Philosophy Now Forum

Dr E. R. Klein says we should reconsider the value of space exploration and start getting ready to leave the nest.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/61/Space_Exploration_Humanitys_Single_Most_Important_Moral_Imperative

Just came back from a Mayan exhibition at the museum. Because of it I recalled that we were told that according to the Mayan calendar the world will end by the end of the year. So I am thinking, it is kind of late for humans to go into Space in order to survive. We don't have the means yet to colonize other planets to save ourselves or the Earth as this article has suggested we should.

I do believe the reason we are venturing into outer space, though not consciously, is for the purpose of someday colonizing it so as to take environmental pressure off the Earth. It is for the same reason Christopher Columbus came to the New World, to take pressure off the Old World. The colonization of the New World replenished the Old World in many ways, with new resources and means of doing business. Going into Space should work the same way.

Even though we haven't yet colonized outer space our venturing into it has already made a difference, taking some pressure off the world's environment and resources. For instance, our seeing pictures of our planet from outer space (1969), in a sea of darkness and looking vulnerable, I think had a positive influence in changing our attitude in dealing with our our environment. Had we not seen Earth like that first I don't think Earth Day (1970) would have been created or the movement that has followed it. I think that vision of Earth changed us forever, making us somewhat more aware and better stewards of our environment than if we hadn't seen it.

.







Yeah, um...that jumpin off thingy.





.

.



You are a god!



.

Theres bugger all evidence that the Mayans thought this, more likely someone making a buck from an alarmist book. What there is, is the idea that the Mayans thought things went in cycles and the cycle is changing this year in our calendar. but the Hindus have cycles as well so why not use theirs for such alarms.
We'd have to go some to be able to shift enough colonists off the planet to make a difference. It'd involve the idea of humongous orbitals or terra-forming and we're no-where near being able to do such things, and if we could do the latter then we'd not have the issue with the environment in the first place.
I think this a fair point. But the "yet" in your words is pretty unlikely, unless there are some serious developments in the sciences, as we have no practical launch system that can lift the kind of materials we'd need out of the gavity well. It'd begger the worlds resources to do it with the tech we have now.

At best our aim should be to get to the resources of the asteroid belts, that at least may help with our environmental problems due to our energy and material needs. But again its a fair way off. I think if anyones going to do it, it'll be the Chinese as they have the manpower to waste in the attempt and with a billion people wanting tellys and cars the economic need.

Although there is one way, the old Orion spaceship model. But I doubt anyone is going to allow that or even the transportation of the nuclear materials into Earth orbit. Still, could we just launch the ICBMs into orbit?

The earth offers everything we need as a species.
We have evolved for millions of years from the needs of survival here and are eloquently adapted to living here.
We now have the potential technology to be able to modify ourselves to more quickly adapt to any changes this world might bring.
But even the most catastrophic changes that have occurred here on earth are more easy to adapt to than ANY of the hostile environments that would ever be within our reach from space travel.
And to find such planets that are more amenable to human life would require such vast expenditures of energy and other resources; and would take such ridiculous lengths of time to travel, as to make such a venture near to impossible and more importantly of no use to us what so ever.

The entire issue is a boy's dream, but requires a man's effort and money.
On the most conservative estimates from the late 1960s, by now we should have had several bases on the moon from which we were to have been sending regular shuttles to Mars for terraforming and colonisation.
Why has this not happened?

If have learned our fruitless it was to send manned missions to the Moon, then the second less of making the same mistake with Mars will come. I believe that the resources might never be assembled for a manned trip to Mars. This would be a lesson well learned.
How massive a ship would be required to store enough food and water; and/or sufficient recycling facilities reliable enough and great enough for the (minimum) two year trip. The ship would have to be equipped with artificial gravity. It would have to have massive amounts of fuel to land AND (more importantly) return! The extra burden of carrying the fuel for leaving Mars and for setting course home would make the trip out to Mars prohibitive, quadrupling the requirement - you'd have to take it all with you- it would all have to escape earth gravity and then Mars' for the return trip.. And then what could you bring back? Each kilo would massively increase the energy burden for such a venture.

Let's image that the fuel was no problem - that we had discovered a zero mass means of propulsion. That would still leave the question why go at all? There is nothing there but cold hard desert and carbon dioxide. Mars has nothing we cannot get here.

So where are we going to go that can even match the natural resources? What persons would commit 10 years of there life on a lonely venture to the nearest star? And to find what exactly?

You know I pretty much agree with you but in the interests ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
Not the stars but for resources. The asteroid belt supposedly surpasses our natural resources, in minerals anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining

One of the billion poor Chinese might give it a go if the rewards were big enough and if their family was recompensed for any deaths.

You'd get a queue of people willing to give up 10 years to go into space. Hell, someone responded to that German guy's advert to be eaten so what's 10 years in space?

I might have agreed, except that I think that the discovery of ice in craters near the south pole of the Moon a couple of years back is a massive game-changer. If our Moon has ice in decent quantities, then it can be used to produce water, oxygen, and rocket fuel, all outside Earth's gravity well. As our Moon also has iron, aluminium and other metals in decent quantities, in principle we could manufacture anything we need for space travel and colonization right there. For this reason, I bet that in a couple of hundred years there will be self-sustaining colonies on both the Moon and Mars. It won't do anything much to ease the Earth's population/resources/environmental problems, I'm afraid, but it might provide an insurance policy, as Stephen Hawkings again suggested recently - an outside chance of our species surviving even if we manage to make Earth completely uninhabitable.

By the way, this forum's (now completely moribund) sister forum used to have a lot of discussion of issues just like this. Like the Moon, nobody goes there any more, but also like the Moon, it still exists - here it is:

http://forum.spaceagemag.com

Thanks for the link Rick! Sounds pretty cool and I do love a good (positive) solution. Perhaps, you could post a link here to the more exciting threads? That would be awesome if you could and then we could discuss them here.

Ever the optimist eh! Rick.

Still massive problems with construction methods in pretty much zero-gee and we'd still need to lift much of the stuff there in the first place.
Try losing that bloody starry background.

I think he'd rather you discussed them there to be honest to give the forum a little life.

I've posted on the space forum but it was a while ago and, as Rick says, it's rather moribund.