The silly reason why we sent men to the Moon.

[KerikBalm]

I don't know about you, but unmanned missions can still be inspirational for me.

I'm excitied about the mars rovers, rosetta, and would very much like to send probes to the martian gesers and sink holes, the ancient inverted relief river formations (fossil biofilms causing those perhaps?), and down the geyseres of enceledus and Europa.

[78stonewobble]

Well, I believe that space exploration and ie. astronomy needs to be a bit higher prioritised. Manned and unmanned.

We need goals that force us to push the boundaries on what is possible, continually. The alternative is stagnation.

Which includes manned space exploration. Ie. I firmly believe that trying to go to mars, is what develops the technologies to go to mars. I don't think leaning back and doing nothing, will magically give us those technologies.

A few ps's:

Even if global warming turns out to be a natural development of earths climate and only a mild thing at that. The earth is still heating up. Ie. the sun has increased it's luminosity continually by now 30 percent over 4,5 billion years and will continue to do so.

Ok, the universe is probably going to end (or so we believe) at some point in the unimaginably far future. Which means there's no reason to have manned space exploration, say what?, if that's an argument theres no reason to get out of the bed tomorrow. You can equally use that argument on anything else we do.

[Guest]

This is actually a good argument. However, it is reasonable to counter with "Let's do it when we can get to space for 10$/kg." Which probably is no more than a century or two away.

Eternity doesn't exist. Thermodynamic equilibrium will put an end to us all.

I agree with most of your arguments, xcorps. I believe sending men to Mars at this point in our history is premature at best. However, the statement about eternity not existing is unprovable and depressing. The fact that we exist at all flies in the face of thermodynamics and physics. If I understand the theory correctly, in the beginning there was nothing, and then suddenly there was a big bang. What part of thermodynamics supports that?

Edit : I remember Tang well. I actually kinda liked it and miss it. But, there is a reason it isn't around anymore. Most people, like me, would rather just have orange juice.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Otis

[Rondon]

When you get down to it the question is whether or not doubling the Nasa budget by 17.9 billion dollars, inspires more people than putting that money into education. Seeing as that investment would inspire the entire world you would think its probably a good bet, But, checking up on any comparisons I could find.

It seems the moon landing had a negligible effect on graduation rates.

[Karriz]

Unmanned exploration is certainly way less risky, cheaper and gives great science returns, and I do find probe missions inspirational, for example I'm excited to see what Rosetta will find.

But, I think there's more to space exploration than pure science. I realized that increasing the funding alone won't help though, if most of the money goes to stuff like SLS. Private companies should design and build most of the hardware, and have more freedom to make it efficient.

Space agencies can then focus on deciding mission goals, training astronauts and such. Maybe that way things could actually get done.

[xcorps]

However, the statement about eternity not existing is unprovable and depressing.

Put a glass of water in the freezer until it is solid. Then let it melt. That's thermodynamic equilibrium at work. At some point in the future, the universe will reach a state of maximum entropy. The processes that support life will no longer have energy available to perform work because all energy is evenly distributed across all systems. The universe will be dead. Everything will just come to a stop, like a clock pendulum that runs out it's spring.

[Guest]

Put a glass of water in the freezer until it is solid. Then let it melt. That's thermodynamic equilibrium at work. At some point in the future, the universe will reach a state of maximum entropy. The processes that support life will no longer have energy available to perform work because all energy is evenly distributed across all systems. The universe will be dead. Everything will just come to a stop, like a clock pendulum that runs out it's spring.

We're getting way off topic here, but I'm going to continue with this line of thought because it is important. I understand thermodynamics and entropy quite well. It's been 22 years since I took the class at Arkansas State University, but my teacher was a good one, and it's one of the few classes that I actually got an A in. I'm glad you brought up entropy. My science teacher in highschool explained it quite well. Take the garage for example. The floor will never sweep itself. Someone, like me, will eventually have to grab a broom and sweep up the dirt and dust. On the flip side however, no one has to put the dirt on the floor. Entropy takes care of that. What I'm trying to prove to you is that not even the laws of thermodynamics are perfect. It's easy to see that. Thermodynamics says that we cannot exist. The stars and the planets did in fact form from dust clouds. We did in fact evolve from lower life forms. Entropy says that this is impossible. So one could conclude that eternity is in fact possible through means that we don't fully understand yet.

[xcorps]

I'll leave this here for you to read, it's interesting.

http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

[Guest]

The Sun came into being from somewhere. This will quickly dissolve into the chicken and egg syndrome. I agree with your stance concerning manned space flight. I applaud your excellent posts in this thread. On this issue of thermodynamics and eternity however, it seems that we are on opposite sides of the fence. It's all good though. Debates like this provides food for thought for others that may see this in the future.

[cpast]

The Sun came into being from somewhere. This will quickly dissolve into the chicken and egg syndrome. I agree with your stance concerning manned space flight. I applaud your excellent posts in this thread. On this issue of thermodynamics and eternity however, it seems that we are on opposite sides of the fence. It's all good though. Debates like this provides food for thought for others that may see this in the future.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Sun came into being because of the gravitational clumping of matter, which, given the nature of gravity, is higher-entropy than an even distribution.

[KerikBalm]

What I'm trying to prove to you is that not even the laws of thermodynamics are perfect. It's easy to see that. Thermodynamics says that we cannot exist. The stars and the planets did in fact form from dust clouds. We did in fact evolve from lower life forms. Entropy says that this is impossible. So one could conclude that eternity is in fact possible through means that we don't fully understand yet.

You sound like a creationist that doesn't understand thermodynaics.

Theremodynamics in no way says we cannot exist, entropy in no way says that this is impossible - that you claim it does shows that you do not really understand it.

[vger]

You sound like a creationist that doesn't understand thermodynaics.

Theremodynamics in no way says we cannot exist, entropy in no way says that this is impossible - that you claim it does shows that you do not really understand it.

In all seriousness though, NOBODY understands the big bang.

[gamowin]

Let's just make a new communist island country dedicated to innovation. Only certain educated individuals are allowed to immigrate. It would have some of the best research equipment on the planet. The entire country could be funded by one very large country made for the express purpose of fueling the country with money. A company perhaps started by people who wanted innovations in spaceflight and technology, but could only share their ideas through forums for spaceflight video games. Most other countries are too busy with international politics and large populations to do anything worthwhile, so let's just make a new one! Too bad this is only few hundred sequenced transistors expressing text on a server somewhere, and not a real event.

[Rakaydos]

Let's just make a new communist island country dedicated to innovation. Only certain educated individuals are allowed to immigrate. It would have some of the best research equipment on the planet. The entire country could be funded by one very large country made for the express purpose of fueling the country with money. A company perhaps started by people who wanted innovations in spaceflight and technology, but could only share their ideas through forums for spaceflight video games. Most other countries are too busy with international politics and large populations to do anything worthwhile, so let's just make a new one! Too bad this is only few hundred sequenced transistors expressing text on a server somewhere, and not a real event.

thats pretty much the premice of the show Eureka... a small town filled with the best and brightest with unlimited funding. And the main character is the only one in 50 miles with common sense.

[vger]

thats pretty much the premice of the show Eureka... a small town filled with the best and brightest with unlimited funding. And the main character is the only one in 50 miles with common sense.

Or the flipside of that extreme... Bioshock.

[Guest]

You sound like a creationist that doesn't understand thermodynaics.

Theremodynamics in no way says we cannot exist, entropy in no way says that this is impossible - that you claim it does shows that you do not really understand it.

So, you're going to resort to name calling and questioning my understanding of thermodynamics? I understand just fine that nothing in thermodynamics or entropy supports the fact that a random dust cloud can pull itself together into a planet with an uncountable amount of life forms. I'm not trying to say that thermodynamics or science in general is wrong. It works just fine for limited applications. When it comes to applying these theories to unlimited applications like the beginning or the end, they break down. So, go seek your answers to the unknowable from where you want, and I'll do the same and we'll both be happy.

[PakledHostage]

I understand just fine that nothing in thermodynamics or entropy supports the fact that a random dust cloud can pull itself together into a planet with an uncountable amount of life forms. I'm not trying to say that thermodynamics or science in general is wrong. It works just fine for limited applications. When it comes to applying these theories to unlimited applications like the beginning or the end, they break down. So, go seek your answers to the unknowable from where you want, and I'll do the same and we'll both be happy.

How about this: Since you are so familiar with thermodynamics and entropy, please explain to us, using those concepts, how a random dust cloud can't pull itself together into a planet with an uncountable amount of life forms. I am sure that many of us here on this forum would be happy to peer review your argument. So far you've done nothing more than wave your hands. Why should we take your word as gospel? We need to see some science to back it up.

[SargeRho]

I understand just fine that nothing in thermodynamics or entropy supports the fact that a random dust cloud can pull itself together into a planet with an uncountable amount of life forms.

...So you don't understand Gravity or Thermodynamics. Earth is an open system, constantly losing and recieving energy and matter. If the Sun or Gravity didn't exist, you would have a case. But they do and you don't.

Gravity can compress dust clouds into protostellar disks, eventually producing a star(s) and planets.

We can in fact SEE these disks of dust and gas:

Edited July 28, 2014 by SargeRho

[Mr Shifty]

So, you're going to resort to name calling and questioning my understanding of thermodynamics? I understand just fine that nothing in thermodynamics or entropy supports the fact that a random dust cloud can pull itself together into a planet with an uncountable amount of life forms.

I sort of find this argument hilarious. It's easily dismissed simply by watching grass grow. Living things assemble themselves all the time from air and water and sunlight and trace chemicals in the soil. The reproduction and growth of living things is a giant, knotty, information-dense ocean of feedback loops and complex stochastic mechanisms. Life's emergence and evolutionary development are just flotsam floating on the surface.

[Rakaydos]

Life is Entropy by convoluted means. The sun radiates on the earth, and eventually heat is lost by the earth into space. but somewhere between there, that energy pumps a waterwheel of nigh-infinite complexity, full of feedback loops like eddies in the current. The cycle of life, of water, of carbon, O2, and so on and so forth. If the sun vanished, there would still be residual energy in the system, but once the "batteries run dry", so to speak, it's all over.

[KazeNinja]

Yeah I am annoyed that we dont have moon base alpha up yet, but apparently we need more nuclear weapons and random military stuff to protect ourselves but honestly, I think NASA will someday become an industry where medicines are developed for 3rd world countries and help people reach the stars. But it may not be in our lifetime that this happens, or it may not happen at all, as we strive for the path of war and violence rather than science.

Edited July 28, 2014 by KazeNinja
add signature