Space travel is a high-reward venture
Debate Rounds (3)
I am, obviously, in support of (deep) space exploration. I will concede that my stance is,in part, due to personal bias. I find the cosmos to be extremely attractive and would love to see humanity explore them for the joy of discovery. However, that will not be a part of my argument at all. For the sake of survival, I assert that space travel is the answer. The planet is not invincible nor eternal, nor are we- as a species. If we don't leave the planet, we will inevitably die with it. We leave it, and we take a chance at extending our lifespan. As well, I see space travel allowing many great scientific and technological advancements on earth, as we will be opening ourselves to a new world. These advances have, historically speaking, came as a result of change. Change usually necessitates adaptation, and adaptation to the new situation tends to produce products and byproducts that are, in the case of science, widely applicable. Survival in space is obviously a change from survival on earth . The result will, arguably, be that adaptation will lead to new scientific discoveries, which will be applicable to technology on earth or any other colonized planets. (or other floating rocks :P)
So, tell me why it won't work and/or isn't worth it, or why my argument is flawed.
R1- opening argument
R3- rebuttal/closing argument
There are benifits from deep space exploration, but also some downsides. The benefits are quite obvious:
> Breeding a new species in a new world, starting totally new
> New planets, stars, and asteroids
> Finding any trace of possible living on other heavens
> New minerals and/or resources of any type
> Seeing if aliens can not only be things like germs but also unseen creatures
What are some of the disadvantages to deep space exploration? Many people don't see them. The reason it took me a few hours to start working on this debate is because I spent the whole day studying this exact topic. There are many dangerous experiences involved with it. Here are three examples I have chosen to emphasize:
> You need special equipment to not only survive, but also even "go" anywhere in space that we haven't already been
> There is too much space. How do you get so far into the galaxy for you to have been traveling enough to be ejected from the galaxy we are in right now. There are ways which I will cover later in my debate speech, but for now think of how hard it must be.
> How do you breed fast enough?
Those are the topics I will cover, however not in the order I put them in.
How do you get far enough in space for you to make improvement? Obviously using rockets would be the stupidest attempt with our past experiements using that method. A few machines and tools we use just for that, but take note of how dangerous it would be to use some of these. Very, very risky business (traveling through milleniums, that is)
1. We have giant solar sails!
The way these work is fairly complex, of course there is no wind in space ;)
These sails capture solar energy and use it for propulsion. Light is made up of tiny, extremely energetic particles called photons, as you may already know. These in some ways act similar to atomic particles. When light strikes a mirror-like surface, the photons are reflected right back. In this process, they transmit their momentum to the surface, which of course pushes ot forward. Solar sails are used to continually accelerate the teeny tiny space craft in speed.
Ok. That just said an easier way to go fast through space.
"Look at that! We can go faster now, we probably figured it out by testing it . . . In space."
That could be true, but again there is a downside from the sails. In order for them to work sufficiently. They would need to be extremely larger than the space craft it is pulling along. In other words, it would need a ton of energy. What do we look to when we want a ton of energy? Atomic energy, of course! How dangerous is that, right? Very.
Atomic energy can cause you to be almost poisoned. There are certain areas on earth that NO human beings are allowed in, for fear that the energy there would poison and kill them quickly. Such eareas are most usually originated from atomic bombing. So why would we want that kind of energy to, not only take us there, but to go itself, to our new world.
Why would we want to venture into space? Just the reasons I states earlier. But then if those were the reasons, why would we want to bring the death sentence with us?
2. We have a substitue for gravity!
This might actually be so very obvious, it may not seem to be any harm at all.
The substitute for gravity is Centrifugal Force.
Imagine your space craft in a big circle. When people are in space for a long time, they not only lose bone density and, severely, muscle tone, but you also lose blood volume. That way when you stand up (if you can with those weak muscles you've got) you feel light-headed and almost dizzy. However, make the circle in space spin very fast, then you have centrifugal force. When you are in space, gravity is not always one direction. So whatever feels like gravity, will be your new gravity. If you make a complete circle by walking through the whole floor of the space craft, you will always feel like down is down. That hill that is always curving up in front of you, won't make a difference to how you weigh. Now it is almost like you are on earth, right? Yes.
"I told you! We figured out another way!"
Not exactly. How do you get the wheel spinning? Energy, maybe fuel, possibly sunlight . . . All those things somehow create the first example: Energy. Do we have sufficient energy for anything we want in space? No way! Not even close.
We have many many ways to go somewhere in space faster, make it easier, and even learn while doing it, but they always lead to some cost. You don't get anything for free in life :(
For more details on some of what I was talking about go to:
We are very very smart creatures. Nothing on earth is smarter, that is tested (of course! Tested by the smartest of them all)
It is worth all that effort? The Bible says we are the only creatures. I'm not saying the Bible is 100% correct, but many verses say the whole Bible is correct, and if we agree most of it is true, somewhere in there those verses will pop in. That means if some of it is true, all of it is true, right? Maybe. In that case we can settle with "Most of it is true" at least.
So why would we not believe we are the only ones? Risking energy (which by the way runs out, everyone! ),
Lives, much, much money, and more. Let's take this w step at a time.
In closing of this certain opening :P
Deep Space exploration and venturing may be worth it in some ways, but there is always something that just has to rise up against it. Why even try?
"-> You need special equipment to not only survive, but also even "go" anywhere in space that we haven't already been"
This statement is true. However, I'm not sure how that serves to show that space travel is not a high reward venture. I am asserting that the travel itself is high-reward, not necessarily that it is bound to happen or how it will, to clarify. Either way, NASA spacesuits have historically been extremely effective. Not a single one has ever been penetrated and there are few records of malfunctions relative to the possible amount that could have been. I feel like you already are aware that our space suits and future models are sufficient, so I won't say much on this topic.
-Some background info (simplified)
-Interesting future design
So, how do we travel to these places?
This is currently a matter usually addressed by theoretical physicists. There are many different ideas for deep space travel. I will exclude solar sails and grant you that they are (like the following) flawed in concept, though possible, but I will provide you with 3 other examples.
1) Alcubierre Drive
The most basic explanation of this idea is that ,"The ability to manipulate space is the most important concept in regard to warp speed. If the Enterprise could warp the space-time continuum by expanding the area behind it and contracting the area in front, the crew could avoid going the speed of light. As long as it creates its own gravitational field, the starship could travel locally at very slow velocities, therefore avoiding the pitfalls of Newton's Third Law of Motion and keeping clocks in sync with its launch site and destination. The ship isn't really traveling at a "speed," per se -- it's more like it's pulling its destination toward it while pushing its starting point back."
This is theoretically possible in the theory of relativity and is being designed/tested as we debate.
Coen, Chad. "The science of Star Trek." National Geographic. Dec. 13, 2002. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
Krauss, Lawrence. "The Physics of Star Trek." New York: Basic Books, 2007.
Okuda, Michael and Rick Sternbach. "Star Trek: The Next Generation -- Technical Manual. New York: Pocket Books, 1991.
Randerson, James. "Researchers follow the Enterprise and look into warp speed." The Guardian. Nov. 12, 2007. http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Whitehouse, David. "Warp drive possible." BBC News. June 10, 1999. http://news.bbc.co.uk...
2) Wormholes (traversable wormhole)
-"Lorentzian traversable wormholes would allow travel in both directions from one part of the universe to another part of that same universe very quickly or would allow travel from one universe to another."
-"Wormholes connect two points in spacetime, which means that they would in principle allow travel in time, as well as in space. "
"The impossibility of faster-than-light relative speed only applies locally. Wormholes might allow superluminal (faster-than-light) travel by ensuring that the speed of light is not exceeded locally at any time. While traveling through a wormhole, subluminal (slower-than-light) speeds are used. If two points are connected by a wormhole whose length is shorter than the distance between them outside the wormhole, the time taken to traverse it could be less than the time it would take a light beam to make the journey if it took a path through the space outside the wormhole. However, a light beam traveling through the wormhole would always beat the traveler. As an analogy, sprinting around to the opposite side of a mountain at maximum speed may take longer than walking through a tunnel crossing it."
3) interstellar space arks
You may have seen this on tv or in a movie. Essentially, it is just a giant space ship that would serve as not only a place to live (especially if we had to leave earth) but also as a means of reaching a new habitable region for survival.
As you see, solar sails are not the only idea for travel. Artificial gravity, currently, is admittedly not the most efficient or plausible idea but there is significant research going into it.
"> There is too much space. How do you get so far into the galaxy for you to have been traveling enough to be ejected from the galaxy we are in right now. There are ways which I will cover later in my debate speech, but for now think of how hard it must be."
I am, honestly, not sure what you mean by "there is too much space". You exit the galaxy when you travel far enough away from its center that it no longer exerts enough gravitational pull to keep you within it's confines. If you were traveling towards the center you would eventually be sucked into a black hole. I will wait for you to address this further.
> How do you breed fast enough?
You have not addressed this yet, so I'll wait.
I also don't quite see the purpose of the bible analogy. The bible is not a good source or reference for anything scientific and maybe it is just my mind that was a bit put off by that.
Sources (not already listed above)
----Sorry about all the quotes and links to other sites. I've been teaching myself calculus and my brain is fried. Alert me if this is an issue, I just wanted to respond in a timely manner----
Demosthenes25 forfeited this round.
CarlSaganT3 forfeited this round.
Demosthenes25 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.