• The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic

    From a425couple@a425couple@hotmail.com to alt.astronomy,rec.aviation.military,alt.economics on Fri Feb 6 20:34:09 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    Well, there are other considerations.
    AI powered mission to span thousands of years----

    from https://boingboing.net/2026/02/05/the-fantasy-of-starships-is-no-more-realistic-than-magic.html

    The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic

    Ellsworth Toohey 1:16 pm Thu Feb 5, 2026
    Cover for Cover for "Tiger, Tiger" by Alfred Bester

    Interstellar travel rCo the kind in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune rCo will
    never happen. The fantasy "exists on the exact same level of
    plausibility as wizards," argues Jason Pargin, author of John Dies at
    the End. Not because science lacks imagination, but because the
    distances involved are so absurd that no amount of future technology
    could overcome them without literally breaking the laws of physics.

    Proxima Centauri, the nearest star, is 4.25 light-years away rCo a 50 trillion-mile round trip. Getting to Mars is already a borderline
    impossible 3-year, half-trillion-dollar ordeal that we've spent decades
    just talking about. Getting to Proxima Centauri would be like doing the
    Mars trip 170,000 times in a row. At current spacecraft speeds, it would
    take 500,000 years.

    Even in the "hopelessly optimistic scenario" of traveling at one-tenth
    the speed of light rCo thousands of times faster than anything we know how
    to build rCo a grain of sand hitting the hull would detonate with nuclear force. The trip would still take 80+ years, requiring a ship that's essentially a self-contained civilization with enough redundancy to
    survive every conceivable disaster, powered by more energy than humanity
    has ever produced.

    As for the sci-fi workarounds? "Suspended animation" is just asking us
    to invent immortality. "Generation ships" would mean imprisoning people
    in space without their consent rCo children born on the ship would live
    and die having never seen a tree, a lake, or any human being outside
    their floating prison. "We can make this work if we just solve literally
    all of the flaws in human psychology, morality and socialization,"
    Pargin writes.

    His real frustration is that this fantasy was sold to us as humanity's purpose. "If it depresses you to imagine humans still confined to Earth
    1,000 years from now, it's your imagination that has gone wrong because
    that is, inarguably, the best case scenario."

    Previously:
    rCo Author Jason Pargin on the 2000-era website that accidentally
    destroyed the world
    rCo Not quite jumping to hyperspace, but Star Wars-esque spacecraft
    propulsion isn't all sci-fi


    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Jim Wilkins@muratlanne@gmail.com to alt.astronomy,rec.aviation.military on Sat Feb 7 07:23:02 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    "a425couple" wrote in message news:6hzhR.203219$uL07.196361@fx44.iad...

    Well, there are other considerations.
    AI powered mission to span thousands of years----

    from https://boingboing.net/2026/02/05/the-fantasy-of-starships-is-no-more-realistic-than-magic.html

    The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic

    Ellsworth Toohey 1:16 pm Thu Feb 5, 2026
    Cover for Cover for "Tiger, Tiger" by Alfred Bester

    Interstellar travel rCo the kind in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune rCo will
    never happen.
    ---------------------------------
    We have an excellent theoretical understanding of the physics within our
    solar system, based on experimental measurements first performed on Earth
    and later confirmed in orbit, but it fails at larger scales. There are apparently things we can't detect and measure from here.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
    "Assuming that the lambda-CDM model of cosmology is correct, dark energy dominates the universe, contributing 68% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe while dark matter and ordinary (baryonic) matter contribute 27% and 5%, respectively, and other components such as neutrinos and photons are nearly negligible."

    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Whisper@whisper@ozemail.com.au to alt.astronomy on Sun Feb 8 19:42:05 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    On 7/02/2026 3:34 pm, a425couple wrote:
    Well, there are other considerations.
    AI powered mission to span thousands of years----

    from
    https://boingboing.net/2026/02/05/the-fantasy-of-starships-is-no-more- realistic-than-magic.html

    The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic

    Ellsworth Toohey-a 1:16 pm Thu Feb 5, 2026
    Cover for-a Cover for "Tiger, Tiger" by Alfred Bester

    Interstellar travel rCo the kind in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune rCo will never happen. The fantasy "exists on the exact same level of
    plausibility as wizards," argues Jason Pargin, author of John Dies at
    the End. Not because science lacks imagination, but because the
    distances involved are so absurd that no amount of future technology
    could overcome them without literally breaking the laws of physics.

    Proxima Centauri, the nearest star, is 4.25 light-years away rCo a 50 trillion-mile round trip. Getting to Mars is already a borderline
    impossible 3-year, half-trillion-dollar ordeal that we've spent decades
    just talking about. Getting to Proxima Centauri would be like doing the
    Mars trip 170,000 times in a row. At current spacecraft speeds, it would take 500,000 years.

    Even in the "hopelessly optimistic scenario" of traveling at one-tenth
    the speed of light rCo thousands of times faster than anything we know how to build rCo a grain of sand hitting the hull would detonate with nuclear force. The trip would still take 80+ years, requiring a ship that's essentially a self-contained civilization with enough redundancy to
    survive every conceivable disaster, powered by more energy than humanity
    has ever produced.

    As for the sci-fi workarounds? "Suspended animation" is just asking us
    to invent immortality. "Generation ships" would mean imprisoning people
    in space without their consent rCo children born on the ship would live
    and die having never seen a tree, a lake, or any human being outside
    their floating prison. "We can make this work if we just solve literally
    all of the flaws in human psychology, morality and socialization,"
    Pargin writes.

    His real frustration is that this fantasy was sold to us as humanity's purpose. "If it depresses you to imagine humans still confined to Earth 1,000 years from now, it's your imagination that has gone wrong because
    that is, inarguably, the best case scenario."

    Previously:
    rCo Author Jason Pargin on the 2000-era website that accidentally
    destroyed the world
    rCo Not quite jumping to hyperspace, but Star Wars-esque spacecraft propulsion isn't all sci-fi




    I 100% agree. It's great to see some sensible discussion in this ng
    instead of the usual sci fi nonsense.
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Jim Wilkins@muratlanne@gmail.com to alt.astronomy,rec.aviation.military on Sun Feb 8 11:39:35 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    "Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:10m7aq6$11a0o$1@dont-email.me...

    "a425couple" wrote in message news:6hzhR.203219$uL07.196361@fx44.iad...
    from https://boingboing.net/2026/02/05/the-fantasy-of-starships-is-no-more-realistic-than-magic.html

    The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic

    Ellsworth Toohey 1:16 pm Thu Feb 5, 2026
    Cover for Cover for "Tiger, Tiger" by Alfred Bester

    Interstellar travel rCo the kind in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune rCo will
    never happen.
    ---------------------------------
    We have an excellent theoretical understanding of the physics within our
    solar system, based on experimental measurements first performed on Earth
    and later confirmed in orbit, but it fails at larger scales. There are apparently things we can't detect and measure from here. ---------------------------

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole

    I don't believe Ancient Alien theories, for example the ancient Egyptian
    value for Pi was 256/81 which is less accurate than 22/7 and wouldn't have been acquired from an advanced entity. Preliterate artifacts may show considerable freeform artistic talent but only minimal geometric knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_Altamira

    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn@PointedEars@web.de to alt.astronomy,rec.aviation.military,alt.economics on Mon Feb 9 00:14:16 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    a425couple wrote:
    from https://boingboing.net/2026/02/05/the-fantasy-of-starships-is-no-more-realistic-than-magic.html

    The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic

    Ellsworth Toohey 1:16 pm Thu Feb 5, 2026
    Cover for Cover for "Tiger, Tiger" by Alfred Bester

    Interstellar travel rCo the kind in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune rCo will never happen.

    They said that of supersonic flight before, too.

    The fantasy "exists on the exact same level of
    plausibility as wizards," argues Jason Pargin, author of John Dies at
    the End. [...]

    Not an expert in the field, not even a scientist. His uneducated opinion is entirely irrelevant.
    --
    PointedEars

    Twitter: @PointedEars2
    Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Jim Wilkins@muratlanne@gmail.com to alt.astronomy,rec.aviation.military on Sun Feb 8 21:54:26 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy



    "Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:10mae77$237sg$1@dont-email.me...

    "Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:10m7aq6$11a0o$1@dont-email.me...

    "a425couple" wrote in message news:6hzhR.203219$uL07.196361@fx44.iad...
    from https://boingboing.net/2026/02/05/the-fantasy-of-starships-is-no-more-realistic-than-magic.html

    The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic

    Ellsworth Toohey 1:16 pm Thu Feb 5, 2026
    Cover for Cover for "Tiger, Tiger" by Alfred Bester

    Interstellar travel rCo the kind in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune rCo will
    never happen.
    ---------------------------------
    We have an excellent theoretical understanding of the physics within our
    solar system, based on experimental measurements first performed on Earth
    and later confirmed in orbit, but it fails at larger scales. There are apparently things we can't detect and measure from here.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole

    -----------------------------------

    https://mkaku.org/home/articles/hyperspace-a-scientific-odyssey/

    The square root of -1 is an interesting parallel. It has no apparent
    existence in our 3D Cartesian coordinates, yet its math describes an "imaginary" orthogonal 4th dimension of AC energy in capacitance and inductance exquisitely well.

    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn@PointedEars@web.de to alt.astronomy,rec.aviation.military on Mon Feb 9 05:33:18 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    Jim Wilkins wrote:
    The square root of -1 is an interesting parallel.

    A common misconception. The imaginary unit is NOT defined as the square
    root of reA1. Instead, the imaginary unit is defined such that its square is equal to reA1, so that it is a solution of the equation x-# + 1 = 0.

    IOW: rae-# := reA1 rcA reU(reA1) = -#rae.

    It has no apparent existence in our 3D Cartesian coordinates, yet its math describes an "imaginary" orthogonal 4th dimension of AC energy

    Nonsense.

    in capacitance and inductance exquisitely well.
    That this works has to do with Euler's formula:

    exp(rae -a) = cos(-a) + rae sin(-a).

    [One can see that this identity holds by writing it in terms of the Taylor
    series of each function.]

    It is thus possible to represent a point on a circle as a complex number,
    and periodic quantities as complex numbers, especially those with constant (angular) frequency:

    -a(t) := -e t rcA exp(rae -e t) = cos(-e t) + rae sin(-e t).

