Space Exploration: Yay or Nay.

[EcK]

just doing some quick calculations

alpha centauri estimated distance - 4.3 light year(ly). 1ly = 9.3 x 10^12 km. The fastest probe we've sent out, helios, is upwards around 250 x 10^3 km/h. divine, we get like 4 x 10^9 hours or 1.3 x 10^8 days, or around 3.3 x 10^4 years. like 3 thousand years at our best speeds.


We CAN go faster, however. The problem is, if i remember my modern physics right, is that the energy it takes to accelerate closer and closer to c increases exponentially the faster you get.

so if we get a manned spacecraft going 1/2 of c, we COULD get it in there in ten years give or take, is that what is assumed?


Someone find a physics book plz, i'm not at my apartment find the energy it takes to accelerate to relativistic speeds, think that's why we would want fusion reactors like jock said.


edit: found it: E (kinetic) = (m c^2)/ (1 - (v/c)^2) - m c^2

again, that's irrelevant.
Nobody gives a shit about C as long as u can set up a steady stream of ressources, and our solar system could easily provide enough ressources for a thousand earths to live happily. (i could look for precise estimations)
That's why i said we need engineers, not trekkies.

 

[EcK]

ps: Didn't really read your calculations but I'm pretty sure you didn't take deceleration into account

 

[ajblaise]

Some new relevant news...

BBC News - Obama to revise Nasa space vision

Details of a new vision for America's space programme are expected on Monday.

It is widely thought the new approach will see the commercial sector being given the task of launching astronauts.

In doing so, President Obama will scrap the rockets currently being developed by the US space agency to replace the shuttle and go back to the Moon.

It is anticipated Nasa chief Charlie Bolden will outline the new vision to coincide with Mr Obama's 2011 budget request to Congress.

Pre-announcement briefings have trailed the likelihood of the agency getting a $6bn increase in its funding over the next five years.

Some of this money will be used by Nasa to incentivise private companies, to help them bring forward a new generation of launchers to carry humans into orbit.

As well as being a customer for these rockets, the agency would also set and oversee standards in the nascent market, especially in matters that concern crew safety.

In addition, the funding boost would enable America to extend the operation of the International Space Station from 2015 to at least 2020.

 

[nozflubber]

I was getting to that!!!! We have to get there first yanno

 

[JocktheMotie]

NASA-funded scientists would argue that the US is already lagging behind in science as it is. So they can point to NASA accomplishments that helped push science forward and say they contribute to retaining American superpower status. You can also say keeping America ahead of the game in science and technology does benefit us economically and pays back dividends, which could make it easier to do more humanitarian support.

Actually, sitting here playing Mass Effect has me thinking we should just fake an alien invasion or crash or something instead. But your way sounds much more plausible.

And Eck, I actually agree with you. The future for humanity is space. How early do you start preparing for that future? That's a little tougher.

Actually, I think space exploration will be helped by advances in medicine, genetics, and cybernetics: some problems are not solved, but circumvented by human alteration.

I think advances in these kinds of things will all meet in the middle. Fusion, quantum computing, genetics, cybernetics, once all these things start coming into play I think we'll see real possibility.

 

[EcK]

I know you do. I was just slightly kicking your counter argument in the nuts. Otherwise it's not a discussion but a monologue.
I could defend the 'steady state' society timeline or the 'don't spend so much on space' one too, it's just that I don't think most people see the big picture enough to do a good job at defending the space exploration side of the argument so I did it myself, though I realise I have little patience with explaining the many details I find should be obvious to anybody entering that sort of debate.

You (no, not you you ) don't talk about price rises if you never read any numbers/statistics about it or have thought something about economics for and by yourself.
The Information is widely available, so people have no excuse.

 

[htb]

People are going to ask, why spend 10 billion dollars to study some space rocks when you got this going on across the pond:

Foreign totalitarian oppression's not exactly a reason to suspend public funding of science and exploration -- unless, of course, deposing the junta in Khartoum and eliminating the Janjaweed can be done at discount for $9,999,999,999.

To the OP: I'm looking forward to the private sector leading the way in space exploration (nod to Richard Branson), but there is hardly a more worthwhile non-military expenditure than a space program. Count your blessings lately? Cover your bases and thank the space program.

 

[ajblaise]

To the OP: I'm looking forward to the private sector leading the way in space exploration (nod to Richard Branson)

That's called space tourism, not exploration. They're not going to be doing groundbreaking research if there is no immediate profit motive. They're just going to beam up rich motherfuckers with money to blow.

If the private sector gets involved more in actual space exploration, it will be because they received public funds.

 

[simulatedworld]

That's called space tourism, not exploration. They're not going to be doing groundbreaking research if there is no immediate profit motive.

If the private sector gets involved more in actual space exploration, it will be because they received public funds.

Shhh, "public funds" is a dirty phrase to most ENTJs!

 

[ajblaise]

Shhh, "public funds" is a dirty phrase to most ENTJs!

They took rrr tax money!!

 

[simulatedworld]

DERP DE DEEEERP!!!

 

[sculpting]

We should totally explore space. Yup.

 

[htb]

They're not going to be doing groundbreaking research if there is no immediate profit motive.

SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo are groundbreaking. I've already defended NASA's incredible contributions, but discovery does exist outside of federal budget line-items.

If the private sector gets involved more in actual space exploration, it will be because they received public funds.

On the other hand, you are correct that government can support a program with no immediate financial return -- and, too, space travel is so rudimentary that its potential for commerce today is terribly limited. In the long term, however, we're likely to see a shift of public-to-private participation as with aviation.

 

[JocktheMotie]

NASA: Moon Program to Be Dropped - WSJ.com



Going backwards.

 

[Feops]

I'm against aggressive exploration for its own sake.

I think space exploration is a noble goal, and must eventually happen, but right now at our level of technology there isn't really any motivation. There are no resources worth getting, no other civilizations that we're aware of yet, and we don't have the ability to terraform and claim land. Any resources put towards space programs beyond local space would probably be better put in dealing with local issues.

I do think that reseach should continue, but as more of a hedge than a determined drive. Still, given choice between military spending and exploration I'd certainly take exploration. Imagine what NASA would do with a decade's worth of military spending.

 

[EcK]

I'm against aggressive exploration for its own sake.

I think space exploration is a noble goal, and must eventually happen, but right now at our level of technology there isn't really any motivation.

1. Yes there are ressources in space, alot of ressources, check your facts. And why bother terraforming when you can get ressources from quasi inexistant gravity wells and with mostly automated systems designed only for space operations (not reentry) that wouldn't require all the extra security and costs manned space shuttles do
2. Who gives a damn about noble goals, noble goals are what you feed the general population to get their support in order to make actual things happen.
3. Do I really need to state the obvious again and say that growth cannot be substained in a closed earth environnement?
etc. etc.

 

[htb]

1. Yes there are ressources in space, alot of ressources, check your facts. And why bother terraforming when you can get ressources from quasi inexistant gravity wells and with mostly automated systems designed only for space operations (not reentry) that wouldn't require all the extra security and costs manned space shuttles do
2. Who gives a damn about noble goals, noble goals are what you feed the general population to get their support in order to make actual things happen.
3. Do I really need to state the obvious again and say that growth cannot be substained in a closed earth environnement?
etc. etc.

The insistence gives you away -- you're simply looking for a way off Earth following your exile from G7III Kullat Nunu. Your disguise won't fool me, Grebtok of Pherznelpugh!

 

[EcK]

The insistence gives you away -- you're simply looking for a way off Earth following your exile from G7III Kullat Nunu. Your disguise won't fool me, Grebtok of Pherznelpugh!

I have no comments about this at this time. You'll have to wait for the press release

It's just that when I look at what appear to me to be the two most viable timelines. I just don't like the 'stagnation on earth with a world governement and plenty of propaganda and brain washing to keep our natural expansionist tendencies at bay' possibility.
Anything straying too far from the exploitation of space or the other one is unstable.
Take for example the premise that the whole european union and the us decide to go green, lowering growth and even stopping it in the end. Other nations would use this to extend their own influence, leading to conflicts, hunger, defiance etc.

And keeping a logic of growth in a closed system with limited ressources is just a ridiculously short term view that can never be viable for the human species as it is (so i'm not accounting for species wide behavior altering genetic engineering etc)

 

[JocktheMotie]

NASA: Moon Program to Be Dropped - WSJ.com



Going backwards.

Actually, debatable. It seems there's going to be a focus on the development of new tech instead of using old tech to send astronauts on new missions. While manned flight may be delayed, there's a new emphasis on improving propulsion and entry technology, not to mention habitation.

Actually seems like a good way to go. Also, they're right out cancelling the Constellation project and earmarked $6 billion for commercial taxis to orbit, indicating an opening for the private sector to get in on space flight. It's basically like the government buying a ticket for their astronauts.

An interesting new direction.

 

[Nighthawk]

I'm strongly for space exploration ... but that stems mostly from disappointment at just how little human-kind has accomplished in that area in my lifetime. I remember watching the moon landings as a small child, filled with awe and imagining what the future would hold in terms of space travel. Little did I know at that time, that the moon landings would be the pinnacle of our achievement for the next 40+ years. Pundits were forecasting colonies on the moon by the 80s/90s and a trip to Mars by the turn of the millenium. None of it ever happened ... yet we continue to throw money at wars and broken government spending. Very disappointing. So ... I guess my stance stems more from an emotional, rather than logical viewpoint. Strange for an INTP ... but it is what it is.