Inara Pey Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: 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. No, I don't think £22.5 million would have found its way to the front-line healthcare, and I have to say your view that it would is terribly naive. As I've noted, the NHS already squanders 4.5 billion in spending that could be directed towards front-line healthcare, simply so it can offer a "marketplace" to compete with itself. As such, the most an additional £25.5 million is liable to do is get swallowed up in the same idiotic wastage. Instead, that £22.5 million-a-year "waste" has gone in technology development here in the UK and in Europe, the benefits of which we can't fully discern, it's maintained productive eomployment across the UK and Europe for many individuals. It's been a part of the UK's £336 million-a-year spending on space that directly supports a UK industry generating over £10 billion a year in turnover. Phil Deakins wrote: 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. I have read your posts, and I'm replying directly to your repeated and subjective claims that Rosetta is a "huge waste of money". On the scale of things, Rosettta is an exceptionally cost-effective mission that stands to yield considerable scientific benefit, and which has already helped us in studies of the Earth and other planteray bodies - and other comets - purely due to the neture of its 10-year journey through and around the solar system. Phil Deakins wrote: 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. As I said, you're entitled to your parochial point-of-view. 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: 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." So how did we come across the uses of microwaves? ETA: Didn't you suggest that the discovery of microwaves came about through space stuff? Read this please:- "In 1945 the specific heating effect of a high-power microwave beam was accidentally discovered by Percy Spencer, an American self-taught engineer from Howland, Maine. Employed by Raytheon at the time he noticed that microwaves from an active radar set he was working on started to melt a candy bar he had in his pocket." It was nothing to do with space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: So how did we come across the uses of microwaves? It all started when a candy bar melted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Maybe people here do my view tedious but if I asked a general group of people, who are not into the technology that bring all of us here, which they would prefer, a few hospitals in the country to have the needed equipment, or the youth centres being funded so they don't have to close, or a piece of equipment landing on a comet, which do you think they say? They wouldn't chose the comet, that's for sure. Remember that we here are technologically minded. Most people are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Of course planets get hit by metorites, Coby. It happens continuously here on Earth. We don't need to land a piece of equipment on a comet to deal with it. Of course, most of what's seen on the moon was done a very very long time ago, probably when there was still a lot of junk in our local orbiting area area. And no doubt the same happened here as well at that time. 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 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. 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. Why ias it important to you? And what other objectives does the mission have? What potential of research does the gathered data have? I'm genuinely interested in the answers to all three of those question. 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. So you think we're going to run out of water and will need to get more from comets? 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. It may help to enable us to terraform planets like Mars? Seriously? Surely you are pulling my leg. 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. Of cvourse, learning about Earth's origin has no practical value. I thought that went without saying. And learning about origins is not the mission's primary objective. It's its only objective. I really dont understand how some people can think that some research is more important that the well-being of people who need help right now. Give the population of any country a choice between the two, and I have no doubt whatsoever what they would choose. 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: 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. I'm sorry, Coby, but there's nothing there about replenishing the Earth's water, or mining comets, or preventing NEOs from hitting us. Those are thing that have, presumably, been invented by some people in this thread, perhaps thinking that every little bit of knowledge that might just go towards those things, regardless of the cost, is bound to help. I can't help thinking that some people are blinded by how awesome the scientific achievement was and really don't want anything to detract from it. 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: 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. No, I don't think £22.5 million would have found its way to the front-line healthcare, and I have to say your view that it would is terribly naive. As I've noted, the NHS already squanders 4.5 billion in spending that could be directed towards front-line healthcare, simply so it can offer a "marketplace" to compete with itself. As such, the most an additional £25.5 million is liable to do is get swallowed up in the same idiotic wastage. Please try not to put words into my mouth. I didn't say that the money would have found its way to the front line of healthcare. I said that it would have been spent there. Instead, that £22.5 million-a-year "waste" has gone in technology development here in the UK and in Europe, the benefits of which we can't fully discern, it's maintained productive eomployment across the UK and Europe for many individuals. It's been a part of the UK's £336 million-a-year spending on space that directly supports a UK industry generating over £10 billion a year in turnover. You can't discern the benefits because, as far as we know, there haven't been any. When there are some, please let me know. Phil Deakins wrote: 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. I have read your posts, and I'm replying directly to your repeated and subjective claims that Rosetta is a "huge waste of money". On the scale of things, Rosettta is an exceptionally cost-effective mission that stands to yield considerable scientific benefit, and which has already helped us in studies of the Earth and other planteray bodies - and other comets - purely due to the neture of its 10-year journey through and around the solar system. Let's see the "considerable scientific benefit" when it occurs, shall we? I consider orgins, and looking at the other things mentioned in Coby's post, to be of scientific interest, but not of actual benefit. Perhaps I ought to point out that I love science, probably much more than most people here. I buy books on it - particle physics, cosmology, etc. I love it, and I support it. But I won't support everything that scientists do, just because it's science, if it uses huge amounts of money when other necessary things are desperate for money. Phil Deakins wrote: 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. As I said, you're entitled to your parochial point-of-view. As we all are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Perrie Juran wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: So how did we come across the uses of microwaves? It all started when a candy bar melted. LOL ETA: Thank you Perrie. I looked it up, and it really was because a candy bar melted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drongle McMahon Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 ...which do you think they say? That's a false choice, in no way representing the real-world context of the relevant decisions. They are not mutially exclusive, but both depend on a thousand other inter-related choices. There would be many other things that could be sacrificed before Rosetta, and the choices would be different for different people. There is no absolute right or wrong. The outcome should represent an attempt to use funds in proportion to the distribution of individual priorities. That is the nature of all political decision making. We can, of course, disagree with the proportions, and obviously do, In that case, the natural outcome is a balanced compromise. Presenting the business of political decision-making in this way is a transparent rhetorical trick that should fool no-one. If you really want government by micro-referenda presenting simplified choices out of context (which is becoming technically possible) I think you will end up with a kot of very bad decisions you don't like at all, along with a complete and unmanageable economic chaos. Why? - Because it would lack all sense of proportion and compromise. All real power would be in the hands of the drafters of the questions, and they would likely do an even worse job than is delivered by our present, very imperfect, system. Your insistence on this medical equipment thing is interesting.When Rutherford and his colleagues discovered protons, and others went on to develop particle accelerators, they did so purely out of curiosity comcerning the structure and origins of matter. No useful benefits were foreseen. If such foresight had been a prerequisite, the research would not have been undertaken. There would be no proton beam therapy* for what appears to be your preferred spending option (even though they are already funded). Imposition of a requirement for predictable application is one of the most effective ways of stifling the advance of knowledge, and thus of the benefits that flow from it. *of course, I am guessing here, on the basis of recent media coverage and the lack of explicit identification of your desirable "medical equipment". Similar argument would likely apply to any other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coby Foden Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: Coby Foden wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: We can do without microwaves... That is not true Phil. ETA: Didn't you suggest that the discovery of microwaves came about through space stuff? Read this please:- "In 1945 the specific heating effect of a high-power microwave beam was accidentally discovered by Percy Spencer, an American self-taught engineer from Howland, Maine. Employed by Raytheon at the time he noticed that microwaves from an active radar set he was working on started to melt a candy bar he had in his pocket." It was nothing to do with space. My reply was to your "we can do without microwaves" statement, by giving some examples how microwaves are used in various fields. That's all, nothing more, nothing less. No Phil, I made no suggestions at all how microwaves were discovered. I do know, and I have know for a long time, where the discovery originated. Indeed, the discovery has nothing to do with space. I'm glad to see that we can agree about something in this thread. :smileyhappy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coby Foden Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: Of course planets get hit by metorites, Coby. It happens continuously here on Earth. We don't need to land a piece of equipment on a comet to deal with it. Of course we need to study the comets; to know well what exactly they are. It's valuable information for the development of methods how to deal with the nasty ones. So far we know relatively little about them. Therefore we need keep sending those small probes on the comets to learn more about them. How do we deal with a threat of which we know almost nothing about? [ETA] An alternative method (very inexpensive one) to develop space stuff, to make new inventions, would to be sit a group of scientist under an apple tree. When an apple falls from the tree and hits on somebody's head the scientist would voice out "EUREKA!" and would rush to the laboratory to test the invention. In no time at all we would have multitude of new inventions at our hands with a very low cost. Why under apple tree? Well, the apple falls down it is affected by gravity pulling it down, in space we need knowledge about gravity. The falling apple might cause space related inventions to emerge. That's why. :smileyhappy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: So how did we come across the uses of microwaves? It all started when a candy bar melted. LOL ETA: Thank you Perrie. I looked it up, and it really was because a candy bar melted. Many advances in Science and Technolgy have come by way of what you might call "accident." We don't know where the next candy bar will melt. I was looking for something else when I found this: "Space is clearly the great breakthrough of human knowledge---for centuries to come...We have a long and undistinguished record of America failing to anticipate the promise and potential of each new age of science, invention, and discovery...Even so far-sighted an American as Woodrow Wilson spent time denouncing the automobile. The steamboat, the locomotive, the airplane, all brought prophecies of doom and gloom. We have learned a lesson we surely do not need to be be taught again." Lyndon Baines Johnson, June 1963 They Really Ought To Have Known Better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coby Foden Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Let's see... Phil Deakins wrote: Of cvourse, learning about Earth's origin has no practical value. I thought that went without saying. And learning about origins is not the mission's primary objective. It's its only objective.(Bolding mine above..) Phil Deakins wrote: I'm sorry, Coby, but there's nothing there about replenishing the Earth's water, or mining comets, or preventing NEOs from hitting us. Erm...? I just gave quotations of other objectives what the the Rosetta mission has besides "origins" what you keep repeating that it's the only objective. It has been shown to you that it is not. Unfortunately, even links to facts do not open your eyes. :matte-motes-frown: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coby Foden Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: Inara Pey wrote: 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. Phil Deakins commented (in blue): It may help to enable us to terraform planets like Mars? Seriously? Surely you are pulling my leg. There are many suggestions and ideas how to terraform Mars. One idea towards terraforming Mars is this: http://science.howstuffworks.com/terraforming2.htm "Space scientist Christopher McKay and Robert Zubrin, author of The Case For Mars, have also proposed a more extreme method for greenhousing Mars. They believe that hurling large, icy asteroids containing ammonia at the red planet would produce tons of greenhouse gases and water. For this to be done, nuclear thermal rocket engines would have to be somehow attached to asteroids from the outer solar system. The rockets would move the asteroids at about 4 kilometers per second, for a period of about 10 years, before the rockets would shut off and allow the 10-billion-ton asteroids to glide, unpowered, toward Mars. Energy released upon impact would be about 130 million megawatts of power." For this scenario to have any meaningful value we need to study the comets closely and thoroughly to know exactly what they are made of. Rosetta mission is doing that - increasing our knowledge about the comets. "The Rosetta mission will orbit 67P for 17 months and is designed to complete the most detailed study of a comet ever attempted." To crash something on a planet without knowing detailed information what it is made of would be a great mistake. Many years after Rosetta mission has been completed and all the data gathered has been thoroughly examined these two space scientist can re-evaluate their idea of colliding an asteroid or a comet on Mars - does the idea have some sence in it or not. Of course we don't know now will humanity ever attempt to terraform Mars. There are enormous amount of pieces in that puzzle. All the data from Rosetta mission will be one piece also in that puzzle. That's how science goes forward, study this, study that and gradually a clearer picture emerges. It's foolish to say "this mission has no meaninful value to us at all". That's a very naive way to look at things. We just don't know until perhaps many many years later did some mission have meaningful value or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coby Foden Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Drongle McMahon wrote: It would be interesting to see the project proposal documents that were accepted by the funders. . . . . . Alas, I haven't been able to find the relevant documents (yet?). I have found some original Rosetta mission definition documents. This is a very good source for ESA's documents: Explore ESA's Planetary Science Archive! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - And now, the facts about the mission objectives. ftp://psa.esac.esa.int/pub/mirror/INTERNATIONAL-ROSETTA-MISSION/OSIWAC/RO-A-OSIWAC-2-AST1-STEINSFLYBY-V1.4/CATALOG/MISSION.CAT Science Objectives The prime scientific objectives as defined in the Announcement of Opportunity [RO-EST-AO-0001] by the Rosetta Science Team can be summarized as: - Global characterisation of the nucleus, determination of dynamic properties, surface morphology and composition - Chemical, mineralogical and isotropic compositions of volatiles and refractories in a cometary nucleus - Physical properties and interrelation of volatiles and refractories in a cometary nucleus - Study of the development of cometary activity and the processes in the surface layer of the nucleus and in the inner coma (dust-gas interaction) - Origin of comets, relationship between cometary and interstellar material. - Implications for the origin of the solar system - Global characterisation of the asteroid, determination of dynamic properties, surface morphology and composition. ...and: The two asteroids Rosetta flew by are secondary science targets of the Rosetta mission, with comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko being the primary science target. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - There it is, officially stated facts. (It's interesting to note that the two asteroid flybys already have revealed new valuable information about those objects. That information was not possible to get from earthbound observations. One addition to our knowledge about near space.) To Phil: It is clear that the origins is not the sole purpose of the mission. :smileywink: The information gathered by Rosetta mission will help even NASA in their coming mission. Never Mind Philae’s Topsy-Turvy Touchdown, Its Brief Mission Advances Comet Science "All of Philae’s events, good and bad, will inform future missions to small solar system bodies. Many of the glitches reinforce just how difficult it is to land on a comet, which does not have enough gravity to pull objects into orbit around it or hold them on its surface. Scientists planning NASA’s Origins Spectral Interpretation Resource Identification and Security Regolith Explorer (OSIRIS-REx) mission, which will launch in 2016 to return a sample from an asteroid, is taking particularly close notes. “We are eagerly watching what you learn from actually operating in this environment and will apply that,” Gordon Johnston, OSIRIS-REx program executive at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C., said during the ESA broadcast." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Coby, as your research intimates, there are technical objectives for all space missions as well as scientific. Those aren't as easy to find, as they're secondary objectives that go along for the ride. For both the NEAR Shoemaker (which landed a probe on an asteroid) and Rosetta missions, there were technical interests in traveling to and maneuvering about low gravity objects. The scientific community has an interest in such things as they contemplate deflection of NEO objects from collision courses with us. We've landed objects on Moons and Planets to make scientific observations and to test out various methods of both landing and locomoting. There's only so much testing we can do on a planet with 15psi atmosphere and hospitible temperatures. Knowing that technical experimentation accompanies the scientific experimentation explains why we've tried so many different ways to park machines on Mars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coby Foden Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Madelaine McMasters wrote: Coby, as your research intimates, there are technical objectives for all space missions as well as scientific. Those aren't as easy to find, as they're secondary objectives that go along for the ride. Yes indeed Maddy. Even the Rosetta mission's space navigation was an amazing achievement. The experience gathered from that alone will be of great value to any future missions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drongle McMahon Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Thanks, Coby. Saved me a lot of time. That's going to be a great resource once the data gets released. It looks like a couple of years in arrears so far. To be fair to Phil, the brief objective statement in the document in your second link does emphasize origins, although, as you say, not exclusively. I have no experience of space-related applications, nor those for funds on this sort of scale. Nevertheless, I feel sure there must have been a much more detailed exposition somewhere, which would explicitly list potential applications of both the detailed discoveries and of the engineering development involved. Although purely scientific objevtives carry more weight, in my limited experience, identification of potential practical and economic benefits has become increasingly important in recent years, and is usually required. This is a response to exactly the kind of concern that Phil has expressed, requiring scientists to pay attention to the fact that the underlying goal of public expenditure is not the generation of knowledge for its own sake, but for the eventual benefit that knowledge can bring. As I said before, the most valuable benefits are often not those that are foreseeable, even after the initial discovery. So this trend may be seen as inhibiting progress, as the cost of increasing accountability. Of course the original applications, containing many sensitive details, are generally confidential and unlikely to be released to the public. So we may never see what the originators of the project had to say in that context. ETA: Here's a paper about the mission, written in 2006, after launch. It has a similar bit about goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Drongle McMahon wrote: ...which do you think they say? That's a false choice, in no way representing the real-world context of the relevant decisions. They are not mutially exclusive, [They become mutually exclusive when we are told that there's not enough money to fund essential services, while at the same time funding non-essential things] but both depend on a thousand other inter-related choices. There would be many other things that could be sacrificed before Rosetta, [undoubtedly. Rosetta is just one unnecessary thing] and the choices would be different for different people. There is no absolute right or wrong. The outcome should represent an attempt to use funds in proportion to the distribution of individual priorities [and to my way of thingking, healthcare and youth centres are much higher priorities that knowing origins]. That is the nature of all political decision making. We can, of course, disagree with the proportions, and obviously do, In that case, the natural outcome is a balanced compromise. Your insistence on this medical equipment thing is interesting.When Rutherford and his colleagues discovered protons, and others went on to develop particle accelerators, they did so purely out of curiosity comcerning the structure and origins of matter. [and they did it without it costing the country almost half a billion quid] No useful benefits were foreseen. If such foresight had been a prerequisite, the research would not have been undertaken. There would be no proton beam therapy* for what appears to be your preferred spending option (even though they are already funded). Imposition of a requirement for predictable application is one of the most effective ways of stifling the advance of knowledge, and thus of the benefits that flow from it. [i'm 100% in favour of the advancement of knowledge. Heck I'm probably far more into physics and cosmology than most people here. I buy books on it. I love it. But given a choice between healthcare, youth centres, etc. - people's well-being - I'll choose the latter every time. And it is a choice that the government makes. Not long now, when they are spending between 20 and 30 billion on saving 20 minutes on the time it takes to travel by rail between London and Birmingham, I'll be repeating all this stuff again, because they'll still be saying that we can't afford to keep our essential services in top condition] *of course, I am guessing here, on the basis of recent media coverage and the lack of explicit identification of your desirable "medical equipment". Similar argument would likely apply to any other. [you guessed correctly] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Coby Foden wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Of course planets get hit by metorites, Coby. It happens continuously here on Earth. We don't need to land a piece of equipment on a comet to deal with it. Of course we need to study the comets; to know well what exactly they are. It's valuable information for the development of methods how to deal with the nasty ones. So far we know relatively little about them. Therefore we need keep sending those small probes on the comets to learn more about them. How do we deal with a threat of which we know almost nothing about? But comets are not meteorites and, unless I'm mistaken, the chances of being hit by a big meteorite are massively greater than being hit by a comet. So let's land on a meteorite. It's true that it would be good to develope some way(s) of maybe deflecting dangerous meteorites. I wouldn't be writing all this it that's what the Rosetta mission did. But I see no point in landing on a snowball to find out what meteorites are made of so that we can maybe find ways of defelecting one. [ETA] An alternative method (very inexpensive one) to develop space stuff, to make new inventions, would to be sit a group of scientist under an apple tree. When an apple falls from the tree and hits on somebody's head the scientist would voice out "EUREKA!" and would rush to the laboratory to test the invention. In no time at all we would have multitude of new inventions at our hands with a very low cost. Why under apple tree? Well, the apple falls down it is affected by gravity pulling it down, in space we need knowledge about gravity. The falling apple might cause space related inventions to emerge. That's why. :smileyhappy: When you do those experiments can I sit under the apple tree with you please? Governments can spend what the hell they like on whatever they like if I can sit under the apple tree with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Coby Foden wrote: Let's see... Phil Deakins wrote: Of cvourse, learning about Earth's origin has no practical value. I thought that went without saying. And learning about origins is not the mission's primary objective. It's its only objective. (Bolding mine above..) Phil Deakins wrote: I'm sorry, Coby, but there's nothing there about replenishing the Earth's water, or mining comets, or preventing NEOs from hitting us. Erm...? I just gave quotations of other objectives what the the Rosetta mission has besides "origins" what you keep repeating that it's the only objective. It has been shown to you that it is not. Unfortunately, even links to facts do not open your eyes. :matte-motes-frown: I wrote the post you quoted before I read your 'objectives' post. I was doing what I'm doing now - going through the new posts and replying to each one as I read it, so I hadn't read your 'objectives' post when I wrote the reply you quoted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Coby Foden wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Inara Pey wrote: 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. Phil Deakins commented (in blue): It may help to enable us to terraform planets like Mars? Seriously? Surely you are pulling my leg. There are many suggestions and ideas how to terraform Mars. One idea towards terraforming Mars is this: http://science.howstuffworks.com/terraforming2.htm "Space scientist Christopher McKay and Robert Zubrin, author of The Case For Mars, have also proposed a more extreme method for greenhousing Mars. They believe that hurling large, icy asteroids containing ammonia at the red planet would produce tons of greenhouse gases and water. For this to be done, nuclear thermal rocket engines would have to be somehow attached to asteroids from the outer solar system. The rockets would move the asteroids at about 4 kilometers per second, for a period of about 10 years, before the rockets would shut off and allow the 10-billion-ton asteroids to glide, unpowered, toward Mars. Energy released upon impact would be about 130 million megawatts of power." For this scenario to have any meaningful value we need to study the comets closely and thoroughly to know exactly what they are made of. Rosetta mission is doing that - increasing our knowledge about the comets. "The Rosetta mission will orbit 67P for 17 months and is designed to complete the most detailed study of a comet ever attempted." To crash something on a planet without knowing detailed information what it is made of would be a great mistake. Many years after Rosetta mission has been completed and all the data gathered has been thoroughly examined these two space scientist can re-evaluate their idea of colliding an asteroid or a comet on Mars - does the idea have some sence in it or not. Of course we don't know now will humanity ever attempt to terraform Mars. There are enormous amount of pieces in that puzzle. All the data from Rosetta mission will be one piece also in that puzzle. That's how science goes forward, study this, study that and gradually a clearer picture emerges. It's foolish to say "this mission has no meaninful value to us at all". That's a very naive way to look at things. We just don't know until perhaps many many years later did some mission have meaningful value or not. I have to say that that article made me smile. Perhaps in a few hundred years we may have the means to terraform a whole planet so that it's habitable by humans, but I doubt it. The article is about pure imagination. That's not to say that imagination doesn't produce practical good. It does and it's necessary for advancement, but that particular imagination is just that - imagination - and that's all it will be for a very very long time. They could maybe make some attempts at it far into the future, of course, when they have far superior space technology. So I naturally reject the Rosetta mission as having any benefit in that respect. Right now, we people need the things that are being cut down on in this country. We don't need the first steps of learning how to terraform Mars. That can wait until such times as we've quickened travelling through space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Coby Foden wrote: Drongle McMahon wrote: It would be interesting to see the project proposal documents that were accepted by the funders. . . . . . Alas, I haven't been able to find the relevant documents (yet?). I have found some original Rosetta mission definition documents. This is a very good source for ESA's documents: Explore ESA's Planetary Science Archive! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - And now, the facts about the mission objectives. ftp://psa.esac.esa.int/pub/mirror/INTERNATIONAL-ROSETTA-MISSION/OSIWAC/RO-A-OSIWAC-2-AST1-STEINSFLYBY-V1.4/CATALOG/MISSION.CAT Science Objectives The prime scientific objectives as defined in the Announcement of Opportunity [RO-EST-AO-0001] by the Rosetta Science Team can be summarized as: - Global characterisation of the nucleus, determination of dynamic properties, surface morphology and composition - Chemical, mineralogical and isotropic compositions of volatiles and refractories in a cometary nucleus - Physical properties and interrelation of volatiles and refractories in a cometary nucleus - Study of the development of cometary activity and the processes in the surface layer of the nucleus and in the inner coma (dust-gas interaction) - Origin of comets, relationship between cometary and interstellar material. - Implications for the origin of the solar system - Global characterisation of the asteroid, determination of dynamic properties, surface morphology and composition. ...and: The two asteroids Rosetta flew by are secondary science targets of the Rosetta mission, with comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko being the primary science target. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - There it is, officially stated facts. (It's interesting to note that the two asteroid flybys already have revealed new valuable information about those objects. That information was not possible to get from earthbound observations. One addition to our knowledge about near space.) To Phil: It is clear that the origins is not the sole purpose of the mission. :smileywink: The information gathered by Rosetta mission will help even NASA in their coming mission. Never Mind Philae’s Topsy-Turvy Touchdown, Its Brief Mission Advances Comet Science "All of Philae’s events, good and bad, will inform future missions to small solar system bodies. Many of the glitches reinforce just how difficult it is to land on a comet, which does not have enough gravity to pull objects into orbit around it or hold them on its surface. Scientists planning NASA’s Origins Spectral Interpretation Resource Identification and Security Regolith Explorer (OSIRIS-REx) mission, which will launch in 2016 to return a sample from an asteroid, is taking particularly close notes. “We are eagerly watching what you learn from actually operating in this environment and will apply that,” Gordon Johnston, OSIRIS-REx program executive at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C., said during the ESA broadcast." Fine, Coby, but neither this post of yours, nor you previous 'objectives' post indicate anything that makes the mission worthwhile as far as the ideas put forward in this thread are concerned. It's interesting that nobody in this thread has suggested that Rosetta's primary mission (origins) is worth putting before the declining public services. I think I'm right in saying that. The only things that people have posted about, that they suiggest are worth putting ahead of the declining public services, are thing that don't get a mention in either of the documents you posted. The documents don't even suggest that landing on a comet will help when trying to land on an asteroid. It will, of course, but it's not part of the stated objectives for Rosetta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 A thought ocurred to me when I woke up today - about how families live in the red. I've forgotten who it was who replied to my comment about how bad it would be if families lived the way that my country lives - massively in debt, getting deeper and deeper. The person quoted figures about personal debt here in the UK. Those figures must include the normal credit card way of paying for things, and such debts are cleared monthly - more or less. So those figures do not represent a parallel between family debt and the national debt that this country chooses to live with and deepen. There are, of course, families who get so far into debt that they can't cope with it, but they are comparitively very few, and it's not the normal way that families live. This country is a lot like those few familes, and not at all like the normal type of temporary credit card debt. But, unlike those few families, the country happily accepts the inability to clear its debts, but makes an effort by cutting back on essential services, while choosing to continue getting deeper and deeper into debt, and spending on things that really don't matter. 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