Re: NASA Funding
In a message dated 4/13/2001 10:15:25 AM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is the driving force behind space exploration money(profit)? Yes. Exploration just for the sake of exploration? Yes. Scientific investigation? Yes. Finding more room for humans? Yes. So the answer is "All of the above," just as it is for nearly every aspect of human endeavor. Some of us humans will see monetary profit potential, as some of us do now. Remember Heinlein's "Mow your lawn, lady?" as the beginning of the creation of one of the galaxy's richest men? Some folks won't do anything unless they get paid for it--I've worked with some of them! Others, like me, I think, do things just for the hell of it, especially if I haven't done it before. In a restaurant, especially one I've never been in before, I'll order something off the menu that looks interesting especially if I haven't tried it before. How else does one learn about new things? In that case, I heartily recommend the Rocky Mountain oysters! Or, perhaps you'd prefer the chilled monkey brains? The scientists among us want to know how and why things behave the way they do. The current hoo-ha about cloning is an example. Hooha? Gail, I'm 33. Since the age of 24, my hair has been thinning. So, I'm waiting for some doctor out in Japan or Holland to come up with 'cloned' hair! It just goes to show, that all hoo-has are relative. Also nanotechnology. Once discovered, things can't be "undiscovered," and the counter to one such argument against nanotechnology (it shouldn't be allowed because there's too much risk of misuse) Misuse? Hell, that's the point! Why bother spending billions of dollars bending the rules of physics, if you can't then make 'em work to your advantage? is that prohibition of research and development would just make it go underground, thus setting up the very condition the prohibition is supposed to prevent. Um... drunken Federal Agents? Whoop! Wrong prohibition. So what this says is that we need to appeal to all of the motives, not just one or the other. There may well be profit potential in discovering a new energy source in the sub-ice ocean of Europa. Great! Go for it! Design me some boots that will insulate me from the ice and help me build a shelter from Papa Jupiter's radiation! I recommend the Europan Mukluk, in vibrant lime green and brilliant blue, sizes S-XXL, now with new odor-eaters, good for 400 million miles or your money back -- just try collecting it, sucker! Personned or unpersonned, get the samples of the ice and the water and see what makes our favorite satellite tick! Watch the skies! Gail Leatherwood -- J.
Re: NASA Funding
Frankly, I don't really care about the pluto mission. I'm not sure why everyone else does. Is there something valuable and important to be learned from studying pluto? Not that I can see. Am I missing something here? Yes, it's called exploration. Science is not the reason we send spacecraft to the planets; if it was, why would NASA's budget be as large as the rest of science - excluding medicine - put together? Science is simply something interesting to do when you've got there. We don't go to Jupiter (for example) to clear up niggling mysteries about it's aurora, magnetic field, and interior in order to gratify the few hundred die-hards who can both do the math and find joy in it. We go there out of wonder and awe - and to satisfy the ancient urges to do something about our origin and destiny. The same thing drove the building of the pyramids, and, I suppose, the frantic potlatching of the West Coast indigenous Americans. Pyramids, potlatch, Pluto. The complete survey of the solar system would be a fitting monument to our civilisation - and it's this urge for completion that's driving the desire to get this thing off the pads now, not the admittedly ridiculous smokescreen about By the way, since Bruce Moomaw et al have planned a low-cost probe, why not take this to the logical extreme and build one for $5 mn? How to do this is layed out in detail in Bill Yenne's "Interplanetary Spacecraft" (Brompton, 1988). Edwin Kite == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: NASA Funding
As I have said before, the reason we need to go there is because as humans we need to go there. My mother often said that my father had "itchy feet" and that I always needed to go to the top of whatever high spot there was, whether it was a mountain or just a rock sticking up out of the ground. Why does the bear go over the mountain? To see what is on the other side. Thus it has always been, and thus it will always be. Profit? Nah. Fame? Nah again. Why go to Pluto? Just to go there; as humans we need no other motive. We MUST go to see what is on the other side of the mountain, or to the next planet, or the next solar system, or the next galaxy. Our challenge is to do it, and that takes money and commitment, and agreement on a variety of levels that this is what we want to do. One person can climb a hill and see what is on the other side, but going to the next planet takes more than a solitary effort. Governments need to pool their resources to make it happen, and that can only happen if a large number of citizens agree that the effort is worth the expense. Cost/benefit? More than that, for in most cases the benefit may never even equal the cost in dollars. Oh, my! Now what? Well, for some of us in this group, the challenge is to develop and publicize the mechanics of a workable machine that can drill through the ice mantle of our favorite Jovian satellite. To me, that seems to be the simple part. The hard part is convincing Joe Lunchbucket that his hard earned tax dollars will be well spent in putting together all the pieces that will get that little gadget from here to there. I love what Hibai Unzueta has done in producing real drawings of what might work mechanically. I also love what Bruce Moomaw is doing in keeping track of the many discussions affecting space exploration plus the chemistry/physics of what we might find once we get there. But who is bringing this all together as a package that can be presented to the budgetary decision makers? I think we need a real powerhouse with a broad base to popularize the exploration of space, but unfortunately Robert Heinlein is no longer available, and I don't know if Mr. Clarke is still around to spark another blockbuster movie for the teenagers. Step up, you writers. Come forth, you publicists. If we are to reach the next planet, let alone the stars, we need the visionaries with the talent to capture the imagination of the next generation, nay, the next two or three generations. There's more to be said, but my thoughts so far exceed my poor ability to articulate them, that I must stop for now before I alienate even those who might agree. Think on my words, and see what you produce. Watch the skies! Gail Leatherwood - Original Message - From: "Edwin Kite" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 3:06 PM Subject: Re: NASA Funding Frankly, I don't really care about the pluto mission. I'm not sure why everyone else does. Is there something valuable and important to be learned from studying pluto? Not that I can see. Am I missing something here? Yes, it's called exploration. Science is not the reason we send spacecraft to the planets; if it was, why would NASA's budget be as large as the rest of science - excluding medicine - put together? Science is simply something interesting to do when you've got there. We don't go to Jupiter (for example) to clear up niggling mysteries about it's aurora, magnetic field, and interior in order to gratify the few hundred die-hards who can both do the math and find joy in it. We go there out of wonder and awe - and to satisfy the ancient urges to do something about our origin and destiny. The same thing drove the building of the pyramids, and, I suppose, the frantic potlatching of the West Coast indigenous Americans. Pyramids, potlatch, Pluto. The complete survey of the solar system would be a fitting monument to our civilisation - and it's this urge for completion that's driving the desire to get this thing off the pads now, not the admittedly ridiculous smokescreen about By the way, since Bruce Moomaw et al have planned a low-cost probe, why not take this to the logical extreme and build one for $5 mn? How to do this is layed out in detail in Bill Yenne's "Interplanetary Spacecraft" (Brompton, 1988). Edwin Kite == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: NASA Funding
In a message dated 4/12/2001 1:08:45 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, it's called exploration. Science is not the reason we send spacecraft to the planets; if it was, why would NASA's budget be as large as the rest of science - excluding medicine - put together? Science is simply something interesting to do when you've got there. We don't go to Jupiter (for example) to clear up niggling mysteries about it's aurora, magnetic field, and interior in order to gratify the few hundred die-hards who can both do the math and find joy in it. We go there out of wonder and awe - and to satisfy the ancient urges to do something about our origin and destiny. The same thing drove the building of the pyramids, and, I suppose, the frantic potlatching of the West Coast indigenous Americans. Pyramids, potlatch, Pluto. The complete survey of the solar system would be a fitting monument to our civilisation - and it's this urge for completion that's driving the desire to get this thing off the pads now, not the admittedly ridiculous smokescreen about Keep this thread going. WHY is Europa worth going to? I say that money (or the promise of money) is it. Edwin says it's the joy of discovery. Others say raw science data. Maybe it's just something we need to do to keep ourselves busy? I suspect that the bigger reason for the pyramids was hubris (outrageous pride, on the part of the pharoahs) and a cause celebre' for the nation... to build those giant stone structures took 1000s of people, decades to build. In the process, a nation was forged. Building a bridge to the moon / Mars / Europa may be the same thing... a monument to governmental hubris, and a reason to spend billions of dollars (after all, just imagine... the Feds have billions of dollars to play with. If they don't spend it every year, there will be less justification for having as much money the next year). Ergo, they build it, in order to build it. By the way, since Bruce Moomaw et al have planned a low-cost probe, why not take this to the logical extreme and build one for $5 mn? How to do this is layed out in detail in Bill Yenne's "Interplanetary Spacecraft" (Brompton, 1988). The era of the small space explorer is soon to dawn. It's becoming cheaper and cheaper to launch the damned things... it stands to reason that by 2015 or so, some small country or large corporation will make a shot for space away from the aegis of NASA and the Euro Space Agency. After that, all bets are off. -- J. Edwin Kite
NASA Funding
It doesn't really upset me that the Pluto Express might get derailed, and it is good news that some effort will be going in to developing more efficient means of transportation around our little system here. Pluto is a long way off, and I know we must start somewhere inasmuch as the lead time for such things is so incredibly long, but I'd really like to see us get serious about personned trips back to the Moon, and then to Mars. Not a particularly sophisticated commentary, but just wanted to keep the stew stewing. Watch the skies! Gail Leatherwood
