REALSPACE: Buzz Aldrin, 2nd Man on the Moon, says NASA is "on the wrong track..."

You have a gift for it, sir!

We probably mostly agree. How's that for double-talk?

...and I'm sure it won't be the last.

>>That's all beautiful, 3.0, and I think you make some good points.<<

Thank you!

>>"We do it because the whack jobs don't want us to, and that's enough reason right there."

I've thought that way myself when I get carried away, but you know that's not a valid argument.<<

I'll confess that it's not a rational argument, but I do think it's emotionally valid. At least as valid as 'we climb a mountain because it's there,' and there's enough of a punk rocker left in my middle-aged frame to still understand the need to defy those who say 'you just can't do it, it's illegal, immoral, and fattening.'

>>Your citing of NASA's uselessness and bloat does not convince me that an infusion of money would necessarily infuse it with purpose. (See public schools.) Perhaps better work for those 40,000 could be found in the private sector?<<

No, they couldn't. I know a bunch of people who had High Tech jobs for NASA in the Apollo Days who got laid off, and were never able to find work in their fields again. When a highly skilled radar engineer has to get a job driving a bus to pay his family, trust me, their niche is very small and exclusive.

But I emphatically *Do not* think that throwing money at NASA would fix the problem. At one point, long ago, it would have, but nowadays NASA is merely a self-perpetuating burocracy that has killed 14 people in flying coffins, and really doesn't care. The Russians have a better safety record than us. The freakin' SOVIET UNION had a better safety record than us, fergoshsakes.

No, I'd actually favor disolving NASA, and consolodating all of it's assets and USAF SpaceCom's assets into a new military agency: The United States Space Force.

>>Evolution doesn't "command" anything. I don't even know what you mean by that!<<

Assuming Evolution exists (I believe in it, but I know many of my readers don't, so I'm willing to allow a degree of doubt in deference), the rule of the game is "survive, adapt, breed, overcome." Successful species quickly grow to numbers that force them to seek new environments, where they adapt, and eventually speciate, and become new successful species.

>>I never said I'd object to using taxpayer money to send me into space. I'm all for that, because that would be really cool. Using taxpayer money to send someone else up there to fool around? That's not cool.

But what's funny about all this is that it's besides the point!

My subject line read "Manned Scientific Research Missions." I think sending up astronauts to study the effects of weightlessness on bean sprouts is a ridiculous waste of time and lives. I feel very differently about actual exploration. I'd like to live to see a colony on the moon, and hope humanity stretches out as far as its possible for us to go!<<

Oh. My bad. I misunderstood you. I'm sorry. Yeah, I do agree sending the Challenger Crew up for 14 days to study the effects of weightlessness on the manufacture of certain kinds of perfume was ridiculous, and a stupid thing to die for.

>>And I am not a filthy monkey. I'm a primate, for one thing.<<

I assume you're not the kind of person to go around looking at internet porn, either, so that much of my screed wasn't aimed at you

Or did I mean "great ape?' I can't remember. But I'm not a monkey.

That's all beautiful, 3.0, and I think you make some good points.

However:

"We do it because the whack jobs don't want us to, and that's enough reason right there."

I've thought that way myself when I get carried away, but you know that's not a valid argument.

"We do it because NASA is a bloated, soulless government agency that is budgeted for six or seven launches a year and by God they're going to launch all of 'em rather than risk a budget cut in the next year. We do it because it employs about 40,000 high tech workers who have no other skills, and kicks lots and lots of money in to the local economies of every state."

Your citing of NASA's uselessness and bloat does not convince me that an infusion of money would necessarily infuse it with purpose. (See public schools.) Perhaps better work for those 40,000 could be found in the private sector?

We do it because evolution commands it.

Evolution doesn't "command" anything. I don't even know what you mean by that!

"We send people because we can, and it's cool, and why the hell wouldn't you do something cool if it's reasonably safe and you're capable of it? To avoid doign something cool is to turn your back on the way a journey or an experience changes a person, and to do that - to be content in who you are, and not wonder or strive for more - that is turning your back on evolution and progress and time and God's Great Design, whatever it is. It's perverse."

I never said I'd object to using taxpayer money to send me into space. I'm all for that, because that would be really cool. Using taxpayer money to send someone else up there to fool around? That's not cool.

But what's funny about all this is that it's besides the point!

My subject line read "Manned Scientific Research Missions." I think sending up astronauts to study the effects of weightlessness on bean sprouts is a ridiculous waste of time and lives. I feel very differently about actual exploration. I'd like to live to see a colony on the moon, and hope humanity stretches out as far as its possible for us to go!

As you said: "There's little defined mention of colonization, this is mostly a scientific research thing, which I think has been a hallmark lack of vision in both the US, Soviet, Russian, and Chinese programs...

That'll teach me to agree with you!

*And I am not a filthy monkey. I'm a primate, for one thing.

PLEASE NOTE: This post is not actually a reply to Mike's question, and it's not a reflection of him at all. He's a great guy. . Rather, I got all caught up in the idea of trying to answer the question "Why send people when robots are cheaper and safer?" once and for all, and totally blow it out of the water.

***

We send people because we *are* people, because a place isn't real to us until a person has been there and seen it with his or her own eyes. We do it because we're a curious species - at least occasionally - and we're the kinds of people who'll walk across the bering straight in the middle of an ice age just to see what's on the other side, and, ideally, to get a wooly mammoth burger if possible. We do it 'cuz we're greedy, and there' a whole bunch of stuff out there yet to own. We do it because no matter how much the environmental evangelists and gaia worshipers and PeTA-philes and whackjobs attempt to deify the rock we live on, the fact remains that we've totally enslaved it a million times over in the last three million years, and no one can worship a slave. Not without shutting off half your brain, first.

We do it becasue, in the words of the Mercury 7 astronauts, "No Buck Rogers, no bucks" - people won't pay taxes for robots. They want a face. They want something they can understand. They want heroes. We do it because NASA is a bloated, soulless government agency that is budgeted for six or seven launches a year and by God they're going to launch all of 'em rather than risk a budget cut in the next year. We do it because it employs about 40,000 high tech workers who have no other skills, and kicks lots and lots of money in to the local economies of every state. We do it because when Nixon shut down the Apollo Program and laid off 40,000 engineers and technial types in 1973, it caused recessions in California, Texas, Florida, and New York, which was political suicide. We do it because it's prestigious. We do it because few others can - only three countries in the long history of the world have done it. We do it because it's a source of pride saying to the rest of the world "We dare mightier things than you do, and, yeah, we're better than you because of it."

We send people because we can, and it's cool, and why the hell wouldn't you do something cool if it's reasonably safe and you're capable of it? To avoid doign something cool is to turn your back on the way a journey or an experience changes a person, and to do that - to be content in who you are, and not wonder or strive for more - that is turning your back on evolution and progress and time and God's Great Design, whatever it is. It's perverse. To set aside the wonders and glories of the universe so one can sit at home and watch John & Kate Plus Eight and masterbate like a filthy monkey to internet port is not only a waste of time when you have the ability to do something cool, it's a rejection of life itself. Not only that, it's one step away from going back in to the caves and writing of evolution as a bad idea. Which is of course wthat the Environmental Evangelists and PeTA-philes are all about anyway, if we're honest.

We do it because the whack jobs don't want us to, and that's enough reason right there. We do it because it's sexy. "What do you do for a living?" "Oh, I strap a rocket to my ass and ride fire." We do it because the Tyrany of One - one planet, one way of life, one environment, one outlook, one system of government, one set of stars in the sky, one horizon - is insufferable to some of us. There must be more ways to live, and better, but we won't find them here. The answer is always on the frontier, wherever and whenever that may be. The new ideas are out there, waiting for us to find the right questions to unlock them. We do it in the hope that when we're finally living out there, the new ideas, the things we learn, the things we discover, the new ways of living will trickle back to earth and improve our way of living immeasurably, just the way the Age of Discovery hauled western europe out of the middle ages, sparked the renisance, and changed life in a million manifold ways that we take for granted, but which they'd never be able to conceive of. Try explaining a Root Beer Float to a spaniard in 1491, or a car to an Englishman in 1509.

We do it because God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply, and to go out in to the world - into the worlds - and have dominion over them. One down, seven to go, and it's getting rather crowded here. We yearn to go because the Heavens Declare the Glory of God, and we ache to see Him reflected in those heavens up close. We do it because eventually babies must leave the cradle, and children must leave their parent's houses. We do it because for things to have their full meaning here, we must have something else somewhere else with which to contrast it. We do it because - as has been repeatedly pointed out by others elsewhere - it's too dangerous for us not to do it. We're one big rock away from extinction, and keeping all your eggs on one planet is a bad move. And even if the disaster never comes, some day this world will die of old age, and if we're not established elsewhere when that comes, Humanity will die with it, and then all that we are, all that we were, will be gone and forgotten and meaningless, lost like tears in the rain. And all that we could have become is lost.

We do it because evolution commands it. We do it because life itselfcommands it. We do it because life must be served. We do it because as far as we know for sure, us stupid apes are the only intelligent life in the entire universe, and our world the only abode of life. If we screw up, that's it, and that's too damn big a gamble. We do it because we very well might be alone, and if there's not a God, we ourselves become gods by default, re-making the universe in our own image. We do it because it is quite literally the only worthwhile thing we, as a species, have ever done. We do it becasue, as far as we know, the entire future of sentience in the universe rests on us, and by God, I am damn well not going to let that tiny spark die out because of anything I do.

We do it for all these reasons and a million more.

And you speak to me of money?

That's fine. Keep your vulgar monies. The rest of us'll go without ya. The rest of you can stay here with the trilobites

***

PLEASE NOTE: This post is not actually a reply to Mike's question, and it's not a reflection of him at all. He's a great guy. . Rather, I got all caught up in the idea of trying to answer the question "Why send people when robots are cheaper and safer?" once and for all, and totally blow it out of the water. Not sure I succeded, there's an awful lot of misspellings in there for something that's supposed to be a "Last word," but there you are.

The 'XM' module is brilliant... have one large craft that ferries your gear around the inner planets is a really good idea.

I think his plan is brilliant.

And Mike, the reason that you have to send men is that 'bots sometimes miss important stuff. To wit: my upcoming Doctor Who story- I should've caught this info a while ago.

These never made any sense to me. So much of the expense of space missions lies in providing for the safety of the astronauts. Why send people to do a robot's job?

And international cooperation is fine in theory, until you have to wait and wait for Russia to come through with its part of the project...