Japan plans to build robot moon base by 2020

May 28, 2010 by Lisa Zyga weblog
An illustration of Japan's proposed robot moon base. Credit: JAXA.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Believing that a moon base is essential for exploration of the solar system, Japan has recently announced plans to send humanoid robots to the moon to construct a robot lunar base. As part of the $2.2 billion project, the robots will begin surveying the moon around 2015, and then build the unmanned base near the moon’s South Pole by 2020.

A Japanese government panel chaired by Katsuhiko Shirai, President of Waseda University, has developed a rough outline of the project. First, the robots, weighing about 660 pounds each, will begin by surveying the moon, taking images of the surface, collecting rocks, and returning the rocks to via rocket for seismographic research. Later, robots will be sent to the moon to construct the lunar base for themselves.

According to the government panel, the robots and the unmanned moon base will be powered by . The robots will be controlled from Earth, but will also have a high degree of autonomy that enables them to operate on their own to perform certain tasks. Ultimately, the base could serve as a starting point for future colonizers, and even human colonizers.

Explore further: Google exec makes record skydive from edge of space

More information: via: CNET

Related Stories

Italy plans telescope on moon

Jan 05, 2006

Italy plans to build a telescope on the moon to expand its knowledge of the universe, the Italian News Agency ANSA says.

NASA Robots Practice Moon Survey in the Arctic Circle

Jul 20, 2007

Two NASA robots are surveying a rocky, isolated polar desert within a crater in the Arctic Circle. The study will help scientists learn how robots could evaluate potential outposts on the moon or Mars.

China says completes 3D moon map

Sep 29, 2009

China has completed a high-resolution, three-dimensional map of the entire surface of the moon, in an important step towards a future lunar landing, an expert involved in the project said Tuesday.

Recommended for you

Hinode satellite captures X-ray footage of solar eclipse

Oct 24, 2014

The moon passed between the Earth and the sun on Thursday, Oct. 23. While avid stargazers in North America looked up to watch the spectacle, the best vantage point was several hundred miles above the North ...

User comments : 77

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Quantum_Conundrum
5 / 5 (4) May 28, 2010
As part of the $2.2 billion project, the robots will begin surveying the moon around 2015


They are gonna do this on a two billion dollar budget, and the U.S. somehow "can't afford" a basic space program any more.

Pathetic.

But yeah, mathematically in terms of gravity and requirements for liftoff, you MUST have a full scale mining operation on either Mars or the Moon, or another planet's moons, to do much of anything else in the Solar System. But Only Mars or the Moon are close enough to have efficient solar power needed to mass produce a robotic infrastructure.
GSwift7
3.6 / 5 (5) May 28, 2010
Prediction: The current lunar record for a golf drive is held by an American, Alan Shepard, an estimated 200-400 yards. Knowing how Japan loves golf, anyone want to bet that they will break the lunar drive record if they build this robot base?
LuckyBrandon
2.6 / 5 (8) May 28, 2010
why do the robots need any kind of base anyways? a charging station perhaps? they are freakin robots. I'm all for sending them to build the base, but to have them as occupants is pretty damned retarded in my mind.
Quantum_Conundrum
3.8 / 5 (4) May 28, 2010
why do the robots need any kind of base anyways? a charging station perhaps? they are freakin robots. I'm all for sending them to build the base, but to have them as occupants is pretty damned retarded in my mind.


Because people are stupid.

If you were really going to send humans to the moon as workers, you'd want them there permanently. It is not economically feasible to have payloads of material going back and forth from earth ot the moon and back any time soon.

In order to colonize the moon properly requires a massive self assembling robotic infrastructure.

The notion of one buck rogers style domed city filled with humans on mars or the moon is a joke.

By the time we are able to colonize the moon or mars with permanent human civilizations, existing economic models will collapse as "money" will be meaningless. After all, if you have self-assembling robots, you do not need the majority of human labor. All humans do at that point is improve robots...
danman5000
2.9 / 5 (9) May 28, 2010
why do the robots need any kind of base anyways? a charging station perhaps? they are freakin robots. I'm all for sending them to build the base, but to have them as occupants is pretty damned retarded in my mind.

While I praise the desire to establish a permanent presence on the moon, I definitely agree with your comment. Only the Japanese would think of sending cute little anthropomorphic robots to the moon to build little houses for themselves.
zevkirsh
1.5 / 5 (8) May 28, 2010
japan is going to be far too broke by 2020 to accomplish this. all the money spent on reaching this goal will likely have been wasted.
akotlar
May 28, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
magpies
1 / 5 (8) May 28, 2010
Ok it's time to blow up the moon that way nobody else can land there and mess with the american flag.
zaai
4.4 / 5 (7) May 28, 2010
Most comments underestimate the benefits this can bring to Japan.
To pull this off Japan will have to make a great leap forward into robotics. With their track record that is not going to be a problem. Second, they have access to resources on the moon (eg, Helium-3).

Their robotics industry will be a generation ahead of everything the western world produces. Its like an X-Prize for Robotics.

