macleod@drivax.DRI (MacLeod) (02/07/89)
Paul Dietz and I discuss manned space flight:
In article <4239@drivax.DRI> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
:>I'm 36, and I'd trade the rest of my life for one LEO, assuming I could
:>take a stack of (old) Yes and Vangelis CDs along. Quality, not quantity,
:>makes a life well-lived.
:
:Your current life is so unpleasant that you'd sacrifice your remaining
:decades for one 90 minute orbit? Why, this is hell, nor are you out
:of it. And my condolences to your would-be widow and children, if they
:exist.
I didn't say this just to be provocative; it is true. I do believe that I am
an extreme case who has tried to examine his feelings, and that there
exist others who share such sentiments to greater or lesser degrees. I
wanted to speak for them as well. Can you not imagine a feeling so sublime
that you would trade any other experience for it?
:>Some individuals experience extreme emotions, bordering on the "religious",
:>when contemplating the entry of man into space. I do believe that it is
:>spiritual, of the *human* spirit, in the most sublime sense: it is something
:>no animal would ever do, nor could it want to.
:
:Um, let's not commit the common philosophical error of confusing the
:individual with mankind in general. It is consistent for me to
:believe that people will eventually live in space and yet still think
:that it would be pointless for me, personally, to travel there.
I'm not sure we understand each other here. My purpose in my posting was
only secondarily to say that men >should< go into space because men >want< to
go into space; my primary purpose was just to affirm that the desire can be
pretty overwhelming. I mentioned in passing that I thought that such desires
were ordinate to man as a being, and so rational.
:By the way, how would *your* going into space help achieve any goals,
:other than purely personal ones?
I was only talking about purely personal goals, so my apologies if I mislead
readers. Still, I think it will be a good thing when artists and writers and
poets are able to visit space and return their impressions to the rest of us.
:>The fundamentally conservative values of those who oppose manned space flight:>are not to be questioned.
:
:Once again, it should be noted that opposing manned spaceflight IN THE
:PRESENT (or, more precisely, opposing the appropriation of public
:funds to pay for manned spaceflight) does not mean opposing manned
:spaceflight for all time. Nor is it obviously true that manned
:spaceflight right now is necessary or even helpful in achieving
:a longterm goal of moving mankind into space.
:
:I hope my values -- whatever you perceive them to be -- are not above
:question.
: Paul F. Dietz
: dietz@cs.rochester.edu
All true, and my comment about conservative values was kind of a cheap shot.
I have great respect for Mr. Dietz, and know him to be a thoughtful and
careful writer, and it bothers me to disagree with him, even if the
disagreement is superficial. I do not support the use of government funds
for manned space flight, or any space program for that matter. I don't
believe that my personal feelings - or anybody else's - are relevant to the
political and economic questions of how to get the best value for investments
in space research. I >do< believe that such emotions and the lack of them
are relevant to the larger questions of why man should or should not venture
personally into space, and why men should pursue goals of this type in the
first place, where these questions are considered on their own merits and not
on current feasibility. Again, my apologies if this was not clear from my
previous posting.
Michael Sloan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod)kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) (02/08/89)
In article <4246@drivax.DRI>, macleod@drivax.DRI (MacLeod) writes: > Paul Dietz and I discuss manned space flight: > > :>I do believe that it is > :>spiritual, of the *human* spirit, in the most sublime sense: it is something > :>no animal would ever do, nor could it want to. > : > : It is consistent for me to > :believe that people will eventually live in space and yet still think > :that it would be pointless for me, personally, to travel there. > > My purpose in my posting was > only secondarily to say that men >should< go into space because men >want< to > go into space.... > I couldn't resist any longer. From the standpoint of pure feasibility, Paul Dietz is of course correct. From the standpoint of mankind's innate spirit of adventure [ok, innate for SOME of us :-) ], arguements FOR manned spaceflight are valid. No, I don't believe I have just presented conflicting views. Look at some examples: Columbus' voyage could be argued as one of as much adventure as economics. Why do people climb mountains? Especially Mt. Everest? After all, it's been conquered in just about every conceivable way, but still people make the attempt. Is there new knowledge gained? No. Some people are merely driven to new experiences. But not all people. I, for one, have no desire to experience the thrill of skydiving. After all, why voluntarily leap from an airplane that is still flying? Nor do I wish to take up bullfighting. Nor would I climb Everest. But there are some who want to do those things, and more. I am no more justified in saying that they shouldn't do these things as someone is in condemning a desire to travel in space, so long as these adventures don't cost me anything. (In fact, one could argue that the general public is willing to pay so long as the entertainment value holds out.) I cannot condemn Paul for making his arguements. Economically, they are correct, and the US Constitution guarantees him the right to say what he thinks. I do have one thing to say, however: Paul, (and others against manned spaceflight); Please use a little discretion in your arguements; try not to come across with the attitude of "it's not economical; therefore it's a waste of time to even think about doing." Such thinking is a sure way to kill dreams, and if we have no dreams, we are little more than human automata. It is the people who hold the dreams that will find a way to eventually refute the objections to them. They know, from examining the cold hard facts, that your arguements are correct. Still, they cling to a dream. Let's not take that dream away. Norman Kluksdahl Arizona State University ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah standard disclaimer implied
kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) (02/09/89)
In article <27@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes: > >No, I don't believe I have just presented conflicting views. Look at some >examples: Columbus' voyage could be argued as one of as much adventure as >economics. From Columbus' standpoint, yes. There are no shortages of would-be Columbuses in the US, or even in this newsgroup. But for Queen Isabella, the voyage was primarily a question of economics. There was a certain amount of national prestige involved, but while that might have justified one voyage (i.e. Apollo), it was the economic incentives that caused the Spanish to return again and again to the New World. There _is_ a shortage of Queen Isabellas today, although the infant private launch industry is a good sign. Frankly, I used to be a hard-core man-in-space enthusiast. I still think that that is the desirable eventual goal, but the more I've thought about it, the more I've realized that _I_, personally, have potentially more to gain from the unmanned programs. I have essentially zero chance of becoming an astronaut, unless large colonies are started in the next 25 years (very unlikely). After spending 4 years studying a relevant subject (aero engineering) in a prestigious school and getting reasonable grades, I'm having trouble just getting into NASA/JPL at all. In the near future, we stand to learn more tangible science and intangibles about the position of Man in the universe from the unmanned program, which is massively underfunded. Men *are* involved in the "unmanned" program, _more_ men more intimately wrapped up in exploration. Let's not kill it by apathy or too much focus on manned missions. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ -Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu> <- preferred <kpmancus@pucc.BITNET>
steve@umigw.MIAMI.EDU (steve emmerson) (02/09/89)
In article <27@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes: >Paul, (and others against manned spaceflight); >Please use a little discretion in your arguements; try not to come across >with the attitude of "it's not economical; therefore it's a waste of time >to even think about doing." ... I fear Mr. Kluksdahl misunderstands Mr. Dietz's position. The argument as I appreciate it, is not against the idea of manned spaceflight, but rather against the manner of its funding. I believe Mr. Dietz believes that the unmanned space program is much more efficient, in terms of scientific return-on-investment, than the manned space program. The combination of this belief with the the observations that: * both programs are publicly funded; * the manned space program is preferentially funded (to the detriment of the unmanned); and the opinion that public funds are a scarce resource and likely to remain so in the near future, has led Mr. Dietz to conclude that It would be wise to adjust their relative funding levels. I don't recall Mr. Dietz ever arguing against private funding of a manned space program as being a waste of time. (Paul, please feel free to correct me). -- Steve Emmerson Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1] SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::) emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov "Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) (02/09/89)
In article <211@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) writes: >I don't recall Mr. Dietz ever arguing against private funding of a manned >space program as being a waste of time. > >(Paul, please feel free to correct me). Well, I don't feel private funding of a manned space program would be a terribly wise way to invest one's money, but I have no problem with those who have strongly different feelings spending their own money any way they see fit. If you're out to make money I suggest unmanned is a better idea. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu
kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) (02/09/89)
In article <211@umigw.MIAMI.EDU>, steve@umigw.MIAMI.EDU (steve emmerson) writes: > In article <27@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman > C. Kluksdahl) writes: > > >Paul, (and others against manned spaceflight); > >Please use a little discretion in your arguements; try not to come across > >with the attitude of "it's not economical; therefore it's a waste of time > >to even think about doing." ... > > I fear Mr. Kluksdahl misunderstands Mr. Dietz's position. The argument > as I appreciate it, is not against the idea of manned spaceflight, but > rather against the manner of its funding. > I don't recall Mr. Dietz ever arguing against private funding of a manned > space program as being a waste of time. > Ah, but I DO understand the position of Paul Dietz regarding manned vs. unmanned, and the current funding levels of each. There are LOTS of things which unmanned probes can accomplish which manned missions are not even close to being capable of doing. I NEVER implied that Paul or anyone else for that matter were totally against ever attempting manned spaceflight. We can look at the Soviet BURAN flight for examples of what can be accomplished byh a sophisticated unmanned flight. The Solar Max satellite was ailing; the US fix was to send up a manned shuttle and repair it (but only temporarily). My impression of the Soviet program is that they would have either just launched a new satellite, or COULD HAVE used Buran in an unmanned, teleoperated mode, to retrieve the existing satellite, which would have been repaired on the ground, then re-deployed (probably on an expendable). There is nothing in this latter scenario which requires men in space, nor is it beyond current technological capability. I realize that I walked into the fire, but some things seem to have been taken out of context. 