The US space program in decline?

[Coito ergo sum]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pGm4_25 ... re=related[/youtube]

Armstrong says that the administration's plan will jeopardize the future of US manned space flight.

[devogue]

NASA should get more involved with the private sector. If there's money involved there'll be hotels on Mars in no time.

[Coito ergo sum]

NASA should get more involved with the private sector.

They are very involved with the private sector: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/abo ... rlist.html

It's not as if NASA builds their rocket systems in-house.

If there's money involved there'll be hotels on Mars in no time.

There is no private sector incentive to go to Mars right now.

This idea of "privatizing" the space industry is just a euphemism for "killing" the Moon base and Mars mission.

[devogue]

NASA should get more involved with the private sector.

They are very involved with the private sector: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/abo ... rlist.html

It's not as if NASA builds their rocket systems in-house.

If there's money involved there'll be hotels on Mars in no time.

There is no private sector incentive to go to Mars right now.

This idea of "privatizing" the space industry is just a euphemism for "killing" the Moon base and Mars mission.

Ah. Then it's all fucked. There's much more important stuff to spend money on. Like guns.

[Coito ergo sum]

NASA should get more involved with the private sector.

They are very involved with the private sector: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/abo ... rlist.html

It's not as if NASA builds their rocket systems in-house.

If there's money involved there'll be hotels on Mars in no time.

There is no private sector incentive to go to Mars right now.

This idea of "privatizing" the space industry is just a euphemism for "killing" the Moon base and Mars mission.

Ah. Then it's all fucked. There's much more important stuff to spend money on. Like guns.

Perhaps, but the space program is vital. It's important to the advancement of science and technology. It's important from a national defense standpoint. It's important from a standpoint of world leadership. It's important from a standpoint of education. And, it's important from the standpoint of long term natural resource availability and, ultimately, survival of the species. There are few things as important as the space program.

[Surendra Darathy]

it's important from the standpoint of long term natural resource availability and, ultimately, survival of the species. There are few things as important as the space program.

Natural resources and survival of the species for the win!


"Survival of the species" wins all arguments, by default. Winning arguments does not ensure the survival of the species, however. Shores up the ol' ego, though, don't it?

Survival of the species only perpetuates arguments.

Nihilism for the win win!

Me, I argue that human spaceflight is cool because I think it's cool. That is, it is "important to me". Meeeeeeeee!

[Coito ergo sum]

it's important from the standpoint of long term natural resource availability and, ultimately, survival of the species. There are few things as important as the space program.

Natural resources and survival of the species for the win!


"Survival of the species" wins all arguments, by default. Winning arguments does not ensure the survival of the species, however. Shores up the ol' ego, though, don't it?

Survival of the species only perpetuates arguments.

Nihilism for the win win!

Me, I argue that human spaceflight is cool because I think it's cool. That is, it is "important to me". Meeeeeeeee!

errrr.....what?

[Surendra Darathy]

errrr.....what?

You haven't really thought this through, have you? Yaaaaay, CES. I'm on your side here, CES. I just don't think "survival of the species" is an actual argument for anything, yet. Let's be honest. Human greed (in the long term) is the argument for human space flight. At least, it's the one you're actually deploying. Show your colors.

You don't actually think that because you've read Ayn Rand, or some other objectivist dipshit, that you have an ironclad argument for anything. Do you? Or is it one of those Lyndon LaRouche thingies?

[Coito ergo sum]

errrr.....what?

You haven't really thought this through, have you? Yaaaaay, CES. I'm on your side here, CES. I just don't think "survival of the species" is an actual argument for anything, yet.

I'm not sure why it wouldn't be an argument for the space program.

As Robert Heinlen poignantly noted, "Earth is too small a basket for mankind to keep all its eggs in."

Carl Sagan noted, 16 years ago, "These are the missing practical arguments: safeguarding the Earth from otherwise inevitable catastrophic impacts and hedging our bets on the many other threats, known and unknown, to the environment that sustains us. Without these arguments, a compelling case for sending humans to Mars and elsewhere might be lacking, But with them—and the buttressing arguments involving science, education, perspective, and hope—I think a strong case can be made. If our long-term survival is at stake, we have a basic responsibility to our species to venture to other worlds."

Isaac Asimov held the same view 25 years ago, when he said, "Unless we are willing to settle down into a world that is our prison, we must be ready to move beyond Earth." And, "There are so many benefits to be derived from space exploration and exploitation; why not take what seems to me the only chance of escaping what is otherwise the sure destruction of all that humanity has struggled to achieve for 50,000 years?"

Continuing in this vein, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin noted succinctly in 2006, that "In the long run, a single-planet species will not survive." And, five years earlier Stephen Hawking espoused a similar view, "I don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I'm an optimist. We will reach out to the stars."

So, with all due respect, it appears that I'm not the only one who sees long term survival as a reasonable argument in favor of space exploration. Scoff all you like, though, because you're probably smarter than Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, and Isaac Asimov.

[Surendra Darathy]

So, with all due respect, it appears that I'm not the only one who sees long term survival as a reasonable argument in favor of space exploration. Scoff all you like, though, because you're probably smarter than Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, and Isaac Asimov.

We'll reach out to the stars because life colonizes new available environments. I'm only scoffing at arguments from authority and the poorly thought-out emotional appeal. Survival proves nothing but survival, and misapplying evolution and natural selection to jigger up some nebulous philosophical argument belongs in the Philosophy forum.

"Long term survival" stands in relation to what? The anthropocentric conception that death is a "failure"? This is childish.

Want this in the science forum? Keep your religion out of it.

[Coito ergo sum]

The decision to abandon moon exploration has “decline” written all over it. Americans often profess astonishment that the Chinese of 600 years ago failed to take full advantage of their technological superiority. They invented gunpowder and, on the eve of Columbus’s discovery of America, their ocean-going vessels were bigger and more seaworthy than Europe’s. Perhaps now the process by which an innovative civilisation invents technologies that it is unable to exploit will be easier to explain. The failure of the latest US moon programme is a small disappointment for national pride, but it is one giant leap for historical understanding.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f748d4c6-128b-1 ... i_referer=

[Surendra Darathy]

The decision to abandon moon exploration has “decline” written all over it. Americans often profess astonishment that the Chinese of 600 years ago failed to take full advantage of their technological superiority. They invented gunpowder and, on the eve of Columbus’s discovery of America, their ocean-going vessels were bigger and more seaworthy than Europe’s. Perhaps now the process by which an innovative civilisation invents technologies that it is unable to exploit will be easier to explain. The failure of the latest US moon programme is a small disappointment for national pride, but it is one giant leap for historical understanding.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f748d4c6-128b-1 ... i_referer=

Yes, and that, in turn, has "nationalism" written all over it. I'm offended by being spammed with nationalism in a science thread. Human space exploration is a human enterprise. There's always the "Tang" argument to justify developing spaceflight technology. There's no mystery here.

There aren't any arguments against developing space technology other than short-term emotional appeals, either. What do you think motivates people in deciding how to deploy resources?

[Coito ergo sum]

So, with all due respect, it appears that I'm not the only one who sees long term survival as a reasonable argument in favor of space exploration. Scoff all you like, though, because you're probably smarter than Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, and Isaac Asimov.

We'll reach out to the stars because life colonizes new available environments. I'm only scoffing at arguments from authority and the poorly thought-out emotional appeal. Survival proves nothing but survival, and misapplying evolution and natural selection to jigger up some nebulous philosophical argument belongs in the Philosophy forum.

"Long term survival" stands in relation to what? The anthropocentric conception that death is a "failure"? This is childish.

Want this in the science forum? Keep your religion out of it.

My citation of leading scientists was to show that people who really know something about science and technology have made the same argument I make. My argument is not BASED on their authority though. It's based on the rationale behind the argument.

Also, the argument is not "poorly thought out" and isn't in the least based on emotion. It's based on reason. Your objection, however, as shrill and hysterical as it is, is pure emotional claptrap and hand waving.

I never said anything about evolution or natural selection. So you must be thinking about some other argument you were having.

Long term survival doesn't "stand for" anything - it means the continued existence of the human race beyond the near term. Hawking noted his view that mankind would likely not survive the next 1000 years unless we get off the planet. The next several hundred to 1000 years is "near term" in my view.

[Coito ergo sum]

The decision to abandon moon exploration has “decline” written all over it. Americans often profess astonishment that the Chinese of 600 years ago failed to take full advantage of their technological superiority. They invented gunpowder and, on the eve of Columbus’s discovery of America, their ocean-going vessels were bigger and more seaworthy than Europe’s. Perhaps now the process by which an innovative civilisation invents technologies that it is unable to exploit will be easier to explain. The failure of the latest US moon programme is a small disappointment for national pride, but it is one giant leap for historical understanding.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f748d4c6-128b-1 ... i_referer=

Yes, and that, in turn, has "nationalism" written all over it. I'm offended by being spammed with nationalism in a science thread. Human space exploration is a human enterprise. There's always the "Tang" argument to justify developing spaceflight technology. There's no mystery here.

I'm all for a global space program wherein the world would combine resources to get something really big going. If the US, Europe/Russia, the Chinese, Indians, Koreans and Japanese would pitch in the effort, I would be quite in favor of that.

I don't give a flying fuck what you're offended by.

[Surendra Darathy]

I'm all for a global space program wherein the world would combine resources to get something really big going. If the US, Europe/Russia, the Chinese, Indians, Koreans and Japanese would pitch in the effort, I would be quite in favor of that.

I don't give a flying fuck what you're offended by.

So give your rendition of what other social forces are motivating people away from the idea of developing spaceflight technology? IMO, these are features of the human emotional landscape, and if spaceflight and scientific information obtained from exploration missions has not dimmed these kinds of selfish concerns substantially, how do you propose to change that landscape? Is the argument "human species survival" on everyone's lips these days? No, it's "nationalism", maybe with a soupçon of "globalisation".

Most people realise that what you are talking about is not really very democratized. They know there's nothing in it for them. Not even Tang™ can change their minds. I'm willing to think of that as the beginning of a speciation event.

Also, the argument is not "poorly thought out" and isn't in the least based on emotion. It's based on reason. Your objection, however, as shrill and hysterical as it is, is pure emotional claptrap and hand waving.

I never said anything about evolution or natural selection. So you must be thinking about some other argument you were having.

Long term survival doesn't "stand for" anything - it means the continued existence of the human race beyond the near term. Hawking noted his view that mankind would likely not survive the next 1000 years unless we get off the planet. The next several hundred to 1000 years is "near term" in my view.

It's an interesting concept, this idea that a species might not one day become extinct. We'll see. Technology alone is not enough, as is laid down in the fossil record of armour-plated fish.