6 ms·

I strongly believe we'll never permanently settle anything beyond earth, for reasons pointed out by this article among others. That said, please prove me wrong

by donatj 10y ago

I strongly believe we'll never permanently settle anything beyond earth, for reasons pointed out by this article among others. That said, please prove me wrong, I would be so very happy to be wrong.

techer 10y ago
Never is a long time. We obviously have to somehow mutate our physiology somehow, or make hyper-giant leaps in technology. Something for near-to-far future generations to think about really.
gkafkg8y8 10y ago
The main two reasons we wouldn't settle anything beyond Earth would be: 1. Lack of interest. 2. Lack of time. #1 is the biggest problem as far as we know right now. #2 is a problem only if we destroy our planet to the point where we can't expend resources or time, or we overpopulate and run out of resources, or a natural disaster sets us back too far or kills us. We have sufficient resources right now, we're just not focused on the effort enough. If every government said, "You, need to change what you are doing and start helping us get off of this planet," and changed laws and regulations to encourage or enforce this, it would happen. Is that realistic? Not really. That's the reason that Musk and others are focusing so much on space. Because, if they don't do it, then who?
- babyrainbow 10y ago
  >If every government said, "You, need to change what you are doing and start helping us get off of this planet," and changed laws and regulations to encourage or enforce this, it would happen. Would't be better if they tried to "fix the planet" instead? Boring, I know. But much more easier and possible and most importantly, proper.
  - gkafkg8y8 10y ago
    > Would't be better if they tried to "fix the planet" instead? It would be, but based on what I hear, it's too late. Also, you can't easily keep Earth from being hit by a giant meteor or a large CME that takes out all of our electronics and sends us back to the bronze age.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  > 1. Lack of interest. F-35 was a lot more important, what would we do if we had to stop interfering in the middle-east? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Program_cost_overruns_and_delays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
  - grkvlt 10y ago
    For one thing, if we (meaning you, i.e. the USA) stopped 'interfering' in the middle east the F-35 program would be completely unaffected. The F-35 is not being used in Afghanistan, and was nowhere near combat ready during the Iraq wars. I believe they are just beginning to be deployed overseas actively now [1] but that is still a long way from active combat. 1. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/washington-deploy-f-35-fighter-jets-japan-first-time-ever-outside-us-soil-1577561 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/washington-deploy-f-35-fighter-jets...
    - forgotpwtomain 10y ago
      > The F-35 is not being used in Afghanistan, and was nowhere near combat ready during the Iraq wars. To clarify I wrote: "what would we do if we had to stop interfering" as in "if we didn't have a fighter jet for future interference" when the current line goes EoL. > For one thing, if we (meaning you, i.e. the USA) stopped 'interfering' in the middle east the F-35 program would be completely unaffected. I don't really buy that, at least in the broader sense, if the US didn't have an agenda which involved active interventions in the middle east and around the world, the F-35 wouldn't be worth the glamorous budget.
johngalt 10y ago
That's possible, but it will be because we chose not to. Not because we can't. Take every nation's budget and transpose the numbers under "space exploration" and "defense spending". Also change the risk profile of space exploration to be more in line with a military operation willing to spend lives to achieve territorial goals. We would have manned outposts on/orbiting every major body in the solar system inside of 50 years. With permanent colonies on Mars at least.
ryhamz 10y ago
My bet is that we call gg right here on Earth. We're simply not good enough.

by donatj 10y ago

I strongly believe we'll never permanently settle anything beyond earth, for reasons pointed out by this article among others. That said, please prove me wrong, I would be so very happy to be wrong.

techer 10y ago

Never is a long time. We obviously have to somehow mutate our physiology somehow, or make hyper-giant leaps in technology. Something for near-to-far future generations to think about really.

gkafkg8y8 10y ago

The main two reasons we wouldn't settle anything beyond Earth would be: 1. Lack of interest. 2. Lack of time. #1 is the biggest problem as far as we know right now. #2 is a problem only if we destroy our planet to the point where we can't expend resources or time, or we overpopulate and run out of resources, or a natural disaster sets us back too far or kills us. We have sufficient resources right now, we're just not focused on the effort enough. If every government said, "You, need to change what you are doing and start helping us get off of this planet," and changed laws and regulations to encourage or enforce this, it would happen. Is that realistic? Not really. That's the reason that Musk and others are focusing so much on space. Because, if they don't do it, then who?

babyrainbow 10y ago
>If every government said, "You, need to change what you are doing and start helping us get off of this planet," and changed laws and regulations to encourage or enforce this, it would happen. Would't be better if they tried to "fix the planet" instead? Boring, I know. But much more easier and possible and most importantly, proper.
- gkafkg8y8 10y ago
  > Would't be better if they tried to "fix the planet" instead? It would be, but based on what I hear, it's too late. Also, you can't easily keep Earth from being hit by a giant meteor or a large CME that takes out all of our electronics and sends us back to the bronze age.
forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> 1. Lack of interest. F-35 was a lot more important, what would we do if we had to stop interfering in the middle-east? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Program_cost_overruns_and_delays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
- grkvlt 10y ago
  For one thing, if we (meaning you, i.e. the USA) stopped 'interfering' in the middle east the F-35 program would be completely unaffected. The F-35 is not being used in Afghanistan, and was nowhere near combat ready during the Iraq wars. I believe they are just beginning to be deployed overseas actively now [1] but that is still a long way from active combat. 1. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/washington-deploy-f-35-fighter-jets-japan-first-time-ever-outside-us-soil-1577561 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/washington-deploy-f-35-fighter-jets...
  - forgotpwtomain 10y ago
    > The F-35 is not being used in Afghanistan, and was nowhere near combat ready during the Iraq wars. To clarify I wrote: "what would we do if we had to stop interfering" as in "if we didn't have a fighter jet for future interference" when the current line goes EoL. > For one thing, if we (meaning you, i.e. the USA) stopped 'interfering' in the middle east the F-35 program would be completely unaffected. I don't really buy that, at least in the broader sense, if the US didn't have an agenda which involved active interventions in the middle east and around the world, the F-35 wouldn't be worth the glamorous budget.

johngalt 10y ago

That's possible, but it will be because we chose not to. Not because we can't. Take every nation's budget and transpose the numbers under "space exploration" and "defense spending". Also change the risk profile of space exploration to be more in line with a military operation willing to spend lives to achieve territorial goals. We would have manned outposts on/orbiting every major body in the solar system inside of 50 years. With permanent colonies on Mars at least.

ryhamz 10y ago

My bet is that we call gg right here on Earth. We're simply not good enough.