Space Exploration

Are NASA's future missions and budget justified?

  • It's worth the time and expenditures

    Votes: 223 66.0%

  • Complete waste of money

    Votes: 41 12.1%

  • We need to explore, but not at the current cost

    Votes: 74 21.9%
  • Total voters
    338
#351
#351
Grand Vol said:
Let me kind of expand on this a bit since you brought it up.

By the overpopulation problem I mean that our resources on this planet are finite and eventually we will end up coming up short whether it is water, food, important minerals, etc. So where are those resources? Out there. So by helping the overpopulation, reaching out into the solar system for additional assets and colonizing the additional areas, say for Helium 3 production on the moon requires a dedicated population. Sure initially they will need to be supported from Terra Firma but we are beginning to scratch the surface on the resources that are available within reach cosmically speaking.

The comet harvesting comment was a bit of a joke, but...they do have significant stores water that could be/should be able to be used. So imagine a mini-Dyson Sphere type of apparatus that could capture said comet, divert the path off of a solar orbit and safely move it to within reach of colonies or the Earth. And using materials mined from asteroids to construct said device. It's cosmic cleaning on a grand scale as those same comets wouldn't be a threat to Earth in the future.

Think about farms put into an L2 solar orbit that are again made with materials harvested from space entirely. Maybe with hydroponics, maybe it rotates to keep the dirt created by the regolith from said asteroid mining. Growing seasons mean nothing as there are no seasons in space.

Methane is a reasonable alternate fuel for combustion engines. And the solar system is filled with it. The same with hydrogen. All mining operations that can be successful (down the road at least) and help ease the burden on the resources of our own planet.

It's not beyond the reach of the imagination. And we've just scratched the surface on what we know is out there. All of which would require some form of human oversight (no matter how much we try to automate everything) which are colonies and the supporting infrastructure.
Click to expand...

ok this side of it I am all with you. I thought you were talking about shipping out people just to open up space, not as a resource gathering operation.

Another possible use for the comets/asteroids we capture could defense against other comets that could crash into earth, use the captured ones to go out and headbutt the incoming one. depending on the varying sizes and distances when they collide this could be one of the best methods to protect ourselves imo.
 
#352
#352
LouderVol said:
Another possible use for the comets/asteroids we capture could defense against other comets that could crash into earth, use the captured ones to go out and headbutt the incoming one. depending on the varying sizes and distances when they collide this could be one of the best methods to protect ourselves imo.
Click to expand...

I like my Dyson Sphere approach better lol. Like a big cosmic catchers mitt. The biggest problem with comet chasing is the high speed jets and coma. So a way of keeping the solar radiation away from the surface is absolutely essential.

But yes, using them as ballistic projectiles would be useful as well. But I think having the technology and capability to capture same and put them into a usable orbit, like say an L2 or lunar orbit (although depending on size this could get tricky) to get at the resources locked away would be more beneficial.
 
#353
#353
LouderVol said:
ok this side of it I am all with you. I thought you were talking about shipping out people just to open up space, not as a resource gathering operation.
Click to expand...

It does have the benefit of being both actually. But if we are talking large scale colonies that are reasonably self sufficient we are looking at something that's decades if not centuries down the road.

I've got the plan for the colonization of space. Maybe I should hold a fundraiser to get it started...
 
#354
#354
Grand Vol said:
I like my Dyson Sphere approach better lol. Like a big cosmic catchers mitt. The biggest problem with comet chasing is the high speed jets and coma. So a way of keeping the solar radiation away from the surface is absolutely essential.

But yes, using them as ballistic projectiles would be useful as well. But I think having the technology and capability to capture same and put them into a usable orbit, like say an L2 or lunar orbit (although depending on size this could get tricky) to get at the resources locked away would be more beneficial.
Click to expand...

maybe I am just missing something but how does the dyson sphere act to catch comets? I would think any comets that got that close to the sun would likely just be sucked in by gravity. And I for one am not a fan of dyson spheres in a heavily populated life supporting system such as ours. We have no idea what would happen to our climate if we even just blocked/absorbed 10% of the light from the sun. and to stop the solar radiation (my biggest extraterrestrial fear) would require covering up the whole sun, incredibly unfeasible.

I don't mind at all the artificial moons, but like you said size would be a concern, not only with gravity between them the moon and the earth but also how they could affect tides down here (it would take a pretty massive object/ or collection of objects but again a subtle shift could have huge and unknown ramifications)
 
#355
#355
Grand Vol said:
It does have the benefit of being both actually. But if we are talking large scale colonies that are reasonably self sufficient we are looking at something that's decades if not centuries down the road.

I've got the plan for the colonization of space. Maybe I should hold a fundraiser to get it started...
Click to expand...

to get a little technical and to point out why I am not agreeing for a colony to be successful it has to be self sufficient which would mean it doesn't need more colonist but instead depends on the native population to reproduce and grow the colony. and depending on the size of the colony or the where of the colony keeping the sizes small (several thousands maybe up to tens of thousands) would be most sustainable without risk of overdoing it.

and just to play on your plan of space colonization what do you envision we do with the comets/meteors we capture after we have emptied them? Keep them as resource sucking colonies? turn them into renewable resource collectors, solar, farming, forests etc etc? or push them into the sun to get rid of the clutter? One thing I might propose is using them as our space exploring vessels. Hollow them out, slap an engine on them and launch them out there.
 
#356
#356
LouderVol said:
maybe I am just missing something but how does the dyson sphere act to catch comets? I would think any comets that got that close to the sun would likely just be sucked in by gravity. And I for one am not a fan of dyson spheres in a heavily populated life supporting system such as ours. We have no idea what would happen to our climate if we even just blocked/absorbed 10% of the light from the sun. and to stop the solar radiation (my biggest extraterrestrial fear) would require covering up the whole sun, incredibly unfeasible.
Click to expand...

Using the generic term of "Dyson Sphere" in reference to an encompassing object, a sphere of being able to contain and divert comets to keep the solar radiation from activating the jets in comets. Just the comet themselves. Probably the wrong choice of terms. But was using the term to give a reference of what I was talking about.

LouderVol said:
I don't mind at all the artificial moons, but like you said size would be a concern, not only with gravity between them the moon and the earth but also how they could affect tides down here (it would take a pretty massive object/ or collection of objects but again a subtle shift could have huge and unknown ramifications)
Click to expand...

Which is why an L2 orbit would be a far better option IMO for that sort of thing. Remove the variables out of consideration.
 
#357
#357
LouderVol said:
to get a little technical and to point out why I am not agreeing for a colony to be successful it has to be self sufficient which would mean it doesn't need more colonist but instead depends on the native population to reproduce and grow the colony. and depending on the size of the colony or the where of the colony keeping the sizes small (several thousands maybe up to tens of thousands) would be most sustainable without risk of overdoing it.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I was thinking resource wise to be independent of Earth for the most part. Of course, long term that would include room for population growth and sustainability over the ages.

We're getting into some Heinlein territory here lol

LouderVol said:
and just to play on your plan of space colonization what do you envision we do with the comets/meteors we capture after we have emptied them? Keep them as resource sucking colonies? turn them into renewable resource collectors, solar, farming, forests etc etc? or push them into the sun to get rid of the clutter? One thing I might propose is using them as our space exploring vessels. Hollow them out, slap an engine on them and launch them out there.
Click to expand...

Depends on the type of regolith that remains honestly. And depends on the location. I don't think setting up a long term colony on an asteroid is a serious consideration unless you are talking the larger ones or even a dwarf planet. The smaller ones depends on whether or not the regolith is still usable as other materials. Like your idea of ships for example. The unused materials could be "hull" patching or combined with other items. Depending on how it's ground, could provide "dirt" for the space farms I spoke of earlier (with an artificial gravity environment) or even be fashioned into armor of some type for large scale space stations. I'm not sure setting it on a course for the sun would be the best option as overall, we don't know the long term consequences of adding additional elements (above and beyond what it sucks up already) to the reactions. A drop in the bucket yes, but we just don't know enough about the sun to do dicking around with further adding potentially unstable elements even in trace amounts into the mix.

Shoot, drop it on Pluto and make it a planet again after it gets big enough. (which I see its status is under debate yet again) That bastage Neil deGrasse Tyson and his icy bodies nonsense and Michael Brown...

PLUTO KILLERS!
 
#358
#358
Grand Vol said:
Agreed. I was thinking resource wise to be independent of Earth for the most part. Of course, long term that would include room for population growth and sustainability over the ages.

We're getting into some Heinlein territory here lol



Depends on the type of regolith that remains honestly. And depends on the location. I don't think setting up a long term colony on an asteroid is a serious consideration unless you are talking the larger ones or even a dwarf planet. The smaller ones depends on whether or not the regolith is still usable as other materials. Like your idea of ships for example. The unused materials could be "hull" patching or combined with other items. Depending on how it's ground, could provide "dirt" for the space farms I spoke of earlier (with an artificial gravity environment) or even be fashioned into armor of some type for large scale space stations. I'm not sure setting it on a course for the sun would be the best option as overall, we don't know the long term consequences of adding additional elements (above and beyond what it sucks up already) to the reactions. A drop in the bucket yes, but we just don't know enough about the sun to do dicking around with further adding potentially unstable elements even in trace amounts into the mix.

Shoot, drop it on Pluto and make it a planet again after it gets big enough. (which I see its status is under debate yet again) That bastage Neil deGrasse Tyson and his icy bodies nonsense and Michael Brown...

PLUTO KILLERS!
Click to expand...

another use for the hollowed out leftovers could be a space dock(s), especially out there at L2 as we build up colonies outside our orbit.

I thought the main reason Pluto was not a planet was because its orbit was affected too much by other objects including Eris, not necessarily that it was too small per-say.
 
#359
#359
LouderVol said:
I thought the main reason Pluto was not a planet was because its orbit was affected too much by other objects including Eris, not necessarily that it was too small per-say.
Click to expand...

Actually, Pluto is a KBO while Eris is an SDO so their orbits wouldn't affect each other. KBOs typically don't get affected by Neptune while SDOs orbits are perturbed by it. And even though Pluto passes Neptune's orbit, the two don't affect each other.

I just thought it was funny that since the discovery that Pluto has two more moons and more or less fits into the IAU definition of a planet at this point since it appears to be "clearing it's neighborhood."

Yeah, I'm a nerd...
 
#360
#360
Grand Vol said:
Actually, Pluto is a KBO while Eris is an SDO so their orbits wouldn't affect each other. KBOs typically don't get affected by Neptune while SDOs orbits are perturbed by it. And even though Pluto passes Neptune's orbit, the two don't affect each other.

I just thought it was funny that since the discovery that Pluto has two more moons and more or less fits into the IAU definition of a planet at this point since it appears to be "clearing it's neighborhood."

Yeah, I'm a nerd...
Click to expand...

I hadn't been able to tell from the rest of your posts, glad you clarified. me on the other hand I just been making stuff up :)
 
#361
#361
Do you know what you call something spreads while it consumes and kills?

Cancer.

Perhaps we should fix how we do things here before exporting it.
 
#372
#372
I am in the second group and believe in 1,2,6 and 9 and maybe a little of 4 & 5. thanks for the read PKT
 
#373
#373
LouderVol said:
I am in the second group and believe in 1,2,6 and 9 and maybe a little of 4 & 5. thanks for the read PKT
Click to expand...

1) If one were the case, surely they would have kept track of our planet, right?

2) Although we live way out on the pinwheel, I doubt that would be the case for an inquisitive, intelligent race who has the ability to "colonize the galaxy".

4) Wouldn't the predator race give off a signal? What about signals sent by other civilizations before they knew of the predator race?

5) Why exterminate when you can enslave?

6 and 9) About the same. It makes sense. Although, you would think they would know of us regardless and respond.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top