Space Program?

[Bill]

Trump announced a restarting of the original NASA mission of
space exploration. I've always understood the mission to
mean building technologies to exploit opportunities for
useful stuff, like mining. Somewhere this mutated into a
search for life in this solar system and beyond.

I've never seen the utility of this quest. Curiosity seems
to be the only impetus driving this project. Curiosity is
good of course but only incidental to the prospect of
improving life here on Earth.

How can the discovery of life elsewhere make even the
slightest difference here? NASA should be developing cool
tools and technologies and searching for new minerals and
building colonies instead of looking for life that may not
exist.

This emphasis on ET offers no practical benefit which leads
me to wonder, why is it so important? If there is no
practical, tangible reason, maybe the purpose is
philosophical, to prove some point. I generally disagree
with Trump about everything, he is a buffoon after all, but
maybe a shift in NASAs priorities makes sense.

Bill

[Bruce Stephens]

On 12/12/2017 19:24, Bill wrote:
> How can the discovery of life elsewhere make even the
> slightest difference here?

How can we possibly know that? In any case, isn't curiosity something to
be valued?

[Bill]

Trump announced a restarting of the original NASA mission of
space exploration. I've always understood the mission to
mean building technologies to exploit opportunities for
useful stuff, like mining. Somewhere this mutated into a
search for life in this solar system and beyond.

I've never seen the utility of this quest. Curiosity seems
to be the only impetus driving this project. Curiosity is
good of course but only incidental to the prospect of
improving life here on Earth.

How can the discovery of life elsewhere make even the

[Bill]

Of course. In the case of billion dollar programs though,
tangible returns should take precedence. Finding life should
just be tangential, a lucky accident.

Bill

[Jonathan]

On 12/12/2017 2:24 PM, Bill wrote:
> Trump announced a restarting of the original NASA mission of
> space exploration. I've always understood the mission to
> mean building technologies to exploit opportunities for
> useful stuff, like mining. Somewhere this mutated into a
> search for life in this solar system and beyond.
>

Mining? About the only thing the moon has that could
be considered a useful commodity on Earth is
g r a v e l.

Gravel goes for around $50 per ton.

Just to get to low Earth orbit costs
around $10,000 per pound. Or some
$20,000,000 per ton.

It cost some $1.5 million dollars per pound
to put the Opportunity Rover on Mars.

Some estimates put the Mars Sample Return
mission to cost about $4 billion dollars
to return a pound or three.

So if we're mining heavy metals, like
gold that might go up a bit.

Thing is, if you really think about, if
the Moon or Mars happened to be coated
with diamonds and titanium and so on
all mining that would do is to RUIN
perfectly good diamond or titanium
markets here on Earth.

> I've never seen the utility of this quest. Curiosity seems
> to be the only impetus driving this project. Curiosity is
> good of course but only incidental to the prospect of
> improving life here on Earth.
>
> How can the discovery of life elsewhere make even the
> slightest difference here?

Finding life elsewhere would provide the
cherished second biological data point.
Which would allow us to figure out
what first life on Earth and Mars
have in common, and tell us how
life starts anywhere.

It would tell us is life on Earth is
a fluke and we're likely alone, or
if the universe is teeming with life.

And the second possibility is most
likely.

NASA should be developing cool
> tools and technologies and searching for new minerals and
> building colonies instead of looking for life that may not
> exist.
>
> This emphasis on ET offers no practical benefit which leads
> me to wonder, why is it so important? If there is no
> practical, tangible reason, maybe the purpose is
> philosophical, to prove some point. I generally disagree
> with Trump about everything, he is a buffoon after all, but
> maybe a shift in NASAs priorities makes sense.
>
> Bill
>

--

"To paraphrase the Buddha — Three things cannot be long hidden:
the sun; the moon; and the truth. ‬

“But let justice roll down like waters and righteousness
like an ever-flowing stream” Amos 5:24

~ Former FBI Director James Comey (12-1-17)


s

[James Beck]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:42:22 -0500, Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 12/12/2017 2:24 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Trump announced a restarting of the original NASA mission of
>> space exploration. I've always understood the mission to
>> mean building technologies to exploit opportunities for
>> useful stuff, like mining. Somewhere this mutated into a
>> search for life in this solar system and beyond.
>>
>
>
>
>Mining? About the only thing the moon has that could
>be considered a useful commodity on Earth is
>g r a v e l.
>
>Gravel goes for around $50 per ton.
>

The moon is (possibly) loaded with nuclear helium-3.

[snip]

[Bill]

Why is it worth the investment to search for life elsewhere?
Why spend billions for instrument packages having the
primary purpose of finding alien life? There is nothing to
be gained by chasing invisible ETs yet vast resources are
consumed looking for them.

The raw materials floating around inside the orbit of Mars
are sufficient to build stuff like the cylinder in
"Rendezvous with Rama" (Arthur C. Clarke) or "Ringworld"
(Larry Niven). Structures like these will eventually be
built just because we can. Finding ET has, for far, been a
frivolous waste of time and money. Other than curiosity, why
are doing it?

Bill

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/12/17 11:24 AM, Bill wrote:
> Trump announced a restarting of the original NASA mission of
> space exploration.

Trump is a liar. What he announces does not mean anything. Wait to see
what he does.

> I've always understood the mission to
> mean building technologies to exploit opportunities for
> useful stuff, like mining. Somewhere this mutated into a
> search for life in this solar system and beyond.

You have misunderstood. The mission includes basic research on *all*
aspects of space, engineering to accomplish such research, and practical
applications of it. The search for life is a small part of the basic
research.

> I've never seen the utility of this quest.

Trillions of dollars worth of industrial applications have come from
basic research which, at its inception, people saw no utility for.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 12 December 2017 21:25:04 UTC+2, Bill wrote:
> Trump announced a restarting of the original NASA mission of
> space exploration. I've always understood the mission to
> mean building technologies to exploit opportunities for
> useful stuff, like mining. Somewhere this mutated into a
> search for life in this solar system and beyond.
>
> I've never seen the utility of this quest. Curiosity seems
> to be the only impetus driving this project. Curiosity is
> good of course but only incidental to the prospect of
> improving life here on Earth.

Doesn't he tell? "Space has so much to do with other applications.
Including military applications."

>
> How can the discovery of life elsewhere make even the
> slightest difference here? NASA should be developing cool
> tools and technologies and searching for new minerals and
> building colonies instead of looking for life that may not
> exist.

I agree with you ... but what he promised? He promised to send people
to Moon again and to Mars. Isn't it step towards building colonies?
Also there is bang for buck question. Capability to look may be useful
for other, way more mundane purposes ("including military purposes").

>
> This emphasis on ET offers no practical benefit which leads
> me to wonder, why is it so important? If there is no
> practical, tangible reason, maybe the purpose is
> philosophical, to prove some point. I generally disagree
> with Trump about everything, he is a buffoon after all, but
> maybe a shift in NASAs priorities makes sense.

Philosophically ignoring possibility of existence of ET is ignoring
one of existential risks for whole humankind. If it comes naturally

[John Stockwell]

So, what do we need to have to search for life outside of the earth?

New kinds of spacecraft and automated systems to land on places like
Europa to take samples, analyse the samples, return the samples to earth.
These vehicles would need to be largely autonomous, and be of lowest
possible mass. Note that none of this exists, today, so these would
be technologies that would need to be developed, and would add to the
general improvement of materials, computers, software, instruments, and who
knows what else, that could add to our general available technological
base.

The scientific question of the origin of life is a question about chemistry
and biochemistry, adding more fields that could be impacted, whether or not
extra terrestrial life is found.



>
> Bill

John

[John Bode]

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:25:04 PM UTC-6, Bill wrote:
> Trump announced a restarting of the original NASA mission of
> space exploration.

That mission has been ongoing for *decades*. You've heard of Voyager, Viking, Galileo,
Cassini, New Horizons, Messenger, etc.? Those are off the top of my head, I'm
forgetting a bunch.

W's "Vision for Space Exploration" also called for a return to the Moon. DIdn't happen then,
won't happen now. Apollo only happened because we were shitting our pants at the
thought of the Russians getting to the Moon first.

I've always understood the mission to
> mean building technologies to exploit opportunities for
> useful stuff, like mining. Somewhere this mutated into a
> search for life in this solar system and beyond.
>

NASA's primary purpose is research and exploration for its own sake, some of which may
have practical applications, but is not necessarily expected to.

> I've never seen the utility of this quest. Curiosity seems
> to be the only impetus driving this project. Curiosity is
> good of course but only incidental to the prospect of
> improving life here on Earth.

Basic curiosity spurred the development of everything from penicillin to the magic box
you're sitting in front of right now.

>
> How can the discovery of life elsewhere make even the
> slightest difference here? NASA should be developing cool
> tools and technologies and searching for new minerals and
> building colonies instead of looking for life that may not
> exist.
>

It will tell us how easy (or not) living on other worlds can be.

> This emphasis on ET offers no practical benefit which leads
> me to wonder, why is it so important? If there is no
> practical, tangible reason, maybe the purpose is
> philosophical, to prove some point. I generally disagree
> with Trump about everything, he is a buffoon after all, but
> maybe a shift in NASAs priorities makes sense.
>
> Bill

Take comfort in the fact that this is just a bunch of hot air and won't result in an actual
program. Congress won't pay for it, the public isn't clamoring for it, no President since
Kennedy has actually given more than half a crap for manned space flight, and NASA's
manned side of the house is so bureaucratically constipated that any program they
undertake will wind up costing an order of magnitude more than projected, which means it
will be cut by the next Congress.

[J.LyonLayden]

It would be nice if he would spend some money on underwater archaeology in Sundaland and Mauritia and along the coasts of several continents, so we could learn about our own species' evolution and cultural evolution instead of those of other species in space.

[Bill]

Granted, but will that provide knowledge we can use or just
merely be interesting?

>
> It would tell us is life on Earth is
> a fluke and we're likely alone, or
> if the universe is teeming with life.

Again, how does that change anything?

Bill

[jillery]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 15:18:24 -0700, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Another commodity is water, as reaction mass for interplanetary craft.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Bill]

I agree. How funding is determined and to whom it is awarded
is probably the real issue. One piece of evidence that is
rarely mentioned is the effect of ice ages on human
history. Since sea levels could have been around 300 feet
lower, any evidence of early civilizations would be
obliterated when sea levels rose again. There's a lot to
learn.

Bill

[Tim Anderson]

The amateur astronomy association that I belong to recently had a lecture about the Apollo program. It was pointed out that the total cost was somewhere north of $60 billion in modern dollars. That works out at about $5 billion per astronaut who actually set foot on the Moon.

Now granted that humans are able to carry out a much broader range of investigations than can robotic devices, but $60 billion buys you a lot of automation these days.

In any case, I doubt that NASA will ever be funded at the Apollo levels again.

[jillery]

The overriding factor of the Apollo program was time, to get to the
Moon and back before the Russkies. That we got to the Moon remains a
remarkable achievement, but we haven't gone back since. It would be
an irony if we finally go back to the Moon at about the same time as
we would have without the Apollo program.

Neil Tyson makes a point about NASA, that it's supposed to be at the
bleeding edge of space exploration. Going to the Moon is old news,
proven technology, a target for commercial investment, assuming they
can identify a profit-making reason to go there.

[Paul J Gans]

I think that you are right, at least for the next 40 years.

But there is one thing. While it is true that, as you say, that humans
can carry out a broader range of investigations than can robotic
devices, robotic devices can do analytical things that no unaided human
can. Put more simply, yes, we can look at rocks, but properly equipped
robots can tell us what they are made of.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[jillery]

Pedantically, properly equipped humans can also tell what rocks are
made of. More to the point, humans can identify which rocks to look
at, and which to ignore. AIUI robots can't do that, at least not yet.

[Jonathan]

On 12/12/2017 7:56 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 15:18:24 -0700, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:42:22 -0500, Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/12/2017 2:24 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> Trump announced a restarting of the original NASA mission of
>>>> space exploration. I've always understood the mission to
>>>> mean building technologies to exploit opportunities for
>>>> useful stuff, like mining. Somewhere this mutated into a
>>>> search for life in this solar system and beyond.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mining? About the only thing the moon has that could
>>> be considered a useful commodity on Earth is
>>> g r a v e l.
>>>
>>> Gravel goes for around $50 per ton.
>>>
>> The moon is (possibly) loaded with nuclear helium-3.
>>
>> [snip]
>
>
> Another commodity is water, as reaction mass for interplanetary craft.
>

Another commodity? Helium 3 is only useful for...fusion reactors
which not only don't exist, but probably will never become
practical, not only that Helium 3 it is thought would only
reduce the harmful by products of a fusion reactor somewhat
over conventional fuels.

Somewhat~

It's called a pipe dream built upon a fantasy that's hoping
to become a wish sometime in the next 100 years, maybe.

Helium 3 is what NASA trots out as a strawman reason
to justify increasing their budgets and keeping
their cushy govt research jobs indefinitely.

Not to mention after looking and looking they
still haven't found a single spec of Helium 3
on the moon.

Not to mention mainstream scientists think
Helium 3 might not even be usable in a
fusion reactor, even if they could find
some.

But I'm reading that they think Helium 3 might
be more abundant on Jupiter, now there's an
idea that makes sense, ya right. About as much
sense as sending someone to Alpha Centauri
in search of cheaper prices for lettuce.

And as for water on the moon it would only
be practical for lunar colonies, but of
course one has to have a reason to build
a colony in the first place.

From a practical perspective the only use
of a lunar colony I see is for military uses.

> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>

[Jonathan]

I agree the search for life on Mars and elsewhere should be
done by drones, not manned missions.

As much as I've enjoyed the Mars rovers, spending countless
hours looking at the pics, what ticks me off is they're
deliberately designed NOT to find life.

First the goal with the MER's was to find signs of
water (not life), which they did and in abundance.

The current MSL has a goal of finding signs of
habitability (not life), which they have again
in abundance.

The car sized MSL could land in the middle
of a field of moss and it wouldn't be able to
prove it's alive. And that was by deliberate
design, god forbid the big discovery comes
before a sample return or manned mission
spoils their dreams of a life time of govt paid
research jobs.

Then the next goal would be to send men to Mars
to finally make the 'big' discovery of life
on Mars.

The shame is that this job-protecting research
goals would add maybe 20 or 30 years to proving
life on Mars and add a couple of zeros to the
price tag.

That's not just entirely offensive from a
scientific viewpoint, but borders on a
crime against humanity.

NASA should be ashamed of themselves.









>
>
>>
>> Bill
>
> John

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 16:07:14 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

I think a more important point is that humans can respond
far better to unforeseen events and circumstances than any
robot/computer can, at least (as you noted) as of yet (and
until *real* AI is available). Plus, nothing stops human
explorers from using the same computer systems which would
be used by robotic probes; they aren't likely to go naked
and unequipped. IOW, it's not an "either/or" choice.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bill]

My point was, partly, that the resources available for space
exploration are being used to look for ET. Any really useful
projects don't seem to be considered. This seems wasteful.

Bill

[Jonathan]

On 12/12/2017 5:16 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:

> On 12/12/17 11:24 AM, Bill wrote:
>> Trump announced a restarting of the original NASA mission of
>> space exploration.
>
> Trump is a liar.  What he announces does not mean anything.  Wait to see
> what he does.
>

Trump didn't announce increased funding for NASA, until
he does it's hot air. But NASA is happily building
a new 'Saturn V' and 'Apollo capsule/service module'
with the SLS but only thing is, they've nowhere to go
as NASA's webpage makes clear...

"NASA’s Space Launch System will be the most
powerful rocket we’ve ever built. When completed,
SLS will enable astronauts to begin their journey
to explore destinations far into the solar system."

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/index.html

>> I've always understood the mission to
>> mean building technologies to exploit opportunities for
>> useful stuff, like mining. Somewhere this mutated into a
>> search for life in this solar system and beyond.
>
> You have misunderstood.  The mission includes basic research on *all*
> aspects of space, engineering to accomplish such research, and practical
> applications of it.  The search for life is a small part of the basic
> research.
>
>> I've never seen the utility of this quest.
>
> Trillions of dollars worth of industrial applications have come from
> basic research which, at its inception, people saw no utility for.
>


--

[jillery]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:10:49 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

Your "plus" is covered by my "properly equipped".

Still, I offer qualified agreement. The practical justification to
space exploration is to expand humanity to other worlds, to mitigate
the threat of extinction from cosmic collisions. But the ultimate
justification is to feed our need to go where no man has gone before.
Without that frontier, we lose a motivation to achieve.

Having said that, I agree there's no sense to have fragile humans take
unnecessary risks. I appreciate the value of using machines to
spearhead drives into the unknown where possible, the keyword here
being "possible". Automated systems get smaller, cheaper and smarter
every day, while life support systems remain bulky and expensive, and
humans remain frustratingly maladapted for life in space.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:24:57 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

Please post the dollar amounts involved (public funds only,
please; private funds are not relevant "resources") in
"looking for ET".

Note that ancillary efforts, such as that involved in
analyzing data acquired for other purposes for the presence
of possibly-artificial signals, doesn't mean that the entire
cost of, say, the VLA, was spent to "look for ET".

> Any really useful
>projects don't seem to be considered. This seems wasteful.

Name five such projects, with evidence they are being
ignored.

Thanks.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 03:14:59 -0500, the following appeared

OK. The intended meaning of "properly equipped" was unclear
to me, since it's basically a judgement call.

>Still, I offer qualified agreement. The practical justification to
>space exploration is to expand humanity to other worlds, to mitigate
>the threat of extinction from cosmic collisions. But the ultimate
>justification is to feed our need to go where no man has gone before.
>Without that frontier, we lose a motivation to achieve.
>
>Having said that, I agree there's no sense to have fragile humans take
>unnecessary risks. I appreciate the value of using machines to
>spearhead drives into the unknown where possible, the keyword here
>being "possible". Automated systems get smaller, cheaper and smarter
>every day, while life support systems remain bulky and expensive, and
>humans remain frustratingly maladapted for life in space.

My feeling is that if qualified humans want to take risks in
order to achieve what they see as beneficial, that is up to
them. And if someone, not necessarily a government, is
willing to finance the effort I'd say "Go for it".

The human race never got anywhere by refusing to take risks
for perceived gain.

[jillery]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:31:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

The context is not about individuals making choices for themselves.
The topic is the NASA budget, which is funded by tax dollars. As
such, NASA has an obligation to make good use of those monies. Funding
high-risk ventures for their own sake doesn't qualify.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 02:17:15 -0500, the following appeared

We'll just have to agree to disagree. And I *did* say "not
necessarily a government"; NASA isn't the only possible
source of funding for those too-risky undertakings.

[jillery]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 11:08:51 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Currently, there is a NASA program to put people on Mars sometime
after 2030. In the meantime, NASA has launched several robotic
vehicles to collect specific information about the conditions on Mars,
presumably to increase the chances for the survival of those future
Martians. Several of those launches have failed. If one of those
failed launches had humans aboard, and it was rightfully concluded
those deaths were completely avoidable, there is a good chance that
all man-to-Mars missions would be delayed for the for seeable future.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 12 December 2017 19:25:04 UTC, Bill wrote:
> Trump announced a restarting of the original NASA mission of

> space exploration. I've always understood the mission to

> mean building technologies to exploit opportunities for
> useful stuff, like mining. Somewhere this mutated into a
> search for life in this solar system and beyond.
>

> I've never seen the utility of this quest. Curiosity seems
> to be the only impetus driving this project. Curiosity is
> good of course but only incidental to the prospect of
> improving life here on Earth.
>
> How can the discovery of life elsewhere make even the

> slightest difference here? NASA should be developing cool

> tools and technologies and searching for new minerals and
> building colonies instead of looking for life that may not
> exist.
>
> This emphasis on ET offers no practical benefit which leads
> me to wonder, why is it so important? If there is no
> practical, tangible reason, maybe the purpose is
> philosophical, to prove some point. I generally disagree
> with Trump about everything, he is a buffoon after all, but
> maybe a shift in NASAs priorities makes sense.

NASA has a handful of probes investigating places in outer space
and dozens of satellites examining the Earth - reporting on
climate, pollution, rising seas, burning forests. So that's
one reason Trump would want to aim NASA at the moon. But another
is he thinks this is what being presidentical is.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:25:05 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

So, you misspoke? OK.

>Note that ancillary efforts, such as that involved in
>analyzing data acquired for other purposes for the presence
>of possibly-artificial signals, doesn't mean that the entire
>cost of, say, the VLA, was spent to "look for ET".
>
>> Any really useful
>>projects don't seem to be considered. This seems wasteful.
>
>Name five such projects, with evidence they are being
>ignored.

[Crickets...]

So, there are none? OK.