BF2S Forums Phoenix Rover

Turquoise wrote:

Zombie_Affair wrote:

As a warning, I'm not trying to put you down (I'm actually really enjoying hearing things from a different point-of-view) but don't you think, in this day and age, somethings wrong when you are more concerned about bombing another country then exploration? Couldn't imagine our founding fathers going "heh, see all that land? Could be pretty cool stuff over there, maybe one day we can go check it out, but for now, got some people that needs extermination". (Lingo may differ..naturally).

Perhaps, the Founding Fathers themselves didn't feel that way, but...  their predecessors certainly did.

A great way to assess what our species is naturally like is to observe how every major society that exists today is not indigenous to the area it inhabits.  White Americans, White Australians, Japanese, Anglo-Saxons in Britain, Indians, etc.  Even the main Chinese ethnicities killed off previous indigenous groups to inhabit the lands they do now.  The few indigenous cultures that remain are either marginalized (Aborigines, Native Americans, Ainu, indigenous peoples in India) or so interbred with invaders that they really don't exist in their original form (most South American populations).

The point is... we may have better technology, but learning to peacefully coexist with each other is a very slow process we've only begun relatively recently.  There's going to be plenty of war in the near future, just like there's plenty of war today.  I just don't think we're ready to move to another planet just yet.

To be honest, with the way things are going, we aren't going to have much of earth left. I don't think we will ever be in a situation where every single nation / country / island can co-exist. We as a race don't even know what our purpose is, but there is an opportunity to use technology we have developed, to go places we as humans may never get to go, and we may find things that will answer questions about us, as a race and who knows, something out there may allow us to co-exist. NASA wouldn't exist and wouldn't be funded if there wasn't something fundemental to space, there's things out there and we need to find them / research them. If it takes Tax dollars, so be it. This is not to say I don't agree that tax money could be better spent however.

Turquoise wrote:

Zombie_Affair wrote:

To be honest, with the way things are going, we aren't going to have much of earth left. I don't think we will ever be in a situation where every single nation / country / island can co-exist. We as a race don't even know what our purpose is, but there is an opportunity to use technology we have developed, to go places we as humans may never get to go, and we may find things that will answer questions about us, as a race and who knows, something out there may allow us to co-exist. NASA wouldn't exist and wouldn't be funded if there wasn't something fundemental to space, there's things out there and we need to find them / research them. If it takes Tax dollars, so be it. This is not to say I don't agree that tax money could be better spent however.

All good points, and btw, I enjoy your different POV as well...    I just personally believe space exploration would be best served purely through the private sector.

There are both pro's and con's to this. It's a hard call. Valid points raised on both sides of the table.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Because NASA should be run like a business, not like a research group.

Absolutely.  All space exploration should be privatized.

That wouldn't even put us back onto the moon for years, much less build space stations like the ISS. Do I really need to start breaking out the list of technological improvements used on Earth that are a direct result of the space program?


The new Dallas Cowboys Stadium, originally estimated to cost 650 million, is going to cost over 1 billion dollars, with over 300 million provided by the city of Arlington. Their current stadium is in a completely functional state.

You really think we have our priorities messed up?

Yes, we do have our priorities that messed up.  We have had our priorities messed up since the Cold War.

Again, I'd rather corporations foot the bill of research than the government, because corporations do it more efficiently.

They do it more cost-efficiently, it does not mean they will get the same technological advancement as efficiently. It is unlikely that they will in fact, because they must focus on purely business aspects such as marketing and customer support. With NASA's budget continually being cut, I would say it is in their best interest to be as efficient as possible anyways.

You're probably right on all counts there, but again, space is a very low priority for me compared to all the other things I see as important for the government to deal with.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Yes, we do have our priorities that messed up.  We have had our priorities messed up since the Cold War.

Again, I'd rather corporations foot the bill of research than the government, because corporations do it more efficiently.

They do it more cost-efficiently, it does not mean they will get the same technological advancement as efficiently. It is unlikely that they will in fact, because they must focus on purely business aspects such as marketing and customer support. With NASA's budget continually being cut, I would say it is in their best interest to be as efficient as possible anyways.

You're probably right on all counts there, but again, space is a very low priority for me compared to all the other things I see as important for the government to deal with.

Was energy dependence or the environment an important government issue for you twenty years ago?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

They do it more cost-efficiently, it does not mean they will get the same technological advancement as efficiently. It is unlikely that they will in fact, because they must focus on purely business aspects such as marketing and customer support. With NASA's budget continually being cut, I would say it is in their best interest to be as efficient as possible anyways.

You're probably right on all counts there, but again, space is a very low priority for me compared to all the other things I see as important for the government to deal with.

Was energy dependence or the environment an important government issue for you twenty years ago?

For me?  No...  Twenty years ago, I was in elementary school.

If I had been running things back then...  yep.

We've long ignored the healthcare, environment, border security, energy, and debt crises we face.  We need to stop looking into space and start looking around ourselves.

Kmarion wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Congrats on failing to see the bigger picture.

was that directed at me ? What bigger picture are you talking about ? Knowing wether life once existed on Mars ?

You know, I'd take half of that money and live happily ever after, not giving a shit if there ever was life on Mars.
I just think that there is so much more that could be done here, for people that we know exist, and who need our support much more.

There is money to be made in space once we master interplanetary travel. Not too mention searching for habitable planets (some with water in this case) will be a necessity in the future. This type of technology takes decades to develop. Our entire species will be dependent on what we learn today and what path we took for survival. You aren't getting it.

interplanetary travel ? What do you think this is, Star Trek ? We haven't even found a habitable planet yet, and even if we one day do find one, and it happens to have a sufficient atmosphere, and all of that, we would have no way to actually travel there within a reasonable timeframe.

The propulsion technology simply isn't there, and if I understand Einstein's theory correctly ( and I am not saying I do, that is weird stuff ), we do not have an energy source powerful enough to even come close to accelerating anything heavier than a photon to lightspeed.

there is no money to be made in space. the opposite is the case. How much money has NASA spent to get those couple of pics and a test probe from mars ? A billion dollars, maybe ? Mars isn't habitable. Even if there once was water on it, it has no atmosphere and temperatures are freezing. we are wasting money here.

Maybe you're right, and we are destined to one day leave this planet and move somewhere else. But the key to that is propulsion, not looking for water on mars. If anything, NASA and the other space agencies should concentrate on finding a way to allow us to travel the galaxy with reasonable speed in the first place. Then we can start looking for habitable planets to go to.

Apart from that, I am with Turquoise on this. We haven't even mastered our own planet yet. Do you really think we are ready to move on ?

B.Schuss wrote:

The propulsion technology simply isn't there, and if I understand Einstein's theory correctly ( and I am not saying I do, that is weird stuff ), we do not have an energy source powerful enough to even come close to accelerating anything heavier than a photon to lightspeed.

Guess we should call it quits, and pack NASA up now. Obviously we have no need for them, right?

B.Schuss wrote:

there is no money to be made in space. the opposite is the case. How much money has NASA spent to get those couple of pics and a test probe from mars ? A billion dollars, maybe ? Mars isn't habitable. Even if there once was water on it, it has no atmosphere and temperatures are freezing. we are wasting money here.

$450m it cost. Yet we spend billlions on war. "Isn't it ironic that we need to kill people with guns that kill people with guns just to prove killing people with guns is bad".

B.Schuss wrote:

Maybe you're right, and we are destined to one day leave this planet and move somewhere else. But the key to that is propulsion, not looking for water on mars. If anything, NASA and the other space agencies should concentrate on finding a way to allow us to travel the galaxy with reasonable speed in the first place. Then we can start looking for habitable planets to go to.

I believe they have been. But if we cut their funding, that certainly isn't going to help.

B.Schuss wrote:

Apart from that, I am with Turquoise on this. We haven't even mastered our own planet yet. Do you really think we are ready to move on ?

Do elaborate. What exactly are we here to master?

You make valid points Schuss, but you make points like "Mars isn't habbitable"..How would you know that fact if it wasn't for NASA?

Heh yeah I figured as much. It's just that NASA needs the funding, you take that away, their technology progression slows down to a point it's just not worth it anymore. Flaming_Maniac pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Turquoise wrote:

That's assuming you want a species like ours to spread elsewhere.  I think we're a virus at the moment.  We need to evolve past all that you mentioned before we're worthy of moving on, because if we don't, we'll just kill each other in space the same way we do on this planet.

If about half of the U.S. is still creationist in this day and age, it says to me that we have a lot of evolving to do.  We're clearly not ready for space travel in a mental sense.  Technologically, we're getting there, but mentally... no.

You're going to find me one of the first to say the human race is fucked up to the core, and flipping through some of my other posts will verify that. However, concerning ourselves with the right of the human race to continue is preposterous and detrimental to the only true purpose of human beings - to procreate. We must survive as a race, and if I didn't keep telling myself that I would go crazy.

