7 replies to this topic

[TerryStonefield]

Once we perfect data collection, and direct sensory input there will be no need for manned missions to remote planets. We will only send probes to collect the vibrations of the sites and sounds, etc. Then they will transmit those 'sensations' in signal form back to Earth. There we will, with the proper full immersion technology, experience the new worlds as though we were there.That way there's no risk to human life and its a helluv a lot cheaper.

Edited by TerryStonefield, 28 January 2013 - 11:19 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

I believe you are wrong. It is imperative to the survival of humanity to reach out beyond our planet.

[TerryStonefield]

I absolutley agree that manned space expliporation is imperative to the future of the human species. However a sensory exploration technology may be a beneficial stepping stone until we can somewhat safely transport communities of people into the galaxy.

[Toni Roman]

So you're saying that the future of space exploration is NO space exploration. Sounds like a budget cutter in Congress. And I'm okay with shutting down the manned program of NASA (as long as the unmanned program is still funded) because the private sector and the third sector (nonprofit NGO's) ought to be taking the lead in space exploration anyway.

Odd that you should mention this data collection because a lot of the people most interested in private sector and third sector initiatives in space come from dot com and internet companies. I get that, as life extensionists and immortalists, we should be risk averse and not get ourselves killed. But becoming bubble boys and hiding in steel caves on Earth is not what I signed on for when I became an immortalist. I signed on for an eternal adventure. True, a safe adventure using the best that safety engineers can engineer but still an adventure. If some people who are not immortalists want to go on a one-way trip to Mars or become pioneers on the new frontier, then we have no right to tell them that they cannot go. That is totalitarianism and totalitarianism generally devolves to death camps and secret police killing people and therefore is antithetical to immortalism. Yes, I get it. I know that you don't want people dying taking unnecessary risks. It is laudable that you have a good heart and don't want to see your fellow humans getting killed. That impulse is good and it makes you a good immortalist. But the pioneers signing on to one-way trips to Mars are adults and most if not all are well aware that they are likely to have their young lives cut short. This might be an explosive decompression or a micrometeorite cutting through them like a bullet (like in that movie Gravity) or a dust storm hits the Martian settlement upon landing before they have all the life support systems online or the cosmic radiation gives someone cancer.

We cannot stop risk takers from taking risks. Many sociologists, anthropologists and geneticists would say it is foolish to try and stop them. The people who reference the human imperative are correct. They might get killed but without them the human race does not progress. The best and highest profession that an immortalist should pursue is that of safety engineer. We cannot stop people from taking risks but we can become safety engineers and encourage young people to become safety engineers in order to develop systems that will protect the pioneers. Why? Enlightened self-interest. What if we become a race of cowards? The entire human race stays on Earth terrified to set foot off the planet because "we can send probes cheaper and save lives."

Really?

We have seen comets slamming into Jupiter. We had a warning shot over Chelyabinsk, Russia. Asteroids are nature's way of asking: "How's that manned space transportation developing?" Unless we want to die like the dinosaurs, we need to get our arses in gear and develop cheap manned transportation to orbit. We need to have at least three backup worlds (Mars, Ceres, and Callisto. Others would pick Mercury, Venus and Triton) in case the Earth is rendered uninhabitable by plutonium dispersal or the Koch Brothers/Rex Tillerson forcing climate change or aliens arriving (like in Independence Day) or a planet-killer asteroid or the sun going nova or something unforeseen. I worry most about the unforeseen because smart people are working on the other scenarios. Learn about the Lifeboat Foundation.

Once again, I want to put in a big plug for encouraging life extensionists, immortalists and young people choosing a career to choose safety engineer as a career. Can't have too many of these specialists.

Edited by Toni Roman, 24 October 2013 - 03:32 AM.

[BrandonFlorida]

What you're proposing is like never in your lifetime leaving that one block that you were born in when the whole world is sitting there available to you. The purpose of designing manned space missions is to get good at it so that we can put more people further into space later.

[TerryStonefield]

Of course we need to send people out into space, sending interactive probes was mainly a tangent idea. Pursued to see where it would go. Howe ever it was partially inspired by the fact that our current 'public' technology for exploring the heavens is so under -qualified for realistic space travel it's almost laughable. It's akin to trying to cross the ocean with raft made of driftwood. Our propulsion systems are so archaic that they are basically using the same technology as ancient Chinese black powder 'rockets'. not mention that we basically have zero protection against micro meteorites, radiation, and unknowns. Sure those who wish to be pioneers and take the risks might give us advantages and insights for future technologies, but you have to think of the true human factor. The 'average' person is not going to risk the safety of their family and loved ones with any technology that isn't 99% safe. To gain the public's support, and encourage the belief in immortality we need either a huge leap in exo-planet technologies, or focus are efforts on constructing earth-based strongholds, probably underground. This should be complimented by a planetary defense system. These alternatives will provide us a window of time to develop truly efficient methods of space travel.

[johnf]

Have to agree with the majority here: It's nothing if it's not about humans and Gaian life getting off-planet and across the solar system and across the galaxy.

>Our propulsion systems are so archaic that they are basically using the same
>technology as ancient Chinese black powder 'rockets'.

Updated technology, to be sure. Using nuclear explosives of various forms to push rockets around at hundreds of km/sec. Good enough to reach space colonies as close as the moons or Trojan asteroids of Jupiter in a few months, Mars in weeks. Maybe a year or so to something in the inner Kuiper belt and tens of years to things way out in the Oort halo. It's possible to conduct trade of a sort with tens of years shipping time, and for people to not spend their entire lives in the space colony they were born in as a normal practise for most people.


>not mention that we basically have zero protection against micro meteorites,
>radiation, and unknowns

Zero protection against impactors and radiation? Some astro-engineering facts are due:
If it's accepted that it takes the equivalent of 2 meters of sand to adequately shield a colony of typical metallic ship-building or aerospace construction
and also accepted that typical Lunar resources (average regolith, anywhere) has about the right mix of rock dust and metals to make a colony hull of this sort (some form of erzats "concrete" made from space resources) so a space colony hull is about 1.7 meters of solid rock for one full G and cosmic ray shielding equal to a high altitude city on Earth.

So the colonies which the ships travel between are built for any average Mk-1 human to live, and given the incidence of matter to be expected to impact... How can it be said that with what we knew in the mid '70s upgraded to now, and projected with no fundamentally new inventions needed, how can it be said that we don't have the capability for average people to out-migrate? Especially with the incentive of population controls down here, but more qualified people always wanted out there.

I don't underestimate people's willingness to evaluate risks and decide to take their families outward, even if everyone knows that space colonies aren't any safer than living on Earth.
Sure, people and groups, and whole colonies of thousands might be wiped out. An Ocean-basin sweeping tsunami; cities wiped down to dust by earthquakes; fires, drought, climate instability due to greenhouse gasses so we're stuck for a few centuries of more between an ice age and totally unpredictable weather... A large immobile target that positively draws impactors to it, with only the atmosphere for protection...

Take your choice of where to live and work. All the high pay stuff is out there. Down here is either planetary husbandry (terraforming the Earth to clean up after the industries, and re-make it as it was at the beginning of this interglacial epoch) or the hospitality industry (Earth will become an underpopulated resort wilderness planet for billions and trillions living in space)

Edited by johnf, 23 February 2014 - 10:52 PM.

[redFishBlueFish]

Have to agree with the majority here: It's nothing if it's not about humans and Gaian life getting off-planet and across the solar system and across the galaxy.

>Our propulsion systems are so archaic that they are basically using the same
>technology as ancient Chinese black powder 'rockets'.

Updated technology, to be sure. Using nuclear explosives of various forms to push rockets around at hundreds of km/sec. Good enough to reach space colonies as close as the moons or Trojan asteroids of Jupiter in a few months, Mars in weeks. Maybe a year or so to something in the inner Kuiper belt and tens of years to things way out in the Oort halo. It's possible to conduct trade of a sort with tens of years shipping time, and for people to not spend their entire lives in the space colony they were born in as a normal practise for most people.
 

 

This is a great article related to this thread.

 

http://www.dailygala...st-popular.html

 

 

 

The Andromeda Galaxy /ænˈdrɒmɨdə/ is a spiral galaxy approximately 2.5 million light-years (2.4×1019 km) from Earth in the Andromeda constellation. Also known as Messier 31, M31, or NGC 224, it is often referred to as the Great Andromeda Nebula in older texts.

Andromeda Galaxy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy

 

 

 

Edited by redFishBlueFish, 30 July 2014 - 06:39 AM.