A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Other Travel Groups » Travel - anything else not covered
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Only Robots Should Be Allowed To Climb Mt. Everest



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 15th, 2009, 10:37 PM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.politics,rec.travel.misc
giveitawhirl2008
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Only Robots Should Be Allowed To Climb Mt. Everest

We need to stop human exploration and physical enjoyment of the Earth.
Robots can do it cheaper!

Only robots should be allowed to climb Mt. Everest and go on other
such adventures. There is no practical reason to climb mountains.
"Because it's there" is ILLOGIC of the type us STUPID HUMANS are
always coming up with!

Let's stop allowing humans to explore the earth, first! That will open
the way to leave the rest of the solar system (and beyond) to robots,
only, also!

In fact, next time you are tempted to take a walk in the woods, put a
transmitting webcam on top of an RC model car instead, and look at the
woods on your TV or PC! Stop this "personal exploration" stuff, NOW!
  #2  
Old August 18th, 2009, 12:24 AM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.politics,rec.travel.misc
Jonathan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Only Robots Should Be Allowed To Climb Mt. Everest


"giveitawhirl2008" wrote in message
...
We need to stop human exploration and physical enjoyment of the Earth.
Robots can do it cheaper!

Only robots should be allowed to climb Mt. Everest and go on other
such adventures. There is no practical reason to climb mountains.
"Because it's there" is ILLOGIC of the type us STUPID HUMANS are
always coming up with!

Let's stop allowing humans to explore the earth, first! That will open
the way to leave the rest of the solar system (and beyond) to robots,
only, also!

In fact, next time you are tempted to take a walk in the woods, put a
transmitting webcam on top of an RC model car instead, and look at the
woods on your TV or PC! Stop this "personal exploration" stuff, NOW!



You're mixing the issues of personal liberty, with how taxpayers money
should be spent. I have no problem at all with someone going to the moon
and mars. But if they're going to spend my money to do it, they better
use it wisely. Manned missions to Mars will take fifty years and cost
trillions of dollars. While a robotic mission can take as little as three
or four years, and cost millions instead of trillions.

I want to know more about Mars, but I don't want to wait FIFTY YEARS!
When I could find out 99% of the same information in FIVE YEARS!

What do you want? A glorious gilded safari for a handful of people
that'll only serve to discredit, if not ruin NASA, from the costs and
lack of benefits?

Or the data?

What do you want, and what's the best way to get it???

s









  #3  
Old August 18th, 2009, 12:50 AM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.politics,rec.travel.misc
giveitawhirl2008
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Only Robots Should Be Allowed To Climb Mt. Everest

On Aug 17, 7:24*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
"giveitawhirl2008" wrote in message

...

We need to stop human exploration and physical enjoyment of the Earth.
Robots can do it cheaper!


Only robots should be allowed to climb Mt. Everest and go on other
such adventures. There is no practical reason to climb mountains.
"Because it's there" is ILLOGIC of the type us STUPID HUMANS are
always coming up with!


Let's stop allowing humans to explore the earth, first! That will open
the way to leave the rest of the solar system (and beyond) to robots,
only, also!


In fact, next time you are tempted to take a walk in the woods, put a
transmitting webcam on top of an RC model car instead, and look at the
woods on your TV or PC! Stop this "personal exploration" stuff, NOW!


You're mixing the issues of personal liberty, with how taxpayers money
should be spent. I have no problem at all with someone going to the moon
and mars. But if they're going to spend my money to do it, they better
use it wisely. Manned missions to Mars will take fifty years and cost
trillions of dollars. While a robotic mission can take as little as three
or four years, and cost millions instead of trillions.

I want to know more about Mars, but I don't want to wait FIFTY YEARS!
When I could find out 99% of the same information in FIVE YEARS!

What do you want? A glorious gilded safari for a handful of people
that'll only serve to discredit, if not ruin NASA, from the costs and
lack of benefits?

Or the data?

What do you want, and what's the best way to get it???

s


" You're mixing the issues of personal liberty, with how taxpayers
money
should be spent"


No, I'm not mixing up personal liberty with spending taxpayer money.
It is a symbolic statement about human, in person exploration, vs.
machines-only.

I know the public has a choice in a free society; that's why this
would have to have the support of significantly more than fifty
percent of the citizens in participating countries. So the idea is to
sell it to the public. Admittedly, the public may never "buy" it. But
it's worth a shot.

Why did we go to the Moon? From the government's POV, it was
essentially a military expenditure as part of the Propaganda/Prestige/
Psychology Front in the Cold War. Beating the Russians was the main
idea.

The American public, and possibly some of the public in other Western
nations, was glad for this beat-the-Russians objective. And the Apollo
program is majorly responsible for technological advances such as the
computer chip, used today all over the world, including in life-saving
medical equipment. The public is glad about that.

The Apollo program created 400,000 jobs. The public, at the time,
probably did not think too much about that but might have been glad
for it, if it had.

But what do most people think of when they remember the first Moon
landing? At least those who are old enough to remember watching it,
live? What makes many gladly celebrate that event?

NOT: We beat the Russians!

NOT: We invented the microchip as a spinoff of this!

NOT: We created 400,000 jobs to get this done!

But rather: WOW! HUMAN BEINGS ARE WALKING ON ANOTHER WORLD!!!


For many, if they are very glad that someone landed on the Moon and
would look forward to things like that happening again, the prospect
of ever further exploration would be at least as thrilling. And there
are those side benefits! Technological advance, etc.

I realize this may never sell to a large enough part of the public.
But it's worth a shot.

---------

jobs, etc.]


http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...thread/thread/...


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.t...hread/thread/4...


http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...thread/thread/...



  #4  
Old August 18th, 2009, 01:44 AM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.politics,rec.travel.misc
Jonathan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Only Robots Should Be Allowed To Climb Mt. Everest


"giveitawhirl2008" wrote in message
...

No, I'm not mixing up personal liberty with spending taxpayer money.
It is a symbolic statement about human, in person exploration, vs.
machines-only.



Ya know the thing about the Mars rovers, is that we got to see the
pictures the same time everyone else did. That was so exciting.
It felt as if I was going along. And the difference between manned
and robotic missions to me is that the amazement of manned
missions in the accomplishment of getting there. While robotic
missions the excitement is what they'll find. I guess it depends
if your into the engineering or the science. I want to know if
there's life on Mars, and I want to know yesterday. So for me
robots are the way to go.

I know the public has a choice in a free society; that's why this
would have to have the support of significantly more than fifty
percent of the citizens in participating countries. So the idea is to
sell it to the public. Admittedly, the public may never "buy" it. But
it's worth a shot.



But what I see is that they're trying to take a goal, manned missions
to the moon and mars, which have limited public support, and trying
to force people to like it with contrived or weak reasoning.

Why not start from a clean slate and design a goal with the express
purpose of being as popular as possible? So the question of
NASA's goal becomes..." find the goal that has the maximum
tangible benefits to the most people possible...which also intersects
with NASA's capabilities.

When I go down that route, it keeps settling on one kind of goal.
Space Solar Power.

Which has the potential to do the following....

End the planet's reliance on fossil fuels.
Turn America's into the next energy "Saudi Arabia"
Replace American's greatest single weakness into
it's greatest strength.
Provide govt paid bulk cargo needed to jump start
commercial launch industry.
Force us to build low cost to orbit vehicles.
Provide energy to the third world where it's not
possible today.
Change our energy future from steadily increasing costs
decreasing supply, and more and more coal. Into a future
trend where energy get cheaper, more plentiful and cleaner
over time. And just as an aside....
SOLVE GLOBAL WARMING!

Cheap, clean and abundant energy benefits EVERYONE
on the planet. And in many direct ways.

And I haven't even mentioned how it would provide power
for larger satellites and even colonies someday. Not to
mention the military has callled Space Solar Power a
potential 'game-changer' when it comes to military
capabilities and supply lines.

Now, please list how a moon shelter for six or so, used
only once in a while, compares to that?


Why did we go to the Moon? From the government's POV, it was
essentially a military expenditure as part of the Propaganda/Prestige/
Psychology Front in the Cold War. Beating the Russians was the main
idea.



Right, but what few seem to appreciate is this time it's about beating
the Chinese. The Chinese military budget, in real dollars, is approaching
our own level of spending. It would be a crying shame if the next forty
years was just a wasteful repeat of the last forty.


But rather: WOW! HUMAN BEINGS ARE WALKING ON ANOTHER WORLD!!!



Right, in the words of Tom Hanks, one of NASA's most avid fans.

"And it is meant to make people think, 'How in the world did we do that?
And isn't it a marvelous thing that we did,'" says Hanks.

"And maybe we should do it again?" Axelrod asks.

"Well," Hanks says, "the question would be why?"

"Once humankind has been some place and found it entrancing, they always
go back," says Hanks, the film's producer. "I think in the history of the human
race, the moon has been the first place we've gone to and said, 'OK, we
don't need to go back there again.'"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in881421.shtml



For many, if they are very glad that someone landed on the Moon and
would look forward to things like that happening again, the prospect
of ever further exploration would be at least as thrilling. And there
are those side benefits! Technological advance, etc.


I realize this may never sell to a large enough part of the public.
But it's worth a shot.



But if we really want an active space future, we need to build the kind
of lasting infrastructure that makes it possible. Another Apollo isn't
the answer. Space Solar Power would give us low cost to orbit
plentiful energy sources and most importantly, a strong economy
that makes such grand visions possible.

Ya know, if Bush didn't cancel the program below, we'd already
have a gigawatt class solar power satellite in orbit right now.

Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1
s


---------

jobs, etc.]


http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...thread/thread/...


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.t...hread/thread/4...


http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...thread/thread/...






  #5  
Old August 21st, 2009, 01:45 AM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.travel.misc
Eugene Miya
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 193
Default Only Robots Should Be Allowed To Climb Mt. Everest



Never heard of Dante, eh?

--

Looking for an H-912 (container).

  #6  
Old August 25th, 2009, 08:56 PM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.politics,rec.travel.misc
giveitawhirl2008
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Only Robots Should Be Allowed To Climb Mt. Everest

On Aug 17, 8:44*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
"giveitawhirl2008" wrote in message

...

No, I'm not mixing up personal liberty with spending taxpayer money.
It is a symbolic statement about human, in person exploration, vs.
machines-only.


Ya know the thing about the Mars rovers, is that we got to see the
pictures the same time everyone else did. That was so exciting.
It felt as if I was going along. And the difference between manned
and robotic missions to me is that the amazement of manned
missions in the accomplishment of getting there. While robotic
missions the excitement is what they'll find. I guess it depends
if your into the engineering or the science. I want to know if
there's life on Mars, and I want to know yesterday. So for me
robots are the way to go.

I know the public has a choice in a free society; that's why this
would have to have the support of significantly more than fifty
percent of the citizens in participating countries. So the idea is to
sell it to the public. Admittedly, the public may never "buy" it. But
it's worth a shot.


But what I see is that they're trying to take a goal, manned missions
to the moon and mars, which have limited public support, and trying
to force people to like it with contrived or weak reasoning.

Why not start from a clean slate and design a goal with the express
purpose of being as popular as possible? * So the question of
NASA's goal becomes..." find the goal that has the maximum
tangible benefits to the most people possible...which also intersects
with NASA's capabilities.

When I go down that route, it keeps settling on one kind of goal.
Space Solar Power.

Which has the potential to do the following....

End the planet's reliance on fossil fuels.
Turn America's into the next energy "Saudi Arabia"
Replace American's greatest single weakness into
it's greatest strength.
Provide govt paid bulk cargo needed to jump start
commercial launch industry.
Force us to build low cost to orbit vehicles.
Provide energy to the third world where it's not
possible today.
Change our energy future from steadily increasing costs
decreasing supply, and more and more coal. Into a future
trend where energy get cheaper, more plentiful and cleaner
over time. And just as an aside....
SOLVE GLOBAL WARMING!

Cheap, clean and abundant energy benefits EVERYONE
on the planet. And in many direct ways.

And I haven't even mentioned how it would provide power
for larger satellites and even colonies someday. Not to
mention the military has callled Space Solar Power a
potential 'game-changer' when it comes to military
capabilities and supply lines.

Now, please list how a moon shelter for six or so, used
only once in a while, compares to that?

Why did we go to the Moon? From the government's POV, it was
essentially a military expenditure as part of the Propaganda/Prestige/
Psychology Front in the Cold War. Beating the Russians was the main
idea.


Right, but what few seem to appreciate is this time it's about beating
the Chinese. The Chinese military budget, in real dollars, is approaching
our own level of spending. It would be a crying shame if the next forty
years was just a wasteful repeat of the last forty.

But rather: WOW! HUMAN BEINGS ARE WALKING ON ANOTHER WORLD!!!


Right, in the words of Tom Hanks, one of NASA's most avid fans.

"And it is meant to make people think, 'How in the world did we do that?
And isn't it a marvelous thing that we did,'" says Hanks.

"And maybe we should do it again?" Axelrod asks.

"Well," Hanks says, "the question would be why?"

"Once humankind has been some place and found it entrancing, they always
go back," says Hanks, the film's producer. "I think in the history of the human
race, the moon has been the first place we've gone to and said, 'OK, we
don't need to go back there again.'"http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/23/eveningnews/main881421.shtml

For many, if they are very glad that someone landed on the Moon and
would look forward to things like that happening again, the prospect
of ever further exploration would be at least as thrilling. And there
are those side benefits! Technological advance, etc.
I realize this may never sell to a large enough part of the public.
But it's worth a shot.


But if we really want an active space future, we need to build the kind
of lasting infrastructure that makes it possible. Another Apollo isn't
the answer. Space Solar Power would give us low cost to orbit
plentiful energy sources and most importantly, a strong economy
that makes such grand visions possible.

Ya know, if Bush didn't cancel the program below, we'd already
have a gigawatt class solar power satellite in orbit right now.

Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAMhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1
s

---------

jobs, etc.]

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...thread/thread/...

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.t...hread/thread/4...

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...thread/thread/...

-------------------------------
I want to know if
there's life on Mars, and I want to know yesterday. So for me
robots are the way to go.


I'm for robots and humans, both.

And the difference between manned
and robotic missions to me is that the amazement of manned
missions in the accomplishment of getting there....
"And it is meant to make people think, 'How in the world did we do that?
And isn't it a marvelous thing that we did,'" says Hanks.


To me, it is not about the amazement of getting there, even if
"getting there is half the fun." It's about walking on another world,
in person. The next best thing to doing it myself is to find out all
about someone who did do it. We can vicariously experience it
ourselves, knowing other humans did it.

I don't disagree with solar power, nor other alt. energies, such as
geothermal.


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...904a1?hl=en&q=

Admittedly there is a problem of X number of people want to do X
number of things. But I hope the public can agree on several very good
options, and the hopefully one of those very good options is walking
on Titan. (Etc.)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CLIMB KILIMAJARO Annya[_3_] Travel Marketplace 0 May 2nd, 2007 03:53 PM
gear for trekking in everest (everest base camp trail) region in december? [email protected] Asia 2 November 4th, 2005 03:55 PM
Climb Mt Fuji John W. Asia 1 January 20th, 2005 11:07 PM
Bridge climb Anonymous Australia & New Zealand 4 August 3rd, 2004 01:18 AM
Climb Mt. Kilimanjaro Stefan Africa 1 June 10th, 2004 01:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.