogwash', while yours is the only correct viewpoint on the matter.

--
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---

Re:warm, fuzzy feelings by Rich0 · 2004-03-30 08:24 · Score: 1

That said, I did not imply that the very first marsmission will have the result of immediate colonisation of a planet. Hence; first step. You have to walk before you can run.

Sounds great, but I think the first step towards colonizing Mars is figuring out how to live there and constructing suitable living quarters there.

I'm all for studying better rocket technology, and for studying the contruction of artificial colonies on the surface on the earth first. If 50 people can live under a glass bubble on the surface of the earth for a few years, then I'll say they're ready to live on Mars.

As far as the survival of the human race goes - it is worth planning for the killer asteroid, but simply sending a primitive ship to Mars won't help there. I think we need to do more basic reasearch on the necessary techologies to live on Mars - with a goal of eventually setting up a full-scale colony there. Once we can make spacecraft capable of making round trips to Mars we can actually consider a permanent base there.

Here is another question though - why bother putting the base on the surface? It will be just that harder to supply such a base. Why not put the main base in orbit - after all, you'll have about the same life support issues either way, but in orbit you're already halfway home from an energy standpoint.

If the main concern is having raw materials to work with, why not put a colony on an asteroid as a first step. That has to be a lot easier to make a return trip from.

I'm all for pie in the sky, but projects like this have to be taken one step at a time, and when you're this far out the best investment is in basic research, not just in grabbing the nearest rocket booster and tossing something together.
Re:warm, fuzzy feelings by N3wsByt3 · 2004-03-30 08:47 · Score: 1

I doubt any space-agency will put people on Mars without extensive testing, including experimenting with domes on earth, basic research on the necessary techologies, etc.

I did not make a plee for the immediate grabbing of the nearest rocketbooster and tossing something together. But ultimately, true testing of humans living in space (or on a planet) can only be done by actually living in space, thus, to close all human space-related projects untill 'things are sorted out' is going to be counterproductive. As is diverting all money to non-human space-endeavours, like some would wish.

What you propose is: let us follow a sensible course of humanitary exploration. Well, I'm all for that, but in my view that isn't possible if one is going to stop all human spacetravel/experiments.

--
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---

no kidding? by N3wsByt3 · 2004-03-29 04:46 · Score: 1

But they *do* generate income for the population *now*, don't they?

So, argumentation for not building them back then, purely based on economic motives, fall short when you look at it *today*.

And, btw, if GWB would promise to drop dead the moment I agreed to sponsoring his tombe, I would consider giving a considerable amount of money ;-).

--
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---

Re:no kidding? by mike_mgo · 2004-03-29 05:53 · Score: 1

That's a very narrow way of looking at the issue though. If you're going to look at the economics of it, the question to ask is if the money/effort spent to build the pyramids could have been better directed elsewhere with a much larger pay off. For example in Egypt maybe they would have been better off building aqueducts, or irrigating farmland and performing scientific/philosophical studies. (Just imgaine how much further along science might be if the advances in math, science and philosophy that happened in ancient Greece had occured 2000 years earlier, we'd probably already have ouposts on Mars and the moons of Jupiter by now).
And I think that is basically the question that is facing us at our current place in space exploration. Yes, sure, a manned mission to Mars would probably have many economic and scientific benefits while also satisfying some peoples need for adventure. But what if for the same cost (or more likely, much less cost) we can achieve even greater economic and scientific benefits for us right now while also putting us in an even better position for manned exploration later on when are technology will hopefully caught up to where it really needs to be to accomplish the colonisation goals that you are looking for.
As far as your point of democracies not being able to carry out grand visions, maybe if your idea of grand visions are pryamids, cathedrals, castles and other massive structures that may be awe inspiring but really serve no purpose other than satisfying someones ego then yes, you may be right. But I think if you look throughout history you'll see that, for the most part, the greatest advancements made in human knowledge were made at times and places when freedom and openess were more widespread (granted these weren't always times of democracy, but there was usually some sort of geverment accountability).

secondary benefits by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 04:57 · Score: 0

As I have gotten older, I've realized that it is important to set idealistic goals and achieve them, not because of the primary benefits accrued (e.g., direct economic payoffs), but because of secondary benefits attained from the process of achieving the goal.

For example, putting humans on Mars may cost lots of money. It may not bring direct economic benefits in the form of mining on Mars or some such thing. It may be safer and more efficient to use robotic AI to accomplish the tasks.

But to put humans on Mars requires technical achievements that potentially could have other benefits, and those benefits ultimately could have greater impact than anything that might be accrued from direct benefits. For example, if sending humans to Mars requires the development of ultralight, ultrastrong, radiation-proofed materials, and special propulsion, maybe it should be developed. Those materials and propulsion systems, I would guess would have tremendous benefits in other fields as well.

The problem with making arguments that going to Mars is too costly and unsafe given current technology is that the whole point of going to Mars should be to develop new technology to do it.

Great goals--e.g., extensive interplanetary exploration, manned space travel, underwater exploration, super tall buildings--are great not just because of the end achievments, but because those end achievments imply something about the developments that need to take place to get there. Sending a humans to Mars isn't great because humans are on Mars, but because it's a tremendous technical feat.

If going to Mars, sending long-term probes to Jupiter, or whatever means doing it with current technology, I don't want it. But if it means develoloping new technology to do it, I'm all for it.

