https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301

"We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.

"It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."

Talk to Musk about it, since he wants to send a million hoomans to the red planet!

On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301
>
> "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.
>
> "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."

This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.

Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System. We should work on these questions now, while we have the money and resources to do so.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301
>>
>> "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.
>>
>> "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."
>
>=
>
>This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.
>
>Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.

We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
the Solar System. Why would we?

On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:04:33 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
> >> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301
> >>
> >> "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.
> >>
> >> "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."
> >
> >=
> >
> >This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.
> >
> >Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
> We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
> the Solar System. Why would we?

You try to explain why we wouldn't.

On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 12:04:33 PM UTC-8, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
> >> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301
> >>
> >> "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.
> >>
> >> "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."
> >
> >=
> >
> >This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.
> >
> >Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
> We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
> the Solar System. Why would we?

We won't, but a future generation will, not as a full-grown human but as an embryo.
Grow up on a new planet , adjusted to the new environment!
Life's been evolving here on earth since the beginning.
Why not there?

On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 15:54:14 -0800 (PST), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:04:33 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
>> >> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301
>> >>
>> >> "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.
>> >>
>> >> "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."
>> >
>> >=
>> >
>> >This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.
>> >
>> >Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
>> We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
>> the Solar System. Why would we?
>
>You try to explain why we wouldn't.

Because we have nowhere to go, and will be extinct as a species long
before we might be forced to leave.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:19:50 -0800 (PST), StarDust <csoka01@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 12:04:33 PM UTC-8, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
>> >> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301
>> >>
>> >> "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.
>> >>
>> >> "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."
>> >
>> >=
>> >
>> >This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.
>> >
>> >Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
>> We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
>> the Solar System. Why would we?
>
>We won't, but a future generation will, not as a full-grown human but as an embryo.
>Grow up on a new planet , adjusted to the new environment!
>Life's been evolving here on earth since the beginning.
>Why not there?

Not going to happen. No reason to go anywhere. We can barely survive
here, where we evolved.

On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:31:17 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 15:54:14 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:04:33 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
> >> >> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301
> >> >>
> >> >> "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.
> >> >>
> >> >> "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."
> >> >
> >> >=
> >> >
> >> >This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.
> >> >
> >> >Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
> >> We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
> >> the Solar System. Why would we?
> >
> >You try to explain why we wouldn't.
> Because we have nowhere to go, and will be extinct as a species long
> before we might be forced to leave.

Is it not known that we have "nowhere to go." It's just that you can't imagine such a place.
You do not know what the future actually holds for Earth and for humans.

On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:31:56 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:19:50 -0800 (PST), StarDust <cso...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 12:04:33 PM UTC-8, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
> >> >> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301
> >> >>
> >> >> "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.
> >> >>
> >> >> "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."
> >> >
> >> >=
> >> >
> >> >This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.
> >> >
> >> >Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
> >> We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
> >> the Solar System. Why would we?
> >
> >We won't, but a future generation will, not as a full-grown human but as an embryo.
> >Grow up on a new planet , adjusted to the new environment!
> >Life's been evolving here on earth since the beginning.
> >Why not there?
> Not going to happen. No reason to go anywhere. We can barely survive
> here, where we evolved.

Mammals and similar vertebrates can and have been able to survive in extreme environments for hundreds of million of years. Humans, in particular, have proved adaptable. Now is a good time in history to actually gain a foothold off-planet, even if just on the Moon as a short-term goal.

On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 08:23:29 -0800 (PST), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:31:17 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 15:54:14 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:04:33 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
>> >> >> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."
>> >> >
>> >> >=
>> >> >
>> >> >This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.
>> >> >
>> >> >Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
>> >> We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
>> >> the Solar System. Why would we?
>> >
>> >You try to explain why we wouldn't.
>> Because we have nowhere to go, and will be extinct as a species long
>> before we might be forced to leave.
>
>Is it not known that we have "nowhere to go." It's just that you can't imagine such a place.
>You do not know what the future actually holds for Earth and for humans.

I can make a pretty reliable guess in this case.

On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 08:29:25 -0800 (PST), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:31:56 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:19:50 -0800 (PST), StarDust <cso...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 12:04:33 PM UTC-8, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
>> >> >> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."
>> >> >
>> >> >=
>> >> >
>> >> >This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.
>> >> >
>> >> >Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
>> >> We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
>> >> the Solar System. Why would we?
>> >
>> >We won't, but a future generation will, not as a full-grown human but as an embryo.
>> >Grow up on a new planet , adjusted to the new environment!
>> >Life's been evolving here on earth since the beginning.
>> >Why not there?
>> Not going to happen. No reason to go anywhere. We can barely survive
>> here, where we evolved.
>
>Mammals and similar vertebrates can and have been able to survive in extreme environments for hundreds of million of years. Humans, in particular, have proved adaptable. Now is a good time in history to actually gain a foothold off-planet, even if just on the Moon as a short-term goal.

There are no planets to "gain a foothold". We've almost finished
making our own planet, that we evolved on, unsuitable for our own
existence. Even if we survive, it will not be as a highly
technological civilization. Those appear to be unstable.

The idea that we could survive anyplace else that is accessible to us
is pretty ridiculous.

On 10/12/2021 23:54, W wrote:
> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:04:33 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301
>>>>
>>>> "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.
>>>>
>>>> "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."
>>>
>>> =
>>>
>>> This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.
>>>
>>> Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.

It makes sense in science fiction but the energy needed to reach the
nearest star with current technology is totally prohibitive.

Unless and until we find some cunning short cut then travel to the stars
is beyond anything we can realistically make or engineer. Fastest
manmade objects to date are the Pioneers which left the Earth at 52,000
kph which is a shade under 0.00005c or c/208000

Slingshot off Jupiter roughly tripled that initial launch speed, but
then climbing out of the sun's gravity slows it down a bit too.

So the fastest thing we have ever launched would take over 208000 x 4/3
years to reach Alpha Centuri. We are talking geological timescales here!

>> We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
>> the Solar System. Why would we?
>
> You try to explain why we wouldn't.

We might eventually make it to Mars or even the moons of Jupiter but the
energetics and resources needed to do that as a manned mission with
present technology are quite unfavourable.

We would almost certainly have to build a robotic hospital on Mars first
to care for the unfortunate astronauts who land there. They would find
it just as hard getting back. Possibly very much harder if they had
already gone effectively blind on the trip out to reach Mars.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 9:19:49 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 10/12/2021 23:54, W wrote:
> > On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:04:33 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
> >>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301
> >>>>
> >>>> "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.
> >>>>
> >>>> "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."
> >>>
> >>> =
> >>>
> >>> This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.
> >>>
> >>> Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
> It makes sense in science fiction but the energy needed to reach the
> nearest star with current technology is totally prohibitive.
>
> Unless and until we find some cunning short cut then travel to the stars
> is beyond anything we can realistically make or engineer. Fastest
> manmade objects to date are the Pioneers which left the Earth at 52,000
> kph which is a shade under 0.00005c or c/208000
>
> Slingshot off Jupiter roughly tripled that initial launch speed, but
> then climbing out of the sun's gravity slows it down a bit too.
>
> So the fastest thing we have ever launched would take over 208000 x 4/3
> years to reach Alpha Centuri. We are talking geological timescales here!
> >> We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
> >> the Solar System. Why would we?
> >
> > You try to explain why we wouldn't.
> We might eventually make it to Mars or even the moons of Jupiter but the
> energetics and resources needed to do that as a manned mission with
> present technology are quite unfavourable.
>
> We would almost certainly have to build a robotic hospital on Mars first
> to care for the unfortunate astronauts who land there. They would find
> it just as hard getting back. Possibly very much harder if they had
> already gone effectively blind on the trip out to reach Mars.

The key phrase here is "current technology." If we stay on Earth then "current technology" in 100 or 200 hundred years will look much like "current technology" today, wrt space travel.

Had you been able to understand English, you have seen and comprehended my comment about testing the problems of moderate gravity (1/6g or lunar) which might lead to ways to mitigate or eliminate the effects of living in space for long periods.

On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:01:26 -0800 (PST), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 9:19:49 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 10/12/2021 23:54, W wrote:
>> > On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:04:33 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
>> >>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."
>> >>>
>> >>> =
>> >>>
>> >>> This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.
>> >>>
>> >>> Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
>> It makes sense in science fiction but the energy needed to reach the
>> nearest star with current technology is totally prohibitive.
>>
>> Unless and until we find some cunning short cut then travel to the stars
>> is beyond anything we can realistically make or engineer. Fastest
>> manmade objects to date are the Pioneers which left the Earth at 52,000
>> kph which is a shade under 0.00005c or c/208000
>>
>> Slingshot off Jupiter roughly tripled that initial launch speed, but
>> then climbing out of the sun's gravity slows it down a bit too.
>>
>> So the fastest thing we have ever launched would take over 208000 x 4/3
>> years to reach Alpha Centuri. We are talking geological timescales here!
>> >> We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
>> >> the Solar System. Why would we?
>> >
>> > You try to explain why we wouldn't.
>> We might eventually make it to Mars or even the moons of Jupiter but the
>> energetics and resources needed to do that as a manned mission with
>> present technology are quite unfavourable.
>>
>> We would almost certainly have to build a robotic hospital on Mars first
>> to care for the unfortunate astronauts who land there. They would find
>> it just as hard getting back. Possibly very much harder if they had
>> already gone effectively blind on the trip out to reach Mars.
>
>The key phrase here is "current technology." If we stay on Earth then "current technology" in 100 or 200 hundred years will look much like "current technology" today, wrt space travel.

