The Age of Space Exploration 160
An anonymous reader writes "Wired describes over ten different probes launched (and about to be launched) within the decade."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Age of Space Exploration
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey
A bit optimistic (Score:5, Insightful)
I know it states that's the earliest date, but doesn't that seem a bit too optimistic? 2009 isn't that far away, and if it's a 'long-term roving laboratory' I'd imagine it would take longer than five years to set up - and just how long is long-term, anyway?
Physics (Score:2, Insightful)
Soon we'll know all about the space around us, and maybe then we'll find some intelligent extraterrestrial life to sponge from!
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (Score:5, Insightful)
With Spirit and Opportunity practically shoving their lenses into the dirt, I'm not sure that "extreme close-up" is the best way to describe photos taken from orbit.
why we need space-exploration (Score:5, Insightful)
But, although economic viability is important to create a mass-usuage of space(travel), I fail to see why it should be the only possible motive to start exploring space. It's a pretty narrowminded, materialistic and typical capitalistic view on things. It's the same view that makes progress on medication for very rare diseases, or for diseases that are prevalent in continents that are poor, so slow: corporations can't see how they are ever going to get profit out of it, so they all turn their backs on it.
If ppl (including states) are only going to do something when they are sure of an immediate profitable return, the world has become a sad place. (And we should leave it the sooner
Arguments based on such a viewpoint fail to recognise other incentives apart from economical ones.
The reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonise with robots. The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages.
A species that doesn't colonise new territory and adapt, will perish. I think it's paramount that humans always keep their adventurage spirit and keep exploring and expanding, because the moment we will go "ah, let's sit back in our sofa's and let our robots/droids do it", we're basically finished, even when not being aware of it at that moment.
Interesting trends (Score:5, Insightful)
"The '80s were very dark for exploration," said Friedman. "We only started to see a resurgence in the '90s under (then NASA administrator) Dan Goldin."
Friedman attributed the Reagan administration's focus on manned spaceflight as the primary reason for the lack of planetary missions in the 1980s.
Interesting that this decade NASA seems to be focusing on both unmanned and manned [slashdot.org] missions.
Let's just hope there will be funds available for all these plans; although I personally would sacrifice manned projects in favor of unmanned ones if it came to that. We have plenty of time later to take such bold strides - for one thing, we really need better methods for entering orbit than the current, wasteful method of simply burning loads and loads of fuel that has been practised since the inception of space flight. This would, of course, benefit unmanned missions as well, but in my view it is absolutely crucial for the viability of manned missions.
Right... (Score:4, Insightful)
Funding, politics, it's all horrible.
Re:I, for one, would prefer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush's call for a manned mission to Mars is mostly a publicity stunt. And since the PR polling that followed his announcement indicated luke-warm support, you'll not be hearing make too much more noise on the subject.
Personally, I don't see such a need to send people into space, apart from the admittedly spectacular gee-whiz factor.
I've been amazed at what the Mars rovers have been doing, for months, on their own, and I also think that the application of robotics and AI "in the field" will wind up having practical uses back home.
All the "people in space" talk also winds up at odds (for share of a limited budget) with the "real" science that is trying to figure out the nature of the physical universe.
not at all (Score:5, Insightful)
And frankly, the exploration of earth (or its ecology) is hardly that of a virus killing it's host, though the ultra-greens may often portray it that way. Earths' ecology ALWAYS changes; species appear and dissapear, and those that are most suited (and have spread the most around the globe) have the most chance of surviving.
The fact that a lot of current change is done by humans, may give it an air of artificiality, but to that idea I don't subscribe. Humans are still biological identies, and as such, need an ecology to survive in. 'Nature' or 'the world' does not care what particular ecology it sustains; as long as there is biological life, it exists, period.
Your premise that being self-aware is not a reason to colonise the solar system and then the galaxy is based on...what? I would claim it DOES (though it would not excuse us from being responsable - to alien life - while colonising).
If alien life is not omni-present on the planet, but only in small niches, I think it's worth considering to protect those niches, or create articial enclosures to preserve it - but still go on with the colonisation. Things would only be different if it's a planetwide alien ecology, or if there is alien sentient life involved.
As for your argument that it does not benefit the host; allow me to contradict. The mere fact that we would colonise other planets and introduce earths' ecology there, would augment the chances of earths' 'nature' to survive...therefor, it would benefit from our actions.
Infact, viewed from the point of 'Nature' (if it had a viewpoint, that is
Re:why we need space-exploration (Score:2, Insightful)
I fully agree with you that the narrow focus on economic rationales for space programs, and well, pretty much anything else. Our lives - and our societies - are more than a pareto optimality with the end result prefaced by a dollar sign. The problem for policy makers is, among other things, how do you spend money on grand space visions when social security is running out of money, public services have little money and millions of Americans are without primary healthcare? For the moon program, there was the political justification Cold War competition with the Soviet Union. It would be difficult to fit space exploration into the current national security focus on terrorism. Should China finally get it's act together, there might be something in that, but Sino-US rivalry would have to develop well beyond what it is now.
The problem as I see it is, that while money is easy to measure - which is why everyone defaults to metrics based on money - and national security never seems to need hard data to launch a vision, on what basis do you make a substantial national commitment to space exploration that will get broad support. While it would not be too difficult to get support from the likes of Slashdot readers for the kinds of reasons that you cite:
The reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonise with robots. The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages
How do you get broad popular support behind a vision like this and sustain in for the time required to see it though? A vision like the one articulated earlier this year by President Bush is largely meaningless because the long time-frame suggested that it was a commitment for other presidents to keep and fight for the budget appropriations. In contrast, while JFK's decade long vision would have extended beyond a second term, a sizable proportion of the program would have been completed under his administration. A commitment that you do not have to keep is not really a serious commitment and even this painless promise did not really take off - although, of course, it does not look like there will be any serious political capital expended on it.
Perhaps the problem boils down to how to ignite a real vision in this area when the country is split down the middle poltically, every thing becomes a partisan issue and so becames part of the "Culture Wars" and fewer and fewer Americans are actively engaged in the poltical process. With all this, what is the argument that is going to make the case for space exploration and who is going to make it?
Thoughts (Score:2, Insightful)
Likely the same way gripes about moderation are modded as Troll.
To clarify what I meant by Infinite travel, I will say that travelling through space is the problem; we are still very point-a-to-point-b in our logic. The correct method of space travel is likely developing a system that would enable us to find a coordinate and APPEAR there (kinda like Dune). That's what I meant by infinite space travel.... when you are going point-a-to-point-b, you have resources to look at that are all very finite. While these things may seem strange or like science fiction to you, they are possible; because in the 50's if you told them we would put robots on Mars, they'd have Trolled you down as being a fricking nutbar too.
of course not (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing we 'need' is food and shelter.
Based on what we truelly 'need' thus, we should go back living like cavemen.
But ofcourse, we don't, and the reason is that we, as humans, look beyond our immediate needs and have (and should have) grander visions.
What you say is what I already indicated: economics (and also the ratio of costs/science output) is less good with human spacetravel then robotic ones. Contrary to some zealots, I do not dispute that.
But, as I have said, I do not think one should measure everything in terms of economic benefits. Even if you could send a hundred, or a thousand robots for the price of one human mission, it still would not change the fact that robots can't colonise planets, and augment the survival chances of the human race (and earths' ecology) through interplanetary spreading.
Re:Thoughts (Score:1, Insightful)
Sorry, this argument doesn't hold water: it suffers from the inductive fallacy. (i.e.
Because people did not beleive technological feat X was possible, and X turned out to be possible, therefore every technological feat people don't beleive is possible will be possible).
If you want to convince me, try harder.
Re:I, for one, would prefer... (Score:2, Insightful)
But they are not on thier own.
They are controlled from California and what one of them has done in 3 months could have been accomplished in a matter of hours by a human.
Walk out, grab rocks, take rocks back to lab module, walk out, grab rocks.
On Apollo 17 the Astronauts were able to walk around in locations much too rough for a rover to move.
Re:of course not (Score:2, Insightful)
This really is hogwash. With what we know now, we can not terraform Mars, nor can we routinely transport many people from earth to Mars. Note that in my original post, I talked about the "current state of the art". In the future, yes, who knows. But not now. Putting someone on Mars is not going to change that. It is not going to increase the survival chances of the human race one little bit.
FYI: Mars is almost as hostile an environment for humans as is the Moon. High radiation, almost no atmosphere, no air pressure. There might be water, but that's also true for the moon.
Your arguments about not needing houses and so on are demagogical. No, we do not need anything besides food, some heat and air. But surely, life becomes a lot more pleasant with houses, cars, tv's and internet. Now, how would life become more pleasant when a man walks on Mars? For the cost, other research which has much higher impact scientifically, and thus also in terms of space exploration, than one Mars mission. How about research in ion-engines, or other methods to thrust space vehicles that can reach speeds that may make travels to other solar systems once possible? How about detecting earth-like planets with a successor of the Hubble? We need to make choices.
I would have agreed with you if you would have admitted that men on Mars gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside on yet another great achievement of the Human race, and, if you are from the USA, on yet another great USA achievement. Maybe this feeling is worth to you a lot. Maybe for many people. But please do not try to defend it with hogwash arguments about interplanetary spreading and survival of the human race.
Re:I, for one, would prefer... (Score:2, Insightful)