Should the US/International Community continue to explore space ?

[Joccaren]

I think sending man to Mars is pretty pointless. I mean don't get me wrong, it would be one awesome feat and something that publically would gain huge interest, but whats to be found there? Years of probes and rovers have pretty much shown its just a huge, barren wasteland. Unless we were planning on colonizing it somehow, I think its nothing more than just a symbolic (and very expensive) mission.

From memory there was some deep cave system or other they hadn't sent probes into that had a small chance of containing microbial life, so it might be cool to get man to go there rather than machine, but yeah. Unless we are colonising Mars, I'd rather not go there for token symbolic reasons, and I really think we should put something on the moon first. No real reason for it other than I'd like to look up with a telescope and see it at night. That would be awesome, and a lot more inspirational for space travel than something you can't see on a planet that appears as a star to the naked eye.

IMO: Yeah, we need more funding to space. Preferably corporate funding, like Virgin or someone like that. Governments have a bit too much on their hands, and should be putting their money into improving quality of life down here (A bit more than they are ATM. I think EVERYONE needs to drop military budgets a bit and start spending more on the citizens, but W/E).
I just hope I get to see the first REAL space station/space colony/space whatever in my time, even though I doubt I will.

 

[beniki]

Well yeah.

We ain't gonna find all that Prothean tech on Mars by sitting on our arses.

I think sending man to Mars is pretty pointless. I mean don't get me wrong, it would be one awesome feat and something that publically would gain huge interest, but whats to be found there? Years of probes and rovers have pretty much shown its just a huge, barren wasteland. Unless we were planning on colonizing it somehow, I think its nothing more than just a symbolic (and very expensive) mission.

But it would provide valuable practical experience for future long range missions (Titan, anyone?)

Yes it would but sending people as opposed to robots/rover style vehicles makes things ALOT more complicated than it already is. I guess what I am saying is that space exploration is probably best done by technology rather than always having to send actual people. Sending people really adds to the buzz but doesn't necessarily achieve more and like I said makes things much more complex. You also have to bring them back.

I agree with you though, I think our next probe/rover/whatever should go to Titan and explore its oceans. Even cellular life is life and this would blow open the possibilty that life is as common as stars and planets

I disagree. Technology can't tell you how cold the planet feels, and can't describe the terrifying power of a Martian sand storm. It also doesn't have the pioneer spirit that makes a person dig for gold in a muddy hole for years.

Basically, robots are cool, but only a few people can get excited about what is essentially a very long distance remote control car. Give someone a flag to plant and rights to their own bit of planet, however, and you'll have greedy bastards by the millions building rockets.

Which is what people pushing for more space exploration should be focusing on. High minded ideals are good for day dreams. But greed... greed will get things done.

 

[erykweb]

At the minute, no, we should not explore space. Too much money for the short term, what with the financial state we are in. Let's not waste money on exploring space whne there are more poressing matters.

With the amount of cash flow that would be created by mass space exploration, not to mention all the jobs, I think that this is exactly the time to do it. We are still recovering from an economic downturn, and this is the most massive a stimulus we could give the world right now. We could even reach a new economic peak with the amount of tech that would be invented, increasing human capital while still requiring huge amounts of manpower.

 

[Lang901]

Snip (I've never been one for line by line)

This is the plan that I currently run in debate so i have experience refuting these points.
First the satellites, would be in GEO, so it would be above the majority of space debris. And Space Situational Awareness(SSA) keeps the satellites safe.

Second, on your point about it turning in to a death ray, these satellites would use microwaves for Wireless Power Transmission(WPT) so there are no mirrors. I can hear you saying "But lang901, we use microwaves to heat our food, couldn't these satellites be used to heat people too?" Fun fact: the peak intensity for the WPT is about 1/4 of noon sunlight yet it still remains about 80-90% efficient.

Your point about transportation was answered above.
If you want the crap-ton of evidence i have on this, just PM me and i can give you over 1-2 thousand pages of evidence for refuting just about anything you can think is wrong with SBSP. even things you can't think of like Kritiks(debate term for critiques) of security thinking.

 

[Tommeh Brownleh]

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.

 

[backinthepresentfuture]

i don't want man to expand into the stars, we've already destroyed one planet, one planet should be all we get.

 

[jdun]

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]

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]

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]

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?

Disneyland on the moon

The above quote trumps any argument against space development and commercialization.

ever.

 

[Hoplon]

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]

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

 

[Shock and Awe]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.