Land rights on moon/mars

On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 10:31:44 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

The parents of the indigenous people born on the planets have a special status. They are the progenitors of the indigenous population and those who survive a long time will have a special social status.

As we gain control of aging we may find some folks from Earth today becoming multiple progenitors across many worlds.

I'm waiting for you to gain control of your thoughts.

I am always reminded that I control my thoughts, my thoughts do not control me.

Seriously, you're
making assumptions and connections where there are none.

Name the false connections you see. That way I can educate you on those things you have no awareness of.

Only you can
see your own brilliance.

You are projecting self-referencing statements where there are none.

There is a reason for that.

Yes, you are jealous and stupid. Not a good combination.

You remind me of
the main character in the movie A Beautiful Mind.

John Nash is not Russell Crowe. The movie is a fictional story having nothing to do with reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qu3WETuf6c

We're going to lower the cost of access to space through baby steps,
like SpaceX just took today with its first successful barge landing.

People wouldn't call these baby steps. There's a lot of challenge in each detail. Commitment to continuous steady improvement with a clearly beneficial goal in mind always pays dividends. Lowering cost of space access is that goal, and reuse of equipment is the central path today. Lowering the cost of payloads is the next challenge, and that comes from economies of scale and standardised components along with advanced manufacturing like 3D printing.

Also, Bigelow Aerospace's BEAM module, being delivered to ISS by the
Dragon which was just launched, is a step towards more affordable
pressurized volumes (i.e. human habitation modules) in space.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

I was touting reusable multi-stage twenty years ago when everyone else was pushing reusable single stage as the solution. When Musk purchased TRW's pintle fed engines - something I hoped doing in 1996, to create my Greenspace company, regulators asked if I were ****ed off that Musk was doing what I had planned to do a decade earlier. I replied, no! At the time he hadn't done anything yet. So, there's plenty of work to do. Now, he has made the first steps toward a workable system. I wish him luck - he's doing many things right. No doubt he will continue to do so.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/space...r-william-mook
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/space...d-william-mook
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/falco...y-william-mook

In article ,
says...

On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 10:31:44 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

The parents of the indigenous people born on the planets have a special status. They are the progenitors of the indigenous population and those who survive a long time will have a special social status.

As we gain control of aging we may find some folks from Earth today becoming multiple progenitors across many worlds.

I'm waiting for you to gain control of your thoughts.

I am always reminded that I control my thoughts, my thoughts do not control me.

Your thoughts have run away from you. How about reeling your thoughts
back to what can be accomplished in the next five years using proven
tech, not something that has been demonstrated in a lab, at extreme
cost, on a tiny scale?

Seriously, you're
making assumptions and connections where there are none.

Name the false connections you see. That way I can educate you
on those things you have no awareness of.

Dozens upon dozens of research projects you think are ready to be widely
adopted. Cutting and pasting from research papers is not engineering.

Only you can
see your own brilliance.

You are projecting self-referencing statements where there are none.

LOL, no. I know my limitations. You don't.

There is a reason for that.

Yes, you are jealous and stupid. Not a good combination.

Ah yes, name calling. I have an actual degree in aerospace engineering.
Stupid is not an accurate description of me. I would not call you
stupid either, so let's refrain from unsubstantiated name calling, shall
we?

You remind me of
the main character in the movie A Beautiful Mind.

John Nash is not Russell Crowe. The movie is a fictional story having nothing to do with reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qu3WETuf6c

Which is why I said specifically your remind me of the *character* in
the *movie* A Beautiful Mind. You really do need to work on your
reading comprehension.

We're going to lower the cost of access to space through baby steps,
like SpaceX just took today with its first successful barge landing.

People wouldn't call these baby steps. There's a lot of challenge in each detail.

Of course there are challenges. But, they aren't huge leaps in
expensive new tech which would require billions of dollars to develop.
Falcon 9 first stage recovery is nowhere near as challenging, risky, or
expensive as say Sabre/Skylon.

Commitment to continuous steady improvement with a clearly beneficial
goal in mind always pays dividends. Lowering cost of space access is
that goal, and reuse of equipment is the central path today.

Agreed.

Lowering the cost of payloads is the next challenge, and that comes
from economies of scale and standardised components along with
advanced manufacturing like 3D printing.

That and it starts with reusing what we have. This means robotic
servicing, refueling, and the like. USAF is putting money into this.
Disposable satellites are almost as stupid as disposable launch
vehicles. I would never throw away a functioning car just because it
ran out of gas, yet we do so with functioning satellites which have run
out of fuel for their propulsion systems.

Also, Bigelow Aerospace's BEAM module, being delivered to ISS by the
Dragon which was just launched, is a step towards more affordable
pressurized volumes (i.e. human habitation modules) in space.

I was touting reusable multi-stage twenty years ago when everyone
else was pushing reusable single stage as the solution.

SSTO was a stretch, at the time. But, NASA and Lockheed botched it for
everyone by "proving" we did not have the tech yet. Few investors would
touch SSTO after that, assuming NASA is always right (they're not).
NASA "learned" many false lessons from their failures.

When Musk purchased TRW's pintle fed engines - something I hoped
doing in 1996, to create my Greenspace company, regulators asked
if I were ****ed off that Musk was doing what I had planned to do
a decade earlier. I replied, no! At the time he hadn't done
anything yet. So, there's plenty of work to do. Now, he has made
the first steps toward a workable system. I wish him luck - he's
doing many things right. No doubt he will continue to do so.

Yes, the pintle injector is one of many design elements in the Merlin
engines. SpaceX is up to version "D" of Merlin. Yes, they have put a
lot of engineering development work into that engine.

What Musk is doing is sticking with existing tech, not babbling on about
things that are still pure research topics. You have proposed things
like shipping humans around the solar system in suspended animation.
This is not current tech. This is something that has not been
demonstrated once with a human being. You make it sound like it is
something that should be counted on as fact, when it is merely science
fiction.

Put quite simply, science fiction does not belong in sci.space.policy.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 8:23:14 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 10:31:44 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

The parents of the indigenous people born on the planets have a special status. They are the progenitors of the indigenous population and those who survive a long time will have a special social status.

As we gain control of aging we may find some folks from Earth today becoming multiple progenitors across many worlds.

I'm waiting for you to gain control of your thoughts.

I am always reminded that I control my thoughts, my thoughts do not control me.

Your thoughts have run away from you.

No they haven't.

How about reeling your thoughts
back to what can be accomplished in the next five years using proven
tech, not something that has been demonstrated in a lab, at extreme
cost, on a tiny scale?

You are unaware, that the consumer electronics industry is based on ICs and that all ICs start out life as demonstrations in a lab at extreme cost on a tiny scale.

Giant magnetoresistance (GMR) is a quantum mechanical magnetoresistance effect observed in thin-film structures in 1988. GMR sensors are composed of alternating ferromagnetic and non-magnetic conductive layers. The 2007 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Albert Fert and Peter Grünberg for the discovery of GMR.

The effect is observed as a significant change in the electrical resistance depending on whether the magnetization of adjacent ferromagnetic layers are in a parallel or an antiparallel alignment. The overall resistance is relatively low for parallel alignment and relatively high for antiparallel alignment. The magnetization direction can be controlled, by applying an external magnetic field. The effect is based on the dependence of electron scattering on the spin orientation.

By 1993 Western Digital introduced the first desktop hard drives based on early GMR sensors capable of 3 gigabits per square inch and updated them in 1998 with GMR sensors of higher density 10 gigabits per square inch.

Application of GMR is magnetic field sensors extend well beyond read data in hard disk drives to include biosensors, microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) and other devices. GMR multilayer structures are also used in magnetoresistive random-access memory (MRAM) as cells that store information with electron spin.

Seriously, you're
making assumptions and connections where there are none.

Name the false connections you see. That way I can educate you
on those things you have no awareness of.

Dozens upon dozens of research projects you think are ready to be widely
adopted.

Name one and why you think it cannot be widely adopted. I will then inform you why you are wrong.

Cutting and pasting from research papers is not engineering.

Engineering proceeds from understanding current research. That's why I am called an engineer and you are not.

Only you can
see your own brilliance.

You are projecting self-referencing statements where there are none.

LOL, no. I know my limitations. You don't.

It clear you are irritated by me speaking of things you know nothing about. That is not my problem. It is yours.

There is a reason for that.

Yes, you are jealous and stupid. Not a good combination.

Ah yes, name calling.

No, you have said stupid things arising from a profound ignorance of things you obviously care about and projected your emotional state on to me, the one who is informing you of your ignorance, which indicates you are jealous of me. You are being stuipd and behaving jealously. If I inferred you were incapable of change due to fundamental shortcomings that would be name calling. I have not, I am merely describing your present behaviour, in the hopes you will change it.

I have an actual degree in aerospace engineering.

That doesn't make your comments any less stupid or your ignorance any less profound unfortunately.

Stupid is not an accurate description of me.

It is when you make stupid statements. Please provide the examples I've asked for.

I would not call you
stupid either, so let's refrain from unsubstantiated name calling, shall
we?

I did not say you were incapable of thoughtful commentary, I have only observed the comments you did make were stupid.

You remind me of
the main character in the movie A Beautiful Mind.

John Nash is not Russell Crowe. The movie is a fictional story having nothing to do with reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qu3WETuf6c

Which is why I said specifically your remind me of the *character* in
the *movie* A Beautiful Mind. You really do need to work on your
reading comprehension.

No I don't. You are the one making foolish comments.

We're going to lower the cost of access to space through baby steps,
like SpaceX just took today with its first successful barge landing.

People wouldn't call these baby steps. There's a lot of challenge in each detail.

Of course there are challenges.

On this we agree.

But, they aren't huge leaps in
expensive new tech which would require billions of dollars to develop.

You haven't read SpaceX's quarterly report have you?

Falcon 9 first stage recovery is nowhere near as challenging, risky, or
expensive as say Sabre/Skylon.

Sabre/Skylon is a diversion of resources into a rather useless unworkable product. There's a distinction to be made between expensive and risky processes, that have a real chance of break through, such as say micro fusion pulse, and fundamentally unworkable processes like Sabre/Skylon.

Now, I'm not dissing the idea of using oxygen in the atmosphere to reduce take off weight of a chemical booster. I am specifically objecting to the idea I have seen either rightly or wrongly associated with Skylon. Namely, that you stop air dead in its tracks while you're flying at several kilometers per second, then liquefy the air, and extract the oxygen, vaporise the nitrogen, and use the oxygen to run a LOX/fuel chemical rocket. To me this seems undoable at several levels, and will never likely be done at all.

Now, this is quite different than my understanding of workable scramjets. Here a hypersonic oblique wing lifting body that takes off horizontally under rocket or catapault drive and lands horizontally, gliding to landing, and is filled with hydrogen mostly.

After attaining near sound speed at take off, with a small amount of liquid oxygen, or an external driver, and ejects hydrogen into an airstream and detonates the resulting air fuel mix outside the aircraft in a way that produces shaped shock waves that allow the aircraft to rides these resulting shock waves - is something that's doable and well worth trying out on a small scale, to see where it might lead.

Some very capable and active aerospace engineers have done considerable work in this direction over the years and this might very well make a practical SSTO possible.

At present a 5.5 to 1 Oxygen fuel ratio, and a SSTO with an exhaust speed of 4.6 km/sec requires 0.8647 propellant fraction. This means that for each kg of inert weight there is 5.406 kg of LOX and 0.983 kg of LH2.

Now if we draw oxygen from the air at speeds above 0.3 km/sec to 4.5 km/sec - through external combustion as I've described - then we can take half the total weight of the vehicle at take off, in reduced oxygen load. This totals 2.703 kg, though we still carry the same 0.983 kg of LH2.

So we could also accelerate to 0.3 km/sec with the same 4.6 km/sec exhaust which then requires 0.467 kg of propellant for each kg of inert weight, which if a strap on tank that is dropped after take off which adds another 0.467 kg. Over 3 kg greater weight.

So, doing this for a given vehicle size increases the 7.389 kg SSTO payload from 1 kg to 4 kg!

This might be well worth doing along the lines described. I don't see how it could be done by liquefying oxygen in flight. I just can't see it.

Now, if we have a four stage rocket where each stage imparts 2.3 km/sec to the speed of the vehicle, we have the following;

Propellant Fraction per stage: 0.3935
Inert Fraction per stage: 0.6065
Tank Structure Fraction per: 0.0465
Payload Fraction per stage: 0.5600

So, for each kg of payload we have;

fraction S4 S3 S2 S1 S0
0.3935 0.3935 0.61386 0.83422 1.05458 1.27494
0.6065 0.6065 0.94614 1.28578 1.62542 1.96506
0.0465 0.0465 0.07254 0.09858 0.12462 0.15066

0.5600 1.0000 1.56000 2.12000 2.6800 3.2400

So, instead of over 7 kg of take off weight we have only 3.24 kg of take off weight.

So,

.....SSTO per kg to LEO: 7.3891 kg take off weight
.....4STO per kg to LEO: 3.2400 kg take off weight
Air breathe / kg to LEO: 1.8473 kg take off weight

Now before we run out and decide airbreathing is better, than multi-stage, we have to allow that the structure of an airbreathing engine is likely to be about twice that of a pure rocket airframe for a variety of sound reasons, and may even be three times as much.

So, instead of 4.65% you might have 9.10% to 13.75% inert structure.

7.3891 * 0.0465 = 0.3436 --- 1.000 - 0.3436 = 0.6564 --- 11.2570 to 1 kg useful load.

The 4STO includes the 4.65% structure fraction througout ---- 3.2400 to 1 kg useful load.

Air breathing - with 13.75% structure fraction -

1.8473 * 0.1375 = 0.2540 --- 1.0000 - 0.2540 = 0.7640 ---- 2.4763 to 1 kg useful load.

Still better off, which is why its of interest, but not that much better than the four stage approach.



Commitment to continuous steady improvement with a clearly beneficial
goal in mind always pays dividends. Lowering cost of space access is
that goal, and reuse of equipment is the central path today.

Agreed.

Lowering the cost of payloads is the next challenge, and that comes
from economies of scale and standardised components along with
advanced manufacturing like 3D printing.

That and it starts with reusing what we have. This means robotic
servicing, refueling, and the like. USAF is putting money into this.
Disposable satellites are almost as stupid as disposable launch
vehicles. I would never throw away a functioning car just because it
ran out of gas, yet we do so with functioning satellites which have run
out of fuel for their propulsion systems.

Agreed.

Also, Bigelow Aerospace's BEAM module, being delivered to ISS by the
Dragon which was just launched, is a step towards more affordable
pressurized volumes (i.e. human habitation modules) in space.

I was touting reusable multi-stage twenty years ago when everyone
else was pushing reusable single stage as the solution.

SSTO was a stretch, at the time. But, NASA and Lockheed botched it for
everyone by "proving" we did not have the tech yet. Few investors would
touch SSTO after that, assuming NASA is always right (they're not).
NASA "learned" many false lessons from their failures.

Agreed.

When Musk purchased TRW's pintle fed engines - something I hoped
doing in 1996, to create my Greenspace company, regulators asked
if I were ****ed off that Musk was doing what I had planned to do
a decade earlier. I replied, no! At the time he hadn't done
anything yet. So, there's plenty of work to do. Now, he has made
the first steps toward a workable system. I wish him luck - he's
doing many things right. No doubt he will continue to do so.

Yes, the pintle injector is one of many design elements in the Merlin
engines. SpaceX is up to version "D" of Merlin. Yes, they have put a
lot of engineering development work into that engine.

What Musk is doing is sticking with existing tech, not babbling on about
things that are still pure research topics. You have proposed things
like shipping humans around the solar system in suspended animation.

Yes.

This is not current tech.

We ship human beings in suspended animation from accident scenes to hospitals. It is reasonable to invest in extending this technology given the huge benefit it provides. It makes present day chemical rockets and automation capable of populating entire worlds. Experts in the field believe we can use this for reducing incarceration costs, as well as pacifying entire populations with very little loss of life. Ignoring the potential to transfer people around the solar system is foolish.

This is something that has not been
demonstrated once with a human being.

Depends on what 'this' means. People have been put in stasis for hours to days. Animals have been put in stasis for weeks to months.

You make it sound like it is
something that should be counted on as fact, when it is merely science
fiction.

People are being put into stasis today to keep them from bleeding out as they are transported to an ICU.

Put quite simply, science fiction does not belong in sci.space.policy.

This is a rather stupid statement in connection with stasis research.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/torpor-.../#.VwmhKzbV6Ho

http://www.space.com/22520-incredibl...animation.html

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-te...tronauts-mars/

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

In article ,
says...
You have proposed things
like shipping humans around the solar system in suspended animation.

Yes.

This is not current tech.

We ship human beings in suspended animation from accident
scenes to hospitals.

Extremely short term. Not done voluntarily by the patient. Not the
same thing.

Depends on what 'this' means. People have been put in stasis for
hours to days. Animals have been put in stasis for weeks to months.

Animals, for research. Humans trials would involve a whole different
level of scrutiny.

People are being put into stasis today to keep them from bleeding
out as they are transported to an ICU.

Again, short term. Not done voluntarily by the patient. Not quite the
same thing.

And you're using the term "stasis" to mean lots of different things
here. It makes you look like you're throwing a bunch of stuff at the
wall in an attempt to see what sticks.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/torpor-...r-habitat-for-
human-stasis-to-mars/#.VwmhKzbV6Ho

http://www.space.com/22520-incredibl...animation.html

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-te...tronauts-mars/

As you always do, you've found papers by researchers who are pitching
their research ideas in order to get more research money. None of this
is ready for prime time.

I'm not sure a medical ethics board would even approve what you really
need. You (eventually) need a full scale research program taking
potentially dozens of *healthy* human beings and repeatedly putting them
in a torpor for the duration needed for a manned Mars mission. To do
the research properly, even if it doesn't "hurt" the subjects, you could
very well be depriving them of months or years of their conscious lives.
You could even be shortening their lifespan (we won't know without the
research). This seems more than a bit unethical to me and seriously I
doubt it would be approved.

Most importantly, NASA is not at all proposing this as part of a
baseline Mars mission. It's still science fiction, despite the pretty
computer generated graphics in the papers you've found.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 3:07:44 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
You have proposed things
like shipping humans around the solar system in suspended animation.

Yes.

This is not current tech.

We ship human beings in suspended animation from accident
scenes to hospitals.

Extremely short term. Not done voluntarily by the patient. Not the
same thing.

People involved, credentialed experts, say you are wrong. Their models involve animal hibernation and they see no real upper limit to its use.


Depends on what 'this' means. People have been put in stasis for
hours to days. Animals have been put in stasis for weeks to months.

Animals, for research.

Yes. Animal hibernation is the model upon which this method is based. Getting human biochemistry to respond in the same manner is the goal.

Humans trials would involve a whole different
level of scrutiny.

Yes, and human trials are underway.

People are being put into stasis today to keep them from bleeding
out as they are transported to an ICU.

Again, short term.

hours to days - and the experts say this could be extended under the right conditions to longer periods.

Not done voluntarily by the patient.

How does this relate to the suitability of using present methods of induced torpor for space travel?

Not quite the
same thing.

Same as what? You're not being clear. According to the experts who helped develop this process, the same methods used to induce stasis in an emergency situation could be extended to weeks or months or even years for space travel applications. This is why NASA organised a conference on the subject..

And you're using the term "stasis" to mean lots of different things
here.

No, I'm looking at a single reversible biochemical process that uses hydrogen sulphide in controlled amounts to shut down oxygen utilisation in an organism at the cellular level to induce a hibernation effect.

It makes you look like you're throwing a bunch of stuff at the
wall in an attempt to see what sticks.

Not at all. I'm looking at a specific process developed by a specific expert that has a specific effect. According to this expert animals use the process naturally to survive seasonal interruption of food supplies by hibernating. Since some of these are higher order mammals, like bears, and since they hibernate for months, it is likely that any process that induces similar hibernation effects in humans could last as long, and with technical help, even longer.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/torpor-...r-habitat-for-
human-stasis-to-mars/#.VwmhKzbV6Ho

http://www.space.com/22520-incredibl...animation.html

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-te...tronauts-mars/

As you always do, you've found papers by researchers who are pitching
their research ideas in order to get more research money.

Since you have never been involved at the level where these things are organised, I suppose you believe these conferences are decided randomly. They are not. Mark Roth's research inspired managers to reach out the the scientific community to gain support for the process because it seems like something that could be reduced to practice in five years or so.

None of this
is ready for prime time.

Its being used now.

I'm not sure a medical ethics board would even approve what you really
need.

They already have.

You (eventually) need a full scale research program taking
potentially dozens of *healthy* human beings and repeatedly putting them
in a torpor for the duration needed for a manned Mars mission. To do
the research properly, even if it doesn't "hurt" the subjects, you could
very well be depriving them of months or years of their conscious lives.
You could even be shortening their lifespan (we won't know without the
research). This seems more than a bit unethical to me and seriously I
doubt it would be approved.

Most importantly, NASA is not at all proposing this as part of a
baseline Mars mission. It's still science fiction, despite the pretty
computer generated graphics in the papers you've found.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

In article ,
says...

On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 3:07:44 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
You have proposed things
like shipping humans around the solar system in suspended animation.

Yes.

This is not current tech.

We ship human beings in suspended animation from accident
scenes to hospitals.

Extremely short term. Not done voluntarily by the patient. Not the
same thing.

People involved, credentialed experts, say you are wrong. Their models involve animal hibernation and they see no real upper limit to its use.

Research and models are not the same as human trials.


Depends on what 'this' means. People have been put in stasis for
hours to days. Animals have been put in stasis for weeks to months.

Animals, for research.

Yes. Animal hibernation is the model upon which this method is based. Getting human biochemistry to respond in the same manner is the goal.

People are not animals that naturally hibernate. Without human trials,
we don't know that this will work.

Humans trials would involve a whole different
level of scrutiny.

Yes, and human trials are underway.

Long term trials on healthy humans? Cite?

People are being put into stasis today to keep them from bleeding
out as they are transported to an ICU.

Again, short term.

hours to days - and the experts say this could be extended under the right conditions to longer periods.

Not yet proven, even in a lab. If this were to fail in some way on a
Mars mission, the crew is dead without a backup plan. If the backup
plan is to stay awake, why not make that the primary plan to begin with?

You (eventually) need a full scale research program taking
potentially dozens of *healthy* human beings and repeatedly putting them
in a torpor for the duration needed for a manned Mars mission. To do
the research properly, even if it doesn't "hurt" the subjects, you could
very well be depriving them of months or years of their conscious lives.
You could even be shortening their lifespan (we won't know without the
research). This seems more than a bit unethical to me and seriously I
doubt it would be approved.

Most importantly, NASA is not at all proposing this as part of a
baseline Mars mission. It's still science fiction, despite the pretty
computer generated graphics in the papers you've found.

I see you did not respond to this.

Moving from animal studies to trials on healthy humans is by far your
biggest problem. Selling this technique to the doctors at NASA and
convincing them to fund full scale human trials is problematic, at best.
After that, they would need to convince medical ethics board(s) that
such research on healthy human beings is justified and ethical. Good
luck with that. Potentially depriving healthy human beings months or
years of their conscious lives is unethical, IMHO.

That's why this is science fiction. Yes, it's based on scientific
research (on animals), but it is not yet a proven technique applicable
to healthy human beings for very long periods of time. It would not be
done today, hence this is still fiction.

Science fiction.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:06:05 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 3:07:44 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
You have proposed things
like shipping humans around the solar system in suspended animation.

Yes.

This is not current tech.

We ship human beings in suspended animation from accident
scenes to hospitals.

Extremely short term. Not done voluntarily by the patient. Not the
same thing.

People involved, credentialed experts, say you are wrong. Their models involve animal hibernation and they see no real upper limit to its use.

Research and models are not the same as human trials.

Human trials were approved two years ago. You didn't get the memo.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1...imation-trials



Depends on what 'this' means. People have been put in stasis for
hours to days. Animals have been put in stasis for weeks to months..

Animals, for research.

Yes. Animal hibernation is the model upon which this method is based. Getting human biochemistry to respond in the same manner is the goal.

People are not animals that naturally hibernate. Without human trials,
we don't know that this will work.

Again, you didn't get the memo apparently.

Actual and anecdotal cases of suspected human hibernation or states similar to hibernation exist in the literatu

In addition to the work being done in Philadelphia, there are those who have accidentially fallen into a state of hibernation and successfully recovered.

Anna Bågenholm, a Swedish radiologist who survived 40 minutes under ice in a frozen lake in state of cardiac arrest and survived with no brain damage in 1999.

Mitsutaka Uchikoshi, a Japanese man who survived the cold for 24 days in 2006 without food or water when he fell into a state similar to hibernation

Paulie Hynek, who, at age 2, survived several hours of hypothermia-induced cardiac arrest and whose body temperature reached 64 °F (18 °C)

John Smith, a 14-year-old boy who survived 15 minutes under ice in a frozen lake before paramedics arrived to pull him onto dry land and saved him.




Humans trials would involve a whole different
level of scrutiny.

Yes, and human trials are underway.

Long term trials on healthy humans? Cite?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...a99_story.html


People are being put into stasis today to keep them from bleeding
out as they are transported to an ICU.

Again, short term.

hours to days - and the experts say this could be extended under the right conditions to longer periods.

Not yet proven, even in a lab.

Wrong.

If this were to fail in some way on a
Mars mission, the crew is dead without a backup plan.

This is true for any number of systems used during a Mars mission.

If the backup
plan is to stay awake, why not make that the primary plan to begin with?

Because that's not the backup plan in this case. Any failure would involve keeping them in stasis until repairs arrived.

The advantages of putting the crew into stasis and sending them with 30 days supplies and a self replicating utility fog that makes whatever they need after they arrive from local resources, under automated control, is obviously superior.

An astronaut masses 75 kg and consumes 3 kg per day, with partial recycling.. They have another 125 kg of hardware to do that. 3 kg of consumables per astronaut, is 1,100 kg per year. A three year journey involves 3,300 kg of consumables. A total of 3500 kg per astronaut.

Furthermore, in addition to consumables, there is living space. A BA330 module, masses 21,000 kg and carries 6 astronauts. That's another 3500 kg per astronaut.

The energy supplied to each astronaut is 500 Watts of power over the course of the journey, which requires reliable abundant power, that if retrieved from the sun, limits the logistics of the mission, and with reliable backup, requires additional weight.

An astronaut put into stasis masses 75 kg and has another 215 kg of hardware combined with 125 kg of consumables for 40 days - along with 5 kg of cell cultures and 5 kg of self replicating robot swarms. This is 1/10th the mass per astronaut. 350 kg per astronaut. In stasis the astronaut occupies no more than their seat a volume that's included in the hardware total per astronaut. Total power is nil. Less than 1 watt per astronaut. Again, this is included in the hardware totals given above.

7,000 kg + to send each animated astronaut
350 kg - to send each astronaut in stasis with 40 day food supply.

The astronauts have heads up displays and VR capacities in their suits, strapped into their couches. They remain awake and alert during departure, and during Mars landing. Spending a day out from Earth and a day out from Mars. They spend up to 30 days on Mars tending to self replicating robot swarms that constitute the utility fog. Over this period, they have homes, furnishing, clothing, built to their specification, and their ship refueled - all built from local supplies.

So, what does this mean?

Well, Mars Rover Curiosity masses 900 kg. THis is sufficient to send two people one way to Mars in stasis, with the hardware described. Two people with 14,000 kg of hardware, with additional hardware to return them to Earth, is well beyond the lift capacity of today's rockets, and the reliability of the hardware becomes an issue. That is, the self replicating machine systems, using swarming robots, will likely be needed anyway, to assure ourselves that complex large scale systems operate reliably over years to decades without major servicing. So, since we have that capacity anyway, we might as well use it to reduce launch costs. Furthermore, people who are seriously injured during the flight, will have a back up plan of being put into stasis and hauled back to Earth for treatment. So, this will be a capacity anyway. Since we have that capacity when we leave, why not use it to reduce launch costs and increase mission safety throughout?

