Cecil is usually right on the money, but he missed by at least a parsec this time. While he covered all the reasons NASA would cite to keep us taxpayers from revolting, he left out what they (and DOD) don’t want us to know about – the nuclearization and militarization of space, coupled with good old-fashioned capitalist greed. For a quick intro:
The Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space
Lighten up. We can’t even control France.
Um, which time? I don’t recall any column by Cecil on this topic, and there certainly hasn’t been one recently.
Wow. It seems somebody in Gainesville, FL has been gettin’ inta Granny’s rhumatiz tonic or has been drinking some spiked Gatorade.
“Plans are now underway to place mining colonies on [the moon and Mars]” Puleheese. We do not have the launch capacity to do anything like that in the near future.
Also there is a big difference between nuclear WEAPONS in space and nuclear POWER in space. Although, the proponents of Project Orion came pretty close to blurring that distinction.
On a final, and unrelated note: As long as the far-left produces such innane, illogical, and ilinformed drivel, it will never be able to accomplist its objectives. For example, the “left” produces Sean Penn as its Anti-War spokesperson; the “right” produces a career diplomat with extensive experience in dealing with the Middle East. I may disagree with both, but the Hawk sounds better informed and better able to justify his position.
Don’t worry, BondJamesBond, there are plenty of deluded ninnies on all sides of the political spectrum. They just come out at different times.
Actually, Chronos, there’s this wonderful technology that you may not have heard of. What they do is take droplets of ink (you can think of them as pixels) and emboss them on a thin membrane made from chemically processed shavings from dead trees. It enables the user to read information (like Cecil’s columns) entirely independent of an internet connection, or even independent of a computer. Sometimes the information is even disseminated by these dead trees prior to it being posted on the internet.
In other words, it’s Cecil’s column for this week, which should appear on the front page on Friday. (Thank you New York Press for picking up Cecil’s column again!)
I’m moving this to Great Debates, since it doesn’t seem to relate to any Column by Cecil that I can think of… Space viruses aboard the Mir? Meteor explosion over Siberia? Roswell? I’m stumped.
Well, there certainly are plans for colonies on the Moon and Mars. There are also plans to invade Canada. There are all sorts of wonderful plans.
As far as I can tell, this is a diatribe against weapons in space, environmental contamination of space, and nuclear power in space.
While the first is understandable, the second… bwah? There is no ‘there’ there. Outer space and other locations that lack atmosphere HAVE no environment as we know it. Certainly, garbage collection is important, but…
What the heck is wrong with atomic energy in space? Something goes horribly wrong and… uh. Nothing not affecting those next to it happens. Safest place for it in the universe.
Heck, why would anyone have an objection to a lunar mining colony? Will the disturbed ground endanged the lunar dust clot? I mean, what can you possible screw up, up there?
It is perhaps a question of perspective…
if the little bit of space near earth is colonised by several nations, there are going to be lots vehicles and machines with military potential up there. If the chinese space program gets off the ground (pun not intended) the US and ESA will not be able to underfund their own progams any more.
Any spacecraft with a decent enough propulusion system to get to the moon is a respectable kinetic weapon full of explosive material. Nuclear power systems are invaluable until solar collection systems are set up, and if solar power is collected by remote satellites the power might be transmitted by potentially deadly laser or maser.
You can’t demilitarise space, as it happens, because everything is a potential weapon of mass destruction.
Many of my fellow liberals have a problem with space and nuclear power. For many, science is not their strong suit.
This, however…
…is ridiculous and has no place in this thread.
roncarol’s post is basically the same-old same-old: “Why spend money on space, when there are so many needs for that money here on Earth?”, “We can’t trust the U.S., because we all know the Americans are a slavering, rapacious, imperialist horde”, etc., etc.
sigh It’s rather sad that so many people fried their brains on too much marijuana and LSD back 30-40 years ago.
We have to go to space because we have to tap new resources if we’re to continue to enjoy the standard of living we have now. The eco-doomsters are right, inasmuch as their doomsday scenarios are inevitable IF we confine ourselves to the Earth in our search for natural resources. If we relax that constraint, and include the entire Solar System as our resource base, then the eco-doomster argument collapses, and there’s no practical limit to the prosperity that the ENITRE HUMAN RACE can one day enjoy.
And that is ultimately my beef with the likes of roncarol. Their politics are bad enough, and I won’t touch on them here. But what is worse is their whining about how bad it would be if we (mankind, not just the U.S.) explore the cosmos. They’re just like the people who, five centuries ago, claimed that Columbus’ voyages were pointless and that no good could possibly come of them. :rolleyes:
I can forgive their timidity and obtuseness. What I can’t and won’t forgive is their arrogance. Just because THEY have no courage and imagination, they would forbid the rest of us from going forth and taming a wilderness for the benefit of all mankind.
Feh.
Hale Adams
Hey man! We tried doing nothing and it didn’t work!
Like it or not mankind is going into space. If we don’t take a lead role in colonization and resource utilization, someone else will. I would rather it be us.
Would it not have been easier just to provide a link, instead of pasting the whole thing?
You say this like it is a bad thing.
I mean that. Capitalism has been a driving force behind invention and discovery throughout history. Why suggest it to be the villain of the piece, when it is the force that may drive exploitation of resources off-planet?
Moderator’s Note: Roncarol, please don’t post threads whose original posts consist entirely or substantially of cut-and-pasted text from other web sites. For one thing, we take intellectual property seriously here, and such posts raise potential copyright concerns; for another, such threads are unpleasantly like spam. If you want to refer to an article on another web site, just post a link, along with a brief quotation, or better yet, describe your views on the subject in your own words. I have edited your post accordingly.
(I have grave doubts that we’ll ever hear from roncarol again, but perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised.)
So it turns out that Cecil’s column today is the one that was being commented on: Why do we travel in space?
I dunno how this guy got so much advance notice, but now I’m sorry that I moved it. Oh, well.
Dex,
I suspect that he read it in one of the newspapers that the column is syndicated in (which I tried to explain in too many words above). In New York, the column comes out in New York Press on the Tuesday before the column is posted on the website.
Um … now that this week’s Cecil Adams column is up and available at http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030307.html, should this thread be moved back to Comments on Cecil’s Columns?
D’OH! I leave my screen alone for 10 lousy minutes, and suddenly I’m guilty of a triple simulpost!
<Emily Latella>
Never mind.
</Emily Latella>