|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 7, 2023 20:26:31 GMT
If we're inviting nominations...  That is a seriously sick poster. Address your concerns to the editor of The Times. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2023 21:53:14 GMT
Dear Forumers, There is talk of whether people will go to Mars soon. And personally, if this happens, I believe that it should be a woman that first sets foot on the planet. Only men have been allowed to walk on the moon. But there have been many great women of space, such as Valentina Tereshkova for example, the Soviet cosmonaut. She was the first and youngest woman in space, in 1963. She orbited the Earth 48 times, she was in space for about 3 days, and she is still the only woman to have been on a solo space mission. Plenty of women have been capable of going to the moon. And a woman must be first on Mars. That is a very important thing for equality, fairness and the progress of women. A man first walked on the moon. Valentina Tereshkova could have done that, if she had been given the opportunity. Veronika Oleksychenko Man or woman, the first person on Mars is likely to be Chinese. China will at some point overtake both Russia and the USA in the space race. Unlike the USA, China does not have to worry about public opinion over such matters as what taxes are paid by whom and for what purpose. And China is far more economically powerful than Russia now. But whether that first person on Mars - if Chinese - is a man or a woman will not be decided along Western lines of gender equality, empowerment of women, or anything like that. Instead the Chinese leadership will decide based on a myriad different considerations on what best serves China's interests in its place in the world. It is quite likely that whatever criteria they use, the gender of the person chosen for the honour will be seen as an irrelevance. |
|
|
|
Post by Dubdrifter on Jul 8, 2023 8:07:50 GMT
Man or woman, the first person on Mars is likely to be Chinese. China will at some point overtake both Russia and the USA in the space race. Unlike the USA, China does not have to worry about public opinion over such matters as what taxes are paid by whom and for what purpose. And China is far more economically powerful than Russia now. But whether that first person on Mars - if Chinese - is a man or a woman will not be decided along Western lines of gender equality, empowerment of women, or anything like that. Instead the Chinese leadership will decide based on a myriad different considerations on what best serves China's interests in its place in the world. It is quite likely that whatever criteria they use, the gender of the person chosen for the honour will be seen as an irrelevance. Is it confirmed it won’t be an American? … and not a diversity shoe-in ?? …. but if NASA does defy logic and chooses the ‘stupid option’ - over reach in SPACE exploration … jump the gun … trying to put a base on Mars before it has thoroughly tested other Worldly colonisation … on the Moon FIRST - just next door - for at least 50+ years … to be on the safe side.🤔 ….here are a couple of diversity shoe-in woman that Americans and the Free World won’t miss. 🤣 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2023 8:16:51 GMT
Man or woman, the first person on Mars is likely to be Chinese. China will at some point overtake both Russia and the USA in the space race. Unlike the USA, China does not have to worry about public opinion over such matters as what taxes are paid by whom and for what purpose. And China is far more economically powerful than Russia now. But whether that first person on Mars - if Chinese - is a man or a woman will not be decided along Western lines of gender equality, empowerment of women, or anything like that. Instead the Chinese leadership will decide based on a myriad different considerations on what best serves China's interests in its place in the world. It is quite likely that whatever criteria they use, the gender of the person chosen for the honour will be seen as an irrelevance. … and not a diversity shoe-in ?? …. but if NASA does defy logic and chooses the ‘stupid option’ - over reach in SPACE exploration … jump the gun … trying to put a base on Mars before it has thoroughly tested other Worldly colonisation … on the Moon FIRST - just next door. 🤔 ….here are a couple of diversity shoe-in woman that Americans and the Free World won’t miss. 🤣 There are no definites. I just think American taxpayers and their representatives will be reluctant to finance the cost, whilst Chinese taxpayers have no choice and do what they are told. I just think the Chinese are the ones who will spend the resources to get there first. And if they do, the one thing we can be certain of is that, man or woman, they will make sure that the first person to walk on Mars is Chinese |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 8, 2023 8:28:06 GMT
I think the Chinese leadership would find it pretty hard to justify - ie spending multiple billions sending someone to a desert to die.
What is the rationale for sending someone / anyone?
What is even the reason for a long term colonisation project?
I'm all for a spirit of adventure and exploration, but when there is no reason at all and the cost is so high, it becomes a bit like crossing the Atlantic on a piece of Styrofoam and spending billions doing it.
I think the popular conversation on the matter doesn't adequately take into account some pretty harsh realities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Veronika on Nov 21, 2023 19:37:03 GMT
Dear johnofgwent,
Thank you for making the good point that if a woman is the first human person on Mars then it must be an actual, real biological woman and not just a man who has announced that they are somehow now a woman.
Veronika Oleksychenko
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 21, 2023 19:46:03 GMT
Dear johnofgwent, Thank you for making the good point that if a woman is the first human person on Mars then it must be an actual, real biological woman and not just a man who has announced that they are somehow now a woman. Veronika Oleksychenko According to the lefties on here we could send a man to Mars but claim that we sent a woman to Pluto . |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Nov 21, 2023 20:04:30 GMT
Personally I’d send Hamas and likud and let them fight over another desert.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2023 22:20:17 GMT
Whoever it is they won't be coming back. I suggest we send some of our illegal migrants there. I would suggest sending Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Suella Braverman, Tony Blair, and Keir Starmer. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2023 22:23:31 GMT
But what if we had a three-women crew - Rayner, Diane Abbott and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown? Wouldn't it be worth billions just to be rid of them? Perhaps Naga Munchetty can go along as ballast too. I would prefer Suella Braverman, Nadine Dorries, and Therese Coffey. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2023 22:35:36 GMT
I think the Chinese leadership would find it pretty hard to justify - ie spending multiple billions sending someone to a desert to die. What is the rationale for sending someone / anyone? What is even the reason for a long term colonisation project? I'm all for a spirit of adventure and exploration, but when there is no reason at all and the cost is so high, it becomes a bit like crossing the Atlantic on a piece of Styrofoam and spending billions doing it. I think the popular conversation on the matter doesn't adequately take into account some pretty harsh realities. There is this assumption that a trip to Mars would be a deliberate one way trip. But no one will be sent to Mars without some sort of plan to get them back. If no such plan proves possible no one will go. All of which just adds to the cost to an enormous extent. Even with 1960s technology we managed to land men on the moon and have them take off again. Of course the moon is a lot nearer, though the issue with getting back up off a surface of another body in space is not really one of how far away it is but how great the gravity is. The gravity well of Mars is much less deep than that of Earth, but nevertheless much deeper than that of the moon. The rocket propulsion systems that lifted men back up off the moon, would need to be much more powerful to lift them off the surface of Mars. But with modern technology and more powerful rockets on the Mars lander it might be technically feasible. The boffins will of course crunch the numbers until they come up with something technologically feasible. Otherwise it wont happen |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2023 22:37:30 GMT
Dear johnofgwent, Thank you for making the good point that if a woman is the first human person on Mars then it must be an actual, real biological woman and not just a man who has announced that they are somehow now a woman. Veronika Oleksychenko According to the lefties on here we could send a man to Mars but claim that we sent a woman to Pluto . According to righties, sending anyone to Mars would all be part of some nefarious plot to reverse Brexit. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 21, 2023 23:29:34 GMT
According to the lefties on here we could send a man to Mars but claim that we sent a woman to Pluto . According to righties, sending anyone to Mars would all be part of some nefarious plot to reverse Brexit. Leftie humour 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 22, 2023 8:56:23 GMT
I think the Chinese leadership would find it pretty hard to justify - ie spending multiple billions sending someone to a desert to die. What is the rationale for sending someone / anyone? What is even the reason for a long term colonisation project? I'm all for a spirit of adventure and exploration, but when there is no reason at all and the cost is so high, it becomes a bit like crossing the Atlantic on a piece of Styrofoam and spending billions doing it. I think the popular conversation on the matter doesn't adequately take into account some pretty harsh realities. There is this assumption that a trip to Mars would be a deliberate one way trip. But no one will be sent to Mars without some sort of plan to get them back. If no such plan proves possible no one will go. All of which just adds to the cost to an enormous extent. Even with 1960s technology we managed to land men on the moon and have them take off again. Of course the moon is a lot nearer, though the issue with getting back up off a surface of another body in space is not really one of how far away it is but how great the gravity is. The gravity well of Mars is much less deep than that of Earth, but nevertheless much deeper than that of the moon. The rocket propulsion systems that lifted men back up off the moon, would need to be much more powerful to lift them off the surface of Mars. But with modern technology and more powerful rockets on the Mars lander it might be technically feasible. The boffins will of course crunch the numbers until they come up with something technologically feasible. Otherwise it wont happen i'm not a professional space person myself, but I do have a basic grasp of physics, engineering principles and the nature of outer space (i'm space educated). In my estimation the two journeys are not very comparable. IIRC the journey to the moon takes about 3 days, while the journey to mars would optimistically take multiple months, perhaps more than a whole year. This is important because you need to keep your humans alive in this period and that takes energy, food weight etc etc etc. If mars were where the moon is, i think it might be feasible to send humans and get them back. Mars has a very thin atmosphere which might make the descent problem slightly simpler - though my understanding is that mars' atmosphere is so very thin it barely offers any sizable advantage here and its presence acts as a net extra problem. The 'keeping human alive and functioning in a pipe for multiple months' is a real head-scratcher when you add it to the 'have enough fuel at the end of the outward journey to get back into mars orbit and then back to earth' problem. Getting back from mars orbit to Earth would take a lot of fuel for orbital mechanical reasons and it's not a journey we can wait four years to do either. If i were to cite the biggest knock down reason such a journey is infeasible presently it would be the long journey period. Humans are going to live exclusively in a cramped pipe for a year? While weightless? and, when they arrive they are going to be fine being subjected to the accelerations of the mars descent and Mars' gravity with no external help? I don't think so There have been proposals to build suitable space engines (plus fuel) on mars' surface before a journey, but this itself is a decades long project and nobody yet has made a start. In short, I actually over egged our chances - even a one way trip to Mar's surface by humans is also infeasible. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 22, 2023 10:23:50 GMT
That is a seriously sick poster. Address your concerns to the editor of The Times. Well I might expect shit from The Times --- |
|
