I don't even know that it's really a matter of evacuating the Earth in the event of a catastrophe so much as it is a matter of ensuring that "life" continues.

As far as we know, life on Earth is the whole shooting match.

Of course it's possible (some would even say likely) that life exists elsewhere in the Universe but until we've got some proof of that we owe it to "life" to ensure that she persists. We're the only ones who can deliberately make an effort to ensure that advanced life continues.

We're centuries away from a diaspora of life from Earth into the Solar System. We don't curently have any way of getting from here to there, and we couldn't even begin to guess where "there" might even be.

But since we know that "here" isn't always going to provide a viable climate for life, and since the possibility exists that "there" might, we may as well make the effort.

If we don't start doing the small things now, that are very much in our power, it'll only be that much further we'll have to go later when the need becomes more immediate.

__________________
...Old Europe, a once-dominant region now reduced to sucking at the geopolitical teat of America... they spent the better part of the last millennium conquering the world and taking the good stuff home with them... And what do they get for their troubles? Ungrateful colonies demanding their independence. And after you taught them how to play cricket!...

-Jon Stewart

I very much like the thoughts you have expressed here, soot.

It is the kind of ideas I had in mind when I raised the question re “How do you view humanity’s transition from Earth to space as a specie?” But I had not quite made the leap you so beautifully outline of viewing humanity’s quest as a commitment to the continuity of life as a phenomenon in the Universe.

I agree with you and DGG that it is not unreasonable to think about this question in the here and now. It is so true that the little steps we take today are very much part of the long journey.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

There are two main reasons for space exploration.

One is the scientific aspects and benefits.

The other is simply an excercise in saying that we can do this.


I think NASA justifies the expense of the latter with the future probable benefits of the former.


What I find really fascinating about the Moon missions, was just how so much could have gone wrong. Like if they had thought too much about it, they would have rationalized that it was impossible. But they just did it and made it happen.

__________________
One day, I will sneak across the border into Canada and be an illegal alien. It will be fun.

I don't see it so much as an evacuation, by the time the Sun dies we will (I hope) have colonies all over the place, and not just in the Solar System. My sincere hope is, by that time the Earth will be just another colony and mankind, in whatever form it takes, will not be dependent on Earth for much more than memories of what once was.
Actually, the Solar System DOES have a proper name. The Solar System. As for "why bother with Space exploration, we do it because we haven't done these things. We MUST do things that we haven't done before, which is why we're looking past the Moon.

And the benefits from space research are many. I'm a lifelong NASA fan, and while doing research for a magazine article a couple of years ago, to my surprise I found that NASA was directly responsible for a lot of things we take for granted today, and satellites are just the tip of the iceberg here. Things such as in-the-ear thermometers, smoke detectors, cordless tools, advanced coatings that protect bridges and such, running shoes and heart pacemakers which can be programmed from outside the body (telemetry), a whole slew of other medical advances and a LOT more.

It's a win-win situation. It just needs time for these things to be developed.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

I think that mostly, the idea of our species exploring our own galaxy or beyond is one that isn't going to happen in a very long time. There are just too many technological and evolutionary reasons this is so. That of course doesn't mean it wont happen, its just unlikely to happen in our lifetime or our grand-children's life-time. True, we went to the moon, and maybe we'll eventually go to Mars. That of course doesn't mean it easy.

Just because NASA has been able to make it look easy, doesn't mean its easy. I mean the shuttle is the biggest spacecraft with humans aboard to be put into outer space. This despite being designed by committee and being hampered by politicians in general. Though what the shuttle shows us painfully, is that getting up and back down is still difficult. Not to mention expensive.

Problem 1: So even though we've proved we can do it, getting up and back down is still the biggest hurdle to overcome as yet. I mean for it to be economically feasible it has to be cheap and efficient. Now, I don't mention safe because there will always be a risk, the best we can do is minimize it considerably. Now, once you have this human exploration of the galaxy is not only possible but wont break the bank. I don't know about you, but 400 billion for a mission to mars sounds expensive (Thanks Bush).

Problem 2: Once you escape the earth in a fairly cheap, safe method, you have to create and pay for methods that will keep you alive in space for a long period of time. These include water, food, and what we know as air. Regular transports of supplies shouldn't be a problem once you solve the first problem, which you'll certainly need. Then there is artificial gravity, and protection from the elements. Which include particles that pass through you spacecraft and through you as experienced in the Apollo Program and solar flares.

Problem 3: Our solar system is bare of all life as we know it, or at least so far as we know. There are for a fact, no planetary bodies in our solar system that can support human life as is except Earth. We could possibly terraform, but this is highly expensive and thus far untested. So this means we have to go else where in the universe, problem is that we can or at least not in our lifetimes as yet.

Anyway, those are the big three, the big three problems standing in the way of human exploration of the galaxy and universe. Until that changes, we absolutely need to leave the exploration to our robotic friends. They can be built for the places that they travel to, do the job better than we ever could, and can stay there far longer. A 400 billion dollar trip to Mars would be done once (no multiple missions like to the moon), and would be pretty short if you don't include the 8 month trip there and back.

While Spirit & Opportunity are on their fourth year, and going strong. Outlasting anything humans can handle so far as we know. Hell, what will 16 months in a tin can do to humans? I'm sure they're testing that somewhere. Anyway, the point is that from a pure scientific purpose of exploration, our robot counterparts are better for the job without question. Cheaper too.

Eek, apparently there is another unknown in the way too, killer germs from space. Germs sent to space come back meaner, scientist reports - CNN.com

I believe 'the point' is that the accomplishment of walking on the moon wasn't about him. It was about mankind getting together and achieving what for a long time was considered the impossible. Sure, it was America that did it, but many foreign scientists aided the quest and the competition from the Russians certainly made the mission a large priority, so it was a global effort.

From what I've read, both Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong are incredibly modest & humble people, even though they were at the forefront of one of mankind's greatest achievements in history. They're not big on being in the spotlight and are reluctant to admit just how big of a role they played in the missions.

Basically, he was saying "This is not about me or my achievements, this is about mankind and what we can achieve together." It's extraordinary that a man that has achieved what he has possesses such a humble outlook and truly speaks to his incredible character. But I guess standing nearly alone on the moon looking at the blue earth hung against the infinite cosmos would be enough to humble anyone.

__________________
"Anyone that needs what they want, and doesn’t want what they need
I want nothing to do with
And to do what I want
And to do what I please
Is first on my to-do list"
-Gnarls Barkley, "Going On" lyrics

Neil, sure, but not Buzz. Out of all the Apollo astronauts, he's probably been in the spotlight the most. Which isn't a bad thing, but he doesn't seem the reluctant type to me. In fact apparently half of the reason Buzz didn't become the first man on the moon apparently is because Neil didn't and doesn't have an ego about it. Of course the design of the LM was the other half of why Buzz was the second man to step on the moon too.

in fact it shows in this new documentary, because Neil Armstrong is nowhere to be found. While Buzz has talked plenty about going to the moon.

Anyway, here's an interesting fact: Even though Apollo 1 were the only deaths of the Apollo Program, that doesn't mean they were the only casualties. Out of all the crew of the manned missions during Apollo, only the crew of Apollo 8 has their marriages intact. Just goes to show that there are always cost, even when you don't think there are.

Yea, you're right, but my wording was slightly off. While Buzz is certainly not shy of talking about his experience on the moon, he certainly isn't a glory hog about it and seems quick to heap much of his praise onto the people that actually got him there.
Yea, the design of the LM had a large part to do with it. I've heard the 'ego' thing before, but I can't imagine them making a logistical call in a situation like this based on 'ego'.

I've also heard that depression and alcoholism were common amongst astronauts returning to Earth, as well. My understanding is, the combination of feeling so insignificant out in the vastness of space and the idea that one will never achieve anything greater in their life can do quite a number on someone.

__________________
"Anyone that needs what they want, and doesn’t want what they need
I want nothing to do with
And to do what I want
And to do what I please
Is first on my to-do list"
-Gnarls Barkley, "Going On" lyrics

Indeed, if anything all he's really done is try to explain to the people of the world what an incredible adventure it was. Something I'd probably be just as guilty of. That being said, I do look forward to Fly Me to the Moon.

Maybe not, but whatever the case, I can't help think that it was the right choice either way. Of course that gets into matters of fate, destiny, or just plain luck.


Indeed, blazing the trail is never easy. Still they were a different breed of astronauts than we have today. They were test pilots after all, not scientist. Now look at what you have to do to qualify these days, and just so happens they're accepting applications for the first time in seven years.

"To be considered, a bachelor's degree in engineering, science or math and three years of relevant professional experience are required. Typically, successful applicants have significant qualifications in engineering or science, or extensive experience flying high-performance jet aircraft.

Pilots are still important of course, but NASA is seeking people who are much more. Which is reasonable, considering the trip to the moon was about getting there and proving that we can do it. Now we're simply trying to explore our galaxy or at least space as we know it. Hmm.

I'd also add the need for a viable means of traversing vast interstellar distances.

At our current top speed we're looking at about 25,000 years just to get out of the solar system (beyond the outer limit of the Ort Colud).

Then another 75,000 years to get to the nearest star.

It's a good thing we've got 5 billion years till the Sun burns out, because it's going to take us an awfully long time to figure this shit out.

__________________
...Old Europe, a once-dominant region now reduced to sucking at the geopolitical teat of America... they spent the better part of the last millennium conquering the world and taking the good stuff home with them... And what do they get for their troubles? Ungrateful colonies demanding their independence. And after you taught them how to play cricket!...

-Jon Stewart

I saw a show on the Science Channel a while back where they theorized that the Humans who took those extremely long trips would bear little resemblance to us. The possibility of genetic engineering to create a type of Human more adaptable to long spaceflights seems doable, if only to keep the species alive if our lights go out.

