|
UberJew posted:Oh, you were being serious. Venus is the least hospitable place in the solar system that isn't being inside Jupiter or the Sun. Surface temperatures average ~860f, far hotter than an autoclave and hotter than Mercury, the clouds are sulfur dioxide and have 'raindrops' of sulfuric acid. On Mars, like in the middle of space you would need a simple pressure vessel to hold 1 bar of atmosphere for habitation and a bunch of radiators to avoid overheating. On Venus you would need a pressure vessel to keep 93 bar of instantly lethal atmosphere out, while somehow keeping the highest temperatures on any terrestrial planet from cooking you. Oh I'm talking about fantasy-land planetary terraforming. If we're just going to use domes then gently caress Venus, but I think Venus is the better of the candidates for 'maybe someday far off in the future people will walk on them without space suits'.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:15 |
|
|
How about we do a human mission to somewhere cool instead, like Enceladus? It has a subsurface liquid ocean. We could explore space AND the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Oh I'm talking about fantasy-land planetary terraforming. If we're just going to use domes then gently caress Venus, but I think Venus is the better of the candidates for 'maybe someday far off in the future people will walk on them without space suits'. Unfortunately Venus lacks a magnetosphere and its atmosphere is being slowly burned away by the sun as a result. Even if you magicked it to an earth like atmosphere you'd need to constantly add water and it would be far less safe from cosmic radiation than a sufficiently big spinning rock with water in it type space habitat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Any long range space mission is going to effectively rely on the same technology as colonization, because there's no way you're gonna pack enough stuff to feed people for years.Tezzor posted:Any argument that We Must Go To Space because It Is Our Destiny because Man Must Dream or even because it's inevitable that we'll go extinct otherwise are very very common and messianic and or teleological and that's not even getting into other very common claims that it will bring universal peace and understanding, fix the environment, remove scarcity, find benevolent aliens, etc. Here, let me flip this around for you: If space exploration is teleological, then so is environmentalism. Or so is your dumb idea that it's space exploration is somehow preventing the solution to world hunger/peace (hint: it's not). How's that not also a teleology, under your definition?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
I wonder if the sun is sentient.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Any long range space mission is going to effectively rely on the same technology as colonization, because there's no way you're gonna pack enough stuff to feed people for years. Environmentalism is pragmatic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Assuming we establish a permanent presence on Mars, and assuming we discover fossilised lifeforms, and assuming fossils can be used for necromancy, what will the magic discipline be called for Martian necromancers? Xenonecromancy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Assuming we establish a permanent presence on Mars, and assuming we discover fossilised lifeforms, and assuming fossils can be used for necromancy, what will the magic discipline be called for Martian necromancers? Xenonecromancy? It would still be necromancy since necro = dead stuff & mancy = magic stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
clammy posted:It would still be necromancy since necro = dead stuff & mancy = magic stuff. Also Mars-specific stuff probably would start with "Areo-"
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
clammy posted:Environmentalism is pragmatic. That doesn't make either a teleology, which is why tezzor is a moron of the highest order.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
I will actively destroy any space program once I enter presidential politics, because the first scourge of mankind is the mosquito. I will commit insect genocide. Vote Super Tuesday! Then we can go zoom zoom to the moon, with Newt Gingrich in command.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
UberJew posted:This is also why I laugh at people who ask why we are so obsessed with space when the ocean is like, right there man. That is the fun part: Its relatively simple to design craft for space, not so much for re-entry, but either way its nowhere near as difficult as designing ships for deep ocean trips. Vacuum is pretty easy to keep out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
The whole 'we need to find a place in case the earth is hosed' is funny. There's quite literally no planet or body of whatever that is better for sustaining human life than earth within basically any distance that could conceivably traveled without breaking the speed of light. Like it doesn't matter what we do to the earth, we could let off every nuke we had and it would still be more hospitable. UberJew posted:This is also why I laugh at people who ask why we are so obsessed with space when the ocean is like, right there man. But the ocean has a lot to offer us, while space basically has a lot of mineral rich asteroids. We thought it would be basically impossible to have a rich ecosystem at the bottom of the ocean, but once we got there we found an incredible amount of life near the vents. It would certainly be interesting to explore something like Europa but that is probably at least a century away. I'm not even necessarily of the 'we can't focus on space while there of problems on earth' mindset but our priorities right now are hilariously misguided. I also find the claim that the ocean is that much more challenging questionable. Landing a man on the moon in the 60's was an incredible challenge, yet the political will was there to solve the problem. I'd imagine with sufficient funding and government support the oceans would not be much more challenging. It seems much easier than a manned mission to mars at any rate. tsa fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Jun 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
tsa posted:But the ocean has a lot to offer us, while space basically has a lot of mineral rich asteroids. We thought it would be basically impossible to have a rich ecosystem at the bottom of the ocean, but once we got there we found an incredible amount of life near the vents. It would certainly be interesting to explore something like Europa but that is probably at least a century away. I'm not even necessarily of the 'we can't focus on space while there of problems on earth' mindset but our priorities right now are hilariously misguided. Exploring the ocean is really great and we should do more of it. Figuring out how the hell an ecosystem works under the crazy conditions deep underwater has a real potential to help us figure out how ecosystems work enough to actually manage a closed ecology, which would be directly applicable to space exploration. quote:I also find the claim that the ocean is that much more challenging questionable. Landing a man on the moon in the 60's was an incredible challenge, yet the political will was there to solve the problem. I'd imagine with sufficient funding and government support the oceans would not be much more challenging. It seems much easier than a manned mission to mars at any rate. Managing a closed ecology is the most intractable problem both for any sort of manned mission to mars and to any sort of long term habitation in the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
tsa posted:But the ocean has a lot to offer us, while space basically has a lot of mineral rich asteroids. We thought it would be basically impossible to have a rich ecosystem at the bottom of the ocean, but once we got there we found an incredible amount of life near the vents. It would certainly be interesting to explore something like Europa but that is probably at least a century away. I'm not even necessarily of the 'we can't focus on space while there of problems on earth' mindset but our priorities right now are hilariously misguided. You are misunderstanding the issues: The only reason the moon landing happened was because we needed to demonstrate to the Russians that we could launch reliable rockets. It was all about ICBMs. Regardless, even with NASA's current funding and mission, it is hardly pulling any signifcant amount of money away from solving problems here on Earth. The irony being NASA does a LOT of Earth science as well, that raises important issues about our ability to maintain Earth, but its conveniently ignored and downplayed by a political machine wholly focused on keeping the rich in position and taking more from the poor. No amount of de-funding NASA is going to solve any issues, nor will it even make a significant dent into our debt issue, considering the people who put us in debt are hilariously inept at spending and will willingly pile more debt on top of the old debt just because they can. As for space vs oceans: The major challenge for space is getting there, not living there. We're doing pretty good at living in space, but getting stuff INTO space is the larger issue. Versus the oceans where you have to deal with crushing pressure, atmospheric issues at the depths required, and the ability of the human body to cope in such a hostile environment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
UberJew posted:Managing a closed ecology is the most intractable problem both for any sort of manned mission to mars and to any sort of long term habitation in the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
quote:We're doing pretty good at living in space, but getting stuff INTO space is the larger issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
tsa posted:I also find the claim that the ocean is that much more challenging questionable. UberJew posted:Managing a closed ecology is the most intractable problem both for any sort of manned mission to mars and to any sort of long term habitation in the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Also people ITT are ignoring the glaring issue that is the tendency for brave cosmonauts to succumb to Space Madness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:Also people ITT are ignoring the glaring issue that is the tendency for brave cosmonauts to succumb to Space Madness. What about phantom spaceman? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
We need to purchase a battleship so we can begin phase 1 of the Millennium Project: Project Aquarius. Give me money instead of That bastard kurzwieler.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
I support space exploration because improving our knowledge can't be a bad thing, and also because it's one more field that creates a demand for new technologies. One thing that kinda depresses me, though, is that i've heard it said that technology progress is actually slowing down and even stagnating. Compare the difference from 1900 to 1950, and then 1950 to 2015. The 1900-1950 interval clearly had more big changes in technology: automobiles, airplanes, radio, television, nuclear energy, vaccines, x-rays, etc. From 1950 to 2015, though, we just got better and faster computers, cell phones, whatever. We thought we'd get flying cars but we just got smartphones. The internet is amazing and its cool that everything is getting more connected, but everything else has stayed the same. So I support space travel and exploration because I like to think it might light a fire under some asses. Same goes for medical and biotechnology, energy, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I skimmed the thread and didn't see it but has Venus been discussed at all? Similar gravity and proven to hold (perhaps too much) atmosphere. Step 1: we start using big old scoops to dump excess Venusian atmosphere somewhere else. Let's put it on Mars.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I support space exploration because improving our knowledge can't be a bad thing, and also because it's one more field that creates a demand for new technologies. One thing that kinda depresses me, though, is that i've heard it said that technology progress is actually slowing down and even stagnating. Compare the difference from 1900 to 1950, and then 1950 to 2015. The 1900-1950 interval clearly had more big changes in technology: automobiles, airplanes, radio, television, nuclear energy, vaccines, x-rays, etc. From 1950 to 2015, though, we just got better and faster computers, cell phones, whatever. We thought we'd get flying cars but we just got smartphones. The internet is amazing and its cool that everything is getting more connected, but everything else has stayed the same. So I support space travel and exploration because I like to think it might light a fire under some asses. Same goes for medical and biotechnology, energy, and so on. It's not stagnating, it's just not progressing in a way that you want or the Jetsons predicted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
Neo_Crimson posted:It's not stagnating, it's just not progressing in a way that you want or the Jetsons predicted. I don't really care about flying cars and moon bases per se, I was just using those as an example of how people expected huge advances similar in scale to airplanes and automobiles. Has the internet changed the world to the same degree that cars did? I dunno, maybe it has. I guess it's hard to measure "changiness". Flying cars would actually be pretty impractical, whereas the internet and smartphones are endlessly useful. How will technology continue to evolve? Maybe medicine/biotech, or cybernetics? I hope virtual reality gets huge because then we can have fun space adventures and folks like Tezzor won't have to flip their poo poo because we're wasting time on actual outer space.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Has the internet changed the world to the same degree that cars did? Absolutely. Especially when you consider that the internet is a lot more than just what you use to browse facebook. Containerization is another thing that's mostly invisible but has brought huge fuckin' changes since the 50s/60s.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Has the internet changed the world to the same degree that cars did? I dunno, maybe it has.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I guess it's hard to measure "changiness".
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 10:30
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Absolutely. Especially when you consider that the internet is a lot more than just what you use to browse facebook. The technology is mostly already here, it's just a case of economy. (It's thread relevant too, trying to land a human on a comet or sending them to take pictures of Pluto would have been a bad idea.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 10:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oooo, Oooo, I got one: Such rationalism! quote:The amount of money we spend on NASA is insignificant. Nada. Its almost nothing compared to the amount of money spent on ANY of our other Government programs. The argument that 'NASA is wasted money' is not only bullshit, its based on an argument that the Tea Party likes to make. You are honestly suggested that 0.5% of our tax money is wasted money. Lol nice post history burn. The DoD has a return on investment according to the amoral tech masturbating of the space fetishist. Lots and lots of new technologies have come out of the military. As for the budget, it doesn't matter if it's 0.5% or 0.001%. It's still a poorly designed and ridiculously circuitous technology subsidy that is focused on solving problems that have nothing whatsoever to do with human needs, justified by arguing that some incidental helpful technologies will fall out in the process. Which leads me to: quote:No, you really are just inventing reasons. Like Jello. What the gently caress is with that moronic argument. If you were basically sapient you will immediately understand that it is a deliberately absurd hypothetical that highlights the failings of the argument "but spending a lot on this thing would give us new technologies" Tezzor fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Jun 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
UberJew posted:Oh, you were being serious. Venus is the least hospitable place in the solar system that isn't being inside Jupiter or the Sun. Surface temperatures average ~860f, far hotter than an autoclave and hotter than Mercury, the clouds are sulfur dioxide and have 'raindrops' of sulfuric acid. On Mars, like in the middle of space you would need a simple pressure vessel to hold 1 bar of atmosphere for habitation and a bunch of radiators to avoid overheating. On Venus you would need a pressure vessel to keep 93 bar of instantly lethal atmosphere out, while somehow keeping the highest temperatures on any terrestrial planet from cooking you. But if we put bases on Venus think of all the technologies we could develop for facilities insulation, acid-resistant materials, and blackened skeleton disposal!
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Such rationalism! Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't compare it to Jello. Tezzor posted:Lol nice post history burn. The DoD has a return on investment according to the amoral tech masturbating of the space fetishist. Lots and lots of new technologies have come out of the military. As for the budget, it doesn't matter if it's 0.5% or 0.001%. It's still a poorly designed and ridiculously circuitous technology subsidy that is focused on solving problems that have nothing whatsoever to do with human needs, justified by arguing that some incidental helpful technologies will fall out in the process. Which leads me to: Again, you're a moron. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies Still waiting for the list of technologies that the DoD spins off, if we're going by how much is invested to how much civilian usable tech comes out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Wanting something =! messianic or teleological you idiot. I agree! That's why my argument wasn't based on "they want something" but rather why they want something, the reasons for which are messianic and teleological. Next time you might consider taking a deep breath before posting to avoid making such obvious mistakes. quote:Here, let me flip this around for you: If space exploration is teleological, then so is environmentalism. Or so is your dumb idea that it's space exploration is somehow preventing the solution to world hunger/peace (hint: it's not). How's that not also a teleology, under your definition? 1. No it isn't. 2. I don't believe that space exploration is stopping a solution to world hunger or peace.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:1. No it isn't. World Hunger is not a matter of science solutions but one of social solutions, and its not one that is going to be solved through financial means. Science already provided the solution in GMOs, but getting those products to people is a matter of social issues. World Peace....c'mon now. Stop pretending that you actually think that is a 'solvable' crisis. Nice strawman. Tezzor posted:I agree! That's why my argument wasn't based on "they want something" but rather why they want something, the reasons for which are messianic and teleological. Next time you might consider taking a deep breath before posting to avoid making such obvious mistakes. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! God you really are a moron.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
We should go to Jupiter instead. After all, all these worlds are ours except for Europa.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't compare it to Jello. You could list a million spinoff technologies and it wouldn't dispute the point you cannot seem to comprehend. As far as technologies, off the top of my head, the airplane, the internet, GPS, rocketry, lasers, satellites, kevlar, submarines, RADAR, SONAR, robotics, nuclear reactors, artificial limbs, and computers were all developed in the military sector or massively improved as a result of military-sector research and development. As a result of this fact, invading Portugal is totally necessary and inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
New debate topic: Why do you not have Tezzor on ignore?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:New debate topic: Why do you not have Tezzor on ignore?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I agree! That's why my argument wasn't based on "they want something" but rather why they want something, the reasons for which are messianic and teleological. Next time you might consider taking a deep breath before posting to avoid making such obvious mistakes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:15 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Still waiting for the list of technologies that the DoD spins off, if we're going by how much is invested to how much civilian usable tech comes out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 17:13
|
|