Million Miles March - Million Person march for Space advocates

Palomar · 2003-08-12 12:02:19

"A witty saying proves nothing."-Voltaire

*Um...my quoting Voltaire wasn't intended to be "witty," and his statement was a political one (no wit there); read again the quote in the context, please. I was pointing out, in response to a statement of yours, that mankind isn't a collective. The Voltaire quote is self-explanatory (a single man blazing trails and creating momentum versus any notion of a spontaneous -- or otherwise -- collective progress...and I believe history pretty much bears out this political opinion of Voltaire's).

Have last word, please, Clark: I've had my say as regards this branch of the discussion.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-08-12 12:09:16

"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." -Voltaire

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-12 12:28:53

We can be back on the moon by 2015. We can send people to Mars by 2020.

Who are we? ?Trained professionals??

Why would the public care about trained professionals? Until it gives them immediate access, why would the public care? Build a space plane, and watch how quick the public will be behind building a fleet of them. It might cost a lot, but the more planes thre are, the cheaper the access, and the more an individual will benefit.

The psychology is simple. The masses need to be convinced that they're achieving something. Like a space race or actual infrastructure would do. Going back to the moon wouldn't be an achievement, because we've been there before. It would only be an achievement if we went back to the moon and did something useful, like building a base. And going to Mars wouldn't be as much as an achievement as going to Mars and beating China or whatever.

clark · 2003-08-13 08:40:13

Karl Rove says Florida will be 'ground zero' in 2004 election

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps....8130614

PANAMA CITY, Fla. --
Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, says Florida will play a crucial role in the president's re-election strategy next year.
Rove, in an interview with editors and reporters of The News Herald of Panama City, said the campaign strategy in Florida would be a combination of "brotherly love" - a reference to the president's younger brother, Gov. Jeb Bush - and an effort to "register, identify and turn out our vote."
"This clearly is going to be ground zero," Rove said in the interview, published in Wednesday's editions. Rove has been vacationing in northwest Florida, where he has been making trips for the past 16 years.

Spider-Man · 2003-09-15 22:09:58

Mars' close approach this year, and also, the rovers landing on Mars, could indeed give us more of an opprtunity to try, but I still don't see it becoming a magnificant show of American interest in space (because in reality, we're not).

I don't think that's true at all. Every bit of evidence we have on our own contemporary culture says just the opposite. Think of all the sci-fi shows we have, and have had, including Star Trek one of the longest-running franchises of any type in the history of entertainment. And then we have Star Wars, Stargate, Andromeda ? you name it; we have so many shows about the future (and present) of space travel.

I believe Star Trek's reason for existing so long and with such popularity is its connection with reality, that its charm is in its hopeful future. So many scifi futures are these dark, depressing, horrible, evil, invading, enslaving possibilities ? it was pratically a pathology. The optimism Star Trek gives for a positive human future is what is so inspiring. Indeed, in our hearts, it's what we all desire.

One might complain how America's, the world's indifference towards space travel was evidenced during the start of Apollo 13's mission. As shown in the movie, "all the networks dumped" the live broadcast from Apollo 13 en route to the Moon. Indeed, Marilyn Lovell complained how no one cared about the mission until something went wrong with it.
I don't believe the apathy American showed toward Apollo 13, and all the successive lunar missions, was an advent of lack of curiosity about space. It was an impatience to see the next world, go on to the next frontier and explore it; we wanted more. Everyone knew quite well the Moon was a dead, lifeless, profitless, uninteresting world which bore about as much excitement as it ever did. The most one might do is see the Moon rise before going to bed, realize, "Huh...there's people up there," and then retire for a lengthy repose, and dream of a universe filled with wonders greater than e'er we could imagine.

The emphasis on exploration and the fundamental virtues of humanity are also what make Star Trek so popular, I believe, just the same as the romantic ideologies of knighthood, chivalry, and fairy tales are so fascinating, like in Star Wars. It's about a better life, a better way of existence, about the best in us, in all of us, which we desire to see grow and bloom and become something more than what we already are.

Ad astra.

Spider-Man · 2003-09-15 23:00:58

*Laughs.* What a row!

I just read through your debate, Clark and Cindy, and wow! you two went at it worse than Clark and Josh. Woo, fun.

And I've traced the source of the heated argument to its source. It was upon the instance that Clark did not accept the sweet, lovesome epithet of "Babycakes" ? a title of great honor, to be sure; make no mistake ? and 'twas then that the noble lunar lady waxed offended, and waned in her affability as one whose hand is bitten.
Ah, you fool! dear Clark, all you needed do was smile politely, at worst it ignore, but not to adore the tender gift of such an accolade? Heavens, how tragic...

For the record, I think you're both right, both correct in your own way. It's a pleasure seeing such great ideas grind head to head.

More than 1% of the population. 1,000,000 dosen't even register on the radar screen out of 6.6 billion. It's less than a tenth of a tenth of one percent.

Fewer than that, far fewer than that were the ones who took active protest to the streets during the leadup to the recommensement of the Gulf War last winter. They sure as hell got noticed; they were on TV more than all the politicians combined, international and national alike.

Civil rights didn't happen becuase people sat at home, it happened becuase people got out of their home, and made their voice physically heard.

No one denies this, and you're right, but I think Cindy's point is that this is not a life and death issue, not an attempt to stop hatred and lynching or other very real, terrible, frightening things. The Civil Rights movement sought to counter a very real and immediate problem that affected lots and lots of people.
A Million Miles March to Mars (appropriate, as the word "march" derives from "Mars") is a movement which seeks to promote a longterm goal that is purely a betterment of what is already good, not to end a bad thing, like the Million Man March did. They're fundamentally different, and getting people to react with comparable fevor is a challenge in and of itself.

I'm simply applying your own argument against you. To wit:

*Chuckles.* She's so vicious... I love it.

I have no confidence in the Mars Society in achieving any of their goals.

I think that they were able to test that Hab in the Arctic was a pretty darn good example of them following up on their list of goals. One of the following goals is to make a probe that they'll hitch onto the next lauch to Mars. I think they could do it.
They're not exactly bringing about much change yet (they can't all have the drive of Robert Zubrin), but they could do it.

We can be back on the moon by 2015. We can send people to Mars by 2020.

What the heck do you want to go to the Moon for? Screw the Moon; on to Mars, by 2010.

"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." -Voltaire

*Laughs outloud.* That's hilarious!

Ah, but mankind isn't a collective. Never has been, probably never will be.
--"Almost nothing great has ever been done in the world except by the genius and firmness of a single man combating the prejudices of the multitude." [Voltaire] --

Ah, Cindy, your husband is so lucky... I hope he realizes how gifted he is to be with such a sagacious, poignant, strikingly intelligent woman as you. I pray my own wife will have such enchanting qualities.
Indeed, it is appropriate that you find such interest with the Enlightement ? for you are the Enlightenment, most certainly to him, I'm sure, a precious moonlit sliver of which you grace us with. Only the light of the radiant moon could be so lovely.

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-15 23:30:10

I don't think entertainment aspects help an argument about geniune interest. Entertainment generally goes from one thing to the next, nothing ever really keeping the eye of a majority for any extended period. Look at Golf. Golf was a lazy Sunday sport not many people watched and only existed as a filler really (I recall watching golf when I was younger and my whole family thinking I was nuts because I had better things to do). After Tiger was so glorified with Golf, we had (and still have, even, though arguably not nearly as big when he began) crowds out the wazoo, and when I say that I mean it. By all accounts he brought the wonder back into golf.

One person. One gimmick (ie, the longest drive of any person alive). That's all it took.

Star Trek, SG1, and Andromeda are not about space. They're about fictional universes that do not exist. Space is, for all accounts, bleak. It's very large, and interesting things are few and far between. There are very few places where people can survive for long periods. Space isn't filled with cute aliens running about doing all sorts of fun things. Space is boring. Space is only 'interesting' when there's some entertainment value to be had. Someone got hurt or someone did something first.

And the reality is that after Apollo 11, those 5 subsequent missions (not including 13) were practically ignored. No one cared.

I like how you rationalize it as people merely looking on towards the next best thing when in reality it's that they were never truely interested in the first place. The entertainment value just made them temporarily interested.

This is not the kind of 'interest' I was talking about.

This is why I think Zubrin isn't far off when he argues about the frontieer. Because people are more interested that than they would be sending a few scientists to Mars.

Spider-Man · 2003-09-16 02:09:58

Such cynicism... clearly Star Trek has tought you nothing. *Chuckles.*

I don't think entertainment aspects help an argument about geniune interest.

Besides an obscene splitting of hairs, the two separate things are indeed linked. People are interested in sex; ergo, they watch sex for entertainment. People are interested in relationships, in conflicts, in solving the problems of real life; and so, they take to entertaining themselves with just that.
People are interested in space, in exploration, in the future, a better life; and therefore do they watch such things on TV, and in movies, and read about it in books.

Entertainment generally goes from one thing to the next, nothing ever really keeping the eye of a majority for any extended period.

That's the point; Star Trek, among other franchises themselves despite the whole genre, have kept a sustained, deep interest from audiences for decades. For most of the half century of television history that exists, it has been filled with science fiction, most notably Star Trek.

Look at Golf. Golf was a lazy Sunday sport not many people watched and only existed as a filler really (I recall watching golf when I was younger and my whole family thinking I was nuts because I had better things to do). After Tiger was so glorified with Golf, we had (and still have, even, though arguably not nearly as big when he began) crowds out the wazoo, and when I say that I mean it. By all accounts he brought the wonder back into golf.

...the wonder back into golf...? What are you, kidding? Golf is still boring, just as much as it ever was (I should know; I was a caddy, thankfully briefly), and there's nothing wonderful about it. The best part of the golf course is the scenery and landscape, which is often so terribly lovely it is criminal that it is not enjoyed by more of the public. In any case, though many fold more people watch Golf now, it's still not any significant number, and it's still uninteresting.

Star Trek, SG1, and Andromeda are not about space.

I beg to differ. They all take place in space, or involve travel through space, the first two predominantly about exploration.

They're about fictional universes that do not exist.

Fictional "universes" is a bit deceptive. Fictional realities, yes, as in involving details and possibilities that are not necessarily likely to happen.
But the beauty of those shows, especially Star Trek and Stargate SG-1, is that they are directly based off of our world, off of our reality, from which springs theirs. Unlike Star Wars, this makes them directly based off us, an extension of who we are, and what we might become.

Space is, for all accounts, bleak.

So is all matter, if you go by that narrow perspective; matter is 99.99% empty void. The "interesting" particles, the nucleus, the electron cloud, are lightyears away from each other, relatively.
That doesn't mean matter, we are not important, or interesting.

It's very large, and interesting things are few and far between. There are very few places where people can survive for long periods.

Good; it would be boring if we didn't have to work and innovate in order to survive.

Space isn't filled with cute aliens running about doing all sorts of fun things.

Exactly how much science fiction have you watched to come up with that interpretation of it?

Space is boring.

Boring? An unimaginable furance of proportions a million million times greater than the globe from which you hail, fusing extremely high energy protons as they flow and ram against each other at temperatures exceeding millions of degrees and under pressures hundreds of billions of times more intense than those of our home's atmosphere, powered by nothing more than the inexhorable force of gravity itself?
Infinite spherical worlds musically orbiting around infinite fiery stars in a perfect harmony that expresses perfection so astounding and profound that no dream or fiction could ever begin to comprehend or compare to its magnificence?
The discovery and investigation of new Life, on another world from yours, marvelling at both the diversity and differences from you and yet the universal, beauteous mutuality of living?

These things are boring?

And you think golf is interesting??

Just because it takes a while to get there doesn't mean it's not valuable to go there. By your reckoning, the sea was boring too. But it didn't prevent merchants and explorers alike from settling new lands and expanding the boundardies of human civilization.

Space is only 'interesting' when there's some entertainment value to be had.

Your so surprisingly sophistic, considering...

Someone got hurt or someone did something first.

I don't recall this being the interest of the merchant class when they first set up the trade routes which ended up enhancing all of Western civilization, nor that it was the drive of the millions of people who went looking for a new land and a new home, a place to explore, a place to call one's own, a place to be free.

You don't give any credit to the human spirit. Gene Roddenberry would weap.

And the reality is that after Apollo 11, those 5 subsequent missions (not including 13) were practically ignored. No one cared.

Quite true. I am an incredibly avid amateur astronomer, a lover of space, an explorer at heart, I am majoring in Astrophysics, and I love the Moon more than any other celestial body ? yet not even I have so much as cracked a book or studied mission log movies or read up on those missions except for the bearest minimum, and even then not of my own sole volition to do so.
Those missions were boring and yielded very little. No one cared because there was no reason to care; I commend their wisdom for concentrating on more mundane matters.

I like how you rationalize it as people merely looking on towards the next best thing when in reality it's that they were never truely interested in the first place.

Which doesn't make sense. Clark is right; why would our politics lead so strongly into space if not as a reflection of our culture and opinions even in the slightest?

The entertainment value just made them temporarily interested.

Then why do people find exploration and science and the future so interesting that they watch (multiple) TV shows about the subject every week?

This is why I think Zubrin isn't far off when he argues about the frontieer. Because people are more interested that than they would be sending a few scientists to Mars.

Thank you for proving my point, and conveniently debunking the rest of your argument.

"...people are more interested [in] that than they would be [in] sending a few scientists to Mars." Exactly. You say "interested in that" ? interested in what? In entertainment value, as the rest of your discourse would suggest?

No indeed; you meant that people are more interested in exploring, themselves, than allowing it to be done by others. You say that people are interested in space, in going to space, in exploring space, and, indeed, we humans are. We always have been. Exploration is a part of our heritage, our blood, and is what allowed our ancestors to evolve into the incredibly powerful species we are today, one capable of reaching the very stars which bore the seeds or our existence.

Curiosity killed the cat. But it created the man.

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-16 04:59:40

People are interested in sex; ergo, they watch sex for entertainment.

People are interested in sex, they're not interested in being pornographers.

People don't watch space shows because the have some kind of realism, they watch space shows because it's another environment.

Do you think people who watched SeaQuest had an interest in colonizing the ocean floor and traveling about in submarines?

People are interested in relationships, in conflicts, in solving the problems of real life; and so, they take to entertaining themselves with just that.

Yes, indeed, this is why they watch a variety of shows where these things take place, including, but obviously not limited to, space shows.

People are interested in space, in exploration, in the future, a better life; and therefore do they watch such things on TV, and in movies, and read about it in books.

Sure, they are interested because that's the conduit writers have chosen to express their ideas. Just because I watch some show, however, doesn't mean I'm interested in doing so. Because I'm a realist and I know that the Stargate doesn't really exist and that this show exists solely for entertainment purposes.

I think you're the one splitting hairs, here, my friend. You're trying to suggest that interest in fictional entertainment equates a realist interest in the now. I think that this is obviously false.

That's the point; Star Trek, among other franchises themselves despite the whole genre, have kept a sustained, deep interest from audiences for decades.

Well, this is because space, being as vast and as unknown as it is, has ample opportunities for lots of exciting fictional stories to be realized. The reality is that space isn't that exciting, and that perhaps some things we may want aren't even possible, like faster than light transportation, or the ablity to meet other civilizations.

Golf is still boring, just as much as it ever was (I should know; I was a caddy, thankfully briefly), and there's nothing wonderful about it.

You don't find wonder in the human ablity to drop a tiny little ball into a small cup from hundreds of yards away... in only four strokes, at that? I think that many things humans can do and have done are wonderful...

Golf is a challenge sport. All sports present a challenge, but golf is one of the hardest sports. It requires the greatest physical fine tuning of any sport in my opinion.

But certainly, golf can be seen as boring, and in fact, a large number of Americans probably do find it boring, this was my whole point. It took lots of interesting hyping to get it to look 'big.' Tiger Woods won so many competitions that people just had to watch, just to see him go the limit.

I beg to differ. They all take place in space, or involve travel through space, the first two predominantly about exploration.

Yes, and Atlantis High takes place in a high school, doesn't mean it's about high school (you know, in reality)... high school doesn't generally involve aliens and superheros.

Do you think that people watch this show because they're interested in high school, or because they're interested in the story?

Splitting hairs... indeed.

[...] Star Trek and Stargate SG-1, [are] directly based off of our world, off of our reality, from which springs theirs. [This] makes them directly based off us, an extension of who we are, and what we might become.

What we might become? Even if people were interested in starting the new SG1 or creating the Federation, would that mean that they were interested in space, or that they were interested in this particular fictional future?

When I was a kid, I was definitely "interested in space" in this context. It wasn't until I realized how utterly different space really is that I had to change my mind about certain things. I could have quite easily changed my interests at this point, but certain things just managed to click in my little head. Like a book from the library about Mars, with many images of the surface (images from Viking 2).

I assure you that were it not for that book or some other small events (my father pep talked me about my dreams, for example), I would've felt space was really boring and just moved on to more exciting, hands on and realistic, interests.

So is all matter, if you go by that narrow perspective; matter is 99.99% empty void. [...] That doesn't mean matter, we are not important, or interesting.

It's not really that. Space would be much more interesting if a space elevator existed, for example. Space's bleakness doesn't just stem from its void, it's also in part due to its inaccessablity. Any levels of accessablity are outside of the reach of a ridiculously large number of humans (99.9 followed by a few 9's I'm sure).

This argument says nothing about the potentials, but even then people look at the numbers and realize that the potential is far outside of our reach; petitioners are delusional when they think that their petitions will have an affect on their own chances of going into space. That's why I argue about sending self building robots (you haven't seen my arguments I would gather, but I really beat this point home for quite awhile here), because I'm not stupid enough to think that Cowboy Bebop is going to magically materialze tomorrow and we'll all become bounty hunters.

Exactly how much science fiction have you watched to come up with that interpretation of it?

Well, in every science fiction show I have seen with aliens, there have been cute ones. Farscape, Star Trek (obviously), Earth 2 (now that's a series about the frontieer!), I can't think of any others, but c'mon. Cute aliens are everywhere!

[List of stuff.] These things are boring?

Well, to most. Of course, we're both generalizing here. But I think that this argument is still very valid. I think astronomers are the real people out there who realize what space is and the hurdles we face when it comes to getting out there. Space is not boring to them. But I think it is definitely boring to others because almost everything about space is glamorized (ie, unrealistic), and not really what space is about. These people either don't know what space is, or they live in a fictional, a hopeful, reality wherein space becomes what they want it to be eventually.

I could have easily continued my aspirations about space in a Star Trek manner, I'm sure. But this wouldn't have made me interested in space. It would've made me delusional. I would've eventually realized quite a few things about the reality of space and I would (if eventually space became available to me) be literally living in a totally different world.

Just because it takes a while to get there doesn't mean it's not valuable to go there. By your reckoning, the sea was boring too.

Who said I suggested that at all? Just because I think something is boring doesn't mean it's worthless.

You should've known I was speaking in a context comparing space to the fictional realities that exist on television and the like. Had I said 'comparatively boring' you probably wouldn't have responded. In fact, had I phrased that paragraph to make it obvious that I am and was speaking in a context comparing our views of space to how space really is, you couldn't disagree with me without looking silly. How often do people watch NASA TV?

Your so surprisingly sophistic, considering...

Such a useful and mature response.

[Cites Western frontieerism.] You don't give any credit to the human spirit. Gene Roddenberry would weap.

I don't have to. The merchants and so on were comparatively few. We're generalizing. You would be naive if you think when I said "[Americans don't have a] magnificant [interest in space]," I was saying that all Americans everyhwere aren't interested in space. Obviously I mean some of us are (we all are!). But by no means are we great in number. And I certainly don't think you've convinced me otherwise.

As time goes on, obviously there will be merchants. And as time goes on interest will definitely increase. But think about that. How many in those days were interested in the ocean? Most people thought the Earth was flat, didn't they (due mainly to a lack of education, I thought, but perhaps I'm wrong- certainly, though, there was a lack of interest up to that point for most people)?

[...] not even I have so much as cracked a book or studied mission log movies or read up on those missions except for the bearest minimum [...]