    F'up2 <news:sci.math>
    --
    PointedEars

    Twitter: @PointedEars2
    Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Whisper@whisper@ozemail.com.au to alt.astronomy on Mon Feb 9 21:42:01 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    On 9/02/2026 10:14 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    a425couple wrote:
    from
    https://boingboing.net/2026/02/05/the-fantasy-of-starships-is-no-more-realistic-than-magic.html

    The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic

    Ellsworth Toohey 1:16 pm Thu Feb 5, 2026
    Cover for Cover for "Tiger, Tiger" by Alfred Bester

    Interstellar travel rCo the kind in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune rCo will
    never happen.

    They said that of supersonic flight before, too.


    That was on planet earth. It's not unusual for planet inhabitants to
    invent many different means of transport on their planet. Once you get
    off earth forget it, humans ain't going anywhere. If you want to see
    that happen keep reading sci fi and dreaming.
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn@PointedEars@web.de to alt.astronomy on Mon Feb 9 20:53:42 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    Whisper wrote:
    On 9/02/2026 10:14 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    a425couple wrote:
    from
    https://boingboing.net/2026/02/05/the-fantasy-of-starships-is-no-more-realistic-than-magic.html

    The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic

    Ellsworth Toohey 1:16 pm Thu Feb 5, 2026
    Cover for Cover for "Tiger, Tiger" by Alfred Bester

    Interstellar travel rCo the kind in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune rCo will
    never happen.

    They said that of supersonic flight before, too.

    That was on planet earth. It's not unusual for planet inhabitants to
    invent many different means of transport on their planet. Once you get
    off earth forget it, humans ain't going anywhere. If you want to see
    that happen keep reading sci fi and dreaming.

    As I just indicated, similar bold predictions have been made before. (Some
    of them are legends, though, misinterpretations and false attributions.[0])

    If history teaches us anything, it is that sooner or later they are shown to
    be wrong. For example, just 156 years ago, Jules Verne wrote stories that
    are considered science-fiction today, about things and technologies that
    were thought to be inconceivable at the time of writing:

    * in "De la Terre |a la Lune" (1865) ["From the Earth to the Moon" (1868)],
    he described humans traveling to the Moon;

    * in "Autour de la Lune" (1869/1870) ["Around the Moon" (1872)],
    he described humans traveling around the Moon in a capsule;

    * in "Vingt Mille Lieues sous les mers" (1869rCo70) ["Twenty Thousand Leagues
    Under the Seas" (1871)] he described humans traveling in a submarine,
    and about giant creatures that would live there.

    Yet, today there is nothing fictional about submarines; and just a few days
    ago the observation of a live giant jellyfish during a deep-sea exploration
    was in the news.[1]

    People have not only been going to and around the Moon, and returned (since Apollo 8, 1968) but walked and drove on it (since Apollo 11, 1969); and they are going to do so again.[2] Rockets are now launched into outer space on a daily basis; there are (unfortunately for astronomers) more than 10'000 artificial satellites (mostly Starlink satellites) in orbit. And they can
    land safely now to be reused, too -- something that until that became a
    reality was only shown in (cheap) science-fiction films.

    I find it an interesting historical coincidence that Verne's ideas became
    true almost exactly 100 years after he formulated them.

    I guess that you will not live to see your claim being shown wrong. Unfortunately, probably neither will I.

    It is clear that you do not know what you are talking about, and ISTM that
    you do not want to know either: That you are just an ignorant, someone with
    a closed mind who is attacking that which you do not understand or do not
    have enough imagination to conceive. And you are a pseudonymous Usenet
    troll, too.

    [0] <https://www.computerworld.com/article/1563853/the-640k-quote-won-t-go-away-but-did-gates-really-say-it.html>

    [1] <https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/05/science/giant-phantom-jellyfish-sighting-video.html>

    [2] <https://www.planetary.org/space-missions/artemis>
    --
    PointedEars

    Twitter: @PointedEars2
    Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Whisper@whisper@ozemail.com.au to alt.astronomy on Tue Feb 10 18:44:24 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    On 10/02/2026 6:53 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    Whisper wrote:
    On 9/02/2026 10:14 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    a425couple wrote:
    from
    https://boingboing.net/2026/02/05/the-fantasy-of-starships-is-no-more-realistic-than-magic.html

    The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic

    Ellsworth Toohey 1:16 pm Thu Feb 5, 2026
    Cover for Cover for "Tiger, Tiger" by Alfred Bester

    Interstellar travel rCo the kind in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune rCo will >>>> never happen.

    They said that of supersonic flight before, too.

    That was on planet earth. It's not unusual for planet inhabitants to
    invent many different means of transport on their planet. Once you get
    off earth forget it, humans ain't going anywhere. If you want to see
    that happen keep reading sci fi and dreaming.

    As I just indicated, similar bold predictions have been made before. (Some of them are legends, though, misinterpretations and false attributions.[0])

    If history teaches us anything, it is that sooner or later they are shown to be wrong. For example, just 156 years ago, Jules Verne wrote stories that are considered science-fiction today, about things and technologies that
    were thought to be inconceivable at the time of writing:

    * in "De la Terre |a la Lune" (1865) ["From the Earth to the Moon" (1868)],
    he described humans traveling to the Moon;

    * in "Autour de la Lune" (1869/1870) ["Around the Moon" (1872)],
    he described humans traveling around the Moon in a capsule;

    * in "Vingt Mille Lieues sous les mers" (1869rCo70) ["Twenty Thousand Leagues
    Under the Seas" (1871)] he described humans traveling in a submarine,
    and about giant creatures that would live there.

    Yet, today there is nothing fictional about submarines; and just a few days ago the observation of a live giant jellyfish during a deep-sea exploration was in the news.[1]

    People have not only been going to and around the Moon, and returned (since Apollo 8, 1968) but walked and drove on it (since Apollo 11, 1969); and they are going to do so again.[2] Rockets are now launched into outer space on a daily basis; there are (unfortunately for astronomers) more than 10'000 artificial satellites (mostly Starlink satellites) in orbit. And they can land safely now to be reused, too -- something that until that became a reality was only shown in (cheap) science-fiction films.

    I find it an interesting historical coincidence that Verne's ideas became true almost exactly 100 years after he formulated them.

    I guess that you will not live to see your claim being shown wrong. Unfortunately, probably neither will I.

    It is clear that you do not know what you are talking about, and ISTM that you do not want to know either: That you are just an ignorant, someone with
    a closed mind who is attacking that which you do not understand or do not have enough imagination to conceive. And you are a pseudonymous Usenet troll, too.

    [0] <https://www.computerworld.com/article/1563853/the-640k-quote-won-t-go-away-but-did-gates-really-say-it.html>

    [1] <https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/05/science/giant-phantom-jellyfish-sighting-video.html>

    [2] <https://www.planetary.org/space-missions/artemis>



    As a wise man once said, a man's gotta know his limitations. Not
    everything you can think up in sci fi fantasy can actually happen. We
    will never get close to reaching another star system.
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn@PointedEars@web.de to alt.astronomy on Wed Feb 11 02:24:24 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    Whisper wrote:
    On 10/02/2026 6:53 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    It is clear that you do not know what you are talking about, and ISTM that >> you do not want to know either: That you are just an ignorant, someone with >> a closed mind who is attacking that which you do not understand or do not
    have enough imagination to conceive. And you are a pseudonymous Usenet
    troll, too.

    [0]
    <https://www.computerworld.com/article/1563853/the-640k-quote-won-t-go-away-but-did-gates-really-say-it.html>

    [1]
    <https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/05/science/giant-phantom-jellyfish-sighting-video.html>

    [2] <https://www.planetary.org/space-missions/artemis>

    As a wise man once said, a man's gotta know his limitations. Not
    everything you can think up in sci fi fantasy can actually happen. We
    will never get close to reaching another star system.

    Q.E.D.
    --
    PointedEars

    Twitter: @PointedEars2
    Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Steve Silverwood [KB6OJS]@steve.silverwood@gmail.com to alt.astronomy on Wed Feb 11 16:42:31 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 19:42:05 +1100, Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au>
    wrote:

    I 100% agree. It's great to see some sensible discussion in this ng
    instead of the usual sci fi nonsense.

    Oh, my. Where do you think scientists GET their wild ideas of things
    to invent? Case in point: lots of research is going into things like
    FTL and matter-energy transferal from watching Star Trek! Don't go
    dissin' the Sci-Fi guys, they come up with some great ideas! :)
    --
    //Steve//
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Nick Charles to alt.astronomy,rec.aviation.military,alt.economics on Thu Feb 12 18:02:53 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy


    100 years ago: The Fantasy Of Going To The Moon!

    200 years ago: The Fantasy Of Flying! The Fantasy Of Wireless Communication! The Fantasy Of Traveling Faster Than A Mile Per Minute
    (60 MPH)!

    500 years ago: The Fantasy That The Earth Is Not The Center Of The
    Universe!

    1000 years ago: The Fantasy Of Sailing Around The Earth!

    And so on.

    The only Fantasy here is people like you who presume to Know All The
    Answers. "This will never happen because I say so!"

    It turns out that "never" is a very long time. One era's fantasy is a
    later era's reality. In 1965 (1) a computer could not fit into a 2 car garage and (2) cost a million dollars in 1965 money and (3) was horribly
    noisy from all of the fans and air conditioning running in the room.

    Thus, no one in 1965 foresaw everyone having a battery powered,
    wirelessly networked, cool, quiet and inexpensive computer in their
    pocket. Because it was physically impossible!

    But here we are. BTW, the phone in my pocket is 10,000 times more
    powerful than a 1965 mainframe.

    The more we learn, the more we are capable of doing. Don't fall into
    the "We already know all there is to know" trap.
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Jim Wilkins@muratlanne@gmail.com to alt.astronomy,rec.aviation.military on Thu Feb 12 22:33:52 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    "Nick Charles" wrote in message news:R46cnU_XEfW8wRP0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@supernews.com...

    Thus, no one in 1965 foresaw everyone having a battery powered, wirelessly >networked, cool, quiet and inexpensive computer in their pocket. Because
    it was physically impossible!

    No one included Gene Roddenberry and Stanley Kubrick. Yet the Intel 4004 arrived in 1971.

    Also in 1971 I serviced a portable, wirelessly connected Army computer. It occupied 6 interconnected trailers, was Diesel powered and communicated by troposcatter microwave. Even the hard drive was the size of a washing
    machine, with the platter visible under a dome on top. The demo was hauling
    it up the dirt road to a snow covered German mountain top and joining a data network. We were asked to trade personal Teletype messages with other site operators as test traffic but it was too disorganized back then, without an address directory and they didn't understand CQ.

    https://www.hewlettpackardhistory.com/item/arthur-clarkes-9100a/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CQ_(call)

    alt.economics is NG on ES.

    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Whisper@whisper@ozemail.com.au to alt.astronomy on Fri Feb 13 23:03:34 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    On 13/02/2026 10:02 am, Nick Charles wrote:

    100 years ago:-a The Fantasy Of Going To The Moon!

    200 years ago:-a The Fantasy Of Flying!-a-a-a The Fantasy Of Wireless Communication!-a-a The Fantasy Of Traveling Faster Than A Mile Per Minute (60 MPH)!

    500 years ago:-a The Fantasy That The Earth Is Not The Center Of The Universe!

    1000 years ago:-a The Fantasy Of Sailing Around The Earth!

    And so on.



    All a big yawn and pedestrian as it doesn't include humans leaving the
    earth and living on another planet. That will never happen. The best
    we can hope for is a temporary base on the moon to accomodate short
    stays. We are tethered to earth and that will never change, no matter
    how creative our sci fi writers become.



    The only Fantasy here is people like you who presume to Know All The Answers.-a-a "This will never happen because I say so!"



    Not because "I say so', but because I have a functioning brain that
    discerns sci fi from reality.


    It turns out that "never" is a very long time.-a One era's fantasy is a later era's reality.-a-a In 1965 (1) a computer could not fit into a 2 car garage and (2) cost a million dollars in 1965 money and (3) was horribly noisy from all of the fans and air conditioning running in the room.

    Thus, no one in 1965 foresaw everyone having a battery powered,
    wirelessly networked, cool, quiet and inexpensive computer in their pocket.-a Because it was physically impossible!

    But here we are.-a BTW, the phone in my pocket is 10,000 times more
    powerful than a 1965 mainframe.

    The more we learn, the more we are capable of doing.-a Don't fall into
    the "We already know all there is to know" trap.


    I doubt we know 1% of what's out there - brain isn't built to comprehend
    it.

    Humans will never colonize another planet within our solar system, and certainly will never reach another star system.


    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kualinar@kuakinar@videotron.ca to alt.astronomy on Fri Feb 13 08:46:19 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    Le 2026-02-13 |a 07:03, Whisper a |-crit-a:



    All a big yawn and pedestrian as it doesn't include humans leaving the
    earth and living on another planet.-a That will never happen.-a The best
    we can hope for is a temporary base on the moon to accomodate short
    stays.-a We are tethered to earth and that will never change, no matter
    how creative our sci fi writers become.
    Let me correct your statement :
    -2The best we can hope FOR NOW is a temporary base on the moon to
    accomodate short stays. We are tethered to earth UNTIL WE DISCOVER A
    WAY TO TRAVEL FASTER THAN LIGHT. We have an impressive track record of
    science and technology surpassing the wildest science fiction. -+




    Not because "I say so', but because I have a functioning brain that
    discerns sci fi from reality.


    Sci fi is often the inspiration, the springboard, that push scientists
    to search for and find ways to break limits, do what was once deemed impossible.

    I doubt we know 1% of what's out there - brain isn't built to comprehend
    it.

    Humans will never colonize another planet within our solar system, and certainly will never reach another star system.



    Don't say -2never-+. Humanity very often did what previous generations
    said could never happen, was impossible.

    It may take a few generations before the breakthrough happen, but, it
    still may happen.

    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Jim Wilkins@muratlanne@gmail.com to alt.astronomy,rec.aviation.military on Fri Feb 13 09:22:02 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    "Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:10mm61v$20kef$1@dont-email.me...

    "Nick Charles" wrote in message news:R46cnU_XEfW8wRP0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@supernews.com...

    Thus, no one in 1965 foresaw everyone having a battery powered, wirelessly >networked, cool, quiet and inexpensive computer in their pocket. Because
    it was physically impossible!

    No one included Gene Roddenberry and Stanley Kubrick. Yet the Intel 4004 arrived in 1971.
    -----------------------------------
    The technology that enabled a microcomputer had been developed in 1959,
    though only its developers realized its potential. https://www.nutsvolts.com/magazine/article/the-birth-of-the-integrated-circuit "Although the military was informed of this progress, they were not enthusiastic."

    The military wants to see it practical, they have been repeatedly burned by promising ideas that turned out poorly, such as cramming turbochargers into sleek fighter planes. The machine gun needed 40 years to become light enough for one man to carry. Governments are the only customers willing and able to provide early development funds and wait for the product so they led the advance of much technology.

    Much of the difficulty was in the microscopic fabrication process which was solved by hands-on technicians as well as engineers. An example is the photographic process that hides text in a period-sized dot for spies. I've read that the source of sufficiently fine grained emulsion was dimensionally stable glass plates for astronomical photography. I developed a
    spectrographic image on one and measured the positions of the extremely fine lines it captured with a microscope. The individual black amorphous silver grains were quite visible.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microdot
    "The reduction was such that a page of text would be legibly reproduced in
    an area of 0.01 mm2."

    I was closely involved with electronic testing during the 70's and 80's. The limit to progress was the fault rate, the percentage yield of good product. Fabrication advances immediately went to making more difficult product. I
    have a stack of rejected 6" Silicon IC wafers mostly covered with the ink
    dots that marked defects.

    This is what IC wafers look like. Each identical square is a separate device like the four shown magnified behind the round wafer. https://chipscapes.com/products/silicon-wafer-with-microprocessor-chips-4-inch-aloha

    Typically all grades of a device are made the same way and testing sorts
    them into higher or lower speed or functionality. Radio Shack sold the ones that worked but didn't quite pass spec. I find that on components from
    Amazon too, a batch of surge voltage clamps tested either slightly above or slightly below the tolerance limits, none within them. Much component
    testing can be done using lab power supplies with meters and adjustable current limits.

    My training to become an IC manufacturer's lab tech was reverse engineering
    a packaged IC back to the schematic by etching it down layer by layer and tracing the connections. I got the FETs, bipolar transistors, current
    mirrors, logic gates, op amps and comparators right, all but the voltage references which were jumbles of junctions with no contrast between them. As the lab tech I applied what I'd learned of technical photography to make current flow visible.

    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Nick Charles to alt.astronomy on Fri Feb 13 17:39:43 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    On 2/13/2026 7:03 AM, Whisper wrote:
    On 13/02/2026 10:02 am, Nick Charles wrote:

    100 years ago:-a The Fantasy Of Going To The Moon!

    200 years ago:-a The Fantasy Of Flying!-a-a-a The Fantasy Of Wireless
    Communication!-a-a The Fantasy Of Traveling Faster Than A Mile Per
    Minute (60 MPH)!

    500 years ago:-a The Fantasy That The Earth Is Not The Center Of The
    Universe!

    1000 years ago:-a The Fantasy Of Sailing Around The Earth!

    And so on.



    All a big yawn and pedestrian as it doesn't include humans leaving the
    earth and living on another planet.-a That will never happen.-a The best
    we can hope for is a temporary base on the moon to accomodate short
    stays.-a We are tethered to earth and that will never change, no matter
    how creative our sci fi writers become.

    "Thank You Mr. Know It All!"

    --Rocky The Flying Squirrel.

    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From a425couple@a425couple@hotmail.com to alt.astronomy,rec.aviation.military on Sat Feb 14 09:09:57 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    On 2/11/26 16:42, Steve Silverwood [KB6OJS] wrote:
    On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 19:42:05 +1100, Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au>
    wrote:

    I 100% agree. It's great to see some sensible discussion in this ng
    instead of the usual sci fi nonsense.

    Oh, my. Where do you think scientists GET their wild ideas of things
    to invent? Case in point: lots of research is going into things like
    FTL and matter-energy transferal from watching Star Trek! Don't go
    dissin' the Sci-Fi guys, they come up with some great ideas! :)


    Welcome Steve. I am glad you have chosen to join us posting.

    Yes, Whisper refuses to accept that writers of science fiction
    are often very knowledgeable. They often write of good ideas.
    Where would we be without the world wide communications
    possible by geosynchronous satellites?

    Arthur C. Clarke first wrote about geosynchronous satellites in
    a technical paper titled "Extra-Terrestrial Relays rCo Can Rocket Stations Give Worldwide Radio Coverage?," published in the October 1945 issue of Wireless World. He proposed using three satellites in a 36,000 km
    equatorial orbit to provide global communication coverage.

    Key details about this landmark publication include:
    Concept: Clarke described how artificial satellites could act as relay stations for radio and television, remaining in a fixed position
    relative to the Earth's surface.

    The "Clarke Orbit": Due to this pioneering work, the geostationary orbit
    is now often referred to as the Clarke Orbit or the Clarke Belt.
    Initial Conception: While often cited as 1945, the concept was actually outlined earlier in a memo privately circulated among the British Interplanetary Society in May 1945.

    Realization: While the idea was groundbreaking, the first satellite in geostationary orbit, Syncom 2, was not launched until 1963.


    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Jim Wilkins@muratlanne@gmail.com to alt.astronomy,rec.aviation.military on Sun Feb 15 06:57:20 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    "a425couple" wrote in message news:G%1kR.645015$Fjhe.339857@fx11.iad...

    On 2/11/26 16:42, Steve Silverwood [KB6OJS] wrote:
    On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 19:42:05 +1100, Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au>
    wrote:

    I 100% agree. It's great to see some sensible discussion in this ng
    instead of the usual sci fi nonsense.

    Oh, my. Where do you think scientists GET their wild ideas of things
    to invent? Case in point: lots of research is going into things like
    FTL and matter-energy transferal from watching Star Trek! Don't go
    dissin' the Sci-Fi guys, they come up with some great ideas! :)


    Welcome Steve. I am glad you have chosen to join us posting.

    Yes, Whisper refuses to accept that writers of science fiction
    are often very knowledgeable. They often write of good ideas.
    Where would we be without the world wide communications
    possible by geosynchronous satellites?

    Arthur C. Clarke ...

    ---------------------------------------------- https://bigthink.com/books/science-fiction-novels-by-scientists/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Forward

    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Steve Silverwood [KB6OJS]@steve.silverwood@gmail.com to alt.astronomy on Wed Feb 18 03:05:21 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 09:09:57 -0800, a425couple
    <a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote:

    On 2/11/26 16:42, Steve Silverwood [KB6OJS] wrote:
    On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 19:42:05 +1100, Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au>
    wrote:

    I 100% agree. It's great to see some sensible discussion in this ng
    instead of the usual sci fi nonsense.

    Oh, my. Where do you think scientists GET their wild ideas of things
    to invent? Case in point: lots of research is going into things like
    FTL and matter-energy transferal from watching Star Trek! Don't go
    dissin' the Sci-Fi guys, they come up with some great ideas! :)


    Welcome Steve. I am glad you have chosen to join us posting.

    Yes, Whisper refuses to accept that writers of science fiction
    are often very knowledgeable. They often write of good ideas.
    Where would we be without the world wide communications
    possible by geosynchronous satellites?

    Arthur C. Clarke first wrote about geosynchronous satellites in
    a technical paper titled "Extra-Terrestrial Relays u Can Rocket Stations >Give Worldwide Radio Coverage?," published in the October 1945 issue of >Wireless World. He proposed using three satellites in a 36,000 km
    equatorial orbit to provide global communication coverage.

    Key details about this landmark publication include:
    Concept: Clarke described how artificial satellites could act as relay >stations for radio and television, remaining in a fixed position
    relative to the Earth's surface.

    The "Clarke Orbit": Due to this pioneering work, the geostationary orbit
    is now often referred to as the Clarke Orbit or the Clarke Belt.
    Initial Conception: While often cited as 1945, the concept was actually >outlined earlier in a memo privately circulated among the British >Interplanetary Society in May 1945.

    Realization: While the idea was groundbreaking, the first satellite in >geostationary orbit, Syncom 2, was not launched until 1963.

    Wow! Good information, I didn't know about the Clarke article. 1945
    is a LITTLE bit before my time (born in 1958)...! :D I will
    definitely keep this information filed away, and if I run across a way
    to actually GET the article I'll be sure to have it handy for future discussions (and I'll share where it can be found).
    --
    //Steve//
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Mr. Man-wai Chang@toylet.toylet@gmail.com to alt.astronomy,rec.aviation.military,alt.economics on Tue Feb 24 20:14:00 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    On 2/7/2026 12:34 PM, a425couple wrote:

    The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic

    Ellsworth Toohey 1:16 pm Thu Feb 5, 2026
    Cover for Cover for "Tiger, Tiger" by Alfred Bester

    Interstellar travel rCo the kind in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune rCo will
    never happen. The fantasy "exists on the exact same level of
    plausibility as wizards," argues Jason Pargin, author of John Dies at
    the End. Not because science lacks imagination, but because the
    distances involved are so absurd that no amount of future technology
    could overcome them without literally breaking the laws of physics.

    We have ISS. Can we expand ISS into a huge space-ship or star-ship? Only
    time will tell. I believe human being will try to build it but not on
    the ground, possibly at Lagrange points.

    Building a huge space-ship that can both land and fly to space indeed
    sounds impossible, right now. SpaceX Starship is just the beginning??? :)
    --
    @~@ Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
    / v \ May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
    /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^ https://github.com/changmw/changmw
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn@PointedEars@web.de to alt.astronomy,rec.aviation.military,alt.economics on Tue Feb 24 15:53:42 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
    We have ISS.

    Yes.

    Can we expand ISS into a huge space-ship or star-ship?

    No.

    Only time will tell.

    The ISS is going to be deorbited, i.e. destroyed, soon :'-(

    I believe human being will try to build it but not on the ground,

    Yes, that would make little sense. Like a too large radio telescope, the
    ship will be crushed under its own weight while still in construction.

    possibly at Lagrange points.

    Unlikely. Being at a Lagrange point does not mean that you do not need thrusters to stay there (at least L1 and L2). Also, the Lagrange points of
    a system can be very far away from each body (L1 and L2 of Sol--Terra, where solar observatories and e.g. the JWST are orbiting, respectively, are 1.5 million km away from Terra). Standard orbits are much less expensive in
    terms of fuel, both maintaining them and getting there and back.

    Building a huge space-ship that can both land and fly to space indeed
    sounds impossible, right now.

    I doubt that this is a feasible design to begin with. Even in Star Trek the only *starship* class that could land on a terrestrial planet was the most modern class, the Intrepid class represented on screen by the U.S.S.
    Voyager; for landing on planets they usually use(d) relatively small shuttlecraft that were carried along by a starship, and the transporter beam (crash landings aside, of course).

    SpaceX Starship is just the beginning??? :)

    Correct.

    F'up2 alt.astronomy
    --
    PointedEars

    Twitter: @PointedEars2
    Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kualinar@kuakinar@videotron.ca to alt.astronomy on Tue Feb 24 10:27:39 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    Le 2026-02-24 |a 09:53, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a |-crit-a:
    Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
    We have ISS.

    Yes.

    Can we expand ISS into a huge space-ship or star-ship?

    No.

    Only time will tell.

    The ISS is going to be deorbited, i.e. destroyed, soon :'-(

    I believe human being will try to build it but not on the ground,

    Yes, that would make little sense. Like a too large radio telescope, the ship will be crushed under its own weight while still in construction.

    possibly at Lagrange points.

    Unlikely. Being at a Lagrange point does not mean that you do not need thrusters to stay there (at least L1 and L2). Also, the Lagrange points of
    a system can be very far away from each body (L1 and L2 of Sol--Terra, where solar observatories and e.g. the JWST are orbiting, respectively, are 1.5 million km away from Terra). Standard orbits are much less expensive in terms of fuel, both maintaining them and getting there and back.

    Building a huge space-ship that can both land and fly to space indeed
    sounds impossible, right now.

    I doubt that this is a feasible design to begin with. Even in Star Trek the only *starship* class that could land on a terrestrial planet was the most modern class, the Intrepid class represented on screen by the U.S.S.
    Voyager; for landing on planets they usually use(d) relatively small shuttlecraft that were carried along by a starship, and the transporter beam (crash landings aside, of course).

    SpaceX Starship is just the beginning??? :)

    Correct.

    F'up2 alt.astronomy


    The L4 and L5 Lagrange points are pretty stable, but they are located at
    1AU from us, at 60-# in front and behind the Earth, forming equilateral triangle with the Earth and the Sun.
    That means that any communication will incur an 8 minutes delay, one
    way, 16 minutes both way.

    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Jim Wilkins@muratlanne@gmail.com to alt.astronomy,rec.aviation.military on Tue Feb 24 12:30:07 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    "Mr. Man-wai Chang" wrote in message news:10nk4m8$3r7ml$4@toylet.eternal-september.org...

    Building a huge space-ship that can both land and fly to space indeed
    sounds impossible, right now. SpaceX Starship is just the beginning??? :)

    The Shuttle did both with some help. The trip up required it to carry about
    9 times its weight in fuel which was too impractical to consider without boosters for extra initial lift, though once they burned out (2 minutes,
    45~48 km, 1500 m/S) and separated its fuel mass had decreased enough that
    its internal engine thrust could continue accelerating it, reaching ~8000
    m/S orbital velocity on the fuel remaining in its huge external drop tank.
    The engines were tilted up so their thrust line could pass through the combined center of gravity.

    The big problem in reaching orbital velocity is that the rocket has to carry and accelerate the fuel and oxidizer it will burn later. Typically they are 90% or more of liftoff weight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

    Those Shuttle engines now power Artemis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program
    "For many Artemis program missions, the Space Launch System's two solid
    rocket boosters' engines and casings and four main engines and the Orion spacecraft's main engine will all be previously flown Space Shuttle main engines, solid rocket boosters, and Orbital Maneuvering System engines. They are refurbished legacy engines from the Space Shuttle program, some of which even date back to the early 1980s."

    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Jim Wilkins@muratlanne@gmail.com to alt.astronomy,rec.aviation.military,alt.economics on Tue Feb 24 13:00:56 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    "Mr. Man-wai Chang" wrote in message news:10nk4m8$3r7ml$4@toylet.eternal-september.org...

    We have ISS. Can we expand ISS into a huge space-ship or star-ship? Only
    time will tell. I believe human being will try to build it but not on
    the ground, possibly at Lagrange points.
    --------------------------------------
    The ISS is fragile and deteriorating, notably by hull cracking and air leaks in the Russian sections. When the Russian Nauka vessel's attitude thrusters fired unintentionally the torque came close to the station's structural
    limit, the reaction gyros that normally control orientation had to be shut down so they wouldn't fight the thrusters and twist the structure. The ISS
    was at risk until the thrusters ran out of fuel.

    https://www.engineering.com/the-nauka-module-iss-mishap-what-happened/

    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn@PointedEars@web.de to alt.astronomy on Tue Feb 24 21:31:05 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

    [Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum, as I did below.]

    Kualinar wrote:
    Le 2026-02-24 |a 09:53, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a |-crit-a:
    Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
    possibly at Lagrange points.

    Unlikely. Being at a Lagrange point does not mean that you do not need
    thrusters to stay there (at least L1 and L2). Also, the Lagrange points of >> a system can be very far away from each body (L1 and L2 of Sol--Terra, where >> solar observatories and e.g. the JWST are orbiting, respectively, are 1.5
    million km away from Terra). Standard orbits are much less expensive in
    terms of fuel, both maintaining them and getting there and back.

    The L4 and L5 Lagrange points are pretty stable,

    Which is why, in the Sol System at least, they are teeming with asteroids, called "Greeks" and "Trojans" :-D

    This is no place where you want to build a starbase, let alone a starship.

    but they are located at 1AU from us, at 60-# in front and behind the Earth, forming equilateral triangle with the Earth and the Sun.

    In an ideal world, for the restricted three-body problem, yes. But there is not only Sol and Terra.

    That means that any communication will incur an 8 minutes delay, one
    way, 16 minutes both way.

    Again, in an ideal world. But you missed the point I was making: You have
    not only to communicate with it, you have to *travel* there and back; if you want to build a starbase there you have to bring the parts there (at least
    the parts to make the parts); if you want to build a starship at that
    starbase, even if the construction crew can go there and live there
    eventually, you have to bring the material there; even if you would 3D-print everything there, you would have to bring the "ink" there first.

    Therefore it makes no sense (to me) to begin construction of a starbase or a starship at a Lagrangian point, at least not those of the Sol--Terra system.
    --
    PointedEars

    Twitter: @PointedEars2
    Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2