31–40 of 43 posts
Alternative Solution (to all of the above): Build better robots. As in, hard AI. Has the additional advantage of allowing exploration of not only Mars, but every other body in the solar system, and at not much greater a cost. Potentially even other stars. Also improves nearly every other aspect of human existence.
Er, how do we do that again?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is. From the article: "A rotating spacecraft would create artificial gravity that would keep astronauts in tip-top shape."
Strangely, the article fails to follow this up with the next logical sentence, which is: "Also, a rotating spacecraft is trivially easy to implement, meaning that the entire zero-gravity argument is nothing more than a ridiculous canard by those who'd rather suck down a few more tens of billions of pointless microgravity biomedical research before allowing us to leave Low Earth Orbit and do anything interesting."
About the quarter pounders transportation problem, space elevators sounds like a great solution. Still, doesn't sound like a big gain to get humans to Mars besides as a trophy. Better to send machines with tech greater than 90's 2MP cameras. We're all gonna be replaced by machines anyway after the singularity in a few decades.
1993 - Vernor Vinge predicts super-intelligent AIs 'within 30 years'.
2011 ray Kurzweil predicts the singularity (enabled by super-intelligent AIs) will occur by 2045, 34 years after the prediction was made.
So the distance into the future before we achieve strong AI and hence the singularity is, according to it's most optimistic proponents, receding by more than 1 year per year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That couldn't possibly go wrong.
Certainly things could go wrong. But I would argue having a set of people in established, stable relationships is better than either A) having unattached astronauts who will inevitably try to start relationships with each other, leading to a dangerous space soap opera, or B) having a unisex, hetero crew and expecting them to be celibate for years with no problem.
Really, this is not an issue at all.
Other than SpaceX does anyone know of any private organisations trying to do this? I for one would quite happily get involved, as I am sure would others, happy to setup a Kickstarter page...
Terraform the moon first.
This subject keeps coming up and just won't go away, the problem is that most of the points raised essentially come down to funding, if we really wanted to go there (or the moon) and setup a base, then we would have by now. Other than SpaceX does anyone know of any private organisations trying to do this? I for one would quite happily get involved, as I am sure would others, happy to setup a Kickstarter page...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strangely, the article fails to follow this up with the next logical sentence, which is: "Also, a rotating spacecraft is trivially easy to implement, meaning that the entire zero-gravity argument is nothing more than a ridiculous canard by those who'd rather suck down a few more tens of billions of pointless microgravity biomedical research before allowing us to leave Low Earth Orbit and do anything interesting."
Sorry, but anybody who says anything never done before in space is 'trivially easy' has a serious credibility deficit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but I guess the women who rejected you don't live in the same house as you do. Imagine living in close quarters with a bunch of people and some of them are having sex while you don't. You'd have to seclude yourself from them to suppress your feelings and then the whole project would go south.
So you get a set of known stable monogamous couples to go. Or one big polyamourous family.