Alert NEWS:COLUMBIA BREAKS UP!

WellCookedFetus ...

The Proton is currently the heavy lifter of the Russian launch vehicles.

See: http://www.aerospaceguide.net/lv/proton.html

Although the Energia, successor to the N-1 Moon Rocket was used to launch
the Buran, it has been abandoned but may return to service as the Energia-M
if the launch business improves.

Maybe we'll 'man dance' another time

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Take care

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To Persol

Probes don't get people off the planet do they?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, but neither does our current technology. The whole point of getting people off the planet is to spread humanity out. But the people who are getting off at the moment rely on the earth to much anyhow.

For basic experiments, use probes...
For exploring the solar system, use probes...
For biology experiments, use the ISS...

Then, when we have the technology to create a self-sustaining base somewhere else in the solar system (or the moon) we can send people.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

and probes help develop that technology as well as manned space flight or better?

 

I say that probes give the same results cheaper and faster... which would be better. As someone pointed out previously human biology is an exception that also needs research, hence the ISS.

This is a mute point though as Bush just promised Nasa a budget increase.

 

I should have rephrase my self

...but do probes help us develop the technology FOR manned space flight as well as just doing manned space fight?

 

See above. For everything beside biology, probes work better. Only about half of the experiments done on the shuttle are biological. They would be much better performed on the ISS, using the shuttles (or next generation) as transports.

 

No probes don't help develop manned space technology as fast and as well as manned space fight, jess!

 

What exactly has been developed in manned space flight that wouldn't have been atleast as easy with probes? (excluding the biological)

There are a few... very few... but they could be done on the ISS.

And who is Jess?

 

Jee lets see rockets large enough to lunch people into orbit and beyond for one, Lunar landers, Space shuttle, there would be more but the funding to develop it dried up long ago. We need moon bases to prove how to be self-sufficient. We need bases and colonies on Mars to build a viable fertile planet.

Then again if we wait some more decades all that will not be needed because AI and the souls of people in robots and the probes you speak of could do all that much better then people could. By then there won’t be an need to develop technology for shooting old and obsolete Homo sapiens into space and the talking monkeys will die on this wet little world and are space faring progeny will say “good riddance”

 

You haven't listed reasons for manned space flights... you've listed methods. For the rockets, you don't need a person sitting on the top to realize it can lift their weight. All of these were researched on earth before hand, and then 'test flown'. The lunar landers are a special case because of the cold-war and lack of robotics at the time.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We can not create a self-sustaining enviroment here on earth, we can't do it on another planetary body. Researching this area can be done on earth faster/cheaper/safer.

The only reason for people in space is to see the effect on people.

(there are a few others that require 'hands on' research, but they can be done on the ISS)



And who is Jee?

 

Oh god how many times do I have to repeat my self! That is the reason: to be able to live in space!

Then again we can just die off hear on earth? personal I don't give a dam!, it would be majestic if humans conquer the stars but the new and pure efficiency of evolve “humans” doing for them selves and leaving us in the mud seem guaranteed to me at this rate.

 

Hehe... but you still depend on the earth to send you supplies and all that good stuff. So there is no benefit to being in space because if earth does have some disaster, you're dead anyhow. Call me selfish, but I diagree with paying for people to go to space 'just because'

I'd rather die on earth with my friends and family then in space by suffication. Once we can self-sustain life in space, we can for colonies. Then friends and family would be there with us.

It do admit that it would be majestic, we just disagree on the methods of getting there

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What does this mean?
new and pure efficiency of evolve “humans”
If it refers to the ideas refered to in the evolution thread, I think we'll be in space before we evolve (either naturally or forced) into something different.

 

You just skip over all the other stuff I wrote up there didn't you?

No, I disagree! I think we will still be here on earth without any self sustaining human colonies in space by the end of the centaury and if our exponential technological growth does not slow down then there will be competitors in space that will be far more suited up there then we will be. 100 years is all we have left as the dominate race in this star system at the rate we are going. Getting into space might mean Homo sapiens will survive a little longer.

In the end is does not matter nothing last forever.

 

You just skip over all the other stuff I wrote up there didn't you?
I think I saw it all... I might have missed a post.

No, I disagree!
Ok

I think we will still be here on earth without any self sustaining human colonies in space by the end of the centaury and if our exponential technological growth does not slow down then there will be competitors in space that will be far more suited up there then we will be.
Who are WE and who are the COMPETITORS?

100 years is all we have left as the dominate race in this star system at the rate we are going. Getting into space might mean Homo sapiens will survive a little longer.
Who's taking over?

I'm missing the part of why we must be in space NOW.

 

let me lay this down simply:
1.Humans will incorporate them selves into machines... at lest some of us.
2. Robots can live in space for only a fraction of the cost and energy that humans need.
3. Humans neither have the ambition nor the resources to conquer space and thrive.
4. By the basic laws of evolution if you have a environment with two (or more) competitors and one competitor is better suited to that environment then it will out number its less suited competitor(s).
5. As you can see humans cannot survive in space easily but robots can.
6. Considering humans violent nature space will be the only safe haven for AI and soul copies.
7. Also considering are violent nature I don’t think those AI or evolve Humans would want us around at all and would either get as far way as possible or destroy any threat.
8. Considering how all societies through history have fallen and crumbled I believe this one won’t last either and will probably be followed by some kind of anti-technological fundamentalist society that would not even try for outer space. Good thing for the space faring robots that is.

Of course this is just a High-tech prophecy but even Atheist has beliefs.

 

Thanks Fetus... that answered all my questions

 

As reported by The Washington Post re. an article in Aviation
Week and Space Technology: It looks like they were evaluating
damage to the Columbia and tracking its re-entry using an Air
Force telescope.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38794-2003Feb7.html

Interesting, and not unexpected.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Lets see this photo! How come we don't see this; is this magazine full of crap? I wait for the NASA's result before believing something some magazine showed.

 

It's not just the Washington Post that has been reporting this. They were tracking with a telescope... not to far fetched.