It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"China-Russia plan joint mission to Mars"

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   
I think that Langolier may have just confused the date for shuttle retirement (which is 2010, and always has been, as Murcielago says) with the delivery date for the "production version" (for want of a better word) of the CEV, which is 2014. Unfortunately, this leaves an embarrasing (IMHO) gap in NASA's manned spaceflight capability, but I guess them's the breaks....

Regarding Radiation in space and it's potential consequences for a Manned Mars Mission, Space.com has some interesting articles investigating this question. Astronauts on the ISS receive about 27 times as much radiation exposure in a year as we Earth-bound schmucks do. Radiation exposure on Mars and in Mars Orbit is 2 to 3 times greater than in LEO, depending on where Mars is in its orbit, what part of the 11-year sun-cycle the measurements are taken in, etc. Those numbers translate to a radiation does for Mars explorers that is anywhere from 54 to 81 times greater in a given year than people on Earth receive. That's mostly due to the fact that Mars doesn't have a magnetic field to shield them from such radiation. The article even includes this nifty graph:



So, as Murcielago says, we'll need to either take some Radiation shielding along with us to Mars - which would be heavy, ergo fuel-intensive, ergo expensive - or create it there, either by digging into the soil or covering our facilities with the same.




posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhloydPhan
Unfortunately, this leaves an embarrasing (IMHO) gap in NASA's manned spaceflight capability, but I guess them's the breaks....


While I agree, it's still better than the near-decade that was between Skylab 4 and the first Shuttle Launch.



So, as Murcielago says, we'll need to either take some Radiation shielding along with us to Mars - which would be heavy, ergo fuel-intensive, ergo expensive - or create it there, either by digging into the soil or covering our facilities with the same.


The problem with the Martian soil is that it's less than one micron in size for each particle, meaning that to make concrete out of it is going to be very difficult. Not to mention that the potential for crw members to inhale this dust is very high, which would in turn lead to fatalities.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Ok. LINK (courtesy of the Mars Society)



Q: Do we need to go to the Moon first to prepare for a Mars mission?
A: While valuable in its own right, human Lunar exploration will teach us very little about how to survive on Mars. The two are drastically different environments:

1. The Moon has no atmosphere, which means that testing methods of generating rocket fuel from the atmosphere cannot be tested at all.
2. Temperatures on the two bodies are wildly different: Mars ranges from roughly -90C (-130F) to +10C (50F), while the Moon, during its 672-hour day, averages +100C (212F).
3. Mars has a 24.65-hour day, very similar to Earth; the Moon has a 672-hour day.
4. Water exists in abundance on Mars -- as ice seen at the poles by the Mars Odyssey orbiter and frozen into the Martian soil. While water may exist on the Moon, it is nowhere near as available there, and would require considerably more effort to obtain.
5. Mars' gravity is roughly 1/3 of Earth's; the Moon's is roughly 1/6 of Earth's.

Indeed, comparing the two environments, it might actually be said that we need to go to Mars to prepare for the considerably more harsh environment of the Moon!
It is useful to practice for Mars before we go, but this can be done in the Arctic at 1/1000th the cost of a Lunar training facility.



Radiation only becomes dangerous when absorbed in large quantities, particularly so if those doses come over short periods of time. A prompt dose, such as would be delivered by an atomic bomb or a meltdown at a nuclear plant, can be as high as 75 rem without any apparent effects. Longer-term doses have much lower effects: according to the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council, a dose of 100 rem causes a 1.81% increase in the likelihood of cancer in the next 30 years of a person's life. Russian cosmonauts aboard Mir have taken doses as high as approximately 150 rem, with no apparent side effects to date.

There are two types of radiation which concern astronauts: solar flares and cosmic rays. Solar flares, irregular discharges of radiation from the Sun, are made up of particles with roughly 1 million volts of energy, and can be shielded effectively. Astronauts inside a spaceship during any of the last 3 large recorded solar flares would have experienced doses of 38 rem; if they were inside of the storm shelter designed into the Mars Direct habitat, the dose would have been 8 rem. On the surface of Mars, which offers much radiation protection due to its atmosphere, the unshielded dose would have been 10 rem, the shielded dose 3 rem.




Q: Won't the lack of gravity during the trip to Mars hurt the astronauts?
A: The problem of zero gravity during the trip to Mars is actually not a problem at all: zero-gravity conditions can be eliminated altogether during the trip, as artificial gravity can be created through the use of centrifugal force. After launch from LEO, the upper-stage booster would be used as a counterweight to the habitat module, with a long, durable, multi-thread tether in between. With the two rotating around a central axis, Earth gravity could be mimicked for the duration of the trip; upon reaching Mars orbit, the tether could be cut (as there's no use for the burnt-out upper stage booster). The same process would apply to the return trip.






Water Frozen on Mars

Lots of water

(courtesy of the BBC)

Lookit that, I didn't even link to Wikipedia.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please use 'ex' tags for external quoting

[edit on 11-9-2006 by masqua]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhloydPhan
the delivery date for the "production version" (for want of a better word) of the CEV, which is 2014. Unfortunately, this leaves an embarrasing (IMHO) gap in NASA's manned spaceflight capability

Not necessarily.
Thats the reason why Nasa is looking at the private sector for an answer. With there Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program. Which they have just given 500 million to Rocketplane & SpaceX build a new commercial delivery services for the ISS.


[edit on 28-8-2006 by Murcielago]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Respectfully, Murcielago, I've got to say that I very much doubt we'll see the CEV much before 2014. I know there's been talk of pushing first flight up to perhaps 2012, but nothing official has been said in that regard, and considering that most complex engineering programs - both civilian and military - usually suffer some sort of delay, we probably won't see the CEV before 2014. Just my opinion, of course.

As for COTS, I really don't see either Kistler Rocketplane or SpaceX flying much before the CEV - at least not in manned versions. An unmanned payload transfer vehicle akin to Russia's Progress craft is far more likely to fly before a manned CEV. Even then the COTS craft will have to prove itself in 3 areas before it is allowed to undertake a manned flight. those areas are:
1) External unpressurized cargo delivery and disposal,
2) Internal pressurized cargo delivery and disposal,
3) Internal pressurized cargo delivery, return and recovery.

I suppose that items 1 and 2 could, depending on the configuration of the vehicle, be accomplished on the same flight. But it seems to me that item 3 would require a second flight. I also think that it is unlikely that either SpaceX or Kistler will proceede from cargo flights directly to a manned flight - from a safety and engineering standpoint, it would be logical for them to refine their design based on what they learned from the cargo flights.

Even assuming that either company can pull off 3 back-to-back-to-back successful flights of a brand-new space vehicle, neither company has done so much as successfully launch a single rocket. SpaceX came close with their Falcon 1, and they're going to try again this fall (I think), but it will require a much bigger rocket, their Falcon IX, to loft their
Dragon capsule. The design shows promise, but needless to say it will have to be refined. SpaceX probably stands to win COTS contracts from NASA eventually, but it would be pushing it to bet that the Dragon will beat the CEV into orbit, at least in a manned version.

As for Kistler, they haven't so much as flown an UNsuccessful flight test, and it doesn't look like they're going to anytime soon.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
Space race??? ahhh...no.


Never stopped.


Heres the facts: Russia has the tech...but not the money. China has the money...but not the tech.


Talk about ignorance.


The US wont share ANY adavnced technolgy with China, But Russia is always eager to do so, all they hear is "cha-ching".


The US senate will sell it's pants to China had the Chinese required them to do so.


If they need to combine there resources to get it done...so be it.


No need as both or either one could do it had they wanted same as the US. Do you really believe that technology ( even back in 1970 ) is what is keeping us from going to Mars with manned craft?


I think Nasa is trying to get a Mars sample return mission going...But that wont be until around 2011 or 2013).


Because they will rather eat their hats than have to stage a even bigger cover up than the one currently going on.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhloydPhan
The non-story part would be the plan to "scoop up rocks" from one of Mars' moons. This unnamed mission (sketchy as it is on details) sounds identicle to the Phobos-Grunt mission to Phobos, Mars' inner (and larger) moon, which has been in development since 2001.


And if it depends on NASA we will wait till 2050.


According to James Oberg's site (PDF Warning) this mission will bring 200-300 grams of soil back to Earth and is scheduled to be launched in 2009, the same year as the unnamed mission in the source article.


I would not waste time believing what Mr Oberg has to say on most topics.


And I'm all for Phobos-Grunt - NASA hasn't done anything similar with respect to Mars, Phobos, or Diemos. If successful it will be an example of truly groundbreaking engineering paving the way for some truly groundbreaking science.


What is so ground breaking about this supposed wonderfully new technology? They could have done this in 1975 ( on a slow schedule) had they wanted to. Don't pretend this is some kind of miracle happening 'so very soon'.


But the article sounds like the Phobos-Grunt probe/lander/return vehicle package will carry some Chinese instruments and might be supported with some Chinese money. China is getting in on an already planned mission, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it isn't as "new" as some people want to think it is.


Nothing new about this under the sun.


As for the BS part, I can't believe that Russia and China can develop, build, and launch a space mission as complex, expensive, and technically demanding as a Mars sample return - that is, a return from the surface of Mars, not from a moon (or even a dust/atmosphere sample) in the 3 years and 4 months between now and the end of 2009.


I would be surprised if they did but to argue that they do not have the technological capacity to do so is just plain WRONG. What is the massive handicap you see with all of this?


Murcielago is entirely right, Russia has the technology and China has the money, but you can only push technology so far so fast, and throwing money at a problem will only accomplish so much.


The technological issues were all solved in the 60's and 70's and it really is vapid to argue that this is not happening because it's 'too complex' . I would LOVE to see the list of things that makes this supposedly 'impossible'.


Russia and China (and maybe the ESA) are logical partners in this and other space ventures, but I can't see them pulling off a true Mars sample return mission launch by 2009, especially when Russia had previously only planned a Phobos sample return launch (a much less technically challenging mission) for that same year.


Actually NASA and the ESA pretty much hates each others guts and NASA does it's best to invalidate and pour scorn on ESA's achievements as they KNOW that their cover up is being exposed very fast now.


Originally posted by PhloydPhan
There are a few problems with this. If you had read the article that AlBeMet linked to in his original post, or the articles I linked to in mine, you would know that this is an UNMANNED mission to Mars.


Does it matter all that much?


Even if it was, to suggest that Russia and China already have the technology to send people to Mars is just ignorant.


To suppose that they can not is plain lying.


Check out some information on NASA's Mars Design Reference Missions:


I did and it's easy to propose problems when your dealing with a generally ignorant crowd.


That should tell you exactly how far we are from being able to send people to Mars.


It actually tells me that your easily fooled by official lies which you did not bother investigating.


You said in your post that "The main three concerns are fuel, time and the health of the men on the mission." That's like saying "Sure, Mars, no problem - except for getting there, sticking around to explore, coming home, and keeping everybody alive in the process."


I would say there are no problems worth talking about as hundreds of men will volunteer even if it's very close to a suicide mission. If we wanted to go we would have back in 1970 and it would be far less dangerous today than it was then.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
I sure hope we don't use the CEV to go to Mars. A few days trip to the Moon is fine, but I certainly wouldn't want to spend 6months or more in there. A large ship with plenty of shielding and some form of artificial gravity is really needed to keep the crew from collapsing under their own weight when they land.


What collapsing under their own weight? Why all the shielding? Have you checked out the these claims or just assume them to be true?


I hope whoever does successfully land and return samples atleast lands in an area known to be a dried up lake bed. Some place where evidence of past life can conclusively be found, if it exists.


We do not have to go there to be sure of that as the orbiters have proven beyond a doubt that there surely was and is life.

No need to send people for that reason.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
wrong, Nasa is planning on going to the moon in 2018...no latter then 2020. Mars has no set date...but honestly...dont expect people on Mars in 2020...that goes for the world...not just Nasa. I would think Nasa would be landing a man on Mars around 2030.


They could get there in 3 or 4 years ( or 30 years ago ) if the funds and ALL the technology at their disposal were used. Even with conventional technology and a much slower pace they could probably still do it before 2015.


oh, and the world isn't a perfect peaceful little place, where everybody gets along.
nor will it ever be.


The world could be as peaceful as it's rulers wanted it to be but apparently war and general destruction suits their aims best. Don't just take what you see as 'the way it's got to be'.


Nope, Nasa plans on retiring the Space Shuttle in 2010, and hopes to have the CEV (now called Orion) to have its first test flight in 2012, and be fully operational in 2014.


The shuttle should have been retired in 1982 ( or before the first mission even ) and keeping it flying till 2010 just drains the NASA budget for no useful reason under the sun. There is no better way to discourage going to Mars/Moon than having a wasteful system like the space shuttle endlessly draining your limited allocated funds.


Skip the moon? Why, its a perfect stepping stone to Mars, we can test out several Mars related technologies on its surface. And the moon has many resources. What resources does Mars have thats so urgent?


Creating the infrastructure on the moon would only be required when we decide to keep working with rockets and to colonize the solar system or galaxy with them. If we use the working anti grav technology we already have there is no reason to build a way station on the moon.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhloydPhan
I think that Langolier may have just confused the date for shuttle retirement (which is 2010, and always has been, as Murcielago says) with the delivery date for the "production version" (for want of a better word) of the CEV, which is 2014. Unfortunately, this leaves an embarrasing (IMHO) gap in NASA's manned spaceflight capability, but I guess them's the breaks....


Even no capacity is better for NASA than the shuttle has been imo.


Regarding Radiation in space and it's potential consequences for a Manned Mars Mission, Space.com has some interesting articles investigating this question. Those numbers translate to a radiation does for Mars explorers that is anywhere from 54 to 81 times greater in a given year than people on Earth receive.


That is really assuming that the figures for earth is somehow meaningful.


Fortunately, the human body can repair most radiation damage if the daily radiation doses are not too large. As will be explained in Appendix B, a person who is healthy and has not been exposed in the past two weeks to a total radiation dose of more than 100 R can receive a dose of 6 R each day for at least two months without being incapacitated.


Only a very small fraction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki citizens who survived radiation doses some of which were nearly fatal have suffered serious delayed effects. The reader should realize that to do essential work after a massive nuclear attack, many survivors must be willing to receive much larger radiation doses than are normally permissible. Otherwise, too many workers would stay inside shelter too much of the time, and work that would be vital to national recovery could not be done. For example, if the great majority of truckers were so fearful of receiving even non-incapacitating radiation doses that they would refuse to transport food, additional millions would die from starvation alone.

The authoritative study by the National Academy of Sciences, A Thirty Year Study of the Survivors qf Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was published in 1977. It concludes that the incidence of abnormalities is no higher among children later conceived by parents who were exposed to radiation during the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki than is the incidence of abnormalities among Japanese children born to un-exposed parents.

The Dangers from Nuclear Weapons: Myths and Facts




In his presentation at the DDP meeting in Las Vegas, Myron Pollycove, M.D., of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission highlighted the following:

