Space program coming to an end

    Quote from Rick_D

    the only problem with space exploration is that it isn't 1950 anymore and we know there's nothing out there except certain death for anyone stupid enough to try.

    The Apollo program created $14 for every $1 it cost (according to Brian Cox), through jobs, technology etc.

    One asteroid could contain the entire world's wealth in raw materials.

    NASA is also a science organisation so learning about the history/geology of planets, possibility of life etc by exploring those is a valid use of its funds, even if people don't see any direct benefits to their lives.

    Quote from the0rthopaedicsurgeon

    One asteroid could contain the entire world's wealth in raw materials.

    how will they get it?

    Quote

    NASA is also a science organisation so learning about the history/geology of planets, possibility of life etc by exploring those is a valid use of its funds, even if people don't see any direct benefits to their lives.

    agree, it's a noble endeavour and i don't think we should stop exploring science because it costs too much. but the practicality of getting a man on mars, for some possible water, is so beyond our means that it's for all intents and purposes impossible.

    all i meant was that we're never going to have people flying around spaceships exploring the universe or even the galaxy. science fiction glamourised it but the more we learn about space, for all its' incredible beauty, it is just somethign we cannot hope to explore.

    i hope i am proved wrong.

    i was gonna respond with mining to your post rick, but honestly we have a long way to go before extraterrestrial mining will become a feasible endeavor. we basically need speed if we want to do something in space, and propulsion is sadly a long way off. generation ships may work, but each of such ships would likely require an entire country's resources to build and function properly.

    It just makes no sense to send people where the job can be done better, faster, and more safely by a robot. No risk of human life. No one sitting in a can for months/years during transit. And you don't have to worry about getting it back, the robot can just hang out there for eternity. The moon, and maybe Mars are the only reasonable places for a human to go. Neither has anything to do with the space shuttle, though.

    Quote from twiz

    It just makes no sense to send people where the job can be done better, faster, and more safely by a robot. No risk of human life. No one sitting in a can for months/years during transit. And you don't have to worry about getting it back, the robot can just hang out there for eternity. The moon, and maybe Mars are the only reasonable places for a human to go. Neither has anything to do with the space shuttle, though.

    exoplanets...

    Humans will walk on Mars like they did on the Moon. It's just a matter of time. Look at the technology leap humanity did since the 20th century. It won't stop. It won't slow down. Unless there's a nuclear war // major fckup of any kind.

    why would they do it? there's no space race or cold war that forces competition to get a manned craft to mars. there is nothing on mars we can't find with robots, and possibly nothing we'd need humans for there in the first place. maybe for colonization, but that is seriously far fetched.

    but then why climb everest, trek to the poles or sail around the world? obviously national pride played a part back then, but landing on the moon was the biggest achievement in human history, mars would be that x100.

    we can't walk on mars. not only would it cost BILLIONS of dollars, but anyone who got close would be obliterated by the radiation/atmospheric particles.

    like i said: space is fucked up.

    lol.

    Quote from the0rthopaedicsurgeon

    but then why climb everest, trek to the poles or sail around the world? obviously national pride played a part back then, but landing on the moon was the biggest achievement in human history, mars would be that x100.

    i don't think you realize the difference in distance. mt everest is ~5 kms tall, the entire world around the equator spans around 40 000 kms. space is 100 times that for just our nearest potentially inhabitable planet, nevermind the milky way or deep space. i mean there's a reason it's called a light year, and there's a reason that distance is not fathomable by the human goddamn mind.

    if you're asking for a reason to go when robots can do the job, then the distance is completely irrelevant. i'm just pointing out that with that mindset, climbing everest or whatever would also be a waste of time, however tall it is, but people have been explorers for as long as there have been people. the reason, as edmund hillary said, should be 'because it's there'.

    but anyway, i'd still rather see more probes sent to titan and europa if you've got limited funds, you'd potentially get far better rewards : cost/risk.

    Quote from the0rthopaedicsurgeon

    but anyway, i'd still rather see more probes sent to titan and europa if you've got limited funds, you'd potentially get far better rewards : cost/risk.

    qft we know there's water on europa and i would really know if there is life under that raw of ice!

    Quote from the0rthopaedicsurgeon

    if you're asking for a reason to go when robots can do the job, then the distance is completely irrelevant. i'm just pointing out that with that mindset, climbing everest or whatever would also be a waste of time, however tall it is, but people have been explorers for as long as there have been people. the reason, as edmund hillary said, should be 'because it's there'.but anyway, i'd still rather see more probes sent to titan and europa if you've got limited funds, you'd potentially get far better rewards : cost/risk.

    robots have no real catch because they don't need to return. once they are out, they can stay out.

    oh and everest didn't require surpassing the speed of light to climb. just saying.

    EDIT: keep in mind that i'm not saying explorers are bad, i consider myself one (or at least i suffer from a serious case of wanderlust), i'm just not getting carried away because i know it'll be a long time before we invent anything capable of surpassing the speed of light.

    technically we will never be able to go as fast as light, and it's impossible to surpass it, unless we learn something that fundamentally changes how we view the universe - which would be pretty exciting on it's own. but the constant of light speed has been pretty much observed and tested, so we would need something like wormholes in order to travel around and even if we could find an abundance of them, and they acted like some people theorise, we still wouldn't be able to choose where we wanted to go.

    we are magnificent apes, but we're not gods.

    another problem with even approaching the speed of light is that anybody who undertook the trip would return to an earth many decades in the future, with no guarantee that things would be remotely the same, depending on the length of the trip they could possibly return to find something like Planet of the Apes.

    carl sagan can explain it wonderfully, as always:

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    although he seems confident if we can reach close to lightspeed that because time slows down for the traveler we have a way of travelling huge distances. but it's a one way trip.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login