Don't such orbits require a phenominal amount of resource. I only wish we could feel secure enough to devote the resources devoted to security to such ventures.
Malc On Apr 9, 4:50 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:32 PM, ornamentalmind > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > “ It is also known based on today's science that 'we' can't make it in > > outer space nor on most other planets. “ – OM > > > “Can you provide some supporting information for this statement? AFAIK > > the only thing stopping us from establishing bases on everything > > except the gas giants is money. The technology is there it just the > > funds that aren't.” – Chuck > > > OK, first for the ‘we’ (read: body) part, I’ll post only a few of the > > Google hits from the first page when one searches for “body decay > > during space flight”. > > >http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars148.html > > >http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/pdf/educator-microgravity_science_stu.pdf > > >http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(02)00930-9/abstract > > >http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/02144/text/travel/body.htm > > > There are countermeasures to all of the links you provide and all of those > > countermeasures are within our technological capability. > > > Now for the ‘outer space’ part... when one Googles “effects of > > radioactivity in space travel” a few of the first ‘hits’ include: > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_adaptation_to_spaceflight > > >http://www.dnaindia.com/health/report_astronauts-could-face-heart-pro... > > >http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v4/n11/full/embor7400016.html > > >http://www.nukes.org/alien/alienlinks.html > > > It's fairly easy to shield against cosmic radiation. Current technology > > allows lead shielding and if mass isn't an issue - the case in permanent > cycling transport systems - you can use lunar basalt. A 3' thick layer can > shield better than the atmosphere of earth. > > > Now for the last part of my post: “most other planets” (are not able > > to support human life) > > > One would think that this is obvious just on the surface of it, no? > > I’m not talking about a movie, I’m talking about actually getting to a > > planet and then trying to live there. > > Mars and possibly Venus are the only two planets with even a vague chance of > terraforming. But, it's pretty much a given that we would live in artificial > habitats no matter where we were. > > > > > All I was claiming…and accurately so, was that today, human beings > > could not survive the long journey to a planet that could support > > human life. And, that there are so few…if any such planets that to > > dream about space travel and similar adventuring is pure fantasy. By > > all means, if it is what turns you on…go for it. Just be advised that > > such ruminations are not reality today. > > Actually, what you were claiming was that we don't have the technological > capability to do so. That was, and still remains incorrect. > > > > > Oh, and I haven’t even addressed what we both already knew…the funding > > issue let alone that those who have been sent up for short periods of > > time have been some of the most carefully selected humans on the > > planet. Don’t try sending our ‘average’ human being even on a long > > orbit around the earth let alone the light years necessary to travel > > to a planet that *possibly* could support human life. > > We've already sent 'average' human beings on long orbits around the earth. > Do a google search on russian space tourists. > > > > - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