No technology is going to allow us to reach the stars in a reasonable
time. And more to the point, no cultural change appears in the works
that would make it a human goal. Certainly not before we're extinct.

On 12/12/2021 21:01, W wrote:
> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 9:19:49 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 10/12/2021 23:54, W wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:04:33 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."
>>>>>
>>>>> =
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
>> It makes sense in science fiction but the energy needed to reach the
>> nearest star with current technology is totally prohibitive.
>>
>> Unless and until we find some cunning short cut then travel to the stars
>> is beyond anything we can realistically make or engineer. Fastest
>> manmade objects to date are the Pioneers which left the Earth at 52,000
>> kph which is a shade under 0.00005c or c/208000
>>
>> Slingshot off Jupiter roughly tripled that initial launch speed, but
>> then climbing out of the sun's gravity slows it down a bit too.
>>
>> So the fastest thing we have ever launched would take over 208000 x 4/3
>> years to reach Alpha Centuri. We are talking geological timescales here!
>>>> We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
>>>> the Solar System. Why would we?
>>>
>>> You try to explain why we wouldn't.
>> We might eventually make it to Mars or even the moons of Jupiter but the
>> energetics and resources needed to do that as a manned mission with
>> present technology are quite unfavourable.
>>
>> We would almost certainly have to build a robotic hospital on Mars first
>> to care for the unfortunate astronauts who land there. They would find
>> it just as hard getting back. Possibly very much harder if they had
>> already gone effectively blind on the trip out to reach Mars.
>
> The key phrase here is "current technology." If we stay on Earth then "current technology" in 100 or 200 hundred years will look much like "current technology" today, wrt space travel.

Unless and until some new exotic physics is found to allow us to fold
space then there is nothing that we could possibly do to propel a
spacecraft fast enough to reach the nearest star in a timescale shorter
than a few thousand years. We could perhaps send out smaller faster
unmanned probes with a bit of cunning but I doubt if we could even get
to c/20 and c/100 might be a more realistic target.

The energy required to do that would still be truly astronomical and if
you add humans then the resources needed to make it self sufficient too.
Remember once it gets out past Saturn solar power is no use to it.

> Had you been able to understand English, you have seen and comprehended my comment about testing the problems of moderate gravity (1/6g or lunar) which might lead to ways to mitigate or eliminate the effects of living in space for long periods.

Living in space for long periods is the least of your problems on a ship
travelling to the stars. Dying of boredom is much more likely.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

WONDERFUL NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!
Another Russcom launch today with a new spy satellites added:
https://twitter.com/roscosmos/status/1470437394868494338

MORE WONDERFUL NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!
Another Chicom launch today with new spy satellites added:

https://twitter.com/Cosmic_Penguin/status/1470445198467829760

EVEN MORE WONDERFUL NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!
Elon Musk Is TIME's 2021 Person of the Year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EoAHdwGBvU

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 9:16:19 AM UTC-8, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 12/12/2021 21:01, W wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 9:19:49 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
> >> On 10/12/2021 23:54, W wrote:
> >>> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:04:33 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
> >>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> =
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
> >> It makes sense in science fiction but the energy needed to reach the
> >> nearest star with current technology is totally prohibitive.
> >>
> >> Unless and until we find some cunning short cut then travel to the stars
> >> is beyond anything we can realistically make or engineer. Fastest
> >> manmade objects to date are the Pioneers which left the Earth at 52,000
> >> kph which is a shade under 0.00005c or c/208000
> >>
> >> Slingshot off Jupiter roughly tripled that initial launch speed, but
> >> then climbing out of the sun's gravity slows it down a bit too.
> >>
> >> So the fastest thing we have ever launched would take over 208000 x 4/3
> >> years to reach Alpha Centuri. We are talking geological timescales here!
> >>>> We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
> >>>> the Solar System. Why would we?
> >>>
> >>> You try to explain why we wouldn't.
> >> We might eventually make it to Mars or even the moons of Jupiter but the
> >> energetics and resources needed to do that as a manned mission with
> >> present technology are quite unfavourable.
> >>
> >> We would almost certainly have to build a robotic hospital on Mars first
> >> to care for the unfortunate astronauts who land there. They would find
> >> it just as hard getting back. Possibly very much harder if they had
> >> already gone effectively blind on the trip out to reach Mars.
> >
> > The key phrase here is "current technology." If we stay on Earth then "current technology" in 100 or 200 hundred years will look much like "current technology" today, wrt space travel.
> Unless and until some new exotic physics is found to allow us to fold
> space then there is nothing that we could possibly do to propel a
> spacecraft fast enough to reach the nearest star in a timescale shorter
> than a few thousand years. We could perhaps send out smaller faster
> unmanned probes with a bit of cunning but I doubt if we could even get
> to c/20 and c/100 might be a more realistic target.
>
> The energy required to do that would still be truly astronomical and if
> you add humans then the resources needed to make it self sufficient too.

Unless you have "unobtainium"!
(o:
https://factrepublic.com/facts/36236/

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 8:41:49 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

> No technology is going to allow us to reach the stars in a reasonable
> time. And more to the point, no cultural change appears in the works
> that would make it a human goal. Certainly not before we're extinct.

Here, let me fix that for you..

"No [currently known] technology..."

On 16/12/2021 16:42, W wrote:
> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 8:41:49 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
>> No technology is going to allow us to reach the stars in a reasonable
>> time. And more to the point, no cultural change appears in the works
>> that would make it a human goal. Certainly not before we're extinct.
>
> Here, let me fix that for you..
>
> "No [currently known] technology..."

It is a *lot* stronger than that. Everything that we know about physics
to date makes humans travelling to the stars just about impossible.

That isn't to say that we couldn't send an unmanned probe but someone
would need to remember to look in the right direction in say 400 years
time (assuming they pick alpha Centuri and can reach c/100).

So in our history it would be the equivalent of Newton making a note in
the margin of Principia saying "remember to look for my ballistic
projectile hitting the moon's surface in 2060".

Space travel (like some incredibly difficult computing problems) is one
of those problems where the fastest way to do it is to wait until the
technology is up to solving it in under 5 years. That way you get to
overtake all the previous attempts that set off prematurely on the way.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 2021-12-10, Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301
>>>
>>> "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.
>>>
>>> "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."
>>
>>=
>>
>>This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much
>> gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.
>>
>>Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
>
> We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
> the Solar System. Why would we?

Agree...the amount of resources required vs the benefits is just too high.
--

"Many have sought in vain to tell joyously of the Most Joyous. Now at last It
declares Itself to me, now in this misery." - Holderlin

On 2021-12-13, Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:01:26 -0800 (PST), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 9:19:49 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2021 23:54, W wrote:
>>> > On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:04:33 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>>> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
>>> >>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."
>>> >>>
>>> >>> =
>>> >>>
>>> >>> This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
>>> It makes sense in science fiction but the energy needed to reach the
>>> nearest star with current technology is totally prohibitive.
>>>
>>> Unless and until we find some cunning short cut then travel to the stars
>>> is beyond anything we can realistically make or engineer. Fastest
>>> manmade objects to date are the Pioneers which left the Earth at 52,000
>>> kph which is a shade under 0.00005c or c/208000
>>>
>>> Slingshot off Jupiter roughly tripled that initial launch speed, but
>>> then climbing out of the sun's gravity slows it down a bit too.
>>>
>>> So the fastest thing we have ever launched would take over 208000 x 4/3
>>> years to reach Alpha Centuri. We are talking geological timescales here!
>>> >> We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
>>> >> the Solar System. Why would we?
>>> >
>>> > You try to explain why we wouldn't.
>>> We might eventually make it to Mars or even the moons of Jupiter but the
>>> energetics and resources needed to do that as a manned mission with
>>> present technology are quite unfavourable.
>>>
>>> We would almost certainly have to build a robotic hospital on Mars first
>>> to care for the unfortunate astronauts who land there. They would find
>>> it just as hard getting back. Possibly very much harder if they had
>>> already gone effectively blind on the trip out to reach Mars.
>>
>>The key phrase here is "current technology." If we stay on Earth then "current technology" in 100 or 200 hundred years will look much like "current technology" today, wrt space travel.
>
> No technology is going to allow us to reach the stars in a reasonable
> time. And more to the point, no cultural change appears in the works
> that would make it a human goal. Certainly not before we're extinct.

Some people's faith in 'technology' is truly admirable, isn't it..?

--

"Many have sought in vain to tell joyously of the Most Joyous. Now at last It
declares Itself to me, now in this misery." - Holderlin

On 18/12/2021 17:38, Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
> On 2021-12-10, Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:32:59 -0800 (PST), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59591301
>>>>
>>>> "We don't know how bad the effects might be on a longer flight, like a two-year Mars operation," said Prof Levine, who is also director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.
>>>>
>>>> "It would be a disaster if astronauts had such severe impairments that they couldn't see what they're doing and it compromised the mission."
>>>
>>> =
>>>
>>> This is a good reason to build a 1/6 g Lunar Base, to study just how much
>>> gravity might be needed to prevent these kinds of problems.
>>>
>>> Sooner or later, humans will need to leave the Earth and maybe the Solar System.
>>
>> We will probably never leave Earth, and almost certainly never leave
>> the Solar System. Why would we?
>
>
> Agree...the amount of resources required vs the benefits is just too high.

I'm inclined to agree, but you cannot entirely rule out new physics that
we have yet to discover from making things possible in the future.

Nuclear reactions (20th century) vs chemical reactions being by far the
most obvious step change in available energy per unit mass.

It is impossible to rule out finding new physics in higher dimensions
that might allow us to fold space in such a way that certain distant
places are made "nearby" for some carefully chosen set of parameters.

I think it somewhat unlikely but then Lord Kelvin famously said just
before radioactivity was discovered that (classical) physics would be
completely solved within the next couple of decades. The claim turns out
to be apocryphal but it was still taught during my days at university.

https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/lord-kelvin-and-the-end-of-physics-which-he-never-predicted/

He also said that gliders and aeroplanes would never amount to much and
put Rutherford off further investigation of radiowaves as "unimportant".

The only thing we know for sure is that our present standard model is
incomplete and struggles to reconcile gravity with the other forces.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 13:29:16 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

>I think it somewhat unlikely but then Lord Kelvin famously said just
>before radioactivity was discovered that (classical) physics would be
>completely solved within the next couple of decades. The claim turns out
>to be apocryphal but it was still taught during my days at university.
>
>https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/lord-kelvin-and-the-end-of-physics-which-he-never-predicted/
>
>He also said that gliders and aeroplanes would never amount to much and
>put Rutherford off further investigation of radiowaves as "unimportant".
>
>The only thing we know for sure is that our present standard model is
>incomplete and struggles to reconcile gravity with the other forces.

Arguably, Kelvin wasn't far from wrong.

On 19/12/2021 13:53, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 13:29:16 +0000, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> I think it somewhat unlikely but then Lord Kelvin famously said just
>> before radioactivity was discovered that (classical) physics would be
>> completely solved within the next couple of decades. The claim turns out
>> to be apocryphal but it was still taught during my days at university.
>>
>> https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/lord-kelvin-and-the-end-of-physics-which-he-never-predicted/
>>
>> He also said that gliders and aeroplanes would never amount to much and
>> put Rutherford off further investigation of radiowaves as "unimportant".
>>
>> The only thing we know for sure is that our present standard model is
>> incomplete and struggles to reconcile gravity with the other forces.
>
> Arguably, Kelvin wasn't far from wrong.

In a binary fence post error sort of way.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 21:53:15 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

>On 19/12/2021 13:53, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 13:29:16 +0000, Martin Brown
>> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think it somewhat unlikely but then Lord Kelvin famously said just
>>> before radioactivity was discovered that (classical) physics would be
>>> completely solved within the next couple of decades. The claim turns out
>>> to be apocryphal but it was still taught during my days at university.
>>>
>>> https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/lord-kelvin-and-the-end-of-physics-which-he-never-predicted/
>>>
>>> He also said that gliders and aeroplanes would never amount to much and
>>> put Rutherford off further investigation of radiowaves as "unimportant".
>>>
>>> The only thing we know for sure is that our present standard model is
>>> incomplete and struggles to reconcile gravity with the other forces.
>>
>> Arguably, Kelvin wasn't far from wrong.
>
>In a binary fence post error sort of way.

What I'd say is that there's a good chance we now understand the
majority of the laws of the Universe. That we have a large jigsaw
puzzle that still has some missing pieces, but we have a good idea
what the general shapes of those pieces are, and the broad picture
isn't going to change. I don't think we're in for any major surprises
or upsets in our existing understanding. I doubt there will be any
holes at all in our knowledge of the fundamental laws of nature in a
century. Maybe less.