Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox
There are tremendous advantages to having a strong and enthusiastic space program. I have long been a proponent of increased funding and attention to space programs, and have advocated for the creation of a more independent and functional space program for Canada. The International Space Station has given us a lot of information on what it's like to live in space for prolonged periods of time, and this experience is going to be critical when planning longer-term missions. Thre are three key points, really, for my advocacy of a strengthened space program.Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
The End of the World. Hopefully, the end of the world as we know it is not soon upon us--but the fact is, science has shown that the world has been decimated before. The end of the dinosaurs demonstrates that no species, no matter how seemingly dominant, is immune to a massive global disaster. And whether this disaster might be by our own hand, or by Mother Nature, there is always the chance that something of that magnitude could happen again. If this is indeed the case, then pre-established colonies in diverse places on the moon, Mars and perhaps one day elsewhere, would be the only way to definitively assure the continuation of our species.
Capacity for International Unity. Space programs, as they explore what nobody actually knows for sure, are one of the few areas that the diverse international...
Interesting. I'd been arguing that before we can have an effective and efficient space program, we first need to develop international relations and solar tech etc. You're arguing that the advancement of a space program will lead to the advancement of such technology and international relations.
I tend to disagree with your here. If we don't have these things in place already, then the expansion of a space program risks potential conflicts in future. And to expand space exploration prior to more efficient technologies will merely drain resources in the construction of inefficient space craft etc. I'd say we have it all backwards. Advanced tech and international relations must precede such expansion, not the other way around.
As for human extinction, we need to consider that we still don't clearly know what happened to the dinosaurs. We must also consider that seeing that life continued, clearly it had nothing to do with the permanent changing of the Sun. The Sun will continue to last many millions of years at least before it's ever a threat to us. I don't disagree that sooner or later we will need to abandon this planet. But let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Our Sun is still good for a long time to come. For now, let's focus on digging ourselves in. Building deep underground public transit, grain stroage facilities, underground mineral research and underground tech woudl be the way to go for now. Besides, should we ever move to a new yet more hostile planetary environment, such underground tech could be useful. For now, I do sincerely think we need to focus on earthbound technologies while at the same time working on developing international relations and energy conversion technologies. In short, if these technologies allow us to live more effiicent, safer, secure, healthier and happier lives on earth, then these same technologies would then provide a firm foundation for the development of space tech in the future. Right now, seeing that our earth tech itself is still relatively primitive, how are we oing to develop space stations in space?
Sure we may have the technology to colonize the moon already without a doubt. But we certainly don't have the technology to allow us to do so in a relatively efficient manner without sucking massive economic resources. Let's make sure we have a solid foundation of earth tech and advanced international relations before we build the house of space exploration, otherwise we risk building a house bound to cave in on itself economically in the future.
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchy
The ISS already gets boatloads of public money, can't stop that.
Space tech makes new tech, like cordless power tools. Is that efficient? But no space program and they likely would not have happened. A gadget that has worldwide use.
Now your using the 'war is good' fallacy. All the technology developed in war that was then converted to civilian use could have been developed at a fraction of the cost in peace time. The same applies here. It would have been much cheaper to develop cordless powertools alone than to do so alongside an expensive space program. Heck, with the money saved, we might have been able to develop other tech too that we've lost out on owing to this waste.
Going to new places gives us new ideas, which is what we need right now.
Can't education achieve the same results at a fraction of the cost and for many more people?
The USA invents so much, why they would not want to break new ground and create new jobs is beyond me.
Who says space exploraiton is a prerequisite for tech development? As pointed out above, same with military spending, we could likely develop far more tech at a fraction of the price if we merely focussed on developing practical tech rather than have it developed so inefficiently as merely a spinoff of some other wasteful spending.
1. Scientists agree on this. An asteroid could whack us and end our pitiful lives.
Then let's imagine the following scenario:
We lern that an asteroid will whack us in a few years' time. Would our focus be to move the human population off-planet, or to dig it into the grond?
And what kind of tech would we likely be developing? My guess is they'd realise that as advanced as our tech is, it's not advanced enough for permanent extraplanetary life, including saving so many books of literature. Sure they could be downloaded and brought away with a mega computer. but there is still too much we don't know.
My guess is the tech focus then would be on developing underground thermal energy conversion tech, tech to dry food more quickly and efficiently, purify and recicle water more efficiently, perhaps grow food underground, etc. etc. etc.
First off, such tech could be developed in a far shorter time frame and at less cost. Secondly, it would have far more immediate practical use than much space tech at this time. And most importantly, such tech would lay the necessary ground work for proper alloplanetary colonization. After all, especially if such climates are more hostile, underground tech developed on earth would be absolutely essential. Let's not put the cart before the horse. To develop space tech if an asteroid is going to hit in nine years' time would be plain stupid. In that case, we'd stand a better chance to burrow. This same tech could then help us to successfully travel the stars later. You can't skip primary school to go to high school. First things' first.
2. Space is great world project and would go on forever.
Like before, this is just pretty-sounding rhetoric. What great world project going on forever? Once we land on Mars' cold surface or Venus' hot surface, burrowing tech could come in handy. Without that, all our space tech is useless. So let's get our priorities straight. Let's master the foundations of earth tech first before building the house of space tech so that it does not come to nought in the end. Otherwise, it's like inventing the solar panel before the wires that will allow us to transfer that energy to the TV set. You'll notice the wires were invented first, thus making the solar panel useful. Had the solar panel been invented first, it would have been a complete waste of money since there would have been no way to then tap the energy produced. In a sence, we're witnessing this problem with some space tech today. Space tech is advancing faster than the earth tech that would be necessary to make it of practical use to settle other planets.
3. New green tech, what enviro doesn't want this? Although the Russians are working on a nuclear rocket, but you gotta use the tech that works. There is never a perfect time to do anything, but the world is becoming boringly middle class and this is an opportunity to unite more people of the world in the most exciting project ever.
Sure. Let's develop green tech people will use en mass here on earth, not that a handful of astronauts will use in space.
As for uniting the peoples of the world, I doubt some theoretical pie in the sky ISS or moon bse will unite many starving people behind th eproject. Let's solve those problems first and then you may be right.