wasteful nasa

Troll............

The largest annual budget NASA ever received was just short of nineteen billion dollars; your bullshit about trillions of dollars a year is just that--bullshit. No other government money spent pays off so well. Thanks to NASA we got calculators, personal computers, heart monitors and pacemakers, new plastics, new ceramics--and every one of those innovations generated jobs.

Good screen name, Bubba . . . it suits you.

nasa is not the only way we would have developed modern technology. if nasa didnt make it happen, something else would have. space exploration has never given us anything

Hmm you seem to be looking at maybe 3enrations in the future?
But what about 10 Generations?
What about 50 Generations?
what about 100 Generations?
Has population doubled every so often for the past 3,000 years?
Just for the human population we are at about 7 billion now.
How many times do You expect it to double in a 100 Generations?
What are your plans for 100 Generations from now?
Do you have any plans to keep life going on if there is a global disaster?
Is it not a guarantee that someday one will happen?
What are your plans?
Do you have plans?
Should we have plans?

of course i have no plan. humans can not make it to another star system to find these "other earths". the closest star to us is 4.3 light years away. that trip would take 25.000 years or more. and thats the CLOSEST star to us. if we found "another earth" on the other end of the milky way, 100,000 light years away... do the math man.

it doesnt matter if there are other earths or not when you get down to the point. even if they are literally everywhere, that doesnt mean we could ever survive a trip there. the distances are so vast that the human mind can not even truly understand these distances, forget traveling that far in a human life time.

Hmm I see you are looking for something that can be reached in a lifetime. Hmm. Well maybe your right maybe there is not planet that we can make it habitable around in one life time. Hmm well at least not with the technology we have. one life time such a short time to learn technology. I mean what is one life time any way? Like 70 years? So lets not limit our self to one life time lets say 5 life times 350 years. What technology progressed in the past 350 years?
Can you look back 350 years ago and picture the world then. And then name what technology has appeared since then?
So lets go a little further basing on what has happened in the past 350 years can you try to picture how our technology will be in the next 20 life times, 1,400 years?
Or should we limit ourselves to just what we know in the present day and stop trying to advance our future?
So maybe it will take a "Noah' s Arc" vessel that will take 10 generations to get to our closest habitable place.
Should we not start to think on how to prepare this place?
Is not life programed to ensure that it keeps on living?
Should we just give up on life because it takes more than one human generation to accomplish something?
Did the generations before you ever give up on life because it was too hard?
Should your generation be the one that gives up? Should your next generation be the one that gives up? Or the next? What is going to be the Generation that decides this?

it does not matter how advanced our technology becomes. **** 350 years. lets go 10k years. the laws of physics will remain unchanged. nothing that has mass can travel faster than light. this is the only true constant in the universe that we can prove.

just because we get really smart and our machines evolve that doesnt mean we can violate the laws of nature. you need infinite energy to move at the speed of light, and as anyone who can count knows there is no such thing as infinite energy. plus the faster you travel, the more mass you gain. the more mass you gain, the more fuel you need. the more fuel you add, the more mass you add.

technology can advance for a billion years if you want, the facts remain unchanged.

even your arkship idea is foolish. what fully enclosed artificial environment and computer system could function for 100 generations. you would have no help, no 911 to call. the starship enterprise will not warp in and save you.

launching yourself into space with no rescue should anything go wrong over 300 centuries is not the most..... evolved idea.

on a side note has anyone out there ever heard of the fermi paradox? seti has been listening for half a century and have yet to hear a single beep. occam's razor. the simple explanation is that there are no radio signals because there's no one transmitting. any other possibility makes you assume so many unknown factors that it is not really worth debating.

show me a scientist who can define life completely and accurately. you cant. we have a very.... vague definition of life.

there are world famous phd carrying doctors who claim that life does not begin until as late as 14 years old. clearly we have a useless description of life in practice. sounds great in theory, but not in practice...

Warp drive looks more promising than ever in recent NASA studies
http://techandfacts.com/warp-drive-promising-nasa-studies/

Should have a better idea of feasibility by 2022. That's closer than G.W. Bush's inauguration .

been there read that mexican physicist 20 year old paper blah blah. you missed a key problem.

the mass needed for the "warp drive" is about the same as the mass of the planet jupiter. think about that for a moment. your space ship would have to be BIGGER THAN JUPITER. and thats just the fuel/engine. so even futuristic technology doesnt make a difference. so sorry captain kirk but the enterprise is not coming...

Except that mass increases with velocity - relatavistic effects come into play approaching c. You don't need to carry Jupiter in your back pocket.

you still need more fuel to carry that extra mass. this problem of physics does not just stop working because you like mr spocks ears in your ass. star trek is fantasy, not reality. its fun as long as you can remember this when trying to sound educated.... turning off the "mass switch" is not possible. star treks warp drive did not accelerate a ship faster than light through space. in effect the ship stood still and space is what moved. get your facts right next time. the entire point of a warp drive is an engine that does NOT have to use thrust and acceleration to break the light speed barrier. thats what made it interesting... like 20 years ago

Man you're funny. Pissed myself - telling other people to smarten up while trying to prove a negative. Must be awesome to be another in the long line of people who dismissed things out of hand based on current knowledge - a proud intellectual tradition that one.

Seriously though, what is really bugging you about space travel? - one day on A2K and you've hunted down every thread that mentions it and added a dismissive comment.

i thought trekkie nerds would love the challenge.

beam me up scottie!!!

So just trolling? You sound bored.

Gunpowder was around literally for centuries, and was in use, in Europe, in wartime, before the end of the Hundred Years War made it worth anyone's while to develop reliable artillery. Heart monitors and pacemakers would probably have been invented at some point--but doctors are not engineers and it was only the needs of the space program which put doctors and engineers into the same room to develop the monitoring systems which became the medical high-tech of later decades. When the space program began, people were still using slide rules. Ever seen one? Ever used one? If you had, you'd know why inventing electronic calculators became very important to NASA's effort.

You give added luster to the expression invincible ignorance, although the concept is not new. I see you decided not to try to defend your bullshit about trillions of dollars to NASA. In it's entire 50 year history, it didn't get a trillion dollars. You're a bullshit artists with sime bizarre ax to grind.

everyone knows that a fetus is not viable until it graduates from medical school.

I didn't see that one, that's hilarious. I suspect this clown is not yet 14 years old, so we may be talking to a foetus.

Well ok this is what this report says "•At our current level of technology, and allowing for no fundamental breakthroughs in physics but allowing for reasonable engineering development along known lines, the fastest spacecraft that we are currently capable of building would be an Orion Nuclear Pulse Rocket. Wikipedia has a good general description at the link below, but the basic concept is that we build a REALLY BIG spacecraft - perhaps twice the mass of a current US Navy aircraft carrier - and set off nuclear bombs behind a gigantic bowl and shock absorber. Such a device ought to be able to attain about 10% of the speed of light, but it would take about 2 years to reach that speed, and two years to slow down and stop. We would NEVER send out such a ship one light-year out and come back; we'd keep going to a potentially habitable star, but IF we needed to, we could probably do it in about 100 years. " This is of course from we know right now we could only 10% of the speed of light. Our closest start by the way is Proxima Centurai about 4 light years away.
Traveling at 10% of the speed of light that would be 40 years.
So lets say we are only able to the get to the closest habitable place in 200 years.
Right now in a few short decades we are already able to keep humans in space for months.
Is it not reasonable to say that a few centuries from now we will be able to have the technology to keep humans in space for a few centuries based on what we accomplished in the past Century?
Is not possible still in your mind for this to be accomplished?
Were talking about less of a Century of space exploration development here.
Is 200 or 300 years such a long time?
Who knows what we will learn in 300 years.
But one thing is for sure we wont learn it Unless we try to learn it.
So don't give up because you don't have all the answers yet
Keep on exploring the possibilities because physics that we understand now says it is possible.
And if it is possible to ensure that life will keep on existing even if there is Global catastrophe,
Doesn't that make it worth it to keep on investing on a safeguard for something that its guaranteed to happen sooner or later?