If you'd actually like to understand, I'd sugggest fining the answers o these questions, for starters:
Why do you think carbon dating was used here? How many years ago do you think this find implies humans were using tools? How many years ago do you think science claims earth was "a mere gas ball"?
Well, as for flint-napping via the well understood hit-it-with-a-rock method, I have tried it myself, and successfully. It is not extraordinarily difficult.
Thermal shock might split a big rock into shards that will be your starting point, but after that, you're crazy.
"Try it yourself."
It's kind of obnoxious saying that, when you clearly have not.
Scientists, (and also others), are able to make lovely projectile points out of obsidian or other less exotic materials. Sitting on my shelf are several I made in my youth.
Neither Homo Erectus (who this story is about), nor Cro-Magnon man, made projectile points out of obsidian. They made axes and scrapers, which are a lot easier to make, but not out of obsidian.
Points made of obsidian are a relatively recent inovation. Mostly it's way too fragile; points take a lot of work and you don't want it to fracture the first time you ever use it. Except that recently (in archealogical terms, pretty much yesterday) some clever person thought of making what we call a "desert fork point", which is made of some brittle stone like obsidian, and has big notches on the edges. Those notches are nice for tying onto necklaces to sell to southwest tourists, but the original idea was to encourage shattering. Because if you shoot a big animal like a deer with a stone arrow head, and don't get it in just the right spot, it won't do much. But if it shatters inside a big spasming muscle you'll bring it down. Neat huh?
But homo erectus didn't do that. They made axes, and that's about it. And everyone for the first 99% of homo sapiens history didn't do that. They got as far as clovis points: big and wide, as sturdy as possible.
Oh, and yes, plastic surgeons have long used obsidian blades because it's the sharpest thing you can get. But they're not "synthetic" in any way an arrow head isn't. They are split off a natural hunk of rock by hitting it with something. Probably something more precise and controlled than another rock in someones hand, but the result is the same.
"the elephant in the room is that we could face extinction if we don't expand beyond our birth-planet in time."
I don't really see that as an elephant in the room; maybe a minor argument in favor of robotic probes, if anything. Based on my understanding of the unsuitability of other places in the solar system for supporting human life; and the difficulty of getting anywhere outside the solar system (which would probably be unsuitable too), "expanding beyond our birth-planet" is not a thing I expect to happen until the extreme far-future, if at all. If it ever happens, I don't expect anything learned about human space flight today will be remotely relevant; technology will have to be unrecognizably more advanced to even consider it. If anything, using robotic probes today, and hence learning more about building robots (and about Mars) will bring that expansion date closer faster than human space flight using todays tech.
"But one question that nobody has been asking... is humankind worth saving?"
Yes. In my opinion, it is obvious that there can be no higher goal. Seriously, what consequence of humanity surviving could there be that you think would make me, a human, decide it was better if we didn't?
"If our descendants do manage to escape certain (eventual) doom on this world, will they just go to other worlds and wreak the same havoc on them?"
What do you mean by 'havoc'? Don't get me wrong, I'm as rabid an environmentalist you are likely to encounter, but the long-term survival of humanity isn't in opposition to those opinions, it's the reason. Wanting humanity to die out so they don't mess up the pristine universe is bass-ackwards. Supporting sentient life is what the universe is for.
"Sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, lead, mercury, radioactive waste of fixed radioactivity per unit mass, PBCs, dioxin, nitrates in drinking water, noise pollution, etc."
That's a long list of assertions, but I asked for data. Oh there it is, atmospheric lead levels in Sweden, with no causative analysis. How comprehensive.
"We just need to keep in mind that demand isn't infinite either."
The demand for resources by a geometrically increasing population between now and forever sounds pretty infinite to me.
"The point is not that they can do more science, but that they can do different science."
Manned missions are better for learning how to do manned missions, absolutely. Where I disagree is that I don't think that is a very important thing to learn.
"Your assertion that self sustained life off of Earth is so far off that humans will have become something different is fallacious and without merit"
It is not "fallacious"; deductions based on incorrect logic are fallacious, and I'm not deducing anything, I'm guessing. My guess certainly might be wrong. But to be clear, my guess is not what you say it is. It is not that indefinitely self-sustained life on Mars is so far off humans will become something else first. Rather it is my guess that if humans achieve indefinitely self-sustained life on Mars, they will do so largely by (intentionally) changing their bodies so as to be better suited to living on Mars. Their contemporaries on Earth I expect will still look just like us.
Obviously, your guess as to how far off a self-sustaining Mars colony is is wildly more optimistic than mine. Given that we can barely keep the ISS going on the edge of our atmosphere with constant resupply missions, I just don't see it.
Of all the things to be learned from our space program, "How to live in space" is not very near the top of my list, and every thing else is much easier to learn with remote probes than manned missions. Manned missions are so hard, you really can't afford to do anything else but stay alive.
I also tend to think there are plenty of challenges in sending an unmanned probe to Mars, and that is you want to develop technology applicable to daily life on Earth, space is a lousy place to do it.
Anyway, you're welcome to have different guesse about the future than me, or different priorities for the present. My main point is that if the goal is to learn about Mars, as opposed to learning about man, unmanned probes are vastly more efficient. That part isn't speculation, it's been well demonstrated by the fine engineers who have sent unmanned probes to Mars for budgets that don't get a human off the launch pad.
With some regularity, yes. But I do not intend to in this case.
"But then you call for much more sophisticated automated equipment..."
Ahh, I see... the "dextrous as a human" bit. I was trying to mirror the specs you were discussing in the post I replied to there, but point out you can save a lot of money if you can leave the (human) brains of the operation on Earth. I do not actually favor such a design. I would advocate designing systems that are, for example, 1/100th as capable as a human, and sending thousands of them.
"If you want to put something up there that can do anything like a human being could, then that would also cost 'thousands of times as much'. Actually, neither would cost quite that much"
It wouldn't cost quite that much!?!? WTF are you smoking? The cost of operating 2 rovers on Mars for 4 years has been roughly 800 million dollars. Divide the time by a thousand; think you can put a human on mars for 1/1000th the time (about 3 days) for 800 million? 800 million doesn't get a shuttle off the ground. There's no way a human mission won't cost 1000 times as much as one of those rovers. If you can do it for a million times as much, every cost-estimator at the notoriously optimistic NASA will be in shock. Keeping humans alive off of Earth is just fantastically costly.
"a machine or machines that could accomplish the same things as a manned mission, would cost as much as a manned mission!"
For God's sake why? It is often possible to do the same thing more cheaply by doing it a different way. This is one of those times.
For that matter, based on the indisputable historical evidence, a human mission that can accomplish the same things as machines already have can't even be contemplated for a cost in the same ballpark.
OK, it was not meant to be this big a deal, but I'll try assuming you're actually trying to understand and take a shot at explaining what I was trying to say:
Mars is not a very hospitable place for humans to live. There is no air to breathe, etc. It might be possible at some point to build an outpost there that humans can live in, assuming they get regular shipments of various supplies from Earth. However, I find it hard to imagine that a Martian colony would be entirely, indefinitely self-sufficient, deriving everything it needs from Mars itself, because Mars isn't a very good supplier for the needs of people, who evolved on Earth. Therefore, if there ever is a self-sufficient Martian colony, it is my estimation that it will be very far in the future, and that it will be achieved not chiefly by getting what human bodies need out of Mars, but by changing the bodies of the humans to only need things Mars can supply. So imagine a far future human civilization builds some sort of artificial body, and puts a human consciousness in control of it (by transplanting their brain, or more esoteric means, consult your favorite sci-fi author for details). I expect such colonists would not be recognizably human to you and I if we didn't know the details in between.
That's it. Note that this is just my estimation of the most likely scenario for a Martian settlement, assuming one ever occurs. I don't really know, and you're free to disagree.
Even if you think an independent Martian settlement is much nearer than I do, I believe it is unreasonable to suggest that it is so close that it makes sense today to spend limited resources on manned space flight instead of exploration via unmanned probes. That is my main point. The "in robotic bodies" reference was meant to be an offhand remark that actually answered the question posed by the poster I originally replied to. My main idea was to then move on to discuss why I thought that question was irrelevant in any case.
"Of course, we sent a couple rovers to Mars that in five years have gone over almost as much terrain as one man could have covered on foot between breakfast and lunch. "
Where is he then? Lunch was five years ago.
"While it is arguable that robots are better than humans for exploratory missions, it must be remembered that the constraint is that we learn things very, very slowly. "
Much more quickly than waiting for humans that aren't there yet.
"I've often wondered how much we'd know about Mars if we'd put six guys down there for 18 months back in the mid-80s...."
Oh sure, we'd learn lots if we put people there without having to worry about the difficulty of getting them there and keeping them alive. But imagine how much more we could learn if we explored using magic faries riding unicorns!
"I'd love to hear your definition of 'human' then....or are you really suggesting that a major evolutionary leap would happen faster than colonization of Mars?"
No, I'm really suggesting exactly what I said earlier in the thread, so I'll again suggest reading the stuff you reply to. It is my estimation that if we could somehow see into the future and see the first "humans" living on Mars without any need for support from Earth, we would call them "robots". It would probably be debateable, and depend on your definitions.
"One human mission to mars with sufficient time on the surface could produce much more (and more valuable) scientific results than one robotic mission thus justifing the higher costs."
