On 11/14/23 18:05, 56d.1152 wrote:
> On 11/14/23 1:02 PM, a425couple wrote:
>> On 11/5/23 20:47, 56d.1152 wrote:
>>> https://phys.org/news/2023-11-kepler-planets.html
>>>
>>> NASA's Kepler mission ended in 2018 after more than nine
>>> years of fruitful planet-hunting. The space telescope
>>> discovered thousands of planets, ---->    These things return VAST
>>> quantities of data these days.
---------snip
>>
>> Very interesting.
>> The new telescopes great abilities certainly are
>> increasing future spending on this technology,
>> and lowering the need to send instrument packages
>> towards other stars (like Voyager 1 and 2).
>
>   Well, those probes were not INTENDED to be
>   interstellar - it's just that they were so
>   well made they MANAGED to go interstellar.
>   Crude instrumentation, but when used carefully
>   those probes are still doing good science.
>   Money VERY well spent. -----
>
>   The space telescopes have been of great value
>   also. The only thing is they can't "be there",
>   out in the interstellar environment, to take
>   subtle readings. Voyager has told us things
>   about the heliosphere and beyond that those
>   telescopes cannot. --------
>
>   I'm a bit off HUMAN space flight at this time
>   however.

I Understand.
I guess one of the landmarks that showed the
'transition', was when the developed programming /
artificial intelligence so much, that they were
able, repeatedly, to fly a helicopter on Mars.
Then wait patiently for the time delay and let
it send back the video for humans to view and
learn from.

> Nothing rabid, but I think $$$ could
>   be spent a little more wisely. Yes, there IS
>   a psychological thing about "being there",
>   those "footprints", but you could do ten times
>   the good science for the budget. It's HARD to
>   keep humans alive in space - and the moon and
>   Mars are essentially "space" with some dirt
>   under it.
>
>   Until there's some DRASTIC improvement in
>   propulsion or something like it there's just
>   little obvious purpose in humans Far Out Beyond.
>
>   MINING interests ... pure commercial ... let THEM
>   decide whether to send humans or bots. I'm betting
>   on bots. The next gens of AI will be very capable.
>   The Boring Company - Lunar Division  :-)

That all sounds pretty reasonable to me.
However, I think some efforts should still be spent
on humans in space.

On 11/15/23 1:27 PM, a425couple wrote:
> On 11/14/23 18:05, 56d.1152 wrote:
>> On 11/14/23 1:02 PM, a425couple wrote:
>>> On 11/5/23 20:47, 56d.1152 wrote:
>>>> https://phys.org/news/2023-11-kepler-planets.html
>>>>
>>>> NASA's Kepler mission ended in 2018 after more than nine
>>>> years of fruitful planet-hunting. The space telescope
>>>> discovered thousands of planets, ---->    These things return VAST
>>>> quantities of data these days.
> ---------snip
>>>
>>> Very interesting.
>>> The new telescopes great abilities certainly are
>>> increasing future spending on this technology,
>>> and lowering the need to send instrument packages
>>> towards other stars (like Voyager 1 and 2).
>>
>>    Well, those probes were not INTENDED to be
>>    interstellar - it's just that they were so
>>    well made they MANAGED to go interstellar.
>>    Crude instrumentation, but when used carefully
>>    those probes are still doing good science.
>>    Money VERY well spent.  -----
>>
>>    The space telescopes have been of great value
>>    also. The only thing is they can't "be there",
>>    out in the interstellar environment, to take
>>    subtle readings. Voyager has told us things
>>    about the heliosphere and beyond that those
>>    telescopes cannot.   --------
>>
>>    I'm a bit off HUMAN space flight at this time
>>    however.
>
> I Understand.
> I guess one of the landmarks that showed the
> 'transition', was when the developed programming /
> artificial intelligence so much, that they were
> able, repeatedly, to fly a helicopter on Mars.
> Then wait patiently for the time delay and let
> it send back the video for humans to view and
> learn from.

Even five years from now the 'AI' is going to
be MUCH better ... able to construct things
on Mars pretty much by itself with only minimal
human intervention (by radio link) when Really
Tough Problems arise.

ONE of those construction projects can be an
adequate hab & support for humans IF they ever
decided to come there.

Ya know, something programmed more like an ant
or termite might be more useful for hab construction.

>> Nothing rabid, but I think $$$ could
>>    be spent a little more wisely. Yes, there IS
>>    a psychological thing about "being there",
>>    those "footprints", but you could do ten times
>>    the good science for the budget. It's HARD to
>>    keep humans alive in space - and the moon and
>>    Mars are essentially "space" with some dirt
>>    under it.
>>
>>    Until there's some DRASTIC improvement in
>>    propulsion or something like it there's just
>>    little obvious purpose in humans Far Out Beyond.
>>
>>    MINING interests ... pure commercial ... let THEM
>>    decide whether to send humans or bots. I'm betting
>>    on bots. The next gens of AI will be very capable.
>>    The Boring Company - Lunar Division  :-)
>
> That all sounds pretty reasonable to me.
> However, I think some efforts should still be spent
> on humans in space.

Fine, but - for now - a more SECONDARY project.

SpaceX showed that good conventional spacecraft
COULD be done at a third the govt cost - and lots
quicker. This suddenly made LEO projects more
affordable for humans (but someone HAS to make
a much better space station !).

However the BIG thing remains "conventional spacecraft".
Volatile chemicals and Newton just ain't gonna get us
to the Next Stage ... cheap, quick, reliable, interplanetary
access.

And then there's likely to be another big, perhaps even
unfixable, gap - waiting for "warp drive' or "star-gates"
or whatever. Without that, well, we're STUCK in this
dismal one-decent-planet solar system.

Figure it'd take
a couple thousand years to respectably terraform Mars
by redirecting icy asteroids/comets into it. So far no
coherent civ has lasted long enough to complete such a
project. "AI" could last that long, if VERY well made, but
who knows if humans would ever be ready to go there after.
Any "next civ" is going to arise on a very resource-depleted
earth alas. We've already mined, and mostly squandered, all
the "easy stuff". It's dissipated across a million garbage
dumps, too dilute to recover.