Agreed. They belong stuck on the ground with the anti-space, groundhog LWers. Just to prove my bipartisanship; the RWNJs would never go because they believe the Earth is flat.
Haven't a clue what all that was about, sorry. I didn't understand that American lingo and abbreviations.
I am fully signed up to the exploration and study of our universe. We should do as Tyson suggested and double our effort on that goal. I just don't see a reason in the foreseeable future for having people in space. Exploration we have done in the past was done by humans, because there was no other choice. Today, we have alternatives - robotics, various kinds of sensors for electromagnetic radiation, gravity waves, etc. If we find a place where large populations would like to live we can spend time to figure out how to get people there. If Branson or Biglow want to build a space hotel, great! We can do work here on Earth to survive the kinds of catastrophe that would risk human life on earth. We can work on finding and deviating killer asteroids and other space objects - thus saving everyone, not some tiny colony. We can create hardened spaces for people to live until volcanic ash falls out and sunlight returns, etc. Not that I'd necessarily propose our oceans as a solution, but our oceans are more hospitable to human life than any place we have ever seen in space. I just think we need to separate this "survival of the species colony" idea from the idea of exploring our universe. They are very different ideas. I don't want the NASA science budget cut in order to fund spacemen. I know this sounds pretty adamant, so let me add that I have a lot of respect for other opinions on this topic.
While I agree with most of your positions, I do not agree with the Ocean habitation aspect based on Pressure and oxidation. Exploration of the Universe would be far simplified by utilizing the HUGE benefits of space as a platform. With no atmospheric interference and unlimited access to physically go into the medium being investigated the possibilities for discovery are greatly expanded. Once the first steps have taken place further advancement is almost guaranteed as has been the case for literally everything we have ever done as a species. With the onset of 3D printing and asteroid mining for resources the possibilities are almost endless.
Yes, we need to get James Webb launched. We're getting close to having telescopes on earth that will challenge James Webb even without being in space. These projects take an amazingly long time, even when done on earth where we have full use of our technology and manpower.
I do not view years of even decades as an "Amazingly long time" as that seems extremely short sighted. Any large scale space development will take decades to plan and even longer to implement. In perhaps 50 years we will have the foothold required to start something large scale.
Well, we don't have the answers on how to keep a person alive in space today. Given the objective of keeping enough people alive to successfully seed a planet without humans, I think we're very much farther away that 50 years. In the mean time, there is plenty to be done - in exploring space as well as working on the problem of keeping the species alive. As for exploring space, again I don't see the benefit of sending humans to distant locations.
We are already keeping humans alive in space and studying what happens to them as a result, we do so BECAUSE we don't have the answers....there are many things we have no answers to so we search for them. My position is and has been that colonies on a planet are a fools errand and large scale space station/factory use is the logical move going forward. Space exploration and discovery will go hand in hand with such a pursuit and robotics will obviously be a large part of anything we do.
Whether it is the Moon, or Mars, or Europa, or other destination, having the human factor involved is critical. We can today launch robots in every direction of our Solar system, and we already have in regards to exploration to date, but little of it advances the idea of humans relocating away from Earth. And this human endeavor won't be easy, will be high risk, will have enormous costs, and will take lots of time...many decades and/or centuries. IMO we should continue and even expand our robotic space exploration, but in parallel, we need to colonize humans 'long term' on a biosphere spacecraft, or the Moon, or Mars, or wherever...
I'm fine with studying stuff. I would note that a trip to Mars would take at the very least a year outside Earth's magnetosphere. As far as I know, we don't have the solution to that yet. I'm certainly OK if a company wants to build a factory or a hotel in space. I would tend to look at that as different than exploring unless we really needed that in order to build something required for exploring. I guess my guiding principle is to keep the budget for exploration pretty strictly tied to exploration. I'm sure that at some point there could be a need for some of these other things in order to make progress in exploration.
I don't know why we need to do that now, especially if the objective is exploration. And, no, we can't launch robots in every direction of our solar system today. The reason is that we simply don't have the budget to do that. There many hundreds of very serious proposals for space exploration that get turned down every year because there is no budget. What is being cut is heartbreaking from the point of view of science.
It would seem to me you are thinking that NASA/ESA will be the big players in space going forward. We are already seeing the future of space and those Government entities will indeed be focused on exploration and science while the commercial entities take on everything else. It is also important to understand that exploration and exploitation are not mutually exclusive and in fact are almost one and the same in this new frontier.
Agreed. Funny isn't it? The pro-big government LWers want big government to sit back while the corporations take over everything off planet?
We never need human intervention in space exploration. However, to satisfy any ideas of human space travel, or colonizing away from Earth, or our curiosities, humans need to be involved. We have already launched robots in every direction, studying many areas of our Solar system, including two Voyagers which are headed away from our Solar system, including Mars exploration, etc. The budget is what it is and the way many people think today, or don't think, we should be thankful NASA still gets some funding. And because of the huge costs, and complexity, space exploration projects design and funding will involve many nations sharing the burden. Speaking of science, today many people believe science itself should be on the shopping block...this alone is a 'giant leap for mankind...backwards'!
I'm not a socialist. Having private enterprise do the mining, smelting, building, selling tickets to the hotels the build, etc. What surprises me is that you would suggest that mining and hotels are something the government should do. Plus, it sounds like you want to do that with our science budget!!
Things have changed since then. Columbus didn't have robots and telescopes. He had to actually go there. And, I'm fine with private enterprise doing the mining and hotels - I'm not a socialist.
No, I think what SpaceX and others are doing is fantastic. My bet is that NASA will continue to contract for launch services, for example. NASA has metrics for risk management and they have to ensure their future launch capability, so they aren't going to drop all lift vehicles yet. So, Bigelow is working on a space habitat. Fine. Maybe when NASA needs something like that they will buy one.
For those opposed to spending on science, the first step is to cut the science budget. The second step is to co-opt what remains for private enterprise.
Sure, technology and equipment, etc. have changed since then but the human endeavor of exploration, our curiosities, our desire to know more, is the same today as it was 600+ years ago...
