Space Travel

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

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.

I can respect that.  From my perspective though it's the pie-in-the-sky stuff that got us the direct and indirect benefits that we have right now.  Orbiting the earth used to be a pie-in-the-sky idea.  Landing on the moon definitely was.  But working towards those things is what brought us the benefits that we utilize and enjoy today.  Without one we would not have the other.  

I don't think there is a way to separate pie-in-the-sky goals and the benefits that we get from the space program.

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can respect that.  From my perspective though it's the pie-in-the-sky stuff that got us the direct and indirect benefits that we have right now.  Orbiting the earth used to be a pie-in-the-sky idea.  Landing on the moon definitely was.  But working towards those things is what brought us the benefits that we utilize and enjoy today.  Without one we would not have the other.  

I don't think there is a way to separate pie-in-the-sky goals and the benefits that we get from the space program.

The problem is that we can't really say that the benefits are better than the alternative when we don't know what the alternative might have been.  If the alternative meant clean air, renewable energy, better water management, more efficient vehicles, control of global warming... I would suggest those benefits would far outweigh Air Jordan shoes, space blankets, landing on the moon, or even satellite technology.  Not one of these advancements will compensate for an uninhabitable earth.  I guarantee that we will reach that breaking point before we reach the point of being able to occupy another livable planet.  We will eventually look back and say, "if only...but these Air Jordan's are sweet!" 

What if we let our pie-in-the-sky and even utopian imaginations be centered on earth?  Look at all we have been able to accomplish in exploring space with our pie-in-the-sky dreams with just a little imagination and money!    Imagine would could be done here...on earth!  Imagine the potential direct and indirect benefits.  Who knows what we are missing.  I suggest that it is only logical to assume that if our dreams and efforts were directed here, we would see more direct benefit here. 

Edited November 13, 2020 by pogi

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

The problem is that we can't really say that the benefits are better than the alternative when we don't know what the alternative might have been.  If the alternative meant clean air, renewable energy, better water management, more efficient vehicles, control of global warming... I would suggest those benefits would far outweigh Air Jordan shoes, space blankets, landing on the moon, or even satellite technology.  Not one of these advancements will compensate for an uninhabitable earth.  I guarantee that we will reach that breaking point before we reach the point of being able to occupy another livable planet.  We will eventually look back and say, "if only...but these Air Jordan's are sweet!" 

What if we let our pie-in-the-sky and even utopian imaginations be centered on earth?  Look at all we have been able to accomplish in exploring space with our pie-in-the-sky dreams with just a little imagination and money!    Imagine would could be done here...on earth!  Imagine the potential direct and indirect benefits.  Who knows what we are missing.  I suggest that it is only logical to assume that if our dreams and efforts were directed here, we would see more direct benefit here. 

But the opposite of the bolded statement is true as well.  We can't really say that the benefits aren't better than the alternative when we don't know what the alternative might have been.  So if I can't argue from an unknown then you can't either. 

Either the unknown is a problem for both of our perspectives, or it's a problem for neither.  

[pogi]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

But the opposite of the bolded statement is true as well.  We can't really say that the benefits aren't better than the alternative when we don't know what the alternative might have been.  So if I can't argue from an unknown then you can't either. 

Either the unknown is a problem for both of our perspectives, or it's a problem for neither.  

I agree, but I am arguing from the logic that if our dreams, imaginations, money and efforts were focused here, we would logically see more direct benefits here...at the target of our efforts.   I am also coming from the position that no indirect benefit compensates for an uninhabitable world  I think we are much more likely to preserve and keep this world habitable than we are to make a currently uninhabitable world (mars) habitable, for example.  It is a more tangible goal and will therefore more likely yield direct results.

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours 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.

 

That would take heap of tithing. People get bent out of shape with the reserves the Church has now. That amount would really put them over the top. 

Edited November 13, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[3DOP]

12 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?

 

12 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?

Rod! What a question. Let's let Heavenly Father do the job? Thanks for the softball. Heh. Mormon, Protestant, Muslim, or whatever, even CATHOLIC...If some of us are content...we will still explore...that is how we are made...We look. We learn. Our knowledge is not infused. Every nook and cranny of the small places...everywhere that is big that we can go. NASA is political. Maybe it should be private. Columbus sought funding from the big state. That's okay. I do not know if now is the time to demand big state funding. But good folk should want to find a way...so long as we are here. I love Pres. Kennedy: "We choose to go to the moon...not because it is easy...but because it is hod (hard)".

 

Edited November 13, 2020 by 3DOP

[strappinglad]

I say give the money to NOAA and take it from NASA . They can use the cash to study life in the oceans rather than search for it in other planets. They might even find a way to clean up the Texas sized plastic mess in the Pacific. 

 

Edited November 13, 2020 by strappinglad

[The Nehor]

18 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. 

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.

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).    

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 disagree. So many of the indirect benefits would be unlikely to have popped up if the resources were pushed into direct benefits. 

An honest misguided study of black holes led to WiFi. Space exploration gave us satellites. The problem with waiting for us to solve “more pressing issues” before doing anything is that that day will never come.

Space exploration also feeds the soul. Our curiousity and our drive to know more is vital to our species. To focus entirely on matters terrestrial (in the non-LDS sense of the word) is to miss out on the wonder of the Universe. I would also bet that a society based on expanding their horizons and dedicated to unlocking the mysteries of reality is more likely to solve climate change over a society that tries to solve it just as a requirement for survival.

 

 

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree, but I am arguing from the logic that if our dreams, imaginations, money and efforts were focused here, we would logically see more direct benefits here...at the target of our efforts.   I am also coming from the position that no indirect benefit compensates for an uninhabitable world  I think we are much more likely to preserve and keep this world habitable than we are to make a currently uninhabitable world (mars) habitable, for example.  It is a more tangible goal and will therefore more likely yield direct results.

I agree with the bolded.

[pogi]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I disagree. So many of the indirect benefits would be unlikely to have popped up if the resources were pushed into direct benefits. 

An honest misguided study of black holes led to WiFi. Space exploration gave us satellites. 

Let me quote David O Mckay here:

"No other success can compensate for failure in the home (earth)"  I would also suggest that many of these discoveries, like Wi-Fi and satellites, were not discovered in pursuit of new habitable planets.  Satellites were invented to benefit communications on earth.  Wifi didn't require leaving earth, and all of the technology already existed previously.  It wasn't NASA that gets credit either.  https://evanmccann.net/blog/wifi-101/origins-and-history

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The problem with waiting for us to solve “more pressing issues” before doing anything is that that day will never come.

I disagree.  I think that with very specific and targeted goals towards sustainable environmental practices, 100 billion dollars (the entire worth of the church) being spent every 5 years is enough to solve enough of those problems to where immediate solutions are not so imminent and we can start looking into space.  Solution to those problems are worth more than anything else.  We have to take care of mama.  She gave us life, she took care of us, and now we are just going to ditch her and say - "you gave us everything mama, you made us rich, and while we have exploited your resources for our benefit, we would rather use what you gave us to find a new mama while we continue to use you to death"  That is just not right.  Our mamas take care of us when we are young, and we are supposed to take care of them as they age.  We are tough kids, and I think we have made mama age more than she would have otherwise.  I think it is time to give back to mama.

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Space exploration also feeds the soul. Our curiousity and our drive to know more is vital to our species. 

There is still so much about our own mother that can be explored.  There is still so much we don't know.  Focusing on earth doesn't have to destroy our curiosity and imagination.  Nothing feeds the soul more than home.  Being out in nature.  Clean air to breath.  Clean water.  The majesty of life on earth.   NOTHING feeds the soul more than that.  That should take highest priority, in my opinion. 

  

Edited November 13, 2020 by pogi

[The Nehor]

On 11/13/2020 at 12:19 PM, pogi said:

Let me quote David O Mckay here:

"No other success can compensate for failure in the home (earth)"  I would also suggest that many of these discoveries, like Wi-Fi and satellites, were not discovered in pursuit of new habitable planets.  Satellites were invented to benefit communications on earth.  Wifi didn't require leaving earth, and all of the technology already existed previously.  It wasn't NASA that gets credit either.  https://evanmccann.net/blog/wifi-101/origins-and-history

I disagree.  I think that with very specific and targeted goals towards sustainable environmental practices, 100 billion dollars (the entire worth of the church) being spent every 5 years is enough to solve enough of those problems to where immediate solutions are not so imminent and we can start looking into space.  Solution to those problems are worth more than anything else.  We have to take care of mama.  She gave us life, she took care of us, and now we are just going to ditch her and say - "you gave us everything mama, you made us rich, and while we have exploited your resources for our benefit, we would rather use what you gave us to find a new mama while we continue to use you to death"  That is just not right.  Our mamas take care of us when we are young, and we are supposed to take care of them as they age.  We are tough kids, and I think we have made mama age more than she would have otherwise.  I think it is time to give back to mama.

There is still so much about our own mother that can be explored.  There is still so much we don't know.  Focusing on earth doesn't have to destroy our curiosity and imagination.  Nothing feeds the soul more than home.  Being out in nature.  Clean air to breath.  Clean water.  The majesty of life on earth.   NOTHING feeds the soul more than that.  That should take highest priority, in my opinion. 

  

No one has any real ideas of how to get to another habitable planet. There is no plan to abandon Earth. There are people who want to use up and don’t care about the future. These people are evil and hopefully will be left on the trash heap of history.

There is plenty more to learn about the Earth and Space and everything else. We can do all of it. I am also not limiting the benefits to what NASA does. The study of black holes, pulsars, and all the other wonders could hold keys to solving problems. Abstract knowledge often becomes useful even when originally it seems to have no use. Boolean logic was largely just something fun for bored academics to play with until we developed computers. There is time and resources to explore space and prevent the coming global struggle. I am just worried we will do neither.

[rodheadlee]

Scitech daily has an article on a new propulsion system using solar electric and the Hall effect. I don't know how to post a link with my phone but it is already in use with some long range satellites. 

[rodheadlee]

 if we strip NASA of their budget where are we going to put all those engineers and scientists to work? There are a lot of people that work on the space program.

[Stargazer]

On 11/12/2020 at 3:41 PM, 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?

Of course we should strive to colonize other planets! 

But absent new physics, we won't be gallivanting near light speed. This would require, at minimum, efficient fusion power. Which as some wag or another has said has been 20 years in the future for the past 50 years.

There's no commandments saying thou shalt not explore beyond earth, or at least not yet there aren't. 

[Stargazer]

On 11/13/2020 at 6:19 PM, pogi said:

I think that with very specific and targeted goals towards sustainable environmental practices, 100 billion dollars (the entire worth of the church) being spent every 5 years is enough to solve enough of those problems to where immediate solutions are not so imminent and we can start looking into space. 

I'm sure you're right, but this in infeasible under the current political-economic situation. What you posit will only be possible during the Millennium. 

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I'm sure you're right, but this in infeasible under the current political-economic situation. What you posit will only be possible during the Millennium. 

Touché

Perhaps I am lending to much faith in our politicians to do the right thing. 

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

Touché

Perhaps I am lending to much faith in our politicians to do the right thing. 

Unfortunately, our politicians are only as good as we who select them. But more frequently they are even less so.

So we're doomed.

But that's not news; it's prophecy.

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

 if we strip NASA of their budget where are we going to put all those engineers and scientists to work? There are a lot of people that work on the space program.

They could be hired by the DOD to develop more interesting weapons systems! What a stellar idea!

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Scitech daily has an article on a new propulsion system using solar electric and the Hall effect. I don't know how to post a link with my phone but it is already in use with some long range satellites. 

This might be what you're referring to: Advanced Electric Propulsion System

"Advanced Electric Propulsion System (AEPS) is a solar electric propulsion system for spacecraft that is being designed, developed and tested by NASA and Aerojet Rocketdyne for large-scale science missions and cargo transportation. 'The first application of the AEPS' is to propel the PPE module of Gateway to be launched in 2023. The PPE module is built by MAXAR space solutions in Palo Alto, California. Two identical AEPS engines would consume 25 kW being generated by the roll-out solar array (ROSA) assembly, which can produce over 60 kW of power.

"The Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) for the Lunar Gateway will have a mass of 8-9 metric tons and will be capable of generating 50 kW of solar electric power for its Hall thrusters for maneuverability, which can be supported by chemical monopropellant thrusters for high-thrust attitude control maneuvers."

Here's a video:

 

[JLHPROF]

I don't believe the Lord would allow us to travel too far from home.  Even our eternal home will be the glorified resurrected earth.

God may let us visit the moon, maybe even one day get to Mars or another planet nearby but Earth is where he designed, formed us and put us to become like him.

I am all for expanding our scientific knowledge but I believe we're generally restricted by the Lord.

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

They could be hired by the DOD to develop more interesting weapons systems! What a stellar idea!

To quote Jack Handy:

"Instead of building newer and larger weapons of mass destruction, I think mankind should try to get more use out of the ones we have."

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

To quote Jack Handy:

"Instead of building newer and larger weapons of mass destruction, I think mankind should try to get more use out of the ones we have."

I don't know who Jack Handy is, but I nearly busted a gut laughing at this!  

[Stargazer]

On 11/17/2020 at 1:23 PM, JLHPROF said:

I don't believe the Lord would allow us to travel too far from home.  Even our eternal home will be the glorified resurrected earth.

God may let us visit the moon, maybe even one day get to Mars or another planet nearby but Earth is where he designed, formed us and put us to become like him.

I am all for expanding our scientific knowledge but I believe we're generally restricted by the Lord.

I don't think there's any need for Him to actively prevent us -- the limitations imposed by the structure of the universe itself (things such as the speed of light, gravitation, the Planck Constant, etc) take care of all that by design.

The energy requirements for getting to the closest star system outside of this one in any reasonable time make is virtually impossible to accomplish. If we managed to develop an effective fusion energy process, however, it would be possible to do this. And any such ship would not need to carry fuel with it -- just collect the free hydrogen that exists in interstellar space. This is the Bussard Ramjet principle. But this is very unlikely to be achieved before the Millennium, if at all. 

There's little need to go to the stars, actually. There's enough iron and nickel in the asteroid Psyche alone to make over 23,000 classic O'Neill cylinders. Each such cylinder could accommodate something like 5 million people, making a total capacity of around 115 billion people, or around 14 times the earth's present human population. And then there's the moon, which has virtually unlimited amounts of every mineral we could need to construct an O'Neill cylinder.

Of course, the classic O'Neill cylinder isn't made out of iron or steel, but my variant construction design puts it as a cylinder 5 miles in radius, 20 miles long, with 100 foot thick solid iron walls, except at the sunward end. At that end would be a window that would illuminate a light-dispersal structure that could be closed for however many hours the inhabitants wanted for "night".

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I don't think there's any need for Him to actively prevent us -- the limitations imposed by the structure of the universe itself (things such as the speed of light, gravitation, the Planck Constant, etc) take care of all that by design.

The energy requirements for getting to the closest star system outside of this one in any reasonable time make is virtually impossible to accomplish. If we managed to develop an effective fusion energy process, however, it would be possible to do this. And any such ship would not need to carry fuel with it -- just collect the free hydrogen that exists in interstellar space. This is the Bussard Ramjet principle. But this is very unlikely to be achieved before the Millennium, if at all. 

There's little need to go to the stars, actually. There's enough iron and nickel in the asteroid Psyche alone to make over 23,000 classic O'Neill cylinders. Each such cylinder could accommodate something like 5 million people, making a total capacity of around 115 billion people, or around 14 times the earth's present human population. And then there's the moon, which has virtually unlimited amounts of every mineral we could need to construct an O'Neill cylinder.

Of course, the classic O'Neill cylinder isn't made out of iron or steel, but my variant construction design puts it as a cylinder 5 miles in radius, 20 miles long, with 100 foot thick solid iron walls, except at the sunward end. At that end would be a window that would illuminate a light-dispersal structure that could be closed for however many hours the inhabitants wanted for "night".

One of the core elements of the near-death experience described in the works of Kenneth Ring, Flynn, and others is that of the re markable speed with which the spirit after death can travel. From many NDErs' descriptions of spirit travel, Moody summarized: Travel, once one gets the hang of it, is apparently exceptionally easy in this state. Physical objects present no barrier, and movement from one place to another can be extremely rapid, almost instantaneous. (1975, p. 46)

 

vol15-no3-203.pdf

[Stargazer]

11 hours ago, Ahab said:

One of the core elements of the near-death experience described in the works of Kenneth Ring, Flynn, and others is that of the re markable speed with which the spirit after death can travel. From many NDErs' descriptions of spirit travel, Moody summarized: Travel, once one gets the hang of it, is apparently exceptionally easy in this state. Physical objects present no barrier, and movement from one place to another can be extremely rapid, almost instantaneous. (1975, p. 46)
 

That is what I would expect, actually.

The science fiction author Greg Bear wrote a novel, Moving Mars, in which he used as a premise the work of an obscure physicist of many decades past to posit being able to move actual physical objects (such as a planet) light-years away instantaneously. I once asked him where he got this idea from, and he told me, but I don't remember and lost the email long ago. It's a bit involved to explain, but it actually makes sense from a certain point of view.