Is space exploration worth it? - Page 3

scottmandue · 08-01-2008, 09:21 AM

I vote yes, for technological and intellectual reasons (advances).

Although I am against sending humans to Mars, people way smarter than me have shown it to be a fools errand.

I also agree we should be spending at least as much to explore our own oceans and develop alternate energy sources..

rammstein · 08-01-2008, 09:52 AM

Imagine how cool it would be to be the first dude to make love to an alien.

Although that brings up an interesting point- would that be the equivalent of beastiality for the alien? Like, would an alien chick having sex with a human be doing the equivalent of a human having sex with a monkey, because they are so much further evolved?

Perhaps in that situation, it would be easier to be religious and a creationist, so that evolution doesn't have to be a defining role in what constitutes beastiality.

Just saying... I guess... that doign alien chicks would rule, but might get the alien chick arrested in her home country.

Flatbutt1 · 08-01-2008, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rammstein

Just saying... I guess... that doign alien chicks would rule, but might get the alien chick arrested in her home country.

Unless you get the alien clap!

Jim Richards · 08-01-2008, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rammstein

Imagine how cool it would be to be the first dude to make love to an alien.

BTDT. Oh wait, that was just that crazy red-head I dated briefly in college.

Hawktel · 08-01-2008, 01:49 PM

Population keeps on growing on this planet.

At this point, we can either:

1: Look at ways to decrease the population (None are fun or pleasant)
2: Let mother nature do it for us. (Hello next superbug)
3: Go some where else and start colonizing it. (The Moon baby!)

I prefer number 3. If your not for space exploration, your supporting number 1 or 2.

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

I prefer #3 too, but #1 and #2 are the natural order of life on Earth and Malthusian checks and balances will work their magic here....with or without space colonization.

m21sniper · 08-01-2008, 02:01 PM

Those are problems that are centuries away. Who cares?

Racerbvd · Racerbvd's Garage

NASA helps old people too.

'iShoe' uses NASA tech to help prevent elderly falls

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2008-07-31-mit-ishoe_N.htm

Quote:

The iShoe insole could help doctors detect balance problems before a catastrophic fall occurs, says Erez Lieberman, a graduate student in the Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology who developed the technology as an intern at NASA.

kstar · 08-01-2008, 02:31 PM

It is refreshing to see that the poll numbers have "corrected" a bit since yesterday.

I was beginning to wonder.

scottmandue · 08-01-2008, 02:41 PM

As was stated in the "should we go to Mars" thread the radiation in space is a massive problem.

Maybe we will figure a way around it but that is a long way off.

sammyg2 · 08-02-2008, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawktel

Population keeps on growing on this planet.

At this point, we can either:

1: Look at ways to decrease the population (None are fun or pleasant)
2: Let mother nature do it for us. (Hello next superbug)
3: Go some where else and start colonizing it. (The Moon baby!)

I prefer number 3. If your not for space exploration, your supporting number 1 or 2.

Why don't we colonize the bottom of the ocean, about 10 miles deep? Human beings belong there as much or more than the moon, it's just as hospitable as the moon and much closer, much cheaper to get to also.
If you really think colonizing the moon is a way of controlling our population on earth you are seriously delusional.

Jim Richards · 08-02-2008, 08:18 AM

The undersea idea is interesting. It's been kicked around for many decades, but never seemed to gain any traction. I wonder why?

m21sniper · 08-02-2008, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

The undersea idea is interesting. It's been kicked around for many decades, but never seemed to gain any traction. I wonder why?

Because no one wants to live underwater?

LOL.

Jim Richards · 08-02-2008, 08:26 AM

Yeah, I'm sure the moon is much more attractive...location, location, location.

sammyg2 · 08-02-2008, 08:27 AM

People die in space unless they are wearing a suit that mimics the environment of earth. same goes for the moon, Mars, all those places. That tells us one thing. We can survive on earth but not in space. We belong on earth but not in space. The only way we can stay alive in space is to take a little earth with us and surround ourselves with it. Get it? We can't live on mars unless we make it just like Earth. Unless one of you guys are God, that isn't going to happen.

Ever notice that when someone goes underwater (without a device that simulates being out of water) they can't breathe? Ever notice that if they stay down there very long they die? They call it drowning and it's nature's way of reminding us us that we breathe air, not water. sure we can put on scuba gear and go down there for an hour or so, but we are still constantly reminded that we don't belong there.

There isn't any air in space. There isn't any atmosphere in space to protect us from radiation. There isn't a controlled climate that keeps us from freezing or boiling. Humans don't belong in space. They belong on a planet that has an atmosphere exactly like earth's.
The fantasy of people living out their lives on the moon or on mars is absolutely ridiculous. Do any of you know how much it costs to send 1 pound of something into orbit? To the moon? To Mars? just one pound?
It costs about $10,000 to put one pound of anything into orbit around the EARTH!
That doesn't count life support for a human being, that's just for an inanimate object.
To send a human beings to Mars will cost around $2 billion PER PASSENGER!

That's just to get them there. That doesn't include what it would take to keep them alive once they land. That doesn't include the food or water or shelter or climate controls or air or clothing or anything else that humans NEED to stay alive.

It's a stupid fantasy and the concept of sending people to mars exists only to line the pockets of select individuals with money and people should wake up and realize how silly the entire concept is.

m21sniper · 08-02-2008, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

Yeah, I'm sure the moon is much more attractive...location, location, location.

I don't want to live underwater or on the moon. Nor do i want to live on mars for that matter.

sammyg2 · 08-02-2008, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kstarnes

It is refreshing to see that the poll numbers have "corrected" a bit since yesterday.

I was beginning to wonder.

Evidently lots of people enjoy pissing away money on nothing. Either that or they have no idea how much it really costs and how little we benefit from those huge costs.

$17.6 BILLION in 2009, and that's just to fly the same shuttle into a orbit a couple of times and maybe send another robot to mars where it might be able to pick up some rocks or it might not.

How much will each of you benefit from that? will you get your money's worth?
If we actually decide to try and send people to mars you can bet that budgetary number will have to increase a hundred-fold at least.

Jim Richards · 08-02-2008, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m21sniper

I don't want to live underwater or on the moon. Nor do i want to live on mars for that matter.

How 'bout Uranus?

Jim Richards · 08-02-2008, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammyg2

People die in space unless they are wearing a suit that mimics the environment of earth. same goes for the moon, Mars, all those places. That tells us one thing. We can survive on earth but not in space. We belong on earth but not in space. The only way we can stay alive in space is to take a little earth with us and surround ourselves with it. Get it? We can't live on mars unless we make it just like Earth. Unless one of you guys are God, that isn't going to happen.

You every fly in a passenger jet?

ed martin · 09:56 AM

Great series on the evolution of space exploration on the Science Channel. "Space exploration" was born out of necessity during the early stages of the Cold War. With the atomic bomb came the challange developing effective technology to deliver the goods to the enemy.

Initially the Soviets had the edge. They were developing rocket technology at a furious pace and were the first to launch a satellite that orbited the earth. The potential of this new technology in terms of a first strike preemptive nuclear attack was not lost by American leaders and the American military. So the race for space was born.

Make no mistake, NASA is not all about warm and fuzzy esoteric exploration, but was really an offshoot of military ambition and national security.

What are tangable benifits? You are joking right? Just about all of the modern marvelous technology, the computer you are comunicating with, digital, satellite comunications and geo satellite used for weather forcasting, navigation, smart bomb tech, etc. etc. etc.. I mean you don't believe all this technology just happened out of thin air do you?

If you look at history, a lot of technology was developed out of necessity. You guys do recall the World Wars right? Aviation technology(jet engine), nuclear science, radar. The earliest computers were to developed to calculate artillery trajectories etc. not to mention transmitting and decifering enemy coded communications. Jeez, I figured you Porsche guys would have been all over this.