Switch Theme:

Musk & Mars & Such  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






 Grey Templar wrote:
Even if it wouldn't be profitable to ship stuff back to Earth proper, building colonies on Mars, colony space stations, etc... will all need resources easily found in the Solar system. Which would make it profitable to mine them.


That's a rather circular argument. We need to build space colonies so we can make it profitable to mine resources to build space colonies. Why build these colonies in the first place?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The “problem” then becomes how we encourage financiers and other wealthy types to commit and the morality of creating what would be in effect a voluntary prison for the most vulnerable/least wealthy.


No, the problem becomes how you get a non-trivial percentage of people to this colony. Forget about financing, there's just no viable way to get millions of people there. And moving a few hundred people, to be wildly optimistic about launch capacity, is not going to make any meaningful difference in our economic situation. You might as well talk about how the poorest people benefit from occasionally winning the lottery.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ketara wrote:
This however, is also hypothetical. It's pure speculation. There could be a breakthrough in a lab tomorrow which comes up with a revolutionary new building material which isn't really that expensive or difficult to produce. People thought airships were impractical to build with existing materials; then somebody went and synthesized duralumin. Looking back at the last fifty years of developments in metallurgy and materials composition; we've advanced far further in the intervening time period than compared to jumping from carbon nanotubes to something maybe 10% stronger (we really don't need much more advancement to get workable materials for a space elevator).


My point about being far away isn't just about time, it's about production levels. Currently we can make microscopic amounts of materials that are almost good enough to be plausible options. We need to increase our production quantities by many orders of magnitude, and we currently have no path to doing that. Regardless of whether we bridge that gap over long years of steady progress or by a sudden breakthrough it's still a far-away goal.

I'm not entirely sure how one could attempt to cost a fictitious not-existing construction material; let alone make sweeping statements about the construction times involved on the basis of that imagined cost.


I can do that because of the sheer scale of the project. Remember, the portion of the space elevator from the surface to orbit is 20,000 miles long and then you have to add even more length above that to the counterweight. That's about equivalent to building a structure around the entire equator. Building it out of anything is going to be incredibly expensive and time-consuming.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/05 22:15:51


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 Peregrine wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Even if it wouldn't be profitable to ship stuff back to Earth proper, building colonies on Mars, colony space stations, etc... will all need resources easily found in the Solar system. Which would make it profitable to mine them.


That's a rather circular argument. We need to build space colonies so we can make it profitable to mine resources to build space colonies. Why build these colonies in the first place?


Because we want to make a self-sufficient space colony. Because X country wants to expand its borders beyond Earth before it gets left behind in the next space race. Because we want to explore our solar system. etc...

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






 Grey Templar wrote:
Because we want to make a self-sufficient space colony. Because X country wants to expand its borders beyond Earth before it gets left behind in the next space race. Because we want to explore our solar system. etc...


Make a self sufficient space colony? Why? What reason is there, besides "because we can"?

Expand our borders? Why? What additional things of value are contained within those newly-expanded borders, other than masturbatory nationalism? And how will a country keep its self-sufficient colony (which is conveniently located across an incredibly difficult travel obstacle) from simply declaring independence and no longer being part of that country's borders?

Explore our solar system? Send robots. A horde of robot missions is going to do way more exploration than the tiny handful of humans you could send with the same launch capacity.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







 Peregrine wrote:

My point about being far away isn't just about time, it's about production levels. Currently we can make microscopic amounts of materials that are almost good enough to be plausible options. We need to increase our production quantities by many orders of magnitude, and we currently have no path to doing that.

Er...We need to increase our production levels of a material we've both acknowledged is inadequate for the purpose?

Why, I think, is the question? If it's not going to be the material used, production levels for carbon nanotubes are irrelevant. What would matter is our production levels for our non-existent construction material. Which is currently non-existent, and therefore zero. But given we're speculating decades into the future, that means nothing. Production levels for iPads were zero fifty years ago too, y'know?


I can do that because of the sheer scale of the project. Remember, the portion of the space elevator from the surface to orbit is 20,000 miles long and then you have to add even more length above that to the counterweight. That's about equivalent to building a structure around the entire equator. Building it out of anything is going to be incredibly expensive and time-consuming.

That highly depends on how you're doing it. There are several approaches to the concept of a space elevator, and not all of them work on the 'ground up' and most expensive option. In a lot of them, you're dropping cables from space and letting gravity do a large chunk of the work, followed by bulking it out gradually. It's not going to be quite like building the Burj Khalifa, with cranes swinging everywhere.

Certainly, I think it's quite safe to say that at this stage, speculating about what construction techniques building a never-before seen feat of engineering with unknown materials would require is not something any rational person would attempt with any form of certainty. It could be thirty years, fifty, or two hundred. Time will tell.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/05 22:33:46



 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 Peregrine wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Because we want to make a self-sufficient space colony. Because X country wants to expand its borders beyond Earth before it gets left behind in the next space race. Because we want to explore our solar system. etc...


Make a self sufficient space colony? Why? What reason is there, besides "because we can"?

Expand our borders? Why? What additional things of value are contained within those newly-expanded borders, other than masturbatory nationalism? And how will a country keep its self-sufficient colony (which is conveniently located across an incredibly difficult travel obstacle) from simply declaring independence and no longer being part of that country's borders?

Explore our solar system? Send robots. A horde of robot missions is going to do way more exploration than the tiny handful of humans you could send with the same launch capacity.


Everything you say applied to the colonies that got founded during the age of exploration. They still did it anyway. The English sent colony ship after colony ship to North America to find gold, which never materialized, but the stuff they did find made up for it. By your standards, all of the colonies founded in North America were a total waste of time.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/05 22:40:24


Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






 Peregrine wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Because we want to make a self-sufficient space colony. Because X country wants to expand its borders beyond Earth before it gets left behind in the next space race. Because we want to explore our solar system. etc...


Make a self sufficient space colony? Why? What reason is there, besides "because we can"?

Expand our borders? Why? What additional things of value are contained within those newly-expanded borders, other than masturbatory nationalism? And how will a country keep its self-sufficient colony (which is conveniently located across an incredibly difficult travel obstacle) from simply declaring independence and no longer being part of that country's borders?

Explore our solar system? Send robots. A horde of robot missions is going to do way more exploration than the tiny handful of humans you could send with the same launch capacity.


Fairly important materials. mostly platinum group metals.
scientific research. a lot of them apparently being important to do in zero or micro gravity.
I mean we already have the ISS but getting that gak up there and maintaining and supplying resources and experiments is expensive. having a bigger and or better one that is fully self sufficient would be pretty nice, especially one that is designed with artificial gravity in one form or another (humans are not meant for low no Gs. seems a lot of space men come back with severely weakened bones). but to do any of that you would ether need to make it up there in space or make the elevator because doing it the old fashion way with rockets would be insanely expensive.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/05 22:39:37


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






 Just Tony wrote:
Yet again I find it funny that you think we can manage to get completely autonomous robots flinging around the solar system doing every task imaginable when we can barely get them to handle complex tasks on EARTH without being babysat


Nonsense. Robots are already capable of tasks way beyond what humans can do, and they're only going to get better. And we're talking about high-end scientific robots designed for a specific purpose, not that "robot" tool your company bought on ebay and hasn't maintained in a decade because maintenance costs money and makes the annual budget look bad.

yet you think the industries responsible for solid materials can't advance enough to make a carbon fiber able to fill those needs.


I said no such thing. I said that we're a long way away from that goal, not that it can never happen. And it's 100% true. We are currently at the point of making microscopic amounts of something that is maybe almost good enough. We need to make enough to build a 20-30,000 mile cable completely defect-free in its critical region, pushing the absolute limits of the material. Yeah, it's possible that this will happen someday, but I wouldn't bet on it being in our lifetimes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Everything you say applied to the colonies that got founded during the age of exploration. They still did it anyway.


No it didn't. I don't think you understand just how much of an obstacle a planetary gravity well is.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/05 22:39:45


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Everything you say applied to the colonies that got founded during the age of exploration. They still did it anyway.


No it didn't. I don't think you understand just how much of an obstacle a planetary gravity well is.


Prior to Columbus, as far as the Europeans were concerned, any ship that sailed West would run out of food long before they made it across the ocean. From their perspective that would be a much more difficult hurdle relative to us leaving a gravity well. Especially since at this point we can and do send stuff out of that gravity well on a regular basis.

You're basically the guy telling Columbus that he'll run out of food before he makes it back to the New world, after he has already proven it can be done. Yes, planetary gravity wells are a big obstacle. But its one we already know can be overcome and we have many ideas about overcoming it even more efficiently in the future.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






 Ketara wrote:
Er...We need to increase our production levels of a material we've both acknowledged is inadequate for the purpose?


Not of that exact material, of whatever final development we get from it. The point is that "far away" applies both in likely timescale and in terms of how many new advances and improvements we need to make. A sudden breakthrough may make the time component closer, but it won't change the fact that we're currently many advancements away.

That highly depends on how you're doing it. There are several approaches to the concept of a space elevator, and not all of them work on the 'ground up' and most expensive option. In a lot of them, you're dropping cables from space and letting gravity do a large chunk of the work, followed by bulking it out gradually. It's not going to be quite like building the Burj Khalifa, with cranes swinging everywhere.


No, it isn't done from the ground up, of course not. But it's still a 20,000+ mile cable to build, far beyond the size of anything we've ever built. Even building a 20,000 mile structure out of steel and concrete would be obscenely expensive and difficult. There is no way around this, even ignoring any of the material development concerns it would be the single largest engineering project ever attempted. We don't know the exact costs, but they will certainly at least be on the scale of "dedicate our entire country's resources to this" and probably more.

Certainly, I think it's quite safe to say that at this stage, speculating about what construction techniques building a never-before seen feat of engineering with unknown materials would require is not something any rational person would attempt with any form of certainty. It could be thirty years, fifty, or two hundred. Time will tell.


It's not worth speculating about upper limits, but we can sure rule out some possible lower limits. For comparison, it took ~10-15 years to go from the initial concepts for the space shuttle to the first flight, and that's dealing with known technology. Same general time scale for SpaceX. And we know that building (or at least substantially improving on) rockets for the project is going to be required, so that's 10-15 years of time required just to start getting the pieces into orbit. We know that going from first breakthrough in a lab to full-scale manufacturing takes years, if not decades. Etc. So we know that 30 years is laughably optimistic, 50 years probably is too, and the minimum time scale we're talking about is maybe 50-100 years at best if we had the required breakthrough tomorrow. It could certainly be longer, but it won't be shorter.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Skillful Swordmaster





West Lafayette, IN

Your assumption of what my company spends on robots aside, you forget my OTHER job in the military has me exposed to FAR more robots than you care to admit. If robots were that foolproof we'd already be seeing massive workforce replacement, according to several opinion pieces. We aren't. Why is that? If we can build robots that can guide vehicles better than humans, why isn't EVERY train on the planet robotic? JUST looking at something as simple as a train, it isn't widespread enough, NOR is it infallible enough to replace that coffee gulping hilljack inside it. Point is, we're about as close to FULLY autonomous robots as we are to perfecting materials strong enough to build a space elevator. NOW it's a matter of seeing which industry makes a critical advance sooner, AND whether lobbing robots out of our atmosphere constantly is any more cost effective than the elevator program. That's assuming, of course, that we don't make some sort of breakthrough in magnetic repulsion and create a locomotive system that can repel cargo out of the atmosphere before then.

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






 Grey Templar wrote:
Prior to Columbus, as far as the Europeans were concerned, any ship that sailed West would run out of food long before they made it across the ocean. From their perspective that would be a much more difficult hurdle relative to us leaving a gravity well. Especially since at this point we can and do send stuff out of that gravity well on a regular basis.

You're basically the guy telling Columbus that he'll run out of food before he makes it back to the New world, after he has already proven it can be done. Yes, planetary gravity wells are a big obstacle. But its one we already know can be overcome and we have many ideas about overcoming it even more efficiently in the future.


Uh, no, that's not a good comparison at all. Columbus was considered an utter moron who had to beg for someone to be willing to throw money at him on a long shot "get rich quick" scheme that nobody thought would work. And his critics were 100% correct, Columbus had made serious errors in his plan and would have died at sea exactly as predicted if he hadn't run into a completely unknown continent by sheer blind luck. There's a reason nobody else was dumb enough to try it until Columbus attempted mass suicide with anyone gullible enough to sign on. But once he demonstrated that it was possible further voyages quickly followed.

And yes, we've demonstrated that it is possible to overcome a planetary gravity well. We haven't demonstrated that it is cost-effective to do so. It doesn't matter if mining on Mars is technically possible if any minerals obtained will cost more than getting them from existing sources, and the planetary gravity well obstacle ensures that they will. That's why we will continue to push past that obstacle when it makes sense to do so, as in the case of scientific probes/communication satellites/etc, but won't bother with a business venture that is doomed to failure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Just Tony wrote:
If robots were that foolproof we'd already be seeing massive workforce replacement


We already are. Modern factories require fewer workers than they would without robots, this is indisputable fact. And we have even more replacement likely happening in the future. For example, automated vehicles are getting close to being ready for widespread use, and once you can buy a robot to drive a truck what do you think that is going to mean for human drivers and their employment prospects?

If we can build robots that can guide vehicles better than humans, why isn't EVERY train on the planet robotic?


Because of concerns about safety judgement. We don't yet trust a robot to, say, identify the difference between a person walking across the tracks and a plastic bag blowing around. And we consider it morally unacceptable to have anything less than a 100% success rate, we don't accept dead people as the price of saving money on a human operator. But this doesn't apply to space exploration. We're perfectly fine with operating on the assumption that some of the robots will fail, treating them as expendable, and launching enough that we'll get the results we want from the backups. And for the same launch capacity as a human mission we can afford to send a whole bunch of backup robots.

Point is, we're about as close to FULLY autonomous robots as we are to perfecting materials strong enough to build a space elevator.


Nope. We're already launching robot probes that are good enough for what I'm talking about. We're nowhere near building a 20,000 mile cable out of a material that doesn't even exist yet.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/05 23:10:49


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine






 Peregrine wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The “problem” then becomes how we encourage financiers and other wealthy types to commit and the morality of creating what would be in effect a voluntary prison for the most vulnerable/least wealthy.


No, the problem becomes how you get a non-trivial percentage of people to this colony. Forget about financing, there's just no viable way to get millions of people there. And moving a few hundred people, to be wildly optimistic about launch capacity, is not going to make any meaningful difference in our economic situation. You might as well talk about how the poorest people benefit from occasionally winning the lottery.

Why do you keep going off topic? Perhaps it’s because you keep quoting only a tiny fraction of my posts? I’m not discussing the idea of a Mars colony being some kind of solution to wealth inequality or the ‘economic situation’. I’m talking about whether a Mars colony is possible, like the title of the thread.

There are obviously much better, cheaper and more intelligent ways to close the wealth gap. If you want to discuss that at length I suggest you make a new thread about it specifically.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I’m talking about whether a Mars colony is possible, like the title of the thread.


And I'm pointing out why it isn't possible: because it has no reason to exist, and every proposed reason so far fails at justifying one.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



Glasgow

 Grey Templar wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Because we want to make a self-sufficient space colony. Because X country wants to expand its borders beyond Earth before it gets left behind in the next space race. Because we want to explore our solar system. etc...


Make a self sufficient space colony? Why? What reason is there, besides "because we can"?

Expand our borders? Why? What additional things of value are contained within those newly-expanded borders, other than masturbatory nationalism? And how will a country keep its self-sufficient colony (which is conveniently located across an incredibly difficult travel obstacle) from simply declaring independence and no longer being part of that country's borders?

Explore our solar system? Send robots. A horde of robot missions is going to do way more exploration than the tiny handful of humans you could send with the same launch capacity.


Everything you say applied to the colonies that got founded during the age of exploration. They still did it anyway. The English sent colony ship after colony ship to North America to find gold, which never materialized, but the stuff they did find made up for it. By your standards, all of the colonies founded in North America were a total waste of time.


Sorry, but this is as baseless an analogy as all the 'it's exactly the same as flight' stuff we've seen over the past few pages.

The age of discovery was not characterised by Europeans having wild flails in the dark when they went to sea on the off chance sonething would turn up. Nor was it an age of exploration just for the sake of doing it. One or two charlatans who got themselves killed and bankrupted nations (i.e. William Paterson) or idiots who got astoundingly lucky (i.e. Columbus) aside, it was characterised by wealthy benefactors funding well-planned missions conducted by trusted and proven teams in order to seek out familiar goods (be they mineral, flora, or fauna) thatvthey had good reason to believe would be found and would then generate more money.
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





Oh here we go, assuming that everything we currently think we know about the universe is factual.

We do not have 100% certainty on anything. So assuming that what we know now about the universe is going to stay the same in 10 or 15 or 20 years is pretty laughable.

We don't think we can move at the speed of light. Not being able to has never been 100% confirmed and you will NEVER hear a scientist say it is impossible.

But here we are, telling each other it is impossible.....

 Ouze wrote:

How did you forget that time you got elected King of the Liberals? You swore on a copy of the Communist Manifesto that you would defend every belief held by any member of the left, foreign or domestic, or may you be cursed to forever more drink only non-fair-trade coffee, forevermore


*0 Dakka Suspensions and still going strong! Probably because I believe in science!* 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






 Dreadwinter wrote:
Oh here we go, assuming that everything we currently think we know about the universe is factual.

We do not have 100% certainty on anything. So assuming that what we know now about the universe is going to stay the same in 10 or 15 or 20 years is pretty laughable.

We don't think we can move at the speed of light. Not being able to has never been 100% confirmed and you will NEVER hear a scientist say it is impossible.

But here we are, telling each other it is impossible.....


This is a parody post, right?

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





 Peregrine wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
Oh here we go, assuming that everything we currently think we know about the universe is factual.

We do not have 100% certainty on anything. So assuming that what we know now about the universe is going to stay the same in 10 or 15 or 20 years is pretty laughable.

We don't think we can move at the speed of light. Not being able to has never been 100% confirmed and you will NEVER hear a scientist say it is impossible.

But here we are, telling each other it is impossible.....


This is a parody post, right?


Are you implying we know the basic laws of the universe as fact?

 Ouze wrote:

How did you forget that time you got elected King of the Liberals? You swore on a copy of the Communist Manifesto that you would defend every belief held by any member of the left, foreign or domestic, or may you be cursed to forever more drink only non-fair-trade coffee, forevermore


*0 Dakka Suspensions and still going strong! Probably because I believe in science!* 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Peregrine wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Because we want to make a self-sufficient space colony. Because X country wants to expand its borders beyond Earth before it gets left behind in the next space race. Because we want to explore our solar system. etc...


Make a self sufficient space colony? Why? What reason is there, besides "because we can"?

Expand our borders? Why? What additional things of value are contained within those newly-expanded borders, other than masturbatory nationalism? And how will a country keep its self-sufficient colony (which is conveniently located across an incredibly difficult travel obstacle) from simply declaring independence and no longer being part of that country's borders?

Explore our solar system? Send robots. A horde of robot missions is going to do way more exploration than the tiny handful of humans you could send with the same launch capacity.


How about "We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard."

If you're content to loaf around until the world falls apart around you (and eventually it will), that's your right. There are others who want to work for something MORE.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
Even building a 20,000 mile structure out of steel and concrete would be obscenely expensive and difficult.


Ahem. There are over four million miles of paved road and bridges in America alone, made of (wait for it).... steel and concrete. Apparently it wasn't THAT obscenely expensive and difficult, as we've exceed your so-called limit 200 times over...

Now I'll grant you that's horizontal, not vertical, but the point remains. Once we CAN do it, we WILL do it. If for no other reason than to avoid sending up any more orbital trash in the form of expended boosters, shrouds, and the like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
Oh here we go, assuming that everything we currently think we know about the universe is factual.

We do not have 100% certainty on anything. So assuming that what we know now about the universe is going to stay the same in 10 or 15 or 20 years is pretty laughable.

We don't think we can move at the speed of light. Not being able to has never been 100% confirmed and you will NEVER hear a scientist say it is impossible.

But here we are, telling each other it is impossible.....


This is a parody post, right?


No, it's dead serious. Any physicist worth his education says "Given the limits of what we know right now, FTL travel by humans is impossible."

But we have observed quantum tunneling, where we appear to have subatomic particles jumping from one location to another at a speed faster than lightspeed.

Once you have observed quantum tunneling, saying FTL is full-bore impossible just marks you as something other than a scientist.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/06 23:27:53


CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






 Vulcan wrote:
How about "We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard."

If you're content to loaf around until the world falls apart around you (and eventually it will), that's your right. There are others who want to work for something MORE.


Oh yes, that line that was a flimsy pretense of noble ambition over a blatant motive of "beat the Soviets"? For a space program that ended once we planted the flag and had nothing left to prove, dumping all of the scientific missions that had been proposed for the Apollo hardware?

Ahem. There are over four million miles of paved road and bridges in America alone, made of (wait for it).... steel and concrete. Apparently it wasn't THAT obscenely expensive and difficult, as we've exceed your so-called limit 200 times over..


And do you have any idea how much that road system cost? The interstate highway system alone cost $130 billion to build, not even counting the ongoing maintenance and upgrade costs. Contrast that with $25 billion for the entire Apollo program. And now consider the fact that, instead of a distributed system of roads that can be built in individual pieces and has a high tolerance for quality defects, this is a single object that has to be virtually flawless?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vulcan wrote:
No, it's dead serious. Any physicist worth his education says "Given the limits of what we know right now, FTL travel by humans is impossible."

But we have observed quantum tunneling, where we appear to have subatomic particles jumping from one location to another at a speed faster than lightspeed.

Once you have observed quantum tunneling, saying FTL is full-bore impossible just marks you as something other than a scientist.


It's also possible that you have just won 10 different lotteries and are about to give me all of your money and then commit suicide, having accomplished the only goal in life worth doing: giving everything you own to Peregrine. However, I'm not going to waste time considering that possibility and can safely treat it as "not going to happen".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/06 23:41:20


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





All right, Perigrine, I'm going to share with you a piece of hard-won wisdom, because you certainly do make some good points.

The problem is, the aggressive and angry way you post them makes people NOT want to agree with you even when you're right. It's gotten me fired more than once, telling a boss his idiot idea wasn't going to work and why... not because I was wrong, but because I was right but PRESENTED it wrong and made him not want to admit he was wrong. Usually because hearing his idiot idea made ME mad so I responded aggressively and angrily.

It's human nature to become defensive when attacked, to defend your ground right or wrong. And your posts are often in a tone that feels very much like an attack.

(And yes, I'm sure I've done it right back to you. Didn't I tell you I have a problem with this sort of thing? Doesn't make it a good idea, nor does it make it a productive part of a discussion.)

CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






 Vulcan wrote:
The problem is, the aggressive and angry way you post them makes people NOT want to agree with you even when you're right.


If you see that someone is right and want to disagree out of spite because they weren't nice enough to you then the problem is with you. Perhaps you should try to work on that?

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





 Peregrine wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:
The problem is, the aggressive and angry way you post them makes people NOT want to agree with you even when you're right.


If you see that someone is right and want to disagree out of spite because they weren't nice enough to you then the problem is with you. Perhaps you should try to work on that?


No, you are wrong here. If you assume that physics as we know it is going to stay the same over the next century, you are absolutely wrong. We are not disagreeing with you out of spite, we are saying that you saying something is fact when that is absolutely not true. Saying that it is impossible to travel at the speed of light is wrong. We do not know that. But no matter how low the chances you can never write off the possibility. To do so really shows that you don't know what you are talking about. You can never "safely treat it as 'not going to happen.'"

 Ouze wrote:

How did you forget that time you got elected King of the Liberals? You swore on a copy of the Communist Manifesto that you would defend every belief held by any member of the left, foreign or domestic, or may you be cursed to forever more drink only non-fair-trade coffee, forevermore


*0 Dakka Suspensions and still going strong! Probably because I believe in science!* 
   
Made in gb
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine






The problem with discussing anything with Peregrine, I have quickly learnt, is that he will not accept anything that doesn’t validate his own opinion.

There have been countless great reasons raised here as to why we should expect Mars to one day be colonised and because it doesn’t suit his rhetoric he can’t accept any of those points. He also presents his opinions as facts and states things with an air of superiority - both of which are incredibly patronising and in my opinion; rude.

Either way it seems discussing anything with him is a matter of futility and akin to banging your head against a wall.

I completely agree that many of his statements here are wrong but I’m losing interest responding to him to be honest. Anyone with a vague interest in this topic knows that it’s not only possible we one day colonise Mars but also likely given that there is an interest. Humans don’t prescribe to the hyper logical, almost robotic thought process that Peregrine claims. Sometimes we literally do things just to prove we can. Not to mention the multitude of benefits colonising Mars would offer, both in terms of scientific advancement and potential profit.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The problem with discussing anything with Peregrine, I have quickly learnt, is that he will not accept anything that doesn’t validate his own opinion.


You mean I won't accept arguments made out of ignorance of science and engineering. Sorry, but I'm not going to give any credit to the idea that FTL travel is possible. It's purely wishful thinking without a single scrap of evidence to support it.

There have been countless great reasons raised here as to why we should expect Mars to one day be colonised and because it doesn’t suit his rhetoric he can’t accept any of those points.


Countless bad reasons, you mean. I've pointed out the flaws and why I reject those reasons, and why it all comes down to "Mars will be colonized because it's really cool and I think cool things should happen". The fact that people keep suggesting ridiculous ideas like mining Mars for profit is not my fault, I'm not obligated to validate those opinions just because people really like them.

Sometimes we literally do things just to prove we can.


And this is what it comes down to: there is no profit motive for it, there is no scientific motive for it, there is only "we're going to do it just because it's cool". And, looking at human history and our record of making obscenely expensive investments in stuff just because it's cool (that is, the utter lack of said record), I wouldn't put much money on this colony happening any time soon. Or, if it does happen, of it being anything but another round of nationalistic flag-planting like the Apollo missions that is abandoned once we've proved that we're better than China.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/07 08:28:51


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine






 Peregrine wrote:

Sometimes we literally do things just to prove we can.


And this is what it comes down to: there is no profit motive for it, there is no scientific motive for it, there is only "we're going to do it just because it's cool". And, looking at human history and our record of making obscenely expensive investments in stuff just because it's cool (that is, the utter lack of said record), I wouldn't put much money on this colony happening any time soon. Or, if it does happen, of it being anything but another round of nationalistic flag-planting like the Apollo missions that is abandoned once we've proved that we're better than China.


This will be the last time I respond to you in this thread unless you change the way you approach discussion. Not because I dislike what you are saying but because it is completely pointless discussing something with you. It isn’t a discussion if you are unwilling to listen to anyone else’s opinion and just sit there going; ‘Nope, nope, nope, nope’ with your fingers in your ears.

In this you are wrong, I’ve helpfully written in bold the wrong part for you.

On ‘there is no profit motive for it’ you simply don’t know this. No one does. Economically speaking to just have an area with jobs creates wealth. Robots and drones don’t get paid so don’t create more wealth. People do. But that aside there might be a new material that is worth more than anything we have seen before, or there might be massive amounts of something that is relatively rare on earth. Either way both are feasible and both offer financial gain.

On ‘there is no scientific motive for it’ this entirely depends on your view of what constitutes ‘scientific motive’. I note that there have already been scientific advancements from the theoretical study of going to Mars let alone actually going there. Advancements in particular in the fields of food production, energy usage and creation, human psychology even (to name a few). There have been developments in the creation of self sustaining and self contained ecosystems. These things benefit us right now and here on earth. While there are scientific advancements made while studying something, I posit that the subject will continue to be studied.

You seem to be very negative and you are repeatedly bringing up discussions around politics that in my opinion don’t really belong here. Aren’t they banned in fact? There’s nothing wrong with having an opinion but try to understand that the better you present it the more likely you have people willing to engage with it and agree with you.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It isn’t a discussion if you are unwilling to listen to anyone else’s opinion and just sit there going; ‘Nope, nope, nope, nope’ with your fingers in your ears.


I've listened and responded in detail. Your arguments are badly flawed and not supported by science and engineering. I'm sorry that you don't like "no" as an answer, but that's the only answer you're going to get. I'm not going to type out the same extended explanation over and over again, if you want the detailed explanation of why you're wrong go back to my original post of it and read it again.

On ‘there is no profit motive for it’ you simply don’t know this. No one does.


Yes I do, because I understand planetary gravity wells. There is nothing on Mars that can be created or obtained in a cost-effective manner because the cost of moving it off Mars is so high. There is nothing happening in the foreseeable future that will change this fact.

But that aside there might be a new material that is worth more than anything we have seen before, or there might be massive amounts of something that is relatively rare on earth. Either way both are feasible and both offer financial gain.


And I might win a dozen lotteries in 2019. Can we not waste time on such unrealistic scenarios? We've sent probes to Mars, we know what is there. And it does not contain anything of value. Nor is it likely that any new material will be discovered in nature, we've filled in too much of our knowledge of chemistry and materials science for that to be a reasonable expectation.

On ‘there is no scientific motive for it’ this entirely depends on your view of what constitutes ‘scientific motive’.


No, it depends on relative launch costs. Humans cost too much payload capacity relative to robot probes, and can't do as much science as their mass (counting life support mass) equivalent in robots. Robot probes will continue to be the obvious choice.

Advancements in particular in the fields of food production, energy usage and creation, human psychology even (to name a few). There have been developments in the creation of self sustaining and self contained ecosystems. These things benefit us right now and here on earth. While there are scientific advancements made while studying something, I posit that the subject will continue to be studied.


All of these advancements can be made without actually going to Mars. In fact, they can be done better because you can invest more money in direct study and development of self-contained ecosystems without having to spend any of it on expensive rockets.

You seem to be very negative and you are repeatedly bringing up discussions around politics that in my opinion don’t really belong here. Aren’t they banned in fact? There’s nothing wrong with having an opinion but try to understand that the better you present it the more likely you have people willing to engage with it and agree with you.


I am negative because people who don't understand science and engineering keep posting arguments on the level of "what if 1+1=3, wouldn't that be so cool I bet it's true you can't prove it isn't". And I don't want people to agree with me because I'm nice, I want them to agree with me because I'm right. Or to prove me wrong if they don't agree.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/12/07 09:11:04


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



Glasgow

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Sometimes we literally do things just to prove we can.


Could we have some examples of these from the modern scientific era? Things that had no profit motive, no propaganda use, no specific and defineable public value etc. Pure 'let's have a go' reasons and absolutely nothing more. I'm genuinely stumped trying to think of anything. Funding councils have largely killed that as a viable motive, much to their shame.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/12/07 09:26:29


 
   
Made in gb
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine






Ok we’re done here. I’ve really tried Peregrine.

I note that you’ve completely ignored the fact that jobs create wealth and anyone going to Mars would have a job by default.

Either way you haven’t ‘listened and responded to’ my arguments in detail. You carefully omit things in your quotations for which you have no answer, choosing to only respond to a small section of my full response. As above with my statement around jobs. You’ve done this every post of mine that you’ve responded to in this thread.

I don’t believe you understand enough about wealth generation to comment on whether something would be profitable/commercial and I don’t believe you (or anyone else) knows exactly what’s on Mars because our current data is incredibly limited. So these things aren’t facts. They aren’t true. Therefore you shouldn’t state them as if they are.

We’re going round in circles here and you’re tiring me. You aren’t right. You have an opinion dressed as fact using your current knowledge. If you can’t admit this I have nothing more to say to you on the subject, except perhaps to note that minds that I’d wager are much more intelligent than your own have stated that they believe interstellar space travel is not only possible but also likely with our current knowledge and the speed that our knowledge is expanding. I’m going to choose to believe Stephen Hawking on this over Peregrine from Dakka Dakka, I hope you understand why? Or are you going to claim you know more than him?
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





 Peregrine wrote:

And this is what it comes down to: there is no profit motive for it, there is no scientific motive for it, there is only "we're going to do it just because it's cool".


This is one of the most ignorant things I have ever seen. The fact that you do not think there is any scientific motive to going to a planet and observing it on the ground is another indication you have no clue what you are talking about.

 Ouze wrote:

How did you forget that time you got elected King of the Liberals? You swore on a copy of the Communist Manifesto that you would defend every belief held by any member of the left, foreign or domestic, or may you be cursed to forever more drink only non-fair-trade coffee, forevermore


*0 Dakka Suspensions and still going strong! Probably because I believe in science!* 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






 Dreadwinter wrote:
This is one of the most ignorant things I have ever seen. The fact that you do not think there is any scientific motive to going to a planet and observing it on the ground is another indication you have no clue what you are talking about.


That observation can be done by robots. And you can launch a lot of robots for the payload capacity used up by a human mission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I note that you’ve completely ignored the fact that jobs create wealth and anyone going to Mars would have a job by default.


Jobs do not magically create wealth. That's just laughably wrong. And for jobs to exist you need to have something of value worth getting, a premise that is not true.

Either way you haven’t ‘listened and responded to’ my arguments in detail. You carefully omit things in your quotations for which you have no answer, choosing to only respond to a small section of my full response. As above with my statement around jobs. You’ve done this every post of mine that you’ve responded to in this thread.


I've addressed the important parts. I don't need to hit every single word of every post and let it degenerate into a giant unreadable ball of quotes.

I don’t believe you understand enough about wealth generation to comment on whether something would be profitable/commercial and I don’t believe you (or anyone else) knows exactly what’s on Mars because our current data is incredibly limited. So these things aren’t facts. They aren’t true. Therefore you shouldn’t state them as if they are.


I understand planetary gravity wells and the cost of getting out of them. This is something you don't seem to understand, but you keep proposing the equivalent of booking a first-class airline ticket across the country because you heard that a grocery store has bread there at $0.05/loaf cheaper and you can carry some back in your baggage.

I’m going to choose to believe Stephen Hawking on this over Peregrine from Dakka Dakka, I hope you understand why? Or are you going to claim you know more than him?


Oh hello appeal to authority fallacy.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/07 09:42:26


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: