Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Working in Space      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 iamsolost
Joined: 11/16/2006
Msg: 1
Working in SpacePage 1 of 2    (1, 2)
Disclaimer... This will be a long post so if you don't like to read then don't waste your time.

These are just simply things that i noticed that may or may not be what some call facts or at any stage of development in areas having to do with Space since most of those things are closely guarded.

What do you think is the quickest way to head out into the great beyond?

Why do you think NASA is in a paused or holding pattern?

Why are we not out there already?

Here is my thoughts....

You can not calculate and compensate for everything. No matter how many preperations, planning, calculations of detriments are done something will always come up that was not planned for...

That is what the Space program SHOULD have recieved for lessons thus far...

Examples being the many problems that have happened in programs like Apollo, Challenger, mars rover, etc.

Years of planning, design, trying to make sure everything could be compensated for and yet.... Something went wrong that had to be compensated for or studied for future preventative measures.

Sometimes you just need to shoot from the hip.

Here is where i see the problem with the space program is....

It is all focused on solving problems with what is available here on earth.

Example...

The space station up there.. was carried up there one piece at a time and built here on earth using materials on earth that then had to use even more materials to get them off of earth and up into space.

Ok so anything that station needs now has to come from earth.

There are people that talk about building a ship big enough to head out into the stars and things like this are not already started because The cost of the materials on earth and to get them up into space is rediculas.

I agree. Unless we are cobbling together scraps and giving them enough boost to get them out there to then be reconfigured. like if an old stripped out navy ship managed to be loaded up with enough thrust to get it out there to then reconfigure it out there.

It would be too expencive to get all the materials needed here on earth and quite frankly counter productive anyways.

While out there you can't run home to earth everytime you need something or need some raw materials to build something...

So I see trying to build something on earth that is to be used in space as a waste of time.

Get the experience that will be needed by starting on the moon. park that starting point ship on the moon and make sure it has the ability to mine, refine, manufacture and fit all self contained within it. Those are the skills that will be needed if we go to mars or one of the moons of mars so why not learn those skills while we are close enough to run home to earth if something goes wrong.

Too dangerious?

So is Crab fishing if you watch the discovery channel but people in this world still head out onto those seas knowing they may die.

Space isn't any different. Just a different kind of person that is now utilized and strick guidlines prevent those types from getting out there.

I would bet a fortune (if i had money) that if an ad was run in the papers that Space Miners were wanted, Space foundry workers, Space Machinists, etc there would be plenty willing and able showing up. Even if you put a disclaimer in there that the working conditions suck, the likely hood of harm or death is higher, but the pay is good.

NASA however has to plan everything out and calculate every possible issue that may come up even though their own history has proven that you can't.

You will always have to compensate for something when dealing with the unknown.

Just find the people that are good at compensating for any issues that may arise and problem is solved....

Space is so large that it is almost like it is designed so that you HAVE to take that chance and head up with the ability to enhance yourselves as you are out there.

Imagine this for a moment...

Lets say we build a ship and head out there.... We stop off at mars and while orbiting mars or one of the moons we find a new material. Using that new material we can increase our speed and we head further out.... the whole time we are processing and enhancing the ship using materials we gathered while out there....

Breakthroughs happen everyday in technology so why would we think they won't happen while out there...

I know NASA has moon bases dreamed up but nothing ever gets done because they are all based on being built here on earth and shipped up into space... so some are working on a space ladder.... but that is the wrong direction...

Why would we be wasting our time trying to find a way to take resources FROM earth into space... that is BACKWARDS.

We should be focusing on how to use what is already out there... That could be as simple as scavenging parts off all the space junk orbiting earth and reusing it or recycling it out there in space... Not like we wont need to learn how to recycle while in space if we ever expect to be successful at it.

If you have made it this far in reading this then you may have what it takes...lol

Instead of telling me how my thinking is wrong... how about listing anything you see as a better way of doing things to complete the goal of exploration faster that the 50-100 years away like NASA seems to think it will take. Mostly red tape and lack of money would be my guess. Thus why my way MAKES money while learning instead of costing.

Can't tell me things mined from the moon and brought down to the earths surface wouldnt be bought by someone... There is ALWAYS someone in this world willing to buy something that not everyone has...
 motown cowgirl
Joined: 6/30/2010
Msg: 2
Working in Space
Posted: 12/12/2010 6:33:31 AM
we knew the moon was nothing more than a dreary slag heap even before we got there. why do we want to go there again to mine dirt?

i heard a discussion about this on the radio the other day. i forget the name, but the guy was saying in order to make space travel to mars economically viable, you really have to design it to be a one-way trip.

i myself would never agree to work in space. while we have made a lot of progress in space research, there is no technology on the planet that can effectively shield us from dangerous doses of solar radiation. and, there is also no accurate way to even predict a potential killer dose that comes with a major solar flare. plus, i'd rather not think about how to shit in my own space suit given that toilets can't operate without gravity. those two things alone are dealbeakers for me. if i'm gonna grow two heads while pooping my pants, i'd rather do it right down here on terra firma, thank you.

fuck space. we don't belong there, and we can never be more than very temporary visitors. this whole thing of shoving off to mars is a ridiculous science fiction pipe dream with an abysmal risk/reward ratio. for all the effort it takes just to cut the heads off rats in a zero-gravity environment somewhere safely within the van allen belt, we should be spending the money HERE. how many more trillions of dollars of debt does this country actually need just to support a bunch of NASA engineers' interplanetary jerk-off fantasies?
 iamsolost
Joined: 11/16/2006
Msg: 3
Working in Space
Posted: 12/12/2010 7:53:58 AM

we knew the moon was nothing more than a dreary slag heap even before we got there. why do we want to go there again to mine dirt?


Why do people do anything?


i myself would never agree to work in space.


DUH!!! of course not too far away from your ambilical cord


there is no technology on the planet that can effectively shield us from dangerous doses of solar radiation.


This planet seems to have a pretty good system in place.


**** space. we don't belong there,


we? so your projecting your opinions onto everyone?


and we can never be more than very temporary visitors.


I hate to be captain obvious here but we are just temporary visitors here on earth... your are born, you live, and you die here on earth.

Some of us out stuck on this rock want more than what this planet has to offer....


how many more trillions of dollars of debt does this country actually need just to support a bunch of NASA engineers' interplanetary jerk-off fantasies?


Hummm... well if we cut all those programs for women small business so that they are on EQUAL ground then that would be quite a bit. Cut all the planned parenthood programs and there is a bunch more. Cancel welfare, social security, and energy assistance programs and wow... dang there is plenty of money... oh thats right those are all the womens jobs arent they....

We should just put all the money into THOSE programs right? create more social welfare programs instead of anything that advances society?

This isn't the topic. why did you even bother posting to this threed?
 iamsolost
Joined: 11/16/2006
Msg: 4
Working in Space
Posted: 12/12/2010 8:07:50 AM
i just looked.. your 50 of course you don't belong there... DUH you can't have any kids and your life is almost over.... you would have to be launched out into space in a coffin before we got anywhere... considering it would take at least 10 years to mine, refine, and build anything before it could head out.

What possible benefit could a washed out washingtonite offer? no politics up in space sorry. They don't belong there so you were correct about that one if your "WE" refered to anyone in washington
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 5
view profile
History
Working in Space
Posted: 12/12/2010 5:03:07 PM
Actually, Op, what you say IS more or less being looked into and planned now, and has been so for some time. It is far from being as easy as you might think. By that, I don't mean you appear to think it is SIMPLE, just that it is even MORE difficult by far than you imagine.
As for why the Space Program has seemed to stand still at many times, it is because it more or less HAS, but not because of science. POLITICS is the driving force behind almost all non-profit-oriented work. The space program STARTED here, as a POLITICAL war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. It was primarily about establishing world RESPECT, more than anything else, but the side-benefits to all of mankind have been tremendous.
A good thing to look into, if you want to show someone the true value of the Space Program, is to look for publications called "Spinoff," which have been put out by NASA over the years. Therein you'll find all the terrestrial value you need, to show that investments in the RESEARCH needed to accomplish our adventures has come back to us at least ten-fold.
Many critics of the Space Program point to the nominal costs, and ask what else we might have done with that money, and it's a legitimate question to ask. I have long been convinced that large, non-violence-oriented government projects LIKE the space program are EXCELLENT ways to spend my tax dollars.
As to the person who made snotty insulting comments to the critic here, that was dishonorable of you, inappropriate, and worst of all, without merit or usefulness. Please don't write such again.
OP, in order to AVOID carrying everything up out of the gravity well of Earth, we must be able to build far more than mining and smelting facilities on the Moon. To learn what IS required, you should study everything that is required to build relatively simple things, like cheap radios. It's far more challenging than you seem to realize, but again it IS what they are currently trying to figure out how to do. I'm not trying to discourage you at all, I LOVE that we are trying to get out into space as a civilization.
The success of the U.S. in the race to the Moon, is what nearly ended the Space program here. The American PEOPLE saw that the Soviets were nowhere near as much of a technological threat in space as we had once thought. Resources and political will shifted to terrestrial things.
Ronald Reagan used the Space Station and the idea of a missile defense shield (nicknamed Star Wars, by the media), as part of an ECONOMIC war to defeat the Soviet Union. It was VERY successful POLITICALLY. To have built the Space Station from "stuff already up there" WAS considered, but was found to be more difficult and expensive than to build it in sections here, and cart it up. They considered using the discarded large fuel tanks that the Shuttle leaves behind on every launch, but they couldn't work out a safe and successful way to clean them out and make them habitable.
Anyway, you aren't all that off in what you advocate, just in how difficult it actually is to DO, at least right now.
 CallmeKen
Joined: 9/4/2009
Msg: 6
Working in Space
Posted: 12/12/2010 7:02:36 PM

What do you think is the quickest way to head out into the great beyond?

Space isn't going anywhere. Our star still has a few billions of years left to burn. Why the haste?


Can't tell me things mined from the moon and brought down to the earths surface wouldnt be bought by someone

Rock can be mined or recycled a LOT more cheaply here on Earth. Why go to moon to mine it? What exactly is on the moon that can't be acquired here on Earth?

If you want a challenge, don't look to some dead rock in space. Look to the 70% of our planet's surface which is uninhabitable. Build a sustainable human habitation anywhere offshore. Then we can talk about space.

We can't even sustain a city 10 feet below sea level (ie., New Orleans - remember Katrina?). Space is a lot less forgiving than a passing hurricane.
 iamsolost
Joined: 11/16/2006
Msg: 7
Working in Space
Posted: 12/12/2010 8:10:18 PM

Actually, Op, what you say IS more or less being looked into and planned now, and has been so for some time. It is far from being as easy as you might think. By that, I don't mean you appear to think it is SIMPLE, just that it is even MORE difficult by far than you imagine.


That depends on if you are focusing on the depictions of Sci-fi writers or trying to replicate something that already works perfectly.

We have the ability to split the atom. we can even reconfigure protons and neutrons in the nucleus to change the atomic weight of the elements into whatever we want. Granted it is not a safe thing to do on earth but out there the neibors are not likely to complain and disposing of the leftovers is much easier... so yes i do see it as a simple solution...

Politics are in the way? have you seen the news lately.... its mostly demoncrates.. you can buy 5 for a dollar of those types of people they are all worried about getint their pork pushed through... Just give them some of that new ground pork LMAO...

Still got a few of those suckers up and running i am sure. sorry couldnt resist
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Working in Space
Posted: 12/13/2010 4:58:01 AM
I don't think you understand what's involved with "reconfiguring protons and neutrons." You really need to do some real hard science reading. What I said isn't based at all on science fiction, what you have said IS. Do you have any idea how much hardware is required here on Earth to manipulate atoms? Believe me, it won't fit into your pocket, even if you wear a VERY big coat.
As for your apparent belief that the "demoncrates" (I'm guessing you mean Democrats) are the ones sabotaging your imagined space ventures, you should ALSO do some serious HISTORICAL research. Both parties have gone back and forth in their support or opposition to Space (and other) research. The Democrats MIGHT actually have a slight edge over the Republicans over all, in supporting it, but it's very close.
So please do keep your enthusiasm, but do some serious reading to actually verify what you THINK you know. And just going to a few googled websites wont be enough!
 motown cowgirl
Joined: 6/30/2010
Msg: 9
Working in Space
Posted: 12/13/2010 5:04:57 AM

Why do people do anything?

who cares. your argument is specious and does not support whatever point you're trying to make. i know 4 year olds who can't wait to stick a fork into an electrical outlet. that doesn't mean we should encourage them.
 iamsolost
Joined: 11/16/2006
Msg: 10
Working in Space
Posted: 12/13/2010 6:01:26 AM

I don't think you understand what's involved with "reconfiguring protons and neutrons." You really need to do some real hard science reading.


well without getting too nuts here on a public forum yes i know what is involved trying to change the atomic weight. they don't particualy like having the protons nuetrons and electrons to change in quantity in the nucleus of an atom...

so you either need to get them going really fast and slam them together (not very efficient due to the massive power requirements needed) to penetrate the nucleus in order to change their atomic weight or you use pressure to do it...like a game of pool but instead of 1 cue ball you just line up all the balls you want in the nucleus in spherical form and then use something that has enough pressure to force the types of matter together. It doresn't matter how much matter is put together this way as long as you have enough pressure to perform the insertion but not enough to collapse the nucleus.. all that matters is that the numbers or protons neutrons and electrons that managed to get into the nuclei are of the correct numbers.

One failing to combine and failure in creating what is wanted results... too much pressure used and... well yeah like i said.... here on earth your neibors would get pissed, but out there not so much...lol


Believe me, it won't fit into your pocket, even if you wear a VERY big coat.


Guess that would depend how many chains of matter changes is done. if starting on the outside layer of a sphere and that layer is changed which then is used to change the next layer each time using an exponent combine which is used to change the next and finally finishing it up with a final choice... it does not need to be the size of a truck.


As for your apparent belief that the "demoncrates" (I'm guessing you mean Democrats) are the ones sabotaging your imagined space ventures, you should ALSO do some serious HISTORICAL research. Both parties have gone back and forth in their support or opposition to Space (and other) research. The Democrats MIGHT actually have a slight edge over the Republicans over all, in supporting it, but it's very close.


yes i know but it is the directions in which they want things to go that make the difference and not so much the amounts devoted as a whole to that sector.

The problem with that way of doing it is that it puts people out of work that you kinda really do not want working for someone else... republicans at least understand this... the dems don't seem to.

by the way.... what element does washington make if the people in power there are the Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons of an Atom?...LMAO

Once the correct number of protons, neutrons and electrons are pushed into the nucleus of washigton the atomic weight of this country changes. i guess it just depends on what you are trying to make this country into.... a pile of shyt or a pile of gold.

The Universe is speaking... are you listening?
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 11
Working in Space
Posted: 12/14/2010 8:21:30 AM

so you either need to get them going really fast and slam them together (not very efficient due to the massive power requirements needed) to penetrate the nucleus in order to change their atomic weight or you use pressure to do it...like a game of pool but instead of 1 cue ball you just line up all the balls you want in the nucleus in spherical form and then use something that has enough pressure to force the types of matter together.

Sure, but before you get the idea that ``pressure'' is some sort of answer, you ought to calculate the pressure required to get two nuclei close enough together to bind, say a pair of deuterons into an alpha particle. You'll figure out two things: (1) that increasing the pressure means increasing the energy of the collisions between the nuclei which is the same thing as slamming them together at high energy; and (2) that you aren't going to be able to do that by crushing something. Hint: Atomic bonds have energies on the order of electron volts. Nuclear bonds have energies on the order of millions of electron volts.

Guess that would depend how many chains of matter changes is done. if starting on the outside layer of a sphere and that layer is changed which then is used to change the next layer each time using an exponent combine which is used to change the next and finally finishing it up with a final choice... it does not need to be the size of a truck.

Do a calculation.

The problem with that way of doing it is that it puts people out of work that you kinda really do not want working for someone else... republicans at least understand this... the dems don't seem to.

Get back to us when you calculate a few things and demonstrate that you have something scientifically sound.
 iamsolost
Joined: 11/16/2006
Msg: 12
Working in Space
Posted: 12/14/2010 1:09:04 PM
Sure, but before you get the idea that ``pressure'' is some sort of answer, you ought to calculate the pressure required to get two nuclei close enough together to bind


It is an answer.

I understand what you are saying. You are thinking i was refering to nuclear fission which is like taking a couple rocks and smashing them together with enough force to make those 2 rocks become 1 rock.

But that is not what i meant because what you said is true how you were picturing it in your mind. That all the pressure was inward pressure. If i am understanding your rspose it is you were thinking i was talking about like an atomic crushing.

That is not what i was explaining. Eventually you are correct the energy in an inward direction would exceed the inward pressure and result in a release of energy.

They don't let you draw pictures here and it likely would not be good to do anyways but....


Do a calculation.


I don't speak in normal mathmatical terms. That is a language i chose not to learn.

However what is math? math is nothing more than image based mental images expresssed in a specific form of understanding and a specific form of explaining it.

I use 3D images instead since it is more efficient. instead of taking a mental image from one mind and flattening it in a mathmatical expression to then require someone elses mind to have to reassemble those images in their own mind it is just easier to keep them in origional form.

I will try to explain with the symbols on this keyboard.

2011011011011011001101101101101102
> > 0 < > 0 < > 0 < > 0 < > 0 < > 00 < > 0 < > 0 < > 0 < > 0 < > 0 < <

< > being pressure cones.
and the 0 is the matter used

In your mind you are picturing like a collider but that is not what is shown here.

You are likely thinking really fast and that is not what is pictured here.

This is a balanced cone pressure wave in spherical form.

Think of a slow motion assembling of 2 atoms. You are not banging them together... you are simply holding them in your hands and heating them up while slowly pushing them together. The final result is not a fractured nucleus.

Gravity messes this up because that is another force acting against both the inward and outward forces unless it is done on a scale large enough to counter balance those forces but an error or failure on a scale that large is not exactly advisable to do in your home.

Picture a superfine pair of needles and you have to touch their tips together using nothing but a single equal pressure exerted on the end of the needle farthest from the point.

Now picture having to also do this in a moving car that is wobbling and grinding against the universe that causes microscopic harmonic tremors.


Get back to us when you calculate a few things and demonstrate that you have something scientifically sound.


Why? That statement implies that i would want something from you thus requiring me to conform to your requests. I didn't see anything listed that said i wanted something from you. I was not propossing any type of exchange. I was offering my thoughts and perspectives without expecting any in return.

I asked questions that i was curious to know. The balance to that was in offering something that i know. That is all.

I don't work for NASA or any Space agency and have no vested interest in anything. I do everything on my own. I can trust myself at least. Since i know what all my motives are.
 iamsolost
Joined: 11/16/2006
Msg: 13
Working in Space
Posted: 12/14/2010 3:00:22 PM

However, what the &*%$# is this? ...



Hummm... well if we cut all those programs for women small business so that they are on EQUAL ground then that would be quite a bit. Cut all the planned parenthood programs and there is a bunch more. Cancel welfare, social security, and energy assistance programs and wow... dang there is plenty of money... oh thats right those are all the womens jobs arent they....


Have you been breathing in moondust? I think it's affecting your reasoning.


an attempt at sarcasim and a mirror. It was something she seemed passionate about due to her posting history and since she took that same form of posting about something i was passionate about i figured propotionate response was the correct choice
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 14
Working in Space
Posted: 12/14/2010 9:28:16 PM
There are very workable alternatives to expanding mankind into space and increase man's lebensraum.

One would be making people shrink to the size of one inch in height. I am talking of the entire unit. This way the carbon footprint would be reduced by 1/3600, and the carbon cubicle by 1/3600/60, whatever that works out to be.

if the space we gained in the world this way would cause agoraphobia in too many people, then we could do the shrinking in steps; first reduce man's size by and even sqrt 2 divided by two, to halve the effective footprint. after that's done, we can wait until the population size in terms of number of souls doubles, before we need to do anything again for a long time about the lebensraum.

Another alternative would be to tie people down to chairs and make them sort meal.

A third alternative does not exist, as alternatives are invariably one or another of a choice. But there can be an alternative to the entire alternative, which would yield a three-state choice.

So the third possible choice would be to colonize deserts, mountains, seas, and ice.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 15
view profile
History
Working in Space
Posted: 12/15/2010 2:12:12 AM
Biosphere 2 was a miserable failure. If we can't replicate a sustainable life support system on this planet, how are we going to set one up on Mars? While Biosphere 2 was a failed experiment, it did however provide some insights on our challenges.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/biospheresci/

Biosphere 1 requires considerably more attention and human resource, will and intelligence to correct if we are to live long enough and have enough resources left to reach escape velocity at some point in the future. Like Biosphere 2, the inhabitants on Biosphere 1 are increasingly starving and dealing with the preliminary effects of elevated Co2 levels. Our waste management system is in fail mode as toxins build up in our bodies. Water wars are inevitable. etc.

It is likely that human bodies will never reach another inhabited planet due to our inherent weakness as a species, and incapacity for rationality for even taking care of the system we were born into long enough to become clever enough. Like many of the components of DNA and RNA that rode comets to deposit on earth, our best chance to replicate something akin to our species on other habitable planets will be to send our DNA, cryogenically preserved by the coldness of space, on interstellar comets or other mediums. It will be a crap shoot, and the DNA in it's entirety may not make the journey due to radiation degradation, but it's nice to dream. Most likely though, there is a Bozone Layer out there, protecting the universe from the known harmful effects of humankind.
 iamsolost
Joined: 11/16/2006
Msg: 16
Working in Space
Posted: 12/15/2010 3:09:47 AM

Biosphere 2 was a miserable failure. If we can't replicate a sustainable life support system on this planet, how are we going to set one up on Mars?


How many SALT water aquariums did they have running in those?
 iamsolost
Joined: 11/16/2006
Msg: 17
Working in Space
Posted: 12/15/2010 3:47:49 AM

If we can't replicate a sustainable life support system on this planet, how are we going to set one up on Mars?


Well im confused how an eco system here on earth world work on mars anyways.. different magnetic frequencies, different sun ray diffussion, etc.

I may not be an expert on that stuff boteny is not my thing but the atmosphere of this planet changes everything. Unless your planning on taking that with you or oh i don't know building a mini earth to tote with you i don't understand how any of those successes or failures would be a success or failure out there.

Different gravity, different cycles, different lunar compasition means different interaction between the moons of mars and the planet itself.

I think i understand what you were talking about.. Like that stuff krebby ws talking about in that other threed. verticle farming and such adapted to outerspace.

I suspect for any of that to be valid simply laying some red sand on a floor of a building won't do it. Growing and living things interact just as much with the enviroment around them as they do simply needing water and minerals.

try growing things in a completely isolated enviroment sometime... It does not work very well... harmonics need to be specific frequencies AS WELL as nutrients, water to sustain, chemical compasition of the air ... and even so much so as to not maintain the exact levels of them on a steady basis... Every hour those things change. it is a constant cycle that takes place.

That is likely why the biospheres failed... i have not read up on them but did they just stick a bunch of plants and such and/or trying to replicate the diversity of a specific area of this planet?

just curious if they also matched up the harmonics those plants and animals are used to as well as the electromagnetic fields. for that mater... do they even know them.

I am sure i am not as knowledgable about that stuff as others are but i understand systems... and in systems even the smallest thing can have far reaching impacts...

It is one of the reasons i believe in God... Kinda like when those little mistakes are noticed... it is like God built it and while it was operating and started breaking he said Oh Shyt and created a patch to balance it out again.... I see this in many of the incects... It is like they never really had a purpose until something broke and then they became the patch to correct an imbalance in many more things.

That was why i mentioned before... it is the mistakes that give the most clues... The mistakes in us... in our planet in the structure of things. It is like a signature. I see Gods signature on many things of this world. It is why i look to him for wisdom and guidance... I figure anyone that can screw something up and have it turn out as beautiful as this world is......... just by make a few adjustments here and there is The correct person for me to look to.

I too hope to screw something up so beautifully to have it turn out like this planet some day.

These would be my opinions and observations at least
 chrono1985
Joined: 11/20/2004
Msg: 18
Working in Space
Posted: 12/15/2010 5:14:40 AM
iamsolost you are assuming that structures created by nature are to an exacting standard, which it most definitely is not. Instead we are left with structures that are just good enough to meet the required function, with a lot of hackish solutions engineered along the way of individual entity growth.

One of the more obvious parts of our very own bodies that you can see the latter in is our fingers. If you compare yours against someone that regularly does something you only rarely do, you'll notice the curvature and profile of their fingers is a bit different, this comes on by usage enforcing a minor change in structure to relieve stress that was initially felt during that regularly performed task.

A not as obvious condition, Hypothermia, is caused by one of those just good enough for average operation temperatures. Your body temperature changes to such a large extent that while operating in the environment it changed to meet, you may feel just fine, but upon entering an environment where your body can regulate heat the way it's designed to do, the condition sets in. Your natural warm up response of shivering kicks in, puts a lot of strain on your muscles, draws a lot of energy that would be better spent adjusting your temperature. A cascade reaction all cause by one just good enough mechanism.

So taking a plant to another world for example, only really requires easing it into the transition. Some changes can be done within a single generation, larger changes however will require selective breeding and careful monitoring to breed out those judge good enough traits which are not as good for the environment they are being transplanted into. Of course there are limitations involved at some point, some limitations will be to keep the desired attribute of bearing food we can ingest and producing oxygen we can breath, and that's the tricky part that takes a lot of work to understand, just which traits are related directly to the ones we want.

The above ties into the problem I pose to sending up just anyone to space for work. Some people handle the idea of nothing better than others, it's a difficult concept that not many species can grasp, and even in those species that can not all of the individuals can at a deep enough level to not being driven mad by the concept in full force. There is also the problem of our bone structure designed for gravity here on Earth. If the masses have such a hard time maintaining their bodies in the ideal conditions they are designed to operate within, what makes you think they'll stick to a strict regime to maintain it up in space. Not seeing everyone will fall into those categories, but they are two of the prime factors in deciding whether an astronaut is equipped for space flight, and require extensive testing to ensure the results aren't just a phase in the shorter filter periods.
 iamsolost
Joined: 11/16/2006
Msg: 19
Working in Space
Posted: 12/15/2010 6:19:15 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^

It is things like your understanding that means the well read types do not belong in Space.

You clearly have read on the subject.... Likely more than 1 book on the subject as well.

Each time you read the same things it confirmed to you that that IS the way it is.

However, There is no such book named "Farming on mars for dummies" The reason is because it has not been written yet. It has not been tested yet. Nothing has been grown there and not even in an artificial test has it been done.

The only information that is avaiable on if you can even transport a plant from one planet to another are guesses.

The reason is because the only material on it is in taking a plant from one spot on this planet and transporting it out into a desert in another part of the planet.

None of that data is valid. None of it may even work and it quite frankly may need to be tossed in the trash and completely redone.

The programs i peeked on however are requiring that it will work. People would starve if they don't.

You as a person and/or booksmart on botany still do not yet know enough about those things. You can't. The only information gathered thus far is from here on earth and maybe some experiments on the space station... which is still in close proximity to this planet.

Even on the moon it may not be valid data collected but it is more likely to be more accurate since at least it is not being tested on a planet that has as many conditional variables as this planet does.

There are just plain too many things that MIGHT have an effect on crops. I say might because they may work just fine and then again they may just shrivil up and die due to some unforseen senerio like those seed or whatever don't react the same to the reduced electromagnetic field of mars.

All I was saying is if the plan was to use it to grown food and that is the only source of food for people to eat.. then might be a good idea to send a robot up as a caretaker of a test to collect data.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 20
Working in Space
Posted: 12/15/2010 7:03:01 AM
You do realize that any colonization of a body in our solar system is going to require an artificial environment, not just for us, but for the food we grow too, right?

Actually, Robert Zubrin has a great plan for getting to Mars. If there is any crticism that can be laid on it, it is that it is process of multiple steps and so multiple points of failure. And it wouldn't be cheap.

But that's the problem. Money and political will, both of which seem to be in stunning short supply!
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 21
view profile
History
Working in Space
Posted: 12/15/2010 7:28:18 AM
I would suggest studying up on the plethora of failures of Biosphere 2, including the human factor under such stress. They also lost their primary pollinators in short order, much like we are losing our primary pollinators on Biosphere 1. Ants and cochroaches took over some of the pollination duties, but had inadequate or no predation and were poised to become quite troublesome if the experiment had continued. Ants and roaches have the capacity to take down our most sophisticated technologies. http://www.hpj.com/archives/2009/mar09/mar30/Houstonwehaveaproblem--Rasb.cfm
With all our unintentional movement of invasive exotics and horrid consequences here on Earth, it's highly likely any attempts to colonize elsewhere with enough biodiversity will inenvitably bring in a resilient pestilence that would throw a spanner into the works.

Species loss was an accelerated version of our current species decimation on Biosphere 1. Biosphere 2 had a backup system of using Biosphere 1 to prevent the crew from dying of hypoxia and nutrient deficiency. Until such time as we can sucessfully replicate Biosphere 1 in a harsh environment on this planet, sending trillions of dollars and dwindling resources to Mars will be a waste of time and divert precious resources from trying to fix our mess on Biosphere 1.
 iamsolost
Joined: 11/16/2006
Msg: 22
Working in Space
Posted: 12/15/2010 8:21:17 AM

You do realize that any colonization of a body in our solar system is going to require an artificial environment, not just for us, but for the food we grow too, right?


Yes i understood that... I was not meaning just out in the open... But i just have this image in my mind that they are building these biospheres to be isolated from everything... Like a sealed airtight enviroment.

My guess would be insulated as well.

When means the bees, bugs, plants, and fish can not hear the planets harmonics. How are you getting them their instructions? Thats like turning on a gas powered radiocontrolled airplane and sending it in the air and then cutting it off from the controller in your hands. The motor is running but they have no instructions.

Bees, birds, bugs, and spiders recieve their instruction sets through the harmonic interactions around them in the air. Like go to a execute instruction set 123 go to b execute instruction set 321.

They are very faint but they are there.

without it your bees wont stop flying untill they run out of gas and die basically.

If you can't see the harmonics then maybe you have too much other shyt running near your sensors to see them. If it is too cluttered in the air waveforms for you to pick them up maybe the bees,birds, spiders and bugs can't hear them either.

I know i know cite sources... There is none to cite. just listen to the waves the planet makes then find the ones the bees are capable of hearing and seeing.

The earth is like a tuning fork. it resonates and everything on it listens to its song. everything on it alive feels its vibrations even if they are not noticable... the cells do hear and feel those vibrations.

So even if your dome thing worked here on earth and you just picked it up and dropped it off on mars it won't work there because that planet sings a different song.

If you don't know and can't replicate this planets song then all your plants and animals will not survive anyways even if they survived the trip...


Ants and roaches have the capacity to take down our most sophisticated technologies.


Is your technology singing to them? maybe they don't like its music and are trying to find a way to get to this planets song. Thats what they do. They do not have complex reasoning centers in their brains... just enough to handle the physical movements.

They are like mini chess AI... there is only so many moves they can make and they will cycle through them. Spiders are a little different though.

You have spiders in the biosphere? The hairy ones. Not the daddy long legs.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 23
Working in Space
Posted: 12/15/2010 8:29:31 AM

Until such time as we can sucessfully replicate Biosphere 1 in a harsh environment on this planet, sending trillions of dollars and dwindling resources to Mars will be a waste of time and divert precious resources from trying to fix our mess on Biosphere 1.


earthpuppy, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point for the simple fact that, in a very real way, you're comparing apples and oranges.

Biosphere 2 was exactly that - an attempt to create a second biosphere. Considering the utter complexity of what makes up biosphere 1, it should be little surprise that we puny humans should blow it on the first try. We likely will on the second and third ones, too.

But we can already survive in shockingly harsh environments, not through the construction of biosphere habitats but simply artificial habitats. The habitat just has to be able to provide clean air, heat, light, food and drinkable water. We've been doing that for years.

Growing our own food in such a habitat is going to be extremely difficult, that is true. The risk of plant disease, etc, is high, but this is again where we've already got tons of practical experience. And no one's saying there won't be disasters.

In the meantime, I've always maintained that simply diverting money from one goal to a different problem doesn't solve it. Effective and accountable spending of available resources on that problem is a better approach.

And a very simple argument can be made for spreading beyond our planet - we have to. Extinction through war, disease or cometary impact are real threats. right now, all our eggs are in one basket. Worthy or not, if the species wants to have any hope of survival, we need to spread out.
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 24
Working in Space
Posted: 12/15/2010 3:37:41 PM
We could also colonize each other. Somehow move our soul and our perceptive reception of the world into another human. Therefore the population would be reduced by a factor of a half.

This has other benefits as well -- people get two votes instead of one, so those of us who can't make up our mind even on voting day, can go out and vote proudly as a man of We the People.

The biggest benefit of this doubling-up of identities and senses of self into single bodies, however, lies in the nature of economics. Though no research has been done in the area, this will still be waaaay more cheaper to achieve than shooting people up into the great beyond.

We must only make sure that the sensing selves have comparable preferences. For instance, we must make absolutely sure, for the sake of an example, that we do not put the sensing-thinking self-awareness of an asexual person into the body of a compulsive masturbator.
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 25
Working in Space
Posted: 12/15/2010 3:43:29 PM
Wawa. I thought of an excellent idea why the colonization of space won't save the souls and the quality of life of those who remain.

Even in our wildest dreams.

To save the quality of life of those who remain, we constantly must export people, over eternity.

But people can't leave without taking some of the Earth's oxygen with them.

initially this won't be a problem. right now in the state of the world today, we got oxygen to burn, we got so much of it in the atmosphere.

But if we steadily keep shooting people away, and we make sure they don't die, we must give them enough oxygen to sustain themselves for the trip. Even if we pack a good biosphere into the capsule, with plants that make oxygen an sugar out of carbon dioxide and water, the oxygen will still be constantly drained. in a couple of thousands of millennia the people who are staying beind will be gasping for air.

So no, shooting ourselves out I vote against. I vote for my idea, to double up the souls in the bodies.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Working in Space