A human Mars mission?

Rand Simberg wrote:

Nonsense. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence,

Absence of evidence isn't presence of evidence and the president's
claims of presence of evidence were nonsense. Any credence I lent the
president is past tense.

Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 23:07:54 -0000, Earl Colby Pottinger
wrote:

(Christopher) :

On 23 Aug 2003 13:45:58 GMT, (G EddieA95) wrote:
As I said, burial at sea, "Airlock sealed sir/mam" Thankyou No 1, so
long Fred", WOOSH. "All together now, Off Fred goes, into the starry
blackness..."

One of the thing you can learn if you study math and pyhsics is orbital
mechanics. What you just suggested would be a major problem after a couple
of years of doing it.

Guess why.

So your saying a dead human would get blown out of a space city if
there was some air in the airlock, and the dead human wouldn't reach
station escape velocity.


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On 24 Aug 2003 01:07:31 GMT, (G EddieA95) wrote:

orbital
mechanics. What you just suggested would be a major problem after a couple
of years of doing it.

Guess why.

Not really a problem, for the following reasons:

1) the mass of a human being is negligible relative to the space city;

2) No thrust need be applied for the body to clear the space city. Placing the
deceased on the outer door of a floor air lock, which is then decompressed, and
opened by remote control, the body will be flung outward by centrifugal force.

Or you can have an airlock pressure lowered to say 1lb psi and when
you open the outer door to free space woosh, think champagne cork.


3) Assuming people don't die like flies in the space city, there will *not* be
all that many funerals.

Space station, is a confined space and any infection could spead
disease(s).

And they can be scheduled so that the change in
momentum due to the body-releases cancels out.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

Christopher wrote:

On 24 Aug 2003 01:07:31 GMT, (G EddieA95) wrote:


snip getting rid of dead bodies


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

Seems to me that all organic material should be recycled
and cremaation would be 2X wasteful.

Anything less would be a waste of fuel.
JimD.
Just plug your nose, and dig in. ;-)
In space nobody can hear you eat.

(Christopher) :

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 23:07:54 -0000, Earl Colby Pottinger
wrote:

(Christopher) :

On 23 Aug 2003 13:45:58 GMT, (G EddieA95) wrote:
As I said, burial at sea, "Airlock sealed sir/mam" Thankyou No 1, so
long Fred", WOOSH. "All together now, Off Fred goes, into the starry
blackness..."

One of the thing you can learn if you study math and pyhsics is orbital
mechanics. What you just suggested would be a major problem after a
couple
of years of doing it.

Guess why.

So your saying a dead human would get blown out of a space city if
there was some air in the airlock, and the dead human wouldn't reach
station escape velocity.

No, escape velocity from a rotating habitat for example would not be a
problem, and even from a non-rotating design the air flow will very probably
be more than enough and still more. Rather there is simple result when a
object is ejected with a single impulse in relationship to another object it
starts in the same orbit with.

I am not giving you the answer because very often it is clear you are
thinking in a planet-bound context, I am trying to get you to realize how
diffirent some things are in space. Once you start to get a space-view you
will see not all your statements are as good as you think. Trust me, if you
can't see the real problems caused by your suggestion here you are not ready
for space itself.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

By the way Christopher, if I come across sounding like I think I am smarter
than you, I know I am not. I know that I have no where the knowledge of many
of the people who post here, I also think your heart in the right place, as
you also want people (in general) to get off this planet and into space. I
just think that you have let too much SF mislead you or atleast have not read
the right SF.

IE If you want good SF on asteriod mining read "Bringing in the Steel" if you
want bad SF watch "The Cusp". One thing about "The Cusp", in many ways it
was a well written story with very real space problems taken in account, but
to give it drama the entire final 15 minute is garbage! If you however did
not know better you would watch the movie and not know that (A) you can't
bounce an entire asteriod off the upper atmosphere and (B) if you could that
there would be MAJOR damage for hundreds if not thousands of kilometers on
both side of it's path from the shockwave.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 00:15:18 -0400, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

No, the anti-war crowd was asking for more time for "inspection."

Right. Saddam Hussein was saying he had destroyed all his WMD. The anti-war
crowd wanted the inspectors to verify his claims.

Which wasn't possible, since he offered no documentation to support
it, and continued to play cat and mouse with them.

At the same time Bush
et al. was
claiming they had proof that Saddam had WMD the anti-war crowd also
wanted proof
of that claim. Collin Powell didn't go make bogus claims about Saddam's WMD
because he thought it would be fun.

He didn't make bogus claims at all.

Nonsense. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, and even if
he had them then, he could have destroyed or hidden them since, and it
wouldn't make the pre-war claims untrue.


Why is it nonsense? I didn't say that absence of evidence was evidence
of absence.
I don't claim to have proof of the absence of WMD. I am just saying that
I don't know
if there are some in Iraq or if there were some before the war. There
are things that seem
to indicate that there wasn't any, obviously no proof of the absence of
WMD but indications

There is absolutely nothing to indicate that. Unless, contrary to
what you said, you believe absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Seems to me that all organic material should be recycled
and cremaation would be 2X wasteful.


Cremation *is* recycling. Think what comes out: CO2 (photosynthetic base
material) and ash (mineral fertilizer).

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 12:42:51 -0400, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Which wasn't possible, since he offered no documentation to support
it, and continued to play cat and mouse with them.

That is not what the inspectors were saying.

Yes, it was. You apparently were absent from class that day.

He didn't make bogus claims at all.

Did you forget to put a smiley beside that?

No.

There
are things that seem
to indicate that there wasn't any, obviously no proof of the absence of
WMD but indications



There is absolutely nothing to indicate that. Unless, contrary to
what you said, you believe absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Iraqi's saying that their weapons were destroyed is an indication. The
fact that WMD
have been extensively searched for and not found is an indication. The
fact that
Saddam didn't use them when he had nothing to lose shows that either Saddam
changed or he couldn't use WMD (either because he didn't have them or for
some other reason).

Most likely because because by the time it came to give the order,
he'd lost C&C, or the his underlings refused the order, or had already
given up. If he didn't have them, please explain all of his actions
were those of a man who did, or at least had something to hide.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Rand Simberg wrote:

Most likely because because by the time it came to give the order,
he'd lost C&C, or the his underlings refused the order, or had already
given up.

Presently Saddam has no C&C yet some of his "underlings" are continuing
to be a thorn in the side of the occupying forces. They haven't given up
nor are they refusing to resist U.S. forces.

Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html