How would the US Space Force factor into a future Stargate series?

[Annoyed]

and what sort of effort
and the side effects of that effort

If you are so terrified of side effects that you are paralyzed, you don't move forward, do you?

Back in the 60's, during the Apollo program, there were some people who were concerned that the Saturn 5 rocket (to this day, the most powerful machine created by mankind, at least until SpaceX uses their biggest) would somehow damage the atmosphere.

Modern rockets work by burning hydrogen & oxygen, the byproduct of which is water. The thing can't possibly harm the environment, even of it blows up.

But suppose someone had paid attention to the people who were afraid of it? Supposed the project was stopped or held up in the courts. (which would be quite likely today) We would have never landed on the moon.

Do we want fear to paralyze our development?

I mentioned the power of the Saturn V for a reason. That was the the energy required to get 3 men to the moon & back.

Unless we blow ourselves to bits, eventually we will develop energy technology to levels as far beyond that as the Saturn V is beyond two sticks being rubbed together. If we want space travel, we have no choice. As we travel that road, we will go a long way towards solving the other problems.

[Xaeden]

Unless we destroy ourselves via war, I think it's inevitable that we will eventually be able to break the FTL barrier.

There's zero scientific evidence that faster than light travel is even plausible, so I think it's a stretch to say that's inevitable. That humans have broken other barriers that were thought impossible does not mean all things we think of impossible have equal weight. FTL is made to seem as equally plausible as breaking the sound barrier because it's a staple of science fiction, but there are very valid, well thought out scientific reasons to be skeptical that it's possible in the real world.

What I'm saying is that the if we can develop that, we will have also solved the problems we have, which are largely caused by scarcity of resources.

I got that and agree. If we make it to the point where we can seek out and colonize other planets, we'll certainly be advanced enough to manage the climate on Earth and will have long ago done so. That was my point in emphasizing how long it would take us before we can reach other planets. The only point I disagreed with you on was that we'd need a FTL drive to colonize exoplanets.

[SoulReaver]

If you are so terrified of side effects that you are paralyzed, you don't move forward, do you?

Back in the 60's, during the Apollo program, there were some people who were concerned that the Saturn 5 rocket (to this day, the most powerful machine created by mankind, at least until SpaceX uses their biggest) would somehow damage the atmosphere.

Modern rockets work by burning hydrogen & oxygen, the byproduct of which is water. The thing can't possibly harm the environment, even of it blows up.

But suppose someone had paid attention to the people who were afraid of it? Supposed the project was stopped or held up in the courts. (which would be quite likely today) We would have never landed on the moon.

Do we want fear to paralyze our development?

you mentioned new clean energy production methods
nowadays it's those at the head of the not-so-clean energy indu$try (did I say fo$$il fuel) who are hindering research into alternatives
so by the time we do get there it could be too late

[Annoyed]

you mentioned new clean energy production methods
nowadays it's those at the head of the not-so-clean energy indu$try (did I say fo$$il fuel) who are hindering research into alternatives
so by the time we do get there it could be too late

And if we paralyze ourselves, we won't get there at all.

[SoulReaver]

And if we paralyze ourselves, we won't get there at all.

you saying bad way & no way are the only 2 choices? +_-

[Annoyed]

you saying bad way & no way are the only 2 choices? +_-

Isn't that what you have in many choices you have to make? The lesser of two evils.

[Xaeden]

Isn't that what you have in many choices you have to make? The lesser of two evils.

Decisions that can have a global or regional impact shouldn't be viewed in the same black and white terms you may view your everyday life choices. We're at a stage in our development where we are developing technologies that can negatively impact the lives of millions of people with one wrong step. That demands a measure of careful study.

In your earlier example, that doesn't mean we either go to the moon or don't. It means if there were actually valid enough concerns, we'd allow scientists the time to develop a well researched impact study to weigh the risks and propose alternatives if deemed too dangerous. There are currently calls to study the impact of surface to space rocket launches on our atmosphere (https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/31/1...r-stratosphere). It's believed that the impact is minimal right now (not non-existent as you claim), but there are concerns that will change when there are thousands of launches per year. If proper funding is put into studying whether this is the case and, if so, how damaging it will be, there may be time to develop alternatives without delaying human space ambitions. For example, maybe humans should be devoting more of their time and resources into developing space elevators instead of rockets. Wouldn't it be good to find that out now before wasting resources on rocket development that may have to regulated after damage is done?

There are a lot of areas where studies are required before action can be taken. There are environmental impact studies that must be performed before certain development projects can get underway, safety inspections before you can buy a house, and drug studies before we have another harmful debacle like this: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/z...erations-later This doesn't ensure that everything will turn out dandy, but it does limit the overall risks of either rushing into action or not having supporting data when you want to act.

You can take issue with the length of time that a study should be allowed to delay action or what the threshold should be for not approving something when data indicates that there may be consequences, but it is necessary to have that data available so an informed decision can be made. Sure, maybe someone's interpretation of the data in a particular instance will lead to an unwarranted level of inaction, but if that happens you can argue against the decision in that individual case.

[SoulReaver]

Isn't that what you have in many choices you have to make? The lesser of two evils.

so the lesser evil is letting the upper elites pollute as much as they want (as opposed to holding them responsible for their actions)

[Annoyed]

so the lesser evil is letting the upper elites pollute as much as they want (as opposed to holding them responsible for their actions)

Much as I would like to. I'm not going to get into a discussion or RL issues due to the first new order here.

[SoulReaver]

Much as I would like to. I'm not going to get into a discussion or RL issues due to the first new order here.

this is only about science :|
very simple logic says for human science to progress it makes sense not to #$%$ up the ecosystem humans depend on in the first place (cause you know without future no progress)

[Annoyed]

Decisions that can have a global or regional impact shouldn't be viewed in the same black and white terms you may view your everyday life choices. We're at a stage in our development where we are developing technologies that can negatively impact the lives of millions of people with one wrong step. That demands a measure of careful study.

In your earlier example, that doesn't mean we either go to the moon or don't. It means if there were actually valid enough concerns, we'd allow scientists the time to develop a well researched impact study to weigh the risks and propose alternatives if deemed too dangerous. There are currently calls to study the impact of surface to space rocket launches on our atmosphere (https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/31/1...r-stratosphere). It's believed that the impact is minimal right now (not non-existent as you claim), but there are concerns that will change when there are thousands of launches per year. If proper funding is put into studying whether this is the case and, if so, how damaging it will be, there may be time to develop alternatives without delaying human space ambitions. For example, maybe humans should be devoting more of their time and resources into developing space elevators instead of rockets. Wouldn't it be good to find that out now before wasting resources on rocket development that may have to regulated after damage is done?

There are a lot of areas where studies are required before action can be taken. There are environmental impact studies that must be performed before certain development projects can get underway, safety inspections before you can buy a house, and drug studies before we have another harmful debacle like this: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/z...erations-later This doesn't ensure that everything will turn out dandy, but it does limit the overall risks of either rushing into action or not having supporting data when you want to act.

You can take issue with the length of time that a study should be allowed to delay action or what the threshold should be for not approving something when data indicates that there may be consequences, but it is necessary to have that data available so an informed decision can be made. Sure, maybe someone's interpretation of the data in a particular instance will lead to an unwarranted level of inaction, but if that happens you can argue against the decision in that individual case.

So, maybe we should have never swam up out of the seas, learned to build fires or even exist?
Everything we do has impact on our environment if you look hard enough for it.

[SoulReaver]

So, maybe we should have never swam up out of the seas, learned to build fires or even exist?
Everything we do has impact on our environment if you look hard enough for it.

cancer's a normal part of our physiology therefore we shouldn't try to prevent it?

[Xaeden]

So, maybe we should have never swam up out of the seas, learned to build fires or even exist?
Everything we do has impact on our environment if you look hard enough for it.

I specifically said we're at a point now where our actions have the potential for large scale consequences, so the responsible thing is to collect data and study the impact of our actions before leaping into action. How do you take that to mean we should not have done low impact things in our past or that we should do nothing at all?

This is like if I said it would be a good idea properly inspect a giant tank containing two million gallons of molasses and repair or swap it out with a new tank if inspectors agree that it's unsafe (https://www.history.com/news/great-m...-flood-science). In response you reply, "So I guess that means we can't have molasses anymore because it could potentially kill people." That, like your actual reply, would be a complete misrepresentation of my point. There's a difference between building a fire and detonating a nuclear bomb or burning a few hundred fires and creating thousands of rockets that release potentially dangerous particles directly into the stratosphere.

We used to have a very large hole in the ozone. As of last year, it was at its smallest level since the hole was discovered in 1982 thanks to radical efforts that cut back on the ozone damaging chemicals we previously released. One way that was done was by banning harmful gases found in aerosol spray cans, refrigerants, solvents, etc., and replacing them with gases that do not harm the ozone. Imagine if we were able to figure out what the consequences of CFCs and halons were before widespread usage damaged the ozone. We could have substituted them with the same gases that we use now before the damage was ever done. This doesn't mean I'm saying you can't have hairspray, just that there was a better alternative to get hairspray technology to people that we missed and because of that humans had to spend massive amounts of money trying to correct the problem and switching to the new gases after the fact. Cleanup efforts and redevelopment (spending time pursuing a technology, learning that it's a dead end, banning it, and then having to start developing an alternative) is far more expensive than putting money into impact studies. That added cost and time slows progress.

Like you, I want humans to innovate and develop new technology. I want humans to go back to the moon, to develop a space industry, to explore the solar system, and one day explore other solar systems. I also want to see new technologies that increase the comfort, pleasure, and qualities of life for people here on Earth. The difference is merely that I think the best way to do that is to let scientists engage in studies so they can find the best ways to do those things that have the lowest probability for harm and the lowest probability that one way of doing something won't waste time and create a mess that later has to be cleaned up.

[SoulReaver]

We used to have a very large hole in the ozone. As of last year, it was at its smallest level since the hole was discovered in 1982 thanks to radical efforts that cut back on the ozone damaging chemicals we previously released. One way that was done was by banning harmful gases found in aerosol spray cans, refrigerants, solvents, etc., and replacing them with gases that do not harm the ozone. Imagine if we were able to figure out what the consequences of CFCs and halons were before widespread usage damaged the ozone. We could have substituted them with the same gases that we use now before the damage was ever done. This doesn't mean I'm saying you can't have hairspray, just that there was a better alternative to get hairspray technology to people that we missed and because of that humans had to spend massive amounts of money trying to correct the problem and switching to the new gases after the fact. Cleanup efforts and redevelopment (spending time pursuing a technology, learning that it's a dead end, banning it, and then having to start developing an alternative) is far more expensive than putting money into impact studies. That added cost and time slows progress.

this shows the hypocrisy of the Space Farce creators they pretend to be apostles of the future & progress while at the same time dismissing & deriding (if not outright reviling) the real scientists

[Annoyed]

I specifically said we're at a point now where our actions have the potential for large scale consequences, so the responsible thing is to collect data and study the impact of our actions before leaping into action. How do you take that to mean we should not have done low impact things in our past or that we should do nothing at all?

This is like if I said it would be a good idea properly inspect a giant tank containing two million gallons of molasses and repair or swap it out with a new tank if inspectors agree that it's unsafe (https://www.history.com/news/great-m...-flood-science). In response you reply, "So I guess that means we can't have molasses anymore because it could potentially kill people." That, like your actual reply, would be a complete misrepresentation of my point. There's a difference between building a fire and detonating a nuclear bomb or burning a few hundred fires and creating thousands of rockets that release potentially dangerous particles directly into the stratosphere.

We used to have a very large hole in the ozone. As of last year, it was at its smallest level since the hole was discovered in 1982 thanks to radical efforts that cut back on the ozone damaging chemicals we previously released. One way that was done was by banning harmful gases found in aerosol spray cans, refrigerants, solvents, etc., and replacing them with gases that do not harm the ozone. Imagine if we were able to figure out what the consequences of CFCs and halons were before widespread usage damaged the ozone. We could have substituted them with the same gases that we use now before the damage was ever done. This doesn't mean I'm saying you can't have hairspray, just that there was a better alternative to get hairspray technology to people that we missed and because of that humans had to spend massive amounts of money trying to correct the problem and switching to the new gases after the fact. Cleanup efforts and redevelopment (spending time pursuing a technology, learning that it's a dead end, banning it, and then having to start developing an alternative) is far more expensive than putting money into impact studies. That added cost and time slows progress.

Like you, I want humans to innovate and develop new technology. I want humans to go back to the moon, to develop a space industry, to explore the solar system, and one day explore other solar systems. I also want to see new technologies that increase the comfort, pleasure, and qualities of life for people here on Earth. The difference is merely that I think the best way to do that is to let scientists engage in studies so they can find the best ways to do those things that have the lowest probability for harm and the lowest probability that one way of doing something won't waste time and create a mess that later has to be cleaned up.

The circumstances and behavior of those who advocated regulation of CFCs was completely different than we see today. What we see today is extremely politically motivated.

As I've said to SR, I'm not going to get into a discussion on politics unless the keepers of this anthill reverse their decisions and allow political and other controversial RL topics again. You can't separate this out into science and political because it IS political these days.