Philae has landed(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Philae has landed
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30026398
308 comments
Absolutely stunning feat of engineering. My bosses are on the drill team for Philae and were amongst the nervy faces being beamed all over the world. Great example of what European nations can do when politics don't get in the way. ExoMars [1] and Bepi-Colombo [2] are perfect examples of the inverse.
Look forward to the first pictures from the surface. I'm at the Division on Planetary Sciences (DPS) meeting [3] in Tucson at the moment, and there are already incredible results being presented based on data acquired by Rosetta. Stay tuned for a whole lot more!
[1] http://exploration.esa.int/mars/46048-programme-overview
[2] http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/BepiColombo_...
[3] http://aas.org/meetings/dps46
Look forward to the first pictures from the surface. I'm at the Division on Planetary Sciences (DPS) meeting [3] in Tucson at the moment, and there are already incredible results being presented based on data acquired by Rosetta. Stay tuned for a whole lot more!
[1] http://exploration.esa.int/mars/46048-programme-overview
[2] http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/BepiColombo_...
[3] http://aas.org/meetings/dps46
Just an update: the harpoons did fail, but the engineers were very concerned about marked fluctuations in the telemetry. There was a suggestion that the lander might actually be tumbling, but those fears seem to have been allayed by the fact that the oscillations seem to have stopped. The engineers will comb through the data over the coming hours, in anticipation of the next downlink, which should be around 4:30am CET (13th Nov). It seems like there might have been bit of a bounce, and the lander might have landed twice! So long as the downlink is available during the next pass, it seems like the lander has weathered the worst of the landing.
Science data has been downlinked, so fingers crossed we'll get some nice images from the surface pretty soon! There's a nice shot of the lander on the way down released already [3].
Sources:
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30031531
[2] Personal communication from ESOC, Darmstadt, Germany
[3] https://blog.flickr.net/en/2014/11/12/rosettas-philae-probe-...
Science data has been downlinked, so fingers crossed we'll get some nice images from the surface pretty soon! There's a nice shot of the lander on the way down released already [3].
Sources:
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30031531
[2] Personal communication from ESOC, Darmstadt, Germany
[3] https://blog.flickr.net/en/2014/11/12/rosettas-philae-probe-...
Here's a brief explanation of NASA's role in the mission for those eager to find out how they assisted
and a glossary of the various terms used.
http://rosetta.jpl.nasa.gov/rosetta-glossary.
( Only adding because I didn't see it mentioned elsewhere. Not for the sake of partisanship or to take away from ESA's grand accomplishment. )
ALICE , MIRO, and IES will provide information about the
dynamics of comet C-G: how it develops its coma and tails,
and how its chemicals interact with each other, and with
radiation and the solar wind.
and a glossary of the various terms used.
http://rosetta.jpl.nasa.gov/rosetta-glossary.
( Only adding because I didn't see it mentioned elsewhere. Not for the sake of partisanship or to take away from ESA's grand accomplishment. )
I agree, stunning stunning bit of science and engineering. Everybody involved in this should be beaming with joy.
Once again the light of reason continues to chase away humanity's ancestral boogiemen.
Once again the light of reason continues to chase away humanity's ancestral boogiemen.
I wish we lived in a world where the layman - the Joe Nobody - could grasp how truly momentous this is.
Too often the gravity of such endeavors is lost too quickly, from our collective imagination.
We need to reanimate the sense of wonder among the non-science inclined people everywhere, to make more of these efforts possible.
Live feed of the press conference which should start in a bit:
rosetta.esa.int
Some cool links:
http://wpc.50e6.edgecastcdn.net/8050E6/mmedia-http/download/...
http://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/avZGG4q_460sa_v1.gif
http://sci.esa.int/where_is_rosetta/
Too often the gravity of such endeavors is lost too quickly, from our collective imagination.
We need to reanimate the sense of wonder among the non-science inclined people everywhere, to make more of these efforts possible.
Live feed of the press conference which should start in a bit:
rosetta.esa.int
Some cool links:
http://wpc.50e6.edgecastcdn.net/8050E6/mmedia-http/download/...
http://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/avZGG4q_460sa_v1.gif
http://sci.esa.int/where_is_rosetta/
That 3rd link is very cool.
Do you know what does the "comet speed" means on it? Is it its speed relative to the earth ?
It's going at 18km per second, so around 65 000 km/h (40,000 mph).
People manage to land something that left from earth starting at a speed of 0.00km/h and then traveled 6.5 billion km to an object going at that speed, all of this happening 500 million km away. It is amazing!
It's going at 18km per second, so around 65 000 km/h (40,000 mph).
People manage to land something that left from earth starting at a speed of 0.00km/h and then traveled 6.5 billion km to an object going at that speed, all of this happening 500 million km away. It is amazing!
Its speed is most likely relative to Sun.
Earth moves at about 30km/s relative to sun. So that's your minimal starting speed.
Earth moves at about 30km/s relative to sun. So that's your minimal starting speed.
Speeds are generally given relative to the object being orbited, so in this case the Sun.
> Once again the light of reason continues to chase away humanity's ancestral boogiemen.
Boogiemen like the belief that humans are more than collections of atoms and random emergent behaviors? Because if those are your boogiemen, there's no particular reason to rejoice in reason, or anything else for that matter - it's all ashes in the end, and nobody will be left to care, whether we colonize Andromeda or blow ourselves up this afternoon.
Science is a collection of methods for determining facts. I find it odd when people describe it in religious-sounding terms and simultaneously scoff at religion.
But perhaps I misunderstood you?
Boogiemen like the belief that humans are more than collections of atoms and random emergent behaviors? Because if those are your boogiemen, there's no particular reason to rejoice in reason, or anything else for that matter - it's all ashes in the end, and nobody will be left to care, whether we colonize Andromeda or blow ourselves up this afternoon.
Science is a collection of methods for determining facts. I find it odd when people describe it in religious-sounding terms and simultaneously scoff at religion.
But perhaps I misunderstood you?
> humanity's ancestral boogiemen.
Comets used to have a bit of a bad reputation, as harbingers of doom. I think there's one in the bible, one appeared before the Great Plague of London, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plague_of_London
"During the winter of 1664, a bright comet was to be seen in the sky[7] and the people of London were fearful, wondering what evil event it portended."
Comets used to have a bit of a bad reputation, as harbingers of doom. I think there's one in the bible, one appeared before the Great Plague of London, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plague_of_London
"During the winter of 1664, a bright comet was to be seen in the sky[7] and the people of London were fearful, wondering what evil event it portended."
To say that we are "more" than just atoms is worthless without defining what that actually means. Magic dust doesn't have much of a place in reality, and that seems to be what you're offering. Why can't we just be a collection of atoms?
Saying science thinks we're just atoms and "random emergent behaviors" is no better than those pushing intelligent design saying evolution is a "random" process. It shows gross ignorance of how order can emerge from chaos, and the processes we already understand.
And, as best as I can tell, nobody would care if we disappeared tomorrow. The universe would keep on universin' as it always has. The reason to rejoice thinking this way is because of how amazing it is that we have the ability to know this and do things to prolong ourselves and our species.
Saying science thinks we're just atoms and "random emergent behaviors" is no better than those pushing intelligent design saying evolution is a "random" process. It shows gross ignorance of how order can emerge from chaos, and the processes we already understand.
And, as best as I can tell, nobody would care if we disappeared tomorrow. The universe would keep on universin' as it always has. The reason to rejoice thinking this way is because of how amazing it is that we have the ability to know this and do things to prolong ourselves and our species.
"Ancestral boogiemen" - see: religions. You know, those that teach that some deity actually exists "on heavens" and from time to time actively selects some groups of humans to give them some "truths" in order to make them fight with some other groups of humans (which that group will call "unbelievers" and vice versa). Some people try not to use that "religion" word in a fear to be named "intolerant" even if they don't name particular deity, naming which some particular religious group can be offended this or any time.
> there's no particular reason to rejoice [...] it's all ashes in the end
I hear this sort of thing quite often and I am never convinced that it makes any sense.
The underlying, unstated assumption seems to be: Whether we care about something now should depend on what will happen in the infinitely distant future.
But why?
What's supposed to be wrong with rejoicing now in the discoveries we're making now (and the ones in the past that have affected us, and the ones in the nearish future that our work may contribute to)?
Why should something millions of years in the future that I can't do anything about determine what I care about now?
(Of course maybe we can do something about it; maybe some amazing future discovery will allow us to extend the lifetime of the sun, or escape to another universe, or something. But for present purposes I'm granting the premise that we can't do anything about it, and that it inevitably is "all ashes in the end". If not, obviously the argument nathan_long is making gets even weaker.)
I hear this sort of thing quite often and I am never convinced that it makes any sense.
The underlying, unstated assumption seems to be: Whether we care about something now should depend on what will happen in the infinitely distant future.
But why?
What's supposed to be wrong with rejoicing now in the discoveries we're making now (and the ones in the past that have affected us, and the ones in the nearish future that our work may contribute to)?
Why should something millions of years in the future that I can't do anything about determine what I care about now?
(Of course maybe we can do something about it; maybe some amazing future discovery will allow us to extend the lifetime of the sun, or escape to another universe, or something. But for present purposes I'm granting the premise that we can't do anything about it, and that it inevitably is "all ashes in the end". If not, obviously the argument nathan_long is making gets even weaker.)
>Boogiemen like the belief that humans are more than collections of atoms and random emergent behaviors?
"Behind all of these dehumanizing practices is the idolization of science, an attitude that results in the attempt to reduce all things to the level at which they will be fit objects for study according to the canons of natural science. The massive material success of science has made it seem to many a panacea. It suffices to claim that a thing must be attempted for the sake of science in order to silence all abjections. Nonetheless, although the achievements of science are in themselves great and great are its benefits to mankind, it is absurd to believe that science is man's highest good, let alone the highest good in itself" (Hildebrand, "On Science Fetishism").
Now the Almighty demands, "Why do this people approach With their mouth and their lips, To pay honour to Me, While their heart is far off? Their reverence is worthless to Me;-- It teaches the doctrines of men!
"So on this Race I lay wonders, Add wonders to wonders, Destroying its scientists' science, And baffling its scholars' researches." Fools! Is the Formed thought its Framer? Can the Work tell the Workman, "You never made me?" Or the Made tell its Maker, "You do not know how?"
Isaiah 29:13-16
>Once again the light of reason continues to chase away humanity's ancestral boogiemen.
"It is a characteristic symptom of immaturity to feel oneself more mature and independent than men of previous times, to forget what one owes the past, and, in a kind of adolescent self-assertion, to refuse any assistance" (Hildebrand, "On Temporal Parochialism").
"Behind all of these dehumanizing practices is the idolization of science, an attitude that results in the attempt to reduce all things to the level at which they will be fit objects for study according to the canons of natural science. The massive material success of science has made it seem to many a panacea. It suffices to claim that a thing must be attempted for the sake of science in order to silence all abjections. Nonetheless, although the achievements of science are in themselves great and great are its benefits to mankind, it is absurd to believe that science is man's highest good, let alone the highest good in itself" (Hildebrand, "On Science Fetishism").
Now the Almighty demands, "Why do this people approach With their mouth and their lips, To pay honour to Me, While their heart is far off? Their reverence is worthless to Me;-- It teaches the doctrines of men!
"So on this Race I lay wonders, Add wonders to wonders, Destroying its scientists' science, And baffling its scholars' researches." Fools! Is the Formed thought its Framer? Can the Work tell the Workman, "You never made me?" Or the Made tell its Maker, "You do not know how?"
Isaiah 29:13-16
>Once again the light of reason continues to chase away humanity's ancestral boogiemen.
"It is a characteristic symptom of immaturity to feel oneself more mature and independent than men of previous times, to forget what one owes the past, and, in a kind of adolescent self-assertion, to refuse any assistance" (Hildebrand, "On Temporal Parochialism").
I don't see how having 'god(s)' out there some how magically adds meaning?
idk what a feat of science, engineering and maths has to do with vague allusions to lights of reasons and the other high-and-mighty semi-religious language being used in reference to this event.
The video of Rosetta's 12 year journey in space is both impressive and informative:
http://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/Videos/2013/10/Rosetta_s_tw...
http://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/Videos/2013/10/Rosetta_s_tw...
Care to give a hint about what kind of results those are?
Sure. You can look up the abstracts for the Rosetta sessions at DPS to get a better sense of the work that has been done and is being conducted [1]-[3]. Some of the highlights presented at DPS, based on the talks that I attended, include:
* Further image analysis has shown that Comet 67P likely has very low strength, perhaps in areas even just powders held together by van der Waals forces
* The Microwave Instrument for the Rosetta Orbiter (MIRO) has clearly detected water (+ isotopes) in the coma of the comet. MIRO results indicate that the top layer is dusty and loose.
* There is a clear thermal signature from the neck of 67P that doesn't match expected results.
* Magnetic field variations in the neighborhood of 67P pose an interesting puzzle that will hopefully shed more info about the core (http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/11/the-singing-comet/).
There were also a few sessions on other comets that have made the news (e.g., Siding Spring which had a close encounter with Mars recently)[4]-[6].
To address the issue of why any of this is important at all. It hits at the heart of our quest to understand the world around us. Although it's often hard to pinpoint everyday impact of this and related research, it is undoubtedly the case that it forms a vital piece of the puzzle of where we came from and where we're going.
[1] Rosetta 1: https://guidebook.com/guide/26449/event/9876531/
[2] Rosetta 2 / Comet Coma Chemistry and Nuclear Outbursts: https://guidebook.com/guide/26449/event/9876560/
[3] Hot Facts About Cool Comets: https://guidebook.com/guide/26449/event/9876955/
[4] Comets K1 (PanStarrs) and A1 (Siding Spring): https://guidebook.com/guide/26449/event/9876530/
[5] Sun-grazing Comet ISON: https://guidebook.com/guide/26449/event/9876567/
[6] Comet Dust, Tails, Trails, and Oddballs: https://guidebook.com/guide/26449/event/9876561/
* Further image analysis has shown that Comet 67P likely has very low strength, perhaps in areas even just powders held together by van der Waals forces
* The Microwave Instrument for the Rosetta Orbiter (MIRO) has clearly detected water (+ isotopes) in the coma of the comet. MIRO results indicate that the top layer is dusty and loose.
* There is a clear thermal signature from the neck of 67P that doesn't match expected results.
* Magnetic field variations in the neighborhood of 67P pose an interesting puzzle that will hopefully shed more info about the core (http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/11/the-singing-comet/).
There were also a few sessions on other comets that have made the news (e.g., Siding Spring which had a close encounter with Mars recently)[4]-[6].
To address the issue of why any of this is important at all. It hits at the heart of our quest to understand the world around us. Although it's often hard to pinpoint everyday impact of this and related research, it is undoubtedly the case that it forms a vital piece of the puzzle of where we came from and where we're going.
[1] Rosetta 1: https://guidebook.com/guide/26449/event/9876531/
[2] Rosetta 2 / Comet Coma Chemistry and Nuclear Outbursts: https://guidebook.com/guide/26449/event/9876560/
[3] Hot Facts About Cool Comets: https://guidebook.com/guide/26449/event/9876955/
[4] Comets K1 (PanStarrs) and A1 (Siding Spring): https://guidebook.com/guide/26449/event/9876530/
[5] Sun-grazing Comet ISON: https://guidebook.com/guide/26449/event/9876567/
[6] Comet Dust, Tails, Trails, and Oddballs: https://guidebook.com/guide/26449/event/9876561/
Could you speak more on the "everyday impact" about this landing? I'm trying to understand why this was worth the billion euros. It's seriously cool but that's all anybody seems to be saying. How does this really affect us?
Let's say a comet is going to impact Earth in a few decades. One proposal among many [0] to divert a comet is to aim a laser at it for a few years, long enough for the outgassing from the laser spot to push the comet onto an orbit that misses the Earth.
If you were designing a mission like that, wouldn't you want to have first-hand knowledge about the comet's surface?
This is also a baby step. We now feel more confident about landing equipment on irregularly shaped, rapidly spinning objects with negligible gravitational fields. Conservative estimates about the aggregate value of all of the rare heavy metals available inside a near-earth asteroid go into the trillions of dollars.
[0] http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~jmelosh/HazardsDeflect.pdf
If you were designing a mission like that, wouldn't you want to have first-hand knowledge about the comet's surface?
This is also a baby step. We now feel more confident about landing equipment on irregularly shaped, rapidly spinning objects with negligible gravitational fields. Conservative estimates about the aggregate value of all of the rare heavy metals available inside a near-earth asteroid go into the trillions of dollars.
[0] http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~jmelosh/HazardsDeflect.pdf
I think your latter point (about the value of asteroids) will have a much larger impact on the world and spacefaring in general than, say, observations about the temperature of an asteroid. If it turns out there's trillions worth of materials in asteroids, then I can guarantee the world's budget for spacefaring will go up a hundredfold within a few years.
Going to space for science (or beating the Russians) is one thing, going there for profit is a completely different matter and will attract heavy investors.
Going to space for science (or beating the Russians) is one thing, going there for profit is a completely different matter and will attract heavy investors.
One problem with the space asteroid mining argument is that if you flood the market with precious metals, the value of them will plummet.
>Let's say a comet is going to impact Earth in a few decades.
You can't just make up stuff like this... sure, it could happen but you have to go off probability. What's the probability an asteroid will end all life on earth in the next thousand years? I'd guess not very likely.
You can't just make up stuff like this... sure, it could happen but you have to go off probability. What's the probability an asteroid will end all life on earth in the next thousand years? I'd guess not very likely.
It doesn't have to end all life on earth, it just has to end ours. Moss and bacteria will survive a lot more than we will.
Plus, to be rational, you have to evaluate not only probability but also potential losses, and multiply the two. A messed-up climate causing crop failures and population reverting to, say, middle ages counts would cost, say, 100 years' worth of 95% of current world GDP. Human extinction, from a human point of view, has infinite cost.
Plus, to be rational, you have to evaluate not only probability but also potential losses, and multiply the two. A messed-up climate causing crop failures and population reverting to, say, middle ages counts would cost, say, 100 years' worth of 95% of current world GDP. Human extinction, from a human point of view, has infinite cost.
I have been following this mission for months now. I was completely obsessed. Didn't get much work done today, that's how excited I was. That must be how groupies feel like :)
Amazing landing, whether or not the screws are in: hitting the comet is already amazing!
Amazing landing, whether or not the screws are in: hitting the comet is already amazing!
I have to say this is Science Awesomeness at it's best, and I'm bothered by the lack of media coverage. Perhaps if all of us posted and retweeted we could get some motion on this?
Perhaps you have access to bad media outlets? No criticism, I really wonder why is that because in Brazil we are seeing headlines like "like the discovery of the americas", "we landed in a comet, better than science fiction" (top 5th news for over a day in the biggest news portal of the country), "making history" and "understanding our origins" :-) it's all pretty exciting
All I see on cnn.com is "#WeCanLandOnACometButWeCant" and it's been very inactive in my Facebook feed. Maybe I need less superficial friends?
I wonder if it's different in the US because it didn't come from NASA. (I'm just as happy enjoying the science with someone else footing the bill)
I wonder if it's different in the US because it didn't come from NASA. (I'm just as happy enjoying the science with someone else footing the bill)
When my mom hears about stuff like this, it feels like it's getting enough coverage.
How can you people be so dishonest with yourselves and everyone else?
Look at the fallacious arguments you put forward:
- Nations have a long history of funding exploratory ventures. (appeal to tradition - doing something for a long time does not make it right to keep doing it)
- it creates jobs (unseen consequences - it destroys more needed jobs that would have been created or maintained had this money been used by those who earned it)
- there is a small chance that something practical could be discovered (citation needed; also, not a good enough reason to justify mass extortion)
- it satisfies a basic human need to know more (at what price? how much money is it fair to steal from the population in order to indulge the curiosity of those who largely can't be bothered to finish a book?)
- surely that's worth spending some money on? (no one is saying you can't spend your money on it. knock yourself out)
- but a world without curiosity would be pretty sad (appeal to emotion and consequences - this is coming from someone not curious enough to know how money works and why public works projects are the same as the broken window fallacy)
- Because it has huge benefits (citation needed)
- one could argue that the money that was funneled into NASA during the moon landings gave tax payers much more bang for their buck than all kinds of other research, social programs, bank bailouts, etc. (please go ahead and make that argument)
- These sorts of human achievement defining missions are really hundreds of thousands of hours of engineering dedicated to solving some of the hardest problems we can dream up. (Keynesian misattribution of value: "it takes a long time and a lot of effort so it has to be worth something!")
- You are way too short sighted (ad hominem)
- This opinion is short-sighted. (ad hominem)
- There may be zero practical attributable scientific or engineering benefits, though I am sure there will be plentiful. ("trust me, I know more than you do")
- However, such epic events are extremely inspiring! (appeal to emotion)
- This may be a single trigger that will send many curious young guys and girls towards STEM professions. (anything mya be a trigger to anything until proven to be the case or not; if we're looking for triggers to sent guys and girls to STEM we should survey the alternatives and pick the most cost effective one; this is an improvised excuse for carrying on with public works projects)
- I 'd dare you to specify what's more important where your money should be spent. (stolen money should not be spent in more or less important things, it should be returned to their rightful owner so they can choose what to do with what they've earned)
Look at the fallacious arguments you put forward:
- Nations have a long history of funding exploratory ventures. (appeal to tradition - doing something for a long time does not make it right to keep doing it)
- it creates jobs (unseen consequences - it destroys more needed jobs that would have been created or maintained had this money been used by those who earned it)
- there is a small chance that something practical could be discovered (citation needed; also, not a good enough reason to justify mass extortion)
- it satisfies a basic human need to know more (at what price? how much money is it fair to steal from the population in order to indulge the curiosity of those who largely can't be bothered to finish a book?)
- surely that's worth spending some money on? (no one is saying you can't spend your money on it. knock yourself out)
- but a world without curiosity would be pretty sad (appeal to emotion and consequences - this is coming from someone not curious enough to know how money works and why public works projects are the same as the broken window fallacy)
- Because it has huge benefits (citation needed)
- one could argue that the money that was funneled into NASA during the moon landings gave tax payers much more bang for their buck than all kinds of other research, social programs, bank bailouts, etc. (please go ahead and make that argument)
- These sorts of human achievement defining missions are really hundreds of thousands of hours of engineering dedicated to solving some of the hardest problems we can dream up. (Keynesian misattribution of value: "it takes a long time and a lot of effort so it has to be worth something!")
- You are way too short sighted (ad hominem)
- This opinion is short-sighted. (ad hominem)
- There may be zero practical attributable scientific or engineering benefits, though I am sure there will be plentiful. ("trust me, I know more than you do")
- However, such epic events are extremely inspiring! (appeal to emotion)
- This may be a single trigger that will send many curious young guys and girls towards STEM professions. (anything mya be a trigger to anything until proven to be the case or not; if we're looking for triggers to sent guys and girls to STEM we should survey the alternatives and pick the most cost effective one; this is an improvised excuse for carrying on with public works projects)
- I 'd dare you to specify what's more important where your money should be spent. (stolen money should not be spent in more or less important things, it should be returned to their rightful owner so they can choose what to do with what they've earned)
It's clear you object to taxation and redistribution, not scientific research. As such, your argument here is inappropriate, since this discussion is about science and technology, not taxation.
I suggestion you take your arguments to an economics and politics blog. In the meantime, unless you are a completely dishonest hypocrite, you will stop using everything that has been funded by the coercive taxation you so incoherently decry. That would include most medicine--including vaccines and anti-biotics--as well as a good deal of dentistry, GPS, cell phones, computers, and indeed all semi-conductor technology, as well as roads, railways, airplanes, radio, sailing ships, and almost everything else.
While almost all technology has a private component in its development, it almost all has a fairly significant component that was funded by coercive taxation. Since you believe for some reason that coercive taxation is a bad thing--despite it being responsible for massive increases in human well-being. It seems a bit odd to be against something that has been, empirically, unarguably, responsible for so much good. It's a bit like being against capitalism, or free trade.
I suggestion you take your arguments to an economics and politics blog. In the meantime, unless you are a completely dishonest hypocrite, you will stop using everything that has been funded by the coercive taxation you so incoherently decry. That would include most medicine--including vaccines and anti-biotics--as well as a good deal of dentistry, GPS, cell phones, computers, and indeed all semi-conductor technology, as well as roads, railways, airplanes, radio, sailing ships, and almost everything else.
While almost all technology has a private component in its development, it almost all has a fairly significant component that was funded by coercive taxation. Since you believe for some reason that coercive taxation is a bad thing--despite it being responsible for massive increases in human well-being. It seems a bit odd to be against something that has been, empirically, unarguably, responsible for so much good. It's a bit like being against capitalism, or free trade.
Few people agree that taxation is the same as theft. You appear to be someone who does have this view. That is fine but it is not a commonly held belief and generally is subject to derision and down voting. This should not come as a shock to you.
A very large percentage of people believe that having a functioning government is necessary and taxation is a necessary component for this. There are no examples of large populations of humans (many millions for the definition of large) living well without government. There are lots of examples of the reverse being true. That is, finding places where large populations live quite well with a government. Correlation not implying causation and all that, one can reasonably conclude that a functioning government, and hence taxation, is a necessity for large populations to live well.
There are lots of examples of functioning governments performing badly and subjecting large populations to miserable conditions. This means that people need to be vigilant with regard to the governance. It's good for people to question the decisions their governments make and people at the fringe can provide nice counter balances to group think and a herd mentality. Calling taxation theft might be a bit too extreme though.
Overall I think your view of each individual funding themselves only what they feel deserves funding is highly impractical and ignores human nature. Specifically it ignores the free rider problem. It also ignores that such a method is highly inefficient. Government is much more efficient than the solution you posed in another post of yours.
It is nice to fantasize about being like Daniel Boone and going it alone without need for government but in a nation of 350 million people that ability does not exist for any but a very few. The go it alone mentality does not scale well to large populations and have the net effect of making us all poorer.
A very large percentage of people believe that having a functioning government is necessary and taxation is a necessary component for this. There are no examples of large populations of humans (many millions for the definition of large) living well without government. There are lots of examples of the reverse being true. That is, finding places where large populations live quite well with a government. Correlation not implying causation and all that, one can reasonably conclude that a functioning government, and hence taxation, is a necessity for large populations to live well.
There are lots of examples of functioning governments performing badly and subjecting large populations to miserable conditions. This means that people need to be vigilant with regard to the governance. It's good for people to question the decisions their governments make and people at the fringe can provide nice counter balances to group think and a herd mentality. Calling taxation theft might be a bit too extreme though.
Overall I think your view of each individual funding themselves only what they feel deserves funding is highly impractical and ignores human nature. Specifically it ignores the free rider problem. It also ignores that such a method is highly inefficient. Government is much more efficient than the solution you posed in another post of yours.
It is nice to fantasize about being like Daniel Boone and going it alone without need for government but in a nation of 350 million people that ability does not exist for any but a very few. The go it alone mentality does not scale well to large populations and have the net effect of making us all poorer.
Taxation might not fit the strict definition of theft (easy when the gov creates its own jargon), but it is the threat of force to take property from someone against their will. I mean, how many of us are giving money directly to the gov by our own volition? I don't know of anyone. We were born into this system and we never agreed to it. Let's at least be honest about that.
> There are no examples of large populations of humans (many millions for the definition of large) living well without government.
That there are no examples means nothing. Would you say if most of the world were enslaved that because there are no examples of a free people, it's not worth while to try? You end violent institutions because they are immoral.
> There are no examples of large populations of humans (many millions for the definition of large) living well without government.
That there are no examples means nothing. Would you say if most of the world were enslaved that because there are no examples of a free people, it's not worth while to try? You end violent institutions because they are immoral.
There are a lot of books you should read about this stuff; it'll make you more educated on it than any reply here can.
I'd start with Rousseau's 'The Social Contract,' Locke's second treatise on government, Hobbes' 'Leviathan', John Stuart Mill's 'On Utilitarianism,' Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, and Hume's Political Discourses.
I'd start with Rousseau's 'The Social Contract,' Locke's second treatise on government, Hobbes' 'Leviathan', John Stuart Mill's 'On Utilitarianism,' Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, and Hume's Political Discourses.
> I mean, how many of us are giving money directly to the gov by our own volition? I don't know of anyone.
I do. I also make it a point not to seek out ways to decrease the taxes I'm obligated to pay.
I'd probably donate directly to some governmental agencies if I knew of such a mechanism.
There. Now you know someone who does.
I do. I also make it a point not to seek out ways to decrease the taxes I'm obligated to pay.
I'd probably donate directly to some governmental agencies if I knew of such a mechanism.
There. Now you know someone who does.
> but it is the threat of force to take property from someone against their will.
So are laws. Your right to kill me is impeded by the justice system's threat of force to imprison you as a result. This is where most rational people come to understand that personal freedoms must be limited for the sake of peaceful co-operation.
But good luck establishing your Utopia without Laws and Taxes. I look forward to reading about it in the news.
So are laws. Your right to kill me is impeded by the justice system's threat of force to imprison you as a result. This is where most rational people come to understand that personal freedoms must be limited for the sake of peaceful co-operation.
But good luck establishing your Utopia without Laws and Taxes. I look forward to reading about it in the news.
> it is the threat of force to take property from someone against their will.
No it's not. It's the threat of force against people who use that market and then refuse to pay the fees they owe. Any service can (and would) do the same via the legal system. I've never paid the US government a penny, because I don't use their market.
> We were born into this system and we never agreed to it.
You certainly have the option of leaving that market if you don't like its fees. Or of attempting to get them changed by voting for a representative that shares your views.
> Would you say if most of the world were enslaved that because there are no examples of a free people, it's not worth while to try?
If all the examples of 'free people' were actually living in much worse conditions than the so-called 'enslaved' ones, I'd certainly stop to question the definitions of 'enslaved' and 'free'.
No it's not. It's the threat of force against people who use that market and then refuse to pay the fees they owe. Any service can (and would) do the same via the legal system. I've never paid the US government a penny, because I don't use their market.
> We were born into this system and we never agreed to it.
You certainly have the option of leaving that market if you don't like its fees. Or of attempting to get them changed by voting for a representative that shares your views.
> Would you say if most of the world were enslaved that because there are no examples of a free people, it's not worth while to try?
If all the examples of 'free people' were actually living in much worse conditions than the so-called 'enslaved' ones, I'd certainly stop to question the definitions of 'enslaved' and 'free'.
You're making a false equivalency between the State and other market actors. You may not be using the US government's services, but you're probably using your own government's. Forcing a service on people (say the War on Drugs) and then demanding payment through taxation is different from competing in the market. Even if you cite paying a fee for using the roads--not too controversial--to gain a monopoly on road-building, the government had to use the threat of force. You must follow things back to the origin.
> You certainly have the option of leaving that market if you don't like its fees.
For a price, and then only to enter another country.
> You certainly have the option of leaving that market if you don't like its fees.
For a price, and then only to enter another country.
>For a price, and then only to enter another country.
Yeah, what would you expect? If you leave the social contract, you have all your rights back. Then again, you are no longer entitled to the protections society affords you. In an abstract version of this, upon completely leaving the system you were born into, you are subject to the state of nature and so the state can kill you if it feels like it. Or it can enslave you, or take all your property; what are you going to do about it?
You don't have to pay taxes, though.
Yeah, what would you expect? If you leave the social contract, you have all your rights back. Then again, you are no longer entitled to the protections society affords you. In an abstract version of this, upon completely leaving the system you were born into, you are subject to the state of nature and so the state can kill you if it feels like it. Or it can enslave you, or take all your property; what are you going to do about it?
You don't have to pay taxes, though.
> You're making a false equivalency between the State and other market actors.
This is a meaningless objection: no two things are exactly the same, but it can be useful to consider how they're similar.
> You may not be using the US government's services, but you're probably using your own government's.
Yes, and then I pay for them.
> Forcing a service on people (say the War on Drugs) and then demanding payment through taxation is different from competing in the market.
No it's not. Many companies take the money I paid for their service and use it in ways I don't like. I get far less say in their use of this money than I do in my country's government.
(My government doesn't have a monopoly on road building - I had to pay for the road up to my house - so I don't know what that refers to)
> You must follow things back to the origin.
Not really. While it may be interesting to find out the origin of certain rules and customs, it makes little difference to the way they are now.
> For a price, and then only to enter another country.
True, nothing in life is free; that's why it's a good general rule that poor people shouldn't pay taxes. But there are countries without governments and there are unclaimed territories around the world - they're just not very nice places to live.
This is a meaningless objection: no two things are exactly the same, but it can be useful to consider how they're similar.
> You may not be using the US government's services, but you're probably using your own government's.
Yes, and then I pay for them.
> Forcing a service on people (say the War on Drugs) and then demanding payment through taxation is different from competing in the market.
No it's not. Many companies take the money I paid for their service and use it in ways I don't like. I get far less say in their use of this money than I do in my country's government.
(My government doesn't have a monopoly on road building - I had to pay for the road up to my house - so I don't know what that refers to)
> You must follow things back to the origin.
Not really. While it may be interesting to find out the origin of certain rules and customs, it makes little difference to the way they are now.
> For a price, and then only to enter another country.
True, nothing in life is free; that's why it's a good general rule that poor people shouldn't pay taxes. But there are countries without governments and there are unclaimed territories around the world - they're just not very nice places to live.
If you don't like what your government spends tax money on, you have the power of the vote to (try and) change it - vote for the guy who is against the militarisation of the police forces, in favor of controlled legalisation of some drugs, and willing to shift the tax money to programs helping addicts out (and the underlying problems that cause drug addiction, like poverty, unemployment, culture, etc).
As for non-government stuff, you vote with your wallet.
As for non-government stuff, you vote with your wallet.
> We were born into this system and we never agreed to it.
This is akin to complaining about being born a human, or with two arms, or a white boy.
This is akin to complaining about being born a human, or with two arms, or a white boy.
(stolen money should not be spent in more or less important things, it should be returned to their rightful owner so they can choose what to do with what they've earned)
Just to be clear.. Your issue is not that money from taxes is spent on scientific research and space exploration, but really that you have to pay taxes?
Just to be clear.. Your issue is not that money from taxes is spent on scientific research and space exploration, but really that you have to pay taxes?
My issue is, whoever wants to accomplish something that takes a lot of money to make happen, should do like ARKYD and make a kickstarter or any other peaceful alternative, that allows for every individual to choose whether they'd like to participate.
My issue is that running to the government, just because it already has guns in place pointing to every individual's head in case they don't pay, and saying "we'll steal just 20 more cents but really it's nothing! it's so little! just let us have these 20 cents so we can do this for you, folks. for you!".
C'mon, if it's for our benefit, then convince us of it, lead by example, and ask for money peacefully without using the extortion machine of the government.
My issue is that running to the government, just because it already has guns in place pointing to every individual's head in case they don't pay, and saying "we'll steal just 20 more cents but really it's nothing! it's so little! just let us have these 20 cents so we can do this for you, folks. for you!".
C'mon, if it's for our benefit, then convince us of it, lead by example, and ask for money peacefully without using the extortion machine of the government.
Serious question, why don't you move to a country that has a tax system that you agree more with? No one is stopping you, it would be a free market victory.
I do actually think you have a bit of a point. It would probably be more ethical to spend the space exploration money in other areas. However, there is much lower hanging fruit for things to cut out before we reach space exploration (warmongering and defence budgets for example)
I do actually think you have a bit of a point. It would probably be more ethical to spend the space exploration money in other areas. However, there is much lower hanging fruit for things to cut out before we reach space exploration (warmongering and defence budgets for example)
Serious answer: I moved here to the US because this is supposed to be the Land of the Free. No other country has such an amazing legal foundation to allow for Liberty; the founding fathers came here exactly because they wanted to move to a place that had a tax system they agree with more. But in the past few generations we've destroyed this.
So it's not I that have to move somewhere else. I've already moved. I've moved to where there can be Freedom, and where there once was. I'm here because I believe in Freedom and I think we can get it back, no thanks to people like you that are OK with the erosion of this most Enlightened idea.
The real question is, those who don't believe in freedom anymore, why don't they move to Europe or something? That's what Europe has always been, so go there. People came here from Europe so they could be free, and you're spoiling it for us. This is a land of immigrants that want to be left alone. If you're not that, then at least don't complain, and it would also be nice to stop silencing those that still think this is a good idea.
To your other points, what you mentioned aren't the lower fruits, those are the most high up fruits. Lower fruits are things that can more easily be decoupled from the scope of the government. ARKYD and similar projects prove there's no need for government in sending things to space, plus all the work by Virgin and Space X. So this is a low hanging fruit and people need to understand we need to decouple this from the government purview. Defense is super hard to decouple, requiring the whole population to be armed as you have in Switzerland.
So it's not I that have to move somewhere else. I've already moved. I've moved to where there can be Freedom, and where there once was. I'm here because I believe in Freedom and I think we can get it back, no thanks to people like you that are OK with the erosion of this most Enlightened idea.
The real question is, those who don't believe in freedom anymore, why don't they move to Europe or something? That's what Europe has always been, so go there. People came here from Europe so they could be free, and you're spoiling it for us. This is a land of immigrants that want to be left alone. If you're not that, then at least don't complain, and it would also be nice to stop silencing those that still think this is a good idea.
To your other points, what you mentioned aren't the lower fruits, those are the most high up fruits. Lower fruits are things that can more easily be decoupled from the scope of the government. ARKYD and similar projects prove there's no need for government in sending things to space, plus all the work by Virgin and Space X. So this is a low hanging fruit and people need to understand we need to decouple this from the government purview. Defense is super hard to decouple, requiring the whole population to be armed as you have in Switzerland.
> The real question is, those who don't believe in freedom anymore, why don't they move to Europe or something? That's what Europe has always been, so go there. People came here from Europe so they could be free, and you're spoiling it for us
I am there!
> This is a land of immigrants that want to be left alone. If you're not that, then at least don't complain
You mean the native Americans?
I am there!
> This is a land of immigrants that want to be left alone. If you're not that, then at least don't complain
You mean the native Americans?
It's not 20 more cents... It's actually less money over time. I feel like this argument is really working against you rather than in your favor.
Extreme libertarianism is awesome in theory, but fails hard in reality. Income tax, when used smartly, can be one of the greatest things a nation has at its disposal.
Extreme libertarianism is awesome in theory, but fails hard in reality. Income tax, when used smartly, can be one of the greatest things a nation has at its disposal.
> Income tax, when used smartly, can be one of the greatest things a nation has at its disposal.
A nation is just its people. People are already in possession of this money before the income tax takes it from them. I agree that this money can be one of the greatest things that people have at their disposal, which is why I'm arguing we should not let government handle it.
Why are you against peacefully convincing people, making your case, asking for money, and then using that money for what you want? Don't we see time again with kickstarter that this works? Why do you cling to old economic ideas of redistribution of wealth to fund space programs which are supposed to be forward-thinking and future-looking? You don't think the future is decentralized, including the funding of big projects? Wow.
A nation is just its people. People are already in possession of this money before the income tax takes it from them. I agree that this money can be one of the greatest things that people have at their disposal, which is why I'm arguing we should not let government handle it.
Why are you against peacefully convincing people, making your case, asking for money, and then using that money for what you want? Don't we see time again with kickstarter that this works? Why do you cling to old economic ideas of redistribution of wealth to fund space programs which are supposed to be forward-thinking and future-looking? You don't think the future is decentralized, including the funding of big projects? Wow.
>People are already in possession of this money...I'm arguing we should not let government handle it.
a) That's what elections for. Start a party to abolish taxes and see if any people vote for you
b) HN isn't really the place for political ranting - there are other forums
a) That's what elections for. Start a party to abolish taxes and see if any people vote for you
b) HN isn't really the place for political ranting - there are other forums
Crowd-funded projects fail all the time. What do you do when your local police or fire department fail to meet their crowd-funding goals? How do you handle those that donate very little or nothing at all but consume large amounts, if not most, of the services/resources? How would an individual possibly have the time to adequately research and figure out what to crowd-fund? How would you stop outside interest groups from manipulating what gets crowd-funded? The list goes on.
This actually happens in some unfortunate places:
"Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground last week because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee."
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/t/no-pay-...
> You don't think the future is decentralized, including the funding of big projects? Wow.
Nowhere did I say that. I think there is room for both. You seem to think there isn't.
Nowhere did I say that. I think there is room for both. You seem to think there isn't.
This is slowly but surely happening, with platforms like Experiment.com [1]. The main issue that I've seen so far is that campaigns that center around raising funds to pay a scientist's salary don't seem to be working. Whether that's a case of providing better explanations as to why the money is well spent, or whether it's a culture issue, I'm not sure.
End of next year I'm going to have to job hunt again and I'm thinking of trying to crowdfund a postdoc position.
So in short, I think the transition to more crowdfunded science will happen, but as with many things that change the foundation of how science is done, it's a gradual process.
[1] https://experiment.com/
End of next year I'm going to have to job hunt again and I'm thinking of trying to crowdfund a postdoc position.
So in short, I think the transition to more crowdfunded science will happen, but as with many things that change the foundation of how science is done, it's a gradual process.
[1] https://experiment.com/
We live in a Republic, in the United States at least. As a result, you have elected certain people to represent you. Basically, you have given your proxy to someone. NASA, or any other organization, then goes to the person you've given your proxy vote to, and convinces them and leads by example, asking for money peacefully.
The person votes for it, and by extension YOU vote for it. Nobody's stealing anything; you voted to give it to them.
The person votes for it, and by extension YOU vote for it. Nobody's stealing anything; you voted to give it to them.
Unless you abstained from voting, in which case you don't get to complain either.
This is a misconception. In totalitarian countries, yes, the government can do whatever it wants and extort money, labor and other favors from the people by sheer force. But in the US, we control the government (we can get into notions like tyranny of the majority or regulatory capture, but for the most part the government is very limited in what it can and can’t do or else the people go on strike). In other words, the US government is the largest union (in the labor sense) in the history of the world. We all pay our dues in the form of taxes and get rather remarkable protections, such as a military industrial complex larger then the next dozen or so countries combined and a level of trade that lets the vast majority of the population veg out on reality TV.
I may personally agree with libertarians that the current system is far from ideal. But where we critically disagree is that a private system would ever come anywhere close to the level of civilization we currently enjoy. If you read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, almost nowhere do they talk about economics (other than taxation without representation etc). That’s because a wild west style free market is the most basic form of trade above barter. We see it everywhere, from third world villages trading with one another, to banana republics, to the startup community. It doesn’t need a specific mention, just as we don’t need to bother saying the Earth is round or gravity exists.
The free market is the basis of economies, just as evolution is the basis of the laws of our universe.
So trying to place it above things like human rights or progress in things like public health or education is just bizarre. The idea that we’ll stop paying taxes and turn every road into a toll road, charge tuition for public school, or fight the bad guys with our own handguns when they come surging over the border is.. sophomoric. And what really sucks is the more libertarian a stance the population takes, the more we see concentrated wealth and power undermine the public good, as we just witnessed in the midterm election. Why would we elect people to office whose campaign slogan is that government is bad? That’s like hiring an undertaker as your doctor. Yet we see it over and over, to the point where ideology is given equal weight to pragmatism.
So to get to the point of why paying taxes for government space exploration is a good thing: because if we didn’t, we would be paying the entirety of our incomes as debt service to a central private bank that spends the money suppressing us (the end result of global fascism). We lucked out that a slight majority of the founding fathers were more in favor of government by the people (wherever that may lead) and were willing to fight and die for that rather than fall back to the default position of oligarchy that previous governments had used for thousands of years. Yet here we are again, where wealth inequality from free market policies has reached such a degree that the scales might tip back to a government that only serves the financial elite.
I may personally agree with libertarians that the current system is far from ideal. But where we critically disagree is that a private system would ever come anywhere close to the level of civilization we currently enjoy. If you read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, almost nowhere do they talk about economics (other than taxation without representation etc). That’s because a wild west style free market is the most basic form of trade above barter. We see it everywhere, from third world villages trading with one another, to banana republics, to the startup community. It doesn’t need a specific mention, just as we don’t need to bother saying the Earth is round or gravity exists.
The free market is the basis of economies, just as evolution is the basis of the laws of our universe.
So trying to place it above things like human rights or progress in things like public health or education is just bizarre. The idea that we’ll stop paying taxes and turn every road into a toll road, charge tuition for public school, or fight the bad guys with our own handguns when they come surging over the border is.. sophomoric. And what really sucks is the more libertarian a stance the population takes, the more we see concentrated wealth and power undermine the public good, as we just witnessed in the midterm election. Why would we elect people to office whose campaign slogan is that government is bad? That’s like hiring an undertaker as your doctor. Yet we see it over and over, to the point where ideology is given equal weight to pragmatism.
So to get to the point of why paying taxes for government space exploration is a good thing: because if we didn’t, we would be paying the entirety of our incomes as debt service to a central private bank that spends the money suppressing us (the end result of global fascism). We lucked out that a slight majority of the founding fathers were more in favor of government by the people (wherever that may lead) and were willing to fight and die for that rather than fall back to the default position of oligarchy that previous governments had used for thousands of years. Yet here we are again, where wealth inequality from free market policies has reached such a degree that the scales might tip back to a government that only serves the financial elite.
Serious question, why don't you move to a country that has a tax system that you agree more with? No one is stopping you, it would be a free market victory.
I think we simply have different core values. It appears that you believe that the ability for an individual to have total control over their money is a basic right. I believe that an individual has a fundamental responsibility to the society into which they were born; this is vague and nebulous, but a portion of this responsibility includes funding scientific and educational projects if they are so able.
Science has, many times in the past, embarked upon a path to which there was no obvious benefit, yet ultimately came upon a discovery or application which improved the lives of humans immeasurably. Could Halley have had any idea how large the impact would be when he coerced Newton to record calculus and the laws of gravity in a book? What about Michael Faraday's fascination with electricity, generously supported by the Royal Society?
People aren't, as a whole, equipped to understand the long-term consequences of our actions. Predicating funding for something so essential to all of the progress made in the last few centuries on this faulty understanding would cripple our development. A government which attempts to offset the massive social cost of such a missed opportunity with speculative research is doing its duty to its citizens. We don't know what we don't know; evaluating scientific research with your limited cost/benefit analysis fails to take into account the enormous opportunity cost of a lost discovery.
As others have noted, taxation which funds things you don't agree with is a basic fact of modern life, but it has benefited you immensely - complaining about this funding model while you enjoy its output seems disingenuous.
Science has, many times in the past, embarked upon a path to which there was no obvious benefit, yet ultimately came upon a discovery or application which improved the lives of humans immeasurably. Could Halley have had any idea how large the impact would be when he coerced Newton to record calculus and the laws of gravity in a book? What about Michael Faraday's fascination with electricity, generously supported by the Royal Society?
People aren't, as a whole, equipped to understand the long-term consequences of our actions. Predicating funding for something so essential to all of the progress made in the last few centuries on this faulty understanding would cripple our development. A government which attempts to offset the massive social cost of such a missed opportunity with speculative research is doing its duty to its citizens. We don't know what we don't know; evaluating scientific research with your limited cost/benefit analysis fails to take into account the enormous opportunity cost of a lost discovery.
As others have noted, taxation which funds things you don't agree with is a basic fact of modern life, but it has benefited you immensely - complaining about this funding model while you enjoy its output seems disingenuous.
> I believe that an individual has a fundamental responsibility to the society into which they were born
Why exactly?
Why exactly?
Being born into a society (particularly a wealthy one) bestows many gifts. Chance of survival increases drastically, and the new member is given access to a treasure-trove of information accumulated over tens of thousands of years. Take growing crops, for instance; such an essential part of human life, it is something that we ("we" being humans) have earned. The acquisition of this knowledge was hard-won, requiring the effort of countless human beings. How many people starved to death, teaching the survivors that a particular strategy was bad? How many people collaborating did it take to develop a language and writing system with which to communicate these teachings? This goes on and on; modern society, for all its faults, is a towering monument to the best of human potential, and to the incredible sacrifices made by our ancestors so that we could be here and alive today.
Given that we all owe our existence (and current level of comfort) to the social responsibility born by our progenitors, we must shoulder that same responsibility for the sake of our peers and our descendants. Someone who does not wish to take on that responsibility has no reasonable claim to the continued benefits of society - e.g. if you won't foster an environment in which medicine can be studied, then you do not deserve to benefit from the years of medical study prior to your interference.
This is a fundamental value for me; I'd be interested in hearing a counter-argument, but I highly doubt that I could be dissuaded.
Given that we all owe our existence (and current level of comfort) to the social responsibility born by our progenitors, we must shoulder that same responsibility for the sake of our peers and our descendants. Someone who does not wish to take on that responsibility has no reasonable claim to the continued benefits of society - e.g. if you won't foster an environment in which medicine can be studied, then you do not deserve to benefit from the years of medical study prior to your interference.
This is a fundamental value for me; I'd be interested in hearing a counter-argument, but I highly doubt that I could be dissuaded.
If the OP is like most of us, because its right to give back more than you've received. Just using a tool like society isn't enough; you want to contribute to its maintenance, maybe even improve it while you're there.
There are a lot of answers to this, but I think the central point of the post is not being addressed.
The job of democratic government is to take responsibility for the things that the people choose to delegate to it.
I am not a doctor, a scientist, a hydraulic engineer, a military officer, a policeman, a lawyer or a civil engineer to name just a few relevant specialisms. I don't have the time, expertise or inclination to get involved in choosing how government should address all of the services it provides. Therefore I am happy to participate in choosing political leaders who I and my fellow citizens delegate to make those decisions for me.
I do not think it is reasonable or would be beneficial for every single citizen to have to decide how every single penny of tax money should or should not be spent. I cannot believe that a system organized in that way could ever be made to function no matter what modern communications and decision making (voting) technology we used.
Finally, living in a society ruled by laws is a system of coercion. Our fellow citizens are coerced into not robbing each other, not murdering each other, not driving their cars the wrong way down one way streets, and yes not avoiding paying tax. If you don't like that, tough.
The job of democratic government is to take responsibility for the things that the people choose to delegate to it.
I am not a doctor, a scientist, a hydraulic engineer, a military officer, a policeman, a lawyer or a civil engineer to name just a few relevant specialisms. I don't have the time, expertise or inclination to get involved in choosing how government should address all of the services it provides. Therefore I am happy to participate in choosing political leaders who I and my fellow citizens delegate to make those decisions for me.
I do not think it is reasonable or would be beneficial for every single citizen to have to decide how every single penny of tax money should or should not be spent. I cannot believe that a system organized in that way could ever be made to function no matter what modern communications and decision making (voting) technology we used.
Finally, living in a society ruled by laws is a system of coercion. Our fellow citizens are coerced into not robbing each other, not murdering each other, not driving their cars the wrong way down one way streets, and yes not avoiding paying tax. If you don't like that, tough.
I'm unsure who you're quoting or what you're arguing.
Some people just don't find value in sustaining. This is why we are no longer hunters and gatherers or simple plot farms anymore. Is this good or bad? That's not really a good question, because it is an is; it's neither good nor bad.
Some people just don't find value in sustaining. This is why we are no longer hunters and gatherers or simple plot farms anymore. Is this good or bad? That's not really a good question, because it is an is; it's neither good nor bad.
[deleted]
Space exploration is your best bet at fleeing to a world where nobody would be able to tax you, where you'd live like a true free man on the land.
Ah, the fallacy fallacy.
At the risk of turning political, it's a great example of how our taxes are wasted. Playing with space toys shouldn't be funded with taxpayer money.
I'm sure I'll get downvoted to hell for this, but why should my money be funding this? Sorry, but it has no benefit whatsoever.
edit: Instead of downvoting a dissenting voice, why not argue your case - why should taxpayers fund space toys?
edit2: Well, looks like I'm banned from commenting. Good job dealing with those that don't agree with you...
I'm sure I'll get downvoted to hell for this, but why should my money be funding this? Sorry, but it has no benefit whatsoever.
edit: Instead of downvoting a dissenting voice, why not argue your case - why should taxpayers fund space toys?
edit2: Well, looks like I'm banned from commenting. Good job dealing with those that don't agree with you...
Your point is not unfounded, and it's our duty as research scientists to justify the value you receive for your money.
There's a famous example where a US Senator asked a similar question of a research physicist prior to the establishment of Fermilab, specifically tailored toward defense application [1].
SENATOR PASTORE. Is there anything here that projects us in a position of being competitive with the Russians, with regard to this race?
DR. WILSON. Only from a long-range point of view, of a developing technology. Otherwise, it has to do with: Are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things that we really venerate and honor in our country and are patriotic about.
In that sense, this new knowledge has all to do with honor and country but it has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to help make it worth defending.
To address your concerns more directly: Basic and exploratory research pushes scientists to extract the very highest performance one can get from known technology. On occasion, that technology can do something exceptional (precision timekeeping, GPS, vaccines, medical imaging, etc.). The highly-motivated people who do this work tend to be willing to do it at low salaries and with limited chance for advancement, simply because they love the field. You can think of it as a low-cost government-run VC fund that aims for the occasional spectacular payoff at multi-decade timescales.
Another key benefit is education: research funding underpins the post-graduate education of most people in the physical scientists. Funding basic research, which companies won't usually touch, furthers the continuous supply of a top-notch skilled workforce for industry nationwide.
Furthermore, in many fields, retaining a trained and knowledgeable corps of scientists is an efficient way to retain the capability to respond to sudden and important societal needs (Manhattan Project, Ebola, asteroid mitigation, Fukushima, etc.).
I'm biased, as taxpayer dollars pay for my work, but I think you're getting a reasonable-to-excellent return on your investment.
[1] http://history.fnal.gov/testimony.html
There's a famous example where a US Senator asked a similar question of a research physicist prior to the establishment of Fermilab, specifically tailored toward defense application [1].
SENATOR PASTORE. Is there anything here that projects us in a position of being competitive with the Russians, with regard to this race?
DR. WILSON. Only from a long-range point of view, of a developing technology. Otherwise, it has to do with: Are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things that we really venerate and honor in our country and are patriotic about.
In that sense, this new knowledge has all to do with honor and country but it has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to help make it worth defending.
To address your concerns more directly: Basic and exploratory research pushes scientists to extract the very highest performance one can get from known technology. On occasion, that technology can do something exceptional (precision timekeeping, GPS, vaccines, medical imaging, etc.). The highly-motivated people who do this work tend to be willing to do it at low salaries and with limited chance for advancement, simply because they love the field. You can think of it as a low-cost government-run VC fund that aims for the occasional spectacular payoff at multi-decade timescales.
Another key benefit is education: research funding underpins the post-graduate education of most people in the physical scientists. Funding basic research, which companies won't usually touch, furthers the continuous supply of a top-notch skilled workforce for industry nationwide.
Furthermore, in many fields, retaining a trained and knowledgeable corps of scientists is an efficient way to retain the capability to respond to sudden and important societal needs (Manhattan Project, Ebola, asteroid mitigation, Fukushima, etc.).
I'm biased, as taxpayer dollars pay for my work, but I think you're getting a reasonable-to-excellent return on your investment.
[1] http://history.fnal.gov/testimony.html
Fun Fact: Sen. Pastore was the grumpy committee chairman when Mr. Rogers gave that famous speech about the value of public television for children. I don't know if Dr. Wilson swayed Pastore to support more funding, but after listening to Mr. Rogers for six minutes Pastore switched from wanting to cut PBS funding in half to cheerleading for increased funding:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXEuEUQIP3Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXEuEUQIP3Q
That was amazing to watch. Thank you for sharing. It was really something to see Senator Pastore, who began the session as an adversary to Mr. Rogers, come around slowly to Mr. Rogers' way of thinking in just under seven short minutes.
> looks like I'm banned from commenting
For anyone who's wondering, we haven't banned this account. What happens is that when karma gets low enough to be in outlier territory, comments get auto-killed. This is a longstanding anti-troll measure.
In the future, we plan to have a "moderated" status for comments, rather than "dead", so that the community will be able to fix cases where the commenter is not a troll or has corrected their ways. In the meantime, if you ever notice something being [dead] unfairly, emailing [email protected] is usually enough to correct it. (Edit: but do please allow for the variable latency of our email stack. We will get back to you, but there's no SLA on when.)
For anyone who's wondering, we haven't banned this account. What happens is that when karma gets low enough to be in outlier territory, comments get auto-killed. This is a longstanding anti-troll measure.
In the future, we plan to have a "moderated" status for comments, rather than "dead", so that the community will be able to fix cases where the commenter is not a troll or has corrected their ways. In the meantime, if you ever notice something being [dead] unfairly, emailing [email protected] is usually enough to correct it. (Edit: but do please allow for the variable latency of our email stack. We will get back to you, but there's no SLA on when.)
Roseta mission is 1 400 000 000 euro. London summer olympics costed almost 10 000 000 000 euro. Consider the benefits.
Landing on comets and knowing what materials are there (and how to detect that from distance) will eventually let humanity explore solar system. In next 10000 years it's almost sure there will be at least one global cataclysm (huge asteroid impact, ice age, global warming, methane-producing bacteria boom, some supervulcaon could go off). It's just statistics, we're in borrowed time anyway.
How much would you pay to save human race?
Landing on comets and knowing what materials are there (and how to detect that from distance) will eventually let humanity explore solar system. In next 10000 years it's almost sure there will be at least one global cataclysm (huge asteroid impact, ice age, global warming, methane-producing bacteria boom, some supervulcaon could go off). It's just statistics, we're in borrowed time anyway.
How much would you pay to save human race?
How can one care about what will happen within the next 10,000 years?
You don't have kids yet, I take it? One of the most universal desires parents have is for our children to live better than we did, hence the sacrifices we make to fund education etc.
How can you not?
We are not talking about throwing away everything to insure ourselves against future catastrophe, we're putting a small portion towards a bit of futureproofing. Seems smart to me.
We are not talking about throwing away everything to insure ourselves against future catastrophe, we're putting a small portion towards a bit of futureproofing. Seems smart to me.
To be clear I love to see funding going towards science. But 10,000 years is too damn much. People are placing chronologically the technological singularity within the next 100-200 years. For all practical purposes, 10,000 years ahead it's simply a different universe for me.
You said "within the next 10,000 years". So where's your cut-off point? 1,000? 100? 10?
There are things we need to prepare for and there are advantages to starting now. Every advance we make is a foundation for something else. I think there are things we take for granted today that only exist because of some urge to explore and learn thousands of years ago.
"The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now."
To be selfish, I'm keen to see what we can find out about our world (including beyond Earth obviously) in my lifetime. Something like the comet landing is a step along a far bigger path to getting all our eggs out of a single basket situation.
There are things we need to prepare for and there are advantages to starting now. Every advance we make is a foundation for something else. I think there are things we take for granted today that only exist because of some urge to explore and learn thousands of years ago.
"The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now."
To be selfish, I'm keen to see what we can find out about our world (including beyond Earth obviously) in my lifetime. Something like the comet landing is a step along a far bigger path to getting all our eggs out of a single basket situation.
Ah, that's just your DNA talking. Otherwise we could be immensely pleased with the amazing experience of being alive, and when our time is up allow Mother Universe to move on without us. Perhaps after we are wiped out, another better form of life will take hold and really do amazing things, fueled by our decay.
Besides, it looks like our own behavior is going to do it for us, so might as well "love the bomb".
Besides, it looks like our own behavior is going to do it for us, so might as well "love the bomb".
We are alive as far as we want to be alive. We can be that "better form" of life, it's questionable that a better form of life can emerge from scratch. If our own behavior is going to get us extinct, so be it, let's help the nature then!
Besides that, I think that personification of "Mother Universe" is just a xenophobic form of human fear of the "otherness" surrounding us. There is no monolithic Mother Universe, more probably, there is a mesh of living creatures and natural phenomena we are a part of.
We are a part of Mother Universe.
Besides that, I think that personification of "Mother Universe" is just a xenophobic form of human fear of the "otherness" surrounding us. There is no monolithic Mother Universe, more probably, there is a mesh of living creatures and natural phenomena we are a part of.
We are a part of Mother Universe.
I guess that speaks to the dichotomy of urge in humans. We are equally as likely to sit on our butts staring mindlessly at something on a screen as we are to strive for extending the reaches and hopes of our species.
I hope it could be us that will do those amazing things you mentioned.
I hope it could be us that will do those amazing things you mentioned.
[deleted]
Because it has huge benefits and one could argue that the money that was funneled into NASA during the moon landings gave tax payers much more bang for their buck than all kinds of other research, social programs, bank bailouts, etc. These sorts of human achievement defining missions are really hundreds of thousands of hours of engineering dedicated to solving some of the hardest problems we can dream up.
You are way too short sighted if you cannot imagine the enormous benefits of having dedicated engineers, scientists and researchers working on difficult problems that don't have model-able, short-term returns. The exact types of problems that people only concerned with short-term balance sheets avoid like the plague. The exact types of problems that propel our entire civilization into new ages of discovery and technology.
You are way too short sighted if you cannot imagine the enormous benefits of having dedicated engineers, scientists and researchers working on difficult problems that don't have model-able, short-term returns. The exact types of problems that people only concerned with short-term balance sheets avoid like the plague. The exact types of problems that propel our entire civilization into new ages of discovery and technology.
So effectively, you want to subsidise scientists working on some arbitrary aim (Space exploration), in the hope they'll invent cool stuff you can spin off...
I don't think you need to subsidise science like this.
Did we really get "propelled" into new age of technology half a century ago? Did the moon landing really change anything here on earth? Technology would have advanced just fine without it.
I don't think you need to subsidise science like this.
Did we really get "propelled" into new age of technology half a century ago? Did the moon landing really change anything here on earth? Technology would have advanced just fine without it.
It really sounds like you're trolling. If you're actually trying to have a debate in good faith, please read back over your posts and edit them to reflect that. Using dismissive language such as calling space probes "toys", or space exploration "some arbitrary aim" doesn't help your cause - it makes you sound juvenile, defensive, and bitter.
What other arbitrary aims would you rather scientists work on, since all aims are arbitrary anyways? I don't think you really understand how scientific research works at all.
The engineering effort of NASA took a bunch of disparate scientific discoveries and pieced them together to land humans on the moon. Don't tell me you don't think that sparked major economic development in this country for decades. One of the largest reasons America is an international economic powerhouse is the space race and the need for technological innovation during the cold war.
The entirety of humanity has been involved with exploring our curiosities. Exploring our curiosities tends to lead towards societal/scientific progress. Space is one of those.
The engineering effort of NASA took a bunch of disparate scientific discoveries and pieced them together to land humans on the moon. Don't tell me you don't think that sparked major economic development in this country for decades. One of the largest reasons America is an international economic powerhouse is the space race and the need for technological innovation during the cold war.
The entirety of humanity has been involved with exploring our curiosities. Exploring our curiosities tends to lead towards societal/scientific progress. Space is one of those.
Well, presumably if NASA is good because it produces things that can be spun off, you could just put the money into directly producing the spinoffs (somehow) and be more efficient.
>The entirety of humanity has been involved with exploring our curiosities. Exploring our curiosities tends to lead towards societal/scientific progress. Space is one of those.
I think this is almost certainly false. Very little of humanity has been involved with exploring any curiosity. Go to a third-world village and see how much curiosity is being explored.
It's also disingenuous to claim that NASA is some grand scientific curiosity mission. NASA is part of the military-industrial complex and operates as a slightly more palatable alternative to designing ICBM's directly. This is sort of like how mathematicians work for the NSA studying problems that are sanitized to be unrelated to the actual problem the NSA is trying to solve. It's a modern, scientific equivalent of a blank round in the firing squad.
Personally, I think that space exploration is a good thing because having all your species-level eggs in one planetary basket is a bad idea, but these are not compelling arguments in favor of space exploration, and they don't stand up to very easy to form arguments.
>The entirety of humanity has been involved with exploring our curiosities. Exploring our curiosities tends to lead towards societal/scientific progress. Space is one of those.
I think this is almost certainly false. Very little of humanity has been involved with exploring any curiosity. Go to a third-world village and see how much curiosity is being explored.
It's also disingenuous to claim that NASA is some grand scientific curiosity mission. NASA is part of the military-industrial complex and operates as a slightly more palatable alternative to designing ICBM's directly. This is sort of like how mathematicians work for the NSA studying problems that are sanitized to be unrelated to the actual problem the NSA is trying to solve. It's a modern, scientific equivalent of a blank round in the firing squad.
Personally, I think that space exploration is a good thing because having all your species-level eggs in one planetary basket is a bad idea, but these are not compelling arguments in favor of space exploration, and they don't stand up to very easy to form arguments.
> I think this is almost certainly false. Very little of humanity has been involved with exploring any curiosity. Go to a third-world village and see how much curiosity is being explored.
Throughout human history the vast majority of the population did nothing to contribute to the progress of society, except doing their job to keep their current society running. Eventually we figured out how to produce enough food without having everyone work all the time. The new free time could be used for arts and science; progress became possible.
But I think it's wrong to dismiss all the people who produce neither art nor knowledge. Without them, humanity couldn't afford to feed poets and scientists.
Throughout human history the vast majority of the population did nothing to contribute to the progress of society, except doing their job to keep their current society running. Eventually we figured out how to produce enough food without having everyone work all the time. The new free time could be used for arts and science; progress became possible.
But I think it's wrong to dismiss all the people who produce neither art nor knowledge. Without them, humanity couldn't afford to feed poets and scientists.
You should check out 'The Secret History of Silicon Valley'
Steve Blank (its author) did a nice job marshaling evidence for just how much the Silicon Valley of today has depended on technology advanced through big government programs.
[1] http://steveblank.com/secret-history/
Steve Blank (its author) did a nice job marshaling evidence for just how much the Silicon Valley of today has depended on technology advanced through big government programs.
[1] http://steveblank.com/secret-history/
How toxic an existence do you have to lead to put your own petty greed over one of the few great frontiers of human scientific progress?
Cultural progress too!
I'm an American, and I'm fascinated by space exploration. These kind of endeavors bring people together and make us look at the Earth as one entity that we all need to live on. It brings people together by strengthening trust through a common goal and achievement.
Now, as far as the "hur-dur my tax monies..." argument. I wonder if he has heard of the asteroid mining company in the US. Planetary resources speculats that a single 30 meter diameter asteroid could have over $50 billion[1] worth in platinum. Developing technology like ESA has done obviously helps advance a companies that can bring these resources back to Earth. So, I feel like he has to be trolling unless he really just hasn't had ANY interest in space exploration from the start. But, if he is going to out-right dismiss the program, he needs to have done some searching to at least form an opinion for why it is bad. Very untactful.
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/24/us-space-asteroid-...
I'm an American, and I'm fascinated by space exploration. These kind of endeavors bring people together and make us look at the Earth as one entity that we all need to live on. It brings people together by strengthening trust through a common goal and achievement.
Now, as far as the "hur-dur my tax monies..." argument. I wonder if he has heard of the asteroid mining company in the US. Planetary resources speculats that a single 30 meter diameter asteroid could have over $50 billion[1] worth in platinum. Developing technology like ESA has done obviously helps advance a companies that can bring these resources back to Earth. So, I feel like he has to be trolling unless he really just hasn't had ANY interest in space exploration from the start. But, if he is going to out-right dismiss the program, he needs to have done some searching to at least form an opinion for why it is bad. Very untactful.
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/24/us-space-asteroid-...
I hope this mission (and hopefully future missions like this) will either confirm or deny a claim like that - TBH, large claims like that kinda sound like space mining companies trying to get people to invest large amounts of money into their business.
I think this is part of a bigger question: should you only spend on basic survival? Individuals in developed countries now spend most of their resources on things that go beyond basic survival: education, entertainment, arts. Shouldn't we spend our collective resources the same way? If as individuals we want to expand our existence beyond survival, I think as groups we should, too, and fund pure science, history research and the arts, even if no material benefits come out of it.
I don't think your comment really deserves a response but here I am anyhow. It doesn't take much research to see the amazing discoveries that originated from NASA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies
Subsidizing research, no matter what that research is, offers tremendous value to society, and we've benefited immensely from it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies
Subsidizing research, no matter what that research is, offers tremendous value to society, and we've benefited immensely from it!
would rather governments subsidies science then 95% of the other crap they throw money at.
science benefits us as a whole while most subsidies programs benefit a particular group or interest.
science benefits us as a whole while most subsidies programs benefit a particular group or interest.
why should taxpayers fund space toys?
They're scientific research, not 'toys'.
They're scientific research, not 'toys'.
Because taxpayers are able to pay that much taxes today, because Newton and Leibnitz were playing toys like that some time ago.
Nations have a long history of funding exploratory ventures. It is generally understood that the process is useful for a variety of reasons: it creates jobs, there is a small chance that something practical could be discovered, and most importantly it satisfies a basic human need to know more. With this mission in particular, we may be able to answer some very fundamental questions about the arrival of organic compounds (or even life) on Earth...surely that's worth spending some money on?
You have the right to feel however you want, but a world without curiosity would be pretty sad; the internet wouldn't even exist for us to have this discussion.
You have the right to feel however you want, but a world without curiosity would be pretty sad; the internet wouldn't even exist for us to have this discussion.
Hijacking the top comment in this subthread to make a meta-complaint:
The comment-parents viewpoint is perfectly valid, but has been censored because of disagreement within the broader HN community.
For all the talk about "free speech" that HN does when the topic is, say, not objectifying women, or making racial minorities feel included in tech, it certainly seems to perform an about-face when confronted with... objecting to space science as a policy.
1. Doesn't it seem a little outlandish to have your priorities so far out of whack with respect to the number of non-whites in the world, versus the number of space scientists in the world?
2. Why should the comment-parent be flagkilled for expressing an unpopular opinion?
The comment-parents viewpoint is perfectly valid, but has been censored because of disagreement within the broader HN community.
For all the talk about "free speech" that HN does when the topic is, say, not objectifying women, or making racial minorities feel included in tech, it certainly seems to perform an about-face when confronted with... objecting to space science as a policy.
1. Doesn't it seem a little outlandish to have your priorities so far out of whack with respect to the number of non-whites in the world, versus the number of space scientists in the world?
2. Why should the comment-parent be flagkilled for expressing an unpopular opinion?
>"Why should the comment-parent be flagkilled for expressing an unpopular opinion?"
A comment shouldn't be killed for expressing an unpopular opinion and I don't think this one was.
That comment is a perfect example of how not to state an opinion, unpopular or otherwise.
It states an opinion as absolute and demands proof otherwise while providing none of its own. This is recognized as awful, trollish behavior on any forum.
Further, the opinion stated is derisive and emotional. Finally, the it begs for downvotes repeatedly.
This is exactly the sort of thing that should be killed regardless of the view expressed.
A comment shouldn't be killed for expressing an unpopular opinion and I don't think this one was.
That comment is a perfect example of how not to state an opinion, unpopular or otherwise.
It states an opinion as absolute and demands proof otherwise while providing none of its own. This is recognized as awful, trollish behavior on any forum.
Further, the opinion stated is derisive and emotional. Finally, the it begs for downvotes repeatedly.
This is exactly the sort of thing that should be killed regardless of the view expressed.
I can't speak for everybody (and I didn't personally take any action against the comment in question), but I imagine the reaction was due to the tone of the message. HN is generally a community which tolerates unpopular opinions if they are presented thoughtfully; dismissing scientific research as "playing with toys" and failing to elucidate the reasoning behind a dissenting opinion does not meet that bar.
Sorry for the double response: my previous comment still stands, but I wanted to add this as well.
The treatment of women and exclusion of minorities in this field is incredibly distressing. The thought of how many brilliant minds we could be turning away (not to mention the basic empathy I feel for their suffering) makes me sick. I look forward to a more enlightened age when these people will be welcomed with the basic respect and dignity they deserve.
...but, apathy towards education and scientific progress is also incredibly distressing - that a smaller absolute number of people are affected does not make the issue less important. Climate change denial and lack of enthusiasm for clean energy are complicated phenomena, but are (in my opinion) partially influenced by a culture that devalues science and education (in addition to outright manipulation by insidious parties). If you want proof of how dangerous this is, look at Mario Zervigon[0], a campaign-finance director for a pro-solar candidate - his house and cars were firebombed last week. This (admittedly unusually extreme) resistance to the idea that we should be taking care of our environment is mind-fuckingly insane. The library of Alexandria is still very much in peril, so to speak.
So...us freaking out about this doesn't mean we do not care about the exclusion of minorities. It's ok to be worried about multiple things; there are more than enough causes to go around. We live in a sick, sad world[1].
[0]: http://fusion.net/story/26335/car-bomb-house-explosion-rock-...
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W4Loj8k2Dk
The treatment of women and exclusion of minorities in this field is incredibly distressing. The thought of how many brilliant minds we could be turning away (not to mention the basic empathy I feel for their suffering) makes me sick. I look forward to a more enlightened age when these people will be welcomed with the basic respect and dignity they deserve.
...but, apathy towards education and scientific progress is also incredibly distressing - that a smaller absolute number of people are affected does not make the issue less important. Climate change denial and lack of enthusiasm for clean energy are complicated phenomena, but are (in my opinion) partially influenced by a culture that devalues science and education (in addition to outright manipulation by insidious parties). If you want proof of how dangerous this is, look at Mario Zervigon[0], a campaign-finance director for a pro-solar candidate - his house and cars were firebombed last week. This (admittedly unusually extreme) resistance to the idea that we should be taking care of our environment is mind-fuckingly insane. The library of Alexandria is still very much in peril, so to speak.
So...us freaking out about this doesn't mean we do not care about the exclusion of minorities. It's ok to be worried about multiple things; there are more than enough causes to go around. We live in a sick, sad world[1].
[0]: http://fusion.net/story/26335/car-bomb-house-explosion-rock-...
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W4Loj8k2Dk
1. Space scientists are in many ways the pinnacle of our civilization. Of course we place a high value on them.
2. Because it's not a positive contribution to the discussion.
I think it's being flagkilled for hijacking the top comment which seems bad from and probably deserves it.
re "free speech" a corollary is that those reading said speech are free to call it dumb
re "free speech" a corollary is that those reading said speech are free to call it dumb
Ok I'll bite. Do you really believe space exploration has "no benefit whatsoever", or are you just trolling?
A cursory Google search returns all kinds of counter-points to your claim. If you really do believe this, perhaps some brief research of your own will change your mind..
A cursory Google search returns all kinds of counter-points to your claim. If you really do believe this, perhaps some brief research of your own will change your mind..
Have you searched the other side of the argument?
Perhaps then you'll understand why we're against this.
Perhaps then you'll understand why we're against this.
I've never understood the 'this OR that' argument. For the budgets nation states have, the spending is so diversified, one side can hardly complain that they are being treated unfairly or others are getting greater share of the budget.
You can do two or more things at one time, especially when they are totally unrelated.
I've heard this argument over and over during India's Mars mission on News debates, where people come on prime time television and complain health care, education or other sectors aren't doing enough progress so why go to Mars.
So what should those people do? If others don't do their job properly should they stop doing theirs? If there are other aspects of society not doing enough progress, lets fix that instead of stopping hardworking people from making progress else where.
You can do two or more things at one time, especially when they are totally unrelated.
I've heard this argument over and over during India's Mars mission on News debates, where people come on prime time television and complain health care, education or other sectors aren't doing enough progress so why go to Mars.
So what should those people do? If others don't do their job properly should they stop doing theirs? If there are other aspects of society not doing enough progress, lets fix that instead of stopping hardworking people from making progress else where.
Just trying to see your perspective, here: the LHC costed $15B of tax payer money; the NIH invests ~$30B every year in medical research. Do you also think those are example of how to waste money?
This opinion is short-sighted. There may be zero practical attributable scientific or engineering benefits, though I am sure there will be plentiful.
However, such epic events are extremely inspiring! It is massively televized, broadcasted, discussed on social media and news aggregators. This may be a single trigger that will send many curious young guys and girls towards STEM professions. And we need them inspired, motivated and engaged to build a better world for all humanity.
So yeah, it has at least ONE benefit.
However, such epic events are extremely inspiring! It is massively televized, broadcasted, discussed on social media and news aggregators. This may be a single trigger that will send many curious young guys and girls towards STEM professions. And we need them inspired, motivated and engaged to build a better world for all humanity.
So yeah, it has at least ONE benefit.
Wasted taxes? Are you serious? The outcome of this mission might be immense considering what possibilities are open if we manage to perfect such technologies. I'd say it's the greatest our race achievement after the Moon landing. Besides, the whole mission budget is only 1 billion euros (~1.2 billion dollars). If talking about wasting tax money, consider F-35 project which cost 1 trillion dollars and still counting, that's 1000 more than this mission.
The unit cost of one single F-35 jet was in 2011 estimated to be around 300 million USD, that is, only three planes would pay for the whole (European, please note, financed by the tax of Europeans!) Rosetta mission.
The US plans to buy 2443 such aircraft (of course, financed by the tax of US citizens). Do they really need so many of them?
The military budget of the US was recently around 660 billion USD per year, that is, the US could finance some 600 Rosettas (each a multiple-decade project) every year with its military budget. Approximating the Rosetta life to 10 years, in these 10 years the US spent 6000 Rosettas for military. Or 18000 of F-35 fighter jets.
The US plans to buy 2443 such aircraft (of course, financed by the tax of US citizens). Do they really need so many of them?
The military budget of the US was recently around 660 billion USD per year, that is, the US could finance some 600 Rosettas (each a multiple-decade project) every year with its military budget. Approximating the Rosetta life to 10 years, in these 10 years the US spent 6000 Rosettas for military. Or 18000 of F-35 fighter jets.
Once upon a time, long long ago, the most powerful dinosaurs got together to consider the proposal of a young pterodactyl. The pterodactyl had come up with the strange proposal that the other dinosaurs should bring her food while she concentrated on devising ways to fly higher.
"Why should we all work harder so you can learn to fly higher?" roared a huge tyrannosaurus, and bit the pterodactyl's head clean off.
So their kind never discovered ways to fly higher, and out of the atmosphere, and all the multitude of skills required detect comets and fly spacecraft to them to find out what they were made of.
And then a comet hit them and they all died.
"Why should we all work harder so you can learn to fly higher?" roared a huge tyrannosaurus, and bit the pterodactyl's head clean off.
So their kind never discovered ways to fly higher, and out of the atmosphere, and all the multitude of skills required detect comets and fly spacecraft to them to find out what they were made of.
And then a comet hit them and they all died.
You weren't there. This is not how it happened at all.
The strong and mighty individualist T-Rex was enslaved by the communist mammals. The once idealistic Pterodactyl was forced to evolve into a chicken, bereft of its flight, today kept in captivity by the trillions, bred by robots, for meat and eggs. Their feathers fill our pillows. How ironic that Mankind's dreams are birthed atop their crushed wings.
What gives us the right to land on this comet?
Weren't the dinosaurs there first?
What about our robots? Who fills their pillowcases?
Or, as Eddy Lizzard once wisely said,
"Do you have a flag?!!"
The strong and mighty individualist T-Rex was enslaved by the communist mammals. The once idealistic Pterodactyl was forced to evolve into a chicken, bereft of its flight, today kept in captivity by the trillions, bred by robots, for meat and eggs. Their feathers fill our pillows. How ironic that Mankind's dreams are birthed atop their crushed wings.
What gives us the right to land on this comet?
Weren't the dinosaurs there first?
What about our robots? Who fills their pillowcases?
Or, as Eddy Lizzard once wisely said,
"Do you have a flag?!!"
+1 for Eddy Izzard!
Here is a nice long list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies
Do you really think that firstly, those technologies only exist because of NASA, and secondly that the cheapest way to innovate is to pick some arbitrary aim (Space exploration) and then spin off lots of innovation from it?
You could do a better job just taking the money spent on space exploration, and opening some innovation/invention centers.
edit: banned now, so I can't add any comments. It's really surprising just how extreme the religion of science is sometimes. Scary.
You could do a better job just taking the money spent on space exploration, and opening some innovation/invention centers.
edit: banned now, so I can't add any comments. It's really surprising just how extreme the religion of science is sometimes. Scary.
Space exploration isn't all about side-effects.
Humanity cannot survive on the Earth for eternity. Eventually we will have to move on to other habitable worlds. Doing so is an almost unimaginably difficult engineering task. This reason alone is sufficient to justify space exploration in my mind.
On a shorter time scale, there are massive amounts of resources in space that, with better technology, we could theoretically harvest for our use here on Earth. Once again, this is incredibly difficult to accomplish and won't happen without learning from experiments.
In the present, satellites are extremely beneficial to humanity, and factor into our everyday lives. In addition, space telescopes and space stations facilitate research that couldn't be done on Earth.
Humanity cannot survive on the Earth for eternity. Eventually we will have to move on to other habitable worlds. Doing so is an almost unimaginably difficult engineering task. This reason alone is sufficient to justify space exploration in my mind.
On a shorter time scale, there are massive amounts of resources in space that, with better technology, we could theoretically harvest for our use here on Earth. Once again, this is incredibly difficult to accomplish and won't happen without learning from experiments.
In the present, satellites are extremely beneficial to humanity, and factor into our everyday lives. In addition, space telescopes and space stations facilitate research that couldn't be done on Earth.
Yeah, m8. With Musk to Mars!
> You could do a better job just taking the money spent on space exploration, and opening some innovation/invention centers.
That is an extraordinary claim that I'd like to see some evidence of. Having an end goal presents you with a number of problems to solve, which then give you an opportunity to innovate. Simply throwing money at somebody and asking them to come up with something doesn't seem like it would be nearly as productive as saying "We need to put a man in space and have him not die and then have him come back to earth and not crash" and then breaking that down into the smaller set of problems which need to be solved for that to happen.
That is an extraordinary claim that I'd like to see some evidence of. Having an end goal presents you with a number of problems to solve, which then give you an opportunity to innovate. Simply throwing money at somebody and asking them to come up with something doesn't seem like it would be nearly as productive as saying "We need to put a man in space and have him not die and then have him come back to earth and not crash" and then breaking that down into the smaller set of problems which need to be solved for that to happen.
Well, they do now and from what we've seen funding space research leads to loads of technology. We already have innovation/invention centers, but having loads of people focused on one incredibly hard task will bring out lots of awesome stuff.
I 'd dare you to specify what's more important where your money should be spent.
Why is the criterion importance?
How about, governments shouldn't require protection money from its citizens? The way it used to be before 1913.
How about, governments shouldn't require protection money from its citizens? The way it used to be before 1913.
The way it used to be...in the United States, as regards solely taxes on income in peacetime?
I was unaware that taxes were such a recent invention. Clearly I've been misinformed about history. What other insights can you provide?
Health, welfare, lowering taxes, employment.... y'know, things that enrich real peoples lives.
Space toys and exploration are fun for those working on them, but will this event transform civilisation? Nope. Did the moon landing really transform civilisation? Nope.
Space toys and exploration are fun for those working on them, but will this event transform civilisation? Nope. Did the moon landing really transform civilisation? Nope.
How do you know the moon landing didn't transform civilization? Did you try living in an alternate timeline where it did not happen and find things to be the same?
What about all those scientists who learned to build rockets, who would later go on to help NASA launch the first weather satellites? What about the work done that led to the formation of the global positioning system? Are you sure it would have happened in the same timeframe by some other actors if NASA hadn't gone to the moon? Where would the scientists have gotten their training? What would have been the economic rationale for doing it?
Remember, too, that the moon landings were not scientific exploration. It was a military operation to prove supremacy. The russians put a man in space one month earlier, so Kennedy basically said "Yeah? you put a man in space? well we'll drop one on the Moon and then bring him back!"
It was an insane commitment to proving our supremacy. We sent fighter jet pilots on the first several missions, and didn't send a single scientist until several missions in.
Meanwhile, exploring the origins of comets helps us understand how the early solar system formed, which helps us understand how the universe formed, which helps us understand physics at a fundamental level, which helps us make better microchips, solar panels, and superconductors that make the tech in our world better at serving our needs.
It has nothing to do with "fun for those working on them", though I'm sure they have fun. Truck drivers probably have some fun too, but that doesn't mean delivering goods isn't worthwhile for legitimate economic reasons. Hard science is the same - it costs relatively little and the payoff, while abstract, is huge.
If you want to complain about spending, complain about military spending. In the US it is 70X NASA's budget, and 2x the military budget at the beginning of 2001. THAT is bloat. We know how to manufacture bombs. Making more doesn't do much for innovation. Funding science does.
What about all those scientists who learned to build rockets, who would later go on to help NASA launch the first weather satellites? What about the work done that led to the formation of the global positioning system? Are you sure it would have happened in the same timeframe by some other actors if NASA hadn't gone to the moon? Where would the scientists have gotten their training? What would have been the economic rationale for doing it?
Remember, too, that the moon landings were not scientific exploration. It was a military operation to prove supremacy. The russians put a man in space one month earlier, so Kennedy basically said "Yeah? you put a man in space? well we'll drop one on the Moon and then bring him back!"
It was an insane commitment to proving our supremacy. We sent fighter jet pilots on the first several missions, and didn't send a single scientist until several missions in.
Meanwhile, exploring the origins of comets helps us understand how the early solar system formed, which helps us understand how the universe formed, which helps us understand physics at a fundamental level, which helps us make better microchips, solar panels, and superconductors that make the tech in our world better at serving our needs.
It has nothing to do with "fun for those working on them", though I'm sure they have fun. Truck drivers probably have some fun too, but that doesn't mean delivering goods isn't worthwhile for legitimate economic reasons. Hard science is the same - it costs relatively little and the payoff, while abstract, is huge.
If you want to complain about spending, complain about military spending. In the US it is 70X NASA's budget, and 2x the military budget at the beginning of 2001. THAT is bloat. We know how to manufacture bombs. Making more doesn't do much for innovation. Funding science does.
I had to create an account just to thank you for this response. I always recommend anyone wondering about whether or not space exploration is worth it to view the following amazing video compilations.
"We Stopped Dreaming - Episode 1": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc
"We Stopped Dreaming - Episode 2": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFO2usVjfQc
"We Stopped Dreaming - Episode 1": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc
"We Stopped Dreaming - Episode 2": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFO2usVjfQc
WOW! the best answer by far in here, thanks for your comment it really proves all the benefits the ENTIRE human race gets from this (relative) small investment.
You're kidding right - this would have lowered my taxes by about 20 cents a year, or 3E50 total. Careful not to spend it all at once. So much for lowering taxes.
Simply put, Rosetta's budget was about 70m Euros per year over 20 years. That's like funding maybe two schools, or one hospital ward, spread over the whole EU. None of these enrich humanity as much as Rosetta is.
As for employment, well, the project is creating exactly the right sort of jobs for the European economy - that money is being spent in Europe, helping to usefully occupy the European aerospace industry, and thereby keeping engineers and scientists in work.
Simply put, Rosetta's budget was about 70m Euros per year over 20 years. That's like funding maybe two schools, or one hospital ward, spread over the whole EU. None of these enrich humanity as much as Rosetta is.
As for employment, well, the project is creating exactly the right sort of jobs for the European economy - that money is being spent in Europe, helping to usefully occupy the European aerospace industry, and thereby keeping engineers and scientists in work.
>That's like funding maybe two schools, or one hospital ward, spread over the whole EU. None of these enrich humanity as much as Rosetta is.
Really? You're basically saying you'd prefer a robot on a comet over thousands of healthy and educated peers. Who are you to decide this?
Really? You're basically saying you'd prefer a robot on a comet over thousands of healthy and educated peers. Who are you to decide this?
> Really? You're basically saying you'd prefer a robot on a comet over thousands of healthy and educated peers. Who are you to decide this?
Coming from an American this is pretty ironic. The choice in ESA-funding countries isn't between two schools and illiterate children, it's between further improvement to two good schools already affording excellent social mobility and a comet landing.
As for who decides this, the voters do as part of the democratic process.
Coming from an American this is pretty ironic. The choice in ESA-funding countries isn't between two schools and illiterate children, it's between further improvement to two good schools already affording excellent social mobility and a comet landing.
As for who decides this, the voters do as part of the democratic process.
It's much better to compare the cost of the whole Rosetta mission (cca 1 billion EUR) to the cost of the just one type of fighter jets, just for the UK: cca 30 billion EUR. Apparently the fleet is only around 100 planes at the time, giving the cost of the Rosetta for the whole Europe equal to the cost to the UK for just three planes in the UK military fleet of a 100 of such planes. It's mind boggling.
It's how a large chunk of your fellow citizens want their money spent.
And that's more than enough reason in itself.
Welcome to democracy.
And that's more than enough reason in itself.
Welcome to democracy.
Not sure if you're trolling...
http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/benefits.html for some. A comment above has many others listed.
http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/benefits.html for some. A comment above has many others listed.
Sure i could point out that this mission could indirectly advance health technology (landing a robot on a comet is no small technological feat. The side-benefits of big research projects, such as the WWW that allows us to argue here, are no small thing)
But most importantly it bothers me that you think that risking a relatively small amount of money to expand our limits is not important. IF it were a "showoff" mission or a re-enactment of the moon landing, i would agree with you but this is about going into unknown territory. When Columbus set off to find a short path to the Indies, i bet someone would think the money was frivolously spent, but this guy never made it to the history books.
If you insist that we shouldn't take risks like this, you are literally asking the civilization to stop.
But most importantly it bothers me that you think that risking a relatively small amount of money to expand our limits is not important. IF it were a "showoff" mission or a re-enactment of the moon landing, i would agree with you but this is about going into unknown territory. When Columbus set off to find a short path to the Indies, i bet someone would think the money was frivolously spent, but this guy never made it to the history books.
If you insist that we shouldn't take risks like this, you are literally asking the civilization to stop.
Does space exploration has the potential to transform civilization? Yeah it actually does. It represent funding in research, it represent dreams, it represent our future. It's also an amazing collaborative project between countries.
Also let not forget that NASA only represent 0.5% of the US federal budget. Do you really want to lower your federal tax by 0.5%? Seriously? Please lower your entertainment budget, stop alcohol and coffee consumption and donate all that money to a charity. If you actually believe that 0.5% should be put somewhere else because you doesn't believe they really transform civilization, then all that money that you use would probably be better somewhere else too.
Also let not forget that NASA only represent 0.5% of the US federal budget. Do you really want to lower your federal tax by 0.5%? Seriously? Please lower your entertainment budget, stop alcohol and coffee consumption and donate all that money to a charity. If you actually believe that 0.5% should be put somewhere else because you doesn't believe they really transform civilization, then all that money that you use would probably be better somewhere else too.
I'm in favor of the space exploration spending, but your argument is terrible. (S)he could just as easily reply that if you believe that space exploration has so much potential to transform civilization, why don't you donate all your entertainment budget & etc to NASA?
He said that it wasn't worth it because it doesn't really transform civilization. That's his point. If it's the criteria to fund something, then how his expense can be worth it too?
Why don't I donate all to NASA? Because I never said that it was worth our money more than something else that worth more than what my entertainment is worth. (Sorry if it a little hard to understands, english isn't my first language, I'm still working on it).
Also I never said that it has so much potential, I'm curious to know where you found this in my comment. What I said is barely enough to said that it can actually compete against his alternative, I was really counting on the fact that it was only representing 0.5% of the budget to make it seems worthwhile.
EDIT: Hopefully you still haven't read this comment, I found a better way to explain what I said.
He said that it wasn't worth it because it doesn't really transform civilization.
I said that it was clearly worth its 0.5% of the funding.
I also said that if it's not worth it because it doesn't really transform civilization, how could his own budget can be justified (and to avoid him answering that in a way, his job does transform civilization enough to be worth his salary, I only included expense that could be avoided without affecting too much his job).
Why don't I donate all to NASA? Because I never said that it was worth our money more than something else that worth more than what my entertainment is worth. (Sorry if it a little hard to understands, english isn't my first language, I'm still working on it).
Also I never said that it has so much potential, I'm curious to know where you found this in my comment. What I said is barely enough to said that it can actually compete against his alternative, I was really counting on the fact that it was only representing 0.5% of the budget to make it seems worthwhile.
EDIT: Hopefully you still haven't read this comment, I found a better way to explain what I said.
He said that it wasn't worth it because it doesn't really transform civilization.
I said that it was clearly worth its 0.5% of the funding.
I also said that if it's not worth it because it doesn't really transform civilization, how could his own budget can be justified (and to avoid him answering that in a way, his job does transform civilization enough to be worth his salary, I only included expense that could be avoided without affecting too much his job).
Also I never said that it has so much potential, I'm curious to know where you found this in my comment.
What. The first two sentences of your comment:
> Does space exploration has the potential to transform civilization? Yeah it actually does.
What. The first two sentences of your comment:
> Does space exploration has the potential to transform civilization? Yeah it actually does.
If it's the criteria to fund something
The point is that the criteria for the State/government doesn't have to be the same as the criteria for personal expenses.
The point is that the criteria for the State/government doesn't have to be the same as the criteria for personal expenses.
He could easily reply with that, but it would be dumb. There are many causes I believe in strongly but I don't donate all my money to them because I don't have enough money to make a bit of difference to them. Big projects must be taken on collectively.
Yes. Likewise, it doesn't make sense that just because you spend money on entertainment, you can't oppose (what you see as) frivolous projects by the State.
I was just using a similar argument, to show that they're both flawed.
I was just using a similar argument, to show that they're both flawed.
It depends. What's your definition of 'benefit'?
Good luck pushing that opinion amongst elites who are more likely to be the beneficiaries of space program spending than the victims of austerity.
Space exploration for it's own sake is a self-perpetuating relic of the cold war.
Space exploration for it's own sake is a self-perpetuating relic of the cold war.
How is space exploration categorically different from other kinds of scientific exploration?
In any number of ways, just as other types of scientific exploration are different from each other, and some seem to be worth spending billions on, and others are not. Do you have a more specific question?
First images from Philae's ROLIS camera:
-----------------------
1) 3km above comet:
https://twitter.com/DLR_de/status/532587248555143169
2) Few seconds before landing:
https://twitter.com/nanotousch/status/532593372218023936
3) First surface image?
http://i.imgur.com/0XK8Ar4.jpg
4) Possibly a new image from the descent?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2QySLrCUAAZbEL.jpg
Edit: no, here is the source (Rosetta's NavCam from yesterday):
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/11/NAVCAM_top_1...
-----------------------
Rosetta Lander Imaging System (ROLIS)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experimentDisplay.do?id=PHILA...
-----------------------
1) 3km above comet:
https://twitter.com/DLR_de/status/532587248555143169
2) Few seconds before landing:
https://twitter.com/nanotousch/status/532593372218023936
3) First surface image?
http://i.imgur.com/0XK8Ar4.jpg
4) Possibly a new image from the descent?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2QySLrCUAAZbEL.jpg
Edit: no, here is the source (Rosetta's NavCam from yesterday):
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/11/NAVCAM_top_1...
-----------------------
Rosetta Lander Imaging System (ROLIS)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experimentDisplay.do?id=PHILA...
More analysis of @Philae2014 telemetry
indicates harpoons did not fire as 1st thought
edit - the landing is confirmed, however the harpoons did not fire: https://twitter.com/ESA_Rosetta/status/532579871202238464
Emily Lakdawalla tweets from the control center:
Ulamec: signal kept coming and going "but we always got it back." Possibly indicates unstable, or tilted.
Ulamec confirms the harpoons did NOT fire. There is much they currently do not know.
Ulamec: a central rod was pushed into lander 4 cm by landing. Indicates soft rather than hard surface (rod would've pushed more into lander)
Just had a chat with Mark McCaughrean and I feel a bit calmer....
McCaughrean: @Philae2014 is down on the surface of the comet and it is transmitting signals. Science instruments are getting data.
Yes, McCaughrean confirmed this. RT @JPMajor: @elakdawalla So the ice screws on the lander's feet have at least dug in I assume?
https://twitter.com/elakdawalla/status/532578862086250497
------------------------------------------
And overview of the German DLR stream's briefing (via reddit live stream):
Good news:
--- Touchdown, all the signals that trigger on touchdown worked.
--- Still communication, which means the lander did not tilt or topple.
Bad news:
--- ADS thruster did not fire, that is the issue was already known beforehand.
--- The anchors did not fire, this confusion was due to the rewind motors for the anchors going into action, but the harpoon wasn't actually fired.
--- Team doesn't know if it rebounded or not / if it's on the surface. Thus they don't dare issuing a re-firing signal for the harpoons, because they don't know in what position the lander is. Current Situation:
--- The arm that damped the landing force only moved very little, which indicates a very soft surface. Which might mean if it rebound the rebound was very soft as well and in this case might settle down again.
--- On board computer is waiting for new commands.
--- There will be more telemetry in 30 minutes, but contact lost in 120 minutes, so the final verdict could be known only tomorrow.
http://www.reddit.com/live/tw0cnch7nxjx/
Ulamec: signal kept coming and going "but we always got it back." Possibly indicates unstable, or tilted.
Ulamec confirms the harpoons did NOT fire. There is much they currently do not know.
Ulamec: a central rod was pushed into lander 4 cm by landing. Indicates soft rather than hard surface (rod would've pushed more into lander)
Just had a chat with Mark McCaughrean and I feel a bit calmer....
McCaughrean: @Philae2014 is down on the surface of the comet and it is transmitting signals. Science instruments are getting data.
Yes, McCaughrean confirmed this. RT @JPMajor: @elakdawalla So the ice screws on the lander's feet have at least dug in I assume?
https://twitter.com/elakdawalla/status/532578862086250497
------------------------------------------
And overview of the German DLR stream's briefing (via reddit live stream):
Good news:
--- Touchdown, all the signals that trigger on touchdown worked.
--- Still communication, which means the lander did not tilt or topple.
Bad news:
--- ADS thruster did not fire, that is the issue was already known beforehand.
--- The anchors did not fire, this confusion was due to the rewind motors for the anchors going into action, but the harpoon wasn't actually fired.
--- Team doesn't know if it rebounded or not / if it's on the surface. Thus they don't dare issuing a re-firing signal for the harpoons, because they don't know in what position the lander is. Current Situation:
--- The arm that damped the landing force only moved very little, which indicates a very soft surface. Which might mean if it rebound the rebound was very soft as well and in this case might settle down again.
--- On board computer is waiting for new commands.
--- There will be more telemetry in 30 minutes, but contact lost in 120 minutes, so the final verdict could be known only tomorrow.
http://www.reddit.com/live/tw0cnch7nxjx/
Man, measuring how far a rod moves into the lander to gauge depth/surface tension/type? So simple and smart.
It's a robot prodding his finger in the ground :D
It did land, here's the next tweet:
> It looks like @Philae2014 made a fairly gentle touch down on #67P based on amount of landing gear damping #CometLanding
but the harpoons may have failed to fire.
> It looks like @Philae2014 made a fairly gentle touch down on #67P based on amount of landing gear damping #CometLanding
but the harpoons may have failed to fire.
land =/= secure.
those harpoons are what is supposed to anchor Philae to the comet. the problem is the reaction thruster, the thruster that counteracts the force generated by the harpoon shot, (to satisfy Newton's 3rd law) is faulty.
So they're hoping that when they reshoot the harpoon, the foot screws will be anchored enough to hold it in place. If not, theyre hoping that Philae won't launch too far off the surface so that they can just "reel" Philae back in.
those harpoons are what is supposed to anchor Philae to the comet. the problem is the reaction thruster, the thruster that counteracts the force generated by the harpoon shot, (to satisfy Newton's 3rd law) is faulty.
So they're hoping that when they reshoot the harpoon, the foot screws will be anchored enough to hold it in place. If not, theyre hoping that Philae won't launch too far off the surface so that they can just "reel" Philae back in.
> land =/= secure.
And I replied to a comment which said "land".
And I replied to a comment which said "land".
Ah my bad. Nonetheless it seems like harpoons did not fire. Tweet from just 30 secs ago: https://twitter.com/ESA_Rosetta/status/532579871202238464
Can it stay on the surface without the harpoons?
Can it stay on the surface without the harpoons?
> Can it stay on the surface without the harpoons?
technically yes. Philae has harpoons along with foot screws to secure it to the comet, but if harpoons are super glue, foot screws are tape.
technically yes. Philae has harpoons along with foot screws to secure it to the comet, but if harpoons are super glue, foot screws are tape.
Why does it need to anchor itself? It's not like it will blow away?
Gravity there is so low that something like a light push may be enough to launch. If anything used to examine the surface makes contact and presses (drill, digger), good-bye lander.
Firing the harpoon would also be enough to launch, but at least the hook would grab the surface and pull the lander back down, giving enough pull to drill viable long-term anchors.
Firing the harpoon would also be enough to launch, but at least the hook would grab the surface and pull the lander back down, giving enough pull to drill viable long-term anchors.
Are there any forces in effect as it gets closer and swings around the sun that might cause it to separate from the comet if there is no further attachment by then?
Absolutely! If its attached, its via surface ice. That ice will all melt on close approach to the sun. At some point the probe will drift away.
Of course, I should have deduced that. Is the harpoon expected to go deep enough to prevent this from happening?
Newton’s Second (edit: Third) Law. It wants to extend a drill bit into the surface.
It will dig into the surface anyway so it will anchor itself even without the harpoon, if it's on the surface of course.
See this video that explains how Philae foots work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-77-Z_DHTlY#t=84
ESA says it landed gently on the surface: https://twitter.com/esaoperations/status/532575615527170048
See this video that explains how Philae foots work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-77-Z_DHTlY#t=84
ESA says it landed gently on the surface: https://twitter.com/esaoperations/status/532575615527170048
It could actually, since there's already outgassing on the comet.
Anyone knows where i could find some info about the software stack this kind of probes are being built with ? Languages, programming methods, patching methods,os, runtime, etc.
I'm really curious to know how different it is from the web or enterprise development worlds.
I'm really curious to know how different it is from the web or enterprise development worlds.
Like other embedded systems, spacecraft computers use real-time operating systems (RTOS) and languages:
* The Rosetta probe ultimately runs SCL (Spacecraft Command Language) [1], a COTS spacecraft programming language developed for sale to the military [2]; SCL is based on the syntax of Ada 83, which has a long legacy in spaceflight and other real-time applications (e.g. Boeing 777) [3]. However, what are known as Flight Control Procedures (uploaded commands), are written using another language and transformed and compiled into SCL in a two-step process that involves XSLT [1]. On-board Control Procedures, which are procedures the probe decides on its own to run, and handle tasks such as receiving FCPs and sending back telemetry, are written in SCL [1].
* The Mars rover Curiosity is programmed in C and uses the VxWorks RTOS [4], which is very much like many commercial embedded systems. It has about 2.5 million lines of code, much of it autogenerated. Curiosity's predecessors, Spirit and Opportunity, used the same software stack, as did their predecessor, Sojourner [8].
* The Voyager probe, which has now left the solar system and entered interstellar space, uses "...interrupt driven computer[s], similar to processors used in general purpose computers with a few special instructions for increased efficiency. The programming is a form of assembly language." [5]
* The Space Shuttle was programmed in a custom language called HAL/S (High-order Assembly Language/Shuttle) [6], as was the Jupiter probe Galileo [7]. The language is descended from PL/I and its compiler is written in a subset of PL/I called XPL.
[1]: http://www.rheagroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/SpaceOps...
[2]: https://www.sra.com/scl/
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_(programming_language)
[4]: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/159638
[5]: http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/faq.html
[6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL/S
[7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(spacecraft)
[8]: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/159687
* The Rosetta probe ultimately runs SCL (Spacecraft Command Language) [1], a COTS spacecraft programming language developed for sale to the military [2]; SCL is based on the syntax of Ada 83, which has a long legacy in spaceflight and other real-time applications (e.g. Boeing 777) [3]. However, what are known as Flight Control Procedures (uploaded commands), are written using another language and transformed and compiled into SCL in a two-step process that involves XSLT [1]. On-board Control Procedures, which are procedures the probe decides on its own to run, and handle tasks such as receiving FCPs and sending back telemetry, are written in SCL [1].
* The Mars rover Curiosity is programmed in C and uses the VxWorks RTOS [4], which is very much like many commercial embedded systems. It has about 2.5 million lines of code, much of it autogenerated. Curiosity's predecessors, Spirit and Opportunity, used the same software stack, as did their predecessor, Sojourner [8].
* The Voyager probe, which has now left the solar system and entered interstellar space, uses "...interrupt driven computer[s], similar to processors used in general purpose computers with a few special instructions for increased efficiency. The programming is a form of assembly language." [5]
* The Space Shuttle was programmed in a custom language called HAL/S (High-order Assembly Language/Shuttle) [6], as was the Jupiter probe Galileo [7]. The language is descended from PL/I and its compiler is written in a subset of PL/I called XPL.
[1]: http://www.rheagroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/SpaceOps...
[2]: https://www.sra.com/scl/
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_(programming_language)
[4]: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/159638
[5]: http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/faq.html
[6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL/S
[7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(spacecraft)
[8]: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/159687
Very interesting. I didn't think C would be used that much (except for the core of the os of course). I somehow thought of either a specialized language with strong guarantees (such as ADA), or a high level language for IA-like feature.
Which makes me wonder, since this is HN after all, if Rust wouldn't be an ideal candidate for coding this kind of layer in the future. Maybe a compiler targeting VxWorks is in progress somewhere.. ? :))
Which makes me wonder, since this is HN after all, if Rust wouldn't be an ideal candidate for coding this kind of layer in the future. Maybe a compiler targeting VxWorks is in progress somewhere.. ? :))
Anything even remotely new is usually not a candidate for these types of long duration missions. Part of it is institutional inertia, but also partly a desire to use a technology stack that will still be in use decades from now. Even for missions that only take a few years, some of the same people will work on those missions as well as decade plus missions, so you have to hire people who are experts in mature technologies. Institutions like NASA and ESA want to work with a technology stack that will remain stable and which they know will be maintainable by people in the future.
C and languages that compile to C (Fortran is used as well) are often employed since you have powerful control over memory usage.
Source: I work in the aviation industry, where the technologies are different but the lifecycle concerns are very similar.
C and languages that compile to C (Fortran is used as well) are often employed since you have powerful control over memory usage.
Source: I work in the aviation industry, where the technologies are different but the lifecycle concerns are very similar.
Most likely they have headless web browsers running on both the main spacecraft (probably chromium) and the Philae lander. Web sockets enables the lander to communicate to the spacecraft which then sends its signals down to earth using regular HTTP (you don't want to keep an interstellar HTTP connection open). All of it is of course written in JavaScript, more specifically vanilla-JavaScript - which frankly I find weird given that I'd hope they would use a framework such as socket.io - bad engineering if you ask me. The lander obviously uses latest Node.js and npm to update some of its modules which are again sent across the wire using interstellar HTTP.
I think there's probably some CFML involved too?
This is the best thing I've read all day.
You joke, but FTP has indeed actually been used to communicate between Earth and a probe. A team at NASA's JPL , led by Vinton Cerf, completed a study of what would be needed for an Interplanetary Internet [1]. There are already IETF RFCs for delay-tolerant networking [2], which include mechanisms for store-and-forward communications (e.g. each transceiver is a relay).
Science fiction has some great depictions of interstellar communications, such as my favorite by Vernor Vinge, the Hugo award-winning novel A Fire Upon the Deep. It is a most excellent space opera that prominently features an interstellar system like Usenet as part of the plot [3], as well as superhuman intelligence, physics, and all sorts of other wonderful bits.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Internet
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay-tolerant_networking
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fire_Upon_the_Deep
Science fiction has some great depictions of interstellar communications, such as my favorite by Vernor Vinge, the Hugo award-winning novel A Fire Upon the Deep. It is a most excellent space opera that prominently features an interstellar system like Usenet as part of the plot [3], as well as superhuman intelligence, physics, and all sorts of other wonderful bits.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Internet
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay-tolerant_networking
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fire_Upon_the_Deep
All this without docker? Their devops team is seriously behind the times...
There's some discussion here, written by Attila Baksa who according to his linkedin is "Designer and developer of flight software of On-board Computer of the Rosetta Lander of ESA, which was successfully launched in 2003 and arrived to comet P67 in 2014."
eg: "The on-board software of the central computer of the Philae Lander consists of a real-time operating system and 8 application tasks. All these software modules are specially developed by our team for the Harris RTX2010RH microprocessor. The co-ordination of the scientific program and the overall control of the algorithms used by the application tasks are done by the MSO modelling language."
http://www.hiradastechnika.hu/data/upload/file/2004/2004_12/...
Also the "scheduling system, called the Rosetta SGS Scheduling Component" is discussed here:
https://ai.jpl.nasa.gov/public/papers/chien_iwpss2013_schedu...
which uses a framework called APSEN written by NASA:
http://aspen.jpl.nasa.gov/
which takes code like this:
Activity prevalve removal {
duration = 15
slot subsystem
after prevalve prep with (subsystem == this.subsystem)
before prevalve replace with (subsystem == this.subsystem)
Reservation hydraulic lift usage {
resource = hydraulic lift; usage = 1;
duration = 5;
requires state prevalve-purged TRUE
requires state prevalve-illuminated TRUE
to control the thing
http://metahack.org/isairas97-aspen.pdf
eg: "The on-board software of the central computer of the Philae Lander consists of a real-time operating system and 8 application tasks. All these software modules are specially developed by our team for the Harris RTX2010RH microprocessor. The co-ordination of the scientific program and the overall control of the algorithms used by the application tasks are done by the MSO modelling language."
http://www.hiradastechnika.hu/data/upload/file/2004/2004_12/...
Also the "scheduling system, called the Rosetta SGS Scheduling Component" is discussed here:
https://ai.jpl.nasa.gov/public/papers/chien_iwpss2013_schedu...
which uses a framework called APSEN written by NASA:
http://aspen.jpl.nasa.gov/
which takes code like this:
Activity prevalve removal {
duration = 15
slot subsystem
after prevalve prep with (subsystem == this.subsystem)
before prevalve replace with (subsystem == this.subsystem)
Reservation hydraulic lift usage {
resource = hydraulic lift; usage = 1;
duration = 5;
requires state prevalve-purged TRUE
requires state prevalve-illuminated TRUE
to control the thing
http://metahack.org/isairas97-aspen.pdf
This article is a classic, coming up on 20 years old, specifically about how differently the shuttle software team was from the dotcoms. http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff
No idea how relevant it is today, or any differences between the shuttle team and whoever's building/built the software for this lander, but it's definitely worth a read.
No idea how relevant it is today, or any differences between the shuttle team and whoever's building/built the software for this lander, but it's definitely worth a read.
There was a nice bit about the shuttle's computer systems in the Challenger appendix to Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman, too. As I recall, it was the only part of the shuttle process that Feynman thought was engineered correctly.
Ron Garrett (formerly Erann Gat) has some background on how these decisions are made. It's not pretty.
http://www.flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html
http://www.flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html
Also his "How I lost faith in Lisp" post is interesting.
I'm not sure how I stand on "w/ a great language one does great things" vs "great engineers do great things with any tools they have" debate.
I'm not sure how I stand on "w/ a great language one does great things" vs "great engineers do great things with any tools they have" debate.
[deleted]
There is not much to find, but apparently, they do software updates over the "air": http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/03/28/software-upgrade-at-...
While I'm not sure what this exact probe is built upon, some popular choices for mission critical applications I've seen in the past are:
* VxWorks for real time operating system (proprietary)
* Ada/C++ for programming language.
* VxWorks for real time operating system (proprietary)
* Ada/C++ for programming language.
Here's a handful of videos and presentations: http://flightsoftware.jhuapl.edu/files/_site/workshops/2013/
The last answer here has a lot of links for the Curiosity Rover: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/159637/what-i...
The last answer here has a lot of links for the Curiosity Rover: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/159637/what-i...
Start with vxWorks.
Coverage of this has been very confusing.
The ESA live feed at most times show people in some kind of control room staring at screens. There is no apparent way to see any highlights, unless I want to try scrolling back and forth through the hour-long video stream.
At any given time, various forum threads seem to have more information than the ESA site, which seems to communicate mostly through either lighthearted tweets, one-line headlines, or general background articles.
All I want is a simple timeline of events, constantly updated with latest news and images. Instead we have forum threads where you have to dig through comments to find out what is the newest info.
The ESA live feed at most times show people in some kind of control room staring at screens. There is no apparent way to see any highlights, unless I want to try scrolling back and forth through the hour-long video stream.
At any given time, various forum threads seem to have more information than the ESA site, which seems to communicate mostly through either lighthearted tweets, one-line headlines, or general background articles.
All I want is a simple timeline of events, constantly updated with latest news and images. Instead we have forum threads where you have to dig through comments to find out what is the newest info.
>> "All I want is a simple timeline of events, constantly updated with latest news and images"
OT but it's kind of amazing that this is actually a simple request these days.
OT but it's kind of amazing that this is actually a simple request these days.
The Guardian live-blog is good as well. Less tweet-heavy than the BBC:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/live/...
http://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/live/...
The guardian seems to have made more fuss about the guys shirt than the actual event.
Wow, I listen to the solutions they invented to hibernate the probe safely - to save on the electricity they had to hibernate it, but then it could have change orientation relative to sun, and wouldn't have enough energy to wake up.
So they disabled the orientation system to save energy, but first they made the probe rotate quickly to stabilise it like a gyroscope.
That's stuff from sci-fi books / Mc Gyver movie :)
So they disabled the orientation system to save energy, but first they made the probe rotate quickly to stabilise it like a gyroscope.
That's stuff from sci-fi books / Mc Gyver movie :)
Live streaming of the event here http://news.yahoo.com/video/abc-news-plus-special-report-220...
Thanks @brianpgordon - Check out this gif of the orbital maneuvers required for Rosetta to reach its destination: https://i.imgur.com/TUkKuhf.gif
Live twitter feed of ESA https://twitter.com/esaoperations
It looks like @Philae2014 made a fairly gentle touch down on #67P based on amount of landing gear damping #CometLanding
Thanks @brianpgordon - Check out this gif of the orbital maneuvers required for Rosetta to reach its destination: https://i.imgur.com/TUkKuhf.gif
Live twitter feed of ESA https://twitter.com/esaoperations
It looks like @Philae2014 made a fairly gentle touch down on #67P based on amount of landing gear damping #CometLanding
or straight from the ESA http://rosetta.esa.int/?landing
Or the xkcd version https://xkcd.com/1446/ (see older frames at http://xkcd1446.org/, the first few are blank so start around #16)
What is this? What's the point?
