Hey fello coders, chip in your opinion, should man/woman space exploration be put to a stop or keep it running? I myself vote keep it running because not only will it ruin my dream of being the first human on mars, but will ruin many other younger children's dreams, what do you guys think?
P.S, if you havent yet seen it on the news, dont worry, americans go crazy about stuff like this, its on every ten seconds. LOL
ID:275050
 Feb 1 2003, 9:49 am
|
|
they should keep it running but for the next few missions have it non man then after awhile with man
| |
I don't think they should end space exploration either. I don't think its a matter of how many people died, but how much it cost. I don't know how much it did cost, but its probably more than a few cars.
I don't know what caused this accident, but regardless of that it is probably not the worst accident. | |
Koolguy900095 wrote:
they should keep it running but for the next few missions have it non man then after awhile with man Again, there's three people up in the space station who just might object to this plan. This is a knee-jerk reaction, based on emotion... having a few non-manned flights wouldn't make the eventual manned flight any safer. Astronauts know that they face this sort of possibility every time they go up. | |
As I was telling my family, people die all the time, this was just 7 people. I am in agreeance with you.
| |
OneFishDown wrote:
Does that come straight from NASA? I can't tell you for sure, but it's a pretty likely guess. | |
I'd agree with that, especially since it's the Space Shuttle Columbia and not the Space Shuttle Frito-Lay or the Space Shuttle WWE Smack Down.
| |
Leftley wrote:
I can't tell you for sure, but it's a pretty likely guess. So NASA said that this spacecraft cost "like billions"? | |
If you objectively look at your post and the post it was a reply to, there are two ways of interpreting it.
One is you asking matter-of-factly if the money for the spacecraft comes directly from NASA. The other is you asking sarcastically if the figure "like billions" is a quote direct from NASA. I believe Leftley was being charitable in his interpretation of your intent, but if in doing so, he was incorrect, then I thank you for bringing everyone's attention to it. There may have been one or two people on the forum who still weren't aware how rude and sarcastic you actually are. | |
Lesbian Assassin wrote:
Again, there's three people up in the space station who just You forget that there is a return vehicle attached to the station... they can leave at nearly any time... it won't be as luxorious as the shuttle, but it would bring them home. This will not stop any of the world's space programs - maybe delay it for a while, but not stop it forever. We need to keep progressing if we ever want to get off this rock! | |
This will not stop any of the world's space programs - maybe delay it for a while, but not stop it forever. We need to keep progressing if we ever want to get off this rock! Personally speaking, I think we're condemned to this rock and to Mars. The rest of the solar system is inhospitable -- the stars in closest proximity to Earth take 4.3 years for light to travel to. Since I'm under the firm belief that FTL travel is completely impossible (though I don't agree with the universal speed limit hokus), I'm very convinced that humans will never go beyond the Alpha Centauri cluster (and I doubt we'll find anything there worth living on, either). Even with propulsion far beyond what we currently have, it'd take a few dozen years to get to Alpha Centauri. | |
I'm more than a little curious about why we're going to Mars. Have any of our probes turned up any easily exploitable resources?
We here on earth have limited resources... all of our resources, including so-called "renewable" ones, are limited. Chief among those in the limited category are fresh water, clean atmosphere, and fossil fuels. Mars is, for all intents and purposes, a dead world... whether or not there's any fossil fuels to be had from it depends a lot on what the face of Mars in ancient times looked like. It may have harbored life, but enough life to leave behind oil and coal? I don't think we have enough evidence to say such a thing for sure. There may be frozen water at the Martian poles, or deep beneath the surface, but are we sure about this and how easily can this water be reached, and is it pure? Before anyone says anything, I'm not saying that the goal of space exploration should be "profit." I'm more asking what exactly the goal is. We only have so much fuel. We only have so much fresh water. Why should we use up a lot of that fuel to send a lot of that water to a dead planet that can never produce anything we don't have here on earth? How do I not that it won't, you ask? Because the laws of physics don't suddenly suspend themselves when you land on a different planet. We might be able to do things in zero gravity that we can't on earth, but Mars is just another planet. We're not going to be able to "terraform" Mars... give it an earthlike atmosphere and change the soil to something that can support plants, etc. If we had the technology to do this, we would be using it to repair are own much less damage ecosystem. We could build domes with imported atmosphere and try to maintain them with an artificial ecosystem of plants. So what have we accomplished? We just built an indoor farm at about a million times the cost it would have taken to do so on earth. Someone's going to respond to this saying, "We're running out of space on earth." No, we're not. We may run out of fuel, we may run out of fresh water, but we're doing just fine as far as space goes. We've got some distribution problems that means some areas are overcrowded and some are next to empty... the fact that some cities are overcrowded is not going to be helped by colonizing Mars. | |
umm sorry to burst ur bubble...but umm..ur dream has already been ruined..we've been to mars.
| |
Well, perhaps, there might be a large mechanism built over Mars' core, which, in theory, the core is made up of glaciers of ice, meaning that the mechanism overhead could, again in theory, melt this large glacier causing it to release oxygen into the atmosphere of Mars through large tunnels formed by falling masses of rocks, then magically this melting of the glaciers could clear out all the cO2 and convert the atmosphere so that it is fit for living in. Oh wait, that is from Total Recall....
Perhaps there are hundreds of flammable insects on Mars which are able to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen at an amazingly fast rate, and without our knowledge, Mars could actually already have plenty of oxygen to breathe. Oh wait, yet another movie.... Well, looks like developing stuff on Mars is pointless, you also have to consider the massively powerful storms there, so to start a colony would be a money waste since once it is built, a storm would just take it down. <<>>Kusanagi<<>> | |
Yeah, this is the sort of thing that should only be reported once and then buried under all the other important weekend news. :P
Even people on CNN are asking this question: "Is this the end of manned space flight?" Stupid question for three reasons: one, as far as shuttle disasters go, this is far from the worst ever... we didn't stop before, did we? Two: a single plane crash can kill hundreds... a single (multiple vehicle) automobile accident could kill dozens... a shuttle crash can kill seven. Is anyone proposing an end to commercial flights or personal automobiles?
Third reason: there's three astronauts up aboard the station. I don't think they or their families would really appreciate it if we choose not to send any more shuttles up.