Mission to the planet Mars

[Chuck Wintle]

There has been a some publicity recently of the planned mission to Mars for the purpose of establishing a permanent settlement. its a one way trip with no possibility of returning to Earth. Mars is a harsh planet that does not support life and settlers will pass the rest of their living in pods. Many people have signed on to take this one way journey. My question is this: why would anyone want to spend the rest of their lives in such a harsh and unforgiving environment?

[Don Huffer]

Chuck
I ask the same question as you. I would say for the few that have answered to invitation. They are just looking for publicity and a reaction. But if you were a space nut and had a terminal illness, maybe.

The question I always ask is why go into space period. We already know there is zero life just a few miles from earth. It's nothingness.

Don

[Pat Barry]

Chuck
The question I always ask is why go into space period. We already know there is zero life just a few miles from earth. It's nothingness.
Don
ROFL - that's a good one. How would we possibly know?

[ray hampton]

there will be life on Mars after this trip IF NOTHING cause their death and they may be the first life on Mars but I doubt it

[Art Mann]

Why do you suppose those idiots who planned to sail off the edge of the earth with Christopher Columbus felt compelled to go?

[Justin Ludwig]

It's a common myth that people during Columbus' time thought the world was flat. More poor history taught to the masses.

[Jon Shank]

First there are a lot of steps before they head to Mars, so we should have a better understanding of what it takes to live out there. Hopefully that means we will also have the means to move around and explore the red planet. I'm not signed up and I won't even if it's just because I'm to settled and comfortable to put myself through it. Regardless how much we may learn between now and then it's going to be tough going for the first ones living on a foreign planet. But if I was younger and had a little more fire left in my belly I'd jump at the chance.

The only place we as the human race have been is earth and for fleeting moments to the moon. Just imagine the knowledge there is to gain from not just touching your boots on somewhere as far away as Mars, but living there. And part of their mission if it goes off is to set down infrastructure for further settlers. I think it's a brave and worthy thing, maybe foolhardy as well, but if you aren't getting sent what's the difference? The chance to be one of the first human beings to step foot on a completely different planet millions of miles away. The chance to be a real pioneer in a time when we're lucky to be clinging on to the last few threads of our pioneer heritage? Yeah, I think it's a worthwhile endeavor, and a heck of an adventure. And I'm kind of a space geek so I know I'm a little off the norm for average folks on this, but still it's cool stuff. I'm not volunteering because I can't see how I'd be an asset by the time the whole thing is supposed to go off. But just blowing it off as crazy is the same thinking that would have kept us from doing the moon landings. No doubt, it's wide eyed optimistic stuff, but so what? It's a chance to go out there and see it for yourself! Yeah, if I was a couple years younger and it was going now, I'd be going. If they contacted me now and told me my age and health didn't matter, I'd be at the launch pad on time without a doubt, and my wife with me if they'd take her. Hell, they'd probably take her first. :)

So yeah, not sure if anything will even come of it, but I can't agree with the nay sayers, I think it's great.

Jon

[Steve Rozmiarek]

I get it too. For me it's curiosity. What's on the other side of that hill/continent/ocean/solar system. To have the chance to grapple with some great questions with the freshest data that mankind has is appealing. I was just looking at some Martian meteorites earlier today, odd that it comes up here too.

[Jim Matthews]

If the explorers are compensated, it's a legacy for their families.

I doubt anyone in less than perfect health would be considered.
The expense of hoisting things into orbit, let alone sustaining
a person must be a huge component of the cost.

My guess is that they're looking for submariners, people that
are well equipped to live in tight spaces, with a crew.

There must be easier ways to get your name on an elementary school.

[John Coloccia]

My question is this: why would anyone want to spend the rest of their lives in such a harsh and unforgiving environment?

I lived in the California dessert for 4 years....Lancaster/Palmdale area. Mars wouldn't be such a big deal.

[Don Huffer]

ROFL - that's a good one. How would we possibly know?

Years of exhaustive worthless space travel and testing haven't found even a smidgin of life. How about we let those that still believe fund the snipe hunt. While the rest of us spend our money on research that actually will produce something, other than colorful pictures and a big bag of rocks. The rocks only cost $13,000,000,000. Must be mighty fine rocks.

Don

[Don Huffer]

Why do you suppose those idiots who planned to sail off the edge of the earth with Christopher Columbus felt compelled to go?

Money and a shorter way to India.

Don

[Don Huffer]

First there are a lot of steps before they head to Mars, so we should have a better understanding of what it takes to live out there. Hopefully that means we will also have the means to move around and explore the red planet. I'm not signed up and I won't even if it's just because I'm to settled and comfortable to put myself through it. Regardless how much we may learn between now and then it's going to be tough going for the first ones living on a foreign planet. But if I was younger and had a little more fire left in my belly I'd jump at the chance.

The only place we as the human race have been is earth and for fleeting moments to the moon. Just imagine the knowledge there is to gain from not just touching your boots on somewhere as far away as Mars, but living there. And part of their mission if it goes off is to set down infrastructure for further settlers. I think it's a brave and worthy thing, maybe foolhardy as well, but if you aren't getting sent what's the difference? The chance to be one of the first human beings to step foot on a completely different planet millions of miles away. The chance to be a real pioneer in a time when we're lucky to be clinging on to the last few threads of our pioneer heritage? Yeah, I think it's a worthwhile endeavor, and a heck of an adventure. And I'm kind of a space geek so I know I'm a little off the norm for average folks on this, but still it's cool stuff. I'm not volunteering because I can't see how I'd be an asset by the time the whole thing is supposed to go off. But just blowing it off as crazy is the same thinking that would have kept us from doing the moon landings. No doubt, it's wide eyed optimistic stuff, but so what? It's a chance to go out there and see it for yourself! Yeah, if I was a couple years younger and it was going now, I'd be going. If they contacted me now and told me my age and health didn't matter, I'd be at the launch pad on time without a doubt, and my wife with me if they'd take her. Hell, they'd probably take her first. :)

So yeah, not sure if anything will even come of it, but I can't agree with the nay sayers, I think it's great.

Jon

Well Jon could we let the dreamers fund the deal. I would like my tax dollars spent on ocean research. I think we stand to gain much more. Now if the dreamers find something worth slightly more than the bag of rocks they gleaned from the moon. We can discuss funding then.

Don

[Jerome Stanek]

Would there be life on Mars now that we put a couple of rovers up there. Travel with the probes from earth.

[Don Huffer]

I lived in the California dessert for 4 years....Lancaster/Palmdale area. Mars wouldn't be such a big deal.

Guess you know first hand why the masses aren't in the dessert.

Don

[Art Mulder]

Years of exhaustive worthless space travel
(emphasis added)

I could not possibly disagree more with the inclusion of that word in that sentence.

[Don Huffer]

(emphasis added)

I could not possibly disagree more with the inclusion of that word in that sentence.

Well I realize we have been told we now have spin off benefits from space travel and I say they would have been far less expensive had we not ventured off on wild goose chases. I also think we would have so much more.

Don

[Pat Barry]

Years of exhaustive worthless space travel and testing haven't found even a smidgin of life. How about we let those that still believe fund the snipe hunt. While the rest of us spend our money on research that actually will produce something, other than colorful pictures and a big bag of rocks. The rocks only cost $13,000,000,000. Must be mighty fine rocks.

Don
I think that we have only just begun to explore and understand the universe. I think its foolhardy to think we are 'alone'. That's the type of thinking that leads to no where. With that exact same form of thought 600 + years ago its unimaginable how we would have developed as a civilization. Funding for projects such as this are absolutely necessary, if for no other reason than we need to know what is out there. We need to know if anything is out there. We can not afford to hide in our shell.

[Brian Ashton]

I think the whole thing is more of an elaborate publicity stunt.

No organisation trying to pull off the most difficult and never achieved idea sends out a (casting) call to the general public for people to travel to Mars - not one. That is! unless you have a book and movie deal in place. Has anyone gone and read the website? After reading it I'd say one things for sure, no ones going anywhere. The whole thing is so cliché. What was that movie with bruce willis and he saves the world from an asteroid...

[Chuck Wintle]

I think that we have only just begun to explore and understand the universe. I think its foolhardy to think we are 'alone'. That's the type of thinking that leads to no where. With that exact same form of thought 600 + years ago its unimaginable how we would have developed as a civilization. Funding for projects such as this are absolutely necessary, if for no other reason than we need to know what is out there. We need to know if anything is out there. We can not afford to hide in our shell.
Pat,

I agree with your train of thought...to imagine and explore new frontiers just like the Star Trek tv series, "to boldly go where no man has gone before".:D That said it was not too long ago when it was thought that a heavier than air machine could not possibly fly. :) All the sage and wise men of the day said this was impossible and man was not meant to fly. :eek:

[Brian Ashton]

I think that we have only just begun to explore and understand the universe. I think its foolhardy to think we are 'alone'. That's the type of thinking that leads to no where. With that exact same form of thought 600 + years ago its unimaginable how we would have developed as a civilization. Funding for projects such as this are absolutely necessary, if for no other reason than we need to know what is out there. We need to know if anything is out there. We can not afford to hide in our shell.

"600+ years ago it was imaginable how we would have developed as a civilisation..." Go back 4000 years in recorded history and you'll see that things were going quite well for civilisations around the globe. Somewhere along the way a great deal has been lost and or destroyed but the more thats dug up the more it's looking like they were incredibly advanced. The defining difference seems to be the technology used as opposed to the knowledge known.

[Phil Thien]

Depending on relational orbits, Internet latency would be anywhere between four and 24-minutes.

So refreshing this SMC page would take, at a bare minimum, eight minutes. Or up to 48-minutes.

So I'm out.

:)

[Rod Sheridan]

(emphasis added)

I could not possibly disagree more with the inclusion of that word in that sentence.

Agreed........Rod.

[Jon Shank]

The cost thing is definitely a fair argument to have, especially with the financial shape we are in right now. I don't necessarily agree, I think we've gotten some good stuff out of the space program and I think it's a worthwhile goal, but that's not to discount the argument. We could maybe take a break on that along with 90% of the federal budget to get back in better shape.

I will say that at least one of the proposed Mars colonization missions was put forth as a completely private party mission and not using government funds. Not sure if that is the one that began the thread, but there is one of those out there.
Ah, here it is.
http://www.mars-one.com/about-mars-one

Jon

[Myk Rian]

They are just looking for publicity and a reaction. But if you were a space nut and had a terminal illness, maybe.
That's ridiculous.

[Jim Matthews]

Why go to all this trouble when the perfect Smoked Meat sandwich and the World's Greatest Sporting team are right here?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the spinoffs that came from the Space Program.
I'm particularly fond of Tang.

[Jim Matthews]

That, and they'll be drinking recycled pee.

Let's not forget that.

[Shawn Pixley]

I lived in the California dessert for 4 years....Lancaster/Palmdale area. Mars wouldn't be such a big deal.

Having been to Lancaster, you speak the truth.

[Dave Sheldrake]

So are we all Jim :) 7 times by the numbers :)

cheers

Dave

[Matt Meiser]

I think its pretty arrogant to assume earth is the only place in the entire universe with life.


So refreshing this SMC page would take, at a bare minimum, eight minutes. Or up to 48-minutes.

And imagine what Hughesnet is going to charge for that!

[Art Mulder]

The cost thing is definitely a fair argument to have, especially with the financial shape we are in right now.

Ummm, I'll have to disagree here again. NASA's current budget is less than half of one percent of the US budget: 0.48%

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#Annual_budget.2C_1958-2012
http://www.penny4nasa.org/

[Dave Sheldrake]

Just had a look at that Mars One thing....oh dear

[Alan Caro]

Chuck Wintle,

I think that anyone applying for a suicide visit to Mars would probably end up automatically disqualified for reasons of mental instability.

Plus, it may not be necessary in the near future. A couple of days ago I was speaking with a friend who is retired from NASA- and worked on the Viking landers in the 70's, who was talking about research into plasma rockets. Because of the speed at which the plasma is ejected is so high- and thanks to Newton's equal and opposite reactive forces, these rockets could accelerate continuously at .1G for half the trip and decelerate at .1G for half the trip such that one design could complete the trip in 9-1/2 days. This is assuming the ideal- closest -relative positions. With this speed, a transit could be made so quickly that the return would not have to be initiated 6 months later when Mars was is in the ideal position, so the mission would not have to support the crew on the surface for the six months and could return at any time. Instead of a 6 month transit, 6 months on the surface, and 6 month return, it could be 10 days there, say 20 days there, and 10 days back. I'd consider signing up for that one!

With plasma rockets there would be no need for the one-way trip.

Alan Caro

[Mel Fulks]

The trouble with Mars is the water supply is so undependable. All my life the experts have been saying ,no water on Mars.
Mars has water! Mars has no water. Mars has water and ice! Be sure to take some water.

[Dave Sheldrake]

VASIMR (among other designs) is great Alan but requires huge electrical power, Frank Diaz has it pretty much nailed but as usual the concerns is for space born nuclear fission reactors and the potential for launch pad failure. The latest figures suggest the one way would be around 40 to 45 days IF there was power available. I understand the specific impulse of the different designs are roughly 10 x what a chemical rocket can achieve (although that doesn't make them 10x faster to get anywhere)

cheers

Dave

[Brian Elfert]

Ummm, I'll have to disagree here again. NASA's current budget is less than half of one percent of the US budget: 0.48%


Their budget is around $17 billion this year. Sure, not much in the grand scheme of things, but a bunch of $17 billion agencies adds up quick. Now, I'm certain the US military wastes more than that every year.

[Brett Luna]

Well I realize we have been told we now have spin off benefits from space travel and I say they would have been far less expensive had we not ventured off on wild goose chases. I also think we would have so much more.

Don

On what basis do you conclude that we would have so much more? The thing about space program spin-offs is that there was no (or very little) commercial demand for them before space programs created an initial demand and/or conducted critical research and development for them. Integrated circuits, biomedical telemetry, and long term food storage and safety just scratch the surface of an average of 50 innovations per year. While in a speculative imagination of an alternate timeline, some technologies could have (but not necessarily would have) come sooner, a historically supported case can be made that others would have very likely taken longer, had they not received the jump start they did.

[Pat Barry]

Their budget is around $17 billion this year. Sure, not much in the grand scheme of things, but a bunch of $17 billion agencies adds up quick. Now, I'm certain the US military wastes more than that every year.
$17Billion? That's kinda chump change in my mind in the scale of US budget. Its only about $50 per US citizen. We should be spending a lot more than that IMO. Its going to take whole lot more to make that plasma rocket engine we so desperately need.

[Brett Luna]

And just a general comment about budgets from a (very low level) budget professional in the employ of the US Government. One agency receiving more in a budget setting process does not necessarily mean that another gets less. Before Congress actually appropriates funds, budget limitations are fluid and primarily political, rather than monetary. Hard limits are not set until the appropriation is signed into law.

[Chris Padilla]

Having been to Lancaster, you speak the truth.


Guess you know first hand why the masses aren't in the dessert.

Don


I lived in the California dessert for 4 years....Lancaster/Palmdale area. Mars wouldn't be such a big deal.

Is this a new pastry or something? Do you put whipped cream and cherry on top of it? ;)

[John Coloccia]

Is this a new pastry or something? Do you put whipped cream and cherry on top of it? ;)

My guess is that we're all typing on phones with the same annoying auto-correct quirks.

[Kent A Bathurst]

Is this a new pastry or something? Do you put whipped cream and cherry on top of it? ;)

Just catching up on this thread...............

And I got this far - the bitter end - before the Grammar Spelling Police showed up. Could not believe it got that far. I was gonna step up, but Chris cleaned up first. thanks

:D :D

[Moses Yoder]

In my opinion the argument against spending the money is a moot point. The government just prints the money and then spends it; it has no real value. It is essentially costing us nothing for this venture. It will deplete some resources which have very little value because they are not necessary. Essentially they are not necessary because human life is not a necessity. It could be argued that the dollar has a value which we assign to it in our imagination, a varying value for everyone, but I think if you look at it logically it has zero value. In a Republic the government is elected by the people and essentially given the power to do anything they want to. I think my only option is to vote what I believe and then let the chips fall where they may. Whether they go to Mars or not, I have my own thing going on and am not going to worry about something I have no control over. While I would not want to explore space myself, I wish people the best of luck if that is what they want to do with their lives; it affects me very little, plus I get some cool pictures.

[Kent A Bathurst]

....... just looking for publicity and a reaction...... had a terminal illness, maybe.

The Good Lord preserve and protect Hillary, Amundsen, Earhart, et. al. if your attitude prevailed at the time of their accomplishments.



............ We already know there is zero life just a few miles from earth.

Be careful about that - Bradbury: Dark They Were and Golden-eyed :)


Why do you suppose those idiots who planned to sail off the edge of the earth with Christopher Columbus felt compelled to go?

Common misconception. The knowledge base had established that the Earth was round well before this adventure.


And Last: when I saw the subject line, I immediately thought of candidates for the mission that I would like to nominate.

