A few weeks ago scientists found a new planet that could support life, but one side is always night, and the other day, what is your opinion on it, should we explore or leave it
True, however the interesting thing about that is that it's easier to get into space than to the bottom of the ocean. See, the massive pressure from going down to the bottom of the ocean makes it extremely difficult to build a craft which could survive at great depths, especially for long periods of time.
Consider our best submarine ships, even they can't go much lower than 500-750m without being crushed, yet the ocean floor, in many places, is 1500m or more. We will get to exploring more of our oceans, we just need to develop better technology.
Ya I know, and also the density of water compared to the near void of space make it really hard to see something down there. It's like walking around on the surface without any star or moon light, only a little candle, and hoping to see an animal... yet I really would like to see a comparison of funds both space and deep sea research get.
Basically, this planet is none of our concern until we have the means to actually get there. I mean, we can still research it and provide clues as to the conditions and the reliability of the planet, but actually making an effort to get there is out of our reach for a long time. It would take from the dawn of man to now to get to the next-closest star, based on how fast our spaceships are.
yet I really would like to see a comparison of funds both space and deep sea research get.
From what I've understood, the US government spends roughly $700 million per annum on deep sea exploration. I am unable to find statistics on what the private sector spends, but knowing that oil companies and scientific communities have vast amounts of money invested into undersea exploration I wouldn't be surprised if it is more than the US government.
By contrast NASA's budget for FY 2010 was 18.7 billion. This includes not only exploration, but funding for all programs related to space exploration, R&D, et cetera. Also, unlike undersea exploration, the NASA budget actually makes money, on average a 33% ROI. So for that 18.7 billion that is spent, we'll make that, plus another ~$6 billion back from sales of R&D items, taxes, et cetera.
While I agree that we need to spend more time in the oceans, we have explored many of the major milestones already. We've seen the bottom of the Mariana trench, we've mapped the Mid-Atlantic ridge and identified massive deposits of natural resources, we have been to the reefs, atolls, and islands around the world and discovered new and wonderful things there.
By contrast, we've been to the moon. We put a robot on Mars, and are still unsure of what all is up there. We don't even fully understand the planets in our solar system, let alone just our galaxy, out of the billions and billions of galaxies out there.
Financially, scientifically, and egocentrically, there is just more to do in space, a better return on the money spent in space exploration, and more milestones to be reached. Not to mention that we may find other earth-like planets which could support us, and if we keep overpopulating our planet we may need to relocate someday.
MRWalker, that was like a mini-thesis. Very well written out.
I have a question. Should we spend money on space exploration, or the technology first? Let me be more specific. For example, should we spend more money on the technology to get us to Gleise 581c or just go for it and get there?
Should we spend money on space exploration, or the technology first? Let me be more specific. For example, should we spend more money on the technology to get us to Gleise 581c or just go for it and get there?
I think that depends on what the immediate goal is. If we are expecting a return on our investment then pursuit of R&D would pay off sooner, however without testing this equipment, often through field work actually in space, we can't be totally sure of it's viability.
By contrast if we are looking to simply make milestones, and possibly achieve something fantastic, then we should get a ship together that can travel for the next 20 years and give it the ol' college try.
Now looking at the math it is quite apparent that's it's impossible for us to get there with our current technology. The speed of the space shuttle in vacuum, and in orbit, is ~7640 m/s. Light travels ~180,000 miles per second, so if the space shuttle could maintain it's speed of 7640 m/s constantly, it would take over 10 hours to go as far as light does in only one second.
Now take a look at the fact that Gliese 581 is ~20.4 lightyears away. That is close to 650 million light seconds, which as I showed, would take a shuttle at least 10 hours per second to travel. That's ~6 billion hours of flight at the speed of 7640 m/s. That equates to ~734K years. It's just not even close to feasible.
Rather than discovering more space that we can't reach why not focus on development of technology that will get us to the places we've already discovered, such as Gliese.
I'm not up to date on space travel development so how plausible is the development of a stable wormhole?
I'm not up to date on space travel development so how plausible is the development of a stable wormhole?
At this stage of our technology it's nearly impossible. Part of the necessity to create an artificial wormhole is to be able to warp not only the gravity and mass in the area of space, but to ensure that time is also tied into the warping of space. In order to even get close to such a solution we would need to develop an accurate theory of quantum gravity which ties into both relativity and quantum mechanics.
we should colonize this planet as soon as possible. the earth will be dead within the next two centuries. honestly, at the rate we're destroying our planet and the fact that there seems to be no end to the corruption, we will kill ourselves in a matter of years. if the human race is to survive, we need to find a way to reach this planet and fast.
we should colonize this planet as soon as possible. the earth will be dead within the next two centuries. honestly, at the rate we're destroying our planet and the fact that there seems to be no end to the corruption, we will kill ourselves in a matter of years. if the human race is to survive, we need to find a way to reach this planet and fast.
Umm... the earth will NOT be 'dead', especially not within the next 200 years. Also, did you not read the maths on my post?? It would take ~734,000 YEARS for us to reach this system with our current technology, and I don't see us making any advances to drastically reduce that timeframe anytime soon.
