Phil Deakins Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Yes, I heard about that on the radio the other day, Coby. It doesn't bother me at all. How individuals spend their money is no business of mine. What bother's me is using some of the country's pot of money on things that don't matter, when essential services are being cut or not funded because there isn't enough money for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coby Foden Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Phil, I don't really get why you are so much against the Rosetta mission? Even though the origins is one of the main goals of the mission, it definitely is not all what will be achieved from the mission. I'm sure that you know this very well if you think it over with open mind. You're looking this particular mission through some strange glasses - why not take them off for a while? All space exploration - whatever its main purpose is - will enhance and develop space technology. There are multitude of examples how space exploration has created new innovations for the benefit of humankind. Why would Rosetta mission be any different in that respect? We never know in advance from any mission what benefits it may or may not bring. A very good article to read is: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Benefits-Stemming-from-Space-Exploration-2013-TAGGED.pdf I'm sure that there many other articles about the benefits. Space robotic systems helped to develop this: About spin-offs: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drongle McMahon Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 It doesn't matter what percentage of what the Rosetta mission cost the UK. Well, I guess that is essentially where we disagree. Governments decide how much money to tax from whom, and then what proportions of it to spend on what activities. That is close to being the whole business of government. Instead, you seem to want them to rank activities in order of "essentialness" (not a good term - please suggest a better), and then to fill that up from top to bottom with available money. Or perhaps you would simply have two (or a few) buckets, worthwhile and not worthwhile? Full funding for the former and no funding for the latter? I just don't think these approaches are practical, let alone politically viable. Constituencies all have to be appealed to. Any ranking or bandiing of priorities woul only ever be acceptable to a small minority. A good example is the currently very polarised views concerning UK foreign aid, or trident, or highest rate tax cuts, or olympic games, or subsidised nuclear power contracts for foreign companies, ...... If everything was absolute instead of proportional, I think there would be near universal uproar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coby Foden Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: What bother's me is using some of the country's pot of money on things that don't matter, when essential services are being cut or not funded because there isn't enough money for them. It does matter a great deal to be able to save earth from comet/asteroid collisions. We need to learn how to do it. The future of earth may depend on it. The Rosetta mission has aided towards this goal - how to reach accurately a fast moving object in space. Save some people now by building hospitals, or develop space technology to save the whole humanity later? That's a good question what needs careful thinking and decisions. [ETA to add] The Benefits of Space Exploration for the Safety of Humans and Ultimately the Survival of Mankind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: Yes, I heard about that on the radio the other day, Coby. It doesn't bother me at all. How individuals spend their money is no business of mine. What bother's me is using some of the country's pot of money on things that don't matter, when essential services are being cut or not funded because there isn't enough money for them. A new hospital just opened near me, causing another local hospital to declare it may have to shutter because of excess bed capacity in the area. The new hospital's cost was in excess of $1 Million/bed. They've got valet parking and a gourmet restaurant. I've been shopping around for services and find that this new hospital is the most expensive place to receive care within driving distance. Some procedures (MRI/CAT) are 10x more expensive than equivalent procedures elsewhere (so equivalent in fact that the procedures are done with the same equipment and people, but with their MRI truck simply parked in a different location). I'll vote for people who go after the fat in existing social safety net programs before I'll vote for people who want to trim already thinly funded scientific research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillon Levenque Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 mikka Luik wrote: Odd really. Only posted to say yay Science as it cheered me up. If I have to justify it costing me lets see.. a pack of smokes a week for ten years then I still say yay Science and yay Future and.. and ... but hey it was just me i suppose. Sorry my meagre EU individual contribution is seen as a waste of funds that could have been better spent. Next time I will buy a lotto ticket eh? And finance my own astonishing ... whatever. It cheered a lot of us up, and once again thanks for posting it in the first place. While there has been criticism of the expense made in this thread, I believe it has all come from one (admittedly prolific and persistent) poster. The rest of us are solidly in favor of the project and hope for more of the same in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inara Pey Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: Inara Pey wrote: Sour grapes over the comparative low cost of this mission aside (an annual cost per person less than that of a single visit to the cinema, for crying out loud!), if you're interested in following the project, and also in catching-up on NASA's Curiosity rover as it roams around "Mount Sharp" on Mars, I have periodic write-ups on both missions - Rosetta here, and Curiosity here. I don't care how much it cost each person. The total cost could have done significant good instead of being wasted like that. Roaming around Mars is completely different. We have to explore in that way if we are to ever gain the ability to leave our planet. Of course, if we have no intention of doing in the distant future, then even that sort of space exploration is a frivolous waste of money, but I believe the human race is aiming at being able to leave and go to other places. I'm in favour of that. I'm just against spending huge amounts of money on things that are irrelevant. "Huge amounts of money"? Get a grip, Phil, please! It's an average of £22.5. million a year over the 18 years of the programme. In 1996, the total government expenditure on healthcare in the UK was £42.8 billion (58 billion in today's terms). In 2013, the total government expenditure on healthcare in the UK had risen to £124.2 billion. Do you seriously think that £22.5 million would have had any discernable impact in front-line healthcare in the UK when compared to figures like these, and the intervening annual increases in between them? The reality is that the NHS could have swallowed that £22.5 million a year each and every year between 1996 and today, without it ever making one iota of difference to front-line healthcare. Frankly, there are plenty of other (and bigger) wastes of money that come at the taxpayer's expense at which to rage at before ever getting to the question of Britain's involvement in international space activities like Rosetta. You might want to start with the huge amount of waste that occurs in the NHS itself, given you're worried about the equipment our involvement in Rosetta "might" have purchased, or the hospitals it "might" have saved. Take, for example, the £4.5 billion The Centre of Health & the Public Interest (conservatively) estimates the NHS wastes annually in creating an artifical "healthcare market" in which it effectively competes with itself. Think of the hospitals and medical equipment that could buy! As to the mission being "irrelevant", that's your opinion; you're entitled to it. I personally disagree, but I'm not going to deny you're entitled to an opinion. But please, have a sense of proportion with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drongle McMahon Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 with the huge amount of waste that occurs in the NHS itself Indeed, including about 10 billion written of for failed NHS IT contracts .... amongst many other failed IT contracts. Successive UK governments have wasted staggering amounts of money because the (mostly foreign) IT companies run rings around them in contract negotiations since they outsourced all IT. Those really are totallly worthless expenditures. Are there any that did work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Coby Foden wrote: Phil, I don't really get why you are so much against the Rosetta mission? Even though the origins is one of the main goals of the mission, it definitely is not all what will be achieved from the mission. I'm sure that you know this very well if you think it over with open mind. You're looking this particular mission through some strange glasses - why not take them off for a while? All space exploration - whatever its main purpose is - will enhance and develop space technology. There are multitude of examples how space exploration has created new innovations for the benefit of humankind. Why would Rosetta mission be any different in that respect? We never know in advance from any mission what benefits it may or may not bring. A very good article to read is: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Benefits-Stemming-from-Space-Exploration-2013-TAGGED.pdf I'm sure that there many other articles about the benefits. Space robotic systems helped to develop this: About spin-offs: Alright, Coby. So you think it's just fine for us to close hospitals and medical services, etc. because we haven't got enough money to fund them all, while at the same time we're spending huge amounts in an effort to land a piece of equipment on a comet to find out something about origins, which is of no real value to anyone, on the off-chance that something good that we hadn't thought of might come from it. That's fine. I just don't share that view, that's all. We can do without microwaves but we can't make do without sufficient health care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Drongle McMahon wrote: It doesn't matter what percentage of what the Rosetta mission cost the UK. Well, I guess that is essentially where we disagree. Governments decide how much money to tax from whom, and then what proportions of it to spend on what activities. That is close to being the whole business of government. Instead, you seem to want them to rank activities in order of "essentialness" (not a good term - please suggest a better), and then to fill that up from top to bottom with available money. Or perhaps you would simply have two (or a few) buckets, worthwhile and not worthwhile? Full funding for the former and no funding for the latter? I just don't think these approaches are practical, let alone politically viable. Constituencies all have to be appealed to. Any ranking or bandiing of priorities woul only ever be acceptable to a small minority. A good example is the currently very polarised views concerning UK foreign aid, or trident, or highest rate tax cuts, or olympic games, or subsidised nuclear power contracts for foreign companies, ...... If everything was absolute instead of proportional, I think there would be near universal uproar. I didn't even suggest that governments should do anything like you outlined. In fact, if you'd read my posts in this thread, you would have known that I fully support ventures into space, and why I support it. I just don't support totally unnecessary ventures like the Rosetta mission, the purpose of which is to learn about origins, which is something that is of no real value to anyone. It's an awesome achievement but it has no value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Coby Foden wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: What bother's me is using some of the country's pot of money on things that don't matter, when essential services are being cut or not funded because there isn't enough money for them. It does matter a great deal to be able to save earth from comet/asteroid collisions. We need to learn how to do it. The future of earth may depend on it. The Rosetta mission has aided towards this goal - how to reach accurately a fast moving object in space. Save some people now by building hospitals, or develop space technology to save the whole humanity later? That's a good question what needs careful thinking and decisions. [ETA to add] The Benefits of Space Exploration for the Safety of Humans and Ultimately the Survival of Mankind The Earth has managed perfectly well for 4 billion years without mankind having methods of saving it from space stuff. We didn't even know such stuff existed until recently. I've watched a number of science programmes about the Rosetta mission and not once was it even suggested that a benefit of it was some of the things mentioned in this thread. It's only about origins. That's all. But if you want to develope a method of deflecting an asteroid, land on a bloomin' asteroid if that what it takes. The Rosetta mission has nothing to do with it. It's only about origins. It's interesting that, in defense of the expense of Rosetta, the arguments in this thread have been about other things than what the mission is actually about - origins. Nobody has argued that knowing those origins, or getting clues to those origins, is of any benefit to mankind. The actual objectives of the project itself have not been put forward as good reasons for doing the project. Very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Madelaine McMasters wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Yes, I heard about that on the radio the other day, Coby. It doesn't bother me at all. How individuals spend their money is no business of mine. What bother's me is using some of the country's pot of money on things that don't matter, when essential services are being cut or not funded because there isn't enough money for them. A new hospital just opened near me, causing another local hospital to declare it may have to shutter because of excess bed capacity in the area. The new hospital's cost was in excess of $1 Million/bed. They've got valet parking and a gourmet restaurant. I've been shopping around for services and find that this new hospital is the most expensive place to receive care within driving distance. Some procedures (MRI/CAT) are 10x more expensive than equivalent procedures elsewhere (so equivalent in fact that the procedures are done with the same equipment and people, but with their MRI truck simply parked in a different location). I'll vote for people who go after the fat in existing social safety net programs before I'll vote for people who want to trim already thinly funded scientific research. I'm not at all sure what your last sentence meant, Maddy. Your healthcare system is very different to ours. Most of ours is publically funded and free to the population. I'm certainly not against meaningful scientific research, including space research. My posts in the thread show that very clearly. Have you read them? What I'm against is wasting huge amounts of money, that's badly needed elsewhere, on meaningless or unbeneficial things, such as the Rosetta mission and the planned HS2 (a high speed rail system). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Dillon Levenque wrote: It cheered a lot of us up, and once again thanks for posting it in the first place. While there has been criticism of the expense made in this thread, I believe it has all come from one (admittedly prolific and persistent) poster. The rest of us are solidly in favor of the project and hope for more of the same in the future. But your health service isn't cutting back, and your youth centres aren't closing down - both through a shortage of money. So it's not difficult for you to be "solidly in favour". If we could afford it, I'd be solidly in favour too, but we can't, so I'm not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Inara Pey wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Inara Pey wrote: Sour grapes over the comparative low cost of this mission aside (an annual cost per person less than that of a single visit to the cinema, for crying out loud!), if you're interested in following the project, and also in catching-up on NASA's Curiosity rover as it roams around "Mount Sharp" on Mars, I have periodic write-ups on both missions - Rosetta here, and Curiosity here. I don't care how much it cost each person. The total cost could have done significant good instead of being wasted like that. Roaming around Mars is completely different. We have to explore in that way if we are to ever gain the ability to leave our planet. Of course, if we have no intention of doing in the distant future, then even that sort of space exploration is a frivolous waste of money, but I believe the human race is aiming at being able to leave and go to other places. I'm in favour of that. I'm just against spending huge amounts of money on things that are irrelevant. "Huge amounts of money"? Get a grip, Phil, please! It's an average of £22.5. million a year over the 18 years of the programme. In 1996, the total government expenditure on healthcare in the UK was £42.8 billion (58 billion in today's terms). In 2013, the total government expenditure on healthcare in the UK had risen to £124.2 billion. Do you seriously think that £22.5 million would have had any discernable impact in front-line healthcare in the UK when compared to figures like these, and the intervening annual increases in between them? Do you think that £22.5 a year would keep our youth centres open, and/or buy the medical equipment that would prevent our seriously ill patients from going abroad for treatment, or keep a hospital open, or pay for the sorely needed hospital staff? I do. The reality is that the NHS could have swallowed that £22.5 million a year each and every year between 1996 and today, without it ever making one iota of difference to front-line healthcare. Read the comment in blue above. Frankly, there are plenty of other (and bigger) wastes of money that come at the taxpayer's expense at which to rage at before ever getting to the question of Britain's involvement in international space activities like Rosetta. You might want to start with the huge amount of waste that occurs in the NHS itself, given you're worried about the equipment our involvement in Rosetta "might" have purchased, or the hospitals it "might" have saved. If you've read my earlier posts in this thread, you should have known that I haven't singled out the huge waste of money on Rosetta. I agree with you that there are other things too, such as the planned £20-30 billion HS2 - a lot more when it actually arrives. Take, for example, the £4.5 billion The Centre of Health & the Public Interest (conservatively) estimates the NHS wastes annually in creating an artifical "healthcare market" in which it effectively competes with itself. Think of the hospitals and medical equipment that could buy! Oh it would be excellent if waste was cut drastically. No arguments from me in that respect. As to the mission being "irrelevant", that's your opinion; you're entitled to it. I personally disagree, but I'm not going to deny you're entitled to an opinion. But please, have a sense of proportion with it. Interesting though it is, knowing whether or not comets brought water to the Earth and what 'stuff' was like when the planets formed, really is irrelevant. We have water here and it doesn't matter where it came from, and what 'stuff' was like back then doesn't make a scrap of difference to us today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted McGregor Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: If we could afford it, I'd be solidly in favour too, but we can't, so I'm not. "We" cán afford it. You just disagree with the spenditure, for all the wrong naive reasons. It's your right to disagree with the expenses made and if you were alone to decide if we would spend the money on it, you would still say no. You say no, because you can say no. "We" get that. You stand to your opinion, but that's about it. It's merely an opinion to the contrary. You relish in it. That doesn't mean you are not wrong about the value of the mission. You have been all this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 TDD123 wrote: That doesn't mean you are not wrong about the value of the mission. You have been all this time. What value is there in knowing whether or not comets might have been responsible for bringing water to the Earth, and what stuff was like when the planets formed? Please tell me. I'm all ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted McGregor Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 That has already been discussed between us, but I'll repeat : Water is comprised of hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is found almost everywhere, especially in stars. Oxygen is not. The earth was, during its formation, without oxygen and without water. Water was NOT natural to this planet. Water was brought here and we do not, yet, exactly understand how. Without that water life would never have come to be on this planet in the first place. Science taught us we are not made out of clay and breathed life into it by a deity. We multiplied in and rose from that very same water. That also means water in our immediate vacinity is scarce and, although it's now present on this planet in temporary abundance, there's always the risk we might run out of it. Look what happened to Mars. It used to have running water. It used to have a chance for life. Now it's just a barren lifeless rock. No water means certain death to life as we know it. When we run out of it, comets might be part of the answer to obtain it from elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coby Foden Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: We can do without microwaves... That is not true Phil. Modern world could not exist as it is now without the various applications of microwaves. (We could do without them if we were willing to go back decades in time, before the application of microwaves. Amish people might be happy with that - who else?) Microwaves have even medical applications. "Microwave energy is widely used in a number of medical fields to elevate tissue temperatures and create precise, localised cell destruction. Microwave therapy relies on dielectric heating, a phenomenon caused by dipole rotation. Microwave radiation has the benefit of heating deeper layers - resulting in a superior deposition of energy within skin lesions. As an interventional radiologist at Stanford, Gloria Hwang, MD, uses a variety of ablation techniques to kill small tumors in her patients — radiofrequency ablation, cryoablation and microwave ablation. But recent advances in microwave systems have improved Hwang's ability to destroy larger tumors, up to four centimeters in size, and tumors embedded in blood rich organs like the liver, giving patients whose diseases were once inoperable a chance to become tumor free. Microwave technology is extensively used for point-to-point telecommunications. Microwaves are used in spacecraft communication, and much of the world's data, TV, and telephone communications are transmitted long distances by microwaves between ground stations and communications satellites. Microwaves are also employed in microwave ovens and in radar technology. The modern uses of radar are highly diverse, including air traffic control, radar astronomy, air-defense systems, antimissile systems; marine radars to locate landmarks and other ships; aircraft anticollision systems; ocean surveillance systems, outer space surveillance and rendezvous systems; meteorological precipitation monitoring; altimetry and flight control systems; guided missile target locating systems; and ground-penetrating radar for geological observations." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drongle McMahon Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 if you'd read my posts in this thread... I have indeed read all of them, mostly several times to try to understand your point of view. Your implication to the contrary is objectionable. It's an awesome achievement but it has no value. Your insistence on the second of these assertions is becoming tedious. It is perfectly clear that the majority here find value in it. Your unwillingness to share this evaluation is entirely your right, but we heard it already. You will need something more than repetitive assertion if you wish to convince others. (Maybe you don't?) I think your characterisation of Rosetta being only about origins might reasonably be considered overly simplistic. As others have pointed to extending aspects, both technical and cultural, I will not elaborate further. Even if we accept your simplification, origins have always been of huge importance in most cultures, and their discovery might therefore be considered to be of significant value*. Once again, you are quite entitled to reject this evaluation in your own world view, and we clearly understand that you do. There is no need to repeat it. Others are equally entitled to accept it. It would be interesting to see the project proposal documents that were accepted by the funders. Typically, such documents have to contain all sorts of justifications for the expenditure requested. It has to be admitted that a lot of this is often questionable post-hoc rationalisation, while the real objective is to support the personal career advancement of the applicants. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see what of value they claimed. Alas, I haven't been able to find the relevant documents (yet?). I didn't even suggest that governments should do anything like you outlined Not explicitly, and I didn't say you did. My suggestion, as stated, is that this is implicit in your rejection of the application of a sense of proportion in evaluating the acceptable distribution of expenditure. I am interested in different interpretations if you care to advance them. * I see you pointed to the lack of an argument like this in a later post. So here you are! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelli May Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Drongle McMahon wrote: ... It would be interesting to see the project proposal documents that were accepted by the funders. Typically, such documents have to contain all sorts of justifications for the expenditure requested. It has to be admitted that a lot of this is often questionable post-hoc rationalisation, while the real objective is to support the personal career advancement of the applicants. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see what of value they claimed. Alas, I haven't been able to find the relevant documents (yet?). .... In the future all such proposals will have to be read and approved by Phil to avoid the waste of funds that could be better spent on public health. Clearly he is the only one with sufficient insight to judge such matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coby Foden Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: The Earth has managed perfectly well for 4 billion years without mankind having methods of saving it from space stuff. We didn't even know such stuff existed until recently. But now we know a lot lot what is out there. We cannot bury our heads into the sand and pretend that nothing will happen. Our Moon, what has happened to it during its history: It has has been heavily bombarded. Does it still happen? Yes it indeed does. Recently on the Moon: Astronomers capture the moment a Meteorite hits the moon on 11 September 2013 with so much force that a bright flash can be seen from Earth with the naked eye. The 400kg (63st) meteorite, travelling at 40,000 mph, punches a fresh crater on the moon's surface around 40 metres wide in what is thought to be the largest lunar impact ever recorded. If that has happened on the Moon, it has happened also on earth. Because of the erosion here on earth, only the largest remnants of comet hits have remained to this day to be seen. If the hits still happens on the moon so it will happen on the earth too. The earth is by no means a safe haven. Recently on earth: The Chelyabinsk meteor was a superbolide caused by a near-Earth asteroid that entered Earth's atmosphere over Russia on 15 February 2013. The object was undetected before its atmospheric entry, in part because its radiant was close to the Sun. Its explosion created panic among local residents and about 1,500 people were injured seriously enough to seek medical treatment. Some 7,200 buildings in six cities across the region were damaged by the explosion's shock wave. What is there, in the outer reaches of our solar system? Kuiper Belt: Beyond the gas giant Neptune lies a region of space filled with icy bodies. Known as the Kuiper Belt, this chilly expanse holds trillions of objects, remnants of the early solar system. The Kuiper Belt could contain hundreds of thousands of icy bodies that range in size from small chunks of ice to worldlets larger than 100 kilometers across. Astronomers have tracked most short-period comets from their origins in the Kuiper Belt. These are comets with orbital periods of 200 years or less. Oort Cloud: Dutch astronomer Jan Oort first proposed in 1950 that some comets might come from the the solar system’s far suburbs. That reservoir later became known as the Oort cloud. The Oort Cloud is an extended shell of icy objects that exist in the outermost reaches of the solar system. The Oort Cloud is roughly spherical, and is the origin of most of the long-period comets that have been observed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drongle McMahon Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 ... approved by Phil... I just realised: They shouldn't have called it Philae! All is now clear :matte-motes-wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted McGregor Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Drongle McMahon wrote: ... approved by Phil... I just realised: They shouldn't have called it Philae! All is now clear :matte-motes-wink: I'd rather go for "Princess Phil on the Pea" (3P - lander) after this discussion in here ... :robotlol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inara Pey Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote The Earth has managed perfectly well for 4 billion years without mankind having methods of saving it from space stuff. We didn't even know such stuff existed until recently. I've watched a number of science programmes about the Rosetta mission and not once was it even suggested that a benefit of it was some of the things mentioned in this thread. It's only about origins. That's all. But if you want to develope a method of deflecting an asteroid, land on a bloomin' asteroid if that what it takes. The Rosetta mission has nothing to do with it. It's only about origins. It's interesting that, in defense of the expense of Rosetta, the arguments in this thread have been about other things than what the mission is actually about - origins. Nobody has argued that knowing those origins, or getting clues to those origins, is of any benefit to mankind. The actual objectives of the project itself have not been put forward as good reasons for doing the project. Very interesting. Wrong on multiple levels. The Earth may have gotten along fine for 4 billion years. Life on it hasn't. Take the Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) extinction event, 66 million years ago. The Earth survived - by 75% of the flora and fauna on it didn't. As to the Rosetta mission - yes tha primary mission is about origins; something which is actually important to many of us, however much you may personally disagree. But it is not the only objective. The point is that the data the mission gathers has the potential for many areas of research. For example, if we understand the detailed chemical and mineral composition of a comet, it potentially helps pave the way to exploiting near-Earth short-period comets (of which 67P/C-G is but one in the future as we continue to deplete the natural resources we have here on Earth. It may lead us to a better understanding what is needed to help terraform a planet like Mars, something would might be critical to around attempts to move beyond this planet and do more than live within constrained environments elsewhere. By rendezousing and lnding on a comet, Rosetta and Philae have providing valuable data should