|
Keep debates civil. |
On September 19 2017 04:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 03:55 Yrr wrote:
I dont think we have to fear any aliens that arrive at our doorstep unless we shoot at them first. There is nothing special about Earth except for us and we arent a ressource that is worth harvesting. We have water and precious metals that can be used. We also have a breathable atmosphere for oxygen dependent organisms that can be changed to suit whatever need may arise. We have a lot of things that may be of use to another civ. As to why they aren't contacting us as of yet, your guess is as good as mine. Maybe they've come already and are seeing what we do with what they've given us, or if we have the capacity to join them eventually.
Ressources like water, oxygen or other elements can be found almost anywhere in the galaxy probably even in most solar systems. As for a "breathable" planet, there are so many planets out there, ours will not be the only one habitable. And for them needing the same conditionsa s us is pretty unlikely as well, unless we have the same origin of course 
|
So we are, in essence, protecting ourselves from invasion, correct?
On September 19 2017 04:51 Yrr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 04:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 03:55 Yrr wrote:
I dont think we have to fear any aliens that arrive at our doorstep unless we shoot at them first. There is nothing special about Earth except for us and we arent a ressource that is worth harvesting. We have water and precious metals that can be used. We also have a breathable atmosphere for oxygen dependent organisms that can be changed to suit whatever need may arise. We have a lot of things that may be of use to another civ. As to why they aren't contacting us as of yet, your guess is as good as mine. Maybe they've come already and are seeing what we do with what they've given us, or if we have the capacity to join them eventually. Ressources like water, oxygen or other elements can be found almost anywhere in the galaxy probably even in most solar systems. As for a "breathable" planet, there are so many planets out there, ours will not be the only one habitable. And for them needing the same conditionsa s us is pretty unlikely as well, unless we have the same origin of course
That stands only if those planets are hostile towards the aliens seeking refuge. If not, then they will consume those resources there as well. There's no doubt that if the Quarians could find a hospitable planet to live on, they would. But since they can't they aimlessly wander. I'm sure there's a civ out there waiting for us to collapse to move in and take over, thinking they have 7+bil of free slave labor.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Perhaps a habitable planet for oxygen breathing specimen would be the most valuable resource.
|
It all depends on the need of the visiting civ. Maybe they want to export something to their homeworld and we have just what they need and can provide the labor to get it?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
And maybe a venomous snake you come by in the desert just wants a friend. But it's foolhardy to take the chance.
|
So kill them all first contact? Seems...cold-hearted.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Survival ain't rainbows and unicorns my man.
|
Moving past your intent to kill first and ask questions later, who would you put in charge of taking the human race into space? Would it be private or a collaborative effort of nations/corporations?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
A government that values engineering and doing things "the right way" ahead of pleasing a constituency or keeping some company's production line running.
|
So the US is out of the question. Japan and Europe?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
US and Russia are the only ones with sufficient technology and years of commitment to go about it. Obama probably set any such developments back by a decade by pursuing some very questionable policies throughout his years in office. And Russia is still in the phase of having to reconstruct a few key aspects of its space program to deal with the demons of the 90s before it can get back into pursuing more ambitious stuff.
We need a president who appoints a talented engine designer to the role of NASA admin and basically says, "build the rocket right, I'll get you the money and clear out all the obstacles" and follow through on that. Last time we had that kind of approach we got a Moon rocket. Though maybe this time without overworking the staff at NASA.
|
On September 19 2017 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
US and Russia are the only ones with sufficient technology and years of commitment to go about it. Obama probably set any such developments back by a decade by pursuing some very questionable policies throughout his years in office.
We need a president who appoints a talented engine designer to the role of NASA admin and basically says, "build the rocket right, I'll get you the money and clear out all the obstacles" and follow through on that. Last time we had that kind of approach we got a Moon rocket. Though maybe this time without overworking the staff at NASA.
I'm gonna call major bullshit of blaming Obama for this. Congress wasn't gonna give NASA any more money and they sure as hell aren't going to give it to them now. Space is being privatized. NASA is too big at the moment and that money would be wasted. Like that fucking fighter jet in Alabama.
|
On September 19 2017 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
US and Russia are the only ones with sufficient technology and years of commitment to go about it.
When talking about the future, dont forget about China. They catch up quite fast.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 19 2017 06:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
US and Russia are the only ones with sufficient technology and years of commitment to go about it. Obama probably set any such developments back by a decade by pursuing some very questionable policies throughout his years in office.
We need a president who appoints a talented engine designer to the role of NASA admin and basically says, "build the rocket right, I'll get you the money and clear out all the obstacles" and follow through on that. Last time we had that kind of approach we got a Moon rocket. Though maybe this time without overworking the staff at NASA. I'm gonna call major bullshit of blaming Obama for this. Congress wasn't gonna give NASA any more money and they sure as hell aren't going to give it to them now. Space is being privatized. NASA is too big at the moment and that money would be wasted. Like that fucking fighter jet in Alabama.
Obama's space strategy was utterly stupid and misguided in many ways that will lead to another 90s style "privatize all the space" hype train and not much else. While it's not exactly fair to blame him for everything that went wrong, he definitely was a bad president for space and should be treated accordingly. Your description of events is a total head-scratcher and it makes me wonder if you're stuck in a "Obama isn't at fault for the bad things that happened under him" mode. He kind of is, honestly.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 19 2017 06:48 Yrr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
US and Russia are the only ones with sufficient technology and years of commitment to go about it. When talking about the future, dont forget about China. They catch up quite fast.
They will keep on catching up very fast for a few decades. There is a very important weakness of China's space program though: their propensity for being one big Robbistan for any technology means that no one really wants to cooperate with them on big projects.
|
On September 19 2017 06:49 LegalLord wrote:
Obama's space strategy was utterly stupid and misguided in many ways that will lead to another 90s style "privatize all the space" hype train and not much else. While it's not exactly fair to blame him for everything that went wrong, he definitely was a bad president for space and should be treated accordingly. Your description of events is a total head-scratcher and it makes me wonder if you're stuck in a "Obama isn't at fault for the bad things that happened under him" mode. He kind of is, honestly.
Only good pres for space was Kennedy. I'm not saying he was great or that he was the worst, but you can't blame him for that. NASA has had shit for support for a long time. Obama could have made it better with some declarations and campaigning for NASA, sure. But to say he fucked up the space program is unfounded. Budgets go through congress. If we lower the MIC, then maybe we could give some money to where it belongs. I'm a fervent supporter of NASA. Give them whatever they ask for and let them do their job.
/rant
|
On the other hand they seem to have less issues with money. But we will see in the near future.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 19 2017 06:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 06:49 LegalLord wrote:
Obama's space strategy was utterly stupid and misguided in many ways that will lead to another 90s style "privatize all the space" hype train and not much else. While it's not exactly fair to blame him for everything that went wrong, he definitely was a bad president for space and should be treated accordingly. Your description of events is a total head-scratcher and it makes me wonder if you're stuck in a "Obama isn't at fault for the bad things that happened under him" mode. He kind of is, honestly. Only good pres for space was Kennedy. I'm not saying he was great or that he was the worst, but you can't blame him for that. NASA has had shit for support for a long time. Obama could have made it better with some declarations and campaigning for NASA, sure. But to say he fucked up the space program is unfounded. Budgets go through congress. If we lower the MIC, then maybe we could give some money to where it belongs. I'm a fervent supporter of NASA. Give them whatever they ask for and let them do their job. /rant
Obama wasn't committed to any vision of a space future beyond "privatize all the things!" Congress was more willing to spend money that he was; Congress was the one who took a "hold on Eager McBeaver, let's not cancel all of Constellation quite so rashly" stance. In the early years of his presidency, if he were so willing he would have been able to garner enough support to set up a good vision for a space future. He certainly had the political will, but it definitely wasn't a priority. His legacy will be a focus on price for rockets (whether savings will be anything special remains to be seen; every decade has cheaper rockets than the last), a beheading of NASA's reputation, and either the cancellation or sidelining of major US space ambitions.
I could perhaps write more but no, he was a shitty space president.
|
Beyond fixing the war, recession, and a blocked congress after 2 years, he had more pressing matters. I agree more could have been done, but it is what it was.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Well if your approach is "it didn't matter enough" then I can sympathize (but I would disagree) but don't pretend he somehow did a good job on space. He did quite poorly. And it wasn't Congress but Obama who was responsible; Congress actually sort of reeled him in and stopped him from making it worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
