I don't think we should spend a large amount of money on it at the moment, but maybe more so in the future. We have issues that need to be fixed and have money spent on here before we can take them to outer space.
That's correct.
At least we need the human race to stop killing its own population before even thinking of spreading it.
How should we get there? Some people think we should build a moon base, then build the ship and prepare there. Others think we should launch from earth. What do you think makes the most sense?
Building the ship on the moon and launching from there makes the most sense. It would be less difficult to launch out of the moon's orbit, and would probably save a lot of money. Then again, building a ship takes a large amount of effort and supplies, so the cost of taking all the supplies and people to the moon to build it may be too much. I guess I'm not really sure about how we would do it.
So, to Mars then. I have a question for everyone. I know there are two camps here and there was a pretty big debate over it.
How should we get there? Some people think we should build a moon base, then build the ship and prepare there. Others think we should launch from earth. What do you think makes the most sense?
Quote from Feryll »
By "cut off the fingers" I mean take away the means of causing warfare (you can't pull a trigger without fingers). America would probably be included, along with the Middle East. The horribly unstable areas like Libya would also be in there. I'd rather China have some reforms, as well, but now I'm just ranting.
I would definitely include America. We have been constantly involved in warfare since the Vietnam. I was just asking because I was wondering if you were one of those 'Defenders of Liberty' types, where America is exempt from criticism because, we're fighting for democracy, man.
I doubt we could build a ship on the moon better than one on Earth. They're practically no resources to build anything with on the moon, so if we did build one there, it'd be made out of all Earth materials, which is silly. But there are advantages to launching from the moon; maybe once we are opulent enough, we'll be able to launch routine rockets to Mars that way.
On your other point, why would you even care about something like that on a thread like this? It doesn't really matter "what" I am, but rather what I propose.
How should we get there? Some people think we should build a moon base, then build the ship and prepare there. Others think we should launch from earth. What do you think makes the most sense?
Building the ship on the moon and launching from there makes the most sense. It would be less difficult to launch out of the moon's orbit, and would probably save a lot of money. Then again, building a ship takes a large amount of effort and supplies, so the cost of taking all the supplies and people to the moon to build it may be too much. I guess I'm not really sure about how we would do it.
we can build a small space-dock in LEO like we did the ISS. It's job will be to assemble the ship piece by piece so we wont have to send them up as whole objects on huge rockets.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
join off topic IRC at #otter on esper.net, there is cake*
*there may or may not be cake
The amount of blind national pride in America is shocking. You here people saying "I don't want Russia to go to the Moon! It should just be the US!" and it drives me up the wall. Once we can get past that, we'll be good.
Since 2001, one trillion dollars have been spent on wars. Counting inflation, one hundred and thirty five billion was spent on the Apollo programs. And most of that was spent on researching new technology. Imagine what that trillions dollars could do for the Space Program. Multiple missions to Mars. A colony on the Moon.
Building a rocket on the Moon or in orbit would be a waste of both time and money. It is possible to assemble multiple pre-launched segments that are already in orbit, but assembling a whole mission in space would incredibly time intensive, and would cost much more.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it - Phil Plait
I agree with the moon base idea. Initially it would cost a lot to set up. But once we have the base built, we could take more time to assemble the ships on the moon. It's far less dangerous to build on the moon than in orbit.
One other idea I read about is launching two ships from Earth, directly to mars. One would have the crew, and the other with supplies. The supply ship would launch first, then the crew ship would follow. I don't really like the idea of separating the crew from the supplies. What would happen if the supply ship failed and the crew couldn't recover it? They would all die on Mars.
Quote from Feryll »
On your other point, why would you even care about something like that on a thread like this? It doesn't really matter "what" I am, but rather what I propose.
I didn't say it mattered, I said I was wondering. :tongue.gif:
I believe what you're thinking of is Mars Direct, which is still considered to be the most reasonable Mars exploration proposal.
Another thing that many people consider might be worth it is a modified Mars Direct, called Mars to Stay, which would provide the first "Settlers" more facilities for the astronauts. It's considered unique because of it also includes the possibility of sending non-scientists personnel, and doesn't have a proposal on how to get them back.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it - Phil Plait
Yeah, that's the one I was thinking of. I don't really like the idea of separating the crew from their supplies. Maybe I'm being overly cautious, we have sent a few ships to mars already. But still, if I was on a ship to Mars, and my only way back was on another ship, I would be pretty nervous.
One other idea I read about is launching two ships from Earth, directly to mars. One would have the crew, and the other with supplies. The supply ship would launch first, then the crew ship would follow. I don't really like the idea of separating the crew from the supplies. What would happen if the supply ship failed and the crew couldn't recover it? They would all die on Mars.
Well, it's either that or die on Earth :smile.gif: Not to sound cold-hearted, but I think casualties regarding space exploration shouldn't be a huge issue until civilians start going up in rockets. There are probably more than a handful of people who would take a one-way trip to Mars, even if it meant dying after a month of being there.
Many people are concerned for the safety of Astronauts, but yet they seem too forget that the Astronauts accept the risks. I doubt that Space flight will be truly open to the public until its danger levels are on par with flying in a plane, and require no training.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it - Phil Plait
One other idea I read about is launching two ships from Earth, directly to mars. One would have the crew, and the other with supplies. The supply ship would launch first, then the crew ship would follow. I don't really like the idea of separating the crew from the supplies. What would happen if the supply ship failed and the crew couldn't recover it? They would all die on Mars.
Well, it's either that or die on Earth :smile.gif: Not to sound cold-hearted, but I think casualties regarding space exploration shouldn't be a huge issue until civilians start going up in rockets. There are probably more than a handful of people who would take a one-way trip to Mars, even if it meant dying after a month of being there.
Interesting, I hadn't thought of it that way. Hmmm, in that case, I would rather die on Mars.
I think I'm still in favor of the moon base. Although one of the drawbacks is the cost of maintaining it. I think it would be better to build ships on the moon for trips to Mars and beyond, as opposed to launching multiple ships from Earth. Building them in orbit could work, but it would be very slow and dangerous. I don't know, I'll have to think about it some more.
Mars is also much further than the moon. It would still be easier to establish a colony on the moon, even if maintaining it would cost a lot. The idea is not to colonize the moon though, but use the moon as a sort of orbital shipyard. A shipyard that has sufficient gravitational force to keep people from flying off into space.
We could have a group of people who are willing to die in space control a spaceship and just wander aimlessly while we record where they go and if they find a habitable planet for humans to inhabit then they will tell us. I'm not sure whether this would be too much of a good idea though because i'm sure many would say its a waste of money and people. It would be quite risky though, we either get something out of it, or nothing at all.
It would be an expedition so that we can have better options than the moon or mars.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from SniperOverkill9 »
Quote from shairn »
Squander it all on Minecraft merch
DONT DO IT
Mod edit: User was banned for disagreeing with a moderator :3
Space elevators are for what? You can use them to get into orbit, but not to the moon.
What I was thinking of is building an assembly on the moon, where workers could assemble ships in a relatively safe environment. I guess space elevators could move material to orbit, then a shuttle could transport them to the moon.
Guys, I do not agree with this. We can fix a lot of our solutions by exploring space. It gives us a common goal.
At least until we find valuable resources on other planets and start fighting to obtain them and territory. :biggrin.gif:
No, but seriously. Space Exploration programs don't get funded enough. I say cut the goddamn military budget of the U.S. because we don't need a military large enough to conquer lands. All we need is a defensive military. But this is a whole other argument. The point is, I'm for Space Exploration... and we're far off from actually colonizing other worlds. By then, hopefully, humans will have gotten their act together.
We could have a group of people who are willing to die in space control a spaceship and just wander aimlessly while we record where they go and if they find a habitable planet for humans to inhabit then they will tell us. I'm not sure whether this would be too much of a good idea though because i'm sure many would say its a waste of money and people. It would be quite risky though, we either get something out of it, or nothing at all.
It would be an expedition so that we can have better options than the moon or mars.
To reach the nearest star system would take forty thousand years with our fastest space craft. So that wouldn't really work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it - Phil Plait
Space exploration is vital to humanity's survival. Resources are limited on earth and (unless we find some incredible source of energy and manage to develop technology that can replicate matter from that energy) our resources will run out. Even just the issue of space will become a problem as our population continues to explode. And then let's not forget the many ways that Earth could be rendered inhospitable by outside influences. If the species is to survive indefinitely we would need to scatter ourselves.
Personally I think the first step should be developing a self-sustaining biosphere in Earth's orbit. That could be on the moon or it's own space station but it is a step we have to take before we can look further. Mars is a viable second option but it is still very far away. The ideal option would be to construct a large colony ship for people to live in relative comfort during the drip. Then the ship would have to land on Mars and transform into the first Martian base. Once on Mars terraforming would be of paramount importance. The settlers would need to be prepared to erect a massive bio-dome to house a breathable atmosphere. Then they'd need to plant trees and crops in soil from Earth. The soil could be enriched with their fecal matter from the long trip. Composting just seems logical on a spaceship; waste management is very important. Once life can be maintained on Mars the next project would be to erect a Spaceport for travel between Earth, Mars, and beyond. With Mars serving as a rally point the next step for space colonization would be one of Jupiter's moons (Europa I think).
We could have a group of people who are willing to die in space control a spaceship and just wander aimlessly while we record where they go and if they find a habitable planet for humans to inhabit then they will tell us. I'm not sure whether this would be too much of a good idea though because i'm sure many would say its a waste of money and people. It would be quite risky though, we either get something out of it, or nothing at all.
It would be an expedition so that we can have better options than the moon or mars.
To reach the nearest star system would take forty thousand years with our fastest space craft. So that wouldn't really work.
Build a big enough ship with enough supplies and trained people to sustain many generations of lives and it could theoretically work. To save supplies, if we had the technology, we could freeze most of the people and have another set of people who work to maintain the systems of the ship as well as navigate and repair. Though, a ship this big would have to be built in orbit because it could no way take off from the Earth's surface.
We could have a group of people who are willing to die in space control a spaceship and just wander aimlessly while we record where they go and if they find a habitable planet for humans to inhabit then they will tell us. I'm not sure whether this would be too much of a good idea though because i'm sure many would say its a waste of money and people. It would be quite risky though, we either get something out of it, or nothing at all.
It would be an expedition so that we can have better options than the moon or mars.
To reach the nearest star system would take forty thousand years with our fastest space craft. So that wouldn't really work.
Build a big enough ship with enough supplies and trained people to sustain many generations of lives and it could theoretically work. To save supplies, if we had the technology, we could freeze most of the people and have another set of people who work to maintain the systems of the ship as well as navigate and repair. Though, a ship this big would have to be built in orbit because it could no way take off from the Earth's surface.
...I'm too into science fiction.
You're both neglecting the fact that our advancements in particle physics will inevitably provide the groundwork for more advanced propulsion systems and (while I am skeptical about practical application) no one has completely ruled out the viability of folding space via warp drives and such. Science is exciting because there is so little we actually understand. Today's limitations fuel tomorrow's advancements. If someone can say "This is why we can't." a scientist will always endeavor to find a way to say "Now we can."
space does need to, and is being privatized. but we cannot cut government spending before it fully matures.
*there may or may not be cake
That's correct.
At least we need the human race to stop killing its own population before even thinking of spreading it.
Building the ship on the moon and launching from there makes the most sense. It would be less difficult to launch out of the moon's orbit, and would probably save a lot of money. Then again, building a ship takes a large amount of effort and supplies, so the cost of taking all the supplies and people to the moon to build it may be too much. I guess I'm not really sure about how we would do it.
I doubt we could build a ship on the moon better than one on Earth. They're practically no resources to build anything with on the moon, so if we did build one there, it'd be made out of all Earth materials, which is silly. But there are advantages to launching from the moon; maybe once we are opulent enough, we'll be able to launch routine rockets to Mars that way.
On your other point, why would you even care about something like that on a thread like this? It doesn't really matter "what" I am, but rather what I propose.
we can build a small space-dock in LEO like we did the ISS. It's job will be to assemble the ship piece by piece so we wont have to send them up as whole objects on huge rockets.
*there may or may not be cake
Since 2001, one trillion dollars have been spent on wars. Counting inflation, one hundred and thirty five billion was spent on the Apollo programs. And most of that was spent on researching new technology. Imagine what that trillions dollars could do for the Space Program. Multiple missions to Mars. A colony on the Moon.
Building a rocket on the Moon or in orbit would be a waste of both time and money. It is possible to assemble multiple pre-launched segments that are already in orbit, but assembling a whole mission in space would incredibly time intensive, and would cost much more.
The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it - Phil Plait
One other idea I read about is launching two ships from Earth, directly to mars. One would have the crew, and the other with supplies. The supply ship would launch first, then the crew ship would follow. I don't really like the idea of separating the crew from the supplies. What would happen if the supply ship failed and the crew couldn't recover it? They would all die on Mars.
I didn't say it mattered, I said I was wondering. :tongue.gif:
Another thing that many people consider might be worth it is a modified Mars Direct, called Mars to Stay, which would provide the first "Settlers" more facilities for the astronauts. It's considered unique because of it also includes the possibility of sending non-scientists personnel, and doesn't have a proposal on how to get them back.
The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it - Phil Plait
Well, it's either that or die on Earth :smile.gif: Not to sound cold-hearted, but I think casualties regarding space exploration shouldn't be a huge issue until civilians start going up in rockets. There are probably more than a handful of people who would take a one-way trip to Mars, even if it meant dying after a month of being there.
The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it - Phil Plait
Interesting, I hadn't thought of it that way. Hmmm, in that case, I would rather die on Mars.
I think I'm still in favor of the moon base. Although one of the drawbacks is the cost of maintaining it. I think it would be better to build ships on the moon for trips to Mars and beyond, as opposed to launching multiple ships from Earth. Building them in orbit could work, but it would be very slow and dangerous. I don't know, I'll have to think about it some more.
It would be an expedition so that we can have better options than the moon or mars.
What I was thinking of is building an assembly on the moon, where workers could assemble ships in a relatively safe environment. I guess space elevators could move material to orbit, then a shuttle could transport them to the moon.
At least until we find valuable resources on other planets and start fighting to obtain them and territory. :biggrin.gif:
No, but seriously. Space Exploration programs don't get funded enough. I say cut the goddamn military budget of the U.S. because we don't need a military large enough to conquer lands. All we need is a defensive military. But this is a whole other argument. The point is, I'm for Space Exploration... and we're far off from actually colonizing other worlds. By then, hopefully, humans will have gotten their act together.
To reach the nearest star system would take forty thousand years with our fastest space craft. So that wouldn't really work.
The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it - Phil Plait
Personally I think the first step should be developing a self-sustaining biosphere in Earth's orbit. That could be on the moon or it's own space station but it is a step we have to take before we can look further. Mars is a viable second option but it is still very far away. The ideal option would be to construct a large colony ship for people to live in relative comfort during the drip. Then the ship would have to land on Mars and transform into the first Martian base. Once on Mars terraforming would be of paramount importance. The settlers would need to be prepared to erect a massive bio-dome to house a breathable atmosphere. Then they'd need to plant trees and crops in soil from Earth. The soil could be enriched with their fecal matter from the long trip. Composting just seems logical on a spaceship; waste management is very important. Once life can be maintained on Mars the next project would be to erect a Spaceport for travel between Earth, Mars, and beyond. With Mars serving as a rally point the next step for space colonization would be one of Jupiter's moons (Europa I think).
Build a big enough ship with enough supplies and trained people to sustain many generations of lives and it could theoretically work. To save supplies, if we had the technology, we could freeze most of the people and have another set of people who work to maintain the systems of the ship as well as navigate and repair. Though, a ship this big would have to be built in orbit because it could no way take off from the Earth's surface.
...I'm too into science fiction.
You're both neglecting the fact that our advancements in particle physics will inevitably provide the groundwork for more advanced propulsion systems and (while I am skeptical about practical application) no one has completely ruled out the viability of folding space via warp drives and such. Science is exciting because there is so little we actually understand. Today's limitations fuel tomorrow's advancements. If someone can say "This is why we can't." a scientist will always endeavor to find a way to say "Now we can."