PakledHostage

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...

Fair points have been made by both sides, over and over again. Not just by you and I but by several others on this thread too. When neither side is convincing the other of their position, there is no choice but to agree to disagree and move on. You're certainly welcome to keep trying to convince me and the others on my side of the debate though.

Besides, like I said: We'll have to agree to disagree.

You are a prolific poster on these forums and I do read what you have to say about the topics that I am interested in, but this won't be the first or last time that we will have to agree to disagree. And go outside without a pressure suit, and plant crops in naturally fertile soil, etc, etc...

Maybe, but your point hinges upon your predictions about terraforming technology coming true. To that, I refer you to Peadar1987's comments above.

Because terraforming is science fiction? And even if it wasn't, because it would take on the order of tens of thousands of years to terraform Mars into a planet that is habitable for terrestrial creatures and humans? Let me echo some of TheSaint's frustration: Doesn't anyone read my posts? People signing up for Mars One are almost certainly looking for an adventure. Like millions of other people today and throughout history, they are willing to take risks and make sacrifices for that thrill. But that doesn't mean that living in a box on Mars is ever going to be any better than living at Ammundson-Scott station or in Nanisivik. In fact, it will be worse because it is colder on Mars and you can't breath the air.

And there is the apocryphal story of Sir Ernest Shackleton's advertisement for crew in a UK newspaper: People seek adventure, no matter the risks. As a sailor and a climber, I understand this all too well myself. But there is a difference between seeking adventure in the high arctic and living there because where you are coming from sucks so bad that you were better off to leave.

While it is certainly true that many people emigrated to the new world because they were looking for a better life, I feel compelled to ask how bad would life have to be here on Earth such that living in a box on Mars would be a better option? No honestly? As I pointed out in an earlier post in this thread, we've had the technology to live in places like Nanisivik for literally thousands of years yet there's no rush of people moving to the high arctic. Mars is orders of magnitude less habitable than the high arctic. The high arctic is dozens of degrees warmer than the warmest places on Mars and you can actually breath the air! If life here on Earth becomes so bad that moving into a box on Mars is preferable to staying here, then we and everything else on Earth are in very grave trouble indeed.

What benefits? They are relative. For the cost (on the order of 100 billion USD) of your manned geology lab on Mars where we would learn about some Mars rocks, we could send robotic missions to learn about every major planet and moon in the Solar System (including about Mars rocks). Robotic missions drive technological progress and pump the aerospace economy just as much as manned missions do, and the scientific ROI of past robotic missions has been nothing short of spectacular.

I had that thought while watching the video below the first few times that I watched it. I've sailed across the Atlantic in a sailboat. It took us 6 weeks, including a week long stop in the Azores. I then got on a plane and flew home in just a few hours. Now consider that the ISS goes all the way around every 90 minutes... People who'd only ever known travel by sail power would be absolutely flabbergasted.

I am not so sure that I would be so generous as to call the typical media interviewee a "pro" (which ties back to my point from earlier). Just look at the typical guest's credentials when they are trotted out. Aviation is a broad field. Being an expert in one area does not make one an expert in all areas. A guest may be a retired 747 captain or an airline policy analyst, but they'll almost never be an NTSB investigator. The reason is that the NTSB investigator knows to keep his/her mouth shut until there is something to report. What may seem to be an obvious cause initially often turns out to be completely wrong in the final analysis.

And I wasn't trying to be argumentative, honest. (Although I may have been a bit flippant.) I really do think it is great when people want to discuss possible reasons for accidents. But we should qualify our speculation as just that and we should always be respectful of the fact that people die in aircraft accidents; they should not be "entertainment".

Please show me where I said that we shouldn't start out? To be clear, my issue isn't whether we should start out or not. My issue is with people's (what I consider to be) unreasonable expectations. Almost nobody wants to live in places like Nanasivik even though we've had the technology to do so for thousands of years... What makes people think that living in an orders of magnitude less hospitable place like Mars would be any more appealing (once the initial "gee whiz" factor wears off).

I am firmly in the "pro space exploration camp" but I find most of the arguments for manned spaceflight in this thread to be a bit ridiculous. We are a long way away from emigrating to self sustaining off world colonies and there is no where in the Solar System that is more habitable than the LEAST HABITABLE places on Earth. Sure we should work towards eventually leaving the "cradle of humanity" behind and all of that, but Rome wasn't built in a day. Erm, why? Reductio ad absurdum.

My point isn't that people shouldn't discuss possible causes/explanations. My point is that they should avoid making definitive statements about the cause. There may well be mitigating factors that only those close to the investigation know. It's great that every guy with 50 hours in a trainer thinks they are an expert and feels that they have something to offer, but they should qualify their speculation as just that.

I think I saw you on the news the other day! I love listening to guys like you. What I always wonder is why you self-appointed "experts" don't leave the aircraft accident investigations to the actual experts and avoid making definitive statements about the cause until it is actually known?

You're braver than me... But I agree with your sentiments. They are beneficial little creatures.

I have to agree with you, Nova. I think they are fascinating. I don't like having them in my house, but I think they are fascinating. I am the spider catcher in my house. When the shriek of alarm comes, I grab a drinking glass and a piece of paper and rush to the scene before someone gets hurt (whether that be a family member or the offending spider). I quickly trap the spider under the glass, slide the paper underneath then carry the whole assembly outside where the spider belongs. If it is a particularly interesting species, I'll look at it through the glass for a bit before I let it go. Often, the spider seems to be doing the same thing: looking at me with its iddy biddy eyes from inside the glass. One type of spider that I find particularly interesting is the jumping spider. They pounce on their prey, and they'll also attack when threatened. Tap a small twig in front of them and they'll go at it. They are tiny little things but they are strong. You can feel the forces of the attack on the twig in your finger tips. Impressive. No wonder they and their ilk are such great nightmare fodder.

Or a reference, as Bill Phil pointed out, to the Pink Floyd song "Brain Damage". I am sure there are plenty of examples of "sociolinguistical stupidity" in many languages. In English, the "dark side of the moon" is synonymous with the more scientifically accurate "far side of the moon". EDIT: I should add that the word "dark" in English does not just mean the absence of light. It can also mean: Unknown or concealed; mysterious Evil in nature or effect; sinister

I just stumbled upon this Scott Manley video about the series of images in the GIF above. And while I do tend to think he gets too much hype, he does give a good explanation of how these images were obtained.

I'm not too concerned about manliness, whether it is in space or down here on Earth, but thanks for the suggestion. I'll check it out after I finish the book about Alexander Litvinenko that I am currently reading.

A new GIF has been released showing the moon transiting the Earth. It was shot by DISCOVR last month. Nearly the full face of the moon's "dark side" is illuminated. North America and Australia are also clearly visible in the image.

I'd venture a guess that there aren't to many film snobs who think Gravity was a good movie... My wife and I both found the plot to be cringe inducing. And we don't even drink PBR.

I'm coming up on my 4th anniversary in a couple of weeks. I figure that oughta give me cane shaking rights?

Flight data recorders are required to store 25 hours of data per FAA FAR 121.344 Paragraph (h). That section also details what data must be stored. And while I can't speak to which regulatory authority Malaysian Airlines operates under, the 777 has an FAA type certificate and meets the FAA design standards and operating rules.