5 ms·

Exactly - at the current phase of our civilization space travel is pretty much the only thing that makes sense & we shoould use every opportunity we have to mak

Exactly - at the current phase of our civilization space travel is pretty much the only thing that makes sense & we shoould use every opportunity we have to make our species (at least) multi-planetary before and internal or external catastrophe closes the currently open window of space travel. This way we can protect our species from getting wiped out with our single habitat, as well as likely solving all our resource and energy issues with the wastly bigger resources of space compared to what we would have available if we never leave the planet.

manderley 7y ago
Speed of light being the ultimate barrier and our own solar system being the way it is (ie: no other habitable planets) means we will never be a "multi-planetary species". Being able to leave the planet for some colonization of the universe is a pipe dream, Star Trek is never going to be real. We'll have to learn to make do with what's on our planet, instead of continuing on the current path in unrealistic hopes of serving on the USS Enterprise.
- mLuby 7y ago
  Spacefaring is more likely than multi-planetary. Do you disagree with any point below? (1) We use factories and raw materials to build space station modules. (2) We create and expand space stations in Earth orbit by launching modules via rockets. (3) We can build and add additional modules to increase the crew capacity of the station. (4) We grow plants and manufacture things (in small quantities) on the station. (5) We live (in small numbers) on space stations for years given enough crew space and constant coordination and resupply shipments from Earth. (6) The amount of people and equipment directly involved in any particular Earth industry is finite. (7) We protect volumes from the hazards of space (vacuum, temperature, micro-meteors, radiation) by armoring their surfaces with factory-made materials. (8) We could continue (2 and 7) until the station is armored enough to allow its inhabitants and equipment to survive beyond Earth's magnetic shield. (9) Given (5), we could continue (2 and 3) until the station has enough people (6) to self-co-administer, at which point it only needs resupply shipments from Earth to sustain itself. (10) We could continue (2 and 4) until the station has enough factories and refineries for (1), provided it has raw materials from Earth or asteroids. (11) We could build one or more hospital modules to facilitate safe human births on the station, perhaps in a rotating section, so new humans can replace the old. To accomplish these points, we require no additional advances in technology, only our sustained effort. Humanity could live and grow endlessly in large space stations that run on solar power and build with raw materials from asteroids, comets, moons, or planets.
  - manderley 7y ago
    And what would that get us? A station permanently dependent on getting raw materials from earth. Nothing gained, really - except more pollution on the surface and a habitat really not suited to humans. We can grow plants on Earth, why would we do it in orbit.
    - bluejellybean 7y ago
      A station does not have to be entirely depended on earth, there are a lot of raw materials in space. As for some reasons to grow, or manufacture really, things in orbit, landmass is one reason. There is a whole lot of real estate up there that we don't really have access to on earth. There is also the ability to send down materials to anywhere on earth without requiring a huge transportation network that causes things like roadway congestion. On top of those, building facilities that do heavy amounts of nasty polluting become less of a concern. It's not really as much of an issue to dump a bunch of toxic stuff into space compared to say, a river. I suspect nuclear power plants also start to become more viable as there is less of a worry over meltdowns as you're already surrounded by massive amounts of radiation and have no population to evacuate.
  - FakeComments 7y ago
    The following are suspect: 5. There’s a limit to time in space without long term injury. 8-10. You conclude we can continue indefinitely, but make no effort to show that this is the case — or that the amount needed wouldn’t end civilization prior to success. 11. It’s not clear to me you can have a pregnancy in space, given the health impacts to astronauts.
spodek 7y ago
> space travel is pretty much the only thing that makes sense The only thing that makes sense? You can't think of any other problems that we might work on first?
- c0bb 7y ago
  Space is something that if it is priority number 1, everything else will follow.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Until we can demonstrate we can look after our single habitat, and demonstrate terraforming or a sealed habitat that's proven viable indefinitely, why would we look to space and multi-planetary? Seems like extreme and dangerous hubris to prioritise that over getting here long term viable first. Or a way to avoid the issue while civilisation crashes... Quite apart from not having a suitable planet in reachable range. Mars doesn't really cut it - that puts humanity's future in a sealed tin can or needs terraforming.
- TheAdamAndChe 7y ago
  Humanity now has the capacity to anhaliate all people from the Earth within a year with our nuclear arsenals. Even though Mutually Assured Destruction has prevented this from happening yet, the statistics point to inevitable doom on a long enough timescale. Hell, we nearly wiped ourselves out several times since 1950. In such an environment, it makes sense to push towards interplanetary colonization as quickly as possible.
cmroanirgo 7y ago
> space travel is pretty much the only thing that makes sense There are plenty of things we can do. We can be more harmonious to our planet, for one. We can learn to make the atacama or sahara deserts habitable. We can learn to stop the climate shift we seem to be experiencing. We can be more harmonious to the other humans on this planet. These are all big ticket items that will still exist even if we found some garden of eden on some far off shore. I can't think of anything worse than taking our mining and destructive natures to an innocent planet. We have created this planet's problems. We should fix them before shooting moonbeams and running away from them.

manderley 7y ago

Speed of light being the ultimate barrier and our own solar system being the way it is (ie: no other habitable planets) means we will never be a "multi-planetary species". Being able to leave the planet for some colonization of the universe is a pipe dream, Star Trek is never going to be real. We'll have to learn to make do with what's on our planet, instead of continuing on the current path in unrealistic hopes of serving on the USS Enterprise.

mLuby 7y ago
Spacefaring is more likely than multi-planetary. Do you disagree with any point below? (1) We use factories and raw materials to build space station modules. (2) We create and expand space stations in Earth orbit by launching modules via rockets. (3) We can build and add additional modules to increase the crew capacity of the station. (4) We grow plants and manufacture things (in small quantities) on the station. (5) We live (in small numbers) on space stations for years given enough crew space and constant coordination and resupply shipments from Earth. (6) The amount of people and equipment directly involved in any particular Earth industry is finite. (7) We protect volumes from the hazards of space (vacuum, temperature, micro-meteors, radiation) by armoring their surfaces with factory-made materials. (8) We could continue (2 and 7) until the station is armored enough to allow its inhabitants and equipment to survive beyond Earth's magnetic shield. (9) Given (5), we could continue (2 and 3) until the station has enough people (6) to self-co-administer, at which point it only needs resupply shipments from Earth to sustain itself. (10) We could continue (2 and 4) until the station has enough factories and refineries for (1), provided it has raw materials from Earth or asteroids. (11) We could build one or more hospital modules to facilitate safe human births on the station, perhaps in a rotating section, so new humans can replace the old. To accomplish these points, we require no additional advances in technology, only our sustained effort. Humanity could live and grow endlessly in large space stations that run on solar power and build with raw materials from asteroids, comets, moons, or planets.
- manderley 7y ago
  And what would that get us? A station permanently dependent on getting raw materials from earth. Nothing gained, really - except more pollution on the surface and a habitat really not suited to humans. We can grow plants on Earth, why would we do it in orbit.
  - bluejellybean 7y ago
    A station does not have to be entirely depended on earth, there are a lot of raw materials in space. As for some reasons to grow, or manufacture really, things in orbit, landmass is one reason. There is a whole lot of real estate up there that we don't really have access to on earth. There is also the ability to send down materials to anywhere on earth without requiring a huge transportation network that causes things like roadway congestion. On top of those, building facilities that do heavy amounts of nasty polluting become less of a concern. It's not really as much of an issue to dump a bunch of toxic stuff into space compared to say, a river. I suspect nuclear power plants also start to become more viable as there is less of a worry over meltdowns as you're already surrounded by massive amounts of radiation and have no population to evacuate.
- FakeComments 7y ago
  The following are suspect: 5. There’s a limit to time in space without long term injury. 8-10. You conclude we can continue indefinitely, but make no effort to show that this is the case — or that the amount needed wouldn’t end civilization prior to success. 11. It’s not clear to me you can have a pregnancy in space, given the health impacts to astronauts.

spodek 7y ago

> space travel is pretty much the only thing that makes sense The only thing that makes sense? You can't think of any other problems that we might work on first?

c0bb 7y ago
Space is something that if it is priority number 1, everything else will follow.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Until we can demonstrate we can look after our single habitat, and demonstrate terraforming or a sealed habitat that's proven viable indefinitely, why would we look to space and multi-planetary? Seems like extreme and dangerous hubris to prioritise that over getting here long term viable first. Or a way to avoid the issue while civilisation crashes... Quite apart from not having a suitable planet in reachable range. Mars doesn't really cut it - that puts humanity's future in a sealed tin can or needs terraforming.

TheAdamAndChe 7y ago
Humanity now has the capacity to anhaliate all people from the Earth within a year with our nuclear arsenals. Even though Mutually Assured Destruction has prevented this from happening yet, the statistics point to inevitable doom on a long enough timescale. Hell, we nearly wiped ourselves out several times since 1950. In such an environment, it makes sense to push towards interplanetary colonization as quickly as possible.

cmroanirgo 7y ago

> space travel is pretty much the only thing that makes sense There are plenty of things we can do. We can be more harmonious to our planet, for one. We can learn to make the atacama or sahara deserts habitable. We can learn to stop the climate shift we seem to be experiencing. We can be more harmonious to the other humans on this planet. These are all big ticket items that will still exist even if we found some garden of eden on some far off shore. I can't think of anything worse than taking our mining and destructive natures to an innocent planet. We have created this planet's problems. We should fix them before shooting moonbeams and running away from them.