Gotta avoid the verboten political or religious arena. But - c'mon guys - those topics are the low-hanging fruit. We all wear Big Boy pants here at the 'Creek.

Let's try. But - there will be a bit of an edge, I would hope. Funny, humorous, you cannot color outside the lines. Living or dead. Real or fictional. If you get annoyed by someone's suggestion, then you are not - by definition - in the spirit of the game.


Format:
I nominate XXXX for the Mars Mission
because/for YYY

For instance - I can hold a grudge: this one is 49 years old and counting :)

"I nominate Ara Parseghian to the Mars Mission for "Excellence in Rising to the Challenge" in the the "Tie One for the Gipper" game in 1965."

[Don Huffer]

That's ridiculous.

If anyone goes they can't come back. Do you really think these people are going to follow through? They will all back down when the time comes.

Don

[Don Huffer]

I think its pretty arrogant to assume earth is the only place in the entire universe with life.

And imagine what Hughesnet is going to charge for that!

Well Matt I'd just like to stop tax payer money from funding space travel. Because they have been at this for over 75 years and haven't found any life what so ever. Nothing.

Put a line item on tax returns for people to check if they want to contribute with a line for the amount.

Don

[Chris Padilla]

Elon Musk and SpaceX...privatize space!! This is probably the way to go moving forward. I love NASA and space and I think a lot of good has come from the space program but it isn't cheap.

[Brett Luna]

Because they have been at this for over 75 years...

Who are they and what have they been doing for more than 75 years?

If you count telescopic observations combined with fanciful speculation, you can go back even farther. Astronomer Percival Lowell popularized the idea of advanced life on Mars in books such Mars As the Abode of Life (1908) but mainstream scientists of the day were rightfully skeptical. If we're talking about the scientific search for extraterrestrial life, I guess one could say it didn't begin until the Space Age, which began almost 57 years ago, with the launch of Sputnik in 1957. Of course, actual missions and experiments didn't occur until some years later, most notably, when the Viking landers attempted to detect chemical signs of biological activity in soil samples.

But one shouldn't overlook the fact that the vast majority of space exploration has not had the search for ET life as a primary mission objective.

[Myk Rian]

If anyone goes they can't come back. Do you really think these people are going to follow through? They will all back down when the time comes.

Don
What planet are you from?
Astronauts are highly trained, high intelligence, and healthy individuals. They do the job knowing full well how dangerous it is. They are explorers.
If an Astronaut has no ties to anyone on Earth, why wouldn't he/she go. They know what the outcome will be, and are fully prepared for it.

[Brett Luna]

Elon Musk and SpaceX...privatize space!! This is probably the way to go moving forward. I love NASA and space and I think a lot of good has come from the space program but it isn't cheap.

Aside from the Curiosity mission, the recent progress in private space ventures is what I'm most excited about. Outside of commercial satellite operations and the NASA contracting process, we've had very little access to the large private pool of engineering talent, especially in the area of manned space flight. It'll be a long row to hoe but I think Musk's contribution is a critical step in the right direction...small in the grand scale but huge in terms being first, having a vision, and taking the risk.

[Myk Rian]

Because they have been at this for over 75 years and haven't found any life what so ever. Nothing.
What do you call this?

290550

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALH84001

[Brett Luna]

Errrr...maybe not so fast. From what I remember of some reading a while back, the verdict is still out on the popular Mars meteorite. As I understand it, microscopic imaging wasn't conclusive and there may be some natural processes that could account for the life-like structures.

[Matt Meiser]

Well Matt I'd just like to stop tax payer money from funding space travel. Because they have been at this for over 75 years and haven't found any life what so ever. Nothing.




And what percent of the universe has been explored? An approximate number is good.




Put a line item on tax returns for people to check if they want to contribute with a line for the amount.

Don

Sounds good to me...let's do that with everything. Disaster relief, military, veterans benefits, highways....

[John Coloccia]

my $.02

1) There doesn't need to be a practical reason to go to Mars. "Because I want to go to Mars" is an excellent reason.

2) Without the space program, there is a huge amount of technology that we now use everyday that would never have been developed, just like the gaming industry continually drives state of the art in personal computers. Incidentally, it's probably driving the phone market as well.

The challenge itself is a worthy goal. It always has been. For most of us, it's one of the things that differentiates us from animals. We do things for the hell of it, simply because it's never been done. Invariably, that drives us forward technologically, but even if it didn't, so what?

I'm really not interested in arguing the point. I'm just stating my opinion.

[Don Huffer]

On what basis do you conclude that we would have so much more? The thing about space program spin-offs is that there was no (or very little) commercial demand for them before space programs created an initial demand and/or conducted critical research and development for them. Integrated circuits, biomedical telemetry, and long term food storage and safety just scratch the surface of an average of 50 innovations per year. While in a speculative imagination of an alternate timeline, some technologies could have (but not necessarily would have) come sooner, a historically supported case can be made that others would have very likely taken longer, had they not received the jump start they did.

We should have spent the billions, we're talking billions. On research here where life actually exists. Had a glass of Tang lately? One space suit costs $12 million dollars. Had we not wasted all that money we could have came up with a better tasting Tang.

The shuttle program through 2011 cost $198 billion. Out of that we get a cell phone you can play games on? Off the top of your head you can't tell me 3 things we have from those missions.

Don

[Don Huffer]

Who are they and what have they been doing for more than 75 years?

If you count telescopic observations combined with fanciful speculation, you can go back even farther. Astronomer Percival Lowell popularized the idea of advanced life on Mars in books such Mars As the Abode of Life (1908) but mainstream scientists of the day were rightfully skeptical. If we're talking about the scientific search for extraterrestrial life, I guess one could say it didn't begin until the Space Age, which began almost 57 years ago, with the launch of Sputnik in 1957. Of course, actual missions and experiments didn't occur until some years later, most notably, when the Viking landers attempted to detect chemical signs of biological activity in soil samples.

But one shouldn't overlook the fact that the vast majority of space exploration has not had the search for ET life as a primary mission objective.

And yet we still find no life just a few miles from earth.

Don

[Don Huffer]

What planet are you from?
Astronauts are highly trained, high intelligence, and healthy individuals. They do the job knowing full well how dangerous it is. They are explorers.
If an Astronaut has no ties to anyone on Earth, why wouldn't he/she go. They know what the outcome will be, and are fully prepared for it.

I guess you missed the first post. We are talking about going to Mars. There is no return trip. Astronauts are not the ones signing up for this.

Don

[Don Huffer]

What do you call this?

<img src="http://www.sawmillcreek.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=290550"/>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALH84001

Nothing. Not living and never was. It's what it looks like. An ugly picture that cost billions to take. We get nothing out of it. Marvel all you want. Bet only a 1000 people have seen that boring picture.

Go into space all you want. Just stop using my money to do it.

Don

[Don Huffer]

Errrr...maybe not so fast. From what I remember of some reading a while back, the verdict is still out on the popular Mars meteorite. As I understand it, microscopic imaging wasn't conclusive and there may be some natural processes that could account for the life-like structures.

Thank you for your honesty.

Don

[Don Huffer]

And what percent of the universe has been explored? An approximate number is good.

Sounds good to me...let's do that with everything. Disaster relief, military, veterans benefits, highways....

100% of the space we have explored has given us zero. So how much more of zero do you need to be convinced?

Why the nihilism?

Don

[Don Huffer]

my $.02

1) There doesn't need to be a practical reason to go to Mars. "Because I want to go to Mars" is an excellent reason.

2) Without the space program, there is a huge amount of technology that we now use everyday that would never have been developed, just like the gaming industry continually drives state of the art in personal computers. Incidentally, it's probably driving the phone market as well.

The challenge itself is a worthy goal. It always has been. For most of us, it's one of the things that differentiates us from animals. We do things for the hell of it, simply because it's never been done. Invariably, that drives us forward technologically, but even if it didn't, so what?

I'm really not interested in arguing the point. I'm just stating my opinion.

My position is that I'd like you to do your "because I want to" with your own money. If the space program produced a reason to look further. I'd be all in. But it's just not panned out anything worth sinking any more money into.

Don

[Mel Fulks]

John, don't forget there were adventurous rats on the earliest trips to the new world!

[John Coloccia]

If the space program produced a reason to look further. I'd be all in.

Look further for what? Maybe you think the space program is about little green men? I guess we should decommission all of our spy satellites, communication satellites, GPS satellites, and just allow the Russians and the Chinese to master manned space flights and colonization, while we sit on our duffs doing whatever it is you'd rather be doing.

Perhaps you don't think staying on the leading edge of technology, and mastering it, is a worthy goal, but our worldwide competition and potential adversaries do, and they would be correct. If nothing else, this is a national security issue, plain and simple.

[Brett Luna]

The shuttle program through 2011 cost $198 billion. Out of that we get a cell phone you can play games on? Off the top of your head you can't tell me 3 things we have from those missions.

Since I've had this discussion before, yes, I can: improved artificial heart valve technology, improved home and automotive insulation, land mine removal systems, video stabilization software, and dozens more.

But here's the thing...I doubt any example I provide will make a difference to this straw man you've built and are beating the crap out of. The fact is, space programs have not prevented the funding of the other programs you do favor. Congress could have funded all of them to your satisfaction, along with space programs, had there been the political will to do so. But there wasn't, so they didn't. The sudden and complete disappearance of NASA wouldn't magically produce the desire to spend any money at all for your druthers. It might not be appropriated at all...or it could be spent on something else you hate.

[Jerome Stanek]

100% of the space we have explored has given us zero. So how much more of zero do you need to be convinced?

Why the nihilism?

Don

Thats like saying if you live 30 miles from your nearest neighbors and travel 1/2 miles from where you live there must not be other people out there.

[Pat Barry]

100% of the space we have explored has given us zero. So how much more of zero do you need to be convinced? Why the nihilism? Don

Sorry, I cannot agree with your position.
The Hubble space telescope gave us this, a picture compilation of 10,000 galaxies:
290586
"
And what a view it is! The new image, a false-color compilation of shots taken during the course of 841 orbits of Hubble between 2003 and 2012, contains roughly 10,000 galaxies in a vast variety of shapes and sizes.
"The galaxies show every possible shape and size, astronomer Phil Plait wrote on Slate. "Many are distorted, victims of collisions with other galaxies, their mutual gravity pulling them into weird shapes like taffy quadrillions of kilometers across. Many are very blue, showing active star formation, while others are exceedingly red, probably galaxies much farther away, their light taking far longer to reach us. Note that most of the very red galaxies are smaller dots, another indication of their tremendous distance."

So - 10,000 galaxies. That's something right there. That image fuels the imagination of thousands of physicists and astronomers and researchers who struggle to understand the universe we live in. It does nothing for folks who live in a shell and refuse to see the wonder that exists outside their own back door. Discovery has always been forefront in human development since humans want to discover and make progress not be isolated and afraid. Without it we get no where. . Think of the possibilities of 10,000 Galaxies - not 10,00 earths, not 10,000 solar systems, but 10,000 galaxies - many perhaps like the Milky Way galaxy we live in. Ever take a good look at that beauty- Unfathomable, but thought provoking and one of the driving forces in human nature - to see what its all about. Ask me and we can't spend enough to seek whats really out there and that includes spending the money of those who don't believe, because more do than don't and that's the American way.

[Myk Rian]

I guess you missed the first post. We are talking about going to Mars. There is no return trip. Astronauts are not the ones signing up for this.

Don
And again, what planet are you from?

[Duane Meadows]

If our national debt wasn't equal to thousands of dollars for every man, woman, and child in the world, it might make some since. However, spending money that we don't have... not so much. How much more debt are we willing to pass on to our grandkids? But hey, we at least got a beautiful compiled, false-colored(would that be fake?) picture to show for it!:confused:

And yes I know many of the technological advances we enjoy are at least in part do to space exploration

[Brett Luna]

"The galaxies show every possible shape and size, astronomer Phil Plait wrote on Slate.


Now there's a name I never expected to see on a woodworking forum! We'll...except if I mentioned it. Phil is a cofounder of the space/astronomy forum that I moderate.

[Dave Sheldrake]

Phil's a great guy :)

cheers

Dave

[Brett Luna]

Agreed. I first became acquainted with him way back when at his Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board...which later merged with Universe Today to become BAUT...and is now CosmoQuest after another merger.

[Don Huffer]

Look further for what? Maybe you think the space program is about little green men? I guess we should decommission all of our spy satellites, communication satellites, GPS satellites, and just allow the Russians and the Chinese to master manned space flights and colonization, while we sit on our duffs doing whatever it is you'd rather be doing.

Perhaps you don't think staying on the leading edge of technology, and mastering it, is a worthy goal, but our worldwide competition and potential adversaries do, and they would be correct. If nothing else, this is a national security issue, plain and simple.

More nihilism.

Don

[Don Huffer]

Since I've had this discussion before, yes, I can: improved artificial heart valve technology, improved home and automotive insulation, land mine removal systems, video stabilization software, and dozens more.

But here's the thing...I doubt any example I provide will make a difference to this straw man you've built and are beating the crap out of. The fact is, space programs have not prevented the funding of the other programs you do favor. Congress could have funded all of them to your satisfaction, along with space programs, had there been the political will to do so. But there wasn't, so they didn't. The sudden and complete disappearance of NASA wouldn't magically produce the desire to spend any money at all for your druthers. It might not be appropriated at all...or it could be spent on something else you hate.

Such logic. We had to go into space and find nothing to improve the heart valve.

Your I think the third one here to pontificate that because I don't think space travel is a good idea we should just throw out all the rest of the funding Congress wastes.

Nihilism doesn't impress me.

[Don Huffer]

Thats like saying if you live 30 miles from your nearest neighbors and travel 1/2 miles from where you live there must not be other people out there.

Look. If I travel to my nearest neighbors and along the way I find reason to continue, like I can still breathe, find food and other living things. Sure I'll be happy to continue.

Al

[Don Huffer]

Sorry, I cannot agree with your position.
The Hubble space telescope gave us this, a picture compilation of 10,000 galaxies:
<img src="http://www.sawmillcreek.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=290586"/>
"
And what a view it is! The new image, a false-color compilation of shots taken during the course of 841 orbits of Hubble between 2003 and 2012, contains roughly 10,000 galaxies in a vast variety of shapes and sizes.
"The galaxies show every possible shape and size, astronomer Phil Plait wrote on Slate. "Many are distorted, victims of collisions with other galaxies, their mutual gravity pulling them into weird shapes like taffy quadrillions of kilometers across. Many are very blue, showing active star formation, while others are exceedingly red, probably galaxies much farther away, their light taking far longer to reach us. Note that most of the very red galaxies are smaller dots, another indication of their tremendous distance."

So - 10,000 galaxies. That's something right there. That image fuels the imagination of thousands of physicists and astronomers and researchers who struggle to understand the universe we live in. It does nothing for folks who live in a shell and refuse to see the wonder that exists outside their own back door. Discovery has always been forefront in human development since humans want to discover and make progress not be isolated and afraid. Without it we get no where. . Think of the possibilities of 10,000 Galaxies - not 10,00 earths, not 10,000 solar systems, but 10,000 galaxies - many perhaps like the Milky Way galaxy we live in. Ever take a good look at that beauty- Unfathomable, but thought provoking and one of the driving forces in human nature - to see what its all about. Ask me and we can't spend enough to seek whats really out there and that includes spending the money of those who don't believe, because more do than don't and that's the American way.

Right. Sure it is. They have no idea what they are looking at. Science in this field is worse than a stab in the dark. Do you guys really listen to them when they say, "we believe....." Or, We feel this is showing...."

They couldn't even tell us how much dust was on the moon.

Al

[Don Huffer]

And again, what planet are you from?

Amazing how testy some get over this issue.

Al

[Brett Luna]

They couldn't even tell us how much dust was on the moon.

Why would you expect them to?

[John Coloccia]

...
...
Why the nihilism?

Don



...
...
Nihilism doesn't impress me.


More nihilism.

Don


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

[Jim Matthews]

Mehwage....

290694

[Jim Matthews]

It's Mars needs wimmin, not Mars needs rats.

Unless rats are for the inflight barbecue service,
or sumpin'....

[Don Huffer]

Why would you expect them to?

Well because they did for years, before we went there. It was actually quite a big deal. But of course they were wrong. Very wrong. But science never seems to come right out and say it like that. It happens all the time with this kind science. If you give science long enough it will disprove itself.

So far I've out lived the coming ice age, acid rain, dust on the moon and salt in the oceans. To name a few. Hoping to out live GW too.

Don

[Don Huffer]

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk)

It's really boring when a person stands up against a very unproven science. Which has no effect on weather we live or die. Or the true quality of our lives. Only to have someone throw up the assumption that all science must be bad. Stop with the nihilism.

I'm older and have lived through many of space sciences comings and goings. I don't do utube just because you post a link. Had you given an explanation for it, maybe.

Don

[Pat Barry]

It's really boring when a person stands up against a very unproven science. Which has no effect on weather we live or die. Or the true quality of our lives. Only to have someone throw up the assumption that all science must be bad. Stop with the nihilism.

I'm older and have lived through many of space sciences comings and goings. I don't do utube just because you post a link. Had you given an explanation for it, maybe.

Don
I don't think you really understand nihilism. If anything, with such highly negative views of the space program's value, you are in fact exhibiting the nihilist behavior you so much detest.

For example, this quote from a more complete article: "The earliest philosophical positions associated with what could be characterized as a nihilistic outlook are those of the Skeptics. Because they denied the possibility of certainty, Skeptics could denounce traditional truths as unjustifiable opinions."

So what exactly is it about the search for knowledge in outer space that you consider so nihilistic? Perhaps you confuse that complicated word with a more appropriate and commonly used word - optimistic for example.

[Malcolm Schweizer]

It's a common myth that people during Columbus' time thought the world was flat. More poor history taught to the masses.

Oh come on- this historical fact of Columbus being the only one who thought the earth was round came straight from Buggs Bunny, so it has to be true.

[Malcolm Schweizer]

By the way, I saw an interview with the selectees and one of them was a lady who said her husband fully supported her going to Mars. Yes, I bet he does. "Suuuurrrrreee honey- you can go. I fully support you (evil grin, checks insurance policy)."

[Myk Rian]

We MUST go to Mars. How else are we going to get back at these guys?

290702

[John Coloccia]

By the way, I saw an interview with the selectees and one of them was a lady who said her husband fully supported her going to Mars. Yes, I bet he does. "Suuuurrrrreee honey- you can go. I fully support you (evil grin, checks insurance policy)."

I'd settle for the moon, but she can go all the way to Mars if she really wants to.

[Brett Luna]

Well because they did for years, before we went there. It was actually quite a big deal. But of course they were wrong. Very wrong. But science never seems to come right out and say it like that.

I've asked this once before in this thread and I ask again: who are "they"? You write as if you think science is a monolithic entity or has some central headquarters with great authority. It does not. Yes, individual scientists are often wrong. In this case, I think you're referring to some pretty wild speculation by Dr. Tommy Gold, a geologist from Cornell. Scientific consensus was against him and it was certainly no secret. But the news media popularized the notion, I suppose, because it was so dramatic. Your statements suggest to me that you get your ideas about science not from scientists but from the over simplified and often inaccurate reporting in the media. I also think it's a pretty good guess that you are essentially unfamiliar with the Surveyor missions and their results...which were also publicized.


It happens all the time with this kind science. If you give science long enough it will disprove itself.

You say that as if it's a flaw. It isn't. It's a feature of science. Earlier in the thread, you thanked me for being honest about pointing out that a story about possible fossilized ET life had not yet been confirmed. Science demands that kind of intellectual honesty. If you're not honest with others (or yourself!) about evidence and the current state of knowledge, you're not doing science. And there's a key concept for you: the current state of knowledge. We can only know what we think we know, today. Scientific rigor is in part, an attempt to identify the wrong bits in our body of knowledge and replace them with correct information...or at least, something more correct.

Oh and what you said above about "science never seems to come right out and say [that it's wrong] like that"? That is spectacularly wrong and makes it pretty obvious that you haven't read many (or any) science papers. A great many of them assert that something we thought we knew is wrong, if only in the details. Not everyone is Einstein, after all. Many papers are refutations of work by others. Some are corrections of their own previous work. In science, confirming something is wrong is as just as important as confirming that it's correct.

[David Weaver]

I don't think you really understand nihilism.

We vant ze money, Lebowski!! So we takes haff of ze money und ve calls it evun!!

[Don Huffer]

I don't think you really understand nihilism. If anything, with such highly negative views of the space program's value, you are in fact exhibiting the nihilist behavior you so much detest.

For example, this quote from a more complete article: "The earliest philosophical positions associated with what could be characterized as a nihilistic outlook are those of the Skeptics. Because they denied the possibility of certainty, Skeptics could denounce traditional truths as unjustifiable opinions."

So what exactly is it about the search for knowledge in outer space that you consider so nihilistic? Perhaps you confuse that complicated word with a more appropriate and commonly used word - optimistic for example.

It's not the search in space. It's the not so thought out responses stating I must be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

News Flash..... Just because I don't believe and bathe in space science (oxymoron) doesn't mean I don't believe in other aspects of science. Be honest and admit. Science does over the long run, blow with the wind. For instance, do some research on DDT and you will find a big pack of lies. Research what we used to believe about many things and you will find they too have flip flopped. Science just doesnt last forever.

Don

[Don Huffer]

We MUST go to Mars. How else are we going to get back at these guys?

<img src="http://www.sawmillcreek.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=290702"/>

Great! Just use your own money. That's really my only concern. You know when I was a kid I wanted to be an astronaut.

Don

[Don Huffer]

You know I posted many good responses on the woodworking side and didnt get three posts from any of you guys. I'm actually a very good woodworker and have many ideals to impart. But this forum is very odd.

Thanks so much for your posts to this thread. Thought you guys were dead.

I really don't hate space travel but I think it's just time to turn it over to the private sector. I guess the Pres. does too. First time I have agreed with that guy.

Don

[Don Huffer]

I've asked this once before in this thread and I ask again: who are "they"? You write as if you think science is a monolithic entity or has some central headquarters with great authority. It does not. Yes, individual scientists are often wrong. In this case, I think you're referring to some pretty wild speculation by Dr. Tommy Gold, a geologist from Cornell. Scientific consensus was against him and it was certainly no secret. But the news media popularized the notion, I suppose, because it was so dramatic. Your statements suggest to me that you get your ideas about science not from scientists but from the over simplified and often inaccurate reporting in the media. I also think it's a pretty good guess that you are essentially unfamiliar with the Surveyor missions and their results...which were also publicized.

You say that as if it's a flaw. It isn't. It's a feature of science. Earlier in the thread, you thanked me for being honest about pointing out that a story about possible fossilized ET life had not yet been confirmed. Science demands that kind of intellectual honesty. If you're not honest with others (or yourself!) about evidence and the current state of knowledge, you're not doing science. And there's a key concept for you: the current state of knowledge. We can only know what we think we know, today. Scientific rigor is in part, an attempt to identify the wrong bits in our body of knowledge and replace them with correct information...or at least, something more correct.

Oh and what you said above about "science never seems to come right out and say [that it's wrong] like that"? That is spectacularly wrong and makes it pretty obvious that you haven't read many (or any) science papers. A great many of them assert that something we thought we knew is wrong, if only in the details. Not everyone is Einstein, after all. Many papers are refutations of work by others. Some are corrections of their own previous work. In science, confirming something is wrong is as just as important as confirming that it's correct.

See that's my point. Science isn't mono. Of all the sciences space travel science is the one I would much rather NOT spend my money on. Sorry. But hey, you keep on. and if you do find one little tiny little piece of hope I'll be right back in front of the snowy tv screen watching those brave men do that one giant step. Well and along with a big giant tax burden.

As to being wrong. It just seems to me they just try to explain it away rather that saying, shoot we really messed that one. Like the dust on the moon. Admit it. Carl and all his buddies really messed up that one.

Also admit. Many science projects get funded due to the truth being stretched in order to get funded.

I don't type or spell well. So my posts and ideals are seemingly child like. Dad I'm an excellent woodworker not a writer. Gees this is in fact a bunch of wood heads.

By the way. I like the way you post. You get me. And the rest don't. You're a smarty smart. And I admire that. Thanks.

Be a real hero and tell the rest of your gang to raise their own monies and let the other dreamers fund cancer research or at the least, ocean exploration. You know, where living things exist.

Stop and think. We just invented the cell phone a few years ago. Such a simple little deal. Then understand we are prolly thousands of years from sending a person to mars.

I'm going flying.

Don

[Moses Yoder]

I do not see any way to report a thread to the moderators and ask for it to be deleted. I don't see how this thread is any different from one on politics or religion; both sides are not really furnishing detailed evidence to back up their claims. I don't see what we are gaining here other than making enemies amongst ourselves.

[Don Huffer]

I do not see any way to report a thread to the moderators and ask for it to be deleted. I don't see how this thread is any different from one on politics or religion; both sides are not really furnishing detailed evidence to back up their claims. I don't see what we are gaining here other than making enemies amongst ourselves.

Hey Mos
I still love you man.

Hard to see whats inside someones heart on a forum.

Your prolly right, for some this is their religion. For me it's cherry wood just after sanding to 220 and pouring on some wiping varnish.

Don

[Chris Padilla]

Moses,

Just click on the white triangle with the red border that is on the blue bar on the far right of every post in every thread. Then fill out the text box with whatever you like and it'll get sent to the mods and we'll discuss it and take action if necessary. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong here other than disagreement and politics and religion haven't taken center-stage but feel free to report it. Perhaps the other mods will see things differently than I do.

