Mars is barred: why we shouldn't go to the red planet
Discussion
Johnniem said:
I am neither a space scientist, nor highly read about why the space programme continues as it does but I did see a brief news article on TV that opined that Europe have launched a rocket to take a science machine to Mercury that will help unravel how our solar system was born and how it is evolving.
The space programme has been going along for decades and I am sure that there have been many inventions which have benefitted man as a result of new materials etc. However, I am struggling to understand how information on how our solar system was born can possibly benefit us now. Perhaps we should be spending all of our space programme funds on clearing the oceans of plastic, or providing water to outlying places in third world countries, or innoculations against life threatening diseases, or eye surgery to save eyesight, etc etc etc... the list is endless.
We are signing cheques to India every year for many millions of pounds to aid the poor therein, yet india are spending billions on a space programme. What the feck is that all about?
Discuss...
This thread is supposedly about Mars, apparently - not about the validity of space programmes or space technology in general. That would be another topic.The space programme has been going along for decades and I am sure that there have been many inventions which have benefitted man as a result of new materials etc. However, I am struggling to understand how information on how our solar system was born can possibly benefit us now. Perhaps we should be spending all of our space programme funds on clearing the oceans of plastic, or providing water to outlying places in third world countries, or innoculations against life threatening diseases, or eye surgery to save eyesight, etc etc etc... the list is endless.
We are signing cheques to India every year for many millions of pounds to aid the poor therein, yet india are spending billions on a space programme. What the feck is that all about?
Discuss...
Are we discussing space programmes in general now?
It's a worthwhile discussion but the thread title seems to be specifically about Mars missions.
If we are going to debate whether money should be spent on "space" (whatever that means) then by all means do so - but I think a separate thread would make a lot more sense.
It's a worthwhile discussion but the thread title seems to be specifically about Mars missions.
If we are going to debate whether money should be spent on "space" (whatever that means) then by all means do so - but I think a separate thread would make a lot more sense.
ash73 said:
Johnniem said:
I am struggling to understand how information on how our solar system was born can possibly benefit us now.
The most pressing need is to identify, track and mitigate the threat from near Earth objects (NEOs):
When (not if) one comes our way, additional spending on the NHS or cleaning up plastic in the ocean won't help us one jot.
Whether the money should be spent on going to Mars, or experimenting with shifting the orbit of asteroids is debateable, but we MUST spend the money if we want to survive.
To put it in perspective, the entire Apollo space programme cost about $100bn in today's money; the USA spent TEN times that amount going to war in Afghanistan.
Eric Mc said:
Are we discussing space programmes in general now?
It's a worthwhile discussion but the thread title seems to be specifically about Mars missions.
If we are going to debate whether money should be spent on "space" (whatever that means) then by all means do so - but I think a separate thread would make a lot more sense.
If you apply my comments to the Mercury mission (not Mars) then the comments still apply. The cost should still be spent on more important, earth based, problems. It's a worthwhile discussion but the thread title seems to be specifically about Mars missions.
If we are going to debate whether money should be spent on "space" (whatever that means) then by all means do so - but I think a separate thread would make a lot more sense.
Johnniem said:
Eric Mc said:
Are we discussing space programmes in general now?
It's a worthwhile discussion but the thread title seems to be specifically about Mars missions.
If we are going to debate whether money should be spent on "space" (whatever that means) then by all means do so - but I think a separate thread would make a lot more sense.
If you apply my comments to the Mercury mission (not Mars) then the comments still apply. The cost should still be spent on more important, earth based, problems. It's a worthwhile discussion but the thread title seems to be specifically about Mars missions.
If we are going to debate whether money should be spent on "space" (whatever that means) then by all means do so - but I think a separate thread would make a lot more sense.
It is essential we keep pushing the envelope and exploring as far as we can go - because one thing is for certain. Unless we somehow manage to find away to stop people from having children, we will kill this planet in some time frame.
We need to move forward at all times achieve as much technology as is possible with the limits of intelligence and finances that we currently have.
It's the basic argument over whether science should be "applied" or "pure".
The problem with applied science is that you know what you are trying to achieve before you set out.
Pure research is open ended and open minded and more liable to produce unexpected and important results.
I would argue that the most important breakthroughs in science and knowledge comes from pure science.
The problem with applied science is that you know what you are trying to achieve before you set out.
Pure research is open ended and open minded and more liable to produce unexpected and important results.
I would argue that the most important breakthroughs in science and knowledge comes from pure science.
ash73 said:
They are all asteroids, about 18,000 of them as of Jan 2018, ranging in size from a few metres to several kms.
Full video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfvo-Ujb_qk&fe...
bloody hell - apologies for my lack of knowledge there.Full video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfvo-Ujb_qk&fe...
and again - bloody hell
ash73 said:
The Selfish Gene said:
bloody hell
...is the right reaction.We are the first species capable of doing something to prevent the next impact, which could kill ALL life on Earth, and people are fussing over a few hospitals. If we don't fulfil that potential, we probably deserve everything we get.
Johnniem said:
Eric Mc said:
Are we discussing space programmes in general now?
It's a worthwhile discussion but the thread title seems to be specifically about Mars missions.
If we are going to debate whether money should be spent on "space" (whatever that means) then by all means do so - but I think a separate thread would make a lot more sense.
If you apply my comments to the Mercury mission (not Mars) then the comments still apply. The cost should still be spent on more important, earth based, problems. It's a worthwhile discussion but the thread title seems to be specifically about Mars missions.
If we are going to debate whether money should be spent on "space" (whatever that means) then by all means do so - but I think a separate thread would make a lot more sense.
The big mistake made by the dinosaurs is that they had no programme in place to track NEOs.
Other space based science that has helped us a lot relates directly to observing atmospheres of other planets as they can provide simpler and easier to understand models of how atmospheric winds and cyclonic patterns arise and evolve (Jupiter/Saturn/Uranus/Neptune) or the effects of CO2 in a planet's atmosphere (Venus).
Mercury is turning out to be interesting as it seems to possess an outsize iron core - much larger than would be expected from such a small world. Knowing how planetary cores are formed will obviously help us understand how our own core evolved and what may happen to it in the future.
Mars has taught us the importance of planetary magnetic fields and how they act as a protector from the solar wind.
The discovery of the radiation belts surrounding the earth was one of the first discoveries of the space age. And that is a very good example of "pure" science in that it was totally unexpected.
The list goes on (and on).
Other space based science that has helped us a lot relates directly to observing atmospheres of other planets as they can provide simpler and easier to understand models of how atmospheric winds and cyclonic patterns arise and evolve (Jupiter/Saturn/Uranus/Neptune) or the effects of CO2 in a planet's atmosphere (Venus).
Mercury is turning out to be interesting as it seems to possess an outsize iron core - much larger than would be expected from such a small world. Knowing how planetary cores are formed will obviously help us understand how our own core evolved and what may happen to it in the future.
Mars has taught us the importance of planetary magnetic fields and how they act as a protector from the solar wind.
The discovery of the radiation belts surrounding the earth was one of the first discoveries of the space age. And that is a very good example of "pure" science in that it was totally unexpected.
The list goes on (and on).
Eric Mc said:
The big mistake made by the dinosaurs is that they had no programme in place to track NEOs.
Other space based science that has helped us a lot relates directly to observing atmospheres of other planets as they can provide simpler and easier to understand models of how atmospheric winds and cyclonic patterns arise and evolve (Jupiter/Saturn/Uranus/Neptune) or the effects of CO2 in a planet's atmosphere (Venus).
Mercury is turning out to be interesting as it seems to possess an outsize iron core - much larger than would be expected from such a small world. Knowing how planetary cores are formed will obviously help us understand how our own core evolved and what may happen to it in the future.
Mars has taught us the importance of planetary magnetic fields and how they act as a protector from the solar wind.
The discovery of the radiation belts surrounding the earth was one of the first discoveries of the space age. And that is a very good example of "pure" science in that it was totally unexpected.
The list goes on (and on).
Humans like Dinosaurs would become extinct even if we could track one right now, its unlikely we could play space invaders and shoot a NEO out of its trajectory Boom we would all be gone.Other space based science that has helped us a lot relates directly to observing atmospheres of other planets as they can provide simpler and easier to understand models of how atmospheric winds and cyclonic patterns arise and evolve (Jupiter/Saturn/Uranus/Neptune) or the effects of CO2 in a planet's atmosphere (Venus).
Mercury is turning out to be interesting as it seems to possess an outsize iron core - much larger than would be expected from such a small world. Knowing how planetary cores are formed will obviously help us understand how our own core evolved and what may happen to it in the future.
Mars has taught us the importance of planetary magnetic fields and how they act as a protector from the solar wind.
The discovery of the radiation belts surrounding the earth was one of the first discoveries of the space age. And that is a very good example of "pure" science in that it was totally unexpected.
The list goes on (and on).
Evanivitch said:
So I should spend half an hour listening to the opinion of a Biomedical Imaging specialist on a topic that has nothing to do with her area of expertise?
I'll pass.
yes you should try: those discussing the issue are:I'll pass.
1) Hannah Devlin is the Guardian's science correspondent, having previously been science editor of the Times. She has a PhD in biomedical imaging from the University of Oxford.
2) Ian Sample is science editor of the Guardian. Before joining the newspaper in 2003, he was a journalist at New Scientist and worked at the Institute of Physics as a journal editor. He has a PhD in biomedical materials from Queen Mary's, University of London.
3) Lewis Dartnell who's research is in the field of astrobiology and the search for microbial life on Mars
So we have 3 Scientists one of who will know more about Mars than I dare suggest you, which is why you should spend 1/2 hour you never know it may make you curious to learn more.
Eric Mc said:
It's the basic argument over whether science should be "applied" or "pure".
The problem with applied science is that you know what you are trying to achieve before you set out.
Pure research is open ended and open minded and more liable to produce unexpected and important results.
I would argue that the most important breakthroughs in science and knowledge comes from pure science.
They might start there, but the second you make use of any new discovery, it becomes appllied. I think that makes your statement above somewhat of a never ending circle that ultimately disproves itself. The problem with applied science is that you know what you are trying to achieve before you set out.
Pure research is open ended and open minded and more liable to produce unexpected and important results.
I would argue that the most important breakthroughs in science and knowledge comes from pure science.
Take graphene. Discovered and very exciting. Once you make a superconductor or a battery out of it, it's applied. You get a lot more utility from a superconductor or a battery than you do a layer of carbon on sellotape.
So what is the important bit? Nothing made of graphene could ever exist without the fist step, so it's all the benefit of this pure science you know and love are due to pure science. However, the only useful things to come out of graphene will have spent a lot lot longer in development than the chance finding of "hey look at this cool material".
All science is great, there shouldn't be a need to make it "us and them" unless there's a nutritionist in the room trying to use words familiar to biochemists =)
Without the discovery there can be no application.
Therefore, the searching for the sake of searching is important.
I'm not knocking the application of science - far from it. But those who are in charge of funding must make sure that they don't only fund research for which they think they already know the end goal.
Therefore, the searching for the sake of searching is important.
I'm not knocking the application of science - far from it. But those who are in charge of funding must make sure that they don't only fund research for which they think they already know the end goal.
Toaster said:
umans like Dinosaurs would become extinct even if we could track one right now, its unlikely we could play space invaders and shoot a NEO out of its trajectory Boom we would all be gone.
That would be unfortunate. Perhaps developing a method of travelling to another planet in case something like this happens in the further future might be beneficial, possibly somewhere like mars?Ian974 said:
Toaster said:
umans like Dinosaurs would become extinct even if we could track one right now, its unlikely we could play space invaders and shoot a NEO out of its trajectory Boom we would all be gone.
That would be unfortunate. Perhaps developing a method of travelling to another planet in case something like this happens in the further future might be beneficial, possibly somewhere like mars?
Ian974 said:
Toaster said:
umans like Dinosaurs would become extinct even if we could track one right now, its unlikely we could play space invaders and shoot a NEO out of its trajectory Boom we would all be gone.
That would be unfortunate. Perhaps developing a method of travelling to another planet in case something like this happens in the further future might be beneficial, possibly somewhere like mars?Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff