Space Exploration

[LouderVol]

A G suit keeps the blood from pooling in the lower body by exerting pressure on the legs, forcing the blood to stay in your upper body. It's a temporary thing to keep pilots from blacking out. They really wouldn't work in zero G for the application you are thinking of. They don't "help" the blood flow, but rather keep it from moving away from the brain for short periods of time.

Regardless, the physical problems with astronauts comes from deterioration of the bone structure from not being used to support the body. Humans have evolved with gravity in mind and were not "designed" for long periods of weightlessness.

Fair enough.

No idea about how much pressure the suits exert, but couldn't that act as a localized "gravity". It wouldn't be a uniform pull down like gravity is. But extra pressure I would think would cause the body to work more supporting itself or moving around. No idea if they can exert enough pressure without causing other issues.

 

[Grand Vol]

Fair enough.

No idea about how much pressure the suits exert, but couldn't that act as a localized "gravity". It wouldn't be a uniform pull down like gravity is. But extra pressure I would think would cause the body to work more supporting itself or moving around. No idea if they can exert enough pressure without causing other issues.

I'm not sure that would help the bone structure.

I get where you're going with the idea, but anything less than artificial gravity (centrifugal type would work) is still going to cause deterioration in the body.

 

[UT-Rex]

A G suit keeps the blood from pooling in the lower body by exerting pressure on the legs, forcing the blood to stay in your upper body. It's a temporary thing to keep pilots from blacking out. They really wouldn't work in zero G for the application you are thinking of. They don't "help" the blood flow, but rather keep it from moving away from the brain for short periods of time.

Regardless, the physical problems with astronauts comes from deterioration of the bone structure from not being used to support the body. Humans have evolved with gravity in mind and were not "designed" for long periods of weightlessness.

Wait: have evolved with, or were created with?

 

[LouderVol]

Wait: have evolved with, or were created with?

Yes.

 

[Grand Vol]

Best left to the various Bible threads...

 

[MercyPercy]

I know that's what is claimed.

Oh boy

 

[RikidyBones]

We know very little about it. We dont know really know what it is. We dont know if its even safe to harness. Is there any certainty that if it was safe, that we could even build anything th at had the capability to harness it?

Yet we know a ton about major problems that exist on our planet right now that billions of federal dollars each year could help. But hey, why care about whats going on now right?

What if the solution is in arms reach with the right technology in space?

 

[Hunerwadel]

We know very little about it. We dont know really know what it is. We dont know if its even safe to harness. Is there any certainty that if it was safe, that we could even build anything th at had the capability to harness it?

Yet we know a ton about major problems that exist on our planet right now that billions of federal dollars each year could help. But hey, why care about whats going on now right?

That in itself makes the effort worthwhile. We are humans. We are curious. We try to understand and make sense of things around us. It may not be worth the cost to everyone but it is to me and I dare say it is to most of us.

If you're setting in your den instead of naked on a rock in the woods everything you see around you is a product of human curiosity.

 

[UT-Rex]

So I've seen different sides of this on several sites. Some think it's a worthy goal, others think it's a waste of money that could be better spent on more earthly projects.

How does VN feel about the budgets for NASA as well as the goals in our space programs?

ETA: NASA budget typically runs $17-18 Billion and change.

Budget of NASA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Best left to the various Bible threads...

Fair enough. I'm a creationist, not-fully in support of publicly funding the James Webb telesc for the primary purpose stated in that vid (this secondary / "also" reason is what telescopes were once designed for, but NASA has turned the experiment into a primary purpose of looking back in time (I believe that that goal is impossible and a waste of $):

"Such a big infrared telescope will mean we can look back in time billions of years to just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. This will give us an insight into the formation of the Universe like never before. The (telescope) will also look at individual stars and even attempt to observe at exo-planets, specifically to try and see the composition of their atmospheres.:

"The (telescope) will also look at individual stars and even attempt to observe at exo-planets, specifically to try and see the composition of their atmospheres" >> so, they can see the current composition ("the composition") of their atmospheres, yet, at the same time (while looking at the same light) also "look back in time"). Note: they don't claim to be trying to see composition of "past" atmosphere (they're trying to see atmosphere as it is now, while also claiming that the light is billions of years away << it's easier to see the light than the atmosphere).

Like I say: for the purpose to "look back in time billions of years...after the Big Bang" is not wise spending of / irresponsible budgeting. Unworthy goal (the primary reason ^).

 

[Grand Vol]

Fair enough. I'm a creationist, not-fully in support of publicly funding the James Webb telesc for the primary purpose stated in that vid (this secondary / "also" reason is what telescopes were once designed for, but NASA has turned the experiment into a primary purpose of looking back in time (I believe that that goal is impossible and a waste of $):

"Such a big infrared telescope will mean we can look back in time billions of years to just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. This will give us an insight into the formation of the Universe like never before. The (telescope) will also look at individual stars and even attempt to observe at exo-planets, specifically to try and see the composition of their atmospheres.:

"The (telescope) will also look at individual stars and even attempt to observe at exo-planets, specifically to try and see the composition of their atmospheres" >> so, they can see the current composition ("the composition") of their atmospheres, yet, at the same time (while looking at the same light) also "look back in time"). Note: they don't claim to be trying to see composition of "past" atmosphere (they're trying to see atmosphere as it is now, while also claiming that the light is billions of years away << it's easier to see the light than the atmosphere).

Like I say: for the purpose to "look back in time billions of years...after the Big Bang" is not wise spending of / irresponsible budgeting. Unworthy goal (the primary reason ^).

As a scientific instrument, the Hubble has expanded our knowledge of the universe, the galaxy and even our own cosmic "backyard" to an encyclopedic level. I have no doubt the JWST will do the same and not be specific to just the mission of "looking to the past."

 

[UT-Rex]

"Such a big infrared telescope will mean we can look back in time billions of years to just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. This will give us an insight into the formation of the Universe like never before.

As a scientific instrument, the Hubble has expanded our knowledge of the universe, the galaxy and even our own cosmic "backyard" to an encyclopedic level. I have no doubt the JWST will do the same and not be specific to just the mission of "looking to the past."

Had that vid not been posted, I prob wouldn't be in here. But it was, and it has to do with nasa's budget.

Let me ask you/anyone, as to what you know:

If (one) Big Bang, then how (per science) did the Earth get here (ie how was it propelled here, at this location in outer space) before the light reached here (i.e. the light from the BB, which they need JWSt's big mirrors launched into space in order to collect/view)?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

That in itself makes the effort worthwhile. We are humans. We are curious. We try to understand and make sense of things around us. It may not be worth the cost to everyone but it is to me and I dare say it is to most of us.

If you're setting in your den instead of naked on a rock in the woods everything you see around you is a product of human curiosity.

Not surprised by your statements. I just think money is much better spent focusing on. Whats going on this planet. Silly me. We should spend much more time, energy nd money worrying about aliens and other planets.

 

[LouderVol]

"Such a big infrared telescope will mean we can look back in time billions of years to just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. This will give us an insight into the formation of the Universe like never before.



Had that vid not been posted, I prob wouldn't be in here. But it was, and it has to do with nasa's budget.

Let me ask you/anyone, as to what you know:

If (one) Big Bang, then how (per science) did the Earth get here (ie how was it propelled here, at this location in outer space) before the light reached here (i.e. the light from the BB, which they need JWSt's big mirrors launched into space in order to collect/view)?

I dont think we are collecting light passing by the earth. We wouldn't need a fancy telescope to see stuff here.

My understanding is we are basically seeing the after effects of the lights passage somewhere else. So every year we have to look further away to see the same point of time.

 

[UT-Rex]

"Such a big infrared telescope will mean we can look back in time billions of years to just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. This will give us an insight into the formation of the Universe like never before.

Not surprised by your statements. I just think money is much better spent focusing on. Whats going on this planet. Silly me. We should spend much more time, energy nd money worrying about aliens and other planets.

We (the people) do spend money on this planet (the same gov't/people which budgets for Nasa's research into space also budgets for the tax-exempt status of religious and non-profit organizations, etc. to "do the works" which they do here on Earth (where the former spends, and the later doesn't pay, per budget)).

Biblically, the stars are for "signs" ("to mark the seasons and days and years"), and it takes money / resources to learn the signs >> so my concern, is that the scientists constructing the JWSt are looking for / to collect more light so as to give them signs ("insight") "into the formation of the Universe" where, I find it difficult to grasp how they actually believe that order and "formation" can result from a "Big Bang."

 

[LouderVol]

"Such a big infrared telescope will mean we can look back in time billions of years to just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. This will give us an insight into the formation of the Universe like never before.



We (the people) do spend money on this planet (the same gov't/people which budgets for Nasa's research into space also budgets for the tax-exempt status of religious and non-profit organizations, etc. to "do the works" which they do here on Earth (where the former spends, and the later doesn't pay, per budget)).

Biblically, the stars are for "signs" ("to mark the seasons and days and years"), and it takes money / resources to learn the signs >> so my concern, is that the scientists constructing the JWSt are looking for / to collect more light so as to give them signs ("insight") "into the formation of the Universe" where, I find it difficult to grasp how they actually believe that order and "formation" can result from a "Big Bang."

You're getting back to creationism. Which ss pointed out is a separate argument.

But many major scientific discovery has come about as accident or coincidence. Very few go exactly as planned. You have to have some basic understanding for the rules if you want to understand something, and part of that is knowing the when and how of the thing. Figuring this out may not directly lead to FTL travel, but it could open doors to other directions that could be useful. Expanding our knowledge base is how any scientific advance happens. You dont just skip to electricity or jet engines. You need the Wright brothers too.

 

[Grand Vol]

"Such a big infrared telescope will mean we can look back in time billions of years to just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. This will give us an insight into the formation of the Universe like never before.



We (the people) do spend money on this planet (the same gov't/people which budgets for Nasa's research into space also budgets for the tax-exempt status of religious and non-profit organizations, etc. to "do the works" which they do here on Earth (where the former spends, and the later doesn't pay, per budget)).

Biblically, the stars are for "signs" ("to mark the seasons and days and years"), and it takes money / resources to learn the signs >> so my concern, is that the scientists constructing the JWSt are looking for / to collect more light so as to give them signs ("insight") "into the formation of the Universe" where, I find it difficult to grasp how they actually believe that order and "formation" can result from a "Big Bang."

A philosophical question for another thread perhaps? The primary job of the JWST is not going to be disproving creationism. Nor is it to promote the Big Bang theory (which was actually postulated by a priest in the Vatican FYI).

The primary purpose is to advance science. Nothing more. You do realize that video came from a third party and not NASA, right?

 

[Grand Vol]

You know, as a creationist, you should be screaming for more missions like the James Webb Space Telescope. It makes seeing God's creations and wonders even easier.

 

[UT-Rex]

A philosophical question for another thread perhaps? The primary job of the JWST is not going to be disproving creationism. Nor is it to promote the Big Bang theory (which was actually postulated by a priest in the Vatican FYI).

The primary purpose is to advance science. Nothing more. You do realize that video came from a third party and not NASA, right?

You know, as a creationist, you should be screaming for more missions like the James Webb Space Telescope. It makes seeing God's creations and wonders even easier.

"Such a big infrared telescope will mean we can look back in time billions of years to just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. This will give us an insight into the formation of the Universe like never before.

The third party simply paraphrased Nasa's main objective --

"It will study every phase in the history of our Universe, ranging from the first luminous glows after the Big Bang, to the formation of solar systems capable of supporting life on planets like Earth, to the evolution of our own Solar System."

I simply do not believe that they can capture the light of the first luminous glows in Webb's lenses (and those "glows" certainly would not be from a Big Bang).

In theory (my theory), locating the central location (seeing as they apparently believe that the Earth and Sun are not the center/focal point) of the Big Bang explosion of the universe is like searching for the 1st grain of sand on Earth (even from Webb, there are many, many directions to look >> but they're looking).

 

[Grand Vol]

Not even worth arguing over...

 

[MercyPercy]

>seeing as they apparently believe that the earth and sun are NOT the center/focal point

This will go well.

 

[Grand Vol]

>seeing as they apparently believe that the earth and sun are NOT the center/focal point

This will go well.

BOT at least has a reasonable concern and explanation for his objections. As well as what he would prefer to see the money go towards.

I'm not even sure how to approach this argument.

 

[Hunerwadel]

Those who don't like to see money "wasted" on space exploration will love this:

LIGO is on the lookout for these 8 sources of gravitational waves

No 7 is particularly intriguing to me. It may be the only tool available to gain information from very near the moment of the BB. It's not mentioned here but astrophysicists believe the first gravitational waves were created a millionth of billionth of a billionth of a billionth (I double checked that number) of a second after the BB.

Upgraded LIGO and Virgo stations observe multiple gravity wave events – Astronomy Now

 

[Grand Vol]

Those who don't like to see money "wasted" on space exploration will love this:

LIGO is on the lookout for these 8 sources of gravitational waves

No 7 is particularly intriguing to me. It may be the only tool available to gain information from very near the moment of the BB. It's not mentioned here but astrophysicists believe the first gravitational waves were created a millionth of billionth of a billionth of a billionth (I double checked that number) of a second after the BB.

Upgraded LIGO and Virgo stations observe multiple gravity wave events – Astronomy Now

Yeah, how are they going to figure out "that's the one!"?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Just the possibility of manned exploration of Mars would make it worthwhile

Not really. We haven't been to the moon in almost 50 years. There is much better reasons to go there and establish a foothold.

 

[Hunerwadel]

Yeah, how are they going to figure out "that's the one!"?

If I knew I'd be doing it for a living. From what I've read they believe they'll be able to identify them. Later, hopefully they will be able go extract that kind of information. I know they do believe they will. I took a couple of physics courses in college. But I know just enough about it to be considered fairly ignorant.

Here's an interesting lecture on gravitational wave detectors by Lawrence Krauss a theoretical Physicist (A Universe From Nothing). It's on a pretty low technical level but I found it informative. Start at the 9:35 and you will probably learn something about GWs you didn't know. Watch until you get bored. I believe toward the end he gets a little into how we may be able to see back to near the BB. The Q&A isn't worthwhile.