Artemis

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

NASA is ready to send its first rocket to the moon as part of the Artemis program. They plan to send humans (including first woman and first person of color) to the moon once again after more than 50 years.

What is the purpose of this kind of extravagance at a time when we need to focus on major issues affecting the planet such as climate change, food crisis, energy crisis, war etc. etc.?!

Merely because we have a natural urge to search for alternative habitats  for survival (like all animals), does not mean all such efforts are meaningful. After 50 years ...what purpose have the moon landings served? Can we really hope to colonize the moon or much more arduous, Mars? Are we trying to run away after messing up our home?

Ok....we can pat ourselves on the back about our achievements....technology and so on. We can tell ourselves that we learn so much from these programs. But is there any real purpose served through such manned missions? We have telescopes such as the Hubble and James Webb to give us information about deep space. We have sent the Voyagers to send information from outer space. What more do we want?

An obsessive need for more and more information and a sense of conquest will not serve any real purpose for humans or our planet.   

Just some thoughts.

Sriram


 

[Udayana]

Thing is  .. we don't know what we want.

We don't even know if there is a "we" ...  these programmes could be designed purely to drum up nationalism. 

As you suggest the efforts can be regarded as a waste of resources - all of our problems are on earth, unlikely to addressed in any timely way by any discoveries in space. But the point is that the resources are spent here, on earth not "out there". Increases in money spent on education, science and improving technology will have benefits "down here".

"We" could just ignore (or quietly enjoy) the spectacle - and keep the focus on using the fallout to fix the problems we do have.

[Sriram]

Problem is that scientists and science enthusiasts have their own myths and false beliefs....fed in some cases by such things as Star trek, Star Wars, Avatar and such other fantasy films...

[Anchorman]

Problem is that scientists and science enthusiasts have their own myths and false beliefs....fed in some cases by such things as Star trek, Star Wars, Avatar and such other fantasy films...

   


Many eminent scientists - experts in not only physics, but medicine and computer science, cite 'Star Trek' as an inspiration for their choice of study.
(I'm just chuffed that no so many archaeologists could say the same about ole' Indiana Jones....(

[jeremyp]

Problem is that scientists and science enthusiasts have their own myths and false beliefs....fed in some cases by such things as Star trek, Star Wars, Avatar and such other fantasy films...

Could you give some examples please.

[ProfessorDavey]

Problem is that scientists and science enthusiasts have their own myths and false beliefs....fed in some cases by such things as Star trek, Star Wars, Avatar and such other fantasy films...

I suspect there may be some scientists who may have been inspired to choose that career by being motivated by pieces of fiction such as the films you mention. I suspect there are far more whose inspiration comes from reality, e.g. real moon-shots, real computers etc. But regardless once someone has trained as a scientist their feet will be firmly one the ground of reality, not fantasy.

You mention myths and false beliefs - examples please, as the whole basis of science is that the currently accepted explanation is the one that best fits the evidence, and when (or if) more evidence arises that explanation may evolve too. So the whole scientific method seems to be very well insulated from the promulgation of myths and false beliefs - unlike ... err ... belief systems which are typically based on belief and myth rather than evidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

Many eminent scientists - experts in not only physics, but medicine and computer science, cite 'Star Trek' as an inspiration for their choice of study.

Examples please - I have spent 30+ years rubbing shoulders with all sorts of scientists (from theoretical physicists through to biomedical scientist and computer scientists etc), I can't think of a single example of someone claiming Star Trek as inspiration. Actually the most common motivation is that these people were good at science as kids, found it interesting and think it important. Inspirational role models - e.g. David Attenborough for biologists, Carl Sagan for cosmologists often seems important too.

In the case of biomedical science there is quite often motivation from adversity - in other words someone wants to find a cure for cancer (a simplistic notion) because their uncle/grandmother/father etc died of cancer.

So I suspect Brian Cox is far more likely to be an inspiration for the next generation of cosmologists than James T Kirk.

[Anchorman]

Examples please - I have spent 30+ years rubbing shoulders with all sorts of scientists (from theoretical physicists through to biomedical scientist and computer scientists etc), I can't think of a single example of someone claiming Star Trek as inspiration. Actually the most common motivation is that these people were good at science as kids, found it interesting and think it important. Inspirational role models - e.g. David Attenborough for biologists, Carl Sagan for cosmologists often seems important too. In the case of biomedical science there is quite often motivation from adversity - in other words someone wants to find a cure for cancer (a simplistic notion) because their uncle/grandmother/father etc died of cancer. So I suspect Brian Cox is far more likely to be an inspiration for the next generation of cosmologists than James T Kirk.

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3118059/50-years-of-i-star-trek-i-boldy-inspiring-generations-of-scientists.html

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3118059/50-years-of-i-star-trek-i-boldy-inspiring-generations-of-scientists.html

Hmm - I thought you said many eminent scientists.

The article mentions a handful of the estimated 7 million professional scientists around the world. Sure if you ask the question in a reverse manner you'll find some scientists (whether eminent or not - the article seems to include both) who are fervent trekkies and that Star Trek was an influence for their career decision. Not sure that really justifies your claim, does it AM.

And I suspect that Star Trek was merely mirroring a greater reality - that of the real development of space flight, manned space flight through to the lunar landings that was a backdrop to the 1960s. So were these people primarily influence by a tv show or by the reality of the Apollo missions - certainly at least one of the respondents seems clear that Star Trek was secondary to the real thing:

The real-life Apollo space program, the first moon landing in 1969 and physicist Sally Ride's becoming the first female NASA astronaut, offered a lot of positive scientific influences for Howard. But the fictional world of Star Trek carried its own importance.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Examples please - I have spent 30+ years rubbing shoulders with all sorts of scientists (from theoretical physicists through to biomedical scientist and computer scientists etc), I can't think of a single example of someone claiming Star Trek as inspiration. Actually the most common motivation is that these people were good at science as kids, found it interesting and think it important. Inspirational role models - e.g. David Attenborough for biologists, Carl Sagan for cosmologists often seems important too.

In the case of biomedical science there is quite often motivation from adversity - in other words someone wants to find a cure for cancer (a simplistic notion) because their uncle/grandmother/father etc died of cancer.

So I suspect Brian Cox is far more likely to be an inspiration for the next generation of cosmologists than James T Kirk.

A Tad classist and elitist post perhaps that seems to miss or discount the contributions of people like Gerry Anderson, Sidney Newman and Verity lambert, Bill Nye, Johnny Morris, David Bellamy and Magnus Pike and countless others.

Is ''rubbing shoulders'' still acceptable in academia?

[ProfessorDavey]

A Tad classist and elitist post perhaps that seems to miss or discount the contributions of people like Gerry Anderson, Sidney Newman and Verity lambert, Bill Nye, Johnny Morris, David Bellamy and Magnus Pike and countless others.

I just gave some examples - you could argue that a generation of vets grew up watching James Herriot, and I think that's probably true - but the difference between James Herriot and Star Trek is that although both are broadly fictional, one is based on the reality of being a vet, the other is largely just that ... Science fiction.

Gerry Anderson is fun escapism - not sure how many scientists would see Thunderbirds as inspiration for a scientific career. Bill Nye, Johnny Morris, David Bellamy and Magnus Pike are different as they inspired and popularised real science not science fiction.

Is ''rubbing shoulders'' still acceptable in academia?

Turn of phrase and over the past two years less acceptable in academia, just as it has become less acceptable in the wider population.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This might be of interest

https://www.betterlisten.com/products/nasa-and-nichelle-nichols-with-neil-degrasse-tyson

[Sriram]

Well...there are thousands of scientists around the world and I am sure Prof D isn't speaking for all of them. All humans entertain fanciful ideas and scientists I am sure, aren't exceptions.

Given the conditions in these places....the very idea of colonizing the moon or other planets (or their moons) is a false belief. The idea of colonizing exoplanets is even more so. It goes against the basic idea of complex life evolving over millions of years under specific conditions.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/space-explorati/

[jeremyp]

Given the conditions in these places....the very idea of colonizing the moon or other planets (or their moons) is a false belief.

Why is it? If there is money to be made, it will happen. The idea of colonising Mars as a "lifeboat" for humanity is a fantasy, of course, but if there is a way to (for example) mine minerals profitably on Mars, people will go there.

[Anchorman]

Why is it? If there is money to be made, it will happen. The idea of colonising Mars as a "lifeboat" for humanity is a fantasy, of course, but if there is a way to (for example) mine minerals profitably on Mars, people will go there.

   


Not only that, the low gravity on the Moon might make the manufacture of specialist materials easier - and cheaper than on Earth or even in orbital stations.

[Sriram]

Oh....so we are going to transport truckloads of minerals (whatever they are) from Mars to be used here.....and we are going to set up factories on the moon to take advantage of its low gravity.....!?

See what I mean about science fantasies....?!

[Udayana]

From wiki:

Arguments from incredulity can take the form:

I cannot imagine how F could be true; therefore F must be false.
I cannot imagine how F could be false; therefore F must be true.
Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, a lack of understanding, or an instinctive 'gut' reaction, especially where time is scarce.[2] They are also frequently used to argue that something must be supernatural in origin.[3] This form of reasoning is fallacious because one's inability to imagine how a statement can be true or false gives no information about whether the statement is true or false in reality.[4]

[Anchorman]

Oh....so we are going to transport truckloads of minerals (whatever they are) from Mars to be used here.....and we are going to set up factories on the moon to take advantage of its low gravity.....!? See what I mean about science fantasies....?!

A limited amount of material which is difficult to make in normal gravity is already being made in space - on the ISS. Apparently, this can be used in supercomputing, and will benefit disciplines such as medicine in the medium term. Such 'factories' could be built either in lunar, or orbit or on the lunar surface, and need not involve large scale mining. The only extraction of materials from the moon would be water and minerals which might be used in hydroponics as well as creating oxygen.

[jeremyp]

Oh....so we are going to transport truckloads of minerals (whatever they are) from Mars to be used here.....and we are going to set up factories on the moon to take advantage of its low gravity.....!?

See what I mean about science fantasies....?!

I didn't say we are going to do any of those things. I said we will do them if they can be made profitable.

I'm not going to sit here and predict what technological advances we might make in the next few hundred years that might make such things feasible. However, any technology that allows us to terraform Mars to make it a pleasant place to live for humans will be much more easily applied to the Earth itself to keep it a pleasant place. That is why I say "lifeboat Mars" is a fantasy. There is fundamentally no reason to do it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh....so we are going to transport truckloads of minerals (whatever they are) from Mars to be used here.....and we are going to set up factories on the moon to take advantage of its low gravity.....!?

See what I mean about science fantasies....?!

Depends entirely on the material in question doesn't it. I suspect the most likely scenario would be a rare and precious material where relatively low quantities could be mined and processed on the moon as this would be most likely to be profitable. You seem also to be forgetting that the gravity issue means that it is more straightforward for get stuff from the moon to earth than from the earth to the moon.

And as others have pointed out we already are doing this on the international space station so the technologies already exist. It doesn't require a leap in technology to do this on the lunar surface rather than in an orbiting space station.

So none of this is science fiction, we already have the technology to make this possible. Whether we choose to do it or not isn't down to fundamental technological barriers but due to economic viability or the desire to invest sufficient public money to achieve it.

[SqueakyVoice]

Care about the Artemis launch because it’ll help us on Earth, says first Briton in space
https://liveapp.inews.co.uk/2022/09/03/nasas-artemis-launch-will-help-us-on-earth-says-first-briton-in-space/content.html

...if we only fund the immediate, what we want for today, then we won’t have any investment for tomorrow and the future,” she [Dr Sharman] says.

[Sriram]

They said similar things when the first man landed on the moon 53 years ago. Nothing remarkable happened thereafter. 

....and they are still struggling to launch Artemis 1....

[jeremyp]

They said similar things when the first man landed on the moon 53 years ago. Nothing remarkable happened thereafter. 

Is that what you think.

[SqueakyVoice]

It's  been built by Japan, Canada, European and the US.

That's a lot of co-operation. Possibly, even inspirational.  (Unless your JR Mugg, of course.)
...and then they let a load of black american women vote as well. (Watch Hidden Figures, they even knew maths.)