Slashdot Mirror
A Vigorous Discussion of Our Future In Space
Nethead writes "At TAM 2011, presented by The James Randi Foundation (JREF), a panel with Pamela Gay, Lawrence Krauss, Bill Nye, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, and moderated by Phil Plait, discussed our future in space in an environment where they could freely express their opinions. This is an hour-long video (so lay off first-posts until you've watched it) with humor, depth and frank realism. Where do we spend our dwindling monetary science funding, manned or robotic exploration?"
hour has already passed.
Where's the link to the transcript?
This is SlashDot, not CNN.com. We don't have an hour of free time to blow - we scan, pick out the important bits and GTF on with our day.
Yeah, I'm really just going to watch an hour long video, think about it, and then comment in an insightful manner about the topic. :P
Please, this is slashdot, I'll just wait for someone else to tell me the good parts or at least ramble on about something good related to the topic who also didn't watch the video.
No, that link you posted to a web comic we've all seen a hundred times is not "obligatory."
Robots have done great with Mars. The cost to any space program of an astronaut being supported all the way out and back is staggering - let alone if something should happen to him/her.
Besides, we can send dozens of robots for the cost of development and embarking on a single manned mission.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
And should we spend it in the first place?
To ensure space is safe for democracy. :P
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I know these names from some of my favorite podcasts. I'm going to toss them out here for people who aren't familiar with them, and please respond with similar podcasts if you love some.
The Skeptics Guide To The Universe (sponsored by JREF)
AstronomyCast (Pamela Gay)
NOVA scienceNOW or NOVA|PBS (often features Tyson)
Planetary Radio (Bill Nye The Planetary Guy)
Skeptoid (related topics by Brian Dunning)
Radiolab (related topics, best of the best of the best)
Excuse the half-off-topic post, please.
You'd also have to make the robots piss urine and shit, well, shit - and process that from organic materials grown on-site. That would be one interesting project, designing that.
> Maybe if you spent less time vying for first post you would
Maybe a good Ask Slashdot question would be:
What are the best practices for achieving first post?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Ah yes, the old bait and switch. No, nobody is against sending satellites into orbit, exploring the solar system and beyond, and so forth. We are against wasting money on manned space exploration because far from being "immensely profitable" to society, it is a huge, useless money sink that is only "immensely profitable" for the highly influential military-industrial-congressional complex. This is not being a Luddite. Those of us who oppose manned space exploration are the most vigorous proponents of robotic space exploration and the general development and application of robotic technologies at the service of humans and human labor, hardly a Luddite cause. If Virgin Atlantic wants to make a space tourism business, fine. Knock yourselves out. Don't expect me to pay for it, though. I refuse to subsidize a bunch of wealthy assholes who want to enjoy an elitist and unbelievably expensive amusement park ride.
You yourself may lack the vision and fortitude to tackle the challenges of space exploration and exploitation, but thankfully there are many individuals out there who are up to it.
The tired old saw that manned space exploration has accomplished anything of importance. It really hasn't, aside from landing on the moon a few times at tremendous expense almost half a century ago. Our solar system has been and continues to be explored by robots, not by people. The universe is being observed with robotic telescopes, spectrometers, and many other devices with no need whatsoever of a human presence. You are acting like a child. You are a sci fi space adventure magical religious zealot who is unable to distinguish reality from fantasy. And a crybaby to boot.
I'm only 20 minutes into watching the video and I find it quite a fascinating discussion.
If you have ANY interest in government involvement in space exploration, I urge you to take the time to watch this video.
Bye - I'm goin' back to watch the video...
The cake is a lie.
The only way humans will go to Mars will be if a new Cold War starts. I'm happy that Neil deGrasse Tyson eloquently raised this point with the audience (~minute 28). To get more funding for science, we really need to play up the geo-political advantages. Appealing to the love of knowledge might convince the Slashdot crowd, but it won't pry open the coffers of any nation.
