It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Space exploration pointless

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 09:55 PM
I think we should devote more resources to Ocean exploration and exploitation. Its much more convienient. And we still know soo little about it. It is truly the final frontier on this Planet, and is much closer to home. Space Exploration is taking its own course now, we are now T-Minus 7 days until the very first Private Astronaught will be going into suborbit curtesy of Scaled Composits and their SpaceShipOne spacecraft.

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 10:43 PM
but in space exploration we are expanding past our own planet that way when the time comes that our planet will be destroyed we will know what to do or at least by trying we have a higher possibility of knowing. we have to take it step by step so no matter when we start exploring we would need to start by the clostest things to us so the earlier we start of pursue it the better so that way when the time comes or incase of some other need we are at the highest possibility of having an answer from outside our planetary boundries. also its always good to know wat is going on outside your own territory.

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 11:22 PM
Scaled and it's "manned space flight" is not only the wrong direction, but devestating towards manned space flight.

Scaled's "cheap" space craft has NO heavy lifting capacities, which means it can not even get men to the Moon, and going into orbit in my opinion is pretty useless. There's experiments you can do in micro-gravity but I doubt Scaled's ship can even lift those labs up into orbit.

The idea is good for an orbital capsule, and I'm sure that the early days of NASA might have liked this idea instead of what they went with....IF....they were interested in buzzing around in low-earth orbit.

They were not, they needed to get to the Moon, so they built what would get them there.

We need heavy lifting crafts, such as the Shuttle, or the Saturn V to put components in space for space stations, and for going to other planets.

Sadly people won't see it that way, they'll say "oh well you can go into space privately need to fund NASA.

Those types of people are stupid, and know nothing about space exploration, and damn people with too much money on their hands to fund such a venture. Space is not profitable at this time, therefore private industries can not explore space self-sustainingly. When the super-rich lose the money on space, they will have no source of income to make-up for it to keep spending on space.

I practically hate these private organization for that literal reason, and NASA's support of it is probably due to bad predictions by their Public Relations, they don't realize what it will really do to NASA. They think it will increase the interests in space exploration.

The reality is it will decrease it as people think like the guy who mentioned this, "Space exploration is on its own now...we can direct funds elsewhere."

There is no way you can privately fund a venture to the Moon let alone beyond. Anything else is wasting our precious short-attention spans.

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 11:31 PM

Ugh they piss me off so much.

They think they are doing something great? Ok so they coast to 2,500 mph OH MY FUKING GOD...SOMEONE CALL THE GUINESS BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS...I THINK WE HAVE DONE SOMETHING INCREDIBLE HERE.

Just as I was stating, hell they probably can't even get into orbit.

Let's look at the basic facts.

You have to go 17,000+ mph to sustain yourself in low earth orbit, which means you have to go that fast (even faster technically) to get beyond that orbit.

Not because you need to be going faster, actually you need to go slower to maintain a higher orbit, but you need to increase your acceleration to escape earth's gravity.

Now...the problem isn't getting up there, but the weight used to get up there.

Why did NASA go with expensive GIGANTIC rockets?


They are the most efficient ways off the earth...not the easiest, not the cheapest, but the most efficient.

A rocket will burn fuel accelerating you and as it burns fuel it loses weight thus becoming lighter. (ugh I use such horrible unscientific terms but this is simple shooting down that retarded private astronaut crap).

The plan they are using, makes it very cheap, but VERY inefficient, here is how.

You fly a plane high-up, then blast a rocket into space...sound good eh?

Well let's see...a rocket to get to orbit weighs...crud let's say 30,000 tons? (I don't remember my figures I was talking with someone who really knew their stuff explaining why they needed to reduce thrust when landing on the moon and it involved weights for the lander...maybe it was 30,000 lbs. *shrugs*)

Either way... let's just say you have "x-weight" that's much easier.

Again, the rocket will be x-weight and go into orbit.

Simply put however, you can have a plane be x/4-weight and get to 50,000 feet.

Ok, but how much extra weight can that plane really carry? It has to carry its own fuel, and then that of the rocket, and the pay-load.

So you're at 50,000 feet going say...1,000 mph. Now you need something to get you to 17,000 mph to maintain an orbit, so you're off by 16,000.

That means you need something about 15/16thx-weight (all basic stuff as I ramble), on a plane that's only x/4th as heavy...maybe even much lighter.

Well your plane would squash.

So it's not feasable to get any type of significant amount of stuff into orbit.

I doubt they can even cheaply get anything into orbit using this method....

All they are doing is killing NASA by redirecting the ignorant masses' attention away from NASA.

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 12:03 AM

NASA = Space Science, it will never be killed off and the X-Prize is just the thing to get the public interested in Space again and demand that the US gov't to fund Nasa more than it is now.

Scaled = Regular People becoming astronaughts by 2005 at the earliest for a cheap price(compared to the 20mill the russians are charging). The cheaper the price the more people going up = more venture cap investment and a possible Scaled IPO in the near future. Remember Space flight is only expensive because every part Nasa designs for their rockets is custom made. If a company like Scaled gets the Venture Cap backing it could start construction of the first mass-production plant dedicated to churning out cheap, affordible and safe sub-orbital vehicles.

The Privatization of space cannot be stopped. Just as commercial trans-atlantic flight back in the early 20th century could not be stopped. And since then has the USA stopped its funding for research in Aerospace Technologies?

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 03:43 AM

Originally posted by Quest

If in 1900 the US had spent money on shipping food to other countries in need instead of spending money developing farm machinery and railroads, then today we would still be shipping food via horse drawn cart and slow ships. Which is better, slow small amounts of shipping food or massive air drops like take place in many areas of the world?

Valid point,

[quoute]Saving people NOW at the cost of science and exploration is dooming humans to population caps, limited resources...and war for space and food.

Indeed it may well be, does that still morally justify the lack of help to dying people though? I have heard this argument many times over Quest: "If we just fixed the third world then they would start wars, overpopulate and make trouble. Isn't this what we do in the west? Doesn't everyone have the same right as we do to make these mistakes? If not then why are we not using money spent on war ( + possibly space I'm not sure anymore) to try and solve these problems so we can do something about the problem.

War exist because resources are limited things, be it oil, food, wood, metal, anything. Only so many people can survive off of the earth and survive well.

You really believe this? Really? Then why is that only a fraction, a tiny fraction of the cost to pay for the bombs we have could pay for people in the third world to live alot better. Don't worry quest I am not talking suburbia with supermarkeyts and SUV's, I mean water, school, food. Nothing more otherwise it would create trouble.
There is no excuse

We will probably never change.

Certainly not if people think like you.

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 03:47 AM

Originally posted by sardion2000
I think we should devote more resources to Ocean exploration and exploitation. Its much more convienient. And we still know soo little about it. .

Hi sardion!

This is a good point. There is so much of our own planet we have not discovered yet. Maybe all the 'answers' are down there and not out into vast unending space.

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 03:49 AM

Originally posted by KrazyIvan

what if the answer can only be found 250,000 miles up?

Ivan, who knows if it is. However, how far can we really hope to get in the next 200 years? Do you think we could get out of our galaxy? By this time in history oil will have run out (unless another sopurce has been found) so don't you think maybe we are wasting our time? What is there we have to gain from our solar system apart from a greater knowledge of planet we may never live on (mars and moon are only possibilities)

Do you see what I am saying?

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 04:07 AM
Earthtone you're fighting a losing battle now that I've decided to join.

First, your knowledge of the solar system...very tiny and thus...what wonders await us out there are unbeknownst to you.

One such example is Helium-3, limited supply on the moon, vast abudance in the tops of the clouds of Jupiter, important substance for cold fusion to be easily useable.

Cold fusion would solve all energy problems on the earth, produces more energy than nuclear power plants with none of the waste.

Next, resources are a problem. There is no way in hell you can get fresh water or food to Africa. You can send "aid" but unless you are willing to pay for all the imports other 1st world nations have to go to Africa, they are doomed. There is no "exploitation" of the 3rd world, it is going through its industrialization phase just as the 1st world did, and we are witnessing the exact same events as the 1st world did.

Except unlike the 1st world, there is no "new world" and primitives to conquer and colonize, so how they will recover is question.

You are an idealist, you wonder "well America uses so much resources why not reduce that to what the 3rd world uses and give the rest to the 3rd world to help them live better" or some such's never going to happen.

Our world is Anarchial, there is no higher authority, there are nearly 200 nations on this planet and none of them answer to a higher authority. Getting them to do massive projects such as feeding the 3rd world is impossible. It is like getting 200 people who don't speak the same language and have never had any education, to build a rocket to go to the Moon.

Maybe I've made assumptions about your specific ideology, but I have captured your primary "gist" for not believing in the Space Program.

The fact is, 600 million people watched one event at the same time and only once has this ever happend. And more than 2 billion shared it its awesome acheivement.

It was the day there were no borders, where wars seemed to finally not exist, plauges did not harm us, and all the death and mortality we suffer ended.

It was the day a man put his foot on the Moon, and next time you see the Moon rise, you should realize just what that means. For all of our existence the Moon had been something religious, because we could never have hoped to go there, then one day we did.

1969 will be remembered by future civilizations 1,000 years from now, not because of how many mouths you've fed but because they will owe their civilization which will be a space-faring one, to the first acheivements by Americans that year and the preceeding years to 1960. But that year will be the one most remembered for first beyond earth-orbit space flight.

That's another thing you should remember, the history that was made then is unfathomable.

It is like Jesus, 35 years after his death he was just a hiccup, a little known event in the corner of an Empire, now he is a God.

Only this time, all man-kind shared the experience, and unlike the gods that walked the earth, it is not a myth.

You denounce the materialism of powerful nations that impoverish the 3rd world, yet you don't realize you yourself are a materialist.

Because you do not recognize the spiritual implications that will echo through-out eternity because of Space Exploration.

Whether you save someone today doesn't matter, because that person will die in 100 years no matter what.

Space Exploration will save all humanity till the end of time.

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 04:31 AM

Originally posted by FreeMason
Earthtone you're fighting a losing battle now that I've decided to join.

O k thanks

This isn't a 'battle' Mason, this is a discussion. I made this thread partly out of the curiosity of how people would argue against my point, and I have been impressed, It has given me different perspective on space eploration. but currently, the benefits you speak of do not help what is facing our generation, not Cpt. Luc picard's.

First, your knowledge of the solar system...very tiny and thus...what wonders await us out there are unbeknownst to you.

Oh sorry, I have never been to space.

One such example is Helium-3, limited supply on the moon, vast abudance in the tops of the clouds of Jupiter, important substance for cold fusion to be easily useable.

That sounds great but how long until we get to Jupiter? We cannot even go to mars yet. These things are irrelevant because they are out of our reach. I am sorry that I feel compelled to help the here and now but I actually have a conscious and I am thinking about the people who are starving right now as I am typing this message on a computer. By the time this technology is around to get so far out into the galaxy the world will probably have run out of resources and will be at war anyway. Why not take this time to plan for the near future.

There is no "exploitation" of the 3rd world

I don't know what to say to you there, it's quite incredible that you said that. I don't even know what to say!
Sweatshop Labour

You are an idealist, it's never going to happen.

feeding the 3rd world is impossible.

It's impossible because nobody gives a #.

Maybe I've made assumptions about your specific ideology,

I think you have.

You denounce the materialism of powerful nations that impoverish the 3rd world, yet you don't realize you yourself are a materialist.

You don't think I realize that I am part of the problem? I am not in any position to anything about that right now, but don't try and tell me I am ignorant becuase you do not even know me.

Whether you save someone today doesn't matter, because that person will die in 100 years no matter what.

Space Exploration will save all humanity till the end of time.

If we don't wipe each other out first because we treat everyone so badly.

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 04:33 AM

Originally posted by sardion2000

Scaled = Regular People becoming astronaughts by 2005 at the earliest for a cheap price

Do think that thing looks spaceworthy? How on earth are they going to launch it from that flimsy little plane !

[edit on 6/15/2004 by earthtone]

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 04:41 AM
They have already tested it twice. The highest they have gone so far is about 200,000 ft. There next run on the 21st will take them above the 100km mark officially making the pilot an astronaught in the eyes of nasa. I think it looks elegant not flimsy, It is currently the front runner for the X-prize although there are 2 canadian teams and another American team nipping at their heels.

EDIT: They launch it by dropping it from the mothership on the top then a few seconds later the engine on the Capsule fires and sends it straight up into suborbit. Inefficent but cheap and hopfully safe cuz I wanna go up there.

[edit on 15-6-2004 by sardion2000]

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 04:46 AM
Thats interesting Sardinion, I had actually seen the pictures ofi tbeing tested. 200,000ft is pretty high, how many miles is that? I do think it looks nice, i like the design, yet it's just strange when you compare that to a space shuttle you know?

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 04:47 AM
Crap not more of that Scaled bullsh.t

Why does no one ever listen to me? I already explained how such a craft can NOT acheive heavy lifting capabilities into orbit so necessary for space flight.

At most it could hope to acheive is low-earth orbit, at best it could hope for is sub-orbital flights.

The Shuttle is designed the way it is, because it has to re-enter the earth's atmosphere at the required 17,000 mph for maintaining an orbit. This thing will reach an altitude of 100km by reaching 2,500 mph. It can not carry much more weight so probably will never make it past sub-orbital flight.

Winning an x-prize, and going to Mars are two completely different things.

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 04:59 AM

Originally posted by FreeMason
Crap not more of that Scaled bullsh.t

Why does no one ever listen to me? .


Was that a rhetorical question?

'Cos if you're as smart as you claim to be in every one of your abusive posts then you should know the answer already.

[edit - oops, forgot to contribute to the topic]

So - regarding space exploration.

It seems to me that humanity will continue to reach for the stars while it still can. Discovery and knowledge provide us with a sense of power and pride in our abilities. We appear to need the self gratfication of technological achievement - and very few activities provide more sense of achievement than space exploration.

In one sense, I do agree that it is pointless for humanity to feed billions of dollars into space. I also agree that there are many more worthwhile uses for that money. However humanity seems to be a nicer beast when it is pleased with itself, and the sense of achievement gained from successful space ventures probably boosts a nation's charitable nature.

Of course, a tenuous argument like that is by no means meant to be a final answer to this excellent question!

[edit on 6/15/2004 by illimey]

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 05:07 AM
Don't you want to go up into suborbit? From what Nasa Astronaughts have said its just a spectacular as from orbit except you can make out more details on the ground.

Do you have somthing against Private Industry in Space or is your beef with Scaled itself???

My favorite is the Canadian Arrow its based off that infamous nazi rocket used in WW2 the V-2 i think it was..

Perfect use for a weapon that killed so many...

Although I do agree the X-Prize and a Mars mission are apples and oringes I believe both Private and Public space travel is crucial. Have Nasa move outta orbit once the Private sector has found its legs so to speak then just let it naturally grow from there onwards. Sub-Orbit is the first step. The X-Prize cup will address the competitive nature of business and in 20 years or so we could have a kick-ass 1-stage to orbit completely reausable, safe and cheap spacecraft...completely designed by private industry.

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 05:16 AM
Wow that rocket looks pretty good (except for the fact it reminds me of Nazis!!) and I think that it would still look pretty incredible from up there. . Freemason is saying thta these craft can only go up to small hieghts, yet these are the first steps in his beloved dream of getting to jupiter etc. This is the start of comercial space travel.

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 05:49 AM
Sardion, the Russians never went into sub-orbit, think about that as my response

The problem isn't privatized space travel, the problem is we're moving backwards but THINKING we're moving forwards. There's really nothing to compare it towards because nothing has required so much government effort as Space travel.

But I stated it earlier...I forget who but someone even stated it clearly for me, that "we should explore the sea, because space will be taken care of by private industries."

No it won't, it can only be taken care of by large investments, since there is no current profit to be made (a lot of work needs to be done to start mining for Helium-3 or going to Jupiter), there will be no investments.

So having the public lose MORE interest for temporary excitement while they say "wow so I can be hired as an astronaut now" only in the end harms NASA further.

The reality is, an Astronaut will always be the best of the best, whether he's picked by some over-monied people or NASA.

Privatization of space in the end only gives congressmen the argument to cut more funding.

The process as a whole is devolving, not evolving. It is just a prize, nothing more, no real abilities will be gained from it.

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 06:16 AM
The world and humans are not a kind gentile place and people.

Yes a fraction of the US war budget could feed the world. But that is over looking the point I made about why you spend money waging war rather than feeding people, humans fight. Its like saying spending money on bombs durring WW2 was a waste and we should have been feeding people instead of fighting Hitler.

I know it is hard to see this as a valid argument in times of no serious threat to freedom or normal life (I don't buy terrorism as the threat some would have us believe). But look at it this way... If you have power, you are in the best place to survive come anything. If you food, water, ANYTHING, the best way to ensure YOU get it is to kill anyone else trying to get it. In a world with black market nukes and rogue countries the best option is not to dismantle your military and wait to get jacked first, but rather stay on top of the game.

I do agree with your ideal views of the world, but i'd rather live in reality. If every human on the planet, all agreed, truely agreed to live peacfully, control thier population, and be reasonable, then its would work...but that the only way it would work.

The fact of the matter is that the world is not this ideal, but far from it. One countries massive war machine being dibanded and used for humanitarian needs will not change the way people are. We have evolved to be violent and slefish by nature.

Let simplify the world in a pair of neighbors. Albert and Bob live next door to each other. Albert and Bob are simple people, each having a house and a garden for food. Year after year they live in peace and get along well. Then after 15 years of peace and cooperation a flood hits and wipes out Bob's garden.

Now, in the real world, Bob might kill Albert for his food, or ALbert might kill Bob in self defense of his food.

In your world Albert and Bob share the food and both starve to death and our little human race dies out.

Believe it or not the same goes for fat, wasteful Americans. Lets look at oil.

No good alternative yet exist for oil that is availible to the public. Oil becomes expensive, eventually the cost of everything rises as shipping cost does. Companies try to keep going by laying off workers. Unemployment rises, civil unrest rises, starvation sets in as people lose the ability to just buy food, people clamour to secure land for growing food, civil violence breaks out here and there, infrastructure starts to collapse.

Yes, something as simple as oil prices can bring down major nations. Now the debate on alternate energy aside, the best option is to secure more oil, even if OTHER people and countries suffer.

Like it or not THIS is how the world works. I agree with your ideal, but that will never be.

Social Evolution has dictated that violence is a good thing. When the going gets tough, the tough kill idealist for thier resources. This is who we are. If i have a gun and you do not, anything you have can be mine if i need or want it. It is not pleasent, its it not "right", but it is life.

Call me a war monger or what is wrong with the world, but then admit you would have never been because the US would have been shipping England canned meat in 1940 and not weapons. You would not exist. You have reaped the benefits of a war machine and the protection it provides while you critize the ability to wage war.

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 06:46 AM
The only real reason to explore space is to move into it. We need to change the way we look at space exploration to a point were we are attempting to learn to colonize space. WHy do that? TO preserve the human race. We should learn to colonize everything possible withen our solar system to some point. We should also consider colonizing and using asteroids as a means to move humanity to the stars. I>E make asteroid colony ship and send it to other younger stars. If human tech can ever use warp drive etc.. then we can just catch up with the asteroids and take em to there finale destinations. Why waste money sending robots anywere? Start sending housing modules/seed/ tractors to dig the ground out on mars so we can develope underground colonies there.

If we do this we will discover new tech that will move us faster and prolong our lives etc... I fully expect earth to become uninhabitible way before the sun burs us up but there is no doubt earths clock is ticking so humanitiy will need to move out or die.

Why start now with billions of years before the sun explodes? Because there is no reason to belive that warp drive will ever exist. If we wait to see if we can warp out to deep space, over the billions of years we may die to super volcano, asteroid/comet impact, yet unheard of Solar flaring, massive plague or disease etc.. long before the sun explodes or just simply have a anitmater accident were we accidently try and fuse antimatter or something and boom heh.

Colonization is the only space program worth funding. We will explore the universe in route to a colony =).


new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in