We will go to Mars

[MemphisBill]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/05/experts-now-agree-humans-could-walk-on-mars-within-20-years/

[fun4alll]

We COULD go, yes... But the question is SHOULD we go. I've yet to hear a cogent argument for doing so.

[Leo Alessi]

There's no real cogent argument for climbing Everest or going to the bottom of the Challenger Deep either, but men have done both.

On May 12, 2013, at 7:03 PM, fun4alll <funtim...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We COULD go, yes... But the question is SHOULD we go. I've yet to hear a cogent argument for doing so.
>

> --
> --
> Disclaimer: This MFA Forum is a public site and does not necessarily express the official opinion of Memphis Freethought Alliance, Inc. or its members. Posters on this forum include MFA members as well as non-members. People are encouraged to give their honest opinion about ideas and critique other people's ideas and not to attack people personally. Please keep posts open, honest, and civil. Please review the the rules and guidelines to this forum: http://www.memphisfreethought.com/DiscussionForum.html (copy and paste the web address into your browser if necessary)
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

[fun4alll]

Yes, private individuals have taken it upon themselves to go on adventures; that's fine. Asking the public to pay the taxes to collectively finance a $400 billion adventure... That's something else entirely. The space race to the moon was accepted as necessary for our security and prestige. No such level of acceptance exists for a mission to mars; it looks like hubris, and a gargantuan waste of resources. That's my view and I'm a science nut. Now imagine trying to convince the voting public to accept the necessary tax hike... Dream on.

[Orson Zedd]

Uh, why not?  Taxes have been used for the humanities for centuries.  Fucking deal with it.

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:42 PM, fun4alll <funtim...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, private individuals have taken it upon themselves to go on adventures; that's fine. Asking the public to pay the taxes to collectively finance a $400 billion adventure... That's something else entirely. The space race to the moon was accepted as necessary for our security and prestige. No such level of acceptance exists for a mission to mars; it looks like hubris, and a gargantuan waste of resources. That's my view and I'm a science nut. Now imagine trying to convince the voting public to accept the necessary tax hike... Dream on.

[Matt Germany]

We have the capability to send someone TO Mars now.  We just can't get them back yet.

http://99percentinvisible.org/post/7388874903/one-way-ticket-to-mars

--Matt

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:47 AM, MemphisBill <runya...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/05/experts-now-agree-humans-could-walk-on-mars-within-20-years/

[Matt Germany]

Fun4all,

My objection to all the snubbing of NASA of the past few years isn't that we should be going to space because we should do neat things (which, I should say, is a pretty sweet bonus anyway).  First and foremost, putting people in space, as dangerous and expensive as it is, leads to tremendous scientific breakthroughs (in materials, physics, etc.). But also, down the road, we're going to need the capability to go into space, colonize planets someday.  I know it might sound sci-fi or romantic to hope that humanity won't be totally fucked due to powerful people and entities refusing outright to do anything about climate change or nuclear proliferation, but hey, I'm on optimist.

--Matt

[fun4alll]

Mars is resource poor; that's why nobody has been able to present a viable business model for going there. If you had attended a recent debate group when this topic was addressed in detail, it was made clear that metalic near earth asteroids present a better opportunities. In fact, some wealthy individuals have suggested harvesting one, and recouping 10x the total known amount of gold, platinum, and silver from just one asteroid than the entire known supply on earth. Sure, earth has plenty of metal in its core, but it's at depths which are inaccessible. If you want a space station on other worlds, where will you get the materials, not mars! Mars has lmoat no metal, and not much water either. Launching all that material from earth is prohibitively expensive... better to harvest it from elsewhere. Yes, there are better options than mars, closer, more accessible, and with better resources.

As for Orsons obnoxious and ignorant remarks, the sum total financial support of 200 years of the humanities is dwarfed by a mars mission. You're out of your league; go back and join your high school buddies where your crass comments are more welcome.

[MANUEL RAMIREZ]

Oe: God Hates Asexuals
According to a new report by the U.S. Department of Family Values,
common co-possessions to asexuality include self-cutting, anorexia
nervosa, borderline personality disorder, hatred of the opposite
gender and devil worship.

Asexuality is usually caused when a self-cutting anorexic lose her
boyfriend because he's eventually fed up with all suicide threats. She
starts to hate men, starts to worship the devil and joins the
Fritzljugend.

Christian Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) suggests corrective rape
to remedy the possession. Liberals who claim that it is fine to be a
self-cutting asexual is just as wrong as those mad psychiatrists who
explain it as a chemical unbalance in the brain.

[Matt Germany]

Manuel,

Wait...is that why we're trying to go to Mars? Persecution of asexuals?

Wow, the debate about going to Mars just got a lot more complicated.

--Matt

[Orson Zedd]

It's all about the money for you isn't it? Where's the money in it?
Let me tell you something, all the money in the world won't buy the
future of humanity.

[fun4alll]

Money is a crass way of looking at it. Think of it as an issue of resources. If a mars colony is tethered to earth, constancy depending on us for shipments of resources, then it's not the viable presence. If earth goes bad, everything tethered to it through dependencies goes bad too. In principal, a metal rich asteroid has all the resources a human colony would require for self sufficiency. Yes, that can be trivialized to a 'money' issue, but it's more than that. Throughout history, explorers have had to support themselves as they ventured forth. On mars, that would be very difficult. History tells us that the best path forward is one that places us on a sound footing, with a viable presence where ever we set down to explore, not a colony that's totally dependent on a continuous stream of deliverables from the homeland. Mars is a dump, and the moon is even worse. Resources do matter.

[Leo Alessi]

Someone really interested in the profit motive would realize how misguided that last statement is.

http://www.nss.org/adastra/volume23/lunarresources.html

On May 13, 2013, at 12:54 PM, fun4alll <funtim...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Money is a crass way of looking at it. Think of it as an issue of resources. If a mars colony is tethered to earth, constancy depending on us for shipments of resources, then it's not the viable presence. If earth goes bad, everything tethered to it through dependencies goes bad too. In principal, a metal rich asteroid has all the resources a human colony would require for self sufficiency. Yes, that can be trivialized to a 'money' issue, but it's more than that. Throughout history, explorers have had to support themselves as they ventured forth. On mars, that would be very difficult. History tells us that the best path forward is one that places us on a sound footing, with a viable presence where ever we set down to explore, not a colony that's totally dependent on a continuous stream of deliverables from the homeland. Mars is a dump, and the moon is even worse. Resources do matter.
>

[la3111]

http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-colonize.html

[Matt Germany]

Fun4all,

I'm not arguing that Mars is a huge economic win. I don't think that was ever Orson's point either. 

Are there a whole lot of asteroids big enough to hold 7 billion people close enough for us to get to that I've never heard of?

One point of the mars mission, as I understand it is that in navigating the challenges of getting to mars, we will improve our capabilities to reach places farther away from earth. Difficult manned space missions are what have allowed us to get better at going into space, a feat that, as I earlier pointed out, will prove quite necessary after we've ruined earth.

I'm not arguing against private companies mining asteroids.  If that happens, hey, fine by me.  I don't think anyone's fighting you on that.  What I am saying is that we need organizations that are motivated by more than money (motivated by the pursuit of scientific knowledge) going into space so that we can keep learning about the universe, and keep getting better at going into space.

--Matt

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:54 PM, fun4alll <funtim...@gmail.com> wrote:

Money is a crass way of looking at it. Think of it as an issue of resources. If a mars colony is tethered to earth, constancy depending on us for shipments of resources, then it's not the viable presence. If earth goes bad, everything tethered to it through dependencies goes bad too. In principal, a metal rich asteroid has all the resources a human colony would require for self sufficiency. Yes, that can be trivialized to a 'money' issue, but it's more than that. Throughout history, explorers have had to support themselves as they ventured forth. On mars, that would be very difficult. History tells us that the best path forward is one that places us on a sound footing, with a viable presence where ever we set down to explore, not a colony that's totally dependent on a continuous stream of deliverables from the homeland. Mars is a dump, and the moon is even worse. Resources do matter.

[fun4alll]

You might not appreciate the humor in those two links in cascade. The first rambles on about water on the moon, as if that's all we need. It's scarce, and expensive to extract,, and there is almost no metal at all. The second article talks about how awful the moon is, and how mars is vastly superior to the moon in so far as resources are concerned. Once again, the emphasis is resources, and metal. Both in huge abundance on the asteroids, and in frightfully short supply on the moon and mars.

Arguably, perhaps mars is vastly superior to the moon, but the exact line of reasoning used to justify that arguement can be used to show that near earth metal rich asteroids are even better still. Presenting an arguement that we could limp along on the moon or mars is not the point; we have better options, and you've done nothing to challenge that premise.

In any even, it's academic. Nobody is going to fund an ultra expensive loosing proposition. It's been 40 years since we stopped going to the moon! Two consecutive generations of nothing! Produce a viable business model for a lucrative return to space, and we will go, and the asteroids offer that. The others are wishful thinking. There's no point arguing the matter. The 40 years of cheap talk and doing nothing by NASA, and plans falling into place by private enterprise focusing on asteroids is proving my point. In time, we will see where this all goes. I'm confident on my vision, and you can join up with newt Gingrich types and his moon colony ideas, and we will see who is proven right. Your own arguements focusing on resources show the path forward. I don't see the point in discussing this further.

[Matt Germany]

Fun4all,

If you won't take on my argument, maybe you'd prefer to argue with a more capable opponent.  Robert Krulwich wrote a blog concerned with a debate similar to the one we seem to be having on this forum.  It includes a short video of Neil Degrasse Tyson making his case for why we need NASA.  Since you won't take on my arguments, maybe you'll take on his.

--Matt

[Matt Germany]

Sorry, forgot to attach the link:  http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/03/06/173623934/neil-tyson-pounds-the-table-demanding-a-future-now

[fun4alll]

>Are there a whole lot of asteroids big enough to hold 7 billion people close enough for us to get to that I've never heard of?

Ugg, evacuation? Really, is that where this is going? In the time it takes to get a million people off earth, the population will likely grow by a billion. I'd give up on the evacuation plan. A mere sustainable presence elsewhere would be great.

Escaping gravity is the key, that's why mars is the worst, much of the gravity to overcome, and scares few resources to show for it. The asteroids have ultra low gravity, low escape velocity, and all the resources we could want. That's a better platform for launching some futuristic fleet worth of ships than struggling to overcome Mars's gravity and atmosphere, with nothing to show for the trouble. If we do manage to venture forth, to the outer reaches of the solar system, we will do so by hopping along a path of asteroids to get there... But don't hold your breath. We would need a reason for doing it, something more substantial than wishful thinking.

[Matt Germany]

Fun4all,

You're picking the argument you want to take on mighty carefully again.  And no, I don't think we're going to leave earth tomorrow in my lifetime or in 100 years, probably.  Even if we put all of earth's resources into doing that today, we wouldn't be able to manage it.  But we'll need to do so eventually.  If it comes to that, does humanity really want to leave that task up to private companies?  Will we even have that capability, if our only space missions are concerned with mining nearby asteroids?  Probably not.

So, even though you tried to pick on the weakest premise of my argument (part of why I saved it for last), you haven't done a great job.  I repeatedly said that I don't think we're going to move earth to mars.  Where did you get that that was my argument?  What I did say is that taking on risky manned missions that push the limits of what we can do is the only way we've ever increased the distance humans can stray from earth.  

I've agreed with you that mars is a bad economic bet, etc.  You're over-simplifying the arguments I've put forth.  Instead of engaging in a debate, you're merely making up straw men and taking them down.  Like I said before,  I'd love to see what you have to say about my arguments (i.e. premises I've offered and conclusions I've drawn from them).

That smugness doesn't suit you very well, Fun4all.

Cheers,

Matt

[Orson Zedd]

The idea is to create a colony that is self sufficient. It won't be
easy, but I see no reason it can't be done.

On 5/13/13, fun4alll <funtim...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Matt Germany]

Orson,

I disagree with you a bit there.  There are plenty of reasons building a self-sustaining colony on Mars shouldn't/couldn't be done.  Mars isn't as rich in precious metals as nearer asteroids are as fun4all pointed out.  From what I remember reading, it's largely composed of ferrous metals, which we're not hurting for that bad here.  Maybe the ferrous metals could be used to set up some mining or manufacturing operations on mars but the costs would be (pardon the phrase) astronomical.  So...not gonna happen.

Second, do we really have any sort of plan for terra-forming?  As far as I know, that stuff's pretty much limited to low-budget movies on the Sci-fi channel.

Like I've kept saying a one reason to go to mars is so that we can keep getting better at sending people to further and further away places in space (and develop better technology in the process).  Another reason is to inspire people to go into the sciences (the way the Apollo missions did).  Another reason is for scientific breakthroughs that can be more directly realized through a manned mission to mars.

--Matt

[fun4alll]

I'll throw one last stone, hopefully not causing a flame. ironically, one flippant remark about moving earth to mars is not as silly as it sounds, seriously! NASA has written about an ultra long term possibility of using close flyby's of near earth asteroids to slowly transfer momentum to planet earth, nudging it incrementally, and causing it to migrate from its current location to where mars is now. Naturally, mars will need to be moved out of the way and migrate out as well. This was mentioned as a means for buying time, as our sun slowly gets hotter and the habitual zone migrates outward. In this way, we can keep the earth centered within this zone. We are talking about ultra long term plans here, 100 million years out, but it has been seriously discussed as a scientific endever that may be undertaken at some point.

I don't want a space travel topic to degenerate into an environmental one, but if we are responsible with our resources, and live at equilibrium with our environment, we have plenty of time to worry about going elsewhere. My own suspicion is that we probably won't. It's that age old application of Occums razor, if we can go there so easily, why haven't all of them come here. Apparently, it's difficult. I'd like to imagine we can spread our kind to the stars by building probes with manufacturing capability, and the probes 'build' us, using availiable resources found on distant worlds, but traveling there seems to be difficult; as evidenced by the fact that the 'others' don't seem to have managed to get here.

[fun4alll]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1154784.stm

[Matt Germany]

You guys are right that it's totally possible (though just barely) to get us to mars and set up a colony, but as far as sustainability (http://science.howstuffworks.com/terraforming2.htm) or a mass migration goes (http://what-if.xkcd.com/7/), something like that looks INCREDIBLY complicated looking at the tech we have available to us today.  My point was largely that we HAVE to keep getting better at going into space, because the options we have available to us so far are pretty lousy and inefficient.  Companies like Mars One (which plans to have a human settlement up and running on mars in a decade) are today about as laughable as North Korea as far as their prospects of vacationing on mars go.  But you are right.  It can be done.  And hopefully we will get better at this stuff (which all goes back to why we should keep funding manned missions to space).

--Matt

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:28 PM, fun4alll <funtim...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'll throw one last stone, hopefully not causing a flame. ironically, one flippant remark about moving earth to mars is not as silly as it sounds, seriously! NASA has written about an ultra long term possibility of using close flyby's of near earth asteroids to slowly transfer momentum to planet earth, nudging it incrementally, and causing it to migrate from its current location to where mars is now. Naturally, mars will need to be moved out of the way and migrate out as well. This was mentioned as a means for buying time, as our sun slowly gets hotter and the habitual zone migrates outward. In this way, we can keep the earth centered within this zone. We are talking about ultra long term plans here, 100 million years out, but it has been seriously discussed as a scientific endever that may be undertaken at some point.

I don't want a space travel topic to degenerate into an environmental one, but if we are responsible with our resources, and live at equilibrium with our environment, we have plenty of time to worry about going elsewhere. My own suspicion is that we probably won't. It's that age old application of Occums razor, if we can go there so easily, why haven't all of them come here. Apparently, it's difficult. I'd like to imagine we can spread our kind to the stars by building probes with manufacturing capability, and the probes 'build' us, using availiable resources found on distant worlds, but traveling there seems to be difficult; as evidenced by the fact that the 'others' don't seem to have managed to get here.

[Matt Germany]

Neat link from the Beeb, by the way :)

--Matt

[Orson Zedd]

Wouldn't necessarily have to terraform.  Make an enclosed terrarium, could keep the water in the system without needing much in terms of input.  Getting water there in the first place would really be the biggest challenge.  Mars has some limited protection from solar radiation.  It'd be better with a magnetosphere of course.

[Yackie]

just a thought.. Does anyone else believe we will not have another push for space travel until there is a military reason for? I would like to think otherwise, many scientific breakthroughs were not supported economically until the military needed them.. people often huddle in ever smaller confines with dwindling per person resources, society accepting it.. Capital gains and military objectives strike me as the reasons someone will be able to sell the idea of space exploration, and justify the expense.

 

Please bear in mind, This statement is not how I want things to be.. myself, I would boldly go........
On Monday, May 6, 2013 10:47:04 AM UTC-5, MemphisBill wrote:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/05/experts-now-agree-humans-could-walk-on-mars-within-20-years/

[Matt Germany]

I'm with ya, Yackie.  I'm just crossing my fingers that maybe we'll start taking North Korea's Youtube vids seriously enough to start funding NASA again (right now, about 1/14 of a cent of each tax dollar goes to NASA, while about 17 cents of every dollar I paid in taxes went to defense spending).  On the plus side, I feel really, really safe (as a caveat I'm white and not a Muslim).

--Matt

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/05/experts-now-agree-humans-could-walk-on-mars-within-20-years/

--

[fun4alll]

I've taken plenty of heat for this already on this thread, but I'll respond to yacky's question as before: "Show me the money", If a viable business model can be presented for spending $100billion, one that will show a profit, then the money will present itself. I'd like to advance the space program too, but I'm not one to count on doing so on the backs of unwilling tax payers. I want it to happen, and I think we are getting closer to realizing it. I've discussed how that may happen above. I'll stand by my earlier claim, 40 years of little advancement proves my point, taxpayers are unwilling to pay for ultra-expensive adventures, we will advance the science far more by coming up with a profit-based motivation for doing so.

[Matt Germany]

Okay, we get it fun4all.  You've got a hard-on for Capitalism, blah blah blah.  I think everyone who disagrees with you got the the first time you said it.  It's okay for some people to think that while markets are great for some things, they are not a universal fix for everything.

Also, I was unaware that taxpayers were directly responsible for allocating NASA's budget.  I thought Congress handled that.

I don't think either side is going to move the other on this.  Some people think funding NASA is a good idea, and they have explained why they feel that way.  Other people think NASA is a waste of money, and space travel should be left to the free market.  They, likewise have explained their point of view.

Don't you think all of this reiteration is sort of pointless?  I don't want to stifle the discussion; however, I don't require any assistance to re-read what's already been posted and re-posted on any forum subject.

Thanks,

Matt

--Matt

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:46 PM, fun4alll <funtim...@gmail.com> wrote:

I've taken plenty of heat for this already on this thread, but I'll respond to yacky's question as before: "Show me the money", If a viable business model can be presented for spending $100billion, one that will show a profit, then the money will present itself. I'd like to advance the space program too, but I'm not one to count on doing so on the backs of unwilling tax payers. I want it to happen, and I think we are getting closer to realizing it. I've discussed how that may happen above. I'll stand by my earlier claim, 40 years of little advancement proves my point, taxpayers are unwilling to pay for ultra-expensive adventures, we will advance the science far more by coming up with a profit-based motivation for doing so.

[Matt Germany]

If anyone would like to add something new to this discussion or to shed new light on some of the points already made, I'd love to hear that though.

--Matt

[Matt Germany]

Fun4all,
I'm sorry. That was probably out of line on my part. I like a lot of things you've had to say on this forum, Fun4all.  And as far as the mission of this forum is concerned, "Oh shut up about that already!" is probably among the least useful sentiments that could possibly be put forth.

No hard feelings I hope. I just got frustrated at seeing things get stuck in loops, when there seem to be so many other interesting places that the discussion of this topic could take us.

Cheers,

Matt

[Yackie]

Unless there becomes  world push for space or another cold war where we have to prove our superiority again. I think fun4all is right and the only place the money will come from is business. I do not wish for a war, not even a cold one. so my hope is that the money will come from somewhere else.  Unfortunately, when the military gets involved is when big money goes there.

[Matt Germany]

Again, I'm with you.

I really doubt unmanned, flying drones would have been developed for search and rescue or other civilian purposes. I wholeheartedly agree with Yackie and Fun4all in that respect.

Much like the Apollo missions, I think it will take some military-industrial motivation to push the U.S. into devoting resources to going into space.

--

[Tom]

I have to be the lone person to agree with fun4all.  We have to get the economics of things like "launch to orbit" costs more in line.  That can be tested in Earth orbit.  

Sorry, in the reality of a resource limited world you will have to justify spending $400B, and you'll need more than that it would be "neat" to have living humans physically walk on Mars.  Scientifically speaking, the robotic missions do a great job of exploration.  They are also a great bang for the buck.  Yes, as Tyson pointed out having robots do the travel is less exciting.  

Space travel has always been at odds to find any use for humans in space, since the very beginning.  Not to mention the added expense.  As far as human based travel being exciting, well even the second human trip the the moon was mostly ignored till disaster struck- did you see Apollo 11?

I think the SciFi space operas have it all wrong - I doubt Earth evolved humans as we know them today will ever go beyond this planet except in very restricted numbers.  It will be 'artificial' life made by us to survive and even thrive in these other environments that will go beyond earth.

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Matt Germany <matt.ge...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Yackie]

I do agree that it is not likely to ever be feasible to remove a large population to another planet. If we move on to other habitable planets it will be by seeding. I believe all of the space operations recently have been remote. Some of the probes have found out interesting things. If a probe finds something interesting enough and some one finds it would be better to go first hand(I'm having a hard time conceiving what that would be) that may drive us into space.

 

I'm still to much of a diehard scifi fan not to hope though. :)

[Matt Germany]

Fun4all and Tom, etc.,

You guys are probably right. I think my dissent stemmed mostly from a waning optimism that humans will keep trying to find new mountains to climb.

It can get pretty depressing reading about how unwilling we are to do so many of the things we ought to do--tackle social inequalities, try not to destroy the planet, etc.

It's probably more of a bullshit heartstrings argument on my part when I try to rationalize humanity trying new things for the sake of trying them. Still, a guy's got to hold on to something to look forward to.

It's trite. But I do find myself clinging to unlikely movements that try to make the world(s) better (Not sure how much attention you've been paying, but it can look pretty rough out there sometimes).

--Matt

--

[Yackie]

I keep hoping too Matt.   one request -please stop using first names on the forum unless they are used by the person.. Many of us know who the people really are, but some are not comfortable having their names on this public site. Granted a first name is not very telling.

[fun4alll]

>... I think my dissent stemmed mostly from a waning optimism that humans will keep trying to find new mountains to climb.

Do not despair. Some of our high energy physics experiments for example have recreated conditions that have not been seen since the first few milliseconds after the Big Bang! Even super nova explosions fail to reach these temperatures. We are putting our mark on the universe, we are not done, and one never knows where advances will take us. Might we find a way to make a warp bubble to squeeze space and travel faster than light, might we tunnel through space, might we unlock energies we can't comprehend of now, who knows. However, we do know that a given method tends to go through a technology maturation curve of eventual diminishing returns. Rockets have not advanced all that much since the Saturn 5 days, and perhaps it's time to stop beating a dead horse. We will find opportunities. However, like the invention of the transistor or antibiotics, it will come on its own schedule, and may be difficult to rush. You see, maturing a given science can be rushed by throwing some money at it, but true breakthroughs are a different matter. They come when they come. Lol, perhaps I should tell an atheist group to 'have faith', nahhhhhhh.

[jackie hyder]

I have faith that there are more technological breakthroughs coming in the form of energy generation( not i'm not looking for LENR) and motion generation

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:11 PM, fun4alll <funtim...@gmail.com> wrote:

>... I think my dissent stemmed mostly from a waning optimism that humans will keep trying to find new mountains to climb.

Do not despair. Some of our high energy physics experiments for example have recreated conditions that have not been seen since the first few milliseconds after the Big Bang! Even super nova explosions fail to reach these temperatures. We are putting our mark on the universe, we are not done, and one never knows where advances will take us. Might we find a way to make a warp bubble to squeeze space and travel faster than light, might we tunnel through space, might we unlock energies we can't comprehend of now, who knows. However, we do know that a given method tends to go through a technology maturation curve of eventual diminishing returns. Rockets have not advanced all that much since the Saturn 5 days, and perhaps it's time to stop beating a dead horse. We will find opportunities. However, like the invention of the transistor or antibiotics, it will come on its own schedule, and may be difficult to rush. You see, maturing a given science can be rushed by throwing some money at it, but true breakthroughs are a different matter. They come when they come. Lol, perhaps I should tell an atheist group to 'have faith', nahhhhhhh.