It's a series of over 100 frames that are being drawn and uploaded live before and during the probe launch. It illustrates the position and status of the probe. (Edit: it's still updating)
The official one was struggling hard when I tried. The BBC is putting out the same stream, with english translations when appropriate: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/science-environment-29985988
The NASA TV iPad app works too.
For anyone who wants to see how they got there
http://sci.esa.int/where_is_rosetta/
pretty mind blowing for me to plan ahead 10 years
http://sci.esa.int/where_is_rosetta/
pretty mind blowing for me to plan ahead 10 years
Amazing job! This might be a silly question but are their any ideas as to the actual real world benefits we could see from this? The director-general of the ESA said "This is a big step for human civilisation" so I presume there is some idea of what they expect to gain from this mission?
Edit: Thanks for all the replies! I'm at work now but will take a look at them this evening.
Edit: Thanks for all the replies! I'm at work now but will take a look at them this evening.
The actual real world benefits of Space Flight are strange. For example the Apollo program didn't bring back DeathCrystals from the moon, that allowed us to crush the Soviets in a glorious patriot war (obviously sarcasm).
Instead it gave us seemly random things, that we were looking for, but are beneficial nonetheless and some which may not come out right away.
The Apollo Mission gave us
ASICs, Cordless Tools, CAT scan, Ear Thermometer, Smoke Detector, Shoe insoles, carbon based water filters, satellite television (boardcasted, not passive reflected), Scratch resistant lenses.
These things aren't why we went to the moon. Inventing them kinda just happened to see the program though. Space travel challenges the status quo of technology. Its really REALLY hard. So when ever we (humans) do it, we face new problems, and our solutions sometimes have effects for those on earth.
Instead it gave us seemly random things, that we were looking for, but are beneficial nonetheless and some which may not come out right away.
The Apollo Mission gave us
ASICs, Cordless Tools, CAT scan, Ear Thermometer, Smoke Detector, Shoe insoles, carbon based water filters, satellite television (boardcasted, not passive reflected), Scratch resistant lenses.
These things aren't why we went to the moon. Inventing them kinda just happened to see the program though. Space travel challenges the status quo of technology. Its really REALLY hard. So when ever we (humans) do it, we face new problems, and our solutions sometimes have effects for those on earth.
Not to mention inspiring generations.
I wouldn't be a programmer with the space program, it inspired a life long love of science and technology.
I wouldn't be a programmer with the space program, it inspired a life long love of science and technology.
> For example the Apollo program didn't bring back DeathCrystals from the moon, that allowed us to crush the Soviets in a glorious patriot war (obviously sarcasm).
Sarcasm aside, this is more due to Geneva Conventions rather than actual lack of Death Crystals on the moon.
Sarcasm aside, this is more due to Geneva Conventions rather than actual lack of Death Crystals on the moon.
I'm pretty sure if we had found Death Crystals on the moon we would have figured out a way to synthesize and weaponize them on earth.
Check out this gif of the orbital maneuvers required for Rosetta to reach its destination:
https://i.imgur.com/TUkKuhf.gif
This probably won't be very impressive in a few hundred years, but for now it's a remarkable engineering achievement.
https://i.imgur.com/TUkKuhf.gif
This probably won't be very impressive in a few hundred years, but for now it's a remarkable engineering achievement.
Please don't use .gifs for videos, :(
There are several benefits gained, both scientifically and politically.
Scientific:
* Comets may show us early composition of our solar system since they change less than planets. This may help answer questions related to where water came or where DNA/RNA molecules came from.
* Lessons learned here will directly contribute to the success of future missions on both mars and the moon
* Solar cell technology was directly advanced, helping push forward solar energy
Political & Social:
* Brings governments closer together These types of missions require a great amount of cooperation and help stabilize and improve the international political landscape. Around 20 countries cooperated in this mission.
* Inspire more people to enter science, math and engineering
* Increase collaboration of universities and industry, helping close the gap between theoretical and applied science.
[edited to fix formatting]
Scientific:
* Comets may show us early composition of our solar system since they change less than planets. This may help answer questions related to where water came or where DNA/RNA molecules came from.
* Lessons learned here will directly contribute to the success of future missions on both mars and the moon
* Solar cell technology was directly advanced, helping push forward solar energy
Political & Social:
* Brings governments closer together These types of missions require a great amount of cooperation and help stabilize and improve the international political landscape. Around 20 countries cooperated in this mission.
* Inspire more people to enter science, math and engineering
* Increase collaboration of universities and industry, helping close the gap between theoretical and applied science.
[edited to fix formatting]
One thing the other (very good) replies miss: Never underestimate the power of 'gee whiz' technology has on children. This is cool, exciting engineering. Even if the scientific results are "boring", that is to say we don't get any unexpected data, the act of pushing the boundaries of what humans have been able to do is inspirational. There are kids who will learn about this in school the next few days, and see it on the news, and hear grown ups talking about how neat it is, and decide "I want to be an engineer", or "I want to be a scientist". It doesn't take many of them making this decision to have a big, long term impact (which provides a great societal ROI on the mission).
Improved understanding of our solar system, its history and our place in the universe is a real benefit that soon will be available for anyone. Comets are generally very old, so can enable us to learn a lot about solar system's history.
Achieving engineering capabilities required to land on comets is a step forward for human civilization.
I consider the above to be actual real world benefits. If they are not, I'm not sure where the boundary of the real world is and where the imaginary world begins.
Achieving engineering capabilities required to land on comets is a step forward for human civilization.
I consider the above to be actual real world benefits. If they are not, I'm not sure where the boundary of the real world is and where the imaginary world begins.
Thanks. I would definitely consider the second point a real world benefit but if we are going to spend over $1bn to learn about the solar system's history I take it we are hoping to discover something that actually has benefits to humanity (e.g. when the money could have had more immediate impacts treating disease or helping the poor etc.). Don't get me wrong I'm all for these kinds of missions I just thought that to get that kind of funding the scientists would have had to put forward a list of possible things they might learn which could benefit humanity in the short term to help justify the cost. I'm basically looking for the idiots list of why we should spend so much money on this.
Edit: Several downvotes even though I tried to make it clear I'm FOR this kind of spending. My problem is basically how do you explain to someone on the street why spending $1bn on a mission to a comet is worth it when we don't know what benefits it will bring.
Edit: Several downvotes even though I tried to make it clear I'm FOR this kind of spending. My problem is basically how do you explain to someone on the street why spending $1bn on a mission to a comet is worth it when we don't know what benefits it will bring.
First, curiosity and the need for understanding the universe and our place in it are real human needs. I agree they do not have the short-term urgency and fulfilling them is a long-term objective.
Second, having all of humanity live on a single speck of rock puts us in a very precarious position as a species and introduces a single-point of failure to our civilization. Therefore, the development of technical capabilities to move freely around the solar system and eventually beyond is also an objective for humanity. Again, I admit, it is a long-term one without short-term urgency of say, getting rid of Ebola.
So the whole issue is essentially a question of the right balance of the amount of effort we invest in working on our short-term urgent objectives and the long-term ones.
With world GDP in excess of $70 trillion per year [1], spending 1 billion EUR ($1.25 billion) for a decade-long mission does not seem like extravagance.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product
EDIT: To further put the cost of the mission into perspective: assuming the contributions for the mission came from about half a billion people (EU population) over a decade this translates into about 20 euro-cents per year. Seriously, this is not extravagance. In fact, given that the mission cost is over 20% of ESA's yearly budget it makes me think Europe is under-investing in its space capabilities and scientific research. Nitpick: ESA member states don't overlap with the EU exactly, but it is a good enough proxy. More accurate figure would allow for American and other contributions to the on-board instruments so would be even less than 20 euro-cents/year/person.
Second, having all of humanity live on a single speck of rock puts us in a very precarious position as a species and introduces a single-point of failure to our civilization. Therefore, the development of technical capabilities to move freely around the solar system and eventually beyond is also an objective for humanity. Again, I admit, it is a long-term one without short-term urgency of say, getting rid of Ebola.
So the whole issue is essentially a question of the right balance of the amount of effort we invest in working on our short-term urgent objectives and the long-term ones.
With world GDP in excess of $70 trillion per year [1], spending 1 billion EUR ($1.25 billion) for a decade-long mission does not seem like extravagance.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product
EDIT: To further put the cost of the mission into perspective: assuming the contributions for the mission came from about half a billion people (EU population) over a decade this translates into about 20 euro-cents per year. Seriously, this is not extravagance. In fact, given that the mission cost is over 20% of ESA's yearly budget it makes me think Europe is under-investing in its space capabilities and scientific research. Nitpick: ESA member states don't overlap with the EU exactly, but it is a good enough proxy. More accurate figure would allow for American and other contributions to the on-board instruments so would be even less than 20 euro-cents/year/person.
Maybe you need first the idiots list of bad ways to spending tax money
Military: $640bn (per year) War on drugs: $41bn (per year) Health-care overcharging & overtesting: $1200bn (per year)
And this is just the US, now imagine those costs worldwide.
So, in contrast, this is a first-time-experiment where we get to do something never done before, using a lot of tech in brand new conditions (for us) where thousands put to test their knowledge of physics, electronics and astronomy. In such light you might understand why you are being downvoted.
Military: $640bn (per year) War on drugs: $41bn (per year) Health-care overcharging & overtesting: $1200bn (per year)
And this is just the US, now imagine those costs worldwide.
So, in contrast, this is a first-time-experiment where we get to do something never done before, using a lot of tech in brand new conditions (for us) where thousands put to test their knowledge of physics, electronics and astronomy. In such light you might understand why you are being downvoted.
It's interesting that you believe that missions like this must be justified by short term benefits. These missions are very fortunately not about short term benefits.
One of the initial motivations for this mission was to learn more about our solar system's origins by studying a comet up close. Many engineering challenges were also overcome in the process, which will lead to positive side effects for future space missions and related areas, but one of the primary scientific questions this mission attempts to answer is "why is our solar system the way it is?" Answers to that question will likely help us better understand our place in the universe, and possibly shine a light on other solar systems as well. Maybe even give us a better idea how likely we are to encounter life in other solar systems, and what that life might be composed of.
Ironically, compared to questions of cosmic significance like these, short term concerns like treating present diseases or improving the current economic environment are petty and irrelevant by comparison. These are issues that science and government can tackle on earth, and issues where throwing more money at the problem doesn't always help. It is a fallacy to think that because space travel requires money, that earthly needs will go unfulfilled. It's deeply short sighted, in fact.
Your comment seems to be rooted in a deep misunderstanding of the nature of science. Science does not proceed by first devising a list of improvements to human wellbeing that will result from an experiment (though the grant application process in universities sometimes encompasses this task--with a lot of handwaving as a result). Science is about expanding our sphere of knowledge. By definition, we don't know what will result, or if it will have a positive impact. But we are trying something that has never been tried before, which is deeply interesting, and which has the potential to greatly expand our knowledge of the universe. Science is fundamentally a research activity: you can't know in advance what you will find. Asking what we will find before performing the experiment is pointless. The "might find" category for a mission like this is enormous, however.
One of the initial motivations for this mission was to learn more about our solar system's origins by studying a comet up close. Many engineering challenges were also overcome in the process, which will lead to positive side effects for future space missions and related areas, but one of the primary scientific questions this mission attempts to answer is "why is our solar system the way it is?" Answers to that question will likely help us better understand our place in the universe, and possibly shine a light on other solar systems as well. Maybe even give us a better idea how likely we are to encounter life in other solar systems, and what that life might be composed of.
Ironically, compared to questions of cosmic significance like these, short term concerns like treating present diseases or improving the current economic environment are petty and irrelevant by comparison. These are issues that science and government can tackle on earth, and issues where throwing more money at the problem doesn't always help. It is a fallacy to think that because space travel requires money, that earthly needs will go unfulfilled. It's deeply short sighted, in fact.
Your comment seems to be rooted in a deep misunderstanding of the nature of science. Science does not proceed by first devising a list of improvements to human wellbeing that will result from an experiment (though the grant application process in universities sometimes encompasses this task--with a lot of handwaving as a result). Science is about expanding our sphere of knowledge. By definition, we don't know what will result, or if it will have a positive impact. But we are trying something that has never been tried before, which is deeply interesting, and which has the potential to greatly expand our knowledge of the universe. Science is fundamentally a research activity: you can't know in advance what you will find. Asking what we will find before performing the experiment is pointless. The "might find" category for a mission like this is enormous, however.
You're asking a reasonable question.
I'm not sure how Rosetta was run; it had a longer germination time than many missions.
But for a typical science-driven mission, there is a thing called a "Science Traceability Matrix", or STM, that has science goals down one side and measurements down the other side. Every science goal must be traced to one or more measurements that will achieve it, and every measurement must correspond to some goal. If the linkage is not clear, the measurement (i.e., instrument - one spacecraft typically has many instruments) will be booted.
For more: http://csc.caltech.edu/references/Grogan%20STM.pdf [page ~8 has a matrix]
The science goals, in turn, are arrived at through National Academies studies, typically Decadal Surveys, done once per 10 years (often with a midpoint course correction). Membership in the NAS is a very big deal that few scientists achieve; the expertise of these people is unreal. That is:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13405
One of the outcomes of all the space funding over the years is that there is now a somewhat orderly process for attacking big questions systematically.
I'm not sure how Rosetta was run; it had a longer germination time than many missions.
But for a typical science-driven mission, there is a thing called a "Science Traceability Matrix", or STM, that has science goals down one side and measurements down the other side. Every science goal must be traced to one or more measurements that will achieve it, and every measurement must correspond to some goal. If the linkage is not clear, the measurement (i.e., instrument - one spacecraft typically has many instruments) will be booted.
For more: http://csc.caltech.edu/references/Grogan%20STM.pdf [page ~8 has a matrix]
The science goals, in turn, are arrived at through National Academies studies, typically Decadal Surveys, done once per 10 years (often with a midpoint course correction). Membership in the NAS is a very big deal that few scientists achieve; the expertise of these people is unreal. That is:
state of science knowledge ->
decadal survey ->
science goals ->
traceability matrix ->
specific instrument choices
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13405
One of the outcomes of all the space funding over the years is that there is now a somewhat orderly process for attacking big questions systematically.
If you want to talk about spending priorities, how about the folly of the Iraq war, trident, etc. those cost huge amounts more than this mission? Not everyone has the same priorities as you.
Thank goodness at least some of our money is spent on things which might benefit humanity in the long term, like discovering how the solar system was formed or whether life was formed on earth or elsewhere.
Thank goodness at least some of our money is spent on things which might benefit humanity in the long term, like discovering how the solar system was formed or whether life was formed on earth or elsewhere.
[deleted]
...where did I indicate I would rather spend that money on war and weapons? My comment actually states: "Don't get me wrong I'm all for these kinds of missions".
As for your long term benefits:
Great so we find out how the solar system is formed or where life was formed - now what? Those are really cool things to know but what do we do with that information? The reason I'm curious about this is that although I want to see more of these missions and I think it would be great to have answers to those questions I find it difficult to actually justify spending that money on answering questions. There must be some tangible benefit. Other responses to my question have provided me with answers to that.
As for your long term benefits:
Great so we find out how the solar system is formed or where life was formed - now what? Those are really cool things to know but what do we do with that information? The reason I'm curious about this is that although I want to see more of these missions and I think it would be great to have answers to those questions I find it difficult to actually justify spending that money on answering questions. There must be some tangible benefit. Other responses to my question have provided me with answers to that.
> I find it difficult to actually justify spending that money on answering questions. There must be some tangible benefit.
Maybe they haven't been discovered yet. Application can lag theory or basic experiments for a very long time. Did the car come right after the wheel? Did the iPhone come right after Ohm's Law? Maybe this will aid comet/asteroid mining missions. Or optical image processing. Or orbit optimization for long solar system traverses. I think it's very shortsighted to pursue only research that has visible short-term benefits, because you could be missing out on countless innovations that are below the horizon. We can't predict the future. But I also think application is unnecessary, and that there is inherent value in understanding our world.
In any case, while I don't know how much the average European pays for ESA in taxes, I do know the average American pays something like a few bucks to fund NASA. So you're quibbling over the use of a tiny proportion of resources to answer some big questions.
Maybe they haven't been discovered yet. Application can lag theory or basic experiments for a very long time. Did the car come right after the wheel? Did the iPhone come right after Ohm's Law? Maybe this will aid comet/asteroid mining missions. Or optical image processing. Or orbit optimization for long solar system traverses. I think it's very shortsighted to pursue only research that has visible short-term benefits, because you could be missing out on countless innovations that are below the horizon. We can't predict the future. But I also think application is unnecessary, and that there is inherent value in understanding our world.
In any case, while I don't know how much the average European pays for ESA in taxes, I do know the average American pays something like a few bucks to fund NASA. So you're quibbling over the use of a tiny proportion of resources to answer some big questions.
"Don't get me wrong I'm all for these kinds of missions"
Which you then contradicted by whining about not seeing the benefit of it; you're clearly not all for this mission or you wouldn't have derailed this top thread with your concern troll.
There doesn't have to be a tangible, short term benefit for these missions to be considered worthwhile by the majority of humanity, so your question is irrelevant to them. If you can't see the benefit to us of finding out when and where life was formed, I can't help you.
Which you then contradicted by whining about not seeing the benefit of it; you're clearly not all for this mission or you wouldn't have derailed this top thread with your concern troll.
There doesn't have to be a tangible, short term benefit for these missions to be considered worthwhile by the majority of humanity, so your question is irrelevant to them. If you can't see the benefit to us of finding out when and where life was formed, I can't help you.
>> "I can't help you."
That's fine. There are plenty of other answers to my legitimate question (certainly wasn't trolling) and those were able to help me.
That's fine. There are plenty of other answers to my legitimate question (certainly wasn't trolling) and those were able to help me.
While I'm sure there was an "idiots list" at some point, this is the kind of criticism that science has had to put up with for a while. Governments understand by now that it's well worth it to invest in research, even research that doesn't have obvious immediate benefits.
The LHC took over $13B to discover Higgs. It's a bit of a stretch to call it a discovery, it was really a confirmation of what we were already pretty sure of. But, that money didn't just disappear; it went into building a tech industry which is pretty valuable to have. And a better understanding of our universe has a funny way of being really useful down the road.
The LHC took over $13B to discover Higgs. It's a bit of a stretch to call it a discovery, it was really a confirmation of what we were already pretty sure of. But, that money didn't just disappear; it went into building a tech industry which is pretty valuable to have. And a better understanding of our universe has a funny way of being really useful down the road.
Trying to find answers to the most important questions is much more important than saving a few thousand people now. Plus, we'll probably need to leave Earth one day, and before that we need to know how.
Ernst Stuhlinger wrote this letter on May 6, 1970, to Sister Mary Jucunda, a nun who worked among the starving children of Kabwe, Zambia, in Africa, who questioned the value of space exploration. At the time Dr. Stuhlinger was Associate Director for Science at the Marshall Space Flight Center, in Huntsville, Alabama.
