Is the exploration of space necessary,

[Ghostrider]

To put it simply, the sun is going to become inhospitable in a few billion years.

The human race will not be there to worry about it. It's not because we'll wipe ourselves out, it's simply nature. We'll become extinct, and maybe something else will take our place - or not. We may well be a curiosity in evolution terms. We probably have a couple of million years left (which is a LONG time after all) but we're not eternal.

 

[thomasantony]

Global warming is for the most part a hoax. Let me explain.

Supposedly, global warming is caused by an increase in greenhouse gases such as CO2, right? As more CO2 is pumped into the air, the earth's surface becomes warmer.

However, those two factors, extra CO2 and warmer temperatures, will encourage plant growth. As more plants grow, they turn the CO2 into O2 through photosynthesis. Thus, the earth's temperature drops.

And everything is once again where it was. The earth is a stable environment.

The Earth's climate system is not as simple as that. If it were, we wouldn't have huge supercomputers crunching away numbers predicting climate models etc. There are a lot more variables, some which are not even known. For example, there is the question of Methane deposits i nthe Arctic which might be destabilized by some small increase in temperature and thus lead to runaway Greenhouse effect. Then there is the factor of Solar variation.


Initially, after reading Michael Crichton's ( May he rest in peace ) State of Fear, I was also pretty much convinced that the Global Warming thingy was a hoax.

But when you come to think of it, you lack the necessary information to make an informed decision about it. So I will defer judgment, until there is sufficient evidence to prove it. In the mean time I will do whatever I can to reduce pollution, conserve energy etc.

 

[Dig Gil]

Returning to the first question on this forum: I think space exploration can solve world's problem including poverty rather money. In Earth we have resources, but they are running out causing the poverty (I'm not saying poverty is due lack of resources, because there is just too many variables that define how wealth someone might be, it's just one important factor), so exploiting other planets and asteroids, can suport a nearly unlimited amount of the most essential resources like iron, aluminium, carbon, oxigen, nitrogen, principally hydrogen, cooper, ect.... with those resources we may advance tecnologically, give more jobs, increase population (space colonies) and so on.

 

[Artlav]

In Earth we have resources, but they are running out causing the poverty
...
it's just one important factor
...
so exploiting other planets and asteroids, can suport a nearly unlimited amount of the most essential resources
...
give more jobs
...

Guess who will get the resources in question.
Guess who will want the jobs.

We have an abundance of resources here, on Earth.
We can invent as many jobs as needed to make a reason to give money to the poor.

And yet, neither are used, neither are made.

 

[Dig Gil]

That's because people are not aware of their chances, but if someone (for example) reaches Mars, then notices there are more iron mines that his/her company can handle then everyone starts talking about it spreading to the world causing the same effects that took place on gold race ages.

 

[Moonwalker]

I don't care about sciences too much, or lets say on the whole. I'm also not a slave of personality cult. Other than Steven Hawking and those who prostrate before Steven Hawking, I don't think at all that we would ever live anywhere else, independent from the only place within the solar system and obviously unreachable far beyond, which enabled live. There is no escape from death and finiteness within the entire universe. The little gimmick we call science, and that little bit of space flight we do, won't change this. We won't even change climate changes down here on Earth. We can't even prevent a little storm. We are and always will be energetic dwarfs and victims of the nature around us. And we'll die sooner or later, every single one of us, even Steven Hawking, and even if we live anywhere else.

Enjoy your short live and be nice to your children, neighbours and the nature around you. Anything else might be interesting, but not essential.

 

[Bj]

The little gimmick we call science, and that little bit of space flight we do, won't change this. We won't even change climate changes down here on Earth. We can't even prevent a little storm.

We cannot prevent storms now, but think about it, just because our technology now is preventing us from doing unimaginable things doesn't mean that future discovery / inventions will hinder this. What did people say to the Wright brothers in the 1900's? The Wright brothers discovered flight, but they still couldn't even [FONT=&quot]dream of jet engines, [/FONT]yet here we are 100 years later with jet engines, scramjets turbojets, and rockets.

 

[Ghostrider]

We cannot prevent storms now, but think about it, just because our technology now is preventing us from doing unimaginable things doesn't mean that future discovery / inventions will hinder this. What did people say to the Wright brothers in the 1900's? The Wright brothers discovered flight, but they still couldn't even [FONT=&quot]dream of jet engines, [/FONT]yet here we are 100 years later with jet engines, scramjets turbojets, and rockets.

Not to play Devil's Advocate (because I look nothing like Keanu Reeves), but the Wright brothers did not discover flight. Human flight was already feasible thanks to lighter-than-air airships and gliders, and we already knew the laws of aerodynamics. As for jet engines, the principle of jet propulsion was known since Hero's aeolipile.

In order to colonize our own solar system we'd have to invent stuff we don't have yet. The most "friendly" planet out there is Mars, and Mars is even less hospitable than Antarctica. How many big cities do you see on Antarctica? And that's a pretty place compared to Mars. The rest of the Solar System is even worse. We could survive in some places, but surviving is not living and in order to form a viable colony with a chance to expand, you need to live. I'd like to point out we've had many example of failed colonies here on Earth, in places where there was water, food - and especially OXYGEN - aplenty.

Beyond the Solar System, without FTL, better to forget it. We don't have the foggiest idea how to go beyond the speed of light for real. There are some exotic theories, but they're theories and theories are good in a classroom or in a lab, they do not build anything.

Multigenerational spaceship? Oh yeah. Find me enough people who are masochist enough to be willing to spend their whole lives, and the lives of their kids and grandkids, cooped up inside a spaceship. Even if you could find them, the travel time is so darned long to go beyond the MTBF of any vital component. Unless you can build a ship without breakable parts (like the ship from Heinlein's Orphans of the Sky) it would still take a very little accident to turn your advanced spaceship into a floating mass grave. Yeah. Keep in mind there aren't any pit stops between Sol and your destination.

So, unless we find a way to bypass the speed of light, we're pretty much confined here.

That said, I'm all for manned space exploration, which is a different thing than colonization. As for "necessary"... Well, nothing is strictly necessary but for food, water and air. Is modern medicine necessary? No, the human race could easily survive without it, but it's good we have it. Are computers necessary? No, but they're useful. Space exploration can bring us a lot of useful knowledge we could apply on Earth, until we find a way to crack the light barrier.

 

[Bj]

Not to play Devil's Advocate (because I look nothing like Keanu Reeves), but the Wright brothers did not discover flight. Human flight was already feasible thanks to lighter-than-air airships and gliders, and we already knew the laws of aerodynamics. As for jet engines, the principle of jet propulsion was known since Hero's aeolipile.

Well yes, lighter-than-air airplanes were around, but what I am saying is that just because we cannot see technology now developing into something entirely futuristic (Sci-Fi movies, stuff like that) doesn't mean that it cannot happen. Yes, true I don't see Mars colonization happening within the next 100 years, but time goes to infinity and infinity is a loooooong time...

I could step back and say, cavemen couldn't dream of flying... :lol:

Anyway, principle is sometimes a lot different then the real thing.

Example;

Principle;

Or the real thing...

 

[penlu]

I do believe that the development of space will solve at least some problems. In the weightless environment of space, special drugs can be developed or existing drugs can be manufactured much more easily.

Food can be produced up there. LOTS AND LOTS of food. Maybe in a high orbit facility with automatic reentry capsules.

You can never hope to ship all the people born up to space. Good luck rocketing 200,000 people A DAY into orbit.

And plus, all the science that comes out of it should be incentive enough.

 

[Moonwalker]

Food can be produced up there. LOTS AND LOTS of food.

We don't even produce food at Antarctica, deserts, or on the ground of the oceans for example, nor do we colonize such beautiful places. So we won't do so within the universe less than ever. Space is the most unfriendly place for almost any kind of life we have on our planet. Even more unfriendly than the top of the Mount Everest. That's why nobody never really was in space by the way. All we do is to enter vehicles and suits which create an artificial atmosphere. But that's not really being in space. You can be in a desert, in water or just walk in a forest and enjoy the nature. But you can't be somewhere else outside our blue planet that way. That's a very important fact which makes our planet unique and which most people don't seem to realize these days.

We just have this one blue planet, and we won't get a second one, nor would we "create" a second one. All we need is here already. You won't get it anywere else that easy and in such a scale.

Also, I don't see problems with freshwater and food really. I also don't see an alleged unusual global climate change. I live for 30 years, while only a few people last for about 100 years, while the Earth exists for almost 4,5 billion years! Anything else is just scientific smart asses. The humankind still is increasing. And if the birthrate should remain as it is at the moment, globally per woman, then humankind might even decrease again past 2050.

Good or bad?

How much humans can this planet handle? How much humans should live at all? Well, we won't decide it, the nature will do so. We don't need Mars, we don't need artificial habitats. We already live in the Garden of Eden. But everything has its boundary and its end anway. Even the solar system and universe. Remember: our Earth still is unique. And this within light years of hostile space.

 

[JamesG]

To extend your religious tone a little farther. We can squat in our Garden of Eden.. at least until God get impatient with us and drops a big rock on our heads and starts over.

And everything is once again where it was. The earth is a stable environment.

The Earth's atmosphere is a dynamic environment. It adapts and changes based on inputs and effects. How much and how quickly it takes for change to occur is something people can only guess at (and they do, usually towards some end).

"Global warming" is BS, but its hopeful end products, less pollution and more efficiencies, make the lie almost tolerable.

Oh and put me down in the "Exploration of Space IS necessary" camp too.

 

[cjp]

Space exploration is necessary... in the long term.

Our resources on earth are not without limits. As our consumption continues expanding (by population growth and by technological improvement), we will hit certain limits. Sooner or later.

My personal guess on the climate change is that it will be worse than predicted by the IPCC. It will be OK for the next decade, but we might have something like 2 degrees increase within 20 years. But that's just a wild guess of course.

Now, the presence of these limits doesn't mean we won't survive hitting them when we don't leave earth. But it won't be fun either. Sooner or later, we will have to find a way to live sustainably on earth, but real sustainability conflicts with growth, so this way of life will halt the expansion of mankind.

If we really want to continue our expansion, sooner or later we'll have to leave earth. That doesn't mean now is the right time to leave earth and colonize space. There are still places on earth (like the oceans, or Antarctica) that are more friendly environments than anything in outer space (by far), but that are still too hostile to be attractive for human colonization. I suggest we do an "easy one first" approach, and colonize these places before we leave earth. It, together with the adaptations we might need to develop for a ruined climate, might just provide the technologies we are still missing for a successful colonization of space.

I don't really understand why manned space exploration (moon, mars and beyond...) that is not related to colonization would useful. It should have some large advantage over robotic exploration, to justify the huge costs, but I don't really see it.

 

[SiberianTiger]

I don't really understand why manned space exploration (moon, mars and beyond...) that is not related to colonization would useful. It should have some large advantage over robotic exploration, to justify the huge costs, but I don't really see it.

When one kg on orbit gets much cheaper than today (say, 10 times cheaper) - no matter what the silver bullet would be, a point will be reached when it's cheaper to train a mechanic and send him to space to build from parts and look for equipment than to make an all-redundant hardware and launch it in one piece. This is really a bit complex than that - not only a bare kg cost on orbit matters, but also what's the most economic payload size is, etc.

But I think, you've got the idea. We might need some kind of a Big Space Plane for starter.

 

[Moonwalker]

My personal guess on the climate change is that it will be worse than predicted by the IPCC. It will be OK for the next decade, but we might have something like 2 degrees increase within 20 years. But that's just a wild guess of course.

The IPCC is a dispensable bureaucratic UN body in my point of view. It exists to proof unusal and man made global warming and to prepare political programs. The IPCC has not the assignment to collect and present any different findings. It's just the usual politics.

Regarding the global temperature: it's a man made mathematical construct and the result of man made measurements. It's a number. No more, no less. The atmosphere, and the universe which certainly has some influences to the atmosphere, does not care about numbers, nice colorful graphics and political programs.

The climate always was called to be bad. A cooling trend is bad. A warming trend is bad. If our measurements go up or down, it was always called to point into a bad future. But in fact, the climate change problem exists in some peoples heads only.

 

[Urwumpe]

Moonwalker: We already had that argumentation about the purpose of the IPCC. Can you please give any conclusive evidence other than anti-AGW pages, which use any lie to make their world stable and 6000 years old?

The only real criticism on the IPCC, which is confirmed by many sides is their slow working process, which makes it impossible to include current scientific findings - including criticisms of the already known papers, which then have to wait for the next.

Even the potential problem of selective papers does not work.

 

[Ghostrider]

... any lie to make their world stable and 6000 years old?

4.5 billion or 6000 years old, it's way past retirement...

 

[Moonwalker]

I don't need to throw around conclusive evidences because I don't claim something. I also don't refer to any sides or anti-AGW movements. I just don't see any bad climate changes and less than ever a bad future. And I personally don't need the IPCC. Other people might experience and claim different things.

EDIT: The assignemnt of the IPCC is clear and obvious. There is no conclusive evidence required. It's like asking for the conclusive evidence which shows that Airbus is an aviation company

 

[Urwumpe]

OK, so you did not claim that the IPCC only exists to "proof unusal and man made global warming."? Which is, not the purpose of the international panel on climate change:

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.

It leaves the proving of things to others - and is no scientific institution. Just like all spaceflight agencies, which have a scientific and a political side.

 

[Moonwalker]

OK, so you did not claim that the IPCC only exists to "proof unusal and man made global warming."?

That's not a real claim. That's what the reports show. A kind of statement which assures that we have to act politically now.

The description of the IPCC you posted, which I know already, sounds like it has to sound since it is their advertising. Any political weapon gets nice advertising. But still, the IPCC is dominated by political bureaucrats. And if you listen to them in interviews, you'll hear that's not even the assignement of the IPCC to debate. Just like Al Gore also loves to mention, the debate is over.

But anyway, I don't really take much care about it anymore. Just as more and more people don't do. I'd even say the majority. It's just boring politics.