It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Manned Space Exploration...Why?

page: 14
18
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: andy06shake

I do understand your point.

But, we are all here now. despite many ELE's.



Actually, we are here now BECAUSE of ELEs.

It's because of other species that dominated the planet being wiped out that we, mammals, were able to expand and thrive.

But that's a double edged sword.

 


Sad to see people in this thread that simply do not understand that there is no reason why we as humans can't simply multitask. That they think it should be only one way, and in direct conflict what we have humans have achieved already, simply because we CAN multitask.

Continuing to do manned exploration of space is not going to keep us from working on things here on Earth. It's not going to stop us from using robotic probes out into space either.

For those that think we just can't do it: keep thinking that if you want, but you'll be proven wrong, as all those who had the same thoughts about other things were proven wrong too.

History is full of "there is no way we can do that", and then we do.

There's no way we could ever fly.
There's no way we could ever go to the bottom of the ocean.
There's no way we could ever cure diseases.
There's no way we could go to the North Pole.....okay, well no way we could go under it.
There's no way we could go into orbit.
There's no way we could go to the Moon.
There's no way that we could land a SUV sized rover on Mars........

That's the thing about us humans. Most of us realize that we can do more than one thing at a time, and the other good news is: Not all of us are defeatist like some I see in this thread, but instead thrive on the challenge to make it happen.




posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

What you're describing is how humanity has always been. There will always be naysayers, faultfinders, & skeptics, just as there will always be visionaries, inventors, explorers, & pathfinders.

I think the important thing is to just ignore the faultfinders and keep pushing forward. Because the same people who complain about the R&D process & the initial, inefficient stages of something new will still end up using the finished products when they reach a proven/stable stage.

So in the long run, their criticisms don't matter. Imagine if humanity would've listened to the "experts" who were sure that "heavier than air" flying machines were impossible lol. We wouldn't even be having discussions about space exploration because we'd probably still be using zeppelins and hot air balloons.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

yes the tenacity of our species will always push us forward , we have our heads lifted towards the stars and we are not looking back!


"I'm a rocket ship on my way to Mars
On a collision course
I am a satellite I'm out of control
I am a sex machine ready to reload
Like an atom bomb about to
Oh oh oh oh oh explode"



edit on 25-4-2018 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: enlightenedservant

yes the tenacity of our species will always push us forward , we have our heads lifted towards the stars and we are not looking back!


"I'm a rocket ship on my way to Mars
On a collision course
I am a satellite I'm out of control
I am a sex machine ready to reload
Like an atom bomb about to
Oh oh oh oh oh explode"




But, you would be looking back. Please learn something.
en.wikipedia.org...

Eriktheawful.

i quite agree with most of what you said.

Enlightenedservent.

So in the long run, their criticisms don't matter. Imagine if humanity would've listened to the "experts" who were sure that "heavier than air" flying machines were impossible lol. We wouldn't even be having discussions about space exploration because we'd probably still be using zeppelins and hot air balloons.

What are you on about?

How many observable species on earth that are heavier than air and fly do you want me to list for you?

It was a certainty that someone would see it and learn there is a law of physics to make it work.

It's not that i'm being a killjoy about it.

It just isn't practical. Or possible. IMO.

We last set foot on a astral body (the moon) in 1972 i think.

We should have done mars by now.

But keep on hoping.
"I'm a rocket ship on my way to Mars
On a collision course
I am a satellite I'm out of control
I am a sex machine ready to reload
Like an atom bomb about to
Oh oh oh oh oh explode"


Very good.

You get a star. Hope you get to visit it some day.


edit on 25-4-2018 by blackcrowe because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe



What are you on about?

How many observable species on earth that are heavier than air and fly do you want me to list for you?

It was a certainty that someone would see it and learn there is a law of physics to make it work.

It's not that i'm being a killjoy about it.

It just isn't practical. Or possible. IMO.

You shouldn't mock people when you don't know what you're talking about. It will only make you look bad.


I covered it in my post on page 4 (check #3). But to repeat it, here's what I'm referring to (also #3 in the article):

3. Heavier-than-air flight The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers’ flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”, only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later.

10 impossibilities conquered by science

So no, "heavier than air flying machines" were not considered a "certainty" by any stretch of the imagination. Some thought they were feasible while others thought they were impossible. But thankfully, the faultfinders and naysayers were ignored and "heavier than air flying machines" became a reality.
edit on 25-4-2018 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 10:47 AM
link   
because it's there.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: blackcrowe



What are you on about?

How many observable species on earth that are heavier than air and fly do you want me to list for you?

It was a certainty that someone would see it and learn there is a law of physics to make it work.

It's not that i'm being a killjoy about it.

It just isn't practical. Or possible. IMO.

You shouldn't mock people when you don't know what you're talking about. It will only make you look bad.


I covered it in my post on page 4 (check #3). But to repeat it, here's what I'm referring to (also #3 in the article):

3. Heavier-than-air flight The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers’ flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”, only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later.

10 impossibilities conquered by science

So no, "heavier than air flying machines" were not considered a "certainty" by any stretch of the imagination. Some thought they were feasible while others thought they were impossible. But thankfully, the faultfinders and naysayers were ignored and "heavier than air flying machines" became a reality.


I'll look bad then.

Nothing you said is relevant.

They were only impossible because of ignorance.

The laws of physics always allowed them to be possible.

Manned space exploration is very limited. And always will be.

Yes. There are plenty of things we consider impossible now will become possible one day. I admit that. But, They're not actually impossible really.

Manned space exploration is not possible or we would have done mars by now. Maybe one day. A human will step foot there. But if they do. I don't think they'll go any further. And, i really don't think they'll do mars successfully.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
I think the important thing is to just ignore the faultfinders and keep pushing forward. Because the same people who complain about the R&D process & the initial, inefficient stages of something new will still end up using the finished products when they reach a proven/stable stage.

Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "faultfinders". To me, a "faultfinders" is someone that finds faults in things and, thanks to that, helps in the creation of a better version of whatever that thing is.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe

Are you even reading what you type? You're contradicting yourself on an epic level here. You seemingly think that manned trips to Mars are both impossible and possible, which is a contradiction. And you admit that ignorance makes possible things seem impossible, yet don't seem to understand that today's ignorance will be wiped away by tomorrow's advances & discoveries. (facepalm)

Also, what part of the laws of physics prevents us from manned trips to any place in our solar system? We can send humans to virtually any celestial body in the solar system right now. The problems are the costs/funding, financial feasibility of specific missions, safely surviving the journeys, actually surviving safely on those celestial bodies, being able to return safely to Earth, the equipment for specific missions, etc.

But sending humans there isn't the problem if we don't care about some humans dying along the way, dying while there, and possibly never being able to return. Those concerns may sound obvious now but it wasn't that long ago when humankind had no problem with thousands of people dying in order to build construction projects like the Panama Canal & the Burma-Siam Railway, both of which were completed in the 1900s.

So if anything, it's human rights and the newly perceived value of human life that's slowing down manned space exploration, not the laws of physics. Oh yeah, and that doesn't take away from the fact that you mocked something that was easily proven to be true. Tsk tsk.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

The problem with that is who considered those people experts on the topic. Two years before Lord Kelvin said those words Otto Lilienthal had flown 250 metres on an unpowered aeroplane.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
I think the important thing is to just ignore the faultfinders and keep pushing forward. Because the same people who complain about the R&D process & the initial, inefficient stages of something new will still end up using the finished products when they reach a proven/stable stage.

Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "faultfinders". To me, a "faultfinders" is someone that finds faults in things and, thanks to that, helps in the creation of a better version of whatever that thing is.


This is true.

I stated the same earlier in the thread. Worded a little differently.

What i say is impossible. Someone else say it is, And, someone else try to make it possible.

That is how we will eventually reach wherever we end up.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

First off, as I have repeatedly stated in this thread, I see GREAT value in space exploration...just not MANNED space exploration. It's in the very title of the thread and throughout the OP. It seems you are not reading / seeing this. Yourself and several others.

Of course man can multi-task, where did I ever say he could not? I am not suggesting that man has to make a choice of saving Earth OR escaping it to survive, and he can only choose one of these. That's not the point. The point is, it's a matter of philosophy and mindset, not just resources. Think about it like this; there are millions of people who are not doctors, and they don't try to be doctors. If they get sick or injured they don't think about going to medical school to cure themselves. No, they depend on the notion that they can go see a doctor and he will help cure them. So why is this relevant? Because, just like the doctor scenario there are millions of people who are not physicists and scientists, and mechanical engineers, and aeronautical engineers, and, and, etc. They don't go to engineering school to figure out how to launch man into space. No, they depend on someone else to do it. They go on about their happy, wasteful, destructive lives believing someday mankind will just be able to...fly off to another planet like George Jetson...when some bad ju-ju happens. They believe it, millions and millions and millions of people.

If these same people realized the reality that George Jetson isn't going to happen they might more carefully consider (not ignore) some of the other things they do, because there is no alternative. Manned space travel for the masses is not going to be an alternative. Notice again, I said "manned". Sheer physics precludes it from becoming a reality. AND, the likelihood of defying the known laws of physics in the future is a pretty bleak proposition (like next to zero). Plus, when man figures out how to conquer space by defying those laws, he will no longer be "mankind", but rather something else. So then what was the point of figuring out how to get the masses of mankind into space, if ultimately it won't be the human form of man which conquers space????? Don't you see this?? It's a 'do-loop' with no net gain, only a net loss.

Space...you bet! Manned space...no. There's a difference. And, the only credible reason man (MAN) can give to go into space is the selfish desire to go there, nothing else. Anything else is just a ruse to keep the funding, grants and money flowing so they can get their selfish butts in the seat...going to Mars or wherever. That's all it is.

In your 3rd paragraph you stated you were 'saddened to see people unable to recognize mankind can multi-task' (presumably referring to me). Well, I'm saddened to see people wasting time, energy and cpu cycles on something which will never be a reality, for them, their lineage or anyone they know. Because they won't. I'm saddened to see people be duped into believing there is some 'Get Out of Jail FREE' card for humanity and supporting programs which will never help them under the guise that it will. That's what saddens me.

Of course we should put orbiting laboratories in space. Heck, put man on them even to conduct research. I have no doubt they will discover great things, no doubt what so ever. And, I'm all for those things. BUT, they don't have to go to Mars to do those things, they don't have to go to Venus or Jupiter, no, they can do all those same things 300 miles above the surface of Earth. And they can do them far easier than they can on another planet. This is my point, however lost on some it may be.

Man traveling to other planets is a selfish pursuit for a very select few and a boondoggle. It just is.

I would like to think some of the posts I've made on this subject illustrate I'm a little more than some uninformed lunk who has lived his life inside of a closet. I can assure you that is not the case. I've stopped short of saying something throughout this thread also...I worked in the space program, the Space Shuttle program to be exact. I worked on STS-51L...and while I believe most people will know what 51L was, for those who may not I'll say it. It was Challenger.

I've seen first hand just how fragile mankind is in comparison to the equipment it takes to get into space. Man is insignificant, absolutely insignificant, in comparison to these things. Sure man developed them, sure man can make mistakes; I get all that. But think about it, mankind's greatest achievement was in engineering and building those things...not riding on them, that was just a bonus. And all you have to do to prove it is one simple thing. Go to Cape Canaveral and stand in the gallery several miles away during a heavy-lift launch. You don't even have to watch...just close your eyes and listen. Just one time, and you will realize the insignificance of man and the absolutely astonishing amount of power and resources it takes to reach space...and then put that into the context of lifting mankind off this planet.

That, is the point.
edit on 4/25/2018 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe

And how many times people try to do something just because someone else said was impossible?



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: blackcrowe

Are you even reading what you type? You're contradicting yourself on an epic level here. You seemingly think that manned trips to Mars are both impossible and possible, which is a contradiction. And you admit that ignorance makes possible things seem impossible, yet don't seem to understand that today's ignorance will be wiped away by tomorrow's advances & discoveries. (facepalm)

Also, what part of the laws of physics prevents us from manned trips to any place in our solar system? We can send humans to virtually any celestial body in the solar system right now. The problems are the costs/funding, financial feasibility of specific missions, safely surviving the journeys, actually surviving safely on those celestial bodies, being able to return safely to Earth, the equipment for specific missions, etc.

But sending humans there isn't the problem if we don't care about some humans dying along the way, dying while there, and possibly never being able to return. Those concerns may sound obvious now but it wasn't that long ago when humankind had no problem with thousands of people dying in order to build construction projects like the Panama Canal & the Burma-Siam Railway, both of which were completed in the 1900s.

So if anything, it's human rights and the newly perceived value of human life that's slowing down manned space exploration, not the laws of physics. Oh yeah, and that doesn't take away from the fact that you mocked something that was easily proven to be true. Tsk tsk.


I can understand how you think i'm being contradictory.

What i'm trying to say is. Some things are possible. Some aren't. Obviously. But, serious manned space exploration (i mean outside our solar system) is both impossible and impractical.

As i've already explained earlier in the thread.

Please read this. As i think you'll enjoy it.

Tell me when you're done. I will get back to you to explain why it doesn't work in reality.

earthsky.org...



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

That's not the definition of the word. Faultfinding and constructive criticism are not the same things.


originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: enlightenedservant

The problem with that is who considered those people experts on the topic. Two years before Lord Kelvin said those words Otto Lilienthal had flown 250 metres on an unpowered aeroplane.


Then what about "Scientific American" magazine, which was skeptical of the Wright Brothers' flight a full year after it took place?

The Wright Aeroplane and its Fabled Performance

As for who determines who's an expert or not, aren't we facing a similar problem right now in regards to manned space exploration? lol Also, I think you're missing my point completely. This series of exchanges started because I said this in my post (HERE)


Imagine if humanity would've listened to the "experts" who were sure that "heavier than air" flying machines were impossible lol.


If you look, I even placed the word "experts" in quotation marks in that post. So what exactly is the issue here? I simply pointed out that there were "experts" who claimed it was impossible but it was a good thing that people ignored them and kept going.

ETA: Oh yeah, and who says that Kelvin was the only one? Here's a good link that lists quotes from quite a few "experts" of the time, including Thomas Edison, who's quoted as saying:

It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the aeroplane, which two or three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the [flying machine] problem, have been exhausted, and that we must turn elsewhere. — Thomas Edison, November 1895

edit on 25-4-2018 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe

Hey, you said


Manned space exploration is not possible or we would have done mars by now. Maybe one day. A human will step foot there. But if they do. I don't think they'll go any further. And, i really don't think they'll do mars successfully.

But now you're saying you only meant outside of our solar system? Hmmm... That's moving the goalposts quite a bit.

Also, what do you mean by "serious space exploration"? If you mean "completely safe and fully sustainable colonization of the solar system", then yeah, we're a long way away from that. But what part of the laws of physics says it's not possible?



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
That's not the definition of the word. Faultfinding and constructive criticism are not the same things.

Well, English is only my third language, but I think this definition supports my point of view:

The investigation of the cause of malfunction in machinery, especially electronic equipment.

Source


Then what about "Scientific American" magazine, which was skeptical of the Wright Brothers' flight a full year after it took place?

A magazine is not a person, do we know who wrote that? I have seen many specialists in something commenting about things they know nothing about, being an expert on one topic doesn't make a person an expert on all topics.


As for who determines who's an expert or not, aren't we facing a similar problem right now in regards to manned space exploration?

Yes, we are.


If you look, I even placed the word "experts" in quotation marks in that post. So what exactly is the issue here? I simply pointed out that there were "experts" who claimed it was impossible but it was a good thing that people ignored them and kept going.

And I simply said that the problem was who considered them experts on that topic.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
ETA: Oh yeah, and who says that Kelvin was the only one?

Not me, I only used that example because it was used on the article you quoted.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

If they ever do mars. It will be a PR stunt only. And i don't think they'll even manage that. Successfully.

If you can do mars. You can do anywhere. Right?

Outside the solar system to infinity and beyond.

Have you read the link?

Alpha centurauri is 4.3 years away. At the speed of light.

When you look at it. You're seeing it as January 2014.

How can we possibly know it is still there? We can only see the past. The further you look. The longer ago it was.

It would be silly to send a mission to somewhere you don't know even still exists.

It is impossible because nothing can alter the speed of light and the length of time it took to reach us.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

You seem like an intelligent and 'enlightened' member here, allow me to ask you a some questions (honest questions, not being snarky at all)...

(note, you can just read the first (3) questions and not worry about answering them unless you disagree.

1. Do you fundamentally agree with the laws of physics discovered to date? Specifically, mass increasing infinitely as it approaches the speed of light, time dilation (Twin Paradox), etc.?

2. Do you agree that the next nearest star (solar system) is several "light years" away? Do you agree that the spacecraft Voyager will take another thirty 'thousand' years to actually exit our solar system? (i.e. to reach the point where the measurement of distances to other galaxies matters in light years)

3. Do you generally agree that mankind cannot exist in the human form to travel these distances?

4. If you agree with the above, then is mankind still "mankind" when consciousness is separated from the physical form?




top topics



 
18
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join