Send a probe into the Sun? No.

Post Reply New Topic

If you think launching a probe into the sun is bad, take a look at what NASA launched into the moon!

https://youtu.be/kDyEWbQK8xc

Sending a probe to the sun is "spitting" on the sun?

Doesn't physically damage the sun, but it would...hurt the Sun's feelings???

Is THAT what you're worried about?

WTF?

And you talk about how they discovered evidence of Greco Roman smelting in ice cores taken in Greenland.

Well... you wouldn't have known that if they hadn't taken ice cores in Greenland in the first place. And isn't drilling into the ice of Greenland to get core samples itself a form of being "invasive"?

Isnt sending one probe to the sun more equivalent to taking ice cores than it is to creating a metal smelting industry?

And countless asteroids made of similar metallic material to that probe rain down on the sun every hour any way. So how is a manmade probe gonna make a difference?

RetroGamer87 asked:

I didn't say there was no damage. There might not be "serious" damage - uh, in the immediate future, or "permanent" damage, but that's not the same as "no" damage.

Physical actions result in physical reactions.

One physical reaction of vaporizing a probe from Earth in the sun's corona might be that the lingering vaporized materials contaminate future scientific studies and findings about the sun, and it's corona. You wouldn't smear mold and rotting meat all over your fancy "I'd like to learn how to cure cancer" research lab, and then expect that the results that the lab produced accurate and reliable results in the future. If the Sun is your lab, then you shouldn't intentionally sully it during the course of your research. NASA could build probes which could return to Earth, and be recycled without poisoning the planet, or the Sun. They could do that, because they are very smart people. They don't do that, because they externalize costs.

Cost is another way of describing reactions, only those are not limited to physical reactions.

NASA could accept the cost, in time and resources including but not limited to money, of actually following their own protocol regarding cleanliness, and making sure there are no microbes hitching a ride on their Mars probe, before sending their probe to the ONE Mars that exists, for example. Because if they don't, there's this other cost where some of us become unimpressed with their project.

Or maybe we all could realize, at long last, that when we pollute our entire planet, and we desperately start looking for another planet to inhabit because there seems to be no way to actually clean up the pollution we've begun to wallow in, and our approach for that endeavor includes carrying on with our same old habits of polluting everything we come into contact with, just beyond the exosphere this time, we are sending a message to youth that this is "normal" and "acceptable", and then they grow up thoroughly convinced that there are no physical reactions to physical actions, either. Then, once they grow up, what you get are a bunch of adults with bizarre, unsubstantiated thinking patterns and "belief" systems, who are unable to comprehend that pollution is an actual problem, even as they wallow in it.

Here is a quote you may have heard before, and it's followed by a little note about it, which I copied from the internet:

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." - Lau Tzu

"Although this is the popular form of this quotation, a more correct translation from the original Chinese would be "The journey of a thousand miles begins beneath one's feet." Rather than emphasizing the first step, Lau Tzu regarded action as something that arises naturally from stillness. Another potential phrasing would be "Even the longest journey must begin where you stand." [note by Michael Moncur, September 02, 2004]"

From: http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/24004.html

This quote is relevant in this discussion because it's important to understand that this adage holds true also for pollution.

If you think it's okay and normal to throw garbage onto the soil, then it seems okay to throw garbage into the water. If you accept that it's normal to throw garbage into the water, then it's fine to throw it into the atmosphere, and exosphere. If you can throw garbage into the exosphere, it must be fine to start piling it onto the moon. If it's okay to dump garbage on the moon, then it must be normal to dump it on Venus, and Mars. If Venus and Mars are garbage dumps, then Saturn and the Sun can be a dump, too.

If you can understand that pollution of the Earth is a problem, as you say RetroGamer87, then what would make you think that it has no effect if you pollute other bodies in the cosmos? Have you externalized the cost? Do you believe that you will never have to worry about it in your lifetime, and somebody's children's children will figure out how to clean it up?

That's not science. That's the adoption of a flawed economic strategy, in lieu of a scientific solution. It's a non answer. If pollution is a problem here, it's a problem elsewhere.

naturalplastic asked:



First, I'm not sure where you get the impression that I'm against any type of "invasive" scientific inquiry, naturalplastic. Maybe you've confused me with someone else, it's a long thread.

I'm concerned when science, or any industry or activity, results in pollution of the environment. I'm worried that there seems to be little interest, or progress, in finding ways towards remediation of pollutants. And I'm dismayed as during my lifetime I've seen the pollution begin to spread far beyond our skies. I'm distressed that there are a plethora of grown adults who arbitrarily dismiss pollution, and become notably upset when you happen to notice that there is pollution, and dare mention it in public, yet those adults can't provide a single reasonable reason as to why they would do so.

It's like you attacked the character of their diety, or something.

I mean, don't take it personally, people. It's just garbage.

If you want to know the whole truth about how I feel about drilling ice cores to study pollution, it's as follows. I am very happy that someone figured out that you can read the history of some pollution by drilling out ice cores, and studying their contents. I think that this data is valuable. However, every time I watch a documentary about it, I cringe to see the same scientists who raise concerns about the environmental damage this pollution causes riding across the ice sheets in gas powered vehicles, wearing synthetic clothing, etcetera.

I am entirely aware that we are living in a time where it is difficult to avoid polluting with every move you make. You can't go to the grocery store, or do a load of laundry without likely causing some harm to the environment. Even the receipts at the checkout are poison. So I tend to understand that scientists can't avoid participating in polluting activities, either.

I don't believe science shouldn't be done at all. I think science should continue to be done.

However, I don't think that it's too much to ask that scientists make a concerted effort not to poison everything they study, especially when it comes to things like cosmic bodies which haven't yet been in contact with human activity. If that means that they're not ready to do a study that they really, really want to do, then they can admit that, and work towards finding a way to conduct the study which won't poison the lab (in this case we're mainly discussing bodies other than Earth, which is already poisoned to an alarming degree. But that doesn't mean that I think it's okay to poison Earth in the name of science or other endeavors.) If not poisoning or polluting the thing you want to study m
means finding a way to return your probes and vehicles to earth, then in my opinion, they should do that.

It may surprise you to learn that scientists are starting to try and find ways to reduce the amount of pollution their experiments create, and I'm not alone in having these concerns.

For example, Rocket fuel, which has been necessary to travel to space and study "things" in space, is toxic, and it tends to get everywhere, even if you don't mean it. Even if the science you're using it for is really, really cool, and interesting. People have known this since the seventies. Here is an article about rocket fuel, and how it gets everywhere:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7025323/ns/he ... iwLv0qnGUk

Funnily enough, this same "rocket fuel" poisonous chemical turns out to be pretty common in the soil on Mars - the planet we scientifically and strategically chose to be our "golden child" for future human habitation in order to frantically escape our current poisoned planet (Earth) - to the degree that we humans may not be able to reside there, at all. (Gasp!):

http://www.slate.com/articles/technolog ... nauts.html

Science tends to be a one step forward, two steps back endeavor. But before anyone gets all upset that rocket fuel is toxic, and starts proclaiming that we have to use toxic fuel in order to achieve the all important "scientific conclusions", you might like to know that even NASA is aware that rocket fuel is toxic, and they have looked/are looking for alternative fuels. They think they might be able to do the same science in a less toxic way:

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/system ... able2.html

I'm not endorsing that fuel, either. I know next to zilch about it. I only provide the link for those visitors to this thread who believe that "scientists" and "NASA" are unconcerned with pollution, should be unconcerned with pollution because the sole thing of import in science is the "conclusion", and think that pollution is a joke, or doesn't exist, for some strange reason. I know of very few scientists who think that pollution is a joke, or "believe" it doesn't exist. Scientists are making the move towards creating less pollution, and hopefully someday they will be able to create no pollution. Hopefully the rest of us will find ways to follow suit.

There is actual proof that pollution exists.

There is actual proof that physical actions result in physical reactions.

Sometimes, physical actions can result in non-physical reactions, too.

Like, if you decide that it's acceptable to throw garbage everywhere, and pretend that it doesn't exist - even though when you look in the tree tops you can find that plastic bag you misplaced from the grocery store two years ago, and if you look along the edges of the street, you can find that old tire you misplaced ten or fifty years back, and if you open your eyes and look in the river sediment you can find the PCB's that Monsanto and GE misplaced eighty years ago - your children may sadly grow up with the erroneous impression that this pollution has no effect, that there is no reason to stop throwing garbage everywhere, and that it's funny for people to understand that it does have an effect, and understand that there is good reason to stop throwing garbage everywhere.

That's not a physical reaction, maybe. It's just you and your children's thoughts, leading to you pretending that something which is real is not real. It is, however, a related reaction which will likely influence you, and your children's future behavior, and there will be consequences for that. The trash will continue to spread from the soil, to the water, to the atmosphere, to the exosphere, to the moon, to Venus and Mars and Saturn, to the Sun, to infinity and beyond.

I suppose that we could continue our toxic explorations into space, so that we can try to run away from the filth that we leave everywhere. We could do that because we subscribe to a flawed economic strategy that says some babies will clean up our waste when they grow up, if the rocket fuel in their mother's milk doesn't kill them first.

If we must only make decisions based upon economic tenets, rather then aiming for a comprehensive approach to the consideration of problems we face, we could also allow ourselves to think on the questionable economic strategy that claims, "job creation is good for the economy". What would happen if we applied that strategy to cleaning up the garbage?

Maybe business/science could be required to close the cycle. Maybe they could be required to clean up the pollution which they create, if they're going to be allowed to conduct their business which creates pollution? That would create a LOT of jobs! There is so much business going on, there's so much pollution to be cleaned up . . . my GOODNESS! We could create a lot of wealth if we created jobs like that! If we're only creating half the jobs right now, production, shipping and sales . . . we could probably double the amount of jobs available if we also required businesses and other endeavors to clean up their own messes, instead of externalizing that to some babies who haven't agreed to that task. Think what that would do for the "economy"!

Now think what it might do for the health, happiness, and well being of you, your loved ones, and future generations. Because this isn't solely about economics, any more than sending a probe into the Sun is solely about "permanent damage".

There's another old adage out there that goes something like:

"Don't poop where you eat."

I cleaned it up a little.

My question is, "Why would anyone in their right mind argue that you should?" Because that seems to be the position of some people when you mention that pollution is bad, and should be subject to remediation, and they can't explain reasonably why they support that position.

Saying that something is "too big" to be polluted is not a reasonable, or thoroughly thought out position. It's been used before, and refuted.

Saying that something is "too big" to be treated with disrespect is also not a reasonable, or thoroughly thought out position, either. Anything can be disrespected.

Saying that pollution is a problem on Earth, but not anywhere else isn't a reasonable, or thoroughly thought out position. It negates itself.

Saying that the Sun is not sacred isn't a reasonable, or thoroughly thought out position. The Sun, and many astral bodies including Earth have been sacred for humans for many millennia, and they will continue to be.

Name calling of people who believe there's is such a thing as pollution isn't a reasonable, or thoroughly thought out position. It's logically fallacious, and abusive. It's conceding the debate.

Making a false comparison is not a reasonable, or thoroughly thought out position. It's a logical fallacy, and a telling a lie in order to mislead the viewing audience. It's also conceding the debate.

I'm not falling for it. Especially since no one seems to be able to actually defend the position that pollution is funny and has no effect at all in the universe. All they seem to be able to do is repeat these strange positions, without providing factual, reasonable thoroughly thought out evidence as to why people who believe in pollution and that it causes damage, should change our position, endlessly. Like a mantra.

Now I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion. Your beliefs. But at least have the insight to realize that they're opinions and beliefs, and not scientific facts, or even reasonable, well thought out arguments.

The sun is not a big light bulb in the sky. It's a ball of gases powered by nuclear fusion. Anything that goes into the sun will very quickly become disassociated into more elemental gases. The only places in the sun that it is cool enough to form molecules is in sunspots where it is just barely cool enough that simple molecules may be formed.

So what happens if you drop a space probe into the sun? It is vaporized. There is no effect on the sun other than the sun becomes heavier by the weight of the space probe and the various atoms of the space probe start mixing in with the atoms in the sun. That's it.

Each of our individual existences pollutes the earth many orders of magnitude greater than a space probe would pollute the sun.

You're quite beyond talking to, Mr. Spit-Man.

Michael829

We've been over that several times. I've repeatedly agreed that every time you get in your car and go on the road, you're taking a greater risk than any risk that the Parker probe would cause for you (If they persist in the abysmal poor-taste to launch it).

I've repeatedly said that there will probably be no harm.

In my initial post to this thread, I mentioned that the Sun has about about a million times more volume than does the Earth. I didn't deny that the Sun is larger than the Parker probe

As for something small affecting something large, I've answered that too. There's something called a chain-reaction, in which a small object, affecting at first only a small part of a large object, starts a process that soon propagates throughout the large object, affecting it considerably. Examples: 1) a boiling-chip dropped into a large pot of superheated water; 2)cloud-seeding. (...and yes, the ratio of masses is much greater in the case of the Sun and the Parker probe.)

Yes, I don't know of a mechanism by which that would happen in the case of the Parker probe and the Sun. But the probe is being justified by the fact that not everything is known about the mechanisms in the Sun. Not even by you.

As I said, there will probably be no damage.

And I'll remind you that my objection wasn't entirely about risk. I mentioned that there's something odious, repugnant, in poor taste, aesthetically-troglodytic about the probe.

But there'd be no point in trying to tell that to you.

But I'll repeat something that I said, in the post to which you were replying:

We've been over this many times already. I've already answered kokopelli's endlessly-recycled argument quoted below:

And, while I'm at it, I'll just repeat one other thing that I've said here, because it doesn't seem to have sunk in:

No one owns the sun. No one has a right to intrusively experiment on something major that they don't own, without some convincing consensus-permission.

Now, the pro-spit faction aren't saying anything different from what they said in their first posts, and so there's nothing more to be said in reply to them.

Michael829

Sorry I didn't realise you're an Aztec. Just send NASA a letter explaining how they've insulted Huitzilopochtli and then NASA will ignore it.

Yes and the sun is very large. It won't be much affected by the introduction of a tiny amount of material. Besides, all the material in the probe comes from the Earth and the Earth formed from the sun's accretion disk so it's the same stuff.

Why don't you tell me the cost of the damage to the sun caused by this probe? Give it a dollar amount. The probe has iron in it and iron can halt fusion reactions. Although the sun can produce millions of tons of iron per second by itself, the introduction of iron in the probe could shorten the sun's 10 billion year lifespan by a few microseconds. So what's the value of a few microseconds of sunlight long after the human race has gone extinct?

Drivel does not constitute an answer. And I have not endlessly recycled the above argument.

You're batting 0 for 0 so far.

No matter how many times you make that claim, it is still completely wrong.

Nobody needs permission to study the sun. The only permission needed to launch a probe into the sun is the same permission that is needed for any space launch for safety issues on Earth. The destination of the probe is immaterial.

If I had the means to launch a probe into the sun, it would be none of your business and you could not stop it. The worst you could do is cause a delay in launching the probe over safety issues.

This thread is a joke and does not belong in this sub forum and should be move to the PPR forum where all the science deniers and crackpots live, the OP haven't got a clue how large the sun is.

Stop feeding the troll.

Respectfully, I disagree. Moving things like this into PPR just encourages the science deniers to think denying science is a political choice. Look at how climate change got politicised so now people deny climate change based on which party they vote for. Scientific matters should not be politicised. The conclusion should be reached through experimentation, not through politics.

So you are admitting that you have no argument? That you have "nothing more to say", and that what you have already said is pure nonsense, but you are clinging to it anyway?

you're saying here that "the probe wont do any harm, WILL probably get valuable information, and that there is no reason for any sane person to oppose sending this probe to the sun. But I am against it anyway because to me it's just icky."

Is there any argument you have besides the fact that (for some emotional reason that you cant explain) you find the project icky?

This probe is a machine made of various metals, and plastics. Its of similar composition (iron, and carbon), and of comparable size (like a boulder) to thousands of natural meteors that fall on every body in the solar system every day including on the sun itself. So how is it worse than a natural meteor hitting the sun?

Just because he has nothing new to say that won't stop him from repeating himself over and over again.

Not only will it not cause any damage, the information from the probe might help us prevent damage from the sun.

You've got him there. There's no possible way he can argue against that one. The final blow. He's defeated.
Down like Glass Joe.