(FYI: We have the tech now to sustain a colony on Ceres.)
Yeah right, in your dreams.
Topic: Send people to live on Mars donate with bitcoin - page 2. (Read 4926 times)
Yeah right, in your dreams.
(FYI: We have the tech now to sustain a colony on Ceres.)
Yeah right, in your dreams.
(FYI: We have the tech now to sustain a colony on Ceres.)
Yeah right, in your dreams.
It took 10 years and 0.5% of the Gross Domestic Product of the United States to get a two-man lander on the moon. There was no toilet, they taped a bag on their butt to do #2.
The expertise to do that has largely retired or passed on. The US has no manned space program.
The moon could be done on two or three Falcon 9H rockets at around two billion dollars, more like .000013 % of GDP or less then $7 a person. A proper space toilet has long since been invented. Most of the expertise has NOT been lost. The most commonly quoted 'impossible' item is the F1 rocket engine (the biggest single nozzle engine ever made) is lost technology yet they are working on building a simpler BETTER version right now.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engine-upgrades-apollo-era-deisgn-with-1-8m-lbs-of-thrust/
I think it can definitely be done if not attempted. How long the colonisers will live tho is another story. Just like the majority of early English and Scottish (plus maybe Norse) colonies in the Americas they all failed and everyone died. We do need to live on Mars but with current technology it'd be very harsh indeed tho we need to start somewhere. Just like the early colonies in the Americas from Europeans even if that means almost a century of deadly failure we have to start.
(FYI: We have the tech now to sustain a colony on Ceres.)
Yeah right, in your dreams.
It took 10 years and 0.5% of the Gross Domestic Product of the United States to get a two-man lander on the moon. There was no toilet, they taped a bag on their butt to do #2.
The expertise to do that has largely retired or passed on. The US has no manned space program.
Richard Branson will be on the moon to welcome the next wave of government astronauts to his new hotel.
You have not disproved my statement.
(FYI: We have the tech now to sustain a colony on Ceres.)
Yeah right, in your dreams.
It took 10 years and 0.5% of the Gross Domestic Product of the United States to get a two-man lander on the moon. There was no toilet, they taped a bag on their butt to do #2.
The expertise to do that has largely retired or passed on. The US has no manned space program.
As Stephen Hawkins said humanity has less than 1,000 years to get off the earth before its wiped out.
I happen to have discussed this in the phys.org article about it. I could not get anyone to tell me what exactly is supposed to wipe us out in less than 1,000 years, because it can't be an asteroid impact.
According to two academic studies mentioned in the Wikipedia article about impact winter:
"mankind would likely survive an impact of any size".
So I guess Hawkins must be talking about something else.
Manned space exploration enthusiasm is basically delusional.
OK, when the next dinosaur killer hits, I'll be waving at you from my dome on Ceres.
Then we'll see who has the more hostile living environment.
As Stephen Hawkins said humanity has less than 1,000 years to get off the earth before its wiped out.
One of the problems I have with the concept of living on mars is the fact that it only has 38% the gravity of earth. How could we manage that without artificial gravity? Even astronauts living on the ISS have all sorts of health problems from just spending a few months up there. In space centrifugal force works, but what about on the planet's surface?
That is why its a one way trip as the ones that go can never return to the earth. So when are they planning on babies on Mars or terraforming?
(FYI: We have the tech now to sustain a colony on Ceres.)
Yeah right, in your dreams.
(FYI: We have the tech now to sustain a colony on Ceres.)
Yeah right, in your dreams. Like Franz Reichelt who was sure he knew aerodynamics enough to fly.
Delusional.
All this is true if the impact was happening next year, but as I said, a civilization sufficiently advanced to sustain a colony on Ceres would probably be sufficiently advanced to mitigate all this.
As I said:Yes, a society sufficiently advanced to sustain asteroid colonies will survive an asteroid strike to the home planet. Because of the colonies.
Unless you have some suggestions as to how overwhelmed civil authorities will "mitigate" devastation on a global scale while their cities are being looted?
(FYI: We have the tech now to sustain a colony on Ceres. The main stumbling block is getting there.)
The resulting devastation will overwhelm disaster and relief organizations. Meanwhile, civil order will collapse, and any city not destroyed by the impact will be overrun by looters. With communication and trade disrupted, resources won't get to where they're needed, and millions more will starve while grain rots in silos. Salt rains combined with cooler temperatures will play havok with the world's crops, so that first year is the last year any grain will rot in silos, because there will be none to store in later years.
All this is true if the impact was happening next year, but as I said, a civilization sufficiently advanced to sustain a colony on Ceres would probably be sufficiently advanced to mitigate all this. They'll build shelters precisely for this purpose. It certainly won't be much more difficult than building a "dome on Ceres", as you wrote. Also Ceres is such a small celestial body:
I have hard time imagining people on this thing helping the whole rest of humanity.
Anyway, all this is just bad science-fiction. To be willing to take part in an attempt to make anything like this come true in our lifetime is delusional, imho. This was my point.
and leave the rest to scrounge for whatever they can get.
And this would certainly be better than whatever you would have on Ceres.
Also as I said, whenever we'll be able to sustain a colony on Ceres, we'll be so advanced that I doubt an impact winter would really kill millions of people. We would probably find ways to mitigate it, for an Asteroid is much a tougher environment than even an impacted Earth.
You'll be asking the space colonists for help, you mean.
The impact event itself is likely to kill millions, if not billions. Where are all our cities? What covers 70% of the surface? What will happen when the asteroid hits that 70% of the surface?
The resulting devastation will overwhelm disaster and relief organizations. Meanwhile, civil order will collapse, and any city not destroyed by the impact will be overrun by looters. With communication and trade disrupted, resources won't get to where they're needed, and millions more will starve while grain rots in silos. Salt rains combined with cooler temperatures will play havok with the world's crops, so that first year is the last year any grain will rot in silos, because there will be none to store in later years.
Yes, a society sufficiently advanced to sustain asteroid colonies will survive an asteroid strike to the home planet. Because of the colonies.
and leave the rest to scrounge for whatever they can get.
And this would certainly be better than whatever you would have on Ceres.
Also as I said, whenever we'll be able to sustain a colony on Ceres, we'll be so advanced that I doubt an impact winter would really kill millions of people. We would probably find ways to mitigate it, for an Asteroid is much a tougher environment than even an impacted Earth.
Right, because a technological base that's smashed to splinters is great at keeping people from dying in an impact-induced glaciation.
You realize how unlikely it is for the impact to actually occur on the exact location of a technological base, right?
/sigh. Earth is the exact location of our technological base. Our only such location. An asteroid impact would ruin lines of communication, disrupt trade, smash all civilized society, kill millions of people directly and indirectly, and leave the rest to scrounge for whatever they can get.
Right, because a technological base that's smashed to splinters is great at keeping people from dying in an impact-induced glaciation.
You realize how unlikely it is for the impact to actually occur on the exact location of a technological base, right?
Also, Earth in glaciation time is still paradise when compared to any other place in the Solar system.
If anyone planned any of your examples I'd think it was amazing. The crazy ones change the world - history has shown this repeatedly - that's all I'm going to say!
Sometimes they do, but most of the time they don't. They are just crazy, and you don't remember crazy people who didn't change the world.
Take Franz Reichet, for instance. This guy thought he could safely jump off the Eiffel tour with just a self-made suit. He died of course. Now, some people did jump off the Eiffel tour after him, but it was much more difficult than he thought, as it required a modern parachute and lots of training.
IMHO the death of Franz Reichelt is very similar to this mars-one project. Look at the people on the video who watch him. They don't try to dissuade him, they just wait for him to jump, and then they watch him die. Maybe they sincerely believed it could work, maybe they shared a dream. Some of them might have said: "Franz Reichelt is crazy but it's crazy people like him who change the world!". If they did, to me it's clear they were all delusional.
It's the same with this mars-one project. The crew will die there and we are all going to watch them die, in the name of a delusion fueled by science-fiction.
It's sad, if you ask me.
Right, because a technological base that's smashed to splinters is great at keeping people from dying in an impact-induced glaciation.
Mmmm.... Free snow cones.Also, I thought humans were great at causing global warming?
Manned space exploration enthusiasm is basically delusional.
OK, when the next dinosaur killer hits, I'll be waving at you from my dome on Ceres.
Then we'll see who has the more hostile living environment.
If mankind is advanced enough to sustain an inhabitable environment on Ceres, I'm pretty sure it won't have much trouble dealing with any large impact on Earth.
Right, because a technological base that's smashed to splinters is great at keeping people from dying in an impact-induced glaciation.
If anyone planned any of your examples I'd think it was amazing. The crazy ones change the world - history has shown this repeatedly - that's all I'm going to say!
Sometimes they do, but most of the time they don't. They are just crazy, and you don't remember crazy people who didn't change the world.
Take Franz Reichet, for instance. This guy thought he could safely jump off the Eiffel tour with just a self-made suit. He died of course. Now, some people did jump off the Eiffel tour after him, but it was much more difficult than he thought, as it required a modern parachute and lots of training.
IMHO the death of Franz Reichet is very similar to this mars-one project. Look at the people on the video who watch him. They don't try to dissuade him, they just wait for him to jump, and then they watch him die. Maybe they sincerely believed it could work, maybe they shared a dream. Some of them might have said: "Franz Reichet is crazy but it's crazy people like him who change the world!". If they did, to me it's clear they were all delusional.
It's the same with this mars-one project. The crew will die there and we are all going to watch them die, in the name of a delusion fueled by science-fiction.
It's sad, if you ask me.
Jump to: