The New Race to Space.

[Sayonara]

Well, ok, now you're getting somewhere. However the way I see it, humanity has 3 billion years untill the sun begins to nova, this is a LOOOOOONG³[/i'] time, by wasting resources unecessarily now, we may have only a short time untill our planet becomes a wasteland. Now, since there hasnt been any M type planets even discovered yet, it is a choice between staying here and making this world as good as possible, or making this world a wasteland and moving to another even more barren wasteland. I prefer to make this world better.

No, we don't have the choice, and no we can't wait.

 

We must spread to other worlds, and we need to do it as soon as possible. All the evidence points to us being long overdue for an impact in the order of the global killers, and many biologists believe the sixth great extinction has already started.

 

 

Yes I know this, this is why I feel free to gripe at any extravagantly wasteful actions. I know I am a bit of a hypocrite myself, with my car and my computer, and my fan heater.... but on a scale compared with space tourism this is a like a drop in the bucket. Yes, I am a Humanist who thinks Humans stink.

Compare a handful of space ship launches every year to more than 2 billion computers or cars in use at any one time. That is a drop in the ocean.

[JohnB]

Justify spending that many resources on sending people into space just for a holiday.

What resources? Three piddly little ships and the aircraft to carry them? LOX? I thought there was a fair bit of that around. Kerosene? No shortage there.

 

Compare that to the thousands of tons of steel and concrete used to make a hotel somewhere so that people can have a holiday "here on earth". Then add in the tremendous amount of fuel used to fly people around for their holidays.

 

Should Virgin Galactic be successful, other companies will get on the bandwagon. This will produce the economic motivation for more research into better ways of getting to orbit. (The competing Spacelines will want to carry more people higher for longer as a sales pitch, so those who build the ships will want to sell such craft to them.)

 

Once orbital craft are achieved, hotels in space will follow. People will live and work in space in large numbers.

No, we don't have the choice, and no we can't wait.

We must spread to other worlds, and we need to do it as soon as possible.

I read many years ago that the minimum number needed for human genetic diversity to be fully self sustaining is 5,000. I don't know if this right, but it seems reasonable.

Do you think that spending them on luxuries like space travel for holidays is better than spending them on say; welfare, humanitarian aid and development of sustainable energy? And thats just naming a few.

Not that long ago, the Western world watched the nightly news to see 19 dirty big bangs on Jupiter. The smallest of which IIRC was 1,000 times greater than all the Earth's nukes let off at once.

 

Do you think it can't happen here? All the evidence states, not suggests, states, that it has happened before. It will happen again. Welfare, Humanitarian Aid, Sustainable energy will not save us.

 

[Excerpt from speech by the UN Secretary General 2206]

"People of the World, after a century of trying we, the Human Race have finally eliminated poverty from our planet. There is no longer any starvation, any disease. The weapons of war of 100 years ago have long since been recycled into more useful items. By not wasting our resources, our Civilization now shares an ecologically sustainable existance with nature........

.......Unfortunately, the telescopes of the World Astronomical Sciences Foundation report, and the report is confirmed, that the Earth will be hit by a 5 km wide asteroid at 1340 hrs Greenwich Mean Time tomorrow. We expect the impact to be in the Pacific Ocean. Estimates are that waves 1000 metres high will travel around the world at speeds in excess of 1000 kph.

 

By this time tomorrow, all Human life on the Planet Earth will be extinquished and all our works and history swept away."[/excerpt]

[paganinio]

What kind of a retard would want to visit a void.... and PAY for it..... I can't beleive how stupid some people are......

 

How about I set up a resort in my toilet...... under the rim' date=' the final frontier.[/quote']

 

i think you don't understand how RICH they are

[7hor]

lol...some people are indeed that rich. I think it is kind of a waste, but that has never stopped anyone from making a buck before. We might get some benefits in the long run. Usually it takes consumer power to get some technology going. I think we need to get some propulsion techniques, electrohydrodynamic propulsion anyone? Although we need air for that

[deltanova]

Virgin Galactic=

4 mins of weightlessness, great view

$250000

 

Temora Skydiving

couple thousand meter fall

$400

 

I would take the skydiving, its cheaper, and even though i love space and wouldnt mind going up, i would prefer it to be for a purpose,

[Sayonara]

What has that got to do with anything?

[Sorcerer]

It shows that if you want to do something for a thrill there are plenty of other (less wasteful) options.

[Sayonara]

It shows that if you want to do something for a thrill there are plenty of other (less wasteful) options.

I think we can take it as read that the people who can afford the space excursions in the first place aren't going to "go for the cheaper option", what with it not being anything like the same experience.

 

If you're going to use that argument then why not dodge some heavy traffic instead of going sky diving? That's just as thrilling and costs $400 less.

[Sorcerer]

I think we can take it as read that the people who can afford the space excursions in the first place aren't going to "go for the cheaper option"' date=' what with it not being anything like the same experience.

 

If you're going to use that argument then why not dodge some heavy traffic instead of going sky diving? That's just as thrilling and costs $400 less.[/quote']

 

Lets weigh up the odds of death in these scearios: space tourism > dodging traffic > sky diving. Now lets compare this to the cost space tourism > skydiving > dodging traffic. By these comparisons I think you can see why I would choose sky diving over dodging traffic and space tourism.

[Sayonara]

You do realise that not everyone has the same priorities as you, right?

 

For instance, the millions of people who will pay extraordinary amounts of money to do things that are thrilling because they are dangerous.

 

Not that there is much more risk associated with this ship than there is with any other chartered stunt or novelty flight.

 

[edit]

 

By the way, when I asked DeltaNova "what has that got to do with anything?", it was because his post added nothing to the thread other than further subjectivity of a type that has already been shown to be irrelevant, and did not address the question in any way, so I don't see much point in pursuing it. Just a thought.

[YT2095]

I voted "Good Idea" on the basis that healthy competition is always a good thing and has played many a key role in advancements of all descriptions throughout History.

[Sorcerer]

Well, since your argument is almost entirely subjective, except for the bit about needed to colonise other planets..... (even this could be said to be subjective, since we need to ask why we need to survive, but only as subjective as my argument)..... I don't think you have the right to be so arrogantly hypocritical of his comment.

 

And yes I realise that there are alot of rich idiots out there. "Danger" is fake in adventure tourism.

[atinymonkey]

Lets weigh up the odds of death in these scearios: space tourism > dodging traffic > sky diving. Now lets compare this to the cost space tourism > skydiving > dodging traffic. By these comparisons I think you can see why I would choose sky diving over dodging traffic and space tourism.

 

I can see how you'd pick dodging traffic, but not sky diving. Why are you not out dodging traffic?

[Sayonara]

Well, since your argument is almost entirely subjective, except for the bit about needed to colonise other planets..... (even this could be said to be subjective, since we need to ask why we need to survive, but only as subjective as my argument)..... I don't think you have the right to be so arrogantly hypocritical of his comment.

How is me saying "your arguments are subjective" a subjective argument?

 

If you are going to call me arrogant and hypocritical you had better give me a damned good answer.

 

 

And yes I realise that there are alot of rich idiots out there. "Danger" is fake in adventure tourism.

Wtf?

[Sorcerer]

I wasnt saying that you saying "your argument is subjective" is subjective, I was saying that your argument, which is basically "some people would like to go into space", is subjective. So you saying his argument doesnt add any weight to the overall argument because it is subjective is a hypocritical statement, because your argument adds no weight if your comment that subjective arguments add no weight is true.

 

I think subjective arguments are all we have sometimes.

 

I think you were being arrogant because you were being hypocritcal and overly harsh, since you dont see how you were being hypocritical, and since you aren't harsh on yourself, this is arrogance.

 

The danger is fake in adventure tourism, try bungy jumping without a bungy if you want a good example.

[Sayonara]

I wasnt saying that you saying "your argument is subjective" is subjective, I was saying that your argument, which is basically "some people would like to go into space", is subjective.

What exactly is it that makes you think pointing out the subjectivity of an argument constitutes another argument in itself?

 

I'm was not making the argument "for" space trips - I was simply refuting yours by providing counter-examples to your unilateralisms.

 

The only actual argument I have made is that humanity needs to spread between the stars in order to survive, and that the availability of such space flights to the public will help acclimatise the average Joe to this idea.

If you are seriously considering arguing that this is subjective purely because humanity's right or need to survive is subjective, then I don't see that there's much point debating with you.

 

 

So you saying his argument doesnt add any weight to the overall argument because it is subjective is a hypocritical statement, because your argument adds no weight if your comment that subjective arguments add no weight is true.

I did not say "subjective arguments add no weight", did I? Don't strawman me.

I said that the type of subjectivity he was using had already been shown to be unhelpful in this thread, and that he did not answer the question. Those are the reasons I said it added nothing, not because of some vague accusation of subjectivity that you can twist around however you need to.

 

 

I think you were being arrogant because you were being hypocritcal and overly harsh, since you dont see how you were being hypocritical, and since you aren't harsh on yourself, this is arrogance.

Then I can only suggest you read over the thread again.

 

 

The danger is fake in adventure tourism, try bungy jumping without a bungy if you want a good example.

Bungee jumping does however carry a risk - you are mistaking "bungee death without the cord" as being complementary to "no bungee death with cord".

Diving, sailing, flying, gliding, parasailing, hydroplaning, rock climbing, mountaineering, buggy driving, skiing, jet-skiing, trekking, surfing, parachuting, base jumping, motorcycle sports, gorge walking, shooting, safari, even fishing, and many many more adventure sports and activities all have dangers and risks associated with them, as well as the potential for freak occurences.

 

The phrase "the danger is fake in adventure tourism" is laughable.

[Sorcerer]

The only actual argument I have made is that humanity needs to spread between the stars in order to survive' date=' and that the availability of such space flights to the public will help acclimatise the average Joe to this idea.

If you are seriously considering arguing that this is subjective purely because humanity's right or need to survive is subjective, then I don't see that there's much point debating with you.[/quote']

 

Why, because I'm right? I agree that humanity has a right to survive, but I only agree, because I think so (subjective), not because there are some kind of objective human rights.

 

 

I did not say "subjective arguments add no weight", did I? Don't strawman me.

 

...it was because his post added nothing to the thread other than further subjectivity of a type that has already been shown to be irrelevant, and did not address the question in any way, so I don't see much point in pursuing it.

 

Weight is what I assumed you were talking about, since he did add words to the thread, I assumed you meant he added no meaning and no weight to any arguments.

 

I said that the type of subjectivity he was using had already been shown to be unhelpful in this thread, and that he did not answer the question. Those are the reasons I said it added nothing, not because of some vague accusation of subjectivity that you can twist around however you need to.

 

Sounds like this means it added no weight to the argument that space tourism is a bad idea. Maybe I put a slight half turn in there, no full twists.

 

Bungee jumping does however carry a risk - you are mistaking "bungee death without the cord" as being complementary to "no bungee death with cord".

Diving' date=' sailing, flying, gliding, parasailing, hydroplaning, rock climbing, mountaineering, buggy driving, skiing, jet-skiing, trekking, surfing, parachuting, base jumping, motorcycle sports, gorge walking, shooting, safari, even [i']fishing[/i], and many many more adventure sports and activities all have dangers and risks associated with them, as well as the potential for freak occurences.

 

Yes, but they don't seek death, they seek a safe adrenalin rush, I'm thinking it will take a while for space tourism to take off, I mean look at NASA, how many people have died there???? And how much of a comparable budget do they have.....They couldn't pay me to be their ginnea(sp?) pig, why do you think they took ballast instead of humans when they did the x-prize..... what kind of insurance company would insure that????

[Sayonara]

Why, because I'm right? I agree that humanity has a right to survive, but I only agree, because I think so (subjective), not because there are some kind of objective human rights.

No, because it's forcing two variables into one question. They are completely different debates, and whether or not humanity deserves to survive as a race is not related to whether or not we will or should try.

 

Personally I could go either way on humanity from an objective standpoint. I'd hate to think we could ruin other planets like we ruined this one (for a start)

 

 

Weight is what I assumed you were talking about, since he did add words to the thread, I assumed you meant he added no meaning and no weight to any arguments.

Sounds like this means it added no weight to the argument that space tourism is a bad idea. Maybe I put a slight half turn in there, no full twists.

Weight wasn't really the issue, it was more to do with the fact that it was retreading what had just been discussed.

I think you were right, and I was overly harsh. It's frustrating when people make pointless comparisons and don't explain what their reason for posting it is.

 

 

 

Yes, but they don't seek death, they seek a safe adrenalin rush, I'm thinking it will take a while for space tourism to take off, I mean look at NASA, how many people have died there???? And how much of a comparable budget do they have.....They couldn't pay me to be their ginnea(sp?) pig, why do you think they took ballast instead of humans when they did the x-prize..... what kind of insurance company would insure that????

I didn't say they seek death - adventurers are all different, obviously, but generally they seek thrills, excitement and defiable risks.

My over-riding point here is that while many people have no interest in experiencing an orbital flight, or don't have the money, those who do have the money and want to go into space are hardly going to instead opt for some other activity for no apparent reason, because it simply is not the same experience (despite sharing attributes such as risk, or cost).

 

The X-prize flights took ballast because when you are competing in a time-based competition the last thing you need is the added complication of random person's life insurance. I would imagine a good deal of the $200k Vigin are going to be charging will be insurance, although it's a safe bet you'll have to sign various waivers too.

[Sorcerer]

No, because it's forcing two variables into one question. They are completely different debates, and whether or not humanity deserves to survive as a race is not related to whether or not we will or should try.

 

I don't think we should try to do anything for something that doesn't deserve it.

 

Personally I could go either way on humanity from an objective standpoint. I'd hate to think we could ruin other planets like we ruined this one (for a start)

 

You'd have to prove that ruining planets is a bad thing, objectively.... hard to do since "bad" isn't objective.

 

My over-riding point here is that while many people have no interest in experiencing an orbital flight, or don't have the money, those who do have the money and want to go into space are hardly going to instead opt for some other activity for no apparent reason, because it simply is not the same experience (despite sharing attributes such as risk, or cost).

 

Sub-orbital actually..... but, fair enough point I guess, although I still think its an extravagant waste of resources.

[Sayonara]

I don't think we should try to do anything for something that doesn't deserve it.

But it will happen, and we have to realise that it is an intermediary step that will contribute massively to the future of the species.

 

 

You'd have to prove that ruining planets is a bad thing, objectively.... hard to do since "bad" isn't objective.

I don't really need to prove it - it's not a part of any argument, and I only said I personally wouldn't like to think that we'd ruin other planets. My reasons could be anything.

 

 

Sub-orbital actually..... but, fair enough point I guess, although I still think its an extravagant waste of resources.

Well yes, sub-orbital. I think we can safely assume it will lead on to more challenging activities.

If you think it's an extravagant waste of resources I hope you don't own a car. Oh god don't get me started on cars.

[Sorcerer]

I do, but I bike almost everywhere....... oh and I wear a helmet, cause there no adrenalin associated with not wearing one.... downhill through pines over roots and rocks however, fun

[Sayonara]

You do have the advantage of living in NZ though, damn your socks.

 

Cars? Cars are for sissies.

[superchump]

Sorcerer it sounds like you have a grudge against rich individuals. If most of those people earned their money....why CAN'T they do what they want with it? Besides that doesn't stop them from donating a hell of a lot more than most of us put together.

 

Anyhow it also sounds that if we throw enough money at a problem that it will go away. How is that true? The wealthy donate most all of a significant portion of charities in the US and elsewhere anyway. How are you helping in any way besides sitting in front of a computer bitching about how you think space toruism is "wasteful"? If I had money I'd donate AND save for a space trip...does that make me a bad person? The overwhelming majority of federal income taxes are paid by the very highest income earners. The top 1 percent of income earners pays 31.6 percent of all income taxes, the top 5 percent pays 51.4 percent, the top 10 percent pays 63.5 percent, and the top 20 percent of income earners pays 78.4 percent of all federal income taxes. The bottom four-fifths of income earners pay just over one-fifth of all federal income taxes.

 

So why do you care what those wealthy like to do with their money on their spare time? So we go back to the grudge question. What did the wealthy ever do to you? And if nothing I'm going to assume you have no imagination or aspirations past what you see right in front of you.

[Guest Garyr]

Because It is my choice.

[Sorcerer]

Sorcerer it sounds like you have a grudge against rich individuals. If most of those people earned their money....why CAN'T they do what they want with it? Besides that doesn't stop them from donating a hell of a lot more than most of us put together.

 

I don't have a grudge against rich people, I have a grudge against people wasting resources, devaluing resources and making money from this devaluation. Well, why can't they do what they want with it?? Why can't they buy child sex slaves?? Why can't they fund rebel militias? Why can't they develop new and deadly bioweapons with their money?? Somethings should be prevented.

 

I'm not saying this is as bad as those, but I am saying that by spending their money on an extravagant thing like this they are wasting resources, its a product of the consumer society, even I do it alot without even thinking about it, it is something the future generations will have to pay for, not with money, but with quality of life.

 

Anyhow it also sounds that if we throw enough money at a problem that it will go away. How is that true? The wealthy donate most all of a significant portion of charities in the US and elsewhere anyway. How are you helping in any way besides sitting in front of a computer bitching about how you think space toruism is "wasteful"? If I had money I'd donate AND save for a space trip...does that make me a bad person? The overwhelming majority of federal income taxes are paid by the very highest income earners. The top 1 percent of income earners pays 31.6 percent of all income taxes, the top 5 percent pays 51.4 percent, the top 10 percent pays 63.5 percent, and the top 20 percent of income earners pays 78.4 percent of all federal income taxes. The bottom four-fifths of income earners pay just over one-fifth of all federal income taxes.

 

Do those interesting statistics again, this time use as a percentage of total income, not as a percentage of total tax, also show how big the gap between the income groups is, I think you will find those statistics a little less convincing to your argument.

 

So why do you care what those wealthy like to do with their money on their spare time? So we go back to the grudge question. What did the wealthy ever do to you? And if nothing I'm going to assume you have no imagination or aspirations past what you see right in front of you.

 

Its not what the wealthy are doing to me, its what the wealthy are doing to the world.