If you ask me, interstellar travel should be #1 on mankind's agenda (although slightly long-term, but still on top). But for that we need to stop all these silly wars, this infighting which is sucking up science, money, time, and brainpower. We need to get mundane stuff totally automated so we don't need to struggle to make ends meet all our life.
All daily chores and work need to taken care of by robots or automation so we do not _have_ to work.
Then science can focus on important things like interstellar travel. It just sucks that our entire lives are spent trying to pay bills and doing stuff that is just so uncreative. Science needs to be creative and free too, not tied down and stifled by industrial lobbies and politicians afraid of change.
I know my thoughts on this are totally uninformed and silly, but i'd like people who know better to respond.
To repeat and summarize, it absolutely and totally sucks that interstellar travel is on no one's agenda, on no one's horizon even. Are we (the living) dead ?
If you ask me, interstellar travel should be #1 on mankind's agenda (although slightly long-term, but still on top). But for that we need to stop all these silly wars, this infighting which is sucking up science, money, time, and brainpower. We need to get mundane stuff totally automated so we don't need to struggle to make ends meet all our life.
All daily chores and work need to taken care of by robots or automation so we do not _have_ to work.
Then science can focus on important things like interstellar travel. It just sucks that our entire lives are spent trying to pay bills and doing stuff that is just so uncreative. Science needs to be creative and free too, not tied down and stifled by industrial lobbies and politicians afraid of change.
I know my thoughts on this are totally uninformed and silly, but i'd like people who know better to respond.
To repeat and summarize, it absolutely and totally sucks that interstellar travel is on no one's agenda, on no one's horizon even. Are we (the living) dead ?
According to their roadmap, the first crew of four people will land in 2025. Not too far away, if all goes as planned.
Sentinel
yes.....uninformed. The nearest star is what, about 5 light years away? So that's five years to get there if you travel at the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second. Matter-energy equations tell us that your mass increases as your velocity does, and at those very high speeds your mass would approach infinite, if you can consider such a thing. So no sensible scientist foresees how such travel would be feasible. And if it were, you're still talking about at least 10 years round-trip -- and that's the NEAREST star, which might not even have planets (remember that the star itself is merely a ball of hydrogen fusion fire, not a place you'd care to vacation).
I and it only takes one impact to send humankind back to the Stone Age
^^ there is a group called Spacewatch at the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Lab (of which my brother was Director, before leaving for Rice U.). One of its missions is to monitor for asteroids that might present a hazard to earth. Things look rosy enough for the moment.
^^ there is a group called Spacewatch at the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Lab (of which my brother was Director, before leaving for Rice U.). One of its missions is to monitor for asteroids that might present a hazard to earth. Things look rosy enough for the moment.
Why not opt for colonizing the desert and outback instead? it fairly sandy and rocky too but the temps can be human and the fare return is cheaper .
Why not opt for colonizing the desert and outback instead? it fairly sandy and rocky too but the temps can be human and the fare return is cheaper .
This is from their site regarding the health hazards of long distance travel:
"A recent study of International Space Station (ISS) astronauts, with mission durations ranging from 4-6 months, showed a maximum loss of 30% muscle performance (and maximum loss of 15% muscle mass). However, we intend even to lower these numbers. With recent and emerging scientific research of effective long-duration countermeasures, Mars One will take advantage of the ~10 years prior to the launch of the first colonization mission to observe and select the most suitable astronauts and countermeasures to ensure a safe and successful mission."
They also mention decreases in bone density and aerobic capacity. It definitely sounds unappealing, but it doesn't seem like something that would prevent us from going. They seem optimistic about minimizing the health hazards.
According to their roadmap, the first crew of four people will land in 2025. Not too far away, if all goes as planned.
I mean these are not unsolvable problems. For example.. make the craft spin and it will introduce an artificial gravity via centrifugal force (or centripetal? i forget). But like any design, there are drawbacks and lost efficiency. Which is stuff these engineers are experts in and have thought a lot more about than me or anyone else. Guess we'll just have to wait and see what the design proposals are
I was reading some stuff about going to mars..and I recently watched a 'horizon' type programme about the problems humans face getting there.
is it really going to happen by 2019 ?...we would all be amazed if it did happen by then.
I am expecting replies or rebuttals on the idea, not the science behind it. It is my fault, i did not make myself clear. I am not talking about causal vacationing.Sentinel
yes.....uninformed.
There is a Mars trilogy which has excellent reviews. I have been wanting to read it for ages, i don't think i will ever get time. It think it is Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars. You get the drift.Terraforming a planet is not feasible with current technology. If they could even build a stable model with a viable atmosphere providing conditions suitable for life (including shielding from solar radiation, pressure, and temperature ranges), they would need to source an immense amount of gas/water to make things work. Taking these from Earth wouldn't be a good idea for many reasons. The least of your problems would be transportation, and the worst would probably be that you would be disrupting Earth's balance in doing so.
Also, the atmosphere is thin, so topspin won't work. Roger will beat Rafa every timeI understand Martian gravity is much weaker than Earth's, so it would be too difficult to keep the ball from going long.
There is a Mars trilogy which has excellent reviews. I have been wanting to read it for ages, i don't think i will ever get time. It think it is Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars. You get the drift.
Maybe if we can all stop fighting over who is the GOAT, i could get around to reading them
Also, the atmosphere is thin, so topspin won't work. Roger will beat Rafa every time
But it will be red clay, Rafa's fave surface, so you can never tell.
By when will we be having a slam on Mars ?
.I volunteer The Kardashians for the mission, including Kanye West.
.
No can do: Kim Kardashian's ass would explode at 20,000 feet.
__________________
Why not opt for colonizing the desert and outback instead? it fairly sandy and rocky too but the temps can be human and the fare return is cheaper .
Sage idea, and who knows maybe they'll come across some bumbling crude......oil that is....black gold....Texas tea...
Say you get robots to do the mundane stuff, what are you going to do with the people that got their jobs displaced by robots?
Also, the atmosphere is thin, so topspin won't work. Roger will beat Rafa every time
But it will be red clay, Rafa's fave surface, so you can never tell.
By when will we be having a slam on Mars ?
Don't worry about that dear chap. All it takes is a couple of Indians, we'll repopulate the earth in no time. Send us anywhere, even Mars, and you'll have a flourishing population of know-it-alls like suresh and me and tushylovesrafaI think people need to get their priorities straight. The first order of business should be establishing an anti asteroid strategy to protect Earth from a catastrophic impact. There have been some close calls, and it only takes one impact to send humankind back to the Stone Age (or to the pool of Primordial Soup).
.
What about the bank teller whose job got replaced by an ATM? Do you feel sorry for him? What about the maids who got replaced by washing machines?
The world does not stand still. At every point of time, there are winners and losers.
I am not sure you even read the post properly, I did not say everyone had to be thrown into the space program. I did say that everyone would not have to work ,,, in other words would not be forced to work if they did not want to. That means if you do enjoy washing dishes then fine. I also spoke of creativity and the arts, today artists (or sportspersons) often have to worry about paying bills, for us that's the first thing, not what we really want to do.I was answering a post saying that all daily chores and menial work to be done by robots so we don't have to work and concentrate on this project. I agree that there are winners and losers and people will find something else to do. My point was that you can automate ALL work. People will have to work in other things besides the Mars program and you can't really just throw more people at the program to make it faster. It makes no sense to throw a few hundred sous chefs (which were now replaced by robotic work) to the program.
Also some people enjoy doing house chores in order to get their mind of the issue and not burn out.
.
No can do: Kim Kardashian's ass would explode at 20,000 feet.
__________________
oh dear, we still have people here who haven't heard of the greenhouse effect. You know ... dust cover blocking out the sun and stuff like that , come on, do i have to spell it out to youWhat is the downside?
oh dear, we still have people here who haven't heard of the greenhouse effect. You know ... dust cover blocking out the sun and stuff like that , come on, do i have to spell it out to you