[Moses Yoder]

I found the triangle, although my settings are different from yours. For now I think I will just make a pot of coffee and move on to something else. I love educated civil debate on such matters, I'm just not seeing it here.

[Pat Barry]

Moses,

Just click on the white triangle with the red border that is on the blue bar on the far right of every post in every thread. Then fill out the text box with whatever you like and it'll get sent to the mods and we'll discuss it and take action if necessary. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong here other than disagreement and politics and religion haven't taken center-stage but feel free to report it. Perhaps the other mods will see things differently than I do.
On my display, the triangle is on the far left side. Maybe it depends on settings used on the browser.

I disagree with Moses though, I'm not seeing religion or politics and in fact this is the "off-topic" area of the website. I see this is a an interesting discussion. I don't mind at al that Don has a different opinion. That's the whole point to me. Everyone has an opinion - lets hear them. Are we going to solve anything? Very doubtful, but then again over in the Neander forum they can't agree on simple things like chip breaker settings, bevel up or down, sharpening techniques, purpose of the nib on a saw, etc, etc. Its all good.

[Joe Leigh]

You know I posted many good responses on the woodworking side and didnt get three posts from any of you guys. I'm actually a very good woodworker and have many ideals to impart....
Don


Keep posting Don, it's refreshing to hear someone speak their mind without concern about how anyone else feels about it.

As for this forum being strange, It's like that 10-90 rule, where 10% of the members make 90% of the posts, so getting a fresh perspective can be challenging.

[Don Huffer]

Keep posting Don, it's refreshing to hear someone speak their mind without concern about how anyone else feels about it.

As for this forum being strange, It's like that 10-90 rule, where 10% of the members make 90% of the posts, so getting a fresh perspective can be challenging.

Well thanks Joe. Im just so enamored with the off topic due to the activity. But I've been a woodworker for 45 years and I'm sure I haven't posted like a newbie in the wood section. Thought to stand on a box and bang the drum but also thought this forum was closed and new need not post.

I'm going to remember the name, thanks

Don

[Myk Rian]

They couldn't even tell us how much dust was on the moon.

So far I've out lived the coming ice age, acid rain, dust on the moon and salt in the oceans.

Like the dust on the moon. Admit it. Carl and all his buddies really messed up that one.
What is all this about dust on the moon? Did you want them to weight it while they were there?

[Don Huffer]

What is all this about dust on the moon? Did you want them to weight it while they were there?

Oh shoot I thought you were smarter than me. Heres the deal.

They told us how old the moon is. They told us how much dust collects each year on the earth and moon. Since they also told us it was billions of years old. The dust was going to be really thick. But then we went to the moon, the landing was supposed to sink in enough to not require a bottom step. But as it turns out, either they were wrong about the age of the moon and earth or they were wrong about the amount of dust that builds up each year. Because there wasn't near the dust on the moon they were telling us about. Hmmmmm. Science will disprove itself if you just give it some time. Just where are you getting your science from? Can you trust them with your life? As close as the moon is, don't you think they would get it right? They didn't. Their minds were made up before we got there. They are just so sure of their feelings or thoughts, till we had the cold hard facts in hand. Glad nobody twisted an ankle.

Science was wrong, dead wrong about that and they are wrong about the salt in the seas. They don't have the best track record on many issues they shoved down our unsuspecting throats. It changes all the time. When your older you will look back and say, whats the flavor of the day. Your kids will laugh at you because you believed global warming was going to ruin us as they drive off in their 12 cylinder cars.

Don

[Pat Barry]

they are wrong about the salt in the seas.
Hi DOn, I'd like to hear more about the salt problem in the seas. Can you please explain the issue? Thanks

[Don Huffer]

Hi DOn, I'd like to hear more about the salt problem in the seas. Can you please explain the issue? Thanks

Right. Google it. I'm bored.

Don

[Don Huffer]

Right. Google it. I'm bored.

Don

Sorry Pat. Not sure if you were patronizing or not from your post. This was fun till some got a burr under their saddle. You'd thought I shot their dog or kissed their wife.

Don

[Brian Ashton]

Oh shoot I thought you were smarter than me. Heres the deal.

They told us how old the moon is. They told us how much dust collects each year on the earth and moon. Since they also told us it was billions of years old. The dust was going to be really thick. But then we went to the moon, the landing was supposed to sink in enough to not require a bottom step. But as it turns out, either they were wrong about the age of the moon and earth or they were wrong about the amount of dust that builds up each year. Because there wasn't near the dust on the moon they were telling us about. Hmmmmm. Science will disprove itself if you just give it some time. Just where are you getting your science from? Can you trust them with your life? As close as the moon is, don't you think they would get it right? They didn't. Their minds were made up before we got there. They are just so sure of their feelings or thoughts, till we had the cold hard facts in hand. Glad nobody twisted an ankle.

Science was wrong, dead wrong about that and they are wrong about the salt in the seas. They don't have the best track record on many issues they shoved down our unsuspecting throats. It changes all the time. When your older you will look back and say, whats the flavor of the day. Your kids will laugh at you because you believed global warming was going to ruin us as they drive off in their 12 cylinder cars.

Don

In an ironic way you are right. That statement sums up the scientific method. Science isn't about proving anything, it's about disproving ideas and theories. Essentially, even with the knowledge society has there is no conclusive way of proving anything, cause present knowledge doesn't know what else will be discovered in the future that will draw into question current understanding... So scientists set out to disprove, using the knowledge they have... So in reality, most theories, hypothesis, ideas are found at some point in the future to be somewhere between partially or a completely wrong. Look at the hundreds of years of science that went into making a cell phone work. Most of it had some degree of incorrectness and went through many revisions until it was mostly correct (like I said nothing is absolutely correct as far as science is concerned) and allowed us to use such a "simple little deal" of technology.


Ya know the things I really find amazing about scientific discovery is? When I was in school, college, and uni reading and studying about all those wounderous principals and laws that make up the foundations of all existence I was always surprised once it became clear at how simple a concept they were and how they logically made sense. To me it appears that existence is made up entirely of wonderfully simple concepts. But the effort that went into those discoveries was probably not far off the effort that would be going into todays scientists trying to find a viable way to put a man on Mars. For scientists I can imagine at time there must be a bit of a let down when all their effort produces such a simple and logical explanation.

One final point. Somewhere you said you've been woodworking for 45 years... Did you always get it "right"? I bet you got lots wrong, from technique issues, material selection, to design flaws and everything in-between - right? So why is it so hard to accept that scientist in their professions don't get it right all the time either?

[Brian Ashton]

Sorry Pat. Not sure if you were patronizing or not from your post. This was fun till some got a burr under their saddle. You'd thought I shot their dog or kissed their wife.

Don

I'm not patronising you but whats the problem with salt in the oceans other than it's rising. At least that's what comes up when I google it.

[Jim Matthews]

If our national debt wasn't equal to thousands of dollars for every man, woman, and child in the world, it might make some since. However, spending money that we don't have... not so much. How much more debt are we willing to pass on to our grandkids? But hey, we at least got a beautiful compiled, false-colored(would that be fake?) picture to show for it!:confused:

And yes I know many of the technological advances we enjoy are at least in part do to space exploration

That's the spirit that landed a man on the Moon.
It's all about your grandkids - sure thing.

Your Grandkids might like a legacy of something cool that
you can point to and say - "We did that."

Instead, they get parking lots with all the convenient spaces painted blue.
That's a fair analogy - taking all the good spots, capable of doing more yet getting someone else to pay for it.

What rubbish.

[Dan Hintz]

They told us how old the moon is. They told us how much dust collects each year on the earth and moon. Since they also told us it was billions of years old. The dust was going to be really thick. But then we went to the moon, the landing was supposed to sink in enough to not require a bottom step. But as it turns out, either they were wrong about the age of the moon and earth or they were wrong about the amount of dust that builds up each year. Because there wasn't near the dust on the moon they were telling us about.

I was trying so hard to stay out of this fray, but I keep reading conclusions based upon limited information (and as a scientist, that just bugs me to death).

As with all scientific theories, the amount of data involved will affect the quality of the theory. The idea that the dust on the moon was thick was based upon a certain set of assumptions, not all of which could be verified without going there... as what always happens in science, when one of the assumptions is proven incorrect, the theory must change. It's not a difficult concept to understand, but many easily forget it while pronouncing how "dumb" the original theory was. Once we landed, we adjusted our theory based upon what we learned. Moon dust was not as fine as we once thought, and therefore did not create such a soft layer. And as always true in science, there were plenty of people who didn't think they would sink... but you're forgetting about those scientists in your proclamation.

Science is a process of elimination, a process of educated guesses to push ideas forward, a process of refinement. There could be no such thing as gravity... but the preponderance of evidence towards gravity existing means pretty much everyone alive believes in its existence. But as you said, "Science will disprove itself if you just give it some time." That's the entire point of the scientific method. We went from alchemists who thought we could change lead into gold, to scientists who realized that's not a valid transformation of matter, to scientists who realized that with advances in energy/matter conversion we may someday actually be able to make the change on a molecular level... it can work, it can't work, it actually can work (we're just not advanced enough to do it practically yet). Science proved itself wrong, twice.

But the biggest issue I see in these discussions? You assume that everything produced/written by a scientist that you don't agree with shows how bad science is... why aren't you saying science works when you look at the scientists producing work that does agree with your world view? You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Dissenting opinions is what makes science stronger (and correct) in the long run, it doesn't mean it's crackpot.

[Mel Fulks]

Good points. But some of it is crack pot. The Amazing Randi made fools of the scientists studying spoon bending. Not because they they were studying it but because their methods were not good science.

[Brian Ashton]

Good points. But some of it is crack pot. The Amazing Randi made fools of the scientists studying spoon bending. Not because they they were studying it but because their methods were not good science.

(Insert shrugging my shoulders smiley here) So what. You think "crack pots" only exist in the science community.

[Mel Fulks]

Brian,I would caution all to not come to conclusions beyond the data. And add the scientists cried like little babies and
accused a magician of betraying them.

[Tom Stenzel]

I'd settle for the moon, but she can go all the way to Mars if she really wants to.

Where we find out who have spouses that read SMC, and those who don't. :)


-Tom

[Tom Stenzel]

I remember when I was a lad watching Star Trek. Seeing Captain Kirk fly around the galaxy, meeting up with (usually platinum blond) space babes, I was all for space travel. Go NASA!

By the time the Next Generation show was on, what was a normal mission? Shuttling diplomats around.

I was ready to call my Congressman and defund NASA! Why should we go to space to haul a bunch of whining aliens about? Let them take the bus. Or call the Millennium Falcon if they want a private car.

As far as all the other science discussion going on, I for one agree with Douglas Adams and am keeping a close eye on the mice.

-Tom

[Brian Ashton]

Brian,I would caution all to not come to conclusions beyond the data. And add the scientists cried like little babies and
accused a magician of betraying them.

Not trying to be flippant or disrespectful but that's stating the obvious. Your earlier post tries to point out there are crack pots in science thus we need to be aware... Again stating the obvious. Such a retort where you state an isolated incident (considering the amount of genuine scientific study that takes place daily) is for the most part worthless because crack pots invade all aspects of society, culture, groups, internet, religions... they're the one thing no one can avoid. I'm sure if you were willing to reveal a particular stance that you are passionate or strongly aligned with such as a religion or political ideology I could in less than 5 mins find a great deal of crack pots that espouse similar affiliation. But I wouldn't because they aren't worth the mention cause they're simply idiots and don't represent what you believe.

[Dan Hintz]

Good points. But some of it is crack pot. The Amazing Randi made fools of the scientists studying spoon bending. Not because they they were studying it but because their methods were not good science.

Just because someone calls themselves a scientist doesn't mean they faithfully employ the scientific method. I can't call myself a race car driver just because I have driven around the track a few laps... and I wouldn't say true race car drivers must all be lacking skill simply because once in a blue moon some average Joe manages to get onto the track and mingles with them. Not quite post hoc ergo propter hoc because we're not talking about a sequence of events, but you can't make such a false conclusion based upon irrelevant data, so it's somewhat fitting.

[Don Huffer]

I was trying so hard to stay out of this fray, but I keep reading conclusions based upon limited information (and as a scientist, that just bugs me to death).

As with all scientific theories, the amount of data involved will affect the quality of the theory. The idea that the dust on the moon was thick was based upon a certain set of assumptions, not all of which could be verified without going there... as what always happens in science, when one of the assumptions is proven incorrect, the theory must change. It's not a difficult concept to understand, but many easily forget it while pronouncing how "dumb" the original theory was. Once we landed, we adjusted our theory based upon what we learned. Moon dust was not as fine as we once thought, and therefore did not create such a soft layer. And as always true in science, there were plenty of people who didn't think they would sink... but you're forgetting about those scientists in your proclamation.

Science is a process of elimination, a process of educated guesses to push ideas forward, a process of refinement. There could be no such thing as gravity... but the preponderance of evidence towards gravity existing means pretty much everyone alive believes in its existence. But as you said, "Science will disprove itself if you just give it some time." That's the entire point of the scientific method. We went from alchemists who thought we could change lead into gold, to scientists who realized that's not a valid transformation of matter, to scientists who realized that with advances in energy/matter conversion we may someday actually be able to make the change on a molecular level... it can work, it can't work, it actually can work (we're just not advanced enough to do it practically yet). Science proved itself wrong, twice.

But the biggest issue I see in these discussions? You assume that everything produced/written by a scientist that you don't agree with shows how bad science is... why aren't you saying science works when you look at the scientists producing work that does agree with your world view? You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Dissenting opinions is what makes science stronger (and correct) in the long run, it doesn't mean it's crackpot.

Well Dan step out of you lab and take a look at all the people that believe "science" hung the moon. Get a grip on how many people stake their lives on it. Add up the $ we have poured into issues and ideals because "science" is telling us it must be true.

"Science" is now demanding we shut up sit down and except global warming and the crazy idea that co2 is a pollutant. They are proclaiming discussion is over so say the believers. I say question "science". It just may save your life.

Nice but not believable gloss over story on the dust that isn't there. For what really amounts to screwing the pooch. If "science" just had the honesty to admit they screwed up. But that will never happen. You have to keep the money rolling.

Don

[Don Huffer]

I'm not patronising you but whats the problem with salt in the oceans other than it's rising. At least that's what comes up when I google it.

I'm sure I never said there was a problem with salt in the oceans.

Don

[Don Huffer]

In an ironic way you are right. That statement sums up the scientific method. Science isn't about proving anything, it's about disproving ideas and theories. Essentially, even with the knowledge society has there is no conclusive way of proving anything, cause present knowledge doesn't know what else will be discovered in the future that will draw into question current understanding... So scientists set out to disprove, using the knowledge they have... So in reality, most theories, hypothesis, ideas are found at some point in the future to be somewhere between partially or a completely wrong. Look at the hundreds of years of science that went into making a cell phone work. Most of it had some degree of incorrectness and went through many revisions until it was mostly correct (like I said nothing is absolutely correct as far as science is concerned) and allowed us to use such a "simple little deal" of technology.

Ya know the things I really find amazing about scientific discovery is? When I was in school, college, and uni reading and studying about all those wounderous principals and laws that make up the foundations of all existence I was always surprised once it became clear at how simple a concept they were and how they logically made sense. To me it appears that existence is made up entirely of wonderfully simple concepts. But the effort that went into those discoveries was probably not far off the effort that would be going into todays scientists trying to find a viable way to put a man on Mars. For scientists I can imagine at time there must be a bit of a let down when all their effort produces such a simple and logical explanation.

One final point. Somewhere you said you've been woodworking for 45 years... Did you always get it "right"? I bet you got lots wrong, from technique issues, material selection, to design flaws and everything in-between - right? So why is it so hard to accept that scientist in their professions don't get it right all the time either?

To answer your One final point. Myself and my mistakes are not bleeding the public of tax dollars. I don't stand on a box and bang the drum for my ideals and convince the people to follow in lock step as we march into yet another snip hunt on planet Mars. Can I see a raise of hands for those that were so completely disappointed with the Hubble pictures that the bean in the styrofoam cup had more marvel.

Don

[Brett Luna]

Oh my, it's worse than I thought. There usually isn't much upside to discussion with the ideological entrenched. I'm outta this one.

[Brian Ashton]

I'm sure I never said there was a problem with salt in the oceans.

Don

Posts 81 you mention salt in the oceans and then in 102 where you expound and say scientists were dead wrong about salt in the seas.

[Don Huffer]

Posts 81 you mention salt in the oceans and then in 102 where you expound and say scientists were dead wrong about salt in the seas.

Gees. I might have answered your question had you quoted me properly the first time.

They were dead wrong about the amount of salt in the seas as it relates to the time it took to become this "salty". For years they told us how old the earth was. They "proved" this by pointing out the salt content in the oceans. Then science found a method of figuring out per year so to speak. Now they can't make that work out with the age of the earth. Their numbers only get the age to between 100,000 and 200,000 years.

So either they are wrong about the age of the earth or wrong about calculating the gain each year or every 100 years. But the silly guys aren't backing down on either. Bill Nye had no reply. :)

Don

[Brian Ashton]

Gees. I might have answered your question had you quoted me properly the first time.

They were dead wrong about the amount of salt in the seas as it relates to the time it took to become this "salty". For years they told us how old the earth was. They "proved" this by pointing out the salt content in the oceans. Then science found a method of figuring out per year so to speak. Now they can't make that work out with the age of the earth. Their numbers only get the age to between 100,000 and 200,000 years.

So either they are wrong about the age of the earth or wrong about calculating the gain each year or every 100 years. But the silly guys aren't backing down on either. Bill Nye had no reply. :)

Don

I'll take a punt here and assume you take a religious point of view and believe the literal theological record that the world is about 6000 - 10000 year old, fair enough. Where as scientists believe empirical evidence puts the world at hundreds of millions to billions of years old. So in actual fact science regarding salinity of the oceans and time line to this point has got it wrong from both perspectives. I highly doubt those that are conducting such studies aren't backing down, their calculations are wrong on all counts. They've obviously missed a few important factors that present knowledge hasn't identified, this is a key point that I have mentioned before. So in all honestly why are you so focused on it.

[Tom Stenzel]

Don said in part:

Gees. I might have answered your question had you quoted me properly the first time.

They were dead wrong about the amount of salt in the seas as it relates to the time it took to become this "salty". For years they told us how old the earth was. They "proved" this by pointing out the salt content in the oceans. Then science found a method of figuring out per year so to speak. Now they can't make that work out with the age of the earth. Their numbers only get the age to between 100,000 and 200,000 years.

Don

Here in southeast Michigan we have a huge layer of salt under the ground. It's mined, when I worked I could hear the blasting when I was in the basement of our pumping stations. It started at 3:30 pm every day. You can see the tower over the mine entrance from I-75.

The conventional wisdom is that the layer of salt was formed by a salt water sea the covered the area, became landlocked and dried up. Southeast Michigan isn't the only place that these layers of salt are found.

This is salt that was formerly part of an ocean but became lost to the ocean. When "they" figured out how salty the ocean water could/should be, did they consider that there have been salt loses? If they did, how did they calculate the volume?

I doubt if it was considered at all.

My non-scientific opinion, worth every cent you're paying for it, is that the idea of guessing the age of anything by the salt in the ocean was going off the rails from the start.

-Tom

[Dan Hintz]

Well Dan step out of you lab and take a look at all the people that believe "science" hung the moon.

I'm... not even sure what that sentence means...

I was going to write a little more complicated post, but you're obviously a complete nutter with no real grasp on reality, so I'll bow out of this thread. Good luck to ya.

[Myk Rian]

I'm... not even sure what that sentence means...

I was going to write a little more complicated post, but you're obviously a complete nutter with no real grasp on reality, so I'll bow out of this thread. Good luck to ya.
Nutter. Good term. I'm outta here right along with you.
Just in case anyone is interested, you can add people to your ignore list.

[Don Huffer]

I'll take a punt here and assume you take a religious point of view and believe the literal theological record that the world is about 6000 - 10000 year old, fair enough. Where as scientists believe empirical evidence puts the world at hundreds of millions to billions of years old. So in actual fact science regarding salinity of the oceans and time line to this point has got it wrong from both perspectives. I highly doubt those that are conducting such studies aren't backing down, their calculations are wrong on all counts. They've obviously missed a few important factors that present knowledge hasn't identified, this is a key point that I have mentioned before. So in all honestly why are you so focused on it.

Careful no assumptions and no religion.

Empirical evidence? When you've lived just a few more years your going to see more flip flops in science than a fish out of water.

Science falls way short of millions of years with both their theories. So I should believe science to be trusted. Best off if we just take it with a grain of salt.

Oh that's funny.

Don

[Don Huffer]

Don said in part:

Here in southeast Michigan we have a huge layer of salt under the ground. It's mined, when I worked I could hear the blasting when I was in the basement of our pumping stations. It started at 3:30 pm every day. You can see the tower over the mine entrance from I-75.

The conventional wisdom is that the layer of salt was formed by a salt water sea the covered the area, became landlocked and dried up. Southeast Michigan isn't the only place that these layers of salt are found.

This is salt that was formerly part of an ocean but became lost to the ocean. When "they" figured out how salty the ocean water could/should be, did they consider that there have been salt loses? If they did, how did they calculate the volume?

I doubt if it was considered at all.

My non-scientific opinion, worth every cent you're paying for it, is that the idea of guessing the age of anything by the salt in the ocean was going off the rails from the start.

-Tom

I couldnt agree more. But remember its science that is telling both stories.

Don

[Don Huffer]

I'm... not even sure what that sentence means...

I was going to write a little more complicated post, but you're obviously a complete nutter with no real grasp on reality, so I'll bow out of this thread. Good luck to ya.

Sure. You know exactly what I mean.

Don

[Don Huffer]

Nutter. Good term. I'm outta here right along with you.
Just in case anyone is interested, you can add people to your ignore list.

Well thanks for the nice heart felt post. What a sweetheart.

Don

[Don Huffer]

I'm... not even sure what that sentence means...

I was going to write a little more complicated post, but you're obviously a complete nutter with no real grasp on reality, so I'll bow out of this thread. Good luck to ya.

Name call and then bow out? Very telling.

Don

[Scott Shepherd]

Don't feel bad Don, I'm probably with you. I haven't followed this thread too closely, but I'm amazed at how science works in many cases. Someone (born in 1945) "invents" something and then says "See, this proves what was happening 200,000 years ago. My invention says so and it proves that. That baffles me and always has. What if your test and theories aren't linear? What if there's a wicked bell curve somewhere that happened 30,000 years ago? Nope. It that way because I said so and my peers agree with me, so it's "Settled science".

I went to a radio observatory and they guy on the tour was telling me all these amazing things that they have determined from the data coming back from space. I asked him "How do you interpret the data?", and he looked puzzled. I said "didn't someone have to write computer code to interpret the signals coming back?" and he said "Yes, I suppose so". How'd someone take a signal coming back from space and determine that this pattern meant that? I said "What if there was an error in the calculations in his code?". He said "I'm not sure I understand you". I said "How do you know if what you have is correct, when it was a person that wrote it. How would you know if something was off or wrong?", and he said "That's a good question, I don't know.

So someone wrote some code, you're pulling data from space, and we're suppose to "know" that that data coming back from space means "something" because someone said so. They are analyzing things they didn't know existed 5 years ago, and now it's supposed to be settled?

I think mankind is way too arrogant in it's believe that it can solve everything in the universe in 1 generation. Some things are far larger than 1 generation will ever understand.

[Don Huffer]

Don't feel bad Don, I'm probably with you. I haven't followed this thread too closely, but I'm amazed at how science works in many cases. Someone (born in 1945) "invents" something and then says "See, this proves what was happening 200,000 years ago. My invention says so and it proves that. That baffles me and always has. What if your test and theories aren't linear? What if there's a wicked bell curve somewhere that happened 30,000 years ago? Nope. It that way because I said so and my peers agree with me, so it's "Settled science".

I went to a radio observatory and they guy on the tour was telling me all these amazing things that they have determined from the data coming back from space. I asked him "How do you interpret the data?", and he looked puzzled. I said "didn't someone have to write computer code to interpret the signals coming back?" and he said "Yes, I suppose so". How'd someone take a signal coming back from space and determine that this pattern meant that? I said "What if there was an error in the calculations in his code?". He said "I'm not sure I understand you". I said "How do you know if what you have is correct, when it was a person that wrote it. How would you know if something was off or wrong?", and he said "That's a good question, I don't know.

So someone wrote some code, you're pulling data from space, and we're suppose to "know" that that data coming back from space means "something" because someone said so. They are analyzing things they didn't know existed 5 years ago, and now it's supposed to be settled?

I think mankind is way too arrogant in it's believe that it can solve everything in the universe in 1 generation. Some things are far larger than 1 generation will ever understand.

Well Scott while having a little fun here wasn't really my idea. I just would like to point out to the masses, I don't want to pay for space travel any more because of the utter lack of results. Space travel is fine but really should be handed over to private groups. And when they find a green man let them make a ton of money on it. And when they don't. We haven't waisted our money on it. Let's put our money into something we can gain from like ocean exploration.

I also know from living so long that science does in fact disprove itself. Some of the ideals put forth have been very misleading and costly. I don't trust them with my life as many do.

Don