Slashdot Mirror
Mars Mission Back In the Cards After Budget Cuts
ananyo writes "NASA has said it will re-design its Mars exploration program, and that the new architecture would include input — and money — from the human program as well as the space technology division. Orlando Figueroa, the former deputy director for space and technology at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, is to head up a seven or eight person committee, and to start developing mission concepts in the next month. One of those concepts would be a possible $700 million mission launching in 2018. The news offers a grain of comfort to a community still reeling from massive cuts to the Mars program."
A single shuttle launch costs that much, in today's dollars.
Seriously, guys?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
If they consider raising the figure by at least 2 orders of magnitude, and then they'll probably be getting close to what is necessary.
Seriously.... 700 million isn't a manned flight to mars, it's just an expensive coffin that will orbit earth for several decades at most before burning up on reentry into the atmosphere.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
A single shuttle launch costs that much, in today's dollars.
Seriously, guys?
I interpreted that as "the concept" referring to the Mars mission. So, yeah, I could see how $700 million would be a bit much to go into orbit, do some science lab experiments and land ... but when you're planning for Mars (especially manned which is what I thought they were talking about) I can understand a vast increase to your budget.
My work here is dung.
Until we have an established moon base, we shouldn't even attempt Mars.
Consider:
So just shine an orange light on the moon and call it Mars.
The moon is better anyway
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
They're talking about an unmanned flight...
The combination of nationalistic paranoia, cheap energy and a dead president are decades in the past. There is simply no compelling reason to put apes in tin cans for months at a time to go traipse around a dead, hostile rock floating in a radiation-blasted hell.
There is no real need, no perceived need, and absolutely nothing more than pictures can come of it. No one cares, we don't have the resources, and it will never happen. Ever.
Send more RC cars with cameras, get some pictures, the Space Nutter jizz will fly thick and fast.
Soon as we find Oil on Mars, all bets are off.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
One way I've read several times to cut the cost of a human Mars mission is to make it a one-way mission.
Take away the expectation of returning- you save a bunch of costs associated with returning. Naturally- not everyone would want a one-way ticket to mars but there are lots of people who would.
Naturally, the technicality is you have to find some way to make them able to live there long term. Mars has lots of natural resources and tecnically could be self-supporting- but this could be complicated.
Those first people who go would have the mission of making the planet ready for the next wave of scientists. I think we should set our sites on a one way mission rather than bite off more than we can chew with our first mission to mars.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Here;
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/pss/
you can read the report from the Plantary Science Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council, to the Science Committee.
It'd be awesome if /. posters read any of this before posting snide/uninformed/trolly comments about NASA, Obama, Space-X, budgets, etc.
The blog Future Planetary Exploration rounds up reporting on this subject;
http://futureplanets.blogspot.com/2012/02/ruckus.html
You build 5 or 10 and the price goes down. Just wont be able to do the big sample-return missions which would cost 10x-20x as much. The mostly recent sample-return mission was actually a triple mission: a land-rover, a lander-with orbital rocket, an orbital retriever. Keeps Mars program alive for another couple decades.
Kind of like your typing?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Stop building a brand new probe each time you want you carry a new instrument to Mars, Venus or some asteroid. Just make a design that fits most needs and build a dozen of them. Launch four at a time or a dozen to cut down on launch costs. Smaller probes like Hayabusa or Smart-1 are quite effective and light enough that you could easily put a dozen of them into space using a single Delta IV or Ariane 5 launch. Even the mars rovers like Spirit and Opportunity wouldn't need a dedicated Delta II launch each, four or five could be launched at a time. Sure, instrument choice will be limited, but so will be the price and effort of building it and sending it to space.
./ is really scraping the bottom of the barrel, these days.
"Mars mission" does not refer to a manned mission you goddamn idiots. If you actually RTFA before banging your heads against the keyboards to produce idiocy, you'd find the mission in question is most likely going to be an obiter, not even a rover or lander..
It's really difficult to put into words just how wrong you are. I realize you're probably just a drive by troll, but on the off chance you're really of that opinion I have to at least attempt to provide a counter point to your myopia.
Understanding the universe, stretching humanities legs, literally, out among the planets in our solar system and beyond represents a life and death pursuit for the human species. Eventually, Earth is going to be in existential peril, and if all our eggs are still in this basket over issues as petty and meaningless as politics, economics, or national pride, then we are well and truly, cosmically, fucked.
It's not possible to start this processes too early. We could detect a rogue asteroid or comet tomorrow that will end life on Earth. On a long enough time line this WILL happen. It's happened before, it'll happen again. When it does, your descendants will be thankful that we took a minute amount of money away from the budget for bombs, sugar water, and pornography, to put those first apes in tin cans and got them to Mars and back.
This is all presupposing you subscribe to the radical notion that a universe with humanity in it is in some way better than one without. As a human, I work from that assumption as a given. You may not, but even if that's so it's not too much to ask that you at least stand out of the way of those who do look that far into the future and can see the dangers and the possibilities that your small mind cannot.
We're talking about pennies here. Pennies now, so that humanity will still exist in one, ten, or a hundred centuries. There is no more important goal than space exploration, manned space exploration, and establishing a permanent human presence in space and on other words.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
There are perfectly good, rational long term reasons for humans to colonize Mars, such as not keeping all our eggs on one planet etc. But yeah, there is the right way to do it (low cost missions,building an unmanned base, private industry involvement, initially through competitions and grants, later through land deeds, leading to space tourism that may decades from now become economical) and the wrong way (throwing billions at NASA to send first human on Mars for reasons of bogus science and national prestige).
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
I wonder what would happen if a large group of astronomers and exogeologists got together and lied about there being oil on Mars. The world would be sent into a frenzy, missions would be sent out there, and nothing would be found. But in the meantime, we've developed our space travel tech way beyond what we have now. Worth it?
What's not mentioned in the article is that the plan is to save Mars exploration by gutting outer planets research. If you wanted to know more about Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Europa, Io, Titan, Enceladus, Triton, the Kuiper belt, or anything else, forget it. Because of the long travel time, scrapping the projects currently being planned may mean you won't hear anything new about those places for decades.
A recent discovery of long term space exploration is that being in low gravity for too long literally folds parts of your eye. Causing astronauts who spend too much time up in space to have permanent vision changes that leave them very far-sighted and required to wear reading glasses. Just six months in low gravity was enough for major changes in vision.
Imagine a missions to Mars that takes six months just one way? These astronauts would be blind under our current understanding of how space travel affects sight by the time that they came back.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/20/nation/la-na-blind-nasa-astronaut-20110921
"What we are seeing is flattening of the globe, swelling of the optic nerve, a far-sighted shift, and choroidal folds," said Dr. C. Robert Gibson, one of authors of the study published in the October 2011 issue of Ophthalmology, the journal of the American Academy of Ophthalmology. "We think it is intracranial pressure related, but we're not sure; it could also be due to an increase in pressure along the optic nerve itself or some kind of localized change to the back of the eyeball."
The study identified new risks for those who live in space for at least six months. Blurred vision was the primary issue reported by the seven astronaut test subjects.
"After a few weeks aboard the [station]," said Astronaut Bob Thirsk, a Canadian Space Agency physician who spent six months as a member of the Expedition 20 and 21 crews in 2007, "I noticed that my visual acuity had changed. My distant vision was not too bad, but I found that it was more difficult to read procedures. I also had trouble manually focusing cameras, so I would ask a crewmate to verify my focus setting on critical experiments."
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/Astronaut_Vision.html
The way I see it is that there are two options. The first one is we only send replicants to Mars or more unmanned flights. The other is that NASA gets some awesome new understanding of vision loss or develops technology to overcome vision loss. Either way this would be quite the benefit for society if NASA can develop some new things to combat vision loss.
I wonder what would happen if a large group of astronomers and exogeologists got together and lied about there being oil on Mars. The world would be sent into a frenzy, missions would be sent out there, and nothing would be found. But in the meantime, we've developed our space travel tech way beyond what we have now. Worth it?
Oil is pretty inexpensive compared to some materials that can actually be found on Mars. It might even be possible to make a Mars mining mission break even but it doesn't matter, the initial investment is too big for anyone being interested in pursuing it.
But by God we can spend :
$120 million in retirement and disability benefits to federal employees who have died
$30 million to help Pakistani Mango farmers
$550,000 for a documentary about how rock music contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union
$10 million for a remake of “Sesame Street” for Pakistan
$764,825 to examine how college students use mobile devices for social networking.
$113,227 for a video game preservation center in New York
$765,828 to subsidize a “pancakes for yuppies” program in Washington, D.C.
$100,000 for a celebrity chef show in Indonesia
$175,587 for a study on the link between cocaine and the mating habits of quail
$606,000 for a study about online dating$17.80 Million in Foreign Aid to China – (Department of State & U.S. Agency for International Development)
The Super-Bridge to Nowhere – (Alaska) $15.3 Million
This is of course just a fraction of the stupidity.
Personally, I'd rather send an unmanned mission to Mars.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Soon as we find Oil on Mars, all bets are off.
Umm - oil requires fossils...
...
Fossils come from dead animals.
Just sayin'
[jeez]
The cake is a lie.
Manned missions are not on the list of near-term items...rtfa
Not sure if I should guffaw at the oil jokes, or if I would get whooshed.
I guess the only way we could make gas prices exceed Obama levels would be if oil were being transported by interplanetary rocket ;)
Mars has 37% the gravity of earth- this may be enough to prevent these problems. As for the 6 month trip- cosmonauts have spent over a year in space before without going blind so your comment:
Imagine a missions to Mars that takes six months just one way? These astronauts would be blind under our current understanding of how space travel affects sight by the time that they came back.
Is... an exaggeration. They may have limited vision damage- yes. As well as other medical conditions both known and unknown.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Hey the rocket would be powered by green renewable solar power! (except for the launch but that's a minor detail to Prius owners)
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Why go?
Which is sexier, James Webb or Orlando Figueroa?
Please don't feed the trolls.
Free Martian Whores!
I thought new technology would obviate the need for oil? In any case, Mars could be filled with oil, there's no way at all to go get it. The US guzzles 20 million barrels a day, how can you hope to supply that from a planet that has absolutely NO infrastructure of ANY kind, and would require rethinking every single industrial process from the ground up?
ah, there you are my little space troll...right on queue.
Couldn't help myself with the ironic juxtaposition there.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
every year, and they have no money to do anything about it. A new plan each is meaningless when the president wants to take money away from scientific endeavors and dump money on civil servants in social programs.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
That's like 10000 grooms, when all you need is a wife.
Or they could send myopics like me, and we would arrive on Mars with perfect distance vision! (Note to self: remember to pack reading glasses.)
Why not just use corporate sponsors. Apple alone could donate almost $1 Billion by just donating 1%of its cash reserves alone.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
The Moon doesn't have it, never did.
Mars might've had it, still might.
Eventually, it will (probably?) be easier to terraform Mars than the Moon. Then Mars will truly be a place we can LIVE ON (you know, without space helmets and everything).
On top of that, the extreme challenges we need to meet while doing this sort of thing pushes us further in science with new technologies developed to meet those challenges. How many things do we take for granted today because of problems met by the space flights of yesteryear? Imagine if everyone thought this sort of thing was pointless back then. Where would we be now?
Probably shouldn't feed the trolls. Still, it is aggravating since a lot of people *do* feel that way, including some of the people who decided the budget. It's depressing, really, to think that so few people care about the bigger picture.
Plus, gosh darnit, I want my moon base!
Why should humanity exist, and be allowed to spread through the galaxy?
Not that I think President Obama has been doing a particularly good job or that he's kept his campaign promises or anything like that, but I'm still astounded at the depths partisans will sink to in order to malign him. I mean, sticker shock at the pump is pretty harsh at the moment, but calling them "Obama levels" is disingenuous since they were this high, and higher, before he became President. It's sort of like when people blame the financial crisis on him and you're left sort of scratching your head. You can assume that those people just have short memories, but I remember people blaming him for the financial crisis within a week of him being elected (note: within a week of being elected, not within a week of taking office). That kind of magical thinking is just bizarre.
As for oil on Mars, importing it would be ridiculously expensive, but it could be useful as an in situ resource. It could be great for making rocket fuel for sending natural resources from Mars to Earth. If we could make everything (except maybe a few lightweight items like microchips) to manufacture rockets on Mars, then, from an Earth perspective, it actually would be financially viable to ship petroleum products to Earth from Mars. Of course, if the infrastructure on Mars ever gets that developed, then the resources would be more valuable in the local economy.
You can power a rocket launch with green renewable solar power. Just plug a solar power plant into a gas extraction/processing plant that sucks in air and produces liquid oxygen and methane. Then you use the liquid oxygen and methane to fuel your rocket.
That's not really a question that can be answered, but nor does it need to be. Humans, all self-replicating life, wants to survive, both as individuals and collectively. And maybe the fact that we can even ask that question shows that there's something special about us. As far as we can tell we're the only matter in the universe that's self-aware. We have this ability to understand the world we've found ourselves in, and if the universe is finite as it appears to be then there is an end-state to understanding, a point where it's possible to know all there is to know. I'd like us to get there, even if it's eons after I'm dead.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
We could detect a rogue asteroid or comet tomorrow that will end life on Earth. On a long enough time line this WILL happen. It's happened before, it'll happen again. When it does, your descendants will be thankful that we took a minute amount of money away from the budget for bombs, sugar water, and pornography, to put those first apes in tin cans and got them to Mars and back.
This is all presupposing you subscribe to the radical notion that a universe with humanity in it is in some way better than one without.
Dude, you're responding to Marvin. His diodes must be acting up again, and you know what he thinks about life.
Free Martian Whores!
When you look at what he has to work with, he's done as good as anyone could, IMO. Most of those broken campaign promises are the result of Republicans filibustering, or just simply opposing any idea he has. If Obama came out in favor of the sun rising tomorrow, they'd be against it. Hell these people couldn't even be happy about killing Bin Laden, just because Obama was the one that gave the order.
Understanding the universe, stretching humanities legs, literally, out among the planets in our solar system and beyond represents a life and death pursuit for the human species. Earth is going to be in existential peril, and if all our eggs are still in this basket over issues as petty and meaningless as politics, economics, or national pride, then we are well and truly, cosmically, fucked.
Soon, you'll die. Sometime soon, I will die. Sometime later our entire race (regardless of how you define it) will cease to exist as well. Perhaps they will evolve beyond what we might recognise as human. Perhaps some disaster will wipe them out. Perhaps they will last, in some form, until the universe dies. In any case, we, as individuals and as a species are irrevocably mortal and I, for one, welcome that - I welcome our deathly overlord. One day we'll be gone and all that will be left is our achievements and successes - and our failures. I am perfectly content to leave a legacy of good deeds and live my life with integrity, even if no-one ever acknowledges that.
It's not possible to start this processes too early. We could detect a rogue asteroid or comet tomorrow that will end life on Earth. On a long enough time line this WILL happen. It's happened before, it'll happen again.
Notably, when it happened before, the Earth was left far more habitable than Mars is now. Were an asteroid to strike the Earth, you would be better off on the Earth than on Mars. For example, on Mars, the radiation is so bad, that to survive for any length of time, you need to live underground. The gravity is wrong, so much so, that within a generation, Martians would not survive on Earth, were they to travel there. So if we lost the Earth,with it's 7 billion inhabitants, we would be stuck on Mars. Forever. Living like termites underground, never able to go to the surface and look, with our unprotected eyes, on the stars. And when the Earth recovers, with it's benison of life once again covering it's surface, we will be gone - either staring back at earth, helpless with rage, or mercifully extinct.
Alternatively of course we could build those underground cities here on Earth, saving millions, if not billions, in the event of an asteroid strike, as opposed to the thousands that could - briefly - survive on Mars. If life on Earth is difficult afterward, then as a planet it is far easier to geo engineer than Mars, what with the handy features that have sustained life through multiple asteroid strikes before. To propose a plan which would save thousands, and rejecting a plan that saves millions (if not billions) amounts to proposing genocide on a scale never before comprehended.
When it does, your descendants will be thankful that we took a minute amount of money away from the budget for bombs, sugar water, and pornography, to put those first apes in tin cans and got them to Mars and back.
Not, they won't, and neither will your descendants. Because they won't be there. And neither will the descendants of the vast majority of the human race, with it's diverse cultures, ideals and dreams. Mars is just too small to capture a representative sample of us. Under your plan, your descendants will die, and so will mine.
Hey, where can I get some of those pancakes?
+1 Disagree
Yeah, but some of the things that the President pretty much has absolute authority to do, as head of the armed forces, which he promised to do, he hasn't done.
I don't disagree. He has been on Team Bush far too much in that arena. When I look at the political landscape though, with the current crop of Republicans, he's the only person I can vote for. If I waited to vote for a perfect candidate, I'd never vote.
It's just some story by some guy (not finished yet), but I've enjoyed reading it
The Martian
:-Dave
I reject the notion that we are, as a species, mortal. More accurately, I don't accept that the twilight of Mankind must occur. Though individuals must die, the human super-organism, as humanity can be likened to, absolutely can transcend death indefinitely if we are careful, plan ahead, and master ourselves.
Mars is a great training ground and testbed for a lot of technology we'll need to develop and perfect. It's not meant to be a "second Earth" but activity there has its place in the larger goal of permanent human habitation off of this planet.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
...or they use artificial (ie rotational) gravity to sidestep the problem entirely.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Umm - oil requires fossils... Fossils come from dead animals. Just sayin' ...
Actually, oil comes from dead plants.
Stupidity... has a habit of getting its way.
Why not open this thing up to public donations? I'm sure that I'm not the only one who would give money to see a person on Mars...
Why not?
Really? Is there any moral objection to human habitation or other use of a whole lot of [probably] lifeless rocks?
They're not the right lyrics! You mean It's like 10000 dooms when all you need is a half life.
How is that different from a religion? Evolution is still happening. There were no humans a million years ago, what makes you think there will be any a million years from now? Your short-term view of time is due to your pathetically short life-span compared to geological, evolutionary and cosmological time-spans. I don't expect you to have thought about it before, but can I convince you to give it some serious thought tonight?
This is going to be the SpaceX Red Dragon mission. The idea is to send a dragon space craft that lands on mars. It will have drilling capabilities and loads of science capabilities. I am not certain of the power, if it will be nuke or just solar. However, keep in mind that 3/4 of B is a fraction of the typical mars missions. In fact, this will be launched with the Falcon Heavy. As such, it will have room for a number of small sats that can be dropped off at Mars.
Oddly, we might even be able to put the Mars Telcom system up there on the same mission. One major sat with laser to earth, etc, with a number of nanosats that act as relays between the surface and other sats back to the main sat.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It is difficult to put into words how deluded you are. Nothing we will do in space for the next 100 years will have anything to do with how a long-term sustainable colony with enough genetic variation to ensure continuity of the human race will function. There is no point in prematurely wasting money and resources and pretending we're "working on the problem", we won't be. We'll have little tin cans in space and little tin cans on Mars, none of them without heavy resupply from earth. These will be of no import whatsoever in the far off day when we can truly colonize space, centuries from now if ever.
$175,587 for a study on the link between cocaine and the mating habits of quail
$765,828 to subsidize a “pancakes for yuppies” program in Washington, D.C.
Hey, where can I get some of those pancakes?
The coked-out mating quails are using them like a papasan chair. No thanks.
Notably, when it happened before, the Earth was left far more habitable than Mars is now. Were an asteroid to strike the Earth, you would be better off on the Earth than on Mars.
Maybe we ought to set up a poll here. Would you rather be living in a city on Mars or suffering through several years of endless winter on Earth?
For example, on Mars, the radiation is so bad, that to survive for any length of time, you need to live underground. The gravity is wrong, so much so, that within a generation, Martians would not survive on Earth, were they to travel there. So if we lost the Earth,with it's 7 billion inhabitants, we would be stuck on Mars. Forever. Living like termites underground, never able to go to the surface and look, with our unprotected eyes, on the stars. And when the Earth recovers, with it's benison of life once again covering it's surface, we will be gone - either staring back at earth, helpless with rage, or mercifully extinct.
Heh, a serious case of sour grapes.
There's always choice C, doing cool things on a planet where people have never lived before and creating the future of humanity, all the while thankful that someone on Earth had the foresight and hope for the future to create a new home on Mars.
As to never returning to Earth? There's a saying in the US, "You can't go home again".
Alternatively of course we could build those underground cities here on Earth, saving millions, if not billions, in the event of an asteroid strike, as opposed to the thousands that could - briefly - survive on Mars. If life on Earth is difficult afterward, then as a planet it is far easier to geo engineer than Mars, what with the handy features that have sustained life through multiple asteroid strikes before. To propose a plan which would save thousands, and rejecting a plan that saves millions (if not billions) amounts to proposing genocide on a scale never before comprehended.
First practical suggestion you've made. The real power of diversification here is that the human race recovers faster from disasters. If your economy is spread over a considerable portion of the Solar System, then it's much less an issue, if one region suffers a large disaster. More of civilization is unaffected and there are more resources for aiding recovery from the disaster.
I'm a space fanatic, but I'm also a pragmatist. While ideally the gp is wrong, realistically he's 100% correct.
There are so many problems here on earth that are so much more important than space travel, and this will never change.
When 15% of a supposedly first world country like the US is living below the poverty line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States), $700 million will always be better spent on domestic issues than on a political space stunt disguised in the name of science.
When we do eventually colonize space, it won't be pretty; war, crime, religious extremism, corporate greed, and political corruption will all expand to fill the void of space, and very little of what may be discovered will benefit the average person.
The highs of innovation and progress are finished. There is little doubt that people around the world make various scientific breakthroughs but keep them secret because there is no incentive for them to release their findings. Corruption is rife, corporations have no ethics, and the patent and justice systems of the world are broken.
I agree that space is the final frontier of human endeavor, and colonization of space is our destiny, but the probability of humanity destroying itself long before achieving a permanently self-sustainable presence in space, or before extinction from a natural cause or event, is practically a certainty.
Moral of the story: If you can't beat it, join it; look after yourself and your family, and the rest of the world can go to hell.
Humans, all self-replicating life, wants to survive, both as individuals and collectively.
Would you rather be living in a city on Mars or suffering through several years of endless winter on Earth?
"Martian surface temperatures vary from lows of about -87 [degrees] C (-125 [degrees] F) during the polar winters to highs of up to -5 [degrees] C (23 [degrees] F) in summers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars#Climate
I vote that several years of winter on Earth is much better than an eternity of winter on Mars.
creating the future of humanity
If your economy is spread over a considerable portion of the Solar System, then it's much less an issue, if one region suffers a large disaster
The problem is you're limiting your assumption to localized natural disasters. Human nature is the worst and most certain disaster that you have failed to account for. Weapons will exist in a colonized solar system, along with a desire to wage war with them. The US is a warmongering state merely because not making use of its hugely expensive war machine would be a waste (financially and politically), and because some of the largest corporations and political lobbyists in the US are responsible for manufacturing weapons.
Wars will simply become interplanetary. Humanity started off with tribal conflict (sticks and stones), and then when the means was developed we progressed to empire-building with armies of legions and horsemen, and conquering by sea (triremes, galleons, ironclads, etc), then by air (fighters, cruise missiles, long range bombers and ICBMs).
Space will be the final (war) frontier, and newer, more devastating weapons will be developed to wreak havoc on it, and the eventual self-destruction of humanity would not only be possible, but probable, even over the vast distances of the solar system.
I personally think it will be all over for us long before we get to interplanetary warfare, but miracles can happen.
trillions of dollars are spent on useless wars
The likes of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Textron, BAE Systems, Steyer, Thales, Mauser, and hundreds of other arms manufacturers who also contribute to election campaigns in various countries, as well as their suppliers, contractors, and key shareholders, would all disagree with you.
"Martian surface temperatures vary from lows of about -87 [degrees] C (-125 [degrees] F) during the polar winters to highs of up to -5 [degrees] C (23 [degrees] F) in summers."
Funny, according to my calculations, it's 21 C (70 F) in that Martian city. Unless someone leaves the thermostat a bit high.
creating the future of humanity
...or creating new revenue streams for megalomaniac corporations to take advantage of (similar to the "unobtanium" mining subplot of James Cameron's recent film "Avatar").
Proof by crap movie? Your logic is unassailable!
Space will be the final (war) frontier, and newer, more devastating weapons will be developed to wreak havoc on it, and the eventual self-destruction of humanity would not only be possible, but probable, even over the vast distances of the solar system.
I personally think it will be all over for us long before we get to interplanetary warfare, but miracles can happen.
I think a simpler solution here would be for you to grow some balls.
Sure I can imagine some war scenarios that, let's say, destroy the entire galaxy or worse. But it makes sense to spend time on worrying about things that are likely to be a problem than things that aren't.
The great distances of the Solar System don't magically create more destructive weapons (especially since it'll be a long time before anyone makes a space structure that a nuke can't annihilate). People don't automatically destroy each other just because bad space movies are made.
Sure maybe the human race will destroy itself. I think spreading people out over the Solar System will help keep that from happening.
Funny, according to my calculations, it's 21 C (70 F) in that Martian city. Unless someone leaves the thermostat a bit high.
yeah, until someone shoots a hole in the outer skin
Proof by crap movie?
it wasn't proof by any means. it was merely illustration. if you deny that corporations would behave like that, you are an ignorant fool.
I think a simpler solution here would be for you to grow some balls.
What has "balls" got to do with anything here?
The great distances of the Solar System don't magically create more destructive weapons
no, but they don't magically create self-sustainable space stations either, so the time it takes for colonization of the solar system is plenty for development of such weapons
People don't automatically destroy each other just because bad space movies are made.
no, they do it because its in their nature to. movies merely illustrate that nature
Maybe we ought to set up a poll here. Would you rather be living in a city on Mars or suffering through several years of endless winter on Earth?
Of course. Because popularity trumps logic and fact every time. In any case, most people would choose cold over airlessness and being bathed in deadly radiation until you die an agonising, humiliating death shortly thereafter. Or alternatively, most people would choose cold over cowering like worms underground, never to lift our eyes to the heavens again. We are not so craven as a species that we do not recognise that there are fates that are worse than death.
There's always choice C, doing cool things on a planet where people have never lived before and creating the future of humanity,
Perhaps on Xenu - or some other fantasy world of your choosing. However, the rest of us are living in the real world. In the real world, we can easily see that living out a pathetic half life in an airtight, underground bunker isn't "cool". If it was, we would already be doing it.
I reject the notion that we are, as a species, mortal. More accurately, I don't accept that the twilight of Mankind must occur.
That's fascinating. For myself, I reject the notion of having to pay for ice cream, and the notion that Santa Claus is not real. That my rejection of those notions changes actual reality is another subject entirely.
Though individuals must die, the human super-organism, as humanity can be likened to, absolutely can transcend death indefinitely if we are careful, plan ahead, and master ourselves.
There is no human super-organism - it's as real as Gaia, or Chakras - entirely a figment of the imagination.
I am extremely nearsighted as my clear visual range is 2 - 8 inches in front of my eyes (without corrective lenses). So going into space will correct this to normal vision. Who Hoo! Where do I sign up?
yeah, until someone shoots a hole in the outer skin
I guess they better not do that then. And if someone does do it anyway, then throw a patch on it. You still are looking at a lot less suck than someone having to deal with the fallout from a collapse of Earth civilization.
it wasn't proof by any means. it was merely illustration. if you deny that corporations would behave like that, you are an ignorant fool.
Ok, "illustration" by crap movie. Your argument doesn't get any stronger. And do you know why corporations don't act like they do in Avatar? Because there are consequences for their actions such as getting thrown into jail or losing assets. Keep the consequences and Avatar doesn't happen.
What has "balls" got to do with anything here?
I see here an intellectual cowardice. If things don't go the way you want them to go, then you claim something bad will happen. If we make a nice home on Mars, then someone will shoot a hole in it. If we try to diversify by spreading around the Solar System, then someone will come up with a doomsday weapon big enough to kill us all.
People don't automatically destroy each other just because bad space movies are made.
no, they do it because its in their nature to. movies merely illustrate that nature
It's also in their nature to cooperate and build civilizations. Movies usually gloss over that because it's not very exciting.
Of course. Because popularity trumps logic and fact every time. In any case, most people would choose cold over airlessness and being bathed in deadly radiation until you die an agonising, humiliating death shortly thereafter. Or alternatively, most people would choose cold over cowering like worms underground, never to lift our eyes to the heavens again. We are not so craven as a species that we do not recognise that there are fates that are worse than death.
Uh huh. This is a question of popularity. Would people rather die horribly than have a comfortable life on Mars? I think you'll find you're in a vanishingly small minority on this.
Perhaps on Xenu - or some other fantasy world of your choosing. However, the rest of us are living in the real world. In the real world, we can easily see that living out a pathetic half life in an airtight, underground bunker isn't "cool". If it was, we would already be doing it.
The poverty of your imagination is remarkable. You don't have a clue, yet you can tell us all how it's going to be. For your information, we do already do it.
We live in buildings, often rather airtight, not under the stars and fresh air. There's not a real difference between living in a building on Earth and living in a building on Mars. We live in comfortable surroundings and we get out when we want to. The Martian might have to put on a little more protective gear than the one on Earth and take a little more caution when going about their business outside, but it's not significantly different.
Frankly, I don't understand the point of even trying to make theses sorts of arguments. People can live in a lot of places in the Solar System. And they can have just as fulfilling a life there as they do on Earth. There's a lot of obstacles to overcome such as getting there and building a place to live. But it's not magic. We know what people need and what they want in a place to live. Provide that and you have a home, be it on a nice beach shore on Earth or in the side of a crater on the Moon.
You still are looking at a lot less suck than someone having to deal with the fallout from a collapse of Earth civilization
i disagree, but whatever (i would actually love to live on a Mars base if I had the opportunity, but I think it would be much riskier than anything we might face on Earth)
Your argument doesn't get any stronger.
you're right. illustrating or clarifying my argument doesn't change it at all. it was strong enough to begin with.
And do you know why corporations don't act like they do in Avatar? Because there are consequences for their actions such as getting thrown into jail or losing assets.
you keep telling yourself that, ignorant fool.
If things don't go the way you want them to go, then you claim something bad will happen.
i'm simply offering a different point of view to yours. just because you don't like it doesn't mean i lack anything that you have. at least i'm not living in fantasy land and can accept the reality that humanity is its own worst enemy. that's not "intellectual cowardice"; it's called pragmatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism) and it is the balancing argument of airy-fairy bullshit like yours.
It's also in their nature to cooperate and build civilizations
true, an humanity has achieved great things, but also at great cost. when you put a bunch of people together, you can have good things happen, but you also get bad things (human nature is to be greedy, violent, competitive, discriminatory, etc). to focus on the good things and ignore the bad things is a sure fire way to increase the cost more than necessary. often in movies the good guys win, but in reality "nice guys finish last". film producers tend to gloss over that simple fact as well.
A Mars mission will be hugely expensive regardless of when it happens, and money channeled into a Mars program will affect funding for domestic expenses like healthcare etc, so I'm curious if you were the President, how many people would you be willing to sacrifice on Earth so that you could have a Mars city?
i disagree, but whatever (i would actually love to live on a Mars base if I had the opportunity, but I think it would be much riskier than anything we might face on Earth)
Earlier in the thread, we discussed scenarios where the levels of risk were reversed. Bad times on Earth can indeed be riskier (and a lot more unpleasant) than good times on Mars.
And risk is not a good indication of quality of life. Too little risk can be just as bad as too much.
And do you know why corporations don't act like they do in Avatar? Because there are consequences for their actions such as getting thrown into jail or losing assets.
you keep telling yourself that, ignorant fool.
Nah, I'll let the real world do the talking on that matter. Human greed and conflict of interest is a solved problem. Society just has to deploy the solution as it has done in the developed world. Movies like Avatar are based on a childish understanding of the world.
If things don't go the way you want them to go, then you claim something bad will happen.
i'm simply offering a different point of view to yours. just because you don't like it doesn't mean i lack anything that you have. at least i'm not living in fantasy land and can accept the reality that humanity is its own worst enemy. that's not "intellectual cowardice"; it's called pragmatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism) and it is the balancing argument of airy-fairy bullshit like yours.
Nah, I don't buy it. Those arguments were very shallow and contrived. One could make the same argument against building schools, "Someone could go in and shoot the kids!" And it fails for the same reasons, the value of the project exceeds the small amount of risk of the project. Merely pointing that there is risk is not at all useful.
true, an humanity has achieved great things, but also at great cost. when you put a bunch of people together, you can have good things happen, but you also get bad things (human nature is to be greedy, violent, competitive, discriminatory, etc). to focus on the good things and ignore the bad things is a sure fire way to increase the cost more than necessary. often in movies the good guys win, but in reality "nice guys finish last". film producers tend to gloss over that simple fact as well.
For such a consideration to matter, civilization has to worsen the negative parts of humanity (competition is not BTW a bad thing!). We don't however see civilized man acting more negatively than uncivilized man. Even Avatar grudgingly acknowledges this when noble blue savage Neytiri attempts to shoot Jake in the back (only stopping because of an intercession by the botanical gestalt, "Tree of Souls").
Bottom line is that primitive man can't leave Earth while civilized man can. So even if he were a nicer person, he's not going to be on Mars or elsewhere.
A Mars mission will be hugely expensive regardless of when it happens, and money channeled into a Mars program will affect funding for domestic expenses like healthcare etc, so I'm curious if you were the President, how many people would you be willing to sacrifice on Earth so that you could have a Mars city?
Right now? A Mars colony is too expensive to justify the cost. I would not (and do not) support it at this time. Here's what I would do, if I had the power: 1) discontinue NASA development of new launch vehicles. All launches are to be on commercial vehicles from the US and to a more limited extent elsewhere. There may be other such NASA projects with extremely weak return on investment (I think particularly of the International Space Station) and these should be investigated and perhaps discontinued as well. 2) To support missions that require multiple launches, develop orbital propellant depots and improve orbital assembly techniques. 3) Deemphasize one-off unman
Bad times on Earth can indeed be riskier (and a lot more unpleasant) than good times on Mars.
duh! it would be more relevant to compare good times on both Earth and Mars, and bad times on both Earth and Mars. of course good times on Mars are going to be more pleasant than bad times on Earth, otherwise they wouldn't be considered bad times.
Too little risk can be just as bad as too much.
if you like a bit of risk, there are much cheaper ways to satisfy it on Earth
Human greed and conflict of interest is a solved problem
you don't get out much do you? i would seriously doubt that even you could be stupid enough to believe such nonsense. just switch on the news or google "greed" and "conflict of interest" and "let the real world do the talking".
One could make the same argument against building schools, "Someone could go in and shoot the kids!"
but i didn't make that argument. it is possible that someone could go in a shoot kids in schools, but what does that have to do with this thread? you seem to be implying that just because i don't agree with your arguments about sustainability of humanity through colonization of the solar system that i'm generally a pessimist. seems pretty desperate.
civilization has to worsen the negative parts of humanity
google "war", "religious extremism", "organized crime", "corporate greed", "political corruption", "rape", etc, etc, etc. there are plenty of examples of the negative aspects of humanity having been demonstrated devastatingly clearly.
All launches are to be on commercial vehicles from the US
commercial space activities won't happen until space is more accessible. if shareholder apathy doesn't kill them, government regulation and insurance costs will. no corporation will develop SSTO capabilities because the risk from ripoffs by competition is too great (and you thought competition was a good thing!). if lockheed martin can't do it, nobody can. even spacex is just another government contractor (by their own admission via their "launch manifest"). virgin galactic is just a joyride service for wealthy adrenaline junkies.
on the other hand, private companies will be key players in offering services in established space stations.
duh! it would be more relevant to compare good times on both Earth and Mars, and bad times on both Earth and Mars. of course good times on Mars are going to be more pleasant than bad times on Earth, otherwise they wouldn't be considered bad times.
My take is that they'll be roughly comparable.
Human greed and conflict of interest is a solved problem
you don't get out much do you? i would seriously doubt that even you could be stupid enough to believe such nonsense. just switch on the news or google "greed" and "conflict of interest" and "let the real world do the talking".
Maybe we should just continue this discussion when you've figured out how to eliminate greed and conflict of interest. I'll just point out that regulation and the rule of law is a good enough solution.
civilization has to worsen the negative parts of humanity
google "war", "religious extremism", "organized crime", "corporate greed", "political corruption", "rape", etc, etc, etc. there are plenty of examples of the negative aspects of humanity having been demonstrated devastatingly clearly.
So what? The question isn't whether there are negative aspects, but whether the negative aspects are worse because of civilization. It's worth noting that many of those aren't specific to civilization, here they would be: rape, war, religious extremism, and political corruption. Organized crime and corporate greed require more organization than one would expect in a primitive tribe.
commercial space activities won't happen until space is more accessible.
Commercial space activities already happen. For example, there are at least six commercial orbital launch providers, ULA, Orbital Sciences, SpaceX, Arianespace, and the two commercial faces for Progress and Soyuz rockets. There are a large number of commercial satellites in space.
if shareholder apathy doesn't kill them, government regulation and insurance costs will.
Then I guess we better not do that.
no corporation will develop SSTO capabilities because the risk from ripoffs by competition is too great (and you thought competition was a good thing!).
Nonsense. SSTO just turns out to be far more difficult than expected and doesn't yield much benefit for the effort. Consider the currently favored TSTO (Two Stage To Orbit). It's widespread despite your concerns about ripoffs from competition.
And yes, I still do think competition is a good thing.
if lockheed martin can't do it, nobody can.
They built a very successful TSTO, the Atlas V instead.
even spacex is just another government contractor (by their own admission via their "launch manifest").
So what? They get paid for results. Their government customers are much like their private customers.
virgin galactic is just a joyride service for wealthy adrenaline junkies.
I find myself saying this a lot, but so what? Wealthy adrenaline junkies pay. And the service will go down in price both as it gets used more and as Virgin Galactic gains experience with running the service. It's also worth noting that there are scientific experiments which can be run on a SpaceShipTwo (turns out some scientists just need a few minutes of free fall for their experiments) and the price is not bad for that niche market.
maybe we should just continue this discussion when you've figured out how to eliminate greed and conflict of interest
impossible because its human nature
I'll just point out that regulation and the rule of law is a good enough solution
haven't you heard of the golden rule? it is of course "he who has the gold, makes the rules". regulation and laws only govern you and me. corporations can afford more expensive lawyers than governments, and multinational corporations can simply work around them (tax havens are a simple example)
whether the negative aspects are worse because of civilization
we're getting a little off-topic here, but civilization exacerbates negative aspects of human nature because of increased interaction which is enabled by urbanization and communication (amongst others). ok maybe rape isn't civilization-specific, but all the rest are (including war, religious extremism, and political corruption). if you're going to be picky, substitute rape with genocide, which is also civilization-specific.
Commercial space activities already happen.
ok, but I thought we were talking about manned activities. SpaceX isn't commercial yet. it is a long way from breaking even let alone making a profit.
Then I guess we better not do that.
unfortunately it already does. an example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketplane_Kistler and i think SpaceX will follow suit soon enough
Consider the currently favored TSTO (Two Stage To Orbit). It's widespread despite your concerns about ripoffs from competition.
the development of technology for TSTO was paid for by NASA, USAF, etc. do you really think they got any return on their investment before companies ripped off the technology? if governments pay for development of SSTO, it might happen, but private companies and corporations will never be able to justify the risk. its the same as for any innovation; patents etc aren't worth the paper they're written on if you don't get any return on your investment to fight legal battles with companies that rip off your ideas.
the rest of your comment is rather unremarkable
at the end of the day, if you want a Mars city, fully-reusable SSTO is a requirement (not refurbishable like space shuttle or SpaceX's Falcon). to use a simple analogy, current launch technology for commercial manned spaceflight would be like flying overseas in a Boeing 747, and the airline dumping the plane into the ocean at the end of the flight (and at best dragging it out and refurbishing it at huge expense for its next flight).
maybe we should just continue this discussion when you've figured out how to eliminate greed and conflict of interest
impossible because its human nature
Then we're in the realm of good enough solutions.
I'll just point out that regulation and the rule of law is a good enough solution
haven't you heard of the golden rule? it is of course "he who has the gold, makes the rules". regulation and laws only govern you and me. corporations can afford more expensive lawyers than governments, and multinational corporations can simply work around them (tax havens are a simple example)
And yet, it works. Reality trumps a catchy saying.
we're getting a little off-topic here, but civilization exacerbates negative aspects of human nature because of increased interaction which is enabled by urbanization and communication (amongst others). ok maybe rape isn't civilization-specific, but all the rest are (including war, religious extremism, and political corruption). if you're going to be picky, substitute rape with genocide, which is also civilization-specific.
I'll just point out that it doesn't.
Commercial space activities already happen.
ok, but I thought we were talking about manned activities. SpaceX isn't commercial yet. it is a long way from breaking even let alone making a profit.
SpaceX is for profit. Makes it commercial no matter who its customers are. And there's an interesting claim from its CEO:
Since 2007, SpaceX has been profitable every year "despite dramatic employee growth and major infrastructure and operations investments. We have over 40 flights on manifest representing over $3 billion in revenues."
As to manned versus unmanned commercial space activities, those are just a line in the sand and there's no obstruction keeping that line from being crossed. Currently, it's just Russia's tourists to the ISS and the test pilots from SpaceShipOne. When the market develops, then there will be more such activities, just as there are for unmanned activities.
You're in the untenable position of saying "They haven't done this yet". When they do it, then you'll have to redraw the line. That's not healthy, intellectually. Times change and the trend is towards overcoming these hurdles.
unfortunately it already does. an example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketplane_Kistler and i think SpaceX will follow suit soon enough
Every space launch business failure gets blamed by the people who do the failing on government bureaucracy. The last legitimate one I know of, is E'Prime Aerospace in the 90s which was planning to reuse Peacekeeper missiles for space launch. They lost out when US Congress decided that the missiles couldn't be used for commercial purposes.
the development of technology for TSTO was paid for by NASA, USAF, etc. do you really think they got any return on their investment before companies ripped off the technology? if governments pay for development of SSTO, it might happen, but private companies and corporations will never be able to justify the risk. its the same as for any innovation; patents etc aren't worth the paper they're written on if you don't get any return on your investment to fight legal battles with companies that rip off your ideas.
Yes, the US government got a lot of value out of them, including the launch of most of its space probes, a number of early manned missions, and many thousands of working ICBMs. And once you consider that the companies accused of "ripping" off the TSTO designs are the companies that actually designed the TSTO designs, there isn't any IP theft going on.
And yet, it works. Reality trumps a catchy saying
laws and regulations work to control you and me, but they don't control the corporations, which were the original subject of this part of the argument
SpaceX is for profit
i know, but my point was that they haven't yet made a profit, and that they will go belly up before then
When the market develops
cheap, reliable, regular access (fully-reusable SSTO) will be the enabler. till then, we're stuck with test pilots and millionaires in flying washing machines. at the moment, everyone's got ideas, but nobody can get to the marketplace
Times change and the trend is towards overcoming these hurdles.
i'm not saying it won't happen, but by your own admission SSTO faces some difficult hurdles
US government got a lot of value out of them, including the launch of most of its space probes
they didn't get any value out of the IP that they paid for
any IP theft going on
if you pay for development of IP (regardless of who actually does the work), you own the rights to it. otoh government expects to be ripped off (however unfortunate). corporations don't just write off the rights to their IP like governments. SSTO won't happen without a huge amount of plundered investment from government.
when US Congress decided that the missiles couldn't be used for commercial purposes
aka regulation, like I said (and cost of insurance isn't caused by government, but leeching litigation lawyers)
Makes me wonder if I'm casting pearls before swine here.
no, your unremarkable responses were stating the obvious and didn't prove any of my points wrong, so i was in agreement and there was nothing to really argue further
So what?
if we're just going to start agreeing with each other, that simply won't do. this is /. after all :)
laws and regulations work to control you and me, but they don't control the corporations, which were the original subject of this part of the argument
Doesn't hold anywhere in the world. The last corporation unconstrained by regulation was the Free Congo State, more than a century ago. The presence of rent-seeking doesn't imply absence of regulation.
i know, but my point was that they haven't yet made a profit, and that they will go belly up before then
Well, given that that they are making a profit, what's the point of you asserting that they don't?
cheap, reliable, regular access (fully-reusable SSTO) will be the enabler. till then, we're stuck with test pilots and millionaires in flying washing machines. at the moment, everyone's got ideas, but nobody can get to the marketplace
What's the point of writing this? "Till then" is just a few years away. Then you'll have to comeup with a new "till then".
they didn't get any value out of the IP that they paid for
Aside from the host of stuff I already mentioned which justify the cost, sure they didn't probably didn't get much of value.
if you pay for development of IP (regardless of who actually does the work), you own the rights to it. otoh government expects to be ripped off (however unfortunate). corporations don't just write off the rights to their IP like governments. SSTO won't happen without a huge amount of plundered investment from government.
And yet, you write this in response to an example that showed your claim is wrong. No, you don't automatically own the rights to IP or any other property that you paid for. It's not rocket science.
no, your unremarkable responses were stating the obvious and didn't prove any of my points wrong, so i was in agreement and there was nothing to really argue further
You asked and you got an answer. "Stating the obvious" with a relatively sensible plan won't have a lot of pixy dust and rainbows in it. It strikes me that you were just trolling for a vulnerability and having not found one, dropped it like a dead skunk.
i started typing my response and realized that i'm just going over old ground. if you're still under the impression that corporations are law-abiding, then there's not much point in me trying to convince you of anything. it's been fun though. i think i'm ready to move onto a new topic. thanks for your time.
if you're still under the impression that corporations are law-abiding
Corporations are law-abiding. Else they lose the protections and structure that they need to exist. You really assert rather that they abide by a different, somewhat looser set of laws than the peons have.