To the Moon and then Mars

[alec]

Baring a major biological or nuclear conflict, this planet is going to remain habitable for thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years.

I agree. Whether it will still be inhabited by humans is a different matter, IMO.

Even then, a major war would have little effect to the overall picture.

Again: I agree. But if we choose to go out with a bang (nuclear), we might well succeed in turning this planet into another ball of dust and impossibilities.

I for one think it is highly improbable that humanity will ever be wiped out completely. In one big haul, that is. You don't just get rid of seven billion intelligent critters. What we can do is make sure that the remaining humans can't ever climb up the ladder of progress again. Which would eventually mean their downfall (lack of medicine, good energy resources, etcetera). If we manage to do so whilst all 7 billion are still around (or 8 or 9 billion, whatever), we're going to be standing kneedeep in our own shit. And the way things are going, that seems to be the most likely scenario.

Space travel is something that we should do, but we are not ready yet, and we are certainly in no rush, aiming to get to mars within 10-20 years is uncessary and holds little if any benifit.

Ask yourself this question: what good has all of our amateuristic space exploration done for us so far? Oh sure, we now have GPS and a gazillion of worthless television channels, and we can bug each other with our mobile phones. We also now have pens that can write upside down (really handy on Earth, you know) and bras that still support women's titties in zero gravity conditions (again, so useful on Earth). The only real positive things are stuff like the Hubble Space Telescope which gives us the opportunity to peek into the darkness and see things we never saw (and make pretty pictures of it). That's about it, dude. And do you have any idea how much all of that has costed us? Not in dollars, but in energy? Too much.

Don't forget that the Space Shuttle program (the only space program that relied primarily on liquid hydrogen instead of petroleum-derived fuel) is getting cancelled. It's not adventurous enough to the public, because Space Shuttles never really leave Earth.

Reminding people of the Apollo program is simply part of the Presidential campaigns that are still going on right now. Kennedy is still considered a real American hero because of it and making similar statements (let's put a man on the <strike>Moon</strike> Mars) is just a stupid attempt to have some of that Kennedy charm rub off on them (Obama/McCain). It's a cheap fucking tool to tell their voters that high goals (e.g. putting a man on the Moon -> shift from oil as a primary fuel source) is possible if we (i.e. the yanks) as a people commit ourselves to it. And just like pretty much everything that comes out of the US of A these days, it is a load of crap. Look around you: do you see change? Do you see the majority of people get rid of their cars and use their bicycles instead? Do you see them consume less? Have you noticed a sudden drop in the fabrication of plastic and other chemical crap?
No, you haven't. What you are seeing are small-scale actions and often ludicrous events (e.g. "This weekend is healthy bicycle weekend!" W00t!) organized by an absolute minority. And guess what? That's not new. There have always been smaal groups who did stuff like that, but it didn't bring any change at all.
You've got to start somewhere, you say? Sure, but that start was already taken decades ago (Greenpeace, etcetera) and it just didn't get the results we need for our future and that of our children.
Politicians know this. Politicians know that their voters are lazy, stupid, meek sheep. And sheep need a leader who will tell them that (s)he will solve all of their problems just like that WITHOUT creating bigger ones. That's where the main problem is situated: you can not solve this crap without creating bigger problems, and bigger problems (to the masses) are: having to pay more taxes, and having less money to spend on the pollution of this planet (i.e. consuming like the little whores we all know we are).
Solution: let's at least make it appear as if the leader(s) are doing something substantial: let's say that everything and everyone (especially big corporations, but also all governmental institutions) are concerned with durability and sustainability. WHILST THEY ARE NOT. Let's feed the young lies so that they will learn how to grow old.

I'm ranting about this because it has become my dada over the past few years. We are at an incredibly crowded crosspoint in history right now and if we do not make harsh decisions (take the right turn) we are not going to survive. We'll get run over and that will be it.

Real change would be to rob people not of their money but of their lust to consume. And seeing how 'politics' has become synonymous with 'economic growth' that is not going to happen before it's too late.

So fuck the Space Program and let's focus on what's really important: how can we wake up 7 billion people and teach them this one truth: we have one planet only and if we don't save it, we are forever fucked. That's gonna cost heaps of money, so let's not waste it on some science fiction daydream that, all in all, will probably not add much more to human life than a pair of boxershorts that resist radiation (very handy on Earth) and suglasses that can withstand micro-meteorite impacts (again, useful for laying at the beach, yes?).

My two-hundred-and-twenty-six cents.

 

[Jebus]

seven billion intelligent critters.

6 960 000 000 intelligent critters - you're forgetting there's about 40 million Polaks.

 

[alec]

6 959 999 999

I also forgot you.

 

[Ravager69]

seven billion intelligent critters.

6 960 000 000 intelligent critters - you're forgetting there's about 40 million Polaks.

What the fuck was that?

 

[Slaughter Manslaught]

I think we're going to return to the Moon first because it's nearer. And makes more sense. Colonizing the moon is kinda like sending a soldier to the Boot Camp (the moon) before sending him to the front lines (Mars). The Moon is the nearest place of interest, I bet you can and will see it from your windows in two or three hours, maybe you're already seeing it. Mars is pretty far away. The Moon? Compared to Mars, going to the Moon is like walking to the nearest bus stop. We need to LEARN what works and does not works when it comes to space colonization. Then we can head for Mars or Venus.

And why is the NASA still using those ridiculous chemical rockets? Goddamnit. We use nuclear power on ships and submarines, but to go to space we are still using Chemical Rockets? Holy shit. Nuclear Power with Solar Power as support would really help to go to Mars or the Moon faster. Chemical Rockets don't cut it. And Greenpeace anti-nuclear eco-nuts can go to hell. We need more nuclear power everywhere, and why not start with space?

And for those who say there's no need for space colonization... Space is the creepy, dangerous ocean of today, like the Atlantic was so frightening to the europeians before Colombo and Cabral.

 

[alec]

Then we can head for Mars or Venus.

Venus? Good luck. Last thing I heard, you'll get squashed like a ladybug in distress before ever setting foot on that inhospitable planet.

And why is the NASA still using those ridiculous chemical rockets? Goddamnit. We use nuclear power on ships and submarines, but to go to space we are still using Chemical Rockets? Holy shit. Nuclear Power with Solar Power as support would really help to go to Mars or the Moon faster. Chemical Rockets don't cut it. And Greenpeace anti-nuclear eco-nuts can go to hell. We need more nuclear power everywhere, and why not start with space?

You can not lift a rocket from the ground with nuclear power and/or solar energy. Sorry.

And for those who say there's no need for space colonization... Space is the creepy, dangerous ocean of today, like the Atlantic was so frightening to the europeians before Colombo and Cabral.

 

[Maphusio]

I for one think it is highly improbable that humanity will ever be wiped out completely. In one big haul, that is. You don't just get rid of seven billion intelligent critters.

Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, End Triassic extinction, Permian-Triassic extinction, Late Devonian extinction, Ordovician-Silurian extinction. Those are some of the most massive extinction events in this planets past. In some cases almost every species living at the time was wiped out. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

What we can do is make sure that the remaining humans can't ever climb up the ladder of progress again.

...You can't be serious? If the problem is to difficult to solve, just pull a Stalin'esque move and control every facet of everyone's lives?

Space travel is something that we should do, but we are not ready yet, and we are certainly in no rush, aiming to get to mars within 10-20 years is uncessary and holds little if any benifit.

Ask yourself this question: what good has all of our amateuristic space exploration done for us so far? Oh sure, we now have GPS and a gazillion of worthless television channels, and we can bug each other with our mobile phones. We also now have pens that can write upside down (really handy on Earth, you know) and bras that still support women's titties in zero gravity conditions (again, so useful on Earth). The only real positive things are stuff like the Hubble Space Telescope which gives us the opportunity to peek into the darkness and see things we never saw (and make pretty pictures of it). That's about it, dude. And do you have any idea how much all of that has costed us? Not in dollars, but in energy? Too much.

DIGITAL IMAGING BREAST BIOPSY SYSTEM - The LORAD Stereo Guide Breast Biopsy system incorporates advanced Charge Coupled Devices (CCDs) as part of a digital camera system. The resulting device images breast tissue more clearly and efficiently. Known as stereotactic large-core needle biopsy, this nonsurgical system developed with Space Telescope Technology is less traumatic and greatly reduces the pain, scarring, radiation exposure, time, and money associated with surgical biopsies.

BREAST CANCER DETECTION - A solar cell sensor is positioned directly beneath x-ray film, and determines exactly when film has received sufficient radiation and has been exposed to optimum density. Associated electronic equipment then sends a signal to cut off the x-ray source. Reduction of mammography x-ray exposure reduces radiation hazard and doubles the number of patient exams per machine.

LASER ANGIOPLASTY - Laser angioplasty with a "cool" type of laser, caller an excimer laser, does not damage blood vessel walls and offers precise non-surgical cleanings of clogged arteries with extraordinary precision and fewer complications than in balloon angioplasty.

ULTRASOUND SKIN DAMAGE ASSESSMENT - Advanced instrument using NASA ultrasound technology enables immediate assessment of burn damage depth, improving patient treatment, and may save lives in serious burn cases.

HUMAN TISSUE STIMULATOR - Employing NASA satellite technology, the device is implanted in the body to help patient control chronic pain and involuntary motion disorders through electrical stimulation of targeted nerve centers or particular areas of the brain.

COOL SUIT - Custom-made suit derived from space suits circulates coolant through tubes to lower patient's body/ temperature, producing dramatic improvement of symptoms of multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, spina bifida and other conditions.

PROGRAMMABLE PACEMAKER - Incorporating multiple NASA technologies, the system consists of the implant and a physician's computer console containing the programming and a data printer. Communicates through wireless telemetry signals.

OCULAR SCREENING - NASA image processing techniques are used to detect eye problems in very young children. An electronic flash from a 35-millimeter camera sends light into the child's eyes, and a photorefractor analyzes the retinal reflexes, producing an image of each eye.

AUTOMATED URINALYSIS - NASA fluid dynamics studies helped development of system that automatically extracts and transfers sediment from urine sample to an analyzer microscope, replacing the manual centrifuge method.

MEDICAL GAS ANALYZER - Astronaut-monitoring technology used to develop system to monitor operating rooms for analysis of anesthetic gasses and measurement of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen concentrations to assure proper breathing environment for surgery patients.

VOICE-CONTROLLED WHEELCHAIR - NASA teleoperator and robot technology used to develop chair and manipulator that respond to 35 one-word voice commands utilizing a minicomputer to help patient perform daily tasks, like picking up packages, opening doors, and turning on appliances.

Other spinoffs in this area include: Arteriosclerosis detection, ultrasound scanners, automatic insulin pump, portable x-ray device, invisible braces, dental arch wire, palate surgery technology, clean room apparel, implantable heart aid, MRI, bone analyzer, and cataract surgery tools.

That is just a few of the medical benefits directly from NASA. You might want to reconsider your statement.

Those that beleive we are not ready to travel into space need to truly understand the implications of that belief. I've clearly stated the benefits of space flight above. If you would like me to paste a few more, I'll fill this thread with pages and pages of inventions from NASA that are in no way trivial or worthless. Exploring the "New World" was not trivial or worthless yet many at the time thought it was a useless area good for very little. Those that saw value in the Americas flocked there, they made a new home for themselves and thrived.

There are those that will say, "We have to many problems here on Earth that we need to address before "wasting" our resources in space."

Since we've addressed that we are not in any way wasting resources lets answer if we are ready to venture into the great unknown... During the Apollo missions NASA employees had a saying, "If we can go to the moon we can..."
You finished that sentence with your own dream. If we can go to the moon, we can cure cancer. If we can go to the moon we can end a war. If we can go to the moon we can create a better union. It was the challenge of landing on the moon that gave the inspiration to better ourselves and all of humanity. It was one dream shared by the world and if that one dream could be shared by so many different people, if we could accomplish the impossible... Then nothing was out of our reach.

Mars and space flight in general offer a similar dream.

Don't forget that the Space Shuttle program (the only space program that relied primarily on liquid hydrogen instead of petroleum-derived fuel) is getting cancelled. It's not adventurous enough to the public, because Space Shuttles never really leave Earth.

The space shuttle is being replaced. As cool as it is fixing up the ol' fastback there comes a point when you have to move on. Were we to continue using the space shuttles we would have move Columbia and Challenger disasters.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/1534782.html

Reminding people of the Apollo program is simply part of the Presidential campaigns that are still going on right now. Kennedy is still considered a real American hero because of it and making similar statements (let's put a man on the <strike>Moon</strike> Mars) is just a stupid attempt to have some of that Kennedy charm rub off on them (Obama/McCain).

I have not seen either candidate mention anything of the above. In fact Obama has indicated cutting NASA's budget. Yet, I "will not forget my dieing King."

It's a cheap fucking tool to tell their voters that high goals (e.g. putting a man on the Moon -> shift from oil as a primary fuel source) is possible if we (i.e. the yanks) as a people commit ourselves to it. And just like pretty much everything that comes out of the US of A these days, it is a load of crap. Look around you: do you see change? Do you see the majority of people get rid of their cars and use their bicycles instead? Do you see them consume less? Have you noticed a sudden drop in the fabrication of plastic and other chemical crap?
No, you haven't. What you are seeing are small-scale actions and often ludicrous events (e.g. "This weekend is healthy bicycle weekend!" W00t!) organized by an absolute minority. And guess what? That's not new. There have always been smaal groups who did stuff like that, but it didn't bring any change at all.
You've got to start somewhere, you say? Sure, but that start was already taken decades ago (Greenpeace, etcetera) and it just didn't get the results we need for our future and that of our children.
Politicians know this. Politicians know that their voters are lazy, stupid, meek sheep. And sheep need a leader who will tell them that (s)he will solve all of their problems just like that WITHOUT creating bigger ones. That's where the main problem is situated: you can not solve this crap without creating bigger problems, and bigger problems (to the masses) are: having to pay more taxes, and having less money to spend on the pollution of this planet (i.e. consuming like the little whores we all know we are).
Solution: let's at least make it appear as if the leader(s) are doing something substantial: let's say that everything and everyone (especially big corporations, but also all governmental institutions) are concerned with durability and sustainability. WHILST THEY ARE NOT. Let's feed the young lies so that they will learn how to grow old.

I can not fault you on this however its tough for people to change when their own leadership warrants more fossil fuels over alternative energy sources and refuses to sign greenhouse reduction pacts with other nations. Do as I say, not as I do applies? No?

I'm ranting about this because it has become my dada over the past few years. We are at an incredibly crowded crosspoint in history right now and if we do not make harsh decisions (take the right turn) we are not going to survive. We'll get run over and that will be it.

You stated earlier that what you just said was highly unlikely; however, I do agree with you here. I do beleive we need to make drastic changes to improve our situation and reduce the possibility's you and I both fear.

Real change would be to rob people not of their money but of their lust to consume. And seeing how 'politics' has become synonymous with 'economic growth' that is not going to happen before it's too late.

As I'm sure you know, that is not possible and morally objectionable. We are consumers by nature, that is what we are and that is what capitalist nations need in order to survive. What we need is to consume less energy but our lifestyle would change very little. A good example would be energy efficient light bulbs. What was once 100 watts is now 23 watts. That is the scale of change we need for all of our consumption.

So fuck the Space Program and let's focus on what's really important: how can we wake up 7 billion people and teach them this one truth: we have one planet only and if we don't save it, we are forever fucked. That's gonna cost heaps of money, so let's not waste it on some science fiction daydream that, all in all, will probably not add much more to human life than a pair of boxershorts that resist radiation (very handy on Earth) and suglasses that can withstand micro-meteorite impacts (again, useful for laying at the beach, yes?).

My two-hundred-and-twenty-six cents.

Since I've all ready given a rebuttal to the above I see no sense in repeating myself but will add this. If we seek to better ourselves, if our principle in life is to create a better world for our children and our childrens children. Then we need to explore our options. We need to strive toward the other planets in our solar system. The more we learn about them we see what we may one day become, barren, lifeless, cold a wasted opportunity. Those empty bodies in our solar system are constant reminders of how fragile life is. That if the principle mentioned above is in jeopardy, be it from over population or some other potentially destructive event, we will need an alternative.

There is no refuting the fact that we need to become a space faring species. Just the same, there should be no refuting the fact that we can become one while solving our problems and where ever possible using what we learn from the universe to benefit our continued survival.


EDIT: I've decided to reply to "Manslaught"

I think we're going to return to the Moon first because it's nearer. And makes more sense. Colonizing the moon is kinda like sending a soldier to the Boot Camp (the moon) before sending him to the front lines (Mars). The Moon is the nearest place of interest, I bet you can and will see it from your windows in two or three hours, maybe you're already seeing it. Mars is pretty far away. The Moon? Compared to Mars, going to the Moon is like walking to the nearest bus stop. We need to LEARN what works and does not works when it comes to space colonization. Then we can head for Mars or Venus.

Alec has all ready pointed out the various troubles with a manned mission to Venus; however, thats not saying that it would not be a good idea to go there.

I do believe that we need to use the moon as a staging facility but towns on the moon is just idiotic and I'm embarrassed to hear such a high authority at NASA suggest such a thing.

And why is the NASA still using those ridiculous chemical rockets? Goddamnit. We use nuclear power on ships and submarines, but to go to space we are still using Chemical Rockets? Holy shit. Nuclear Power with Solar Power as support would really help to go to Mars or the Moon faster. Chemical Rockets don't cut it. And Greenpeace anti-nuclear eco-nuts can go to hell. We need more nuclear power everywhere, and why not start with space?

NASA is right there with you. In fact, there are many nuclear powered vessels as well as solar propelled ones. As we speak there is an ion/nuclear vessel heading toward Jupiter!

Unfortunate turns of events in Russia and America have not endeared the public much to the thought of nuclear anything. While unfortunate there still are other forms of energy much more efficient with no pollution in the works. Part of me fears creating mini-stars on the planet surface but hey, what a way to get a tan if things go wrong eh?!

And for those who say there's no need for space colonization... Space is the creepy, dangerous ocean of today, like the Atlantic was so frightening to the europeians before Colombo and Cabral.

I don't think very many are afraid of space more so afraid of how we will change because of it. Then, there are those that feel exploring space is a waste of time...

 

[welsh]

Ok, so we spend money now for a mission to mars, which isn't going to happen for how many years? Then, we gain knowledge into alternative energy sources. How many years after that can we expect a viable return?

Why not put that money to use NOW? How is actually going to Mars going to produce results that we can't obtain by staying on the the ole Earth and applying the same research to the problems we have here?

Well, when we do that we end up spending $12 million an hour occupying Iraq.

Honesty, I would rather go to fuckin Mars.

All the mad plans of fuelling space ships with light or sunwind or hydrogyn

Can we power them with misogyn? Smack some bitches and we're awaaaaaaaayyyyy

Oh shit.. you made the coffee come out my nose!

In response to the thread-

What is remarkable about NASA and this project is less about how much science it does or the discoveries it makes- which are remarkable. I wouldn't hold out hope for any commerical pay off of Mars for a long long long time.

I think the jest of Alec's argument is dead on- that the problems we face on this planet are so important and complex that our efforts should be here- in cleaning this place up and preparing for the future rahter than fart around with a space program hoping that there are spin offs.

And its fair to say that there will be commerical applications of the innovations created by NASA. That some of that will actually be useful to day by day use.

But seriously, what you see in NASA is in fact a big government subsidy to corporations that get on board to achieve this kind of a mission and goal, which is in part, an effort to build US nationalism and a sense of US community.

Could the money be used for a better purpose- renewable energy perhaps? End world hunger? Yes. Will it? No. Why? Because those who control money want to get paid. Political realities. That's one one of the biggest lobbiest for alternative fuels happens to be a former oilman. Why? Because he wants to get paid to find a new source of energy so he can continue to get paid.

Which is the political face of capitalism. That's how our system works.

In the alternative- I think it would be better if our money was put to better use. But someone always gets paid. This is the rule of politics- if you want to know what is happening or why something happens- follow the money.

So how are we going to spend it.
We can buy more bombs to drop on middle east countries. While bomb makers do well, the truth is that militaries are generally a waste of productive capital (cause you can't build much with an M1 Tank or a cluster bomb, you can only protect it or blow it the fuck up). Or you can blow it off on NASA and hopefully put poeple to work, pay companies to innovate and create, and get something worthwhile out of the investment.

The science is a secondary benefit. Its the industrial aspects that make this worth while. And while we could spend the money in a better way, truth is that for the price of a piece of gun each day, I would rather see us go Mars and, at the same time, pay for scientists to do research, for companies to make something useful, and maybe to stop blowing poor motherfuckers up just because they live in a third world shit hole.

 

[zioburosky13]

Food can now grown on Mars. Perhaps.

Ice, the sign of water, found on Mars

Zero G grown vegetable could might solve the world hunger. Those fruits are huge

Hyperdrive could be a reality

Backup powerplant if all else failed....


The real question if not 'why should we explore space', rather, 'when should we start?' The 60s space race is on halt with the fall of Soviet Union. China and India are beginning to explore the chances of sending their man to space and Moon, while USA still stuck on debating whether tits should be allowed on TV. <--maybe not that kind of thing...but you get the idea.

 

[alec]

What we can do is make sure that the remaining humans can't ever climb up the ladder of progress again.

...You can't be serious? If the problem is to difficult to solve, just pull a Stalin'esque move and control every facet of everyone's lives?

You, my friend, have a natural talent to misinterpret what others write. “Context” – do you know it? ‘Cause I was not implying a Stalin’esque move at all. I was saying that we have the tools and the stupidity to cause such a thing to happen, meaning that it would be a bad, bad thing. Or (in baby-talk): if we make things go boom-boom, than we be bad ‘cause we prevent people who are still alive (not boo-boo-dead) to become civilized again (they not have means to rebuild society or big world).

You follow me now, Maphusio? Or do I have to start studying sign language just for you?

That is just a few of the medical benefits directly from NASA. You might want to reconsider your statement.

Again, you fail to grasp the fundamental business logic of NASA: that list is laughable and is only meant to fool naive people into thinking that NASA is actually helping in, for instance, the field of medicine. So: “Give us money to go space exploring, ‘cause one day we might be able to cure aids.” It’s funny how such business strategies can actually make people believe they’re not kidding you. Wake up, kid. All of those things in that list were made on Earth. All of those things could and would have been invented/discovered on Earth if there never had been something like NASA. Or do you think that if you suffer from arteriosclerosis, that the docs say: “Don’t worry, man. We’ll book you a flight to outer space and NASA will heal you in their Space Shuttle?” Don’t be daft, man. You’re being sucked into the hole of stupidity that PR people have dug for you. Why don’t you donate some of your pocket money to NASA if you agree with their ideology and working methods.

This just up: after 4 years of manoeuvring a robot on Mars, NASA have now discovered a new way to become happy! No more shrinks or pink pills! NASA have cured depression whilst toying with gadgets worth the BNP of a small African country. And from a distance! On fucking Mars! Give them your money!

I have not seen either candidate mention anything of the above. In fact Obama has indicated cutting NASA's budget. Yet, I "will not forget my dieing King."

Well, how sad is that? I’m a fucking Belgian and I have seen it mentioned on tv, heard about it on the radio and read about it in the newspapers! And I’m not even portraying the Cool King of Lies and Deception in my av!

Maybe you should Google it and read up on the matter, ‘cause it might be an important thing to know, you know? How they’re going to spend your pocket money in the not so distant future?

Just a thought.

AUTOMATED URINALYSIS - NASA fluid dynamics studies helped development of system that automatically extracts and transfers sediment from urine sample to an analyzer microscope, replacing the manual centrifuge method.

Sorry, but this just made me lol. They made it automatic instead of manual! W00t! Less jobs, more energy needed. What a good example of what most believe to be progress.

Since we've addressed that we are not in any way wasting resources lets answer if we are ready to venture into the great unknown... During the Apollo missions NASA employees had a saying, "If we can go to the moon we can..."
You finished that sentence with your own dream. If we can go to the moon, we can cure cancer. If we can go to the moon we can end a war. If we can go to the moon we can create a better union. It was the challenge of landing on the moon that gave the inspiration to better ourselves and all of humanity. It was one dream shared by the world and if that one dream could be shared by so many different people, if we could accomplish the impossible... Then nothing was out of our reach.

Mars and space flight in general offer a similar dream.

Here’s another one: “If we can go to the Moon, we should gather all morons on Earth, put them on a space ship, fly them over there and leave them there to rot.”

How about that, eh?

As I'm sure you know, that is not possible and morally objectionable. We are consumers by nature, that is what we are and that is what capitalist nations need in order to survive. What we need is to consume less energy but our lifestyle would change very little. A good example would be energy efficient light bulbs. What was once 100 watts is now 23 watts. That is the scale of change we need for all of our consumption.

Energy efficient light bulbs save energy, but they pollute the environment more than regular lightbulbs! Oops! Guess they hadn’t thought of that before, eh, when they filled them up with all that Mercury. How typical. But what a form of progress, eh. I’m sure the world will soon become a better, healthier place.

Link: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55213

Anyway, I’m out of this discussion. I said what I had to say. And I’m old enough to know that trying to open up other people’s eyes and minds is ... well ... impossible and thus a waste of my time.

Good luck. You’re going to need it. In life, in general.

 

[Slaughter Manslaught]

When I said "Let's go to Venus", I meant the Clouds of Venus! Venus is kinda "No Humans Allowed" until we all turn into a race of Supermen in some way. It's possible to colonize the clouds, energy there would be easy to obtain (solar power would be the best thing evar there), but not right now. Need moar tech, so to say.

But Mars is still there, waiting for us.

Well, when we do that we end up spending $12 million an hour occupying Iraq.

Honesty, I would rather go to fuckin Mars.

Same here. Frankly, I think we should've been preparing ourselves to explore space again. Colonizing the moon would be interesting, but TO LIVE in the moon, rellying on supplies from earth would be too expensive. Unless they find a way to make sure they can obtain food while there, so lets get those braniacs thinking already. The Moon is a good Boot Camp, though. It's nearby, so it's cheaper than beggining colonization with Mars already.

 

[Maphusio]

What we can do is make sure that the remaining humans can't ever climb up the ladder of progress again.

...You can't be serious? If the problem is to difficult to solve, just pull a Stalin'esque move and control every facet of everyone's lives?

You, my friend, have a natural talent to misinterpret what others write. “Context” – do you know it? ‘Cause I was not implying a Stalin’esque move at all. I was saying that we have the tools and the stupidity to cause such a thing to happen, meaning that it would be a bad, bad thing. Or (in baby-talk): if we make things go boom-boom, than we be bad ‘cause we prevent people who are still alive (not boo-boo-dead) to become civilized again (they not have means to rebuild society or big world).

You follow me now, Maphusio? Or do I have to start studying sign language just for you?

Wow... Thanks for yet another insult... You might want to consider the fact that we are in a literal based environment (text based) and without stating the obvious what you say will easily be misinterpreted.

That is just a few of the medical benefits directly from NASA. You might want to reconsider your statement.

Again, you fail to grasp the fundamental business logic of NASA: that list is laughable and is only meant to fool naive people into thinking that NASA is actually helping in, for instance, the field of medicine. So: “Give us money to go space exploring, ‘cause one day we might be able to cure aids.” It’s funny how such business strategies can actually make people believe they’re not kidding you. Wake up, kid. All of those things in that list were made on Earth. All of those things could and would have been invented/discovered on Earth if there never had been something like NASA. Or do you think that if you suffer from arteriosclerosis, that the docs say: “Don’t worry, man. We’ll book you a flight to outer space and NASA will heal you in their Space Shuttle?” Don’t be daft, man. You’re being sucked into the hole of stupidity that PR people have dug for you. Why don’t you donate some of your pocket money to NASA if you agree with their ideology and working methods.

...So if NASA did not exist you know for a fact that someone else would have funded some other organization to develop all of the things NASA has been credited for? Do you seriously think that I believe going into LEO (Low Earth Orbit) will heal me? Please, quit insulting my intelligence and age (25).

This just up: after 4 years of manoeuvring a robot on Mars, NASA have now discovered a new way to become happy! No more shrinks or pink pills! NASA have cured depression whilst toying with gadgets worth the BNP of a small African country. And from a distance! On fucking Mars! Give them your money!

Oh yeah, that's real fair... Who is the child like individual here?

I have not seen either candidate mention anything of the above. In fact Obama has indicated cutting NASA's budget. Yet, I "will not forget my dieing King."

Well, how sad is that? I’m a fucking Belgian and I have seen it mentioned on tv, heard about it on the radio and read about it in the newspapers! And I’m not even portraying the Cool King of Lies and Deception in my av!

Maybe you should Google it and read up on the matter, ‘cause it might be an important thing to know, you know? How they’re going to spend your pocket money in the not so distant future?

Just a thought.

Thank you yet again for insulting my intelligence... Here are some quotes from Obama.

NASA has lost focus and is no longer associated with inspiration, I don’t think our kids are watching the space shuttle launches. It used to be a remarkable thing. It doesn’t even pass for news anymore.

"I grew up on Star Trek. I believe in the final frontier."

Obama went on to say he has issues with the way the space program is currently being run, and might trim funding until NASA’s mission has been clarified.

"The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years, using purchase cards and the negotiating power of the government to reduce costs of standardized procurement, auctioning surplus federal property, and reducing the erroneous payments identified by the Government Accountability Office, and closing the CEO pay deductibility loophole. ..."

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/26/481595.aspx
http://trekmovie.com/2008/03/09/the-next-space-frontier/

AUTOMATED URINALYSIS - NASA fluid dynamics studies helped development of system that automatically extracts and transfers sediment from urine sample to an analyzer microscope, replacing the manual centrifuge method.

Sorry, but this just made me lol. They made it automatic instead of manual! W00t! Less jobs, more energy needed. What a good example of what most believe to be progress.

...

Since we've addressed that we are not in any way wasting resources lets answer if we are ready to venture into the great unknown... During the Apollo missions NASA employees had a saying, "If we can go to the moon we can..."
You finished that sentence with your own dream. If we can go to the moon, we can cure cancer. If we can go to the moon we can end a war. If we can go to the moon we can create a better union. It was the challenge of landing on the moon that gave the inspiration to better ourselves and all of humanity. It was one dream shared by the world and if that one dream could be shared by so many different people, if we could accomplish the impossible... Then nothing was out of our reach.

Mars and space flight in general offer a similar dream.

Here’s another one: “If we can go to the Moon, we should gather all morons on Earth, put them on a space ship, fly them over there and leave them there to rot.”

How about that, eh?

I'm trying to think of a way you could be more insulting... It's just not coming to me...

As I'm sure you know, that is not possible and morally objectionable. We are consumers by nature, that is what we are and that is what capitalist nations need in order to survive. What we need is to consume less energy but our lifestyle would change very little. A good example would be energy efficient light bulbs. What was once 100 watts is now 23 watts. That is the scale of change we need for all of our consumption.

Energy efficient light bulbs save energy, but they pollute the environment more than regular lightbulbs! Oops! Guess they hadn’t thought of that before, eh, when they filled them up with all that Mercury. How typical. But what a form of progress, eh. I’m sure the world will soon become a better, healthier place.

Link: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55213

"By using less electricity, CFLs help reduce mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants, which are the largest source of human-caused mercury emissions in the United States," said agency press officer Ernest Jones. (Related: "Clean Coal? New Technology Buries Greenhouse Emissions" [May 2, 2006].)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070518-cfls-bulbs.html

Humm... Maybe its a conspiracy and someone paid NATGEO to fib about the dangers of CFL's... Or, you jumped the gun.

Anyway, I’m out of this discussion. I said what I had to say. And I’m old enough to know that trying to open up other people’s eyes and minds is ... well ... impossible and thus a waste of my time.

Good luck. You’re going to need it. In life, in general.

Gee golly thanks old timer...

 

[Blakut]

I think that we should try to colonize other planets. This would solve the problem of overpopulation later on. The experience gained from going to Mars is also invaluable. Think about what happens if an asteroid were to come right at us.

For example, let's say China sets up a moon base, or a Mars base. Being an authoritarian regime with over-population problems, it wouldn't be a problem for them to send (or force) a large number of their citizens to go and live there. What happens when only one country has colonized another planet? What does this mean in terms of military strategy?

 

[Scare]

Giving tax dollars to space exploration would be better than giving them to fight wars (that no one cares about but the corporations that make up the western military industrial complex) in third-world countries.

That's why I hope China gets there moon base first.

 

[aronsearle]

...So if NASA did not exist you know for a fact that someone else would have funded some other organization to develop all of the things NASA has been credited for?

Are the devices profitable, yes, especially any medical ones.

Why are you even asking that question?

 

[iridium_ionizer]

Another home? I don't know about you, but I sure as hell do not want to live on a fucking ball of dust where, on an avarage day, it doesn't get much warmer than minus 60° Celsius simply because all the geniuses we presumably have couldn't figure out a way to save Earth.

One of the possible benefits of space colonization would be that it would allow industry and those who work for and need it to move off Earth and still allow humans to expand it technological prowess and scientific knowledge WITHOUT harming Earth. I know that it's ridiculously optimistic but if the center of the economy left Earth, then that would allow Earth the chance to heal under the watchful care of whatever naturalists, artists, and hippies that don't feel the need to be where the economy is at.

 

[Makenshi]

Martian reaction to alien presence:

Sorry guys, but with all the colonization talking, I couldn't resist to post this one

 

[alec]

OMG! It's the Martian Red X of Doom! Aaaaaargh!

 

[Maphusio]

...So if NASA did not exist you know for a fact that someone else would have funded some other organization to develop all of the things NASA has been credited for?

Are the devices profitable, yes, especially any medical ones.

Why are you even asking that question?

I think the reasoning behind my question would be found when reading the quote generating that response... I'm not sure what else to say.

I think that we should try to colonize other planets. This would solve the problem of overpopulation later on. The experience gained from going to Mars is also invaluable. Think about what happens if an asteroid were to come right at us.

For example, let's say China sets up a moon base, or a Mars base. Being an authoritarian regime with over-population problems, it wouldn't be a problem for them to send (or force) a large number of their citizens to go and live there. What happens when only one country has colonized another planet? What does this mean in terms of military strategy?

Getting people to move to another planet will not be hard. Labor at the new world will be in high demand. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, a job on Mars would be very profitable when compared to its Earth counterpart. This would allow immigrants to help pay for relatives to join them in "the new world". Similar to America when it was getting on its feet. I'm sure the attraction of "moving out West and building a better one." will apply. Some fed up with life on Earth may gladly jump at the chance to start life anew.

I do fear the potential negative ramifications of Martian colonies though. What kind of governmental structure would need to be in place? Would they be their own nation? Those are the tips of some of the more social political icebergs that may come into question.