Comments on: Episode 5096 (7/20/2009)

By: Tiger

Tiger — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:20:11 +0000

thanks for the information. I’ve done a little searching around as a result, and I am finding some very sound arguments for humans in space. I was also thinking, after I’d written my comment, that if robots are always better suited for these tasks, then they would probably be filling all our terrestrial science labs, but they’re obviously not. those against space travel are focused on the precision possible with robots, but choices are better when they have the benefit of all the input and synthesis possible with a brain. nevertheless, while I admit there are definite benefits, I’m still not certain that they outweigh the costs (all costs, not just $$), but I do have a better feel for both sides of this argument now.

By: Mary

Mary — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:57:38 +0000

NASA, ESA and other scientists have all written extensively on why it is necessary to send humans to outer space. There are many things that robots cant do – reason, show initiative when something unexpected occurs and lots of other reasons – things that cant be controlled by mission control on earth. In short, having a human in space is NOT just because we can, or merely to test human endurance. Rather, until computers develop human-like brain functions, their contribution to the space program will be sub-par compared to having humans in space.
Its worthwhile looking for this info online if you are interested.

By: Mary

Mary — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:56:00 +0000

Buzz Aldrin, NASA and ESA have all written extensively on why it is necessary to send humans to outer space. There are many things that robots cant do – reason, show initiative when something unexpected occurs and lots of other reasons – things that cant be controlled by mission control on earth. In short, having a human in space is NOT just because we can, or merely to test human endurance. Rather, until computers develop human-like brain functions, their contribution to the space program will be sub-par compared to having humans in space.
Its worthwhile looking for this info online if you are interested.

By: Roseha

Roseha — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 03:11:18 +0000

I see juice beat me to it about the Palmolive, that must have been water with food coloring in it, it was way too thin to be soap!

I didn’t mind Bob Park, I remember being excited about the moon landing myself but after all it is a risk to send humans into space and his point of view is a legitimate one. I do think he and Stephen were having a fun time in an odd kind of way. I did find it funny that Stephen chose to celebrate the moon anniversary with this contrary gentleman, but I’m sure he was well aware of the direction it was going to go.

By: forsakinghalfloves

forsakinghalfloves — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:36:46 +0000

Great banter between Stephen and Geoffrey Canada. I love his name, too. :)

I was almost expecting the cranky Bob Park to blow up at Stephen’s questions at some point. I do appreciate the points he’s raised, except that he probably could have expressed it better.

By: SajiNoKami

SajiNoKami — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:51:02 +0000

enjoyed Stephen drinking beer and “soap”
is it bad that i want to see what that boy is like drunk?

-Everyone knows I’m a huge Ultimate Fighting fan.
-Ultimate Fighting has it all, from the occasional moment of action,
-to the 40 minutes of awkward spooning.

Bob Park…. I found this interview interesting..
i have seen and know people that have the same attitude as him…
so it was entertaining to see Stephen humorous/awkward interview.

By: Lilbirdy

Lilbirdy — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:14:14 +0000

The Jackson-Cronkite bit. Yeesh. (Loved the Dr. Funkenstein line though.)

“How else is a hobbit supposed to get laid?” HAHA! Hearing that from a Tolkien fanatic just added to the lolness.

By: laughing at nothing

laughing at nothing — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:00:52 +0000

An excellent show. I liked *both* guests and I’m putting in the love for Bob Park. While I strongly believe that man landing on the moon was one of humankind’s greatest accomplishments, I think that Prof. Park has a legitimate point about the cost and risks of using humans in space exploration rather than robots. Though he wasn’t able to offer his reasoning as succinctly as he might have wanted, Park seemed to have a knowledgeable, slightly cranky twinkle that I enjoyed. I may not agree with all of his opinions, but he didn’t strike me as a nut job — just an opinionated (with justifications) old scientist. ;-)

By: nerdygirl

nerdygirl — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:13:47 +0000

I loved Stephen’s take on “Reverse Civil Rights Leader Pat Buchanan.” Rachel Maddow handled the interview very well, I though, calmly and quietly disputing Buchanan’s fevered rantings.

By: O'Reilly

O'Reilly — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:08:47 +0000

Curmudgeon!

The above word best describes in my mind the household name “Bob Park” when mentioned around my house with near reverence by my chem. prof. husband, Bern, in relating the latest news from Park’s “What’s New” online newsletter. His disclaimer, “opinions are the author’s and are not necessarily shared by the university, but they should be,” noted at the bottom of each issue, has “curmudgeon” hypothetically written all over it.

With the speed and pace of technological advances, I find myself agreeing with Park’s viewpoint far more readily than I have done before; unmanned or robotic probes and satellites in space seem far more practical, efficient, and feasible these days as opposed to sending up actual human beings. I start losing pace with Park (loosely quoting and paraphrasing Thoreau ) because I hear a different drummer and must step to the music which I hear, when he begins discussing matters of faith, religion, theology, whatever term one chooses to use here. Park is a thorough (no pun intended on “Thoreau”) skeptic.

Anyway, I truly, truly enjoyed this interview. I couldn’t help but applaud Stephen’s handling of Park and kept likening what I saw to how a grandson might deal kindly with an elderly, curmudgeonly grandfather. The grandson had grandpa smiling, laughing, and quipping with him on Jesus and robots and other things. I do hope Stephen takes a second look at himself in this interview. It would be nice to know if he thought too that perhaps this time, not only his improv skills but also his position as the youngest member in that grand family of his, makes his experience in dealing with older family members a big plus here. Simply put this was a delightful interview.