Moontanman

What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

Again, at the time sailing ships were not cheap, but if you want to look at it that way then to be comparable you have to compare sailing ships to a floating log. The "non imaginary" technologies do need to mature but not developing them will mean they never will mature. Getting into space is expensive, once you are there you use materials in situ to build more ships and habitats. The economic benefits of the space program consist of technology developed to support space travel that is used to benefit modern life. As for the government funding space programs your are aware that our investment in space travel currently is pitifully small. The military spends more in a week than NASA gets in a year. A single small asteroid has a dollar value above the GNP of the planet just in precious metals. You are correct in this, but Earth resources are limited by the fact that to harvest them we have to destroy our planet. Once we establish a presence in space building habitats and space craft become much easier. Like I said a simple dyson swarm, without fusion power gives us more land than a million earths. I think that is worth reaching for... Given fusion power we can convert the solar system into the equivalent of billions of earths...

One of the real possibilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Ring_(habitat) http://pin.it/owEy-0s

Not yet, not too long ago airplanes couldn't do that either...

I know it's not a direct comparison but think of the voyage of Columbus, the queen had to hock the crown jewels to finance his trip. Now we fly people across the atlantic by the millions every year. But more to the point, Mars and yes even the Moon are dead ends as far as colonization is concerned. I doubt that visiting them will be a popular past time. But asteroids will be used to build rotating habitats, carbon will be the construction material of the future and, IMHO, places like the trojan asteroids of Jupiter will be manufacturing sites and eventually small groups or even individuals will be able to have their own habitats. Think of how difficult and expensive it would have seemed 300 years ago for someone to own a 1500 square foot home. Back only the very wealthy could afford such a thing, it would have required a large number of people (usually slaves or serfs) to maintain and even then it couldn't be compared to what we commonly have today. Extrapolate this to 300 years into the future...

Colonization of space requires no magical technology, no imaginary tech, and the costs are relative. The economic benefits are quite obvious, your attitude is like saying exploring the new world can have no economic benefits. Nothing can provide unlimited security but not colonising space is one of two options, the other is extinction. No one has or is saying that space colonies will enjoy greater freedom but when the new world was stolen from the natives there was indeed a time of of such freedoms. The difference is that space does not have to be stolen and we will never be able to fill it up..

Wouldn't you have loved to be there!

My quote was a little unclear, what I should have said and what I meant to convey is that, if you bought a new boat every time you wanted to use one. But my point is that you use the materials in space to make your habitat. Something as well known as kevlar could be used to make gigantic habitats. Kevlar is a carbon compound, carbon is the third or fourth most common element in the universe and we know how to make it. Of course making it in zero G might be a challenge. Things like Carbon fibers could be used to make habitats on par with an continent in surface area. A dyson swarm of these objects could be millions of earths in usable surface area. Planets are not really practical, you are highly unlikely to find a planet close enough to earth in habitat to simply move there. Even tiny differences like the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could make a planet uninhabitable even if it over flowed with life. While controlled fusion would make this easier a dyson swarm is a way to use the entire energy output of the sun. While the Moon will be no doubt a source of materials, the asteroids and small icy moons will be be needed to make really large habitats. These habitats could be moved relatively easy, if very slowly, and could use materials from the kuiper belt, oort cloud, or even rogue bodies in interstellar space. Given fusion not only would planets not be needed but even stars would be ignored in favor of the debris found around them and in the space between them..

Actually I've read that the low oxygen levels were the "cause" that dinosaurs evolved superior breathing/circulatory system. This allowed them to go one to dominate the world...

Thank you!

Space colonies are not expensive in the way that building boats is not expensive. If you had to build a new boat from scratch every time someone wanted one it would be ridiculous. But when you produce thousands of boats you can pass the savings on to everyone. Establishing infrastructure is the main expense but one you have that infrastructure costs per habitat go down...

I agree but living on Mars would be like living in a vacuum chamber, with radiation, and a freezer! Space colonies, built in space from materials found in space could be quite large. A torus hundreds of miles across and tens of miles thick would be possible with no magical technology, although controlled fusion would definitely make it far easier. I often liken it to the iron age or bronze age by naming it the carbon age in terms of what would be used to construct the habitats...

I keep trying Mike but what you are asserting must be way above my head... I keep fish. I see them, quite regularly, stop fearing me and in many cases actually seem to vie for my attention. Food is a very strong motivator. I also see them display emotions when I catch a fish that trusts me to change the tank it's in. Usually it takes days to weeks for them regain trust in me. I've seen wildly varying species of fish display what appeared to be friendship. But the idea of hierarchies is still arbitrary, under different circumstances fish would no doubt be way above me if hierarchies exist. Scuba diving will show you this almost immediately. To me it seems that any level of superiority depends on who dominates the situation...

Did you find the relevant paper?

Ok, I see that I have posted this before, one thing to realise that ap stars except this one, AFAICT, is the only one that contains very short lived isotopes of heavy elements. In fact one of them, technetium simply does not exist in nature in anything but microscopic amounts. On the earth technetium is so rare than an amount equal to the volume of a sugar cube is all that exists at any one time..

This about to drive me nuts, am i wrong to wonder what is going on here? We are talking about gigatons of short lived elements being in a star. Elements that do not even exist on Earth or in nature in general. Unless this star is newborn, and even then It's difficult to understand where these elements could have come from. Another problem is that evidently no other star has been found with this transuranic content...

I'll believe going to Mars has something to do with overpopulation as soon as we colonise Antarctica, much nicer place than Mars. Going to the Moon or Mars has definite scientific benefits, the cost is trivial compared to maintaining a huge military force. Benefits in advancement in technology cannot be predicted but using the space program so far as a ruler we would be stupid not to explore the solar system. Eventually we will colonise space but I doubt it is be done by colonising planets. Far too many problems, toroidal colonies or Oneil type cylinders are far more likely, easier and make far more sense...

What if the wise use the concept of god to control the masses?

I understand that, but it would appear far more than plutonium is involved..

I'm not sure if I already posted this if so i apologize. Can this star be explained? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przybylski%27s_Star

The idea, often quoted by Muslims, that the Quran is scientifically accurate uses the assertion by the Quran that sweet and salty water do not mix as proof but it is trivially falsified. They do mix, winds, and currents mix them thoroughly. Alaska is no different, the freshwater locked up in ice is less dense and floats on top of the sea water for a very short time before becoming mixed. This so-called scientific fact asserted by Muslims is in fact blatantly dishonest...

Yours or anyone else's personal incredulity has no bearing on reality...

So you use a comedian as a source?

Holy books cannot be proof of anything, they are the claims that require proof.. Yes, let's do that, but you need to start your own thread this one is not about that...

What would your point be? This video is nothing but baseless assertions...