And as for long flights in the near future, I'm thinking of the movie "Silent Running" where they had these huge ships equipped with biodomes where plants (In the case of the film, trees.) could be farmed enroute.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Hmm? Did I not mention that? Nope I guess not. Well anyway let me just point out, interstellar travel is not impossible, but it isn't cheap either. Theoretically we can travel to another star system now, namely the closest being Alpha Centauri at 4.37 light years away. Problem is, the likely hood of it being humans that travel that distance is unlikely, Project Longshot apparently could do it simply because it was a probe conserving power along the way.

You see, you need to basically build a mini-earth to travel anywhere in a great distance. Completely self-sufficient, lasting far longer than our puny lives. No stopping to get new parts, no stopping to get new computers to run the ship. Not stopping to get anything. Tricky, and thats only the trip one way!

Then there is Intergalactic travel, or traveling between two galaxies. Now that's really tricky, even impossible as far as we know. Unless of course you can find a short-cut, which are wormholes. That I'll leave alone, as I'm no expert in physics and boy thats just a can of worms I really can't comment on.

My wife used to work with Armstrong's niece. While I've never had the pleasure of meeting the man, my wife has.

"The point", as my wife sees it, isn't that Armstrong walked on the moon. "The point" is that man has this insatiable desire to always do more than what's been done. Certainly the fact that he was the first to walk on the moon is laudable. Armstrong, though, views it as one piece of a giant puzzle that man is trying to complete; that being, quite simply, to do everything that can be imagined...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

I have neglected this thread these past few days. I’m sorry. Thank you to all who have carried on the discussion. Now, let me do a round up.

Jihad4Beer, I very much agree with you re the two main reasons for space exploration. I love the way that President J. F. Kennedy articulated the second reason in a speech he delivered at Rice University, Houston, Texas in September 1962:

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”

Address at Rice University on the Nation's Space Effort - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

(Note: In a documentary I saw recently, it was stated that JFK had announced the Moon mission in 1962. Possibly, this is because the above quote is one that has stuck in the public psyche. However, I also like what Kennedy said in his address to Congress of May 25, 1961, when he officialy proposed the Moon mission:

”If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all.”

The Decision to Go to the Moon: President John F. Kennedy's May 25, 1961 Speech before Congress

Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs Page 4 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum)

Scribbler1, quite true that “evacuation planning” is probably not going to be an issue by the time our Sun dies.

On the proper name for our Moon and Solar system question, the comment at your link was interesting. I guess it’s a geocentric perception. Fair enough. I believe the name “Milky Way” is in fact derived from the word “Galaxy”.

I’m also a life-long NASA fan. As a very young girl I use to hunt around for any NASA memorabilia I could get, before the Apollo 11 mission. Well, I also took a huge interest in the Soviet Union’s space program, and some years ago I had the chance to visit the “Star City” facility in Moscow, and I even sat in a life-size replica of the Mir space station. I belong to a space interest club here in Sydney.

I wholeheartedly agree that there are many direct and indirect practical spin-offs from space exploration. I think the critics of the cost of space exploration sorely underestimate the potential revenues. If we take one example, a remote sensing satellite, I don’t think that a true calculation of its financial and social benefits is quantifiable, because they are in fact near innumerable.

I also think that genetic engineering of human physiology for space flight adaptation is in the realm of the possible, though perhaps this adaptation could come through natural evolution. I have not seen the film "Silent Running”, but re the biodoems thing, perhaps you are referring to the Hydroponics idea.

http://www.oswego.edu/nova/facts/hyd...droponics.html

Speedyer, I reckon you have a pretty sober outlook on things there, which is important. If one looks back on JFK’s 1961 speech I cited here, though he challenged America not to be deterred by the difficult prospects of space exploration, he is measured in his zeal.

I also agree that in the foreseeable future, distant exploration –to the outer planets of our Solar System or to inter-stellar or inter-gallactic destinations - should be carried out by robotic emissaries. I do believe it’s possible and desirable, however, to continue human orbital or near-Earth programs, to aim for a return to the Moon, and to plan for a manned mission to Mars.

I think the price tag of the mission to Mars would not be so taxing if the mission could be planned as an international project. The potential for cooperation are much better now than when the Apollo mission was undertaken. In fact, I would hope that this could be a fresh new start to humanity’s venture into outer space, as a collaborative effort rather than a race.


Speakeasy, I love your beautiful words on what Neil Armstrong may have been thinking. That’s also the impression I have.

It’s true that there have been emotional “costs” to the manned space program. I believe the same happened to Russian cosmonauts. There are reports, for example, that Yuri Gagarin was drunk when his plane crashed in 1968, killing him.

Soot, quite agree. And the journey begins with one small step…

Steve, that’s really great that you posted that. And you have related it so well too. I’m sure Armstrong’s niece would have a closer insight than most people into the thoughts of her uncle. This confirms pretty much what Speakeasy and others have said, and the thoughts in my own head and heart. Thank you.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman