Gift of Apollo
<div class="IPBDescription">The Sagan Series</div>Hi!
I stumbled across this vid and I am really touched.
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Xtly-dpBeA"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Xtly-dpBeA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
I am asking myself what has happend to the pursuit of mankind to venture into space. What do you guys think about the progress of human space flight and research. Around the globe (apart from China) the space flight budgets are cut back. Do you think this is the right way? Is there no need for us to discover space? Will the commercial firms be able to fill that gap?
The question I was asking myself for a long time now: Am I the only person that thinks the earths population will in the next century break a limit where we can not live together in this kind of "peace" anymore. And if we want to avoid problems like war, waste and extinction we have to make the progress in reaching into space in our generation?
I stumbled across this vid and I am really touched.
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Xtly-dpBeA"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Xtly-dpBeA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
I am asking myself what has happend to the pursuit of mankind to venture into space. What do you guys think about the progress of human space flight and research. Around the globe (apart from China) the space flight budgets are cut back. Do you think this is the right way? Is there no need for us to discover space? Will the commercial firms be able to fill that gap?
The question I was asking myself for a long time now: Am I the only person that thinks the earths population will in the next century break a limit where we can not live together in this kind of "peace" anymore. And if we want to avoid problems like war, waste and extinction we have to make the progress in reaching into space in our generation?
Comments
(Danger: Chance of thread turning into overpopulation thread instead of space exploration thread.)
A little more on-topic: I don't think anyone will contest that NASA brought forth wonderful new inventions\technology\ideas, but the question you have to ask is was it worth the money that had been put in? Was it a good enough return for the investment made? I think a point could be made that commercial endeavours could've put the money to (even) better use.
"The galaxy is littered with the single-world graveyards of species that made the fiscally sensible decision not to bother with space travel, occasionally visited by the species that didn't."
It is the only hope for long-term survival we have. The sun isn't going to last forever. Our PLANET isn't going to last forever, and under our stewardship it is certainly not going to sustain us as long as it could have if we had stayed in caves and jumped at shadows on the wall. We're going to outgrow our planet pretty soon. Not pretty soon in terms of a human lifetime, but pretty soon.
Was space flight worth the money put into it? Absolutely. 100%. No doubt about it. Not just in terms of new technologies developed as a direct result of the space race, but also for the boost it gave to the human race. It showed us that there's a new frontier out there, that the stars are not just an abstract, unreachable domain forever beyond our grasp, but a place where we will one day go. That optimism is invaluable, it propels men to greatness, and it is something everyone can share in. None of us (well, maybe a single one here or there) were alive when the first man walked on the moon, but anyone who lived back then tells of the wonder they felt at those pictures from a different world - not so far away, just our own sattelite. Imagine what it would mean to us to have those first pictures of people on Mars. Actually standing there, touching the rust of this almost dead world. Perhaps climbing Olympus Mons (THAT'S going to be fun, wearing a full environment suit - at least the gravity is lower) and taking pictures of the endlessly stretching plains.
And really, the financial argument is bull###### anyway. We humans pump so much money into senselessly killing each other, all other costs pale in comparison. Go look up comparisons between the cost of the second Iraq war and the Apollo program - yes, they're adjusted for inflation, and no I can't be arsed doing it for you - lazy, remember?
But compared to that, manned spaceflight, or even just the James Webb Space Telescope (too expensive! We need that money for killing people!), is a drop in the bucket.
Is it going to solve any problems right here and now? Well, apart from easing our general apathy and cynicism, not all that much. But we need spaceflight, in the long term, and it's never too early to get started.
"The galaxy is littered with the single-world graveyards of species that made the fiscally sensible decision not to bother with space travel, occasionally visited by the species that didn't."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/65_years.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
While I love the idea of space travel in theory, it's kinda hard to implement what with us all living in democratic countries.
Unless the public wants it, and generally the public doesn't care about it unless it's for a good reason like showing those commie ######s/capitalist pigdogs what for, it's kinda hard to get funding for it.
There's plenty of work being done in space, the ISS is still seeing plenty of use, but as the nearest planet is mars and we can't even get a manned mission there yet, not really much to be done with flying people to the moon and back. It's dangerous and we've done it a few times already.
Also you can't ship significant numbers of people offworld to solve overpopulation, that's be insanely expensive. We currently have no viable way to do any trans-orbital transfer of material on any sort of decent scale, it's taken the combined efforts of most of the world to build the ISS, one piddly oversized satellite with a dozen or so people on board.
Any sort of space colony founded in the forseeable future would essentially have absolutely no link to earth.
3-4 billion years before we start to notice the sun's deterioration, so yeah that's a pretty hilarious argument all around.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Our PLANET isn't going to last forever, and under our stewardship it is certainly not going to sustain us as long as it could have if we had stayed in caves and jumped at shadows on the wall. We're going to outgrow our planet pretty soon. Not pretty soon in terms of a human lifetime, but pretty soon.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is A LOT easier to fix things down here (in terms of population\polution), than deciding to go Star-Trek.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Was space flight worth the money put into it? Absolutely. 100%. No doubt about it. Not just in terms of new technologies developed as a direct result of the space race, but also for the boost it gave to the human race. It showed us that there's a new frontier out there, that the stars are not just an abstract, unreachable domain forever beyond our grasp, but a place where we will one day go. That optimism is invaluable, it propels men to greatness, and it is something everyone can share in. None of us (well, maybe a single one here or there) were alive when the first man walked on the moon, but anyone who lived back then tells of the wonder they felt at those pictures from a different world - not so far away, just our own sattelite. Imagine what it would mean to us to have those first pictures of people on Mars. Actually standing there, touching the rust of this almost dead world. Perhaps climbing Olympus Mons (THAT'S going to be fun, wearing a full environment suit - at least the gravity is lower) and taking pictures of the endlessly stretching plains.
And really, the financial argument is bull###### anyway. We humans pump so much money into senselessly killing each other, all other costs pale in comparison. Go look up comparisons between the cost of the second Iraq war and the Apollo program - yes, they're adjusted for inflation, and no I can't be arsed doing it for you - lazy, remember?
But compared to that, manned spaceflight, or even just the James Webb Space Telescope (too expensive! We need that money for killing people!), is a drop in the bucket.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was really only talking about NASA's funding, which is usually what people mean by "space-travel". Aditionally, 2 wrongs don't make a right. I don't care people waste money over trivial things as power\land\whatever, it does not justify careless spending. On top of that, but this may be a more political\philosophical standpoint, I do not care for government-spenditure in general, so knock yourself out building space-ships, but please don't steal the necessary funding from the citizenry.
A little more on-topic: I don't think anyone will contest that NASA brought forth wonderful new inventions\technology\ideas, but the question you have to ask is was it worth the money that had been put in? Was it a good enough return for the investment made? I think a point could be made that commercial endeavours could've put the money to (even) better use.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course it is no solution, today! Thats why I think we need to start making the technical advancements today, because those need time. I mean just doing something at all would be good, but doing nothing? Well apart from the ISS and of course the redundant Chinese station.
Well I see why you might have misunderstood me. With the sentence <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And if we want to avoid problems like war, waste and extinction we have to make the progress in reaching into space in our generation?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I certainly did not mean to just shoot people to mars right away and let them found a colony. I meant we have to make research today to make it reality one day. Just take the reaching of space from earth as one field. This would need to be much cheaper. But if we do not search for new ways we wont find da solution.
As of the second part of your statement I sadly totally agree with you. I am studying enterprises management and thats what I always ask: Will it pay off? Does it earn profits? Thats the problem. I think this kind of common property has to be allocated by the goverments. No commercial enterprise can (yet) make such huge investments that may pay off in hundreds of years, if ever. Still there is another source of payback. The survival of the human kind.
<!--quoteo(post=1884484:date=Nov 9 2011, 06:06 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Nov 9 2011, 06:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1884484"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"The galaxy is littered with the single-world graveyards of species that made the fiscally sensible decision not to bother with space travel, occasionally visited by the species that didn't."
It is the only hope for long-term survival we have. The sun isn't going to last forever. Our PLANET isn't going to last forever, and under our stewardship it is certainly not going to sustain us as long as it could have if we had stayed in caves and jumped at shadows on the wall. We're going to outgrow our planet pretty soon. Not pretty soon in terms of a human lifetime, but pretty soon.
And really, the financial argument is bull###### anyway. We humans pump so much money into senselessly killing each other, all other costs pale in comparison. Go look up comparisons between the cost of the second Iraq war and the Apollo program - yes, they're adjusted for inflation, and no I can't be arsed doing it for you - lazy, remember?
But compared to that, manned spaceflight, or even just the James Webb Space Telescope (too expensive! We need that money for killing people!), is a drop in the bucket.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, I love this citation. Secondly, there is a comparison of world wide military budgets to world wide space budgets at the end of the vid.
<!--quoteo(post=1884489:date=Nov 9 2011, 06:42 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Nov 9 2011, 06:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1884489"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also you can't ship significant numbers of people offworld to solve overpopulation, that's be insanely expensive. We currently have no viable way to do any trans-orbital transfer of material on any sort of decent scale, it's taken the combined efforts of most of the world to build the ISS, one piddly oversized satellite with a dozen or so people on board.
Any sort of space colony founded in the forseeable future would essentially have absolutely no link to earth.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats basicly the thing (see above). I dont meant to start colonies today or in 20 or whatever years. I tried to say that we should start finding ways of making space accessable first and finding ways of transportation and then, some day we might be able to pull something like that off. But my worry is that if we dont put big efforts today we will waste another 50 years of no real progress. And then another 50 years and another....
I totally agree with you that a colony in the beginning would be build with earth ressources, but in the long run it would grow for its own. It would have to find the needed ressources itself.
<!--quoteo(post=1884490:date=Nov 9 2011, 06:46 PM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Nov 9 2011, 06:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1884490"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is A LOT easier to fix things down here (in terms of population\polution), than deciding to go Star-Trek.
I was really only talking about NASA's funding, which is usually what people mean by "space-travel". Aditionally, 2 wrongs don't make a right. I don't care people waste money over trivial things as power\land\whatever, it does not justify careless spending. On top of that, but this may be a more political\philosophical standpoint, I do not care for government-spenditure in general, so knock yourself out building space-ships, but please don't steal the necessary funding from the citizenry.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats another thing. I am uncertain if it really is easier to "fix things down here". Take the replacement of the kyoto protocoll as an example. I dont see one coming. If one is coming it will be a list of non-compulsive agreements and all just keep doing like before.
I see however that we have different opinions on what the government should spend money on. :)
I sometimes think of it that way: What would have happend if the spanish government would not have given columbus the money and ships to discover America. And please: "Another one would have discovered!" or "The wikings discovered it long before!" are no valid answers. To stay in the analogy... What would have happend if noone ever would have made the step to discover America, because its to dangerous to sail across the atlantic ocean, because its to expensive to do it, because the money could have been spent better to launch a spanish attack on great britan or what ever...
One thing is clear: No iPhones and iPads for you guys :P
Then the Native Americans wouldn't have been brutally slaughtered by the waves of European imperialists with guns who introduced Small Pox, Measles, Tuberculosis, and all sorts of other hideous diseases, and would have had more time to develop their culture and technology, and likely would have created a better world today
Just had to say it :P
On another note, I wish private corps would build a luxury hotel on the moon already and get it over with.
Unless the public wants it, and generally the public doesn't care about it unless it's for a good reason like showing those commie ######s/capitalist pigdogs what for, it's kinda hard to get funding for it.
There's plenty of work being done in space, the ISS is still seeing plenty of use, but as the nearest planet is mars and we can't even get a manned mission there yet, not really much to be done with flying people to the moon and back. It's dangerous and we've done it a few times already.
Also you can't ship significant numbers of people offworld to solve overpopulation, that's be insanely expensive. We currently have no viable way to do any trans-orbital transfer of material on any sort of decent scale, it's taken the combined efforts of most of the world to build the ISS, one piddly oversized satellite with a dozen or so people on board.
Any sort of space colony founded in the forseeable future would essentially have absolutely no link to earth.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not disagree on any particular point, but my reply is, respectfully, "so what?" Compared to constant warfare, which the public doesn't want either but gets plenty of anyway, "hey let's learn more about our universe and maybe get to exploring it" should be the easiest sell ever.
We can't ship people to Mars yet, no, but we can work on it. We can work on it a lot harder than we're doing now.
<!--quoteo(post=1884490:date=Nov 9 2011, 11:46 PM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Nov 9 2011, 11:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1884490"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->3-4 billion years before we start to notice the sun's deterioration, so yeah that's a pretty hilarious argument all around.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually it's more like about one billion years. Oh we'd NOTICE much sooner than that, but that's the estimate for when earth will be too hot to be inhabitable. Or have liquid water.
But earth won't sustain us that long. We're using it up too fast. We don't have a billion years. We need to look towards the future sooner or later, and I say sooner is better than later.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is A LOT easier to fix things down here (in terms of population\polution), than deciding to go Star-Trek.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And it's also a lot more temporary. The only fix there is to population and pollution is to stop growing in numbers, and try convincing people of that. "One family, one child" laws are not the stuff Freedomâ„¢ is made from, but they'll be necessary soon enough. Want to avoid that? Need room to expand to. The alternative is global warfare that'll make the second world war look like FUN, and then once we're all dead the survivors have room to spread across our ruins again.
But I'm not saying we shouldn't try to solve problems at home. On the contrary. As you recall, in my very first post I said the opposite of that. But it's not a permanent solution to mankind's problem, namely that we are stuck on a planet
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was really only talking about NASA's funding, which is usually what people mean by "space-travel". Aditionally, 2 wrongs don't make a right. I don't care people waste money over trivial things as power\land\whatever, it does not justify careless spending. On top of that, but this may be a more political\philosophical standpoint, I do not care for government-spenditure in general, so knock yourself out building space-ships, but please don't steal the necessary funding from the citizenry.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Being part of a modern society means paying taxes, and means not always getting to decide where those taxes go. As long as they go towards something of public benefit you should be giving standing ovations.
But earth won't sustain us that long. We're using it up too fast. We don't have a billion years. We need to look towards the future sooner or later, and I say sooner is better than later.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Potatoes. But I'm happy to agree with you that it is earth we need to be focussing on.
<!--quoteo(post=1884524:date=Nov 10 2011, 07:37 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Nov 10 2011, 07:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1884524"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And it's also a lot more temporary. The only fix there is to population and pollution is to stop growing in numbers, and try convincing people of that. "One family, one child" laws are not the stuff Freedomâ„¢ is made from, but they'll be necessary soon enough. Want to avoid that? Need room to expand to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually the solution to that is rather simple: prosperity + women's rights. You implement those 2 things around the globe and you'll see a gradual decline of the population.
<!--quoteo(post=1884524:date=Nov 10 2011, 07:37 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Nov 10 2011, 07:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1884524"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Being part of a modern society means paying taxes, and means not always getting to decide where those taxes go. As long as they go towards something of public benefit you should be giving standing ovations.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I'm sorry but that's just socialist rubbish right there. Yes it's almost unavoidable to have some kind of government, and yes there has to be some kind of tax-system in place to fund said government, but there's a large difference between managing crucial and fundamental tasks like infrastructure\law, and whatever else you 'think' is of 'public benefit'. People are able to judge what's in their own benefit a lot better than a government is.
To tie our destiny, as a species, to this single planet is a woefully tragic testament to the short-sightedness of the human race, if not the human races' ability to ignore the inevitable when it does not suit their desires. At some point this planet is not going to be enough, not enough space, not enough resources, not enough food, not enough atmosphere. We can already see the signs of decline in the many aspects of our planet and most of them go unabated.
For these reasons alone we have an obligation to the continuation of our species by investing in space travel and off-world colonization. That being said, I wouldn't go, but someone should!
The last part is kind of a joke, if you didn't quite get it, it's basically saying "it's someone elses' problem" -- the very reason why most of the major issues in the world aren't tackled until they're already causing massive problems, making the clean-up all that much harder.
I cannot discuss with you if you have to be like this.
<!--quoteo(post=1884535:date=Nov 10 2011, 05:17 AM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Nov 10 2011, 05:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1884535"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually the solution to that is rather simple: prosperity + women's rights. You implement those 2 things around the globe and you'll see a gradual decline of the population.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is true that this are two things that can help solving the problems on earth. (even though there would occur new ones. Just imagine every family would only be allowed to have one child. In the third world children today are the ones that care about their parents when they are old. If there is just one child left this system would not work anymore.) However I totally disagree that this two things would be easy to implement on our planet. So this is no solution.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well I'm sorry but that's just socialist rubbish right there. Yes it's almost unavoidable to have some kind of government, and yes there has to be some kind of tax-system in place to fund said government, but there's a large difference between managing crucial and fundamental tasks like infrastructure\law, and whatever else you 'think' is of 'public benefit'. People are able to judge what's in their own benefit a lot better than a government is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what is the managing of fundamental tasks like infrastructure/ law good for when the race itself can not survive on the planet. Well I understand, you dont see it as your problem. That is correct. It will be your grand-grand-what-ever children that have the problems.
I thought of another way of solving the problem of who should pay for it. I think most will agree that it is not easy to make the commonality understand why we have to take taxes from them to venture to outer space.
So what do you think about a non-profit organisation where the ones that want to enter it become members. The organisation then would evaluate projects and invest the membership payments in it. I think an organisation like this would have to be very transparent so everybody could see what happen with his/her money. (Since there is no "payback").
No, spouting stupid platitudes that aren't worth responding to. Someone who labels my arguments "socialist rubbish" has already decided that nothing I say is worth listening to, so why should I throw pearls before swine?
Pearls, haha, I'm amused by the metaphor.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=nUfl0w)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nUfl0w)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is true that this are two things that can help solving the problems on earth. (even though there would occur new ones. Just imagine every family would only be allowed to have one child. In the third world children today are the ones that care about their parents when they are old. If there is just one child left this system would not work anymore.) However I totally disagree that this two things would be easy to implement on our planet. So this is no solution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh it's certainly not easy. I just ment the solution is clear, getting there is quite another story. One-child policies are pretty poor on several levels, not to mention a gross violation of basic human rights. What we should be looking at is free trade, free traffic of people, fewer regulations (the crappy ones anyway), and of course those human rights I mentioned (women's right in particular, when we're talking about population). In due time (hopefully soon enough to avert serious environmental problems) population-growth will level out, and the whole caring-for-the-parents deal is no longer applicable.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=nUfl0w)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nUfl0w)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So what is the managing of fundamental tasks like infrastructure/ law good for when the race itself can not survive on the planet. Well I understand, you dont see it as your problem. That is correct. It will be your grand-grand-what-ever children that have the problems.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice straw-man there, I'm certainly not partial to that opinion, but I thought I was pretty clear that offworld-population is just a non-solution really. It's something nice to aspire to, but lets not be naive enough to think it'll become a reality (within our or our grand-grand-what-ever children's lifetimes).
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=nUfl0w)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nUfl0w)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I thought of another way of solving the problem of who should pay for it. I think most will agree that it is not easy to make the commonality understand why we have to take taxes from them to venture to outer space.
So what do you think about a non-profit organisation where the ones that want to enter it become members. The organisation then would evaluate projects and invest the membership payments in it. I think an organisation like this would have to be very transparent so everybody could see what happen with his/her money. (Since there is no "payback").<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But this is nothing new. There are plenty of private organizations involved in attempting one or another kind of space-travel. Granted, it's nothing compared to what NASA has been doing, but then NASA's budget far overstretches anything the private-sector has in terms of funding, which kinda loops back to my initial post, namely that said private organizations might've been able to do a lot more with that money (obviously not saying it should go to them, keep those things private).
I disagree with this line of thinking. Who gets to decide what is a public benefit and what is not? What some may consider a public benefit (free healthcare, subsidized gas prices, government directed charity) others may see as an undue restriction on their personal economic liberty. Are career bureaucrats and lawmakers the best choice to decide these things, or the electorate? It is an exceedingly broad brush. This stance (at least, as presented in this small quote) says that citizens are not in control of their elected representatives, and can only hope that they spend it on something that improves society and not for purely personal gains.
As for this topic, the issue is was it proper for the government to inflate\spend billions of tax payer dollars to go to the moon? It's unfortunate for me because I believe the philosophical gains in particular from this adventure were important for our species, but I also recognize the duality of the war technology that made it possible in the first place.
The overwhelming feeling I get is that seriously pursuing space travel at this stage in human development would accomplish very little.
When I said that any colony founded in the forseeable future would have no link to earth, I didn't just mean for supplies and such, I meant that the transport capacity would far outstrip the number of people at either end.
And one of the problems when you have two big groups of people with no transport capacity between them, is that they tend to become two very separate groups of people.
The effective upper limit of a nation's size is determined by how good its roads are. If the central government can't exercise authority over the outlying regions, the country splits.
This means that any space colony of significant size would very quickly become its own country, its own planet, entirely detached from earth, and this is here to stay, until you can move an appreciable fraction of the planet's population through space at speed, colonies are going to be exactly that, colonies, and anybody who has paid attention in the last five hundred years knows what happens to colonies once they get big, particularly if you live in America.
So really, I think we need to address some problems in human nature before we start making space colonies, otherwise you're just going to be doing the high-tech equivalent of having children and abandoning them at age twelve. Maybe they turn out OK, probably they don't.
But you said that to implement this would be easier than to research technology over the next centuries to access space. I disagree with this opinion. I think it seems impossible today to really access space and thats because the efforts to achieve this aim werent nearly big enough or rather: there has not been enough time for the necessary developments.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nice straw-man there, I'm certainly not partial to that opinion, but I thought I was pretty clear that offworld-population is just a non-solution really. It's something nice to aspire to, but lets not be naive enough to think it'll become a reality (within our or our grand-grand-what-ever children's lifetimes).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well i truly believe that it can become reality one day. If we start working on this aim once. Of course it will take centuries, but thats no reason not to start working on it today.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But this is nothing new. There are plenty of private organizations involved in attempting one or another kind of space-travel. Granted, it's nothing compared to what NASA has been doing, but then NASA's budget far overstretches anything the private-sector has in terms of funding, which kinda loops back to my initial post, namely that said private organizations might've been able to do a lot more with that money (obviously not saying it should go to them, keep those things private).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes I think so too, but please name one without googeling it. I couldnt name one and thats where the problem lays. They have to few publicity. That would be something they have to improve on.
<!--quoteo(post=1884638:date=Nov 11 2011, 12:00 AM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aeroripper @ Nov 11 2011, 12:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1884638"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I disagree with this line of thinking. Who gets to decide what is a public benefit and what is not? What some may consider a public benefit (free healthcare, subsidized gas prices, government directed charity) others may see as an undue restriction on their personal economic liberty. Are career bureaucrats and lawmakers the best choice to decide these things, or the electorate? It is an exceedingly broad brush. This stance (at least, as presented in this small quote) says that citizens are not in control of their elected representatives, and can only hope that they spend it on something that improves society and not for purely personal gains.
As for this topic, the issue is was it proper for the government to inflate\spend billions of tax payer dollars to go to the moon? It's unfortunate for me because I believe the philosophical gains in particular from this adventure were important for our species, but I also recognize the duality of the war technology that made it possible in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with you to 99%. I love capitalism (woo I am seeing a flame coming! :D) and I love free trade. The government should do as little as possible. There is a citation by Henry David Thoreau I really like and it says "That government is best which governs least!", I could not agree more with that. Still there are things the government should care for. Enforcement of law for example or providing infrstructure, as well as things like working against the climate change (I really dont want to discuss if there is such a thing, its just to make my point). Things that are provided for everyone and to expensive in investments to do by private firms, but where everybody benefits from. I surely would add space exploration to this list of things a government should care for.
<!--quoteo(post=1884708:date=Nov 11 2011, 09:27 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Nov 11 2011, 09:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1884708"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem with the 'work towards space NOW' idea is that it contradicts my strategy game brain.
The overwhelming feeling I get is that seriously pursuing space travel at this stage in human development would accomplish very little.
When I said that any colony founded in the forseeable future would have no link to earth, I didn't just mean for supplies and such, I meant that the transport capacity would far outstrip the number of people at either end.
And one of the problems when you have two big groups of people with no transport capacity between them, is that they tend to become two very separate groups of people.
The effective upper limit of a nation's size is determined by how good its roads are. If the central government can't exercise authority over the outlying regions, the country splits.
This means that any space colony of significant size would very quickly become its own country, its own planet, entirely detached from earth, and this is here to stay, until you can move an appreciable fraction of the planet's population through space at speed, colonies are going to be exactly that, colonies, and anybody who has paid attention in the last five hundred years knows what happens to colonies once they get big, particularly if you live in America.
So really, I think we need to address some problems in human nature before we start making space colonies, otherwise you're just going to be doing the high-tech equivalent of having children and abandoning them at age twelve. Maybe they turn out OK, probably they don't.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really enjoyed reading your post. Especially this sentence <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The effective upper limit of a nation's size is determined by how good its roads are. If the central government can't exercise authority over the outlying regions, the country splits.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->. Very well said. I agree with you, but as I stated above I thinking more of a very long-term thing of propably several centuries of development. So propably there also would some form of transportation developed till then, well it would be part of the things that need to be developed.
I am less worried about things like these colonies turning against earth. Actually I am pretty sure there will be war, since humans have never learned anything from history. Still it would reduce the risk of extinction since there could be humans on several planets opposed to all killing eachother on one planet. Its actually an argument of leaviong the earth rather sooner than later :D.
Easier than migrating to\colonizing space? Of course. At least that's what I thought you were hinting at.
<!--quoteo(post=1884725:date=Nov 12 2011, 08:37 AM:name=nUfl0w)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nUfl0w @ Nov 12 2011, 08:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1884725"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well i truly believe that it can become reality one day. If we start working on this aim once. Of course it will take centuries, but thats no reason not to start working on it today.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It'll probably be possible at some point in time, probably. But I think there are more pressing issues at this very moment that need adressing first, and with America's (and indeed the rest of the world's) IMMENSE budget-deficits, it might be a good idea to put space-travel on hold (if only for a little while).
<!--quoteo(post=1884725:date=Nov 12 2011, 08:37 AM:name=nUfl0w)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nUfl0w @ Nov 12 2011, 08:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1884725"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes I think so too, but please name one without googeling it. I couldnt name one and thats where the problem lays. They have to few publicity. That would be something they have to improve on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I only knew Armadillo off the top off my head, and that's only because Carmack mentions it all the time, so yeah publicity might be a bit of an issue.
<!--quoteo(post=1884725:date=Nov 12 2011, 08:37 AM:name=nUfl0w)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nUfl0w @ Nov 12 2011, 08:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1884725"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->as well as things like working against the climate change (I really dont want to discuss if there is such a thing, its just to make my point).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just to chime in there for a moment: often it is not climate-change that is contested, but rather whether _WE_ as a human-species are directly or largely responsible for it.
Also, another point I'd like to make regarding this space-travel idea (regardless whether it is realistic or not), it seems a bit, weak\irresponsible?, to up and abandon Earth like that because we cannot be arsed to solve things as population\polution, and just high-tail it to another planet. It comes across as if we haven't advanced at all in all these centuries.
1) More efficient power generation technology - yes, fusion, I'm talking to you. And not just first generation - only when such reactors are small enough to be semi-portable can this even begin to happen.
2) Better ways to ingress space. I don't know if you're aware just how much propellant it takes to get three men to the moon and back but if you think we're going to be able to keep sending people into space with enormous quantities of hydrazine and LOx, you couldn't be more wrong.
With one of these technological advances woefully behind schedule and not expected to even show commercial results for another several decades, and the other not even a blip on anyone's radar, I don't think we have any business spending the money for ACTUAL space travel for a long time.
I do think we need to do it, but I wouldn't expect to see it for several generations.