Why dont governments invest more time and money into space . I feel like they are wasting money on ways to deplete earths resources, when space offers infinite resources. Shouldn't they reach for that instead? Sent from my VS980 4G using Grasscity Forum mobile app
because we live in the generation of dirty politics and america cant afford shit anymore anyways Sent from my iPhone.
Because we live in a world of greed. And war nakes mobey for elites Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
This is a very interesting subject, that I follow with a great deal of passion. Maybe I can help to explain. The aerospace industry is actually incredibly health right now - This is a very exciting time - Let me tell you why: Just in the United States alone; SpaceX and Orbital Sciences are two private firms that have designed, tested and lauched resupply missions for the ISS, taking pressure off of the European Space Agency and the Russian Federal Space Agency. NASA, ESA and CSA have been eagerly funding these ventures which have proven to be very successful and are increasingly economical. Now that private firms have demonstrated they have the capacity to run high-profile and high-risk government contracts, this has allowed the ESA and the Ruskies to focus resources on much-needed satellite delivery and manned missions. The manned Soyuz-TMA-M is a fresh generation of incredibly reliable launch vehicles, and the innovation will continue with the fourthcoming Lunar-orbit capable Soyuz-ACTS configuration. JAXA has also really involved itself more meaningfully in the launch portion, with a dozen specacular satellite launches over the last few years. At the same time, NASA, the USAF and the ESA have been working dilligently to move forward the Orion program, which will increase the reach, capability and versitility of the international space program to better than that of the shuttle program. But, we also shouldn't focus so intently on the west. Both China and India have made some real genuine advancements in the last decade. China is notable for their industry isolation - they largely refuse to work with the rest of the international aerospace community, and operate independently. They have recently put into orbit their first manned missions, are planning their first semi-permanant space station, and have recently landed a science rover on the Moon. India on the other hand works closely with the international community, but largely focuses on their own immediate scientific goals. Going back to the commercial space industries, one of the great benefits, alongside the ULA and ESA partnership is that it has allowed governments without aerospace technology to engage in the information age in a serious way; Vietnam now has its own observation satellite at the ready for response to large scale natural disasters - and Coratia and Estonia now have their own private communication satellites. This is to say nothing of the Opportunity Rover, the forthcoming James Webb telescope, the ongoing intensive research aboard the ISS (which is essential to making long term space flight viable), the proliferation of cubesats, and newly reserved funding for a Europa mission. It's true that governmental agencies need to fight tooth and nail for funding - and they are massively underfunded in my opinion. Aerospace is an investment without immediate returns, and it is shockingly difficult to capture prolonged public interest in a meaningful way. Consider this!
Until we develop faster-than-light technology, there is only so far we can go my friend. There isn't anywhere else we can live in our solar system.
Check out this blog by Stephen Hawking - http://www.hawking.org.uk/space-and-time-warps.html "If one couldn't go faster than light, the round trip to the nearest star, would take at least eight years, and to the center of the galaxy, at least eighty thousand years. If the space ship went very near the speed of light, it might seem to the people on board, that the trip to the galactic center had taken only a few years. But that wouldn't be much consolation, if everyone you had known was dead and forgotten thousands of years ago, when you got back." - Stephen Hawking So a near-light speed ship could make a one-way journey in a single generation, although on earth thousands of years would have passed. I never could wrap my mind around time dilation theory. It blows my mind. I am by no means a environmental nutter, but it seems to me we need to do a better job of taking care of this planet before we begin colonizing the entire galaxy. However, once we get our shit together, mankind should definitely begin settling other planets in case of a mass extinction event, such as super-volcano eruption, asteroid, supernova, etc.
I just read this today, NASA is being forced to launch a mission to Europa. http://mobile.extremetech.com/?origref=#/latest/221068-nasa-is-being-forced-by-the-us-government-to-fly-a-mission-to-europa-the-most-likely-place-well-find-alien-life-in-the-solar-system
Who is slowing down space and what the fuck are they thinking, haven't they heard about the big crunch???
Because government knows exactly what should be done to create a free, perfect energy source, but If they did so they would lose power. Power comes from this fake concept called money. Without money were all equal so of course the people in power would never invest in anything that is actually helpful to the people because they want to stay in power. And then there's lobbyist who are the assholes that influence politicians to make bills so the company they work for can kill and destroy the world. I prolly didn't give you an answer you were looking for sorry. Well I think I did cause it just comes down to power and greed.
They could send 15 and 16 year olds. They know everything, and are going to live forever....and they hate everyone they know that is older then 25...Problem solved. Let's build that rocket.
there is no "perfect free energy source". there is literally no source of energy that will not require you personally, and usually many many more people, to expend energy to harness it. there may be better alternatives to fossil fuel.....but none as energy dense which is the real issue. i think it would take us quite awhile to figure out the enormous amount of energy needed to launch/pilot a spacecraft without fossil fuel, however i also dont think space exploration will really hit its stride until we find that alternative.
What's wrong with solar energy? To me that's a good source of energy with no flaws in it. And true I get what your saying, we don't have a fuel source powerful enough to expand our journey in space. What about plasma energy? I honestly don't know anything about it but is it at least possible to create a source of energy out of plasma?
I was thinking why not nuclear energy, but the downside to such power is drastic. What if the rocket disintegrates when leaving our atmosphere? Where will the nuclear atoms go? In my eyes; space travel is not going to advance for another 50years, due to the technology needed is not yet developed and what will power the rockets? Atm space is still a big seemingly empty hole that noone knows enough of, just like vast portions of our own planet. Space travel is not going to happen to the general public without massive consequences such as death and loss of millions of dollars worth of aircraft. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum