Worthy of survival

"Bob Kolker" wrote in message
...
Ken from Chicago wrote:
Stephen Fairchild


That's why you should have ROBOTIC space exploration and space mining.

Tho later that could lead to human space COLONIZATION.

Forget it. Except for some orbiting habitats there is no place in the
solar system for us off our own planet. Long and short: The solar system
is a bad neighborhood except for our planet.

Bob Kolker

The Moon and Mars are fairly decent.

-- Ken from Chicago

Steven L. wrote:

Without alien life forms, Star Trek would be boring as hell. There
haven't been many science-fiction stories written about a lifeless
universe, because it's devoid of romance and adventure.

I don't know, the new Battlestar Galactica manages just fine with its only
non-human life form being something originally created *by* humans.

--
--
* I always hope for the best. Experience, unfortunately, has taught me
to expect the worst.

Yahoo: evilbill_agqx
Web: http://www.evilbill.org.uk

Bob Kolker wrote:
Ken from Chicago wrote:
Stephen Fairchild


That's why you should have ROBOTIC space exploration and space
mining. Tho later that could lead to human space COLONIZATION.

Forget it. Except for some orbiting habitats there is no place in the
solar system for us off our own planet. Long and short: The solar
system is a bad neighborhood except for our planet.


I dunno, I'd call our own planet the worst *part* of the neighbourhood, the
rest of the solar system doesn't have a bunch of primitive, violent
lifeforms destroying its ecosystem and each other.

--
--
* I always hope for the best. Experience, unfortunately, has taught me
to expect the worst.

Yahoo: evilbill_agqx
Web: http://www.evilbill.org.uk

William December Starr wrote:
In article ,
(Michael Alan Chary) said:

So, what do _you_ imagine?

The Daleks are waiting out there for signals from their
terrestrial agent George W. Bush.

Ah. Well, if we're lucky then when they invade they'll do the
inevitable doublecross-and-kill on him *first*, so we'll at least
get to see it before being exterminated as well.

Heck, we may even get to see Cheney climbing back into his casing...

Nah, he sleeps upside-down in a crypt. g

--
--
* I always hope for the best. Experience, unfortunately, has taught me
to expect the worst.

Yahoo: evilbill_agqx
Web: http://www.evilbill.org.uk

"Bob Kolker" wrote in message
...
EvilBill wrote:

Steven L. wrote:

Without alien life forms, Star Trek would be boring as hell. There
haven't been many science-fiction stories written about a lifeless
universe, because it's devoid of romance and adventure.


I don't know, the new Battlestar Galactica manages just fine with its
only non-human life form being something originally created *by* humans.


Then it is not alien. It is artificial.

Everything on the Galactica is artificial. They even have artificial
artifical flowers.

Bob Kolker wrote:
EvilBill wrote:

Steven L. wrote:

Without alien life forms, Star Trek would be boring as hell. There
haven't been many science-fiction stories written about a lifeless
universe, because it's devoid of romance and adventure.


I don't know, the new Battlestar Galactica manages just fine with
its only non-human life form being something originally created *by*
humans.

Then it is not alien. It is artificial.


Exactly, it manages to not be boring and yet be completely devoid of aliens.


--
--
* I always hope for the best. Experience, unfortunately, has taught me
to expect the worst.

Yahoo: evilbill_agqx
Web: http://www.evilbill.org.uk

Steven L. wrote:

Kweeg wrote:

"Space Cadet" wrote in message
ups.com...

Here is an interesting article by our old friend Dwayne A. Day, about
Link between Science Fiction and the Space Program and his
interpretation of SF impact on Space exploration, particularly Star
Trek's and whether or not if the new crop of SF shows will be able to
have a similar effect in the future

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/716/1



Thanks for the link...I've also wondered the same...


The big difference between the Star Trek universe and our real universe
is that the Star Trek universe assumes there is life everywhe Life
forms ranging from far more primitive than our own, to far more advanced.

But so far, in the real world, we haven't detected any life beyond the
earth. Not even a bacterium.


Correct, but...


Without alien life forms, Star Trek would be boring as hell. There
haven't been many science-fiction stories written about a lifeless
universe, because it's devoid of romance and adventure. And that's why
real space travel just doesn't excite people anymore. We haven't found
anything out there except lifeless worlds.


We've not looked very hard in very many places yet, have we?


When Star Trek was first conceived by Roddenberry in 1964, some
scientists still hoped that Mars might harbor some forms of life. Even
as late as the 1980's, it was hoped that Saturn's moon Titan might
harbor life also.

But now we know they don't.


We don't know that. We simply don't know. Period.


And nobody gives a flying crap about shuttling to Low Earth Orbit to man
an International Space Station. It's deep space missions to "seek out
new life and new civilizations" that turn people on.

If you want people to be as excited about space travel in the real world
as they are about Star Trek, then we need to start planning to take a
real "star trek" to actually "seek out new life, and new civilizations":
Either a deep space mission, or vastly improved telescopic sensors,


It's true that Hubble is one of the most popular non-manned space
projects, and the James Webb Space Telescope is well in the works, but...


or
vastly improved Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, or something
else that will give us hope of finding life beyond the Earth.


SETI is something that needs to be done on a larger scale, but when
NASA tried, that slice of their bugdet got zeroed out.


If Mars also turns out to be lifeless, it will be hard to get Americans
excited even about sending humans there. Ironically, science fiction
has raised the bar for the average American: Alien life is now almost
taken for granted, and that's what I think that most folks to hear
about: Where are the alien life forms?

Don't know if or how much, or where, but I do know that we're *just
starting.*

After all, we don't have anything resembling FTL starships on
five-year missions among our choice of tools, at this time...


--

Frank

You know what to remove to reply...

Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the
human spirit."
- Stephen Hawking

Ken from Chicago wrote:


The Moon and Mars are fairly decent.

Both are dead and neither will be terraformed. There is no free water
available.

We can't even terraform the Sahara Desert or the area around the Dead
Sea and they are on the same planet as we are. Death Valley cannot be
terraformed. Not enough water there.

Bob Kolker

Bob Kolker wrote:

Ken from Chicago wrote:


FIREFLY, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA: TNS and much of Asimovian fiction would
dispute the inherent boredom of a human-only universe.


These universes are Business As Usual on a grander scale. But human
struggle and failure has always been interesting. Why do newspapers
sell? Because they contain bad news.

Bob Kolker


Of course. ALL fiction starts with somebody with a problem to deal
with, of *some* sort...

--

Frank

You know what to remove to reply...

Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the
human spirit."
- Stephen Hawking

Stephen Fairchild wrote:

Bob Kolker wrote:


Steven L. wrote:


If Mars also turns out to be lifeless, it will be hard to get Americans
excited even about sending humans there. Ironically, science fiction
has raised the bar for the average American: Alien life is now almost
taken for granted, and that's what I think that most folks to hear
about: Where are the alien life forms?

Nowhere nearby. Almost certainly not in our solar system. But that is
not sufficient reason not to go exploring. They may be other more
relevent issues such as costs and payback.

The Spaniards (for example) did not go a-sailing over the main just to
see what was on the Other Side. They had gold and converts to
Catholicism in mind. Those were the coins of their realm. The itch to
travel and explore may be motivated the captains and crews, but it was
potential profit and plunder that motivated the monarchs to fund them.

If the tax payers are going to be mugged to fund space explorations they
have every right to asked about the rewards and payback.


Apart from mining the asteroid belt I can't see much plunder out there.


But that (and tourism and energy) can be a major industrial driver
that's not only a source of money (and drama) in itself, but because it
requires economical space travel to begin with, will tend to enable many
other things that you may or may not have originally planned on:

http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/arc...amics2006.html

http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/arc...Valentine.html


--

Frank

You know what to remove to reply...

Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the
human spirit."
- Stephen Hawking