Why don't we fund the construction of an actual manned vehicle in space, something capable of intrasolar travel?

11/16/2009 12:15:28 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgLKkNY9eUA

11/16/2009 12:18:29 PM

I'm going to guess that it would be pretty tough to build something like that. Do we have the technology to keep someone alive, inside of a ship, in the far reaches of the solar system?

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 12:20 PM. Reason : ]

11/16/2009 12:20:05 PM

All sorts of fail in this idea.

11/16/2009 12:32:33 PM

why would you think we're going to build another ISS?

and the current program is in the "go to mars... eventually" direction

assuming obama/congress doesn't fuck it up

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 12:38 PM. Reason : ..]

11/16/2009 12:37:15 PM

Quote :

"Why don't we fund the construction of an actual manned vehicle in space, something capable of intrasolar travel?"

Because we don't have that kind of technology.

Maybe if the budgets for national defense and NASA were reversed, we'd be having a different conversation now.

11/16/2009 12:40:08 PM

Well it doesn't have to go to the far reaches of space. Fuck, just put some kind of propulsion system and strong enough to handle the delta v and send it to the moon.

11/16/2009 12:40:15 PM

no seriously

did this thread start in the depths of stupid and nothing

or is there really a point here?

I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 12:41 PM. Reason : .]

11/16/2009 12:41:14 PM

This week's TIME magazine has a couple of pages on the Ares rocket that we intend to use to go to the moon and/or Mars (eventually).

11/16/2009 1:13:39 PM

Quote :

"Maybe if the budgets for national defense and NASA were reversed, we'd be having a different conversation now."

our conversation would be in Russian or German if that were the case.

11/16/2009 1:16:11 PM

Are you serious?

11/16/2009 1:23:33 PM

11/16/2009 1:26:53 PM

+1 for marko.

^^^You realize that NASA did not exist either time we had to fight the Germans.

11/16/2009 1:28:42 PM

Clearly you don't remember those dark days when it seemed like Kraftwerk and Falco were set to take over.

11/16/2009 1:42:22 PM

Quote :

"our conversation would be in Russian or German if that were the case."

and probably have far more advanced technology.

11/16/2009 1:53:38 PM

Nah man, the Russians and the Nazis would either one have killed all our clever Jew scientists.

11/16/2009 1:58:13 PM

11/16/2009 1:59:11 PM

Quote :

"Nah man, the Russians and the Nazis would either one have killed all our clever Jew scientists."

well its a good thing that German/Russian scientists are more than enough to get us to the moon and in orbit

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 3:47 PM. Reason : .]

11/16/2009 3:47:07 PM

Yeah they got into orbit and to the moon. In capsules held together with duct tape and prayer.

11/16/2009 3:56:35 PM

There are a couple of space based telescopes now whose sole purpose is to find earth-like planets. We should be getting data back in a couple of years, and once we find one, ther'll be a MUCH stronger push to start taking serious looks at interstellar travel.

11/16/2009 5:13:04 PM

hopefully earth like planets will help push interest

but we're no where near interstellar travel

let's get to mars

11/16/2009 5:28:21 PM

Even if that happens or is possible...its just so hard to imagine.

11/16/2009 5:28:41 PM

what's hard to imagine?

11/16/2009 5:29:34 PM

inhabiting other planets. Especially if its more than just astronauts and scientists...

11/16/2009 5:55:40 PM

that's like, step 15

we're on step 2

11/16/2009 5:58:09 PM

hence the hard to imagine...durr

11/16/2009 6:27:15 PM

I like how moving the world to renewable energy is listed per-year (even though it would be a recurring cost for perpetuity), while the Iraq war is listed as a total sum.

Hey, its all spin. I get that.

11/16/2009 6:46:01 PM

Well according to that we could fund a gung ho green conversion for six years. We went to the moon in about the same amount of time.

He can only work with the statistics he has.

11/16/2009 7:02:31 PM

mmmhmmm

green conversion will take a lot longer than 6 yrs genius.

if you can't admit that he's spinning the iraq war figures differently than he's spinning the green conversion numbers - god help u

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 7:53 PM. Reason : s]

11/16/2009 7:51:39 PM

military spending is yearly but listed as a total cost too, so there

11/16/2009 8:27:27 PM

so if he likes it, it just gets a yearly cost bucket.. if he doesn't like it, he gives it a yearly bucket plus some random $texas total bucket.

spin spin spin spin spin

I guess its a good effort for an amateur.

11/16/2009 9:12:04 PM

why are you posting here, shouldnt you be in line at you local bookstore to get your copy of "Going Rogue"?

11/16/2009 9:39:41 PM

Nah Sarah Palin is a nitwit

11/16/2009 10:02:04 PM

Quote :

"Maybe if the budgets for national defense and NASA were reversed, we'd be having a different conversation now."

Ah, if only. I could easily fantasize about this scenario for a solid week.

11/16/2009 10:11:59 PM

you're right... our conversation would be in russian and we'd be praising lenin.

11/16/2009 11:11:37 PM

It will never happen, but I'd love to see warfare replaced by scientific discovery as the pissing contest of choice, a la the space race.

11/16/2009 11:20:40 PM

^That would be baller as shit, no question.

'Course, we'd just find aliens with superior weaponry and be enslaved by them.

Seriously, though, I'd be all about replacing war with science fairs or some shit.

11/17/2009 12:08:57 AM

I think that's a very interesting question.

What will interstellar civilizations be like, socially.

Will they be like us... or do they HAVE to conform to one type of society or another to make the leap in technology, structure, or whatever.

I think there's a good case that all societies will trend towards group collectivism (like the Borg). I mean... we're at step one right now... OMG TWEET ON MY FACEBOOK LOL .

11/17/2009 2:58:28 PM

Because there's no reason to fly around aimlessly. What would a manned interstellar space flight gain us other then 'whoa, cool!' Save the naive Star Trek arguments, thanks.

11/17/2009 3:19:56 PM

Quote :

"'Course, we'd just find aliens with superior weaponry and be enslaved by them."

My theory on it is that any civilization that was sufficiently advanced to master space travel would have had to been relatively peaceful to achieve that goal, at least amongst themselves. We're a primitive species compared to aliens that have that kind of technology, and even we know that violence with extraterrestrials is a bad idea. Of course, this assumes that life (and civilization as a result) elsewhere would have evolved in a similar way to ours. It also assumes that technology couldn't have fallen into the hands of a more primitive, barbaric species.

^^I've been thinking (and saying) for a while that if we want to make substantial gains in space tech/travel, we need to stop trying to do it as individual nations and start doing it in a global effort. In many ways, we already are doing that, but if we could pool resources and technology, we'd get a lot further, a lot faster.

I don't know that collectivism is really the word you're looking for. There's a big difference between (forced) collectivism, and voluntary efforts to work towards a common goal. If we're going to get anywhere, it won't be because governments force the issue. We all know that humans are capable of doing amazing things in groups. The bigger the group, the more we can be capable of. That's if human behavior doesn't screw things up.

Also, while I'm very optimistic about the advance of technology and possibilities for the future, I have a nagging suspicion that intergalactic space travel might not be possible. What if there is no traveling at light speed? What if we can't use wormholes? If the best we can do is make really powerful machines with really efficient fuel, that isn't going to be enough. Even if we could travel at light speed, it would take lifetimes to get anywhere. To actually explore every solar system would take an eternity. Maybe if I were able to see the technology available in 100 years, it would blow my mind and I'd change my tune, but as it stands, we're not even close.

[Edited on November 17, 2009 at 3:27 PM. Reason : ]

11/17/2009 3:26:56 PM

Technological and social advancement requires competition. Nature and evolution is based on competition. If anything, an advanced space race would be down right cutthroat and I'd wager either far older then us or having co-evolved and competed with another intelligent species in its natural environment.

11/17/2009 3:29:59 PM

Just playing devils advocate here, but the weaponization of space and a new state sponsored celestial arms race would get things done a lot faster than collectivism and team work.

11/17/2009 3:30:42 PM

Collective global efforts net nice things like rovers and radio telescopes. If you want Battlestars and X-Wings then you need to find some super rare space rock worth 20$ million a gram (Avatar reference).

11/17/2009 3:33:30 PM

Quote :

"What would a manned interstellar space flight gain us other then 'whoa, cool!' Save the naive Star Trek arguments, thanks."

habitable planets and resources

you need to think big and long

like your boyfriend's cock

11/17/2009 3:44:52 PM

I'm going to quote bomb that ass, because I care.

Quote :

"My theory on it is that any civilization that was sufficiently advanced to master space travel would have had to been relatively peaceful to achieve that goal, at least amongst themselves."

There's no reason to believe that. It could be just the opposite, that only through driving dominance and force can you push your species far enough to get to the stars.

Quote :

" ^^I've been thinking (and saying) for a while that if we want to make substantial gains in space tech/travel, we need to stop trying to do it as individual nations and start doing it in a global effort. In many ways, we already are doing that, but if we could pool resources and technology, we'd get a lot further, a lot faster. I don't know that collectivism is really the word you're looking for. There's a big difference between (forced) collectivism, and voluntary efforts to work towards a common goal. If we're going to get anywhere, it won't be because governments force the issue. We all know that humans are capable of doing amazing things in groups. The bigger the group, the more we can be capable of. That's if human behavior doesn't screw things up."

The collective I'm talking about is not "communism", it's really more like "Borg"... maybe "friendly loving super happy family Borg"... i don't know

Quote :

" Also, while I'm very optimistic about the advance of technology and possibilities for the future, I have a nagging suspicion that intergalactic space travel might not be possible. What if there is no traveling at light speed? What if we can't use wormholes? If the best we can do is make really powerful machines with really efficient fuel, that isn't going to be enough. Even if we could travel at light speed, it would take lifetimes to get anywhere. To actually explore every solar system would take an eternity. Maybe if I were able to see the technology available in 100 years, it would blow my mind and I'd change my tune, but as it stands, we're not even close. "

no, you just need light huggers... ships that can push 1G or so for sustainable amounts of time. They'll hit relativistic speeds quicker than you think.


http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=44550

You'll need big ships, with efficient engines, and antimatter storage (no seriously, you'll need to make antimatter and store it, it's the only way to get sufficient energy density "fuel") That's really an engineering problem more than a physics' one.


Of course... maybe the future physics will hook us up with something awesome!

[Edited on November 17, 2009 at 3:57 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2009 3:55:26 PM

Quote :

"habitable planets and resources you need to think big and long like your boyfriend's cock "

Is there something wrong with you dude?

11/17/2009 4:17:43 PM

of all the responses, you went with that?

11/17/2009 4:24:25 PM

I was going to point out that you couldn't remotely prove, backup or substantiate your first claim but then you went into a detailed tangent on male genitalia and homosexual innuendo for no reason.

11/17/2009 4:33:34 PM

i meant you need to think about big in terms of population or structure or societies

and long in terms of time... civilizations or cultures existing for hundreds of thousands or millions of years

and with big and long the homosexual stuff just came naturally

[Edited on November 17, 2009 at 4:38 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2009 4:36:58 PM

I've also read a couple of your other posts and it seems to me that you have a gross inability to type in paragraphs. I feel this is tied to your feelings about homosexuality and I think we should do some serious root-cause-analysis on both fronts.

11/17/2009 4:40:02 PM