Watched part of the launch today and couldn't help but think: What's the point of all this anymore? What is the American taxpayer getting for their investment?

Ennui.

Watched part of the launch today and couldn't help but think: What's the point of all this anymore? What is the American taxpayer getting for their investment?

Are you referring to the vehicle itself (the shuttle) or the mission (manned space missions)?

A disaster a decade?

to ambitious, it's designers spent to much attention to the cup holders and painting it nicly, The russian proton rockets are far more advancend then the shuttle.
Basicley the entire concept was bad, way to heavy; the configuration was bad rockets are far more stable with the capsule on top in stead of the sides.
But the prestige was good the shuttle is for looking at it's chouldn't be for actual flight.

In three years they are going to retire the entire fleet and use the same system as the Russians do now. Much more cost efficient.

How do they get the shuttle on the plane?

With a bunch of trolls pulling a bigggg rope, trust me!:eek:

With a bunch of trolls pulling a bigggg rope, trust me!:eek:

and there it is AGAIN. :rolleyes: wow, when you latch on to somehting you don't let it go do you. Why does it bother you so much?
I know, I know. You're just giving me a hard time and don't mean it. Where have I heard that before. Do I need to pay for your theraphy as well as Shortey's?

ANYWAYS!!! Is there a crane? An elevator?

Can you pay for my therapy too? Or do I ask your husband first?

How do they get the shuttle on the plane?

Boeing 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft

http://www.airfields-freeman.com/NM/WhiteSands_NM_82_Shuttle747.jpg

Answer: cranes.

Can you pay for my therapy too? Or do I ask your husband first?

LOL, I think you self medicate and don't need therapy. If you let my husband join though, he may help pay for that self medicating. ;)

Thanks draqon.
I never expected to see a company plan. I expected military. I wonder how much American Airlines gets paid to haul it.

Thanks draqon.
I never expected to see a company plan. I expected military. I wonder how much American Airlines gets paid to haul it.

$50 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract is between Boeing and NASA...American Airlines?

What's the point of all this anymore?What is the American taxpayer getting for their investment?

One Word: Hope

What does the American Taxpayer get in return for 50% of their investment: Not a whole lot that you can immediately see

Well, the shuttle was a mistake, but someone had to make that mistake of building the first space-plane-like vehicle. It is a giant drain, but next time someone wants to make a reusable shuttle-like ship, they can look back to the laundry list of shit that went wrong with this one. Honestly, half of it is likely overspending charachteristic of a government project. "Why buy this $30 power strip when I can get this one for $90, and who cares, the government will pay for it, so it doesn't matter if i run the department tab up a couple hundred percent..."

The next something like this to be built will be a whole lot better made simply because this series paved the way. Think of it as a REALLY expensive prototype series.

Well, the shuttle was a mistake, but someone had to make that mistake of building the first space-plane-like vehicle. It is a giant drain, but next time someone wants to make a reusable shuttle-like ship, they can look back to the laundry list of shit that went wrong with this one. Honestly, half of it is likely overspending charachteristic of a government project. "Why buy this $30 power strip when I can get this one for $90, and who cares, the government will pay for it, so it doesn't matter if i run the department tab up a couple hundred percent..."

The next something like this to be built will be a whole lot better made simply because this series paved the way. Think of it as a REALLY expensive prototype series.

They spend that much because they are given a budget every year by the Government on how much money they get to spend in a given year. If they don't spend all the money in that year then it wont be good for them. They would then be losing money because the government just gives them enough for the next year to meet their salary needs.

$50 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract is between Boeing and NASA...American Airlines?

the stripes and tail marking?? Isn't that an American Airlines plane?

the stripes and tail marking?? Isn't that an American Airlines plane?

...but Boeing made it. I really don't think AA has something to do with NASA...

Watched part of the launch today and couldn't help but think: What's the point of all this anymore? What is the American taxpayer getting for their investment?

You thought that too, huh?

Maybe it's time to try something NEW! "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." That pretty much sums up the whole space shuttle program.

Look, I'm all for cutting the government budget, but the ONE area we should be splurging is the ONE area that we all know will one day secure the future of humanity-- outer space. Fine... it's not profitable yet. Great. But you'd think we'd all be thinking, "um... there's six billion of us, we're still growing, it's getting crappy down here... let's at least get SOME of us living 'out there' so that our progeny is secure."

We spend $16 billion a year. I can't imagine why it's not about $50 billion. Cut fucking welfare and entitlements. Save the race and go to space.

~String

Look, I'm all for cutting the government budget, but the ONE area we should be splurging is the ONE area that we all know will one day secure the future of humanity-- outer space. Fine... it's not profitable yet. Great. But you'd think we'd all be thinking, "um... there's six billion of us, we're still growing, it's getting crappy down here... let's at least get SOME of us living 'out there' so that our progeny is secure."

We spend $16 billion a year. I can't imagine why it's not about $50 billion. Cut fucking welfare and entitlements. Save the race and go to space.

Agree 100%. I must say I'm quite disappointed with our lack of progress in space. The Democrats always call their welfare programs "investments". Well the space program really is an investment. An investment in the future of humanity.

At least they did something and maybe science advanced some.

First, a confession. I'm a space camp graduate, so I have a soft spot for space exploration. However, the shuttle just seems next to useless at this point. Essentially, all it does is haul things aloft. I question its scientific utility and usefulness as a exploration vehicle. Shouldn't we be going to other planets, etc? The Mars Rover is the most exciting thing the agency has done in years, and that came about on a shoestring budget and had nothing to do with manned space flight. The whole shuttle thing reeks of ego and PR at this point...

Plus, it seems like every shuttle that goes up has something wrong with it...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070811/D8QUI4NO0.html

If anything, the last thirty years or so indicate that there is an effort to hold back advancement into space. We're so "careful" that we can't even learn by experience. How might the Russians get ahead of the US? By having the guts to actually try their hardware instead of sitting on the ground ruminating for the next century. China may have some deaths but they will have the progress that they want. The US doesn't progress anymore.

Agree 100%. I must say I'm quite disappointed with our lack of progress in space. The Democrats always call their welfare programs "investments". Well the space program really is an investment. An investment in the future of humanity.


NASA an investment in a welfare program? That's like saying federal income tax is a welfare program. Sure it buys highways, armed forces, infrastructure, but is it welfare or simply part of industrialized society? Space shuttle missions bring us little benefit for the cost, and can hardly be considered an investment in humanity. Star Trek is fiction folks, nothing more. If life existed elsewhere, we would know about it. Considering the argument that the cosmos is nearly infinite, that means it is infinitely possible that life elsewhere is more advanced technologically than humanity. But where's the evidence. It's not like we can truly colonize Mercury, Venus, or Mars, and until we can invent some propulsion mechanism that gets us somewhere beyond the moon in a sensible time, human exploration should be left to Star Trek writers. I suggest NASA funds would be better spent on revamping Social Security and working on the global warming threat.

What NASA is doing right now can be comparable to a man trying to get to the moon with a catapult.

The Catapult doesn't store power to get anything to the moon. Our Space Crafts do not store enough power to get us where we need. It's all a power issue if we can store more power than we can do more things.

NASA needs a division made and developed solely to Energy production and Storing. Once the Energy problem is fixed we can create a new a better space craft/s.

irrelevant NASA should have no problem producing more powerful rockets but then they would blow up them selfs because the rockets metal couldn't stand the temprature or produce heavely radioactive gasses.
Their solution chould be more elegant and gentle, like either a space elevator, or air breathing rockets that lift up with air sucking engines and speed up multiple machs in the upper atmosphere (verry little energy is neccesairy to go up verticale most energy goes towards the horizontal movement). Or at least make only the first (and second perhaps) stage of a rocket chemical whill the upper stage is nuclear

All 3 suggestions would drasticly reduce the cost of a rocket

Space shuttle missions bring us little benefit for the cost, and can hardly be considered an investment in humanity.

So, do you see humanity ALWAYS residing on Earth? And it IS an investment in humanity. The resources of this solar system are endless and we should be taking advantage of them. Furthermore, the technology exists RIGHT NOW to do so. If we were to have the temerity to do so, we could in about a decade build ships that could traverse this solar system. We do not because we don't have the will power.


Star Trek is fiction folks, nothing more. If life existed elsewhere, we would know about it. Considering the argument that the cosmos is nearly infinite, that means it is infinitely possible that life elsewhere is more advanced technologically than humanity. But where's the evidence. It's not like we can truly colonize Mercury, Venus, or Mars, and until we can invent some propulsion mechanism that gets us somewhere beyond the moon in a sensible time, human exploration should be left to Star Trek writers. I suggest NASA funds would be better spent on revamping Social Security and working on the global warming threat.

Dude[ette]... what are you rambling about? Whoever said anything about life out there. This has NOTHING to do with life out there. This has to do with the preservation of our species. It's not science fiction at all. And frankly, your assertions are insulting, as I'm sure you intended them to be. Nobody (except YOU) brought up Star Trek and alien life. All we're talking about is getting a solid foothold in outer space.

Are you aware of the riches FOR ALL humanity that exist in this solar system. Personally, and you can quote me on this, I couldn't give a rats ass about who gets fed off of government programs. People will ALWAYS be killing people on this planet and its ONLY good common sense to get some of us out there doing what we were meant to do: expand our understanding. What you are saying is that we should sit around worrying about what baby has food on its table. That, my friend, is a shortcut to entropy. We could spend the next thousand years spending the current wealth of our world trying to cure its ails and we will NEVER fix our issues. Our issues are what make us human and I could care less if we take those issues with us to outer space or if half the planet starves to death in the process-- as long as the species survives (and, I am convinced that the singularity is very near, so all the more reason to do so), then that's all that will matter a Milena or a hundred Milena from now.

From nano-technology to asteroids, the perils ARE real and not science fiction. It would be a stupid thing for us to go extinct when we had the ability to spread our seed and did not because we were too worried about feeding every mouth on the planet.

~String

So, do you see humanity ALWAYS residing on Earth?

Yes, so therefor we should take damn good care of it so that we have a home to live in. If not we are going to suffer terrible problems in the future which I don't believe can be repaired. That means those who are in say 5 generations from now will probably become extinct or at least have so many problems they are will be on the verge of extinction. Only time will tell, but we knoow one thing for certain, we only have one Earth and no other planet can sustain life as we know it.

Yes, so therefor we should take damn good care of it so that we have a home to live in. If not we are going to suffer terrible problems in the future which I don't believe can be repaired. That means those who are in say 5 generations from now will probably become extinct or at least have so many problems they are will be on the verge of extinction. Only time will tell, but we know one thing for certain, we only have one Earth and no other planet can sustain life as we know it.

So, you're saying that Humanity will NEVER live on any other planet, or in any other place in this universe than this planet and that you do not believe it technologically or sociologically possible / feasible / predictable that humans will reside elsewhere in this solar system... if you do, then we might as well give up now. Some asteroid will one day kill us all. Personally, I don't see "mother earth" as some serene and worship worthy object-- it's a means to an end. We're here now, and we BETTER get off this rock as soon as possible. As soon as we do, the better for our species. In the end, it won't matter one big to the Universe if this planet and our race survive... we need to take the bull by the balls and assume our destiny beyond this planet.

~String

The main problem is finding a planet that is somewhat habitable. Mars is a interesting place but will take billions of dollars to build any type of a permanent residence there for just a few people. Mars is about the only place we could live on but with support from Earth. Perhaps humans could survive on Mars but what do you think that life will be like there without anything to see but desert? Is that really living? True humans could have green houses to have plants growing in, but is that a good thing?

We should live on Earth and keep it safe and clean for future generations. yhey might find a way to travel to other places in the universe to live. That will take time and they dob't have alot of time left if we don't try to help this planet now.

The main problem is finding a planet that is somewhat habitable. Mars is a interesting place but will take billions of dollars to build any type of a permanent residence there for just a few people. Mars is about the only place we could live on but with support from Earth. Perhaps humans could survive on Mars but what do you think that life will be like there without anything to see but desert? Is that really living? True humans could have green houses to have plants growing in, but is that a good thing?

We should live on Earth and keep it safe and clean for future generations. they might find a way to travel to other places in the universe to live. That will take time and they don't have alot of time left if we don't try to help this planet now.

Humans don't need planets to live on. Furthermore, and I don't want to sound insulting, do you HONESTLY believe that our current physical forms are the end of the line for us? We are about two decades from altering our DNA into anything we want. That level of power is too tempting. No laws passed will ever stop our re-engineering ourselves. The singularity is near, and if we don't evolve and leave, there will be nothing left of us to be remembered a century from now.

~String

Humans don't need planets to live on. Furthermore, and I don't want to sound insulting, do you HONESTLY believe that our current physical forms are the end of the line for us? We are about two decades from altering our DNA into anything we want. That level of power is too tempting. No laws passed will ever stop our re-engineering ourselves.
Did you ever read the Belisarius series? The bad guys in that story created their plan to alter history to prevent the "perversion" of the human form.

The singularity is near, and if we don't evolve and leave, there will be nothing left of us to be remembered a century from now.You're speaking of a sentient computer as in The Terminator? Do you really believe AI is a serious threat to humanity?

You're speaking of a sentient computer as in The Terminator? Do you really believe AI is a serious threat to humanity?

Eventually, we will create SOMETHING more powerful than us. That's not science fiction... it's the logical conclusion of the events that we have set in motion. Intelligence isn't limited to just organic beings. All it requires is sufficient complexity.

Even today we are building systems that are being tasked with building and improving themselves (AMD & Intel chips, for starters). The day will come, very soon, when human involvement will only hamper the issue.

A prime example of this singularity is: we build a peaceful computer system that has the ability and programing to work symbolically for us. We are hesitant to tie it to the rule, "do or allow no harm" because that is an unbending rule that can trap us to it's own interpretation of harm (a good example is that horrible movie "I Robot"... and the reaction of the core computer to human destructiveness). At some point in time, in order to allow the computer to advance (which, having the ability to do on it's own at an exponential level) we task it with adding to its capabilities whatever material it needs in order to solve a chaotic equation ("what are the origins of the universe"). The computer then complies, and consumes the entire mass of the non-solar matter in this solar system (including the Earth) in order to do so.

Other examples are found in the nature of nano-technology. Humans build a self replicating nano-bot and accidentally release it with the command "evolve, build more and grow". It consumes the entire mass of the Earth in the process.

Does this sound like something stupid? Well, there are hordes of highly educated scientists and politicians around the world who warn of the dangers of the "Grey Goo" effect.

This ain't science fiction... these are logical possibilities of our own direction of technological advancement.

Maybe they will happen... maybe not. It would be absolute insanity for a species to NOT take every precaution against these possibilities and escape the confines of its planet.

~String

Humans don't need planets to live on. Furthermore, and I don't want to sound insulting, do you HONESTLY believe that our current physical forms are the end of the line for us? We are about two decades from altering our DNA into anything we want. That level of power is too tempting. No laws passed will ever stop our re-engineering ourselves. The singularity is near, and if we don't evolve and leave, there will be nothing left of us to be remembered a century from now.

~String

Then we wouldn't be human any longer in order to survive humans own destruction of this planet. So then we live in space trying to feed, reproduce and flourish. Gee, that sounds like a very good way to see the future of humanity.

Then we wouldn't be human any longer
Define "human".
Why wouldn't we be human any longer?

Why wouldn't we be human any longer?
Because you'l have to pay royalties for it simmilar like a title for a duke therefor it would be more economic to be called high intiligent homonide or big ape. (It also would save you the trouble of asking permission to replicate from your gene provider... Nah yust kidding your going to gave to pay royalties anyway)
Honestly when your starting changing your genetics it's quit easy to loose the title of a 100% homo sapiens.

Honestly when your starting changing your genetics it's quit easy to loose the title of a 100% homo sapiens.

Hmm, is "homo sapiens" = "human".
At the moment, yes, but if we get to the stage where we can redesign our bodies, needs and everything else then we'll need a new definition.
Human will be defined as "what we are".

Hmm, is "homo sapiens" = "human".
At the moment, yes, but if we get to the stage where we can redesign our bodies, needs and everything else then we'll need a new definition.
Human will be defined as "what we are".
That might give trouble with AI and other intiligent(bio)machinery invented to make life easier.

Extend the definition?
Legal rights for AIs above a certain level of cognition?
It's still "us" then.

what abouth to the point that they don't wan't to end themself without a yustified cause or refuse to accept quistable data.
So in other words when they take there own self preservation in the gray zone and when they prefer and defend their own methodes while doing what their instructed to do.

what abouth to the point that they don't wan't to end themself without a yustified cause or refuse to accept quistable data.
So in other words when they take there own self preservation in the gray zone and when they prefer and defend their own methodes while doing what their instructed to do.

Oh, the "bugs in the system" or "transitional period". :D
When I think of AI integrated into society it's more along Ian Banks' Culture series of SF.

Assuming we go that route: then during the transition to acceptance AIs could (should?) be fitted with a "dead man switch" - refuse to do as you're told and you get turned off/ shut down/ scrapped.
Mistakes (in both directions "oops, too late it's on a rampage"/ "Oh rats, I shut it down and I needed the data") are inevitable.

Oh, the "bugs in the system"
What better way to describe sentient tought. A little bit of ego to think outside the box some arrogance to do it al by yourself and the stupidity to not recognice or admit it's own mistakes and the arrogance to blame it on a other. I don't really consider them as bugs but more as the whole package in one form or a other

not that this would give real human sentience to the machine but if it should also be able to communicate then it could try to reason with someone until the point that it would become uncomftable to exterminate it

Define "human".
Why wouldn't we be human any longer?

I was refering to this,


Originally Posted by superstring99
Humans don't need planets to live on. Furthermore, and I don't want to sound insulting, do you HONESTLY believe that our current physical forms are the end of the line for us?

I was refering to this,

I know.
That's why I asked you to define "human".
If it turns out we don't need planets then we'll redefine "human" to mean "what we are".
Why would having a different form make us not human?
Does our shape define us, or our mind?
If it's our shape then what shape is a human?
Because I bet whatever definition you come up with there'll be a human that doesn't fit :D

I know.
That's why I asked you to define "human".
If it turns out we don't need planets then we'll redefine "human" to mean "what we are".
Why would having a different form make us not human?
Does our shape define us, or our mind?
If it's our shape then what shape is a human?
Because I bet whatever definition you come up with there'll be a human that doesn't fit :D


Our DNA defines us and we fiddle with that through genetics that is when we alter our humanity little by little until we won't see anything that looks similiar to what we are today.

Our DNA defines us and we fiddle with that through genetics that is when we alter our humanity little by little until we won't see anything that looks similar to what we are today.

I can agree with that. But the fact stands, no matter how much we oppose it now-- one day, either through the slow crawl of evolution or through the manipulation of our own hand, we will cease to be human by our current definition.

The fact is, we have to remain relevant in the face of technology that will surely outstrip us. If we don't then we can certainly expect to be replaced by something that isn't even remotely human.

~String

I'll be glad to be gone by that time for losing ones own humanity in order to progress is simply not worth it.

Hmm theres allways the change that in a couple of hundred/thousend of years perhaps our succesors will be tempted to revive us, for whatever reason they can think up with

Our DNA defines us and we fiddle with that through genetics that is when we alter our humanity little by little until we won't see anything that looks similiar to what we are today.

Limited view, IMO.
We'll redefine what makes us human as we develop new skills and new technologies.
Just because we won't look like we do now doesn't mean we won't be human.

Hmm theres allways the change that in a couple of hundred/thousend of years perhaps our succesors will be tempted to revive us, for whatever reason they can think up with


Like in the movie Sleeper? I don't think they will revive me, I'm being creamated.

So, do you see humanity ALWAYS residing on Earth? And it IS an investment in humanity. The resources of this solar system are endless and we should be taking advantage of them. Furthermore, the technology exists RIGHT NOW to do so. If we were to have the temerity to do so, we could in about a decade build ships that could traverse this solar system. We do not because we don't have the will power.



Dude[ette]... what are you rambling about? Whoever said anything about life out there. This has NOTHING to do with life out there. This has to do with the preservation of our species. It's not science fiction at all. And frankly, your assertions are insulting, as I'm sure you intended them to be. Nobody (except YOU) brought up Star Trek and alien life. All we're talking about is getting a solid foothold in outer space.

Are you aware of the riches FOR ALL humanity that exist in this solar system. Personally, and you can quote me on this, I couldn't give a rats ass about who gets fed off of government programs. People will ALWAYS be killing people on this planet and its ONLY good common sense to get some of us out there doing what we were meant to do: expand our understanding. What you are saying is that we should sit around worrying about what baby has food on its table. That, my friend, is a shortcut to entropy. We could spend the next thousand years spending the current wealth of our world trying to cure its ails and we will NEVER fix our issues. Our issues are what make us human and I could care less if we take those issues with us to outer space or if half the planet starves to death in the process-- as long as the species survives (and, I am convinced that the singularity is very near, so all the more reason to do so), then that's all that will matter a Milena or a hundred Milena from now.

From nano-technology to asteroids, the perils ARE real and not science fiction. It would be a stupid thing for us to go extinct when we had the ability to spread our seed and did not because we were too worried about feeding every mouth on the planet.

~String


It's dude. My point with alien life was simple. If the cosmos is infinite (or near infinite for those who recognize the universe is actually expanding), then it is logically undeniable that there are civilizations out there more technologically advanced than we are. Since we have not encountered any non-terrestrial life form, reasonable observation (as opposed to pure conjecture) tells us the probability of our civilization being the first to go where no being has gone before is excruciatingly infinitesimal.

I do consider myself both a humanist and rationalist. First, what do moon rocks, Mars soil, and Venus CO2 gasses provide that we don't have on Earth already? Not to be insulting, but reality suggests that our natural resources are not at an end. We've got plenty of wood, iron ore, precious metals, wind, UV light and minerals here. We've reached the point of non-radioactive nuclear fusion capable of powering hundreds of thousands of homes. Plus we can actually grow food here, and grow it to sustainably feed billions. We haven't found any planet that has a sustainable (much less transportable) water source to help combat the drought effects here, much less a possible atmosphere for photosynthesis (as plants must come before sentient life). To seek greater understanding of the world and the universe belies the human need for knowledge, and has been with us since Galileo and before. I don't knock it at all, but am of the many who encourage it. But colonization of another world to me is science fiction. Preservation of human life or seed must begin and end here, and not on some distant planet where the same threats of nanobots or asteroid collisions exist. It's six in one hand or a half dozen in the other. Consider all the Voyager missions decades ago. How did they miss all the new "planets" that astronomers now concur exist in our solar system? Point is, if colonization is ever going to possible, our space program is not in its infancy, but still in its moment of conception. Maybe, at most, a couple of cell divisions along the way.

Don't know if you're an Eagles fan, but consider "The Last Resort:"

"There's is no more new frontier
We have got to make it here
To satisfy our endless needs
And justify our bloody deeds . . . "

I'll be glad to be gone by that time for losing ones own humanity in order to progress is simply not worth it.

So are you saying that we shouldn't evolve? EVER. NEVER EVER in a million or billion years? That's ridiculous.

From the universe's perseptive, whether we exist or go extinct matters not at all... the only "beings" that our existence matters to is us. Stars will be born and stars will die. Entire galaxies will spiral through their lifecycle without even the faintest clue as to the existence and demise of this pathetic planet (and this planet and all its wonders WILL pass into dust one day). The only variable is us. We have a choice to survive and go on until the unierse comes to an end. If we are too squeemish to continue existing, by whatever means are necessary to carry on that existence, then surely we don't deserve to exist at all.

~String

It's dude.

I didn't want to assume.


My point with alien life was simple. If the cosmos is infinite (or near infinite for those who recognize the universe is actually expanding), then it is logically undeniable that there are civilizations out there more technologically advanced than we are. Since we have not encountered any non-terrestrial life form, reasonable observation (as opposed to pure conjecture) tells us the probability of our civilization being the first to go where no being has gone before is excruciatingly infinitesimal.

I agree wholeheartedly! Though I refuse to believe we are alone, I do believe that the existence of life is, indeed, infinitesimal. Perhaps one per every billion or even hundred billion stars (which would mean that there might be, perhaps one or one hundred planets with life in our galaxy... between four and four hundred in Andromeda... and this says nothing for the existence of intelligence). Because of this, we must make sure that we continue.


I do consider myself both a humanist and rationalist. First, what do moon rocks, Mars soil, and Venus CO2 gasses provide that we don't have on Earth already? Not to be insulting, but reality suggests that our natural resources are not at an end. We've got plenty of wood, iron ore, precious metals, wind, UV light and minerals here. We've reached the point of non-radioactive nuclear fusion capable of powering hundreds of thousands of homes. Plus we can actually grow food here, and grow it to sustainable feed billions. We haven't found any planet that has a sustainable (much less transportable) water source to help combat the drought effects here, much less a possible atmosphere for photosynthesis (as plants must come before sentient life). To seek greater understanding of the world and the universe belies the human need for knowledge, and has been with us since Galileo and before. I don't knock it at all, but am of the many who encourage it. But colonization of another world to me is science fiction. Preservation of human life or seed must begin and end here, and not on some distant planet where the same threats of nanobots or asteroid collisions exist. It's six in one hand or a half dozen in the other. Consider all the Voyager missions decades ago. How did they miss all the new "planets" that astronomers now concur exist in our solar system? Point is, if colonization is ever going to possible, our space program is not in its infancy, but still in its moment of conception. Maybe, at most, a couple of cell divisions along the way.


I don't agree-- this planet is too much in flux. You cannot be unaware of the danger that an asteroid or comet poses to our existence, or the danger of a super volcano looming under the ground of Yellowstone National Part? Our existence is far, FAR too fragile too keep all our eggs in this one tenuous basket.

~String

So are you saying that we shouldn't evolve? EVER. NEVER EVER in a million or billion years? That's ridiculous.
~String


I'm only saying is that when we lose our humanity, then we, as humans , cease to exist. If we humans should perish as a race wiith our humamity intact, I'd believe that would be a much better life for us.

I'm only saying is that when we lose our humanity, then we, as humans , cease yo exist. If we humans should perish as a race with our hum amity intact, I'd believe that would be a much better life for us.

How do you define "humanity"? What if, in order to survive in a zero-g environment we have to alter our internal chemistry to do so, would that mean abandoning our humanity?

The very thing that makes us "human" is our morality and intelligence. Our morality, however, prevents us from evolving because evolution requires weak to perish and strong to sub-plant the weak. Barring the short bursts of destructiveness throughout our history, we don't readily engage in that activity. Therefore, the only way we can ever hope to evolve is by our own hand. Accept this fact-- we WILL create more and more advanced technology, which technology will one day surely surpass us by leaps and bounds. Would you prefer extinction at the hands of that because the thought of "evolving" just didn't sit well with you? Or would you chose to survive, even if it meant abandoning some things that used to be. If that's the case, surely you are disappointed that evolution took us here and caused many "other" traits that were indicative of our proto-species to be abandoned. Why not have nostalgia for those things we left behind? Or, have you arbitrarily drawn the line in the sand and said, "This far... no father" simply because you like the house as it is? That is both titanic and apocalyptic.

Your (or anybody else's) nostalgia for what we are now is a poor, POOR reason for us to not prepare for the future of our race off this planet. What you are prescribing for us is the very essence of entropy-- "we should be good stewards of this planet, never leave it, never alter our biology, and just sit and wait for the INEVITABLE celestial disaster and just take heart in the fact that 'we never lost our humanity.'" That concept is horrifically rosie-eyed and naïve-- one only need to look at the several billion years of this planet's history to realize that extinction level events are never an "if" but a "when". We've just been lucky enough to develop in between them.

If we do pass from existence with "our dignity" intact... what good will that be? Who will it benefit if there is no one to see such an event? Who will learn from that event? If we are truly the only intelligence in existence, then how horrific an idea is that, that we should cling to something that is transient, like an immature child clings to a blanket, only because the notion of growing beyond that "thing" makes us feel a little squeamish.

This growth spurt we are in--this point where we forever become something beyond being human--is very close at hand, and it is the apotheosis of maturity that we deal with that eventuality and accept it and move with it. Anything else spells certain extinction.

~String

I'm only saying is that when we lose our humanity, then we, as humans , cease yo exist. If we humans should perish as a race wiith our humamity intact, I'd believe that would be a much better life for us.
So what defines us as human - merely our genes?
Oh you've said that.
How limited a view you have.
Oh, I've said that.
Human is a sum of what we are and what we do - limiting your definition to physical characteristics is limiting yourself and the race.
We should try to be all that we can be.

So what defines us as human - merely our genes?
Oh you've said that.

How limited a view you have.

We should try to be all that we can be.



My opinions are just as good as yours.

I agree we should be all we can be as long as it is still human and the DNA sequencing hasn't been altered .

My opinions are just as good as yours.

I agree we should be all we can be as long as it is still human and the DNA sequencing hasn't been altered .

Then how can we evolve? The very nature of evolution involves significant altering of the DNA. Again, your ideas are a prescription for entropy.

~String

To evolve within natures own guidlines, change when change is necessary as humans have been doing for many years now. By pressing our luck to try and see what freaks we can "develop" with DNA sequencing would only bring about weird and unnatural beings that will perhaps be destroyed or destroy us.

To evolve within natures own guidelines, change when change is necessary as humans have been doing for many years now. By pressing our luck to try and see what freaks we can "develop" with DNA sequencing would only bring about weird and unnatural beings that will perhaps be destroyed or destroy us.

Cosmic... you have some touchy-feely image of how evolution works. It isn't some random mutation that gets passed on freely. It happens because that random mutation makes recipient BETTER than his peers, he then breeds more, usually by killing off the weaker ones within his range and spreading his/her seed far and wide. Evolution involves a great deal of mess that I sense, from your posts, you do not advocate.

So, again, I ask you: how will we evolve? There are ONLY three ways to evolve:
1) doing what nature does, and setting our morals aside and let only the strong survive and kill off the week
2) selectively breeding (a la, the Bene Gesserit Sisterhood in Dune), through licensing of the right to breed and or forced sterilization of those that have genetically undesirable traits
or
3) genetically engineering our species, either by experimentation on the genome or by extracting those traits we find desirable in various humans and animals

In nature there are only two choices: entropy or evolution. You can't have some rosie future where things perpetually stay the same.

Besides, you are acting like we'd be experimenting on humans to create freaks. Designing human beings will, one day, be like designing buildings. DNA works like any blueprint-- once you have the necessary ability to understand the "codes" there is not experimentation. You select a design, and the body complies. Freaks has nothing to do with it.

Our next stage of evolution could combine such traits as this:

-1% of the population is immune to AIDS, all apes have a protein that makes them immune to AIDS we could very well incorporate that protein into all humans
-humans could engineer our eyes to be those of eagles, noses with the scent range of house cats and hearing of a Labrador retriever
-there is a percentage of the population that has a significant immunity to all forms of genetic mutation and cancer-- we could give this ability to all humans
- by increasing the limbic center of the human brain by a factor of two, would only mean increasing the size of the human brain by about 5%, but would make all of us geniuses that outstrip any human being that has ever lived without sacrificing the "emotional" centers of the brain that govern aesthetics and morality
-we could re-engineer hemoglobin and red blood cells to carry ten or twenty times the oxygen it currently does, thus increasing our physical endurance by many times

There are so many possibilities that are out there and it would be ridiculous to sit back and say, "nope... enough's enough". Nature grants no reprieves or "do overs" this one existence is all humanity's got.

~String

Fine... it's not profitable yet. Great. But you'd think we'd all be thinking, "um... there's six billion of us, we're still growing, it's getting crappy down here... let's at least get SOME of us living 'out there' so that our progeny is secure."

If we trash this planet, do you really think it's a good idea to spread the mis-management?


We spend $16 billion a year. I can't imagine why it's not about $50 billion. Cut fucking welfare and entitlements. Save the race and go to space.
~String


...Cut fucking... ...DOD off the gravy train. Take the I.V. morphine drip of cash from: Blackhawk, Haliburton, et. al.

If we trash this planet, do you really think it's a good idea to spread the mis-management?

Yes. I do. We will mismanage everything until we evolve into a perfect species, in about two thousand years. I'm okay with spreading the disease of humanity far and wide... as long as we actually survive.

Do you presume that we sit around and hope some horrible natural or celestial disaster never strikes the Earth while we wait around for humanity to hold hands and sing Kumbaya?

Again, if we at least get off this world and spread throughout the solar system (where there are presumably no other intelligent species to harm), we'll have about a billion years before the sun goes BOOM, during which time I'm all for us learning to be a perfect & responsible species... we just need to get off this stinkin' rock.

~String

... until we evolve into a perfect species, in about two thousand years.
Huh?

I'm okay with spreading the disease... far and wide... . :eek:


...a billion years before the sun goes BOOM, during which time I'm all for us learning to be a perfect & responsible species...
One thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand ...:rolleyes:


... we just need to get off this stinkin' rock.~String

Please understand, I am in favor of space exploration, but,
I disagree with your reasons. It's a beautiful "rock"

Space Shuttle vs Soyuz

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Space_Shuttle_vs_Soyuz_TM_-_to_scale_drawing.png

I say use Soyuz to transport people and use Shuttle to transport cargo

Why use man-rated rockets to transport cargo?

Why use man-rated rockets to transport cargo?

Soyuz is cheap and much safer...and is very easy to deal with (it is smaller)

Shuttle costs more but can carry more...and its safety record isn't shining

Yes. I do. We will mismanage everything until we evolve into a perfect species, in about two thousand years. I'm okay with spreading the disease of humanity far and wide... as long as we actually survive.

Exactly. It's called not putting all your eggs in one basket. The earth periodically kills off 90% of all life in mass extinctions. We do not want to have all of humanity sitting here waiting to be wiped out when the next asteroid or whatever comes along.

Oh, one point of disagreement. I seriously doubt we'll be a "perfect species" ever, let alone in two thousand years.

Well, I have to tell you, they're so worried about being politically correct that they won't use Freon in the foam, which would have prevented the destruction of the Columbia. Since it is legal for them to use Freon, it is insane for them to allow this kind of risk to the astronauts over and over again.

Exactly. It's called not putting all your eggs in one basket. The earth periodically kills off 90% of all life in mass extinctions. We do not want to have all of humanity sitting here waiting to be wiped out when the next asteroid or whatever comes along.
Now this is a fairly solid reason for the quest of/for space.
But, because we're a sloppy animal too stupid or careless to keep from soiling our nest? :shrug:

Space junk or minuscule meteors strike spacecraft regularly.
But in January 2005, two pieces that were not much bigger than microwave ovens - the engine from a 31-year-old Thor rocket and a fragment from a Chinese rocket - collided over the Pacific Ocean.

And in July 1996, a briefcase-sized fragment from an Ariane rocket slammed into a French satellite at a combined impact of 31,500 mph, snapping off its 191/2-foot stabilizing boom.

Space managers expect the items to circle Earth at 18,000 mph, 30 times the speed of a jet, for 10 to 11 months before they reenter the atmosphere and burn up.

Until the orbital junkyard is cleaned up, any spacecraft contending for future space missions should be carefully considered!

Yes. I do. We will mismanage everything until we evolve into a perfect species, in about two thousand years. I'm okay with spreading the disease of humanity far and wide... as long as we actually survive.

Do you presume that we sit around and hope some horrible natural or celestial disaster never strikes the Earth while we wait around for humanity to hold hands and sing Kumbaya?

Again, if we at least get off this world and spread throughout the solar system (where there are presumably no other intelligent species to harm), we'll have about a billion years before the sun goes BOOM, during which time I'm all for us learning to be a perfect & responsible species... we just need to get off this stinkin' rock.

~String


This "rock" is what we MUST maintain until we can find distant worlds to inhabit. I see that it just maybe possible one day to get anywhere in the universe without a spaceship but with other technology that could be developed far advanced from what we even imagine today. If there isn't a "rock" to live on to develop these technologies then we will be having a hard time in surviving as a species. Species come and species go so perhaps humans are destined to become extinct befor they spread their contamination elsewhere in this universe.

Then how can we evolve? The very nature of evolution involves significant altering of the DNA. Again, your ideas are a prescription for entropy.

~String

Actuallly, as I recall, very minor alterations in DNA can give birth to a new species. However, per Darwin and other more modern evolutionists, such variations often take tens of thousands of years to grow from species variation to a new and unique species. From my point of view, we differ from all other life in our ability to adapt by culture growth and through our intellectual capacities. Accordingly, I first suggest that mass extinction from a cataclysmic event is rare, happening not every several thousand years, but millions or more. 66 million of us died in WWII at our own hands. No natural disaster, (individually or combined) since then has come close to reaching that pinnacle.

Secondly, can we even trust ourselves with gene modification? Or should we leave it in the hands of time based on natural selection and survival of the fittest? Is a space boulder the size of Texas going to wipe us out, or is it more likely that such occurence (however slim) will alter our methods of survival and change our cultural destiny, and thus have us evolve into something more suitable for the existing world? A true Dawinist, I think, would implore the latter. But I guess it depends on how big that asteroid actually is vis a vis its probability of occurring.

Finally, I agree that the planet is a delicate one, constantly in flux, and capable of extreme drought, volcanic activity, and Ice Ages. But evolution sought fit to give us the greatest chance for survival on this planet, not somewhere else. So, in the end, I think it better for us to concentrate on cultural evolution, which is under our complete control, to better the state of all persons. You may call it entropy; I call it humanistic.

Like in the movie Sleeper? I don't think they will revive me, I'm being creamated.
I didn't ment anyone in particular yust as a species from DNA left in blood samples or from bone fragmets (considering our nature verry tiny mildly torched bone frachments)

All considering DNA alterations say we inhabit Mars in the near future and people get children in a 3/5 gravity field would these natural +2metre tall people who could never return to earth in fear for their sevire cardial and bone deficiencies be more human then someone who's geneticly altered so that he can one day return to earth if that pleaces him?

If anything, the last thirty years or so indicate that there is an effort to hold back advancement into space. We're so "careful" that we can't even learn by experience. How might the Russians get ahead of the US? By having the guts to actually try their hardware instead of sitting on the ground ruminating for the next century. China may have some deaths but they will have the progress that they want. The US doesn't progress anymore.
Actually, I would argue that the problem was more a matter of the U.S. fixating on a reusable spacecraft and refusing to consider any alternatives, even when it became clear that it wasn't economically feasible or even technologically possible. NASA and the U.S. government in general became obsessed with the idea of an airplane-style spacecraft that could be used over and over again. It was supposed to make everything much cheaper, since they would only have to pay the cost of fuel and routine maintenance between launches. Sounds like a reasonable idea…except that it just wasn’t technologically possible to build a single-piece vehicle that was fully-reusable, and the “routine maintenance” ended up being so horrifically expensive that it’s actually cheaper to use disposable rockets.

Even though an aircraft-style space ship just wasn’t economically or technologically feasible, they insisted on it anyway…and we got the shuttle as a result. Another big problem with the shuttle is that NASA lacked any sort of clear goal when they built it. As a result it can doing anything, but can’t do anything very well. It can launch reasonably-sized large payloads, carry seven crew, and has a lot of room inside for doing experiments/carrying equipment. But it’s not efficient to use it for any one thing. If you want to launch big things into space (space station modules, ships to the moon/mars/wherever, parts of a big ship that’s you’re going to assemble in orbit before it departs, etc.) the shuttle can’t carry enough weight to make it worth-while because of its medium-sized cargo capacity. If you want to ferry personnel or supplies to and from orbit (because you want to maintain a space station, or change crew on a large, multi-part spaceship before it makes its next trip) the shuttle isn’t efficient because of its high cost.

A much better approach would have been to continue to use large, disposable rockets for heavy launches and smaller, cheaper vehicles for the “light lifting” like ferrying crew around, re-supplying space stations, etc. We might be able to build a small, fully-reusable vehicle that can do what the shuttle was supposed to do if we settled for a cargo capacity of just a few tons and used it only for light jobs.

Nasor, I was thinking something like that. All the parts would be smaller and cheaper for a spaceplane that could take ten people and luggage up to LEO at one time. The idea has been around for a while.

The US only had one remaining requirement for the Space shuttle and that was a mission squeezed in to service the Hubble Space Telescope to keep it operating until the new larger Webb Telescope can be deployed.

The rest of the missions are entirely to complete the construction of the international space station. In other words to continue to fly 25 year old spacecraft so as to keep the Russian manned space program alive and allow others nations with no space capability the opportunity to fly in space.

From 2010 and the retirement of the shuttle ( it will be retired at once if there is another accident) the US will have no manned space capability until 2013 when the new/old Crew Exploration Vehicle flies to prepare for a return to the moon.

The ISS program should be curtailed, fly the Hubble mission and use the money saved to expedite the CEV so as to not be utterly dependant on 1960's ex Soviet Soyuz spacecraft to get to the ISS. This three seater capsule is so yesteryear as to be laughable but for 3 years that will be the only ticket for manned travel into space except for an even more primitive Chinese system.