Originally posted by KellyJayThanks, but I can't help but reitterate to the kids... If you want credit for what you do... you must purchase and earn intellectual capital.
Impressive
Without that you and all of us are just footnotes.
So study. Apply and grow. I'm taking my own advice. I plan on obtaining at least three doctorates before I die. We'll see.
If a master carpenter can do it... anybody can do it.
Originally posted by KneverKnightIf it ever gets built, the space elevator could potentially lift 5 tonnes/day into orbit. No need for expensive and wasteful (not to mention dangerous) rocketry.
If there is some major advance in rocketry that allows a true heavy-lift capability for a reasonable cost then by all means send humans and their heavy life-support systems.
Originally posted by richjohnsonAnd it (clarks space elevator) too depends upon "materials science". Bucky balls in carbon strand. The real challenge then becomes the politics of "the sky is falling". Should a terrorist destroy a space elevator, it will kill a swath a thousand km wide around the earth three times. Much to consider.
If it ever gets built, the space elevator could potentially lift 5 tonnes/day into orbit. No need for expensive and wasteful (not to mention dangerous) rocketry.
These missions seem pointless to me if they are based on the premis of extending human existence just for the sake of it. Let me explain. Mankind has continually sought to destroy itself, if you look at it simplistically we are in essence quite a nasty virus in this universe.
Where ever we have gone historically around our globe we have sought to destroy other races and other environments- the NIMBY philosophy. So why should we spread ourselves throughout the universe and keep on perpetuating our 'trademark'?
We all know, that market strategies dominate our world, not humanistic concerns. Market analysts hold back supplies of commodities until prices 'are right'. So for example foods and medicines (including ‘cures&rsquo😉 are often stockpiled or restricted on the global markets which can cause (on a grand scale) pain, suffering and death in third world countries. We all know there is enough food to feed everyone without starvation/hunger having to be a daily occurrence for 2/3 of our world population. We all know that the arms trade is perpetuated in ‘the West’ , that the drug trade only exists because of Western markets, that the entire earth is being plundered and pillaged for resources to keep Western societies in their consumerist modes (Western societies have 20% world population yet consume 90% of our worlds resources). And why do we continually put up buildings, then 20 or 30years later knock them down again? What a waste of resources – I would suggest that when a structure is built, that a covenant be placed on it for at least 100years. The workmanship and building standards would then have to improve, let alone town planning, transport and reticulation services.
Do we really want to spread ourselves around the universe when we are like this? You would have to be quite gullible to think that our ways of thinking and living and treating environments will all of a sudden change for the better just because we will be living on other planets? Would you send astronauts brought up in our consumerist societies to perpetuate these destructive philosophies?
Just imagine the cost also of the Mars space programmes and how its alternate spending could benefit Humankind here on earth. The 330 billion dollar tag could easily solve the hunger, housing, medicine and education problems of everyone on earth and be used to build systems to recycle human wastes back into food, water and usable gases (as in spacecraft).
People will be thinking why save people in the third world, let them buildup their own infrastructures, and so on…however I feel we owe these countries, they are the primary regions from whence our mineral and oil resources have come and (backing up several centuries) our slave labour forces (8,000,000 captured and sent to North America alone) that were essential to building up new world Western societies. Also imagine in the future a snug base all set up on say Mars, or several human outposts all around our solar system, then imagine on earth a new super alliance formation that wants to destroy these outposts (for whatever reasons) which going by past human history would be LIKELY. What a huge waste of resources and human effort.
Why don’t we get it right on our planet first? Then spread out, not as a blood (resource) sucking and environment destroying virus, but as a neutral (plasmic) species bereft of destruction tendencies and inclinations. Yes we will always need resources but we could improve, for example, extraction methods and commodity transformations.
In the long run, I feel, the prevention (of the rabid ‘human’ virus) would be more effective than the cure. But our societies need to practice sustainability before we can leave here.
Geez….I think this subject has touched a nerve in me! 😉
Originally posted by TinorangatiratangaHi Tino,
These missions seem pointless to me if they are based on the premis of extending human existence just for the sake of it. Let me explain. Mankind has continually sought to destroy itself, if you look at it simplistically we are ...[text shortened]... here.
Geez….I think this subject has touched a nerve in me! 😉
You are right. Welcome and thanks for responding.
I wonder that we can be so virulent a disease as you describe.
I hope we are not.
I think that in your mind and many other minds that we are indeed poison.
So why are we, as organisms poison?
I don't know. Well... I do. I once lay in a hospital for six month and stared at a light bulb and knew that all life was poison.
So. You deserve to be down. Ain't nothing I can do for you. You have to figure it out on your own. Or kill yer'sef.
Sorry. That is the way of the world. If we can get to know and care about you then we can beg you to relent in your self hate.
What are the odds?
So.
'Splain yer sef'
What do you want? Why are you so down?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyHi 'SVW'
Hi Tino,
You are right. Welcome and thanks for responding.
I wonder that we can be so virulent a disease as you describe.
I hope we are not.
I think that in your mind and many other minds that we are indeed poison.
So why are we, as organisms poison?
I don't know. Well... I do. I once lay in a hospital for six month and stared at a li ...[text shortened]... te.
What are the odds?
So.
'Splain yer sef'
What do you want? Why are you so down?
I'm not down on life, I'm just not confident that we should be letting ourselves loose in space. I feel self containment here on earth would be far better at present for the human species and because we can help each other by redirecting money earmarked for manned space flight/exploration/sttlements. Robotic travel only costs 1/4 of manned flights, we'd find out the same things with no loss of life and a better chance of success and journeys through space can be undertaken for longer periods.
Originally posted by TinorangatiratangaWell said.
Hi 'SVW'
I'm not down on life, I'm just not confident that we should be letting ourselves loose in space. I feel self containment here on earth would be far better at present for the human species and because we can help eac ...[text shortened]... s and journeys through space can be undertaken for longer periods.
I think you are right. Until we develop a simple and cheap transport to Low Earth Orbit.
You just sounded really down. Sorry. Probably tee many martoonies on this end.
<edit> as a challenge... what can the race do that will mean more than getting the species into space?
Realizing that all efforts must parish because of our mortality?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyhttp://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/ProjectOrion.html
Orion was an Arthur Clark invention.
As was geo-sync sattelite communication.
NERVA was a tested and proven nuclear fission rocket engine.
http://www.aemann.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/spacecraft/nerva/reactor.html
NERVA can be used in two ways. To LEO and then as an ion propulsion source for deep space travel.
But it takes guts. And a material way beyond what was available (titanium) in 1969.
Here's a site for Orion.
There were tests done using non-nuclear explosions to lift a craft in a controlled manner, the concept was proved, but of course you can't go detonating nukes in the atmosphere willy-nilly.
Anyways, I'm scratching my head here, it seems to me that in spite of budget cuts (or maybe because of them) robotic probes have started to blossom. Yet here we are going back to manned flights "spam-in-a-can", the Shuttle's replacement (the X-30?) has been cancelled; what's wrong with this picture?
Originally posted by TinorangatiratangaWell, presumably there are no other cultures to infect in our solar system, but you raise a good point: if Mars has traces of prior bacterial life, does it make sense to send humans there carrying germs and possibly contaminate the planet to the point where it becomes impossible to seperate the earth germs from the martian ones? Surely it is easier to sterilize a robot than a manned craft to avoid contamination.
These missions seem pointless to me if they are based on the premis of extending human existence just for the sake of it. Let me explain. Mankind has continually sought to destroy itself, if you look at it simplistically we are ...[text shortened]... here.
Geez….I think this subject has touched a nerve in me! 😉
EDIT Typo
Originally posted by KneverKnightThe original Moon mission had a simple purpose - to put Americans on the moon, to be there first. And once that nationalist goal was accomplished, puttting men on the moon made as much sense as taking up a donkey to pull them around in a little cart.
What do you all think of President Bush's plan to send manned vehicles to the moon and Mars? With advances in robotic vehicles, is NASA being forced to throw money away on missions that could be better and more safely done by robots?
A manned programe would be orders of magnitude more expensive than unmanned probes and accomplish less. The only reason to do it is flag waving.
Still - there are worse things the US could do with large rockets and wads of government cash.
Originally posted by steerpikeI tend to agree, the US has lost the bogieman of the Communist to beat to the moon, they won that race.That's old news.
The original Moon mission had a simple purpose - to put Americans on the moon, to be there first. And once that nationalist goal was accomplished, puttting men on the moon made as much sense as taking up a donkey to pull them around in a little cart.
A manned programe would be orders of magnitude more expensive than unmanned probes and accomplish less. ...[text shortened]... ill - there are worse things the US could do with large rockets and wads of government cash.
For now, how to proceed? Surely we agree that exploration is a worthwhile goal (start a new thread if you don't like this concept)
I'll just say it in plain English: Robots can do the job much cheaper.
Originally posted by KneverKnightYes I concur team. The 'grab the high ground' ethos of the cold war is hardly apt now. Getting propoganda advantage out of space travel seems to have run out of speed. However I understand there are powerful scientific & industrial lobby groups to keep the space programme on track - because it is a very very lucrative industry and millions of careers depend on the space industry progressing. It also has spin-offs for the defence department and other armament related organisations.
I tend to agree, the US has lost the bogieman of the Communist to beat to the moon, they won that race.That's old news.
For now, how to proceed? Surely we agree that exploration is a worthwhile goal (start a new thread if you don't like this concept)
I'll just say it in plain English: Robots can do the job much cheaper.
Originally posted by KneverKnightAnd computers can play chess easier than all but a few mortals, but where's the adventure in that? Surely you can't put a price tag on the human desire to acheive great things - having a little robot putter around Mars trivializes the human race in my view.
I tend to agree, the US has lost the bogieman of the Communist to beat to the moon, they won that race.That's old news.
For now, how to proceed? Surely we agree that exploration is a worthwhile goal (start a new thread if you don't like this concept)
I'll just say it in plain English: Robots can do the job much cheaper.
Originally posted by no1marauderBe a great little diversion too. The moon landings happened at the same time as the Vietnam war started to look really messy. You don´t think I am a cynic to think Bush might be trying to create a feel-good mission so Americans are thinking about a Mars mission and not soldiers in unarmoured Humvees facing insurgents?
And computers can play chess easier than all but a few mortals, but where's the adventure in that? Surely you can't put a price tag on the human desire to acheive great things - having a little robot putter around Mars trivializes the human race in my view.
Originally posted by steerpikeI really don't care about dimwit's motives and if you've read any of the threads on the Iraq war you know my feelings about it. Why can't humanity try to do something extraordinary and bold for a change rather than mucking around here playing "My God's better than yours" or "Why don't you people do as you're told so your betters can get richer"?
Be a great little diversion too. The moon landings happened at the same time as the Vietnam war started to look really messy. You don´t think I am a cynic to think Bush might be trying to create a feel-good mission so Americans are thinking about a Mars mission and not soldiers in unarmoured Humvees facing insurgents?
BTW Your history stinks: after Tet in February, 1968 everybody with half a brain knew that the war was a lost cause and Johnson starting taking down the troop levels within months. The moon landings were in July 1969, a year and a half later, and had been scheduled years before.