Printable View
I'm bored with all the shitty traditional bipartisan topics that get thrown around in this board. Lets try something new. Maybe we can for once have a discussion that doesn't devolve into Republicans vs. Democrats...
In your opinion, what is the best role for the US and other governments to play in advancements in space? Should NASA continue to exist and be funded? Is there any profit to be found in expanding into space? Other than satellites, should we really give a shit what goes on up there?
I'm not a space expert by any means, so I can't say what technologies we've discovered during space travel that we've been able to adapt for use down here.Quote:
Originally Posted by sam1617
Given NASA's relatively small budget, I'm perfectly fine with how they've been operating and what they've accomplished. I wouldn't mind seeing another moonwalk, and possibly, a lunar base.
I can't honestly say there's "profit" to be found in expanding into space, with the HUGE exception of a possible lunar elevator being built, which would greatly decrease costs for sending things into space.
I could see where some people would say that space exploration/flight should be kept as a commercial activity, but I think there's some real-world security protection measures that have to be kept in mind as well. Satellites are a prime target to take down, after all.
You know, I guess the same could be said about any scientific endeavor. Why study subatomic particles? Why study some obscure species of cave-dwelling insect? Why do deep sea exploration?
I think many sciences should be funded. It just so happens that the investment in space exploration is much more significant than terrestrial sciences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JFK
An understanding of the world and our place in it is never frivolous. The pursuit of knowledge and the application of prior knowledge is worthy unto itself.
Me personally, I think the only hope for the survival of mankind is in space. With all the power that we have, nuclear weapons and whatnot, it would be too easy for us to blow ourselves to hell, or for some natural disaster to kill us all. It only seems to make sense to me that we should hedge our bets some. Plus, to me, the greatest periods in US history have coincided when we have been able to expand, either in the west, or through military ability and influence. Well, we hit the ocean in the west, and we don't seem to want to conquer people anymore, so the only place to expand is up.
To me, the best possible short term (100 years or less) situation is NASA building a lunar base as a jumping off point, then commercial expansion of that base, robbing the moon of whatever natural resources it has while we are at it. From there, hopefully we have the ability to expand further, either to Mars, or the asteroid belt, and eventually, out of our solar system (long term, 200 years or more, we aren't even close to the appropriate technology).
Yeah...in about....3000 years or so, it might be. *might* beQuote:
Originally Posted by sam1617
And given the growth of mankind technologically, thats not that long when you consider the effort required in advancing into space.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign
And actually, I would disagree that it would take that long for the earth to be threatened. Its not like accidents are predictable... I'm not saying we should necessarily worry about it, but it makes sense to hedge our bets a little. There are a whole, whole lot of natural disasters that could cause all sorts of real problems for sustaining life on this planet, to go with the obvious man made one of nuclear disaster. Massive volcanic eruptions, asteroids, the sun being crazy (which since we don't necessarily understand it, we can't rule it out), I'm not saying its necessarily likely, but still, I would think that its worth taking a measured approach towards preserving our species...
And since I may have misinterpreted what you meant... Yeah, it would take a long long time to make it out of our solar system, and have real Star Trek style space travel.
Lets say a meteoroid was on a collision course for Earth.
Its over. No space colony on the moon is going to change that. We're toast.
Dont believe the movie bullshit that says things like "We now have the technology to prevent...bla bla bla", because we dont. Not even close. And exploring space has no applicable science to help us in that situation, unless you consider a small colony on the moon as "help".
Starting a colony of any sort in space serves many purposes, but the most interesting is human life in space. You'd be surprised how biologically dependant Earth creatures are on things like gravity for a natural birth cycle, or a child learning to walk, etc.
The point is, we as a species are nowhere near that point. To pretend that we are, or to prematurely attempt such a bold project is foolhardy.
IMO, life in space cannot exist until humanity has an undersea colony here on Earth. Things need to be proven out. Think about the stupid shit...soil. Are you going to fly soil from Earth to the moon? How long does that last if crop rotation isnt adhered to or miscalculated?
No, colonization is not the next step and it wont be in our lifetime. Maybe not even our great-grandchildren's time. Maybe later than that.
We go to space to explore, to learn, to test, to predict, to prove, to enlighten...for perspective. There is no better reason, come what may from that.
Yes, that way I can get off the Earth when it all goes to hell. Space exploration is too expensive for private funding. It would happen, but it would be delayed many years until it made economic sense to do so.
Colonizing anything is pointless until we can terraform it. That isn't happening until we get nanomachines or genetically engineered viruses. That won't happen until we get smaller form factors and understand molecular biology better. That isn't ready until... you get the idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign
We are probably several hundred years from being able to turn a barren wasteland into something useful. Then it will probably be a few thousand years before the process is finished. Until then, yeah, it's pretty much going to be exporting soil and water to colonies, which defeats the purpose.
I'm not saying immediate colonization, and I agree, we can't do shit to stop an asteroid from space, unless it was pure, insane luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign
Any colonization in space is going to be a long term deal, and I'm talking beyond 200 years, and likely beyond 500, unless there are some serious technological jumps, which there may be, look at flight, from nothing, to the moon in what, 70 years?
Searching for understanding is great, but taking that understanding and turning it into practical uses is where its at, and having a goal, even if its something like building a lunar base by 2050, forces people to develop the new technologies to do it, whereas without a goal, we may learn a bunch of cool new shit, but not have any application for it.
Jupiter is one of the main things that convinces me that things are determined. I believe that Jupiter is put into our system just to protect us because if it wasn't for that planet, Earth would've been long gone.
Sorry if that seems like a thread highjack.
Hmm, thats a good point. But I would argue that sabar's application is far more economical and believable.Quote:
Originally Posted by sam1617
What technology we lack can be developed here in Earth. To even pretend that we could start a colony on the moon is premature, to put it lightly. Thinktanks are paid to think about shit like this (ask CD), but actual application of relevant technology does not need to be prototyped in space.
In conclusion, NASA is going about their business the right way. They have limits, they know them, but theyre pushing them for exploratory pusposes only. It will be this way for a loooong time. We've landed on the moon and sent a robot to Mars surface. There are six other planets that require the same treatment, for the gas giants, just entering the atmosphere and getting out would suffice (not much of a "surface" to land on...at least, not a predictable one). Mercury and Venus? Good luck with that.
There are far too many challenges we face in space that could even be considered believable with current technology.
With that said, I think its prudent that NASA continue its role as Space Explorer and nothing beyond that (save for the obvious experiments of the scientific community and airliner for private/public industry's orbit toys).
I dont think thats evidence of predetermination. I think thats evidence of gravity and its effect on materials/gases of varying densities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Creepn
But what real advancements have their been in non-IT type fields in 20 years, we built a super-collider with technology that has been around for a while, and made some interesting theories, but no practical applications of those theories. With the exception of computers and cell phones, life hasn't changed very much since the 80's. A lunar base (not colony, base) would force us to find better solutions for things like renewable, clean energy, more efficient ways to clean air, better ways to deal with pressure (and lack of pressure). Yes, those things can be discovered on earth, and probably will be eventually, but they aren't really progressing much. We need a goal, with a simple fail or succeed deadline to force us to create those technologies, at least IMO :)Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign
But what if Jupiter was predetermined to be built that way? Jupiter with its size and effects just to help Earth sustain its life? I mean it's quite possible that if Jupiter never existed in the solar system, Earth would've never been able to form life.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign
If we find another solar system that has one planet that's able to sustain life but millions of light years away from that planet there is a planet similar to Jupiter, would you believe that is a form of predetermination?
Count me out, sam. We're not adapted for space.Quote:
Originally Posted by sam1617
I would disagree completely. Necessity is the mother of all invention.Quote:
Originally Posted by sam1617
We, as a species, do not need this. It would be wasteful and impractical. After the deadline had passed, you'd be exactly where you started only billions of dollars lighter.
moon or mars base makes sense, all you need is solar panels for energy electricity and something to convert the gas into h2o for underground bases...grow plants with hydroponic setups....lol sustainable yeh
Eh... technology doubles quite rapidly. You can't just look at a timeline of technology and apply it linearly. It feeds off of itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabar
If we worked hard on it, I could see terraforming technology capable in 200-300 years.
I mean, look at the difference between the year 1900 to 2000. Just one hundred years, and we developed...
The assembly line
TV
Internet
Radio (ok, technically 1896)
Space travel
Quantum mechanics/physics
Tanks
Jets
Hydrogen and nuclear bomb
That's just some off the top of my head.
Man may be made of this earth but our origin is in the stars....just like every other organism or creature that inhabits creation...
...but it's hardly the 'Final frontier'.....
Of course we should continue investing in space.
We will need an Exit Strategy when France turns the Hadron Collider back on.
for China
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~chanson9/256/HW1/Pimp.jpg
Black hoes?!? Seriously?
In my opinion, these extremely large projects are what the federal government should be focusing on. Most the stuff the government gets involved in should be done by the states. The Apollo and Shuttle missions are probably the last good thing that government has done. Everything else just turns into over priced shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by sam1617
If it's not outlined in the constitution, the federal government should stay out of it, with few exceptions.
Uhm.. your first paragraph doesn't really jibe with your second.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I'm pretty sure space travel isn't written about in the Constitution, after all. :)
There are other methods that were worked out and discussed in the early 70's that can realistically be done. Payoff is not likely yet for profit. In short, a solar powered linear accelerator is built on the Moon to launch a payload to one of the Lagrangian points between the Earth and Moon, where a space station would be built. This station would optionally send it to a Low Earth Orbit station by similar means, or directly to Earth. Space missions can then retrieve the payload at convenient timeframes, or it can even be fitted with retro rockets, heat shields, and chutes to drop in the desert. Different ways were discussed. I think the major problem is that no rare elements are on the moon, at least yet discovered in any usable quantity to use them instead of our resources here.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
In the later 70's, from my experience with the reduction of Aluminum and reading past articles describing the above, I used to think it would be great to build an aluminum reduction plant on the moon. Great solar power to do the electrolysis, and the byproduct is oxygen. Even if we never shipped all the aluminum we produced, it could also be used to build a moon community. The oxygen could then, over time, make an atmosphere on moon. As I leaned more of the sciences, I found this wasn't viable. The oxygen could be used for maintaining a livable environment in pressurized rooms, or even city. However, the moon doesn't have enough gravity to hold an atmosphere. It probably would cave on if it could. The solar winds blow any gasses off the moon.
It might be commercial someday. Right now, I don't think there's much to do there. It's just useless to us other than maintaining a tide.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
"with few exceptions."Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Making water on the moon is simple. You remove the oxygen from the various ores on the moon and store it. You collect and separate the hydrogen out of the solar wind, and combine. You now have water.Quote:
Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY