Starship Asterisk*

by **owlice** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:19 pm

owlice wrote:
BMAONE23 wrote:Kids today though only know the Mars Rovers, Cassini, cometary missions and the end of the Shuttle era.
Only some kids, and I'd bet by percentage, far fewer of them than knew of the Gemini, Mercury, and Apollo missions. If my 17-year-old knows Cassini, I'll be surprised. (I'll ask him this evening whether he does.) I doubt he knows any cometary mission, and he probably doesn't know the last Shuttle will be launching soon. And he spent two years in a science and tech high school program! (Left early to attend college, which is why he was there only two years.) Hmmm... I wonder how many of the teachers in that school know of these missions. That might make a splendid study.

Well, I finally got around to asking my kid if he knew what the Cassini mission is for, and he got a quizzical look on his face and said, "Uhhhhh, Saturn?" Surprised me! I asked if he knew what the MESSENGER mission was; he did not, and after I told him, he was annoyed with himself for not figuring it out from the name of the mission/its planet. He knew the Mars Rovers, did not know of any comet missions. I did not ask him about the shuttles, but only because I didn't remember to do so.

by **kshiarella** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:40 pm

kshiarella wrote:We either learn to move out to use the empty space or we trash this place.

Noel wrote:Well, that's a depressing point of view all in its own right.

I suppose, but at least my future world view has a way out because in my view humanity is not mandated to be scorched into an ion cloud by an expanding sun in a few billion years. I think I'm unreasonably optimistic to be thinking we could be around that long!

Not all humans who have inhabited this planet expand and trash everything. Some lived (and live) in harmony with nature.

true, but they are displaced and mowed over by the imperialistic cultures that are founded on the model of survival through expansion and growth. Then all is left are those cultures. I think we have a better chance of leaving the solar system riding a Unicorn than going back and living like native Americans in balance with nature. And if we did, all these unmanned and manned missions wouldn't survive anyway because it takes HUGE economies to support these kinds of technologies. No more Hubble or Cassini photographs...could we survive without them?

Make no mistake, nature is preparing to fight back against the hordes. We live in a tiny little bubble in time where our antibiotics still work and we can still find stuff laying around to burn.

I make tons of mistakes, but the real rub here is that we as a species have gotten good at dodging and manipulating the Good Mother's attempts to keep us in check. Thus far. If she has something new for us that we can't handle, I hope that both you and I (but definitely not Chris) escape being among the "hordes."

by **kshiarella** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 6:10 pm

neufer wrote:
kshiarella wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
Our need to explore seems well served by unmanned probes. We will almost certainly never leave the Solar System. With enough time, we may find reasons to send people to other places withing the Solar System... but that time is not now, and I don't see much evidence that people are desperately seeking out new frontiers to physically explore.
My goodness, how disappointing it is to read this. It brings to mind a movie quote from Sam Neil in the last Jurassic Park movie. He says WTTE, "There are two kinds of boys in the world, Astronomers and Astronauts. The Astronomer likes to stay home and observer and measure from home but the Astronaut needs to see with his own eyes and touch with his own hands."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Thorn wrote:
<<In the third [Omen] film The Final Conflict, Damien Thorn (Sam Neill) is appointed Ambassador to the Court of St. James's, the same position his adoptive father held in the first film. Unlike the two incarnations of Damien portrayed in previous Omen films, the adult Damien is entirely aware of his unholy lineage, and his destiny. An alignment of the stars in the Cassiopeia region of the night sky (the traditional location of the stellar signal of the Second Coming) causes the creation of a super "star", described in the film as a second Star of Bethlehem. Damien realizes it is a sign of the Second Coming of Christ and he orders all male children in England born on the morning of March 24, (the morning when, in the story, the Cassiopeia alignment occurred) to be killed in order to prevent the Christ-child's return to power, as predicted in the Book of Revelation.>>

Master Sergeant Neff: Mathematics good, Science very good, Military History fair, room for improvement.

Damien Thorn: Yes Sergeant.

