Poll: Space...the final frontier

[Kaboose the Moose]

Today, while out at lunch with a couple of my friends a discussion cropped up about space colonization and the merits/fallouts of dicking about in space. This discussion was technically a continuation from when we heard that NASA was trying to explode part of the moon [http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/06/16/1556254/NASA-To-Trigger-Massive-Explosion-On-the-Moon-In-Search-of-Ice](the plans to which have already been initiated, T-minus October 8th for impact).

Then we heard, that India's lunar mission finds evidence of water on the Moon [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article6846639.ece] and that "water may still be forming on the surface of the Moon, according to scientists familiar with the mission". This news immediately stared speculations about a return to the moon for mining purposes.

Think about it:

Apart from hydrogen that could be mined from the moon, we can also get *moon water*. Judging by the number of people here on Earth that consume/purchase bottled water this extraterrestrial water could potentially sell millions....

Anyway, in all seriousness this got me thinking; are we seeing an age where man will return to the moon?. Would you like to see a return to the moon or is Mars the ultimate goal?. Even if we do get there (moon or mars) should we immediately begin mining/bombarding it with equipment?.

Also if you had the opportunity to steer mankind's space exploration, where would you take us?. (see: poll)

 

[Kermi]

I think we need to colonise Mars if we want humanity to survive to the 22rd century. After that, let's figure out faster than light travel already! We've established there's nothing worth colonising anywhere we can get to conventionally.

 

[Gebi10000]

we need a base on the moon. not only would SETI be more efective there, we could mine the iron, and use the base as a jump board for a mission to mars

 

[Jedoro]

We must do everything for the lulz, so Mercury it is!

 

[Dragon_of_red]

Return to the moon?

I want us too do more stuff with the moon, but we shouldnt Just stop at Mars.

We shouldnt instantley bombard Mars with new equipment and exploration, lets make sure we can get ther first and not die. Then we can bomb the Sh^t outta it.

Personllay i would take it to Saturn since the rings of it are wonderfly beautiful and if ew can get a sample we may be able to make smaller ones so ican have them around my house

 

[Destal]

You can't land on Saturn, it's a gaseous planet. It's moons are possible. I would say that we should start working on being able to go farther out.

I think we need to colonise Mars if we want humanity to survive to the 22rd century. After that, let's figure out faster than light travel already! We've established there's nothing worth colonising anywhere we can get to conventionally.

Traveling at light speed is impossible unless you have a mass of absolute zero, which is why a photon can do it. The faster you go the harder it is to continue to accelerate with a mass. Not even an atom can accelerate at the speed of light. We have quite a ways to go to crack that one.

 

[Kermi]

Traveling at light speed is impossible unless you have a mass of absolute zero, which is why a photon can do it. The faster you go the harder it is to continue to accelerate with a mass. Not even an atom can accelerate at the speed of light. We have quite a ways to go to crack that one.

We'll be better off creating warp drives. Once we manage to warp space-time actual speed becomes irrelevant. I just ignorantly use faster than light travel as an umbrella term for any method by which we can travel interstellar distances in short spans of time.
And we won't have workable warp drives or the means to navigate them until we have quantum computers, which I consider far, far less likely to be created by humanity.

 

[teletran3]

Since the poll only listed space places, I'd go with Mars. But we also have a huge percentage of our own planet to yet explore. The oceans. Anyone but me miss SeaQuest?

 

[Dragonearl]

We must do everything for the lulz, so Mercury it is!

The thing about Mercury is...distance wise it's a hop-skip and a jump using gravitational trajectories. It's the technical that's going to be a real scorcher.

And it's not like we can get to Mars yet. Well we can but it would take forever to go and comeback.

 

[Maze1125]

I think we need to colonise Mars if we want humanity to survive to the 22rd century. After that, let's figure out faster than light travel already! We've established there's nothing worth colonising anywhere we can get to conventionally.

If you travel at a speed close enough to the speed of light, you can travel a distance of several thousand light-years in what seems like only months to the crew.

And we won't have workable warp drives or the means to navigate them until we have quantum computers, which I consider far, far less likely to be created by humanity.

You find quantum computers unlikely?
Some companies already claim to have developed basic quantum chips.

Although I don't see why we would need quantum computers to be able to use a "warp drive". Yeah, quantum computers are better at some things, but not everything.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

Traveling at light speed is impossible unless you have a mass of absolute zero, which is why a photon can do it. The faster you go the harder it is to continue to accelerate with a mass. Not even an atom can accelerate at the speed of light. We have quite a ways to go to crack that one.

We'll be better off creating warp drives. Once we manage to warp space-time actual speed becomes irrelevant. I just ignorantly use faster than light travel as an umbrella term for any method by which we can travel interstellar distances in short spans of time.
And we won't have workable warp drives or the means to navigate them until we have quantum computers, which I consider far, far less likely to be created by humanity.

Well there is this! [http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/07/28/warp-speed-engine.html]

The ability to manipulate space itself to make it move rather than the ship. I don't really understand how it is supposed to work (hell, I was barely awake during astrophysics lectures) but I have a feeling that it won't be long now before we see Battlestars moving about!

 

[ace_of_something]

A lot of those planets we couldn't land on as they're gas or so hot/cold nothing we have can help us survive.

So, Mars.

 

[VanityGirl]

I picked Uranus thinking I could make a joke. *sigh*

If there is a habitable planet, it's definately not in our solar system. We gotta move elsewhere for a good earth-like planet.

 

[McHanhan]

Since the poll only listed space places, I'd go with Mars. But we also have a huge percentage of our own planet to yet explore. The oceans. Anyone but me miss SeaQuest?

Oh hell yes!. I love that game and deep sea exploration!. Oceans FTW!.

Today, while out at lunch with a couple of my friends a discussion cropped up about space colonization and the merits/fallouts of dicking about in space. This discussion was technically a continuation from when we heard that NASA was trying to explode part of the moon [http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/06/16/1556254/NASA-To-Trigger-Massive-Explosion-On-the-Moon-In-Search-of-Ice](the plans to which have already been initiated, T-minus October 8th for impact).

Wait WHAT????. When did that happen?. Did they put this to a vote?. Surely, there must be a better way to map the moon for ice other than exploding it..right?. I mean surely?!. What was those imaging satellites for then?. I can imaging that plan going horribly wrong and we ending up with two moons..I guess it's not all that bad..the tides might be a bit of a problem but at least we'll know that there is ice on the moon.

Also for the record, I think we should go to the moon and build a Stargate to Pluto. That way we can really say that the Moon is a launching platform for space exploration and we can build a network of Stargates to make do without ward drive.

 

[Maze1125]

I can imaging that plan going horribly wrong and we ending up with two moons.

Do you really believe that could happen?

 

[Kollega]

We need moon base first. Before walking,you have to master crawling.

 

[Hallow'sEve]

I think we'd have to set up on the Moon and get used to that before we could think of jumping to Mars.

 

[Sulu]

Back 100 years computers seemed impossible and the human race created them, I think we could develop a faster than light propulsion system but it would require super funding from all nations.
(plus if that happens then the space craft will need soldiers to defend them.....space marines anyone?)

Explore beyond the solar system! Every star can have a planet with life on it!

 

[Avaholic03]

Today, while out at lunch with a couple of my friends a discussion cropped up about space colonization and the merits/fallouts of dicking about in space. This discussion was technically a continuation from when we heard that NASA was trying to explode part of the moon [http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/06/16/1556254/NASA-To-Trigger-Massive-Explosion-On-the-Moon-In-Search-of-Ice](the plans to which have already been initiated, T-minus October 8th for impact).

Wait WHAT????. When did that happen?. Did they put this to a vote?. Surely, there must be a better way to map the moon for ice other than exploding it..right?. I mean surely?!. What was those imaging satellites for then?. I can imaging that plan going horribly wrong and we ending up with two moons..I guess it's not all that bad..the tides might be a bit of a problem but at least we'll know that there is ice on the moon.

"Explode" is inaccurate. It's strictly a kinetic impact, there aren't any explosives. The Centaur is about the size of a small city bus...weights quite a bit even with no propellants on board. Hitting the moon (with its small gravity) will create that kind of "explosion". It certainly isn't enough impact energy to split the moon in half...in fact the moon has clearly been hit by larger objects at faster velocities and survived. No need to freak out.

The other part of that LRO/LCROSS mission is a high-definition map of the lunar surface to find where the best place to land and create a colony is. Obviously it's better to colonize the moon as opposed to sustaining a space station if we plan on using it as a jump-off point for exploration into deeper space.

 

[ae86gamer]

I think that we should colonize on the moon before we consider going to other planets. I just saw a National Geographic special about it and it looked awesome.