Why aren't we in space yet!

[TerriO]

UWC Defiance said:
Everything dies. I remember him posting that paragraph as long ago as...GEnie?...and it's always struck me as familiar, 1950s-style John Campbell bombast. The conclusion is assumed in the premise.

"All of this" is either "for nothing" or means as much as it means to us today, depending on how nihilistic one chooses to be, but our unhappiness at the prospect of death - in whatever form - is no more or less a compelling reason for massive engineering projects in space directed at staving off events as we imagine they will be in the far future than it is for building pyramids to hold the mummified remains of our rulers.

Okay, so, the notion that "everything dies" is justification for not trying to do something to ensure continuation of the species? I mean, sure, we can sit here on Earth for billions of years, but are you saying when the Sun dies and takes Earth out with it, we should just accept the death of humanity and be done with it?

By that reasoning, we should off humanity as a whole now and be done with it. If we're just going to sit here for billions of years, why bother going on?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

TerriO said:
Okay, so, the notion that "everything dies" is justification for not trying to do something to ensure continuation of the species? I mean, sure, we can sit here on Earth for billions of years, but are you saying when the Sun dies and takes Earth out with it, we should just accept the death of humanity and be done with it?

Nope. I'm saying that conjuring up those kinds of visions is a long, long way from making the case that space exploration is an imperative, something "humanity has to do." That's enormously value-laden and there are more than a few ways to look at it.

Humanity will, after all, die. If one assumes a God who cares, then all that's happened to us "means something" because of that regardless of the species' temporal fate. If one does not (I don't), then there's no such thing as ultimate survival of anything - nothing we know suggests that the Universe is eternal, after all, and there's no way to escape the end of that. One can fret about whether humanity will end in two, or three, or thirty billion years, but there's a truly bizarre kind of hubris in thinking that because the likelihood of our eventual hypothetical end concerns us that the most dramatic, untried and simplistic solution that occurs to us today therefore has some compelling rationale.

You and I will never know, of course, so we may as well believe in whatever gives us comfort - God, starships or Edy's Espresso Chip. I'm an ice cream guy, for the most part.

 

[scotthm]

TerriO said:
Okay, so, the notion that "everything dies" is justification for not trying to do something to ensure continuation of the species? I mean, sure, we can sit here on Earth for billions of years...

If you're just interested in colonizing the galaxy to insure the continuation of the human species, why does it matter if it's begun now, or 10,000 years from now, or 100,000 years from now? It may take thousands of years to develop the technology to make galactic colonization a viable option.

And manned missions to the moon or Mars aren't necessary stepping stones to the development of practical interstellar travel.

---------------

 

[TerriO]

scotthm said:

TerriO said:
Okay, so, the notion that "everything dies" is justification for not trying to do something to ensure continuation of the species? I mean, sure, we can sit here on Earth for billions of years...

If you're just interested in colonizing the galaxy to insure the continuation of the human species, why does it matter if it's begun now, or 10,000 years from now, or 100,000 years from now? It may take thousands of years to develop the technology to make galactic colonization a viable option.

And manned missions to the moon or Mars aren't necessary stepping stones to the development of practical interstellar travel.

---------------

Actually, wouldn't proof that we can take a manned mission to another planet in our solar system be a rather important step in the development of practical interstellar travel?

You have to walk before you can run.

If we are always finding "reasons" to not take that first step, considering the general attitude of mankind these days, we likely never will. Not in 1,000 years, not in 1 million years.

Which is precisely why now is a perfectly good time to start, while memories of the moon landings are still fresh in the minds of the people in a position to make more of them happen.

 

[scotthm]

TerriO said:
Actually, wouldn't proof that we can take a manned mission to another planet in our solar system be a rather important step in the development of practical interstellar travel?

Not at all.

I'm already quite convinced that if we put enough resources behind it, we have the technology to get people to Mars and back. In what way will doing this convince me that we can get a crew to Alpha Centauri and back?

The distances involved are so much greater that the only thing that would make it practical is a revolutionary new propulsion system, and landing a man on Mars today isn't going to give us that.

---------------

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Any expectation that human beings will devote significant resources to a project simply to avoid a hypothetical threat that's centuries away, much less millenia or eons, is bound to be disappointed - memories of the Moon landings notwithstanding.

A nice first step toward a human-crewed mission to another planet would be demonstrating the capability of keeping human beings alive in a completely sealed and independent environment with its own self-contained energy sources for a year or two right here on Earth.

I mean, that's a great deal less expensive than even trying to do it in Earth orbit.

Hasn't worked yet.

 

[MNM]

scotthm said:

Spider said:
Take care of those sorts of things first, and then worry about colonizing the universe. We have more than enough time to do that. We need to survive as a species first before we even think about the stars.

Agreed. There is no need to rush to spread our faults around the galaxy.

MNM said:

scotthm said:
I still haven't gotten a good answer for why we should be in a rush to send people to other planets or even beyond the solar system. It's just not needed.

Just to do it. See what's there. What more reason do you need?

First, you don't have to send people out to "see what's there". Robotic missions will work fine for that. Second, if financing your mission of unnecessary exploration takes away resources from necessary things it's doing more harm than good.

---------------

I appreciate it could be done without sending humans out there, I was giving a reason as to why (some at least) humans would want to actually go out there.

 

[TerriO]

UWC Defiance said:
A nice first step toward a human-crewed mission to another planet would be demonstrating the capability of keeping human beings alive in a completely sealed and independent environment with its own self-contained energy sources for a year or two right here on Earth.

I mean, that's a great deal less expensive than even trying to do it in Earth orbit.

Hasn't worked yet.

I take it the Biosphere experiments don't fulfill that criteria for you?

 

[Neopeius]

TerriO said:

UWC Defiance said:
A nice first step toward a human-crewed mission to another planet would be demonstrating the capability of keeping human beings alive in a completely sealed and independent environment with its own self-contained energy sources for a year or two right here on Earth.

I mean, that's a great deal less expensive than even trying to do it in Earth orbit.

Hasn't worked yet.

I take it the Biosphere experiments don't fulfill that criteria for you?

Pauly Shore notwithstanding, weren't the Biosphere experiments something of a wash-out?

 

[Brent]

We need a Millennium Gate!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

TerriO said:

UWC Defiance said:
A nice first step toward a human-crewed mission to another planet would be demonstrating the capability of keeping human beings alive in a completely sealed and independent environment with its own self-contained energy sources for a year or two right here on Earth.

I mean, that's a great deal less expensive than even trying to do it in Earth orbit.

Hasn't worked yet.

I take it the Biosphere experiments don't fulfill that criteria for you?

Not successfully, not at all.

This has to be in place as a reliable, working technology before we can talk about long-range space missions. Right now it's not even successful as an experiment.

 

[Irishman]

blockaderunner said:
^^^Okay. I apologize. I was blowing off some steam. But you have to admit that the current lack of scientific innovation in the U.S. and the current policies of this administration aren't mutually exclusive. I mean you can't not ask the question "Why (insert lack of scientific advancement inquiry here)?" without looking towards the Oval Office for the answer.

Okay, now I'm done. Please don't ban me.

You could rightly blame lack of advances (impossible to prove what we "would" have acheived given a different political climate) on the Bushies, except for one little thing:

The rest of the advanced world has done no better in the same time frame.

 

[Hippokrene]

Because the aliens that visit us haven't decided we're worthy of their technology, yet.

Seriously, until the laws of physics are rewritten and we learn how to break the c barrier, I don't see a reason to try to explore space. There's no one to talk to and no habitable planets to explore. Why would we ask someone to spend their life in space (and their children's lives) to reach Alpha Centari and... take pictures?

 

[Lindley]

I've never been entirely clear on why c is a barrier, honestly. I know there's math behind the notion, but the physical reality of it seems rather mysterious.

We don't currently know any way to get information from one place to another faster than c. But if we did, then we'd have FTL communications. Then all we need is matter transmission, and viola, FTL travel.

....Easy, see?

 

[Neopeius]

Lindley said:
I've never been entirely clear on why c is a barrier, honestly. I know there's math behind the notion, but the physical reality of it seems rather mysterious.

Because the universe doesn't want anyone to ever see light traveling at anything other than the speed of light, and it'll mess with your mass and your time sense just to make sure it stays that way.

 

[Deckerd]

It also says that nothing other than light can travel at the speed of light.

 

[Neopeius]

Deckerd said:
It also says that nothing other than light can travel at the speed of light.

Or at least nothing with any rest mass.

 

[Lindley]

Neopeius said:

Lindley said:
I've never been entirely clear on why c is a barrier, honestly. I know there's math behind the notion, but the physical reality of it seems rather mysterious.

Because the universe doesn't want anyone to ever see light traveling at anything other than the speed of light, and it'll mess with your mass and your time sense just to make sure it stays that way.

Ah. So close your eyes. Simple!

 

[Mojochi]

No incentive. Even the Americas would have been less likely to be settled, were it not for the fact that these land masses had centuries worth of resources to extract & exploit

Until there are gains worth fighting each other for, in outer space, Man has no business there.That's the nature of humanity. The most it can offer is scientific study, & we've shown lately that we are very capable of conducting much study without the need of first hand presence

 

[Outpost4]

Lindley said:
I've never been entirely clear on why c is a barrier, honestly. I know there's math behind the notion, but the physical reality of it seems rather mysterious.

Keeping with the mysterious theme, I'll give you a religious reason for C. If you were God and you didn't want neighboring star systems affecting - and polluting - each other, you might make a universe where C is an absolute barrier. It would eliminate species like the Borg, organizations like the Romulan Star Empire or those sickeningly cheerful and very meddlesome folks, the United Federation of Planets.

The existence of C as a barrier is one of those scientific facts that help me believe there is a God.