Poll: Do you find space exploration *that* interesting or important?

So, which opinion camp do you fit into?

  • Space exploration is of upmost importance and should be one of the highest priorities.

    Votes: 132 39.1%

  • Space exploration is very important but there are issues that should possibly take priority.

    Votes: 150 44.4%

  • It should definitely be put on the back burner compared to fixing other issues.

    Votes: 25 7.4%

  • I really could not care less about space travel - seems a waste of time and money.

    Votes: 14 4.1%

  • Spacecake. (lollysander)

    Votes: 17 5.0%
  • Total voters
    338
jak731 said:
For over 40 years we have had the knowledge and technology to be able to build a craft that would allow us to visit every body in the solar system very quickly and easily for a similar cost to the apollo program, the same technology could take us to the nearest star systems in a human lifetime. Project Orion.
Click to expand...

Interesting read, thanks. I mean, there are risks with using nuclear power with conventional spacecraft, never mind propelling yourself using nuclear explosions, but still :p

I've always been a fan of the Bussard Ramjet, which is more for interstellar travel than interplanetary travel.

Also, the nearest star might be a good test for theory, but there's not really much there is there? I mean, i find it unlikely that any planet would be able to settle into a stable orbit around a binary star system. Point being, say we replaced the 4.2ly figure with 20ly, which off the top of my head would take us to the Gliese 581 system. That would be far more interesting.
 
jak731 said:
Imagine a hypothetical craft that can accelerate at 1g constantly, so it would be comfortable to live on. Such a craft and anyone on board could reach anywhere within the causal horizon of the universe within a human lifetime (under 60 years). This is within the current understanding of relativity, no magic or physics breaking required, just the simple fact that distances get shorter the faster you go. Anyone who wanted to go on such a trip would know that they could never return to Earth.
Click to expand...

I think your calculations are a little optimistic, not least because arriving at your destination traveling at a gazillion miles per hour would barely give you enough time to get your holiday snaps done, let alone actually visiting the place.

So presumably, you would have to start decelerating by 1g when you get about halfway to your destination so as to come to rest?

That could be tedious :p

That, coupled with the ridiculous amount of energy required to sustain such an acceleration, chuck in some relativistic mass and time dialation issues, and lets not forget the light we see on earth is light years old meaning our destination has actually moved a considerable distance away from where we see it already (imagin aiming for the edge of the universe and arriving back on earth, mega embarrassment), add all those back in and yes mate, you are talking science fiction not science fact :p

RIMMER: Stopping distances. You're traveling half the speed of
light, what is the stopping distance?

KRYTEN: Four years, three months.

RIMMER: And the thinking time?

KRYTEN: A fortnight.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Voted 3, I meant 2.5

Long term, space travel is incredibly important. But short term we face many serious challenges, with the energy crisis being chief among those.

Yes the space race advanced out technology greatly, but space isn't the only thing that does this. Among the terrible days of the world wars we developed computing, radar, greatly advanced flight and many others.

Every great human endeavour has far reaching benefits to the world, let the next endeavour be energy.
 
m4rk84 said:
I'm also of the opinion that space travel is essential to the long term survival of our species. In other words its of the utmost importance.
Click to expand...

But why the rush? The dinosaurs lived here for millions of years, we've only been here a tiny fraction of the time. We are progressing.

jak731 said:
Seeing our fragile world from space has arguably created more conservationists than any other field
Click to expand...

And we've seen it. Now what? I don't feel increasing the space budget 20 times is going to help the conservation of the planet that much.
 
Longbow said:
But why the rush? The dinosaurs lived here for millions of years, we've only been here a tiny fraction of the time. We are progressing.



And we've seen it. Now what? I don't feel increasing the space budget 20 times is going to help the conservation of the planet that much.
Click to expand...

I guess the poll doesn't really give me my ultimate answer, which is that scientific research in all forms is massively more important then military spending. Our overall goal should be to find a way to explore space. There's some important milestones we need to achieve before we really push space exploration though.

Firstly I feel very strongly that for now the most important objective for us is to find a way to rid us of the plague that is oil power. We need to find a way to harness the power of our sun to push mankind forward.

Secondly I think its reasonable to assume that we will need to find ways to halt/reverse the effects of ageing before we manage to travel light years away to other stars. Living longer lives is going to be essential in colonizing new planets, if only to allow us to outlast the journey there.
 
We need to find all the new metals so we can develop star ships and warp drive so no1.

:p sorry just finished voyager and on enterprise :D
 
XKCD sums it up nicely

space.png



Superewza said:
Interesting read, thanks. I mean, there are risks with using nuclear power with conventional spacecraft, never mind propelling yourself using nuclear explosions, but still :p
Click to expand...

If we are serious about going into space beyond the Earth Moon system with a respectable presence we need a method of putting large quantities of mass into space. Nuclear propulsion is the only feasible technology which combines high impulse with hugh fuel efficiency. (Although something like HARP might be able to put simple robust components into orbit).

Superewza said:
I've always been a fan of the Bussard Ramjet, which is more for interstellar travel than interplanetary travel.
Click to expand...

I don't think we have the technology for such a device, unlike for nuclear propulsion. Ion drives might be better than orion for interstellar travel, they would require a large nuclear reactor for significant thrust though.

Superewza said:
Also, the nearest star might be a good test for theory, but there's not really much there is there? I mean, i find it unlikely that any planet would be able to settle into a stable orbit around a binary star system. Point being, say we replaced the 4.2ly figure with 20ly, which off the top of my head would take us to the Gliese 581 system. That would be far more interesting.
Click to expand...

It is surprising how quickly the number of star systems increases with distance, first star is 4.2 light years away, 12 with 10ly and 132 within 20ly. Travelling 20ly with orion tech would require a generational ship, which has obvious negatives. It could be worthwhile with a probe though most politicians can't see past their next election let alone beyond their death.
 
Its not only exciting it's essential. Not only for species survival, but how we are going to keep expanding and growing. It's what we do solve problems with tech. Hippies aren't correct we aren't going to go back to the stone age, we aren't going to destroy the world.

It's also unbuilt in to us to explore, space is the ultimate exploration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom