Right now it definitely isn't. People need to get their priorities straight. Space exploration is something that should come after a stable civilization on your home planet. It's not like when people explored the seas when they settled down. Space exploration is expensive, takes a lot of time, and is very risky.
English
-
>Implying humanity as a whole will ever achieve stability.
-
Read the many replies I made in this thread.
-
^^^This is just so completely wrong. What's exactly unstable about our "civilization"? Do you mean humanity, or are you trying to refer to a specific country's society? Then you have to solve those problems until it's stable, and who is coming up with that definition of stable? And why should it come after we're "stable"? Who came up with this time and tested rule on space travel? If you're talking humanity as a whole, well good luck. With 7 billion people and growing we won't ever get our sh*t straight and we shouldn't wait for that too happen. It's EXACTLY like when people explored, looking for new lands. Yes, it's more complicated and requires more science, but that's because humanity has advanced since the 1400's (well, technologically). They had to build ships and fund expeditions which wasn't easy. Christopher Columbus was funded by the king of Spain, so it wasn't cheap for them to do. However, they did have the foresight to realize the benefits outweighed the costs and risks. SpaceX is already turning a profit and has only been around for like a decade. Look at some of their products, at the things they've accomplished so quickly, and you really think they should wait? Columbus discovered the new world in 1492, but the first permanent colony wasn't established until the 1600's. Space exploration is a marathon, meanwhile humanity can't even yet crawl. We're still stuck in the birth canal. There's no way we should wait any longer
-
Edited by Closed Account: 7/15/2013 10:44:59 AM[quote]^^^This is just so completely wrong. What's exactly unstable about our "civilization"? Do you mean humanity, or are you trying to refer to a specific country's society? Then you have to solve those problems until it's stable, and who is coming up with that definition of stable? And why should it come after we're "stable"? Who came up with this time and tested rule on space travel?[/quote] Why do you think a country prospers when their economy and political situation is stable? Because you can fund many things to improve the state and allocate your resources to solving both important and non essential yet helpful problems. And I mean whomever is going to pursue this space exploration endeavor. I doubt humanity will unite just to explore space when we have more pressing matters to tend to. It'll probably be a union of states like the EU or NAU. Clearly first world nations. Notice how the EU and the US are the most stable and economically well of regions yet both still have major financial problems to deal with. And don't even think a privatized organization is going to do it. [Quote]If you're talking humanity as a whole, well good luck. With 7 billion people and growing we won't ever get our sh*t straight and we shouldn't wait for that too happen.[/quote] Read above. [Quote]It's EXACTLY like when people explored, looking for new lands. Yes, it's more complicated and requires more science, but that's because humanity has advanced since the 1400's (well, technologically).[/quote] Our technological advancements can barely get men to the moon and it takes years to get to Mars, and those missions costs an enormous amount of money and require years of planning. If you want space exploration, you need to wait for a revolution in physics, math, and/or engineering. Because its not a cakewalk like some of you think it is. And no, it's not even remotely similar to exploring land. [Quote]They had to build ships and fund expeditions which wasn't easy. Christopher Columbus was funded by the king of Spain, so it wasn't cheap for them to do. However, they did have the foresight to realize the benefits outweighed the costs and risks.[/quote] What do you mean it wasn't easy? People have been building decent ships since the time of Ancient Greece. You have a point in regards to the money situation being a little complicated. [Quote]SpaceX is already turning a profit and has only been around for like a decade. Look at some of their products, at the things they've accomplished so quickly, and you really think they should wait? Columbus discovered the new world in 1492, but the first permanent colony wasn't established until the 1600's. Space exploration is a marathon, meanwhile humanity can't even yet crawl. We're still stuck in the birth canal. There's no way we should wait any longer[/quote] I would expect every company that exists to turn a profit. If it didn't, then it would go bankrupt and shut down. And what exactly is SpaceX accomplishing that's so great besides using the same ballistics and rocketry concept that NASA and Lockheed has already done?
-
So delay it indefinitely? or rather, indefinitely until something from space wipes us out? That's -blam!-ing brilliant!
-
Edited by Closed Account: 7/15/2013 5:17:01 AMAnother idiot who was too stupid to get the point and regurgitates the same dumb argument that holds little merit. At least try to make a valid argument instead of wasting my time. But I guess you're one of those idiots who thinks an asteroid impact has a high probability and expects us to waste billions of dollars to go to space to avoid it instead of factor in cheaper and more practical alternatives.
-
Could you please, hmm I don't know, refute my point instead of resorting to baseless insults? If I really wanted to I could give other reasons for space exploration, but at the end of the day everything is rendered irrelevant in the face of extinction.
-
Your thesis wasn't even in depth or thought out. It was just you basically saying, "We need to explore space because something could wipe us out". That notion is so ill conceived and generic that I won't bother repeating myself. I've already explained my stance.
-
Edited by The Great DanTej: 7/15/2013 9:59:52 AMBecause it wasn't a thesis(did you only just learn that word, and now want to show off?), it was a simple point - if we stay on earth then the likely-hood of us going extinct due to some unforeseeable event only goes up, I'd ask you to refute that again but i'm starting to think you can't...and you haven't explained jack shit.
-
Funny how the idiots of the forum always think people with non elementary vocabularies are showing off. There's nothing to refute. It's not an argument, it's just a blatant statement of probability that adds nothing to the discussion. You weren't even smart enough to go in depth about this "extinction event" so how could I possibly analyze the variables? If you're going to reply, make sure you have something valid to say instead of wasting my time.
-
Edited by The Great DanTej: 7/15/2013 10:28:57 AMOf course, when someone uses a somewhat uncommon word [b]incorrectly,[/b] i'll assume that they're trying to show off. What more do i have to say? OP asked if space exploration is worth the cost, I answered, and you called names. Please stop wasting MY time.
-
So basically you can't validate your own claim, read through the sub thread in which I already established my claims, and could only can conceive a rebuttal that consisted of you saying I didn't use a word correctly when I in fact did? All you did was spam this thread and my notification feed without offering anything to the discussion but some poorly thought out extinction statement that you couldn't even validate. I'll be ignoring your posts from now on.
-
Never before has my kettle been called so black, and by a pot as well!!!
-
Edited by Hargbeast: 7/15/2013 5:16:35 AM[quote]stable civilization[/quote]That's not happening. Ever. EDIT: I accidentally an S.
-
...and you are saying that exploring the oceans in centuries past wasn't? What NASA gets is a pittance. They're not just shooting bags of gold into space you know. - Der
-
Of course it wasn't. The only risk factor was sinking and you still had hope of people coming to get you. The expense was nothing more that hiring a crew and building a ship. Space exploration takes a lot of research, time, planning, and resources, and even after all that it could end up like the Challenger. It's very impractical to invest in something so pointless relative to our other priorities and economic situation.
-
Edited by Der Todesengel: 7/14/2013 6:29:58 PMSo you're saying exploring the seas, in the days of sailing ships, wasn't dangerous?? The only risk was sinking????? You're shitting me right? People would come and get you?? You just pull out your sat. phone and give them your GPS coords?? Good lord you are ignorant. - Der
-
Edited by Closed Account: 7/14/2013 7:21:50 PMMy point was the danger wasn't as serious as space exploration. There were plenty of vessels on the sea doing various things and the chances of rescue were as high as a nearby ship venturing in your direction, assuming the captain didn't already send coordinates of the predestination and a time frame of return, so it's pretty clear you're not smart enough to even think out the situation. And I noticed you didn't even get the general point of my post in regards to cost and complexity. Learn basic reading comprehension and how to follow a series of statements and maybe I won't think you're a complete idiot. Then again it's pretty clear you're one of those idiots who knows nothing about applied science and probably hasn't taken basic economics or knows remotely anything about the natural sciences.
-
Early exploration was expensive and dangerous. Plenty of folks died doing it. It wasn't like sailing the Spanish Main in the 1600's... No one came and rescued you. If you got lucky, you found a place to land. If you didn't, fish food. Get sick, well good luck to you, they didn't have anything but rudimentary medical care. As to your idea that they filed "Flight Plans" and gave a time frame of return? Yeah, no. How do you tell someone where you are going if YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW. And guess what else, just like space exploration, it took lots of time... Applied science? Basic economics? Natural Science? What do these have to do with your point? You just mention them and you are right? Make sense next time. - Der
-
Are you serious? Economics and applied science have everything to do with my point. This isn't just people making a ship out of wood and only having to worry about buoyancy. It's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about and you know nothing about engineering, so let me fill you in. You need to hire an engineering team to build these rockets, a team of biologists, farmers, doctors, etc to sustain life on these ships, you need an economist and accountant to factor in the costs of those ships to see if you even had the money and resources to build them, and other scenarios that are factored into it. Simply put, you're an idiot if you think space exploration is remotely close to exploring the oceans and shows how little you know about both subjects. And applied science always has a margin of error outside of the lab making it highly risky. If something goes wrong, you die. It's that simple. It's not like when you're sailing the ocean and can somehow come across land or start fishing. If something goes wrong, then too bad. NASA didn't even know they could get Neil and Buzz back to earth and even had a disaster speech prepared for the president. And like I said, the challenger exploded which resulted in a few deaths. I could think of many instances where applied science goes wrong and results in deaths. Just because you play a sci fi video game doesn't mean you know anything about technology and engineering.
-
I agree that space exploration is not feasible when our countries are economically unstable, and spending millions on wars. But we will do it regardless, because that's the nature of human beings. There's also stature and political prowess to be gained from successful space ventures, no matter how much it costs in the long run. Humanity is always curious about the unknown, and will do whatever it takes to make progress, which is why technology is increasing at an exponential rate.
-
[quote]If something goes wrong, you,die.[/quote] Like Apollo 13? Something went wrong, no one died. Guess you can pull the applied science card out for that one. Early exploration was expensive and dangerous. I suppose you could calculate the percentage of explorers who died and compare it to the percentage of astronauts,who died and get a winner on which is more dangerous, but I'm betting my money that more people on those sailing ships died than space explorers. Of the 300 or so Americans that have been to space 17 have died by the best count I can find, or about 5%. I'm also willing to bet more than 5% of the people on those early ship didn't make it back. What does playing video games have to do with anything? - Der
-
Nothing went significantly wrong with Apollo 13, and considering it was simply a trip to the moon and back, it makes you look like an idiot to even use such an event to describe exploration since we barely made it to our own satellite. Also, your math is fallacious considering the skewed relation between the two events. Not only are your numbers arbitrary and inconsistent, you don't even take into account that manned space missions aren't even remotely on par with early exploration in regards to effort, number of explorers, extent of exploration, etc. And you have a major gap in your number comparison. What's even more pathetic is you were only able to respond to one point I made out of that entire post. I can tell you're not smart enough to have a conversation with and are just wasting my time. There's a reason people like you will never be scientists or engineers.
-
Space exploration could well be the answer to instability though.
-
A stable civilization on your home planet? Are you serious? There will always be instability.