Space, the final frontier.

[Carl East]

This one's for all those sci-fi fans, who will probably relate to what they are about to read.

I have seen so many inventions over the years, some good, some not so good. The one thing I don't see, is any sort of meaningful progress towards getting out there amongst the stars. It grieves me to know that I will be dead and buried long before we make any sort of headway into outer space.

I want to see it all, to go to other planets and meet new life forms, (other than the ones, that have assimilated this board) but I know I'm just dreaming.

I just can't be alone in these thoughts, there must be others amongst you who have a desire to see, just what if anything, is out there.

Carl.

 

[Juliangel]

No you are not alone Carl. I have always hoped that sometime in my lifetime they would get the moon colonized and I would still be capable of making the trip to live on the moon.

 

[Nameless]

I'm going to have to disagree here. I think space travel at this point in human evolution is an utter waste of time. Various space programs around the world pour billions into all this research, while here on the planet earth we have so many problems that should obviously take priority. I can't think of one single space project that has done anything to really affect humanity as a whole for the better. Famine, war, overpopulation, environmental destruction and general suffering still exist right here on this world. So we know what a black hole is? Big deal! Thousands of people are still living on the streets and starving.
I agree that reaching the moon was a fantastic achievement, considering how fast it happened in the overall scheme of things, but look around this planet and tell me what good it's done us. As for colonizing the moon, I think that would be a very serious mistake; we'd only end up destroying that too. How long before Mcdonald's open up there, or the Sea of Tranquility is sponsored by Nike? We need to grow up as a species and start facing the more immediate problems that affect us all. Studying some rocks on Mars may be fascinating to NASA, but I doubt a sweatshop worker in Mexico gives a fuck about it.
I personally wouldn't want to make contact with alien life now. I'd be too ashamed to call myself a human.

 

[Jester]

Carl, believe me, I know exactly how you feel. One of the greatest desires that I have is to feel the lack of the gravity that has held all of my life; to see the Earth, the planet on which I was born, rise over the horizon of the moon; to set foot on a planet where no other human has put their foot before. It's an awing thought. It gives a very unique perspective.

On the flipside, I can relate to some of the things that Nameless said. I don't think that the money that goes into space programs is a waste, but the human race in general does seem to be in pretty poor shape. However, has it ever really been in drastically better or worse shape? Even when/if we solve those problems, there will be others. The more things change, the more they stay the same. That fact shouldn't keep us from reaching out, though. Goals that you strive for but don't reach are better than having no goals at all.

 

[Weird Harold]

I'm going to have to disagree here. I think space travel at this point in human evolution is an utter waste of time. Various space programs around the world pour billions into all this research, while here on the planet earth we have so many problems that should obviously take priority. I can't think of one single space project that has done anything to really affect humanity as a whole for the better.

I can't think of a single space project that has helped humanity either. I can thin of several things that wouldn't exist without the sum total of the exploration of space.

One is Tang(tm) which I've mentioned on another thread.

Another is the fuel cell, now being adapted to zero-pollution cars and busses.

Artificial hearts are also a byproduct of research on valves and pumps done for the space program.

How many lives have been saved by the ability to track hurricanes from space? How many lives will be saved by cars that use global positioning systems in conjunction with other systems to automate the freeways?

Could you give up your computer and cellular phone? Both exist, in part, because of space exploration. How about cable/satellite channels on your TV?

Just because it's not stamped with a NASA logo, doesn't mean that it didn't come from space. <G>

Famine, war, overpopulation, environmental destruction and general suffering still exist right here on this world. So we know what a black hole is? Big deal! Thousands of people are still living on the streets and starving.

I read somewhere that if every penny spent on the exploration of space were divided among the starving people of the world, it would feed them for one week. (Something like ten dollars per starving person world wide at the time it was written.)

It is possible that pharmaceuticals produced in micro-gravity will hold the key to stopping AIDS. It's also possible that micro-gravity research will prove there is no cure for AIDS and the common cold.

The cost is not as high as you might think, and the benefits are potentially unimagineable.

 

[Sonora]

Where do I sign up??

I'd go in a minute if I could. I can't think of anything that would be more cool than to fly in outer space.

 

[Bobtoad777]

Wierd Harold

You cant give up psuhing tang can you? are you a tang salesman? just teasing you Harold, Smile

One question Harold on a serious note you said:

Another is the fuel cell, now being adapted to zero-pollution cars and busses.

I have been reading about these for the last 15 years, being made and produces quite easily. My question 15 years mimnimum have passed and we are still using pollution producing, although less than they used to, combustion engines , when these clean feul cells are avalable. When is the the conspiracy of the gas mogals and the governemnt going to start saving the planet byt allowing , clean feuls cells instead of combution engines.

Is it all an alien conspirafy to make the atospher breathable by them and to get rid of us humans or does the governemtn with thier hand in everybodies wallets prefer a dirty planet over a clean one.

Another question, why dont automated sidewlaks tlak three hours to let a pedestrian cross, then only allow 2 seconds to cross in.

It is possible that pharmaceuticals produced in micro-gravity will hold the key to stopping AIDS. It's also possible that micro-gravity research will prove there is no cure for AIDS and the common cold.

If it wasnt for the pharmaceticals there wouldnt be AIDS, its a man made desease, used in the beginning to control certain unwanted elements of society, now gone unchecked. yes there is a cure for AIDS avaiable, but if it was givinen out or publically mentioned the backlash would be too severe on the pharmaceticals, who are part of the trilateral agreement or arangement.

Yes there is a pharmacutical conspiracy, ill tell you all about it i just got humped at the border for bringing over cranberry extract for my diabetes.

 

[Gaucho]

"But Captain, this is the garden spot of Seti Alpha 6!"

Having just watched "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" for the umpteenth time (the best of all the Star Trek movies, in my opinion), I'd love to get out into space. Especially if I met someone like Kirstie Alley, looking the way she did when they made that movie. Talk about yum!

Actually, Carl, what I think you should do is beam that picture of yours out into space. At the worst it might give the aliens a good laugh and at the best you might really go where no man has gone before.

Or is that really come where no man has come before?

 

[Skibum]

Thanks, Wierd Harold. I was going to answer Nameless, but you said it better than I could have. The space program has paid off in so many ways that it is hard to name all of them.

 

[CreamyLady]

And one of the darker aspects of the space program led to breakthrough research on the cause and effect of suppressed rage, hypertension, and coronary disease -- training chimpanzees for the earliest flights.

Seriously, many of the things we take for granted came from the space program, and my own secret fantasy is to visit Mars. My favorite Ray Bradbury story is Dark They Were, And Golden-Eyed, and while I know it is fantasy, I just want to see Mars. I want to fantasize about the marble palaces, and the canals, and beings made of gold.

 

[Samuari]

Back to the orginal question

Thanks WH! well done! Robert Heinlen always maintained that space exploration was simply too important to be left to the changing priorties of governments. In one of his juvinals he had created a Long Range Foundation. This foundation was a privite corporation whose sole task was to take on projects whose benefit would come at least a generation away. They were tackleing extraplanetary colinization, star travel, enviromental clean up, etc. Becsause basic resurch ALLWAYS returns a profit (just can't predict when) the foundation was having a tough time finding enough expensive projects to spend money on and protect their non-profit statis. (Imagine the profitablity if NASA had been able to patent all of its spinoffs!)

Another SF auther, Paoul Anderson, also thought that space exploration would only be done sucessfully by privite enterprise. One of his characters says: "Governments are like mayflys, they come and go, but greed goes on forever!"

[Edited by Samuari on 09-16-2000 at 10:35 PM]

 

[Aranian]

IMHO the research going on today in other areas will all become implemented in the space program when it becomes a higher priority to jump the planet. More likely in the near future we'll see a melding of the computer and biological sciences.

 

[Weird Harold]

One question Harold on a serious note you said:

Another is the fuel cell, now being adapted to zero-pollution cars and busses.

I have been reading about these for the last 15 years, being made and produces quite easily. My question 15 years mimnimum have passed and we are still using pollution producing, although less than they used to, combustion engines , when these clean feul cells are avalable. When is the the conspiracy of the gas mogals and the governemnt going to start saving the planet byt allowing , clean feuls cells instead of combution engines.

Interesting that you should use 15 years as the time you've known about them. I drive a 1985 T10 Blazer that will be 15 years old this coming Boxing Day, and that is part of the reason that electric cars are more common.

Another reason, is that there is still a problem with capacity. A problem that equates to short range for electric cars. Current cars have a range between 250 and 350 miles. (Higher gas milage is usually coupled with and in part obtained by, smaller gas tanks. The latest I've seen on electrics gives them a range in the 50 to 75 mile range before they need recharging/refueling.

Yet another problem, is that those fuel cells which require refueling, use Hydrogen. There are no H2 fueling stations available to the general public, and the Hindenburg disaster is likely to keep many from being setup in populated areas. Bewteen the Hindenburg, and the common name of fusion bombs, "Hydrogen" is wrongly linked to great destructive power in the common mind. It would take a great deal of public relations dollars to change that erroneous perception.

Finally, the cost of an electric car is essentially prohibitive to anyone who is not a dedicated city dweller who never leaves town. For anything over about ten miles (one-way) it's cheaper and faster to use a regular car despite the pollution, yet electrics cost as much or more than a conventional car that is useful for any length of trip.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for what an electric car can do for me, a bicycle works just as well and costs one tenth as much.

As costs come down, and range and efficiency go up, there WILL be more electrics in use. Phony gas price increases will help them along, as will laws like the recent California requirement that sets a percentage of cars that must be electric sold in CA.

Samurai said:Robert Heinlen always maintained that space exploration was simply too important to be left to the changing priorties of governments.

RAH, and Poul Anderson are far from the only science fiction authors advocating space exploration be turned over to private enterprise. Of course there are many of those same authors advocating/predicting that we do away with the farce of corporations buying politions and simply contracting goverment to the corporate interests. <G>

Seriously, there is a lot of progress in turning a profit from space exploration. The French will launch anything for anybody with their Arienne launch system for the right price. I'm sure that you are also aware of the prize money offered for a civilian single stage to orbit manned flight.

A fovorite theme of juvenile scinece fiction in my childhood was the "boy genious and his homebuilt rocket ship." Many of the rockets designs proposed in those books were actualy practical proposals given a fuel of sufficent power.

 

[Carl East]

Another reason, is that there is still a problem with capacity. A problem that equates to short range for electric cars. Current cars have a range between 250 and 350 miles. (Higher gas milage is usually coupled with and in part obtained by, smaller gas tanks. The latest I've seen on electrics gives them a range in the 50 to 75 mile range before they need recharging/refueling.

I can't help wondering Harold, that if we suddenly ran out of fuel, there wouldn't be something else to take it's place. I've heard stories about the big companies buying out alternative idea's for fuel, simply so that they can go on making a profit. How true these stories are is another matter, but I can't believe we would be without some form of transport if the worst did happen.

Yet another problem, is that those fuel cells which require refueling, use Hydrogen. There are no H2 fueling stations available to the general public, and the Hindenburg disaster is likely to keep many from being setup in populated areas. Bewteen the Hindenburg, and the common name of fusion bombs, "Hydrogen" is wrongly linked to great destructive power in the common mind. It would take a great deal of public relations dollars to change that erroneous perception.

I would put a sizeable bet on the fact, that if we did run out of fuel, hydrogen would be very popular over night, because greed is a serious motivater.

Finally, the cost of an electric car is essentially prohibitive to anyone who is not a dedicated city dweller who never leaves town. For anything over about ten miles (one-way) it's cheaper and faster to use a regular car despite the pollution, yet electrics cost as much or more than a conventional car that is useful for any length of trip.

Only when fuel is no longer the competition, will electric cars come into there own.

Samurai said:Robert Heinlen always maintained that space exploration was simply too important to be left to the changing priorties of governments.

The fact is, we have to go into space, wheather it be now, or a thousand years from now. We will and are running out of resources, the alternatives are mining astroids, or other planets. Our sun is dying for one thing, true it will be a few million or so years before it becomes a super nova, but all life will be gone on this planet long before then.


Seriously, there is a lot of progress in turning a profit from space exploration. The French will launch anything for anybody with their Arienne launch system for the right price. I'm sure that you are also aware of the prize money offered for a civilian single stage to orbit manned flight.

That's another thing that bugs me, we now have the technology to take off from a runway, and to go into orbit, yet we still use rockets. Rockets that cost ten times as much to put there in the first place.

Carl.

 

[Nameless]

I'd like to address the points some have made about saving lives through artificial hearts, tracking hurricanes from space etc. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe we shouldn't be saving all these lives in the first place? Overpopulation was one of the worlwide problems I mentioned in my first response, and the reason that problem exists is because we are finding more ways to extend our lives without reducing the amount of children we produce. I'm not saying that we should knowingly allow people to die for the good of our species - we've surpassed that kind of purely instinctual thought - but before we turn ourselves into 200-year-old beings, we need to stop breeding like there's no tomorrow.

That aside, I would ask who this fantastic research into new forms of transport and revolutionary medical advances is going to benefit? How many developing countries can afford to put money into developing environmentally efficient cars? How many Americans don't have enough health insurance to cover a new heart? People have mentioned computers, cell phones, satelite TV and energy efficient cars. Great! So once again all the middle/upper class people will gain from these wonderful advances, while the poor of the world are fucked over.

And here's something else to ponder. Do you really trust these same corrupt, corporate-controlled governments who are spending billions on space travel to act for the good of humanity? I give you the "Star Wars" program, spy satellites, nuclear missiles and all the derelict junk and refuse that's floating around out there from past missions. Paranoid governments, motivated by hugely inflated military budgets, always find some way to misuse technology.

I'm not saying that we should never bother exploring space. On the contrary, I think the possibility of finding other lifeforms and visiting far-off glaxies is extremely exciting. But right now, I think humans are in their infancy. We need to reach a stage where we are in balance with our environment, equal in terms of health and nutrition, and finally putting down our weapons to pursue our potential together as a species. It may be a Utopian dream, and we may destroy ourselves way before we reach that stage, but we're not going to solve anything by throwing billions at painfully slow space program while our own planet is falling apart. I'm saying that we need to tackle the problems on earth, then put everything into eploring space properly. That's a more worthy goal in my opinion.

 

[Myrrdin]

Yes, the space exploration programme has slowed down, but the main people behind it in the early days, were the military. In the Cold War days, those rockets were also used to launch spy satellites and were handy to have as part of a launch system for the nuclear deterrent.

The early space race, was financed by governments looking for international prestige by being the first in space, the first on the moon. It was a means to an end, not a target in itself.
With the fall of the Iron Curtain and the collapse of the Russian economy the competitive edge has gone.

Considering the huge ammount of space junk thats up there already, in slowly decelerating orbits, perhaps thats not a bad thing.

The Ariane space project has already turned several expensive satellites into firework fuel, which hasn,t pleased investors.

I,m sure there,s intelligent life out there somewhere.

But as a lady in the chatroom said . "I,m not going to go charging round looking for it. It can come to me."

 

[Samuari]

The Bottom Line

is that basic resurch allways pays off! It is those very poorest of nations that have the most to gain from the technology that spins off from the kind of long range project that space exploration is. By investing in the future of the race, we create wealth not only in those nations that are spending the money, but esp. in the poor overpopulated and underdeveloped of the planet. It is with technolgy that has been developed from the resurch of the sixties and seventies in the 'space race' that we are finding water reources in sub-seira Africa, and helping India manage crop production to the degree that they should be able to feed themselves for the first time in 60 years.

This is not taking food from hungry mouths and puting it into middle class pockets! It is the free enterprise system doing what it does best: Take available knowalge, finding where it has the greatest need, and apllying it so that the needs are met. It is so short sighted to trade the future of our children, for a small political advantage today.

 

[Never]

This thread can only end one way..

To boldly go where no man has before!

 

[Weird Harold]

I'd like to address the points some have made about saving lives through artificial hearts, tracking hurricanes from space etc. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe we shouldn't be saving all these lives in the first place? Overpopulation was one of the worlwide problems I mentioned in my first response, ...

No argument here that overpopulation is a problem. It is quite probably the most serious problem the human race faces. I will even concede that finding liebensraum through space exploration is NOT the solution. I know of no projected technology that would allow sufficient numbers to emigrate to the stars that would make a significant dent in overpopulation.

That aside, I would ask who this fantastic research into new forms of transport and revolutionary medical advances is going to benefit? How many developing countries can afford to put money into developing environmentally efficient cars? ...

Since "third world countries" aren't the ones destroying the ozone layer with pollution, I'd have to say new forms of transportation for developed nations would affect ... let me see here... EVERY HUMAN BEING?

If the rich don't develop new technologies and treatments, who will? If their wealth is instead taken away and distributed equally to every person on earth, who will have the money to solve the problem of overpopulation, famine, etc?

Do you really trust these same corrupt, corporate-controlled governments who are spending billions on space travel to act for the good of humanity?

No, not really. Who do you propose replacing them with? Realistically now, not some pie-in-the-sky utopia that can't be implemented in real life. Suggest something that accounts for human nature, removing powerful people from power in a way that doesn't destroy the world with armed revolution, or create a worldwide depression that makes the "Great Depression" look like a 24 hour fast.

I could probably cite a dozen different science fiction scenarios where all the problems are solved and humanity lives happily ever after. With a month or two to reasearch, I could probably even find one or two that don't involve space travel.

I give you the "Star Wars" program, spy satellites, nuclear missiles and all the derelict junk and refuse that's floating around out there from past missions. Paranoid governments, motivated by hugely inflated military budgets, always find some way to misuse technology.

I'll take the improved visiion from laser ey surgery, painless and silent dental drills, and other laser improvements from Star Wars. I'll also keep the precise weather reports, detailed topographic maps, and the handheld GPS units and to keep from getting lost on next month's hunting trip.

You can keep the nuclear missiles and space junk. I really don't have a use for those. (although I'm grateful that they kept me from having to learn Russian.)

"It's not paranoia if they are really out to get you."

We need to reach a stage where we are in balance with our environment, equal in terms of health and nutrition, and finally putting down our weapons to pursue our potential together as a species. It may be a Utopian dream, and we may destroy ourselves way before we reach that stage, but we're not going to solve anything by throwing billions at painfully slow space program while our own planet is falling apart. I'm saying that we need to tackle the problems on earth, then put everything into eploring space properly. That's a more worthy goal in my opinion.

In my personal opinion, if we don't explore space and move the pollution and search for resources into space, we are doomed. If we don't do it NOW, while there are a few economies strong enough to support the reaserach and development costs, we won't do it until after the "New Dark Ages" that loom on the horizon. Without space exploration (and it's attendant spinoffs) and some intelligent solution to overpopulation, civilization will collapse and the surviviors will be plunged into barbarism and global famine of unimagined proprtions. Their eventual descendants (if any) will be left to explore space by starting from scratch with much fewer resources.

For one view of what life will be like without space exploration, see The Postman by David Brin. (the book, not the movie)

 

[Isabella Thorne]

Can you hear me Major Tom?

well personally ... I don't know ...

I've often thought about being Katherine Janeway on board Starship Voyager .... she is so beautiful, so strong, so brave, so compassionate and so righteous ..

I love the idea of Voyager being in a different quadrent ... it is so "boldly goes where no man has gone before" lol ..

but also they are so desperate to get home to their loved ones and feel so isolated ...

... that is probably what it would feel like to be in space.
_____________
This is Major Tom to ground control.
~David Bowie~

 

[Skibum]

Nameless, there are always people who are against technology and progress. Every advance has seen people like you trying to stop it, all the way back to the persecution of Galileo. Can't you anti-scince people see that it is only science that can save us? You are using a personal computer to access this board. Without the space program you would not have that available for you. What other technology are you willing to give up? Want to go back to rooting naked for grubs or following game for subsitance and dying of a simple infection because there are no antibiotics? If you don't want technology you can do that, but don't expect me to bury my head in the sand with you. I'll take the technology anyday.

 

[Jester]

A Caveat

Just don't lose your humanity when you immerse in the sciences. We need both of them to keep it all going!

 

[Xander]

Like so many others, a trip in outer space would be great. But that I know, is only a dream. Won't happen in my lifetime.

About the combustion engine, and fuel thingy. Here are some facts.

Daimler/Benz currently owns the engine that can run on non-poluting fuel. Such as water.
And more are under development. But all are owned by the oilcompanies and the car industry.

As long as there is oil in the planet earth, no engine running on other things than gas, will be produced. But in about 50 years there will be no oil left in the planet and then the non-polluting engines will surface. Trust me on that one.

All ready now, most of the world enery is produced with nuclear power. In 50 years, all energy will be nuclear. There's no other way to produce the amount of energy needed, than that.

The oil indystry is such a powerful institution that they will not allow any other fuel than that. And it's quite obvious why.
As long as there is countries whose infra structure is based on cars, like the US. There are simply too much money in it. I'm not saying that the US is the only country. Every country in the world has a fault in that. The US is just one of the really really big consumers.