“The information you supplied doesn't support your claim. My interpretation of your statement is that we do not have the technological capability to place humans in habitats in space or on other planets for extended periods of time. …” – Chuck
Chuck, your interpretation is noted. Sadly, it isn’t what I said nor claimed. However, rather than continue to clarify what I said and meant, I’ll just pass for now. “…You did not specify the constraint that we be able to freely swim through space or walk around on a planet unprotected. …” – Chuck Chuck, that is quite true. I did not specify nor even suggest those notions. They are entirely yours. “…We have already proved that we can put people in space for long periods of time. Putting humans on other planets is simply an extension of this technology with the added benefit of gravity. …” – Chuck Well, two comments here: 1. Your interpretation of ‘long periods of time’ is not the same as mine in this context…as I’ve already addressed. 2. To blithely say your 2nd sentence above misses the entire point I originally made or perhaps consciously ignores it. There is *nothing* “simple” about it (even leaving economics aside…an issue we seem to already agree upon) and the use of the notion of “an extension of” does nothing but advance your argument to the future and ignore reality as it is today.. Lest we forget the genesis of our discussion, I originally said: “ …It is also known based on today's science that 'we' can't make it in outer space nor on most other planets. “ – OM I stand by my words. Of course, you have interpreted them differently than their original intention….so all bets on clear communication may be off here. “…If you had said "based on *today's economics*" I would agree with this statement. Again, the issue isn't science. It's economics. …” – Chuck As already noted a couple of times, we seem to agree in principle about the economics of the era. Perhaps we can drop it or bring it up as a separate discussion? Where we differ is your assertion that today we can live in outer space and/or on planets. I will assume that you mean to include the time frame of ‘living in outer space’ as something much more than just a few months and that living on other planets is something demonstrably happening today. If so, I continue to disagree… as I originally said. “…The fact that something hasn't been done doesn't mean that it's not possible - just impractical. ..” – Chuck Well, an interesting ontological issue, no? Regardless, I don’t embrace such a belief structure. “…If you insist on subjective measure then I guess I should point out that the ISS orbits the Earth every 90 minutes. A 15 day trip would be 360 hours or 21600 minutes. This means that they orbited the Earth 240 times for a total distance of 6 million miles. That is enough for 12 full round trips to the Moon and back….” – Chuck If *I* insist on subjectivity???!!!! Not by a long shot…other than the actual nature of words and concepts. Perhaps we don’t actually disagree on the facts of the matter. Perhaps it is but a semantics issue. Either way, I just don’t grok your above commentary about 360 hrs…is it a failure to state?...an ambiguous assertion?...or simply a red herring? What? …and even though you suggest that the training involved in ‘tourism’ is off point…I maintain that it is another part of the issue involved… and surely more important than 360 hours in space!.....let alone your thesis that “…most Russians aren't crazy enough to throw away $25 million for a working vacation in space.”!!!! Maybe all will be clearer if one adds the term "today" to the end of my original point....maybe not. On Apr 9, 6:59 am, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:14 AM, ornamentalmind > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > First Chuck, by leaving the “>” symbol at the head of a new post, some > > of your ideas are not showing up on the web interface…a method many of > > us use to access the group. I advise that when you reply to posts to > > assure that your reply does not start out with the “>” > > I have tried to leave hard returns between message bodies and my replies. It > may be that I missed one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now some more responses to your rather tenacious posting style: > > > Yes, there are ‘countermeasures’ to what I’ve presented. (In fact, > > there is an argument for the reverse of almost any argument, no?) > > > However, again, what you asked me to do was :” > > “ …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?... “ > > – Chuck > > > I provided “some supporting information for” the statement. You didn’t > > ask to provide irrefutable information and, as I suggest, about any > > claim can be refuted. As interesting as a back and forth … refuting > > everything someone else has said can be, I’m not interested in such a > > fundamentalist skeptic’s approach…FYI. > > The information you supplied doesn't support your claim. My interpretation > of your statement is that we do not have the technological capability to > place humans in habitats in space or on other planets for extended periods > of time. > > You did not specify the constraint that we be able to freely swim through > space or walk around on a planet unprotected. > > We have already proved that we can put people in space for long periods of > time. Putting humans on other planets is simply an extension of this > technology with the added benefit of gravity. > > > > > You added that your ‘countermeasures’ “are within our technological > > capability. > > > Well, if you mean that we are capable of doing things but haven’t yet > > done them, then I stand by my perhaps not very well stated view that > > “based on *today’s science*” we can’t make it….meaning that today we > > can’t (read: do not) do these things *today*. > > If you had said "based on *today's economics*" I would agree with this > statement. Again, the issue isn't science. It's economics. > > > > > Yes, shielding against cosmic radiation is possible…at least to some > > degree. And, you do point out the issue of mass as well as the > > possibility of digging in on other heavenly bodies. However, even > > here, you support the view that we do not terraform nor do we live in > > any type of habitat on another planet…at least not *today*… your > > arguments to the future notwithstanding. > > > So, overall, until all of these projections into the future actually > > take place, they remain fantasies. Period. > > The fact that something hasn't been done doesn't mean that it's not possible > - just impractical. > > > > > Now to your claim that: > > > “We've already sent 'average' human beings on long orbits around the > > earth. Do a google search on russian space tourists.” - Chuck > > > If you consider ‘long orbits’ to be 15 days, the longest time that a > > known Russian tourist has been ‘up there’, fine. I don’t consider it > > long at all considering the length of time necessary to travel to some > > as yet untried ‘home’ planet. > > If you insist on subjective measure then I guess I should point out that the > ISS orbits the Earth every 90 minutes. A 15 day trip would be 360 hours or > 21600 minutes. This means that they orbited the Earth 240 times for a total > distance of 6 million miles. That is enough for 12 full round trips to the > Moon and back. > > > Do note that even here they – the ‘tourists’ - are given rigorous > > physical training: > >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/science/space/11space.html > > This is off point. Even aircraft passengers need training. If you've ever > been on a passenger jet you'll know that the first thing that happens as it > taxi's onto the runway is that a stewardess stands up and explains the > emergency procedures. On a space mission it's expected that the training be > significantly more extensive. > > > > > Oh, and it is interesting that the “Russian tourists”, a misnomer if > > ever there was one, do not include one Russian! > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism#List_of_flown_space_tourists > > Only because most Russians aren't crazy enough to throw away $25 million for > a working vacation in space.
