The webpage lists the advantages of orbital stations, but it doesn't list the disadvantages. In an orbital station you're spinning around the Earth a 8 km/s. A collision with a small piece of space junk could destroy the space station. They mention that raw materials can be obtained from asteroids or the Moon. Asteroids are located between Mars and Jupiter, so they are far away. If your going to get materials from the Moon you might as well just live on the Moon.
They mention the temperature extremes of Mars and the Moon, but those extremes exist in orbit also. A lunar colony built below the surface would be maintained at the average night/day surface temperature. I believe this is around 70F at the equator.
They state that the low gravity of Mars or the Moon will weaken people and make them unable to return to Earth. They claim that a space station will provide 1G by rotating. However, 1G would require a lot of mechanical strength to hold the station together, and a practical space station would probably provide much less acceleration.
Survival is a process of making messes AND cleaning them up
Do you have any citations for that? I don't recall coming across that definition in any books on biology of evolutionary theory I have read. Admittedly I have not read many.
Also, I have not noticed much cleaning up going on.
@Heater,
That is completely original.. you may call it Herzog's Law (Theory?). My sources are the school of hard knocks and a lifetime of worldly observation.
The corollary is that we have the choice of dealing with big messes less frequently or little messes more often.
I think it hinges on this word "mess". You see I did not say "mess" I said "f***ed up".
That includes, deforestation, destruction of habitats, extinction of species, depletion of resources, and so on and so on. That't before we get onto traditional "messes" like pollution of sea, land and air.
What ever efforts we have going on to counter all that don't seem to be having much effect or any chance of success.
As long as profit motive of the few over communal benefits of all are put first, we may keep making deeper and deeper messes. The end game of not cleaning up is extinction of the human race.
I suspect running off to Mars to escape the damage we have done here is an absurdity, and likely one driven in part by those that have put profit motive first.
I don't think we can ever escape the need to become less selfish and more concerned with a balancing of resources with needs if humans are to survive over the long term.
The lack of political will to resolve global warming seems to demonstrate that profit motive is still leading. We have opened up oil and gas reserves under Russia, Canada, and the Artic ice to build better insulated shelters from the heat and to provide air-conditioning that we wouldn't need if we had had the political will to stop global warming.
Of course, people in the sub-Sahara and the Indian sub-continent without an electrical grid or air-conditioners may begin to drop like flies, and Florida may return to aligator infested swamp land before long.
But these messes or whatever you choose to term them can be resolved if enough people present a mandate to the leaders of the world.
The truth is that the world's economies are still relying heavily on individuals wanting to own their own car to drive global economics. We may actually have to let go of that and really use public transport in ernest if we are to get the world's climate back into a reasonable mode.
Of course, some will just want us to tunnel into the earth and remain sheltered from the elements, but somebody has to go outside and produce food. I don't see how Mars is going to provide food and water for billions of people any time soon.
It does annoy me when space programs become obsolete due to cost, the argument being is it economically viable etc etc. I doubt very much that the populations of those countries involved would notice any financial benefit from pulling the plug so would they notice any difference in carrying on supporting either?
What happened to the boldly go where no man has gone before attitude?
Loopy, the recovery of alligators has actually been a success story for the endangered species act. So get too far off the beaten path and Florida already is an Alligator infested swap. My wife has family down there, we've done some hiking, and seen some fairly large gators sunning themselves by the sides of foot paths.
Loopy, the recovery of alligators has actually been a success story for the endangered species act. So get too far off the beaten path and Florida already is an Alligator infested swap. My wife has family down there, we've done some hiking, and seen some fairly large gators sunning themselves by the sides of foot paths.
Quite some years ago on holiday we visited Kennedy Space Center driving along the road we had to stop to allow a whopping huge gator to waddle across the road in front of us, coming from England it was not the sort of sight one is used to!
Don't worry. If global warming continues all alligators will hatch as the same sex. The sex of an alligator being determined by the temperature it is incubated at. Soon after that of course there are no more alligators.
Don't worry. If global warming continues all alligators will hatch as the same sex. The sex of an alligator being determined by the temperature it is incubated at. Soon after that of course there are no more alligators.
I tend to doubt that. This species has been around for 80+ million years and seen a fair bit of climate change. My guess is that they'll migrate north and I'll have to deal with them in my back yard.
It does annoy me when space programs become obsolete due to cost...
What happened to the boldly go where no man has gone before attitude?
I think the idea of promoting space exploration for the purpose of colonizing the solar system, etc. is not a good one. However, it does make a lot of sense to use robotic explorers to learn as much as we can about our solar system and other star systems. If nothing else, despite major advances in weather prediction, we are still sorely ignorant of the way our planet's weather system works on longer time scales. Having detailed knowledge of other planets and their geologic histories would help us understand how our own planet works and how to better predict the effects of things like CO2 emissions, etc. This aspect of space exploration would be a benefit to developing nations as well as everyone else. Putting people into space at this time is still too dang expensive and yields very little bang for the buck.
Also, if we could find other lifeforms in the solar system, that might help us better understand how our own planetary biology does its thing. We still have no clue how life first started on our planet.
If you want to "boldly go where no man has gone before" then all you need to do is tie a brick around your neck and dive off a boat in the middle of the ocean. Very little of the ocean floor has been explored in any detail. Getting down there and back up without being crushed to the size of a soccer ball does pose a challenge, but isn't that what it's all about?
If you want to "boldly go where no man has gone before" then all you need to do is tie a brick around your neck and dive off a boat in the middle of the ocean. Very little of the ocean floor has been explored in any detail. Getting down there and back up without being crushed to the size of a soccer ball does pose a challenge, but isn't that what it's all about?
I think i'll pass on your suggestion.
I understand the complexities that are involved in sending people into space but we mustn't stop doing the little steps that bridged the gap from prehistoric man looking up to the skies and seeing birds flying to eventually man being able to do so, same today it seems almost an impossible achievement but unless we continue to try we will never manage it.
Maybe rockets are not the solution? maybe our understanding of manipulation of space may be the answer and more research is needed in that direction? I don't mind how it's eventually achieved and I honestly believe one day it will be, but please let us not abandon the cause, especially as I said before that we as members of the public will never see the benefit of any savings made abandoning space exploration.
Don't worry. If global warming continues all alligators will hatch as the same sex. The sex of an alligator being determined by the temperature it is incubated at. Soon after that of course there are no more alligators.
We'll just need to park a magnetic deflector at the Mars-Sun L1 Lagrangian point. Even with that, Mars will probably need Oxygen and Nitrogen generators running continually to replace the gas lost to space.
Instead of focusing on a planet with too little, why not focus on a planet with too much: Venus?
Jet off the atmosphere to start it spinning faster.
Redirect comets to slam into it.
Find favorable chemical reactions to sequester the carbon and sulfur from its atmosphere into its ground (for plant life).
There's got to be a way to restart Venus's engine.
Also, in regards to the space station, maybe there's a way to do the same with less economic strain. Talking about less costly food, less costly supply rockets, relocating the monitoring stations to save on rent, shortening the training sessions to the necessary information based on knowledge now versus what was assumed to be needed before, etc.
Also, and I hate to think about it, but if it must be decommissioned from a science platform, at least keep the solar arrays orbiting around up there. With the incredible cost of getting those up there, and their usefulness to essentially any future orbital project, it'd be best if they're left up there for the taking in future projects.
There's too many "shut it down" and "I don't care I won't live much longer" statements I'm seeing lately. What selfish cretins, just quiet down and step out of the way. But I also acknowledge the fact that the supervisors of the ISS could be using the nuclear option for more funding. High school administrators typically use the "oh, we'll have to divert funds and shut down the sports program" option in order to get funding for something like replacing a furnace. And it constantly works. Every time. (except for maintenance funding which gets voted down, which then requires a referendum in 10 years for replacement, repeat ad-nauseum).
Comments
They mention the temperature extremes of Mars and the Moon, but those extremes exist in orbit also. A lunar colony built below the surface would be maintained at the average night/day surface temperature. I believe this is around 70F at the equator.
They state that the low gravity of Mars or the Moon will weaken people and make them unable to return to Earth. They claim that a space station will provide 1G by rotating. However, 1G would require a lot of mechanical strength to hold the station together, and a practical space station would probably provide much less acceleration.
Haven't you noticed? Survival is a process of making messes AND cleaning them up. Wherever humankind goes, there will be messes.
Also, I have not noticed much cleaning up going on.
That is completely original.. you may call it Herzog's Law (Theory?). My sources are the school of hard knocks and a lifetime of worldly observation.
The corollary is that we have the choice of dealing with big messes less frequently or little messes more often.
The bonfires of vanity drive the process.
That includes, deforestation, destruction of habitats, extinction of species, depletion of resources, and so on and so on. That't before we get onto traditional "messes" like pollution of sea, land and air.
What ever efforts we have going on to counter all that don't seem to be having much effect or any chance of success.
I suspect running off to Mars to escape the damage we have done here is an absurdity, and likely one driven in part by those that have put profit motive first.
I don't think we can ever escape the need to become less selfish and more concerned with a balancing of resources with needs if humans are to survive over the long term.
The lack of political will to resolve global warming seems to demonstrate that profit motive is still leading. We have opened up oil and gas reserves under Russia, Canada, and the Artic ice to build better insulated shelters from the heat and to provide air-conditioning that we wouldn't need if we had had the political will to stop global warming.
Of course, people in the sub-Sahara and the Indian sub-continent without an electrical grid or air-conditioners may begin to drop like flies, and Florida may return to aligator infested swamp land before long.
But these messes or whatever you choose to term them can be resolved if enough people present a mandate to the leaders of the world.
The truth is that the world's economies are still relying heavily on individuals wanting to own their own car to drive global economics. We may actually have to let go of that and really use public transport in ernest if we are to get the world's climate back into a reasonable mode.
Of course, some will just want us to tunnel into the earth and remain sheltered from the elements, but somebody has to go outside and produce food. I don't see how Mars is going to provide food and water for billions of people any time soon.
What happened to the boldly go where no man has gone before attitude?
I tend to doubt that. This species has been around for 80+ million years and seen a fair bit of climate change. My guess is that they'll migrate north and I'll have to deal with them in my back yard.
I think the idea of promoting space exploration for the purpose of colonizing the solar system, etc. is not a good one. However, it does make a lot of sense to use robotic explorers to learn as much as we can about our solar system and other star systems. If nothing else, despite major advances in weather prediction, we are still sorely ignorant of the way our planet's weather system works on longer time scales. Having detailed knowledge of other planets and their geologic histories would help us understand how our own planet works and how to better predict the effects of things like CO2 emissions, etc. This aspect of space exploration would be a benefit to developing nations as well as everyone else. Putting people into space at this time is still too dang expensive and yields very little bang for the buck.
Also, if we could find other lifeforms in the solar system, that might help us better understand how our own planetary biology does its thing. We still have no clue how life first started on our planet.
If you want to "boldly go where no man has gone before" then all you need to do is tie a brick around your neck and dive off a boat in the middle of the ocean. Very little of the ocean floor has been explored in any detail. Getting down there and back up without being crushed to the size of a soccer ball does pose a challenge, but isn't that what it's all about?
I understand the complexities that are involved in sending people into space but we mustn't stop doing the little steps that bridged the gap from prehistoric man looking up to the skies and seeing birds flying to eventually man being able to do so, same today it seems almost an impossible achievement but unless we continue to try we will never manage it.
Maybe rockets are not the solution? maybe our understanding of manipulation of space may be the answer and more research is needed in that direction? I don't mind how it's eventually achieved and I honestly believe one day it will be, but please let us not abandon the cause, especially as I said before that we as members of the public will never see the benefit of any savings made abandoning space exploration.
Hubris.
What on earth has my "hubris" got to do with the fate of alligators?
Ut-oh. I see a really bad fight scene in the making...
Instead of focusing on a planet with too little, why not focus on a planet with too much: Venus?
Jet off the atmosphere to start it spinning faster.
Redirect comets to slam into it.
Find favorable chemical reactions to sequester the carbon and sulfur from its atmosphere into its ground (for plant life).
There's got to be a way to restart Venus's engine.
Also, in regards to the space station, maybe there's a way to do the same with less economic strain. Talking about less costly food, less costly supply rockets, relocating the monitoring stations to save on rent, shortening the training sessions to the necessary information based on knowledge now versus what was assumed to be needed before, etc.
Also, and I hate to think about it, but if it must be decommissioned from a science platform, at least keep the solar arrays orbiting around up there. With the incredible cost of getting those up there, and their usefulness to essentially any future orbital project, it'd be best if they're left up there for the taking in future projects.
There's too many "shut it down" and "I don't care I won't live much longer" statements I'm seeing lately. What selfish cretins, just quiet down and step out of the way. But I also acknowledge the fact that the supervisors of the ISS could be using the nuclear option for more funding. High school administrators typically use the "oh, we'll have to divert funds and shut down the sports program" option in order to get funding for something like replacing a furnace. And it constantly works. Every time. (except for maintenance funding which gets voted down, which then requires a referendum in 10 years for replacement, repeat ad-nauseum).