Diche Bach

Have a read of that Wikipedia page on the Rare Earth hypothesis. I find it very difficult to dispel or refute many of their points.

If they get lucky and that asteroid is pack full of metallic hydrogen you can believe the stuff will hit the fan. Two things I dont' get though: if you are going to all that trouble to capture it and get humans up to it, why not actually move it someplace useful like a LaGrange point or into a closer orbit of Earth? Are humans even necessary? Couldn't robots achieve the same thing? I can see how prototyping human crew rendezvous with an asteroid is an important first step, along with making a quite long journey remote from Earth, but I just can't shake the feeling that a robot could accomplish the primary mission objectives just as effectively as humans, more cheaply and obviously with less risk.

There is also the Rare Earth Hypothesis, in which the absence of any obvious signs of any other intelligent life in the galaxy is taken to be just that: a sign of a lack of any other intelligent life in the galaxy. I realize that with acceptance of evolutionary theory, it has become a widely regarded idea that, all you need for "life to evolve" is a planet in the habitable zone and with the proper mix of organic chemistry. There are a number of reasons it might not be so simple. In contrast, some theorists believe that, even if a planet has essentially ideal conditions for the evolution of life, certain essentially random events which may be necessary to get life going and/or to promote the multiple hierarchical steps of adaptive radiation to lead to intelligent life might be so infrequent as to effectively be close to 0% chance of happening even over billions of years. According to this line of theory, the evolution of life at all, much less the evolution of the sorts incredibly complex ecosystems and mind-boggling diverse phylogenetic 'trees' we see on Earth may essentially be so rare as to be unique. From what I know about the evolution of life and the evolution of diversity, I have to say that these ideas have some appeal to me, though I'm not enough of an expert to say I think they are correct. In sum, there are some who argue that we just might be truly alone in the cosmos, even if there are hundreds of millions of "habitable planets" in the galaxy. Even if the evolution of life in general is not so rare as some have argued, the evolution of complex intelligent life like a chicken or a lizard (much less a monkey or a dog) may nonetheless be an exceedingly rare thing. To put it quite simply: it may well be that there are no other intelligent aliens out there to worry about. Only real way to know is to go see for ourselves.

A functioning warp drive would be so fantastically awesome that words cannot convey. It literally would be the biggest thing to happen in all of human natural history. Hopefully it really is a substantive step in the right direction!

Space is obviously profitable as everyone wants their geosynchronous satellite. But I don't think you need a "space program" per se to put up satellites around the Earth.

Very nice AAR!

Lack of funding is not a good excuse to blindly forge ahead and place human beings into risky situations from which the negative PR could prove to be even more harmful to progress toward successful Mars colonization. "Mars One colonists All Dead (headline) Final heartrending message from dying scientist . . ." <-- That would do wonders for public opinion about space travel.

Interesting. That does make some sense hypothetically. But is there really any data to show that living in 0.376g is in fact less unhealthy than living in 0.001 or for that matter, "more" healthy than 1.0g for some people or for some physiological functions? My understanding is that, the problems of microgravity go beyond the simple mechanical load on the skeleton and muscles. There are issues with various functions (immunity for one) that may relate to microgravity effects at the cellular level. Moreover, experiments done with microorganisms that were reared in space show pretty clear effects on this critters, and they live in a fluid environment where a musculoskeltal system is irrelevant. As I said, in the absence of real data on the topic, it seems to be wishful thinking to project that living in 0.376g will be more like living in 1.0g in terms of health than living in 0.0001g For me at least, "bashing" dreams is not a reason to participate in a thread like this. In fact, I _share_ the dream that humanity will one day walk on Mars, indeed, that they will one day LIVE and thrive there. It is a meritorious dream. But as Napoleon Bonaparte (I think) said: "Hope is not a strategy." If you are truly devoted to a dream, then you will be no less devoted to it, even when you realize it is unlikely to culminate in your lifetime. We all contribute more to the eventual fruition of these dreams when we operate on realistic, indeed, somewhat pessimistic grounds than when we operate on overly optimistic and hopeful grounds.

Something in a LaGrange point would basically be "permanent" right? I suppose it would probably still require adjustment burns for its exact position and orientation, but it would not be subject to drifting majorly 'off station' or having an orbit that would decay and lead to destruction of the vehicle? Edit: hey "Wait" you meant the Earth-Moon L3 right? I'm actually only finding a description of an Earth-Sun L3 which is on the opposite side of the sun? I'm guessing the Earth-Moon L3 is comparable but on the opposite side of the moon? or something else? It would be really cool if these were in KSP somehow

Uhhhh . . . I think it might be wishful thinking to reclassify several of those as "green/orange." Particularly, toxicity, radiation, nutrition, ocular, sensorimotor and musculoskeletal. My understanding is that, the physiological harm from "micro-gravity" (sic. "weightlessness") is not a threshold effect, but rather a continuously varying albeit perhaps curvilinear effect. Gravity of 1.0 g is the healthiest, and gravity of 0.001 (or whatever it is outside of a planets hill sphere) is the most unhealthy. But that doesn't mean that 0.376 g is equally as healthy as 1.0g. It stands to reason that 0.376g is at best (and without remedial preventative care such as restrained exercise regimes) only 38% as health as 1.0g. In fact, if most of the ill health effects from micro-gravity derive from the initial reductions from 1.0g, anything below some relatively high level (0.8g, 0.54g, or whatever) might effectively be just as bad as 0.001g.

Yep excellent points. Take home message being: we users need to be reasonable about what we expect. For example, acknowledging that sometimes, even if we hate a game, if it is 'functioning' we are really not justified to be livid about having been ripped off and it is perhaps better to just 'let it go'. My personal examples of this experience are few and far between, but I think they must happen to all of us gamers from time to time. I bought Call of Cthulu: Dark Corners of the Earth: raindrops cause a graphical glitch because of a problem with my video, and moreover I just don't really like the gameplay. Meh, there's $10 or $15 I wasted. Just teaches me to continue to be discerning in my game purchases. However, as you point out, there is also a 'threshold' at which we are being ripped off, and it sounds like the SimCity thing was a good example of that. Holding publishers and developers accountable for a functioning product, and not patronizing them with future business is not just a reasonable 'right' but a good practice for us consumers in this instance.

That is a delightful video, thanks for sharing I didn't know that there had been any efforts to mass market ISS. Just to clarify, I personally see the importance of the ISS and hope that it will be perpetuated beyond its decommissioning or even better expanded on and used as the basis for a lot more orbital human presence. I'm not trying to argue that ISS is in fact less worthy or meritorious than other unmanned space work. I was just trying to point out one very important factor why some unmanned space stuff seems to garner more public love than others. The video you linked is brilliant, very well done and exemplifies this very point: dry, scientific details are not 'selling points' for public approval. That is all I'm saying: HST has immediate curbside appeal because it has rendered mind-blowing visual images that are almost universally appealing to humans (even though the data it collects on other nonvisible wavelengths is in fact probably more important from a scientific standpoint). ISS requires a bit more 'marketing' for it to approach the inherent market appeal of a Hubble Deep Field Image. Also, just to clarify, I'm not defending this unfortunate reality about what most people 'like' and approve of their governments spending money on. It is just a simple truth that eye-candy sells, particularly universally mind-blowing eye-candy.

That is simultaneously reassuring and disconcerting. . . . I really should've been a physical scientist/engineer. It is abundantly clear to me you guys have more fun that we hair-shirt wearing social scientists

Nope. 14th Lost Tribe of the Incredible Hulks.

