General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSpace is at best uninspiring and at worst useless.
Human beings have often demonstrated great courage and persistence in explorations.
The best analogy I can come up with is the discovery of the "New World" by the "Old World." The time it took back then to travel those distances, how dangerous it was, how difficult and life-taking, it always amazes me how much was done so quickly. 1492, Columbus gets to this side of the world. (And don't forget, he dragged himself over here in search of a better route to the riches of India and China.) In less than 30 years, Cortes takes Mexico, in 40, Pizarro takes Peru, in not much than 100 years later, the English are taking and settling on our East Coast as the French are doing the same up north in Quebec.
What DROVE those people to all the expense and sacrifice of exploration and discovery of new realms? Only one or another of two things -- the two things that ALWAYS drive exploration and discovery. Either 1) Resources/raw materials/"stuff" that can be profitably brought back home or 2) New land on which people can settle and live.
Number 2 is right out with anywhere reachable in space, obviously. Space offers no "new land" because it offers no air and no life - no possibility of agriculture. And where's the "frontier freedom" in space? You can't even BREATHE freely.
So at best, space will be uninspiring. It will be, if anything, one big mining operation. I really don't know which metals or minerals there are out there in abundance on the moon or Mars or wherever close. Of course getting to them and making it worth our while to get there and even more so, bring it back seems prohibitive. And even more importantly, is THAT exactly what our world needs the most right now? Or are we lacking mostly in ORGANIC material? Why, there might be some drive to explore if the moon was oil-rich, but it isn't. (Plus, as we learned during the Moon Bombing Wars of old DU, the cost of bringing liquid back to earth would be ridiculously prohibitive. No-one could afford Moon Coke, and they couldn't afford Moon Oil either.)
I hear there's an asteroid floating around somewhere just chock-a-block with gold, that might be the only plausible reason to get out there, but of course if they brought it back, all it would do would be to crash gold prices. Which might be a good thing, now that I come to think of it. Goldbugs tend to be rather unpleasant people one way or another.
Yes, people will do almost anything for exploration and discovery IF there is something worth it out there. Think of the French in Canada in the 1600s: relatively small groups of men very quickly penetrated the vast hinterlands of the north and went up and down the great rivers of the interior of North America -- for furs. Without the fur trade, it would never have happened.
Once the fur trade receded in importance, so did Canada. It bumped along well enough, though still cold and still relatively empty. Only Canadians might remember that around about the time after World War II when Canada really began to fully think of itself as its own nation rather than as a part of the British Empire, and began to seek its own nationalism, a Prime Minister by the name of Diefenbaker - a man so boring only Canadians could go crazy over him - sent the country into raptures with his New Vision --
-- and this was his vision: "One Canada. One Canada, where Canadians will have preserved to them the control of their own economic and political destiny. Sir John A. Macdonald saw a Canada from east to west: he opened the west. I see a new Canada—a Canada of the North."
He pledged to open the Canadian north, to seek out its resources and make it a place for settlements.
Today? Canada is still a country whose population hugs its southern border. Play around with Google Earth at some point. You don't have to go very far north of Toronto or Montreal to reach nothingness. People don't live in environments that inhospitable. And if you think northern Canada is inhospitable, just wait until you get to the Moon or Mars. Even colder, I hear.
And don't anyone start talking about terraforming: Terraform the north! Make Diefenbaker's dream come alive!
Or make it possible for human beings to live below the oceans!
Either of those things would be far, far easier and far, far more productive than anything you'll do up beyond the surly bonds of earth.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)It's a fine piece of work and pretty much on the money.
I probably don't agree on every particular but in general, yes, there is probably little upside to (or practical potential for) human expansion throughout the solar system (as opposed to exploration, which is cool)
I love "hard" science fiction. I think terraforming Mars is a cool idea. But probably not a senisble idea versus expending the same resources here.
If we find a way to go to the stars there will probably be some human will to expand the range of the species, but for humans the solar system is one green planet and a bunch of material.
Peter1x9
(311 posts)Mars lost its magnetic field around 4 billion years ago. Without a magnetic field to shield its atmosphere, any water vapor we put there would be blown away by the Sun. Also, without a magnetic field, any life on the surface of Mars would constantly be bombarded with lethal levels of radiation.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Might it not be possible to create some gravitational kneading which might lead to the creation of a magnetic field? It might even be possible to drill down and nuke the interior to create some heat and kick start the process.
I'm not saying it is practical, I just hate the phrase "not possible".
Muskypundit
(717 posts)Space is the future of humanity if we have one. And one day the cost will not be prohibitive to go out there. Humanity has never gone anywhere with that attitude.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Or we will rock the world in a ruinous war attempting to follow China's example.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Funny thing about Materialists like Hawking... they really can't accept the reality they espouse.
Humans CAN husband resources on Earth in a balanced manner, but up until now we haven't managed to do so on a collective scale. So if Nature steps in and adjusts the balance, why would someone who believes in evolution want to interfere?
It's ridiculous.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)say hello to China and byebye to reproductive rights.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Being able to move a few humans to a new place where they can start reproducing MIGHT be possible.
So if your main concern is to keep the human genome going, then okay.
However, moving millions of people to another world isn't going to happen.
So, space travel will do nothing to alleviate overcrowding on earth.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Did you go forward into time and see this?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)But the first step is the space elevator, not a moonbase.
Muskypundit
(717 posts)It would be tenfold easier to build a moonbase if we had a space elevator.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)The space program of the 1960s laid the foundation for the explosion of technology in the last forty years. We will fail as intelligent creatures if we do not continue to explore space.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Space is useless if you could care less about the human race possibly going into extinction like the dinosaurs.
JCMach1
(27,555 posts)The rest of us are out of here.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)before we go searching for others. I mean, we can build bases on the moon but we can't stop an oil leak on the ocean floor. There is so much that we can learn about our past and even about space without leaving our backyard.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)I miss that show!
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)
Norrin Radd
(4,959 posts)If we don't destroy ourselves, first.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)You have a completely one-dimensional understanding of space and space travel, and you think that that's even vaguely accurate. It's not.
For starters, you demonstrate no awareness of the fact that the only reason you can type this screed is likely because of the US space program, which drove development of integrated circuits ahead by decades. There was little to no commercial need for that at the time, but they did it because they needed to for space travel. So chances are, without that effort you wouldn't own a computer right now. You might not even have ever seen a computer outside of a corporate office. And that's hardly all. Optics, insulin pumps, nutrition, insulation, mylar, there's hardly an area of technology that hasn't been in some way advanced by the efforts of the space program. Much more so than undirected research could possibly have done, because undirected research usually follows established lines. Literally billions of lives have been touched by the technologies derived from spaceflight.
You want to talk about resources? Let's start with 16 Psyche, the largest metallic main belt asteroid in our solar system. It masses 2.19 times 10 to the 19th kilograms--or put another way, enough iron to satisfy current demand levels here on Earth for the next several MILLION years. Oh, and yes, also gold, platinum, iridium, and an abundance of other vital minerals which make life here on Earth better by allowing us to build things like homes, skyscrapers, wind turbines, and just about everything else. Or, do things like building habitats in space--fairly simple actually, when you have abundant raw materials and free energy such as is available in open space.
Not to mention that yes, there's also a lot of "land" and less mineral resources out there, like the ocean that covers Jupiter's moon Europa. Europa's world ocean, by the way, contains more than twice as much water as all of the planet Earth, and most of it is likely liquid under the ice sheets.
I could go on like this for awhile, but the point is that you've drawn conclusions based on knowing nothing more than you'd get out of a high school science class that was mostly napped through. Do yourself a favor, and start reading.
Prometheus Bound
(3,489 posts)
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Telling someone who doesn't know what they're talking about that they don't know what they're talking about isn't an insult. It may be a little too direct, but far from an insult. Calling someone an imbecile, or a mental jack ass or an Idiocrat is an insult.
greytdemocrat
(3,299 posts)Mankinds future is out in Space and other worlds.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)but rather a statement of fact.
JHB
(37,158 posts)And a virtual unrec to the OP
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)It IS insulting...
Saving Hawaii
(441 posts)"You want to talk about resources? Let's start with 16 Psyche, the largest metallic main belt asteroid in our solar system. It masses 2.19 times 10 to the 19th kilograms--or put another way, enough iron to satisfy current demand levels here on Earth for the next several MILLION years. Oh, and yes, also gold, platinum, iridium, and an abundance of other vital minerals which make life here on Earth better"
With all that gold we're all going to be very rich!
Not saying that I disagree with you. Just whining about goldbugs.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)I must however, disagree.
Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)Space is neither a waste nor uninspiring. It's in the eyes of the beholder. I look out and marvel at what I see and wonder what and who is there. You apparently see a void of many types.
The space program has been cut back. It should never be abandoned. As someone mentioned, the research and discoveries from such a program are myriad and life changing. When you make an effort in such endeavors, you must break ground and invent new methods and machines in addition to finding new paths.
Without projects that truly push the edge, we never venture beyond it and stay in one area. It's much harder to introduce new ideas into this area and as time passes it's walls grow stiffer.
Abandoning space is tantamount to abandoning dreams and the urge to truly explore the unknown. The unknown is the future, and we never truly embrace the future without facing the unknown without fear and with curiosity.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)self-contained man-made biospheres floating around the sun before Space becomes inspiring.
We don't need to terraform. All we need is multiple huge floating and maneuverable platforms out there that float around the sun at an earth-like distance and collect sunlight and solar energy to support a self-contained biosphere.
The more we spread ourselves out on biosphere space ships, the better chance humanity has of surviving. With all of us being on one planet, the chance of our extinction is higher if a comet or large asteroid hits the earth. We have to spread to survive. We have to figure out how to make biospheres work and make them work in space. We have to master self-contained, man-made Eco systems to survive without this planet. All the Earth is is a self-contained biosphere. We don't have retrofit some lifeless rock in space to survive. All we have to do is replicate Earth's Eco system in multiple large spacecraft we design ourselves and keep them in orbit around the sun and then later, other stars if we can reach them.
So in this respect, there is a lot we can do in space and it is very inspiring.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Space inspires a lot of people. Just not you, of course, which doesn't mean a thing to the rest of us.
jpgray
(27,831 posts)A better analogue might be exploration and habitation of the poles, particularly the South Pole. There's nothing particularly remunerative there, nobody is going to come to blows over it, and the only worth of exploration or habitation is going to be scientific or romantic - say ice cores, or dramatic (if ultimately pointless) exploration stories.
That may not excite you economically or solve any problems at the mass societal level, but what a poor thing you make of space when it has these two virtues and no vices. Compare it to war, for example, whose waste is infinitely greater than its worth in nearly every case, the mere preparation for which costs several times as much as anything to do with space.
So what's so bad about a comparatively small expenditure for exploration, science and romance? That it can't yet be exploited in the usual way is to its credit, in my view.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)and also post 8.
This is a very depressing OP.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)...but I'm not a mathematician. I just play one on TV. 
JHB
(37,158 posts)-2000
surfdog
(624 posts)What a joke , a terrible article.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Yeah, Greenland's next
Sorry this post is ...........
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)Not for colonization IMO, but for basic research into the physical laws of the universe and our planet.
We can do things in space that simply cannot be done on earth. Monitoring weather patterns and providing global communications are some examples of things that we all benefit from on a daily basis.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)We invented airplanes just over a century ago. We invented rockets that could reach orbit just about 60 years ago. The idea that space won't ever be a viable option seems uninspired to me.
Mars is the most likely short term option but it won't be terraformed first (if ever). Greenhouses and living quarters will need to be built which protect life from the radiation while providing heat and a breathable atmosphere.
It won't happen in my lifetime but that doesn't mean it won't happen. I think it is inevitable, in the long term.
Javaman
(62,510 posts)
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)
edhopper
(33,556 posts)A parody of some Right Wing/FauxNews idiot.
Johonny
(20,829 posts)I sure like my communication satellites, weather satellites, GPS etc... Our space infrastructure is mega cool.
Our manned space adventures have been cool but mostly useless. We aren't living on another planet. Heck we are not mining space. In the history of space launches we have launch in the LEO about the mass of one huge mining machine. The vast number of launches to mine outerspace would destroy the Earths atmosphere. The same thing goes for supporting a space civilization. Until humans solve there problems here they simply won't have a chance to solve problems of a space colony either. As the explorers of the new world found out. You can't escape Europe's problems sailing across the sea. You take them with you.
MrScorpio
(73,630 posts)This is our only home.
At this stage in our evolution (biological, technological, social, spiritual, emotional), we're not ready to adopt to another planet.
laruemtt
(3,992 posts)we need a lot of remedial work before we "advance" to Living with Mars, etc.
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)
Swede
(33,233 posts)Space is mankind's only hope for survival. Call it an insurance policy.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)...or it's brilliantly low-key satire.
ZenLefty
(20,924 posts)I admit that space exploration is, at present, of limited practical use and the costs are astronomically high. No pun intended. But the more we discover out there, the more we understand how things work, and the further we can push our inventions, and the more we can learn, and the more things we can do. I think space exploration is one of the most inspiring things I can think of.
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)"But the more we discover out there, the more we understand how things work, and the further we can push our inventions, and the more we can learn, and the more things we can do."
I'm sure if you looked a little closer to home, you would "understand how things work...".
'Pushing our inventions...' ??? Really!?! Which ones would you suggest?
.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Difficult to claim it's useless unless one has near-absolute knowledge of it.
Otherwise, we're merely claiming that 'those things science currently know about space' are useless. And as we know so very little, and I can't rule out relevant discoveries, I may only surmise rather than claim...
Romulox
(25,960 posts)because we've fouled this planet? 
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Space exploration is science for science's sake...History is full of people who wandered around just to see what they could find...Not everything is related to a land/resource grab...
downwardly_mobile
(137 posts)"Science for science's sake" -- at this point, best one can do with this is to say, "hey, we made Tang as a consequence" - that kind of thing. (Although I DO support un-manned missions - they're relatively cheap, and have had great success - the long-lived Rover, the mobile telescopes/cameras sent out to the further planets.)
"History is full of people who wandered around just to see what they could find." But we've DONE enough science out there and BEEN far enough that we KNOW what we can find out there -- always nothing! Nothing worth bringing home in any quantity, and nothing to settle on/live on.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"But we've DONE enough science out there and BEEN far enough that we KNOW what we can find out there -- always nothing!"
Again, you appear to be qualifying your premise with absolute knowledge, which is simply not the case.
However, I do realize many people are of the opinion that science has gone far enough, and should simply.... stop?
downwardly_mobile
(137 posts)has helped us to learn that "out there" is nothing but the equivalent of a virtually endless Sahara or Antarctic.
It's a big nothing.
Remember, even in the middle of the 20th century, people speculated that there was something liveable under Venus's clouds - there wasn't. And we have learned there is water on Mars, but only in small quantities, of course as ice.
We have also learned, through all that science, that there very well most likely ARE planets out there capable of and supporting life - but they're unreachable basically because of the great light-year-upon-light-year distances.
Gingrich suggested in his space speech that a colony be built on the moon, and that once it reaches a population of 13,000 (I think) they could petition for admittance to the Union as a new state.
He might as well expend efforts to build a colony in Antarctica and reward IT with statehood once it reaches 13,000. Just as useless.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"...has helped us to learn that "out there" is nothing but the equivalent of a virtually endless Sahara or Antarctic. "
That's merely an inference on your part, an inference peer-reviewed research takes exception to in parts. ('The Fabric of Reality', by David Deutsch; 'The Life of the Cosmos' by Lee Smolin, etc)
"Gingrich suggested in his space speech that a colony be built on the moon..."
I do realize that once a partisan politician says a thing, it is the duty of those lacking critical thought to say the opposite, to better politicize science-- Lysenkosim turned on its head.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)enough food, shelter, medical care, or education to its populace.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)If we don't we are doomed to extinction.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)There is no scientific basis for your assertion--it essentially is a tenet of faith. Really a variation on the "End Times" tropes that have flourished throughout human history.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Dismissing the possible extinction of our species out of hand displays astonishing amount of naivete, lack of foresight & an unfortunate need to remain unimaginative. This is a cognitive bias which thoughtful people generally can overcome.
In the fossil record there are at least 5 major extinction level events, and around 15 lesser ones. The Sun will also eventually die out, becoming a nova which will consume this planet. And there is always the specter of nuclear war. The apes that control Earth will always be seeking better & bigger clubs they can use to kill each other; we've become very efficient at it, haven't we?
We know of dozens of mechanisms which threaten human life on Earth, all of which have happened in our past - and most likely will happen again in our future, in the short term as well as the long term. "Human history" barely covers 10,000 yrs - which is literally nothing compared with the 4.5 billion yr history of the Earth.
The fact remains: If we stay here we will die. If we find a way to expand from this planet & colonize others, we won't.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)"The Sun will also eventually die out, becoming a nova which will consume this planet."
Um, we have a few billion years to get ready for this, though. 
"The fact remains: If we stay here we will die. "
This is not a "fact". That's why I mentioned a tenet of faith.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)An extinction-level impact on Earth won't do much to Mars. And it's highly improbable that a gamma-ray burst directed at the Solar System would effect a colony on another star.
OTOH, if humans can establish off-Earth colonies in the next few hundred years - which is a very real possibility - then our survival is more certain. Think of it as insurance.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)then the rules of survival demand that we not do so.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)But if we won't do it, someone else certainly will.
Or did you think that wasn't the case?
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)I missed those distinctions.
Humanity's destiny could just as easily be stuck on this planet, no matter what anyone wants.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)
miyazaki
(2,239 posts)Spike89
(1,569 posts)Nothing out there? Useless? Neither of those is close to true. The only aspect you're correct on is the current cost/benefit ratio of bringing semi-valuable freight into our gravity well.
We've barely even begun experimenting and even thinking about low-gravity manufacturing. That obviously doesn't require full settlement or terraforming of a planet, just platforms in high orbit. Orbital stations can almost be made today that are fully or at least viably self-sufficient. These stations can and probably will be used for a variety of manufacturing, medical, and research uses.
Where your anologies to the "discovery" of the new world misses the mark is in starting with a full blown merchant/exploration fleet. Coming to the Americas for furs, or to colonize wouldn't have made any sense to early sailors with boats that couldn't reliably lose sight of land. It took hundreds of years, maybe thousands, just to develop the navigational, shipwrighting, and nautical skills and technologies to make transAtlantic trips viable.
Just because today we can't do something doesn't mean that it will never happen. Progress is not a series of giant leaps and in fact it rarely involves anything close to a step forward. It is much more incremental and much more inevitable than we generally credit.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)Judging by our current political landscape, Americans probably won't be leading the way.
I think it will be China. They have the resources, the brain power and the desire to explore space. What's more, they understand that money is not a true obstacle. I will wish them success if they take the leap.
kentuck
(111,076 posts)It's not like we occupy our own little block up in heaven. We are like a grain of sand in the entire universe. I think we may need to change the way we look at "space"...
redqueen
(115,103 posts)It boggles the mind, it truly does.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)...along comes the most ignorant, wrong-headed anti-intellectual thing ever.
What's in space? Everything that is, everything that ever was, everything that ever shall be. Including us.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)And the science and technology developed along the way may have many uses, but human colonization of space just isn't practical. It takes a massive amount of energy just to get humans into space. You can see how much energy it takes to just get humans into low earth orbit on the space shuttles, let alone how much energy it took to escape the earth's gravitational field with the massive Saturn rockets. It's a large drain on our resources here on earth to just send anyone into space.
The Earth is a special place, and we've evolved for billions of years here on earth. Nowhere else in our solar system is anything close to hospitable for humans. The nearest star is more than three light years away. The chance of any star anywhere within many light years away that is at all hospitable to humans is slim at best. So if the reason for our manned space exploration is to colonize space, well then, we're wasting our money and resources. It's not likely to ever happen on a self sustaining bases. There most likely will always be a drain on earth's resources to maintain any colonization, and there will always need to be rationalizations for the colonies to continue.
People dream all the time. That's why some of us play the lottery. But in reality, playing the lottery is a bad investment, just like manned space exploration is a bad investment if you dream of space colonization.
I love unmanned space exploration. You get much more bang for the buck. Manned space exploration drains resources that could be better spent on unmanned space exploration.