Perhaps one real world benefit from better understanding the composition of comets would be an improved ability to destroy one that is on a collision course with Earth.
To pick one example, before the landing it was discovered that the gas jets emitted by the comet interact with the solar wind to produce a unique signal:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/11/12/4126840.ht...
The detailed dynamics are yet to be determined, but since the comet has an orbit that takes it from as close to the sun as Earth and as far away as Jupiter, this signal should change as it travels. Or maybe it doesn't, and if so, that would be a mystery worth investigating. This is a completely unexpected discovery that enables us to study a comet's magnetic field, and how it interacts with the solar wind.
Here are some possible benefits just from this one discovery:
1) The instruments necessary to even detect this signal are very impressive by themselves, developing them has probably improved a number of instrumentation technologies on Earth already.
2) The lander's instruments cannot penetrate the surface very far. The fact that this comet even has a magnetic field (however weak) is interesting. It could mean that a significant portion of the comet's interior is composed of iron, nickel, cobalt, or rare earth metals, which would be useful knowledge for people like these: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/asteroid-mining-venture-backed-b...
3) If future missions to comets find a different type of signal, which in turn leads to a different type of internal composition, the differences in a comet's magnetic field could be used to infer the composition of its interior from a distance, without sending any probes to the surface at all.
The detailed dynamics are yet to be determined, but since the comet has an orbit that takes it from as close to the sun as Earth and as far away as Jupiter, this signal should change as it travels. Or maybe it doesn't, and if so, that would be a mystery worth investigating. This is a completely unexpected discovery that enables us to study a comet's magnetic field, and how it interacts with the solar wind.
Here are some possible benefits just from this one discovery:
1) The instruments necessary to even detect this signal are very impressive by themselves, developing them has probably improved a number of instrumentation technologies on Earth already.
2) The lander's instruments cannot penetrate the surface very far. The fact that this comet even has a magnetic field (however weak) is interesting. It could mean that a significant portion of the comet's interior is composed of iron, nickel, cobalt, or rare earth metals, which would be useful knowledge for people like these: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/asteroid-mining-venture-backed-b...
3) If future missions to comets find a different type of signal, which in turn leads to a different type of internal composition, the differences in a comet's magnetic field could be used to infer the composition of its interior from a distance, without sending any probes to the surface at all.
In addition to all the other responses, there's one benefit I haven't seen mentioned yet. In the event that a comet is discovered on a collision course with Earth (an extremely low probability event, but one with enormously bad consequences) then knowing more about the structure and composition of comets would be essential to deflecting it.
I am sure that companies like Planetary Recources (and anyone who wants to make refueling in space possible) will greatly benefit from the discoveries made during this mission.
It's mostly about understanding our solar system and how it formed - comets supposedly contain a lot of early material and could be key to understanding the formation of various parts of the system.
Some believe that water or other materials from comets were fundamental in the origination of life here on Earth.
It also gives us more understanding on the material composition of the rest of space - which might be of more practical use once we start mining space, for example.
Some believe that water or other materials from comets were fundamental in the origination of life here on Earth.
It also gives us more understanding on the material composition of the rest of space - which might be of more practical use once we start mining space, for example.
The lander's mission is:
> elemental, isotopic, molecular and mineralogical composition of the cometary material, the characterization of physical properties of the surface and subsurface material, the large-scale structure and the magnetic and plasma environment of the nucleus
Amongst other things, they'll be looking for complex organic molecules.
> elemental, isotopic, molecular and mineralogical composition of the cometary material, the characterization of physical properties of the surface and subsurface material, the large-scale structure and the magnetic and plasma environment of the nucleus
Amongst other things, they'll be looking for complex organic molecules.
"Strange how much human progress and achievement comes from contemplation of the irrelevant." - Scott Kim
Apart from discovering the unknown and adding to the body of knowledge facts about an object that we currently know nothing about, "comets are thought to have delivered a vast quantity of water to Earth, and they may have also seeded Earth with organic molecules" [1] which means that they might hold important clues to how life started here on Earth. Realistically this could have potential future benefits to things we can't even phantom about today - perhaps such discoveries about the origins of life could lead to fundamental innovations in human health.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(spacecraft)#Search_for...
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(spacecraft)#Search_for...
i watched a docu on the large hadron collider and the search for the higgs boson particle where they asked one of the scientists a similar question. what do you expect to gain monitarily from that xBillion dollars we just spent on this? his reply was 'i don't know'. he went on to give the example of how when radio waves were first discovered nobody called them 'radio waves' because no one had thought to use them in that way yet. I think a lot of exploritory science can be framed this way. we do it to get a better understanding of the world we live in.
Reminds me of a great conversation in The West Wing (one of the best written shows ever made, in my opinion).
A senator (ENLOW) has put an anonymous hold on building a supercollider, the white house deputy communications director (SAM) wants to help his old professor (MILLGATE) get the budget approved for it, and this is near the end of the episode:
A senator (ENLOW) has put an anonymous hold on building a supercollider, the white house deputy communications director (SAM) wants to help his old professor (MILLGATE) get the budget approved for it, and this is near the end of the episode:
ENLOW
I'm a Democrat, Sam. How's a 20 billion dollar astronomy lecture gonna help
the President get elected?
SAM
It won't. "We've discovered a seamless, intellectual framework for the
universe" isn't a good 30-second spot.
ENLOW
If only we could only say what benefit this thing has, but no one's been
able to do that.
MILLGATE
That's because great achievement has no road map. The X-ray's pretty good.
So is penicillin. Neither were discovered with a practical objective in
mind. I mean, when the electron was discovered in 1897, it was useless. And
now, we have an entire world run by electronics. Haydn and Mozart never
studied the classics. They couldn't. They invented them.
SAM
Discovery.
MILLGATE
What?
SAM
That's the thing that you were... Discovery is what. That's what this is used
for.
It's for discovery.
A similarly great West Wing clip about exploration re: Mars mission.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHGK96-WixU
"The history of man is hung on the timeline of exploration and this is what's next."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHGK96-WixU
"The history of man is hung on the timeline of exploration and this is what's next."
Heh, watched that when looking for the scene I pasted, as I couldn't remember which of those "what's the point of this science" episodes was the one with the quote I wanted - what an amazing show. Need to rewatch again soon.
Real world benefit? In 20 years, we move the production capacity of China to space, and everyone, anywhere on the Earth, has the ability to order a product, remotely assembled on our comet moon, for direct delivery.
sigh A man can dream.
sigh A man can dream.
It would honestly be faster to ship it overseas.
I'm quite fine with putting stuff in a holding LEO with robots and having it sit there, waiting for delivery by parachute to my pals and I while we sit in the bliss of an industry-free paradise here on Earth. If we move all the poisonous things to space, where it belongs, we make a better Earth. You bet I'd love to be designing package delivery systems which bring me my new softhard from space. Put all manufacturing on a comet, use its resources (which are plenty) with robot bases, send the result back to a recovering ecosphere, the only one of its kind, here on Earth.
> the bliss of an industry-free paradise here on Earth
See, that's what you should've mentioned the first time. :P
I'm cool with that dream. I just thought you were hoping to get stuff faster by dropping it on our heads.
See, that's what you should've mentioned the first time. :P
I'm cool with that dream. I just thought you were hoping to get stuff faster by dropping it on our heads.
Ice from Jupiter-class comet supposed to be what seeded Earth with water billions of years ago. Want to see what chemicals are there etc.
I get that part but what tangible benefits will I/humanity see from it? Or is it more of a case of gaining more knowledge about how the Universe works in the hope that that knowledge combined with other knowledge may lead to something eventually?
This is how all science has always worked. Peasants were probably upset once that nobleman would spend their money on playing with mould in glass containers(what good could possibly come out of it????), rather than buy them food or clothing, yet that's how penicillin(and countless other drugs) came about. Do you think every inventor in history had a crystal clear idea what they were inventing and how was it going to change the world? Think about this as our R&D department - it has to get some money to keep pushing us forward.
And not everything is done as a benefit/loss game - I would personally invest significant time and money into finding out how the universe came about, even if such knowledge doesn't do anything for starving children in Nigeria. However, the beauty of it is that you on the other hand can go and spend YOUR time and YOUR money on whatever YOU please. As for public spending - if you don't like it, go and vote.
And not everything is done as a benefit/loss game - I would personally invest significant time and money into finding out how the universe came about, even if such knowledge doesn't do anything for starving children in Nigeria. However, the beauty of it is that you on the other hand can go and spend YOUR time and YOUR money on whatever YOU please. As for public spending - if you don't like it, go and vote.
Space exploration is not for you. Your tax share of this mission, depending on where you live, is either zero or nearly zero. Asking for personal benefits from a space probe is silly.
However, your children, and their children, and so on will likely see benefits from it. The future is impossible to predict, however, so nobody can say what they will be. The principal benefit of missions like this is the new knowledge they generate. That knowledge is then the intellectual heritage of humanity for eternity, and can be used for any number of inventions, benefits, and future discoveries.
You are thinking too small. Even if somehow nothing ever comes of this mission, this is the sort of thing that humanity does not because it has survival value, but because it gives value to survival.
However, your children, and their children, and so on will likely see benefits from it. The future is impossible to predict, however, so nobody can say what they will be. The principal benefit of missions like this is the new knowledge they generate. That knowledge is then the intellectual heritage of humanity for eternity, and can be used for any number of inventions, benefits, and future discoveries.
You are thinking too small. Even if somehow nothing ever comes of this mission, this is the sort of thing that humanity does not because it has survival value, but because it gives value to survival.
[deleted]
Survival of our species.
Probably 'just' the achievement of catching a speeding comet and landing on it. The comet itself doesn't seem all that interesting.
Comets are thought to be remains of the frozen cloud of gas/dust that our solar system was created from. So the hope is we can learn about the creation of our solar system.
On top of that it's the biggest acchievement of the European Space Agency.
And landing on a 4 km small rock 500,000,000 km from Earth after 12 years of travelling is in itself remarkable.
On top of that it's the biggest acchievement of the European Space Agency.
And landing on a 4 km small rock 500,000,000 km from Earth after 12 years of travelling is in itself remarkable.
It is just me or has the story evolved into something a bit less jubilant in the course of the last two hours. It's an amazing feat, but this stuff is always a huge gamble.
As someone's who's worked on a few spacecraft project I feel really bad for the team(s) (recently worked on one which didn't go so well, years of work down the tube). Even if it didn't go perfectly I hope they're commended for the work they've done so far & the landing they achieved.
As someone's who's worked on a few spacecraft project I feel really bad for the team(s) (recently worked on one which didn't go so well, years of work down the tube). Even if it didn't go perfectly I hope they're commended for the work they've done so far & the landing they achieved.
I highly recommend this video that explains how Philae works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-77-Z_DHTlY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-77-Z_DHTlY
Seeing their faces on the live feed when it landed was amazing. It must be so exciting.
It is so exciting, even from watching the live stream!
Science is amazing. I'm glad to be living in a period where I get to be around for stuff like this.
Hope this isn't a dumb question, but how does Philae stay put? If the gravity strong enough to keep it on the surface? Also, as the comet nears the sun and parts of the comet start flying off, is there a threat of Philae getting swept along with it?
The robot deployed harpoons to fasten itself to the 2.5-mile-wide ball of ice and dust.
the harpoons failed to anchor to the surface, according to mission control, which was just announced on the live coverage. It appears they will try to reshoot the harpoons at some point if possible.
I love how simple and low-tech this solution is. People have been using anchored ropes and cables of various kinds to fasten things together for millennia. People have been using harpoons at sea for whaling for centuries.
I now have a picture of the lander having one ivory leg and the asteroid called Moby Dick. Thanks, :p
Harpoon, ice screw. Retro-rockets failed to deploy.
> Also, as the comet nears the sun and parts of the comet start flying off, is there a threat of Philae getting swept along with it?
To add to what everyone else mentioned: Philae's science mission is slated to last for 2.5 days - the batteries have ~65 hours of charge, that's it. The hope is that they may be able to charge it and keep gathering data afterwards.
So it's not going to last nearly that long.
To add to what everyone else mentioned: Philae's science mission is slated to last for 2.5 days - the batteries have ~65 hours of charge, that's it. The hope is that they may be able to charge it and keep gathering data afterwards.
So it's not going to last nearly that long.
Gravity is very weak, it harpooned itself into the surface. The comet doesn't come very close to the sun, only around 1.2AU or so.
This is an incredible day for science and Humanity. ESA, CNSA, ISRO, SpaceX etc have done a great job so far to carry forward the legacy of NASA and ROSCOSMOS to new levels.
Still can't believe ESA planned and landed a robot on a comet. Bravo!
Still can't believe ESA planned and landed a robot on a comet. Bravo!
No announcement yet, but just now in the ESA webcast of the control room everyone stopped, gathered around a guy that I assume is the team lead, and are now going home. I have a bad feeling about this.
Total non-sequitor but...I'm surprised no one else has yet made the observation that Philae Lander put together is philaender, or philander. Juvenile post of the day award anybody?
we just landed a friggin' robot into a friggin' commet
mind blowing
mind blowing
It really is mind blowing. The degree of intergovernmental co-operatoin is incredible. The lander electronics has Hungarian know how, brought there by Hungarian scientists. Radiation-protected processors are American. The whole thing is supervised by Germany together with France. Absolutely fantastic.
This is huge. In both technical and political ways. And bringing all the details into live online event is twice as huge. I just watched the guy reporting the unsuccessful initial anchoring of the probe, and I felt so happy that I could see this. Incredible. By the way the lander software runs on Harris RTX2010 processors -- the US contribution.
Congratulations Europe. But why don't we hear people saying that the EU should focus on their poverty first and would be better off putting this money into getting the Greece, Spain, and Italy economies in order?
I'm italian. There are two things I would like to point out: I read that the mission cost about 1.6 bilion $, with that money you don't solve much in countries of about 11, 45 and 60 milion people.
Also, speaking for Italy, I don't think we need more money if we're going to waste it. We need to make reforms, stop wasting a LOT of money and so on
Also, speaking for Italy, I don't think we need more money if we're going to waste it. We need to make reforms, stop wasting a LOT of money and so on
If people focused on poor in the past instead of science - peasants and slaves would be sligthly less abused, and slightly happier, but we would still use them.
Instead they focused on science and we don't need slaves nor peasants anymore.
Instead they focused on science and we don't need slaves nor peasants anymore.
I'm reminded of http://xkcd.com/1232/
(Edit: Not intended to be snarky; I just think people do ask those questions all the time, and this xkcd answers it well.)
(Edit: Not intended to be snarky; I just think people do ask those questions all the time, and this xkcd answers it well.)
I am all for govt. funding scientific endeavours and space exploration like this.
But one thing I don't like about the comic is it implies that many problems faced in the world like hunger and malaria are not easily solvable.
IMHO, It is quite simply a travesty that there is still so much absolute poverty and deaths (through malnutrition easily curable and/or preventable diseases) in the third world. Many of these problems were solved in the early 20th century- It is a lack of political will of governments and the collective apathy of its citizens, who are engrossed in their own first-world problems. To answer the xkcd comic: Yes. 15 years should be enough to at least halve world-wide deaths due to hunger and diseases like Malaria and Cholera, If the citizens of the first world make it a voter issue. Such endeavours will pay themselves multiple times over. (increased human output, new trading markets for companies, reduced population growth) And you don't need to sacrifice funding for scientific research to do it(coughs military budgets).
IMHO, It is quite simply a travesty that there is still so much absolute poverty and deaths (through malnutrition easily curable and/or preventable diseases) in the third world. Many of these problems were solved in the early 20th century- It is a lack of political will of governments and the collective apathy of its citizens, who are engrossed in their own first-world problems. To answer the xkcd comic: Yes. 15 years should be enough to at least halve world-wide deaths due to hunger and diseases like Malaria and Cholera, If the citizens of the first world make it a voter issue. Such endeavours will pay themselves multiple times over. (increased human output, new trading markets for companies, reduced population growth) And you don't need to sacrifice funding for scientific research to do it(coughs military budgets).
I'm not european, but I imagine that the amount spent on this mission (which launched in 2004!) is miniscule compared to the amount that would be needed to fix a country's economy.
As a EU guy paying taxes i prefer giving my money to space program rather than into those useless corrupted politician who "govern" us.
You won't believe how much attention the EU gives to poverty issues. This is why there are no many poor people in the EU.
[deleted](1)
Awesome! Think of all the nice desktop backgrounds I'm going to have.
I am wondering what this will mean for humanity. Do you guys think the insights we gain from Philae will be as impactful as the ones from other space missions?
I am wondering what this will mean for humanity. Do you guys think the insights we gain from Philae will be as impactful as the ones from other space missions?
If it turns out the asteroid is full of platinum or other rare / expensive minerals, unlike the moon which seemed barren rock, it'll be enormous and the start of the true space age IMO.
"Philae has made the first, historic landing on a comet, after descending from its mothership"
To me, no other statement could be more impacting. Earth is finally sending motherships to space. feeling mind-boggled
To me, no other statement could be more impacting. Earth is finally sending motherships to space. feeling mind-boggled
Awesome! Launched over 10 years ago (our "smartphones" back then had 1mpix cameras, youtube was not born yet, etc), travelled +6,5b km and nailed a target 3-4km wide...
Big congrats to all involved! What an achievement!
Three.js version of the comet http://cabbi.bo/rosetta/
"where were you when Philae landed?"
Actually watching the live Rosetta event from Darmstadt. And I am about to drink for the success of this mission right now. Still can't believe it happened. SO much work, 10 years of work. This is how international large scale co-operation should be.
Or even, Where were you 40 minutes before we heard that Philae had landed?
First successful unintended lithobraking in the history of space ;-P
ITT downvoting to invisibility because you disagree with someone honestly held and cogently expressed opinions.
Silencing diverse opinions is quite possibly the worst facet of HN.
Silencing diverse opinions is quite possibly the worst facet of HN.
Libertarian world philosophy is totally bunk (if that's what you were referring to). I down vote most of that because it's generally ridiculous.
Just that opinions off the norm seem to be too readily moved to opacity -> 0. The idea that government shouldn't freely use taxation to fund projects that apparently only return a mild satiation of curiosity is a valid opinion, for example, and was apparently expressed honestly, without malice.
I'm not settled on where I stand with that (I tend towards cooperative and communist ideals) but I certainly don't stand on the side of "those expressing these views need to be censured" (nor censored as it happens); which is what appears to be happening.
It's possibly that I'm being over-sensitive towards the failings of the HN UI as much as anything.
I'm not settled on where I stand with that (I tend towards cooperative and communist ideals) but I certainly don't stand on the side of "those expressing these views need to be censured" (nor censored as it happens); which is what appears to be happening.
It's possibly that I'm being over-sensitive towards the failings of the HN UI as much as anything.
Thanks @brianpgordon - Check out this gif of the orbital maneuvers required for Rosetta to reach its destination: https://i.imgur.com/TUkKuhf.gif
Live twitter feed of ESA https://twitter.com/esaoperations
It looks like @Philae2014 made a fairly gentle touch down on #67P based on amount of landing gear damping #CometLanding