At about 4.30 pm Europe will land a lump of metal on a lump of rock and ice

catallus

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It still is :eek:

Don't worry, my understanding is these things are made of ice, so they'll melt when they come into our sky because of global warming. Thanks, Jesus!

The_Valeyard

catallus wrote: »

Don't worry, my understanding is these things are made of ice, so they'll melt when they come into our sky because of global warming. Thanks, Jesus!

Unless they are the ones that are made of solid hard rock the size of a small country, then we are f*cked.

Ace2007

The_Valeyard wrote: »

This event is a brilliant step forward in our understanding of our universe and for the technological advancements of space travel.

We need more news stories like this.

Kinda sad that people are more interested in spending billions to find out what happens millions of miles away, instead of trying to solve problems on earth imo.

crockholm

catallus wrote: »

Don't worry, my understanding is these things are made of ice, so they'll melt when they come into our sky because of global warming. Thanks, Jesus!

And due to divine Providence all that melted ice will fall to Earth as holy water rain, baptizing and converting all the heathens.

The_Valeyard

Ace2007 wrote: »

Kinda sad that people are more interested in spending billions to find out what happens millions of miles away, instead of trying to solve problems on earth imo.

People could have said the same thing about sailing the ocean, about climbing the highest mountains or depths of the ocean. The need to learn, explore is part of our drive that keeps the human race going.
Sad? No.

keith16

ScumLord wrote: »

The first dog in space was Russian, nothing disney about Russian dogs.

Laika. A stray pulled unwittingly from the streets of Moscow and catapulted into the edge of space.

Who knows, perhaps descendants of Laika are wandering around Moscow as we speak. Pissing on lamposts and sniffing the bolloxes of other dogs, utterly oblivious to the facts of his ancestor's exploits.

McDermotX

Ace2007 wrote: »

Kinda sad that people are more interested in spending billions to find out what happens millions of miles away, instead of trying to solve problems on earth imo.

If anything, it's the one industry that requires more and more investment. Imagine if only a small portion of the military budget enjoyed by the large nations was redirected to space exploration and technical advancement. Human understanding would enjoy an almost quantum leap forward benefiting almost all areas of our daily lives, with the right development.

Honestly, I sometimes think people believe these billions of dollars are physically loaded into rockets and blasted off into the inky blackness never to be seen again.

Ace2007

The_Valeyard wrote: »

People could have said the same thing about sailing the ocean, about climbing the highest mountains or depths of the ocean. The need to learn, explore is part of our drive that keeps the human race going.
Sad? No.

I've never heard of it costing billions to sail the oceans or climb a mountain or go to the depth of the ocean.

keep the human race going.... thankfully (it appears) Ebola for example is under control, had that broken out in the USA, where there is currently no cure - despite it being around 40 years? humanity would be very different.

namloc1980

Ace2007 wrote: »

Kinda sad that people are more interested in spending billions to find out what happens millions of miles away, instead of trying to solve problems on earth imo.

We put as much money into the problem of the banking black hole in Ireland as the cost to develop and launch 45 Rosetta type missions. Kinda sad indeed.

Rosetta cost c.€3.50 per EU citizen. More than a worthwhile investment.

The_Valeyard

Ace2007 wrote: »

I've never heard of it costing billions to sail the oceans or climb a mountain or go to the depth of the ocean.

keep the human race going.... thankfully (it appears) Ebola for example is under control, had that broken out in the USA, where there is currently no cure - despite it being around 40 years? humanity would be very different.

The early voyages sponsered by kings and sultans were very expensive. Research to air travel, very expensive. Depths of the ocean very expensive, subs ain't cheap or research into it.

It's not the physical act of keeping humanity going. But the fact we can do better we can reach out , explore, discover and learn more. The more we learn about our universe, the more we learn about ourselves.

Ace2007

namloc1980 wrote: »

We put as much money into the problem of the banking black hole in Ireland as the cost to develop and launch 45 Rosetta type missions. Kinda sad indeed.

Yea and we see where we got in ireland - no where, does that mean we continue to throw money into it?

o1s1n

Ace2007 wrote: »

I've never heard of it costing billions to sail the oceans or climb a mountain or go to the depth of the ocean.

keep the human race going.... thankfully (it appears) Ebola for example is under control, had that broken out in the USA, where there is currently no cure - despite it being around 40 years? humanity would be very different.

Here's a quote for you.

The entire half-century budget of NASA equals the current two year budget of the US military.

For something which can potentially have a huge impact on humanity, we spend far too little on it.

namloc1980

Ace2007 wrote: »

Yea and we see where we got in ireland - no where, does that mean we continue to throw money into it?

Are you in favour of shutting down all investment into any area unless it solves a problem or is just space exploration that you have a specific issue with?

Ace2007

namloc1980 wrote: »

Are you in favour of shutting down all investment into any area unless it solves a problem or is just space exploration that you have a specific issue with?

Not at all, but starvation kills a child every 15 seconds as reported.

You don't need to explore distance planets/stars to solve this problem, but yet hardly anyone in first world countries care. By al means explore, learn develop news technologies, but maybe just start with fixing some basic human issue on earth first?

Wars don't solve anything, majority of wars america gets involve in has to do with Oil or money.

Anyway going off topic. good night.

namloc1980

Ace2007 wrote: »

Not at all, but starvation kills a child every 15 seconds as reported.

You don't need to explore distance planets/stars to solve this problem, but yet hardly anyone in first world countries care. By al means explore, learn develop news technologies, but maybe just start with fixing some basic human issue on earth first?

Wars don't solve anything, majority of wars america gets involve in has to do with Oil or money.

Anyway going off topic. good night.

Taking Ireland as an example. Irish Aid has an annual budget of €637m which goes into development in third world countries. Irish Government contribution to the European Space Agency - €17.3m annually. Much more money is ploughed into third world countries by the West than into NASA our ESA. Get some perspective.

catallus

Well, I'm all in favour of keeping up investment on space exploration if it means we discover the tools we need to destroy that which we do not understand.

keith16

The_Valeyard wrote: »

The early voyages sponsered by kings and sultans were very expensive. Research to air travel, very expensive. Depths of the ocean very expensive, subs ain't cheap or research into it.

It's not the physical act of keeping humanity going. But the fact we can do better we can reach out , explore, discover and learn more. The more we learn about our universe, the more we learn about ourselves.

Orville and Wilbur Wright didn't have a single red cent to their name. And they still invented the Airbus, A380*

*pretty much

namloc1980

keith16 wrote: »

Orville and Wilbur Wright didn't have a single red cent to their name. And they still invented the Airbus, A380*

*pretty much

Huh? For such a short post there is so much wrong in it.

Duggy747

We as a race can do multiple things at once, we don't have to drop everything and focus on one single thing. Why explore the oceans when there's hungry people, why does Hollywood and the music industry spend billions when there's hungry people, why do companies spend billions in R&D for products and technologies when there's hungry people, etc.

Saying we shouldn't bother about space exploration and instead focus on other things down here is short sighted and missing the bigger picutre on what has been achieved through studying, exploring and expirmenting (like the function of the ISS).

As well as that, things like these inspire future generations of engineers, scientists, etc to help better the survival and understanding of our race and planet.

To push ourselves and to not to limit our knowledge.

nozzferrahhtoo

A good a thread as any to recommend that any of you that are you tube users.... subscribe now to the channel SciShow Space.

biko wrote: »

In a sense it did. They both have gravitational attraction to each other.

Very very little unfortunately, which is why we are a little worried the probe will bounce back off and simply fall out into space.

The attraction is not there, we had hoped to promote love using ropes and bindings. But that failed us too. We wait and hope.

tricky D wrote: »

Have they found the Irish Pub yet??

Cormac... wrote: »

I LOL'd :pac:

Neil DeGrasse Tyson has a great picture in one of his talks. He talks a lot about his connections with NASA and how he was on the board for two different things under two Bush administrations and so forth. All true and exciting.

But then near the end of his talk he talks about how we once thought we saw a "face" on mars. And people went mad for this.

Then under the credibility he built up talking about his past credentials he moves into hushed tones and says "But tonight ladies and gentlemen I bring you a photo that was at first covered up by NASA, but due solely to my connections I get to reveal it exclusively to you tonight".

The lights were being lowered the whole time he was saying the above. He turns to the projector screen, there is hushed AWE from the audience.

And there...

on the big screen before everyone is revealed.....

A picture from the Mars Rover.....

Of the martian Landscape....

And on the horizon.....

The Mcdonalds Golden Arches on a large pole.

The man can play a crowd I have to give him that.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

My doctor was on about putting a probe in Uranus.......

Did you know that planet used to be called "George". No kidding. There are school text books that lay out the names of the planets. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and George.

It got renamed eventually to Uranus, but in an attempt to placate the English at their loss of a planet there started up a tradition of naming other space bodies in a Shakespearean Tradition.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Pluto is also a planet...

Oooooooooo contentious

It is so not. Get over it Siriusly

Ace2007 wrote: »

Kinda sad that people are more interested in spending billions to find out what happens millions of miles away, instead of trying to solve problems on earth imo.

The two are not mutually exclusive. There are experiments being performed on the Space Station for example that could lead to us solving a lot of world hunger.

But you would be shocked at how LITTLE is being spent on things like this in places like the US. There was a really comical survey done in the US where people were asked how much NASA get to the dollar and people were guessing 20cent, 25 cent, 30 cent.

In reality NASA get half a cent to the dollar, and look at all they have achieved with that sum. Were one to double the Nasa budget tomorrow one wonders what we could achieve.

But pushing the frontiers of human knowledge and achievement IS one way that we "deal with the problems" here on earth. Exploration, knowledge, growth, and pushing frontiers is the very foundation of solving world issues. That and the empowerment of women in backward countries but that is another rant

PErhaps you would do well to lay out exactly what figure you think has been invested in missions like this, compared to the GDP of countries that invested in it, then make a profit-loss evaluation against the scientific and monetary advancements we have made as a result.

And when you have done your workings, present them to us and we can then REALLY comment on where the money is going V where it should be going. I am AGOG and wetting myself with excitement to see your workings.

Ace2007 wrote: »

Not at all, but starvation kills a child every 15 seconds as reported.

You don't need to explore distance planets/stars to solve this problem, but yet hardly anyone in first world countries care.

As I said, do not be too sure about this at all!! There are experiments in horticulture being performed in zero G that are showing results very promising and informative that have the potential to revolutionize in some ways how we feed our populace.

Ace2007 wrote: »

Wars don't solve anything, majority of wars america gets involve in has to do with Oil or money.

A very sad fact in our culture that you touch on here. Many of our most celebrated and worth achievements have happened because of war and the human need to not die. It has been a real driver of human advancement. And this is depressing.

Some of the most wonderful and remarkable achievements we have done as a space fareing species have been done in space vehicles that were converted and recommissioned rockets. A fact that is as depressing as it is hopeful. To see an instrument of war and destruction and death reclaimed and redeployed as an instrument of discovery and human solidarity is simultaneously a symbol or horror.... and joy and hope.

Ace2007 wrote: »

Anyway going off topic. good night.

On a thread about space, a "good night" is about as ON topic as it gets. I wish you one always. And as they say in the nerd community. Dont forget to be awesome.

wendell borton

Ace2007 wrote: »

Kinda sad that people are more interested in spending billions to find out what happens millions of miles away, instead of trying to solve problems on earth imo.

A billion years from now the earth will be uninhabitable disregarding other natural disasters, 7.5 billion and it will be absorbed by the sun's red giant phase.

Micky Dolenz

I think this is class. Great to hear the Irish have a big hand in it.

If this is possible, we surely are a small step away from powering small towns from solar power.

Adamantium

KungPao wrote: »

Is Bruce Willis on it?

Yes, punishment for Die Hard 5.

Timberrrrrrrr

Ace2007 wrote: »

I've never heard of it costing billions to sail the oceans or climb a mountain or go to the depth of the ocean.

keep the human race going.... thankfully (it appears) Ebola for example is under control, had that broken out in the USA, where there is currently no cure - despite it being around 40 years? humanity would be very different.

Someone should ring this chap and tell him that then

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1110/658295-ebola-belfast/

An American doctor who became the first person to be diagnosed in New York with Ebola has been cured of the potentially deadly virus.

Officials said he would be discharged from hospital tomorrow.

Craig Spencer's recovery means there are no more known cases of the virus in the United States.

"After a rigorous course of treatment and testing, Dr Craig Spencer, the patient admitted and diagnosed with Ebola disease virus at HHC Bellevue Hospital Center, has been declared free of the virus," the mayor's office said Monday.

Teyla Emmagan

I am worried about Philae being bounced off and ending up drifting out in space by itself. Seems awful that it may have gone so far and achieved so much just to slide off!

bucketybuck

Ace2007 wrote: »

By al means explore, learn develop news technologies, but maybe just start with fixing some basic human issue on earth first?

And how exactly do we learn new technologies to help fix those basic human issues?

Take some time there, you'll figure it out eventually...

rizzodun

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

I am worried about Philae being bounced off and ending up drifting out in space by itself. Seems awful that it may have gone so far and achieved so much just to slide off!

Sounds like my first time intimate with a woman... Ahh the memories.....

VinLieger

bucketybuck wrote: »

And how exactly do we learn new technologies to help fix those basic human issues?

Take some time there, you'll figure it out eventually...

Exactly we have absolutely no idea what landing on that comet will help discover or lead to in the future.

The obvious example in these situations where people don't understand unfocused scientific research is the key to moving forward is highlighting the discovery of penicillin which was completely accidental.

Wossack

kind of mind blowing to think of the work involved in hitting a 4x4km target, traveling 18km/s, 500 million km away, with something launched 10 years ago

Wossack

Great animation on Rosetta's journey:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktrtvCvZb28

smcgiff

Wossack wrote: »

kind of mind blowing to think of the work involved in hitting a 4x4km target, traveling 18km/s, 500 million km away, with something launched 10 years ago

And spinning, with non live controls (due to distance).

Amazing.

SEPT 23 1989

did they get the stabilisers working?

Iwannahurl

Richard Branson imagines future space tourism possibilities: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93017471&postcount=197

ScumLord

Ace2007 wrote: »

You don't need to explore distance planets/stars to solve this problem, but yet hardly anyone in first world countries care. By al means explore, learn develop news technologies, but maybe just start with fixing some basic human issue on earth first?

Space exploration and colonisation is the fix to all those problems. The fact is we're sitting on a big rock with limited resources and an exploding population, we're quickly turning all it's resources into people and there will come a time when there isn't enough resources left over to support that growing population. We need to be able to go to other rocks and get more resources. Everything we need from water, to gold, to iron is just floating around space already crushed up into manageable pieces in the asteroid belt. Billions of people could live there without prolonged resupplies from earth. It would take all the pressure of earth.

It would be a completely new way of life, every resource we see as valuable would become as common as muck. In fact muck as we know it would probably become more valuable than gold for a while. There would be a massive abundance that would probably eliminate poverty, there would be very few restrictions on just building more spaceship to meet population demands.

CrabRevolution

ScumLord wrote: »

Space exploration and colonisation is the fix to all those problems. The fact is we're sitting on a big rock with limited resources and an exploding population, we're quickly turning all it's resources into people and there will come a time when there isn't enough resources left over to support that growing population. We need to be able to go to other rocks and get more resources. Everything we need from water, to gold, to iron is just floating around space already crushed up into manageable pieces in the asteroid belt. Billions of people could live there without prolonged resupplies from earth. It would take all the pressure of earth.

It would be a completely new way of life, every resource we see as valuable would become as common as muck. In fact muck as we know it would probably become more valuable than gold for a while. There would be a massive abundance that would probably eliminate poverty, there would be very few restrictions on just building more spaceship to meet population demands.

I'm not a "stop all scientific research until the hungry are fed" type. But at the rate space travel progresses, the prospect of what you've said happening is probably hundreds of years away. By which time millions, if not billions will have died in poverty. Even then, once the technology is developed, the missions themselves will take decades to produce results.

VinLieger

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I'm not a "stop all scientific research until the hungry are fed" type. But at the rate space travel progresses, the prospect of what you've said happening is probably hundreds of years away. By which time millions, if not billions will have died in poverty. Even then, once the technology is developed, the missions themselves will take decades to produce results.

So we should just stop completely?

We need to get off earth if the human race is to continue cus the further along we progress the more and more likely it becomes that either A. we will wipe ourselves out through wars or B. some uncontrollable disaster will and once we get self sustaining colonies on other rocks and planets we become that much harder to wipe out as a species

Iwannahurl

ScumLord wrote: »

Space exploration and colonisation is the fix to all those problems.

