What you are demonstrating is a clear belief without objective facts to back up what you are saying.
I question your beliefs so must somehow have beliefs of my own? YOU said: Presuming that there is something worth doing in space at all, you need eventually to put a crew there.
We have been trying to uncover the reasons behind that assertion ever since.
My point is that there is a role for crewed missions into space.
No, your point was: Presuming that there is something worth doing in space at all, you need eventually to put a crew there.
There may be some better planning that goes on too with those missions and money might be better spent in some cases on robotic missions too, but it is just flying in the face of logic to say that robots alone can get the job done as well.
Describe SPECIFICALLY what it is that humans can do better than robots in the vacuum of space : And I don't mean meaningless tripe, I mean practical tasks to do with the point of going into space: to explore. Show how the need to perform this task justifies the extra expense associated.
Robots working in a coal mine do occasionally need human technicians to pull things apart and rework the equipment.
There aren't any coal mines in space. On earth, it makes economic sense to use humans to repair robots because, you know, breathing. In space, we would use a robot to perform the repair. Or, just send another probe if the first broke down. No biggy.
Deep sea drilling even has divers that go underwater for weeks at a time for critical repairs... doing things that are enormously expensive and even approaching costs for sending astronauts into space. They use robots with those human in these very difficult situations, and I am suggesting this won't end at the edge of the atmosphere of the Earth either.
So you base your argument on a set of criteria confined to low earth orbit, as if humans in low earth orbit are exploring.
None of this even touches the need for humanity to spread beyond the Earth as a species and become multi-planetary in terms of its long-term survival.
I'm not interested in you opinion any more than a child's christmas list to santa - unless you can tie that opinion to a hitching post in the world of objectivity.
You said that manned exploration is superior to robotic exploration. This flies in the faces of what we observe in the real world - where robots perform amazing feats and bring great increase to our storehouse of knowledge about the bizarre and beautiful world outside our atmosphere. It flies in the face of logic - what would a fleshy, air breathing body and it's associated bacterial load bring to a cruise to the Oort cloud? You apparently can't tell us.
An opinion that can't be justified in objective terms would be best described as a belief - would you agree? That your opinion that manned space exploration is superior to robotic exploration is in fact a belief?
The argument is pretty simple: When you have researchers on the Earth running a robotic probe, you have at least a half hour or longer reaction time trying to respond to anything that happens on Mars. It gets worse the further out in the Solar System you travel... simply due to the speed of light. K
But once again - noticeably vague about the exact circumstance in which human levels of intelligence (hampered by the limited human body) would provide a noticeably better result than the types of AI that are currently available. Perhaps if you were to describe a specific circumstance in which a typical space probe - say Mars Orbiter, or Cassini, or Rosetta, would maneuver better if ta human was onboard flying it. Taking into account orbital mechanics, momentum and the like.
I'm merely invoking the MSL researchers because if anybody has a reason to be "robots first!", it would be them. They are obviously folks who are getting paychecks from the robotic missions being run by NASA and have the most to gain by dissing the crewed missions of NASA (like Carl Sagan did). If they instead are pointing out the need for crewed missions, it would seem like a contrary opinion that needs some extra attention.
It seems to me that if these people are the experts and their knowledge of the state of robotic tech is current, that this view should be able to be articulated in detail, rather than referred to in generalities. Can you enlighten us?
If you think we don't need to send people to Mars or Europa, my argument is that we don't even need to bother with space exploration in general either. Stop sending the robots too because it is a waste of time.... for the very same logic that it means we shouldn't send people either. The whole enterprise is either necessary to send both or it is important to send neither. There is no reason to make a preference for one or the other and judge that only robotic exploration is necessary.
We should go to Europa and Titan and Triton and Pluto and Neptune and the Kuiper belt becase they are interesting. We've been to Mars, nothing much happening. We should send robots because they are far more capable and do a far better job than humans do. Sending humans is like sending monkeys or voles or siamangs. Sure, animals are cute and fluffy. But the interesting part is the destination, not the cargo. Why should we continue to hinder science because a vanishingly small number of people cling to some dusty notion about humans in space? We don't spend billions of dollars on medieval re-enactments, or steam train, or gas street lights - better, cheaper technologies have replaced them. Same with manned space flight.
Then by your own criteria, manned spaceflight serves no purpose. We will never have sufficient lift capacity to move significant numbers of people - and if we developed that technology (i.e. an engine with sufficient power to fuel wieght ratio) we would be sufficiently advanced that overpopulation ceases to be an issue.
The unfortunate problem is that it is important to actually send researchers eventually to these locations or at least somewhat close to them for more timely and relevant scientific investigations.
So it is said - without proof. The point of investigations is to get the outcomes of those investigations back to earth since information stored locally on a hard drive (be it actual hardware or wetware) is useless.
Some people are suggesting that artificial intelligence may be the key, but like nuclear fusion, warp drive, teleportation, and several science fiction concepts, artificial intelligence is always 30+ years away from actually being developed. It is much harder than it appears where computer scientists who predict silly notions of human like intelligence any time in my or your lifetime is just not facing reality.
Some people claim (without proof) that human levels of intelligence are required locally for a mission to be successful. The problem is that premise, which needs to be proven before we worry about how long it will take to invent AI.
No less than the lead investigator for the Mars Science Lab (aka the Curiosity rover) has openly stated he would gladly pay even a premium over the costs spent on that rover simply to have a few scientists there on Mars to perform the scientific studies there. I'll also point out the involvement of Harrison Schmitt who arguably performed more actual scientific studies and investigations outside of the Earth than all of the robotic missions combined. There is a very real need for human researchers in these places for actual space exploration to happen.
What were those arguments in detail? Do the arguments generalise beyond Mars (noting that Mars is the most boring place in the solar system)? I'm disinclined to bow because the pope of outer space made a pronouncement.
Crews are going to be needed for actual exploration of space, not to mention that sending people to these places also captures the imagination of those pursuing scientific and engineering disciplines. It has been said "No bucks, no Buck Rodgers". I argue the opposite though, as a soulless spacecraft running around on Mars is not nearly as inspiring as somebody like Buzz Aldrin who can stare you straight in the face and tell you honestly that he has walked on another world.
Apparently he wasn't inspiring enough 40 years ago, otherwise the program he was involved in wouldn't have been cancelled.
That is why we need to send people to Mars, to Europa, and to other places in the Solar System. They both inspire and create opportunities to make things happen.
For that, you need to ask if space exploration in general is something worth doing? Presuming that there is something worth doing in space at all, you need eventually to put a crew there.
Why should we care about what you think "successful" means?
You've engaged in fallacy. Nobody cares about your feelings. If you can post proof of your numerous assertions, then post it, otherwise your assertions remain in the realm of paranoid delusion. e.g:
First, the evidence for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is poor. The data sets gets really tenuous once you get further in the past than an actual temperature record (about 150 or so years ago). And actual measurement of global mean temperature is much more recent with satellite measurements. The most important parameter in climatology today, the temperature forcing of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels is unknown to at least a factor of 3 (1.5 C per to 4.5 C per is current IPCC estimate).
So essentially you are saying that in fact, the situation could be MUCH WORSE than what is predicted by current models. And this would motivate us to not take action on climate change why?
Well, since you are being the judge of 'successful,' I'm not surprised you've never seen that.
I'm using fairly standard criteria - said criteria being based your ability to provide verifiable proof of your assertions. What did you think? That mere rhetoric would convince us?
Thanks. I'm familiar with the geographical location of antarctica during the cretaceous. You will of course be aware that climate conditions in the southern hemisphere below the mid temperate region is mostly driven by the strength of winds circulating around antarctica, but also that this was not the case during the cretaceous because antarctica was not surrounded by open sea at the time. So your remarks are alluding to climatic conditions that we will not see again unless you push another continent into antarctica and disrupt that pattern. Again, what is your plan to do so?
There's a bunch of people claiming that the science isn't settled, that the models aren't good enough, blah blah.
For some reason that is never fully explained they have knowledge enough to confidently dismiss the science, but aren't capabe of doing the science itself. So other people have to do that science for them. People who (quite rightly) are paid for their efforts.
So we'll have to keep pouring money into more research. Unless you think those concerns are not legitimate.
Having models able correlate to observed temperature is certainly advantageous. Because if what you say is true and models can't be made to correlate to the observed temperature, then we have no mechanism to describe the impact our emissions will have on the climate, and are forced to mitigate against the worst possible case: violent swings, snowball earth, runaway venus type scenarios. This would be far more costly than merely mitigating to the timeframe suggested by our models.
I've never met anyone who can argue successfully against action on climate in an open debate. The whole denialist movement is merely a desperate papering over of the fact that a small number of people don't want to do anything about climate change.
Why?
Well, generally they can't even articulate that.
Very few people actually fall into this category, fewer still sincerely believe that rhetoric, the problem with dissonance is that it is hard to keep straight in your mind. So in an open debate, denialism always loses.
Not that this is a problem for politicians, they are well versed in the art of not engaging in open debate, and lie sufficiently well that they can pretend to take action, and at the same time make sure that the short term interests of their fossil fuel industry patrons are protected.
Not to poor rain on your parade, but 100 million years ago, Antarctica will still breaking off from Gondwana. Can you briefly outline your strategy for engineering some speedy continental drift to rebuild the super continent (and thus, properly replicate the climatic conditions of the time)? What are the legal ramifications of ramming several continents together? Any engineering challenges to overcome?
Also, with reference to your proposal to grow (and then presumably eat) lush rainforests, I stand to be corrected here, but the bark of the antarctic beech, whilst undoubtedly quite tasty, is probably not nutritious enough to feed 10 billion people and thus, won't really be a good replacement for our current cereal crops (wheat, rice, barley). Crop specifically adapted to growing in temperate regions with their stubborn declination. Crops that tend not to grow on the rock that lies under the (fast melting) antarctic ice sheet.
Aguable. Presuming that more samples of moon material was required, then a probe could be sent to get it, no? So what is missing is rather the reason to make the moon a target, rather than somewhere notionally more interesting as a starting point.
the venue of its greatest space triumph during the Apollo program,
Arguable. What about Cassini? Voyager? The Mars Rovers?
I'm going to assume that until someone clearly describes what those "things" are, that they are probably things better done by robots, given the otherwise clear and demonstrated advantage to robots.
I guess there is no real objective measure of what constitutes the peak of human achievement in space. But this has to be up there with the best of them. Go you good thing!
I put it to you that a Mars colony, to be justifiable, must be justifiable on objective grounds. There are lot's of goofy ideas. Hence the popsicle skyscraper. "Because we want to", "because it's there" justify all goofy ideas equally.
So in essence, a simple tear in your suit on Mars means you have 60 seconds to live. Sounds like a life we can all aspire to.
If you are outside, there will be a brief, desperate struggle to apply a patch to the tear, if it is small enough and you can reach it (unlikely), and you haven't fallen down a hole and lying stunned or unconscious.
Consequently few, if any, excursions would occur outside of the pressurised habitat on Mars.
Reductio ad absurdum? C'mon, you're better than that. Anything can be made to look goofy if taken to extremes. Put a little more effort in your arguments, please.
Honestly speaking: These proposals for a Mars colony *are* goofy. They *are* extreme.
Given that you yourself are making similarly baseless assertions based on confirmation biases, I find the solidity of your arguments to be in question.
Rather than address my assertions, you attempt a burden of proof fallacy. If you think my assertion: The gravity on Mars is such that a stay there of any duration (say, 12 earth months) will mean returning to earth will kill you. There won't be any return trips. is incorrect, then say so. Don't wave your hands over it.
Rather than handwave about how long haul mining and aluminum smelting somehow instantly kills people doing it, (a proposition that would mean that the aluminium cans used to ship soda are made in a process that systemically ends human lives, which is an absurdity in itself- There are industrial accidents and risks of exposure, yes-- but more people die in car crashes and from inhaling carbon monoxide from faulty domestic heaters than die in smelter related incidents-- which is a statement that can be supported on demand with actual statistics, collected by real social scientists.)
Learn to read.
So please, if you are holding out on some actually substantive basis for your condemnation, by all means, share it with the rest of the class.
