NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by the discussion going on in the Enterprise thread.

Of course, this has been discussed before, so in an effort to go beyond the usual discussion of weather we want to explore space, I also want to ask how people think we can best accomplish some of the more far reaching goals of space exploration, especially with a new President-elect who, like others before him, not particularily supportive of the Space Program.

So, should we continue to explore this frontier, and more importantly, how do we do it? The last is probably the most critical question, given that most of the opposition to space exploration seems to stem from the belief that it is impractical or a waste of money.

Needs to be some kind of balance between war and its spoils.

Needs to be some kind of balance between war and its spoils.

I'm sorry but I don't really understand what you're saying here.:confused:

We first have to build Moon bases, and mine the area

Space exploration.
...why?

Space exploration.
...why?

Just what do you mean, why?

I think its a gigantic waste of money and that it would be better if the money were diverted to social spending. I can't really think of any worthwhile goals to be aiming for up there. Sorry.

Just what do you mean, why?

Why explore space? DI gets the idea.

Space exploration.
...why?

1. Being spread across more than one world increases our chance of surviving extinction events such as an asteroid impact, nuclear war, or pandemic.

2. Space is full of valuable reasources, including asteroids worth tens of trillions of dollars and fuel that could power nuclear reactors.

3. Space exploration can unite people around a common goal, inspire interest in science, technology, and the future.

4. Space exploration provides a way to reemploy millitary industry and technology for peaceful purposes.

5. Alternatively, space technology plays a pivitol role in national security, through spy satalites for example.

6. Much of our modern infrastructure is based in space technology, including satalite comunications, weather forcasting, environmental studies, etc.

I think its a gigantic waste of money and that it would be better if the money were diverted to social spending. I can't really think of any worthwhile goals to be aiming for up there. Sorry.

Why explore space? DI gets the idea.

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

Start here while I (and maybe a few others, if they show up) get some more data.

Space exploration is vitally important.

I think its a gigantic waste of money and that it would be better if the money were diverted to social spending. I can't really think of any worthwhile goals to be aiming for up there. Sorry.
In the words of Thomas Mallory, "Because it's there!"
Of course, when you try to use that justification for other things (like why you stole a car, or ate an entire ice cream cake) everyone gets all huffy.

1. Being spread across more than one world increases our chance of surviving extinction events such as an asteroid impact, nuclear war, or pandemic.

We keep throwing money at NASA and other such bodies, but all we ever do is go to the moon again or send a probe to look at other planets. There's a huge jump to be made if we're going to be able to have the technology to make other planets habitable for humans. Is it worth generations of huge investment, with damaging affects on living standards as money is diverted from social spending, just on the offchance this might eventually become feasible and not just some silly science fiction?


2. Space is full of valuable reasources, including asteroids worth tens of trillions of dollars and fuel that could power nuclear reactors.

Worth more than all the research and development required to work out how to mine the asteroids and get the fuel back to Earth?

3. Space exploration can unite people around a common goal, inspire interest in science, technology, and the future.

Typically the space race has been a status battle between rival nations, often with military purposes. More likely to inspire war than peace. Why create a cult of space exploration when there are such great problems on our Earth more deserving of our attention.

4. Space exploration provides a way to reemploy millitary industry and technology for peaceful purposes.

Or more likely as it was during the Cold War to be used for aggressive means

5. Alternatively, space technology plays a pivitol role in national security, through spy satalites for example.

Whats the point? We've already got thermonuclear devices that can turn countries to dust and there's not much further to go on the spy satellite front.

6. Much of our modern infrastructure is based in space technology, including satalite comunications, weather forcasting, environmental studies, etc.

True, but what else is to be gained by further investment? Investing in social spending and helping the needy around the world would have a far greater positive impact on aggregate life standard.

In the words of Thomas Mallory, "Because it's there!"
Of course, when you try to use that justification for other things (like why you stole a car, or ate an entire ice cream cake) everyone gets all huffy.

False. "Because its their" may inspire people to achieve things they otherwise would not, but by itself its not a reason to spend billions every year and risk human life.

Of course, I would apreciate it if you or anyone else responded to the list of much more valid reasons to explore space that I just posted.

We need to develop wormhole technology.

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

Start here while I (and maybe a few others, if they show up) get some more data.

Space exploration is vitally important.

Thing is, you can invest in science and innovation with the direct intent of finding stuff that will improve quality of life, rather than wasting most of it on space travel with only relatively few spin-offs appearing accidentally.

1. Being spread across more than one world increases our chance of surviving extinction events such as an asteroid impact, nuclear war, or pandemic.

2. Space is full of valuable reasources, including asteroids worth tens of trillions of dollars and fuel that could power nuclear reactors.

3. Space exploration can unite people around a common goal, inspire interest in science, technology, and the future.

4. Space exploration provides a way to reemploy millitary industry and technology for peaceful purposes.

5. Alternatively, space technology plays a pivitol role in national security, through spy satalites for example.

6. Much of our modern infrastructure is based in space technology, including satalite comunications, weather forcasting, environmental studies, etc.

1. Being unable to survive anywhere else than Earth limits the whole "expansion" thing. The proven lack of oxygen on Mars is more likely to kill a person than a hypothetical doomsday-scenario. Plus, if humans somehow managed to colonise another planet (highly unprobable), it's certain that they would bring their diseases and warmongering with them.
2. Thus far, space has proven to be a financial pit consuming a lot of money and providing none. And as for fuel for nuclear reactors: there is plenty on Earth, but people are either afraid to use it or they build bombs out of it. The problem's rather domestic in nature.
3. So can Formula 1.
4. Re-employing an ICBM as scrap metal would still be more lucrative and just as peaceful as shooting it off to outer space so it can take pictures of a dust cloud or fly into a rock (or the other way around).
5. I'm not sure spy satellites are relevant in exploring space.
6. And much of our electricity is basically a side-effect of the A-bomb. Doesn't mean that the original purpose was laudable, or that we'd never have nuclear power plants if the first application of nuclear energy hadn't been destructive.

I think its a gigantic waste of money and that it would be better if the money were diverted to social spending. I can't really think of any worthwhile goals to be aiming for up there. Sorry.

So you think microwaves, optical discs, current generation computers, global communication networks, preserved foods, GPS and lasers are a waste of money?


True, but what else is to be gained by further investment? Investing in social spending and helping the needy around the world would have a far greater positive impact on aggregate life standard.

This, more than anything, is evidence of why a decent space program should never be left in the hands of a democracy. Lowest common denominators can't even see beyond their noses. Social spending is merely staving off the inevitable when resources are tapped out.

Here are some Wikipedia links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget

Everyone please review these figures and tell me that NASA's relatively meager budget will have an appreciable effect on, well, much of anything really.

Consider the fact that the loss of NASA will result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. I'll try to find specific figures, but I'm actually a little busy at the moment, so it may take a while.

In the meantime, have a glance at this little article:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/is-space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/

Umm, we're still talking about space EXPLORATION (such as sending expensive spacecraft to take pictures of this (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Shit_nobody_cares_about)), right? Because satellites and other orbital equipment are pretty Earth-related in my book (just because they're outside of the ionosphere, they're still taking pictures of Earth or transmit signals between points on Earth).

False. "Because its their" may inspire people to achieve things they otherwise would not, but by itself its not a reason to spend billions every year and risk human life.
Compared to the other expenses/risks that the U.S. government undertakes over even stupider things (the war on drugs, foreign invasions, U.N. peacekeeping), it ain't that big a deal.
In fact, there is even less of a barrier to a government exploring space and to an individual climbing a mountain. After all, the U.S. government didn't collapse because of the Challenger disaster, but if Sir Edmund Hillary had spontaneously combusted halfway up Everest that would have been the last thing he ever did.

Umm, we're still talking about space EXPLORATION (such as sending expensive spacecraft to take pictures of this (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Nobody_cares)), right? Because satellites and other orbital equipment are pretty Earth-related in my book (just because they're outside of the ionosphere, they're still taking pictures of Earth or transmit signals between points on Earth).

So when we're out of vital resources, we just sit back, watch civilization collapse, and condemn 80% of humanity to death?

So you think microwaves, optical discs, current generation computers, global communication networks, preserved foods, GPS and lasers are a waste of money?

This, more than anything, is evidence of why a decent space program should never be left in the hands of a democracy. Lowest common denominators can't even see beyond their noses.

If the money invested in the space race was directly given to scientists with the brief of finding ideas that improve human quality of life, we'd have made far more progress than investing in the space race and having some spin-offs accidentally appear. I don't doubt that those inventions are useful, but I also think that grandiose plans to somehow create the technology to make another planet habitable for us are likely to cost a huge amount more than it would cost just to treat the one we live on with a bit of respect. But we're talking about space exploration, so thats a bit off the point.

Most people don't see space exploration (as opposed to putting stuff in space that improves life on Earth) as a priority because they focus on the problems we have on Earth rather than some utopian dream of expansion to other planets. Just because democracy won't give you enough money doesn't mean you have the right to throw a strop, take your ball away and say you aren't playing by democratic rules any more.

We keep throwing money at NASA and other such bodies, but all we ever do is go to the moon again or send a probe to look at other planets. There's a huge jump to be made if we're going to be able to have the technology to make other planets habitable for humans. Is it worth generations of huge investment, with damaging affects on living standards as money is diverted from social spending, just on the offchance this might eventually become feasible and not just some silly science fiction?

NASA gets a pittance of the total Federal budget, and is sometimes hindered by politics (for example, picking an innefficent space station design for political reasons). I suspect the problem with NASA is that they have too little money to accomplish the big goals, so they keep churning out repetative small missions to try to justify the pittance they get.

Nor need it take generations, or a particularily large portion of the government budget. We could probably reach Mars in 10 to 20 years, for a mere 20 billion dollars.

Worth more than all the research and development required to work out how to mine the asteroids and get the fuel back to Earth?

I read about one asteroid worth 80 Trillion dollars. We could spam nearby star systems with fusion powered probes with that money. That is not an exageration.

Typically the space race has been a status battle between rival nations, often with military purposes. More likely to inspire war than peace. Why create a cult of space exploration when there are such great problems on our Earth more deserving of our attention.

Why must it be either/or? And dealing with short term problems is all very well, but it will ultimately mean little if we don't invest in the future as well.

You are saying that we should keep putting bandaids on the problem, keep throwing money at the short term issues, while ignoring the long term planning. Sooner or later, that kind of thinking will catch up with us.

Or more likely as it was during the Cold War for aggressive means

Has it occured to you that their were also rare examples of Cold War cooperation in space? Or that space exploration provided a non-military outlet for competition? Their was never going to be a world war over who reached the moon.

Whats the point? We've already got thermonuclear devices that can turn countries to dust and there's not much further to go on the spy satellite front.

Assuming your technological lead is unassailable is a good way to become militarilly obsolete.

True, but what else is to be gained by further investment. Investing in social spending and helping the needy around the world would have a far greater positive impact on aggregate life standard.

Why can't we fund both? Like I said, NASA gets a pitiful portion of government funding. In any case, we can keep throwing money at the problems, or we can deal with the root causes. We have no future if we remain bound to one world, with limited reasources and stagnating technology. Look at the environment. The environmental movement owes a great deal to research conducted in space, unless I'm much mistaken. Space exploration is an excellent avenue to pursue in solving many of Earth's current problems.

If the money invested in the space race was directly given to scientists with the brief of finding ideas that improve human quality of life, we'd have made far more progress than investing in the space race and having some spin-offs accidentally appear.

Have you looked at the federal budget of the United States? What NASA gets is tiny, a fraction of what it got in the heydays of the moon missions, and is minuscule compared to what the United States spends on military hardware.

Improving human quality of life. A laudable goal, but a lot of those technologies which do come directly from space exploration research. Just because you're that naive to understand that doesn't mean reality will twist to fit your world view.

Hydroponics for example. Or water purification. The technologies that have the potential for vast improvement of life in many third world countries. Where did it come from? Space research.

But no, you don't want that. You want some pie in the sky dream that doesn't pay attention to the realities of the very factors that lead to the technologies being developed to begin with.


I don't doubt that those inventions are useful, but I also think that grandiose plans to somehow create the technology to make another planet habitable for us are likely to cost a huge amount more than it would cost just to treat the one we live on with a bit of respect.


So you'd rather have civilization collapse and condemn much of humanity to die of starvation and disease when resources run out. No surprise there. That's the sort of short sighted thinking I was expecting out of you.

You want to talk about environmental damage, and then castigate terraforming in the same breath? That is cognitive dissonance right, there.


Most people don't see space as a priority because they focus on the problems we have on Earth rather than some utopian dream of expansion to other planets. Just because democracy won't give you enough money doesn't mean you have the right to throw a strop, take your ball away and say you aren't playing by democratic rules any more.

Democracy is the worse form of government to get things done by itself. Either it needs some big scary boogeyman to compete against or it stagnates and decays.

Most people don't see space as a priority for the exact same reason why people think drilling in Alaska will guarantee good times and low priced oil. They're too stupid and short sighted.

Compared to the other expenses/risks that the U.S. government undertakes over even stupider things (the war on drugs, foreign invasions, U.N. peacekeeping), it ain't that big a deal.
In fact, there is even less of a barrier to a government exploring space and to an individual climbing a mountain. After all, the U.S. government didn't collapse because of the Challenger disaster, but if Sir Edmund Hillary had spontaneously combusted halfway up Everest that would have been the last thing he ever did.

Oh I agree that space exploration is not too expensive. Its just that "because its there" is not the best case you can make.

Umm, we're still talking about space EXPLORATION (such as sending expensive spacecraft to take pictures of this (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Shit_nobody_cares_about)), right? Because satellites and other orbital equipment are pretty Earth-related in my book (just because they're outside of the ionosphere, they're still taking pictures of Earth or transmit signals between points on Earth).

This is really, really short-sighted. Open your mind a bit before simply posting a link to the "Nobody cares" page of Uncyclopedia.

Democracy is the worse form of government to get things done by itself. Either it needs some big scary boogeyman to compete against or it stagnates and decays.

I agree with this sentiment.

I'm not entirely convinced space even exists.

Space exploration is, in my opinion, the most beautiful expression of our better natures. To look into the cosmos, imagining grand possibilities for a better future-a future where reason triumphs over unreason; where science is treated as the noble endeavor that it is; where human knowledge is continually expanded, rather than left to diminish or stagnate. Two things drive major leaps in science and technology: war and space travel. Between the two, the latter is far more peaceful.

However, government administrations like NASA are unsustainable, slow, and inefficient. Support for these organizations waxes and wanes due to a fickle government trying to please a fickle populace. The success of SpaceShipOne, the first privately-funded spacecraft, makes the option of leaving space travel to the private sector a doable approach. In such a system, space travel will be funded by investments from individuals and organizations-no tax dollars spent. Very likely it would only be for wealthy daredevils at first, but you have to start somewhere.

More importantly, space travel inspires people to "think big" and develop a can-do attitude to big problems-the kind of attitude needed if one intends to solve problems here on Earth in our earthbound present. Without vision, we have nothing.

So when we're out of vital resources, we just sit back, watch civilization collapse, and condemn 80% of humanity to death?

1. What makes you think that humanity will become extinct because of running out of vital resources? I wish everyone was that optimistic, it'd make the world seem a happier place. No, humanity will destroy itself by means that can't be avoided by shooting hi-tech probes into extraterrestrial rocks.
2. What makes you think that we'll ever run out of resources? I can only see how we can run out of oil, but that will simply force science to exploit other energy sources, some of which are more expensive than oil (or for the conspiracy-fans: some of which are currently forced into the background by the evil oil-producing cabal). I'm talking about fission, fusion, etc.
3. How will space exploration generate resources? Are we talking about a mysterious new fuel found in an exotic asteroid a few parsecs away? Alien technology? Mining the moon?

You want solar power? I got your solar power right here, buddy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite

Still looking for figures on jobs provided by the space program.

Nor need it take generations, or a particularily large portion of the government budget. We could probably reach Mars in 10 to 20 years, for a mere 20 billion dollars.

Even if those figures are in the right ballpark (sounds suspiciously low) then we have to make it habitable, if we're going to live there or make a concerted effort at mining it. Thats gonna be costly, and is frankly light years (pardon the pun) away from where our technology is at right now.

I read about one asteroid worth 80 Trillion dollars. We could spam nearby star systems with fusion powered probes with that money. That is not an exageration.

The nearest star is, IIRC about four light years away (correct me if I've made a science fail). You're going to have to be travelling mighty quick to get to the nearest star system and back within a hundred years, even if you develop super duper technology.


Why must it be either/or? And dealing with short term problems is all very well, but it will ultimately mean little if we don't invest in the future as well.

You are saying that we should keep putting bandaids on the problem, keep throwing money at the short term issues, while ignoring the long term planning. Sooner or later, that kind of thinking will catch up with us.


I think that spending a whole lot of money on space exploration in the hope that in the long term we'll make some fabulous invention that will allow quick travel and solve all our resource problems is head-in-the-clouds thinking that in fact prevents us from dealing with real problems on Earth both long and short term. Why bother trying to deal with climate change or develop new technologies utilising alternative resources on Earth, if we're persuading ourselves space science will sort everything out? And then when it doesn't, whoops.


Why can't we fund both? Like I said, NASA gets a pitiful portion of government funding. In any case, we can keep throwing money at the problems, or we can deal with the root causes. We have no future if we remain bound to one world, with limited reasources and stagnating technology. Look at the environment. The environmental movement owes a great deal to research conducted in space, unless I'm much mistaken. Space exploration is an excellent avenue to pursue in solving many of Earth's current problems.

Currently takes up a small portion of government funding. If we're exploring the galaxy, thats gonna have to shoot up massively. The Earth has got its problems, but I think we'd be better off making our primary concern making the Earth as good a place to live as it can be, rather than hoping space technology will magically solve all our problems

This is really, really short-sighted. Open your mind a bit before simply posting a link to the "Nobody cares" page of Uncyclopedia.

Does opening your mind require agreeing with you or avoiding Uncyclopedia links for some unknown reason? Because you fail to give any reason as to why I'm short-sighted.

Because not caring about minerals found in outer space? Aaah, I get it, short-sighted. Haha. You made a funny joke. Or perhaps not.

Not sharing your interest in the minerals mentioned above? Or is it the interest in the very act of a spacecraft soaring majestically through space with no further care for its destination and/or purpose that would give every trekkie a hard-on. There are people who don't share your interests, get used to it.

Now, open your mind a bit before simply posting something that disagrees with me.

1. Being unable to survive anywhere else than Earth limits the whole "expansion" thing. The proven lack of oxygen on Mars is more likely to kill a person than a hypothetical doomsday-scenario. Plus, if humans somehow managed to colonise another planet (highly unprobable), it's certain that they would bring their diseases and warmongering with them.

You're missing the whole point, aside from your apparent ignorance of the concepts of terraforming, or even life support systems.

Yes, we'll take our problems with us. The point is that if we are spread over several worlds, its less likely that one disaster will take us out. And I would point out that it would be quite easy to quarantine a space coloney against a disease, compared to say, New York City.

2. Thus far, space has proven to be a financial pit consuming a lot of money and providing none. And as for fuel for nuclear reactors: there is plenty on Earth, but people are either afraid to use it or they build bombs out of it. The problem's rather domestic in nature.

Bullshit. NASA gets pitiful funding, and in return we have technological spinoffs, probably economic growth, scientific discoveries that may lead to new technological development, and various benefits from satalites. And that's with our pathetic investment so far.

3. So can Formula 1.

?:confused:

4. Re-employing an ICBM as scrap metal would still be more lucrative and just as peaceful as shooting it off to outer space so it can take pictures of a dust cloud or fly into a rock (or the other way around).

Scrap metal is worth more than all the benefits from space research? Hahahahahahaha.:D Because scientific study of our physical universe has never yeilded useful results. Right. You are obviously grossly missinformed. And you picked perhaps two of the least useful examples of what NASA spends its money on.

5. I'm not sure spy satellites are relevant in exploring space.

Maybe, but I would point out they are a result of the same technology, and would not exist without it. Maybe I should stop using "space exploration" as a simplifiying term for various space-based activities.

6. And much of our electricity is basically a side-effect of the A-bomb. Doesn't mean that the original purpose was laudable, or that we'd never have nuclear power plants if the first application of nuclear energy hadn't been destructive.

I get the analogy, but are you sure you want to compare the negative effects of the Atomic bomb to the negative effects of space exploration?

1. What makes you think that humanity will become extinct because of running out of vital resources? I wish everyone was that optimistic, it'd make the world seem a happier place. No, humanity will destroy itself by means that can't be avoided by shooting hi-tech probes into extraterrestrial rocks.


Who said extinct? No, we'll just have civilizational collapse lost about 80% of the populace to starvation, factional fighting over dwindling vital resources like food and medicine, and rampant disease.

The few who will survive would probably be the Amish, until a gang of thugs with guns shows up to slaughter them for food.


2. What makes you think that we'll ever run out of resources? I can only see how we can run out of oil, but that will simply force science to exploit other energy sources, some of which are more expensive than oil (or for the conspiracy-fans: some of which are currently forced into the background by the evil oil-producing cabal). I'm talking about fission, fusion, etc.


We're already running out of things like platinum, rare earth elements, heck, even good deposits of iron ore.

Face reality. Resources are limited on this ball of rock, and we are tapping them out faster than ever. In case that is too complicated for you, WE ARE RUNNING OUT!

And since you want to talk about fusion power, might I remind you that the best possible fuel for it, HE3, is very limited on Earth. It's more common on places like the Moon and Jupiter. And getting both requires space research.

But if you want to still be short sighted and bury your head in the sand, go ahead.


3. How will space exploration generate resources?


It won't. It'll open up avenues to gaining far more plentiful resources that aren't here on this rock we're living on. Or do you somehow think Earth is an infinite font of resources?


Are we talking about a mysterious new fuel found in an exotic asteroid a few parsecs away? Alien technology? Mining the moon?

He3, the best possible fuel for fusion power. And that's just one example.

Does opening your mind require agreeing with you or avoiding Uncyclopedia links for some unknown reason? Because you fail to give any reason as to why I'm short-sighted.

Because not caring about minerals found in outer space? Aaah, I get it, short-sighted. Haha. You made a funny joke. Or perhaps not.

Not sharing your interest in the minerals mentioned above? Or is it the interest in the very act of a spacecraft soaring majestically through space with no further care for its destination and/or purpose that would give every trekkie a hard-on. There are people who don't share your interests, get used to it.

Now, open your mind a bit before simply posting something that disagrees with me.

My point is that just because you personally do not care for a particular subject or program does not automatically make those pursuits worthless; to simply dismiss them so callously is a very close-minded thing to do.

Have you considered any of the counterarguments?

Actually, please explain to me why you're against space exploration; I'd like to know so that we can try to custom-tailor our arguments to address your concerns.

1. What makes you think that humanity will become extinct because of running out of vital resources? I wish everyone was that optimistic, it'd make the world seem a happier place. No, humanity will destroy itself by means that can't be avoided by shooting hi-tech probes into extraterrestrial rocks.
2. What makes you think that we'll ever run out of resources? I can only see how we can run out of oil, but that will simply force science to exploit other energy sources, some of which are more expensive than oil (or for the conspiracy-fans: some of which are currently forced into the background by the evil oil-producing cabal). I'm talking about fission, fusion, etc.
3. How will space exploration generate resources? Are we talking about a mysterious new fuel found in an exotic asteroid a few parsecs away? Alien technology? Mining the moon?

1. Well, we can't go from unmanned probes to colony ships overnight; the more we know about space, the better equipped we'll be to exploit it in the future.
2. If by nothing else, the energy our civilization can consume is limited by the mass of our planet and the fraction of power we receive from the sun. One day, we will need more, especially if our population continues to grow as it is doing.
3. Off the top of my head, I know we know the moon has quite a bit of Helium-3. And I'm sure there are plenty more resources outside of our planet than inside, being the rest of the universe and all.

Even if those figures are in the right ballpark (sounds suspiciously low) then we have to make it habitable, if we're going to live there or make a concerted effort at mining it. Thats gonna be costly, and is frankly light years (pardon the pun) away from where our technology is at right now.

So was hydroponics, so was water purification.


The nearest star is, IIRC about four light years away (correct me if I've made a science fail). You're going to have to be travelling mighty quick to get to the nearest star system and back within a hundred years, even if you develop super duper technology.

He's talking about our local solar system and asteroid belt for resource harvesting. You haven't made a science fail. You've made a basic comprehension fail.


Why bother trying to deal with climate change or develop new technologies utilising alternative resources on Earth, if we're persuading ourselves space science will sort everything out? And then when it doesn't, whoops.


Terraforming technology IS Climatological science. You fail at science here.

Hah, and alternative resources? Like what? Hmmm? Maybe you'll be able to magic up some quality iron ore out of clay? That what you're talking about?


Currently takes up a small portion of government funding. If we're exploring the galaxy, thats gonna have to shoot up massively.

We're not even talking about that point, but go ahead with your red herring. It only demonstrates your ignorance.


The Earth has got its problems, but I think we'd be better off making our primary concern making the Earth as good a place to live as it can be, rather than hoping space technology will magically solve all our problems

Earth will run out of resources long before then, and we'll be all dead.

Earth will NEVER be an utopia. Resources are limited, get that into your skull. And when resources are limited, people will want them. Not everyone will get an equal share, and even if they did, there will be resentment for it.

Space research will produce viable, solid gains, as opposed to your magic dreamworld of "Earth as good a place to live as it can be".

I apologise if my replies have been sub-standerd thus far. I left most of my reference material on this subject on the west coast when I moved to Toronto for university.:(

Even if those figures are in the right ballpark (sounds suspiciously low) then we have to make it habitable, if we're going to live there or make a concerted effort at mining it. Thats gonna be costly, and is frankly light years (pardon the pun) away from where our technology is at right now.

We could start by constructing oxygen filled habitats. And no, we don't have to ship oxygen from Earth. Their's hydroponics, and we might even be able to extract Oxygen from Mars. Say, from the frozen water for example.

Later, we can try terraforming if we want to be ambitious.

The nearest star is, IIRC about four light years away (correct me if I've made a science fail). You're going to have to be travelling mighty quick to get to the nearest star system and back within a hundred years, even if you develop super duper technology.

40 plus years at ten percent lightspeed, which we can achieve with a fusion powered space craft. Cost estimate for a 1000 ton craft: 2 trillion dollars (though this figure is from the 90's so adjust for inflation). So an 80 trillion dollar asteroid should take us quite far.:)

I think that spending a whole lot of money on space exploration in the hope that in the long term we'll make some fabulous invention that will allow quick travel and solve all our resource problems is head-in-the-clouds thinking that in fact prevents us from dealing with real problems on Earth both long and short term. Why bother trying to deal with climate change or develop new technologies utilising alternative resources on Earth, if we're persuading ourselves space science will sort everything out? And then when it doesn't, whoops.

A gross missrepresentation of my position. I have never said that we should not try to deal with problems on Earth in the short term. I do believe, however, that we should invest in long term developement of technology, territory, and our resource base. Nor am I arguing "in the hope that in the long term we'll make some fabulous invention". I am talking about things we can do affordably, with technology we have today or could possess within the next few decades.

I will not bother to provide refutation of such distortions in the future. I will simply mock you, or ignore you.

Currently takes up a small portion of government funding. If we're exploring the galaxy, thats gonna have to shoot up massively. The Earth has got its problems, but I think we'd be better off making our primary concern making the Earth as good a place to live as it can be, rather than hoping space technology will magically solve all our problems

Bigger cost, for bigger results. And throwing money at Earth's problems while ignoring long term investment sounds a lot like putting bandaids on a wound while ignoring massive internal bleeding.

Look, you obviously lack solid information on this issue. You've raised some good points, but you're tending to fall back on missconceptions and common cliches (or outright missrepresentation). I strongly suggest that you research this topic further, and not just arguments for your side but for the other side as well. Then, if you still feel you can defend your current position, you will be able to do so much more effectively.

He's talking about our local solar system and asteroid belt for resource harvesting. You haven't made a science fail. You've made a basic comprehension fail.

Actually, I believe he was responding to a comment I made about funding interstellar probes from asteroid mining. It was a rather off-hand comment, but his response as you quoted it was certainly relevant, and scientifically accurate. He was simply ignorant of some rather obscure statistics.

Look what I just found:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081115/ap_on_re_as/as_india_moon_mission#full

India puts its flag on the moon! This cheers me up a bit.

He's talking about our local solar system and asteroid belt for resource harvesting. You haven't made a science fail. You've made a basic comprehension fail.

We're not even talking about that point, but go ahead with your red herring. It only demonstrates your ignorance.

The post I was replying to specifically mentioned sending out probes to all the nearby star systems, as well as talking about the local solar system. So no, you made the comprehension fail in accusing me of making one there. I eagerly await your apology for your false accusations.

On your other points

a) Terraforming technology being a Climatological science.

Yes. But I meant when talking about climate change I meant trying to avoid destroying the Earth, I wasn't referring to terrafroming planets. So thats not really relevant

b) Earth has limited resources, we'll run out eventually

Fair point. I guess you are right that nearby planets, asteroid belt are reasonable focuses, as some things we can't find adequate replacements for if they run out. If people can find some way of ensuring that the benefits outweigh the cost of the resources burned, thats a reasonable goal, that would not require such huge amounts of spending and wouldn't sod up the budget for everything else.

My problem is there's got to be a balance between this and also concentrating on not trying to screw up the Earth, and help those whose living standard is far worse than ours will be if we start running out of platinum or something. Earth is where I think we'll still be having to live for a long while yet. My issue is more with the sentiment I perceived of "space should be our number one priority at the expense of all others, sod welfare, lets focus our efforts on building ships that can travel at light speed etc", which I regard as unrealistic sci-fi nonsense. If that was a misinterpretation of what people have been trying to say, I apologise.

Who said extinct? No, we'll just have civilizational collapse lost about 80% of the populace to starvation, factional fighting over dwindling vital resources like food and medicine, and rampant disease.

We're already running out of things like platinum, rare earth elements, heck, even good deposits of iron ore.

Sounds like present-day Africa to me.
Anyway, our needs are adjusted to the offer. We didn't need electricity when it wasn't around, now we do. And if we'll run out of platinum, we'll find a way to get along with our lives without platinum. Or rare earth metals. If a civilisation of luxury-addicted decadent weaklings will collapse and those who will adapt to the lack of rather secondary things like platinum. And as for iron: BULLSHIT. Iron is a main component of the Earth's core. Get your facts straight.

Face reality. Resources are limited on this ball of rock, and we are tapping them out faster than ever. In case that is too complicated for you, WE ARE RUNNING OUT!
The resources we may be running out of are NON-VITAL. In case that is too complicated for you, WE CAN LIVE WITHOUT OIL.

The few who will survive would probably be the Amish, until a gang of thugs with guns shows up to slaughter them for food.
If you consider people who can't live without superconductors or hybrid cars equivalent to the Amish, then you may be a bleeding nerd. In that case, your species will probably go extinct, which may or may not be tragic.
As for food: we're not running out of it, we're just getting too numerous. However, if you're suggesting "shoot 'em into outer space" as a solution for overpopulation, there might be some conflicts with those you want to remove from Earth.

And since you want to talk about fusion power, might I remind you that the best possible fuel for it, HE3, is very limited on Earth. It's more common on places like the Moon and Jupiter. And getting both requires space research.
Fusion power was one of my examples of a substitute to fossil-fuel in power plants, not a necessity. Still, manufactured He3 is cheaper (not to mention more energy-efficient when considering transportation costs to the moon) than "collected" He3 from the moon. Not to mention gas giants. And let's not get started about how you want to COLLECT He3 on the moon or from a gas giant which will keep a spacecraft in its gravitational pull with more energy than you would get out of that He3.

But if you want to still be short sighted and bury your head in the sand, go ahead.
Again, short-sightedness refers to the real world, not the universe of Star Trek. There is a huge difference between science and science-fiction and even those few similarities that exist don't stand a chance against the rule of efficiency.

It won't. It'll open up avenues to gaining far more plentiful resources that aren't here on this rock we're living on. Or do you somehow think Earth is an infinite font of resources?
It needn't be infinite. Humans can't last long enough to consume the essential ones.

He3, the best possible fuel for fusion power. And that's just one example.
He3 can be manufactured. Sure, it's expensive, but so is sending out spacecraft to somehow gather He3 from the moon. No matter how advanced your science may be, it takes energy to escape Earth's orbit (even more to escape a gas giant's orbit). And no amount of He3 you can gather will make up for the WASTED energy you spent getting to the source (which isn't an RTS-game-style cloud of He3 that can be harvested by sending a peon into it). Even if avenues are opened up, they can't ignore the rules of physics, which state that if you can do it on Earth, it's more efficient than leaving Earth for it.

This is from that Star Trek thread, but I'm sigging it anyway.
It is pretty funny; the smug, high and mighty attitude, so sure of his wisdom and brilliant vision, so sure that everyone else is so backward thinking, going for the lowest common denominator and that they should be trampled over to make way for wise people such as himself. It makes me glad that this lunatic won't be in any position of power. He'd just be another delusional dictator running his country into the ground to chase his ridiculous fantasies. Plenty of those sorts of people in the world, but thankfully they're usually kept out of political office.

It is pretty funny; the smug, high and mighty attitude, so sure of his wisdom and brilliant vision, so sure that everyone else is so backward thinking, going for the lowest common denominator and that they should be trampled over to make way for wise people such as himself. It makes me glad that this lunatic won't be in any position of power. He'd just be another delusional dictator running his country into the ground to chase his ridiculous fantasies. Plenty of those sorts of people in the world, but thankfully they're usually kept out of political office.

His goal is laudable. His proposed methods are not.

My point is that just because you personally do not care for a particular subject or program does not automatically make those pursuits worthless; to simply dismiss them so callously is a very close-minded thing to do.

Have you considered any of the counterarguments?

Actually, please explain to me why you're against space exploration; I'd like to know so that we can try to custom-tailor our arguments to address your concerns.

Fact: there is no energy source in outer space (not counting Earth's orbit and vicinity) that can make up for the costs of sending a spacecraft there and back again.
I have repeatedly stated why I think space EXPLORATION (not satellites or anything orbital) is worthless. You were the one ignoring the fact that I made these arguments. Who's close-minded now?
I'll sum it up for you, since you've obviously dismissed my previous posts in a TL;DR style: Space exploration costs time, money, energy and returns either none or only a fraction of it. The technological spinoffs could've been achieved without space exploration.

We are way behind schedule. Buck Rogers should have been launched in 1987 and the moon should have been blasted free of it's orbit with a moonbase full of people on it in 1999.

We have a lot of catching up to do people! Chop Chop!

His goal is laudable. His proposed methods are not.

Can someone kindly point me in the direction of these "proposals"? When people go around calling a guy a lunatic, I'd like some proof.

Fact: there is no energy source in outer space (not counting Earth's orbit and vicinity) that can make up for the costs of sending a spacecraft there and back again.
I have repeatedly stated why I think space EXPLORATION (not satellites or anything orbital) is worthless. You were the one ignoring the fact that I made these arguments. Who's close-minded now?
I'll sum it up for you, since you've obviously dismissed my previous posts in a TL;DR style: Space exploration costs time, money, energy and returns either none or only a fraction of it. The technological spinoffs could've been achieved without space exploration.

Jupiter is the second most abundant source of hydrogen in the solar system. Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are also very abundant sources of hydrogen. Uranus and Neptune are also sources of methane. Is it possible that the amount of hydrogen we could siphon from Jupiter be worth the expense of doing so?

Fact: there is no energy source in outer space (not counting Earth's orbit and vicinity) that can make up for the costs of sending a spacecraft there and back again.
I have repeatedly stated why I think space EXPLORATION (not satellites or anything orbital) is worthless. You were the one ignoring the fact that I made these arguments. Who's close-minded now?
I'll sum it up for you, since you've obviously dismissed my previous posts in a TL;DR style: Space exploration costs time, money, energy and returns either none or only a fraction of it. The technological spinoffs could've been achieved without space exploration.

Two things:

As technology is refined, costs will come down, thereby making such ventures economically viable. Your arguments omitted this. Simply put, things that are possible today were once impossible in the past; things that are impossible today will become possible in the future.

Also, your Uncyclopedia link is not good debate material; saying "nobody cares" damages your argument.

1. Well, we can't go from unmanned probes to colony ships overnight; the more we know about space, the better equipped we'll be to exploit it in the future.
2. If by nothing else, the energy our civilization can consume is limited by the mass of our planet and the fraction of power we receive from the sun. One day, we will need more, especially if our population continues to grow as it is doing.
3. Off the top of my head, I know we know the moon has quite a bit of Helium-3. And I'm sure there are plenty more resources outside of our planet than inside, being the rest of the universe and all.

I think I stated enough times that outer space will never be an efficient source of resources to be used here on Earth because of the energy the transport would consume, so let's talk about your other argument, colonisation:

Why is the hypothetical colonisation of planets that look like what we don't want Earth to become more important than keeping our own planet habitable? There is enough food for a certain amount of people, if we don't waste or overpopulate, it's manageable. If we do, the problem still lies here, and so does the solution. Essential materials are abundant, non-essential ones are just that: non-essential. Yes, it would be cool to have superconductors carrying all electricity from the plants to our homes, but we can do without them. And as for humanity lasting long enough to deplete the essential resources of Earth, such as iron: you're overly optimistic.

Two things:

As technology is refined, costs will come down, thereby making such ventures economically viable. Your arguments omitted this. Simply put, things that are possible today were once impossible in the past; things that are impossible today will become possible in the future.

Also, your Uncyclopedia link is not good debate material; saying "nobody cares" damages your argument.

I wasn't talking about financial costs only. The costs in ENERGY to escape Earth's gravitational pull will never drop below the amount the laws of physics set them. Unless you find something overly abundant AND essential in outer space that can't be found on Earth, you're on the losing side regardless of technology. Science has limits and science knows its limits, that's why the majority of the scientific community doesn't push for space exploration. Scientific development is NOT an endless path on which at some point all research and investition is repaid and speaking of forecasts, space exploration may only be lucrative in any way if they found an exotic, previously totally unknown form of energy in outer space, which doesn't bear with a probability that justifies space exploration and the costs that go with it (especially with other, much more important priorities).

Uncyclopedia is humour. If you're unable to comprehend humour, you'd do better to avoid mentioning it, unless you want to portray yourself as a 'spergin' sci-fi enthusiast. My point was, that mineral samples brought to Earth from outer space is of no economic interest to anyone, considering the money it took to get it and other places where it could've been spent in a more meaningful way.

Jupiter is the second most abundant source of hydrogen in the solar system. Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are also very abundant sources of hydrogen. Uranus and Neptune are also sources of methane. Is it possible that the amount of hydrogen we could siphon from Jupiter be worth the expense of doing so?

Jupiter has got a gravitational pull that will make it extremely energy-costly to gather anything from it, then leave its orbit with the load. Electrolisys of water can provide you with all the hydrogen you need. Uranus and Neptune are even more distant and methane will never be worth travelling for that far, considering that biological processes generate methane in abundance (natural gas).

Unless of course you live on a Jupiter moon, which raises the question of colonisation I already posted.

Jupiter has got a gravitational pull that will make it extremely energy-costly to gather anything from it, then leave its orbit with the load. Electrolisys of water can provide you with all the hydrogen you need. Uranus and Neptune are even more distant and methane will never be worth travelling for that far, considering that biological processes generate methane in abundance (natural gas).

Unless of course you live on a Jupiter moon, which raises the question of colonisation I already posted.

Actually, I was thinking that if we could build a space elevator on earth into Earth orbit within the next century, why couldn't we build a space elevator(more like a pipeline actually) down into Jupiter from orbit and scoop it out?

I think I stated enough times that outer space will never be an efficient source of resources to be used here on Earth because of the energy the transport would consume

True enough in the short run, but I suspect that's due in part to a failure to invest in making it more affordable. For example, if, at some point in the future, non-rocket space launch becomes a reality, that energy cost may drop significantly.


Why is the hypothetical colonisation of planets that look like what we don't want Earth to become more important than keeping our own planet habitable? There is enough food for a certain amount of people, if we don't waste or overpopulate, it's manageable. If we do, the problem still lies here, and so does the solution. Essential materials are abundant, non-essential ones are just that: non-essential. Yes, it would be cool to have superconductors carrying all electricity from the plants to our homes, but we can do without them. And as for humanity lasting long enough to deplete the essential resources of Earth, such as iron: you're overly optimistic.

Never said they weren't equally important.

It would be great if we could manage Earth's resources in a sustainable way. But right now, we aren't, and if the resources that we depend upon so much were suddenly removed today, our civilization would be in terrible shape. Reducing our resource consumption sounds like a great idea, but can we really do that at this point without a global catastrophe? If the space frontier can provide an easier solution, why not take it?

Personally, I believe that assuming that humanity WON'T last long enough to need to expand beyond Earth is overly pessimistic.

Can someone kindly point me in the direction of these "proposals"? When people go around calling a guy a lunatic, I'd like some proof.

Its in your sig. He basically wants to chuck democracy.

I don't think that makes him a lunatic, though. Just cynical and short-sighted.

I wasn't talking about financial costs only. The costs in ENERGY to escape Earth's gravitational pull will never drop below the amount the laws of physics set them. Unless you find something overly abundant AND essential in outer space that can't be found on Earth, you're on the losing side regardless of technology. Science has limits and science knows its limits, that's why the majority of the scientific community doesn't push for space exploration. Scientific development is NOT an endless path on which at some point all research and investition is repaid and speaking of forecasts, space exploration may only be lucrative in any way if they found an exotic, previously totally unknown form of energy in outer space, which doesn't bear with a probability that justifies space exploration and the costs that go with it (especially with other, much more important priorities).

Uncyclopedia is humour. If you're unable to comprehend humour, you'd do better to avoid mentioning it, unless you want to portray yourself as a 'spergin' sci-fi enthusiast. My point was, that mineral samples brought to Earth from outer space is of no economic interest to anyone, considering the money it took to get it and other places where it could've been spent in a more meaningful way.

Okay, this is what I was hoping for. I'll admit, I missed a few things in your previous posts; sorry about that.

Now then as far as the energy requirements go:

Chemical rockets pretty much won't cut it for most of the bigger projects, I'll give you that. We'll need something better. Unfortunately, I'm an enthusiast, not an expert, so if we're going to go into energy requirements, you'll have to debate with the physics guys we have here; as a business major, I tend to focus on the economic side of things. Still, I like science, and I like to learn things, so if you happen to know some good books on physics, feel free to share.

As for the Uncyclopedia thing, well, that's just not my partricular brand of humor, I guess.

The best thing we can do is to make transportation multiply staged. And not int he saturn V sense for that matter.

We start off with Space Elevators. These are the key to the form of interplanetary travel that people keep writing about in the short term. They allow for relatively low amounts of energy to send a group of people or a massive load of cargo into a high orbit.

There, we build our interplanetary space craft, preferably with HDLT engines, but that is not a necessity. They would never need to move lower than High Earth Orbit.

To transfer between, we use Orbital Transit Vehicles ala the Jules Verne to transfer between Elavator and EM Field Shielded space craft.

These craft then use the low delta-V Homan Transfer Orbit to allow for rapid transit around the solar system.

Then, we need to focus on technology that doe one of a few different things

1. Makes good on the Alcubierre Equations to move space around the craft (Highly inefficient in terms of energy)

2. Jump PAST 1c ala Tour of the Merrimack with out ever actually traveling at the speed of light

3. Open up wormholes ala Babylon 5 that allow for nigh-instant transit between two points

4. Use the quantum phoam in the subspace to jump to the location you desire in a coeterminus universe that resembles ours ala Timeline, or alternately putting into place a device designed to halt the universal-faxing half-way and force the universe we are leaving to re-assemble us at our Destination only in THIS universe (ala the Drive systems that my FT nation uses here in NS that allows me to get past most FTLi systems)

Personally, I think that the First, Second and Fourth methods are the most likely for ships, and the Third should be reserved to Space Station. Otherwise, we are stuck with Generation Ships ala Firefly/Serenity.

Its in your sig. He basically wants to chuck democracy.

I don't think that makes him a lunatic, though. Just cynical and short-sighted.

Someone else called him a lunatic. Still, I can't help but sympathize with the guy; there are just so many idiots out there, you know? It bugs me that a well thought-out vote carries the same weight as an ignorant vote. Winston Churchill summed it up best, in my opinion.

I guess I'm just a cynic too.

Someone else called him a lunatic. Still, I can't help but sympathize with the guy; there are just so many idiots out there, you know? It bugs me that a well thought-out vote carries the same weight as an ignorant vote. Winston Churchill summed it up best, in my opinion.

I guess I'm just a cynic too.

If we were all cynics, the world would be controlled by apathy, or greed. I mean more than it already is.;)

Actually, I was thinking that if we could build a space elevator on earth into Earth orbit within the next century, why couldn't we build a space elevator(more like a pipeline actually) down into Jupiter from orbit and scoop it out?

That's the problem: no matter what you use to lift something, it'll still take the same amount of energy. Whether you propel something into orbit with a rocket or use a space elevator, the energy consumed will ALWAYS be m*g*h. Second, what will you build a Jupiter space elevator on? One of its moons? Will the insane amount of metal it'd require (plus its transport and construction) be worth the HYDROGEN you want to gather from Jupiter? If it was Magic Space Spice that could turn water into win, I'd consider spending my money on it, but hydrogen? Nah.

@The American Privateer: Science fiction != Science
Alcubierre's theory assumes points of theoretical physics that aren't even proven yet, thus its projected applicability (if it'll ever be applicable) is nigh zero. Basic thermodynamics can't be overriden. As for subspace, it's a mathematical concept, not a phenomenon observed ANYWHERE in nature. As for 2. and 3.... why not add Harry Potter-style teleportation while we're at it?

Chemical rockets pretty much won't cut it for most of the bigger projects, I'll give you that. We'll need something better. Unfortunately, I'm an enthusiast, not an expert, so if we're going to go into energy requirements, you'll have to debate with the physics guys we have here; as a business major, I tend to focus on the economic side of things. Still, I like science, and I like to learn things, so if you happen to know some good books on physics, feel free to share.

If you're interested in the subject, I'd recommend you attend a lecture on something along these lines. It's not uncommon that an expert pays a visit to a university and holds a 1-2h lecture on the more comprehensible side of his area of expertise. The good thing in such lectures is that while they generally tend to convince outsiders of supporting their field of research, they also encourage an objective and realistic approach to it. Also, talking personally to an expert may help more than reading a book that is either for experts, thus incomprehensible or for the proles, thus far-fetched. I'm studying electrical engineering, so I won't be the one who'll make a difference. What I know, I know of a professor from the department for mechanical engineering of my school. I used to be as enthusiastic as most sci-fi fans I see here until I came to understand the laws of physics stating the limits in speed and acceleration unbreachable by any technologically possible reactor or propulsion system. Whenever you go on dreaming about warp drives or really fast STL drives, remember that already theoretical physics set limits that significantly reduce the efficiency of space exploration, but technical possibilities (I'm talking about proposed theoretical ideal machinery, equipment that will never be actually made) reduce it even more.

If it was TL;DR: Science limits the effectivity of your idea, technology limits it even more. Neither of these limits make space exploration economically efficient, EXCEPT if it actually discovers the Magic Space Spice.

True enough in the short run, but I suspect that's due in part to a failure to invest in making it more affordable. For example, if, at some point in the future, non-rocket space launch becomes a reality, that energy cost may drop significantly.
I'm talking about invested energy required, not money, which will never drop.

It would be great if we could manage Earth's resources in a sustainable way. But right now, we aren't, and if the resources that we depend upon so much were suddenly removed today, our civilization would be in terrible shape.
The resources that might be suddenly removed aren't essential (such as oil).

Reducing our resource consumption sounds like a great idea, but can we really do that at this point without a global catastrophe? If the space frontier can provide an easier solution, why not take it?
Consumption reduction will never occur, but as I said, those things that CAN be depleted aren't essential. Plus, what makes you think that expansion into outer space is the easy way? Note: saying that IF scientists were given more money then they will surely come up with a method of colonising Mars is just too far-fetched. Practical progress isn't proportional to the money invested, most limits of applicability are already examined and set and believe me, there's a good reason the Mars lacks any kind of habitat. What I see here lacks of any viable proposals on how to make it work. The only proponent of space exploration so far who's come up with ideas of how to expand into space has used science fiction as a reference.

Please, just try to think about this for a while. Let's take the most plausible (and that's already an exagerration) scenario of humans ever colonising a planet: Mars. Let's say you want to colonise Mars, well, you need to Terraform it first. Which means that, among other things, you need an atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen. Let's focus on the oxygen: how will you turn that 95% of CO2 into O2? By far the most viable method would be to plant a flora that doesn't need oxygen by night, survives the intense solar radiation that constantly bombards the surface of Mars (since it lacks a stable magnetosphere - no way of changing that) AND can survive in the freezing cold of Mars' surface. THEN, you'd face a situation which made a planet already way too cold for humans even colder, by the elimination of greenhouse gases. The point is, there are LIMITS. You can't estabilish a magnetosphere around a planet. You can't bring it closer to the Sun. And even if you would, the amount of energy it would take using an IDEAL method (assuming that technology reached its pinnacle of perfection) will be so tremendous that it will never ever be efficient. Thermodynamics say so.

Personally, I believe that assuming that humanity WON'T last long enough to need to expand beyond Earth is overly pessimistic.
History suggests otherwise. The technology used to kill humans has always advanced faster than anything else. That never changed.

Sounds like present-day Africa to me.
Anyway, our needs are adjusted to the offer. We didn't need electricity when it wasn't around, now we do. And if we'll run out of platinum, we'll find a way to get along with our lives without platinum. Or rare earth metals. If a civilisation of luxury-addicted decadent weaklings will collapse and those who will adapt to the lack of rather secondary things like platinum.


So let's see you go without a computer, medicines, electronics of any sort, mass transit networks and telecommunications. And later, let's see you get without food.

Go on, let's see you get on without them.


The resources we may be running out of are NON-VITAL. In case that is too complicated for you, WE CAN LIVE WITHOUT OIL.

Try living without food, pharmaceuticals, electricity, plastics, and computers.

In case you hadn't noticed, food production at the current levels cannot happen without oil. What we'll have is Africa levels of food production, everywhere.

So go ahead, pretend that there won't be mass die offs, food riots and breakdown in civilization, keep your head in the sand.


If you consider people who can't live without superconductors or hybrid cars equivalent to the Amish, then you may be a bleeding nerd.

Actually, I'm a realist who realizes that current population levels are unsustainable without high density energy resources like oil in food production.

Only idiots and short sighted fools living in magic dream worlds of "oh, we'll just cut back a little" won't see the end coming. You're on the Titanic, and you're insisting that the ship will never sink.


In that case, your species will probably go extinct, which may or may not be tragic.

The one's most likely to go first are those living in urban areas and unprepared for such an eventuality. In which case, it would be people like you who are so cocksure that it will never happen.


Fusion power was one of my examples of a substitute to fossil-fuel in power plants, not a necessity. Still, manufactured He3 is cheaper (not to mention more energy-efficient when considering transportation costs to the moon) than "collected" He3 from the moon. Not to mention gas giants. And let's not get started about how you want to COLLECT He3 on the moon or from a gas giant which will keep a spacecraft in its gravitational pull with more energy than you would get out of that He3.

Basic science rule of thumb. Energy cannot be manufactured. It can only be converted from one medium to another. Producing He3 is like producing antimatter. It takes more energy to make it than it produces.


Again, short-sightedness refers to the real world, not the universe of Star Trek. There is a huge difference between science and science-fiction and even those few similarities that exist don't stand a chance against the rule of efficiency.

More red herrings. Is that your only defense? Pathetic. No one talked about the rubbish of Star Trek, but you go and drag it out as if it has any merit.

It takes hard work, dedication and above all, considerable resources invested in both technological research and infrastructure just to get to the point where resources beyond this rock can be tapped. But it's the only way to get beyond the limitations


It needn't be infinite. Humans can't last long enough to consume the essential ones.

Hah. You mean like oil? And if you don't think it's essential, try living like the Amish then. All first world countries, and developing ones at that, will, without exception, collapse without oil or an equivalent which to date does not exist.

That's the problem: no matter what you use to lift something, it'll still take the same amount of energy.

More ignorance!

A chemical rocket is the least efficient means of going to space. The energy requirements are payload+fuel+fuel container, and it requires a constant amount of thrust, increasing energy requirements drastically. That's why orbital rockets are multi-stage affairs which junk dead weight once the fuel is expended, dead weight which isn't needed in an orbital ladder. Orbital ladder climbers do not require the payload to carry fuel if they are electrically driven, and the proposed cable (carbon nanotubes) is electrically conductive to begin with.

It is pretty funny; the smug, high and mighty attitude, so sure of his wisdom and brilliant vision, so sure that everyone else is so backward thinking, going for the lowest common denominator and that they should be trampled over to make way for wise people such as himself. It makes me glad that this lunatic won't be in any position of power. He'd just be another delusional dictator running his country into the ground to chase his ridiculous fantasies. Plenty of those sorts of people in the world, but thankfully they're usually kept out of political office.

Hah, no surprise you would say that.

Of course I'm a lunatic when I don't pander to everyone. I'm a lunatic when I say, "we need to sacrifice so and so in order to achieve long term sustainability". I'm a lunatic when I push for species survival as a whole.

The sort of sentiments I expected from short sighted people more interested in the here and now than what comes tomorrow.

Its in your sig. He basically wants to chuck democracy.

I don't think that makes him a lunatic, though. Just cynical and short-sighted.

Democracy has proven itself to stagnate without competition from non-democracies, and that by pandering to the lowest common denomination, it will be doomed to stagnate.

Democracy will always trade away long term planning for immediacy, regardless of how much damage it can cause in the future. Visionaries rarely prosper there because the lowest common denominator will always pull them down.

So let's see you go without a computer, medicines, electronics of any sort, mass transit networks and telecommunications. And later, let's see you get without food.
The raw materials needed for computers, electronics and mass transit don't fall into the category of rare materials about to vanish. NEITHER DOES FOOD.

In case you hadn't noticed, food production at the current levels cannot happen without oil. What we'll have is Africa levels of food production, everywhere.
Oil might be vital today but it certainly is NOT irreplaceable. As soon as we run out of it, we'll find a substitute. It can be replaced as an energy source and as for fertilizers: see organic farming. Food will never be something we'll "run out of". The only limit to food supplies is overpopulation, which is a domestic problem. The solution is less people. Or to spell it out for you: PEOPLE WITH NO FOOD: DON'T HAVE CHILDREN! That solves your food problem. Next.

Actually, I'm a realist who realizes that current population levels are unsustainable without high density energy resources like oil in food production.
Why should current population levels be sustained? They're the problem.

Only idiots and short sighted fools living in magic dream worlds of "oh, we'll just cut back a little" won't see the end coming. You're on the Titanic, and you're insisting that the ship will never sink.
Eh, are you suffering from tourettes or just can't keep it civilised? You're proposing science fiction to be made reality without any solid basis. Plus, I never said that "we'll cut back a little", that's you putting words into my mouth, another sign of not keeping control of your rambling. Our planet does not have an infinite supply of anything, but those things that WILL run out in the lifetime of humanity are NOT needed by humanity (I wonder what component of common electronics you believe is made out of some highly exotic matter).

The one's most likely to go first are those living in urban areas and unprepared for such an eventuality. In which case, it would be people like you who are so cocksure that it will never happen.
I'm not the one shitting bricks about platinum not being available. There will be an impact of certain shortages on humanity, but I'm afraid it won't be even the likes of you who will go.

Basic science rule of thumb. Energy cannot be manufactured. It can only be converted from one medium to another. Producing He3 is like producing antimatter. It takes more energy to make it than it produces.
I see you're not familiar with how He3 is manufactured. He3 is collected from decayed radioactive materials. Even if you manufacture the tritium, you'll get WAY more energy out of the fusion than spent for the tritium manufacturing. That's because you harvest the energy that's already contained within the nuclei of those components. It's similar to uranium enrichment: you invest energy, but harvest much more, since it wasn't really the energy spent during enrichment which you intend to harness. That's why it's considered an energy source.

More red herrings. Is that your only defense? Pathetic. No one talked about the rubbish of Star Trek, but you go and drag it out as if it has any merit.
If it's a diversion for you, you may consider it a red herring. But actually it was a polite response to a feeble-minded insult, directed at you considering "possibilities" portrayed only in science fiction (I could've said Star Wars, etc.) and ignore technological limits to an extent where you consider wasting money on spaceships a must. You're the one retreating into a fantasy world where FTL travel and whatnot is possible. So far so good, yet you react like an antediluvian tribesman protecting his religious beliefs resulting from a mushroom trip when confronted by the others. That's uncivilised at best. I particularly liked the question whether it's my "only defence", showing that you ignored my other arguments, those referring to the subject at hand, and secondly, that you consider your activity in this thread an "attack" provoking a "defence". Good luck on your internet crusade, brave jedi knight.

It takes hard work, dedication and above all, considerable resources invested in both technological research and infrastructure just to get to the point where resources beyond this rock can be tapped. But it's the only way to get beyond the limitations
It takes hard work to tap the resources on this rock as well. May I remind you that the Earthen mantles for example stores more metals than humanity will ever live to use and that we're not even in the need of going that far yet? I guess you haven't thought about that, since a mine going deeper than usual doesn't involve cool spaceships with laz0rs and such.

Hah. You mean like oil?
Oil is replaceable.

"Something sleeps inside of us;The Sleeper must awaken".Duke Leto Atreides.It is Humankind's destiny to explore and discover new Worlds,to find out what is out there.At present we have taken the first steps in setting foot on the Moon,we owe it to future generations to take the next faltering steps.Our World is finite in it's size and resources,sooner rather than later We must colonize other worlds no matter the cost in money and/or lives.

Oil is replaceable.

Oh? By?

Oh? By?

Bio-fuel, hydrogen, etc

We must colonize other worlds no matter the cost in money and/or lives.

I rest my case.

Bio-fuel,

A nice idea, except current technology is such that it takes more energy to grow the plants and convert it to fuel than it yields.

hydrogen

Hydrogen, itself is very rare and not at all abundant on earth in any reasonable quantities. While hydrogen can be gained through electrolysis, once again, it takes more energy to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen than you gain by burning the hydrogen.

I rest my case.

Unsurprised. Unfortunately your "alternatives" are still inefficient and not at all viable alternatives.

A nice idea, except current technology is such that it takes more energy to grow the plants and convert it to fuel than it yields.

Hydrogen, itself is very rare and not at all abundant on earth in any reasonable quantities. While hydrogen can be gained through electrolysis, once again, it takes more energy to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen than you gain by burning the hydrogen.
And you think that research into the field of alternate energy sources will be a longer and more difficult road to go than trying to gather all of it from outer space? And bio-fuel basically uses solar energy converted to chemical potential energy by plants. Unless you use the same area for a solar power plant, I cannot see how it consumes more energy than it provides.

Unsurprised. Unfortunately your "alternatives" are still inefficient and not at all viable alternatives.
Oi, don't take it out of context, I wasn't talking to you.
Weak try. Have you even read the quote I answered?
And that bio-fuel and hydrogen are less efficient than spacecraft bringing home a fictional bag of energy? Please.

And bio-fuel basically uses solar energy converted to chemical potential energy by plants. Unless you use the same area for a solar power plant, I cannot see how it consumes more energy than it provides.

I'm amused that you seem to think that producing enough biomass to replace oil as a viable source of energy consists only of planting a few seeds and waiting for harvest.

Considering it's plainly obvious that you haven't a damned clue what you're talking about, it seems further discussion with you is pointless, as you seem to get your understanding of chemistry and physics from 8th grade general science class.

I'm amused that you seem to think that producing enough biomass to replace oil as a viable source of energy consists only of planting a few seeds and waiting for harvest.
As I said, it's one alternative to be considered now that we're already spitting high ideas about future technologies and what to research. You say we should research Helium-harvesting spaceships that will energy-efficiently collect fuel from the moon or Jupiter or wherever, and I say research into alternative energy sources on Earth, if you really have to be afraid of a shortage. I'm amused.

Considering it's plainly obvious that you haven't a damned clue what you're talking about, it seems further discussion with you is pointless, as you seem to get your understanding of chemistry and physics from 8th grade general science class.
You don't know a thing about my education, though you could if you would've read my previous posts. Though your aptness of seeing only what you want to see makes sense here as well. Funny, and YOU considered MY dismissal to the guy who disregards human life in favour of space exploration noteworthy. Oh the irony.

I'm talking about invested energy required, not money, which will never drop.


Fusion power was one of my examples of a substitute to fossil-fuel in power plants, not a necessity. Still, manufactured He3 is cheaper (not to mention more energy-efficient when considering transportation costs to the moon) than "collected" He3 from the moon. Not to mention gas giants. And let's not get started about how you want to COLLECT He3 on the moon or from a gas giant which will keep a spacecraft in its gravitational pull with more energy than you would get out of that He3.

...

He3 can be manufactured. Sure, it's expensive, but so is sending out spacecraft to somehow gather He3 from the moon. No matter how advanced your science may be, it takes energy to escape Earth's orbit (even more to escape a gas giant's orbit). And no amount of He3 you can gather will make up for the WASTED energy you spent getting to the source (which isn't an RTS-game-style cloud of He3 that can be harvested by sending a peon into it). Even if avenues are opened up, they can't ignore the rules of physics, which state that if you can do it on Earth, it's more efficient than leaving Earth for it.

Alright, I'm admittedly a less-than-adequate physicist, but I'm not sure about what you're claiming.

You've said that extracting resources (e.g. He-3) from the surface of a planet or moon is inefficient due to physical laws. The mass of a Helium-3 isotope is 3.016 amu. Let's calculate the energy required to lift a He-3 particle from the surface of the moon to orbit:


(3.01600 amu) * ((1.6 m) / (s^2)) * (500 km) = 2.50069094 × 10^-8 megaelectron volts
(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=(3.016+amu)*(1.6+m%2F(s^2))*(500+km)+in+MeV&btnG=Search)

This is actually an overestimation, since I'm simplifying the gravitational acceleration to be constant throughout the entire distance. If you would like me to provide sources for these figures I will do so.

Now, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_3#Fusion_reactions), the energy released from a He-3 fusion reaction is around the order of 10 MeV. So, the energy we might invest in just bringing He-3 from the surface of a planet to orbit is negligible when compared with the energy we can obtain from it. Granted, actual transportation to and from the source requires more energy, and we may need new technologies for that, but from these figures it seems clear that from a purely physical viewpoint, this is an energy-efficient process (if you see an error in my figuring please let me know).

I agree that in the present, mining He-3 or anything else from outer space is totally impractical. But I don't agree that it is impractical from a theoretical point of view.


The resources that might be suddenly removed aren't essential (such as oil).

If all the oil in the world vanished overnight we would be in big trouble. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that our society would collapse. Many people would starve to death. There would be violence and chaos worldwide. Right now, oil is definitely essential to our civilization. No, it doesn't HAVE to be. But it is, and we can't easily change that.


Consumption reduction will never occur, but as I said, those things that CAN be depleted aren't essential. Plus, what makes you think that expansion into outer space is the easy way? Note: saying that IF scientists were given more money then they will surely come up with a method of colonising Mars is just too far-fetched. Practical progress isn't proportional to the money invested, most limits of applicability are already examined and set and believe me, there's a good reason the Mars lacks any kind of habitat. What I see here lacks of any viable proposals on how to make it work. The only proponent of space exploration so far who's come up with ideas of how to expand into space has used science fiction as a reference.

Please, just try to think about this for a while. Let's take the most plausible (and that's already an exagerration) scenario of humans ever colonising a planet: Mars. Let's say you want to colonise Mars, well, you need to Terraform it first. Which means that, among other things, you need an atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen. Let's focus on the oxygen: how will you turn that 95% of CO2 into O2? By far the most viable method would be to plant a flora that doesn't need oxygen by night, survives the intense solar radiation that constantly bombards the surface of Mars (since it lacks a stable magnetosphere - no way of changing that) AND can survive in the freezing cold of Mars' surface. THEN, you'd face a situation which made a planet already way too cold for humans even colder, by the elimination of greenhouse gases. The point is, there are LIMITS. You can't estabilish a magnetosphere around a planet. You can't bring it closer to the Sun. And even if you would, the amount of energy it would take using an IDEAL method (assuming that technology reached its pinnacle of perfection) will be so tremendous that it will never ever be efficient. Thermodynamics say so.


No offense here, but I think you're ignoring a lot of other possibilities. I can name a few off the top of my head: enclosed communities on mars or the moon, orbital communities, not to mention the possibility of finding a habitable planet in a nearby solar system. If we were able to construct an spaceship with an Orion drive in orbit, it would be able to reach a nearby solar system in less than 100 years. I admit, it's a long shot, but if there's a suitable planet out there we ought to find it.

History suggests otherwise. The technology used to kill humans has always advanced faster than anything else. That never changed.

Well, as of today, we're still here. I'd rather we work to try to keep our species and civilization alive, rather than wait patiently for the end.

Alright, I'm admittedly a less-than-adequate physicist, but I'm not sure about what you're claiming.

You've said that extracting resources (e.g. He-3) from the surface of a planet or moon is inefficient due to physical laws. The mass of a Helium-3 isotope is 3.016 amu. Let's calculate the energy required to lift a He-3 particle from the surface of the moon to orbit:


(3.01600 amu) * ((1.6 m) / (s^2)) * (500 km) = 2.50069094 × 10^-8 megaelectron volts
(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=(3.016+amu)*(1.6+m%2F(s^2))*(500+km)+in+MeV&btnG=Search)

This is actually an overestimation, since I'm simplifying the gravitational acceleration to be constant throughout the entire distance. If you would like me to provide sources for these figures I will do so.

Now, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_3#Fusion_reactions), the energy released from a He-3 fusion reaction is around the order of 10 MeV. So, the energy we might invest in just bringing He-3 from the surface of a planet to orbit is negligible when compared with the energy we can obtain from it. Granted, actual transportation to and from the source requires more energy, and we may need new technologies for that, but from these figures it seems clear that from a purely physical viewpoint, this is an energy-efficient process (if you see an error in my figuring please let me know).

I agree that in the present, mining He-3 or anything else from outer space is totally impractical. But I don't agree that it is impractical from a theoretical point of view.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
Harvesting ANYTHING from Jupiter would be really unpractical, as no matter what you have to harvest, you'd either have to get close to Jupiter and then leave its orbit with a spacecraft (takes a lot of energy), or you would have to build a space elevator as proposed by you which would need you to have an anchor outside of Jupiter (most probably on one of its moons), which would need ridiculous amounts of materials to construct (assuming you want to minimise the effect of its gravitational force pulling your transport ship back).
THAT is what's causing the energy-inefficiency especially compared to the fact that you can manufacture He3. It's expensive, yes, but it will never ever be as expensive as getting it from Jupiter. The only thing that would be worth harvesting from space is something we don't have on Earth.

If all the oil in the world vanished overnight we would be in big trouble. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that our society would collapse. Many people would starve to death. There would be violence and chaos worldwide. Right now, oil is definitely essential to our civilization. No, it doesn't HAVE to be. But it is, and we can't easily change that.
Oil will vanish sooner or later and it will cause a modern equivalent of what was at the end of the European Bronze Age. Due to a breakdown of commerce, many settlements stopped receiving bronze and quite a few civilisations perished. Those that didn't learned to use iron, which was known to them for centuries beforehand, it was simply too expensive to produce, especially as opposed to bronze. I see something similar happening in the future. We already know that there are substitutes for fossil fuels, both as a fuel in combustion engines, and as a source of electrical energy, but we're too convenient to research those options, plus it would need financial investment, something we are too greedy to provide. There will come a time when we'll be forced to switch to something else and the stubborn WILL perish. But if it comes to a sensible choice between expensive and non-lucrative space exploration in the hope of finding something miraculous or researching those sources that are already known to us as secondary options and making them even more efficient, my choice is clear. Some here are trying to convince others that the coolness of space travel is worth it, some take it to the point of disregarding human life, some may have seen reason but choose to ignore it as it's conventional to do so, and some are debating about the scientific validity of the proposal. Many things are possible, but nothing is more efficient than that which we have here on Earth. And efficiency is no laughing matter with us having to face more serious problems.

No offense here, but I think you're ignoring a lot of other possibilities. I can name a few off the top of my head: enclosed communities on mars or the moon, orbital communities, not to mention the possibility of finding a habitable planet in a nearby solar system. If we were able to construct an spaceship with an Orion drive in orbit, it would be able to reach a nearby solar system in less than 100 years. I admit, it's a long shot, but if there's a suitable planet out there we ought to find it.
Enclosed communities and the like: That would create living space for more people, but not the means to produce food to feed them, unless you're including greenhouses which might be a strain on the energy-efficiency. Nevertheless, it is an option, though I don't see how it's part of space exploration. It's more like an engineering challenge to build a better space station or a moon settlement complete with power supply.
As for finding a habitable planet: You can forget finding anything close. Telescopes and long-range probes would've already confirmed the existence of such a planet in sensible range. If there is anything habitable, chances are that you won't be able to reach it in a lifetime (or several for that matter). Research into cryogenics would be the thing to do in this case but this seems more than a long-shot already.

Well, as of today, we're still here. I'd rather we work to try to keep our species and civilization alive, rather than wait patiently for the end.
We'll cause the end ourselves, the wait won't be as long as you might think, since technology advances more rapidly than we can perceive and already we're capable of our total annihilation. And as I said before, military applications are always at least a step ahead of all peaceful applications of new technologies. Given that if you don't invent it, someone else will, the probability of humanity causing its own demise is highly probable.
EDIT: When they invented the A-bomb, dozens of the world's most brilliant scientists were working on it, they've tested it, they knew what it did and then they dropped it on civilians. Twice. (Not wanting to start a discussion on the legitimacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.) Then they came up with the H-bomb, which wasn't that revolutional, but they had to blow it up a couple of times to make sure they've got it right. Not some tin pot dictators, but democratic countries. Then the Russians built their own version which sent several shockwaves back and forth through the whole world. What do you think will happen when they'll discover a new energy source? Will we live to see it used for peaceful purposes? I'm betting on a chunk of the planet getting blown off in the first test.

Funny, and YOU considered MY dismissal to the guy who disregards human life in favour of space exploration noteworthy. Oh the irony.

Who the hell was putting space exploration ahead of human life? That would be ironic, seeing as the whole point of arguing in favor of space exploration is about improving human life and civilization.

"Something sleeps inside of us;The Sleeper must awaken".Duke Leto Atreides.It is Humankind's destiny to explore and discover new Worlds,to find out what is out there.At present we have taken the first steps in setting foot on the Moon,we owe it to future generations to take the next faltering steps.Our World is finite in it's size and resources,sooner rather than later We must colonize other worlds no matter the cost in money and/or lives.
Voilà

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
Harvesting ANYTHING from Jupiter would be really unpractical, as no matter what you have to harvest, you'd either have to get close to Jupiter and then leave its orbit with a spacecraft (takes a lot of energy), or you would have to build a space elevator as proposed by you which would need you to have an anchor outside of Jupiter (most probably on one of its moons), which would need ridiculous amounts of materials to construct (assuming you want to minimise the effect of its gravitational force pulling your transport ship back).

I've heard of designs for spacecraft that would scoop their fuel from the atmosphere during launch. Why not use something like that to mine Jupiter?

We'll cause the end ourselves, the wait won't be as long as you might think, since technology advances more rapidly than we can perceive and already we're capable of our total annihilation. And as I said before, military applications are always at least a step ahead of all peaceful applications of new technologies. Given that if you don't invent it, someone else will, the probability of humanity causing its own demise is highly probable.

Are you a psychic? No? Then stop pretending you know what the future will bring. Defeatist cowering or despair fixes nothing. All it does is encourage people to think that their lives and actions have no meaning. We're still alive, we're still here, and as long as we are we should focus on improving the world any way we can. The surest way to wipe ourselves out is to decide that's inevitable.

Voilà

Well, I'm not saying I would agree that we must disregard safety. But every engineering project carries a certain amount of risk. Sometimes risks are acceptable and nessisary to accomplish worthwhile goals.

I've heard of designs for spacecraft that would scoop their fuel from the atmosphere during launch. Why not use something like that to mine Jupiter?
Could you point me to any reference?
Theoretically, if you'd want to use the atmosphere gases of Jupiter for a propulsion, you'd have to burn the hydrogen you aim to collect using another reactive substance that you'd have to bring along such as oxygen. This has the advantage of lowering your fuel load, but you can't collect everything from the atmosphere. If the atmospheric mix would be reactive, it'd have ignite already. This doesn't eliminate the need to bring along fuel to exit Jupiter's gravitational pull.
And it still doesn't make it more efficient than He3 from Earth.

Are you a psychic? No? Then stop pretending you know what the future will bring. Defeatist cowering or despair fixes nothing. All it does is encourage people to think that their lives and actions have no meaning. We're still alive, we're still here, and as long as we are we should focus on improving the world any way we can. The surest way to wipe ourselves out is to decide that's inevitable.
First: Some learn from history, some don't. Those who finance research think differently than you and me, face it. It's not realism or defeatism as you call it (though I'd rather call fearing the loss of resources to the point of believing outer space is our last hope something along these lines) that will destroy humanity, as I seriously doubt that it will be done intentionally. Humanity won't be destroyed by anyone who sees it coming or anticipates it. It'll rest in the hands of morons who don't know what they're doing as it has in the last centuries.
Second: Those who are so easily convinced that their lives are worthless are people whose lives really are worthless. If what I say knocks you on the other far side of sensibility, then you've had it coming. I don't consider my life worthless, but resorting to extremely... experimental and disproportionate measures instead of safer and cheaper ones just isn't worth it.
Third: I never claimed to know what will happen. All I wrote was a forecast based on history. Unless you can show me that humanity has in fact genuinely changed since 1945 I'll continue to consider humans wiping themselves out of the highest probability. I hate to quote myself, but here it is:
"the probability of humanity causing its own demise is highly probable"
Mate, I've added so much redundance that it's become grammatically incorrect. But somehow you still pretend I considered it a fact, not a probability. I'll write it in all caps next time, if it'll stop you putting words into my mouth.

Well, I'm not saying I would agree that we must disregard safety. But every engineering project carries a certain amount of risk. Sometimes risks are acceptable and nessisary to accomplish worthwhile goals.
NO MATTER THE COST IN MONEY AND/OR LIVES?!?
Hey, I'm sure you KNOW he's not talking about safety regulations.

Could you point me to any reference?
Theoretically, if you'd want to use the atmosphere gases of Jupiter for a propulsion, you'd have to burn the hydrogen you aim to collect using another reactive substance that you'd have to bring along such as oxygen. This has the advantage of lowering your fuel load, but you can't collect everything from the atmosphere. If the atmospheric mix would be reactive, it'd have ignite already. This doesn't eliminate the need to bring along fuel to exit Jupiter's gravitational pull.
And it still doesn't make it more efficient than He3 from Earth.

My apologies. I'll try to source it, but it may take a bit of time. My usual source is Robert Zubrin's Entering Space, which I think contains a reference to this idea, but the copy was my brother's so I had to leave it on the other side of the country, and I haven't found a bookstore that's selling it.

First: Some learn from history, some don't. Those who finance research think differently than you and me, face it. It's not realism or defeatism as you call it (though I'd rather call fearing the loss of resources to the point of believing outer space is our last hope something along these lines)

Don't missrepresent me. Earth has finite reasources; that's just a fact. It is by no means the only reason I have offered in support of space exploration, however. Nor is it defeatism to recognize that we cannot depend on only one world and to act accordingly.

that will destroy humanity, as I seriously doubt that it will be done intentionally. Humanity won't be destroyed by anyone who sees it coming or anticipates it. It'll rest in the hands of morons who don't know what they're doing as it has in the last centuries.

Which is a very good reason not to be limmited to one world. That'll make it a lot harder for one accidental Nuke launch or bioengineered disease making it out of the lab to finish us off.

Second: Those who are so easily convinced that their lives are worthless are people whose lives really are worthless. If what I say knocks you on the other far side of sensibility, then you've had it coming. I don't consider my life worthless, but resorting to extremely... experimental and disproportionate measures instead of safer and cheaper ones just isn't worth it.[/QUOTES]

You're so quick to dismiss the worth of other people's lives? Face it, if people are told every day that they have no future, they can be convinced that is the case.

And when did I say I'd support space travle instead of "safer and cheaper" methods. I support short term damage control for the problems we're currently facing, as well as long term development to ensure we are not dependent on our current knowledge, technology, or single world.

[QUOTE]Third: I never claimed to know what will happen. All I wrote was a forecast based on history. Unless you can show me that humanity has in fact genuinely changed since 1945 I'll continue to consider humans wiping themselves out of the highest probability. I hate to quote myself, but here it is:
"the probability of humanity causing its own demise is highly probable"
Mate, I've added so much redundance that it's become grammatically incorrect. But somehow you still pretend I considered it a fact, not a probability. I'll write it in all caps next time, if it'll stop you putting words into my mouth.

I'll accept that, despite the fact that you also said "We'll cause the end ourselves, the wait won't be as long as you might think..."


NO MATTER THE COST IN MONEY AND/OR LIVES?!?
Hey, I'm sure you KNOW he's not talking about safety regulations.

I disagree with anyone who thinks that human costs are irrelevant. I was stating my own position when I said that their are acceptable risks, but that safety also matters. But space travel is esential to our long term future, so some risks are acceptable. I would also point out that that quote may have been taken out of context.

well we need to develop the laptop i.e. compact version of the diversity of a sustainable ecosystem to take with us to generate certain things we are utterly dependent on one for, for longer then stored supplies suffiecient to carried would be.

of course we also need anti gravity to get in and out of gravity wells and ftl to cut the time between star systsems. in short, we need to bum a ride on a passing ufo and find a used ufo lot that will sell us an old junker that's not in too bad of a shape so we can reverse engineer it.

actually, whether we ever do anything as spectacular as all that, the engineering efforts of space projects past HAVE given us, among other things the developments that led to these computers and internet.

but we do need to figgure out how to emulate nature or take some kind of 'laptop' transportabel mini-"nature" with us if we're ever to begin establishing long term habitation/research stations, like in antarctica, on other planets in our own solar system and those waiting to be found orbiting the 20 or so suns withing 20 lights or so of our own.

exporting population just isn't a practical goal for the forseable, but long term habitation is not inconceivable, we just need to learn a LOT more about how nature recycles 100% to make life as we know it, including ourselves, possible.

Which is a very good reason not to be limmited to one world. That'll make it a lot harder for one accidental Nuke launch or bioengineered disease making it out of the lab to finish us off.
Make that one on each world. If it's populated by humans, it'll probably happen. It's not the planet that makes us build weapons, it's us.

You're so quick to dismiss the worth of other people's lives? Face it, if people are told every day that they have no future, they can be convinced that is the case.
People give meanings to their own lives and they're the ones taking it away. It's the responsibility of the individual, but this is drifting off to philosophy now. Suffice to say that I believe if you're too stupid to think for yourself, you had it coming.

And when did I say I'd support space travle instead of "safer and cheaper" methods. I support short term damage control for the problems we're currently facing, as well as long term development to ensure we are not dependent on our current knowledge, technology, or single world.
I do agree on this one. Everything needs a wee bit of researching into, because nothing may be excluded. I'm against costly projects with no assurance of refund, simply because we have other priorities. Thus, I don't support relying on space travel to solve our problems. This paragraph would sum up my stance on this.

I'll accept that, despite the fact that you also said "We'll cause the end ourselves, the wait won't be as long as you might think..."
That's taken out of context. I made it quite clear in that paragraph that I'm talking about probability. Maybe a bit more of that redundance wouldn't have hurt.

I disagree with anyone who thinks that human costs are irrelevant. I was stating my own position when I said that their are acceptable risks, but that safety also matters. But space travel is esential to our long term future, so some risks are acceptable. I would also point out that that quote may have been taken out of context.
At first, I quoted the whole post, which didn't contain anything that would've negated or reduced the meaning of the cost in lives having no priority. Except maybe that it's somehow taken from Dune, but I don't think it matters whether Alban States has written it in his own words or if he's quoted Frank Herbert. If anyone has taken it out of context, it was he who posted it in the first place, which most probably reflects his state of mind.

I think space exploration is necessary for countries that wish to remain technically advanced. Sure I can honestly care less about landings on Mars itself. But scientific progress is scientific progress. The hazard of space offers a problem for our greatest mind to develop new technologies. The same technology can be then used for many things in both militaristic and civil purposes.

well we need to develop the laptop i.e. compact version of the diversity of a sustainable ecosystem to take with us to generate certain things we are utterly dependent on one for, for longer then stored supplies suffiecient to carried would be.

Like through hydroponics, water recycling, solar (or further out, nuclear) power.

of course we also need anti gravity to get in and out of gravity wells and ftl to cut the time between star systsems. in short, we need to bum a ride on a passing ufo and find a used ufo lot that will sell us an old junker that's not in too bad of a shape so we can reverse engineer it.

Incorrect. We need to cut the fuel costs of launching into orbit. This can be done by carrying the space craft part way up on a large plane (as with the ship that won the X-prize), and by scooping fule from the atmosphere on the way up.

Also, we do not need FTL. Mars could probably support a self-sufficient base, their are plenty of reasources in our Solar System, and we can always get to another star in a few decades using micro nuclear fusion bombs, or perhaps as little as a few years using laser driven lightsails. If we are willing to invest in a long-term program.

actually, whether we ever do anything as spectacular as all that, the engineering efforts of space projects past HAVE given us, among other things the developments that led to these computers and internet.

Perhaps the least of the benefits. But tech spin-offs are certainly a point

but we do need to figgure out how to emulate nature or take some kind of 'laptop' transportabel mini-"nature" with us if we're ever to begin establishing long term habitation/research stations, like in antarctica, on other planets in our own solar system and those waiting to be found orbiting the 20 or so suns withing 20 lights or so of our own.

Yes, and figuring out how to do that means investing in a lot of research now, both on Earth and in Space.

exporting population just isn't a practical goal for the forseable, but long term habitation is not inconceivable, we just need to learn a LOT more about how nature recycles 100% to make life as we know it, including ourselves, possible.

Exporting population at a rate that overcomes our current population growth will never be possible, but setting up independent societies on other worlds, and importing vital resources to Earth, could be. And must be.

Make that one on each world. If it's populated by humans, it'll probably happen. It's not the planet that makes us build weapons, it's us.

But you do accept that if we are spread across multiple worlds, it will be harder to wipe us out?

People give meanings to their own lives and they're the ones taking it away. It's the responsibility of the individual, but this is drifting off to philosophy now. Suffice to say that I believe if you're too stupid to think for yourself, you had it coming.

Even very intelligent and decent people can be swayed by a deluge of propoganda, and the environment in which they live. Should we ignore them, or try to educate them?

I do agree on this one. Everything needs a wee bit of researching into, because nothing may be excluded. I'm against costly projects with no assurance of refund, simply because we have other priorities. Thus, I don't support relying on space travel to solve our problems. This paragraph would sum up my stance on this.

Then we agree on something.:) I believe that our long term future depends on looking beyond Earth, and that it would be foolish to ignore or dismiss the value of the entire universe beyond one world. I also believe that space travle can pay for itself in the long term, and that it is crucial to solving some of the problems we face on Earth today. That does not mean that I dismiss the need to deal with short-term emergencies. Long term plans are worthless if we die or collapse as a civilization before we can carry them out. We're not going to reach space with a collapsed economy and endless petty warfair, but dealing with those problems with our limited knowledge and resources will not help us in the long term if we don't build the infrastructure for the future. Both goals depend upon the other.

That's taken out of context. I made it quite clear in that paragraph that I'm talking about probability. Maybe a bit more of that redundance wouldn't have hurt.

If I missunderstand, I'm sorry. Its early morning, and I've had no sleep.;)

At first, I quoted the whole post, which didn't contain anything that would've negated or reduced the meaning of the cost in lives having no priority. Except maybe that it's somehow taken from Dune, but I don't think it matters whether Alban States has written it in his own words or if he's quoted Frank Herbert. If anyone has taken it out of context, it was he who posted it in the first place, which most probably reflects his state of mind.

As I said above, its possible I missunderstood. I don't recall the details of every post in this thread.

But you do accept that if we are spread across multiple worlds, it will be harder to wipe us out?
Yes, it squares the chance of self-elimination, thus lowering it.

Even very intelligent and decent people can be swayed by a deluge of propoganda, and the environment in which they live. Should we ignore them, or try to educate them?
Really clever propaganda makes people think they came up with the idea, thus if you try to educate them, the primitive majority will respond with hostility, since it believes you're trying to push your way of thinking upon it, which, in retrospective, has some truth to it - if they shouldn't believe others, why should they believe you? The point is that if they didn't think for themselves in the first place and bought all the propaganda, the best you could do (from your perspective) is to sell them YOUR propaganda. Thinking for oneself can't be brought over by education, at least not in the case of grown-ups. As I said, my opinion is to let the masses be, as you can never reform them. They listen to the ones with the sweetest and loudest voice. But this is philosophy we're drifting off to...

Then we agree on something.:) I believe that our long term future depends on looking beyond Earth, and that it would be foolish to ignore or dismiss the value of the entire universe beyond one world. I also believe that space travle can pay for itself in the long term, and that it is crucial to solving some of the problems we face on Earth today. That does not mean that I dismiss the need to deal with short-term emergencies. Long term plans are worthless if we die or collapse as a civilization before we can carry them out. We're not going to reach space with a collapsed economy and endless petty warfair, but dealing with those problems with our limited knowledge and resources will not help us in the long term if we don't build the infrastructure for the future. Both goals depend upon the other.
Thus we come to a point.

If I missunderstand, I'm sorry. Its early morning, and I've had no sleep.;)
No harm done.

The raw materials needed for computers, electronics and mass transit don't fall into the category of rare materials about to vanish. NEITHER DOES FOOD.

Industrial level food production is dependent on oil in order to achieve the yields necessary. Mass transit is dependent on oil in order to produce the bitumen it runs on (roads).

Electronics today use small quantities of gold in their production. Gold is rare and dwindling. Electronics are also heavily dependent on plastics, again oil based, for their housings.

You really don't know anything about the kinds of raw materials that are used in industries at all.


Oil might be vital today but it certainly is NOT irreplaceable. As soon as we run out of it, we'll find a substitute.

As soon as we run out of it?

And if I tore out your heart, a fairy would grant you a replacement with her magic wand, maybe before you die. Is that the kind of hope you're betting on?


It can be replaced as an energy source and as for fertilizers: see organic farming. Food will never be something we'll "run out of".


Only a person who has no grasp of history, has never heard of famines and starvation, would say something as retarded as this. If humanity reverted to the farming practices of the 1800s, most of humanity would die off, either from starvation or fighting for food. We simply cannot support the amount of people possible otherwise. Can you possibly even comprehend that or are you so blinkered that it is impossible for you?


The only limit to food supplies is overpopulation, which is a domestic problem. The solution is less people.


Are you volunteering to die then?


Or to spell it out for you: PEOPLE WITH NO FOOD: DON'T HAVE CHILDREN! That solves your food problem. Next.

This, more than anything else, demonstrates your utter lack of ability to think about the practicality of your words.


Why should current population levels be sustained? They're the problem.


Then are you volunteering to die or not? If humanity should be culled to sustain it's levels, I see no reason why you shouldn't be among the first.


You're proposing science fiction to be made reality without any solid basis.


Now you're just lying.


Our planet does not have an infinite supply of anything, but those things that WILL run out in the lifetime of humanity are NOT needed by humanity (I wonder what component of common electronics you believe is made out of some highly exotic matter).

So you blithely support the death of billions of people then. It's that simple.


I'm not the one shitting bricks about platinum not being available. There will be an impact of certain shortages on humanity, but I'm afraid it won't be even the likes of you who will go.

Be an impact, pfft, you're like the people who pooh poohed the idea of putting enough life boats on the Titanic because it was "unsinkable", or maybe you think the black death and influenza epidemics was merely a "bug".


If it's a diversion for you, you may consider it a red herring. But actually it was a polite response to a feeble-minded insult, directed at you considering "possibilities" portrayed only in science fiction

I'm calling bullshit on this. Name one example.


You're the one retreating into a fantasy world where FTL travel and whatnot is possible.


Fabricating lies is not gaining you any traction with your laughable attempts at argument.


I particularly liked the question whether it's my "only defence", showing that you ignored my other arguments,

If I did, I wouldn't be addressing them.


It takes hard work to tap the resources on this rock as well. May I remind you that the Earthen mantles for example stores more metals than humanity will ever live to use and that we're not even in the need of going that far yet?

You ever think about the problems that mining faces when going for deep crust and mantle mining? And the effects that it would have on surface structures?

No, I didn't think so.

The deepest mine in the world is 3.3km deep, and that's barely 10% past the surface crust at it's thinnest. Pressure and temperatures at those depths rocket up the deeper you go, as far up as 1000C when you get near the mantle.

You think going to space is hard? Try mining the deep crust and mantle. Space is easy by comparison. Radiation, solar flares, micrometeor impacts and life support are free from the concerns of immense temperatures and pressure, not to mention the very real dangers of collapses caused by tectonic shifts, or even worse, tapping into a magma flow the deeper you go.

The technology to go to space, the moon even, exists, it's 40 years old now. The technology to even go halfway down the crust, much less the planetary mantle doesn't exist.

And you talk about my ideas being "science fiction" and "Star trekkish".

You're just spouting nonsense hoping to look clever.


I guess you haven't thought about that, since a mine going deeper than usual doesn't involve cool spaceships with laz0rs and such.

And you are completely ignorant about the problems with deep crust mining. Stupidly ignorant.


Oil is replaceable.

With absolutely nothing approaching the energy densities it provides right now.

Industrial level food production is dependent on oil in order to achieve the yields necessary. Mass transit is dependent on oil in order to produce the bitumen it runs on (roads).
And by Jove it's completely inconceivable to research into finding a substitute for oil in road building. As opposed to space travel which is much more promising in terms of efficiency, right? Give me a break.
As for "yields necessary", I've already stated the solution to the hunger problem, and that it's not in outer space.

Electronics today use small quantities of gold in their production. Gold is rare and dwindling. Electronics are also heavily dependent on plastics, again oil based, for their housings.
Again, I almost thought you'll be trying to address the usage of semiconductors, of which there are both abundant and rare materials to choose from and while there's no danger of running out of the important ones, there may be research needed to replace the exotic ones. But gold? Just cast a tenth of all bouillons into bars to be used in electronics and it'll solve your shortage for half a millenium. Even the prospect of a shortage for uses in electronics is ridiculous if you consider the tons of gold being wasted on currency and jewelry.

You really don't know anything about the kinds of raw materials that are used in industries at all.
Hahaha. Funny.

As soon as we run out of it?

And if I tore out your heart, a fairy would grant you a replacement with her magic wand, maybe before you die. Is that the kind of hope you're betting on?
It's unfortunate, but true. Just as in the end of the European Bronze Age, humanity will be foolish enough to wait until then. But it's still bound to happen. I'd be delighted if we'd find a substitute before we run out of oil, but I'm pessimistic (or more like realistic) enough not to predict that. But after we've run out of oil, it's certain that we'll find something to replace it in every field, or more like, it's certain that we'll start refining and using the already known replacements, whether you like it or not. Still, not even your pitiful fantasies of doing physical harm to me will make it seem that I'm hoping for a late solution.

Only a person who has no grasp of history, has never heard of famines and starvation, would say something as retarded as this. If humanity reverted to the farming practices of the 1800s, most of humanity would die off, either from starvation or fighting for food. We simply cannot support the amount of people possible otherwise. Can you possibly even comprehend that or are you so blinkered that it is impossible for you?
Famine and starvation is already reality, pull your head out of your ass. We're already unable to feed all of humanity. It's not the food that gets less, it's the people who multiply beyond reason. And famine will always be the result of that, death will always follow, and those without food to eat will simply die. Period. Overpopulation is the problem, and it tends to solve itself. It's ironic how you tend to ignore what I write and then accuse me of ignorance, but my faith in your intelligence is dropping by every post you make. For the last time: Overpopulation is the problem, it causes famine by which it solves itself.

Are you volunteering to die then?
Oh no, don't get your hopes up Dorothy. I've got plenty of food to eat, thank you. It's those people that do NOT have enough food to eat that should face the dire consequences of procreating.

This, more than anything else, demonstrates your utter lack of ability to think about the practicality of your words.
What's unpractical about not having children if you can't support them? Does it override your cognitive abilities?

Then are you volunteering to die or not? If humanity should be culled to sustain it's levels, I see no reason why you shouldn't be among the first.
See, overpopulation solves itself by causing famine. I understand that it'd be much more convenient for you to live with one less person to point out the idiocy of you living in your dream world, but your convenience is of no importance here. I've got food, I won't die.

Now you're just lying.
Keep telling that to yourself before crying yourself to sleep and you might repair the damage of your dream world sustained during the reading of my posts (though your ignorance and selective comprehension already limits that).

So you blithely support the death of billions of people then. It's that simple.
Which part of "NOT needed" causes your surreal randomiser of a brain to spout out "death of billions of people"?

Be an impact, pfft, you're like the people who pooh poohed the idea of putting enough life boats on the Titanic because it was "unsinkable", or maybe you think the black death and influenza epidemics was merely a "bug".
I don't see how the Black Death or the influenza pandemic could be added to the list of human-caused troubles. As for the Titanic, shitty analogy. Unless you can point me to the captain, helmsman and the owner of this planet.

I'm calling bullshit on this. Name one example.
Terraforming.
Hint: in real life, you don't select terraforming from a list, then click the Turn button thrice to see "barren" magically transform into "tundra".

Fabricating lies is not gaining you any traction with your laughable attempts at argument.
Nice to know that at least you're laughing. I wonder if you'll realise that it's yourself you're laughing at.

If I did, I wouldn't be addressing them.
You weren't, that's why it became obvious that you ignored them.

You ever think about the problems that mining faces when going for deep crust and mantle mining? And the effects that it would have on surface structures?
I suppose you're about to enlighten my about how it's impossible to mine the mantle, but perfectly possible to terraform Mars. Since you're both an expert on mining AND terraforming other planets. That and electronics which can only survive by mining Martian gold, eh?

The deepest mine in the world is 3.3km deep, and that's barely 10% past the surface crust at it's thinnest. Pressure and temperatures at those depths rocket up the deeper you go, as far up as 1000C when you get near the mantle.
Ye, it's a difficulty research can overcome. Considering that there are volcanoes, that transport mantle material to the surface in some odd way, it will be possible at some point to exploit the Earth's minerals with new technology, seeing as how progress is made.

You think going to space is hard? Try mining the deep crust and mantle. Space is easy by comparison. Radiation, solar flares, micrometeor impacts and life support are free from the concerns of immense temperatures and pressure, not to mention the very real dangers of collapses caused by tectonic shifts, or even worse, tapping into a magma flow the deeper you go.
HAHAHA.
Yea, you obviously have as much knowledge and experience on the subject as you pretend to have. Jesus H. Christ, get back to the real world.
May I ask what your education revolves around? Liberal arts? Political science? Klingon linguistics?
Those very real dangers are details and problems to be solved by research into this area. Research that is surely cheaper and more lucrative than space exploration. Alone this consideration tilts the priorities heavily in favour of research in the area of tectonics as opposed to space exploration.

The technology to go to space, the moon even, exists, it's 40 years old now. The technology to even go halfway down the crust, much less the planetary mantle doesn't exist.
As a contrast, mining the Earth's upper crust is currently supplying us with materials we need (as opposed to... space exploration). As need increases, so will research and the depth of mines. The very point you made shows that we're a LONG way from depleting mineable resources.

And you talk about my ideas being "science fiction" and "Star trekkish".
Yes. And I don't see you comprehending it in the near future. Your ego is just too big to admit mistakes. Plus, once you went down the primitive road it's hard to get back.

You're just spouting nonsense hoping to look clever.
See above.

And you are completely ignorant about the problems with deep crust mining. Stupidly ignorant.
Again, keep telling that to yourself. Perhaps you will convince yourself one day that you're truly an expert in mining, spacefaring and terraforming, and that we just don't get it. But the reason why revolutionary misunderstood artists are getting a crowd around them and you don't is because you seem to be new to this particular fantasy of yours. My hint is: don't try to sell arrogance as confidence.

With absolutely nothing approaching the energy densities it provides right now.
Yet, exceeding the energy densities space travel "provides". Thus it is clear which field of science will increase our energy output with more funding to its research.

And by Jove it's completely inconceivable to research into finding a substitute for oil in road building.

Sure, you could go back to dirt roads and horse wagons if you want. You keep blabbing about technology that doesn't exist while talking about technology that does as "star trekish".


As for "yields necessary", I've already stated the solution to the hunger problem, and that it's not in outer space.

Your "solution" is to starve people to death while yelling at them to "not have children". It addresses nothing, but it does show what sort of immature mindset you have.


It's unfortunate, but true. Just as in the end of the European Bronze Age, humanity will be foolish enough to wait until then. But it's still bound to happen.


People went from bronze to iron because it was stronger and durable despite being harder to work. People went from coal to oil because oil produced more energy than coal. There isn't anything that has a higher returns on investment than oil.

And you're still blabbing about future technology that doesn't exist. You're a hypocrite you know that? The slimiest sort.


Famine and starvation is already reality, pull your head out of your ass.


When oil goes poof, famine and starvation will reach levels that will be like nothing the world has seen before. People who live in first world countries like you will be the first to suffer it's effects, because you've got too many damned people and too little agriculture that isn't dependent on massive oil dependent infrastructure.

I'd tell you to pull your head out of your ass, but it appears you don't even make use of yours, so what would be the point?


Oh no, don't get your hopes up Dorothy. I've got plenty of food to eat, thank you. It's those people that do NOT have enough food to eat that should face the dire consequences of procreating.

When the oil crunch comes, even if by some miracle, you had plenty to eat, you wouldn't for long when civil order collapses.


What's unpractical about not having children if you can't support them? Does it override your cognitive abilities?

Do you have any idea how subsistence level farming works in third world countries? Do you? Obviously not. You're living in your pretty little ivory tower, well fed with nary an idea on how food gets on your plate, utterly divorced from the realities of the world making grand little proclamations and feeling good about it.

Subsistence level farming works only when you have enough bodies to work the farmlands, and that means popping out kids. Why? Because if you don't have enough bodies, or if someone falls sick, the amount that can be harvested drops significantly, maybe to the point where everyone on the farm starves. That's why pre-industrial farms have always had large families or hired hands. It's the only way to stay fed.

And when the energy crunch does hit, subsistence level farming is all the world will have. That means worldwide famine and chaos. You think you have plenty of food? You'll be lucky not to have your skull caved in for what food you have when famine reaches worldwide levels.


See, overpopulation solves itself by causing famine. I understand that it'd be much more convenient for you to live with one less person to point out the idiocy of you living in your dream world, but your convenience is of no importance here. I've got food, I won't die.

Not while people have guns and no food.


Keep telling that to yourself before crying yourself to sleep and you might repair the damage of your dream world sustained during the reading of my posts (though your ignorance and selective comprehension already limits that).

You're pathetic.


I don't see how the Black Death or the influenza pandemic could be added to the list of human-caused troubles. As for the Titanic, shitty analogy. Unless you can point me to the captain, helmsman and the owner of this planet.

Humanity, and idiots like you, blithely believing in a future that will never sink.


Terraforming.


Here's a tidbit of knowledge for you. Anytime you do anything related to climatological and ecological change for the better, that's terraforming.

You keep using petty little terms garnished from games or science fiction, trying to slap it as my argument. For your puny intellect? It isn't. But it does demonstrate the dismal lack of anything approaching knowledge from your corner.


You weren't, that's why it became obvious that you ignored them.


Only if you were closing your eyes when I listed them.


I suppose you're about to enlighten my about how it's impossible to mine the mantle, but perfectly possible to terraform Mars.


Who the bloody hell is talking about terraforming Mars? And why the hell would you need to?

This is the sort of misrepresentation I expect from the slimiest of politicians.


Ye, it's a difficulty research can overcome. Considering that there are volcanoes, that transport mantle material to the surface in some odd way, it will be possible at some point to exploit the Earth's minerals with new technology, seeing as how progress is made.


You're full of bullshit.

"Oh, we can't invest in space technology that's 40 years old and proven, it's too expensive and star trekish. But we can invest in research for magic materials that don't exist so we can dig deeper into the planet than we've ever done before."

I'm done arguing with you. All you have is a ignorance, and bullshit, and you're ladling it on with a hefty dose of hypocrisy.

We first have to build Moon bases, and mine the area
This.

Stage one: Permanent, self sustaining moon colony
Stage two: Industrialized moon with mass drivers capable of firing equipment and gear throughout the solar system
Stage three: Cornucopia of resources, Marxist utopia :tongue:


Colonizing Mars is impractical when compared to possibilities Moon offers.

Colonizing Mars is impractical when compared to possibilities Moon offers.

The Moon is easier in the short term. Mars is worth much more in the long term. Mars has water ice, sources of fuel, more resources for a self-sufficient colony in general. Also, it has closer to Earth level gravity and at least minimal radiation and micrometeorite protection by virtue of its admittedly very thin atmosphere. And potentially it could be terraformed. It might even have life.

The Moon has some limited resources, and its easy to get to. Mars is worth war, way more. The Moon is a rock. Mars is a World.

And one other point: How are you going to grow crops on the Moon? It has a month-long day, so you can't use natural light. You can on Mars. That's a hell of a power drain to feed your Moon base.

Face it, a Moon base is little more than an expensive distraction compared to Mars. It's much less likely to be self-sufficient.

Space should be explored, and people some people should colonize other worlds, but I don't think now is exactly the best time to start increasing. Perhaps in 5 years or so once the financial situation is somewhat calmed...

wait...peak oil will most likely start coming into effect by then.

Hmm. Maybe it should start now.

But, I won't have any part in it, as I have no desire to leave Earth.

The Moon is easier in the short term.Correct
Mars is worth much more in the long term.
Nonesense.

Assuming you're talking about timespans that are not in excess of 1,000 years.
Mars has water ice
Moon has plenty of oxygen.

You only need to add hydrogen and you have both fuel & water.

edit: Look at that (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/14apr_Moonwater.htm)...Hydrogen concentration near the lunar north pole. That's a supply of both fuel & water.
sources of fuel
Moon has He3, meaning that within 50-100 years you could have PAID BACK the investments you make today.

http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/041126084122.6pp9f0wx.html

And that's not talking about asteroid mining projects or Mars expeditions launched from the moon.
more resources for a self-sufficient colony in general.
Name one resource that's easily available on Mars compared to Moon which is mere days away from Earth?
Also, it has closer to Earth level gravity and at least minimal radiation and micrometeorite protection by virtue of its admittedly very thin atmosphere.
Gravity well and atmosphere are hindrances when you look at the bigger picture which is uninhabitable surface with a requirement of regular space travel.

Note: That unequivocally applies to both "candidates"
And potentially it could be terraformed.
Geez, not this shit again...

Terraforming Mars would take MILLENNIA, thousands and thousands of years. This means that for ALL intents and purposes possible planetary potential for terraforming IS NO CAUSE for allocating funds now or in the next thousand years.

Heck, by far the easiest terraforming target in the solar system is Europa - Should we colonize that distant moon first, eh?
It might even have life
Sure, I agree Mars should be explored - But that can be done through robotic means.

The eventual manned landing should happen only after permanent and more or less self-sustaining moon base/colonies.
The Moon has some limited resources, and its easy to get to. Mars is worth war, way more. The Moon is a rock. Mars is a World.
Mars is a pile of dirt.

Moon has potential to open up the rest of the Solar System for humans at a fraction of the cost.
And one other point: How are you going to grow crops on the Moon? It has a month-long day, so you can't use natural light. You can on Mars. That's a hell of a power drain to feed your Moon base.
That's also 27 days of free unhindered and easily available solar energy: http://www.asi.org/adb/02/08/solar-cell-production.html

Also, in case lunar soil is found to be unfit for Earthly crops you could use aero- or hydrophonics instead. Combine that with easily available energy you wouldn't have to worry about solar light at all.
Face it, a Moon base is little more than an expensive distraction compared to Mars. It's much less likely to be self-sufficient.
Mars is several months of space travel away, we can reach moon in matter of days.

That ALONE makes it better than Mars in ANY short-term - half-a-millennium - scenario.

Moon has plenty of oxygen.

You only need to add hydrogen and you have both fuel & water.

That's also 27 days of free unhindered and easily available solar energy: http://www.asi.org/adb/02/08/solar-cell-production.html


The moon shouldn't be colonized as a colony. Rather, an industrial assembly point for long range spacecraft and He3 mining would be better, although you would be better off building long range spacecraft in orbit, energy wise.

The moon shouldn't be colonized as a colony. Rather, an industrial assembly point for long range spacecraft and He3 mining would be better, although you would be better off building long range spacecraft in orbit, energy wise.

Exactly, in orbit would be better. I'll accept the Moon has some uses, but space craft assembly isn't a very good one.

Exactly, in orbit would be better. I'll accept the Moon has some uses, but space craft assembly isn't a very good one.

The moon would make an excellent test case for long term planning of colony construction for Mars though. Any design that can survive on the Moon should thrive on Mars, except for those dust storms I guess.

Come to think of it, the Moon's low gravity and lack of atmosphere should make for a good site to locate current generation mass drivers for long range cargo slinging.

The moon shouldn't be colonized as a colony.
As far as permanent, self sustaining colonies outside of Earth go...

Moon is by far the best location with our current - or foreseeable in near, centuries, future - level of technology.

No other planet or planetoid offers the advantage of Moon: Proximity.
Rather, an industrial assembly point for long range spacecraft and He3 mining would be better, although you would be better off building long range spacecraft in orbit, energy wise.
You don't use spacecrafts for cargo hauling, you use electromagnetic accelerator rails. Space ships are clumsy and horribly inefficient when you can just fire resources around the solar system.

The key is producing those resources on Lunar surface, which necessitates extensive farming and industrial capacity.

Otherwise, yes, it's true that energy-wise you're better off constructing ships on orbit...However, the materials have to come from surface of a solid object - be it Earth, Moon, Mercury or an asteroid surface.

As far as permanent, self sustaining colonies outside of Earth go...

Moon is by far the best location with our current - or foreseeable in near, centuries, future - level of technology.

No other planet or planetoid offers the advantage of Moon: Proximity.

I was speaking of colony as an actual off planet micro-nation esque sort of colony (e.g 16th century Americas). As an industrial base, it would have useful benefits, but first you need to find more water ice on the moon first I suspect.


You don't use spacecrafts for cargo hauling, you use electromagnetic accelerator rails. Space ships are clumsy and horribly inefficient when you can just fire resources around the solar system.

I acknowledged as much earlier, yes.


The key is producing those resources on Lunar surface, which necessitates extensive farming and industrial capacity.

Well, the primary problem is getting enough water. If there is sufficient lunar ice (how much is there?) to do the job, then tapping solar energy seems to be the most cost effective measure of starting up a self sustaining sealed bio plant.

Come to think of it, the Moon's low gravity and lack of atmosphere should make for a good site to locate current generation mass drivers for long range cargo slinging.

But unless you can find all the materials on the Moon to run a self-sufficient base and construct said mass drivers and cargo, won't it be cheaper just to launch from Earth?

If you have to ship something from Earth, decelerate at the Moon, and then, relaunch from the Moon, you'll be using more fuel.

But unless you can find all the materials on the Moon to run a self-sufficient base and construct said mass drivers and cargo, won't it be cheaper just to launch from Earth?

If you have to ship something from Earth, decelerate at the Moon, and then, relaunch from the Moon, you'll be using more fuel.

Well, that's the thing really. You need a mostly self sufficient base on the moon, as a functional example of extra-planetary colonies before you can go anywhere else.

As for Earth to Moon to somewhere else launches, that would depend entirely on how far you're going and how soon you want to get there. Flinging cargo from the Moon on a mass driver to say, Mars or Jupiter, may take less time than a chemical rocket, since you can achieve higher initial speeds without having all that extra reaction mass to push.

They have a point, the only way for any serious space exploration to be a reality is for a huge amount of funding that no nation today can afford without ruining their economy.

What you need is a huge Economic power, I mean several of the most powerful countries working together in research and design.

Thing is we do have the technology to colonize other planets, in fact we have had the technology since the 70's so that is not a real problem. Heck scientist in the 60s said we will have homes on the moon by 2000 but in the end that sort of stuff does not win votes either.

Which brings us to the point how the majority want a short term goal like social problems, they don't see that if we did tap other resources in the system we could destroy poverty and lower inflation by the huge amount of supplies. It would be a investment that would take ages to see the pay-off the that's why people don't want it. They want something now and not in 150 years time (the time they think it will take to terraform mars)

I don't imagine beautiful starships and such like startrek, but I think the investment in the complete long run would be worth it. We just gotta stop looking for a quick and easy fix like throwing money at African nations which in fact barely use the money to help their citizens and spend in on another tank to go to war with each other.

Space Exploration in the LONG LONG run would be so much better then simply throwing money at all our problems, how come parents are told not to throw money at their children which teaches them no responsibility yet we throw money at poor African nations expecting them to just get better. Want to get rid of Starvation and Poverty then take the road which in the long run will give us lots of food and resources.

Think of the scientific benefit as well, some planets might have metals and other resources not even found on Earth. Which in itself could help the human race for years to come, their is only one last frontier that offers us any real hope for a long term solution and it is space. Otherwise overpopulation and famine will get worse because the Earth can only support so much. It does not matter how much recycling or care in the end it will get to the point where their will be to many people for Earth and then we are back to this topic again.

About propulsion as well, they are developing Solar Sails as we speak and it's only a few decades away. Their we go no fuel and ships could possibly go almost the speed of light.

They have a point, the only way for any serious space exploration to be a reality is for a huge amount of funding that no nation today can afford without ruining their economy.

I keep seeing this argument. I don't get it. Wouldn't the money spent on building the necessary equipment (including new rockets, those old school models really don't cut it anymore) create jobs thus boosting the economy? You need engines, and hulls, and electronic devices, and nuts and bolts and screws and bits and bobs and doodads. To get these things you need PEOPLE to make them. Make sure that to receive funding these parts have to be bought from companies that make the parts in America (or England, or India, or whatever country is funding the trip) and I fail to see how it could be anything but a boon to a faltering economy.

That was more aimed at the whole Terraforming and supplying and such, making a starship is more then affordable...but we are talking about making colonies and resource shipping which for the first few decades will not pay for itself.

Besides imagine the inflation on the price any developer would put on making a spaceship like that, like how a shop can take 60-70% off the price of it's goods and still make a profit. When the colony is established and self-sufficient then yeah it will pay for itself and make a huge profit but it's the getting to that place that's hard.

This is not just dropping 200 people on a alien coast and they build like on Earth, you have to make the Environment around them suitable enough so they can atleast breath first and then you have to deal with the fact it takes 18 months to travel to mars with current technology which would make resupplying completely unreliable.

We need to develop wormhole technology.

WORMHOLES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!

While a good suggestion, if you're thinking Stargates or Star Trek or any other science fiction style wormhole, you're going to be disappointed with how they actually work.

That's not to say it's an invalid line of research, but it's not going to open the door to instant travel everywhere or something like that.

Inspired by the discussion going on in the Enterprise thread.

Of course, this has been discussed before, so in an effort to go beyond the usual discussion of weather we want to explore space, I also want to ask how people think we can best accomplish some of the more far reaching goals of space exploration, especially with a new President-elect who, like others before him, not particularily supportive of the Space Program.

So, should we continue to explore this frontier, and more importantly, how do we do it? The last is probably the most critical question, given that most of the opposition to space exploration seems to stem from the belief that it is impractical or a waste of money.

I think the real question ought to be, can we afford NOT to do it? Sure, if we go after it with everything we've got, we'll end up with some problems in the short term, but we have to look at the long-term. We HAVE to, especially in space travel where everything takes place over the long term anyway. As much as science fiction sounds nice, warp drives and Stargates and transporters are not going to be around anytime soon.

The simple fact is that space offers so much in the way of resources, living areas, and so on that we really can't afford not to, not if we to keep humanity from extinction. Obviously there's an upper time limit--one billion years--but there are many lower potential time limits, from NEOs smashing into our world, to a sudden supernova or other cosmic phenomenon somewhere close enough to Earth to present grave danger, and so on and so forth.

We're really risking everything right now. If our civilization gets smashed into the dirt by something--anything--even if humanity survives, we don't have the resources to rebuild civilization. The vast majority of them are already used up, and without the technology and infrastructure and so on that we have now, what's left won't be nearly enough for a medieval or lower technological level society to rebuild and rediscover technology.

We have to get out there, and we have to get out there now. We're not spending nearly enough. Currently the United States government's budget for NASA stands at less than 1% of its total expenditures. Less than 1%. We're talking only a couple billion dollars MAXIMUM here.

We need more. Much more. I would go so far as proposing we up that to 15% or more of our total budget. Slash from defense spending first, obviously.

I don't mean to be an alarmist here, but I can tell you that if we don't start serious effort right now, by the time we'll be desperately needing the resources from space, we'll have gigantic problems developing and getting out there. So far we haven't taken the time to let the private sector bring costs down as they do for everything else, and that's why it's still so expensive. If we get the private sector involved--as we MUST--we'll get those costs down to a much more manageable level.

Forget about exploring new worlds and meeting new civilizations. Right now what's important is mining NEOs, asteroids, and other cosmic bodies with resources. What's important is getting ourselves the ability to get out there and find what we need to keep ourselves going.

And if we don't, it WILL be all over. Not now, not immediately, but at some point our species will cease to exist, all because we refused to put in the effort to keep ourselves going.

I think the real question ought to be, can we afford NOT to do it? Sure, if we go after it with everything we've got, we'll end up with some problems in the short term, but we have to look at the long-term. We HAVE to, especially in space travel where everything takes place over the long term anyway. As much as science fiction sounds nice, warp drives and Stargates and transporters are not going to be around anytime soon.

The simple fact is that space offers so much in the way of resources, living areas, and so on that we really can't afford not to, not if we to keep humanity from extinction. Obviously there's an upper time limit--one billion years--but there are many lower potential time limits, from NEOs smashing into our world, to a sudden supernova or other cosmic phenomenon somewhere close enough to Earth to present grave danger, and so on and so forth.

We're really risking everything right now. If our civilization gets smashed into the dirt by something--anything--even if humanity survives, we don't have the resources to rebuild civilization. The vast majority of them are already used up, and without the technology and infrastructure and so on that we have now, what's left won't be nearly enough for a medieval or lower technological level society to rebuild and rediscover technology.

We have to get out there, and we have to get out there now. We're not spending nearly enough. Currently the United States government's budget for NASA stands at less than 1% of its total expenditures. Less than 1%. We're talking only a couple billion dollars MAXIMUM here.

We need more. Much more. I would go so far as proposing we up that to 15% or more of our total budget. Slash from defense spending first, obviously.

I don't mean to be an alarmist here, but I can tell you that if we don't start serious effort right now, by the time we'll be desperately needing the resources from space, we'll have gigantic problems developing and getting out there. So far we haven't taken the time to let the private sector bring costs down as they do for everything else, and that's why it's still so expensive. If we get the private sector involved--as we MUST--we'll get those costs down to a much more manageable level.

Forget about exploring new worlds and meeting new civilizations. Right now what's important is mining NEOs, asteroids, and other cosmic bodies with resources. What's important is getting ourselves the ability to get out there and find what we need to keep ourselves going.

And if we don't, it WILL be all over. Not now, not immediately, but at some point our species will cease to exist, all because we refused to put in the effort to keep ourselves going.

How soon do you think funding should be increased, and why?

I think the real question ought to be, can we afford NOT to do it? Sure, if we go after it with everything we've got, we'll end up with some problems in the short term, but we have to look at the long-term. We HAVE to, especially in space travel where everything takes place over the long term anyway. As much as science fiction sounds nice, warp drives and Stargates and transporters are not going to be around anytime soon.

Exactly. A lot of the benefits of space travel may be gained other ways in the short term, but their is so much out their that is worth while, and ultimately we have no future if we restrict our horizons to a single world. And we can't wait 'till all Earth's problems are solved, because that will never happen. Nor can we wait for the sci-fi tech to be developed, because it may never happen, and it certainly won't devellope itself.

The simple fact is that space offers so much in the way of resources, living areas, and so on that we really can't afford not to, not if we to keep humanity from extinction. Obviously there's an upper time limit--one billion years--but there are many lower potential time limits, from NEOs smashing into our world, to a sudden supernova or other cosmic phenomenon somewhere close enough to Earth to present grave danger, and so on and so forth.

All good reasons except perhaps for living space. I laugh at the idea we'll solve overpopulation with anything other than birth control.

Of course, you also left out nuclear war, pollution, and disease as possible causes of extinction.;)

We're really risking everything right now. If our civilization gets smashed into the dirt by something--anything--even if humanity survives, we don't have the resources to rebuild civilization. The vast majority of them are already used up, and without the technology and infrastructure and so on that we have now, what's left won't be nearly enough for a medieval or lower technological level society to rebuild and rediscover technology.

You know, that's something people think about too little. If we throw our civilization back a thousand years, how will we rebuild with so many finite resources already used?

We have to get out there, and we have to get out there now. We're not spending nearly enough. Currently the United States government's budget for NASA stands at less than 1% of its total expenditures. Less than 1%. We're talking only a couple billion dollars MAXIMUM here.

Between ten and twenty billion last I heard (closer to twenty). The percentage, I believe, is correct. Billions are pocket change to the US government. Of course they've also wasted money and driven themselves into absurd debt. Thus making it harder to pay for what we really need.

We need more. Much more. I would go so far as proposing we up that to 15% or more of our total budget. Slash from defense spending first, obviously.

Needless. The X-Prize was won for tens of millions. We could probably reach Mars for a few tens of billions. Space travel can fund itself directly through tourism, research, and eventually asteroid mining.

We can also offer cash prizes to companies that reach certain goals the government sets. That way, little tax money is spent until results are achieved.

I'm no financial expert, but I suspect you could cut the budget if it was handled more efficiently. The main problems are political incompetance and apathy.

I don't mean to be an alarmist here, but I can tell you that if we don't start serious effort right now, by the time we'll be desperately needing the resources from space, we'll have gigantic problems developing and getting out there. So far we haven't taken the time to let the private sector bring costs down as they do for everything else, and that's why it's still so expensive. If we get the private sector involved--as we MUST--we'll get those costs down to a much more manageable level.

Usually I'd say "screw the private sector", but in this case I'm going to tell the socialist in me to shut up. Provided their is a reasonable level of regulation, of course.

Forget about exploring new worlds and meeting new civilizations. Right now what's important is mining NEOs, asteroids, and other cosmic bodies with resources. What's important is getting ourselves the ability to get out there and find what we need to keep ourselves going.

Exploration matters. It inspires people in a way strip mining cannot. And research can lead to new practical knowledge and technology. The knowledge gained from meeting a new species, or even finding alien microbes, would surely be immense.

And colonization must also be a goal. Both to allow new societies and systems of government to develope, and to provide safe havens for human survival should something disastrous happen to Earth.

And if we don't, it WILL be all over. Not now, not immediately, but at some point our species will cease to exist, all because we refused to put in the effort to keep ourselves going.

Eventually, yes. Their are a host of long term and short term justifications for this.

How soon do you think funding should be increased, and why?

Preferably in the very next federal budget, and simply because we can do it now and we can do it with a bang. It's not going to be super easy, mind, but it's got to be done no matter what, so I suggest we go ahead and get it started right away.

Space travel, exploration, and resource harvesting requires significant investments of time. The distances aren't exactly like a stroll to the pharmacy, you see. It's going to take a long time, so better to get started now, yah?

Preferably in the very next federal budget, and simply because we can do it now and we can do it with a bang. It's not going to be super easy, mind, but it's got to be done no matter what, so I suggest we go ahead and get it started right away.

Space travel, exploration, and resource harvesting requires significant investments of time. The distances aren't exactly like a stroll to the pharmacy, you see. It's going to take a long time, so better to get started now, yah?

I see yo' point' foo'!

It's a good'un, too. I don't know if you could convince politicians, though.

Exactly. A lot of the benefits of space travel may be gained other ways in the short term, but their is so much out their that is worth while, and ultimately we have no future if we restrict our horizons to a single world. And we can't wait 'till all Earth's problems are solved, because that will never happen. Nor can we wait for the sci-fi tech to be developed, because it may never happen, and it certainly won't devellope itself.
That's true. We've got to fill in all the gaps inbetween our current technology and sci-fi awesomeness, and we're not going to do that without getting into space.



All good reasons except perhaps for living space. I laugh at the idea we'll solve overpopulation with anything other than birth control.

By living space, I'm talking more along the lines of colonization of various worlds wherever in the universe, presuming we get to the point of interstellar travel and colonization is even viable.

But yes, overpopulation won't be solved that way. It'll take too long to try to solve it that way.

Of course, you also left out nuclear war, pollution, and disease as possible causes of extinction.;)

Yes I did, but I did so because I presume they'd be filled in automatically, since they're the normal, talked about causes anyway.


You know, that's something people think about too little. If we throw our civilization back a thousand years, how will we rebuild with so many finite resources already used?

We won't. It's as simple as that. Far too many people assume we could, that whatever remains will progress to that point, but it won't. Oh, the species won't die out immediately--depending upon the cause of the civilization destruction, and the extent of the damage to the climate and to soil fertility and so on, the species might survive for many thousands of years.

But its potential will be lost, and eventually it will go extinct.




Between ten and twenty billion last I heard (closer to twenty). The percentage, I believe, is correct. Billions are pocket change to the US government. Of course they've also wasted money and driven themselves into absurd debt. Thus making it harder to pay for what we really need.

Yes, I just checked those figures on Wikipedia. Not sure why I thought a couple billion max...

Still far too little. And this is one of the many reasons I want to go into politics, to try to cut down wasteful spending and make sure that what we do spend is spent in the best way possible. (Mind, this is a different brand of fiscal conservatism from the common type in the United States that says just cut spending altogether. I don't have a problem with spending, but with spending on the wrong things, and misusing or otherwise spending too much. Basically, efficient spending, rather than idiotic spending.)


Needless. The X-Prize was won for tens of millions. We could probably reach Mars for a few tens of billions. Space travel can fund itself directly through tourism, research, and eventually asteroid mining.

We can also offer cash prizes to companies that reach certain goals the government sets. That way, little tax money is spent until results are achieved.

True, true...my proposition was an extreme "SUPER GO!" type of dealie that would get things kick started swiftly. Probably wouldn't require that level of funding for very long, either.

I'm no financial expert, but I suspect you could cut the budget if it was handled more efficiently. The main problems are political incompetance and apathy.

Indeed. We waste billions of dollars every year this way. McCain was right about one thing: pork barrel spending is harsh. (Of course, McCain was going too far and attacking all spending as automatically wasteful...:rolleyes:)


Usually I'd say "screw the private sector", but in this case I'm going to tell the socialist in me to shut up. Provided their is a reasonable level of regulation, of course.

Certainly. We do have to make sure sensible regulation is involved. (After all, someone's got to regulate things, and it might as well be the government since it can be controlled by the People if the People bother to get their asses in gear.)


Exploration matters. It inspires people in a way strip mining cannot. And research can lead to new practical knowledge and technology. The knowledge gained from meeting a new species, or even finding alien microbes, would surely be immense.

And colonization must also be a goal. Both to allow new societies and systems of government to develope, and to provide safe havens for human survival should something disastrous happen to Earth.

My point is that both of these will be eventual goals, but not IMMEDIATE goals, and that we should focus on the immediate goals first and THEN take the time to plan out the long-term goals. We'll have lots of time for this anyway, so we might as well focus on getting things started.

Basically, look at it like you'd look at any other project. You get the ground-floor foundation and basics set up, taken care of, and then you get going on everything else.


Eventually, yes. Their are a host of long term and short term justifications for this.
Indeed.

I see yo' point' foo'!

It's a good'un, too. I don't know if you could convince politicians, though.

Which is yet another reason to BECOME the politician. ;)

That's the problem: no matter what you use to lift something, it'll still take the same amount of energy. Whether you propel something into orbit with a rocket or use a space elevator, the energy consumed will ALWAYS be m*g*h.

Bold mine. This isn't true unless you can harvest the frictional energy at 100% efficiency. A space craft heats up a lot as it exits/enters the atmosphere, meaning that tons of energy is wasted, it'd be a lot better to move that same mass at a slower speed, through a tunnel or "elevator", the whole process would be more efficient, especially as you could use the energy of things going down to carry things up (assuming there was some reason for two-way traffic). Sorry to dig this up, but I just couldn't stand it since it was so wrong.

Well we have as much time to do this as their is resources to do so and those resources are running out. Give it only a few centuries and things will go to hell, as long as the corporations are heavily regulated to the point of being semi-nationalized I would accept their help. Because otherwise they will take over the industry and abuse the hell out of everything.

The first thing we should do, ignoring Mars and asteroids is I think that we should setup a colony on the moon to test things out a bit. The conditions on the moon would give us a feel for what is out their and from then we work towards making a spacecraft which is capable of long distance travel.

It kind of sucks that humanity is at the moment so moved by quick money that we don't want to invest in anything and that's our only barrier here. We want a quick result and fix to every single problem and that's why no government wants to touch such a project.

I was speaking of colony as an actual off planet micro-nation esque sort of colony (e.g 16th century Americas). As an industrial base, it would have useful benefits, but first you need to find more water ice on the moon first I suspect.
There is a lot of oxygen (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1019_051019_moon_oxygen.html) in moon.

I linked to hydrogen (possibly in form of water ice) deposits near the polar regions earlier.

Combine the two and you get:
- Energy
- Water

Well, that's the thing really. You need a mostly self sufficient base on the moon, as a functional example of extra-planetary colonies before you can go anywhere else.Indeed...

Remember the simple observation: Creating a permanent base/colony to Moon is infinitely easier, cheaper and most importantly safer than creating one on Mars or any other planetoid with our current level of technology and means of transport available.

If I had to hazard a guess, a single manned mission to Mars would pay for permanent base on Moon.
Flinging cargo from the Moon on a mass driver to say, Mars or Jupiter, may take less time than a chemical rocket, since you can achieve higher initial speeds without having all that extra reaction mass to push.
...and this is also why conquering moon makes so much sense.

However, in all honesty, they still need some reaction mass for breaking and entering orbit unless they utilize other means like atmospheric breaking in Venus or Mars, solar sails, etc..

Which is yet another reason to BECOME the politician. ;)

If your going into politics in the US, you're sure braver than I am.

There is a lot of oxygen (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1019_051019_moon_oxygen.html) in moon.

I linked to hydrogen (possibly in form of water ice) deposits near the polar regions earlier.

Combine the two and you get:
- Energy
- Water

Indeed...

Remember the simple observation: Creating a permanent base/colony to Moon is infinitely easier, cheaper and most importantly safer than creating one on Mars or any other planetoid with our current level of technology and means of transport available.

Easier does not equate to more beneficial in the long run. Mars should remain the primary goal.

If I had to hazard a guess, a single manned mission to Mars would pay for permanent base on Moon.

I am sure this is wrong, but I don't have the numbers on hand to prove it. Of course, neither do you.

...and this is also why conquering moon makes so much sense.

However, in all honesty, they still need some reaction mass for breaking and entering orbit unless they utilize other means like atmospheric breaking in Venus or Mars, solar sails, etc..

Not quite sure what you're reffering to here. Solar sails are an interplanetary propulsion system, not an atmospheric braking system.

Still no way to take advantage of any resources found in space. I really think those who espouse resource extraction from space propose something more concrete than "technology will catch up".

It's like the Far Side panel with the scientist who has a ridiculously complex formula that has an oft-erased spot in the middle which is now filled with the phrase "then a miracle happens".

There's absolutely no way to get resources of any significant amount to Earth from any off-world source, and I defy all you NASA apologists to show me one that is anything but pure conjecture.

Still no way to take advantage of any resources found in space. I really think those who espouse resource extraction from space propose something more concrete than "technology will catch up".

Then you haven't read the thread. Or done any research on this topic.

It's like the Far Side panel with the scientist who has a ridiculously complex formula that has an oft-erased spot in the middle which is now filled with the phrase "then a miracle happens".

I don't want to flame you just for being a cynic, but this is silly and insulting. Try reading the thread. Or doing any serious research on this topic. You will see how wrong you are.

There's absolutely no way to get resources of any significant amount to Earth from any off-world source, and I defy all you NASA apologists to show me one that is anything but pure conjecture.

I am not a "NASA apologist". They have been extraordinarily ineffective. Though some blame must fall on outside political interference, they have still made some appalling blunders over the years. For one thing, they have no understanding of PR. Perhaps no government agency short of the IRS has done a worse job when it comes to public relations. Hence the abundance of attitudes like yours.

That said, their are plenty of technologies we can use to make space exploration worth while, and yes, even to extract resources. Their is no excuse for launches costing as much as they do. The X-prize (a competition to build a space craft capable of carrying three people up, bringing them back down, and repeating in two weeks) was won, as I recall, for a fraction of the cost of a single shuttle launch. We can use Ion drives or light sails to reach the outer edges of the solar system quickly and cheaply. Their is nothing about these concepts that makes them impossible. Ion drives have even been used on probes. As for costs of mining, some of the stuff out their (fuel for nuclear reactors, platinum asteroids, etc), is pretty damn valuable.

Still no way to take advantage of any resources found in space. I really think those who espouse resource extraction from space propose something more concrete than "technology will catch up".

It's like the Far Side panel with the scientist who has a ridiculously complex formula that has an oft-erased spot in the middle which is now filled with the phrase "then a miracle happens".

There's absolutely no way to get resources of any significant amount to Earth from any off-world source, and I defy all you NASA apologists to show me one that is anything but pure conjecture.

You're bitter. :p

You're bitter. :p

How is it bitter to say I see what I see. No practical resource extraction. If "you're bitter" is all you've got, I'm right.

Easier does not equate to more beneficial in the long run. Mars should remain the primary goal.
What does Mars have that Moon does not have?

Or rather, what possible benefits would Mars offer in comparison to Moon?

Ultimately, we should permanently inhabit both planetoids but there is absolutely NO REASON whatsoever to permanently "colonize" Mars first - There is NO BENEFIT in doing so.
I am sure this is wrong, but I don't have the numbers on hand to prove it. Of course, neither do you.
True, however...

Here is a 1968 short term lunar base project (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lesrbase.htm):
The LESA approach, with a cargo lander followed by two manned landings in sequence to the same large shelter and rover, would allow 542 man-days on the moon. ALSS development would cost around $500 million, and LESA cost $1.45 billion.

That's 8-10 billion in 2007 dollars, with 1968 industrial capacity & technology.

Here's a 1984 project (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/jsce1984.htm) for permanent, self sustaining base:
The least expensive option (lunar resource utilization/production base) would have cost $79 billion while a science base would have been slightly more expensive.

That's roughly ~150 billion in -07 dollars.


For comparison, cost estimates for Mars mission:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/537/Mission-To-Mars
Gorshkov and the Russian Space Agency believe they could pull off a mission to Mars on a slim fourteen to twenty billion dollar budgets
..
..
In the United States of America, NASA estimates that their Mars program will cost 388 billion dollars.

Then there's the Mars Direct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct):
The initial cost estimate for Mars Direct was put at $55 billion, to be paid over ten years.

So the magnitudes of cost between manned Mars expedition and lunar base are similar, depending on who you ask and what your mission parameters are.



However, the important part is that the benefits of Moon base are more far reaching than any manned mission to Mars: What can man merely visiting Mars do that robots could not do safer and cheaper? Name a single benefit for sending men to Mars first before setting up a permanent base to Moon.

Infact, here's (http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/DOCS/EIC040.HTML) an important viewpoint considering the priorities of manned exploration:
In the process of human exploration of the solar system, the establishment of a permanent presence on the Moon is not a diversion or an impediment. It is a necessary step in the steady progress of technology, operational experience, and the understanding of human capabilities in space. A lunar program provides an opportunity to build up space capability in an evolutionary and orderly way and to broaden the participation of the educational system in the excitement of space exploration.


Not quite sure what you're reffering to here. Solar sails are an interplanetary propulsion system, not an atmospheric braking system.I was referring to them as a possible form of breaking - propulsion against current trajectory - independent of atmosphere or chemical reaction mass.

Then you haven't read the thread. Or done any research on this topic.

I have read the thread. Nothing here suggests resource extraction of even minute viability for 500-1000 years. I don't need research to see that no reliable transport with any kind of carrying capacity = no mining or extraction of any kind from space. Dream all you like, you and your next six generations will be dead before anything remotely possible materializes.

I don't want to flame you just for being a cynic, but this is silly and insulting. Try reading the thread. Or doing any serious research on this topic. You will see how wrong you are.

As opposed to how high you are? I've read the thread, it's poppycock and pipe dreams.

I am not a "NASA apologist". They have been extraordinarily ineffective. Though some blame must fall on outside political interference, they have still made some appalling blunders over the years. For one thing, they have no understanding of PR. Perhaps no government agency short of the IRS has done a worse job when it comes to public relations. Hence the abundance of attitudes like yours.

So the metric-English unit blunder at Mars was a PR failure? Interesting.

That said, their are plenty of technologies we can use to make space exploration worth while, and yes, even to extract resources. Their is no excuse for launches costing as much as they do. The X-prize (a competition to build a space craft capable of carrying three people up, bringing them back down, and repeating in two weeks) was won, as I recall, for a fraction of the cost of a single shuttle launch.

And one a few years ago. What's happened since then?

We can use Ion drives or light sails to reach the outer edges of the solar system quickly and cheaply. Their is nothing about these concepts that makes them impossible. Ion drives have even been used on probes. As for costs of mining, some of the stuff out their (fuel for nuclear reactors, platinum asteroids, etc), is pretty damn valuable.

Look, dreamer, I appreciate the value of high-minded thinking. But what use is a solar sail to the edge of the system if it A) can't get you back, and B) can't haul anything of significant weight? You keep yammering about resources, but the end result of that mining or extraction has to come back to Earth, either as raw materials or some kind of refined product. We haven't solved the longevity problem in Earth orbit, let alone the surface of another planet or orbit thereof.

Continue to dream all you like, just don't expect everyone to take the acid with you and trip to the stars. We've got more important and pressing problems to solve.

I have read the thread. Nothing here suggests resource extraction of even minute viability for 500-1000 years. I don't need research to see that no reliable transport with any kind of carrying capacity = no mining or extraction of any kind from space. Dream all you like, you and your next six generations will be dead before anything remotely possible materializes.
Fusion technology, Helium 3 and Moon.

Combine those three and you have commercially viable reason for going to Moon within a 50-100 years.

A single space shuttle flight could bring back enough He3 to power up USA for a year.

What does Mars have that Moon does not have?

Or rather, what possible benefits would Mars offer in comparison to Moon?

Ultimately, we should permanently inhabit both planetoids but there is absolutely NO REASON whatsoever to permanently "colonize" Mars first - There is NO BENEFIT in doing so.

True, however...

Here is a 1968 short term lunar base project (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lesrbase.htm):
The LESA approach, with a cargo lander followed by two manned landings in sequence to the same large shelter and rover, would allow 542 man-days on the moon. ALSS development would cost around $500 million, and LESA cost $1.45 billion.

That's 8-10 billion in 2007 dollars, with 1968 industrial capacity & technology.

Here's a 1984 project (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/jsce1984.htm) for permanent, self sustaining base:
The least expensive option (lunar resource utilization/production base) would have cost $79 billion while a science base would have been slightly more expensive.

That's roughly ~150 billion in -07 dollars.


For comparison, cost estimates for Mars mission:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/537/Mission-To-Mars
Gorshkov and the Russian Space Agency believe they could pull off a mission to Mars on a slim fourteen to twenty billion dollar budgets
..
..
In the United States of America, NASA estimates that their Mars program will cost 388 billion dollars.

Then there's the Mars Direct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct):
The initial cost estimate for Mars Direct was put at $55 billion, to be paid over ten years.

So the magnitudes of cost between manned Mars expedition and lunar base are similar, depending on who you ask and what your mission parameters are.



However, the important part is that the benefits of Moon base are more far reaching than any manned mission to Mars: What can man merely visiting Mars do that robots could not do safer and cheaper? Name a single benefit for sending men to Mars first before setting up a permanent base to Moon.

Infact, here's (http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/DOCS/EIC040.HTML) an important viewpoint considering the priorities of manned exploration:
In the process of human exploration of the solar system, the establishment of a permanent presence on the Moon is not a diversion or an impediment. It is a necessary step in the steady progress of technology, operational experience, and the understanding of human capabilities in space. A lunar program provides an opportunity to build up space capability in an evolutionary and orderly way and to broaden the participation of the educational system in the excitement of space exploration.


I was referring to them as a possible form of breaking - propulsion against current trajectory - independent of atmosphere or chemical reaction mass.

Note that none of this offers even a guess at how much of what resources will be extracted and returned to Earth.

Fusion technology, Helium 3 and Moon.

Combine those three and you have commercially viable reason for going to Moon within a 50-100 years.

A single space shuttle flight could bring back enough He3 to power up USA for a year.

"Could".

I'll wager "can't." Let's see the technology work first before we go get ridiculously expensive fuel for an engine that, it might be discovered, doesn't work.

Note that none of this offers even a guess at how much of what resources will be extracted and returned to Earth.
Moon's easy....

He3: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html

Solar Power: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/020416073334.htm

Then there's the tourism aspect.

I completely agree that Mars travel is rather pointless as of now or in the near future (~centuries).

Moon's easy....

He3: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html

Solar Power: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/020416073334.htm

Then there's the tourism aspect.

I completely agree that Mars travel is rather pointless as of now or in the near future (~centuries).

And the solar from the moon gets here how?

Does any of the infrastructure exist now?

I have read the thread. Nothing here suggests resource extraction of even minute viability for 500-1000 years. I don't need research to see that no reliable transport with any kind of carrying capacity = no mining or extraction of any kind from space. Dream all you like, you and your next six generations will be dead before anything remotely possible materializes.

Technology has had a way in recent times of develloping faster than people expected. Of course, that's only because some people actually tried to develope it, instead of assuming we were stuck with what we had. But by all means, lets accept your defeatism and the stagnation of human civilization.:rolleyes:

Nevermind that I did provide examples of technical advances that bring mass resource extraction closer to reality. So is this a reading comprehension problem, or an honesty problem?

As opposed to how high you are? I've read the thread, it's poppycock and pipe dreams.

:upyours: This deserves no more subtle or involved response.

So the metric-English unit blunder at Mars was a PR failure? Interesting.

Listen carefully, because I'm not going to say this again. I never said NASA's blunders were purely PR related. They've done a horrible job at marketing themselves, but they've also managed to make some technical errors. Of course, one example of a technical error (which I've never even heard of, so source please) is not proof of a government agency's complete worthlessness. But I suppose we should have disbanded the army the first time their was a friendly fire incident too.

And one a few years ago. What's happened since then?

Little progress has been made, in no small part because of uninformed and/or willfully ignorant attitudes like yours.

Look, dreamer, I appreciate the value of high-minded thinking. But what use is a solar sail to the edge of the system if it A) can't get you back, and B) can't haul anything of significant weight? You keep yammering about resources, but the end result of that mining or extraction has to come back to Earth, either as raw materials or some kind of refined product. We haven't solved the longevity problem in Earth orbit, let alone the surface of another planet or orbit thereof.

I gave significantly more attention to the Ion drive than to the solar sail. Want to take a stab at refuting my main points, rather than taking potshots and making nitpicks?

Continue to dream all you like, just don't expect everyone to take the acid with you and trip to the stars. We've got more important and pressing problems to solve.

:upyours: Insults will be responded to in kind.

We had plans to reach Mars in the 80's, undone by people as short-sighted as you.

Let me ask you a question? Have you read a single essay or book by a qualified engineer on the feasibility of any of this that was published in the last 20 years? I have.

And the solar from the moon gets here how?

Does any of the infrastructure exist now?

No, because you have to develope it first.

This is like saying we shouldn't mine copper from a mountain, because we have to build a road up the hill first.

I have a serious problem. Everytime I come across this thread on the forum page, I keep reading Sex Exploration. I need a vacation!:(

And the solar from the moon gets here how?
No idea. One option could be through low intensity MASER.
Does any of the infrastructure exist now?
This on the other hand is completely idiotic response.

Should we stop, for example, searching for new oil deposits because the infrastructure - oilwells & platrofms, pipes - don't exist now? Perhaps we should stop research altogether as well...the infrastructure for commercializing new products doesn't exist so we might as well stop inventing new techonolgies & products. :rolleyes:


Besides, consider the magnitude of spending: The countries are currently throwing trillions of dollars into saving banking systems and double that into warfare - technology for killing other people - while with similar investment those very same countries could solve the energy crisis within few decades and at the same time preserve humanity from planetary disaster and ultimately open up (near) infinite resources for mankind to use.

I have a serious problem. Everytime I come across this thread on the forum page, I keep reading Sex Exploration. I need a vacation!:(

A sex vacation? :D

I have a serious problem. Everytime I come across this thread on the forum page, I keep reading Sex Exploration. I need a vacation!:(

A sex vacation? :D
Could you please take your spam-infatuation to private messages or something?

It's quite annoying see you two go at it in every topic :(

Could you please take your spam-infatuation to private messages or something?

It's quite annoying see you two go at it in every topic :(

My apologies. Us two friends like to fool around, as all. Besides it's mainly my fault here. I'll keep quiet in future.

God this topic is going nowhere.

What I'd be more interested in discussing is how do we do it, since most of the opposition to an expanded space program seems to based around questions of feasibility, rather than fundimental opposition to the concept. From now on, I'm going to focus my posts on questions of practicality, not arguing weather we should do it if we can.

Note that none of this offers even a guess at how much of what resources will be extracted and returned to Earth.

True - but that is quite irrelevant. Almost all significant human progress has been the byproduct of fundamental and not of targeted "ooh, let us make things better for others" research. Electricity, the internet, penicilline... byproducts of curiosity.

We do not know what space exploration may bring us. But since it has brought us velcro, satellites, better alloys, superior solar panels and so on it seems worth to sit back and see. Especially since it is so bloody cheap when compared to e.g. warfare ;) Resources would just be a nice bonus.

God this topic is going nowhere.

What I'd be more interested in discussing is how do we do it, since most of the opposition to an expanded space program seems to based around questions of feasibility, rather than fundimental opposition to the concept. From now on, I'm going to focus my posts on questions of practicality, not arguing weather we should do it if we can.

Well, the biggest obstacle is the darn deep gravity well we live in....

Well, the biggest obstacle is the darn deep gravity well we live in....

A lunar base would solve that. So would a big space station ;)
Second problem is distance and time.

How is it bitter to say I see what I see. No practical resource extraction. If "you're bitter" is all you've got, I'm right.

Basically you're just saying "Nuh-uh" to our arguments anyway, so why bother answering with anything else?

Honestly, Intangelon, I am disappointed.

A lunar base would solve that. So would a big space station ;)
Well, even a big space station would still need constant supply of resources...And yes, you got my hidden message about the extra benefit of moon base ;)

Although...I'm uncertain whether space exploration can go on as capitalist venture, because most gains that can be had are long term ones, of scientific nature or survival issues.

Perhaps the best way to enhance space exploration would be to industrialize moon - eg. profitable He3 mining opeartion - and then nationalize it in a way that what's good for the future of Moon would become a priority for the funds gained from lunar resources & tourism.

My point is that, for example, mining for metals in Moon is not a high priority unless you have a situation where there's an incentive for growing population and completely self-relying future economy.

Second problem is distance and time.
Indeed, but in inter-solarsystem travel isn't that big an issue. Months, years are enough even with our current technology, it's not that big a leap from the exploration days of yore.

A lunar base would solve that. So would a big space station ;)
Second problem is distance and time.

Not really. Unless you can make it pretty much self-sufficient, you just have to launch things to the Moon base, land on the Moon, and then take off again.

Lowering the cost of reaching orbit and then constructing ships their is the way to go.

Sure, you could go back to dirt roads and horse wagons if you want. You keep blabbing about technology that doesn't exist while talking about technology that does as "star trekish".
Technology that exists? Not in this world, son. If any technology that would make space exploration lucrative already existed, then we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place, would we? You're getting delusional.

Your "solution" is to starve people to death while yelling at them to "not have children". It addresses nothing, but it does show what sort of immature mindset you have.
Hauling them off to Mars won't save their lives either (in case you didn't notice, there's no oxygen there - nothing your already existing technologies would solve). It'll make them die faster and cost more.

People went from bronze to iron because it was stronger and durable despite being harder to work. People went from coal to oil because oil produced more energy than coal. There isn't anything that has a higher returns on investment than oil.
If I was as ignorant to history as you, I'd keep it shut. Europeans went from bronze to iron because they had to. In the bronze age they ALREADY KNEW iron, they just never felt the need to develop a method to produce higher-quality iron than bronze (because of their lack of knowledge, they used to think iron was even inferior to bronze)... until a long hiatus of bronze supplies caused by the collapse of trade left them with the choice of learning to use iron (and eventually producing better tools from it than they ever could using bronze) or die (as many did). THUS came the transition from bronze to iron in Europe. And actually, there IS something that has a MUCH higher efficiency than oil, it's a kind of sorcery called nuclear fission. That's why electricity will never be an unsolvable problem when we'll run out of oil.

And you're still blabbing about future technology that doesn't exist. You're a hypocrite you know that? The slimiest sort.
You're talking about space colonies and I'm babbling about future technology that doesn't exist? Are you high right now?

When oil goes poof, famine and starvation will reach levels that will be like nothing the world has seen before. People who live in first world countries like you will be the first to suffer it's effects, because you've got too many damned people and too little agriculture that isn't dependent on massive oil dependent infrastructure.
And you want to prevent that by... colonising Mars? What are you hoping to find there? Oil? Fertile soil? A fairy to grant you three wishes? Seems like you just want to escape this world to a fantasy, where dieing will be less painful. An oil shortage will force us to research alternatives and I'll guarantee you, none of those alternatives will include "set out on an interstellar quest to find the fabled stone of Quar'gxshrvt which will solve all our problems". Negative effects will only be severe IF the oil runs out of every oil source spontaneously (assuming that, you prove to be a moron). Running out of oil will take a long time and it will be noticeable in a steady and endless rise of oil prices. Farmers, industries and all fossil-fuel users will start investing in research long before the oil reserves are really depleted. This will most likely result in a rise of food prices. THAT will be felt almost exclusively by third-world countries. Not even especially countries low on food, but countries low on money. Thus your rage against the first world will only get vented in your own private fantasy world. Not that you seem to be leaving it anyway.

I'd tell you to pull your head out of your ass, but it appears you don't even make use of yours, so what would be the point?
It'd let out the steam you accumulated after a hard day of shutting up.

When the oil crunch comes, even if by some miracle, you had plenty to eat, you wouldn't for long when civil order collapses.
Not while people have guns and no food.
Civil order won't collapse where I live, because everyone else will also have plenty to eat. Sorry to ruin your dream of a socialist revolution so harshly.

Do you have any idea how subsistence level farming works in third world countries? Do you? Obviously not. You're living in your pretty little ivory tower, well fed with nary an idea on how food gets on your plate, utterly divorced from the realities of the world making grand little proclamations and feeling good about it.

Subsistence level farming works only when you have enough bodies to work the farmlands, and that means popping out kids. Why? Because if you don't have enough bodies, or if someone falls sick, the amount that can be harvested drops significantly, maybe to the point where everyone on the farm starves. That's why pre-industrial farms have always had large families or hired hands. It's the only way to stay fed.

And when the energy crunch does hit, subsistence level farming is all the world will have. That means worldwide famine and chaos. You think you have plenty of food? You'll be lucky not to have your skull caved in for what food you have when famine reaches worldwide levels.
Less people means less people to feed and less wages to pay, which leads to more money for machinery. The reason why harvests continue to fail is the lack of civil order in the third world, farmers getting chased away (mainly Zimbabwe and South Africa), destructive farming due to complete disregard of the environment, extreme corruption sinking much of the income, etc.
If European countries with extreme population densities can supply themselves with food (and produce a surplus), then the bread basket of Africa (Rhodesia - Mugabe successfully fucked up that source of food) could supply an even larger territory.
As for machinery being useless as soon as we run low on oil, I already stated why it won't be that big of a problem.

You're pathetic.
You're becoming less creative with time. You seem to stop pretending that your insults are justified.

Humanity, and idiots like you, blithely believing in a future that will never sink.
It would sink if we listened to doomsday prophets like you. If you were simply proposing that we should all wear tin hats, it'd be simply entertaining. But investing ludicrous amounts of money (that's needed elsewhere) on sci-fi, that's just stupid. And I'm sure that if you gave a third world country the choice betweenall the money they needed to develop a modern agriculture (maintaining watch on where the money is spent) or all the money they need to colonise Mars (again, maintaining watch on where the money is spent), they would either choose number one and eventually stop calling for international aid, or they'll choose number two and spend the money on AKs with which they'll kill your supervisors.
I'm sorry son, you won't get to be an astronaut when/if you grow up.

Here's a tidbit of knowledge for you. Anytime you do anything related to climatological and ecological change for the better, that's terraforming.
You mean global warming? I'm not sure how that would help the Martian atmosphere, seeing that it's all greenhouse gases. Plus, we would never ever be able to pull that sort of thing off on Mars.
But for the record: Give me one example of applied terraforming with present technology.

You keep using petty little terms garnished from games or science fiction, trying to slap it as my argument. For your puny intellect? It isn't. But it does demonstrate the dismal lack of anything approaching knowledge from your corner.
Oh how I love when you get self-contradictory and then try to insult my intelligence. You were defending terraforming earlier in this thread. It is (was) your argument.

Only if you were closing your eyes when I listed them.
Then why pretend they were non-existant in the very same post? Self-contradiction, again?

Who the bloody hell is talking about terraforming Mars? And why the hell would you need to?
It was an example. Harvesting helium from Jupiter is even less viable, so I was actually doing you a favour.
(Btw, there is no air on Mars, that's why you'd need to terraform it before colonising - except of course if you volounteer to be the first colonist)

This is the sort of misrepresentation I expect from the slimiest of politicians.
The line between representation and misrepresentation is too blurry in your case, given your aptness to contradict yourself.


You're full of bullshit.

"Oh, we can't invest in space technology that's 40 years old and proven, it's too expensive and star trekish. But we can invest in research for magic materials that don't exist so we can dig deeper into the planet than we've ever done before."
You amuse me.
40 year old space technology, 40 years of costs without yields. The fact that the only lucrative aspects of space technology are spin-offs, using products of expensive research for useful purposes (none of them involving anything even as far as the moon) shows how pointless it is to throw money further away than Earth's orbit.
So, tell me, what USE will something along the lines of Apollo, Voyager, Hubble, Galileo, etc. bring us that's more important than other problems down here on Earth? What - the - fuck - is - it - good - for?
As for mining: the deepest mine in the world is 3.6km deep, with a temperature of 45°C at the bottom. Air conditioning keeps it at 28°C. The only challenge this depth poses is that of cooling.

Now here's the million-dollar-question: WHAT IS CHEAPER AND MORE VIABLE TO IMPROVE BY RESEARCH? SPACEFARING OR COOLING?
Veni, vidi, vici.

I'm done arguing with you. All you have is a ignorance, and bullshit, and you're ladling it on with a hefty dose of hypocrisy.
I'm sure we all believe that you're giving up debate (or whatever you pretended to do here) because you're above it. Riiiight.

Bold mine. This isn't true unless you can harvest the frictional energy at 100% efficiency. A space craft heats up a lot as it exits/enters the atmosphere, meaning that tons of energy is wasted, it'd be a lot better to move that same mass at a slower speed, through a tunnel or "elevator", the whole process would be more efficient, especially as you could use the energy of things going down to carry things up (assuming there was some reason for two-way traffic). Sorry to dig this up, but I just couldn't stand it since it was so wrong.

m*g*h is the absolute minimum of energy you need, assuming that your method is frictionless, etc. That's what I meant.
As for an elevator... how on Earth would an elevator consume LESS energy than m*g*h to lift something? That energy HAS to be taken from somewhere. Efficience has a limit of 100% and that 100% would mean nothing less than m*g*h. You were talking about counterweights (bringing things down). In that case, the energy you need to lift something is supplied by the energy provided by dropping something else. But then, how would you want to lift the counterweight back up? If you don't want to do so, where will you find an infinite supply of counterweights?
In a gravitational field, it yields a fix amount of energy to transport something from a higher potential (up) to a lower potential (down) and it consumes the exact same amount of energy to lift it back. Whether it's a rocket you're using, a rope or even a linear motor, the only thing different in all these is the amount of energy you additionally waste on things like friction. If you find a way to lift an object with the mass m to the height h perpendicular to the gravitational acceleration g, using LESS energy than m*g*h, you should go visit the US patent office to register your perpetuum mobile and try to convince them to take a look at your device that honest-to-god is able to violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Now here's the million-dollar-question: WHAT IS CHEAPER AND MORE VIABLE TO IMPROVE BY RESEARCH? SPACEFARING OR COOLING?

It depends. The deeper you dig in to the Earth, the bigger chance there is of all kinds of problems above and beyond heat and pressure. That being said, it's a moot point. There really isn't a trade-off between the two; you can just as easily invest in space as you can here on Earth without having to compromise one or the other. In addition, technologies used for deep mines on Earth can be applied to space; I would definitely say research in to things like submarines or high-altitude aircraft have shaped space exploration, and the same is true with anything designed to handle hostile environments on Earth.

Considering the amount we've collectively wasted on building weapons that can annihilate our species, I'd definitely say space exploration is well worth any money we spend because it helps to ensure our survival rather than endanger it. The sheer amount of money we waste every year on things with no benefit whatsoever is easily more than the entire amount spent on space research or other long-term investments in our future.

Solar Power: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/020416073334.htm
Ye, it's the orbital solar power plant issue. There's a really good reason why it hasn't been made yet.

Transport energy using what? The article suggests microwaves. A 20TW microwave beam. How are you going to collect and harness that without frying anything you don't want to? I leave this question open for the proponents to answer. And no, "with research and science and stuff" doesn't count as an answer. Neither does "with money". People are already complaining about GSM antennas causing too much electromagnetic radiation. Do you think they'd vote for the construction of a 20TW microwave beam circulating Earth?

Here's a thought: solar power plants in the Sahara. What say you?

Here's a thought: solar power plants in the Sahara. What say you?

Solar plants from Morocco to Saudi Arabia. Enough sand to supply an eternity of polysilicon production.

It depends. The deeper you dig in to the Earth, the bigger chance there is of all kinds of problems above and beyond heat and pressure. That being said, it's a moot point. There really isn't a trade-off between the two; you can just as easily invest in space as you can here on Earth without having to compromise one or the other. In addition, technologies used for deep mines on Earth can be applied to space; I would definitely say research in to things like submarines or high-altitude aircraft have shaped space exploration, and the same is true with anything designed to handle hostile environments on Earth.

Considering the amount we've collectively wasted on building weapons that can annihilate our species, I'd definitely say space exploration is well worth any money we spend because it helps to ensure our survival rather than endanger it. The sheer amount of money we waste every year on things with no benefit whatsoever is easily more than the entire amount spent on space research or other long-term investments in our future.

Ah, a sane and logical answer. Thank you.
Yes, a little bit of research into everything is a must. And I guess that mining corporations will spend more money on improving cooling than some governments will on space exploration. Even their budgets are comparable to say the least.
However I still tend to believe that mining does hold more profit than spacefaring, judging from recent and earlier figures and also from future prospects.

Inspired by the discussion going on in the Enterprise thread.

Of course, this has been discussed before, so in an effort to go beyond the usual discussion of weather we want to explore space, I also want to ask how people think we can best accomplish some of the more far reaching goals of space exploration, especially with a new President-elect who, like others before him, not particularily supportive of the Space Program.

So, should we continue to explore this frontier, and more importantly, how do we do it? The last is probably the most critical question, given that most of the opposition to space exploration seems to stem from the belief that it is impractical or a waste of money.

With any luck, corporations really will lead the way into space (Virgin Galactic anyone?). It's already been shown that the private sector can do it, and will do it for the right reasons, whether they be overpopulation, resources, maybe even water on Mars when we start running out on earth.

Another reason I hope the private sector paves the way is the fact that they're lacking nationality (see space race).

There's no reason that we shouldn't be experimenting with terraforming, or a self contained environment on the moon at this point in time. If we made it to the moon in 10 years with limited technology, just think about what life would be like if we continued with that motivation.

40 year old space technology, 40 years of costs without yields.

This is why you're full of crap. Ungrateful, ignorant, whiny yammering about no yields while using the yields that came from the costs.

This is why you're full of crap. Ungrateful, ignorant, whiny yammering about no yields while using the yields that came from the costs.

Not only you ignored the rest of my post (thus failing at debating), you managed to ignore the next sentence (context) of the paragraph you removed that one sentence from, HYPOCRITE.

The fact that the only lucrative aspects of space technology are spin-offs, using products of expensive research for useful purposes (none of them involving anything even as far as the moon) shows how pointless it is to throw money further away than Earth's orbit.
See, I did consider spin-offs. So you must be implying that I'm somehow using a sample of a rock from Mars, which I don't. You fail. Once again.

Or maybe you would like to explain what I have previously dismissed as useless and am currently using. Come on. Even if you unilaterally stopped debating (or more like, pretending to debate), you could still TRY and back up your insults.

Not only you ignored the rest of my post

Why should I, when you keep making up stances I don't have? If you want to prop your ego by arguing with yourself, by all means. I just won't have anything to do with it.


you managed to ignore the next sentence (context) of the paragraph you

I ignored it for one very good reason. You blab about spin offs of technology, but completely ignore the fact that a great deal wouldn't exist if not for the drives in space exploration research to begin with. Microprocessors, hydroponics, high level water purification, lasers, most of them wouldn't exist simply because the demand to produce them wouldn't exist if not for space exploration research.

All very easy to talk about "Oh, we'll just put our money into microprocessor research" when the demand for small, lightweight computing systems wouldn't even exist. And before you even think about opening your mouth to talk about the demand now, I suggest you look at the computing trends and expectations of the 50s before space research took off.

Why should I, when you keep making up stances I don't have? If you want to prop your ego by arguing with yourself, by all means. I just won't have anything to do with it.
It'd stop you from making yourself look like an idiot.

I ignored it for one very good reason. You blab about spin offs of technology, but completely ignore the fact that a great deal wouldn't exist if not for the drives in space exploration research to begin with.
Technology isn't art or creativity. If you don't invent it, someone else will. If NASA doesn't need it, Boeing will. This logic would suggest that virtually none of our present technological advancements (from blades to microprocessors) would exist if there hadn't been warfare, since the considerable majority of technology does in fact derive from war research. Which is idiotic.

Microprocessors, hydroponics, high level water purification, lasers, most of them wouldn't exist simply because the demand to produce them wouldn't exist if not for space exploration research.
Bollocks. See above.

All very easy to talk about "Oh, we'll just put our money into microprocessor research" when the demand for small, lightweight computing systems wouldn't even exist.
And only spacefaring may need small, lightweight computing, eh? If you truly believe that, it means that I was right all along. You're delusional, living in your own fantasy world, where everything revolves around SPACE, THE FINAL FRONTIER.

And before you even think about opening your mouth to talk about the demand now, I suggest you look at the computing trends and expectations of the 50s before space research took off.
Miniaturisation, occurs over time. Saying that it was solely the space program's merit that processors have shrunk would mean that just because phonographs and zeppelins have been developed at the same time, we must thank intercontinental flight for our modern MP3 players, because if it weren't for the demand of listening to music without bringing along a band on a flight from Berlin to New York, we'd never be able to enjoy portable music. Plus, it IGNORES the fact that advancements have been and are being made in electronics and lasers, completely without the influence of space exploration. How else would you explain the huge leaps in microprocessor miniaturisation after the Challenger crashed and spacefaring became more unpopular than ever? Or that lasers were in the state of theoretical research for a very long time, receiving funding because it was hoped to be able to serve as a weapon? Only after a long time did they realize that weapons-grade lasers will never be practical enough to be implemented, regardless of research (much like the Jupiter Harvester amirite?) and they kept focusing on low-power lasers and laser welders (etc).

Now, how are you going to explain yourself out of your self-made pit of shite this time? Not without deploying your IGNORE cannons once again, I assume. Let us see.

Technology isn't art or creativity. If you don't invent it, someone else will. If NASA doesn't need it, Boeing will. This logic would suggest that virtually none of our present technological advancements (from blades to microprocessors) would exist if there hadn't been warfare, since the considerable majority of technology does in fact derive from war research. Which is idiotic.


To a degree. However, basic research is a whole other issue; it is highly unlikely many private companies would ever perform that kind of research unless they were very confident it would produce a viable payoff for them in a sufficiently near timeframe.

Government and university research is the main impetus behind a lot of the basic-level physics (and other fields') research that is necessary for it to make the jump from theoretical to practical uses. For example, it is highly unlikely that the modern electronic computer, let alone transistor-based electronics, would have developed as quickly or dramatically as they have were it not for the pioneering work performed for government cryptographic research or the advanced calculations needed for developing nuclear weapons and ICBMs.

To a degree. However, basic research is a whole other issue; it is highly unlikely many private companies would ever perform that kind of research unless they were very confident it would produce a viable payoff for them in a sufficiently near timeframe.

Government and university research is the main impetus behind a lot of the basic-level physics (and other fields') research that is necessary for it to make the jump from theoretical to practical uses. For example, it is highly unlikely that the modern electronic computer, let alone transistor-based electronics, would have developed as quickly or dramatically as they have were it not for the pioneering work performed for government cryptographic research or the advanced calculations needed for developing nuclear weapons and ICBMs.

Or airplanes, or encryption, etc...
Of course, there always needs to be a reason. My point is, that reasons are various and abundant. It's foolish to say that spacefaring was solely responsible and essential for anything else than the teflon frying pan. Really important spin-offs (as if they're eligible to be considered sole spin-offs of spacefaring) could've been the spin-offs of other major projects (God knows there were enough of those), or even independently researched (more likely in the case of previous inventions being miniaturised, such as computers).

Technology that exists? Not in this world, son. If any technology that would make space exploration lucrative already existed, then we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place, would we? You're getting delusional.


Remember the equation, dude: science fiction + time = science fact. People thought, sixty years ago, that fitting a computer into a room was a massive success, and as much as they'd ever achieve with the technology.


Hauling them off to Mars won't save their lives either (in case you didn't notice, there's no oxygen there - nothing your already existing technologies would solve). It'll make them die faster and cost more.


The terraforming of Mars is a process that would take about a century, minimum. We'd basically put factories on Mars with the express purpose of giving off ozone, CO2, and other waste atmospheric gases. Within a hundred years, the atmosphere is thick enough that you need but a helmet and air tank to go outside. The people living on Mars are expected to adapt over the generations to the atmospheric difference and gravity difference.

If I was as ignorant to history as you, I'd keep it shut. Europeans went from bronze to iron because they had to. In the bronze age they ALREADY KNEW iron, they just never felt the need to develop a method to produce higher-quality iron than bronze (because of their lack of knowledge, they used to think iron was even inferior to bronze)... until a long hiatus of bronze supplies caused by the collapse of trade left them with the choice of learning to use iron (and eventually producing better tools from it than they ever could using bronze) or die (as many did). THUS came the transition from bronze to iron in Europe. And actually, there IS something that has a MUCH higher efficiency than oil, it's a kind of sorcery called nuclear fission. That's why electricity will never be an unsolvable problem when we'll run out of oil.


Fundamental contextual problem here. Your given precedent assumes that we had a technology that was superior under our noses, and refused to use it out of ignorance. To be frank, we know that fission, fusion, Hydrogen fuel cells, and every alternative energy in the book is better than oil. We choose not to change because everything we have is built around it. Go ahead, convert a billion American cars into hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. That is, in a cheap and efficient way.


You're talking about space colonies and I'm babbling about future technology that doesn't exist? Are you high right now?


Wow, that's a real mature argument. You know, and you wonder why people got pissed over your Uncyclopedia bullshit.


And you want to prevent that by... colonising Mars? What are you hoping to find there? Oil? Fertile soil? A fairy to grant you three wishes? Seems like you just want to escape this world to a fantasy, where dieing will be less painful. An oil shortage will force us to research alternatives and I'll guarantee you, none of those alternatives will include "set out on an interstellar quest to find the fabled stone of Quar'gxshrvt which will solve all our problems". Negative effects will only be severe IF the oil runs out of every oil source spontaneously (assuming that, you prove to be a moron). Running out of oil will take a long time and it will be noticeable in a steady and endless rise of oil prices. Farmers, industries and all fossil-fuel users will start investing in research long before the oil reserves are really depleted. This will most likely result in a rise of food prices. THAT will be felt almost exclusively by third-world countries. Not even especially countries low on food, but countries low on money. Thus your rage against the first world will only get vented in your own private fantasy world. Not that you seem to be leaving it anyway.


What we get out of 'colonising [sic] Mars' is somewhere to retreat, so to speak, when the world's supplies fail. And no, I'm not talking anywhere in the next 5 generations, or maybe 50. One day, though, your great-great (48 times removed) grandchildren will be laughing at you as they board the shuttle to Mars. Oil arguments done upstairs.


It'd let out the steam you accumulated after a hard day of shutting up.


...



Civil order won't collapse where I live, because everyone else will also have plenty to eat. Sorry to ruin your dream of a socialist revolution so harshly.


You egocentric ass. This explains many of your fantasy utopian views.

EDIT: Oh, hey, wow, you're (supposedly) Swiss! Great, so you've never fought a war in the past, what, 2, 3 centuries? Not everyone can be neutral all the time.


Less people means less people to feed and less wages to pay, which leads to more money for machinery. The reason why harvests continue to fail is the lack of civil order in the third world, farmers getting chased away (mainly Zimbabwe and South Africa), destructive farming due to complete disregard of the environment, extreme corruption sinking much of the income, etc.
If European countries with extreme population densities can supply themselves with food (and produce a surplus), then the bread basket of Africa (Rhodesia - Mugabe successfully fucked up that source of food) could supply an even larger territory.
As for machinery being useless as soon as we run low on oil, I already stated why it won't be that big of a problem.


Dude, do you understand shit about plants? Wheat can be neither grown on savannas nor in deserts. It's not a question of space. The 'bread basket' of Africa produces a pittance compared to, say, the Great Plains of the U.S.


You're becoming less creative with time. You seem to stop pretending that your insults are justified.


Whereas you simply repeat the same bullshit points incessantly, and hope no one notices.


It would sink if we listened to doomsday prophets like you. If you were simply proposing that we should all wear tin hats, it'd be simply entertaining. But investing ludicrous amounts of money (that's needed elsewhere) on sci-fi, that's just stupid. And I'm sure that if you gave a third world country the choice betweenall the money they needed to develop a modern agriculture (maintaining watch on where the money is spent) or all the money they need to colonise Mars (again, maintaining watch on where the money is spent), they would either choose number one and eventually stop calling for international aid, or they'll choose number two and spend the money on AKs with which they'll kill your supervisors.
I'm sorry son, you won't get to be an astronaut when/if you grow up.


Repetition? Really? See my first rebuttal.

Damn, bro.


You mean global warming? I'm not sure how that would help the Martian atmosphere, seeing that it's all greenhouse gases. Plus, we would never ever be able to pull that sort of thing off on Mars.
But for the record: Give me one example of applied terraforming with present technology.


Oh, hey, I explain how it works in my first section! :headbang:

But your arguments from incredulity... "we would never ever be able to pull that sort of thing off on Mars." Oh, okay. Guess you know all things. "Give me one example of applied terraforming with present technology." Go back to 1952 and ask them for an example of a laptop computer.


Oh how I love when you get self-contradictory and then try to insult my intelligence. You were defending terraforming earlier in this thread. It is (was) your argument.


Oh, terraforming is a dead subject? And I just came up with the facts you strove for! That's all right, the rules of debate say that if your opponent extends an argument, it remains on the flow.


Then why pretend they were non-existant in the very same post? Self-contradiction, again?


This is a targeted section that I can't answer.


It was an example. Harvesting helium from Jupiter is even less viable, so I was actually doing you a favour.
(Btw, there is no air on Mars, that's why you'd need to terraform it before colonising - except of course if you volounteer to be the first colonist)


The He-harvesting thing was just an example. Way to dwell on it.

(BTW, you're repeating yourself repeating yourself again again).


The line between representation and misrepresentation is too blurry in your case, given your aptness to contradict yourself.


Targeted quote.



You amuse me.
40 year old space technology, 40 years of costs without yields. The fact that the only lucrative aspects of space technology are spin-offs, using products of expensive research for useful purposes (none of them involving anything even as far as the moon) shows how pointless it is to throw money further away than Earth's orbit.
So, tell me, what USE will something along the lines of Apollo, Voyager, Hubble, Galileo, etc. bring us that's more important than other problems down here on Earth? What - the - fuck - is - it - good - for?
As for mining: the deepest mine in the world is 3.6km deep, with a temperature of 45°C at the bottom. Air conditioning keeps it at 28°C. The only challenge this depth poses is that of cooling.


Dude, your first two fucking sentences (NVM the sarcastic one) are contradictions. You can't dismiss spin-offs! They are a yield! Goddamn, dude, you don't have to set out to research something in order for it to be viable.

Now here's the million-dollar-question: WHAT IS CHEAPER AND MORE VIABLE TO IMPROVE BY RESEARCH? SPACEFARING OR COOLING?
Veni, vidi, vici.


Great. Let me know how harvesting molten iron from the core goes. There is a limit downward; there is none upwards.


I'm sure we all believe that you're giving up debate (or whatever you pretended to do here) because you're above it. Riiiight.


I've actually competed in national tournaments, myself; my partner and I were the only ones to beat the otherwise undefeated winners. I'm up for debating. Especially against such a pushover.

I've actually competed in national tournaments, myself; my partner and I were the only ones to beat the otherwise undefeated winners. I'm up for debating. Especially against such a pushover.

I'm a tournament debater too, and while I haven't read all your posts (and so can't judge your arguments), I will point out that the tournaments I've been in give points to style as well as substance, and you can win without having the strongest arguments.

This isn't a reflection on your arguments or the position you are defending. I simply thought this was something worth pointing out in general.

I've had both stocks and policy judges. I prefer stocks; for my league, Tab Ras is pretty much the norm (every debate is Tabula Rasa, with the judges deciding stock or policy); but I love laying the burden of bodies on a policy judge by saying ALTERNATIVE ENERGY --> NUCLEAR WAR!!!1!

Of course, there's a few more arguments in there.

I'm at York University in Toronto, and before that high school on Canadian West Coast. I've largely used Canadian or British Parlimentary style the last few years.

Bah, traditional styles. As a high school student, I can't say I've had experience with 'em. Closest thing to it was Lincoln-Douglas debates. Nah... I'm good...

BUT... let's see if Turaan wants to have a go with me, eh?

EDIT: BTW, I'm a 'Merican. XD

Technology has had a way in recent times of develloping faster than people expected. Of course, that's only because some people actually tried to develope it, instead of assuming we were stuck with what we had. But by all means, lets accept your defeatism and the stagnation of human civilization.:rolleyes:

Nevermind that I did provide examples of technical advances that bring mass resource extraction closer to reality. So is this a reading comprehension problem, or an honesty problem?

Nope. It's an "it hasn't happened and won't happen until it becomes economically feasible" problem. Tons of rock in space. Ships not remotely capable of ferrying tons of anything back to Earth. Problem. Problem not looking at being solved in 100 years, probably not even 200.

:upyours: This deserves no more subtle or involved response.

I expected no better. Tell me, where was my direct insult to you?

Listen carefully, because I'm not going to say this again. I never said NASA's blunders were purely PR related. They've done a horrible job at marketing themselves, but they've also managed to make some technical errors. Of course, one example of a technical error (which I've never even heard of, so source please) is not proof of a government agency's complete worthlessness. But I suppose we should have disbanded the army the first time their was a friendly fire incident too.

You didn't hear about the Mars mission that failed utterly because of a meters/feet discrepancy? Dude, COMEDIANS did bit about that shit. Where were you? Oh, very well.

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric/

Little progress has been made, in no small part because of uninformed and/or willfully ignorant attitudes like yours.

That's rich. It's MY fault. Nothing even theoretical gets the mining results from an asteroid back to Earth.

I gave significantly more attention to the Ion drive than to the solar sail. Want to take a stab at refuting my main points, rather than taking potshots and making nitpicks?

Why bother? The ion drive sinks itself. Weight. EDIT: Or rather, mass.

:upyours: Insults will be responded to in kind.

Except there was no insult in the post you responded to with this. I can't imagine why you're so upset.

We had plans to reach Mars in the 80's, undone by people as short-sighted as you.

Again, MY fault. Laughable. If long-sighted people like you can't sell it well, how is that my fault?

Let me ask you a question? Have you read a single essay or book by a qualified engineer on the feasibility of any of this that was published in the last 20 years? I have.

Good for you. But why should I, as an ordinary citizen, have to wade through a technical manual in order to understand EXACTLY why something is just not going to happen rather than looking purely at the base, observable physics and shaking my head?

True - but that is quite irrelevant. Almost all significant human progress has been the byproduct of fundamental and not of targeted "ooh, let us make things better for others" research. Electricity, the internet, penicillin... byproducts of curiosity.

Fair enough, and correct on all counts. However, we don't live in the era where curiosity can be funded by royalty looking for a way to outdo other royalty in terms of accomplishments of their courts and citizenry. We live in a world where serious world-affecting problems are present and unaccounted for and getting worse. Convincing a starving world that going to Mars or mining the moon is somehow going to feed them is a class-A bitch of a sell.

We do not know what space exploration may bring us. But since it has brought us velcro, satellites, better alloys, superior solar panels and so on it seems worth to sit back and see. Especially since it is so bloody cheap when compared to e.g. warfare ;) Resources would just be a nice bonus.

We do know what it will not bring us. Sustainable food and fuel capacity for a growing population, and stopping or reversal of environmental degradation due to said growth and other functions of human greed.

Look, I agree with everyone here that space exploration and development is beyond nifty. Like I said, I was a fan until the report on Challenger was released. When my government's response was to ride the shuttle until it killed more astronauts and the results of the winning X-prize design have so far gone nowhere, I begin to lose even more faith.

No idea. One option could be through low intensity MASER.

Interesting. How much loss would be experienced in a 250,000-mile energy transfer via MASER? Any environmental effects?

This on the other hand is completely idiotic response.

Not the way to convince someone, but hey, it's your argument. I am merely playing the role of the average citizen skeptic. Honest-to-Pythagoras die-hard skeptics are actually in control of the budgetary process for stuff like this. You can't win me, you can't win shit. So you can continue being petulant, or you can try to explain why it matters in a way that's something more than "we'll invent stuff!"

Should we stop, for example, searching for new oil deposits because the infrastructure - oilwells & platrofms, pipes - don't exist now? Perhaps we should stop research altogether as well...the infrastructure for commercializing new products doesn't exist so we might as well stop inventing new techonolgies & products. :rolleyes:

Uh...oil wells and platforms DO exist now. NECESSITY is the mother of invention. I've not seen much made for the case of necessity of space exploration. Only the potential for new gadgetry and technology. Okay, so, neat and all, but a necessity in and of itself? That's like saying the microwave oven, a byproduct of space research, was itself the necessity that drove invention.

Besides, consider the magnitude of spending: The countries are currently throwing trillions of dollars into saving banking systems and double that into warfare - technology for killing other people - while with similar investment those very same countries could solve the energy crisis within few decades and at the same time preserve humanity from planetary disaster and ultimately open up (near) infinite resources for mankind to use.

I completely agree! So where does drilling asteroids get us world peace? Something must fundamentally change the way humanity sees it's home before we can unite to explore other places and take care of the one home we have. Barring E.T. -- and I do secretly hope for some kind of Contact-style deus ex machina to focus humanity on not killing one another -- I don't see how merely extending human greed into space saves the planet and its inhabitants from killing one another.

Again, the resources you're referring to haven't got even a hint of a prayer of getting to where they're needed with the technology that's even on today's drawing boards. Consider what we mine on Earth and try to replace that with asteroid mining when considering propulsion, habitation, cargo capacity, logistics and all the other problems associated with mining in space. 100 years? Pipe dream. 200-300.

Basically you're just saying "Nuh-uh" to our arguments anyway, so why bother answering with anything else?

Honestly, Intangelon, I am disappointed.

So you just saying "yuh-HUH" is any better? I don't give a shit about your disappointment -- I care about someone pointing out to me how all these benefits magically appear when there's no real goal being stated. LET'S GO TO MARS! Okay, why? BECAUSE! RESOURCES! Okay, how do we-- RESOURCES!!!

Not a very convincing argument, I'm afraid. And if you can't convince someone like me, who is only mildly pragmatic and a huge sci-fi fan, how on Earth are you going to convince people who are in control of national budgets for stuff like this? People who are concerned about re-election are not going to be able to take anything concrete to their constituents, and their opponents are going to castigate them for wasting taxpayer money.

Do I agree with that whole mess? HELL NO. However, I've done my time as a space exploration fan, and I'm tired of it. Too much sky, not enough pie (sounds like a job for LG).

Nope. It's an "it hasn't happened and won't happen until it becomes economically feasible" problem. Tons of rock in space. Ships not remotely capable of ferrying tons of anything back to Earth. Problem. Problem not looking at being solved in 100 years, probably not even 200.

I don't know about the actual extraction, but we can get their easy. And we can build ships for the job. Lower orbital launch costs (which I've already explained), and you can construct ships in orbit to ferry this stuff. Powered by fuel-efficient Ion drives.

I expected no better. Tell me, where was my direct insult to you?

Describing my arguments as "high" and "pipedreams", if I am correctly recalling your choice of words.

You didn't hear about the Mars mission that failed utterly because of a meters/feet discrepancy? Dude, COMEDIANS did bit about that shit. Where were you? Oh, very well.

No, I didn't. And I watch Stewart, Colbert, and CNN most nights. When was this?

That's rich. It's MY fault. Nothing even theoretical gets the mining results from an asteroid back to Earth.

I ask again, do you have anything to back this up? Have you read one serious essay or book by a qualified professional on this? I have. So that you don't ask me for sources, I will refer you to Entering Space by Robert Zubrin. It lays out pretty near the same argument as I am trying to put forward, and is written by a professional aerospace engineer. I also found it fairly comprehensable, and I took no math beyond Grade 11 level. Read it, or something comparable, before you mock my knowledge on this subject.

Why bother? The ion drive sinks itself. Weight. EDIT: Or rather, mass.

Wrong. Proven, field-tested technology.

Except there was no insult in the post you responded to with this. I can't imagine why you're so upset.

We've been over this.

Again, MY fault. Laughable. If long-sighted people like you can't sell it well, how is that my fault?

If you have thrown up an impeneratable mental barrier, how's that my fault?

Seriously, I was referring to politicians with a similar lack of forsight, and specifically Richard Nixon, who dealt severe damage to NASA's plans.

Good for you. But why should I, as an ordinary citizen, have to wade through a technical manual in order to understand EXACTLY why something is just not going to happen rather than looking purely at the base, observable physics and shaking my head?

:D:D:D

"I don't need to do research! I'm right because its obvious." Of course, this attitude is not suprising given you don't even know what an Ion drive is, yet are trying to debate this subject.

Are you by any chance a fan of "Creation Science?"

Seriously, just take some time to actually get to know the subject. If you're wrong, you'll have learned something. If you're right, you'll argue it better next time. Win/win. I can give you a list of sources that will give you more information, better presented, than I can hope to match.

No, I didn't. And I watch Stewart, Colbert, and CNN most nights. When was this?

I think this is what he's talking about:

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/

That's one hell of a miscommunication, though I ask why one error due to incompitance has any bearing on the intrinsic worth of the space program, or indeed NASA as an agency.

Its not like other programs and organizations are without past mistakes. Do I actually need to do a search for "friendly fire incidents", and then link? We don't shut down an agency because of some stupid miscommunication. We just fire the idiots responsible.

That's one hell of a miscommunication, though I ask why one error due to incompitance has any bearing on the intrinsic worth of the space program, or indeed NASA as an agency.

Its not like other programs and organizations are without past mistakes. Do I actually need to do a search for "friendly fire incidents", and then link? We don't shut down an agency because of some stupid miscommunication. We just fire the idiots responsible.

Yeah, 'cause the fog of war is comparable to exploring space. How many engineers had to make their metric/English unit decision under fire? Come on.

You can get to an asteroid. Great. Ion drive is field tested. You don't say where, but hell, I'll believe you. How are you getting the material back to Earth? I'm not mocking your knowledge, I'm pointing out that you haven't any. You've theory. Impressive and spectacular speculation. Lift something with it. Anything. Now get thee to an asteroid, MINE it (you haven't mentioned a thing about how THAT works in zero-G), load the ship with enough ore to make the trip profitable, and get it safely down to the Earth's surface.

You can't. Not in this century, and I'll wager not the next. Meanwhile, people starving and killing each other. Forgive me for failing to see how more of the drawing board for mining Eros is going to fix that.

No, I didn't. And I watch Stewart, Colbert, and CNN most nights. When was this?

Missed the link, did you? Post 159.

Your talking about a Mars probe that is practically remote controlled and relies on a very careful plan because it can barely steer itself in the right direction.

A man made vessel would be able to move into position and if they have created the technology to move through space I see no reason. Mining resources for profit if done on a huge scale could in fact help Earth because the extra resources could force inflation down.

Like I said you start small with these things, start with the Moon and then after we get a feel for what is needed to develop such bases/colonies we can decide if we go further or wait a few more decades.

I am not saying i am a expert, most of my research on the subject was done over the last 2 years and i am only 18 but I think this is something worth working hard for.

Just saying 'it is to hard so lets not even try' just does not cut it.

Yeah, 'cause the fog of war is comparable to exploring space. How many engineers had to make their metric/English unit decision under fire? Come on.

Which doesn't change my point. My point is that one act of staggering incompetance is not grounds to elliminate an agency, much less declare an entire area of human effort to not be worthwhile.

Screw ups happen. Unless you can show that their are a disproportionate number of such screw ups, I'm not sure what your point is.

You can get to an asteroid. Great. Ion drive is field tested. You don't say where, but hell, I'll believe you.

Google "Deep Space One." Unless my memory's off, that was the name of the first Ion drive-propelled probe.

How are you getting the material back to Earth? I'm not mocking your knowledge, I'm pointing out that you haven't any. You've theory. Impressive and spectacular speculation. Lift something with it. Anything. Now get thee to an asteroid, MINE it (you haven't mentioned a thing about how THAT works in zero-G), load the ship with enough ore to make the trip profitable, and get it safely down to the Earth's surface.

I believe I have made more effort to demonstrate knowledge of the subject than you have. But of course, you don't need to research.:D I have given examples. I have sited sources. Better than you, I warrant.

You can't. Not in this century, and I'll wager not the next. Meanwhile, people starving and killing each other. Forgive me for failing to see how more of the drawing board for mining Eros is going to fix that.

First, you can do both. Second, fixing the short term problems does just that: deal with things in the short term. We also need to work on long term developement, because we'll need it someday, it does take time, and it isn't going to happen on its own. Third, their are a multitude of reasons to go to space in addition to resources.

Missed the link, did you? Post 159.

Oh stop gloating.:rolleyes: If you keep this up, I will post a poll asking how many other people have ever heard of this. It's not exactly common knowledge. And if I miss one part of one post out of dozens, that doesn't make you right.

Yeah, 'cause the fog of war is comparable to exploring space. How many engineers had to make their metric/English unit decision under fire? Come on.

Doesn't have to be fog of war. Civil engineering will do nicely. Sinkholes for example. Or the British Millennium Bridge that swayed like a cradle on the opening day. Should we sack all engineers who did work on bridges then?

Mistakes happen. Some big, some small. The only reason why mistakes in space research get such big news is because they usually result in something going silent, or big fireballs.


You can get to an asteroid. Great. Ion drive is field tested. You don't say where, but hell, I'll believe you.


Here is a listing of missions done using ion drives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_drive#Missions


Now get thee to an asteroid, MINE it (you haven't mentioned a thing about how THAT works in zero-G), load the ship with enough ore to make the trip profitable, and get it safely down to the Earth's surface.

Easier to drop an ion engine on an asteroid, anchor it, and push it back to low Earth orbit.

Ion engines are very long lasting, but have poor, albeit efficient, acceleration. Good for long term missions if you don't mine the wait. How long depends on the size of the drive.

Orion drives on the other hand, might be a good use of peaceful nuclear weapons as propellant. Much faster than chemical rockets in any case.

Just saying 'it is to hard so lets not even try' just does not cut it.

Hell yes.

I'll admit that a lot of the potential benefits are uncertain and far off. For some, at least, their may be other ways to reach them. But some things we can only gain from space. Protection from asteroid impacts. New worlds for our species to survive and develope on. Perhaps a chance to study life from another world, with all the insights into the nature of life that such a discovery might bring.

One day, we will need an infrastructure beyond our world. And if we wait until the need is desperate, it may be too late. When did we decide to turn from something because it was hard? To put it bluntly, when did humanity's balls drop off?

What's worse is that a lot of the main arguments I'm seeing here are about lack of existing infrastructure, not feasibility. Essentially, we are being told that "we shouldn't build the infrastructure because the infrastructure doesn't exist yet." If that kind of thinking had always held sway, where would we be today?

Need to cross that river? We can't swim it, so we should just sit here. But then we'd never have invented boats.

Need a stable source of food? Well, clearing trees to farm the land will be difficult, so we shouldn't do it.

Need to get a message around the world? We didn't know how to do that. But some people experimented, solved the technical problems, layed the telegraph cables. Again and again, its the same story.

The argument we're seeing here ignores both history and nescesity. Put in a historical context, it is completely illogical and fundimentally broken.

Exactly the benefits are far off and it will take about decades or maybe centuries to get something back for the effort. Thing is the payoff will makeup for it, sure we want something we will see in our lifetime but sadly that will not happen here, it will take time and effort but like anything as I and RR said that is simply how things work in the real world.

Like I said earlier trying to solve things like poverty or resource shortage by simply throwing money at the problem will not make it go away. If we do increase the resources we had then we can put it towards Infrastructure and then make it shared as equally as possible by making it the responsibility of a organization like the UN.

Space Exploration is a Long-lasting solution to our problems and that should be motivation enough.

Space Exploration is a Long-lasting solution to our problems and that should be motivation enough.
The problem being poor quarterly profits....


If your motivation is profit the next quarter, space is not the answer.

Ye, it's the orbital solar power plant issue. There's a really good reason why it hasn't been made yet.

Transport energy using what? The article suggests microwaves. A 20TW microwave beam. How are you going to collect and harness that without frying anything you don't want to? I leave this question open for the proponents to answer.
The intensity of the beam is actually quite low.

http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/views/v7i28_kumar.html
Two general concepts have been proposed for delivering solar power to Earth from space. In one, Peter Glaser of Arthur D. Little, Inc. (Cambridge, MA), proposed in 1968 that a huge satellite in geosynchronous orbit around Earth could dependably gather solar power in space. In the second concept figure (1), discussed here, solar power would be collected on the moon. In both ideas, many different beams of 12cm wavelength microwaves would deliver power to receivers at sites located worldwide. Each receiver would supply commercial power to a given region. Such a receiver, called a rectenna, would consist of a large field of small rectifying antennas. A beam with a maximum intensity of less than 20% of noontime sunlight would deliver about 200 W to its local electric grid for every square meter of rectenna area.

Unlike sunlight, microwaves pass through rain, clouds, dust, and smoke. In both scenarios, power can be supplied to the rectenna at night Several thousand individual rectennas strategically located around the globe, with a total area of 100,000 km2, could continuously provide the 20 TW of electric power, or 2 kW per person, required for a prosperous world of 10 billion people in 2050. This surface area is 5% of the surface area that would be needed on Earth to generate 20 TW using the most advanced terrestrial solar-array technology of similar average capacity now envisioned. Rectennas are projected to cost approximately $0.004/kWeoh,


The problem with application is two-fold:
- Opposition by anti-nuclear, EM paranoid neanderthals
- Possible use as a weapon if one could concentrate the beam

Here's a thought: solar power plants in the Sahara. What say you?
Brilliant solution.

We could even use hydrogen as a method of transporting energy from Africa to across the globe.

The problem is almost the same as with space energy: High investment, slow return - With one significant difference: You're giving control of your energy supply to a third country.

Also, because electricity production industry is market driven, increasing supply faster than demand will reduce profits in the long run. Hence there's very little incentive to produce excess power generation capability and it's simply better - from market perspective - to build relatively small units with existing technology instead of obsoleting your coal plants overnight.

If there was will we could offer everyone practically free and clean energy within few decades.

m*g*h is the absolute minimum of energy you need, assuming that your method is frictionless, etc. That's what I meant
This is misleading to the extreme when you use that as an opposition to space lift (which I do think is a silly notion) vs. rockets.

The reason for this is that the PAYLOAD (to LEO) of, for example, space shuttle is 24,000 kg while the take off weight is 2 MILLION KG. This gives us payload to weight ratio of around 1-2%

*IF* we had alternative method of transport which wouldn't have to rely on ONBOARD fuel the payload to weight ratio could be 80-90% and we could produce the energy with what ever means gives the biggest efficiency.

For example, with a medium sized nuclear power plant (1500 megawatts with 2/3 lifting efficiency) powering a space lift we could haul around 600,000 tonnes (http://www.google.com/search?q=year%2F%28%28%28%28G%2A%285.9742%2A10%5E24+kg%29%2F+6378km%29+-+%28G%2A%285.9742%2A10%5E24+kg%29%2F35786km%29%29%29%2F%281000+MW%29%29+in+tonnes&lr=) (same amount of payload as ~30,000 shuttle launches) of material to geo-synchronous orbit per annum. For comparison space shuttle can't even reach geostationary orbit while it's engines produce wee bit over 13 gigawatts of power and the total amount space junk we've managed to launch (mostly to LEO, not GEO) in 5 or so decades of rocketry totals to around 2000 tonnes (source: googling)

Not the way to convince someone, but hey, it's your argument. I am merely playing the role of the average citizen skeptic. Honest-to-Pythagoras die-hard skeptics are actually in control of the budgetary process for stuff like this. You can't win me, you can't win shit. So you can continue being petulant, or you can try to explain why it matters in a way that's something more than "we'll invent stuff!"
It was a relfex response to a preposterous - to me - supposition. It shouldn't be taken out of context! wail! ;)

Uh...oil wells and platforms DO exist now.
New platforms or pipelines do not. There's STILL need for new infrastructure in order to take benefit from new finds and deposits

NECESSITY is the mother of invention.
Necessity is RARELY the mother of invention. We don't, for example, need electricity or combustion engine in the first place.

I completely agree! So where does drilling asteroids get us world peace? I don't see how merely extending human greed into space saves the planet and its inhabitants from killing one another.
Ultimately? Well, the furthest reaching utopia is that we can afford to produce everything for everyone, the Marxist paradise.

In space resources are for all intents and purposes infinite.

However, there's the minor but, that doesn't remove the fact that in Earth the space is limited.
Again, the resources you're referring to haven't got even a hint of a prayer of getting to where they're needed with the technology that's even on today's drawing boards. Consider what we mine on Earth and try to replace that with asteroid mining when considering propulsion, habitation, cargo capacity, logistics and all the other problems associated with mining in space. 100 years?
We could do a lot of things with our current technology, like for example provide space energy for everyone within two to five decades.

The problem is twofold:
1. Greed: We rather spend money on weapons to protect what little we have instead of spending it on gaining more in the long - decades, centuries - run.
2. Fear: We, collectively, are afraid of the new.

Oh stop gloating.:rolleyes: If you keep this up, I will post a poll asking how many other people have ever heard of this. It's not exactly common knowledge. And if I miss one part of one post out of dozens, that doesn't make you right.

Oh, so you can be snarky, but I can't? It was common enough knowledge for Robin Williams, a decidedly mainstream comedian, to include a bit about it in his 2002 Broadway stand-up show. It isn't my fault if you weren't paying attention to something about which you brag about being very well-read.

Which doesn't change my point. My point is that one act of staggering incompetance is not grounds to elliminate an agency, much less declare an entire area of human effort to not be worthwhile.

Screw ups happen. Unless you can show that their are a disproportionate number of such screw ups, I'm not sure what your point is.

Morton Thiokol calls up NASA in 1986 and tells them the O-rings on the shuttle boosters will fail at the temperatures they're launching at. ICE IS ALL OVER THE PLATFORM. Hubble telescope. Foam insulation falling off the main fuel tank punctures Columbia's wing. Apparently in that case, NASA forgot f=mv.

Google "Deep Space One." Unless my memory's off, that was the name of the first Ion drive-propelled probe.

That's very encouraging. One example. What can it move of any significant mass?

I believe I have made more effort to demonstrate knowledge of the subject than you have. But of course, you don't need to research.:D I have given examples. I have sited sources. Better than you, I warrant.

:rolleyes: Whatever makes you feel better about yourself. The link above is the first proof of your so-called superiority in study, and that took you how many posts to put up? Get off your high horse and defend your high-minded topic or admit that all your research doesn't mean squat.

First, you can do both. Second, fixing the short term problems does just that: deal with things in the short term. We also need to work on long term developement, because we'll need it someday, it does take time, and it isn't going to happen on its own. Third, their are a multitude of reasons to go to space in addition to resources.

And yet you don't seem compelled enough by this "multitude" to list any.

Doesn't have to be fog of war. Civil engineering will do nicely. Sinkholes for example. Or the British Millennium Bridge that swayed like a cradle on the opening day. Should we sack all engineers who did work on bridges then?

Mistakes happen. Some big, some small. The only reason why mistakes in space research get such big news is because they usually result in something going silent, or big fireballs.[quote]

Ah, the voice of reason. Thank you. That makes more sense than I KNOW MORE THAN YOU, BLAAAAH!

[QUOTE]Here is a listing of missions done using ion drives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_drive#Missions

A LINK!! Thank you!!

Easier to drop an ion engine on an asteroid, anchor it, and push it back to low Earth orbit.

Now that makes some sense. See how easy this was, Romulan Republic?

Ion engines are very long lasting, but have poor, albeit efficient, acceleration. Good for long term missions if you don't mine the wait. How long depends on the size of the drive.

Orion drives on the other hand, might be a good use of peaceful nuclear weapons as propellant. Much faster than chemical rockets in any case.

Got any links to what makes you understand the Orion drive?

Oh, so you can be snarky, but I can't? It was common enough knowledge for Robin Williams, a decidedly mainstream comedian, to include a bit about it in his 2002 Broadway stand-up show. It isn't my fault if you weren't paying attention to something about which you brag about being very well-read.

Does it occur to you that I was 12-13 in 2002, that watching the comics does not count as being well-read on this subject, and that furthermore, none of this answers my question as to why we this error has any bearing on the ultimate value of the space program?

Morton Thiokol calls up NASA in 1986 and tells them the O-rings on the shuttle boosters will fail at the temperatures they're launching at. ICE IS ALL OVER THE PLATFORM. Hubble telescope. Foam insulation falling off the main fuel tank punctures Columbia's wing. Apparently in that case, NASA forgot f=mv.

Yes, NASA has has a lot of fuckups. Which in no way is an argument against space exploration. At worst, it is an argument against NASA. Indeed, if these mistakes are so obvious, that would suggest that they were due specifically to the incompetance of the people in place at the time, and not any risks or flaws inherent in the concept of space travel. Or did it not occure to you that "space travel" is not synonimous with "NASA."

That's very encouraging. One example. What can it move of any significant mass?

As far as I am aware, the concept could be applied to larger craft. The point of Ion drives is that they have a high top speed while being very fuel efficient. The drawback is slow excelleration.

:rolleyes: Whatever makes you feel better about yourself. The link above is the first proof of your so-called superiority in study, and that took you how many posts to put up? Get off your high horse and defend your high-minded topic or admit that all your research doesn't mean squat.

I'll admit I haven't been as good at providing specifics and sources as I should have been. Not because they aren't their, however. Unlike some people, I don't rely purely on the internet for research. A lot of my information comes from books and television, which is rather hard to link to.

Here are some sources:

Books: The Case for Mars and Entering Space, by Robert Zubrin

Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reusable_launch_system

The above link is on reusable launch systems, and includes information on scram jet technology (fuels itself by taking in air as it takes off).

A link on ion drives has already been provided, but if that is insufficient, I will post another later.


And yet you don't seem compelled enough by this "multitude" to list any.

I just did. I'll post more as nessissary. I'll admit I may have made a mistake by not providing sources immediately, but since you asked, be sure I am able to provide them.

Ah, the voice of reason. Thank you. That makes more sense than I KNOW MORE THAN YOU, BLAAAAH!

A LINK!! Thank you!!

Now that makes some sense. See how easy this was, Romulan Republic?

As I said, I was a little short on sources, which was probably an error. But, I didn't see you sprouting links left and right. In fact, your attitude was more "why should I take the time to research." So take your self-righteousness and :upyours:

Got any links to what makes you understand the Orion drive?

Though this was not adressed to me, I'll try to find a link. However, you might consider the value of learning something about this subject besides what you heard on a comedy show.

Remember the equation, dude: science fiction + time = science fact. People thought, sixty years ago, that fitting a computer into a room was a massive success, and as much as they'd ever achieve with the technology.
That equation sounds like bollocks. It would mean that fantasy's the limit, as opposed to natural limits set by the laws of physics. Research is there to discover uncharted areas of science and its applications. For example, the rule that nothing of mass can be accelerated to light speed without spending an infinite amount of energy is FACT, despite FTL travel being common in sci-fi. Science fiction is simply entertainment.

The terraforming of Mars is a process that would take about a century, minimum. We'd basically put factories on Mars with the express purpose of giving off ozone, CO2, and other waste atmospheric gases. Within a hundred years, the atmosphere is thick enough that you need but a helmet and air tank to go outside. The people living on Mars are expected to adapt over the generations to the atmospheric difference and gravity difference.
Okay, again: Martian atmosphere is almost entirely CO2. There's no need to add more of that. The trick would be to generate oxygen and nitrogen. Though the "basically put factories on Mars" idea is a nice prospect to look forward to, I seriously doubt that there would be any financial or material possibility to "put factories on Mars"... "basically". Not to mention maintaining them for a century (see sand-storms on Mars). - Then again, the atmosphere is a tiny little problem compared to the lack of a magnetosphere to deflect solar wind and the distance to the Sun. Producing gases might seem easy enough to you to dismiss it in a sentence, probably because that's what we're doing right now on Earth (though you might see the difference between terraforming a planet to suit human life and nigh-uncontrollably warming up our own with waste). But how do you plan to generate a magnetic field? Stir up the core? Will it take a century?

Fundamental contextual problem here. Your given precedent assumes that we had a technology that was superior under our noses, and refused to use it out of ignorance. To be frank, we know that fission, fusion, Hydrogen fuel cells, and every alternative energy in the book is better than oil. We choose not to change because everything we have is built around it. Go ahead, convert a billion American cars into hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. That is, in a cheap and efficient way.
Exactly, we've got everything built around it; like ancient Europeans had it with bronze. It's a matter of convenience and cost not to convert now, but it will be a matter of need to convert it as soon as oil gets sparse. No doubt, it will surely cost a lot of money. But considerable damage will mostly be reserved for the stubborn.
As soon as there'll be no oil to make profit of, it'll be the motor companies themselves that'll bring forth alternative ways to power your car. One day, oil prices will rise above the prices of alternative energy sources, demand for these alternative sources will increase and their prices will drop. It'll be a hard transition for Americans I imagine, but you're already facing the consequences of ignoring new environmental standards and pouring out new batches of gas-chugging inefficient vehicles. Those with an eye on profit will notice the dwindling of oil soon enough to make transition profitable for them. The hammer will fall on the non-adaptive.

Wow, that's a real mature argument. You know, and you wonder why people got pissed over your Uncyclopedia bullshit.
Cheap effort to support a flame I was throwing right back at the flamer. If you'd know what you were talking about, you'd see that the only person who got "pissed off" admitted to simply not understanding its humour (in a civilised way to that). Did N-A-S come to you crying because he stopped being able to assemble the psychic energy to ward off this violent breach into his fantasy-world? You'd do a better job supporting his idiocy if you didn't commit the same mistakes he did. But suit yourself.

What we get out of 'colonising [sic] Mars' is somewhere to retreat, so to speak, when the world's supplies fail. And no, I'm not talking anywhere in the next 5 generations, or maybe 50. One day, though, your great-great (48 times removed) grandchildren will be laughing at you as they board the shuttle to Mars. Oil arguments done upstairs.
Did the cards tell you that? Or the crystal ball? And what happened to the "century" it would take to colonise Mars? Forget your progeny, I'm laughing at you right now.

You egocentric ass. This explains many of your fantasy utopian views.
I never thought the truth hurted so much. I take it as a compliment that my well-being makes you frustrated.

Dude, do you understand shit about plants? Wheat can be neither grown on savannas nor in deserts. It's not a question of space. The 'bread basket' of Africa produces a pittance compared to, say, the Great Plains of the U.S.
First, Zimbabwe is in the TROPICS. Are you trying this hard to be ignorant?
Second, Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe USED TO be called the bread basket of Africa, due to its efficient and modern food production (who would've guessed). The farming infrastructure is now destroyed by Mugabe's reforms.

Whereas you simply repeat the same bullshit points incessantly, and hope no one notices.
Never did you or N-A-S point out any of my arguments as being "bullshit" using viable counter-arguments. What you tried/try to do is negating it with real bullshit, with no sources and completely pulled out of your ass. Such as Zimbabwe being climatically unable to produce food, since it's in the subtropics - only because you say so.

Oh, hey, I explain how it works in my first section! :headbang:
Yea, using factories for a century to produce CO2 among others. That's how it works, eh? You show 'em.

But your arguments from incredulity... "we would never ever be able to pull that sort of thing off on Mars." Oh, okay. Guess you know all things. "Give me one example of applied terraforming with present technology." Go back to 1952 and ask them for an example of a laptop computer.
It's your kind of people that thought we'd be having flying cars and robot servants by 2000. I probably wouldn't enjoy your disappointment if you weren't this bloody sure that sci-fi is turning reality.

Oh, terraforming is a dead subject? And I just came up with the facts you strove for! That's all right, the rules of debate say that if your opponent extends an argument, it remains on the flow.
Do these rules of debate say if you pull the most ridiculous assortment of bullshit out of your ass and call it a fact several times, you'll get a medal of self-ownage as well?
Keep those "facts" coming, the factory part made me smirk, but the Zimbabwe part made me LOL.

This is a targeted section that I can't answer.
You pretended to be able to answer another targeted section - and failed at it (Uncyclopedia reference). Why not this time?

The He-harvesting thing was just an example. Way to dwell on it.
Careful there, discarding your own arguments might seem disadvantageous, considering that you're at the end of your own list.

Dude, your first two fucking sentences (NVM the sarcastic one) are contradictions. You can't dismiss spin-offs! They are a yield! Goddamn, dude, you don't have to set out to research something in order for it to be viable.
Let me explain a tiny detail: spin-offs are completely different applications of the technology they were supposedly ("supposedly" referring to the case of spacefaring - as many spin-offs claimed by N-A-S to be descending from space research are actually not) intended for. It's not the research that yielded nothing, it's the space exploration itself. It's like trying to use a customized knife to drill holes into rocks, seeing that it's futile, then throwing it away, only to be used by someone else to cut ropes. It doesn't mean that he'd never be able to cut a rope without the most important research of knives drilling holes into rocks. Absolutely no yield refers to absolutely nothing useful coming from the field of intended results.
AND: As for the spin-offs, I've stated in a previous post already that most so-called spin-offs of space exploration (such as microprocessors) would've developed anyway, even if spacefaring never existed. That was the post after which N-A-S gave up answering. The only mistake in my logic is that there actually IS a spin-off to which space exploration was vital: the teflon frying pan. I give you that.

Great. Let me know how harvesting molten iron from the core goes. There is a limit downward; there is none upwards.
We're nowhere near the core yet, not even a tiny bit close, and definately not as deep as to warrant panic-attacks about running out of iron.

I've actually competed in national tournaments, myself; my partner and I were the only ones to beat the otherwise undefeated winners. I'm up for debating. Especially against such a pushover.
I don't know if your definition of debating includes hilarious distortions and reinventions of reality, but it's definately entertaining. Maybe the cheapest sort of boomerang insults, thrown with a pathetic lack of accuracy gave you points at such tournaments, but an obvious ignorance of all things previously posted, laws of science, historical and geographical facts does not make you king of any debate. Perhaps that's why you chose to brag with something like tournaments and beating undefeated winners (sort of a redundance, don't you think? Or a contradiction?). Seeing how you managed to make a fool of yourself in only one post, I seriously doubt anyone would've assumed such achievements based solely on how you behave here. Dude.

Does it occur to you that I was 12-13 in 2002, that watching the comics does not count as being well-read on this subject, and that furthermore, none of this answers my question as to why we this error has any bearing on the ultimate value of the space program?

That explains a lot, actually. Your insistence that I go do research when you're the one making the extravagant claims, not knowing about current events from four years ago. It didn't occur to me because you never mentioned it. You might look into that before trying to beat someone else up for not knowing how old you are.

Yes, NASA has has a lot of fuckups. Which in no way is an argument against space exploration. At worst, it is an argument against NASA. Indeed, if these mistakes are so obvious, that would suggest that they were due specifically to the incompetance of the people in place at the time, and not any risks or flaws inherent in the concept of space travel. Or did it not occure to you that "space travel" is not synonimous with "NASA."

Fair enough. The US news is far less likely to report on ESA mistakes, and even less likely to have even heard of Russian or Chinese errors because of censorship on the part of those nations.

Risks of space travel are insanely high, apart from the constant vacuum to resist. Radiation, debris, all kinds of practical things we can't account for in places we've not yet been. Add to that the erring nature of humanity, and it gets very expensive.

As far as I am aware, the concept could be applied to larger craft. The point of Ion drives is that they have a high top speed while being very fuel efficient. The drawback is slow excelleration.

"Acceleration". I wouldn't normally point out such errors, but since you've now flipped me off three times when I've shown no such disrespect for you, I thought I'd throw that in. It seems odd that someone so well-read could misspell a word that must be very common in texts on space travel.

I'll admit I haven't been as good at providing specifics and sources as I should have been. Not because they aren't their, however. Unlike some people, I don't rely purely on the internet for research. A lot of my information comes from books and television, which is rather hard to link to.

Here are some sources:

Books: The Case for Mars and Entering Space, by Robert Zubrin

Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reusable_launch_system

The above link is on reusable launch systems, and includes information on scram jet technology (fuels itself by taking in air as it takes off).

A link on ion drives has already been provided, but if that is insufficient, I will post another later.

THANK YOU! See? That wasn't hard, was it? If you're making claims, the burden of proof is yours. Thank you again.

I just did. I'll post more as nessissary. I'll admit I may have made a mistake by not providing sources immediately, but since you asked, be sure I am able to provide them.

And I thank you once again. They were most helpful.

As I said, I was a little short on sources, which was probably an error. But, I didn't see you sprouting links left and right. In fact, your attitude was more "why should I take the time to research." So take your self-righteousness and :upyours:

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm asking all of you space cadets to back up your magical asserions of bountiful and exploitable resources from space. So far I've seen a lot of fascinating ifs and very little concrete evidence combined with a "how dare you question me" attitude that I find difficult to understand. You're asking a planet under siege from within to look without for a solution that is only theoretical. That's asking a lot, and I'm trying to get you to put your dreams in terms someone decidedly more Earthbound than you can actually understand and might even be willing to fund, given the opportunity to vote on it.

Though this was not adressed to me, I'll try to find a link. However, you might consider the value of learning something about this subject besides what you heard on a comedy show.

Junior, you keep using that to imlpy that this is the only way I know about it. You need to learn what AN EXAMPLE is. I used the fact that it was the subject of a mainstream comedy bit to show you that it was most definitely in the news, okay? That's not where I first heard it. I first heard it on NPR, and specifically, Talk of the Nation's Science Friday with Ira Plato. It's a good show where NPR brings in science and technology experts and they answer calls from people like me who don't have the time to read through weighty tomes on space travel.

I'm glad you have the spare time to educate yourself on such a high-level and high-minded subject. At 18 or thereabouts, you've only begun to get serious demands on your time that make reading for leisure something far more difficult for someone with a career. Enjoy your spare time while you have it, and remember, the world is not populated by folks exactly like you.

The intensity of the beam is actually quite low. ...
Ah okay. Good point, I'd support that.

The problem with application is two-fold:
- Opposition by anti-nuclear, EM paranoid neanderthals
- Possible use as a weapon if one could concentrate the beam
There'll be a weapon long before the first concept of an actual power plant is made. Count on that, it's nothing new.

The problem is almost the same as with space energy: High investment, slow return - With one significant difference: You're giving control of your energy supply to a third country.
There are several Saharan countries, most of them would even be highly cooperative if given their fair share of the profits. I don't see that as such a huge roadblock. Plus, if we'd ever have to rely on Saharan solar power as we now do on oil, I bet there will be a world police-playing superpower eager to liberate a country or two.

Also, because electricity production industry is market driven, increasing supply faster than demand will reduce profits in the long run. Hence there's very little incentive to produce excess power generation capability and it's simply better - from market perspective - to build relatively small units with existing technology instead of obsoleting your coal plants overnight.
There are financial risks in all scenarios. What matters now is the viability of the technology. You can fuck up everything if you try hard enough and you can milk millions out of small investments if you do it right. Financial theories aren't the one in need of researching, I hope we agree on that.

*IF* we had alternative method of transport which wouldn't have to rely on ONBOARD fuel the payload to weight ratio could be 80-90% and we could produce the energy with what ever means gives the biggest efficiency.
We do have technology like that. Just power it all electrically with a power plant on the ground. If you use it to lift stuff, it will lift stuff. It wasn't my point at all.
I was pointing out that the only thing to be improved is efficiency (no onboard fuel, less friction, etc.), but not the energy needed to do the job. I believe that my original post you were quoting was about the inefficiency of such structures on Jupiter. Not because it'd be less efficient to lift stuff there, but because it would never pay off to build the infrastructure and mine a resource that by definition (this being Jovian gravity) has got an extreme energetic cost of harvesting for uses on Earth (I explicitly granted that Jovian He-3 would be efficient to use for power plants on one of Jupiter's moons - but this is already a longer shot than we all intended).

That explains a lot, actually. Your insistence that I go do research when you're the one making the extravagant claims, not knowing about current events from four years ago. It didn't occur to me because you never mentioned it. You might look into that before trying to beat someone else up for not knowing how old you are.

My point was that its not suprising I didn't hear about this at the time. It was not to give you a free pass to use aged-based ad hominums. Also, 2002 was six years ago.

Fair enough. The US news is far less likely to report on ESA mistakes, and even less likely to have even heard of Russian or Chinese errors because of censorship on the part of those nations.

Space travel often doesn't get much news coverage period.

Risks of space travel are insanely high, apart from the constant vacuum to resist. Radiation, debris, all kinds of practical things we can't account for in places we've not yet been. Add to that the erring nature of humanity, and it gets very expensive.

Yes, their are risks. That comes with any large scale engineering project or exploration of new frontiers. Doesn't mean it isn't worth it. However the incidents you've mentioned were mostly due to human incompetance, I believe. Your problem should be with the guys at NASA, not the concept of space exploration.

"Acceleration". I wouldn't normally point out such errors, but since you've now flipped me off three times when I've shown no such disrespect for you, I thought I'd throw that in. It seems odd that someone so well-read could misspell a word that must be very common in texts on space travel.

You cannot dismiss my arguments based on my admittedly crappy spelling. Attack the arguments. And I do consider some of your posts disrespectful, though if I overreacted I apologise.

THANK YOU! See? That wasn't hard, was it? If you're making claims, the burden of proof is yours. Thank you again.

As it happens, I believe I did mention sources before, though I provided no links. That was probably a mistake, as I've already said. But you asked for sources, and here they are.

However, you have also made claims, and other than the story about the probe, I can't recall you posting any links.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm asking all of you space cadets to back up your magical asserions of bountiful and exploitable resources from space.

Low grad mockery. I'm honestly trying to be more civil, but this sarcastic and derisive attitude is why I flipped you off.

So far I've seen a lot of fascinating ifs and very little concrete evidence combined with a "how dare you question me" attitude that I find difficult to understand. You're asking a planet under siege from within to look without for a solution that is only theoretical. That's asking a lot, and I'm trying to get you to put your dreams in terms someone decidedly more Earthbound than you can actually understand and might even be willing to fund, given the opportunity to vote on it.

Yes, some of the potential benefits are uncertain, and some of the technical difficulties are not yet solved. Same is true for any new territory. Difficulty or uncertain success are not reasons to turn our backs on exploration and development.

Junior,

My age has no relevance to my arguments.

you keep using that to imlpy that this is the only way I know about it. You need to learn what AN EXAMPLE is. I used the fact that it was the subject of a mainstream comedy bit to show you that it was most definitely in the news, okay? That's not where I first heard it. I first heard it on NPR, and specifically, Talk of the Nation's Science Friday with Ira Plato. It's a good show where NPR brings in science and technology experts and they answer calls from people like me who don't have the time to read through weighty tomes on space travel.

Fair enough. Though their are decent books on the subject that I would not classify as "weighty tomes." I just listed two of them as sources.

I'm glad you have the spare time to educate yourself on such a high-level and high-minded subject. At 18 or thereabouts, you've only begun to get serious demands on your time that make reading for leisure something far more difficult for someone with a career. Enjoy your spare time while you have it, and remember, the world is not populated by folks exactly like you.

I know. Doesn't mean I can't spend my time trying to convince them;). As for demands on my time, I can only hope I'm lucky enough to get into a career which allows me to pursue my interests.

Okay, again: Martian atmosphere is almost entirely CO2. There's no need to add more of that. The trick would be to generate oxygen and nitrogen. Though the "basically put factories on Mars" idea is a nice prospect to look forward to, I seriously doubt that there would be any financial or material possibility to "put factories on Mars"... "basically". Not to mention maintaining them for a century (see sand-storms on Mars). - Then again, the atmosphere is a tiny little problem compared to the lack of a magnetosphere to deflect solar wind and the distance to the Sun. Producing gases might seem easy enough to you to dismiss it in a sentence, probably because that's what we're doing right now on Earth (though you might see the difference between terraforming a planet to suit human life and nigh-uncontrollably warming up our own with waste). But how do you plan to generate a magnetic field? Stir up the core? Will it take a century?

http://www.pbs.org/exploringspace/mars/terraforming/page4.html

First, Zimbabwe is in the TROPICS.

Oh, right, I forgot that a productive amount of crop fields can be cultivated in the rainforest.

It's your kind of people that thought we'd be having flying cars and robot servants by 2000. I probably wouldn't enjoy your disappointment if you weren't this bloody sure that sci-fi is turning reality.

http://www.moller.com/ and http://store.irobot.com/corp/index.jsp

A strong suggestion to Turaan and The Great Lord Tiger to knock off the personal attacks. Now. You both were able to carry on a debate without resulting to personal attacks. Quit it, or you both will be seeing yellow cards sometime in the near future.

http://www.pbs.org/exploringspace/mars/terraforming/page4.html
But if I repeat myself, you'll just complain...
Ok, I'll give you the simplified version:
terraforming = make it habitable
current atmosphere - unbreatheable
CO2 - got enough of it on Mars (atmosphere and icecaps)
oxygen - got too little of it on Mars -> can't breathe
factories - producing greenhouse gases, but NO OXYGEN
huge mirrors - still not producing oxygen
meteors - not producing oxygen either
So what will we breathe on Mars, I ask? Your link provides an answer:
On Earth, plants make the majority of the oxygen supply. On Mars there's a chicken-and-egg problem: the planet needs photosynthetic plants to make oxygen from carbon dioxide, but the climate must be warm enough and the soil conditions must be inviting to growth. In order for plants to thrive, scientists need to begin lower on the evolutionary ladder. They need to introduce ammonia-producing microbes into the Martian soil that will convert nitrogen from the atmosphere into the soil for larger plants like grasses and mosses to grow. The bad news is that scientists estimate that this could take hundreds of years. Once the soil is ready, scientists can introduce simple plant life.
See, there is no nitrogen in the Martian atmosphere. And your link conveniently skips the problem of nitrogen generation, but proceeds to assume that somehow, magically, nitrogen does appear.

Furthermore:
solar wind - bad for people on the surface
magnetosphere - deflects solar wind
Mars - no magnetosphere
DOH! Your link doesn't help us here...
But it does present a problem which I haven't thought of yet: Gravity will be a challenge — scientists are worried that Mars lacks the "pull" to keep whatever atmosphere is created.
Ah well, the only way to find out is to invest in an atmosphere and see if it stays, right?

Have fun growing a productive amount of crops in the rainforest.
Umm, they already did. They used to. Not anymore, but in the past they did. They actually grew a productive amount of crops in the tropics. Just as I mentioned in my previous post.

http://www.moller.com/
Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Moller (http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp17987.htm)
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr17987.htm
A fancy device that is capable of hovering when held by a crane, sold as a futuristic flying car... sounds like a case of the hoaxes to me.

http://store.irobot.com/corp/index.jsp
Automated vacuum cleaners. What about them?
By robot servant, the 20th century citizen was rather expecting something along the lines of this:
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/qf/c/MechanixIllustrated/1-1957/slaves/med_slaves_0.jpghttp://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/qf/c/MechanixIllustrated/1-1957/slaves/med_slaves_1.jpg
as promised to him/her by science-fiction, not a vacuum cleaner.

Now that I repeated myself due to you ignoring the contents of my previous post, let's focus on what you chose to keep silent about:
1. Your failure of selling me the "science fiction + time = science fact" equation as reality.
2. Explanation of how the transition from oil to something else won't kill us.
3. Explanation of how the space program never managed to deliver anything worth mentioning from space.

Mine are not personal attacks. If you believe they are, please show me an example so that I know how not to post in the future.

I thought I was merely refuting his arguments.

1. Your failure of selling me the "science fiction + time = science fact" equation as reality.
2. Explanation of how the transition from oil to something else won't kill us.
3. Explanation of how the space program never managed to deliver anything worth mentioning from space.


1.) God forbid I quote something. No, don't know the source, but you should know that I can't come up with something so succinct on my own. Granted, things like FTL travel are "impossible." Enter wormholes, or altering the dimensions of time and space.

2.) Wait... I'm keeping silent about why transitioning won't kill us? Eh? I didn't say it'd kill "us", I said that it was something we choose not to do, because it's a waste of time and money.

3.) Still editing.


DOH! Your link doesn't help us here...

That's because there are multiple pages.

http://www.pbs.org/exploringspace/mars/terraforming/page2.html

http://www.pbs.org/exploringspace/mars/terraforming/page3.html

http://www.pbs.org/exploringspace/mars/terraforming/page4.html

http://www.pbs.org/exploringspace/mars/terraforming/page5.html

http://www.pbs.org/exploringspace/mars/terraforming/page6.html

http://www.pbs.org/exploringspace/mars/terraforming/page7.html

Got any links to what makes you understand the Orion drive?

An Orion drive is essentially tossing a nuclear device out the rear end of a starship, detonating it, and reflecting the blast off a pusher plate. Project Daedalus and Project Longshot were studies into the feasibility of the drive. Results were favorable, except for political problems of such a drive and the treaty forbidding nuclear weapons in space. The two real advantages was that you could take a 12 month trip with chemical rockets and turn it into a much shorter trip using an Orion drive, and that it was more effective the bigger/heavier the ship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_drive

Granted, things like FTL travel are "impossible." Enter wormholes, or altering the dimensions of time and space.
Please. Fields of theoretical physics that assume the existence of wormholes also describe why it's impossible to exist in reality. You hear the word "wormhole" enough in science fiction, then you assume they're reality? Relativity and quantum physics are two, presently incompatible models, and things like wormholes are the dubious and highly theoretical constructs of applying a model in an area where it's not intended to be applied and where its correspondence to nature is unproven at best. NOT TO MENTION the technical applicability of anything which has no visible or detectable impact on nature (the real world). I'm inclined to ask what your major is now...

Wait... I'm keeping silent about why transitioning won't kill us? Eh? I didn't say it'd kill "us", I said that it was something we choose not to do, because it's a waste of time and money.
In that case, sorry, I thought you were continuing N-A-S' argument.

That's because there are multiple pages.
I went through all of them BEFORE writing that post.

I'm inclined to ask what your major is now..

It will be Philosophy, once I head out to college next Fall.

And I'm not sure what this has to do with quantum physics. For example, quantum tunneling is a known phenomena. And some strange shit exists in the world -- you ever heard of the possibility that all of the air in the room you're in can suddenly jump to one side? I have to get my physics book to get you the cite and stuff. Internet shows no results -- maybe I'm not searching right.

"Wormhole" is a bad choice of a word, I admit. But do not deny that speculation has been presented that black holes... hmm... "warp" time and space, morphing the dimensions.

Don't forget the concept of white holes. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/feb/22/highereducation.highereducationprofile

It is possible that black holes have outlets. In fact, it seems almost certain, IMHO -- there is no way that an infinite mass can exist. The matter taken into a black hole must travel somewhere.

That is speculation, yes, so don't use that as quote-then-argue material. I know it's theory, not fact.

It will be Philosophy, once I head out to college next Fall.
This is a kind advice you should follow now and always: don't repeat what you don't understand. There are theoretical physicists completely disagreeing with eachother about what the world is like on an elementary scale. If you're not a theoretical physicist, leave it be. I know I do.

And I'm not sure what this has to do with quantum physics.
Quantum physics was my example of another widely-accepted model that's incompatible with the physics proposing wormholes in theory (2 entirely different fields).

For example, quantum tunneling is a known phenomena. And some strange shit exists in the world -- you ever heard of the possibility that all of the air in the room you're in can suddenly jump to one side? Finding evidence right now.
No need, the Heisenberg uncertainity principle is known to me all too well, as it happens to coincide with my major. Plus, quantum tunnelling has absolutely nothing to do with wormholes, except for the similarity in expressions.

"Wormhole" is a bad choice of a word, I admit. But do not deny that speculation has been presented that black holes... hmm... "warp" time and space, morphing the dimensions.
This is exactly the part of proposed reality which will never ever be known (as no information may exit a black hole - except for the proposed Hawking-radiation). Even if the gravitational field does distort time, it will surely be technically impossible to manufacture anything that would create such an effect and survive.

Don't forget the concept of white holes. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/feb/22/highereducation.highereducationprofile
This is exactly why all of this wormhole theory may never be seen, detected or proven IRL. It's a concept that resulted of someone using a model for something it wasn't intended to be used for: a theory that may never be proven or disproven, because if it exists, it's not in this universe.

It is possible that black holes have outlets. In fact, it seems almost certain, IMHO -- there is no way that an infinite mass can exist. The matter taken into a black hole must travel somewhere.
Nobody said anything about infinite mass, because black holes don't suck in an infinite amount of matter... so even though the matter doesn't "travel" anywhere (it doesn't - doing so would violate the laws of thermodynamics), there will never be an "infinite mass".

That is speculation, yes, so don't use that as quote-then-argue material. I know it's theory, not fact.
I'm not arguing at this point. The worst I'm doing is lecturing, which I'd rather not. Wormholes, spacetime distortions and the like are neither fiction nor reality, because, I repeat, they may never be proven or disproven, as they don't exist in this universe. If the models of physics ever get unified (which will most probably result in a breakthrough larger than Einstein and Heisenberg together), then theories like this will be either proven or disproven. Until then, it's nothing even close to applicability.

EDIT: Btw, I'm studying electrical engineering, not physics.

About that stuff about Mars and such being unlivable

um....TERRAFORMING which is very plasible?

No enough CO2 to keep in heat? then do what we do here and make CO2 sure it's a bad thing on Earth because we dont need anymore of it but on Mars....

Not enough oxygen? after the CO2 heats up Mars you put plants on the planet surface to transform that CO2 into Oxygen thus making it breathable.

Mars in facts has a lack of atmosphere, yet that lack of Atmosphere is mostly CO2 which if we inject more CO2 into the atmosphere will thicken thus creating a green house effect which will heat up mars making the Ice melt and make shallow Oceans.

This wont take centuries in fact Scientist believe if they wanted to start now they could make Mars barely breathable in about 150 years and that's if every mission goes well. Because when you put the CO2 into the atmosphere nothing on Mars will absorb it so it will warm up quickly, when we drop tree's onto a CO2 rich planet with water and no threats they will grow quickly.

This is not science-fiction in fact in a way we are terraforming Earth to be less habitable every day.

Sigh.

Please do not try to support the aff position, especially if you present arguments made already. If cited arguments 'fail' to fly, then your evidence-less speculation definitely falls flat of a coherent and valid point of view.

*snip*
I know. Doesn't mean I can't spend my time trying to convince them;). As for demands on my time, I can only hope I'm lucky enough to get into a career which allows me to pursue my interests.

You're a tenacious little punk. I hope we ALL are lucky enough to see you get into a career that helps you pursue your interests. We could use minds like yours driving the bus.

Despite my solid pessimism, I do secretly hope we figure our space and the related industrial use of it to the satisfaction of all the needs it promises. I'm just not holding my breath. Best wishes to you.

About that stuff about Mars and such being unlivable

um....TERRAFORMING which is very plasible?

No enough CO2 to keep in heat? then do what we do here and make CO2 sure it's a bad thing on Earth because we dont need anymore of it but on Mars....

Not enough oxygen? after the CO2 heats up Mars you put plants on the planet surface to transform that CO2 into Oxygen thus making it breathable.

Mars in facts has a lack of atmosphere, yet that lack of Atmosphere is mostly CO2 which if we inject more CO2 into the atmosphere will thicken thus creating a green house effect which will heat up mars making the Ice melt and make shallow Oceans.

This wont take centuries in fact Scientist believe if they wanted to start now they could make Mars barely breathable in about 150 years and that's if every mission goes well. Because when you put the CO2 into the atmosphere nothing on Mars will absorb it so it will warm up quickly, when we drop tree's onto a CO2 rich planet with water and no threats they will grow quickly.

This is not science-fiction in fact in a way we are terraforming Earth to be less habitable every day.

And all the rust in the soil? CO2 is good for plants, but you gotta have something to grow them in.

And all the rust in the soil? CO2 is good for plants, but you gotta have something to grow them in.

Would it be possible to genetically engineer plants to get around this? Genetic engineering is not something I know much about, but I've heard talk of genetically engineering plants that would be better able to survive on Mars. Anyone have a source on weather this is possible?

Would it be possible to genetically engineer plants to get around this? Genetic engineering is not something I know much about, but I've heard talk of genetically engineering plants that would be better able to survive on Mars. Anyone have a source on weather this is possible?

Hmmm, exobotany, eh? No clue. I suppose that if plants can adapt to desert environments on Earth, sandy, rust-laden soil isn't much to engineer to.

Would it be possible to genetically engineer plants to get around this? Genetic engineering is not something I know much about, but I've heard talk of genetically engineering plants that would be better able to survive on Mars. Anyone have a source on whether this is possible?

Plants to grow without soil. I'm all for Space Exploration, but you have to do it right. The first thing you would need to do is to engineer a self-sustaining Bio-Dome on Earth, inside the Pacific Ocean. The entry and exit would be easy to do, similar to the way submarine divers do it. The trick is having a self-sustaining dome operate on its own. Then you have to figure out a way to get it to the moon. We should first start with the moon - it's closer and easier. It is possible to have a self-sustaining colony on the moon, within a decade, if the World Governments actually gave a shit about it.

Plants to grow without soil. I'm all for Space Exploration, but you have to do it right. The first thing you would need to do is to engineer a self-sustaining Bio-Dome on Earth, inside the Pacific Ocean. The entry and exit would be easy to do, similar to the way submarine divers do it.

Why inside the Pacific Ocean? Why not somewhere easier? You can test a self-sufficient biosphere on land.

The trick is having a self-sustaining dome operate on its own. Then you have to figure out a way to get it to the moon. We should first start with the moon - it's closer and easier. It is possible to have a self-sustaining colony on the moon, within a decade, if the World Governments actually gave a shit about it.

Define "self-sufficient". There is always going to be crap that has to be imported, because the Moon is just lacking in certain resources. The best I would hope for would be to try to make the base profitable enough that it can cover at least some of the costs itself, through mining and tourism.

However, Mars sure remain the primary goal, due to possible life, more of the type of resources nessissary to support a base, and the possibillity of terraforming. The Moon cannot simply become a costly distraction from the main goal. This was I believe an argumnt put forward by Robert Zubrin as well, who's books I've already listed as sources.

Sigh.

Please do not try to support the aff position, especially if you present arguments made already. If cited arguments 'fail' to fly, then your evidence-less speculation definitely falls flat of a coherent and valid point of view.
How is it evidence-less speculation to say that white holes (as an example) can't be proven or disproven in this universe? I'd rather call proposing white holes like you do (without any understanding of WHY those who proposed it were doing so) speculation, especially since you repeat the arguments of the expert proponents, but can't even think of an answer to the arguments of the expert opponents, such as the concept of white holes violating the rules of thermodynamics.

This is a debate among theoretical physicists, if it will ever be solved, it will be done so by mathematical proof and proving or disproving related theories. One thing's for certain: even if white holes do exist, their influence on our lives will always be limited to the interest of theoretical physicists.

In conclusion, I say we leave this debate to those who actually know what they're talking about (people with an MSc or PhD in physics), as they will be researching and debating independent from the funding for space exploration.

There'll be a weapon long before the first concept of an actual power plant is made. Count on that, it's nothing new.
Yes, but the actual power generation, beam platform doesn't necessarily have to have the capability of being used as a weapon eg. by physically limiting the concentration ratio to acceptable standard.

Probably wishful thinking though...Who wouldn't want to have an orbital weapon capable of cooking cities, eh?
There are financial risks in all scenarios. What matters now is the viability of the technology. You can fuck up everything if you try hard enough and you can milk millions out of small investments if you do it right. Financial theories aren't the one in need of researching, I hope we agree on that.
Well, I personally see financial practice as the biggest obstacle.

Infact, with the current attitude of fossil fuels can't be phased out in few decades talks I'm very much reminded of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis) and other such practices by energy companies. I feel the issue is a matter of will, rather than matter of fact :D
I was pointing out that the only thing to be improved is efficiency (no onboard fuel, less friction, etc.), but not the energy needed to do the job.
Infact, cutting back on energy use is one half of what a space lift would achieve.

Consider eg. space shuttle: Its energy expenditure to reach orbit (http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:ZpIQ9eHQRbgJ:www.evworld.com/library/energy_numbers.pdf+saturn+V+joules+rocket&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&lr=) (LEO) is roughly 10^13 Joules.

Now, consider space lift on Earth: With 12% efficiency that energy - worst case scenario probably being that amount of rocket fuel - could be used to lift around the Shuttle's payload (http://www.google.com/search?q=0.12+%2A+10%5E13+J%2F%28%28%28%28G%2A%285.9742%2A10%5E24+kg%29%2F+6378km%29+-+%28G%2A%285.9742%2A10%5E24+kg%29%2F42164km%29%29%29&lr=) worth of material to geosyncronous orbit.

The difference lies in that you only need to use energy to lift material to height of 37 thousand kilometers while the orbital velocity is derived from the rotation of Earth (every item lifted would hence slow down Earth's rotation). Using rockets you have to give both potential energy and orbital velocity while fighting air friction and carrying the fuel needed for the effort at the same time.
I believe that my original post you were quoting was about the inefficiency of such structures on Jupiter.
Could be, I just recalled seeing the somewhat M*G*H argument earlier... :)

Gotta agree with ya though, in Jupiter, using pipes & other collectors probably wouldn't make sense compared to scoop trajectories intersecting with the gas sphere: There's no requirement to land on Jupiter so why should we bother?
(I explicitly granted that Jovian He-3 would be efficient to use for power plants on one of Jupiter's moons - but this is already a longer shot than we all intended).
Aye. One should also consider Moon is that much closer to Earth (in regards of He3 source). ;)