You don't know what you're missing.

No one cared because there was no reason to care; I commend their wisdom for concentrating on more mundane matters.

Actually, maybe you aren't missing anything at all. Maybe you don't care to see.

When I watched those videos I got a huge rush. I'm not sure, but I think I posted on these forums when I found them online. The Apollo mission was the epitome of manned space exploration. Like hang gliding is as close as we'll ever come to being like a bird, walking in a space suit is as close as we'll come to being completely uninhibited in space.

I pity those who haven't seen these things.

Clark is right

clark exaggerates.

Then why do people find exploration and science and the future so interesting that they watch (multiple) TV shows about the subject every week?

Show me how a magnificant number of Americans care about real science, specifically space, though. I don't see it. I'd be happy to see some sort of statistic, though.

Just don't cringe when I return with statistics showing how American interest in science is at an all time low.

Perhaps comparing fictional TV shows to reality is the wrong path to take.

No indeed; you meant that people are more interested in exploring, themselves, than allowing it to be done by others.

No, I mean that people would become interested. Look at the last post I made before my reply to you.

We're in agreement, you probably just don't realize it. No contridictions here.

Space, like any new system, has a low threshold of people truely interested in it. Like with computers, for example. Very low numbers of people were interested in computers when they came out.

Even though there were silly TV shows on about stupid robots with tin cans for heads, this doesn't mean these people were "interested in computers" (as you'd attempt to argue, though I think ineffectively). We even laugh at these shows and how ridiculous we were back then.

Anyway, computers took awhile to catch on, and so will space. But it won't happen until there's really something there.

Again, read my last post. I fail to see a real disagreement here except that I simply am not convinced that there exist a "magnificant show of American interest in space."

I stand by that comment.

Palomar · 2003-09-16 05:49:16

*Laughs.* What a row!
I just read through your debate, Clark and Cindy, and wow! you two went at it worse than Clark and Josh. Woo, fun.
And I've traced the source of the heated argument to its source. It was upon the instance that Clark did not accept the sweet, lovesome epithet of "Babycakes" ? a title of great honor, to be sure; make no mistake ? and 'twas then that the noble lunar lady waxed offended, and waned in her affability as one whose hand is bitten.
Ah, you fool! dear Clark, all you needed do was smile politely, at worst it ignore, but not to adore the tender gift of such an accolade? Heavens, how tragic...

*Yep, we know that you're new around these parts, Spider-Man. :;): This wasn't the first time Clark and I have butted heads. It probably won't be the last time, either. :laugh:

But others tend to read a little too much anger in some of my responses to Clark. Sometimes I'm just aggressive, not angry. Of course, that doesn't mean to say I can't get angry. And yes, Clark apparently does not appreciate a term of endearment (funny...my nephew always did).

Glad you enjoyed the...exchange.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-09-17 10:20:20

I just have to say, what the hell are you all talking about?

We have run the gamut of golf, space on TV, and the caustic relationship between Cindy and I. While going into great detail in just about all of these subjects, no one has said a damn thing, at least as far as I can tell.

Josh says there isn't support for space. Spiderman says there is, and then points at the TV. Take a moment to absorb that.

Josh says I exagerate, Spiderman says I'm right on some things. Somehow, you have both said something entirely about nothing. Good job you two, don't rule out out politics.

Cindy demeans me with baby talk. You all seem to enjoy it, so Spiderman, you are now Buttercup, Josh is Snowflake, and Cindy, well, Cindy is just Cindy.

Entertainment, be it in TV or book or music usually tells us something about the 'Human Condition'.

Great adventures and exploration capture the imagination of others who have nothing to do with it becuase it reveals an aspect of the Human Condition. Are any of you taking notes?

Sending machines out off into space reveals nothing about the Human Condition in Space. It reveals the Human Condition about man and his curiosity of space, but nothing more.

That's why we have a subconsious desire to see footprints on the Moon, or on Mars. We want to understand, to taste somewhat, the Human Condition in space, a part of it.

Every Sci-fi anything you care to cite all do the same thingg- they examine being Human being in space. Everything else is window dressing.

I need a drink now, I leave you to struggle with some new ideas.

Bill White · 2003-09-17 15:19:13

For the record, I became a space advocate the same week I watched John Glenn's shuttle launch in person. So clark's original idea is a good one IMHO notwithstanding the follow up noise.

Okay, it wasn't really the launch which was cool enough after we fled the roped off beach rented by the Planteary Society (with some bad garage bands, over priced food, crowded dirty sand and no breeze) and then we strolled as far east along a causeway as we could get.

My wife bought the beach tickets from an internet ad after we timed a DisneyWorld vacation to correspond with Glenn's launch. Even she admitted that the beach "party" was lousy and the causeway (on our own) was great.

Our unofficial viewing spot was on a high bridge with a great breeze, a nearby stand selling Italian ice and I swear to God I saw Jimmy Buffet land his seaplane a few hundred yards from our viewing spot. He was wearing a ZZ Top beard as a disguise but I recognized the seaplane from a Buffet book I own.

