bush_cheney2004 Posted December 4, 2017 Report Posted December 4, 2017 (edited) 54 minutes ago, cannuck said: no time to read the article. nasty capitalist pig stuff to do. Just working with the table you provided. Do you think anyone up here really gives a damn who went into space, when, where and why? Apparently you do/did, making a direct reference to American "efforts". Where are the Canadian "efforts" for "space travel" ? Canada's state controlled broadcaster regurgitates "content" from NASA on a weekly basis...because that's what Canada does (much cheaper that way). Edited December 4, 2017 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
JamesHackerMP Posted December 4, 2017 Author Report Posted December 4, 2017 guys, let's get back on topic. This seems to have turned into a "Canada v. USA" thread. 1 Quote "We're not above nature, Mr Hacker, we're part of it. Men are animals, too!" "I know that, I've just come from the House of Commons!" [Yes, Minister]
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 4, 2017 Report Posted December 4, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said: guys, let's get back on topic. This seems to have turned into a "Canada v. USA" thread. Point taken, but "space travel" has always been subject to intense geo-political competition and conflict. There is no single unified "effort" to develop manned or unmanned "space travel" technologies and missions, as such efforts fall along well known fault lines and capabilities. The so called moon race was a serious Cold War battle on earth. Furthermore, technical progress has stemmed from military R&D, objectives, and development. The privateers that currently are developing manned and unmanned vehicles are directly traceable to a military lineage. My retirement pension is dependent on them continuing to do so. Without fail, any media piece about manned space travel is met by unrelenting criticism of the money "wasted" on space that could be better spent saving impoverished people, trees, or polar bears. This is true for the Canada vs. USA context as well...opposition to "space travel" has been part of an anti-American narrative since the Apollo program, because it represented wild, unchecked growth in American power. Edited December 5, 2017 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bonam Posted December 5, 2017 Report Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) On 12/3/2017 at 5:23 PM, cannuck said: Do you think anyone up here really gives a damn who went into space, when, where and why? Let you in on another secret: nobody in our company nor anyone we deal with in our NYC operations or in our WY operations really cares either. We are a bit too busy trying to survive in a very broken economy. Really? Have you taken a survey? Also, why are you having so much difficulty surviving? The last few years have been fat times for almost any company with a decent business model or prospect. Hardly a broken economy from the point of view of business making a profit. At my company (that I work at, I don't claim to be the owner like so many of our internet millionaires on this forum), many people excitedly follow developments in space science and exploration. Edited December 5, 2017 by Bonam Quote
Michael Hardner Posted December 5, 2017 Report Posted December 5, 2017 3 hours ago, Bonam said: The last few years have been fat times for almost any company with a decent business model or prospect. Hardly a broken economy from the point of view of business making a profit. Yes, I also found this curious. It may be worth another thread on winners & losers in this economy. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
cannuck Posted December 5, 2017 Report Posted December 5, 2017 7 hours ago, Bonam said: Really? Have you taken a survey? Also, why are you having so much difficulty surviving? The last few years have been fat times for almost any company with a decent business model or prospect. Hardly a broken economy from the point of view of business making a profit. At my company (that I work at, I don't claim to be the owner like so many of our internet millionaires on this forum), many people excitedly follow developments in space science and exploration. We are in resource business, the model is to take stuff out of the ground for a lower cost than what the markets will pay - and that makes life pretty tough these days,. I am slowly moving back to my comfort zone (manufacturing), but most of the companies in the sector I wish to return to are in dire financial straits as well. Never stopped me before, but I really am getting a bit too old to keep on trying to change the world, one product at a time...so I will limit myself the three more and call it quits. 3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Yes, I also found this curious. It may be worth another thread on winners & losers in this economy. That is a pretty good idea. Will try to get back this evening and go there. Quote
JamesHackerMP Posted December 9, 2017 Author Report Posted December 9, 2017 so to get the discussion back on topic, do you think there is a point to a lunar base, other than to simply have one? 1 Quote "We're not above nature, Mr Hacker, we're part of it. Men are animals, too!" "I know that, I've just come from the House of Commons!" [Yes, Minister]
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 9, 2017 Report Posted December 9, 2017 8 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said: so to get the discussion back on topic, do you think there is a point to a lunar base, other than to simply have one? Yes, the principle point for a lunar base would be the foundation for a solar system human exploration architecture. The U.S. and Russia are already cooperating on preliminary planning as are China and the EU. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
JamesHackerMP Posted December 9, 2017 Author Report Posted December 9, 2017 I didn't know about that. Still, why would you explore the solar system with human beings when robotic probes can do the same thing at a fraction of the cost? Quote "We're not above nature, Mr Hacker, we're part of it. Men are animals, too!" "I know that, I've just come from the House of Commons!" [Yes, Minister]
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 9, 2017 Report Posted December 9, 2017 Because robotic probes are just an extension of human sensors and sciences, not a complete replacement for human understanding and experiences. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
JamesHackerMP Posted December 9, 2017 Author Report Posted December 9, 2017 with chemical rockets launching people into space it will still end up being only a fraction of the human race who will ever get to participate in that. Quote "We're not above nature, Mr Hacker, we're part of it. Men are animals, too!" "I know that, I've just come from the House of Commons!" [Yes, Minister]
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 9, 2017 Report Posted December 9, 2017 1 minute ago, JamesHackerMP said: with chemical rockets launching people into space it will still end up being only a fraction of the human race who will ever get to participate in that. This is true of many things....the majority of people on earth have never flown in an aircraft. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
