Hawking says space colonies needed

[tocqueville]

By SYLVIA HUI, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jun 13, 1:42 PM ET

HONG KONG - The survival of the human race depends on its ability to find new homes elsewhere in the universe because there's an increasing risk that a disaster will destroy the Earth, world-renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said Tuesday.

Humans could have a permanent base on the moon in 20 years and a colony on Mars in the next 40 years, the British scientist told a news conference.

"We won't find anywhere as nice as Earth unless we go to another star system," added Hawking, who arrived in Hong Kong to a rock star's welcome Monday. Tickets for his lecture planned for Wednesday were sold out.

<snip>

"It is important for the human race to spread out into space for the survival of the species," Hawking said. "Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060613/ap_on_sc/stephen_hawking_2

[pointblank]

1. Alright!

I'm in.

Now how do we get there Stephen?

[Xipe Totec]

2. 1st, leave Iraq

2nd, divert war funds to a project to permanently colonize the moon.

3rd, T.B.D.

:hide:

[BayCityProgressive]

3. how about work

to protect the beautiful planet we have already been given!

[Xipe Totec]

6. Can't we do both?

We're going to have to anyway.

[Posteritatis]

114. Of course not! 6.5 billion humans can only do one thing at a time! (n/t)

[Xipe Totec]

119. LOL! n/t

[Swamp Rat]

10. Yes like restore the barrier islands in the Gulf of Mexico, rebuild levees

It is unrealistic to plan for the future distruction of the Earth when we have a better chance of saving it now... RIGHT NOW!

[pointblank]

7. Wow

its that easy?

Do you think we could give everyone healthcare and feed the poor and hungry first...and actually cure a disease instead of treating them so the pharm companies get richer...and................................

Im just sayin

[Xipe Totec]

11. The question what not whether to do it, but how to do it

I answered the question asked, not the question implied.

[pitohui]

109. how to do it w.out destroying the atmosphere of the earth?

the simple answer is, i believe, you can't

if we commit to shooting off rockets and their exhaust in any great measure, we commit to the death of the earth

space is a dead end unfortunately, we can't have the earth and its atmosphere and have any tiny hope of even saving this planet if we commit to space

i read years ago in the nation that we would have already passed al gore's "tipping point" if the space shuttle had actually been successful and done its originally planned 3 times a week "space truck" missions

[jerry611]

60. Yes, and space exploration will increase the food supply

There is plenty of food on this planet to feed each and every person. The problem is distribution. Our distribution systems are extremely poor in the 3rd world. Those systems need to be improved radically in order to get rid of famine.

Another point is that if we can further explore space, we can develop technology that will include better and faster computers and satillites. This will lead to increased accuracy and understanding of weather forecasting. If we were able to predict droughts, hurricanes, wet periods, etc... we will be able to increase the yield of food crops. This will create more food.

[The2ndWheel]

75. Hold on

"There is plenty of food on this planet to feed each and every person. The problem is distribution."

"If we were able to predict droughts, hurricanes, wet periods, etc... we will be able to increase the yield of food crops. This will create more food."

Do we need more food or not?

There will be a limit to our exponential growth. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like we're going to stop until we hit that point.

[Occulus]

106. 3. Profit.

Sorry, South Park reference...

[Xipe Totec]

120. Don't apologize!

Good one!

Love South Park. :thumbsup:

And, it's actually quite a profound statement, even if unintended.

[bigtree]

4. if we focus all of the same resources and commitment here

we can avert the catastrophe he predicts.

To embrace the notion that we are doomed to fail risks it becoming a self-fulfilling excuse to slough off of the measures it will take to turn things around.

[Xipe Totec]

8. I don't think he's worried about self-destruction

though that is always a real possibility.

I think he's talking about the long term survival of the human species, given what happened to the dinosaurs and the trilobites.

[zippy890]

31. Yes, I think your right, and agree with Hawking

I just wish i was young enough to see some real
efforts made to colonize another planet.

Mars could be terra-formed possibly, and its not
so terribly far away as another solar system.

[Xipe Totec]

37. I have children

And, someday, they'll have children as well (I hope).

This is not for me, or for my children, but for those who will come after.

We are stardust, looking for a way to go home again!

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/

[zippy890]

45. wonderful video - thanks

quantum physics may help us find a way to the stars - to go 'home again'as you say so poetically.

Lets pass the love of humanity's potential on to our children, and
we may just reach that potential, and get to the stars.


I like the Planetary Society's work, interesting stuff
http://www.planetary.org/news/2006/0530_Scientists_Discover_a_Very.html

[Xipe Totec]

47. In my younger days,

I drove by the Lunar and Planetary Institute, on my way to work at the Manned Space Center (JSC) in Houston.

Though it has been 25 years since my glory days working on Shuttle, I still keep in touch with my friends there, still working on manned space flight. My wife, on the other hand, worked on near Earth projects such as LACIE, the Large Area Crop Inventory Experiment; a project killed during the Reagan administration.

I am still fully committed and support the manned space program, even though it has been tainted by contact with the present administration.

That too shall pass. Soon, I hope!

Here's to better days ahead! :toast:

[izzybeans]

52. Except he suggests as social scientists do that

our biggest risks are of our own creation; genetically engineered disease, global warming, nuclear war, etc.

[Lorien]

56. "being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war

a genetically engineered virus..." Sounds like he's plenty worried about self destruction, as am I.

[Xipe Totec]

71. Point taken

I read my own worries into his.

None of the concerns can be dismissed, though some are amenable to alternative solutions that we can implement here and now.

Of course, there is nothing to prevent us from implementing safeguards to these threats, and pursuing planetary colonization as an insurance policy at the same time.

:hi:

[zonmoy]

94. but would the extinction of the human species be a bad thing

for anything other than the human race.

[AlienGirl]

98. If humans go from natural causes, so will chimps and gorillas

The survival of all the Great Apes requires about the same climactic conditions. And so does that of many other large mammals. Any pandemic disease that takes out humans would likely also take out chimps and bonobos.

Since we're all in this together, why not try to be the creature that insures the continued survival of many others by reaching into space?

Tucker

[The2ndWheel]

103. So we'll be like Noah then?

Not only putting ourselves on other planets, but other species as well. Just like the ark, that will be one crowded galactic cruiser.

[Xipe Totec]

100. Let's answer that question empirically

after you...

[SmokingJacket]

5. I know what he's saying, but...

we have a tendency to bring our problems with us wherever we go...

[SoCalDem]

9. and yet, we could not "save" New Orleans?...somehow

I doubt that we will find that "other" home..

[1620rock]

12. I'm ready to go...but sigh, we will soil, ruin, and destroy any other...

...place we go. We are vicious cruel hairless monkeys who are inherently evil.

[Xipe Totec]

15. Aw stop! you're embarrassing me!

I can't take so many compliments... :evilgrin:

Tell me how we can possibly make the moon any worse than it is right now?

[Warren DeMontague]

22. I think we should cover it with solar panels

& beam the power back to earth via microwaves.

It'd be a massive undertaking, but it would produce a tremendous amount of clean power.

[Xipe Totec]

29. With all due respect to Prof. Meister Ape,

(I love Warren Demontague, by the way) :thumbsup:

If we put the solar panels in space they would work just as well.

Though, I would rather beam the power back to the moon's surface and use it to drive industrial processing there.

The problem with beaming the energy back to earth is that it would add to global warming. Even though the power is clean, we still have to shed the energy afterward in the form of heat.

[Warren DeMontague]

53. Yes. You would be increasing the net energy of the Earth.

However, you wouldn't be filling the atmosphere with greenhouse gases at the same time, at least in theory. Assuming humans continue to need energy, it's gonna have to come from somewhere.

Agreed that solar panels in, say, geosynchronous orbit would work just as well. Only value I can see for doing it on the moon would be if someone were to figure out a way to use the raw materials already there to produce part or all of the panels, etc. In which case, I'm sure you can see why that would be an advantage.

As for Warren Demontague- you're the first person who has recognized him. :thumbsup:

[CoffeeCat]

48. What about Alexander Abians's idea...

...that we remove the tilt of the Earth, by removing the moon.

Abian contends that if the Earth's tilt is gone, we will have continual, perfect weather--and that
disease will become a thing of the past.

Interesante...no?

[Warren DeMontague]

54. Hmmm. I dunno. I've read that some scientists believe the relative

stability of Earth's position over the past several billion years has had something to do with the Moon's influence - and that it may have been a factor in the development of life.

Also, Mars has an almost identical axial tilt to Earth, and Mars' moons are pretty clearly not responsible.

If we were going to get rid of it, however, I would think maybe putting it in a similar orbit to the Earth, giving it a 24ish hour rotation speed and an atmosphere, and terraforming it might be the way to go.

[Solon]

65. Moon's going to be gone anyways, its moving AWAY from Earth at about...

the rate of 1 inch a year. Now, it'll be a LONG assed time before it leaves Earth's gravitational field, though I don't know what effect that will have on life here.

[Posteritatis]

116. We are? Thanks! Speak for yourself. (n/t)

[tom_paine]

32. Yo SoCal! You're sig animation ROCKS.

And by the way...

:yourock:

How have you been? :hi:

[SoCalDem]

33. Busy busy busy..

Just got back from vegas and my tournaments.. I took a bit of a break too..

Glad you like the sig.. Oddly, I was about to change it :)

watch for the new one in a few days.. (If I'm not too lazy to search for the one I plan to replace it with )

:hi:

[ContraBass Black]

59. May I copy your sig?

[SoCalDem]

66. sure...

I "found"it online:)

[Posteritatis]

112. Strange as it may seem

Earth is not restricted to the more incompetent aspects of the United States.

[greendog]

13. What this thread needs is some Neil Young Lyrics

After the Gold Rush

Well, I dreamed I saw the knights
In armor coming,
Saying something about a queen.
There were peasants singing and
Drummers drumming
And the archer split the tree.
There was a fanfare blowing
To the sun
That was floating on the breeze.
Look at Mother Nature on the run
In the nineteen seventies.
Look at Mother Nature on the run
In the nineteen seventies.

I was lying in a burned out basement
With the full moon in my eyes.
I was hoping for replacement
When the sun burst thru the sky.
There was a band playing in my head
And I felt like getting high.
I was thinking about what a
Friend had said
I was hoping it was a lie.
Thinking about what a
Friend had said
I was hoping it was a lie.

Well, I dreamed I saw the silver
Space ships flying
In the yellow haze of the sun,
There were children crying
And colors flying
All around the chosen ones.
All in a dream, all in a dream
The loading had begun.
They were flying Mother Nature's
Silver seed to a new home in the sun.
Flying Mother Nature's
Silver seed to a new home.

[Bucky]

14. pu-leeeaze

What a waste of resources that kinda project would be. Sorry, but we're gonna have to clean up and find a way to live responsibly on this planet. There's no viable shortcuts. If Hawking was in this room I would so kick his ass (and I'll bet I could take 'im, too!)

[Warren DeMontague]

21. You'd kick the ass of a man with ALS in a wheelchair?

I've seen that wheelchair up close and personal. It could run you over something fierce.

[Xipe Totec]

42. LOL!

:thumbsup:

[wicket]

73. Amen to that - do not fuck with MC Hawking!

http://www.mchawking.com/

:rofl: :rofl:

[AlienGirl]

34. This isn't an either/or scenario

The push to get out into space would spur research into clean energy and ways to keep a biosphere running well, which will in the long run benefit Earth. Additionally, mining resources from asteroids would mean those resources needn't be dug out of Earth, which means that the devastation of strip-mining and other resource acquisition will be averted. In the end, preparing to spread to other planets may be what makes it possible to live on this one for longer.

Hawking is right about the long-term survival; eventually, whether humans cause it or not, Earth will become uninhabitable for megafauna, including humans. Spreading to space will allow humans and many other species--perhaps some of everything that lives here--to survive. Remember, if an asteroid hits Earth now, not only will there be no more humans, but also no more gorillas or whales or cheetahs or coral reefs or luna moths. Imagine if humanity, instead of being the thing that threatens the survival of all that is rare and wonderful, is instead destined to be the thing that saves it all, to go and prosper on new worlds!

Hatch, or die.

Tucker

[K-W]

39. Its a better project than war at least. EOM

[jerry611]

55. The earth will not last forever

There have been several mass extinctions on this planet. And every single one occured before humans were populating the earth. Which means they are naturally occuring.

There was a massive extiction where over 90% of life was destroyed about 250 million years ago. There was another about 100 million years ago. And yet one more 65 million years ago. We are due for another any time.

Even if we are lucky enough to avoid any natural disaster or asteroid impact...Within 500 million years, the sun will begin to get hotter and hotter. It will eventually melt the polar ice caps. And it will become too hot for most animals and plants to survive. The solar winds will be increased to a level that will make communication and electricity impossible. There will massive super-hurricanes the likes of which we have never seen before.

This planet's destruction is inevitable. Either we will destroy it, mother nature will destroy it, or the cosmos will destroy it.

[The Straight Story]

62. Hawking's is right, been saying this for years myself - the sun will die

out someday, there are other things in the universe that could decimate us as well.

It seems prudent to not keep all our eggs in one basket, or all our people on one planet.

[jerry611]

63. We are actually very fortunate

For the past 40,000 years, the earth has been through a very quiet and stable period. There hasn't been any global catastrophes. There hasn't been any major asteroid impacts. Humans have had a lot of time to develop and advance. But the window is closing....

[rman]

77. No amount of living responsibly can prevent catastrophic natural disasters

such as eruption of a super-volcano or impact of a large meteorite.
Such disasters will make the eruption of Mnt St Helens and The Tsunami look like a tea party.

Hawking is thinking long-term; it really is only a matter of time until a disaster such as the ones mentioned above will happen.

Hawking is also an optimist: he thinks the human species can in principal outlive its self-destructive tendencies - which will most certainly involve learning to live responsibly on this planet. Moreover, mankind can outlive the habitability of planet earth - that's were taking to the stars comes in.

[ThoughtCriminal]

16. In the long run

Any species that confines itself to one planet or even one solar system is 100% certain to be doomed to extinction. But we have a long way to go on propulsion systems before we can really get moving into space.

"All of this means nothing, unless we go to the stars" - B5

[blindpig]

17. Nope.

If we can't take care of this planet then no way should we go forth and trash the galaxy. Better that the species snuffs it than we become an interplanetary contagion.

Rather we should prove that we are able to live with our Earth before disgarding it as so much trash.

[sutz12]

18. Well, what are the odds we survive the next 20-40 years?

:scared:

[Posteritatis]

111. Depends on how much we do about it

...as opposed to wallowing in angst about how we're all fucked no matter what. The latter feels a lot better, and is easier, but doesn't exactly help anything.

[bullimiami]

19. hes stupid. bush already planned trips to mars and stuff...

[Posteritatis]

117. Hawking. Stupid. LOL, right... (n/t)

[Warren DeMontague]

20. I agree 100%.

Find the money by cutting the M/I complex down to size, for a start. End the ridiculous and cruel fiascos our government pisses most of our money away on. Get our fucking priorities as a planet and a species in order.

To the folks who say "we need to solve our problems down here first" - uh, we've been down here for an awfully long time, and all we seem to do is make MORE problems. More dumb laws, more idiotic wars... The perspective gained by moving into space could- could- conceivably wake up the portions of our species that seem mentally incapable of moving beyond a flat Earth, two dimensional, superstitious, woefully outdated way of looking at things.



Besides, there are plenty of us here who are sick of living on a planet filled with raging control freaks, the kind of folks who agitate all day against porn or gays or women selling vibrators in Texas, and believe laws throwing, say, cancer ridden grannies in jail for smoking pot are just fine and dandy.

[Rosco T.]

23. An Appro Quote...

(reporter) "Is it worth it? Should we just pull back? Forget the whole thing
as a bad idea, and take care of our own problems, at home."

"No. We have to stay here. And there's a simple reason why.

Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics,
and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the
planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a
million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out.

When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-Tzu,
and Einstein, and Morobuto, and Buddy Holly, and Aristophanes... all of this...

all of this... was for nothing.

Unless we go to the stars."

- Cmdr Jeffrey Sinclair, Babylon 5

[zippy890]

35. yes! its the human vision, to explore and evolve

and imagine and ultimately 'go to the stars'

that we must do, or we will doom our species to
the fate of the dinosaurs.

thanks for posting that
:hi:

[AlienGirl]

36. It's the goal of all life, maybe also of Gaia

If Earth's biosphere really is one big living system, wouldn't it be logical for it to want to reproduce? Humans might just be the vehicle by which the reproduction happens--the "sperm" to fertilize barren worlds that lay like eggs, waiting for a spark of life.

Tucker

[zippy890]

40. There's a new thought.(to me) and I am intrigued by it

did you think of that?

I think the human race may possibly have originated on Mars,
and when something sudden and cataclysmic happened there, or
maybe by purposeful design, or a combination, migrated here.

Your idea has really piqued my imagination-

[AlienGirl]

James Tiptree Jr.'s stories feature this theme pretty often

Since I've adored Tiptree since I was a kid, I probably picked it up from her. You really should read her work; it's quite good.

Tucker

[Deja Q]

24. You mean, culling the population is out of the question? Jeepers.

x(

:sarcasm:

[Lib Grrrrl]

25. Hey, As Long As Our Colony contains NO Republicans

I'm in! When can we leave??

[Peace Patriot]

26. Well, if we had any sense, we would be planning for both...

...the real possibility that we've done ourselves in, with global warming...

and

...whatever chance we have to save our beautiful blue marble.

The hell of it is that the U.S. is doing neither. We have allowed the panicked greedbags to reign. And all they're doing is fortifying their retirement islands in the South Pacific with our money. Time to restore transparent elections, friends, if you want to have a say in what the human race does next.

We are a very clever and creative species, and can probably ride it out somehow--death of our planet, nuclear madness--but our best chance to do so is pulling together, with a powerhouse like the US aiding the effort. That's WHY they took away our right to vote, you know--because of our POTENTIAL power to reign in the greedbags and warmongers, and get a global disarmament and save-the-planet effort going. They have tried to thwart the will of the majority in this country in every way, and finally had to resort to installing these new Bushite-controlled electronic voting systems with 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY vote tabulation software, and virtually no audit/recount controls. Now we have NO power to direct our government--because they are no longer beholden to us. We DO still have a chance to change this, at the state/local level, if we get on it fast. And it will be a terribly sad tale, indeed, if other sentient creatures one day discover the remains of this extinct human civilization on earth, and piece together the story of how the critical moment came when Americans were deprived of their voting power and could not lend a hand to saving their dying planet or even to founding off-world colonies, when they had the technical know-how and resources to do both.

[tom_paine]

38. Damn, that was WELL said!

:toast:

Unfortunately, it looks like that is pretty much what is going to happen, if these trends remain unreversed.

In Old, Free America, this would have been expressed as it was naturally, by balancing the power as had been for...well, for most of the 224 years it existed. Even though the Repugs were shut out of long stretches of congressional power during the post-WWII peak of the Old Republic of America, they had the presidency more often than not from 1945 until the end in 2000.

Even when the American People leaned so relatively left, they still sought to rein control and balance by occasionally rewarding the opposition party with power.

No more of that today. It's One-Party now and forever. Oh, the Democratics, particularly the DLC, will be kept as window dressing. Look at Arlen Spectre's pathetic and ineffectual yammerings even when he KNOWS he'll be ignored.

And of course he backed down.

[GeorgeGist]

27. Great physicist and mathematician...

but not too bright to recommend blighting any more of the universe with humans just yet.

[Xipe Totec]

46. If you think so little of humanity

Then there's one small step you can take to correct the problem...

[Posteritatis]

110. 'Bout damn time someone else drew that little distinction. (n/t)

[Random_Australian]

69. Oh no. Rocks really do suffer from evil human presence. Guess we should

all just die then........

Who the hell is so human-centric that they think the universe gives a quarter of a flying fuck about what we do? Hell, we could explode the planet, and the atoms won't give a shit. "blight" space with us? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[AlienGirl]

28. He's right!

[tom_paine]

30. It may be that our window of opportunity to explore the stars is closing

Sorry to be so pessimistic but given population density, Peak Oil and the results from global warming, the human race will be far too preoccupied with basic survival to go to space. In the near term, Imperial Amerika is bankrupt now, morally, spiritually, not to mention our negative savings rate (not since 1930s!) and our spiralling trade imbalance and national debt.

Such nations do not explore to expand knowledge. But to conquer, steal and fight. And for those purposes space is almost worthelss outside the earth's gravity well...for spy satellites and course-changing missiles. So we aren't going unless Amerika is freed and becomes America again. Even then, it will be 20 years recovering from Bushevism, and some things...like world leadership, we may never regain.

(and of course there is the entire possibility that non-human life evolving after the mamallian dead-end peters out as the dinos did 65,000,000 years ago will again gain intelligence and explore the stars)

Can China do it before the whole shithouse collapses? The EU? Japan? How many years do we have left before oil runs out and the more severe effects of global warming come down on us?

It is wildly optimistic to even say 200 years before those things start in earnest?

This is all utter speculation. "Star Trek" could still come to pass, but it doesn't seem a likely possibility, ESPECIALLY if Bush nukes Iran (get ready for that September product rollout and hype buildup).

[Phoonzang]

43. How are we going to "mess up" Mars or the Moon?

If we're talking about creating nearby colonies, the neccesities of living there would mean that we HAVE to take care of the planet and live responsibly. Hell, to make Mars truly livable means releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to warm it up.

Also, if some of you want to stay here and fix all of our problems (never going to happen) please stay. Just don't hold back those of us who are interested in space exploration and ensuring that humanity doesn't go extinct because of .

[tom_paine]

68. I agree with your point. What does it have to do with what I said

And for the record, I am wholly in favor of space travel. I am not one of those who believe we should concentrate on Earth at the expense of what may be our only viable future, as Mr. Hawking postulates.

Someone may explore the stars, but it won't be Imperial Amerika.

And if time runs out on fossil-fuels based industrialization before a suitable substitute can be discovered, then humanity will have to wait until the next Renessaince after the the soon-coming Dark Age to do so.

IF we survive the coming Dark Age.

[Phoonzang]

84. Sorry...it has nothing to do with what you said

I was intending to reply to the main thread but somehow replied to you. Whoops.

[jerry611]

58. Global Warming on Mars will be a good thing

There is a TON of ice on the polar ice caps. And if we can increase the temperature, it will melt that ice allowing water to begin flowing. This will begin to make the atmosphere more dense, increasing the air pressure, and in turn it will...in theory anyway...allow life to begin.

Many scientists say that Mars had liquid water at some point in its past. And may have had life. Something happened to the atmosphere many millions of years ago that cooled the planet down.

[Johonny]

41. We might

be able to have a moonbase in 20 years... but there's really no point. Bulding one on Mars has even less point. We have ~700 million years left on Earth before it becomes unfit for life. So I don't see any rush to do things that have very little short term gain and don't address a single important issue facing humanity.

