Total Posts:133|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What prevent us from going in to space.

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 3:58:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are a plenty of resource in space, solar power, valuable mineral, and unclaimed space.

We have technology to send large object in to space, we have technology to growth and harvest plant species in close and controlled environment. We also have nuclear submarine that can support the life of human even in hostile environment. What else do we need? What prevent anyone from investing in space expedition and ripe all the benefit?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 5:53:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Energy. A lot of people seem to think we can do whatever we want with enough technology, but the fact is that technology cannot overcome the need to expend large amounts of resources to be able to accomplish certain tasks. Achieving escape velocity for any object of significant size requires an enormous amount of energy and we can't innovate around that. This is why people in the 50 and 60s thought that, by now, we would have already begun colonization of the moon (I remember a classic 'Trek episode where they encounter an old freighter ship from the late 1990s).

If you are a follower of the philosophy of people like Michio then disregard what I'm saying, because these people believe energy needs can be overcome and we'll be able to do whatever we want with enough time. I don't believe that, personally. Take a look at this video and look at how naive we were 50 years ago, when everyone thought the sky was the limit for technology. Tech will progress in certain ways (i.e., computers) but unlimited power is not one of them!
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 6:15:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Weight. It takes too much energy to move off the ground since everything we want to move weighs so much, it takes large amounts of energy to move it. Then we need more energy to move the energy we need to expend, then energy to move that energy, and so on.

There is no such thing as equivalent exchange. We cannot expend x amount of energy and get equal results out of it. It takes lots of energy to get low results than vice-versa.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 7:24:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 5:53:33 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Energy. A lot of people seem to think we can do whatever we want with enough technology, but the fact is that technology cannot overcome the need to expend large amounts of resources to be able to accomplish certain tasks. Achieving escape velocity for any object of significant size requires an enormous amount of energy and we can't innovate around that. This is why people in the 50 and 60s thought that, by now, we would have already begun colonization of the moon (I remember a classic 'Trek episode where they encounter an old freighter ship from the late 1990s).

If you are a follower of the philosophy of people like Michio then disregard what I'm saying, because these people believe energy needs can be overcome and we'll be able to do whatever we want with enough time. I don't believe that, personally. Take a look at this video and look at how naive we were 50 years ago, when everyone thought the sky was the limit for technology. Tech will progress in certain ways (i.e., computers) but unlimited power is not one of them!



How about we divide a necessary equipment in to module and send them to space little by little? We send a hundred of thousand of satellites in to the space every year, it shouldn't be too mush of an economical burden to send some parts to be collect by manned space station (like the ISS), we can then crash the station in to the moon and use the local material for construction.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 9:38:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
How about we divide a necessary equipment in to module and send them to space little by little? We send a hundred of thousand of satellites in to the space every year, it shouldn't be too mush of an economical burden to send some parts to be collect by manned space station (like the ISS), we can then crash the station in to the moon and use the local material for construction.

Satellites and a small number of scientific research vessels are pretty much all we can afford to send out there. Even those private companies that let you ride up for million-dollar seat-prices don't get you completely out of the atmosphere, you get to the edge and come right back down again. There's also the problem of sustaining life outside Earth's atmosphere. It's very difficult and expensive. And I don't know what "local materials" you think we're going to find on the moon, we don't even have the resources to look for them there never-mind mine them. We haven't failed to get back to the moon in 50 years simply out of lack of interest.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 11:15:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Two words "Gamma Rays" You can not live in space outside of the earth's magnetic field for any extended period of time. All, without exception, who traveled to the moon suffered some genetic damage just in the couple of days outside of the earth's magnetic field. 39 astronauts have developed cataracts because of their short time spent in space. A maned mars mission is nothing more than a fantasy. All they will be sending to mars is a coffin of dead astronauts.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 12:13:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 9:38:25 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
How about we divide a necessary equipment in to module and send them to space little by little? We send a hundred of thousand of satellites in to the space every year, it shouldn't be too mush of an economical burden to send some parts to be collect by manned space station (like the ISS), we can then crash the station in to the moon and use the local material for construction.

