Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SpaceX rockets and launches

Come on, people.

Alexei Leonov did this in 1965. Nearly 60 years ago. And he used an airlock.

Since then, spacewalks have advanced, and the "walker" has their own oxygen/air supply, rather than receiving it through a hose from the spacecraft.

We have a spacewalk with no air lock, and a hose connecting the person to the spacecraft rather than a backpack, and people get all excited because it was organised by a profit-making enterprise.

A spacewalk or any other activity is not better or more admirable because it is done by private enterprise.
 
Come on, people.

Alexei Leonov did this in 1965. Nearly 60 years ago. And he used an airlock.

Since then, spacewalks have advanced, and the "walker" has their own oxygen/air supply, rather than receiving it through a hose from the spacecraft.

We have a spacewalk with no air lock, and a hose connecting the person to the spacecraft rather than a backpack, and people get all excited because it was organised by a profit-making enterprise.

A spacewalk or any other activity is not better or more admirable because it is done by private enterprise.
This accomplishment demonstrates that regular folks like you & I may aspire to do the same someday (soon?).

Perhaps as recreation on the Mars colonizing ship, which I have taken the liberty of naming USS Mayflower
 
The guy doing the space walk apparently funded this flight and a previous one in 2021 which he was also on. He has one more booked which he wants to be aboard a Starship (the world's most expensive firework)
 
This accomplishment demonstrates that regular folks like you & I may aspire to do the same someday (soon?).

Perhaps as recreation on the Mars colonizing ship, which I have taken the liberty of naming USS Mayflower
Oh yeah, I'll just check my bank account and see if I can afford a private spacewalk. The state pension is so high these days, that I am sure that I will have enough.
 
There's nothing unethical about the human desire to explore new horizons. That reflects that absolute essence of the human spirit.

Your lovely, comfortable western lifestyle only exists because your ancestors explored and colonised other countries, so stop being such a pompous hypocrite.
I think the colonisation of other countries was profoundly unethical & that was driven by the human desire to explore new horizons (and exploit them)
 
I think the colonisation of other countries was profoundly unethical & that was driven by the human desire to explore new horizons (and exploit them)

Gaining wealth and power with a sideline in spreading Christianity definitely seems to have been the driving force behind the barbaric European invasion of the Americas, probably just as well that Mars doesn't have any native inhabitants to be "discovered"
 
The desire to explore = good
The desire to settler-colonise where others live and then dominate them = bad
The desire to settle on Mars = batshit stupid and pointless
The desire to buy a ticket to fly in space = folly for the obscenely rich
 
The desire to explore = good
The desire to settler-colonise where others live and then dominate them = bad
The desire to settle on Mars = batshit stupid and pointless
The desire to buy a ticket to fly in space = folly for the obscenely rich
The desire to do the narrow range of things that Ska Invicta approves of: Priceless
 
Last edited:
Since there are no natives on Mars to subjugate, no religions to quash and vast quantities of resources free for the taking, I've no clue as to how any ethical objection could be considered seriously.
 
Since there are no natives on Mars to subjugate, no religions to quash and vast quantities of resources free for the taking, I've no clue as to how any ethical objection could be considered seriously.

There'd certainly be some ethical issues if there were valuable resources on Mars that could benefit the world and private companies were allowed to stampede in and start strip-mining, though I'm not sure if there's anything there worth the expense apart from maybe souvenir Mars rocks
 
The asteroid belt is far easier to access, in terms of resource extraction. Just one M-type asteroid could provide more rare-earth metals than have ever been mined.
 
“Colonising” a place, as opposed to establishing bases, involves the birth of children. It would be unethical to bring children into such a hostile environment as that of Mars.

We do not know the effects on human development of the lower gravity found on Mars. So, to begin with, producing children on Mars would an experiment. It would not be ethical to experiment on children in this way.

If the bodies of the children adapted to living in Mars gravity without ill effect, they would probably have health problems if they came to live on Earth.

The children on Mars would never be able to see the sky without wearing a space suit. They would live in a pressurised structure, partially or wholly underground. There would no such thing as a pleasant stroll on a sunny day, to get some fresh air in the lungs and a bit of Sun on the skin. There would be no swimming in an open air pond.

It would not be ethical to bring about a state of affairs in which humans gestate, are born, and live in an environment with no magnetosphere (which is therefore bombarded by ionising radiation) and no oxygen in the atmosphere. Not to mention the withering dust storms.

I think that photographs of the surface of Mars give many people the false impression that it is quite like Earth. No-one looks at pictures of Antarctica and thinks that it would be somewhere that ought to be colonised. Antarctica is a paradise compared to Mars, but no-one has ever suggested that it would be a good place to raise children, as far as I know.

It would be less cruel to raise children in Death Valley or the Atacama Desert on Earth than on the planet Mars.
 
“Colonising” a place, as opposed to establishing bases, involves the birth of children. It would be unethical to bring children into such a hostile environment as that of Mars.

We do not know the effects on human development of the lower gravity found on Mars. So, to begin with, producing children on Mars would an experiment. It would not be ethical to experiment on children in this way.

If the bodies of the children adapted to living in Mars gravity without ill effect, they would probably have health problems if they came to live on Earth.

The children on Mars would never be able to see the sky without wearing a space suit. They would live in a pressurised structure, partially or wholly underground. There would no such thing as a pleasant stroll on a sunny day, to get some fresh air in the lungs and a bit of Sun on the skin. There would be no swimming in an open air pond.

It would not be ethical to bring about a state of affairs in which humans gestate, are born, and live in an environment with no magnetosphere (which is therefore bombarded by ionising radiation) and no oxygen in the atmosphere. Not to mention the withering dust storms.

I think that photographs of the surface of Mars give many people the false impression that it is quite like Earth. No-one looks at pictures of Antarctica and thinks that it would be somewhere that ought to be colonised. Antarctica is a paradise compared to Mars, but no-one has ever suggested that it would be a good place to raise children, as far as I know.

It would be less cruel to raise children in Death Valley or the Atacama Desert on Earth than on the planet Mars.
So what's your Plan B for humanity when it's discovered that a huge, unstoppable asteroid is going to destroy all life on earth?
 
Well, in a sense they are. Why is there more excitement about this spacewalk than the many performed over the years on the ISS?

I had it on, but it was pretty dull stuff.

Sitting around waiting to watch a bloke open a hatch and stick his head out. 🤷‍♂️
 
Back
Top Bottom