Remember me
▼ Content

Weather Vs. Climate Change


Weather Vs. Climate Change20-11-2018 01:12
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Seems to me, mankind has been studying, recording, and striving to understand and control weather events, a whole lot longer, than we have been filling the atmosphere with synthetic CO2. There are many examples of rainmaking rituals carved in stone, since paper had yet to be invented. So, how is it, that modern science can claim to know how to set, the global thermostat? And whether or not, it even needs adjusting? I personally prefer the warmer climate, and wish folks would leave it alone. You can see it in most any office environment, people argue over where the thermostat should be set, though usually, it's set by policy, to save energy, some people still fiddle with it. Most of the employees dress appropriately, to deal with the office climate.

Been a whole lot of more research done on weather, yet, we can only identify potential weather making events, and estimate the outcome. We don't know when or where a strong storm will form, until after it's already started. We have no way of knowing if it will continue to get stronger, or fizzle out. This is the result of a thousand years of research, and more. We have no controls over any weather events, can't make rain where we want, or where it's needed most. Like the folks in California could have used a whole lot of help fight those wild fires this year. But then again, the cure, would have been just as bad, landslides, mudslides, flash-floods. All very damaging and deadly, and kind of odd, never understood why someone would spend a million dollars building a house, right on the very edge of a cliff, top or bottom. Erosion is a fact, and it's just a matter of time for the destructive forces.

Climatology came up with the cause and cure, reduced it to a single, man-made molecule, in a relatively short span of time, compared to all the work. and dire need to understand, and control weather events. If climate is control be a rather simple molecule, how come they have discovered weather molecules, that could be used to control weather?
20-11-2018 20:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Seems to me, mankind has been studying, recording, and striving to understand and control weather events, a whole lot longer, than we have been filling the atmosphere with synthetic CO2. There are many examples of rainmaking rituals carved in stone, since paper had yet to be invented. So, how is it, that modern science can claim to know how to set, the global thermostat? And whether or not, it even needs adjusting? I personally prefer the warmer climate, and wish folks would leave it alone. You can see it in most any office environment, people argue over where the thermostat should be set, though usually, it's set by policy, to save energy, some people still fiddle with it. Most of the employees dress appropriately, to deal with the office climate.

Been a whole lot of more research done on weather, yet, we can only identify potential weather making events, and estimate the outcome. We don't know when or where a strong storm will form, until after it's already started. We have no way of knowing if it will continue to get stronger, or fizzle out. This is the result of a thousand years of research, and more. We have no controls over any weather events, can't make rain where we want, or where it's needed most. Like the folks in California could have used a whole lot of help fight those wild fires this year. But then again, the cure, would have been just as bad, landslides, mudslides, flash-floods. All very damaging and deadly, and kind of odd, never understood why someone would spend a million dollars building a house, right on the very edge of a cliff, top or bottom. Erosion is a fact, and it's just a matter of time for the destructive forces.

Climatology came up with the cause and cure, reduced it to a single, man-made molecule, in a relatively short span of time, compared to all the work. and dire need to understand, and control weather events. If climate is control be a rather simple molecule, how come they have discovered weather molecules, that could be used to control weather?


Terraforming planets has become rather common in science fiction these days. Like the earlier comic books and movies about malevolent beings on Mars coming to attack us, there are a lot of people that believe it's actually a real possibility.

It's comic book stuff.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-11-2018 20:02
20-11-2018 20:34
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Into the Night wrote:

Terraforming planets has become rather common in science fiction these days. Like the earlier comic books and movies about malevolent beings on Mars coming to attack us, there are a lot of people that believe it's actually a real possibility.

It's comic book stuff.


I agree that it's science fiction, no one has ever found a way to control weather, and they've tried for a very long time.

Mars is a funny topic. I can understand the curiosity, but can't understand plans of actually sending people there. Robots are fine, they are only money. People though, would be a suicide mission, pretty much no way to return home, little chance of bring enough supplies, basically need everything require to continue living. The air isn't breathable, no water, no food, no fuel. Don't think the robots have found anything too shocking, that needs to be further examined by humans, in person, yet.
20-11-2018 21:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Terraforming planets has become rather common in science fiction these days. Like the earlier comic books and movies about malevolent beings on Mars coming to attack us, there are a lot of people that believe it's actually a real possibility.

It's comic book stuff.


I agree that it's science fiction, no one has ever found a way to control weather, and they've tried for a very long time.

Mars is a funny topic. I can understand the curiosity, but can't understand plans of actually sending people there. Robots are fine, they are only money. People though, would be a suicide mission, pretty much no way to return home, little chance of bring enough supplies, basically need everything require to continue living. The air isn't breathable, no water, no food, no fuel. Don't think the robots have found anything too shocking, that needs to be further examined by humans, in person, yet.


The same thing was said about the manned Moon missions and manned space flight.

Like mountain climbing, man does these kinds of missions because the challenge is there.

Robots can tell us a lot, but they can't tell us the emotional aspect of standing on the surface of another planet and looking back at an Earthrise. They can't describe the soil as anything but a list of chemicals and other similar properties. They can't describe what it would be like to walk on it, or possibly try to live there.

Yeah. Mars is a cold, dry, barren, cat litter of a place. So are the high deserts of China. But people live there.

Can we do it? Can we find someone not only willing to do it, but have the psychological stability to do it? The challenges are enormous. The benefits of building this technology to accomplish this are also enormous. We went to the Moon mostly be because we simply decided to go.


The Parrot Killer
20-11-2018 21:33
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Terraforming planets has become rather common in science fiction these days. Like the earlier comic books and movies about malevolent beings on Mars coming to attack us, there are a lot of people that believe it's actually a real possibility.

It's comic book stuff.


I agree that it's science fiction, no one has ever found a way to control weather, and they've tried for a very long time.

Mars is a funny topic. I can understand the curiosity, but can't understand plans of actually sending people there. Robots are fine, they are only money. People though, would be a suicide mission, pretty much no way to return home, little chance of bring enough supplies, basically need everything require to continue living. The air isn't breathable, no water, no food, no fuel. Don't think the robots have found anything too shocking, that needs to be further examined by humans, in person, yet.


The same thing was said about the manned Moon missions and manned space flight.

Like mountain climbing, man does these kinds of missions because the challenge is there.

Robots can tell us a lot, but they can't tell us the emotional aspect of standing on the surface of another planet and looking back at an Earthrise. They can't describe the soil as anything but a list of chemicals and other similar properties. They can't describe what it would be like to walk on it, or possibly try to live there.

Yeah. Mars is a cold, dry, barren, cat litter of a place. So are the high deserts of China. But people live there.

Can we do it? Can we find someone not only willing to do it, but have the psychological stability to do it? The challenges are enormous. The benefits of building this technology to accomplish this are also enormous. We went to the Moon mostly be because we simply decided to go.


Here you appear again with a posting that again you appear to not understand anything about. Tell you what, why don't you volunteer to colonize Mars since you so certainly appear to have been effected by that movie that had so many things wrong that it wasn't hardly good enough to be called fiction but far closer to fantasy.

People will not colonize Mars and a trip to Mars will be so expensive with any hope of making it back alive that it is almost a death sentence. You do not have a good understanding of distance, speed and time.
21-11-2018 00:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Terraforming planets has become rather common in science fiction these days. Like the earlier comic books and movies about malevolent beings on Mars coming to attack us, there are a lot of people that believe it's actually a real possibility.

It's comic book stuff.


I agree that it's science fiction, no one has ever found a way to control weather, and they've tried for a very long time.

Mars is a funny topic. I can understand the curiosity, but can't understand plans of actually sending people there. Robots are fine, they are only money. People though, would be a suicide mission, pretty much no way to return home, little chance of bring enough supplies, basically need everything require to continue living. The air isn't breathable, no water, no food, no fuel. Don't think the robots have found anything too shocking, that needs to be further examined by humans, in person, yet.


The same thing was said about the manned Moon missions and manned space flight.

Like mountain climbing, man does these kinds of missions because the challenge is there.

Robots can tell us a lot, but they can't tell us the emotional aspect of standing on the surface of another planet and looking back at an Earthrise. They can't describe the soil as anything but a list of chemicals and other similar properties. They can't describe what it would be like to walk on it, or possibly try to live there.

Yeah. Mars is a cold, dry, barren, cat litter of a place. So are the high deserts of China. But people live there.

Can we do it? Can we find someone not only willing to do it, but have the psychological stability to do it? The challenges are enormous. The benefits of building this technology to accomplish this are also enormous. We went to the Moon mostly be because we simply decided to go.


Here you appear again with a posting that again you appear to not understand anything about.

Again you practice your bulverism.
Wake wrote:
Tell you what, why don't you volunteer to colonize Mars

I have desire to go. I have no desire to go to the Moon either.
Wake wrote:
since you so certainly appear to have been effected by that movie

What movie are YOU talking about?? I never mentioned any particular movie.
Wake wrote:
that had so many things wrong that it wasn't hardly good enough to be called fiction but far closer to fantasy.

I wouldn't know. I have no idea what movie your are even talking about.
Wake wrote:
People will not colonize Mars and a trip to Mars will be so expensive with any hope of making it back alive that it is almost a death sentence.

It would be a big challenge, but they said the same thing about manned space flight and the manned mission to he Moon.
Wake wrote:
You do not have a good understanding of distance, speed and time.

Just how far do you think Mars is???

It takes a spacecraft about 200 days to reach mars with our current technology. The entire mission could be carried out in about a year and half.


The Parrot Killer
21-11-2018 02:58
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Terraforming planets has become rather common in science fiction these days. Like the earlier comic books and movies about malevolent beings on Mars coming to attack us, there are a lot of people that believe it's actually a real possibility.

It's comic book stuff.


I agree that it's science fiction, no one has ever found a way to control weather, and they've tried for a very long time.

Mars is a funny topic. I can understand the curiosity, but can't understand plans of actually sending people there. Robots are fine, they are only money. People though, would be a suicide mission, pretty much no way to return home, little chance of bring enough supplies, basically need everything require to continue living. The air isn't breathable, no water, no food, no fuel. Don't think the robots have found anything too shocking, that needs to be further examined by humans, in person, yet.


The same thing was said about the manned Moon missions and manned space flight.

Like mountain climbing, man does these kinds of missions because the challenge is there.

Robots can tell us a lot, but they can't tell us the emotional aspect of standing on the surface of another planet and looking back at an Earthrise. They can't describe the soil as anything but a list of chemicals and other similar properties. They can't describe what it would be like to walk on it, or possibly try to live there.

Yeah. Mars is a cold, dry, barren, cat litter of a place. So are the high deserts of China. But people live there.

Can we do it? Can we find someone not only willing to do it, but have the psychological stability to do it? The challenges are enormous. The benefits of building this technology to accomplish this are also enormous. We went to the Moon mostly be because we simply decided to go.


Here you appear again with a posting that again you appear to not understand anything about.

Again you practice your bulverism.
Wake wrote:
Tell you what, why don't you volunteer to colonize Mars

I have desire to go. I have no desire to go to the Moon either.
Wake wrote:
since you so certainly appear to have been effected by that movie

What movie are YOU talking about?? I never mentioned any particular movie.
Wake wrote:
that had so many things wrong that it wasn't hardly good enough to be called fiction but far closer to fantasy.

I wouldn't know. I have no idea what movie your are even talking about.
Wake wrote:
People will not colonize Mars and a trip to Mars will be so expensive with any hope of making it back alive that it is almost a death sentence.

It would be a big challenge, but they said the same thing about manned space flight and the manned mission to he Moon.
Wake wrote:
You do not have a good understanding of distance, speed and time.

Just how far do you think Mars is???

It takes a spacecraft about 200 days to reach mars with our current technology. The entire mission could be carried out in about a year and half.


I have asked you many times if you have any knowledge of anything and you continue to prove me too conservative.

I worked on the communications for the original three block space station. What do you suppose a Mars trip crew would use for food and water for a year and a half? Recycling urine and exhaled moisture with a recycling system? - you lose 25% of the water that way during each recycle. The amount of just water for a crew of four would be 7 cubic meters!

The present International space station receives something like 3,500 kg in supplies every month or so. For three to five astronauts. The psychological load on a crew in the space station isn't too bad since they can get home in a couple of days. On a Mars trip you would need a MUCH larger crew so that there are more chances of homogeneous interactions.

Even an air cleaning system has to deal with 0.7 gram of dead skin cells every day per crew member. This is 3.3 lbs of dead skin cells that have to be scavenged from the air system in a year and a half trip for only four crew! Leaving this in the air causes severe lung problems. How do you clean this out of the air? How do you clean the filters?

A Mars mission would be back to eating tubes of gu like the first space missions. This would cause serious gastric system distress. Figure on going to a doctor a million miles from one? The absence of gravity would cause bone decomposition. Even Martian gravity would cause severe bone loss.

In a year and a half where do you get oxygen? ONE man uses about 550 liters of O2 every day. Multiply that by the crew and you get more than a half million liters of oxygen for a trip per crew member. One liter of O2 weighs 1,500 micrograms which means that one man for a year JUST in oxygen would require a weight of 825 kilograms of oxygen, ONE TON! Should I calculate the area of liquid O2 for you? Then it has to be housed and insulated to prevent rupture from returning to gas since it is -183 C and then you have to prevent this from freezing the crew.

I simply cannot conceive of how you cannot even stop one second to actually think about what you're saying. Exactly what sort of jerk says, "We solved our problems before and we can again." You are a perfect example of everything that is wrong in this country today and why it will be so difficult to repair.

300,000 people engaged in the California Gold Rush. Only 50,000 of them survived the trip and half of those died in the first year. Stupid people say stupid things because they do not have the comprehension or viewpoint brought about by history.
21-11-2018 03:44
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
I think we have way too many other problems on Earth, to consider a vacation trip to Mars. It would take an incredible amount of resources and planning, to pull off, even just to dump a few lucky travelers off, knowing they ain't coming back, and will die in a few months, if lucky. We of course would plan, and intend to be able to bring them home. It would have to be the largest spacecraft ever conceived, to carry supplies, and fuel for a return trip. Breaking free of the planet gravity will still require a lot of thrust, powerful engine, lots of fuel. Sure, it's possible, but we are already $21 trillion in debt. Our space program got rear-end by the Obama administration, we rely on the Russians for the taxi ride to the space station quite a bit, even though they are portrayed as evil, and hack everything hooked to a computer. Either our government is a little stupid, or the Russians aren't really such bad people. Maybe during communism, James Bond movies, the Cold War, but it's a different government, which went through a painful change. We've got plenty of our own bad people, even high up in the government.

But Mars, we already know a lot more about the planet, than we did about the moon, back then. If they found some interesting structions, or positive evidence of intelligent life, it would be a good goal, worth the risk. So far, they have only found some potential that the planet could have supported life. If there is any evidence of life, it'll be buried deep in sand. Think the money already spent on the 'Climate Crisis', would have been better spent on a manned Mars mission, even if we didn't actually build anything to make the trip. Just good to have a plan, just in case we do find a need to go there, or some other place in the solar system, maybe a little asteroid mining expedition, they all can't be worthless rocks...
21-11-2018 10:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Terraforming planets has become rather common in science fiction these days. Like the earlier comic books and movies about malevolent beings on Mars coming to attack us, there are a lot of people that believe it's actually a real possibility.

It's comic book stuff.


I agree that it's science fiction, no one has ever found a way to control weather, and they've tried for a very long time.

Mars is a funny topic. I can understand the curiosity, but can't understand plans of actually sending people there. Robots are fine, they are only money. People though, would be a suicide mission, pretty much no way to return home, little chance of bring enough supplies, basically need everything require to continue living. The air isn't breathable, no water, no food, no fuel. Don't think the robots have found anything too shocking, that needs to be further examined by humans, in person, yet.


The same thing was said about the manned Moon missions and manned space flight.

Like mountain climbing, man does these kinds of missions because the challenge is there.

Robots can tell us a lot, but they can't tell us the emotional aspect of standing on the surface of another planet and looking back at an Earthrise. They can't describe the soil as anything but a list of chemicals and other similar properties. They can't describe what it would be like to walk on it, or possibly try to live there.

Yeah. Mars is a cold, dry, barren, cat litter of a place. So are the high deserts of China. But people live there.

Can we do it? Can we find someone not only willing to do it, but have the psychological stability to do it? The challenges are enormous. The benefits of building this technology to accomplish this are also enormous. We went to the Moon mostly be because we simply decided to go.


Here you appear again with a posting that again you appear to not understand anything about.

Again you practice your bulverism.
Wake wrote:
Tell you what, why don't you volunteer to colonize Mars

I have desire to go. I have no desire to go to the Moon either.
Wake wrote:
since you so certainly appear to have been effected by that movie

What movie are YOU talking about?? I never mentioned any particular movie.
Wake wrote:
that had so many things wrong that it wasn't hardly good enough to be called fiction but far closer to fantasy.

I wouldn't know. I have no idea what movie your are even talking about.
Wake wrote:
People will not colonize Mars and a trip to Mars will be so expensive with any hope of making it back alive that it is almost a death sentence.

It would be a big challenge, but they said the same thing about manned space flight and the manned mission to he Moon.
Wake wrote:
You do not have a good understanding of distance, speed and time.

Just how far do you think Mars is???

It takes a spacecraft about 200 days to reach mars with our current technology. The entire mission could be carried out in about a year and half.


I have asked you many times if you have any knowledge of anything and you continue to prove me too conservative.

This is becoming a mantra for you, Wake. Insult fallacy and bulverism fallacy.
Wake wrote:
I worked on the communications for the original three block space station.
I don't believe you.
Wake wrote:
What do you suppose a Mars trip crew would use for food and water for a year and a half?
Food and water.
Wake wrote:
Recycling urine and exhaled moisture with a recycling system? - you lose 25% of the water that way during each recycle. The amount of just water for a crew of four would be 7 cubic meters!
Nothing particularly limits the size of the spacecraft, especially when it can be built in space by the space station.
Wake wrote:
The present International space station receives something like 3,500 kg in supplies every month or so. For three to five astronauts.
Yeah...so?
Wake wrote:
The psychological load on a crew in the space station isn't too bad since they can get home in a couple of days.

I did happen to mention this. Are you paying attention?
Wake wrote:
On a Mars trip you would need a MUCH larger crew so that there are more chances of homogeneous interactions.
Why would you need such a large crew?
Wake wrote:
Even an air cleaning system has to deal with 0.7 gram of dead skin cells every day per crew member. This is 3.3 lbs of dead skin cells that have to be scavenged from the air system in a year and a half trip for only four crew! Leaving this in the air causes severe lung problems. How do you clean this out of the air? How do you clean the filters?
Gee...I guess you...clean the filters?
Wake wrote:
A Mars mission would be back to eating tubes of gu like the first space missions.
Why?
Wake wrote:
This would cause serious gastric system distress. Figure on going to a doctor a million miles from one?
Why are you stuck with tubes of goo?
Wake wrote:
The absence of gravity would cause bone decomposition. Even Martian gravity would cause severe bone loss.

They said the same thing about the Moon. This is not a problem. Men on the space station are just fine.
Wake wrote:
In a year and a half where do you get oxygen?

Take it with you.
Wake wrote:
ONE man uses about 550 liters of O2 every day. Multiply that by the crew and you get more than a half million liters of oxygen for a trip per crew member. One liter of O2 weighs 1,500 micrograms which means that one man for a year JUST in oxygen would require a weight of 825 kilograms of oxygen, ONE TON! Should I calculate the area of liquid O2 for you?

Recycle it.
Wake wrote:
Then it has to be housed and insulated to prevent rupture from returning to gas since it is -183 C and then you have to prevent this from freezing the crew.
Gee. I guess it's really hard to keep a tank cold in space.
Wake wrote:
I simply cannot conceive of how you cannot even stop one second to actually think about what you're saying. Exactly what sort of jerk says, "We solved our problems before and we can again." You are a perfect example of everything that is wrong in this country today and why it will be so difficult to repair.

What do you think is wrong with this country today?
Wake wrote:
300,000 people engaged in the California Gold Rush. Only 50,000 of them survived the trip and half of those died in the first year.

As far as we know, there is no gold on Mars. We aren't sending a crew of 300,000 people to Mars either. Non-sequitur fallacy.
Wake wrote:
Stupid people say stupid things because they do not have the comprehension or viewpoint brought about by history.

What history?? We've never been to Mars before!


The Parrot Killer
21-11-2018 10:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think we have way too many other problems on Earth, to consider a vacation trip to Mars.

Heh. It would hardly be called a vacation! A manned trip to Mars is not going to be any picnic.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It would take an incredible amount of resources and planning, to pull off, even just to dump a few lucky travelers off, knowing they ain't coming back, and will die in a few months, if lucky. We of course would plan, and intend to be able to bring them home. It would have to be the largest spacecraft ever conceived, to carry supplies, and fuel for a return trip.

Yes. It would require a large ship. That can be constructed in space, however. Piece by piece would be launched, just like we did for the space station. Just a lot more of it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Breaking free of the planet gravity will still require a lot of thrust, powerful engine, lots of fuel.
True, even for a spacecraft already in space.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Sure, it's possible, but we are already $21 trillion in debt.

Which means if it's going to happen, it won't be by our government.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Our space program got rear-end by the Obama administration, we rely on the Russians for the taxi ride to the space station quite a bit, even though they are portrayed as evil, and hack everything hooked to a computer.
Yup. It's quite an embarrassing place for NASA to be.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Either our government is a little stupid,
A little??
HarveyH55 wrote:
or the Russians aren't really such bad people.
They are.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Maybe during communism, James Bond movies, the Cold War, but it's a different government, which went through a painful change.
They are still not a friendly government.
HarveyH55 wrote:
We've got plenty of our own bad people, even high up in the government.
True. Trump is slowly cleaning the worst of them out, but there are a lot still there.
HarveyH55 wrote:
But Mars, we already know a lot more about the planet, than we did about the moon, back then. If they found some interesting structions, or positive evidence of intelligent life, it would be a good goal, worth the risk. So far, they have only found some potential that the planet could have supported life. If there is any evidence of life, it'll be buried deep in sand.
Perhaps, if there is any there at all. It's pretty dry and cold. There probably isn't.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Think the money already spent on the 'Climate Crisis', would have been better spent on a manned Mars mission, even if we didn't actually build anything to make the trip.
Just about any spending is better then the waste on the 'climate crisis'.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Just good to have a plan, just in case we do find a need to go there, or some other place in the solar system, maybe a little asteroid mining expedition, they all can't be worthless rocks...

Any plan will have to go through a lot of changes as technology is developed to build a craft capable of carrying a manned mission to Mars and back.


The Parrot Killer
21-11-2018 11:59
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
I referred to it as a vacation, as I wouldn't expect them to be staying very long. They have to pack a whole lot of supplies, just to make the journey there and back. Figure they would do a lot of the same things they did on the moon. Take a few 'selfies', collect some souvenirs, cruise around some on a dune buggy, hit a few gulf balls, plant a flag, leave a bunch of trash. They'll do some work, and yeah it won't be much fun, harsh environment.

Personally, I think it would be real tough these days, to find a crew, with the 'right stuff'. That ship is going to be huge and expensive, just to carry the bare minimal, won't be much room to move around much. Very long trip, with little personal space, lot of responsibility, pretty much no margin for error. Humans aren't perfect, and such a trip would really stress a man, physically and mentally. It would take a very special kind of strength to endure, knowing any kind of mistake or failure, by any crew member, would be fatal. There are a lot of equipment failures as well, all a lot to handle.
21-11-2018 12:42
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I referred to it as a vacation, as I wouldn't expect them to be staying very long. They have to pack a whole lot of supplies, just to make the journey there and back. Figure they would do a lot of the same things they did on the moon. Take a few 'selfies', collect some souvenirs, cruise around some on a dune buggy, hit a few gulf balls, plant a flag, leave a bunch of trash. They'll do some work, and yeah it won't be much fun, harsh environment.

Personally, I think it would be real tough these days, to find a crew, with the 'right stuff'. That ship is going to be huge and expensive, just to carry the bare minimal, won't be much room to move around much. Very long trip, with little personal space, lot of responsibility, pretty much no margin for error. Humans aren't perfect, and such a trip would really stress a man, physically and mentally. It would take a very special kind of strength to endure, knowing any kind of mistake or failure, by any crew member, would be fatal. There are a lot of equipment failures as well, all a lot to handle.


WWII Uboat crews had far more stress.
21-11-2018 19:54
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Tim the plumber wrote:
WWII Uboat crews had far more stress.


WW II U-boats spent most of their time on the surface and rotated crew on-deck. Modern nuclear subs have vastly greater interior space, more automated systems which reduces the stress on crew worrying about making a fatal mistake and the crew are far less crowded so that they have very little psychological problems. They have more than enough power to run lights full time and the crew quarters are as large as on a Destroyer.
21-11-2018 20:53
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Yeah, but on a sub, you can surface if things go wrong, abandon ship, surrender. You'd have some options. Don't think those options are available in space, maybe in orbit, but really no place to escape to, and you would still need to bring everything need to keep you alive, until help arrives. Might be more than a day or two...

The more I think about it, the more I can see it as just a one-way trip. Think we could do it, but it wouldn't be right. The ship would be much smaller, less complex, and could be launch from the Earth's surface, and land on Mars. The big, return home ship, would need to stay in orbit, burn fuel, while a smaller shuttle craft took the people down to the surface, and back up. They could send a separate ship, to dump some sort of shelter (don't think a tent would do it), food, oxygen, and water, some equipment.

Wonder what the space programs contribution to the 'man-made' CO2 has been, since the started. They launch a whole lot of rockets, not sure what's in those solid fuel boosters, but it can't be good.
21-11-2018 20:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I referred to it as a vacation, as I wouldn't expect them to be staying very long. They have to pack a whole lot of supplies, just to make the journey there and back. Figure they would do a lot of the same things they did on the moon. Take a few 'selfies', collect some souvenirs, cruise around some on a dune buggy, hit a few gulf balls, plant a flag, leave a bunch of trash. They'll do some work, and yeah it won't be much fun, harsh environment.

Fair enough.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Personally, I think it would be real tough these days, to find a crew, with the 'right stuff'.

Agreed. Most folks these days would rather whine, rather like Wake or James.
HarveyH55 wrote:
That ship is going to be huge and expensive, just to carry the bare minimal, won't be much room to move around much.

Probably.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Very long trip, with little personal space, lot of responsibility, pretty much no margin for error.

Sound like a long car trip for the kids to endure, doesn't it?

HarveyH55 wrote:
Humans aren't perfect, and such a trip would really stress a man, physically and mentally. It would take a very special kind of strength to endure, knowing any kind of mistake or failure, by any crew member, would be fatal. There are a lot of equipment failures as well, all a lot to handle.

Every trip to the Moon had what they tended to call the 'glitch for this mission'. There were usually several little things that went wrong. 'The glitch' was the most memorable one.

Flight crews, submarine crews, mechanics, doctors, and even the everyday driver can make a mistake that proves fatal, yet we have them. Passengers willingly walk onto aircraft by the hundreds, piloted by strangers for a flight crew, and maintained by unknown and unseen mechanics, and guided by unseen and unknown controllers. Yet these people are confident they will reach their destination safely.

It can be done, but first that trust must be there. Remember, the Apollo astronauts never met the thousands of people that designed and built their ship.

Yet they flew it successfully to the Moon and back.

I do agree, however, that the current polarized environment in the United States is not conducive to bringing about such a mission.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 21-11-2018 20:58
21-11-2018 21:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
WWII Uboat crews had far more stress.


WW II U-boats spent most of their time on the surface and rotated crew on-deck. Modern nuclear subs have vastly greater interior space, more automated systems which reduces the stress on crew worrying about making a fatal mistake and the crew are far less crowded so that they have very little psychological problems. They have more than enough power to run lights full time and the crew quarters are as large as on a Destroyer.


Yup. We solve the submarine stress requirements with a better ship. Why are so pigheaded on not accepting that happening for spacecraft?


The Parrot Killer
21-11-2018 21:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Yeah, but on a sub, you can surface if things go wrong, abandon ship, surrender. You'd have some options. Don't think those options are available in space, maybe in orbit, but really no place to escape to, and you would still need to bring everything need to keep you alive, until help arrives. Might be more than a day or two...

Space flight does have it's own problems, separate from life at sea. So do aircraft.

Spacecraft don't sink. They aren't destroyed by storms. Yeah, you are out on your own, but that's the way it was in the days of tall ships too, for months at a time. Remember, there were no radios to call for help then. It might be days, weeks, or never that another ship would come along to rescue you.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I can see it as just a one-way trip. Think we could do it, but it wouldn't be right. The ship would be much smaller, less complex, and could be launch from the Earth's surface, and land on Mars. The big, return home ship, would need to stay in orbit, burn fuel, while a smaller shuttle craft took the people down to the surface, and back up. They could send a separate ship, to dump some sort of shelter (don't think a tent would do it), food, oxygen, and water, some equipment.

This could be an option as well. Robots can certainly provide way stations of supplies. Coordinating their position in space would be tricky, since everything orbits at a different speed depending on their distance from the Sun, including the spacecraft itself.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wonder what the space programs contribution to the 'man-made' CO2 has been, since the started. They launch a whole lot of rockets, not sure what's in those solid fuel boosters, but it can't be good.

Ammonium perchlorate. No carbon, so no CO2. Burning it produces water (steam), which is what you see, and common bleach, which is what you don't see. Solid fueled rockets on manned spacecraft is unusual. The spaces shuttle is the only spacecraft to do it. The problem, you see, is that once you ignite the things, you can't shut them off. You are going for whatever ride they are going to give you.

Liquid rockets you can shut off. If a problem is detected, you can shut down one or more engines and simply lengthen the burn on the remaining ones, abort the launch itself, or escape in a 'liferaft'.

Liquid fueled rockets tend to use oxygen and hydrogen for fuel. The massive clouds you see at liftoff is steam.

Yup. We use steam powered spacecraft!

No need to worry about CO2 or the water produced. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using the surface infrared light.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 21-11-2018 21:22
21-11-2018 21:58
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Was just reach for an alternative cause of the alarming warming trend. Thought it might be ironic, if NASA was a major contributor, while demonizing the rest of the world.
21-11-2018 22:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Was just reach for an alternative cause of the alarming warming trend. Thought it might be ironic, if NASA was a major contributor, while demonizing the rest of the world.


They already demonize NASA for the 'clouds of pollution' a launch produces.

Of course, these people tend to think of getting whacked by a single high speed neutron from an atomic pile is going to kill you as well.


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2018 22:08
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Into the Night wrote:
What history?? We've never been to Mars before!


Look - the atmospheric density of Mars is about 600 pascals. Earth is about 101,000 pascals. That means that the TOTAL atmosphere of Mars if changed from CO2 to oxygen could not supply enough oxygen for a human being to exist outside. What this means is that no humans could live on Mars save in pressurized buildings. Just the size and capacity of the buildings necessary to supply food for the vegetarians willing to live there would use more energy than could be generated by even large solar farms because of the increased distance from the sun and the dramatically reduced energy falling upon each sq meter.

No amount of science fiction or BELIEF is going to change the facts.
26-11-2018 22:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
What history?? We've never been to Mars before!


Look - the atmospheric density of Mars is about 600 pascals. Earth is about 101,000 pascals. That means that the TOTAL atmosphere of Mars if changed from CO2 to oxygen could not supply enough oxygen for a human being to exist outside.
Who said anything about living outside??
Wake wrote:
What this means is that no humans could live on Mars save in pressurized buildings.
True.
Wake wrote:
Just the size and capacity of the buildings necessary to supply food for the vegetarians willing to live there would use more energy than could be generated by even large solar farms because of the increased distance from the sun and the dramatically reduced energy falling upon each sq meter.

Farming would be difficult, but not impossible Wake.
Wake wrote:
No amount of science fiction or BELIEF is going to change the facts.

No, but engineers can. They use science, not science fiction.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 26-11-2018 22:51
27-11-2018 00:07
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
There are a lot of factors, which would limit humans from staying very long on Mars. The thin atmosphere would allow too much solar radiation, need to be suited up, to walk around. Temperature would also be an issue, although we might be adapted to the warmer climate by then... Meteors wouldn't burn up in the atmosphere as much, as they do here. There would be a shower of space rock, from time to time, moving kind of fast too. Remember reading about some strong storm events, like a tornado once, doubt FEMA will be of much help.

Plant food... We have a huge biodiversity here, not all plants need a lot of sunlight. Mushrooms, hardly any at all, and a good source protein, if you can't kill an animal. We are also getting pretty good at genetically modifying organisms, should be too tough to fix up a decent meal, for what is available, some might be a little weird, but hunger helps you get past being picky.

I joked about it being a vacation, it will be a hard fight to survive, even a short time, highly stressful. Really doubt you could find a crew up to the challenge, pull it off, just one time. The training and practice runs, before the actual mission, will crush most of the candidates, the survivors will likely be a little broken before they go live. We've gotten to soft, since we got civilized. Think they would need to start with very young children, and train them harshly, brutally, to focus on just the mission. Can't imagine the public going for that, have to be another dirty little secret for our government to keep. Just read about a Chinese scientist, who altered some embryos, to resist the HIV virus, twins on the way... Only way to test for success, would be to deliberately expose/infect the children, if born healthy.
27-11-2018 05:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
There are a lot of factors, which would limit humans from staying very long on Mars. The thin atmosphere would allow too much solar radiation, need to be suited up, to walk around. Temperature would also be an issue, although we might be adapted to the warmer climate by then... Meteors wouldn't burn up in the atmosphere as much, as they do here. There would be a shower of space rock, from time to time, moving kind of fast too. Remember reading about some strong storm events, like a tornado once, doubt FEMA will be of much help.

Plant food... We have a huge biodiversity here, not all plants need a lot of sunlight. Mushrooms, hardly any at all, and a good source protein, if you can't kill an animal. We are also getting pretty good at genetically modifying organisms, should be too tough to fix up a decent meal, for what is available, some might be a little weird, but hunger helps you get past being picky.

I joked about it being a vacation, it will be a hard fight to survive, even a short time, highly stressful. Really doubt you could find a crew up to the challenge, pull it off, just one time. The training and practice runs, before the actual mission, will crush most of the candidates, the survivors will likely be a little broken before they go live. We've gotten to soft, since we got civilized. Think they would need to start with very young children, and train them harshly, brutally, to focus on just the mission. Can't imagine the public going for that, have to be another dirty little secret for our government to keep. Just read about a Chinese scientist, who altered some embryos, to resist the HIV virus, twins on the way... Only way to test for success, would be to deliberately expose/infect the children, if born healthy.


All valid points. It would be no picnic.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Weather Vs. Climate Change:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Important space and weather related events of 2018!1008-11-2018 00:43
Change of earth surface and thoughts about its contribution for climate change and weather420-07-2018 09:12
The 100 Year Weather Forecast814-06-2018 13:03
"Freakishly Warm" Arctic Weather Has Scientists Reconsidering Worst-Case Scenarios on Climate1104-06-2018 20:50
Jennifer Francis: Crazy Weather and the Arctic Meltdown1727-05-2018 01:39
Articles
Appendix B - Calculating The Economic Costs of Extreme Weather Events
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact