Why go where no man has gone before?

What say you on manned space flight?


  • Total voters
    77
You are trivializing it, extremely so. The vast majority of the people here have no idea the costs and benefits of setting up a colony on Mars outside a bad sci-fi novel. You are among this majority as evidenced by your post I was replying to.

and you are trivializing human progress. the vast majority of people said flight was impossible. they were fools just like you. and how many people thought space flight was possible? and how expensive was that? but WOW, it still happened didn't it? history repeats itself.

Believe it or not going to Mars doesn't just require putting the science slider to 100%.

orly????

The advantage I have over you is a better understanding of physics and the natural world. Even with a "nuclear holocaust" (out of more sci-fi novels) Earth would still be a helluva better place than Mars to live in.

and the advantage i have over you is that i look at the history of human progress. history repeats itself. over and over again. what we do today was thought impossible just decades ago. centuries ago it wouldn't even have been conceived of. telephones, TVs, steam power, cars, the list is long and extensive. how do you not understand this simple point? as long as humans dont wipe each other out, we will continue making amazing advancements in tech.

to bet against that would be akin to putting your head in the sand.
 
Look, going to Mars is not impossible but "simply discover the terraforming and atmosphere building techs" certainly is. Merely because some people thought some other people were wrong sometime in the past does not make your beliefs any more or less true.
 
and you are trivializing human progress. the vast majority of people said flight was impossible.
Well they did see birds flying in the air.
 
All the money going into space exploration would be better spent finding ways to tackle the problems on the planet we already live on.
Why is it always space exploration vs saving the planet?

There are plenty of other things we could take money from, it doesn't have to be one or the other.
 
None of the space tourism businesses are seeing profits yet, nowhere near. That said, they expect profits and are being funded by visionaries. Bless 'em.

Are any space tourism businesses even operational yet? They're all still in the start up phase, and inner space might well become very popular in 20 years or so.
 
Putting more money into space increases national pride. They are already giving NASA very little money, don't blame them for doing something...
 
Look, going to Mars is not impossible but "simply discover the terraforming and atmosphere building techs" certainly is. Merely because some people thought some other people were wrong sometime in the past does not make your beliefs any more or less true.

nope you still don't get it. people's perception and knowledge of the world and what was possible was limited. as time progresses, human's understanding of how the world works improves, and new tech is derived from this improved understanding. quantum mechanics > bohr's model of an atom. relativity > newton's model of physics. string theory??? > relativity and quantum mechanics. evolution > creationism :rofl: and so on and so on. sure at this point in time, terraforming mars is impossible, given our tech. but are you so sure that will be the case 50 years from now?
 
First, this is a statement of faith.
As someone else has noted, for mankind to realistically go to another solar system and colonists another planet he doesn't just need to discover new technology but also discover new laws of physics as well. For the law of physics that is now known to man will not get there no matter how advance our technology becomes.
Smidlee is correct. Currently there is no real reason to believe we will ever be able to use Warp travel, hyperspace travel, or any kind of inertialess drive, these things are almost entirely science fiction.
 
Smidlee is correct. Currently there is no real reason to believe we will ever be able to use Warp travel, hyperspace travel, or any kind of inertialess drive, these things are almost entirely science fiction.

We don't need them. Once we've established a resource/industry base that's already in space, we can start building all manner of large-scale conventional stuff. Patience and labour, my friend, that's the way to the stars.
 
nope you still don't get it. people's perception and knowledge of the world and what was possible was limited. as time progresses, human's understanding of how the world works improves, and new tech is derived from this improved understanding. quantum mechanics > bohr's model of an atom. relativity > newton's model of physics. string theory??? > relativity and quantum mechanics. evolution > creationism :rofl: and so on and so on. sure at this point in time, terraforming mars is impossible, given our tech. but are you so sure that will be the case 50 years from now?

1. Some people thought that some things were impossible and were proven wrong does not imply that any particular thing is possible. There have been many wrong predictions about what is possible so merely saying something is impossible does not make it possible.
2. This really isn't an issue of possibilities and impossibilities but costs vs. benefits.

To better understand space exploration and colonization I suggest reading less science fiction and learning about physics, biology, chemistry, economics, engineering, and a host of other subjects. But since it much easier to read science fiction so I expect there will always be extremely warped views about living off this planet.
 
Are any space tourism businesses even operational yet? They're all still in the start up phase, and inner space might well become very popular in 20 years or so.

Commercial flights are not expected to start until late 2009. Take a look at your calendar, though, that's not too far away. Heck, there are currently movies in production with a similar release date.
 
All the money going into space exploration would be better spent finding ways to tackle the problems on the planet we already live on.
Actually beyond the benefits that others have already shared; it may be that in the next couple decades humanities biggest problem will be solved as a direct result of space exploration. Helium-3 exists in far greater quantities on the moon than it does on earth. Helium-3 and Deuterium have been shown to be an efficient and safe fuel source for fusion plants. In this process no radioactive fuel is required and only low-level waste is produced. Its more efficient, cleaner, requires less maintenance, and is safer than current fusion methods. Helium-3 has the potential to provide for the worlds energy needs without producing any air and water pollution.

