Columbus's first voyage, the Wright brothers' first flight, the first space rocket - they were all money pits. They required investment of resources and didn't produce any return for years. It was not at all clear there would ever be any return. Many thought they were a waste, and said so. Yet after a few decades and much perseverance, the Americas yielded shiploads of gold and a whole new world. Aeroplanes produced cheap worldwide travel for millions. And space rockets led to today's highly profitable satellite broadcasting, navigation, and communications systems. Science and technology is still in its infancy - from the perspective of our descendants in future centuries looking fondly back.
cool,we are starting to get somewhere, you worry to much,it's all relative sure we have invented the bomb but we have invented antibiotics. the planets a big place but tech has made it small. the universe is a bigger place but tech will make it smaller. all good, do you think the fat controllers are funding these space missions so they can have a wee bolt hole for when the time comes? Armageddon
Hubris Pete. Science is reaching the limits of what is knowable, technology is based upon existing knowledge and interstellar travel is beyond human timescales. Unless we suddenly come up with the ability to move through space time at greater than the speed of light; a prospect that I believe to be vanishingly small. Why has SETI failed to detect signs of life ?
yes it will, why do we have to be some where yesterday or even in a life time? if you haven't gathered it's warm and sunny here, doing tyres all morning and making dosh, not having my good vibes spoiled by all this doom mongering. man will make it to the stars.
It's a valid question and you are essentially right. It sort of hinges on whether you think the fate and genetic success of mankind is the most important thing in the world, or whether you think the fate of Earth is. If the former, it doesn't much matter if we trash the planet, just so long as we maximise our numbers. In this scenario, it makes sense to populate as much of the universe as we can. The other way of looking at things is to see that mankind can only be happy if he lives in world which is beautiful. In this case, it's not just a question of maximising the numbers of people. I'm closer to this way of thinking. A lot closer. Sorry - that got screwed up somewhere. I was replying to Pete's comment about "interesting animals not being interesting if no one is there to see them."
Of course it will, 200 years ago we couldn't go faster than a horse could carry us. Now we have a space station orbiting the planet! Just because you cannot imagine a solution does not mean that it is impossible, engineers and scientists have been solving impossible problems since the dawn of scientific thinking! Before Stephensons Rocket they said a human being could not survive at over 30mph...
Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? The fate of the species and our legacy does not have to come at the cost of the planet. To think otherwise is pessimistic to the extreme!
Simplistic and true. I don't care that it's possibly an often repeated cliche, it's good to be reminded often.
Sorry but it's very hard to be upbeat! I think we are very fortunate to have not been born 50-100 years in the future. My sunny outlook is that the trigger has already been pulled on unavoidable climate change. All we are doing is tinkering at the edges; I'm a big fan of Professor James Lovelock: BBC News - Today - 'We've pulled a trigger' So what World governments are doing is not going to change mankind's fate but let's enjoy what's left of the ride. We are incredibly lucky to have been born at this time and in the prosperous society we live in. We'll just be a blink in the Earth's history and in time it will refresh itself (climate change or killer virus?) and some other creature will evolve in our place. Or maybe computers will evolve to rule
The fate of my family is important to me, not to you. The success of Britain is important if you're British; if you live in Paraguay not so much. The fate and genetic success of mankind is highly important to those of us who are human, but matters not a jot to the rest of the universe.
Good point. The kings who funded Columbus knew they themselves would never go to America; the apparatchiks who funded Gagarin knew they themselves would never travel to space. Guys who plant trees know they will never get to use the wood. Far-sighted people make decisions for future generations, not just for today. A mission to Mars will cost a lot of money, and will have no discernible benefits for many years. We have to make a start somewhere - or we can all just sit at home in our armchairs (as I'm doing now, actually).
It amuses me that people can place technology such as Stephenson's Rocket and interstellar space flight on the same continuum. I agree that just because I can't imagine a solution doesn't mean that it is impossible, but would you accept that just because you can imagine a solution that doesn't mean it is possible. I can imagine a HPV (human powered vehicle) breaking the sound barrier (Bradley Wiggins with his sideburns shaved off to improve the aerodynamics, not to mention the weight saving), do you think anyone could ever build such a machine ? If the answer is no, does that mean that you only lack the imagination or is it because there are very real problems that are impossible to solve ? But if you think otherwise, go for it.
There is nothing new in Mars other than the destination, the technology would be essentially Apollo Large. Yes we could do it but to suggest that it is a stepping stone to the stars is fantasy.
you could bottle ya farts and use that to power a machine that would break the sound barrier (would that be a mpv?) if so your example sucks:Cigar:
