As Egon Spengler said as he came out from under the secretary’s desk in “Ghostbusters”…’print is dead’, so too is manned space flight. To say the ISS is in space is stretching it. Until someone can come up with a propulsion system rivaling “warp drive” why should we bother? Successful robotic missions to Mars stand at about 50-50. Nobody in their right mind (well, I would, but my mind’s not right) would undertake a mission after being told, ‘Well, son, you’ve got a 50-50 chance of getting there. Gettin’ back, though, is an entirely different matter.’ I’d be thinking, “who would want to come back?” Anyway, I could give you the blow-by-blow on the little science experiments they’d ask me to do and then settle down to a steady diet of frozen hot dogs and the nagging realization that... ‘Damn, Mars is really cold!’ Death would come quickly and all viewers would remember is the brand of hot dog I was eating. Sort of like all they remember, now, is Tang. Send the probes. Forget the men. Dave On Mar 1, 2012, at 7:43 AM, Kim wrote:

The voice-over sounds a lot like a Republican (or substitute Democrat) campaign ad.

Here's a question for friendly debate: Has human exploration hit a wall with space? Maybe it is simply not possible, and won't be for generations, if ever, to go any further than we have. I don't mean robotic probes, as I think they have really given NASA the best "bang for the buck," and I believe that part of space exploration certainly can and should continue. But human exploration? Perhaps technology has also reached its limit and will never overcome the immense barriers to further human exploration beyond near space (earth orbit and/or lunar exploration - maybe).

Thoughts?

Kim

-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Wiggins Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 9:46 PM To: utah astronomy listserve utah astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] NASA video: We Are the Explorers

We Are the Explorers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e7DEw70LVWs

patrick

_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy

Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com

The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.

To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".

_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy

Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com

The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.

To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".

And what's beyond our capability about a moon base? I'm sure if one were on the "far" side, so much electromagnetic radiation from Earth would be blocked that it would be an ideal place for a gigantic radio telescope. And an optical telescope observatory would be many, many times as valuable as any orbiting observatory. Thanks, Joe ________________________________ From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2012 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] NASA video: We Are the Explorers You're a victim of short-term thinking.  We need to start thinking like some cultures, where public projects have hundred-year goals. It's instant gratification that's dead, not human spaceflight.  It's only begun.  Tell me it's dead in 500 years.  I think you'll be surprised. On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Dave Gary <davegary@me.com> wrote:

As Egon Spengler said as he came out from under the secretary’s desk in “Ghostbusters”…’print is dead’, so too is manned space flight.

Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".

A Water supply to sustain human life. Why is a moon base needed?

We have much to learn from the space station more research is needed in a weightless environment. Or ability to launch space craft is incompatible with the frail human body. We need more research. What is the current record for time a human has been in space? I am not against manned missions but we are decades (if ever) away from solving the real problems of human survival in space. Lets answer those questions first, we are simply putting the cart before the horse. The mistake was not replacing the shuttle with something that could get astronauts to ISS and that was decided long before Obama. And what's beyond our capability about a moon base? I'm sure if one were

on the "far" side, so much electromagnetic radiation from Earth would be blocked that it would be an ideal place for a gigantic radio telescope. And an optical telescope observatory would be many, many times as valuable as any orbiting observatory. Thanks, Joe

________________________________ From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2012 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] NASA video: We Are the Explorers

You're a victim of short-term thinking.  We need to start thinking like some cultures, where public projects have hundred-year goals.

It's instant gratification that's dead, not human spaceflight.  It's only begun.  Tell me it's dead in 500 years.  I think you'll be surprised.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Dave Gary <davegary@me.com> wrote:

...

As Egon Spengler said as he came out from under the secretary’s desk in “Ghostbusters”…’print is dead’, so too is manned space flight.

---

Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy

Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com

The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.

To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy

Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com

The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.

To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".

So do we send astronauts to Mars and tell them they have to find water and food for themselves?

Again what is record for time spent in space for a human? and how long will a man be required to be in space to go to Mars? Seems what I always hear is that they hope to have those details figured out by launch time. On 01 Mar 2012, at 17:24, Dave Gary wrote:

...

As Egon Spengler said as he came out from under the secretary’s desk in “Ghostbusters”…’print is dead’, so too is manned space flight. To say the ISS is in space is stretching it. Until someone can come up with a propulsion system rivaling “warp drive” why should we bother? Successful robotic missions to Mars stand at about 50-50.

50-50 because there were not humans on board to improve the odds. An example being the Mars Polar Lander which crashed when the onboard computer "thought" the craft was on the ground and shut off the descent engines when it was still high in the Martian sky. Had a human been on board to monitor the engines real time that would not have happened.

Or one of the otherwise successful Viking Landers whose seismometer did not work because someone back on Earth had forgotten to to remove a locking pin before flight. Had a human been on board to remove the pin that would not have happened.

Or what about Mars Climate Orbiter? Someone back on Earth forgot the mission was using metric measures and inputted American units instead causing the craft to enter Mars orbit too low and it burned up. Had a human been on board and seen quite a ways out that the approach was going to be too steep that would not have happened.

Or the Soviet's Phobos 1 which was on its way to Mars when someone back on Earth accidentally commanded the craft to shut down and the craft was lost. Had a human been on board to make sure the computer was not shut off that would not have happened.

And even the recent Phobos-Grunt, lost in Earth orbit when the onboard computer failed to fire the engine that was to propel the craft out of Earth orbit and on to Mars. Had a human been on board to ignite the engine that would not have happened.

Those are just a few examples. I'm sure there are more.

Robotic exploration has it's very important place but no robot can do everything a human can. And, maybe just as important, no robot can be curious and wonder "What was that?". One of the current Mars rovers, following its programming, once drove right on past what later turned out to be a very interesting meteorite. Fortunately someone back on Earth later saw the meteorite in navigation images and wondered "What was that?" and had the rover team turn the rover around and go back for a better look.

I really like what the rovers have accomplished, but one of the folks on the MER team said a while back that all of the wonderful stuff the rovers have done over the past many *years* could be accomplished (and dare I add "exceeded") by a single human geologist on a go cart in a couple of *weeks*.

...

Nobody in their right mind (well, I would, but my mind’s not right) would undertake a mission after being told, ‘Well, son, you’ve got a 50-50 chance of getting there. Gettin’ back, though, is an entirely different matter.’

When the early Earth explorers left port on their sailing ships they knew they had a small chance of returning but they went anyway. And when others left to settle new places on the planet many had no intention of ever returning. While I'd prefer to return alive I'm sure there would be no shortage of volunteers willing to make a one way trip to live out their lives on Mars.

It's just that today NASA is so risk and PR adverse that they don't want to even consider one way trips or riskier odds. And that's why I'm glad to see private enterprise entering the space game. Those pioneers are willing to take the risks and possibly reap the big rewards.

...

Send the probes. Forget the men.

I hope you meant to say "humans". Otherwise I'll bet there are a number of "XX chromosomers" who might want to have a private talk with you out back. :)

patrick Speaking for myself and not any agency for whom I occasionally volunteer. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy

Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com

The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.

To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".

Manned Missions and Unmanned Missions are controlled by Humans and Computers alike, both have made mistakes or had failures.t was interesting that Patrick pointed out human errors causing unmanned mission failures, stating an Astronaut would not make any. Failures in Unmanned Missions have cost no lives and they are considerably cheaper than Manned Missions. I am confused as to why we think the human on board is incapable of making a mistake.

Apollo 13 was put into peril due to a mechanical failure and while the astronauts did perform very well, it was as much luck as skill. They were lucky to have survived. I have also heard a 50/50 chance of survival for a Mars Mission. without enough water there is ZERO chance of survival. We have discussed this before and no one has ever presented a workable solution to providing the needed water. Can anyone answer this? it may not be possible to solve the water issue. All current solutions are theory and none have demonstrated a capability to produce any water. By all means lets go to Mars, but lets at least give the Astronauts a 50/50 chance of survival. Erik Many of the things you tout as being "fixable" by man are really not.

 Remember Apollo 13 - the trajectory correction was accomplished by hand and not assisted by computer because the computer was powered down.  Humans were on board and the correction was just barely adequate.  The humans on board had no idea that they were on the wrong trajectory.  They wouldn't have known either - until it was too late.  A rocket motor that won't start probably can't be fixed in space.  Depending on what's wrong, even a manual switch to ignite the motor would not work.  Most things in critical phases of descent happen too fast for a human to react and fix the problem.  Machines are much more adept at tasks like this.

There are some things that a human could modify, like commands to shut things down.  But, I suspect that at least half of encountered problems would result in death for the creature on board rather than successfully salvaging a critical critical situation.  Contrast that with the overhead required to maintain life aboard a spacecraft.  I don't know the exact numbers, but again, think of the Command Service Module on the Apollo missions.  Most of that stuff was for the benefit of the riders.  I don't think any of it was used for scientific instrumentation.  For that matter, the Command Module served the same life sustaining function, as did the entire upper half of the Lunar Excursion Module.

In spite of all of this, I am in favor of manned missions.  I agree with Chuck that we are still in our infancy in this endeavor.  When we started our lunar designs and expedition planning, we didn't even have integrated circuits.  They and many other very useful technologies were invented for the space program.  I fully expect that if we ever get our collective act together, technology will be developed to fill the voids.  It was done in the past, and it is short sighted to think that we have reached the end of technological development.

I expect humankind will visit other planets in our solar system.  First of these will be Mars or an asteroid.  At some future time we will have colonized several of them including the moon and Mars.  Life will be different for these intrepid explorers.  There will be a different set of risks than we have on earth, but they will be manageable.  And we will be that much more enriched as a race.  Our problem right now is that we are too concerned with the short term, and the "Me" attitude.  We'll get over that, but it will take a while.  Mankind has a rich future.  It only take a bit of vision and cooperation to realize it.

________________________________ From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:45 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] NASA video: We Are the Explorers

On 01 Mar 2012, at 17:24, Dave Gary wrote:

...

As Egon Spengler said as he came out from under the secretary’s desk in “Ghostbusters”…’print is dead’, so too is manned space flight. To say the ISS is in space is stretching it. Until someone can come up with a propulsion system rivaling “warp drive” why should we bother? Successful robotic missions to Mars stand at about 50-50.

50-50 because there were not humans on board to improve the odds.  An example being the Mars Polar Lander which crashed when the onboard computer "thought" the craft was on the ground and shut off the descent engines when it was still high in the Martian sky.  Had a human been on board to monitor the engines real time that would not have happened.

Or one of the otherwise successful Viking Landers whose seismometer did not work because someone back on Earth had forgotten to to remove a locking pin before flight.  Had a human been on board to remove the pin that would not have happened.

Or what about Mars Climate Orbiter?  Someone back on Earth forgot the mission was using metric measures and inputted American units instead causing the craft to enter Mars orbit too low and it burned up.  Had a human been on board and seen quite a ways out that the approach was going to be too steep that would not have happened.

Or the Soviet's Phobos 1 which was on its way to Mars when someone back on Earth accidentally commanded the craft to shut down and the craft was lost.  Had a human been on board to make sure the computer was not shut off that would not have happened.

And even the recent Phobos-Grunt, lost in Earth orbit when the onboard computer failed to fire the engine that was to propel the craft out of Earth orbit and on to Mars.  Had a human been on board to ignite the engine that would not have happened.

Those are just a few examples.  I'm sure there are more.

Robotic exploration has it's very important place but no robot can do everything a human can.  And, maybe just as important, no robot can be curious and wonder "What was that?".  One of the current Mars rovers, following its programming, once drove right on past what later turned out to be a very interesting meteorite.  Fortunately someone back on Earth later saw the meteorite in navigation images and wondered "What was that?" and had the rover team turn the rover around and go back for a better look.

I really like what the rovers have accomplished, but one of the folks on the MER team said a while back that all of the wonderful stuff the rovers have done over the past many *years* could be accomplished (and dare I add "exceeded") by a single human geologist on a go cart in a couple of *weeks*.

...

Nobody in their right mind (well, I would, but my mind’s not right) would undertake a mission after being told, ‘Well, son, you’ve got a 50-50 chance of getting there. Gettin’ back, though, is an entirely different matter.’

When the early Earth explorers left port on their sailing ships they knew they had a small chance of returning but they went anyway.  And when others left to settle new places on the planet many had no intention of ever returning.  While I'd prefer to return alive I'm sure there would be no shortage of volunteers willing to make a one way trip to live out their lives on Mars.

It's just that today NASA is so risk and PR adverse that they don't want to even consider one way trips or riskier odds.  And that's why I'm glad to see private enterprise entering the space game.  Those pioneers are willing to take the risks and possibly reap the big rewards.

...

Send the probes. Forget the men.

I hope you meant to say "humans".  Otherwise I'll bet there are a number of "XX chromosomers" who might want to have a private talk with you out back.  :)

patrick Speaking for myself and not any agency for whom I occasionally volunteer. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy

Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com

The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.

