Can space travel really offer a viable solution to the problems the human race has created on this planet?

Question

if not... what can we do to help save the earth?

Answer 1

Yes, that may be the "final solution" for all of mankind in case "global warming" causes unsafe living conditions in which man may have no other choice but to have the technology to evacuate to planet Mars! =<)

Answer 2

It's possible, but the problem is that using space travel as a solution requires vast resouces (time, money, etc.) that we may not have given the current problems. It's fairly clear that ther are no other places in this solar system that are easily inhabitable by humans. We may be able to acquire useful resources (war, minerals, maybe even hydrocarbons) from nearby celestial objects, but we probably can't live there (without spending more energy than we gain). That only leaves interstellar travel, which either requires magico-technology (technology so far advanced it may as well be magic) or the ability and willlingness to set out on journeys that take at least decades if not generations. So, while I believe the solution may lie in space, I'm not sure that we haven't passed the point where it's already too late.

Answer 3

Human beings were made for this planet and once it becomes a complete mess it will be the dooms day.

Going to another planet and colonising there means extending the human life till eternity.

The problems created on this planets will be transferred to another planet, because human mentality will not change, the environment may.

So the solution will not be obtained but the problems will be partly shifted to other places in the universe, with the basic problem remaining unsolved on earth

the only solution is the dooms day

Answer 4

In theory, absolutely. In practicality, probably not within our lifetime.

The current human population is around 6.5 billion. The carrying capacity (the maximum population that can be sustained by the world's resources) is estimated around 9 billion. there is a possibility that we may be able to overshoot this through technological innovation -- as we did by genetically engineering crops a few decades ago (see: Norman Borlaug). However, the population maximum will always be finite on this planet, and so unless we can sustain the global population by limiting ourselves to an average of 2 children for every two parents, it is going to get very crowded -- and our resources would become very limiting, and eventually be unable to sustain any further growth. Finite resources will cut off the growth in any case -- it would just be more comfortable for everyone if we approach it through gradual population control, before we are subject to massive die-offs instead.

Once we limit our population based on the the planet's resources (which it appears we are going to have to do within the next century) -- and assuming we don't kill each other with nuclear weapons, biological warfare/terrorism, or alterations in climate and/or atmospheric gas content -- the problem will be put off for quite some time... but inevitably, all planets eventually die. And long before this happens the planet will at some point become uninhabitable -- via dramatic changes in climate, atmospheric gas content, possibly volcanic activity -- our technology may sustain us for a while, but every planet's life is finite. It is at this point that we will have to pack our bags and head on, assuming this is technologically possible (and that we are still here) by then. We would probably have the techology before that time, however, assuming an unexpected cataclysm does not occur.

That there are habitable planets beyond this one can hardly be questioned. Given the sheer number of planetary solar systems, the number of possibilities for planets having the right temperature range, mass, atmosphere and water content is too large to be impossible or even unlikely. The challenge will be in getting to such localities, assuming that Einstein was correct and that solid matter cannot attain light speed.

Answer 5

Carl Sagan says no, in a seminar I attended at NASA, a few years ago. But figure it out in terms of cost. It is highly unlikely that our experience in outer space will stumble upon some way to save us from ourselves. If such a thing could ever be achieved, it would probably ony be possible with a small group of people who are set permanently into space, perhaps using cryogeics, etc, to make it possible to travel to another life-sustaining planet during one lifetime. It would allow the perpetuation of our species, but not of our planet.
Bottom line: we must solve our problems here. Those who might get away to continue the species elsewhere will have no effect on us or anyone living here.

Answer 6

Space travel may allow us to homestead new land. The Earth is growing smaller every day. There will be 12 to 15 billion people by 2100. There will be 30 to 45 billioin by 2200.

You eventually reach a point where there isn't enough farm and animal production to feed that many people.

Space travel, to be successful, would have to discover new ways of making fuel, making or regerating air, making or regenerating water and would also produce new ways of growing food. It would also teach us how to create a better ecosphere.

This is MANDIATORY for any colony on the Moon or Mars larger than 50 people.

It takes 10-12 pounds of food, water and air per person, per day and the most we can send up on one ship is 20,000 pounds. That's enough to support 50 people for 40 days. It costs millions to send up that rocket. So you're talking like $20,000 per person, per day to feed in space.

To make space vialle we have to get that down to at least $100 a day per person.

To make space commercial we have to have a SURPLUS to sell to Earth.

Answer 7

Wow, the place'd you hear that? somebody's been spinning tall thoughts (or, a lot extra in all probability, difficult interplanetary and interstellar). we've the skill to deliver robot probes everywhere interior the image voltaic device, and are merely on the cusp (or on the brink of it) of being waiting to deliver human beings to the closest planet. it quite is hardly interstellar commute. OTOH, we do merely particularly (and with super fee) have the skill to deliver a probe to the closest action picture star, if we actually wanted to. it could take a pair of century to get there nevertheless. Any of the above could have been at the back of what you heard. yet none of that (or regardless of if we had action picture star Trek-like starships!) could make us invincible. If we've been fooling around in interstellar area, there ought to continuously be an alien race available someplace with extra advantageous and extra advantageous weapons and engines than us.

Answer 8

Although there are other planets, they're really not habitable. And even though there are some that have been discovered outside our solar system, they're sooooo far away, it's not a solution that would work for the people alive on earth here and now...

We've really got to develop solar power as our sole power source...and we've got to do it yesterday.

Answer 9

Satellites observing Earth from orbit are vital to any program to help preserve the environment. Data from Mars and Venus may give us hints on how to help Earth. Settling other planets is probably not practical in the near future.

Answer 10

Yes and no. Space travel offers a wealth of knowledge and, eventually, resources.

But as you pointed out--most problems humanity faces are of our own making. If we don't start making aneffort to "clean up orur act" neither space travel or anything else will be a "magic bullet" that willdo it for us.