markoverbey

Mark' date='

I missed your original post. I have now read your article. It has many minor inaccuracies, but these are insignificant compared with its major flaw. You are recommending investment in technologies for which there is

a) no evidence they will work

b) plenty of evidence they will not work

That does not appear to me to be a sensible way to invest research funding.[/quote']

 

Ophiolite:

I can appreciate your concerns regarding the possible (or probable?) lack of viability of the alternative interstellar travel methods I rather haphazardly put forth. The main point of my article was that the space travel methods we now use do not, and more importantly NEVER WILL, have effective interstellar travel capabilities no matter to what extent the technology may mature. My subsequent argument is that we should put more resources into pursuing technology that may ultimately allow for such. With that in mind I would like to pose a few questions (to you and/or everyone else):

 

-Do you believe that we have conclusively determined that interstellar travel (in less than 6 months for example) is an absolute impossibility that will never be overcome by technology?

 

-If we have not determined that it is impossible, and always will be, should we pursue research that may make it a possibility?

 

-If you think it may be possible, what one or two general hypothetical methods do you think might be the most promising avenues to follow?

 

Thanks,

 

Mark

Swansont-Points well taken.

Illuminati: Very interesting article you reference. Hopefully it will turn out to be true and within the time frame indicated.

I posted a message on 1/4/06 (Space Travel Realities) regarding the physical limitations (as we currently understand them) associated with long distance space travel. In the message I tactfully challenged anyone in the know (a physicist, for example) to discredit my basic premise that speed alone will not suffice to permit interstellar exploration. Sadly, no one has responded. I could infer from this that, despite insignificant technical flaws unrelated to the basic premise, my argument is reasonably valid. I say this not to prove a point in this forum, but rather, to validate to some degree my thoughts so that I be not the fool in forwarding them to those who hold the purse strings for our space program. Please take a moment to review my perspective and, should there be erroneous conclusion, share with me my failures so that I may tidy up my conclusion for more public display. Thank you in advance!

Best Regards,

Mark

I am not scientifically credentialed but have an interest in space exploration. I often harangue politicians and NASA to do more and better in that regard. I wrote a brief editorial about why I believe space exploration budget allocations are less than optimal and am wondering if my article contains any gross inaccuracies (that would render my argument meaningless). I would welcome any input from those knowledgeable in physics as to whether or not my argument holds any water. The article can be found at:

http://www.opinion.propertyopportunities.com/propulsion.html

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Mark