Space Shuttle Columbia Has Broken Apart Upon Re-Entry

[Breton]

Originally posted by Vagabond

No, it's insurance for the survival of our species. We need to first colonize the moon, then Mars, and so on. If we have siginificant Human colonies on several planets, Humanity could carry on if the Earth were struck by a planet-killing asteroid.

 

Firstly, I mentioned how to solve the planet-killing asteroid problem.

 

And, the technology to colonize other planets is so far ahead in time that we might as well shut down the entire space program for the next 100 years.

 

And why not care about our own planet instead of all the other planets? Did you know that Mars is better mapped than our own ocean?

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

...Firstly, I mentioned how to solve the planet-killing asteroid problem...

 

So, let me get this straight - you think it would be easier to develop and deploy - what - some type of satellite system that could destroy an incoming asteroid that is perhaps several miles wide, than it would be to deploy a settlement on the moon? Ya, that makes sense And before you suggest, "we could just nuke'em", that won't necessarily work as many asteroids aren't even solid bodies, but rather relatively loose collections debris that would absorb any nuclear blast with little effect to its trajectory - not to mention the political hurdles of the world allowing nuclear weapons in orbit.

 

And if not nukes, then what "system" could possibly protect us from planet-killing asteroids for "a tenth" of the money it would take to establish a moon colony? Do you even know what a moon colony would cost? I think you need to research your comments before you start authoritatively proclaiming what can and cannot be done with unknown amounts of money and nonexistent systems. A more accurate comment is that both a moon colony and an "asteroid defense system" would both be highly expensive.

 

Given the choice, I'd vote for the moon colony over a defensive system that would very likely have to be refurbished, rebuilt and replaced several times before ever seeing any action - the time scales we're talking about here are millions of years - longer than the existence of Humanity.

 

A better approach to preserving our species is to lessen the impact of an asteroid impact by not putting all our eggs in one basket. It's cheaper in the long run, and in the time it would take for any "asteroid defense system" to actually perform its function, we may already be visiting other star systems.

 

Humanity can't just turtle up on fortress Earth - the key to our very survival lies in space. Period.

[Kurgan]

Well said Vag, I can't possibly add anything better to what you posted, except to address some earlier ideas:

 

Every time there is a national (or international) tragedy or if some famous person dies, somebody always says "well, people die every day, why are these lives worth any more or why should we be more sad for them" etc.

 

By that logic, we might never mourn when anyone dies, period. Personally, I privately mourn in my heart every time I hear of somebody dying. I tell myself they had a life, family/friends, hopes and dreams, or something to contribute and now they're gone. I wish them to be at peace.

 

Now, I admit, that the closer a person is to you, the more it forces you to emotionally confront their dying. In this case, these people were doing a very public and very humanitarian type of research, that had grave risks involved. As was said, we should honor them, and continue their work, with caution, but also determination.

[Wilhuf]

See NASA's Columbia Crew Profiles for information on the crew.