How long do you think it will be until we return to the moon

[n72.75]

Tuesday

It's looking more likely every day.

 

[Brad]

I am convinced more each day that I will not see again in my life time. It would be great if I was proven wrong, but with the way the world is right now, I think when 2010 comes, and the shuttle fleet retired, that will be the end of the US manned space program unless the President and Congress get behind it more.

As for other nations - I see China getting there second and probably some corporation soon thereafter.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Now, the only way I can EVER see us developing that cheap method is by some kind of war (sadly). Competition drives innovation.

Not just every kind of war can be a driving incentive for development. You are best off with a war that don't really affects your country's ground and you've got picked a moment to enter at, so that you gain most and loose least.

But honestly, I hope that the imperialistic mindframe that had been so powerful in the mid-20th century, is now mostly gone. Today's countries are really forming a world block and have so many inter-dependencies that going to war against each other has now become an insane idea.

Not a single of the developed countries today is interested in destroying the current world's order and engaging in another world war. We all have too much to loose in this case and we have learned from the history how destructive such a war can be.

---------- Post added at 12:16 ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 ----------

ISS, together with a Moon outpost, will provide us with the experience and knowledge we need to go to Mars and beyond.

AFAIK, manned exploration of NEO's is one of the tasks found suitable for the Constellation. If they will be able to reach a maturity for this type of mission, this might be a good intermediate step between a LEO outpost and a Lunar surface outpost (the former is a much harder task, as it involves lots of interplanetary logistics). And besides, you don't have to have a sophisticated lander to go to an asteroid: something like a MMU with automated near-ground navigation might be just the right thing for landing there.

NEO missions can be easily justifyied for the public: "What we are doing? Assessing the asteroid threat."

And in addition to that, prolonged NEO missions will greatly benefit the experience that's necessary to gain before real interplanetary flights (Mars, Venus, the main belt).

---------- Post added at 12:18 ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 ----------

And by the way: humankind is not endlessly increasing. Regarding the current trend, we won't see significantly more humans than 9 billions until 2050, with a following decrease.

Are you not afraid that such an event would mark beginning of the end of the entire human race on Earth?

---------- Post added at 12:21 ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 ----------

For starters, transporting billions of people through space, even with sci fi technology, is too expensive. When we do colonize other worlds, it will be with small groups, until enough for a viable gene pool arrive, at which point most colony growth will occur from local procreation. This has been the case in every historical colonization.

Colonization of space won't happen before any real space-based industry (with space-based product consumption) passes its break-even!

 

[Ghostrider]

But honestly, I hope that the imperialistic mindframe that had been so powerful in the mid-20th century, is now mostly gone. Today's countries are really forming a world block and have so many inter-dependencies that going to war against each other has now become an insane idea.

Not really. The imperialistic mindset is still there, the means have changed. We're not really going towards a "world block" but towards a state of things where the biggest nations will call the shots and the smaller will have to submit or else. The moment a big world power decides this state of things is against its interests, the illusion will be gone.

We're trying to avoid conflict today because it's no longer economically viable: in the past, you could afford to throw your population onto battlefields far away because it was readily replaceable and most of it wasn't that skilled anyway so nothing was really lost. WW1 changed all that by destroying a whole generation and laying waste to the warring countries' economies.

Today's soldiers are heavily expensive, as is their weaponry. We still use them - normally against people whom we expect to only have primitive weaponry to throw against us but we've learned it may still be an expensive business - but it's not a desirable first option anymore. Big nations can conquer other by simply threatening their economy and muscling them into submission. As Von Clausewitz taught us, war is the continuation of politics with other means, which also means both share the same goals.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Not really. The imperialistic mindset is still there, the means have changed. We're not really going towards a "world block" but towards a state of things where the biggest nations will call the shots and the smaller will have to submit or else. The moment a big world power decides this state of things is against its interests, the illusion will be gone.

Many things happened since the last world war. To name the few, Nürnberg process, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, introducing the MAD doctrine backed up by the Math Game theory, coining the European Union, passing away of Communism in USSR and China.

We live in a different world now. Maybe the chess board is the same, but we haven't got Queens on it anymore. No mad leader would ever plunge his country into barbarism again, given it's a country with a substantial economy and it takes part in sustaining the world's order.

 

[Ghostrider]

Many things happened since the last world war. To name the few, Nürnberg process, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, introducing the MAD doctrine backed up by the Math Game theory, coining the European Union, passing away of Communism in USSR and China.

You know, you'll only go on trial for war crimes if you lose.
As for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, if you don't have any means to enforce it, then it has no impact on the real world. We have at this very moment a lot of conflict on this planet, a lot of human rights violations (even in the First World), a great lot of famine and plagues and too many other atrocities to mention. What does the UDHR do for the people involved? Absolutely nothing. It's like saying you have a right to own your home, but you're not allowed to defend it and there's no police around.

As for the European Union, it's vastly overrated: it has no credible military force of its own against a serious opponent, and so far it didn't do much for the Ulster and Basque question. It doesn't even police its own borders much, given the boatloads of people that are crossing the Mediterrean, so much that Italy had to sign an agreement to send them back to Libya where we don't want to know what might happen to them.

The MAD doctrine made sense when you had two blocks with enough strategic weapons to make it feasible. What do you do in a world of asymmetric warfare?

And as for Communism, much as it's a warped ideology it has ruled for about 80 years. That's peanuts in the history of the world. Mind you, feudal Europe and Japan made perpetual warfare an art when everybody pretty much had the same government system, religion and ideology.[/QUOTE]

No mad leader would ever plunge his country into barbarism again, given it's a country with a substantial economy and it takes part in sustaining the world's order.

Mad leaders do not scare me. Apparently sane ones, however, are quite terrifying. By the way, we've made it possible to wage war without affecting to much our precious quality of life back home, so be assured that war is here to stay, in a form or another.

 

[SiberianTiger]

You know, you'll only go on trial for war crimes if you lose.

Yes, certainly. But it's better than if war criminals would have a chance to get away with it, should they loose a war? Hopefully, makes them think twice.

As for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, if you don't have any means to enforce it, then it has no impact on the real world.

Nobody ever had real means to enforce the Ten Commandments over the Christian world - does it mean they never had any impact as well?

As for the European Union, it's vastly overrated: it has no credible military force of its own against a serious opponent, and so far it didn't do much for the Ulster and Basque question.

It's backed up by the NATO, which is the credible military force, hence its security is guaranteed.

The MAD doctrine made sense when you had two blocks with enough strategic weapons to make it feasible. What do you do in a world of asymmetric warfare?

Not quite right. You don't have to have symmetric warfare power to be under the MAD. MAD works for you when you believe that opponent believes that you can inflict a grade of damage to his homeland he would deem inappropriate.

Mind you, feudal Europe and Japan made perpetual warfare an art when everybody pretty much had the same government system, religion and ideology.

This only displays it clearly that never before a violence committed by a state met such a substantial reproach by the international community as today.

By the way, we've made it possible to wage war without affecting to much our precious quality of life back home, so be assured that war is here to stay, in a form or another.

It still affects the quality of life to a certain grade - doesn't it? The USA have already run short of money on the luxury activities, such as the Constellation program (back to the topic).

 

[T.Neo]

That way, we can colonize the moon and relieve some stress on this planet.

If you want to use the Moon for colonization, you're best off building large, spinning habitats in cislunar space. Lunar gravity will cause problems relating to human development and health, on top of that, you have the slow day-night cycle on the Moon.

And as explained before, colonisation to relieve population isn't really the way to go- you might transport thousands, perhaps over time even millions to the cislunar colonies, but that won't have much effect.

Uncontrollable population growth is caused by lack of education and birth control in developing countries. Perhaps you could relieve population with a colonisation effort though: uplifting societies financially, so that birth rates begin to fall.

 

[Moonwalker]

Are you not afraid that such an event would mark beginning of the end of the entire human race on Earth?

I'm afraid that the humankind did grow from about 2 billion to almost 7 billion within only 65 years.

A decimation does not mean extinction. But our end will come sooner or later anyway. We don't have a free ticket only because we think we are something special. If something is unlasting, its those who think to be endlessly: humans.

 

[SiberianTiger]

I'm afraid that the humankind did grow from about 2 billion to almost 7 billion within only 65 years.

Are you afraid of the direct consequence of mechanization in farming and progress in medicine?

A decimation does not mean extinction. But our end will come sooner or later anyway. We don't have a free ticket only because we think we are something special. If something is unlasting, its those who think to be endlessly: humans.

Do every species become extinct over some time? Does every object made of iron sink?

 

[martins]

That way, we can colonize the moon and relieve some stress on this planet.

Indeed. Just imagine that the Europeans had failed to colonise the American continent. Europe would be a very crouded place today.

It doesn't quite work like this. Even if you ferried millions to the moon instantly, it wouldn't take longer than a generation to re-establish the (dynamic) demographic equilibrium on Earth. You would simply end up with two overpopulated celestial bodies.

 

[RisingFury]

It doesn't quite work like this. Even if you ferried millions to the moon instantly, it wouldn't take longer than a generation to re-establish the (dynamic) demographic equilibrium on Earth. You would simply end up with two overpopulated celestial bodies.

We have to start learning at some point... Earth won't be here forever and the sooner we start learning how to migrate, the greater our chances of survival as a species in the long term are.

 

[SiberianTiger]

It doesn't quite work like this. Even if you ferried millions to the moon instantly, it wouldn't take longer than a generation to re-establish the (dynamic) demographic equilibrium on Earth. You would simply end up with two overpopulated celestial bodies.

Ok, but now it would take a precise double shot of monstrously big asteroids to kill everybody (given the Moon colony can survive without receiving supplies from Earth). Two more separated celestial bodies are even better.

But surely a good point, colonizing anything does not solve demographic problems on its own.

 

[Moonwalker]

Are you afraid of the direct consequence of mechanization in farming and progress in medicine?

It depends. I don't agree to any science on the whole.

Do every species become extinct over some time? Does every object made of iron sink?

Nothing lasts forever. Not even the solar system. All you can see, smell and touch won't be anymore one day.

If humans disappear, it takes "only" about 10.000 years until you won't find almost any kind of human evidence with the naked eye anymore. You'll have to dig, and don't be too sure to find a lot which sitll looks man-made. Engineers say that without constant maintenance, the Golden Gate bridge won't even last for two centuries. It'll collapse as rusty scrap, disappear to dust, just like the Eiffel Tower and all the other landmarks. So the skyscrapers and our entire cities will end up. New York downtown will turn into blooming rolling hills. It is a big misconception that we and our remains are endlessly. Less than ever paper, photos and data carrier. Without control of proper air condition, this all will end up within decades already. Just look what happened on 9/11. It's a perfect pretaste. Two of the biggest buildings in the world collapsed to dust within a few blinks. You couldn't find a single computer or telephone. If such a big scrapheap would be untouched, which will be the case for any building once humans have gone, it'll turn into dust and soil with new green nature above it. Until the days of the sun and solar system has come. Nothing will remain.

---------- Post added at 03:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:29 PM ----------

Earth won't be here forever and the sooner we start learning how to migrate, the greater our chances of survival as a species in the long term are.

The entire solar system won't be here forever. The idea and wishful thinking of infinity is the result of human incapability to realize and accept death and finiteness.

 

[SiberianTiger]

The entire solar system won't be here forever. The idea and wishful thinking of infinity is the result of human incapability to realize and accept death and finiteness.

You seem to be not just accepting, but loving the idea! :lol:

 

[martins]

Ok, but now it would take a precise double shot of monstrously big asteroids to kill everybody (given the Moon colony can survive without receiving supplies from Earth). Two more separated celestial bodies are even better.

I agree that we have a responsibility to try and preserve life in some form, in particular since for all we know the development of life might be so incredibly unlikely that it happened only once in the universe. So spreading out would be a good insurance against the risk of accidental oblivion.

However, does it have to be humans? The step from a bacterium to a human seems rather small, compared to the step from no life at all to a bacterium. (after all, it only takes repeated application of the same simple algorithm). And since microorganisms are far superior space travelers compared to fragile humans, maybe the better strategy would be to send bacteria and viruses on interplanetary (and possibly interstellar) colonisation voyages, than doing it ourselves.

 

[Ghostrider]

The entire solar system won't be here forever. The idea and wishful thinking of infinity is the result of human incapability to realize and accept death and finiteness.

And yet I'm grateful for such stubborn refusal to accept fate, because it's the key not only to progress, but to a lot of other niceties.

All life fights to survive, even when it's hopeless. It's something we share with even bacteria, and it's good. Without that determination to survive, we wouldn't have developed medicine, surgery, pharmacology and some other cool stuff. Even our culture is influenced - positively - by it: all civilizations (the enlightened ones at least) put great emphasis on the value of life. We consider saving a human life a most noble and honorable endeavour, especially if one puts their own survival at risk, and we call rightfully "heroes" those who do just that.

Yes, everything has its time and all must die, but we don't need to go gently into the good night. We can fight to the end and give entropy a black eye at least.

 

[movieman]

And since microorganisms are far superior space travelers compared to fragile humans, maybe the better strategy would be to send bacteria and viruses on interplanetary (and possibly interstellar) colonisation voyages, than doing it ourselves.

I suspect we've done that already: I seem to recall reading about bacteria being carried away from the upper atmosphere by solar wind and/or light pressure.

In the long term, though, a universe with no sentient life to observe it is kind of pointless; given that we have no evidence at all of any other sentient life in this universe, I think we have a duty to colonise the place, or at least to spread out enough to ensure we don't die out.

I generally agree with your points about exporting population to space, but most developed nations are already below replacement level, so if the whole planet reached that level and we started shipping people off into the solar system, in a thousand years there would probably be three people left here.

---------- Post added at 01:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 PM ----------

It's backed up by the NATO, which is the credible military force, hence its security is guaranteed.

In what sense is NATO credible?

The only benefit I can see NATO providing is that Americans are supposed to nuke Russia if the Russians decide to invade Germany; but that's not a likely scenario any time soon and I'm far from convinced that any US President would be willing to trade New York and LA for Berlin.

The big threat to the EU is civil war, and that's the likely way it will collapse in the next couple of decades. The EU is basically an attempt to create Yugoslavia on a much larger scale, and we all saw how well Yugoslavia worked.

 

[Moonwalker]

Without that determination to survive, we wouldn't have developed medicine, surgery, pharmacology and some other cool stuff.

I don't think that it's basically the pharmacology which makes people live longer and better. It's the changed consciousness and lifestyle (including hygiene). Today people are no slaves anymore who have to work for a few rich and despotic idiots like cattle in any wind and weather, 12 to 16 hours a day. We have to drink and to eat as much as we want. We have heated houses. And we're able to enoy life. The majority of certain societies back in history did not even know about enjoying life, education and hygiene. Life was about hard work from morning to night.

Of course pharmacology is useful in certain cases. But in a lot of cases it just helps to bear with symptoms. Self-healing is one of the most complex part of our body. More and more doctors assign a significant meaning to it. Taking medicine and go under the knife often just is half the battle and not rarely caused by lifestyle. I wonder how many surgeries are actually useless and done because of making money. I wonder even more about the dark figure of deaths in "modern" hospitals. My chinese family doctor always says "you Europeans run to the doctor and go under the knife for any knickknack". Within 16 years, I went to the doctor 4 times. And it actually was not required. In 1998 the modern university hospital was not even able to figure out, by modern technology, what did cause the heavy diarrhea I suffered from. But be sure that my stay was quite profitable for them. I could have staid at home as well and drink the tea there while not eating anything for 5 days. Would have been the same effect and I would have even saved 65 dollars which I had to pay for the stay although I'm medically insured. It was my body who did the job without getting a penny

 

[Andy44]

I agree that we have a responsibility to try and preserve life in some form, in particular since for all we know the development of life might be so incredibly unlikely that it happened only once in the universe. So spreading out would be a good insurance against the risk of accidental oblivion.

However, does it have to be humans?

Well, I don't speak for all humans, but yes, I'd like it to be humans.

This one in particular!

Carl Sagan's 2-planet species is a variation on the old Noah's Ark method of catastrophe survival. Since you mentioned that the development of life seems very rare, it stands to reason that the development of sentient, tool-using, spacefaring life is even more rare still.

And in any case, if we aren't trying to preserve humanity, than what does the rest of the universe matter anyway? Dead men tell no tales, nor do they care to hear them.