Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bush wants Mars
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 16 of 45 (78863)
01-16-2004 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by M82A1
01-16-2004 8:57 AM


I'm not a commie, not by a longshot... but I like pictures. Unfortunately I can't see the one you posted.

holmes...
But what a fool believes he sees,
no wise man has the power to reason away.
...(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by M82A1, posted 01-16-2004 8:57 AM M82A1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by M82A1, posted 01-16-2004 10:04 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 17 of 45 (78864)
01-16-2004 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Mammuthus
01-16-2004 3:03 AM


Yeah, but if we did that sort of thing we should really send 'em back to where they come from, and everyone knows Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, and Assholes are from Uranus.

holmes...
But what a fool believes he sees,
no wise man has the power to reason away.
...(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Mammuthus, posted 01-16-2004 3:03 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 18 of 45 (78875)
01-16-2004 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mark24
01-16-2004 5:17 AM


I do believe this makes my first real disagreement with you Mark. That's cool though. I've found I prefer debating people I like, since they usually have good debating habits.
quote:
As to whether it is worthwhile, taking the word in the strictest sense, it will never be worthwile until space travel becomes an extremely fast & relatively trivial thing. By that I mean until we can get to Mars in a few days mitigating the need for a huge vessel able to keep the astronaughts alive for literally years, with all the associated costs & difficulties..
I should probably state that I am more a champion of returning man to the Moon, and then waiting a bit longer for Mars. The Moon is quick to get to and allows us a platform for many different activities. Until we're ready to set up a stable colony (and not just a there and back mission) there is probably little value that personally going to mars will give us...
However, and now I'm playing a bit of the Devil's advocate here, what were early missions like across the oceans? They also took years, and if I remember right were just as costly in terms of finances (not to mention dead humans). So why should space exploration be different?
To be honest I am not so convinced that it is a bad idea just because of length of time to get there and run such a mission. I would hope that forward thinking planners would have scientists running all sorts of experiments during the voyage, so that the entire thing is a learning experience. I suppose that would be an added value to the mission (which probes do not allow) such that we will have a lot of info obtained from the mission before it ever reaches Mars.
And then if something goes wrong and we lose the mission (which happens to 2/3 of all probes trying to land and set up business there) we will have something to show, rather than nothing.
quote:
But human missions are still limited in scope because they can only use the equipment they take with them. It is going to be multi-billion dollar project to put humans on Mars, yet you can put a probe there for a few million (I dimly recall a documentary on Discovery that quoted 10 million pounds/probe for that particular vehicle).
I forget what your profession is, but this makes me want to ask if you ever saw a geologist, analytical chemist, or engineer in action? Probes must first be designed to mimic the basic physical abilities they have, and then (after that space and weight is taken up) a VERY LIMITED range of equipment. Some of the mineral tests could be conducted more easily (and quickly) by a geologist with a hammer and a microscope.
With an engineer on board and a small stock of material, they could even build new equipment as they found it necessary.
But the biggest issue we really have to look at is results for the money. You mention the price of one probe. Unfortunately the reality is that only 1/3 make it through to obtaining data. And those that make it can only run for so long.
One human can clean and repair (not to mention modify) equipment, and so can accumulate much more data over time. They are also (and I think this is a huge point missed by the pro probe crowd) independent agents who can cover a greater area and depth of research, that no probe previously sent could ever compare. Within minutes of exiting the vehicle we could have more valuable pictures of the martian landscape than we will in the next ten years of probes (including the current rover).
The time problem alone (for control communication) limits any probe from getting close to doing what a single human can achieve (given a day or week of work).
quote:
Human missions do have greater flexibility, no question about it, but is that extra flexibility cost effective? IMHO it isn't even close.
I really do believe that this discounts humans unfairly. Probes are one shot ventures, with limited tasks. If restricted to the question would it be cheaper to send a probe or a human to get X, then the probe will win out. But Humans are not one shot, with limited task potential. They will be able to do X, Y, and Z (which we didn't even consider during planning).
