Shuttle Columbia 'lost'

[W]

Originally posted by cnaw
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/628515.stm

I would laugh, but I've read it before, so the comedy of it is old.

I have a book on volcanoes, and it doesnt mention the word super anyway! Ever!

It has the word Bumper written on the front though..

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by Rick
i'll believe it when I see it.

first, if it wiped out almost all humans it would have killed almost all everything else too, and there is no real scientific source mention of a near dinosaurean extinction in recent history like this would be.

What should we do about it? sacrifice maidens to the volcano gods in yellowstone? go back to the stone age? stop using pesticides? every person who develops a fantastic end of the world scenario always has a plan in mind in which they benefit from the solution.

third, there is no point in throwing "supervulcanism" into any browser because it will only generate links of people who believe in the theory as its a word invented by them and its a psuedo science.

What happened during the last eruption of a super volcano?
The last eruption of a super volcano was in Toba, Sumatra, 75,000 years ago. It had 10,000 times the explosive force of Mount St. Helens and changed life on Earth forever. Thousands of cubic kilometres of ash was thrown into the atmosphere - so much that it blocked out light from the sun all over the world. 2,500 miles away 35 centimetres of ash coated the ground. Global temperatures plummeted by 21 degrees. The rain would have been so poisoned by the gasses that it would have turned black and strongly acidic. Man was pushed to the edge of extinction, the population forced down to just a couple of thousand. Three quarters of all plants in the northern hemisphere were killed.

Have you ever visited Yellowstone? I have, it really is there, it really is a Supervolcano, and it really will erupt again. Last eruption, and I don't have the source handy, but it coated the current state of Nebraska with a thick layer of ash and wiped out everything living there. The ash is basically a fine glass that shredded the lungs of the animals that breathed it, their last moments were spent coughing blood and fighting for air.
Why people refuse to believe geologists I do not understand. I certainly don't plan to hide, I'm going back to Yellowstone this summer. But denying it will erupt again, or thinking that man is so great that it won't hurt us much is both foolish and arrogant.
It is not psuedo-science, it is geology and Archeology at work, and it is a verifiable fact.
Biologists also confirm that there is to little genetic variation in humans. They are able to trace it back to a point between 70,000 and 80,000 years ago, all modern humans are decended from the people who lived then, the gene variation does not extend beyond that.

Here is a nice Yellowstone link, if you know how to read.
http://www.solcomhouse.com/yellowstone.htm

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by W
I would laugh, but I've read it before, so the comedy of it is old.

I'm afraid your ignorance is greater than I thought, explains all the other bull**** ideas you post as well.
Come back in 30 years when you have as much knowledge as you think you have now, and tell me if you think the same.

[Cochese]

Originally posted by Rick
I do not understand the preoccupation with going to mars. We already know there is nothing there and we dont need to send a human there just to see and do nothing and come back and tell us all about the nothing.

By your reasoning then, the moon missions of the late 1960's-1970's were pointless, as would be further missions there.


It's not about practicality, it's about exploration and acheivment. Why climb Everest? Why sail around the world? Why fly for that matter?

The moon has been done. Bases will come in time, but now isn't the time. Mars becons, even moreso after this shuttle disaster. The public needs something to excite them, something to inspire them...and sending people to Mars will do just that.

There will come a time when we will have to perfect basic things like orbital processing/refining, asteroid mining, etc...but now isn't that time. We've waited long enough to get to Mars, and we shouldn't wait any more. The next generation needs something that incredible to keep interest in space alive and growing.

Practical approaches to space just won't do it.

[W]

Originally posted by Nixjim
I'm afraid your ignorance is greater than I thought, explains all the other bull**** ideas you post as well.
Come back in 30 years when you have as much knowledge as you think you have now, and tell me if you think the same.

I don't know what I hate more. The fact that people like you can pretend to know stuff without feeling embarrased, or that others might actually beleive what your kind ever say.

Scientists have revealed that Yellowstone Park has been on a regular eruption cycle of 600,000 years. The last eruption was 640,000 years ago…so the next is overdue. The next eruption could be 2,500 times the size of the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption. Volcanologists have been tracking the movement of magma under the park and have calculated that in parts of Yellowstone the ground has risen over seventy centimeters this century.

That's from your page...
Another source says this:

The Yellowstone supervolcano has erupted regularly over the past 2 million years at intervals of about 600,000 years. The last time was about 640,000 years ago, making another eruption "imminent" in geological time.

Now, I dunno if you spot the difference. The later mentions how long these erruptions have been "regular". Note the numbers. 2 million. 600 thousand. How many times can you fit a 600 thousand year period into a 2 million year era?3 isn't it? If my math is not mistaken? Now, lets take the gross math of it. 600 000*3=1 800 000. Yett it says "past 2 million years". To me, this indicates that these numbers are inaccurate aproximations. 600 thousand years fit aproximately 3 times into 2 million years. note that 2 million years/3=660 thousand years, so you can estimate an error on these numbers of atleast 50 thousand years. That means that given the statistical universe of measurements is so small, with such a large error, it's impossible to predict anything. The last three days, it snowed aproximately 10 cm each day. So you tell me. Does this mean it will snow exactly 10 cms tomorrow? Does it mean it will snow tomorrow, but it might be as little as 5 cm? Or might it be that this snow was the last for this season, that it will melt and we'll have rain the rest of the spring? I'm sorry if I go on about this, I just want to make sure it sinks in what kind of "science" you're dealing with here. Please note that exactly ZERO of the journalists that get to write up these articles and make these programs, ever does this kind of superficial analysis of the numbers. If they feel a number is wrong, or somehow lessens the impact of the story, they're fully capable of just omitting it.

Now I'm sure that the geologic society et al have honourable motives behind the fearmongering they're currently performing; they just want more funding for science, and especially the sciences they feel are most important, the sciences they enjoy. I'm equally sure they draw a clear line between their real science, and the science they do for the politicians and media.

Now, unless you have accurate dates (lets say with an error margin of less than 10 thousand years) for these three erruptions of yellowstone, I do not want to hear another word about it. You're making a fool of yourself. I want humanity to go on as much as you do. I want space colonization as much (probably much more) than you do. But I don't base my hopes and dreams on science fiction, popular science, or articles written by journalists. I base them on science.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by W
I don't know what I hate more. The fact that people like you can pretend to know stuff without feeling embarrased, or that others might actually beleive what your kind ever say.


That's from your page...
Another source says this:
Now, I dunno if you spot the difference. The later mentions how long these erruptions have been "regular". Note the numbers. 2 million. 600 thousand. How many times can you fit a 600 thousand year period into a 2 million year era?3 isn't it? If my math is not mistaken? Now, lets take the gross math of it. 600 000*3=1 800 000. Yett it says "past 2 million years". To me, this indicates that these numbers are inaccurate aproximations. 600 thousand years fit aproximately 3 times into 2 million years. note that 2 million years/3=660 thousand years, so you can estimate an error on these numbers of atleast 50 thousand years. That means that given the statistical universe of measurements is so small, with such a large error, it's impossible to predict anything. The last three days, it snowed aproximately 10 cm each day. So you tell me. Does this mean it will snow exactly 10 cms tomorrow? Does it mean it will snow tomorrow, but it might be as little as 5 cm? Or might it be that this snow was the last for this season, that it will melt and we'll have rain the rest of the spring? I'm sorry if I go on about this, I just want to make sure it sinks in what kind of "science" you're dealing with here. Please note that exactly ZERO of the journalists that get to write up these articles and make these programs, ever does this kind of superficial analysis of the numbers. If they feel a number is wrong, or somehow lessens the impact of the story, they're fully capable of just omitting it.

Now I'm sure that the geologic society et al have honourable motives behind the fearmongering they're currently performing; they just want more funding for science, and especially the sciences they feel are most important, the sciences they enjoy. I'm equally sure they draw a clear line between their real science, and the science they do for the politicians and media.

Now, unless you have accurate dates (lets say with an error margin of less than 10 thousand years) for these three erruptions of yellowstone, I do not want to hear another word about it. You're making a fool of yourself. I want humanity to go on as much as you do. I want space colonization as much (probably much more) than you do. But I don't base my hopes and dreams on science fiction, popular science, or articles written by journalists. I base them on science.

Have you ever actually had a single coherant thought in your life?
If you want to debate when the next eruption will be fine. If you want to debate how large it will be fine. If you desire to learn fine.
If you are claiming it can't happen then you need more proof than your loudmouthed denial.

Fact:
Yellowstone has had three major eruptions in the past 2.1 million years. The first was 2.1 million years ago, the latest was 640,000 years ago. I don't have the date for the second one handy but I can find it with a little searching, as you could if you would only look.

Prediction, Yellowstone will erupt again. This is based both on the three previous eruptions, and the continuing activity at the site.
Smart money says it will be big, first eruption was 2,500 times bigger than Mt. St. Helens, second was I THINK 260 times more powerful, third was 1,000 times more powewrful, again I don't have full data on the second one, though I went through this awhile back and had loads of info at the time.

You truly have not understood anything I have posted here.
I am not doomsaying, I'm not saying humanities days are numbered. I'm saying major disasters causing global extictions have happened numerous times in the past, and all evidence shows they will happen again. The one most likely to happen in the near (100,000 years or so) future is another major eruption of Yellowstone. Best way to assure humans survive it is to develop space travel and colonization. No science fiction, no unfounded claims, just facts you can't disprove so you instead try attacking me. Your inabilty to disprove me speaks as loud as your words, by your last post you have lost this debate. Come back if you find some actual facts proving Yellowstone doesn't exist, and that it will never erupt catastrophically again. If you don't see that the embarrassment is yours you are blind. No one knows when or how big the next eruption will be. One major earthquake in the region could weaken the crust enough to start the countdown, and major quakes are hard to predict. The one thing most geologists agree on is that it will happen someday.
Unlike you I try to keep informed rather than just outright denying anything I don't want to hear, and I like to share information. In your book that makes me an evil person, that you think that way speaks very poorly of you.
BTW, there is a link to the USGS at the bottom of that page, typical government they try to downplay it, but even they acknowledge that it could go in the near future.

From their site:
Is it true that the next eruption of Yellowstone is overdue?

No. The fact that two eruptive intervals (2.1 million to 1.3 million and 1.3 million to 640,000 years ago) are of similar length does not mean that the next eruption will necessarily occur after another similar interval. The physical mechanisms may have changed with time. Furthermore, any inferences based on these two intervals would take into account too few data to be statistically meaningful. To say that an eruption that might happen in ten's or hundred's of thousand's of years is "overdue" would be a gross overstatement. On the other hand we cannot discount the possibility of such an event occurring some time in the future, given Yellowstone's volcanic history and the continued presence of magma beneath the Yellowstone caldera.

Here it is since you have trouble finding anything on your own:

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/

The FAQ page is here:

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/faqs.html

If you wish to continue this start a new thread, if you wish to admit you are wrong go ahead. If you still cling to your delusions then go bury your head in the sand. This is getting to far off topic for this thread.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Nixjim
From their site:
Is it true that the next eruption of Yellowstone is overdue?

No. The fact that two eruptive intervals (2.1 million to 1.3 million and 1.3 million to 640,000 years ago) are of similar length does not mean that the next eruption will necessarily occur after another similar interval. The physical mechanisms may have changed with time. Furthermore, any inferences based on these two intervals would take into account too few data to be statistically meaningful. To say that an eruption that might happen in ten's or hundred's of thousand's of years is "overdue" would be a gross overstatement. On the other hand we cannot discount the possibility of such an event occurring some time in the future, given Yellowstone's volcanic history and the continued presence of magma beneath the Yellowstone caldera.

Doesnt this paragraph support _W_'s position, not yours?

Originally posted by Nixjim
We don't have millienia until it blows, at best 100,000 years, at worst within our lifetime. And when it blows expect 99% of the human population to die..

versus

Originally posted by W

To me, this indicates that these numbers are inaccurate aproximations.

8<--- <maths> ---

you cannot extrapolate in any meaningful way from such a limited and inaccurate set of measurements, the journalists writing those articles have hyped this up to make it more exciting (paraphrase)

?

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Doesnt this paragraph support _W_'s position, not yours?

Therein lies the paradox. My position is that the Ultimate goal of space exploration is to colonize other planets, so when something goes boom down here we won't go extinct. The fact that Yellowstone is a proven Supervolcano, with a fairly regular eruption cycle that is, if it adheres to the cycle again, due to erupt sometime in the near future, means that we should not be dragging our feet overly much in our advancements into space.
W's point is that none of that is true and I'm an idiot.
Seriously, I don't see why he is so opposed to my point of view.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Nixjim
Therein lies the paradox. My position is that the Ultimate goal of space exploration is to colonize other planets, so when something goes boom down here we won't go extinct. The fact that Yellowstone is a proven Supervolcano, with a fairly regular eruption cycle that is, if it adheres to the cycle again, due to erupt sometime in the near future, means that we should not be dragging our feet overly much in our advancements into space.
W's point is that none of that is true and I'm an idiot.
Seriously, I don't see why he is so opposed to my point of view.

Wouldnt it be a just as good a prediction to say that we would be likely to have the technology to cope with a 'super volcano' in 10,000 years time, even if we hadnt formed any space colonies?

Saying "we only have X amount of years to get off the earth or SUPER VOLCANOS WILL WIPE OUT HUMANITY!!!" is pseudo-apocalyptic hyperbole, and is rightfully classed as 'pop science'.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Wouldnt it be a just as good a prediction to say that we would be likely to have the technology to cope with a 'super volcano' in 10,000 years time, even if we hadnt formed any space colonies?

Saying "we only have X amount of years to get off the earth or SUPER VOLCANOS WILL WIPE OUT HUMANITY!!!" is pseudo-doomsday hyperbole, and is rightfully classed as 'pop science'.

Possibly, however since we cannot predict when a major disaster will occur, 10 years, 10, 000, 100,000, who knows? and we are far closer to colonizing the moon than we are to even controlling a spring shower, then space travel is the logical choice. At no point did I say "we only have X amount of years to get off the earth or SUPER VOLCANOS WILL WIPE OUT HUMANITY!!!"
I said it could happen and we should prepare for it. I also said we will most likely be long gone before it happens, (meaning we will be dead from natural or other causes) so it is not doomsaying. Everyone knows the earth will not last forever, a few billion years tops. We also know if humans never colonize other planets we will go extinct long beforte that happens. If we build ships capable of interstellar travel humanity will still most likely go extint someday, I don't think any species can survive forever. I will go to Yellowstone again this summer, and walk around on top of that volcano without thinking for a momemt that it is about to explode. I trully do not think it will go in the forseeable future, but it could.
Trying to make that into doomsaying is a streach by any measure.

[Terra Australis]

I have read most of this thread.... and we need to do some things as humanity.

We need to keep the space program going....

We need to keep the ISS running.

We need to design better shuttles.

The fact that the ISS is there, is to perfect living in space, for eventually when there is a base set up on the moon.

Think back when man started to explore the oceans with sailing ships, they established bases close to home, where ships could take on supplies, shelter ect from storms, or get to in an emergency.

This is what function the ISS will perform eventually, at the moment it is being used to test how humans live in space etc.. and how they can survive in a zero gee envioroment.

However it is good to do this close at hand, for if something goes wrong the crew can use one of the escape pods and make it back to Earth, and it is also convenient to resupply as it is close to Earth.

After all the problems of lving in space are worked out, next will come the base on the moon, and the ISS will be a transition point i would figure for crews rotating to the moon and also from the moon, like kind of a staging area, where crews outgoing can be briefed by the inbound crews and the like of any development on the moon, rather than waiting to be back on earth to be breifed by there counterparts which would slow down turnaround time, between missions and would be infact be more costly.

After the moon base is up and running and relatively self sufficient I.E plants growing in bio domes etc, then will come the application for this technology to be used on Mars.

The fact that they are sending more probes to mars, is showing what the long term mission will be.

But it is safer to work out all the problems closer to home, before undertaking a mission such as the mars mission.

I think that is what the atronauts who were tragically killed in this terrible accident would be for there colleagues and co workers to remember them, and mourn them, but also continue the work that all astronauts have olayed a part in from many nations.

May the astronauts of the Columbia rest in peace....

Someone also mentioned that the fact Spiders were on board from Australia, this is true, and while someone posted that this was insignificant, the reason that they were there, was to see how spiders were effected in building webs in a zero gee envioroment, and also the fact that what data could be obtained would lead the way to new types of lightweight building materials to be used in space.

The data was lost yes, and the spiders yes.... the data can be obtained by another mission, the spiders cant, but then again neither can the crew, and i think all would agree that they would rather have seen the crew make it back to Earth safely, rather than the data...... from all of the experiments that were being conducted there.

Once again may the astronauts rest in peace.......

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by Nixjim
Have you ever actually had a single coherant thought in your life?
If you want to debate when the next eruption will be fine. If you want to debate how large it will be fine. If you desire to learn fine.
If you are claiming it can't happen then you need more proof than your loudmouthed denial.

Fact:
Yellowstone has had three major eruptions in the past 2.1 million years. The first was 2.1 million years ago, the latest was 640,000 years ago. I don't have the date for the second one handy but I can find it with a little searching, as you could if you would only look.

Prediction, Yellowstone will erupt again. This is based both on the three previous eruptions, and the continuing activity at the site.
Smart money says it will be big, first eruption was 2,500 times bigger than Mt. St. Helens, second was I THINK 260 times more powerful, third was 1,000 times more powewrful, again I don't have full data on the second one, though I went through this awhile back and had loads of info at the time.

You truly have not understood anything I have posted here.
I am not doomsaying, I'm not saying humanities days are numbered. I'm saying major disasters causing global extictions have happened numerous times in the past, and all evidence shows they will happen again. The one most likely to happen in the near (100,000 years or so) future is another major eruption of Yellowstone. Best way to assure humans survive it is to develop space travel and colonization. No science fiction, no unfounded claims, just facts you can't disprove so you instead try attacking me. Your inabilty to disprove me speaks as loud as your words, by your last post you have lost this debate. Come back if you find some actual facts proving Yellowstone doesn't exist, and that it will never erupt catastrophically again. If you don't see that the embarrassment is yours you are blind. No one knows when or how big the next eruption will be. One major earthquake in the region could weaken the crust enough to start the countdown, and major quakes are hard to predict. The one thing most geologists agree on is that it will happen someday.
Unlike you I try to keep informed rather than just outright denying anything I don't want to hear, and I like to share information. In your book that makes me an evil person, that you think that way speaks very poorly of you.
BTW, there is a link to the USGS at the bottom of that page, typical government they try to downplay it, but even they acknowledge that it could go in the near future.

From their site:
Is it true that the next eruption of Yellowstone is overdue?

No. The fact that two eruptive intervals (2.1 million to 1.3 million and 1.3 million to 640,000 years ago) are of similar length does not mean that the next eruption will necessarily occur after another similar interval. The physical mechanisms may have changed with time. Furthermore, any inferences based on these two intervals would take into account too few data to be statistically meaningful. To say that an eruption that might happen in ten's or hundred's of thousand's of years is "overdue" would be a gross overstatement. On the other hand we cannot discount the possibility of such an event occurring some time in the future, given Yellowstone's volcanic history and the continued presence of magma beneath the Yellowstone caldera.

Here it is since you have trouble finding anything on your own:

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/

The FAQ page is here:

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/faqs.html

If you wish to continue this start a new thread, if you wish to admit you are wrong go ahead. If you still cling to your delusions then go bury your head in the sand. This is getting to far off topic for this thread.

'tis very true. I did AS Level Geography, and we did Yellowstone there. You're mostly right. Yellowstone is just about on time to blow, and has gone off regularly at 6 - 700,000 year intervals. We're also somewhat overdue for a Major Catastrophic Event - put it this way, enough time has passed without one for humanity to reach its present level of advancement.

For all these reasons, space colonisation is imperative. And even if you disagree, W, surely you wouldn't argue against something that is after all a good propaganda tool for promoting space development?

[W]

Originally posted by Nixjim
Do a google search on Yellowstone and Supervulcanism. We don't have millienia until it blows, at best 100,000 years, at worst within our lifetime. And when it blows expect 99% of the human population to die. The survivors won't be able to continue business as usual, they will be blasted back to the stoneage.
It has happened before, 74,000 years ago a similar eruption wiped out all but a thousand or so humans on earth, we are all decended from those few survivors.

This was your original post. This is where you say we have "at best 100,000 years". This is where you say I can expect 99% of the human population to die. Which is all bull****. And this is a nice source on this "almost-extinction" that you're so ****sure was a volcano.

I'm not saying there aren't big volcanoes. Hell, I'm not saying there aren't big asteroids that can hit us. I'm saying that if you say we HAVE to go to space NOW, you're talking bull****. There's no significant natural risk to the human race over the next few millenia that can justify not waiting until we have the resources to put matterials and humans into space, or atleast enough knowledge of the technologies involved to see that there is no cheaper way. You're basically talking about building an internet with just vacuum tubes, or relay computers, when it's vastly expencive not to mention unlikely to succeed, while there are potentially transistors and microchips around the corner. And even if there are no significant advances in the next millenia or two, atleast then we'll know what we have to pay.

As I see it, you people just want to see space travel in your lifetime, and are willing to lie and delude yourself (I'm not the one in denial), to push for it.

Originally posted by General Geiger
For all these reasons, space colonisation is imperative. And even if you disagree, W, surely you wouldn't argue against something that is after all a good propaganda tool for promoting space development?

YES I WOULD!

As far as I can see it, the decline of true science, and the ignorance of the masses, is the single largest imminent danger, not just to humanity, but to me, and my kind directly. And even if it weren't, I would object to it on principle. I hate lies, denial and wishful thinking for itself too, not just for their results.

[Kumnaa]

I cant be arsed to read most of this thread as it goes off topic some what.

1) space exploration wont be stopped

2) I'm impressed that human remains managed to survive re-entry

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

I laughed when I saw the film 'Volcano'

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by W
This was your original post. This is where you say we have "at best 100,000 years". This is where you say I can expect 99% of the human population to die. Which is all bull****. And this is a nice source on this "almost-extinction" that you're so ****sure was a volcano.

If your house is on fire, you can expect to die if you don't get out.
In other words it is better to prepare for the worst and hope for the best than to do nothing. Can you prove Yellowstone will not erupt in 100,000 years or less? And if the eruption is 2500 times more powerful than Mt. ST. Helens, do you doubt there will be major casualties from the eruption and the ash cloud? A large part of the world depends on the Great Plains for food, what will they eat when it is wiped out in the blast? Wish I still had my list of sources I posted in the gelogy newsgroup a few weeks back, I researched this then, and none of the geologist there disagreed with them. Guess you believe you know more than them.

Originally posted by W

I'm not saying there aren't big volcanoes. Hell, I'm not saying there aren't big asteroids that can hit us. I'm saying that if you say we HAVE to go to space NOW, you're talking bull****. There's no significant natural risk to the human race over the next few millenia that can justify not waiting until we have the resources to put matterials and humans into space, or atleast enough knowledge of the technologies involved to see that there is no cheaper way. You're basically talking about building an internet with just vacuum tubes, or relay computers, when it's vastly expencive not to mention unlikely to succeed, while there are potentially transistors and microchips around the corner. And even if there are no significant advances in the next millenia or two, atleast then we'll know what we have to pay.

As I see it, you people just want to see space travel in your lifetime, and are willing to lie and delude yourself (I'm not the one in denial), to push for it.

The statement "you people" says alot about you. I never said We "have to go to space now" I said we should continue with the space program because we don't know how long we have. It may be 100,000 years before MAJOR disaster happens, but at the same time you may turn on the news tomorrow and hear that we only have a month or less before a major fill-in-the-blank wipes out most of the planet.
I don't think that will happen, but it could, and if it does would you want to think we had done all we could, or will you be happy knowing you could have been saved if we had only made the effort? Yours is the grasshopper mentality, just enjoy today and assume that everyday from here until eternity will be just as nice.
I prefer to enjoy today, but with the understanding that it may not last forever.
I watched Neil Armstrong take his first step on the moon. when the broadcast was over I ran outside and looked at the moon, and I thought "there is a man up there walking around right now", and it was so cool. And I thought, with such a marvelous beginning, that space travel would surely become routine in my life time. Well, thanks to government foot-dragging that hasn't come close to happening, nor is there any indication it will in my lifetime.I'm 40 years old, I have seen a lot of progree in my life. I grew up in a world without computers, video games, or even pocket calculators. I saw the debut of 8-track tapes, and watched them killed by the debut of cassetes, which have now been replaced by CD's. I ask you again, how old are you? Because by your posts you aren't half my age, and you still haven't understood a word I've typed.

Originally posted by W

YES I WOULD!

As far as I can see it, the decline of true science, and the ignorance of the masses, is the single largest imminent danger, not just to humanity, but to me, and my kind directly. And even if it weren't, I would object to it on principle. I hate lies, denial and wishful thinking for itself too, not just for their results.

You are one of the ignorant masses. You have proven that with your arguments here. The sooner you lose your superior attitude the sooner you will become part of the solution instead of the problem. Every word I have posted is backed up by scientific research, you have not posted anything to support your claims that I am wrong. Your link to the K-T extinction proves my point, the K-T extinction was 65 million years ago, the event I refered to was the eruption of Toba in Sumatra 74 thousand years ago. Since you missed that by almost 65 million years it is pretty obvious you've mis-understod everything else I've posted by just as much.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by Cmdr_Cyrax
I laughed when I saw the film 'Volcano'

I found it laughable as well. The thought that man can stop a volcano by spraying water on the lava is hilarious. At best they would harden the surface into a lava tube, underneath that it would continue flowing as long as the eruption continued.

[Bunga]

Why go to the moon and mars first? A cheaper and better method is dragging C-Type and nickel-iron NEOs (Near Earth Objects) into High Earth Orbit (HEO) and then mining and excavating them. We can empty the nickel-iron types, give them spin,and live in them. The C-Types would be used as refuelling depot, since they contain large quantites of water, methane and various carbon-compunds, perfect for plastics, fuel and food sources, and obviously the water is a water source .

If anything comes out of all that spiderweb or nanotube research, eventually they could be connected with a space elevator to Earth, making spaceflight incredibly cheap.

Why should we build large spacestations in orbit when we can simply take a NEO and live in that instead?

[Vermillion]

Nixjim: I do my best to not respond until I have the facts. I am no geologist. However, three offices from me is a geologist, who has his Masters in the field notto mention 11 years working for natural Resources Canada before coming to this shop.

I showed him your suggestion, and after several minutes of laughter he stated (I paraphrase from memory):

"Supervulcanism is an interesting theory, and has a few proponents. There is research to back the concept of massive volcanic activity over huge regions, however there are also many problems with the idea. The pressure required to make such a supervolcano would be unimaginable, and would likey have been let off in a series of earthquakes over the previous several thousand years. periods of intense geologic activity tend to result from large buildups of pressure over time. The idea that one could build up so long with no release of pressure is unlikely. The problem is, the geologic residue left by a dozen small volcanoes in a small region would be very similar to one 'super volcano' thus making them difficult to prove. The world has experienced two super-extinctions and about two-dozen smaller extinctions, and as far as we know none were precipitated by a volcano.

However, there is evidence of very large, over 100 megaton, volcanic exposions in the past. The impact of these massive volcanoes however is FAR below what your friend believes. The idea that a volcano could wipe out 'all but a few thousand humans' is silly and an obvious exaggeration. A massive eruption could cause disruptions in world weather patterns, lower temperatures for several degrees for a few years, maybe as many as 15, and cause enormous local devestation. But the idea of a race-killing volcano is silly."


I hope I have done my colleague justice, as I said, I am no expert in this field, but he is...

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Nixjim: I do my best to not respond until I have the facts. I am no geologist. However, three offices from me is a geologist, who has his Masters in the field notto mention 11 years working for natural Resources Canada before coming to this shop.

I showed him your suggestion, and after several minutes of laughter he stated (I paraphrase from memory):

"Supervulcanism is an interesting theory, and has a few proponents.
I hope I have done my colleague justice, as I said, I am no expert in this field, but he is...

That is his opinion, it is not universally shared. Can he say that one has never happened and will never happened? I don't think so. You can find experts to support or disprove anything you wish, you know that. From what I have read,I can only conclude that your friend is in the minority with his opinion, and I disagree with it. Volcanic ash can be dated and traced to a source, his claim to the contrary makes me doubt anything he has to say on the subject.

[General Geiger]

A few things to throw in:

1) There is a lake in Yellowstone. Just a random lake. It's slowly tipping up. This is constant with the idea of building lava pressure, pushing the ground upward until something must give, likely in the largest explosion in human history. It's now a hundred feet longer than it was, having flooded an area of woodland that was formerly on its edge. It's tipping up further by the year.

2) It hardly needs saying, I know, but Yellowstone is an area of intense geological activity anyway - e.g., Old Faithful geyser.

3) Also, Yellowstone's in the middle of a continental plate, rather than at an edge. I wonder what bearing this has on matters? I'm wondering if Yellowstone is a "hotspot" - an area like Hawaii, where a plume of material from the mantle below is pushing up t regular intervals of many millions of years, creating volcanic activity - in Hawaii's case an island chain, as the Pacific plate above the hotspot gradually moves - us being in the middle of one of these period right now.

Blah.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by General Geiger
A few things to throw in:

1) There is a lake in Yellowstone. Just a random lake. It's slowly tipping up. This is constant with the idea of building lava pressure, pushing the ground upward until something must give, likely in the largest explosion in human history. It's now a hundred feet longer than it was, having flooded an area of woodland that was formerly on its edge. It's tipping up further by the year.

2) It hardly needs saying, I know, but Yellowstone is an area of intense geological activity anyway - e.g., Old Faithful geyser.

3) Also, Yellowstone's in the middle of a continental plate, rather than at an edge. I wonder what bearing this has on matters? I'm wondering if Yellowstone is a "hotspot" - an area like Hawaii, where a plume of material from the mantle below is pushing up t regular intervals of many millions of years, creating volcanic activity - in Hawaii's case an island chain, as the Pacific plate above the hotspot gradually moves - us being in the middle of one of these period right now.

Blah.

Yes, Yellowstone is over a well known hotspot. The North American plate is moving Southwest across it. Craters of the moon in Idaho is the previous location for it, in the visitor center there is a map showing how the hot spot has "moved" northeast, with eruptions all along the way.

Also, for Vermillion, how does you friend explain the thick layer of Volcanic dust that covered Nebraska, and resulted in the mass death recently found there, hippos, camels, birds, I forget all the animals found at the site but all were killed by Volcanic ash, and Nebraska has no volcanoes. That ash has been traced to the last major Yellowstone eruption.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Nixjim
That is his opinion, it is not universally shared. Can he say that one has never happened and will never happened? I don't think so.

Yes, that is his opinion.

His opinion is based on an extensive education in the field and decades of work experience.

Your opinion is based on some webpages you read.

I am not qualified to speak to either one, I'm a Historian, but I have to say, based on that and based on what I have read in this thread, I am quite willing to accept that he is right and your comments are vastly exaggerated.

As to animals dying in Nebraska... ever been to Pompeii? Lots of people and animals died there too, over a huge area. Care to explain how that in any way supports this little known and poorly regarded theory?

[Vermillion]

Case in point...

Originally posted by General Geiger
There is a lake in Yellowstone. Just a random lake. It's slowly tipping up. This is constant with the idea of building lava pressure, pushing the ground upward until something must give,

Yes, that seems quite plausible. Of course, there are a dozen other possible explanations, but it is certainly reasonable.

...likely in the largest explosion in human history.

Yes, see there you lost me. I am not saying that Volcanoes dont exist, or that they can be devestating, or that massive ones rip off every few million years. But the sheer scale of what is being implied in this thread is silly and exaggerated.

By the way, as my own personal rule, anytime anyone refers to something they do not know a lot about as being the "biggest XXX in human history", that alaways sends my skeptical eyebrow up.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Case in point...




Yes, that seems quite plausible. Of course, there are a dozen other possible explanations, but it is certainly reasonable.



Yes, see there you lost me. I am not saying that Volcanoes dont exist, or that they can be devestating, or that massive ones rip off every few million years. But the sheer scale of what is being implied in this thread is silly and exaggerated.

By the way, as my own personal rule, anytime anyone refers to something they do not know a lot about as being the "biggest XXX in human history", that alaways sends my skeptical eyebrow up.

That is your opinion. Yes, my opinion is formed, not just on some web pages I've read (One of which is the USGS page on the issue) but also on the printed articles I've read. Your friends explanation goes against what the USGS has posted on their site,

What is a supervolcano?

The term supervolcano has no specifically defined scientific meaning. It was used by the producers of a British TV program in 2000 to refer to volcanoes that have generated Earth's largest volcanic eruptions. As such, a supervolcano would be one that has produced an exceedingly large, catastrophic explosive eruption and a giant caldera. Because Yellowstone has produced three such very large caldera-forming explosive eruptions in the past 2.1 million years, the producers considered it to be a supervolcano.




How many supervolcanoes are on Earth and what are some examples of supervolcanoes?

Because there is no well-defined minimum size for a "supervolcano," there is no exact number of such volcanoes. Examples of volcanoes that produced exceedingly voluminous pyroclastic eruptions and formed large calderas in the past 2 million years would include Yellowstone, Long Valley in eastern California, Toba in Indonesia, and Taupo in New Zealand. Other "supervolcanoes" would likely include the large caldera volcanoes of Japan, Indonesia, Alaska (e.g. Aniakchak, Emmons, Fisher), and other areas


How often do volcanic eruptions occur at Yellowstone?

Three extremely large explosive eruptions have occurred at Yellowstone in the past 2.1 million years with a recurrence interval of about 600,000 to 800,000 years. More frequent eruptions of basalt and rhyolite lava flows have occurred before and after the large caldera-forming events. For example, scientists have identified about 30 different rhyolite lava flows that erupted after the most recent caldera eruptions, about 640,000 years ago, from vents inside the caldera. The most recent was about 70,000 years ago. Many of these eruptions were separated in time by several ten's of thousands of years. Because the evidence of earlier eruptions may have been either buried or destroyed, we do not really know how often the volcano has actually erupted.



How many caldera-forming eruptions have occurred from the long-lived hotspot that is currently beneath Yellowstone?

Many eruptive units found along the path of the Yellowstone hotspot have been dated, but only a few of them represent large caldera-forming eruptions. At least five volcanic fields centered on large caldera complexes have been identified. Some of these caldera complexes erupted climatically more than once; probably 15 to 20 caldera-forming eruptions have occurred along the hotspot as it left a trail from western Idaho to Yellowstone within the past 16.5 million years.



How many giant eruptions have occurred in the Yellowstone National Park region and how large were they?

Volcanic activity began in the Yellowstone National Park region a little before about 2 million years ago. Molten rock (magma) rising from deep within the Earth produced three cataclysmic eruptions more powerful than any in the world's recorded history. The first caldera-forming eruption occurred about 2.1 million years ago. The eruptive blast removed so much magma from its subsurface storage reservoir that the ground above it collapsed into the magma chamber and left a gigantic depression in the ground- a hole larger than the state of Rhode Island. The huge crater, known as a caldera, measured as much as 80 kilometers long, 65 kilometers wide, and hundreds of meters deep, extending from outside of Yellowstone National Park into the central area of the Park (Figure 1).

Later, activity shifted to a smaller region within the Island Park area of eastern Idaho, just southwest of Yellowstone National Park, and produced another large caldera-forming eruption 1.3 million years ago. Subsequent activity has been focused within the area of the National Park, and another huge eruption 640,000 years ago formed the Yellowstone caldera as we now see it.

The three caldera-forming eruptions, respectively, were about 2,500, 280, and 1,000 times larger than the May 18, 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens in Washington State. Together, the three catastrophic eruptions expelled enough ash and lava to fill the Grand Canyon.

In addition to the three climactic eruptions, activity associated with each of the three caldera cycles produced dozens or even hundreds of smaller eruptions that produced both lava and pyroclastic materials.



How large were the giant eruptions in the Yellowstone National Park region in comparison to other large historic eruptions?

Figure 2 shows that the three largest Yellowstone eruptions emitted much more material than the eruptions of Mount St. Helens (1980), Mount Pinatubo (1991), Krakatau (1883), Mount Mazama (7,600 years ago), and Tambora (1815).

Check out the site Vermillion, and get your Geologist friend to tell you the United States Geological Survey has no idea what it is talking about.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/faqs.html

BTW, be sure and look at figure 2. It shows Yellowstone truly dwarved the eruption of Krakatau.

You may deny it exists, as may your freind. IMHO you are in the minority, and you are wrong.

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

While this is all amazingly interesting reading (honestly), I should point out that you are drifting fairly off topic here. If no one has any objections then I think it may be best for the Volcano discussion to migrate to it's own thread. All in favour say aye, and I'll do the necessary.

[W]

Originally posted by Nixjim
Your link to the K-T extinction proves my point, the K-T extinction was 65 million years ago, the event I refered to was the eruption of Toba in Sumatra 74 thousand years ago. Since you missed that by almost 65 million years it is pretty obvious you've mis-understod everything else I've posted by just as much.

That was some sloppy googling from me.

And I have come to realize you've completely missread what I've written. I don't think it'd be for the best to clear up the missunderstandings, as your opinion of me is surely fixed once and for all, and you'll just find something else that I've posted to disagree with.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by Belgarath The Sorcerer
While this is all amazingly interesting reading (honestly), I should point out that you are drifting fairly off topic here. If no one has any objections then I think it may be best for the Volcano discussion to migrate to it's own thread. All in favour say aye, and I'll do the necessary.

Although I have no objections I don't really have anything more to add. Fine with me if this thread dies.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by W
That was some sloppy googling from me.

And I have come to realize you've completely missread what I've written. I don't think it'd be for the best to clear up the missunderstandings, as your opinion of me is surely fixed once and for all, and you'll just find something else that I've posted to disagree with.

My opinion of you increased considerably after reading this. I know you've mis-interpreted what I was trying to say, so I very well may be mis-interpreting yours. Many of my comments are intended to make people stop and think, I never post anything I haven't researched and believe to be true, but I also try to prompt respondents to think about their responses instead of simply flaming. I apologize to you and hope future discussions can be conducted in a calm and civil manner.

I also want to thank Vermillion and Nodrog for their informed comments, it is a pleasure to debate someone who thinks before they type.
Unless someone posts something I simply can't resist then this is my last post on this thread.

[MrMilli]

Originally posted by Rick
I do not understand the preoccupation with going to mars.

<snip>
You make a very good point, but its not my particular point of view.
For one, You need to get there, before you can do anything there.
When we have the technology to get to mars and stay there for any length of time, then the other "more interesting" planets/moons are within reach.
Essentially, Get there and you can start working out how to get somewhere else.
Get somewhere else, and you might be able to get somewhere *really* interesting with just a big more thought.
It is a valid point though, whats the point in spending billions just so someone can go over there and say "I claim this land for earth, take me to your leader" (although the novelty would almost be worth it )
Altering asteroids our way?
Well, you return to the problem above
you've got to get there, before you can do anything there.
If you've got the technology to get there, why not go to mars for cheaper and more publicity?

[W]

On topic:
I say we ("we" in the sense of humanity, not americans) scrap any further plans for putting humans in space beyond the minimum necesarry to maintain all the equipment we have in orbit, including salvaging what's possible of the ISS project. Then we focus on hard, cheap (in the cost of resources per advancement) ground-based research on space colonization. One thing that's sorely needed is some technology for storing the potential energy something moving from orbit to earth surface loses, and using that to get back up again and/or some safe or cheap form of propulsion. A space elevator is a bit too vulnerable to be realistic; imagine Al-Qaeda running airplanes into the cable|tower.

The main problem will always be gravity. It's a gravity well that makes space travel so expensive. Life support isn't really that expensive in terms of resources, if it weren't for that they not only had to protect against vacuum and cosmic radiation, but also a giant chemical rocket and the acceleration it produces, and the thermal energy generated by air braking. Knowing more of how gravity works will possibly solve the problem. Who knows, perhaps we'll invent gravity inductor coils soon.

[Not_RIT]

When ships set sail to discover new lands and discover new treasures some of them were lost, the same will happen with space flight. Although my condolenses go out to the familes of the 7 involved, one must look at this from a higher view point and see in comparison seven lives is statistically not relevent in a world of 6 billion.

I think a space elevator is the way forward

[Neferti]

this is gonna be a short post, for me, on this subject

we need to go into space for the resources. This planet is running out of resources at an increasing rate. Survival of the human race by getting all of our 'eggs' out of the proverbial 'one basket' is just one factor, and a very important reason, but not the only reason. Therefore this argument over 'supervolcanoes' is not really relavant at all to this thread.

The novels of Stephen Baxter are very educational in their own way i am someone who is interested in space travel and such while still being practical (i think Shuttle sucked, on the whole). The novel 'Titan' is one that details the end of the human race by our own choices (not nuclear war, pollution etc) but by another way... best not state it here in case i give away too many plot details (it's a good novel, on the whole, go read!). The novels 'Time' 'Space' and 'Origin' provide 3 different alternate futures for earth, along the same theme (Origin is the most fantastic, in the literal sense, of the 3). But really, you don't need to read these novels to realise that we are running out of resources, not least raw materials, we simply have to go into space to get them.

