4 ms·

I see this attitude a lot, and I suppose that there is a certain truth to it, but it always seems incredibly short sighted to me. I am never sure how to respond

I see this attitude a lot, and I suppose that there is a certain truth to it, but it always seems incredibly short sighted to me. I am never sure how to respond except: -humans aren't meant to fly. -humans are incredibly unsuited to cross large stretches of ocean. -humans aren't built to travel faster than a horse's pace.

bnegreve 12y ago
I see an important difference. Planes, boats and cars are technology. Before we had planes, there were scientific evidences that objects heavier than air could fly (= birds). This in fact was a strong motivation for people to develop the technology. We can go on Mars, that's for sure, it's close enough. But intergalactic space travel is harder. Not because of the limits of our technology, but because of physics. Not only there is not evidence that it's possible but there are strong theoretical results that suggest that we can't simply "travel in hyperspace" as they do in Star Wars. You seem to believe that science can solve these problems, but today science is what's stopping us from doing it.
- goodcanadian 12y ago
  I didn't say anything about interstellar travel let alone intergalactic travel. We are very clearly talking about exploring the solar system.
  - bnegreve 12y ago
    Ok, but you get my point: there may be actual limits to the development of space travel technology. Your logic seemed to imply there was none. Sorry for speculating though.
- lmm 12y ago
  Intergalactic travel may be implausible, but I've seen results that a civilization using Orion-drive-level technology - that is, using the kind of thing we could build today if we had the will to do so - could colonize the galaxy in a mere hundred million years. There's no scientific or technological barrier to that, only a political one.
  - bnegreve 12y ago
    Keeping an entire population of humans alive (possibly around 20,000 - 40,000 individuals [1]) on a space ship for at least 100 years (time required to reach Alpha Centauri with nuclear based propulsion [2]) is quite a technological challenge. So I wouldn't say it's just political, but I agree it's plausible. [1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576513004669 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576513... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion
lukifer 12y ago
To be clear, I'm not making the case that humans aren't "meant" to be in space. I'm referring to the practical obstacles to us both getting to space and surviving there for more than short periods, which is orders of magnitude more difficult thermodynamically relative to airplanes. If someday we can create enclosed self-sustaining ecosystems in space, maybe I'll eat my words, but as it is, we have to send along huge fixed quantities of bio-support materials, using an exponential proportion of fuel (thanks to the tyranny of the Rocket Equation). It simply doesn't scale. And that's to say nothing of the prospect of decades-long interstellar journeys, or living off-planet permanently.
- goodcanadian 12y ago
  Sure, and I am not arguing against robotic exploration which is incredibly valuable, but I also consider human exploration to be incredibly valuable both from a strict scientific point of view and from the point of view that sometimes there is an intangible value in attempting and accomplishing incredibly difficult things.
- greglindahl 12y ago
  The cost of fuel is a trivally-small cost in today's launches. Contrast your thinking with Elon Musk's: he wants to drive down the cost of launches by 99% to facilitate putting a colony on Mars.
  - DominikR 12y ago
    You cannot know what Musk is actually believing. I'm sure that he is very passionate about enabling colonies on Mars and so on but he is also a businessman selling a product while having to deal with competition.
erydo 12y ago
That's a bit of a straw man argument. Nobody's claiming that we can't; rather that to accomplish many of our goals, having a human as the physical actuator is a bad choice. Robots have the potential to perform nearly any given mission better than their human counterparts. That was not the case during the development of ships, automobiles, or flight. The alternatives to those were "don't fly/explore/travel fast", not "have a machine do it for us". It's a different question. Increasingly even on Earth, satellites and drones explore our planet, not explorers with hiking boots. The same analogy applies to many kinds of space exploration. On the other side of the coin: Sentiment is what drives resources to fund our exploratory efforts, and we like seeing humans do things. Additionally, the goal of colonization requires human presence nearly by definition. The longer-term question is whether we'll change that definition, or continue to require the presence of biological humans to consider a planet effectively colonized. That may not always be the case: if a given planet can protect our collective civilization from extinction, does it matter whether that's secured by human actuators versus robotic ones?
- goodcanadian 12y ago
  I did not intend to set up a straw man. You are correct, however, that no one is arguing that we can't. Rather, they are arguing that we shouldn't. I don't agree with that position. Remember, early motor cars were nothing more than an expensive hobby, and one that was heavily criticized because of the noise and danger. Early aviation was also nothing more than an expensive hobby. Because there were people who wanted to push forward despite there being no obvious return on investment is why we have the developments we do in these and other fields. I and many others feel similarly about human space exploration. We feel that there is intrinsic value in it that is not readily captured in the ROI calculations. I grant that we are talking about a different order of magnitude in required resources, but I don't feel that qualitatively changes the argument. I could also make some more technical arguments around the value of having a human on site to repair or refit instruments, to react to unexpected developments, and so on, but that is outside the scope of the argument I was trying to make.
  - erydo 12y ago
    You make a very good point about ROI for non-obvious investments. I also agree with you that for many things like your general repair example, humans are better than robots for the time being. That's why I framed it as them having "the potential" to perform better. I think most would agree that our on-site manual superiority isn't going to last very much longer in the scheme of things; especially under scrutiny of cost/benefit. What I'm trying to get at is the question of where we see humans' roles over the coming centuries with respect to space travel, and whether the sci-fi trope of humans on ships and colonizing planets on foot makes sense or is really something to aspire to, and at what point that falls apart as a utilitarian approach. I agree it's not yet, but I agree with @lukifer that we'll outgrow ourselves as our technological grasp exceeds our biological one. And our reach has never known any bounds.

bnegreve 12y ago

I see an important difference. Planes, boats and cars are technology. Before we had planes, there were scientific evidences that objects heavier than air could fly (= birds). This in fact was a strong motivation for people to develop the technology. We can go on Mars, that's for sure, it's close enough. But intergalactic space travel is harder. Not because of the limits of our technology, but because of physics. Not only there is not evidence that it's possible but there are strong theoretical results that suggest that we can't simply "travel in hyperspace" as they do in Star Wars. You seem to believe that science can solve these problems, but today science is what's stopping us from doing it.

goodcanadian 12y ago
I didn't say anything about interstellar travel let alone intergalactic travel. We are very clearly talking about exploring the solar system.
- bnegreve 12y ago
  Ok, but you get my point: there may be actual limits to the development of space travel technology. Your logic seemed to imply there was none. Sorry for speculating though.
lmm 12y ago
Intergalactic travel may be implausible, but I've seen results that a civilization using Orion-drive-level technology - that is, using the kind of thing we could build today if we had the will to do so - could colonize the galaxy in a mere hundred million years. There's no scientific or technological barrier to that, only a political one.
- bnegreve 12y ago
  Keeping an entire population of humans alive (possibly around 20,000 - 40,000 individuals [1]) on a space ship for at least 100 years (time required to reach Alpha Centauri with nuclear based propulsion [2]) is quite a technological challenge. So I wouldn't say it's just political, but I agree it's plausible. [1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576513004669 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576513... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion

lukifer 12y ago

To be clear, I'm not making the case that humans aren't "meant" to be in space. I'm referring to the practical obstacles to us both getting to space and surviving there for more than short periods, which is orders of magnitude more difficult thermodynamically relative to airplanes. If someday we can create enclosed self-sustaining ecosystems in space, maybe I'll eat my words, but as it is, we have to send along huge fixed quantities of bio-support materials, using an exponential proportion of fuel (thanks to the tyranny of the Rocket Equation). It simply doesn't scale. And that's to say nothing of the prospect of decades-long interstellar journeys, or living off-planet permanently.

goodcanadian 12y ago
Sure, and I am not arguing against robotic exploration which is incredibly valuable, but I also consider human exploration to be incredibly valuable both from a strict scientific point of view and from the point of view that sometimes there is an intangible value in attempting and accomplishing incredibly difficult things.
greglindahl 12y ago
The cost of fuel is a trivally-small cost in today's launches. Contrast your thinking with Elon Musk's: he wants to drive down the cost of launches by 99% to facilitate putting a colony on Mars.
- DominikR 12y ago
  You cannot know what Musk is actually believing. I'm sure that he is very passionate about enabling colonies on Mars and so on but he is also a businessman selling a product while having to deal with competition.

erydo 12y ago

That's a bit of a straw man argument. Nobody's claiming that we can't; rather that to accomplish many of our goals, having a human as the physical actuator is a bad choice. Robots have the potential to perform nearly any given mission better than their human counterparts. That was not the case during the development of ships, automobiles, or flight. The alternatives to those were "don't fly/explore/travel fast", not "have a machine do it for us". It's a different question. Increasingly even on Earth, satellites and drones explore our planet, not explorers with hiking boots. The same analogy applies to many kinds of space exploration. On the other side of the coin: Sentiment is what drives resources to fund our exploratory efforts, and we like seeing humans do things. Additionally, the goal of colonization requires human presence nearly by definition. The longer-term question is whether we'll change that definition, or continue to require the presence of biological humans to consider a planet effectively colonized. That may not always be the case: if a given planet can protect our collective civilization from extinction, does it matter whether that's secured by human actuators versus robotic ones?

goodcanadian 12y ago
I did not intend to set up a straw man. You are correct, however, that no one is arguing that we can't. Rather, they are arguing that we shouldn't. I don't agree with that position. Remember, early motor cars were nothing more than an expensive hobby, and one that was heavily criticized because of the noise and danger. Early aviation was also nothing more than an expensive hobby. Because there were people who wanted to push forward despite there being no obvious return on investment is why we have the developments we do in these and other fields. I and many others feel similarly about human space exploration. We feel that there is intrinsic value in it that is not readily captured in the ROI calculations. I grant that we are talking about a different order of magnitude in required resources, but I don't feel that qualitatively changes the argument. I could also make some more technical arguments around the value of having a human on site to repair or refit instruments, to react to unexpected developments, and so on, but that is outside the scope of the argument I was trying to make.
- erydo 12y ago
  You make a very good point about ROI for non-obvious investments. I also agree with you that for many things like your general repair example, humans are better than robots for the time being. That's why I framed it as them having "the potential" to perform better. I think most would agree that our on-site manual superiority isn't going to last very much longer in the scheme of things; especially under scrutiny of cost/benefit. What I'm trying to get at is the question of where we see humans' roles over the coming centuries with respect to space travel, and whether the sci-fi trope of humans on ships and colonizing planets on foot makes sense or is really something to aspire to, and at what point that falls apart as a utilitarian approach. I agree it's not yet, but I agree with @lukifer that we'll outgrow ourselves as our technological grasp exceeds our biological one. And our reach has never known any bounds.