First we'll have to kill all those damn Martians before we can colonise. Yeah yeah, even if they're just bacterium. Haven't you guys seen "war of the worlds"
Yes, yes, and yes.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_MarsB.Schuss wrote:
terraforming ??? someone has watched too much Star Trek....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.
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.
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.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I don't see how some of you guys can seriously suggest that science for the sake of science is best undertaken by corporations that exist on the premise of doing science for the sake of profit.
The most important science to do is the science that doesn't have a business case.
The most important science to do is the science that doesn't have a business case.
Instincts are the primary reason we are so preoccupied with the continuance of our species. I personally try to distance myself as much as I can from instincts, and what I've determined from that is that it's questionable whether our continued existence will be positive for any other life. I mean, we only have Earthly life to compare ourselves to, but so far, humans have proven to be the most destructive beings we know of.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
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.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.
I totally disagree. Due to the additional complications of life on a different planet, life is more likely to be oppressive in a more brutal environment like space. If anything, we're less likely to get along in space than on this planet, because resources would be more scarce, and the potential for disasters would be far greater. Think of how easily one terrorist attack could end life at a terraforming project on Mars.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
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.
I'm all for looking ahead, but exploring space more only ignores the problems right in front of us more. We must solve our earthly problems first.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
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.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.
I might be able to agree with your reasoning if we took serious population control measures, a la China.
The most important science is medical, not space-related. Thus, I support socialized medicine.mikkel wrote:
I don't see how some of you guys can seriously suggest that science for the sake of science is best undertaken by corporations that exist on the premise of doing science for the sake of profit.
The most important science to do is the science that doesn't have a business case.
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-05-26 14:55:54)
Me being proud to be human has a lot more to do with improving our relations with each other than with how far in space we go.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
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.
When the day comes when Earth is no longer habitable, or some evil meteor is about to put the whammy on all of us, I'm pretty sure your opinion of what's important will have changed. As wonderfully efficient and communistic as it would be, you really can't drop everything to focus on just one area. Besides, I'm not talking about medical science. I'm talking about the stupidity of commercialising the sort of space research NASA does, because there's often zero business case involved.Turquoise wrote:
The most important science is medical, not space-related. Thus, I support socialized medicine.mikkel wrote:
I don't see how some of you guys can seriously suggest that science for the sake of science is best undertaken by corporations that exist on the premise of doing science for the sake of profit.
The most important science to do is the science that doesn't have a business case.
Which is more stupid -- focusing on a statistically unlikely extinction event or on the fact that healthcare is becoming unaffordable to the majority of the U.S.'s population? There's little point in us exploring space if we can't even keep ourselves healthy.mikkel wrote:
When the day comes when Earth is no longer habitable, or some evil meteor is about to put the whammy on all of us, I'm pretty sure your opinion of what's important will have changed. As wonderfully efficient and communistic as it would be, you really can't drop everything to focus on just one area. Besides, I'm not talking about medical science. I'm talking about the stupidity of commercialising the sort of space research NASA does, because there's often zero business case involved.Turquoise wrote:
The most important science is medical, not space-related. Thus, I support socialized medicine.mikkel wrote:
I don't see how some of you guys can seriously suggest that science for the sake of science is best undertaken by corporations that exist on the premise of doing science for the sake of profit.
The most important science to do is the science that doesn't have a business case.
So you're suggesting that NASA does nothing but focus on how to save the Earth from destruction? NASA does a lot of stuff with a very broad scope, and therefore very broad relevance. You make it sound like the human race is on the verge of extinction due to insufficient funding into medical research and health care. This is not the case. There's no need for extreme views like abandoning all other research in favour of just one.Turquoise wrote:
Which is more stupid -- focusing on a statistically unlikely extinction event or on the fact that healthcare is becoming unaffordable to the majority of the U.S.'s population? There's little point in us exploring space if we can't even keep ourselves healthy.mikkel wrote:
When the day comes when Earth is no longer habitable, or some evil meteor is about to put the whammy on all of us, I'm pretty sure your opinion of what's important will have changed. As wonderfully efficient and communistic as it would be, you really can't drop everything to focus on just one area. Besides, I'm not talking about medical science. I'm talking about the stupidity of commercialising the sort of space research NASA does, because there's often zero business case involved.Turquoise wrote:
The most important science is medical, not space-related. Thus, I support socialized medicine.
NASA exists for a very real purpose, and cutting funding to it would cost more than it would gain in lost investment and closed projects. There are many other avenues to take if you want to fund health care, many pointless projects and endeavours that needlessly siphon money out of various budgets. NASA isn't one of them.
I'm ok with continuing funding NASA if...mikkel wrote:
So you're suggesting that NASA does nothing but focus on how to save the Earth from destruction? NASA does a lot of stuff with a very broad scope, and therefore very broad relevance. You make it sound like the human race is on the verge of extinction due to insufficient funding into medical research and health care. This is not the case. There's no need for extreme views like abandoning all other research in favour of just one.
NASA exists for a very real purpose, and cutting funding to it would cost more than it would gain in lost investment and closed projects. There are many other avenues to take if you want to fund health care, many pointless projects and endeavours that needlessly siphon money out of various budgets. NASA isn't one of them.
1)we build a working socialized healthcare system
2)we have a working virtual fence on the Mexican border with an active military force to retrieve illegals
Without either of those in place, NASA can be one of the first items on the chopping block for all I care. We must reduce government in most other avenues.
How lucky we are that you aren't in government then. If you were, we wouldn't be anywhere near understanding the correlation, and possibly predicting catastrophic natural events following solar flares, or the part that the magnetism of our planet plays in our weather and climate. While we're at it, those pesky USGS guys and their pointless seismic monitoring, we don't need that either. Yes, let us set these, and hundreds of projects and research endeavours like them back decades because we want a new fence and something for nothing.Turquoise wrote:
I'm ok with continuing funding NASA if...mikkel wrote:
So you're suggesting that NASA does nothing but focus on how to save the Earth from destruction? NASA does a lot of stuff with a very broad scope, and therefore very broad relevance. You make it sound like the human race is on the verge of extinction due to insufficient funding into medical research and health care. This is not the case. There's no need for extreme views like abandoning all other research in favour of just one.
NASA exists for a very real purpose, and cutting funding to it would cost more than it would gain in lost investment and closed projects. There are many other avenues to take if you want to fund health care, many pointless projects and endeavours that needlessly siphon money out of various budgets. NASA isn't one of them.
1)we build a working socialized healthcare system
2)we have a working virtual fence on the Mexican border with an active military force to retrieve illegals
Without either of those in place, NASA can be one of the first items on the chopping block for all I care. We must reduce government in most other avenues.
I fully see that it would be great to have health care that everyone can afford, and that it'd be great to curb the illegal immigration, but to do this at the expense of serious research that affects us all every day is just completely stupid. There's more than enough money for both in the system, and there's no need to take the short-sighted road for immediate gratification.
Well, why don't YOU run for office, genius? You seem to have all the answers, so put your money where your mouth is.mikkel wrote:
How lucky we are that you aren't in government then. If you were, we wouldn't be anywhere near understanding the correlation, and possibly predicting catastrophic natural events following solar flares, or the part that the magnetism of our planet plays in our weather and climate. While we're at it, those pesky USGS guys and their pointless seismic monitoring, we don't need that either. Yes, let us set these, and hundreds of projects and research endeavours like them back decades because we want a new fence and something for nothing.
I fully see that it would be great to have health care that everyone can afford, and that it'd be great to curb the illegal immigration, but to do this at the expense of serious research that affects us all every day is just completely stupid. There's more than enough money for both in the system, and there's no need to take the short-sighted road for immediate gratification.
It must be easy to discount the importance of affordable healthcare and border security coming from a country that doesn't have to worry about either of them. You know what... If space exploration is so important, why doesn't Europe put more money into it? Why does it always have to be us to foot the bill for all this research? I know the Russians also spend a lot, as do the Chinese, but maybe the EU should spend more on it. We don't have the same kind of social safety net Europe does, and it's partially because we get sidetracked with space exploration and military interventionism that most of the rest of the First World doesn't want to do.
Let's put this into perspective. (From the experts)
The 2007 NASA budget of $16.3 billion is a minute fraction of the $13 trillion total G.D.P.
Studying humans living in the microgravity of space has expanded our understanding of osteoporosis and balance disorders, and has led to new treatments. Wealth-generating medical devices and instrumentation such as digital mammography and outpatient breast biopsy procedures and the application of telemedicine to emergency care are but a few of the social and economic benefits of manned exploration that we take for granted.
Space exploration is not a drain on the economy; it generates infinitely more than wealth than it spends. Royalties on NASA patents and licenses currently go directly to the U.S. Treasury, not back to NASA.
Observing Earth has provided G.P.S., meteorological forecasts, predictions and management of hurricanes and other natural disasters, and global monitoring of the environment, as well as surveillance and intelligence. Satellite communications have changed life and business practices with computer operations, cell phones, global banking, and TV.
Our ability to explore and sustain human presence there will not only expand Earth’s access to mineral re$ource$ but, should the need arise, provide alternative habitats for humanity’s survival.
It is true that, for every dollar we spend on the space program, the U.S. economy receives about $8 of economic benefit. Space exploration can also serve as a stimulus for children to enter the fields of science and engineering.
Right now, all of America’s human space flight programs cost around $7 billion a year. That’s pennies per person per day. In 2006, according to the USDA, Americans spent more than $154 billion on alcohol. We spend around $10 billion a month in Iraq.
Economic, scientific and technological returns of space exploration have far exceeded the investment. Still, for those who would moan that this money could be “better spent back on Earth,” I would simply say that all of this money is spent on Earth — it creates jobs and provides business to companies, just as any other government program does. You have to spend all of NASA’s money “on Earth.” There is no way to spend it in space — at least, not yet.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2 … cs-quorum/
The 2007 NASA budget of $16.3 billion is a minute fraction of the $13 trillion total G.D.P.
Studying humans living in the microgravity of space has expanded our understanding of osteoporosis and balance disorders, and has led to new treatments. Wealth-generating medical devices and instrumentation such as digital mammography and outpatient breast biopsy procedures and the application of telemedicine to emergency care are but a few of the social and economic benefits of manned exploration that we take for granted.
Space exploration is not a drain on the economy; it generates infinitely more than wealth than it spends. Royalties on NASA patents and licenses currently go directly to the U.S. Treasury, not back to NASA.
Observing Earth has provided G.P.S., meteorological forecasts, predictions and management of hurricanes and other natural disasters, and global monitoring of the environment, as well as surveillance and intelligence. Satellite communications have changed life and business practices with computer operations, cell phones, global banking, and TV.
Our ability to explore and sustain human presence there will not only expand Earth’s access to mineral re$ource$ but, should the need arise, provide alternative habitats for humanity’s survival.
It is true that, for every dollar we spend on the space program, the U.S. economy receives about $8 of economic benefit. Space exploration can also serve as a stimulus for children to enter the fields of science and engineering.
Right now, all of America’s human space flight programs cost around $7 billion a year. That’s pennies per person per day. In 2006, according to the USDA, Americans spent more than $154 billion on alcohol. We spend around $10 billion a month in Iraq.
Economic, scientific and technological returns of space exploration have far exceeded the investment. Still, for those who would moan that this money could be “better spent back on Earth,” I would simply say that all of this money is spent on Earth — it creates jobs and provides business to companies, just as any other government program does. You have to spend all of NASA’s money “on Earth.” There is no way to spend it in space — at least, not yet.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2 … cs-quorum/
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Alright.. fair enough. I'll concede to your facts, Kmarion. At least you post the facts you're going by instead of just resorting to condescension like a certain other poster here.
If it makes more money than it spends, I guess that's as good a criteria for continued spending as anything else.
If it makes more money than it spends, I guess that's as good a criteria for continued spending as anything else.
I don't base the continuation of the species on instinct, there is no other reason to live. Everything is based on survival, and throwing that away is a very risky move that easily leads to suicide. Not to say that it is one I don't sometimes agree with, but intellectually and genetically working towards the continuation of the species are some of the only goals I can come up with that might fit my definition of altruistic.Turquoise wrote:
Instincts are the primary reason we are so preoccupied with the continuance of our species. I personally try to distance myself as much as I can from instincts, and what I've determined from that is that it's questionable whether our continued existence will be positive for any other life. I mean, we only have Earthly life to compare ourselves to, but so far, humans have proven to be the most destructive beings we know of.
The environment is worse, but the people you get to pick to put in that environment are potentially much more refined beings. You have the chance to perform thousands of years of social evolution in one decision.Turquoise wrote:
I totally disagree. Due to the additional complications of life on a different planet, life is more likely to be oppressive in a more brutal environment like space. If anything, we're less likely to get along in space than on this planet, because resources would be more scarce, and the potential for disasters would be far greater. Think of how easily one terrorist attack could end life at a terraforming project on Mars.
I think it would be quite hard to perform a terrorist attack on Mars. Unless they had the resources to independently send a rocket there (which NASA has proven is relatively hard to do) the screening processes in place would make it hard to wiggle a mole in.
The problems you are talking about are primarily differences in political opinion. There is not so much a right and a wrong, just a different philosophy towards doing things, neither of which can really be proved better than the other.Turquoise wrote:
I'm all for looking ahead, but exploring space more only ignores the problems right in front of us more. We must solve our earthly problems first.
If you talk about problems like those in the Middle East however, yes mankind has its problems, but stagnating for the sake of fixing problems is just as bad if not worse than moving forward.
As it should. We can't push into space alone, it will require a joint, possibly multinational effort that should bring at least some of us closer together. It's not about the destination, it's about the journey.Turquoise wrote:
Me being proud to be human has a lot more to do with improving our relations with each other than with how far in space we go.
I only said you weren't proud to be human because you essentially said so yourself. It wasn't meant in anger or to be insulting, honestly I rarely feel proud to be human. No patronization was meant.Turquoise wrote:
At least you post the facts you're going by instead of just resorting to condescension like a certain other poster here.
Despite the temptation to hide behind Kmarion's umbrella of factual smack-down, I'm going to have to go out on a limb a bit here. Even if NASA contributed nothing back to the economy and was only a 16.3 billion dollar drain on the economy, it would still be a positive aspect of the U.S. government that should be kept.
Flaming... if it's any consolation, I was referring to mikkel when I said condescension. You make some good points though.
The only thing NASA should be doing is building fucking laser-based weaponry in space, CnC-style.
concurFlaming_Maniac wrote:
Despite the temptation to hide behind Kmarion's umbrella of factual smack-down, I'm going to have to go out on a limb a bit here. Even if NASA contributed nothing back to the economy and was only a 16.3 billion dollar drain on the economy, it would still be a positive aspect of the U.S. government that should be kept.
I guess the 'is it worth it' discussion is a valid thing to ask/ think about, but I honestly don't understand people who aren't excited by this sort of stuff in it's own right.
An artist rendition of the Phoenix:
This was in some slideshows I was looking at, it's not from the new rover, but pretty incredible stuff
The first-ever image of active avalanches on Mars was caught on camera last month. The Reconnaissance Orbiter took the photo Feb. 19, 2008, near the red planet's north pole. Tan clouds billow away from the foot of a towering slope, where ice and dust have just cascaded down.
My remarks were of the "in addition to" type . Turquoise made me put on my salesman outfit.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Despite the temptation to hide behind Kmarion's umbrella of factual smack-down, I'm going to have to go out on a limb a bit here. Even if NASA contributed nothing back to the economy and was only a 16.3 billion dollar drain on the economy, it would still be a positive aspect of the U.S. government that should be kept.
Was gonna just go with:
CONGRESSMAN
There is no just cause for space exploration.
PETER
Well, that may be. But what we’re all forgetting is, anyone who doesn’t wanna to go to mars is gay.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
We're posting subjective opinions here, and I outlined some of the many factual reasons I have to go with mine. If that isn't "posting the facts", then I'm sorry to tell you that you didn't do any better when arguing your side of the case.Turquoise wrote:
Alright.. fair enough. I'll concede to your facts, Kmarion. At least you post the facts you're going by instead of just resorting to condescension like a certain other poster here.
I really do believe that we're lucky that you aren't in office holding those beliefs. If you feel that this is condescending, then you really ought to get comfortable with the idea that not everyone is going to agree with your opinions. What is condescending, however, that would be your outburst of a reply. You can't flare up and then attempt to take the high road. It doesn't work like that.
Why do I need to run for office? If the actions of the people in office weren't in line with how I feel the issue should be handled, we wouldn't be discussing the viability of your proposed changes. You're the one with something to prove - not me.Turquoise wrote:
Well, why don't YOU run for office, genius? You seem to have all the answers, so put your money where your mouth is.mikkel wrote:
How lucky we are that you aren't in government then. If you were, we wouldn't be anywhere near understanding the correlation, and possibly predicting catastrophic natural events following solar flares, or the part that the magnetism of our planet plays in our weather and climate. While we're at it, those pesky USGS guys and their pointless seismic monitoring, we don't need that either. Yes, let us set these, and hundreds of projects and research endeavours like them back decades because we want a new fence and something for nothing.
