- #36
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 29,103
- 6,974
I wonder what the probability of a fatality would be in any foreseeable project?Chronos said:Mars is undoubtedly feasible.
I wonder what the probability of a fatality would be in any foreseeable project?Chronos said:Mars is undoubtedly feasible.
Hopefully, they will take plenty of potatoes.sophiecentaur said:I wonder what the probability of a fatality would be in any foreseeable project?
It annoyed me just how easily I accepted that Daymon character's hijinks. I just believed it all.Borg said:Hopefully, they will take plenty of potatoes.
Can you give an example of what's conclusively impossible given any possible future technology in regards to getting to Alpha Centauri?russ_watters said:In other words, not anywhere close to feasible. You're trying to make a spot of moisture sound like an almost full glass of water.
No, not like this. That's a common dreamer's refrain, but it misses the critical other side of science and technology's coin: it doesn't just make previously not possible things possible, it give us a better understanding of what is actually not possible.
...and that's in addition to the fact that most popular examples of this are wrong.
I liked Daymon's character. It was the contrived wind force problems that were dreamt up that tended to annoy me. For example, everyone had to leave immeadiately because of a dust storm that was going to tip over the rocket. However, that apparently wasn't a potential concern for the rocket left unattended for years at Schiaparelli Crater which was completely undisturbed by the time that he got to it. The reality is that the Martian dust storm would be felt as little more than a breeze. Of course without the openening scene's "8600 Newton wind", he wouldn't have been stranded in the first place.sophiecentaur said:It annoyed me just how easily I accepted that Daymon character's hijinks. I just believed it all.
Oh, you're just being 'sensible'.Borg said:I liked Daymon's character. It was the contrived wind force problems that were dreamt up that tended to annoy me. For example, everyone had to leave immeadiately because of a dust storm that was going to tip over the rocket. However, that apparently wasn't a potential concern for the rocket left unattended for years at Schiaparelli Crater which was completely undisturbed by the time that he got to it. The reality is that the Martian dust storm would be felt as little more than a breeze. Of course without the openening scene's "8600 Newton wind", he wouldn't have been stranded in the first place.
And then there's the tarp that kept the hab sealed for over 7 months when the original entry port only lasted about three. It even managed to survive debris hitting it in a later mega-dust storm.
sophiecentaur said:Oh, you're just being 'sensible'.
Chronos said:Mars is undoubtedly feasible.
Chronos said:Alpha Centauri is not yet even a remote possibility
Scientific theories/principles/facts are highly specific, not broad and generic like that. Science tells us things like:bob012345 said:Can you give an example of what's conclusively impossible given any possible future technology in regards to getting to Alpha Centauri?
Just for clarification, when you say "can't" does that mean not possible under any circumstance? For example, travel to Alpha Centauri is impossible under any current circumstance, but if say the human race's survival was dependent on merely reaching/landing on Mars by say late 2019. With Earth's collective and motivated support would that also be impossible? Or are you just saying it's impossible given the state of the world and its agencies?Vanadium 50 said:We can't do Mars today.
bob012345 said:Can you give an example of what's conclusively impossible given any possible future technology
Greg Bernhardt said:Just for clarification, when you say "can't" does that mean not possible under any circumstance?
Vanadium 50 said:That's why the word "today" is there. We do not have the technology needed to send a person to Mars and get them safely back.
nikkkom said:The oppositely "stretched" meaning of "today" is "our today existing technology and industrial base".I
Haelfix said:we are talking about Manhattan project level mobilization of industry
That project was a real tiddler, compared with a serious space expedition. It was based on a bit of a gamble; they weren't sure it would work until the first test but there were good reasons to believe it would. At the moment, there seem to be some fundamental good reasons why a trip to another star would not be possible within any foreseeable future.Haelfix said:If we are talking about Manhattan project level mobilization of industry,
Vigardo said:Sorry, I´ve not readed the complete thread (too long)
sophiecentaur said:But what amazes me is that there is a section of people who find it such an attractive idea that they are not asking the sort of questions that they would normally ask before contemplating spending most of their wealth and resources on a project.
Haelfix said:The fact that with current tech, we are looking at a 7 month trip one way (which is right at the edge of plausible for biological entities to endure)
nikkkom said:What? Astronauts "endure" ~170 days on ISS rather routinely, and some dip into 200 days.
Those days are spent inside a giant magnetic field called the Van Allen belt.nikkkom said:What? Astronauts "endure" ~170 days on ISS rather routinely, and some dip into 200 days.
Borg said:> What? Astronauts "endure" ~170 days on ISS rather routinely, and some dip into 200 days.
Those days are spent inside a giant magnetic field called the Van Allen belt.
nikkkom said:Radiation on Mars trip (+ trip back) is estimated to increase cancer risk by ~5%.
I was talking about a trip to Mars. Alpha Centauri is currently in the realm of science fiction, and indeed it might simply be outside of mankinds ken to ever reach that, even with the benefit of thousands of years of technology.sophiecentaur said:That project was a real tiddler, compared with a serious space expedition. It was based on a bit of a gamble; they weren't sure it would work until the first test but there were good reasons to believe it would. At the moment, there seem to be some fundamental good reasons why a trip to another star would not be possible within any foreseeable future.
nikkkom said:What? Astronauts "endure" ~170 days on ISS rather routinely, and some dip into 200 days.
If you were a Schoolchild then I could imagine something could happen in your lifetime. If you are near my age then probably no chance - unless something happens in international politics or if a Mars Lander finds some life sign, The race wold be on, then.Haelfix said:I don't see it happening in my lifetime for various reasons..
Haelfix said:Well presumably we would like to have a return trip, and I believe it's never the case that the orbits match to do a direct return without requiring some delay.
What is so special about 1g in this exercise? The main concern is surely the Energy involved. It's eye wateringly vast.ad infinitum said:Accelerating at 1g for one year
Don't be disheartened. I think we will gradually colonise outward in the Solar System, using forms of nuclear energy as we move further away from the Sun. Then the objects of the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud will entice us out further. One day, some pioneers will realize they are halfway to another star.I find the whole thing depressing in the extreme. That coupled with an article in the current issue of Scientific American which states that, while life may exist on other planets in our galaxy, the odds of having it reaching (or exceeding) our level of intellectual evolution is slim to none.
Belief is not enough for any aspiration. There are some basic constraints that are just fundamental. One constraint is available time and the way human politics andneilparker62 said:we have to believe we can!
This is an example of the romantic "Go West young man" view that has be extrapolated way beyond where it started. In the process of 'going West' and colonising the Americas, humans managed (you could say the almost had to) to destroy the environment by killing indigenous humans and animals and felling most of the forests. That was in a very benign situation for their survival. Colonisation of almost anywhere on Earth has been shown to be a profitable deal; the returns have been enormous.Al_ said:I think we will gradually colonise outward in the Solar System
sophiecentaur said:...There are some basic constraints that are just fundamental. One constraint is available time...
Evidence of a drip either proves that there is a drain or the glass will fill. It will continue filling until something changes.russ_watters said:In other words, not anywhere close to feasible. You're trying to make a spot of moisture sound like an almost full glass of water.
...
Chronos said:Mars is undoubtedly feasible. While many unknowns remain, we have technologies proven capable of getting there. Alpha Centauri is not yet even a remote possibility. We simply lack the technology needed to even attempt sending a probe that far. IMO, colonization of all the habitable places in the solar system is more likely than us developing the technology needed to launch an interstellar probe.
Nothing is special.sophiecentaur said:What is so special about 1g in this exercise?