26 replies to this topic

[forever freedom]

NASA Plans to Visit the Sun


I didn't know NASA had the technology to get that near the sun. Looks like the movie Sunshine, yet the movie happens around 2050.

[Luna]

Fun

[brokenportal]

Enlightening

When are we going to go back and walk on the moon anyways?

[VictorBjoerk]

with the security requirements today the next walk on the moon may linger....Really interesting btw

[Live Forever]

At closest approach, Solar Probe+ will be 7 million km or 9 solar radii from the sun. There, the spacecraft's carbon-composite heat shield must withstand temperatures greater than 1400° C and survive blasts of radiation at levels not experienced by any previous spacecraft. Naturally, the probe is solar powered; it will get its electricity from liquid-cooled solar panels that can retract behind the heat-shield when sunlight becomes too intense. From these near distances, the Sun will appear 23 times wider than it does in the skies of Earth.

Wow, 1400° C (equal to 2552° F) is hella hot. Good that it will be solar powered, though, haha.

[Shepard]

Looks like the movie Sunshine, yet the movie happens around 2050.

I thoroughly recommend this movie to everyone. It was the best pure science fiction I've seen in a long, long time. I love it.

[cyborgdreamer]

That's cool and all, but I wish the government would focus on research that helps people. There will plenty of time to explore space when we're not all aging to death.

[Live Forever]

Looks like the movie Sunshine, yet the movie happens around 2050.

I thoroughly recommend this movie to everyone. It was the best pure science fiction I've seen in a long, long time. I love it.

I liked it when I first saw it, and then I read some articles and saw a couple video clips on how bad the science was in the film, which I think colored my hindsight of the movie negatively.

http://space.newscie...e.ns?id=dn11385
http://io9.com/34013...ler-in-sunshine
...etc...

It has a tremendously good story, though.

Edited by Live Forever, 12 June 2008 - 04:52 AM.

[Shepard]

I liked it when I first saw it, and then I read some articles and saw a couple video clips on how bad the science was in the film, which I think colored my hindsight of the movie negatively.

It has a tremendously good story, though.

There is a commentary on the DVD with the science adviser (physicist) where he talks about some of the corners they had to cut for flow. It's just part of making flicks. Stuff like that usually doesn't bother me since I expect it and would hope anyone would do it for the sake of the movie.

[Luna]

I am surprised no one said "Cool"

[biknut]

They better take a lot of Bull Frog spf 15,000,000,000

[platypus]

That's cool and all, but I wish the government would focus on research that helps people. There will plenty of time to explore space when we're not all aging to death.

On the other hand there will be plenty of time to cnquer aging and death after we've ensured that one asteroid cannot finish the whole humanity off..

[Cyberbrain]

Cool

[brokenportal]

That's cool and all, but I wish the government would focus on research that helps people. There will plenty of time to explore space when we're not all aging to death.

On the other hand there will be plenty of time to cnquer aging and death after we've ensured that one asteroid cannot finish the whole humanity off..

Ya but aging is for sure and asteroids arent.

[Shepard]

Ya but aging is for sure and asteroids arent.

But the overall risk of asteroids is potentially much greater, since a large enough one could wipe out the species. It's just those of us currently alive that worry more about aging.

[cyborgdreamer]

Ya but aging is for sure and asteroids arent.

But the overall risk of asteroids is potentially much greater, since a large enough one could wipe out the species. It's just those of us currently alive that worry more about aging.

What good is preserving the species if every individual is doomed to die?

[Cyberbrain]

Ya but aging is for sure and asteroids arent.

But the overall risk of asteroids is potentially much greater, since a large enough one could wipe out the species. It's just those of us currently alive that worry more about aging.

What good is preserving the species if every individual is doomed to die?

I agree with you.

First off, the chances of an asteroid hitting earth and killing me is 0.002%. The chance of aging killing me is 99.999% (thats why I opt for cryonics).

I don't really care much to what happens to the species if I'm dead (unless if I'm in cryonics, then I need the species to survive ). Besides, the species is bound to die and evolve into post-humans (according to transhumanism) anyway.

And as cyborgdreamer said, if we don't conquer aging, then the species is doomed anyway to die off eventually.

The way I see things is to first achieve immortality, evolve into higher beings, expand into space, learn as much about the universe as possible and hopefully become a type III civilization where we could control the destiny of the universe or create a new one.

Edited by Kostas, 12 June 2008 - 11:43 PM.

[forever freedom]

Ya but aging is for sure and asteroids arent.

But the overall risk of asteroids is potentially much greater, since a large enough one could wipe out the species. It's just those of us currently alive that worry more about aging.

What good is preserving the species if every individual is doomed to die?

I agree with you.

First off, the chances of an asteroid hitting earth and killing me is 0.002%. The chance of aging killing me is 99.999% (thats why I opt for cryonics).

I don't really care much to what happens to the species if I'm dead (unless if I'm in cryonics, then I need the species to survive ). Besides, the species is bound to die and evolve into post-humans (according to transhumanism) anyway.

And as cyborgdreamer said, if we don't conquer aging, then the species is doomed anyway to die off eventually.

The way I see things is to first achieve immortality, evolve into higher beings, expand into space, learn as much about the universe as possible and hopefully become a type III civilization where we could control the destiny of the universe or create a new one.

I second that.



Chances of me dying because of an asteroid in this century are 0. something percent, while chances of me dying of aging-related disease is MUCH higher. It's the 80/20 rule (actually in this case it's pretty much a 99/1 rule -and i only give it a full "1" because the chances of me being killed by an asteroid if we consider my time also in cryonic suspension are bigger-), always focus on the important and most significant.

Edited by sam988, 13 June 2008 - 12:35 AM.

[Shepard]

I'm not saying it should be one or the other. I think both life extension and existential risk should be a high priority.

What good is preserving the species if every individual is doomed to die?

I'm not an immortalist. I'm a life extensionist, I guess. I value life even knowing it has to end at some point.

And, as to the others not caring what happens to the species if they are dead....I don't have a response to that. I tend to respect people that are willing to work to improve things even if they won't be around to enjoy the fruits of their labor. If they can through eventual life extension, I think that's awesome.

[cyborgdreamer]

I'm not an immortalist. I'm a life extensionist, I guess. I value life even knowing it has to end at some point.

I'm most definitely an immortalist. I hate living in a world where involuntary death exists.

And, as to the others not caring what happens to the species if they are dead....I don't have a response to that. I tend to respect people that are willing to work to improve things even if they won't be around to enjoy the fruits of their labor. If they can through eventual life extension, I think that's awesome.

I'm not sure if that was addressed to me but I didn't mean it like that. Even if I *shudder* don't make it, it's very important to me that those who are still around have the best chance possible. What I meant was that I'd rather prevent something has a high probabilitly of killing every person one at a time, than something with a low probability of killing the population all at once. Of course, we should still work toward preventing existential risks as long as it doesn't slow progress toward a cure for aging.

[Infernity]

I always live in paranoia that some secret organizations have more sophisticated technology than what we can even think of and that everything we do and think is known and some people are already traveling the universe and we don't know of that. -_- bastards.

[knite]

One thing I have learned in my few years on this earth is that focusing too much on one thing (life extension) without regard for anything else will invariably lead to stagnation. You'll get stuck with nowhere to go on the life extension front. Exploring is a very valuable pursuit. I often see people say on these forums, "If only they had taken that money and put it towards life extension, we would be so much closer." I often tend to disagree, firstly, because throwing money at something very quickly leads to diminishing returns, secondly, because the benefits in one are OFTEN lead to benefits in other areas, so the money spent elsewhere contributes directly to something that SEEMED unrelated. So what I am saying is... relax, scientific advance is good wherever it is, and not having a pure focused goal leads to BALANCE. Can you imagine attaining immortality only to have a rock crash into us and kill everyone, and we had no idea it was possible...now that would be sad. So these investments, even if they are failures, are wholly worthwhile, and may benefit immortality more than you know. Its like building a pyramid, you have to build a whole lot on the bottom before you can add the tiniest bit to the top.

[forever freedom]

One thing I have learned in my few years on this earth is that focusing too much on one thing (life extension) without regard for anything else will invariably lead to stagnation. You'll get stuck with nowhere to go on the life extension front. Exploring is a very valuable pursuit. I often see people say on these forums, "If only they had taken that money and put it towards life extension, we would be so much closer." I often tend to disagree, firstly, because throwing money at something very quickly leads to diminishing returns, secondly, because the benefits in one are OFTEN lead to benefits in other areas, so the money spent elsewhere contributes directly to something that SEEMED unrelated. So what I am saying is... relax, scientific advance is good wherever it is, and not having a pure focused goal leads to BALANCE. Can you imagine attaining immortality only to have a rock crash into us and kill everyone, and we had no idea it was possible...now that would be sad. So these investments, even if they are failures, are wholly worthwhile, and may benefit immortality more than you know. Its like building a pyramid, you have to build a whole lot on the bottom before you can add the tiniest bit to the top.

Unwillingly, you're just making our case. Balance is what we want. In a balanced world, the most important areas would receive investments proportional to their importance. We don't want ALL the money in the world poured into life extension, just enough money to compensate for the immense importance that it has, yet the world doesn't see it that way, yet.

[Infernity]

I very much agree with you Knite, it's the same thing with investing money on finding solutions for other diseases, if we don't do that, we might just get it and let our immortal bodies die from a stupid disease.

[knite]

One thing I have learned in my few years on this earth is that focusing too much on one thing (life extension) without regard for anything else will invariably lead to stagnation. You'll get stuck with nowhere to go on the life extension front. Exploring is a very valuable pursuit. I often see people say on these forums, "If only they had taken that money and put it towards life extension, we would be so much closer." I often tend to disagree, firstly, because throwing money at something very quickly leads to diminishing returns, secondly, because the benefits in one are OFTEN lead to benefits in other areas, so the money spent elsewhere contributes directly to something that SEEMED unrelated. So what I am saying is... relax, scientific advance is good wherever it is, and not having a pure focused goal leads to BALANCE. Can you imagine attaining immortality only to have a rock crash into us and kill everyone, and we had no idea it was possible...now that would be sad. So these investments, even if they are failures, are wholly worthwhile, and may benefit immortality more than you know. Its like building a pyramid, you have to build a whole lot on the bottom before you can add the tiniest bit to the top.

Unwillingly, you're just making our case. Balance is what we want. In a balanced world, the most important areas would receive investments proportional to their importance. We don't want ALL the money in the world poured into life extension, just enough money to compensate for the immense importance that it has, yet the world doesn't see it that way, yet.

I would say "importance" here is subjective. Anyway, I generally see most medical research as life extension research, and if you are saying that theres not enough money in that, you need to read some figures. As for actual life extension, well, I would say as soon as it is accepted that it is a plausible possibility (living forever, or a really really long time), you will see investment in it shoot through the roof.

[VictorBjoerk]

Yes,Aging should currently be prioritated over space exploration...however I find tese plans to visit the sun very interesting........

[Dmitri]

Ya but aging is for sure and asteroids arent.

But the overall risk of asteroids is potentially much greater, since a large enough one could wipe out the species. It's just those of us currently alive that worry more about aging.

What good is preserving the species if every individual is doomed to die?

I agree with you.

First off, the chances of an asteroid hitting earth and killing me is 0.002%. The chance of aging killing me is 99.999% (thats why I opt for cryonics).

I don't really care much to what happens to the species if I'm dead (unless if I'm in cryonics, then I need the species to survive ). Besides, the species is bound to die and evolve into post-humans (according to transhumanism) anyway.

And as cyborgdreamer said, if we don't conquer aging, then the species is doomed anyway to die off eventually.

The way I see things is to first achieve immortality, evolve into higher beings, expand into space, learn as much about the universe as possible and hopefully become a type III civilization where we could control the destiny of the universe or create a new one.

I read on MSNnews 5 years ago that an asteroid is headed towards Earth and that it could impact by 2029.

Anyway, I think it's great that we are exploring space, if we want to live for centuries or forever it's imperative we find another life sustaining planet to prevent overpopulation in this one.