Uhh, no, the telegraph has very little to do with the internet, neither does the phone system. It wasn't until well into the internet age the internet absorbed telephone technology, at one time they were quite different. I got to work on a lot of the long distance equipment for Collins Radio, somewhere around the late 80's the technologies started merging.

Unfortunately, the "what's in it for me" mentality of politicians will prevent your dream from happening. Fact is, I share it, but I've been around long enough to see the weaknesses of the system. Roads and public welfare will always take precedence.

 

Uhh, no, the telegraph has very little to do with the internet, neither does the phone system.

The History of the Internet has precursors that date back to the 19th century, especially the telegraph system, more than a century before the digital Internet became widely used in the second half of the 1990s. The concept of data communication - transmitting data between two different places, connected via some kind of electromagnetic medium, such as radio or an electrical wire - actually predates the introduction of the first computers. Such communication systems were typically limited to point to point communication between two end devices. Telegraph systems and telex machines can be considered early precursors of this kind of communication.

but hey, they might have also mentioned the Dewy decimal system.

 

@bribri

I think you forget that once humans discovered fire, they had a long-distance digital communication system. All patents can be traced to the wheel, cooking, and smoke signals. At least, that is how it seems according to your arguments. Why not keep it serious and stop playing word games?

John

 

@bribri

I think you forget that once humans discovered fire, they had a long-distance digital communication system. All patents can be traced to the wheel, cooking, and smoke signals. At least, that is how it seems according to your arguments. Why not keep it serious and stop playing word games?

maybe re-read my argument.
without the big words,
what i am proposing is that the internet as we know it, the thing that we are using for (attempts at) communicating right now, is actually the result of different people, from different countries, working together.
that the 'history of the internet' article on wiki traces the origins back to the "...concept of data communication - transmitting data between two different places, connected via some kind of electromagnetic medium" seems perfectly reasonable to me. but go ahead and edit the page if you like.

it was merely an example. my argument was broader in scope.

examples of the nasa/esa collaborative mars missions set for 2016, 2018, and maybe 2020 still stand also.

 

At this point, your comment doesn't make any sense, or at best, is impossible to read. Can you try using sentences and capitalization to separate some of the thoughts?

John

 

At his point, your comment doesn't make any sense, or at best, is impossible to read. Can you try using sentences and capitalization to separate some of the thoughts?

at whose point?
if you meant the word "this", perhaps you could try using all its letters.

you are the first person i've found who can't seem to read in only lowercase. perhaps it's neurological, like face-blindness. i can see how the proper-nouns i was using would be terribly confusing, especially if you're not familiar with any of them. same goes for the acronyms. but to help you out, when you see "nasa" or "esa", i mean "NASA" or "ESA".

 

I suspect you are arguing for the sake of arguing, which is not good in the long run. I am extremely familiar with the technologies, having been there and worked hands on with the telephone based stuff (long distance carriers). Until the fiber optic revolution took over most of the heavy duty data traffic the phone system used technology that was mostly invented during WWI (another war time technology innovation), which is a variation of single side band AM in 4Khz steps for multiple channels on a single pair of wires. The reason it was invented is laying those wires during WWI was dangerous, many lives were lost during that simple act. I suspect the old SSB technology is still around here and there, but digital processing predominates.

Since we have traveled pretty far away from the subject of the thread I guess I'll bow out. This may be abstract theory to you, but I've been a tech for a very long time, and I've lived the history. I watched the 1st Apollo moon landing when I was 13, saw the Mercury and Gemini space craft launches on TV as they happened, and argued with my Granddad that the moon was a place worth going. Science rarely happens just for science's sake, for a sustainable program there has to be a goal. The moon had large amounts of titanium and magnesium (it tends to be aluminum on Earth), but the big payoff is likely to be the Helium 3 I've mentioned. It is a natural fusion fuel, and the one resource not existing anywhere else. If you depend on governments for science it is a bad bet, their job is the common defense (military) and the common good. Right now we don't have the tech base a lunar base would give us, the financial incentives, nor the public will to do any of it. I've often wondered if Neil Armstrong had said "I claim this territory.." instead of "On small step.." whether we might all have a thriving space program. We are still going to have to fight the battle of the UN wanting to claim many of the resources other people spent money and lives obtaining due to the USA congress signing that treaty during the 70's.

 

I suspect you are arguing for the sake of arguing, which is not good in the long run.

oh, partly true, indeed. i'm far more fond of stimulating dialogue than winning arguments. in this context i'm mainly just defending my points.

I am extremely familiar with the technologies, having been there and worked hands on with the telephone based stuff (long distance carriers).

i've always been fascinated by the telephone network. there's a scene in the movie "war-games" where the recently escaped matthew broderick character hacks a call-box with a safty-pin. i remember a friend showing me that it actually worked!

...a variation of single side band AM in 4Khz steps for multiple channels on a single pair of wires. The reason it was invented is laying those wires during WWI was dangerous,

i guess this would have been related to 19th century quadruplex-telegraph techniques which used amplitude and phase modulation for multiplexing.... but then with tuned circuits as in radio. in the days of more simplistic encryption, i guess wires would be far more secure.

Science rarely happens just for science's sake, for a sustainable program there has to be a goal.

such is the call to duty i guess. even scientists gotta eat.

The moon had large amounts of titanium and magnesium (it tends to be aluminum on Earth), but the big payoff is likely to be the Helium 3 I've mentioned.

i've seen a number of moon-base for mars schemes which would seem to make sense. one even involves sending an asteroid via the interplanetary highway, back towards us and into orbit around the moon for use as a source of water.

I've often wondered if Neil Armstrong had said "I claim this territory.." instead of "On small step.." whether we might all have a thriving space program.

well, i think the placing of the flag kind of provided that function, symbolically. i personally would prefer more post-colonial paradigms for space exploration, but what those might be in terms of public and political motivation might be anyone's guess. in the long run, if it's important to go, we'll go... but like i said, i'm the optimist in that regard.

We are still going to have to fight the battle of the UN wanting to claim many of the resources other people spent money and lives obtaining due to the USA congress signing that treaty during the 70's.

i'm aware of why americans don't like the u.n. and that whole story is of course a political can of worms. i'd be inclined to think that the u.n. can just stick to their initial mandate of avoiding another series of disastrous world-wars and let space be space. the international scientific and engineering communities can organize themselves, if there's a will.

 

Can anyone survive a mission to mars?

 

I don't think we quite have the tech, but we are close. Another reason to set up a lunar colony first, close enough to be within reach, but far enough we would have to learn a lot of basic skills.

 

I have read that a one-way mission is feasible today, or at least almost so. John

 

I believe it would take a year so to reach mars. Am I correct?

 

The oxygen (in the form of water) and materials are already there, in abundance. That is what I was referring to as resources. You also have plentiful energy to go with lots of metals. Then there is the Helium 3, which if works as predicted will be the new energy source of next century.

Was that Helium 3 comment a reference to the movie MOON???


[EDIT]
never mind, apparently its a real thing...
good movie though

 

Another reason to use the moon as a base is its low gravity and therefore its low escape velocity. Meaning, one can boost loads too heavy to lift off from earth.

Why do you need a 'heavy' payload?

Energetic particle radiation.

The astronauts will need a thick shield of 'something' between themselves and the radiation.

Because settlers with radiation sickness would be very unlikely to survive the harsh conditions on Mars. Nor would they be able to have children(normal children)

Just something to consider.

 

Unless the moon itself is a resource for materials needed for the trip, I don't see the purpose in stopping there.

I suspect more payload can be put into earth orbit than can be landed on the moon with the same rocket. Similarly, even though escape velocity is less from the moon than from earth, one would still waste fuel landing and taking off versus entering and leaving earth orbit. We have the ability to do anything in orbit that we could do on the moon. Just look at the ISS.


John

 

Unless the moon itself is a resource for materials needed for the trip, I don't see the purpose in stopping there.

Once we establish a presence there, industry would follow. So YES, it would be a source for materials for a trip to Mars.

 

I am addressing the simple purpose of getting to Mars. I don't see establishing a Moon base on the critical path to getting to Mars, though. John

 

I tend to disagree, but have stated most of the reasons. A lunar base would require much of the same tech a Mars mission would in terms of long term habitation away from any pipelines, a learning curve we have to climb. There is a chance Helium 3 might be useful for energy and propulsion, and you simply can't find titanium in the quantities you will on the moon. I believe titanium will be the major metal used in space.

Changing the subject a bit, I've often visualized the mega sized vacuum tubes open to the lunar atmosphere. You could even use sun light for the heating elements. Now that would be cool and incredibly easy to build.

 

There are other stronger elements out there guys. It's just that it won't be sent to us anymore. We are nearing to an end. I guess a mission to mars will be seen in movies only

 

Changing the subject a bit, I've often visualized the mega sized vacuum tubes open to the lunar atmosphere. You could even use sun light for the heating elements. Now that would be cool and incredibly easy to build.

Seems to me like there might be some interference from the sun or... something

Maybe I just cant get past the thought that the outside is vacuum, but it just doesn't seem right without some kind of container.