Helium-3 is rare on earth but thought to be abundant on the moon. It is used in fusion reactors and can help Japan with their future energy need. (see wikipedia for details).

Last, such an accomplishment can unify a nation and build a drive to succeed. Anyone remember the Apollo missions...

So, mock them all you want, I think they are on to something.
Ablee
3.2 / 5 (11) May 29, 2010
"Quantum_Conundrum" - They are gonna do this on a two billion dollar budget, and the U.S. somehow "can't afford" a basic space program any more.
Pathetic".....

That's what happens when a country puts all its money into war, only for oil profiteering, hmm....still looking for those WMD's.."nope not under here". I guess Karachi will be next to finish off the pipe line arena.
DaveGee
2.8 / 5 (4) May 29, 2010
Just wait till the regional rep from the UWUA hears about THIS... Robot Labor... they'll ALL be sleepin with Jimmy Hoffa before a single shovel hits the lunar surface!

Believe you me!
MarkyMark
5 / 5 (6) May 29, 2010
Heh reading this i picture Humanoid robots with cat ears and a very 'Hello Kitty' look.

Seriously tho i commend them and hope it works out for them.
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) May 29, 2010
Heh reading this i picture Humanoid robots with cat ears and a very 'Hello Kitty' look.
Well, that... or, giant hulking sword-wielding, flying monster war machines. :D
CarolinaScotsman
4.7 / 5 (10) May 29, 2010
I'm glad to hear that at least one country is willing to commit to serious lunar development. The US has relegated itself to a second rate scientific culture mainly because the majority of the general public distrusts science and prfers superstition.
CarolinaScotsman
5 / 5 (5) May 29, 2010
why do the robots need any kind of base anyways?

All electronic equipment, including robots, will need a hardened shelter to protect it from the radiation of solar storms. Additionally, they will need a "clean area" free of lunar dust for sensitive equipment as well as cleaning stations for the robots. All of this will need to be sheltered. I'm sure there are many other reasons for a shelter that I haven't thought of, but that should be enough to give you an idea.
thingumbobesquire
May 29, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (2) May 29, 2010
Carolina Scotsman:

That is true regarding the need of clean rooms and shelter from solar storms.

Regarding both human and robotic development, I have figured out architectures for regolith shields which allow a minimum of external "doors". By making a double-wall at each exit from the habitat, it is possible to make an air-locking system which never allows any radiation into the habitat (or clean rooms). To accomplish this, you simply have one shielding that wraps around the external door and faces south, with an opening a few meters south of the airlock. THen, this is enclosed in a larger shielding which totally wraps it, but faces north. Picture a maze with one "L" turn, one "U" turn, and then another "L". In this way, it is impossible for radiation to "bounce" around and get into the airlock.
Buyck
4 / 5 (1) May 29, 2010
It was about time to open a base on the Moon! They did it in 1969 manned! Thats 41 years ago... time for action, we have the technology now to do it. But do we have the money?!
antialias_physorg
2 / 5 (1) May 29, 2010
All electronic equipment, including robots, will need a hardened shelter to protect it from the radiation of solar storms


Since you only need to harden the CPU you don't need a shelter. These robots can afford to be a bit heavier than terrestrial sattelites since they can move as slowly as they want and in the Moon's gravity even that doesn't take much energy.

If they did need to shelter from some serious solar flares they could simply dig down and lie low.
Sanescience
5 / 5 (2) May 29, 2010
Robotic development of the Moon is a far superior strategy than trying to put humans there any time soon. The base that some dunces think will be for robots to play "house" is necessary to protect equipment from radiation and micro-meteors, and provide an area platform for efficient unloading and loading of materials for arrivals and departures.
And don't forget the military applications for robots as proxies for "first person shooter" applications on the battle field.
Quantum_Conundrum
not rated yet May 29, 2010

Since you only need to harden the CPU you don't need a shelter. These robots can afford to be a bit heavier than terrestrial sattelites since they can move as slowly as they want and in the Moon's gravity even that doesn't take much energy.

If they did need to shelter from some serious solar flares they could simply dig down and lie low.


That's something they don't seem to get.

A 1hp engine on the moon would be roughly equivalent to a 6hp engine on earth. So a robot on the moon could be built twice as massiv and still use significantly less, ~1/3 the energy.

So a wheeled dump truck robot could easily carry around an entire array of orientable solar panels which could "roll down" out of the way of the bed while it's being filled, and then roll back up to being orthogonal to the Sun. It's pretty much limited only by the mass of the robot itself so that it doesn't become "top heavy".
Quantum_Conundrum
not rated yet May 29, 2010
provide an area platform for efficient unloading and loading of materials for arrivals and departures.


Well see, that's just it...If your robots are self replicating, there won't need to be any future "arrivals"...at least not until they have covered the entire moon with solar paneled, heavily shielded arcologies with oxygen (from moon rock,) already in place. Then they would ship Helium3 back to earth, and beam excess power back to earth. Humans using Helium3 could then populate the moon and mars easily, bringing any needed carbon, nitrogen, water, calcium, etc, with them...
brainiac125
5 / 5 (2) May 29, 2010
Wish I had been born in Japan, they just seem to do a lot of things right nowadays. Like CarolinaScotsman mentioned, their populace isn't burdened by religious superstition and they are receptive and generally knowledgeable about scientific advances. Also, did you know that less than 0.1% of their population will go to prison at some point in their life, despite the extremely high population density of 127 million people in a country about the size of California? Compare that with the US's 30%.

Also related:
http://en.wikiped...atistics
simonl
not rated yet May 29, 2010
The only way to kick off human colonization is to send the construction robots first. Let them build a "house" for us. Well, more like a clay or concrete bunker.

We will follow when the first one is thick enough to be pressurized, protect against radiation and meteors, and maintain a reasonable inside temperature.

Construction robots can be made cheap if they only need to build a bunker. Collect dust/rock, water and power, grind, mix, pile it up, let it dry in the sun. Send a lot of cheap little robots with specific tasks, and a resupply mission every year to replace failed robots.

They could even be real-time controlled from Earth, the delay is short enough. We may have to send some relay satellites in orbit around the moon first, unless the south pole location is always radio-visible from earth. But that has to be done anyway.

Go Japan. From a european decrying the lack of vision and determination here as well as in US.
droom
not rated yet May 29, 2010
That's something they don't seem to get.

A 1hp engine on the moon would be roughly equivalent to a 6hp engine on earth. So a robot on the moon could be built twice as massiv and still use significantly less, ~1/3 the energy.

So a wheeled dump truck robot could easily carry around an entire array of orientable solar panels which could "roll down" out of the way of the bed while it's being filled, and then roll back up to being orthogonal to the Sun. It's pretty much limited only by the mass of the robot itself so that it doesn't become "top heavy".


More massive robot = more expensive robot to push off the earth. Even with $2.2 billion, the Japanese are going to have to be very cost effective.
muggins
not rated yet May 29, 2010
Check out this video http://www.livele...74737211 its maneuverability is very impressive. Look at its ability to map terrain and learn the suitable footholds. Seems perfect for transportation on the moon.
ShotmanMaslo
not rated yet May 30, 2010
I believe even manned lunar base will be built mostly by robots, it is far safer and more efficient. After all the basic systems are set up, then it will be time for humans to arrive and settle.
Quantum_Conundrum
not rated yet May 30, 2010
More massive robot = more expensive robot to push off the earth. Even with $2.2 billion, the Japanese are going to have to be very cost effective.


Nope.

You send scaled down robots (1/4th scaled excavators, etc,) which establish an infrastructure and once they have the resources, the scaled down robots build scaled up robots...

This way you get the best of both worlds. You get the ultra-light payloads from earth, but then you get the power to surface area ratio and volume to surface area ratio of a full scale machine, eventually, once the smaller ones make the larger ones.

At 1/4th scale, by the time you do the volume formula, that's 1/64th the volume, and therefore about 1/64th the payload mass for the launch vehicle from earth (or another way of looking at it is you can send a far more complex system of robots involving up to 64 times as many specializations as a full scale operation).

So then the 1/4th scale robots build full scale on site...
otto1923
not rated yet May 30, 2010
That's what happens when a country puts all its money into war, only for oil profiteering, hmm....still looking for those WMD's.."nope not under here". I guess Karachi will be next to finish off the pipe line arena.
The US found plenty of WMDs... The Iraqi army was a WMD. The Iraqi populace was a WMD. What would things look like there now with saddam dead of old age, sunis deposed, and a conjoined Islamist Iran/Iraq/palestini shiia empire with nothing better to do than shove Israel into the sea? WMDs were an inside joke and a ruse so you dweebs would buy into an absolutely necessary war and continuing military presence.

The solar system will be settled and developed largely through the use of robotics. Robotic nuclear-powered earth borers will soon be carving habitats beneath the lunar regolith and mining your He-3. This is both a field test and a first step being made by the country currently in the best position to do so. We will all benefit.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (2) May 30, 2010
The US has relegated itself to a second rate scientific culture mainly because the majority of the general public distrusts science and prfers superstition.


Superstition? Not really. If you are referring to Christianity as "Superstition" you are wrong on several fronts. But most importanly, most people in America who identify themselves as "Christian" do not even know basic doctrines.

Secondly, affordable living and social justices are among the most important Christian doctrines in existence.

I am morally one of the most conservative Christians alive, but I absolutely want space colonization and advancement of technology. I practically demand it.

America's real problem is that it is first of all Godless. It may be "religious" or even "superstitious" but is is Godless.

Then there is the culture of spending on drugs and alcohol and $250-$750 per seat concerts, but they won't pay for solar or wind farms.
Quasi_Intellectual
3.7 / 5 (3) May 30, 2010
After losing contact with the Daishi moonbase in 2023, a team of scientists embarked on a mission to investigate the lost base.

