backtop


Print 90 comment(s) - last by RMTimeKill.. on Jun 30 at 3:10 PM

Time for humans to start thinking about moving says Hawking

For many years humans have dreamed of one day colonizing other planets and moons.  Although research would be an important reason for the foreign bases, could the survival of the human race depend on whether or not we can colonize other planets?  World-renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking recently said that humans need to colonize a planet or moon because the Earth might face destruction -- A man made disaster -- global warming being a good example -- or natural disaster could potentially destroy the planet. 

Although he believes humans can colonize the moon within 20 years, and establish a sufficient base on Mars within 40 years, humans "won't find anywhere as nice as Earth," unless we visit another solar system.  The moon looks to be like an ideal place for a potential new colony.  Not only does it appear to have everything needed to sustain humans, ice has also been found at its poles.

Nations have been thinking about colonizing other planets for years.  DailyTech earlier reported that NASA is working towards a permanent moon base that would be a stepping stone to allow astronauts to explore Mars firsthand.  Swedish researchers are also studying different ways to have a self-sustaining colony on the moon.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

moon base
By kattanna on 6/15/2006 11:00:18 AM , Rating: 2
i, for one, can't wait till we have a viable moon base

but before we can do it in a sane fashion we need to get 2 viable space stations..and some other items in place first

we almost have one station, the one in orbit around the earth, and once we get multiple methods of routinely getting up to and back, and flushed out with more living/cargo space..then it will be viable

then we need to build another space station that orbits the moon itself to act as a communications and transportation hub.

once in place then a small network of GPS/comm sats need to be but into orbit around the moon so the people who are going to live there can pinpoint where they are going, and stay in touch real time with basecamp. that is if they are going to be doing any real exploring..AKA going over the horizon. since the moon has no atmosphere you cant get radio signals to bounce back to help lend some distance like you can here on the earth.

why 2 stations? simple..money..and how to save it.

building a rocket that will take stuff to the moon needs to be MUCH bigger, and therefore cost a WHOLE lot more in the actual rocket itself, but mainly in fuel. for every pound you send up..it requires many pounds of fuel

we need to build 2 kinds of ships

1 is the surface to orbit, and back, ships that simply carry cargo/people from the surface to the orbiting space station and back. they can be made simply and cheaply, and need to be on both ends of the system.

2 is the station to station transport. since this ship would never ever enter an atmosphere or have to touch down on a surface, the design then can be made to maximise cargo hauling.


this system would be the cheapest to run once everything is in place.

but will we do it, im doubting it..since we have such a short sighted vision we will object to the larger upfront cost and will instead spend massively more in the long run to get things setup as cheaply upfront as possible




RE: moon base
By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2006 11:28:12 AM , Rating: 2
> once in place then a small network of GPS/comm sats need to be but into orbit around the moon so the people who are going to live there can pinpoint where they are going..."

GPS on the moon? The first colonists won't have trouble knowing where they are....there are far simpler solutions. Use a high radio tower (no winds or heavy gravity to complicate construction) for any excursion within a few hundred miles of base camp. For those extremely few cases when you'd go further, carry an inertial tracker or simply follow your own dust tracks back.

For communications, any earthside colony can use an earth-based satellite. A darkside colony could use a single Geosynchronous (lunasynchronous, actually) repeater...no need for a whole network.


RE: moon base
By kattanna on 6/15/2006 1:18:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A darkside colony could use a single Geosynchronous (lunasynchronous, actually) repeater...no need for a whole network.


actually that wouldnt work cause you would have the moon in the way to get any signal back to the earth. so since you would already need more then 1 to make it work, why not just put 4 in place for complete 360 coverage?

and its not really the darkside, its the far side, its only dark there when we have a full moon. when we have a new or no moon, its fully lit over there.


RE: moon base
By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2006 2:48:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
> "actually that wouldnt work cause you would have the moon in the way to get any signal back to the earth. so since you would already need more then 1 to make it work, why not just put 4 in place for complete 360 coverage?"


You've forgotten elementary astrodynamics. The moon is tidal-locked with the earth...meaning it only rotates once every 27.something days. Meaning despite its lower mass, a synchronous satellite would be at an height of 85,000 km or so (assuming I did the math right). Such an orbit certainly wouldn't be stable on the Earthside, due to Terran gravitational perturbations. On the nightside, however, it would not only be stable, but would be far enough from the moon so that it could transmit directly to Earth.

To provide GPS-level satellite coverage of the entire lunar surface, you therefore couldn't use just four synchronous satellites. You'd need a much larger network, based much lower...probably on "orange-slice" polar orbits.


RE: moon base
By kattanna on 6/15/2006 4:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but would be far enough from the moon so that it could transmit directly to Earth


actually no.

a satellite directly opposite the earth 85km out from the moon by the time the signal reaches the moon the signal already has a diameter of 3.4km, the diameter of the moon.

now it needs to travel another 384km to the earth. Thats 4.5 times the distance it as already traveled making the signal diameter by the time it reaches earth 15.3km. But since the earth only has a diameter of 12.7km, the moon is still totaly blocking the signal.

now it could get a signal to/from a earth geostationary sat, but you would need to send up 3 of those that are designed to talk inbound and outbound. all the ones up there now are all earth facing, and you would need 3 to have at least 1 sat "visible" to the moon sat at any given time.

so, we are back to the need for more then 1 comm sat, and with earth geostationary orbit getting full, it makes more sense to have them orbiting the moon itself. that allows for lower power comm systems in orbit, and on the ground, and for local "real time" transmissions.


RE: moon base
By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2006 6:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
> " But since the earth only has a diameter of 12.7km, the moon is still totaly blocking the signal."

Kattana, I applaud you. You solved that problem in a very elegant manner. You're still wrong...but only because your premise was incorrect.

Yes, if you base the satellite directly on the earth-moon axis, it's going to be occulted no matter at what distance you base it. However, a single satellite-- if offset a few degrees from this baseline, can not only cover the entire lunar darkside (sans a small fringe due to libration), but still have line of sight to the earth. Draw a picture...it'll become obvious.


RE: moon base
By kattanna on 6/16/2006 9:35:43 AM , Rating: 2
LOL the one here who is missing the point my friend, is you.

i'm talking about total coverage 360 degrees, north, east, south, west coverage.

your talking about partial coverage.

when you want to talk about the same thing i am, let me know.



RE: moon base
By masher2 (blog) on 6/16/2006 9:49:17 AM , Rating: 2
Now you're just being silly. The libration fringe is very small...the approach I detailed covers some 96% of the lunar surface. With ONE satellite. How long before more than 96% of the lunar surface is occupied? Ten thousand years?

Fact is, for the forseable future, there would be NOTHING whatsoever Darkside, save for a research outpost. Easily coverage with one satellite. All the industrial and commercial activity would be done Nearside, where they need ZERO lunar satellite coverage...they can use Terran ones directly.

Now, do you have any idea how many orange-slice orbiters you'd need to provide full coverage of the lunar surface? For stable orbits, they have to be based much lower than they would be on Earth, which means much less coverage. At a bare minimum, you're talking a 48-satellite constellation...probably more.

Your notion of "total coverage" with just four satellites is wholly unworkable. As I explained...a Nearside synchronous orbit isn't stable. And the idea we'd want to launch several dozen satellites for no gain whatsoever is even less tenable.


RE: moon base
By kattanna on 6/16/2006 12:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
since we have such a short sighted vision we will object to the larger upfront cost and will instead spend massively more in the long run to get things setup as cheaply upfront as possible


thank you for continuing to prove my original closing point.

does any starting moon base NEED such a complete setup..no, but thats not my point, thats yours.

im talking about designing such a system that would provide such services without relying upon anything earth based/orbiting to make it function. why? because we will be going to other bodies where trying to use comm resources from earth get to be very impractical/impossible.

also people arent the only ones that will need to be using the comm system. robotic rovers will be roaming and exploring for "interesting" geological areas, that will then want to be followed up by actual people.

Having a true "global" independant comm system for any body we choose to get serious about going to, aka lots of rovers..a settlement..etc not just a pop shot for some intriging study like Galileo, has many positives. it allows for local real-time traffic, usefull only really for people, but if they are there..then its usefull. it also allows for much more science to be done and returned. done by the fact that they can count on not having to spend weight/power/space on comm resources that need to "phone home" like they do now. but instead can count on sending the info up to an orbiting sat, that then can send the info off to earth at MUCH higher bandwidths then is now possible, and therefore allowing more science data to be returned. another plus to that is that once a comm system is in place, all following missions can be done cheaper to boot. Also such a system allows for continous contact of all craft on the surface and in orbit at all times. great for when new craft are coming into that zone.

lets treat the moon as if it wasnt so close, and design systems accordingly that way when we do parts 2 & 3 of "moon, mars & beyond"...we have designed and build systems and know how best to implement them already. having had time to get some of the bugs worked out here "locally" where they are easier and faster to correct.

THATS..been my point.

Does such a complete system need to be built before anything else..no. of course it will be built in stages, but each piece should be designed to be part of the overall design. not some happy chance of luck.


RE: moon base
By masher2 (blog) on 6/16/2006 12:36:49 PM , Rating: 2
> "does any starting moon base NEED such a complete setup..no, but thats not my point"

Your remarks were, and I quote, "I, for one, can't wait till we have a viable moon base...but before we can do it...we need some other items in place first...once in place then a small network of GPS/comm sats need to be but into orbit around the moon

Emphasis mine. Now you're saying something totally different. It seems clear you've realized your error, though, so lets put that behind us. Let's also forget the errors that we can't provide full coverage of the moon via synchronous satellites, and that we *can* communicate with the earth via a Darkside satellite.

That just leaves this final point of yours:

lets treat the moon as if it wasnt so close, and design systems accordingly that way when we do parts 2 & 3 of "moon, mars & beyond"...we have designed and build systems and know how best to implement them already

But we already know how to build such systems. We've done so on the Earth. Building non-needed satellites and launching them into lunar orbit doesn't give us any additional experience, to putting such a system on Mars or elsewhere. Its just a waste of money. Far better to spend those dollars designing more efficient, reliable satellites on EARTH...then launch them only when they're actually needed.





RE: moon base
By kattanna on 6/16/2006 2:46:57 PM , Rating: 2
hmmm..why the fixation on synchronous orbits? we wouldnt need them to be in the exact same spot at all times, just at least one within line of sight to make a comm connection. Dont need synchronous orbits for that, they only need to be far enough away to see their "half" of the body, a few thousand km for the moon.

as for "need", yes we would need at least part of the system to be in place first before we start sending people. 1 sat for total

ecliptical orbitable coverage and rotating surface areas, 2 for decent global surface coverage and polar orbital coverage, 3 for maximum

surface coverage, and a 4th for redundancy for when one fails.

so 2 to start would be optimal so you have orbital and surface coverage, and in case one fails you still have ecliptical orbit coverage, till the remaining ones can be placed.


no..we in fact do not have any such system of its kind built and operating now. most of the sats in earth orbit are 2 way systems

only..ground to sat to ground systems. some have 3 ways systems..ground to sat to ground with ability to go also from sat to sat. But

what we need is a 4 way system..ground to sat to ground/ sat to sat/ and sat to earth. about the closet we have now is the mars orbitor

which can relay back..but..thats far from a "global" working system.



RE: moon base
By masher2 (blog) on 6/16/2006 3:51:30 PM , Rating: 2
> "hmmm..why the fixation on synchronous orbits?"

For the same reason they're so useful on earth. You can cover a larger area with a smaller number of satellites. Furthermore, a nonsychronous satellite requires the ground station to track a rapidly moving body...or else to broadcast (and receive) a far more powerful signal.

Certainly still possible, but you're talking about a much larger number of much higher power satellites. Much costlier. And again-- whats the point? You've already admitted such a system isn't needed on the moon...just to prove we can do it for some other planet?

> "Dont need synchronous orbits for that, they only need to be far enough away to see their "half" of the body"

I've explained this earlier. High lunar orbits are not stable, unless they're darkside only (which means they must be synchronous). The mass of the earth is 80 times that of the moon, meaning Terran gravity causes severe perturbations.

An orbit only a thousand or two km high would be stable, but that provides very little coverage. Remember, the moon is not perfectly smooth. Even on Earth, a satellite 35,000 km up is often occluded by terrain. Furthermore, the lower a satellite is, the faster it moves...complicating tracking tremendously.

> "yes we would need at least part of the system to be in place first before we start sending people"

No, you need no satellite whatsoever for a Nearside colony. They communicate directly with Earth.

> "2 for decent global surface coverage and polar orbital coverage, 3 for maximum"

Heh, no. Honestly, look up some basic orbital dynamics. Failing that, look up how many satellites the earth's GPS constellation requires (24, plus a few spares) which ARE at Geosynch height, and STILL don't provide perfect 100% global coverage, due to terrain occlusion. Hell, Sirius uses 3 satellites (also at geosynch height, though with a elliptical plane) just to cover the North American continent.


RE: moon base
By lobadobadingdong on 6/15/2006 1:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
It's called the dark side of the moon because of the loss of communications, not because it's actually dark.


RE: moon base
By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2006 3:08:33 PM , Rating: 2
> "It's called the dark side of the moon because of the loss of communications, not because it's actually dark. "

Actually it *does* get dark there, on a monthly basis...unlike the Earthside, which is continually (and brightly) lit by reflected light from the Earth itself.

"Farside" is a bit more common of a term now, but Darkside it shall remain for me, I'm afraid.


Considering...
By DigitalFreak on 6/15/2006 8:21:15 AM , Rating: 2
how bad humanity is f'ing up this planet, it wouldn't surprise me if Earth is nothing but a wasteland in a few hundred years.

And no, I don't believe in the whole "global warming" thing.




RE: Considering...
By Bonesdad on 6/15/2006 8:42:01 AM , Rating: 1
global warming is real...the earth's ability to buffer it's effect is in question. wake up...it's as real as evolution...stop being afraid and start doing something about it.


RE: Considering...
By Fnoob on 6/15/2006 8:50:03 AM , Rating: 2
start doing something about it

I did, I lit a bonfire.


RE: Considering...
By Hypernova on 6/15/2006 9:10:39 AM , Rating: 2
You just made things worse with more CO2.


RE: Considering...
By TomZ on 6/15/2006 10:37:12 AM , Rating: 2
Proof?


RE: Considering...
By Schadenfroh on 6/15/2006 9:37:10 AM , Rating: 2
and I just bought a new Ford Excursion SUV.


RE: Considering...
By TomZ on 6/15/2006 10:37:47 AM , Rating: 2
Where are you getting your "facts" on global warming - from the media and from politicians? Do you trust either?


RE: Considering...
By vortmax on 6/15/2006 12:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
but evolution isn't real....


RE: Considering...
By ksherman on 6/15/2006 2:55:38 PM , Rating: 2
thats what I thought too...

Bold move to say that global warming is as real as evolution... considering its an unproven theory... maybe he is saying that global warming is an unproven theory too...


RE: Considering...
By Lakku on 6/15/2006 4:59:24 PM , Rating: 3
Except for the fact evolution has hard evidence heavily suggesting and/or proving that living things have changed over long periods of time into other living things. While it's hard to prove something that takes thousands and millions of years, because non believers can't see it for themselves I guess, the main reason it remains a theory is due to religion and those who blindly follow it. Without getting into too much debate, there is more proof for evolution then global warming (I'm in the middle on this subject) and around 100% more evidence or proof of evolution then there is for creation. You need look no further then viruses and bacteria to prove evolution, as they are quickly mutating and 'evolving' into strands that resist our medicines. You could talk about it all day, but suffice it to say if you don't believe in evolution you are either very religious and/or retarded (I apologize before hand for attacking, but I cannot stand people who believe in magical creation without any proof and then tell me to prove evolution so, hence, they are retarded).


RE: Considering...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2006 5:32:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
> "the main reason [evolution] remains a theory is due to religion and those who blindly follow it."

Your other comments are spot-on, however, evolution remains "only" a theory because everything in science is theory. Nothing is ever proven finally....even gravity is still just an unproven theory (and some recent research is hinting a not-quite accurate one at that).

Still, evolution is as proven as anything in science ever is. And if future discoveries change anything, it will be only slight, cosmetic modifications to the theory itself.



RE: Considering...
By RMTimeKill on 6/30/2006 3:10:51 PM , Rating: 2
On the lines of evolution, I find it funny that top evolution supporters dispute almost any and all "missing link" corpses... like the skeleton they built purely from a tooth, only later to discover the tooth is from an extint pig... yea, evolution is real, as real as science fiction can make it... I am not sure what to believe, they have never been able to re-create the "ooze" from which life supposedly spawned... nor prove the big bang, nor prove that the book thats been edited, chopped up, revised to fit the needs of a king ruling a country (aka the bible). I just dont believe evolution because there is no evidence to support it, there are no "missing link" skeletons for ANY species much less humans... We don't really know our past, so how in the heck can we even begin to predict our future (large scale) hell we dont even know what happened to the Egyptions or many other races that simply disappeared? Stargate SG-1? =P


RE: Considering...
By vortmax on 6/15/2006 12:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
Considering the earth has been around a lot longer than records have been kept, there's really no conclusive way to state global warming as fact. This also applies to the 'hurricane cycles'...


Cut and Run
By CKDragon on 6/15/2006 6:29:25 AM , Rating: 2
I know it's always smart to have a contingency plan for any situation, but the fact that one of the smartest minds in the world is talking about the possibility of cutting and running from an entire planet, likely because of our own recklessness, is still depressing.




RE: Cut and Run
By PLaYaHaTeD on 6/15/2006 10:52:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not only does it appear to have everything needed to sustain humans, ice has also been found at its poles.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time i checked, an atmosphere with oxygen is needed to sustain human life.


RE: Cut and Run
By Lord Evermore on 6/15/2006 11:16:23 AM , Rating: 2
An enclosed environment with breathable atmosphere can be created using the materials on the moon.


RE: Cut and Run
By CKDragon on 6/15/2006 12:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
I heard something like this before.

And less than 30 days after that, baby Kal-El was on his way to Earth. :P


RE: Cut and Run
By geeg on 6/23/2006 9:08:25 AM , Rating: 2
LMAO!!


RE: Cut and Run
By Fox5 on 6/15/2006 1:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't make any sense either. The moon is completely desolate, couldn't we spend far less effort keeping Earth habitable, even in the event of a nuclear holocaust, than turning it into a livable place? Whether you build a biodome on the moon or on Earth, it'll still completely seal you off from the outside environment.


RE: Cut and Run
By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2006 3:01:33 PM , Rating: 3
> "couldn't we spend far less effort keeping Earth habitable"

No amount of effort will stop the possibility of a rogue meteor strike, randomly-mutated killer virus, cosmological Gamma-Ray-Burst, or any number of other events which could easily end all human life on earth.

Furthermore, colonies on the moon or in space would actually help keep the EARTH habitable. Polluting heavy industry could be moved off the planet altogether. Do all our mining, refining, and chemical manufacture in space, and ship down only the end result. No more pollution, and a higher standard of living for all.


RE: Cut and Run
By kaoken on 6/16/2006 3:33:21 AM , Rating: 2
So what happens to the workers that work on these "heavy industry planets"? Sounds very unethical to me.


RE: Cut and Run
By masher2 (blog) on 6/16/2006 8:51:01 AM , Rating: 2
> "Sounds very unethical to me. "

Are you serious with this claptrap? The moon has no meteorological activity, and nearly no geological. any pollution generated is going to stay where its left. Also, remember people are going to be living in sealed habitats there.

Heavy industry in space is even better. Any unwanted byproducts you generate, you simply launch out into the void, or drop them towards the sun.

Now, lets see how long it takes some idiot to say we'd then be "polluting space".


RE: Cut and Run
By captchaos2 on 6/15/2006 1:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
I think Hawking has been watching too much Gundam anime.


RE: Cut and Run
By CSMR on 6/15/2006 9:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
The other possibility is that this guy is not so smart as all that, outside his academic field.


RE: Cut and Run
By geeg on 6/23/2006 9:10:10 AM , Rating: 2
The guy is giving a message..


WHY
By alley on 6/15/2006 6:13:11 PM , Rating: 1
Why does no one trust in God anymore.

Evolution does not explain how the first living single cell was created. Investigate for yourself. How can one of the most complex creation ever conceived (yes a single living cell is INCREDIBLY complex) just pop up out of no where, then randomly mutate until we have a planet full of randomly mutated animals? pfft.

Global warming is just another lie to control big industries. Governments lie all the time. Occultism runs rampant in corporate America and most of the highest levels of government/society engage in pagan rituals (Bohemian Grove anyone?). Open your eyes people. There's a world of lies and mis-information been setup to keep us all in the dark to the real truth at work. This has been going on since the beginning of time.




RE: WHY
By Decaydence on 6/15/2006 6:20:55 PM , Rating: 3
I see, so because we can't figure out why or how something happened, it must have been forced to happen by a magical man in the sky.

No one trusts in God anymore (even though this statement is completely rediculous and contrary to the statistics, I will accept it because I wish it were true) because many of us have left the dark ages. The religion that tells you that God is responsible for anything is no different than the religions that told people that the sun and moon were magical beings that chased each other in the sky, or explained that the sky was a magical palace where zeus reigned over the other gods. Santa Claus doesn't exist people, its time for humanity to shed its childish beliefs.


RE: WHY
By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2006 6:35:17 PM , Rating: 2
> "Evolution does not explain how the first living single cell was created"

Evolution explains it. Creationism, however, does not explain the origin of life...it merely pushes the question back one level.


RE: WHY
By INeedCache on 6/15/2006 8:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." -Albert Einstein

Just think about that for a bit, instead of some of the useless drivel that has been spewed forth in this forum.


RE: WHY
By Decaydence on 6/15/2006 8:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
What is this quote meant to rebut? This is simply Einsteins affirmation of Deism or some variation of it. Just because you both choose to personify the forces that created the universe doesn't mean doing so is any less arbitrary. There is no evidence showing that an intelligent force created the universe therefore believing that is an excercise in creativity, not analysis.


RE: WHY
By INeedCache on 6/15/2006 9:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
There is no irrefutable evidence to support evolution, either. Yet many here want to make it fact. The quote was not meant to rebut, but to merely give many who have posted here something else to ponder, especially the part about our frail and feeble minds. Evolution is a fact? I guess for some, ignorance truly is bliss.


RE: WHY
By Decaydence on 6/15/2006 9:49:36 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say "irrefutable evidence", I said there was no evidence whatsoever. There is evidence to support evolution. You can trace slight changes between species of different eras and even track their movement across the globe. I suppose you could say the evidence isn't irrefutable because we don't have video of it happening, but the evidence is certainly overwhelming and there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary or to any alternate explanations.

If we can tell certain species didn't exist at a certain time, yet do now, how did they come to exist? Spontaneous generation? Magic? Did aliens bring them? Whatever the explanation you bring to bear other than evolution, it is going to be one with far less evidence to support it than evolution. If you don't agree with the statement that certain species didn't exist at a certain time yet do now, then you must believe that all the species we know to have existed at one point in time all existed at the same time, which is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life. There would obviously not be enough space on the planet for that to have ever been the case.

Evolution is not a scientific fact simply because of a semantic distinction. Make no mistake about however, evolution has occurred on this planet.


RE: WHY
By masher2 (blog) on 6/16/2006 9:08:55 AM , Rating: 2
> "There is no irrefutable evidence to support evolution, either"

No, there is a vast amount of irrefutable proof for evolution itself. It occurs...and we have daily proof of it...where do you think new flu viruses come from each year? We've even proven that man himself has evolved, and is continually doing so.

The only thing without irrefutable proof is the origin of mankind (and, by extension, of life itself). We have evidence...some of the strongest evidence in all science, in fact. But until we build a time machine and go back and take pictures of the event, it still remains "theory", no matter how much data we have to support it.


RE: WHY
By kaoken on 6/16/2006 3:40:21 AM , Rating: 2
And yet god one of the most complex creation every concived, pop comes out of nowhere and creates humans? pfft

And I'm betting ufo's crashed at Roswell too eh?




RE: WHY
By geeg on 6/23/2006 9:18:43 AM , Rating: 2
that single cell came from the space. really.


Moon's gravity?
By Sunday Ironfoot on 6/15/2006 8:21:30 AM , Rating: 2
Would a settlement on the moon really be a good idea? It has 1/10 the earths gravity, therefore our muscles would become attrifuted (is that actually a word?) if we stayed there long enough.

Perhaps Mars would be better if we could actually reach the place.




RE: Moon's gravity?
By aegisofrime on 6/15/2006 8:50:09 AM , Rating: 2
The word you are looking for is entrophy.


RE: Moon's gravity?
By aegisofrime on 6/15/2006 8:51:20 AM , Rating: 2
Woops actually the actual word is Atrophy. They look and sound alike :p


RE: Moon's gravity?
By spwatkins on 6/15/2006 10:19:24 AM , Rating: 2
"entrophy" is not a word


RE: Moon's gravity?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2006 9:39:37 AM , Rating: 2
Lunar gravity is 1/6 the earth's, not 1/10. Gravity on Mars is 1/3 as as much...so muscle atrophy is an issue in either case.

The problem with Mars is its too much like Earth to be really useful to us. The moon has unlimited free vacuum (invaluable for many industrial processes), a far stronger solar flux than even we have on earth (cheap solar power here we come), and a shallow gravity well that makes shipping to Earth extremely cheap. The moon could easily become a thriving industrial base within 100 years or less.

Mars, on the other hand, is more like a really poor area of Antarctica. Widespread human habitation is several centuries away. Other than for research purposes, there's simply no reason to go.


The tenth planet
By itlnstln on 6/15/2006 6:53:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The moon looks to be like an ideal place for a potential new colony. Not only does the planet appear to have everything needed to sustain humans, ice has also been found at the poles.


Moon = Planet???




RE: The tenth planet
By HDBanger on 6/15/2006 7:03:33 AM , Rating: 2
And when the earth does get hit by something, or blown up, what good is the moon goin to do anyone? It will go spiraling out into space and smash into something without the earth to hold its orbit. Or be smashed by bits of the earth as it breaks up. I think we need to start worryin more about our politicians, err, crooks, than anything else.


RE: The tenth planet
By Fnoob on 6/15/2006 8:48:19 AM , Rating: 2
If you look at the surface of the moon, or really any other non-gaseous body in our solar system, you can plainly see that hundreds of potentially catastrophic impacts have occured - without the whole planet blowing up.

The impact force required to break the planet up would likely require something either so large and/or dense that we would (hopefully) see it coming. The possibility that scares me is the smallish, very dense, superfast rogue body that decides to land in the Gulf whilst I sleep. I keep picturing that huge wave in the Poseidon flick tearing through the 'hood. Not good.



RE: The tenth planet
By oTAL on 6/15/2006 8:25:28 AM , Rating: 1
Yes... the moon is a planet... check the definition....


RE: The tenth planet
By Sunday Ironfoot on 6/15/2006 8:44:53 AM , Rating: 2
The moon is a satellite surely?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite

"A satellite is any object that orbits another object (which is known as its primary). All masses that are part of the solar system, including the Earth, are satellites either of the Sun, or satellites of those objects, such as the Moon."


Sheer nonsense.
By bupkus on 6/15/2006 11:53:01 AM , Rating: 2
If Earth's woes come from outside then just how far away from Earth must these survivors/colonists be?
If from within how can we be sure we don't export our problems with us?
If technological, such as industrial or urban waste what fuels or manufacturing processes will we use on these other planets? And if we can use solar or clean technologies on the moon or Mars, why not use them here on Earth?
Hawking's statement has value to make people aware of one simple fact and that is the Earth is neither indestructible nor replaceable.




RE: Sheer nonsense.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2006 2:56:44 PM , Rating: 3
> "If Earth's woes come from outside then just how far away from Earth must these survivors/colonists be? "

The further, the better. So we should start as soon as possible, no?

> "if we can use solar or clean technologies on the moon or Mars, why not use them here on Earth?"

For reasons which should be obvious, solar power on Luna is far more viable than it will ever be on Earth. In any case, "clean power" is only one tiny part of the equation. A lunar colony is insulated from a huge variety of Terran-based disasters, both natural and manmade.

Sure we could get *almost* as much safety by building domes on the bottom of the ocean...but such a dome would exist ONLY for safety considerations. What would people do down there? But on the Moon, they can be members of a thriving, productive economy...many industrial processes can be done cheaper and easier there than they can here. There is access to a vast amount of raw resources. Eventually, mining and other dirty industries could be moved off the earth entirely.

Finally, a lunar colony is a first step towards going further. Colonies on Mars, Ganymede, or even space itself. And then, mankind would truly no longer have "all its eggs in one basket", where a single errant meteor or natural disaster could end it forever.


RE: Sheer nonsense.
By rcc on 6/15/2006 3:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
You are forgetting human nature. Humanity's need to expand. Earth provides a finite amount of real estate, and it's pretty much all claimed with the exception of the really wet and frosty bits.

Better to let man/womankid fight a frontier than each other. And it will come to that.

IMNSHO of course.



What difference would it make?
By spwatkins on 6/15/2006 10:21:33 AM , Rating: 2
If we can destroy the extremely robust ecosystem of the earth, how long do you think any colony barely subsisting in a hostile environment could possibly last?




RE: What difference would it make?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2006 10:24:27 AM , Rating: 2
The earth's ecosystem is in no danger from us. However, I can think of many plausible natural occurrences that would wipe out all life on earth...and a few manmade actions that would kill all humans on the planet.


By tuteja1986 on 6/15/2006 10:44:19 AM , Rating: 2
err , don't worry ;(

It will be all over soon when when we start to wipeout the whole world in matter of hrs with our nukes :)



Thought
By bribud on 6/15/2006 10:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how people can truly believe 100% into religion. There are SO many different religions on this earth that totally conflict with one another that it's silly. I mean, can't people see take a step back and see that not EVERYONE can be correct? What makes your religion right and mine wrong. What makes my religion right and yours wrong. It is total ignorance by us humans that creates our differences and religion is a huge problem that we have conjured up, which only creates heartache. People try and see it as a savior to each and every one of us, but step back and take a look at the way things are unfolding. Religion is hurting the world and divides us all. I understand that we cannot comprehend how exactly we got here, but fairy tales do not exist no matter how much we may want them.




RE: Thought
By Decaydence on 6/15/2006 10:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
In order to believe in a God that will only save you from damnation if you believe in a certain religion, you have to believe that God to be the most cruel entity to ever exist. He would be allowing everyone that lived before the religion to burn in hell, regardless of their worth. He would also be forcing everyone who lived outside the religions influence to be automatically damned. How can someone accept Jesus if they have never heard of him?

There are so many logical arguments against every religion that it shocks me that people still buy into it. Yet people will still mock the rediculousness of other peoples religion while leaving their own unquestioned. Its strange living in a transitional time where some people still believe in the ancient ways.


RE: Thought
By MrHanson on 6/16/2006 1:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
I think we all should shed these old silly beliefs so that we become more enlightened. Do you meen there is still ignorant stupid people out there that actually believe that human life has some sort of purpose/value and that we are more significant on this planet than tapeworms? I also believe that we should destroy all dumb, ugly, lame, diseased people and create a superior race. One that is beautiful and intellectually superior. After all that is what is is all about, survival of the fittest.


Hmmmmmm
By nrb on 6/15/2006 6:33:03 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The moon looks to be like an ideal place for a potential moon base.
No kidding? :-)

I'm not convinced by Mr Hawking, I'm afraid. While it's quite possible that we will see some sort of major environmental catastrophe on Earth, you have to put these things in perspective and ask: what would Earth be like after such a catastrophe? Now matter how bad it got, it seems very unlikely that the surface of the Earth would end up more hostile to human survival than the surface of Mars. So long as that remains true, the idea that colonising another planet would enable us to avoid the effects of the catastrophe is just silly.

When terraforming becomes a technologically-realistic proposition, that will change things. But as long as we're still talking about living inside an air-tight dome, it'd be a lot easier to live inside the same dome on Earth.




RE: Hmmmmmm
By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2006 9:17:39 AM , Rating: 2
> "While it's quite possible that we will see some sort of major environmental catastrophe on Earth"

Hawking isn't talking about simply an environmental catastrophe. The possibility of nuclear war, a killer virus (whether natural or engineered), a massive asteroid strike or nearby Gamma Ray Burst wiping out life altogether, a near-miss from a Kuiper-Belt object large enough to disrupt the orbit of the earth...the list goes on and on.


ahem
By GhandiInstinct on 6/15/2006 2:39:40 PM , Rating: 1
First off: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JHdYBet_4Q&search=....

Second off:

When the world leaders of the most power nations have their sight on glorifying the ego and making mass profit it's very difficult politicaly to sway people on this subject.

I mean they're mere human beings, these leaders, many with very small IQ's and they can't even imagine the prospect of moving out off Earth.

Especially when their religion tells them Christ will land soon and the Apocolypse will occcur.




RE: ahem
By Decaydence on 6/15/2006 6:27:04 PM , Rating: 2
You mean Christ isn't coming back to bring me to heaven? Whoa, you are blowing my mind! Certainly all of your "scientific" evidence is simply placed there by the devil to obfuscate the truth. Everyone knows that words written by human beings thousands of years ago are the words of god because those humans told us so! Certainly they wouldn't simply say that so that we would listen to them.

It's fun living with our evolutionary ancestors. Imagine if someone wrote a new addition to the bible and told us that God wrote it through him. We would call him crazy. Why do we then believe the original authors weren't just crazy? Takes about 2 minutes of thought to understand the beliefs of the majority of people on the planet are garbage.


Well obviously....
By cbuchach on 6/15/2006 7:36:43 AM , Rating: 2
I have always suggested that to be necessary. Human life on earth is tenuous at best when viewed in the long term. I couldn't imagine humans lasting more than a few more thousand years on the planet and colonizing first our solar system and then near and distant stars and solar systems is really the only way to help ensure longer term human survival.




O-L-D News...
By creathir on 6/15/2006 9:17:55 AM , Rating: 2
Matt Drudge had this on his site at least 3 days ago...
Start checking his site daily for news... It is not just politics and current events...
- Creathir




Timeshift
By armagedon on 6/15/2006 9:22:51 AM , Rating: 2
i would prefer that we concentrate our efforts in a time machine ! Then, we all just go back in time when everything was fine ... like before Bush decide to invade Irak.




Oxygen supplied
By ElJefe69 on 6/15/2006 10:45:37 PM , Rating: 1
Well, this guy has his own oxygen supply, I think he believes everyone else does as well.

Not every smart person is ACTUALLY correct.

His ideas are based more upon religous belief than science. He attempts (and succeeds) at luring "intellectuals" into believing his views on life with a lulling, dizzying onslaught of scientific, outer edge (unproven) theories.





We're all doomed!!!!!
By degziebob on 6/15/06, Rating: -1
RE: We're all doomed!!!!!
By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2006 9:28:50 AM , Rating: 2
> "When Global Warming really hits us, & hits us hard, it will be too late..."

An interesting article yesterday, entitled "Scientists Respond to Gore's Warnings of Climate Catastrophe". Some excerpts:

quote:
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory ... "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."...

Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature...when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years...

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, [says] that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off....

[Climatology Researcher] Dr. Dick Morgan, points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India...

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."


http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.h...



RE: We're all doomed!!!!!
By TomZ on 6/15/2006 10:36:30 AM , Rating: 2
Bravo on that post, masher2. People don't seem to think about the sources of the "facts" they get, and they fail to realize the alterior motives that might be intertwined. Gore is a perfect example, since he is still in effect running his presidency campaign. What would qualify him as an expert on global warming?

Bottom line here is that politicians are most powerful when their citizens are living in a state of fear . If we didn't have to worry about being protected from global warming, terrorists, bird flu, the economy, etc., etc., then we might feel empowered to realize and speak up that they are not doing their jobs.


RE: We're all doomed!!!!!
By Ringold on 6/15/2006 11:19:04 AM , Rating: 2
I'd agree that there may be no consensus (then again, there's no consensus on gravity, since how it works is theory and at a minumum of once a year its properties surprise us in a lab), but the other risks should be considered. Gamma ray burst; we'd be dead before we realized it, and Earth's been hit before. Asteroid impacts could render render the surface and miles below the surface in to something akin to Venus in temperature. Accidental nuclear pissing contest, or an intentional one. Mass extinction that catches us off guard, plunges the planet in to starvation with every man, or small town or gang, for themselves. Even if humanity survived on Earth, it could get sent to the stone age.

In any of the above the only option would be to move forward elsewhere.. and maybe return later to try to recivilize survivors.

There's also economic reasons.. Only so many raw materials here, and virtually no He3, which is common on the surface of the moon, baked in by solar wind. Russians already have a commercial mining venture on the front burner. And to a lesser degree, cultural and scientific enrichment, and national pride.

Costs can be defrayed by business ops and privatization, so.. basically.. why not?


RE: We're all doomed!!!!!
By TomZ on 6/15/2006 11:25:16 AM , Rating: 2
I'm certainly not against it, as long as taxpayer dollars are not wasted without any real benefit.


RE: We're all doomed!!!!!
By johnsonx on 6/15/2006 12:06:01 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but almost all tax dollars now ARE wasted without any real benefit.

So what's the difference?


RE: We're all doomed!!!!!
By bpurkapi on 6/15/2006 1:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
That source is equivelent to fox news, many of the writers also contribute to the drudge report. The problem with that post is that you are showing that 10 scientists disagree, which is fine, but to say 10 scientists equal the definitive perspective on global warming is a mistake.
This kind of news always irks me, a newspaper talks exclusively to the scientists that are against global warming and then says that scientists disagree that global warming exists. All in all this article is crap, because there are no perspectives on the other side, so you can take this slanted article and throw it away, its not news or even informative. The point of science is to debate, this was no debate, it was a one sided affront to science spurred by someone's agenda.


The Sky IS falling. Honest. I swear.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2006 2:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
> "That source is equivelent to fox news..."

When you can't attack the messenger, attack the message eh? The facts quoted in the article are indisputable. Global Warming (and cooling) of much greater magnitude has occurred many times in the Earth's history...all without human action. As for the current trend, there is no hard evidence that it will continue, and no proof man is even causing any of it, much less the majority.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that even the IPCC's own estimate of maximum warming would be more harmful than beneficial. In other words, it may be GOOD for humanity. The vast majority of warming seen is in the coldest, driest areas...the tropical regions are seeing no warming...some are even cooling slightly. Growing cycles will increase slightly. Subarctic regions become more habitable. Hurricane intensity may actually *decrease* (storms are driven by temperature differentials, and global warming decreases those differences).

Finally, nothing short of us moving back to the stone age will cause mankind to stop generating CO2 entirely. Therefore, IF global warming is a long-term trend, and IF mankind is contributing to it, and IF that trend is ultimately harmful (three huge "ifs") we are looking for solutions in the wrong place. In that case, actively cooling the Earth is the only long-term solution. I've seen a half-dozen proposals for such...many of which appear more tenable and less costly than trying to convert the world off a combustion-based economy altogether.



By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2006 3:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
> "When you can't attack the messenger, attack the message eh? "

Reversed that, *blush*...


RE: The Sky IS falling. Honest. I swear.
By rcc on 6/15/2006 5:25:46 PM , Rating: 2
This is totally off in left field, however, I read an interesting Novel recently. The author claimed a solid scientific basis for his story background, but I haven't had a chance to check on it.

Per the story, following the historical cycles, Earth should currently be in a minor ice age, however, because of the human influence, it has been offset by global warming. So, when the environmentalists finally get their way and reduce the CO2/hothouse gasses, it triggers the ice age. So now you have glaciers expanding through the most of the main worldwide food growing belts. People trying to survive the new winters without burning anything including heating oil. Science and technology were bad words, etc. And of course the environmental folks in power are blaming it all on the scientific advances of the preceeding century.
Entertaining from a certain warped perspective.

But, it does add another page to the "beware what you ask for" book.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2006 5:28:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
> "Per the story, following the historical cycles, Earth should currently be in a minor ice age, however, because of the human influence, it has been offset by global warming. So, when the environmentalists finally get their way and reduce the CO2/hothouse gasses, it triggers the ice age."


Sounds like Niven's Fallen Angels.


RE: The Sky IS falling. Honest. I swear.
By FoxFour on 6/15/2006 10:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hurricane intensity may actually *decrease* (storms are driven by temperature differentials, and global warming decreases those differences).


I was under the impression that extreme weather phenomena increase in quantity and magnitude as the overall heat energy in the atmosphere and oceans (which roughly translates into average global temperature) increases ... it's been quite some time since I did any research on the matter, though, so correct me if I've got it mixed up.



By masher2 (blog) on 6/16/2006 9:01:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
> "I was under the impression that extreme weather phenomena increase in quantity and magnitude as the overall heat energy in the atmosphere and oceans (which roughly translates into average global temperature) increases "


No, not quite. If the Earth was one uniform temperature from pole to pole, there'd be no storm activity whatsoever...regardless whether that temperature was 5 degrees or 500. Storms are driven by temperature differentials...the larger the differential, the more energy available to the storm.

Now, if you raise the average temperature but don't change the differential (e.g. tropics and temperate regions of earth both warm equally), storms get more severe. However, global warming isn't doing this. The tropics aren't warming, but everything else is. So in the latitude band where all hurricanes form, temperature differentials are decreasing.


RE: We're all doomed!!!!!
By November2 on 6/19/2006 6:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
Masher2 - Check your sources. CanadaFreePress is a right-wing conservative publication that posts on their about us page a guy that has worked at Fox News and NewsMax. In case you don't know Newsmax possibly the worst source to cite with Fox News a close second in big-busines/conservative spin machine publications.

There is a lot of information out there and you choose to quote some biased politically minded rag from Canada? Think way back to high school when you wrote a paper, remember that last page, that's where you cite your sources and if you give junk sources you get a failing grade. The fact of the matter is there is a ton of information out there that the academia agree on, GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL. Just because you quote some bogus, biased article probably payed for by some big oil company in Canada(second in supply to the Saud's) like Imperial or Mobil. Come on with your re-spin, calling Gore's movie junk science is like calling you rant coherent.

Masher2 - Grade F


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher

Related Articles
NASA Works On Permanent Moon Base
March 27, 2006, 5:35 AM
Swedish Plan to Colonise Space
March 16, 2006, 2:20 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki