A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Land rights on moon/mars



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 14th 16, 01:29 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Land rights on moon/mars

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 10:12:10 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
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.


Yes they do.

They have research programs going.


Correct. You obviously haven't read the documents relating to them.

There are also
research programs funded by the same looking into "warp drives" and the
like.


Not at the same level, and not with the same goals and deliverables.

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.


Your ability to make **** up is boundless. The medical science is well established for suspended animation which is the basis of ongoing projects.

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.


Large mammals already hibernate for months or years.

There is a huge difference.


You obviously are unfamiliar with the data on this topic.

The fact that you
can't see or understand that difference is the problem here.


The fact you are totally unfamiliar with the medical science and biology behind the process we're discussing 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.


I snipped nothing. You did.

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".


You are making up artificial distinctions to create false arguments. ESA and NASA are both pursuing this technology. Doctors are using the process in hospitals today to save lives. Most who work on this feel that we could send people to Mars using this technique in less than ten years. You seem to be blissfully unaware of these findings from credentialed people who are experts on the process.


Details matter Mook.


Yes they do.


Then stop glossing over the details like *long* term trials on *healthy*


You are making up artificial distinctions to gloss over the fact that the process outlined occurs in nature among complex high order mammals, that the process is used every day to save lives in hospitals around the world, and that the ESA and NASA have active programs to use the process to send people to Mars, some of whom have predicted its use in less than 10 years.

human beings like they don't matter.


I never said this, YOU DID, and connected it to this discussion even though it has nothing at all to do with the viability of the process we're discussing.

*Short* term trials on *trauma*
patients are quite simply not the same.


As what? Fact is, the process discovered by Dr. Mark Roth, explains a number of recoveries of people who were lost in the wilderness, explains how large complex mammals like bears can hibernate for months, and is so safe and reliable it was immediately approved as a method to save lives during emergencies. This outstanding success, and compelling finding, have inspired ESA and NASA to fund large programs to develop this process further. Some of those who are part of these ongoing programmes feel it is very likely that we will be sending people to Mars using it in ten years. How can this not be of interest to anyone who worries about space policy?

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.


Those are coming. You would know this if you had read any of the literature on the subject.

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.


The ability of the medical researchers who are saving lives every day using this process far exceeds yours. Your pointless denigration of these talented people reflects poorly on your ability to understand and appreciate new developments in space travel.

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.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
do you really want we'll go to Mars soon? well, if you support myproposal, we could land on Mars within 2030 or sooner gaetanomarano Policy 6 August 11th 09 05:52 AM
David A. Smith (DLZC of sci.astro), prejudistic human rights crimesof stalking, prejudistic semitism of hate crimes, discriminations of educatedpeople on all counts dismissing human rights really fast. Semitism will havejustice on human rights ground gb[_3_] Astronomy Misc 0 November 7th 08 10:02 PM
Pluto, an excluded planet with Moons in a Solar System of Rights. Rights will solve healthcare. [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 March 9th 07 09:00 PM
Okay the Mars rover has landed: But why didn't it land near the so-called, "Face of Mars?" Rod Mollise Amateur Astronomy 6 January 8th 04 01:26 AM
We *did* NOT land on THE moon Eddie Trimarchi Misc 27 August 20th 03 10:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.