Anyway - a few days later went to Kennedy Space Center and did the tourist thing. That evening, as my wife and daughter shopped for freeze dried strawberries, refrigerator magnets and NASA PJs I hit the bookshelf and rather at random I bought Zubrin's "Case for Mars"

72 hours later I became a space advocate. :-)

Even then I was impressed with Zubrin's "how" but was less impressed with his "why" - - Today I would say humnaity needs three things to "enter space" or "do Mars" in any permanent way (rather than flags and footprints)

One - - > Billions and billions of dollars. $500 billion to a trillion dollars spent over 30 - 50 years and humanity will have a toenail hold on a permanent presence in space. Thereafter commerce will start to repay investment. Money invested today will be repaid (IMHO manyfold) to my grandchildren.

Two - - > Cooperation from leading world governments. Earth to LEO heavy lift and nuclear power (whether for electricity to run habs and settlements or for nuclear propulsion) are both major security risks. Both LEO lift capability and nuclear power are too easily converted into WMDs.

No one will "enter space" in the Zubrin-esqe sense of the word unless the US Congress gives tacit consent or a foreign government challenges US space hegemony.

Three - - > A really good reason to do it. This last is where space advocates usually fail, IMHO. No one can give a really persuasive reason to just go and "do space" or at least reasons persuasive to Wall Street and K Street.

My own pet reason is "more people" - - settling space will do NOTHING to solve Earth's population issues. But settling space will allow human numbers to grow without putting pressure on Earth's biosphere. And IMHO more people is a good thing.

* Assume * robust and practical CELSS. We ain't there yet but we ain't too far either. Copy #1 will be real expensive. Copy #10000 will be cheap to build, especially if built from resources harvested in space. Take a seed population of huamns with cheap robust CELSS technology and the ability to fabricate domes and greenhouses from Marsian material.

Voila' - - Population explosion.

In my dreams, by the year 2999 CE - one trillion human beings filling the solar system while chatting on cell phones and fighting with their children/spouse/siblings. Dream or nightmare? You make that call.

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-17 16:39:01

clark, the fact that you think "[space shows] examine being Human being(s in space." proves my point. You're wrong. You haven't added anything new to this discussion because you merely reiterated what Spider-Man was suggesting. That fictional TV shows reflect a geniune interest in space (when in reality they're just entertainment conduits).

Have you seen the Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 missions? I'm willing to wager you haven't either.

Palomar · 2003-09-17 18:16:23

In my dreams, by the year 2999 CE - one trillion human beings filling the solar system while chatting on cell phones and fighting with their children/spouse/siblings. Dream or nightmare? You make that call.

*Bill: You are a good, generous-hearted person. Though we don't see eye-to-eye on many issues, I really am touched by your optimism.

I'm afraid I'm more of a -reluctant- optimist (though I'm much less cynical than I used to be! <grins>).

If I were to lay a bet on how the year 2999 generally stacks up:

1. I see a greatly DEpopulated Earth: The struggle to get plagues and diseases under control (primarily AIDS and new mutations of it early in the 3rd millenium) and also previous nuclear incidents between nations contributed in great part to this depopulation. However, Earth is rebounding both environmentally and humanly speaking. A new Renaissance spirit envelops the globe, with further (and more gentle and benign) advances in science and technology etc., including a renewed, *applied* interest in space exploration.

2. I see colonies on Mars thriving, terraforming commencing rather successfully (despite my conflicted views of terraforming...won't go into that again), etc.

3. I see a handful of O'Neill or similar type space colonies out and about the solar system. Total human population? Perhaps 20 billion.

4. I see people communicating via telepathy, thanks be to evolution, for it cuts down greatly on the noise pollution!

Okay, I'm just joking on #4.

Of course, it's impossible to look even 100 years down the road, let alone 1000...and my speculations are nothing in the face of the ever-spinning wheels of time.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-09-18 06:00:19

That fictional TV shows reflect a geniune interest in space (when in reality they're just entertainment conduits).

Where did I say othewise Josh? I was agreeing with you while also pointing to what the draw of space is, which is reflected by our entertainment. I am in no way saying that sci-fi in the popular media is a sign of general acceptance of space exploration.

I'm not wrong, but thanks anyway.

Bill White · 2003-09-18 11:46:23

Of course, it's impossible to look even 100 years down the road, let alone 1000...and my speculations are nothing in the face of the ever-spinning wheels of time.

Cindy, let me share an anecdote I am quite fond of yet cannot recall where I heard it.

During the mid 1930s a Soviet delegation was visiting the Vatican to discuss pending political issues. During a social reception one Soviet diplomat started bragging on how his country has just fulfilled the goals of a recent Five Year Plan.

In response, a Jesuit priest scoffed and said, "Five year plan? How can you be so short sighted. We Jesuits believe in Five Hundred Year Plans."

* * *

Visions of settling space do call for 500 year plans or 1000 year plans, IMHO. Of course we cannot control or dictate what will happen and the "law of unintended consequences" can never be forgotten.

However I also believe that whichever human sub-group (religious, cultural, ideological etc. . .) most successfully enters space will assure that their values, ideals and systems of thought will propagate most widely across the solar system.

The ability to harvest space resources (not for export back to Earth) but to sustain a population explosion starting with the initial seed population will create conditions for the triumph of their "selfish memes" - - Richard Dawkins trumpets the selfish gene theory yet humans are a mixture of genes and memes.

While this might seem a terrible thing (if the "wrong group" enters space first) I am also optimistic that the realities of space will alter the memes of those who go first.

The central "what if" is whether we can invent robust CELSS to allow space based life support fueled by sunlight, ammonia and water ice asteroids, all supplemented and organized with more scarce materials and technical know how imported from Earth.

* * *

As far as numbers? Assume robust CELSS. We then are looking at a staggering large resource base with no sign of any other species (of Gaia-system) to compete against. The simple fact that life CAN multiply exponentially suggests to me that it WILL expand exponentially if the pre-condition of CELSS is first satisifed.

Try adding a small handful of bacteria to a sterile growth medium. What happens? An explosion of life.

The ability to harvest asteroids, gas giant moons and the like to build CELSS modules leads inexorably to Terra's Gaia-system (DNA life) literally engulfing the entire solar system and everything within it.

All will be assimiliated. Resistance is futile. * WE * are the Borg. :-)

clark · 2003-09-18 12:13:07

You bring up an interesting idea I have often contemplated Bill,

Try adding a small handful of bacteria to a sterile growth medium. What happens? An explosion of life.

What happens to the bacteria once it has grown to encompass the entire growth medium? Dosen't it keep reproducing untill it literally chokes on it's own bile?

Now, I know that the universe is wide and vast, and that in our terms, we could never run out of 'it'.

What I always wondered though is what happens at that point where we are able to extend the human life indefinitely. Reproduction then loses some of it's meaning, no? Afterall, we are driven to continue our genes becuase our cells 'know' that someday they will die.

Preclude this possibility, and what happens?

I am far mroe inclined to believe that as an intelligent species achieves mastery over their own biological body, there is a reduction in drive for exponential reproduction.

couple this with long lives, and a wide empty universe to explore. Perhaps the reason we never hear from the aliens is becuase they all eventually reach point where they shutter the doors of Home, and go on permananet vacation throughout the universe.

Palomar · 2003-09-18 12:34:56

*Another wonderful, thought-provoking post from you, Bill.

I'm very concerned about the high levels of radiation "out there" being a major obstacle. That is the main source of my reluctant optimism. Most moons are uninhabitable, let alone the other planets [4 of which are gaseous in nature, Mercury is hotter than h-ll, Venus is a h-llish nightmare, Pluto is a chunk of ice and the Sun from it is tiny]. Forgive what may seem like short-sightedness, but with the sole exception of Mars, I can't foresee humans being able to settle anywhere else. And floating space colonies ala the O'Neill model or whatever will be continually bombarded by radiation. Of course, I know these will have shields of some sort built into them...but then I have to wonder about the healthiness of generational humans living in a confined area.

And now I'm getting in over my head, so had better stop...

--Cindy

Bill White · 2003-09-18 16:14:06

You bring up an interesting idea I have often contemplated Bill,
Try adding a small handful of bacteria to a sterile growth medium. What happens? An explosion of life.
What happens to the bacteria once it has grown to encompass the entire growth medium? Dosen't it keep reproducing untill it literally chokes on it's own bile?
Now, I know that the universe is wide and vast, and that in our terms, we could never run out of 'it'.
What I always wondered though is what happens at that point where we are able to extend the human life indefinitely. Reproduction then loses some of it's meaning, no? Afterall, we are driven to continue our genes becuase our cells 'know' that someday they will die.
Preclude this possibility, and what happens?
I am far mroe inclined to believe that as an intelligent species achieves mastery over their own biological body, there is a reduction in drive for exponential reproduction.
couple this with long lives, and a wide empty universe to explore. Perhaps the reason we never hear from the aliens is becuase they all eventually reach point where they shutter the doors of Home, and go on permananet vacation throughout the universe.

clark, I know I cannot give a satisfactory answer. I have also struggled with similiar issues. I believe one possible escape route is illustrated by comments made by Harold Bloom while quoting a long dead rabbi, Rabbi Tarphon,

"It is not necessary for you to complete the work, but neither are you free to desist from it.?

Here is a quote from an essay Redemption from Ego:

The distinction between causes and reasons ties in with the difference between Bloom?s desire for openness and the philosopher?s desire for completeness. Bloom quotes Rabbi Tarphon as saying ?It is not necessary for you to complete the work, but neither are you free to desist from it?. He glosses this as ?If it were necessary for any among us to complete the work, then we might break off in despair, because the work can never be completed.? (p. 280)
The work in question is that of enlarging oneself. That requires being ready to be bowled over by tomorrow?s experiences?to remain open to the possibility that the next book you read, or the next person you meet, will change your life. Increased rationality?increased coherence of belief and desire?cannot close itself off from this possibility of disruption without falling victim to cant. You are such a victim insofar as you believe that you already possess criteria for judging the value of any books or people you may encounter?criteria that will provide you with good and sufficient reasons for tucking each of them into some familiar pigeonhole. To avoid such victimization, you must give up one of the dreams of philosophy?the dream of completeness, of the imperturbability attributed by the wise, of the mastery supposedly possessed by those who have, once and for all, achieved completion by achieving enlightenment.

Will the child born tomorrow teach us to see the world in a new and exciting way that improves LIFE for all of us? Maybe and maybe not - - but can we ever abandon that hope and remain human?

We must always "render unto Ceasar" - -> overpopulation and a failure to live ecologically would be disastrous yet I cannot possibly imagine that our race has explored even a tiny fraction of what it means to be human. Been there, done that? Nah! We have barely started.

And, I am rather less fascinated with what we will find "out there" (planets gases, nebula, black holes, quasars and so on) and rather more fascinated with what we may become through the process of going "out there" with the BIG jackpot being what we would become * IF * we encountered another sentient race.

Back to your more specific point -

I am far mroe inclined to believe that as an intelligent species achieves mastery over their own biological body, there is a reduction in drive for exponential reproduction.

I tend to agree. Immortals certainly have less need for self reproduction. (Except, why did Yahweh make us?)

Sci-fi novelist Vernor Vinge does a nice job of exploring these ideas on a grand space opera scale.

More near term, human immortality would likely lead to staggeringly bloody wars - - and many violent deaths - - unless the immortals had open space to escape to. Is it fortuante or unfortuante that our race probably won't be facing that particular problem any time soon?

Bill White · 2003-09-18 16:37:49

I'm very concerned about the high levels of radiation "out there" being a major obstacle. That is the main source of my reluctant optimism. Most moons are uninhabitable, let alone the other planets [4 of which are gaseous in nature, Mercury is hotter than h-ll, Venus is a h-llish nightmare, Pluto is a chunk of ice and the Sun from it is tiny]. Forgive what may seem like short-sightedness, but with the sole exception of Mars, I can't foresee humans being able to settle anywhere else. And floating space colonies ala the O'Neill model or whatever will be continually bombarded by radiation. Of course, I know these will have shields of some sort built into them...but then I have to wonder about the healthiness of generational humans living in a confined area.

Cindy, my amateur scientist reading suggests that simple water makes a terrific radiation shield. Build free floating space habitats inside bubbles of water. Marshall Savage suggested the idea. While Savage's ideas are extreme in many ways I believe he is right about the water. Others have suggested using ice.

Radiation and zero gravity are the killers. Build a habitat inside a giant water balloon and spin as needed for gravity. The water shield shelters the inhabitants from radiation and the spinning simulates gravity.

Digging into the dirt on Mars is easier but once we learn how to live on Mars we can build a staggering large number of water balloons to cycle in open orbit around the sun. Few metal habs - fiberglass-like stuff and kevlar-like stuff (UV hardened since its still sci-fi) and water shields.

What would life be like?

Sufficient food and water having zero industrial impurities. Very healthy and "natural" All the sunlight you can possibily harness for power. How good will solar panels be in 100 years? How good were photovoltaics 100 years ago?

Wireless broadband communication nets. In 100 years how much will computers cost?

A safe home, plenty of healthy food, water, air and limitless broadband web access. Heaven, right?

Hazer · 2003-11-16 14:10:46

How about a Million Martian Marching Society?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-08-12 12:02:19

Re: Million Miles March - Million Person march for Space advocates

#27 2003-08-12 12:09:16

Re: Million Miles March - Million Person march for Space advocates

#28 2003-08-12 12:28:53

Re: Million Miles March - Million Person march for Space advocates

#29 2003-08-13 08:40:13

Re: Million Miles March - Million Person march for Space advocates

#30 2003-09-15 22:09:58

Re: Million Miles March - Million Person march for Space advocates

#31 2003-09-15 23:00:58

Re: Million Miles March - Million Person march for Space advocates

#32 2003-09-15 23:30:10

Re: Million Miles March - Million Person march for Space advocates

#33 2003-09-16 02:09:58

Re: Million Miles March - Million Person march for Space advocates

#34 2003-09-16 04:59:40

Re: Million Miles March - Million Person march for Space advocates

#35 2003-09-16 05:49:16

Re: Million Miles March - Million Person march for Space advocates

#36 2003-09-17 10:20:20

Re: Million Miles March - Million Person march for Space advocates

#37 2003-09-17 15:19:13

Re: Million Miles March - Million Person march for Space advocates

#38 2003-09-17 16:39:01

Re: Million Miles March - Million Person march for Space advocates

#39 2003-09-17 18:16:23

Re: Million Miles March - Million Person march for Space advocates

#40 2003-09-18 06:00:19

Re: Million Miles March - Million Person march for Space advocates

#41 2003-09-18 11:46:23

Re: Million Miles March - Million Person march for Space advocates

#42 2003-09-18 12:13:07

Re: Million Miles March - Million Person march for Space advocates

#43 2003-09-18 12:34:56

Re: Million Miles March - Million Person march for Space advocates

#44 2003-09-18 16:14:06

Re: Million Miles March - Million Person march for Space advocates

#45 2003-09-18 16:37:49

Re: Million Miles March - Million Person march for Space advocates

#46 2003-11-16 14:10:46

Re: Million Miles March - Million Person march for Space advocates

Board footer