Why do you not think colonization would be the perfect setting for artificial selection? When space is limited, logic will determine only the most fit should go...it would be the best chance of a utopian society the human race has ever had, a place where philosophies like communism and benevolent dictatorship might actually have a shot at working.

Turquoise wrote:

I think more earthly fears are relevant to us.  Fears of debt and global warming for example.  Again, let's stay down to earth in policy until we fix things here.

Only dealing with the problems of the present is a short-sighted venture, especially when the solutions to the problems of tomorrow will take decades to solve.

I might be able to agree with your reasoning if we took serious population control measures, a la China.

B.Schuss wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

For what it's worth, I think Schuss is just saying that tax money shouldn't be going to NASA.  He's not saying we should disband NASA.

well, what I was trying to say is that if we want to have space agencies, we need them to concentrate on the stuff that is really important. to me, that would be propulsion.

If the overall aim is to find a habitable planet, examining pics from mars ( an un-inhabitable planet ) seems to be somewhat of a false strategy.

Uninhabitable in its current state. We Americans humans are an innovative people.

We need a pretty revolutionary advancement in propulsion, that doesn't really have to be actually happen in space. Either an advancement in the chemical science to increase efficiency or an advancement in material engineering to lighten the weight of a space vehicle would help, but it would really be revolutionary. The kind of change you're talking about I think can only come from a Eureka moment in theoretical physics, and it's a bit silly to hold your breath waiting for one of those. There are other things we can work on the can be and are useful now, and NASA has been doing a pretty good job of pointing research in that direction.


Honestly, humans want to explore. If a government is committed enough to fund a program to Mars, there will be courageous explorers tripping over themselves at the chance to go to another planet, no matter how long it will be, even if it isn't within their lifetime. Psychologically it might not be possible, but there will be people willing to take the chance.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Einstein's theory states that it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate something with mass to light speed, therefore it is impossible to achieve the speed of light or greater. A photon is a packet of electromagnetic energy, it naturally travels at the speed of light.

The time frame to reach other planets within our solar system is not that unreasonable. In combination with stasis technologies (we aren't too far off) going to Mars or one of the moons of outer planets is feasible as far as the time it takes to get there. No one is talking about going outside the solar system here.

We are already looking at technologies that would make Mars habitable, possibly even the entire planet. Looking for signs of water could gives us clues on how easy it would be to terraform the planet, because if you can get water on the planet the rest is relatively easy. Throw blue-green algae everywhere and it will take care of itself.

terraforming ??? someone has watched too much Star Trek....

the processes you are talking about are of the evolutionary kind, and take hundreds of thousands of years, if not longer.

What has gotten into you ? None of the other planets in our little solar system are habitable, and even if terraforming was possible, the costs  of such a project would outweigh any benefits that I can imagine.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Einstein's theory states that it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate something with mass to light speed, therefore it is impossible to achieve the speed of light or greater. A photon is a packet of electromagnetic energy, it naturally travels at the speed of light.

The time frame to reach other planets within our solar system is not that unreasonable. In combination with stasis technologies (we aren't too far off) going to Mars or one of the moons of outer planets is feasible as far as the time it takes to get there. No one is talking about going outside the solar system here.

We are already looking at technologies that would make Mars habitable, possibly even the entire planet. Looking for signs of water could gives us clues on how easy it would be to terraform the planet, because if you can get water on the planet the rest is relatively easy. Throw blue-green algae everywhere and it will take care of itself.

terraforming ??? someone has watched too much Star Trek....

the processes you are talking about are of the evolutionary kind, and take hundreds of thousands of years, if not longer.

What has gotten into you ? None of the other planets in our little solar system are habitable, and even if terraforming was possible, the costs  of such a project would outweigh any benefits that I can imagine.

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

More like centuries, especially if there is any water on Mars we can access. Look how quickly we are changing our own planet unintentionally. Maybe less because as I said, we are a innovative race. We have done lots of things that have been considered impossible, look at the evolution of flight over the last century.

Not planets, the next most likely candidate would probably be the moons of Jupiter.

The benefits of such a project, ignoring technological innovations, would be intangible. Being able to spread out to another planet and give the human race another frontier to conquer is a wonderful thing, one that might actual make people proud to be human again. I mean, look at Turquoise.

I can see where you're getting at, but in order to achieve all of that, you'd first have to solve all of the problems that I have mentioned above.
As I have said, we haven't even mastered our own planet. How are we going to free up the resources necessary, when we're still busy fighting ourselves ?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I mean, look at Turquoise

what about him ?