You seriously think first contact is a "feather in our cap"?
It would be the most groundbreaking day in human history.

Not only that but tech's learned from first contact could be human saving

Or they could be just like us, stumbling onto something new, neither more advanced or rudimentary than our species. You guys are arguing that "could be"s are absolutely necessary for the survival of the species. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't go to space, or that it's a bad idea. I'm simply saying that assuming space travel is the penultimate goal of human life and is necessary for us to continue is pretty absurd.

Saying that we should be trying to find intelligent life because their technology could save us is about the equivalent of saying that we shouldn't be searching for intelligent life because they'll try to destroy us.

Space travel is a means to an end. It is not the only way, it is not the best way, it is not the worst way.

If the aren't more advanced then us, then they aren't going to make it near our planet

Assuming that this contact happens on earth

So it'd be impossible for two species of similar technological advances, to be scouring the universe and happen to bump into each other half-way between each other's origin?

The idea behind traveling through space in search of other life is that we're not going to find intelligent life near our planet or we would have already hurr

If these resources ever become so valuable that the *freaking massive* energy cost to obtain them is justified, the free market will take care of it. Until then, recycling is far more practical, cheaper and lucrative.



Well, the oceans occupy 2/3rds of the earths surface and have easy access to massive amounts of water, air and gravity and other resources. By the time we finish taking advantage of that, space colonization may be practical, but us spending billions on a moon base now won't really affect that. Besides, population growth rate is dropping. Current estimates show that the population will level off some time in the middle of this century anyway.

We already have a space station, anyways, I don't know what else you want.



Right, because our scientific research right now have a bearing on our ability to colonize other worlds billions of years from now. A more realistic worry would be weather civilization will last the next five thousand years. Like they say it only takes one wise guy...

Really though, on that scale the entire course of human history is trivial. Civilizations could be wiped out and rebuilt hundreds of thousands of times in that kind of scale.


That's what lab are for. And we have one in space already.



Assuming there is another civilization out there in this galaxy, it would be so far away that we would really have no way of determining its existence. Our telescopes and radios receivers strain to determine the existence of planets. Anythings else will be hopelessly lost in background noise. As far as finding out if one exists, I don't see how that really helps us with anything useful.

Who said anything about completely destroying a planet? You think we're going to find one that's entirely made up of nothing but a certain material we need? Also, where is there any harm if there is absolutely zero life on the planet?



I guess that's why we're having population crisis' in certain areas of the world? Here: http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm

Year Population
1 200 million
1000 275 million
1500 450 million
1650 500 million
1750 700 million
1804 1 billion
1850 1.2 billion
1900 1.6 billion
1927 2 billion
1950 2.55 billion
1955 2.8 billion
1960 3 billion
1965 3.3 billion
1970 3.7 billion
1975 4 billion
1980 4.5 billion
1985 4.85 billion
1990 5.3 billion
1995 5.7 billion
1999 6 billion
2006 6.5 billion
2010 6.8 billion
2012 7 billion
2020 7.6 billion
2030 8.2 billion
2040 8.8 billion
2050 9.2 billion



Oh no I'm going to lose the race why even try?



Who said anything about physics acting different? I said our UNDERSTANDING of them and its principles. How about the discovery of new elements? Such as those found in asteroids, materials from other planets, etc. We could find something that's incredibly useful, an element not found on Earth or not able to be produced here either.



Ignorance, at its finest. And I don't recall saying that said discovery was "vital to our existence". It would help us find our place in the universe for one, and the latter part of my statement was about what possibilities may arise with that co-existence. Nowhere did I say it would make or break us as a species.

How about discovering things like asteroids that are potentially threatening?




I didn't know Marijuana had anything to do with this discussion.


I'll leave you with a (gasp) wiki quote and end it with something from Stephen Hawking. Argue with him, and you're not going to win.

The best reason I can think of off the top of my head is the advancement in physics and engineering that space exploration brings.

Its people like Roger, and those who share his attitude, that will keep space exploration exclusively on the silver screen.

...but space exploration shouldn't be a way to "ditch earth" and its current problems. It should be for the betterment of society, not an escape plan.

You're all missing the point of my argument. I support space travel. I do not however feel that it is vital to the survival of the species. There are more important things that we need to deal with here, on Earth, before space travel solves any problems.

We're overpopulated? Let's colonize another planet! Uh oh, run of out room there! Let's go somewhere else! I hope we bump into some aliens, because they will surely have technology to solve our overpopulation problem. We can solve our species' shortcomings by heading to space! That will solve everything! WE MUST DO THIS NOW! :downswords::downswords::downswords:

Way to react like a 12 year old schoolboy seeing his first pair of ****.

Nobody said anything about it being VITAL to our species or even our species' survival at all, only of extreme importance for various and several reasons that would help us out with our current/future problems. Either way we're going to deal with them, this would just make it a lot easier. Also nobody said it would "solve" everything. The issue with your argument is, at some point or another we're going to run out of options. That's just a fact of being human. We're consumers, we're violent, and we need (or will at some point) more than one home.

Can you take your bong out of your *** now?

The chances of another intelligent species existing are very, very good.

The chances of us ever meeting them are very, very slim.

It's not merely a matter of space (Which is rather large) but also time. We must not only meet them at the same point in space; we must meet them at the same point in time.

The chances of this other civilization being within a realistically travelable distance to us (Lets say, just for argument, within 100 light years. We can't really travel that far, but maybe we can both travel 50, right?) is incredibly slim.

The chances of this civilization existing at the same time as ours (Lets say we've been 'civilized' for 5000 years. Lets say we make it to to 10000 before we destroy ourselves. That's 10000 years out of 14.something billion.) is incredibly slim.

So we might find other civilizations very close to ours; except they've been extinct for eight billion years.

Or we might find one alive and kicking right now; except by time their television shows reach us we'll have been extinct for eight billion years.

We need another home for reasons completely beyond our control, as well. Who was it that said 'The Earth is too fragile a basket for the human race to keep all it's eggs in'?

If we do need another home as some point, surely the moon would be the best bet anyway seeing as thats theoretically possible at the moment.

Well Mars obviously.

Europa would be as viable as the moon, if we could get there. Colder; but it (probably) has plenty of water.

I don't know who said that but it's a bloody brilliant quote.

We only run out of options when we make the wrong choices. If we don't solve humanity's problems with over-consumption, violence, etc, traveling through space will do nothing for us but give us another locale to do the same. This is not a difficult concept. Try to keep up.

Setting up the PayPal account now...

u were 12 when you saw your first pair of nuts
:downswords:\

unless you meant someone elses and not ur own

Alright, time for some more pretty pictures!

The famous "Blue Marble" image; Earth as seen from the Apollo 17 spacecraft:


The Hubble Space Telescope:


Horsehead Nebula:


The Very Large Array of radio telescopes:


Jupiter's moon Europa:


The Saturn V rocket launching:

[QUOTE=Roger Spruce]Brilliant idea. Instead of finding ways of reducing our use of the resources, let's find other planets to destroy.[/QUOTE]
While important, the reduction of resource consumption only pushes back the time we have until resource depletion. And I agree; the consumption of other planets' resources to make up for Earth's lack of isn't entirely that ethical, in my opinion. However, the mining of asteroids and various other space debris could be an option.

This is true, but recycling also has its costs, like space travel. For example, fuel is needed to melt down plastics and metals.

The problem is that the human race has a bad track record of destroying or over consuming. The consuming part would be helped by recycling efforts pioneered on Earth, but would be harmed by the exportation and sale of the planet's resources. In the way of destroying, well, that would all depend on how space-faring nations adhere to UN resolutions governing the exploration, colonization, and exploitation of space and its resources. In the way of resource, it would take huge amounts to both prove that there is no life on the target planet, even on the smallest of scale. It would take even more to create a colony that could sustain a large amount of people. Either terraforming or a modular base would have to be used. As for the base, massive amounts of resource would have to be used to build anything large enough to take some burden off of the population issues of the Earth. Terraforming would require massive amounts of resource being thrown at the planet and hoping that it'll be able to sustain human life someday.
[quote=Roger Spruce]And people die. Eventually it gets to a point where more people are dying than breeding. Problem solved.[/quote]

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopgraph.php

This is an alternative to space travel. However, sub-oceanic resources are very hard to obtain. Currently, the only resources (that I'm aware of) being mined are oil, zinc, silver, and magnesium.

The moon is pretty much a test bed for future space missions and colonization efforts alike, seeing as it's the closest body to the Earth. Also, it would make for a nifty gas stop, so to speak.

Space stations require fuel to sustain their orbits and alignment. Not to mention that other than the small experiments taking place, its nothing more than a massive toy. A toy that says that proves that large stations are possible, and that international cooperation is possible... but still a toy nonetheless, sad to say.
[QUOTE=Roger Spruce]It's just as likely that mankind will force itself into extinction before the sun goes supernova.[/quote]
Indeed, seeing as the sun is currently nearing the middle of its lifetime. It has a few billion more years left before it begins to heat up and expand to the point to where it would be threatening to the Earth. There's plenty of time to find worlds beyond the Solar system. There's plenty of time to develop space-faring technologies. There's plenty of time to explore planets in our Solar system, and exploit any resource available. But it has to start somewhere.
[quote=Roger Spruce]Physics won't magically act different on a different planet.[/quote]
Very true.

True also.

For both of these, however, some things still remain that require sampling and close-up observation. This and the fact that technologies will have to be tested, and limitations we encounter to the current technologies will have to be overcome.

This is true to some degree. More experiments into dark matter/energy can be devised. Rare elements can be found. However, elements not found on Earth naturally (ie, ones that have been observed only in experiments in nuclear weapons and colliders) is questionable, seeing as many of these elements have painfully short half-lives... thus making the likelihood of finding such elements very slim.

It is perhaps the idea of seeing what other life is like elsewhere in the universe. Not only that, but the idea that it may be possible to share/trade philosophies and ideas. That is perhaps some of the ideas that make the idea of finding intelligent, space faring civilizations so exciting for some.

However, the possibility of finding such a civilization is very slim, seeing as there are billions of starts out there, many of which have multiple planets orbiting them. The shear amount of territory that would have to be explored for even the smallest hint of an existing civilization is far too much.

Then there is what JM said. You might find civilizations, but they may be far gone. Too far gone to try to make contact with, or to trade with, or anything.

Sure, the idea of finding living, breathing civilizations out there is neat, but it is very unlikely for several generations of space-faring. That is assuming, of course, it does happen in man-kind's lifetime.

Indeed. If it is used as an escape plan, we fail to take responsibility for our past mistakes. In doing so, we are doomed to repeat them.
[quote=Roger Spruce]We only run out of options when we make the wrong choices. If we don't solve humanity's problems with over-consumption, violence, etc, traveling through space will do nothing for us but give us another locale to do the same.[/quote]
Exactly. And with multiple planets worth of population, wars would only grow in size and, thus, in damage. In addition, the expanse of space would create for another wall to use for propaganda and division. Except this would be worse, as communications would be even harder for the average citizen. And so would be transportation. Sure, high-speed interplanetary communications could be theoretically possible. But who's to say that everyone would have access to them? It's hard enough making sure that communications are accessible to all points of the Earth, much less accessible without heavy restrictions.

The UN might have resolutions meant to govern space exploration, but there are several holes that would allow for wars to still happen. For instance, if I remember correctly (it has been some time since I've read over the resolutions, so forgive if there are any inaccuracies), no nation can lay claim to a body in space. In addition, the resolutions state that weapons of mass destruction cannot be placed, by the signing nations, in orbit, or on any space-body.

Can't lay claim to a body? Great, let’s create a new government! The worst case scenario is that a puppet government be created, or that a nation leaves the UN just to do this. As a result, WMDs could be A) produced on the new colony; or, in the case of the puppet-government, B) 'traded.' It may sound ridiculous, but, as I said before its hard enough making sure these things don't happen here on Earth, much less several million miles away. Everything must be put into consideration, as it's not just a matter of planting your heels into the dirt and saying the planet is yours.

Sounds good.

Didn't read the thread, heard it was dumb.

Space travel at our current level of technology is an example of a "the sooner you start, the later you finish" problem. In other words it's dumb, and it's a waste of money. We'll be in a much better position once we finally have the technology and the business case for space travel.

Actually, I was quite a bit younger.

[QUOTE=Jon`C on July 18, 1491]Travel across the Atlantic Ocean at our current level of technology is an example of a "the sooner you start, the later you finish" problem. In other words it's dumb, and it's a waste of money. We'll be in a much better position once we finally have the technology and the business case for oceanic transit.[/QUOTE]

True, we might as well just wait here in Europe until someone develops the steamship or the jet airplane.

I haven't really read the thread but I think we should get to know more about our own planet (oceans) than everything else outside of it.

Cute, but a more accurate analogy would be to wait for the invention of the carrack rather than setting out in a fleet of triremes.

Comparing the Atlantic to space. Hehe.

Also: I haven't read this whole thing, but there was some talk of running out of resources for our population... it's likely that by the time we start running out of things, we'll be able to synthesize them.

Yeah I know, right?

It's an even worse analogy when you consider the social and economic implications of what he's saying: By the time Christopher Columbus set out for what turned out to be North America (1492), small boat ownership was readily available.

If we can agree that the most appropriate comparison to small aircraft would be a cart or a small wagon under kyle90's analogy, we are living in a time when even those are prohibitively expensive. We're living in a time when people don't even own a wheel. If we pay even the slightest bit of attention what kyle90's trying to say, which is a fair deal more attention than it deserves, we are currently (speaking favorably) at the beginning of the Middle Ages of space flight - but probably much earlier.

It's such a vacuous analogy that it's insulting. Probably the worst one ever put to words.

The thing people who are nutso for space exploration will never tell you is exactly what resources they think we'd want to go into space for. It's always just vague hand-waving about how we're all greedy sinners, accompanied with a huge dose of magical thinking about how we're supposed to acquire the resources and bring them back to Earth.

It's a joke. The X-Prize Foundation made a promotional video back when the Lunar X-Prize was announced. They couldn't think of a reason to go there: they actually had the inbreeding necessary to say that we'd want to mine the moon for silicon because it's important for solar cells. Silicon makes up 28% of Earth's mass! We will never ever run out! The moon is interesting only for helium-3... well, rather, it will be, as soon as we get fusion power working and run low on deuterium. For everything else? Take your pick from the extant terrestrial smörgåsbord.

There are fairly few interesting resources that we can't effectively recycle and they all have biological origins. Hate to break it to the peanut gallery, but we aren't going to find sweet crude on Mars.

Even if we did, I'm not paying $30/gal for it.

"These boots were made for walking, and that's just what I'll do..."

Why the hell would anyone think theres oil on mars?

Whether the specifics of my analogy are correct, the point still holds: if we aren't exploring space now, then why is anyone going to bother creating or commercializing technology to make it easier to do so? Doesn't seem like a very sensible business proposition to work on a fusion rocket if nobody has any interest in going to space. Whereas if we take steps to build up a presense in space right now, however expensive it might be, we give a reason for people to try to improve the technological basis.

As far as resources go, I agree. The Moon is a silly place to try to mine. Mars is only interesting if it turns out it has/had life or if we actually figure out how to terraform it. The asteroids are a far better place to look for metals, and mining them in a way that makes any economical sense is out of our reach until we have far better propulsion systems or a space elevator.

I would think that mining ice on asteroids for water would be far more valuable. It would certainly help to offset the costs of space exploration and colonization.

Ok, so perhaps it's not necessary to our immediate future, but is NASA's budget of $40B unnecessary next to our other spending? Do the potential scientific discoveries we may reveal or invent through the program worth its hefty price tag if we're still in the dark ages?

Well we are still spending large amounts toiling around in a particular nation that we need not be any longer. So I consider NASA a wiser spending decision. Usually good things come out of NASA. What good has come out of Iraq?

Oh yes. I did that on purpose.

Also, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124786241042159761.html

At the end of the day, the problem that I have (to my understanding) is that space has been closed to the commercial industry for the last 30 years (as far as companies being able to develop their own launch vehicle). This was a huge set back. The other major set back is the scrapping of the X-33/Venture Star program. After nearly 15 years of spending money on the program, they just scrap it and pull the old schematics from the Apollo program. That was a huge waste of money and only further proves the incompetence that exists in the NASA program today since they were never able to get the spike system to work as intended. Couple this with known instances of major budget mismanagements, yes I have a problem giving them $40 Billion.

Finally, however, space has been opened up. So I'm really looking forward to a lot of the stuff I've been seeing outside of NASA that holds a lot of promise.

I would think that, until someone develops a method of travel that can at least allow us to travel the distance of our own solar system, space travel/exploration will be out of the question in almost everyones mind.

Correct me if I am wrong, but given our current method of rocket propulsion, wouldn't it take roughly about 2 years just to reach mars? No one even wants to screw with that. More so when given the fact that when talking about spans of light years, rocket fuel is as primitive as steam engines.