You (eventually) need a full scale research program taking
potentially dozens of *healthy* human beings and repeatedly putting them
in a torpor for the duration needed for a manned Mars mission. To do
the research properly, even if it doesn't "hurt" the subjects, you could
very well be depriving them of months or years of their conscious lives.
You could even be shortening their lifespan (we won't know without the
research). This seems more than a bit unethical to me and seriously I
doubt it would be approved.

Most importantly, NASA is not at all proposing this as part of a
baseline Mars mission. It's still science fiction, despite the pretty
computer generated graphics in the papers you've found.

I see you did not respond to this.


I thought I had...

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/fi...man_Stasis.pdf


Moving from animal studies to trials on healthy humans is by far your
biggest problem. Selling this technique to the doctors at NASA and
convincing them to fund full scale human trials is problematic, at best.

A panel of European biomedical researchers, biologists and neuroscientists delivered recommendations for future lines of human hibernation research. One Italian scientist lowered a test animal's body thermostat for a six-hour period as a precursor to human trials.

After that, they would need to convince medical ethics board(s) that
such research on healthy human beings is justified and ethical. Good
luck with that. Potentially depriving healthy human beings months or
years of their conscious lives is unethical, IMHO.

So, is locking them up in an air tight container with hundreds of thousands of moving parts that are unproven except in ground testing.

That's why this is science fiction.

I've given you every reason why it is not.

Yes, it's based on scientific
research (on animals),

Its been in human trials for two years. Its part of ESA funding for Mars missions and NASA funding for interplanetary transport.

but it is not yet a proven technique applicable
to healthy human beings for very long periods of time. It would not be
done today, hence this is still fiction.

Like I said, you haven't gotten the memo when it got out into the media two years ago.

Science fiction.

Reality. The advantages are huge. We could send astronauts to Mars today with launchers we have today using these techniques.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

In article ,
says...

On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:06:05 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 3:07:44 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
You have proposed things
like shipping humans around the solar system in suspended animation.

Yes.

This is not current tech.

We ship human beings in suspended animation from accident
scenes to hospitals.

Extremely short term. Not done voluntarily by the patient. Not the
same thing.

People involved, credentialed experts, say you are wrong. Their models involve animal hibernation and they see no real upper limit to its use.

Research and models are not the same as human trials.

Human trials were approved two years ago. You didn't get the memo.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1...imation-trials

Your reading comprehension is so poor you apparently did not see that
these trials are *not* on healthy humans volunteering for a study. The
trials are approved for 10 patients with traumatic injuries (gunshot,
stabbing, etc.)!

This is why I keep saying you make "leaps of logic" that are *not*
valid, like a bad movie character.

Depends on what 'this' means. People have been put in stasis
for
hours to days. Animals have been put in stasis for weeks to months.

Animals, for research.

Yes. Animal hibernation is the model upon which this method is based. Getting human biochemistry to respond in the same manner is the goal.

People are not animals that naturally hibernate. Without human trials,
we don't know that this will work.

Again, you didn't get the memo apparently.

Again, your reading comprehensibly is lacking.

Things that are different, just *aren't* the same!

I'm snipping the rest of your bull****. It's all science *fiction*
because while there is *some* basis on current scientific research on
*trauma* patients, the technology to do this safely and routinely on
healthy humans is *not* developed at all. Again, this study is only
approved for use on *trauma* patients, not healthy volunteers.

Proper engineering for your sci-fi proposal to ship humans to Mars in
"stasis" can't happen until *after* the proper studies are done on
healthy human volunteers for the durations needed for a Mars mission.
That is the sort of study I said would be needed, and you throw back at
me a study on *trauma* patients like it's the same thing. It's not!

Details matter Mook. Your "engineering" by reading research papers on
infant technologies and then doing math to "scale it up" will quite
simply not get us to Mars safely.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 1:31:51 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:06:05 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 3:07:44 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
You have proposed things
like shipping humans around the solar system in suspended animation.

Yes.

This is not current tech.

We ship human beings in suspended animation from accident
scenes to hospitals.

Extremely short term. Not done voluntarily by the patient. Not the
same thing.

People involved, credentialed experts, say you are wrong. Their models involve animal hibernation and they see no real upper limit to its use..

Research and models are not the same as human trials.

Human trials were approved two years ago. You didn't get the memo.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1...imation-trials

Your reading comprehension is so poor

You're the one confused.

you apparently did not see that
these trials are *not* on healthy humans volunteering for a study.

They're human trials, something you apparently are unaware of.


The
trials are approved for 10 patients with traumatic injuries (gunshot,
stabbing, etc.)!

Correct.

This is why I keep saying you make "leaps of logic" that are *not*
valid, like a bad movie character.

Not correct.

Depends on what 'this' means. People have been put in stasis
for
hours to days. Animals have been put in stasis for weeks to months.

Animals, for research.

Yes. Animal hibernation is the model upon which this method is based. Getting human biochemistry to respond in the same manner is the goal.

People are not animals that naturally hibernate. Without human trials,
we don't know that this will work.

Again, you didn't get the memo apparently.

Again, your reading comprehensibly is lacking.

No, your understanding is deficient. Human trials started two years ago.

Things that are different, just *aren't* the same!

And your prejudices don't shape reality.

I'm snipping the rest of your bull****.

Irony - given that you are the only one engaging in bull****.

It's all science *fiction*

No its not. The European Space Agency and NASA all have development programmes underway with the view toward making workable systems within the decade.

because while there is *some* basis on current scientific research on
*trauma* patients, the technology to do this safely and routinely on
healthy humans is *not* developed at all. Again, this study is only
approved for use on *trauma* patients, not healthy volunteers.

They're human trials dude, deal with it. The advantages are compelling. Like I said, if we had this ability today, we could send people to Mars with 350 kg of payload instead of 7,000 kg of payload, and since Curiosity masses 900 kg, we could send two people to Mars today using this technology.

Proper engineering for your sci-fi proposal to ship humans to Mars in
"stasis" can't happen until *after* the proper studies are done on
healthy human volunteers for the durations needed for a Mars mission.

True.

That is the sort of study I said would be needed, and you throw back at
me a study on *trauma* patients like it's the same thing. It's not!

Its human trials dude. Something you said didn't exist.


Details matter Mook.

Yes they do.

Your "engineering" by reading research papers on
infant technologies and then doing math to "scale it up" will quite
simply not get us to Mars safely.

Your denigration of infant technologies bears no relation to reality. Your conclusion that new technologies won't scale is misplaced as is your assertion that somehow infant technologies are irretrievably unsafe.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

In article ,
says...
It's all science *fiction*

No its not. The European Space Agency and NASA all have development
programmes underway with the view toward making workable systems
within the decade.

No, they don't. They have research programs going. There are also
research programs funded by the same looking into "warp drives" and the
like. That doesn't mean all of these research projects will pan out in
the real world.

because while there is *some* basis on current scientific research on
*trauma* patients, the technology to do this safely and routinely on
healthy humans is *not* developed at all. Again, this study is only
approved for use on *trauma* patients, not healthy volunteers.

They're human trials dude, deal with it. The advantages are compelling.

Warp drive is compelling too, but it is not ready to fly either.

Like I said, if we had this ability today, we could send people to
Mars with 350 kg of payload instead of 7,000 kg of payload, and since
Curiosity masses 900 kg, we could send two people to Mars today using
this technology.

On trauma patients for limited periods of time. Not on healthy humans
for months or years. There is a huge difference. The fact that you
can't see or understand that difference is the problem here.

Proper engineering for your sci-fi proposal to ship humans to Mars in
"stasis" can't happen until *after* the proper studies are done on
healthy human volunteers for the durations needed for a Mars mission.

True.

That is the sort of study I said would be needed, and you throw back at
me a study on *trauma* patients like it's the same thing. It's not!

Its human trials dude. Something you said didn't exist.

You snipped far too much of what I said. Here is one paragraph of what
I said on 4/10:

I'm not sure a medical ethics board would even approve what you
really need. You (eventually) need a full scale research program
taking potentially dozens of *healthy* human beings and repeatedly
putting them in a torpor for the duration needed for a manned Mars
mission. To do the research properly, even if it doesn't "hurt"
the subjects, you could very well be depriving them of months or
years of their conscious lives.
You could even be shortening their lifespan (we won't know
without the research). This seems more than a bit unethical to
me and seriously I doubt it would be approved.

Short term studies on trauma patients is *not* what I said was needed
three days ago. I emphasized trials on "*healthy* human beings and
repeatedly putting them in a torpor for the duration needed for a manned
Mars mission".


Details matter Mook.

Yes they do.

Then stop glossing over the details like *long* term trials on *healthy*
human beings like they don't matter. *Short* term trials on *trauma*
patients are quite simply not the same.

Your "engineering" by reading research papers on
infant technologies and then doing math to "scale it up" will quite
simply not get us to Mars safely.

Your denigration of infant technologies bears no relation to reality.
Your conclusion that new technologies won't scale is misplaced as is
your assertion that somehow infant technologies are irretrievably
unsafe.

I'll be waiting for those voluntary, long term (several months to a few
years), hibernation studies on healthy human subjects that would be
representative of the durations needed for a manned Mars mission.
Because until those are done, the only people pitching this idea are
researchers with shiny Powerpoint presentations trying to get more money
for more research.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.