You deflect a lot when you're on the defensive. On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:54 PM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote:
> “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 originally made or perhaps consciously ignores it.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. >
