Scientists have made amazing discoveries about Mars and also Jupiter and its moons (hence the post below on Jupiter's moons) in recent years, and these discoveries are worth noting.
I believe, not to sound corny, like Star Trek, our next frontier is outer space. We should look to the stars for our next great adventure, as we don't know how much longer this planet will sustain habitable conditions.
3 comments:
I don't have anything in particular about Mars, but I know that even an Earth that's a few degrees warmer is still the best game in town. Should an Earth-like planet be discovered orbiting a nearby star, it is still a decades-long journey with the fastest available propulsion system. We have to master a post-petroleum civilization first because as of yet, there is no evidence of extra-terrestrial life, and without that, there can be no oil on other planets.
There is methane, though. Titan could be a kind of gas station for the solar system because it is loaded with methane and has low gravity, making collection easier. NASA is working on a liquid methane/liquid oxygen engine that could power a spacecraft. The lack of available oxygen on other moons and planets is a real problem, though. A nuclear-powered ion drive may be the way to go. Acceleration is slow, but top speed can be a large percentage of c.
There was a fascinating planet discovered around a star a few stellar zip codes over. It's temperature is around 3,000 degrees and it may have a gaseous metal atmosphere of titanium dioxide. TiO2 in powder form is white and reflects light--it's what makes white paint white, but like other metals, it absorbs light like crazy in a gaseous state.
This is an argument that I absolutely can't stand hearing, Tom. This may sound controversial to some, but I feel that the entire space program should be scrapped. All space research, satellite launches/repairs, and space travel should be privatized. This will make the program more efficient and will also ensure that the government focuses on its primary job: ensuring the welfare of its people (in its own land).
I don't believe one cent of American taxpayer money (that you so wholeheartedly resent, according to a previous post) should go toward a program that is more or less an relic and extension of Cold War policy as well as overall sentiment of American "manifest destiny". Rarely does anything good come of colonization, and I don't think this case is any different just because it is interplanetary. Ultimately, if other planets get colonized (due to poor living conditions on earth) it will only be the very wealthy and fortunate who will be doing so while the masses will be left to starve and die back on earth. Not a pretty sight. And, I say if there is any life on other planets, let it come to us. We don't need to get our grubby hands on any other ecosystems.
Every cent that goes into the space program should go into making this planet a better place to live for everybody. This should include resolving global warming, solving hunger crises and water shortages and curing pandemics such as AIDS etc. Let's try to save this planet , the only habitable one that we know, and make it the best place to live for all of us. Screw other planets.
gorham:
I don't believe in "screw other planets;" however, you are correct that, given my previous post about paying taxes, hear hear! The space program should have been privatized a long time ago. Sorry I didn't think of it/mention it. Let the rich and adventurous pursue space travel. Why can't Bill Gates make his Gates Foundation mission be to pursue space flight other than just circling the planet?
Yes we should focus on our own soil. Many of the discoveries we've made about technology, which has influenced ALL aspects of our lives, including medical care (without technology, we wouldn't have the longevity we have), many of the technological innovations have come from outer space, from materials we have brought home.
I believe we should continue with the telescopes and the radio transmitters. The discoveries we make about the nature of the universe are important for the planet and our species. What we learn about other planets we can apply to our own. Stormpilgrim isn't far off when he mentions harvesting methane as a viable fuel. If it's in abundance on Titan, it is safe to say it could be in abundance elsewhere too. The same is true with any other fuel source we might discover.
Right now, at this moment in history, it seems to me our paramount concern should be to acquire an abundant fuel source which WE control. In fact, the fuel source should be one that EVERY country controls, not one country over another. One thing is certain: we have to get away from fossel fuels.
The problems you mention, such as global warming, hunger, and AIDS, aren't a problem of technology or money. Our country in particular has the technology and $$$ to take care of these problems. The problem lies with our governments. It is a problem of will. Instead of spending billions on a doomed war policy in Iraq, why can't we take that money and pour it into global warming, hunger, and AIDS? Or better yet pour it into educating not only ALL Americans but also people who are here illegally yet contributing to our economy and paying taxes (yes illegals DO pay taxes; that is to say, the government takes them out whether the illegal completes a tax return or not). Because these people, like it or not, ARE our future. We should be focusing on how we can pass the mantle of open (not necessarily free) markets and freedom of thought to them.
The problem of AIDS and hunger, being a worldwide problem, even in our own country, again is a problem of will. Why do people starve in Africa? The larger question is "Why are some African countries so backward, which is to say, have inadequate systems to help their people?" Why is our delivery system of services so much better? In fact, I'll bet even the poor countries in Latin America have better delivery of services than some African countries. Why on earth is that? I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that it is due to autocratic governments who want to keep their people living 100 years behind the times! I don't believe we should, like we did in Iraq, bring Democracy to these countries. They have to want it and establish it. In this sense, I'm speaking of a form of determinism. It's like a person with a psychological problem who refuses to seek care. People with such problems must WANT to seek help. We can't force them, only suggest. The same is true with countries. The people in poor African countries will ALWAYS be poor and starving UNLESS they somehow get rid of oppressive regimes. We send them money but it gets lost somewhere along the line. Why is that?
Closer to home, why is it that a city like Newark, NJ, for instance or even part of Providence, RI, have hungry people or people who live below the poverty line? If you look at these regions, you will find the people living in them are usually non-white. I'm sure there probably ARE white people living there who are poor and hungry too. These areas are typically underserved. Why is that? I believe there is an underlying, hidden racism on the part of the authorities to do anything.
So until the mindset of people in power changes and until people are truly equal under the law will there really be any change. This change in mindset has to come from the people "in charge." In a way, we have ourselves to blame because we keep electing people with shallow and corrupt morals. We only have ourselves to blame. Perhaps we should start doing what Califorinans did. They asked for a recall on their governor and got Schwartznegger. For better or for worse, the people spoke.
So the changes you are talking about don't come from taking money from the space program and throwing it at these problems. Spending money on different programs is only part of it. There has to be a real will by the powers that be to change. And I don't think there is. As long as we have the religious right behind everything, there won't be much change. In fact, there could be a reversal of rights we hold dear. If you base your politics on narrow interpretation of scripture, how much leeway are you going to give people?
Post a Comment