Should the US/International Community continue to explore space ?

Recommended Videos

Tommeh Brownleh

New member
May 26, 2011
278
0
0
No. It's just a money sink. The economy is bad enough as is, why should we spend MORE money sending robots into places that we are relatively sure don't have anything of value on them, and that we are almost certain are uninhabitable. It's just a waste of time and money.
 

jdun

New member
Aug 5, 2008
310
0
0
If you want to go to space than you should support the commercialization of space. The main reason why there are no Disneyland on the moon because Government Space Agencies around the world prevent the private sector investing in space. We should already colonize Mars by now if NASA hadn't stopped private companies in the '70s.
 

jdun

New member
Aug 5, 2008
310
0
0
Tommeh Brownleh said:
No. It's just a money sink. The economy is bad enough as is, why should we spend MORE money sending robots into places that we are relatively sure don't have anything of value on them, and that we are almost certain are uninhabitable. It's just a waste of time and money.
I agree that it is a waste of tax dollar money to support government space agency like NASA.

Lets the corporations colonize space because it is the only route.
 

Helmholtz Watson

New member
Nov 7, 2011
2,497
0
0
yes definitely, after seeing China launching there recent launch of a rocket, I hope that this is the first of a list of good things to come.
 

Innegativeion

Positively Neutral!
Feb 18, 2011
1,636
0
0
backinthepresentfuture said:
i don't want man to expand into the stars, we've already destroyed one planet, one planet should be all we get.
You do know there are infinite worlds, right? (theoretically anyway. Even if the universe is not infinite, it's so large we'd still be unable to explore them all before the heat death of the universe.)

Additionally, most of them are uninhabited. It's a far better option to blast them into space dust for resources(hyperbole of course) than to do so to earth, where life is already established. No harm, no foul, right?

What conceivable reason could there be for restricting ourselves to one planet? On whose authority do you say that life must be restricted to its home planet?

jdun said:
Disneyland on the moon
The above quote trumps any argument against space development and commercialization.

ever.
 

Hoplon

Jabbering Fool
Mar 31, 2010
1,839
0
0
Okay, space based power won't make climate change better, probably worse since you would still be dumping massive amounts of extra heat in to the system (eventually all the power we use is dumped out as heat) you need to use earth based solar in it's various forms (wind and wave are driven by energy absorbed from the sun) storage can be done pretty simply with hydrogen fuel cell systems, big tank of water gets cracked out to store the energy, recombined to reclaim it when it is needed.

Hardly exotic solutions but then they don't need to be.

Exploring space should be something we do even if not in person, since all the answers about the universe are out there if we look well enough.
 

Kyrian007

Nemo saltat sobrius
Legacy
Mar 9, 2010
2,730
844
118
Kansas
Country
U.S.A.
Gender
Male

Kinda says it all. All human endeavor is ultimately meaningless if we don't.
 

Shock and Awe

Winter is Coming
Sep 6, 2008
4,645
0
0
Fuck yes. Space is what will drive technology and human endeavor for decades and centuries to come. If we forsake space to profiteers and those who only are in it for the immediate benefits it will be lost to us.
 

Muspelheim

New member
Apr 7, 2011
2,021
0
0
I'm even tempted to say that it's our destiny. We're a lucky species, we've got the means to do it. If we all try to be all that we can be, there is no limit to what we can achieve.

Earth's resources are finitive, and it is a rather fragile biosphere. We simply need to find more resources, and possibly inhabit new worlds, if we want to ensure we can keep our jewel in the crown. If we can relocate our most dangerous, polluting industries to an already dead world, like the moon for instance, then it will be slightly easier for us to keep our homeworld in good shape.

Honestly, it's either embracing the new possibilities, or just remaining here on earth until our species inevitably dies out, with nothing of particular notice achieved whatsoever, like cattle.
 

Lang901

New member
Aug 2, 2010
167
0
0
Hoplon said:
Okay, space based power won't make climate change better, probably worse since you would still be dumping massive amounts of extra heat in to the system (eventually all the power we use is dumped out as heat) you need to use earth based solar in it's various forms (wind and wave are driven by energy absorbed from the sun) storage can be done pretty simply with hydrogen fuel cell systems, big tank of water gets cracked out to store the energy, recombined to reclaim it when it is needed.

Hardly exotic solutions but then they don't need to be.

Exploring space should be something we do even if not in person, since all the answers about the universe are out there if we look well enough.
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/hsu.html This is actually a pretty good article on why SBSP can solve warming. There is even a section called "Solar Power - The Best Renewable Energy Source for the Future".
http://www.nss.org/legislative/positions/NSS-SSP-PositionPaper.pdf Another source from the National Space Society about why SBSP works better than other things. there's even a section on why it is the best renewable resource.
If you want a government resource, I have linked it above. I have answers to just about anything you can think up.
 

Hoplon

Jabbering Fool
Mar 31, 2010
1,839
0
0
Lang901 said:
Hoplon said:
Okay, space based power won't make climate change better, probably worse since you would still be dumping massive amounts of extra heat in to the system (eventually all the power we use is dumped out as heat) you need to use earth based solar in it's various forms (wind and wave are driven by energy absorbed from the sun) storage can be done pretty simply with hydrogen fuel cell systems, big tank of water gets cracked out to store the energy, recombined to reclaim it when it is needed.

Hardly exotic solutions but then they don't need to be.

Exploring space should be something we do even if not in person, since all the answers about the universe are out there if we look well enough.
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/hsu.html This is actually a pretty good article on why SBSP can solve warming. There is even a section called "Solar Power - The Best Renewable Energy Source for the Future".
http://www.nss.org/legislative/positions/NSS-SSP-PositionPaper.pdf Another source from the National Space Society about why SBSP works better than other things. there's even a section on why it is the best renewable resource.
If you want a government resource, I have linked it above. I have answers to just about anything you can think up.
Neither of which address the issue of dumping a couple of extra tera watts a year in to the global system absorbing energy that would have been reflected away normally.
 

Tommeh Brownleh

New member
May 26, 2011
278
0
0
jdun said:
Tommeh Brownleh said:
No. It's just a money sink. The economy is bad enough as is, why should we spend MORE money sending robots into places that we are relatively sure don't have anything of value on them, and that we are almost certain are uninhabitable. It's just a waste of time and money.
I agree that it is a waste of tax dollar money to support government space agency like NASA.

Lets the corporations colonize space because it is the only route.
I'm not sure that's such a great idea either. This would likely mean first contact with any aliens that may exist would be made by a bunch of cocks who won some contest, or are on Jersey Shore: Kepler 22-B. I say we just stick to Earth, live long, and die out.