What good is the space shuttle?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by countezero, Aug 9, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    At least they did something and maybe science advanced some.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    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
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    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.
     
  8. Learned Hand Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    361

    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.
     
  9. Klippymitch Thinker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    699
    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.
     
  10. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    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
     
  11. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    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
     
  12. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    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.
     
  13. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    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
     
  14. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    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.
     
  15. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    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
     
  16. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    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.
    You're speaking of a sentient computer as in The Terminator? Do you really believe AI is a serious threat to humanity?
     
  17. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    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
     
  18. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    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.
     
  19. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Define "human".
    Why wouldn't we be human any longer?
     
  20. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    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.
     
  21. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    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".
     
  22. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    That might give trouble with AI and other intiligent(bio)machinery invented to make life easier.
     
  23. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Extend the definition?
    Legal rights for AIs above a certain level of cognition?
    It's still "us" then.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page