Msn ot Machines in Space?

[amicus]

I have been a science fiction fan since I was a boy reading every book in the library.

I didn't pretend cowboys and indians, it was the moon and beyond for me, baby.

But the past five years or so have caused me doubt.

Although Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawkings agree that the future of man is in space, I wonder.

Herewith my reasoning.

Even polar airline flights cause female flight attendants to forego those routes because of increased 'natural' solar radiation at the poles.

Even satellites have their orbits adjusted to avoid the VanAllen radiation belt.

The ISS, international space station, is bathed in radiation continuosly and pelted by micro-meteorites on a regular basis.

While the duration of a journey to the moon is three days out and three days back, a manned flight to Mars would involve a three year absence by the crew.

The surface of the moon and Mars are highly radioactive and the temperature, as it does on the space statiion, alternates from over 200F to minus 200F, give or take, on a regular basis.

Unless water, H2O, can be discovered on both the Moon and Mars, fuel and consumables will have to be transported from Earth.

Studies made of crew members on extended submarine duty and in other venues created to study the psychological effects of isolation, either beneath the sea or in deep space, indicate probably difficulties.

That is just an incomplete and brief summation of the perils of space to man.

I have always thought man would explore space with smart machines doing his bidding; now I am not so certain.

Voyager One, "V'Ger" of the Star Trek series, is beyond the solar system and beyond the 'heliosphere', if memory serves, it has been traveling for decades.

Telescopes in space and on the surface of the moon or Mars provide greater penetration that do earthbound observatories.

Spirit and Opportunity, two robot rovers on Mars, have been exploring and sending back information for nearly three years, far beyond their expected life span.

It costs like a hundred times more to put a man in space than it does a machine.

The 'big one', is of course, the speed of light, a constant which cannot by known rules of physics be exceeded, means that travel to even the nearest star or solar system, other than our own would involve decades of time in the life of a human.

Logic tells me that it will be machines only that explore outer space.

?

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

Okay....that is two thread titles that have had typo's and I know it did not appear that way when I typed it? Whassup here?

Supposed to be Man or Machine in Space?

 

[Boxlicker101]

I have been a science fiction fan since I was a boy reading every book in the library.

I didn't pretend cowboys and indians, it was the moon and beyond for me, baby.

But the past five years or so have caused me doubt.

Although Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawkings agree that the future of man is in space, I wonder.

Herewith my reasoning.

Even polar airline flights cause female flight attendants to forego those routes because of increased 'natural' solar radiation at the poles.

Even satellites have their orbits adjusted to avoid the VanAllen radiation belt.

The ISS, international space station, is bathed in radiation continuosly and pelted by micro-meteorites on a regular basis.

While the duration of a journey to the moon is three days out and three days back, a manned flight to Mars would involve a three year absence by the crew.

The surface of the moon and Mars are highly radioactive and the temperature, as it does on the space statiion, alternates from over 200F to minus 200F, give or take, on a regular basis.

Unless water, H2O, can be discovered on both the Moon and Mars, fuel and consumables will have to be transported from Earth.

Studies made of crew members on extended submarine duty and in other venues created to study the psychological effects of isolation, either beneath the sea or in deep space, indicate probably difficulties.

That is just an incomplete and brief summation of the perils of space to man.

I have always thought man would explore space with smart machines doing his bidding; now I am not so certain.

Voyager One, "V'Ger" of the Star Trek series, is beyond the solar system and beyond the 'heliosphere', if memory serves, it has been traveling for decades.

Telescopes in space and on the surface of the moon or Mars provide greater penetration that do earthbound observatories.

Spirit and Opportunity, two robot rovers on Mars, have been exploring and sending back information for nearly three years, far beyond their expected life span.

It costs like a hundred times more to put a man in space than it does a machine.

The 'big one', is of course, the speed of light, a constant which cannot by known rules of physics be exceeded, means that travel to even the nearest star or solar system, other than our own would involve decades of time in the life of a human.

Logic tells me that it will be machines only that explore outer space.

?

Amicus...

First, it would take just as long to send machines as humans to the stars. Second, the nearest stars are less than five light years away. (Proxima Centauri and Alpha Centauri)

 

[amicus]

Yes, Box, I know, thought that would be a given unless you think I am a dummy.

However, it would be pointless to just 'visit' those nearest stars, as our instruments detect no habitable planets. And still, an eight to ten year round trip for men, for what?

I don't necessarily like my 'logical conclusion', and I hope someone will find a way to poke a hole in it, but thas not it.

Amicus....

 

[gauchecritic]

It seems you're bound by your own thinking there MiAmico.

It is fair to say that with present technology star flight is next to impossible but before Marconi it was also fair to say that a ship at sea was almost impossible to contact.

or that before the Wright brothers transatlantic crossings were impossible in less than a week.

There's all sorts of technology waiting to be discovered.

As some famous scientist once said: The more you find out, the less you know.

 

[amicus]

I understand all that Gauche, factored in and I thought I had laid out enough to at least imply that regardless of techogical advances, the human body is the key factor.

I think, repeat, think I am pretty much up to date on cutting edge science as it pertains to man in space and there is already a heated argument in scientific circles about the efficacy of man actually traveling in space when machines can do it as well if not better and more economical.

There is so much information, thanks to the internet and the various science outlets on television. I surely may have missed something, but all the information and evidence I have gathered almost dictates machines over men.

All kinds of things, Ion engines, nuclear engines, plasma engines, even harnessing the solar wind emitted by the sun as a means of propulsion. Still, unless light is not an absolute constant, the time factor in view of the human lifespan means a generational attempt to cross the vastness of space with perhaps the tenth generation reaching a destination.

Even radio waves obey the speed of light, a vessel reaching the nearest star sending a message would also take four or five years to reach earth.

As much as I would like to visualize man exploring the Universe the facts all lead to machines doing it for us.

Even the 'Contact' from Vega, required 26 years for a signal to reach earth, a 52 year round trip. Not only that but the increasingly sophisticated radio telescopes have failed to detect any 'earth like' planets, anywhere.

Earth may truly be unique in fostering this particular brand of sentient life.

Amicus...

 

[neonlyte]

My belief is will skip the space explorer stage and go straight to quantum mechanics using the ability for a particle to exist in two places at the same time. It'll be messy until scientists get the mechanics right, displacing into a rock won't be every ones idea of a good time. Maybe they could use rapists for the first few goes.

 

[gauchecritic]

It's what comes of trying to be concise before rushing off to work.

I was attempting to convey (as Neon) that just because lightspeed is the present limit doesn't mean that it is an absolute limit, particularly since it is a theoretical limit anyway.

Quantum mechanics and string theory suggest other dimensions.

Tachyons apparently travel faster than light.

There appears to be no measurable timelag between 'twinned' particles over distance.

and finally, the electromagnetic spectrum and nuclear energy fields were only unified after it was found that E equalled MC squared.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I don't think space in in our future. It's too expensive, too difficult, too hostile, and there's really no point in colonizing the moon or Mars. What for? The simple thrill of being there?

The original impetus to get to the moon was actually military. Space was the ultimate 'high ground' that we had to reach before the Soviets. Now the world's changed. No one wants to fund space research just to see how ants build colonies in zero gravity.

I think we're stuck on earth pretty much for good, and I think this is going to be an idea that slowly percolates through the population and has tremendous consequences. It's going to change how we consider our planet and mankind's future. America especially has always been about finding new frontiers to conquer. We've really never had to make the ones we've already conquered more habitable, but that's what's in our future: a massive attempt to perfect the human-earth relationship.

I expect the future of technology to be in virtual worlds. As simulations get better, we'll use information from space probes to construct simulated space environments everyone can explore.

 

[jomar]

Despite machine superiority for exploring space, I would be surprised if there were not a 'justification' at some point for a manned mission to Mars.

 

[DesertPirate]

Okay....that is two thread titles that have had typo's and I know it did not appear that way when I typed it? Whassup here?

Supposed to be Man or Machine in Space?

Glad I'm not the only one who can "fat finger" into confusion

 

[amicus]

I somewhat expected the Dr. Mabeuse argument to appear but he doubled it, with both a suggestion on expeditures of social needs and a re-emphasis on the environmentalist agenda.

And to address Gauche-critics point, time travel is even less a cogent 'theory' than is the constant of the speed of light.

It may well be a concentration on a base on the Moon, astromical equipment and a much cheaper launch pad for further exploration of Mars and beyond, if, and only if H2O in some form is discovered, or some other material that will provide the basis for the manufacture of rocket fuel.

I have read and heard convincing arguments that mining the Asteroid Belt, between Mars and Jupiter, could be done in an economical manner providing needed metal and rare metal resources.

The realization that space may be explored and exploited by robots also lessens my dismay that it has been forty years since man last set foot on the moon. We had a marvelous decade of preparing for moon landings, accomplished that and then.....nothing...and I blamed it on the myopic introspect of the progressive liberals who want socialized medicine instead of a colony on Mars...

oh, well....

Amicus...

 

[Boxlicker101]

Yes, Box, I know, thought that would be a given unless you think I am a dummy.

However, it would be pointless to just 'visit' those nearest stars, as our instruments detect no habitable planets. And still, an eight to ten year round trip for men, for what?

I don't necessarily like my 'logical conclusion', and I hope someone will find a way to poke a hole in it, but thas not it.

Amicus....

Maybe and maybe not.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080307121613.htm

 

[slyc_willie]

The realization that space may be explored and exploited by robots also lessens my dismay that it has been forty years since man last set foot on the moon. We had a marvelous decade of preparing for moon landings, accomplished that and then.....nothing...and I blamed it on the myopic introspect of the progressive liberals who want socialized medicine instead of a colony on Mars...

oh, well....

Amicus...

Well, you can't be surprised that some people would rather concentrate on conditions on our old blue orb before expanding our reach to even our own satellite.

The Hubble telescope has done amazing things for finding other solar systems, especially those which may harbor planets relative to ours. If and when colonization becomes an economic and psychological possibility (I give it fifty to seventy years), then I can see missions sent with colonists in some sort of suspended animation. It's a tried and true sci-fi device which has enjoyed quite a bit of research.

Before that happens, of course, there will most likely be manned missions to Mars as a sort of test run on the idea of going beyond the Oort Cloud. Scientific missions can be built on Mars for both research as well as mining purposes. The revenue gathered from such missions will hopefully justify the cost of sending colonists to nearby planets.

I have a novel in the works that deals with this, actually . . .

 

[amicus]

Maybe and maybe not.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080307121613.htm

~~~~~~~~

Box, this is the sort of Al Gore, 'global warming' science that gives science a bad name:

Alpha Centauri Should Harbor Detectable, Earth-like Planets

Throughout the piece you find, 'could, should, may', whereas their references, '286 actual planets' is documented.

In the past decade, the presence of a 'moon' around any candidate planet has become part of the equation as life would not have developed or evolved on earth without the moon.

I, like many, was in the 'Sagan' camp, "billions and billions" of earth like planets in the Universe for the longest time until science seems to indicate otherwise.

Most observed stars have been found to contain a huge gas giant that sweeps the surrounding space clean of all the smaller planets before finally plunging into the sun.

I do not want the evidence to point to the absence of other life in the Universe, nor do I 'want' the speed of light to dictate that man will never travel the Universe....but what I want is of little concern, the numbers just don't fib.

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

Slyc...Yup, read those also, the ten thousand year voyage in suspended animation, great science fiction, I may be wrong, but even McCaffrey's Pern series transported the Colonist's via that method.

There was also one wherein science evolved and they caught up to the vessel carrying the sleeping colonists and woke them all up again after discovering a Star Trek like 'Warp Speed' method of travel.

I still have emails coming from the Cassini-Huygens project on a regular basis, but exploring the Oort Cloud, except the the fact of accomplishing it, show me little advantage other than the possible new knowledge obtained.

Not to make this political, but my hope, if there is any, will be that private space ventures will be the method by which the Asteroid Belt is mined and Mars exploited if there is anything there to exploit.

Mars has no magnetosphere to deflect solar and cosmic radiation, the the amount of time a man could remain on the surface of Mars without protection is very limited. Further, what ever the habitation, it would have to be heavily shielded and most likely underground, but the upper layer of soil on Mars is also highly radioactive.

I tell ya, folks, it be a sticky wicket and you already know how I personally detest having to change an opinion on anything.

Amicus...

 

[slyc_willie]

The technology is in place now, but much of it is too expensive only because of the lack of practicality. It used to be expensive to build a car until we started doing them in bulk, after all.

Once some sort of reward can be reaped to offset the cost of sending missions to Mars, we'll be doing it more often. The technology to do so will become cheaper, thus encouraging us to branch out even more.

Oh, and I think the novel you were referring to may have been "Songs of Distant Earth" by Arthur C. Clarke. That's always been one of my favorites.