Do you think that human beings could be on alien worlds, right now?

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Azureblue

Not sure how much stock I would put into project Camalot but it is a good read and anything to do with the breakaway civilization is but for what it is worth I do believe those giving testimony DO believe it and for the majority of them they are no liar's, my concern is planted memory's, government mind control technique's and other method's that could have masked true knowledge and replaced it with this outlandish sounding information, however if I am wrong then we are truly ruled by a criminal organization whom need to be brought down, sadly they have all the toy's as well.
youtu.be... (the full link let's them look at the other video's related to it rather than embedding it).

In think Kerry Cassidy is switched on the possiblity of planted memories and people just pushing their own ides as apposed to informed opinion and or knowledge. I'm a bit inclind to accept the basic line which is that humans have been off world and sub world for a long time.

Not sure what to make that of claims that various countries or groups of, are under the control of various off worlders.

I think Kerry puts what one says up against wat others say in here comments and analysis


Still here is an alternate thought by someone else.
www.ancestryofman.com...

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

That's not how it works.

Somebody reaches the end of their road here on Earth. Lost in the wilderness with no hope of rescue. Terminally down on their luck. No-one and nothing left in their lives worth going on for. Something like that. But still viable, rational and capable of performing some useful function.

Secretly, in a place far from prying eyes, someone makes them an offer. A new life on a new world. There's a price, of course. Use your imagination as to what it might be. It will be one the contactee is happy to pay. The makers of the offer will know that in advance, of course.

The deal is done. Another person vanishes for ever from the face of the earth.

The trip is always one-way. Don't believe the fabulists who claim to have been to the stars and returned. Strict contact protocols forbid any act that carries a risk of cultural contamination. Gone is always gone for good, and no-one here the wiser.

An apache brave, a lonely wise Himalayan widow, a young Crusader lost in the Libyan desert, a Kho!san mother who had just buried her only child, a Samurai kneeling in a paper room, musing over his bare sword: these, and others, now live and labour under foreign stars.

One day -- who knows -- you too may be invited to join them.

I have to tell you, that is one of the most beautiful things I've read on ATS...

...something about the idea just really touches me - there's such a heartfelt, meaningful whimsy to it.

If you wouldn't mind sharing, I would love to know if you had experienced some particular inspiration to what you've written there..

a reply to: lostgirl

I would love to know if you had experienced some particular inspiration to what you've written there.

I didn’t come up the idea, I’m sorry to say. I got the essence of it from Iain M. Banks’s novel Use of Weapons.

Sure. You bet. If by 'alien worlds' you mean 'anything except Earth', why, that opens all sorts of possibilities where you could have someone there for, you know, decades. Even if it's a total # hole.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

I believe its possible to have sent a ship to a star over 100 years away

have you seen the tv show ascension!

basically a government project to send a generational ship to form a new earth nova terra

so in he 50's they could have went to the moon and started a base then built a ship on the dark side and sent it off upon completion

a reply to: sapien82

So... let me get this squared away...

You said that you believe it is possible to have sent a ship to a star over one hundred light years away.

Then you followed this statement up by referencing a television show, an entertainment show, a fiction.

In the fifties they could have done NO such thing as you suggest, outside of the realms of a television show or any other fiction. The technology simply did not exist at that time, nor did the necessary training. Hell, NASA only began the selection process for astronauts in fifty nine!

a reply to: TrueBrit

Sure if we had the technology it would be possible

I referenced the tv show because that's exactly what the OP was about sending people to another planet

I just brought it up because it was along the lines of what he/she was talking about.

I know that if we had the technology we'd likely have been there already.

What technological differences would we really need for long flight space travel that we didnt have in the 50's ?

radiation shielding ? better medicines ?

what real problems did we face in the 50's travelling to the moon thats any different from travelling to another planet
all the same problems are there !

if we can leave our own planet and goto the moon then its surely possible to go anywhere
it just takes longer right !

Maybe forgetting what we'd do when we eventually got there "if we made it"

Ok closer to home, what was the real reason we didnt goto mars during the space race , was it due to not having the funds
or was it a scientific impossibility at the time ?
we didnt go because we didnt have the understanding , or we didnt go because it would have cost far too much and the public wouldnt have supported it during the cold war ?

a reply to: sapien82

Sure if we had the technology it would be possible

But we did NOT have the necessary technology then. We were not even sure we had the technology necessary to reach The Moon at the time, and that effort very nearly failed on approach, if you care to look it up! The landing was supposed to be automated, done by computer, but the landing site which was programmed in, turned out to be a boulder ridden death trap. Armstrong took the controls and got the lander down, with about twenty five seconds of thrust left. He had to find the site and land on it, winging it all the way. A narrow success, a dangerous triumph.

I referenced the tv show because that's exactly what the OP was about sending people to another planet

But surely you understand that a science fiction TV show being referenced with regard to an actual, real world scientific endeavour, is utterly pointless? This is a FICTION we are talking about, a fiction which, given the habit of authors of science fiction to do so, handwaves the science to permit the plot to play out! It is not a schematic or a road map to the future. The closest science fiction has ever come to that, was when Arthur C. Clarke was at his peak, and even then, certain aspects of his writings were less than accurate, if only to allow the story to be told!

I just brought it up because it was along the lines of what he/she was talking about.

I know that if we had the technology we'd likely have been there already.

But we do not have the necessary technology now, leave alone could have made it work in the fifties! Just the onboard computing requirements in the fifties would have added a staggering weight to the vehicle back then, and even taking into account the exponentially smaller physical volume required to put an onboard computer in a space craft now, the other mechanical, engineering, and high physics problems involved are STAGGERING!

What technological differences would we really need for long flight space travel that we didnt have in the 50's ?

radiation shielding ? better medicines ?

what real problems did we face in the 50's travelling to the moon thats any different from travelling to another planet
all the same problems are there !

Well, for a start, we need engines that can transport people from A to B a damned sight faster than we had the ability to achieve in the fifties. The Moon is approximately 238,900 miles away, give or take a bit to account for its orbital characteristics. Mars is between 35 and 60 MILLION miles away. Transit time with current technology at its most potent, would take between one hundred and fifty, and three hundred days. That is, one hundred and fifty to three hundred days, without any hope of rapid rescue, without any hope of recovery in a timely fashion. And no, the same problems do not present themselves when dealing with a Martian landing, as opposed to a Lunar one. The Moon has low gravity, so landing on it, although tricky as previously mentioned, is somewhat easier than it would be on Mars, which, although it has a little less gravity than Earth, has more than The Moon by a fair degree, meaning landings would have to be quite exacting in order to be anything other than immediately lethal. Safe landing on Mars would also require more thrust than it does on The Moon, meaning a greater payload of fuel would have to be present, which increases the risk factor quite a bit. We have only JUST in the last few hundred days, had successful touchdowns of rocket stages, most famously by SpaceX but also by others. These are RECENT developments which might one day result in better preparation for a Mars mission, but there is far more to it than that.

Yes, radiation shielding would have to improve, but apart from that, you have crew well being to consider. Exposure to zero gravity conditions, such as those which are present in spacecraft and space stations, causes ocular problems in astronauts. Parts of their eyes flatten out, blurring their vision. So some form of artificial gravity system would have to be conceived, constructed, and tested, to ensure that the astronauts going on the voyage would not be so damaged by the time that they arrived, that they would be unable, or less able to complete the tasks they were sent to perform, the experiments they were asked to conduct, leave alone cope with emergency situations on the ground, like power failure for example.

Then you have the problem of keeping the crew fed, watered, and comfortable during their stay. Putting all the food and water on board the craft would add a great deal of weight to it. This is why the ISS is resupplied every 90 days or so (exceptions have led the station to go without resupply for 125 or so days before) under normal conditions, rather than having tonnes and tonnes of food dropped off once a year. Simply put, lifting all that food and other consumables, is a costly business. Until it becomes cheaper, there will be no mission to Mars.

You see,

if we can leave our own planet and goto the moon then its surely possible to go anywhere
it just takes longer right !

You are saying it "just" takes longer... THAT IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM! The longer a mission is in transit for, the more time it has to be interfered with by radiation problems, dust particles traveling at tens of thousands of miles per hour penetrating the hull, cutting engine fuel linkages penetrating oxygen and air recycling systems, any number of extremely hazardous outcomes... You cannot just hand wave the time issue away by saying "Oh, well, they will just have to be up there longer!" Bunkum! These are human lives we are talking about! You cannot just respawn at the last checkpoint and try again!

As mentioned before, long periods of exposure to zero gravity, immersion in radiation, these things and others besides are serious problems, and problems which get worse with time. Putting people in a spacecraft to Mars should only be considered, when the transit time can be measured in days or weeks, and counted on the fingers of one hand, not counted in months on the fingers of two, precisely because the risk to the health of the astronaut cannot be said to be worth the accomplishment of landing on Mars. Time is an enemy in a Mars mission, in a way that those who landed on The Moon, for all that they are my heroes, cannot even begin to imagine.

Ok closer to home, what was the real reason we didnt goto mars during the space race , was it due to not having the funds
or was it a scientific impossibility at the time ?
we didnt go because we didnt have the understanding , or we didnt go because it would have cost far too much and the public wouldnt have supported it during the cold war ?

Simply put, it was impossible. We just did not have the computational technology, the engine efficiency, the ability to make room for food and water in enough amounts, the ability to protect crew from environmental problems on the TRIP, leave alone on the planet itself, and a whole host of other technical challenges to boot. Most of those things, we STILL lack an appropriate answer to.