And to those saying the deaths of 7 people are insignificant... well, these people represented a lot more than 7 lives... i'll leave it at that, or risk being flamed to hell...

[Neferti]

Arthur C Clarke originally envisaged a space elevator being made from Diamond, as the only structure strong enough to do the job. However, in the notes at the end of '3001: The Final Oddysey' he states that, despite the lack of sufficient Diamond for this occuring naturally on Earth, there are 2 alternatives - 'orbiting factories where diamond might be grown under zero-gravity conditions' or perhaps more plausibly an artificial substance even stronger than Diamond - 'Buckminsterfullerene' (C60) first produced in 1990 by a group of scientists lead by Dr. Smalley (who shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for this work, 6 years later). While the amounts currently producable may not be huge, well, never, ever underestimate the possible rate of technological and scientific advancement...

[W]

Originally posted by Neferti
Arthur C Clarke originally envisaged a space elevator being made from Diamond, as the only structure strong enough to do the job. However, in the notes at the end of '3001: The Final Oddysey' he states that, despite the lack of sufficient Diamond for this occuring naturally on Earth, there are 2 alternatives - 'orbiting factories where diamond might be grown under zero-gravity conditions' or perhaps more plausibly an artificial substance even stronger than Diamond - 'Buckminsterfullerene' (C60) first produced in 1990 by a group of scientists lead by Dr. Smalley (who shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for this work, 6 years later). While the amounts currently producable may not be huge, well, never, ever underestimate the possible rate of technological and scientific advancement...

The latest edition of "fountains of paradise" (and possibly a few before the latest) has an apendix that details all the math and physics of a space elevator, and what kind of matterials are needed. Diamond doesn't cut it (we already have much better matterials, which still doesn't cut it).

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Neferti
'Buckminsterfullerene'

Buckyballs \o/

[Terra Australis]

Originally posted by MrMilli
<snip>
You make a very good point, but its not my particular point of view.
For one, You need to get there, before you can do anything there.
When we have the technology to get to mars and stay there for any length of time, then the other "more interesting" planets/moons are within reach.
Essentially, Get there and you can start working out how to get somewhere else.
Get somewhere else, and you might be able to get somewhere *really* interesting with just a big more thought.
It is a valid point though, whats the point in spending billions just so someone can go over there and say "I claim this land for earth, take me to your leader" (although the novelty would almost be worth it )
Altering asteroids our way?
Well, you return to the problem above
you've got to get there, before you can do anything there.
If you've got the technology to get there, why not go to mars for cheaper and more publicity?

I see the point that you are making here, and i agree with you, but to get to the point of where we can redirect asteroids back to Earth, or mine them on mars or in mars orbit we need to get the ISS and other projects underway.

The reason the ISS is valuable is that if something happens to the crew they can either eject and come back to Earth in an escape pod, or a rocket can be sent with extra supplies etc.

Imagine if something like this happened on mars, with the amount of probes that have been lost in the last few years on there way to mars.

Thus we need to get the ISS and then a moon base up and working properly while they are reasonably close to earth, while we get the technology perfected.

Here is what i posted below in regards to this.

I have read most of this thread.... and we need to do some things as humanity.

We need to keep the space program going....

We need to keep the ISS running.

We need to design better shuttles.

The fact that the ISS is there, is to perfect living in space, for eventually when there is a base set up on the moon.

Think back when man started to explore the oceans with sailing ships, they established bases close to home, where ships could take on supplies, shelter ect from storms, or get to in an emergency.

This is what function the ISS will perform eventually, at the moment it is being used to test how humans live in space etc.. and how they can survive in a zero gee envioroment.

However it is good to do this close at hand, for if something goes wrong the crew can use one of the escape pods and make it back to Earth, and it is also convenient to resupply as it is close to Earth.

After all the problems of lving in space are worked out, next will come the base on the moon, and the ISS will be a transition point i would figure for crews rotating to the moon and also from the moon, like kind of a staging area, where crews outgoing can be briefed by the inbound crews and the like of any development on the moon, rather than waiting to be back on earth to be breifed by there counterparts which would slow down turnaround time, between missions and would be infact be more costly.

After the moon base is up and running and relatively self sufficient I.E plants growing in bio domes etc, then will come the application for this technology to be used on Mars.

The fact that they are sending more probes to mars, is showing what the long term mission will be.

But it is safer to work out all the problems closer to home, before undertaking a mission such as the mars mission.

I think that is what the atronauts who were tragically killed in this terrible accident would be for there colleagues and co workers to remember them, and mourn them, but also continue the work that all astronauts have olayed a part in from many nations.

May the astronauts of the Columbia rest in peace....

Someone also mentioned that the fact Spiders were on board from Australia, this is true, and while someone posted that this was insignificant, the reason that they were there, was to see how spiders were effected in building webs in a zero gee envioroment, and also the fact that what data could be obtained would lead the way to new types of lightweight building materials to be used in space.

The data was lost yes, and the spiders yes.... the data can be obtained by another mission, the spiders cant, but then again neither can the crew, and i think all would agree that they would rather have seen the crew make it back to Earth safely, rather than the data...... from all of the experiments that were being conducted there.

Once again may the astronauts rest in peace.......

About the volcano discussion, that was good, though as of late there have been a few near misses with asteroids, one of them we did not even know about until it passed us, and that had the potential to be a planet killer.

I dont know about whether the whole of the world would be wiped out from a large volcanic eruption, as there are regions in the South Pacific such as Australia and NZ that would survive and also other islands etc.

I am not an expert on this, but the thought of something like this occuring is rather scary, as i remember doing a project on Krakatoa when i was in school, and the sound of that could be heard from Melbourne Australia, and the cloud covered half of Australia.

There was also some tidal waves that occured from the explosion, that killed alot more people.

Not to mention the poisonous gasses that were realsed, hot ash and other flying debris.