I fully see that it would be great to have health care that everyone can afford, and that it'd be great to curb the illegal immigration, but to do this at the expense of serious research that affects us all every day is just completely stupid. There's more than enough money for both in the system, and there's no need to take the short-sighted road for immediate gratification.
We don't have to worry about the importance of affordable health care or border security? This coming from a guy who just told me that I prefer to condescend rather than post the facts? The two most actively debated topics in Danish politics right now are precisely these two topics, due to the often unbearably massive costs of maintaining socialised medicine, and a huge influx of Middle Eastern and Eastern European immigrants.Turquoise wrote:
It must be easy to discount the importance of affordable healthcare and border security coming from a country that doesn't have to worry about either of them.
As far as what's easy not to worry about, I'm moving to the US permanently in the summer of 2009, so I don't really think you're in a position to tell me what I do and don't worry about.
Europe does. It just does so inefficiently, and that's very unfortunate. I don't see how that has anything to do with our discussion on the impact of NASA's budget on other US government undertakings.Turquoise wrote:
You know what... If space exploration is so important, why doesn't Europe put more money into it?
It isn't. A lot of the exciting research being done is being done by Europeans in domestic, ESA and collaborative projects. I still don't see how that has anything to do with our discussion on the impact of NASA's budget on other US government undertakings.Turquoise wrote:
Why does it always have to be us to foot the bill for all this research?
So this has now gone from you arguing that NASA is irrelevant as long as certain social situations that you feel are more important aren't fully resolved, and telling me that funding NASA is just fine as soon as these hurdles are overcome, to you defending your position citing the relative budgetary commitments of other countries into their own space programmes? How is this an issue if, as you say, you're fine with funding NASA as long as certain other domestic problems have been resolved?Turquoise wrote:
I know the Russians also spend a lot, as do the Chinese, but maybe the EU should spend more on it. We don't have the same kind of social safety net Europe does, and it's partially because we get sidetracked with space exploration and military interventionism that most of the rest of the First World doesn't want to do.
As far as sticking to the facts and posting in a condescending manner, you seem to have gone on a very spiteful defensive simply because I expressed comfort in the fact that you weren't making the decisions that we're discussing.
We wouldn't know that if it wasn't for NASA researching, and sending things to it. We wouldn't know Mars is inhabitable, sure we need to work on prupolsion, but what's the point in having a spaceship capable of sending people to planets when you have no place to take it? Mars may tell us things about our universe that may help us better understand it, heck, maybe they will find some martians and bring their technology back to us.B.Schuss wrote:
what are we here to master ?? well, how about global warming, the global food crisis, hate and bigotry, diseases, religious prejudice, terrorism, illiteracy, AIDS, human rights, war and peace, finding a solution for the world's energy problems, clean water, health care, the global economy, nationalism and imperialism, etc...
should I go on ? There are lots of issues that we need to address on a global scale, before we can even start considering taking our so-called "civilization" elsewhere. We haven't even partly mastered our own planet and its various problems.
Money. "Makes the world go round".
not finding water on mars. my 2c.
Japan has also really stepped up it's contribution to the ISS (Kibo laboratory).
Side note: Discovery Channel June 8th
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/nasa/nasa.html
Side note: Discovery Channel June 8th
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/nasa/nasa.html
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Hmm, where have I heard that song before...Kmarion wrote:
Japan has also really stepped up it's contribution to the ISS (Kibo laboratory).
Side note: Discovery Channel June 8th
http://www.google.com/search?q=when+we+ … =firefox-a
That'll be to watch on my new HDTV.
The track used in the When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions promotions is 'Gimme Shelter' by the Rolling Stones.Poseidon wrote:
Hmm, where have I heard that song before...Kmarion wrote:
Japan has also really stepped up it's contribution to the ISS (Kibo laboratory).
Side note: Discovery Channel June 8th
http://www.google.com/search?q=when+we+ … =firefox-a
That'll be to watch on my new HDTV.
Xbone Stormsurgezz