What really sucks is that I'm too old to be on that ship.

It is cool, but the phrase "excessively cool" is not.

Chris:

If you're 50 or younger, don't give up hope.

oj:

You slay me.
You want humans to explore the universe (high five), BUT, if they're cyborgs, or genetically modified to enhance their chances of success or survival, you won't acknowledge them as human.

The biggest thing is, we can't give up on funding NASA, OR some other organization. There are a number of companies working on far cheaper Earth-to-low-orbit spacecraft, than the Shuttle.

See the "X-prize" for more info on those efforts.

Michael:

I don't get it. I want humans to explore the universe. You want some other species to do so. That's okay for you, but what does it have to with my hope for our species?

As I recall, Voyager 1 carries a phonograph record with lots of Earth-information on it.

Here's a new project we could promote: send a record player out there.

Perisis Khambatta???

Thank you, Dennis Miller. Funniest joke I've heard since the fall of the Plantaganets at Bosworth Field!

Mr. Judd;

I can't find a reference to it now, but I read many years ago about "suicide science" missions of this nature. Suppose we built a craft that could sustain a set of people longer then they'd naturally live and fired it off into interstellar space, with no hope of return. What are the moral implications of that? There would of course be volunteers, but should they be allowed to go?

AOG - It would be a fine alternative punishment for hardened criminals. However, we take the risk that they might meet an alien species, and leave a bad impression.

AOG:

I think Phillip would volunteer. I have no problem with that.

AOG:

They aren't committing suicide. I'd go if I could.

oj:

That's the point. They'll be as human as you are. Assuming, of course, that you are.

AOG:

Of course.
Travel on the high seas was once a risky proposition. Columbus sailed off on what turned out be a near-suicide voyage, guided only by his arrogance.
That worked out pretty well for the world, and was certainly moral.

Also, it'd be far easier to design a ship like that, than one that was supposed to return.
In fact, with enough money, we could have that ship ready to go in a decade.

Just as long as my taxes are not involved, y'all go ahead.

I agree. Being willing to dedicate literally the rest of your life to penetrating the void between the stars, and forswearing seeing Earth ever again, isn't suicidal; it's supreme dedication and commitment. Thing is, if we can ever figure out how to get a starship moving at a *substantial* fraction of _c_, we may even be able to get our hypothetical starsailors to the closest stars before they get too old to do effective work. That, or start thinking seriously about building generational starships, which opens up several big new cans of worms.

Of course, we could always hope for a Zefram Cochrane to come along... :)

Say, whatever happened to ol' Persis anyway?

I saw a special on Discovery about some Parisian bridge built a few hundred years ago. It took 30 years to build.

Imagine our present form of government undertaking something similar. It's laughable. We're so "democratic", it wouldn't last 2 presidential terms. We are incapable of doing anything monumental anymore.

This leads to us not having sufficient institutional memory for such things. Remember the Apollo rockets? Revolutionary technology which we could still use even today. Not gonna happen, though. Wanna know why? *They didn't keep the blueprints.* All of 'em trashcanned.

The attraction of a multi-generational starship is that it could get out from under the thumb of "democracy" and do something significant on its own power. Just think, not being technically beholden to anyone but your own group.

We need ISS and a new space plane. Nothing is going to happen without it. Give green lights to the entrepreneurs, too.