Space Exploration

[PKT_VOL]

Super duper serious.

1) The unknown/unexplored universe >>> unknown/unexplored parts of Earth. *Note* There are not enough ">" to make an accurate comparison there. The difference is unimaginable.

1) Pure conjecture on your part

Holy sh*t this might be the dumbest response I have ever seen on VN...and that is saying a lot.

You must be related to this lady.

 

[alexmanu]

If we were meant to be on other planets then why are these other worlds that are capable to support life, so far away? Why did God make them at almost unreachable distances? Plus how do we know human beings are able to survive deep space exploration? Everything scientists have told us is solely theoretical about deep space exploration. No human has ever done it. So what happens if we get on Mars and cannot survive even with in artificial environments? What happens if the crew dies halfway to Mars? We know absolutely nothing about how our bodies will react to other planets. Your statements are just conjecture. There is zero proof we are meant to exist anywhere else than Earth.

Mars gets hit much more frequently than Earth. Pow! Mars Hit By Space Rocks 200 Times a Year Your own statement outlines the danger of Mars. Earth has an atmosphere that burns most asteroids up. Mars has no such protection. So even small asteroids would be extremely dangerous.

We are a gene mutation away from destruction by viruses and bacteria. We need to stay on top of how they are changing and progressing. Stronger antibiotics have to be developed. As we continue to populate the planet, new diseases will pop up and we need to have a way to deal with them. That is far more important than spending money to explore something that may or may not yield anything beneficial. Preserving human life should be at the top. I agree that research needs to be diversified. However going to another planet will have no effect on that. There could be cures to major diseases in our oceans and jungles. In places we have not explored yet.

Like I said if private companies want to explore space then fine. However I would much rather see my tax dollars go to something that I KNOW will help humanity.

Multiple flaws in your argument. First assuming that there is a 'meaning' to life, there most likely isn't and assuming that a 'God' of some sort placed us here, that may or may not be true but it is most likely not the Christian God ,that you refer to.

Colonization of Mars is perfectly conceivable and if you have the technology to do that effectively then you are talking several centuries where asteroids and new diseases may not be a worry anymore.

Plus you seem scared of the consequences if something goes wrong during a space mission and seem to think that that means you shouldn't attempt it at all. Based on that theory we would never have had the boat, plane, car or any other mildly dangerous human invention.

Theoretical physics has already thrown out some interesting ideas about futures space travel. One that I am most intrigued by is expanding and contracting space-time behind of and in front of a space craft to travel interstellar in a matter or weeks. This is far more conceivable that creating a ship that goes near to, or as fast as, the speed of light or finding a wormhole. All of this is a future possibility, humans have to explore to discover.

Just think how technology has improved from just a couple of centuries ago. Humans are amazing, don't underestimate us.

 

[WooPigSooie]

If man was meant to leave this planet then the other planets would be be able to sustain life without extensive engineering.

It can also be said that if man were meant to fly we would be born with wings.. if man were meant to cross the oceans we'd have been born with gills and flippers (even though there are stages a fetus goes through in the womb that mimic the evolution of early tetrapods) .. so on and so forth.

Ill steer away from the evolution vs creationism debate and just say,
Every living creature on Earth relies on some sort of specialty for survival. Ours is tool making made possible by our big brain .. and thanks to all our tool making over the years we have met our basic needs so well that we have nothing more to occupy our time with than the acquisition of knowledge.

The human mind is nearly incapable of being idle. Once it's figured out how to sustain itself indefinitely.. it gets bored and starts looking toward the horizon.

Ultimately the concept we have of currency and the value we put on it is arbitrary. The only thing that really means something and has the potential to last forever is knowledge. If we have to burn some trivial resources in the short term to gain this knowledge about the nature of our universe then so be it.

 

[Grand Vol]

It can also be said that if man were meant to fly we would be born with wings.. if man were meant to cross the oceans we'd have been born with gills and flippers (even though there are stages a fetus goes through in the womb that mimic the evolution of early tetrapods) .. so on and so forth.

Ill steer away from the evolution vs creationism debate and just say,
Every living creature on Earth relies on some sort of specialty for survival. Ours is tool making made possible by our big brain .. and thanks to all our tool making over the years we have met our basic needs so well that we have nothing more to occupy our time with than the acquisition of knowledge.

The human mind is nearly incapable of being idle. Once it's figured out how to sustain itself indefinitely.. it gets bored and starts looking toward the horizon.

Ultimately the concept we have of currency and the value we put on it is arbitrary. The only thing that really means something and has the potential to last forever is knowledge. If we have to burn some trivial resources in the short term to gain this knowledge about the nature of our universe then so be it.

Good honey.

 

[chatsworth_vol]

If we were meant to be on other planets then why are these other worlds that are capable to support life, so far away? Why did God make them at almost unreachable distances?

If you believe a supreme being laid things out for a purpose, then maybe the purpose is for something to strive for. Some goal as a species to come together for our own betterment and achieve. Why is almost any major achievement, whether personal, professional, or spiritual, is hard or some time almost impossible? If you believe there is an intelligence guiding the universe then just maybe it wants us as a people to learn the skills and discipline to master the stars just as any master expects of a student/apprentice.

 

[MercyPercy]

If we were meant to be on other planets then why are these other worlds that are capable to support life, so far away? Why did God make them at almost unreachable distances? Plus how do we know human beings are able to survive deep space exploration? Everything scientists have told us is solely theoretical about deep space exploration. No human has ever done it. So what happens if we get on Mars and cannot survive even with in artificial environments? What happens if the crew dies halfway to Mars? We know absolutely nothing about how our bodies will react to other planets. Your statements are just conjecture. There is zero proof we are meant to exist anywhere else than Earth.

Mars gets hit much more frequently than Earth. Pow! Mars Hit By Space Rocks 200 Times a Year Your own statement outlines the danger of Mars. Earth has an atmosphere that burns most asteroids up. Mars has no such protection. So even small asteroids would be extremely dangerous.

We are a gene mutation away from destruction by viruses and bacteria. We need to stay on top of how they are changing and progressing. Stronger antibiotics have to be developed. As we continue to populate the planet, new diseases will pop up and we need to have a way to deal with them. That is far more important than spending money to explore something that may or may not yield anything beneficial. Preserving human life should be at the top. I agree that research needs to be diversified. However going to another planet will have no effect on that. There could be cures to major diseases in our oceans and jungles. In places we have not explored yet.

Like I said if private companies want to explore space then fine. However I would much rather see my tax dollars go to something that I KNOW will help humanity.

Hahaha yes. This is what I was waiting for.

 

[Grand Vol]

Hahaha yes. This is what I was waiting for.

Your self control has been admirable.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

You do realize earth gets hit at more than double the rate of Mars? It's estimated that 500 meteorites hit the ground as opposed to 200 on Mars.



Impact event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And furthermore, the entire premise of the impact being "more dangerous" by the lack of atmosphere is not fundamentally sound. Explosions, any of them whether they be impact or chemically initiated, depend on the outgoing wave of compressed air to enhance the destructive effects. Nuclear explosions are not quite as devastating when there is no air to compress and cause the destruction. So the limited atmosphere on Mars actually means the blast effects are less than they would be on earth since there is less gas to compress to create the shock wave. And unless you happen to get a direct hit, it won't be nearly as bad.

So sorry to blow a hole in your theory that it's more dangerous on Mars.

Too condescending?

Impact Mars: Fresh crater spotted by HiRISE.

First 2 sentences. So by your logic Mars is safer or just as safe as Earth? So how could a planet thats closer to the asteroid belt get hit much less than the Earth? You really need to reason things out a little. Also those meteorites that do hit Earth are going to be much smaller and less destructive because of our atmosphere. As I have said Mars doesn't have that protection. I would agree with the wiki entry if we are talking about impacts from objects that are the same size. However as it has been stated, Earths atmosphere takes care of most big rocks. If an object has a larger mass and is not worked upon by an atmosphere like Earth's, the impact will be greater and more destructive. Simple physics will tell you this.

Think about it. If a rock the size of a car comes into contact with the Earths atmosphere what happens? It heats up and slows down. Then it breaks up and only the smallest bits would hit the Earth with very little damage. Now with no atmosphere to slow the object down or burn it up into little pieces, it will be destructive.

Mars Astronauts Likely to Witness 1 Megaton Asteroid Impacts | MIT Technology Review

Emboldened by this success, they apply the same model to Mars, where impact rates are likely to be higher because of its proximity to the asteroid belt. Here’s the interesting part: these guys calculate that Mars experiences a 1 megaton event every three years.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Besides it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks. NASA is more than likely going to go forward with space exploration. Hopefully it will yield some sort of great thing to help humanity, although I doubt it. I believe scientists will have much better luck with finding something on this planet that will help humans more than anything in space.

 

[Grand Vol]

Impact Mars: Fresh crater spotted by HiRISE.

First 2 sentences.

So this proves...? And nice that you use a blog article as your "evidence."

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

So this proves...? And nice that you use a blog article as your "evidence."

Well it provides proof to what should be blatantly obvious. Mars is closer to the asteroid belt, therefore it gets hit with rocks more frequently. Perfect analogy: Earth is closer to the sun than Mars. Earth is warmer. Earth is further from the sun than Venus, therefore Venus is warmer than Earth. Fairly simple.

Sorry but you used wikipedia as evidence for your argument. It is not a credible source of information. Anybody can edit wiki articles. So if you're gonna trash my source, then yours is just as bad.

 

[Grand Vol]

Well it provides proof to what should be blatantly obvious. Mars is closer to the asteroid belt, therefore it gets hit with rocks more frequently. Perfect analogy: Earth is closer to the sun than Mars. Earth is warmer. Earth is further from the sun than Venus, therefore Venus is warmer than Earth. Fairly simple.

No...just no.

Sorry but you used wikipedia as evidence for your argument. It is not a credible source of information. Anybody can edit wiki articles. So if you're gonna trash my source, then yours is just as bad.

Actually, there are cited links in that wiki article. Can you say the same about yours? No?

So again, so sorry you used a blog as a reference and your really bad science is just not shaping up.

 

[WooPigSooie]

Well it provides proof to what should be blatantly obvious. Mars is closer to the asteroid belt, therefore it gets hit with rocks more frequently. Perfect analogy: Earth is closer to the sun than Mars. Earth is warmer. Earth is further from the sun than Venus, therefore Venus is warmer than Earth. Fairly simple.

Sorry but you used wikipedia as evidence for your argument. It is not a credible source of information. Anybody can edit wiki articles. So if you're gonna trash my source, then yours is just as bad.

Its true that Venus is warmer than Earth.. surfaces temps average just under 1000 degree F. However, this sort of heat on Venus has very little to do with it's vicinity to the Sun and most everything to do with an extreme greenhouse effect with its atmosphere. Venus traps heat very well.

Did you know that the dark side of Mercury, the closest planet to the sun, can get down to -298 degrees Fahrenheit? Thats just a little on the cool side

 

[WooPigSooie]

Well it provides proof to what should be blatantly obvious. Mars is closer to the asteroid belt, therefore it gets hit with rocks more frequently. .

Actually a big misconception about the asteroid belt is that it's asteroids are so close together there are constant collisions and mass chaos. This sort of idea is largely do to countless movies like Star Wars that depict asteroid fields as chaotic environments where asteroids are constantly colliding.

The truth is you could fly right through the middle of the asteroid belt and easily avoid any dangers. The objects that orbit there are so well dispersed, there is rarely any contact.. moreover, the gravitational pull of Jupiter keeps all those little guys pretty well in line. The objects we have to worry about are the ones that are in some sort of crazy elliptical orbit around the sun. The type of orbit that crosses the orbits if the inner planets are well.

 

[volprof]

I know you're halfway joking, but there's a couple of companies out there talking about doing something similar. Asteroid mining:

Asteroid mining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some pretty serious financial numbers if it goes through from the private sector. The only problem with comet harvesting is the fact you have to get them deeper in space before the coma forms and the gas jets start up. It's kind of a tricky proposition otherwise.

Yeah, I was just trying to elicit a cheap laugh. I've heard about this as well. Very interesting stuff. As big a waste of money as it seems (and probably often is), we should never abandon space exploration. Too many important things going on out there.

 

[Grand Vol]

Yeah, I was just trying to elicit a cheap laugh. I've heard about this as well. Very interesting stuff. As big a waste of money as it seems (and probably often is), we should never abandon space exploration. Too many important things going on out there.

Like I said before, we'll eventually get smacked in the cosmic sense (again) by a rogue asteroid or comet that we didn't see coming, so I certainly agree with PKT in the huge need for additional assets for watching the skies. And I also know if a human population was able to be somewhat self sustaining on another world, it helps the survival aspect.

Plus the colonization aspect of overpopulating the planet. We're getting there and having places to send others will be extremely helpful.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Impact Mars: Fresh crater spotted by HiRISE.

First 2 sentences. So by your logic Mars is safer or just as safe as Earth? So how could a planet thats closer to the asteroid belt get hit much less than the Earth? You really need to reason things out a little. Also those meteorites that do hit Earth are going to be much smaller and less destructive because of our atmosphere. As I have said Mars doesn't have that protection. I would agree with the wiki entry if we are talking about impacts from objects that are the same size. However as it has been stated, Earths atmosphere takes care of most big rocks. If an object has a larger mass and is not worked upon by an atmosphere like Earth's, the impact will be greater and more destructive. Simple physics will tell you this.

Think about it. If a rock the size of a car comes into contact with the Earths atmosphere what happens? It heats up and slows down. Then it breaks up and only the smallest bits would hit the Earth with very little damage. Now with no atmosphere to slow the object down or burn it up into little pieces, it will be destructive.

Mars Astronauts Likely to Witness 1 Megaton Asteroid Impacts | MIT Technology Review

Emboldened by this success, they apply the same model to Mars, where impact rates are likely to be higher because of its proximity to the asteroid belt. Here’s the interesting part: these guys calculate that Mars experiences a 1 megaton event every three years.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Besides it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks. NASA is more than likely going to go forward with space exploration. Hopefully it will yield some sort of great thing to help humanity, although I doubt it. I believe scientists will have much better luck with finding something on this planet that will help humans more than anything in space.

Why are you having such a hard time grasping this concept? It is not that that Mars, the Moon, Venus, etc. is a better planet/home than Earth for humans at the moment (although there might be a planet out there that is better than Earth; statistically there is).

It is all about diversification! Think of it like stock. Sure, you might think Earth is the best stock (and it is at the moment), but you need to diversify your portfolio. Putting all your eggs in any one basket, regardless of how nice the basket may seem today, is never a wise strategy.

Remember, the dinosaurs thought Earth was a pretty good gig too. Didn't diversify.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Make me the president. i will have a Moon colony in 5 years. Asteroids 5 years after that. I personally think Mars is a waste of time. I think we can leap directly from the asteroids to another solar system.

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

Well it provides proof to what should be blatantly obvious. Mars is closer to the asteroid belt, therefore it gets hit with rocks more frequently. Perfect analogy: Earth is closer to the sun than Mars. Earth is warmer. Earth is further from the sun than Venus, therefore Venus is warmer than Earth. Fairly simple.

Sorry but you used wikipedia as evidence for your argument. It is not a credible source of information. Anybody can edit wiki articles. So if you're gonna trash my source, then yours is just as bad.

Not to get all technical on you because you are clearly a learned man in the ways of science, but most asteroids that strike the inner planets don't come from the asteroid belt. Jupiter essentially holds them in check. Most come from the Kuiper Belt.

 

[BearCat204]

Not to get all technical on you because you are clearly a learned man in the ways of science, but most asteroids that strike the inner planets don't come from the asteroid belt. Jupiter essentially holds them in check. Most come from the Kuiper Belt.

This is all kinds of lulz

 

[LouderVol]

If we were meant to be on other planets then why are these other worlds that are capable to support life, so far away? Why did God make them at almost unreachable distances? Plus how do we know human beings are able to survive deep space exploration? Everything scientists have told us is solely theoretical about deep space exploration. No human has ever done it. So what happens if we get on Mars and cannot survive even with in artificial environments? What happens if the crew dies halfway to Mars? We know absolutely nothing about how our bodies will react to other planets. Your statements are just conjecture. There is zero proof we are meant to exist anywhere else than Earth.

Mars gets hit much more frequently than Earth. Pow! Mars Hit By Space Rocks 200 Times a Year Your own statement outlines the danger of Mars. Earth has an atmosphere that burns most asteroids up. Mars has no such protection. So even small asteroids would be extremely dangerous.

We are a gene mutation away from destruction by viruses and bacteria. We need to stay on top of how they are changing and progressing. Stronger antibiotics have to be developed. As we continue to populate the planet, new diseases will pop up and we need to have a way to deal with them. That is far more important than spending money to explore something that may or may not yield anything beneficial. Preserving human life should be at the top. I agree that research needs to be diversified. However going to another planet will have no effect on that. There could be cures to major diseases in our oceans and jungles. In places we have not explored yet.

Like I said if private companies want to explore space then fine. However I would much rather see my tax dollars go to something that I KNOW will help humanity.

and there is no proof that we shouldn't/can't exist on other planets. There is no proof that there aren't other humans out there. The universe is TOO big and too varied to be covered with a blanket statement that there are no colonize-able planets out there.

your defense against exploring space is we don't know what is out there because we haven't explored and therefore shouldn't do it. Yet you use that exact reason as to why would should explore the earth more, we don't know whats out/in there so we SHOULD explore more.

If we had life on another planet there is so remote a chance that the same super bug is going to wipe us all out that it is laughable that you use this as an excuse. You should be using the fear of the super bug as a reason to have life on other planets.

 

[LouderVol]

Like I said before, we'll eventually get smacked in the cosmic sense (again) by a rogue asteroid or comet that we didn't see coming, so I certainly agree with PKT in the huge need for additional assets for watching the skies. And I also know if a human population was able to be somewhat self sustaining on another world, it helps the survival aspect.

Plus the colonization aspect of overpopulating the planet. We're getting there and having places to send others will be extremely helpful.

I am usually with you but the sheer number of people we would have to send into space to 'fix' the overpopulation problem is literally millions if not billions of people. Making it highly unlikely we will fix the number problem here on earth by shooting people into space.

 

[LouderVol]

I might know some of the same people.. I actually work with the Army and the only rockets we deal with are the ones that put warheads on foreheads

gotcha, thought I would throw it out there. And keep doing the good work.

 

[Grand Vol]

I am usually with you but the sheer number of people we would have to send into space to 'fix' the overpopulation problem is literally millions if not billions of people. Making it highly unlikely we will fix the number problem here on earth by shooting people into space.

That was kind of an "eventually" statement rather than a next week deal.

Although I could start making a list of people I'd like to shoot into space.

 

[LouderVol]

BigOrangeTrain nice quote and picture, you realize the people wanting to explore aren't the people cutting down the rain forests. Its people who won't look into good long term solutions that are doing the damage here on earth. In fact I would say the people I have met (through my uncle) that actually work on this stuff are some of the biggest hippy tree hugging solar energy liberals I have ever thought to meet. They are just willing to admit that the future of humankind may not be limited to the rock we are on now.

 

[Grand Vol]

I am usually with you but the sheer number of people we would have to send into space to 'fix' the overpopulation problem is literally millions if not billions of people. Making it highly unlikely we will fix the number problem here on earth by shooting people into space.

Let me kind of expand on this a bit since you brought it up.

By the overpopulation problem I mean that our resources on this planet are finite and eventually we will end up coming up short whether it is water, food, important minerals, etc. So where are those resources? Out there. So by helping the overpopulation, reaching out into the solar system for additional assets and colonizing the additional areas, say for Helium 3 production on the moon requires a dedicated population. Sure initially they will need to be supported from Terra Firma but we are beginning to scratch the surface on the resources that are available within reach cosmically speaking.

The comet harvesting comment was a bit of a joke, but...they do have significant stores water that could be/should be able to be used. So imagine a mini-Dyson Sphere type of apparatus that could capture said comet, divert the path off of a solar orbit and safely move it to within reach of colonies or the Earth. And using materials mined from asteroids to construct said device. It's cosmic cleaning on a grand scale as those same comets wouldn't be a threat to Earth in the future.

Think about farms put into an L2 solar orbit that are again made with materials harvested from space entirely. Maybe with hydroponics, maybe it rotates to keep the dirt created by the regolith from said asteroid mining. Growing seasons mean nothing as there are no seasons in space.

Methane is a reasonable alternate fuel for combustion engines. And the solar system is filled with it. The same with hydrogen. All mining operations that can be successful (down the road at least) and help ease the burden on the resources of our own planet.

It's not beyond the reach of the imagination. And we've just scratched the surface on what we know is out there. All of which would require some form of human oversight (no matter how much we try to automate everything) which are colonies and the supporting infrastructure.