PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Slate Article: Is Mars Ours?
>
>
> > Hopefully to reel this all in a little bit --
> >
&g
> Hopefully to reel this all in a little bit --
>
> I don't think the problem is quality of experience,
> but rather the time lag from signal to response.
> It would be enough to make a telepresence on the
> moon annoying and unreal, and one on Mars totally
> unworkable. Unless I'm missing somet
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 01:57:25AM -0800, Mark Schnitzius wrote:
> I don't think the problem is quality of experience,
> but rather the time lag from signal to response.
> It would be enough to make a telepresence on the
> moon annoying and unreal, and one on Mars totally
It's exactly the reason
--- Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > but cannot be regarded as 'the real thing'. I
> suggest you
>
> Have you actually looked through a telepresence rig?
> It's good enough to give
> you vertigo. The key ingredient for instant
> transport is "immersive display".
Hopefully to reel thi
Patrick Hall writes:
> The idea of substituting a virtual presence for actually visiting a
physical location worked all
> right in 1960s science fiction, and satisfies the average teenager trying
to avoid using their
> college computer for serious study, but cannot be regarded as 'the real
thing'.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 07:29:58AM +, Patrick Hall wrote:
>
> The idea of substituting a virtual presence for actually
> visiting a physical location worked all right in 1960s
Hardly, as telepresence harware (immersive displays, head and body trackers,
actuators, high-performance computers
The idea of substituting a virtual presence for actually visiting a physical location
worked all right in 1960s science fiction, and satisfies the average teenager trying
to avoid using their college computer for serious study, but cannot be regarded as
'the real thing'. I suggest you consult H
> > 2) As Michael has already explained, it will take a lot of effort to
> > terraform a planet.
>
> Caca. Almost all of the people involved in in the Mars debate do
> *not* understand nanotechnology.
I never said it would take a lot of effort. I DID imply that it wouldn't
be happening any tim
Gino,
> I agree with one of Mr. Zubrin's basic ideas, is that to go to Mars cheaply
> and effectively, we must start to use the Martian environment for resources,
> like fuel, etc.
I have no problem with any of Zubrin's basic ideas. It would be interesting
to see whether they could be applied
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Gary McMurtry wrote:
... several points in favor of exploration ...
I'll just offer a few observations.
Re: Engineering redundancy, G-force and radiation tolerance,
reprogramability, etc. are *much* easier with probes than
humans (at this time).
Without manned exploration
Title: Re: 3He fusion for Europa exploration (Re: Fw:
Slate Artic
Eugen,
Some replies below FYI, in blue
ink.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:46:43PM -0900,
Gary McMurtry wrote:
> Well, since you asked, I'm working with Paul Lucey of UH and
Steve
> Smith of JPL to develop a shock-hardened mass spec
ot;Gary McMurtry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Slate Article: Is Mars Ours?
>
> Robert,
>
> Good to hear from you. You bring up many good points and ideas.
> People can do a lot of great work with
Robert,
Good to hear from you. You bring up many good points and ideas.
People can do a lot of great work with unmanned probes, but unless
folks get to go to the Moon again and eventually onward to Mars, at
least, widespread public support for space exploration will likely
wane. I'm a not-so
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Gary McMurtry wrote:
> 1) WE are not "Back on Mars", a robotic probe is there, taking
> pictures and doing pre-planned experiments on our behalf;
Yep and at a cost of ~1/400th of what a manned mission would
have cost a decade ago. So we could send 400 robotic missions
to M
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 01:15:10PM +0900, Michael Turner wrote:
> 3He fusion looks like it would dramatically reduce the radioactive
> waste byproducts of fusion power production. In a future that
> may be even more radiophobic than the present day, it's hard
> to see how this wouldn't matter.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:46:43PM -0900, Gary McMurtry wrote:
> Well, since you asked, I'm working with Paul Lucey of UH and Steve
> Smith of JPL to develop a shock-hardened mass spectrometer to put
> into a giant "lawn dart" penetrator probe for the Moon's poles. The
> idea is to drop them (
By the way, who is this "we", Gary? Are *you* actually working
on relevant instrumentation? ;-)
Well, since you asked, I'm working with Paul Lucey of UH and Steve
Smith of JPL to develop a shock-hardened mass spectrometer to put
into a giant "lawn dart" penetrator probe for the Moon's poles. Th
ably have to see those nuclei
> >dance, someday, one way or another.
> >
> >-michael turner
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Gary McMurtry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >S
ED]>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Slate Article: Is Mars Ours?
1) WE are not "Back on Mars", a robotic probe is there, taking
pictures and doing pre-planned experiments on our behalf;
2) As Michael has already explained, it will take a lot of effort to
t
Friday, January 09, 2004 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Slate Article: Is Mars Ours?
>
> 1) WE are not "Back on Mars", a robotic probe is there, taking
> pictures and doing pre-planned experiments on our behalf;
>
> 2) As Michael has already explained, it will take a lot of effo
On 1/9/2004, "Gary McMurtry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>1) WE are not "Back on Mars", a robotic probe is there, taking
>pictures and doing pre-planned experiments on our behalf;
By some similar picky literalist reasoning, "we" were
never on the Moon -- only a few astronauts went. In
some
1) WE are not "Back on Mars", a robotic probe is there, taking
pictures and doing pre-planned experiments on our behalf;
2) As Michael has already explained, it will take a lot of effort to
terraform a planet. The only aspect he has wrong is the time scale,
and the economic scale, not to men
(B
(B
(BQuite a few chuckles in this Slate article (see below). I especially liked Lowell
(BWood's and Robert Zubrin's clueless invocation of some human "manifest destiny" of
(Beventual Mars settlement. Lowell Wood has always been an incorrigible flamer --
(Bduring the Star Wars debates
science Is Mars Ours? The logistics and ethics of colonizing the red planet. By David Grinspoon Posted Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2004, at 4:26 PM PT What a joy and a relief that we're back on Mars. The fourth stone from the sun has taunted us for centuries with shifting but persistent visions of near
24 matches
Mail list logo
