• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Space programs and their support among the population [W:91]

Your stance on space programs

  • I'm an European and I don't care about space programs

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm Russian and I don't care about space programs

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    57
  • Poll closed .
Space? Sure, but we'll send automated pilots that don't feel G forces and need to eat and piss or be trained...OR RETURN MISSIONS. No shuttle tragedy, no problem.

Sure, we'll start with robots. That's a smart move. Initial risks and the solutions can be established safely with robots first. But robots would do this to pave the way for manned (and womanned) expeditions. Manned exploration is indeed riskier, but also more flexible and adaptable. Once human beings establish themselves in space, that's when the real growth and the real benefit emerges.
 
Here is something on what Goshin was talking about.....

Hubble Reveals Primitive Galaxies Near Cosmic Dawn

458B5ACF-993C-40F4-A5E4-A13952D2B173_w268_r1_cx0_cy3_cw0.jpg


WASHINGTON — Astronomers have used NASA's Earth orbiting Hubble Space Telescope to reveal primitive galaxies -- vast clusters of stars -- that are more than 13 billion years old. One of them might be the oldest ever observed.

A team of scientists used NASA's Hubble Space Telescope for a cosmic "dig" of sorts, peering even deeper into the universe, looking, in effect, even further back in time. They discovered seven previously unseen galaxies that formed more than 13 billion years ago, not that long in cosmic time, after the birth of the universe.

Ellis, along with other astronomers involved in this study, says older galaxies exist, but they are beyond the range of the 23-year-old Hubble telescope. They say they are eager to use Hubble's successor, the James Webb Space Telescope, to see what wonders the universe still has in store, looking even farther back in space and time.

The James Webb telescope is set for launch in 2018.....snip~

Hubble Reveals Primitive Galaxies Near Cosmic Dawn

First_%27Alien_Earth%27_Will_Be-a54ddca1ed39f93a9d51b1cae3fde939
First_%27Alien_Earth%27_Will_Be-5e40b23bd930d78f8f27b23b6156df22


First 'Alien Earth' Will Be Found in 2013, Experts Say
Thu, Dec 27, 2012 - The first truly Earth-like alien planet is likely to be spotted next year, an epic discovery that would cause humanity to reassess its place in the universe.

While astronomers have found a number of exoplanets over the last few years that share one or two key traits with our own world — such as size or inferred surface temperature — they have yet to bag a bona fide "alien Earth." But that should change in 2013, scientists say. "I'm very positive that the first Earth twin will be discovered next year," said Abel Mendez, who runs the Planetary Habitability Laboratory at the University of Puerto Rico at Arecibo.

Planets piling up.

Astronomers discovered the first exoplanet orbiting a sunlike star in 1995. Since they, they've spotted more than 800 worlds beyond our own solar system, and many more candidates await confirmation by follow-up observations. NASA's prolific Kepler Space Telescope, for example, has flagged more than 2,300 potential planets since its March 2009 launch. Only 100 or so have been confirmed to date, but mission scientists estimate that at least 80 percent will end up being the real deal.

The first exoplanet finds were scorching-hot Jupiter-like worlds that orbit close to their parent stars, because they were the easiest to detect. But over time, new instruments came online and planet hunters honed their techniques, enabling the discovery of smaller and more distantly orbiting planets — places more like Earth. Last December, for instance, Kepler found a planet 2.4 times larger than Earth orbiting in its star's habitable zone — that just-right range of distances where liquid water, and perhaps life as we know it, can exist.

The Kepler team and other research groups have detected several other worlds like that one (which is known as Kepler-22b), bringing the current tally of potentially habitable exoplanets to nine by Mendez' reckoning.....snip~

First 'Alien Earth' Will Be Found in 2013, Experts Say - Yahoo! News

They say this year they will find An Alien Earth!
satellite.png
 
Why not so anymore?

Has anyone sent a manned mission to Mars or any other celestial object other than the moon? And weren't the moon landings decades ago?


Might it not be necessary for NASA and ESA to pioneer the methods necessary to do such things, so that private companies know what to expect?

To what end though? My point in emphasizing were was that there are private space programs that can do what we need done ie satellite tracking/repair. As far as Mars, etc, who cares right now? Our country is in a fiscal crisis. Screw the bells and whistles.
 
Of course they are cost prohibitive right now. And they always will be unless we develop cheaper ways to do this. But we will never develop those ways if we shut everything down due to the cost right now.
The point of NASA is to keep pushing the envelope though. They don't stop at the moon, they go to Mars. NASA will always be cost prohibitive because it will always seek to improve and go further.
Actually those jobs that NASA creates is not just in NASA itself. It is also created in the private sector. Indeed that is what that section of wiki was also talking about that I quoted you earlier.
So we can simply move the rest of the them to the private sector then. No biggie right?
And while NASA is profitable the government, including NASA is not out to make profit. All the extra money that NASA makes goes towards other government programs. You can blame Congress for that.
We can blame Congress for a lot of things lol
But that is the thing. The US will ALWAYS be in debt. If you want to talk priorities then you should be taking from those things that cost the most and actually harm us first. Either by triming, shutting down or whatever. It is programs like military spending and welfare that should be cut long before NASA because they actually cause more harm than NASA ever has in its entire history in just a couple of years of their history.
I agree the US will always be in debt. But there's a difference between rising, uncontrollable debt and steady, manageable debt. IMO, priorities should be set as what we need the most, then go from there. Sure, NASA takes a small piece of the pie but when you make concessions for one agency, you make them for all. Every agency can pitch to Congress why their program is SO IMPORTANT and NEEDS to be kept. The video earlier showed that. So if everyone goes in with some awesome speech to pitch their program (job), and the idiots in Congress fall for it (as they tend to do), we are back at square one. All programs should be on the table, I totally agree with you there. But the size of them shouldn't be taken into account. It should be their usefulness to the countries prosperity.
 
Still are important. There are materials that can be made in orbit that cannot easily be made in a gravity well. Space stations, supporting missions to the local asteroids and Mars, would include all sorts of manufacturing facilities that could likewise benefit industry on Earth. This would create jobs, the most reliable way to stimulate any economy, and create a whole plethora of new technological skill sets. The ripple effect of concerted space development would be felt through all the economies of countries that participate. And that's just the warmup.
Can you name some of said materials?
 
To what end though? My point in emphasizing were was that there are private space programs that can do what we need done ie satellite tracking/repair. As far as Mars, etc, who cares right now? Our country is in a fiscal crisis. Screw the bells and whistles.
Perhaps the key viewpoint difference we have is that I do not consider a space program (NASA or otherwise) a "bell and whistle".

Rather, I consider it vital.

Far more so than any of the idiotic attempts at "fixing" the economy that have been made over the past few years.

And frankly, far cheaper.
 
Perhaps the key viewpoint difference we have is that I do not consider a space program (NASA or otherwise) a "bell and whistle".

Rather, I consider it vital.

Far more so than any of the idiotic attempts at "fixing" the economy that have been made over the past few years.

And frankly, far cheaper.
Can you explain why you don't think it's a "bell and whistle" please?
 
Can you name some of said materials?

Here's a very small sampling:

Alloys are produced by melting and mixing different substances into new combinations, then cooling and solidifying the resulting blend. Tests performed on several shuttle missions have proven that in the absence of gravity, uniquely strong metal alloys can be formed. Preliminary estimates made of this market indicate that it could generate revenues between
[...]
The current generation of semi-conductors is approaching a ceiling in speed and power. Experiments done on recent shuttle flights indicate that Micro Gravity semiconductor materials could produce chips as much as a thousand times more powerful than anything now available. The projected market for these new semiconductors could approach $35 to $40 billion annually as lessors of our Space Island facilities reach full production.
[...]
These newly discovered, microscopic devices will have a tremendous variety of uses in our society. But because of their minute size, the most useful MEMS can only be mass produced in orbit, where gravity cannot interfere with their formation. Early estimates are that this market could quickly exceed $10-$20 billion annually.
[...]
Over the last 20 years, experiments done onboard NASA's shuttles have proven that pharmaceuticals produced in space have purities far higher than any produced on Earth. The new medicines developed and manufactured on Space Island Stations and Geodes will completely change the way we treat illness. Lives could be saved and the pain and suffering which could be eliminated, could become our greatest gift to Mankind's future. This market is estimated to be in the $10 billion to $12 billion range.
[...]
This is the most startling use of large, commercial space stations. Based on work he's done with NASA, Dr. J. Milborne Jessup, others at Harvard and at Deaconess Hospital in Boston believe it will be possible to grow genetically matched replacement organs for humans in space. It turns out that in containers in Earth laboratories, elementary human cells replicate themselves up to the point where they change into the specialized cells of organs, them stop.

For some unknown reason no lab has been able to get them to specialize as they do in the womb. But in the womb-like conditions of zero-gravity, this change does occur.

They've tested it on the shuttle. This technology might start with organs like the liver and expand to hearts and lungs. It could eventually include eyes and perhaps even complete limbs, grown in orbit and brought back down for transplant into the patient. Since the genetic material could be taken from the affected individual, there would be no rejection problem as there is with today U.S. transplants.
[...]
Satellite builders must also construct extremely expensive vacuum test chambers to duplicate the conditions of space. How much do you think a car would cost if it were designed to operate 7 or 8 years with absolutely no chance to visit a service station, and if it were assembled underwater - in an environment radically different from were it would operate?

By building a satellite's main components on Earth, launching them to large ET-stations in the unmanned, cargo version of the Dual Launch Vehicle and having the crews test, assemble and retest the satellite in free-floating ET-hangers, their cost could drop to perhaps a quarter of today's. And of course if some component did fail in orbit or if it needed more fuel, help could be just a few minutes away - for a fee.

Space Island Group - Manufacturing
 
A huge amount of scientific progress that we use in our everyday lives came from space exploration. It was a huge boon to technology. Further space exploration is vital to expanding our scientific understanding. Manned exploration is at a standstill for a while, but we have learned amazing things from probe missions, many of which have lead to developments in our everyday lives.
 
Mystery Properties of Black Holes Revealed.....

Now Denmark scientists have come up with what they say are groundbreaking theories that explain several properties of the enigmatic black hole. The scientists’ research indicates black holes have properties similar to the dynamics of both solids and liquids. What’s generally known about black holes is that they’re extremely compact –some are as small as less than .01 mm– and that they can generate a gravitational pull so powerful that anything and everything that comes near them is swallowed up, including light.

We’re not able to see these cosmic vacuum cleaners because any light that does hit them is absorbed rather than being reflected. Black holes were predicted by Einstein’s general theory of relativity but scientists haven’t been able to determine their properties. “Black holes are not completely black, because we know that they emit radiation and there are indications that the radiation is thermal, i.e. it has a temperature,” explains Niels Obers, a professor at the University of Copenhagen.

WRstarBH2close-300x199.jpg

An artist’s drawing shows a large black hole pulling gas away from a nearby star. (NASA)

Obers says one can view black holes like particles. Since, in principle, a particle has no dimensions, it is merely a point. But, if a particle is given an extra dimension –such as a straight line– it then becomes a string. And if you give the string yet an additional dimension, it becomes a plane. Physicists refer to one of these planes as a ‘brane’, similar to the biological term, ‘membrane’. “In string theory, you can have different branes, including planes that behave like black holes, which we call black branes,” Obers says. “The black branes are thermal, that is to say, they have a temperature and are dynamical objects. When black branes are folded into multiple dimensions, they form a ‘blackfold’.”

Obers and his colleagues say they’ve been able to develop their new theories on the physics of black holes based on the principals of these black branes and blackfolds. “The black branes are hydro-dynamic objects, that is to say that they have the properties of a liquid,” says Jay Armas, who also worked on the project. “We have now discovered that black branes also have properties which can be explained in terms of solids. They can behave like elastic material when we bend them.” “With these new theories, we expect to be able to explain other black hole phenomena, and we expect to be able to better understand the physical properties of neutron stars,” said Obers.....snip~

50825_web-300x211.jpg

Artist impression of black branes forming a “blackfold”(

Mystery Properties of Black Holes Revealed « Science World
 
Here's a very small sampling:

Alloys are produced by melting and mixing different substances into new combinations, then cooling and solidifying the resulting blend. Tests performed on several shuttle missions have proven that in the absence of gravity, uniquely strong metal alloys can be formed. Preliminary estimates made of this market indicate that it could generate revenues between
[...]
The current generation of semi-conductors is approaching a ceiling in speed and power. Experiments done on recent shuttle flights indicate that Micro Gravity semiconductor materials could produce chips as much as a thousand times more powerful than anything now available. The projected market for these new semiconductors could approach $35 to $40 billion annually as lessors of our Space Island facilities reach full production.
[...]
These newly discovered, microscopic devices will have a tremendous variety of uses in our society. But because of their minute size, the most useful MEMS can only be mass produced in orbit, where gravity cannot interfere with their formation. Early estimates are that this market could quickly exceed $10-$20 billion annually.
[...]
Over the last 20 years, experiments done onboard NASA's shuttles have proven that pharmaceuticals produced in space have purities far higher than any produced on Earth. The new medicines developed and manufactured on Space Island Stations and Geodes will completely change the way we treat illness. Lives could be saved and the pain and suffering which could be eliminated, could become our greatest gift to Mankind's future. This market is estimated to be in the $10 billion to $12 billion range.
[...]
This is the most startling use of large, commercial space stations. Based on work he's done with NASA, Dr. J. Milborne Jessup, others at Harvard and at Deaconess Hospital in Boston believe it will be possible to grow genetically matched replacement organs for humans in space. It turns out that in containers in Earth laboratories, elementary human cells replicate themselves up to the point where they change into the specialized cells of organs, them stop.

For some unknown reason no lab has been able to get them to specialize as they do in the womb. But in the womb-like conditions of zero-gravity, this change does occur.

They've tested it on the shuttle. This technology might start with organs like the liver and expand to hearts and lungs. It could eventually include eyes and perhaps even complete limbs, grown in orbit and brought back down for transplant into the patient. Since the genetic material could be taken from the affected individual, there would be no rejection problem as there is with today U.S. transplants.
[...]
Satellite builders must also construct extremely expensive vacuum test chambers to duplicate the conditions of space. How much do you think a car would cost if it were designed to operate 7 or 8 years with absolutely no chance to visit a service station, and if it were assembled underwater - in an environment radically different from were it would operate?

By building a satellite's main components on Earth, launching them to large ET-stations in the unmanned, cargo version of the Dual Launch Vehicle and having the crews test, assemble and retest the satellite in free-floating ET-hangers, their cost could drop to perhaps a quarter of today's. And of course if some component did fail in orbit or if it needed more fuel, help could be just a few minutes away - for a fee.

Space Island Group - Manufacturing

This is a great point, however, this is a private group. They don't need NASA to do this anymore. Sure, they benefit from what NASA did. Not from what NASA is doing. Like I said earlier, NASA was a great organization. They gave the whole country a boost when we went to the moon (and when we could afford to do it). However, the only thing they've done since is produce offspring products without any end goal success.
This is very interesting though. A great point to be sure. If NASA started doing this stuff, I may reevaluate my point of view. Especially if they were willing to make it more of a partership where they gave their expertise and advice to the private group to further enhance their ability to do this. Thanks for posting this.
 
This is a great point, however, this is a private group. They don't need NASA to do this anymore. Sure, they benefit from what NASA did. Not from what NASA is doing. Like I said earlier, NASA was a great organization. They gave the whole country a boost when we went to the moon (and when we could afford to do it). However, the only thing they've done since is produce offspring products without any end goal success.
This is very interesting though. A great point to be sure. If NASA started doing this stuff, I may reevaluate my point of view. Especially if they were willing to make it more of a partership where they gave their expertise and advice to the private group to further enhance their ability to do this. Thanks for posting this.

My pleasure.

If I'm a new manufacturer, and I've worked out a foolproof means of injecting air bubbles into molten steel (thus making it very strong and incredibly light), my troubles are not over. I need investors. Since this has to be done in space, I can't just take over an old warehouse and refit it. I need an entire module all to myself in the ISS (International Space Station) or even a new space station. That's a gargantuan up front cost. The fact that I've got an expert team at running the bubble injector is also not my last problem. Every single member of that team needs to know how to put on a space suit in zero-gee. They need to know how to run space station fire-suppression systems and how to operate a zero-gee toilet. They need the mental/emotional capacity to operate in confined spaces for long periods of time. My employees are expensive. They need to know how to operate a lot more than just one systems in a factory. So how do I get investors to buy into this when my up-front costs are already looking astronomical?

This is where NASA steps in. If NASA gets their way, empty modules ready to be occupied would already be available. They've already trained people on how to operate the day-today living equipment aboard a space station. NASA has already run a test manufacturing module to prove the feasibility so everybody knows it can work. And their people can train other people so no one has to reinvent the wheel.

With the road already paved to the frontier and with people already available who are skilled in operating in the frontier, my chances of getting investors for a new manufacturing facility aboard the ISS just shot through the roof. I can actually pull this off. Agencies like NASA and ESA are only there to open the frontier to private enterprise. Without them, private enterprise simply cannot afford the risk. With government agencies assistance, as has been proven time and again, nations can be made rich beyond their wildest dreams.
 
The point of NASA is to keep pushing the envelope though. They don't stop at the moon, they go to Mars. NASA will always be cost prohibitive because it will always seek to improve and go further.

Yep. Pushing the envelope is a good thing though. It improves everyone and every thing. The thing about NASA is that its got some of our most brilliant people working for them, and here is the key word, together. Close NASA down and they will be split apart. What happens to a football team when that happens? They no longer accomplish what it is they were accomplishing. Its like splitting apart the team that just won the super bowl. It just doesn't make sense.

So we can simply move the rest of the them to the private sector then. No biggie right?

Depends on your pov. Would you rather have them working together? Or would you rather have them working for several different companies and thereby not accomplishing what they could together?

We can blame Congress for a lot of things lol

True that! lol

I agree the US will always be in debt. But there's a difference between rising, uncontrollable debt and steady, manageable debt. IMO, priorities should be set as what we need the most, then go from there. Sure, NASA takes a small piece of the pie but when you make concessions for one agency, you make them for all. Every agency can pitch to Congress why their program is SO IMPORTANT and NEEDS to be kept. The video earlier showed that. So if everyone goes in with some awesome speech to pitch their program (job), and the idiots in Congress fall for it (as they tend to do), we are back at square one. All programs should be on the table, I totally agree with you there. But the size of them shouldn't be taken into account. It should be their usefulness to the countries prosperity.

And I would say that out of all the government programs NASA is THE most useful one. Its been far more beneficial to this country than any other program since its inception. What other program do you know of that has contributed to this country with no detriment other than the little bit of money that it gets? Yeah the other government programs may well be able to do what you say. But the reality is most of them comes with some other detriment other than the money they get.

And no, you don't have to make concessions for all programs just because you make concessions for one. That is an illusion. If you have cancer cells in your arm you don't cut the whole arm off. You just cut the cancer cells out.
 
Last edited:
This is a great point, however, this is a private group. They don't need NASA to do this anymore. Sure, they benefit from what NASA did. Not from what NASA is doing. Like I said earlier, NASA was a great organization. They gave the whole country a boost when we went to the moon (and when we could afford to do it). However, the only thing they've done since is produce offspring products without any end goal success.
This is very interesting though. A great point to be sure. If NASA started doing this stuff, I may reevaluate my point of view. Especially if they were willing to make it more of a partership where they gave their expertise and advice to the private group to further enhance their ability to do this. Thanks for posting this.

Why aren't they achieving end goals though? Is it them themselves holding them back? Or our government? Or just plain physics?

From what I've seen...our government and them cutting NASA's funds.
 
Last edited:
Scientists have used a novel technique to probe the nature of dark energy some 10 billion years into the past.

The method relies on bright but distant objects known as quasars to map the spread of hydrogen gas clouds in space.

The 3D distribution of these clouds can be used as a tracer for the influence of dark energy through time.

_59385782_59385781.jpg


It is authored by the BOSS (Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey) team, which uses the 2.5m Sloan Foundation Telescope in New Mexico, US, to make its observations of the sky.

The international group's new data is said to be a very neat fit with theory, confirming ideas that dark energy did not have a dominant role in the nascent Universe. Back then, gravity actually held sway, decelerating cosmic expansion. Only later did dark energy come to the fore.

"So, dark energy is something that increases with time. As the Universe expands, it gives us more space and therefore more energy, and at some point dark energy takes over from gravity to end the deceleration and drive an acceleration," the Portsmouth University, UK, researcher told BBC News.

A number of techniques are being deployed to try to get some insight. One concerns so-called baryon acoustic oscillations.

_64099678_64099677.jpg


These refer to the pressure-driven waves that passed through the post-Big-Bang Universe and which subsequently became frozen into the distribution of matter once it had cooled to a sufficient level.

Today, those oscillations show themselves as a "preferred scale" in the spread of galaxies - a slight excess in the numbers of such objects with separations of 500 million light-years.

It is an observation that can be used as a kind of standard ruler to measure the geometry of the cosmos.

By observing almost 50,000 closely spaced quasars, the BOSS team has now been able to build a detailed 3D map of the distribution of hydrogen gas clouds reaching 11 billion light-years away, and recording an epoch just two billion years after the Big Bang itself.

"Each line of sight may have several hundred clouds, and so with 48,000 quasars we have many millions of these clouds," said Portsmouth colleague Prof Bob Nichol.

The BOSS maps allow scientists to check the pace of expansion at different cosmological epochs, helping them to determine whether gravity and dark energy are behaving as theory predicts.

_61001522_hist_universe464.gif
 
Any combative language is just in good fun :)
Sure, we'll start with robots. That's a smart move. Initial risks and the solutions can be established safely with robots first. But robots would do this to pave the way for manned (and womanned) expeditions. Manned exploration is indeed riskier, but also more flexible and adaptable. Once human beings establish themselves in space, that's when the real growth and the real benefit emerges.

Not really robots, think much bigger. I'm talking AI, the robotics is just metal and electricity, no different than your muscle and blood. It's the intelligence of synethic life that will be the game-changer. Growth in space? That's like an oxymoron. Space is not suitable for life, that's why nothing ****ing lives out there. The idea that just stuffing people into space is somehow a good thing, or beneficial, or some great untapped resource, compared to the opportunity costs that are absurdly plentiful on Earth, where life flourishes, is nuts IMO. The costs of doing anything in space...so staggering, and so pointless (past the current uses of space we have...like satellites and national defense). It's all about ego and Trekkie-emotions IMO, of the generation that did not grow up with computers. The newer generations grew up with computers, the likely understand where the real frontiers our today. It's not in stuffing humans into a desolate, lifeless void, propelling them light years away, and saying "wow, that was useful!". :)

Kstang said:
We haven't even begun to reach much less know our boundaries.
That's just dreamy talk. The fact is that the boundaries on earth are as deep or deeper, FAR more theoretically profitable in terms of resource, human suffering, happiness, etc., etc., AND far cheaper and far less dangerous and far more directly applicable to the economy and national security. The vast distances in space put real, physical limits on what we can achieve there. It's factual, it's irrefutable, and it ensures any calculation of "what we can accomplish in the dead of space", is far and away less significant than what we can do on earth.

And once we do develop it...let's put it this way. Any boundaries or frontiers that humans might dream up, will be not just already dreamed up by AI, but will have been solved in historical record breaking times by it/them. AI will be what dreams the dreams of the future, and Humans if we're lucky, will be in for the ride of our lives (until we replace ourselves with synethic life).

I will say that AI development is also incredible scary. Enough literature has touched on it, but it feels invevitable, and the good appears to far outweight the potential risks.
 
Any combative language is just in good fun :)


Not really robots, think much bigger. I'm talking AI, the robotics is just metal and electricity, no different than your muscle and blood. It's the intelligence of synethic life that will be the game-changer. Growth in space? That's like an oxymoron. Space is not suitable for life, that's why nothing ****ing lives out there. The idea that just stuffing people into space is somehow a good thing, or beneficial, or some great untapped resource, compared to the opportunity costs that are absurdly plentiful on Earth, where life flourishes, is nuts IMO. The costs of doing anything in space...so staggering, and so pointless (past the current uses of space we have...like satellites and national defense). It's all about ego and Trekkie-emotions IMO, of the generation that did not grow up with computers. The newer generations grew up with computers, the likely understand where the real frontiers our today. It's not in stuffing humans into a desolate, lifeless void, propelling them light years away, and saying "wow, that was useful!". :)

Well, if you think about it, life does flourish in space. The Earth is in space, and we're on the Earth. So we're flourishing in space. We're really just on a spaceship called Earth. If you build a space habitat or spaceship or moonbase, we're still flourishing in space. We just have to bring the conditions we need with us and we're golden. We could build habitats in Antarctica or even below the sea, remaining on Earth where life flourishes as you suggest. But unfortunately, both of these locations have hostile environments. Just like in space, we would have to bring our environment with us. Little difference except it would probably be easier to build a space habitat rather than an undersea habitat (high pressure, corrosion).

And the benefits of space are HUGE. The metals you can make in zero-gee environments are simply not possible in a gravity well. Quite possibly the artificial crystals that will make AI possible will likely be made in space because the molecular distribution of material can be evenly distributed. The whopping amount of metals out there in asteroids would put the entire Earth's metal industry to shame. And what about rare-earth metals? More and more, we use rare-earth metals in computers, cell phones, and even cars. But mining for them is toxic to Earth's environment. Not so in space! Nobody breathes space (not willingly anyway) so you can mine rare-earth metals to your heart's content. And what about disposing of toxic materials we cannot recycle? Pack 'em into a rocket and shoot it at the sun. What about nuclear waste? Same thing. No need to worry about nuclear waste any longer. And you needn't worry about polluting the sun; it's a nuclear furnace after all.

And what about Human population? Previous estimates of what the Earth can support have been proven wrong, but can that go on indefinitely? Can the Earth feed Trillions of people? Doubtful. So where else can we go? Space of course. We can build orbiting habitats from the metals found in asteroids, make our own oxygen from water deposits on the moon and Mars and with hydroponics, and feed ourselves with terrestrial life forms living in the habitat with us.

Eventually, we'll have to leave Earth. There's no two ways around it. Either we'll overpopulate the place and turn a beautiful garden into a cesspool, or something big will hit us and make the Earth uninhabitable a different way, anyway. Some may claim that's the natural way of things. The Dinosaurs died out with asteroids, why shouldn't we (they didn't really die, we just call them birds now)? This is the difference between ignorance and stupidity. Dinosaurs were not tool users and therefore could not modify/adapt their environment. When extreme environmental stresses occurred, they were doomed. This was ignorance. Humans, on the other hand, CAN change our environment to suit our needs. This allows us to voyage into places that would not normally support us, and flourish. So since we can adapt to life in space, we should. An Asteroid might hit us tomorrow, or in 50 years or in 1000 years. Nobody knows when. But it would be sheer stupidity to understand the danger yet fail to use our ability to adapt, to our advantage. Dinosaurs were just ignorant. If we don't go into space, we're just stupid.
 
That's just dreamy talk. The fact is that the boundaries on earth are as deep or deeper, FAR more theoretically profitable in terms of resource, human suffering, happiness, etc., etc., AND far cheaper and far less dangerous and far more directly applicable to the economy and national security. The vast distances in space put real, physical limits on what we can achieve there. It's factual, it's irrefutable, and it ensures any calculation of "what we can accomplish in the dead of space", is far and away less significant than what we can do on earth.

And once we do develop it...let's put it this way. Any boundaries or frontiers that humans might dream up, will be not just already dreamed up by AI, but will have been solved in historical record breaking times by it/them. AI will be what dreams the dreams of the future, and Humans if we're lucky, will be in for the ride of our lives (until we replace ourselves with synethic life).

I will say that AI development is also incredible scary. Enough literature has touched on it, but it feels invevitable, and the good appears to far outweight the potential risks.

We've already proven we can get to another planet (several actually). Why haven't we set foot on there yet? You think that our boundary is Earth...yet we've already surpassed being confined to this planet. The only thing weighing you down is your own limitations.
 
My pleasure.

If I'm a new manufacturer, and I've worked out a foolproof means of injecting air bubbles into molten steel (thus making it very strong and incredibly light), my troubles are not over. I need investors. Since this has to be done in space, I can't just take over an old warehouse and refit it. I need an entire module all to myself in the ISS (International Space Station) or even a new space station. That's a gargantuan up front cost. The fact that I've got an expert team at running the bubble injector is also not my last problem. Every single member of that team needs to know how to put on a space suit in zero-gee. They need to know how to run space station fire-suppression systems and how to operate a zero-gee toilet. They need the mental/emotional capacity to operate in confined spaces for long periods of time. My employees are expensive. They need to know how to operate a lot more than just one systems in a factory. So how do I get investors to buy into this when my up-front costs are already looking astronomical?

This is where NASA steps in. If NASA gets their way, empty modules ready to be occupied would already be available. They've already trained people on how to operate the day-today living equipment aboard a space station. NASA has already run a test manufacturing module to prove the feasibility so everybody knows it can work. And their people can train other people so no one has to reinvent the wheel.

With the road already paved to the frontier and with people already available who are skilled in operating in the frontier, my chances of getting investors for a new manufacturing facility aboard the ISS just shot through the roof. I can actually pull this off. Agencies like NASA and ESA are only there to open the frontier to private enterprise. Without them, private enterprise simply cannot afford the risk. With government agencies assistance, as has been proven time and again, nations can be made rich beyond their wildest dreams.

Yep. Pushing the envelope is a good thing though. It improves everyone and every thing. The thing about NASA is that its got some of our most brilliant people working for them, and here is the key word, together. Close NASA down and they will be split apart. What happens to a football team when that happens? They no longer accomplish what it is they were accomplishing. Its like splitting apart the team that just won the super bowl. It just doesn't make sense.



Depends on your pov. Would you rather have them working together? Or would you rather have them working for several different companies and thereby not accomplishing what they could together?



True that! lol



And I would say that out of all the government programs NASA is THE most useful one. Its been far more beneficial to this country than any other program since its inception. What other program do you know of that has contributed to this country with no detriment other than the little bit of money that it gets? Yeah the other government programs may well be able to do what you say. But the reality is most of them comes with some other detriment other than the money they get.

And no, you don't have to make concessions for all programs just because you make concessions for one. That is an illusion. If you have cancer cells in your arm you don't cut the whole arm off. You just cut the cancer cells out.

Why aren't they achieving end goals though? Is it them themselves holding them back? Or our government? Or just plain physics?

From what I've seen...our government and them cutting NASA's funds.

Okay guys, to be honest, I'm tired of debating this topic lol. I'm just making sure I give you the common courtesy of a response as we have had a great debate up to this point. Thanks for staying civil, I think we all know where each other stands, and I look forward to future debates with you.
 
Okay guys, to be honest, I'm tired of debating this topic lol. I'm just making sure I give you the common courtesy of a response as we have had a great debate up to this point. Thanks for staying civil, I think we all know where each other stands, and I look forward to future debates with you.

I've enjoyed it too. Thank you.
 
Back
Top Bottom