They found more then they had bargained for...

DUN DUN DUUUUUUN!!!

Now, a giant robot army, led by the evil AI mastermind "HAL/0 KIT_y" seek to destroy humanity and rule the universe!
--------------------------------------------------

And now for something completely different:

I am pleased with the recent developments in space-tech so far.
VASIMR rockets, magnetic heat-shields and robot-labor! Oh, my!
In a few decades, we might establish bases on other planets or moons in the solar system.
Thus starting our inevitable path to conquer all of spacetime, and then some.

Oh, and if any of you become a space marine, make sure you get stationed on Deimos.
Quantum_Conundrum
not rated yet May 30, 2010
Now you can call me a fascist if you like, but I believe anyone who can afford a concert ticket to listen to a glorified circus clown sing, or to watch a sporting event, can afford to pay a progressive "luxury sales tax" on that ticket, with the entire proceeds going to pay for government grants and loans to purchase and install solar panels on residences, and to build solar farms.

In general, the people will not do this themselves because they are either too short sighted, or generally ignorant of anything other than their friday and saturday night bar/club debauchery culture, or some flat out don't care about future generations and figure just live as they please now, and still others simply can't afford a large "up-front" long term investment that Solar power requires, as they live pay check to pay check, whilst the CEO makes ten millions or hundred millions per year...

Also, capitalism in it's modern form is about as anti-christian and Godless as communism ever was.
Quantum_Conundrum
not rated yet May 30, 2010
Quasi Intellectual:

It is relatively easy to design a semi-autonomous system capable of a level intelligence of doing it's job, without the risk of true "self awareness" and rebellion.

Through the use of scripting, rather than an actual "AI", one can make a mining robot or a production robot that has no chance of becoming "self aware". WE already have countless millions of such robots in use on earth today in many industries: production, assemblers, palletizers, fork lifts, and so on.

An automated dump truck and excavator is really actually simpler than an automated production robot or palletizer, yet for some reason we don't use them yet...

You could make a fully automated mining or farming operaton on earth right now using existing GPS satellites plus 2 or 3 marker beacons, and any 3D video game development company in the world could write the software to run it...
Quasi_Intellectual
not rated yet May 30, 2010
Quantum Conundrum:

I am perfectly aware of the inner workings of a robot, thank you. I was merely attempting to convey some of my (apparently vague) humour.

The AI-mastermind's name consists of "HAL" and "KIT", two well-known AIs. And together, they form a name which resembles "Hello Kitty", a popular japanese cartoon-cat.
The line: "And now for something completely different!" is from Monthy Python.

If I were oblivious of the millions of robots used in industry today, then I would most probably not even be on this site.

---------------------------------------------------
"That is the saving grace of humor, if you fail no one is laughing at you."
A. Whitney Brown
Skepticus
not rated yet May 30, 2010
A straight tax of $10USD a year on every person ever registered on USs population census will give more than 3 billion a year, for all sorts of space endevors. Don't tell me you Yanks can't afford $10 a year?
DarwiN100
5 / 5 (1) May 30, 2010
Yeah, this news seem exaggerated and overambitious.

But GO Japan. Try it.

Ou, and please stop killing dolphins.
CarolinaScotsman
1 / 5 (1) May 30, 2010
Superstition? Not really. If you are referring to Christianity as "Superstition" you are wrong on several fronts. But most importanly, most people in America who identify themselves as "Christian" do not even know basic doctrines.

Christianity = superstition? No
Creationism = superstition? Yes

By denying one branch of science, these people undermine all science. The area I live in is rife with Christian schools where students get a "Biblical based education". That means they are taught that anything that even hints that anything in the universe is older than 4,000 years is heresy. They are taught that their mistaken church doctrines trump science and knowledge. And this group of people continues to get larger every year. Oh yes, and a large part of medical research is evil and shouldn't be "messed with". This is not Christianity; it is superstition.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (1) May 30, 2010
They aren't talking about making buildings for the robots to live in. They are talking about a base station that would contain facilities used by multiple robots, like power storage, sample analysis, parts and maintainance, communication relays, etc.

The advantage of having a collection of specialized robots to perform unique tasks in stead of one stand-alone robot jack-of-all-trades is that you can make them smaller, cheaper, more efficient, etc.

You also could have one set of articulated arms at the base for assembling things like solar panels in stead of having to build everything in packages that have motors and springs so that they fold out on arrival.

The trick to all this would be getting landings accurate enough that you end up near the base when you go back with each landing after the first, without getting too close and causing damage to stuff already on the ground.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) May 30, 2010
You send scaled down robots (1/4th scaled excavators, etc,) which establish an infrastructure and once they have the resources, the scaled down robots build scaled up robots...

I think this is very naive. We are far away from robots that can build factories that can build robots. A lot of the parts (and even basic materials) needed require very specific and highly complex processes (from making copper wire to silicon chips to high precision gears to solar cells to, .... ).

Christianity = superstition? No


"The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree."

Umm...sounds like superstition to me. Creationism sounds downright RATIONAL compared to that.

otto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) May 30, 2010
I am morally one of the most conservative Christians alive
Then anything you do, think, say, or want is suspect. People who actually believe their god is better than all the others are incapable of rational thought and can only simulate it at times. Youll note how they jump at the chance to pollute even an article about space exploration with their mindless obsession.
I was merely attempting to convey some of my (apparently vague) humour.
Xians seem routinely devoid of the ability to appreciate humor. Probably related to the defect which makes them incapable of self deprecation, and why they must conjure a god or godman to defend their honor and dignity for them.
Christianity = superstition? No
Creationism = superstition? Yes
Religion = superstition? Absolutely. And THEYRE ALL THE SAME THING- all an expression of a particular type of defect; a pathology. Most of us have defects to some extent- but we dont build temples and worship them. Xian- heal thyself
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (2) May 30, 2010
By denying one branch of science, these people undermine all science.


Denying a branch of science and disagreeing on interpretation of facts are two quite different things.

The area I live in is rife with Christian schools where students get a "Biblical based education". That means they are taught that anything that even hints that anything in the universe is older than 4,000 years is heresy.


First of all, you have misrepresented the facts because young earth creationists believe the earth is somewhere around 6700 years old, not 4000. You can get at least 4700B.C. Just by adding up the lineages in the Bible.

Secondly, the majority of christianity currently teaches the self-contradicting "Gap theory", which believes in an earth of indeterminant age having been in existence "before" the "seven days" of creation.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (2) May 30, 2010
And this group of people continues to get larger every year. Oh yes, and a large part of medical research is evil and shouldn't be "messed with". This is not Christianity; it is superstition.

Well, those are called idiots.

Luke the apostle was a physician by trade, and even one of Jesus' own parables involved a person providing medical treatment for another, i.e. the parable of the "good samaritan". So these people who deny themselves medical treatment are, for lack of a better word, foolish, and one cannot find a Biblical justification for that position.

But let me ask this, on the subject of embrionic stem cells, when does it end?

Even if you argue the frozen embryos are gonna die anyway, you have placed yourself in a position of homicide in the name of medicine.

Do they have life? Yes. If we can call a frozen microbe in the arctic as "life" then a frozen embryo is life, human life. Ending it prematurely is nobody's right.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.3 / 5 (3) May 30, 2010
'cause if you're ok with killing embryos for medical research, then how about we go ahead and kill you and disect you too. I mean, youre not "alive" if you're frozen, so we can just freeze you first and it's no longer murder...

See where that goes?

But you know what, I have made a "slippery slope" argument, but that's beside the point. Killing an embryo is murder with or without the slippery slope.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet May 30, 2010
Superstition (from wikipedia)
"Superstition is a credulous belief or notion, not based on reason, knowledge, or experience."

Xians cannot substantiate their god through reaspon (their god is not testable). So "no reason": Check

Xians have no knowledge of their god (at lest none they can produce which can be tested). So "no knowledge": Check

Xians do not have experience of their god creating the universe - yet they belive it. So "no experience": Check

Can't get much more superstitious than that.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) May 30, 2010
Antialas:

Atheists cannot substantiate their lack of God through reason...check.

Atheists have no knowledge of God's non-existence, check.

Atheists have no experience of God not creating the universe...check.

Atheists cannot substantiate the BB, and did not experience it, yet they believe it...check.

Atheists cannot substantiate abiogenesis and did not experience it yet they believe it...check.

Can't get much more superstitious than that...
Blastoff
not rated yet May 31, 2010
Ha Ha QC. your'e an idiot
CarolinaScotsman
5 / 5 (1) May 31, 2010
"The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree."


There are those of us who believe in the teachings of Jesus (and are therefore called Christians) but who do not believe in his divinity. Quantum Conundrum does not have a monopoly on who is or is not called a Christian. The literalism of many Christians (in the interpretation of the Bible) is anathma to us. Is there a God who created the universe. Maybe, maybe he created the big bang: or maybe not. Maybe God is the universe and we are all part of "God". I don't know the answers and neither does anyone else. But I do not allow my philosophical questions to interfere with factual sciences such as evolution.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet May 31, 2010
Quantum Conundrum:

You forget that atheism is not a belief - it is the ABSENCE of belief. So it can't be a superstition.

By your (illogical) logic someone who DOESN'T believe in unicorns would be superstitious because he's 'atheistic' towards unicorns, And someone who believes in unicorns would be superstitious, too.

Atheists cannot substantiate the BB, and did not experience it, yet they believe it...check.

Atheists cannot substantiate abiogenesis and did not experience it yet they believe it...check.

This makes no sense as the two have nothing whatsoever to do with the stance of atheism.

(As an aside: BB and abiogenesis are the currently favored HYPOTHESES by scientists (note the 'hypo' in hypothesis). Nothing is ever 'accepted' in science. Everything is theory.)
CarolinaScotsman
not rated yet May 31, 2010
Do they have life? Yes. If we can call a frozen microbe in the arctic as "life" then a frozen embryo is life, human life. Ending it prematurely is nobody's right.

By your reasoning, sperm is life and should be "allowed to live". A line dividing life and non-life has to be drawn somewhere. The most pragmatic approach is to use the test of when the fetus becomes viable if taken out of the womb, usually considered around 22 to 24 weeks. At that stage, the chances for survival are terribly bad, but it is possible. Most courts consider the division between the second and third trimesters to be the dividing line. I reject your argument that fertilized embryos are human. Potential humans maybe, but not human. An egg or a sperm are potential humans, but they are not considered human.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (1) May 31, 2010
Nothing is ever 'accepted' in science. Everything is theory


If this is the case, then everythign in science is superstition, and you in fact have no rational, "scientific" basis to criticize "religion".
maxcypher
not rated yet May 31, 2010


"The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree."

Thank you for that antialias! I'm putting that on my wall!

But back to more serious matters: What we are experiencing is exponential (not linear) progress in technological development. The convergence of nano, bio, and q-bit technology should allow a gov't or private concern to send very small payload to create anything we want on the moon.

If we could just put a leash on all the religious zealots who want to kill everyone who doesn't believe in all their crazy stories, we might live long enough to benefit from the coming convergence.
otto1923
not rated yet May 31, 2010
Secondly, the majority of christianity currently teaches the self-contradicting "Gap theory", which believes in an earth of indeterminant age having been in existence "before" the "seven days" of creation.
NO they don't because the bible doesn't say that. Your particular interpretation of some fable about a fictional character, to fit your own hybrid beliefs, are the same thing as any other extremist who believes that those who defame his particular guru should die. Entertaining your pleasant fantasies makes his demonic ones inevitable.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet May 31, 2010
If this is the case, then everythign in science is superstition, and you in fact have no rational, "scientific" basis to criticize "religion".


I think you don't understand what science is. Science does not require belief (actually, belief is a very detrimental thing to good scientific practice).

I'm not criticizing religion. I'm simply pointing out that religion is a superstition (i.e. a baseless acceptance of truth).

Science is something entirely different. It is not concerned with what is true but only with what works. It is a substition if you so will.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (1) May 31, 2010
Science...is not concerned with what is true but only with what works. It is a substition if you so will.


I dare say you are both a liar and insane.
otto1923
not rated yet May 31, 2010
Science...is not concerned with what is true but only with what works. It is a substition if you so will.


I dare say you are both a liar and insane.
Like I said:
"Then anything you do, think, say, or want is suspect. People who actually believe their god is better than all the others are incapable of rational thought and can only simulate it at times."

Note the topic. Keep your bullshit religion out of here.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) May 31, 2010
I dare say you are both a liar and insane.

Since I am a scientist by profession I dare say I know a tad better what is and what isn't science.

But don't take my word for it. Just google the 'philosophy of science' and you will be enlightened.
droid
not rated yet May 31, 2010
One could also read the dictionary on this... but in general, science is focused on the PROOF and/or obtaining the proof. A theory, i.e. "scientific theory" or "hypothesis" is generally a GUESS, **BASED** on related science/fact, that is in the PROCESS of being proven or dis-proven.

Note that there **IS** a stage between the absence of science and the final scientific proof where one may, in fact, BELIEVE, however, unlike religion (which is based PURELY on "faith"), this belief must, in the least, be RATIONAL.

The main defining characteristic of a religion is that it can NOT be proven. The moment when it IS PROVEN, it is no longer religion, but is, in fact, science.

A scientist is someone who, by nature, must be sceptical. This is in contrast with someone who is religious, who must have faith. Be aware that though these are opposites, they are not mutually exclusive. One can simply not be religious and scientific about the same topic.
droid
not rated yet May 31, 2010
By your reasoning, sperm is life and should be "allowed to live".

Ha ha... "Eeeee-very sperm is saaaaacred, Eeeee-very sperm is good.... Eeeee-very sperm is needed, in your neighbourhood."
-- Monty Python, the Meaning of Life. On the topic of Catholics vs. Protestants.

Believe me, there ARE people who would agree with that reasoning. Look up the Catholic church's BAN ON CONDOMS. This is what it comes down to.
droid
not rated yet May 31, 2010
Just a little note about the whole death/life/stem cell/abortion/etc. debate: This will NEVER be solved to the absolute satisfaction of everyone. Much of this debate is based on subjective analyses and personal beliefs. In particular, at what point does it become a crime? To go to a severe extreme, one could say that at every cycle a female *chooses* not to reproduce when it is actually possible, that this decision itself is murder since there exists the *potential* for a new human. At the opposite end, maybe murder shouldn't even be a crime.

Should one value the POTENTIAL life more than EXISTING life? I am not going to attempt to provide any answers to this, since to be honest, I'm not qualified. I don't think that anybody is, but unfortunately, somebody *MUST* be, which is the source of the universal disagreement on the subject. The line has to be drawn somewhere. It is probably in the right place if NOBODY is happy with it.
otto1923
not rated yet May 31, 2010
The main defining characteristic of a religion is that it can NOT be proven. The moment when it IS PROVEN, it is no longer religion, but is, in fact, science.
Much of what religions believe can be unequivocally proven to be based on lies. Faith in lies is worthless and dangerous. Why should it be tolerated?
maxcypher
not rated yet May 31, 2010
Otto -- just because they're intolerant doesn't mean we have to be so. I mean let's not go overboard, right?
vaporswim
not rated yet May 31, 2010
Even a discussion about Japanese robots on the moon can somehow end up being about religion. I dare say that there will be churches and synagogues and mosques on the moon soon enough.
To clarify: Intelligent design and Evolution are both equally unfalsifiable, but are not mutually exclusive. We all seem to be fighting over who is right instead of truly seeking truth. To say that Evolution theory is hokum is just as stupid as saying that the earth was created in 7 days. So fuck common ground-seek truth. Indeed, a great many ancient scriptures are based in fact, but that truth is long lost to us by now. Religious people MUST acknowledge this to be considered rational. Likewise, atheists MUST acknowledge the fact that the universe is not governed solely by meaningless happenstance. Essentially, both sides must fully admit that they aren't automatically correct. Because Intelligent Design and Evolution both exist in this universe, neither side can be exclusively right.
vaporswim
not rated yet May 31, 2010
BTW, I know a lot of atheists are going to say fuck me, but before you do consider the fact that many of the worlds super-geniuses support Intelligent design. In fact, the smartest man in America, Christopher Langan, supports the theory. Apparently, his IQ is 195-210. Him, myself, and many other geniuses have independently come to the conclusion that Evolution does not exclude the possibility of Intelligent design. It should count for something that the smartest known people even consider this at all.
I sincerely hope that others will join us in truly seeking truth rather than reactively opposing each other for the sake of being right.
I hope that, as a species, we resolve this before we colonize the moon and other planets.
otto1923
not rated yet May 31, 2010
Otto -- just because they're intolerant doesn't mean we have to be so. I mean let's not go overboard, right?
Youre wrong.

"LAHORE, Pakistan -- At least two gunmen disguised in police uniforms attacked a hospital in the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore late Monday, killing six people in a failed attempt to free a captured militant being treated there, officials said.

The gunmen managed to escape but left without securing the release of the militant, who was part of a group of gunmen who attacked a minority sect in Lahore on Friday and killed 93 people, said Rana Sanaullah, the law minister of Punjab province, where Lahore is the capital."

-Define 'overboard'.

And they choose to come here and dump. There is no difference.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) May 31, 2010
Apparently, his IQ is 195-210. Him, myself, and many other geniuses have independently come to the conclusion that Evolution does not exclude the possibility of Intelligent design


Yes - and the existence of meadows does not exclude the presence of unicorns. Yet I see no _reason_ to believe in unicorns. Until and unless some real good _evidence_ comes along.

Believing in stuff just because it has not been proven to _not_ be possible is just stupid. If we were to do that we would have to belive in all kinds of hokey things. If you support that sort of argument then you have to ask yourself: why don't you believ in Thor? Or Osiris? Or ghosts/vampires/leprechauns?

So much for the ability of these 'geniuses' to perform rational philosophy (or elementary logic)

I am a part of the scientific community. At least in that part that concerns itself with physics, mathematics, engineering, biology, chemistry and medicine I have yet to meet a colleague who would support creationism.
maxcypher
not rated yet May 31, 2010
Otto -- I define 'overboard' as killing people for their beliefs, right or wrong. But defending ourselves from those who go 'overboard' is acceptable, in my estimation.
otto1923
not rated yet May 31, 2010
Otto -- I define 'overboard' as killing people for their beliefs, right or wrong. But defending ourselves from those who go 'overboard' is acceptable, in my estimation.
Tolerating one is enabling the other. All religion is 'one thing'. No believer is guiltless- all share responsibility for atrocity wherever it is committed, by whatever subset currently feels it necessary, if they continue to assert their right to believe in their own particular set of fantasies. The concept of religion itself must end.

Unfortunately, because there is not time enough for reason to supplant it before it in fact supplants reason itself, events so heinous as to cause disgust and revulsion sufficient for the people of this world to throw it off, will have to occur. Another great war, a pandemic, or similar may be in the cards. The world today looks a lot like it did in 1932.
Lonklan
5 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2010
So.... you find out there are gonna be rad Jap-Space-Bots on the moon and you are talking about religion and war and abortion?

SPACE-ROBOTS!

It's like if someone told you that the Germans were making Jurassic Park FOR REAL, with a whole feed-a-raptor-a-sausage event and you started banging on about tea and dictionaries and sweater-vests.
russcelt
not rated yet Jun 01, 2010
maxcypher - "...defending ourselves from those who go 'overboard' is acceptable..." ACCEPTABLE?

If life has any value what so ever, defence of it is moral. But the effective defence of life requires the right tools for a given situation. Which brings us up against the long standing official policies of a certain island nation. OKSLIP, pensioner Reginald Baker, farmer Tony Martin, Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997.

Engineering, science, and exploration are all possible when the fruits of these endeavours benefit the majority. When the profits only benefit an oligarchy the society begins to crumble.
maxcypher
not rated yet Jun 01, 2010
Wow! -- Scientists as war mongering fascists? Now that's a concept I've never heard of... Oh wait, those Nazis experimenting on those dang religious Jews were pretty darn rigorous, weren't they... Simmer-down boys because your anger is getting out of hand.
probes
1 / 5 (1) Jun 01, 2010
Theses Japanese Space Robots could be fitted with 1KW VASIMR engines.
LordOfRuin
not rated yet Jun 01, 2010
Goodness there are a lot of replies to this one. Was only going to comment that perhaps the need for a base for the robots maybe so they can avoid solar flares, and have a better place to perform maintenance; however, I'll not now, cos someone may have said it already. Ha ha! Mmm!
LuckyBrandon
not rated yet Jun 01, 2010
Quantum-
your statement of evolution not being something that has been seen (not word for word quoting there of course) is definitly not true.
Evolution is seen in labs daily. Hell, there was even an article on here last week talking about how a certain bacteria evolved into separate niches within mice when the mice were stripped of whetever chemical it was that they neturally fed on. Different bacteria adapted in different ways, and over the course of their experiments, those bacteria evolved.......
Evolution at its finest...and simplest....
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Jun 01, 2010
I think he's mostly confused about what evolution is. Evolution says nothing about how life got started - only how it has changed since. So evolution is directly in conflict with intelligent design - not creationism.

However, if one is of a scientific mind, one should hold ideas to the same standards if one is to expect others to believe them.

You need evidence to support your claim. Evolution has that evidence. Creationism has not (and neither does intelligent design or all of religion for that matter). So if you believe in creationism then you are, in your worldview, internally inconsistent.

If you cannpot be consitent in your views then it only follows that people will be deeply suspicious of what you say.
vaporswim
1 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2010
Yes - and the existence of meadows does not exclude the presence of unicorns. Yet I see no _reason_ to believe in unicorns. Until and unless some real good _evidence_ comes along.

How is that a proper analogy? And what's with: _this_?
?? "_" ????
There is in fact perfectly "_"reasonable"_" scientific "_"evidence"_" supporting Intelligent Design. Evolution "_"Theory"_" has the benefit of having no crazy religious organizations trying to latch onto it.
Creationism is a literal interpretation of genesis from the bible, a ridiculous story.
Intelligent design is completely scientific and uses only the scientific method to draw conclusions. As you claim to be "a part of the scientific community", perhaps you can apply these principles to this perfectly legitimate theory without an automatic bias. It's quite clear that you care far more about whatever psychological boost might come with being right than actually applying science to reality.
Truth is far more important than us.
vaporswim
not rated yet Jun 03, 2010
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
* "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."
"A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem. "
- Albert Einstein
trekgeek1
not rated yet Jun 04, 2010
Antialas:

Atheists cannot substantiate their lack of God through reason...check.

Atheists have no knowledge of God's non-existence, check.

Atheists have no experience of God not creating the universe...check.

Atheists cannot substantiate the BB, and did not experience it, yet they believe it...check.

Atheists cannot substantiate abiogenesis and did not experience it yet they believe it...check.

Can't get much more superstitious than that...


what is asserted without reason may be denied without reason. The religious claim there is a god without evidence. Denying that claim requires no proof. The big bang is not a principle of Atheism, it is a scientific theory that anyone can accept or refute. Most Atheists don't claim to know there is no god, they simply demand evidence of that which does not manifest. Claiming supernatural forces don't exist is not superstitious. Claiming that Zeus does not exist is not superstitious.Religion is superstitious and unsubstantiated. Own it
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2010
Intelligent design is completely scientific and uses only the scientific method to draw conclusions.


No. Intelligent design is not falsifiable or testable - hence it is not scientific.

Any observation you make can be attributed to intelligent design. As such there is no possible observation that can give you information on it (viz. Shannon information theory). Much like the hypothesis that there is a god: it is not falsifiable and also not testable.

Creationism is neither testable nor falsifiable. It, too, is not scientific.
LuckyBrandon
not rated yet Jun 04, 2010
agreed...creationism and ID are the same beast of a different name. Neither are testable or quantifiable.

I think I saw someone call evolution a theory earlier in the comments too...evolution has moved quite a bit beyond theory, considering that we observe it on a daily basis in many labs (and now with the creation of synthetic life occurring, coupled with the 1950s experiment showing a mix of chemicals with water exposed to an electric charge creates amino acids, which in turn create longer and stronger organic elements, seriously, what more evidence do you need). Evolution is a fact folks, like it or not.
And if there is a god of some sort, that only makes the rabbit he pulled from that hat that much more impressive.