Mars: One Way
And since the greatest portion of expenses will be incurred by the safe return of the crew and spacecraft to Earth, the authors conclude that a manned one-way mission to Mars would both cut costs and help initiate Martian colonization.
"It would really be little different from the first white settlers of the North American continent, who left Europe with little expectation of return," said Davies, a cosmologist at from Arizona State University in Phoenix. "Explorers such as Columbus, Frobisher, Scott and Amundsen, while not embarking on their voyages with the intention of staying at their destination, nevertheless took huge personal risks to explore new lands, in the knowledge that there was a significant likelihood that they would perish in the attempt."
Stay. That is a pretty simple very sensible idea drawn from history.
"...significant likelihood that they would perish in the attempt." Is not the same as definite knowledge that they're fucked.
Maybe the same idea and risks when the Polynesians set out to sea,
and ended up discovering (all ?) the islands of the South Pacific.
Just thinking about that gives me chills...
I wonder WTF those folks are smoking to draw a comparison between travel to another part of a planet that you know supports life and travel to another planet that you know does not support life.
Reminds me of the radio station ID that went "The songs we play may not be your favorites but they have a lot of the same notes." Same logic.
I'm sure there are people that would volunteer to go on a one way, I'm also sure there would people adamantly against allowing, financing it, or even officially condoning it.
*looks for sign-up sheet*
I bet the Canadian military pilot who flew Queen Elizabeth around and was just convicted of two murders and will spend the rest of his life in prison would be both qualified to go and would want to go instead of going to prison.
Read
Red Mars, by Kim Stanley Robinson, for a completely fictional, yet entertaining, stroy of how it would work. Don't bother reading Green Mars or Blue Mars.
I bet the Canadian military pilot who flew Queen Elizabeth around and was just convicted of two murders and will spend the rest of his life in prison would be both qualified to go and would want to go instead of going to prison.
I missed that item.
Just googled it and saw this line:
Many are wondering how a man trusted with the country's most sensitive military secrets could have, for so long, kept so many secrets of his own.
Umm, wouldn't that be exactly the type of person you'd want to entrust with secrets? I mean someone who can
keep a secret?
Read Red Mars, by Kim Stanley Robinson, for a completely fictional, yet entertaining, stroy of how it would work. Don't bother reading Green Mars or Blue Mars.
agreed. i got 2/3 of the way through red mars.. poorly written and boring.
and i'm easy to entertain.
I bet the Canadian military pilot who flew Queen Elizabeth around and was just convicted of two murders and will spend the rest of his life in prison would be both qualified to go and would want to go instead of going to prison.
That might be (or become) a solo mission
I bet the Canadian military pilot who flew Queen Elizabeth around and was just convicted of two murders and will spend the rest of his life in prison would be both qualified to go and would want to go instead of going to prison.
Mars. The new Australia.
The big difference between the pilgrims coming here, and staying, and us going to Mars, to stay: Existing food/water. We had it when the pilgrims came here.
There is no food on Mars. And no weed.
If we can grow wheat in Brazil we can grow pot on Mars.
If we can grow wheat in Brazil we can grow pot on Mars.
Even the Rover Spirit cannot stay alive in normal sub-freezing summer temperatures on the equator. Because it solar array could not be fully pointed at the sun, it looks like winter killed even transistors. Transistors. Things that are perfectly good even at -40 degrees.
With its big solar arrays - the best and most efficient mankind can produce - the Rovers have a 100 watts of electricity for the four hours every day. How does any man survive end when even solar arrays produce near zero energy? Well so many feel they can. Therefore we can even grow hemp. Export ropes from Mars.
World’s best science comes from machines - with no humans nearby.
Has the Spirit died? Probably. It could not generate enough electricity to even keep transistors alive. Next few weeks will say more. Rumor has it that Spirit is already inside a Martian junk yard. It could not even defend itself. Mars is vicious even for machines.
If we keep sending up hardware, then the Martians will construct a pot. Then Martian cannibals can broast astronauts. Better is to give them something they cannot eat. Martian Rovers.
BTW, no water has been found on Mars. Theories suggests water left only a few hundred thousand years ago. Even water decided it was better to leave Mars.
The "best" solar array for an aging mobile system is not the best and most efficient mankind can build. In the case of permanent human settlement, efficiency should give way to durability and ease of production. Machines are useful but they are not man and do not meet the primary objective of species survival. Science is the means not the end.
Doesn't having government scientist's with a primary objective of species survival, just reinforce the old attitude of I don't have to worry about how I treat the Earth, science will come up with a fix?
I think of it more as a safety valve for when the inevitable world wide f'up comes down the line, but you are right that that attitude exists in some form.
On 4 Mar 2004 at
Perverting science for politics One reason suggested for less funding on quantum physics is that those scientific results are in direct contradiction to Genesis. How dare we challenge teachings of the Bible. Slowly, more advanced physic research is moving to Europe and Japan where funding request need not be written to avoid religious overtones. Can we point fingers at specific lawmakers? No. But many science projects based on concepts contrary to Genesis have suddenly lost funding only recently. One example cited here is the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) which would have asked questions about the Big Bang - a concept that violates Genesis.
And so the AMS has sat quashed until we finally removed a wacko extremist from office. Suddenly, a critical experiment addressing quantum physics is acceptable again. Dr Ting's Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) is now scheduled for a very last space shuttle flight. But more interesting, it will do science where no virtually no science is performed - ISS.
Manned spaceflight, which takes almost all of NASA's budget, does almost no science. Almost all science is performed by robots and machines for very little money. Which is why Man to Mars is also so obviously rediculous.
AMS needs no manual intervention. It only requires a vehicle to carry it. And that will be ISS. ISS does so little science (due to men being on it) that the AMS is a very welcome attachment. At least astronauts can be adjacent to science that works just fine without them.
AMS was killed off in 2003. From the New York Times of 18 Nov 2010:
Dr. Ting fought back. In 2005, invited to address a Senate committee on the state of American science, he used his five minutes and nine transparencies to mount a rousing defense of basic science and of his experiment. “They were surprised to hear that the space station can do good science,” Dr. Ting recalled.
And still, Dr Ting's AMS, which must answer a critical quantum physics question about positron numbers, could not get a ride until the very last Shuttle was looking for a payload.
By putting too many men in space, therefore too little science gets done. AMS is more science planned in the 1990s, essential to answering fundamental science questions, and will finally get launched in 2011. Meanwhile we built an ISS that does almost no science; all for the glory and myths of man in space.
The space station is about what happens to people in space, cooperation between governments and people of different backgrounds.
It's a social experiment that could help humans more than any science experiment ever could.
The space station is about what happens to people in space, cooperation between governments and people of different backgrounds.
It's a social experiment that could help humans more than any science experiment ever could.
Put a bunch of Chilean miners is a hole for months with a Peruvian. A testy experiment that accomplishes the same thing.
Or Biosphere 2. Same thing.
What could have taught the world far more? The lesson learned from Desert Storm where literally the entire world united for a common goal. Or the Balkan where Europe learned how much must still be learned. Or Sudan. Or the many Central African states. That is governments and people learning from social experiments - that also are not learned on the ISS.
What really was the ISS? A project to test peaceful cooperation between former cold war adversaries. That purpose was long since become obsolete. Meanwhile the ISS such the living blood out of mankind's most important activity - fundamental science.
That's why you can understand what going on, tw. Thinking fundamental science is mankind's most important activity is misguided. Mankind's most important activity is getting along with each other.
It may not be the best for science, but the ISS is pretty cool. Imagine if that was you posing there. It's the perfect profile picture for the Cellar or Facebook.
But glatt, that's obviously a posed picture. They put the Earth outside that window just to tug on earthlings heartstrings. They probably do the same thing with other planets to garner support there too. :haha:
Mankind's most important activity is getting along with each other.
Which was made irrelevant when we use ships, jet airplanes, passports, telephones, eliminate tariffs, create the UN, remove silly immigration quotas, international law, ... Oh. All that was made possible by so many breakthroughs in fundamental science and the resulting products.
Also cool is the Tower of Babel. So we should build one?
The point is that best science is performed by machines. Not by sending men into environments that man performs so poorly in.
Telescopes work best without men nearby. Deep sea research and even oil exploration only by machines and robots. Advance semiconductor, nuclear, and quantum physics - remove the humans. Since the 1960s, science has advanced because even space exploration is now possible and done better by machines. Machines will only get even more productive, intelligent, and flexible when men stay where men are most productive. Where men can do what men do best to advance fundamental science.
Ships, jet airplanes, passports, telephones, didn't solve the problem, they created it. When we were isolated, there was no friction except immediate neighbors, but now we can annoy people 12,000 miles away in a heartbeat.
I do believe if you had the power, you'd eliminate people entirely. :eyebrow:
Ships, jet airplanes, passports, telephones, didn't solve the problem, they created it.
Death and destruction is most often traceable to no communication. Best way to avoid hate and harm is meeting people by plane, boat, phone, and those so many other listed achievements. Trade is by far one of the best ways to avert problems. Possible and made necessary because of fundamental science advancements. The greatest centers of peace, prosperity, and the advancement of mankind occurred where communication was easiest and encouraged, because science prospered.
Science is the foundation from which virtually every good thing happens. Only possible when humans are educated, productive, and pushing out the envelope. But instead we should have covens of witches and warlocks since, as you recommended, man's most important activity is, instead, getting along and staying ignorant.
Therefore we need more Christine O'Donnels to advance mankind. Who has no idea what science is. Whose solutions can be found in more religion. It is easier to get along when prettier witches have tea parties. Screw science. Or not.
Watch 'Moon' and imagine this kind of sci fi BS actually set forth.
No way two peeps could endure the '6 month' trip, let alone setting up a base on Mars.
Liar, I never said "staying ignorant". Science will solve all out social problems, was the post war cry to the masses. How'd that work out for ya? :rolleyes:
No fo0hzy, I'm not talking to you.
No way two peeps could endure the '6 month' trip, let alone setting up a base on Mars.
Submariners do extended missions.
Submariners do extended missions.
How many tons of materials and systems surround each sailor to protect him from a not so harsh environment? Mars makes that underwater environment equivalent to a tropical paradise.
What is the price of each pound to Mars? Something like $hundreds of thoudands or $millions per pound. How many submariners survive in a mild environment with a few hundred pounds of equipment to protect him? And no equipment to do the science.
A manned trip to Mars is about 1 year. Without protection as provided by earth for ISS, those astronauts would die prematurely. No protection solution exists yet even in theory.
Best science means humans back on earth sending machines to do most work. Even ocean science is now done by machines - not by humans. It takes too many tons to keep one man alive even in very shallow water.
That's all great if people were strictly rational. They're not. There is something in the human spirit that loves a wilderness. The same kind of people who climb mount Everest because it's there will go to Mars - someday.
How many tons of materials and systems surround each sailor to protect him from a not so harsh environment? Mars makes that underwater environment equivalent to a tropical paradise.
What is the price of each pound to Mars? Something like $hundreds of thoudands or $millions per pound. How many submariners survive in a mild environment with a few hundred pounds of equipment to protect him? And no equipment to do the science.
A manned trip to Mars is about 1 year. Without protection as provided by earth for ISS, those astronauts would die prematurely. No protection solution exists yet even in theory.
Best science means humans back on earth sending machines to do most work. Even ocean science is now done by machines - not by humans. It takes too many tons to keep one man alive even in very shallow water.
Right.
A two man/woman mission to Mars is simply not going to succeed, I don't care how many pairs are launched behind them. And fiscally it is not possible anyway, so Mars will remain a dreamed-about destination for many decades.
We need to get back to the Moon. That's where science should focus.
We need to get back to the Moon. That's where science should focus.
Actually we need to get back to doing the only thing that made America great - science and innovation. If that is missions to Mars, the moon, or ... does anyone know about the massive mission to Jupiter called Juno? Or the James Webb telescope? Or the so many mission to follow up on Solar Max. Or what the Japanese recently attempted? Or the AMS that is about science - not about making politicians look good.
Same applies to quantum physics where we destroyed the Super Collider - fundamental and essential science - for a political 'feel good' mission called ISS. Its not about where we should go. It is about what science is best done.
If going to the moon is important, then science that makes that necessary is also defined. It is about science. Not about glory.
Probably the greatest space science experiment has been Hubble. But Hubble is too close to earth. Which is why a most promising space research project will be the Webb telescope. The best science is done for science. And no longer deploys man in space.
If going to the moon is important, then science that makes that necessary is also defined. It is about science. Not about glory.
Probably the greatest space science experiment has been Hubble. But Hubble is too close to earth. Which is why a most promising space research project will be the Webb telescope. The best science is done for science.
Agreed
And no longer deploys man in space.
ARE YOU INSANE?
Man MUST explore... even beyond known limits.
But yes, A Mars mission is doomed to fail.
To the Moon? We've been there, done that. Just pull the map out of the glovebox and go back.
Agreed
ARE YOU INSANE?
Man MUST explore... even beyond known limits.
But yes, A Mars mission is doomed to fail.
To the Moon? We've been there, done that. Just pull the map out of the glovebox and go back.
I agree on the urge to explore - that's one of our biggest challenges right now, needing some way to fulfill this urge - but where? You reject Mars, and seem to be rejecting the moon.
Mind you, getting to the moon isn't that easy. NASA threw out the Apollo plans, and RFN we have no spaceship that could take us there.
I agree on the urge to explore - that's one of our biggest challenges right now, needing some way to fulfill this urge - but where? You reject Mars, and seem to be rejecting the moon.
Mind you, getting to the moon isn't that easy. NASA threw out the Apollo plans, and RFN we have no spaceship that could take us there.
I have not rejected the moon as a destination. Mars? Yeah. For now.
NASA isn't what it once was, but the brains are there. I say we visit our landing site.
I agree on the urge to explore - that's one of our biggest challenges right now, needing some way to fulfill this urge - but where? You reject Mars, and seem to be rejecting the moon.
A mission to the moon was called Constellation. It was planned by extremists who believe the status quo is innovative. So Orion is called Apollo on steriods.
Where as the Russians now launch a man into space for $tens of millions, the Constellation must charge $1 billion for the same seat. A classic example of why America's government manned space program has come to a crashing roadblock.
Rare events require a man in space. But the greatest advancements and what makes possible future manned flight means that Nasa's budget should be at least 50% for non-manned flight. To do science rather than glory. Innovations necessary to make manned flight productive must come from the only place that does science. Unmanned science.
That same lesson is now found in all other advanced science where glory is replaced by hard logic and practical thinking.
BTW, you do know a Space Shuttle has been flying for months - maybe a year now. It is a military Space Shuttle that has no humans aboard. Obviously done for productive tasks - not for glory. But due to the nature of bird, its purpose is only speculation.
Largest impediment to America's manned space program occurred in 2004 when fools subverted that program by simply redoing Saturn V and the Apollo program all over again rather then thinking innovatively. As a result, rockets such as Proton and Ariane now own the heavy launching business and will probably be the only viable transport to ISS. America's Constellation is a technological nightmare due to how and where it was conceieved.
Time to see this disaster coming was when the same White House lawyers, who were rewriting science papers, were also making the plans for NASA's future. Ignored the scientists to think only in terms of 1970 technology. We now have to live with their legacy until private operations such as SpaceX or SpaceShipOne finally get commercial operations started.
I had mentioned bits and pieces of what we now know as the destruction of America's manned space program. Was anybody listening?
Among some of the symptoms was a George Jr program to quash many science experiments and even the rescue of Hubble. To White House lawyers, these were only unnecessary expenses without sufficient glory.
Actually we need to get back to doing the only thing that made America great - science and innovation.
Utter nonsense. America was made great by many things, one of which was the existence of a frontier safety valve for people who are temperamentally unsuited for sitting in a cubicle watching robots getting stuck in sand.
One of which were the Great Prairies of the Midwest...
A surplus of food makes time to do other things.
Same for the Pacific and Mountains of the Northwest...
A surplus of timber and minerals
Even tho I grew up there, I'm not so sure about California, or of Florida :rolleyes:
Utter nonsense. America was made great by many things, one of which was the existence of a frontier safety valve for people who are temperamentally unsuited for sitting in a cubicle watching robots getting stuck in sand.
And so you have proved that most of Africa are world dominate nations.
Actually we are all Africans and the dominant world economies were developed by those Africans who sought out new lands.
We have been reaching out to and exploring the unknown since the beginning of mankind. That isn't going to change anytime soon.
Amazing so much silence on a major accomplishment. The George Jr administration literally destroyed America's space program by killing the Shuttles, created a boondoggle called, Constellation, Ares, and Orion, and almost killed Hubble. The fools even annouced a 'Man to Mars' without even consulting science. As a good MBA, he did everything necessary to destroy America and its economy for his own glory and emotions.
Then someone with intelligence came to power. Fixed America's space program. A milestone was a SpaceX launch of the Dragon capsule. Maybe three more private companies are also doing what makes America great. By not doing what is taught in business schools. And by undoing the disasters created by the George Jr administration.
America in the first decade of 2000 surrendered the satellite launch business mostly to the Russians and French. America has been surrendering science to overseas nations. We have only just started to recover from ten years of pathetic leadership. Dragon and SpaceX are simply one of many examples of how America is slowly clawing its way back.
Since Limbaugh and Fox remained quiet, then many did not even understand the significance. Surprising is a silence in the Cellar. Apparently few really understood a major significance of SpaceX and other ongoing projects.
Of course, innovation can take ten years to result in actual products. Those who see reality rather than spread sheets can appreciate why America could only be richer and healthier when we canceled a dumb 'Man to Mars' and Constellation / Ares / Orion. Trophies to the low intelligence of George Jr and his administration.
We are currently undoing almost a decade of America's destruction. Including other trophies such as Mission Accomplished and the protection of bin Laden.
Yeah, SpaceX was cool. I watched the docking live. The splashdown was very nostalgic too. It's been decades since I'd seen one of those.
I've touched one of the Dragon capsules.
It's funny that the spy agencies just gave NASA two telescopes better than Hubble because there is no way to get them into orbit now. So they were worthless to the spy agencies and they figured "Hey, why not give them to NASA?" I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that discussion.
It's funny that the spy agencies just gave NASA two telescopes better than Hubble because there is no way to get them into orbit now.
So many politicians complained about the cost of Hubble and the upcoming Web telescopes. These same bean counters types even destroyed something like eight major earth science satellites, in part, because they might further prove mankind is creating global warming.
Meanwhile, the NRO has more expensive technology than they can launch. Because Americans cannot throw enough money at the military. But use MBA cost controls on anything that would do innovation or advance mankind.
Well, it was worse a decade ago. Honesty now means the NRO can admit to so many technologies bought and paid for at much higher costs. And sit unused. Because if we spend more money on the military, then people will love us?
Yeah, SpaceX was cool. I watched the docking live. The splashdown was very nostalgic too. It's been decades since I'd seen one of those.
I've touched one of the Dragon capsules.
It's funny that the spy agencies just gave NASA two telescopes better than Hubble because there is no way to get them into orbit now. So they were worthless to the spy agencies and they figured "Hey, why not give them to NASA?" I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that discussion.
They probably point the wrong way.
They probably point the wrong way.
My understanding is that they are sitting in a wharehouse on Earth.
'twere a joke oriented on the CIA's desire to look down and NASA's desire to look up.
I figured it was a joke, but then the first time I heard this story, they didn't say the telescopes were in a warehouse, and I assumed they were in orbit, and I thought that was super cool. BUt then I later learned they were sitting in a warehouse and were just expensive paperweights. So, I clarified in case you had made the same initial false assumption I had.
Sorry for making you explain it was a joke. :(
psh... I get that *all the time*. You're special, but not in that way.
BUt then I later learned they were sitting in a warehouse and were just expensive paperweights.
They do not sit in warehouses. And are not the only 'defense' birds in similar storage. Many duplicates of so many defense satellites sit in secure clean rooms.
A difference from Hubble: its lens has a wider aperture.
Even flying is a 'secret' robotic version of the space shuttle. Unknown is how many of those are sitting is storage.
Going to America is definitely not the same as going to Mars...
The more obvious comparison is the international space station. The first people to live on the surface of Mars would effectively live on a space station, just, on the surface of a planet. And it would have to be a one way trip, because getting there and back will not feasible for a long time.
We send food and stuff to the international space station all the time. Mars is obviously WAY further but I think we would be able to do it. Meanwhile the scientists could begin the long, slow, difficult process of terraforming Mars. They may never get to come back, but they get to terraform Mars. And that is AWESOME. I refuse to believe that people cannot be found to sign up for that. I'd sign up if I thought I could be of any use.
We send food and stuff to the international space station all the time. Mars is obviously WAY further but I think we would be able to do it.
The ISS sits heavily protected by Earth's magnetic fields. No such protection exists on the years trip to nor on Mars. Years of human life cannot exist without that protection. Just one of too many reasons why mankind explores with machines; not with bodies.
Again, Man to Mars was a ridiculous idea promoted by ignoring scientists and realities. At this point, everyone should realize the best and most productive work is done by machines. Even astronomy not longer sends it scientists to the tops of mountains. Machines do that work.
The ISS is a classic example of $billions spent for almost a decade with zero science conducted. Almost all science in NASA's budget is done by machines. Unfortunately, due to so many manipulated by spin and emotion, we instead spend massive sums putting man in space. Therefore doing much less science.
They do not sit in warehouses. And are not the only 'defense' birds in similar storage. Many duplicates of so many defense satellites sit in secure clean rooms.
A difference from Hubble: its lens has a wider aperture.
Even flying is a 'secret' robotic version of the space shuttle. Unknown is how many of those are sitting is storage.
There's quite a bit of "unknown" in that post, buddy.
How many space planes does the US Air Force have? Unknown. However one X-37B, continuously observed by amateur astronomers, is expected to be landing sometime in June.
http://www.space.com/15926-secret-x37b-space-plane-landing.htmlTonight is the night when, just out of curiosity, NASA gambles $2.5 billion
on a Look-Mom-No-Hands, one-time only, multi-stage descent to Mars.
CNET
by Dara Kerr
August 3, 2012
How NASA tests an against-all-odds Mars rover landing
The space agency has dubbed Curiosity's imminent landing "seven minutes of terror."
And that's even after months of excruciating, exacting preparation.
It's not every day that you land a spacecraft on Mars, even if you're NASA.
And in the case of the Curiosity rover, hurtling toward a Mars landing
as Sunday night turns into Monday morning,
the space agency is tempting fate with a novel approach that involves
a big parachute, a specially designed winch, and some very high hopes.
<snip>
A chorus of cheers and applause echoed through the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory on Sunday night after the most high-tech interplanetary rover ever built sent a signal to Earth. Minutes earlier, it had been in a harrowing plunge through the thin Mars atmosphere.
: high-fives NASA :
Awesome! See what you can do when everyone uses the metric system? :p:
... and they even did it in day light
It was cool to watch the stream from JPL. Little groups of 2 or 3 people would high five as various points in the approach and landing would be achieved. I assume it would be when what they were responsible for passed. Then of course when they were sure it was down and the first picture came through, the crowd went crazy because it meant they not only done good, but they'll have jobs for awhile. There was about 27,000 watching the stream.
A short video of the descent...
[YOUTUBE]NN2O0uiN98g[/YOUTUBE]
A TV talking head today said that NASA is downloading the data
and image data at the overwhelming rate of 32K baud !
Can that be true ???
wiki:
Curiosity can communicate with Earth directly in speeds up to 32kbps, but the bulk of the data transfer should be relayed through the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Odyssey orbiter, which are much more powerful and have better antennas, thus being able to communicate faster with Earth. Data transfer speeds between Curiosity and each orbiter may reach 2Mbps and 256kbps, respectively, but each orbiter is only able to communicate with Curiosity for about 8 minutes per day
Thank you, Glatt.
That seems more reasonable, even if it is only 16+/- minutes each day.
That is awesome! Thanks for the big laugh.
It would be pretty darn funny if they discovered life on Mars by running over it.
First image is in
Big smile.
This photo from NASA's Mars rover Curiosity shows the layered
geologic history of the base of Mount Sharp, the 3-mile-high mountain
rising from the center of Gale Crater. Image taken on Aug. 23, 2012.
need scale. what is the mountain?
What else did you expect? These are guys.
Tonight is the night when, just out of curiosity, NASA gambles $2.5 billion
on a Look-Mom-No-Hands, one-time only, multi-stage descent to Mars.
CNET
by Dara Kerr
August 3, 2012
How NASA tests an against-all-odds Mars rover landing
Now you can see where Curiosity has been for the past year...
Discovery.com
Ian O'Neill
Jul 24, 2013
Curiosity's Roving Progress Spied from Mars Orbit
On June 27, NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) crossed the skies
over Gale Crater and used its High-Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE)
camera to capture a stunning bird's eye view of its wheeled robotic cousin.
[ATTACH]44956[/ATTACH]
NASA's Mars Science Laboratory rover Curiosity appears as a bluish dot
near the lower right corner of this enhanced-color view from the
High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) camera
on NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.
I wonder if that black scar at the other end of the track is the scorched [strike]earth[/strike] mars landing site.
it sure looks burned, doesn't it?
also, there are a couple more blue dot/spots, probably part of the landing apparatus.
So I noticed this thread hasn't gotten resurrected since it was
revealed that the Mars One program was a scam, either by intent or by degrading into one once things started to not go their way.
This to me bags the unfortunate question.... How do you - realistically - establish a mars colonization effort?
On the surface, it's very easy to think of colonizing space as easy as it was to colonize the new world. There are a lot of problems with that notion.
For one thing, anything you can find on mars is cheaper to mine or produce on earth then it is to fly it from mars to earth. There is no way to make a profit or even pay for the trip by trade in resources. Going to mars would have to be entirely financed by the fair tickets themselves - by people who's life goal is to go to mars.
And for most of the time, they are going to have to be wealthy people, even if you manage to cut own the trip costs, because self-sustainability is going to be remarkably more difficult. If the self-sustaining bar for the new world colonists was getting enough resources to set up a secure camp and start cutting down wood and hunting for food, for mars you would need a multitude of mining operations and refining facilities for anything from water to ores just to be able to extend life support. Until then every colonist would need to come along with construction material and resources to sustain them for a life time, and even that is only enough if you are willing to have laws limiting child birth and extremely tough labor conditions of a cottage industrial setup.
Before how, I would question why.
It'd be nice to have a backup planet.
That just makes people treat this one worse.
I don't agree.
do you treat your tires worse because you carry a spare?
Even if splitting humanity between two planets might split our "caring per planet", which is possible in some sense - people raised on mars might care very little about earth's ecology - currently a human produces a carbon footprint and pollution a lot more then it produces "care for the planet", in fact almost all of that care - when it's around at all - expresses itself by slightly reducing the disregard and reduce their harm. You would benefit earth more by splitting the harm and sending some of the population there then you would hurt it by splitting the care.
If you mean that people who will still live on earth would otherwise recycle and support any pollution policies or buy less ecologically problematic products, will all of a sudden be ok with it because "Hey it's not like our entire species is in danger, its just our planet"... I think that's seriously underestimating how petty humans are. Can you think of an instance where that's true today in regards to countries, or cities, or... Anything? I work in the call & dispatch center for my city hall, and so far my experience is that most people can't deal with another neighborhood having a slightly geener park.
That just makes people treat this one worse.
Let's take the opposite position then. Do you think people are treating THIS planet better because we don't have a backup planet?
Some are, for their children and children's children, but they are a minority with out any clout. But people worrying about eating tomorrow, have neither the knowledge or resources to do anything but try to survive. Action has to come from the "first world" countries, and we know who has the power there. So in the end, the future is in the hands of a few wealthy people. Until the masses get off their ass, accept science, get politically active, and make the government responsive, it won't happen.
Still, there are a lot of people making small contributions. Like when they started recycling here. There wasn't a lot of grumbling, people in general knew it was a good idea. But when it was discovered that most of the plastic they collected was being burned in the incinerator, a lot of people changed their mind.
Still, there are a lot of people making small contributions. Like when they started recycling here. There wasn't a lot of grumbling, people in general knew it was a good idea. But when it was discovered that most of the plastic they collected was being burned in the incinerator, a lot of people changed their mind.
See but that's not a contribution, it's reducing damage.
The planet is not better off because they are there and making sure that some of the products that took polluting the air to get to their place and get all the parts together are then getting recycled to not be burned and produce more air pollution. It is only less worst off then if the same people were replaced by those who would have added the extra bit of air pollution at the end to the air pollution they have already financed. That is not healing, it's minimal damage control, if you would imagine a point system, it's not a gain o +3 points, it's a loss of -7 instead of -10. If someone punched you but took a lot of effort and restraint to not punch you harder, you are not better off for their interaction with you, and neither is the planet.
This means that even in the hypothetical scenario where for some reason all the really environment-caring people left earth completely and moved to mars, earth would still get less pollution then it does now from those people over their lifetime.
Bullshit, in order the help you have to first stop hurting. Every step in stopping the hurting helps, and only baby steps are within the power of the masses. That's first world masses, as I said.
If you think all the volunteers to populate Mars would be bunny lovin' treehugger vegans, your dreaming. It would be science fiction freaks, depressed failures who feel they've nothing to lose, and a few curious scientists who wouldn't get along with the other two. :haha:
It'd be nice to have a backup planet.
I'd have picked one that hadn't already died at least once. But, there really weren't that many choices, I guess.
:neutral:
Bullshit, in order the help you have to first stop hurting. Every step in stopping the hurting helps, and only baby steps are within the power of the masses. That's first world masses, as I said.
If you think all the volunteers to populate Mars would be bunny lovin' treehugger vegans, your dreaming. It would be science fiction freaks, depressed failures who feel they've nothing to lose, and a few curious scientists who wouldn't get along with the other two. :haha:
I was presenting that as the extreme: If you are saying that people's ability to care for a planet would be split between earth and mars, for a hypothetical 50% 50% scenario which would reduce the the amount of caring for earth by 50%, then I am saying that even if you took away all the people who'd otherwise provide earth with the most environmental-caring, a 100% of the people who care about the environment,
even then, earth's ecology would still benefit more from them not being on earth in the first place and thus not having a negative impact at all then from them being here and providing their "care" which is reducing their negative impact.
Obviously, it's unlikely that everyone in the green movement would be the ones to leave earth and colonize mars, in fact they might very well be more likely to stick around - in part because a lot of them care more about the aesthetics and surrounding of nature then about preserving it - but that means that you would still have people who care about the environment here on earth.
So why would they suddenly stop caring just because there is another planet? Do people care less about their countries because people in another country are doing better? Are people in Africa going "well at least the people in Sweden are enjoying healthcare so overall I wouldn't be too worried about malaria"?
I'd have picked one that hadn't already died at least once. But, there really weren't that many choices, I guess.
:neutral:
I think we could probably do a better job colonizing Venus then mars, but it would be even harder to gear people to do so. At least Mars already has a following.
I didn't say that.
Ok, in that case I am not sure what you are saying.
I said people who have a nagging concern about future generations but feel helpless to makes a difference, can drop the feeling with Mars being an option.
I said people who have a nagging concern about future generations but feel helpless to makes a difference, can drop the feeling with Mars being an option.
Ok - thats what the 2nd part of the answer was for.
If anything, right now some people probably think that, "we might destroy our planet but our children can always colonize mars as a backup".
That psychology all changes once Mars colonists become a thing of the present, because then it's no longer
our children, it's
their children, those damn martians who think they can have everything are so so proud of their first rain forest bubble domes, f'cking snobs. It's no longer our future, it's another part of humanity that's potentially doing better then your part.
They'd certainly be aware of their environment, being tiny and fragile. Not like having the whole wide world.
One of the most interesting ideas IMO explored on that was in the Red Mars trilogy was a new kind of environmentalism. The idea that there would be people who would fall in love with the aesthetics of mars the same way people fall in love with the aesthetic of nature here, finding it beautiful for what they see around them rather then thinking of it comparatively as a more barren earth, and actually try to preserve it's current state from the formation of an increasingly terraformed ecology threatening it's existence by the people who appose them and want Mars to become more accommodating to human life.
Personally, as someone who's favorite place in nature is the Sinai desert between Israel and Egypt, I can relate to it.
It's the same as living under the ocean. Plenty of scenery but you can't relax for a moment because you need life support, and there is constant danger.
Living under the ocean is a hell of a lot easier than going to Mars and living there. And we don't have very many people living under the ocean.
And we don't have very many people living under the ocean.
But we do have plenty of machines doing that .. both in the ocean and Mars.
People still don't get it. Many still believe we need to deploy humans. Even factories have now replaced humans with something better - machines. And still, some people want to see solutions in terms of a deployed human. So many still cannot change their mindset. Best solution to Mars, oceans, or even factories is machines that replace humans. And do a better job.
Sure, a machine is great for doing a specific task, but if the point is to colonize a place with living creatures, you need living creatures to do that.
Sure, a machine is great for doing a specific task, but if the point is to colonize a place with living creatures, you need living creatures to do that.
^ That.
There is no doubt that at the cost of a single human mission you could finance a few dozens of robotic missions that would cover a much wider area. The goal of sending people to mars would be having people on mars.
If we wanted to create a colony of robots for robots, there are much better targets for that then Mars. There are some limited gains for them if they want to go back to space - mining water for propellant and the possibility of aerobreaking and saving up on fuel - but even for that purpose they'd probably still be better off without having to fight against a planets gravity in the first place.
On an only slightly related note, if you meant we're better off going humanity+ and making ourselves into machines... My previous title - lord of the Hermocentric orbit - came from a private joke out of a conversation I had with someone on where is the best place in the solar system to install a server farm.
For every extra kilogram carried on a space flight, 530 kg of excess fuel are needed at lift-off. Need a better way.
Sure, a machine is great for doing a specific task, but if the point is to colonize a place with living creatures, you need living creatures to do that.
You are still thinking in the mindset where only man can do things. Machines now do things better. And are just starting to get good.
We are only recently learning the world is not flat. Why are you still thinking in terms of 'we must colonize'? That is like saying the bayonet charge is the only effective battle strategy. Colonization was once necessary to support the best tools we had. Those tools (a colony of humans) has been superceed by something technically superior (and also costs less) - machines.
The argument is that we must colonize it. The argument is based in obsolete biases - an emotion. Logic says colonization has been made obsolete by what is far more important - technological advancement.
BTW, the cost of a human mission could easily finance about 100 robotic missions. But that is not the point. Each robotic mission accomplishes as much or more than a humanized mission.
For every extra kilogram carried on a space flight, 530 kg of excess fuel are needed at lift-off. Need a better way.
I keep waiting for an official notice I can link to so I can brag here, but my brother just won
a contest held by NASA to come up with an inventive way to build a Mars habitat that is super light to launch. His solution to your fuel problem to to just bring mylar forms in the shape of an igloo, and land on a part of Mars that has some water under the dirt. Melt the water, make mud with the martian soil, and pour it into the mylar form where it can freeze into an igloo shape. I read his paper and it sounds more technical and impressive than what I just wrote, but that's about it. Frozen mud igloos on Mars. Insulated, pressurized, and furnished on the inside of course. The main hurdle is energy once you get there. And as solar cells improve, that would have to be the answer.
That's cool! Yes energy would be a biggie on the gotta have list. Powering the pressurization and air locks, is critical. Without heat nobody would want to get naked, so wouldn't make babies fast enough to feed the colonists.
You are still thinking in the mindset where only man can do things. Machines now do things better. And are just starting to get good.
Try reading that again.
[SIZE="5"] if[/SIZE] the point is to colonize a place with living creatures
Forget it glatt, what your wrote doesn't fit his agenda. :rolleyes:
Even factories have now replaced humans with something better - machines.
Thanks for the input Skynet.
[COLOR="White"]Please regard this as an attempt at humor.
sincerely,
John Conner[/COLOR]
if the point is to colonize a place with living creatures
Point was not to colonized a place with living creatures. The point was always an advancement of mankind. That was obvious.
You conclusion was not explicit. Therefore a reply with an explicit response to one possible interpretation was posted. Clearly stating whether the objective is to colonize with humans or with machines. Humans colonization on Mars is only desired when one ignores the objective - the advancement of mankind.
BTW, build that igloo deploying 3D printers. On earth, 3D printers are even building bridges. Construction that means other machines can do best science - without humans. Deploying humans to build that igloo is unproductive.
No problem with water. For humans to arrive healthy means that spacecraft may need be surrounded with six feet of water - to protect astronauts from radiation. Plenty of water. But then shortages (for man or machine) is in energy (not water).
YOUR objective - the advancement of mankind.
And your dedication to that objective has caused you to miss the entire point of the discussion, as usual.
I suggest you edumacate yourself
here, and
here, and
here.
Personally I think the whole thing is stupid, but they can attempt to do anything they want... on their nickel.
Personally I think the whole thing is stupid, but they can attempt to do anything they want... on their nickel.
I saw the point of the discussion. The underlying reasons for the discussion are flawed and therefore bogus.
Why do you think it is stupid? If you cannot say why, then that opinion has no credibility and no relevance.
...I gather you two have a history together? :p:
If the point was to expand our industrial capacity, resources or even knowledge, then mars would make for a pretty horrible target compared to almost any other place in our solar system. Asteroids & comets, rocky planets & moons, those would be the places you'd have a lot less in the way.
The point of our endeavors on earth-like planets would be the same as any other living organism's - to create copies of itself - just on a much larger scale. That point can be greatly aided by machines, but it can't be fulfilled by machines.
You don't know the story about the tar baby, do you?
I am pretty sure I've had my chance to perform all the roles in that play - the rabbit, the baby, the place the rabbit was running too and the prankster who placed the tar baby in the first place.
This feels like it should be an avenue Q song..
Everybody is somebody's troll
You believe in what you say
But to them you seem so repetitively doll
When echo chambers are stretching Poe's law effect
Your sane is someones crazy shit from a bat
I... completely forgot the music I was imagining with this a second ago. Freaking actual work interfering while I am on the job.
That point can be greatly aided by machines, but it can't be fulfilled by machines.
Already deep sea exploration is done worse by humans; better by machine. That change will only continue. Machines are already doing many jobs better. Over time, machines will do most jobs better. A worse environment means a machine's superiority only increases.
Purpose of Mars (like all exploration and discovery) is the advancment of mankind. That means machines must do more work and do it better. That means humans will no longer accomplish what only machines can fulfill. That is the change that so many have difficulty grasping.
Best colonists on Mars will be man's machines.
Huh.
So... I am sorry BigV and xoxoxoBruce for doubting you guys. Thank you for trying to warn me anyway.
Now I know TW is missing the point of the general discussion.
But away from this particular discussion, I can see his point. After all, why should we colonise another planet? Resources would be better resourced by machines.
Do we really need more space? There is plenty of space still on Earth. We should limit our population instead - even the richest countries in the world have parts of the population they are unable to support.
I'm not talking eugenics, merely population control.
And compare the cost of terraforming Mars to the cost of making - just examples - the Nevada desert or the Australian bush into reasonable habitats. They at least have oxygen and aren't 14 million miles away (sorry if that's wrong, I think I saw it on a move poster for The Martian!)
Now I know TW is missing the point of the general discussion.
But away from this particular discussion, I can see his point. After all, why should we colonise another planet? Resources would be better resourced by machines.
Do we really need more space? There is plenty of space still on Earth. We should limit our population instead - even the richest countries in the world have parts of the population they are unable to support.
I'm not talking eugenics, merely population control.
And compare the cost of terraforming Mars to the cost of making - just examples - the Nevada desert or the Australian bush into reasonable habitats. They at least have oxygen and aren't 14 million miles away (sorry if that's wrong, I think I saw it on a move poster for The Martian!)
No... More real estate isn't quite the point either, any more then resources or research.
It is cheaper to dig deeper here for ores then to deliver them from Mars and it is cheaper to build higher and wider here then send people to Mars.
The value of mars real estate IS that it's far away. Which I suppose in turn creates a somewhat worrying possible answer to my initial question in the thread:
This to me bags the unfortunate question.... How do you - realistically - establish a mars colonization effort?
The drive might not be directly economical, but it can be political - Isolationists groups.
I have to admit that considering the spirit of our time, that's a very chilling vision. The Westboro Baptist Colony? :eek:
Now I know TW is missing the point of the general discussion.
This discussion is predicated on a solution that is becoming less relevant with each decade. Number one objective of mankind is the advancement of mankind; not colonization. Advancement is no longer found in putting people on other continents or worlds. Advancement has changed; it is more about putting man's handywork and tools in places where knowledge can be expanded, resources might be obtained, and new materials might be discovered that become essential to mankind's existence and advancement.
This discussion is predicated on a bogus need. Long before some objective is defined, first, what is the strategic objective? What is necessary to do what is relevant - the advancement of mankind?
Many have automatically assumed colonization is necessary because once it was necessary. I did not miss the point. The point is this discussion ignores what must be accomplished - as if colonization (once considered necessary for the advancement of mankind) is the only solution. Once it was. Human presence is no longer necessary to advance mankind.
As usual, I am have gone beyond what some are unwilling or not ready to consider. Why is human presence essential? Once it was. Starting recently, colonization is better done with man's tools rather than with human presence. That is extremely difficult for some to grasp because it is a very new concept.
Point of this general discussion is fundamentally flawed.
BTW, we have plenty of space on earth for many more people. There is no shortage of real estate despite so many emotional fears that believe otherwise. Instead, what will advance mankind?
Now I know TW is missing the point of the general discussion.
Absolutely right.
Do we really need more space? There is plenty of space still on Earth. We should limit our population instead - even the richest countries in the world have parts of the population they are [strike] unable [/strike] [COLOR="Red"]unwilling[/COLOR] to support.
Fixed that for you. ;)
Number one objective of mankind is the advancement of mankind; not colonization.
Bullshit, that's a fairy tale that's been used to justify funding, and fuckups, forever.
Oh, ninety million native Americans died of introduced diseases... um, we were just trying to advance mankind.
Oh, you have a thalidomide baby... well, we were trying just to advance mankind.
Oh, Sadam
didn't have weapons of mass destruction... gosh, we were just trying to advance mankind.
Do you remember July 20th, 1969? I do, like it was yesterday. The Eagle has landed, motherfucker.
I also remember Curiosity rover's touchdown a couple years back, vaguely.
But, but, childish emotion has no place in the advancement of mankind.
It does when it's my nickel, bitch.
Hey, tw used to be my bitch; but, now you've made him yours. Oh well, what can I do, it's all for the advancement of mankind. :lol:
[COLOR="SlateGray"]Actually, while tw's obstinacy continues, he has ostensibly been refraining from calling other adults children. Kudos tw.
Healthcare professionals are trained to not call other adults children, refer to them as children; or, treat them as children even if those other adults are developmentally impaired or have dementia and behave like children. Studies have shown that treating any adult aged person in that manner is exceptionally counterproductive to effective communication. Whatever you may think of them, they are still adults with the lifetime experience of an adult, regardless of their intellectual status, who will summarily dismiss people that disrespect them in that way. You can call adults a lot of derogatory things; but, calling them children is a telltale hallmark of a poor communicator. Again, congratulations on the change: it hasn't gone unnoticed. [/COLOR]
Battle of the titans :rolleyes:
Alright, I'll play*. Tw - how do you define the advancement of human kind? Scientific knowledge? Technology? Industrial capacity? Control and access to resources? Kardashev scale (energy)? Military might? Wisdom? The spiritual acceptance of Cthulhu? The number of alien babes on Captain Kirk's belt? What is the defining attribute for you?
[SIZE="1"]*. It is promising to be a slow shift tonight and in waiting forever for groceries delivery yesterday I haven't caught enough hours of sleep for coding to be fun.[/SIZE]
Alright, I'll play*. Tw - how do you define the advancement of human kind? Scientific knowledge? Technology? Industrial capacity? Control and access to resources?
Let's start with 20 July 1969. What was accomplished? It was a very emotional event. But what was actually done that advanced mankind?
It was a game to proven who is better. Little science was achieved until a later flight when Schmidt (a geologist) arrives. Some tools were delivered (ie a mirror) that decades later resulted in the advancement of mankind - knowledge.
Meanwhile the Hubble has been one of the greatest tools to advance mankind. Do you know how much it has done for man? That is not a rhetorical question.
America in the past century has been home to some of the world's greatest advancer of mankind. Categories that define that advancement are numerous. But in every case involve the words innovation and invention. Because if that dos not happen, then mankind degrades - advancement is retarded or even diminished.
Almost all science in space is now done by robots and machines. Something like 8% of NASA's budget (for non-human space flight) accounts are almost all NASA's accomplishments.
The future is in man's tools to seek out and find new life - to go where no man has gone (and need go) before. Unfortunately the concept is still too new for many if not most.
Two questions here request an answer.
Let's start with 20 July 1969. What was accomplished? It was a very emotional event. But what was actually done that advanced mankind?
Nothing was done to that advanced mankind, because that wasn't the fucking objective, and neither is Mars: one way.
This is why you don't get it, you're so busy parroting the advance mankind principle you read somewhere, your in danger of losing your hat to points whizzing over your head. While you proselytize, that parrot is pining for the fjords.
Let's start with 20 July 1969. What was accomplished? It was a very emotional event. But what was actually done that advanced mankind?
It was a game to proven who is better. Little science was achieved until a later flight when Schmidt (a geologist) arrives. Some tools were delivered (ie a mirror) that decades later resulted in the advancement of mankind - knowledge.
Meanwhile the Hubble has been one of the greatest tools to advance mankind. Do you know how much it has done for man? That is not a rhetorical question.
America in the past century has been home to some of the world's greatest advancer of mankind. Categories that define that advancement are numerous. But in every case involve the words innovation and invention. Because if that dos not happen, then mankind degrades - advancement is retarded or even diminished.
Almost all science in space is now done by robots and machines. Something like 8% of NASA's budget (for non-human space flight) accounts are almost all NASA's accomplishments.
The future is in man's tools to seek out and find new life - to go where no man has gone (and need go) before. Unfortunately the concept is still too new for many if not most.
Two questions here request an answer.
Alright, so based on your examples I am getting that you define the advancement of humankind within the confines of accumulated scientific knowledge as it's own end goal.
Let's go with that and assume for a moment that's the case.
How much value for mankind did the ashes have after the library of Alexandria got burned? Even if we value scientific knowledge and determine that nothing else matters, shouldn't protecting our ability to gain & store it and - dare I say be around to analyze it - be as vital as getting more of it?
You could use machines to build you a house... But would you use a machine to live in it for you?
I want to explore a hypothetical with you:
Let's say we successfully achieved a self-sufficient robotic industrialized R&D complex in space. Mining, refining, 3D printers building more robot that build 3D printers building rovers and sample collectors and telescope arrays and particle accelerators and millions of automated labs and even sending out von nueman probes, and they do a finer job then we could ever do. Hell, I'll even give you amazing creative and intelligent AI and computers that do better data analysis and theoretical modeling and experimentation and even internal peer review then the entire scientific community on earth ever could.
And yet... We aren't around to see any of that because we stayed here and some shit happened to Earth. How advance is humankind then? Is it sill advancing humankind?
Alright, so based on your examples I am getting that you define the advancement of humankind within the confines of accumulated scientific knowledge as it's own end goal.
Incorrect. Again, the post had two questions awaiting answers. Those answers were then where logic takes us to the next step.
So there's a lot of work ahead of us.
Incorrect. Again, the post had two questions awaiting answers. Those answers were then where logic takes us to the next step.
Cute... But no. You are overestimating my willingness to entertain you - The slow walk by the maze requires cheese you don't currently have, and frankly expresses that you need a rather superficial psychological advantage to form a sense of credibility that the logic of your conclusions can't gain on it's own merits.
If you want to use your podium here to anything more then mental masturbation, you are going to need to use the limited resources you have - yourself. You have answers in mind that convey the specific meanings you've built your thoughts on - provide them, describe your own process of arriving at your perspective. If you desire your notions entertained, let your thesis stand on it's own or crack in collision with reality.
I appreciate a good lampshade as much as anyone, but considering you've already demonstrated that you take your title description to heart, it's more likely that your beliefs stand on sticking to your guns no matter the peer review - which makes it questionable whether your ideas can stand without strings attached at the goal at all. This is your chance to demonstrate otherwise, show that you might have something of substance to offer, or... Choose not too. Either choice conveys information, you could have it be the information you intended to convey in the first place, or express the unfortunate implications of the information you didn't but truth didn't stop to give a shit.
If you want to use your podium here to anything more then mental masturbation, you are going to need to use the limited resources you have - yourself.
You were asked two simple questions that lead to a simple reply. To explain what you clearly do not understand. A long nasty response like an indignant child is completely unnecessary and childish. I thought I was talking to an adult.
What was actually done on 20 July 1969 to advanced mankind? Do you know how much Hubble has done for man? Why is that so hard? Simple questions define a concept you have not yet grasped. Instead you jumped to conclusions that contradict what I have said. And then become nasty and indignant.
I do make angry adults who are still children by simply challenging them to expand their grasp. In this case to see the topic is larger. I did not expect an emotional child to post in what is only an adult and logical discussion. What you only assumed is "incorrect" - is not what I have said. Anwers to two simple questions would have demonstrated that.
Why are two simple questions too hard? You do not even know what is the advancement of mankind? Is that really so hard? Apparently. But simple answers would clarify what you know - or don't know. So as to explain something completely knew. Instead you want to discuss your dic just like a Sexobon.
Golly jeepers, without Hubble my life would have been so different. Not seeing those beautilicious photographs on the internet would have ruinized my emotional scrapbook.
Meh. Perhaps he views the discovery of organic chemicals in other solar systems, or the age and our place in the universe, or the thorough understanding of the likely fate of the universe, as essential to his theory. It can be so much, but I gather it is one of those people that view things in a very certain limited narrow way - like the mind of an old fashioned radar with a broken rotor.
I've encountered people like that in the past: He doesn't understand how the advancement of humankind can mean different things in different frameworks or how the discoveries of Hubble or the technologies developed in the Apollo program can have more implications and possible connections then the particular points they inspired for him. Such people can have very interesting perspectives at times with a lot of merit, but there are certain signs when they are there, and more transparently certain defensive strategies that come to play when they are not. So far, in this case there's only the later. It is the same kind of mental handicap that allows him to think of maturity as a linear process and thus easy measurement, which from sexabon comments I gather it's a handicap he likes to demonstrate a lot. I suppose exhibitionism comes in all flavors.
...
And just like a saxabon post, a knot of disconnected strings tied with fallacies and logical errors and degrees of irony so tight that I don't even know where to start puling from first, like a tiny shitty religion that got invented on the spot and packed into a paragraph. I was almost expecting an attempt at a spell correction victory or some other pathetic excuse for 1upmanship as a replacement for thoughtful investment and awareness, and it seems I got the later.
Anyway, you've made your choice:
I appreciate a good lampshade as much as anyone, but considering you've already demonstrated that you take your title description to heart, it's more likely that your beliefs stand on sticking to your guns no matter the peer review - which makes it questionable whether your ideas can stand without strings attached at the goal at all. This is your chance to demonstrate otherwise, show that you might have something of substance to offer, or... Choose not too.
The good new is that your choice can be undone - if you are capable of seen yourself within your own maze or have a portion of the maturity you pretend too, you can always stop to think about what you were actually doing and go back to review your choice.
The bad news is that option is available to you regardless of whether you choose to consider it or not. Every single portion of time in which you could have chosen to demonstrate that your theory has substance is another line on a chart where your name and 0% exists next to a time stamp, with the 2nd column marked "substance demonstrated". Tick tock, another piece of evidence against the theory that tw has something of substance to demonstrate got timestamped on the clock, every hour is an experiment to find signs of merit to your thoughts (or beliefs resulting from with lack thereof), and every hour that passes without it is another experiment that found nothing.
I'm glad tw is xoB's bitch now instead of mine. Tw's developmental impairment is manifesting itself again. Poor tw has failed his Kobayashi Maru in the Mars; One Way thread because of it. He just can't win. I hope his form of handicap spares him from ruminating over it like a traceur. :rolleyes:
Meh. Perhaps he views the discovery of organic chemicals in other solar systems, ....
Do you think you could answer some simple questions rather than fill the board with your manhood?
Apparently my ethics software blockes that picture of your penis. Was it relevant?
Do you think you could answer some simple questions rather than fill the board with your manhood? Was it relevant?
So to be clear:
- berating people for acting like children and not been adult enough for a mature logical discussion is something that you've outright become famous for...
- You try to support the above by accuse people of flapping their e-penis at your face.
Do you not see the irony of that? At all? Can something so lowly transparent seriously fly so high above your head?
I asked you first:
Tw - how do you define the advancement of human kind?
It's not even a particularly informative question, it's showing interest in your mental framework, despite everyone in the thread saying there's no point. All it requires is some minimum degree of self-inquiry within your own thinking.
Instead of answering, you asked your own questions in turn, which can work under certain conditions, except when that here you can provide a dozen answer each depending entirely on how you define the very variable which I asked you about: The selection of which potential answers demonstrate that the hubble telescope provided more advancement to humankind then to the apollo program depends on how you define the advancement of humankind in the first place, if you think there is an obvious answer that can make the question into a useful leading question it demonstrates your answer is built - or at least supported by - really transparent circular logic.
Now, are you going to sexabon this, or are you going to provide an answer?
So many questions, so few answers, so much sexobon envy (astute enough not to ask questions of those who like to hear themselves talk) ... it's good to be the sexobon.
Hey now, making the prediction that we aren't going to get along very well was my mindbaby, you don't get to be astute for making a decision that was made for you :p:
You can believe that if you like; but, I've been doing the same with the kindred Read? I only know how to write. types since long before you got here.
You can believe that if you like;
Now you don't believe in timestamps? :p:
My prediction
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=935237&postcount=20
Your response
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=935312&postcount=25
Your response even has my prediction in the quote...
but, I've been doing the same with the kindred Read? I only know how to write. types since long before you got here.
After how long of actually arguing with him? :p
So far he isn't quite as bad as you, I don't see anyone else stretching the fabric of space-time to try to justify
a compliment they gave themselves. Your favorite go-to line so far is blaming other people for loving to hear themselves speak too much and yet here you are defending your own reflection for the compliments and kind words it gave you. Frankly I think your trying a bit to hard, if you want a relationship you should probably try to build it on honesty instead, and if it's a one night stand you're after it really shouldn't be that difficult to get into your own pants ;)
[YOUTUBE]h7RNCvnDkqE[/YOUTUBE]
So to be clear:
- berating people for acting like children and not been adult enough for a mature logical discussion is something that you've outright become famous for...
Berating is what you started. I simply defined what you are doing - acting like an adult who is still a child.
Two simple questions. You could not even answer them. Instead you posted a tirade that only a child having a tantrum would post.
Of course, you could grown up, answer those two simple questions, and then we might have an adult conversation. Apparently you cannot. That would be admitting to your tirade.
Read? I only know how to write. types since long before you got here.
Satire always escapes you.
Ok, I think at this point I should probably check, so before we continue I am just going to ask: Are you autistic? Or rather have you ever been diagnosed as such by a professional (regardless of whether you agreed with it)?
Mind you, that question in itself isn't intended as an insult, one of my closest friends and probably the most admirable minds I know is of a quantum biologist with autism.... You are nothing like him, obviously, but I have also been in a similar situation in the past with someone else where what appeared to me as stubborn willful ignorance similar to yours turned out to be a poor bastard who really had no idea what was going on around him out of no choice of his own, not extreme enough autism to make it obvious through the internet but not high functioning enough to be able to adapt coping strategies that transcend it's limitations either.
Frankly I am hoping for a "no" so I can continue to have fun with you, but I want to check first.
Ok, I think at this point ...
Sexobon has cloned himself...
[YOUTUBE]C0KvL8T2vEY[/YOUTUBE]
Heh, not surprising, but I am guessing it's different motives: Sexobon was more likely to try to force a positive diagnosis of his own as a play on it's own, I am taking a step back to avoid any existing positive diagnosis so that I won't feel like shit about playing with someone with disabilities.
Sounds commendable anyway.
I am taking a step forward to avoid any loss of entertainment value so that I won't feel like shit about not playing with a charlatan who has second world ethics.
What kind of wine would you like with your cheese?
So... I am sorry BigV and xoxoxoBruce for doubting you guys. Thank you for trying to warn me anyway.
Traceur, you should have seen us trying to get TW to admit that Vise-Grips are a hand tool...:lol2:
loving this thread almost more than a trip to mars.
Sounds commendable anyway.
I am taking a step forward to avoid any loss of entertainment value so that I won't feel like shit about not playing with a charlatan who has second world ethics.
What kind of wine would you like with your cheese?
Oh yea, fucking "enlightened" culture of ethics you have there :rolleyes:
Sure, I'll adapt temporarily for your comfort of mind.
Trigger warning:
Suicide, euthanasia, entitlement, hypocrisy, grammar nazi, racism, self-love, sexobonic masturbation, solipsism.
Last time we argued it was because you felt entitled to make your loved ones suffer in ridicules amounts of pain even when there is little to no chance of it getting better just so that you can procrastinate a feeling of loss. Luckily for you, that post had a grammar mistake, which magically made the hypocrisy it pointed out in your ethics go away by the same rule with which old people feel entitled that every taxi driver will "Learn some god damn english" whenever they hear an accent.
This time, you were fighting to defend a compliment you gave yourself based on a conclusion you've claim to have reached yourself after your very own post has quoted that very conclusion, all while whining about how other people's self love is interfering with the date your trying to have with yourself.
What you have demonstrated so far is that your ethics is contextual and the specific contextual rule is... As long as it doesn't apply to you or anything you feel do or say that contradicts said ethics. The problem with that rule is that other people's "you" is not the same person, your ethical framework would work fantastically if you were the only human being in the universe and there was only one subjective perspective to account for, but doesn't work in any universe that has other people... Which kind of misses the point of ethics altogether.
It also puts you in a position where it would be impossible for you to actually understand my ethics at all, which to a large extend revolve around the understanding of how destructive self-deception of your kind can be, and how vital it is to understand the overall dynamic people put themselves in and break away from simple narratives that serve to sooth the ego at the expense of reality and all it's other inhabitants.
Traceur, you should have seen us trying to get TW to admit that Vise-Grips are a hand tool...:lol2:
....I don't even....
I kind of want to see that if you have a link. What was even the counter argument? Are they the mandibles of robotic amputees?
:blah:
[Paraphrasing mine]
You're so needy. The rumination continues long after everyone else has moved on. Continued vying for attention by putting egocentric spin on regurgitated conversations while knowing your folly is just someone else's entertainment is just pathetic. I pity the fool. You can take the traceur out of the second world; but, you can't take the second world out of the traceur.
[Paraphrasing mine]
You're so needy. The rumination continues long after everyone else has moved on.
Long after? Like... 27 hours after? ;)
You know what, I am not going to even explain that one - if someone understands it they understand it and if they don't then they are probably you. Go and pet yourself on the back, do whatever it is you do on such wonderful occasions in your life. Whatever you do, make sure you do not accidentally develop a rudimentary understanding of time. I think you are safe, but just in case.
... You know what ...
Why yes, I do. That's why you keep coming back, to find out what; because, your second world ethics prevent you from having a clue. You are unable to interpret your perceptions accurately. That leaves you in need.
What, science at the ISS???
What kind of wine would you like with your cheese?
The wine is less important than the cheese for me.
I expect a mixture including blue, soft, hard, goats' or ewes', and flavoured.
Oh, sorry, wrong thread ;)
The wine is less important than the cheese for me....
Oh, sorry, wrong thread
... because it does not attack someone.
The ISS has had some of the most disappointing scientific discoveries of the century. Like finding that chicken hatched in space are born normal.
I had high hopes for this when I was a kid, but seems they did not pan out: No problems forming a skeleton, no embryo-like legless chicken or difficulties breathing, just... Normal freaking chicken. Screw you nature.
The ISS has had some of the most disappointing scientific discoveries of the century.
We had two choices - each for $8 billion. A Super Collider in TX or the ISS. As more politicians become less knowledgeable, more emotional and more driven by rhetoric, then glory was in an ISS. So people who advance science had to go to France and Switzerland to perform science.
The LHA is not as powerful as the Super Collider would have been. But one of the great discoveries occurred there - Higgs Bosom. Meanwhile the ISS can do no science until a fourth person is deployed. By that time, the US no longer had any vehicles to carry men into space - due to myopic and extremists rhetoric that pushed Orion, Ares, and Constellation - all examples of bad science.
An $8 billion ISS has cost more than $80 billion. In part, because its purpose was glory - an emotion; not science.
When I was growing up, a transistor was clearly the future for everyone. As the car, light bulb, and electric motor was the future for everyone in 1900. Today, everyone's future is in quantum physics. When a Tevatron in Fermilab in IL closed in 2011, the US no longer had any major quantum science machines. The contempt for science has grown that large. Stanford Linear accelerator is only used for other low power experiments. So who will see the jobs generated by fundamental science (invention)? The transistor developed in 1948 created massive jobs in the 1970s and 1990s because America was driven by science - not profits.
Today, great sources of innovation (and wealth, jobs, power, etc) such as the RCA Sarnoff Labs, HP labs, Xerox Palo Alto Research, Bendix labs, and of course the most famous Bell Labs were sold off for profits. Because what creates jobs and profits does not appear on spread sheets for ... well how many decades did it take for transistors, lasers, communication satellites, fiber optic communication, Shannon's communication theory (that make digital communication possible), PCM, C programming language, etc to finally create jobs and products? According to business school graduates, those were all costs - not profitable.
It is not foolishly spending money on ISS or Mission Accomplished that created problems. It is what got quashed and driven out of America that resulted from directing our resources towards emotional (extremists) and much less productive activities. At the expense of what actually made America great.
ISS is simply another example - created at the expense of the Super Collider.
Well the ISS does one useful experiement. AMS was canceled when extremists canceled much science to redirect funds to Mission Accomplished. The
AMS, that could have been carried by most unmanned science vehicles, was finally mounted outside of the ISS.
For the most part I agree with that.
I don't think "contempt to science" is quite the right description of that - while that does exist as a growing social trend on it's own right (Currently believing that the entire scientific community has met one Monday to coordinate their conspiracy plans to lie about environmental data and fighting against the teaching of evolution in schools), but I doubt how much weight that has on those in power. I think the actual problem is the weight placed on a short term gain model at the expense of long term gains, which are - as you expressed yourself - a lot more difficult to model on a spreadsheet.
As of right now, the industries that stand to gain the most out of scientific progress have the difficult problem of, well... Not existing yet, which makes it very difficult for them to form a strong lobby.
So I've given that some thought Bruce - and I am not sure it applies when its not about a specific innovation or even set of innovations, but about the drive to innovate in general.
Nobody is saying that we should all replace our ovens with the next thing that can heat stuff for no other reason then the fact it's the next thing, we're just saying that we need to drive forward to find what the next thing might be. There is only so much juice you can squeeze from a basket of fruit before having to go back to the tree and reach higher, or at least start planting new fruit trees for the future.
Electric motor, demonstrated about 1880, saw no real value until after the 1900s. Transistor in 1948 finally started making its real value apparent in the mid 1960s. Laser was a wonderful invention that has no real purpose until well after 20 years later. Newton's calculus and others of his time (in and after 1600s) did not have appreciable value until the 20th century.
Some inventions result in innovation almost immediate - same decade -especially when it is a solution to an existing problem. Others can have no apparent value for generation or even centuries. Especially when it is a solution looking for a problem to solve.
In the 1800s, experimenters discovered a charge inside a glass jar could be discharged by applying ultraviolet light. A solution to a late 1960s problem - eraseable computer memory chip or EPROM.
Einstein's equations were revealed 100 years ago. Resulting jobs, wealth, economic power, industries, markets, and innovations are only just beginning to exist.
I keep waiting for an official notice I can link to so I can brag here, but my brother just won a contest held by NASA to come up with an inventive way to build a Mars habitat that is super light to launch. His solution to your fuel problem to to just bring mylar forms in the shape of an igloo, and land on a part of Mars that has some water under the dirt. Melt the water, make mud with the martian soil, and pour it into the mylar form where it can freeze into an igloo shape. I read his paper and it sounds more technical and impressive than what I just wrote, but that's about it. Frozen mud igloos on Mars. Insulated, pressurized, and furnished on the inside of course. The main hurdle is energy once you get there. And as solar cells improve, that would have to be the answer.
It may have been official before, but now it's public.
My brother won this Mars engineering contest. His frozen mud martian igloo plan got first place.
glatt, you must be so proud. I'm proud just knowing you.
Yeah. I'm super proud. He's had lots of unique ideas over the years and they have been mostly ignored or failed to work out. He designed a lunar habitat and submitted it for a NASA grant but didn't get it. He designed an underwater hotel and abandoned the idea when he realized the safety issues for untrained guests were insurmountable. (A few underwater hotels are being built in other parts of the world where safety standards are more lax.)
Article about him in my hometown paper. It's good because it goes into more detail about the design and has a picture. But there are a few typos. Small town journalism.
Not what I pictured from the description. It says artists rendering, but I wonder if it's his vision, or the artists?
It's basically his version. An acquaintance of his made that rendering for him.
I bet in reality, one of these things would more closely resemble this:
[ATTACH]53615[/ATTACH]
He said flat panels are a problem so maybe more rounded at the ends, but I think you're right on the flat bottom.
Or like this, except more cylindrical. And no windows.
[ATTACH]53616[/ATTACH]
Ah, didn't think of that approach. Guess that's why I didn't win anything. :lol:
So cool glatt. You should be proud!
It really is awesome.
I won't hold my breath that they are actually going to run with his idea, but it gives the idea a lot of exposure at NASA and it will at least be seriously considered, assuming a mission goes forward.
