Space

[Psychic Octopus]

Should we go back to the Moon? (mission slated for 2015) and Mars (slated for Mid-2030s)
I am hevily in favor of exploring Space. (And getting a leg up on China)

[Holmes]

I won't say I'm against going to Mars, but if it were up to me, there wouldn't be much support for it. What's the point in going to a planet where we can't even breathe, and the little amount of water there is totally frozen? Not to mention, it takes years to get there and back.

I'm probably being naive about it though. I'm all for the Moon cause it's closer, I guess.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Of course. What else could better revive a downtrodden nation?

[Purple State]

While I am very fascinated in everything affiliated with the final frontier, I don't see a purpose to spending massive amounts of funds and brainpower on something that has no foreseeable benefit to our nation.

[aaaa2222]

As a world, not as a nation. we should use a process similar to the ISS, and split the gains in resources/ whatever by who invested most in the project and who has continued support. Space forces technological development, and there are resources untapped on the other planets.

[Associate Justice PiT]

While I am very fascinated in everything affiliated with the final frontier, I don't see a purpose to spending massive amounts of funds and brainpower on something that has no foreseeable benefit to our nation.

     Aside from the possibility of setting up a base on the Moon & beginning to populate it?

[Purple State]

While I am very fascinated in everything affiliated with the final frontier, I don't see a purpose to spending massive amounts of funds and brainpower on something that has no foreseeable benefit to our nation.

     Aside from the possibility of setting up a base on the Moon & beginning to populate it?

If I get to be President/Supreme Ruler of the slaves *ahem* I mean colonists, I am all for it.

[Nixon in '80]

When I saw the title of this thread, Patrick Stewart said, "the final frontier," quite audibly, in my head.

Who else is psyched for Star Trek?

Anyway, I'm completely for it.

[memphis]

No. It's a complete waste of money. It's very cool, but of no practical consequence.

[Nhoj]

No. It's a complete waste of money. It's very cool, but of no practical consequence.

[© tweed]

While I am very fascinated in everything affiliated with the final frontier, I don't see a purpose to spending massive amounts of funds and brainpower on something that has no foreseeable benefit to our nation.

civilization existing on just one planet has many, many risks.  one asteroid or comet or massive climate shift or whatever and poof!  game over.  spending money on space exploration is one of the more sensible things we can do with tax dollars.

[Purple State]

While I am very fascinated in everything affiliated with the final frontier, I don't see a purpose to spending massive amounts of funds and brainpower on something that has no foreseeable benefit to our nation.

civilization existing on just one planet has many, many risks.  one asteroid or comet or massive climate shift or whatever and poof!  game over.  spending money on space exploration is one of the more sensible things we can do with tax dollars.

The earth will not thrive on the Moon or Mars. They have no known resources that would allow for sustainable colonization. We can't even effectively make fuel from grass, how will we do it from space dust?

Oh, and just a note, I don't propose slashing away NASA's budget. But no need to go all out and spend excessive amounts on unnecessary projects.

[© tweed]

keep looking and we may find.  there is some evidence of water on Mars and almost certainly there is on the moon.  the NASA budget is nothing compared to what we're giving to Wall Street or the black hole of Iraq.

the idea behind colonizing wouldn't be to move the entire Earth there but rather to keep a handful of people there so that if the Earth becomes suddenly (or gradually) uninhabitable the species will continue, at least for a period of time.  but perhaps it's a waste of time attempting to survive as said survival is unlikely to last past a certain finite amount of years into the future anyway.

it's all a question of what should be valued.

[justfollowingtheelections]

As a world, not as a nation. we should use a process similar to the ISS, and split the gains in resources/ whatever by who invested most in the project and who has continued support. Space forces technological development, and there are resources untapped on the other planets.

I agree.  It's not about how our nation will benefit but about how the entire world will benefit.  We should be working with China, not against them.

And it's not just about populating the moon or Mars.  It's more about exploiting the natural resources that can be found on other planets.

[Boris]

While I am very fascinated in everything affiliated with the final frontier, I don't see a purpose to spending massive amounts of funds and brainpower on something that has no foreseeable benefit to our nation.

civilization existing on just one planet has many, many risks.  one asteroid or comet or massive climate shift or whatever and poof!  game over.  spending money on space exploration is one of the more sensible things we can do with tax dollars.

if current observations of the universe are true, infinite human survival is impossible. Might just be better to die in the comet/gamma ray burst/global warming/whatever than attempt some ill-fated lunge at survival on Mars. What's the point without New York City or Chicago or baseball or U.S. Presidential elections or movies, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe

"mad interesting sh**t," as you long islanders would say. Obviously not everything in that article can be confirmed, but once the stars cease to function and become black dwarfs (no such thing currently exists because the universe is too young) than we're f'ed. done. finished. like Nazi Germany after the Battle of the Bulge. Or maybe even the Soviet Union as early as 1975. Or George W. Bush after Florida was called for Al Gore. You get the picture.

Obviously I favor giving NASA and SETI ridiculous amounts of money because  I'm an astronomy nerd and therefore derive more utility from seeing astronauts on Mars or seeing submarines underneath the surface or Europa or contact with aliens from Vega than, say, a war in Iraq (can get far more exciting footage from fiction in television and movies).

[Lunar]

The world needs to accelerate its space research and expansion if humanity is going to survive and if science is going to prosper.

I don't know if returning to the moon is the best priority and I doubt if such missions should be dick-waving contests between the US, E.U., China, India, and Japan

[John Dibble]

While I am very fascinated in everything affiliated with the final frontier, I don't see a purpose to spending massive amounts of funds and brainpower on something that has no foreseeable benefit to our nation.

I'll give you one foreseeable benefit - technology. A lot of new technology would need to be developed in order to make a manned Mars mission work out. If necessity is the mother of all invention, then we need to make some new necessities, and exploring the cosmos seems a worthy candidate.

[Bacon King]

Or George W. Bush after Florida was called for Al Gore.

So you're saying that hypothetically, if I want to live forever alls I have to do is get the supreme court on my side? Awesome.

[RI]

Personally, I'd like to see a space elevator constructed as soon as safely possible. That would help space exploration greatly. And yes, we must colonize space. Though that is far off and must be done as a global community.

I also kind of wish that they would terraform Mars...but that isn't happening.

[John Dibble]

Personally, I'd like to see a space elevator constructed as soon as safely possible. That would help space exploration greatly.

I'm not a fan of the space elevator idea. There's lots of risks associated with it that could cause it to fail. It would certainly make a juicy target for terrorists, I would imagine, not to mention all the ways it could potentially break on its own.

Personally, I prefer the idea of some sort of mass driver, at least for launching basic materials - humans and delicate equipment would require a track that's several hundred kilometers long, so a different system could be used for that purpose. Either way, since it's ground based it would be much easier to maintain than a vertical elevator.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact that Mars's techtonic system is dead poses a problem to fully terraforming the planet anyways. You might be able to figure out a way to get limited areas terraformed, but long term the planet would lack the natural processes that help the Earth recycle the materials needed for life. Either way though, it's not happening in our lifetime.

[RI]

Personally, I'd like to see a space elevator constructed as soon as safely possible. That would help space exploration greatly.

I'm not a fan of the space elevator idea. There's lots of risks associated with it that could cause it to fail. It would certainly make a juicy target for terrorists, I would imagine, not to mention all the ways it could potentially break on its own.

Personally, I prefer the idea of some sort of mass driver, at least for launching basic materials - humans and delicate equipment would require a track that's several hundred kilometers long, so a different system could be used for that purpose. Either way, since it's ground based it would be much easier to maintain than a vertical elevator.

Anything that is large, important, and ground-based would likely be a target for terrorists, though, as far as I know, there has not been an attempt by terrorists on NASA or the Space Shuttles. I would like to think that if a space elevator was constructed on a 'post-national' basis without political undercurrents that it might stand a chance, but that is probably wishful thinking. Perhaps both an elevator and mass drivers could be employed for differing usages, though there are inherent dangers with both (like all space travel, I suppose). Anyway, that is what I would like to happen, not what likely will.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact that Mars's techtonic system is dead poses a problem to fully terraforming the planet anyways. You might be able to figure out a way to get limited areas terraformed, but long term the planet would lack the natural processes that help the Earth recycle the materials needed for life. Either way though, it's not happening in our lifetime.

It still makes me sad. There are few things that I think would be more incredible than standing on a terraformed world.

[© tweed]

While I am very fascinated in everything affiliated with the final frontier, I don't see a purpose to spending massive amounts of funds and brainpower on something that has no foreseeable benefit to our nation.

civilization existing on just one planet has many, many risks.  one asteroid or comet or massive climate shift or whatever and poof!  game over.  spending money on space exploration is one of the more sensible things we can do with tax dollars.

if current observations of the universe are true, infinite human survival is impossible. Might just be better to die in the comet/gamma ray burst/global warming/whatever than attempt some ill-fated lunge at survival on Mars. What's the point without New York City or Chicago or baseball or U.S. Presidential elections or movies, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe

"mad interesting sh**t," as you long islanders would say. Obviously not everything in that article can be confirmed, but once the stars cease to function and become black dwarfs (no such thing currently exists because the universe is too young) than we're f'ed. done. finished. like Nazi Germany after the Battle of the Bulge. Or maybe even the Soviet Union as early as 1975. Or George W. Bush after Florida was called for Al Gore. You get the picture.

ok, but that is several hundreds of billions of years away if I remember correctly.  by then if we are developed enough we may find parallel universes and things like that.

[Purple State]

While I am very fascinated in everything affiliated with the final frontier, I don't see a purpose to spending massive amounts of funds and brainpower on something that has no foreseeable benefit to our nation.

civilization existing on just one planet has many, many risks.  one asteroid or comet or massive climate shift or whatever and poof!  game over.  spending money on space exploration is one of the more sensible things we can do with tax dollars.

if current observations of the universe are true, infinite human survival is impossible. Might just be better to die in the comet/gamma ray burst/global warming/whatever than attempt some ill-fated lunge at survival on Mars. What's the point without New York City or Chicago or baseball or U.S. Presidential elections or movies, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe

"mad interesting sh**t," as you long islanders would say. Obviously not everything in that article can be confirmed, but once the stars cease to function and become black dwarfs (no such thing currently exists because the universe is too young) than we're f'ed. done. finished. like Nazi Germany after the Battle of the Bulge. Or maybe even the Soviet Union as early as 1975. Or George W. Bush after Florida was called for Al Gore. You get the picture.

ok, but that is several hundreds of billions of years away if I remember correctly.  by then if we are developed enough we may find parallel universes and things like that.

I can't imagine the human race lasting that long.

[© tweed]

there was a time when people not unlike you and me couldn't conceive of something like a telephone.

[Purple State]

Yes, but for the human race to survive tens of billions of years would be an incredible feat.