advertisement


space exploration

Jim Audiomisc said:
My view is that the nations that cannae be bothered will lose out to the ones that can.

Look recently how countries like China, India, and Arab states have got into the exploration. And if they continue and gain advantages then the colonies won't be speaking American English.

If other countries want to spend the money on crisps and viewing pay TV instead, then they will end up paying for more things as well.
Click to expand...
I don't really care if some idiots decide to waste their time on another planet. And I likewise don't mind what language they use whilst they are there.
 
Red Mars has a lot of sane science on how you could go about terraforming Mars.
It has the wrong countries involved in the race as it was written before the rise of China
 
So if a country develops itself to enable 'space' to help them spread a comms network for their schools, etc, you would refuse to give them any aid? Note that in many 'less developed' countries mobile phones and TVs that use sats are common because that is *cheaper and easier* on the National level than running cable/fibre to every villiage. Helps education, distribution of food, report back medical problems, etc.

Be careful that your stance doesn't become "Let their poor starve because they tried to help themselves".
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
That's OK, the "idiots" can ignore you as they get on with the future. Enjoy your crisps. :)
Click to expand...
Human space travel is not the future - it is a hark back to the 1960s!

It is nice to be able to disagree without getting into a slanging match though.
 
Dozey said:
Human space travel is not the future - it is a hark back to the 1960s!
Click to expand...

Many countries ... and indeed some wealthy industrialists, etc, don't agree with you. And as I've pointed out, the future will be theirs to make. We either keep up or become the past.
 
Remember that colonists who sailed to America or Australia hundreds of years ago viewed it as a one way trip.
I can foresee Mars being the same by the second half of this century

We already have the technology to make a space elevator on Mars, much easier than in our stronger gravity, moving Phobos is the challenge as it is so close to the surface
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Many countries ... and indeed some wealthy industrialists, etc, don't agree with you. And as I've pointed out, the future will be theirs to make. We either keep up or become the past.
Click to expand...
Or we concentrate in areas which will actually make a difference here on earth.
 
Dozey said:
Or we concentrate in areas which will actually make a difference here on earth.
Click to expand...

The reality is that expansion of our capabilities 'in space' *does* make a difference on Earth. e.g. earth resource sats, comsats, etc. And the history of exploration and development is that we keep finding new ways to benefit which most/all people didn't expect until we learned by investigation.

Only looking into already 'known' areas is a recipy for stagnation and being left behind.

"If God had meant us to fly, he would never have given us the railways."

...was a common comment some years ago. Now it may turn into

"If God had meant us to not use hyperloops or sub-orbitals he would never have given us the 747."

i.e. Looking back via the mirror isn't a good way to drive forwards. Particularly when those you will compete with *are* looking forwards and striving to get there.
 
People now might want to find copies of the old books by Arthur Clark that speculated on future technology that was 'impossible' when he wrote them. Quite interesting to compare them with what has happened thus far.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
... Only looking into already 'known' areas is a recipy for stagnation and being left behind.

"If God had meant us to fly, he would never have given us the railways."

...was a common comment some years ago. Now it may turn into

"If God had meant us to not use hyperloops or sub-orbitals he would never have given us the 747."

i.e. Looking back via the mirror isn't a good way to drive forwards. Particularly when those you will compete with *are* looking forwards and striving to get there.
Click to expand...
And Henry Ford: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
People now might want to find copies of the old books by Arthur Clark that speculated on future technology that was 'impossible' when he wrote them. Quite interesting to compare them with what has happened thus far.
Click to expand...
I once sat next to a journalist at a dinner in Queens' College Cambridge. It turned out that he wrote a column for "New Scientist" under the by-line "Daedalus".

His column specialized in impossible (or at least implausible) inventions. He told me he had a 27% failure rate. Things he invented that actually turned out to be possible after all.
 
Yes. The basic points people can struggle with are that:

1) Expansion of technology development behaves such that what it can provide tends to be an exponential growth in types of applications, etc.

2) In addition, entirely unexpected techologies *and uses* pop up in the process. (Think playing with sticky tape leading to 2D materials.)

In politics, pessimists tend to turn out right. In engineering optimists tend to turn out right - even when its for reasons they didn't predict. :)
 
However there is no exponential development of the capabilities if the human body to adapt to changing environments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top