I just feel they shouldn't dump money into it when our nation - and the world, really - is so volatile.
People complain about the president's vacation costs - because it's excess while we're at war, etc. . . well space exploration is an excess as well given the circumstances.
Yeah cause worrying about how much money something cost that is not really any direct benefit to anyone sure is unreasonable,especially when our country is in debt.Maybe the next big waste of money should be building a landing strip on the moon.
That averages out to about $325 million a year. So I want to ask you if you think that the federal budget, and the future solvency of the United States rests upon a budgetary outlay of $325 million? Of course not. If we had even a mild increase in our NASA budget, created big and exciting contracts for emerging space development corporations (like a lunar base, like a Lagrangian point fueling station, like putting a mass driver on the moon...), we would accelerate the expansion of our space frontier and its eventual exploitation and settlement.I hate this argument. The Mars Science Laboratory was initiated in 2004 and landed on Mars several days ago. In that elapsed time for one of the most significant scientific projects we have embarked on in the United States for quite a few years it cost $2.6 billion.
NASA is .48% of the federal budget let's shove the hysterics about the looming national debt catastrophe.
What if we discover a way to mine extremely valuable minerals and space and then we earn billions and billions from that.
I hate this argument. Everyone has their pet spending project and everyone says it is a tiny fraction of the national budget. A few billion here a few billion there and pretty soon you are talking real money and you are pet projecting the economy over a cliff.
Alright, let's take a look. How will knowing that "Nasa is effective" benefit me or really anyone for that matter?
How will "rock samples" from Mars benefit me or anybody?
How will knowing whether Mars does or has ever sustained life benefit me or anybody?
Ok - ignoring my qualm with spending the money at the present time.
I do not support raping the universe of all it's goods . . . that's the stupidest reason to go exploring. If that's the ONLY reason for space exploration I'd take a firm stand 100% against it.
We have ALL we need here and if we can't pull through the natural disasters and climate changes that are just a routine for our planet and subsequently our species then perhaps we need to consider just removing ourselves altogether worldwide Jones-town style since we can't seem to get our **** together long enough to exist amicably.
We can't "rape the universe" of it's goods. Hell, we won't be able to travel to 90% of the universe. Jeez, take a cosmology class. :roll:
I hate this argument. Everyone has their pet spending project and everyone says it is a tiny fraction of the national budget. A few billion here a few billion there and pretty soon you are talking real money and you are pet projecting the economy over a cliff.
Ok - ignoring my qualm with spending the money at the present time.
I do not support raping the universe of all it's goods . . . that's the stupidest reason to go exploring. If that's the ONLY reason for space exploration I'd take a firm stand 100% against it.
We have ALL we need here and if we can't pull through the natural disasters and climate changes that are just a routine for our planet and subsequently our species then perhaps we need to consider just removing ourselves altogether worldwide Jones-town style since we can't seem to get our **** together long enough to exist amicably.
observer92 said this.
"What if we discover a way to mine extremely valuable minerals and space and then we earn billions and billions from that."
I notice you didn't come down on her like you did aunt spiker.
I do not support raping the universe of all it's goods . . . that's the stupidest reason to go exploring. If that's the ONLY reason for space exploration I'd take a firm stand 100% against it.
I know all about Alcubierre. Go ahead and list me some technologies that are possible using this ... I'll wait.
Warp drives are possible. Transporters really aren't as there is no way to control the way atoms are placed. You'd leave X being as you are and show up Y as a completely different arrangement.
Uh... I believe this point has already been rebutted.
Besides, there are other good reasons. Do you not want to explore the next 'New World'? Looking in the shorter term, a colony on the Moon would make any future missions, manned or not, much easier, as it is much cheaper to take off from the Moon. Space can offer us infinite space, resources, energy, you name it, it's there, nevermind the sheer technological leap such projects would create.
Warp drive and wormholes are both possible using Alcubierre's metrics, assuming GR is correct and complete. I doubt it is and IMHO it's just like Newton's Laws of Motion.
Newton thought his equations of motion were applicable in all cases (including those where objects travel near the speed of light) until subsequent physicists showed his equations are just a limiting case of GR.
Same thing will soon happen to GR in about 160 years--it will be reduced to a limiting case of a new more complete theory.
GR is correct and valid in all cases, then the actual technology to create an Alcubierre metric (i. e. warped spacetime that "moves" with a ship) is conceptually not complicated--all that's really being done is that some field is created around an object to keep its mass at zero or keep it from becoming infinite at a speed of c relative to an observer outside the field, so that it never reaches an infinite energy state when accelerating to c or past it. Furthermore, time dilation can just be though of as just the ratio of relativistic mass to rest mass, so if the rest mass is constant at any speed, there's no time dilation.
you're neglecting the fact that the uncertainty principle is already taking place in our bodies. You just don't notice it because biological molecules are massive (compared to subatomic particles) and so if they carry a large error in momentum (delta-p), their velocities change very little. And if the error in momentum of molecules are large, then the minimum error in their position (delta-x) is small.
Bottom line is that the molecules do not have to be exactly in the same place or orientation as when you started transport. A little error is OK
So you oppose all programs that do not have a direct and immediate causal benefit to yourself?
By showing that NASA can be effective, they should receive more funding and can begin projects again (as they did in the not-too-distant past).
Potentially allowing other resources that can be used for future technology. Gives us another place to exhaust resource on. :2razz:
Because you could potentially live there? If Mars is capable of sustaining life, it gives us another home and makes us that much closer to inter-planetary and inter-stellar travel.
What projects? Another trip to mars :roll:
And if these projects are inherently more valuable than this trip to mars, why don't we just skip this trip to mars and work on these other worthwhile projects of which you speak?
Mining resources on Mars and bringing them back to earth has absurd investment costs that prohibit it from being profitable, at least for the forseeable future. Hell, there are fossil fuel deposits on earth that are too costly to make it worthwhile to retrieve.
We already know that mars is not capable of sustaining human life. I've been over the argument as to why a "bubble colony" on mars would be pointless too many times and I'm hardly interested in recanting it yet again. Terraforming is so ridiculously out of the scope of our ability right now (if it ever even will be, which is questionable to say the least) that I think it's absurd to even seriously consider.
The fact is that the continued existence of the human species is tied to earth. And will be for a very, very, VERY long time. An amazingly cool rover on mars doesn't do anything to change this.
Warp drive and wormholes are both possible using Alcubierre's metrics, assuming GR is correct and complete. I doubt it is and IMHO it's just like Newton's Laws of Motion.
Newton thought his equations of motion were applicable in all cases (including those where objects travel near the speed of light) until subsequent physicists showed his equations are just a limiting case of GR.
Same thing will soon happen to GR in about 160 years--it will be reduced to a limiting case of a new more complete theory.
However, assuming GR is correct and valid in all cases, then the actual technology to create an Alcubierre metric (i. e. warped spacetime that "moves" with a ship) is conceptually not complicated--all that's really being done is that some field is created around an object to keep its mass at zero or keep it from becoming infinite at a speed of c relative to an observer outside the field, so that it never reaches an infinite energy state when accelerating to c or past it. Furthermore, time dilation can just be though of as just the ratio of relativistic mass to rest mass, so if the rest mass is constant at any speed, there's no time dilation.
:lol: you're neglecting the fact that the uncertainty principle is already taking place in our bodies. You just don't notice it because biological molecules are massive (compared to subatomic particles) and so if they carry a large error in momentum (delta-p), their velocities change very little. And if the error in momentum of molecules are large, then the minimum error in their position (delta-x) is small.
Bottom line is that the molecules do not have to be exactly in the same place or orientation as when you started transport. A little error is OK
Because further missions cost more money. The technology used will have to also be tried.
In the foreseeable future? Well that's not ALL science is about.
And we'll know this how? BY EXPLORING MARS! It's also not about what you think, it's about what you can produce evidence for.
It's not exclusive to Earth, hopefully. We need to find a home for the future (as I've told you before).
I know it costs money, that's part of my problem. Your argument is that this trip to mars is beneficial because it will allow more trips to mars. You haven't yet said why more trip to mars will be beneficial.
Talking about the what's going to happen eons from now is pointless because it's wild speculation. Anything really beyond a couple hundred years, you might as well be writing a sci fi novel.
as i've said, i've been over this too many times on this board. sorry, not worth my time. if you want to keep believing a human colony on mars is anything other than stupid, suit yourself.
Yes, it is exclusive to earth. And it will be for a very long time (as I've told YOU before) regardless of what you think humanity "needs".
I've gone over the first part with you before. I'm done. You don't want to share the achievement of reaching Mars, then don't. I, however, will partake in the festivities.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?