yes, you’ve said that repeatedly. Please explain why you think it IS that way.
You’ve gone from “maybe” to “will”, so, proof or evidence, please. Not handwaving and making use of my imagination. Your proof or citable evidence, sir, please.
1 Like
in 1986 alone, 29 years ago:
the first genetically modified vaccine was created
The first non-stop flight around the world without refueling
3D printing was invented
the first MD-DOS virus was introduced
the MIR station was launched
Yeah, we’ve come nowhere AT ALL in 30 years.
Any response??
1 Like
The Jamestown settlers’ scam/naive dream had some degree of plausibility, while Mars One does not. Manned travel to America had been done for centuries. The environment was suitable for life and people already lived in America, so they definitely had a chance. There were proven methods of establishing a colony. They didn’t depend on supplies that they brought with them or that were sent from Europe for long term survival. Their survival didn’t depend on the unprecedented and and long term success of a reality show that isn’t going to be all that interesting anyway (especially in later years). They had at least some hope of rescue in the event of failure. It was dangerous/foolhardy and ill-prepared, but nothing compared to this.
(Like some others here, I’m not saying that kind of venture can or will never happen in the future, just that this particular one requires too much faith that future predictions of progress will be achieved in this venture and that the problems will be ironed out even when they are so far from their own pretty optimistic goals).
Plausible, and plausible to you, are quite different things.
And you very much are saying that this venture, and any other venture, is and would be foolish. Before you tell us what you said, read it.
1 Like
That we are still largely using the same fossil fuel transportation and energy production, just in more refined forms, that were in use at their conception. The semi conductor was the last real ‘new’ invention, we are in an age of refinement much more than discovery or invention.
Your horizons are too low for these dreams. I am so sorry for you.
It’s so fucking exciting and your reasons are not realistic. Maybe their plan isn;t either, but your logic has not addressed any problems or shortcomings inherent in the idea, that make sense to me. At all.
Please, your +5 blanket of wetness must be required elsewhere??
1 Like
Vaccines and genetic modification already existed.
Flight already existed.
Sculpture already existed.
Programming already existed.
Men in space already happened.
Not that those were small milestones, but not a ‘new’ invention or discovery. Like understanding electricity, nuclear power, combustion engines, etc.
How is going to mars so different?
How does it require the sort of massive developments you’ve clearly stated do not and cannot exist *(in your imagination, since they do)
Naysayers gonna say “Nay”.
Also, how would we develop and pay for such future tech, if not in pursuit of some goal that inspires the smartest among us?
I guess we have to find a dream that doesn’t offend the fact-free ‘stick in the mud’ contingent?
1 Like
I am not trying to upset you, but it is about more than wishful thinking that technological growth can continue exponentially. Of course there is refinements and new things to be discovered, there always will be, but the idea that the change that occurred during the industrial to space-age will continue at the same pace.
Or Allen Steele, but he’s not so big on aliens (I tried to read one of his books a while back, hadn’t read any in twenty-odd years. Yeesh).
I am not arguing a false dichotomy, its not an all or nothing. There is alot of grey area between optimism and pessimism, both are silly extremes. We have traveled to the moon, travel to Mars would be a refinement of the same concepts.
Well, that is not what we’re talking about.
This is a conversation about going to Mars. Have you just moved the goalposts to appear smart?
for somone so universally contrary, I will not take this lesson from you. You’ve said no no no no no no no.
Gray is made of yes, no, yes, no, yes, no.
It’s not black an white. Your attitude here has been, though. I’ve had enough of your slippery solicisms.
Seriously. Jamestown had a climate and an ecosystem that was actually better suited for human habitation than the place the colonists came from. Jamestown was already inhabited before the English colonists got there, and in fact their survival depended upon assistance from the people living there.
That’s the first problem I have with these childish fantasies: that they’re based on gross distortions of the history of European colonialism, in which, as in the case of Jamestown, European settlers were moving into land that was already settled and using force to displace the people living there (the ones that survived the devastating waves of disease, that is).
Second is the lack of an appreciation of the complexity of ecosystems and the complexity of human biology. We just had an article on BoingBoing about how we still don’t understand what’s going on with bacteria in our own intestines. How can people still believe that colonizing another planet is simply a matter of sprinkling some algae around and waiting a few years for the atmosphere to develop to our liking?
2 Likes
If the Jamestown settlers were to claim that they could settle Jamestown using existing technology, they would be correct (both because similar things had already been done many times before and the technology had existed and been widely used for centuries). The fact that they were the wrong people to do it made it more difficult, but there was a lot more margin for error. When Mars One makes the same claim about landing on Mars, they have none of the same precedent. Nobody has landed a person on a moon or planet in almost half a century. The idea has some theoretical plausibility, but it requires the success of many elements that are still only theoretically possible and have not been properly tested. Even though Jamestown was much more plausible, it almost failed. I don’t think any other venture would necessarily be foolish and there may well be ways to make this one more plausible, but the way it’s presented does not inspire confidence. Businesses that are much less ambitious and with a much lower risk fail all the time. I’ll gladly admit that I can’t judge the project on science grounds, but its business model is terrible.
But manned space flight hasn’t exactly been progressing at a rapid pace over the last 30 years. The pace of technological innovation in that field has been incremental, and by some measures one could argue we’ve even backslid. (For example, few engineers alive today have working firsthand experience putting human beings on another planetary body, and NASA no longer has a vehicle with the capabilities of the Space Shuttle.)
That’s not to say we’ve made no progress in manned spaceflight at all—the ISS is bigger and more advanced than Skylab or MIR—but the progress has been incremental. If we’re seriously considering a long-term mission to Mars in the near future we don’t need incremental progress, we need really impressive progress. Or at least a whole lot more resources than anyone’s been talking about.
To date we haven’t even managed to create a self-supporting colony in Antarctica, where breathable air and drinkable water abound. If we can’t pull that off on Earth then we’re probably not ready for Mars just yet.
2 Likes
I would also suggest to engineer not only the Mars colony habitats, but also the Mars colonists themselves. A couple gene tweaks could greatly increase the matching to the natural environment.
That said, there’s some nice research at MIT into more comfortable spacesuits.
Also, regarding environment matching, there’s that possibility with gene-modded algae that could thrive in natural Martian environment. Lots of CO2, some sunshine, some water in places which could be helped with a handful of steered comets.
Lack of progress is hardly the sort of naysaying I was responding to.
And reliance on maybe’s, well’s, and probably’s is nice, if you like the status quo.
I rely on my knowledge of the NASA CELSS program and the research I had done in this field, many years back.
1 Like
Or Jerry Oltion. I was thinking specifically of The Getaway Special, but there’s no interplanetary battle (other than the one between rugged individualism and the oppressive state!).
All of which is within the realm of possibility, but none seem like very near-term propositions. I think it’s the 2024 target launch date that makes so many people skeptical of this particular venture.
1 Like
Well the idea that “progress” can reasonably be combined into one measure is pretty much just as silly as the idea that injuries can be measured in “hit points.” Technology tends to go forward in fits and starts in different fields. In the last ~30 years it has been all about computing power and leveraging that through interconnection. Vehicle technology has seen far less progress. In fact the fastest commercial airliners are SLOWER than they were 30 years ago…Usually a particular technology creates a revolution, but the progress engendered slows down after it percolates through and is optimized…Railroads were a revolution in transport, slashing transportation costs to a fraction of their former level…but the improvements in rail travel over the last 50 years are much less than say from 1840-1890.
2 Likes
