The "Environmental" card & Space Exploration

[A l t e r E g o 9]

I vote NO.

 

I used to be all uptight about the damage we do to Earth and was worried about what we would do to space and other planets but then I read a verse in the Bible (please stay with me here>) which changed my opinion to one of, it doesn't matter: Where no oxen are the stalls are clean See what I mean?

 

So in my opinion whether we are on Earth in space or on another world, pollution is just a fact of life and should not be made into an issue against space exploration. Wouldn't you agree?

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

I vote NO. Pollution will allways be an issue. As a dominant species, we just need to make sure we don't do serrious damage to the environment and recycle what we can.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

It's funny, one of the theories that says we could terraform Mars calls for the use of some of the same things that we consider "pollution" here on Earth.

 

I've actually been of the opinion that we could use space to rid ourselves of some of our pollution though. It would have to be studied of course, but imagine if we could somehow launch all of our nuclear waste into the sun, or off in deep space. The practicality of that and the ramifications are for a higher pay grade them me but it's an idea that I think would be worth exploring.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

I voted no because we have already "polluted" space to an extent such that makes subesequent exploration dangerous. I'm talking about all the debris littering our upper atmosphere that could cause problems by potentially colliding with spacecraft going into space. So we don't have to leave the planet to pollute space.

 

But I do not believe that we should just accept pollution as inevitable and shrug it off. We should just use a little sense and be responsible - here on Earth many people have found ways to responsibly use resources, recycle and increase the communities wealth by doing so.

 

Of note I was reading about a water purification system that will recycle something like 99% of al water waste on spacecraft for re-use. That would be a trial of my faith in science.

 

VBG, just read your post, reminds me of the ep of VOY where that planet was dumping its radiation in space...

[Ace 0]

I want an SUV. That should answer your question. (I'm not actually that indifferent about it, but my answer is still no.)

[Angela 1]

Well my youthful exuberance says worry about that which may hit your head so I hit the yes button

[A l t e r E g o 9]

 

 

Bumping one of my own old threads for a change. :P

[Bethlehem 7]

I voted yes we are just plain messy. a dominant species on earth, might be a little arrogant to think we would be in the universe

[HRH The KING 0]

It's funny, one of the theories that says we could terraform Mars calls for the use of some of the same things that we consider "pollution" here on Earth.

 

That's right.

 

Sending industrial polluting machines to Mars which will spew greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to build a life-sustaining atmosphere.

 

Around the same time, plants would be sent to Mars to absorb the CO2 and produce oxygen.

 

All done with robotics and automation.

 

That should be the plan for Mars. Not the astronaut with the pretty flag.

 

That's what we should do with the Moon first. To test the technology.

[APW 0]

Pollution should be a concern.

We've already shown a nearly complete disregard for the well-being of our own environment here on Earth.

Until we do right by this one planet God has given us,we don't deserve the freedom to export ourselves to other worlds.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

It's funny, one of the theories that says we could terraform Mars calls for the use of some of the same things that we consider "pollution" here on Earth.

 

 

These chemicals in and of themselves are not considered "pollution" - I think everyone understands that life wouldnt' exist on this planet without these greenhouse gases.

 

The question (the debate) is whether the increased concentration of these gases is 1. manmade and 2. responsible for global warming.

 

HRH The KING Posted Aug 20 2005, 06:58 PM

 

All done with robotics and automation.

 

That should be the plan for Mars. Not the astronaut with the pretty flag

 

That is the most practical, cost effective method. It just doesn't have the "romance" of stepping on to a foreign planet.

 

Of course, there's always the fear that there will be some microbe not found on Earth that will react differently with the combination of gases. Makes for a good scifi movie of the week. B)

[Susan_Delgado 0]

It's funny, one of the theories that says we could terraform Mars calls for the use of some of the same things that we consider "pollution" here on Earth.

 

That's right.

 

Sending industrial polluting machines to Mars which will spew greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to build a life-sustaining atmosphere.

 

Around the same time, plants would be sent to Mars to absorb the CO2 and produce oxygen.

 

All done with robotics and automation.

 

That should be the plan for Mars. Not the astronaut with the pretty flag.

 

That's what we should do with the Moon first. To test the technology.

348225[/snapback]

 

I think you are exactly right, HRH. We should experiment with the technology on the moon first .... I often wonder what was the point of the Apollo program if we never follow up on it?

 

Plus, I think it would just be incredible to have people actually living and working ON THE MOON in my lifetime -- if the terraforming thing works. So much more exciting than the International Space Station (at least to me.)