We are life. When we go, life goes. When we colonize, we are/carry the seeds of life. Life is greedy, selfish, etc. - that's what Life is. It concentrates resources in order to maintain its living state. Compared to a wolf or an amoeba, we have a pretty high level of altruism within tribes, within the species, and with respect to all other Life and even inanimate resources. The fact that we complain about how greedy and selfish we are illustrates the fact that we care at all about such things. Most Life doesn't give a whit, except in so far as it affects its self-interest.
Life carries within it the imperative to live, to grow, to expand, to adapt. We are just the first component of Terran Life (that we know of) that has the ability to carry our Life beyond this planet. As such we may be the critical seed for the Universe. If Life has arisen only on Earth, who are we to prevent that expansion? Even if Life exists elsewhere, our own expansion will eventually be critical to survival of the Terran strain of Life.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
There is a fabulous oration by Neil deGrasse Tyson during the Q&A, in response to a statement that "we can't afford" space exploration. Alone this makes the 53 minutes a worthwhile investment in time.
I'm about to blow 10 mod points, all so I can inform you exactly why your question is utterly unacceptable. That is to say... what in the hell is wrong with you? Should we spend money on cutting edge science and technology? YES. Unequivocally. I wonder, do you have any idea what the space program did for the state of the art in a dozen fields? Are you even slightly aware that the entire computer culture you enjoy today started in the Apollo program? Texas instruments created the first IC for the Apollo program.
Even more fundamental than that, we live on a planet. 1 planet. Which we know goes through various cycles which are not necessarily conducive to the continued existence of complicated life forms. At the most fundamental level, "space" exploration is our only long term chance at survival. If you can't understand that, I would ask that you hold your tongue and let the adults with worthy opinions dominate the discussion. I'm not saying we need to get humans off of earth on colonies, although I do support that idea, I'm saying that the technology we gain from trying to do things that are "impossible" (moon landing), is fundamental to our continued survival on this biosphere, which we seem to be destroying or altering at alarming rates. Oh, you don't believe in anthropomorphic environmental change? Then you are a fucking moron. In the last 100 years, 60% of the trees on earth have been cut down. If that ALONE isn't a major change in your mind, you can't possibly be smart enough to participate in this discussion.
Not only is space our most likely savior in terms of resources, survival and technological enhancement, it's also one of two "frontiers" that are still left. All other things being forgotten, exploring the frontiers is good enough reason. We as a species knew that 100 years ago. Why did we forget it?
C'mon. It's Bill Nye the muddafuggin Science Guy, Neil deFrikkinGrasse Tyson, the Slacker Astronomy chick, and the physicist who wrote "The Physics of Star Trek". Bill is awesome (as always), Tyson and Krauss spend half their time lobbing verbal jabs at each other, and Dr. Gay throws in a couple insightful points.
The fuck else do you need here to buy in? A flashing neon sign saying "Naked Ladies" ? :)
Trust me, It's an hour well spent.
For direct download:
http://av.vimeo.com/48323/967/69379567.mp4?token=1319148574_68f532a970ac33e3a5fb0a2b7cb02a82
If it does not work you can use this: http://savevideo.me/
Unfortunately, the less people know, the more they think they know.
The people who you are calling morons are incapable of realizing that they are in fact morons. Yet they have the same vote as you.
So, right you are, about anthropomorphic environmental change and the need to get off the planet in the long term. Good luck convincing people.
The best way to get "humanity" off this planet is arguable, though. I'd argue that getting humans as we are now out into space isn't worth it.
However, engineered "people" that are at the least space-adapted (can take much more hard radiation, don't need gravity, etc.) should be our goal. Better would be largely-solid-state "people". Imagine if you would be fine immersed in vacuum without any life support or radiation shielding, deriving energy from sunlight, extracting raw materials from asteroids, and able to go dormant during a migration to another star. By that argument, sending meat-people up into space at huge expense just detracts from the R&D required to send up properly space-adapted people.
--PM
I am in the same boat, I don't have an hour to spare. That's why I'll be listening to this in the background while at my desk tomorrow. Thank you Nethead.