Space Travel

[rodheadlee]

Do you believe that we as humans should strive to strike out and colonize other planets? To obtain  the ability to travel at least at light speed. We of course would have to colonize our own solar system and learn how to use all of its resources towards this goal. Or should we just sit back and count on Heavenly Father to do the job for us?

Edited November 12, 2020 by rodheadlee

[Tacenda]

Just now, rodheadlee said:

Do you believe that we as humans should strive to strike out and colonize other planets? To obtain  the ability to travel at least at light speed. We have course would have to colonize our own solar system and learn how to use all of its resources towards this goal. Or should we just sit back and count on Heavenly Father to do the job for us?

I think we should be expected to work for the things we want, that's how it's been as far as talks etc. And there may come a day that the world will burn up, not because of Jesus coming but because of climate change. 

So we may just force us to leave the planet and find another. 

[rchorse]

A lot of good technology comes out of space exploration, so I think it's a worthy cause. I seriously doubt we'll ever colonize anything outside our own solar system. I doubt we'll even get to Mars in my lifetime, so for me, I'll probably be test driving a resurrected body hyperdrive sooner than anything.

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Do you believe that we as humans should strive to strike out and colonize other planets? To obtain  the ability to travel at least at light speed. We of course would have to colonize our own solar system and learn how to use all of its resources towards this goal. Or should we just sit back and count on Heavenly Father to do the job for us?

Baby steps, but yes!

[bluebell]

I definitely believe that space exploration should be one of our priorities.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

Do you believe that we as humans should strive to strike out and colonize other planets? To obtain  the ability to travel at least at light speed. We of course would have to colonize our own solar system and learn how to use all of its resources towards this goal. Or should we just sit back and count on Heavenly Father to do the job for us?

I think we need to learn how to take care of our own planet first.  All the money invested in space could go a long way in ocean clean up, renewable clean energy, better waste management, protecting our riverways, organic farming practices/tech, small footprint technologies, etc.  

Because of the pandemic we got a single, short, but glorious glimpse at what our air could look like without car pollution.   Places in India and China that had not seen blue skies in decades breathed a short-lived but clean sigh of glorious relief.  People were smiling and beaming with delight, even as they were faced with the anxieties of a new pandemic.   I remember how crisp the mountains looked in Utah when all the haze was gone!  It felt so good to breathe clean, fresh air.   I want that so bad.  I want that before space.  Lets cherish and preserve what we have.  Let's learn to be good stewards before we set out in space with our insatiable appetites to consume.  I don't think we will find any quite like the majesty of our planet.  It is worth every investment to preserve. 

Edited November 12, 2020 by pogi

[Duncan]

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

Do you believe that we as humans should strive to strike out and colonize other planets? To obtain  the ability to travel at least at light speed. We of course would have to colonize our own solar system and learn how to use all of its resources towards this goal. Or should we just sit back and count on Heavenly Father to do the job for us?

I’m a huge science fiction fan. Been following failed attempts at thermonuclear propulsion since my boyhood days in Los Alamos, although there have been some advances. There are very few places within the solar system that are viable candidates for colonization. Exiting the solar system is out of the question without huge expenditures of money, finding new materials, changing the laws of physics and anatomy, and achieving vast increases in technology. Possibly some unmanned exploration, but not manned colonization except perhaps the Moon, maybe Mars, and a few larger planetary moons, but not in my lifetime. Just my opinions.

[LoudmouthMormon]

The script has already been written, folks.  The (M-rated) Sci-fi show The Expanse has Mormons in it!  We've built a massive generation ship called The Nauvoo, and are planning to launch it to our nearest stellar neighbor, so our descendants 5-6 generations later will get there and be able to set up shop on whatever habitable world they find.  The thing's interior is decked out, well, like a futuristic temple. 

*spoiler* - the ship gets hijacked before it can launch, abandoned, salvaged by the Space Jamaicans, and pressed into service as the warship Behemoth.   Here's a fun (g-rated) walk through.  If you're not interested in seeing what secular minds imagine a "space temple" look like, you might want to skip it.   This has sort of a "what the heathen did after seizing the Kirtland temple" feel to it.

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by LoudmouthMormon

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

The script has already been written, folks.  The (M-rated) Sci-fi show The Expanse has Mormons in it!  We've built a massive generation ship called The Nauvoo, and are planning to launch it to our nearest stellar neighbor, so our descendants 5-6 generations later will get there and be able to set up shop on whatever habitable world they find.  The thing's interior is decked out, well, like a futuristic temple. 

*spoiler* - the ship gets hijacked before it can launch, abandoned, salvaged by the Space Jamaicans, and pressed into service as the warship Behemoth.   Here's a fun (g-rated) walk through.  If you're not interested in seeing what secular minds imagine a "space temple" look like, you might want to skip it.   This has sort of a "what the heathen did after seizing the Kirtland temple" feel to it.

 

They ruined The Expanse when it went to Netflix.  I'm still bitter.

[Calm]

While I love the idea of exploring space, there is so much more we can learn about the earth and how to live in what are now extreme conditions such as in the oceans, underground (leaving more of the surface for parks and farming), on floating man made islands, in deserts...all in ways that are sustainable and clean. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, rchorse said:

A lot of good technology comes out of space exploration, so I think it's a worthy cause. I seriously doubt we'll ever colonize anything outside our own solar system. I doubt we'll even get to Mars in my lifetime, so for me, I'll probably be test driving a resurrected body hyperdrive sooner than anything.

I think a lot of people forget about everything that we've developed due to the space program.  https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/infographic.view.php?id=11358

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Do you believe that we as humans should strive to strike out and colonize other planets?

By your words "as humans" I suppose you mean as mortals before we become exalted.  And to that idea I would say No I don't think so mainly because it would be such a huge hassle just to try to keep our mortal bodies alive and close to good places to shop.

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

To obtain the ability to travel at least at light speed.

Okay, let's do that first BEFORE we plan to go traveling into outer space.  If we can get to the point where we can travel fast enough to anywhere we want to go then I suppose it wouldn't be a problem for us to go anywhere.

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

We of course would have to colonize our own solar system and learn how to use all of its resources towards this goal.

Why do you think so?  Why can't we just work with what we have to work with on this planet?  I wouldn't want to go to any other planet unless I could get there and back in just a couple of weeks, or maybe at most a few months.  Unless that other planet was already colonized and I could get all of the things I like on this planet on that other planet as well.  I am not into "roughing it" for more than a few months.  We have a lot of nice things here and I see no good reason for me to voluntarily leave all of this to go to some other planet that has very little if any of the things I have access to on this planet. You and others can leave if you want to and are able to go but I would not consider that to be something you or they should do.

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Or should we just sit back and count on Heavenly Father to do the job for us?

Our Father can travel to other planets and apparently he does that a lot, but for us to travel we will need to do our own traveling.

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think a lot of people forget about everything that we've developed due to the space program.  https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/infographic.view.php?id=11358

That is pretty cool to see the indirect effect/advancements from the program.  Imagine what kind of advancements we would see if all that money was invested with a direct focus on benefitting our planet!

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is pretty cool to see the indirect effect/advancements from the program.  Imagine what kind of advancements we would see if all that money was invested with a direct focus on benefitting our planet!

Indirect is usually as good as it gets with these kinds of things, because the cost of such endeavors is so astronomical (  ) that there almost always needs to be something more specific to be gained than 'benefitting our planet' behind the expenditure.  

And of course the elephant in the room is that nothing has stopped any company or organization from directly focusing on benefitting our planet, especially in the last few years since space exploration has fallen out of government favor.  So NASA/space exploration isn't stopping a direct focus on the earth.  What's stopping it is probably the cost/payout issue I mentioned above.

So if benefits from a direct focus aren't happening (for whatever reasons), then it makes sense to put effort into those indirect focuses that have been shown to produce.  The whole "a bird in the hand is better than two birds in a bush" philosophy.   If we have to choose between "benefits that might someday exist through a direct approach no one has taken yet", and "benefits that actually exist through an indirect approach that is being taken", it seems like an indirect approach is a reasonable choice, for now at least.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Indirect is usually as good as it gets with these kinds of things, because the cost of such endeavors is so astronomical (  ).

Which is why the space program should be shut down, I think.  If we were evaluating a business, it would be considered a failure if all we have to show are indirect benefits.  It doesn't make sense to invest nearly 20 billion annually without any direct benefit.  Don't get me wrong, I think the simple act of exploration, pushing into the unknown, and triggering the imagination is worthy in and of itself, but I think there are more pressing problems we are dealing with here on earth that need our attention first.  First things first, my wife always reminds me. 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

there almost always needs to be something more specific to be gained than 'benefitting our planet' behind the expenditure.  

I agree.  We need to be very specific.  I gave a few specific examples earlier.  I think it would be wise to focus on one of those areas at a time.  Instead of thinning the money out over a wide variety of worthy pursuits, we should invest all 20 billion on one area/focus (clean air for example) with very specific goals and targets.  Once those are achieved, then we roll the money over into waste management after that, etc.  I think that would be a more financially sound and beneficial use of our tax dollars that would have a direct benefit.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

And of course the elephant in the room is that nothing has stopped any company or organization from directly focusing on benefitting our planet, especially in the last few years since space exploration has fallen out of government favor.  So NASA/space exploration isn't stopping a direct focus on the earth.  What's stopping it is probably the cost/payout issue I mentioned above.

This isn't about private companies and organizations, this is about wise and beneficial use of 20 billion in tax dollars every year.   It is true that the government can still focus on these areas, but a 20 billion boost in investment surely would help the cause (especially when it has no direct benefit as it is being used currently).    

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

So if benefits from a direct focus aren't happening (for whatever reasons), then it makes sense to put effort into those indirect focuses that have been shown to produce.  The whole "a bird in the hand is better than two birds in a bush" philosophy.   If we have to choose between "benefits that might someday exist through a direct approach no one has taken yet", and "benefits that actually exist through an indirect approach that is being taken", it seems like an indirect approach is a reasonable choice, for now at least.

I think we have seen enormous direct benefits in investing in clean air, water, waste management, etc.  I think if one was to compile a list of indirect benefits and advancements in technology from pursuits in clean renewable energy, etc.  I think we would see many examples there too. 

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by pogi

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I think we need to learn how to take care of our own planet first.  All the money invested in space could go a long way in ocean clean up, renewable clean energy, better waste management, protecting our riverways, organic farming practices/tech, small footprint technologies, etc.  

Because of the pandemic we got a single, short, but glorious glimpse at what our air could look like without car pollution.   Places in India and China that had not seen blue skies in decades breathed a short-lived but clean sigh of glorious relief.  People were smiling and beaming with delight, even as they were faced with the anxieties of a new pandemic.   I remember how crisp the mountains looked in Utah when all the haze was gone!  It felt so good to breathe clean, fresh air.   I want that so bad.  I want that before space.  Lets cherish and preserve what we have.  Let's learn to be good stewards before we set out in space with our insatiable appetites to consume.  I don't think we will find any quite like the majesty of our planet.  It is worth every investment to preserve. 

We better do some real good population control if this planet is going to be our only home.

[Ahab]

Just now, rodheadlee said:

We better do some real good population control if this planet is going to be our only home.

Already part of the plan.  This planet/orb will eventually become celestialized, so that only celestial people will be able to live here. And then later when we need some more celestial planets we will then make some more.

[2BizE]

Yes. There may come a time when humans cannot exist on this planet.

[katherine the great]

4 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Do you believe that we as humans should strive to strike out and colonize other planets? To obtain  the ability to travel at least at light speed. We of course would have to colonize our own solar system and learn how to use all of its resources towards this goal. Or should we just sit back and count on Heavenly Father to do the job for us?

I vote yes. To both. 

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

Yes. There may come a time when humans cannot exist on this planet.

You mean non-exalted humans, I suppose.  When we are exalted we are and will continue to be able to live live anywhere we want to live.

[pogi]

53 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

We better do some real good population control if this planet is going to be our only home.

That is one argument I have heard for not wearing masks.

If we can learn to consume less and lean towards renewable/sustainable resources, I think we still have a lot of room to grow.  It seems there are always natural and unnatural thinning events. 

Edited November 12, 2020 by pogi

[smac97]

On 11/12/2020 at 8:41 AM, rodheadlee said:

Do you believe that we as humans should strive to strike out and colonize other planets?

I think we should try.  I don't think we will succeed.

There is much to learn and benefit from in the effort, even if the effort ultimately unsuccessful.

Quote

We of course would have to colonize our own solar system and learn how to use all of its resources towards this goal. Or should we just sit back and count on Heavenly Father to do the job for us?

I think those Latter-day Saints who are situated to contribute to this effort should feel free to do so.  There's no doctrinal proscription against it, and it is otherwise an admirable objective.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 3, 2020 by smac97

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Which is why the space program should be shut down, I think.  If we were evaluating a business, it would be considered a failure if all we have to show are indirect benefits.  It doesn't make sense to invest nearly 20 billion annually without any direct benefit.  Don't get me wrong, I think the simple act of exploration, pushing into the unknown, and triggering the imagination is worthy in and of itself, but I think there are more pressing problems we are dealing with here on earth that need our attention first.  First things first, my wife always reminds me. 

 

But the space program has a lot of direct benefits.  And the indirect benefits are fairly huge.  This is especially true when we consider that every dollar spent on NASA adds $8 to the economy.    I think the direct and indirect benefits are excellent arguments against shutting it down.

 

Quote

I agree.  We need to be very specific.  I gave a few specific examples earlier.  I think it would be wise to focus on one of those areas at a time.  Instead of thinning the money out over a wide variety of worthy pursuits, we should invest all 20 billion on one area/focus (clean air for example) with very specific goals and targets.  Once those are achieved, then we roll the money over into waste management after that, etc.  I think that would be a more financially sound and beneficial use of our tax dollars that would have a direct benefit.

I think that's a reasonable idea.  I don't agree with it, but it's reasonable.  

Quote

This isn't about private companies and organizations, this is about wise and beneficial use of 20 billion in tax dollars every year.   It is true that the government can still focus on these areas, but a 20 billion boost in investment surely would help the cause (especially when it has no direct benefit as it is being used currently). 

Giving the EPA an extra 20 billion would probably help them.  I don't personally think it would be worth losing the benefits we receive from the space program (I think we would lose more than we gain) but that's a judgment call that would be different for different people.    

Quote

I think we have seen enormous direct benefits in investing in clean air, water, waste management, etc.  I think if one was to compile a list of indirect benefits and advancements in technology from pursuits in clean renewable energy, etc.  I think we would see many examples there too.

I agree.  I just don't agree they are more or better than the benefits we get from the space program.  Especially when we consider how NASA has been directly benefiting climate studies and science for a while.

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But the space program has a lot of direct benefits.  And the indirect benefits are fairly huge.  This is especially true when we consider that every dollar spent on NASA adds $8 to the economy.    I think the direct and indirect benefits are excellent arguments against shutting it down.

 

I think that's a reasonable idea.  I don't agree with it, but it's reasonable.  

Giving the EPA an extra 20 billion would probably help them.  I don't personally think it would be worth losing the benefits we receive from the space program (I think we would lose more than we gain) but that's a judgment call that would be different for different people.    

I agree.  I just don't agree they are more or better than the benefits we get from the space program.  Especially when we consider how NASA has been directly benefiting climate studies and science for a while.

I am cool with giving NASA tax resources to study the earth with climate change etc.  Let's keep our goals and aspirations global.   I am less cool with funding pie in the sky aspirations of occupying other planets with our tax dollars when we have more immediate problems facing us right below our feet.  That is not a goal worthy of investment, in my opinion.  It will not directly benefit us more than using our tax dollars will benefit us in solving an impending water crisis in drought laden desert areas, for example.  I just fundamentally believe that saving our planet is a more worthy pursuit than ditching it, and deserves first and highest priority.

Edited November 12, 2020 by pogi