- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,846
- Likes
- 37,794
There is the alternate view we have such problems for this planet we need a second chance on another.
I was more concerned about the cables used... oh and opamps of course.I wonder what DAC/headphone amp they have on board?
Please, let's not drag the thread down with political issues, thanks.Politicians
I'd be quite interested in living on the moon, Mars etc., where do I sign up?There is the alternate view we have such problems for this planet we need a second chance on another.
The next possible launch date for Artemis-1 is 12:48 p.m. EST on Friday, September 2, 2022. That launch window stretches to 2:48 p.m. EST.
After that another launch window opens at 5:12 p.m. EST and closes at 6:42 p.m. EST on Tuesday, September 5.
Contact Elon for Mars and NASA for the moon.I'd be quite interested in living on the moon, Mars etc., where do I sign up?
JSmith
For the test dummies?dunno but they have a storable rowing machine
I'd be quite interested in living on the moon, Mars etc., where do I sign up?
Yeah I remember seeing that... from what I read in the wiki link though, it didn't go well;You missed your first chance...
Mars One was a small private Dutch organization that received money from investors by claiming it would use it to land the first humans on Mars and leave them there to establish a permanent human colony. From its announcement in 2012 to its bankruptcy in early 2019, it is estimated to have received tens of millions of dollars. The organization was not an aerospace company and did not manufacture hardware.
Mars One consisted of two entities: the not-for-profit Mars One Foundation, and the for-profit company Mars One Ventures which was the controlling stockholder of the for-profit Interplanetary Media Group that also managed the broadcasting rights. The Mars One Foundation, based in the Netherlands, managed the project. The small organization had four employees, and intended to make profits by selling media (documentaries) about the personnel selection, training and colonization. The first mission was estimated by its CEO Bas Lansdorp to cost about $6 billion as of the 2010s.
The concept had been criticized by scientists, engineers, and those in the aerospace industry as glossing over logistics and medical concerns, and lacking critical concepts about hardware. The concept had been called a suicide mission by academia, the spaceflight industry, and international news. On 15 January 2019, a court decision was settled to liquidate the for-profit company, bankrupting it in the process.
I agree. Human space travel is bunk for a long time yet. The money should be spent on robot probes and more space telescopes. Even a new shuttle program is better than a moon or Mars mission. Especially a Mars mission.WHAT A WASTE OF SCARCE RESOURCES!
"We need to stay ahead of the Chinese"
"We need to prepare for putting a human on Mars"
"We need to put on a distraction for the voters"
“Mars ain’t the kind of place to raise your kids.
In fact, it’s cold as hell.
And there’s no one there to raise them if you did.”
— “Rocket Man” performed by Elton John
with lyrics by Bernie Taupin
I hope you don't subscribe to that view...There is the alternate view we have such problems for this planet we need a second chance on another.
Not really firmly on either side. I mean on a long enough time line another big meteor will strike and kill most/all people. If some people are on some moons or Mars then not all people are gone. Another aspect is global warming. Might end up making life on earth at the very least quite difficult. Or a nuclear war that might damage human life here is possible. So you don't have to have the idea "hey we messed up here, just chunk it and start over" to think having some humans elsewhere than earth is a good thing. Not in favor of trashing this planet and letting posterity deal with it.I hope you don't subscribe to that view...
I get it, but the list of problems and the magnitude of those problems are so overwhelming at our current level of technology and progress, it will likely be centuries before we could attempt to colonize a planet outside of our solar system. And even if we could, humans need the rest of the Earth's ecosystem to thrive and reproduce in large numbers. For example, IMO, if we're worried about an asteroid we should build a defense system. It'll be orders of magnitude easier to defend the planet than move to a new one. As for global warming, I think whatever the Earth becomes it'll still look like Eden compared to another planet lightyears aways. And even then, it'll still be far cheaper to fix our atmosphere than find and colonize a new one.Not really firmly on either side. I mean on a long enough time line another big meteor will strike and kill most/all people. If some people are on some moons or Mars then not all people are gone. Another aspect is global warming. Might end up making life on earth at the very least quite difficult. Or a nuclear war that might damage human life here is possible. So you don't have to have the idea "hey we messed up here, just chunk it and start over" to think having some humans elsewhere than earth is a good thing. Not in favor of trashing this planet and letting posterity deal with it.
I agree. Nonetheless, I hope Artemis is a complete success.I blame Star Trek for feeding the fantasies of manned space flight.
I agree. I was a child when the TOS was on network TV. Every manned NASA launch was covered non-stop from launch to splash down. We were going and did go to the moon while Star Trek was on. It was my favorite show. Even then I didn't think I'd live on a starship, but I did think, "that is our future one day".I blame Star Trek for feeding the fantasies of manned space flight.
Of course not. Class M planets had similar atmosphere, mass and gravity that could support humanoid life. Obviously the Enterprise had to stop on planets where this was true. Here are the planet classes:No doubt the universe is filled with humanoids that breathe an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere of 15 lbs / sq inch, live on planets with a gravity of 9.8 m/s^2 and speak English with an American accent.
Kirk also managed to do some serious cross-breeding too. As did Riker in the next series.Of course not. Class M planets had similar atmosphere, mass and gravity that could support humanoid life. Obviously the Enterprise had to stop on planets where this was true. Here are the planet classes:
I'll chalk up the American English as suspension of disbelief. Oh and you never want to be a security guy. They are just around to get killed.
- Class D (planetoid or moon with little to no atmosphere)
- Class H (generally uninhabitable)
- Class J (gas giant)
- Class K (habitable, as long as pressure domes are used)
- Class L (marginally habitable, with vegetation but no animal life)
- Class M (terrestrial)
- Class N (sulfuric)
- Class R (a rogue planet, not as habitable as a terrestrial planet)
- Class T (gas giant)
- Class Y (toxic atmosphere, high temperatures)