A Vigorous Discussion of Our Future In Space 111
Nethead writes "At TAM 2011, presented by The James Randi Foundation (JREF), a panel with Pamela Gay, Lawrence Krauss, Bill Nye, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, and moderated by Phil Plait, discussed our future in space in an environment where they could freely express their opinions. This is an hour-long video (so lay off first-posts until you've watched it) with humor, depth and frank realism. Where do we spend our dwindling monetary science funding, manned or robotic exploration?"
I am in a different timezone (Score:3, Funny)
hour has already passed.
Link to the transcript? (Score:4, Insightful)
Where's the link to the transcript?
This is SlashDot, not CNN.com. We don't have an hour of free time to blow - we scan, pick out the important bits and GTF on with our day.
Re: (Score:1)
We don't have an hour of free time to blow...
Maybe if you spent less time vying for first post you would...
Re: Ask Slashdot (Score:3)
Maybe a good Ask Slashdot question would be:
What are the best practices for achieving first post?
Re: (Score:1)
Where's the link to the transcript?
This is SlashDot, not CNN.com. We don't have an hour of free time to blow - we scan, pick out the important bits and GTF on with our day.
So Slashdot is a soundbite culture, just like the plebs we're so keen to whine about in the comments. If it isn't already distilled into talking points, it's not profitable enough for us to deal with. Sounds great! My free time is far more valuable than actually understanding something! Go lowest common denominator!
Re: (Score:2)
What might take an hour in a video might take 15 minutes to read.
Also, many people post from work, like I am doing now, most workplaces aren't keen on an employee watching a video for an hour at work, but it's easier to get away with reading something at work than watching a video.
Re: (Score:2)
Get off your high horse and actually read the post you're replying to. There are no soundbites in transcripts.
Maybe the parent, like many people, can read faster than others speak.
Have you never found yourself being subjected to a powerpoint where the presenter is just reading the slides word for word? Annoying, wasn't it? Why do you think that was?
With me, at least, it's because I'm sat there waiting for the speaker to catch up and all the while thinking my time is being wasted. Now, you might say that pr
Why read when you can listen? (Score:2)
Lay off, really? (Score:2)
Please, this is slashdot, I'll just wait for someone else to tell me the good parts or at least ramble on about something good related to the topic who also didn't watch the video.
Re: (Score:1)
I know you're joking, but why wouldn't you want to watch this? I would pay money (or at least put up with ads) to see these people talk for an hour.
Better question (Score:1)
And should we spend it in the first place?
Re: (Score:3)
And should we spend it in the first place?
To ensure space is safe for democracy. :P
can't cure stoopid (Score:2)
It's right there in the name. [mediamatters.org]
proof that drugs are bad and drug addicts should be safely locked up where they can't harm society.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, exploration noble goal which is worth far more than the small amount of money spent. Throughout human history it has improved our situation immensely if only through the technologies created to do so.
If you want Randian fantasy land, go check out the Ron Paul nutter article.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the current state of the world, I estimate 50 years in space tops before humanity, say, sends mercury or the moon hurtling headlong into the sun.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be quite impressive. The amount of energy needed to move either of these bodies is currently out of our abilities, but in 50 years, who knows.
Re:Better question (Score:5, Insightful)
Even more fundamental than that, we live on a planet. 1 planet. Which we know goes through various cycles which are not necessarily conducive to the continued existence of complicated life forms. At the most fundamental level, "space" exploration is our only long term chance at survival. If you can't understand that, I would ask that you hold your tongue and let the adults with worthy opinions dominate the discussion. I'm not saying we need to get humans off of earth on colonies, although I do support that idea, I'm saying that the technology we gain from trying to do things that are "impossible" (moon landing), is fundamental to our continued survival on this biosphere, which we seem to be destroying or altering at alarming rates. Oh, you don't believe in anthropomorphic environmental change? Then you are a fucking moron. In the last 100 years, 60% of the trees on earth have been cut down. If that ALONE isn't a major change in your mind, you can't possibly be smart enough to participate in this discussion.
Not only is space our most likely savior in terms of resources, survival and technological enhancement, it's also one of two "frontiers" that are still left. All other things being forgotten, exploring the frontiers is good enough reason. We as a species knew that 100 years ago. Why did we forget it?
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, the less people know, the more they think they know.
The people who you are calling morons are incapable of realizing that they are in fact morons. Yet they have the same vote as you.
So, right you are, about anthropomorphic environmental change and the need to get off the planet in the long term. Good luck convincing people.
The best way to get "humanity" off this planet is arguable, though. I'd argue that getting humans as we are now out into space isn't worth it.
However, engineered "people
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget to replace their feet with a second set of hands, since the extra set of hands will be useful and you don't need feet in freefall. _Falling Free_ [wikipedia.org] was a pretty good book. Of course, the genetically adapted for freefall humans in that book run into an obsolescence problem when artificial gravity is invented.
Robots (Score:3, Interesting)
Robots have done great with Mars. The cost to any space program of an astronaut being supported all the way out and back is staggering - let alone if something should happen to him/her.
Besides, we can send dozens of robots for the cost of development and embarking on a single manned mission.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And your dream is worth pissing hundreds of billions of dollars down the shitter for? We can all dream, but I've never seen a sensible rationale for putting men any further into space than we already do - frankly, even that is questionable. Going back to the Moon would be an enormous waste of money unless we plan on exploiting its minerals and the fact that we can pollute the far side however much we like, and even that would be prohibitively expensive. Going further than the Moon would be horrifically expe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just a question
How many engineers and scientists did the Space Race inspire?
Dreams are important. Fuck you.
--
BMO
Re:Robots (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah! Fuck you, man! Like, I want to be able to go to Mars man! Why can't I? Want to go to Mars! Want to go to Mars! Want to go to fucking Mars!
[stamps feet, jumps up and down, then throws self on floor, tearfully pounding it with fists and feet]
I have a fucking right to go to Mars, Dude! It's in the fucking constitution! I pay my taxes, or at least my parents do! Why are you repressing me, Dude?!
[etc., etc.]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Just a question, how much technology came out of WWII? Reality is far more important, and how many dreams NEVER go further than the dream stage?
The universe says a big "fuck you" to dreamers all the time. Welcome to adulthood!
Re: (Score:2)
This post should be modded up for the line 'The universe says a big "fuck you" to dreamers all the time. Welcome to adulthood!'
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hahahaha! That's your retort? "Fuck you"? Feel free to dream - the rest of us will live in reality glad that the dreamers aren't pissing away what little money is left to us chasing their dreams. Yes, I know the US spends trillions of dollars on the military. That doesn't suddenly mean it's fine to spend hundreds of billions on sending a few ex-pilots into space to achieve something a robot would achieve for a tiny fraction of the cost and much less risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me encourage everyone in this thread to go read THE CASE FOR MARS by Robert Zubrin. The goal is not "...sending a few ex-pilots into space to achieve something a robot would achieve for a tiny fraction of the cost..." The goal is a growing, self-sufficient colony for humans on another planet. It's not impossible, it's not centuries away, it's not any more risky than plenty of other things Americans have done.
The initial costs seemed extreme to send explorers sailing west from Spain, but the greater
Re: (Score:3)
"The goal" you talk about is Zubrin's goal, and it's totally laudable if unrealistic. Thing is, we're working in reality. Reality does not recommend bankrupting yourself on a risk when there are better ways of making money nearer home. Mars is a dream and will remain so for a long time. The Moon is realistic but it's very hard to make an economic argument for - or you can bet the Americans or Chinese already would have done.
As for a colony on Mars being realistic and "not any more risky than plenty of other
We don't have it in us any more (Score:2)
Maybe a prior generation could have pulled this off. Not us. It's cold out there, and dark. The planets are far, the fare is steep. Space is not ours.
Let the Chinese go, or India, or Russia. When they come back they'll tell us what they found - won't they?
Re: (Score:2)
If you think about it as well, how long did it take Columbus to reach the Americas? How long is the trip to Mars? Columbus wasn't able to take on more food, or more water, the only things he had for free was heat and air, which is a solvable problem in space. Once we start building colonies on the moon, it is a small step to build a ship in orbit capable of the trip to Mars.
I also would like to add, the launch from Earth to space is a solved problem, a launch loop is perfectly doable with today's technol
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
He said it correctly. Dreams are important. Inspiration matters. Fuck you.
Re: (Score:2)
hahaha. i love the quality of discourse on slashdot.
at least the anonymous coward above bothered to write something sane, even if i disagree with him. it's hard to argue with a "fuck you" because it would just make both of us look like retards.
Re: (Score:2)
Good that you post anonymously too - otherwise you may have had to point out that I'm also a theoretical physicist and a cosmologist. The bit you wouldn't know from the bio you read is that my future career also rests on satellites and on governments being willing to pursue space science.
The point, which so many here seem to miss in a curiously emotional response to human space flight, is that science can be advanced *so much further* by unmanned missions than manned missions. Manned missions are extraordin
Your reasoning doesn't quite make sense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ah yes, the old bait and switch. No, nobody is against sending satellites into orbit, exploring the solar system and beyond, and so forth. We are against wasting money on manned space exploration because far from being "immensely profitable" to society, it is a huge, useless money sink that is only "immensely profitable" for the highly influential military-industrial-congressional complex. This is not being a Luddite. Those of us who oppose manned space exploration are the most vigorous proponents of roboti
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! Though I don't even knock the military-industrial-congressional complex so much, partly because I'm not American and partly because there's a hell of a lot of money sloshing around in that system and it provides a hell of a lot of jobs and keeps alive a lot of manufacturing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I lack the vision to see that spending the equivalent of a small country's GDP on putting three men onto Mars where they'll liable only get radiation poisoning anyway and go insane with tedium is the best thing that could ever happen to Earth!!!!!
Seriously, grow up.
"You're against spending any more money on space exploration"
No I'm not, I'm against spending more money on *manned* space exploration until there's something more useful that can come out of it than a few grainy shots of astronauts bouncing
Re:Robots (Score:5, Insightful)
And your dream is worth pissing hundreds of billions of dollars down the shitter for?
You seem to be forgetting that money is imaginary. When talking about the future of the human race in general, which space exploration is certainly about, money is moot. The reality is about manpower and raw materials. While the cost of space exploration is high in both categories, the raw materials are an investment, as we are guaranteed to run out on earth (as long as we don't die out) and space promises vast untapped sources. In terms of manpower, we have a manpower surplus at the moment, the only sustainable labour sinks we have are war and space exploration. I stipulate that manned space exploration is rarely worthwhile, specifically it is only worthwhile in cases where humans are superior to machines at doing the required work. In 99% of space exploration the machines are far better. There are exceptions however, the ISS being a big one, I am fairly sure we cant fully automate all 0g research. The fact that there are exceptions also means that missions where humans aren't absolutely necessary are nevertheless useful as they pioneer techniques for the ones where humans are necessary. It also seems to me that one day machines will surpass humans in all remaining areas of space exploration, but when we get to that stage we should have various refueling stations around the solar system and the added cost of a bit of tourism is unlikely to be a major factor. Money is irrelevant and this world wide obsession with it we are currently experiencing is absurd and counter productive. I will pay you a billion monopoly dollars (digital images, you will have to print them off yourself) to allow us to continue the relevant parts of the discussion.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah but you're forgetting that that imaginary money governs our lives. I'm aware that if the whole world at the same time decided to declare money imaginary we'd be able to do anything - but that's not the reality. Maybe if the developed nations of the world (including India and China, and obviously Russia, the EU and the USA) agreed to do this and fund it by a mutual fund then it would be great - but that won't happen, in all reality. The raw materials may be an investment, if it works out, but it may ver
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Inspire people with a frontiering spirit to get into science and engineering. Be the first step on the long road to established human life somewhere other than Earth. I give not even one shit about any science NASA does on missions - it's the vision and inspiration that matters. The notion that it's important to think beyond here and now, to have (literally) lofty goals. To do something really hard to do, to show what man is capable of (and to get all the nice byproducts of the research needed to make h
Re: (Score:2)
I hate that false dichotomy. The argument is n[pt Manned or robotos for space; it's anned AND robotics.
The only real question is: WHat's the mission and whats the goal?
If you are going tlo drill through a sheet of ice to look for life on a moon thats awash with extreme raistion and it will take months? then Robotic. Simple.
Want to get an overview and just some surface sampling to run a few minor experiments on? robotic.
Want a lot of work done quickly? Manned/. Want to prove we can put a person their and bri
Re: (Score:2)
The problem then becomes developing robots that are anywhere near as capable as a human being. A human on Mars would take a lot more support than, for example, Spirit and Opportunity, but would be able to cover all the ground they've covered in a small fraction of the time they've taken.
Podcasts (Score:4, Informative)
I know these names from some of my favorite podcasts. I'm going to toss them out here for people who aren't familiar with them, and please respond with similar podcasts if you love some.
The Skeptics Guide To The Universe (sponsored by JREF)
AstronomyCast (Pamela Gay)
NOVA scienceNOW or NOVA|PBS (often features Tyson)
Planetary Radio (Bill Nye The Planetary Guy)
Skeptoid (related topics by Brian Dunning)
Radiolab (related topics, best of the best of the best)
Excuse the half-off-topic post, please.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BigPictureScience - SETI
Skepticality is a good one.
Quackcast is excellent and snarky.
Penn Juliet had a radio show/podcast. I recommend finding those. It only ran for a year.
Skeptoid is weak sauce.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't like Skeptoid? I like that it is single-topic and about 10-to-15 minutes long. I also like that Dunning usually has his facts straight before he records, which sets him apart from, say, Stuff You Should Know.
Robotics are here to stay (Score:2)
1. There's many places a person can't go, manned missions are limited to LEO, Moon and possibly Mars. I do assume we want to explore the rest of the solar system?
2. Even if we send manned missions, we will probably want lots of robotics to make it work well. So it's not robotics or humans, it's more should we have humans at all.
3. What about missions vs telescopes? Pardon me for saying so, but right now the solar system isn't where the most exciting news are happening. Apart from absurdly outliving all life
Re: (Score:3)
You'd also have to make the robots piss urine and shit, well, shit - and process that from organic materials grown on-site. That would be one interesting project, designing that.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes. Or you could just send a monkey, but it would be a lot more impressive the other way...
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from absurdly outliving all lifetime expectations, I haven't heard of any revolutionary news from the rovers.
Plenty of good things came out of the rover missions that can be used for the future.
1) Prooved that the air-breaking into the Martian atmosphere (considered risky due to the low atmosphere there) works- and can be used for future missions.
2) Increased evidence for a liquid presence beneath the surface. (yes, we suspected- but these things are incremental- now we're almost certain).
3) Great concept proven that we can send these rovers over space and it works. Again, to be built upon in future missions.
4)
Re: (Score:2)
The rover missions have been an overwhelming success.
Most of them were, but there was that one that briefly saw something that looked like a giant robot and then abruptly cut its transmission...
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, robots then man makes good sense. Robots instead of man is bullshit - it's quite unlikely these missions will inspire legions of smart young robots to enter science or engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
Well NASA's goals for the rovers were to pave the way for manned voyages.
We're not ready to send a man to mars yet- so until then robots all the way.
Just like the original space program developed all sorts of new technologies- I have absolutely no doubt that sending a man to Mars will do the same thing.
From insulation, to medicine, to power supplies, to nutrition- there are no end of fields that could benefit from sending a man to mars because we will have to solve various problems.
There will be pay-offs we
Re: (Score:2)
The best plan I have heard so far is this:
Build a moon base with manufacturing facilities
Build mining facilities in the asteroid belt
Build orbital assembly
Build a ship large enough to make the Mars journey
The time it took Columbus to reach the Americas is approximately the same amount of time it would take to fly to Mars, if we send missions ahead, we could have all the needed supplies moved into Mars orbit well before anyone gets there. This is a solvable problem, and is entirely possible. Everyone who t
Re: (Score:3)
We are life. When we go, life goes. When we colonize, we are/carry the seeds of life. Life is greedy, selfish, etc. - that's what Life is. It concentrates resources in order to maintain its living state. Compared to a wolf or an amoeba, we have a pretty high level of altruism within tribes, within the species, and with respect to all other Life and even inanimate resources. The fact that we complain about how greedy and selfish we are illustrates the fact that we care at all about such things. Most L
Watch the video! (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have ANY interest in government involvement in space exploration, I urge you to take the time to watch this video.
Bye - I'm goin' back to watch the video...
Re: (Score:2)
Competition (Score:2)
Maybe it's just me... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Mars could use a manned mission. Preferably one with a lab and a big ass drill to pull up many layers of soil.
We can, right now, build a settlement on Mars. We have the technology. Just not the will; which is a shame becasue the same tech to get people to mars would save a boat load of lives here.
"here are just so many ways for someone to die going to [inser variable]it is ridiculous and it would be incredibly expensive given our technology level."
Lis of variable:
The next valley
the next island
across the oce
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What technology do you think we lack? If we build manufacturing in orbit, mining on the moon and asteroids, then build the ship in orbit, we could most definitely make it to Mars, and survive the harsh environment just fine.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Surround the crew quarters with the water supply in a frozen state. Repair the damage quickly when it is noticed. Who cares about remote mining the moon, put people in a colony there with an escape ship just like the ISS. Radiation exposure is a non issue on the moon if you just build the living quarters underground. Moon gravity isn't the issue no gravity is, they just need to be more active, which is remarkably easier on the moon than freefall. You haven't given anything we can't solve. The ship can
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
but spending a trillion dollars to win a pissing contest while we're cutting Social Security, selling off parks, and laying off tens of thousands of government employees seems, I don't know, kind of stupid.
A trillion? The cost is estimated in the low tens of billions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_mission_to_Mars#ESA.2FRussia_plan_.282002.29 [wikipedia.org] , and http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/mars/ask/humans-on-mars/Cost_of_Manned_Mars_Mission.txt [nasa.gov] ). By comparison, the entire Apollo program cost only $150 billion in 2010 dollars, the Iraq war cost $1 trillion, and the War on Drugs costs $10 billion every year.
Given that the Apollo program galvanized world opinion in favor of the USA and the values it represents, mo
Re: (Score:2)
It is solvent.
And I would love to see it LOWERED to it's original age of 65 as opposed to 67.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It won't cost in the low tens of billions to go to Mars. With today's technology, if you wanted to go (and not kill everyone in the process) you literally have to put an armored space station up there and send it to mars. You'd need meters of lead between them and the sun for example just to keep them from dying from radiation exposure to the sun. That is going to cost 100's of billions to launch into space. You'd need a massive space ship with rotating sections to provide micro-gravity for the long time it would take to get there (months). You'd need the ship highly armored with many self-sealing sections for when it is punctured by micrometeorites (and those still might kill the crew)...
The sky is falling, eh?
The ISS has been floating in a far more hostile micrometeorite environment than either interplanetary travel or Mars orbit represents. For years. (And only occasionally has to dodge a flying bolt.) Think of all the debris we've added to the near-Earth region - all that is missing, at least for now, from the rest of the solar system.
As for radiation, there is no doubt that cosmic rays, and even more so, solar activity, represent a risk. However, the MARIE instrument on the Mars Odyssey
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason Social Security has issues is because the politicians won't keep their hands out of the pot. That huge pot of money is just too tempting for them to ignore.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand your point, it's time to get the bu
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It is mutually exclusive. Going to mars is a trillion dollar + nightmare and HUGE waste of money. If china wants to go to the moon and mars, let them. There is nothing out there that we need...
I would submit that humanity is in serious need of new frontiers.
tl;dw (Score:2)
Too long; didn't watch. Can someone with more free time please summarise, since TFS didn't bother to?
Re: (Score:3)
C'mon. It's Bill Nye the muddafuggin Science Guy, Neil deFrikkinGrasse Tyson, the Slacker Astronomy chick, and the physicist who wrote "The Physics of Star Trek". Bill is awesome (as always), Tyson and Krauss spend half their time lobbing verbal jabs at each other, and Dr. Gay throws in a couple insightful points.
The fuck else do you need here to buy in? A flashing neon sign saying "Naked Ladies" ? :)
Trust me, It's an hour well spent.
Re: (Score:2)
True awesome can't be summarized.
oration by Neil deGrasse Tyson (Score:2, Informative)
There is a fabulous oration by Neil deGrasse Tyson during the Q&A, in response to a statement that "we can't afford" space exploration. Alone this makes the 53 minutes a worthwhile investment in time.
Re: (Score:2)
I love his passion.
I was in the audience at this event and this was probably the most popular session of the weekend. There were some restless murmurs in the crowd when Tyson didn't speak for several minutes at the start. He just stared straight ahead, but he soon made up for it.
I likened it to a scene from one of those kung fu movies where the master drinks quietly while a fight breaks out around him, before he suddenly jumps in and starts kicking ass.
Re:oration by Neil deGrasse Tyson (Score:4, Interesting)
"There is a fabulous oration by Neil deGrasse Tyson during the Q&A, in response to a statement that "we can't afford" space exploration. Alone this makes the 53 minutes a worthwhile investment in time."
and the ac is mostly right except that it was in response to no money for manned space exploration, though Tyson's response applies to the whole of science and space exploration.
Mycroft
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, I'm employed and would gladly move to a moon colony. Do you think they need sys admins?
We need to refocus (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Lets cooperate on it. Have China build the orbital manufacturing, the US can build the moon and asteroid mining complexes, the ESA can coordinate the orbital construction. How hard would it be to have those two countries and ESA do all that? It is well within their ability to do it. If we have all of them cooperate on building a launch loop (doable with current tech, unlike space elevator which requires materials we can't even make), it would make it near enough to free to put stuff into orbit. While t
link to video (Score:3, Informative)
For direct download:
http://av.vimeo.com/48323/967/69379567.mp4?token=1319148574_68f532a970ac33e3a5fb0a2b7cb02a82 [vimeo.com]
If it does not work you can use this: http://savevideo.me/ [savevideo.me]
Excellent video (Score:2)