Ian Parker wrote:
:On 24 Dec, 15:35, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: :On 23 Dec, 14:56, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
: : "Ian Parker" wrote in message
: : Really what can you say? This group is one for failed astronauts and
: : Establishment cronies.
: :
: : All the remarks I have made deserve a decent reply. I will ask again.
: :
: : 1) How can manned spaceflight be justified with the enormous expansion
: : in AI and robatic capability in general?
: :
: : Robots still can't do 1/10th of what a man in a suit can do. *The rovers on
: : Mars have taken years to move less distance than the manned lunar rovers did
: : during Apollo.
: :
: :
: :Apollo was in 1969/70 a lot has changed since then. In 1969 the only
: :way to get a quality Moon mission was to send astronauts. This is not
: :true today.
: :
:
: Well, actually, yes, it is.
:
: :
: :I think we must look at robots not only today but at the critical
: :dates. Moon base 2020. Manned expedition to Mars 2030. These are not
: :my dates BTW, I regard them as being very optimistic. They assume that
: :space is going to be a high priority for administrations.
: :
:
: Potentially optimistic. *Does someone have the 'closest approach'
: dates to hand? *It seems to me that these are going to at least
: somewhat drive timing for a Mars mission.
:
: :
: :As I think I have said you don't need full AI a la Kurtzweil. You just
: :need human manual dexterity + some pattern recognition capability.
: :This is in fact being worked on now.
: :
:
: And that will get you perhaps 0.1% of the effectiveness you would get
: if you sent people.
:
: : 2) Should winged craft be considered at all in view of what
: : simple_language has said? What about the 2 tons of lead?
: :
: : You can't damn all winged craft based on a sample size of one experimental
: : craft (the US space shuttle). *I don't count the Russian shuttle since it's
: : a clone of the US shuttle.
: :
: :Indeed not. I think in fact "simple language" was oversimlified. There
: :are a few points that can be made. One ad hominem point is that
: :Arianespace has built an extremely successful COMMERCIAL business on
: :the Ariane 5 expendible. If your load is too small perhaps a Soyuz
: :would suit you sir.
: :
:
: It's easy to build a 'commercial business' if you get all your
: launcher development and facilities for free.
:
: :
:
: paragraphs of irrelevancy elided
:
: :
: :My point though was this. People should have told Simple_language the
: :error of his ways as soon as he posted.
: :
:
: You would have saved a lot if you hadn't wandered all around the barn
: before arriving at your 'point'.
:
: : 3) If you are going to have space colonies (to save the World that is)
: : should not anthpogenic threats be considered?
: :
: : WTF are you talking about? *It's statements like this that make you look
: : like a complete nut job.
: :
: :I disagree. As I pointed out there are reasons for space colonies
:
ther than "saving the world".
: :
:
: Quite true, but that doesn't make that reason invalid.
:
: :
: :In view however of trends in automation
: :it is hard to see any real scientific value, if that is your
: :criterion.
: :
:
: For direct scientific value of SPACE settlements, that's probably
: true. *However, having people in space makes the accompanying unmanned
: platforms easier to service.
:
: :
: :Youu need to find a humanistic reason. Perhaps throwing
: :your partner over your head is as good as any.
: :
:
: There are all sorts of reasons. *No single one is 'the' reason.
: Carping about a reason someone puts forward as if they have claimed it
: is the only reason is specious reasoning at best and intellectual
: dishonesty at worst.
:
: :
: :Hawking however expressly mentioned "saving the world". When you say
: :that you immediately ask "are there better ways of doing this?". Risks
: :fall into 2 classes. There are natural risks like asteroids and
: :volcanic eruptions, and there are antropgenic risks like genetically
: :engineered lurgis. Most people who have studied this question believe
: :that antropogenic risks are much greater. My feelings are and have
: :always been these.
: :
: :1) These risks should be tackled on Earth. Talking about space
: :colonies only gives an excuse to the establishment to ignore them.
: :
:
: Ah, there's that evil 'Establishment' again. *The preceding is
: nonsensical. *If such "risks" are going to be "tackled" on Earth they
: will be. *Nobody (sane) is going to reason that, "Well, we won't
: tackle this here because we have a space colony."
:
: :
: :2) A space colony will NOT be immune from antropogenic risk. Indeed
: :space colonies may even increase the risk.
: :
:
: True, it won't be immune. *But it is a different basket. *Don't keep
: all your eggs in one basket.
:
: :
: :3) A siege colony is an impossibility in any event.
: :
:
: Horse manure. *A 'siege colony' is quite possible, although you
: certainly won't have one within a decade of starting the effort. *It
: seems that everything must be "right now" for 3 year olds and loons.
:
: :
: :
: : It has become increasingly clear that there is indeed an "Al-kalb"
: : course. No one is prepared to arge anymore in a proper scientific way.
: :
: : Actually, I am, it's you that's putting faith in things like robotics and
: : "AI" when such faith is unwarrented. *The utility of people in spacesuits is
: : well demonstrated. *The utility of robotics and AI to replace them is not.
: :
: :Well, after Hawking had made his remarks and I had made my first
:
osting I made a few errors about the Antrax attacks.
: :
:
: "A few errors"? *You got virtually EVERYTHING wrong.
:
: :
: :The point, which
: :I wanted to make, was that the attacks had originated in the US, were
:
f US military manufacture and had done immense damage. This is
: :undeniable.
: :
:
: Oh, is it? *We *still* don't know those things with certainty. *We
: don't even know that all the anthrax was from the same source. *There
: were apparently three distinct grades involved in the attacks.
:
: None of it was "of US military manufacture", by the way. *You're
: misstating the known facts again.
:
: It hardly did "immense damage". *Only 5 people died.
:
: :
: :I got the impression that I knew the truth and they knew
: :the truth.
: :
:
: You get all sorts of loony impressions, which you then go on to treat
: as if they are facts.
:
: :
: :As a token of their concern about the risk of meteorites they
: :deliberated hijacked a discussion on that very subject.
: :
: :Mrs. Stevens is someone I feel very sorry for. How relevant is this?
: :Well the fact that the sons of dogs argued that they were not
: :responsible speaks volumes about them.
: :
:
: What are you gibbering about now?
:
: :
: :As I said I don't know whether there is conspiracy or not. There are
: :just too many cooincidences/
: :
:
: State that you don't know some loony idea's truth or falsity and then
: go on to act as if it must be true. *Vintage Ian (A.S.S.) Parker.
:
: : This group is not a science group. I don't know what it is but it is
: : definitely not scientific. How anyone can pretend it is I don't know.
: : It is a group for failed astronauts and progeny of dogs.
: :
: : Well, if you didn't appear to the rest of the group as a wounded animal,
: : then perhaps the dogs would not attack.
: :
: :Such behaviour would be completely unacceptable in any scientific
: :conference. No one can deny this. I will not put up with this and I do
: :not see why I should have to.
: :
:
: You don't have to put up with anything. *You have lots of
: alternatives. *You could stop acting like a loonytoon. *You could
: leave. *You could seek mental health care.
:
: I don't see why sane people should have to put up with you.
:
:Here we go again. My latest posting shows just how chonically INSANE
:YOU are.
:
Yes, A.S.S., here we go again. You are able to respond to nothing
other than the very end, but leave everything (I did the same, since
reading through it is a clear demonstration of just how stupid you
are). I respond to you in kind and you think this shows *I* am
"INSANE".
Seek help, Ian. Either your author needs to rewrite you or you need
your meds adjusted.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine