To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Should We Go Back To The Moon?
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Space > Space

flyingbuttressman
It has now been 40 years since humans first set foot on the moon. Should we go back? Should we be content with letting robots do the exploring for us?



My opinion is that while human presence on the moon is more emotionally resonant with us, it does not represent a valuable cause for our time and money. NOAA gets a fraction of the budget that NASA does, and is much more cost effective. I would rather hear about Giant Squid than ice on the moon. What do you think?
Horta
As much as I enjoyed the first walk on the moon, I think that we been there, done that. We should move on to the next great exploration which is Mars.
Empress Palpatine
QUOTE (Horta+Jul 21 2009, 12:30 AM)
As much as I enjoyed the first walk on the moon, I think that we been there, done that. We should move on to the next great exploration which is Mars.

I feel the same way. I was in my teens when the first Viking pictures came from Mars. I was glued and obsessed. I even kept a scrapbook of pictures and articles.

I say, let's go to Mars!
flyingbuttressman
Even with Mars, it's still 100 times more expensive to send a human than to send a robot. With the kind of money required to send a human, you could send some really groovy hardware. Maybe we could send a nuclear powered rover that has a little more horsepower. Maybe a UAV that runs on solar power. Humans have so many peripheral requirements that make the mission more expensive than it needs to be. I'm all for human exploration when we figure out some better rocket tech. Until then, robots will do fine.
Latrosicarius
^ We already have robots on mars though. Time to step up the game, in my opinion.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Jul 21 2009, 09:49 AM)
^ We already have robots on mars though. Time to step up the game, in my opinion.

Cylons?

I say that we take accurate measures of all the conditions on Mars, and simulate them in a Mars-ish biosphere. Then, we introduce all kinds of algae and see what survives. We take the survivors and send them to Mars. The algae should begin the process of converting Mars' CO2 into O2. Methane would be a helpful gas as it could create a greenhouse effect and increase the temperature.

Apollo Program: $24 billion

Luna Programme: $4.5 billion

Robots are a lot cheaper, and if you give the robot program half of the budget of the manned program, you could develop some really nice robots.
MjolnirPants
I think that establishing a lunar base would be a great next step. It would prepare us for a semi-permanent base on Mars, and could potentially teach us a lot about living in space.
That being said, another quick trip to the moon doesn't hold much appeal for me. Collecting lunar rocks and other activities that can be accomplished there in a few short days just doesn't hold the (benefit) appeal it used to.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 21 2009, 11:26 AM)
I think that establishing a lunar base would be a great next step. It would prepare us for a semi-permanent base on Mars, and could potentially teach us a lot about living in space.
That being said, another quick trip to the moon doesn't hold much appeal for me. Collecting lunar rocks and other activities that can be accomplished there in a few short days just doesn't hold the (benefit) appeal it used to.

I would say that this is a good idea, as soon as we have a working space elevator or some other cheap(er) way of getting to space. Until then, we should build better robots.
Empress Palpatine
Mow if it were a base on the moon, at least that would be moving forward. If they got something where people lived there, complete with green houses and such, that would be meaningful. That would be practice for Mars.
Latrosicarius
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 21 2009, 10:08 AM)
Cylons?

Well, Spirit and Opportunity, the two Mars Exploration Rovers.

I know we could build bigger and better robots to go there and take samples of various things... But that's not what is needed.

Really, we need some sort of a base where people can inhabit. It would not be for analyzing samples, which I agree robots can do cheaper; it would be to learn how to start a colony.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Jul 21 2009, 12:11 PM)
Well, Spirit and Opportunity, the two Mars Exploration Rovers.

I know we could build bigger and better robots to go there and take samples of various things... But that's not what is needed.

Really, we need some sort of a base where people can inhabit. It would not be for analyzing samples, which I agree robots can do cheaper; it would be to learn how to start a colony.

While I would love to establish a Mars colony, there's no way to move a significant number of people to Mars with today's technology. Rocket fuel has a limited mass/thrust ratio. If we could figure out a faster (and cheaper) way of scooting around the solar system, then we should think about colonization. For now, the only viable use of NASA funding is exploration, which is more suited to robots. If we want to go to Mars, give more money to the JPL.
philip347
The process should be done this way.
Let mankind go to the moon, but establish this area in a zoned place approved for him only.
2. Allow more advanced kinds of space travel now.

Why this is stated as a problem:

One, the Pentagon said ice age is upon mankind now.
Secondly a new wave of evolution is not only on mankind, but is placing an a effect on other animals on the planet as well.

I am not a proponent of either using viruses or planned plagues to thin mankindís numbers.

This last flu was so virulent, that it had disturbed the natural in residency herpes quantity in man, from the h1n1 outbreak.

Two, do not thin mankindís population by having a nuclear war. This power is shunted directly into the sun and is more concentrated than the sun is able to handle.

Now is the ideal time for government to come out and tell all it knows on the e.t. equation.

This is necessary, not an elective.

The reason for this, is that currently by both the biological impact of evolution coming with an ice age, as well as cross contamination factors having to do with evolution, a good part of mankindís population should be electively placed elsewhere.

This last statement would mean elective space colonization rather than destructive means to thin mankindís population on Earth.
AlexG
Phillip, do you ever have moments of lucidity when you look in a mirror and say 'wow, am I crazy!'.
philip347
I think that youíre cruel person.

I had the variant flu that New York epidemiology talked about.

I had the symptoms of the flu, but not the fever.

First off, I had three big lesions appear on my right flank of my thigh and then one on my left leg and then another on my forearm.

All lesions but the one on my left forearm went away.

I tried regular wart remover on the left one and felt the wart had traveled completely through my left forearm.
A s soon as I touch the tip of the applicator to the lesion, I could feel a shot of light electricity completely travel through my forearm.

My symptoms have cleared up, but the effect was the same as what New York epidelogy had told people they would get, which was very mild flu-like symptoms, however with little or no discomfort.

Herpes is carried in residence by all primates and is in a measure thought to be utilized as a sort of timing clock, used by the bodies physiology itself.

Note, test performed on people were accomplished a good while back proving almost everyone carries this.

I think that you hoods on this posting board are obstructionist and should be kicked off. What if for some reason a researcher would need some of our views?

