Do you think you'll see human mars landing in our life time?

[aplefka]

Yes

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: CasioTech

Originally posted by: rh71
50 years is a long time. How far did we get from 1955 till now ? 🙂

we are developing exponentially... Where did we get from 2000bc, to 1500 ad? No where.

So... are you arguing with him or agreeing?

I'm still wondering that myself.

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: gigapet

device a plan to harness the energy at the earths core and transmute it to electricity for the globe. I am making this up but you understand that we have never penetrated below the earths surface further than a mile.

And what are you going to do once you've cooled down the earth's core? There is no free energy. It all comes from somewhere. There is always something lost.

we will all be dead before that happened.

We'll all be dead before we run out of oil too.

yeah from fighting over it.

...okay....back to the topic.

still stand by my assertion that much more utility can come from using the resources both monetary and otherwise towards solving other problems here...At least for the time being. Perhaps in 200 years we may be ready to seriously think about building an infrastructure in outerspace but for now....we have more pressing issues to take care of.

 

[Kalbi]

why would we spend trillions of dollars to land on mars

 

[umbrella39]

Giga, what part of our Sun is burning up its fuel and expanding which in turn pushes further and further away the distance that habitable life can exist? This is a must. Mars is just the first stepping stone. Granted, it won't happen for many, many years but it will happen. If we do nothing, we all lose. We need to spend money on ways to travel faster and ways to keep the human body from degrading in zero gravity. Until then, Mars is a pipe dream.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: gigapet

device a plan to harness the energy at the earths core and transmute it to electricity for the globe. I am making this up but you understand that we have never penetrated below the earths surface further than a mile.

And what are you going to do once you've cooled down the earth's core? There is no free energy. It all comes from somewhere. There is always something lost.

we will all be dead before that happened.

We'll all be dead before we run out of oil too.

yeah from fighting over it.

...okay....back to the topic.

still stand by my assertion that much more utility can come from using the resources both monetary and otherwise towards solving other problems here...At least for the time being. Perhaps in 200 years we may be ready to seriously think about building an infrastructure in outerspace but for now....we have more pressing issues to take care of.

GOD DAMNIT!!!!!

YOU'RE BACK TO THE ZERO SUM GAME!

Jesus Fvcking Christ!

WE CAN DO TWO THINGS AT ONCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

N
O
T

A

Z
E
R
O

S
U
M

G
A
M
E
!
!

:|
:|
:|

You don't seem to comprehend this concept! The existence of NASA and a mission to Mars has ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, INHERENTLY NO negative impact on the situation that the poor face on Earth.

Tell me what part of that you don't get!

PLEASE.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!

TELL ME WHAT YOU DON'T GET ABOUT THAT.

I CAN EXPLAIN IT.

Can sombebody here convice Gigapet that it's not a zero sum game??!?!?

 

[So]

n/m

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: gigapet

device a plan to harness the energy at the earths core and transmute it to electricity for the globe. I am making this up but you understand that we have never penetrated below the earths surface further than a mile.

And what are you going to do once you've cooled down the earth's core? There is no free energy. It all comes from somewhere. There is always something lost.

we will all be dead before that happened.

We'll all be dead before we run out of oil too.

yeah from fighting over it.

...okay....back to the topic.

still stand by my assertion that much more utility can come from using the resources both monetary and otherwise towards solving other problems here...At least for the time being. Perhaps in 200 years we may be ready to seriously think about building an infrastructure in outerspace but for now....we have more pressing issues to take care of.

GOD DAMNIT!!!!!

YOU'RE BACK TO THE ZERO SUM GAME!

Jesus Fvcking Christ!

WE CAN DO TWO THINGS AT ONCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

N
     O
          T
     
A
     
Z
     E
          R
               O
     
S
     U
          M
     
G
     A
          M
               E
                    !
                         !
     
:|
     :|
          :|

You don't seem to comprehend this concept! The existence of NASA and a mission to Mars has ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, INHERENTLY NO negative impact on the situation that the poor face on Earth.

Tell me what part of that you don't get!

PLEASE.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!

TELL ME WHAT YOU DON'T GET ABOUT THAT.

I CAN EXPLAIN IT.

Can sombebody here convice Gigapet that it's not a zero sum game??!?!?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

makes the world go round and Nasa is pissing away a ton of it.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: gigapet
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

So, you admit to having no idea what I'm saying then?

Simply put: If we stop spending money on programs to go to the moon and mars, no politician is going to give more to the poor. We already defecit spend, so it's not like suddenly money in the budget will be freed up, and even if it was, the people who you free up have no skills appropriate for the job you seem to want to prioritize, nor are they likely to be interested in it. All you do is make unemployed rocket scientists.

 

[zerocool1]

Originally posted by: Eli
Personally, I hope so.

but at the rate we're going at I'm starting to doubt it.

 

[Vertimus]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Giga, what part of our Sun is burning up its fuel and expanding which in turn pushes further and further away the distance that habitable life can exist? This is a must. Mars is just the first stepping stone. Granted, it won't happen for many, many years but it will happen. If we do nothing, we all lose. We need to spend money on ways to travel faster and ways to keep the human body from degrading in zero gravity. Until then, Mars is a pipe dream.

Wow. the dumbest argument I've heard. Given how many years it takes for that to happen, we might as well colonize the entire galaxy by then.

I strongly support colonizing mars, but it should have NOTHING to do with whether the sun is blowing up or not.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: gigapet

device a plan to harness the energy at the earths core and transmute it to electricity for the globe. I am making this up but you understand that we have never penetrated below the earths surface further than a mile.

And what are you going to do once you've cooled down the earth's core? There is no free energy. It all comes from somewhere. There is always something lost.

we will all be dead before that happened.

We'll all be dead before we run out of oil too.

yeah from fighting over it.

...okay....back to the topic.

still stand by my assertion that much more utility can come from using the resources both monetary and otherwise towards solving other problems here...At least for the time being. Perhaps in 200 years we may be ready to seriously think about building an infrastructure in outerspace but for now....we have more pressing issues to take care of.

GOD DAMNIT!!!!!

YOU'RE BACK TO THE ZERO SUM GAME!

Jesus Fvcking Christ!

WE CAN DO TWO THINGS AT ONCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

N
     O
          T
     
A
     
Z
     E
          R
               O
     
S
     U
          M
     
G
     A
          M
               E
                    !
                         !
     
:|
     :|
          :|

You don't seem to comprehend this concept! The existence of NASA and a mission to Mars has ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, INHERENTLY NO negative impact on the situation that the poor face on Earth.

Tell me what part of that you don't get!

PLEASE.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!

TELL ME WHAT YOU DON'T GET ABOUT THAT.

I CAN EXPLAIN IT.

Can sombebody here convice Gigapet that it's not a zero sum game??!?!?

Just so you know, going psycho with posts like that kind of takes away from the impact of your argument.

Secondly, I think that you, too, are not at least attempting to see what Gigpet is trying to say.

You say NASA has no negative impact on other issues. Gigapet says, and I'm interpreting here, that other issues can be positively effected by cutting back on NASA funding. It's not exactly the same thing, and I tend to agree with both.

For example, me eating at a Chinese buffet for lunch has no negative impact on the children of Africa. However, if I took the $8 it cost, or even some of the food that I ate, and managed to get it to the children of Africa, it would help, albeit very little. A ridiculous comparion, I'm aware, but whatever.

As for Gigapet's argument to stop funding NASA until it becomes possible to explore space in 200 years - your logic is flawed. It will become possible to explore space in 200 years because of research by NASA today.

/2 cents

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: gigapet
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

So, you admit to having no idea what I'm saying then?

Simply put: If we stop spending money on programs to go to the moon and mars, no politician is going to give more to the poor. We already defecit spend, so it's not like suddenly money in the budget will be freed up, and even if it was, the people who you free up have no skills appropriate for the job you seem to want to prioritize, nor are they likely to be interested in it. All you do is make unemployed rocket scientists.

how about simply redistribute the monies to public schools. That alone would do wonders for this country.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I figure about 500 years. Based on the crazy people I see today here and abroad, I give us 30 years before we destroy civilization, and roughly half a millenium before we can come back, and hopefully will be able to stave off another collapse longer.

We are the Moties.

 

[Vertimus]

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: gigapet
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

So, you admit to having no idea what I'm saying then?

Simply put: If we stop spending money on programs to go to the moon and mars, no politician is going to give more to the poor. We already defecit spend, so it's not like suddenly money in the budget will be freed up, and even if it was, the people who you free up have no skills appropriate for the job you seem to want to prioritize, nor are they likely to be interested in it. All you do is make unemployed rocket scientists.

how about simply redistribute the monies to public schools. That alone would do wonders for this country.

You completely missed his point...

 

[So]

Originally posted by: ducci


Just so you know, going psycho with posts like that kind of takes away from the impact of your argument.

Secondly, I think that you, too, are not at least attempting to see what Gigpet is trying to say.

You say NASA has no negative impact on other issues. Gigapet says, and I'm interpreting here, that other issues can be positively effected by cutting back on NASA funding. It's not exactly the same thing, and I tend to agree with both.

For example, me eating at a Chinese buffet for lunch has no negative impact on the children of Africa. However, if I took the $8 it cost, or even some of the food that I ate, and managed to get it to the children of Africa, it would help, albeit very little. A ridiculous comparion, I'm aware, but whatever.

As for Gigapet's argument to stop funding NASA until it becomes possible to explore space in 200 years - your logic is flawed. It will become possible to explore space in 200 years because of research by NASA today.

/2 cents

Thank you for a rational reply.

Okay, let me expand my argument by quoting myself.

Originally posted by: So
Simply put: If we stop spending money on programs to go to the moon and mars, no politician is going to give more to the poor. We already defecit spend, so it's not like suddenly money in the budget will be freed up, and even if it was, the people who you free up have no skills appropriate for the job you seem to want to prioritize, nor are they likely to be interested in it. All you do is make unemployed rocket scientists.

Your claim that the money could go to the poor is valid in a void, but as we know, when programs get cut, that doesn't mean that the money goes to something else, it just means the deficit's growth rate shrinks slightly (and I don't think we're talking about balanced budgets here ATM).

On the other side of the coin, Spending on nasa has not stopped the government from running away with spending in other areas.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Vertimus

You completely missed his point...

<sigh> ...once again.

 

[IAteYourMother]

By the time space travel on the scale that would save humanity would even become feasible, chances are, we will all already be dead from disease, overpopulation, pollution, war, etc. etc. I don't think we'll see a mars landing in 50 years, maybe in our lifetime, and even then, it probably won't accomplish much. All that will happen is, yay, we're on mars now. It's red. It took almost a year to go there and another year to come back. Let's spend billions of dollars on something else now.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: gigapet
i never really got the whole interest in traveling to other planets...

is earth really that boring for you?

I mean the moon is one thing since that is our satellite but really.....

So...we should hang around earth forever?

Don't you have enough to interest you inside your house? What's the point of ever leaving your town?

:roll:

Roll your little eyes all you want. You know I have a valid point. There's stuff out there worth seeing, land worth colonizing, and phonomena worth investigating.

worth what?

its not a valid point lets finish exploring this planet first. A simple cost benefit analysis will show that there is very little .....to be gained from a mission to mars.

1. You are commiting a logical error here. It's not an either/or issue. we are currently exploring the depths of the oceans anyway. Don't be a fool and act like everything is a zero sum game. It's not.
2. Saying that there is little to gain from going to mars is...preposterous at best.

It IS a valid point.

Oh sweet so they can dump billions of dollars that have much much better use here on earth into traveling to a planet to take some pictures and bring back some sand and rocks. Really really justified.

Put the money towards something that will really benefit the human race.

You're absolutely right. We should put that money toward tobacco subsidies, feeding the entire continent of Africa, housing the homeless, etc.

Looking forward to the future is stupid, anyway. We need to focus on the short-term.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
By the time space travel on the scale that would save humanity would even become feasible, chances are, we will all already be dead from disease, overpopulation, pollution, war, etc. etc. I don't think we'll see a mars landing in 50 years, maybe in our lifetime, and even then, it probably won't accomplish much. All that will happen is, yay, we're on mars now. It's red. It took almost a year to go there and another year to come back. Let's spend billions of dollars on something else now.

With nuclear propulsion, it'd take <3 months.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: ducci


Just so you know, going psycho with posts like that kind of takes away from the impact of your argument.

Secondly, I think that you, too, are not at least attempting to see what Gigpet is trying to say.

You say NASA has no negative impact on other issues. Gigapet says, and I'm interpreting here, that other issues can be positively effected by cutting back on NASA funding. It's not exactly the same thing, and I tend to agree with both.

For example, me eating at a Chinese buffet for lunch has no negative impact on the children of Africa. However, if I took the $8 it cost, or even some of the food that I ate, and managed to get it to the children of Africa, it would help, albeit very little. A ridiculous comparion, I'm aware, but whatever.

As for Gigapet's argument to stop funding NASA until it becomes possible to explore space in 200 years - your logic is flawed. It will become possible to explore space in 200 years because of research by NASA today.

/2 cents

Thank you for a rational reply.

Okay, let me expand my argument by quoting myself.

Originally posted by: So
Simply put: If we stop spending money on programs to go to the moon and mars, no politician is going to give more to the poor. We already defecit spend, so it's not like suddenly money in the budget will be freed up, and even if it was, the people who you free up have no skills appropriate for the job you seem to want to prioritize, nor are they likely to be interested in it. All you do is make unemployed rocket scientists.

Your claim that the money could go to the poor is valid in a void, but as we know, when programs get cut, that doesn't mean that the money goes to something else, it just means the deficit's growth rate shrinks slightly (and I don't think we're talking about balanced budgets here ATM).

On the other side of the coin, Spending on nasa has not stopped the government from running away with spending in other areas.

I totally agree with you. Ultimatley, NASA isn't the bad guy, nor is it a complete waste of money, it's simply poor management work on the part of our government. A lot of it is, however, frivolous spending, which is what I'd like to think Gigapet is trying to argue.

NASA does a lot more than just sending rockets to Mars, and a lot of people (Gigapet), don't realize this. The same way the US Military does a lot more than defend (or attack) this country. A lot and I mean a lot of research is being done further advancing our society which ultimatley will help our country far more than the money put into it will. The only problem is, too much money is being wasted in the process. The system is far from efficient, as any system run by humans is. Though I'd personally rather have NASA get a billion dollars to work with than the politicians, assuming they aren't one in the same at this point.

I think that is a better argument than your non-zero sum game one.

Edit: And I normally hate people who go off on tangents of the original post, so to answer the question - no, I don't think a human will land on Mars in my lifetime (and I have, hopefully, quite a while to go).

 

[So]

Originally posted by: ducci
I totally agree with you. Ultimatley, NASA isn't the bad guy, nor is it a complete waste of money, it's simply poor management work on the part of our government. A lot of it is, however, frivolous spending, which is what I'd like to think Gigapet is trying to argue.

NASA does a lot more than just sending rockets to Mars, and a lot of people (Gigapet), don't realize this. The same way the US Military does a lot more than defend (or attack) this country. A lot and I mean a lot of research is being done further advancing our society which ultimatley will help our country far more than the money put into it will. The only problem is, too much money is being wasted in the process. The system is far from efficient, as any system run by humans is. Though I'd personally rather have NASA get a billion dollars to work with than the politicians, assuming they aren't one in the same at this point.

I think that is a better argument than your non-zero sum game one.

Fair enough, and I agree that Nasa needs streamling. I think it'd be hard to disagree. But to claim that closing Nasa would lead to benefits to the poor seems disingenouous at best, substantial research that Nasa does notwithstanding.

 

[SonicIce]

to get back on topic: no, i dont think we'll see it under 50 years.
should we? i think it should be one of our goals. space is cool

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
By the time space travel on the scale that would save humanity would even become feasible, chances are, we will all already be dead from disease, overpopulation, pollution, war, etc. etc. I don't think we'll see a mars landing in 50 years, maybe in our lifetime, and even then, it probably won't accomplish much. All that will happen is, yay, we're on mars now. It's red. It took almost a year to go there and another year to come back. Let's spend billions of dollars on something else now.

With nuclear propulsion, it'd take <3 months.

I think quantum entanglement could be a big help as far as that goes. If it works the way I get the impression it does, anyway.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
By the time space travel on the scale that would save humanity would even become feasible, chances are, we will all already be dead from disease, overpopulation, pollution, war, etc. etc. I don't think we'll see a mars landing in 50 years, maybe in our lifetime, and even then, it probably won't accomplish much. All that will happen is, yay, we're on mars now. It's red. It took almost a year to go there and another year to come back. Let's spend billions of dollars on something else now.

With nuclear propulsion, it'd take <3 months.

I think quantum entanglement could be a big help as far as that goes. If it works the way I get the impression it does, anyway.

I assume you're joking.

😀