Russian Settlement

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Plutonius, Sep 20, 2016.

  1. Plutonius macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #1
    One of the biggest disappointments I had in the Bush and Obama presidencies is how they gave up on space.

    This article shows how the Russians are planning on pushing forward on space exploration cumulating with a settlement on the moon. The Chinese are likewise pushing forward.

    Do you agree with the direction NASA has taken over the last 16 years and what should we be doing in the future ?
     
  2. twietee macrumors 603

    twietee

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
  3. MarkusL macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2014
    #3
    Maybe build a wall on the moon, and make the Russians pay for it?
     
  4. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #4


    You do realize that NASA has just recently placed a spacecraft into a very close orbit around Jupiter? And that last year at this time we were starting to receive the first high definition images of Pluto. And that we've had a rover moving around the surface of Mars for several years now?

    When I was a child we knew next to nothing about Pluto. It was a tiny dot in the best and biggest telescopes.

    I suppose from an emotional level at some point I felt a little disappointment when I realized that humans probably wouldn't be zooming around the galaxy like Captain Kirk. Certainly not in my lifetime; and probably not ever.

    But the reality is that space is so utterly vast; the distances so unbelievably great, and the rules of physics so completely unyielding, that manned spaceflight very far beyond earth's orbit simply is not a practical proposition.

    NASA hasn't given up on manned space flight. It continues to work on long-term research into solving the problems that twenty or fifty or a hundred years might take our astronauts to Mars. (We aren't ever going to send them to Venus or Mercury, Jupiter or Saturn.)

    But unmanned orbiters and landers? Space telescopes and orbiting laboratories? NASA has had some amazing accomplishments over the past ten years or so.
     
  5. twietee macrumors 603

    twietee

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    #5
    Honestly, I think these space explorations are a prime example where different countries could and should work together instead of competing. Costs are incredible high and the materialistic benefit overall hard to determine.
     
  6. Plutonius thread starter macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #7
    I agree but it will never happen. I'm waiting for the first settlement on the moon to claim the entire moon as their territory.
     
  7. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #8
    Can't happen.
     
  8. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #9
    NASA is doing ok with unmanned space science, considering its budgetary restrictions. It needs more emphasis on the first "A" in their name, though.
     
  9. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #10
    Administration? :D
     
  10. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #11
    You're off.
    There is no one even close in unmanned research. Voyager is the only human thing outside of the solar system. There are more cars on Mars than ever. Exploration of Pluto (and Ceres). Jupiter is analyzed as we speak. New missions are planned.
    As for manned research. We come from 50 years of manned spaceflight, NASA is the only one that had a recyclable design as faulty as the shuttle project was. So far it's the only agency that put someone on the Moon. The Crew Module for the Orion spacecraft already flew in 2014 past all the records since the Moon landings and is "ready" to go again in 2018, the SLS is ongoing testing as we speak and will be the most powerful thing ever created. In 2022 we should see the first manned mission, and for the first time we'll get ready to go to Mars (SLS is capable of that).
    No, the future is bright, albeit slower than what I would like to.
     
  11. Plutonius thread starter macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #12
    Maybe but space is dangerous so they refuse to take risk. it's the do nothing response. Someone might get hurt or killed if they took risk.

    I'm sure if you talked to the working people there (not the bureaucrats), they are very frustrated.
     
  12. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #13
    Capitalism.

    It's not just an economic system for winning Cold Wars.
     
  13. Plutonius thread starter macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #14
    Slower then I want too.

    I'm always surprised that people who are concerned about global warming, aren't worried about this issue too. We keep finding new resources but the number of resources available are finite. This along with the exploding population will kill us much sooner then global warming. If we wait, we will not have the resources or time for space.
     
  14. ActionableMango macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #15
    In my imagination, every time we put a sanction on Russia, they just add that cost as a line item to astronaut launches and supply missions.
     
  15. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #16
    NASA budgets is too little for me. Up the budget, get us back on the moon, get space tourism started and reap all the money from bored rich people lining up to walk in space. And convert to the metric system.
     
  16. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #17
    Without a completly new way of propulsion (requiring a completly new set of physics) your allways gonna need much more resources just to get whatever you mined back onto earth.
    Same for the "idea" to solve overpopulation by colonizing the solar system, the math is just unforgiving.
     
  17. Plutonius thread starter macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #18
    I agree but the completely new propulsion will follow once we get an appreciable infrastructure in space. By now, we should at least have a large station in orbit along with some zero G industry. Conquering the over population is beyond us right now but we will need an increased amount of resources for the population. That need could be solved through mining in space.
     
  18. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #19
    Incorrect. Even back in the 70s, Gerard O'Neill proposed mass drivers to launch lunar resources on a ballistic trajector to Earth.
     
  19. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #20
    Interesting. I'd not heard of that concept before.

    But it seems like we've got an awful lot of technological barriers to cross before we could even use the lunar material (Helium-3) for nuclear fusion power generation here on earth.

    I wouldn't say that was impossible. But it sure seems like there are a whole lot of much easier, and much more immediately achievable things we can be doing to solve our problems relating climate change and resource depletion.
     
  20. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #21
    Economics are another matter. But the salient point is it requires no new physics.

    Incidentally, anyone even remotely interested in lunar mining should watch "Moon" (2009). Best sci-fi movie ever, IMO.
     
  21. Plutonius thread starter macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #22
    Mass drivers are explained here. As in everything else on most research, the government is seeking to weaponize it.



    I would also agree there are much cheaper ways that exist now to stretch out our resources. Unfortunately, we will still run out if we don't expand off our planet and if we wait, we will not have the time or resources to expand.

    As I said before, running out of resources will kill us long before we have to worry about dying to global warming.
     
  22. impulse462 Suspended

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #23
    Its a good film.
     
  23. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #24
    In principle I agree with you. Practically speaking we don't get along all that well, not to say it's impossible.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 21, 2016 ---
    I do agree with NASA. Unmanned is much more economical. I think we need to get real first. We used to be real, but the emphasis on lower taxes for the last 30 years is hamstringing us, driving us into debt.The argument could be that our society as a whole must healthy and happy before we can tolerate the huge expense of a manned space program. I'd argue that since the 60s our priorities have grown out of balance in multiple ways and I cast blame on the politics of what passes for modern conservatism in combination with corporate greed.
     
  24. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #25
    The fundamental challenge that scientists, engineers, and ultimately humanity itself faces is that of harnessing energy.

    Given sufficient energy, we can create whatever resources we want. It's pretty much impossible to actually destroy or use up a resource like fresh water. We might pollute it, or let it evaporate, or run off a farm field. But the water molecules themselves will always exist (or at least the atoms that constitute them do). And given a large enough supply of energy, we humans now have the technology to turn seawater into fresh.

    Given a large enough and cheap enough supply of energy humans can turn the deserts into productive farm fields. We can build massive vertical hydroponic farms to grow fresh vegetables in cities north of the arctic circle and in the middle of the dryest deserts. With enough energy we can turn waste biomass into high content fuels to power our vehicles. We can engineer polymers that become the fabrics that clothe our bodies and provide the materials to build our homes.

    The good news is that earth itself is blessed with an incredibly abundant supply of energy. Every day, enough energy in the form of sunlight falls upon the surface of the globe in an hour to meet the energy needs of our current civilization for a decade. The process of radioactive decay within the crust of our planet provides immense resources of geothermal energy we have only slightly begun to tap. Likewise the forces of wind, and tide, and current.

    Given enough energy we can theoretically begin the process of remediating the atmospheric and ecological conditions that are contributing to climate change. We literally could engineer our climate to suit our needs.

    We don't need to go to the moon to meet our energy needs. We simply need to do a better job of harnessing the abundant resources we already have here on earth.
     

Share This Page