RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,169
Posts: 5,435,187
Members: 24,939
Currently online: 468
Newest member: katlynwomack

TrekToday headlines

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science and Technology

Science and Technology "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." - Carl Sagan.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 13 2013, 09:55 PM   #76
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

Hard to beat a solid on simplicity. I found some more on the concept
http://www.buran.ru/htm/news.htm#15-07-2013

Looks like we might see a return of the Zonds
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ptk_proton.html

The Russian leadership has been rather nasty to their Rocket Men lately, though.

Something I was thinking about. The Mars flyby with a Dragon spacecraft on a Falcon Heavy. That would be rather cramped, save for the inflatable segment. But what of a Dragon on SLS?

There you get an extra 20 tons or so, which might be enough propellant to slow Dragon down, perhaps making a one way aerobrake a little less rigorous.

In some ways, it takes less to get to Mars surface than the Moon. It took Proton to land the Lunkhods with having to burn all the way down. Current Mars rovers aerobrake really hard, because, unlike Cassini, they can't slow down on their own at all.

I keep hearing about hypercones, but I wonder if propulsive slowing might allow different designs--at least for a one way mission.

I wonder if this might be useful in some combination
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=27958.0

If we ever have asteroid mining, I think the best way to recover large useful bits isn't the small robots talked about now. That is thinking too small.

A lot of asteroids rotate. If a nickel iron slug can be cut in half with cables, similar to what was done with the sunken Kursk submarine, the cables can then be used to have the two pieces in a bola. The rotational velocity can be turned into translational.

A second cut can be made, and the process repeated perhaps.

A bootstrapped bola can then perhaps be a flyby rotovator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tether_...ion#Rotovators

The cable would be shorter with an asteroid flyby rotovators, perhaps allowing something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_...ecovery_system

So a bola could deposit a large asteroid frgment, perhaps at near zero velocity, while lifting a very heavy payload. If a bola, a surface naval vessel may have to move along at a good speed, with solid rockets only to reduce cable strain. This may free us from fuel constraints later on.

What struck me about the skyhook, was that the person rose vertically at a slow rate to about 100 feet, then began to streamline behind the aircraft. If the flyby rotovator is a backspinning bola, that might also reduce the strain of a large object being jerked off the Earth's surface--perhaps if that rotovator bola has a tail and winches up the skyhook while backspinning.

Last edited by publiusr; September 13 2013 at 10:19 PM.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15 2013, 05:07 AM   #77
Collingwood Nick
Vice Admiral
 
Collingwood Nick's Avatar
 
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

Captain Kathryn wrote: View Post
But I am unsure what you meant by a colossal wank?
Really?

I'd tell you but I might get banned for it
__________________
"I will never coach against my boys"
Collingwood Nick
Collingwood Nick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15 2013, 05:08 AM   #78
Collingwood Nick
Vice Admiral
 
Collingwood Nick's Avatar
 
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

One that goes longer than thirty seconds would be a good definition.
__________________
"I will never coach against my boys"
Collingwood Nick
Collingwood Nick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 02:35 PM   #79
Alpha_Geek
Commodore
 
Alpha_Geek's Avatar
 
Location: Central VA, US
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

Everybody is going to die some time or another. Would you rather do it on Earth or Mars?

As for me; where's the gantry?
__________________
Alpha_Geek
.
Alpha_Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2013, 10:12 PM   #80
Storyteller
Ensign
 
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

Sorry about the bump of an old thread, but it would seem that a blogger has issued a rather cool rebuttal to the original poster. Is Mars One really unethical?
__________________
Happy freelancer and Mars One candidate. I blog if anybody is interested.
Storyteller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25 2013, 06:40 AM   #81
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

My, my, my, that wouldn't possibly just be a shameless plug for your blog would it?

Hint: next time if you want to pretend it's not your blog, don't link to it in your signature.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 25 2013, 03:08 PM   #82
THE Robert Maxwell
Reports of my death...
 
THE Robert Maxwell's Avatar
 
Location: Robert Maxwell
View THE Robert Maxwell's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to THE Robert Maxwell Send a message via AIM to THE Robert Maxwell Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to THE Robert Maxwell Send a message via Yahoo to THE Robert Maxwell
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

Storyteller wrote: View Post
Sorry about the bump of an old thread, but it would seem that a blogger has issued a rather cool rebuttal to the original poster. Is Mars One really unethical?
Don't do that again.

It's fine if you want to link a topical blog article--I don't mind that. But don't pretend you didn't write it. I have no use for dishonesty here.
__________________
Publishing all the news that's not fit to print, FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE!!!!
I has a blag.
THE Robert Maxwell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5 2013, 03:20 PM   #83
Irishman
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

We could always go the colonization of Australia route. No way THAT could come back to bite us on the ass.
Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17 2013, 08:26 PM   #84
Death of Rats
Commodore
 
Death of Rats's Avatar
 
Location: milky way, outer spiral arm, Sol 3
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

Alpha_Geek wrote: View Post
Everybody is going to die some time or another. Would you rather do it on Earth or Mars?
On Earth. I think it's more than enough that we ruined one planet. We ought to tidy up out own home before we visit the neighbourhood.

Mars 1 sounds like a thrilling idea but I agree in the suspicion that it's just a big rip-off (is that the right word?? I mean something like a scam, a trick to get peoples' money)

Given the immense density of objects in our orbit that make launching larger space vessels more difficult every day, I suggest that we should rather start building a gigant vacuum cleaner (most literally, in this case). Hopefully with a little more durability than the infamous Spaceball 1 model.

As a hobby astronomer I'd really appreciate it if the space debris got reduced. It's highly annoying when you try to take a snap of - for example - Europa and at that very moment the darned ISS tool bag passes by. (It's small but at times reflects the sunlight, ruining the photo completely)
__________________
SQUEAK!
(rhubarbodendron)
Death of Rats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18 2013, 12:52 PM   #85
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

Spirit of Christmas Present wrote: View Post
Alpha_Geek wrote: View Post
Everybody is going to die some time or another. Would you rather do it on Earth or Mars?
On Earth. I think it's more than enough that we ruined one planet. We ought to tidy up out own home before we visit the neighbourhood.
"ruined one planet"?
Talk about an unsupported hyperbole. Do you have anything to base it on? If so, let's see it.
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18 2013, 04:51 PM   #86
Death of Rats
Commodore
 
Death of Rats's Avatar
 
Location: milky way, outer spiral arm, Sol 3
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

Ozone hole, red list of endangered species, annual G8 climate conference, oil spills, destruction of tropical rain forrests, global climate change - the list goes on.
__________________
SQUEAK!
(rhubarbodendron)

Last edited by Death of Rats; December 18 2013 at 04:54 PM. Reason: edited for spelling
Death of Rats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18 2013, 04:56 PM   #87
THE Robert Maxwell
Reports of my death...
 
THE Robert Maxwell's Avatar
 
Location: Robert Maxwell
View THE Robert Maxwell's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to THE Robert Maxwell Send a message via AIM to THE Robert Maxwell Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to THE Robert Maxwell Send a message via Yahoo to THE Robert Maxwell
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
Spirit of Christmas Present wrote: View Post
Alpha_Geek wrote: View Post
Everybody is going to die some time or another. Would you rather do it on Earth or Mars?
On Earth. I think it's more than enough that we ruined one planet. We ought to tidy up out own home before we visit the neighbourhood.
"ruined one planet"?
Talk about an unsupported hyperbole. Do you have anything to base it on? If so, let's see it.
Just for starters.
__________________
Publishing all the news that's not fit to print, FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE!!!!
I has a blag.
THE Robert Maxwell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18 2013, 05:00 PM   #88
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

Spirit of Christmas Present wrote: View Post
Ozone hole, red list of endangered species, annual G8 climate conference, oil spills, destruction of tropical rain forrests, global climate change - the list goes on.
All of which are either hyperbole or unsupported slogans.

Let's start with the apocalypse de jour: climate change aka global warming:

Look up the 2013 IPCC report - which defines the scientific consensus on the subject. Here’s a link to the summary for policymakers:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/ima...M_brochure.pdf

The warming due to CO2 release is determined by the transient climate response, which, in the 2013 IPCC report, is likely
in the range of 1.0 C to 2.5 C (high confidence) and extremely unlikely greater than 3 C.*

Based on this TCR, 4 future warming scenarios were outlined, corresponding to different amounts of CO2 emitted (see pg. 25 of the linked report).
Of these, RCP 8.5 is all but excluded – a huge continuous increase in CO2 emissions for the entire century is required to even get close to it (don’t believe me? see the worldwide CO2 emissions and then calculate what future emissions would be required to reach RCP 8.5).
In other news, London is buried beneath a 2 miles deep layer of horse manure; such malthusian prophecies never came to pass.

The IPCC future warming scenarios each have temperature ranges associated with them (pg. 21 of the report). RCP8.5 is the only scenario that has an increase in temperature larger than 3.1 C.

What will be the consequences of an increase in temperature of 2.5-3 C?
As it turns out, there’s a peer reviewed paper that summarized all the papers on the subject – up to the date it was published, that is:
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/documents/Tol_impacts_JEP_2009.pdf
As per the paper, climate change is beneficial up to 2.2 C of warming from 2009 (when R. Tol wrote his paper). This means approximately 3˚C from pre-industrial levels, since about 0.8˚C of warming has happened in the last 150 years. The latest estimates of climate sensitivity suggest that such temperatures may not be reached till the end of the century — if at all. IPCC, whose reports define the consensis, is sticking to older TCR assumptions, however, which would mean net benefits till about 2080.

