Round 2. chissler v Skyfloating: Getting rid of Star Trek: Voyager fans, page 1

Slow interstellar travel vs. fast interstellar travel

The title of this post is to remind everyone what the debate topic is.

My opponent starts out by painting a picture of doom and gloom, saying we will have to leave our planet very soon. He then suggests that we will need interstellar travel to find a new home. He asks: "Are we to look elsewhere in our solar system for home?" suggesting that living on Mars is neither desirable nor feasible. I guess we can forgive my opponent for not being aware of NASAs most realistic brainchild:

Terraforming Mars






I neednt say more on the feasibility of interplanetary travel. My opponents argument "We need interstellar travel to find a new home" is hereby disproven.

In my first post I pointed out that this is a horse-carriage vs. jets debate to which my opponent replied "This would be a correct assesment if jets actually existed". To which I reply: They laughed at Jules Verne too!
The reader will notice that in his opening post my opponent was trying to appeal to the readers imagination, asking him to consider that sci-fi will become reality. Now he´s trying to slam on the brakes of imagination. He then clearly says that the list of travel options I provide are pure fiction and therefore not worth proposing. I was hoping he would fall into this trap I laid for him. A quick glance at the contemporary Encyclopedia disproves this claim:

The Encyclopedia on Interstellar Travel

In this article my suggestions surrounding wormholes, teleportation (stargates) and lightspeed travel are listed along with the options my opponent names...as options scientists are taking seriously as a reality, not as fiction.

Just how seriously these are taken, you can read on NASAs website on

Breakthrough Propulsion Physics

Enough said.

Next my opponent introduces "Project Longshot" with which we are supposedly able to reach the next star within 100 years. What my opponent tries to play down is that this project was designed as an unmanned probe mission...something one might easily overlook if reading too quickly.
Source

And on to my opponents socratic questions:

Chissler: "Do you honestly believe that a "stargate" or "wormhole" will be utilized when our race is forced to depart earth?"

Skyfloatings Reponse: If we were forced to depart earth I think we would first look at Mars as our next destination. There is no interstellar travel required for that, so we would neither require your means, nor mine.

Chissler: "You have backed interplanetary travel so I am asking you what planet do you propose we utilize as our new home?"

Skyfloatings Response: Terraformed Mars.

Chissler: "Whether it is interplanetary or interstellar travel, do you honestly believe our race will ever find success anywhere as it has seen with our current living arrangements?

Skyfloatings Response: I dont know, but I certainly hope so. On a side-note I will say that I dont think the possible death of earth is the only motivation to reach for the stars. The search for more, for the better, for going beyond known limits is just as good a motivation.

Socratic Questions to my opponent

1. Am I correct in assuming that you agree with the following general statement: "Yesterdays science-fiction is tommorows reality"?

2. Are you seriously suggesting that the government (NASA) invests Billions in studying "fiction" (such as warp-drive)?

3. What is more beneficial (psychololigically and physically healthy), living on terraformed Mars or living in a spaceship from generation to generation?

Thank you.

Rebuttal #2

I will adapt the same approach with this reply as my previous. I shall begin with a direct rebuttal of my opponent's previous post, directly answer his questions, and then move forward with my own presentation and offer up some more of my own questions. Thank you.

* Stretches *

Originally posted by Skyfloating
My opponent starts out by painting a picture of doom and gloom, saying we will have to leave our planet very soon.

Define "very soon".

If we were to take our earth's existence and break it down into a 24 hour window, everything since the Renaissance would have occurred in the last second of the day. The last second! So when you jump ahead to the last two generations and consider the damage we have done to our planet, we have destroyed this planet in less than half a second. It has stood the test of time for millions of years, but it hasn't stood more than a couple generations with us. How long can we maintain this?

"Very soon" isn't going to be our generation or the next, but this isn't a matter of fiction in and of itself.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
What my opponent tries to play down is that this project was designed as an unmanned probe mission...something one might easily overlook if reading too quickly.

It's laughable that you would stick your foot in your mouth so blatantly. If you hadn't read my own post so quickly, you would have seen that I clearly said that it was an unmanned mission. You would have also read that I said that albeit an unmanned mission, it drastically cuts your inflated number of 72,000 years to 100 years. So if nothing else, this project opens the door to endless possibilities surrounding interstellar space travel.

Rocks.. glass houses... you know the rest. Rather than being so quick to take your jabs, maybe take the time to actually read the debate that we're having.

Another point that I would like to emphasize is your sneaky attempt to include "wormholes" and "stargates" in the same group as Generation ships and other examples that I have provided.

Your words...

Originally posted by Skyfloating
In this article my suggestions surrounding wormholes, teleportation (stargates) and lightspeed travel are listed along with the options my opponent names...as options scientists are taking seriously as a reality, not as fiction.

Wrong!

Have you failed, once again, to actually read the material at hand? You have faulted me already for not taking the time to read, but it was obvious that I had and it was you that had not. And now once again you have failed to truly read the material that you have chosen to link.

The category that "wormholes" and "stargates" are included in is labeled as, Further speculative methods. The category that I have provided is titled as Methods for slow manned missions. So you have attempted to pass off speculative material as legitimate, as your own citations indicate; mean while overlooking that none of the citations I have provided are listed as such.

So once again I am forced to ask, have you actually done any reading? On this page or any of the material you have linked?

Answers to Questions

1. "Yesterday's science fiction is tomorrows reality" is an accurate statement in some senses. Not everything is going to be a reality, but some are. For instance, only a generation or two ago it was fictional to think of space travel. Today it is a reality. I see where you are going with this and I love that you're going to run with this tidbit. Good luck, I'll be waiting.

2. I am not suggesting anything. I am stating that NASA is investing billions of dollars into our future. I also stating that NASA is wasting a lot of the money they spend and are grossly overspending.

3. The question is immense with subjectivity and thus a bit of a moot point. However, I will provide my honest opinion on the matter. On a spaceship, we operate in a controlled and closed environment where we can easily maintain and sustain. So if we were shipping out tomorrow and I had to make a decision, I'd be buying a ticket for the ship. I feel my health would be easier to maintain in a closed environment, rather than facing the unknowns of a foreign planet.

---

---

I will now move forward with the rest of my own presentation to further prove that Interstellar travel using slower-than-light craft which carry many generations of passengers would be beneficial and should someday be undertaken.

Extended Human Lifespan

This is another feasible option that we have at our disposal if looking to engage in interstellar space travel at speeds less than that of light. A major criticism of these missions are the length of time and the need for generations of dedicated staff to oversee the process. Well by extending the life span of the occupants, the need for further generations would be drastically diminished. And is there a more ideal situation to present this concept in a closed and controlled environment that the space ship would afford? This is a logical approach to a grim situation, and the specifics surrounding it are almost perfect.

The ability to extend the human lifespan is summarized with engineered negligible senescence. It focuses on the prevention and/or reversal of the aging process in our own cellular make up.

I now direct our reader's attention to the following text below, retrieved from a link provided by my esteemed opponent.

Geoffery A. Landis, of NASA's Glenn Research Center, says that a laser-powered interstellar sail ship could possibly be launched within 50 years, utilizing new methods of space travel. "I think that ultimately we're going to do it, it's just a question of when and who," Landis said in an interview. Rockets are too slow to send humans on interstellar missions. Instead, he envisions interstellar craft with gigantic sails, propelled by laser light to about one tenth the speed of light. It would take such a ship about 43 years to reach Alpha Centauri, if it passed through the system. Slowing down to stop at Alpha Centauri could increase the trip to 100 years.

Bolding Mine

NASA Research

Will my opponent continue to stand by his number of 72,000 years?

I have provided material that empirically proves that NASA's own firmly believe that interstellar space travel is capable at speeds less than that of light, that will not require generations and generations. Now I have provided much material that covers both aspects, but doing otherwise would severely restrict the approach that I have adapted. But it must be made painstakingly clear that these missions are feasible and the journeys will not take the length of time that my opponent has cited.

---

---

What else is there to say? The facts speak for themselves. While my opponent relies on "speculative measures", I am responding with simple facts that clearly refute what he is trying to say. Rather than trying to refute interstellar travel, he began this debate cheerleading for it. But in the same breath he states that interplanetary travel is in our future. But in his next breath he goes on to tell us why interstellar travel is the answer but he needs to be done at speeds greater than that of light.

Well what exactly is he trying to tell us? Is it interplanetary? Or is it interstellar? Interstellar at speeds greater than that of light? To be honest, I'm not really sure if my opponent has actually figured that one out yet.

What I do know is that I have provided much material that he has not yet even attempted to refute. I have shown that interstellar travel at speeds less than that of light are feasible and they are not a means of fiction. I have also shown several measures that we could adapt if the mission was going to be an extended one.

As I've stated previously, I rely on facts while you are dancing with fiction.

---

---

Socratic Approach

(1) In your opinion, how long until we are forced to leave this planet behind?

I feel my opponent has provided next to nothing of his own as a presentation, so I see no reason to ask any further questions. I will await his next response and then move forward with my final rebuttal.

Thank you.

Knockout rebuttal

My opponents position as per debate topic:

"Interstellar travel using slower-than-light craft which carry many generations of passengers would be beneficial and should someday be undertaken".

My con-position:

"For interplanetary travel slower-than-light craft is ok, for interstellar travel it is not".

Those scientists who have dedicated their life to the research of interstellar travel tend to agree with me:

It has been argued, that unless an interstellar mission can be completed in less than 50 years, it probably should not be started at all. Instead, the money should be invested in designing a better propulsion system. This is because a slow spacecraft would probably be passed by another mission sent later with more advanced propulsion.

Source: Yoji Kondo: Interstellar Travel and Multi-generation Spaceships, p. 31

So much for my opponents proposals which take several thousand years and at best 100 years (a figure only pertaining to the very closest star, btw)...this however does not pertain to generational ships which, according to science, are forecast to be much slower than unmanned craft. This is why the government is investing into researching better propulsion systems (as already proven in my last post). By the time those slowpokes finally reach their destination, we will have invented something better. Concerning the so-called "sleeper" ships my opponent recommends: How are these supposed to be beneficial if the humans in them arent actually "living" as we understand it (instead they are sleeping), much less enjoying their trip. And as my opponent faults my methods as "fiction", lets see what the encyclopedia has to say about sleeper-ships:

As there is currently no known technology that allows for long-term suspended animation of humans, the term is usually only found in science fiction.

Source

This shows that my opponent cant be applying the label "fiction" to my methods and "reality" to his. Talk about double-standards.

In his last post my opponent answered one of my socratic questions by saying that he thinks interstellar travel would be more healthy than travelling to and living on Mars. My rebuttal in this quote:

The main difficulty of interstellar travel is the vast distances that have to be covered and therefore the time it takes with most realistic propulsion methods - from decades to millennia. Hence an interstellar ship would be much more severely exposed to the hazards found in interplanetary travel, including hard vacuum, radiation, weightlessness, and micrometeoroids. The long travel times make it difficult to design manned missions, and make economic justification of any interstellar mission nearly impossible, since benefits that do not become available for decades or longer have a present value close to zero.

Source

Knockout:

No matter from which angle we look at it, my opponent is wrong. His proposal is neither economically viable, nor is it the center-focus of more modern science (see: advanced propulsion research), nor is it necessary (see: Terraforming Mars).


Reponse to my opponents other points:

His socratic question is: "In your opinion, how long until we are forced to leave this planet behind?".

My honest answer: I dont know. Is it germaine to the title of this debate? Not directly. This is not a debate on environmental issues. I dont know if we will ever be forced off this planet. And if so, I have shown that the next stop is with all probability Mars and not some distant and unfamiliar star!

My opponent continues to pound on the 72 000 year vs. the 100 year question, implying that I did not read that he talked about "Project Longshot" as an unmanned mission. As any reader/judge of this debate can see, I never said he didnt mention that. I said he downplayed the fact that the 100 year distance pertains to unmanned craft. Why is this important to the debate? Because huge, chunky "generational ships" are forecasted to be slower. But even if reaching the very closest star within 100 years were possible...I´ve already shown what many scientists think about travels lasting more than 50 years: By then we´ll have something better. Thats why we absolutely must look at more advanced means of interstellar travel rather than staying stuck in chisslers 1950s sci-fi bubble. And if we find its not viable yet, we must look at our neighbour Mars and work in Terraforming it.

In answering another one of my socratic questions my opponent has conceded that yesterdays science-fiction is tommorows reality (Notice opponent has meanwhile toned down to trying to pass my methods as "speculative" rather than "fiction" and his own methods as "reality". As we have seen earlier, his own theories are just as much oscillating between sci-fi and science as mine. In fact my proposed idea of terraforming is even closer to current feasibility than his interstellar travel).

A new method my opponent brings up is "Extended Life Span". While this is well-meant it does not change the hazards of interstellar travel pointed out earlier and it would seem to enhance the boredom of extremely long trips rather than be "beneficial".

For his rebuttal he says that "It must be made painstakingly clear that NASA thinks these approaches are feasible" - as if Im denying this. But this I am not denying. I am saying there are better ways to go about space-travel and survival-beyond-earth. I´ll say it again: Interplanetary slow travel yes, interstellar slow travel no. For interstellar travel we should wait another 50 years to come up with something more powerful. In the meantime, lets conquer Mars! My opponents nonsensical rhetoric ("Whats it going to be, interplanetary or interstellar?") will not deceive the readers and judges.

In closing I would like to, again, offer something for the eye of the reader. Not to prove any point (I think I have already proven my point at length), but as a reward for reading this far. A forecast view of what terraformed Mars would look like from 13000 km height.

Insert a Pseudo-Witty Title Here...

There is much in my opponent's previous reply that I will be addressing head on, but we'll take our time and tackle it when the time is right. But something that we will address right now is a major oversight in his rebuttal's and something he continues to rely on heavily. So when we expose this oversight for what it is, we will all sit back and watch how he comes back for his second knockout rebuttal.

The following statement truly emphasizes what I will be addressing...

Originally posted by Skyfloating
By the time those slowpokes finally reach their destination, we will have invented something better.

My opponent has continuously failed to look at the topic at hand in a holistic manner. He allows for variables that are not applicable whatsoever. When the time comes that we are leaving this planet, for whatever reason, our abilities and manpower are going to be severely depleted. Keeping in mind that the journeys that I have proposed will take less than a single generation and if these ships are sent into space, we're not going to be able to sit back on our asses and create better technology. If we had the ability to be creating bigger and better, why would we be even sending ships into space? So when the time comes that our race parts ways with this earth that we have called home so for many generations, it will be because we had no other choice. We are not going to part ways with this planet if we can still live here. Why would we?

So my opponent's flawed assertion that we will be sending ships out and still sitting back creating better technology is so off it's mark that I am confused to the extent that I am not really sure what he is thinking. Why would he possibly think that generations would be sent into space while others stayed behind to perfect the approach?

Another key point that my opponent continuously overlooks is the simple fact that when this day comes, whatever our approach is, it is going to be terrible. As I have stated previously, it will be the darkest day known to man. So the individuals that are alive during these days are going to be forced to make great sacrifices to assure the longevity of the human race. Sacrifices will be made and they will be necessary. There are no two ways about this. My opponent tries to paint a picture where no sacrifices are necessary. And then he also tries to say that he's not presenting a case of fiction.

We will be uprooting our civilization, tearing families apart, working with no economy, and saying goodbye to everything that we have known since time has begun. Think of all of the wonders of the world that we will never see again. Yet my opponent tries to paint this transition as seamless. As the reader and as a judge, do not let him get away with this.

Some of the details I have presented are not shots out of the ball park or feats of perfection. Unlike my opponent, I will be honest with the material I present and the future that we all share. Can either of us state that a manned interstellar space mission or a civilian mission to Mars is going to be air tight with all variables considered? No, we can not. So we are left with a complex equation that we must approach in an honest manner if we are going to live on.

---

---

Terraforming... ?

My opponent is sly, very sly. He provides links and displays images that he hopes to invoke knee-jerk responses from our readers and judges. But at the end of the day, facts are facts and all of the fiction, smoke screens, and lights that you try to use.. the truth remains. My opponent has posted an image of what Mars would look like if we were to move forward with terraforming its' surface. Well let's take a moment to take a closer look at Terraforming.

The terraforming (literally, "Earth-shaping") of a planet, moon, or other body is the hypothetical process of deliberately modifying its atmosphere, temperature, surface topography or ecology to be similar to those of Earth in order to make it habitable by humans.

Bolding Mine

Terraforming

This is a hypothetical process. Hypothetical.. as in the belief of a concept without evidence. As in... fiction!

Another simple fact from the same link that my opponent continues to overlook.

Humans currently do not possess the technological or economic means to terraform another planet or moon.

Are we beginning to see this for what it really is? Generation ships at speeds less than that of light is not a perfect scenario, but it is realistic. If it comes down to the extinction of the human race or a generation ship, what are you going to decide? Necessary sacrifices must be made in order to assure the longevity of our race. My opponent mocks my proposals that are empirically feasible, and proposes concepts that have been empirically proven to be fiction. When it is all said it done, we need to consider options that we can actually utilize and not something that sounds or looks pretty. I present facts while my opponent presents smoke screens and light shows. It looks and sounds pretty, but it's not realistic.

My opponent has put all of his eggs in one basket. His only song and dance for this evening is the terraforming of Mars. For the sake of discussion, I am asking you to fathom a ballpark figure for how long it would take to terraform the surface of Mars and how much it would cost. The numbers are absolutely catastrophic.

The initial cost of such projects as planetary terraforming would be gigantic, and the infrastructure of such an enterprise would have to be built from scratch. Such technology is not yet developed, let alone financially feasible

So even as unrealistic as this concept is considering the time, effort, and cost... is this an actual long term resolution? Could we inhabit the planet for the rest of time? When we move forward with this transition, we are obviously going to be in it for the long haul. With that in mind, I ask our readers and judges to consider the fact that it is entirely possible that after all of the terraforming of Mars' surface, it would return to it's current state and be completely unlivable for our race.

It is possible that over geological timescales—tens or hundreds of millions of years—Mars could lose its water and atmosphere again, possibly to the same processes that reduced it to its current state.

Knowing what we know, is this the basket that you would want to put all of your eggs in? I wouldn't dare consider relying on this for a single debate let alone the continuity of the human race. So not only is this concept completely unrealistic, it goes against logic.

Now this is something that we may not all agree with, but I for one overtly object to the terraforming of another planet. What if our planet was invaded by another race and they tried to terraform our own, thus making it inhabitable. If in the future this concept does become a reality, are we not wiping out entire civilizations by terraforming the whole planet? Would we mourn the billions of men, women, and children that would be eradicated in the terraforming of Earth just as much as we would those that we might be killing in this process?

All things considered, I for one would rather take the time and search for a planet that is habitable today and possibly unoccupied, or at least not consumed; rather than adjusting the habitats of whole civilizations.

---

---

Socratic Approach

(1) Do you believe that terraforming another planet is an ethical dilemma?

(2) How do you respond to the fact that it is a possibility that after terraforming Mars, it would resort back to its' current state and deemed inhabitable for the human race?

(3) If we had to leave Earth tomorrow, would you prefer an interplanetary mission to Mars or a generation ship to Proxima Centauri.

(4) If Mars is currently habited by civilizations that we are unaware of, would you prefer we eradicate this civilization in order to take the planet for our own satisfaction; or look for another planet?


Thank you.

Introducing Paraterraforming


A quick deconstruction of my opponents points before moving on to more interesting things:

* He presupposes that the sole motivation of reaching for the stars are disastrous circumstances on earth. But our space programs did not grow out of desperation but out of pioneer spirit. No doubt, catastrophe must be factored in, but its not the only driving force. Our first plans for space travel (1950s) were made in a time of economic growth and general optimism. The Star Trek of the 60s showed us a healthy planet earth from which we deploy spaceships to discover new worlds. Why does my opponent attempt to narrow it down? So that he can argue „We will have to leave quickly and soon with a generational craft!“ My opponents assertion that we will engage in interstellar travel because „we have no choice“ (his words) is wrong. We´ve already been space travelling and we have had a choice about it.

* Next my opponent denies that it is beneficial to study better technology and better propulsion systems so that our space travel does not take thousands of years but only decades. Why does he deny that its beneficial? In order to fit the narrow definition of his narrow side that „generational craft“ are beneficial. Nobody in his right mind will deny that looking at better ways to space travel is beneficial...unless they are desperately trying to win a debate.

* He then continues with his usual tactic of calling all of my methods fiction – now even including terraforming (which is already well underway btw! Source) – and labelling his „generational ship“ as more feasible and realistic. Double-standards again. This is what our contemporaries have to say about generational ships:

A generation ship is a hypothetical starship that travels across great distances between stars at a speed much slower than that of light

So...there you have it. My opponent faults me for using the hypothetical solution of terraforming while offering a hypothetical scenario himself. And, according to this article its not even known if people could survive in a generational ship yet.


* After that he again pounds on the topic of „the extinction of the human race“. Its time to remind my opponent that the debate topic is not „What space travel means should we use in case of extinction?“

* He then says that I put all my eggs in one basket: Terraforming of Mars...hoping that the reader might not notice that Ive offered entire lists of proposals.

* He then continues to point out that after being terraformed, Mars could turn back to an unlivable state (albeit after hundreds of millions of years!). The question we have to ask ourselves is: Is this not true of any planet we might or might not find at Alpha Centauri or whatever extremely distant star we are supposed to be heading towards???? The honest answer is: We dont know. But we DO KNOW something about Mars. Besides: Why should we care what will happen in a hundred million years if we find a home for now? When you move into a house here on earth, do you worry about what will happen to it in a hundred million years??????

To my opponents claim that habitating mars is completely unrealistic, lets remember that it all starts with one seed: We´ve already sent craft there. Its feasible to build a first small colony there, with a few buildings. I think progressive ATS-readers will just love this website: www.marssociety.org.

The most silly claim my opponent makes is that terraforming Mars would involve destroying another race of beings. Ridiculous not because I dont believe in the possibility extraterrestrials, ridiculous because Terraforming Projects are carried out in the assumption of transforming barren, uninhabited planets into livable ones, not genocide and destruction. Having discovered Mars to not (or no longer) be inhabited but instead barren, projects of terraforming began.


Answers to Chisslers Socratic Questions

1.Do you believe that terraforming another planet is an ethical dilemma?

Making a barren and uninhabited desert nice, watery and green is ethically sound. A big YES!!!


2.How do you respond to the fact that it is a possibility, that after terraforming Mars, it would resort back to its current state and deemed inhabitable for the human race.

According to your source this might be expected within millions to hundreds of millions of years. By the time your generation ships finally arrive somewhere, my people would have to start packing their bags and leaving Mars. So I so no problem here.


3.If we had to leave earth tommorow, would you prefer an interplanetary mission to Mars or a generational ship to Proxima Centauri?

I would prefer going somewhere a little familiar (Mars) than spending the rest of my lifein a chunky and crowded ship headed for the completely unknown. Your option would be hazardous. Whatever survival skills are to be learned on that ship could also be learned on Mars. But if we indeed have to venture out to other stars, I would prefer faster and more comfortable means. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to drive this point home once more.

4.If Mars is currently habitated by civilizations that we are unaware of, would you prefer we eradicate this civilization in order to take the planet for our own satisfaction; or look for another planet?

Of course I wouldnt suggest wiping out another civilization for our own satisfaction. But thats not what is being suggested by the science of terraforming, and you know it.

One more blow that I saved for this post (I laid the trap, waiting for my opponent to try to debunk Terraforming):

Paraterraforming

Also known as the "worldhouse" concept, or domes in smaller versions, paraterraforming involves the construction of a habitable enclosure on a planet which eventually grows to encompass most of the planet's usable area. The enclosure would consist of a transparent roof held one or more kilometers above the surface, pressurized with a breathable atmosphere, and anchored with tension towers and cables at regular intervals. Proponents claim worldhouses can be constructed with technology known since the 1960s.

Please note that success with paraterraforming or a domed environment has already been achieved with the U.S. Base at the South Pole of the Antarctica.









Socratic Questions to Chissler

1. Do you really think that venturing into the possibly hazardous unknown with generational ships for the rest of your life is better than trying to build a new home on nearby and somewhat-familiar Mars?

2. Do you finally admit that generational ships are also hypothetical?


Thank you for this debate which I am really enjoying.