Harrison Schmitt, an Apollo17 astronaut and researcher for the Fusion Technology Institute, predicts that one space shuttle load of Helium-3 could power the entire US for a year. Ouyang Ziyuan head of the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program says that 3 loads of Helium-3 could power the entire world for a year. Within NASA's current plans to permanently staff a Moon Base by the year 2024, are the plans to utilize moon resources for terrestrial use. NASA is not alone in this. China, the European Space Agency, Russia, etc (including private industries) are well into the planning stages of mining the moon. Nikolai Sevastyanov head of the Russian company RKK Energiya has stated that if funding can be found, then lunar mining for Helium-3 could begin by the year 2020. Beyond the moon there are already thoughts on how to mine our gas giants for Helium-3 and other materials.

Who knows what else we may find in space that will benefit us and revolutionize life here on earth. Think of how Aluminum, Rubber, etc has impacted our lifes. Then extrapolate that to the extraterrestrial discovery of new elements, minerals, compounds, gasses, and perhaps even new organic proteins etc. Imagine how these new things will impact life here. Then think of dwindling earth resources along with the local and global impacts of current harvesting methods. From every angle that I look at this from, I think that space exploration is vital to even our near future existence. I think we have waited too long already in building our space infrastructures. We should be closer to being able to harvest space resources and we should be approaching the day where much of our poisonous industrial manufacturing and refining is done off planet.

The waste of money in premature attempts to put people in space simply delays the scientific progress that might make space colonization possible.
Your too late. We are already well into the planning stages and are beginning the building stage for lunar colonization to occur within 20 years (even if just on a limited scale). I think the only waste of the space program has been the wasting of time. I am very glad for my nations renewed commitment to it.
 
We don't need them. Once we've established a resource/industry base that's already in space, we can start building all manner of large-scale conventional stuff. Patience and labour, my friend, that's the way to the stars.
And what exactly is economically viable about expending a vast amount of resources to send a bunch of people so far away it takes years to even talk to them? Interstellar trade is not viable so long as we are restricted to sub light speed travel.
 
I think it will just be migration. People will go out there to get away, and maybe homestead. They won't be going out in order to engage in trade (but they likely won't leave the information-trade industries, though), and thus won't be subsidised.
 
And what exactly is economically viable about expending a vast amount of resources to send a bunch of people so far away it takes years to even talk to them? Interstellar trade is not viable so long as we are restricted to sub light speed travel.
15th century people may have said near the same thing when Christopher Columbus set out on his exploration. International trade was still profitable despite the risks, costs, and time it took for wind powered wooden ships to cross the high seas. Historians have compared the early days of international shipping as being as difficult in its time as the Apollo program was in ours.

As terrestrial resources diminish, economic feasibility of off planet harvesting will grow evermore economical. And with such vast distances to cover, then shouldn't we get a jump on the technologies and infrastructure which will be required? And if it takes 50+ years for a hunk of critical minerals to reach the earth, then we better get busy figuring out how we're gonna do it before we use up available earth metals shouldn't we? Of course this goes beyond our own minuscule lifetimes. But it requires that one generation plan and prepare for the next generation and so on...
 
15th century people may have said near the same thing when Christopher Columbus set out on his exploration
The main driving force for exploration in that period was the accumulation of wealth and power for imperialistic reasons. Don't think that's going to apply to an interstellar model.
 
And what exactly is economically viable about expending a vast amount of resources to send a bunch of people so far away it takes years to even talk to them? Interstellar trade is not viable so long as we are restricted to sub light speed travel.

And by the time we have the engineering prowess to build interstellar colony ships, there won't be any material over at Tau-Ceti-Alpha that we couldn't harvest just as easily arround Sol. Interstellar shipping of materials would be rediculous unless a civilization were planning to amass some ungodly amount of resource for an insane megaproject. (Not That I'd mind if humans built a few of those)

Trade would be in the form of information, with the divergant efforts of scientists being supported by distant collegues.

And, of course, expanding the human lifespan and shifting the timescales on which we make plans. Life is too short for some of the greater wonders of the universe.
 
The main driving force for exploration in that period was the accumulation of wealth and power for imperialistic reasons. Don't think that's going to apply to an interstellar model.
No kidding. Here is an old article to illustrates some of the problems.
...For interstellar voyages the numbers get, well, astronomical. For example, to send a payload the size of a school bus to the nearest star within 900 years, you’d need ... well, more mass than there is in the entire universe. This assumes that you’re using chemical engines like those on the space shuttle. With nuclear fission rockets the situation gets better, but not by much — the propellant required would fill a billion supertankers.
Even Sci-fi engines are extremely expensive as noted:
For our warp drives and wormholes, the energy situation is much, much worse. To create a 3-foot-wide wormhole, you would need to convert something with the mass of Jupiter into negative energy. To overcome these difficulties, a few breakthroughs in energy production would help.
And that's a serious understatement. There is a another very serious problem which isn't address in the article even if the other three are solved; that is the space shuttle's paint chip problem. When your ship hits space dust at 10%-20% of light speed it would be like a nuclear bomb hitting the hull of the ship.
 
Wow you guys think science fiction is just a news report from 100 yrs from now. Are you aware of the laws of physics? Are you aware of the nature of space and the nearby planets? There is nothing up there of any great use and getting to it is extremely dangerous and costly. In 1000 yrs there will not be significant "colonies" on nearby planets much less other solar systems. Steve Weinburg is a nobel prize winning physicst, I think he knows a few things about the subject.
 
Top Bottom