7 ms·

We know the answer to that question already. Man will not survive in space in the long run with biological limitations. The ISS had essentially proven that. Th

by ethana 12y ago

We know the answer to that question already. Man will not survive in space in the long run with biological limitations. The ISS had essentially proven that. There should be more interest and development in the quest to preserve and backup the brain in foundations such as http://www.brainpreservation.org/ http://www.brainpreservation.org/ The current conception of space travel as displayed in much of popular media is next to impossible and wrong. The biological factor will impede any of such fantasies. The only way to sustain human space travel is to eliminate biology and replace it with technology.

pavel_lishin 12y ago
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but we haven't really explored the full range possibilities of canned apes in space. For example, there are no centrifugal artificial-gravity generators anywhere in space - setting some up could show us whether the various problems with free-fall environments could be mitigated.
pyre 12y ago
Travelling to (e.g.) Mars isn't in the realm of fantasy. Maybe you should say: > The only way to sustain human space travel beyond our solar system is to eliminate biology and replace it with technology.
PhasmaFelis 12y ago
> Man will not survive in space in the long run with biological limitations. The ISS had essentially proven that. It did no such thing. It proved that survival in space is not as easy as we had hoped, and gave us a list of specific problems to tackle. Perhaps it will ultimately turn out to be impossible, at least with any technology feasible in the near future, but we're still far from certain.
- fudged71 12y ago
  Is there an article describing all of the specific problems discovered on the ISS? I have only heard tidbits here and there.
  - haneefmubarak 12y ago
    I have a poster I made that I can put up on imgur or something by Friday, if that's not too late.
    - carljoseph 12y ago
      I'd be interested in seeing something like this.
    - fudged71 12y ago
      That sounds great! Would love to see it
      - haneefmubarak 12y ago
        Sorry that it took so long, but I had to find where they hung it up in my school (and it was finals week). Nonetheless, this is more of a poster on general issues of sending stuff with people in it into space for long periods of time (not ISS specific issues), but it's a fairly good general big-picture idea (IMHO): http://imgur.com/a/7om70 http://imgur.com/a/7om70
vacri 12y ago
Man will not survive in space Come on, it's 2015. Can we please stop with this sexist rhetoric? Particularly if you're talking about survival of the species, which definitely needs both genders.
- olavk 12y ago
  When "man" is used without an article it means "mankind" - that is all humans, male and female. When used with an article ("a man") it indicates a male human.
  - duffmancd 12y ago
    Just to add, when we use man to mean humans as a whole, it comes from the old English mann which refers to a person of either gender, with wer (hence werewolf) and wif equivalent to current man and woman.
    - vacri 12y ago
      'black' comes from an old word for 'burned', but it would be silly to say that it still means the same thing. You wouldn't say that fashionistas like to wear burned clothing, for example.
      - drdeca 12y ago
        Well, people have not continued to use the word 'black' in that way, while they have continued to use the word 'man' in that way. I think that might make a substantial difference.
        vacri 12y ago
        So... you're effectively saying that using words like 'nigger' or 'dago' should be fine, since we all know what they mean in the modern context? Exclusionary language is fine because we all know what it means? My point was that etymology (though interesting) is largely irrelevant to whether something is exclusionary or not. And it's a bit of a non-sequitor to point to the use of a word from a heavily sexist era as some sort of argument against it being sexist. Words have a social affect beyond the pure literal meaning of them. And really, it's not hard to not use exclusionary language.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
Life has survived this long in space with just air and a magnetic field as protection. What we have found is that we need good shielding and to simulate gravity. So at the simplest, we need a lot of mass and we need the bit we live in to spin. Also, biology and technology are not particularly separate. Stuff like Dyson trees should not be written off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_tree

by ethana 12y ago

pavel_lishin 12y ago

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but we haven't really explored the full range possibilities of canned apes in space. For example, there are no centrifugal artificial-gravity generators anywhere in space - setting some up could show us whether the various problems with free-fall environments could be mitigated.

pyre 12y ago

Travelling to (e.g.) Mars isn't in the realm of fantasy. Maybe you should say: > The only way to sustain human space travel beyond our solar system is to eliminate biology and replace it with technology.

PhasmaFelis 12y ago

> Man will not survive in space in the long run with biological limitations. The ISS had essentially proven that. It did no such thing. It proved that survival in space is not as easy as we had hoped, and gave us a list of specific problems to tackle. Perhaps it will ultimately turn out to be impossible, at least with any technology feasible in the near future, but we're still far from certain.

fudged71 12y ago
Is there an article describing all of the specific problems discovered on the ISS? I have only heard tidbits here and there.
- haneefmubarak 12y ago
  I have a poster I made that I can put up on imgur or something by Friday, if that's not too late.
  - carljoseph 12y ago
    I'd be interested in seeing something like this.
  - fudged71 12y ago
    That sounds great! Would love to see it
    - haneefmubarak 12y ago
      Sorry that it took so long, but I had to find where they hung it up in my school (and it was finals week). Nonetheless, this is more of a poster on general issues of sending stuff with people in it into space for long periods of time (not ISS specific issues), but it's a fairly good general big-picture idea (IMHO): http://imgur.com/a/7om70 http://imgur.com/a/7om70

vacri 12y ago

Man will not survive in space Come on, it's 2015. Can we please stop with this sexist rhetoric? Particularly if you're talking about survival of the species, which definitely needs both genders.

olavk 12y ago
When "man" is used without an article it means "mankind" - that is all humans, male and female. When used with an article ("a man") it indicates a male human.
- duffmancd 12y ago
  Just to add, when we use man to mean humans as a whole, it comes from the old English mann which refers to a person of either gender, with wer (hence werewolf) and wif equivalent to current man and woman.
  - vacri 12y ago
    'black' comes from an old word for 'burned', but it would be silly to say that it still means the same thing. You wouldn't say that fashionistas like to wear burned clothing, for example.
    - drdeca 12y ago
      Well, people have not continued to use the word 'black' in that way, while they have continued to use the word 'man' in that way. I think that might make a substantial difference.
      - vacri 12y ago
        So... you're effectively saying that using words like 'nigger' or 'dago' should be fine, since we all know what they mean in the modern context? Exclusionary language is fine because we all know what it means? My point was that etymology (though interesting) is largely irrelevant to whether something is exclusionary or not. And it's a bit of a non-sequitor to point to the use of a word from a heavily sexist era as some sort of argument against it being sexist. Words have a social affect beyond the pure literal meaning of them. And really, it's not hard to not use exclusionary language.

lotsofmangos 12y ago

Life has survived this long in space with just air and a magnetic field as protection. What we have found is that we need good shielding and to simulate gravity. So at the simplest, we need a lot of mass and we need the bit we live in to spin. Also, biology and technology are not particularly separate. Stuff like Dyson trees should not be written off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_tree