

Neil Armstrong's death should be a wake-up call for the world - craig552uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2012/aug/25/neil-armstrong-mars?CMP=twt_fd

======
gizmo686
As much as I think we should invest in colonizing other planets, I don't think
it is far to say that we slowed down or stagnated our progress into space
because more humans haven't gone farther than the station. There was no great
scientific accomplishment in putting a man on the moon, it was a great feat of
engineering, great for politics, and (probably) great for the economy, but
there was no progress made that a robot could not have done for a fraction of
the resources.

The iconic vision of moon project is the American flag. If that doesn't
suggest that it was more about politics that progress, I do not know what
will.

On the other hand, today were are focusing our space exploration resources as
efficiently as we can, sending small rovers to do research, cooperating
internationally instead of duplicating effort, ETC.

Once we learn enough to make a long-term colony feasible (or run into some
barrier that requires human presence to solve), it is simply a waste of
resources.

Besides, we have a continues human presence in space, I consider that far more
impressive than a couple of visits to the moon, or Mars.

------
tokenadult
"I don't give a damn if robotic probes make more sense. I don't give a damn
about the views of academic committees or health and safety. I don't give a
damn about the supposed costs – money spent on space exploration is invested
in science and technology right here on Earth, and has paid for itself many
times over."

What he's really saying in this opinion piece is that he doesn't care a whit
about evidence, and isn't interested enough in his fellow human beings to try
to persuade them with careful reasoning. I was second to none in cheering on
the Space Race when it was happening. I was taking a summer course on
planetary astronomy, a special program of my school district, with the
classmate who became my lifelong best friend during the summer when the first
Moon landing happened. We were both fans of the space program and aspired to
be astronauts. Our school district's school board voted that summer what to
name the new high school: Neil Armstrong Senior High, of course. So I'm an
alumnus of a school named after Neil Armstrong.

Humankind has set foot on the Moon. Humankind has sent space probes to other
bodies in the Solar System, and has collected and returned samples from a few
of those, with Mars next in consideration. But meanwhile lots of young Baby
Boomers who grew up watching members of the Greatest Generation or the Silent
Generation becoming public heros by voyaging into outer space have discovered
that there are challenging, tough problems to solve right here on Earth.

I have mentioned before here on HN that in the school year just before the
Moon landing, my classmates and I built a time capsule with our predictions of
the year 2001. The time capsule was opened that year. Our predictions largely
proved too pessimistic, although they included a lot of gee-whiz technological
predictions. Pollution was less of a problem, worldwide, than we predicted for
2001, and petroleum was more plentiful and less expensive.

The world gets wake-up calls every day. Every day people face problems. Life
is full of problems. The way to have excitement in life is to be excited about
grappling with and perhaps solving problems. That's even more cool than being
stacked on top of a column of explosive chemicals to be pushed into orbit.
People can float more freely than they float in microgravity when they free
their minds to be imaginative about how to solve problems. If exploring space
some more solves real problems for real people, some people will be willing to
pay to send other people into outer space. But mostly people will be most
willing to pay for what appears to have genuine utility, and there are plenty
of exciting, risky, and challenging things to do right here on the ground that
are likely to have higher priority than manned space exploration for most
people for a long, long time.

~~~
rogerbinns
> What he's really saying in this opinion piece is that he doesn't care a whit
> about evidence, and isn't interested enough in his fellow human beings to
> try to persuade them with careful reasoning

More accurately there is a different reason to do things. Remember that no one
is compelled to go on the missions. We don't know what we don't know. Humans
are naturally curious and natural explorers - look at what happened in the
late 15th and 16th centuries. The various voyages that are celebrated (eg
Columbus) were definitely not made based on evidence! There was a 90%
mortality rate on the first British settlements in the US in that timeframe.
At the beginning of the 20th century we had mad dashes for the poles. (They
could and sometimes did fly over them which is "better" based on evidence.) In
the middle of the century some people got to the top of Mt Everest and came
back again - again pointless about the evidence. Lots of people died in these
explorations. I think it is just fine encouraging people to explore. The only
valid question is how much to subsidise it via tax payer's money. To put it
into perspective in the US: "The entire running budget of NASA since it's
inception in 1958 adds up to $526.18 billion. That's about $173 billion less
than the 2008 bank bailout."

As for your pollution etc issues, it really is worth looking into the facts.
From Matt Ridley's Rational Optimist: "When I was a student here in Oxford in
the 1970s, the future of the world was bleak. The population explosion was
unstoppable. Global famine was inevitable. A cancer epidemic caused by
chemicals in the environment was going to shorten our lives. The acid rain was
falling on the forests. The desert was advancing by a mile or two a year. The
oil was running out, and a nuclear winter would finish us off. None of those
things happened, (Laughter) and astonishingly, if you look at what actually
happened in my lifetime, the average per-capita income of the average person
on the planet, in real terms, adjusted for inflation, has tripled. Lifespan is
up by 30 percent in my lifetime. Child mortality is down by two-thirds. Per-
capita food production is up by a third. And all this at a time when the
population has doubled."

[http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex.htm...](http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex.html)

------
melling
Interesting. "By the time I was a grown-up we would be whizzing around in
bullet trains and hypersonic jets,..."

I'm bothered more by not having bullet trains (in America) and hypersonic
jets. If you compare getting 2 dozen people to Mars vs building futuristic
cities, transportation, etc., I think humanity will benefit much more if we
bring 7 billion people into the future.

Just imagine, for example, a kid in the slums of Rio studying online to earn
her degree from a future version of Udacity, after which she finds a job in
London so she jumps on a plane for the 2 hour flight. After a year, she buys
an apartment 100 miles outside and commute 30 minutes every day to work by
maglev. With hypersonic flight she can fly home for long weekends to visit her
family...

In short, the point let's first invest in making our world smaller and educate
more people so more people come online to help contribute in some meaningful
way.

~~~
ciupicri
You might find this article interesting - "Why Explore Space? A 1970 Letter to
a Nun in Africa." [1] (HN discussion [2]).

[1] [http://launiusr.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/why-explore-
space-a...](http://launiusr.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/why-explore-
space-a-1970-letter-to-a-nun-in-africa/)

[2] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4372563>

~~~
melling
I didn't say we shouldn't explore space. Human flight is very expensive and
when there are accidents, the process gets even slower. We should do things in
the proper order. At some point later in the 21st century, going to Mars will
be routine and hopefully when we go, we'll stay. In the meantime, let's start
building the other part of the 21st century that's missing. NYC to Tokyo in 3
hours. Living in Paris and commuting on a morning train to London for work.
Robots that build robots, which fly to all the planets in our solar system.