I think when you add up how many probes it would take to cover the same amount of research that could be done both during flight, and once Mars is reached, and then include the failure rate of probes (which is greater than manned missions anywhere) the costs will not even out, but come out on the side of humans.
quote:
Why not build the buggers in space & get rid of the gravity problem altogether?
Oh my, from what? And on what? I assume you are talking about using a space station to do this?
The best space station we have is the moon. The one we have right now is not free of gravity and gravity's effects... or should I say atmosphere effects? It will always need adjustments which means more fuel shipped up just to keep it where it is.
On the moon, humans have the ability to build using existing structures and materials, rather than trying to ship up materials to try and assemble something that will stay together.
I saw a recent documentary showing how many moon structures will be able to be built quickly by just shipping up ultra strong bags. You fill them with moon dust and create a sort of reinforced "igloo". This is apart from the ability to mine into Moon rock to create structures that would be radiation and micrometeor proof (which we do not have as yet for the space station).
With the proper equipment on site, probes can be constructed from materials on the Moon itself. This will take a bit of engineering and mining at first, but the result will be actually freeing probe production and launching from Earth's demands.
I will also remind you that I talked about telescopes in addition to probes. We will never be able to construct as large a telescope (radio or other) on the earth or in orbit as we can on the moon. I'm not sure if that alone is worth it right now, but with the other ventures we could work on, I think it would be.
quote:
We could drop the political crap & cooperate with China, of course. That would halve the cost of putting a Homo sapien on Mars at a stroke by sending one manned mission rather than two
While I agree with this sentiment, who is this we you are talking about? The Chinese are not some poor oppressed nation that we are excluding from space ventures. They are moving ahead because we have stalled.
If we have no interest in space... which is what we have shown... then they will do it themselves. No one in this country (in high office) was even considering going back to the moon, much less to mars, until the Chinese said they were and succesfully put a man into space.
So if anything, it will be us asking to join THEIR program.
And this will not be so easy as they are not very uhmmmmm... friendly?
quote:
There's something about national pride, patriotism, competition etc. that just seems out of place when talking about humans in space.
While I agree with this, have you ever heard the Chinese talking about their nation and their efforts in space? It is all nationalism and competition.
Let me put this plainly. I love China and the Chinese people. I have studied their history and culture as a form of pleasure. It is very rich.
Unfortunately, the current government is corrupt. Not only is it corrupt, but it is a terrible force against human rights. It is just as bad now as soviet russia was. The revolt in the late eighties by those wanting more democracy was very personal to me as I had friends on both sides of that divide. We watched and fights ensued.
IMO, the wrong side won. And since their victory, nationalism is on the rise. Their current government poses a very real threat to human freedom and rights, and they are not shy of threatening war. I couldn't believe the rhetoric coming out of China (even by average citizens) when our plane collided with one of theirs. There was much talk of a coming war with the US that they would win. I was like... war??? What war???
It reminded me of the kind of nationalism that existed in Japan pre WW2... or perhaps in the US pre Iraq War.
Their maneuvers against democracy in Taiwan are a very real sign of coming problems and threats to peace (if anyone decides to stand up for Taiwan).
The space race is part of that nation's patriotic mission to move ahead of the US as a superpower in space. So while we can talk about our nations playing nice and joining with others to further humans in space, we have to keep in mind other nations are not as broad minded as we are. China is one of those nations.
Though I suppose it might be an interesting strategic tactic for us to join missions so that we will have more reasons to grow closer as nations (on the individual level). My guess is China will balk at this for that very reason.

holmes...
But what a fool believes he sees,
no wise man has the power to reason away.
...(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mark24, posted 01-16-2004 5:17 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by mark24, posted 01-17-2004 11:38 AM Silent H has replied

  
Mespo
Member (Idle past 2884 days)
Posts: 158
From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
Joined: 09-19-2002


Message 19 of 45 (78876)
01-16-2004 12:43 PM


Never mind Moon Base Alpha
I agree with Mark. If you want to send people to Mars, then launch the components in Low Earth Orbit, bolt them together, light the candle and GO. Never mind lugging everything to the Moon.
Besides, you'll run into all kinds of litigation problems if you choose a landing site on the Moon that has already been purchased by someone on Ebay.
(:raig

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 01-16-2004 12:56 PM Mespo has not replied
 Message 23 by TechnoCore, posted 01-16-2004 3:11 PM Mespo has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 20 of 45 (78879)
01-16-2004 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Mespo
01-16-2004 12:43 PM


Re: Never mind Moon Base Alpha
Just to let you know, I was talking about building on the moon from material on the moon. There's no lugging anything anywhere.
Actually is there an advantage to building in space, from parts coming from the earth? The energy costs would have to remain the same, so why not just assemble and launch directly from earth?
The only advantage I see in building things at a space station is if the parts come from the moon.
quote:
Besides, you'll run into all kinds of litigation problems if you choose a landing site on the Moon that has already been purchased by someone on Ebay.
Shoot, you discovered my agenda. Anyone want to guess if Cheney was busy buying up property before Bush made his announcement?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Mespo, posted 01-16-2004 12:43 PM Mespo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-16-2004 2:48 PM Silent H has replied

  
Mespo
Member (Idle past 2884 days)
Posts: 158
From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
Joined: 09-19-2002


Message 21 of 45 (78896)
01-16-2004 2:10 PM


Moon Base Holmes
Okay Holmes,
Let's build your moon base to make Mars Mission components. When I say make, I mean manufacture. So what do you need to "lug" from earth to set up shop.
* Surveying vehicles to find your raw materials in sufficient quantities to make metal alloys.
* Mining equipment to extract the raw ore and transport it to a smelter.
* Smelting furnaces to reduce the ore into metal ingots.
* Machine tools and stamping tools to shape the ingots into finished metal components.
* If you are intent on using plastics, I seriously doubt you'll find petroleum in sufficient quantities to make the necessary distillates that plastic manufacture requires. So send along a few oil tankers with your next Earth - Moon shuttle run.
* Power, lots of power. Solar? Nuclear? In any event, you need all sorts of electrical euqipment. Generators, motors, batteries, air conditioning and heaters.
* A substantial skilled labor force. Throw in a rec hall, movie theater and swimming pool. Also a Hilton Hotel for visiting management and a Motel 6 for relatives of hourly workers. Oh, and don't forget your Avis Moon Buggy rental office and scoop out a playground and park with hiking trails.
ALL SET? Now you can make you Mars Mission components from "moon materials". Cost effective? Uuuhhhhhh. NO.
(:raig

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Silent H, posted 01-16-2004 3:24 PM Mespo has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 22 of 45 (78901)
01-16-2004 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Silent H
01-16-2004 12:56 PM


Re: Never mind Moon Base Alpha
Well, I was trying to stop at message 1000, but her comes 1001 (I think).
quote:
Shoot, you discovered my agenda. Anyone want to guess if Cheney was busy buying up property before Bush made his announcement?
It really wouldn't surprise me, if Halliburton somehow had it's fingers in the space program (Kellog, Brown, and Root?). And I must wonder about what the corporate overlap would be, between those profitting via the gulf war pork barrel trough, and the Space exploration trough.
I think we got better things to spend our resources on, than expensive dubious cost to benefit projects that are working the fringes of science. Be it the space station (seemingly designed by Rube Goldberg) or the killed super-collider project.
Sun Ra said "Space is the place". Sun Ra also claimed to have been born on Saturn, and to have written over a billion tunes.
Moose
ps: note I recently put up a new political commentary avatar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 01-16-2004 12:56 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 01-16-2004 3:48 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
TechnoCore
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 45 (78905)
01-16-2004 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Mespo
01-16-2004 12:43 PM


Re: Never mind Moon Base Alpha
Whether you build the spaceship in orbit or on the moon, is not that important.
What is important is the life-essential knowledge you gain by building a base on the moon first.
The Mars Society (I think they're called that) have been building mars-bases in a cold desert, up north. I have a friend who went on such a journey. They were about 10 people who just tried to live and work in space-suits for 3 weeks in a row, in a mars-base like structure. Having special viehcles and so on. And no more materials than they planned for from the beginning. There are a billion problems and dangerous situations you just cant forsee unless you have really been doing it for "almost real". A moon-base will be the next "almost mars-base".
So i believe a moon-base is crucial in order to make a succesful mission to mars. Remember the moon is what... a few days away... mars is more like half a year.
I

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Mespo, posted 01-16-2004 12:43 PM Mespo has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 24 of 45 (78908)
01-16-2004 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Mespo
01-16-2004 2:10 PM


quote:
* Surveying vehicles to find your raw materials in sufficient quantities to make metal alloys.
Oh my, survey vehicles... Isn't that what we'd be bringing to the moon anyway? Every vehicle is a survey vehicle.
And this brings up another point. Searching and mining would serve a dual purpose as we'd be collecting an immense amount of data in addition to gathering materials.
quote:
*Mining equipment... Smelting furnaces... Machine tools and stamping tools to shape the ingots into finished metal components.
Most of this would have to be transported in. Of course just enough to set up shop, until we can create more of it from materials present.
Do remember though that much of the equipment will not have to be as massive or as numerous as that in an earth based mining complex. This is not to mention that transportation requirements don't have to be anything... they could be on site.
A metallurgist can correct me, but I believe smelting would even be easier under non atmospheric conditions.
quote:
*plastics...petroleum... oil tankers with your next Earth - Moon shuttle run.
My guess is that in such an environment, plastics would not be used, instead using glass/ceramics in their place (which could easily be made from materials on the moon). But let's say we stick with plastics, why would people send an oil tanker, instead of just sending solid plastic blocks from earth? That would still be less cost than sending the plastic and the rest of the components together.
quote:
*Power, lots of power. Solar? Nuclear? In any event, you need all sorts of electrical euqipment. Generators, motors, batteries, air conditioning and heaters.
I think the obvious answer would be solar, though nuclear could be used if there was some proper way to harness the energy (nuclear requires quite a bit of water).
But yeah. They need power and it will take money to put it up there. We send that kind of stuff to Antarctica and the wide open seas all the time. Not sure why this counts as a point against anything.
quote:
*A substantial skilled labor force. Throw in a rec hall, movie theater and swimming pool. Also a Hilton Hotel for visiting management and a Motel 6 for relatives of hourly workers. Oh, and don't forget your Avis Moon Buggy rental office and scoop out a playground and park with hiking trails.
This is a critique? The first goes without saying... it is the whole point. The rest sure would be nice someday if it worked out, but ultimately is just a strawman in this argument.
quote:
ALL SET? Now you can make you Mars Mission components from "moon materials". Cost effective? Uuuhhhhhh. NO.
Wow, thank the Gods we don't ever need to set up mining operations, smelting operations, assembly operations, and launch operations in order to use probes launched from earth... Duhhhhhhhhh.
You know all you did was say that there will be a setup cost. There are new mining/smelting/assembly/rocket launch operations set up on earth all the time. The only difference in cost between the two will be the additional cost of shipping the same stuff (though there will actually be less required material for mining/smelting) up there, as well as the equipment necessary for breathing and waste reclamation.
There may even be less costs given less transport and no governmental import/export/regulatory fees.
Once the initial investment SETUP COST is paid, the question become when will the operation start paying for itself and eventually make up for the difference if we had stuck with probes all along. Its definitely a longterm strategy rather than a shortterm one.
But then we can add that the moonbase does not have to only serve as a probe creating/launching platform. With very minimal added expense, we can have the best telescopes (and telescopic research) man could ever hope to create, as well as an additional communications hub. These last two alone, would be worth it to my mind, even if we stuck with earth born probes.
And to repeat a point before, each mining endeavour (prospecting thru actual mining) will produce data about the universe which earth mines do not produce.
I still don't get why communist nations are the ones which always move on space first, as you'd think they'd be the first ones to shy away from concepts such as "initial investment costs" and "future profits".
So there ya go. Explain to me why what goes on on earth anyway, would not be worthwhile on the moon. It will be added initial investment cost, but how does that reduce its longterm profitability?
The only argument I see is that the longer we stay on earth, the greater the costs will be over time.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Mespo, posted 01-16-2004 2:10 PM Mespo has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 25 of 45 (78910)
01-16-2004 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Minnemooseus
01-16-2004 2:48 PM


Excuse me if I repeat some questions in this reply as I made to you in the other thread (which is quite similar in topic). You can answer them here or there.
quote:
I think we got better things to spend our resources on, than expensive dubious cost to benefit projects that are working the fringes of science.
I agree that the space station was an incredible waste of time and money... and apparently will be for some time yet to come. But I am not so sure about colliders being so (though why they had to be built from scratch as they wanted in Texas I am unsure).
I guess I differ with you on two general points though.
1) What are better things to spend resources on? We can feed and house everyone at this point, it is simply getting the food to people which is the POLITICAL problem. We can even cover everyone's health expenses, but for POLITICAL expediency. Unless we are going to spend money on arming the poor so they can revolt against the gov't complacency, I am unsure why science in any form is not a valid choice for at least a small proportion of any government budget.
There are choices of course to address disease rather than power manufacture, or deep sea trenches over material science, but then I guess I'd like to see a better argument for why manned space exploration is not important, which I guess leads me to the following issue...
2) What counts as fringes of science? I can agree that if current technology makes the cost of getting an answer astronomical, we ought to wait. But most high cost projects are not "fringe" as far as I am concerned. Perhaps more fundamental, than immediately practical, but not "fringe".
I would also say that IMO, manned space flight is not fringe at all. It is the most forthright kind of exploration, into an area we simply have very little direct knowledge.
I believe science is best served with more numerous vantage points. And for space science that goes doubly so. Probes help to some extent, but for very limited periods and over very small areas. It is a pseudo-vantage point.
Heheheh... I can't remember if it was you that said I should be president, or not. If it was you are probably having severe doubts now. I honestly would rather have spent money on a mission to the moon, than an invasion of Iraq. Then again, I wouldn't have done so if the economy was faltering and I was still fighting a war in Afghanistan.
I don't believe in foolhardiness with the public's money, but I really believe that space exploration, and specifically manned space exploration, has real benefits for humanity as a whole. Perhaps with more views of earth as a finite entity, some people would get the picture that enironmental concerns are not a joke.
But lemme know what you think.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-16-2004 2:48 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Mespo
Member (Idle past 2884 days)
Posts: 158
From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
Joined: 09-19-2002


Message 26 of 45 (78912)
01-16-2004 4:14 PM


Science and Business on Moon Base Holmes
I'll concede that a moon base would be a fantastic place to do science. But as a business venture, it would flop. You would never recoop your "setup" costs. You make it sound like after the intial investment, everything would be hunky-dory. You have to MAINTAIN the friggin' place. Big budgets. Big commitments. Long term commitments.
The Chinese will probably get back to the moon before we do. Why? Not because they are Communists, but because they are Chinese. National pride took us to the moon ahead of the Russians. National pride will take the Chinese to the moon ahead of us. And the Chinese leaders don't have to worry about stupid things like voters and elections and Congression budget committees. Nice position to be in.
I never said it wasn't worth it. But, like Amtrak, it will never pay for it self. When the shuttle program was still on the drawing boards, we the taxpapers were promised that the shuttle flights would be so efficient and regular that each flight would cost about $34 million. Ya, right!
But, I would jump at the chance to take you on in a game of 8 ball at Moon Base Holmes rec center. What happens when you break in 1/6th earth gravity? I'd love to find out.
BTW holmes - Where on the moon are you going to get the silica sand for your glass and ceramic manufacture?
(:raig

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Silent H, posted 01-16-2004 5:16 PM Mespo has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 27 of 45 (78919)
01-16-2004 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Mespo
01-16-2004 4:14 PM


quote:
But as a business venture, it would flop. You would never recoop your "setup" costs. You make it sound like after the intial investment, everything would be hunky-dory. You have to MAINTAIN the friggin' place. Big budgets. Big commitments. Long term commitments.
As a strictly business venture it would flop. But if you are going to be spending money on space exploration at all, over a course of time, it would eventually pay for itself in savings.
To truly make it payoff on its own, as in making earnings, it would probably have to do something like tourism for millionaires, or have something with its communication platform potential that had a commercial value.
Or maybe they can send back pet moon rocks
quote:
Not because they are Communists, but because they are Chinese. National pride took us to the moon ahead of the Russians.
We are in agreement on this point. I just always find it odd that the economic theories that are supposed to be so practical, and focused on the workers lives, keep getting swept up in grand nationalistic programs.
It is the nationalistic drive which I predict will keep China from allowing us into joint programs with them, and why their "owning" the moon as a space platform is not a good strategic position for us.
quote:
When the shuttle program was still on the drawing boards, we the taxpapers were promised that the shuttle flights would be so efficient and regular that each flight would cost about $34 million. Ya, right!
The shuttle program was bogus from the beginning. I have never supported it, in other than an emotional "nice dream" sort of way. The technology simply wasn't right, and side tracked us from the more important ventures. Low earth orbit is essentially useless for science research into space.
You will note that Russia has had better success not losing as much money as us, by allowing tourism and sponsoring of flights.
quote:
BTW holmes - Where on the moon are you going to get the silica sand for your glass and ceramic manufacture?
Now here is where my whole theory could be shot to hell. As far as I understood, Moon rocks have the same basic chemical makeup (even if different mineralogical structures) as earth. If so, then the silica is everywhere you land. Its supposed to be one of the most common solid state materials on the earth and in the universe.
Unless I got that all wrong and am just thinking of earth?
Boy would I feel stupid... but it'd be better to hear it sooner than later.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Mespo, posted 01-16-2004 4:14 PM Mespo has not replied

  
M82A1
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 45 (78967)
01-16-2004 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Silent H
01-16-2004 11:27 AM


Damn. It was a pretty funny picture. It was an old picture of Hitler and one of his right-hand-men, and somebody edited Bush's face on the Hitler body, and Cheney's face on the other guy.

"The only thing necessary for the Triumph of Evil is for Good Men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Like to talk about Politics? Want to Bash Bush? Don't like Moderators? Come to my board: No webpage found at provided URL: m82a1.conforums.com Have fun...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Silent H, posted 01-16-2004 11:27 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 29 of 45 (79029)
01-17-2004 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
01-15-2004 4:10 PM


How about putting creationists in charge to motivate the people and lay out the grand design, id-theorists as staff to guide the creationists, and mn-ists used interchangeably with computers and robots to do the groundwork. Everybody will be happy then, noting that complaining about the idiocy of the people in charge seems to be required for a mn-ist to be happy.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 01-15-2004 4:10 PM Silent H has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 30 of 45 (79041)
01-17-2004 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Silent H
01-16-2004 12:42 PM


Hi Holmes,
I do believe this makes my first real disagreement with you Mark. That's cool though. I've found I prefer debating people I like, since they usually have good debating habits.
Go for it! I disagree with my best friends all the time, makes for a more interesting night down the boozer.
I really do believe that this discounts humans unfairly. Probes are one shot ventures, with limited tasks. If restricted to the question would it be cheaper to send a probe or a human to get X, then the probe will win out. But Humans are not one shot, with limited task potential. They will be able to do X, Y, and Z (which we didn't even consider during planning).
But a human mission IS a one shot venture too (even a shuttle would cost million/billions to go back a second time). It goes, performs it's mission, then returns at the planned time which by definition is resource determined. The problem is that a human mission may carry more equipment, but how much more? I'll venture not much since food, water, multiple redundancy of systems etc is necessarily going to take up the bulk of the mass. What if that task you had in mind required equipment? The human mission would be as pointless as the probe. The best that could be said is that they could perform the same task to more samples, but so what? They are geographically limited, anyway. Beyond that, unless the task involves something pretty trivial like hitting something with a hammer they are going to be pretty much impotent.
One human can clean and repair (not to mention modify) equipment, and so can accumulate much more data over time.
But the cost of putting a single human on Mars dwarfs the cost of many, many probes. Assume a cost of 10 million / probe, & as you say 1/3rd fail, so 30 million/successful mission. Then assume an 11 billion dollars bill to get 2+ humans to Mars. That's 366 successful probes (of 1,100 sent), each potentially performing several tasks all over the Martian surface, whereas the humans are limited to within a couple of miles of their base.
And we haven't even considered what would happen to a failed manned Mars mission.......
Mark

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Silent H, posted 01-16-2004 12:42 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Silent H, posted 01-17-2004 1:13 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024