By which you mean, the one person. By my reckoning, there are 200000 people with enough belief in a mars colony to put money on it. That is a vanishingly small group. You won't get there without convincing the other 8 000 000 000 of us that such an idea has merit. So convince us.
Slashdot Mirror
What you are demonstrating is a clear belief without objective facts to back up what you are saying.
I question your beliefs so must somehow have beliefs of my own? YOU said: Presuming that there is something worth doing in space at all, you need eventually to put a crew there.
We have been trying to uncover the reasons behind that assertion ever since.
My point is that there is a role for crewed missions into space.
No, your point was: Presuming that there is something worth doing in space at all, you need eventually to put a crew there.
There may be some better planning that goes on too with those missions and money might be better spent in some cases on robotic missions too, but it is just flying in the face of logic to say that robots alone can get the job done as well.
Describe SPECIFICALLY what it is that humans can do better than robots in the vacuum of space : And I don't mean meaningless tripe, I mean practical tasks to do with the point of going into space: to explore. Show how the need to perform this task justifies the extra expense associated.
Robots working in a coal mine do occasionally need human technicians to pull things apart and rework the equipment.
There aren't any coal mines in space. On earth, it makes economic sense to use humans to repair robots because, you know, breathing. In space, we would use a robot to perform the repair. Or, just send another probe if the first broke down. No biggy.
Deep sea drilling even has divers that go underwater for weeks at a time for critical repairs... doing things that are enormously expensive and even approaching costs for sending astronauts into space. They use robots with those human in these very difficult situations, and I am suggesting this won't end at the edge of the atmosphere of the Earth either.
So you base your argument on a set of criteria confined to low earth orbit, as if humans in low earth orbit are exploring.
None of this even touches the need for humanity to spread beyond the Earth as a species and become multi-planetary in terms of its long-term survival.
Demonstrate this need using objective criteria.
You said that manned exploration is superior to robotic exploration. This flies in the faces of what we observe in the real world - where robots perform amazing feats and bring great increase to our storehouse of knowledge about the bizarre and beautiful world outside our atmosphere. It flies in the face of logic - what would a fleshy, air breathing body and it's associated bacterial load bring to a cruise to the Oort cloud? You apparently can't tell us.
An opinion that can't be justified in objective terms would be best described as a belief - would you agree? That your opinion that manned space exploration is superior to robotic exploration is in fact a belief?
The argument is pretty simple: When you have researchers on the Earth running a robotic probe, you have at least a half hour or longer reaction time trying to respond to anything that happens on Mars. It gets worse the further out in the Solar System you travel... simply due to the speed of light. K
But once again - noticeably vague about the exact circumstance in which human levels of intelligence (hampered by the limited human body) would provide a noticeably better result than the types of AI that are currently available. Perhaps if you were to describe a specific circumstance in which a typical space probe - say Mars Orbiter, or Cassini, or Rosetta, would maneuver better if ta human was onboard flying it. Taking into account orbital mechanics, momentum and the like.
I'm merely invoking the MSL researchers because if anybody has a reason to be "robots first!", it would be them. They are obviously folks who are getting paychecks from the robotic missions being run by NASA and have the most to gain by dissing the crewed missions of NASA (like Carl Sagan did). If they instead are pointing out the need for crewed missions, it would seem like a contrary opinion that needs some extra attention.
It seems to me that if these people are the experts and their knowledge of the state of robotic tech is current, that this view should be able to be articulated in detail, rather than referred to in generalities. Can you enlighten us?
If you think we don't need to send people to Mars or Europa, my argument is that we don't even need to bother with space exploration in general either. Stop sending the robots too because it is a waste of time.... for the very same logic that it means we shouldn't send people either. The whole enterprise is either necessary to send both or it is important to send neither. There is no reason to make a preference for one or the other and judge that only robotic exploration is necessary.
We should go to Europa and Titan and Triton and Pluto and Neptune and the Kuiper belt becase they are interesting. We've been to Mars, nothing much happening. We should send robots because they are far more capable and do a far better job than humans do. Sending humans is like sending monkeys or voles or siamangs. Sure, animals are cute and fluffy. But the interesting part is the destination, not the cargo. Why should we continue to hinder science because a vanishingly small number of people cling to some dusty notion about humans in space? We don't spend billions of dollars on medieval re-enactments, or steam train, or gas street lights - better, cheaper technologies have replaced them. Same with manned space flight.
Then by your own criteria, manned spaceflight serves no purpose. We will never have sufficient lift capacity to move significant numbers of people - and if we developed that technology (i.e. an engine with sufficient power to fuel wieght ratio) we would be sufficiently advanced that overpopulation ceases to be an issue.
The unfortunate problem is that it is important to actually send researchers eventually to these locations or at least somewhat close to them for more timely and relevant scientific investigations.
So it is said - without proof. The point of investigations is to get the outcomes of those investigations back to earth since information stored locally on a hard drive (be it actual hardware or wetware) is useless.
Some people are suggesting that artificial intelligence may be the key, but like nuclear fusion, warp drive, teleportation, and several science fiction concepts, artificial intelligence is always 30+ years away from actually being developed. It is much harder than it appears where computer scientists who predict silly notions of human like intelligence any time in my or your lifetime is just not facing reality.
Some people claim (without proof) that human levels of intelligence are required locally for a mission to be successful. The problem is that premise, which needs to be proven before we worry about how long it will take to invent AI.
No less than the lead investigator for the Mars Science Lab (aka the Curiosity rover) has openly stated he would gladly pay even a premium over the costs spent on that rover simply to have a few scientists there on Mars to perform the scientific studies there. I'll also point out the involvement of Harrison Schmitt who arguably performed more actual scientific studies and investigations outside of the Earth than all of the robotic missions combined. There is a very real need for human researchers in these places for actual space exploration to happen.
What were those arguments in detail? Do the arguments generalise beyond Mars (noting that Mars is the most boring place in the solar system)? I'm disinclined to bow because the pope of outer space made a pronouncement.
Crews are going to be needed for actual exploration of space, not to mention that sending people to these places also captures the imagination of those pursuing scientific and engineering disciplines. It has been said "No bucks, no Buck Rodgers". I argue the opposite though, as a soulless spacecraft running around on Mars is not nearly as inspiring as somebody like Buzz Aldrin who can stare you straight in the face and tell you honestly that he has walked on another world.
Apparently he wasn't inspiring enough 40 years ago, otherwise the program he was involved in wouldn't have been cancelled.
That is why we need to send people to Mars, to Europa, and to other places in the Solar System. They both inspire and create opportunities to make things happen.
No they don't.
For that, you need to ask if space exploration in general is something worth doing? Presuming that there is something worth doing in space at all, you need eventually to put a crew there.
What makes you think that?
Why should we care about what you think "successful" means?
You've engaged in fallacy. Nobody cares about your feelings. If you can post proof of your numerous assertions, then post it, otherwise your assertions remain in the realm of paranoid delusion. e.g:
First, the evidence for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is poor. The data sets gets really tenuous once you get further in the past than an actual temperature record (about 150 or so years ago). And actual measurement of global mean temperature is much more recent with satellite measurements. The most important parameter in climatology today, the temperature forcing of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels is unknown to at least a factor of 3 (1.5 C per to 4.5 C per is current IPCC estimate).
So essentially you are saying that in fact, the situation could be MUCH WORSE than what is predicted by current models. And this would motivate us to not take action on climate change why?
Well, you'll never know unless you or one of your buddies actually post some proof, some day.
In my defence I've actually had people use that argument in all seriousness. Satire becomes reality.
Well, since you are being the judge of 'successful,' I'm not surprised you've never seen that.
I'm using fairly standard criteria - said criteria being based your ability to provide verifiable proof of your assertions. What did you think? That mere rhetoric would convince us?
Also please address the rest of my post.
"What it points to" is that we know slightly more than "fuck all" about the climate
Perhaps you don't. Ignorance on your part doesn't imply the rest of us are ignorant. In any way.
For some reason that is never fully explained they have knowledge enough to confidently dismiss the science, but aren't capabe of doing the science itself. So other people have to do that science for them. People who (quite rightly) are paid for their efforts.
So we'll have to keep pouring money into more research. Unless you think those concerns are not legitimate.
Are you oafishly trying to say that AGW is unfalsiable? If that is your assertion, then state that clearly - and then prove it.
Having models able correlate to observed temperature is certainly advantageous. Because if what you say is true and models can't be made to correlate to the observed temperature, then we have no mechanism to describe the impact our emissions will have on the climate, and are forced to mitigate against the worst possible case: violent swings, snowball earth, runaway venus type scenarios. This would be far more costly than merely mitigating to the timeframe suggested by our models.
I've never met anyone who can argue successfully against action on climate in an open debate. The whole denialist movement is merely a desperate papering over of the fact that a small number of people don't want to do anything about climate change.
Why?
Well, generally they can't even articulate that.
Very few people actually fall into this category, fewer still sincerely believe that rhetoric, the problem with dissonance is that it is hard to keep straight in your mind. So in an open debate, denialism always loses.
Not that this is a problem for politicians, they are well versed in the art of not engaging in open debate, and lie sufficiently well that they can pretend to take action, and at the same time make sure that the short term interests of their fossil fuel industry patrons are protected.
Also, with reference to your proposal to grow (and then presumably eat) lush rainforests, I stand to be corrected here, but the bark of the antarctic beech, whilst undoubtedly quite tasty, is probably not nutritious enough to feed 10 billion people and thus, won't really be a good replacement for our current cereal crops (wheat, rice, barley). Crop specifically adapted to growing in temperate regions with their stubborn declination. Crops that tend not to grow on the rock that lies under the (fast melting) antarctic ice sheet.
The U.S. may have foresworn the moon,
Aguable. Presuming that more samples of moon material was required, then a probe could be sent to get it, no? So what is missing is rather the reason to make the moon a target, rather than somewhere notionally more interesting as a starting point.
the venue of its greatest space triumph during the Apollo program,
Arguable. What about Cassini? Voyager? The Mars Rovers?
I'm going to assume that until someone clearly describes what those "things" are, that they are probably things better done by robots, given the otherwise clear and demonstrated advantage to robots.
for the same reason you don't kill yourself and get replaced with a robot drone?
No.
surely a cheap one is capable of performing all the "important" things you do
Non sequitur (per above)
I guess there is no real objective measure of what constitutes the peak of human achievement in space. But this has to be up there with the best of them. Go you good thing!
I put it to you that a Mars colony, to be justifiable, must be justifiable on objective grounds. There are lot's of goofy ideas. Hence the popsicle skyscraper. "Because we want to", "because it's there" justify all goofy ideas equally.
If you are outside, there will be a brief, desperate struggle to apply a patch to the tear, if it is small enough and you can reach it (unlikely), and you haven't fallen down a hole and lying stunned or unconscious.
Consequently few, if any, excursions would occur outside of the pressurised habitat on Mars.
Reductio ad absurdum? C'mon, you're better than that. Anything can be made to look goofy if taken to extremes. Put a little more effort in your arguments, please.
Honestly speaking: These proposals for a Mars colony *are* goofy. They *are* extreme.
Given that you yourself are making similarly baseless assertions based on confirmation biases, I find the solidity of your arguments to be in question.
Rather than address my assertions, you attempt a burden of proof fallacy. If you think my assertion: The gravity on Mars is such that a stay there of any duration (say, 12 earth months) will mean returning to earth will kill you. There won't be any return trips. is incorrect, then say so. Don't wave your hands over it.
Rather than handwave about how long haul mining and aluminum smelting somehow instantly kills people doing it, (a proposition that would mean that the aluminium cans used to ship soda are made in a process that systemically ends human lives, which is an absurdity in itself- There are industrial accidents and risks of exposure, yes-- but more people die in car crashes and from inhaling carbon monoxide from faulty domestic heaters than die in smelter related incidents-- which is a statement that can be supported on demand with actual statistics, collected by real social scientists.)
Learn to read.
So please, if you are holding out on some actually substantive basis for your condemnation, by all means, share it with the rest of the class.
By which you mean, the one person. By my reckoning, there are 200000 people with enough belief in a mars colony to put money on it. That is a vanishingly small group. You won't get there without convincing the other 8 000 000 000 of us that such an idea has merit. So convince us.