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.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine