|
On August 01 2013 03:40 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:36 DDie wrote:On August 01 2013 03:26 packrat386 wrote:On August 01 2013 03:22 DDie wrote:On August 01 2013 00:58 never_Nal wrote:You guys are really pessimistic about this, it's funny how movies give the strangest ideas to people, and even make a wrong conception about effort and time, Movies= Terrible things always happen in the future, and little effort=great rewards. It's all wrong, I don't think we will have a nuclear war, powerful countries know this is stupidity, what's the point in a nuke war?, after you get nuked you won't be a "strong" country for years. To me a nuke war is just self destruct for the world, so it's highly unlikely anyone will allow this. What's the point of finding a new "world"? We can't even take care of ours as it is we would just destroy another planet...Honestly, isn't it better to find new/creative solutions for the place we already live in? I'm not saying it's all bad, of course we want scientific breakthroughs and all that cool stuff, but really, why not focus on our current status and home. I don't think we will have some sort of "oblivion(movie)" world or some post-apocalyptic setting. I think humanity will have some hard years until we start to really focus on the problems at hand  That has nothing to do with movies, never in the human history there was a period of absolute peace, the last ''terrible'' thing wasn't WW2, we had vietnan, korea, iraq (1 & 2), we have the pakistani-india border, and i'm not even going to mention palestine-Israel. ''War'' is in the nature of man, and any of the conflits that we currently have today can escalate out of control in an instant. Most the shifts people said in this thread are several decades away, it's just logical to assume that before that we will have another armed conflict. To be honest, i dont even consider space exploration a thing because that would require the entire world's mutual cooperation and that's never going to happen (if anything, history again teaches us that people only trully unite in the face of extinction, so an event of that sorts would have to happen before) Space exploration and colonization doesn't require the cooperation of everyone. For example, if the US were to say that they would recognize any land claims made on the moon based on use and occupation (you have to be there using it to get the land) then there would be a large incentive for private companies to go up there and begin minign, colonizing, etc. Yes if your idea of space exploration involves the peoples of the world holding hands on the ISS then its going to take a while, but all it takes to get people into space is to declare it open for business. Then China would do the same, then Russia, India and every other Nation, it would basically be the new Age of Discovery, a race, and that leads to what? War, that's why the world cooperation is needed. In any case, even with private funding that's several decades away, and moon exploration is not even scratching the surface. Private funding isn't the issue, the problem is that the Outer Space Treaty is usually interpreted to make the holding of any property on celestial bodies to be illegal. Also there is no need for it to lead to war as long as countries recognize other companies claims to land. You should note, the proposal is not for the US to claim land on the moon, but to say that it will recognize the claims of private entities that do, regardless of where they are from. There are several authors that support this idea, and if you want I can PM you some of their works.
Yes, i know it's not the US or X country taking the claim, it's the private entitie, but it's unrealistic to think that any company in the world would attempt this without a Nation backing them up, especialy the US, since they already have the tech to go there.
In theory, it should work out as long as countries do recognize the claims, but in the long long run, i don't think that would happen.
And please, send me the papers.
|
In my own personal life its as simple as Pre-Internet, Post-Internet.
|
On August 01 2013 03:52 FlilFlam wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:40 packrat386 wrote:
Private funding isn't the issue, the problem is that the Outer Space Treaty is usually interpreted to make the holding of any property on celestial bodies to be illegal. Also there is no need for it to lead to war as long as countries recognize other companies claims to land. You should note, the proposal is not for the US to claim land on the moon, but to say that it will recognize the claims of private entities that do, regardless of where they are from. There are several authors that support this idea, and if you want I can PM you some of their works. I thought the "space treaty" referred an agreement to keep weapons out of space. If i had to speculate I would guess that the notion of holding properties in space is not one that has been thoroughly fleshed out in international politics. The first entity to actually gain access to something valuable in space would be the ones with the agenda to push for "space ownership rights". The fact that right now there is nothing anyone has access to in space that is of some practical value which can be "owned" is what leads me to guess that it is not yet an issue among space faring entities.
I would refer you to Alan Wasser. He's a pretty prolific writer so googling him will probably turn up more articles. He explains here whats going on and why it would be hard for a moon settlement to claim the land it needs.
As for their not being anything anyone has their hands on, my friends in the Aerospace department of Michigan are working on things like Asteroid Mining, Helium 3 recovery, Space Solar Power, etc. All of thses things require land ownership, and if wasser is to be believed, the necessary funding is never going to come to make them possible because the current OST makes it illegal. He describes the effect of lifting the ban as a "Second Industrial Revolution".
|
On August 01 2013 01:08 GreenGringo wrote:
The posts about space exploration are funny, because we're not even close to being able to put a self-sustaining colony on the Arctic -- let alone Mars.
You do get spin-off benefits, but the same is true of almost anything. You don't play the violin because it's good exercise for your right arm.
Actually we are. The US could start putting habitats on Mars in less than a decade if it really had the drive to and financial backing. Quite easily in fact with our advancement in computer, flight hardware, and robotics.
|
On August 01 2013 04:00 packrat386 wrote:
Asteroid Mining, Helium 3 recovery, Space Solar Power, ...
describes the effect of lifting the ban as a "Second Industrial Revolution"...
Do you think that the corporate or state structures can take advantage of asteroid mining as it is? I mean maybe 1000 years from now our descendants will be watching a reality show called "Space Gold", but at this stage in the global economy is mining for ANY mineral economically viable in space? Is H3 that useful?
Solar power I don't really know much about, so I'm not sure if we have a viable way to transport energy harvested in space back to earth, but i have not yet heard of any proposals beyond a farcical sounding lazer on the moon, transmitting power by firing at receptors on the earth. I can certainly see that one day space will be the next frontier for us, but until we have a cheap method of getting into space, can there really be an industrial revolution?
|
On August 01 2013 03:10 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 01:05 GreenGringo wrote:On August 01 2013 00:22 Oshuy wrote:
Peak oil / Global warming are two elements of the same event: humain society resource needs outgrow what our home planet currently offers. We have the same problems regarding water, rare earth, farmable land, ... the limiting factor in our development is no longer the technology to achieve a goal, but the material impossibility to do everything our technology could offer. Well, peak oil will force our hand and we'll have no choice but to go green. That's inevitable. But by then, the damage might already have been done. The ice caps, for example, might have melted sufficiently to flood much of northern Europe. Agriculture might be destroyed in a lot of countries. We have lots of choices, not too sure what "green" means to you in the context. Don't understand "damage might have been done" either. Destruction of a few countries and a few hundred million casualties wouldn't be a paradigm shift. The reaction to such an impact might. "Green" is pretty self-evident; it refers to renewables.
There's some climate scientists who say global warming has the potential to make the planet like Venus. It definitely has the potential to cause a "paradigm shift".
|
On August 01 2013 04:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 01:08 GreenGringo wrote:
The posts about space exploration are funny, because we're not even close to being able to put a self-sustaining colony on the Arctic -- let alone Mars.
You do get spin-off benefits, but the same is true of almost anything. You don't play the violin because it's good exercise for your right arm. Actually we are. The US could start putting habitats on Mars in less than a decade if it really had the drive to and financial backing. Quite easily in fact with our advancement in computer, flight hardware, and robotics. You don't understand what's meant by "self-sustaining". The colony would have to grow its own food and much else. To say that this is "easy" is simply ridiculous. Even George W. Bush's intended Moon-Mars mission was estimated to cost over a trillion dollars, and a colony rather than a manned flight would cost much more.
No gains have been suggested except a few small spin-off benefits. That can hardly justify trillions of dollars in expenses, regardless of how much mystique there is attached with space "exploration".
|
On August 01 2013 05:11 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:10 Oshuy wrote:
We have lots of choices, not too sure what "green" means to you in the context. Don't understand "damage might have been done" either. Destruction of a few countries and a few hundred million casualties wouldn't be a paradigm shift. The reaction to such an impact might. "Green" is pretty self-evident; it refers to renewables. There's some climate scientists who say global warming has the potential to make the planet like Venus. It definitely has the potential to cause a "paradigm shift".
There is no such thing as renewable energy as far as we know ; in a way, oil is "renewable". We just use it a lot faster than it is renewed. We're better of with direct nuclear energy (sun or local fusion) or indirect (wind/core heat). Anyway, I don't think Oil issues are linked to its use as an energy source at this stage.
Agreed, the venus scenario for earth warming would be a fun one.
|
On August 01 2013 06:37 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 05:11 GreenGringo wrote:On August 01 2013 03:10 Oshuy wrote:
We have lots of choices, not too sure what "green" means to you in the context. Don't understand "damage might have been done" either. Destruction of a few countries and a few hundred million casualties wouldn't be a paradigm shift. The reaction to such an impact might. "Green" is pretty self-evident; it refers to renewables. There's some climate scientists who say global warming has the potential to make the planet like Venus. It definitely has the potential to cause a "paradigm shift". There is no such thing as renewable energy as far as we know ; in a way, oil is "renewable". We just use it a lot faster than it is renewed. We're better of with direct nuclear energy (sun or local fusion) or indirect (wind/core heat). Anyway, I don't think Oil issues are linked to its use as an energy source at this stage. Agreed, the venus scenario for earth warming would be a fun one. Sun, local fusion and wind/core heat are exactly the kinds of energy that "renewable" refers to. Of course they're not strictly renewable, but the semantics of the term just aren't that interesting.
|
The shift is already there. We're missing it because it's the very air we breathe.
There isn't much time for growth, too. Following Kondratiev's pattern, new technologies will push the economy for a dozen more years until the market is overwhelmed and slowly deflates like a giant hot air balloon.
However, give it fourty more years and progress in genetics will open up the field of bioengineering... heh !
|
I'm pretty sure in a few hundred years, raising and killing animals for food will be viewed as primitive and barbaric. Most of the first world will either eat a meat-substitute or meat grown independent of an actual conscious animal, like this.
|
On August 01 2013 05:17 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 04:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 01 2013 01:08 GreenGringo wrote:
The posts about space exploration are funny, because we're not even close to being able to put a self-sustaining colony on the Arctic -- let alone Mars.
You do get spin-off benefits, but the same is true of almost anything. You don't play the violin because it's good exercise for your right arm. Actually we are. The US could start putting habitats on Mars in less than a decade if it really had the drive to and financial backing. Quite easily in fact with our advancement in computer, flight hardware, and robotics. You don't understand what's meant by "self-sustaining". The colony would have to grow its own food and much else. To say that this is "easy" is simply ridiculous. Even George W. Bush's intended Moon-Mars mission was estimated to cost over a trillion dollars, and a colony rather than a manned flight would cost much more. No gains have been suggested except a few small spin-off benefits. That can hardly justify trillions of dollars in expenses, regardless of how much mystique there is attached with space "exploration".
Of course nobody expects a colony to be self sufficient right off the bat. Space Colonies could take decades for such a sustainability to take effect. Which is why a colony wouldn't just sit there it would establish routines whether it's scientific or even industrial such as mining metals or even methane. Thus strategically located colonies while working to establish sustainability.
I so want to post the YouTube video "The Case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin yet I have posted it so many times on this site that it is either ignored or everyone is familiar with it.
|
On August 01 2013 07:12 Kukaracha wrote:
The shift is already there. We're missing it because it's the very air we breathe.
There isn't much time for growth, too. Following Kondratiev's pattern, new technologies will push the economy for a dozen more years until the market is overwhelmed and slowly deflates like a giant hot air balloon.
However, give it fourty more years and progress in genetics will open up the field of bioengineering... heh !
for somebody defending relativism not too long ago it is quite bold to proclaim patterns in history stretching over 50 years.
|
On August 01 2013 08:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 05:17 GreenGringo wrote:On August 01 2013 04:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 01 2013 01:08 GreenGringo wrote:
The posts about space exploration are funny, because we're not even close to being able to put a self-sustaining colony on the Arctic -- let alone Mars.
You do get spin-off benefits, but the same is true of almost anything. You don't play the violin because it's good exercise for your right arm. Actually we are. The US could start putting habitats on Mars in less than a decade if it really had the drive to and financial backing. Quite easily in fact with our advancement in computer, flight hardware, and robotics. You don't understand what's meant by "self-sustaining". The colony would have to grow its own food and much else. To say that this is "easy" is simply ridiculous. Even George W. Bush's intended Moon-Mars mission was estimated to cost over a trillion dollars, and a colony rather than a manned flight would cost much more. No gains have been suggested except a few small spin-off benefits. That can hardly justify trillions of dollars in expenses, regardless of how much mystique there is attached with space "exploration". Of course nobody expects a colony to be self sufficient right off the bat. Space Colonies could take decades for such a sustainability to take effect. Which is why a colony wouldn't just sit there it would establish routines whether it's scientific or even industrial such as mining metals or even methane. Thus strategically located colonies while working to establish sustainability. I so want to post the YouTube video "The Case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin yet I have posted it so many times on this site that it is either ignored or everyone is familiar with it. The scientific gains simply aren't worth it. Unmanned space flight is almost just as good for scientific purposes as manned spaceflight. This is the consensus of astrophysicists. They can see the same things, extract the same materials, perform the same tests, with probes and rovers, for much cheaper. Scientifically, they could do all kinds of far more important things with the trillion dollars it takes to put a man into space (and presumably trillions of dollars more to put a colony on Mars and keep it there).
As for resources...how do you plan to transport them? The cost will outweigh the gain. Until there's a huge demand for the type of stuff they happen to have on Mars, colonizing such a planet simply isn't worth it.
|
The next shift will be the downfall of humanity.
With our planet exploited and poisoned, free thinking, freedom of speech suppressed, knowledge being kept away by laws and patents, religious idiocy governing the minds of people in the west and the east.
A world economy crashing because the crash is programmed in the nature of the system itself.
People will rebel because they are willing to work but got no money and no job. Old people will rebel because they wont see a penny and will live on the streets without a care of what so ever. Young people will riot because they have no future.
In the next few years we will see more tension, more war, more natural disaster until it all collapses.
|
On August 01 2013 19:23 Holy_AT wrote:
The next shift will be the downfall of humanity.
With our planet exploited and poisoned, free thinking, freedom of speech suppressed, knowledge being kept away by laws and patents, religious idiocy governing the minds of people in the west and the east.
A world economy crashing because the crash is programmed in the nature of the system itself.
People will rebel because they are willing to work but got no money and no job. Old people will rebel because they wont see a penny and will live on the streets without a care of what so ever. Young people will riot because they have no future.
In the next few years we will see more tension, more war, more natural disaster until it all collapses. With you all the way, apart from that part about "knowledge being kept away by laws and patents".
Patents have existed for hundreds of years, even before the industrial revolution. They protect inventors and reward innovation. Without patents, creative people are prevented from getting the recognition they deserve and have absolutely no incentive to push themselves to the limits. Stealing the ideas of inventors is like copyright infringement, only an order of magnitude worse because at least when you download an MP3 you know who the artist is and whose work you're benefiting from.
The introduction of patent laws might itself have been a paradigm shift.
|
The 'information age' isn't anywhere close to having run its course, and that's the paradigm shift that's most significant to any of our lives. As for the next, I would have to put my money on genetic modification. Moral concerns are the only currently existing check on human genetic experimentation, and as real wealth continues to collect into the hands of fewer and fewer individuals the potential rewards of developing 'super-elites' will likewise continue to increase. Automation/robotics is another contender, but less likely to occur imo because of the cost of cheap labor is still so low.
|
i dont think we will be able to live on another planet until we learn how DNA exactly works. I say this because radiation will kill us all within a couple years . Cancer for everybody!
We going to have to mutate our genes to be more like cockroaches to stand a better chance. I dunno. I think we going to have to change ourselves Or, learn how to use massive magnets to solve this radiation problem
|
The return of Cthulhu! 
|
On August 01 2013 18:56 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 08:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 01 2013 05:17 GreenGringo wrote:On August 01 2013 04:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 01 2013 01:08 GreenGringo wrote:
The posts about space exploration are funny, because we're not even close to being able to put a self-sustaining colony on the Arctic -- let alone Mars.
You do get spin-off benefits, but the same is true of almost anything. You don't play the violin because it's good exercise for your right arm. Actually we are. The US could start putting habitats on Mars in less than a decade if it really had the drive to and financial backing. Quite easily in fact with our advancement in computer, flight hardware, and robotics. You don't understand what's meant by "self-sustaining". The colony would have to grow its own food and much else. To say that this is "easy" is simply ridiculous. Even George W. Bush's intended Moon-Mars mission was estimated to cost over a trillion dollars, and a colony rather than a manned flight would cost much more. No gains have been suggested except a few small spin-off benefits. That can hardly justify trillions of dollars in expenses, regardless of how much mystique there is attached with space "exploration". Of course nobody expects a colony to be self sufficient right off the bat. Space Colonies could take decades for such a sustainability to take effect. Which is why a colony wouldn't just sit there it would establish routines whether it's scientific or even industrial such as mining metals or even methane. Thus strategically located colonies while working to establish sustainability. I so want to post the YouTube video "The Case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin yet I have posted it so many times on this site that it is either ignored or everyone is familiar with it. The scientific gains simply aren't worth it. Unmanned space flight is almost just as good for scientific purposes as manned spaceflight. This is the consensus of astrophysicists. They can see the same things, extract the same materials, perform the same tests, with probes and rovers, for much cheaper. Scientifically, they could do all kinds of far more important things with the trillion dollars it takes to put a man into space (and presumably trillions of dollars more to put a colony on Mars and keep it there). As for resources...how do you plan to transport them? The cost will outweigh the gain. Until there's a huge demand for the type of stuff they happen to have on Mars, colonizing such a planet simply isn't worth it.
Precious metal's, helium 3, space solar power. All of these things require a large presence in space and far outweigh the costs of the commercial ventures to retrieve them. The biggest remaining barriers are legal, not technological. As for why colonization is beneficial, as I'm sure other people have pointed out, the planet seems smaller and smaller every day. There is a limited amount of space for agriculture and people to live in, so if we want humanity to grow, the only way is up.
Along with zubrin, here are some other sources
why we need to get out:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-02/after-earth-why-where-how-and-when-we-might-leave-our-home-planet
http://www.universetoday.com/61256/astronaut-explains-why-we-should-return-to-the-moon/
why it will work
http://nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-colonize.html
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/02/s-colonizing-space-an-imperative-obamas-new-space-strategy-says-yes-lays-groundwork-for-human-space-.html
Why space is worth it if legal barriers are overcome:
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1500&context=njilb
http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/LCRSpaceTimesMay2005.pdf
http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/jal73-1Wasser.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
