Jump to content
IGNORED

Oh the Humanity Thread (stupid things people do)


avatar!
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, avatar! said:

Actually about 400,000 people worked directly on the Moon landing aka Apollo. It of course makes no sense when you think about having 400,000 people in a huge conspiracy, and aside from that there is numerous evidence to clearly show we landed on the Moon. But, there is a percentage of people that never listen to reason, don't bother with them.

I absolutely agree that it's sad we haven't been back to the Moon in so long. Fortunately, some people are trying to change that, and make a permanent human outpost. 

print_ultimatesandbox.jpg

The US military had incentive to reach the moon before Soviet did and when that factor was gone they pulled the plug. And NASA is shittily funded in general they have to contend with scraps of the American budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, cartman said:

The US military had incentive to reach the moon before Soviet did and when that factor was gone they pulled the plug. And NASA is shittily funded in general they have to contend with scraps of the American budget.

I fully agree. NASA's budget is about 0.5% if the federal budget... not even 1%. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as much as I hate to disagree with Buzz about "it's time to venture far, let's take a trip to Mars" I honestly think we need to first make moon trips and colonies/bases routine.  I mean for Mars you're looking at a 2-3 year round trip, while a round trip to the moon is only about a week.  Of course for this to be realistic we have to figure out a way to make our rockets/ships go faster (especially for the Mars trip) and especially how to make the cost of going to space and sending stuff up there much cheaper. 

And why not?  I mean with trains and later automobiles we could do go from NYC to SF in less than two weeks, while just going about half that distance on the Oregon Trail in a oxen drawn wagon (you guys all know the Apple II game right?) would take 5-6 months!  In colonial days a trip to the colonies from Great Britain would take a couple of months, while making that same distance on a plane would only take six hours!  With computers up until about 40ish years ago mostly only scientists, engineers, and business types used computers and a so called "mini" computer was the size of a refrigerator...a college dorm room size refrigerator if you were lucky.  We did it before, we can do it again if we try hard enough.

But suppose we did go full speed ahead with the Mars mission right after Apollo instead of the Space Shuttle?  Well in this alternate reality 1996 book called Voyage, humankind does manage a manned Venus flyby as well as landing on Mars on March 27, 1986 (I'd be just turning six years old at the time).  But it comes at a very heavy cost, as you will see in Wiki's last paragraph:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_(novel)

Edited by Estil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted

The big problem with colonies on the Moon or Mars is radiation coming from space. The universe is surprisingly radioactive. We aren't affected too much on Earth due to our thick atmosphere, but on the other two you would have to be underground or in a heavily shielded shelter; neither would be ideal for a large, long term colony.

The best bet for an off-world colony is probably Titan. Methane atmosphere, but it's thick enough to provide at least some substantial protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tulpa said:

The big problem with colonies on the Moon or Mars is radiation coming from space. The universe is surprisingly radioactive. We aren't affected too much on Earth due to our thick atmosphere, but on the other two you would have to be underground or in a heavily shielded shelter; neither would be ideal for a large, long term colony.

The best bet for an off-world colony is probably Titan. Methane atmosphere, but it's thick enough to provide at least some substantial protection.

Dude, we haven't been been back to the moon in almost 50 years, Mars would be a 2-3 year round trip, and Saturn is about 750M miles away, compared to about 34M miles for Mars.  Yeah let's save the Titan colonies for when we have broken the warp barrier (scheduled to happen in 2062 in the Star Trek universe) 😛 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
4 hours ago, Estil said:

Dude, we haven't been been back to the moon in almost 50 years, Mars would be a 2-3 year round trip, and Saturn is about 750M miles away, compared to about 34M miles for Mars.  Yeah let's save the Titan colonies for when we have broken the warp barrier (scheduled to happen in 2062 in the Star Trek universe) 😛 

Sure, if you want to live in the ground permanently or die horribly of radiation poisoning.

Titan is the only realistic place for a long-term colony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tulpa said:

Sure, if you want to live in the ground permanently or die horribly of radiation poisoning.

Titan is the only realistic place for a long-term colony.

So domes or something wouldn't be enough?  And of course it wouldn't be permanent, that's all the more reason I said we should first get well used to doing moon trips first as it only takes about three days each way...so people can easily (well kinda) be shuffled in and out like they now do on the International Space Station.

You know for travel inside the solar system maybe we don't need warp drive...I mean full impulse would be 1/4 light speed so surely even half or quarter impulse would suffice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Tulpa said:

The big problem with colonies on the Moon or Mars is radiation coming from space. The universe is surprisingly radioactive. We aren't affected too much on Earth due to our thick atmosphere, but on the other two you would have to be underground or in a heavily shielded shelter; neither would be ideal for a large, long term colony.

The best bet for an off-world colony is probably Titan. Methane atmosphere, but it's thick enough to provide at least some substantial protection.

Actually the Sun is still the biggest concern for radiation. Cosmic rays are an issue, but not as much as high energy UV from the Sun and solar flares.  Fortunately, just a few cm of rocky material can block out most of the harmful radiation. Not all of it, but much of it. Still,  I think in the foreseeable future, the Moon is absolutely the best place for colonization off Earth. I think living on the surface and underground in the lava tubes would be ideal. Although people say things such as "die horribly of radiation poisoning" that is hyperbole. We haven't done nearly that many studies, and what we have done shows that people will certainly get more radiation than we do on Earth, but as long as you take precautions against solar flares you should be okay. Honestly, we need more data. Titan, nice place. Too far away and too cold. The Moon, then Mars, then we'll see what's next. This lifetime, I'm hoping for colonization of the Moon which should have been done long ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Estil said:

So domes or something wouldn't be enough?  And of course it wouldn't be permanent, that's all the more reason I said we should first get well used to doing moon trips first as it only takes about three days each way...so people can easily (well kinda) be shuffled in and out like they now do on the International Space Station.

You know for travel inside the solar system maybe we don't need warp drive...I mean full impulse would be 1/4 light speed so surely even half or quarter impulse would suffice?

Domes would be enough. Again, you'll be exposed to more radiation than on Earth, that can't be helped, but it will block most of the radiation. Also, there should be some permanent settlement built on the Moon. In my opinion, that should have been done long ago. But of course, people don't want to invest in this stuff until it becomes "a race". Now that the Chinese are interested, the USA and other countries are interested again...

Our rockets have a maximum velocity of around 30 km/s. That's about 67000 miles per hour. Enough to get us to the Moon and Mars. However, longer trips become a problem. Anything outside our solar system, just forget it. Also, if we could maintain a velocity of 30 km/s we would get to the Moon in hours! Currently, not even close of course. The main problem is fuel and the cost of lifting it. These are very interesting problems that have been studied in detail. Part of my research focuses on similar problems 🙂 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
8 hours ago, Estil said:

Dude, we haven't been been back to the moon in almost 50 years, Mars would be a 2-3 year round trip, and Saturn is about 750M miles away, compared to about 34M miles for Mars.  Yeah let's save the Titan colonies for when we have broken the warp barrier (scheduled to happen in 2062 in the Star Trek universe) 😛 

sweet_jesus.gif

Edited by RH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, avatar! said:

Domes would be enough. Again, you'll be exposed to more radiation than on Earth, that can't be helped, but it will block most of the radiation. Also, there should be some permanent settlement built on the Moon. In my opinion, that should have been done long ago. But of course, people don't want to invest in this stuff until it becomes "a race". Now that the Chinese are interested, the USA and other countries are interested again...

Actually the race will most likely be NASA vs private companies like SpaceX.  Remember it wasn't NASA that broke the warp barrier in 2062.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, avatar! said:

Part of my research focuses on similar problems 🙂 

Does any of that include how we were able to get computer costs much cheaper and more accessible to the masses, and if any of that could be used towards making the cost of going to space and sending stuff to and from more affordable and make space travel more accessible to the masses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Estil said:

Does any of that include how we were able to get computer costs much cheaper and more accessible to the masses, and if any of that could be used towards making the cost of going to space and sending stuff to and from more affordable and make space travel more accessible to the masses?

Nope. That is more economics than anything else. Once the technology becomes readily available prices go far far down. 

The first airplane rides in 1914 were apparently 23-minutes long, really didn't take you anywhere, and there was no such thing as a "cabin". They cost $400, which in today's money is over $10,000. Perhaps 100 years from now travel to the Moon might be fairly commonplace. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/1914-first-commercial-flight-price-anniversary-2013-12

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, Estil said:

Actually the race will most likely be NASA vs private companies like SpaceX.  Remember it wasn't NASA that broke the warp barrier in 2062.

More like the launch consortium (of major existing defense firms) vs new private companies like SpaceX.

NASA doesn't really do a lot of their own work, any more than the military builds their own jets and missiles...

 

But that new-private vs old-contractor race isn't what fuels input of government money.

That will be the race with China or other nation-state players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Estil said:

Does any of that include how we were able to get computer costs much cheaper and more accessible to the masses, and if any of that could be used towards making the cost of going to space and sending stuff to and from more affordable and make space travel more accessible to the masses?

If every personal computer delivered involved thousands of man-hours of safety checks and then exploding tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds of expendables/fuel, then modern computers wouldn't be any cheaper than their early counterparts...

The inflexible costs of our current space launch paradigm are enormous, and there is a fundamental limit to how cheap chemical rocket launches can get without compromising safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

If every personal computer delivered involved thousands of man-hours of safety checks and then exploding tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds of expendables/fuel, then modern computers wouldn't be any cheaper than their early counterparts...

The inflexible costs of our current space launch paradigm are enormous, and there is a fundamental limit to how cheap chemical rocket launches can get without compromising safety.

You mean like how there is a fundamental limit to how far things like vaccum tubes, punch cards, and those big wheel things that was used to hold data (no not the Star Trek character) could go?  Until we found better ways like silicon chips/microprossors, flatscreens (unless you're retro console gaming, then you really need that CRT to avoid lag), (micro) SD cards, and so on.  So doesn't it stand to reason we will need something different and better than the traditional liquid hydrogen/oxygen fueled rockets?  Because we were already pushing their limits just to go to the moon in 1968-72 so to do at least semi-routine trips to the moon and colonies and such (and of course moving on to Mars) then those traditional rockets, I agree, just won't cut the mustard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

 

More like the launch consortium (of major existing defense firms) vs new private companies like SpaceX.

NASA doesn't really do a lot of their own work, any more than the military builds their own jets and missiles...

 

But that new-private vs old-contractor race isn't what fuels input of government money.

That will be the race with China or other nation-state players. 

My point though is that the original Space Race came to be because the Reds (no not the baseball team, but what the USSR was often called by the media at the time) were the first to send something into space (Sputnik 1), then the first to send a living creature (dog), then the first to send up a man, and just for good measure, the first to send up a woman (which the US wouldn't get around to doing until Sally Ride about 20 years later).  Now the US especially after WWII was used to be the big top dog and they just weren't gonna sit there and take it!  Same goes with NASA, if SpaceX and other such companies continue to make enough progress to where they could do it at least as good if not better than NASA, you think NASA is just gonna sit there and take it?  Heck no, they and the gov't will again get a fire lit under their butts just like the US did in response to the USSR back then.

I didn't even know China was really all that interested in space travel to be honest...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Estil said:

You mean like how there is a fundamental limit to how far things like vaccum tubes, punch cards, and those big wheel things that was used to hold data (no not the Star Trek character) could go?  Until we found better ways like silicon chips/microprossors, flatscreens (unless you're retro console gaming, then you really need that CRT to avoid lag), (micro) SD cards, and so on.  So doesn't it stand to reason we will need something different and better than the traditional liquid hydrogen/oxygen fueled rockets?  Because we were already pushing their limits just to go to the moon in 1968-72 so to do at least semi-routine trips to the moon and colonies and such (and of course moving on to Mars) then those traditional rockets, I agree, just won't cut the mustard.

Liquid fuel rockets work. Other technologies at this point simply do not. We should certainly invest in developing new technologies, and to see if they are at all possible. However, for the foreseeable future we are going to rely on traditional rockets. I also have to disagree that they "won't cut the mustard" - they definitely will and do. We could easily have had a permanent presence on the Moon by now. It's a matter of prioritizing resources and money. I think economically and of course scientifically there are a plethora of reasons to have people on the Moon. It will happen in the upcoming decade(s). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Estil said:

My point though is that the original Space Race came to be because the Reds (no not the baseball team, but what the USSR was often called by the media at the time) were the first to send something into space (Sputnik 1), then the first to send a living creature (dog), then the first to send up a man, and just for good measure, the first to send up a woman (which the US wouldn't get around to doing until Sally Ride about 20 years later).  Now the US especially after WWII was used to be the big top dog and they just weren't gonna sit there and take it!  Same goes with NASA, if SpaceX and other such companies continue to make enough progress to where they could do it at least as good if not better than NASA, you think NASA is just gonna sit there and take it?  Heck no, they and the gov't will again get a fire lit under their butts just like the US did in response to the USSR back then.

I didn't even know China was really all that interested in space travel to be honest...

No offense, but you don't quite seem to get how gov't agencies and funding work...

NASA is just going to contract out the work to private companies like they have been doing for decades.  The best engineers aren't at NASA, they are making real money in private industry.

They even have a phrase called PDW for "people doing work" because it is the exception rather than the rule that someone at NASA is actually doing something rather than just managing the work of contractors.

Edited by arch_8ngel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, avatar! said:

Liquid fuel rockets work. Other technologies at this point simply do not. We should certainly invest in developing new technologies, and to see if they are at all possible. However, for the foreseeable future we are going to rely on traditional rockets. I also have to disagree that they "won't cut the mustard" - they definitely will and do. We could easily have had a permanent presence on the Moon by now. It's a matter of prioritizing resources and money. I think economically and of course scientifically there are a plethora of reasons to have people on the Moon. It will happen in the upcoming decade(s). 

Yeah, my point wasn't that current rocket technology is inadequate, from a power density perspective.

But rather it is inherent to space flight that the costs are enormous because the safety hours (inspections, components testing, etc) are commensurately enormous and you are paying well paid engineers for that work.

Aviation has high safety costs as well, but the fact that you are generally staying subsonic and within the atmosphere means the duty cycle on that safety inspection / maintenance is a lot more forgiving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...