Why drag the Chinese and capital punishment into this? If we feel we must spend money on shipping meatware to Mars, but we feel we must save money by not bringing it back again, why not just operate with volunteers? There are so many people who say that manned spaceflight is so crucially, emotionally important to them that I’m sure some of them would be happy to participate in a Mars mission, even with a one-way ticket.
Well, it’s hardly untrue. I personally care more bout learning about our orgins, but it isn’t an either or proposition, and NASA, being a (mostly) federally funded goverment corporation, is run heavily by politics than by science. Since a large percentage of the population has a lacking science education, and a few even disbelieve the stuff science we painstakingly gather, it comes as no surprise that our country spends millions on something that has an appeal to the general population, rather than a small subset of scientists.
As for China, learning about an extra planet in our solar system, or sending probes to their satellites is likely even less important than to NASA. My guess is that they feel sending somebody in space shows off their Military might and technical advancement more than anything science related.
Bolding mine (fixing errors) Preview, preview, preview.
I do not think that the US or Europe would realistically entertain such a plan. Even the current US administration would shy away from the international opprobrium brought on by so callously killing one of its own citizens. But I thought China might be another matter: if they can brazen out the Tianenmen Square Massacre, then expending one life for such a Great Leap Forward (when the last one cost literally millions) would be a walk in the park.
Maybe he’s left his computer unattended… Hey, Sentient! what are your thoughts on sex with sheep?
I said exist in space not move about in space.
Oh, I’m not taking it personally, but it is far too fun a turn of phrase to not use.The fact is, however, that many people are interested in the basic science provided by the unmanned program, yet they seem to get more satisfaction out of the human spaceflight program. One is primarily about science, and the other about engineering but neither are completely divorced from each other.
I suggest that it is, actually: the space (or indeed science) budget is not infinite, and so some decision must be made regarding which projects and missions are funded. $16 Bn has been earmarked for the Vision For Space Exploration. By comparison, the Supercollider was considered too expensive at only half that, and cancelled.
Is that not pure argument ad populum?
And this would enhance that even more, in their eyes. Yes?
I trust you, Mange. Am I posting particularly eccentrically here, or something? Like all good Great Debates, I thought I’d advance a suggestion in an engagingly confrontational manner and explore the responses in good humour. It’s not like I’m in poor company or anything.
And incidentally I’m scouse, not Welsh, so it’s nicked videoes, not sheep sex. (Have times changed yet such that scousers stereotypically nick DVD players instead?)
And, again, that only requires terrestrial research, not actually carting the cells about the Solar system without them undergoing necrosis.
But that engineering can be done on Earth, yes?
I suppose if you could dig up a small apartment block worth of space you could do some zero-g engineering like linking multi-ton objects together, or figuring out how to transfer fuel between containers. Perhaps we could practice deploying micron thick sheets in an empty auditorium.
Of course you can do research and testing on Earth (much as you can do the same with cosmological and astrophysics research). But to be able to validate your engineering you need to test in actual conditions.
So what is your argument or evidence that supports the idea that if you cut spending on manned missions, the money that is raised for it would go to the supercollider? What if they had the money, and decided the supercollider was too expensive anyhow, and had thier money redirected by the governing body to somewhere they felt it had more “use.”
Your argument reeks of mercantilism.
It would be if I were arguing that it were right because of that. I am only giving a reason why space programs may be political. It’s like saying that the reason the bill passed is Argument ad populum.
Doubtful. I doubt they feel sending some guy up on a one way trip to the moon would satisfy them. You see, that isnt’ what we did, so they would, in our eyes, be second rate. They want to show the world that they can do it BETTER than us. Or at least as well. IMO of course.
…or any unmanned space mission like, say, a few dozen shots at Titan, Europa, Ganymede, Enceladus or any number of comets? I would suggest that these (’scuse pun) vital missions are notable by their absence, despite anyone with a jot of xenobiological interest in the genesis of life supporting the frustrated demands of scientists worldwide. The recent Mars Exploration Rover missions have shown how good robots have got (they are still going, over a year after landing), all for a couple of dollars per US citizen, and the Science Lab due for 2010 is better still. Again, I’d suggest that the money for a manned mission should just be spent on a few more identical ones of these to sprinkle liberally around the surface. I don’t know why you think it’s incumbent upon me to show that it would be spent like this by hooplehead-elected bean counters.
And I’m sure the Devil is most grateful for your generous advocacy, but how would you prefer to see the money spent (if at all)? Surely the allocation of funds for different kinds of space missions is a legitimate subject of debate?
And getting a Chinese man on Mars first would be just such a victory, I’d venture. My OP set forth that this would help space science by making an American return trip redundant. Amundsen and Scott obviated the need for someone else to spend a fortune going to the South Pole again.
To open out the discussion further, if we’re talking one-way missions, further celestial bodies are eminently do-able, are they not? Once you escape Earth’s gravity, Newton’s first law means that unlike, say, a longer car journey, you don’t need to expend more fuel (except to manoeuvre and catch slingshots or whatever), so you can just jolly well toddle off to Titan or Europa in a similar timescale to a stay on the ISS?
Just my little quip, based on someone else’s suggestion that this topic was uncharacteristic of you and this thread (read down to post #5). Ahh… I expect you had to be there…
Anyway, it actually seems to me like you’re advancing two rather distinct subjects for debate here, they are:
-Should we be allowed to employ condemned criminals for purposes that are too risky for others (with or perhaps without their consent)
and
-Is it OK to have space missions where there is zero chance that the astronauts will return alive
These are only coincidentally connected in your OP, however, broken down like this, I still think the biggest problems are PR and the invested ideology in both cases.
Yes, you’ve convinced me that the criminal element is a non-starter.
You’re quite right, and like I replied to Kimstu, that’s why I didn’t specify the US or EU (who would not face the opprobrium) but China, who seemingly give much less of a fuck.
Hoo boy, way to dig yourself in deeper. I’d’ve just run with the sheep sex if I’d been in your shoes.
We interrupt this feature to bring our American readers up to speed with common perceptions of people from Liverpool (which is what SM has just admitted to being):
<snippage>
A: “The accused” 
/hijack
Of course, Mal’s <snippage> should read: “What do you call a scouser in a suit?”
Oh, I snipped a who-o-o-o-ole lot more than that. 
Umm. Methinks you need to re-read what I was saying.
I am not advocating anything. I was offering an explanation for a phenomena. I was NOT saying that the money was well spent because a lot of people want it spend that way. That would be argumentum ad populum. What I was saying wasn’t even an argument. Really, I agree that these posts aren’t like you at all. The mind boggles. Even this blows my mind:
Your doppleganger: If China sends a convict or a volunteer to the moon on a one way death trip, they will be accomplishing it much easier.
Me: I doubt this is what they want, it isn’t what the U.S did, and they want to match us or better us.
Your Doppleganger: Yeah, but they would get there.
:boggle:
In the words of Monty Python, That isn’t an argument. Hell, you are basically ignoring my point and repeating what you said before. The point isn’t getting there, the point is showing the world they can do it just like us, or better. Are you seriously suggesting you THINK sending a human being on a death trip is superior to going there and coming back. (In context to my ealier statement about appearances)
Comparing Mars trips, specifically? No - a return is “superior”. But that’s not what I’m comparing here. It might well be that the Chinese could manage a (dying) man on Mars, but not even a return trip to the moon, and I’d certainly rank a man on Mars above another man on the moon in terms of achievement. What happens afterwards isn’t so important, IMO: Amundsen lived, Scott died, both got to the Pole, both are considered heroes. (Scott might even be considered more heroic for dying so tragically.)
My point was that if China did do this (and I appreciate that they probably won’t), America would IMO not then rush to top them with a return trip, thus hopefully (and, noted, not necessarily) freeing up funds for other space missions. Hypothetically, do you think the US would embark on a return mission after China’s one-way mission because it was so clearly “superior”? (Or if a US astronaut unintenionally died on or after the surface, would another mission be launched to top that?) Really, I’m just making suggestions and exploring consequences here - I certainly don’t see how I’m acting out of character (and it might have been helpful if you’d made it clear that you were merely observing rather than debating - after all, other discussions of policy don’t seem to warrant such “well, that’s what people want” observations. Nevertheless, sorry for misunderstanding.)
I personally think America would try to top China. I was expecting the U.S to drop the space program almost completely, but wasn’t surprised that they vamped it up in lieu of China’s growing Space Program. Yeah, I think it would start another space race of sorts, with both countries trying to top on another. Sad as it is, I think it would put a damper on the funding of usefull scientific endevors, yes.
And I am sorry I didn’t make it clear that I was only making an observation.
I doubt another mission would be launched on top of an astronaut dying on a mission. If they all died, another mission would “probably” be sent out to obtain the bodies and equipment, but probably only then, certainly not to top it. 
It was actually the involvement of China that got me interested in discussing this topic. I must say I lack enthusiasm when it comes to the exploration of space (more of a biological science zeal), but when it comes to China, I am conviced they will be our new overlords. 
You know, the more I think about it, the more I think you’re right - certainly, the current US political zeitgeist just could not bear it, and might even immediately pour billions into a return mission even when none was previously planned!
In which case, having placed its flag on Mars, China would have to aim a second one-way mission where the US simply could not top it with a return mission. (Well, you did say “You can stick the Chinese flag in Uranus”.)