1) I admitted up front that economic arguements currently weigh against manned flight. 2) I did (IMHO) make reference to the 'entertainment' factor, which is more favorable to manned missions, but is NOT by itself justification. Perhaps I COULD have been more clear in stating that the arguements were against heavy government funding of manned programs (after all, what incentive does any government have to make something less expensive? But that's another subject!). What I refer to is precisely the discouragement of privately funded programs, which I doubt anyone should oppose. After all, if I can gather x Million dollars, who are you to tell me how to spend it. Some people, who are very bright and have good ideas, might possibly be turned off of their dreams of cheap manned spaceflight. This would be criminal if they were the same ones who otherwise would have been the leaders in establishing the desired cheap access to space, which would then permit massive manned programs. After all, "for want of a nail...." Norman Kluksdahl Arizona State University ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah standard disclaimer implied
hkhenson@cup.portal.com (H Keith Henson) (02/10/89)
Michael Sloan MacLeod and Paul F. Dietz have been discussing humans going into space for several posting. I find it amusing that neither of them expects to actually go into space. *I* (at 47) expect not only to go into space, but to travel to the stars. True, this will take more than a standard lifetime, but so what? Progress (much of it being made within 50 miles of where I live) in the fabrication of ever smaller computers parts will take only a few decades to reach the size scale where molecular repairs can be made to human cells. There is no reason those who make it to that time should *ever* have to die, and the same technology will reduce the cost of just about everthing to that of firewood (grow your own spaceship). Anybody want to join in planning a party on the far side of the galaxy? H. Keith Henson, a Founder of L5
dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) (02/12/89)
In article <14484@cup.portal.com>, hkhenson@cup.portal.com (H Keith Henson) writes: > *I* (at 47) expect not only to go into space, but to > travel to the stars. > ... Progress (much of it being made within 50 miles of where I live) in > the fabrication of ever smaller computers parts will take only a few decades > to reach the size scale where molecular repairs can be made to human cells. > There is no reason those who make it to that time should *ever* have to die, > and the same technology will reduce the cost of just about everthing to that > of firewood (grow your own spaceship). I hope you're right, because dying is not something I want to be around for when it happens. But I think the race against the clock is going to be tight for most of us. At 47 years can expect anywhere from 2-4 decades of further existence if you avoid accidents, homicide, and disease. Will that be enough time? No doubt our information-processing and nano-fabrication technologies are moving forward, but cellular repair on the scale you envision is an exceedingly complex problem. In the past four decades our computers have improved by six orders of magnitude in terms of raw processing power available from a given input of material and energy. Assuming this progress can continue, we will have another million-fold improvement in next four decades. Will that be enough? Keep in mind that our ability to fully exploit computer hardware lags significantly, by perhaps a decade or two. The human genome has a raw information content of ca. 1 GB. Significant advances in software must occur before we can develop algorithms that can meaningfully work this kind of information, irrespective of how much processing power is available. Our progress in software has been arithmetic, not exponential. Many commercial packages are still written in assembler. Finally, unless geneticists make real progress, they don't expect to be able to map the human genome, let alone fiddle with it comprehensively, for several decades. Don't get me wrong, I believe that what you say will eventually happen. Immortality, recreational space travel, and unimaginable personal wealth should follow naturally from mature information-processing capability. But within 2--3 decades? I'm not sure we could make the necessary cultural adjustments that quickly, even if the technology became feasible (i.e., what is to stop such tools from becoming forces for destruction?). Even now, we cannot seem to organize society to take full advantage of the present potential of computers. Finally, what little I know of the thermodynamics of irreversible processes leads me to the hunch that immortality will be much easier to confer on the young than on the old. Diseases are always far simpler to cure when caught early. Aging is probably a profound example of this. I could see genetically-engineered aging-resistant children in the next 3 decades. But to fix someone with massive cellular damage already in place? (My apologies to reader who feel this subject is straying from space. I feel that the impact of information technologies on the eventual privatization of space will be profound.) Cheers, Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu "Prophecy is difficult, especially with respect to the future."