To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy

Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com

The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.

To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".

It’s a moot point if we don’t have the propulsive system to reach the terrestrial planets in a reasonable amount of time. At this point, we do not. We can scratch Venus and Mercury off the list of places where we’d like a second home. That leave Mars as the only terrestrial planet we can visit and live long enough to tell anyone about our new address. We can visit the gas giants, but we’re not going to be wandering around on them and staking claims. Some of their moons look promising, especially from a petrologic standpoint, but I don’t think any mega-corporation any time soon will be harvesting their resources. Some additional perspective. Thanks to Joe’s blog a while back. Voyager 1 passed through the termination shock and into the heliosheath in December 2004. It passed into the heliopause last June. It’s at a distance of about 11 billion miles from Sun. Its velocity is about 40,000 miles/hour. Voyager 1 was launched in 1977. Voyager 1 is not coming back. It doesn’t have the desire or resources to come back. Humans (politically correct for Patrick) will want to come back to Earth, at first, until we can establish a colony in whatever inhospitable environment we choose to subject ourselves to. That’s if we can get there. Right now, we’re not even close. Review Voyager data above for insight. In my opinion, saying we’re anywhere near being able to send people to another planet (or will be in the foreseeable future) is like saying, after you step on a stepladder, that you’re closer to Moon. Another thing. How are we going to pay for this? What vision? Human shortsightedness is the stuff of legend. Many people, especially those in congress, believe there is no climate change. However, it doesn’t matter what they believe. The scientific consensus is there informing us of a pretty dismal future. How are we going to spend resources on manned space exploration when we’re trying to keep all of Florida from being knee-deep in water one hundred years from now? Kiss the Kennedy Space Center goodbye. This is in the “short-term”. The long-term projection is much worse. I’m holding out for a large extinction-level impactor. Dave On Mar 2, 2012, at 5:24 PM, Chuck Hards wrote:

Neil DeGrasse Tyson was on NPR's Science Friday today, talking about the future of manned exploration of the solar system. He made some powerful arguements, in sociological terms. I recommend the podcast.

There are going to be a LOT of astronaut deaths during the next few generations of space exploration. It's part of the process and statistically, probably can't be helped. Remember that the men and women who volunteer for space exploration know all too well what the risks are. "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it", as the saying goes. They know. We owe them, they are made of better stuff than we. Just like our military who face mortal danger so the rest of us can live our lives in freedom. Of course we owe it to those brave pioneers to give them the best chance of survival that we can, but accidents happen, the unforseen always rears it's ugly head, and sh!t happens. We can't let fear and Ralph Nader rule our exploratory nature and need to expand and grow as a species.

Manned exploration of space is a huge task, not something that's going to happen quickly. It will span generations- in the SHORT term. We need to stop thinking about it in terms of the next ten or twenty years. It's something that is going to take millenia, and cost many, many human lives and untold treasure to accomplish. We are good at reproduction, face it. There will be no shortage of eager volunteers to take us bravely into the future.

It's going to take not just a national will, but the will of the entire species. Failure means that we become just another thin layer in the geological strata.

Science-fiction has ruined our thinking, in practical terms. Manned exploration and colonization of space is something that will take so long, that our descendents who live the future we dream of, may even be further along the biological evolutionary scale than we are.

I'm OK with that, and kind of proud of it. It doesn't all have to happen in the short time-span of a single human life. Or ten human lives. But it HAS to happen for our descendants to survive.

We need to change the way we think, as a species, and stop being so divisive and fearful. Otherwise Malthus is correct, and we are doomed to starve to death, largely by own own actions (or, more precisely, inactions.) _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy

Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com

The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.

To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".

Yes, it is matter of launching enough weight and not even the constellation program did that, it still depended on finding a source of drinkable water on Mars, and fuel for the return as I recall.

If we waited until we could send man and all his needed supplies for survival, we would have never gone to any other planet period. There are many things to work out, a prolusion system is the least. We do need to think long term and research mans ability to survive in a weightless, foodless, and waterless environment. Seems Newt thought if he mentioned "Moon Base" in the Florida Primary he would win. How did that work out? Again demonstrate a usable water source before we build a moon base. I do think a Moon Base and a Mars Mission will happen, but closer to the end of this century. " It’s a moot point if we don’t have the propulsive system to reach the

terrestrial planets in a reasonable amount of time. At this point, we do not." We can scratch Venus and Mercury off the list of places where we’d like a second home. That leave Mars as the only terrestrial planet we can visit and live long enough to tell anyone about our new address. We can visit the gas giants, but we’re not going to be wandering around on them and staking claims. Some of their moons look promising, especially from a petrologic standpoint, but I don’t think any mega-corporation any time soon will be harvesting their resources.

Some additional perspective. Thanks to Joe’s blog a while back. Voyager 1 passed through the termination shock and into the heliosheath in December 2004. It passed into the heliopause last June. It’s at a distance of about 11 billion miles from Sun. Its velocity is about 40,000 miles/hour. Voyager 1 was launched in 1977. Voyager 1 is not coming back. It doesn’t have the desire or resources to come back. Humans (politically correct for Patrick) will want to come back to Earth, at first, until we can establish a colony in whatever inhospitable environment we choose to subject ourselves to. That’s if we can get there. Right now, we’re not even close. Review Voyager data above for insight. In my opinion, saying we’re anywhere near being able to send people to another planet (or will be in the foreseeable future) is like saying, after you step on a stepladder, that you’re closer to Moon.

Another thing. How are we going to pay for this? What vision?

Human shortsightedness is the stuff of legend. Many people, especially those in congress, believe there is no climate change. However, it doesn’t matter what they believe. The scientific consensus is there informing us of a pretty dismal future. How are we going to spend resources on manned space exploration when we’re trying to keep all of Florida from being knee-deep in water one hundred years from now? Kiss the Kennedy Space Center goodbye. This is in the “short-term”. The long-term projection is much worse.

I’m holding out for a large extinction-level impactor.

Dave

On Mar 2, 2012, at 5:24 PM, Chuck Hards wrote:

...

Neil DeGrasse Tyson was on NPR's Science Friday today, talking about the future of manned exploration of the solar system. He made some powerful arguements, in sociological terms. I recommend the podcast.

There are going to be a LOT of astronaut deaths during the next few generations of space exploration. It's part of the process and statistically, probably can't be helped. Remember that the men and women who volunteer for space exploration know all too well what the risks are. "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it", as the saying goes. They know. We owe them, they are made of better stuff than we. Just like our military who face mortal danger so the rest of us can live our lives in freedom. Of course we owe it to those brave pioneers to give them the best chance of survival that we can, but accidents happen, the unforseen always rears it's ugly head, and sh!t happens. We can't let fear and Ralph Nader rule our exploratory nature and need to expand and grow as a species.

Manned exploration of space is a huge task, not something that's going to happen quickly. It will span generations- in the SHORT term. We need to stop thinking about it in terms of the next ten or twenty years. It's something that is going to take millenia, and cost many, many human lives and untold treasure to accomplish. We are good at reproduction, face it. There will be no shortage of eager volunteers to take us bravely into the future.

It's going to take not just a national will, but the will of the entire species. Failure means that we become just another thin layer in the geological strata.

Science-fiction has ruined our thinking, in practical terms. Manned exploration and colonization of space is something that will take so long, that our descendents who live the future we dream of, may even be further along the biological evolutionary scale than we are.

I'm OK with that, and kind of proud of it. It doesn't all have to happen in the short time-span of a single human life. Or ten human lives. But it HAS to happen for our descendants to survive.

We need to change the way we think, as a species, and stop being so divisive and fearful. Otherwise Malthus is correct, and we are doomed to starve to death, largely by own own actions (or, more precisely, inactions.) _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy

Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com

The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.

To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".

_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy

Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com

The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.

To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".

I heard part of Science Friday and enjoyed Tyson's remarks. I especially took note when he reminded us that President Kennedy's statement in 1962 regarding going to the Moon was not motivated by any sense of exploration but by a war-time mentality. Read the speech. I think this may help explain whey we haven't returned. The urge to explore is far less than the urge to wage war. Are we now learning, or are we going to learn anything from the ISS? I really don't know, so I'm asking. Again, I think that unmanned space exploration has given us far more hard science and more benefits than manned space exploration and that's where I think we should put most of our dollars for now. OK, so we've argued this before but I've really appreciated everyone's remarks. My opinion may be unaltered, but I enjoy reading others.\ Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 5:24 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] NASA video: We Are the Explorers Neil DeGrasse Tyson was on NPR's Science Friday today, talking about the future of manned exploration of the solar system. He made some powerful arguements, in sociological terms. I recommend the podcast.