Me personally? They are all _totally_sexy to me! Even the mustache guy peeking out of the glory hole between the little baggies and stuff (Col. Coleman is it?): very sexy to me personally. What I should have clarified is: not sexy in a broad mass appeal standpoint . . . or at least that is the HYPOTHESIS. Seriously though, I do think King Arthur was hitting on _something_ here and I'll explain to you why. I am a bona fide sci fi geek from way back into the 1970s. In recent decades my 'involvement' with the space/sci-fi worlds has declined a bit, and as I've pointed out in some other threads, I haven't really watched TV or otherwise partaken in regular doses of mass media since the late 1980s. Nonetheless, I could not escape exposure to Hubble and its amazing mindblowing images. Even before I bought this game and underwent a crash refresher course in Sci Fi Geek certification I was fully aware of what Hubble had shown us, the fact that it required a repair, and how clearly smitten humanity has been with what it has revealed about the Universe with astounding clarity. Not to say everyone understands what it all means, but images like that pique the imagination and anyone is likely to inquire 'what is that' and at least learn a bit. In sum, Hubble has been a smashing PR success; I think that must be abundantly clear. I think the same must be true with Curiousity. In contrast, and sticking with my personal experience as a simple guide, I was basically only vaguely aware of an "International Space Station." Until a couple weeks ago, I did not know for sure when it was launched, whether it had already been decommissioned and burntup in the atmosphere, let alone that it has been up there pretty much continuously occupied with science teams for 12 years! You can chide me for being a malfeasant Sci Fi nerd that I didn't even know that ISS 'existed' until I got into KSP and looked it up on wiki. But what this suggests is that: if someone like me didn't even know it was still up there and had been continuously in operation for so long, most people in the world probably don't even know it exists. Everyone on the planet knows about Star Wars, Darth Vader, and the Hubble Deep Field. Moreover, I think it is probably humanly impossible to look at most of the hubble images and not feel a stiring of curiousity and wonder. Looking at an astronaut, or worse a space station that looks more like deep freezer or the inside of a storage tank (the Russia part) or even worse, reading the esoteric details of some strange experiment they are doing on ISS is not likely to stir the same sort of universal wonder; at least not without substantial 're-branding' and/or marketing.

Don't want to say that I "disagree" with you because your basic point that gamers and devs both have ethical and social obligations to one another is certainly true. But at the same time, there are some underlying points that you are making that I'm not entirely sure about, even not comfortable with. For a legal standpoint, a computer game is an interactive book/record. It is a form of intellectual property that a developer/publisher makes available for the public to use for their entertainment or education by selling EULAs (end user license agreements for those who are unfamiliar). As I understand it, EULAs are also what you are buying when you purchase a CD, digital record, book other type of computer application or intellectual property. Lets say you buy a book, a non-fiction technical book on spacecraft design. The book is not a 'design manual' but more of an historical overview. You read it and find errors in it; errors which if committed into designs could lead to malfunctions, and harm. Do you have a basis to cancel your payment for the book? Or take a different example, a statistics textbook that has some errors in it? You teach a class with this book and the errors lead to a terrible class and bad teaching evaluations? Does the user have some legal recourse against the publisher or writer? How about a record you buy that has some songs that just plain 'sound bad (to you) or where you can objectively point to some 'flaw' in the production of some songs? Justified to ask for your money back? Lastly, a fiction book that you just plain disagree with for whatever personal, political or ideological reasons. Sufficient justification to ask for your money back? I don't have the answers to these questions, and in truth as far as I can tell, we are largely in uncharted territory when it comes to these sorts of things. For the most part, publishers of these myriad sorts of intellectual property seem (by and large) to try to adhere to ethical and conscientious guidelines that reflect the spirit of their enterprise rather than simply some legally binding specifics. For example, patches for computer games; it is amazing really that so many developers and publishers spend so much time and effort to try to correct the errors that exist in their initial releases. Perhaps they are still not achieving the standards of some other industries. For example I have no idea whether publishers of say, engineering textbooks are obsessed with making sure they have zero errors. All this to say: lets be reasonable about what we expect game developers to provide us with for the cost of a visit to a cinema and a cheap dinner for two.

Is that game really any _fun?_ I watched one of Scott Manley's videos of it, and while his fake accent was pretty hilarious, the game itself looked utterly tedious and dull. Is the full extent of the game sitting in that custom's office screen stamping entrants as denied/enter? Or is there some later stage where you gain enough experience points and then get to the 'fun' part? ---->

True. But I think his basic point is valid: when Hubble was gonna be left derelict, there was sufficient public uproar to convince NASA to breach their new policy of no shuttle missions except to the safe haven of ISS and instead do the one last repair mission. In contrast, whatever public uproar there was about the retirement of the space shuttle did not convince NASA to go back on that decision. It is no doubt wrong to say "nobody cared" but what he actually said was "nobody seemed to care," a shorthand way of saying "whatever public uproar there was was not sufficient to change NASA's decision like it had done for the HST abandonment." These are apple to orange comparisons, but the point is valid I think: public opinion and public interest in these things are critical to the political process and managerial decisionmaking that makes it go round. It has always been the case and will likely always be the case given we live in a consumer driven world and that is unlikely to ever change.

Wow, that is a very alarming article. Thanks for posting it. Yeah, totally agree lets not go there at all! Death threats, vitriol, insults, disrespect, and general overreaction are really _never_ justified or meritorious. That really sucks that it literally is causing some devs to cancel games and stop working in the industry

Why burn it up? Why not put it up into a graveyard orbit? Is that just untenable from a propulsion standpoint? Would make a great 'space archaeological' site for the future! Sadly, it is not about the actual merits of these things from a scientific, economic or prosperity standpoint. It is I believe, all about the eye candy. Compare: Sexy . . . Very Sexy . . . Mmmmm, mind-bogglingly sexy . . . Sad to say (and no offense to the astronaut), but . . . not so sexy after all Mmmm, just not enough 'skin' to be sexy enough to compete with colliding galaxy clusters 60 gabillion light years away . . . Argh . . . (and again, NO offense meant to the astronaut or ISS, which I personally LOVE) . . . definitely NOT sexy

So Matrix Games Buzz Aldrin Space Program is a remake of the older game eh? Looks interesting.

I could not have said this better myself. It is exactly the truth. This does not mean that humans will never colonize space. What it means is simply that the prospects for 'betterment' relative to the risks and costs have to be clearly favorable. When we cross that threshold there will be a cavalcade of space miners, space explorers, space outposts, and probably space mercenaries/pirates.

Exactly. In 100 years, maybe we can be confident we will send humans to visit Mars in a safe and economically feasible way. In 1000 years perhaps there will be a semi-permanent presence on Mars. But in the meantime, those earlier journeys and the subsequent bases will be dependent on the in-space infrastructure, technology and practice having been developed closer to Earth. You don't go from your first ocean-going vessel straight to colonizing the New World in a mere 50 years. It took hundreds if not thousands of years for that the happen on Earth and it stands to reason it will take an approximately comparable amount of time for it to happen for space 'colonization.' The fact that culture and technology evolve far more rapidly today is not a reason to expect that our rate of progress into colonizing space will occur more rapidly than preceding phases of technological/exploratory innovation for a couple of reasons: the economics are orders of magnitude greater than any preceding epoch of human expansion/exploration; space and extraterrestrial bodies cannot sustain human life without substantial artificial infrastructure. Wow. That pretty much says it all right there. Mars is a true "hellhole." Will we humans eventually be able to live in a healthy way, even perhaps to thrive and prosper from spending time on planet that is so clearly inhospitable to human life in so many ways? Of course we will! Our ingenuity, resourcefulness and intrepidness are without question sufficient for us to extend our presence anywhere and everywhere that basic laws of physics and chemistry might allow it. It is just a question of time and effort. In that sense, efforts like Mars One are to be applauded for keeping these long-term human dreams in the minds of the population. It is simply a shame that they are doing so by projecting completely unrealistic timetables and program plans.

Agreed, a more precise instrument would be even better. But lets take this in steps and try to get one that has even demarcations between our lines on the ruler first.

I think there might be some problems with the age cutoffs producing erroneous patterns in the distribution, but not sure. That said, it almost looks a tad bit bimodal. ADDIT: yeah, looking at it a bit more, there are some problems there. For the way the data are rendered on the site, your age categories really must be equal in size and they are not. You've got some with four years, some with five and some with six. I would suggest the following: 12 and under 13-18 19-24 25-30 31-36 37-42 43-48 49-54 55-60 61 and over