Trump to NASA: We're going back to the Moon - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14870811
Manned space missions are stupid and we should feel stupid for even considering paying hundreds of billions to do them when a tenth of that will grow private space industry and advance scientific programs. :eh:

It is said that generals tend to fight the previous war instead of the war that's actually happening, and I think the same thing is true for the exploration of space. We are unconsciously trying to repeat the great voyages of exploration which opened up the world to European colonisation and conquest back in the 16th and 17th centuries, regardless of whether or not is is appropriate to do so in the current circumstances. Because the ships of the 16th and 17th centuries were crewed by human beings, we pack our spacecraft with human beings. Because the captains of those expeditions would plant their nation's flag on the newly discovered lands, we plant an American flag or a Soviet flag or a Chinese flag in the dust of the Moon. Considered objectively, it's idiotic. It is incredibly wasteful and utterly pointless. Why are we doing this? Why are we even thinking of doing this? Mars is not the Earth; it will never be habitable for human beings. We haven't even colonised Antarctica, and we think we can colonise Mars? Even the Moon is unfit for human habitation. Only machine intelligences (assuming we manage to create them) will be able to explore and operate in space - they will have the long lifespans and the robustness to survive the huge time spans required for interstellar travel and the extreme physical harshness of space. Our biology ties us to the Earth, and we need to accept this fact.
#14870816
Heisenberg wrote:An inhabitant of Jupiter would be "Jovian", I believe.


You don’t say! That is rather catchy.
Lord only knows what an inhabitant of Uranus will be. And no, before anyone says it, not a Heisenbergian :roll:
#14870819
Potemkin.

Um no. NASA has proven there are planets beyond this solar system which are known to be capable of possibly supporting Human Life and other carbon based lifeforms. So no, we are not in fact tied down to Earth. That's a proven lie. The only obstacle currently is the time it will take to travel to other planets capable of supporting human life, given they are in other solar systems.

Why are we doing this? Why are we even thinking of doing this?


Everyone asks themselves that question everyday at their job. If you didn't ask that question you wouldn't be human. Edmond Hillary probably asked himself that question a million times while climbing Everest.

The answer of cause is "because we can do it and it will inspire others to explore and find things out".
#14870836
ness31 wrote:You don’t say! That is rather catchy.
Lord only knows what an inhabitant of Uranus will be. And no, before anyone says it, not a Heisenbergian :roll:


Gas giants don't have a rocky surface. Any inhabitants would need to be lighter than Helium!
#14870841
Potemkin wrote: Because the captains of those expeditions would plant their nation's flag on the newly discovered lands, we plant an American flag or a Soviet flag or a Chinese flag in the dust of the Moon. Considered objectively, it's idiotic. It is incredibly wasteful and utterly pointless. Why are we doing this? Why are we even thinking of doing this? Mars is not the Earth; it will never be habitable for human beings. We haven't even colonised Antarctica, and we think we can colonise Mars? Even the Moon is unfit for human habitation. Only machine intelligences (assuming we manage to create them) will be able to explore and operate in space - they will have the long lifespans and the robustness to survive the huge time spans required for interstellar travel and the extreme physical harshness of space. Our biology ties us to the Earth, and we need to accept this fact.


I mostly agree but a few points: As I believe I pointed out some time ago, there is a key difference between Mars and Antarctica: At least some of Mars gets sufficient insolation to make terraforming theoretically possible. Of course that doesn't mean Mars can be made fully habitable. There's still the problem of low gravity degrading human bones.
And I'm not sure about "huge time spans" required for interstellar travel. A poster on another forum has described gravitational field propulsion, which in theory can make the whole galaxy or even beyond, accessible. Of course there's much more to it than keeping travel time well within a human lifespan, so some kind of AI or specially designed cyborg may be the only real spacefarers of the future. ;)
#14870847
starman2003 wrote:I mostly agree but a few points: As I believe I pointed out some time ago, there is a key difference between Mars and Antarctica: ;)


Didn't like the Antarctic analogy, here's the thing. We know what's there. There is no reason to go to the bottom of the world. When I say that, I am speaking in terms of something that gets your imagination going, that stirs your spirit.

Humans are not purely logical creatures. The moment we become a multi-planetary species will be when we reach the next touchstone on a developmental matrix.

Just the way it is.
#14870850
Didn't like the Antarctic analogy, here's the thing. We know what's there. There is no reason to go to the bottom of the world. When I say that, I am speaking in terms of something that gets your imagination going, that stirs your spirit.

We can find out what's out in space by sending unmanned probes or, once we've created them, machine intelligences to explore it - it's a lot cheaper and a lot more efficient. As for the human colonisation of space, the Antarctica analogy is completely appropriate. Antarctica is a lot more habitable than, say, Mars. Tell me, how many cities do we have in Antarctica? :eh:
#14870854
Potemkin wrote:We can find out what's out in space by sending unmanned probes or, once we've created them, machine intelligences to explore it - it's a lot cheaper and a lot more efficient.


It is, but if the human spaceflight program is being scrapped, I doubt the money would go into robotic spaceflight instead. Spending a few billion a year on the ISS or on a lunar base is really not that big of a deal all things considered. Remember human spaceflight went from international competition (Apollo) to cooperation (ISS), and I think we should continue along that path on the Moon and eventually Mars.

colliric wrote:Um no. NASA has proven there are planets beyond this solar system which are known to be capable of possibly supporting Human Life and other carbon based lifeforms. So no, we are not in fact tied down to Earth. That's a proven lie. The only obstacle currently is the time it will take to travel to other planets capable of supporting human life, given they are in other solar systems.


Interstellar travel is basically infeasible at this point.
#14870863
We could take those billions from a theoretical moon colony and put it into the sorts of material and space research that could make spaceflight cheaper and more viable. If our goal is to send humans off world to survive the end of the earth in a few billion years or whatever the most effective way isn't to lob people at a lifeless ball of dust and lack of self sufficiency.

Just because we can write cool sci Fi books about colonizing distant world's doesn't justify a burning pile of resources that could be better spent elsewhere today.
#14870866
I really love these Pofo space debates. People take such different positions from what they do when arguing which group of monkeys should get what.

To stir the pot a little, Venus is a viable target for a colony. What to argue about it?


colliric wrote:Potemkin.

Um no. NASA has proven there are planets beyond this solar system which are known to be capable of possibly supporting Human Life and other carbon based lifeforms. So no, we are not in fact tied down to Earth. That's a proven lie. The only obstacle currently is the time it will take to travel to other planets capable of supporting human life, given they are in other solar systems.

Everyone asks themselves that question everyday at their job. If you didn't ask that question you wouldn't be human. Edmond Hillary probably asked himself that question a million times while climbing Everest.

The answer of cause is "because we can do it and it will inspire others to explore and find things out".


I approve of your sentiments. However, interstellar travel is not yet within the range of engineering practicality.

What is required is a space craft that can accelerate at 1 G indefinitely. The only thing we can think off that might make that possible is antimatter rockets. Regrettably producing more than a few nanograms of anti matter is beyond us at this point in time.

However, if we could build such space craft, The Alpha Centauri system is only 8 years away, by ship travel time. A bit more by Earth time. The farthest reaches of the observable universe, at the rate of acceleration, are only half a century away, ship time. An untold number of years Earth time. Unless you want to decelerate. In which case it might take more ship time.

Due to relativity one doesn’t need to exceed the speed of light to get to any point in the universe. Of course the ship would turn into a ball of plasma if it hit even a speck of dust at those velocities.

@Potemkin robots! Machine learning! Seriously, how are you going to engage the monkey group emotionally if you don’t send a few of the monkeys into danger? Your thinking is insufficently monkey like.
#14870867
I reckon we should send lolbertarians to the moon. I just finished reading an achingly tedious Heinlein novel about that precise concept. :lol:

ness31 wrote:Lord only knows what an inhabitant of Uranus will be. And no, before anyone says it, not a Heisenbergian

Don't speak too hastily, my dear... :excited:
#14870869
The job of our institutions should be to limit the monkey biases and make better collective decisions and actions than individuals can. Giving access to the collective wealth of society to the whimsy of the people, without shaping those whims into useful applications, to fling people to the Moon for no reason is the opposite of what we should expect from government institutions.
#14870872
mikema63 wrote:We could take those billions from a theoretical moon colony and put it into the sorts of material and space research that could make spaceflight cheaper and more viable.


There's no technology that could make spaceflight magically cheaper. The best method for getting out of the Earth's gravity well is chemical propulsion, which has reached its theoretical limits in terms of efficiency. On the Moon you could use a mass driver for cargo, but setting up such large infrastructure only pays off with sufficient demand. Unfortunately there is no reason for humans to travel to space in large numbers, unless you count tourism. Subsidizing joy rides to space for the super rich is not exactly a popular proposition.
#14870874
It’s sounds as though some people don’t think the’re getting value for money from their nations space exploration initiatives.
That’s a shame. I’m sure humanity receives plenty of benefits from space exploration, but maybe the NASA big wigs aren’t good at explaining them. It wouldn’t surprise me - those sciencey types are terrible at explaining what they do..
#14870876
The job of our institutions should be to limit the monkey biases and make better collective decisions and actions than individuals can. Giving access to the collective wealth of society to the whimsy of the people, without shaping those whims into useful applications, to fling people to the Moon for no reason is the opposite of what we should expect from government institutions.

:lol:

Oh wait... you're serious...?! :eek:
#14870884
foxdemon wrote:To stir the pot a little, Venus is a viable target for a colony. What to argue about it?


Currently Venusian conditions are hellish. Its gravity--90% of ours--might be adequate. But it would be really tough to terraform a tidally locked, runaway greenhouse world.
As for Antarctica vs Mars: it goes without saying that Antarctica is more habitable than Mars, now. I meant that the low latitudes of Mars may have greater potential assuming terraforming is oneday feasible. You can never increase warmth in Antarctica to levels sufficient for habitability or civilization--unless the rest of Earth becomes a steambath. The Martian equatorial regions may hold more promise in that regard though low gravity may still rule out human habitation there.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 10

EU is not prepared on nuclear war, but Russia,[…]

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]