Maybe. And a car costing a million dollars might get you across town faster than my $10 bicycle. That's the cost differential. Let's work minimum wage jobs and meet up at the bar after we each earn enough money to buy our respective vehicles and drive them there.
"It remains to be seen whether costs per research result for human missions is greater than for robotic missions"
No, it does not remain to be seen. It is abundantly clear.
Um, no it's not circular. It's not worth putting people on Mars because everything we could learn by doing so can be learned much more efficiently.
"'It's not worth putting people on mars because getting them there is hard to do.'
I don't buy this argument."
Then don't make it; I didn't. FYI, it is traditional, when using quotes, to put the other persons words inside.
"So you are saying it is too hard or expensive for us, but not for them?" Again, no, I'm not saying that. Certainly we can explore Mars in a stupid, ridiculously inefficient way. I'm saying we shouldn't. I'm saying the same effort could yield better results if applied more intelligently. As evidenced by the much more modest efforts that are doing so right now.
"As for the statement that we haven't been doing it, I meant anything outside of Earth orbit. Obviously we have been keeping the space station manned."
Yes. Manned exploration, spending thousands of times as much money, has done nothing beyond lunar orbit, and nothing recent but keep the space station manned for no obvious purpose. That would be the crux of my argument right there.
We've spent a tiny amount of money on unmanned space exploration, and thousands of times as much on manned exploration. Unmanned has yielded vastly better results, so the manned-exploration proponents complain they don't have enough funding. It's beyond crazy. Space exploration still counts, even if you use good tools.
"We learned a metric assload of stuff from the six Apollo landings and their EVAs."
No, we didn't. We learned a metric assload of stuff from the rocks they brought back. By examining them on Earth. I heartily endorse a sample-return mission to Mars. Which we can do in the next couple years as long as we don't take unnecessary passengers.
"A manned crew has higher support costs" You can say that a hundred thousand more times. Not that that would represent the cost differential. You can't say it enough for that in your lifetime.
"but can cover a lot more ground in a given timeframe"
The time frames aren't given; remote probes can operate continuously for years, not just a few hours. And remote probes can get knowledge faster because they can get there sooner. Like, in the sense that starting exploration a few years ago is sooner that maybe thinking about it a couple decades from now if you're really wildly optimistic.
"does not have to deal with latency on the order of minutes for every command"
Are you under the impression the Astronauts did anything whatsoever without discussing extensively it with Earth-bound controllers? In any case, again, the probe won't need to sleep, eat, or come home, waiting a few minutes is irrelevant. And that's just in the unusual case that you can't plan everything to do hours days or weeks in advance (like the Astronauts did).
"and is far more capable of independent decision-making than any robot will ever be." There are no robots; humans are exploring Mars by using their excellent brains to make effective tools.
It is silly to argue what would be more effective as if it were all in the future. Manned space flight got, and gets, radically better funding, and unmanned spaceflight has been exploring Mars for years now. The race is over, and manned space flight is thinking about finding the starting line.
You blithely disregard the cost and effort of getting people there and keeping them alive, but here in the real world, these are actual concerns that impact the decision of how to go about things.
And my point is that you are wrong. Sure, if you design the control system to just mimic the input of the human controller, ignoring the obvious latency issue, that won't work. But people who design space-exploration strategies without considering the basic engineering requirements of space exploration don't get jobs at NASA. (Though they do apparently post on Slashdot)
Robots controlled by humans not only do work beyond the moon, they are doing so. Humans exploring space in person have vastly more resources, and squat to show for it. I jump to the stunning conclusion that sending humans is less cost effective. Because it has produced less effect. At much higher cost.
Of course we have been doing it. We regularly spend the entire cost of those Mars rover missions to put humans into low earth orbit for a week and see if they can keep their toilet functioning. Human space flight has orders of magnitude more funding than unmanned exploration; and squat to show for it.
Is your point that a human on Mars would get more done than a human controlling a probe on Mars if we ignore the cost and effort of getting him there and keeping him alive? I'll agree, but I'm not sure how that's relevant here in the real world where getting him there is in fact part of the problem.
Did you read the line you quorted? I stand by my prediction. Before humans can live on Mars independent of support from Earth, they will have changed such that they are not necessarily recognizable as humans; assuming that day ever comes. And the best way to help that day come is to learn more about Mars as effectively as possible: by sending remote probes that don't have useless, incredibly wasteful humans inside them. I believe the evidence supports me:
Stuff learned by sending probes not containing humans to Mars: lots.
Stuff learned by sending probes containing humans to Mars: zilch.
"Yes, they solved pollution. This is the part I don't get about people like you. You ignore completely one of the biggest environmental trends since 1970, namely, the massive reduction in pollution emitted by Developed World countries."
I ask with some hesitancy, but you seem so sure of yourself... What data are you basing this on? I actually did a bit of googling, and for every pollutant I can think of, every source I can locate indicates the US produced more of it this year than in 1970. Occam's Razor tells me to look to the simplest explanation: that you, a random slashdot poster, are talking out your ass. But I'm trying to keep an open mind, so if you've got some evidence for your extraordinary claims, let's have it.
As for your theory that the Earth has an infinite amount of everything... No let's stick to the pollution thing for now so I can pretend the discussion is at all rational.
And? Are those words meant to somehow refute the fact that humans are exploring space by remotely controlling probes have been wildly more successful than humans exploring space by sending up other humans? If sending humans to explore space is such a great idea, why hasn't it worked so far?
"ultimately we will have to be sending people up there anyway. There is no way around it. "
Except, you know, not doing it and learning more because we did it a smarter way.
Here's an idea: what if we built a machine that was as dextrous as a human, and put the controls of that machine in the hands of an intelligent, decisive, and bold human... on Earth.
And hey, while we're at it, we could design the machine to, just for example, move about the surface of mars for months on end with no need of air, food or a return journey.
Human space exploration is wonderful. Some very smart people are doing a bang-up job exploring Mars right now. "Robotic" space exploration is a misnomer; it should be called "Smart and efficient human space exploration".
"Without manned space flight, how will we ever escape the Earth?"
With or without manned space flight now, we probably won't escape Earth ever. Well, OK, maybe. If you allow a generous definition of "we", the answer might be "in robotic bodies". Space is very large, and there is almost nothing there. What little stuff there is out there is not what humans need to live. Long before any human lives a life not dependent on Earth, the humans will have changed beyond what we would recognize.
Either way, it's a long way off, and what we do in the next decade probably won't make any difference. It might be good to learn as much as we can about the solar system, and I for one would like to do that anyway. How shall we go about it? Well, humans who explore space by sending probes that don't contain other humans have so far learned vastly more than the humans who explore space by sending probes that do contain other humans, and they've done it with a tiny fraction of the resources.
"I wonder why the chaos theory mavens haven't jumped all over the 'climate scientists' yet?"
Speaking as a chaos theory maven, I haven't jumped all over the climate scientists yet because, honestly, they're not that hot.
They are, however quite smart, and aware of chaos theory in a way you clearly are not. Chaos theory convincingly demonstrates that predicting whether it will rain exactly one month from today with any certainty is, and will always be, impossible. Yet predicting the global average temperature for next year is easy.
You do not understand chaos theory. Please continue citing this field you don't understand to argue against climate science, another field you don't understand, as it makes your ignorance easy to spot, and your assertions easy to disregard.
"A resource gets depleted? There are three choices: 1) find more of the resource, 2) find a substitute resource, or 3) figure out how to use less of the resource. None of these choices need shrink overall capital or ding our standard of living."
Choice 1) and 2) may not be possible, and aren't "choices" in any case, because they are not under your control. which may leave you with 3) use less of the resource, whether you like it or not, by reducing your standard of living if you can't come up with a better way.
"The Developed World with its highly concentrated capital managed to solve the pollution problem back in the 70's and 80's."
They solved pollution? I hadn't heard. That does change everything... So that I don't miss out on important news like that in the future, and because I find your ideas fascinating, I would like to subscribe to you newsletter.
Wish I could find that bit from Asimov... in "Time and Space and other things" IIRC.. He calculated the date, assuming current growth rates (this was 1970) and assuming no other limits, that the human race would become a single mass of proto-plasm expanding outward at the speed of light. It was this millennium.
Space colonisation is not an answer to overpopulation on earth. You cannot boost people off of the earth faster than they reproduce on it.
The fact some Democrat may have taken a position you (and I) don't like is not terribly relevant to the story at hand. The story at hand is that Rep. Peter T. King is, in this case, advancing a stupid position.
If you really want to compare the cases, I'd note that, according to your link, Rep. Berman (D-CA) frequently supports the interests of the monied and powerful among his constituents over what technically savvy people such as you and I might consider the interests of the greater good. This is a fault I would actually say was common across parties, and I certainly never implied Rep. Berman was not prone to it, or that I even liked him, (or any Democrat). Rep. King, on the other hand, is his own special brand of stupid, advancing an incoherent position in the interests of nobody. I'll not tar "politicians" nor even "Republicans" with my criticism here, as nobody but Rep. King appears to support this bill.
Feel free to think poorly of politicians. Feel free to think even less of one party or another. Just don't let these feelings prevent you from singling out particular politicians that are even stupider than the rest. Such as Peter T. King, Congressman from New York, Republican, and moron.
Slashdot Mirror
If you'd actually like to understand, I'd sugggest fining the answers o these questions, for starters:
Why do you think carbon dating was used here?
How many years ago do you think this find implies humans were using tools?
How many years ago do you think science claims earth was "a mere gas ball"?
Well, as for flint-napping via the well understood hit-it-with-a-rock method, I have tried it myself, and successfully. It is not extraordinarily difficult.
Thermal shock might split a big rock into shards that will be your starting point, but after that, you're crazy.
"Try it yourself."
It's kind of obnoxious saying that, when you clearly have not.
You are wrong several ways:
Scientists, (and also others), are able to make lovely projectile points out of obsidian or other less exotic materials. Sitting on my shelf are several I made in my youth.
Neither Homo Erectus (who this story is about), nor Cro-Magnon man, made projectile points out of obsidian. They made axes and scrapers, which are a lot easier to make, but not out of obsidian.
Points made of obsidian are a relatively recent inovation. Mostly it's way too fragile; points take a lot of work and you don't want it to fracture the first time you ever use it. Except that recently (in archealogical terms, pretty much yesterday) some clever person thought of making what we call a "desert fork point", which is made of some brittle stone like obsidian, and has big notches on the edges. Those notches are nice for tying onto necklaces to sell to southwest tourists, but the original idea was to encourage shattering. Because if you shoot a big animal like a deer with a stone arrow head, and don't get it in just the right spot, it won't do much. But if it shatters inside a big spasming muscle you'll bring it down. Neat huh?
But homo erectus didn't do that. They made axes, and that's about it. And everyone for the first 99% of homo sapiens history didn't do that. They got as far as clovis points: big and wide, as sturdy as possible.
Oh, and yes, plastic surgeons have long used obsidian blades because it's the sharpest thing you can get. But they're not "synthetic" in any way an arrow head isn't. They are split off a natural hunk of rock by hitting it with something. Probably something more precise and controlled than another rock in someones hand, but the result is the same.
"the elephant in the room is that we could face extinction if we don't expand beyond our birth-planet in time."
... is humankind worth saving?"
I don't really see that as an elephant in the room; maybe a minor argument in favor of robotic probes, if anything. Based on my understanding of the unsuitability of other places in the solar system for supporting human life; and the difficulty of getting anywhere outside the solar system (which would probably be unsuitable too), "expanding beyond our birth-planet" is not a thing I expect to happen until the extreme far-future, if at all. If it ever happens, I don't expect anything learned about human space flight today will be remotely relevant; technology will have to be unrecognizably more advanced to even consider it. If anything, using robotic probes today, and hence learning more about building robots (and about Mars) will bring that expansion date closer faster than human space flight using todays tech.
"But one question that nobody has been asking
Yes. In my opinion, it is obvious that there can be no higher goal. Seriously, what consequence of humanity surviving could there be that you think would make me, a human, decide it was better if we didn't?
"If our descendants do manage to escape certain (eventual) doom on this world, will they just go to other worlds and wreak the same havoc on them?"
What do you mean by 'havoc'? Don't get me wrong, I'm as rabid an environmentalist you are likely to encounter, but the long-term survival of humanity isn't in opposition to those opinions, it's the reason. Wanting humanity to die out so they don't mess up the pristine universe is bass-ackwards. Supporting sentient life is what the universe is for.
"Sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, lead, mercury, radioactive waste of fixed radioactivity per unit mass, PBCs, dioxin, nitrates in drinking water, noise pollution, etc."
That's a long list of assertions, but I asked for data. Oh there it is, atmospheric lead levels in Sweden, with no causative analysis. How comprehensive.
"We just need to keep in mind that demand isn't infinite either."
The demand for resources by a geometrically increasing population between now and forever sounds pretty infinite to me.
"The point is not that they can do more science, but that they can do different science."
Manned missions are better for learning how to do manned missions, absolutely. Where I disagree is that I don't think that is a very important thing to learn.
"Your assertion that self sustained life off of Earth is so far off that humans will have become something different is fallacious and without merit"
It is not "fallacious"; deductions based on incorrect logic are fallacious, and I'm not deducing anything, I'm guessing. My guess certainly might be wrong. But to be clear, my guess is not what you say it is. It is not that indefinitely self-sustained life on Mars is so far off humans will become something else first. Rather it is my guess that if humans achieve indefinitely self-sustained life on Mars, they will do so largely by (intentionally) changing their bodies so as to be better suited to living on Mars. Their contemporaries on Earth I expect will still look just like us.
Obviously, your guess as to how far off a self-sustaining Mars colony is is wildly more optimistic than mine. Given that we can barely keep the ISS going on the edge of our atmosphere with constant resupply missions, I just don't see it.
Of all the things to be learned from our space program, "How to live in space" is not very near the top of my list, and every thing else is much easier to learn with remote probes than manned missions. Manned missions are so hard, you really can't afford to do anything else but stay alive.
I also tend to think there are plenty of challenges in sending an unmanned probe to Mars, and that is you want to develop technology applicable to daily life on Earth, space is a lousy place to do it.
Anyway, you're welcome to have different guesse about the future than me, or different priorities for the present. My main point is that if the goal is to learn about Mars, as opposed to learning about man, unmanned probes are vastly more efficient. That part isn't speculation, it's been well demonstrated by the fine engineers who have sent unmanned probes to Mars for budgets that don't get a human off the launch pad.
"But you still argue against yourself."
With some regularity, yes. But I do not intend to in this case.
"But then you call for much more sophisticated automated equipment..."
Ahh, I see... the "dextrous as a human" bit. I was trying to mirror the specs you were discussing in the post I replied to there, but point out you can save a lot of money if you can leave the (human) brains of the operation on Earth. I do not actually favor such a design. I would advocate designing systems that are, for example, 1/100th as capable as a human, and sending thousands of them.
"If you want to put something up there that can do anything like a human being could, then that would also cost 'thousands of times as much'. Actually, neither would cost quite that much"
It wouldn't cost quite that much!?!? WTF are you smoking? The cost of operating 2 rovers on Mars for 4 years has been roughly 800 million dollars. Divide the time by a thousand; think you can put a human on mars for 1/1000th the time (about 3 days) for 800 million? 800 million doesn't get a shuttle off the ground. There's no way a human mission won't cost 1000 times as much as one of those rovers. If you can do it for a million times as much, every cost-estimator at the notoriously optimistic NASA will be in shock. Keeping humans alive off of Earth is just fantastically costly.
"a machine or machines that could accomplish the same things as a manned mission, would cost as much as a manned mission!"
For God's sake why? It is often possible to do the same thing more cheaply by doing it a different way. This is one of those times.
For that matter, based on the indisputable historical evidence, a human mission that can accomplish the same things as machines already have can't even be contemplated for a cost in the same ballpark.
OK, it was not meant to be this big a deal, but I'll try assuming you're actually trying to understand and take a shot at explaining what I was trying to say:
Mars is not a very hospitable place for humans to live. There is no air to breathe, etc. It might be possible at some point to build an outpost there that humans can live in, assuming they get regular shipments of various supplies from Earth. However, I find it hard to imagine that a Martian colony would be entirely, indefinitely self-sufficient, deriving everything it needs from Mars itself, because Mars isn't a very good supplier for the needs of people, who evolved on Earth. Therefore, if there ever is a self-sufficient Martian colony, it is my estimation that it will be very far in the future, and that it will be achieved not chiefly by getting what human bodies need out of Mars, but by changing the bodies of the humans to only need things Mars can supply. So imagine a far future human civilization builds some sort of artificial body, and puts a human consciousness in control of it (by transplanting their brain, or more esoteric means, consult your favorite sci-fi author for details). I expect such colonists would not be recognizably human to you and I if we didn't know the details in between.
That's it. Note that this is just my estimation of the most likely scenario for a Martian settlement, assuming one ever occurs. I don't really know, and you're free to disagree.
Even if you think an independent Martian settlement is much nearer than I do, I believe it is unreasonable to suggest that it is so close that it makes sense today to spend limited resources on manned space flight instead of exploration via unmanned probes. That is my main point. The "in robotic bodies" reference was meant to be an offhand remark that actually answered the question posed by the poster I originally replied to. My main idea was to then move on to discuss why I thought that question was irrelevant in any case.
"Of course, we sent a couple rovers to Mars that in five years have gone over almost as much terrain as one man could have covered on foot between breakfast and lunch. "
Where is he then? Lunch was five years ago.
"While it is arguable that robots are better than humans for exploratory missions, it must be remembered that the constraint is that we learn things very, very slowly. "
Much more quickly than waiting for humans that aren't there yet.
"I've often wondered how much we'd know about Mars if we'd put six guys down there for 18 months back in the mid-80s...."
Oh sure, we'd learn lots if we put people there without having to worry about the difficulty of getting them there and keeping them alive. But imagine how much more we could learn if we explored using magic faries riding unicorns!
"I'd love to hear your definition of 'human' then....or are you really suggesting that a major evolutionary leap would happen faster than colonization of Mars?"
No, I'm really suggesting exactly what I said earlier in the thread, so I'll again suggest reading the stuff you reply to. It is my estimation that if we could somehow see into the future and see the first "humans" living on Mars without any need for support from Earth, we would call them "robots". It would probably be debateable, and depend on your definitions.
"One human mission to mars with sufficient time on the surface could produce much more (and more valuable) scientific results than one robotic mission thus justifing the higher costs."
Maybe. And a car costing a million dollars might get you across town faster than my $10 bicycle. That's the cost differential. Let's work minimum wage jobs and meet up at the bar after we each earn enough money to buy our respective vehicles and drive them there.
"It remains to be seen whether costs per research result for human missions is greater than for robotic missions"
No, it does not remain to be seen. It is abundantly clear.
Um, no it's not circular. It's not worth putting people on Mars because everything we could learn by doing so can be learned much more efficiently.
"'It's not worth putting people on mars because getting them there is hard to do.'
I don't buy this argument."
Then don't make it; I didn't. FYI, it is traditional, when using quotes, to put the other persons words inside.
"So you are saying it is too hard or expensive for us, but not for them?"
Again, no, I'm not saying that. Certainly we can explore Mars in a stupid, ridiculously inefficient way. I'm saying we shouldn't. I'm saying the same effort could yield better results if applied more intelligently. As evidenced by the much more modest efforts that are doing so right now.
"As for the statement that we haven't been doing it, I meant anything outside of Earth orbit. Obviously we have been keeping the space station manned."
Yes. Manned exploration, spending thousands of times as much money, has done nothing beyond lunar orbit, and nothing recent but keep the space station manned for no obvious purpose. That would be the crux of my argument right there.
We've spent a tiny amount of money on unmanned space exploration, and thousands of times as much on manned exploration. Unmanned has yielded vastly better results, so the manned-exploration proponents complain they don't have enough funding. It's beyond crazy. Space exploration still counts, even if you use good tools.
"We learned a metric assload of stuff from the six Apollo landings and their EVAs."
No, we didn't. We learned a metric assload of stuff from the rocks they brought back. By examining them on Earth. I heartily endorse a sample-return mission to Mars. Which we can do in the next couple years as long as we don't take unnecessary passengers.
"A manned crew has higher support costs"
You can say that a hundred thousand more times. Not that that would represent the cost differential. You can't say it enough for that in your lifetime.
"but can cover a lot more ground in a given timeframe"
The time frames aren't given; remote probes can operate continuously for years, not just a few hours. And remote probes can get knowledge faster because they can get there sooner. Like, in the sense that starting exploration a few years ago is sooner that maybe thinking about it a couple decades from now if you're really wildly optimistic.
"does not have to deal with latency on the order of minutes for every command"
Are you under the impression the Astronauts did anything whatsoever without discussing extensively it with Earth-bound controllers? In any case, again, the probe won't need to sleep, eat, or come home, waiting a few minutes is irrelevant. And that's just in the unusual case that you can't plan everything to do hours days or weeks in advance (like the Astronauts did).
"and is far more capable of independent decision-making than any robot will ever be."
There are no robots; humans are exploring Mars by using their excellent brains to make effective tools.
It is silly to argue what would be more effective as if it were all in the future. Manned space flight got, and gets, radically better funding, and unmanned spaceflight has been exploring Mars for years now. The race is over, and manned space flight is thinking about finding the starting line.
You blithely disregard the cost and effort of getting people there and keeping them alive, but here in the real world, these are actual concerns that impact the decision of how to go about things.
And my point is that you are wrong. Sure, if you design the control system to just mimic the input of the human controller, ignoring the obvious latency issue, that won't work. But people who design space-exploration strategies without considering the basic engineering requirements of space exploration don't get jobs at NASA. (Though they do apparently post on Slashdot)
Robots controlled by humans not only do work beyond the moon, they are doing so. Humans exploring space in person have vastly more resources, and squat to show for it. I jump to the stunning conclusion that sending humans is less cost effective. Because it has produced less effect. At much higher cost.
Of course we have been doing it. We regularly spend the entire cost of those Mars rover missions to put humans into low earth orbit for a week and see if they can keep their toilet functioning. Human space flight has orders of magnitude more funding than unmanned exploration; and squat to show for it.
Is your point that a human on Mars would get more done than a human controlling a probe on Mars if we ignore the cost and effort of getting him there and keeping him alive? I'll agree, but I'm not sure how that's relevant here in the real world where getting him there is in fact part of the problem.
Did you read the line you quorted? I stand by my prediction. Before humans can live on Mars independent of support from Earth, they will have changed such that they are not necessarily recognizable as humans; assuming that day ever comes. And the best way to help that day come is to learn more about Mars as effectively as possible: by sending remote probes that don't have useless, incredibly wasteful humans inside them. I believe the evidence supports me:
Stuff learned by sending probes not containing humans to Mars: lots.
Stuff learned by sending probes containing humans to Mars: zilch.
"Yes, they solved pollution. This is the part I don't get about people like you. You ignore completely one of the biggest environmental trends since 1970, namely, the massive reduction in pollution emitted by Developed World countries."
I ask with some hesitancy, but you seem so sure of yourself... What data are you basing this on? I actually did a bit of googling, and for every pollutant I can think of, every source I can locate indicates the US produced more of it this year than in 1970. Occam's Razor tells me to look to the simplest explanation: that you, a random slashdot poster, are talking out your ass. But I'm trying to keep an open mind, so if you've got some evidence for your extraordinary claims, let's have it.
As for your theory that the Earth has an infinite amount of everything... No let's stick to the pollution thing for now so I can pretend the discussion is at all rational.
And? Are those words meant to somehow refute the fact that humans are exploring space by remotely controlling probes have been wildly more successful than humans exploring space by sending up other humans? If sending humans to explore space is such a great idea, why hasn't it worked so far?
"ultimately we will have to be sending people up there anyway. There is no way around it. "
Except, you know, not doing it and learning more because we did it a smarter way.
Here's an idea: what if we built a machine that was as dextrous as a human, and put the controls of that machine in the hands of an intelligent, decisive, and bold human... on Earth.
And hey, while we're at it, we could design the machine to, just for example, move about the surface of mars for months on end with no need of air, food or a return journey.
Human space exploration is wonderful. Some very smart people are doing a bang-up job exploring Mars right now. "Robotic" space exploration is a misnomer; it should be called "Smart and efficient human space exploration".
"Without manned space flight, how will we ever escape the Earth?"
With or without manned space flight now, we probably won't escape Earth ever. Well, OK, maybe. If you allow a generous definition of "we", the answer might be "in robotic bodies". Space is very large, and there is almost nothing there. What little stuff there is out there is not what humans need to live. Long before any human lives a life not dependent on Earth, the humans will have changed beyond what we would recognize.
Either way, it's a long way off, and what we do in the next decade probably won't make any difference. It might be good to learn as much as we can about the solar system, and I for one would like to do that anyway. How shall we go about it? Well, humans who explore space by sending probes that don't contain other humans have so far learned vastly more than the humans who explore space by sending probes that do contain other humans, and they've done it with a tiny fraction of the resources.
"I wonder why the chaos theory mavens haven't jumped all over the 'climate scientists' yet?"
Speaking as a chaos theory maven, I haven't jumped all over the climate scientists yet because, honestly, they're not that hot.
They are, however quite smart, and aware of chaos theory in a way you clearly are not. Chaos theory convincingly demonstrates that predicting whether it will rain exactly one month from today with any certainty is, and will always be, impossible. Yet predicting the global average temperature for next year is easy.
You do not understand chaos theory. Please continue citing this field you don't understand to argue against climate science, another field you don't understand, as it makes your ignorance easy to spot, and your assertions easy to disregard.
"A resource gets depleted? There are three choices: 1) find more of the resource, 2) find a substitute resource, or 3) figure out how to use less of the resource. None of these choices need shrink overall capital or ding our standard of living."
Choice 1) and 2) may not be possible, and aren't "choices" in any case, because they are not under your control. which may leave you with 3) use less of the resource, whether you like it or not, by reducing your standard of living if you can't come up with a better way.
"The Developed World with its highly concentrated capital managed to solve the pollution problem back in the 70's and 80's."
They solved pollution? I hadn't heard. That does change everything... So that I don't miss out on important news like that in the future, and because I find your ideas fascinating, I would like to subscribe to you newsletter.
Wish I could find that bit from Asimov... in "Time and Space and other things" IIRC.. He calculated the date, assuming current growth rates (this was 1970) and assuming no other limits, that the human race would become a single mass of proto-plasm expanding outward at the speed of light.
It was this millennium.
Space colonisation is not an answer to overpopulation on earth. You cannot boost people off of the earth faster than they reproduce on it.
Gee, you're right! There's no limit! The earth can support an infinite number of humans! Hooray!
Thanks for supporting my point.
The fact some Democrat may have taken a position you (and I) don't like is not terribly relevant to the story at hand. The story at hand is that Rep. Peter T. King is, in this case, advancing a stupid position.
If you really want to compare the cases, I'd note that, according to your link, Rep. Berman (D-CA) frequently supports the interests of the monied and powerful among his constituents over what technically savvy people such as you and I might consider the interests of the greater good. This is a fault I would actually say was common across parties, and I certainly never implied Rep. Berman was not prone to it, or that I even liked him, (or any Democrat). Rep. King, on the other hand, is his own special brand of stupid, advancing an incoherent position in the interests of nobody. I'll not tar "politicians" nor even "Republicans" with my criticism here, as nobody but Rep. King appears to support this bill.
Feel free to think poorly of politicians. Feel free to think even less of one party or another. Just don't let these feelings prevent you from singling out particular politicians that are even stupider than the rest. Such as Peter T. King, Congressman from New York, Republican, and moron.