Too bad W is gutting space science at NASA... by Dr.+Zowie · 2004-03-29 05:12 · Score: 4, Informative

Did you notice that most of those missions were already launched? The budget projections for NASA are out for the next few years, and (at least for unmanned exploration and space science) they're not pretty.

NASA just cancelled an entire line of six spacecraft -- the Solar-Terrestrial Probes -- that have been on the drawing board since the mid 1990s. The Explorer line of missions is delayed indefinitely. Science funding is level for the next two years, then drops rapidly.

Meanwhile, countries like Japan, India, and China are building their space programs with vigor and dedication. Japan -- a nation the size of California -- will nearly match our rate of new scientific launches over the next decade.

The reason for the cuts in scientific launches at NASA is W's new manned-but-not-funded spaceflight initiative, which is diverting resources from the comparatively inexpensive scientific missions.

Bzzt by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 05:34 · Score: 0

It's "attempt no landings here."

why is it necessary by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 06:18 · Score: 1, Interesting

I think it was an ESA scientist who said that a society needs daring space missions such as Rosetta for the same reason it needs art galleries. Well said!

good points by N3wsByt3 · 2004-03-29 06:29 · Score: 1

I wasn't complaining about democracy. ;-) The problem with a one-ruler is that he's seldom 'enlightened' and freedom for the people is often the first thing to fall, together with being treated equal and given equal chances. But one should be realistic, and acknowledge the fact that there are some drawbacks to a democracy too.

As for the pyramids thing... that's why it's always so difficult to purely base a project on it's economic value. Where there better things to spend it on? Perhaps, depending on your definition of better. All those things that you describe if they had spend it on something else, could well have happend, but at the same time, the opposite might have happened.

People have a strangely distorted view on the building of the pyramids, which has been abandoned by archeologists a long time ago. Forget the picture of numerous slaves being whipped into work under inhumane slave-drivers... In fact, the building of the piramids were mostly done during the periods that the Nile didn't overflow. Thus, during periods the population did not need to work on the fields, and, in fact, had a difficult time getting enough work/food. The pyramid-project was welcommed by most, and they were treated as workers, not slaves.

The immense work provided enough food for all the workers for years, it had a strong unifying influence on the egyptian populace and culture, they created something that endured time and now generates income, even thousands of years after it was build - even if that wasn't the original purpose.

Was it that bad a project, then, one might wonder?

Maybe things could have gone better, but for the same token, egypt may have otherwise fallen apart by internal turmoil, and cultures inspired by it may not have achieved what they have now, and we might be off worse then we are today. So, really, it's speculation.

Apart from that, the difference with the colonisation of planets and the pyramids, is that the first is linked to our *survival* as a race, while one can't say the same of the pyramids.

But anyway, it were interesting points you raised, and brought in a rational manner, so I would say: mod it up! :-)

--
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---

Space was the place - 1962-1973 by Animats · 2004-03-29 07:45 · Score: 1

Space is so over.

The US is not going to the moon again. Or Mars. We can barely afford to supply the space station we've got.

The ISS will be abandoned within a decade, after the next Shuttle accident.

Titan's Atmosphere 'Thin'? by cmholm · 2004-03-29 08:15 · Score: 3, Informative

Another error in the brief mention of Huygens: Titan's "thin" atmosphere. The surface pressure is estimated to be 4 to 10 times as high as Earth, although fscking cold.

And don't hold your breath on Huygens's launch into Titan: that doesn't occur until, I believe, the fourth orbit.

Which means we only have to wait until December '04.

--
Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.

Re:Titan's Atmosphere 'Thin'? by CheshireCatCO · 2004-03-29 14:54 · Score: 1

Well, 1.5 bars, so only 50% more atmospheric pressure than Earth.

And I wouldn't want to hold my breath to December, even of this year. I can barely make it one length of the pool underwater...

Russia and ESA by zoney_ie · 2004-03-29 11:29 · Score: 1

Russia are involved in a lot of ESA work (and have been for 15 years apparently), as well as working with their Soyuz launch vehicle for many European probes. ESA are currently planning a Soyuz launch pad at Europe's launch site in Kourou, French Guiana.

The article also made no mention of SMART-1, the 'ion-drive' probe heading to the moon. It will be taking various readings and photos - in of course, higher detail than some previous endeavours. Wonder if they'll photograph the US moon landing sites? (Even apart from satisfying the skeptics - it'd be kinda cool to see new aerial shots of the sites!)

Russia are not (yet) members of the ESA. In the last week, Greece and Luxembourg were granted membership - the effort is growing. Members contribute an amount based on GNP, with a corresponding proportion of contracts and research being offered to that member.

Efforts are widely distributed - even my own (relatively small) University in Ireland has a number of researchers working on ESA stuff!

--
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...

Well Stated by wrax · 2004-03-30 01:29 · Score: 1

However the case still has to be made for at least some immediate benifit to the human race for manned space flight and exploration to continue. Murky predictions of future technology advances in the "how are we going to get there" stage of the missions are just not enough IMHO.

I do agree with you though, technological advances are a very important reason to continue space exploration with humans, as long as they continue to come that is. I'm not up on the current technology, but i can't really think of new ones that have come about in the last 20 years that have resulted directly from advances in technology for space exploration.

I submitted this story day before yesterday by DrMorpheus · 2004-03-31 05:53 · Score: 1

And it was rejected. Hmmm, I wonder why? Can't the editors and least tell us why a particular story is rejected? I've got at least two other stories rejected that days later or weeks later pop-up as stories on Slashdot.

--
Debunking the "59 Deceits"

160 comments