Not enough optomists - hard to predict 25 years out

wgc · 2003-12-10 06:34:11

Predicting the future is a very imprecise process, those who try usually get it wrong.
Who in 1944 would of predicted a moon landing by 1969. Taken from another vantage who in 1968 at around the time 2001 was showing around the country would of predicted the slow down in space exploration. There were predictions of a mars landing by 1975.

When one sets out to predict the future the successful folks look for trends political and technical as predictors. Just because the infrastructure isn?t in place now doesn?t mean we can?t be on mars in 20 to 25 years. The infrastructure for the moon program was not in place in 1949. Nor was the political climate. Are there any key predictors present that may indicate we may be further along in 20 to 25 years than the current crop of pessimists (many on this board) believe.

?

sethmckiness · 2003-12-10 08:55:43

The year is 1953, the United States is a superpower, one of only two on the planet. The US has a modern air force

The US Air Force wasn't truely modern by todays terms atleast until the late seventies. by the seventies the Air Force had point to point and spoke to hub Satellite communications, with various levels of encryption. A fully developed fleet of modern aircraft to do just about anything possible in the air, with a fully capable logistics to back it up. in 1953 the planes were basicly alightly faster versions of P51s and P47s used in World War Two. I should know, since I am 20,000 feet below their battleground, aka Mig Alley.

? Discovery of Microbial life on Mars or one of Jupiters moon

Discovery of living Microbial life on Mars could pose more of a threat to future missions then many think. Depending on how much the Greens unite, they could stall almost all efforts to continue exploration of Mars.

? ? Discovery of Extraterrestrial technology

Yes, I agree with you, but I would not even wager odds on this one.

?
? A threat from space, such as impact of a NEO object,

IMHO, we are ill equipped to handle such a threat, and unless we have a window of 5 to 10 years, I don't see any sort of Heroic Armagedeon(sp) type ending. Realistically we lack the technology and expertise to do it. I do have the copy of the Air and Space Smithsonian at home that talks about the movie and said the only truelly unrealistical part of the movie was they didn't use enough explosives. the rest was possible.......... According to physicists from MIT..

But, anyway, to get to the point... Being optimistic won't get as anywhere predictions won't, without action, thoughts are thoughts.

wgc · 2003-12-10 09:12:33

reply to sethmckiness

Not sure what was relevant about your reply to my air force remark, as to a 5 to 10 year window. I think more like 10 to 15 years would be more resonable. Yes perhaps we could destroy or deflect the threat with nukes. Or send unmanned probes to try to deflect it. But all that time the threat hangs over the heads of the population, the probablity of sucess is quite low. Meantime what happens psycologically , what about the world markets. All I'm saying that if you have enough of a window, say 10 to 15 years, it might make more sense to send a manned mission to try to deflect the threat. I doubt destroying it with nukes would work, what was in amagedon was very scientifically inaccurate. I hope I do better with the novel I'm attempting to write. I'm only starting my resource now. I know more about human nature than engineering.

sethmckiness · 2003-12-14 10:50:41

I do not intend to start a yelling match but physicists from MIT and NASA thought other then the amount of explosives used, that the movie was accurate.. maybe a bit unlikely, but definitly possible..

The 25 years between lets say 1953 to 1978- The Air Force was completely different. the fastest plane in 1953 was the X-2, fastest Jet was the F-86. the B-36 was finishing up development with the B-47 on the Horizon. simply radars were being developed. There still was dogfighting.. No ICBMS. NO Communications Satellites, no digital communications, everything prettymuch vacuum tube based.

1978-DSCS satellite system and Milstar deployed
Advanced avionics and fly by wire with either the F-15 or F16 respectively.
B-1 being developed
current fighter bombers include
f-106
f-111
A-7
A-10
B-52

Full line of ICBMs
GLCMS

on the verge of Satellite defence system

Full digital communications including the DEBB (europe)
etc
etc
etc,

ie completely different Air Force, 6 years old instead of 30 years old.

flashgordon · 2003-12-14 11:27:09

I'm not to sure I'd worry about getting to mars so soon either; everyone thinks the world is going to end, but instead, it is just going to fuel ever more science and technology funding; if anything, most of the deaths will just take out the anti-science buffs. Yes, there will be global warming deaths, pandemic fevers deaths, not to sure about another world war. The business men who are at the top of the stock market are in charge of the world; today it is the oil guys, by 2010 and maybe a little before, it will be all the nanotechnologists no matter what your definition. India innovated raising kids to do science; they were cranking out a 100K scientist, engineers a year; now germany and some oriental country is getting into the act.

In the end, the world will be transformed by 2020 and ready for molecular manufacturing.

Earthman · 2003-12-14 15:07:16

Hi, my first post. My uneducated opinion:
1.A private, manned Mars landing mission is within our grasp.
2. We can only afford a one way mission.
3. Only one highly educated and experienced person can go.
4. This person will die on Mars after gathering data for the remainder of his/her life.
5. This expedition must be organized internationally and apart from the military industrial complex.

Any volunteers?

Earthman · 2003-12-14 15:13:09

Hurry up! Mars is moving away at an ASTRONOMICAL rate! we have to do this thing now people, for humanity.

flashgordon · 2003-12-14 17:28:40

it may be going away at an astronomical rate, but it goes back and forth! Not only that, but it will be back as it goes around in circles!

wgc · 2003-12-14 18:31:37

Hi all,

First off, don't expect quick replies or rebuttals to my posts I have a life too. Secondly whats the big deal with all the comments to my little statement about the air force, I don't pretend to be a historian, the point of the comment was that nuclear power transformed the navy, especially the submarine force. And That a similiar tranformation may take place shortly with space. Adding nuclear power to the equation changes everything. Nasa highly critical stepping stones approach which I don't entirely believe in says you develop the enabling technologies first which gives you the abilities to reach for a number of different destination possibilities.

I hope the handwritng that is emerging is that the US may be moving towards both developing new propulsion sources and startup of a sustainable moon program . With landings at intervals of months rather than years.

As to Amageddon, If I recall the Mit folks said the movie was technically possible but not probable. There were a lot a problems. How they got to the asteroid for instance, Some type of modified shuttle . 2) There is the possibility if you fail to completely destroy the asteroid you may end up with many fragments on collision with earth rather than one body.

I believe the current proposals are to try to alter the bodies course over some period of time perhaps using ion thrusters of some type.

As to manned vs. unmanned operations. How is the population going to handle knowledge of the end of the world. If its going to be 100 or more years there probably will be little panic, 50 years , more panic but not chaos. but if you had a ten to 15 year window of a civilization destroying impact what kind of panic will there be. How will the world leaders handle damage control. Wait a few years and send a few small unmanned ds-1 class probes ladden with explosives to try to destory it. Thats going to do much to calm the population.

"My fellow americans....We won't know until several hours after the impact if we were sucessfull ..... .

I suspect that the only way those 10 or 15 years are going to resemble anything normal in terms of the financial markets , consumer spending, population growth is if the world leaders build it into a post september 11th or post pearl harbor type operation...We will put the resources of the entire planet into defeating this threat.

Read my story when I post it and judge . ok, thats all I ask.

Josh Cryer · 2003-12-14 21:42:55

Like you said, it's impossible to predict. Tomorrow, someone could come up with good replicating technology and land it on the moon/Mars, invalidating every premise anyone had ever envisioned.

Personally, these 20 year time frames are way too far away for me to handle. Inside I'm an optimist, but when I see where we're going with technology, and the political motivations, and so on, I tend to be somewhat pessimistic. If only I had a couple of million bucks.

I'm optimistic we'll get into space eventually. I'm pessimistic that I'll get a chance to do anything unless I'm really lucky.

clark · 2003-12-15 09:50:48

I don't think it's that hard to predict... ???

sethmckiness · 2003-12-15 10:49:39

I think that the we will go into space, but opposed to pessimism being a problem, I would say it would just be apathy.

We will back to the moon, we will go beyond the Moon, short of some massive extinction killing us all off. It's just when.. Definitly by 2100 we will have a man on Mars.. We all know we could be there in 10 years, or could have been there 10 years ago.

There is no new technology needing to be developed. The two hurdles are Policy and money. I am waiting to hear what Bush says on Wednesday. It may remove one or both of those issues!

dickbill · 2003-12-15 14:23:55

I think that the we will go into space, but opposed to pessimism being a problem, I would say it would just be apathy.

In Christopher Colomb times, you couldn't dare and most importantly you SHOULDN'T try to adventure of the great Ocean of the West, because:

1)The Earth is flat, so obviously your ship will just fall in the GREAT ABYSS OF THE END OF THE WORLD
2) if you go there, a great DRAGON with an open mouth is just waiting for you.
3) why to go WEST since to reach India, going EAST was enough and sufficient (if we admit the earth is not flat) ?
4) Its too expensive, equivalent to 2 or 3 royal festins or party.
5) Other have tried before and failed (favorite reason)
6) I am not sure what the Holly Papal Inquisition wil think about these heretical hypothesis...be careful.

etc.

Palomar · 2003-12-15 16:04:19

In Christopher Colomb times, you couldn't dare and most importantly you SHOULDN'T try to adventure of the great Ocean of the West, because:
1)The Earth is flat, so obviously your ship will just fall in the GREAT ABYSS OF THE END OF THE WORLD
2) if you go there, a great DRAGON with an open mouth is just waiting for you.
3) why to go WEST since to reach India, going EAST was enough and sufficient (if we admit the earth is not flat) ?
4) Its too expensive, equivalent to 2 or 3 royal festins or party.
5) Other have tried before and failed (favorite reason)
6) I am not sure what the Holly Papal Inquisition wil think about these heretical hypothesis...be careful.
etc.

*LOL!! That was great, dickbill.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-12-15 16:12:29

Heheh! dickbill, our forum comedian. Gotta love 'em.

But really, clark, your predictions can (and I think might) change directions every 4 years, since they tend to hinge on the actions of a given presidential mandate.

clark · 2003-12-15 16:19:14

The trick is not to predict what people will do, but predict what events will make them choose.

Events, as before, will give us the mandate, not the individual.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-12-10 06:34:11

Re: Not enough optomists - hard to predict 25 years out

#2 2003-12-10 08:55:43

Re: Not enough optomists - hard to predict 25 years out

#3 2003-12-10 09:12:33

Re: Not enough optomists - hard to predict 25 years out

#4 2003-12-14 10:50:41

Re: Not enough optomists - hard to predict 25 years out

#5 2003-12-14 11:27:09

Re: Not enough optomists - hard to predict 25 years out

#6 2003-12-14 15:07:16

Re: Not enough optomists - hard to predict 25 years out

#7 2003-12-14 15:13:09

Re: Not enough optomists - hard to predict 25 years out

#8 2003-12-14 17:28:40

Re: Not enough optomists - hard to predict 25 years out

#9 2003-12-14 18:31:37

Re: Not enough optomists - hard to predict 25 years out

#10 2003-12-14 21:42:55

Re: Not enough optomists - hard to predict 25 years out

#11 2003-12-15 09:50:48

Re: Not enough optomists - hard to predict 25 years out

#12 2003-12-15 10:49:39

Re: Not enough optomists - hard to predict 25 years out

#13 2003-12-15 14:23:55

Re: Not enough optomists - hard to predict 25 years out

#14 2003-12-15 16:04:19

Re: Not enough optomists - hard to predict 25 years out

#15 2003-12-15 16:12:29

Re: Not enough optomists - hard to predict 25 years out

#16 2003-12-15 16:19:14

Re: Not enough optomists - hard to predict 25 years out

Board footer