When shall we colonize the entire solar system?!

[kyrgyz]

It would only be possible if and when we could find a way to heat up the moons, have supplies come from Earth at a reasonable rate and can deal with either more or less of an atmosphere than what we now have on Earth.

Humanity is on the verge of creating a real star (nuclear fusion) with limitless power supply. I can envision self-sustaining human colonies on Mars with trees growing and animals living in the contained environment with earth-like atmosphere. There'll be no need to haul supplies, only DNA, seeds, semen, eggs, etc. I can see oxygen, hydrogen, carbon-based compounds being manufactured on distant planets to suit our need.

Read this and watch the video: http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showt...nuclear-fusion

[Wayne Luke]

I agree that any colonization would be decades away. Our population of people living in space is roughly 6 at any given time and they can't stay up there for more than 6 months at a stretch. While sustainable fusion may be the innovation that that propels us into the stars, I don't think it is just around the corner. People have been working on it for 40 years and still haven't made significant sustainable breakthroughs. Even if it did make unlimited energy that could be converted to heat and electricity, it doesn't mean that it will be suitable for a propulsion system either. There are a lot of things to tackle before we have near-Earth colonies.

[kyrgyz]

We might be decades away from a working reactor, but there are positive signs. We can already heat up hydrogen atoms to temperatures only existing in the cores of stars in a controlled environment. Governments are putting a lot of money (billions) into fusion R&D. No doubt that day will come.

At the moment I think nuclear power generation should be utilized more on Earth. Really there is rivalry only between nuclear power and coal/gas/oil. Solar and wind are not at par, and it seems they'll never be.

BTW, aren't some satellites are nuclear powered already?

Wiki on fusion power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

[Razasharp]

You do not have to agree with someone, but unless someone has beliefs with vastly twisted morals (even morals are not well defined, it is still under great debate whether morals are relative or absolute; and in those sub categories, there are even more divisions and debates), you need to respect their opinions.

Oh, so now you've had a change of heart and there is actually a time when you don't believe:

The only true way to progress is to respect differing ideas, cultures, and the like.

I'm glad it's beginning to sink in

Prove to me that a god exists and I'll consider changing my stance - but until then, he's nothing more than a made-up fairytale.

[Cole2026]

Oh, so now you've had a change of heart and there is actually a time when you don't believe:



I'm glad it's beginning to sink in

Prove to me that a god exists and I'll consider changing my stance - but until then, he's nothing more than a made-up fairytale.

It could be reasonably implied in my statement that one should not respect morally twisted culture. However, within that statement fairs a certain sense of moral ambiguity. It is questionable as to whether morals are absolute or relative in nature. Within those two categories, there are numerous ideas of morality (deontology with Kant, or ultilitarianism with Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill). One of the most common threads in moral relativism is the idea of acceptance as the ultimate moral virtue--albeit there are issues with that too. I believe I brought this up somewhere in my other several posts

Philosophy, however, is the realm of existence in which God belongs. I am personally a Buddhist (more so traditional--> Theravada than Mayahana or Chinese Schools), so I do not have much of an opinion of a personified God. It is your prerogative to formulate your own ideas about a god, but it is also important to respect others' views (which is what I was contending in the first place, not your ideas of a god, lol).

[Wayne Luke]

At the moment I think nuclear power generation should be utilized more on Earth. Really there is rivalry only between nuclear power and coal/gas/oil. Solar and wind are not at par, and it seems they'll never be.

Fusion is basically solar power.

BTW, aren't some satellites are nuclear powered already?

Fission, not Fusion. There is a big difference between the two. The only Fusion reactions that have occurred on Earth to date have been in the cores of nuclear weapons when they were detonated.

[kyrgyz]

Fusion is basically solar power.

Generally yes. But by solar we mean energy derived from the sun's rays. Definition from wiki: "Solar power is the generation of electricity from sunlight. This can be direct as with photovoltaics (PV), or indirect as with concentrating solar power (CSP), where the sun's energy is focused to boil water which is then used to provide power."

Fission, not Fusion. There is a big difference between the two. The only Fusion reactions that have occurred on Earth to date have been in the cores of nuclear weapons when they were detonated.

I know that. In my other thread I denoted the two separately. I mentioned nuclear powered satellites to show that technologies already exist to allow us to sustain power-intensive missions , for axample, to Mars. It takes 6 months to get to Mars and another 6 months to get back. A manned mission to Mars is not that unrealistic if we use a nuclear mini reactor the same way as NAVY submarines do.

[Wayne Luke]

I know that. In my other thread I denoted the two separately. I mentioned nuclear powered satellites to show that technologies already exist to allow us to sustain power-intensive missions , for axample, to Mars. It takes 6 months to get to Mars and another 6 months to get back. A manned mission to Mars is not that unrealistic if we use a nuclear mini reactor the same way as NAVY submarines do.

Satellites do not use nuclear fission for propulsion. They use it to generate electricity. If they need attitude or altitude adjustments, than they use jet-fuel powered thrusters or pre-packaged air canisters (think wall-e and the fire extinguisher) to do that.

In fact, nuclear powered naval ships don't use it directly to provide propulsion. In nuclear powered ships, they have fission reactors that heat water to generate steam and power turbines that create electricity. The turbines power engines that propel the ships in traditional ways. i.e. turn a propeller. If the reactor needs to be shut down for any reason, they have diesel engines that can act as backups.

There are theoretical methods of using fission reactions to generate radioactive ions that can propel a ship through space but they haven't been tested or even built. All we have are computer models that work under ideal conditions. Fusion is different though. While it could turn a propellor, that wouldn't have any affect in moving a ship in space as there is nothing to propel against. It could generate electricity but there are no methods to convert that electricity to thrust without an external fuel source. You could probably use the hydrogen and oxygen generated but you need massive quantities of these fuels. That is what the orange tank is filled with to get the space shuttle into space. The fuel tank is bigger than the ship.

Now, I am sure that in time someone will come up with an efficient engine that makes space travel reliable but there are a lot more things to cover than cheap electricity. However I doubt anyone on these forums will see such breakthroughs within their lifetimes. Our current method of space travel is still to strap people on large bombs and using the subsequent chemical reactions to toss them into space. Really nothing more than controlled explosions.

[Razasharp]

It could be reasonably implied in my statement that one should not respect morally twisted culture. However, within that statement fairs a certain sense of moral ambiguity. It is questionable as to whether morals are absolute or relative in nature. Within those two categories, there are numerous ideas of morality (deontology with Kant, or ultilitarianism with Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill). One of the most common threads in moral relativism is the idea of acceptance as the ultimate moral virtue--albeit there are issues with that too. I believe I brought this up somewhere in my other several posts

Philosophy, however, is the realm of existence in which God belongs. I am personally a Buddhist (more so traditional--> Theravada than Mayahana or Chinese Schools), so I do not have much of an opinion of a personified God. It is your prerogative to formulate your own ideas about a god, but it is also important to respect others' views (which is what I was contending in the first place, not your ideas of a god, lol).

Now come on, don't back track. I had already said this:

And I never said it isn't up to people to believe what they want. However, that doesn't mean I have to respect their views, opinions or beliefs.

So, if in fact you actually agreed with that (which is what you are saying now) you wouldn't have said:

The only true way to progress is to respect differing ideas, cultures, and the like

It's ok to change your mind about things

Re Buddhism - I see it more a way of life than anything else, very different to the monotheistic religions that I have a profound revulsion for.

[Cole2026]

Now come on, don't back track. I had already said this:



So, if in fact you actually agreed with that (which is what you are saying now) you wouldn't have said:



It's ok to change your mind about things

Re Buddhism - I see it more a way of life than anything else, very different to the monotheistic religions that I have a profound revulsion for.

Ultimately, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism (we'll throw in the basis religion for Judaism in there too) are peaceful religions. You should respect a religion or belief system that does not violate your own liberty to have your own belief system. Just because I did not explicitly state that from the beginning does not mean that I am changing my mind. It is people who beget evil (a metadescription of anything "bad" :P), not religion. For example, the (paleoconservative or neoconservative; Glenn Beck seems to be successfully amalgamating them into one grouping) Christian movement in the US is astoundingly for the maxim that the US is Winthrop's (famous puritan sermon) "shining beacon on a hill," and that America must force its "superior" system on the rest of the world. These people believe that torture is justified, which goes strictly against tenets of the Bible, which argues that all human life is to be revered and is sacred. The fundamentalism is birthed out of an oligarchy that effectively controls the "sheep of the world." These sheep are the people you revile, and even if religion is abolished absolutely, the sheep will still remain and will continue to hinder progress with their lack of understanding.

Since I have gotten to college, I have not been able to have an intelligent conversation with someone in MONTHs, so this is quite a nice discussion, even though it has little to do with the topic at this point.

[Razasharp]

I disagree. I don't think monotheistic religions are, on the whole, peaceful. Sure they have some nice bits here and there but it's the bad bits, ingrained into the core which to be frank, scares the **** outta me.

But like you said we're digressing - my original point was that the world would be a better place if:

...people embrace logic, reason and science, and stop believing silly myths, superstitions and 'fairy tales' (like religion).

If somebody had an invisible friend, and talked to them every night - you'd think they're crazy.
If somebody said their friend walked on water, or turned the river red - you'd think they're a bit more that loopy!
Yet when millions of people do it they call it religion!

When are we going to stop pandering and start ridiculing and denouncing these silly, out-dated and frankly, untrue beliefs? Not soon enough!

[Wayne Luke]

Really, if you want to argue about the merits or problems of religion please take it privately. This topic actually has nothing to do with religion.

[Razasharp]

Really, if you want to argue about the merits or problems of religion please take it privately. This topic actually has nothing to do with religion.

Actually Wayne I think it has everything to do with religion, on a profound and very deep level:

If we continue to separate ourselves by prejudices and feud, wasting time and resources on self-destruction.....

All of which are commonly associated with religion.