Obama Has Permanently Shut The U.S. Manned Space Program.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Taronyu Eywa

Well, Space holds many soloutions to our problems. In terms of Mining for raw materials and resources, Space could be the way to go. However, in terms of planetary exploration and colonisation, I think that is a bad idea. Humans have developed bad characteristics which would just make us threats to habitable planets. There is a conscious and moral aspect to Space Exploration. Do we really want to find planets? Considering what we are capable of doing to perfectly good planets, I think not.

The moment a Human sets foot on a new planet, its fate is sealed. Of course, many leaders ignore moral or conscious issues regarding matters such as these and will more than happily tear up space for personal gains. Like I said, I think Mining for resources to support THIS planet for when our natural resources deplete is something I can live with, providing that what we mine from harbours no life. To go roaming across the stars bringing our problems to peaceful, and content Planets can only bring bad things for us.

Deciding to stay here on Earth rather than move would be perhaps one of the most thoughtful decisions ever made by the Human race.

What about planets with no sentient life? What about terraforming dead planets such as Mars? I agree t hat it would be wrong to find one with sentient life and just colonise it, but ones with non-sentient life or no life, as long as the actual non-sentient life if any was respected and not just destroyed.

The truth is, humans NEED to expand beyond Earth if they are to survive long term, anywhere from a few thousand years (extinction-causing impact) to millions (eventual red giant phase of the sun). Not to mention that having the entire population on one planet is just asking for something to happen.

[Iluvrien]

I too worry that our colonisation of any other world would herald dark days for that world... however, as I said before, I think we will have to grow up and work together before that is at all likely.

It is something we need to do to survive... so that will be our test, I think. If we survive in the long term then we will have had to set many of the divisive aspects of today's socities aside.

(Yes, Nationalism, I AM looking at you )

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Human No More

What about planets with no sentient life? What about terraforming dead planets such as Mars? I agree t hat it would be wrong to find one with sentient life and just colonise it, but ones with non-sentient life or no life, as long as the actual non-sentient life if any was respected and not just destroyed.

The truth is, humans NEED to expand beyond Earth if they are to survive long term, anywhere from a few thousand years (extinction-causing impact) to millions (eventual red giant phase of the sun). Not to mention that having the entire population on one planet is just asking for something to happen.

Truthiness incarnate.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by Spock

Truthiness incarnate.

On that we agree 100%

[Spock]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

On that we agree 100%

Great.

[auroraglacialis]

I am wondering how likely it is that a planet that can sustain life does not have life. I'd say it is unlikely. Terraforming, if that is possible, would be an option. But before humans colonize space, they have to learn a lot more than propulsion and life support systems. They have to get their society right, or the worse parts of "Avatar" will come true. Science fiction is always mirroring current social issues in a futuristic settings, using technology as a catalyst to emphasize trends. Avatar does that exactly and shows what our society as it is would do to another planet.

I think, currently we do not really need a manned space flight program unless out of beeing adventourous. The efforts should first of all go into protecting this planet - environmentally and if you like also against possible catastrophies like impacts or polarity shifts or what ever other catastrophies people want to think of when they say we need to colonize space. To gain such technology is likely much faster and easier than colonizing space flight. And to events like the sun dying, we still have millions of years, so we can affort spending a century or so making our home a place to live on again, don't you think?

So my point is - one thing after the other. Prioritize! Improve human society, save the planet, protect the planet, then go out. Build a stable home world first.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

I am wondering how likely it is that a planet that can sustain life does not have life. I'd say it is unlikely. Terraforming, if that is possible, would be an option. But before humans colonize space, they have to learn a lot more than propulsion and life support systems. They have to get their society right, or the worse parts of "Avatar" will come true. Science fiction is always mirroring current social issues in a futuristic settings, using technology as a catalyst to emphasize trends. Avatar does that exactly and shows what our society as it is would do to another planet.

I think, currently we do not really need a manned space flight program unless out of beeing adventourous. The efforts should first of all go into protecting this planet - environmentally and if you like also against possible catastrophies like impacts or polarity shifts or what ever other catastrophies people want to think of when they say we need to colonize space. To gain such technology is likely much faster and easier than colonizing space flight. And to events like the sun dying, we still have millions of years, so we can affort spending a century or so making our home a place to live on again, don't you think?

So my point is - one thing after the other. Prioritize! Improve human society, save the planet, protect the planet, then go out. Build a stable home world first.

We need some sort of contingency plan just in case "saving this planet doesn't work". Therefore a space programme is a necessity.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

I am wondering how likely it is that a planet that can sustain life does not have life. I'd say it is unlikely.

Technically, ANY planet is capable of sustaining life...
Yet again, the misconception that all life will be humanoid, endothermic, carbon based and with a similar temperature range...

Terraforming, if that is possible, would be an option. But before humans colonize space, they have to learn a lot more than propulsion and life support systems. They have to get their society right, or the worse parts of "Avatar" will come true. Science fiction is always mirroring current social issues in a futuristic settings, using technology as a catalyst to emphasize trends. Avatar does that exactly and shows what our society as it is would do to another planet.

Yet science fiction also shows the best of humanity, what we are capable of, and gives hope for the future, how things should be.

I think, currently we do not really need a manned space flight program unless out of beeing adventourous. The efforts should first of all go into protecting this planet - environmentally and if you like also against possible catastrophies like impacts or polarity shifts or what ever other catastrophies people want to think of when they say we need to colonize space. To gain such technology is likely much faster and easier than colonizing space flight. And to events like the sun dying, we still have millions of years, so we can affort spending a century or so making our home a place to live on again, don't you think?

You could say the same thing about anything. I could equally say that we don't need to make an effort with EArth because we've already destroyed it, and so should put all our effort into space exploration... it's not what I think, but it's EXACTLY the same argument.

Originally Posted by Spock

We need some sort of contingency plan just in case "saving this planet doesn't work". Therefore a space programme is a necessity.

Exactly.

Anyway, for the long term survival of humanity (minimum hundreds of years, more likely a few thousand) space travel is definitely needed because catastrophic events DO occur, and that's not something that can ever be fully avoided or mitigated.

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Anyway, for the long term survival of humanity (minimum hundreds of years, more likely a few thousand) space travel is definitely needed because catastrophic events DO occur, and that's not something that can ever be fully avoided or mitigated.

In other words, populating another planet like Mars, or just settling for the moon would basically be, in so many words, backup? Mars as a lush planet in the future I can actually imagine, considering there could be setup points for vegetation to flourish because of the abundant carbon dioxide (thus, oxygen supply points).

Mars as a backup planet, I could see. The moon... The moon's width is roughly the size of Australia (remaining spherical). Taking that fact to mind, it isn't an ideal place to think about populating in place of earth.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Technically, ANY planet is capable of sustaining life...

I would not subscribe to that... cannot be ruled out completely but it is very much on the fringe of imagination to think of Jupiter holding life...

Yet again, the misconception that all life will be humanoid, endothermic, carbon based and with a similar temperature range...

This just adds to the risk of us destroying alien life even before we realize it, just as we destroy species on this planet without ever seeing them.

You could say the same thing about anything. I could equally say that we don't need to make an effort with EArth because we've already destroyed it, and so should put all our effort into space exploration... it's not what I think, but it's EXACTLY the same argument.

No it is not - it only is, if you take the assumption that we already destroyed Earth and that is not so yet. But to get to colonizing space will take a long time, even with the rate of development we have now (and which is a burden on the Earth at that speed). If the assumption is true and we already destroyed Earth, we'll never make it anyways. At least not in the form of humans beeing travelling to other planets.

The two things are very different - I speak of stability - of building a strong base and then building on that rather than build high on a shaky foundation in the hope to build high enough to reach the ceiling before it all collapses.

Another metaphor can be this: We are living on a nice boat on the ocean. We can get fish and water from the ocean and the rain. Why on earth would we start tearing it apart to build one shaggy float after the other, many sinking right away, scaring the fish away, maybe one will hold some few of us and may or may not reach a distant island once in the hope that there is also food and water there. Meanwhile crucial parts of the ship are dismantled, increasing the perceived need to build a float, despite that float obvioulsy will hold only a few of the vrew. It's not a good plan. The better plan is to think first on what materials are best, how the ship can still be safe and the people on it can be happy.

Anyway, for the long term survival of humanity (minimum hundreds of years, more likely a few thousand) space travel is definitely needed because catastrophic events DO occur, and that's not something that can ever be fully avoided or mitigated.

Yes ok - I am not sure on the hundreds of years scale - humanity has survived for hundreds of thousands of years despite some catastophies and the likelyhood of major catastophes by natural occurences is much lower than that of such occurences caused by an unneccesary rush by people. All I say is, take it slow, don't rush. Focus on the local goals first. Don't plan on events that are just a probability (like space travel to work within this century and terraforming or habitable planets beeing available soon) - this is just taking casino gambling one step further. Personally I think it is already something that has no place in economy (where it is already present). No gambling with the future of humanity!

So yes - it is ok to continue space programs and even plan of sending people up there, but it does not have to be within a decade and especially not if the funds could provide crucial other advances. As I said - research planetary protection systems to protect earth from asteroids, develop social systems that keep human society stable, prevent destruction of the home planet. I am aware of course, that military spending is several times as high as research, but I guess everyone agrees that that is a problem, that this is a lot of money that could have a better use and that at the same time this will not change in a while.

[GLaDOS]

Only by pulling together and uniting can we as a species achieve anything of significance left. We must (This is pure speculation and personal opinion on my part) push globalization further, if we can.