Main Menu

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things...

Started by Tupin, July 16, 2009, 07:49:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

bluaki

Quote from: HTA on July 16, 2009, 10:55:03 PM
Unless water is found and greenhouses built, the moon is too uninhabitable to be worthwhile.
For regular civilization, yes, it wouldn't be very worthwhile unless it actually has resources.

With its lack of atmosphere, it would be rather useful for space studies I imagine. For one thing, launches from the moon would require less energy than a launch from Earth.

PsychoYoshi

Quote from: Jono2 on July 16, 2009, 10:10:33 PM
we will be eventually incinerated by the sun.

in a few million years.

so let's sit around and mope and leave it for our descendants to fix

as i recall, the baby boomers did a similar thing with our economy, and we're currently reaping all of the benefits of it

Quote from: HTA on July 16, 2009, 10:55:03 PM
Exactly.
A few million years.
Plus, intergalactic travel is humanly impossible.
It may be. Of course, we'll never know if we don't try.

Quote from: HTA on July 16, 2009, 10:55:03 PM
Sci-fi and all that poop poisons peoples' minds.
How?

Quote from: HTA on July 16, 2009, 10:55:03 PM
Getting to Mars, and possibly the moons of Jupiter, are the only thing we can really hope for as a race.
I assume that you're clairvoyant and know precisely how the human race will end and precisely along what lines technology will develop. 50 years ago, computers were the sizes of rooms. Who could have imagined how small and powerful they'd be today? The Apollo 11 CPU clocked at just over 2.0 MHz, 2000 times (once you factor in the dual-core) slower than most low-end processors today.

Quote from: HTA on July 16, 2009, 10:55:03 PM
We could go to the moon, we could live on the moon.
But what is the point.
Now that you mention it, what's the point of living? Seems awfully boring, maybe I ought to just end it while I'm still ahead.

Quote from: HTA on July 16, 2009, 10:55:03 PM
Unless water is found and greenhouses built, the moon is too uninhabitable to be worthwhile.
See my previous post. The moon is a necessary stepping stone, one that we need to take if we're to learn how to live off of Earth for any extended period. It's three days away and significantly easier to supply, as opposed to Mars, which is six months (at best) away.

Jono2

except that science is continually evolving.  At its current rate, there's no rush to engage in space affairs.  The field is expanding every day without a push like there was 40 years ago.  Also, the current space program is a complete waste of time and money considering how many other problems there are in the world.  We don't need any other planets yet.


Also, interstellar travel is possible, it will just take a long, long time, which will require cryogenics.  In a vaccuum, there's very little resistance.  If you have the fuel, you can keep accelerating.  It's slowing down that's the problem.

Quote from: LinkXLR on January 30, 2008, 09:10:54 PM
Quote from: famy on January 30, 2008, 08:36:30 PM
is big willy unleashed a will smith game

...I'm not even gonna touch this one.

SteamID: Lazylen

L10

Goddarn you guys!

And to whoever said "the moon is just a rock"

Yeah, and if you generalize everything like that, "wats so special about the internet its just electricity really"

>_>
0o!f

HTA!

Because physics says we can't.
My point on Sci-fi is making people think "Hey, one day in thousands of years we will have hyper drives and can travel throughout the galaxy!"

This is ridiculous. I've read quite a bit on physics, books written by the leaders of the field, and basically the laws of physics deny interstellar travel.

Jono, you say accelerating is no problem. I say that's wrong, because acceleration creates gravity like forces just as deceleration. To accelerate to speeds that are even a fraction of light speed (which we must reach if space travel is to become practical) would create forces so powerful that the people inside the ship (should the ship survive) would be smashed like pancakes.

Unless you accelerate slowly, but then it would takes years to get to your desired speed and then hundreds of years to reach your destination.

Either we kill our astronauts in acceleration or kill them of old age.

We simply are not fast enough, nor do we have sufficient life spans.
Mars and the moons of Jupiter are close, and therefore accessible. But anything farther is just too far to be reached.

And PY, yes it would be easy to supply the moon and it would help us understand how to live on other planets, but unless we can live off the moon without supplies from Earth there is no point in any further missions. Living on the moon but depending on the Earth is impractical, and the entire point of living on other planets is that one day Earth will be uninhabitable and we won't be getting constant supplies from it.

Silverhawk79


Jono2

Quote from: HTA on July 17, 2009, 09:58:27 AM
Unless you accelerate slowly, but then it would takes years to get to your desired speed and then hundreds of years to reach your destination.

this is the reality of space travel.

Quote from: LinkXLR on January 30, 2008, 09:10:54 PM
Quote from: famy on January 30, 2008, 08:36:30 PM
is big willy unleashed a will smith game

...I'm not even gonna touch this one.

SteamID: Lazylen

Friendly Hostile

HTA, you're going under the assumption that our scientific understanding of the world never changes.  Who are you to say that we are incapable of perhaps disproving some of these laws?  We can't now, so interstellar space travel is relatively limited, but to completely rule out the possibility is stupid.  Science and our understanding of the universe constantly changes and should never be treated as something set in stone.

Kilroy

Quote from: Friendly Hostile on July 17, 2009, 02:03:05 PM
HTA, you're going under the assumption that our scientific understanding of the world never changes.  Who are you to say that we are incapable of perhaps disproving some of these laws?  We can't now, so interstellar space travel is relatively limited, but to completely rule out the possibility is stupid.  Science and our understanding of the universe constantly changes and should never be treated as something set in stone.
This is basically what I wanted to say. Scientists and "leaders of the scientific field of physics" once thought breaking the sound barrier was physically impossible, and they were wrong.
1984 WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AN INSTRUCTION NOT MANUAL
"yes you are anusface, but i am better than!!" - taw, steam forums
 FOR NSF MASCOT

Gwen Khan

Quote from: PsychoYoshi on July 16, 2009, 09:15:40 PM
Worst money sinkhole ever. The US should have never gotten involved and should have simply pressed ahead with its own moon base or Mars exploration.

not entirely, it showed countries that have bad history with each other can work together for a common goal

Jono2

Quote from: Kilroy has a cheap suit on July 17, 2009, 05:12:11 PM
This is basically what I wanted to say. Scientists and "leaders of the scientific field of physics" once thought breaking the sound barrier was physically impossible, and they were wrong.

but there was never any scientific proof saying that it was impossible.

Quote from: LinkXLR on January 30, 2008, 09:10:54 PM
Quote from: famy on January 30, 2008, 08:36:30 PM
is big willy unleashed a will smith game

...I'm not even gonna touch this one.

SteamID: Lazylen

HTA!

Thread was moved before post confirmed.
Sweet.

And guys, the 3 laws of motion are what hinders space flight.
Not some unproven, far flung theory of quantum physics.

Acceleration = G-forces
Distance to travel = hundreds of years.

Oh, and FH, it seems odd that an agnostic (or atheist, not sure which you are if either, and if you are religious I apologize) to believe that some day we will discover some amazing technology that will redefine physics even though all evidence points to the contrary. Don't you make assumptions and theories from facts? Isn't that why religion is so bad, because people who are religious make similar theories based on no factual evidence?

I prefer to stick with what we know as the truth when we are speaking about science.

Jono2

flight

our trip to the moon

the internet

nanotechnology

cures for what were massively devestating diseases

automobiles

nuclear power

the submarine

satellites

primary artificial intelligence

cloaking devices


all just recently (within the last 120 years).  There's no reason that this should suddenly halt.  If more interest was put into the space program, more advancement in the field would be achieved.  In our lifetimes, there will be primary settlements on mars.  You know this.  We have about 60 years to live, probably more.  At the rate we're expanding, it is inevitable.

Quote from: LinkXLR on January 30, 2008, 09:10:54 PM
Quote from: famy on January 30, 2008, 08:36:30 PM
is big willy unleashed a will smith game

...I'm not even gonna touch this one.

SteamID: Lazylen

Kilroy

Quote from: HTA on July 17, 2009, 09:58:50 PMOh, and FH, it seems odd that an agnostic (or atheist, not sure which you are if either, and if you are religious I apologize) to believe that some day we will discover some amazing technology that will redefine physics even though all evidence points to the contrary. Don't you make assumptions and theories from facts? Isn't that why religion is so bad, because people who are religious make similar theories based on no factual evidence?
The problem with religion is that followers believe whatever the religion is about blindly and make no effort to prove otherwise.

However, Science is all about pushing the limits, going beyond what was thought possible. You have to think that it's possible, otherwise it will never happen.
1984 WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AN INSTRUCTION NOT MANUAL
"yes you are anusface, but i am better than!!" - taw, steam forums
 FOR NSF MASCOT

Mutilator7

Can't we harvest moon rocks or something, there has to be something of value on the moon.