Seeing space exploration as an expensive luxury for First World countries is a common reaction. My OH had just that reaction while watching the news last night.

However, it is my belief that exploration of space and sustainable development here on earth need not be mutually exclusive activities. In any case, there is always value in doing fundamental science, imo, despite similar arguments often being made that it's a waste of resources.

The great technological breakthroughs, the science that has changed society, all have their roots in fundamental science pursued for its own sake.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/nov/30/10-big-questions-science-must-answer

ScumLord wrote: »

The fact is we're sitting on a big rock with limited resources and an exploding population, we're quickly turning all it's resources into people and there will come a time when there isn't enough resources left over to support that growing population. We need to be able to go to other rocks and get more resources. Everything we need from water, to gold, to iron is just floating around space already crushed up into manageable pieces in the asteroid belt. Billions of people could live there without prolonged resupplies from earth. It would take all the pressure of earth.

It would be a completely new way of life, every resource we see as valuable would become as common as muck. In fact muck as we know it would probably become more valuable than gold for a while. There would be a massive abundance that would probably eliminate poverty, there would be very few restrictions on just building more spaceship to meet population demands.

A worthy topic for a thread all of its own. All highly unlikely, however. The inescapable reality is that the human species has a limited shelf life. My guess is that the human race will be extinct long before we can achieve the necessary technologies to get (some of) us off the Third Rock from the Sun. Just ask Prof Brian Cox.

In my view it is utterly unrealistic to expect or hope that space exploration will relieve us of the need to solve hugely urgent problems such as climate change and overpopulation. Which is not to say that space-oriented scientific endeavour has no value -- see above.

catallus

Has this been posted already?

http://scienceogram.org/media/2014/11/scienceogram-rosetta-1.1.png

CrabRevolution

VinLieger wrote: »

So we should just stop completely?

We need to get off earth if the human race is to continue cus the further along we progress the more and more likely it becomes that either A. we will wipe ourselves out through wars or B. some uncontrollable disaster will and once we get self sustaining colonies on other rocks and planets we become that much harder to wipe out as a species

Thats not what I said at all. I'm currently studying for a science degree, and find this mission fascinating. I just dislike the way people are asserting with no doubt that this mission is crucial to humanity's survival and that anyone who argues is a philistine.

The idea though that we should pump more and more money into research that could in future trickle down to the poor just doesnt really wash. It just seems a bit strange to be working on technology that in a few hundred/thousand years might help humanity survive a war thats not guaranteed, (in fact is pretty unlikely to happen), or an extinction event that happens once every hundred million years or so.

Also in the event of some huge war/extinction, the first people on the rockets out of here wont be the poor, it probably wont even be the smart or most resourceful. It'll be the rich and powerful, the poor and downtrodden now will be poor and downtrodden then too unless we try to bring them up.

It's not particularly comforting to those living in poverty to be told "Dont worry, there's space research ongoing that will in future save some of humanity from some distant, unlikely disaster".

Even if they are planning for when the sun expands (which is guaranteed to happen), it seems a bit early, while we have many more pertinent problems to deal with currently.

crockholm

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Thats not what I said at all. I'm currently studying for a science degree, and find this mission fascinating. I just dislike the way people are asserting with no doubt that this mission is crucial to humanity's survival and that anyone who argues is a philistine.

The idea though that we should pump more and more money into research that could in future trickle down to the poor just doesnt really wash. It just seems a bit strange to be working on technology that in a few hundred/thousand years might help humanity survive a war thats not guaranteed, (in fact is pretty unlikely to happen), or an extinction event that happens once every hundred million years or so.

Also in the event of some huge war/extinction, the first people on the rockets out of here wont be the poor, it probably wont even be the smart or most resourceful. It'll be the rich and powerful, the poor and downtrodden now will be poor and downtrodden then too unless we try to bring them up.

It's not particularly comforting to those living in poverty to be told "Dont worry, there's space research ongoing that will in future save some of humanity from some distant, unlikely disaster".

Even if they are planning for when the sun expands (which is guaranteed to happen), it seems a bit early, while we have many more pertinent problems to deal with currently.

Without wishing to be rude,that sounds like a "won't somebody please Think of the Children" excuse. Poor people will on average die a lot younger than rich people but they will also breed a lot more kids-poor people as an entity are ironically not on the endangered list.

Even getting away from the increase of luminosity from the sun,there is still the threat of Asteroid/comet colisions with the Earth-something that will happen a lot sooner than the planet rendered uninhabitible by the sun using its heavier elements in order to survive.

Gone are the Days when we thought we could just fire nukes at an oncoming comet and that would solve the problem-The Rosetta mission will teach us so much(provided we can get the info) about these celestial "snowballs", this is a step in the direction of being masters of our own fate and not on a random occurance somewhere in the Oort cloud.

Continue with the science and let poverty eradication in the capable hands of Bono n' Bob.

JupiterKid

Getting back on topic...has anyone posted up an image of the surface of the comet as seen by the Philae lander? It looks like the lander is perched beside a steep cliff.

The_Valeyard

Seems the battery could be fecked. Landed in the shade. Solar panels.....

catallus

A Hundred Bazillion snots spent and they couldn't have put a spare set of batteries on board?

Bloody amateurs!!!

nozzferrahhtoo

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A good a thread as any to recommend that any of you that are you tube users.... subscribe now to the channel SciShow Space.

As expected, Sci Show Space did not take long in producing an info snippet on the subject.

ScumLord

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I'm not a "stop all scientific research until the hungry are fed" type. But at the rate space travel progresses, the prospect of what you've said happening is probably hundreds of years away.

The problem is we invest next to nothing in space exploration, I would say NASA is probably one of the most cost effective state agencies in the world given what they do and the people they have to hire. What their achieving on a limited budget is pretty incredible.

It would probably take a century to set up a decent sized colony in space, but once you over the initial hump and are constructing in space costs would plummet.
The big problem is there probably would never be big profits in going to space, the abundance of everything makes profiteering off resources difficult. It will probably have to get to the stage of necessity before we seriously try colonising space.

By which time millions, if not billions will have died in poverty.

The only way to prevent that is for us to change our habits, the west is sucking up resources it doesn't even need for short term gain. We're all part of that problem, every day we decide with our money how big corporations should act, they take their lead from the general population so it's pointless blaming them when we're all the people encouraging them to act the way they do. It is going to take states acting together to make a serious attempt at space colonisation, I think Europe and America are showing that cooperation, even Russia and China play ball when it comes to space, it seems to be the one thing we can all agree on and cooperate with each other on.

Getting into space won't stop all the people that die in the meantime from suffering but delaying going into space will prolong that suffering for further generations. I don't think we can find a way to get along and cure all humanities problems while we're stuck on a rock squabbling over the finite resources.

A worthy topic for a thread all of its own. All highly unlikely, however. The inescapable reality is that the human species has a limited shelf life. My guess is that the human race will be extinct long before we can achieve the necessary technologies to get (some of) us off the Third Rock from the Sun. Just ask Prof Brian Cox.

But we have developed the technologies and used them, and we've essentially been doing it on a shoestring budget. When scientists put a lifespan on humanity it's not so much on the species (I think the human would survive any disaster that's even remotely survivable) they're talking about civilizations, in our experience every civilization has collapsed no matter how great they were but there are significant differences today and even if the global civilization we live in today collapsed and millions died, it wouldn't be the end of the human race. I don't think it would be like the end of the Roman empire, we wouldn't simply forget everything we've learned as our knowledge has been more widely dispersed thanks to the likes of the internet and more people being educated.. If anything it would create a better world as the reduced population would take pressure off the resources.

In my view it is utterly unrealistic to expect or hope that space exploration will relieve us of the need to solve hugely urgent problems such as climate change and overpopulation.

The bottom line is space exploration is the only solution to these problems, we're not going to be able to control the population, we can't solve poverty while the population grows, and the damage we do to the environment will only increase as population increases. If we do stay on this planet for another millennia it's likely we'll turn it into a human habitat that supports nothing but humans and struggles to even do that. We may even miss our opportunity to get into space and end up stuck on this rock.

Iwannahurl

ScumLord wrote: »

The problem is we invest next to nothing in space exploration, I would say NASA is probably one of the most cost effective state agencies in the world given what they do and the people they have to hire. What their achieving on a limited budget is pretty incredible.

It would probably take a century to set up a decent sized colony in space, but once you over the initial hump and are constructing in space costs would plummet.

The big problem is there probably would never be big profits in going to space, the abundance of everything makes profiteering off resources difficult. It will probably have to get to the stage of necessity before we seriously try colonising space.

...

If we do stay on this planet for another millennia it's likely we'll turn it into a human habitat that supports nothing but humans and struggles to even do that. We may even miss our opportunity to get into space and end up stuck on this rock.

Believe it or not there are actually people in NASA who believe that space colonisation could be made not only possible but profitable.

Why build space settlements? Why do weeds grow through cracks in sidewalks? Why did life crawl out of the oceans and colonize land? Because living things want to grow and expand. We have the ability to live in space (see the bibliography), therefore we will -- but not this fiscal year.

The key advantage of space settlements is the ability to build new land, rather than take it from someone else. This allows a huge expansion of humanity without war or destruction of Earth's biosphere. The asteroids alone provide enough material to make new orbital land hundreds of times greater than the surface of the Earth, divided into millions of colonies. This land can easily support trillions of people.

This is also the theme of the movie Interstellar, which seems to be based on the idea that humans are not meant to save Earth but to leave it. If that's a belief deeply held by many, especially those in government, then we are truly fcuked. And not in a thousand years from now either.

Even if CO2 emissions were stopped at midnight tonight, we are already committed to over 2 degrees of warming, and the consequences of that will be drastic as well as being irreversible on a human timescale:

Our planet is already committed to anthropogenic warming in the range of 1.4–4.3°C, where 2.4°C is the most likely amount. ... The likelihood of global warming even beyond the 2.4°C margin in the 21st century is frustratingly high

Sure, there are potentially billions of habitable planets in the Milky Way galaxy. But with the nearest one is around 12 light years away (12 × 9.46 × 10^12 km) how do humans get there? And what if we get there and find that it's actually uninhabitable or that it too had an 'advanced' civilisation that sh1t in its own nest as much as we did? Turn around and come back? Cross that one off the list and travel another few billion km on spec to the next one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSWdZVtXT7E

ScumLord

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Believe it or not there are actually people in NASA who believe that space colonisation could be made not only possible but profitable.

I'm sure some enterprising people can find profit in space but it will be a different economy to earths. There will be no exclusivity on mineral resources. If a company invested billions in getting to space so that they could send gold back to earth another company could do the same once it's been proven to work making gold practically worthless in it's abundance. Modern companies don't take risks, they look for short term rewards and ways to prevent other companies from muscling in on them rather than competing outright.

This is also the theme of the movie Interstellar, which seems to be based on the idea that humans are not meant to save Earth but to leave it. If that's a belief deeply held by many, especially those in government, then we are truly fcuked. And not in a thousand years from now either.

The only problem earth has is too many humans, if the excess population could be shipped off planet then earth could go back to it's natural cycles. At the end of the day life on earth is not in any danger, it's only the environment that suits humans that's in danger. Life has survived worse things than a plague of one particular animal running rampant, we're not even the most damaging creature life on earth has had to deal with, bacteria has done more to change the course of nature than humanity has.

Sure, there are potentially billions of habitable planets in the Milky Way galaxy. But with the nearest one is around 12 light years away (12 × 9.46 × 10^12 km) how do humans get there? And what if we get there and find that it's actually uninhabitable or that it too had an 'advanced' civilisation that sh1t in its own nest as much as we did? Turn around and come back? Cross that one off the list and travel another few billion km on spec to the next one?

I doubt we will inhabit other planets to be honest, for for a long time anyway. What's the point? If we can build colonies in space perfectly set up for our needs why go to a planet.

Other planets have more value for scientific research than they do for habitation. Imagine we do get to a planet and there is some sort of life on it, not even intelligent life like ours but maybe the early stages. Are we just going to go down and risk contaminating that early life? Or would we want to study it to see how life progresses? Any planet with life on it could be more of a danger than a benefit, it could be toxic to us and take decades of work to eradicate so that it's more suitable to us.

Space colonies have many more benefits than living on a planet as you've pointed out in your post, they offer effectively limitless expansion and zero G would make building them a breeze.

dxhound2005

Philae has woken up so I woke up this thread.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33126885