First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
how far will humanity develop in 50 years concerning space exploration?
Posted 1/18/09

infesteditachi wrote:


treasonirish wrote:

also will humanity land on mars within the next 30 years?



Where we stand, right now, insofar as actual technology and/or technological concepts, given proper funding and public interest, we can be there by ten years, and that's a generous estimate. Five years to perfect the technology, five years to build it all and get it set up. They're already plotting out the landing site.

Now from what we've seen from the last eight to twelve years, humanity likes to drag it's feet on these things, as they're too busy making wars and throwing missiles across borders. So let's give them 25 or so years for a country who's more interested in advancing technology for their own causes, then per say, dealing with international conflicts.

In 50 years? There will be a lot more domestic toys for people to play with. Medical technology will be a bit more advanced, in part because the moral bindings of some genetic research would have worn off a little bit well before that time.

Space settlements? Unless there's a resource out there that will force people by the droves to space, i highly doubt it. (*see He3 [Helium 3])


nope, it's impossible, remember USA is currently in depression and NASA is the leading space agency as we have known so far. the other space agencies from other nations hadn't done much but shit. we won't possibly expect any of us to reach to space in the next 50 to a century at least. it will take a little bit longer. worse, we would not even make it (with all the rumors of the ending of the world that is closing in. i bet it would be impossible to create technologies in a year lifespan that would take us to space. and make us settle there.)
Posted 1/18/09
There is no point using current technology to land on mars or improving it for space travel. Chemical rockets are primitive and very wasteful for vehicle energy/mass. The money countries spend on launching and improving these rockets is a grandiose example of resource overallocation.
Posted 1/18/09 , edited 1/18/09

noname01123 wrote:


infesteditachi wrote:


treasonirish wrote:

also will humanity land on mars within the next 30 years?



Where we stand, right now, insofar as actual technology and/or technological concepts, given proper funding and public interest, we can be there by ten years, and that's a generous estimate. Five years to perfect the technology, five years to build it all and get it set up. They're already plotting out the landing site.

Now from what we've seen from the last eight to twelve years, humanity likes to drag it's feet on these things, as they're too busy making wars and throwing missiles across borders. So let's give them 25 or so years for a country who's more interested in advancing technology for their own causes, then per say, dealing with international conflicts.

In 50 years? There will be a lot more domestic toys for people to play with. Medical technology will be a bit more advanced, in part because the moral bindings of some genetic research would have worn off a little bit well before that time.

Space settlements? Unless there's a resource out there that will force people by the droves to space, i highly doubt it. (*see He3 [Helium 3])


nope, it's impossible, remember USA is currently in depression and NASA is the leading space agency as we have known so far. the other space agencies from other nations hadn't done much but shit. we won't possibly expect any of us to reach to space in the next 50 to a century at least. it will take a little bit longer. worse, we would not even make it (with all the rumors of the ending of the world that is closing in. i bet it would be impossible to create technologies in a year lifespan that would take us to space. and make us settle there.)



All these claims are based upon a year's economical influx (negatively speaking) projected for 50 years? At best, the world's economical "crisis", and i put that in quotes, simply because the great depression, which was MUCH worse, only lasted about ten years, will last for maybe another year. Each recession only lasted about two to three years at most.

Depression? Buddy, you better come with a reliable source, if you're going to spout crap like that. The 1980 recession was worse then this by comparison.

I guess you haven't heard anything about say... the Japanese space program, or the Russian space programs. The European programs are also making progress, and the Chinese a couple of years ago, put their people in orbit. The Russians are still continuing with their space program, by sending their astronauts into the international space orbiter, (They just broke a record for the longest man in space--if i recall). And despite the lack of interest, the U.S NASA is still sending out probes, robotic machines to foreign space objects (IE, close orbiting objects) and nearby planets.



(with all the rumors of the ending of the world that is closing in. i bet it would be impossible to create technologies in a year lifespan that would take us to space. and make us settle there.)


I'm going to let the readers read this statement, and I would urge them to ask themselves, "is this in any way, based in any sort of reliable fact?".



MidniteNeko wrote:

There is no point using current technology to land on mars or improving it for space travel. Chemical rockets are primitive and very wasteful for vehicle energy/mass. The money countries spend on launching and improving these rockets is a grandiose example of resource overallocation.


I will agree that chemical rockets are old technology that does waste resources, and probably will not be used on the first manned mission to mars. Chemical rockets are not current. They are currently used, but they aren't current technology. Difference in terminology here.
Posted 1/31/09

infesteditachi wrote:


noname01123 wrote:


infesteditachi wrote:


treasonirish wrote:

also will humanity land on mars within the next 30 years?



Where we stand, right now, insofar as actual technology and/or technological concepts, given proper funding and public interest, we can be there by ten years, and that's a generous estimate. Five years to perfect the technology, five years to build it all and get it set up. They're already plotting out the landing site.

Now from what we've seen from the last eight to twelve years, humanity likes to drag it's feet on these things, as they're too busy making wars and throwing missiles across borders. So let's give them 25 or so years for a country who's more interested in advancing technology for their own causes, then per say, dealing with international conflicts.

In 50 years? There will be a lot more domestic toys for people to play with. Medical technology will be a bit more advanced, in part because the moral bindings of some genetic research would have worn off a little bit well before that time.

Space settlements? Unless there's a resource out there that will force people by the droves to space, i highly doubt it. (*see He3 [Helium 3])


nope, it's impossible, remember USA is currently in depression and NASA is the leading space agency as we have known so far. the other space agencies from other nations hadn't done much but shit. we won't possibly expect any of us to reach to space in the next 50 to a century at least. it will take a little bit longer. worse, we would not even make it (with all the rumors of the ending of the world that is closing in. i bet it would be impossible to create technologies in a year lifespan that would take us to space. and make us settle there.)



All these claims are based upon a year's economical influx (negatively speaking) projected for 50 years? At best, the world's economical "crisis", and i put that in quotes, simply because the great depression, which was MUCH worse, only lasted about ten years, will last for maybe another year. Each recession only lasted about two to three years at most.

Depression? Buddy, you better come with a reliable source, if you're going to spout crap like that. The 1980 recession was worse then this by comparison.


really?



Posted 2/1/09
is this even possible?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.