BUZZ on Howard Stern.."No to the Moon"...Denies wanting to be "First"!

wrote in message
...



Space travel mean colonizing a rat hole under the surface
of some very bleak and distant
place..................................Trig

Exactly my sentiment.

And the notion we must colonize to survive is absurd.
If we can't sustain ourselves here, the closest place
to Heaven within light years, we certainly can't make it
in some dusty, dry and entirely dead hell-hole.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:09:14 -0400, Jonathan wrote:

And the notion we must colonize to survive is absurd. If we can't
sustain ourselves here, the closest place to Heaven within light years,
we certainly can't make it in some dusty, dry and entirely dead
hell-hole.

It's a matter of simple arithmetic that this planet won't be your
"closest place to Heaven" forever.


That same arithmetic calls it a better bet that we'll destroy ourselves
before the Earth will - but if we ever hope to change that, mankind can't
call Earth its permanent and only home.

On 4/16/2010 3:39 PM, KK wrote:

It's a matter of simple arithmetic that this planet won't be your
"closest place to Heaven" forever.


That same arithmetic calls it a better bet that we'll destroy ourselves
before the Earth will - but if we ever hope to change that, mankind can't
call Earth its permanent and only home.

Earth is going to have to be in pretty sorry shape before it becomes
more inhospitable than the Moon or Mars.
A lot of fairly advanced lifeforms survived the giant impact (or
whatever croaked the dinosaurs) at the end of the Cretaceous period,
even as catastrophic as that was...they wouldn't have lasted even a
minute in Lunar or Martian conditions.

Pat

On 4/16/2010 9:32 PM, j0nathan n0n grata wrote:


The real sign that we, as a species, are not worthy of surviving is
the fact that our gene pool produced a pathetic troll like you. On the
other hand, you could single-handedly redeem the species by removing
yourself from that same gene pool. How about doing us all a favor and
doing just that? Preferably right after you read this.

Hot babe with two two lower artifical legs:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col.../aimee-mullins
If she can do that with _both_ legs gone below the knees, I'm expecting
you can kick my ass in any sort of compitition with your _only one leg
gone below the knee_, as all I have is a missing big toe.
****, you can probably jump ten feet in the air without even thinking
about it, like some sort of ****ing X-Man. :-D

Pat

j0nathan n0n grata wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:09:14 -0400, "Jonathan"
wrote:

And the notion we must colonize to survive is absurd.
If we can't sustain ourselves here, the closest place
to Heaven within light years, we certainly can't make it
in some dusty, dry and entirely dead hell-hole.

The real sign that we, as a species, are not worthy of surviving is
the fact that our gene pool produced a pathetic troll like you. On the
other hand, you could single-handedly redeem the species by removing
yourself from that same gene pool. How about doing us all a favor and
doing just that? Preferably right after you read this.


I've told everyone here long ago I'm not going anywhere until
Space Solar Power becomes a reality. Since I started my little
campaign, SSP has gone from a pipe-dream to reality in Japan
and Europe. And at least one private start-ups is on the brink
of becoming a successful business. And here NASA stands
of the brink of deciding a new direction. With the conventional
goals, the Moon and Mars, being rather weak, at best.

I'm on a role! You might as well join me in calling for Space Solar
Power to be the new goal, if you really want to get rid of me
OM.

Jonathan

s

"KK" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:09:14 -0400, Jonathan wrote:

And the notion we must colonize to survive is absurd. If we can't
sustain ourselves here, the closest place to Heaven within light years,
we certainly can't make it in some dusty, dry and entirely dead
hell-hole.

It's a matter of simple arithmetic that this planet won't be your
"closest place to Heaven" forever.


How so? I see all the trends being just the opposite. As democracy
and prosperity spreads, population growth declines, efficiency
increases and sustainability becomes possible.



That same arithmetic calls it a better bet that we'll destroy ourselves
before the Earth will -

If that's true wouldn't we take our self-destructive tendency
with us? And under harsher conditions, wouldn't conflict
be even more likely?


but if we ever hope to change that, mankind can't
call Earth its permanent and only home.

I guess that depends if you're only looking to save
a few thousand people to perpetuate the species
somehow until a better day comes along.
But if the idea is to save the Six Billion people
already here, then it's Earth or ...nowhere.

The fate of humanity is tied to that of our Earth.
Without Earth, I don't see any future for humanity
at all. We need to learn how to live here in a
sustainable way, and learn to protect ourselves
from celestial 'accidents'.

Those tasks are far more practical than trying to
transplant humanity to the Moon or Mars.


Jonathan

s

On Apr 17, 4:58�pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
"KK" wrote in message

...

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:09:14 -0400, Jonathan wrote:

And the notion we must colonize to survive is absurd. If we can't
sustain ourselves here, the closest place to Heaven within light years,
we certainly can't make it in some dusty, dry and entirely dead
hell-hole.

It's a matter of simple arithmetic that this planet won't be your
"closest place to Heaven" forever.

How so? �I see all the trends being just the opposite. As democracy
and prosperity spreads, population growth declines, efficiency
increases and sustainability becomes possible.



That same arithmetic calls it a better bet that we'll destroy ourselves
before the Earth will -

If that's true wouldn't we take our self-destructive tendency
with us? And under harsher conditions, wouldn't conflict
be even more likely?

but if we ever hope to change that, mankind can't
call Earth its permanent and only home.

I guess that depends if you're only looking to save
a few thousand people to perpetuate the species
somehow until a better day comes along.
But if the idea is to save the Six Billion people
already here, then it's Earth or ...nowhere.

The fate of humanity is tied to that of our Earth.
Without Earth, I don't see any future for humanity
at all. We need to learn how to live here in a
sustainable way, and learn to protect ourselves
from celestial 'accidents'.

Those tasks are far more practical than trying to
transplant humanity to the Moon or Mars.

Jonathan

s

On space solar power...... a serious what if question

what backup would be used if volcanic eruption suddendly obscured the
power transmission link?

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 20:32:50 -0800, Pat Flannery wrote:

On 4/16/2010 3:39 PM, KK wrote:

It's a matter of simple arithmetic that this planet won't be your
"closest place to Heaven" forever.


That same arithmetic calls it a better bet that we'll destroy ourselves
before the Earth will - but if we ever hope to change that, mankind
can't call Earth its permanent and only home.

Earth is going to have to be in pretty sorry shape before it becomes
more inhospitable than the Moon or Mars. A lot of fairly advanced
lifeforms survived the giant impact (or whatever croaked the dinosaurs)

Well, not really. It depends on your definition of "fairly advanced".
Most or all of humankind wouldn't have survived. And the Cretaceous
event was 65M years ago - it happened in the most recent 2 percent of the
earth's lifetime. There will inevitably be more life-extingusihing
events - whether another big impact, or a gamma-ray burst, or some solar
event. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when".




at the end of the Cretaceous period, even as catastrophic as that
was...they wouldn't have lasted even a minute in Lunar or Martian
conditions.

No ****. Has anyone suggested we pack up and move there now? But a long-
term (hundreds or thousands of years) goal of beginning to expand our
footprint in the Universe is the only way for us to survive the
inevitable in the long-term. Maybe that means finding a hospitable
place, maybe it means using terraforming to change a place to make it
more suitable.




Pat

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:03:34 GMT, KK puked:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 20:32:50 -0800, Pat Flannery wrote:

On 4/16/2010 3:39 PM, KK wrote:

It's a matter of simple arithmetic that this planet won't be your
"closest place to Heaven" forever.


That same arithmetic calls it a better bet that we'll destroy ourselves
before the Earth will - but if we ever hope to change that, mankind
can't call Earth its permanent and only home.

Earth is going to have to be in pretty sorry shape before it becomes
more inhospitable than the Moon or Mars. A lot of fairly advanced
lifeforms survived the giant impact (or whatever croaked the dinosaurs)

Well, not really. It depends on your definition of "fairly advanced".
Most or all of humankind wouldn't have survived. And the Cretaceous
event was 65M years ago - it happened in the most recent 2 percent of the
earth's lifetime. There will inevitably be more life-extingusihing
events - whether another big impact, or a gamma-ray burst, or some solar
event. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when".




at the end of the Cretaceous period, even as catastrophic as that
was...they wouldn't have lasted even a minute in Lunar or Martian
conditions.

No ****. Has anyone suggested we pack up and move there now? But a long-
term (hundreds or thousands of years) goal of beginning to expand our
footprint in the Universe is the only way for us to survive the
inevitable in the long-term. Maybe that means finding a hospitable
place, maybe it means using terraforming to change a place to make it
more suitable.

I never use the "lifeboat" analogy when discussing planetary travel
because people look on it too negatively. I prefer viewing it as
manifest destiny.
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:57:55 -0700 (PDT), "
puked:

On Apr 17, 4:58?pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
"KK" wrote in message

...

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:09:14 -0400, Jonathan wrote:

And the notion we must colonize to survive is absurd. If we can't
sustain ourselves here, the closest place to Heaven within light years,
we certainly can't make it in some dusty, dry and entirely dead
hell-hole.

It's a matter of simple arithmetic that this planet won't be your
"closest place to Heaven" forever.

How so? ?I see all the trends being just the opposite. As democracy
and prosperity spreads, population growth declines, efficiency
increases and sustainability becomes possible.



That same arithmetic calls it a better bet that we'll destroy ourselves
before the Earth will -

If that's true wouldn't we take our self-destructive tendency
with us? And under harsher conditions, wouldn't conflict
be even more likely?

but if we ever hope to change that, mankind can't
call Earth its permanent and only home.

I guess that depends if you're only looking to save
a few thousand people to perpetuate the species
somehow until a better day comes along.
But if the idea is to save the Six Billion people
already here, then it's Earth or ...nowhere.

The fate of humanity is tied to that of our Earth.
Without Earth, I don't see any future for humanity
at all. We need to learn how to live here in a
sustainable way, and learn to protect ourselves
from celestial 'accidents'.

Those tasks are far more practical than trying to
transplant humanity to the Moon or Mars.

Jonathan

s

On space solar power...... a serious what if question

what backup would be used if volcanic eruption suddendly obscured the
power transmission link?

You do realize that there's a reason everyone is getting so excited
about Martian and Lunar ice, right?
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?