We’ve had plenty of threads discussing manned spaceflight, in which I have argued that it’s a waste of money which could be spent genuinely trying to explain our existence. After the success of Shenzhou VI the Chinese are now asking themselves “what next?”. China is also the world leader in executing its own people.
I think you can see where I’m going.
A one-way Mars mission would be comparably cheap, and would get the whole distracting business out of the way at a stroke. One brave convict could be given the chance to be a national, nay international hero by planting a Chinese flag on Mars, having a look around, and doing a few experiments before tragically passing out and dying on every television screen on Earth. Having done so, all the vast sums of money which would have been spent getting an American back home again can be put to more scientifically useful endeavours, such as a particle accelerator the size of Texas.
Anyone opposed to such a novel method of execution (or even simple euthenasia if some Chinese fellow simply volunteered)?
I don’t see a moral problem with it (assuming that the morality of execution itself is already a given), but I can’t see it actually happening because, quite apart from the wisdom of entrusting the mission to a person you do not consider worthy of continued life and liberty, there is severe (unresolvable, I think) conflict between the concepts of enemy of the state and national hero.
If he succeeds, then he didn’t deserve execution, but if he deserves execution, he cannot be permitted such fame.
How is this argument any different than the one about “we could be spending this money feeding starving people in third world country?” Both are highly specious at best. (bordering on fallicious)
I can’t see the comment on China executing it’s people being much more than a Non Sequitur, either.
This takes me right back to a book I read years ago which naturally took it for granted that a moon rocket would have to be a one-astronaut, one-way trip. The book figured it was possible that you could find a volunteer, and it probably is.
Instead of sending a Chinese astronaut though, why not a Welshman? @ SentientMeat
Because manned vs. unmanned space missions are both still space budgets. The former would do nowhere near as much as the latter to explain our existence.
My point was that these people will die anyway, to sidestep objections on grounds of cruelty. But Mange has a good point regarding their heroic status - perhaps we had better stick with kamikaze-style volunteers.
:dubious: Well, instead of just saying they’re going to execute the poor sucker(s), they could make it an “Escape from New York” kind of thing–send up some condemned prisoners and tell them they’re colonizing Mars; if they survive, their death sentences are automatically commuted!
Just to clairfy, because I wasn’t really clear, it isn’t the comment I mean, but the whole concept. And it is early, but I realise that it isn’t quite a non-sequitur either, more like a slippery slope or something. Are you going to suggest next, we use aborted fetus’ for OUR space program?
In other words, just because china executes its “prisoners,” doesn’t mean they are stupid enough to put a convict in the pilot seat of a billion dollar rocket.
I don’t see how that matters. Do you think if NASA didn’t do manned missions they would have as big of a budget? Who is to say that by having the sexy appeal of manned missions, they add millions to a budget that would otherwise be non-existant. Why should tax payers care if we discover more nebula? I am sure more people care about watching something they can identify with, rather than knowing some abstract crap about stars and black holes.
Yes, you’ve all convinced me that the convict idea is rather a non-starter - I hope the general idea is still interesting enough for debate. (Still, if getting a living hunk of homo sapiens onto the surface is the goal, they could always avoid sabotage by strapping him in and jetissoning the poor bastard automatically, with the flag rising humorously from his ejector seat.)
Surely, the only way we get these hoopleheads to become less bovine is by showing them dramatic star-formation photos or evidence of simple alien life, which hammer insistently on their calcified brainpans that we ourselves are made of stars?
Well this hooplehead, despite his apparent bovine nature, already knows all that, is moved by the cosmos and still wants to see people learning to exist in it.
You’ve got a remarkably broad brush in this OP SM. Strange.
And my suggestion addresses that cheaply, without the unnecessary expense of bringing people back again. In any case, I’ve never really understood the pursuit of terraforming or space-colonisation technology now, in place of unmanned space science, since Earth is still so eminently habitable and the other Solar planets so absurdly hostile that even a future catastrophe wouldn’t reduce Earth to their level. The whole endeavour strikes me as merely “someone else going somewhere unpleasant”, when there’s so much left to do here on our beautiful pale blue dot (which is just as much part of the cosmos as those inconceivably vast stretches of vacuum). Heck, just stick some people underwater if endurance in a hostile environment is so important.
I should have been more clear. What I meant was, how does a person go about volunteering in a totalitarian society? Maybe you’re just assuming that the Chinese government would solicit volunteers in the same sense that, say, England would. But I’m not confident that that is the case.
Sure you didn’t mean this to be in the pit or something SM?
During the early years of the Apollo program there were astronauts who volunteered to, what was basically, a one way trip to the moon.
Given half a chance, I think there would be many people who would jump at the chance to take part in a one way kamikaze trip to Mars.
What was it von Brown said about people in space?
"Best thing since sliced bred. Humans are the only machine which can be mass produced by unskilled labour "
Not really. It addresses putting a person in space and letting them die, which as a goal is not very imaginative. Learning to exist in space is going to require bring people back to use their experience again and tech the next wave.
I wonder why some people are unable to divorce space science from space exploitation when both can compliment each other. But I rarely refer to them as hoopleheaded bovines.
And we can already put people in space, or on other celestial bodies, and bring them back. Spending a fortune putting them on one particular body doesn’t really help us in this respect.
To clarify the context, that was a description of “more people” (as supplied) by Epi who care little about “abstract” things like extraterrestrial abiogenesis and whether the universe has ever not existed, and lots more about the “sexiness” of someone else going on a long round trip. It was not aimed at anyone here who is inspired by unmanned space missions, yourself included.
@ SentientMeat
