• 0

    posted a message on Should we be heading back to the Moon instead of going to Mars?

    I think some of the people mentioning artificial magnetic fields will find this interesting: http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a25493/magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere/

    Quote from ZeBlueDevil»

    I wish that we could get NASA back on 5%, we'd definitely get that Mars mission by the end of the 2020's plus we'd be able to get that Europa probe going and then it's also pushing for FTL travel...

    Well Nasa could do a lot of great things with a 5% budget, but a manned mission to Mars just ain't happening before 2020, it would be stunning to see it happen before 2030, even impressive to see it before 2040. FTL travel though, that's firmly science fiction, not even on the horizon.
    Quote from kor11isgreat»

    No. Mars seems interesting, (we've studied the moon countless times) because it could lead way for us to live on another planet when the Earth has an extinction level event. Also, the Moon is pretty boring and it has already been studied multiple times. We need to do something new once in our lives.


    The whole Earth apocalypse argument for going to Mars is really not accurate. Any kind of permanent settlement on Mars would be a long-term investment, it likely couldn't be seen as any sort of backup for centuries. Meanwhile if our technology and infrastructure doesn't reach the point where we can stabilize conditions on Earth, we're in trouble, and so are any projects on Mars.

    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Should we be heading back to the Moon instead of going to Mars?

    You're not wrong about it being easier to monitor, but the issue is public perception. Even while governments could probably ascertain whether a moon colony is a credible threat, private civilians have no way of knowing which opens the door for opportunistic politicians to rabble rouse to further their agenda. And as I noted in my previous post, the moon is visible to the naked eye, so its presence would keep the threat, credible or otherwise, in the public conscience.


    I'm an optimist when it comes to the competence of the public (call me naive but it's that or authoritarianism), but realistically I think the average citizen will have the common sense to know that other powers on Earth are the ones with a potential to pose a real threat, not a few hundred or so colonists trying to expand the human frontier almost 400,000 km away. It's not like these colonies are going to be developing nuclear arsenals.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Random Thoughts
    Quote from Endergirl00»

    Buddy, this is the Minecraft Forum. Nothing in here is remotely similar to the rest of the vast space that is the internet.


    Unless you believe in reincarnation, in which case yes. But, can you consider reincarnation a form of immortality? Or better yet, what considers even as the limit to reincarnation; what determines as reincarnation?

    BETTER YET: To an extent, aren't we reincarnated every day?

    Did I mention the facetious part?
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Official Chat Thread: New Beginnings
    Quote from Travis»
    Come again?


    nope just once

    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 1

    posted a message on What small thing makes you angry?

    I'm unreasonably appalled by people littering or missorting their trash.

    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Official Chat Thread: New Beginnings
    Quote from Travis»

    Boy, this is strange to see.


    Hey it's that guy who was here when I was here then left and came back a lot, then left and didn't come back and now is back!

    What's up?
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Should we be heading back to the Moon instead of going to Mars?

    To borrow from one of Kennedy's speeches, we should choose to go to Mars over the moon, not because it is easy but because it is hard.


    But speaking of a cold warrior like Kennedy, I would point out that any attempt to settle the moon would be fraught with political complications. I mean, while there are treaties to prevent space-based weaponry, rivals of the colony's motherland would have cause to question whether the colony is adhering to decades-old treaties... and every night the moon would orbit above them to renew their apprehension. At least Mars is out-of-site (of anyone who doesn't use a telescope) and out-of-mind, and even if shenanigans were to take place on a Martian colony, at least the greater distance grants nations more time to react to any interplanetary missiles.



    I can't say much of anything useful about the potential, or even the inherent political/diplomatic complications that would arise from a colonization mission, so I won't say anything about that, but wouldn't the Moon's close proximity offer easier monitoring and less cause for concern than a Martian colony? A Martian colony would be virtually unreachable from earth on short notice, unless there were many ships in constant transit between the two planets making pick-ups and drop-offs, in which case, stations could be established on those ships and they could deploy people and resources in case of trouble or some sort of local upheaval (which would be unlikely early on, given the colonists' ongoing dependence on supplies and new technologies arriving from Earth).


    Speaking of treaties, there are also treaties whereby space faring nations have agreed not to claim extra terrestrial territory, any land that gets settled would need be claimed by private parties. That raises 2 issues:
    1) A space colony would be a significant long-term investment, only a government would have the resources to maintain it long-term. Besides, a small-time operation such as a resource extraction site wouldn't yield enough profit to make the endeavor worthwhile, the potential benefit of a space colony stems from the potential of creating an entirely new market
    2) There's the question of whether a private colony would adhere to legal and ethical practices in the absence of government authority


    I believe a new market is unlikely to crop up at first, other than the exchange between colonists of resources concentrated on some parts of the planet that are needed by any and all settlements for sustainability, and less economically viable to simply send from Earth.
    It's likely that a permanent human presence on Mars would function primarily as a research outpost early on, something like those in Antarctica. The subsequent building of infrastructure, cities, gathering of local resources, arrival of additional parties, exploration, and possible terraforming efforts would see it looking more and more like a colonization effort, but there'd still be a significant dependence on Earth for some time. Confrontation between local parties would be the main worry, and a full-fledged colonization effort would surely be comprised of multiple nations, as well as private investment.

    When sustainability is achieved though, I think any honest person would agree that complete political independence should eventually be granted. These are really difficult issues to contemplate though, because the legal terms that will govern how the effort is carried out even from the beginning don't yet exist, and are still likely to be altered throughout, as new and unexpected ecological, political and social issues arise.


    It would actually be extremely helpful to first see how a colonization effort would take place on the Moon. There's no other way for scientists to observe anything like it here on Earth, and it would do wonders in setting the stage for a stable and more independent Mars colony

    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Should we be heading back to the Moon instead of going to Mars?

    The Moon and Mars are quite different objectives really. Building an outpost on the Moon is actually a lot easier to think about doing right now, because our technology is much closer, and there are fairly immediate benefits as a functioning outpost for a number of purposes. The main reason the Moon makes sense for carrying out operations from, which we would otherwise do from Earth, is its significantly weaker gravity well, 1/6. Operations like deep space launches, mining materials on the Moon, asteroid mining, testing technologies that will be required to minimize the physiological damage that crews/colonists will suffer from traveling to, and living in, such hostile environments (including Mars itself), and even launching Mars missions from its much shallower gravity well, make the Moon not only a more viable next step, but a more practical one as well, even given the challenges unique to the moon, such as the hostile vacuum conditions that would be significantly mitigated even by Mars' very thin atmosphere.


    It surprises me that we're thinking so small about these enormous, ambitious endeavors. Mars or the Moon? What makes you think we're in any position to choose between the two? The science that was available 20, 25 years ago, may have supported that supposition, but not anymore. Either task presents a huge technological challenge, the former being utterly impossible for a few decades at best, possibly centuries, as previously unknown challenges of such a mission are being discovered at a much quicker pace than technologies are being invented to solve them. A human cannot spend months in interplanetary space without substantial protection from cosmic rays that could quickly cause brain swelling and impair astronauts who will need to be in optimal mental and physical health in order to carry out such a dangerous and complex mission, not to mention the huge radiation dosage.

    I honestly feel like a rambling fool even trying to scratch the surface of challenges presented by these missions. The scope is almost unthinkable.


    Quote from Prince_Deity»

    Besides those, however, I believe we ought to be focusing on Neptune and Europa, as they are the most likely worlds in our solar system to have liquid water (much more likely on Europa), and I would love if we could find life, even if it's simple, outside of Earth.




    Actually there's plenty of (frozen) water on Mars, and flows of highly salinated liquid water were found recently as well, an extremely important discovery regarding life beyond Earth. Europa seems a more likely candidate for finding life, but that search will be done through robotic missions and not colonization. Titan however is the closest matching Earth analogue in the outer solar system, and will likely be prioritized in future robotic missions searching for ET.
    Also I'm curious what you mean by Neptune?

    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Random Thoughts

    Ha I'd consider almost none of these posts a "random thought". By internet standards a random thought is usually a somewhat facetious pseudo-logical conclusion that might seem culturally relevant, but is also removed from how you'd think about things in everyday experience, hence the 'random' aspect.


    This is not a particularly good one but whatever:

    If we all go to either heaven or hell for eternity, does that mean we're all immortal?

    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Official Chat Thread: New Beginnings
    Quote from Nanobytes717»

    We're on page 404 now.

    I like this thread. It's a place to increase your post count without actually making useful posts.

    pfff all of these people figured that out years ago
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Official Chat Thread: New Beginnings
    Quote from Thunderhoof111»


    When the forum was made I'm sure it was't originally dedicated to minecraft.

    It was, that's why it was created.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Official Chat Thread: New Beginnings
    Quote from JojHeywood»

    source pls

    Don't you remember when Off Topic was the only section?
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Official Chat Thread: New Beginnings
    Quote from LilPotatoe»

    That shouldn't be a reason to take it down, and not surprisingly, that's not what the staff have said in the midst of all of the backlash. I also think that if they take it down for one reason, they shouldn't keep it down for another. I have offered a solution to why they took it down. The intensity of the conversations within PPNS were what made it so attractive, and clearly when the staff decided to shut down PPNS that was not a primary reason. The lack of respect was what made PPNS so great, and consequently PPNS made Off-Topic so active.


    That's just not true. The insults, hostility, and lack of respect have always been the primary reason PPNS was taken down, and that was stated publicly multiple times by Metadigital, who was the admin of Off Topic at the time.
    And I disagree that a lack of respect is what made PPNS great. If it was ever great, then that was before it became insensitive and shallow.

    edit: this is the explanation given by Metadigital at the time http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/forums/forum-discussion-info/2177584-does-the-staff-seriously-not-care-this-much?comment=30

    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Official Chat Thread: New Beginnings
    Quote from LilPotatoe»

    I can entirely understand how the staff do not want such a controversial section on a site that supposed to be inherently "kid-friendly" (Though most kids that play Minecraft are cursing at their moms, blasting Eminem and making obscene jokes in server chat), but to be fair, as I said before, it was quite a popular thread and it brought a lot of educated people that wanted nothing with Minecraft and simply be on the PPNS. It was strangely sophisticated and adored. When it was announced it would be shut down, it got an unprecedented amount of backlash and consequently a lot of members either leaving or being coming very inactive, such as myself.


    Literally, if you want to avoid kids being exposed to "not family-friendly content", put an age limit. Before someone can access it, they have to put in their birthdate. Of course they can lie about it, but that would just prove that kids are willingly looking at the content, not stumbling and being "exposed" to it. I'm almost certain I've suggested this before.


    The main problem with PPNS was not that controversial topics should not be on a family friendly forum. I'm personally interested in PPNS related topics, and I would become very annoyed at the lack of respect and sensitivity I'd see when I read threads in PPNS, even though I discuss similar topics with others in person on a regular basis. It was not an issue with the discussion topic, it was an issue with the members engaged in the discussion having little or no respect for everyone else.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.