To Infinity and Beyond?
See
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/11074422.htm
And
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/explore_main.html
Today I read an article about a new NASA vehicle which will replace the Space Shuttle. It is a part of President Bush's Vision to send humans back to the moon and on to Mars.
I hold a deep appreciate for science and exploration, and missions like the Hubble Space Telescope (Despite the long delays and cost), and the latest Cassini mission to Saturn and Mars Rovers on on Mars, they truly astound me.
The fact that the HST will be abandoned in favor of dedicating the space shuttle missions to the completion of the international space station is a hard blow to me - seeing overall how nonmanned missions are so much cheaper and offer so much more in terms of discoverty.
I am against Bush's vision to Mars - not because I don't think we could do it - but because I'm not convinced it is a cost effective activity. SURE, I accept the expensive Apollo visits to the moon offered many great technical advances that could be applied else. AND I accept there is great potential for learning about survival - sending humans to mars - finding ways to use meager resources and closed systems that can support life. I really think those are areas of exploration that are of vital importance.
I'm just not convinced we have to "Go to Mars" to seriously learn about survival.
Some people ask questions like "If we can send men to the moon, how come we can't solve XXX".
Good question and the answer is usually that we can do lots of amazing things given enough dedicated people, money, and resources. I believe there are plenty of problems, but if you give NASA a $500-$1000 billion check today, I'm sure they can find a way to Mars within 30 years. That is, they can repeat the Apollo vision and get a couple of bold astronauts to land on the Martian surface, grab some rocks, and come home - all within a 50-50 chance of survival.
But we can do the "same" mission with robots for say $500 million. Same mission in the sense of "results" - rocks.
Why would we want to send people to the moon or Mars?
Because these worlds have something for us - something that can aid in our survival.
What is it that these worlds hold?
Well, if you compare to the needs on the Earth - nothing. We've got it all AND MORE right here.
How about "space for expansion?" Colonialism? Someplace to put our millions of people?
Not likely - it's a matter of energy and cost. In order to affect world population, we'd have to clear a sizable fraction of humanity into space. Let's shoot for 10%. The cost of sending a single person to the moon (energywise) might be say 100x the energy that person would consume staying on earth. So (if the guess is good) in order to send 10% of our people into space, we'll have to consume 10x more energy than we do already. AND I'm betting that 100x factor is even true for AMERICAN consumption, not world average consumption.
In order to "Colonize space", it'll have to be done by USING resources from space/other-worlds alone, and it'll be SMALL groups for the foreseeable future. AND those left on earth will be subsidizing their work.
So WHY would we (those who will never go into space) want to subsidize people in space?
Because we can learn about survival, right? But again, I hold to the idea that we can learn about survival right here. The challenges in space are far bigger, and yet we've not really mastered the earth as much as some may think.
Let's say we went to Mars and found quadrillions of tons of oil and coal in the ground from ancient life that used to be there. Wouldn't that be great?!
Oh, but unfortunately burning oil and coal takes oxygen. Where will get the oxygen on Mars?
Well, we can melt the ice caps and electralysize the water into hydrogen and oxygen. But that takes energy - heat. Where will we get the energy? We can can burn our oil or coal - but alas no, we can't burn our coal because we have no oxygen.
We can use solar power! We can create solar panels and generate electricity, and that can run our machines and heat and separate our water into oxygen - and THEN we can burn our coal, right? Well, maybe, but WHY waste all that energy just to burn coal? Why not just keep using the electricity directly for energy? Why indeed?!
So on Mars the best we can do is "live by solar energy", and on Earth, life HAS lived by solar energy (and some geothermal energy) almost exclusively since the beginning of life.
So we've learned something perhaps:
Until we can live on earth w/o fossil fuels, we CERTAINLY can't live on Mars.
This is quite obvious from a very simply thought experiment. We CAN go to Mars as soon as we figure out the technical challenges of LIVING ON EARTH!
So rather than spending $500Billion to send a couple of dudes to Mars, WHY NOT direct those resources to figuring out how to live on earth w/o fossil fuels?
Because we have been corrupted by cheap energy of fossil fuels and we are fools.
The problems of 6 billion people's demands living on earth are vast. The problems of 6 billion people living on earth AS AMERICANS live is intractible. Won't happen.
So what do we do about THIS problem? Our survival?
We imagine the SOLUTIONS exist in space, playing gods with our inheritance, HOPING our descendants will figure out where we went wrong.
Man to Mars is nonsense - at least now.
We may yet go much farther than I can imagine, but we're not ready.
We are children, camping in the back yard, imagining ourselves as great explorers. Imagination has its place, but only under the protective sphere of those that support us.
We don't know how to support ourselves as we are accustomed w/o burning fossil fuels.
Our mission is not UP, but down, into the dark hearts of our corrupted spirits. There are two infinities and we've got more learning to do in all directions.
Sure, play with Mars, Mr. President, if you can, but recognize it is a GAME. It is not about reality. It is not about our fundamental survival.
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/11074422.htm
And
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/explore_main.html
Today I read an article about a new NASA vehicle which will replace the Space Shuttle. It is a part of President Bush's Vision to send humans back to the moon and on to Mars.
I hold a deep appreciate for science and exploration, and missions like the Hubble Space Telescope (Despite the long delays and cost), and the latest Cassini mission to Saturn and Mars Rovers on on Mars, they truly astound me.
The fact that the HST will be abandoned in favor of dedicating the space shuttle missions to the completion of the international space station is a hard blow to me - seeing overall how nonmanned missions are so much cheaper and offer so much more in terms of discoverty.
I am against Bush's vision to Mars - not because I don't think we could do it - but because I'm not convinced it is a cost effective activity. SURE, I accept the expensive Apollo visits to the moon offered many great technical advances that could be applied else. AND I accept there is great potential for learning about survival - sending humans to mars - finding ways to use meager resources and closed systems that can support life. I really think those are areas of exploration that are of vital importance.
I'm just not convinced we have to "Go to Mars" to seriously learn about survival.
Some people ask questions like "If we can send men to the moon, how come we can't solve XXX".
Good question and the answer is usually that we can do lots of amazing things given enough dedicated people, money, and resources. I believe there are plenty of problems, but if you give NASA a $500-$1000 billion check today, I'm sure they can find a way to Mars within 30 years. That is, they can repeat the Apollo vision and get a couple of bold astronauts to land on the Martian surface, grab some rocks, and come home - all within a 50-50 chance of survival.
But we can do the "same" mission with robots for say $500 million. Same mission in the sense of "results" - rocks.
Why would we want to send people to the moon or Mars?
Because these worlds have something for us - something that can aid in our survival.
What is it that these worlds hold?
Well, if you compare to the needs on the Earth - nothing. We've got it all AND MORE right here.
How about "space for expansion?" Colonialism? Someplace to put our millions of people?
Not likely - it's a matter of energy and cost. In order to affect world population, we'd have to clear a sizable fraction of humanity into space. Let's shoot for 10%. The cost of sending a single person to the moon (energywise) might be say 100x the energy that person would consume staying on earth. So (if the guess is good) in order to send 10% of our people into space, we'll have to consume 10x more energy than we do already. AND I'm betting that 100x factor is even true for AMERICAN consumption, not world average consumption.
In order to "Colonize space", it'll have to be done by USING resources from space/other-worlds alone, and it'll be SMALL groups for the foreseeable future. AND those left on earth will be subsidizing their work.
So WHY would we (those who will never go into space) want to subsidize people in space?
Because we can learn about survival, right? But again, I hold to the idea that we can learn about survival right here. The challenges in space are far bigger, and yet we've not really mastered the earth as much as some may think.
Let's say we went to Mars and found quadrillions of tons of oil and coal in the ground from ancient life that used to be there. Wouldn't that be great?!
Oh, but unfortunately burning oil and coal takes oxygen. Where will get the oxygen on Mars?
Well, we can melt the ice caps and electralysize the water into hydrogen and oxygen. But that takes energy - heat. Where will we get the energy? We can can burn our oil or coal - but alas no, we can't burn our coal because we have no oxygen.
We can use solar power! We can create solar panels and generate electricity, and that can run our machines and heat and separate our water into oxygen - and THEN we can burn our coal, right? Well, maybe, but WHY waste all that energy just to burn coal? Why not just keep using the electricity directly for energy? Why indeed?!
So on Mars the best we can do is "live by solar energy", and on Earth, life HAS lived by solar energy (and some geothermal energy) almost exclusively since the beginning of life.
So we've learned something perhaps:
Until we can live on earth w/o fossil fuels, we CERTAINLY can't live on Mars.
This is quite obvious from a very simply thought experiment. We CAN go to Mars as soon as we figure out the technical challenges of LIVING ON EARTH!
So rather than spending $500Billion to send a couple of dudes to Mars, WHY NOT direct those resources to figuring out how to live on earth w/o fossil fuels?
Because we have been corrupted by cheap energy of fossil fuels and we are fools.
The problems of 6 billion people's demands living on earth are vast. The problems of 6 billion people living on earth AS AMERICANS live is intractible. Won't happen.
So what do we do about THIS problem? Our survival?
We imagine the SOLUTIONS exist in space, playing gods with our inheritance, HOPING our descendants will figure out where we went wrong.
Man to Mars is nonsense - at least now.
We may yet go much farther than I can imagine, but we're not ready.
We are children, camping in the back yard, imagining ourselves as great explorers. Imagination has its place, but only under the protective sphere of those that support us.
We don't know how to support ourselves as we are accustomed w/o burning fossil fuels.
Our mission is not UP, but down, into the dark hearts of our corrupted spirits. There are two infinities and we've got more learning to do in all directions.
Sure, play with Mars, Mr. President, if you can, but recognize it is a GAME. It is not about reality. It is not about our fundamental survival.
posted by Ares Olympus at 4:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home