Posts: General / We really need to get into space....... now.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35131431/ns/technology_and_science-space/

Here's an informative article on how America is about to give up its lead in space exploration. A lot has been discussed about the proposed mission to return to the moon. There are pros and cons, but if cost is the bottom line here (and it is), then I believe we should set our sights on something new. Establishing a colony in space is essential and privatizing that endeavor will probably speed up the effort, but do you want a government dominated galaxy or a corporation dominated galaxy?
Sometimes you have to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwhich.

Manned space exploration is a waste of resources. Absolutely unnecessary in terms of efficiency and tangible results. We have the technology to build self sustaining space flights without humans leaving Earth (and already have, numerous times). If you want to terraform a planet/moon, you should first sent bots to construct an human friendly environment that would be completely self sustaining. This is very possible. The process would take a while (20-50 years, pending biological technologies), but it would ultimately be less resource and time intensive than manned missions.

If you wanted to be even more efficient, you would have a fully functional space station set up at a Langrage point (where there's no net gravitational force acting on the space station, so it remains at a fixed point in space without using fuel). The station would need act as a service and construction center. Ideally, they would send raw materials to said station where bots (and astronauts I guess) could service and assemble whatever would be needed. Also, setting up extremely large solar panels at the station would allow it to act as a fueling station, so that the fuel needed to haul from Earth would be minimal, extremely reducing costs for Earth based launches.

In summary, send out robots and let humans reap the benefits later on.

As for who should be in charge of such a giant undertaking, it should (ideally) be an international effort of governments (whoever can contribute should be allowed in on it, sort of thing). Governments have more of a reason to do these sorts of things, I feel. Imagine if there were only one or two fully function hub stations. If private business owned these, they would have all space worthy nations by the balls. They could charge ridiculous amounts of money to even dock at their station, take some solar energy and leave. Etc etc etc.

kyle:
Manned space exploration is a waste of resources. Absolutely unnecessary in terms of efficiency and tangible results. We have the technology to build self sustaining space flights without humans leaving Earth (and already have, numerous times). If you want to terraform a planet/moon, you should first sent bots to construct an human friendly environment that would be completely self sustaining. This is very possible. The process would take a while (20-50 years, pending biological technologies), but it would ultimately be less resource and time intensive than manned missions.

If you wanted to be even more efficient, you would have a fully functional space station set up at a Langrage point (where there's no net gravitational force acting on the space station, so it remains at a fixed point in space without using fuel). The station would need act as a service and construction center. Ideally, they would send raw materials to said station where bots (and astronauts I guess) could service and assemble whatever would be needed. Also, setting up extremely large solar panels at the station would allow it to act as a fueling station, so that the fuel needed to haul from Earth would be minimal, extremely reducing costs for Earth based launches.

In summary, send out robots and let humans reap the benefits later on.

As for who should be in charge of such a giant undertaking, it should (ideally) be an international effort of governments (whoever can contribute should be allowed in on it, sort of thing). Governments have more of a reason to do these sorts of things, I feel. Imagine if there were only one or two fully function hub stations. If private business owned these, they would have all space worthy nations by the balls. They could charge ridiculous amounts of money to even dock at their station, take some solar energy and leave. Etc etc etc.

*sigh* while scrutinizing the science of it you forgot the why of it. It is about expaning mankind into the galaxy and beyond, not mankinds artificially manufactured things (insert george carlin bit about 'stuff' here).

Exclusively using robots to explore space for you is akin to having someone fuck your woman for you.

onemiamibum:


*sigh* while scrutinizing the science of it you forgot the why of it. It is about expaning mankind into the galaxy and beyond, not mankinds artificially manufactured things (insert george carlin bit about 'stuff' here).

Exclusively using robots to explore space for you is akin to having someone fuck your woman for you.

Sending a man into space instead of a robot is more akin to choosing to bang Megan Fox only once rather than slammin' Tricia Helfer weekly.

Sure, a manned mission (singular, one) to Mars or something would help reestablish the interest and importance of space exploration in the publics eye, but other than that, it is useless. The 'why' of space exploration is to further our knowledge of the universe and to expand mankind's survivability, ultimately. Not to prance around and launch people into space just because we can. Humans need not be physically proximate in order to explore. Manned missions are not necessary unless we're colonizing.

we should go into space to have ultimate space fighting.

kyle:


Sending a man into space instead of a robot is more akin to choosing to bang Megan Fox only once rather than slammin' Tricia Helfer weekly.

Thats not accurate... you are proposing to have a robot bang Tricia Helfer weekly, seemingly because banging Megan Fox just once is too much for you.

onemiamibum:


Thats not accurate... you are proposing to have a robot bang Tricia Helfer weekly, seemingly because banging Megan Fox just once is too much for you.

No. I'm saying banging Megan Fox once would be amazing and you could tell everyone about it, because just about everyone knows who Megan Fox is. Other woman that have heard you're on Megan Fox's level would probably be more interested in you because, well shit, Megan Fox was into you.
However, while not as many people know who Tricia Helfer is, the people that do would know you're one lucky son of a bitch. You wouldn't seem as cool as the one-time Fox banger to the majority of people, but you would be personally more satisfied by Helfer in the long run.

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm

I thought this was about club Space.

[lol]

onemiamibum:
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm

http://reasonresources.wordpress.com/category/deductive-argument/
??//

Nobody nerdy enough to work for NASA has ever gotten layed so both of your points are moot.

npr had a couple of guys doing the pros and cons of privatizing space exploration and the pro guy's argument carried the most water.  if anyone in congress fights this, its going to be on account of the people they represent that might lose work over Obama's plan.  apparently NASA is incapable of getting us to the moon or to mars or we'd have both on lock by now.