Space travel. Is it necessary? Do you support it?

Triad said:

First one "there" wins.

Click to expand...

Only in Master of Orion...or Civilization. All editions.

I support research and development because rivals in other countries are doing the same, but not space travel. The launches into space are spewing enough chemicals into the air to damage human societies, and they're just expensive. Sustainability is necessary for cheaper research programs in space. I'm also against humanity's exploration of the stars in person at this time because we are not socially developed enough. I would not want to inflict our primitive ways upon the rest of the universe. The idea of human colonies, for this reason, is preposterous to me.

When we solve material problems on the ground level, which are essentially the cause of most wars, as well as our tendency to fight over gods and philosophies, we will be in a better position to explore space more extensively. Space has no bearing on those things. It will kill us indiscriminately.

Our sun will go nova in a few billion years. That's the amount of time we have to get off this rock, assuming we even survive the tragedy of the commons we are now creating.

I don't think it's necessary per se (at least right now), but I do support it.

The ROI is a mere fraction and even that is exaggerated by the PR branch of NASA. Considering we have no propulsion system that will approach the speed of light, manned space travel is not in our foreseeable future, not for a thousand years at least. Even at the speed of light, it will take years to get to a habitable planet, as there are NONE in our solar system.
Terraforming of Mars is a joke.
The money could be spent for our problems here at home. Hell, we already HAVE a habitable planet, why don't we take care of the one we have?

Edify_Always_In_All_Ways said:

Kind of cool how a Democratic president was the one who pushed so hard for us to get to the moon, then, huh? I guess they're not all taskmasters or loafers.

The space program is absolutely necessary, both for the innovation it brings and because if we don't colonize space, someone else will and they're going to have the first crack at the infinite resources that lie beyond our atmosphere. I would absolutely die happy if I lived long enough to see the Doomsday clock disabled as we spread into space, and maybe even to see Enrico Fermi's paradox fade away as we found another intelligent life form.

Fermi paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, without public schools we're not going to have many educated colonists, but that's a whole other ball game. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin both graduated from public high schools.

Click to expand...

Trust me, you have absolutely nothing in common with THAT Democrat. Democrats had balls in those days, and didn't whine about cutting trees.

jallman said:

Only in Master of Orion...or Civilization. All editions.

Click to expand...

NERD

(In Civilization I would build the United Nations and as soon as I was elected top-dawg it was over hahaha... The game treats worthless institutions as if they actually functioned).

American said:

Trust me, you have absolutely nothing in common with THAT Democrat. Democrats had balls in those days, and didn't whine about cutting trees.

Click to expand...

First of all, who in their right mind would trust anything you say here?
Second, if someone doesn't "whine" about cutting trees the logging industry in the USA would already be extinct.
And last, what was so ballsy about democrats pre-Kennedy assassination? You mean because JFK tasked NASA with getting us to the moon before the Russians or because of the Cuban Missile Crisis?

jallman said:

Only in Master of Orion...or Civilization. All editions.

Click to expand...

Including Civilizations Ultimate Hardcore Mode.
aka Real Life.

I think they ban it from College campuses in the US..too realistic and it scares the wanna be communists really bad.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Abrogate them.



Space is already "weaponized", since all ICBM's travel above the atmosphere to get to their targets. Also, all nations that can have surveillance sats up there. Information is a potent weapon indeed. China, Russia, and the US have a-sat capability.

Putting missiles on the moon is an essential national security step.



You mean as opposed to establishing safe, reliable, and durable transportation for non-tourists?

Cattle are cattle, are they not?



And if it's determined that permanent residendence in sustained low-gee can extend the human life span by twenty years? What, after all, is the main cause of death in the elderly? Strokes, cardiac problems, other struggles of the body against gravity. Sustained zero-gee is harmful, yes. What about 1/6 gee, strong enough to give an up and down for bodily fluid distributions, not strong enough to strain the muscles and skeleton.

Medicine on earth can't adjust for the gravity parameter, and the human life expectancy has plateaued to the point where gains will be dependent upon whether we can get people to excercise and eat right, and stop shooting each others.

Click to expand...

How are Moon Missiles more effective than Earth Missiles? :lol:

They can be targeted by nations with ICBM's. Change missiles a bit, if at all... and just retarget.
They take MUCH longer to reach Earth, hence China/Russia launches and we are dead in 30 minutes while they have a couple of days to relocate...

...and I have to ask, water on the moon for what, beyond perhaps helping moon colonists grow plants and survive... what? Bring it to Earth?

You can't be serious.

Triad said:

Including Civilizations Ultimate Hardcore Mode.
aka Real Life.

I think they ban it from College campuses in the US..too realistic and it scares the wanna be communists really bad.

Click to expand...

What?

Bodhisattva said:

How are Moon Missiles more effective than Earth Missiles? :lol:

Click to expand...

1) Takes three days for the enemy to reach the missile silos.
2) There's no air to transmit nuclear shock waves, thus greatly reducing the effect of weapons aimed at those silos.
3) The weapons can be launched from the moon electrically without tell tales heat signatures signalling the launch.
4) The missiles arrive on target at 25,000 mph. or more, depending on launch parameters., much faster than standard ICBM's

Bodhisattva said:

They can be targeted by nations with ICBM's. Change missiles a bit, if at all... and just retarget.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Just retarget a missile designed to reach sub-orbital velocity and return to a target on earth to hit a target that requires escaping earth's gravity to reach. Yeah, just pushing a few buttons ought to do the trick....not.

Bodhisattva said:

They take MUCH longer to reach Earth, hence China/Russia launches and we are dead in 30 minutes while they have a couple of days to relocate...

Click to expand...

Never said abandon mainland and submarine based deterrents, did I? No, I said add more. Also, time to target depends on the speed of the projectile.

And, no, they don't have a "couple" of days to scatter. An inert bomb can be accelated at higher rates than human cargos, and the bomb will not be following the minimum energy Hohmann orbits required by the Apollo missions because of weight contraints. If the rail gun flicking the missiles out can acheive a muzzle velocity of 15 km/s, it's possible to hit the earth in a matter of half a day or less.

Or, it's possible to flick them out so they land in over a week, spreading wonderful poisonous cobalt across the enemy's entire country if they don't surrender immediately.

Vengeance weapons are like that.

Bodhisattva said:

...and I have to ask, water on the moon for what, beyond perhaps helping moon colonists grow plants and survive... what? Bring it to Earth?

Click to expand...

Bring lunar water to Earth? That's like sending prostitutes to the US House of Representatives, isn't it? No, lunar water is valuable precisely because it's up there, and we don't have to spend money to put it there.

Bodhisattva said:

You can't be serious.

Click to expand...

Actually, I not only can be, I am.

Water on the Moon would be the most valuable solar system resource ever. It would make lunar colonization possible, and yes, men will always be able to do what robots and telerobotic gadgets cannot. If there's enough water, it can be used directly as fuel, otherwise, it's used to supply the colony and the ships passing through.

Poll 38 to 6 in favor of continuing. Motion carried, manned exploration of space will continue. :mrgreen:


Seriously, are none of you opposers excited about the idea of a new frontier to colonize? If not for yourself and your kids, for your grandkids or great-great's?

Goshin said:

Poll 38 to 6 in favor of continuing. Motion carried, manned exploration of space will continue. :mrgreen:


Seriously, are none of you opposers excited about the idea of a new frontier to colonize? If not for yourself and your kids, for your grandkids or great-great's?

Click to expand...

I've talked to a lot of those foolish people. Their opposition to Man taking his rightful place among the stars are based on:

The government should be spending that money on Earth, not in space.

I guess they never figured out that NASA doesn't actually take that money up in crates and scatter it among the aliens.

Man shouldn't pollute the pristine environment of the moon.

Yeah, I've heard 'em actually say that.

The money should be spent on something useful, like welfare.

I've never had a use for burdens living at the expense of others, outside of votes, I'm not sure what the Left gets from them, either. Probably guilt, for which they need my money to assuage.

They've got an unlimited supply of truly stupid excuses.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

I've talked to a lot of those foolish people. Their opposition to Man taking his rightful place among the stars are based on:

Click to expand...

Exploration should continue without a doubt, just leave the nukes on Earth, or prepare a contingency at least.

Man shouldn't pollute the pristine environment of the moon.

Click to expand...

Nukes wouldn't do that, no... not at all.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Yeah. Just retarget a missile designed to reach sub-orbital velocity and return to a target on earth to hit a target that requires escaping earth's gravity to reach. Yeah, just pushing a few buttons ought to do the trick....not.

Click to expand...

So you throw out the idea simply because it is difficult? Alrighty then... :roll:

Bodhisattva said:

So you throw out the idea simply because it is difficult? Alrighty then... :roll:

Click to expand...

No, you're rejecting the use of a lunar base as a national defense asset, not I.

I answered your objection with solid fact.

One of the reasons space is a strategic asset, and WILL be whether some want it to or not, is the energy superiority of higher orbital positions. Anyone familiar with the Flying Crowbar concept?

Take a bunch of crowbars. Put a small retrorocket on each, guidance fins, a simple computer, radio and sensors. Stick a little patch of ablative stuff on the leading edge. Put them in orbit.

You can drop them almost anywhere on the globe, and the sheer kinetic energy of their impact (absent any nukes or explosives!) will shred tanks, sink ships, smash bases, and so on.

Higher orbit, higher potential kinetic energy. Cheap too.


G

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

No, you're rejecting the use of a lunar base as a national defense asset, not I.

I answered your objection with solid fact.

Click to expand...

I am talking about that one specific issue, re-routing missiles to the moon. It is absolutely possible and you ignored it... I also can and have used solid fact... so? Taking nukes to the moon is a bad idea, not to mention that nobody owns the moon, unless you are using the whole "finders keepers" smoking gun of an argument.

Bodhisattva said:

I am talking about that one specific issue, re-routing missiles to the moon. It is absolutely possible and you ignored it... I also can and have used solid fact... so? Taking nukes to the moon is a bad idea, not to mention that nobody owns the moon, unless you are using the whole "finders keepers" smoking gun of an argument.

Click to expand...

No, it's not possible, they don't have the ability to get there. They're not even designed to achieve low earth orbit, let alone go past that.

And what's wrong with the notion that someone that pays to discover an asset should be the one, and the only one at that, who gets to exploit it and profit from it?

Did Uruguay subsidize Neil Armstrong and the other astronauts?

No.

So why should they have a single word of input on what the United States does with whatever it can find on the Moon?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

No, it's not possible, they don't have the ability to get there. They're not even designed to achieve low earth orbit, let alone go past that.

And what's wrong with the notion that someone that pays to discover an asset should be the one, and the only one at that, who gets to exploit it and profit from it?

Did Uruguay subsidize Neil Armstrong and the other astronauts?

No.

So why should they have a single word of input on what the United States does with whatever it can find on the Moon?

Click to expand...

It is about getting missiles to the moon, and that does not include only ICBMS, this is your thing, not mine. Nations can and would get missiles that could get to the moon.

We have enough nukes and there is no logical reason that we need to take some to the moon. We could blow up the Earth enough times without ****ing up the moon and planets beyond.

Bodhisattva said:

It is about getting missiles to the moon, and that does not include only ICBMS, this is your thing, not mine.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's because that's what the arsenals contain at this time.

How cost effective is it for nations to maintain an arsenal of lunar attack missiles when the effectiveness of those warheads is minimal, the location of the launch site can be presumed hidden, and the act of launching an attack at those bases would be presumed by the owner of those bases as the first strike attack of a nuclear war and will retaliate long long before the attacking missiles can arrive, that being the nature of having the orbital high ground in the first place?

Let's, the rockets to attack a lunar base will be liquid fueled, since solids just don't have the power to do the job, and that adds all sorts of problems.

The avenging missiles will be out of their silos and dropping towards earth DAYS before the attacking missiles arrive. That's an issue of concern, I'd say.

And yet those avending missiles can be routed so that it could take weeks to reach their targets, if desired, giving the defenders a long time to negotiate the surrender of the attackers.

What is clear that a nuclear missile base on the moon holds all the advantages, none of the disadvantages in this exchange.

So why not do it, when it would contribute to other, commercial successes?

Bodhisattva said:

Nations can and would get missiles that could get to the moon.

Click to expand...

Only Russia has demonstrated the ability to launch such weapons to date.

Bodhisattva said:

We have enough nukes

Click to expand...

Not really, that bumbling ass that left office reduced the number of warheads to two thousand or so, the ignorant Kumbaya Messiah that took his place is talking about dropping the number to a thousand. No where near enough for strong deterrence.

Bodhisattva said:

and there is no logical reason that we need to take some to the moon. We could blow up the Earth enough times without ****ing up the moon and planets beyond.

Click to expand...

We can't blow up the Earth, not once. Maybe we should build a Lexx, the issue is debatable, since we lack the technology. We probably don't have the ability to even destroy the human race any more. (I bet that pisses PETA off.)

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Yeah, that's because that's what the arsenals contain at this time.

How cost effective is it for nations to maintain an arsenal of lunar attack missiles when the effectiveness of those warheads is minimal, the location of the launch site can be presumed hidden, and the act of launching an attack at those bases would be presumed by the owner of those bases as the first strike attack of a nuclear war and will retaliate long long before the attacking missiles can arrive, that being the nature of having the orbital high ground in the first place?

Let's, the rockets to attack a lunar base will be liquid fueled, since solids just don't have the power to do the job, and that adds all sorts of problems.

The avenging missiles will be out of their silos and dropping towards earth DAYS before the attacking missiles arrive. That's an issue of concern, I'd say.

And yet those avending missiles can be routed so that it could take weeks to reach their targets, if desired, giving the defenders a long time to negotiate the surrender of the attackers.

What is clear that a nuclear missile base on the moon holds all the advantages, none of the disadvantages in this exchange.

So why not do it, when it would contribute to other, commercial successes?

Click to expand...

It might be the best course of action, at this time though, I think that weapons on the moon would create more problems than solutions, though I am reading up on China and its threat regarding the use of laser beams at our satellites. MAybe it would be a good idea, though how do we stop others from doing the same... Russia or China, both with the ability to do so?

Only Russia has demonstrated the ability to launch such weapons to date.

Click to expand...

And that will change...

Not really, that bumbling ass that left office reduced the number of warheads to two thousand or so, the ignorant Kumbaya Messiah that took his place is talking about dropping the number to a thousand. No where near enough for strong deterrence.

Click to expand...

:shock:

I decided to look up the numbers and was shocked to see how low we let our "strategic" stockpile get, I assumed it was still around ten thousand or so. That being said, we still have an estimated 9,400 nuclear weapons of strategic and non-strategic, or tactical, grade, of which about 2,700 are operational.

We can't blow up the Earth, not once. Maybe we should build a Lexx, the issue is debatable, since we lack the technology. We probably don't have the ability to even destroy the human race any more. (I bet that pisses PETA off.)

Click to expand...

That is obviously just a figure of speech. Like I said, I was shocked to see how few nukes we have now, that is not good. MAD was a really sound doctrine and with the potential threat of the Chinese, as remote as it might be, we should not relinquish our dominance in the nuclear arena.

If all weapons were used in an all out war, the human race would be hurt heavily... not wiped out, we are too technilogically advanced for that, even if we had 1960's numbers of nukes.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Water on the Moon would be the most valuable solar system resource ever. It would make lunar colonization possible,

Click to expand...

A) There is no actual evidence that water on the moon even EXISTS. B) It would be much cheaper to terraform Mars than to terraform the Moon.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

and yes, men will always be able to do what robots and telerobotic gadgets cannot.

Click to expand...

No they won't. There is not a single thing that can be accomplished by astronauts on foreign worlds that cannot be accomplished by robots on those same foreign worlds. The only difference is that the robots can do it more cheaply, safely, and efficiently. And as technology improves, that gap will just continue to increase.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

If there's enough water, it can be used directly as fuel, otherwise, it's used to supply the colony and the ships passing through.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence that there is ANY water on the Moon. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to actually learn the answer to that question before getting so worked up about the concept of lunar colonies supplied by lunar water?

Furthermore, even if there is water ice on the Moon, why do you care so much about colonizing it right now? What's so important that it can't wait a while until we have solved some problems on Earth and we have the technology to actually make a lunar colony less-than-ridiculously-impractical? The Moon is still going to be there in 20, 50, or 100 years.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

I've talked to a lot of those foolish people. Their opposition to Man taking his rightful place among the stars are based on:

The government should be spending that money on Earth, not in space.

I guess they never figured out that NASA doesn't actually take that money up in crates and scatter it among the aliens.

Click to expand...

And money spent on health care and education doesn't just disappear into a black hole. So what's your point?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

The money should be spent on something useful, like welfare.

Click to expand...

At least government is providing society with SOMETHING in that case, even if it's inefficient. In the case of pointless stunts like sending humans to other worlds, the taxpayers get absolutely nothing for their money. Nada.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

I've never had a use for burdens living at the expense of others, outside of votes, I'm not sure what the Left gets from them, either. Probably guilt, for which they need my money to assuage.

Click to expand...

You're a ****ing idiot. You bitch and moan about "socialists" voting themselves access to "your money," then you turn around and do exactly the same thing when it's YOUR pet program on the chopping block.