Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomorrow

Tomorrow

Audioholic Ninja
The biggest issue to me is psychological. How can the astronauts be cooped up together in that tiny capsule for such an immensely long time without going insane and/or killing each other?
As for the long-tem plan (colonization), I don't think we have the right to colonize another planet until we prove that we can be halfway decent stewards of this one. As things stand now, we are not even close.:(
Ironically, the issues we have on this planet may make for the best reason for going to Mars. If we screw up this planet enough, it would be nice to have the possibility of continued human existence, albeit on a different world.
 
jeffsg4mac

jeffsg4mac

Republican Poster Boy
I think we should go, but I don't think the government and tax payers should fund it. Get rid of NASA and let the private sector do it. Heck, we would been to another galaxy by now if the fed was not involved.
 
J

Joe Schmoe

Audioholic Ninja
Ironically, the issues we have on this planet may make for the best reason for going to Mars. If we screw up this planet enough, it would be nice to have the possibility of continued human existence, albeit on a different world.
We need to prove that we can avoid fatally screwing up this planet first. Otherwise, all we will do on a new planet is screw it up just as badly.
 
Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
Joe Schmoe, it is just a matter of semantics; what you call a breakdown of the ecosystem, stratman calls the resilience of nature simply balancing itself. ;)
I agree, I think it's a statement of mankind's own arrogance to say that we are stronger than nature, while the opposite is and always has been true. Nature is not static, and changes from eon to eon, millenia to millenia - species come and go, ecosystems thrive and falter. We're merely along for the ride for however long we're granted until Nature decides we've been here long enough and will probably swiftly take care of us.

Should we go to Mars? This is a question that has two answers: For one, such missions cater to human beings' innermost curiosities as to what is out there, and the possibility of exploration beyond what we already know. This has happened since man first walked on two legs. He has always sought to explore, and discover.

Secondly - as someone pointed out, our race to the moon was fueled largely in part due to political circumstances at the time. It became less about the actual "exploration and discovery" and more about flexing political muscle at the height of the Cold War. Decisions were made not by scientists and astronauts, but by stiff-suited movers and shakers behind closed doors in Washington. I fear that the entire push to get us to Mars is following a little too closely to this trend, and we do indeed - have far too many problems that we could be using these resources, and great scientific minds to figure out first - settle the score on terra firma as a priority, then reach for the stars. :)
 
Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
We need to prove that we can avoid fatally screwing up this planet first. Otherwise, all we will do on a new planet is screw it up just as badly.
The only fatality that we can possibly incur on this planet is ourselves - the planet has been here for millions of years before us, and it will be here for millions of years after us. :cool:
 
Tomorrow

Tomorrow

Audioholic Ninja
Just for historical perspective and a look at someone who gave the exploration of space much thought, here is the last part of a speech given by John F. Kennedy at Rice University.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency.

In the last 24 hours we have seen facilities now being created for the greatest and most complex exploration in man's history. We have felt the ground shake and the air shattered by the testing of a Saturn C-1 booster rocket, many times as powerful as the Atlas which launched John Glenn, generating power equivalent to 10,000 automobiles with their accelerators on the floor. We have seen the site where the F-1 rocket engines, each one as powerful as all eight engines of the Saturn combined, will be clustered together to make the advanced Saturn missile, assembled in a new building to be built at Cape Canaveral as tall as a 48 story structure, as wide as a city block, and as long as two lengths of this field.

Within these last 19 months at least 45 satellites have circled the earth. Some 40 of them were "made in the United States of America" and they were far more sophisticated and supplied far more knowledge to the people of the world than those of the Soviet Union.

The Mariner spacecraft now on its way to Venus is the most intricate instrument in the history of space science. The accuracy of that shot is comparable to firing a missile from Cape Canaveral and dropping it in this stadium between the the 40-yard lines.

Transit satellites are helping our ships at sea to steer a safer course. Tiros satellites have given us unprecedented warnings of hurricanes and storms, and will do the same for forest fires and icebergs.

We have had our failures, but so have others, even if they do not admit them. And they may be less public.

To be sure, we are behind, and will be behind for some time in manned flight. But we do not intend to stay behind, and in this decade, we shall make up and move ahead.

The growth of our science and education will be enriched by new knowledge of our universe and environment, by new techniques of learning and mapping and observation, by new tools and computers for industry, medicine, the home as well as the school. Technical institutions, such as Rice, will reap the harvest of these gains.

And finally, the space effort itself, while still in its infancy, has already created a great number of new companies, and tens of thousands of new jobs. Space and related industries are generating new demands in investment and skilled personnel, and this city and this State, and this region, will share greatly in this growth. What was once the furthest outpost on the old frontier of the West will be the furthest outpost on the new frontier of science and space. Houston, your City of Houston, with its Manned Spacecraft Center, will become the heart of a large scientific and engineering community. During the next 5 years the National Aeronautics and Space Administration expects to double the number of scientists and engineers in this area, to increase its outlays for salaries and expenses to $60 million a year; to invest some $200 million in plant and laboratory facilities; and to direct or contract for new space efforts over $1 billion from this Center in this City.

To be sure, all this costs us all a good deal of money. This year¹s space budget is three times what it was in January 1961, and it is greater than the space budget of the previous eight years combined. That budget now stands at $5,400 million a year--a staggering sum, though somewhat less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year. Space expenditures will soon rise some more, from 40 cents per person per week to more than 50 cents a week for every man, woman and child in the United Stated, for we have given this program a high national priority--even though I realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision, for we do not now know what benefits await us.

But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun--almost as hot as it is here today--and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out--then we must be bold.

I'm the one who is doing all the work, so we just want you to stay cool for a minute. [laughter]

However, I think we're going to do it, and I think that we must pay what needs to be paid. I don't think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job. And this will be done in the decade of the sixties. It may be done while some of you are still here at school at this college and university. It will be done during the term of office of some of the people who sit here on this platform. But it will be done. And it will be done before the end of this decade.

I am delighted that this university is playing a part in putting a man on the moon as part of a great national effort of the United States of America.

Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, "Because it is there."

Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked.

Thank you."
 
J

Joe Schmoe

Audioholic Ninja
The only fatality that we can possibly incur on this planet is ourselves - the planet has been here for millions of years before us, and it will be here for millions of years after us. :cool:
Extinction of the human species would be the best thing that could happen for all other living things. The way things are going, this may occur sooner rather than later.:eek:
 
stratman

stratman

Audioholic Ninja
Extinction of the human species would be the best thing that could happen for all other living things. The way things are going, this may occur sooner rather than later.:eek:
Maybe you don't value your life, or you think a rat is worth more than you, but as I see it the best thing would be for the rat to die not me.:D THE WAY THINGS ARE GOING..................How are things going? :confused: You still think mankind can destroy the Earth? Man, I'll tell you this: before we can destroy planet Earth, nature will have phased us out. Or do you mean Bush has a secret weapon meant to destroy us all?:eek:
 
J

Joe Schmoe

Audioholic Ninja
You still think mankind can destroy the Earth? Man, I'll tell you this: before we can destroy planet Earth, nature will have phased us out.
No, but I think we can definitely make the earth uninhabitable for mankind. At the current rate of destruction, all of the equatorial rainforests will be completely gone by the year 2050, and most of the coral reefs will be bleached also. Do you seriously think that we will survive that?:confused:
(Besides, you weren't paying attention. I said "...best for other living things...", not best for we humans.)
 
Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
Here's a thought for you - the Earth is comprised of thousands of different species, all co-existing, all feeding from one another, and humans in one sense of the word are only part of the equation. There is a concept called the food chain, and for whatever reasons, whether you believe it to be divine influence or pure evolution of a natural process, we have found ourselves at the top of this pyramid of life with an intellect that has as much capacity to destroy as it does to create. Species co-exist in conflict, by default, so that they can survive and ensure the continuation of their kind. Humans are no different. It is what we do, it just so happens that because of our intellect we have learned how to manipulate our surroundings and use it to our advantage, so does this make it wrong? What is the point in having the brains that we do then? We are surviving, like any other species. We are cursed with the knowledge of our own influence as much as we are blessed by it. Still, we are human - and we are not immune from conflict, turmoil, strife and expenditure of what we have available to us in order to facilitate that survival instinct.

De-forestation - you bring up a great point, but it's not really relevant to this original question asked on this thread. Joe, you seem to be highly negative towards humans in general, but humans by default are simply being human for all of our great accomplishments and all of our wicked failures.

Perhaps you would have enjoyed life better as a beetle?
 
haraldo

haraldo

Audioholic Spartan
So we can put a man on the moon......
But there's just no way that any company can make a printer that works :eek::eek::eek::eek:

Another thought, From what I've heard, if the sun suddenly reduces it's energy flow by 1% we will face a global ice age, and the energy flow from the sun has been known to vary from time to time.....

Perhaps this time Scrat will get hold of the nut
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Bingo. Put the collective brains together to figure out how to get us off oil dependency... or increase battery efficiency and shelf-life... or harness solar energy in a way that is actually feasible (ie you'd want to put up panels in your back yard cause you could power your whole 150A-service house and run it off batteries at night.)
And then what afterwards?
Humans are explorers, got to see what is beyond that hill.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
I agree 100%. Of course, solutions to all other problems, however effective, will be irrelevant unless we solve The Problem: Overpopulation.
The planet can barely sustain the current population. If it doubles again, the ecosystem is almost certain to break down entirely.:(
Yes, but solving overpopulation is counter to consuming more of what we make going into stagnation of production.
Ship off world the overflow. :D
 
jeffsg4mac

jeffsg4mac

Republican Poster Boy
The rate of rain forest destruction is a complete lie. I did the math using the rate the lunies have spouted for the last 30 years and the acreage of the amazon forest. It would have all been gone in about 25 years or so. Last I checked it was still there.
 
stratman

stratman

Audioholic Ninja
The rate of rain forest destruction is a complete lie. I did the math using the rate the lunies have spouted for the last 30 years and the acreage of the amazon forest. It would have all been gone in about 25 years or so. Last I checked it was still there.
Overpopulation was the late 60s early 70s Global Warming Scare, I still remember the overpopulation crackpots way back then saying that by 1980 the world was going to be overun by people, there was going to be chaos and there would be no food. Just like today, and the ridiculous films spawned by Global Warming (The Day After Tomorrow, An Inconvinient Truth) Hollywood had a few films then too, the most prominent being Soylent Green, this overpopulation crap has been churning for over 50 years and people still believe this crap, that's what amazes me, generation after generation the gullible feed the fire. But yet you can show them the evidence and they stare back at you glassy-eyed and say you're in denial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top