• astronauts' squashed eyeball disorder

    From StarDust@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 10 05:03:44 2021
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301

    "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health
    Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.

    "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."

    Talk to Musk about it, since he wants to send a million hoomans to the red planet!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From W@21:1/5 to StarDust on Fri Dec 10 06:32:59 2021
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301

    "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health
    Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.

    "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."

    =

    This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.

    Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System. We should work on these questions now, while we have the money and resources to do so.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 10 13:04:30 2021
    On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301

    "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health
    Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.

    "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."

    =

    This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.

    Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.

    We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
    the Solar System. Why would we?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From W@21:1/5 to Chris L Peterson on Fri Dec 10 15:54:14 2021
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:04:33 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301

    "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas
    Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.

    "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."

    =

    This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.

    Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
    We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
    the Solar System. Why would we?

    You try to explain why we wouldn't.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From StarDust@21:1/5 to Chris L Peterson on Fri Dec 10 18:19:50 2021
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 12:04:33 PM UTC-8, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301

    "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas
    Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.

    "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."

    =

    This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.

    Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
    We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
    the Solar System. Why would we?

    We won't, but a future generation will, not as a full-grown human but as an embryo.
    Grow up on a new planet , adjusted to the new environment!
    Life's been evolving here on earth since the beginning.
    Why not there?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 10 21:31:14 2021
    On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 15:54:14 -0800 (PST), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:04:33 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301

    "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas
    Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.

    "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."

    =

    This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.

    Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
    We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
    the Solar System. Why would we?

    You try to explain why we wouldn't.

    Because we have nowhere to go, and will be extinct as a species long
    before we might be forced to leave.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From W@21:1/5 to Chris L Peterson on Sat Dec 11 08:29:25 2021
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:31:56 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:19:50 -0800 (PST), StarDust <cso...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 12:04:33 PM UTC-8, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301

    "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas
    Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.

    "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."

    =

    This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.

    Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
    We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
    the Solar System. Why would we?

    We won't, but a future generation will, not as a full-grown human but as an embryo.
    Grow up on a new planet , adjusted to the new environment!
    Life's been evolving here on earth since the beginning.
    Why not there?
    Not going to happen. No reason to go anywhere. We can barely survive
    here, where we evolved.

    Mammals and similar vertebrates can and have been able to survive in extreme environments for hundreds of million of years. Humans, in particular, have proved adaptable. Now is a good time in history to actually gain a foothold off-planet, even if just
    on the Moon as a short-term goal.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From W@21:1/5 to Chris L Peterson on Sat Dec 11 08:23:29 2021
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:31:17 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 15:54:14 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:04:33 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301

    "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas
    Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.

    "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."

    =

    This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.

    Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
    We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
    the Solar System. Why would we?

    You try to explain why we wouldn't.
    Because we have nowhere to go, and will be extinct as a species long
    before we might be forced to leave.

    Is it not known that we have "nowhere to go." It's just that you can't imagine such a place.
    You do not know what the future actually holds for Earth and for humans.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to All on Sat Dec 11 15:48:42 2021
    On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 08:23:29 -0800 (PST), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:31:17 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 15:54:14 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:04:33 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301

    "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas
    Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.

    "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."

    =

    This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.

    Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
    We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
    the Solar System. Why would we?

    You try to explain why we wouldn't.
    Because we have nowhere to go, and will be extinct as a species long
    before we might be forced to leave.

    Is it not known that we have "nowhere to go." It's just that you can't imagine such a place.
    You do not know what the future actually holds for Earth and for humans.

    I can make a pretty reliable guess in this case.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to All on Sat Dec 11 15:50:28 2021
    On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 08:29:25 -0800 (PST), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:31:56 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:19:50 -0800 (PST), StarDust <cso...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 12:04:33 PM UTC-8, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301

    "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas
    Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.

    "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."

    =

    This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.

    Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
    We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
    the Solar System. Why would we?

    We won't, but a future generation will, not as a full-grown human but as an embryo.
    Grow up on a new planet , adjusted to the new environment!
    Life's been evolving here on earth since the beginning.
    Why not there?
    Not going to happen. No reason to go anywhere. We can barely survive
    here, where we evolved.

    Mammals and similar vertebrates can and have been able to survive in extreme environments for hundreds of million of years. Humans, in particular, have proved adaptable. Now is a good time in history to actually gain a foothold off-planet, even if just
    on the Moon as a short-term goal.

    There are no planets to "gain a foothold". We've almost finished
    making our own planet, that we evolved on, unsuitable for our own
    existence. Even if we survive, it will not be as a highly
    technological civilization. Those appear to be unstable.

    The idea that we could survive anyplace else that is accessible to us
    is pretty ridiculous.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to All on Sun Dec 12 14:19:46 2021
    On 10/12/2021 23:54, W wrote:
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:04:33 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301

    "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas
    Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.

    "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."

    =

    This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.

    Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.

    It makes sense in science fiction but the energy needed to reach the
    nearest star with current technology is totally prohibitive.

    Unless and until we find some cunning short cut then travel to the stars
    is beyond anything we can realistically make or engineer. Fastest
    manmade objects to date are the Pioneers which left the Earth at 52,000
    kph which is a shade under 0.00005c or c/208000

    Slingshot off Jupiter roughly tripled that initial launch speed, but
    then climbing out of the sun's gravity slows it down a bit too.

    So the fastest thing we have ever launched would take over 208000 x 4/3
    years to reach Alpha Centuri. We are talking geological timescales here!

    We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
    the Solar System. Why would we?

    You try to explain why we wouldn't.

    We might eventually make it to Mars or even the moons of Jupiter but the energetics and resources needed to do that as a manned mission with
    present technology are quite unfavourable.

    We would almost certainly have to build a robotic hospital on Mars first
    to care for the unfortunate astronauts who land there. They would find
    it just as hard getting back. Possibly very much harder if they had
    already gone effectively blind on the trip out to reach Mars.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From W@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Sun Dec 12 13:01:26 2021
    On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 9:19:49 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 10/12/2021 23:54, W wrote:
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:04:33 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301

    "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas
    Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.

    "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."

    =

    This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.

    Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
    It makes sense in science fiction but the energy needed to reach the
    nearest star with current technology is totally prohibitive.

    Unless and until we find some cunning short cut then travel to the stars
    is beyond anything we can realistically make or engineer. Fastest
    manmade objects to date are the Pioneers which left the Earth at 52,000
    kph which is a shade under 0.00005c or c/208000

    Slingshot off Jupiter roughly tripled that initial launch speed, but
    then climbing out of the sun's gravity slows it down a bit too.

    So the fastest thing we have ever launched would take over 208000 x 4/3 years to reach Alpha Centuri. We are talking geological timescales here!
    We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
    the Solar System. Why would we?

    You try to explain why we wouldn't.
    We might eventually make it to Mars or even the moons of Jupiter but the energetics and resources needed to do that as a manned mission with
    present technology are quite unfavourable.

    We would almost certainly have to build a robotic hospital on Mars first
    to care for the unfortunate astronauts who land there. They would find
    it just as hard getting back. Possibly very much harder if they had
    already gone effectively blind on the trip out to reach Mars.

    The key phrase here is "current technology." If we stay on Earth then "current technology" in 100 or 200 hundred years will look much like "current technology" today, wrt space travel.

    Had you been able to understand English, you have seen and comprehended my comment about testing the problems of moderate gravity (1/6g or lunar) which might lead to ways to mitigate or eliminate the effects of living in space for long periods.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to All on Mon Dec 13 06:41:44 2021
    On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:01:26 -0800 (PST), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 9:19:49 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 10/12/2021 23:54, W wrote:
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:04:33 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301

    "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas
    Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.

    "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."

    =

    This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.

    Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
    It makes sense in science fiction but the energy needed to reach the
    nearest star with current technology is totally prohibitive.

