Because I know this is a popular topic
James Nicoll
and why is it we don't see it in the real world (Reposted from my LJ
blog)?
1: Getting away from the mean nasty central government. Example:
Orbit Unlimited, where the last True Americans escape their Asiatic
overlords on a crowded Earth for the freedom of a planet that turns out
not to be all that human-compatable.
Reason why we don't see this in real life: Currently you have to settle for
moving to places like New Zealand or Somalia (depending on your political
inclinations) because we are not close to having the toolkit we need and
also the rest of the solar system makes Antarctica look like paradise.
Let's call this reason "Bob".
2: Acquiring resources that are depleted or just plain rare on Earth.
Example: Stargate by Stephen Robinette, where long range teleportation
devices are being used to grab large chucks of crust out of distant worlds
(And yes, the narrator is aware that this could come with nasty blowback
issues the first time they sample an occupied planet).
Reason why we don't see this in real life: Bob and there don't seem to
be any resources we need at the moment that are easier to get from space.
Earth turns out to be surprisingly large, very nearly planet-sized, rich
in resources and comes with exploitable natives.
3: Surviving World War Last by being somewhere else when it happens.
Example: The Ophiuchi Hotline where the only humans with technology who
get to keep that technology are the ones not on Earth when it is invaded.
Reason why we don't see this in real life: Bob.
[This should be more general: spreading out means better odds that
a calamity won't kill everyone.
Note that humans are perfectly happy to live on a known active volcano]
4: Providing a way for the human population to grow without limit. Example:
Hero! by Dave Duncan, where this strategy encounted problems in the core
where populations could not reach the edge of human space.
Reason why we don't see this in real life: Bob and also the demographic
transition may make it unnecessary. There's also the issue that a lot
of SF colonization is aimed at moving to the wilderness while the current
trend is to move to cities.
5: Trade with other species. Example: First Contract by Greg Costikyan.
Reason why we don't see this in real life: We have not found anyone to
talk to. We do have the basic tools to carry this out though the process
would be slow and the timing of our acquistion of radio almost certainly
means that whoever we find will have had it for much longer than we have
had it and may well be tremendously more capable than us in ways we
cannot imagine and would not appreciate learning.
Alternate example: A For Andromeda by Fred Hoyle and John Elliot.
6: Scientific curiosity with no immediate eye to exploitation. Example:
"Sun Up" by A. A. Jackson, IV and Howard Waldrop.
Reason why we don't see this in real life: Actually we do. It's just that
Bob requires us to keep the human component of the process here on Earth,
which come to think of it is the case in the above story.
7: Sheer human bloodymindedness, taking joy in imposing our will on a
hostile and mostly defective universe. Example: "Brightside Crossing"
by Alan E. Nourse (I was amused to discover while googling to verify the
title that there is a Brightside Crossing in Baton Rouge and the reviews
of it are pretty negative as one would expect from the name).
Reason why we don't see this in real life: We do but it's very limited by Bob.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:gi177g$kc$1...@panix2.panix.com:
> Why reasons does SF use to justify the colonization of
> space
For the most part, most SF doesn't bother to justify it. It's just
inevitable, and happend before the story begain.
--
Terry Austin
The races for Congress would have gone about the way they did if
McCain was running against a plastic clothes hanger (and McCain
probably still would have lost). - Some Guy
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
David Johnston
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote in
>news:gi177g$kc$1...@panix2.panix.com:
>
>> Why reasons does SF use to justify the colonization of
>> space
>
>For the most part, most SF doesn't bother to justify it. It's just
>inevitable, and happend before the story begain.
Most science fiction actually has places worth taking within
affordable travel range.
Stephen Horgan
> defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Why we don't see any of this is not that they aren't good reasons, it
is that our level of space technology is too primitive. Getting off
Earth with a useful payload and re-entering the atmosphere from orbit
is difficult and expensive and this rules out a great deal of
activities on sheer cost grounds. Of course the costs are reducing,
but this is taking a great deal longer than SF writers envisaged. If
the colonisation of the Earth is anything to go by there will come a
tipping point where men and materials can be transferred to orbit and
beyond at an economic cost and then there will be an explosion of
activity fuelled by most or all of the reasons above.
Marten Kemp
How about "We've used this planet up. The only things we have
in abundance are shortages and assholes. Come with us to a new
one. It'll be hard at first, building the tools to build the
tools, but our grandchildren will have a place as good as this
one but without the shortages and assholes."
--
-- Marten Kemp
(Fix name and ISP to reply)
wjtingle
> James Nicoll wrote:
>> Why reasons does SF use to justify the colonization of space
>> and why is it we don't see it in the real world (Reposted from my LJ
>> blog)?
>> Reason why we don't see this in real life: Bob and there don't seem to
>> be any resources we need at the moment that are easier to get from space.
>> Earth turns out to be surprisingly large, very nearly planet-sized,
>> rich in resources and comes with exploitable natives.
> How about "We've used this planet up. The only things we have
> in abundance are shortages and assholes. Come with us to a new
> one. It'll be hard at first, building the tools to build the
> tools, but our grandchildren will have a place as good as this
> one but without the shortages and assholes."
Someone needs to read all of the post before responding. As James
implied, you can't "use-up" a planet. You can make it uninhabitable to
yourself, but every atom (barring a few hydrogen atoms) the earth
started with, it still has.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
wjtingle
> 6: Scientific curiosity with no immediate eye to exploitation. Example:
> "Sun Up" by A. A. Jackson, IV and Howard Waldrop.
>
> Reason why we don't see this in real life: Actually we do. It's just that
> Bob requires us to keep the human component of the process here on Earth,
> which come to think of it is the case in the above story.
McDevitt's "Priscilla Hutchins" novels postulate that this is an
insufficient reason, even with "Bob" removed. I'm not sure I buy it, but
I'm not sure he's wrong, either. That disturbs me.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:ich8k49osvf5qlpuf...@4ax.com:
Can you translate that in to english?
Gene
news:hYadnUg3poGjxdnU...@earthlink.com:
> How about "We've used this planet up. The only things we have
> in abundance are shortages and assholes. Come with us to a new
* one.
What is the attraction in replacing shortages with complete absence? You are
ignoring the Bob problem here.
David Johnston
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote in
>news:ich8k49osvf5qlpuf...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:42:38 GMT, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote in
>>>news:gi177g$kc$1...@panix2.panix.com:
>>>
>>>> Why reasons does SF use to justify the colonization of
>>>> space
>>>
>>>For the most part, most SF doesn't bother to justify it. It's just
>>>inevitable, and happend before the story begain.
>>
>> Most science fiction actually has places worth taking within
>> affordable travel range.
>>
>Can you translate that in to english?
Yes, I can.
Quadibloc
> Someone needs to read all of the post before responding. As James
> implied, you can't "use-up" a planet. You can make it uninhabitable to
> yourself,
That *is* using up a planet: causing it to no longer have use. How
many atoms it's missing has nothing to do with it.
John Savard
Dimensional Traveler
> Why reasons does SF use to justify the colonization of space
> and why is it we don't see it in the real world (Reposted from my LJ
> blog)?
>
--
"What Kind of perv rememembers the scenes where she's clothed???" -
Anim8rFSK, 8/23/08
Quadibloc
> Why reasons does SF use to justify the colonization of space
> and why is it we don't see it in the real world
As you point out, "Bob" is the answer to them all... we don't have the
technology to explore space, and we don't really have anywhere to go
to in the few places we can reach with difficulty.
Since lots of SF is set in the future - where we have more science and
technology than we do now - not seeing the colonization of space for
the reasons given in the real world is *hardly* a valid critique of
the science-fiction stories involved.
Instead, it would be more to the point to ask... why wouldn't we see
space colonization for some (or all) of those reasons even if we *did*
have the technology?
For example, if the only practical method of interstellar travel is
STL, using a giant laser powered by some significant fraction of the
Sun's output to propel the interstellar craft... we can be sure that
this wouldn't be the means used by a small group of rebels wanting to
escape from the Solar System's central government.
John Savard
Dimensional Traveler
money shooting tin cans in the air when the Good Book tells us everything we
need to know and there are starving children in China?"
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
But you prefer to make no sense whatsoever. Got it.
David Johnston
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote in
>news:jat8k4ta8463h91i4...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:22:28 GMT, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote in
>>>news:ich8k49osvf5qlpuf...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:42:38 GMT, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>>>> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote in
>>>>>news:gi177g$kc$1...@panix2.panix.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why reasons does SF use to justify the colonization of
>>>>>> space
>>>>>
>>>>>For the most part, most SF doesn't bother to justify it. It's
>>>>>just inevitable, and happend before the story begain.
>>>>
>>>> Most science fiction actually has places worth taking within
>>>> affordable travel range.
>>>>
>>>Can you translate that in to english?
>>
>> Yes, I can.
>>
>But you prefer to make no sense whatsoever. Got it.
If someone else seems confused by it, I'll rephrase. But you don't
matter.
Dimensional Traveler
Well, that and he didn't actually ask you to translate it. He just asked if
you were capable of doing so.
Quadibloc
> Instead, it would be more to the point to ask... why wouldn't we see
> space colonization for some (or all) of those reasons even if we *did*
> have the technology?
Another question would be, as the technology advances, what would be
the *first* reason for which we _would_ see space colonization?
I think that the first reason would be to make space colonization for
one of the other reasons easier. At the start, it is difficult to
launch more than a few people from Earth. But if a few people can
establish a sustainable foothold, they can have children, and the
colony can grow and expand.
This would fulfill the purpose of having some remnant of humanity
survive a disaster. But it would also mean that after the colony has
grown, it will have more resources, well-placed to employ in assisting
Earth. That is, in the case of an O'Neill type colony. One on the
surface of Mars would simply be in another gravity well.
John Savard
wjtingle
Hmmm. That's a very odd definition of "use-up", as in, "I used up all of
the soap." 'Soap' and 'planet' are admittedly, very different scales.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
Quadibloc
> Hmmm. That's a very odd definition of "use-up", as in, "I used up all of
> the soap." 'Soap' and 'planet' are admittedly, very different scales.
A pen gets used up when it runs out of ink, even though the rest of
the pen is still there.
John Savard
Dorothy J Heydt
Only if it's a use-once-and-throw-away variety, as a cheap ball
point, for instance. A GOOD ball point pen has a little
cartridge which can be replaced, and a fountain pen can be
refilled. (And of course you just keep dipping a quill pen.)
"The pen's used up" is in fact a classic example of "container
for the thing contained, as "Want some coffee? I'll get you a
cup."
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djh...@kithrup.com
firebi...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
> Why reasons does SF use to justify the colonization of space
>and why is it we don't see it in the real world (Reposted from my LJ
>blog)?
>
>
>4: Providing a way for the human population to grow without limit. Example:
>Hero! by Dave Duncan, where this strategy encounted problems in the core
>where populations could not reach the edge of human space.
>
>Reason why we don't see this in real life: Bob and also the demographic
>transition may make it unnecessary. There's also the issue that a lot
>of SF colonization is aimed at moving to the wilderness while the current
>trend is to move to cities.
>
Not applicable.
With more than 7 billion incubators, plagues are inevitable so this
situation cannot occur.
Firebird
Paul
It is exactly equivalent, using the same logic you presented. The Soap
is not "used up", it is merely changed, by use, into a form that is no
longer usable. The atoms are still there you know...
-Paul
Marten Kemp
I could have said, "We have three times the sustainable population,
all the hydro resources are fully utilized, the seas are overfished,
the arable land is being poisoned by irrigation, pesticides and
fertilizers, potable water is in short supply, the oceans are
polluted with trash, sewage and industrial effluent, our staple
crops are just a few genotypes and a new plant disease will cause
widespread famine, we have pandemics which might be preventable
except for certain religious beliefs, the air is polluted with
hydrocarbon combustion products, the global temperature is rising
due to human intervention and it's a toss-up whether it can be
stopped, billions of people have cultural/religious beliefs which
have made them into a seething mass of poverty, hatred and envy,
the proposal of almost any power production installation, especially
nuclear, causes no end of expense-increasing delay by Luddites,
NIMBYs and BANANAs, wind power kills birds, solar power uses up
vast swathes of land for photocells or slightly less vast areas
for mirrors, fusion power is still 20 years away," but I thought
that "We've used this planet up" was shorter.
Marten Kemp
The Bob problem is solved by the one allowable handwave.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Which is to say, you prefer to make no sense whatsoever, because
you know you're not capable of making any sense.
And, you have a small dick, and you're afraid of my mountain of
man-meat.
But we knew that already.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:4944ab21$0$2760$742e...@news.sonic.net:
And you, being eight years old, think that kind of word game is
still funny.
One cannot help but wonder why, if I don't matter, 'tard-boy
bothered to reply to me.
I suspect it's sexual attraction.
Quadibloc
> In article <c70e62f4-b2a5-426c-934c-b07b06721...@e25g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >A pen gets used up when it runs out of ink, even though the rest of
> >the pen is still there.
>
> Only if it's a use-once-and-throw-away variety, as a cheap ball
> point, for instance. A GOOD ball point pen has a little
> cartridge which can be replaced, and a fountain pen can be
> refilled. (And of course you just keep dipping a quill pen.)
That's true, I was referring to the use-once-and-throw-away kind. My
point was simply that "used up" does not mean physically consumed -
simply consumed to the point of no further use.
Humans will have to go somewhere else when Earth is uninhabitable,
they won't have the option of waiting till it's gone. Of course taking
good care of it is preferable.
John Savard
Gene
1a931e...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> Humans will have to go somewhere else when Earth is uninhabitable,
> they won't have the option of waiting till it's gone. Of course taking
> good care of it is preferable.
If humans cannot accomplish the easy task of keeping the Earth inhabitable
for the next million years, what makes you think they'll have what it takes
to go elsewhere?
David Johnston
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If someone else seems confused by it, I'll rephrase. But you
>> don't matter.
>>
>Which is to say,
Bored now.
Quadibloc
> If humans cannot accomplish the easy task of keeping the Earth inhabitable
> for the next million years, what makes you think they'll have what it takes
> to go elsewhere?
That seems like a sensible question.
But while humans have what it takes to accomplish incredible things...
they haven't had what it takes to eliminate war.
One group of humans, banded together, with unity of purpose, can reach
the stars.
But no one group of humans has the power to control the thoughts and
choices of the rest of humanity. Keeping Earth habitable will continue
to take a back seat to each group doing everything it can to increase
its own size and power... sometimes with justification, because of how
horrible the fate of the defeated and conquered is.
So there are two ways to survive. Win the wars - conquer everyone
else, and be top dog on the planet - or find somewhere to run away to.
That's what it adds up to in the long run.
Maybe, before it's too late, humanity can become one, so that it isn't
necessary to fight to survive - that we will all have a common
purpose. But so far, that hasn't happened. It's too bad the stars are
so hard to reach, so that humanity will have more war and violence to
endure, hampering our ability to respond as our numbers finally have
hit significant limits to the Earth's environment.
John Savard
Wayne Throop
:: inhabitable for the next million years, what makes you think they'll
:: have what it takes to go elsewhere?
: Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
: That seems like a sensible question.
:
: But while humans have what it takes to accomplish incredible things...
: they haven't had what it takes to eliminate war.
What does "eliminating war" have to do with "keeping the earth habitable"?
Do you think the former is reuquired for the latter, or some such nonsense?
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
You're so fucking stupid you bore yourself? I believe it.
Plus, of course, you can't actually refute what I've said, so you
admit I'm right. As usual.
David Johnston
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote in
>news:uqsak41d7eqr21rsg...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 19:48:45 GMT, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> If someone else seems confused by it, I'll rephrase. But you
>>>> don't matter.
>>>>
>>>Which is to say,
>>
>> Bored now.
>>
>You're so
Still bored.
Gene
8f3406...@m22g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> One group of humans, banded together, with unity of purpose, can reach
> the stars.
Using sheer willpower?
Mike Schilling
Without having to change the rest of humanity. Savard doesn't make
sense often; when he does, you should encourage him rather than
quibble disingenuously.
Gene
$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>> One group of humans, banded together, with unity of purpose, can
>>> reach the stars.
>>
>> Using sheer willpower?
>
> Without having to change the rest of humanity. Savard doesn't make
> sense often; when he does, you should encourage him rather than
> quibble disingenuously.
People make fun of fusion as the energy source of the future but I can't
question a dubious assertion that interstellar colonization will one day
prove to be feasible?
Mr. Fusion may be more likely.
Garrett Wollman
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Plus, of course, you can't actually refute what I've said, so you
>admit I'm right. As usual.
If you've ever said anything worth reading -- never mind refuting --
it's news to me and I suspect everyone else as well. Potty-mouth
twits like you are not even entertaining.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
il...@rcn.com
Given these premises, where are the resources to colonize/terraform
another planet/star?
If you have the amount of energy needed for such project (and shortage
of energy for various reasons are a major part of your "used up"
definition), then you have enough energy to fix the "used up planet"
problems.
IOW, people who do not NEED to colonize another planet (at least not
desperately so) are the only one who CAN do it.
il...@rcn.com
> On 13 Dec 2008 15:50:56 -0500, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll)
WHICH situation? Also what is magic about 7 billion? We have close to
that number now, and all plagues turn out to be quite containable.
Derek Lyons
>Why we don't see any of this is not that they aren't good reasons, it
>is that our level of space technology is too primitive. Getting off
>Earth with a useful payload and re-entering the atmosphere from orbit
>is difficult and expensive and this rules out a great deal of
>activities on sheer cost grounds.
It has absolutely nothing to do with our level of technology - and
everything to do with not applying normal manufacturing and business
processes to rocketry.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
William December Starr
marte...@thisplanet-link.net said:
> How about "We've used this planet up. The only things we have
> in abundance are shortages and assholes. Come with us to a new
> one. It'll be hard at first, building the tools to build the
> tools, but our grandchildren will have a place as good as this
> one but without the shortages and assholes."
And everybody in sight says: "You mean: 'But without the shortages.'"
-- wds
William December Starr
Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org> said:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> rote
>
>> Humans will have to go somewhere else when Earth is
>> uninhabitable, they won't have the option of waiting till it's
>> gone. Of course taking good care of it is preferable.
>
> If humans cannot accomplish the easy task of keeping the Earth
> inhabitable for the next million years, what makes you think
> they'll have what it takes to go elsewhere?
Note: "Humans" !necessarily= "a monolithic bloc."
-- wds
pullo
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:387832ae-9d73-4fb4...@n41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> Another question would be, as the technology advances, what would be
> the *first* reason for which we _would_ see space colonization?
I think the psychological attraction, for some, of a frontier should not be
understated. It may not seem economical, it may not seem 'normal' to the
mainstream culture. It might even seem downright Jim Jones/Charles Manson
nutzo to most. But I think as long as there is a societal in-group, there
will be an out-group looking to get away. Granted the difficulties in
interstellar or even extra-planetary migration is currently orders of
magnitude more difficult than it was for the Israelites, the Mormons, the
Puritans, the homesteaders, I would not discount it being a factor.
pullo
"Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B74785D7BB...@69.16.186.50...
> "Dimensional Traveler" <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in
> news:4944ab21$0$2760$742e...@news.sonic.net:
>> David Johnston wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 04:46:08 GMT, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>>> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote in
>>>> news:jat8k4ta8463h91i4...@4ax.com:
>>>>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:22:28 GMT, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>>>>> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote in
>>>>>> news:ich8k49osvf5qlpuf...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>> Most science fiction actually has places worth taking
>>>>>>> within affordable travel range.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you translate that in to english?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I can.
>>>>>
>>>> But you prefer to make no sense whatsoever. Got it.
>>>
>>> If someone else seems confused by it, I'll rephrase. But you
>>> don't matter.
>>
>> Well, that and he didn't actually ask you to translate it. He
>> just asked if you were capable of doing so.
>>
> And you, being eight years old, think that kind of word game is
> still funny.
>
> One cannot help but wonder why, if I don't matter, 'tard-boy
> bothered to reply to me.
Maturity and civility?
pullo
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:gi4shu$lpm$1...@panix3.panix.com...
Not only that. Even absent human impact the Earth has undergone massive
climactic changes enough to make it uninhabitable for varieties of species.
pullo
<il...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:cf4aad2a-b996-4935...@y18g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 14, 11:44 am, firebird-...@invalid.invalid wrote:
>> With more than 7 billion incubators, plagues are inevitable so this
>> situation cannot occur.
> WHICH situation? Also what is magic about 7 billion? We have close to
> that number now, and all plagues turn out to be quite containable.
We might be in an interregnum between the pre-antibiotic times when germs
ran riot and the post-antibiotic resistant and even genetically modified
super-bugs. Looking back This era might be considered a vintage season;
OBSFWritten: Vintage Season, naturally
Monte Davis
> DL ...It has absolutely nothing to do with our level of technology - and
>everything to do with not applying normal manufacturing and business
>processes to rocketry.
Boys, boys -- you're both right.
Stephen's right that there's not a lot of headroom for big advances in
chemical rocket performance to orbit from a physics and chemistry PoV.
We won't see much higher Isps from tolerably stable propellants, we
know of no workable engine materials that can take much higher
temperatures, the rocket equation is what it is, and the depth of
Earth's gravity well is what it is. So ELVs will continue to have
painfully small payload mass fractions, and orbital RLVs will be
worse.
Derek's right that there *is* significant headroom for advances in
*price*/performance -- through economies of flight rate, economies of
scale, and engineering/technology refinements that could reduce the
number of man-hours of design + assembly + testing+ launch prep +
maintenance per kg in orbit.
All of those advances depend on lots of accumulated experience with
lots of design iterations, rather than clean-sheet "breakthroughs" in
flight rate, scale, or robustness.
And lots of experience with lots of iterations is bound to come slowly
when you're starting in a high-cost, low-volume trade space, and can't
predict the "knee" in demand elasticity -- the place where price
reductions generate more than enough added traffic to pay for the next
iteration, so that positive feedback kicks in. That's true whether the
money comes from taxes, investors, or ticket sales.
To the extent the NewSpace boomlet is based on a reasoned belief that
entrepreneurs will pursue and accumulate that experience more
effectively than NASA has, it has promise. To the extent it's based on
the _a priori_ conviction that private enterprise is *guaranteed* to
progress much faster at much lower expense, and that the knee *must*
be just around the corner because we want it to be, it's hot air
generated by ideology, impatience and frustration.
Marten Kemp
And I rebut with, "And without either the general-purpose or
tightly-focused assholery that shortages and overpopulation
create."
Justin Fang
Maybe not even that; historical colonization efforts have not been free of
shortages. For instance, during Jamestown's first few years, a majority of
its settlers died of starvation and disease.
--
Justin Fang (jus...@panix.com)
David DeLaney
>William December Starr wrote:
>> marte...@thisplanet-link.net said:
>>> How about "We've used this planet up. The only things we have
>>> in abundance are shortages and assholes. Come with us to a new
>>> one. It'll be hard at first, building the tools to build the
>>> tools, but our grandchildren will have a place as good as this
>>> one but without the shortages and assholes."
>>
>> And everybody in sight says: "You mean: 'But without the shortages.'"
>
>And I rebut with, "And without either the general-purpose or
>tightly-focused assholery that shortages and overpopulation create."
And everyone in sight says "Since when have shortages and overpopulation been
the main causes of assholery?"
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
johnma...@yahoo.com
> >SH ...our level of space technology is too primitive...
> > DL ...It has absolutely nothing to do with our level of technology - and
> >everything to do with not applying normal manufacturing and business
> >processes to rocketry.
>
> Boys, boys -- you're both right.
>
> Stephen's right that there's not a lot of headroom for big advances in
> chemical rocket performance to orbit from a physics and chemistry PoV.
> We won't see much higher Isps from tolerably stable propellants, we
> know of no workable engine materials that can take much higher
> temperatures, the rocket equation is what it is, and the depth of
> Earth's gravity well is what it is. So ELVs will continue to have
> painfully small payload mass fractions, and orbital RLVs will be
> worse.
>
Ther are however, possible alternatives to chem-fueld rockets for
ELVs. The laser-powered leave your moter on the ground system that
Pournell was fond of writing about looks workable, and needs little
refinement in current tech to be workable, as far as a non-expert can
tell.
Beanstalks require a significant improvement in deployed materiels
tech, but carbon nano-tubes have a more thjan hagh-enough strenght/
weight ratio.
Nuclear rockets can ceretianly deliver much higher Isp values than
chem-fulked ones. there has been very little research on them, and we
don't relly know what bottlenecks there may be ahead. obviously
problems with exhasust must be considered.
> Derek's right that there *is* significant headroom for advances in
> *price*/performance -- through economies of flight rate, economies of
> scale, and engineering/technology refinements that could reduce the
> number of man-hours of design + assembly + testing+ launch prep +
> maintenance per kg in orbit.
>
Quite true.
> All of those advances depend on lots of accumulated experience with
> lots of design iterations, rather than clean-sheet "breakthroughs" in
> flight rate, scale, or robustness.
>
> And lots of experience with lots of iterations is bound to come slowly
> when you're starting in a high-cost, low-volume trade space, and can't
> predict the "knee" in demand elasticity -- the place where price
> reductions generate more than enough added traffic to pay for the next
> iteration, so that positive feedback kicks in. That's true whether the
> money comes from taxes, investors, or ticket sales.
>
> To the extent the NewSpace boomlet is based on a reasoned belief that
> entrepreneurs will pursue and accumulate that experience more
> effectively than NASA has, it has promise. To the extent it's based on
> the _a priori_ conviction that private enterprise is *guaranteed* to
> progress much faster at much lower expense, and that the knee *must*
> be just around the corner because we want it to be, it's hot air
> generated by ideology, impatience and frustration.
well put.
-JM
johnma...@yahoo.com
> >> Why reasons does SF use to justify the colonization of space
> >> and why is it we don't see it in the real world (Reposted from my LJ
> >> blog)?
> >> be any resources we need at the moment that are easier to get from space.
> >> Earth turns out to be surprisingly large, very nearly planet-sized,
> >> rich in resources and comes with exploitable natives.
> > in abundance are shortages and assholes. Come with us to a new
> > one. It'll be hard at first, building the tools to build the
> > tools, but our grandchildren will have a place as good as this
> > one but without the shortages and assholes."
>
> implied, you can't "use-up" a planet. You can make it uninhabitable to
> yourself, but every atom (barring a few hydrogen atoms) the earth
> started with, it still has.
>
> Jack Tingle
You can, however, convert compounds from useful to non-useful forms.
It is possible to turn all the crude oil into CO2 and/or plastics that
can't be usefully recycled. Ditto with the coal. it is possible to
turn all the uranium into isotopes from which useful energy is much
harder to extract. It is posisble to turn all the iron/sluminium/
copper/etc ore into alloys hard to reuse. It is certianly possible ti
rune out of arable soil, or useful living space.
How soon any of these "out of" situations will occur can be debated,
but any could be a plausible basis for wanting to get resources from
elsewhere, and so for a good SF story.
-JM
David Johnston
He only promised your grandkids would live without shortages. Of
without FTL there's no way your grandkids would live in a place as
good as this one.
James Nicoll
<johnma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>it is possible to
>turn all the uranium into isotopes from which useful energy is much
>harder to extract.
Actually, heat management concerns make it difficult to do
this in a short enough time for it to matter to a civilization like
ours. There's something like 10^30 Joules worth of U and Th in the
Earth's crust and unless we get creative about how we radiate heat,
it's hard to see how we could use more than ~10^17 Watts without
literally boiling the oceans (due to a run-away greenhouse effect
as once seen on Venus). 10^30/10^17 = 10^13 or 300,000 years.
Heat radiation may be the killer ap for space but if so it
won't be one for a fair amount of time.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Derek Lyons
>To the extent the NewSpace boomlet is based on a reasoned belief that
>entrepreneurs will pursue and accumulate that experience more
>effectively than NASA has, it has promise.
I'm not too certain of that Monte - because it relies on NewSpace
somehow magically being partially or completly immune to normal
business pressures, which act to keep a model in production so as to
recoup the capital invested in development.
Currently that pressure is much of what is holding us in the Dinosaur
Era.
Derek Lyons
>Ther are however, possible alternatives to chem-fueld rockets for
>ELVs. The laser-powered leave your moter on the ground system that
>Pournell was fond of writing about looks workable, and needs little
>refinement in current tech to be workable, as far as a non-expert can
>tell.
As I explained - the problems with these kinds of schemes aren't
technological, they are economic. The laser scheme requires a vast
capital investment, with a highly uncertain return, which is a
disincentive to proceed.
Gene
d07548...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
> How soon any of these "out of" situations will occur can be debated,
> but any could be a plausible basis for wanting to get resources from
> elsewhere, and so for a good SF story.
If you have an energy supply, you can't convert fuel into an unusable form by
turning initiate CO2, because you can convert it back. Running out of
fissionables takes time, because the process itself can be used to create
more. If you have fusion, running out of deuterium is not possible,
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:gi57qr$lfc$1...@news.datemas.de:
So posting incomprehensible nonsense is mature and civil on your
planet?
--
Terry Austin
"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 23:09:56 GMT, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote in
>>news:uqsak41d7eqr21rsg...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 19:48:45 GMT, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>>> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> If someone else seems confused by it, I'll rephrase. But
>>>>> you don't matter.
>>>>>
>>>>Which is to say,
>>>
>>> Bored now.
>>>
>>You're so
>
> Still bored.
>
And still retarded, but that's expected. Especially while you're
flopping on my hook. You _will_ reply, and everyone knows it.
Because, as always - and I do mean *always* - you are my good
little bitch. So go ahead, and snip out enough to constitute a lie
about what I've said, and type out your reply, and wonder why you
do. Not because you want to, not because you need to, not because
you *choose* to, but becaus I require it. You *will*, and you know
it.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:gi4dj8$1kes$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu:
> In article <Xns9B749A425CA...@69.16.186.50>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Plus, of course, you can't actually refute what I've said, so
>>you admit I'm right. As usual.
>
> If you've ever said anything worth reading -- never mind
> refuting -- it's news to me and I suspect everyone else as well.
> Potty-mouth twits like you are not even entertaining.
>
And yet, you not only read my posts, you reply to them. Which says a
good deal more about you than it does about me.
Dumbass.
Dan Goodman
But WITH the assholery which elitism and contempt for most people
create.
--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://clerkfuturist.wordpress.com
Mirror Journal http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
Mirror 2 http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
johnma...@yahoo.com
> johnmarks...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >Ther are however, possible alternatives to chem-fueld rockets for
> >ELVs. The laser-powered leave your moter on the ground system that
> >Pournell was fond of writing about looks workable, and needs little
> >refinement in current tech to be workable, as far as a non-expert can
> >tell.
>
> As I explained - the problems with these kinds of schemes aren't
> technological, they are economic. The laser scheme requires a vast
> capital investment, with a highly uncertain return, which is a
> disincentive to proceed.
I freely grant that there are economic problems with developing and
deploying this model, and indeed with any use of space beyond near
earth orbit at the present -- there is no obvious guaranteed return,
and initial costs are high. But your previous post seemed to concede
or imply that physical limits on chem-fueled rockets were absolute
limits on Earth->space travel. If you didn't intend it that way, I'm
sorry, but it did seem to read that way.
-JM
johnma...@yahoo.com
> johnmarks...@yahoo.com rote in news:57fac6ed-cc17-4a8a-9d4f-
> d075480ee...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>
> > How soon any of these "out of" situations will occur can be debated,
> > but any could be a plausible basis for wanting to get resources from
> > elsewhere, and so for a good SF story.
>
> If you have an energy supply, you can't convert fuel into an unusable form by
> turning initiate CO2, because you can convert it back. Running out of
> fissionables takes time, because the process itself can be used to create
> more. If you have fusion, running out of deuterium is not possible,
If you have an unlimited or at least very large energy supply not
derived from the burning of fossil fuels, yes. Buring fossil fuels to
get energy to reclaim CO2 is a net loser.
"Running out of fissionables takes time" so does running out of coal
for that mattter. We are talking about the basis for an SF story, it
can be set as fare in the future as we please.
*If* you have fusion, you can convert ordinary hydrogen to deuterium ,
yes. While it is possibe, in theory, to run out of *hydrogen* --
everything not needed as part of H2O in the biosphere has already been
converted to He -- it is going to take a LONG time for that to happen
(Ob SF, "The Last Question")
Marten Kemp
I came up with this as the initial premise of the backstory
for my (perennial) WIP - several rich industrialists start
out to establish a private-enterprise colony with the goal
of being independent of Earth within 50 years or so. They
take along a bunch of people, all the tech they can ship
and all the knowledge they can find.
When the ratio of resources to demand ratio is really high
adding resources will make less of an impact than changing
the environment to one where the demand is lower.
Marten Kemp
> Marten Kemp <marte...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> William December Starr wrote:
>>> marte...@thisplanet-link.net said:
>>>> How about "We've used this planet up. The only things we have
>>>> in abundance are shortages and assholes. Come with us to a new
>>>> one. It'll be hard at first, building the tools to build the
>>>> tools, but our grandchildren will have a place as good as this
>>>> one but without the shortages and assholes."
>>> And everybody in sight says: "You mean: 'But without the shortages.'"
>> And I rebut with, "And without either the general-purpose or
>> tightly-focused assholery that shortages and overpopulation create."
>
> And everyone in sight says "Since when have shortages and overpopulation been
> the main causes of assholery?"
"Never, but in an environment without either there won't be the
same opportunities for assholery that constrained and rationed
environments do."
Marten Kemp
How did the grandchildren of the original settlers fare?
Kurt Busiek
There probably weren't many of 'em around yet by the Jamestown Massacre
of 1622. So of those original settlers who survived and had kids, and
of the kids who survived to have kids, that next generation was part of
a growing and prosperous colony, and only had to deal with normal
mortality rates of the era. How many of the participants in Bacon's
Rebellion, where they set out to slaughter the local Indians, were
grandchildren of the original settlers, we don't know -- Bacon, at
least, was an outsider.
It's likely they had shortages -- the colony was doing well overall,
but that doesn't mean that everything they needed or wanted was
plentiful. They were definitely well supplied with assholes, whether
local-born or new colonists.
kdb
pullo
> "pullo" <pull...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:gi57qr$lfc$1...@news.datemas.de:
>> "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> One cannot help but wonder why, if I don't matter, 'tard-boy
>>> bothered to reply to me.
>>
>> Maturity and civility?
>>
> So posting incomprehensible nonsense is mature and civil on your
> planet?
Granted any response to a post of yours is difficult to reconcile with
civility and maturity....
Derek Lyons
That was Monte's post, not mine. :) My post (to which Monte was
replying) was stating outright that current costs are not a Law Of
Nature.
Justin Fang
>On 2008-12-15 15:03:45 -0800, Marten Kemp <marte...@earthlink.net> said:
>> Justin Fang wrote:
>>> In article <gi4sen$7l6$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
>>> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <hYadnUg3poGjxdnU...@earthlink.com>,
>>>> marte...@thisplanet-link.net said:
>>>>> How about "We've used this planet up. The only things we have
>>>>> in abundance are shortages and assholes. Come with us to a new
>>>>> one. It'll be hard at first, building the tools to build the
>>>>> tools, but our grandchildren will have a place as good as this
>>>>> one but without the shortages and assholes."
>>>> And everybody in sight says: "You mean: 'But without the shortages.'"
>>> Maybe not even that; historical colonization efforts have not been free of
>>> shortages. For instance, during Jamestown's first few years, a majority of
>>> its settlers died of starvation and disease.
>> How did the grandchildren of the original settlers fare?
How well did the grandchildren of the Roanoke or Vinland settlers fare?
And even "your grandkids do well" may be temporary; e.g. the failure of the
Norse Greenland settlements.
>There probably weren't many of 'em around yet by the Jamestown Massacre
>of 1622. So of those original settlers who survived and had kids, and
>of the kids who survived to have kids, that next generation was part of
>a growing and prosperous colony, and only had to deal with normal
>mortality rates of the era. How many of the participants in Bacon's
>Rebellion, where they set out to slaughter the local Indians, were
>grandchildren of the original settlers, we don't know -- Bacon, at
>least, was an outsider.
>It's likely they had shortages -- the colony was doing well overall,
>but that doesn't mean that everything they needed or wanted was
>plentiful. They were definitely well supplied with assholes, whether
>local-born or new colonists.
Yeah, they apparently felt they had a shortage of slave labor.
--
Justin Fang (jus...@panix.com)
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>In article <gi6p98$9mr$1...@solani.org>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>>On 2008-12-15 15:03:45 -0800, Marten Kemp <marte...@earthlink.net> said:
>>> Justin Fang wrote:
>>>> In article <gi4sen$7l6$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
>>>> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <hYadnUg3poGjxdnU...@earthlink.com>,
>>>>> marte...@thisplanet-link.net said:
>
>>>>>> How about "We've used this planet up. The only things we have
>>>>>> in abundance are shortages and assholes. Come with us to a new
>>>>>> one. It'll be hard at first, building the tools to build the
>>>>>> tools, but our grandchildren will have a place as good as this
>>>>>> one but without the shortages and assholes."
>
>>>>> And everybody in sight says: "You mean: 'But without the shortages.'"
>
>>>> Maybe not even that; historical colonization efforts have not been free of
>>>> shortages. For instance, during Jamestown's first few years, a majority of
>>>> its settlers died of starvation and disease.
>
>>> How did the grandchildren of the original settlers fare?
>
>How well did the grandchildren of the Roanoke or Vinland settlers fare?
>And even "your grandkids do well" may be temporary; e.g. the failure of the
>Norse Greenland settlements.
It can get more complicated than that. The New Somersetshire
commercial colony in what's now southern Maine was a complete failure,
abandoned by its backers and left to starve; it barely shows up in the
history books at all.
I'm descended from some of the New Somersetshire survivors; so are
thousands of New Englanders, including most of the population of York
County, Maine. The COLONY failed, but some of the colonists hung on
and hooked up with the Massachusetts Bay colony (which is why Maine
was part of Massachusetts for a few decades, despite New Hampshire
being in between).
The grandchildren of a "failed" colony did just fine -- better by most
metrics than the grandchildren of the "successful" colony at Plymouth,
in fact. (Yes, the Puritans in Boston beat out both groups. You
can't have everything.)
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:gi74uk$2eb$1...@news.datemas.de:
QED. At best, he might claim to be a troll (and not a very good
one, though he did hook you).
Gene
72c096...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
> "Running out of fissionables takes time" so does running out of coal
> for that mattter.
Running out of fissionables takes a LOT of time, given the amount of uranium
and thorium around. How much time depends on how good you are at extracting
it from low-grade sources, but there's so much of it that running out might
be impossible.
Gene
> While it is possibe, in theory, to run out of *hydrogen*
Oh, sure, You get invaded by aliens after the rarest substance in the
universe, water, and they take it all using a giant garden hose.
David Johnston
him without actually reading his conniption fits.
mimus
> Ah. He replied again. Well fortunately Free Agent means I can mock
> him without actually reading his conniption fits.
Killfiles are wonderful things.
Peace, perfect peace!
--
Whatever are we to do to show the
true harmony and peace that rule here,
somewhat disguised at the moment by
the apparent disorder now seemingly in
progress?
< Laumer
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> Ah. He replied again. Well fortunately Free Agent means I can
> mock him without actually reading his conniption fits.
>
Which is to say, you're still my faithful bitch, still worshipping
the taste of my man-mean in your mouth, and you *can't* stop replying
until I let you.
Good little doggie. Don't pee on the carpet. Again.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:2omdnSgSQt580NTU...@giganews.com:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:49:00 +0000, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> Ah. He replied again. Well fortunately Free Agent means I can
>> mock him without actually reading his conniption fits.
>
> Killfiles are wonderful things.
>
Pity Free Agent doesn't have one, huh?
Justin Fang
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>On 16 Dec 2008 08:30:41 -0500, jus...@panix.com (Justin Fang) wrote:
>>>On 2008-12-15 15:03:45 -0800, Marten Kemp <marte...@earthlink.net> said:
>>>> How did the grandchildren of the original settlers fare?
>>How well did the grandchildren of the Roanoke or Vinland settlers fare?
>>And even "your grandkids do well" may be temporary; e.g. the failure of the
>>Norse Greenland settlements.
>I'm descended from some of the New Somersetshire survivors; so are
>thousands of New Englanders, including most of the population of York
>County, Maine. The COLONY failed, but some of the colonists hung on
>and hooked up with the Massachusetts Bay colony (which is why Maine
>was part of Massachusetts for a few decades, despite New Hampshire
>being in between).
The existence of another colony you can move to if yours fails is not
something you can take for granted in an interstellar colonization
scenario, though. It depends on what assumptions you're making.
>The grandchildren of a "failed" colony did just fine -- better by most
>metrics than the grandchildren of the "successful" colony at Plymouth,
>in fact. (Yes, the Puritans in Boston beat out both groups. You
>can't have everything.)
Sure. My main point is that that potential colonists should take "sign
up for a better world" advertising spiels with a grain of salt.
--
Justin Fang (jus...@panix.com)
Quadibloc
> And everyone in sight says "Since when have shortages and overpopulation been
> the main causes
Human nature is a given, it is true.
But it isn't true that there are just these two kinds of people:
those who are always considerate of their neighbors, and
those who are always looking for a way to get an unfair advantage by
lying, cheating, or stealing.
In between there are a lot of ordinary, but imperfect, people... who
are nice enough when times are good. But if they can't find honest
work to make the money to buy the food to feed their kids - they'll
steal. If they don't have the advantage of an organized government
that protects them against violence by mobs stirred up among a rival
ethnic, linguistic, or religious group... they'll join a mob attacking
members of that group, even if they're innocent, because they have no
other way available to protect themselves except by retaliation in
kind.
In today's world of shortages and overpopulation, if you're living in
a poor country under a dictatorial government, you often just *don't
have the option* of walking away or sailing away to somewhere else to
make a better life. The world's other countries are crowded and have
to look out for their own people. A refugee camp isn't a place to make
a better life, so it's only an alternative people choose in
desperation.
Two scorpions in a bottle fight to the death... two scorpions in a big
desert just keep clear of each other.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> If you have the amount of energy needed for such project (and shortage
> of energy for various reasons are a major part of your "used up"
> definition), then you have enough energy to fix the "used up planet"
> problems.
> IOW, people who do not NEED to colonize another planet (at least not
> desperately so) are the only one who CAN do it.
True, but "at least not desperately so" explains why this is still a
good reason. Everybody "needs" to colonize another planet, since you
can't get the energy to recharge a battery from anywhere but *another
source of power*. The longer you wait to go into space, the worse the
"used up" problem gets.
The sooner you colonize space, and tap its energy resources, the
sooner you will also have the energy to fix the problems on Earth for
those left behind in addition to avoiding them yourself.
John Savard
Gene
9d3dbf...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> Everybody "needs" to colonize another planet, since you
> can't get the energy to recharge a battery from anywhere but *another
> source of power*. The longer you wait to go into space, the worse the
> "used up" problem gets.
You are going to get energy from space colonization how, exactly?
Quadibloc
> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> rote in news:e3bde281-6a95-4e0c-9134-
> 9d3dbf3d9...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Everybody "needs" to colonize another planet, since you
> > can't get the energy to recharge a battery from anywhere but *another
> > source of power*. The longer you wait to go into space, the worse the
> > "used up" problem gets.
>
> You are going to get energy from space colonization how, exactly?
Space colonists have kids, so they will turn more and more asteroids
into orbiting colonies. Which will have the ability to collect
sunlight.
The only problem might be figuring out how to pay them to send a
little extra energy our way.
John Savard
Gene
a59919...@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>> You are going to get energy from space colonization how, exactly?
>
> Space colonists have kids, so they will turn more and more asteroids
> into orbiting colonies. Which will have the ability to collect
> sunlight.
We have kids and they have done nothing about colonizing the asteroids.
Moreover, if the sunlight which falls on the state of Nevada can't help with
our energy proiblem, how do you expect the asteroids are going to help?
Quadibloc
> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> rote in news:5f8cd86f-8ba4-437c-a52a-
> a59919900...@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> > Space colonists have kids, so they will turn more and more asteroids
> > into orbiting colonies. Which will have the ability to collect
> > sunlight.
>
> We have kids and they have done nothing about colonizing the asteroids.
> Moreover, if the sunlight which falls on the state of Nevada can't help with
> our energy proiblem, how do you expect the asteroids are going to help?
1) Except for the odd eclipse, sunlight in space has unvarying
reliabilty.
2) Kids need land to live on. In space, they can build more. I admit
you will have to wait a while for a Solar System population of 100
trillion.
John Savard
Wayne Throop
:: asteroids. Moreover, if the sunlight which falls on the state of
:: Nevada can't help with our energy proiblem, how do you expect the
:: asteroids are going to help?
: Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
: 1) Except for the odd eclipse, sunlight in space has unvarying
: reliabilty.
Except that we have much easier access to materials to manufacture
solar power receivers, and a much *much* easier time of setting up
manufacturing and final assembly. Several orders of magnitude easier.
Whereas considerably less than one order of magnitude of extra collection
area would need to be set up. So... why is doing it on an asteroid
going to help, again? And expecially, given that the upthread issue was
solving *our* energy problems (ie, "have the energy to fix the problems
on Earth"), how does doing all the work on an asteroid far far away from
the demand help?
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Gene
82a9bf...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com:
>> We have kids and they have done nothing about colonizing the asteroids.
>> Moreover, if the sunlight which falls on the state of Nevada can't help
with
>> our energy proiblem, how do you expect the asteroids are going to help?
>
> 1) Except for the odd eclipse, sunlight in space has unvarying
> reliabilty.
Pretty much true of most of Nevada, and it's here, where we can actually use
it. The sunlight in the asteroid belt is reliably weaker than on Earth, and
useless to us anyway.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
I'd think an orbital solar collector would be a better idea.
The problem with Nevada is that you'd pretty much have to pave all of
it over with solar cells to supply the USA or a large chunk of it.
People already complain about a couple bloody acres of land for a wind
farm or having a nuclear plant within a few miles; you think anyone's
going to let you cover a hundred square miles of desert with solar cells?
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Marten Kemp
In my early reading about the nuclear weapons program I
marveled at the number of blasts that were set off in
the Nevada Test site. I thought, "Gee, why are they
blowing up perfectly good parts of the country?"
Mumblety-many years later I had occasion to fly into Lost
Wages. I realized then that the best use for the Nevada Test
Site was probably testing bombs.
An interesting treatise on orbital power collection is
the subject of Lee Correy's (G. Harry Stine's)
_Space Doctor_ .
Quadibloc
> :: If humans cannot accomplish the easy task of keeping the Earth
> :: inhabitable for the next million years, what makes you think they'll
> :: have what it takes to go elsewhere?
>
> : Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca>
> : That seems like a sensible question.
> :
> : But while humans have what it takes to accomplish incredible things...
> : they haven't had what it takes to eliminate war.
>
> What does "eliminating war" have to do with "keeping the earth habitable"?
> Do you think the former is reuquired for the latter, or some such nonsense?
The threat of war means that priority will be given to being able to
win any war if it comes.
So reducing energy consumption, deindustrializing, and so on, are *not
options*. This is why I think that nuclear power is the only viable
option for reducing carbon emissions in the current context, because
it allows energy production to be increased arbitrarily.
Solar and wind power constrain total energy production, and thus are
unsuitable to a society which must concern itself not simply with
producing the necessities of life with modest comforts, but which
instead needs to have roaring factories producing immense quantities
of tanks and planes.
This is precisely *why* left-wing groups oppose nuclear power. Our
enemies have been whispering in the ears of certain of their leaders.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> rote in news:ef86f4fa-fe9c-4b07-b482-
> 8f3406349...@m22g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> > One group of humans, banded together, with unity of purpose, can reach
> > the stars.
> Using sheer willpower?
Nah. Marching along in serried ranks, and using searchlights as _faux_
Roman columns tends to promote anti-intellectualism in a society. So
it is not the will alone that will earn this triumph.
Building technological gadgets - whether they are weapons of war, or
vehicles of escape - is "easy" for humans. Reaching a global _modus
vivendi_ where all the peoples of the world agree to limit their
populations and limit their energy consumption is hard for humans. So
I advocate working with what we have, surviving by means of what we
know works, rather than basing our hopes for survival on the success
of Utopian dreams that have never been achieved in the past.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> People make fun of fusion as the energy source of the future but I can't
> question a dubious assertion that interstellar colonization will one day
> prove to be feasible?
> Mr. Fusion may be more likely.
Fusion power is indeed a pre-requisite to interstellar space flight,
although you could make do with H-bombs and pusher plates, so I
suppose you could manage without _controlled_ thermonuclear fusion.
I was thinking, though, in terms of space colonization *within* the
Solar System, as a means of sustaining a population that could lend
Earth the spare solar energy it needed. That is not out of reach of
Russia and China, but it is out of reach of amateurs that fly
airplanes into buildings.
John Savard
Wayne Throop
::: things... they haven't had what it takes to eliminate war.
:: What does "eliminating war" have to do with "keeping the earth
:: habitable"? Do you think the former is reuquired for the latter,
:: or some such nonsense?
: Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
: The threat of war means that priority will be given to being able to
: win any war if it comes. So reducing energy consumption,
: deindustrializing, and so on, are *not options*.
It means no such thing. It *might* be a sensible assertion if
"priority" were absolute and binary, but it isn't, so it's nonsense.
: This is precisely *why* left-wing groups oppose nuclear power. Our
: enemies have been whispering in the ears of certain of their leaders.
Also nonsense. Unsubstantiated nonsense at that.
Kurt Busiek
> : Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> : This is precisely *why* left-wing groups oppose nuclear power. Our
> : enemies have been whispering in the ears of certain of their leaders.
>
> Also nonsense. Unsubstantiated nonsense at that.
I think "blithering" was the adjective you were going for...
kdb
James Nicoll
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>Gene wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> rote in news:58e84495-ad89-4ecd-abbf-
>> 82a9bf...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>> We have kids and they have done nothing about colonizing the asteroids.
>>>> Moreover, if the sunlight which falls on the state of Nevada can't help
>> with
>>>> our energy proiblem, how do you expect the asteroids are going to help?
>>> 1) Except for the odd eclipse, sunlight in space has unvarying
>>> reliabilty.
>>
>> Pretty much true of most of Nevada, and it's here, where we can actually use
>> it. The sunlight in the asteroid belt is reliably weaker than on Earth, and
>> useless to us anyway.
>>
>
> I'd think an orbital solar collector would be a better idea.
>
> The problem with Nevada is that you'd pretty much have to pave all of
>it over with solar cells to supply the USA or a large chunk of it.
The US uses, what, 4 terawatts? Which is 3.5x10^13 kWhrs or
about 10^11 kWhrs per day, a hideous unit I use only because this
map
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_csp_august_may2004.jpg
uses it.
10^11/9 ~ 1.1x10^10 m^2 or a patch 100 km on an edge. Toss in a
factor of two for seasons and three for efficiency and we're still
talking only a patch less than 250 km on an edge.
James Bay generates 16 GW and covers ~14,500 square kilometers of
otherwise useless wasteland. If it had to generate 4 TW (and it was
possible jsut to scale it up, which it isn't) it would cover about
3,625,000 km^2, roughly equivilent to sixty times the area of getting
the same 4T from Nevada (but then, hydroelectric power is just a very
inefficient form of solar).
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Gene
2d70c8...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> So
> I advocate working with what we have, surviving by means of what we
> know works, rather than basing our hopes for survival on the success
> of Utopian dreams that have never been achieved in the past.
You are proposing we build a magic device which makes interstellar travel
easy because stabilizing the population and the environment would be too
difficult? How do you determine, in advance, the nature and limits of human
magical ability?
Wayne Throop
: So I advocate working with what we have, surviving by means of what we
: know works,
Except, of course, that moving into space is not currently known to work.
There have been much longer periods of relative social stability than
there have been extended independent stays in space, or even in
sealed environments on earth (an easier problem).
Just "humans are good at building gadgets" doesn't cut it, especially
since building a magical interstellar drive seems no easier than building
a magical recycling gadget... and a magical recycling gadget may well
not even be necessary.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Are you including a factor for night as well (i.e., half a day for
generating power for day and night?) Not saying you aren't, just curious.
Anyway, even that isn't going to fly. Imagine the environmental
protests. (plus I'm not sure just where you're going to get that many
solar cells, or how you maintain it, etc.)
>
> James Bay generates 16 GW and covers ~14,500 square kilometers of
> otherwise useless wasteland. If it had to generate 4 TW (and it was
> possible jsut to scale it up, which it isn't) it would cover about
> 3,625,000 km^2, roughly equivilent to sixty times the area of getting
> the same 4T from Nevada (but then, hydroelectric power is just a very
> inefficient form of solar).
>
>
>
>
>
--