41 Years Ago Today.

[Atomic Playboy]

Eventually this planet is going to die. Either because we run out of resources, something big smacks into us, our sun sends something nasty our way, a nearby star supernova's, or eventually our sun changes enough to no longer sustain life on Earth (something that will happen long before the sun actually dies).

Any way you look at it, given a large enough time scale the only way for humanity to survive will be to spread out among the stars.

You don't really want to see the truth aren't you, space exploration and development of space transport is really important investment for future generations, distant future but still. Just like Smogzinn said, If we will be focused only on earth, yeah there is still most stuff undiscovered but that won't make us sustainable in the event of crashing to earth or missing resources. As there is nothing right now near us in reasonable distance that could provide us a living environment, we must develop technologies that will do that for us at least till we find such a place.

So you think the human population can continue to grow indefinitely and the planet will sustain us regardless? Think a few centuries ahead, all signs point to us needing to get off this rock.

Humanity needs to spread beyond the Earth in order to ensure it's survival. We are the only known intelligent life in the universe, we cannot continue to risk our legacy by having all of our eggs in one basket.

We know that mass extinction events have occurred on our planet in the past, we cannot assume that they will not occur in the future.

All of these posts are based on a series of pretty wild assumptions, so I'll address them together.

First, the contention that our planet is dying and humans will eventually need to abandon it. This, to me, screams of shirking responsibility for the problems we've helped create. But if we can invest trillions into developing a space program that's actually capable of interstellar travel, why can't we use some of those same funds to clean up Earth? It's got to be cheaper; we have most of the technology already, it's just a matter of putting it to good use. And if nations can agree on interstellar space travel, they can probably collaborate on cleaning up the oceans too.

Second, we use so little of our planet's habitable space right now. Estimates are we use less that 5% of the surface of our planet for permanent human habitation. If we can spend trillions developing habitats for life on other planets, surely we can spend some money to develop habitats that will enable year-round habitation at the poles, or in deserts, or in the oceans, or at altitude. All of these seem more conducive to human life than colonizing a lifeless rock with no atmosphere and attempting to make it work for us.

Third, the threat of cosmic destruction, ie solar flares or supernova. The only way we'd actually save ourselves from these threats by leaving Earth is to REALLY leave Earth; we wouldn't just skip down to Mars or the moon, which will be hit by the same phenomena, we'd need to leave the solar system and then some. Frankly, it's silly to worry about the threat of supernova, because by the time we were able to determine that a star near enough to us was going supernova, it would have, and we may never have the technology to outrun gamma radiation coming towards us near lightspeed. As far as the threat of something hitting us, that's a threat on any planet or moon; we'd be much safer on a planet that has an atmosphere that protects us from such objects than on a celestial body that lacks an atmosphere.

Fourth, we're assuming that population growth continues on an exponential growth trend. While certainly possible, it's also possible that population growth slows and levels out. We don't know what's going to happen. Saying that population growth is going to drive us off our planet is just fear-mongering based upon the assumption that humans will not alter their behavior if resources become scarce. And even if resources do become scarce, there's not really anything else near us that is going to produce food or potable water (probably our most important resources for survival).

Fifth, true space exploration is going to require vastly different propulsion mechanisms than we have now. Getting to the nearest star system with current technologies will take tens of thousands of years, and that's just not even remotely useful for scientific purposes. Obviously new technologies are needed, but we're as likely to find something promising from the experiments at CERN as we will by launching a mission to Mars with the same old technology we've had for decades. We don't go into space to develop new propulsion methods, we develop new propulsion methods on Earth with the hope that they will get us into space.

I feel like there's a tendency to view space exploration like Star Trek, where we stick some people on a ship and have them nobly fly around hoping to impregnate new alien races (or whatever they did; I didn't watch that much TOS). Regardless, the problem with that is with our current technology, they'd spend hundreds of lifetimes drifting through nothingness, hoping that the scientists on Earth who developed a self-sustaining environment to last thousands of years in the vacuum of space hadn't made a mistake in calculations or everyone would die. We aren't getting out of our solar system anytime soon, and frankly, with all these catastrophic predictions you're advancing, anything less wouldn't help us. Mars, the moon, anything else in our solar system is just at risk for a near supernova or solar activity, more at risk for cosmic impact owing to lack of atmosphere, and less supportive of life. If that's the hope for the survival of our species, we've had it.

-EDIT- I don't want to sound like I'm opposed to further research into space travel; I think it's a great notion, and I hope that we are able to send men/women to walk on other celestial bodies or out of our own solar system at some point in my lifetime. It's a lofty scientific goal and a noble pursuit. But there's a limit of usefulness to me; I don't believe that a manned mission to the moon justifies the cost at this time, and we don't have the technology for a manned expedition anywhere else. I'd like to see funding for new propulsion methods to take us farther so we may better investigate what's out there in the void, but I want that for scientific discovery, not based out of the fear that we've so completely destroyed our planet that we need to abandon it for survival (which still sounds ludicrous to me; how badly would we need to destroy our own planet where any other lifeless area in space would be preferable?).

 

[Agent11]

There are plenty of disasters that could wipe out life on earth but spare a colony on the moon, or Europa or a station built into a large asteroid such as Ceres, Vesta or Pallas.

For instance it has recently been discovered that the super volcano underneath Yellowstone is monstrously larger than previously estimated. . . Large enough to cause an extinction event.

 

[Sheep221]

Lol dude just take it easy, you expect that if someone around this time is not able to design space ship that could travel long distances in space, it's just not worth doing it?
Do you see any planned moon mission right now that nasa wastes money on?
You got some good points but your view is too unreal.
I agree with you on the terms of cleaning earth tho, I'm sure we are not far from waste disposal to the outer space.

 

[irishScott]

All of these posts are based on a series of pretty wild assumptions, so I'll address them together.

First, the contention that our planet is dying and humans will eventually need to abandon it. This, to me, screams of shirking responsibility for the problems we've helped create. But if we can invest trillions into developing a space program that's actually capable of interstellar travel, why can't we use some of those same funds to clean up Earth? It's got to be cheaper; we have most of the technology already, it's just a matter of putting it to good use. And if nations can agree on interstellar space travel, they can probably collaborate on cleaning up the oceans too.

Second, we use so little of our planet's habitable space right now. Estimates are we use less that 5% of the surface of our planet for permanent human habitation. If we can spend trillions developing habitats for life on other planets, surely we can spend some money to develop habitats that will enable year-round habitation at the poles, or in deserts, or in the oceans, or at altitude. All of these seem more conducive to human life than colonizing a lifeless rock with no atmosphere and attempting to make it work for us.

Third, the threat of cosmic destruction, ie solar flares or supernova. The only way we'd actually save ourselves from these threats by leaving Earth is to REALLY leave Earth; we wouldn't just skip down to Mars or the moon, which will be hit by the same phenomena, we'd need to leave the solar system and then some. Frankly, it's silly to worry about the threat of supernova, because by the time we were able to determine that a star near enough to us was going supernova, it would have, and we may never have the technology to outrun gamma radiation coming towards us near lightspeed. As far as the threat of something hitting us, that's a threat on any planet or moon; we'd be much safer on a planet that has an atmosphere that protects us from such objects than on a celestial body that lacks an atmosphere.

Fourth, we're assuming that population growth continues on an exponential growth trend. While certainly possible, it's also possible that population growth slows and levels out. We don't know what's going to happen. Saying that population growth is going to drive us off our planet is just fear-mongering based upon the assumption that humans will not alter their behavior if resources become scarce. And even if resources do become scarce, there's not really anything else near us that is going to produce food or potable water (probably our most important resources for survival).

Fifth, true space exploration is going to require vastly different propulsion mechanisms than we have now. Getting to the nearest star system with current technologies will take tens of thousands of years, and that's just not even remotely useful for scientific purposes. Obviously new technologies are needed, but we're as likely to find something promising from the experiments at CERN as we will by launching a mission to Mars with the same old technology we've had for decades. We don't go into space to develop new propulsion methods, we develop new propulsion methods on Earth with the hope that they will get us into space.

I feel like there's a tendency to view space exploration like Star Trek, where we stick some people on a ship and have them nobly fly around hoping to impregnate new alien races (or whatever they did; I didn't watch that much TOS). Regardless, the problem with that is with our current technology, they'd spend hundreds of lifetimes drifting through nothingness, hoping that the scientists on Earth who developed a self-sustaining environment to last thousands of years in the vacuum of space hadn't made a mistake in calculations or everyone would die. We aren't getting out of our solar system anytime soon, and frankly, with all these catastrophic predictions you're advancing, anything less wouldn't help us. Mars, the moon, anything else in our solar system is just at risk for a near supernova or solar activity, more at risk for cosmic impact owing to lack of atmosphere, and less supportive of life. If that's the hope for the survival of our species, we've had it.

-EDIT- I don't want to sound like I'm opposed to further research into space travel; I think it's a great notion, and I hope that we are able to send men/women to walk on other celestial bodies or out of our own solar system at some point in my lifetime. It's a lofty scientific goal and a noble pursuit. But there's a limit of usefulness to me; I don't believe that a manned mission to the moon justifies the cost at this time, and we don't have the technology for a manned expedition anywhere else. I'd like to see funding for new propulsion methods to take us farther so we may better investigate what's out there in the void, but I want that for scientific discovery, not based out of the fear that we've so completely destroyed our planet that we need to abandon it for survival (which still sounds ludicrous to me; how badly would we need to destroy our own planet where any other lifeless area in space would be preferable?).

I know you put a lot of effort into that, but simple fact is you're making even more assumptions than we are.

The earth has finite resources. We can take measures, such as you suggest, to substantially prolong those resources, but barring a massive breakthrough in physics we're going to eventually run out. Even if we institute strict population controls and figure out how to keep half the population in cryogenic sleep in Antarctica at any given time, it's going to happen. As for resource production, we can already grow food in space and we've found water on both the moon and mars.

No one is saying that space exploration should be pursued at the expense of everything else, and I'm sure everyone will acknowledge the need for new propulsion systems, power generation and all sorts of things to make it viable. However, space exploration at present is currently getting the shaft on essentially every national budget worldwide. That shouldn't be the case. Sure right now we have probes on Mars, if NASA keeps getting screwed even those missions will stop happening.

 

[irishScott]

This is convenient timing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX6E86ExhZo

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Catastrophic conditions on Earth doesn't sway me as a convincing rationale for increasing funding of space exploration at this point. There are dozens of catastrophes that could conceivably threaten human survival on the planet; impacts from outer space, supervolcanoes, extreme solar activity, global warming, disrupted ocean currents cascading into an ice age, nuclear war and subsequent nuclear winter, reversal of the Earth's magnetic pole, using up all the natural resources, etc. We can come up with any number of disaster scenarios that would threaten our existence on this planet, and it seems like space is a natural answer for "where do we go from here?" But these arguments all rely on two fundamental assumptions; first, that there will be a catastrophe that legitimately threatens humans with extinction; and second, that only by leaving the planet will we be able to survive. And even if you accept the first premise as inevitable (which, on a long enough scale, I suppose it will be, but humans may not even exist by the time any of these scenarios comes to pass), the second relies on the assumption of being able to create a self-sustaining environment fit for human survival without any resources from Earth; and that's where we run into problems.

We can't grow crops without soil, water, nutrients and sunlight. Mars offers water and we can still get sunlight, but beyond that, where are we getting soil and nutrients conducive to growing crops? Will Martian soil work?

Where are we getting fuel when the moon and Mars have no source of hydrocarbon-based fuel as we traditionally use? We can get there with traditional fuels, and maybe bring some with us, but once we get there, do our rockets become useless? What if something else threatens us up there?

How are we getting the resources to build extraterrestrial colonies off-planet and to Mars or the moon? It would require thousands upon thousands of rocket launches with current technology, and that's for a moderate habitat capable of sustaining a few thousand people. For saving a species? The logistics aren't there for that sort of endeavor.

Again, I'm not saying that space exploration is worthless. Fantasizing about colonizing Mars in case Yellowstone explodes IS worthless. We are centuries away from being able to colonize another planet to the point that we could live on it AND use it as a base to survive an extinction level event on Earth. We simply don't have the technology yet, and it may prove irrelevant because Yellowstone could lay dormant for a million years. We're engaging in some pretty broad conjecture at this point. Fantasizing about potential future catastrophes while ignoring legitimate problems currently affecting large segments of the human population strikes me as irresponsible. That, as much as anything, guides my opinion that space exploration shouldn't be a top priority for us right now.

And yes, irishScott, I realize that running out of resources is a legitimate concern threatening us currently (as opposed to other "what if" disaster scenarios). But we have a better chance of saving ourselves from those issues by expanding usable land area through dramatic irrigation than we do by colonizing the moon. We're pretty technologically advanced, but when it comes to technologies to allow us to move through the vastness of space, we're in the infancy of the technology. We're the person who invented the slingshot trying to comprehend a gun. If running out of resources is something that will legitimately threaten the species in the next century, it will not be fixed through space travel but through expansion of fertile land and improvements in areas of food waste such as pests and spoilage.

We can agree to disagree about what priority we give space exploration. I just hope your motivations are something beyond the paranoia of an extremely unlikely disaster scenario.

 

[Agent11]

The best plan would be to build the facilities necessary to mine and produce materials/equipment on the moon.

 

[Sheep221]

Another reason space is explored is curiosity, and alot of things we use everyday originated in space research. So you can't also bail out this field because it's irrational to focus on how to prevent catastrophes.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Another reason space is explored is curiosity, and alot of things we use everyday originated in space research. So you can't also bail out this field because it's irrational to focus on how to prevent catastrophes.

I think that curiosity is a better rationale for exploring space than catastrophe, I was just responding to the catastrophe angle since that's what people were using as justification. But it's also harder to sell "curiosity" as a pressing need for expanding funding when there's other areas where the money could be spent to alleviate some serious problems. But that's all budgetary concern (which is the question the OP asked from the get-go). We don't need to see eye to eye on funding priorities to agree that space exploration is a worthy endeavor, I just place it lower on my list of priorities than you.

 

[Brovane]

Where are we getting fuel when the moon and Mars have no source of hydrocarbon-based fuel as we traditionally use? We can get there with traditional fuels, and maybe bring some with us, but once we get there, do our rockets become useless? What if something else threatens us up there?

How are we getting the resources to build extraterrestrial colonies off-planet and to Mars or the moon? It would require thousands upon thousands of rocket launches with current technology, and that's for a moderate habitat capable of sustaining a few thousand people. For saving a species? The logistics aren't there for that sort of endeavor.

.

The key is water. With water you have a lot possibilities. All you need to do is separate the H and O in water and apply cryogenics to turn it into liquid and you have rocket fuel. We already know that water is on Mars we are not sure about the Moon. It will probably take a human landing and boring into one of the permamently shaded craters. If you also have Hyrdogen and Carbon Dioxide (like on Mars) you can also turn Hydrogen into Methane which can also be used as a rocket fuel.

The key is once you reach either Mars or the Moon is developing the technologies to live off the land and not have to bring everything with you.

 

[Paratus]

My comment about requiring space travel for the survival of the human race was correct on a long enough timescale.

I see the work we're doing now is roughly equivalent to when humans strapped two logs together and floated down the river with a tree branch for steering. It was extremely expensive vs the resources available at the time, but it eventually opened up additional resources. Now we have supertankers.

 

[Agent11]

The problem is that the projects required to give humanity a permanent foothold in space will require time and resources to pursue. Every decade we put it off more nations develop nuclear weapons, more nations demand more access to first world standards of living, and levels of resource consumption. The longer we put it off the harder it will be.

 

[irishScott]

The problem is that the projects required to give humanity a permanent foothold in space will require time and resources to pursue. Every decade we put it off more nations develop nuclear weapons, more nations demand more access to first world standards of living, and levels of resource consumption. The longer we put it off the harder it will be.

Fortunately the crux of essentially everything space related is power generation, which is a very active area of research at the moment, and will grow in prominence as resources diminish.

Also advantageous from a resource perspective is that first-world standards are for more efficient than they used to be. First world cars, light bulbs, computers, get far more done with far fewer resources than they did decades ago.

It will be many generations before we truly get strapped for resources, and just as research into space exploration bleeds into other areas, the opposite is also true. We're building the groundwork for viable space exploration right this second, we just don't know it yet.

 

[Paratus]

Fortunately the crux of essentially everything space related is power generation, which is a very active area of research at the moment, and will grow in prominence as resources diminish.

Also advantageous from a resource perspective is that first-world standards are for more efficient than they used to be. First world cars, light bulbs, computers, get far more done with far fewer resources than they did decades ago.

It will be many generations before we truly get strapped for resources, and just as research into space exploration bleeds into other areas, the opposite is also true. We're building the groundwork for viable space exploration right this second, we just don't know it yet.

The real solution to resource management is to reduce the population. The only ethical way to to do that is to have people want to have less kids.

Countries with first world standards of living have reduced birth rates. So we need the developing worlds standards of living to rise to our own.

As you've pointed out we're a lot more efficient then we used to be so hopefully China, India and others can skip or shorten the amount of waste we went through.

 

[Sheep221]

The real solution to resource management is to reduce the population. The only ethical way to to do that is to have people want to have less kids.

Countries with first world standards of living have reduced birth rates. So we need the developing worlds standards of living to rise to our own.

As you've pointed out we're a lot more efficient then we used to be so hopefully China, India and others can skip or shorten the amount of waste we went through.

It doesn't do much justice, europe, united states and some other first world countries are consuming hundred times more than indians, chinese or african. Ofc they have overly high birth rates, but so high are their death rates because they don't have medical, hygienic and feeding systems established. Western countries are using most of world's resources, yes bro we are to blame in this case.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

It doesn't do much justice, europe, united states and some other first world countries are consuming hundred times more than indians, chinese or african. Ofc they have overly high birth rates, but so high are their death rates because they don't have medical, hygienic and feeding systems established. Western countries are using most of world's resources, yes bro we are to blame in this case.

Exactly. We couldn't possibly be more arrogant in the West than to use up the majority of the resources on the planet and tell people in impoverished nations that it's their fault we're running out of resources because they're having too many children. Our high standard of living is more to blame for rapidly depleting resources than people scraping by on subsistence farming in the third world. There's too many of us lamenting the pollution levels we see in China without making the association that pollution exists because they're making our iPads, TVs, computers, phones, clothing, and everything else. The primary culprit for rapidly depleting resources is our standard of living in the West, not the massive population living in third world poverty.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Exactly. We couldn't possibly be more arrogant in the West than to use up the majority of the resources on the planet and tell people in impoverished nations that it's their fault we're running out of resources because they're having too many children. Our high standard of living is more to blame for rapidly depleting resources than people scraping by on subsistence farming in the third world. There's too many of us lamenting the pollution levels we see in China without making the association that pollution exists because they're making our iPads, TVs, computers, phones, clothing, and everything else. The primary culprit for rapidly depleting resources is our standard of living in the West, not the massive population living in third world poverty.

Damn...and all this time I thought it had something to do with China having incredibly weak pollution laws which are largely ignored by industry and unenforced by government.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Damn...and all this time I thought it had something to do with China having incredibly weak pollution laws which are largely ignored by industry and unenforced by government.

Obviously China's government and lack of regulation are the primary factors. But that's also how they're able to attract business and keep manufacturing costs so low. Hypothetically speaking, if manufacturing had stayed based in the US instead of getting shipped out to China and there was no demand for Chinese-made goods, do you think they'd still have the same levels of pollution? Our demand for products is fueling their industries.

Anyway, we're getting sidetracked from the issue of space funding. By means of an incredibly awkward segue, China is certainly taking steps to invest in space exploration with the landing of their first lunar rover. It's a shame that political differences will likely prevent any real collaboration between our nations that could work towards rapid scientific advancements. Honestly, who here wants new propulsion technologies to end up in the hands of the Chinese? But perhaps their blossoming space program will encourage increased funding of NASA; after all, it was the space race with the Russians that led to the ballooning funding of NASA in the 1960s. The discovery of new propulsion techniques may prove to be the most important factor of controlling human expansion into space.

 

[piasabird]

Things like Ethernet and the mouse were developed by Xerox PARC. I think research is a good endeavor. You never know what your idea or contribution will become in the future.

We have not really discovered how Photo synthesis works. We understand the concept but we cant account for the amount of growth in plants compared to the amount of sunlight. We can get nowhere near that efficiency in solar panels.

 

[piasabird]

A lot of things are pointing toward quantum physics.

Did you know that NASA has had 2 microprobes circling the Moon in a low orbit on a mission to map the moon in 3d? Did you know NASA just launched another probe toward the moon recently?

NASA has miniaturized its probes and has been doing a lot of things lately. For instance some of these probes are superheating plasma for propulsion.

http://guardianlv.com/2013/08/nasa-launching-new-mission-to-the-moon/

There are a lot of problems to overcome for even traveling to Mars. Things like radiation shielding and making a faster more efficient propulsion system.

 

[Agent11]

Radiation shielding and fuel is easy, you just need mining and production in space, to mine and produce osmium shielding. Osmium is the densest element we know of, and is much less rare than gold. And what is Jupiter made of? Hydrogen. And what is Europa, one of Jupiter's moon made of? Water. A permanent colony on the moon, followed by a permanent trade route to Jupiter and a station on Europa. Our most basic needs would be met.

The future is out there, we just need to grab it.