Why is it necessary to attack my comment about what the compelling reason there is for human spaceflight? The discussion here is about what are the compelling reasons for human spaceflight? So why not put forth your own compelling reasons or reasons why human spaceflight is not necessary. Why the need to attack or be overly critical of others in this discussion? You have literally taken each and every sentence written in each comment posted by me and others like Loki and made rather verbose antagonistic reponses. Worse, you engage in pedantric silly behavior correcting my typos or occasional mispellings. Thus, your posts are simply distracting from the real subject at hand. Yes, you are certainly free to post and make comments, but your actions resemble the hecklers at town hall meetings who would rather scream and yell nonsense than have any productive discussion of the issue.

Lawdy me! Don’t you check your references before you post?

It’s the first word in the title of a American R&B song that was the biggest R&B hit in its year and that’s been subsequently recorded by the Beatles, Elvis, Fats Domino, Led Zeppelin, and Travis Tritt (among others). See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawdy_Miss_Clawdy

The word is also used repeatedly in the classic American novel “Gone With the Wind” and the script for the famous movie based on the novel. See:

http://www.meredy.com/gwtw/gwtwsounds.htm

It’s also used in the lyrics of various versions of the famous American folk song “John Henry”. See:

http://www.ibiblio.org/john_henry/other.html

If you want to play amateur grammar cop, at least check your references before you post.

Lawd, lawdy!

“It is evidence however, of your propensity for colloquial dogmatism.”

Lawdy me! Don’t you think about what you’ve written before you post?

That sentence doesn’t make any sense in the context of your previous one. If I was colloquially dogmatic, why would I use a word that doesn’t exist?

Lawd, lawdy!

“It has everything to do with the subject of this post, which you have so deftly avoided…”

Lawdy me! Don’t you read what others have written before you reply to them?

I didn’t avoid the subject. If you had bothered to read the next line, you would see that I wrote:

“Moreover, your evidence? What does putting people in space have to do with Al Queda in AfPak, Iranian nukes, the economy, climate change, etc.”

If you or the other poster actually have an answer to this question, I’d be glad to read it. But if not, don’t throw around false claims that I didn’t address a topic when in fact I did.

Lawd, lawdy!

“in your spelling and grammar diatribe.”

Lawdy me, your post exaggerates so!

How is using 18 words in a 1,200 word post to point out two misspellings and one incomplete sentence a “spelling and grammar diatribe”?

Lawd, lawdy!

[rolling eyes repeatedly]

Sigh…

That’s not even a word, nor a sentence. It is evidence however, of your propensity for colloquial dogmatism.

“I offer that human space development provides an avenue to solutions to resolving some of our dilemmas that currently exist…”

Goody for you. Your point? What does this have to do with the preceding conversation?

It has everything to do with the subject of this post, which you have so deftly avoided in your spelling and grammar diatribe.

You’re asking me? Don’t you know what you wrote? Can’t you read your own posts?

Unbelievable…

“Where in here do I disparage theses nations or invoke fear of these nations?”

When you wrote “Do we want a nation like China [or Russia, EU, India, or corporations]…” Your protestations to the contrary, you wrote a sentence that demonstrates disdain for these foreign nations. Whether the sentence reflects your actual opinion of these nations or was poorly stated, I don’t know. But you wrote what you wrote. So stop with the hypocrisy and either stick to what you wrote or admit you were wrong to write such and move on. But don’t waste your time and mine claiming that you didn’t write what you wrote.

“I point these nations out because they have developed significant space programs that are viable and competitive.”

So what? There’s a huge difference between a viable and competitive space program and an independent human space exploration program. A program that hasn’t successfully completed it’s first robotic mission beyond Earth orbit (India) is in no position to carry out an independent human space exploration program anytime soon. A program that can’t afford a replacement for a 30-year old LEO crew launch vehicle (Russia) is in no position to carry out an independent human space exploration program anytime soon. A program that has been dominated by robotic missions for decades and piggybacks one space station module and the occasional astronaut on U.S. and Russian vehicles (Europe) is in no position to carry out an independent human space exploration program anytime soon. A program that has launched a total of six humans into orbit, is proceeding at the glacial pace of about one LEO crew vehicle launch per year (China), and doesn’t plan to return a lunar sample robotically until 2017 at the earliest is in no position to carry out an independent human space exploration program anytime soon.

“Does this sound like a balanced assessment?”

Whether you think the statements are balanced or not doesn’t matter. What matters is that they’re factual. You argued that U.S. civil human space flight funding should be increased because these foreign space programs are in a position to overtake the U.S. in civil human space exploration. I argued that these foreign civil space programs are in no position to carry out an independent human space exploration program at all and won’t be for the foreseeable future. I backed that up with factual statements about their history, current space capabilities, pace of progress, and fiscal situations. You’ve offered no facts to the contrary.

It’s a fact that “India can’t get a lunar satellite to complete its mission” and plans to “rely on Russian expertise for any robotic lander follow-on.” Based on that, it’s hard to see how “they can field a human space flight capability, nevertheless one that exceeds that of the current spacefaring nations, anytime soon.”

It’s a fact that “China can’t dock two human spacecraft together, only recently broke ground on an EELV-class launch facility after years of delays, is lucky to pull off one manned mission a year” and plans “to maybe have a permanent space station circa 2020.” Based on that, it’s hard to see them “going anywhere fast.”

These are not unbalanced or disparaging statements. They’re the facts as they exist and the reasonable conclusions to be drawn from them. The facts may not fit your argument that the U.S. needs to increase its civil human space flight funding because these countries are overtaking U.S. human exploration, but that doesn’t mean that the statements are unbalanced or disparaging.

You may not like to use them, but facts are facts.

“I offer that human space development provides an avenue to solutions to resolving some of our dillemmas that currently exist…”

Goody for you. Your point? What does this have to do with the preceding conversation?

Moreover, your evidence? What does putting people in space have to do with Al Queda in AfPak, Iranian nukes, the economy, climate change, etc.

And it’s spelled “dilemmas”, not “dillemmas”.

And it’s “potentially”, not “potientially”.

“I offer that space development could lead to greater industrialization and commercialization of space just as commercial aviation did providing a wealth of jobs and exciting path for young people to pursue.”

Goody for you. So does pretty much every other poster on this forum. Your point?

“My original post was addressed to Jeff Foust. It is you who is being a troll.”

In case you didn’t know, this is a public website, and Mr. Foust has no restrictions about who can reply to what posts. If you post here, anyone has the ability and permission to critique your arguments, regardless of whom you address them to. Critiquing an argument is not trolling.

Posting polls and statistics that you know are junk to get a reaction from other posters and waste their time — that’s trolling.

If you don’t like your arguments being open to criticism from any potential poster, then don’t post here.

If you get your jollies by wasting other people’s time on junk data, then don’t post here.

“This is your idea of politeness? Courtesy?”

No, those statements ridicule very poor arguments, which, as I told you in my prior post, I do resort to when posters react to legitimate criticism of the facts and logic in their posts by throwing personal attacks and insults.

The other poster insulted the readership of an entire website. That’s uncalled for. You personalized your reply to my critique by calling me “negative”. That’s uncalled for.

If you want to be treated like an adult, then act like one and argue the posts, not the posters. If you can’t, then leave.

“Your nastiness…”

Nastiness? Who used the term “pulled out of your ass” on this website?

Here’s a hint — their screen name rhymes with Larry Stiles.

“I do not call other people idiots…”

Neither do I. That would be personalizing an argument. I may point out that an argument or statement is effectively idiotic, but I’ve never called anyone an “idiot” on this website.

You and the other poster, however, do personalize arguments and throw insults. You may not have called anyone an idiot (yet), but you have no problem calling them “negative”, and the other poster has no problem painting the entire readership of a website as “uninformed”. Again, personalized statements and insults like those are uncalled for.

And again, if you want to be treated like an adult, then act like one and argue the posts, not the posters. If you can’t, then leave.

“It is their legitimate right post.”

First, this isn’t a complete sentence (again).

Second, if you’re so high on everyone’s “legitimate right [to] post”, then why did you just argue (in the same post!) that I should not have critiqued the argument from your first post in this thread?!?!

Pot, meet kettle…

I don’t know if you’re purposefully being hypocritical and trolling for a reaction, or if you’re honestly incapable of thinking about what you’ve written before you hit the “submit” button. But either way, stop it. If you can’t, then don’t post here.

Lawdy…

“More importantly who will lead that outward migration into space? Do we want a nation like China to be at the front door of spaceflight. Russia? European Union? India? Global corporations?”

This was the original question that I posed in my comment to Jeff Foust? Where in here do I disparage theses nations or invoke fear of these nations? India and European Union have been our allies and trade partners. China is our largest trade partner. Russia are our ISS partners and we are on good terms with Russia the last I checked. I point these nations out because they have developed significant space programs that are viable and competitive. They have the ability to begin a new era of human exploration beyond LEO. So are Americans willing to accept that? Or do they want their nation to lead human space exploration efforts? These are questions being asked not answers being offered. You have made assumptions based on your own personal biases.

Moreover, I offer that human space development provides an avenue to solutions to resolving some of our dillemmas that currently exist or potientially exist in the future. I offer that space development could lead to greater industrialization and commercialization of space just as commercial aviation did providing a wealth of jobs and exciting path for young people to pursue.

My original post was addressed to Jeff Foust. It is you who is being a troll. Here are the comments you made about India and China. Does this sound like a balanced assessment?

“India can’t get a lunar satellite to complete its mission and will have to rely on Russian expertise for any robotic lander follow-on. There’s no reason to believe that they can field a human space flight capability, nevertheless one that exceeds that of the current spacefaring nations, anytime soon.

China can’t dock two human spacecraft together, only recently broke ground on an EELV-class launch facility after years of delays, is lucky to pull off one manned mission a year, and hopes to maybe have a permanent space station circa 2020. They’re not going anywhere fast.

Here are comments that you have posted toward me and others:

“Ugh, if you can’t write an intelligible argument, then don’t post here.

[rolls eyes]

This is your idea of politeness? Courtesy? Your nastiness ill serves you and your arguments. I do not call other people idiots or tell them not to post. Whether I think sthat or not. It is their legitimate right post. You need to quit being a troll and stop putting words into other people’s comments.

@Marcell

I have read your poll’s too. And yes I realize the results could be skewed. But you might get a few words from LaFeminista about guys being the only ones interested in spaceflight.

I was seduced by the Kubrick’s view of the future that could have been… except for annoying real-world constraints, like funding and political consensus. Nevertheless, having seen what mankind can make out of desert – think Las Vegas or Dubai – I also believe such things may be possible off-Earth, one day.

However, the last few decades have seen the development of technologies that could make human development veer-off in directions totally alien to the current homosapien paradigm. That this could happen within our lifetime (i.e. singularity) makes predictions about the future even more uncertain and suggests that our traditional concept of space settlement may have little if any relevance to future “generations”.

Yes and no.

You’re right that, by definition, a space habitat of that scale will have enough atmosphere and structure to effectively take care of the radiation issue that I highlighted. And with the possible exception of getting the supporting ecology (especially microbiology) right, these kinds of habitats usually take care of all the other human factors issues (gravity, atmosphere, etc.) as well.

That said, the scale of these habitats is so incredible that it’s hard to consider them seriously in any foreseeable future. Even with automated regolith collection, lunar mass drivers, mass catchers, and lithography, turning all that raw material into the shaped metal, glass, and plastic components needed to build such a habitat is a ridiculously enormous undertaking. Cities (~100K+ inhabitants) naturally take decades to grow, at a minimum. Creating such a city out of whole cloth on a shorter, predetermined schedule would be difficult enough on Earth. Doing so in space boggles the mind (or at least my mind). It would probably require levels of automation (maybe AI) and materials processing (maybe structures “grown” via bio/nanotech) whose execution simply isn’t conceivable yet. There’s just a huge chasm between the basic physics proving that these habitats are possible and the meaty engineering needed to actually pull them off. With Mir and the ISS, we’ve proven that we can build a house in space in a decade or two. Although I’m sure we can do better — hopefully inflatable, Bigelow-type neighborhoods well before the middle of the century — it’s hard to see how we get to towns, nevertheless cities.

It’s such a hard problem that my 2 cents is that we’ll see tinkering with the human genome to better adapt the human form to space environments, effectively creating new subspecies, if not species, before we’ll see a space habitat the size of a Stanford torus. Or we’ll see the human mind mapped and artificial alternatives created that can project our consciousness into space before we’re building a Bernal sphere. It’s too bad for us space enthusiasts, but the reality is that its much easier to move bits and nucleotides around than it is to move large, physical objects off of planets and around in space. Even with a perfectly rational space program, the growth in genome understanding and manipulation or the growth in information processing and exchange would still far outstrip the growth in anything we could do that’s still tied to the rocket equation. See Moore’s Law for an example of what we’re up against.

Finally, even if the technology were in hand, it’s hard to see where the impetus for such an undertaking would come from. Exploration and settlement is historically driven either by fear (running away from political/religious persecution, poor conditions/poverty, or the threat of war at home) or greed (the promise of new routes and/or resources). Greed-wise, I’ve never really understood (maybe you’ll inform me) what a city in space would do that could justify such an incredible investment. And fear-wise, if our future on Earth is so dystopian that it could motivate such a fantastic undertaking, we’ll probably no longer have the economic or intellectual resources necessary to pull it off anyway.

If a space habitat of this scale is ever built, it will probably occur naturally as hundreds and then thousands of humans make individual decisions guided by natural and economic forces to congregate at some location in space — in which case, the habitat won’t resemble a pre-planned torus, sphere, or cylinder. I’m personally a little incredulous that there would ever be a single decision by a government or other collective to undertake such an enormous, pre-planned, engineering endeavour.

“I know such developments would require significant commitment/investment and are unlikely to happen any time soon,”

I think we’re in violent agreement, here.

“but their ability to house ‘normal’ people in a 1g environment with significant radiation attenuation always seemed to me the more likely route to a permanent human presence off-Earth.”

If you want those humans to remain a healthy, breeding population of homo sapiens as we know them, you’re probably right. Not to knock O’Neill and his ilk — we need more original thinkers like them. But it’s just very hard to see how pre-planned habitats on that scale would get built.

FWIW… this is mostly my 2 cents and your mileage may vary. I’m only pointing out the extreme limits on settlement/colonization imposed by how ill-adapted the human body is to the very harsh conditions of space, and how fast genetic and IT progress is growing/accelerating compared to aerospace. Aside from those obvious observations, this is all pretty speculative.

I assume O’Neil type colonies are included in your assessment (i.e. unlikely)?

I know such developments would require significant commitment/investment and are unlikely to happen any time soon, but their ability to house “normal” people in a 1g environment with significant radiation attenuation always seemed to me the more likely route to a permanent human presence off-Earth.

I agree that the Dkos polls were certainly not scientific or professional.”

If you knew that, then why did you use them as evidence that “perhaps the American public has already been ‘convinced’” of something or state that “the results are fairly encouraging”?

Stop trolling with junk polls and wasting your time or other posters’ time on arguments supported by flawed statistics. Garbage in, garbage out.

“It puzzles me that you slam the space programs of other nations…

I didn’t. You stated that we should fear any of these countries getting in the “front door of space flight” as an argument for increased U.S. civil human space flight funding. I pointed out in detail that this is an ignorant argument because those countries that don’t have an independent civil human space flight program (Europe, India) are unlikely to have one anytime soon, and those countries that do have independent civil human space flight programs (Russia, China) are making no or very slow progress and are likely to continue in that vein for the foreseeable future.

Correcting an ignorant post about the realities of various foreign space programs is not the same thing as criticizing those programs. Learn the difference and think before you post next time.

“Your disparagement is unwarranted.”

I’m not the one disparaging these nations. You are. You’re the one who wrote “Do we want a nation like [insert China, Russia, European Union, India, global corporations] to be at the front door of spaceflight?” You wrote that, not me.

What’s wrong with any of these nations — especially the European Union or a corporation for Pete’s sake — having a human space flight program or being at the forefront of human space flight? What prejudices do you have against them?

Turn off the hypocrisy and think before you post next time.

“Do you realize that the US launched a robotic probe to orbit the Moon only 5 years before Apollo 11 landed?”

Oh really? I had no idea!

[rolls eyes]

Do you realize that it’s been over 35 years since the Soviet Union sent a robotic mission to the Moon, and they’ve never launched a manned lunar mission, nevertheless landed an cosmonaut on the Moon?

Just because one nation did X at some point in history doesn’t mean that other nations will do X at some point in the future. That’s incredibly fallacious logic. Think before you post next time.

“While India is nowhere close to landing humans on the Moon soon, they are certainly capable of accomplishing that feat within 2 decades.. So can China which is further along than India.”

Based on what evidence? India’s one incomplete lunar robotic orbiter mission? China’s one successful lunar robotic orbiter mission? The desperate poverty of the great majority of either nation’s population?

When the Apollo effort was gearing up, the U.S. was testing heavy lift rockets, lunar reentry profiles, human-scale landers, etc. and on a rapid pace. There’s no evidence that either of these nations is pursuing any of those things or will anytime soon.

Educate yourself before you post next time.

“And I love your attitude toward the Russians, especially considering they are the ones who will be our ride up to the ISS for the next several years at least.”

Well, if you love Mother Russia so much, then why do you not “want a nation like Russia to be at the front door of spaceflight”?

Again, stop making hypocritical statements and think before you post next time.

“Humans currently live in some of the most extreme environments on Earth from the Canadian Arctic to the Sahara Desert.”

So what? There’s one g of gravity, one bar of atmosphere, plentiful oxygen, natural water and food supplies, supporting microorganisms, and protection from solar storms and cosmic radiation in both the Arctic and Sahara.

Except maybe for underwater or certain deep subterranean environments, which the human species has also not settled or colonized, it’s goofy to use Earth environments as proof that humans as we currently know them can live out their entire lifetimes, nevertheless reproduce over multiple generations and become independent of Earth’s resources, in any known space environment. The scale of the challenges involved are vastly, vastly different.

“Humans have proven fairly adaptable and I suspect that with technological progress they will be able to make a home in space, on the Moon, and perhaps someday Mars.”

If by “technological progress”, you mean engineering of the human genome or downloading our intelligence into silicon brains and plastic bodies, then theoretically, yes, it’s possible. But given the radiation hazards alone, it’s far from clear that homo sapiens will ever be able to live out entire lifetimes in a space environment without dying very premature deaths from cancer (forget successfully reproducing) unless they spend the vast majority of their time in thick metal boxes or surrounded by ridiculously powerful magnetic fields.

Even for a simple human exploration mission to Mars, experts are already talking about “genetic sensitivity screening” to radiation in order to make the trips medically feasible in the near-term (i.e., those in the astronaut corps who are relatively more sensitive to radiation could not go) and “bioengineering” to increase radiation resistance over the long-term. See Joan Vernikos’s third point in the article below:

http://commercialspacegateway.com/item/34382-future-outposts-beyond-leo-require-r-d

That’s just to visit Mars (or otherwise spend a couple years beyond the Van Allen Belts). Forget settlement or colonization.

Will homo sapiens continue to visit space and other worlds in our solar system? Yes, obviously.

Will homo sapiens as we currently know the species settle or colonize space or other worlds in our solar system? Far from clear, and probably unlikely.

“What I have noticed from your postings is that you seem to be a rather negative person who tends to ridicule others”

There are plenty of posts on this forum where I’ve agreed with others, commended them on their arguments, and/or tried to provide helpful information. (In fact, there’s one of the latter in this very thread.)

But I am politely and consistently critical when a poster repeatedly makes false claims, uses garbage statistics, espouses ignorance and hypocrisy, and/or writes incoherent arguments. I do correct a poster’s facts when they’re wrong or their logic when it’s flawed.

And when that poster reacts to that criticism by getting personal and throwing insults — claiming that I have a “negative” personality or that I’m pulling facts “out of my ass” — then yes, I do ridicule their posts. That sort of thin-skinned behavior, name-calling, personlization, and trolling has no place here. Argue the posts, not the poster.

Either grow up, educate yourself on the relevant topics, use a grammar and spell checker once in a while, think before you post, and stop personalizing your arguments, or go away.

“rather than simply argue your point of view”

I tried that in my last exchange with you and was told that I was pulling facts “out of my ass”. I tried it again in this latest exchange and you told me that I’m too “negative”.

Argue the posts, not the poster. If you’re incapable of doing so, then go away.

“Paul Spudis and I disagree”

If a known poster with substantial credentials is also disagreeing with you, then maybe you need to take a hint and educate yourself before posting again instead wasting other folks’ time correcting your posts.

“but Paul reponds to my comments with at least respect and goodwill.”

I’d encourage you to comment on the good Dr. Spudis’s personality or tell him that he’s that pulling facts out of one of his orificies and see how he reacts.

Ugh…