    Unless and until we find some cunning short cut then travel to the stars
    is beyond anything we can realistically make or engineer. Fastest
    manmade objects to date are the Pioneers which left the Earth at 52,000
    kph which is a shade under 0.00005c or c/208000

    Slingshot off Jupiter roughly tripled that initial launch speed, but
    then climbing out of the sun's gravity slows it down a bit too.

    So the fastest thing we have ever launched would take over 208000 x 4/3
    years to reach Alpha Centuri. We are talking geological timescales here!
    We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
    the Solar System. Why would we?

    You try to explain why we wouldn't.
    We might eventually make it to Mars or even the moons of Jupiter but the
    energetics and resources needed to do that as a manned mission with
    present technology are quite unfavourable.

    We would almost certainly have to build a robotic hospital on Mars first
    to care for the unfortunate astronauts who land there. They would find
    it just as hard getting back. Possibly very much harder if they had
    already gone effectively blind on the trip out to reach Mars.

    The key phrase here is "current technology." If we stay on Earth then "current technology" in 100 or 200 hundred years will look much like "current technology" today, wrt space travel.

    No technology is going to allow us to reach the stars in a reasonable
    time. And more to the point, no cultural change appears in the works
    that would make it a human goal. Certainly not before we're extinct.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to All on Mon Dec 13 17:16:15 2021
    On 12/12/2021 21:01, W wrote:
    On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 9:19:49 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 10/12/2021 23:54, W wrote:
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:04:33 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: >>>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301

    "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas
    Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.

    "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."

    =

    This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.

    Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
    It makes sense in science fiction but the energy needed to reach the
    nearest star with current technology is totally prohibitive.

    Unless and until we find some cunning short cut then travel to the stars
    is beyond anything we can realistically make or engineer. Fastest
    manmade objects to date are the Pioneers which left the Earth at 52,000
    kph which is a shade under 0.00005c or c/208000

    Slingshot off Jupiter roughly tripled that initial launch speed, but
    then climbing out of the sun's gravity slows it down a bit too.

    So the fastest thing we have ever launched would take over 208000 x 4/3
    years to reach Alpha Centuri. We are talking geological timescales here! >>>> We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
    the Solar System. Why would we?

    You try to explain why we wouldn't.
    We might eventually make it to Mars or even the moons of Jupiter but the
    energetics and resources needed to do that as a manned mission with
    present technology are quite unfavourable.

    We would almost certainly have to build a robotic hospital on Mars first
    to care for the unfortunate astronauts who land there. They would find
    it just as hard getting back. Possibly very much harder if they had
    already gone effectively blind on the trip out to reach Mars.

    The key phrase here is "current technology." If we stay on Earth then "current technology" in 100 or 200 hundred years will look much like "current technology" today, wrt space travel.

    Unless and until some new exotic physics is found to allow us to fold
    space then there is nothing that we could possibly do to propel a
    spacecraft fast enough to reach the nearest star in a timescale shorter
    than a few thousand years. We could perhaps send out smaller faster
    unmanned probes with a bit of cunning but I doubt if we could even get
    to c/20 and c/100 might be a more realistic target.

    The energy required to do that would still be truly astronomical and if
    you add humans then the resources needed to make it self sufficient too. Remember once it gets out past Saturn solar power is no use to it.

    Had you been able to understand English, you have seen and comprehended my comment about testing the problems of moderate gravity (1/6g or lunar) which might lead to ways to mitigate or eliminate the effects of living in space for long periods.

    Living in space for long periods is the least of your problems on a ship travelling to the stars. Dying of boredom is much more likely.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?iso-8859-1?Q?fred__k._engels=AE?=@21:1/5 to All on Mon Dec 13 12:58:12 2021
    WONDERFUL NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!
    Another Russcom launch today with a new spy satellites added: https://twitter.com/roscosmos/status/1470437394868494338

    MORE WONDERFUL NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!
    Another Chicom launch today with new spy satellites added:

    https://twitter.com/Cosmic_Penguin/status/1470445198467829760

    EVEN MORE WONDERFUL NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!
    Elon Musk Is TIME's 2021 Person of the Year.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EoAHdwGBvU

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From StarDust@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Mon Dec 13 23:32:22 2021
    On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 9:16:19 AM UTC-8, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 12/12/2021 21:01, W wrote:
    On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 9:19:49 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 10/12/2021 23:54, W wrote:
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:04:33 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote: >>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301

    "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas
    Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.

    "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."

    =

    This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.

    Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
    It makes sense in science fiction but the energy needed to reach the
    nearest star with current technology is totally prohibitive.

    Unless and until we find some cunning short cut then travel to the stars >> is beyond anything we can realistically make or engineer. Fastest
    manmade objects to date are the Pioneers which left the Earth at 52,000 >> kph which is a shade under 0.00005c or c/208000

    Slingshot off Jupiter roughly tripled that initial launch speed, but
    then climbing out of the sun's gravity slows it down a bit too.

    So the fastest thing we have ever launched would take over 208000 x 4/3 >> years to reach Alpha Centuri. We are talking geological timescales here! >>>> We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave >>>> the Solar System. Why would we?

    You try to explain why we wouldn't.
    We might eventually make it to Mars or even the moons of Jupiter but the >> energetics and resources needed to do that as a manned mission with
    present technology are quite unfavourable.

    We would almost certainly have to build a robotic hospital on Mars first >> to care for the unfortunate astronauts who land there. They would find
    it just as hard getting back. Possibly very much harder if they had
    already gone effectively blind on the trip out to reach Mars.

    The key phrase here is "current technology." If we stay on Earth then "current technology" in 100 or 200 hundred years will look much like "current technology" today, wrt space travel.
    Unless and until some new exotic physics is found to allow us to fold
    space then there is nothing that we could possibly do to propel a
    spacecraft fast enough to reach the nearest star in a timescale shorter
    than a few thousand years. We could perhaps send out smaller faster
    unmanned probes with a bit of cunning but I doubt if we could even get
    to c/20 and c/100 might be a more realistic target.

    The energy required to do that would still be truly astronomical and if
    you add humans then the resources needed to make it self sufficient too.

    Unless you have "unobtainium"!
    (o:
    https://factrepublic.com/facts/36236/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From W@21:1/5 to Chris L Peterson on Thu Dec 16 08:42:39 2021
    On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 8:41:49 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

    No technology is going to allow us to reach the stars in a reasonable
    time. And more to the point, no cultural change appears in the works
    that would make it a human goal. Certainly not before we're extinct.

    Here, let me fix that for you..

    "No [currently known] technology..."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 16 20:31:31 2021
    On 16/12/2021 16:42, W wrote:
    On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 8:41:49 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

    No technology is going to allow us to reach the stars in a reasonable
    time. And more to the point, no cultural change appears in the works
    that would make it a human goal. Certainly not before we're extinct.

    Here, let me fix that for you..

    "No [currently known] technology..."

    It is a *lot* stronger than that. Everything that we know about physics
    to date makes humans travelling to the stars just about impossible.

    That isn't to say that we couldn't send an unmanned probe but someone
    would need to remember to look in the right direction in say 400 years
    time (assuming they pick alpha Centuri and can reach c/100).

    So in our history it would be the equivalent of Newton making a note in
    the margin of Principia saying "remember to look for my ballistic
    projectile hitting the moon's surface in 2060".

    Space travel (like some incredibly difficult computing problems) is one
    of those problems where the fastest way to do it is to wait until the technology is up to solving it in under 5 years. That way you get to
    overtake all the previous attempts that set off prematurely on the way.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rockinghorse Winner@21:1/5 to Chris L Peterson on Sat Dec 18 17:38:18 2021
    On 2021-12-10, Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
    On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301

    "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health
    Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.

    "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."

    =

    This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much
    gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.

    Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.

    We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
    the Solar System. Why would we?


    Agree...the amount of resources required vs the benefits is just too high.
    --

    "Many have sought in vain to tell joyously of the Most Joyous. Now at last It declares Itself to me, now in this misery." - Holderlin

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rockinghorse Winner@21:1/5 to Chris L Peterson on Sat Dec 18 17:43:31 2021
    On 2021-12-13, Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
    On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:01:26 -0800 (PST), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 9:19:49 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 10/12/2021 23:54, W wrote:
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:04:33 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: >>> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301

    "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas
    Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.

    "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."

    =

    This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.

    Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
    It makes sense in science fiction but the energy needed to reach the
    nearest star with current technology is totally prohibitive.

    Unless and until we find some cunning short cut then travel to the stars >>> is beyond anything we can realistically make or engineer. Fastest
    manmade objects to date are the Pioneers which left the Earth at 52,000
    kph which is a shade under 0.00005c or c/208000

    Slingshot off Jupiter roughly tripled that initial launch speed, but
    then climbing out of the sun's gravity slows it down a bit too.

    So the fastest thing we have ever launched would take over 208000 x 4/3
    years to reach Alpha Centuri. We are talking geological timescales here! >>> >> We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
    the Solar System. Why would we?

    You try to explain why we wouldn't.
    We might eventually make it to Mars or even the moons of Jupiter but the >>> energetics and resources needed to do that as a manned mission with
    present technology are quite unfavourable.

    We would almost certainly have to build a robotic hospital on Mars first >>> to care for the unfortunate astronauts who land there. They would find
    it just as hard getting back. Possibly very much harder if they had
    already gone effectively blind on the trip out to reach Mars.

    The key phrase here is "current technology." If we stay on Earth then "current technology" in 100 or 200 hundred years will look much like "current technology" today, wrt space travel.

    No technology is going to allow us to reach the stars in a reasonable
    time. And more to the point, no cultural change appears in the works
    that would make it a human goal. Certainly not before we're extinct.


    Some people's faith in 'technology' is truly admirable, isn't it..?

    --

    "Many have sought in vain to tell joyously of the Most Joyous. Now at last It declares Itself to me, now in this misery." - Holderlin

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Sun Dec 19 06:53:25 2021
    On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 13:29:16 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:


    I think it somewhat unlikely but then Lord Kelvin famously said just
    before radioactivity was discovered that (classical) physics would be >completely solved within the next couple of decades. The claim turns out
    to be apocryphal but it was still taught during my days at university.

    https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/lord-kelvin-and-the-end-of-physics-which-he-never-predicted/

    He also said that gliders and aeroplanes would never amount to much and
    put Rutherford off further investigation of radiowaves as "unimportant".

    The only thing we know for sure is that our present standard model is >incomplete and struggles to reconcile gravity with the other forces.

    Arguably, Kelvin wasn't far from wrong.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Rockinghorse Winner on Sun Dec 19 13:29:16 2021
    On 18/12/2021 17:38, Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
    On 2021-12-10, Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
    On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301

    "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas
    Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.

    "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."

    =

    This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much >>> gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.

    Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.

    We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
    the Solar System. Why would we?


    Agree...the amount of resources required vs the benefits is just too high.

    I'm inclined to agree, but you cannot entirely rule out new physics that
    we have yet to discover from making things possible in the future.

    Nuclear reactions (20th century) vs chemical reactions being by far the
    most obvious step change in available energy per unit mass.

    It is impossible to rule out finding new physics in higher dimensions
    that might allow us to fold space in such a way that certain distant
    places are made "nearby" for some carefully chosen set of parameters.

    I think it somewhat unlikely but then Lord Kelvin famously said just
    before radioactivity was discovered that (classical) physics would be completely solved within the next couple of decades. The claim turns out
    to be apocryphal but it was still taught during my days at university.

    https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/lord-kelvin-and-the-end-of-physics-which-he-never-predicted/

    He also said that gliders and aeroplanes would never amount to much and
    put Rutherford off further investigation of radiowaves as "unimportant".

    The only thing we know for sure is that our present standard model is incomplete and struggles to reconcile gravity with the other forces.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Chris L Peterson on Sun Dec 19 21:53:15 2021
    On 19/12/2021 13:53, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 13:29:16 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:


    I think it somewhat unlikely but then Lord Kelvin famously said just
    before radioactivity was discovered that (classical) physics would be
    completely solved within the next couple of decades. The claim turns out
    to be apocryphal but it was still taught during my days at university.

    https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/lord-kelvin-and-the-end-of-physics-which-he-never-predicted/

    He also said that gliders and aeroplanes would never amount to much and
    put Rutherford off further investigation of radiowaves as "unimportant".

    The only thing we know for sure is that our present standard model is
    incomplete and struggles to reconcile gravity with the other forces.

    Arguably, Kelvin wasn't far from wrong.

    In a binary fence post error sort of way.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Mon Dec 20 09:04:11 2021
    On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 21:53:15 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 19/12/2021 13:53, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 13:29:16 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:


    I think it somewhat unlikely but then Lord Kelvin famously said just
    before radioactivity was discovered that (classical) physics would be
    completely solved within the next couple of decades. The claim turns out >>> to be apocryphal but it was still taught during my days at university.

    https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/lord-kelvin-and-the-end-of-physics-which-he-never-predicted/

    He also said that gliders and aeroplanes would never amount to much and
    put Rutherford off further investigation of radiowaves as "unimportant". >>>
    The only thing we know for sure is that our present standard model is
    incomplete and struggles to reconcile gravity with the other forces.

    Arguably, Kelvin wasn't far from wrong.

    In a binary fence post error sort of way.

    What I'd say is that there's a good chance we now understand the
    majority of the laws of the Universe. That we have a large jigsaw
    puzzle that still has some missing pieces, but we have a good idea
    what the general shapes of those pieces are, and the broad picture
    isn't going to change. I don't think we're in for any major surprises
    or upsets in our existing understanding. I doubt there will be any
    holes at all in our knowledge of the fundamental laws of nature in a
    century. Maybe less.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From kelleher.gerald@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Chris L Peterson on Mon Dec 20 11:40:58 2021
    On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 4:04:14 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 21:53:15 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 19/12/2021 13:53, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 13:29:16 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:


    I think it somewhat unlikely but then Lord Kelvin famously said just
    before radioactivity was discovered that (classical) physics would be
    completely solved within the next couple of decades. The claim turns out >>> to be apocryphal but it was still taught during my days at university. >>>
    https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/lord-kelvin-and-the-end-of-physics-which-he-never-predicted/

    He also said that gliders and aeroplanes would never amount to much and >>> put Rutherford off further investigation of radiowaves as "unimportant". >>>
    The only thing we know for sure is that our present standard model is
    incomplete and struggles to reconcile gravity with the other forces.

    Arguably, Kelvin wasn't far from wrong.

    In a binary fence post error sort of way.
    What I'd say is that there's a good chance we now understand the
    majority of the laws of the Universe. That we have a large jigsaw
    puzzle that still has some missing pieces, but we have a good idea
    what the general shapes of those pieces are, and the broad picture
    isn't going to change. I don't think we're in for any major surprises
    or upsets in our existing understanding. I doubt there will be any
    holes at all in our knowledge of the fundamental laws of nature in a
    century. Maybe less.


    For my part, it doesn't effect any genuine solar system research, however, I can help those who are lost in a contrived 250+ year narrative that didn't begin as Universal laws of gravitation but as a single and crude overreach-

    "Rule III. The qualities of bodies which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever. " Newton

    How was Sir Isaac to know that his clockwork solar system was built on a mistake and misadventure with timekeeping insofar as the predictive usefulness in using the daily change in the position of stars does not translate into planetary dynamics?-

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI

    Experience has informed me over the years that many of the adherents of the mistake and the quasi-legal language of empiricism in which it is wrapped would prefer to die in error rather than help recover what can be salvaged from modelling.
    A single step towards restoring genuine solar system research in all its facets is more productive and more creative than a million steps into a contrived narrative that cannot survive 21st century imaging tools and neither should anyone expect it.

    If the joyless wish to congratulate themselves that all is finished and there is no more to do then have a ball, it means research can begin in earnest for those who realise it is just the beginning.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)