Sad at the lake of space advancement

[IIamaKing]

There's a lot we don't know, but let's be realistic, there's not THAT much we don't know. I mean, we know a LOT of stuff, it's not like 1000 years ago when we didn't know where rain comes from. Scientific breakthroughs have been basically slowing down a lot. I mean, we've progressed stuff a whole bunch, sure. You can fit a camera, a calendar, a jukebox, a computer, a compass and a torch all inside a phone now, but our advancements are mostly evolutionary now, rather than revolutionary. Building the first plane, discovering antibiotics, combustion engines... this is stuff that like... changes stuff forever, for everyone. Completley revolutionises the world, lets new stuff that we never even dreamed of happen. A few hundred years ago this kind of stuff happens like from one year to the next... now you're lucky to hvae something happen in your lifetime, you know?

I know that's all like, tempting fate and like "oh well X years ago such-and-such said we'd never blah blah blah and now look" and like "the wisest people just know how little they know and ignorent people think they know everything" and stuff, but actually look at the advancements we've made and put them into evolutionary or revolutionary categories. Most recent ones have been evolutionary, and that's not enough to get interstellar travel. You can't just beef up a combustion engine or a rocket untill you get there.

It kind of hard to judge how much you do not know. I would imagine we know 1/10000000000000000000000000000 of knowable knowledge or less.

[Merite]

Realistically we need to figure out things like power generation far before we're able to legitimately do much in space. Until you could basically go to Antarctica and build a self-sustaining city that can survive for years without restocking, and is large enough for hundreds of thousands of people, with relative ease, colonization is a pipe dream.

SpaceX on the other hand is neat, privatization is fine by me; billionaires who want to go to space are funding that, that's fine by me. Elon Musk attracts some solid intelligent people who can do a lot and Tesla's stance on patents makes me hope SpaceX will be similar if they develop anything of value.

[PACOX]

We used staged rockets because they are cost effective at getting our asses off the ground and customizable.

Mars is a political buzzword. No one really wants to go to Mars anytime soon, it would just be a huge cash dump and publicity stunt. To do it the right way we must first learn how to live prolonged periods in space, think ISS but better. We need to be able to utilize asteroids for fuel, we need a station to launch and dock from, ideally a station in orbit around Mars and a station someone near Earth.


And we've have done a lot in the way or probes and robots. One problem though is that the US is the only country that really has that area down. Dropping Curiosity onto Mars was no small feat. Cassini is kind of a big deal, and don't forget New Horizon which is the fastest probe built so far. We're able to see distances that are unfathomable to the human mind. I'm talking millions of galaxies millions of light years away, compare that to how we recently (relatively speaking) that we discovered Neptune, Pluto, and more recently other dwarf planets like Ceres and Sedna.

Be patient, we just started to get our feet wet. You couldn't call space semi comfortable before the ISS.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

I dont think that NASA always was the most efficient on things.

I'd still rather see me tax dollars going to something like NASA than supporting some woman and her 8 kids.

NASA employs women and some of them have children, so by your logic you shouldn't support NASA.

[Zethras]

First - the earth has plenty of room for more people. IF it gets too crowded, those areas will adjust. If food becomes scarce, then the environment will introduce a "cleansing" mechanism to reduce the population. Nature has a way.

Second - the probability of any other planets being hospitable are extremely minute.

So, it comes back to God creating only one place for man. When HE decides to change things, he will.

That's a dangerous and flamebaity thing to say on the internet, friend.

[Mahourai]

Space travel is a black hole of money and effort, but when we're spending trillions developing ways to kill civilians in the Middle East, throwing money into a black hole is probably a better investment.

[Revi]

You dont seem to have a clue in what your talking about. At a point in the near future. within our lifetimes earth will be over populated. That is not an opinion thats a fact based on population growth, We have to send the population off planet or we will starve ourselfs to death.

That doesn't mean we have no other choice than space travel tough, that just means the population will have to stabilize, potentially even decline severely after overburdening the ecosystem. Our future could very well be only on earth until the planet itself is made inhospitable by some external force. There's a very real chance we never develop the technology to reach another hospitable planet, at this point we don't even know if it's possible (possibly in theory is not the same as possibly in practice).

Whether we want to reduce the population rate or not, it will happen at some point, That doesn't somehow mean our only option is space travel, not for potentially millions of years. And as Erin has pointed out, there's very little motivation to send off people on a one-way ticket to another planet when there's nothing to be gained for everyone left on earth, no matter how good it feels to know that the human race will live on somewhere else.

That said, I absolutely support more funding for space exploration, but only because it leads to so many extraordinary breakthroughs that we can use to better planet Earth.

[May90]

I dont think that NASA always was the most efficient on things.

I'd still rather see me tax dollars going to something like NASA than supporting some woman and her 8 kids.

You are only saying that because you are in better position than that woman, actually in such a good position that you can spend your free time chatting on forums and gaming instead of working every second just to survive. Were you that woman, your opinion would be different.

Science cannot function well long-term in a poor nation. First you need to satisfy people's needs, then you can think about something that happens beyond the Earth. Otherwise you are going to end up as Soviets did: they spent all the money they had on military and space development, while their citizens starved and their work efficiency dropped drastically - then, once the basic needs overweighted all that space stuff, they crashed. The only reason you guys can spend your taxes on NASA is that the woman and her 8 kids are able to live well.

[Zeta333]

That doesn't mean we have no other choice than space travel tough, that just means the population will have to stabilize, potentially even decline severely after overburdening the ecosystem. Our future could very well be only on earth until the planet itself is made inhospitable by some external force. There's a very real chance we never develop the technology to reach another hospitable planet, at this point we don't even know if it's possible (possibly in theory is not the same as possibly in practice).

If we wait untill its to late then its to late. Mars is more than habitable it just needs a teraforming. There are several moons in system that we can establish bases on. I honestly think earth is a lost cause and would gladly leave it behind to wollow in its own wastes.

- - - Updated - - -

You are only saying that because you are in better position than that woman, actually in such a good position that you can spend your free time chatting on forums and gaming instead of working every second just to survive. Were you that woman, your opinion would be different.

Its her fault shes in that position so she should fix it herself not other people.

[Mahourai]

That doesn't mean we have no other choice than space travel tough, that just means the population will have to stabilize, potentially even decline severely after overburdening the ecosystem. Our future could very well be only on earth until the planet itself is made inhospitable by some external force. There's a very real chance we never develop the technology to reach another hospitable planet, at this point we don't even know if it's possible (possibly in theory is not the same as possibly in practice).

Whether we want to reduce the population rate or not, it will happen at some point, That doesn't somehow mean our only option is space travel, not for potentially millions of years. And as Erin has pointed out, there's very little motivation to send off people on a one-way ticket to another planet when there's nothing to be gained for everyone left on earth, no matter how good it feels to know that the human race will live on somewhere else.

Yeah, if the only option for the continued survival of the human race in the short term (short term meaning hundreds or thousands of years) is space travel, then we're dead, because space travel is a worthless boondoggle that won't go anywhere.

[Realsykes]

According to what we understand now. There is so much we don't yet know. And it's feasible to the point that NASA is already investigating the warp drive. It's shortsighted to say that 'it's impossible.'

Devil's advocate, and saying maybe we, in this lifetime, will reach our limit. That's another idea, which really sucks.

[Adam Jensen]

If we wait untill its to late then its to late. Mars is more than habitable it just needs a teraforming. There are several moons in system that we can establish bases on. I honestly think earth is a lost cause and would gladly leave it behind to wollow in its own wastes.

Terraform?

Have you seen the Water of Mars episode of Doctor Who?

That's a perfectly viable and doable Mars base they had set up on that show. A few enclosed domes, a garden for growing food, remote controlled robots for going outside. Honestly, it appeared like a pretty fair prediction of what we could do on Mars and even gave a reasonable date of 2050-something.

Do we really need to terraform the whole planet? A modular self-enclosed structure should do, at least at the start. Terraforming would take a massive financial strain. A modular structure, we could just keep adding to it as needed.

[Revi]

If we wait untill its to late then its to late. Mars is more than habitable it just needs a teraforming.

"just needs a teraforming" Like that's something remotely possible with our current knowledge and technology.

I honestly think earth is a lost cause and would gladly leave it behind to wollow in its own wastes.

So would many others, but you wouldn't be the one chosen.

[Mahourai]

The "warp drive" is Impossible, unless you have no problem with your ship's engine either a) disproving the concept of free will b) destroying existence when causality breaks down. It isn't like powered flight where we just didn't build it the right way or have the right materials. With any FTL system, including NASA's proposed ship, you would violate causality or demonstrate a deterministic universe. Both options are as unspeakably awful as they are impossible.

[Lilly32]

we just need a good global extinction event like a rogue comet heading our way or maybe the death of our sun. That will light a fire under their asses at NASA to do something. Its amazing what people will come together and do when faced with extinction.

[Realsykes]

Terraform?

Have you seen the Water of Mars episode of Doctor Who?

That's a perfectly viable and doable Mars base they had set up on that show. A few enclosed domes, a garden for growing food, remote controlled robots for going outside. Honestly, it appeared like a pretty fair prediction of what we could do on Mars and even gave a reasonable date of 2050-something.

Do we really need to terraform the whole planet? A modular self-enclosed structure should do, at least at the start. Terraforming would take a massive financial strain. A modular structure, we could just keep adding to it as needed.

I hate to rag on you dude, but using science fiction like Dr. Who is not a good argument when comparing the reality of the actual world.

[eja216]

So you're upset that in a poor economic period, we aren't wasting quite as ridiculous an amount of funding on something that's utterly pointless?

"Right now, NASA’s annual budget is half a penny on your tax dollar."

[Kalis]

I hate to rag on you dude, but using science fiction like Dr. Who is not a good argument when comparing the reality of the actual world.

It was a more practical solution than the person who said that Mars just needs terraforming, as they seem to have got their scientific knowledge of what we are capable of from Star Trek 3: The Search for Spock.

[echoSAW]

The lake of space advancement is a rather sad place. So cold and dark...not to mention all the lake monsters who are also advanced. In space.

[Neganova]

There's a lot we don't know, but let's be realistic, there's not THAT much we don't know.

This... This statement is just... This is just all kinds of ridiculous.

What's dark matter? Where does it come from? Can it be produced? Does it decay? Why doesn't it interact with light? Is it even a type of matter or do the laws of gravity need another tweak?

And why is the Universe not only expanding, but expanding at an accelerating rate? "Dark energy," yes, but what is dark energy? Is it another form of matter?

And where the hell is all of our Universe's lithium?

Those are just some of the currently unsolved (i.e. not unsolvable) mysteries kicking around today. There is so, so much we don't know.