Satellites and a small number of scientific research vessels are pretty much all we can afford to send out there. Even those private companies that let you ride up for million-dollar seat-prices don't get you completely out of the atmosphere, you get to the edge and come right back down again. There's also the problem of sustaining life outside Earth's atmosphere. It's very difficult and expensive. And I don't know what "local materials" you think we're going to find on the moon, we don't even have the resources to look for them there never-mind mine them. We haven't failed to get back to the moon in 50 years simply out of lack of interest.

I think we will at least found some rock, which could be use to blend with some binding material (foam, epoxy, cement etc.) to form some kind of affordable construction material. We can send small piece of tools pieces by pieces or if it is very large and heavy, break them down to parts and keep sending. In short term, we should be able to fortify ISS in to some kind of sustainable space station (may be with climate control green house to produce oxygen and food), in the future we can crash it on the moon surface to form the first human settlement on moon.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 1:13:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 12:13:27 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 5/6/2013 9:38:25 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
How about we divide a necessary equipment in to module and send them to space little by little? We send a hundred of thousand of satellites in to the space every year, it shouldn't be too mush of an economical burden to send some parts to be collect by manned space station (like the ISS), we can then crash the station in to the moon and use the local material for construction.

Satellites and a small number of scientific research vessels are pretty much all we can afford to send out there. Even those private companies that let you ride up for million-dollar seat-prices don't get you completely out of the atmosphere, you get to the edge and come right back down again. There's also the problem of sustaining life outside Earth's atmosphere. It's very difficult and expensive. And I don't know what "local materials" you think we're going to find on the moon, we don't even have the resources to look for them there never-mind mine them. We haven't failed to get back to the moon in 50 years simply out of lack of interest.

I think we will at least found some rock, which could be use to blend with some binding material (foam, epoxy, cement etc.) to form some kind of affordable construction material. We can send small piece of tools pieces by pieces or if it is very large and heavy, break them down to parts and keep sending. In short term, we should be able to fortify ISS in to some kind of sustainable space station (may be with climate control green house to produce oxygen and food), in the future we can crash it on the moon surface to form the first human settlement on moon.

And how will they deal with Gamma Rays on this moon settlement
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 1:19:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 1:13:09 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/6/2013 12:13:27 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 5/6/2013 9:38:25 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
How about we divide a necessary equipment in to module and send them to space little by little? We send a hundred of thousand of satellites in to the space every year, it shouldn't be too mush of an economical burden to send some parts to be collect by manned space station (like the ISS), we can then crash the station in to the moon and use the local material for construction.

Satellites and a small number of scientific research vessels are pretty much all we can afford to send out there. Even those private companies that let you ride up for million-dollar seat-prices don't get you completely out of the atmosphere, you get to the edge and come right back down again. There's also the problem of sustaining life outside Earth's atmosphere. It's very difficult and expensive. And I don't know what "local materials" you think we're going to find on the moon, we don't even have the resources to look for them there never-mind mine them. We haven't failed to get back to the moon in 50 years simply out of lack of interest.

I think we will at least found some rock, which could be use to blend with some binding material (foam, epoxy, cement etc.) to form some kind of affordable construction material. We can send small piece of tools pieces by pieces or if it is very large and heavy, break them down to parts and keep sending. In short term, we should be able to fortify ISS in to some kind of sustainable space station (may be with climate control green house to produce oxygen and food), in the future we can crash it on the moon surface to form the first human settlement on moon.

And how will they deal with Gamma Rays on this moon settlement

Currently the only thing on earth that will stop gamma rays is plates of lead several inches thick. Plants will not grow on the moon using natural sun light. The gamma rays will destroy the plants genetic structure. Any settlement on the moon will have to be a lead box with no windows. You need to focus way more on the science instead of the fiction part.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 1:27:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 1:19:14 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/6/2013 1:13:09 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/6/2013 12:13:27 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 5/6/2013 9:38:25 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
How about we divide a necessary equipment in to module and send them to space little by little? We send a hundred of thousand of satellites in to the space every year, it shouldn't be too mush of an economical burden to send some parts to be collect by manned space station (like the ISS), we can then crash the station in to the moon and use the local material for construction.

Satellites and a small number of scientific research vessels are pretty much all we can afford to send out there. Even those private companies that let you ride up for million-dollar seat-prices don't get you completely out of the atmosphere, you get to the edge and come right back down again. There's also the problem of sustaining life outside Earth's atmosphere. It's very difficult and expensive. And I don't know what "local materials" you think we're going to find on the moon, we don't even have the resources to look for them there never-mind mine them. We haven't failed to get back to the moon in 50 years simply out of lack of interest.

I think we will at least found some rock, which could be use to blend with some binding material (foam, epoxy, cement etc.) to form some kind of affordable construction material. We can send small piece of tools pieces by pieces or if it is very large and heavy, break them down to parts and keep sending. In short term, we should be able to fortify ISS in to some kind of sustainable space station (may be with climate control green house to produce oxygen and food), in the future we can crash it on the moon surface to form the first human settlement on moon.

And how will they deal with Gamma Rays on this moon settlement

Currently the only thing on earth that will stop gamma rays is plates of lead several inches thick. Plants will not grow on the moon using natural sun light. The gamma rays will destroy the plants genetic structure. Any settlement on the moon will have to be a lead box with no windows. You need to focus way more on the science instead of the fiction part.

"Nothing actually "stops" Gamma rays, it is a matter that 1/2" of lead statistically blocks 1/2 of the rays, the next 1/2" will block 1/2 of what's left etc. etc. until the remaining ray is insignificant. Each absorbing material, be it lead, earth, water whatever has a statistical "half-thickness" assigned to it."
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 2:22:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 1:27:28 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/6/2013 1:19:14 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/6/2013 1:13:09 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/6/2013 12:13:27 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 5/6/2013 9:38:25 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
How about we divide a necessary equipment in to module and send them to space little by little? We send a hundred of thousand of satellites in to the space every year, it shouldn't be too mush of an economical burden to send some parts to be collect by manned space station (like the ISS), we can then crash the station in to the moon and use the local material for construction.

Satellites and a small number of scientific research vessels are pretty much all we can afford to send out there. Even those private companies that let you ride up for million-dollar seat-prices don't get you completely out of the atmosphere, you get to the edge and come right back down again. There's also the problem of sustaining life outside Earth's atmosphere. It's very difficult and expensive. And I don't know what "local materials" you think we're going to find on the moon, we don't even have the resources to look for them there never-mind mine them. We haven't failed to get back to the moon in 50 years simply out of lack of interest.

I think we will at least found some rock, which could be use to blend with some binding material (foam, epoxy, cement etc.) to form some kind of affordable construction material. We can send small piece of tools pieces by pieces or if it is very large and heavy, break them down to parts and keep sending. In short term, we should be able to fortify ISS in to some kind of sustainable space station (may be with climate control green house to produce oxygen and food), in the future we can crash it on the moon surface to form the first human settlement on moon.

And how will they deal with Gamma Rays on this moon settlement

Currently the only thing on earth that will stop gamma rays is plates of lead several inches thick. Plants will not grow on the moon using natural sun light. The gamma rays will destroy the plants genetic structure. Any settlement on the moon will have to be a lead box with no windows. You need to focus way more on the science instead of the fiction part.

"Nothing actually "stops" Gamma rays, it is a matter that 1/2" of lead statistically blocks 1/2 of the rays, the next 1/2" will block 1/2 of what's left etc. etc. until the remaining ray is insignificant. Each absorbing material, be it lead, earth, water whatever has a statistical "half-thickness" assigned to it."

I did some checking. A Thickness of 3 meters of lead will stop all gamma radiation, so we are looking at 2 1/2 to 2 3/4 meters to block gamma rays to a safe level.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 6:10:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
A private company has proposed building a settlement on the moon. Protection against gamma rays is achieved by living underground.

The idea is to mine water from moon craters and, using solar power, recover the hydrogen and oxygen for use as rocket fuel. This would enable building a refueling station in orbit around the earth. A major cost of deep space missions and manned orbital missions is the cost of getting extra fuel into orbit. Having a fueling station in space in space would be quite valuable.

Scientists are convinced that there is quite a bit of water on the moon. An experiment was done in which a vehicle was crashed into the surface and the cloud of dust thrown up was analyzed. Comets and the rings of Saturn, for example, are made of ice; so water gets around even in space.

Launching stuff from the moon can be done with a rail gun, an electromagnetic catapult. The electricity would come from solar power. Metals can be refined from minerals on the moon to build large structures. One use of large structures is for large solar-powered electric generators in orbit around the earth, with power beamed down by microwaves. Large reflectors might also be built to add or subtract solar energy for climate control; global warming is somewhere around 2-3% of the energy received from the sun.

Separately, there is a privately-funded project to mine rare minerals from asteroids. That would be done with robots, however, eliminating the life support problem.

It's theoretically possible to build an elevator to earth orbit. The idea is to put a weight on a long cable and use the centrifugal force of the rotating earth to keep the cable taught. An elevator car could then crawl up the cable. This requires a very strong lightweight cable. The theory is that a type of carbon fiber is strong enough to work in the application.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 8:50:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 6:10:35 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
A private company has proposed building a settlement on the moon. Protection against gamma rays is achieved by living underground.

The idea is to mine water from moon craters and, using solar power, recover the hydrogen and oxygen for use as rocket fuel. This would enable building a refueling station in orbit around the earth. A major cost of deep space missions and manned orbital missions is the cost of getting extra fuel into orbit. Having a fueling station in space in space would be quite valuable.

Scientists are convinced that there is quite a bit of water on the moon. An experiment was done in which a vehicle was crashed into the surface and the cloud of dust thrown up was analyzed. Comets and the rings of Saturn, for example, are made of ice; so water gets around even in space.

Launching stuff from the moon can be done with a rail gun, an electromagnetic catapult. The electricity would come from solar power. Metals can be refined from minerals on the moon to build large structures. One use of large structures is for large solar-powered electric generators in orbit around the earth, with power beamed down by microwaves. Large reflectors might also be built to add or subtract solar energy for climate control; global warming is somewhere around 2-3% of the energy received from the sun.

Separately, there is a privately-funded project to mine rare minerals from asteroids. That would be done with robots, however, eliminating the life support problem.

It's theoretically possible to build an elevator to earth orbit. The idea is to put a weight on a long cable and use the centrifugal force of the rotating earth to keep the cable taught. An elevator car could then crawl up the cable. This requires a very strong lightweight cable. The theory is that a type of carbon fiber is strong enough to work in the application.

Roy?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 1:19:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 11:15:38 AM, sadolite wrote:
Two words "Gamma Rays" You can not live in space outside of the earth's magnetic field for any extended period of time. All, without exception, who traveled to the moon suffered some genetic damage just in the couple of days outside of the earth's magnetic field. 39 astronauts have developed cataracts because of their short time spent in space. A maned mars mission is nothing more than a fantasy. All they will be sending to mars is a coffin of dead astronauts.

Then think about it. What stops the gamma rays from killing us on Earth? The answer is our natural magnetic field. I'm certain that there is a way that something like this could be made to cover a spaceship or a colony. Covering an entire planet would be considerably more difficult, but it isn't necessary to cover it by generating the field in a similar manner to Earth's magnetic field. It could be covered by using a grid of smaller generators if needed.

Also, there are types of gamma-resistant glass: http://www.aecinfo.com...
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 8:05:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 1:19:13 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/6/2013 11:15:38 AM, sadolite wrote:
Two words "Gamma Rays" You can not live in space outside of the earth's magnetic field for any extended period of time. All, without exception, who traveled to the moon suffered some genetic damage just in the couple of days outside of the earth's magnetic field. 39 astronauts have developed cataracts because of their short time spent in space. A maned mars mission is nothing more than a fantasy. All they will be sending to mars is a coffin of dead astronauts.

Then think about it. What stops the gamma rays from killing us on Earth? The answer is our natural magnetic field. I'm certain that there is a way that something like this could be made to cover a spaceship or a colony. Covering an entire planet would be considerably more difficult, but it isn't necessary to cover it by generating the field in a similar manner to Earth's magnetic field. It could be covered by using a grid of smaller generators if needed.

Also, there are types of gamma-resistant glass: http://www.aecinfo.com...

All money for space should be spent on low earth orbit science. Man can't live anywhere but on this planet. Oh sure you will find volunteers seeking fame and fortune for trying to live somewhere like the Moon or Mars but they will be "Dead by Dawn" so to speak. Until two things are certain.. 1) Being able to travel at least half the speed of light for a trip to Mars (Forget anything else, you have to travel hundreds of times the speed of light just to get to the next neighboring star) and 2) protection from gamma rays. Otherwise any other research is pointless and a waste of money. The moon is the only thing worth trying but we have been there and determined it a worthless rock of little mineral or livability value. Why would you go to the moon only to live in a cave?:
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 8:29:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 3:58:56 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
There are a plenty of resource in space, solar power, valuable mineral, and unclaimed space.

We have technology to send large object in to space, we have technology to growth and harvest plant species in close and controlled environment. We also have nuclear submarine that can support the life of human even in hostile environment. What else do we need? What prevent anyone from investing in space expedition and ripe all the benefit?

This is probably the most fantastic analysis I have ever read.
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 9:59:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would disagree with most people who posted here. Saying that energy is a problem is partially correct, but not for the reasons that some here have put forth. We can't simply assume that the means which we now have of procuring energy are the best that we can develop; if we would have made that assumption before the industrial revolution we would come to similar conclusions about transatlantic travel. It's perfectly feasible that we could discover some new method of acquiring energy. What may make this impossible would be our sabotaging of the brief window of opportunity which we have been granted by fossil fuels. We need to do some combination of the following: scale back pointless consumption, switch to more renewable energy, and make leaps and bounds in nuclear technology. The glut of energy which we now enjoy is temporary due to its finite fuel source, and it powers all of the infrastructure which makes further technological advances possible. If we use it wisely, in a way which is conducive to further technological growth, we may very well make it to space. If we don't, our species will never reach that point, and will in fact regress.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 10:55:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 8:05:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
...The moon is the only thing worth trying but we have been there and determined it a worthless rock of little mineral or livability value. Why would you go to the moon only to live in a cave?:

People would go to the moon for money and adventure, much as people go to remote places to drill for oil. There are also scientific purposes. Moon base occupants would be rotated in intervals, probably less than a year. The research station at the South Pole is something of a model.

I listed the economic incentives: a fuel source for low earth orbit, for building large orbital structures used for climate engineering and power generation, and to support robotic deep space mineral collection.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 8:30:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 10:55:55 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:05:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
...The moon is the only thing worth trying but we have been there and determined it a worthless rock of little mineral or livability value. Why would you go to the moon only to live in a cave?:

People would go to the moon for money and adventure, much as people go to remote places to drill for oil. There are also scientific purposes. Moon base occupants would be rotated in intervals, probably less than a year. The research station at the South Pole is something of a model.

I listed the economic incentives: a fuel source for low earth orbit, for building large orbital structures used for climate engineering and power generation, and to support robotic deep space mineral collection.

I'm all for those ideas, just one little catch though. Do it on your own dime if they are such great and wonderful ideas. I don't want one dime of my tax dollars wasted on it. If they are profitable and feasible my tax dollars should not be required. If it's going to be a subsidised money pit for the elites. No thanks.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 12:16:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 8:30:30 PM, sadolite wrote:

I'm all for those ideas, just one little catch though. Do it on your own dime if they are such great and wonderful ideas. I don't want one dime of my tax dollars wasted on it. If they are profitable and feasible my tax dollars should not be required. If it's going to be a subsidised money pit for the elites. No thanks.

I agree. Don't worry, since there are no votes in space to buy, Obama is not going to spend money on it. That's good in the long run. We are now moving towards privatization of space exploration. There are a number of new companies in the rocket business. The government killed the follow-on to the space shuttle and instead bought a delivery service to the space station from a private company.

The one possible exception is climate control. If it were possible to control pieces of the climate, that would be a valuable service, but there is no way to do that. So if and when it becomes a problem, it will be a government problem. Climate engineering is much cheaper than windmills and solar panels.

Another exception is scientific use. That's a modest expenditure.

Someone proposed funding a Mars mission by selling cable TV video rights. Sounds good to me.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 12:28:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/31/2013 12:16:27 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/28/2013 8:30:30 PM, sadolite wrote:

I'm all for those ideas, just one little catch though. Do it on your own dime if they are such great and wonderful ideas. I don't want one dime of my tax dollars wasted on it. If they are profitable and feasible my tax dollars should not be required. If it's going to be a subsidised money pit for the elites. No thanks.

I agree. Don't worry, since there are no votes in space to buy, Obama is not going to spend money on it. That's good in the long run. We are now moving towards privatization of space exploration. There are a number of new companies in the rocket business. The government killed the follow-on to the space shuttle and instead bought a delivery service to the space station from a private company.

The one possible exception is climate control. If it were possible to control pieces of the climate, that would be a valuable service, but there is no way to do that. So if and when it becomes a problem, it will be a government problem. Climate engineering is much cheaper than windmills and solar panels.

Another exception is scientific use. That's a modest expenditure.

Someone proposed funding a Mars mission by selling cable TV video rights. Sounds good to me.

It could perhaps be served as a base for asteroid mining. A refuel station foe launching spacecraft to bring in the ore or even the asteroid as a whole to be extract and send to earth.
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 2:34:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Topic:What prevent us from going in to space.
YHWH is. Believe you me...you don't want to go up there without Him, your eye balls can get sucked out, no O2 really, bad deal. Just be patient and repent of your sins. He will blow your mind when He shows you His universe but if you remain disobedient and separate from Him, well then, you will never see space while you are trying to tread in liquid fire....oh..how horrible...REPENT~~~!!!!!!
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 7:35:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A couple of reasons come to mind immediately:

Expense: It's not cheap sending things to space. I haven't done a whole lot of digging, but expenses of sending stuff into space is--if you pardon the pun--astronomical. The lowest price point I found here: http://www.npr.org... at 1,000 dollars per pound to send something to space. And, if you believe the wiki, prices are higher for our current method of deploying chemically-fueled rockets, as much as $40,000/kg.: http://en.wikipedia.org... That cost is more than prohibitive from setting up infrastructure in the upper atmosphere, let alone the moon or Mars or wherever.

Danger: Space is a pretty hostile environment. Not only are there the solar wind and the sun's radiation to contend with, there are micrometeroroids, which are blindingly fast (~22,000 mph or 10 km/s), come without a moment's notice, and can puncture space suits, like so many bullets. [source: http://www.nasa.gov... ; http://en.wikipedia.org... ] And there is what is generally termed "zero gravity." When we do not stand on our feet for very long periods of time, our bones become brittle and our muscles deteriorate from lack of use, which is a problem that is going to be exacerbated by long-term space flight.

Yes people are working on these problems, and there are theoretical solutions out there, but here and now, the above are some of the most pressing issues at the moment.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 5:45:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/31/2013 10:20:04 PM, leojm wrote:
Obama. NASA doesn't have the funds.

nasa is not the only people who are allowed to go into space. there are no laws having to with that
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 10:36:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 5:45:20 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 5/31/2013 10:20:04 PM, leojm wrote:
Obama. NASA doesn't have the funds.

nasa is not the only people who are allowed to go into space. there are no laws having to with that

The fact I think leo is pointing out is that NASA is the agency that is responsible for the majority of the exploration of the solar system, and a lack of funding severely cripples the ability to go and work in space. SpaceX, while promising, is just getting started; the ESA, while more established, isn't quite up to the task; the Russian space agency, the FKA, while having roots in the rather illustrious Soviet space agency, and running much of the ISS, is mainly limited to the ISS; The Japanese, Chinese, and Indian space agencies are also finding their footing. Shortchanging NASA is shortchanging much of the exploration of space.
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 1:56:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/31/2013 2:34:00 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
Topic:What prevent us from going in to space.
YHWH is. Believe you me...you don't want to go up there without Him, your eye balls can get sucked out, no O2 really, bad deal. Just be patient and repent of your sins. He will blow your mind when He shows you His universe but if you remain disobedient and separate from Him, well then, you will never see space while you are trying to tread in liquid fire....oh..how horrible...REPENT~~~!!!!!!
I like this answer best.
Quan
Posts: 97
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 10:52:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The vast distance we have to cover to get anywhere. It takes half a year just to get to Mars. We would have to colonize a space station and have renewable sources of food, water, oxygen, and energy. Even then, they aren't likely to find anything interesting by just traveling in arbitrary direction. And even if they did, they would be unable to communicate the information back to Earth.

There are still a lot of technological obstacles to overcome.
mathdebator
Posts: 72
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 10:47:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Troy Rising series by John Ringo is a good example of how we could go about space exploration. They didn't have the resources to built a Death Star, so they instead used a nuclear bomb to clear out a floating space rock. Wait a few hundred years, attach some rooms and engines (slow as they may be) and tada! Space ship.

They used the space ship along with solar powered lasers to mine out rocks in space.