Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Aequo · Dec 3, 2003, 09:57 pm

I just came across this article
( http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/powe...00312030858.asp ) and found it quite interesting. What is your take on it?

Personally I believe it's about time. A few shuttles a year just isn't cutting it anymore, and space IS the final frontier. I'm also a bit of a science-fiction buff, so I may be a bit biased, but I hope I live to see a colony on Mars, but I will at least settle for one on the moon.

**Sean** · Dec 3, 2003, 10:21 pm

I think it's a waste. Manned space missions were more for making icons, than for making progress. Things like Hubble, Galileo, etc have done far more in the area of research.

Also, we have a deficit, so any expense like this scares me.

Aequo · Dec 3, 2003, 10:33 pm

Manned space missions have also brought many now-common items, such as joysticks and laser surgery, among others ( http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/HAS/...cirr/ss/3/5.cfm ).

As the resources available on Earth are finite, and recycling can only work to a point, we will at some point have to turn to space-based resources, such as mining asteroids and solar power collected via satellite. Space colonization may not be as expensive as you think ( http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Tech/Space/mars.html ), and the benefits are many. Trade with the colonies and the technologies derived could prove quite valuable to Earth, as well as materials produced and shipped back, which could even pay for the venture itself.

**Sean** · Dec 3, 2003, 11:03 pm

Recycling doesn't have to "work to a point". We have decided to do live like this because we don't have any major issues yet. The space on Earth isn't finite either, so I think we should invest more time on managing our own space before we bring more resources in as you propose, but this is just my uneducated opinion on this matter, I'm no expert on this.

But hey, if it's profitable then I'm all for space travel.

Aequo · Dec 4, 2003, 12:02 am

Only so many items can be recycled, so we lose the material of those that can't, which is what I mean by 'work to a point'. Sooner or later, definately later than sooner, we will lack raw material. Perhaps material can be synthesized, but it would have to be synthesized from something.

If the population growth continues as it is, and since more population will produce even more population, compounding it, it will only increase. Again, sooner or later, definately later than sooner, space will be literally unavailable unless we start building vertically and digging into the ground. We can only dig so far, and only build so high, however, so space is still finite.

Now, I'm talking like thousands of years into the future, not the next hundred. This is also assuming a nuclear war or asteroid crashing into the Earth doesn't destroy all life, either.

As for space travel being profitable, yes, in the long run. But it takes cost to get there. Take the colonization of America, a very costly endeavour to undertake at first, but it quickly paid for itself. Trade and raw material helped the European powers prosper that funded the expeditions. In space, it is reasonable to assume the same thing will happen. That Economic Viability of the Colonization of Mars paper is an interesting read, so if you have the time, I recommended anybody interested in the subject read it.

white rice · Dec 4, 2003, 04:47 am

Most of our physical knowledge of the moon comes from the samples military personel picked up 30 years ago. There's enormous scientific possibilities if a scientist ever went up there. NASA's budget has suffered after the Reagan Administration (maybe it's why Dubya's so interested in it), and though I think NASA to be a bloated beuracracy, we do need a presence in space.

Building on Aqueo's comments, the colonization of America needed the work of private enterprise and industrious colonists. They braved several risks and not everyone survived. Why can't space exploration be a private endeavour instead of a government monopoly? Those who take the risks also take on the liabilities without the expense of tax dollars. Let capitalism have a swing at revitalising public interest in space.

G. Adams · Dec 4, 2003, 02:26 pm

Why not disband national space agencies and establish an international one? The benefits to be gained here are for mankind, not for single nations. I was watching this program about the Russian's spaceflight technology and they actually have the best propulsion system in the world, its just they can't afford to use and build more of them. An international space agency would allow the best techs from around the world to be used in each project. It would also be a project to bind the big nations of the world together, better than coalitions of the willing do.

dannyp · Dec 4, 2003, 06:08 pm

alternatively we can bomb the shit outta someone so they bomb us back ( with nukes of course, what else is there? :F ) and reduce ourselves to a few hundred thousand. We're talking entire planet population, destroying culture and civilization and rebuild a world based on the premise of using only what is necessary to get off the planet and reinhabit a new one ;D

ok nevermind..

but seriously its time to touch on a few good points.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sean)
[...] Recycling doesn't have to "work to a point".
The space on Earth isn't finite either
I think we should invest more time on managing our own space before we bring more resources in as you propose. [...] <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

recycling does only work to a point. we cannot recycle everything exactly as it was in its original state.

space on earth is finite, we occupy something like 70% of habitable land area. I definitely agree, however, that we should better manage the space that we do posess right now.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice)
[...] the colonization of America needed the work of private enterprise and industrious colonists. They braved several risks and not everyone survived.
Why can't space exploration be a private endeavour instead of a government monopoly?
Let capitalism have a swing at revitalising public interest in space. [...] <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

good idea

and your point about public interest in space.. i think thats what the whole thing sean was talking about directly addresses that: "Manned space missions were more for making icons" but then again i disagree where he says it was more about making icons.. the whole purpose of making the icons was to promote space travel to the general public so they would support taxes and junk on it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams)
Why not disband national space agencies and establish an international one? The benefits to be gained here are for mankind, not for single nations. [ ... ] It would also be a project to bind the big nations of the world together, better than coalitions of the willing do.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That would be wonderful in a world where our countries got along, even if they are all about progression of mankind, it is very unlikely people would share the privelage of being in space together when the (would have to be highly economically stable) countries that back the program are almost definately going to be opposing forces.

now to enter my own points: recently i have heard of a gasoline crisis by word of mouth, whats this about? what i heard was that they need to put more wells in various states around the countries because many domestic sources are closer to being exhausted. specifically montana because there were some hunters, environmentalists, and ??democrats?? who were against it for certain ecological and environmental reasons. could this be just an alternative to the middle east issue of oil? anyone know anything about this? i'm very vague on it i know but i think someone mentioned it on the news as well.

another thing to bring up is the recent weather issue. the changes are so slow that we don't really realize it. but has anyone noticed how seasons have been pushed back during our normal course of years? the past 10 years or so have really been akward. el nino is supposedly the cause of a lot of that, winters coming later, fall coming later in the year, pushed back raining seasons, all that stuff. i wonder if theres anything else tho.. :| also i worry about all the gasoline we burn. sitting in gridlock-like traffic in LA i really think about all that damn wasted burning fuel just chillin and burning while everyone idles. making even more smog. i might just be bitching, but seriously its going to catch up someday, either through our health, economically, or environmentally. whats going to happen when we use all our fossil fuel? sure iraq has a lot of it.. what happens when we're done fighting iraqs ass for it and we've used it all? k i'll stfu.. just remember to put this outta your mind until it becomes a problem like everything else

i'm not even that much of an environmentalist.. there is just a lot of wasted bullshit. i think we can come up with a more convenient and cheap way to go about transportation.

castille · Dec 5, 2003, 09:37 am

Hehe....an International Space Program.

Germany: Hey you French pussies, we should name the ship "Adolf"!
France: Piss off, I say we name it "Napoleon"!
Russia: No, we name it ze Stalin!
US: No, lets name it freedom.

US: "Hey why do we have to spend our taxpayers money on building a rocket when Iraq doesn't have to?"
Iraq: "Thats because you're all heretics!"
US: "Go back to killing kids and feeding them to Allah."
China: "Hey can I reduce my budget too?"
Russia: "Hey thats no fair!"
Germany: "What? So China only has to contribute $400M, while I have to contribute $900M?"
Ethiopia: "Does that mean I also have to contribute money? I'd prefer to spend my money on AK47s, you see!"

Germany: "Hey, why should German pilots risk their lives to explore the moon? Why not have some Americans risk THEIR lives?"
Russia: "Because we only have room for 2 people on this journey to the moon!"
Germany: "But why us?"
US: "Because we voted!"
Germany: "But I didn't vote!"

I say privatise space travel....let companies risk their necks, not taxpayers. Why should taxpayers support a venture that has a high chance of failure?

G. Adams · Dec 5, 2003, 10:07 am

Because the great potential benefits should be the property of everyone, not for a few mega corporations.

**Pooeypants** · Dec 9, 2003, 08:06 am

Greed is the our greatest strength and our greatest weakness. Let capitalism do its work and then socialism can finish it. :)

castille · Dec 20, 2003, 10:09 am

So does this mean EVERYONE can work on the space shuttle and EVERYONE can go to space?

Cool....I'd like the American government to build a rocket ship to take me on a guided tour of the entire galaxy. And afterwards give me parts of the moon and bring me Alpha Centauri A.

dannyp · Dec 21, 2003, 06:15 am

I say privatise space travel....let companies risk their necks, not taxpayers. Why should taxpayers support a venture that has a high chance of failure?

Because the great potential benefits should be the property of everyone, not for a few mega corporations

So does this mean EVERYONE can work on the space shuttle and EVERYONE can go to space?

no, read again.

Dec 21, 2003, 04:09 pm

i agree with you danny, partially.

the only problem with private businesses taking "space ventures" is money. they havent got enough of it. once the government gets space travel and colonization off the ground, the expenses will probably have dropped and then businesses can step in

**Pooeypants** · Dec 30, 2003, 11:43 am

Oh which Arthur C. Clarke book was it that had the elevator to space orbit? If we built that it'd be a great starting point for enterprises.

*slaps self* damn I'm dreaming again.

darwinist · Dec 30, 2003, 12:44 pm

I do not think. There will ever be, anything on the moon. No water you see. If you have to transport water. It would cost more than gold. At the moment.

Mars is another story. There is water there. It is the amount of time, it takes to get there. Which is the problem. I believe 6 months. So 6 months there and 6 months back. Plus time of stay. The problem at the moment. Is that the muscles will waste away. When they come over this problem. Then they might be trips to Mars.

If you get a chance. Read 'Red Mars;. by Kim Stanley. It is on this subject. Very Good.

dannyp · Dec 30, 2003, 04:44 pm

muscle atrophy in space has been considered and has been worked with. consider russian space station and long space stays.

i'd say the reason is more cost than muscle atrophy..

edit:sp.

**Pooeypants** · Dec 30, 2003, 06:22 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (darwinist,)
I do not think. There will ever be, anything on the moon. No water you see. If you have to transport water. It would cost more than gold. At the moment.

Mars is another story. There is water there. It is the amount of time, it takes to get there. Which is the problem. I believe 6 months. So 6 months there and 6 months back. Plus time of stay. The problem at the moment. Is that the muscles will waste away. When they come over this problem. Then they might be trips to Mars.

If you get a chance. Read 'Red Mars;. by Kim Stanley. It is on this subject. Very Good.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Actually there is ice locked up in the poles of the Moon. Or so NASA claims.

**Pooeypants** · Dec 30, 2003, 06:24 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp,)
muscle atrophe in space has been considered and has been worked with. consider russian space station and long space stays.

i'd say the reason is more cost than muscle atrophe..<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Muscle Atrophy and bone decalc..err whatever that is are ofc major issues, but how about if we can somehow adapt humans so that we can be put into hibernation states like other large mammals? It's worth a try and would cut down the mass we'd have to carry or at least we wouldn't have to recycle as much.

G. Adams · Dec 30, 2003, 07:28 pm

Nope, there was a program on BBC2 about it. They are looking into it now, which is an improvement over laughing at it.

EDIT: I've really got to make sure i'm on the right page. The above was to do with the space elevator.

