Closer to Mars

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby dada » Fri Jun 04, 2021 1:27 pm

" I'm not assuming everything is a lie, of course."

Maybe that's where the debate really begins, here on this message board. In the assuming and not assuming, I mean. I see no scientific benefit in not assuming everything is a lie. It could very well be. I begin from the scientifically determined premise, as do the others on this debate team, that the biggest lies are the ones we tell ourselves.

"For one, it ties back to a key theme in science (true science, that is): replication. The fundamentals of science require that in order for a premise/theory to be considered valid, it needs to be replicated over time."

It's a romantic theory, but doesn't hold in reality. Say you have a scientist like David Bohm. The establishment pecking order doesn't like the challenge his science presents, and so they just ignore it and don't replicate his work. The "key of true science" actually limits the field, the "validation" that replication brings is weaponized and withheld, not a useful standard but a method of scientific debate control.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby dada » Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:28 pm

Saying that scientific controls must be experiment-specific, we're judging scientific integrity of the experiment itself on the basis of the thoroughness of experimental controls written up in the lab report - sructural analysis of the experiment "before," data collection "during," and post-collection analysis "after."

With scientific controls that are not experiment-specific, we're being asked to meet conditions out of our control, and therefore outside of the controlled enviroment necessary to perform experiment. Which is all to say that this is why judging a result on the standard of has it been replicated, isn't a method of scientific control, but a method of scientific debate control. In an arena where scientific integrity is in short supply. But all scientific controls are experiment-specific.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby dada » Fri Jun 04, 2021 4:01 pm

We could say Bohm got lucky, the established pecking order only went after his career, and didn't go after his legacy. We all know modern examples of scientists that got the treatment on both fronts, Tesla, Reich. Trashing files, destroying laboratories and equipment, burning books. Flushing entire life's works down the toilet, as it were.

Working overtime, changing the footnotes of history. And it might make us think, naturally, of other scientists that have received the treatment over the years. That the science they have devised may have later been proved valid through experimental replication or not, doesn't change the fact that this exact appeal to the validation method of replication was used as a weapon against them in the concerted effort to suppress their work, slowing down the history of science to a crawl, deforming it, stretching it out thin.

We might then consider it was like this before the heretic astronomers put the sol in solar system, as well. It's funny, feels like this post could just as easily go here as on the "limits of science" thread.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Jun 04, 2021 7:24 pm

dada » Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:27 pm wrote:" I'm not assuming everything is a lie, of course."

Maybe that's where the debate really begins, here on this message board. In the assuming and not assuming, I mean. I see no scientific benefit in not assuming everything is a lie. It could very well be. I begin from the scientifically determined premise, as do the others on this debate team, that the biggest lies are the ones we tell ourselves.

"For one, it ties back to a key theme in science (true science, that is): replication. The fundamentals of science require that in order for a premise/theory to be considered valid, it needs to be replicated over time."

It's a romantic theory, but doesn't hold in reality. Say you have a scientist like David Bohm. The establishment pecking order doesn't like the challenge his science presents, and so they just ignore it and don't replicate his work. The "key of true science" actually limits the field, the "validation" that replication brings is weaponized and withheld, not a useful standard but a method of scientific debate control.


Quick drive-by comment as i'll be out of pocket for a few days, but i'm largely in alignment with the spirit of the above.

Replication has indeed become romantic in theory, at least with contemporary/late 20th/early 21st century science. Perhaps even historically.
Business and enterprise are the drivers of much front-facing science.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5216
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby DrEvil » Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:48 pm

Just a quick note on what McGowan says:

the entire space program has largely been, from its inception, little more than an elaborate cover for the research, development and deployment of space-based weaponry and surveillance systems. The media never talk about such things, of course, but government documents make clear that the goals being pursued through space research are largely military in nature.


I agree with this, but the way I see it is they learned what they needed going to the Moon, and so stopped doing it when it was no longer necessary. Instead they shifted their focus to Earth orbit where they could apply the things learned from the earlier program (guidance systems, communications, telemetry, materials, sensors, rocketry, etc.). No point in noodling around on the Moon when all your targets are on Earth, and as a bonus you just demonstrated to those targets that you can hit anything you want with a missile.

The reason they're gearing back up now is China. Space is suddenly a contested area, and no way in Hell the US will let China take the lead, especially now that large scale activities and a permanent human presence are a distinct possibility. Just imagine the US hyping up their return to the Moon only to be beat by China. Not acceptable. If nothing else they have to get there first to make sure all the earlier fake landings are staged correctly :).
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3972
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby BenDhyan » Thu Jun 17, 2021 8:28 pm

One of the contenders for the building of habitats for NASA's Lunar Artemis Program, nice.

Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby BenDhyan » Tue Nov 09, 2021 8:14 pm

Given the lawsuit and covid it is understandable, hopefully BS will adjust his kind offer of my drink of choice accordingly, preferably to 2026 just to be fair.
Crewed Artemis moon landing pushed back to 2025, NASA says

November 10, 2021

Blue Origin’s failed lawsuit against NASA over the Human Landing System (HLS) contract, which was thrown out by a judge last week, and the growing progress of the Chinese space program were at the top of mind for NASA officials during a Tuesday briefing updating the public on the agency’s Artemis program.

NASA Administration Bill Nelson had strong words on the lawsuit, saying that the agency lost “nearly seven months in litigation” over HLS, leading to two of the forthcoming missions pushed back by a year or more. Now, Artemis-2 will take place in May 2024, while Artemis-3 – which aims to put the first woman and the first person of color on the moon – will take place no earlier than 2025. (Artemis-1, an uncrewed mission and the first to use NASA’s Space Launch System and Orion capsule, is on track for early 2022.)

https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/09/crewed-artemis-moon-landing-pushed-back-to-2025-nasa-says/

Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby Belligerent Savant » Thu Aug 04, 2022 4:19 pm

.

Anyone here still believe we're going to Mars (or the Moon) anytime soon (ever)?

Myth of Progress. A powerful drug, this notion of "onward and upward!"

Not for the majority, at least.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5216
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby DrEvil » Thu Aug 04, 2022 6:16 pm

Or actual progress. The SLS is launching soon (probably, maybe), although I sincerely hope it will have what the Ars Technica commentariat has started calling a Wickwick event, after the poster Wickwick who hopes it will blow up on the launch pad and take out both the rocket and the launch tower. Basically, it has to do enough damage that congress finally stops throwing money at it. And don't worry, there won't be any astronauts on it.

Then there's SpaceX, slowly progressing on the Starship (unexpected explosion notwithstanding), with an assembly line set up to mass produce them. Blue Origin are still going, China just launched the second module of their new space station and have plans for a Moon base, and India is gearing up for crewed launches too.

There's also a ton of private space companies of all shapes and sizes, ranging from already launching to Pythom Space (check them out if you haven't. They're hilariously and dangerously inept. Cook up your own toxic fuels and transport them in an unmarked pickup truck? Sure! Frantically run away from resulting toxic cloud when testing? Absolutely. Stand beneath the rocket when hoisting it upright, while clearly seeing the supports bending under the stress? Check! Say 5, 3, 4, 2, 1 when counting down? Do you even have to ask?).

Point being: there's a lot of stuff happening in the launch industry right now, and some of them will probably succeed (and some will definitely, spectacularly fail). I'd say there's a good chance there's people on the Moon by the end of this decade at least.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3972
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby DrEvil » Fri Aug 05, 2022 6:34 pm

To illustrate my point further: yesterday four different US rockets from different companies launched to orbit.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3972
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Fri Aug 05, 2022 6:49 pm

Belligerent Savant » Thu Aug 04, 2022 3:19 pm wrote:.

Anyone here still believe we're going to Mars (or the Moon) anytime soon (ever)?



I thought the Kim Stanley Robinson trilogy was magnificent hard sci-fi, but he wrote it about some other species, it's not about human beings. His views on solving climate change stem from the same weird mix of engineering autism and totally naive models of politics.

The economics of maintaining restaurant freezer sized living quarters for eternal debt slaves to do menial labor to maintain restaurant freezer sized living quarters for eternal debt slaves will never work out. Unless there is something easily attainable and transportable on Mars that can be harvested and processed by robots, I have a hard time seeing it at any point in the next two or three centuries.

That said, we are at the cusp of humanity's greatest experiment in totalitarian technological control to reshape homo sapiens as an animal, so perhaps our overclass may yet attain the worker drone specs they need to perfect a Planetary Gosplan Economy and begin shaping the crooked timber of our beautiful primate heritage into something more suitable for space travel. On this front, Peter Watts is a much more worthy read -- and a far better writer, to boot.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby Harvey » Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:28 pm

DrEvil » Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:16 pm wrote:I'd say there's a good chance there's people on the Moon by the end of this decade at least.


How do you reconcile the following with each other:

What you think space exploration is, should or could be for.

What it is for.

The urgency to establish an extra-terrestrial beachhead while the fuel, material, will and technological critical mass exists to do so.

The knowledge potentially available.

The excitement of discovery.

The adventure.

The cost of space travel. Everything from the carbon footprint of SpaceIndustryᵀᴹ to the Globocap/MIC financial and technological base necessary for space travel to exist. As you know, the US military alone has a bigger carbon footprint than many countries combined while every single space faring nation on earth is raping that same earth dry of resources. Cost/benefit?

The very ideology that is busily destroying human cultures, biodiversity, ecologies and itself in the name of everything from progress and humanitarianism to ecology is intimately bound to space exploration.

The very people setting the agenda of space exploration (they don't give a fuck about you) do not have your passions or interests at heart. Yet the people who do have your interests at heart all happen to work for them.



:shrug:
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby Harvey » Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:56 pm

Wombaticus Rex » Fri Aug 05, 2022 11:49 pm wrote:
Belligerent Savant » Thu Aug 04, 2022 3:19 pm wrote:.

Anyone here still believe we're going to Mars (or the Moon) anytime soon (ever)?



I thought the Kim Stanley Robinson trilogy was magnificent hard sci-fi, but he wrote it about some other species, it's not about human beings. His views on solving climate change stem from the same weird mix of engineering autism and totally naive models of politics.


Don't forget they were written some time ago. I think he's rowing back from some of his earlier positions on things, we live and learn. And he has been rustling some feathers in the hard SF community with one or two of his recent novels...
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby DrEvil » Fri Aug 05, 2022 10:56 pm

Harvey » Sat Aug 06, 2022 1:28 am wrote:
DrEvil » Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:16 pm wrote:I'd say there's a good chance there's people on the Moon by the end of this decade at least.


How do you reconcile the following with each other:

What you think space exploration is, should or could be for.

What it is for.

The urgency to establish an extra-terrestrial beachhead while the fuel, material, will and technological critical mass exists to do so.

The knowledge potentially available.

The excitement of discovery.

The adventure.

The cost of space travel. Everything from the carbon footprint of SpaceIndustryᵀᴹ to the Globocap/MIC financial and technological base necessary for space travel to exist. As you know, the US military alone has a bigger carbon footprint than many countries combined while every single space faring nation on earth is raping that same earth dry of resources. Cost/benefit?

The very ideology that is busily destroying human cultures, biodiversity, ecologies and itself in the name of everything from progress and humanitarianism to ecology is intimately bound to space exploration.

The very people setting the agenda of space exploration (they don't give a fuck about you) do not have your passions or interests at heart. Yet the people who do have your interests at heart all happen to work for them.



:shrug:


All of the above, and I don't (reconcile, that is). I know they're assholes who couldn't care less about me. I don't care. If I had to take into account every asshole everywhere in every decision I make and belief I hold I would have to go live off the land in a cabin I built myself and never talk to another human being or hold any firm beliefs. There's always an asshole somewhere in the things you like. Even living off the land would put me in the same camp as a bunch of race war prepper assholes and anarcho-primitivist lunatics. I chose to put up with them being assholes because I want us to go explore, and they're the ones making it possible, even if I hate all the other shit they're pulling. The alternative is no space exploration but we still get all the other shit they're pulling.

I know it's an utopian and wildly unrealistic view, and that the odds of it happening are slim, but I want humanity to expand outwards and explore the cosmos. I'm not really concerned about the next ten years - seeing some dude walk on the Moon again isn't going to do shit, but it's a first step - but the next two hundred, and two thousand, even if I'm never seeing it myself. We can either stay here and slowly die off, or we can go out there (and probably still slowly die off, but going to extreme environments might push us to evolve in all sorts of ways. Random tangent: some people think the reason we haven't found any aliens is because we're the first. We're the ancient aliens responsible for panspermia that others will ponder and theorize about on other worlds, we just haven't gotten there yet, so chop chop!), and see some amazing things along the way.

But the Mars trilogy is great science fiction.

Tl;dr: I'm a hypocrite who reads too much science fiction and loves space. I'm willing to put up with a lot of shit to see it happen. Sue me. :wink:
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3972
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby BenDhyan » Sat Aug 06, 2022 8:01 am

The thing about evolution is that it is only ever happening in the here and now, it does not depend on a contemporary observer's opinion at any stage. The space age has begun, no one can stop its inevitable evolution, per ardua ad astra.
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests