And the reason this time is that between radiation and microgravity...

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2024/jun/would-astronauts-kidneys-survive-roundtrip-mars

our kidneys will shrink.

As I've pointed out, it's possible to put astronauts in space who
won't experience either microgravity or radiation. Just put a rotating
habitat inside a thick shell of solid rock. This doesn't have to be
launched from Earth, it can be made in space from material sent up
from the Moon using railguns.

It won't be easy, it will be much more expensive, but it won't be
impossible. And I would think that eventually technological advance
would make us rich enough to afford it.

John Savard

On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 01:20:09 -0600, John Savard
<quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:

>And the reason this time is that between radiation and microgravity...
>
>https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2024/jun/would-astronauts-kidneys-survive-roundtrip-mars
>
>our kidneys will shrink.

Nothing a bit of genetic engineering can't address!

John Savard <quadibloc@servername.invalid> writes:

>And the reason this time is that between radiation and microgravity...

>https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2024/jun/would-astronauts-kidneys-survive-roundtrip-mars

>our kidneys will shrink.

>As I've pointed out, it's possible to put astronauts in space who
>won't experience either microgravity or radiation. Just put a rotating
>habitat inside a thick shell of solid rock. This doesn't have to be
>launched from Earth, it can be made in space from material sent up
>from the Moon using railguns.

>It won't be easy, it will be much more expensive, but it won't be
>impossible. And I would think that eventually technological advance
>would make us rich enough to afford it.

>John Savard

Mars doesn't have microgravity. It's not as much as earth, but it isn't
like you are weightless.
--
There are the known knowns, things we know we know;
and the known unknowns, things we know we do not know;
but there are also the unknown unknowns,
those things we don't know we don't know.

On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:49:08 -0000 (UTC), Mortimer Houghton
<mortimer@VivoBook.X512D> wrote:

>Mars doesn't have microgravity. It's not as much as earth, but it isn't
>like you are weightless.

They were talkikng about the microgravity in the spacechip on the way
there and back.

John Savard

John Savard <quadibloc@servername.invalid> writes:

>On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:49:08 -0000 (UTC), Mortimer Houghton
><mortimer@VivoBook.X512D> wrote:

>>Mars doesn't have microgravity. It's not as much as earth, but it isn't
>>like you are weightless.

>They were talkikng about the microgravity in the spacechip on the way
>there and back.

>John Savard

Yeah, thanks. I figured that out after I posted...too bad there's no
undo button in usenet.
--
There are the known knowns, things we know we know;
and the known unknowns, things we know we do not know;
but there are also the unknown unknowns,
those things we don't know we don't know.

On 6/19/24 3:20 AM, John Savard wrote:
> And the reason this time is that between radiation and microgravity...
>
> https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2024/jun/would-astronauts-kidneys-survive-roundtrip-mars
>
> our kidneys will shrink.
>
> As I've pointed out, it's possible to put astronauts in space who
> won't experience either microgravity or radiation. Just put a rotating
> habitat inside a thick shell of solid rock. This doesn't have to be
> launched from Earth, it can be made in space from material sent up
> from the Moon using railguns.
>
> It won't be easy, it will be much more expensive, but it won't be
> impossible. And I would think that eventually technological advance
> would make us rich enough to afford it.
>
> John Savard

That's assuming we survive the forthcoming worldwide economic collapse
and the resulting aftermath along with the total loss of one major
superpower. Mars may not even be on the agenda once the new folks are
in charge.

On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 11:07:50 -0400, Jake M <mill45@fla.net> wrote:

>That's assuming we survive the forthcoming worldwide economic collapse
>and the resulting aftermath along with the total loss of one major
>superpower. Mars may not even be on the agenda once the new folks are
>in charge.

That's just defeatism.

What is more reasonable to expect is that we will overcome the current
difficulties, and eventually we will see a world where...

the United States has come back to its senses, with the Republican
Party having wise leaders like Eisenhower, not crazy ones like Trump;

and Russia and China have become minor countries with no major
influence on world affairs.

And fossil fuel consumption is eliminated, because nuclear power can
provide for all our energy needs (with hydroelectricity also playing a
major supporting role, and with wind and solar also present) until
fusion power is developed.

In a peaceful world utterly and absolutely dominated by liberal
democratic values (communal violence is wiped out in India, the entire
Muslim world is placed under control to prevent terrorist groups from
developing and to abolish persecution of minorities)... technological
progress will be free to continue.

Of course, recent experience shows that technological progress is
slower when only the free market drives it, as opposed to organized
government efforts aimed at winning a war. But if the threat of war is
completely eliminated, perhaps governments can be encouraged to do
more to promote science for its own sake.

This describes the kind of shiny future we need to work towards. One
where humanity will of course venture into space - when the time is
right, when devoting resources to it won't conflict with meeting
everyone's basic needs, or protecting the environment, and when the
cost to the taxpayer will be acceptable in the absence of it being
required to meet any urgent threat.

So the government will land astronauts on Mars... at least a _few_
years before improving technology means that most households own
personal flying cars... that would be able to fly through space and go
to Mars themselves. And exploring interstellar space would basically
follow a similar trajectory.

John Savard

On Mon, 01 Jul 2024 15:09:05 -0600, John Savard
<quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 11:07:50 -0400, Jake M <mill45@fla.net> wrote:
>
>>That's assuming we survive the forthcoming worldwide economic collapse
>>and the resulting aftermath along with the total loss of one major
>>superpower. Mars may not even be on the agenda once the new folks are
>>in charge.
>
>That's just defeatism.
>
>What is more reasonable to expect is that we will overcome the current
>difficulties, and eventually we will see a world where...
>
>the United States has come back to its senses, with the Republican
>Party having wise leaders like Eisenhower, not crazy ones like Trump;

No, when there is no United States, but a world government. The time
of individual countries is past.

>and Russia and China have become minor countries with no major
>influence on world affairs.
>
>And fossil fuel consumption is eliminated, because nuclear power can
>provide for all our energy needs (with hydroelectricity also playing a
>major supporting role, and with wind and solar also present) until
>fusion power is developed.

Nuclear has no future. It is dirty and expensive. Solar is infinite
and nearly free. Solar is the future of energy.

>In a peaceful world utterly and absolutely dominated by liberal
>democratic values (communal violence is wiped out in India, the entire
>Muslim world is placed under control to prevent terrorist groups from
>developing and to abolish persecution of minorities)... technological
>progress will be free to continue.

Might happen if our governance comes from AI and not people.

>Of course, recent experience shows that technological progress is
>slower when only the free market drives it, as opposed to organized
>government efforts aimed at winning a war. But if the threat of war is
>completely eliminated, perhaps governments can be encouraged to do
>more to promote science for its own sake.

War seems less an issue than a single disgruntled person destroying
most of the world with a simple toxin or virus made in his basement
from material ordered on Amazon.

>This describes the kind of shiny future we need to work towards. One
>where humanity will of course venture into space - when the time is
>right, when devoting resources to it won't conflict with meeting
>everyone's basic needs, or protecting the environment, and when the
>cost to the taxpayer will be acceptable in the absence of it being
>required to meet any urgent threat.

There is no "we" when a significant minority (or even majority) are
unable to operate rationally because they have been programmed by big
corporations, social media, and corrupt politicians.

>So the government will land astronauts on Mars... at least a _few_
>years before improving technology means that most households own
>personal flying cars... that would be able to fly through space and go
>to Mars themselves. And exploring interstellar space would basically
>follow a similar trajectory.

There is, of course, the problem that there's little reason to do so,
regardless of the state of the world. The most likely scenario, I
think, is some trillionaire doing it as a vanity project to impress
other trillionaires.

On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 07:15:31 -0600, Chris L Peterson
<clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

>Nuclear has no future. It is dirty and expensive. Solar is infinite
>and nearly free. Solar is the future of energy.

Solar is nearly free. Infinite? No. Solar is not well-suited for
providing large quantities of energy when and where they're
needed. Producing a little energy requires a lot of land.

John Savard

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 12:53:20 -0600, John Savard
<quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 07:15:31 -0600, Chris L Peterson
><clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>>Nuclear has no future. It is dirty and expensive. Solar is infinite
>>and nearly free. Solar is the future of energy.
>
>Solar is nearly free. Infinite? No. Solar is not well-suited for
>providing large quantities of energy when and where they're
>needed. Producing a little energy requires a lot of land.
>
>John Savard

Solar is free and infinite. Yes. It can trivially provide all the
energy we require for as far into the future as we can imagine, and
can do so within a couple of decades. The entire needs of the U.S.,
for example, can be met with a few tens of thousands of square miles
of panels- a fraction of what we currently use just for producing corn
for ethanol.

We have no alternatives to solar for our long term power needs.