Dec 3, 2003, 10:21 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Sean former overlord Location: New York Posts: 2,383	I think it's a waste. Manned space missions were more for making icons, than for making progress. Things like Hubble, Galileo, etc have done far more in the area of research. Also, we have a deficit, so any expense like this scares me. So it goes

Dec 3, 2003, 11:03 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Sean former overlord Location: New York Posts: 2,383	Recycling doesn't have to "work to a point". We have decided to do live like this because we don't have any major issues yet. The space on Earth isn't finite either, so I think we should invest more time on managing our own space before we bring more resources in as you propose, but this is just my uneducated opinion on this matter, I'm no expert on this. But hey, if it's profitable then I'm all for space travel. So it goes

Dec 4, 2003, 04:47 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
white rice Igneous Magma Posts: 372	Most of our physical knowledge of the moon comes from the samples military personel picked up 30 years ago. There's enormous scientific possibilities if a scientist ever went up there. NASA's budget has suffered after the Reagan Administration (maybe it's why Dubya's so interested in it), and though I think NASA to be a bloated beuracracy, we do need a presence in space. Building on Aqueo's comments, the colonization of America needed the work of private enterprise and industrious colonists. They braved several risks and not everyone survived. Why can't space exploration be a private endeavour instead of a government monopoly? Those who take the risks also take on the liabilities without the expense of tax dollars. Let capitalism have a swing at revitalising public interest in space. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Dec 4, 2003, 02:26 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	Why not disband national space agencies and establish an international one? The benefits to be gained here are for mankind, not for single nations. I was watching this program about the Russian's spaceflight technology and they actually have the best propulsion system in the world, its just they can't afford to use and build more of them. An international space agency would allow the best techs from around the world to be used in each project. It would also be a project to bind the big nations of the world together, better than coalitions of the willing do. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Dec 4, 2003, 06:08 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
dannyp projects himself Posts: 130	alternatively we can bomb the shit outta someone so they bomb us back ( with nukes of course, what else is there? :F ) and reduce ourselves to a few hundred thousand. We're talking entire planet population, destroying culture and civilization and rebuild a world based on the premise of using only what is necessary to get off the planet and reinhabit a new one ;D ok nevermind.. but seriously its time to touch on a few good points. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sean) [...] Recycling doesn't have to "work to a point". The space on Earth isn't finite either I think we should invest more time on managing our own space before we bring more resources in as you propose. [...] <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> recycling does only work to a point. we cannot recycle everything exactly as it was in its original state. space on earth is finite, we occupy something like 70% of habitable land area. I definitely agree, however, that we should better manage the space that we do posess right now. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice) [...] the colonization of America needed the work of private enterprise and industrious colonists. They braved several risks and not everyone survived. Why can't space exploration be a private endeavour instead of a government monopoly? Let capitalism have a swing at revitalising public interest in space. [...] <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> good idea and your point about public interest in space.. i think thats what the whole thing sean was talking about directly addresses that: "Manned space missions were more for making icons" but then again i disagree where he says it was more about making icons.. the whole purpose of making the icons was to promote space travel to the general public so they would support taxes and junk on it. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams) Why not disband national space agencies and establish an international one? The benefits to be gained here are for mankind, not for single nations. [ ... ] It would also be a project to bind the big nations of the world together, better than coalitions of the willing do.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That would be wonderful in a world where our countries got along, even if they are all about progression of mankind, it is very unlikely people would share the privelage of being in space together when the (would have to be highly economically stable) countries that back the program are almost definately going to be opposing forces. now to enter my own points: recently i have heard of a gasoline crisis by word of mouth, whats this about? what i heard was that they need to put more wells in various states around the countries because many domestic sources are closer to being exhausted. specifically montana because there were some hunters, environmentalists, and ??democrats?? who were against it for certain ecological and environmental reasons. could this be just an alternative to the middle east issue of oil? anyone know anything about this? i'm very vague on it i know but i think someone mentioned it on the news as well. another thing to bring up is the recent weather issue. the changes are so slow that we don't really realize it. but has anyone noticed how seasons have been pushed back during our normal course of years? the past 10 years or so have really been akward. el nino is supposedly the cause of a lot of that, winters coming later, fall coming later in the year, pushed back raining seasons, all that stuff. i wonder if theres anything else tho.. :\| also i worry about all the gasoline we burn. sitting in gridlock-like traffic in LA i really think about all that damn wasted burning fuel just chillin and burning while everyone idles. making even more smog. i might just be bitching, but seriously its going to catch up someday, either through our health, economically, or environmentally. whats going to happen when we use all our fossil fuel? sure iraq has a lot of it.. what happens when we're done fighting iraqs ass for it and we've used it all? k i'll stfu.. just remember to put this outta your mind until it becomes a problem like everything else i'm not even that much of an environmentalist.. there is just a lot of wasted bullshit. i think we can come up with a more convenient and cheap way to go about transportation. projectdp.com :: thinktankforums.com

Dec 3, 2003, 09:57 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Aequo Igneous Magma Posts: 237	I just came across this article ( http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/powe...00312030858.asp ) and found it quite interesting. What is your take on it? Personally I believe it's about time. A few shuttles a year just isn't cutting it anymore, and space IS the final frontier. I'm also a bit of a science-fiction buff, so I may be a bit biased, but I hope I live to see a colony on Mars, but I will at least settle for one on the moon.

Dec 3, 2003, 10:33 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Aequo Igneous Magma Posts: 237	Manned space missions have also brought many now-common items, such as joysticks and laser surgery, among others ( http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/HAS/...cirr/ss/3/5.cfm ). As the resources available on Earth are finite, and recycling can only work to a point, we will at some point have to turn to space-based resources, such as mining asteroids and solar power collected via satellite. Space colonization may not be as expensive as you think ( http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Tech/Space/mars.html ), and the benefits are many. Trade with the colonies and the technologies derived could prove quite valuable to Earth, as well as materials produced and shipped back, which could even pay for the venture itself.

Dec 4, 2003, 12:02 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
Aequo Igneous Magma Posts: 237	Only so many items can be recycled, so we lose the material of those that can't, which is what I mean by 'work to a point'. Sooner or later, definately later than sooner, we will lack raw material. Perhaps material can be synthesized, but it would have to be synthesized from something. If the population growth continues as it is, and since more population will produce even more population, compounding it, it will only increase. Again, sooner or later, definately later than sooner, space will be literally unavailable unless we start building vertically and digging into the ground. We can only dig so far, and only build so high, however, so space is still finite. Now, I'm talking like thousands of years into the future, not the next hundred. This is also assuming a nuclear war or asteroid crashing into the Earth doesn't destroy all life, either. As for space travel being profitable, yes, in the long run. But it takes cost to get there. Take the colonization of America, a very costly endeavour to undertake at first, but it quickly paid for itself. Trade and raw material helped the European powers prosper that funded the expeditions. In space, it is reasonable to assume the same thing will happen. That Economic Viability of the Colonization of Mars paper is an interesting read, so if you have the time, I recommended anybody interested in the subject read it.

Dec 5, 2003, 09:37 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Hehe....an International Space Program. Germany: Hey you French pussies, we should name the ship "Adolf"! France: Piss off, I say we name it "Napoleon"! Russia: No, we name it ze Stalin! US: No, lets name it freedom. US: "Hey why do we have to spend our taxpayers money on building a rocket when Iraq doesn't have to?" Iraq: "Thats because you're all heretics!" US: "Go back to killing kids and feeding them to Allah." China: "Hey can I reduce my budget too?" Russia: "Hey thats no fair!" Germany: "What? So China only has to contribute $400M, while I have to contribute $900M?" Ethiopia: "Does that mean I also have to contribute money? I'd prefer to spend my money on AK47s, you see!" Germany: "Hey, why should German pilots risk their lives to explore the moon? Why not have some Americans risk THEIR lives?" Russia: "Because we only have room for 2 people on this journey to the moon!" Germany: "But why us?" US: "Because we voted!" Germany: "But I didn't vote!" I say privatise space travel....let companies risk their necks, not taxpayers. Why should taxpayers support a venture that has a high chance of failure? Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Dec 5, 2003, 10:07 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	Because the great potential benefits should be the property of everyone, not for a few mega corporations. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Dec 9, 2003, 08:06 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,467	Greed is the our greatest strength and our greatest weakness. Let capitalism do its work and then socialism can finish it. :) War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Dec 20, 2003, 10:09 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	So does this mean EVERYONE can work on the space shuttle and EVERYONE can go to space? Cool....I'd like the American government to build a rocket ship to take me on a guided tour of the entire galaxy. And afterwards give me parts of the moon and bring me Alpha Centauri A. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Dec 21, 2003, 06:15 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
dannyp projects himself Posts: 130	I say privatise space travel....let companies risk their necks, not taxpayers. Why should taxpayers support a venture that has a high chance of failure? Because the great potential benefits should be the property of everyone, not for a few mega corporations So does this mean EVERYONE can work on the space shuttle and EVERYONE can go to space? no, read again. projectdp.com :: thinktankforums.com

Dec 21, 2003, 04:09 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
Gregory Guest Posts: n/a	i agree with you danny, partially. the only problem with private businesses taking "space ventures" is money. they havent got enough of it. once the government gets space travel and colonization off the ground, the expenses will probably have dropped and then businesses can step in

Dec 30, 2003, 11:43 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,467	Oh which Arthur C. Clarke book was it that had the elevator to space orbit? If we built that it'd be a great starting point for enterprises. slaps self damn I'm dreaming again. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Dec 30, 2003, 12:44 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	I do not think. There will ever be, anything on the moon. No water you see. If you have to transport water. It would cost more than gold. At the moment. Mars is another story. There is water there. It is the amount of time, it takes to get there. Which is the problem. I believe 6 months. So 6 months there and 6 months back. Plus time of stay. The problem at the moment. Is that the muscles will waste away. When they come over this problem. Then they might be trips to Mars. If you get a chance. Read 'Red Mars;. by Kim Stanley. It is on this subject. Very Good. What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Dec 30, 2003, 04:44 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
dannyp projects himself Posts: 130	muscle atrophy in space has been considered and has been worked with. consider russian space station and long space stays. i'd say the reason is more cost than muscle atrophy.. edit:sp. projectdp.com :: thinktankforums.com

Dec 30, 2003, 06:22 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,467	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (darwinist,) I do not think. There will ever be, anything on the moon. No water you see. If you have to transport water. It would cost more than gold. At the moment. Mars is another story. There is water there. It is the amount of time, it takes to get there. Which is the problem. I believe 6 months. So 6 months there and 6 months back. Plus time of stay. The problem at the moment. Is that the muscles will waste away. When they come over this problem. Then they might be trips to Mars. If you get a chance. Read 'Red Mars;. by Kim Stanley. It is on this subject. Very Good. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually there is ice locked up in the poles of the Moon. Or so NASA claims. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Dec 30, 2003, 06:24 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,467	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp,) muscle atrophe in space has been considered and has been worked with. consider russian space station and long space stays. i'd say the reason is more cost than muscle atrophe..<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Muscle Atrophy and bone decalc..err whatever that is are ofc major issues, but how about if we can somehow adapt humans so that we can be put into hibernation states like other large mammals? It's worth a try and would cut down the mass we'd have to carry or at least we wouldn't have to recycle as much. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Dec 30, 2003, 07:28 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	Nope, there was a program on BBC2 about it. They are looking into it now, which is an improvement over laughing at it. EDIT: I've really got to make sure i'm on the right page. The above was to do with the space elevator. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill