General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe should have been colonizing the solar system by now.
In 1969 when Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the Moon everyone expected that we would keep going farther. But then in the mid 70s NASA got mauled by the small-minded deficit hawks who thought they did not need to keep up NASA's funding because we beat those Evil Commie Russians and that's all that mattered. It seems like all of a sudden nobody cared anymore, some even started bashing space exploration using the equally small-minded "we have more important things to do here on terra firma" argument.
I wonder if the Vietnam War and Watergate are to blame, destroying the belief in Big Government doing Big Things, making NASA a victim of the same rise of selfish Individualism that lead to the late 70s "tax revolts" in California and the election of Reagan in 1980. I suspect that also, among us on the Left that the strain of technophobic misanthropy found among many Green types who believe in the philosophy of Deep Ecology has something to do with it, thus the posts here on DU decrying space exploration as spreading the "cancer" of humanity.
According to astrophysicist Robert Zubrin a 3-year manned mission to Mars would cost $30 billion per mission and is perfectly feasible with today's technology. That is chump change compared to the "Defense" budget, and we would not have to pay all of that if it is set up as a multi-national mission. The problem is a lack of will. people either dogmatically assert that such a mission is either impossible, too expensive, or immoral, and all of those assertions are bullshit.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
xchrom
(108,903 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:21 AM - Edit history (1)
we can't care for and bury the dead.
i might agree with the sentiment -- but....
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)It's just that the M-I Complex is hoarding it.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)xchrom
(108,903 posts)i still want to see the hungry fed, the naked clothed, the widow and her children cared for before, blah, blah blah -- but yes there is enough money.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)So maybe we SHOULD pick one, do it right and then move on to the other.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Spend a few minutes. Even stuff they didn't invent, like MRIs, they improved in. We have the money for lots of things; we just spent more in military air conditioners last year than NASA's while budget, and one year's military budget is more than NASA's budgets combined since it's inception. It's frigging obscene.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)The way people react to it pricewise it's like they all think it's on par with the defense budget.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)it started with the %^$^# New Wave SF bastards (may they roast in a Baptist hell).
They equated the Space program with the arms race. Also, certain types of academic didn't like losing the limelight, so they joined in.
When you point out the price discrepencies, they ALL chime in with one of things:
1.) It's not the money, it's the principle!
2.) That money could fund (name cause celebre of the speaker here)
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)I love old school sci-fi. Give me Asimov, Clarke, and Brin any day.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I'm game...
But I thought the yearly budget was in the billions...
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Most of the time when I point out the price discrepancies the standard responses are either thundering silence or continuing to claim the budget's what they think. Auughwilfulignorance.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Most of the nay sayers, when you get down to it...
Want the pro-space crowd to stay here, so there can win us over with their "superior rhetoric."
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)They are incapable of imagination, they are incapable of transcending their own petty concerns and think of the big picture.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)their petty concerns ARE the big picture.
I had a near zen moment, when I dealt with some "friends" in the SF bay area.
I was working on some rocketry calculations, and they kept saying I "really needed to attend this party" they were going to.
The party turned out to be a fund raiser for a rather snotty poet for low ability.
Sigh...
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Great Minds discuss ideas
Average Minds discuss events
Mediocre Minds discuss people
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)something to that...
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)As I don't watch TV, I don't what they actually look like...
But I saw a youtube clip satirizing them once...
EWWW
I don't understand. Maybe you left a word or 2 or 3 out???
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)
navarth
(5,927 posts)mind if I use it?
klook
(12,162 posts)stopped us?
It's Harlan Ellison's fault? And Norman Spinrad??
Okey-dokey, then.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)It's a little more complicated that that.
Mikey and his buddies kept harping on "mature" (read non-space) themes. Anybody arguing got followed and harrassed. (sp, no coffee yet).
collectively, they formed the voice of what I call the "idiot brigade." People quoted these authorial turds like they were Socrates at the Agora.
Does that help your screed?
klook
(12,162 posts)Um, yes -- it's a whole lot more complicated than that.
The point of my post was that I found it amusing that you chose to single out the so-called "New Wave" (or "New Thing," as some called it at the time) movement within science fiction as directly responsible for the lack of interstellar colonization. Those authors' effect on public policy is apparently overrated in some circles.
Before I go further, let me clarify that I am a huge supporter of NASA, of science, and of space travel. Have been since I stood in the back yard as a little kid and saw Sputnik overhead. OK?
I'm aware of the internecine warfare in the SF community over "hard science" fiction vs. "speculative" fiction. At the heart of this conflict was between old-line conservatives and newer experimentalists. Zealots on either side depicted the other as either BEMs, damsels in distress, and cowboys with rayguns; or navel-gazing hippies who couldn't put a coherent plot together to save their life and disdained anything remotely scientific. Again, the reality was slightly more complicated.
Sure, 90 percent of the sub-genre represented by Michael Moorcock and J.G. Ballard was crap, just as 90 percent of the John W. Campbell school of science fiction was crap. You're aware of Sturgeon's Revelation, I imagine? (More important is Sturgeon's Law as originally stated: "Nothing is always absolutely so."
So, sorry pal, no screed from me. I fly no literary flag and have read widely and enjoyed many types of imaginative fiction.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) I just finished writing my thesis, on SF.
2.) New Wave WAS crap. Any style should at least tell an interesting story, catching the reader's attention. The Fan population didn't like it. It only survives in the discourse of soggy English profs.
3.) personally, I can make a case that New Wave, and the earlier Futurians were a cheap attempt to convert SF into a vanguard group of (spitting on the ground here) socialist conversion.
klook
(12,162 posts)in Gravy Planet by two of the greatest Futurians, Frederik Pohl and Cyril Kornbluth. (To your point #3.)
Yes, the conflict between conservatives and progressives (sometimes accused of "socialist conversion" was central to the New Wave brouhaha. Funny that this still stirs such emotions 42 years after Harlan Ellison claimed the controversy had been "blissfully laid to rest."
As I say, I'm no flag-waver for the so-called "New Wave" or any other sub-genre, but Samuel Delany's three Hugos seem to be some evidence of fan enthusiasm. (Or is he not a member of the New Wave in your book? Sorry, I don't pay much attention to categories sometimes....) I'm not aware of what turns on "soggy English profs," but I'm guessing it's not Nova. (Zelazny? Frank Herbert? Silverberg? Spinrad? All have been lumped in with the "New Wave," and the fans made them all Hugo award winners.)
Time will tell whether the socialist agenda of Futurians such as Don Wollheim, Damon Knight, and Isaac Asimov comes to pass.
Bob, I suggest we both take a deep breath, realize we're not going to see eye to eye on this issue, and join forces in defeating Republicans.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Is something we can agree on...
If the socialist take over (ala John Michels' speech), my ass is off to Mars, and bringing all that want to travel with.
navarth
(5,927 posts)I've been totally unaware of this warfare inside the SF world. I've always just read what I liked. This is really a surprise to me. New Wave, Old School, whatever, I've enjoyed reading all the names mentioned here. The only 'new' author I've read a lot of would be David Brin.
Oh, and thanks for mentioning Kornbluth. Didn't he write The Marching Morons? I work with people half my age who will, from time to time, wax rhapsodic about this movie 'Idiocracy'. I always hasten to point out that they really should check out it's granddaddy, The Marching Morons. I consider it to be as important and prophetic as 'Make Room! Make Room!' (Soylent Green).
Thanks for a most interesting discussion.
Oh, to get back on topic, I fully support NASA and anybody that thinks it takes money from widows or poor people hasn't really thought things out IMO.
This tempest in the teapot of science fiction is interesting on various levels: science vs. art (as though they're incompatible!), conservative vs. progressive, men vs. women (some of the early sliderule-toting "hard science" fiction fans thought SF should remain a boys' club), methodical craft vs. intuitive freedom, socially conscious vs. escapist fiction, etc.
And, as my sparring partner 
noted, in the 1930s there was a real rift between a few of the early fans (the Futurians from New York) and most of the rest of the tiny SF fan world at the time over a) the role of science fiction in society (pure entertainment or serious literature -- including, some would say, childishness and pretensions on both sides) and b) whether the SF community should support the leftist uprisings in Europe. (This, of course, coincided with the Spanish Civil War as well as the ascent of the National Socialist German Workers' Party -- the Nazis. So there were SF fans who sympathized more with the communists than with the fascists, as in the rest of American society; allegiances for which they were often castigated either at the time or later.)
There's more on the history of SF fandom here: http://fancyclopedia.wikidot.com/
Excellent point about "The Marching Morons." I was thinking the other day I need to re-read that one in light of recent discussions of Ayn Rand.
Like you (and as I noted in my previous posts), I've never felt like a member of one "club" or another within the SF universe. There is much to enjoy from many brilliant writers in the field.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I'm beginning to think that I ought to organize a mass reading of my thesis...
As a (somewhat) gracious host, I'd have to provide pizza and beer (geek soul food).
1.) I've grown up with Makers and rocketeers in my family and extended family (and my family of choice), since birth.
2.) The question is one of ultimate motivations. What was the underlying reason for the evangelizing of the socialists in Fandom. It's pretty clear that Sykora's bid was destroyed in a fractious takeover bid. The question there is: was the takeover bid an attempt to create a front organization? Or were Wollheim and Michels attempting to save Sykora's faltering group?
3.) Sam Moskowitz's book The Immortal Storm, and Damon Knights's answering The Futurians both point out that the Rocketeers (those of us obsessed with seeing things fly into the air with a mighty WHOOSH) left immediately after the first Worldcon. I attempted to find out why they would do that, by taking the emotional pulse of modern Rocketeers. There are no surviving Rocketeers fro the time period in question, so primary sources are a little hard to come by.
Pizza and beer, in a neutral location.
klook
(12,162 posts)Just found another thread you might want to check out:
I have a hard time with RW SF.
It's about right-wing & libertarian SF authors, not the fan conflicts, but perhaps of interest. (Personally, I'm much more interested in science fiction than in science fiction fandom...)
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Thanks for the link.
Mind you, I disagree with the basic premise. (Heinlein wasn't right wing.)
navarth
(5,927 posts)I must read both those links now.
I was somewhat disappointed when Thom Hartmann pointed out that Jack Vance is very conservative. (Thom is good friends with Mr. Vance and has read him widely....how about that Thom Hartmann?? What a guy) It doesn't keep me from saying that of all the authors I've read, Mr. Vance is the most enjoyable. Knowing that Mr. Vance is like that, I can never read Emphyrio again without noticing the strong anti-union thread throughout.
And Heinlein...well I add anything to what's already been said about him in this thread.
If Robert Silverberg is considered this 'new wave' that Bob doesn't like, I guess I have to strongly disagree with Bob. 'Dying Inside' is one of the best books in the genre IMO.
This discussion is fun. Apologies to the main thread, we really need to protect and nurture NASA.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)seems to belong to everybody.
I've heard him called Space Opera, New Wave, Slip stream, and proto-cyberpunk.
navarth
(5,927 posts)well, I must have missed a lot of parties; I've never heard any of these labels.
Silverbeg's 'Up The Line' is one of the best time travel stories ever IMO, and 'Dying Inside' was a straight-up groundbreaker. One of the most memorable stories I have ever read. Ah, the 70's.....
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Cyberpunk has pretty been absorbed completely, by the background culture.
Slipstream never really took off. The reasons for the failure to launch depend on the questioned person.
One of these days, I'll be straightening out the books...
navarth
(5,927 posts)there were quite a few on the pro-war side that really disappointed me...
I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by Fred Saberhagen, but still.....ouch....
But Jack Vance can do no wrong.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)They're also 8x NASA's budget, which is about $18 billion.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)“Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.” – Bill Hicks 1993
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)xchrom
(108,903 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(49,027 posts)hunter
(38,322 posts)
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,027 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)we would be right in that 90% ballpark and still have completely adequate security. And then we could save the world, again.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)I'll give you a clue...you can count the times on one finger.
That's right...we've only been directly attacked ONCE, that was in WWII.
Twice, if you accept the Hearst explanation for the USS Maine.
But that's it. Every other war we've been in has been because we chose to get involved, either to support our allies, or to support the expansion or maintenance of American interests.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)What's your point?
drokhole
(1,230 posts)..."inner". As in, "inner space". Hicks was talking about the informed use of psychedelics. I'd love to see a national "space" program on par with NASA - in both budget and afforded prestige - dedicated to exploring consciousness.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)J.G Balard's route...
The LAST thing we need, as a culture, is more 'heads "turning on" the populace.
Prestige for taking drugs????
drokhole
(1,230 posts)Informed use of psychedelics - meaning, taken under proper and prepared set and setting - has been thoroughly demonstrated to bring about positive changes in personal well-being, which includes an intrinsic understanding of a deeper connection with not only other people but the whole of nature itself. In other words, an ecological awareness. People with a deeper ecological awareness tend not to treat each other and the world - in ravaging it for every last resource - like shit.
Not only that, but under said conditions - and by shifting intent - it has been shown to be wildly beneficial in technical problem solving:
Brilliant article on Psychedelics covers creative-breakthroughs, transcendent experiences, and more
So, there's the potential - if some of our "best and brightest" took it under these conditions - that it would lead to even better and more intuitive scientific breakthroughs. After all, psychedelic users/culture from the '60s largely influenced the personal computer you're using to type your tripe.
Meanwhile, here's a short lecture from a doctor from Johns Hopskins who began some of the first clinical studies of psilocybin mushrooms in decades. His results have shown "magic mushrooms" to be effective in treating depression, cluster headaches, and anxiety - not to mention the aforementioned increase in general well-being:
Now, does that mean psychedelics haven't been used wantonly and carelessly? Obviously not. One of the problems is the lack of understanding of proper reverence and usage. Plenty of indigenous cultures treat these kind of substances as either a sacrament or a medicine, or both. And when it comes to ecological awareness, Alan Watts put it well when he said that they can easily offer "ecstasy without the insight." It's a matter of bringing them out of the dark and being honest about their potential benefits. And, ideally, allowing and providing for safe and secure usage.
One's attitude towards the world informs the way you treat it. Maybe, if people had a more overall sense of well-being, were more compassionate and mindful towards each other and the world - and actually experienced their connection - they'd more willingly divert funds from shit like war and greedy endeavors into stuff like education and the space program.
Judging from your other posts, your juvenile derision, callous disregard and misunderstanding wasn't unexpected. But, you know - hahaha drugs!
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)dude...
remember the old rule, when handling drugs:
"All cars are real, and you can't fly."
You seem to be upset, regarding my "juvenile derision" towards your drug promotion.
I'll put it out there: I don't trust drug users. If someone says they've been using drugs, I escort them out of my workspace.
"drugs gave us the computer..." Tell that to the guys building Altairs.
Please, put down the Bardo and other hip-humanities books, and go learn some science.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)As he was under the influence of LSD when he discovered the double-helix structure of DNA. Or the founders of the internet, many of them on a veritable melange of psychoactive substances. Yeah, you're so much more scientific because you distrust drug users. You do know that one of the most powerful psychoactive substances ever discovered, DMT, exists inside of each and every one of us, in every mammal on the planet and in hundreds of plants and trees, right? Yeah, it's clear that humans shouldn't dare explore what exists inside us all. If scientists in general were as close minded as you, we'd still be dying en masse from the plague, forget about ever having left the planet.
Please, for the love of all that is good, go learn some science.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I see that I've tweaked the new shaman crowd...
Would you trust the design mechanisms built by someone who "had a vision?" Why?
You're not talking about science, you are talking about personal histories involved in science.
Please learn the difference.
"Exploring inside" using drugs, sounds a lot like glorified day-dreams.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Because I'm not so incredibly ignorant as to believe that experimenting with psychoactive substances makes someone unqualified for design. And yes, we're definitely talking about science here, are you really unable to see that? Crick said that he used small doses of LSD to boost his observational powers and said in no uncertain terms that LSD helped him to visualize the double helix structure of DNA. But I guess Crick wasn't to be trusted. He was clearly a dirty hippie with no true scientific ability. Apparently you're one more victim of Nancy Reagan's idiocy.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Of seeing people take drugs and dying. Or becoming clinically insane. I certainly wouldn't trust the design work of an acid head, unless proven by at least four other sources. (Remember, in the 60's, there used to be a belief/urban legend, that taking enough acid rendered you immune from radiation.)
"Small amounts" of a substance measured in micro-grams clearly has the capacity for all too easily getting an overdose.
Inspiration is nice. Sober thought and verifiable design work is better.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)So you discount all drug users because of a few of your burnout friends, then you use a stupid urban legend to further your agenda. Bravo. Once again, Nancy would be very proud. Then, to further demonstrate your ignorance, you talk about LSD's capacity for providing overdoses when the LD50 for LSD is so high that it's not even known. When a substance is active at micrograms, yet people have taken dozens of milligrams with no ill effect, that speaks very positively to its benign nature. You claim to be pro-science, yet are completely oblivious to the fact that without drugs, we'd be centuries behind technologically. Go on, give me more proof of how utterly uninformed you are of which you speak. You should be very clear on this: You're not pro-science, you're a fundamentalist.
Needless to say, I wouldn't trust your design work unless I was certain that you copped the blueprints from someone else.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) I find your post personally abusive, so I must have touched a nerve.
2.) You made this personal, so here we go...
2a.) I'm not a fan of Nancy Reagan (sp?). The fact that you automatically assume I'll agree with her, just because I won't trust those taking drugs.
2b.) Science is all about testable hypotheses, based on observable data, yes? I've traveled a whole lot. I figure I've met (on average) at least 1 person per day, for over 30 years. That gives me a population of over 10,000. Given that I used to work with a rather suspect crowd, I met a lot of acid heads (roughly 1 in 10.) ALL of them though reality was "malleable." Not a good idea, if you want to create a safe design. ALL of them
2c.) Overdose doesn't only mean "cause of death." It can also mean (in this case) "cause of insanity."
2d.) as in all things of the street, Know Your Dealer is the useful credo. Can you trust the product in question? Any strychnine? Speed? PCP? If you can't rule those out, you are taking your life in your hands, or at least your mind.
3.) The FACT that science would be "hundreds of years behind?" As the burden of proof is on the accuser, you need to prove that one. Goddard dropped acid? (pretty much impossible.) Shrooms? unlikely, as New England doesn't have much of a crop, and he would have lost his job. Grass? (possibility, but again... you need to prove it...) How about Galileo? Got proof for that one? Newton? Vannevar Bush? (the guy who built the first computer.) How far you want to go with that one? It's like saying DaVinci was gay... Fact not in evidence.
4.) You're projecting... as to me, it looks like you are a drug evangelist.
5.) I stand behind each and every design I've worked out, and construction that I've built. Have you had your work checked by profs? cops? BATF? I have.
Personally, your flaming on this issue suggests that you are threatened by somebody (me) disparaging drug use.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Something that anyone remotely interested in science should know to avoid. You disregard genuine scientific breakthroughs because you've encountered some burnouts in your life. What you're doing is not science at all, it would make most high school students embarrassed. Let's see, what other ridiculous urban legends are you putting out as fact? LSD makes people go insane? Where's your proof for that one, Bill Nye? You seem to be all about proof, yet I'm the only one who has offered anything objective in this conversation, you've only gone on tirades about these people you supposedly know.
Know your dealer? Speed? PCP? Strychnine? Are any of these substances active at microgram levels? Really? You're going to trot out these drug warrior myths again? The LD50 for stychnine is a few mg/kg, you really need to go back to school if you think you can fit that on a tiny blotter. If you're going to play drug warrior, you should at least educate yourself in the slightest before you do so. Otherwise, you're just like the fundies, making up whatever comes into their mind to denigrate the gays, not because of something they know, but because they're ignorant and fearful.
You want me to prove that science would be hundreds of years behind? I'm the one who actually provided concrete examples of what drug experiences have provided us, you've simply told horror stories about your burnout friends. Give me a fucking break.
Really, I'd strongly suggest educating yourself in the slightest before further demonstrating your ignorance.
drokhole
(1,230 posts)If you want another high profile example to go along with Francis Crick, take Kary Mullis - developer of the PCR technique. Mullis has repeatedly and emphatically stated that taking LSD was essential to his work. So much, in fact, that he simply couldn't have done it without it. PCR is "now a common and often indispensable technique used in medical and biological research labs for a variety of applications." Also got a Nobel Prize for it.
You might also be interested in Paul Stamets - one of the world's foremost mycologists. His work on the wide-array of uses of mushrooms is breathtaking. Look up "mycoremediation" some time. Here's a speech of his at TED, where he details that and more:
He also happened to enter the field because of his experiences with psychedelic mushrooms.
I'm also certain that you haven't read the article I linked to in my second post, which detailed how professionals in various fields - such as mathematics, engineering, and architecture - were given LSD in a safe and secure setting with their focus attuned to creative problem solving. They were asked to bring in at least one problem they had been mulling over for months, but were making absolutely no progress on. Actually, the "one problem" thing was for earlier trials. They had been so successful, later participants were asked to bring in at least three. And they, in fact, had spectacular (not to mention practical) results:
It was one of the last clinical trials of the '60s before all research was irrationally halted. One of the key features of their experience, if nothing else, was that the "drug" helped jar them out of the ruts of their preconceptions and see things from a different point of view.
Let's be clear, no one said anything about taking street drugs. The entire point of my original post was safe, secure, and informed use. One of the steps needed to ensure that is, first of all, "legalizing" them. Sure, something like mushrooms might be more reliable because it's grown naturally, but I wouldn't even recommend someone taking that without a sitter or guide. I'd most certainly stress a safe and secure setting. Even then, whomever was undergoing the experience should be well informed/prepared in their own right.
Someone once said that, if you're gonna smoke grass, you should have the equivalent of a driver's license, and if you're going to take psychedelics, you should have the equivalent of a pilot's license. I'm of a similar opinion. You don't just hand someone off the street the keys to a 747 and say, "Here ya go, have at it!" Your "abstinence only" approach simply doesn't work. The point is, then, a more open and informed understanding - precisely so people don't end up using them recklessly.
People have most certainly been taking these substances - or some derivative of a consciousness changing agent - for thousands of years. Tens of thousands, even. Hashish (in the Middle East), opiates/"seed of the poppy" (in China and the Far East), mushrooms, cannabis. Reason being, these things grow naturally. Just as much back then as they do today. It takes a governing body, or some type of "authority," to suppress them. Who knows how much they influenced thought - both ancient and modern. The Founding Fathers were a bunch of dope smokers. They loved that shit so much George Washington wanted people to take the hemp seed and "sow it everywhere."
EOTE
(13,409 posts)I'll be sharing that far and wide, thanks!
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)It was being a kid whose mom couldn't afford a sitter. She took me to work...
An ER ward.
Like I said:
Inspiration is nice. Sober thought and verifiable design is better.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)And you didn't even need drugs to do it. I'm impressed. Your verifiable designs will never even approach the genius of many contributions to science brought about by inspiration from psychedelics. Drugs obviously aren't for you, you'd be wise to stay well away from them. But for you to denigrate the contributions of others who use them is the height of hubris. Learn some humility and maybe then you'll be able to add something to this dialog.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I seem to have touched a nerve...
1.) Look, if you want to expound on the glories of drugs, be my guest. I think it shows your hang-ups, more than it shows mine.
2.) Science in based on testable hypotheses, from observable data. So far, YOU are the one with the anecdotes of the glories of drug use, and I am the one with anecdotes that they are a bad idea.
As I've said earlier, inspiration is nice. Sober design is better.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Want to throw out any more urban legends? Everything you've said has been laughable and thoroughly disputed. Want to talk some more about how I'm going to poison myself with strychnine by taking blotter? Your knowledge of both drugs and science is incredibly lacking, to say the least.
To save you the trouble, I've trotted out your next talking points for you:
1) Thousands upon thousands of hippies went blind in the 60's after ingesting acid and staring into the sun.
2) You know at least a few dozen heads who put their children in the microwave during an acid trip because they thought they were sandwiches.
It takes a lot of work to pretend to be that ignorant. You're welcome.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)okay...
You're enlightened, and the rest of us are dupes for nancy reagan.
It must be nice to ignore observable fact, and go with pro-drug propaganda.
You too are welcome. Just not in my lab.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)So let me see here...
Marijuana causes blacks and latinos to rape white women.
Acid causes its users to go crazy and blind from staring at the sun.
Acid and ecstasy creates holes in one's brain and drains your spinal fluid.
Baby sitters have placed babies in the oven while under the influence of acid.
Acid causes genetic mutations.
People who take LSD run the risk of strychnine poisoning.
Or is it just the ridiculous urban legends you choose to believe which are facts?
Yes, all your bullshit drug propaganda is far, far more believable than the objective fact that I presented. You'll notice that I've demonstrated clearly your propaganda to be lies, but you can't respond to the facts that I've presented with anything less than more propaganda. It's not a good thing to believe anything that any idiot drug warrior tells you (yes, including Nancy Reagan). I'd really try to be more selective about the information you choose to accept as truth. Gullibility is not something to strive for. Nor is playing scientist.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) You're not a very good mind-reader. May I suggest that you don't give up your day job? (If you have one...)
2.) I thought you weren't responding to me anymore.
3.) You have posted anecdotes, without sources. You seem to think your anecdotes constitute.
4.) One of your statements read something like "without drugs, science would have been set back hundreds of years." As the proponent/acusser, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove the the only way those advances happened is via drugs.
5.) What is this thing you have for Nancy Reagan?
6.) When you want to post FACTS, instead of rhetoric, feel free.
7.) "inspiration" isn't design work. Nor is it construction.
8.) I hadn't heard the one about acid and ecstasy draining spinal fluid...
I HAVE heard of these
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1129381/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1502618/?page=1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1923615/?page=1
9.) I know you'll likely say these are all nancy-inspired propaganda. Feel free. I expect no less from someone evangelizing drugs. NIH at lest cites their sources.
10.) Any time you want to have a contest with criteria to determine the better inventor/builder, let me know. It'll have to be a neutral location, as there is no way I'm letting a potential junkie into my house.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Once again, are you going to provide a shred of evidence for any of it? I assume if you weren't talking out of your ass you'd at least have attempted to by now. Or are you going to be content to post something saying if you take thousands of times the active dose of LSD some bad things can happen? As talking out of your ass has been pretty much all you've done here, I'm going to assume the latter.
Do you have anything to disprove the contributions due to drugs that I and others in this have provided or are you simply going to tell me more of the bullshit you learned in DARE as a kid? Once again, I and others have provided proof, the discovery of the structure of DNA is absolutely enormous alone. Do you think the myriad professionals who were able to overcome obstacles in their respective fields of research are full of shit as well? You seem to be a stunning example of the Dunning Kruger effect. You are utterly ignorant in these many areas, yet it's your ignorance (and perhaps a large dose of hubris) that leads you to believe that you're actually capable of making educated remarks about these things which you know absolutely nothing about (worse than that, you believe you know several things which are incredibly far from the truth). Fuck the professionals who worked their whole lives to get to where they are, surely your amateurish (to be kind) knowledge trumps that, right? Nope, you can't address any of that. All you can do is post ridiculous propaganda and then when I call you out on it and ask you to provide something with scientific basis, you simply post common sense that any moron could provide. Congratulations, you're a stunning representative of the drug warrior crowd.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Were you not able to understand them?
Or are you playing the "It doesn't agree with my drug mythos, so I don't have to listen to it" game?
When you'd like to post facts for your drug theories, feel free to post them.
Once again, I seem to have touched a nerve.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)STRAWMAN. Or a non-sequitor if you will. Do you know what those are? Probably not considering the previous conversations we've had. So, to play your game, here are some more random links from me which surely prove my point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_at_the_Crossroads
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1437425
In the future, you might want to post something with some, um, you know, actual relevance to the discussion at hand? You might find you'll look a whole hell of a lot less stupid when you do so. Enjoy your reading.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) Those sources listed only SOME of the problems with LSD, in particular. So much for safe reactions.
2.) You want the USA to pay for your drugs... I get that. Sounds sad, but I get it.
3.) the fact that those articles listing adverse reactions... were something you felt had nothing to do with the conversation says more about your issues, than mine
4.) Those articles show your drug of choice is not as safe as you imply
5.) The thread is about going into space. You started up with "spend it on drugs." Sounds more like I'm trying to correct an erroneous poster (that would be you) and get back to the topic of the thread. Are you envious of astronauts and probes, perhaps?
EOTE
(13,409 posts)1) Yeah, LSD is one of millions of substances which aren't 100% safe under all conditions, especially when taking thousands of times a normal dose. Thanks for the education, Einstein! I can't wait for your next brilliant insight. I suppose you look down upon everyone who has ever touched or imbibed a substance which can be dangerous under certain circumstances (that would be 100% of the population, Hawking).
2) Uhhh, no. I've said nothing of the sort. Must have been a momentary lapse of your typical genius.
3, 4 and 5 is just more of your mental masturbation and not really even worth addressing. Especially considering you won't even provide a single source that backs up the numerous urban legends you've posted as fact.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)EOTE, it really sounds like you want to be told you are right, and artistic, and brave...
for taking drugs.
I called you on it, and you've YET to produce FACTS that verify your position.
Hmmm...
your anecdotes are facts, where mine are just stories?
The conversation was about space, you came in with a plea to have your drugs subsidized, and I called you on it.
When you have PROOF that drugs were the only way to advance science, please feel free to post them here.
Otherwise, you sound a lot like just another junkie, looking to feel heroic.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)"The conversation was about space, you came in with a plea to have your drugs subsidized, and I called you on it."
No, I said nothing of the sort. You're just a liar and lies are all you've got.
"When you have PROOF that drugs were the only way to advance science, please feel free to post them here. "
Once again, you're full of shit. I said nothing of the sort. You are far worse than a junkie, you're 90% hubris and 10% intellect, a very scary combination. You HAVE said a number of things which I've proven to be false.
Oh, and by the way, even those articles you submit which pretty much only assert common sense are loaded with inaccuracies right off the bat. First of all, in the article "Unfavourable Reactions to LSD" a spotted a number of errors in the first fucking paragraph. In the first few sentences, the author misspells "psilocybin" and then goes on to say that both psilocybin and dimethytryptamine are synthetic drugs. Bzzzzt, wrong. Just about anything can be synthesized, but those are not synthetic drugs. It seems as if the author is displaying the same kind of intellectual laziness that you have been.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)proof against those articles, and I'll post more.
This is fun!
And you have yet to prove anything false. You've used bombast, and personal attack, but that's about what I'd expect...
Once again... The conversation was originally about space travel. You chimed in with your pet project of getting your drugs subsidized, and I called you on it.
Keep going, please. I find your attempts fascinating.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)I have a feeling I'll be waiting a really fucking long time to get an answer to that. And once again, I found numerous errors in the first fucking paragraph, that's really sad. I've yet to prove anything you've said false? OK, here you go champ:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_strychnine_in_LSD
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080129182210AARm267
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misconceptions_about_illegal_drugs#Strychnine
http://www.snopes.com/legal/lsdcrazy.asp
And before you reply with more idiocy and mention that MY links don't come from the NIH, keep in mind that I'm trying to prove a negative here. You're not going to find any articles on the NIH which say that LSD DOESN'T contain strychnine, that would just be stupid. Got it, Chachi?
And once again, I never even remotely mentioned getting drugs subsidized. I've called you on that multiple times. So now you're not just a liar, you're a moron too.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)emotional attacks...
no reputable sources...
Yup... I touched a nerve...
Look, if you want to take your sacrament. Go ahead. Just don't expect a lot of people to admire you.
LSD doesn't INHERENTLY contain strychnine. It is often cut with other things (hence the adage, know your dealer.)
Wow, you are really defensive about your drugs, aren't you...
EOTE
(13,409 posts)It is often cut with other things? What things would it be cut with that are active at a few micrograms? Once again, you think you're going to get a harmful dose of strychnine in blotter? With every post, you impress me more and more with your density.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)You post a report about a number of individuals incredibly foolishly consuming many thousands of times an active dose of a mind altering substance and then all of them being released from the hospital within 48 hours with all of them experiencing a complete recovery. How many pharmacologically active substances can you say that about? If only big pharma made anything that safe. Your attempts at logic are hilarious.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Together, We have a comedy routine...
Bob, and his semi-erudite slap toy.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)You think facts are evangelism and urban legends and non-sequitors bolster your argument. Anyone with half a brain can see through your bullshit.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I posted articles showing your drug of choice ISN'T as safe as you imply. You seem to have a problem with the idea of FACTS (those articles) contradicting your beliefs. Seems you might be "overly emotionally invested" in you drug opinions.
As LSD (which seems to be your thing) causes changes in perceptions and ideation... Is that safe wihen doing design work? Inspirations are nice. Don't confuse them with actual calculation/construction.
Also, As this topic was about space flight...
Why should our culture look up to people who want to take drugs?
EOTE
(13,409 posts)what they believe is LSD. You've provided absolutely nothing in terms of proof for any of your "facts" however.
Just how safe did I imply LSD is? I simply said you're spreading ridiculous misconceptions about it. It's pretty damned safe, but it's certainly not 100% safe as any idiot could tell you. Hell, one told me fairly recently.
My facts are that a number of extremely important scientific discoveries have been made with the aid of LSD. That's something you haven't even attempted to disprove, rather you simply ignore it.
I'll tackle another of your non-sequitors: "Is that safe wihen doing design work?" Well, is it safe to use LSD when making schematics, blue prints and such? Of course it is. I designed and made a portable electric guitar amp while on an acid trip. I use it to this day and it sounds fucking fantastic. Now, would it be safe to INCORPORATE those designs afterward, in cases where people's lives would be on the line? Well, it would obviously depend on the designer now, wouldn't it? And anyone who isn't an utter moron would know to test out the design in the real world before putting it to actual use. I shouldn't have to address such a poorly worded and utterly inconsequential question, but I've got some free time today.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)let me know, when you can argue against those articles. I'll then post more...
EOTE
(13,409 posts)I've told you numerous times that those articles really don't address anything pertaining to this conversation. And I've already found errors in the first paragraph, that's pretty pathetic. Not that it matters, because once again, none of those articles disprove a damned thing that I've said. So try again, Quixote.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Those article...
1.) are from a reputable source
2.) demonstrate your drug of choice is not as safe as you imply
you REALLY want to be admired for your drug use, don't you...
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)EOTE
(13,409 posts)If so, I'm guessing it is far more pertinent to this conversation as the last bit of pablum you've provided. Oh wait, maybe these intend to prove that the sky is, in fact, blue? It must really, really hurt realizing that you are nowhere near as smart as you once thought you were. If the poor spelling and grammar weren't a dead giveaway, the constant repetition and inability to learn from a discussion surely are.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Just your articles on the subject from a reputable source.
I really have to go.
I promise to come back and talk to you, later tonight.
Have fun with your drugs.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)It's really hard for you to talk without lying, isn't it? First you said that I think that drug use should be subsidized (big fucking lie). Then, you tell me that I implied that LSD is incredibly safe, when my comments regarding the safety of the drug came in response to the error-filled articles that you provided. It's YOUR articles that you've linked to which imply how incredibly safe LSD is. Here's a little clue, champ, if you need to lie numerous times in a conversation just so you don't have to admit defeat, you've already lost. If you had an actual argument to make, you wouldn't need to lie your ass off. I'd like to say that those weren't lies, but just one of your many bouts of ignorance, but I called you on it numerous times and you continue to use them. So I have no choice but to recognize that you're a chronic liar. Few things are sadder than one who needs to lie about others in order to make their point. So, tell me again why you're not a liar? I know I won't get an actual response to this, but I thought I'd try.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I'm back from teaching kids...
In your honor, we talked about the dangers of drug induced delusions.
Those earlier articles show rates of trouble, including medium duration psychosis
Got a few more articles for you...
Crick didn't want to be known for Acid use
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=22271
Crick did most of his work before he supposedly took acid
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6835/was-francis-crick-high-on-lsd-when-he-discovered-dna-structrure
1.) You state that science would be far less advanced, without drugs. As the person making that statement, the burden of proof is on YOU, to show that science wouldn't have advanced without drug use. I've already shown (via these articles, that your example is faulty. Got some others?
2.) you need to stop projecting. It makes you look a bit like a whinging addict.
Over to you, for more frothy goodness!
EOTE
(13,409 posts)It's one thing to be called out on spreading false information, it's entirely different when you continue to lie after the fact. I don't give a damn if Crick didn't want to be known for his acid use, he's said that it was acid that allowed him to visualize the structure. So, you move the goalposts yet again and then use some idiots chatting online to prove your point? Your hubris is only matched by your ignorance. You keep demanding evidence when I'm the only one who's provided evidence this entire thread. I've called you out on your urban legends and outright lies and you have no defense for them at all. You're a damned liar and I've proven it numerous times. Only mental midgets need to rely on lies to make a point. Good thing that there are very few here who fall for your bullshit.
When someone calls you out on spreading false information, that is your chance to prove that you were only ignorant rather than an intentional liar. You've proven that you're not only incredibly ignorant, but a willful liar as well. It must hurt to be called out on your lies, do yourself a favor and try honesty for once. You haven't proven a damned thing with the exception of what a liar you are and how poorly you can make an argument. The fact that you can't put together a sentence properly, much less make a cogent point should have been a good clue. You are an ignoramus and not worth anyone's time. I will not waste one more minute trying to get a willful liar to attempt honesty. Your behavior is pathetic, you belong nowhere near malleable minds. I will not waste one more minute trying to get a willful liar to be honest. I'm through with you.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)You couldn't refute those papers, and you're feeling defensive...
so you hurl bombast.
You might want to consider drying out.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Because I've said very little about how safe LSD is. And the funny thing about it is that the articles you've provided say that LSD is pretty damned safe. For the most part, they simply confirm what I've already known about this. But go on, tell me how safe I've implied that LSD is and then provide a quote of me saying so.
My god, it's so hilarious getting lectured from someone who can't even put a paragraph together without myriad grammar mistakes. Your long life of sobriety has done very little for your brain.
Better to drop more acid than lose your cool . Difficult to remove irrational whole-body fears with rational angry sounding arguments.
I assume you have opened some doors to inner spaces. Why not share with us what you have found exploring those?
EOTE
(13,409 posts)And you're very right that I've recently engaged in some rather angry arguments (not just angry sounding). That tends to happen when the poster I'm arguing with refuses to engage in anything approaching honest debate. It's one thing to be ignorant, but to be called out on spreading out and out falsehoods and then continue to spread them shows that one is a willful liar, and that's what I refuse to deal with.
Yes, I've had a number of very enlightening experiences with a number of different substances, but I don't think this thread is the appropriate place to discuss them. I fear that would move this thread even further off track. Rather, I'll be content to let the discussion stay as it is and allow observers to draw their own conclusions from the contents.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)The lady suggested that you chill...
Just because you can't refute those articles...
Is no reason to get so pissed off.
So go calm down, refute those articles, and relax!
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Now your behavior has become stalkerish and it's beyond creepy. I want to have nothing to do with a POS liar. Your behavior is beyond childish, it's sociopathic. I want nothing to do with you.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I'll take your comments as a meltdown of an addict, and chalk it up as a win.
But you really shouldn't let yourself get this upset. It's unhealthy.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)As you're fucking dense as a brick. But if you're capable of reading, you'd find that's not the case. Sorry if I get upset dealing for extended periods of time with sociopathic liars. Now kindly fuck off.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Still talking to me.
I guess you are looking for some kind of shocked response.
Kid, go dry out, grow up, and then maybe you can refute those articles.
As for your hubris comments...try looking in a mirror.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Are you going to follow me to other threads as well? You've not only proven yourself to be a liar (numerous times), but now a stalker and sociopath as well. I'm quite sure you have no idea what hubris means. So go fuck yourself again, gramps. And stop pretending to be a scientist. Scientists know how to put together sentences. Enough, go creep out some children or something.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I thought you were "done with speaking to me..."
I don't mind conversing with you, as you've proved you have nothing but empty rhetoric.
As to the sociopath thing...
As in all things you post, you have YET to show proof.
Must be that addictive personality of yours.
Over to you, chew-toy, for more frothy goodness.
First that fears are whole-body phenomena. After antilope flees from attacking lion, it trembles and shakes the fear away from the body. We humans often nurture and feed our fears with our thoughts and let them infest our bodies.
Our self-images are mostly defense mechanisms that create various narratives for their self-preservation and protection.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)This was a conversation about what drug experiences have contributed to the furthering of science. Fairly concrete and not abstract at all.
I'm aware that humans are fearful creatures by nature, but don't really see what that has to do with the discussion at hand.
tama
(9,137 posts)There are many kinds of fears associated with psychoactive drugs and generally alternate states of mind that often make rational discussion about them hard or impossible. Also, if we accept that anger arises from fear, we can let them guide to their source.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)is a sometimes useful survival trait...
tama
(9,137 posts)As biological instinct. And then there are more and more abstract layers of emotional, psychological and intellectual fears. To tie with the topic, also fears of abstract concepts such as various spaces, closed spaces (claustrophobia), open spaces (agoraphobia), etc.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)tend to have a triggers of some sort.
Such as the fear of losing a habituated substance, for some...
Crowds for others...
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Yes, fear is certainly something associated with most powerful psychoactive drugs. If we're to mature, that fear must be confronted.
None of that changes the fact that I'm going to call bullshit wherever I see it. It's one thing for someone to pass off myth and legend as fact, it's entirely another to continue to do so once that someone has been called on it. I provided a number of sources exposing a number of lies and the lies continued. I don't suffer fools gladly and I don't believe any drug is going to change that.
tama
(9,137 posts)Long time ago I was active in drug policy debates. The opponent very seldom if ever yields and says that I was wrong and you are right no matter how strong and convincing the arguments are - fear of losing face alone is enough to prevent that in most cases. So when you are having public debate on public forum such as Internet, it's not convincing the other guy and getting him admit he's wrong that matters - if you are campaigning for some policy change and favor of public opinion. And not even the arguments themselves are that important, how ever rational.
The audience of "undecided" with no strong prejudice to either side is who you are really talking to. They may get and remember some of the rational arguments more or less wrong, but what they go with is emotion. People looking guidance and leadership in issues where they are undecided and have open mind choose the side that appears emotionally more stable, affirmative and reassuring, because that's how we are socially and psychologically wired and for good reasons.
In short - you lose your cool, you lose the debate. Politics 101.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)I was aiming to educate one person who is apparently unable to be educated. Yes, that then devolved into something else entirely, but I'll admit that I have limited patience.
tama
(9,137 posts)I wouldn't have a whiff of what I'm talking about if I hadn't done what you were doing couple billion times. Practicing patience takes lot of patience and self-forgiving.
There are also other kinds of tactical maneuvers when two ego's start pushing against each other in the classical Art of Being Right. As eastern marshal arts teach, instead of pushing one can draw and use the power of the opponent... for common good. Every fight can be turned into dance of flexibility, intuition and compassion, and we learn that art mainly from losing to our respected opponents, not from winning. Respected because they are our best teachers.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)we could in fact do ALL of the above.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)I'm not sure if that includes janitors and the like. About 400 of those are in the "dealing with the mission right now" group while most of the rest were in at other stages of the project.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)It must also be constructed by people with hard hats.
And it must have caterers, or cafeterias, nearby restaurants, all that jazz.
It's a job creation halo effect.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)xchrom
(108,903 posts)Right now - we aren't close to doing both.
It is not that there isn't enough - but we are not going to do it.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)would look at the actual numbers...
How much are we spending on NASA?
How much are we spending of DOD?
How much are we spending on Social programs?
NASA gets FAR less than any one of the social programs.
Keefer
(713 posts)yes.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)I'm not in touch with those Others.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)It's not only disingenuous, considering the history of the last 40 yrs and the obvious lost opportunities we've frittered away, it's actually harmful. Especially to those you pretend to be most concerned about.
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)[IMG]
[/IMG]
xchrom
(108,903 posts)
sofa king
(10,857 posts)We reduce their power use with LED lights. We keep them alive with heart pumps. We take accurate temperatures with IR ear thermometers. The war-torn use effective artificial limbs. They peer through scratch-resistant glasses. We keep them safer on the highway and in the air, and accurately test the environment to keep it cleaner, and clean it up. We fight fires. We make baby food more nutritious. We freeze-dry food for the hungry. We purify water, generate electricity with solar power, make engines.
We do all of those things better than we did as a direct result of putting humans into space, because the technology that made all of the above possible had to first be invented and perfected so that humans could venture into space.
Doing so gave the United States a technological and manufacturing edge that kept it the most powerful and innovative nation the world had ever seen--for thirty years.
Human space travel means progress for all humankind.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Being something like 40:1
40 dollars returned, on each dollar spent
kentauros
(29,414 posts)and as high as 22:1. I think 40:1 may be a little high
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)okay...
But 8:1 is still good.
How many investments (legally) can make 8:1 year over year, buy you ennobling PR, AND are fun to watch on TV?
kentauros
(29,414 posts)lauding their financial and material benefit to society, I can't think any other place that could offer such a good return on your investments. Perhaps the Pentagon could match and/or surpass that, if they didn't ever classify anything for three decades at a time
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Too many people got hooked on "the good life." (mostly, it seems to mean a good recliner, 500 channel cable TV, and quick take out service).
Zubrin's good, but I keep thinking we can do it cheaper, and have a LOT more missions...
How about we set up exploring Mars as a run? Think "By the time we got to Woodstock" mixed with geekdom.
Cheap magsails and solarmoth engines would get us there, with very little mass fraction needed for fuel.
(Fair Warning: I grew up around rocket scientists, absorbed a fair amount, and am a *tiny* bit obsessed with spaceflight. To the point I made some rural police very nervous.)
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)and I'll tell you a story.
Down in the land of VERY rural maryland, my wife and I were living quietly in a sleepy little town.
When I get bored, I build. After building a wind tunnel (which the neighbors brought out the lawn chairs to watch), I started work on some (relatively) small "model" rockets.
A friend of mine was over at my house, working on his car. For some reason, he didn't bother to read the sign on a barrel that read:
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE!
NO HYDROCARBONS!
He walked into the storage shed, opened the barrel, and dumped his oily rags in.
Needless to say, the original contents weren't happy. The shed "went away."
I had a long talk with the local police that day. (They only thought I was trying to make moonshine.)
The talk with the ATF was more problematic. (they were wondering about explosives.)
The upshot was, the locals asked me to be more careful, and the ATF stated it wasn't there problem.
Did I mention that I want to play with 40 foot model rockets?
Warpy
(111,316 posts)You can't make anything foolproof, fools are just too ingenious.
Likely "Hydrocarbon" was too big a word for him to lipread and he didn't know what H2O2 was. Locking the replacement shed is probably your best bet in order to keep the locals away from all the potential danger inside.
My rockets were much smaller when I was a kid. Besides, I preferred things that went boom. Fortunately, it was a more innocent time and the government was a lot less stuffy about geeky kids with strange hobbies.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)as my place here in CT is FAR too close to my neighbors.
In Maryland, the distance to the next neighbor was about 600 yards. Here, it's about 6.
The trick to doing anything that the government might get involved in, is to do it in a way that they say "not on my list."
If I had used straight APCP, the ATF would have fined the bejeebers out of me. The local cops would have "had a talk with me."
As I was (mostly) being safe, and I kept mentioning that I thought the USA should shine again, my local officers put me down as "crazy, but a great American!" (also, one asked me to help his kid do a science fair project.)
kentauros
(29,414 posts)and build one of these:
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I was planning on using a high optimized Ion engine. Keeps everybody happy.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)And, in looking up some info on Polywell fusion the other day, I came across this:
http://www.weirdwarp.com/2009/08/nuclear-fusion-and-its-future-uses-in-spacecraft/
And while I love all this fascinating technology, science isn't my background, so I may be lost on some of the jargon. I might point out, too, that you may want to edit one of your posts where you mentioned "CHON" as I don't think most people know it means "Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen" and are the building blocks of food (I learned that from Robinette Broadhead in the Heechee Saga books by Frederick Pohl.)
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)sorry about that...
I want a Heechee 13 ship...
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)It's hard to deal with the idea of some future warez pirate illegally copying me...
kentauros
(29,414 posts)or you'll end up as an opera-singing centaur 
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)kentauros
(29,414 posts)Maybe I'll reread it and make sure I meditate for a hour before delving in
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)kentauros
(29,414 posts)I'll have to see if there are ebook copies available.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Also, once they're that big, I think they stop merely being model rockets.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)The scale is 1 to 1...
Odin2005
(53,521 posts) a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Chemically, a lot of it was still there...
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)SOME of the pieces went up about 200 feet (I used an old alti-tracker from Estes.)
Most of it just went laterally.
Shame really... I could have gotten an award for a flying shed.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)wooden shed.
Mind you, the blast didn't do the underlying concrete any good at all.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)MOST of the concrete was still there...
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Zubrin, in his book The Case For Mars, talks about plans for a Mars mission during Daddy Bush's presidency fell flat because they got needlessly pumped up into a $800 billion white elephant, mostly because every aerospace industry special interest wanted a piece of the action and wanted their pet project to be a part of the mission. It's that boondoggle that lead to the "it's too expensive" assumption.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)up in Boston. Good stuff!
I went through old RAND reports for a moon/mars mission for 12 people, and I went out to find prices.
the equipment itself (sans food) $60,000 mostly buying from Campmor and EMS
food (12 man-years) $30,000 (mostly from survival food, inc)
suits (assuming the standard poly-poly, linkmesh, protective cover)
$60,000 (may be cheaper to hand make them)
For giggles and grins, I'm (slowly) working up a cost chart for the ship itself
(If we assume a Von Braun style inflatable and metal painted space station, and then give it an engine, we can do it cheap.)
It's a nice contrast to writing a grad paper.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Glad to have found some other folks around who've read it and took away from it what I did!
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)in The Case for Mars checks out, as far as I can research.
Warpy
(111,316 posts)and have to drink unsafe water and can't count on even the minimal health care of getting their children vaccinated against easy to prevent viruses should we colonize anyplace else.
Never mind the fact that there are too many technical problems we have yet to iron out, from protecting our colonies from meteorite strikes that happen frequently in low to no atmosphere conditions to figuring out long term energy strategies to cope with harsh physical conditions.
IOW, we need to do much better with this world before we go to others and we have a long way to go scientifically speaking before we could possibly have off planet installations that could survive long term.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I've taught for 23 years...
Not once... has any student said they were inspired by upgraded teaching methods
Not once... has any student dug into the math books, for a feeling of personal growth
I taught in bad parts of DC, Boston, NYC, and a few other places. I noticed a phenomenon I call "the look of the eagles," whenever I put in a tape or DVD about landing on the moon. Kids with the whole "let's BURN this school" would sit down in a seat, get really quiet, and then ask any noisy kid to STFU. Then they asked why we don't go there now.
One kid got picked up at the local university library with some friends, after closing hours. They have grabbed a truck, and were stealing "the space books."
THAT'S inspiration.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)I'd like to add something that came to me last night- Does it really matter whether or not we're alone in this universe? Isn't that what the space program's ultimate goal.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)We never should have left Europe (or Asia) for the "New World" until we'd solved all our problems back home.
Because no problems ever have intersecting solutions. Ever.
Warpy
(111,316 posts)Try again.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) folks not liking their current living condition
2.) trip needing three months travel time
3.) trip is dangerous
4.) trip requires new technology
Seems pretty close to me!
Warpy
(111,316 posts)1. Folks wanting to get rich quick.
2. Trip needing three months, not years.
3. Trip no more dangerous than any other at the time
4. No new technology required, just extra ship's stores for the longer trip
5. Folks will live 100% off the land when they arrive, including food, shelter, and all other resources. They won't have to deplete resources of people back home to do this. Even the extra provisions on the ship would have been the same things consumed had they stayed home.
Ah, you say, but what about Isabella hocking her jewelry to finance Columbus? The people of Spain weren't left with fewer resources because of it, as the people of this planet will be if today's technology is used for planetary colonization.
For the time being, probes will have to suffice. Eventually, when we start to solve a lot of the technical problems like better propulsion systems, adequate shielding against meteorites, and hydroponics and waste reclamation that can be set up quickly and maintained efficiently, we'll get out there. It's just silly as hell to say we should be there today. We are just not up to the task yet.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1. Folks wanting to get rich quick.
Nothing wrong with that. I figure a bunch of asteroid miners will be going to make "substantial sums of money."
2. Trip needing three months, not years.
Gimme a good enough engine system, and I can get you to the kuiper belt in a year.
3. Trip no more dangerous than any other at the time
Have you riden a boat on the Atlantic? traveled via plane?
decent engine system, and you're safe.
4. No new technology required, just extra ship's stores for the longer trip
In 1938, the British Interplanetary Society drew up a set of plans for a moon run... NASA later verified those plans.
5. Folks will live 100% off the land when they arrive, including food, shelter, and all other resources. They won't have to deplete resources of people back home to do this. Even the extra provisions on the ship would have been the same things consumed had they stayed home.
Bunkie, we can EASILY live on Mars. It's got all the trimming! Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Copper, Boron, etc.
Please learn some science to inform your opinions.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Ah, you say, but what about Isabella hocking her jewelry to finance Columbus? The people of Spain weren't left with fewer resources because of it, as the people of this planet will be if today's technology is used for planetary colonization.
1.) the technology will still be there, when Mars is colonized. The resources aren't that great. The whole of the NASA Apollo program worked out to be Beer money for John Q. Public. Shall we talk about Return On Investment, via spinoffs?
2.) Your argument boils down to "but...using stuff for space means people are ignoring MY pet project..."
For the time being, probes will have to suffice. Eventually, when we start to solve a lot of the technical problems like better propulsion systems, adequate shielding against meteorites, and hydroponics and waste reclamation that can be set up quickly and maintained efficiently, we'll get out there. It's just silly as hell to say we should be there today. We are just not up to the task yet.
3.) We have the technology already. NERVAS have been tested. Great big honking Specific Impulse on those babies. Shielding is easy. Hell, Stewart Brand (of Last Whole Earth) listed New Alchemy Institute's 20 people per quarter acre mini arcology, back in 1970.
4.) use two layers of material, and you stop meteors.
Please go out and learn about the field...
bhikkhu
(10,720 posts)...or the ocean floor. You have to have a better reason than "because its there".
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)IMO "because it's there" is a perfectly good reason.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)We are already doing a stellar job on the rest of our planet.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)It depends what part of the ocean floor we're talking about. Once we get off the continental shelf the pressure is such that I think both the engineering challenges and the risks to persons could be greater.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)wasted, I tell you.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Most of it is uninhabitable without extreme science to make it habitable. That might appeal to geeks but most people would rather live in a place that isn't so hostile and that doesn't demand life and death support. Should something go wrong with the technology, it isn't a matter of riding out a few days without electricity. It's doomsday for those pioneers.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)As a geek in good standing, I'd go in a heartbeat.
Getting electricity is pretty easy. There's the obvious solar power. There's also a simple SNAP RTG or two. To get creative, we could tap the massive wind energy of the sand storms.
Sounds like fun.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Even I would go for a holiday. I remember saying to my husband, when the Challenger blew up, that if I was offered a space ride I would still take it in spite of that tragedy. My husband said he would too.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)would be a lot less explosive
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)We only survive because of our technology and our technical knowledge, which includes things as basic as fire, clothing, and knowledge of flora and fauna. Our stone-age ancestors faced death every day, as do all living things. The notion of the natural world as a benevolent mother who cares for her children is a romantic affectation of people insulated from natures' violence. Nature is a cruel mother who abuses and kills her children, and only those who adapt to her cruelty survive.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I can get along without the trappings of civilization, ON THIS PLANET! I doubt if I would do very well on the moon or Mars. Incidentally the Mars pictures look like the view from my bedroom window when I was a child living in the Atacama desert. However, even there I knew where to find water and shelter.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)The poles have water, the nightly frosts have water.
A wind trap with tap the sand storms for water.
As for shelter... How big a shelter do you want?
Cleita
(75,480 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)that, and solar collectors, and you've got shelter.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)You carry your technology with you.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)much of that would be air and heat, never mind the obvious food and water, it could be fatal.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)As is regretably proven somewhere nearly every day.
Our entire existence on this planet is a result of our technology, from the lowliest digging stick to the most advanced particle accelerators. Homo sapiens survives nowhere without tools and shelter.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Frankly, I really have no business there anyway.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Sigh.... look, the point is that it's a problem we know about and know how to deal with. If we never went anywhere because of the possible dangers, we'd still be sitting in a valley in Africa, with toes hairyer than a Hobbit, grooming each other for fleas. That is, if we made it through any recent droughts, brush fires, past the nearest saber-tooth, etc.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)We need the advances in medicine for sure, however, technology and industry at the sacrifice of everything else is what I'm against. Actually, sending all the assholes into space colonies is beginning to appeal to me.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Screw that!
Space may be the last true frontier.
A place to get AWAY from those people.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)I know what it does to everything, the land and the people who work in them. So excuse me if I have a disgust for it.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)is that there is NO life in the belt. Not enough concentrated energy to hit that activation level.
We're talking about mining in hard vacuum, not in a wilderness.
Yes, with enough concentrated energy, we can terraform Mars, and make rocks in the Belt into life like worlds (at least on the inside.)
Without that concentrated energy, the Belt and Mars are dead as Nixon.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Every day those men go to work, you may not ever see them again. Also, the by-products and exposure to the pollutants that are part of mining cause disease and death decades after the exposure. It's a dirty enterprise and not good for living things.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) Use shallow-style Open pit mining on the asteroids, largely crewed by space suited miners.
Not much dirt there.
2.) Mining the rocks aren't going to despoil the fragile vacuum.
3.) my maternal grandpa, and on f my uncles-in-law are miners and mine engineers.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)some time and see what they did to the mountains there. In order to extract the ore a variety of noxious chemicals are used and it has to be dumped somewhere. Where I lived there was a beautiful and deadly lake that was a variety of colors you could see in the distance. It was full of noxious acids that had been dumped there as waste. It had been used to process the rocks and was deadly if you went even near it. The smelting of the ores produces air pollution and many, many other things that produce dirty and deadly stuff on the side.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) acids are highly reactive. In a vacuum, even more so.
2.) as nothing can live unprotected on an asteroid, there's no environment to mess up.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)The smelting and manufacture are the major causes of pollution.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)you can melt the rock in situ, and then cart off the parts you want...
and then use the slag for building materials.
Then drop the desired materials into a hopper, and pour into pre-made shapes. Or, you could use a 3D printer.
No muss, no fuss.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)you are going to be pretty far away from the sun. How do you make up for that?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Larger Mirrors.
If you are in the outer edges of the Belt (about 5 Astronomical Units {1 AU = 93,000,000 miles}) then you need a mirror 25 times the size of one near Earth. Mirrors need only be shiny objects. You could make them (literally) out of tin foil.
that view is the reason why European imperialism should not be colonizing America or any other place. Cruelty is what European imperialism did and is doing there, not how stone age people related to ecosystems they belonged and belong to.
hunter
(38,322 posts)Either of two things will make "space colonization" practical -- artificial intelligence or bio-engineered humans.
Both sort of being's would be in effect humanity's offspring.
If I had a body that such that I didn't need to breath and I could walk around the surface of Mars in shorts and a tee-shirt, cool, let's go.
Our robots, as has been robustly demonstrated, can live on Mars. All they need now is intelligence.
I think human beings themselves are not likely to "colonize" the solar system except as guests of our intellectual offspring.
Human beings themselves are too fragile. Earth itself hasn't been fully "colonized" yet. Not many people live underwater or in very cold or very dry environments.
avebury
(10,952 posts)good stewards of this planet and it's population then we have no right or business going out into the Universe and messing up other planets. As it stands, we would probably treat any other planet like we are treating Earth. Think Avatar becoming reality. After all, once the 1% have absorbed everything here they will be looking for more wealth to horde.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)for it's resources with little regard to what we leave behind.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)The material would be shipped to Earth and then brought to the surface via a space elevator.
Mars is easily terraformed and will be a destination for settler colonies.
The Moon, I suspect, will be mostly a scientific and military outpost. Because of how it formed it's quite resource-poor.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)Here, gravity and atmospheric drag work for you, not against you. All you need is a heat shield (of asteroid material) and a parachute; if you're bring back bulk material, you can forget the chute.
As for the Moon, I remember the days of the old L-5 Society and the debate as to whether lunar or asteroid materials would be better for the purpose of building solar power satellites. That's still a valid debate; although these days most of the interest in space solar power is in Japan and China.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)An Asteroid is a gigantic floating Rock.
No ecosystem to screw up.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Science doesn't actually matter to some people, as long as they get to feel properly aggrieved.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)The sky above earth is full of junk hardware satellites that fall to earth every now and then.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) the asteroids are more likely to fall into the sun, then fall to earth
2.) if we put an asteroid at the L5 point, it'll stay there until earth's moon goes away
Cleita
(75,480 posts)It really has done just fine without us for billions of years.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)"should" depends on the agreed upon moral/ethical structure of the group doing the questioning.
I have no problems using available resources, to make sure that at least some portion of humanity survives some moment of mass stupidity.
Also, think of the evolving cultures we can develop, with more land areas.
Earth's not the place to have an advanced civilization. Let it become an enormous park.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I can dig that. Let it become the eco-environment it used to be. Maybe we can send all the supply side conservatives to colonize out there and anyone else who has an aversion to nature. It would suit me. I would stay behind in my wiki-up and hopefully a small tribe of people who are at least 500 miles away from the nearest tribe of people.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I wouldn't want the supply siders in my living dome. Let them get their own rock.
I want to live in space, away from folks like that.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)no libruls to deal with. Their own rock so to speak. Of course you know they would be raiding your rock for slaves and probably supplies. They need someone to do all the work that they don't have to pay for and they are too stupid to really make the stuff they need to survive.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) defending an asteroid against an incoming ship is pretty easy
2.) why aren't the libertarians using robots?
Cleita
(75,480 posts)If there are, maybe they don't know how to repair them.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)so...
you are building a narrative, so the libertarians can go hog wild. Why?
cheap rote-running robots are easy to build. You can buy kits now.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Is there a Radio Shack out there someplace?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)if the libertarians are too dumb to follow simple schematics, they likely won't survive a trip over to another station.
they are cheap robot kits NOW. No reason why the fabled libertarians couldn't cobble something together.
No disrespect meant, cleita, but it sounds like you are looking to create some sort of rampaging libertarian slaver fear-theme.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Welcome to my rather demented brain.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I'm a little slow...
Cleita
(75,480 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I was apologizing for missing the joke
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)A world dominated by hyper-libertarians that do not interact with other human beings and make robots do all the work.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)I mean it's huge and mostly empty and not full of delicate biospheres.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)The oceans were so vast that everyone back then believed the planet and the oceans would clean up everything. They never thought anything of over harvesting the resources of the earth like lumber, because it would all grow back. We were wrong. We must think about this and yes, we won't be able to pollute all of space but we do have a good chance of doing it to the Solar System especially if expanding into space successfully increases the human population exponentially.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) you seem to be going on the idea that we'll reverse our trends for small families
2.) you seem to assume that we won't use solar, wind, and RTG systems
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)polluted large swaths of the world.
And as vast as the oceans are . . . come on. Space isn't even in the same ballpark. Not to mention the oceans constitute an interconnected ecosystem. Space, not so much.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)and grow pollution at exponential rate?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) HOW are people intending to create power? coal? Oil? None of that in space.
2.) WHERE are the mineral sources? in absolute vacuum.
No chances of pollution, from a majority of the sources
tama
(9,137 posts)Radiation pollution, pollution of gravitational fields and space time fabric etc, what we don't know and can't yet even imagine.
You talk about just a small colony on mars and mining an asteroid. Like you talked about just a little colony on shore of America and little fur trade. Pattern of exponential growth of greedy pollution is not too difficult for an engineer to comprehend. What is the math of exponential growth?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) radiation pollution is a fair issue. I'd rather atomic batteries (like the one on Curiosity) to power most things. Nice long duration energy source. Leakage? few if any documented cases. I say we find out which ones leaked, and build them better. Some versions are designed as pacemaker batteries.
2.) Space-time pollution? Could you elaborate? I think that's a real stretch.
3.) As most cultures don't have large families anymore, the exponent question may not exist.
4.) Do you have some other motive, for keeping folks on Earth?
tama
(9,137 posts)1) point proven
2) theoretical physics is a known unknown. No final theory or knowledge if such can be found. So principle of caution holds.
3) obviously bit of a black spot there. It's not just about family sizes, but energy use, allocation of natural resources per individual, etc. etc. technological "progress". Ultimately it's about psychology and cultural myths. So I ask again, what is the mathematical formulation of exponential growth? Shouldn't be too difficult for an engineer to answer.
4) I'm not demanding or even suggesting for "keeping folks on Earth". That's your fantasy. What IS your motivation for proposing colonizing space? Other than repeating then colonialist pattern of your culture?
PS: Earth can colonize Uranus right where you sit. And that can scare the shit out of people who live in their head-fantasies. But it's nothing to be afraid of.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I'll address your last point first...
1.) A semi-snappy statement about uranus does not serve as a valid argument.
2.) I like to make new things. I also refuse to be an enabler. Staying on Earth and cleaning up other people's messes sounds like enabling. BOG PERSON was stating that he didn't want people leaving, until they were all good socialists (which sounds like mental slavery, to me.) One of the reasons people leave an existing culture, for a new frontier, is for new opportunities. Earth doesn't have many.
3.) your bit about "what is the mathematical formula" sounds very much like a leading question. If the culture I am living in (United States), now has a negative growth rate, than it is not a problem.
4.) Sorry, but "pollution of space time" sounds more like a problem for Doctor Who. I hold the opinion that pollution is an unused resource. I was under the impression that Sweden uses Industrial closed loop through cycling. Why wouldn't a Martian Colony use the same technology?
5.) Point proven? What do you mean?
tama
(9,137 posts)Who are the "other" people? You give the impression that your scifi fantasy is just about you and your personal need to escape (or rather fantasize about escaping) this mess we have made for ourselves. Who are those "others" guilty of this mess and what frees you from any and all responsibility?
And what kinds of new opportunities you are looking for, that Earth cannot offer? What is it that you want for yourself and hope to achieve by leaving Earth?
3) Yes, limits of growth have been met as Club of Rome predicted. But instead of reality check US and other governments are still only speaking about growth growth growth and then some, and directing all available resources left into military and police to defend the financial and economical system dependent from continuous growth, into making this mess worse and worse.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)As I pointed the reasons out (new opportunities, life boat, etc) what would be the point of repeating?
CLUB OF ROME?????
They assumed no new technology, and their whole reason for writing the report, was to justify low tech (spits on ground here) living.
tama
(9,137 posts)Not just repeating but to help me understand better. I'm not your enemy. Talking with you I've become curious of you, what are your personal hopes and dreams and how they relate to this dream of going to space.
Opportunities to do what? Life boat to escape what?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)errr...
"Never Thirst..." (I think that was the quote Heinlein used. It's late, so I'm slow...)
I've always wanted to go to Mars. Fresh technical challenges, room for experimental societies, and an abundance of ability to build interesting cities. The usual boogeymen of terrorists, and hostile invasion are greatly lessened. as a person interested in the old Polynesian God Tanga-Roa, going somewhere to settle a new place sounds interesting. As a rocketry devotee for over 35 years, I want to stretch my talents to build a few things. As Maker and a reader of the Old School of SF, I want to build Bradbury's "chess-like" cities. (In reality, they likely wouldn't the the blue white he envisioned. More likely, they'd be greenish, to capture solar energy.)
There's also the life boat effect, to avoid the social/political/existential problems of/on Earth.
My two cents.
P.S. As a person with multiple trauma injuries, lower gravity sounds LOVELY.
tama
(9,137 posts)What about family, children?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)You need a tribe to continue human life.
But I meant to ask, do you have children?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)But my sister and I joke about her moving her kids to Mars - for the better schools.
tama
(9,137 posts)Uncle Bob
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)My neices like the fact that they've got an eccentric inventor for an uncle.
Even if they do consider me old fashioned.
(Uncle
bob thinks they should more time on homework, and less time texting messages to boys, via the phone.)
tama
(9,137 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)The adults in my life, including teachers, were really unconcerned about it. People dumped trash and cigarettes any place they stood. The highway out in the desert looked like a trash dump. The desert back then was largely unpopulated so people felt it was all right. No one would be concerned or hurt by it. It was later that grass roots movements like the sponsor a highway group came along to clean up and to enact littering laws that didn't exist back then. I actually watched ships we were traveling on prior to that back in the forties dump their sewage and garbage in the middle of the ocean without a thought.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)If we change its weight or trajectory somehow, it could have a butterfly effect down the line.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) the rocks won't move, unless we REALLY push on them.
2.) a simple solar sail can't set us on course to our chosen orbit.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)We should NEVER have left Europe.
My family left that cess-pit for a reason.
Also, earth is boring.
avebury
(10,952 posts)America to the concept of heading out into space. For a long time people were able to make a better life for themselves but with the 1% hording more and more of the wealth, an out of control military-industrial complex, and all of the continuous war mongering life today is not the same as it was in the past. Yes idealism would make it desirable to explore space however humans no longer have nobility that is once had. I look upon the exploration of space as just transporting our problems elsewhere.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Read The Better Angels Of Our Nature" by Steve Pinker, the more developed a society is the less violent it is per capita.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Most of the arguments made against space travel seem (after the debunk the cost per tax payer issue) to boil down to:
"I don't want you to go."
The folks I've talked to (rarely) that are against space travel seem to believe that, if they can just keep the rest of us here, we will have to work with them on <insert their cause celebre here>.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) I think you just proved Odin's points about misanthropy...
2.) If YOU want to stay on Earth, Mazel Tov. Some of us are interested in going elsewhere
3.) A similar argument to yours was made against those setting out for the New World. We had out of control Banksters back then, too. (Hapsburgs? Barclay's? Borgias? "Bourbon Kings?"
We take with us the problems we like, or the problems we ignore. If we make a conscious effort to cast some of those away, we'll do better.
avebury
(10,952 posts)destructive behavior then you will just be delaying the ultimate outcome. Instead of dying on a destroyed Earth, you will just die elsewhere. You can run away from your problems only to long. Karma has a way of catching up to you.
I think that statistically, the odds are that there are other lifeforms out there in the universe because to think otherwise would be the epitome of arrogance. I do not believe that we have the right to assume that the Universe is ours to conquer, control, and ultimately destroy. If you decide to go out in space don't be surprised if you find out one day that you are not the biggest baddest dude in the universe.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Your last sentence pretty much shows where you are coming from.
Four things...
1.) I know a LOT of actual tough guys. I'm used to not being the biggest, baddest, etc. Also, I've been reading SF for 40 years. I'm ready to deal with alien weirdness. (I'm looking forward to seeing what they have for beer.)
2.) Unless you want to posit FTL, we've got a while before we meet another species (This solar system can best be described as a "Fixer-upper."
3.) I'll choose when and where I die, thank you. In the long run, we all die.
4.) your whole "You can't run away from your problems" is (emotionally) an over the top case of bad logic. If a colony fleet bound for Mars is going to start fresh, away from a corrupt system, and they've taken steps to alleviate the sources of corruption, then they HAVE escaped their problems. Anything else is pop-psychology drivel.
4.) I'm for settling Mars, Mining the Belt (M, S, C, and CV), and scoop mining the gas giants.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)That's revisionist, romantic nonsense.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)And anyone who seriously cites the dreck-cinema shitpile that was Avatar in a discussion of space exploration has already ceded the field to the rhetorical victor.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I was busy watching Apollo 13, and reading O'Neill's The High Frontier
bananas
(27,509 posts)Space Adventures has an Apollo8 style lunar flyby scheduled for 2017 and the rumor is that James Cameron has purchased a ticket.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12281954
avebury
(10,952 posts)travel to outer space and find new planets that we would not end up ruining these planets? Look at what we are doing to our own planet, including the plant and animal life. Do you honestly think we would do any different out in space?
If you look at so many of the movies and tv shows that deal with the concept of alien invasion I seriously think that most of them are an unconscious projection of the way humans would behave if we were to travel to other planets.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)These aren't fragile rainforest ecologies swarming with brightly-colored insects fluttering through flower-scented air -- they are very cold (or occasionally very hot) barren, rocky places in the main, where the whole concept of "ruining" is fairly spurious.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)for making an informed decision???
OO-Kay...
Shall we use Force trained Jedi to quell urban disturbance?
Seriously though...
1.) Mining an Asteroid needn't mess up another planet.
2.) Why do you want ALL humans to stay on earth? Your attitude of "you can't leave" sounds a bit like a frustrated jailer.
avebury
(10,952 posts)tends to more destructive then anything else. No one, not even you have a realistic expectation that this will change. To be honest I do not think that the human race has earned the right to impose itself on the rest of the universe. Look at the Christian Theocrats that honestly think that God has give mankind dominion over everything. Talk about having a sense arrogance. I hardly think that God really spends all that much time thinking about us as he has the entire universe to deal with. We may in fact just be a science experiment for a higher power.
I would love it if life from somewhere else came here to Earth and made itself known. I would be curious as to what form it takes and how it has evolved. I think that it is probable that there is life lesser evolved in some places are higher evolved elsewhere. I do not for one moment think that we are the top dog in this Universe. Statistics just works against that.
It is highly probable that, if mankind wants to exist in the long term, that we will have to look towards exploration because we may reach the tipping point of sustainability. When that time comes, unless mankind changes it ways, it will just begin a downward spiral on some other planet.
As to looking at the portrayal of aliens in various artistic forms: books, movies, tv shows, people write what they know. There really is not much of a difference between James Cameron's vision of Avatar then there is to what Europeans did to the native Indians when they came to North America, what has happened in South American due to the destruction of huge part of the Amazon jungle and native life, the intentional wholesale elimination of numerous plant and animal species, and so on. So much destruction has occurred on this planet without a thought to the long term repercussion. When you wipe out a particular plant in the Amazon have you lost the possibility that it could have been important in the development of medicine? I was watching a show today that talked about the massive destruction of Orangutan habitats in Sumatra in favor of building farms for Palm oil.
And finally, you can cross off any chance of real space exploration unless you can start to pry away some of the money being horded by the 1%. Because if true space exploration occurs, I guarantee that you and I and the bulk of the 99% won't be participating. It will be like a Noah's Ark situation where the 1% will be leaving us behind and only taking a chosen few with them to serve them.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Mars is probably a lifeless rock.
There are no "natives" to dispossess. No native ecosystems to destroy.
Take your self-righteous "Mankind Bad" moralizing and shove it.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.
1.) What has happened on Earth has little logical bearing on space.
2.) Avatar is NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE FOR SCIENCE
3.) I've been running the numbers to get groups into space
3a.) what's the group size?
3b.) what's the destination?
3c.) how fast do you want to get there?
3d.) what do you want to do, when you get there?
A long time ago, I got my hands on a copy of an old RAND price study for operating a moon base. I then sat down, and started pricing things out. a basic base is around 60,000 (food not included, as the form and quality vary)
I'm looking into how much a cheap space craft would cost. An Ion rocket powered Blimp would run you around 60 - 100 thou (building it yourself.) a Fuel-Air Detenation engine system would be a lot cheaper.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)
Don't know if you noticed, but every other planet in the solar system is hot or cold enough to make everything dead.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)who uses Avatar to frame their argument. That way lies madness.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Not least because of how frothingly technophobic a lot of popular SF is these days, which still kind of baffles me...
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)What it started out as, what it became, and who's to blame. Ran to 70 pages. (I blame a particularly virulent strain of politically motivated New Left hippie.)
I like stories that have actual science that drives the story.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)The notion that the future is going to be a horrible, depressing, corporatist police state dystopia is annoying. Sure, with global warming and corporatist globalists run amok it is going to get worse before it gets better, but it WILL get better.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)Sorry to those that disagree.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)Person 1: We'll go to other planets and make them a wasteland, so we shouldn't go!
Person 2: The other planets in the solar system are already wastelands but we shouldn't go because we'll make them wastelands, right?
Person 1: ....
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)We do have a business "messing up other planets" because we're the only mechanism for life to spread itself.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)How about space stations orbiting the major planets? I could go for that and probably those enclosed environments would be a lot safer and more easily repaired than those on an inhospitable planet.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)You still need sources of building materials and CHON.
Mind you, you could mine the CV, M2, and S asteroids for those...
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Hollow out an asteroid, give it spin for artificial gravity, and populate the interior.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I like the way you think!
Were you thinking of Niven's Bubble-forming? Or just straight drilling?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)It's just straight drilling and hollowing out the asteroid into a shell.
2on2u
(1,843 posts)LongTomH
(8,636 posts)Not just for nostalgia. O'Neill's construction methods were a much more efficient use of material. I remember an illustration from an early space colony book. It showed an O'Neill Island One colony for 10,000 people (like the one shown below) and the pit on an asteroid where the material for the colony had been mined. When you don't have to rely on bulk material for your colony, you can be much more efficient.
Actually, when and if we get around to building space colonies, we'll have K. Eric Drexler's molecular nanotechnology available, which allows for a much, much more efficient use of materials.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)LongTomH
(8,636 posts)...to provide adequate shielding. Go to The Space Studies Institute site for more information.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)
A HERETIC I AM
(24,373 posts)4 miles across, ten miles long. Orbiting the L5 point, each pair of them rotating counter to each other to belay any dynamic wobbling. The first half inch of material on the moon contains enough raw material to build enough of these to house the entire human race, including oxygen and water.
They are pointed directly at the sun and the mirrors can be angled to offer a typical 12 hour day/night cycle.
You could have any climate you wanted inside each one. Weather, clouds, even storms can be generated and controlled. You could have an entire cylinder that replicated the higher elevations of Colorado. Or entire cylinders replicating the perfect climate of the best seasons of the Kansas/Nebraska corn belt, thus eliminating hunger forever.
Gerard K O'Neil was a genius, way ahead of his time. He worked out a way, with the help of his students, with 1970'S technology for this to be accomplished and to pay for itself.
When I graduated High School, I honestly thought that by 2010 I would be able to have a job as a space trucker.
So much for dreams, eh?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)No heat, no humidity, no cold winters, beautiful Mediterranean woodland.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)some of the CV asteroids, out past the 2nd Kirkwood Gap
mine them for volatiles, and then turn them into San Francisco-climate worlds, and then place then in orbit around Mars? Or, put them in far outer orbits around Jupiter, and mine the Flux tube for power?
A HERETIC I AM
(24,373 posts)Sheesh. Get with the program!
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)some concentrator mirrors.
all you need is some shiny rock...
A HERETIC I AM
(24,373 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Now, for funding...
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)and let me fund about 120,000...
then we can argue about how much time to take to get there.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,373 posts)Just takes the will.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)When I was a kid, I saw the 10 years...
From the landing on the moon, to the fall of Skylab.
When one of my classmates said she didn't see the problem, I threw her out of my house.
Would a space trucker be under FAA or Teamster rules?
A HERETIC I AM
(24,373 posts)Either way, I would have been more than happy to have been filling out a logbook as I docked tomorrow at Station pair # 27 with my latest load.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Let's see...
51 cents per mile...
250,000 miles to the L5 point...
A few more trips, and you can buy that Greek island you were looking at.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,373 posts)I could BUILD that Greek Island I was looking at at put it in a place with a much better nightime view!
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)See the export control officer's face...
when you list "an island" as the export subject to duty.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,373 posts)Naaah....I'll just go through the purchasing agent at the mining facility on the moonbase to purchase a couple million metric tonnes of the appropriate raws, have them sent to the refinery in orbit, made into the finals and assemble them by one of the myriad companies in that business.
No exporting at all.
Merely crating a new orbiting entity.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)You'll still need the organics
personally (being of Italian and Irish descent) I'm gonna want lots of grape arbors
A HERETIC I AM
(24,373 posts)But being the fat, overfed trucker that I am, I'll want more than just grapes.
But see, here's the wonder of it all. I'll be a mere 200 pound push from the nearest cylindrical pair, and the ends of each of them will be the markets, right next to the docks. So getting fresh produce will be a cinch.
What is really fascinating about all this, is that it is literally within reach in just a few years. If the US took the budgetary perspective of say.....Norway, and stopped trying to outspend everyone else on all the silly nonsense and people killing crap, we could have 10 million people in colonies in 25 years and a billion in them ten years later.
I could write volumes on this idea. I read a couple interesting books on the subject back in the early
80's and I have been thinking about it ever since.
It SHOULD BE THIS NATIONS NEXT MANHATTAN PROJECT.
BTW, the question will be asked - what is the revenue source?
Energy.
Cheap, limitless electric power. That is the initial purpose of putting up the colonies. To build orbiting solar arrays that will beam electricity back to the earths surface.
And the ISS is the first step, as accurately predicted by Dr. O'Neill
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)which works out to 1 M^2
one of Island One's 1KM^2 panels works out to 438 Million dollars per year, before taxes.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)can we win these elections first?
After that, I'll have to check this out further. Pretty mind-blowingly cool.
Ok, one question - there's no danger of an asteroid or something hitting one of the mirrors and plunging everything into catastrophe?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)provide more power than you need
the Belt is pretty stable.
Outside of local clusters, the average distance is about as much as Earth-Moon distance.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,373 posts)jsmirman
(4,507 posts)going to bookmark this thread...
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)there isn't another gravitational influence acting on the 3rd object, which would throw off the stability of the arrangement?
Please answer keeping in mind that I am about as much of a layman as one can get in these matters (yes, that is a pun).
A HERETIC I AM
(24,373 posts)But from what I understand, the L4 and L5 points would be the ones to place such large colonies. They are far enough away from the earth and the moon yet will follow the orbit of both planets around the sun. The idea I've read suggests orbiting around the points. The gravitational force needed to perturb such an orbit would have to be moon sized or larger.
I highly recommend reading Gerard K O'Neill's "The High Frontier".
This subject was also the cover story on the July, 1976 issue of National Geographic Magazine.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)I thought I had it, but now I *think* I see what you're saying. L4 and L5 are the asteroids, and the colonies orbit around those points?
I'll have to check out that link. Thanks.
But looking back at the original pictures, I see what concerned me - Bob addresses this partially, by, I think, suggesting ways that the various parts of the structure would be both resilient and not individually indispensable, but looking at what you've referenced - the problem that concerns me isn't only that of perturbing the entire set up, but the potential vulnerability of parts of the structure.
Are you suggesting that each part of the structure would be individually held relatively in place by these forces of gravitational pull, then? And that then, even if they were relatively in place, there would be limited concerns of a part of the structure being damaged, despite remaining relatively in place?
I apologize if I'm not getting it which would make these questions off point, so if I'm totally off-base, I understand that my questions will also not really apply.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)The earlier copies had all of the required math, to plot your own orbits, chart the econometrics of the colonies, and how to design a balanced ecology.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)that steam working through the asteroid's natural fissures would cause.
If we go with the building style of most of the bubble-worlds...
Sign me up a third floor walk-up, not too far from the mid-colony ring-sea.
Occulus
(20,599 posts)Ceres is a hollowed-out Belt mining base in his "The Rock Rats" (actually a pretty decent novel).
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I forgot that one...
kentauros
(29,414 posts)And then a Dyson Sphere
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)THAT'S gonna cost you...
And for that amount of labor, I'll need half up front.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)I remember in the 1980s seeing some NASA animations of "girder spiders" making three-sided structural beams from nothing more than sheet-metal aluminum (mined from the Moon.) It was primarily for making geostationary solar collectors, but see no reason why they couldn't be scaled up to make solar-encircling structures
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)The 'bot shouldn't cost more than a few thousand. I'll present the idea at the next Maker group gathering.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I take after my uncles, my father, and his father before him.
Were I to be more poetic...
In my veins runs the blood and fire of the smiths and the renaissance men...
kentauros
(29,414 posts)Sorry, just thinking of science fiction examples
I can make things, but there's no guarantee they'll work
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I've had a few projects like that.
I've also had some projects that went so well, that people got worried.
When I demonstrated a version of broadcast power, my high school principal gave me a simple choice: start dating, or get expelled.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)Some good stuff, some not so good, and some just plain insane! Should keep you busy for a little while anyway
Most of my own "making" is in the realm of baked edibles anyway (go look for the "flourless chocolate cake" thread in C&B.)
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Plenty of real estate for everyone a million times over.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)
I guess it happens infrequently enough that the population can recover from losing a few billion when the solar flare hits.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)O'Neill Colonies could be built in the 21st Century, if sanity unexpectedly breaks out and we divert resources away from killing.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)
However, you might want to read the link I provided. By that author's estimates, we could at least begin building a Dyson Sphere in fifty years or so. It simply would not be like those in science fiction stories, nor would a ringworld, unless you've found a technology to create that dense "ringworld material" Niven proposed.
One thing we could also build, as materials technology improves, is a Space Elevator
Dr. Strange
(25,921 posts)Gotta have room for the sandworms to roam and make their spice.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)to make desserts
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)The Spice controls the universe!!!
kentauros
(29,414 posts)Might as well quote movies and books due to being unable to convince the ones that say that's all this is anyway
"Never give up! Never surrender!"
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)
Dr. Strange
(25,921 posts)He who can destroy a thing has the real control of it.
spanone
(135,857 posts)Response to Odin2005 (Original post)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)I thought I was dreaming when those images started coming in and I saw RIVERS!!! Rivers and lakes of hydrocarbons, and water ice plays the role rock does on Earth!
Response to Odin2005 (Reply #45)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)Just because they do things on Star Trek doesn't mean it's feasible today, or that it will be feasible any century soon.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)is well within our current technological abilities. It would be an expensive and demanding undertaking, but technologically it's not much of a stretch.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)okay then...
How much science do you want?
Liberal_Dog
(11,075 posts)The Wright Brothers made the first powered flight on Dec 17th, 1903.
People then committed themselves themselves to building better airplanes and to finding ever faster ways of flyng.
Within 40 years, the basic technology that ultimately sent men to the moon had been developed. It did not take centuries.
I see no reason why we can't go from where we currently are to perhaps even building starships in a similar time frame.
All we have to do is make the committment.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)I graduated in '99; none of the astronomy books were published after Apollo 11, and a few predated Sputnik by a few years.
One of the pre-Sputnik ones was pretty solid for its time - it was 1955 or so - and got into speculation territory in the last chapter or so of the book. It was very very adamant that the challenges of rocketry were such that it would be at least the end of the century before anybody would succeed in placing a satellite in orbit, and a century further before a man (and of course it would be a man in the prose at the time) would be able to follow.
Yeeeeah.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...at his aunt's farm in Auburn, Massachusetts. I think people sometimes underestimate the rate of technological change:
struggle4progress
(118,320 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)When did we stop believing in inspiration? In greatness?
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)People are fans of it retroactively (witness a lot of threads yesterday), but nobody likes to do anything anymore.
Codeine
(25,586 posts) a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I guess I'm too crazy to know any better.
BOG PERSON
(2,916 posts)struggle4progress
(118,320 posts)was not the only point of the 1960s space race. The space race was partly prestige propaganda, conducted by the USA and USSR, and aimed at other nations, with the message "Align with us! Look what we can do!" The space race was partly military propaganda,conducted by the USA and USSR, and aimed at each other: "If we can send a rocket into orbit, we can sure as hell drop an H-bomb on DC!" or "If we can send folks to the moon, we can sure as hell nuke the fuck out of Moscow"
Those reasons are gone
In spending money on non-essentials like space exploration now, we want the biggest bang for the buck: what will give us the biggest return in information and innovation per dollar spent? And human flight is much less efficient than robotics in that regard
Confusious
(8,317 posts)Human inspiration? Really lacking.
I don't know how many of the top scientists I've seen say "I got into science because of the manned moon mission." None say "I got into science because of the mariner missions."
Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should take food from kid's mouths or forgo national health care just to go to mars, or back to the moon.
If we just built one or two less massive aircraft carriers, we could pay for all of that, and probably have some pocket change left over.
It's just our leaders have no vision.
BOG PERSON
(2,916 posts)space sounds terrifying
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Strap my ass to whatever cheapjack Russian rocket you can find and send me on my way. I'll be the skinny guy making faces at Mission Control through the webcam.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)and trying to get the %$%^ thing to go FASTER
bhikkhu
(10,720 posts)Fermi's Paradox being - if there are so many worlds in the universe and if life and civilization can evolve naturally - where are all the others?
And Hubbert's Hurdle being the energy barrier that would tend to contain any life on its planet of formation. Interesting ideas, especially against the notion of our inevitable progress toward the stars.
Response to bhikkhu (Reply #68)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)It is highly unlikely that we come across sapient beings at a similar level of development as us, nearly all of them will be so far advanced that we simply cannot recognize them for what they are. Perhaps they have transcended physicality and somehow merged with the fabric of the cosmos. Seems farfetched, but technology advances at an exponential rate, and apply that to millions of years.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)We barely know what's going on within a few AUs of us, never mind light years or megaparsecs, so why attempt to jump to conclusions?
(I do sorta like the idea that we can't notice anything out there in the same sense that ants can't see a city, but I'm one of those weirdos that actually enjoys thinking about those kinds of gulfs...)
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)But just because we don't know if X exists/happens does not mean X does not exist/happen.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Dash87
(3,220 posts)We shouldn't give up on space exploration now. There's so many benefits from continuing onward that stopping now would be shortsighted as best, and totally disastrous to the human race at worst.
Alduin
(501 posts)Why ruin others?
Confusious
(8,317 posts)so why go and make them wastelands?
Is that your argument?
That's my argument.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)How we will "ruin" other planets, when they have nothing to "ruin".
It's like saying "don't scratch my car" when you took your car out to participate in the demolition derby the night before.
The car is already a wreck.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Spreads to places that are not yet alive.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)It's creation, not destruction.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)What could be more Pagan-centric than bringing forth harvests in previously lifeless areas?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)The fact that certain Pagans and liberals get bent out of shape at the idea of some folks leaving...
tells me the problem ISN'T the money spent, it's the idea of people leaving.
The first step to controlling someone, is controlling their access to escape routes.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Alduin
(501 posts)Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Because of the space program. Just sayin'.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)your premise is excellent and I agree wholeheartedly!
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)We could have had a permanant moon base/colony by the 1970s, maybe the 1980s, with the technology we had then. And we could have expanded to Mars or even Titan. We haven't even landed a probe on Titan: there was a project for a lander to do just that that would have cost less than $500 million, but it was canceled.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)The idea that something in the last 50 years has held us back does not seem reasonable to me.
Now if the Dark Ages had never occurred, Sure. Fhen it is reasonable to say that we should be colonizing the solar system by now.
roamer65
(36,747 posts)As Stephen Hawking said, the survival of our species depends on it.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Those resources and technology are needed to save THIS planet.
Why waste them on attacking another one
when there is so much that needs to be done here.
Unmanned Space Probes have proven to be far superior to Manned Exploration.
I support funding a colony of robots on Mars.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I didn't know we are at u's war with Mars.
Personally, I think moving 10% of Earth's population to Mars would give Earth enough time to heal.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)All the asteroids out there are dead rocks, much better to mine a dead rock than rape a living planet for resources. Mars is a dead rock that can be brought back to life.
You are using zero-sum thinking, that wrong.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)We had to destroy the village to save it.
Can you cite an example where Human Beings have colonized anything without ruining it?
I think Ray Bradbury had about right in his Martian Chronicles.
Colonizing/Mining Mars for minerals is a Pipe Dream
Unless and Until mankind manages to invent or develop a propulsion system that is 100,000 times more efficient than the 8th century Chinese technology we are currently using.
What "minerals" are you hoping to find that would be more cost effective to mine on Mars than on Earth?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)fast enough fluid moving through a confined space = thrust
use the "electric wind" effect, and you've got a VERY thrust dense Ion engine.
Really, you guys need to back off the rhetoric, and look at the logic.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Mars will be a settler colony.
The comparisons to My Lai are fatuous.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)That many of the images the anti spacers use all seem to be:
1.) Avatar
2.) Vietnam
3.) the Rain forest
Hmmm, what groups use these images, as a set.
My thesis paper on SF is beginning to seem like a moment of clarity.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Don't even go there!
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)The same kind of people I mentioned above that have a romantic view of nature as a benevolent mother.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I can deal with Earth as Mom concept...
But, as Brother Tsiolkovsky said, (to paraphrase) you can't live in Mom's basement forever...
tama
(9,137 posts)But is it best idea to to first sent to other planets the most twisted ones who fear and rape their Mom and want to kill and replace the Sky Daddy?
All I'm saying, let's fix this Oedipal thing first. And then start talking about bringing life to other planets.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)We'd all be in Europe, dealing with the aftermath of the endemic wars.
YOU want to stay on earth? Fine.
The rest of us have places to go...
tama
(9,137 posts)Europeans shouldn't have colonized America and other places. It was and is a crime. The plague of endemic wars is what you - European Americans - still carry with you.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)How very old testament of you...
personally, I figure most "everybody has to stay on earth" types are worried about:
1.) not converting others
2.) the brain drain
3.) the loss of economic consumer activity
I accept no blame for wars. I didn't start them, didn't vote for them, and I avoid oil when and where I can.
tama
(9,137 posts)And I'm not interested in blame games or quilt trips, nor old testament. As far as I'm concerned you are free to go where ever you like, as long as you don't force others to organize your trip for you or travel with the purpose of harming others.
For me this discussion is about certain cultural behavior pattern, ecology and basic ethics. The pattern of population destroying the carrying capacity of ecosystem and then moving on to colonize and destroy other ecosystems, which it considers nothing but resources for it's own selfish greed and infinite growth. Not all populations and cultures behave in that way, which in any finite system is ultimately self-destructive. The reason I prefer not to unleash this "hegemonizing swarm", as it is called in some Science Fiction books, to Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy etc., is that we don't know if there are other forms of life with similar or higher technological capabilities and ability to treat planet Earth just as resource for their mania of infinite growth.
Simply, don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you.
Dial up Greys or whoever and get a hitch to somewhere else, if you are so desperate to escape and leave behind the mess your messianic ancestors and culture created and keep messing. But let's not be Vogons to the rest of Galaxy and hope that potential others are not Vogons to us.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Thank you. I avoid coercive games of all stripes.
For me this discussion is about certain cultural behavior pattern, ecology and basic ethics. The pattern of population destroying the carrying capacity of ecosystem and then moving on to colonize and destroy other ecosystems, which it considers nothing but resources for it's own selfish greed and infinite growth. Not all populations and cultures behave in that way, which in any finite system is ultimately self-destructive. The reason I prefer not to unleash this "hegemonizing swarm", as it is called in some Science Fiction books, to Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy etc., is that we don't know if there are other forms of life with similar or higher technological capabilities and ability to treat planet Earth just as resource for their mania of infinite growth.
1.) I rather like Iain Banks' Culture Series
2.) As we haven't found any ecosystems, this isn't a problem (at least at the moment.)
Dial up Greys or whoever and get a hitch to somewhere else, if you are so desperate to escape and leave behind the mess your messianic ancestors and culture created and keep messing. But let's not be Vogons to the rest of Galaxy and hope that potential others are not Vogons to us.
See, this is actually part of the problem. Too many people rely on images of cheap SF, and not enough actual science fact.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)are so far best and most universal ethical and moral guidelines we have found, so why not go along with them in our relations to rest of universe? I don't believe in any absolute safety guarantees, or that such would be fun if possible, if that is your question.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...and not much chance of developing any (with the possible exception of Europa), then why not colonize the uninhabited bits?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Meet you at the Lido deck on Vesta, for the Sunrise party.
tama
(9,137 posts)Is just an impression and guess. We dunno. We can project ourselves, but don't know the limits and possibilities of sentient lifeforms and their metabolic systems.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)To go with your first example, they are still here with us, after they gave up urban civilization and imperialism for what ever reasons, hunting, gathering and gardening in their jungles. Latest I've heard, besides the calendar thing which they are still using, some of them rebelled against Mexican government of Euro-imperialists in Chiapas, gained some level of independence and are living as free and well as they can. We call them Zapatistas and their style of self-governance anarchic, and they've given many of us lot of inspiration, courage and things to think about.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You are, of course, free to do what you want. Personally, I'd like to see my descendants colonize Mars.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)hide out in the lava tubes first, sealed off and using solar power to generate electricity for the colony
after that you can expand within and on the outside
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)google British Interplanetary Society Moon ship
valerief
(53,235 posts)so they can sit on their money.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Some of us still look at the stars.
valerief
(53,235 posts) a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Jaded is over rated...
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)The trip out and the trip back would likely be the entirety of the sentence.
Welcome of Quoar prison. Now go Home. You've competed your sentence.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)To really rake in the cash...
We'll need a "space snooki"
fxmakeupguy
(9 posts)I am in total agreement with your sentiments, my friend. And although I understand the "we need to feed our people"-type arguments -- which are legitimate -- if we allow ourselves to focus on any one area for too long we become blind to other possibilities. This is, I fear, what happened to our space program. Politicians of ALL stripes got caught up in the minutae of policy and war and reelection and God knows what else and, without a strong lobby or a good publicity campaign, NASA got screwed.
I'm old enough to remember watching Mr. Armstrong set foot on the moon (grainy and sideways as the camera was) and can almost out-geek Tom Hanks in my knowledge of Apollo stuff. Having worked with celebrities for 30 years, I am never star-struck. But when I met Buzz Aldrin...? Holy Crap was I a little kid all over again (in my 40's at the time, too).
Yes, taken as a number by itself $30 billion is a LOT of money. But as a multi-national event it would be small potatoes AND has the potential to bring the world together in excitement and support that was simply not possible in 1969.
As that 8 year-old glued to the tv watching Neil and Buzz I would never have imagined that in my 50's we would have done nothing more than orbit the Earth for the last several decades.
I'm a proud, liberal Democrat! This is a subject that TRANSCENDS politics. At least it should have been. We as a people -- not just Americans, but ALL of us -- need heroes. Exploration has always been fraught with risk, but it's that risk and those explorers that make us who we are as human beings. I fear that we lost our opportunity many years ago to make this "leap" to the stars and I'm saddened by that. I still look up at the night sky and wonder what it would be like.
Please, my fellow liberal friends -- don't criticize those of us who dream big simply because our dreams may be different than yours. I still feed the hungry, help the homeless, fight for equality for all and do whatever I can to help my neighbors all over the world. Perhaps it's that view I had as a child of the "Big Blue Marble" peeking over the lunar surface on Apollo 8 that made me think of all human beings as my neighbors -- not just those immediately next to me.
I do NOT profess to be any better than anyone else (I'm not, trust me). I am not "holier-than-thou". I simply believe in the same dreams I had all those many moons ago that man can -- and SHOULD -- continue to venture outwards. There will always be risk and there will always be unscrupulous people willing to cash in on whatever good comes of that exploration -- but PLEASE don't let that stop us from trying. I'm afraid that I won't live long enough to see us break that "ignorance/unwillingness barrier" and put men and women on Mars, the moon, Europa and beyond. But the little boy in me sure HOPES I live to see it...even if that little boy is too old to go himself.
Thank you for letting me vent. Neil Atmstrong was a man -- no more, no less. His passing is sad. But he DARED. He took a huge risk. We have people like that amongst us right now, but we need someone bold enough, courageous enough, smart enough, and yes -- obnoxious enough to grab some headlines and make little kids (and those of us who are still little kids at heart) believe in the impossible again. Pretty soon, we won't have anyone left who remembers this all firsthand and the opportunity will disappear. I hope that doesn't happen.
I will walk outside tonight and wink at the moon for Neil. And for all those who believed and who STILL believe.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)And welcome to DU! I hope you stay a while
Odin2005
(53,521 posts) Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Brother
Cleita
(75,480 posts)that we are Avatar freaks, blah, blah, blah, let me add this. Avatar's Pandora is based on the Amazon rain forest. I'm old enough to remember a time when there were no roads into the interior other than the river and on the edge. There was practically no civilization, just tribes that still lived in the Stone Age. If you really, want a good movie that is about this, rent "The Emerald Forest" sometime. It's about the trashing of this ecosystem.
In addition, I used to be a spelunker. For those who don't know the word, it means a caver. If outer space were colonized by spelunkers, I might feel we had hope of not polluting space. It is the spelunker's mantra to not touch or move anything in the cave environment. The spelunkers motto is: "Take nothing but pictures. Leave nothing but footprints. Kill nothing but time." Could we do this in space?
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)However, I didn't bring up Avatar. Other's did so I referred to it.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)They bring it up as some kind of proof that they are right and anyone who wants to save the planet is wrong.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)To me...
those against space bring it up as a strong emotional image set, to rouse feelings.
To me, that usually means the other person doesn't know the science involved.
Going after an asteroid for it's mineral/volatile content is a lot different from the bar-sawing they did in the Amazon.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)delicately-balanced, complex, beautiful ecosystems. Most of the stuff in our solar system is far different -- barren rocks make up the bulk of what is out there. There's nothing to trash, nothing to pollute, and nothing to kill.
It's really a whole lot of nuthin', just minerals.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Just because it doesn't fit into our concept of what is delicate and what isn't doesn't make it true. A lot of people have no problem picking out rocks from a cave environment, yet there is a geological record there frozen in time and fossil records that the untrained eye doesn't see and it's very destructive. There are animals you don't see, often species that are only in that particular cave, that you could kill just by dropping something in the water that seems harmless to you.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)There is no life there. It's dead, dead, dead. We aren't losing a fossil record. There's no animal to miss, no water in which to drop a pollutant or pathogen, and nothing to kill inadvertently.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Asteroids are so misshapen that I'm sure there are caves in them. Also, where did that asteroid come from? To tell the truth the asteroid belt looks to me like a planet that got pulled apart and scattered in it's orbit. I'm sure scientist have another take and I of course will bow to their superior knowledge.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)It is an important geological record of something that occurred in the past that may be useful for us to know in the future, however, if we destroy pieces of it, we won't know.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)All it does is tear up the planet. Without metals, we can't make bullets and guns. Without oil, we wouldn't have BP oil spills.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Without metals, it's really hard to make scalpels, building materials, plows (wooden plows suck. Ask any of my students from Africa.)
No dense sources of energy means savagery.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I actually have kitchen utensils even a knife made from bamboo and it's renewable. Much can be made from organic materials or discarded animal parts like sea shells. Maybe your students from Africa lost the knowledge from their ancestors. Ancient Hawaiians made an array of tools from what they harvested from the sea.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Either way, if you're that blindly technophobic we're well over the "this discussion is a waste of my time" line.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)has a different view of things than you. So please go away. You won't be missed.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)I was forced to get a telephone back in 1999 and a computer a few years ago because in order to get a job, get medical services or many things I need, society forces me to. I would rather not.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts) PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Irony, you must be the Source....
Please, go back to the Serengeti Plain and divest yourself of all clothes and tools except a small digging stick.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)plant fiber and just a small frame of wood. I can weave baskets to carry things and water. I can make needles to sew from bones. I don't need to deprive myself that much. A digging stick is handy and I don't need to go to the Serengeti Plain to do those things. I can do them righ here in California. I don't need to hunt because I can gather nuts, berries, roots and other edibles. I can make bread from the acorns of the Oak trees. I can fish with my hands. I can build shelter with plants and brush. I can make fire. I have a very good working knowledge of medicinal herbs. I will be just fine as long as some asshole doesn't run me off his property, which he has no right owning anyway. The land belongs to everyone.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)How many people would survive in that kind of hunter gatherer life style?
Trying to do that would spell the deaths of billions of people.
The book Directive 51 by John Barnes talks about this in depth.
As for the land belongs to everyone: I've paid for a particular patch of land. It's mine, by law.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)guys who built Stonehenge lived. I only threw out that hunter gatherer stuff because I was challenged. The fact is, if our society broke down, and it came down to the fact that your land would no longer be yours because the laws that protect it no longer exist,I would survive where many wouldn't because I do have those skills.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I can have towns (MAYBE cities, depending on the troubles) back to having food and power, within 10 years.
There's no need to live like we did, 200+ years ago. We've grown past that.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)You would read by candlelight. Warm yourself by the fire. You would make your own entertainment, playing instruments, singing, playing card games and board games. You would go to the tavern after work for a few brews and to talk to your neighbors and listen to the professional story teller that came to town with news and favorite stories. There would be festival days and feasting and dancing. Your work would be by the seasons. There would be long days and hard work during the growing seasons and harvest. Then you would have several months to pursue indoor things like making stuff you need and just pursuing hobbies.
I always had a theory about pre-industrial societies that built monuments like Stonehenge. I believe those people didn't spend the amount of time in a year working for survival that we do. I think they had plenty of time on their hands after the work was done. Their chiefs were aware of idle hands leading to mischief, so they put them to work building temples, tombs and other monuments for the gods, to keep them busy.
Years ago, a study was made of indigenous people around the world who lived a tribal life style. It turns out they only worked an average of four hours a day and had the rest of the time free to pursue and develop a culture involving arts and religion.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:45 PM - Edit history (1)
More fires, more riots, witch hunts, and forced labor.
Also, fewer books. Candle light is NOT a great reading light.
Long days of pointless hard work is one of my definition points for savagery.
Look, I like Ren Faires as much as the next guy, but I know the down sides of that world.
In a bad year, half the town/tribe would starve to death, higher infant death rates, etc.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I'm not advocating losing all the knowledge and technology we have gained throughout mankind's tour on this planet. I think we need to lessen our footprint by going back to less technology when feasible. I certainly want our hospitals to be state of the art with electric lights and all. I want medical knowledge and scientific knowledge to keep evolving. But do our resorts and hotels have to have the same? I don't think so. I think we need to really plan our buildings and our cities to use technology wisely not excessively.
If you want to read by a light bulb. How about this? When I was at the gym Saturday, it occurred to me that all those people riding stationary bicycles are creating energy. What if you had a stationary bicycle to exercise with in your bedroom and you generated electricity with it to power a light bulb to read with. Could that work for you? Or you could have your spouse ride it while you read and vice versa.
As far as all the horrors you list, it's war, religion and sometimes acts of nature that cause them. Acts of nature aren't that frequent. As long as the creators of technology need profits, there will be wars and religion is often just plain evil. The long days of work are only seasonal. Farmers still do the same today. That hasn't changed.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)the bicycle generator - and even set up two, for my local Occupy group - they have problems...
1.) they only put out about 50-75 watts per (100 watts max). You can chain them into larger units, but the harmonics get ugly really quickly.
2.) bike-pedaling for electrical power is really hard work (the ordinary human body puts out about .15 HP). Not many people can do more than about 3-4 hours (when I used to go on bike trips, we'd stop for breaks every 4 hours.)
3.) As I've said before... If YOU want to live low tech, go ahead. No one is stopping you.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)My point was is that many people do it in a building. If you are one of those people who do spinning class or whatever, why not harness that energy for a multi-tasked use? There is so much that can be done to lessen our carbon footprint and still enjoy what we like, a computer for instance?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Computers use anywhere from 50 to 300 watts. call that 6 bike-hours per hour of computer use. Interesting, but not all that practical. The power could be stored for later use, but nothing high powered. (industrial is right out, to bastardize Monty Python...)
I don't know what spinning is. (I'm not hip, tragically).
Cleita
(75,480 posts)There are many levels of power you go through, but it does require some electricity set the levels.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)and here I just lift boxes of books, and walk places, for exercise.
Tragically unhip, that's me.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)do intensive training at the gym. It's the bicycle and treadmill energy that interested me. Why not tap that energy for some energy needs?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Go for it.
Be careful about the hook-up points, though.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)space colonies. Doing stuff like this on earth to lower our carbon footprint could be a good way of learning how to do it on a hostile world with nothing to start with but your knowledge and ingenuity and you would be helping your mother world. I myself don't mind reading by candlelight.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)find somebody else to do it...
We should I "stay here and fix the problems?"
Cleita
(75,480 posts)This thread is getting too long. I gotta go. Nice chatting with you.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)rats...
I thought the thread was just getting started!
tama
(9,137 posts)You know as well as others that industrial agriculture based on fossil energy, monocultures and mining topsoil and destruction of ground water is not sustainable. Relying on that spells the death.
Permaculture edible forests or multilayer gardens are not only sustainable but in terms of energy economy and produce per acre much much more efficient than any industrial "scientific" agriculture. Tested and proven in practice.
As for law and private ownership, if you give science and evolution theory any credence, you know that demands of evolutionary adaptation beat cultural artifacts like laws and ownership concepts 7-0. On the scale we are discussing, they mean close to nothing.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) Given the energy, I can maintain our current way of life in perpetuity.
2.) The only thing that matters, is how many people per acre can you feed.
3.) Scientific principles state that you can take my land??? Which principles?
tama
(9,137 posts)1) given the energy. To put it more accurately, given the exergy aka available energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exergy). The exergy of solar exergy preserved in fossile exergy is for all practical purposes a one time gig, not repeatable. More generally the amount of exergy and information content of universe is generally considered finite (with the caveat that mathematical difference between finite and infinite is very nuanced and rich). Simply put, you are not given it ad infinitum.
2) Reading the sentence as such, of course not.
3) I'm not about to take what you consider your land. The scientific principle in question is called population dynamics. Let's also remember that scientific principles are descriptive, not prescriptive. A political principle like private property is prescriptive/normative, not descriptive. That is important difference to remember: *is* vs. *should*.
More down to Earth and as example of political and ecological reality of population dynamics combined, you may have heard of the Landless Movement in Brazil and elsewhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landless_Workers%27_Movement). It's also easy to see here the analogy to 2nd law of thermodynamics: if there is acre of land with population of 99 living on and acre population of 1 living on and the two are connected, all other being equal, as function of time the trend is towards population of 50 for each.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) The available energy (on Earth) is about 6 watts/ft^2/day (average) (at 16% efficiency)
1a.) therefore, one mile of useable heat furnace thermocouple power generation works out to 5000^2*6 (rounding down) = 150 megawatts/mile
1b.) the USA uses some 4.2 terawatts in toto. 4.2E12/1.5E8 = 28,000 square miles need.(2.8E4)
1c.) New York to LA is (about) 2,400 (2E3)... 2.8E4/2.4E3 = (roughly 11.67 miles wide)
That's what we need to power the USA, with a low carbon footprint, in perpetuity.
2.) your third point seems to ignore the growth of cities, as seen in history.
tama
(9,137 posts)1) meaningless crack pottery
2) I am not ignoring the growth nor die-offs of cities (such as Athens and Rome etc.) back to small villages, as seen in history. Cities are self-sufficient but dependent from external resources and when they lose access and control of external resources, they die-off back to small villages if they survive at all. The current scale of urbanization is consequence of and dependent from one time external resource of fossil exergy. The bigger the city grows, the more it destroys the carrying capacity of the ecosystem it depends from in the long run. Athens had population of half a million during the peak of Athenian empire of classical era, in Bysantine and Ottoman era it was a village of few hundred. After the puny vill was made the capital of new Greek state, it's population grew to five million where it peaked, now as consequence of global Peak Oil and global depression, people are leaving Athens in growing numbers and returning to rural ways of life or moving to other cities in other countries where effects of global depression are not yet felt so directly.
Lets remember that so far no city has been self-sufficient but always dependent from control of primary production of rural areas for feeding its needs. Rural areas on the other hand are not dependent from parasitical cities for basic survival, so in terms of hierarchy of dependence, rural areas are not dependent from cities but cities are dependent from controlling rural areas for their survival. This has been always the biggest political and class divide since the birth of civilizations and urban cultures, and remains unsolved to this day.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)All of my numbers in response, section one, are verifiable. We can be self-sufficient with TODAY's technology. That's not crackpottery. Assuming people can all live on hunting and gathering, in any sort of number, with an advanced civilization IS crackpottery.
If you want to talk about making a city self sufficient, I'm willing to go there.
tama
(9,137 posts)in awe and wonder of the gifts of urban technology, such as these computers and Internet we communicate with. The numbers previously given need not be in doubt, but all the other factors left unmentioned, not least of all the human factor which art of engineering with it's rather narrow focus can never fully control.
So no reason to focus on hunting and gathering when the discussion and argument was about gardening or horticulture, of which cultivation of fields, agriculture, is just a special case. Our ecological niche in comparison with other species is that though we are not the only species that does it, we excel in horticulture, our co-evolutionary relation with cultural plants, and that we cook our food with fire, which saves us from lot of chewing and digestive work and gives extra time for other activities. So, starting from basics, cities can have roof and vertical gardens in addition to others for production of food, fiber, medicine etc., but where does the exergy for cooking and heating come from? If we increase the area of self sufficient city, the problem of transport costs comes against. I hope you have good suggestions, and that the calculations are based on the qualitative differences that create exergy, not the concept of energy which is fuzzy and meaningless in this context.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)okay...
1.) How many people do you want in your city?
2.) what level of economic development do you want?
3.) what types of energy inputs are you willing to use? Sun? Wind? Tides? RTG? Geo-Thermal?
This is gonna be FUN! I love designing things!
tama
(9,137 posts)with Venus project, transition movement, Chinese ecocities, etc? There's been lot of study in this field and some practical applications. I can try to dig up some links if you are interested to get seriously into this. Are you familiar with permaculture design principles? Such as each part of system serving multiple purposes with least effort, not fighting nature but working with as integral part, etc.?
Back to your request for design frames:
1) let's say anything between 20 000 and half a million, keeping in mind the ultimate goal of next design frame.
2) lets be ambitious and set the goal as sustainable manufacture and upkeep of information technology that serves also the needs of rural population. But if I may suggest, no need to jump there right away, but gradual design based on hierarchy of primary, secundary etc. production; first things first and consequent levels of development created from the surplus of more primary levels. Not just the blueprint of final product but process oriented design. Challenge enough?
3) Anything goes as long as it is renewable and sustainable.
Have fun!
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)After all, it belongs to them too...
Cleita
(75,480 posts)
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)But I think that would be just fine with some...just as long as they weren't one of the starvees.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)It's never been tried, even as a sampling, so we really don't know. I think people and other living things would be better off and they wouldn't starve.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)there are studies of how much room hunter gatherer tribes need.
This experiment was tried in Africa.
As other groups drove HG tribes out of their lands in Africa, we found out how land they actually need.
HG living would doom all but a few million people to death.
Not Cool.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Archaeologist have dug up their villages, some of them inhabited for close to a thousand years. The majority did not starve as their grave remains have also been dug up. What changed everything was the discovery of metal, copper and tin or other alloys that they could make bronze from.
Yes, we have too many people in the world. That is a fact. Many are starving already, but it's not for lack of technology, but because of it. In third world country, only some benefit from it and become rich or become rich nations. Everyone else starves because they aren't allowed to be part of the system. It's know as capitalism aided and abetted by technology and greed.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)For most of human history..
...eating eggs in the early spring was risking your life (spring fever).
...winter meant old people died in the cold.
...people didn't live longer than about 40 years
...(in literate times) Only the leisured class got to read. The rest of us had to work sun-up to sun-down.
...40% of children died at birth
Too much technology? Technology freed us! The cotton gin put paid to slavery. The electric light meant fewer fires in houses. Refrigeration meant far fewer cases of lethal food poisoning.
Too many people? If we all stay here... Who gets to choose who dies?
Distance and resources make for good neighbors.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)The more we learned the more we knew how to take care of ourselves. Actually, one of our maids was a bruja and she cured me of altitude sickness back in the day when the Western doctors didn't have a clue. Her cure was coca tea and relieving the sea level blood pressure by deliberately allowing one to bleed it out when your nose was hemoraghing. The Western doctors tried to stop the bleeding.
Right after WWII, pharmaceuticals were unavailable where I lived because they were manufactured in the US and the US was catching up with a post war economy. The Western doctors in South America turned to the curanderas/os or brujas/os in the Amazon to discover what plants they used for various diseases until drugs like penicillin and more were available once again.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)that's useful.
tama
(9,137 posts)tell that it is Mother Ayahuasca that tells which plant or combination of and where from and when to get for each ailment, if and when such is needed. And that is Mother Ayahuasca that teaches and gives the icaros, healing songs. Having drank the jungle juice, I see no point of doubting that.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)They don't get how it works.
tama
(9,137 posts)The key is to just let it work and relax, instead of obstructing with questions about how. What it taught was that everything is precious, and everyone.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)The improved horse yoke (700AD?) made the NEED to keep slaves superfluous. With the new yoke, a horse could provide the work of 20 serfs, and only eat the meals of 4 of them.
tama
(9,137 posts)This might interest you in regards to Amazon and gardening communities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta
It's "primitive stone age" method that modern "scientific" agricultural soil improvement is just starting to catch up with, learning from Amazon gardening tribe's archeological remains. And a solution not only for food production but also perfect carbon sink to balance the anthropogenic climate change.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Our American tribes had some sophisticated ways of doing things without screwing up the environment. Andean indians are still doing agriculture in the same fields and with the same irrigation methods that their ancestors did in pre-Columbian times and when left alone to do their thing produce high yields.
tama
(9,137 posts)But it was only couple years ago when local agronoms started to talk about it in serious way and do testing.
I've done it small scale, first separating the ash and coals from fireplace, then grinding the coal into smaller bits with my feet and adding the coal powder to soil together with manure and compost while turning soil. I put ash next on top, for veggies that that like pH close to seven and lots of minerals, and also for fruit trees that are in need of extra nutrients. And finally mulch on top of the veggie land.
In Amazon the camps of gardening communities were (are?) connected with planted paths full of edible plants. Carrying food with you is bad for the back, much easier just to pick what you need en route.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)But several billion years of hard vacuum, and temps around 7 kelvin will put a damper on any life.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)I'm talking about asteroids and "dead" planets like Mars.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)We don't know and we could ruin a living thing. There are species in the bottom of the ocean that no one thought existed because they didn't believe they could live in such a hostile environment and yet there they are. I grew up in a mining town in the Atacama desert in Chile and I was surrounded by rocks so I got to know rocks very well and many times they had started out as something else than a rock. At 10,000 feet altitude, close to the Andes mountains, there was an ancient ocean in the hills behind us. Yes, it was full of fossils, salt and the black slate rocks you often see by the ocean.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)All forms of life need energy, a source of oxygen, carbon, and a way to process these with nutrients.
the Asteroids are generally about 7 degrees kelvin. That's -266 celsius. (AKA really frikkin' cold.)
While there are sources of carbon, oxygen, and other volatiles in the asteroids, it takes a lot of concentrated sunlight to get it into a useable form. The cold in question makes it that much tougher (due to ramping up to the activation energies of the chemical reactions.)
Avatar aside, the asteroids are dead.
On the other hand, I figure we can make them live.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)water let me know. Even hydroponic gardens need water, nutrients and light.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) solar concentrators to create the needed sunlight (good out to about Neptune's orbit)
2.) use some of the collected sunlight to heat up rock
2a.) the gases leaving the rock are combined to created water (and you get a little bit of electricity)
3.) other rocks (Carbon bearing Volatiles) contain just about everything a plant needs.
drokhole
(1,230 posts)That is all.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Other people have said it has water and it looks like it has a geological past, like rivers and other features that means it could have been a living planet at one time.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)James Lovelock got the inspiration for his Gaia Hypothesis while working at NASA helping with the Viking mission out of the fact that the Earth's atmosphere is out of chemical equilibrium because of the actions of living organisms. He observed that the atmospheres of Mars and Venus are in equilibrium, which shows that they are dead.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Most scientists would disagree.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Plenty of time for geologists to pick through everywhere.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)sustain life without artificial air being introduced. I think Mars distance from the sun makes it a problem. But I'm not a scientist and only can draw conclusions from what I read.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)How about we send a search team first?
if we find out some of the belt has records, then we preserve them, and mine the rest.
Personally, I look forward to a new frontier...
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Scientists would love to examine the geological records of Mars. The difference in most scientists and you, they want to learn and explore, you want to revert back to before the industrial revolution.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)use our technology judiciously. Yeah, I know I talk about going back to the earth, but that's just me. I know not everyone can live out in the woods without much technology like I can and other wilderness types. However, I'm dismayed that people don't think about what they are doing to our home. There was just a report on the radio about global climate change and how we aren't going to have enough water in the near future. Now here is a place we could put technology to use if only humanity has the will. All those ice sheets that are melting at the poles. It's fresh water. Why aren't we harvesting it for future use before it disappears into the ocean?
As far as reverting back to before the industrial revolution. I think in many ways we should. We really don't need to use all the energy we use today just because we have it. Sure. I want our hospitals and medical facilities to be state of the art. I don't want to go backwards there. But take air conditioning. There are so many ways that were pre-industrial to keep our buildings cool that we used back in the days of the old south, that I believe would cut down our need for air conditioning if we only used them. No I'm not for throwing out the air conditioning just using smart methods of cooling so you use it less. I personally planted trees ten years ago, to keep my trailer shaded on hot days. It's starting to pay off. I'm much cooler on hot days and I don't have air conditioning.
I grew up without heating in a place that was very cold. All we had was a wood burning stove and a fireplace. We bundled in warm clothes as well. I don't use my gas heater to this day. I trap as much heat as I can from cooking in cold weather and blankets and warm clothes do the rest. I wish I had a fireplace but I don't so I do otherwise.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)And in the next sentence state that you did have a heater that expelled more CO2 than my conventional heater ever will.
"I grew up without heating in a place that was very cold. All we had was a wood burning stove and a fireplace."
So much wooo, so little time. I will move on.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)implying something is so over some people's heads at time that I must elaborate on everything. Boo hoo on me. I guess all those tribes living in Africa and the Amazon are creating all the carbon emission problems in the world with their campfires. On the other hand my gas or electric heater comes from a plant that is surprise, surprise usually burning gas or oil to provide me with it and in a way that is far more toxic than my little town did with their fireplaces. I don't remember any smog being produced back then until they built a big plant to process sulfur and then the pollution began.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You think it would be beneficial to go back to before the industrial revolution. You agreed with that. And you don't understand that the manner in which I heat my home is more efficient and environmentally friendly than the method you used and support.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)In my case it isn't. I can't change that, so I do without.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)about a billion years ago.
I'm hoping curiousity find out some more clues.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)If you are going to continue spouting such nonsense, we can't have a rational discussion with you.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Considering that history and archaeology deposits known as middens have proved over time that all we do is pollute, why should our footprint in space be any different. Are we as a species going to evolve suddenly into one that cleans up after itself just because we go into space?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)The guy in the SUV, and the lady in the Prius?
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Probably neither because the SUV guzzles gas, but the Prius has to be plugged into a device that gets electricity from a power plant that could be guzzling gas. However, I read somewhere that chevy is coming out with an electric car or was going to that could be hooked up to an array of solar panels for charging. It seems to have vanished in thin air. I can't imagine the oil industry being in favor of that. It would put them out of business in less than a decade. Maybe they have to power to intimidate GM not to do such a thing.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Bullying's never cool.
jsr
(7,712 posts)Cost of air conditioning for U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan PER YEAR = $20.2 billion
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)any Socialist Space Programs like the one that put Neil Armstrong on the Moon.
He addressed this in his letter to President Obama.
We have to rid of our government of the privatizers who only believe in Government Socialism for Wall Street and the MIC. Until then, this nation will never reach its full potential.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)
**************
Seriously, though, what is the rationale for colonizing the solar system? Shouldn't we make sure everyone has health insurance in this country before we go planting our flag on other planets?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)The amount needed to provide health care to all of our citizens is a lot greater than the amount NASA gets.
You completely vitiated your argument with that joke photo.
Maybe our rationale is to live on other worlds, away from sneering radicals.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)
****************************
We 'sneering radicals' are just fine with you going to Mars, provided you do it on your own nut. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I don't know if you are just trolling...
Or honestly believe your pictures constitute an argument.
Either way, it's kind of sad.
If I have to pay for your silly causes, you can pay for mine. That's the point of politically run budgeting.
I'm thinking I should blame the failures of public schools for some of the "life on other planets wants..."
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)an explicit violation of DU's ToS to accuse a DUer of "trolling."
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) do you promise?
2.) the entirety of the space program wouldn't detract from universal healthcare.
bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)Rep. Dennis Kucinich got that right in the language of the original Space Preservation Act of 2001: H.R. 2977
H.R. 2977 (archived by The Federation of American Scientists)
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/hr2977.html
Of course Kucinich is still loathed by many here at DU-the only member of Congress (a fellow Democrat) that actually introduced Articles of Impeachment against Richard Bruce CHENEY which also died in Committee like H.R. 2977
Thank you again, Dennis.
entanglement
(3,615 posts)Well-instrumented robots like Cassini, Galileo, New Horizons can easily go where humans cannot and provide outstanding science benefits as well. As someone mentioned up-thread, our knowledge of the solar system has increased dramatically these past few decades thanks to these probes.
OTOH, a manned mission to Mars isn't going to happen in our lifetimes. I agree with you that far more could be spent on space, but adding a human into the mix for interplanetary missions introduces too many problems.
I can't list them all here, but there are many, many "show-stoppers" in a potential manned Mars Mission. Solving all of them and being convinced of their reliability (necessary with humans on board) is many decades of engineering away. Doable, but not today. Astrophysicists who do basic physics feasibility calculations are of course correct in principle, but they seriously underestimate the engineering problems involved. There is a reason that landing a 1-ton, unmanned rover like Curiosity on Mars took 10 years of planning and problem solving and was hailed as a major achievement.
That's just Mars: The Galilean satellites of Jupiter are an even tougher nut to crack.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Until we either figure out a better way to get heavy stuff out of Earth's gravity well or a lighter way to block radiation, we can't send people to Mars for a short look-see, let alone anything more complicated than that.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)We do not have the ability to move a vehicle of the mass required to protect people from solar radiation once they are outside of the earth's magnetosphere. Period. We either need a new way to protect people from radiation, a better method of propulsion, or ideally both.
Should we devote money to fixing those problems? Yes. But until we surmount that enormous technical hurdle to a manned mission, money devoted to manned flight is wasted money.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) you can use simple water for your rad shield
2.) you can set up a magnetic field (which can also act like an engine)
3.) heap a whole lot of slag around the important parts
what kind of propulsion do you want to use? Solar Sail? (Doesn't need fuel) NERVA (low fuel, moves quick, but the exhaust is radioactive) modified Orion (non-nuke, thanks)
We've got the know-how... we just need the guts to do it
kentauros
(29,414 posts)HOWever, that same innovation requires funding. Doesn't matter if it's someone saving up to improve an existing patent or NASA creating new technology to solve some issue of safety and efficiency in space or in the air (remember, the first 'A' in "NASA" stands for "Aeronautics"; too many people forget that part.)
Have a look at the NASA spinoffs page on Wikipedia as well as NASA's own publication, NASA Tech Briefs. They're doing quite a lot of research for continued manned space flight, as well as research that helps the rest of us still stuck on terra firma
(I know that's not really pertinent to your post, but it's also there for the benefit of the others that haven't clearly seen any direct and overt benefits from NASA.)
AnnieBW
(10,449 posts)Because everything out of their mouths is shit!
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)My son, at age 19, ( yeah I am a bragging mom) just landed a job with an Aerospace company-- his dream is to someday be on one of those ships exploring our solar system
AF is paying for his first 4 years of college (he is a junior) and this company will fund his education through his doctorate.
I have little doubt in my mind that someday he will be up there looking down at our beautiful blue/green ball of life!
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Then the media types and the humanities profs will look bad.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)better will it be to spend it on space exploration hardware instead. It still employs the same people, but the end goals aren't as nefarious. I thought that is what we were trying to do during the space race, so when did we divert our attention back to endless war?
Trillo
(9,154 posts)Maybe we can find some more planets to lay to waste, just like we have done here.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Maybe some of us like the idea of getting AWAY from the hatred and stupidity.
I've a hyptothesis:
The reason some folks get nervous about other people going into space? those against space flight are hoping we'll stay here and clean up their messes for free.
Trillo
(9,154 posts)"getting AWAY from the hatred and stupidity." When we were in school, we were not allowed to run away. If we did, the police came and used physical force to bring us back.
"clean up their messes for free". That's pretty much what happened when the cops came to your house because your shed blew up (in a sub-thread above). Others paid for your hobby. Cops don't work for free. Only kids do, at the end of a barrel of a gun, similar to the one fired at that comet a few years ago.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) As an adult, unless you are under incarceration.... YOU CAN LEAVE.
2.) I pay taxes for those cops....That's kind of the point.
3.) "cleaning up their messes for free" means more like "you can't leave, because we won't let you. Why not fix <insert cause celebre here>, and you can hang out with US..."
ALL of your arguments rely on associational rhetoric...
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Human evil cancer
human evil cancer
Human evil cancer
human evil cancer
Human evil cancer
human evil cancer
Human evil cancer
human evil cancer
Trillo
(9,154 posts)It's the people with authority that aren't so nice. They'll pretend to be nice, but that's often a mask donned for deceit. The pyramid of authority is today created by the mind-altering effects of money. In 1913 that national power was given to private banksters who have no borders and who are above the laws enforced on the rest of us, as has been well discussed on DU over the years. The "cancer" is sometimes referred to as arrogance, but that's an oblique reference to authority.
If humans go to another planet, we'll enslave any lifeforms existing there, if we can use them in a money making scheme, otherwise we'll just kill them. It's what was done here. It's all humans with authority know. Force.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) THERE IS NO LARGE SCALE LIFE IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM. Go learn some %^% science.
2.) so, your argument is that should just stay here? to die? Foxtrot Yankee, buddy.
Your "argument" is nothing but tatters of old pathos images, strung up with rhetoric.
Trillo
(9,154 posts)2. Stay here and die, or go there and die. What's the diff?
My 10th grade science class, the instructor had a wonderful pyrotechnic display on his desk, burning a magenta color. Asserted it was made "with ingredients under all of our kitchen sinks", but would not say what those ingredients were. A majority of the males in class persisted in wanting to know how to do it themselves, the females less so. Instructor kept saying No dice or words to that effect. Lesson learned: Science cannot be repeated.
I was given a chemistry set as a kid, probably for "Christmas", don't remember what age I was right now. It had chemical bottles labeled something like "1", "2", "3", etc. Instructions said something like mix so much of bottle 1 with bottle 2, and watch the colors change. No chemical theorey at all, just proceedure. I kept repeating the experiment, until a bottle was gone. Didn't know what to replace it with, but there was an order form at the end of the "manual", if it could be called that, along with prices. We could order "bottle 1", and 2, and 3, and so on.
There wasn't much there to learn, except how to send that company more money. Science was presented as a scam both in school and by corporations selling chemistry kits to gullible parents, back then.
Maybe it's different now, but cookbooks mostly still use volumetric measure, perhaps that's okay for water-based liquids, but needlessly complex for solids.... Keep mistraining the masses..., I'm quite certain it's intentional.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) it depends o which company you use, for kits. my kit lists the chemicals
2.) pick up Caveman Chemistry. It'll give you a great background.
3.) I'd rather choose my path for myself. Pioneers at least choose their path.
tama
(9,137 posts)I see it mostly in noob discussions where behavioral patterns of certain populations analogous to cancer are projected and generalized to humanity as whole, either as expression of self-hate or, as in this case, strawman.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)For a long time, manned space flight used the same launch vehicles, and peaceful uses were great PR for what were essentially military programs.
But, once you reach certain goalposts, like manned lunar landings, doing the same thing on Mars doesn't seem to make as much sense technologically and deliver as much "bang for the buck." It might be different if we found oil or signs of life there.
It'll be a while until there is another leap outward. First, there has to be a good reason to do it, other than it's out there.
David__77
(23,453 posts)"Deep ecology" is fundamentally an anti-humanist ideology, and it has permeated much of the Western Left. Anthropocentrism is moral world outlook, and it is an absolute necessity for humanity to do what you say.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Many pre-modern agricultural societies are extremely wasteful if they can get away with it (slash and burn agriculture) and our forager ancestors hunted many mega-fauna species into extinction (the African species survived because they evolved along side us). Better technology and better scientific knowledge allows more efficient and sustainable management of planetary resources, something that is also a necessity when colonizing another planet.
MStuart
(1 post)Do you have any idea what went into just sending a man to the moon?
We CAN'T just send people to Mars on $30,000,000,000, that's INSANE. I don't know where you got your information. Robert Zubrin is a SCI-FI AUTHOR. He's not taken seriously by anyone in the field. The plain, painful-to-some truth is, WE ARE NEVER LEAVING EARTH. It is just not possible with our current technology. The best we could hope for is to colonize the moon, but why? To build missile launchers? Do you have any idea how far away the moon is? Mars? Beyond Mars? It would take generation ships to even think about going beyond Mars. The truth of the matter is that we've fucked up this planet so bad that life as we know it WILL NOT exist within 100 years. We (the scientific community) don't talk about it because many feel there's just no point and that it's better to just let the people keep their heads in the sand. In 100 years we're looking at Iron Age technology if we're lucky. Now you know the truth, but keep on watching Star Trek if you want.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)People like you in 1890 thought heavier-than-air flight was impossible.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)But a simple Hohman transfer orbit will get a cycler ship to Jupiter in under 6 years, Mars in about 1.5 years. That's from Fundamental Astrodynamics, pubb'ed by Dover.
The energy required for a mars run is about 9150 FPS extra delta v for a Hohman orbit. A freaking solar sail can do a long spiral.
The moon's 240,000 average distance, and we got there before. Mars just needs more energy, and a way to kill the boredom.
TO be blunt, you don't write like an astrophysicist.
Generation Ships? Please!
Response to MStuart (Reply #308)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)especially with regards to being unable to imagine a reason to colonize the Moon. I take it you've never heard of the ideas for building large-scale telescopes on the Moon? Here's a short article for you to read about the possibility of building 50-meter mirrors for optical telescopes on the Moon:
NASA Scientists Pioneer Method for Making Giant Lunar Telescopes
Response to kentauros (Reply #323)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)Disasterbater!
Which you will also find living in the Environment and Energy group
Response to MStuart (Reply #308)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)the astronauts will have to get out of the spacecraft and push it the rest of the trip. That could take a generation or three just to catch up to Mars, or match its velocity 
Response to kentauros (Reply #333)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Rowdyboy
(22,057 posts)I remember thinking it would probably be in the 1990's so I'd be in my mid-30's-just the right age for the next generation's Gus Gtissom or Alan Shepard.
What a disappointment reality turned out to be.
Sick of the GOP
(65 posts)You want to spread our glorious race across the universe before or after we've driven all other life on earth into extinction?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Foxtrot Yankee, okay!
Our race did some pretty cool things: The parthenon, the great wall, the pyramids.
I acknowledge we've done a lot of bad things, but I see no reason why those of us that went to leave the sillies behind, should have to stay in your muck.
Response to Sick of the GOP (Reply #317)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Progress comes in waves. I think we're regrouping after the last wave and developing the technology to create the next.
My bet is on the space elevator as the next wave.
Misanthropes piss me off. Don't touch the asteroids because is spoils the rocks' view of other rocks.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)The parts that are backward, badly educated, and poor.
tama
(9,137 posts)and think again what the word 'misanthrope' means.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)It can be considered evidence our language is inherently sexist.
So what?
tama
(9,137 posts)then in plain: the post was clear expression of your own misanthropy, hatred of humans. Thou project too much.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)hmmm
Wondering about how to balance rights and privacy?
Protesting slavery by "shoulds"?
yup... I hate the whole human race... got me a bottle of pestis, right here...
look to yourself...
tama
(9,137 posts)is that the practice of philosophical discourse is not without practical merits, namely increasing the ability to think and communicate more coherently when that is the intention of discourse. Or to engage in playful poetic associations and non-sequiturs when intention is to play with language instead of logical control. Translated into Bob-speak that means that BS is a form of art, techne, which has always instrumental dimensions.
As numerous empirical studies have shown, prejudice and negative connotations makes people more stupid, not more smart. The art of projecting - seeing in others what we condemn and deny in ourselves (what Jung called 'Shadow') - is not to try to avoid or stop projecting, but just to become and stay conscious of the mechanism when it occurs. That is important part of the Socratic methodology of Know Thyself, which has many benefits in praxis and techne.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I know about philosophy. I had to sit through 3 semesters of it in college.
I find no use in it.
LunaSea
(2,895 posts)Thank you all!
While reading though it I keep thinking of one of my favorite quotes on the subject of colonization-
"We have whole planets to explore, we have new worlds to build. We have a solar system to roam in. And if only a tiny fraction of the human race reaches out toward space, the work they do there will totally change the lives of all the billions of humans who remain on earth, just as the strivings of a handful of colonists in the new world totally changed the lives of everyone in Europe, Asia & Africa."
That was found in the briefcase of Shuttle Commander Dick Scobee, who died when his spacecraft exploded during launch the day before.
CaptPicard
(5 posts)"Technophobic misanthropy?" More like reality. What's the point of colonizing space? So we can have five kids each without feeling guilty? What'll we do when the population of Mars becomes unsustainable? Migrate to another planet like a swarm of locusts? Why do you hold humanity so highly? We're a disgusting species, the only species that actively causes its own demise. And you want to spread us out further? Oh we're just so glorious, ain't we? Glorious humanity, with our fucking obesity and sweaty armpits, hell, half of us are too fucking fat to walk to the mailbox. Oh, but we're just so pre-shus and spe-shul! I'm sure the average Ugandan child is deeply interested in your science fiction, really I am. This is exactly the kind of bullshit that turns off voters. You sound like the type who thinks we're immortal. Guess what? The universe will end one day, no matter what we do, and us with it. It doesn't matter if we build a billion monuments on a billion worlds, IT WILL END. The universe will end and we will be gone along with everything else. WHY ARE YOU AN OPTIMIST???? WHY ARE PEOPLE OPTIMISTS? THERE IS NO FUCKING POINT.
NO. FUCKING. POINT.
JHB
(37,161 posts)Everybody, back to the oceans and set your enslaved specialized cells free! After all, THERE'S NO FUCKING POINT! Right?
I bow to your irrefutable logic, Jean-Luc.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)In the long run, we are all dead. What's your point?
You want to poetically wallow in your metaphoric shit-pile, fine. Please do so.
Go Disasterbate somewhere else.
Your comments exactly mirror those of the Science Fiction group called the New Wave. Their rants and whines drove the Makers out of SF fandom, back in the 60's.
We've got the technology. The money's not that bad. And some of us have the will.
What's your beef?
By the way, maybe we're optimists, because it's a survival trait.
Response to CaptPicard (Reply #347)
Post removed
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Depressive and fainting Artistes, and not enough people wanting to rebuild.
Efilroft Sul
(3,581 posts)
GeorgeGist
(25,322 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)He was likely saying that the argument to dismiss was...
"we have to stay here and clean up, before we do anything else" is small minded.
Romulox
(25,960 posts) a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Talk about a thought stopping trick...
You guys are showing the paucity of your position...
Avatar
Star Trek
photoshopped Mars photos
What's next, a dramatic reading of T.J. Bass's Godwhale?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Is there a mouse in your pocket?
My animation is Coffee, and the Aerospace engineering textbooks.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)You speak gibberish.
You seem to have a talent for it.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)Nobody.
Perhaps neither of us have asked a particularly interesting question? 
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Just like those who said "why not go out and flap your arms if flying is possible. Ahahahah heavier than air flight will never happen! If god had meant us to fly he'd have given us wings".
I suppose at some point we will hit the limits of what is possible.
But it has been predicted many many times in the past and has been wrong in every single instance.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)None, so far as I know. Who is stopping *you* from beginning a new life in the cosmos, right now?
Nobody.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)It's a ridiculous way to "debate".
Romulox
(25,960 posts)law?
Nobody and nothing.
You don't want to go to space; you want someone to send you to space.
Hence the complaining nature of your posts.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Ok what's stopping you from converting the worlds energy supply and agricultural systems to a sustainable model?
But you're one of those rugged individualist types. If you can't do it by yourself it can't be done.
Right?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)that your goals are worth-while. It's not my job to refute or disprove your goals.
That's because the default position is that we are NOT pooling all of humanity's resources with the purpose mounting a mission to for you to live in the cosmos.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)you went from "impossible" to "worthwhile".
And it's not for me. I'll be long dead before we ever both to do this sort of exploration again (thanks to people like you).
But I would like to think the human race might outlive me.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)made. And your dishonest use of quotation marks is, for a second time, a discussion stopper.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)unless this is a Schrodinger type hypothetical: it is both possible and impossible at the same time as long as we don't look in to it.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)living in space. It's that it takes massive amounts of resources and as-of-yet unproven technologies to do so.
You need to convince everyone that we need to abandon this planet and devote all resources to sending you into space. The default position is that we are not going to do that.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) the technology to get to Mars is proven.
2.) the technology to keep plants alive is proven
3.) the technology to get power from the moon/Mars is proven
Massive amounts of resources? How much is massive?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)do it yourself.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)YOU were the one making statements about "massive amounts of resources."
YOU should prove your statements.
That's how it works.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)you're arguing against points I never made.
I never said anything about abandoning earth, devoting all resources towards space, or that this is entirely about me.
Really if you can't argue without such strawmen perhaps your argument isn't as solid as you previously believed.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)it?
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Since you have strongly implied that you do not think this is a possible goal.
Is it A) possible or B) impossible that the human race could at some point in the future colonize other planets?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)at least buy the parts from somebody.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)paying for his fantasies, which prompted the strange accusation.
caraher
(6,279 posts)Liber T. Anjustis
(10 posts)You said you think we should leave Earth and let nature retake it - that's like saying you're going to spray shit all over your house, then leave and let the house reclaim the shit.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Gee... I just don't know where to start!
Your argument does not follow.
1.) How about if we move heavy industry into space?
2.) How about if we move the majority of the populace into space?
3.) How about if we move the power creation and transmission into space?
The sad fact is, things don't get better, until people want them to get better. Forcing people to stay, to work on <insert your favorite cause here> is just as mean-spirited as telling somebody in the old Soviet Union that they had to stay, and fix things in "Mother Russia."
janlyn
(735 posts)you say: people either dogmatically assert that such a mission is either impossible, too expensive, or immoral, and all of those assertions are bullshit.
I am not one of those people BUT, Given the white races past history of treating native peoples do we REALLY think colonization of the solar system is a GOOD idea???
explore and perhaps populate dead planets? OK, I can see the wisdom in that,but if we were to explore and find a planet with any kind of life on it,you would be a fool to think we wouldn't take advantage of and alter any native animal or "other" populations.
It's just part of our nature,like it or not..
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I tend to try and throw parties.
BOG PERSON
(2,916 posts)i am categorically against any more space exploration while the capitalist mode of production still exists. colonizing/exploiting other planets would only prolong capitalism's life span and would , hence, set back the cause of human liberation by countless generations.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)so...
We ALL have to stay on Earth, until your favorite cause is accomplished?
You made my point about keeping folks on Earth for forced conversion.
Try it, and I arm the small-business start-up guerillas.
BOG PERSON
(2,916 posts)it is the ultimate cause. the end of human bondage. the end of history.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) too bad your socialist system doesn't seem to work. (name a pure socialist system with a higher standard of living than the USA.) Granted, Social Democracies have been PROVEN to work. Socialism? Not so much.
2.) So you are okay with confining people to this planet, until they convert. To be blunt...
To hell with you and your conversion tactics. You're pushing for slavery, just with a hipper rap.
What happened to the great liberal principle of "my body, my rules" that my wife and I marched for? If there is some sort of exception, then please...
enlighten the un-illuminated.
Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #412)
Post removed
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) any and all offers of "romance" should be routed to my lady wife. As my primary, she has veto power over who I sleep with.
2.) you seem to be angry about something. Could you explain what the problem is?
3.) Why should YOU have the right to determine if other people are "allowed" to leave?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)BOG PERSON just got a little heated...
I was interested in his/her response.
Rats.
librechik
(30,676 posts)And buy more yachts, cars, tanks, missiles and real estate. They can't possibly spare it!
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I like it!
A start up chartered group to get to Mars!
librechik
(30,676 posts)Testosterone-drunk jet jockeys who want to rocket into space personally as an experiment will find their gonads irradiated and their sperm sluggish. Best case scenario. We aren't ready.
Once we have the antigravity drive and can navigate wormholes, after that we can send people.
That's not to say we shouldn't be spending millions on space science, from all sources. It's a rich field of discovery--but doesn't have to be as dangerous as spacewalking, IMO.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Don't go...
But don't expect me to support your causes, either.
Also, I've met a number of pilots (one stares at me in the mirror, when I shave). Very few "testosterone-drunk jet jockeys" survive long.
The whole "wait until we have X" strikes me as an excuse to stay on the couch.
librechik
(30,676 posts)I'll be watching from my couch as the robots survive and the men die needlessly. Why does it take them so long to learn the simplest of lessons? maybe if they ever had a child they would be able to empathize with the rest of us humans. Go ahead, you seem to have a giant urge to jump off a cliff or pilot a can of spam, as the mercury astronauts called it.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Given the knowledge we currently have, we can easily shield against even X-band solar flares. Hell, a thick coating of water will do it.
I'll be watching from my couch as the robots survive and the men die needlessly.
Needlessly? They're opening up a frontier. Limitless solar energy, enough mineral goods to make everyone on Earth into a Billionaire, and places to go if you don't like a social group. (Tired of Marxists? Come to Mars!)
Why does it take them so long to learn the simplest of lessons?
And what lesson would that be?
maybe if they ever had a child they would be able to empathize with the rest of us humans.
Maybe you could put down the rhetoric, and look at the facts.
Go ahead, you seem to have a giant urge to jump off a cliff or pilot a can of spam, as the mercury astronauts called it.
You mean you'll let me go into space? Thank you ma'am.
librechik
(30,676 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)What do you mean by...
Right back atcha, jr!
I got the junior part... (I think)
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Robots could be used to map out the areas...
For better landing coordinates.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)If YOU want to stay, fine.
Some of us look to the stars.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Then eat your fucking veggies!
I do understand your point, however!
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Good joke.
But who gets to decide who leaves and who has to stay?
This has been a question I've been pondering over the last three years, in Grad school (HEAVILY PC english department. Very pushy with the guilt trip thing.)
On Edit:
And yes, I've eaten my veggies. I had a kefir/lime/kale smoothie to start the day.
tama
(9,137 posts)For some reason I've felt the same question very deeply, believe me or not. Individually, up to each of us, if the practical matters were somehow non-problematic. Then the question boils down to the real question, who do you want to share life and travel with, who are your closest and most loved ones? What are their wishes and decisions?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)right to choose one's associates is always a problematic question, be it sharing a bottle of wine, or traveling to the stars.
Should we exclude someone based on the fact we don't like something about them? Turning it around, should we be forced to take someone, even if there's a good chance they'll "have a fatal accident" on the way?
There's a lot to be said for having a vast fleet of small ships, going to Mars/the Belt/whereever.
tama
(9,137 posts)there is also the possibility that you just think too much...
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)If we don't think and plan (followed y testing) then we get into mindless conflict.
I've always wanted to be a hip version of DaVinci.
tama
(9,137 posts)inside to realize they are stars and the whole universe. While you are waiting someone to build you an escape rocket, you are free to explore also the possibilities of the age old "space travel" with aid of certain psychoactive substances or other means to same effect.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) "looking inside" will only show you what's inside. Drugs only give you a different perspective
2.) As certain mythos teach us, everything comes with a cost. Most of the psycho actives can cause psychosis, unless very heavily monitored. (One reason to have a trip-sitter.)
3.) while it can be fun to kick back and "knock on the sky, and listen to the sound," it doesn't give one any new insights that one couldn't gather via other methods.
4.) the "look inside" method is a variation on the Socratic "rationalist" view (We are all part of the universe, therefore, all we need to do is think of a thing, and we know it. No need to go out and explore.) The Socratic method has given us more bungled things than any other concept I can think of (Ptolemey {sp} used this method to "figure out" how the world works. Giving us 1000 years of dark age savagery.
tama
(9,137 posts)and I'm devoted supporter of empirical approach instead of theoretical prejudice as "knowledge". Introspective and extrospective aspects of empirical method are merely spatiotemporal relations in 3D-Euclidean or 4D-Minkowski spaces, and our socratic and platonic mathematicians have shown remarkable ability to idealize dimensions far beyond those. And in terms of spatiotemporal consequentiality it's been always the socratic and platonic mathematicians first idealizing possible words and rocket scientists and other engineers exploiting and exploring those idealizations secundarily.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)but the Socratic method is nothing...
Until proved via testing...
tama
(9,137 posts)Socratic method refers primarily to methodologies of dialectics and logic, by which mathematical theorems are proven or derived from axioms and a priori math/geometry. And to methodology of achieving healthy skepticism of all epistemological "truths": "en oida hoti ouden oida" - "I only know that I know nothing".
The Great Advice of 'Know Thyself' was carved in stone in Delphoi long before Socrates saw it and adapted it as his basic teaching. And it took me long time to realize that the advice does not refer only to intellectual and analytical self-images and identities, but much more profoundly to sentience and body-sense.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)for therapy, and acting...
Not so great for building things.
Personally, I consider most philosophy to be useful only as toilet paper.
tama
(9,137 posts)is not uncommon among Americans.
I'm tempted by Jungian (not to mention Freudian ) interpretations of the manic compulsion to building things, such as sky-scrapers and others to reach higher and higher from this gravity well, without will and ability to search the source of that compulsion. But something tells me you wouldn't be now very interested to hear those interpretations, so no need to go there at this moment.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I'll speak heresy here for a moment...
I despise most philosophers. Most of it is barely covered mysticism, with a coating of rhetorical BS games.
The problem with Freud and Jung fit that dispargement. No testable proof.
tama
(9,137 posts)you are not mistaken about philosophy. Historically it would be mistake to consider Socrates and pre-socratics philosophers, as philosophy was invented and created by Plato. Philosophical discourses in Platonic practice are not wisdom per se, just invitations, lures and hooks to the 'mystery'. Which means in English simply 'undefinable'.
Naturally the post-platonic European history of philosophy is the story of philosophers trying to escape the traps of philosophy by doing more philosophy, as e.g. Derrida was keen to point out. It's all very much like zen koan.
But the situation is that the cat is out of the bag, no carrier of European cultural heritage is innocent of philosophy and metaphysics, certainly not American technocrats, positivists and objectivists with their purported antiphilosophical and purely pragmatist attitude. A famous American physicist partial to reductionistic metaphysics had a whole chapter in his popular book 'Final Theory' with the title 'Against Philosophy', which of course was nothing but philosophy. An attempt to purge heritage of bad philosophy (his enemy was positivism) from science through philosophical discourse.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)and congrats.
Thank you, but I'll pass on philosophy. I consider it (all of it) BS, and something to be avoided.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)n/t
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Point for the song?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)it explains the 60's...
MyUncle
(924 posts)I've reserved two books from the discussions. I'm a long time SF reader 40 years plus. Also the don't kill the planets and asteroid belt were about as entertaining as lurking on a thread can be.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)
patrice
(47,992 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)seem to boil down to...
You can't leave. We won't let you.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Too much thesis writing...
or advanced senility.
Either way.
patrice
(47,992 posts)said could just as easily be applied to your own post.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)so you are just writing random comments?
O-kaay...
Le me try...
CHocolate cake shows the signs are upon us!
Puregonzo1188
(1,948 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)How about we call it "settling" or "moving to that rock over there and building a house"?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Occupy Mars!
Mic-check in a pressurized dome...
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)NASA started calling them space settlements or space habitats. The publication of the 1975 Ames 'summer study' was titled: Space Settlements: A Design Study. It's on my bookshelf, along with another NASA publication: Space Resources and Space Settlements.
The question of using the term space colony was a valid one; there are still countries in the developing world that remember their colonial period. NASA has always tended to be more socially sensitive; for a while they were looking for an alternative to the term: manned to describe space stations and missions.
there are people in US still living their colonial period. On both sides of the equation.
Johonny
(20,872 posts)certainly not for the price Zubrin thinks. Probably not every for any price. I generally respect Odin but not when it comes to this topic. I don't respect Zubrin at all. Never have.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)May I suggest that you look into the matter (pricing and science) before you make your pronouncement?
I copied an old RAND study for creating an expedition, added a few things, and got a price tag of 60,000 total, for 12 crew.
Food will run you around 30,000
the ship should cost about 60,000 (building it yourself is always cheaper.)
HOW do you know it's "not going to happen?"
Johonny
(20,872 posts)I do not respect nor do I know many people that respect Zubrin. Period.
I do not respect your suggest I haven't look at this field or his work. I have. I don't believe it nor do many scientist at the basic factual level.
I know people on the DU respect his opinion. I respect Odin's opinion. It is ok to have scientific disagreements. I have had disagreements with Nobel prize winners, I certainly don't feel bad having disagreements with people on the internet
I leave it there because complaining about space does not respect the memory of a great Astronaut and a man I do/did respect But mostly because people already believe or don't about the "future" in space. However the future in space was as clear now as it was at the dawn of the space age. We are on Mars now. What greater tribute to Armstrong could there be than that.
For the record I don't know it will never happen, all though as many smarter people than me point out, the direction of space and man's presence in space has generally been moving in one direction and there are really clear scientific reasons for that. Reasons Zubrin ignores but history doesn't. Have a nice day. Woot space!
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)with proof.
I've grown up around engineers and start up guys. It means I look for "how to do it," (techne) instead of trying to find the right word for a situation (I forget the damn word).
from what I've read of Zubrin, and what I've checked, his stuff would work.
But what do I know, I've only worked with rocketry for 40 years.
demosincebirth
(12,541 posts)that's being conservative.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I'm sorry I didn't post earlier... things get hectic.
I had to give your comment some though.
1.) "worthwhile" really is a personal and subjective term.
2.) Personally, I think the exploration and colonization of this solar system would be enough fun for one life time (I wanna see Jupiter's flux tube glow in the ion exchange. From a safe distance, of course.)
3.) 100 year life spans aren't unreachable, NOW.
4.) As we actually have the technology for some types of starships, to get to nearby stars, within a human lifetime. (the late Dr. Eugene Mallove's Starflight Handbook is an excellent source for what technology is possible NOW, and what needs "somewhat more work, to make it happen.)
demosincebirth
(12,541 posts)i suppose that's also what you're talking about, we would first have to break the speed of light barrier X 2 to achieve any meaningful space travel within a human's life time. That, I don't see (and I'm not knowledgeable by any means) happening within my grandson's life. And he's one year old. I think we should put much of our resources into straightening out our precious planet before we start into serious deep space exploration.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Dr. Mallove, before his murder, did point out what systems can be built at the moment. (An Orion would also get rid of a lot of nukes.)
Mars is definitely do-able.
How about some folks work on Earth problems, and the rest of us go to Mars?
Personally, I find Earth boring.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)How about a NERVA engine, with an Ion drive kicker?
fast travel to most of the Solar System, and very little fuel consumption.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)That thing was designed as a terror weapon.
I don't mind building up a NERVA for transportation, but creating something that ejects it's nuclear core is quite another.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)I posted it to show folks what was proposed at one time for a nuclear engine. The head of the project seemed quite proud of what they'd created, if you can imagine that 
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)It was designed, so the Soviets would steal the design...
and then think we were willing to basically initiate gotterdammerung, just to kill them. Sort of following the rule of "If you must go into a place where you could face a fight, be the craziest guy in the room."
demosincebirth
(12,541 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I'd rather be terraforming.
Now THERE's a bumper sticker to confuse the traffic cops!
patrice
(47,992 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)and I have to confess to having been at times nearly psychotic about the meaning of pi and e and transcendental numbers in general.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Though I'm not much of a mathematician, I have been interested in the apparently infinite repetition of patterns for a long time and various machines, in particular, produce repetitive patterns of their respective types, some of which, some of us think, bear some resemblance to the Republican candidate for President, who could be thought of as a vehicle of sorts . . . . but, then, candidates for whatever or otherwise, I suppose most of us could be vehicles of one type or another.
Sorry about all of the matrix allusions, I like systems.
I have been long impressed by Chalmers' philosophical proof, that the metaphysical world view of mathematical physics cannot be ultimately told apart from Matrix: http://consc.net/papers/matrix.html
And what current math and physics says about this Matrix of Cave of Plato is that both the cave and the shadows on its walls are made of wave patterns, or as New Agers are inclined to say, vibes. Which by mathematical necessity of the Gift of Greeks contains the ratio of line and curve - pi. And the stuttering mystery of how to keep it and eat it.
patrice
(47,992 posts)trippingly on the tongue, "anomalous" "others" "here," "there" . . .
Dumped to a log file somewhere and abandoned and abandoned and abandoned and . . .
I hope you don't mind the riff; one of my favorite poets, Gerard Manley Hopkins, was interested in flaws and I think you could also say that about another of my literary lovers, Rainer Maria Rilke.
I also hope you don't mind all of the quotation marks. Deconstruction has become a bit of a reflex with me at this point, the point being, of course, RE -construction.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)when a thread goes from a topic on Space... (noble)
to a posting on deconstruction (less than noble)
patrice
(47,992 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)That's mature.
Here's this great thread on space colonization, pro-anti, technology needed, money needed, etc
and you're hopping about with non-sequiters...
but you like pizza
tama
(9,137 posts)of that short and rare glimpse of poetic ingenuity.
Another Gift from Greeks, it was, memory from the Academic past that repetitive stutter of first segment of verb in Greek morphology signaled not only iterative aspect as iconically expected but also and more commonly the peperfective aspect. Which can sound kinda flawed, at least to our barbarous ears that Latin of Law and Order commands to non leguntur when Graeca sunt, in addition to the afore mentioned timeo. Ah, the devious guile of the school masters and scholars! The plot behind all this was of course reverse psychology. All the juicy "humanely flawed interest" of school boys and girls towards Eros-heros of separation and combination was and is often stil left in Greek untranslated into Barbar or Latin. Plot to inspire interest in younger generations to learning Greek and to become kosmikoi, Men of World, in this comedy of errors we call life. Having now built the asinine bridge to both to the OP and and symbol of Democratic party, I can rest this case of reflective reconstruction.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I think I'll go for a mind scrub, to lose that bit of erudition.
tama
(9,137 posts)Come on, it's fun for me to get carried away with good audience such as patrice. Not all pieces are for all readers.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)writings like Patrice's are one of the reasons I'm leaving "the humanities." 23 years is enough.
The whole Derrida and Barthe deconstruction conceit strikes me as overly verbose ego-defense, for weakly supported pop-marxism.
tama
(9,137 posts)That goes for granted, so why not have some fun with overly verbose ego-defence? It's not like it's without self-irony, or if done well, the border zone of WHA???!!! where even the author, not to mention other readers, can't tell if the text is dead serious or irony making fun of itself.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)it's not my idea of fun.
endlessly critiquing critiques strikes me as something one only does with close, kinky, friends - and wash your hands after.
This may be the reason the "literature" is the stuff that doesn't sell.
tama
(9,137 posts)but it's not away from you if it's fun for others. Now go have fun and design a sustainable city!!!
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)apprehend "the point".
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Building things.
I've met too many post-modernists to be impressed. Chomsky wanted to toss pomo and post-structuralism to the flames. One of the few times - other than his work on generative grammar - that I agree with him.
tama
(9,137 posts)on generative grammar. Way too much strong universal presuppositions based on very thin empirical data - just English and not much else. I prefer the dynamical approach of comparative linguistics and study of linguistic variation.
tama
(9,137 posts)Erudite: "smoothed away all raw, untrained incivility." The Fall from Rude. As any such suggestion is rude insult by itself, the word negates itself.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Is that the speaker uses dominance by eloquence...
AKA baffling folks with BS.
I can take your passage, and re-define it as:
"We'll use the heroic stories to lure kids into learning greek, so we can get them to think in a particular way."
For my money, the ancient greeks were a fractious, drunken, pederastic bunch of slave owners.
No need to idolize them.
tama
(9,137 posts)None so what ever. But what does the fact of 'idolizing' ('making into image') being a Greek word speak of and where from? Especially after painting an colorful image of ancient Greeks in the previous sentence?
I use and expose Greek because I can do it quite well, that was my main subject in University and I made a career as translator from Greek to Finnish. Because my roots are those of non-European indigenous people who like so many others have been colonized and "civilized" by Europeans. "Europe" is also a Greek word and I have given much of this life to a study of Greek roots of European civilization that has colonized my people. As I have also studied the even deeper roots of our indigenous language and culture. To gain a fuller comprehension of who I am and where I come from. I cannot speak my language to you so that you would understand, but I can use and show the Greek roots of your language and culture when I speak with you, and by that route perhaps show you and tell you something about our people.
What you call "erudition" was Internet poetry and collective performance art, random thoughts collected around the theme and idea of repetitive stutter. The civilized word for which is 'alliteration' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliteration). That is how our language and poetry sings and remembers our songs and tales and relations, by harmonious beginnings of the words that we put together into incantations. Being who we are, we like to alliterate. Other peoples who see and encounter matters other way around like to rhyme, to hear their words end up with the same sound.
Alliteration reminds me now that we all have the same beginning and origin, from which we can take many different paths. For us all paths mean 'knowing', we make distinction between path and knowing. We have our paths and so do Europeans, who have taken the path of making us and many others follow their path, to rhyme with Europeans. We don't know the meaning of all of this, and that is not our purpose. But having seen and experienced what Europeans have done to our people and so many other nations, we alliterate, repeat and stutter our point of view, what was said in the beginning of this pow-wow, that if you want to sail the sky in iron ships, you don't take that path just to rhyme what you have done to us and this planet, but remember our common origin and travel new paths and give us and other children of Earth freedom to follow our own paths.
CubicleGuy
(323 posts)Outcome number 1: the mission fails due to inadequate planning for the unexpected, the sheer difficulty of the task, etc., etc. I mean, if you're going to send two or more guys to Mars, you also have to send them with enough food, water, breatheable air, and so on, and dragging all of that with you (or the technology to manufacture said necessities while en route) out of the earth's gravity pull is uncomprehendingly costly. If the mission fails, I think the average American decides that it's just not worth it. Due to the increased distances by comparison with the moon, we're talking at least a couple of orders of magnitude of increased difficulty. It's one thing to send robots there, it's another thing completely to send human beings there and then bring them back.
Outcome number 2: the mission succeeds. As with the moon missions, Americans become jaded and quickly lose interest.
My bet is that #1 is far more likely than #2.
Barring some fantastic breakthrough in advanced technology (warp drives, matter/energy conversion technology or something similar), I just can't see this happening.
Response to CubicleGuy (Reply #497)
randome This message was self-deleted by its author.
LunaSea
(2,895 posts)Let them stay.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)
Proles
(466 posts)As someone who group up being very interested in space, I honestly have to say I'm somewhat taken aback when people speak out against it. Unfortunately, there those on the right who are against it (costs too much tax dollars which could be used for trillion dollar wars), as well as those on the fringe left (we're a virus that has no right to expand!).
Yet at the same time, it is something that (as others have already mentioned), transcends politics.
Space exploration isn't a choice. It's an essential requirement to have a future as a species. So whatever your reasons are for being against space exploration, you're basically asking for the same thing -- "that we all die here on Earth."
Some are so cynical as to think humans don't deserve to expand into space. These are people on the fringe left which don't help to lend credence to our beliefs. The people who think we should all just take a bullet to our heads, because we're a plague upon mother earth. The technophobics who think we should abolish any form of machinery that should change nature in even the slightest way. But these are all ridiculous notions. Humans sculpted Earth to suit their needs, and we'll someday have to do so with planets and moons in our solar system. It's perfectly within our right to do so if we want to survive as a species. Call it arrogance if you want, but I'm a human, and I'd rather prefer the human race to prosper after I die.
And then there are those who frankly have almost zero knowledge of what space exploration actually entails, that they bring up a fictional forest moon from Avatar as an argument against it -- or nonsense about propulsion systems they know nothing about.
President Obama has already outlined plans to send astronauts to asteroids. While I'd much rather see men and women go to Mars, I think asteroids serve as a good stepping stone for interplanetary travel (we're not even talking interstellar travel here, which we may not see effectively utilized in our lifetimes). I would have no moral qualms with mining an asteroid. It's a dead rock. With few exceptions, it's absolutely insignificant, so I'd like to see humans mine asteroids to increase economic prosperity on Earth -- which could indeed help to clothe and feed people here (God knows our immensely huge defense budget isn't exactly doing that).
These are the same naysayers who spoke out against a manned mission to the moon in the 1960's. Yet, people don't even realize how much technology we use today that was in credit to the Apollo space program. Environmentally green housing technologies? A spin-off from the Apollo space program.
Space isn't war. It's science and exploration. It can be a peaceful endeavor which actually betters life for people on our planet.
After the Apollo program ended, I think we did hit a dead end. Not to speak ill of the Shuttle program or anything like that, but I believe we easily could have put people on Mars as early as the 1980's if America had been truly committed to it. Imagine where we'd be today? We'd already have colonies on the moon for sure, and hope that humans will not be confined to an infinitesimally small planet for the rest of our existence.
LunaSea
(2,895 posts)We probably have about 40 more years.
Because we're not special.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/science/17tier.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
In 1993, J. Richard Gott III computed with scientific certainty that humanity would survive at least 5,100 more years. At the time, I took that as reason to relax, but Dr. Gott has now convinced me I was wrong. He has issued a wake-up call: To ensure our long-term survival, we need to get a colony up and running on Mars within 46 years.
If you’re not awakened yet, I understand. It’s only prudent to be skeptical of people who make scientific forecasts about the end of humanity. Dr. Gott, a professor of astrophysics at Princeton, got plenty of grief after he made his original prediction in 1993. But in the ensuing 14 years, his prophetic credentials have strengthened, and not merely because humanity is still around.
Dr. Gott has used his technique to successfully forecast the longevity of Broadway plays, newspapers, dogs and, most recently, the tenure in office of hundreds of political leaders around the world. He bases predictions on just one bit of data, how long something has lasted already; and on one assumption, that there is nothing special about the particular moment that you’re observing this phenomenon. This assumption is called the Copernican Principle, after the astronomer who assumed he wasn’t seeing the universe from a special spot in the center.
------------
“The sobering facts,” Dr. Gott says, “are that in a 13.7 billion-year-old universe, we’ve only been around 200,000 years, and we’re only on one tiny planet. The Copernican answer to Enrico Fermi’s famous question — Where are the extraterrestrials? — is that a significant fraction must be sitting on their home planets.”
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)was imagining a working base on the moon by 1980! A few years later, the same husband-wife team who produced UFO came up with Space: 1999, which envisioned a working base on the moon by 1999 (25 years after the series premiered). Of course, 1999 has come and gone, and the only thing resembling a moon base is the International Space Station.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)space: 1999 looked realistic, but had some grisly scenes.
Still and all, I'm willing to take left seat in an Eagle.
Grave Grumbler
(160 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)You've invoked the mantra of Sagan.
What's next?
Grave Grumbler
(160 posts)I'm unlikely to have my way.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)split ticket on moon and mars
Grave Grumbler
(160 posts)the asteroids are where it's at for colonization. No deep, nasty, gravity wells to deal wuth.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Ceres, a few CV clusters, and maybe a solid type M to play with.
Grave Grumbler
(160 posts)when Dawn arrives there.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)The trips will be incredibly long because we still are using the slow propulsion developed by Von Braun fifty years ago. The crew will be atrophied and half dead when they got back to Earth. Gotta work on those impulse engines or warp drive or bloater drive.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)is between 9 months and a year.
Not that bad... think of it as an extended cruise ship trip.
See you on the Lido Deck.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)The Plasma Propulsion concept has been around for decades. There has been considerable progress in recent years. The VASIMIR plasma rocket studied by Ad Astra rocket company might reduce travel times to Mars down to 39 days.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)... Helium 3, mannnnnnn.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)with some O2
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)do tell!
Actually, I am interested.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)via asphyxiation.
Keep it to a 3% or less mix. or Short bursts of pure (balloon's okay.)
You gotta be the only person I know, that gets high off fusion fuel.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)We're here because we care...
The first step is to admit that you've got a problem...
McGee from Muskogee
(12 posts)He's stated that if we were to find a planet with life, and colonizing said planet would destroy said life, then we should colonize. He's a vile person who reminds me of Ayn Rand in his thinking. I'm shocked DU supports a thread based solely on a known Randian anti-environmentalist's pseudo-scientific rantings.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I've read a few of Zubrin's books...
I couldn't find that quote.
What's your real beef?
YOU want to stay here, be my guest.
Attempted smear mark you, more than someone trying to provide cheap(er) access to space.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)And, we need to realize that animals require a specific environment to survive, so we should not only not turn the Earth into another Mars, but we should realize there really is no way to live elsewhere.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Coyotl...
Zubrin's work, NASA's work, and even my own humble attempts...
Show we can terraform Mars.
If YOU want to stay, go for it.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)We can turn the Earth into a desert like Mars with far greater ease!
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)There is instant death anywhere else as far as we know without extreme costs and measures. Colonization of other worlds by man is science fiction and fantasy.
The other reason to explore space is scientific exploration. This can be done far cheaper with unmanned rockets and robots. Putting man into space is a gimmick that holds scientific exploration back. I prefer science over fantasy.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) With a high optimized Ion Engine, we can get to Mars in 3 months, for a fuel mass fraction of 30%.
2.) suits are easy and (fairly) cheap.
3.) NASA already has plans for colonies
4.) ALL of Zubrin's work can be verified.
5.) Why should folks stay, if they don't want to?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)NASA can create some really cool robots to visit Mars at a fraction of the cost. The few astronauts that miss out on their dream trip to Mars might be disappointed, but the rest of us benefit by the greater scientific advancements possible by not sending humans - more bang for the buck.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)That's good enough for me.
1.) in a few other posts, I gave cost break outs for equipment, food, and suits
Nowhere NEAR 1 Billion.
We've got the technology and the brains, just not the will.
I blame the 70's...
Zorra
(27,670 posts)We'll destroy the other planets later!
Seriously, the universe has already allowed human beings to prove that they are too greedy, and are not capable of taking care of their home, planet Earth.
There's no way she's going to allow humans to defile other parts of her generous manifestation.
Why do you think she isolated humans on a planet surrounded by a limitless area of hostile, uninhabitable void?
Geez, give her a little credit.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Care to toss some science in your mix?
Jim__
(14,082 posts)... none of us would be here to worry about it.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Color me confused...
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Okay.
I guess it sort of makes sense now.
Too many people are pushing too many tired political phrases.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Not knowing Perl, I can't speak to that.
In the research phase of my paper, I noticed a fair amount of that "but Space is cluttered with MILTARY stuff!"
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)We got tired of his trying to make every and I mean every conversation about firearms generally or the Second Amendment in particular, so we made a chatbot with his name that would do the same thing more or less by spitting out a collection of stock phrases set off by different triggers. Took one of the guys a couple days to write it up and we unleashed it.
Surprisingly, he actually got the hint and mellowed out quite a bit.
And yeah, I've run into the general stack-o-cliches myself. Was doing a seminar paper on the Soviet space program (and to a lesser extent Russian attitudes on spaceflight) and a few of the other students just wouldn't get off weaponization or the menace of polluting the pristine environment of space with lethal radiation. Yeeeeah. Having to talk about stuff that happened decades prior while also dealing with classmates expressing horror at the existence of the technologies in the first place was a bit taxing.
A year or so before there was a Cassini protest at my university, which was weird because that was well after the Earth flyby. They also used the "polluting the pristine environment of space with lethal radiation" thing, only verbatim and without irony. I never could get a straight answer concerning what they wanted to do about the thing, given it was out around Jupiter at the time, but did get some vague lines about wanting to kill the "tens of billions" of dollars of funding for it.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)"court adjudicayed youth in a small, residential facility" (politest possible term for juvie hall.)
Cassini was going to launch, and there were predictable protest noises about the RTG.
My students stated they didn't see the problem...
Just fire the engines... The warning signs were already placed.
I had to write them up for "anti-social behavior."
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Never mind the fact that you'd probably have to smack an RTG into the ground at escape velocity to crack it, given how mindbogglingly overengineered those tend to get...
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)in suburban massachusetts...
That's the way the schools roll.
My students tend to be of the philosophy that believes "If you play on the highway, don't be shocked, if you get hit by a truck!"
RTG's are so versatile, I believe we ought to use more of them, for civilian applications.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Still a silly thing to have to discipline them over, but I wish I could say I was surprised by such things.
I'm, oh, twelve percent more concerned about RTGs in terrestrial applications if just because of the increased ability to monkey around with them, but that doesn't add up to much concern. Anything that's scheduled for a one-way trip out of the gravity well? All for them in that case. Hell, just look at the Voyagers. (Still. Gah.)
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)that my problem is I'm an urban progressive, as opposed to a suburban liberal. I usually look to keep the peace, but I'll run AT a fight, instead of away from it, if I think the fight is righteous.
The school in question was more concerned that the students weren't opposing the launch. (something about "not proper political behavior."
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)What this has shown has been the depth of intense feelings on all sides of this question; not to deny that there have been some very well thought out and informative responses (Maybe the pro-space colonization discussion should continue in the Science forum!).
For the record, I'm very much pro space colonization. I invested a decade of my life establishing a chapter of the L5 Society back in Tulsa, OK. I've been an enthusiastic supporter of Gerry O'Neill's Space Colony concept since I first heard about it.
One of the ideas that Gerry O'Neill talked about: Solar power satellites is receiving renewed interest with the pressing need to find alternatives to carbon-based fuels. O'Neill's idea to use lunar materials to build SPS still has economic and environmental advantages over launching everything from Earth.
Proposed lunar base with mass-driver to launch material from the moon.
A backstory to this is the development of molecular nanotechnology. K. Eric Drexler, the father of molecular nanotechnology, was a co-worker of Dr. O'Neill, starting when Eric was an MIT undergrad. I first heard about nanotechnology at an International Space Development Conference in 1986.
Eric has always believed that molecular nanotechnology will be the major enabler of space settlement, a belief I share.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) Do you think we can make it to 1,000?
2.) Thank you for working with the L5 society. What happened to them?
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)....to make the National Space Society. That's a looonnnng story, book length in fact.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)When did this happen?
(Just finished a 70 page thesis, involving SF, Makers, Rocketeers, and the mutation that was New Wave...)
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)There's a backstory to this; maybe sometime I'll deal with it in more detail; but, it's late and I'm tired! I'm trying to watch the GOP Convention tonight, and listening to the Anne Droid speak is tiring me even more.
By the way, "Just finished a thesis." Are you the writer?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Yes I am! I just finished a 70 page thesis paper on:
"The Creation and Disunification of Science Fiction as a Unitary Culture"
The main title is:
"A Riven Moon, Blasted from Orbit."
The Makers and the Rocketeers were the originating groups for SF.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)maybe I need to organize a group reading of my thesis. With pizza and beer.
Should I post the whole thing? Or should I just pub an outline/abstract?
Taverner
(55,476 posts)But humans suck that way - only interested in the dollar or dominance
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)I didn't read it though - hell, it'll probably take an hour just to download let alone read through everything.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)for 1,000
kentauros
(29,414 posts)only more interesting
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Only 276 (ish) more posts to go!
C'mon you guys! Post stuff!
Me and my poor friend Eote-o can't do it all ourselves!
Pitch in!
How about...
-What's your favorite trajectory type?
-What's your favorite engine type?
-What's your favorite colony style?
kentauros
(29,414 posts)For capturing asteroids
Here's some relevant space-music from 1981:
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)You know...
With some finagling, one could turn the mass driver's hazardous exhaust, into a "pipeline" of reaction mass, for other mass drivers.
Just a thought...
kentauros
(29,414 posts)and that's about the same as a mass-driver. However, they achieve those high velocities (300,000 Gs, anyone?) in the initial "gun", and it's a relatively short series of magnets. You'd have to have some serious sensors to determine when to fire the next set of magnets. And you certainly don't want them to fire too soon
Although, if you fire a mass at the front of an asteroid (with the driver bored through its center) would you cancel out forward momentum by slowing or stopping the mass with "premature firing" of the second or third sets of magnets? Seems like you wouldn't, but I don't know physics, really.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I was thinking of using smaller masses with radio beacons and built in magnetic fields
Ships could follow a "track" of these rocks, deviating when needed, to achieve a different orbit.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)I never studied physics, but wasn't sure if the momentum would be affected as much due to being ejected (or stopped) by magnetic means.
As for ships following a track of ejected rocks, what would be the purpose of that? Or would they be recapturing them for further refining? I'm not quite "following" you on this idea 
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)would be for ships to save a bit on the needed reaction mass.
You'd have these orbiting tracks (I'll call them highways) of rocks.
The ships in question would just sling these rocks along the tracks. That way, if the ships are going in the same direction as other ships following these highways, they don't have to bring as much reaction as they might, in other flights.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)for getting space-faring vehicles into and out of the Earth's atmosphere. I can't remember what it's called, but it's basically a huge rotating spindle, and it's center of mass keeps it from falling into the Earth, like an L-point.
Inside the atmosphere, it would pick up a vehicle and fling it into space. In space, it would capture a returning vehicle and bring it back down to Earth, or near enough that it can land on its own. The only engines (and fuel) needed would be for orbital maneuvering
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Go? Fine, I loves me some science, adventure and slipstick romance.
Don't go? Fine, there's plenty that's interesting right around me - here in my backwater corner of this middling planet circling a nondescript star partway out one medium-sized arm of a nothing galaxy in the middle of an enormous cosmos.
I've been both a science geek (a 1960's amateur rocketboi even) and a Deep Ecologist. I've believed that human ingenuity was the closest to godhood we'd ever get, and the our utter trashing of the planet the closest to demonic.
I'm still both of those (two mints in one...) All of my angst on both sides of the fence hasn't changed the unfolding of the present one iota - or even an epsilon. So now I just watch what people believe, think, say and do, and say "Cool to be human, isn't it?"
So whatever you kids decide to do, count me along as a witness.
David Zephyr
(22,785 posts)Thank you for your post.
I really get tired of some liberals wanting to sack space exploration.
When we can piss away trillions on wars of choice, underwrite hundreds of useless military bases around the world, progressives should not engage themselves in a false choice between programs for the poor and space exploration.
Thanks for your comments.
tama
(9,137 posts)is liberals and progressives defending and supporting giving even half a penny to military. I love space exploration and no matter what path or paths humanity takes, building and maintaining technological antidote against big space lumps threatening planetary scale destruction of ecosystem does not sound a bad idea.
I think it's the idea of MIC and banksters taking over space exploration what is the real turn off for most of us. Nazi colony on moon can be a fun movie, but...
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)My father served in Korea and Vietnam.
Also, there are precious few sources for training people for high speed flight, in addition to the physical training.
ck4829
(35,079 posts)believe that the Earth is thousands of years old.
Sometimes I wonder if we have entered a new dark age.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)kentauros
(29,414 posts)
patrice
(47,992 posts)really think that Republican WAR MONGERS ever forget where they've made their War Profiteering INVESTMENTS? Do you REALLY think they were not able to extract some capitalization from, what?, a decade of government SUBSIDIES for Star Wars?
Wrong.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Excuse me...
What are you responding to?
I get the feeling that I may need a map for this conversation...)
Also, I thought the SDI program started in the 80's.
Iggy
(1,418 posts)Space is DEAD.
there's nothing there to support human life. no air to breathe, little water, no soil to grow plants in, etc.
For that reason, humans in space- traveling to other planets, is off the chart expensive. you have to
truck everything into space with you. that adds tons of extra weight... forget it.
IMHO, we're doing fine with the unmanned missions, regarding planetary exploration and learning.
we'd better figure out how to survive long term here on Earth
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) just about ALL of the bodies we've mentioned have oxides and hydrides in the rocks.
2.) just about ALL of the bodies we've mentioned (except for the moon) have the volatiles needed to support life.
3.) we've talked about how to support life on the trip.
Please try again.
Iggy
(1,418 posts)I'll cut to the chase.. as a taxpayer who sees his money wasted on a daily basis--
those of you insisting on doing the obscenely expensive men in space fantasy can figure
out how to get private funding to pay for it-- and good luck.
why will corporations not do this? I just gave you the reason. the ROI just isn't there.
dream on if you think you're going to get public money for this.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)actually, there IS an ROI...
NASA even maintains a book of the spin offs. (little things like weather satellites, fuel cells, personal computers, light weight alloys for wheelchairs, bio-monitoring remote telemetry, high bandwidth communications...)
Also, the cost over runs for Iraq are more than the total budget for NASA.
I showed you what was needed to survive on Mars. Mars has the Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen to build up an ecosystem.
If we're going to play the "Why should I have to pay" game...
-why should I have to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan?
-why should I have to pay for the NEH?
-why should I have to pay for the NEA?
-why should I have to pay for water going to towns in Arizona? Should they move to where the water is?
Don't like something? Vote on it.
Most people in the USA like NASA, and look forward to the next launch.
Also, we need scouting flights, before we start putting cities down.
As to your bit about "men in space fantasy," look dude... fantasies aren't well. That's sort of the definition. The fact that we've had people go into space makes it not a fantasy. A socialist utopia... now THAT'S a fantasy... (and not a very nice one...)
To me, it sounds like a lot of the anti-space crowd is scared of the idea of going into space, doesn't want to admit it. At the same time, this same anti-space crowd seems