JamesHackerMP Posted December 9, 2017 Author Report Posted December 9, 2017 it's just the cost would be extremely prohibitive. In "2001" the USS Discovery takes five humans to the outer planets to explore them. What do you think the actual spaceship would have cost to send as few as five people? And we did the same thing, on an even grander scale, with the two Voyager probes, but without the humans. Humans were and still are able to explore space--just as if these automated spacecraft were extensions of our very brains or limbs. Quote "We're not above nature, Mr Hacker, we're part of it. Men are animals, too!" "I know that, I've just come from the House of Commons!" [Yes, Minister]
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 9, 2017 Report Posted December 9, 2017 1 minute ago, JamesHackerMP said: it's just the cost would be extremely prohibitive. The cost was not prohibitive for developing military capabilities and advantages. The Apollo program cost about $110 billion in today's (inflation adjusted) U.S. dollars. Manned and unmanned missions have always co-existed. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
JamesHackerMP Posted December 9, 2017 Author Report Posted December 9, 2017 (edited) yes, and the apollo program was killed after No. 17, for that very reason. The space shuttle was horribly expensive, and that was only one part of several planned components of the "Space Transportation System", the others were vetoed by Nixon for the same reason, the cost. Since Yuri Gagarin orbited the Earth, rough 600 humans have been in space. Edited December 9, 2017 by JamesHackerMP Quote "We're not above nature, Mr Hacker, we're part of it. Men are animals, too!" "I know that, I've just come from the House of Commons!" [Yes, Minister]
JamesHackerMP Posted December 9, 2017 Author Report Posted December 9, 2017 (edited) That is a lot of money for just 600 people. Your mention of the majority of humans have ever flown is not relevant because there are a lot of humans who have flown, a much larger amount than 600. And even if we had a lunar base and started exploring Mars and the outer planets--personally, with humans rather than robotic probes--it would still be a handful of people who would enjoy the experience. How would you justify the cost for so few? Edited December 9, 2017 by JamesHackerMP Quote "We're not above nature, Mr Hacker, we're part of it. Men are animals, too!" "I know that, I've just come from the House of Commons!" [Yes, Minister]
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 9, 2017 Report Posted December 9, 2017 Humans are already in space, and will continue to go there on a routine basis. Government/private partnerships are growing to do more exploration with faster, cheaper development of vehicle systems. I'm convinced there will be humans on Mars before I die. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 9, 2017 Report Posted December 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said: That is a lot of money for just 600 people. Your mention of the majority of humans have ever flown is not relevant because there are a lot of humans who have flown, a much larger amount than 600. And even if we had a lunar base and started exploring Mars and the outer planets--personally, with humans rather than robotic probes--it would still be a handful of people who would enjoy the experience. How would you justify the cost for so few? There will never be a case of humans instead of robotic probes. They work together. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
JamesHackerMP Posted December 9, 2017 Author Report Posted December 9, 2017 Probably there will be. And probably the same thing will happen to the Mars program that happened to Apollo: it will be axed before it's complete. Quote "We're not above nature, Mr Hacker, we're part of it. Men are animals, too!" "I know that, I've just come from the House of Commons!" [Yes, Minister]
JamesHackerMP Posted December 9, 2017 Author Report Posted December 9, 2017 Just now, bush_cheney2004 said: There will never be a case of humans instead of robotic probes. They work together. I'm sorry, I don't understand you. What do you mean? Quote "We're not above nature, Mr Hacker, we're part of it. Men are animals, too!" "I know that, I've just come from the House of Commons!" [Yes, Minister]
Bonam Posted December 9, 2017 Report Posted December 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said: That is a lot of money for just 600 people. Your mention of the majority of humans have ever flown is not relevant because there are a lot of humans who have flown, a much larger amount than 600. And even if we had a lunar base and started exploring Mars and the outer planets--personally, with humans rather than robotic probes--it would still be a handful of people who would enjoy the experience. How would you justify the cost for so few? Everything starts with a few, and then becomes more over time. There's really only two long term options for humankind: become a spacefaring civilization or sit at home and wait to die. Having all your eggs in one basket (Earth) is a sure recipe for disaster. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 9, 2017 Report Posted December 9, 2017 Just now, JamesHackerMP said: I'm sorry, I don't understand you. What do you mean? Robotic probes have always been concurrent with human space flight. It is not an either/or proposition. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
JamesHackerMP Posted December 9, 2017 Author Report Posted December 9, 2017 I agree! But very little of the human race will be able to without some sort of better option than chemical rockets. I mentioned before a space elevator. That's about the only thing that will allow any kind of regular arrivals to/departures from Earth. Quote "We're not above nature, Mr Hacker, we're part of it. Men are animals, too!" "I know that, I've just come from the House of Commons!" [Yes, Minister]
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 9, 2017 Report Posted December 9, 2017 1 minute ago, JamesHackerMP said: I agree! But very little of the human race will be able to without some sort of better option than chemical rockets. I mentioned before a space elevator. That's about the only thing that will allow any kind of regular arrivals to/departures from Earth. Why is it a priority to have the whole human race experience interplanetary space flight ? I don't understand why that is a limitation on policy. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
JamesHackerMP Posted December 9, 2017 Author Report Posted December 9, 2017 Just now, bush_cheney2004 said: Why is it a priority to have the whole human race experience interplanetary space flight ? I don't understand why that is a limitation on policy. It would have to be enough humans to justify the effort. In other words, more than 600/7.5 billion. Especially considering you're selling it to the taxpayers. Quote "We're not above nature, Mr Hacker, we're part of it. Men are animals, too!" "I know that, I've just come from the House of Commons!" [Yes, Minister]
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.