Posted on 03/10/2005 12:18:15 PM PST by ambrose
The idea of ensuring survival of earthlife by going into space is a side benefit. The main idea is to develop an economy in space to supplement the earthside economy. It will be difficult to survive in space, not to mention thriving.
Here's my proposal:
Meanwhile, scientists worry about the impact of the huge enterprise on other endeavors, such as astronomy, physics and climate change.
Personally, I think the 'enterprise' will be very good for all those things.
Who knows, somewhere down the line it could even save the whales!
> we'll all be dead and gone by the time anything like that happens
Not at all certain. Around Christmas there was an asteroid on the scopes that looked likely to hit in 2028; I plan on being alive then. As it turns out that asteroid is going to miss us, but that doesn't mean we won't get smacked tomorrow.
Plus there's the ever-entertaining notion of an extra-smart Al Queda type genetically modifiying AIDS into an airborne strain, or making an improved ebola, springing a souped-up smallpox on us, etc.
A crash program could have Martian colonies (admittedly crappy ones) running in less than ten years.
but the point stands... it doesn't matter if WE benefit. it is enough that it will benefit future generations. Imagine if the Emperor who set out to build the Great Wall of China figured "why bother, I'll be dead by the time it is completed"?
I'm actually bothered more by the prospect of Art Bell losing his nutball fan base. Which is to say, not at all.
How does domination by Islamists or Communists grab you?
Ditto. If that happens, it won't be because we didn't put a man on Mars.
How about losing out on the most lucrative markets since the invention of markets?
Ah, now you're talking. Private investors can pursue those markets to their hearts' content. Burt Rutan is the man!
No. Too much time in reality.
One can never spend too much time in Reality.
> it is enough that it will benefit future generations.
Sadly, too few people grasp that. The same econuts who scream about the tiny amonut of plutonium on Cassini don't seem to realize that successful planetary colonization means that every form of life we take with us an establish will be basically made immortal.
Once we start farming the Kuiper Belt, damn near nothing short of the galaxy exploding will threaten humanity.
Ahead, warp factor seven! To infinity and beyond!
> Private investors can pursue those markets to their hearts' content.
Like they do in defense, yes?
> If that happens, it won't be because we didn't put a man on Mars.
If we put a man on Mars, and can keep thim there and prosperous... domination by other will NEVER happen. He who controls the high ground controls the battle.
Like they do in defense, yes?
Absolutely. Private investors have made a killing in defense. I've personally done very well since 9/11.
(Two can play your game.)
1. Environmentally unfriendly (as if it mattered)
2. Not efficient enough
3. Need to cool off the atmosphere first.
Next question ?
I was thining that painting the planet white, might not help since tha atmosphere is so think so before painting, one woould have to build huge storage tanks to pump the atmosphere into so that the suns rays could bounce off the white paint. I don't think it is possible to do something unfriendly to the environment on Venus. My reading suggests that Venus is pretty unfriendly right now.
This might take a few thousand years and the end result might just be a tad different from his armchair predictions. Cheap and easy though.
When hearing about discussions on terraforming Venus, I hear of these centuries-long schemes with enourmous economic resources and tremendous amounts of energy involved. I wonder if simply moving the planet to another orbit, perhaps midway between Earth and Mars might actually be easier. All of the technical hurdles would be no greater than the other schemes I've heard.
If a space elevator is possible, then building a tower that extends 200-300 km above the surface of Venus would be no problem, then it's simply a matter of in-sutu propellant production. We could build a large nuclear reactor at the top of the tower, it would pump large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere and perhaps cool and condense it to a liquid and then be injected into the nuclear core to provide thrust into space.
Simply time the the thrust from the nuclear thermal rocket at the right point of the planet's rotation and slowly-but-surely the orbit would expand and the planet would move to a more distant orbit. In less than 30-40 years perhaps, such a thing could be accomplished, much better than the centuries or millenium-long projects so far proposed and it would be in a more convenient orbit for access to Earth.
We could even push into a Lagarange orbit that's outside Earth's orbit but within 10 million miles of Earth.
When we get to the point technologically to start Terraforming planets, then such planetary engineering would be a simple matter for a civilization that has the technology and resources to expend on such a project.
I say we ignite Jupiter then we can vacation on Titan.
Opps, Titan belongs to Saturn OK ignite Saturn, might have to push Jupiter into Saturn first. Man the environmental wackos will have a **** fit. What fun.
Ooooooo
A luddite science reporter! They're special!
Oh, wait, he's only opposed to REPUBLICAN science or anything that might actually rebound to the benefit of the United States.
The goal ? TERRAFORM IT. The life there will just have to adapt to changing conditions, like all life must in the universe.
Today's environmentalists will be the Preservationists of Mars tomorrow. Why? They hate humans and themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.