[Solon]

64. Of course there is a point...

See, its this type of attitude that leads to stagnation. OK, let's say we build a Moon base, with only a temporary crew, however, we find that its too damned expensive to use whatever the shuttle replacement will be to ship supplies, crew, etc. to it on a regular basis. So a Space Elevator is built in response, within possibly five years after the Moon base is established. OK, now people on Earth can ship hundreds or thousands of tonnes of materials into high Earth orbit, at a fraction of the cost it would be with traditional rockets. This makes having orbital solar panels, kilometers in length, used to transmit microwaves down to a single point on Earth's surface while in Geosynchronous orbit possible, and soon enough you have energy that is, for all practical purposes, free, without worrying about polluting the planet any further. That's in 25 years, other posssibilities include Micro-Gee manufacturing of next generation electronics that operate on the Quantum level and are billions of times faster than current, electron based, computers and consumer electronics. Other possibilities include medicine, food, raw materials, and also in sending people in space to live full time, alleviating stress on the enviroment as is from over-population.

Not to mention the practical reasons for expansion into space, while Earth is capable of sustaining life for millions of years, it doesn't mean it would be HUMAN life. All we need is one asteroid or comet that we didn't see until a decade too late and there goes the human species. While the chances are small, just remember that the further forward in time you go, the possibility increases, until one does hit.

[Johonny]

82. stagnation?

Actually it's the human space missions that have lead to stagnation. Today we blast humans into low Earth orbit at great expense. We could send someone to the moon, but there really isn’t any reason to. Meanwhile for fractions of the cost we have already begun to explore the outer planets with of robots. Which seems like a smarter future. I repeat nothing has stagnated space exploration more than human space exploration. I see no reason why this will change anytime soon. Space impact could cause our extinction, but it's unlikely. A small non self sufficient moon base certainly would do nothing to help alleviate the problem since it wouldn't ever be self sufficient.

[Solon]

99. I mean economic stagnation...

Also, the manned space flights did yield some technological and other innovations, just as the unmanned flights of today do. But these are limited, by and large, to being "first" somewhere, for nationalistic reasons. The problems of today are predicated on the idea that our world economy can grow forever, when that is far from the case. We are quickly using up resources on the planet, to its ecosystems' destruction, so that we can maintain what we built up already. Oil, Coal, Natural Gas, even Uranium will not last much beyond this century, yet are NEEDED to maintain our technological civilization.

Economic growth is predicated on the idea that our energy usage also increases in step with it. There is NO economic model that allows for our economic growth to countinue without increased energy usage. People think of alternatives, and that is good, as far as it goes, but, to put it starkly, we do NOT have the energy reserves on this planet to sustain our civilization for eternity.

Even so called unlimited sources, such as solar and wind, are dependent on weather and are haphazard at best. To give an example, if the United States wanted to replace ALL coal burning and nuclear power plants in this country with solar energy, they would have to build a solar panel, in the desert, most likely, that is about the size of Yellowstone park. Imagine what that would do to the enviroment, not to mention the cost, and the batteries needed for when that thing shuts off at sunset. Same for wind, we would have to have windfarms that would extend from Texas in the south to North Dakota in the north just to capture enough wind energy to supplement our current energy needs. Geothermal is even more daunting, for its fixed in one location, Yellowstone park could theoritically supply all the energy needs for the entire continent, but do we really want to have pipes crisscrossing througout the park for hundreds of miles? What would that do to the bison herds migration and other animals that rely on the park to live?

Biomass and other sources also pose similar problems, and need to be weighed accordingly. We are losing arable land at an astounding rate, and most likely it should be reserved for food production rather than energy production. The thing is this, space has a VAST amount of resources that humans can use, cheaply and smartly, to solve many problems here at home. For example, the solar panel idea is workable in space, but not here on the surface, because in space there are no clouds or rain, nor even necessarily a nighttime for the solar panel to NOT work. Putting a large one in geosynchronous, using microwaves to transmit the energy to the surface, could greatly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Also, if we established a moonbase, we would have easy access to HE3, an isotope of Helium that has the distinction of being easily fusable without the radioactive byproducts and failures of Hydrogen fusion. Another source of energy, NOT found on Earth.

Another addition, if you will, in about 13 years, an asteroid, named Apophis that is about a thousand feet accross is going to pass so close to Earth it will fall WITHIN the orbit of our geosynchronous satelites about 15,000 miles from the surface of the planet. Many astronomers are concerned that the Earth's gravitational field will influence its orbit enough where it will impact with Earth in the year 2035 or so. Its large enough to be a major disaster, no matter where it hits, though not necessarily global. However, this asteroid doesn't need to be a threat, but it could be an opportunity. At the moment, astronomers do not know its exact composition, however, if we were smart about it, during its close flyby, we could influence its orbit through automated Ion engines, and slow it down enough to be captured by Earth's gravitational field and place it in stable orbit. It would be easier if we knew its own composition, but assuming its a metallic asteriod, of mostly Iron and Nickle, with some Carbon thrown in, then that several thousand tonnes of metal we could use to build future spacecraft or stations, without it costing us nearly as much as it would to actually get that material from Earth. It could be the start of space industrialization, using resources found in space that aren't present on Earth to help our own planet with its problems, it would also prevent a possible catastrophe.

The thing that really aggrivates me is this, we spend TEN TIMES more on BOMBS than we do on either space exploration and development or on Social Services. Slash the Pentagon Budget by over 50%, let's say use 10% of the savings to pay down the debt, and the rest spread equally to both social services and NASA and we could fund both a UHC system and space development. But we seem to be more interested in destroying things rather than fixing problems. Its disheartening.

[Occulus]

113. I really like your idea of capturing Apophis n/t

[Solon]

121. Its not the only one either...

There are many Asteroids that either shadow Earth's orbit, or they at least cross it all the time. Many are just as large or much larger than Apophis, also, as I said, we don't know Apophis's composition, if its a loose collection of rocks, only held together by very weak gravity, a pile of gravel, in other words, then sending Ion drives up to change its orbit would only rip it apart, probably would be better to blow it apart with a conventional type bomb in that case. The good thing is that its small enough that a moderate blast would pretty much vaporize it, though it may create a spectacular meteor shower when the remains comes Earth's way. Of course, the purpose would be to blast it apart where no piece is big enough to actually hit the surface.

This is part of the reason why I think its a good candidate for capture using Ion engines. We tested such engines in space already, and they work pretty well, nice, slow, accelleration, and very efficient fuel economy makes them ideal for asteroid capture that doesn't involve untested technology. However, capturing asteroids wouldn't be simple, we have demonstrated that we can place a lander on them, of sorts, we landed a probe that wasn't designed to land on it, but it landed intact, which is great. But, the way to capture this asteroid is to know its mass, velocity, and trajectory, send the engines up to land on it, and then change its velocity and trajectory so that it is captured by Earth in a decellerating orbit. Using fine adjustments, it could be placed in a stable orbit, where it could serve as a nice, extremely low gravity resource for exploitation, in addition to scientific research.

The best part is that we can be patient, it would be a test case, its small, and we can send the engines up YEARS before the asteroid is to even get near Earth. If the engines fail, the backup plan would be to blow it up, if it becomes a hazard, or to send up better engines later to correct its trajectory. Having such a resource in orbit is invaluable for a variety of reasons. It could serve to provide needed metals, like steel, through using orbiting solar powered smelting plants, for a moonbase, orbiting solar panels, etc. One idea I like is to build a large array of radio telescopes on the Far Side of the Moon. This gives two advantages, the first is the low gravity, about 1/8 of Earth's gravity, this means that using traditional materials, you can build MUCH bigger structures on the Moon without worrying about them collapsing under their own weight. The other advantage is that it would be sheilded, by the Moon's mass, from intereference from Earth. Such a location would mean we could build an array of dishes, computer controlled and independently operated, that can focus on any given point in space and give a huge amount of clarity to radio images. It doesn't even have to be manned, after initial construction, it would be controlled from the surface of the Earth by the use of a satellite orbiting the Moon. These dishes could be kilometers apart from each other, each one about half the size of the Arcebo Observatory in Puerto Rico, and would give unprecedented resolutions.

And that's just one idea. Others include building Space Colonies out of Asteroids wholesale, using the stone parts for radiation sheilding, you can build such colonies to have centripetal gravity, be kilometers long, and place them at the various L points around the Earth that are stable. These can be starting points for more ambitious missions, including manned flights to Mars and beyond, in addition to more unmanned missions to the outer solar system, even some Interstellar probes could finally be sent out from such locations.

The thing to remember is that ALL of this is possible using CURRENT technology, even old fashioned Chemical rockets are adequete, if a little expensive, to use for this type of stuff. Hell, JPL is already experimenting with Plasma engines, a possible replacement for chemical rockets, that use plasma for accelleration, they promise to be possibly hundreds of times more powerful than chemical rockets could ever hope to be. We have the computer technology to have the ability to build automated factories in space, we even have some experience in not only rendevousing with small bodies like Asteroids and Comets, but even landing on them, and THAT was a last minute decision at that.

We don't even NEED humans to go up to start the process, it is loads safer and cheaper to use robots to do much of the heavy lifting. The possibilities are practically limitless.

[politicat]

44. And this is news how? Of course we need off-site backup.

The fact that the AP hasn't figured this out when it's been discussed for at least 20 years makes me sigh. This isn't news. It's what should have been Plan A.

[itzamirakul]

49. What if the reason that earth appears to be the only

inhabited planet in our near neighborhood is that we are SUPPOSED to "spread out into space" to further the human species (which of course will change some as it adapts to the new planets it moves to).

And I am in no way talking about raptures and left behinds. I mean scientifically - that we SHOULD be planning moving members of humankind throughout space.

Of course, I, personally am somewhat chicken when it comes to space travel and setting up housekeeping on a new planet but i know that there are people brave enough to move on these ideas.

I never posted these thoughts that are in some ways similar to those of Stephen Hawking because I was sure that I would receive the same treatment that posters get when they admit to believing in so-called conspiracy theories.

[jerry611]

57. Many thought ahead of their time...

When someone like Hawking comes out and says that space travel is possible. What are we doing? We are laughing at him.
There are things about space and physics that we have no understanding of yet. Some of Einstein's theories were so advanced we don't even have the technology to test them. His theories that deal with time, space, and multiple dimensions are something that we have absolutely no understanding about.

So don't say it is impossible. Everyone laughed at Jules Verne when he suggested that people will one day be able to fly, use atomic-powered submarines, and land a man on the moon.

[AnnieBW]

50. Send The Neo-Cons

I've got it - send the neo-cons out into space! Then open the airlocks. :D Or, better yet, abandon them on a planet where they have to fight for resources.

[philly_bob]

51. Welcome Post-Bush Visionaries

Anybody notice that Hawking's comment has prompted some welcome big, meta-thinking controversy on DU?

Man, wouldn't it be nice if our leaders were debating these issues rather than gay marriage and flag burning? If budget debates concerned the future of man instead of the future the portfolios of the country's wealthiest families?

Incidentally, in the dispute above (fix-it-here-first v. man-needs-to-explore), I tend towards the second, but am sympathetic to the first. Once we get these superstitious bigots out of office, I'll enjoy the arguments on the issue.

[Warren DeMontague]

70. I know. Right now we've got the "DESTROY it here first, before the

invisible sky-man comes down from the papier-mache heavens to punish all the people who are fucking outside of heterosexual marriage" crowd running the show.

[otokogi]

61. and some people wonder why we on the left are up in arms...

it's all in our heads, they say :argh:

[upi402]

67. Hawking was a funny lecturer

He joked about rolling over Prince charles' toes. Spoke through his speech generator device.

[eridani]

72. Managing small closed ecologies is something that we haven't yet--

--been able to do. The Biosphere II folks had to cheat, and had earth to fall back on. We either learn to live within our means, or we'll never really explore space. Colonies won't mean squat for our population problem--we have to solve it first in order to do colonies atall.

[Warren DeMontague]

90. You want to work on the population problem

talk to the Vatican.

[newportdadde]

74. Moon Colony Diary - Day 1.

Well that was some trip, we have the domes going up now and I imagine things will get in order soon.

Moon Colony Diary - Day 2. I awoke to find a fully functioning Starbucks next door, damn they are fast.

Moon Colony Diary - Day 90. Dome 1 support beam collapsed today, killing 350. We believe it was caused to do Halliburton cutting corners on the secondary support areas.

Moon Colony Diary - 15 years after touchdown. Dome 6 Family housing and education facility was completely destroyed today. A five man terrorist team of a religious fundamentalists detonated an explosive device cracking the dome and venting all 10,000 men, women and children into space.

Their note said the expansion onto the Moon was a violation of God's word and that not even humans leaving the planet would save them from the rapture.

Moon Colony Diary - 85 years after touchdown. We have declared independence and ousted almost all corporate interest from the Moon. Corporate person-hood is no longer recognized here and never will be. Great Grandfather would be proud.

Moon Colony Diary - 90 years after touchdown. A small force of United Earth troops along with Corporate mercenaries have taken have taken domes 20-25, all 4 docking systems, most of the hydroponics bays and are moving into the mining sections now. Its not looking good but we will keep going.

Moon Colony TV - 91 years after touchdown. Good morning citizens of United Earth we are pleased to report that the final five leading insurgents have been captured and executed today. Finally the bloody conflict caused by a few fringe members of society is over.

In a close race Heavy Corporate Stooge narrowly defeated Light Corporate Stooge, wow who would have seen that coming. Light corporate stooge was leading by almost 9% in all polls up until election. Congratulations to Heavy Corporate Stooge for the come from behind victory!

In economic news, 60 year mortgages how now overtaken 30 year mortgages to become the most popular way to finance a home and don't forget you may now borrow up to 150% of the value of your home what a great way to consolidate debt!

In other news, your new Identicard with DNA encoded identity verification is available for pickup.

[The Stranger]

76. Haven't we already fucked up enough planets?

[Hugin]

78. Yeah, the thought of seeing disposable diapers strewn around Mars...

gives me the chills.

:scared:

[Warren DeMontague]

88. I am intrinsically biased towards life over death, or a lack of life.

As far as we know, we haven't found any life on any of the places (the moon, Mars) that we might be headed in the conceivable near term. Not yet, at least.

I think life, even when it's messy, is preferable to a dead rock. I think a natural impetus of life is to spread, to reproduce, to expand, to explore. Now, you could argue that diseases or other malignancies behave in exactly the same way- but, then, "diseases" are life, too. The idea that "man" is so intrinsically evil and ba-aaaaad that we don't deserve anything except to sit at the bottom of Earth's gravity well flagellating ourselves over what rotten schmucks we all are, is (in my mind at least) merely a reconfiguring of the old "original sin" doctrine: All humans are sinners, and nasty ones, too.

Screw that. I vote for life expanding ever-outward, I vote for exploration, I vote for limitless frontiers.

[BlooInBloo]

79. And warp drive technology too! And photon torpedoes!

:rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

89. Yeah. What kind of *nut* would believe that thing would ever FLY!

Silly fuckin' kooks.

[BlooInBloo]

91. It's possible you misunderstood the thrust of my remark...

... And if so, it's almost certainly because said thrust wasn't especially clear.

The real point I was aiming at was the "unfunded mandate" problem. Consider the "law" about the doubling time of computational power being - what - 18 months? That "law" is NOT intended to be either a technological nor a physical "law". It's intended real of application is ECONOMIC. Insofar as scientific ingenuity and the contraints of physics are concerned, it may be perfectly possible to accerate that rate. The "law" was intended to indicate that the ECONOMICS of the situation are the bottleneck.

In that sense, asking for computational power to increase more quickly than that is an "unfunded mandate" - the $ ain't there to do it, and it's not expected that they will be.

Similarly, I suspect/conjecture, Hawkings' call for space-colonies is an "unfunded mandate". Great idea, would be awesome, and it probably within the realm of scientific/technological/physical feasibility. But the economics of the situation are the bottleneck of it.

So it's just a would-be-cool-but-in-reality-it-nothing-more-than-a-pipe-dream.

Is that a bit clearer? (Even if you disagree.)

[Warren DeMontague]

95. Yeah- I gotcha.

I do agree; although I also think that peaceful scientific research combined with a human presence in space really ought to be a major priority of the country, and of the Human race as a whole. Of course, I think our priorities in this country are fairly well whacked- people float the dichotomy of us taking care of our problems at home vs. funding space exploration- as though the budget hits NASA has already taken in recent decades have brought us any closer to, say, a SPHC system.

I think the money should come from the M/I complex, it should come from the Drug War, it should come from any number of cruel and useless boondoggles we currently finance; and I do believe that, in the long run, money for science and exploration tends to pay the citizenry back in real dollar spades, even leaving aside the incalculable "value" of the images and knowledge we've gleaned from, say, the -relatively cheap- Hubble Space Telescope. Some things, whether they be a war machine unmatched on the rest of the planet or peaceful space exploration, require collective action and funding beyond that which is purely free enterprise and market-driven. At least right now.

But I get what you're saying- from a purely capitalist, profit driven perspective, right now it doesn't make a whole ton of sense. I think that could change at some point in the future; perhaps due to the abundance of certain resources available in space, things like Helium-3 on the surface of the Moon or large quantities of precious minerals in near-Earth asteroids.

Anyway, thanks for the expansion on your thoughts. :thumbsup:

[BlooInBloo]

97. np :)

[Arugula Latte]

80. Humans don't deserve to spread themselves around space.

It's a one planet policy. You screw up -- too bad. That's the end of your species.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. Speak for yourself.

I refuse to internalize your self-hatred and limited vision.

[Arugula Latte]

101. I am speaking for myself.

I never said otherwise. That is my opinion.

However, if we ruin a beautiful gem of a planet, one that is unique and special amongst the planets in our immediate corner of the galaxy, then, I strongly believe we shouldn't spread the human's propensity for violence and environmental degradation to other parts of the galaxy/universe.

[Warren DeMontague]

105. I don't think it's either/or. I think the perspectives gained by moving

into space can, do and will HELP humanity have a more holistic, healthier approach to ourselves, our limited Earthly resources, and the fact that we do live on a beautiful planet that requires our love and care.



But, then, it became even more beautiful once we saw it from this view, didn't it? And the folks who charge blindly ahead with destroying the planet aren't generally the visionaries- they seem to be the people wedded to old modes of thinking, the folks who figure the environment doesn't "matter" because Jesus will be along any day now to punish the gays, abortionists and fornicators, anyway.

They're still pissed that it's not flat.

And lastly, while I agree that humans have their flaws (most of them nothing a swift metaphysical kick to the head wouldn't solve, however) I'm not sure that I agree about any innate propensity for violence or environmental destruction, any more than I agree that we have an innate propensity to enslave each other or to ride around in horse-drawn chariots. To state otherwise, as I said in a different post, is -to my mind- merely a reconfiguring of the old "Original Sin" Doctrine- i.e. all humans are irredeemably evil, and as such should confine ourselves to sitting at the bottom of the Earth's gravity well and contemplating what foul, rotten beings we all are.

I don't see much long-term value in that kind of attitude. I'd much rather hope we are clever enough to learn from our mistakes, eventually. Peace.

[Posteritatis]

115. A-fucking-men. (n/t)

[tomreedtoon]

81. He should read Gordon R. Dickinson's "The Pritcher Mass."

It is a book of science fiction, true, but it makes some good points. Human beings have caused an ecological disaster, and try through various means to find another home for humankind in the universe. Only the universe doesn't want humanity.

Or rather, humanity doesn't want to go to the stars. Deep down, they want to clean up our world and be happy with it before they flee to some other planet.

There isn't any specific anti-corporate message here, just a simple idea of humanity - that means ALL of us - taking responsibility for making this planet liveable. In itself, this is a sensible message, and one that right-wingers and corporate types keep denying.

[greiner3]

83. Since hatred, violence and a belief system based upon;

Myths, superstition and a general hope that words and sounds have magical powers, these traits can be identified as having a basis in severe mental illness. These traits must be part of the weeding out process of any trip to the stars. This will ensure that the colonists are not polluted by neocons and fundies. Heck, all we need to do is tell them that we are tricking those that have been chosen to go and we are really just going to simulate a launch and that we will open the hatches in a month or so and say that the mission was not a success and we had to bring them back. Another positive is that the fundies are waiting to be chosen by their god to go to heaven early and leave us sub-humans behind. So all in all us progressives will have the rocket to ourselves. Bon voyage!

[Odin2005]

85. Colonizing space is our destiny.

The people ranting about "we have more important things on earth" are being pathetically short-sighted. Reaching Type I Civilization status and colonizing other worlds is the ONLY way we are going to survive. We can use the experience of climate control gained from terraforming Mars to reverse global warming. Other planets can provide a source of resources so we don't have to damage Earth's enviroment by getting the resources here. Colonies will be places where new, better forms of society and government can incubate. The colonization of space will lead to a golden age.

[The2ndWheel]

102. Our Manifest Destiny?

What if something else lives there? Do we need to wipe them out in order to survive? Now that we have practice with.

"Colonies will be places where new, better forms of society and government can incubate."

I thought you wanted humans in space colonies?

[Odin2005]

104. I didn't say anyting about conquering other intelligent species.

I ment colonizing unsettled worlds.

[Robeson]

86. I agree with him. Along wtih Arthur C. Clarke, and many others....

...who've said the same.

[Posteritatis]

118. Konstantin Tsiolkovsky

"To step out onto the soil of asteroids, to lift with your hand a stone on the Moon, to set up moving stations in ethereal space, and establish living rings around the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, to observe Mars from a distance of several tens of versts, to land on its satellites and even on the surface of Mars--what could be more extravagant! However, it is only with the advent of reactive vehicles that a new and great era in astronomy will begin, the epoch of a careful study of the sky . . . The prime motive of my life is to do something useful for people . . . That is why I have interested myself in things that did not give me bread or strength. But I hope that my studies will if not soon but perhaps in the distant future, yield society mountains of grain and limitless power."

Back in 1912, that.

Good man.

[LaPera]

92. Does Hawking have an unlimited supply of Owsley?

:bounce:

[Warren DeMontague]

96. I don't even think Owsley has any Owsley, anymore.

Last I heard, he was in Australia.

[mmonk]

93. Taxi!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

107. Yeah. But will they give us Green Cards?

[pitohui]

108. well i hope he is wrong

a few people living in tin cans on the moon and in earth orbit are not going to save the human race when the earth is destroyed

it is pretty clear we can't even keep people at low gravity long term without destroying their bones and their health

life in space will not be pretty or pleasant, any more than life in the cave was pretty or pleasant, it will be a smelly tin can, no wide horizons, no frontiers

if that's our only hope, there isn't much hope really

i try to think more positively than that or else i would just quit now

life in space will be brutish, ugly, and short, with rickety bones, shoot me now and get it over with

in the above discussion only eridani seems to have even an inkling that we don't have anything like the technology needed to create closed ecologies in the first place, the rest seem to think it's just a matter of funding, when we can't even balance a huge ecology like vast areas of the entire earth but we are going to keep a tin can in balance...for centuries or even longer, assuming the goal is for the human race to survive longer than centuries?