31
   

Should NASA go to Mars or back to the Moon?

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 11:51 am
@Brandon9000,
Giving opinions is what we do here, but in your case you refuse to acknowledge that space is an undertaking of the collective, and that the will of the collective is the law. You are free to try to influence the collective, and so far your argument is that it is a moral imperative, that anyone who does not want to explore space is a defective human. That is kinda insulting but ok fine....why must we keep looking into the frontiers? We have a ton of problems at home that demand our immediate attention, so why in the hell would anyone want to divert time, money and energy into space exploration right now?? It seems to me that the one who is grasping a straws to escape the problems that man has created for himself, looking to escape into the frontier, is the defective one...
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 11:56 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Giving opinions is what we do here, but in your case you refuse to acknowledge that space is an undertaking of the collective, and that the will of the collective is the law.


That's just your opinion, so Brandon isn't doing anything wrong.

Quote:
We have a ton of problems at home that demand our immediate attention, so why in the hell would anyone want to divert time, money and energy into space exploration right now?? It seems to me that the one who is grasping a straws to escape the problems that man has created for himself, looking to escape into the frontier, is the defective one...


Two reasons:

First, expansion of the species beyond our vulnerable biosphere is critical to the long-term survival of the species.

Second, because the process of expanding brings about scientific gains which will help solve many of our problems here on Earth.

You need to think a little bigger... our petty problems aren't going anywhere, no matter how much we get on top of various social problems, we will just invent new ones to worry about. We can't let that hold us back from furthering the destiny of our species.

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 12:11 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
First, expansion of the species beyond our vulnerable biosphere is critical to the long-term survival of the species.


well hell, that is an admission that humans are inferior biological life forms and should be exterminated. Life forms that destroy their biospheres and then have the unmitigated gall to seek out new biospheres to destroy should be stopped before they are allowed to infect some perfectly fine place. I wonder if we should be expecting a visit form the galactic police anytime soon??

Quote:
Second, because the process of expanding brings about scientific gains which will help solve many of our problems here on Earth.


So far this technology based modern civilization has used technology to over populate the earth and allowed us to be well on the way to destroying the earths ability to support biologic lifeforms....I am holding out for a better plan so pardon me if I am not all ga-ga over the proposed next wave of technological advance...
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 12:16 pm
Were the original moon landings motivated by science (the desire to learn) or politics (the desire to be first)? Or was it both? I'm interested in American's take on this, since they were the ones who paid for it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 12:25 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:

well hell, that is an admission that humans are inferior biological life forms and should be exterminated. Life forms that destroy their biospheres and then have the unmitigated gall to seek out new biospheres to destroy should be stopped before they are allowed to infect some perfectly fine place. I wonder if we should be expecting a visit form the galactic police anytime soon??


That is just your opinion; it is not my opinion that we 'should be exterminated.' I think learning to properly exploit space technologies is a critical step to no longer polluting our biospheres.

Quote:

So far this technology based modern civilization has used technology to over populate the earth and allowed us to be well on the way to destroying the earths ability to support biologic lifeforms....I am holding out for a better plan so pardon me if I am not all ga-ga over the proposed next wave of technological advance...


Ignorance on your part. We were well on the way to destroying and overpopulating the earth long before modern technology came along.

Exactly what plan are you holding out for? I am unaware of what such a plan would consist of, if it is not improvements in technology.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 12:36 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Giving opinions is what we do here, but in your case you refuse to acknowledge that space is an undertaking of the collective, and that the will of the collective is the law. You are free to try to influence the collective, and so far your argument is that it is a moral imperative, that anyone who does not want to explore space is a defective human. That is kinda insulting but ok fine....why must we keep looking into the frontiers? We have a ton of problems at home that demand our immediate attention, so why in the hell would anyone want to divert time, money and energy into space exploration right now?? It seems to me that the one who is grasping a straws to escape the problems that man has created for himself, looking to escape into the frontier, is the defective one...

Would you have given this advice to Columbus, since both Spain and Portugal had serious problems that the money which financed him could have helped?
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 12:38 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
First, expansion of the species beyond our vulnerable biosphere is critical to the long-term survival of the species.


well hell, that is an admission that humans are inferior biological life forms and should be exterminated. Life forms that destroy their biospheres and then have the unmitigated gall to seek out new biospheres to destroy should be stopped before they are allowed to infect some perfectly fine place. I wonder if we should be expecting a visit form the galactic police anytime soon??...

So, basically, you're using the "humans should be exterminated argument?"
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 12:39 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...Two reasons:

First, expansion of the species beyond our vulnerable biosphere is critical to the long-term survival of the species.

Second, because the process of expanding brings about scientific gains which will help solve many of our problems here on Earth.

You need to think a little bigger... our petty problems aren't going anywhere, no matter how much we get on top of various social problems, we will just invent new ones to worry about. We can't let that hold us back from furthering the destiny of our species.

Cycloptichorn

I thought you'd want to weigh in on this. Welcome to the discussion.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 12:41 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...Two reasons:

First, expansion of the species beyond our vulnerable biosphere is critical to the long-term survival of the species.

Second, because the process of expanding brings about scientific gains which will help solve many of our problems here on Earth.

You need to think a little bigger... our petty problems aren't going anywhere, no matter how much we get on top of various social problems, we will just invent new ones to worry about. We can't let that hold us back from furthering the destiny of our species.

Cycloptichorn

I thought you'd want to weigh in on this. Welcome to the discussion.


It's hard to believe how short-sighted and foolish people can be on this subject. Limiting our future expansion helps nobody at all; it actually decreases the resource pool significantly for everybody, even though it takes resources to accomplish in the short-term.

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 12:44 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
So, basically, you're using the "humans should be exterminated argument?"

No, I am using the we should fix ourselves before we look for new digs to ruin argument. The focus should be inwards, as in what is wrong with us that we would behave so badly and what can we do to make ourselves a better species, instead of outwards looking for a new home.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 12:55 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
So, basically, you're using the "humans should be exterminated argument?"

No, I am using the we should fix ourselves before we look for new digs to ruin argument. The focus should be inwards, as in what is wrong with us that we would behave so badly and what can we do to make ourselves a better species, instead of outwards looking for a new home.


Tell ya what. Why don't we work on both at the same time? I don't have a lot of confidence in our ability to completely change the nature of human thought and activity on a reasonable time frame; however, we will continue to need more resources whether we change or not. The prudent thing to do is to pursue greater resources while simultaneously working on our spiritual development - wouldn't you agree?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 12:58 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
It's hard to believe how short-sighted and foolish people can be on this subject. Limiting our future expansion helps nobody at all; it actually decreases the resource pool significantly for everybody, even though it takes resources to accomplish in the short-term.


the more resources that are used the more material there is to dispose of. Disposal long ago turned toxic. Maybe the quality of the human experience can only be significantly improved by having fewer humans, with each one consuming fewer resources than you or I do.

Your argument assumes facts which are not in evidence, but according to YOU those who don't agree with you are fools....nice.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 01:08 pm
Cycloptichorn & hawkeye10, I can see merit in both your views.

But in roughly 50 years of space exploration we're still using either solid or liquid fueled rockets to get into orbit. Our vehicles, either manned or unmanned that have made it to other celestial bodies, are still just "falling" through space at about 28000km/h. There are no inhabitable worlds within reach, and we don't appear to yet have the ability to make the most likely one (Mars) suitable for human habitation with our current knowledge and technology. I look out at the stars and wish I could explore it myself. But our species ain't going anywhere soon. Short of the most significant technological breakthroughs in human history, seems unlikely to me that we're going to go anywhere at all.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 01:11 pm
@Thomas,
I am dead serious that sooner of later the earth will get hit by conditions that will result in a great die out of animal and plant life as had happen any numbers of times in the past.

Earth is far too small of a place to have all humans living on and depending on.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 01:15 pm
@Wilso,
Wilso wrote:

Cycloptichorn & hawkeye10, I can see merit in both your views.

But in roughly 50 years of space exploration we're still using either solid or liquid fueled rockets to get into orbit. Our vehicles, either manned or unmanned that have made it to other celestial bodies, are still just "falling" through space at about 28000km/h. There are no inhabitable worlds within reach, and we don't appear to yet have the ability to make the most likely one (Mars) suitable for human habitation with our current knowledge and technology. I look out at the stars and wish I could explore it myself. But our species ain't going anywhere soon. Short of the most significant technological breakthroughs in human history, seems unlikely to me that we're going to go anywhere at all.


We don't need worlds right now, we need to increase our knowledge and exploration of space itself. There are a vast amount of resources and energy sources to be found in the asteroid belt and other places which do not sit at the bottom of a gravity well; we could significantly increase our ability to move around this solar system (and others!) by researching and exploiting our resources in these areas.

It is true that long-term habitations on other planets are highly desirable, but we aren't really ready for that at this point; we need to crawl before we can walk. A long-term, stable space station, asteroid mining, and the beginnings of a space-born manufacturing industry are the keys to future human expansion. If we can reach the point where additional spaceships can be manufactured (for the most part) in space itself, there is nothing stopping us from colonizing the entire solar system and then on to the galaxy.

I've recently started attending a rock-climbing gym. It is fun and challenging though not really necessary for human life. The best part is watching the 10-13 year old kids who go, they are awesome; not just b/c they are really light, but because they haven't figured out yet that they can't do things. This is the attitude we should put towards space exploration; that we can do whatever it is we put our mind to, that there exist no problems which are unsolvable, and that achieving these heights is a worthy cause - even if there are still problems down below.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 01:22 pm
@hawkeye10,
You know no history it would seem and therefore think that all advancements are linear in nature and that is clearly not the case.

Metal gears calculating machines are older then 2000 years and the first stream power ship that cross the Atlantic ocean had it power plant ripped out and used as a sailing ship instead as coal power ships was not yet economical.

Still the building of technology is the foundation of the next cycle of advancements in human history.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 01:26 pm
@hawkeye10,
Yes hawkeye10 we should had stay in the caves and look inward!

You do have a lot of self hate but most of us do not have that.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 02:09 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon wrote:
God in Heaven! No one has seriously believed for a long time that anyplace else in this solar system is inhabitable by humans.

Correctly so. Any place in the solar system outside of Earth continues to be uninhabitable. Unless, of course, if we bring our own little mini-Earths to those places, which is what we did with our rockets and the space station. But why set up mini-Earths throughout outer space when we have a perfectly fine Earth right here?

Brandon9000 wrote:
What about the trillions of other solar systems???

Unreachable given our current life expectancy and the known laws of physics. The astronauts would either die of old age before they get there, or they would be quashed by the acceleration necessary to get them there sooner. Of course, some day we might figure out how to extend our life expectancies into the millenia. Also, the laws of physics as we know them could someday prove incomplete or even wrong. If and when that happens, we can talk. Until then, however, I'm in the robots-in-space camp but not in the humans-in-space camp.

Brandon9000 wrote:
What about the possibility of other civilizations out there among those trillions of worlds?

They're an exciting possibility. If NASA wishes to build a radioastronomic equivalent of Hubble to contact them with less EM interference, I'm all for it. Maybe they can even build it with an integrated chat server where we can meet the aliens online. On the other hand, trying to meet up with them in person would be a waste of time in my opinion. As I said, wherever they are, they're too far away for that.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 02:11 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
You do have a lot of self hate but most of us do not have that.


that is one whacked-out perception.......I argue for a change in consciousness, for a change in direction, because what we are doing is not working. I love life and humans enough that I want me, you, and our potential offspring and further descendants to have a chance at a quality life.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 02:12 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
Which target would you choose?

I would choose option 1: "To make new discoveries which would benefit mankind in some way." Where just plain knowledge counts as a perfectly wonderful benefit.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 11:55:52