* Aging and cancer result from DNA alterations caused by reactive oxygen species (ROS). Normal oxidative metabolism causes at least a million such changes per cell every day. Normal background radiation causes about two.
* Low-dose ionizing radiation stimulates the body's enzymatic repair mechanisms. DNA repair is tripled by exposure to 25 cGy (25 rads). A tenfold increases in background radiation from 1 mGy/yr to 10 mGy/yr stimulates overall DNA damage control by 20%.
* Total body irradiation or TBI (e.g. 150 r in fractionated doses in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) has improved survival compared with chemotherapy alone.
* TBI in mice, especially when combined with chronic caloric restriction, prevents or causes regression of spontaneous mammary tumors.
* Dr. Pollycove summarized a number of epidemiologic studies that support hormesis, involving populations in areas with high background radiation; survivors of the atomic bombs or radiation accidents; nuclear workers; and patients exposed to multiple fluoroscopies. He also presented experimental evidence of life extension effects, immune stimulation, suppression of malignant transformation of cells, slowing of tumor growth, and reduction in number of metastases.

``All statistically significant adequately controlled epidemiologic studies,'' he writes, ``confirm low doses of radiation are associated with reduced mortality from all causes, decreased cancer mortality, and may be protective against accidental high- dose radiation.'' In US nuclear shipyard workers, for example, those with a cumulative exposure between 0.5 and 40 cSV or rem had a standardized mortality ratio 16 standard deviations below that of matched nonexposed workers for all causes, and 4 SDs less than nonexposed workers for all malignancies.

www.oism.org...



HOW HOT ARE DR. HAUGHTON'S RUNNING SHOES?

The running shoes of Dr. Dennis Haughton of Phoenix, pictured on page 1 of The Medical Tribune, July 23, 1986, were said to radiate at a rate "over 100 times background" afterbeing in Kiev at the time of the Chernobyl accident.This report is typical of media accounts, which give the radiation rate in units of "times normal."How hot is that? It is impossible to say.The background in Colorado is "2.5 times normal" if Texas is defined as normal (250 vs 100 mrem/yr).An area near the Library of Congress receives"700 times normal" if normal is defined as what Congress allows at the boundary line of a nuclear power plant.A whole year's exposure of "50 times normal" is within NRC standards for occupational exposure.These figures refer to total body irradiation. The volume of tissue irradiated is crucially important.The safest available treatment for hyperthyroidism -- radioactive iodine -- delivers up to 10,000 rads (10 million millirads) to the thyroid, and about 14 rads to the body. Also, the duration of exposure is important. A dose of "100 times background" for a week might subject a person to the dose he would have received from living in Colorado for a year (where the cancer rate is lower than elsewhere.) A meaningful report of radiation exposure would give the dose (rems, rads, etc). But journalists seem to be more interested in alarming the public than in enlightening them.

www.oism.org...




Both issues are "hot." Comparison of doses may influence the future foundations of radiation protection principles and regulations. The report's appendix on Chernobyl (115 pages and 558 references) is obviously politically incorrect: it denies the claims of a mass health disaster caused by radiation in the highly contaminated regions of the former Soviet Union.

At the global scale, as the report shows, the average natural radiation dose is 2.4 mSv per year, with a "typical range" reaching up to 10 mSv. However, in the Annex on natural radiation, UNSCEAR presents data indicating that this dose range in some geographical regions is many tens and hundreds times higher than the average natural global dose, or than the currently accepted annual dose limits for general population (1 mSv) and occupationally exposed people (20 mSv).

No adverse health effects related to radiation were ever observed among people exposed to such high natural doses. This strongly suggests that the current radiation standards are excessively, and unnecessarily, restrictive.

www.21stcenturysciencetech.com...



So, as Murcielago says, we'll need to either take some Radiation shielding along with us to Mars - which would be heavy, ergo fuel-intensive, ergo expensive - or create it there, either by digging into the soil or covering our facilities with the same.


It's a bogus arguments meant to keep the uninformed from asking why NASA is REALLY wasting our time the way they are. NASA ( well their over sears anyways) has been pulling the wool over our eyes for 3 decades now and they have wasted all that time achieving basically nothing which could not have been for a tenth of the cost.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
StellarX - I relize that this is a conspiracy site and all, and every now & again I try and set people straight...But your just to far gone for me to even deal with.

good luck with life.....



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Murcielago
The US wont share ANY adavnced technolgy with China, But Russia is always eager to do so, all they hear is "cha-ching".

The US senate will sell it's pants to China had the Chinese required them to do so.

Things to remember:
In the short term, sharing a lot of information with such governemtns is often detrimental to us. In the long run, you've got to remember, information is freedom, and as information slugs it's way into China, their government will either change or collapse. That's why many Americans are so eager to sell their soul to China.
They go too far in and try to pull out, the country will have a depression, like many open countries that turned communist did.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mod Edit - fixed quote

[edit on 11-9-2006 by masqua]


L3X

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlBeMet

BEIJING, China (Reuters) -- China and Russia plan to launch a joint mission to Mars in 2009 to scoop up rocks from the red planet and one of its moons, a Chinese scientist said on Wednesday.


Click here for full story.


Could it be the new space race 2009?

Albemet


Capricorn Two?




posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
StellarX - I relize that this is a conspiracy site and all, and every now & again I try and set people straight...But your just to far gone for me to even deal with.

good luck with life.....


So no one can be informed enough to come to a conclusion that would not imediately be acceptable to you and if they they do their crazy? A very interesting way of approaching discussion on a a conspiracy board! For interest sake have you ever considered the possibility that others might by shear luck ( they could clearly not be any smarter or well informed than you are) have arrived at different more comprehensive explanations for observed reality?

Thanks for wishing me well as it's clearly going to be so very difficult for me to fit into the world as 'far gone' as i am.

Anyways, i guess, uh ... Good luck?

Stellar

[edit on 10-9-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jlc163
Things to remember:
In the short term, sharing a lot of information with such governemtns is often detrimental to us.


So why share it then?


In the long run, you've got to remember, information is freedom, and as information slugs it's way into China, their government will either change or collapse


If information really had much to do with freedom ( you do not mention what types of information) we would all be far more free than we are so clearly information devoid of context and coherence ( if it's even the truth) does not contribute much.


That's why many Americans are so eager to sell their soul to China.
They go too far in and try to pull out, the country will have a depression, like many open countries that turned communist did.


China can very well look after itself and if America does not follow their example SOON ( it's unlikely to happen) there wont be much left to save. Countries who turned fascist/communist( Stalin style) almost always did so with help from the outside ( the US and allies) so it's not some kind of logical progression that depression, which is in itself a engineered event, results in fascism/corporatism.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
from what I gathered from your posts, it sounds like you think the moon landing was a hoax...correct?

And if thats the case then theres no point in responding. Because there are TONS of moon hoax threads out there, and most do a good job of explaining your doubts (IE: waving flag, shadows pointing different direction,etc.)



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
from what I gathered from your posts, it sounds like you think the moon landing was a hoax...correct?


Have not really spent time investigating it but everything i have read suggest that they not only landed in 1969 but got there substansially faster.



And if thats the case then theres no point in responding. Because there are TONS of moon hoax threads out there, and most do a good job of explaining your doubts (IE: waving flag, shadows pointing different direction,etc.)


Hey i can defend what i believe to be true in rather scientific terms so the only thing i am worried about is that those who know better than me will fail to do their points of view justice if i had made a mistake of sorts. I am confident that my current method is exposing reality for all to see and i have had no reason to change it yet.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Then what were you refering to with this one liner?


StellarX
Because they will rather eat their hats than have to stage a even bigger cover up than the one currently going on.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   
StellarX,

Apollogies in advance - I'm not going to be able to take on all your objections to my posts, be it here or anywhere else. I'll be concise and say that I find it pretty hard to take you seriously; I don't in any way take your comments that I am "plain lying" and "easily fooled by lies" personally. Frankly, your posts suggest that you're essentially scientifically illiterate.

Specifically regarding your problems with my radiation data, I won't presume to argue the basic premise that the public in general - and especially the American public - have conditioned themselves to freak out every time they hear the word "radiation". While interesting, nowhere does your data discuss prolonged exposure to abnormally high radiation - e.g. 2-3 years at more than 50 times the average annual dose on Earth, which approximates the minimum dose which astronauts could expect to recieve on a Mars mission. Anticipating a potential future argument from you, I also don't dispute that astronauts could/would survive a mission at such radiation levels, but without adequate radiation shielding they'd be toast in the event of a solar flare, etc.

Show some links to relevant data supporting your claims, and respond with something other than one-liner personal attacks, and I might take you more seriously. But when you post material like the following:



Quote by StellarX:Creating the infrastructure [required to support a Mars expedition] on the moon would only be required when we decide to keep working with rockets and to colonize the solar system or galaxy with them. If we use the working anti grav technology we already have there is no reason to build a way station on the moon.

italicized text added for context


it causes me to question your rationality. Again, show me one iota of actual evidence to support this claim of "working anti grav technology" and we'll talk like adults.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhloydPhan
StellarX,
Apollogies in advance - I'm not going to be able to take on all your objections to my posts, be it here or anywhere else.


We dont all have the time ( i'll be generous and assume it's not the lack of knowledge) to prove and defend what we would like...


I'll be concise and say that I find it pretty hard to take you seriously; I don't in any way take your comments that I am "plain lying" and "easily fooled by lies" personally. Frankly, your posts suggest that you're essentially scientifically illiterate.


I do not really care if you take them seriously or not as most scientist have a real issue with taking opposing views seriously when they seriously contest prior held beliefs. I would say most humans do but scientist demand a special mention for their massive indulgence in self deception and general hypocrisy. And since when does a person have to be 'scientifically literate' ( i generally take that to mean stupid enough to disagree with the self styled best minds on the planet) to observe&study reality and weight evidence by various agents? All you need is reason, memory and knowledge and degrees are for people who want to earn money and stature thus destroying their credibility right from the get go. You would probably be surprised to find that those who change the world in scientific terms are so rarely formally schooled scientist.


Specifically regarding your problems with my radiation data, I won't presume to argue the basic premise that the public in general - and especially the American public - have conditioned themselves to freak out every time they hear the word "radiation".


They have been very well conditioned yes.


While interesting, nowhere does your data discuss prolonged exposure to abnormally high radiation - e.g. 2-3 years at more than 50 times the average annual dose on Earth, which approximates the minimum dose which astronauts could expect to recieve on a Mars mission.


Then you clearly did not READ as it is mentioned more than once that many people on Earth live in regions where the background/environmental radiation is hundreds and even thousands times 'normal' or even what is normally assumed 'safe' levels for working in nuclear plants. How many people actually died at Chernobyl?


Anticipating a potential future argument from you, I also don't dispute that astronauts could/would survive a mission at such radiation levels, but without adequate radiation shielding they'd be toast in the event of a solar flare, etc.


A small module could be designed where they could ride out severe events which might ( according to our best understanding) have serious medical risks. I will be able to find hundreds of people willing to go on a 90% certain suicide mission ( one way trip and we can automate so there is no total mission kill) and the ludicrous idea that it's the 'health risk' that is preventing this from happening is a very irritating notion indeed.


Show some links to relevant data supporting your claims, and respond with something other than one-liner personal attacks, and I might take you more seriously. But when you post material like the following:


I honestly do not care if you take me seriously or not as my aim here is to offer the alternative view that people so rarely get to hear about. If you do not want to argue to facts feel free to just insult me as that will certainly not prevent me from sharing what i know.


it causes me to question your rationality. Again, show me one iota of actual evidence to support this claim of "working anti grav technology" and we'll talk like adults.


Well if you were a 'adult' you would not need to assume ignorance on my side as the crux of your argument. Anti gravity technology and implementation is reality but it changes nothing as all this can be done with good old rocket tech circa 1970. If you do understand or know about anti gravity that is entirely YOUR problem and i am quite sick of assuming the burden of proof when it's you attacking and denying reality.

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join