Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ozle]

I'm a massive fan of science, and of space. But some of these proposed exbitions are getting silly now.

Take this one, about putting a submersible on Titan!
http://www.space.com/28589-titan-submarine-robotic-saturn-ship.html
What is that actually going to learn that will be useful?

Instead that money should be rerouted to space missions with tangible successes, like putting people on Mars.

[werothegreat]

We'd learn a great deal about fluid dynamics, for one thing.  There's also the possibility of finding life, which would be huge.  In general, though, exploration is about finding out what you don't know; we won't know why we should have gone to Titan until we've actually been there.

[Ozle]

In general, though, exploration is about finding out what you don't know; we won't know why we should have gone to Titan until we've actually been there.

Except that money could have actual scientific benefits rather than guess work.

The absolute minuscule chance of finding life is not worth the millions that will be spent.

With an infinite budget of course I would say go for it, but in the real world and the actual chance to advance science is available, this sort of thing is taking much needed resources away from the useful space exploration.

[enfynet]

Well an argument could be made to spend that money on Earth as well. 

[pacovf]

Pretty sure that getting a submergible to Titan is way, waaaaaaaay cheaper than getting people to Mars.

I fail to see how "We want to send a submarine into a giant sea of liquid methane" is not getting you super-excited.

[Ozle]

Well an argument could be made to spend that money on Earth as well.

Of course it Can, and feel free to make such a case if you believe it.

[Ozle]

Pretty sure that getting a submergible to Titan is way, waaaaaaaay cheaper than getting people to Mars.

I fail to see how "We want to send a submarine into a giant sea of liquid methane" is not getting you super-excited.

Of course its cheaper, no one is saying one is a replacement to the other.

Yes, it has the WoooooooW factor. But is that really worth the millions and millions that is going to be sent on it that could be of use to science elsewhere?

[pacovf]

Of course its cheaper, no one is saying one is a replacement to the other.

Well, you were implying that:

Instead that money should be rerouted to space missions with tangible successes, like putting people on Mars.

Yes, it has the WoooooooW factor. But is that really worth the millions and millions that is going to be sent on it that could be of use to science elsewhere?

I believe that if there are researchers that are working on such a project, it's because there are things to be learned from Titan's seas. I am no astrophysicist myself, so I can't get into more detail than that.

[Ozle]

Of course its cheaper, no one is saying one is a replacement to the other.

Well, you were implying that:

Instead that money should be rerouted to space missions with tangible successes, like putting people on Mars.

Yes, it has the WoooooooW factor. But is that really worth the millions and millions that is going to be sent on it that could be of use to science elsewhere?

I believe that if there are researchers that are working on such a project, it's because there are things to be learned from Titan's seas. I am no astrophysicist myself, so I can't get into more detail than that.

No, I wasn't implying that at all I am afraid. You may have read it at that, but that would be a ludicrous assumption from my point of view.


And scientists don't just work on stuff because its the best thing to work on, the reasons they could have been working on it are for a variety of reasons. Not limited to betterment of mankind as a whole, but also things such as 'what they can get a research grant for'

As you have already pointed out, a submersible to Titan is coooool, thats going to sway people.

Also, scientists also do stuff like this...
http://www.improbable.com/ig/

And I'm not saying we are going to learn stuff form Titans seas, as Wereeoeoeo has already pointed out, we may learn stuff about fluid dynamics, but the cost to benefit ratio is waaaay out for me.

I feel its stuff like this that is the reason we are not far far more advanced in science than we are, its holding us back.

[Witherweaver]

I totally disagree in as much percentage points as you can muster.  I think if we only invested scientific research into areas where we were confident of a low cost to benefit ratio, we would be way, way, way, way, way behind in our scientific advancement. 

[pacovf]

We seem to be misunderstanding each other. For the price of sending people to Mars, maybe you can pay a dozen space exploration programs (made up numbers, but I would be surprised if they turned out not to be very conservative). Maybe exploring Titan gives us more "tangible" reasons to keep doing so. Maybe the whole program will lead to scientific improvements, inventions or discoveries that can be used on Earth. We won't know until we do it.

I don't think that talking about "tangible successes" in such a speculative domain as space exploration is all that relevant. I mean, look at the justifications for sending people to the Moon back in the XXth century...

