I think more likely is a planet that has nothing more than bacterial life at best, if that much. Solely going by how life is distributed in our solar system.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why Humans Can't Even Colonize Mars
- Thread starter CarlinAnnArbor
- Start date
There are no fusion enginesNuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you farYes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbitDo you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?
It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective
If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.
Yes, I acknowledged that.There are no fusion enginesNuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you farYes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbitDo you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?
It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective
If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.
Normal people take a boat.You've Chewed More Than You Bit OffNot so long ago the Oceans imprisoned people to where they were. Soon space will just be another ocean to crossNobody wants to face the fact that the earth is humanity's home/prison.Not if an ion drive is employed, though I agree that blowing stuff off the Earth is meaninglessThe problem is, it's a 2 year trip, minimum. To the moon is only a few days.We can visit Mars for a short time like we did the moon but the soil is toxic and the radiation is intense. We won't stay very long.
That's a LOOONG time to go without an equipment malfunction that could cost everyone their lives.
And MOST of the mars landings ended in failure
Most people don't have a clue how big Space is.
If the sun was the size of a golf ball the nearest star would be about 760 miles away.
It would take the entire energy output of the world for three years to propel a spacecraft the size of a Shuttle to 20% the speed of light.
...and Mars is relatively "close".
People have been brainwashed by science FICTION
It took years for someone to finally swim the English Channel. Does that mean that someday someone will swim the Atlantic? Ocean? Comparing this escapist Trekkie circus to anything but childish self-indulgence by nerdy misfits is an insult to mankind's brave explorers.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 92,800
- 59,697
- 2,645
Someday... 23 years ago....It took years for someone to finally swim the English Channel. Does that mean that someday someone will swim the Atlantic? Ocean?
Man who beat Atlantic Ocean poised to become 1st person to swim across the Pacific
A historic expedition is scheduled for next week when long-distance swimmer Ben Lecomte begins a roughly 5,500-mile swim across the Pacific Ocean.
abcnews.go.com
CarlinAnnArbor
Diamond Member
- Aug 15, 2016
- 55,852
- 40,731
- 3,615
- Thread starter
- #106
Adam was created 6,000 years ago.Yes but still slow to travel to the starsConstant low acceleration can get you to a relatively high speed reasonably quickly.Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you farYes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbitDo you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?
It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective
If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.
With todays technology it would take him another 64,000 years to get to the nearest star
Last edited:
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 92,800
- 59,697
- 2,645
Please leave religious mythology out of the science section.Adam was created 6,000 years ago.Yes but still slow to travel to the starsConstant low acceleration can get you to a relatively high speed reasonably quickly.Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you farYes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbitDo you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?
It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective
If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.
With toda6s technology it would take him another 64,000 years to get to the nearest star
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 92,800
- 59,697
- 2,645
Folding space seems like the way to go. Why travel to another star, when we can just bring it to us?Yes, I acknowledged that.There are no fusion enginesNuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you farYes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbitDo you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?
It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective
If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.
Maybe. If we can conquer the theoretical, technical, and engineering problems this will entail. Maybe we find a way we haven't even envisioned yet? It's just too hard to tell how. I'm pretty sure though that we will find a way.Folding space seems like the way to go. Why travel to another star, when we can just bring it to us?Yes, I acknowledged that.There are no fusion enginesNuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you farYes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbitDo you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?
It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective
If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.
What makes folding space different than dilithium crystal warp drive?Folding space seems like the way to go. Why travel to another star, when we can just bring it to us?Yes, I acknowledged that.There are no fusion enginesNuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you farYes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbitDo you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?
It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective
If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.
God Got here, so we shall get thereMaybe. If we can conquer the theoretical, technical, and engineering problems this will entail. Maybe we find a way we haven't even envisioned yet? It's just too hard to tell how. I'm pretty sure though that we will find a way.Folding space seems like the way to go. Why travel to another star, when we can just bring it to us?Yes, I acknowledged that.There are no fusion enginesNuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you farYes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbitDo you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?
It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective
If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 92,800
- 59,697
- 2,645
No idea!What makes folding space different than dilithium crystal warp drive?
The first has a theoretical underpinning. The second is made up.What makes folding space different than dilithium crystal warp drive?Folding space seems like the way to go. Why travel to another star, when we can just bring it to us?Yes, I acknowledged that.There are no fusion enginesNuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you farYes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbitDo you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?
It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective
If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 92,800
- 59,697
- 2,645
I was hoping for some Trekkie gold from him. I have never been much of a Trekkie.The first has a theoretical underpinning. The second is made up.What makes folding space different than dilithium crystal warp drive?Folding space seems like the way to go. Why travel to another star, when we can just bring it to us?Yes, I acknowledged that.There are no fusion enginesNuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you farYes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbitDo you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?
It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective
If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.
To quote Piere-Simon Laplace when asked about the place of God in his description of the movement of planets.God Got here, so we shall get thereMaybe. If we can conquer the theoretical, technical, and engineering problems this will entail. Maybe we find a way we haven't even envisioned yet? It's just too hard to tell how. I'm pretty sure though that we will find a way.Folding space seems like the way to go. Why travel to another star, when we can just bring it to us?Yes, I acknowledged that.There are no fusion enginesNuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you farYes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbitDo you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?
It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective
If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.
“I Have No Need of that Hypothesis”
I'm a huge Trekkie, to be honest. I'm however very much aware of the difference between fact and fiction. That doesn't mean it's not fun to watch.I was hoping for some Trekkie gold from him. I have never been much of a Trekkie.The first has a theoretical underpinning. The second is made up.What makes folding space different than dilithium crystal warp drive?Folding space seems like the way to go. Why travel to another star, when we can just bring it to us?Yes, I acknowledged that.There are no fusion enginesNuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you farYes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbitDo you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?
It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective
If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.
But just for you. Heghlu'DI' mobbe'lu'chugh QaQpu' Hegh wanI' (Death is an experience best shared.)
Then stop babbling about folding spaceNo idea!What makes folding space different than dilithium crystal warp drive?
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 92,800
- 59,697
- 2,645
I'm sure it is. I was kind of hoping for the detailed Trekkie explanation.I'm a huge Trekkie, to be honest. I'm however very much aware of the difference between fact and fiction. That doesn't mean it's not fun to watch.I was hoping for some Trekkie gold from him. I have never been much of a Trekkie.The first has a theoretical underpinning. The second is made up.What makes folding space different than dilithium crystal warp drive?Folding space seems like the way to go. Why travel to another star, when we can just bring it to us?Yes, I acknowledged that.There are no fusion enginesNuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you farYes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbitDo you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?
It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective
If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 92,800
- 59,697
- 2,645
Why? Tourette's outburst on your part, here? Settle down.Then stop babbling about folding space
Ask Simon how nothing creates DNA in pondsTo quote Piere-Simon Laplace when asked about the place of God in his description of the movement of planets.God Got here, so we shall get thereMaybe. If we can conquer the theoretical, technical, and engineering problems this will entail. Maybe we find a way we haven't even envisioned yet? It's just too hard to tell how. I'm pretty sure though that we will find a way.Folding space seems like the way to go. Why travel to another star, when we can just bring it to us?Yes, I acknowledged that.There are no fusion enginesNuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you farYes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbitDo you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?
It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective
If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.
“I Have No Need of that Hypothesis”
Similar threads
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 139
- Replies
- 38
- Views
- 617
- Replies
- 25
- Views
- 315
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 197
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 182
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 34
- Views
- 174
- Replies
- 191
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 587
- Views
- 2K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8070
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-