I donít feel that the original h1n1 was a naturally occurring flu.
AlexG
Nope. I guess you don't.
rolleyes.gif
Grumpy
What about sending robots to the moon to mine the ice and catapult it into an L1 orbit point to build and fuel spacecraft. Ice can be a very strong structural material, it protects against harmful radiation(along with a magnetic field), it is an excellent fuel source and it is a good drinking fluid and plants like it too.

Grumpy cool.gif
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jul 21 2009, 02:11 PM)
What about sending robots to the moon to mine the ice and catapult it into an L1 orbit point to build and fuel spacecraft. Ice can be a very strong structural material, it protects against harmful radiation(along with a magnetic field), it is an excellent fuel source and it is a good drinking fluid and plants like it too.

Grumpy cool.gif

That would be pretty awesome. Would that be a moon trebuchet?
uaafanblog
Going to the Moon instead of going to Mars is a bad idea. If you are going to do one or the other then go to Mars. If however, you fully intend to go to Mars then going to the Moon provides a myriad of opportunities and solutions that you can apply to a later Mars mission.

The Moon and Mars represent two entirely different set of benefits. Going to Mars is about affirming our abilities to do so. It is about grabbing the mantle of exploration that we humans have ignored in the past couple of centuries (the Moon shot being the exception).

Humans are imbued with an imperative to spread themselves i.e... to explore new frontiers. An interplanetary mission is just the first step. It is Columbus, Magellan, DeSoto etc ... all rolled into one.

Ultimately, Mars is probably not a great candidate for colonization (in the sense that we usually think of that term). It may be useful industrially in terms of exploiting it's resources at some point in the future. But then again, there are many resources on the Moon that we'll probably access before going to Mars for them.

I guess I just don't want to see another Moon mission if it is some sort of compromise because we didn't want to spend the money to go to Mars.
Grumpy
uaafanblog

Leave the moon for the robots until we can build a space elevator on it. We should also send robots and supplies to Mars to prepare both living quarters and greenhouses(maybe cap and seal a medium sized crater) and go to Mars to stay. You could send older scientists and other disciplines on one way trips until they could build an infrastructure to refuel and return. I would volunteer in a heartbeat to spend my golden years on a planet with much less gravity, even if it was a one way trip with no return or rescue possible. A tether is also possible on Mars with present technology and materials, or at least a sling ship. And when I think about all those Shuttle tanks they just burned up in the atmosphere instead of parking them in orbit to use to build a real space station(not that shack they ended up with), it makes me mad.

Grumpy cool.gif
uaafanblog
I'm wondering about the fruits of Mars colonization other than for industrial exploitation (which is certainly a long long way off in any case). In my lifetime I'd be happy to see a single successful round trip manned mission of exploration.

Of course between now and then we should send as many different robots as we can imagine. I have many awesome Spirit and Opportunity panorama pictures but they both landed in really really really really boring places. I want to see Olympus Mons from the ground. I want a big fat juicy picture from a rim of the Valles Marineris.

I remember a proposal for a flying robot of some sort on Mars. That jazzed me.
FGG
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 21 2009, 01:17 PM)
That would be pretty awesome. Would that be a moon trebuchet?

It's called a mass driver. An electromagnetic launch system. Since there is no atmosphere once the projectile (bucket-o-moon-dust) is up to speed it will continue anywhere you aim it.

It's very cheap to launch stuff from the moons surface compared to the earths surface.

FGG
AlexG
QUOTE (FGG+Jul 22 2009, 11:13 PM)
It's called a mass driver. An electromagnetic launch system. Since there is no atmosphere once the projectile (bucket-o-moon-dust) is up to speed it will continue anywhere you aim it.

It's very cheap to launch stuff from the moons surface compared to the earths surface.

FGG

See The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein (1965)
Empress Palpatine
Here is the latest scoop on the planning of a Mars mission:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32091456/ns/te..._science-space/
Quantum_Conundrum
I think we should both go to the moon and to mars, and the sooner the better.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jul 30 2009, 12:24 PM)
I think we should both go to the moon and to mars, and the sooner the better.

Why?
Harry Costas
G'day

Why????????

Beacuse it's there.

Because "MAN" has always gone where no man has gone before, to explore places far far away.

Because one day "MAN" will need to move away from planet Earth.

It's only a matter of TIME.




flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Jul 31 2009, 03:52 AM)
Beacuse it's there.

Because "MAN" has always gone where no man has gone before, to explore places far far away.

Because one day "MAN" will need to move away from planet Earth.

It's only a matter of TIME.

If you could move to the middle of the Sahara desert, would you? Would you move there because "it's there?"

There is currently very little benefit to visiting these places outside of scientific discovery, which robots can handle very well.

However, if we invent some kind of mass-driver/rail-gun that we can launch into space and land on the Moon/Mars then mining becomes a viable option. We are still waiting on a more efficient means of space travel. Until that day, there's no real point in sending people to Mars or the Moon.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Dr Venske+Jul 31 2009, 08:18 AM)
Yes, but did we really land on the moon? Really really?

In my honest opinion all the nasa footage makes me laugh.

Your level of retardation is OVER 9000!!!!
uaafanblog
QUOTE (Dr Venske+Jul 31 2009, 01:18 PM)
In my honest opinion all the nasa footage makes me laugh.

In your opinion it makes you laugh?

What sort of STUPIDITY is that?

In my opinion it doesn't make you laugh ...
In my opinion you're an amorphously formed turd floating in a ***-stew ...
In my opinion that should make everyone else laugh ...
In my opinion you should run away from here and never come back ...
In my opinion you're most likely a waste of human skin ...
In my opinion you suffer from delusions ...

Getting the whole milieux?
Harry Costas
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Sahara desert

Some people are simple minded.

The moon is not the subject, the subject is to develop the ability to survive out there for millions of years.

Now to get that ability you need to develop skills to do so.

If you look at the formation of stars and their phase changes, one day our Sun will be the death of us.

Some people are saying lets wait and see!!!!!!!!!!

Others are out there doing it.

Oh!!! Yes there is other dangers.
lzurha
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 21 2009, 01:18 PM)
we could send a nuclear powered rover that has a little more horsepower.

nuclear? if it ever ran into life an exploded what f they were more advanced an thot it was the first strike so then were all doomed cuz u wanted a few more horss under the hood
uaafanblog
QUOTE (lzurha+Aug 1 2009, 02:32 AM)
nuclear? if it ever ran into life an exploded what ....

EPIC FAIL
Capracus
Until the most inhospitable places on our planet become attractive places to live, manned space exploration at this time does not make much sense. Although, when a $13 billion a year manned Moon project is compared with other annual American economic expenditures, such as $120 billion on alcohol consumption, $88 billion on tobacco products, and $15 billion on bottled water, sending humans back to the Moon almost appears noble.
uaafanblog
QUOTE (Capracus+Aug 3 2009, 12:03 PM)
Until the most inhospitable places on our planet become attractive places to live, manned space exploration at this time does not make much sense. Although, when a $13 billion a year manned Moon project is compared with other annual American economic expenditures, such as $120 billion on alcohol consumption, $88 billion on tobacco products, and $15 billion on bottled water, sending humans back to the Moon almost appears noble.

I'd contend that since we don't know when Earth's "number is up" that humanity should take steps of exploration that are technologically possible, when they are technologically possible. That is the way all our ancestors approached the choice.

How long do we get this planet is the question. If we knew we had 10 million years then sure ... hold off until we figure out how to run a world economically. But what if it is only 1,000 years? Or less? Because we don't know the answer it only makes sense to assume the least time in terms of making the decision.
magpies
Why does it make sense to assume the least amount of time again??

Also if space exploration payed off so well why isn't every company in the world attempting to be part of it? Fact is the research done on space exploration that brought us really neat computers and stuff could have been done without space exploration and it probably would have been more efficent that way. I vote no for space exploration because we have apperently yet to learn the basics of life. Perhaps once we can understand simple things like how to move an object just by thinking about it might we be ready for exploring the stars.
AlexG
QUOTE
Perhaps once we can understand simple things like how to move an object just by thinking about it might we be ready for exploring the stars.


Ignorant AND crazy. Two for one.
magpies
Thanks smile.gif


Hey look I added about as much as you here smile.gif
uaafanblog
QUOTE (magpies+Aug 3 2009, 11:23 PM)
Why does it make sense to assume the least amount of time again??

I thought I'd written it clearly enough .. but here it is again.

If you assume we have the earth for a very long time then you don't have to worry about exploration right now and can leave it for future generations.

If you assume we have the earth for a very short time then you need to explore whatever and whenever your technology allows.

The reason you assume the 2nd case is because we don't know whether there is a long time or a short time. If you assume a long time and some unstoppable 100 mile wide asteroid comes out of nowhere 562 years later then you made a stupid *** decision.

Exploring frontiers is a genetic imperative. ALL our ancestors obeyed it. We should too.
AlexG
If we just have the earth for a short time, and then we're gone, what difference does it make what we learn? We're gone. Whatever we've discovered is gone with us.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 3 2009, 09:03 PM)
If we just have the earth for a short time, and then we're gone, what difference does it make what we learn? We're gone. Whatever we've discovered is gone with us.

Apparently, if we've discovered how to split asteroids with our brains, then we don't have to worry about silly things like extinction.
uaafanblog
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 4 2009, 02:03 AM)
If we just have the earth for a short time, and then we're gone, what difference does it make what we learn? We're gone. Whatever we've discovered is gone with us.

Did you really just ask that? Sounds a bit like what Fundies think.

Sigh ...

OK. Going to space is about fulfilling the genetic imperative of exploration so that humanity can continue beyond the viability of Earth. We KNOW we will need another place to live someday. Finding a place is more of a priority when we DONT KNOW the timeframe within which that must happen.

I don't think I included any context with regard regard to any sort of learning. But the things we learn along the way will be applied to help each "next step" in the process a success.

Sooooooooo ...

If the question is "go now" or "wait" ...
The answer "go now" is the better choice ...
AlexG
QUOTE
OK. Going to space is about fulfilling the genetic imperative of exploration so that humanity can continue beyond the viability of Earth.


Then whether we're here for a short time or a long time makes no difference at all.

We're here now. That's all we know for sure, and that's all that matters.
uaafanblog
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 4 2009, 03:54 AM)

Then whether we're here for a short time or a long time makes no difference at all.

We're here now. That's all we know for sure, and that's all that matters.

So don't even bother with trying to outlive the Earth? Our cognitive processes are largely based upon our perception of time. We know there is a past, present and future. Nearly every decision we make takes future consequences into consideration at some level ... even if it's just what we are "going to" eat for breakfast (7 sausages has consequences).

But because the Earth's viability is unknown we do nothing? Sorry ... that makes no sense.
AlexG
You misunderstood.

We go because that's what we do.

QUOTE
So don't even bother with trying to outlive the Earth?


I'm not. I don't think anyone is. And I'm not particularly concerned with the fate of mankind in 5 billion years when the sun goes red giant.

Capracus
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 3 2009, 02:55 PM)
I'd contend that since we don't know when Earth's "number is up" that humanity should take steps of exploration that are technologically possible, when they are technologically possible.  That is the way all our ancestors approached the choice.
I think the only end time our ancestors were worried about was the one imposed by their vision of the almighty. Some of us more modern types can consider a host of extinction level events, and the most effective ways to deal with them. In almost any apocalyptic case, the Earth, even in a state of devastation, is still the most secure location in our solar system for humanity in its present form.

I'm a 1000% for space exploration, I just don't think that manned space missions are the most effective way to do it. I believe we should extend our technological senses into space(something our ancestors did not have the luxury of doing), and at such time when our technology allows us to modify our form to survive extraterrestrial environments, then we can jump ship for other worlds.

Even though I think its a cultural dead end, I would rather see resources applied to manned spaceflight instead of the many other pointless activities we humans engage in.
uaafanblog
QUOTE (Capracus+Aug 4 2009, 07:32 AM)
I think the only end time our ancestors were worried about was the one imposed by their vision of the almighty. Some of us more modern types can consider a host of extinction level events, and the most effective ways to deal with them. In almost any apocalyptic case, the Earth, even in a state of devastation, is still the most secure location in our solar system for humanity in its present form.

I'm a 1000% for space exploration, I just don't think that manned space missions are the most effective way to do it. I believe we should extend our technological senses into space(something our ancestors did not have the luxury of doing), and at such time when our technology allows us to modify our form to survive extraterrestrial environments, then we can jump ship for other worlds.

Even though I think its a cultural dead end, I would rather see resources applied to manned spaceflight instead of the many other pointless activities we humans engage in.

From the time that "Lucy" walked out of Africa human beings have followed their natural desire to explore. Lucy almost certainly had cognitive faculties akin to our ape cousins. The curiosity to look around the bend and over the hill and then cross the river is in our genes. That is a few million years of genetic memory asserting itself and telling you to explore. The benefits have been the same over and over throughout the last 5 million or so years for us and our ancestors. The proto-humans that found the lands with the best access to resources multiplied and the trait (this curiosity/exploration imperative) was reinforced.

Almost all of the resources on the Earth are known to us now. Don't think for a second that our exploitation (because we "need" them) of those resources won't double then triple then quadruple over time. I agree that there are probably no decent spots in our solar system that are suitable for any kind of large scale colonization. But we must become experts in our own backyard before we take the "next step" to some relatively nearby "Earth II". The first step to doing that is to revisit the moon and learn how to utilize resources in lower gravity near vacuum environments. Apollo started it and going to the moon next will continue that. Then we can take what we've learned in a difficult environment and apply it to a less difficult one (Mars).

Resource exploitation builds wealth for a culture and in time we'll be economically and technologically able to make some 50 light year mission with colonization to follow. I think we could be ready for such a thing within a couple of hundred years. I hope mine and the next generation are remembered at that time as the ones who got such a great thing going.

Of course, religion must be wiped out first.
uaafanblog
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 4 2009, 04:31 AM)
And I'm not particularly concerned with the fate of mankind in 5 billion years when the sun goes red giant.

I couldn't feel any more differently than that.

Before a billion years is gone I hope humankind has penetrated multiple-hundreds of light years into local space and is permanently entrenched for another few billion years of sentience and evolution.
Granouille
laugh.gif That presumes that we are sentient now.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 4 2009, 04:34 AM)
Before a billion years is gone I hope humankind has penetrated multiple-hundreds of light years into local space and is permanently entrenched for another few billion years of sentience and evolution.

Never mind a billion years, in less than a million years we will have depleted every natural resource from the Earth, and all that will be left is a planet-sized landfill. That is, unless we discover some sort of "free energy."

Besides, in a million years or so, evolution will have had time to act in a noticeable way. Will evolution help or hinder our affinity for technology?
uaafanblog
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 4 2009, 01:16 PM)
Will evolution help or hinder our affinity for technology?

Ray Kurzweil believes (and I'd tend to agree) that we'll see biology and technology begin to merge in ways we might not expect.

I watched a show yesterday called "Brink" that was reporting a dramatic increase in solar power output from cells infused with Diatoms. They surmised that the biological geometry of the Diatoms enhanced the whole process somehow. This is an example of biology doing something better than our current technology. OLED's an another like example of the same ... And of course the other side of the coin; cybernetics and nanotechnology offer some hope to improve aspects of biology.

Such things may influence the direction of our evolution; whether that is a hinderance or a benefit would be a difficult thing to judge.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 4 2009, 10:56 AM)
Ray Kurzweil believes (and I'd tend to agree) that we'll see biology and technology begin to merge in ways we might not expect.

While I appreciate what Ray Kurzweil is trying to do, I have to criticize some of his conclusions. I don't think that there is a true (exponential) accelerating trend in technology. While I hope that the "singularity" is a real future event, that seems a little too hopeful. That said, I am definitely a futurist. I would gladly sign up for human augmentation if it was (relatively) cheap and safe. Imagine having the entirety of Wikipedia in your brain. You wouldn't necessarily be smarter, but you might be more resourceful.

As far as evolution goes, it is relatively simple to incorporate tech into the human species. If you could create self-replicating nano-machines that could "inject" themselves into the human reproductive cycle, then each new human would double as a nanobot factory. Every cellular mitosis would involve dividing up the nanobots between the two parts. As a group, the nanobots could fight illnesses, assist brain functions, facilitate neural interfaces and pretty much anything else you can imagine.
Capracus
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 4 2009, 09:29 AM)
From the time that "Lucy" walked out of Africa human beings have followed their natural desire to explore.  Lucy almost certainly had cognitive faculties akin to our ape cousins.  The curiosity to look around the bend and over the hill and then cross the river is in our genes.  That is a few million years of genetic memory asserting itself and telling you to explore.  The benefits have been the same over and over throughout the last 5 million or so years for us and our ancestors.  The proto-humans that found the lands with the best access to resources multiplied and the trait (this curiosity/exploration imperative) was reinforced.
Australopithecines such as Lucy, and other hominids including us, are not necessarily genetically predisposed to exploration. Exploration stemmed from the need or desire to follow the resources. These resources can range from the basic necessities of life, to the ever changing commodities demanded by a given culture. For better or worse, at this point in time, it seems that culture is the driving force behind exploration and its goals.

QUOTE
Almost all of the resources on the Earth are known to us now.  Don't think for a second that our exploitation (because we "need" them) of those resources won't double then triple then quadruple over time.
What we "need" in the end is dependent on the wisdom of our culture. If the dominant culture fails to efficiently manage our resources and consumption here on Earth, then it may look off the planet to find solutions, and in doing so perpetuate the flawed cultural mindset that mass expansion and consumption equal ideal progress.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Almost all of the resources on the Earth are known to us now.  Don't think for a second that our exploitation (because we "need" them) of those resources won't double then triple then quadruple over time.
What we "need" in the end is dependent on the wisdom of our culture. If the dominant culture fails to efficiently manage our resources and consumption here on Earth, then it may look off the planet to find solutions, and in doing so perpetuate the flawed cultural mindset that mass expansion and consumption equal ideal progress.

I agree that there are probably no decent spots in our solar system that are suitable for any kind of large scale colonization.  But we must become experts in our own backyard before we take the "next step" to some relatively nearby "Earth II".  The first step to doing that is to revisit the moon and learn how to utilize resources in lower gravity near vacuum environments.  Apollo started it and going to the moon next will continue that.  Then we can take what we've learned in a difficult environment and apply it to a less difficult one (Mars).
If humans want to live in extraterrestrial environments, then the most efficient solution is to modify their form to suit those environments. Natural evolution has tailored our physiology to thrive on this planet, technologically induced evolution will make us fit for other worlds. It shouldn't and won't be us going to Earth II or III, but what we eventually become. There could be beings tailor made for almost every conceivable environment, from the close orbits of stars, to the coldest regions of space. We could essentially send "Lucy" in search of a suitable new home world in the near future, or we could send more suitable representatives of humanity a relatively short time later.

uaafanblog
QUOTE (Capracus+Aug 5 2009, 12:46 PM)
Australopithecines such as Lucy, and other hominids including us, are not necessarily genetically predisposed to exploration. Exploration stemmed from the need or desire to follow the resources. These resources can range from the basic necessities of life, to the ever changing commodities demanded by a given culture. For better or worse, at this point in time, it seems that culture is the driving force behind exploration and its goals.

What we "need" in the end is dependent on the wisdom of our culture. If the dominant culture fails to efficiently manage our resources and consumption here on Earth, then it may look off the planet to find solutions, and in doing so perpetuate the flawed cultural mindset that mass expansion and consumption equal ideal progress.

If humans want to live in extraterrestrial environments, then the most efficient solution is to modify their form to suit those environments. Natural evolution has tailored our physiology to thrive on this planet, technologically induced evolution will make us fit for other worlds. It shouldn't and won't be us going to Earth II or III, but what we eventually become. There could be beings tailor made for almost every conceivable environment, from the close orbits of stars, to the coldest regions of space. We could essentially send "Lucy" in search of a suitable new home world in the near future, or we could send more suitable representatives of humanity a relatively short time later.

Naturally, I disagree. Though it may be a little bit of the "which came first the chicken or the egg" ...

Those populations that followed the resources were the populations that survived better. They "adapted" to whatever challenges they were presented (lack of local resources or climate etc) by going somewhere else. That adaptation reinforced itself countless times. We would certainly be extinct were it otherwise ... there was a point in humankind's time where barely enough of us were alive to keep us going (only 2000 of us "homo sapiens sapiens" at some point). Those numbers only happened because of earlier exploration. Had we all been in one place ... we wouldn't likely be here now.

To me it matters not if it's "culture" driving the current desire for exploration. It fulfills the same goal of the imperative. There is wisdom in our genes ... we should pay attention to it.

As to what we become I tend to believe that as a species we are (in general) less inclined naturally to monkey with who we already are in terms of form but perhaps not in terms of function. I doubt we'll be turning ourselves into porpoises with thumbs so we can live on some water world. We most certainly will be installing some enhancements (perhaps many) but I don't see some major change in form to accommodate the environs of some half-assed destination.

I tend to think we'll prefer to find Earth analogues to settle. I've no doubt that there are plenty of them out there. Then again such things are hard to guess at and maybe some version of future man will be flying around on their new wings over some lower mass planet.
magpies
You ever watch that star trek episode with the living space ship? That is most likely what we will be like if we use our bodys to travel.
gendo
QUOTE (magpies+Aug 5 2009, 10:24 PM)
You ever watch that star trek episode with the living space ship? That is most likely what we will be like if we use our bodys to travel.

Did you ever see Farscape? That show had lots of living ships. I can't recall which Star Trek episode this was. Do you remember the name of the ep?
magpies
I dont know for sure but I think it was tin man as that was the name of the living ship I think.
Capracus
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 5 2009, 04:15 PM)
To me it matters not if it's "culture" driving the current desire for exploration.  It fulfills the same goal of the imperative.  There is wisdom in our genes ... we should pay attention to it.
I guess you could say that there is potential for wisdom because of our genes, but without the knowledge and experience derived from culture, wisdom could not exist. Unfortunately culture can also be a repository for ignorance and stupidity.

QUOTE
As to what we become I tend to believe that as a species we are (in general) less inclined naturally to monkey with who we already are in terms of form but perhaps not in terms of function.  I doubt we'll be turning ourselves into porpoises with thumbs so we can live on some water world.
Fortunately Mother Nature had the wisdom to put the land dwelling ancestors of the porpoises and whales on a marine evolutionary track. Since humans are so fond of imitating Mother Nature, why not do a similar marine experiment with future knowledge and ingredients, and create an orca with digitized pectorals. When the technology becomes available, and beings can be created with superior abilities, what will become of Homo Sapiens? Will human offspring be stuck with their inherited qualities, or will parents opt for some in utero enhancements that essentially create a new species?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
As to what we become I tend to believe that as a species we are (in general) less inclined naturally to monkey with who we already are in terms of form but perhaps not in terms of function.  I doubt we'll be turning ourselves into porpoises with thumbs so we can live on some water world.
Fortunately Mother Nature had the wisdom to put the land dwelling ancestors of the porpoises and whales on a marine evolutionary track. Since humans are so fond of imitating Mother Nature, why not do a similar marine experiment with future knowledge and ingredients, and create an orca with digitized pectorals. When the technology becomes available, and beings can be created with superior abilities, what will become of Homo Sapiens? Will human offspring be stuck with their inherited qualities, or will parents opt for some in utero enhancements that essentially create a new species?

  We most certainly will be installing some enhancements (perhaps many) but I don't see some major change in form to accommodate the environs of some half-assed destination.
If you want to give our descendants an optimum chance for survival, then they have to be suited for a wide range of environments, including half-assed destinations like the Moon and Mars.

QUOTE
I tend to think we'll prefer to find Earth analogues to settle.  I've no doubt that there are plenty of them out there.  Then again such things are hard to guess at and maybe some version of future man will be flying around on their new wings over some lower mass planet.
I think that our descendants will look back at us early humans the same way we look back at our early hominid ancestors, and be thankful that they aren't dependent on a narrow range of conditions to thrive.
uaafanblog
QUOTE (Capracus+Aug 6 2009, 12:07 PM)
If you want to give our descendants an optimum chance for survival, then they have to be suited for a wide range of environments, including half-assed destinations like the Moon and Mars.

The expertise to tweak our form sure seems far in the future to me.

I see colonies on the Earth and the Moon as experiments. They are practice runs for the big show. And the big show is shipping off 4,000 people to some Earth analogue. I'd choose something exotic versus a parking lot every time.

We use the Moon and Mars colonies to perfect systems and operations for the next hundred or two hundred years. While we doing that we investigate the best candidates from our Kepler Database and narrow them down to a single candidate. We then send a robot mission to confirm whether it is really suitable. The robot mission should be prepared to fully investigate flora/fauna of all varieties over and extended time (5 years). At that point we go ... um 400 years from now or thereabouts. Maybe sooner?

Most of what you're saying (seems to me) happens in a vastly distant future (thousands of years). And by then the Moon and Mars will be the Toledo, Ohio destination amongst a vast selection of preferable choices that likely won't require more than a few years to reach.

Rhetorically ... Wouldn't our manipulation of form ultimately result in conflict? Humans maintaining their relative current form would be bound by that biology right? I mean hey ... I'll jump in to defend another human against another species attacking it. Couldn't the porpoises with opposable thumbs grow to think that they are a superior form and decide they want to express that superiority by dominating us?
Grumpy
Actually, once man has established himself in orbit I see no reason for us to confine ourselves to another gravity well. There is more than enough resources and energy in our solar system to sustain us for millions of years.

Grumpy cool.gif
uaafanblog
QUOTE (Grumpy+Aug 7 2009, 02:01 AM)
Actually, once man has established himself in orbit I see no reason for us to confine ourselves to another gravity well. There is more than enough resources and energy in our solar system to sustain us for millions of years.

Grumpy cool.gif

Wouldn't a nearby GRB in our direction pretty much doom that?

Localization has it downside. Single point of failure and all that.
Grumpy
uaafanblog

Personally, I would go out to the Oort cloud and find me a medium sized ball of CHON ices and dig my town into the center of it. If there were many othersv like that I think man would be as safe as it is possible to be in this Universe.

Grumpy cool.gif
uaafanblog
Definitely a different strokes for different folks discussion then. For me? I like the relatively large atmosphere of a planet and natural warming sunlight. The wind through the trees mixed with all the aroma's of nature suits me.

Yeah ... it isn't as safe and no doubt one could have equal levels of comforts available. If you can match the environment satisfactorily then I guess I could settle for it without grumping to much. And as you insinuate ... the long term future of mankind over multiple billions of years could be assured.
Quantum_Conundrum
Why do some people assume space colonization somehow requires mutating and altering the human form? It doesn't.

Mars is similar enough to earth that humans would be more than capable of surviving there in enclosed mega-structures which have entirely self-sufficient biospheres. Resources could be gathered through the use of robotics and large scale ROVs (such as remote controlled trackhoes and dumptrucks, etc.)

In this manner, humans only go outside in the event of necessity whereby the remote controlled vehicles and robots can't repair themselves, etc.

Water is imported to mars and the moon through robots mining the icy comets, icy moons, and dwarf planets for water-ice.


Once you have a basic infrastructure established on mars, the conditions there are in some ways more favourable for human development and mega-scale engineering than the earth. Because the planet has significantly lower gravity, you can make taller buildings using the same materials. Because the atmosphere is so much less dense, winds aren't really as bad a problem as people think. The total kinetic energy of a wind gust on mars is far weaker than the same wind speed on earth. I forget exactly what the calculations were, but I think I did them a while back. A 300mph wind on Mars is no more destructive than a 30-60mph wind on earth.

Given these factors, Mars actually has some features that make it better suited for a high tech civilization than the earth itself.

====

Regarding the comment that "religion must be erradicated first".

I find this to be an ignorant statement.

The oldest reference to a mega-scale, arcology-style human dwelling that I know of is found in the book of Revelation in the Christian Bible in the form of the "New Jerusalem."

In fact, one might even argue that the modern concept of mega-scale engineering is in fact TAKEN from and inspired by the Bible, as there is no other known historical source for any mega-structure real or imagined presented in any historical or religious or scientific document before or since, until the Dyson Sphere concept.

New Jerusalem is a city large enough to be classified as an artificial planet. It is a cubical structure that translates to 1377 miles on each edge, and houses a population of at least 400 trillion sentient beings.

Where have we seen similar ideas to this since? Oh yes, in the work of "positive futurists" in the form of "arcology" and Dyson megastructures, and as well in science fiction in the form of the Borg Cube.

This "New Jerusalem" is far larger than any man-made structure that I know of which has ever been concieved up until the Dyson Sphere.

It would actually be approximately 88 times larger in volume than the Death Star 2 from episode 6 of Star Wars.

John was apparantly at least 1900 years ahead of his time, since nobody else ever proposed such a structure before nor again until just a few years ago.
Capracus
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 8 2009, 05:56 PM)
Why do some people assume space colonization somehow requires mutating and altering the human form? It doesn't.
Changing the human form isn't required for colonization, it's just is a more efficient way of doing it.

QUOTE
Mars is similar enough to earth that humans would be more  than capable of surviving there in enclosed mega-structures which have entirely self-sufficient biospheres. Resources could be gathered through the use of robotics and large scale ROVs (such as remote controlled trackhoes and dumptrucks, etc.)
So rather than sending humans out into the harsh Martian environments, you propose sending out our better suited proxies, e.g., machines and robots, which when engineered with a given level of autonomy and intelligence, become in essence our descendants. The end result is still the same, eventually humans become operationally obsolete.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Mars is similar enough to earth that humans would be more  than capable of surviving there in enclosed mega-structures which have entirely self-sufficient biospheres. Resources could be gathered through the use of robotics and large scale ROVs (such as remote controlled trackhoes and dumptrucks, etc.)
So rather than sending humans out into the harsh Martian environments, you propose sending out our better suited proxies, e.g., machines and robots, which when engineered with a given level of autonomy and intelligence, become in essence our descendants. The end result is still the same, eventually humans become operationally obsolete.

Once you have a basic infrastructure established on mars, the conditions there are in some ways more favourable for human development and mega-scale engineering than the earth. Because the planet has significantly lower gravity, you can make taller buildings using the same materials. Because the atmosphere is so much less dense, winds aren't really as bad a problem as people think. The total kinetic energy of a wind gust on mars is far weaker than the same wind speed on earth. I forget exactly what the calculations were, but I think I did them a while back. A 300mph wind on Mars is no more destructive than a 30-60mph wind on earth.

Given these factors, Mars actually has some features that make it better suited for a high tech civilization than the earth itself.
If humans are to be confined to life in protected structures, then why bother colonizing the planet at all? Why not just establish colonies in stable orbits in space? Why not just stay on Earth to live out our final days as a dominant species?
Quantum_Conundrum
QUOTE
Changing the human form isn't required for colonization, it's just is a more efficient way of doing it.


How so? Our current physical form has served us just fine throughout human existence.

===
In fact, one insight I had just yesterday into why we still mostly do not have automated systems (other than a few "self serve" stations,) at the grocery story and other similar situations is because of Capitalism. In a capitalist economy, human "robots," particularly teens and single moms, are cheaper and easier to maintain than mechanical robots.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Changing the human form isn't required for colonization, it's just is a more efficient way of doing it.


How so? Our current physical form has served us just fine throughout human existence.

===
In fact, one insight I had just yesterday into why we still mostly do not have automated systems (other than a few "self serve" stations,) at the grocery story and other similar situations is because of Capitalism. In a capitalist economy, human "robots," particularly teens and single moms, are cheaper and easier to maintain than mechanical robots.


So rather than sending humans out into the harsh Martian environments, you propose sending out our better suited proxies, e.g., machines and robots, which when engineered with a given level of autonomy and intelligence, become in essence our descendants. The end result is still the same, eventually humans become operationally obsolete.


Fully self autonomous robots are neither necessary nor recommended. The programming is designed to be flexible enough to solve most basic problems pertaining to that particular robot's duties, but not flexible enough to be called "Self autonomous" or "Self Aware". In addition, robots would have remote control overrides. humans would still monitor them, and at times take direct control of them, and etc.


Also, what does "operationally obsolete" have to do with anything anyway? Machines are tools. Tools that no longer need to be constantly babysat are a good thing.

The irony here is that the "American Dream" is supposedly "freedom" and this notion that everyone can have a higher standard of living than their predecessors. Yet, as a civilization on the whole, we never seem to take real, organized steps toward that goal, primarily because of capitalism. That is, people only do what they THINK benefits themselves and their company. Even "altruistic" actions are often based on underlying capitalist motives.

The truth is, we have the technology to do "George Jetson presses the button and the factory does everything itself" right now. We have the technology to create a semi-utopian civilization right now, and yet it doesn't happen. Why? Because the people who already have wealth and power realize that such things as wealth and power would become obsolete, and they DON'T want that. They want you and I to be cattle.


QUOTE
If humans are to be confined to life in protected structures, then why bother colonizing the planet at all? Why not just establish colonies in stable orbits in space?


I have made the same argument in the past, (see my thread on Space Colonization from a few weeks ago,) but since some people on this forum scoff at the very notion that such megastructures could actually be constructed, I offer these other proposals as a compromise.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
If humans are to be confined to life in protected structures, then why bother colonizing the planet at all? Why not just establish colonies in stable orbits in space?


I have made the same argument in the past, (see my thread on Space Colonization from a few weeks ago,) but since some people on this forum scoff at the very notion that such megastructures could actually be constructed, I offer these other proposals as a compromise.

Why not just stay on Earth to live out our final days as a dominant species?


That's like asking, "Why didn't Christopher Columbus just stay in Europe?"
Harry Costas
G'day from the land of ozzzz

The dominant species is the VIRUS

As for staying on Earth to live out the HUman species, last one out is a rotten egg.

Capracus
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 9 2009, 03:36 PM)

How so? Our current physical form has served us just fine throughout human existence.
Evolutionary pressures have continually changed the human form over time, why would you expect it to stop now? Historically, change in the human form has been the result of lengthy natural processes, but with advances in various technologies, our ability to create mechanical and biological organisms will accelerate the pace of evolution on our planet. It's only a matter of time before those creations lead to the decline of the present human form.

QUOTE
Also, what does "operationally obsolete" have to do with anything anyway? Machines are tools. Tools that no longer need to be constantly babysat are a good thing.
Humans are machines, and when machines are outperformed by other machines, they become obsolete.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Also, what does "operationally obsolete" have to do with anything anyway? Machines are tools. Tools that no longer need to be constantly babysat are a good thing.
Humans are machines, and when machines are outperformed by other machines, they become obsolete.

I have made the same argument in the past, (see my thread on Space Colonization from a few weeks ago,) but since some people on this forum scoff at the very notion that such megastructures could actually be constructed, I offer these other proposals as a compromise.
Our present human civilization shouldn't be concerned with continuing many of its current priorities, it should see itself as a nursery for future advanced lifeforms, and allocate its resources accordingly. Concerning building useless mega-structures, the Egyptians wouldn't have advanced the cause of human development by building more pyramids.

QUOTE
That's like asking, "Why didn't Christopher Columbus just stay in Europe?"
If Europeans during the time of Columbus had been able to efficiently manage their own local affairs, then conquest of new territories would not have been necessary.
Quantum_Conundrum
QUOTE
Evolutionary pressures have continually changed the human form over time, why would you expect it to stop now? Historically, change in the human form has been the result of lengthy natural processes, but with advances in various technologies, our ability to create mechanical and biological organisms will accelerate the pace of evolution on our planet. It's only a matter of time before those creations lead to the decline of the present human form.

Humans are machines, and when machines are outperformed by other machines, they become obsolete.


I've already stated repeatedly in the past that nobody with half a brain would make a self-aware "I Robot" or "Mr. Data" style android AI that is actually capable of "competing" with a human being. Humans do not become obsolete because the ROVs and Robots have programming that only pertains to their specific task and any basic repairs of themselves and one another. I feel perfectly confident that the automatic palletizer and shrink wrapper in a plastic factory isn't going to take over the world. Similarly, I feel perectly confident that an automated earth moving device couldn't conquer the world either.



QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Evolutionary pressures have continually changed the human form over time, why would you expect it to stop now? Historically, change in the human form has been the result of lengthy natural processes, but with advances in various technologies, our ability to create mechanical and biological organisms will accelerate the pace of evolution on our planet. It's only a matter of time before those creations lead to the decline of the present human form.

Humans are machines, and when machines are outperformed by other machines, they become obsolete.


I've already stated repeatedly in the past that nobody with half a brain would make a self-aware "I Robot" or "Mr. Data" style android AI that is actually capable of "competing" with a human being. Humans do not become obsolete because the ROVs and Robots have programming that only pertains to their specific task and any basic repairs of themselves and one another. I feel perfectly confident that the automatic palletizer and shrink wrapper in a plastic factory isn't going to take over the world. Similarly, I feel perectly confident that an automated earth moving device couldn't conquer the world either.



Our present human civilization shouldn't be concerned with continuing many of its current priorities, it should see itself as a nursery for future advanced lifeforms, and allocate its resources accordingly. Concerning building useless mega-structures, the Egyptians wouldn't have advanced the cause of human development by building more pyramids.


Do you know what megastructures I am proposing? I am not talking about non-functional monuments or pagan religious temples. I'm talking about Arcology style mega-structures for human dwelling, both on planets and in space. I'm talking about mega-scale city planning whereby sufficient transport mechanisms and dwellings are designed in a modular manner generations before they are actually needed, so that resources are used thoughout the history of the civilization in the absolute most efficient manner possible as the civilization grows to peak capacity.
This way we don't have a problem like earth-bound cities where we often have a two lane road running through a "historical district" of town when a 4 lane road is needed.


QUOTE
If Europeans during the time of Columbus had been able to efficiently manage their own local affairs, then conquest of new territories would not have been necessary.


Wow. What level education do you have? Third grade maybe? I mean seriously, lets everyone just stay on this rock/continent/island till eventually everyone dies. Sounds like a plan to me...

I'm not interested in "conquest" of anything. You know what, I highly doubt it, but if there are aliens out there somewhere who eventually make contact with humans or vice versa, hopefully we can all just get along.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 10 2009, 08:51 AM)
I've already stated repeatedly in the past that nobody with half a brain would make a self-aware "I Robot" or "Mr. Data" style android AI that is actually capable of "competing" with a human being.

Why would a self-aware AI compete with a human being? AI's don't need food or water. They need energy and parts. Based on that, the AI would devote itself to finding better ways to generate more energy.

QUOTE
Wow. What level education do you have? Third grade maybe? I mean seriously, lets everyone just stay on this rock/continent/island till eventually everyone dies. Sounds like a plan to me...

The only reason to expand is to take advantage of additional natural resources. The only resources that bodies like Mars or the Moon have are ones that are plentiful on Earth. The ones that we need are ones that are the product of biomass. It's kinda pointless to mine Mars for minerals when the cost of getting them exceeds any potential profit. Also, what method do you propose to transport a million people to Mars? That's about the size of population you would need for a full-fledged colony.
Capracus
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 10 2009, 01:51 PM)

I've already stated repeatedly in the past that nobody with half a brain would make a self-aware "I Robot" or "Mr. Data" style android AI that is actually capable of "competing" with a human being. Humans do not become obsolete because the ROVs and Robots have programming that only pertains to their specific task and any basic repairs of themselves and one another. I feel perfectly confident that the automatic palletizer and shrink wrapper in a plastic factory isn't going to take over the world. Similarly, I feel perectly confident that an automated earth moving device couldn't conquer the world either.
Nobody with half a brain would create a self aware machine that might end up as a competitor? Tell that to the parents of Lizzie Borden, and Erik and Lyle Menedez.

Humans become obsolete when they create organisms that reach a critical level of functional superiority. We all desire functional superiority in our natural offspring, and the desire is no less for our other creations. When those other creations happen to be superior sentient organisms, it's time to get out of the way of progress.

QUOTE
Do you know what megastructures I am proposing? I am not talking about non-functional monuments or pagan religious temples. I'm talking about Arcology style mega-structures for human dwelling, both on planets and in space. I'm talking about mega-scale city planning whereby sufficient transport mechanisms and dwellings are designed in a modular manner generations before they are actually needed, so that resources are used thoughout the history of the civilization in the absolute most efficient manner possible as the civilization grows to peak capacity.
This way we don't have a problem like earth-bound cities where we often have a two lane road running through a "historical district" of town when a 4 lane road is needed.
I agree that arcology based settlements would be preferable to traditional developments, but the scale of such projects would only need to support sufficient human populations to accomplish the transition to more advanced beings. Post transition, those settlements would not be suitable for the reining terrestrials, and would be looked upon as relics to be recycled into useful materials.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Do you know what megastructures I am proposing? I am not talking about non-functional monuments or pagan religious temples. I'm talking about Arcology style mega-structures for human dwelling, both on planets and in space. I'm talking about mega-scale city planning whereby sufficient transport mechanisms and dwellings are designed in a modular manner generations before they are actually needed, so that resources are used thoughout the history of the civilization in the absolute most efficient manner possible as the civilization grows to peak capacity.
This way we don't have a problem like earth-bound cities where we often have a two lane road running through a "historical district" of town when a 4 lane road is needed.
I agree that arcology based settlements would be preferable to traditional developments, but the scale of such projects would only need to support sufficient human populations to accomplish the transition to more advanced beings. Post transition, those settlements would not be suitable for the reining terrestrials, and would be looked upon as relics to be recycled into useful materials.

Wow. What level education do you have? Third grade maybe? I mean seriously, lets everyone just stay on this rock/continent/island till eventually everyone dies. Sounds like a plan to me...
I understand the historical realities that governed human behavior through the ages, but it still doesn't preclude us from asking what if? Such as the rejection of Christianity by Constantine, or the acceptance of Napoleonic rule.

Speculation about current attitudes and trends obviously have no bearing on the past, but are most definitely relevant to future events. If humans in the days of Columbus had knowledge of the end of humanity as we know it, they likely would have conducted their affairs much differently.

QUOTE
I'm not interested in "conquest" of anything. You know what, I highly doubt it, but if there are aliens out there somewhere who eventually make contact with humans or vice versa, hopefully we can all just get along.
Well you do seem intent on inflicting obsolescence on future domains, so to accomplish your goal would require a conquest over evolutionary progress.

If an advanced alien power offered you a path to functional superiority, would you take it?
BIGRED
Mars, we should definetly be aiming for mars. It can be within our reach in less than a decade.
Capracus
Newt Gingrich wants to relocate the White House. To the Moon.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/20...uer-moon/47878/
Matador
QUOTE (BIGRED+Aug 12 2009, 09:46 PM)
Mars, we should definetly be aiming for mars. It can be within our reach in less than a decade.

unfortunatly 'they' cannot even make it to the moon in thyat period at the moment...
Capracus
When private industry first colonizes more hospitable environments such as the ocean floor and the Antarctic, then Newt might have a leg to stand on when pitching his primate in space proposals.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here youíll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.