Re: Space travel by humans is not possible now

On 23 Jan, 04:42, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ian Parker <ianpark...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

:
:Agility will be required in exploiting the resources of space.
:

Yes, if you want to do it remotely, it certainly will be.  It is ONE
AMONG MANY things that will be required.  This is why I say 'so what'.

:
:I have not heard any convincing arguments telling me that agile robots
:are impossible, or even that they are so far in the future not to be
:worthy of serious consideration. Indeed truly agile systems are being
:worked on AS CURRENT RESEARCH.
:

I have not heard any convincing arguments telling me that achieving an
agile robot meets the goal or that any of the numerous other
capabilities needed are even on anyone's roadmap.

It's a long way from "CURRENT RESEARCH" and something being reliable
enough to actually build and field.

Hark at the pot calling the kettle black. It will take a damn site
longer to solve the life support problems on Mars.
:
:To me anyone in denial of these facts is displaying considerable
:ignorance. I would like Rand and Fred (particularly Rand) to stop name
:calling, stop accusations of paedophilia and start addressing this
:central issue.
:

No one has accused you of paedophilia.  This has been repeatedly
explained to you in simple terms and yet you persist in failing to
understand simple declarative English sentences.

Rand has most definitly. Do you want the quotes? I can dig them out if
you want.

This is the thread
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/7f77d08a0d79010f/27c48ac743f48f60?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#27c48ac743f48f60

:
:"All knowlredable people say an agile robot is impossible". This is
:what they seem, in essense to be saying. Why is it impossible? What is
:impossible about it? If they cannot address themselves to these
:central points they should shut up.
:

Since no one said any such thing, it is unsurprising that no one is
addressing the issue.

This seems to be a clear implication of of what has been said. If you
call someone a lunatic you are implying that their views are far
removed from the mainstream. In fact agile robots are in the future,
not that far though and definitely mainstream.

As well as all his other smears Rand complains that there is more
rubbish posting in this group than there used to be. Is he surprised?
The problem to me is not postings that are far away from mainstream,
but the habit certain individuals have of rubbishing anything, whether
mainsream or not, that does not fit into their concepts, and smearing
and insulting when logical argument fails.

This is rubbish posting. Not FTL, not the temperature of Venus. I will
not put up with this. There are similarities between you and Rand. I
think you have been trained in the same school.

I can say a few other things :- UFOs. Now we all thow that they are
not connected with ET. That is not the point. The military use the ET
buffs as a way of ridiculing those people who see UFOs, quite a lot of
which are "black" aircraft. This was the case at Phoenix. The
techniques are so well worn that I cannot but believe that the
military receives training in them. If personal remarks cease, if you
start conducting yourselves as you weould at a scientific conference I
will stop talking about Iraq. You two are "beni al kalb" (stricly the
dual (binyad) should be used but there are more of you out there).

Iraq is absolutely relevant. It is a part of training NOT to win
hearts and minds. I personally believe this group is defunct. You see
nothing sensible can ever be discussed. What are to me and a lot of
other people

Stop making *** up and then pretending someone said it, you silly
wanker.

[Ian Parker's nonsensical zoom off into ASS-Land elided.]

Iraq is absolutely relevant, and I am beginning to wonder about the
nature of this group.


- Ian Parker
.

Quantcast