/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8027198
>Guess what, jack shit happened since then.
Primarily due to politics, rather than any "hard" problem. Also, quite a bit has happened since then, but it's all been small, incremental stuff. Useful, but not spectacular.

>the limited travels of a hadful of people into Earth's orbit are just exceptions cofirming the rule which states that we ain't gonna go anywhere.
Actually, those trips have built up a lot of the skills, experience and technology we'll need to go anywhere.

>>8027215
>you somehow think that going into a vacuum where you die almost instantly due to even "small" failures (think the space shuttle catastrophes) is a better idea.
It is if it allows you to go somewhere new.

>If you think that humans can stop being dependant on the Earth's ecosystem, then you are simply delusional.
Why? We can definitely decrease our dependence, and the better we get at it the less often we'll need to resupply. How is it absurd to think that the minimum dependence will eventually reach zero?

>>8027151
>putting a small base there is already a fucking tremendous first step. From there, putting in a bigger base, eventually even expanding underground into an entirely self-sufficient facility
This.
Everything is space travel boils down to small steps, each bigger and longer and further away.

>>8027222
>You have to supplement yourself with complicated contraptions which cost billions, and the moment any of them fails (and failure is happening constantly in all space programs and many missions) you're probably dead meat
Actually, the entire point of good design is that a single failure ISN'T fatal. That's why astronaut deaths are a rare exception, rather than happening every time something breaks. Also, you seem to be drifting back towards "This is hard therefore we shouldn't try".

>Thanks, I'll stay on Earth where I have oxygen all around me, water nearby, available food, not don't have to worry that I may die any instant.
And no-one is saying you shouldn't do that.