Thank you for your reply. May i ask then of you have seen satisfactory evidence that proved humans have traveled outside of (above) High Earth Atmosphere and, if so, would you be so kind as to share it here please?
You need to bring satisfactory evidence that proves you are real first, and tell me why the proof you bring, is sufficient as evidence. When you are so kind as to share that, I will listen.
I apologise if this sounds rude, but much of this reads like it was written for a tabloid news article.
Buzzwords like robust, agile, resilience, sustainable and scaleable don't really mean anything to me anymore as they are overused.
Anyway, it is otherwise an excellent outline of the basic requirements for Martian habitation, and the beginning of a stable supply line throughout the solar system.
However, it is foolish to undertake a Mars colonisation mission when we don't even have a manned base on the moon. As our closest neighbour, that should be the easiest stepping stone into the solar system.
The article cites a robust testing environment at the moon as the first step. Involving the building and operation of the first MARCON - as well as deployment of ELORA.
Words like, 'robust,' 'agile,' 'resilient,' and 'sustainable' have very specific meanings in strategy and systems theory. The opposite of these terms is 'death, 'suffering,' 'loss of quality of life,' and 'mission failure'. The exact things society is experiencing right now - precisely because our officials don't know what the terms I cite even mean or how to identify them. They are hard concept to envision for the average person, and definitely not concepts understood by tabloid writers. But that does not remove our responsibility to evaluate what we do, along their lines.
ChatGPT comments:
In systems theory, as well as in business and operational contexts, these terms represent distinct, measurable qualities that contribute to the strength, adaptability, and longevity of a system. Here's a breakdown of each within the framework of professional and measurable outcomes:
Robustness: This reflects a system's ability to maintain performance despite external shocks or stresses. In measurable terms, robustness can be quantified by evaluating the range and intensity of stresses a system can endure without significant degradation. For example, in an operations setting, robustness might involve the ability to maintain production levels despite fluctuations in supply availability.
Agility: This denotes a system's ability to respond rapidly to changes or new demands. Agility is often measured by the speed of response or adaptation rate, and it’s crucial in environments with high volatility. In business, this can mean the ability to quickly pivot to new market demands or reconfigure resources to capitalize on emerging opportunities.
Resilience: Resilience is the capacity to recover from disruptions and restore functionality. While related to robustness, resilience focuses on the system's ability to "bounce back" after a disturbance. In measurable terms, resilience is often evaluated by recovery time and the level of functionality restored post-disturbance. Businesses often assess resilience by looking at recovery metrics, such as time-to-recovery after a supply chain disruption.
Sustainability: Sustainability relates to a system's capacity to endure over the long term without depleting resources or harming the surrounding environment. It can be measured in terms of resource efficiency, environmental impact, and lifecycle costs. Sustainable business practices focus on minimizing waste, optimizing resource use, and maintaining economic, social, and environmental balance over time.
Each of these attributes serves as a distinct lens for evaluating system performance and can be quantitatively assessed through various metrics, making them vital elements of systems analysis in both theoretical and practical applications.
Thank you for your response. I hope that you understand it was not an attack. Rather I just felt it may be off putting for readers, like myself, who are sick of these words being abused.
I am reminded of the different legal meaning of common terms due to centuries of semantic drift between legal institutions, educational bodies and media groups.
Also, personally, I would expect any project that involves risking human lives to, at the bare minimum, manage that risk and provide a safe responsible way to deal with unexpected problems.
Saying that something is robust or resilient in that context seems redundant.
But perhaps I am overestimating the intelligence of the population. I suppose there are truly people out there who need to be explicitly told that their multitrillion dollar space colony ships need to be able to withstand random space weather.
Robust means, 'resistant to familiar mechanisms of failure so they do not occur.' Resilient, means 'able to adapt around occurring failures, both known and unknown, or able to thrive in or from disruption.' They are completely different concepts. No wonder this all appears confusing.
But you are correct, these terms are abused by people who don't actually know what they mean or have never designed anything and been held to account for its performance. So, they get overused by people pretending to be systems engineers.
In summary, it would never occur to me to call a submarine, a hermetically sealed submarine, or a pressure resistant submarine, because I would assume that such abilities are part of what a submarine ought to do.
I hesitate to imagine the performance of a pressure vulnerable submarine.
Clearly, something is wrong with our society if products must be explicitly labelled as robust to let everyone know they won't break in the middle of their intended use.
There are 1,000 ways to send 50 people to Mars and have them all die. There is only one system to send them there and have them survive - and yes, that one system must be professionally labelled as to the features which make it superior - because this is all new to everyone and they need to know. This is a multifaceted system of support, it is not a device, like a broom, submarine, or even spacecraft.
Then, enjoy this channel - just high level to get a flavour of some ETs - some are babes! Don't get into the details, especially about Man's creation - wait until you cross over!
Why Mars? Why not "The High Frontier" like Gerard K O'Neill proposed? Enough material in the asteroid belt to make 2000 times the surface area of earth.
First off we're not doing either with chemical rockets. Need better lift technology. Orders of magnitude better.
Are we able to maintain the health of a human separated from Earth, its geomagnetic field and gravity for more than several months? I know there are PEMF generators in space craft and suits but I thought we still see significant development of osteoporosis with prolonged exposure to lower gravity environments.
We have not solved how to get plants to grow in .38 G (Mars). I am working with a team on that challenge right now. But yes, .38 G would present an osteopenia challenge for which we would need to develop conditioning therapies for those on Mars long term.
Do you know a scientist (I don't like to use name in public forums but his initials are M.D.) from the University of Guelph. When I worked with him about 13 years ago here in Australia, he had also been working on bioregenerative support systems for a potential Mars mission.
Serious question; you really believe that humans have traveled outside of earth's atmosphere?
No, I don't employ beliefs as a tool for handling knowledge like this. That would be a religion.
What would be a better word in this case rather than “believe”?
"Regard as sound in its premise, however still willing to see it falsified with novel research."
A religion provides the conclusion first and attacks anyone who disagrees with demands for evidence on a silver platter.
Thank you for your reply. May i ask then of you have seen satisfactory evidence that proved humans have traveled outside of (above) High Earth Atmosphere and, if so, would you be so kind as to share it here please?
You need to bring satisfactory evidence that proves you are real first, and tell me why the proof you bring, is sufficient as evidence. When you are so kind as to share that, I will listen.
I apologise if this sounds rude, but much of this reads like it was written for a tabloid news article.
Buzzwords like robust, agile, resilience, sustainable and scaleable don't really mean anything to me anymore as they are overused.
Anyway, it is otherwise an excellent outline of the basic requirements for Martian habitation, and the beginning of a stable supply line throughout the solar system.
However, it is foolish to undertake a Mars colonisation mission when we don't even have a manned base on the moon. As our closest neighbour, that should be the easiest stepping stone into the solar system.
The article cites a robust testing environment at the moon as the first step. Involving the building and operation of the first MARCON - as well as deployment of ELORA.
Sorry, I didn't notice the link on the first read through. I'm glad we are in agreement about the need for a moon mission.
The ELORA you propose is also brilliant, thank you.
Nuclear weapons are not well suited as impactors.
Words like, 'robust,' 'agile,' 'resilient,' and 'sustainable' have very specific meanings in strategy and systems theory. The opposite of these terms is 'death, 'suffering,' 'loss of quality of life,' and 'mission failure'. The exact things society is experiencing right now - precisely because our officials don't know what the terms I cite even mean or how to identify them. They are hard concept to envision for the average person, and definitely not concepts understood by tabloid writers. But that does not remove our responsibility to evaluate what we do, along their lines.
ChatGPT comments:
In systems theory, as well as in business and operational contexts, these terms represent distinct, measurable qualities that contribute to the strength, adaptability, and longevity of a system. Here's a breakdown of each within the framework of professional and measurable outcomes:
Robustness: This reflects a system's ability to maintain performance despite external shocks or stresses. In measurable terms, robustness can be quantified by evaluating the range and intensity of stresses a system can endure without significant degradation. For example, in an operations setting, robustness might involve the ability to maintain production levels despite fluctuations in supply availability.
Agility: This denotes a system's ability to respond rapidly to changes or new demands. Agility is often measured by the speed of response or adaptation rate, and it’s crucial in environments with high volatility. In business, this can mean the ability to quickly pivot to new market demands or reconfigure resources to capitalize on emerging opportunities.
Resilience: Resilience is the capacity to recover from disruptions and restore functionality. While related to robustness, resilience focuses on the system's ability to "bounce back" after a disturbance. In measurable terms, resilience is often evaluated by recovery time and the level of functionality restored post-disturbance. Businesses often assess resilience by looking at recovery metrics, such as time-to-recovery after a supply chain disruption.
Sustainability: Sustainability relates to a system's capacity to endure over the long term without depleting resources or harming the surrounding environment. It can be measured in terms of resource efficiency, environmental impact, and lifecycle costs. Sustainable business practices focus on minimizing waste, optimizing resource use, and maintaining economic, social, and environmental balance over time.
Each of these attributes serves as a distinct lens for evaluating system performance and can be quantitatively assessed through various metrics, making them vital elements of systems analysis in both theoretical and practical applications.
Thank you for your response. I hope that you understand it was not an attack. Rather I just felt it may be off putting for readers, like myself, who are sick of these words being abused.
I am reminded of the different legal meaning of common terms due to centuries of semantic drift between legal institutions, educational bodies and media groups.
Also, personally, I would expect any project that involves risking human lives to, at the bare minimum, manage that risk and provide a safe responsible way to deal with unexpected problems.
Saying that something is robust or resilient in that context seems redundant.
But perhaps I am overestimating the intelligence of the population. I suppose there are truly people out there who need to be explicitly told that their multitrillion dollar space colony ships need to be able to withstand random space weather.
Robust means, 'resistant to familiar mechanisms of failure so they do not occur.' Resilient, means 'able to adapt around occurring failures, both known and unknown, or able to thrive in or from disruption.' They are completely different concepts. No wonder this all appears confusing.
But you are correct, these terms are abused by people who don't actually know what they mean or have never designed anything and been held to account for its performance. So, they get overused by people pretending to be systems engineers.
In summary, it would never occur to me to call a submarine, a hermetically sealed submarine, or a pressure resistant submarine, because I would assume that such abilities are part of what a submarine ought to do.
I hesitate to imagine the performance of a pressure vulnerable submarine.
Clearly, something is wrong with our society if products must be explicitly labelled as robust to let everyone know they won't break in the middle of their intended use.
There are 1,000 ways to send 50 people to Mars and have them all die. There is only one system to send them there and have them survive - and yes, that one system must be professionally labelled as to the features which make it superior - because this is all new to everyone and they need to know. This is a multifaceted system of support, it is not a device, like a broom, submarine, or even spacecraft.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSOwiwxGnyI
TES,
Mars and much of the solar system are inhabited by Earthlings and ETs.
See Michael Salla PhD - search for "JP" in particular.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2JjQmHfciA
Then, enjoy this channel - just high level to get a flavour of some ETs - some are babes! Don't get into the details, especially about Man's creation - wait until you cross over!
https://www.youtube.com/@E.T.whisperer
Once you are satiated, have a helping of this channel:
https://www.youtube.com/@SaintOlga69
Dolores Cannon's three-volume "The Convoluted Universe" - I highly recommend them.
Why Mars? Why not "The High Frontier" like Gerard K O'Neill proposed? Enough material in the asteroid belt to make 2000 times the surface area of earth.
First off we're not doing either with chemical rockets. Need better lift technology. Orders of magnitude better.
Are we able to maintain the health of a human separated from Earth, its geomagnetic field and gravity for more than several months? I know there are PEMF generators in space craft and suits but I thought we still see significant development of osteoporosis with prolonged exposure to lower gravity environments.
We have not solved how to get plants to grow in .38 G (Mars). I am working with a team on that challenge right now. But yes, .38 G would present an osteopenia challenge for which we would need to develop conditioning therapies for those on Mars long term.
Do you know a scientist (I don't like to use name in public forums but his initials are M.D.) from the University of Guelph. When I worked with him about 13 years ago here in Australia, he had also been working on bioregenerative support systems for a potential Mars mission.