|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
BUZZ on Howard Stern.."No to the Moon"...Denies wanting to be"First"!
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
BUZZ on Howard Stern.."No to the Moon"...Denies wanting to be"First"!
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
BUZZ on Howard Stern.."No to the Moon"...Denies wanting to be"First"!
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
BUZZ on Howard Stern.."No to the Moon"...Denies wanting to be "First"!
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
BUZZ on Howard Stern.."No to the Moon"...Denies wanting to be "First"!
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
BUZZ on Howard Stern.."No to the Moon"...Denies wanting to be"First"!
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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
BUZZ on Howard Stern.."No to the Moon"...Denies wanting to be"First"!
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
BUZZ on Howard Stern.."No to the Moon"...Denies wanting to be "First"!
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? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
BUZZ on Howard Stern.."No to the Moon"...Denies wanting to be "First"!
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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BUZZ on Howard Stern.."No to the Moon"...Denies wanting to be "First"! | Jonathan | Policy | 1 | April 19th 10 02:18 PM |
BUZZ on Howard Stern.."No to the Moon"...Denies wanting to be"First"! | [email protected] | | Policy | 0 | April 16th 10 03:44 PM |
BUZZ on Howard Stern.."No to the Moon"...Denies wanting to be"First"! | [email protected] | | History | 0 | April 16th 10 03:44 PM |
might Odissey-Moon be the Google's expected, preferred, designed,"chosen" and (maybe) "funded" GLXP team to WIN the prize? with ALL otherteams that just play the "sparring partners" role? | gaetanomarano | Policy | 3 | September 27th 08 06:47 PM |