SPACE

[Dio]

Yes, although using the poles brings its own difficulties.

[Darkflame]

Your reply only was saying, basically "its very hard".
That dosnt contract the fact it has to be done one day, and it will take a long time to develop.
It also dosnt counter the fact that directly developing space technology will get you a hell of a lot further then just waiting for earth tech to happen to help you along. Which may never happen.

This is just a guess, but I'm thinking you don't have a science degree? Like I said, it's not that "it's hard".

...and again, you skip over the argument.

You called my statements whacky, I am still waiting for you to back that up. Or at least specify what statement you found whacky.
I have not argued against colonization being "hard" or "impossible with current tech". In fact, I agree with both of those. Strewman diffused.

A space elevator is the only game-changing technology on the horizon, and I'm happy to bet £10 we won't see that in my lifetime.

Lifetime?
Heck, I could be talking 1000s of years for all you know. I don't remember any timescale being specified. :p

I certainly agree with need a spece-elevator if not literally, then something like it. Some tech that reduces payload costs.
But we wont get that by sitting around waiting for some earth-application to need thousands of miles of carbon-fiber cables.

We need to be out there now.
We need to have these robots out there, these probes. They are doing science, and we are learning stuff from them.
We need space-stations and commercial interests to be exploited.

Its only though reaching do you get anywhere.
Space exporation is the most important thing this species can do to ensure its own survival. Unfortuntely, as a species, we are very short-term in our thinking.

But none of this contradicts or denighs the huge challenges ahead now says solutions are around the corner.
As I said, the "impossibilitys" of what we need to do long term, is precisely why we need to be doing the more basic baby steps now.
If we want to find that new science, theres more chance up there then down here, imho.

[Dio]

We need to be out there now.
We need to have these robots out there, these probes. They are doing science, and we are learning stuff from them.
We need space-stations and commercial interests to be exploited.

Its only though reaching do you get anywhere.
But none of this contradicts or denighs the huge challenges ahead now says solutions are around the corner.

That's what I think is wacky (which I didn't mean in the 'amusing' sense, just in the 'not well thought through') - the assertion that we absolutely must do this, almost to the point where to not do it is an abrogation of our responsibility as human beings.

Should we explore space and develop space technology? Sure. Should we write a blank cheque for doing so, a la Apollo? Not a chance. There are too many things we need to fix on this planet and no espousing of the view that we have to leave at some point makes any of them any less important. While I'm not against minor subsidy, my general view is that we do waste a lot of money on space - particularly manned space and on Mars - and commercial interests and/or cheaper missions have to be made the priority, with government money directed more usefully here. Much though the thought of a lunar base really, really excites and appeals to me. I want it to be practical so much, but it just isn't.

[axel000]

I tend to disagree, for several reasons. Most importantly, there is already excessive government waste, worldwide, on military applications, unnecessary farm subsidies etc. etc. Unfortunately politicans do a very good job of convincing the electorate that their priorities are the right ones.

Taking funds away from space science doesn't increase funds for tackling poverty, or education, or global warming. Far from it, governments do a very poor job when it comes to budgeting and prioritizing spending. Its a product of the electorate though and their lack of taking politicans to task for how they spend money.

Beyond the funding side, there is a need for the engineering and scientific challenge of pushing space projects. Its an investment in our children's futures.

[Darkflame]

We need to be out there now.
We need to have these robots out there, these probes. They are doing science, and we are learning stuff from them.
We need space-stations and commercial interests to be exploited.

Its only though reaching do you get anywhere.
But none of this contradicts or denighs the huge challenges ahead now says solutions are around the corner.

That's what I think is wacky (which I didn't mean in the 'amusing' sense, just in the 'not well thought through') - the assertion that we absolutely must do this, .

So it was this you found whacky;
"Space is long term survival, its that simple. "
Thanks for making that clear.

Our sun will die, ergo, we must do this to survive.
(and long before that its statisicaly almost certain we will be whipped out by impact, and before that probably we will have resource problems)
Having an off-site backup is always a good idea, even long before other "stela" problems bother us.

Seriously, its absolutely 100% certain we haveto leave this planet, or die out. You know this.
Nothing "whacky" about it.
We are the only species to have inteligence so see big problems coming, we shouldnt waste that ability we have. (and yes, that also includes earth-based resource and enviroment problems).

Pointing to other problems on earth is no excuse not to start tackleing the huge problems we, as a species, will face. There will always be other problems. Mankinds future shouldnt be the thing to be sacrificed to solve them. Theres plenty more pots of miss-spent money elsewhere....if more money would help at all..in most case's, it probably wouldnt.
At the moment, so much of mankind is tied up doing trival things, we cant even begin to say it has to be "Space Or XXX and XXX is more important"
Its a false choice.

Not that I think Space-funding itself is always well spent. Within the field, theres some changes of priority I would like, but overall, investment in space technology is a good thing.

[axel000]

I am often puzzled by the short sightedness of the environmental movement, they will go to madening ends to protect some in-danger beetle yet at the same time, completely overlook the fact that this planet will be engulfed in flames in under 5 billion years.

Its our duty as the only intelligence on this planet, and the only known intelligence in the universe at present, to be dutiful custodians of life. This means making long term plans, pushing technology, pushing science. It may be a 300 year mission, but 300 years from now if we keep making small incremental steps we will literally have saved the world.

The ability to move small colonies of people, plants and wildlife to other celestial bodies will give the human race a purpose. Spreading life through the cosmos will mean all that has come before us in our history and the planet's history was not for naught.

This is a long term vision, and an important one. Protecting the life on this planet goes beyond stopping development of a new nuke plant or highway.

[Duck Turkin]

Seriously, its absolutely 100% certain we haveto leave this planet, or die out. You know this.
Nothing "whacky" about it.

That is whacky. We have to treat our planet better, that's a given, but I don't see why we have to vacate it. After all, it's our planet, and there is nothing even remotely close to it at any realistic distance. The problem is, real life isn't like Star Trek, and therefore space travel is and will remain horrible (in terms of speed and inherent dangers) for the forseeable future.

We are the only species to have inteligence so see big problems coming, we shouldnt waste that ability we have. (and yes, that also includes earth-based resource and enviroment problems).

We are also the only species that can try to solve the big problems. That's where the money should be spent.

[axel000]

You are completely overlooking the fact that the Sun has a finite life, and there are very high odds of a cataclysmic extinction level impact as you look out in the tens of thousands of years.

[Dio]

Our sun will die, ergo, we must do this to survive.

Are you seriously arguing that looking ahead over a million times your lifetime isn't at least slightly wacky?

But fundamentally, you're missing my point: the assertion that current exploration moves us any way nearer that goal in the slightest just makes no sense at all to me. Saying that sending robots to Mars advances us towards interstellar travel is like arguing that if we work hard enough on that steam engine we can get to the moon on it.

For me, I don't see the point in taking that long a view; if you look far enough forward the entire universe ends up doomed, so I don't think that limiting my forward view to, say, 1% of the way to the sun's expansion is really a serious issue that should be deciding our funding choices now.

[Dio]

You are completely overlooking the fact that the Sun has a finite life

Are you actually, genuinely serious with this statement? When you said something akin to that above I thought you were being sarcastic about environmentalists, but now I'm not so sure?

[teamonkey]

While I'm not against minor subsidy, my general view is that we do waste a lot of money on space - particularly manned space and on Mars - and commercial interests and/or cheaper missions have to be made the priority, with government money directed more usefully here.

A lot of money? NASA's budget is $17bn. That's peanuts - a tiny fraction of tax, less than 0.1c of every dollar earned. The UK's science budget is a whopping £50m.

[Dio]

Right, but we're not going to get a lunar base or people on Mars for that. I think the current level of NASA funding is pretty reasonable; the UK's science budget is a total joke, but manned space exploration would be a ways down my list of priorities of where the money should go - I'm very much in favour of the funding of pure science; space exploration isn't pure science.

[teamonkey]

Right, but we're not going to get a lunar base or people on Mars for that.

Yeah, absolutely. Or anything useful really. NASA can barely afford to send shuttles up and they've invested so much cash in the shuttle program that they can't afford to develop an alternative.

The technology for going to the moon or mars is more or less here, by which I mean that there's no huge technical barriers and we don't need any major advances or technical revolutions to make it possible - just funding and research. So like I said earlier, as soon as someone finds a commercially reason to go to the moon or mars, a few hundred billion dollars will be injected in to the mix and will we'll be there in only a few years.

The US presence in the middle east is expected to cost about $500bn dollars this year, by the way, just to put that in context.

[Dio]

Yep. Sad, isn't it?

That said, NASA is so ludicrously inefficient I'm not 100% certain it deserves to live. Commercialisation, like the stuff coming out of the X-Prize, is where things are going to start getting interesting; I've no doubt there's a market for a space holiday resort.

[axel000]

You are completely overlooking the fact that the Sun has a finite life

Are you actually, genuinely serious with this statement? When you said something akin to that above I thought you were being sarcastic about environmentalists, but now I'm not so sure?

Yes there is nothing outlandish about having a long term viewpoint, doesn't mean any of this is happening remotely soon. Incremental steps are better than no steps.

Like another poster said, the US alone is wasting about $500bn a year right now in Iraq/Afghanistan, well wasting probably $250bn a year if you feel that the chasing of Al-Queda in Afghanistan is necessary. A fully funded man to mars mission was researched by Nasa and estimated at $50bn. We could have been to Mars 20 times over for the money wasted so far in Iraq. Not to go off tangent, but I'd glady double Nasa's budget and find the money in the Pentagon's bloated budget. It would be quite easy to do.