|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Nah, even with a dire pathogen, it would -still- be cheaper, faster,
and simpler to build seal habitats on Earth than in space. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Um - you say that your curiosity to explore outranks all your other
desires, and that you are serious about it. Yet you have a job, a roof over your head, you clearly have access to an internet connection, and I doubt you are worried about where your next meal is coming from. So if you want to be convincing, quit your job, sell everything you own, and spend all the money exploring places on the Earth rarely explored (at the very least) such as the Austrailian Outback, which is far more habitable than space but has not been colonized to any great extent because of a lack of water. If it's space or nothing, then you should be willing to put every dime you have into space travel possibilities, never mind food, comfort, housing, etc. etc. Remember I'm not making this odd claim that your curiosity to explore outweighs all your other needs; you did. But you're sure not acting like it. You're acting like it's a hobby you enjoy doing once in a while, knowing you have a warm bed to come home to at the end of the trip. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
wrote: Um - you say that your curiosity to explore outranks all your other desires, and that you are serious about it. Yet you have a job, a roof over your head, you clearly have access to an internet connection, and I doubt you are worried about where your next meal is coming from. Well, if he was worried about his next meal or shelter, then surely exploration wouldn't be his greatest concern, yes? -- An experiment in publishing: http://www.ethshar.com/thesprigganexperiment0.html The All-New, All-Different Howling Curmudgeons! http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Look, the real point here is that -we have already explored the solar
system- and -there is nothing there worth going there in person to look at or to bring back-. What exploring -haven't- we done that you feel we should have? Exploring does -not- mean having to go there in person - that's being a tourist, not doing exploration. I'm all in favor of continuing exploration and gathering scientific data per the following plan: Place sensor satelites around every major object of interest in the solar system (insert your own definition of object of interest here). If the sat scanners pick up anything particularly interesting, send a lander as follow-up. If the lander finds anything particularly interesting, send a retrieval mission. Only then, if what's been found is incredibly motivating, such as life forms would be, consider sending a manned mission. I can learn all I need to about the Austrailian Outback from planted sensors and satelite scans - I don't have to actually go there to find out it's an almost waterless desert and a poor place for habitation. However, if a stegosaurs walks by the camera, I'd be there in a shot. You'll get a whole lot more exploring done for a lot smaller expenditure of resources using the above plan. Plus we have a pretty good record of actually doing the satelite scanning thing and a shaky but okay record of sending down landers. So not only is this within our budget, it's within our ability to get things done. Plus it doesn't risk anyone's life unless there is some really good reason to take the chance. Science Fiction writers are aware they are writing science fiction, and they are aware they are making huge numbers of unproven assumptions (the most common of which is FTL travel). Heck, it is only in the last decade, give or take, that we have confirmed that other stars actually have planets orbiting them - until then, it was just a bet that our solar system wasn't unique. Almost all science fiction assumes breakthroughs in technology that are not currently within our even theoretical reach - and almost all of the assumed technologies reduce the cost of space travel to a trivial amount, asume "magic" trade goods like Dilithium or Spice, etc. etc. Science Fiction writers are the first ones to tell you that this stuff is made up. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
But you don't spend your life exploring - you spend it talking about
exploring, far as I can tell. Have you quit your job and sold everything you own to go off exploring full-time? Nah. I'm betting you have a job and a house or apt and certainly an internet connection and don't worry about your next meal - exploring isn't your passion, it's a hobby. Your words and deeds show that you have no interest in in any way discomforting yourself to explore - you may go exploring in already covered territory, but you know you can always call for help and will wind up at home in a soft bed. You're actually making my point every time you post here, becuase the money you spend on an internet connection, the time you spend posting here, could be spent exploring instead. You make the excuse that the Earth has been explored to death already, so unless you can get into space, there's nothing to explore. Sorry, but 4/5ths of the Earth is covered by water and the vast majority of that is unexplored in corpus. There are huge stretches of land in Africa, in South America, and in Austrailia that haven't been explored -in-corpus-. Get a degree in an appropriate field and you'll even have the expenses for your trip covered. Are you doing any of that? No, you're too busy arguing aobut how much exploring means to you on the internet. And let me remind you that I hadn't posted on this group for what - over a year? And that you not only posted a reply to my long-ago postings, but emailed me your response and gave me directions on the best way to respond to this thread - seems a bit hypocritical to call me out and then call me a troll. John |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
On 21-May-2005, "Paul F. Dietz" wrote: After any reasonably plausible disaster, Earth is still more habitable than any place in space would be. Nova? Not plausible. We know what causes novas. The sun can't go nova. OK, some type of solar flare. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
On 21-May-2005, "Paul F. Dietz" wrote: Nova? Not plausible. We know what causes novas. The sun can't go nova. Can a near enough star do significant damage to life on Earth? |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Celestron Celestar C8 Dec Drive Motor / Hand Controller | dean | UK Astronomy | 3 | January 15th 05 12:27 AM |
Mars Exploration Rover Update - November 8, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 9th 04 05:13 PM |
Getting a Edmund 6 newt clock drive to work | robertebeary | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 23rd 04 05:07 AM |
Problems with Celestron 11" Ultima clock drive | Charles Burgess | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 20th 04 11:51 PM |
Spirit Ready to Drive Onto Mars Surface | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 15th 04 04:09 PM |