100-Year Starship initiative gains Bill Clinton

reply to post by justwokeup

I think you are misunderstanding history.

I think you are underestimating my history knowledge.

No doubt some of the individual explorers had the motives you assign to them but it was never the purpose of the trip. Human exploration has always been funded by greed or fear.

That has always happened, that's why I mentioned the explorers who were leading the first explorations, and not the kingdoms that decided to fund them.

One single ship at that time would be an investment as high as building an aircraft carrier, or cruise ship in our days. Especially if you consider the major scientific basis that they needed to get working prior to setting off to sea. From global positioning tactics, to the sails they were using, to the wood used in the ships, everything had to receive funds from those who had them.

In that period of history there weren't a lot of people able to do that. The easiest way to get funding for such a project - that included several exploration ships + supplies - was to address a king/queen and purpose a trade. The explorer risks his life and the life of his crew, and the king/queen supplies the funds needed to build and maintain that exploration effort.

With that, came the right to claim the territories being discovered.

There is no denial that space exploration has been one of the greatest achievements in human history, as a whole. Yet, most people forget - or don't mention on purpose - the fact that space exploration was actually a race between two world powers, and both were seeking political and economical gain from that race.

That's exactly what happened with ocean exploration, and that's what happened with space exploration. The next frontier will require the same amount of resources and funds, and in order to collect those, you need to sell the idea to those able to fund your project. In that you can include prospects of economic gain, like mineral extraction or something like that.

Which actually fits in what you say next:

People will talk about humans exploring space but if you cant tantalise the money holders with profit (gold, jewels, spices) or scare them they wont put their hands in their pockets.

However, I disagree with your final statements.

Thats the real reason we haven't gone anywhere since Apollo. No convincing profit or fear motive.

We haven't gone to the Moon - and further - because people lost interest in it. From both sides, the government and the public. You can notice this by looking at the ratings space events were having after the first couple of missions.

The same happened with the Space Shuttle program. A lot of excitement at first, but then people take it as granted.

But I believe that if a certain group of people - mostly scientists - cultivate the imagination and ambition in all of us, that interest can emerge again, and finding good reasons to continue exploring won't be that hard.

Thinking it was about grand noble visions simply confuses the issue.

The people funding and the people making the political game around those activities might be dubious or even corrupted.

But it's the people with brains, imagination and dreams that keep mankind moving forward.

reply to post by TrueBlood

Hope, (...) simply does not fit the agenda.

Hope doesn't need governments nor agendas to exist.

That's the beauty of it. You can ignore all the crap, and hope for the best.

With that said, we will not ...and should not leave this planet until we, as a species, learn to grow up and stop exploiting each other for personal gain.

We have thousands of years of History that can already teach us that. It's the fact that people don't have the will to educate them-self's that causes that.

However, maybe changing context, and scale, will force us to accept that we shouldn't step on each-others back, but we should use each-others help to climb upwards.

Space exploration can do that.

If by chance we did run into an intelligent species and we treated it the same we treat ourselves, it's not going to be a good day for humanity.

If they are truly intelligent, and if they are truly wise, then they will know why we behave like that, and quite possibly, help us overcome that problem.

I don't understand why people are so negative about the realities of this world and our history, there is nothing to gain from being negative, or what other people like to call "being realistic".

I accept History and move on, and I believe everyone will eventually do the same. Even if we have groups of people who wish to continue battling fellow humans other than having a common goal.

To think that every living human on this planet could be fed and clothed literally over night if we would just stop the greed and war is mind blowing... yet for some reason that type of thinking is naive and unrealistic.

There are several reasons why it's a bit naive and unrealistic.

Personally, I think that every human has greed, and we have the ability to really push for our own goals. But that's not a bad thing. What we really need to do is to aim that ambition, dedication and greed to thing's that are worth it, or have some sort of return for everyone else, equally.

If we continue to think with the primitive side of our brains, it's just a matter of time before that commet shows up and does mother nature's handy work. And to be honest, we probably deserve it.

The primitive part of our brains is one of the things that gives us the ability to love someone. It's the same part that is responsible for the love of a mother, the protection of a father and the caring for the suffering of other humans.

It's actually the "intellectual" part of our brains that does the nasty tricks. Like, for instance, killing other humans for personal gain.

And as for the mother nature power. We are all part of mother nature. If we were such a freak of nature, if we were as bad as people think we are - to the point of some wishing that humans would just drop dead like other extinct species - then nature wouldn't allow humans to even exist, or have the brain power to overcome any problem in our environment.

We are a product of nature, not an opposing force.

Bill Clinton supporting such a thing is tantamount to him admiting the technology did not yet exist during his presidency. So im saying we did not have this ability while he was in office or if we did he was not informed.Maybe there is no secret US space fleet fighting aliens

Originally posted by GarrusVasNormandy
reply to post by justwokeup

 

I think you are misunderstanding history.

I think you are underestimating my history knowledge.

No doubt some of the individual explorers had the motives you assign to them but it was never the purpose of the trip. Human exploration has always been funded by greed or fear.

That has always happened, that's why I mentioned the explorers who were leading the first explorations, and not the kingdoms that decided to fund them.

One single ship at that time would be an investment as high as building an aircraft carrier, or cruise ship in our days. Especially if you consider the major scientific basis that they needed to get working prior to setting off to sea. From global positioning tactics, to the sails they were using, to the wood used in the ships, everything had to receive funds from those who had them.

In that period of history there weren't a lot of people able to do that. The easiest way to get funding for such a project - that included several exploration ships + supplies - was to address a king/queen and purpose a trade. The explorer risks his life and the life of his crew, and the king/queen supplies the funds needed to build and maintain that exploration effort.

With that, came the right to claim the territories being discovered.

There is no denial that space exploration has been one of the greatest achievements in human history, as a whole. Yet, most people forget - or don't mention on purpose - the fact that space exploration was actually a race between two world powers, and both were seeking political and economical gain from that race.

That's exactly what happened with ocean exploration, and that's what happened with space exploration. The next frontier will require the same amount of resources and funds, and in order to collect those, you need to sell the idea to those able to fund your project. In that you can include prospects of economic gain, like mineral extraction or something like that.

Which actually fits in what you say next:

People will talk about humans exploring space but if you cant tantalise the money holders with profit (gold, jewels, spices) or scare them they wont put their hands in their pockets.

However, I disagree with your final statements.

Thats the real reason we haven't gone anywhere since Apollo. No convincing profit or fear motive.

We haven't gone to the Moon - and further - because people lost interest in it. From both sides, the government and the public. You can notice this by looking at the ratings space events were having after the first couple of missions.

The same happened with the Space Shuttle program. A lot of excitement at first, but then people take it as granted.

But I believe that if a certain group of people - mostly scientists - cultivate the imagination and ambition in all of us, that interest can emerge again, and finding good reasons to continue exploring won't be that hard.

Thinking it was about grand noble visions simply confuses the issue.

The people funding and the people making the political game around those activities might be dubious or even corrupted.

But it's the people with brains, imagination and dreams that keep mankind moving forward.

edit on 10-9-2012 by GarrusVasNormandy because: (no reason given)

Many thanks for the time you spent on the well written clarification.

I think we agree on almost all of it beyond the last part.

It needs to be a fear or profit motive to move us out into the solar system. I say that not to be a gloomy sod but because I want humans on other planets and you need to create the right conditions for that.

If we want humans on other planets we should repeal the outer space treaty of 1967 and allow people to stake claims on celestial bodies on behalf of nations, corporations and individuals. That will introduce the greed motive into the equation and launch a rush by nations and globalised entities to claim the high ground for the future.

The visionaries will be the willing tools of the greedy for their own purposes and everybody will benefit from the technological offshoots.

reply to post by justwokeup

Many thanks for the time you spent on the well written clarification.

I think we agree on almost all of it beyond the last part.

No need to thank me, it's always pleasant to address an issue where people from all sides can take several points in agreement, without disrespect.

It needs to be a fear or profit motive to move us out into the solar system. I say that not to be a gloomy sod but because I want humans on other planets and you need to create the right conditions for that.

Yes, I agree. And I would care to extend that sentiment to the fact that it can bring the unity that humanity needs.

I believe that humanity needs to walk the path of unity. We need to make that decision in our heads that we are all the same, apart from miniscule differences that bring conflict. There is a lot to be proud about being human. We have power, and we just need to figure out how to use that power.

We can save whole planets, and species. It seems a far-away dream, but it's one decision away. The decision to love and be tolerant with each-other, being humble to the point of learning with other cultures and people from other areas, and to respect and give value to what makes us different from each-other.

A world built for all is far better than a world built for just a few, and it doesn't matter who those "few" are.

If we want humans on other planets we should repeal the outer space treaty of 1967 and allow people to stake claims on celestial bodies on behalf of nations, corporations and individuals. That will introduce the greed motive into the equation and launch a rush by nations and globalised entities to claim the high ground for the future.

I agree. But I think we should only make that step when we know we all march to the same pace, in the same direction.

The visionaries will be the willing tools of the greedy for their own purposes and everybody will benefit from the technological offshoots.

Exactly. Greed is a very ugly word, but it fits the current discussion. Maybe we should call it ambition.

If we are lucky enough to have more complex (and correct) ethics in those institutions, we can really benefit from true space exploration, in any shape or form.

reply to post by TrueBrit

The shop already exists to make these things a reality,

*looks up at the sky*

No.

You realize that the combined orbital and lunar modules for the Apollo program were just over 50 tons, correct? That's food, water, mass of the craft, etc. The Saturn V -was- capable of putting about 130 tons into low earth orbit.

You want to build a ship that is going to be able to sustain a crew for around a hundred years.

A two week boyscout expedition to the moon runs you just over 50 tons. What do you think a 100 year ship with simulated gravity, a nuclear reactor (let's face it - that's the only thing that's going to supply the necessary power for this thing), a small versatile machine shop (even with advances in rapid prototype technology, this is going to be quite extensive to handle maintenance on a 75 year old frame), a small self-sustaining ecosystem for a 'garden' of sorts....

What do you think that's going to run you? You're well over a kiloton, I can tell you that.

You're looking at another battery of Apollo missions using 10+ Saturn V rockets simply to put the materials in orbit to build this ship. That's not counting what you're going to build this ship with, who is going to build it (and how they are going to be sustained - even with the best automation has to offer, you're going to need some parts of the construction to be manned).....

You're easily looking at 30+ Saturn V rockets for one ship.

For comparison - you could move the same amount of raw material off of the moon using a few booster sections from a Trident II missile. Or, you could simply use an electromagnetic catapult to hurl the load into orbit at ridiculously low costs (less than UPS ground).

Every time they think up a new method of moving a craft, it is always about twenty years, MINIMUM, out of bloody date!

I'll be frank with you.

Rockets, hands down, are the only practical means of launching things from the planet's surface.

Recently, due to advances in superconductors, we've been able to work on proposed variations of ion drives that have been around since the 60s - namely, VASMIR. VASMIR has a lot of potential - but it only works in the vacuum of space, and it requires a lot of support for its superconducting coils that are essential for its operation.

No doubt, VASMIR is the most likely drive technology your 100 years ship will employ. It's the efficiency of ion drives coupled with more appreciable impulse and thrust vectoring.

The problem with a lot of space development is that, due to the lack of facilities in space to do the testing (and the cost of creating artificial vacuums on earth) - it progresses at a snail's pace. Further, a number of "space age ideas" require advances in materials technology that we may only recently have breached (in independent research programs).

reply to post by Xcathdra

Absolutely

Seriously?

Spend $3T on establishing lunar colonies, mining, and laboratory spaces.

or

Spend $3T on building two one-hundred year ships with a few dozen launches by the proposed Space Launch System: en.wikipedia.org...

You choose build the 100 year ship?

You're usually more lucid than this.

Everything that has been accomplished is based off of something prior that was improved.

Yes, so let's build the most ambitious space vehicle to date using launch and assembly methods that have been around since the 1960s. No need to improve that by thinking of ways we could better accomplish this stuff.

Testing systems like life support, navigation, propulsion, communications etc etc? We already started / invested time into those projects the moment we took to the sky, to trains to cars to ocean vessels to the space program etc etc..

What are you going to eat?

"Well, aim - that's simple, we'll build hydroponics setups and eat off of that."

You're talking about a purely vegetarian diet - notoriously troublesome and problematic for people, as our digestive system evolved to be omnivorous. But, it is about all that's practical spare for some lab-grown meat ideas that people on ATS seem to despise. Either way - there's a few additional considerations to this.

How are you going to contain evaporation and moisture in that environment? Every drop of water is vital - not only that it remain in your water cycle, but also that it stays off of electronic components and doesn't promote galvanic corrosion.

How are you going to process human waste? 50% of our waste, roughly, is bacteria. You're going to have to process that waste and feed it back into your hydroponics setup. There's also issues of what to do with hair (where some of your food is going), skin cells, body oils, etc.

You figure that you're trying to design a ship to last as a self-contained ecosystem for 100 years. A crew of 20 people would shed absolutely huge amounts of skin cells during that time. You also have to figure that each of these crew are going to have to have one child to raise and train to be crew, themselves - which raises your number needing support mid-way through the trip from 20 to 40.

That raises a host of other issues. Clothing - education - concerns over prenatal care and development in space, the list goes on.

And what to do when you have your first-generation of crew still around when the second generation reaches the age where it's time for them to procreate to ensure the continuation of the mission? Now you'll have 60 - unless you have the first generation euthanize themselves.

In the mean-time - you have a ship that has been running non-stop for 60+ years. You have farms, possibly some algaes and other single-celled cultures that you have kept biologically active and contained for that same amount of time. A reactor or two that have been operating the same amount of time. Engines with volatile superconducting coils that may not have been running constantly - but will need to be periodically checked and maintained.

The life-support and sustainment issues are a far cry from air conditioning on a train or cabin pressurization in an aircraft.

Even the ISS cannot even begin to approach the challenges this 100 year ship faces. It's constantly resupplied by rockets from Earth. Food and water are continually resupplied - though water is recycled (and looks yellow due to chemical processing of urine - yummy).

There are times when its not about the money, but the accomplishment itself - A phyric victory if you will.

So, you're saying that setting up industry and human support infrastructure on the moon would be less of an accomplishment or victory than building a 100 year ship to fly to another star system and .... do what?

Die an entropic death? Crash land on some planet that has an oxygen atmosphere in the hopes that there's some kind of future for them?

Or find that we already got there because we, later, set up proper space industries and research programs and stumbled across an FTL drive system?