In The News

[DoomRulz]

I heard about that earlier...f**king sucks. He was taken from us too soon

[Novak 1334]

I heard about that earlier...f**king sucks. He was taken from us too soon

Wonderful talent.  The Sopranos goes without saying, but he was excellent in both The Last Castle and Welcome to the Rileys

[Xenomorphine]

We don't "need" to set up new colonies. The technologies and systems they might develop to land on an asteroid safely would be nothing but beneficial in the long run -- even if they fail they'd still be helping.

Heck, even if we go by the need for colonisation, it's still not trivial -- Ceres, the largest asteroid in the asteroid belt, has been proposed as a potential site for human colonisation. It would actually make transporting materials, particularly from the asteroid belt itself, to Mars or the Moon easier and more energy efficient than doing so from the Earth (The place only has an escape velocity of half a kilometer a second.) Being able to successfully land on the sucker would seem to be a good way to get the ball rolling on that, don't you think?

Technically, no, we don't absolutely have to, but it would give civilisation a second chance if our planet ever got got hit by something big enough. Until we get serious about asteroid detection and defence, that's always going to be a worrying concern.

Out of those two, I'd put money more on colonisation than asteroid defence, personally. The UN wastes too much money every year to make that a realistic goal and it would need something global in nature (unless the treaty on weapons in space is reversed).

Challenger was over 15 years after Apollo 18, 19 and 20 got canned, and at least 5 years after Skylab.  Then there was another 25 years of shuttle missions with the prime focus on near Earth obrit missions.

Don't see any connection between Challenger and lack of moon bases.

It's been a while since I really looked into the issue, but weren't there some serious plans for moon or Mars before Challenger? Whenever there's a documentary on about NASA, there's always someone in a lab coat saying how the Challenger disastar put tons of stuff on hold.

[SM]

No doubt, but there were never any concrete plans to return to the moon after 17.  Probably until Bush Jnr raised it a few years back.

[DoomRulz]

We don't "need" to set up new colonies. The technologies and systems they might develop to land on an asteroid safely would be nothing but beneficial in the long run -- even if they fail they'd still be helping.

Heck, even if we go by the need for colonisation, it's still not trivial -- Ceres, the largest asteroid in the asteroid belt, has been proposed as a potential site for human colonisation. It would actually make transporting materials, particularly from the asteroid belt itself, to Mars or the Moon easier and more energy efficient than doing so from the Earth (The place only has an escape velocity of half a kilometer a second.) Being able to successfully land on the sucker would seem to be a good way to get the ball rolling on that, don't you think?

Technically, no, we don't absolutely have to, but it would give civilisation a second chance if our planet ever got got hit by something big enough. Until we get serious about asteroid detection and defence, that's always going to be a worrying concern.

Out of those two, I'd put money more on colonisation than asteroid defence, personally. The UN wastes too much money every year to make that a realistic goal and it would need something global in nature (unless the treaty on weapons in space is reversed).

My concern is that people won't be ready for colonising another planet when the time comes. Everyone talks, it seems, about colonising Mars and such because Earth is dying. Here's an idea: why don't save this planet first before screwing up another one?

[Xenomorphine]

I'd argue that we're already in the process of doing so. Technology is accelerating at a tremendous rate. Trouble is, countries like China and India are still going for cheap and dirty...

Outside of nuclear/biological war, massive solar flare or an asteroid impact, I think that our long-term future is a really bright one. Especially with the advent of things like new materials and 3D printing. In fact, I'm really excited for the possibilities of how radically advanced 3D printing might become in even just five years' time (by which time, I'm pretty sure we'll be starting to see the basic models as common in homes as paper printers - maybe all-in-one). It's one of those incredible tools which we haven't even begun to really scratch the surface of yet.

[SM]

The cartridges always cost a bomb though...

(Unless of course you just print more)

[DoomRulz]

I'd argue that we're already in the process of doing so. Technology is accelerating at a tremendous rate. Trouble is, countries like China and India are still going for cheap and dirty...

Outside of nuclear/biological war, massive solar flare or an asteroid impact, I think that our long-term future is a really bright one. Especially with the advent of things like new materials and 3D printing. In fact, I'm really excited for the possibilities of how radically advanced 3D printing might become in even just five years' time (by which time, I'm pretty sure we'll be starting to see the basic models as common in homes as paper printers - maybe all-in-one). It's one of those incredible tools which we haven't even begun to really scratch the surface of yet.

The technology is nice I agree but the bigger question is ultimately, will it be used for good or evil? I think history has taught us that new technology inevitably always finds its biggest home in military applications.

[maledoro]

The technology is nice I agree but the bigger question is ultimately, will it be used for good or evil? I think history has taught us that new technology inevitably always finds its biggest home in military applications.

Which begs the question: is that a good thing or a bad thing?

[Effectz]

Mystery miracle clears John Paul II for sainthood

Homeslice here dropping miracles like it ain't no thing,he's on his second one now!

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/1850462/report-mystery-miracle-clears-john-paul-ii-for-sainthood

[Xenomorphine]

You have to be a pretty dumb, even for a racist, to think that turning up to court in a Nazi uniform would help your case...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nj-nazi-dad-pregnant-fiancee-hope-lil-eva-braun-article-1.1376354

The cartridges always cost a bomb though...

(Unless of course you just print more)

Actually, there was a recent article on Wired, where an inventor's made it so that you can just put garbage in and his device will create the raw printing materials from it, Mr Fusion-style!

The technology is nice I agree but the bigger question is ultimately, will it be used for good or evil? I think history has taught us that new technology inevitably always finds its biggest home in military applications.

It's a tool. There may be negative uses, but the positive ones, like creating entire organs for medical emergencies, will far outweigh those. Providing you had a huge enough printer, there'd be nothing preventing us from literally 3D printing entire houses (or at least modular segments of them) for relatively cheap money, too. I could also see a time when charities just send out a 3D printer and specialist to some African village in poverty, have it create the components for making a well or electric generator... That proverb about 'teach a man to fish' being taken to its ultimate, awesome conclusion.

A lot of people forget, 3D printers don't just use plastic. They do metal, living cells, practically anything...In future, I wouldn't be surprised to see single models being able to print in anything you put in them. When the technology matures sufficiently, they'll effectively eliminate the 'middle man' of logistics... You won't need stuff to be delivered locally. The manufacturer/copyright holder would just have the schematic request sent over and your shop will tell you the thing you're buying will be ready in five minutes. You could literally see it being created.

Eliminating the expense of logistics is going to force us to rethink the way our economies function, given enough time. Especially with pure data transfer being impossible to tax in the way physical goods are during transactions now. We're a way off from that, but the basic models are getting sold in Staples. Can hardly imagine what a decade of development will mean for this... Even if it's just creating our own life-sized articulated Stan Winston designs.

In fact, I just thought, this impacts colonisation efforts for Mars directly... If we only need to send data, instead of actual supplies, they can just 3D print/fabricate whatever they need. Massive savings for on-going transportation and fuel costs! Send some colonists with their own fabricators and tools, sit back and let them take care of it.

[DoomRulz]

The technology is nice I agree but the bigger question is ultimately, will it be used for good or evil? I think history has taught us that new technology inevitably always finds its biggest home in military applications.

Which begs the question: is that a good thing or a bad thing?

What, military application? It can go either way but human greed dictates the latter usually.

[Xenomorphine]

Which begs the question: is that a good thing or a bad thing?

3D printing's already being used for military applications. The US Army sends in 'MASK'-like containers to zones of conflict, which are outfitted with scientists and a 3D printer. They've had much success with it in Afghanistan, printing out replacement parts for soldiers in the immediate area, which would otherwise need a much larger logistics chain to supply for.

Already being used for creating military aircraft, too. Makes life easier for the manufacturer. Instead of needing to create multiple parts, they can just create a single wing/whatever. In some cases, that even decreases the weight.

[DoomRulz]

That would make it a good thing because they're solving logistical and economical issues surrounding getting new equipment to soldiers, but that speaks to what I was saying about military application. It starts small but could end up being something bigger and deadly.

[AliceApocalypse]

The technology is nice I agree but the bigger question is ultimately, will it be used for good or evil? I think history has taught us that new technology inevitably always finds its biggest home in military applications.

Which begs the question: is that a good thing or a bad thing?

It's an awesome thing.  Technology is not always used for bad. Just imagine all the customized parts the general public can make for cars and bikes!  Example, when I get my hands on a 3D printer I'm going to totally redesign the front end of my GSXR, print it, and just pop it on.  Maybe the back end too.  Then just change it all later.  It will be endless creative joy.  I'm excited about the 3D printing technology.