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.

 

What's more practical investing money to Colonize our Solar System or in a FTL Vehicle?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
While I understand that it will probably cost us much less to colonize our solar system than it would to create a working Faster than Light (FTL) Vehicle might the money invested in a FTL Vehicle be the more practical option in the end.

The reason I believe investing, now, in the FTL vehicle would be more practical than in colonizing the moon and mars is because of the implications of both. While having Human Outposts elsewhere in our solar system will be crucial in making sure our species survives a FTL vehicle could also make Human Outposts a reality except with a FTL Vehicle we would be able to venture farther out than our own solar system.

Why invest tens of, if not hundreds of billions of dollars in colonizing the moon and mars when we can shoot for the stars instead?

If we(US) took FTL as serious as we took the Atom Bomb to be in the 1930's and if we set aside the money and resources for it such as was done for the Manhattan Project, I foresee that we could create a FTL vehicle of some sort in the next hundred years. Wouldn't that serve mankind better than small outposts on the Moon and Mars?




posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
An "FTL" vehicle wouldn't be more practical than colonizing our own solar system because faster than light travel is totally theoretical and unatainable through modern science, whereas colonizing nearby planets and moons is within our scientific reach.

We can't even come close to traveling at the speed of light, so we'd obviously have one hell of a hard time developing methods to travel faster than the speed of light.

Colonizing our own solar system is a much more practical and realisitc objective because it's attainable within modern science.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Well they said the same thing about an atom bomb in the 30's and look at what happened. While yes, we are still a ways away I would argue that we are closer than you think.

My point is if we don't pursue "Colonizing our Solar System" we can use that money, which would be billions and billions of dollars and invest it into a FTL craft.

Do you truly think anyone in the 30's ever imagined that a nuclear bomb was possible, what about an airplane to someone living in the mid 1800's

ANYTHING is possible, with enough resources and human intuition.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
Well they said the same thing about an atom bomb in the 30's and look at what happened. While yes, we are still a ways away I would argue that we are closer than you think.

There's a few differences here.


First... a bomb doesn't require a lot of engineering hardware and software and ... stuf. It just requires a trigger and stuff to go "BOOM!" Engines are complex and complicated and at this point we only may BARELY have an algorithmn that's been proved about how to make things go faster than light.


My point is if we don't pursue "Colonizing our Solar System" we can use that money, which would be billions and billions of dollars and invest it into a FTL craft.

I think that would be a good idea if we had some sort of proven technique for making things go faster than the speed of light and a way to design that sort of engine. But we can't even get it up to light speed.

And there IS a question of what would happen to a human at those speeds.

I think colonization's the best idea -- and let that kind of technology drive the "faster drives" race.


Do you truly think anyone in the 30's ever imagined that a nuclear bomb was possible, what about an airplane to someone living in the mid 1800's

They were experimenting with planes and flight back then, if you remember. And yes, physicists in the 1930's did imagine nuclear bombs.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   
We have already built and continue to build light (laser) weapons. Not only guided but now also there are laser weapons systems. I would argue that this would be the same as the atom's "BOOM." And for the atom. the smallest known object at the time, it took our scientists about 10-20 years after the atom bomb to come up with a nuclear reactor. I wish to suggest the same of our scientists today if given proper funding. Just because our scientists and ourselves don't know something to be true doesn't mean it is not true.

Byrd, do you understand that in the mid 1800's people were debating over whether or not people were capable of surviving airplane flight?

There were many back then that did not think that the human body would be capable of surviving its harsh conditions.

The US created the Manhattan Project merely from intuition and theories. There was nothing like it before. There wasn't much "Scientific Knowledge" about it either, and yet we still pursued it.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   
We should definitly be building moon and mars bases first, then worry about FTL vehicles. Either one will require large investments of national resources, you can't do that on something that is considered to be scientifically immpossible. We can colonize other planets, all of our science tells us FTl isn't merely extremely difficult, but that its not physically immpossible. It'd be difficult to justify a major investment in something that is understood to be physically immpossible, especially when there are other projects to work on.

Also, consider this. If we colonize mars, we'll have the resources of an entire planet at our disposal. That could make it worthwhile to investigate FTL travel.


apc

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I think this vehicle would be used primarily for colonizing our own system anyway.
At just light speed the crew would still get very bored on the 4 year trip to our closest neighbors. It would be far more practical to send some bots out and see if there's anything worth visiting in person.

Around here though there's money to be made. Resources just floating around waiting to be mined. The industries we are going to see develop over the next 50 years will pay for themselves pretty quick. If lengthy transport times are eliminated by 10 minute trips, things get far more profitable.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Faster than Light technology shouldn't just be limited to FTL vehicles but should help to replace space telescopes and space communications like SETI. I see FTL technology first leading to greater communication capabilities. Such as "warping" electronic messages to alpha centari and other close galactic neighbors of ours.

Once we get the communications side of FTL down then we can begin to focus on physically travelling FTL. There are many industries to be had with FTL technologies.

Who knows, maybe FTL communications could lead to first contact between us and intelligent life outside our universe.

Today, we see ourselves destroying our own planet unnecessarily, what makes you believe that if we start mining in the near future, we won't be doing the same thing to another planet. Why not sit on those resources until we can figure out a more efficient way of using those resources.


apc

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Communicate with whom? Thinking it would give us the ability to talk to ET is a bit backwards is it not?

We dont necessarily need to mine other planets. There's a lot of heavy asteroids out there. And theyre a lot cheaper to travel to and from.

Should we just stop using oil completely and sit on it until we can find a better use for it? Or should we continue to use it so through experience we can find a better use for it? Some guy with a spacesuit and a shovel is where it has to start.

Just like with FTL travel, we can't just sit on it and wait for it to figure itself out. Our own solar system is a great place to develop the technology. Test runs between Earth and the Moon would be ideal. Especially if wormholes are involved. These tests would benefit from an infrastructure already in place. And the potential for breakthrough becomes so much higher if we have knowledge gained from spreading within own system.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
"Communicate with whom? Thinking it would give us the ability to talk to ET is a bit backwards is it not?"

Who do you think? Why wouldn't FTL technology give us the ability to send electronic messages back and forth . Why is this backwards thinking?

"Should we just stop using oil completely and sit on it until we can find a better use for it? Or should we continue to use it so through experience we can find a better use for it? Some guy with a spacesuit and a shovel is where it has to start."

We shouldn't stop using all oil however we should stop using fossil fuels taken from our planet. The US is transitioning right now to make this a reality in the next 50 years or so.

"Just like with FTL travel, we can't just sit on it and wait for it to figure itself out. Our own solar system is a great place to develop the technology. Test runs between Earth and the Moon would be ideal. Especially if wormholes are involved. These tests would benefit from an infrastructure already in place. And the potential for breakthrough becomes so much higher if we have knowledge gained from spreading within own system."

Could you clarify that paragraph I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that we spend our time colonizing our solar system and at the same time investigate wormholes for future space travel, would it not just be cheaper to invest our resources into FTL technologies instead of chasing wormholes?


apc

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
It's backwards thinking because we don't have anyone to talk to. The only definite use would be talking to rovers on Mars or our own probes.



The US is transitioning right now to make this a reality in the next 50 years or so.

Exactamundo. We are in transition.



Could you clarify that paragraph I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that we spend our time colonizing our solar system and at the same time investigate wormholes for future space travel, would it not just be cheaper to invest our resources into FTL technologies instead of chasing wormholes?

Wormholes are just an example of FTL travel. My point is, we should use the colonization of our solar system as a means for development of FTL travel. Why do you think it would be cheaper to leap towards something we don't even know how to do? How much money do you think it would take to develop FTL technology with the infantile knowledge we currently posess? How long would it take? What would we be doing in the meantime? ... Colonizing the solar system.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
If you think we are the only intelligent one's in this universe you are insane. Just because we don't know about them in 2006 doesn't mean they exist. FTL technology would become a super SETI capable of searching the Universe at a speed of at least 300 times what SETI is capable of.

Did anyone believe a gas powered car would be possible in the 1700's? How about an airplane?

People questioned if man was capable of physically enduring airplane flight back in the 1800's. If anyone is thinking backwards it is you.

There was no "scientific knowledge" that led us to creating the Atom Bomb other than a few of Einstein's theories.

We have as much info about FTL technology today as did Einstein when he asked President Roosevelt to start the Manhattan Project.

If anyone is thinking backwards I would have to suggest that it is you.


apc

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
How do you intend to call someone if you don't know their phone number?


There was no "scientific knowledge" that led us to creating the Atom Bomb other than a few of Einstein's theories.

Well that's just silly.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
How do you intend to call someone if you don't know their phone number?


There was no "scientific knowledge" that led us to creating the Atom Bomb other than a few of Einstein's theories.

Well that's just silly.


How you call someone without knowing there # is you first map out their neighborhood and then where it appears most likely that intelligent life might exist
then you shower it with electric messages. It's not complicated, it's the space version of the way Rocky Balboa calls people in the original Rocky.

Secondly, it's not Silly, it's History.


apc

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
By all means do it.

That's not a FTL vehicle though as was your opening statement. If you want to argue that we should be developing better ways to find aliens INSTEAD of expanding into our own solar system, that is one thing (also a bad idea...).

But as far as a ship is concerned, we can't build a boat if we can't swim and don't have the right tools. We learn to swim by exploring our own waters. We invent the tools as we discover how. We don't go to an island and try to jump to the mainland. Baby steps, baby steps, baby steps.

... and check your history.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
before making or even attempting ftl would we not need to invest vast sums of money to power the thing as I dont imagine a solar cell, fossil fuel, nuclear or anything currently on plan would power an ftl drive without vast amounts of them...just my thought.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   
great call Minority, powering whatever sort of craft this ends up to be is a big part of the equation. This just adds to the FTL argument. Investing $$$ into FTL could also translate into more advanced energy systems. While these energy systems would be designed for space based purposes first it would have the trickle down effect on the rest economy to follow.

It could potentially solve the energy crisis and get us out of our solar system at the same time! Talk about killing two birds with one stone.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   
i vote for investing in new tech r&d. a general response, i know


jra

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 03:29 AM
link   
I'd rather colonize the solar system first as it is an attainable goal. Where as traveling the speed of light (or faster) is not at this present time. And if we were to start colonizing the solar system, i'm sure R&D would be working on better and faster methods of space travel. Having off world colonies would be great motivation for the development of new methods of space travel. Like if you're needing to bring supplies to some place on Mars, the sooner it gets there the better obviously.

If we were to only focus on traveling the speed of light or faster without even having an outpost on the moon, where's the motivation for developing such a system? No doubt that some people would want to be able to travel that fast, but there wouldn't be a need. See what I'm saying?

And currently there are no theories as to how to go about traveling at the speed of light, let alone faster as far as I know. It could take hundreds of years to even come up with an idea, let alone how to actually make it. And going from what he have right now to trying to develop FTL travel is too big of a step to take. It would be like ancient Romans trying to build a Ferrari.

I say it's better to take baby steps. I think technology develops a lot better and faster when there is a need for it and not just a want.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
JRA - "If we were to only focus on traveling the speed of light or faster without even having an outpost on the moon, where's the motivation for developing such a system? No doubt that some people would want to be able to travel that fast, but there wouldn't be a need. See what I'm saying?"

The Motivation would be Alpha Centari and other close by galaxies that show might be hospitable to human life. While a Mars outpost is great there is no way one can walk outside without a space suit on. Within Alpha Centari there may be planets similar enough to our own in which we would be able to survive without any life systems.

For Me, FTL technology is inevitable and the choice is either do we waste our natural resources to build a slow ineffectual Outpost or do we invest in the greatest resource man has at his disposal, his intelligence and intuition? While throwing gobs of money at FTL might not bring us FTL space craft in the next hundred years or so it most certainly would help to bring about other "advanced technologies" this is similar to trickle down economics, "voo-doo economics."



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join