Master Sergeant Neff: Physical Training is excellent. I hear you're quite a Football player. Be proud of your accomplishments. Pride is alright when there's reason to be proud.

Damien Thorn: Yes Sergeant.

Master Sergeant Neff: I'm here to teach you but also I'm here to help you. Any problems you come to me. Don't be afraid, day or night, any advice. You understand?

Damien Thorn: Whatever you say Sergeant.

Master Sergeant Neff: We're gonna get to know each other. I see you're an orphan. Well, that's something we have in common.

I see what you did there.

Source aside and in the face of obtuse derision, the point remains. Neil Armstrong and Murray Gell-Mann were probably different kinds of boys (but I bet Enrico Fermi would have made a heckuva astronaut). Not all of our dreams of achievement are the same nor are the same pursuits equally fulfilling for all of us. The frustrated pioneers are still around (just not on this board). Even though it comes from an infrequent poster, the idea is probably not all that contentious.

by **kshiarella** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 5:42 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
kshiarella wrote:My goodness, how disappointing it is to read this. It brings to mind a movie quote from Sam Neil in the last Jurassic Park movie. He says WTTE, "There are two kinds of boys in the world, Astronomers and Astronauts. The Astronomer likes to stay home and observer and measure from home but the Astronaut needs to see with his own eyes and touch with his own hands."
Well, pithy statements like that are the bread and butter of screenwriters.There isn't necessarily any great truth to them, though.

I believe your point of view is political because it reflects the polarization in attitude between the Astronomer type and the Astronaut type. Whereas, I believe we need both. And I hate to see one side devalue the other.
I think it's an artificial distinction, in that other than actual astronomers and actual astronauts, who together represent the tiniest fraction of humanity, there's not such a thing as an "astronomer type" or "astronaut type". You seem to be awfully sensitive about the matter- a rational discussion of risks versus benefits and optimal use of limited resources hardly strikes me as "devaluing" anyone!

As for those desperately seeking to explore, you are seeing it every single day!
I believe you romanticize exploration. I think it is much less a human trait than you make it. There are indeed those who live to explore, but they are, and always have been, a tiny minority. The vast majority of humans are quite happy not being explorers themselves, and whatever interest they have in the matter is satisfied by a subscription to National Geographic and a daily glance at APOD. For the most part, societies have only provided direct support to explorers when they saw some tangible value in doing so. Otherwise, most explorers found their own resources and supporters- privately. And most of those who really made discoveries that changed our lives were in it for the money more than some intrinsic need to explore.

And there are resources in our solar system. Great Caches of resources that we only have to learn to reach that would relieve stress on our little blue ball. Humans can't change their nature. Women will hunger to make tons of babies and men will line up to oblige them. We either learn to move out to use the empty space or we trash this place.
There are resources in space, and by far the best way to exploit them is with unmanned approaches. And our drive to reproduce may well be our downfall, but there's no solution to that problem to be found elsewhere in the Solar System, and it is science fiction to imagine we'll leave the Solar System. Well, maybe in thousands of years, if we are able to maintain civilization. But I have my doubts about that. We are very rapidly stressing our planet to the point that our civilizations are likely to fall. That's something we could see in less than a century. We certainly will be in no position to have colonies on other planets by then. But a rich understanding of planetary processes, observed for the Earth and other planets (which is really only practical with unmanned probes) is one of the few things that actually stands to provide us with the information we need to save ourselves from ourselves. Still a long shot, but manned space exploration at this point provides no shot at all.

A classic example of what happens when a strong left brain thinker tries to communicate with a strong right brain thinker (and no, that is not an artificial distinction either).... sheesh!

by **Chris Peterson** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 1:53 am

kshiarella wrote:My goodness, how disappointing it is to read this. It brings to mind a movie quote from Sam Neil in the last Jurassic Park movie. He says WTTE, "There are two kinds of boys in the world, Astronomers and Astronauts. The Astronomer likes to stay home and observer and measure from home but the Astronaut needs to see with his own eyes and touch with his own hands."

Well, pithy statements like that are the bread and butter of screenwriters.There isn't necessarily any great truth to them, though.

I believe your point of view is political because it reflects the polarization in attitude between the Astronomer type and the Astronaut type. Whereas, I believe we need both. And I hate to see one side devalue the other.

I think it's an artificial distinction, in that other than actual astronomers and actual astronauts, who together represent the tiniest fraction of humanity, there's not such a thing as an "astronomer type" or "astronaut type". You seem to be awfully sensitive about the matter- a rational discussion of risks versus benefits and optimal use of limited resources hardly strikes me as "devaluing" anyone!

As for those desperately seeking to explore, you are seeing it every single day!

I believe you romanticize exploration. I think it is much less a human trait than you make it. There are indeed those who live to explore, but they are, and always have been, a tiny minority. The vast majority of humans are quite happy not being explorers themselves, and whatever interest they have in the matter is satisfied by a subscription to National Geographic and a daily glance at APOD. For the most part, societies have only provided direct support to explorers when they saw some tangible value in doing so. Otherwise, most explorers found their own resources and supporters- privately. And most of those who really made discoveries that changed our lives were in it for the money more than some intrinsic need to explore.

And there are resources in our solar system. Great Caches of resources that we only have to learn to reach that would relieve stress on our little blue ball. Humans can't change their nature. Women will hunger to make tons of babies and men will line up to oblige them. We either learn to move out to use the empty space or we trash this place.

There are resources in space, and by far the best way to exploit them is with unmanned approaches. And our drive to reproduce may well be our downfall, but there's no solution to that problem to be found elsewhere in the Solar System, and it is science fiction to imagine we'll leave the Solar System. Well, maybe in thousands of years, if we are able to maintain civilization. But I have my doubts about that. We are very rapidly stressing our planet to the point that our civilizations are likely to fall. That's something we could see in less than a century. We certainly will be in no position to have colonies on other planets by then. But a rich understanding of planetary processes, observed for the Earth and other planets (which is really only practical with unmanned probes) is one of the few things that actually stands to provide us with the information we need to save ourselves from ourselves. Still a long shot, but manned space exploration at this point provides no shot at all.

by **rstevenson** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 9:01 pm

NoelC wrote:Make no mistake, nature is preparing to fight back against the hordes. We live in a tiny little bubble in time where our antibiotics still work and we can still find stuff laying around to burn.

Exactly! And we also are in a tiny little bubble of time where resources are easy to extract. Imagine if we put off doing the hard things because our equations of scientific worth versus dollars (as if that were the only valid criteria) tell us to not go there in person. Imagine we put it off so long that we don't have the resources to do it at all. Imagine we realize all this too late and have to sit here in our stew and watch ourselves dwindle away to a depressed bedraggled few. That is the end that awaits those who have no heart for the venture, who insist that the human spirit can't be put into their equations of relative worth, who diminish the efforts of us all with their unimaginative accounting.

Dreamers should drive us forward without regard for the naysaying of the scientist accountants who deny the worth of human minds, eyes and hands on the ground in the field.

(And if you want to know what I really think... .)

Rob

by **NoelC** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:33 pm

kshiarella wrote:We either learn to move out to use the empty space or we trash this place.

Well, that's a depressing point of view all in its own right.

Not all humans who have inhabited this planet expand and trash everything. Some lived (and live) in harmony with nature.

Make no mistake, nature is preparing to fight back against the hordes. We live in a tiny little bubble in time where our antibiotics still work and we can still find stuff laying around to burn.

