Posted on 09/25/2005 6:45:25 AM PDT by KevinDavis
NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin met last week with reporters and editors at The Post. Here are some of the questions and answers:
What can humans learn in space that robots couldn't?
The thing that you can learn with humans in scientific enterprises are all of the things that you didn't send the robot to find out. With a human you're doing the opportunistic plan, the uncorrelated observation. You know, you see this over here and that over there, and you put them together.
When you know what question you want to ask and what measurement you want to make, it's almost always to your advantage to do that robotically or, at most, use the human to put the thing in place. There's no question about it. When you don't know what you don't know, when you don't know what the questions are, we do very poorly at attempting to figure out what those questions ought to be by using robots.
But the goal isn't just scientific exploration . . . it's also about extending the range of human habitat out from Earth into the solar system as we go forward in time. . . . In the long run a single-planet species will not survive. We have ample evidence of that . . . [Species have] been wiped out in mass extinctions on an average of every 30 million years.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I fear, however, that Rutan and his toadies have jumped the shark. People are starting to notice that even if Rutan succeeds in what he want in the way of tourism--that it'll be the same dreary rides as with the Shuttle. I'd love for the frivolous pilots to get what they want--thrills and glory and bragging rights in the pilot's lounge--and let the engineers explore space.
I think your characterization of "Rutan and his toadies" is pretty harsh. I don't agree with many people around here that he is the coming age of manned space flight. I think he might be heading for a dead end, but I also believe he is showing that there is a potential market place for manned flight and that other companies could and should follow suit with perhaps different launch vehicles.
I fail to see why you are so embittered to manned flight. You sound just as enamored with your purist ideals as you accuse others of.
I have yet to see any around here argue against the science and engineering aspects that unmanned flights provide, unless that person is against all space flights whatsoever.
As amazing as the Mars rovers are, and they ARE amazing, the ammount of science they've done in a year and a half could be done by a human in a few days. The distance the rovers have traveled in a year and a half could be covered by a person in a few hours.
There are inhierent limitations in robotics that humans lack as well. A robot doesn't recognize danger, it needs to be told of danger and then it needs to be told how to get out of danger. A human is likely to recognize the danger and avoid it to begin with, or it can devise a means of saving himself.
I suspect that when we send people to mars, robotics will also be sent to expand the horizons.
Why do you even bother?
You have a point. The Constitution specifically mandates that, "the inspiration of mankind being of paramount importanse to anie state, shall expend all suche fundes for this noble purpose as the federal excheqeur can beare..."
You have a point. The Constitution specifically mandates that, "the inspiration of mankind being of paramount importanse to anie state, shall expend all suche fundes for this noble purpose as the federal excheqeur can beare..."
I think you missed his point, how long would the money flow to unmanned purely scientific projects if government funded manned space exploration was given up?
I think an easier argument could be made that any government funding of any space related projects should be canceled, of course that could also be said of any government funding of any non military science. Note: I do not agree with such sentiment.
When they came to cut manned space flight I said nothing. When they came for unmanned space flight....
A statement that will never be made in any interviews with Griffin.
Yup, that was the gist: government shouldn't be spending money for things not authorized in the Constitution. Somehow I'm less and less surprised that Freepers don't take that viewpoint; I'm learning that "conservative" does not mean what I think it means...
Ha! A Populist.
We might think about this a little more. Montesquieu pointed out that populations that moved often did not thrive. Sometimes they do, as in America, but even that was dicey in some cases such as the Virginia Company, and they had to resort to emptying the poorhouses and orphanages and ultimately institute African slavery to make a go of it.
The major observation when we look toward outer space is one of something missing. Where are the other civilizations that many people assume MUST exist out there? Consult Montesquieu. Life is not going to be easy in space. Having some colonies in the solar system and some day farther out is no guarantee of survival of the races and families of earth. It would be a gross miscalculation to send just humans without sending the rest of the ecosystem. But even if we send a critical mass, a critical biomass, to Mars, the species of earth have an average lifetime of about a billion hours. Whether we stay or go the billion hours will pass. If we stay, we--and the rest of the biomass--will get baked by the evolving, expanding sun eventually, and before that a rogue asteroid or extra-solar body could pile into earth--The End. That much seems likely. If we go, we are not immortal and will eventually be as gone as dinosaurs anyway.
But, we ought to do something since it is our watch and we seem to have the capability of putting purpose into our existence.
Sure, OTOH, private enterprise, which made America what it is, needs something that is not available in outer space and until that something is provided there will be no space development. Gov't should be doing some things that private enterprise cannot, even the minor deity Ayn Rand saw that.
Yup, that was the gist: government shouldn't be spending money for things not authorized in the Constitution. Somehow I'm less and less surprised that Freepers don't take that viewpoint; I'm learning that "conservative" does not mean what I think it means...
You've proved my point, thank you. Now we just need to stop spending money on medical research, education, engineering, energy research, space sciences...on and on. There are so many things not specifically authorized by the Constitution and it's so hard to tell what may in fact benefit the Defense department or the military, so why even bother funding any science at all.
No, we will ascend to the same level as the Ancients, all with the help of Daniel Jackson.
What do you mean "we"? Oh, I get it--you mean the royal "we", namely government. In other words, if the government didn't do "medical research, education," etc., then nobody would do it. I hope you realize that you're far from reality here: those tihngs would still be done. They would simply be done more efficiently.
There are so many things not specifically authorized by the Constitution...
In other words, Thomas Jefferson was wrong and you are right? As I said before, "conservative" doesn't mean what I always thought it meant. Apparently, it means "big-government statist".
But first we have to fight the Klingons, or was it the Empire, or maybe...oh forget it there's way to many baduns out there, crap.
"Want to impress me Mr. Nasa?
First show me a cheap way to deliver groceries and pick up the trash from the Space Station.
Quit thinking so big - show us you do something small and cheap, earn our respect again - then propose something grand.
I must confess - I'm a little tired of NASA's weekly grand plans."
A good way to kill the space program. The last time they did something small it was "Tile the Shuttle" which led to most of the current problems.
Griffin is not your typical political appointee. He has a solid technical background.
That's why we're here. We need to discover that reality isn't what we first thought of, nor is it what we were taught in the public indoctrination centers. The label is taxonomic and not scientific. Many have posted here with a final definition of what the conservative label means. They do not agree with each other, and they all buy into one myth or another. What do you think of the philosophies of Herbert Spencer?
Nope I meant we as in "the people". There are many things that the government, voted in by the the people, have paid for in research that at the time had no conceivable military application, but which proved to be the start of research that eventually did.
I for one don't like the state of public education today, but I certainly don't want one run by some corporation and without a grounding in all areas of education how would we have progressed as a people to this point. What use would a corporation see in teaching philosophy, art, history, or anything not directly related to production, and if education is not done by corporations where possibly could the money come from.
I'm sure at some stage we could have developed nuclear weapons without all the investment in public education and the sciences, but how soon would that have come, in time to defeat Japan?
There are so many things not specifically authorized by the Constitution...
In other words, Thomas Jefferson was wrong and you are right? As I said before, "conservative" doesn't mean what I always thought it meant. Apparently, it means "big-government statist".
Nor does "Conservative" mean that government should provide for nothing outside the bounds of the Constitution, The constitution says nothing about regulating industry, but should we allow monopolies to exist, that sort of goes against competition and without competition where would capitalism end up. Should we allow for anything under the sun to exist in society without some oversight, all because it is not specifically delineated in the Constitution?
Was that before or after his briefing with the Rebel Alliance and the Federation of Planets?
Humans have a hard time colonizing New Orleans, LoL..
Build citys underwater in the ocean first, it would be cheaper, and the technology could be used in space.. In a couple hundred years we might be even ready for space.. Unless, its proved, living underwater is not practical for "PRIMATES".. Cause if one thing was learned from New Orleans.. Humans are primates generally when push comes to shove..
Democrats and RINOs would not do well in space.. Democrats are social muggers and RINOs are their preferred victims. its a symbiotic relationship, I think.. Not healthy for space travel.. better underwater citys.. The humor generated would be priceless.. and almost worth it..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.