4 ms·

We're still trying to get back to the moon, haven't built a nuclear power plant in decades (US) and our bodies fall apart in zero G. I doubt we'll be touring o

We're still trying to get back to the moon, haven't built a nuclear power plant in decades (US) and our bodies fall apart in zero G. I doubt we'll be touring other planets in even the next 100 years.

ErrantX 18y ago
And yet we went from the first powered flight to landing on the moon in 66 years. Its 106 yrs (nearly) now since the wright brothers first took to the air and barely 40 since Apollo 11 touched down. So I'd suggest that 100 years is an age to fix those problems in :) The issue is, I think, that we lost interest in the moon and stars. The space race was driven by politics and so we got there by sheer force. Then it all slackened off again. But I think the next generation will have grown up with enough modern Sci-Fi to think "I wonder if...." and hunger for the sky :)
- MichaelApproved 18y ago
  If star trek taught us anything it's that we're a plucky race that can do almost anything (provided we overcome our violent history). But I'm judging the next 100 years on the past 20. We did squat compared to what we're potentially capable of. NASA lost about 50% of it's unmanned Mars missions. What a joke.
  - rms 18y ago
    But we did the internet. Personally I think it's an accident of human history that space exploration came before the information age. It would have gone the other way if not for the Cold War.
    - MichaelApproved 18y ago
      The internet is mainly a set of protocols and business rules humans created. Space exploration has to tackle rules the universe created. Much different story.
      - netsp 18y ago
        If a set of rules is created (or emerges for you Hayekians) whereby there is significant incentive for the creation of increments contributing to overall advancement, we will advance in space exploration. The cold war was such system. The next one will (hopefully) be more peaceful & market driven. Space flights for tourism provide a few of these increment. Asteroid-mining might be another. Military probably has a few more to play. None of these have been paying much dividends in the last 30-40 years. The of protocols and business rules humans create may be capitalism (or some sort of cousin). The rules the universe created need to be tackled no matter what we do.
  - aaronblohowiak 18y ago
    This is not a joke, it is kind of by design. Of course when you pursue "smaller, faster cheaper" you are going to sacrifice fault tolerance and certainty of design. The tax payers are still likely ahead launching 2x as many of these missions than half as many of the older technique. Now, the effect that failed missions have on the morale and career development of the next wave of PhD candidates and grad students is one that interests me greatly.
- tsally 18y ago
  I say this in the most serious possible way. I hope in the next twenty or thirty years Russia or China builds a base on the moon and puts weapons on it. I'm not sure how useful weapons on the moon would be tactically, but at least a refueling/rearm station. You're right, getting to the moon was political. Sadly, the only way I can see to make it political again is the weaponization of space. Having another world power do this would jump start our space program in a drastic way. EDIT: I apologize for the American bias in my post. When I say "our" I am referring to NASA. I think collaboration between NASA, the European Space Agency, and/or the Russian Federal Space Agency would be good to some extent. Of course, this type of collaboration would probably prevent space exploration from becoming a political issue. And for reasons previously described, eliminating the politics from space exploration is probably a bad idea.
  - philwelch 18y ago
    I overheard a coworker of mine asserting "there is no strategic value to the moon". And I think he's right. There's no practical reason to put weapons on the moon, they work a lot better on the earth and with the cost of putting them on the moon you could just build more weapons.
    - eugenejen 18y ago
      But at the other hand, strategic value may not mean just put weapons on moon. What if it is easier/cheaper to mine rare earth elements in Moon than earth then for Russian and China to dig rocks there and throw refined metal back to earth like meteors will be their strategic advantage.
      - mariorz 18y ago
        and since working conditions will be extremely hazardous, maybe we would send convicts and otherwise "unwanted" citizens to the mines. we would of course need to send some form of authority, like a warden, just to keep the convicts (loonies!) under control. it would also be necessary to set them up with an advanced computer system to handle all colony operations, from telephone switching to ballistics calculations for the throws. all and all, i don't see how this could go wrong.

We're still trying to get back to the moon, haven't built a nuclear power plant in decades (US) and our bodies fall apart in zero G. I doubt we'll be touring other planets in even the next 100 years.

ErrantX 18y ago

And yet we went from the first powered flight to landing on the moon in 66 years. Its 106 yrs (nearly) now since the wright brothers first took to the air and barely 40 since Apollo 11 touched down. So I'd suggest that 100 years is an age to fix those problems in :) The issue is, I think, that we lost interest in the moon and stars. The space race was driven by politics and so we got there by sheer force. Then it all slackened off again. But I think the next generation will have grown up with enough modern Sci-Fi to think "I wonder if...." and hunger for the sky :)

MichaelApproved 18y ago
If star trek taught us anything it's that we're a plucky race that can do almost anything (provided we overcome our violent history). But I'm judging the next 100 years on the past 20. We did squat compared to what we're potentially capable of. NASA lost about 50% of it's unmanned Mars missions. What a joke.
- rms 18y ago
  But we did the internet. Personally I think it's an accident of human history that space exploration came before the information age. It would have gone the other way if not for the Cold War.
  - MichaelApproved 18y ago
    The internet is mainly a set of protocols and business rules humans created. Space exploration has to tackle rules the universe created. Much different story.
    - netsp 18y ago
      If a set of rules is created (or emerges for you Hayekians) whereby there is significant incentive for the creation of increments contributing to overall advancement, we will advance in space exploration. The cold war was such system. The next one will (hopefully) be more peaceful & market driven. Space flights for tourism provide a few of these increment. Asteroid-mining might be another. Military probably has a few more to play. None of these have been paying much dividends in the last 30-40 years. The of protocols and business rules humans create may be capitalism (or some sort of cousin). The rules the universe created need to be tackled no matter what we do.
- aaronblohowiak 18y ago
  This is not a joke, it is kind of by design. Of course when you pursue "smaller, faster cheaper" you are going to sacrifice fault tolerance and certainty of design. The tax payers are still likely ahead launching 2x as many of these missions than half as many of the older technique. Now, the effect that failed missions have on the morale and career development of the next wave of PhD candidates and grad students is one that interests me greatly.
tsally 18y ago
I say this in the most serious possible way. I hope in the next twenty or thirty years Russia or China builds a base on the moon and puts weapons on it. I'm not sure how useful weapons on the moon would be tactically, but at least a refueling/rearm station. You're right, getting to the moon was political. Sadly, the only way I can see to make it political again is the weaponization of space. Having another world power do this would jump start our space program in a drastic way. EDIT: I apologize for the American bias in my post. When I say "our" I am referring to NASA. I think collaboration between NASA, the European Space Agency, and/or the Russian Federal Space Agency would be good to some extent. Of course, this type of collaboration would probably prevent space exploration from becoming a political issue. And for reasons previously described, eliminating the politics from space exploration is probably a bad idea.
- philwelch 18y ago
  I overheard a coworker of mine asserting "there is no strategic value to the moon". And I think he's right. There's no practical reason to put weapons on the moon, they work a lot better on the earth and with the cost of putting them on the moon you could just build more weapons.
  - eugenejen 18y ago
    But at the other hand, strategic value may not mean just put weapons on moon. What if it is easier/cheaper to mine rare earth elements in Moon than earth then for Russian and China to dig rocks there and throw refined metal back to earth like meteors will be their strategic advantage.
    - mariorz 18y ago
      and since working conditions will be extremely hazardous, maybe we would send convicts and otherwise "unwanted" citizens to the mines. we would of course need to send some form of authority, like a warden, just to keep the convicts (loonies!) under control. it would also be necessary to set them up with an advanced computer system to handle all colony operations, from telephone switching to ballistics calculations for the throws. all and all, i don't see how this could go wrong.