| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 54:01:54 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
27 files (19,977K bytes) |
| Messages: | 178,944 |
And the reason this time is that between radiation and microgravity...
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2024/jun/would-astronauts-kidneys-survive-roundtrip-mars
our kidneys will shrink.
And the reason this time is that between radiation and microgravity...
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2024/jun/would-astronauts-kidneys-survive-roundtrip-mars
our kidneys will shrink.
As I've pointed out, it's possible to put astronauts in space who
won't experience either microgravity or radiation. Just put a rotating >habitat inside a thick shell of solid rock. This doesn't have to be
launched from Earth, it can be made in space from material sent up
from the Moon using railguns.
It won't be easy, it will be much more expensive, but it won't be
impossible. And I would think that eventually technological advance
would make us rich enough to afford it.
John Savard
Mars doesn't have microgravity. It's not as much as earth, but it isn't
like you are weightless.
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:49:08 -0000 (UTC), Mortimer Houghton ><mortimer@VivoBook.X512D> wrote:
Mars doesn't have microgravity. It's not as much as earth, but it isn't >>like you are weightless.
They were talkikng about the microgravity in the spacechip on the way
there and back.
John Savard
And the reason this time is that between radiation and microgravity...
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2024/jun/would-astronauts-kidneys-survive-roundtrip-mars
our kidneys will shrink.
As I've pointed out, it's possible to put astronauts in space who
won't experience either microgravity or radiation. Just put a rotating habitat inside a thick shell of solid rock. This doesn't have to be
launched from Earth, it can be made in space from material sent up
from the Moon using railguns.
It won't be easy, it will be much more expensive, but it won't be
impossible. And I would think that eventually technological advance
would make us rich enough to afford it.
John Savard
That's assuming we survive the forthcoming worldwide economic collapse
and the resulting aftermath along with the total loss of one major >superpower. Mars may not even be on the agenda once the new folks are
in charge.
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 11:07:50 -0400, Jake M <mill45@fla.net> wrote:
That's assuming we survive the forthcoming worldwide economic collapse
and the resulting aftermath along with the total loss of one major >>superpower. Mars may not even be on the agenda once the new folks are
in charge.
That's just defeatism.
What is more reasonable to expect is that we will overcome the current >difficulties, and eventually we will see a world where...
the United States has come back to its senses, with the Republican
Party having wise leaders like Eisenhower, not crazy ones like Trump;
and Russia and China have become minor countries with no major
influence on world affairs.
And fossil fuel consumption is eliminated, because nuclear power can
provide for all our energy needs (with hydroelectricity also playing a
major supporting role, and with wind and solar also present) until
fusion power is developed.
In a peaceful world utterly and absolutely dominated by liberal
democratic values (communal violence is wiped out in India, the entire
Muslim world is placed under control to prevent terrorist groups from >developing and to abolish persecution of minorities)... technological >progress will be free to continue.
Of course, recent experience shows that technological progress is
slower when only the free market drives it, as opposed to organized >government efforts aimed at winning a war. But if the threat of war is >completely eliminated, perhaps governments can be encouraged to do
more to promote science for its own sake.
This describes the kind of shiny future we need to work towards. One
where humanity will of course venture into space - when the time is
right, when devoting resources to it won't conflict with meeting
everyone's basic needs, or protecting the environment, and when the
cost to the taxpayer will be acceptable in the absence of it being
required to meet any urgent threat.
So the government will land astronauts on Mars... at least a _few_
years before improving technology means that most households own
personal flying cars... that would be able to fly through space and go
to Mars themselves. And exploring interstellar space would basically
follow a similar trajectory.
Nuclear has no future. It is dirty and expensive. Solar is infinite
and nearly free. Solar is the future of energy.
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 07:15:31 -0600, Chris L Peterson
<clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
Nuclear has no future. It is dirty and expensive. Solar is infinite
and nearly free. Solar is the future of energy.
Solar is nearly free. Infinite? No. Solar is not well-suited for
providing large quantities of energy when and where they're
needed. Producing a little energy requires a lot of land.
John Savard