Disgustipated
LAWLZ
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Posts
- 25,596
People have been living in space, continuously, for 16 years.
I really shouldn't have to explain what I meant to you.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
People have been living in space, continuously, for 16 years.
Unless there's a viable solution to folks living in space or another planet or whatever, the Space Program is a futile clusterfuck of a money drain.
Also, McGriff the Crime Dog came to our school so there.
I would hardly call virtually no activity towards a lunar base in 44 years a "crash program".
You've, for the most part, not misconstrued what I meant. I would really hope the human race survives. Me personally? Not so much. My survival chances with either "solution" are pretty much none to infinitesimal.
I don't think we'd have developed better terrestrial navigation solutions if everyone had refused to sail until we'd invented the sextant.
A pretty good number of invented solutions used for space travel problems were invented because of the issues faced in space travel.
IMO saying we shouldn't do something because we don't have a solution for a problem we might encounter would lead to very little ever getting done.
disagreed....
even if you simply intended to mean
the manned space program
nonetheless,
despite your position... manned spaceflight will continue
until and unless some factor(s) determine
that that environment cannot be tolerated for a long enough term
to either get to a "there"
or progress past those factors...
the science gathered during the iss twins study
( the bulk of which has yet to be disseminated )
may have some interesting issues to address.
...(your last post - in the spirit of conserving pixels)...
As far as "need", Hawking believes otherwise. I'm not saying we should do something just because he says so, but he's probably worth at least listening to.I'm NOT suggesting we "SHOULDN'T do something because we DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM." I'm simply arguing FOR YOUR philosophical approach to human space travel which you just said I haven't misconstrued -- namely that it is evolutionary by nature. Reasonably restated, that evolutionary process can be expressed as "DOING SOMETHING like SOLVING PROBLEMS is primarily justified in response to satisfying PRIORITIZED NEEDS.
That's how evolution works. It's why Darwin called it "natural selection." Man doesn't steer it. It steers man.
Certainly man did not postpone navigation by water until the development of the sextant. But neither did man take to the sea for the purpose of developing bragging rights to more advanced navigational technology. We invent technology to take us places we NEED to go. We don't typically go to immediately non-compelling places to develop and demonstrate superior technology.
The race to the moon against the Russians was a notable exception to that evolutionary principle. I think it was justified given the tenor of the times. As a kid I was very much in favor of it.
As I grew older, I realized it was simply a pretty stupid reason to keep doing it indefinitely. More natural motivations for living and working in space had to present themselves. And they have. Weather, communications and geo-imaging satellites are ubiquitous because of compelling need. Hubble, the International Space Station and the Mars rovers all make far more sense from a strict research standpoint than going back to the moon.
King Orfeo in an earlier post sagely identified the lack of sufficient profit motivation as an impediment to human space travel. But then he crossed over into "la la land" when he called for a massive government R & D program on the scale of the Manhattan Project to find the suitable profit motivation (or create one) to incentivize human space exploration. That's literally exchanging places with the cart and the horse. It's nuts, and the farther out one travels in search of "profitable" space travel (and the sexy flag plantings associated with first landings) the harder and nuttier it gets.
The necessary maturation of human space travel will take care of itself over time as it now should, in the same way that we didn't (and still don't) have to replicate the Wright Brothers' progress from bicycles to wings to fly to Chicago or invent a supersonic commercial air transport system....which no one has anymore because.....well, you know.
As far as "need", Hawking believes otherwise. I'm not saying we should do something just because he says so, but he's probably worth at least listening to.
I'm also not suggesting we expand the space program for the reasons we had the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs.
I question whether going to Mars makes more sense as the first next step. It's only slightly more inhabitable than the moon (SF terraforming aside). Lifting materials from the earth to orbit is a lot more expensive than from the moon to orbit. Even though initially the cost would be similar, the moon has a lot more resources that can be exploited that would eventually reduce the amount of heavy lifting needed to get to Mars, and beyond.
Well, provided we didn't end up with a Space 1999 scenario.