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.
Posted 11 June 2008 - 05:09 PM
Posted 11 June 2008 - 06:34 PM
Posted 11 June 2008 - 06:42 PM
Posted 12 June 2008 - 12:31 AM
Posted 12 June 2008 - 01:49 AM
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.
Posted 12 June 2008 - 04:36 AM
Posted 12 June 2008 - 04:51 AM
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.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.
Edited by Live Forever, 12 June 2008 - 04:52 AM.
Posted 12 June 2008 - 05:01 AM
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.
Posted 12 June 2008 - 10:37 AM
Posted 12 June 2008 - 01:39 PM
Posted 12 June 2008 - 06:40 PM
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..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.
Posted 12 June 2008 - 06:49 PM
Posted 12 June 2008 - 07:19 PM
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..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.
Posted 12 June 2008 - 07:45 PM
Ya but aging is for sure and asteroids arent.
Posted 12 June 2008 - 11:23 PM
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.
Posted 12 June 2008 - 11:38 PM
I agree with you.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?
Edited by Kostas, 12 June 2008 - 11:43 PM.
Posted 13 June 2008 - 12:34 AM
I agree with you.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?
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 sam988, 13 June 2008 - 12:35 AM.
Posted 13 June 2008 - 02:26 AM
What good is preserving the species if every individual is doomed to die?
Posted 13 June 2008 - 03:08 AM
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.
Posted 16 June 2008 - 07:24 PM
Posted 16 June 2008 - 09:53 PM
Posted 17 June 2008 - 02:19 AM
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.
Posted 17 June 2008 - 05:07 AM
Posted 17 June 2008 - 04:51 PM
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.
Posted 17 June 2008 - 09:27 PM
Posted 06 August 2008 - 11:13 PM
I agree with you.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?
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.
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users