129 réponses à ce sujet

[Jalem001]

FreshJuice wrote...

Jalem001 wrote...

Its a matter of priorities. We only went to the moon because we were trying to outdo the Soviets. The private industry will only be interested once there is a profit, and there's nothing profitable about space yet. If we find something profitable on the moon...well that would change things significantly (Asteroid belt is too far away currently).

Treaties which ban the weapnization of space are holding us back as well imo. The US government would, for example, invest large amounts of money (Along with NATO allies) if they develop space based weapons.

there's **** load of profits on the moon pal . NASA actually does have a program thats in the early stages of moon colonization, the reason is helium3. saw a show on discovery science the other day.
but they're not working how to sustain an actuall colony there yet, they're just working on vehicles for navigating on the moons surface, that thing isnt flat you know
the biggest issue with actuall colonisation at the moment seems to be life support and transportation as i understand it

i say less developing of those goddamn ipods, DO something with all that money

Link to source stating there are profitable amounts of Helium3.

Also:  Colonization does not equate to profit.

Not even sure how valuable Helium3 is currently.  Has to be a valuable resource combined with large enough deposits.  Investment would then be possible.

[Skemte]

Never.. The power it takes to accelerate anything close to the speed of light (which is slow speed to begin with when given the vastness of the galaxy) is enormous that the planet would take more then a years of its energy to accelerate something that fast.. Furthermore going a small % of those speeds would make something like a paint chip take out the ship.

[FreshJuice]

Jalem001 wrote...

FreshJuice wrote...

Jalem001 wrote...

Its a matter of priorities. We only went to the moon because we were trying to outdo the Soviets. The private industry will only be interested once there is a profit, and there's nothing profitable about space yet. If we find something profitable on the moon...well that would change things significantly (Asteroid belt is too far away currently).

Treaties which ban the weapnization of space are holding us back as well imo. The US government would, for example, invest large amounts of money (Along with NATO allies) if they develop space based weapons.

there's **** load of profits on the moon pal . NASA actually does have a program thats in the early stages of moon colonization, the reason is helium3. saw a show on discovery science the other day.
but they're not working how to sustain an actuall colony there yet, they're just working on vehicles for navigating on the moons surface, that thing isnt flat you know
the biggest issue with actuall colonisation at the moment seems to be life support and transportation as i understand it

i say less developing of those goddamn ipods, DO something with all that money

Link to source stating there are profitable amounts of Helium3.

Also:  Colonization does not equate to profit.

Not even sure how valuable Helium3 is currently.  Has to be a valuable resource combined with large enough deposits.  Investment would then be possible.

"2006 market price for He-3 was about $46,500 per troy ounce ($1500/gram, $1.5M/kg), more than 120 times the value per unit weight of Gold and over eight times the value of Rhodium"

as stated on http://en.wikipedia....ion_of_the_Moon
now i dont usually use wiki but it'll have to do for now
"**** loads" may have been a poor choice of words, but apparently scientists seem to believe that there probably is a profitable amount of it up there, and where on the moon too. im adding that helium-3 isnt the only thing they seem to be interested in mining. read for yourselfs

"China National Space Administration (CNSA) has commenced the Chang'e program for exploring the Moon to investigate the prospect of lunar mining, specifically for mining isotope helium-3 for use as an energy source on Earth.[8] CNSA director Luan Enjie has stated, humans must learn to leave Earth and "set up self-sufficient extraterrestrial homeland."[8] China launched the Chang'e 1 robotic lunar orbiter on October 10, 2007."

http://en.wikipedia....r_outpost_(NASA)

http://www.xs4all.nl...kop/moocol.html

the last one is an oldie, but still good reading

Modifié par FreshJuice, 23 février 2010 - 10:13 .

[hexaligned]

The thing about He-3 is it's importance in Fusion energy. If that particular energy source ever kicks off, I would expect at least some efforts to be made to mine the moon. If not, we don't have much reason to go there. As far as Mars... just no, No profit in it, not without new propulsion techs that cut down on the huuuuuuuge costs of launching space vehicles. Not to mention it would never be self sustainable for any significant period of time, it would require constant support from Earth.

Modifié par relhart, 23 février 2010 - 10:19 .

[thegreateski]

corebit wrote...
Will we attain space travel IRL by Mass Effect's timeline?

Uuuuhhhhhhhh . . . . I have some historical videos you may be interested in . .

note: we can't go one day without a "death to America" comment can we?

Modifié par thegreateski, 23 février 2010 - 10:23 .

[ImperialOperative]

thegreateski wrote...

corebit wrote...
Will we attain space travel IRL by Mass Effect's timeline?

Uuuuhhhhhhhh . . . .

The answer is "yes."

However, first we have to colonize mars and find martian ruins and ONLY after companies start offering solar system cruise tours can we escape our mundane lives and become secret agents.

[Space Shot]

corebit wrote...
2080s - Manned research stations in Mars
2103   - First permanent human settlement in Mars
2148   - Discovery of the Prothean ruins

I doubt that we'll go from research to settlement in the short time of 23 years.  Just look at the the arctic.  There, we have scientific research stations in  less hostile environment than mars, and have had for quite some time, but we've yet to see any "settlement" of those areas because of the tremendous gap in technological ability required for those two things to happen in any sort of meaningful way, as well as a lack of social initiative for anyone to "settle" an unforgiving new world instead of simply making do with what they have in the currently occupied human environments.

Modifié par Space Shot, 23 février 2010 - 10:33 .

[thegreateski]

I see us colonizing the ocean floor before we head off to space.

[DSKzZziX]

Chances are we'd have probably nuked ourselves by that time, if past experience is anything to go by.

[GreenSoda]

FreshJuice wrote...

there's **** load of profits on the moon pal . NASA actually does have a program thats in the early stages of moon colonization, the reason is helium3. saw a show on discovery science the other day.
but they're not working how to sustain an actuall colony there yet, they're just working on vehicles for navigating on the moons surface, that thing isnt flat you know

That very project has just recently be scrapped due to budget cuts. NASA will now focus on the ISS. The whole Moon outpost project has been put on the shelf -indefinitely.

[Ryzaki]

DSKzZziX wrote...

Chances are we'd have probably nuked ourselves by that time, if past experience is anything to go by.

Sadly I'm seeing this as far more likely than anything else. <_<

[DSKzZziX]

thegreateski wrote...

I see us colonizing the ocean floor before we head off to space.

At present, it is actually cheaper to go into space than the bottom of the ocean. Furthermore, more people have been on the moon than the bottom of the ocean. Only two people have ever been to the bottom, in a bathyscaphe called the Trieste.

Sorry, nerded out there. Wasn't discounting your opinion either btw!

[added]

Offtopic but I found a an interesting link about the subject if anyone is interested.

http://www.thespacer.../article/1202/1

Modifié par DSKzZziX, 23 février 2010 - 10:42 .

[thegreateski]

DSKzZziX wrote...

Chances are we'd have probably nuked ourselves by that time, if past experience is anything to go by.

You mean that we'll drop some more nukes on the Japs?

They are not going to like that.

[newcomplex]

No.

Anyway, while their is a chance we nuke ourselves back to the stone age, actual extinction is unlikely.     Simply because nuclear winter is a myth, and we would need to nuke the most obscure places in the world to actually kill everyone, kill Australia or venezuala...why would you nuke australia?    

Modifié par newcomplex, 23 février 2010 - 10:41 .

[thegreateski]

DSKzZziX wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

I see us colonizing the ocean floor before we head off to space.

At present, it is actually cheaper to go into space than the bottom of the ocean. Furthermore, more people have been on the moon than the bottom of the ocean. Only two people have ever been to the bottom, in a bathyscaphe called the Trieste.

Sorry, nerded out there. Wasn't discounting your opinion either btw!

Eh, well just have to wait and see won't we?

[ImperialOperative]

Accurate prediction:



Retarded nations (Pakistan, Iran, Israel, Southern asian, etc) will end up annihilating themselves and cause a nuclear winter, and we'll all starve to death. In the name of holy dirt, no doubt.

[newcomplex]

ImperialOperative wrote...

Accurate prediction:

Retarded nations (Pakistan, Iran, Israel, Southern asian, etc) will end up annihilating themselves and cause a nuclear winter, and we'll all starve to death. In the name of holy dirt, no doubt.

Nuclear winter is a myth lol.    Theoretically Proven that it doesn't happen.    People still like to fret anyway, people thought the nuke we tested back in 46'' would cause the atmosphere to spontaneously catch fire, killing everyone in a rather unpleasant way.   

Modifié par newcomplex, 23 février 2010 - 10:43 .

[Jigero]

Watch a Documentary called "Earth 2100", it's based on our current path, in the next 90 years it more likely we will be frantically trying to save the earth and humanity rather then trying to get off planet earth.

[Sailears]

Disclaimer - this is only my opinion, please don't take it personally.



I'm one of those who, as a human, would prefer to keep my feet on the Earth.

In all honesty, I can't see this sort of space travel happening in the next few hundred years.

The world is in a troubled state at the moment, and I believe there is a higher chance of extreme natural disasters wreaking havoc in the near future, than there is of us attaining the sort of space travel alluded to in this science fiction.

[RighteousRage]

Interplanetary travel, possibly, intergalactic travel, noooooooooooooooo

[DSKzZziX]

At some point though we will need to exploit the resources outside of the Earth - probably I would say within the next 200 years. The thing is like every other technology, the more it is desired or needed the more we try to attain it.



DSK's final thought

[Blind Lark]

I doubt it. We might be able to set up a small colony on another planet, however I doubt we will come close to flying around the galaxy in ships and meeting aliens. The main obstruction I see is time. It takes 9 years to get as far as Pluto, traveling across the Milky Way could take lifetimes. If we had our own mass relays, we would need special technology not to be killed during the acceleration. 200 years is only about two lifetimes. Considering our technology on space travel now, I'd think that it may take quite a while longer before we make a system of convenient space travel.

[ImperialOperative]

newcomplex wrote...

Nuclear winter is a myth lol.    Theoretically Proven that it doesn't happen.    People still like to fret anyway, people thought the nuke we tested back in 46'' would cause the atmosphere to spontaneously catch fire, killing everyone in a rather unpleasant way.   

25 years ago models were made to demonstrate that nuclear war between Russia and the US would create a "winter."

former Soviet Union leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev observed, “Models made
by Russian and American scientists showed that a nuclear war would
result in a nuclear winter that would be extremely destructive to all
life on earth; the knowledge of that was a great stimulus to us, to
people of honor and morality, to act.”

Very recently computer models have been made to predict the amount of ash produced by regional nuclear warfare between India and Pakistan that would go into the atmosphere.

It was an article in Scientific American.

Take it for what you will, but we don't have any experimental data to go off and it's probably best to never get any "experimental data" on whether nuclear winter would occur or not.

Modifié par ImperialOperative, 23 février 2010 - 10:52 .

[King Gigglez]

I think the miovie Pandorum explains what will happen perfectly, we will discover an earthlike planet send one ship there, and around 3 months after the ship leaves earth blows up because of war, its hard to sustain a 20 billion pop increase in a 150 years, and I can totaly see it happening, the human population doubled in the last 30 years

[OfTheFaintSmile]

regarding helium-3, I believe a fistful of that stuff is enough to provide for Britains energy needs for a year!



But you would be surprised how wars/crises motivate humanity to develop new technology, just look at WW2 and the development of the nuclear bomb/energy