You can't travel faster than light after all - phew!

[mistermack]

Yeh, global warming is horseshit, all over again.

If it actually really does eventually cause a problem, it will be dealt with.
Right now, we're all blowing money on another horseshit panic.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

....... we could plant a colony on Mars within 30 years, for a cost that frankly, even in these times of cuts, would be lost against the general white nose of crap we spend money on.

We could certainly do that, and would, if there was a point to it. But what would be the point?
Apart from curiosity, Mars has little to give.
The Moon is much closer, and far easier to travel to.
Mars projects now would just be a silly waste of money.

None of it is a silly waste of money. Human colonies on other worlds would irreparably alter the human race's sense of perspective - for the better.

Never happen. I used to think it might one day but its too big an ask.

Yes, and heavier than air flying machines will never happen.

We are notoriously unreliable when we try to predict what can happen and what can't...

But the issue isn't "can or can't", it's "will or won't".

Yeh, global warming is horseshit, all over again...

Citation needed.

[Svartalf]

Mistermack mosts in the Seth league, don't pay attention.

[mistermack]

....... we could plant a colony on Mars within 30 years, for a cost that frankly, even in these times of cuts, would be lost against the general white nose of crap we spend money on.

We could certainly do that, and would, if there was a point to it. But what would be the point?
Apart from curiosity, Mars has little to give.
The Moon is much closer, and far easier to travel to.
Mars projects now would just be a silly waste of money.

None of it is a silly waste of money. Human colonies on other worlds would irreparably alter the human race's sense of perspective - for the better.

There is a serious logic fail there.
Firstly, that's just your opinion, with nothing to back it up. You can't predict the human race's sense of perspective, any more than I can. And neither of us has the right to pronounce on what is a better or worse sense of perspective.

Secondly, just one debatable benefit doesn't stop it being a silly waste of money. The benefit has to be worth the price.

Even if what you said was exactly true, would that justify all the money spent, a change of perspective?
Because that money could be saving lives down here, lifting people from poverty, improving the Earth environment, advancing medical knowledge etc. etc.

Or it could be better spent on mining materials from the moon, and building liveable and working stations in space that could be self sustaining without costly input from the Earth.

Mars simply hasn't got much to give. It's hugely difficult to land on, and take off from, and to travel to.
And conditions are just not suitable for living on it permanently. The gravity is too low for healthy permanent colonisation.

I personally think that a spinning space station, with artificial gravity, is the future of space colonisation, taking materials from the moon, for use of manufacturing in the space station.
Nothing else comes close to being practical because you need 1g of gravity to stay healthy.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...And neither of us has the right to pronounce on what is a better or worse sense of perspective...

"The right"? Since when do I need to be granted the fucking "right"?

...Even if what you said was exactly true, would that justify all the money spent, a change of perspective?..

Yes.

...Because that money could be saving lives down here, lifting people from poverty, improving the Earth environment, advancing medical knowledge etc. etc...

"Could be". Isn't.

...And conditions are just not suitable for living on it permanently. The gravity is too low for healthy permanent colonisation...

Space is an unhealthy place to be. Guess we'll just have to adapt.

...I personally think that a spinning space station, with artificial gravity, is the future of space colonisation, taking materials from the moon, for use of manufacturing in the space station...

Fine. We can do that as well as live on Mars. And the moons of gas giants. And everywhere else it's possible.

Why direct the future of space colonisation down only one path?

[mistermack]

...And neither of us has the right to pronounce on what is a better or worse sense of perspective...

"The right"? Since when do I need to be granted the fucking "right"?

Ok, I stand corrected. Any fool can pronounce on whatever he likes.
But if you don't back it up with argument or facts, it's no better than some fool shouting his mouth off.

...Because that money could be saving lives down here, lifting people from poverty, improving the Earth environment, advancing medical knowledge etc. etc...

"Could be". Isn't.

Money is being spent on all those things.
There would be less of it available, if they spent billions going to Mars.

[mistermack]

...And conditions are just not suitable for living on it permanently. The gravity is too low for healthy permanent colonisation...

Space is an unhealthy place to be. Guess we'll just have to adapt.

That's fine. If you know how. Just saying it doesn't make it possible. I'm not aware of any adaptations that can enable humans to live healthily in low gravity.
If you mean we'll have to evolve, that would mean millions dying before adaptation can happen.
If you mean an engineering solution, the only one I'm aware of is artificial gravity produced by a spinning space station.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...Money is being spent on all those things.
There would be less of it available, if they spent billions going to Mars.

They'd be more available with a change in priorities of current earthly spending. The amount that could be freed-up that way is massively in excess of the cost of a Mars mission.

...And conditions are just not suitable for living on it permanently. The gravity is too low for healthy permanent colonisation...

Space is an unhealthy place to be. Guess we'll just have to adapt.

That's fine. If you know how. Just saying it doesn't make it possible. I'm not aware of any adaptations that can enable humans to live healthily in low gravity.
If you mean we'll have to evolve, that would mean millions dying before adaptation can happen.
If you mean an engineering solution, the only one I'm aware of is artificial gravity produced by a spinning space station.

I mean adapt, as in deal with the problems as we encounter them, and put-up with the stuff we can't change.

[Feck]

We need faster than light travel.

If we don't have that, then we can't visit the stars. That would suck.

That was NEVER going to happen It's Science FICTION !!!

[Rum]

We need faster than light travel.

If we don't have that, then we can't visit the stars. That would suck.

That was NEVER going to happen It's Science FICTION !!!

According to Einstein, no. But an awful lot of science fiction ideas turned out to be predictions which came true, so you never know! Here's a few - and there are more. Satellites aren't here I don't think and Arthur C. Clarke predicted those!

http://mashable.com/2010/09/25/11-astou ... edictions/

[Feck]

Well when we discover Spice and the Pilot's Guild learn how to fold space maybe

[Clinton Huxley]

We need faster than light travel.

If we don't have that, then we can't visit the stars. That would suck.

That was NEVER going to happen It's Science FICTION !!!

No, no, American individualism and free enterprise will find a way! Or else the speed of light will be killed in an illegal drone attack.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

We need faster than light travel.

If we don't have that, then we can't visit the stars. That would suck.

That was NEVER going to happen It's Science FICTION !!!

According to Einstein, no.

Actually, it is (in theory) quite possible to reach the stars without FTL travel! What is not possible is going there and coming back to tell anyone about it in a reasonable timeframe!

As your velocity, relative to the star you are travelling towards, approaches lightspeed, space contracts in the direction of travel - ie. the distance becomes shorter. Reach 87% of c and the distance is only half what it was. However, time dilates by an equal amount - so events on that star (and on Earth) happen twice as fast. Accelerate still further and the distance will shrink to a few month's journey time but events outside will be racing so fast that years are flying by in days.

So make that round trip in a year and thousands may have passed on Earth by the time you return.

More here.

[Clinton Huxley]

What you needs, is the hundred year starship.....

http://www.100yss.org/about.html

[Seth]

Never happen. I used to think it might one day but its too big an ask.

We may just get to Mars with humans, but even that is tougher than we ever thought it would be.

It's tough mostly because we've gone and convinced ourselves it is. How can you say something's tough when you've scarcely really made any effort towards it?

As Neil deGrasse Tyson pointed out, the amount of money spent bailing-out the banks a few years back was far in excess of Nasa's entire budget since it's creation - and that includes within it the cost of the moon-landings.


By far the biggest challenge that faces human exploration of space today is the public perception of how costly and difficult it is. In reality I'm sure that if, say, Nasa, Esa, Roscosmos and maybe a few others got together and made the effort we could plant a colony on Mars within 30 years, for a cost that frankly, even in these times of cuts, would be lost against the general white nose of crap we spend money on.

The real problem is the false sense of security being created by NASA with its "zero defect" attitude, which is an ass-covering and highly expensive tactic to keep the bureaucrats from looking bad when something awful happens in space.

Ever since Robert Heinlein wrote "Space Ship Galileo" and his other novels about space travel, real adventurers have known and acknowledged that it's a very high-risk activity and that people are going to die in the effort, just as they died trying to sail between islands, or walking across a land-bridge, or sailing across the ocean or around the world or climbing Everest.

The way to get to Mars, or anywhere else off of this planet is the same way we got around the planet in the first place: Many try, a few succeed, the rest die and are either forgotten or called "heroes" for making the attempt.

And there are plenty of people who would be willing to take the risk, and pay the ultimate price, for an opportunity to be the first man or woman on Mars. They won't be the creme de la creme of the scientific or military elite, they may be just Joe the Plumber who's been trained to make some observations that can be (and have been) made by machines, but who is willing to risk his life to go there, even if it means he doesn't come back alive.

Space travel is dangerous. We need to accept that fact and start throwing quantity at the problem rather than sitting on our asses because we can't afford quality. Magellan didn't wait for the Queen Mary and GPS to come along, he struck out in the vessel he had with the courage and intent to face what was to come, even if it killed him.

That's the kind of people we need in charge of the space program, not the panty-waist pussies who wring their hands and pull the covers up over their heads every time a shuttle blows up.

This is where people like Burt Rutan have it over NASA. He decided to accept the risks and make private spaceflight a reality, even if things might not go perfectly every time.