Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

Essentially, IT IS how that happened.

Unless you think wild animals that are timid just wandered into somebody's pen and stayed there while humans actively hunted it for food.  NO. somebody had to get the thought "hey, what if I kept my own captive population, and kept them from moving?"  and then tried it.

Similar for plant species.  Humans started seeding useful crops, and selecting for better yeilds, which adapted the plants over time.  Somebody had to get the idea "hey, this plant comes from this kind of seed, what happens if I scatter them on purpose? Will there be more of that plant here next year?"


Meanwhile, your analog -- the clan leader- is concerned that if Mr Inquisitive does not stop fucking around in the dirt, or trying to catch animals alive, the herds will move on and the clan will starve during the winter.

[nenjin]

If NASA (or whoever wants to lay claim to our tax dollars for space exploration) can articulate a reasonable goal, or important scientific endeavor, as the basis for the mission, I'm happy to entertain the idea. But if the stated goal is "just to get more people on the moon", I'm sorry. There is far more important shit here on Earth to spend that money on, and NASA or whoever can continue to think up of a good reason and justify in a budget, at which point they can make their case again. But we've already sent people to the Moon on outdated tech. If we're going to spend billions again just so the president, whether that's Trump or anyone else, can stand by a podium and call it progress, that's not moving forward. That's dry humping our previous successes for the optics.

And given that we're seemingly tilting back toward cold-war pissing contests between nation states, I'm not in any hurry to burn tax dollars on these shenanigans. Have a good reason to go, with a justified budget behind it. Or pick somewhere we haven't put a human down already.

Also:

we're going to blow up the moon

Makes me think that if we take the "The Moon is a resource to exploit" tact, then yeah, we're inevitably going to come in to conflict over who has the rights to it. And if it just becomes a big race to see who can put down the first viable moon base so their parent country can stake an early claim....that's ALSO not a future I really don't want to endorse with our tax dollars. And with "Space Force" that honestly seems to be the angle right now.

[LordBaal]

Well, for what is worth, don't the UN states that the space and all that is for whole mankind? Not that anyone takes the UN seriously.

So in theory no one can claim extraterrestrial soil.

[wierd]

The US is indeed a party of the Outer Space Treaty you cite.

But treaty violation is kinda normal for republicans.  Just ask the native Americans impacted by the keystone XL pipeline about that.

"Treaty Smeaty-- We want our oil!"

And yeah, the consequences were bad.

[nenjin]

Well, for what is worth, don't the UN states that the space and all that is for whole mankind? Not that anyone takes the UN seriously.

So in theory no one can claim extraterrestrial soil.

As you point out, no one takes the UN seriously, including the Dealmaker-In-Chief. He doesn't give a shit about any previously arranged treaty or agreement, why should SPACE be any different? Do you think he wanted to make a Space Force to defend us from aliens we haven't yet met? Nnnnnnaaaaaaahhhhh.

[wierd]

Technically, Which nation owns an international conglomerate?

None!

The verbiage of the Outer Space Treaty does not exclude a corporation from making a move in its own interest, and claiming property in space.  It just prevents a country from giving that corporation sanction to do so.

SANS any regulatory oversight (with teeth), the only thing stopping them is fear of sinking the cost without appreciation on return.


For visionary billionaires, the cost is a personal project.  See also, SpaceX and Elon Musk.  This is the current trajectory.


However, Nenjin is quite correct.  The Idiot In Chief's space force is indeed a direct contravention of the treaty-- If not in literal verbiage, but in spirit.  See also, the above post about Republicans and their demonstrated views about treaties that they find inconvenient.

[Dunamisdeos]

I mean, both of you are right regarding that domestication argument.

On one hand, yes, we 100% need to take unknown risks, and large ones, in order to succeed. We would be without a lot of things we have today without that (you want me to eat mold to feel less sick are you an ass?? etc).

On the other, we should avoid [uh], being so preoccupied with whether or not we could, and stop to think if we should. Not all ideas are worth pursuing regardless of immediate merit.

[Egan_BW]

Maybe I have too much imagination, but I do actually think that having industry in space is a good idea for the purpose of shooting at aliens. >_>

We don't actually know what might be out there, so having the ability to do things in space seems prudent. Could be the difference between learning that we're not alone and suddenly finding that our whole solar system is being converted into paperclips for the glory of some extrasolar supermind.

[Starver]

Still.... people back on the moon within a decade? I'm happy either way.

I had a (stakeless) bet back in the '90s that we'd be landing again in 2019. Neither later nor earlier, but timed to be (the same year as) the 50th anniversary of the first time* we landed. Which gives... less than a year to do it in.

What can we (internationally) muster by 2022, perhaps? By the end of that year the Moon will be untrodden (manually) for half a century.

(I'm no longer in contact with the people I 'bet' with, so they couldn't collect on anything I might have promised. Then again, neither could I have collected from the even more rampant optimists among them...)


* Quiet, you 'flag' people shouting loudly at the back. You make no sense at all.

[Starver]

Luna's pretty boring, though. Aside from being a good place to take photos of our very own lovely Earth.

You're half right.

[Dunamisdeos]

Luna's pretty boring, though. Aside from being a good place to take photos of our very own lovely Earth.

You're half right.

ach haaa

Also if there are aliens capable of mining our system for resources and returning them to their own territory or whatnot, there is no way our moon-base will slow then down, at all. Except in a physical sense when their Grand Star-Emporor, Xal'thok the Corpulent, plows headlong through our moon with his Galactic Battle-Ram, obliterating it in a show of domination to the people of Earth.

[Egan_BW]

It's not the moon base that's supposed to slow them down; that's what nukes are for, silly.

And it doesn't have to be about acquiring resources to take home, they could be converting all available matter into paperclips for ideological reasons or something.

[Starver]

If NASA (or whoever wants to lay claim to our tax dollars for space exploration) can articulate a reasonable goal, or important scientific endeavor, as the basis for the mission, I'm happy to entertain the idea.

Spoiler: obligatory xkcd (click to show/hide)

ETA:

[Also if there are aliens capable of mining our system for resources and returning them to their own territory or whatnot, there is no way our moon-base will slow then down, at all.

And obligatory Gerry Andersom

[Teneb]

I am very disappointed that no one pointed the single greatest advantage of space colonization: it dramatically reduces the chances of complete human extinction.

[sluissa]

I am very disappointed that no one pointed the single greatest advantage of space colonization: it dramatically reduces the chances of complete human extinction.

Jury's still out on whether that's an advantage or disadvantage.