Should We Launch a Kid to Space?

[p1t1o]

33 minutes ago, Helmetman said:

As long as popularity and publicity doesn't make him the new astro Justin Bieber afterwards I'm fine with it. If they do I'm going to live on Venus.

Not lacking any sentiment here but I care more for the adventurous nature this kiddo gets to experience then for the possible dangers. Being smart and protective at a young age is good. I have the same sentiment to young people but I wouldn't be that type of daddy that would protect my kid from said adventure if I'm honest. People that includes children die by the masses each year, and nobody talks about that much hypocritically, because it's not your country or taboo or something I guess. Also people have sacrificed themselves for much more, Aztec savagery among other things.

Atleast now it's for a developing cause rather then some bogus south american cult festival. A step in the right direction if you ask me. The chances he/she lives is still greater then the potential of death. 

lol - So your logic is, the Aztecs sacrificed children to their gods, so why shouldnt we sacrifice some children for science? Not even for science, for adventure?

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by p1t1o

[Helmetman]

@p1t1o That's not what I'm saying. I'm not talking about organized sacrifice to be applied. I'm talking about volunteered sacrifice. For reference, that is what any astronaut does. As for any other more dangerous job one might have applied for.

The Aztec part of my speech was a crude example and has nothing to relate with my personal idea of what is normal. I'm only saying that wars do the same these days. While it's not organized anymore like in the past people (children) still die these days. Obviously due to in-development of the world.

Then knowing people (children) die already and have done in organized ways in the past I think that we westerners shouldn't be so protective when sacrifice can be volunteered. That would be more like a sensation of pride, expectation and personal development on any age.

I'm sure there are as much kiddos as adults who would want to go to space. If a kid where to die in space it would be for a cause that may help humanity. It's one of the last reasons where I would argument to protect someone that includes children if they wanted to do it voluntarily.
Babies are going to be born on Mars someday, so you might aswell learn how little boys and girls behave in a closed environment.

[p1t1o]

@Helmetman

There are certain legal, moral and ethical issues with asking minors for consent.

18 minutes ago, Helmetman said:

I'm talking about volunteered sacrifice.

o_0

[WinkAllKerb'']

then the sun explode and while biped were blablating for a few thousand  and thousand generation about should we do this or that ; game over 

pointless, just pointless, i do really hate thoose biped self lifespan related way of thinkin' ... so childish

Edited September 14, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''

[Helmetman]

7 hours ago, p1t1o said:

@Helmetman

There are certain legal, moral and ethical issues with asking minors for consent.

o_0

The age of consent your getting at huh? What is that? 
A social and political management system that rules what kids may see and do at different ages and then parents obeying to it while he lends cigarettes from the boy next door?

To me this age of consent thing is just a service, warning and management system that costs a lot of money labeling things and making it discussions during tv shows while it does nothing to reach any end while your paying money for it. Smarts. Not saying that you say that, although you might. I find the categorization of humans during specific ages a little black and white.
Not everybody is different at the same age. And not everybody should be regulated into rigid belief systems. Something what this is.

I also don't understand the wide eyed smiley face.

When a astronaut goes into space it is volunteered sacrifice. And when I say sacrifice I mean it in the broadest sense. I'm sure your stuck on the predetermination that I'm talking about mortal sacrifice, I don't mean that. It could lead up to that.
And to that I have to say, how is the kids case different then for a adult? And I mean, morally, spiritually or given any other way then saying there are regulations in your next reply because ofcourse I know that already.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Helmetman

[YNM]

16 hours ago, WinkAllKerb'' said:

i m just askin what the difference between the cockpit and passenger area and what kind of individual your supposed to find in each area ?

"Why they're there" and "How they're there". If one fails, the plane shouldn't took off.

 

@Helmetman

In this modern day and age, we'd just sacrifice hunks of metal.

[WinkAllKerb'']

yup this and it's also why i refer to the baby park, while your busy and cannot spend your full attention monitoring/watching the baby you place/leave him in the park, there's also no matter having a kid in the cockpit as long as someone spend it's full attention watching/monitoring her/him, kinda like when you grab the baby outside the park because you not busy with anithing else or tired.

this is exaclty where the plane crash link is totally irrelevant

an another interesting emphasis: "sunless sea" game story, the sun as grown and human remaining on earth live in cave, "when it's too late it's just too late" kind of "should we send kid to space alike scenari", i kinda see that like the primitive soup to now evolve or aids adapt by a few without medicine, evolution take time and use to be sparse at random or close, the more you wait the more your reduce your chance to evolve and adpat to a spaceship environnement when no other choice but this one may remain , plus theirs no need to complain about dna and radiation stuff, adpat over time and attempts are prolly the key sadly & mostly imho

Edited September 15, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''

[p1t1o]

16 hours ago, WinkAllKerb'' said:

then the sun explode and while biped were blablating for a few thousand  and thousand generation about should we do this or that ; game over 

pointless, just pointless, i do really hate thoose biped self lifespan related way of thinkin' ... so childish

Except that spaceflight has only been around for 2 generations or so, before that, nothing.

We are not going to destroy the future of mankind by not sending children to space.

***

Guys, send a child to space if you want. All you have to do is cobble together the $20,000,000 it would cost to get them there, and another $20,000,000 to pay for the person whose sole duty would be to supervise them.

If you can stump up the money, and can come up with a reasonable rationale for why you arent spending that money on something of far more benefit (Like how about sending a thousand disadvantaged kids to spacecamp, and giving 100 of them scholarships to top universities? That will, without a shadow of a doubt, put more kids into space than this marketting gimmick of sending one lucky kid up in a Soyuz. Or how about $40,000,000 worth of genetics research to combat disease and disability?) then I won't stand in anybody's way. These justifications are getting absurd.

Edited September 15, 2017 by p1t1o

[kerbiloid]

5 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Like how about sending a thousand disadvantaged kids to spacecamp

This is just about fourty tonnes. A single FH could do that.

P.S.
Should they reentry or stay there?

5 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Or how about $40,000,000 worth of genetics research to combat disease and disability?

1000 samples is a very good statistical sampling for any research.

Edited September 15, 2017 by kerbiloid

[wumpus]

6 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Guys, send a child to space if you want. All you have to do is cobble together the $20,000,000 it would cost to get them there, and another $20,000,000 to pay for the person whose sole duty would be to supervise them.

I'd assume the first child into space won't be going up to stay on the ISS, but something more like SpaceShip2.  They would simply stay in the passenger cabin with all the other passengers, and the main concern would be buckling up again once they reached the atmosphere.

Don't underestimate the importance of "buy in" and changing perception of space being "something astronauts do" to "something we do".  Of course, if you get it wrong (like Challenger and Christa McAuliffe) you get going to space "kills us".  Even so, I don't think anyone involved with the ISS wants their own "Wesley Crusher" on board.

[GigaG]

Christa McAuliffe was one of the first things that came to mind. If this child dies, you have a tragedy and PR disaster. NASA, of course, learned this the hard way.

 

Let me make my prediction. The first child to fly in space will probably fly on a suborbital, SpaceShipTwo type "tourist flight", after said tourist flights have become safe (and thus open to a wider age bracket.) They will probably be an older child, obviously - mid to late teens - not just for maturity reasons, but also because the medical effects of spaceflight on a younger person would be less predictable (just speculation.) And "safe" will be a very high standard - not the pre-Challenger Shuttle approach, which in retrospect was not really safe at all.

[WinkAllKerb'']

and why not throwing 40 000 000¤ in the sun hoping it make it clever enough to not splode at some point, because i m convinced that's gonna work 

well or may be the sun timer don't give a damn about money, like most thing in the universe anyway ... money ... tss tsss ... it always start with money (pseudo silly selfish) concern then it end with [no tralala no tralalala no tralalala] ... this specific forum rules should be simplified and clarified may be ?

Edited September 16, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''

[p1t1o]

5 hours ago, WinkAllKerb'' said:

and why not throwing 40 000 000¤ in the sun hoping it make it clever enough to not splode at some point, because i m convinced that's gonna work 

well or may be the sun timer don't give a damn about money, like most thing in the universe anyway ... money ... tss tsss ... it always start with money (pseudo silly selfish) concern then it end with [no tralala no tralalala no tralalala] ... this specific forum rules should be simplified and clarified may be ?

The sun is not a danger to us. At all. No species, let alone civilisation, has ever survived even a fraction of the time it is going to take for the sun to become a concern. And if by some miracle, humans are the first, then it will be so far in the future that the solutions will be trivial - and we'd still probably have several tens of thousands of years to get it right. More than enough time to go from a stone-age tech level to a 21st century tech level.

The preservation of the human race by spreading across planets to avoid the expansion of the sun, has never been a justification for space travel.

 

Edited September 16, 2017 by p1t1o

[YNM]

6 hours ago, WinkAllKerb'' said:

and why not throwing 40 000 000¤ in the sun hoping it make it clever enough to not splode at some point, because i m convinced that's gonna work 

At that point i'd just turn it into a scam or something.

*ahem* *ahem*

Edited September 16, 2017 by YNM

[WinkAllKerb'']

while i m just gonna ask (again) "how environemental diversitieS impact evolution a single or multigenerational way ?"

but i might as well necro the "what can we do with a galaxy sized computer" thread instead of asking that again and say "wow there a big hole after keppler belt", i m gonna play "dragon quest" as a slime level 1, prolly , prolly , prolly 

Edited September 16, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''
1.1.2.3 ; xkcd anyone ... time they said :3

[Clonos]

Hmmm... as much as awesome it is for a young soul that wants to travel to space (me) i dont think it's a good idea. It's not safe, and we dont know the effects on a child (AFAIK) yet.

Although if the mission was succesfull it would have a bright side aswell. We would know much more about the effects of space on a kid, and for the kid, as i said above, an unforgetable experience.

But i wouldn't recommend it. I'll rather play KSP

 

[Pawelk198604]

On 14.09.2017 at 2:04 PM, Helmetman said:

As long as popularity and publicity doesn't make him the new astro Justin Bieber afterwards I'm fine with it

LOL

But space is place where many would like see Justin Bieber  

Speaking of with 

https://www.space.com/21466-justin-bieber-spaceflight-virgin-galactic.html

 

[Pawelk198604]

On 14.09.2017 at 2:55 PM, Helmetman said:

@p1t1o That's not what I'm saying. I'm not talking about organized sacrifice to be applied. I'm talking about volunteered sacrifice. For reference, that is what any astronaut does. As for any other more dangerous job one might have applied for.

The Aztec part of my speech was a crude example and has nothing to relate with my personal idea of what is normal. I'm only saying that wars do the same these days. While it's not organized anymore like in the past people (children) still die these days. Obviously due to in-development of the world.

Then knowing people (children) die already and have done in organized ways in the past I think that we westerners shouldn't be so protective when sacrifice can be volunteered. That would be more like a sensation of pride, expectation and personal development on any age.

I'm sure there are as much kiddos as adults who would want to go to space. If a kid where to die in space it would be for a cause that may help humanity. It's one of the last reasons where I would argument to protect someone that includes children if they wanted to do it voluntarily.
Babies are going to be born on Mars someday, so you might aswell learn how little boys and girls behave in a closed environment.

exactly, in age of discoveries, the first Columbus expedition sailors was as young as 10 years old, curiosity and opportunism is what is driving force of our species     

23 hours ago, wumpus said:

Even so, I don't think anyone involved with the ISS wants their own "Wesley Crusher" on board.

that was good one  

15 hours ago, GigaG said:

Christa McAuliffe was one of the first things that came to mind. If this child dies, you have a tragedy and PR disaster. NASA, of course, learned this the hard way.

 

Let me make my prediction. The first child to fly in space will probably fly on a suborbital, SpaceShipTwo type "tourist flight", after said tourist flights have become safe (and thus open to a wider age bracket.) They will probably be an older child, obviously - mid to late teens - not just for maturity reasons, but also because the medical effects of spaceflight on a younger person would be less predictable (just speculation.) And "safe" will be a very high standard - not the pre-Challenger Shuttle approach, which in retrospect was not really safe at all.

Orbital flight is more safe, suborbital flights can produce more G LOADS see here 

And age of kids is basically irrelevant but i think it must be at least older than 10  

[GigaG]

^Any Mercury-style ballistic re-entry will produce high g-forces. A lifting re-entry on a spaceplane will not. (Apologies for the bump, just logged in after a long time.)

Edited October 11, 2017 by GigaG

[wumpus]

On 10/11/2017 at 7:32 PM, GigaG said:

^Any Mercury-style ballistic re-entry will produce high g-forces. A lifting re-entry on a spaceplane will not. (Apologies for the bump, just logged in after a long time.)

Eating high g-forces in  the lower temperature parts of the atmosphere will be safer.  A lifting spaceplane will be slow and have far higher heating thanks to the bits of the atmosphere you slow down in.  So far, Columbia is the only spacecraft lost in re-entry (Soyuez 1 had a failed parachute) and isn't the method I would recommend for kids.

Typically you will get g-forces less bad than a roller coaster (bad Soyuez landings excepted).  Beats the dangers of spaceplane heating.

[DerekL1963]

15 hours ago, wumpus said:

Typically you will get g-forces less bad than a roller coaster (bad Soyuez landings excepted).  Beats the dangers of spaceplane heating.

Given that safe space plane reentries account for 40% of all manned flights to date...  the claim that spaceplane re-entries pose some especial danger due to heating seems unsupportable.  (Especially given that the one unsuccessful re-entry wasn't due to heat.)

[YNM]

Also, High-G is High-G. No matter whether you're in a giant centrifuge on Earth, in an explosion, in reentry or in a giant centrifuge in "space".

[kerbiloid]

Anyway unlikely a capsule will ever carry more than ~6 passengers, and future spacecrafts will be probably something Spiral/Dreamchaser-shaped or so.

P.S.
The spacecraft must be yellow.

Edited October 14, 2017 by kerbiloid

[wumpus]

11 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

Given that safe space plane reentries account for 40% of all manned flights to date...  the claim that spaceplane re-entries pose some especial danger due to heating seems unsupportable.  (Especially given that the one unsuccessful re-entry wasn't due to heat.)

The Columbia was destroyed thanks to failed/damaged/knocked off heat protection, and thanks to the spaceplane configuration that protection was vulnerable.  I don't see how you can claim it wasn't due to heat.

[DerekL1963]

6 hours ago, wumpus said:

The Columbia was destroyed thanks to failed/damaged/knocked off heat protection, and thanks to the spaceplane configuration that protection was vulnerable.  I don't see how you can claim it wasn't due to heat.

0.o  I wouldn't claim a ship that flooded and sunk subsequent to a huge internal explosion as being sunk due to flooding either.  In fact, it's actually quite common to describe accidents in terms of their cause (skidded on ice) rather than effect (hit a light pole).  Well, common except when people are twisting definitions in order to reach a preordained conclusion.

But the problem with that pre-ordained conclusion is that it doesn't jive with the numbers.  If heat was the cause, the Columbia would have been destroyed on her first flight.  If heat was the cause, then Shuttle wouldn't (all by itself) represent such a high percentage of successful landings.

In this case, the cause of the accident wasn't due to higher peak heating - it was damage to the heat shield.  A capsule with a damaged or flawed heat shielding would suffer the same fate.