we ever have the need to attempt a the diversion of a NEO, be it comet or asteriod in the future. Indeed, NASA has had particular interest in the Rosetta mission because they're planning a manned rendezvous with an asteroid for the 2020s. By sampling the rock of 67P/C-G, as Philae has successful achieved, helps us understand the composition of a typical example of Kuiper belt comets, which may well help determine the best and most efficient means of dealing with one should it be found to be on a collision with Earth. I don't bother arguing with you on the validity on Rosetta's primary mission, simply because I don't see your argument as valid - just as you don't see the value in learning about one of the potential sources of our own origin as as being a valid. As I've said before, you're entirely to your opinion. I will, however, argue your statements that the mission is a "huge" waste of money as they are totally disproportionate to the cost of the mission and its tangible impact and benefits for the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coby Foden Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: I just don't support totally unnecessary ventures like the Rosetta mission, the purpose of which is to learn about origins, which is something that is of no real value to anyone. It's an awesome achievement but it has no value. You are very mistaken if you think that the sole objective of the Rosetta mission was to learn about origins. It has many other objectives besides the origins. It is unfortunate that the media stresses the prime goal of the mission so much so that some people might, and will, get a wrong idea what this mission is all about. http://rosetta.jpl.nasa.gov/mission-facts/mission-science-goals Mission Goals Primary Mission Goals • Catch comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko in 2014 and accompany it into the interior solar system. • Observe the comet's nucleus and coma from close range. • Deploy Philae to make first controlled landing on a comet. • Measure the increase in cometary activity during perihelion (position closest to the Sun). • Observe the changes associated with the change in season as the comet leaves the inner solar system on its outbound leg. At that time a different pole will be exposed to the sun. Other Goals En Route to Comet C-G • Assist in observation of Deep Impact Mission (Comet Tempel-1) (2005) • Observe Mars during Mars Gravity Assist maneuver (2007) • Observe two asteroids: Steins (2008) and Lutetia (2010) Mission Science Goals The prime scientific goal of this mission is to seek the origin of comets. Did they form within our solar system or outside of it, in interstellar space? To find these answers, Rosetta scientists are using the scientific instruments onboard to learn as much as they can about comet C-G. They will: • Create a portrait of the comet’s nucleus—its shape and dynamic properties. • Take a complete inventory of the comet’s chemical, mineralogical, and isotopic composition. • Detail the comet’s physical properties and show how its volatiles and refractories interact • Show how the coma emerges from the surface of the nucleus, and develops different layers of activity as it grows in the solar wind. • Explain the comet’s origin — where it was formed, the relationship of its materials to those found in interstellar space, and whether or not it witnessed the formation of our solar system. • Create portraits of two asteroids—their shape, composition, and dynamic properties. [unquote] http://rosetta.jpl.nasa.gov/science/misson-science-goals The International Rosetta mission contributes directly to NASA's planetary science goals by providing a comprehensive investigation of a comet's physical characteristics, composition, and behavior as it journeys toward the sun. These studies will help us learn in great detail what comets are made of, how they work, and how they change as they travel from the deep cold of space beyond the asteroid belt to the warmth between the orbits of Earth and Mars. By mission's end, Rosetta will have studied several comets, including the comet P/2005 JQ5 (Catalina), one of 70 objects being tracked as possible candidates for colliding with Earth. In 2005, however, scientists gave it only a 1 in 300,000 chance of striking Earth on June 11, 2085. In 2004, Rosetta trained its instruments on comet T7/Linear. In 2005, it studied comet Tempel-1 as part of the Deep Impact experiment. In 2014, it will accompany comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko (comet C-G) on its transit into our inner solar system, observing it at very close range for several months. Rosetta also used MIRO to study Venus in 2004, and used several instruments to study Mars during the flyby of that planet, which provided vital information about its upper atmosphere. Scientists and engineers can use that new information to plan future Mars missions. Rosetta has also studied Earth’s magnetosphere during the flybys of our planet. In addition, Rosetta will also take measurements of two asteroids, Steins and Lutetia, that it will pass along the way to comet C-G. [unquote] From the above, I can see lots of good, valuable things coming out from the Rosetta mission. Our knowledge about our solar system will have increased, we will have gained lots of new experience in space navigation. All information from this mission will be very valuable for future space missions. It has been exceptionally successful mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now