EDIT: and this thread should probably be moved at least to "General discussion".

[Gherald]

On first read, Ozle is not so much implying that money should be routed from Titan to manned-Mars missions so much as explicitly stating so.

I'm confused by his later denial.  Maybe he was somehow being sarcastic, since a manned mission to Mars has a more ludicrous cost/benefit ratio than sending some submersible robot to Titan.

Anyway, I don't think a submersible on Titan is prima facie any more ridiculous than the many other unmanned landing missions that have gone on, to Mars and other places.

I think if we only invested scientific research into areas where we were confident of a low cost to benefit ratio, we would be way, way, way, way, way behind in our scientific advancement.

Maybe. For a sufficiently strong "only" and "low cost to benefit ratio", you're right. But there's no reason we can't pick values that rule out huge longshots like this Titan mission and still leave the a supermajority of more interesting research areas undisturbed.

[Witherweaver]

Disagree with this being moved out of Dominion General Discussion.  Obviously the issue of space exploration is in theme with Adventures.

[Ozle]

On first read, Ozle is not so much implying that money should be routed from Titan to manned-Mars missions so much as explicitly stating so.

I'm confused by his later denial.  Maybe he was somehow being sarcastic, since a manned mission to Mars has a more ludicrous cost/benefit ratio than sending some submersible robot to Titan.

Read it again please.

I definately did advocate moving the money to such other scientific advances as putting humans into space, and ultimately living conditions.

The only thing I denied is that I said the Titan mission would cost the same as the Mars mission.

[Ozle]

We seem to be misunderstanding each other. For the price of sending people to Mars, maybe you can pay a dozen space exploration programs (made up numbers, but I would be surprised if they turned out not to be very conservative). Maybe exploring Titan gives us more "tangible" reasons to keep doing so. Maybe the whole program will lead to scientific improvements, inventions or discoveries that can be used on Earth. We won't know until we do it.

I don't think that talking about "tangible successes" in such a speculative domain as space exploration is all that relevant. I mean, look at the justifications for sending people to the Moon back in the XXth century...

EDIT: and this thread should probably be moved at least to "General discussion".

No misunderstanding. You said I was implying something, I pointed out I wasn't.
You may have misunderstood me however, but hopefully I cleared that up for you.

And I'm happy with your 12x, in fact thats waaay less than I would have thought, Mars is expensive!

But working out the science to get people alive to other planets, its worth waaay more than 12x the amount of scientific discoveries I think we will find on studying fluid dynamics on Titan and anything that comes from that.

[Ozle]

Maybe. For a sufficiently strong "only" and "low cost to benefit ratio", you're right. But there's no reason we can't pick values that rule out huge longshots like this Titan mission and still leave the a supermajority of more interesting research areas undisturbed.

I agree with the longshots that might actually deliver a big payload, but I have read what they are trying to do on Titan, and none of it is that worthwhile in my opinion.

[Ozle]

For the record, its this one mission I am currently talking about, I think its a waste of money that could be spent better elsewhere (Not limited to putting people on Mars)


For those people in favour of this mission because of the research and science value....what if it could be done by a probe? At a fraction of the cost. I'd be in favour of that.

[pacovf]

We are comparing apples and oranges. To decide whether this mission is worthwhile or not, we have to see what other missions were being considered for whatever grants it might get. Manned mission to Mars isn't one of them, it's just on a completely different scale.

For the record, I think we should try to get a space elevator (or equivalent) done before we get people to Mars. No large-scale colonization of Mars is possible before that, and it would make all other missions considerably cheaper.

For those people in favour of this mission because of the research and science value....what if it could be done by a probe? At a fraction of the cost. I'd be in favour of that.

Hum, isn't the submergible a probe? What do you mean?

[Ozle]

We are comparing apples and oranges. To decide whether this mission is worthwhile or not, we have to see what other missions were being considered for whatever grants it might get. Manned mission to Mars isn't one of them, it's just on a completely different scale.

For the record, I think we should try to get a space elevator (or equivalent) done before we get people to Mars. No large-scale colonization of Mars is possible before that, and it would make all other missions considerably cheaper.

For those people in favour of this mission because of the research and science value....what if it could be done by a probe? At a fraction of the cost. I'd be in favour of that.

Hum, isn't the submergible a probe? What do you mean?

Completely happy with the Space Elevator idea, dont really understand the science there, but will take your word it makes things cheaper and better in the long run.


Hmm, yes, maybe wrong terminology for the word probe there, sort of meant to say something that either sits in the atmosphere and scans.
Sure, you wouldnt get the fluid dynamics, but is that really worth going all the way to Titan for?

[Ozle]

We are comparing apples and oranges. To decide whether this mission is worthwhile or not, we have to see what other missions were being considered for whatever grants it might get. Manned mission to Mars isn't one of them, it's just on a completely different scale.

Not at all, they are all being considered by NASA, which has a finite budget and a finite team of scientists, it doesn't need to waste 25 years of effort on this.

Even if you dont agree with the mission to Mars, I have stated that this was just an example (although I do believe it)

Lets not forget, we have already landed the Hyguens probe on Titan...

[enfynet]

Yeah that confused me. I'd suggest this is a "submersible probe" we are sending. I can't imagine it's something like a submarine.

Besides, look at all the vehicles/satellites we have around earth and we hardly have any clue what's under the surface of the oceans. How much harder is it to land there. We've already done flybys.

[Ozle]

Yeah that confused me. I'd suggest this is a "submersible probe" we are sending. I can't imagine it's something like a submarine.

Besides, look at all the vehicles/satellites we have around earth and we hardly have any clue what's under the surface of the oceans. How much harder is it to land there. We've already done flybys.

Agreed, deep sea exploration is higher on my list as well.

More chance of finding new life forms near the ocean vents I believe!

[Witherweaver]

Yeah that confused me. I'd suggest this is a "submersible probe" we are sending. I can't imagine it's something like a submarine.

Besides, look at all the vehicles/satellites we have around earth and we hardly have any clue what's under the surface of the oceans. How much harder is it to land there. We've already done flybys.

Agreed, deep sea exploration is higher on my list as well.

More chance of finding new life forms near the ocean vents I believe!

Exploring Titan's oceans is just really, really deep sea exploration.

[Kirian]

For the record, its this one mission I am currently talking about, I think its a waste of money that could be spent better elsewhere (Not limited to putting people on Mars)


For those people in favour of this mission because of the research and science value....what if it could be done by a probe? At a fraction of the cost. I'd be in favour of that.

The probe has already been done, almost ten years ago.

The problem here is twofold.  First, which science is best?  Man, that's a difficult question to answer.  Is any given ten million dollars best spent on space exploration, on genetic research, on low carbon energy technology, on high energy physics, on geochemistry?  What makes one scientific endeavor worthy and another unworthy?  When it comes to basic research, the benefits are entirely incalculable; there can be no cost/benefit analysis.  So scientists make their case as best they can for funding their projects over other projects.

The second problem sends this to RSP, but I feel pretty strongly about it.  Choosing to send a $40 million mission to Titan is not what's holding us back technologically.  Choosing to spend 1.7 trillion fucking dollars a year fighting each other is what's holding us back technologically.

The human race will not reach its actual potential until we stop spending money to literally kill each other.  The Iraq war alone could have paid to put a colony on Mars.

[Witherweaver]

For the record, its this one mission I am currently talking about, I think its a waste of money that could be spent better elsewhere (Not limited to putting people on Mars)


For those people in favour of this mission because of the research and science value....what if it could be done by a probe? At a fraction of the cost. I'd be in favour of that.

The probe has already been done, almost ten years ago.

The problem here is twofold.  First, which science is best?  Man, that's a difficult question to answer.  Is any given ten million dollars best spent on space exploration, on genetic research, on low carbon energy technology, on high energy physics, on geochemistry?  What makes one scientific endeavor worthy and another unworthy?  When it comes to basic research, the benefits are entirely incalculable; there can be no cost/benefit analysis.  So scientists make their case as best they can for funding their projects over other projects.

The second problem sends this to RSP, but I feel pretty strongly about it.  Choosing to send a $40 million mission to Titan is not what's holding us back technologically.  Choosing to spend 1.7 trillion fucking dollars a year fighting each other is what's holding us back technologically.

The human race will not reach its actual potential until we stop spending money to literally kill each other.  The Iraq war alone could have paid to put a colony on Mars.

Well, to play Devil's Advocate, wars do motivate technological and scientific advancement.