Donald Trump expected to slash Nasa's climate change budget in favour of sending humans back to the

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: BrokedownChevy

Why is Mars colonization not an option? If we had a permanent Moon base and construction facility we could build a Mars capable craft far more cost effectively than back on Earth or even low Earth orbit. Then you have new propulsion systems like the EM drive to consider, which if it works, and taken to its logical conclusion could make the trip to Mars inside a few weeks.

As to global warming, Man made or otherwise, the Earth moves in cycles/epochs. With the current technologies at our disposal there is nothing we can do to change those cycles short of full blown nuclear war which would possibly initiate a nuclear winter/mini ice age for a few thousand years but the result would possible be the extinction of the Human race and would only be a stop gap measure anyhow.

Humanity best hope of belaying extinction is to get off this rock and on to greener pastures, even if we have to create them .

Why can't you see the contradiction. If we are incapable of ensuring a prosperous healthy future on a planet which does is damnest to absorb the crap we throw at it what on earth makes you think that will all change if we are on Mars?!?!?!?

It is orders of magnitude more difficult to to have a self sustaining colony on Mars than a self sustaining home on Earth. All we have to do on Earth is stop f.cking it up. Step 1 : stop the fricking denial.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I didn't think the president controlled the budget.
And I dint know he told nasa how to spend theirs.

The President and Congress have control over the budget. Congress votes on passing a budget, and the president has the power to veto that budget.

In order to make sure that a budget CAN get passed and WON'T get vetoed, Congress and the President (the executive branch) work behind closed doors to hammer out a budget that both can live with. The specifics of that budget -- say, for example, what NASA requests -- are laid out by each agency...i.e., agencies such as NASA tell Congress and the President how much money they would like and (more to the point in responding to your post) on what they plan to spend that money. And the agencies do not really make their budget requests in a vacuum; they work closely with Congress and the Executive Branch in developing a budget request that would be palatable to both. There's no point for NASA or any other agency to request a budget that includes projects that Congress or the President do not want.

Although, I suppose once NASA receives their budgeted money, they could potentially spend the money differently than they said they would in their budget request....

...However, too much of that (too much telling the President and Congress that they want money for one thing, and then spend that money on something else entirely) would make the President and Congress angry, and quite possibly Congress and the President would revoke future funding in the next budget cycle.

In short, much of the money budgeted to government agencies by Congress (with the approval of the President) is earmarked for certain programs, and those agencies are supposed to stick to those earmarks as closely as possible.

a reply to: yorkshirelad

Chances are through that given enough time some kind of ELE with threaten our Earth and humanity.

Why cant you see that having all our eggs in the one basket is not the best of ideas?

I don't think Humanity will change a great deal if indeed we do make it to Mars im sure we will exploit that world in the same manner we now do to our Earth. And if we ever manage to get as far as the outer moons of the gas giants im sure we will do the same to them.

Not saying it will not be extremely technologically challenging, but it can and will have to be done at some point in humanities not to distant future to ensure the continued survival of our race. Same with our eventual colonization of other star systems, after all our Sun only has a few billion years left on the meter.

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
Wow. Ok the ignorance here is astounding. First of all, Mars is not habitable. It won't ever be a place where a human can exist for any reasonable duration of time. Human beings are tied to gravity of the earth. It must be precise in order for normal cellular function. Mars is a robotic mining colony and nothing more. Even if...

We do not have the technology to get us to a truly habitable planet. We don't even have the technology to determine whether or not planets from other solar systems are habitable. Only in the "habitable zone". Its still a guess at this point. Maybe there isn't another planet that is habitable. The odds of finding a balanced system as complex as earths that can specifically support human life is probably about 1 to how ever many planets there are in the universe.

Besides, cutting and running on earth because we screwed it up is a band aid solution. Will humans spread across the universe, burning everything down in its path? Then after we use up all the resources in the universe we go to an alternate dimension to jack their sht? Terrible plan.

Isn't it a lot easier to not fck up this planet? Just stop treating the place like a dumpster and start listening to the planets needs instead of your own. It literally gives you everything you need already. It's on all of you to step up and save your home.

I personally think it would be easier to build and colonize spaceships/space stations myself. That way you can tailor the environment custom to human needs instead of forcing an alien environment to suit our needs. Sounds like a less costly answer; you could even implement artificial gravity by spinning the ship and using centrifugal force to keep people planted on the ground without generating gravity that pulls objects into the station to collide with it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
I agree, only thing they'd need for that to happen is being in orbit around a planet so they are protected from radiation/solar flares/etc.
Unless offcourse we can create a protective field of our own.

I believe we'll have the means of creating an artificial habitable planet in our solar system before the ability to colonize a natural distant planet. And, no matter the cause, if climate change does result in human death, the weak and feckless, democrats, will be the first to go. A natural stop gap before we double our energy costs and begin other measures.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I personally think it would be easier to build and colonize spaceships/space stations myself. That way you can tailor the environment custom to human needs instead of forcing an alien environment to suit our needs. Sounds like a less costly answer; you could even implement artificial gravity by spinning the ship and using centrifugal force to keep people planted on the ground without generating gravity that pulls objects into the station to collide with it.

I want to see Babylon 5 in my lifetime. Lagrange points and rotation.

The only problem with such systems, is that you can't actually rotate fast enough to produce earth gravity, if I remember correctly, you can only get to about 35% of earths gravity because the rotation speed throws off your sense of balance if it moves too quickly. So the solution is to make a larger object that spins slower, but you can only get so large before the forces on the structure due to rotation become too great.

Ultimately, a space station and Mars are about the same from a gravitational standpoint. It then becomes a tradeoff of distance and an alien environment vs a more human environment and closer but sitting in space rather than on a solid object. The space station is easier to build, and far easier to get goods/people to and back. A Mars base requires a Mars launch system, and it's something we would have to build right away.

originally posted by: Justanotherman
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I agree, only thing they'd need for that to happen is being in orbit around a planet so they are protected from radiation/solar flares/etc.
Unless offcourse we can create a protective field of our own.

Yeah. You're getting it. Just position the space station in orbit around a planet, moon, or asteroid that you plan on mining for resources and develop solar energy gathering techniques for energy. Much simpler than forcing that square peg into a round hole by trying to terraform a planet.

a reply to: Aazadan
I never knew that about the rotational thing. Makes sense I guess. I still stand by my point though that a long term space station would be cheaper and easier to design and implement than an alien colony, and you highlighted why in your second paragraph.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Aazadan
I never knew that about the rotational thing. Makes sense I guess. I still stand by my point though that a long term space station would be cheaper and easier to design and implement than an alien colony, and you highlighted why in your second paragraph.

I'm all for space stations. I think we need a few personally. We need a new space station in orbit that can serve as a docking point for space based launches. A permanent station between earth and the moon for actual study. Then we need a point to connect a space elevator to, in order to have a moon base (we actually have the materials for a moon elevator now, unlike from earth which needs carbon nanotubes).

We're closing in on the ability to make them. In all honesty, I think it's easier to build a space station or two than it is to make a proper space launch vehicle (if you don't count the proper vehicle as a prerequisite for the station).

a reply to: Aazadan

Exactly! You see my point completely. It's less costly to launch exploratory craft from space instead of trying to launch them from the Earth's surface where you have to clear the Earth's exit velocity, all of which takes up MUCH needed space for other important things like food, water, supplies, etc.

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
Isn't it a lot easier to not fck up this planet? Just stop treating the place like a dumpster and start listening to the planets needs instead of your own. It literally gives you everything you need already. It's on all of you to step up and save your home.

Our sun will eventually die.

For humans to survive we have to find other places to live.

That's just a fact.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Aazadan

Exactly! You see my point completely. It's less costly to launch exploratory craft from space instead of trying to launch them from the Earth's surface where you have to clear the Earth's exit velocity, all of which takes up MUCH needed space for other important things like food, water, supplies, etc.

Have you heard of the Moon Elevator?

I think we should build self contained living pods that are placed underground.

The Elevator could deliver large and heavy stuff to the moon. Like a remote controlled drill to excavate for placement of living pods.

Once living quarters are secure - - workers could build more spaces themselves.

Ahh hell no he dinnit. Dat NASA money needs to support the baby mammies and their half dozen crotch droppings who exponentially create more burden to society.

I have a man crush on President Trump ! This guy can do no wrong in my eyes.

I don't think we have any business going to other planets if we can't even take care of our own.

originally posted by: LumenImagoDei
I don't think we have any business going to other planets if we can't even take care of our own.

If we are just locusts then shouldn't we be the best locusts we can be?

a reply to: Annee

It's the same concept as the space elevator. Basically, it's a long elevator stretching between the Moons surface and either the Moons L1 or L2 points (it has to be these points because it results in a stationary position). The difference is that due to the Moons reduced gravitational pull, a weaker material can be used. While an Earth elevator requires carbon nanotubes (and even then, only if they perform as the theory suggests), a Lunar Elevator can be built with just Kevlar.

The problems with building such a thing are many:
1. We need a launch system from the Earth capable of bringing up heavier payloads.
2. We need a safer launch system from Earth. Failure rates for space going cargo are high.
3. We need a docking bay in space that can launch from Earth orbit to the Moon and back.
4. We need a way to refuel/resupply that craft.
5. We need a docking bay at the Moon.
6. We need to build an elevator from space to the Moon.
7. Space elevators have to go at or near the equator (within 30 degrees of the equator I believe it is).
8. The ideal location for a moonbase is at the poles because it can take advantage of constant sunlight and water/ice.
9. After the elevator is built, we would need a system on the moon capable of moving between the equator and poles.

These are just the problems I'm aware of, and ignoring the engineering challenges. It's easy to say we should have a moonbase, and I agree that we should, but such a thing is at the end of a very long chain of prerequisites. Note that we need all the same things for a Mars base too, just magnify the scale of the undertakings.

Before any of that is seriously considered, we're going to have real space stations, and probably even automated comet mining.

originally posted by: LumenImagoDei
I don't think we have any business going to other planets if we can't even take care of our own.

What's the time table on taking care of our own? If we went by that metric, after discovering America it never would have been settled because there were still problems in Europe.

Just because society isn't perfect, isn't a reason to stop progressing. Actually, by opening ourselves up to new challenges, we may find solutions to existing problems.

a reply to: intrptr

Resources that can be mined and exploited for cash. Iridium, platinum, palladium, gold, helium 3 etc.....

Okay, first of all climate change is happening. It will continue to happen even if people ignore it. Why are conservatives so against climate change? Are they not interested in preparing for the future? Do they think God will protect them? The science for climate change is there in the records.

However, I think space exploration is more important than monitoring climate change because if we *do* mess up this planet, we need to have other places to go, and the first step to do that is being able to have manned missions to the moon and Mars.

The amount of resources and places to build colonies in space and on other planets / moons could make people very rich and not interfere with life on Earth. It could also be a new safety net for the human race.