posted 06-13-2006 09:50 AM               

Peter

posted 06-13-2006 06:00 PM               

quote:

---

Now 56, Dr. Hawking has not only survived but established an exalted scientific reputation. He was inducted into the Royal Society at an unusually young age and has since been knighted.

---

posted 06-14-2006 05:28 AM            

In 1975 I founded the L-5 West European [Space Settlement] Society – after having several rounds of correspondence with Professor Gerard O’Neill, the reviver of space colony ideas during 1974 . I published several articles in magazines like BIS Spaceflight,New Scientist and technical articles in BIS Journal promoting space colonisation. In 1975 I had very ,very successful media coverage with major articles in nearly all major UK daily newspapers, prime radio show interviews and several TV station news programmes interviews. Coverage in Europe was good too! Later I co-operated with the L-5 Society group in USA. The L-5 Society absorbed into the US National Space Society(NSS) – of which I became a NSS Life Member .

In 1975 I invited Dr. Tom Heppenheimer – a space colonist enthusiast – over to UK and we both did a very successful mini lecture and media tour in UK promoting space settlements which I had organised.
Besides a number of tv/radio slots (BBC, ATV, Granada, BRMB et al) and newspaper articles promoting the idea of space colonies , we both did a lecture at the Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge on the topic of space settlements/colonisation.

I recall meeting Professor Hoyle at that meeting but there were many other ‘younger’ astronomers in the group. But was Stephen Hawking present? I cannot recall precisely but I have a sneaking feeling that he was – because I remember students having to hold doors open for a person in a wheelchair? And I would be surprised if he was not since most opf the Institute's students and staff were present that afternoon! If he was – did I plant the idea of space colonies in his mind ? It would be nice to think so !

And, if I didn’t , the successful media coverage I managed to obtain in 1975 certainly brought the attention of the public to the idea of space colonisation.
The newspaper clippings still form part of my private collection.

posted 06-15-2006 10:04 AM               

IMHO it will take hundreds of years to set up a permanent safe settlement on the Moon in which the species can reproduce. At the moment and for the forseable future, this is impossible. In addition, an outpost or settlement of some kind on the Moon (even underground away from the radiation and meteorite impacts) would need supplies of many kinds from Earth. Any disaster (such as an asteroid impact on Earth) would effectively destroy communications and the supply lines with the Moon colony.

Yes, we can set up a settlement or colony on the Moon in the near future (50 years), but this will in no way assure the survival of the human species.

Mr. Hawking suggests that we should move to other "solar syetems" to save the species. How are we supposed to do that? Is he suggesting that we (some day well in the future) should travel to the Vega or Andromeda systems? How? Star Trek is a fantasy. We do not have the technology to travel to other star systems (yet). Even if we discovered some propulsion system, in the near future, capable of approaching the speed of light, it would take hundreds of years to reach the nearest star.

In July we will launch another Space Shuttle on a mission to the ISS in Earth orbit. We all are aware of the apprehension and anxiety that we have about this mission. Now we are being asked to plan for a mission to the Moon or to Mars or to another solar system to save the species. We will do that eventually, perhaps thousands of years from now. However, by then the threats of global warming, disease (AIDS, Bird Flu, etc.), overpopulation and asteroids will have either destroyed us or been defeated by new technological discoveries.

For now, "asking families to pack and move to another planet sounds like a Bonnie Hunt movie", as stated by David Letterman. Mr. Letterman is not a knight, but he does appear nightly on CBS.

posted 06-15-2006 04:45 PM            

In fact, it's almost as nonsensical as the absurd notion of men landing on the Moon 24 years after the end of the Second World War. I remember reading about an editorial in the "New York Times" in 1930 which scoffed at Robert Goddard's plans and assured readers that no rocket could ever fly through a vacuum. As Apollo 11 headed towards the Moon, the NYT admitted it had been wrong and wrote: "The Times regrets the error."

I think if we could come back in 200 years we would be amazed at what can be done.

posted 06-15-2006 06:12 PM               

Say we CAN do this somehow. Then what? We land on a planet and take it over? I am sure that the inhabitants of the planet would welcome us with open arms as we would welcome aliens who land on Earth to perpetuate their species.

Since we would choose a planet with liquid water, there would undoubtedly be life there.

This does not mean that I am against manned space exploration. In spite of Hawking's warning, we will slowly reach out to the Moon and then Mars, then Titan and the other landing sites in out solar system. We would weave a web among the planets and moons. We would send unmanned spacecraft to other stars at steadily increasing speeds. This would take hundreds of years.

It has been proposed countless times in science fiction that mankind will be "saved" by travelling to other star systems. At this moment and for the far future, this is impossible.

A colony on the Moon will be established on a limited basis perhaps within 30 years. However, this colony would not assure that the species is preserved. One disaster such as a large meteor or large solar flare could wipe out the colony, much like Jamestown in the New World.

If you are relying on the theory behind Noah's Art, where two of each animal were taken aboard an ark for a short period to preserve the species. Keep in mind that if one of the two died during the trip, the species would have died out. Likewise, if some of the inhabitants of a moon colony or "star ship" died, the species would die out.

posted 06-15-2006 06:37 PM            

In fact, considering we already have unmanned spacecraft exiting our solar system, we have already made a small start along the path.

Bill, your statement "Since we would choose a planet with liquid water, there would undoubtedly be life there." is completely unsupportable. There may be / have been liquid water on Mars, Europa, but it is just one of many conditions needed to sustain life as we know it. And the more we find evidence of extremophiles living on our own planet, the more it seems that life maybe able to begin and adapt in all kinds of conditions we never thought possible.

posted 06-16-2006 03:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by spaceuk:
Just shows you what time can do to your memory !

---

As Hawking would say... it's all relative!

posted 06-16-2006 06:30 PM               

We all know that Global Warming, AIDS, Bird Flu, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. are dangerous, destructive and a threat to mankind. However, I do not think that any of them are a threat to the human race which would now require us to begin planning to evacuate the Earth or send a spaceship to another planet with 100 or more humans aboard intended to perpetuate the human race somehow.

If Hawking meant that thousands of years from now we should be in a position to send a large spaceship containing hundreds of Earthlings to another star system, I agree.

For now, we should work to reverse Global Warming, find a cure for AIDS and a defense for Bird Flu and build better stronger housing in areas threatened annually by hurricanes and earthquakes. These are NOT impossibilities, although they seem to be at this time.

I am sure that Hawking knows that the technology for such a mission to another star system does not exist at this time. This is not a debate between the Vatican and Galileo. This is the 21st Century and scientists are constantly trying to stretch or push or enlarge the envelope in regard to space travel. It is a slow process. They are not saying, "It is impossible, we will never do it." They are saying, "It seems to be impossible now, but we will keep looking for a breakthrough in technology."

We have all heard of Warp drive from science fiction. Such technology does not exist - it is a fantasy (an illusion created by writers). We have also heard of Ion Drive and ships propelled by the Solar Wind. This is real science, but it has not been fully developed. Even if they were developed at this time, it would not be able to propell a spaceship to another star system at any speed near the speed of light.

According to Einstein, nothing can travel faster than light. But he also believed in wormholes and warped space which may some day be used to propell men to another star system. This is the theory behind Carl Sagan's book and movie "Contact." But even this best seller did not state that this form of travel would save humanidy from a disaster

The missions of the two unmanned Pioneer and two unmanned Voyager spacecraft have carried them to the outskirts of our own solar system after many years of travel. Scientists are not in agreement as to whether any of these small spacecraft have yet left the sphere of influence of our Sun. That is because we do not know exactly where the Sun stops influencing any of these craft. NASA has even considered "turning off" their efforts to listen to these craft because of the cost involved. It will take these spacecraft hundreds of years to reach the nearest star in the relative direction in which each is headed. Therefore, to use them as examples of our ability to travel to another star system is off the point. We do not have the ability to send humans on a similar mission, even if they were placed in suspended animantion for hundreds of years.

Sending humans on such a mission to another star would be a challenge to scientists who must discover how ro keep them "alive" during this voyage.

For now (the next 100 or 200 years), we should concentrate on establishing colonies on the Moon, Mars and perhaps Titan, Europa and a few other moons of the "gas giants" in our own solar system. Establishing a colony on Titan, for instance, would NOT mean that our species is "saved." Anything could happen to these colonies, ala Jamestown.

What therefore was the point of Hawking's comment? Was it a call to action for NASA or a narrative version of "Fear Factor"?

posted 06-16-2006 11:23 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by FFrench:

Bill, your statement "Since we would choose a planet with liquid water, there would undoubtedly be life there." is completely unsupportable.

---

In the May/June 2006 issue of The Planetary Report there is an article on pp. 18-19 entitles "The Chance and Necessity of Life" by James D. Burke. One of the many things mentioned in this article about the development of life on a planet is the following:

...scientists are now looking for clues in strange watery environments on Earth, including in Yellowstone's near-boiling springs, deep ocean vents, ice cores, high lakes in the Andes, and the spectacular rust-colores Rio Tinto of Spain. Even in these hellish places, flourishing colonies of microorganisms are found, showing that wherever there is chemical or other energy available, on or in Earth and its oceans and lakes, life may build complex molecules leading to more life.... Together these bits of evidence point to the possibility that life will arise quickly - at least on a geologic time scale - whenever and wherever favorable conditions exist for long enough.

Humans, looking for a planet in another star system will choose one that has liquid water, because our form of life thrives on water. It is a necessity of our form of life. According to the above article, they can expect to not be alone after they land.

posted 06-18-2006 08:34 PM               

I don't think that I am misunderstanding Mr. Burke's comments at all and they are on the topic which Mr. Hawking opened by suggesting that we should somehow send people to other "planets" to save the human race from disasters and diseases.