What about all the weather disasters caused by climate change? Entirely mythical — so far. The 2013 IPCC report is admirably frank about this, reporting ‘no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency offloads on a global scale … low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms’.
In fact, the death rate from droughts, floods and storms has dropped by 98 per cent since the 1920s, according to a careful study by the independent scholar Indur Goklany. Not because weather has become less dangerous but because people have gained better protection as they got richer. For another example, experts now agree that malaria will continue its rapid worldwide decline whatever the climate does.

Colour me unimpressed.

And yet, all this doesn’t stop the green movement from advocating measures which will impose extreme poverty upon millions and millions of human beings in order to further their agenda – apparently, the mitigation of this climate change consequences I described above is worth imposing so much misery on the world.

This mysoginistic attitude would be pathetic if it wasn’t so pernicious.

*In more recent peer reviewed papers, the TCR is even lower than that.
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18 2013, 05:05 PM   #89
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

Solstice wrote: View Post
Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
Spirit of Christmas Present wrote: View Post
On Earth. I think it's more than enough that we ruined one planet. We ought to tidy up out own home before we visit the neighbourhood.
"ruined one planet"?
Talk about an unsupported hyperbole. Do you have anything to base it on? If so, let's see it.
Just for starters.

Here we go again. Super alarming 'what if' scenarios based on ultra pessimistic theorising.

Alarm about accelerating and human caused extinctions is a popular meme in the media. There are constant references to the large and accelerating numbers of species that are being driven to extinction by human activity. The only problem is that it's not true. Here are the known facts about extinction.

The vast bulk of extinctions are of species that live in relatively small numbers in very restricted areas on islands. Almost all those extinctions were the result of the introduction of alien exotic species by early explorers and thus the rate of extinction has been declining since a peak period associated with the period of global exploration and empire building after 1500.

Since 1500 only 61 species of mammals have gone extinct. Of those 61 species 58 were island species. Even including the peak period during the age of global expansion the rates of extinction of mammals on the large continental land masses has been remarkable low. Of the 4,428 known mammal species (Red List 2004) living in Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, South America, and Antarctica, only three mammals have gone extinct in the last 500 years. These were the Bluebuck antelope, South Africa; the Algerian gazelle, Algeria; and the Omilteme cottontail rabbit, Mexico.

Since 1500 only 129 species of birds have gone extinct. Of the 128 extinct bird species, 123 of them were island extinctions. Of the 8,971 known continental bird species (Red List 2004), only 6 have gone extinct in the last 500 years.

It is worth bearing in mind that there are an estimated total of 8.7 million species on earth.

What can we conclude from this record of extinctions?

1) When European species met isolated local species, a number of the local species died. The Australian and island species were extremely vulnerable to pressure from imported humans, mammals, birds, plants, and diseases. 95% of all recorded bird and mammal extinctions are island or Australian species.

2) When the European species arrived, Australia and most islands had been separated from the continents for forty million years or so. The initial introduction of European species into island habitats was a one-time event. While alien species will always a problem for islands, this massive onslaught of the first coming of the European species will never be repeated — there are no places left with forty million years of isolation.

3) Total habitat destruction drove one bird to extinction.

4) While habitat reduction has been claimed as contributing (in an unknown degree) to three continental bird extinctions, to date no continental mammal or bird has been seen to go extinct due to habitat reduction alone.

So what you have is a picture of very, very low levels of actual extinctions.

Even if the rate of extinctions were to quadruple in the next 500 years, and even if we assume that the rate of extinctions for continental species accelerates massively to match the rate of island extinctions then we get an absolutely worst case nightmare scenario of a total of 760 bird and mammal species going extinct in the next 500 years out of a total of 8.7 million species.

Frankly that doesn't seem worth worrying about. It certainly is not something that should be used as a convincing case for slowing or restricting economic development (or more accurately prolonging human poverty, suffering and premature death), nor should it be an issue which is used to whip up alarm about the impact of human activity on the environment.


This is what you call "ruined one planet"?
As said, talk about an unsupported hyperbole.
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18 2013, 05:12 PM   #90
THE Robert Maxwell
Reports of my death...
 
THE Robert Maxwell's Avatar
 
Location: Robert Maxwell
View THE Robert Maxwell's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to THE Robert Maxwell Send a message via AIM to THE Robert Maxwell Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to THE Robert Maxwell Send a message via Yahoo to THE Robert Maxwell
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
This mysoginistic attitude would be pathetic if it wasn’t so pernicious.
Wut? Not sure what misogyny has to do with any of that.

Also don't have time to deal with climate change deniers. Good luck with all that.

The bottom line is that we manage our resources very poorly and it has both short- and long-term costs to our species, other species, and Earth's future viability as a habitat.

You can pretend that's not the case but you'd still be wrong.
__________________
Publishing all the news that's not fit to print, FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE!!!!
I has a blag.
THE Robert Maxwell is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.