5 ms·

Its the fact that they could address the very real (and I do mean very real) possibility that they would not be coming back in such a clear and dignified manner

Its the fact that they could address the very real (and I do mean very real) possibility that they would not be coming back in such a clear and dignified manner that differentiates the space program then and now. They did their best to keep from dying of course, but I somehow doubt they'd have grounded the program for years of congressional whinging had it occurred. In short they seem like a whole different kind of person. The people who are going to win the race to mars (and eventually reap the near limitless mineral wealth the solar system has to offer) are going to be the people who are most prepared to accept death on the way.

patio11 16y ago
There is no "race" to Mars. It will still be there if we wait a couple of decades. There is no long twilight struggle against Communism to justify a multi-billion dollar PR-friendly defense contractor slush fund. I question the notion that we'll ever tap the "limitless mineral wealth" in an efficient manner (we still have to take it back home for it to be useful, that costs energy, energy is dear while rocks are cheap), but supposing somebody did, is there any incentive to be first to the party? What are they going to do, grab the infinite wealth and leave nothing for the rest of us? Anybody with a few million can launch a satellite these days, regardless of what their nation's space program was like in 1960. Let China (or India, or Kenya, or whomever) get to it a few months early and then private industry will commoditize access. (And the value of rocks will plummet as the supply shock hits. Whee.) In the meanwhile, we can spend the billions saved on things that won't be there tomorrow. "Children in Africa" are just one example.
- noonespecial 16y ago
  We've no time to sharpen the axe, there's far too much wood to cut. Its the most important race ever run. Its not against soviets or chinese, its against ourselves and our limited resources. There's something else that won't be here tomorrow as well. All of the resources we have today. We might have centuries to go do the space thing later. We might not. Right now I think maybe we could use some hope and few heroes that don't play with rubber balls for a living. I do believe this is the first time I've ever disagreed with Patio. Much respect, brother.
  - arethuza 16y ago
    I can't see any way that going to the Moon or Mars is going to help with the real issues we will have in the next 20 to 50 years. It's not like I dislike the idea of going to Mars (I have a well thumbed copy of Zubrin's "The Case for Mars") - but at this moment in time, do I think it is a sensible thing to do? Sadly, absolutely not.
    - DougWebb 16y ago
      It might give us the hope and belief that we are able to deal with the real issues in the next 20 to 50 years. You don't hear "If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we do X" anymore, because most people today don't remember that we were once able to send a man to the moon. They don't have that expectation that anything is possible if we just focus intently on it and decide to get it done.
      - arethuza 16y ago
        Perhaps because "If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we do X" is a pretty terrible argument for most problems. For most analogous engineering projects (e.g. going to Mars) the answer is "because it costs too much".
        wlievens 16y ago
        That's not what the he meant. The Apollo Project inspired people to go into sciences and engineering to an extent that nothing since has done. That effect is, after four decades, ebbing away.
        wlievens 16y ago
        Addendum: except of course the internet!

patio11 16y ago

There is no "race" to Mars. It will still be there if we wait a couple of decades. There is no long twilight struggle against Communism to justify a multi-billion dollar PR-friendly defense contractor slush fund. I question the notion that we'll ever tap the "limitless mineral wealth" in an efficient manner (we still have to take it back home for it to be useful, that costs energy, energy is dear while rocks are cheap), but supposing somebody did, is there any incentive to be first to the party? What are they going to do, grab the infinite wealth and leave nothing for the rest of us? Anybody with a few million can launch a satellite these days, regardless of what their nation's space program was like in 1960. Let China (or India, or Kenya, or whomever) get to it a few months early and then private industry will commoditize access. (And the value of rocks will plummet as the supply shock hits. Whee.) In the meanwhile, we can spend the billions saved on things that won't be there tomorrow. "Children in Africa" are just one example.

noonespecial 16y ago
We've no time to sharpen the axe, there's far too much wood to cut. Its the most important race ever run. Its not against soviets or chinese, its against ourselves and our limited resources. There's something else that won't be here tomorrow as well. All of the resources we have today. We might have centuries to go do the space thing later. We might not. Right now I think maybe we could use some hope and few heroes that don't play with rubber balls for a living. I do believe this is the first time I've ever disagreed with Patio. Much respect, brother.
- arethuza 16y ago
  I can't see any way that going to the Moon or Mars is going to help with the real issues we will have in the next 20 to 50 years. It's not like I dislike the idea of going to Mars (I have a well thumbed copy of Zubrin's "The Case for Mars") - but at this moment in time, do I think it is a sensible thing to do? Sadly, absolutely not.
  - DougWebb 16y ago
    It might give us the hope and belief that we are able to deal with the real issues in the next 20 to 50 years. You don't hear "If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we do X" anymore, because most people today don't remember that we were once able to send a man to the moon. They don't have that expectation that anything is possible if we just focus intently on it and decide to get it done.
    - arethuza 16y ago
      Perhaps because "If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we do X" is a pretty terrible argument for most problems. For most analogous engineering projects (e.g. going to Mars) the answer is "because it costs too much".
      - wlievens 16y ago
        That's not what the he meant. The Apollo Project inspired people to go into sciences and engineering to an extent that nothing since has done. That effect is, after four decades, ebbing away.
        wlievens 16y ago
        Addendum: except of course the internet!