-Noel

by **neufer** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:24 pm

kshiarella wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
Our need to explore seems well served by unmanned probes. We will almost certainly never leave the Solar System. With enough time, we may find reasons to send people to other places withing the Solar System... but that time is not now, and I don't see much evidence that people are desperately seeking out new frontiers to physically explore.
My goodness, how disappointing it is to read this. It brings to mind a movie quote from Sam Neil in the last Jurassic Park movie. He says WTTE, "There are two kinds of boys in the world, Astronomers and Astronauts. The Astronomer likes to stay home and observer and measure from home but the Astronaut needs to see with his own eyes and touch with his own hands."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Thorn wrote:
<<In the third [Omen] film The Final Conflict, Damien Thorn (Sam Neill) is appointed Ambassador to the Court of St. James's, the same position his adoptive father held in the first film. Unlike the two incarnations of Damien portrayed in previous Omen films, the adult Damien is entirely aware of his unholy lineage, and his destiny. An alignment of the stars in the Cassiopeia region of the night sky (the traditional location of the stellar signal of the Second Coming) causes the creation of a super "star", described in the film as a second Star of Bethlehem. Damien realizes it is a sign of the Second Coming of Christ and he orders all male children in England born on the morning of March 24, (the morning when, in the story, the Cassiopeia alignment occurred) to be killed in order to prevent the Christ-child's return to power, as predicted in the Book of Revelation.>>

Master Sergeant Neff: Mathematics good, Science very good, Military History fair, room for improvement.

Damien Thorn: Yes Sergeant.

Master Sergeant Neff: Physical Training is excellent. I hear you're quite a Football player. Be proud of your accomplishments. Pride is alright when there's reason to be proud.

Damien Thorn: Yes Sergeant.

Master Sergeant Neff: I'm here to teach you but also I'm here to help you. Any problems you come to me. Don't be afraid, day or night, any advice. You understand?

Damien Thorn: Whatever you say Sergeant.

Master Sergeant Neff: We're gonna get to know each other. I see you're an orphan. Well, that's something we have in common.

by **kshiarella** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 2:30 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Our need to explore seems well served by unmanned probes. We will almost certainly never leave the Solar System. With enough time, we may find reasons to send people to other places withing the Solar System... but that time is not now, and I don't see much evidence that people are desperately seeking out new frontiers to physically explore.

My goodness, how disappointing it is to read this. It brings to mind a movie quote from Sam Neil in the last Jurassic Park movie. He says WTTE, "There are two kinds of boys in the world, Astronomers and Astronauts. The Astronomer likes to stay home and observer and measure from home but the Astronaut needs to see with his own eyes and touch with his own hands." I believe your point of view is political because it reflects the polarization in attitude between the Astronomer type and the Astronaut type. Whereas, I believe we need both. And I hate to see one side devalue the other.

As for those desperately seeking to explore, you are seeing it every single day! Those risking their lives to climb cliffs by their finger tips, sky diving, surfing huge waves, cave diving, X-treme sports, climbing mountains, the "Survivor" TV shows, the kid who jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge on a dare. This is what is left to the pioneer spirit when it is grounded. These are our pioneers, our astronauts who have nothing to do. It is there, trust me. Those willing to take the risks are not the limitation. It is the leadership that unites the risk-takers behind an effort (besides chasing AK-47 & RPG toting fundamentalists around Middle-East deserts) to chase a dream.

And there are resources in our solar system. Great Caches of resources that we only have to learn to reach that would relieve stress on our little blue ball. Humans can't change their nature. Women will hunger to make tons of babies and men will line up to oblige them. We either learn to move out to use the empty space or we trash this place.

As for never (NEVER) leaving the solar system, such a pessimistic view! We know pretty much everything there is to be known? If we don't leave we are a dead end. Hard for me to accept that man can imagine a greater purpose for himself but actually have none whatsoever. Well, if life in our solar system is as finite as the solar system and we are indeed just a futile fleeting flicker in the great scheme of things then count me as one who would like to go down trying and reaching.

I can see that for some, the images on APOD inspire such dreams and for others they simply document how finite and hopeless humanity actually is. I'm glad I'm in the camp I'm in.

by **neufer** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:19 am

EArHog wrote:
Thanks, Art. You made my point much better than I could. Nothing particularly useful comes to us from ISS, if your description is representative (and I think it is). Putting people in space to so we can learn how to keep people in space is a pretty silly excuse, especially compared to the actual useful results that we get from HST and Cassini.

The space-conceived cockroaches seem to do quite well, however.

Perhaps we should try to colonize Mars with cockroaches.

by **EArHog** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:06 am

Thanks, Art. You made my point much better than I could. Nothing particularly useful comes to us from ISS, if your description is representative (and I think it is). Putting people in space to so we can learn how to keep people in space is a pretty silly excuse, especially compared to the actual useful results that we get from HST and Cassini. Manned space flight is, in my opinion, intended for the amusement of wannabe cowboys and rock 'em sock 'em nationalists, and it's a luxury this planet cannot afford. Maybe it'll be a different story after fusion is perfected and we've gotten our population growth under control. I'm a proponent of learning for the sake of knowing, and against adventure for adventure's sake. Build super colliders. Catch neutrinos. Send probes to the moons of Saturn and Jupiter. Golly, the list of better ways to spend that ISS money is almost endless.

That photo of the astronaut's hair floating around is a fantastic illustration of my point about the silliness of the ISS. It's the new poster for my campaign. Thank you.

by **alter-ego** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 4:06 am

Oh, but the memories...

Jules Bergman

: Bergman-a11.jpg (34.86 KiB) Viewed 1785 times

by **neufer** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 2:42 am

EArHog wrote:
I've heard the 'arguments' that ISS allows scientists to conduct experiments in microgravity.
And high school students can send up paper cups with fruit flies bouncing around. To what end?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlessness wrote:

Astronaut Marsha Ivins demonstrates the effect
of weightlessness on long hair during STS-98
<<The most common problem experienced by humans in the initial hours of weightlessness is known as space adaptation syndrome or SAS, commonly referred to as space sickness. Symptoms of SAS include nausea and vomiting, vertigo, headaches, lethargy, and overall malaise. The first case of SAS was reported by cosmonaut Gherman Titov in 1961. Since then, roughly 45% of all people who have flown in space have suffered from this condition. The duration of space sickness varies, but in no case has it lasted for more than 72 hours, after which the body adjusts to the new environment. NASA jokingly measures SAS using the "Garn scale", named for United States Senator Jake Garn, whose SAS during STS-51-D was the worst on record. Accordingly, one "Garn" is equivalent to the most severe possible case of SAS.

The most significant adverse effects of long-term weightlessness are muscle atrophy and deterioration of the skeleton, or spaceflight osteopenia. These effects can be minimized through a regimen of exercise. Astronauts subject to long periods of weightlessness wear pants with elastic bands attached between waistband and cuffs to compress the leg bones and reduce osteopenia. Other significant effects include fluid redistribution (causing the "moon-face" appearance typical of pictures of astronauts in weightlessness), a slowing of the cardiovascular system, decreased production of red blood cells, balance disorders, and a weakening of the immune system. Lesser symptoms include loss of body mass, nasal congestion, sleep disturbance, excess flatulence, and puffiness of the face. These effects begin to reverse quickly upon return to the Earth.

Russian scientists have observed differences between cockroaches conceived in space and their terrestrial counterparts. The space-conceived cockroaches grew more quickly, and also grew up to be faster and tougher.

Fowl eggs which are fertilized in microgravity may not develop properly.>>

by **owlice** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:08 pm

EArHog wrote:So, is there a list of the scientific accomplishments that ISS claims?

What did you find when you Googled "benefits international space station"?

by **EArHog** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:38 pm

I'm ignorant, uninformed, unlearned, and that's probably why I can not see what scientific purpose, benefit, good the ISS provides. All I see when I look at that (admittedly compelling) photo is "boondoggle".

I've heard the 'arguments' that ISS allows scientists to conduct experiments in microgravity. And high school students can send up paper cups with fruit flies bouncing around. To what end? What has come of those microgravity experiments, beyond semi-scientific techno masterbation?

The reason for my pique with our ISS program is the money could be better spent on more scientifically productive robotic/unmanned space missions. I will be very suprised if it can be shown how ISS comes close to matching the accomplishments of just one of the unmanned missions like Cassini, or the Mars rovers, or HST. If a bundle of the more successful unmanned/robotic missions was collected sufficient in number to equal the cost of the ISS program, I believe that the collective benefit of those unmanned missions would far exceed anything ISS can ever hope to offer. Would it be unreasonable to expect that one or two new sophisticated weather satelites would provide more benefit than ISS?

So, is there a list of the scientific accomplishments that ISS claims?

by **neufer** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:21 pm

kshiarella wrote:
There were probably a lot of Europeans who thought the idea of travel and settlement of the New World was a waste of money and full of foolhearty risk.

There were probably a lot of Europeans who thought the idea of travel to the New World would be a complete waste of money full of foolhardy risk unless they had someone there to plant a national flag in the ground and claim sovereignty before other countries did.

I suspect that a majority of Americans think that travel to Mars would be a complete waste of money full of foolhardy risk unless they had some warm bodies there to plant an American flag in the ground (and claim a sort of sovereignty) before the Russians or Chinese did. Manned missions are as much about romanticizing earlier days of colonization as they are about romanticizing earlier days of exploration.

by **owlice** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:43 pm

BMAONE23 wrote:Kids today though only know the Mars Rovers, Cassini, cometary missions and the end of the Shuttle era.

Only some kids, and I'd bet by percentage, far fewer of them than knew of the Gemini, Mercury, and Apollo missions. If my 17-year-old knows Cassini, I'll be surprised. (I'll ask him this evening whether he does.) I doubt he knows any cometary mission, and he probably doesn't know the last Shuttle will be launching soon. And he spent two years in a science and tech high school program! (Left early to attend college, which is why he was there only two years.) Hmmm... I wonder how many of the teachers in that school know of these missions. That might make a splendid study.

by **BMAONE23** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:34 pm

Chris,
I think it is the NOW factor to a great extent. Kids today aren't that interested in the achievements of the past (which were the basis of, and have been built upon for the achievements of today) like Sputnik Project Mercury and TheApollo space programs because these were before their time. I think that we, as people, tend to develop an emotional attachment to the Space Program De-Jour, that which happens during our lifetime because we get to experience it. Those like you and I, who have been around long enough, appreciate the beginnings of the program through today. Kids today though only know the Mars Rovers, Cassini, cometary missions and the end of the Shuttle era.

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 5:44 pm

kshiarella wrote:May I ask whether your students are truly representative of the population at large?

Hard to say. I work with kids from elementary through high school, both in schools and at a major museum, and I'd have to say that they are very uninterested in our manned space history. They seem largely uninterested in the Apollo program, and the images and videos produced. They are even less interested in what goes on with the ISS. Many of them, however, get interested in the images returned of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Many are interested in images and information about comets and asteroids. Many think the New Horizons trip to Pluto is pretty cool.

I was very into the early space program as a kid, closely following the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions. But that's what got most of the media attention (it was much harder then to get good information about unmanned missions). And I think a big part of the fascination with the space program back then was connected to cold war psychology, as well- not just some sort of "new frontiers" ideal. Kids these days see things very differently, and get excited over different things. People have even shorter attention spans now than back then- and even then, most people stopped paying attention to the last few Apollo missions. Honestly, these days, I don't think all that many people, of any age, are going to get very fired up over another Moon mission, or even a Mars mission.

And the "why bother?" argument doesn't hold water. That is a slippery slope because we can ask "why bother?" for any of this stuff that we love so much! Why bother with Voyager, why bother with Cassini? Why waste money on a back yard telesope or even Hubble? To get some kewl photographs? Why do we need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to understand the atmosphere of Saturn?

Please note that I did not say why bother. I said that people I talk to have that attitude about Moon or Mars missions. That said, however, it's a valid question. "Why bother?" is just a shorthand way of asking if the benefits of something outweigh the costs. Certainly my own opinion is that we should not be investing in manned missions to the Moon, Mars, or asteroids. I base that on the simple fact that I can see almost no scientific value to such missions, only minimal social value, and a significant loss to unmanned missions competing for the same funds.

The answer to the "why bother?" question is the same for the unmanned missions as it is for the manned ones: because it is in our nature to explore. It is an intrinsic, hard-wired part of what makes us "us."

Our need to explore seems well served by unmanned probes. We will almost certainly never leave the Solar System. With enough time, we may find reasons to send people to other places withing the Solar System... but that time is not now, and I don't see much evidence that people are desperately seeking out new frontiers to physically explore.

The science has to be socially and culturally justified to rally our neighbors around what you do. That is why it is so disappointing to read scientists from the unmanned side dismissing the value of the work from the manned side. That kind of politicized pettiness undermines both sides in the eyes of the public.

There is nothing political about it. The viewpoint stems from the well considered analysis that manned exploration currently has little to offer, and comes at a great cost.

by **kshiarella** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 5:10 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
kshiarella wrote:Unmanned space exploration is uninspiring to most of the world's population.
I couldn't disagree more. As someone who has been involved in unmanned missions, and as an educator who spends a lot of time discussing mission results with people of all ages, I find just the opposite. People are inspired and astounded by the data and images coming back from our unmanned probes. If they are bored and uninspired by anything, it is shuttle and ISS missions. And when I talk about going to the Moon or Mars, most people ask "why bother?"

May I ask whether your students are truly representative of the population at large?

And the "why bother?" argument doesn't hold water. That is a slippery slope because we can ask "why bother?" for any of this stuff that we love so much! Why bother with Voyager, why bother with Cassini? Why waste money on a back yard telesope or even Hubble? To get some kewl photographs? Why do we need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to understand the atmosphere of Saturn?

The answer to the "why bother?" question is the same for the unmanned missions as it is for the manned ones: because it is in our nature to explore. It is an intrinsic, hard-wired part of what makes us "us."

Cynicism strikes on all levels. People tend to perceive what they love and what they are doing as highly worthwhile while dismissing the passions and endeavors of their neighbors. But the fine point of the matter is that space exploration requires the participation and interest of all of our neighbors, and not just the scientifically oriented and mathematically gifted. The science has to be socially and culturally justified to rally our neighbors around what you do. That is why it is so disappointing to read scientists from the unmanned side dismissing the value of the work from the manned side. That kind of politicized pettiness undermines both sides in the eyes of the public.

by **neufer** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:28 pm

owlice wrote:
neufer, I was responding to what others were talking about, not what you thought should be under discussion (not that there's anything wrong with the discussion you want to have; it's just not the one I was engaging in).

But when are we to get around to discussing the value of women in space

by **owlice** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:41 pm

Yay, George! Thanks for letting us know!

neufer, I was responding to what others were talking about, not what you thought should be under discussion (not that there's anything wrong with the discussion you want to have; it's just not the one I was engaging in).

by **uhl** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:08 pm

I want to thank you for letting the EOS Networks Prototyping lab (ENPL) sponsor mirror sites of the Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD) and Earth Observatory (EO) web pages for World IPv6 Day on June 8, 2011. Going into this we had no idea what would happen. The outcome could have ranged from a mere trickle of interest to normal levels of IPv6 activity to large-scale denial-of-service attacks. Fortunately, we had no network or system failures and we were able to provide service during the entire 24 hour period. Those of us who provided NASA web sites for the event were told to support them in dual-stack mode, that is, to make content available using IPv6 as well as IPv4. We logged every access attempt to the ENPL World IPv6 Day webserver including each user’s IPv4 or IPv6 address. We used Google Analytics to provide additional feedback of usage and the distribution of page visits across the two mirror sites. A quick summary of the results follows:

Total user connections to the ENPL webserver: 59,667
Total IPv6 user connections to the ENPL websever: 34,501
Total IPv4 user connections to the ENPL webserver: 25,166

Total unique IPv6 source addresses: 234
Total unique IPv4 source addresses: 1690

Three IPv6 users accounted for 19.6% of the total IPv6 access attempts.
Two IPv4 users accounted for 18.25% of the total IPv4 access attempts.

The Google Analytics results fall way short of the counts from the ENPL traffic logs. However, this discrepancy can be easily accounted for. Google Analytics requires javascript in order to do accounting. If a browser did not have javascript enabled then the the access would not be counted by Google but even more revealing is that if the user merely ran a script that connected to port 80 successfully, via telent for example, then Google Analytics didn’t count them either. Given the distribution of hits across the total number of user addresses for each protocol, it’s readily apparent that users had set up scripts to hit the World IPv6 web sites. I have an overwhelming hunch that the event sponsor, The Internet Society (http://www.isoc.org), did just that. See http://www.worldipv6day.org/participant ... index.html for more information.

From a network perspective, and World IPv6 Day was very much about globaI IPv6 reachability , it didn’t matter that much if the source of the IPv6 connection attempt was automated or mouse-driven. The internet was able to operate quite easily in dual stack mode with 99% of the World IPv6 Day participants web sites reachable using IPv4, 92% reachable using IPv6, and 94% had resolvable AAAA DNS records (the IPv6 name-to-address mapping record). This is very good news for the internet as the migration to IPv6 continues.

From the perspective of counting mouse-clicking users behind their browsers, the ENPL results aren’t so awe inspiring. Yet there is useful data to be gleaned about IPv6 availability to the end user, if the user is IPv6-enabled, and if the required IPv6 network services are available for the user to make seamless end-to-end IPv6 connections. There remains quite a bit of Google data that needs to be analyzed and it’s more complex than simple counts and percentages so I can only provide a very quick summary of the Google Analytics results (taken with a grain of salt as the Google data is somewhat confusing):

Total Visits
APOD – 1899
EO – 326

Total Protocol Events
APOD – 6434
EO – 84

Without more analysis It’s not clear to me how many visits were from IPv6-only clients, IPv4-only clients, or a dual-stacked clients.

Over 70 countries had at least one successful access attempt. About 53% came from the US, 7% from Canada, Mexico and South America, 30% from Europe, 5% from Asia, and the remaining 5% from Oceana, Africa and places unknown.

We appreciate your interest and support of this global event and we will be publishing a more detailed report of the event in the near future.

Thanks,
George

-------------------------
George Uhl
ESDSIS Network Engineer
Code 423
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD 20771
Phone: 301-614-5155
Fax: 301-614-5700
email: george.d.uhl@nasa.gov
-------------------------

by **neufer** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:52 pm

owlice wrote:
neufer wrote:
owlice wrote:
I'm not arguing for or against manned missions here. I'm just pointing out that if we are talking about inspiration and being astounded, manned missions have greater play, more of an impact, on the general population.
If we are talking about inspiration and being astounded, human missions on earth
have greater play, more of an impact, on the general population.

Let's enable human missions on earth and unmanned missions in space;
that is (probably) affordable and sustainable.
Human missions on earth were not part of the original discussion;
manned and unmanned missions in space, and which inspire more people (and how), were.

Which inspires the most people: manned or unmanned missions in space is irrelevant (begs the question?).

If the primary purpose of manned missions in space is to inspire people then the proper thing to compare them against are inspirational human missions on earth and the relative cost effectiveness of each.

If the primary purpose of manned missions in space is to advance knowledge then the proper thing to compare them against are unmanned missions in space (and science projects on earth) and the relative cost effectiveness of each.

by **owlice** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:08 pm

neufer wrote:
owlice wrote:
I'm not arguing for or against manned missions here. I'm just pointing out that if we are talking about inspiration and being astounded, manned missions have greater play, more of an impact, on the general population.
If we are talking about inspiration and being astounded, human missions on earth
have greater play, more of an impact, on the general population.

Let's enable human missions on earth and unmanned missions in space;
that is (probably) affordable and sustainable.

Human missions on earth were not part of the original discussion; manned and unmanned missions in space, and which inspire more people (and how), were.

Starship Asterisk*

APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

Re: APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)