"The Future of Human Spaceflight"
Martha Adams
et al at MIT, and I think it illustrates a fundamental error in how
people are thinking about space. What is space for? We can skip right
over a lot of abstract stuff by using an analogy out of Europe in the
early 1500's, "What is America for?" Our history answers that one
easily: it's for people. Likewise, space is for people, and Frederick
Jackson Turner's paper (thanks, Robert Zubrin) outlines how people and
cultures will develop there.
But when I look at what's being said on this space topic, it's all
*Terra centered.* Space is seen as a place where you send out machines
to study hostile environments (why?), which people visit very briefly
and hustle "back home," a method for diverting some of a small
government cash stream won from the military industrial to possibly
innovative purposes. (If people had some idea what that 'innovative'
is.) I think that's where today's discussion has basically turned a
wrong corner and busily gets us nowhere. Besides provoking an amazing
amount of verbal rubbish. The root problem seems to me, to be, get
unhooked from that Terra center to things, and realize space is an
awfully big place and let's get our point of view unhooked from Terra
and focussed out there where it needs to be.
So it seems to me, apart from the trolls here who are best managed by
placing them on twit/no-read lists, much of the remaining material here
is just noise which could be focussed and turned to good effect simply
by recognizing the immense potential of space *for people*.
Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2009 Jan 09]
jonathan
"Martha Adams" <mh...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:UZS9l.5153$Es4....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>I was just looking at "The Future of Human Spaceflight" by David Mindell et al
>at MIT, and I think it illustrates a fundamental error in how people are
>thinking about space. What is space for? We can skip right over a lot of
>abstract stuff by using an analogy out of Europe in the early 1500's, "What is
>America for?" Our history answers that one easily: it's for people. Likewise,
>space is for people, and Frederick Jackson Turner's paper (thanks, Robert
>Zubrin) outlines how people and cultures will develop there.
There's a huge logical flaw with the assumption humanity is destined to
colinize space. If humanity were truly civilized and intelligent, we'd
understand nature enough to be able to find a sustainable equilibruim
with our environment. So, if we were 'civilized' we wouldn't ...need...
to colonize.
If we need to colonize, then we're not civilized enough to...successfully...
colonize space. Any colony would be a weak microcosm of what
we already have on earth. So what's the point then?
When we finally have the knowledge and wisdom to colonize
space, we won't need to anymore...catch-22.
I'm sure many people will want to live elsewhere, but as far as
needing to on a large scale? I don't see any reason we
would need to depend on colonies for survival.
The only reason it's assumed humanity must expand into the
solar system is the fact we still live in a scientific Dark Age.
And an age where humanity is not yet civilized and is still
closer to animals than not.
Oh, did you read the paper today btw? The US Navy has
decided to lead a task force to shut down the Somali
....pirates.
Hmm...pirates running rampant on the open seas.
And you're talking about humanity colonizing the solar system
as if we're almost ready to do it or something.
What were you thinking~
Btw
jacob navia
> I was just looking at "The Future of Human Spaceflight" by David Mindell
> et al at MIT, and I think it illustrates a fundamental error in how
> people are thinking about space. What is space for? We can skip right
> over a lot of abstract stuff by using an analogy out of Europe in the
> early 1500's, "What is America for?" Our history answers that one
> easily: it's for people. Likewise, space is for people, and Frederick
> Jackson Turner's paper (thanks, Robert Zubrin) outlines how people and
> cultures will develop there.
>
The technology for living in space is not here yet. We need
o To be able to resist to mutations and DNA damage much better than
now. Space is full of radiation that is lethal to our bodies as
they are now.
This can be solved by mdifying and enhancing our genetic repair
mechanism to be more efficient. As a byproduct of this research
we would have a cure for cancer, since many cancers are just
genetic repair mechanism problems.
o To develop a closed ecological system that can sustain itself
with solar energy in space. We need to develop photosynthesis
in vacuum, i.e. plants that can resist and thrive in vacuum.
This needs (again) some genetical know how. We need a skin that
is able to resist vacuum AND be transparent for our plants.
o We need machines able to repair themselves automatically and
able to work in space unattended for long periods of time. This
needs progress in robotics and automatic manufacturing. As a
byproduct of this research we would obtain machines that could
replace all our factories with automatic manufacturing. Humans
could be able to reach this by 2070 more or less, in any case
within this century.
> But when I look at what's being said on this space topic, it's all
> *Terra centered.* Space is seen as a place where you send out machines
> to study hostile environments (why?), which people visit very briefly
> and hustle "back home," a method for diverting some of a small
> government cash stream won from the military industrial to possibly
> innovative purposes. (If people had some idea what that 'innovative'
> is.)
The technology for human space travel is just not there. Look at the
best humans can manage now: The ISS. It is a few hundred Km away, and
it is still plagued by a lot of problems, it has no closed system
it needs supplies from earth. etc.
The only way to explore now is with automatic machines since they do
not need ANY of the points above to be able to travel in space. The
Mars rovers are exploring Mars now, and this since 5 years! They do
not need fuel/life-support/radiation shielding/ they do not need
ANYTHING, just the solar power they receive each day.
> I think that's where today's discussion has basically turned a
> wrong corner and busily gets us nowhere. Besides provoking an amazing
> amount of verbal rubbish. The root problem seems to me, to be, get
> unhooked from that Terra center to things, and realize space is an
> awfully big place and let's get our point of view unhooked from Terra
> and focussed out there where it needs to be.
>
It is not enough to "realize " this. We have to develop the
technologies described above, and that is a very HARD problem.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Ian Parker
> Martha Adams wrote:
> > I was just looking at "The Future of Human Spaceflight" by David Mindell
> > et al at MIT, and I think it illustrates a fundamental error in how
> > people are thinking about space. What is space for? We can skip right
> > over a lot of abstract stuff by using an analogy out of Europe in the
> > early 1500's, "What is America for?" Our history answers that one
> > easily: it's for people. Likewise, space is for people, and Frederick
> > Jackson Turner's paper (thanks, Robert Zubrin) outlines how people and
> > cultures will develop there.
>
> The technology for living in space is not here yet. We need
>
> o To be able to resist to mutations and DNA damage much better than
> now. Space is full of radiation that is lethal to our bodies as
> they are now.
>
> This can be solved by mdifying and enhancing our genetic repair
> mechanism to be more efficient. As a byproduct of this research
> we would have a cure for cancer, since many cancers are just
> genetic repair mechanism problems.
A baby has just been born which lacks a gene known to cause breast
cancer. This birth has been highly controversial. As the future
progesses we will indeed get more control over our DNA. Not just for
space but for disease prevention. Could there be genes that could
tackle obesity and burn up berliners? More later.
Of course an alternative strategy is simply to protect us. if we are
under 10m of rock/ice we will have very similar radiation to here on
Erth. Creating this environment is very much a focus of robotics.
>
> o To develop a closed ecological system that can sustain itself
> with solar energy in space. We need to develop photosynthesis
> in vacuum, i.e. plants that can resist and thrive in vacuum.
>
What's wrong with a pressurized system? Something that can survive in
a vacuum may be an interesting piece of chemistry, but it is not a
plant. If we are to go along the lines of genetic modification I would
suggest that the first priority is to produce hygrogen from water. We
are not in fact that far off.
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/17885/56664022.pdf?sequence=1
Masters thesis - survey.
http://www.tesionline.com/intl/thesis.jsp?idt=18984 Here is a later
one. It is in Italian. Still there is Google Translate.
http://www.scientificblogging.com/fine_scientist/blog/international_conference_hydrogen_production_oshawa_canada_may_36_2009
Here is a forthcoming conference. I await the proceedings with bated
breath.
> This needs (again) some genetical know how. We need a skin that
> is able to resist vacuum AND be transparent for our plants.
>
I think what you are really after is siome form of nanotechnology not
plants as we understand them. More later.
> o We need machines able to repair themselves automatically and
> able to work in space unattended for long periods of time. This
> needs progress in robotics and automatic manufacturing. As a
> byproduct of this research we would obtain machines that could
> replace all our factories with automatic manufacturing. Humans
> could be able to reach this by 2070 more or less, in any case
> within this century.
There are two routes to what could be termed a Von Neumann machine.
One is the classical robotic route, along which considerable progress
has been made. The other is the nano route. The nano route is far more
advanced technologically. What we need to do in the near future is to
send a swarm into space. This swarm will have spare parts. A breakdown
of any component anywhere will be repairable.
The Koreans have a definition of "intelligent" which involves the
ability to sense surroundings and carry out manual operations on
higglety pigglety parts. They are working on this NOW. It is not some
pie in a future sky.
>
> > But when I look at what's being said on this space topic, it's all
> > *Terra centered.* Space is seen as a place where you send out machines
> > to study hostile environments (why?), which people visit very briefly
> > and hustle "back home," a method for diverting some of a small
> > government cash stream won from the military industrial to possibly
> > innovative purposes. (If people had some idea what that 'innovative'
> > is.)
>
> The technology for human space travel is just not there. Look at the
> best humans can manage now: The ISS. It is a few hundred Km away, and
> it is still plagued by a lot of problems, it has no closed system
> it needs supplies from earth. etc.
Absolutely. What you need is a home on Mars, Ceres or wherever which
is self sustaining. Robots would initially have to build it. The ISS
is doing very little scientific work. The astronauts spend a lot of
time housekeepind and there is absolutely nothing self sustaining
about it.
>
> The only way to explore now is with automatic machines since they do
> not need ANY of the points above to be able to travel in space. The
> Mars rovers are exploring Mars now, and this since 5 years! They do
> not need fuel/life-support/radiation shielding/ they do not need
> ANYTHING, just the solar power they receive each day.
>
Absolutely, but we also need to make swarms a part of unmanned
exploration. A swarm is a necessary precursor to large scale space
construction. We will have a machine which is self repairing. We can
then start to think about making a macine from the resources of space.
If we fail to do this we will be doomed to explore space with things
not much better than the ISS.
> > I think that's where today's discussion has basically turned a
> > wrong corner and busily gets us nowhere. Besides provoking an amazing
> > amount of verbal rubbish. The root problem seems to me, to be, get
> > unhooked from that Terra center to things, and realize space is an
> > awfully big place and let's get our point of view unhooked from Terra
> > and focussed out there where it needs to be.
>
> It is not enough to "realize " this. We have to develop the
> technologies described above, and that is a very HARD problem.
>
It is indeed a very HARD problem. I have tried to give some indication
of how we might proceed. As I have said previously we are hampered
considerably by a core of military men who are determened to push
though a high cost, high dependency on Earth agenda. VN mahcines are
as they describe lunacy, but I think what you say would indicate that
unless you move some way in that direction all you will ever be able
to do is move the ISS to the Moon/Mars at horrendous cost.
You are, or people have suggested putting you, on their kill file
along with myself. I think there is a vested interest in not facing
the truth. I don't know whether classification issues are a factor.
What I have said about "OnA ErAqy" is absolutely the point. I think I
am safe in saying it is not a sausage!The techniques of disinformation
used at Falluja are exactly the same as those used against VN
machines.
If we ignore the fil(le)s des chiens ( the Iraqis use the term beni al
kalb) and confront the basic questions progress might be made. I have
no doubt that there will be progress made. Whether tthis progress will
be made by the US is another matter. History from The Peloplenesian
war to the present is full of civilizations which could have found
solutions to their problems but chose not to be "loony".
- Ian Parker
"Us Spartans, our birthrate has plummeted, we have just lost half our
citizens in this battle. They were all will ing to die but were
irreplaceable. The lunatic trhing to do is to allow your men from
their teenage years free access tro women, even helots. The sensible
thing to do is to go on as we have been, go into a state of terminal
decline. It is "sensible" too not to admit this even to orselves".
Rand Simberg
navia <ja...@nospam.org> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>The technology for human space travel is just not there. Look at the
>best humans can manage now: The ISS. It is a few hundred Km away, and
>it is still plagued by a lot of problems, it has no closed system
>it needs supplies from earth. etc.
It's quite stupid to infer that the ISS is the best humans can manage
now.
BradGuth
> Martha Adams wrote:
> > So it seems to me, apart from the trolls here who are best managed by
> > placing them on twit/no-read lists, much of the remaining material here
> > is just noise which could be focussed and turned to good effect simply
> > by recognizing the immense potential of space *for people*.
>
>
> When you grow up, maybe.
Rothschild Zionist/Nazis never "grow up". It's why we're in the mess
we're in, and in spite of BHO, it's only going to get worse because it
has gotten past the point of no return.
~ BG
Martha Adams
news:49ad9cb0....@news.giganews.com...
I think the above thread illustrates my comments well enough. All that
stuff, no direction. "HARD," Navia says. *Of course* it's hard, if you
don't have a direction, if you don't know where you're going. Look at
the development of the nuclear bomb, for example (not my favorite kind
of thing but it's a good illustration). At the time the work was
undertaken to develop the thing, what resources existed to do it? Whole
new technologies had to be worked out, tested, used or discarded. But
they had an objective and they got there.
Look again at the Apollo program. It was directed to a specific
objective. The technologies to do it did not exist, only small
indications that they might be developed if someone set out to do it.
We all know, they did it. (Decades ago. Then something went terribly
wrong).
Now look at space. It's not a science-fiction kind of thing that you
cannot do space small. Space is different from here: to live anywhere
in space requires an industrial triad of of a lifespace, an industrial
base to build and maintain it, and an ongoing commercial/business base
to give it reason to exist and to support it. Which means, settlement
in space must be an ongoing effort of sending out one and then another
and then another settlement, one after another, until the commercial
ecologies and networks to exist there are built there. I can't see
anything novel at all in this thinking. It's just a repeat, different
in detail and environment from what we've seen here on Terra.
As for "HARD" and all that, of course it's hard. Our remote ancestors,
finding out by trial and error and thru evolution how to live on dry
land, will tell you what's HARD. Uncounted millions of them must have
died, over hundreds of centuries. But natural selection is the slow and
difficult way to accomplish something. Today, we have the industrial
capacity, enough of the knowhow, and the resources to do it. The HARD
problem seems to be to win enough money away from wars and political
corruption and economic inefficiencies to do it.
Which requires to begin with, an *objective*. Which objective in turn,
begins with some people getting away from a Terra-centered outlook, to a
space-centered outlook. What is space *for*? ?? I'm surprised how
many people just don't figure it out.
Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2009 Jan 10]
jacob navia
It is the best humans can do now because it exists. Other things can
be maybe better but they have a big problem... they do not exist.
Speculating what humans could do is a useful activity, but it is just
speculation.
Rand Simberg
>Rand Simberg wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:00:42 +0100, in a place far, far away, jacob
>> navia <ja...@nospam.org> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
>> a way as to indicate that:
>>
>>
>>> The technology for human space travel is just not there. Look at the
>>> best humans can manage now: The ISS. It is a few hundred Km away, and
>>> it is still plagued by a lot of problems, it has no closed system
>>> it needs supplies from earth. etc.
>>
>> It's quite stupid to infer that the ISS is the best humans can manage
>> now.
>
>It is the best humans can do now because it exists.
No, it's the best NASA *has* done now, given all its institutional
constraints. It tells us nothing about the best that humans in
general *can* do now.
>Other things can
>be maybe better but they have a big problem... they do not exist.
That doesn't mean that they cannot.
jacob navia
> "Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
> news:49ad9cb0....@news.giganews.com...
>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:00:42 +0100, in a place far, far away, jacob
>> navia <ja...@nospam.org> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
>> a way as to indicate that:
>>
>>
>>> The technology for human space travel is just not there. Look at the
>>> best humans can manage now: The ISS. It is a few hundred Km away, and
>>> it is still plagued by a lot of problems, it has no closed system
>>> it needs supplies from earth. etc.
>>
>> It's quite stupid to infer that the ISS is the best humans can manage
>> now.
>
> I think the above thread illustrates my comments well enough. All that
> stuff, no direction. "HARD," Navia says. *Of course* it's hard, if you
> don't have a direction, if you don't know where you're going. Look at
> the development of the nuclear bomb, for example (not my favorite kind
> of thing but it's a good illustration). At the time the work was
> undertaken to develop the thing, what resources existed to do it? Whole
> new technologies had to be worked out, tested, used or discarded. But
> they had an objective and they got there.
>
An atomic bomb is two pieces of refined U235 that are pressed together
to form a single piece 10 cm wide with the help of explosives.
It required a lot of development but nothing new had to be discovered.
To live in space there are a lot of completely new technologies that
need to be CREATED.
Technologies like space suits, that seem common place and boring but
when you look at the failure rates, longevity, life expectancy of
the stuff you see that we are FAR away from mastering them.
A few years ago all U.S. space suits in the ISS were down, and
Americans needed to use their Prussian colleagues ones. Space
suits that can be used day-in day-out for say, 2 years, do not
exist at all.
Technologies like closed ecological systems able to provide oxygen
and food for years do not exist. To develop that, even if we were to
use a lot of resources would take 15-20 years. We are speaking of
developing new plants, testing them, etc.
Obviously, we can travel short distances (to the moon for instance)
and we can establish a base shielded underground in the moon.
But that is a far cry from colonizing space and make it habitable.
What I have in mind, are farms of plants of dozens of Km that
would provide food for thousands of people. They need to be done
in vacuum to avoid pressurized space that is too expensive.
Using those new plants, able to grow from photosynthesis in
vacuum, we could make parts of the moon green, and establish
colonies of thousands of individuals.
Obviously making a colony of 5 people in the moon is feasible
(and could give us the testing bed for developing all those new
technologies) but it is a far cry from going to space!
Going to space means that we have a food spply that can feed
hundreds of thousands of people, and that can be done only
with specially developed plants.
> Look again at the Apollo program. It was directed to a specific
> objective. The technologies to do it did not exist, only small
> indications that they might be developed if someone set out to do it. We
> all know, they did it. (Decades ago. Then something went terribly wrong).
>
Apollo was a trip of a few people at a time for time length of a few
days, for a very short distance.
That was difficult to achieve but it is absolutely NOTHING compared
to the scaling problems we would have to solve for moving 100 000
people around to space, establishing colonies etc.
> Now look at space. It's not a science-fiction kind of thing that you
> cannot do space small. Space is different from here: to live anywhere
> in space requires an industrial triad of of a lifespace, an industrial
> base to build and maintain it, and an ongoing commercial/business base
> to give it reason to exist and to support it.
This is essentially what I said, excepting the "business" part of it.
Space is not "profitable", and going to the moon is not an
undertaking that would bring any kind of financial reward
to the people doing it.
That is why Americans never returned to the moon. The objectives
of American society (and Europeans and most of our societies)
are centered in short term profit, and lack any kind of motivation
beyond profits.
Egypt could concentrate thousands and thousand of people building
pyramids because the people were engaged by the sheer beauty of the
concept:
"Lets make a work that will last forever"
And they did it, and it has laster for thousands of years.
The same motivation can be traced to many of our monuments like
the stones of Carnac in France, the cathedrals of Middle Age,
and many others.
Nobody earned any money with a pyramid, it had absolutely no
economical purpose.
It is this kind of motivation that we lack.
> Which means, settlement
> in space must be an ongoing effort of sending out one and then another
> and then another settlement, one after another, until the commercial
> ecologies and networks to exist there are built there. I can't see
> anything novel at all in this thinking. It's just a repeat, different
> in detail and environment from what we've seen here on Terra.
>
What is new is the *motivation* to spend all that effort in
something that will never be seen in the bottom line.
> As for "HARD" and all that, of course it's hard. Our remote ancestors,
> finding out by trial and error and thru evolution how to live on dry
> land, will tell you what's HARD. Uncounted millions of them must have
> died, over hundreds of centuries. But natural selection is the slow and
> difficult way to accomplish something. Today, we have the industrial
> capacity, enough of the knowhow, and the resources to do it. The HARD
> problem seems to be to win enough money away from wars and political
> corruption and economic inefficiencies to do it.
>
Space needs another kind of motivation. A motivation that is not
alien to us, but it has been forgotten: the pleasure of doing things
for themselves, for their intrinsic beauty.
Ian Parker
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:46:16 +0100, in a place far, far away, jacob
> navia <ja...@nospam.org> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
> a way as to indicate that:
>
> >Rand Simberg wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:00:42 +0100, in a place far, far away, jacob
> >> navia <ja...@nospam.org> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
> >> a way as to indicate that:
>
> >>> The technology for human space travel is just not there. Look at the
> >>> best humans can manage now: The ISS. It is a few hundred Km away, and
> >>> it is still plagued by a lot of problems, it has no closed system
> >>> it needs supplies from earth. etc.
>
> >> It's quite stupid to infer that the ISS is the best humans can manage
> >> now.
>
> >It is the best humans can do now because it exists.
>
> No, it's the best NASA *has* done now, given all its institutional
> constraints. It tells us nothing about the best that humans in
> general *can* do now.
>
infinite supply of cash.
> >Other things can
> >be maybe better but they have a big problem... they do not exist.
>
> That doesn't mean that they cannot.
Of course not, but if they have not been developed there is a reason.
Are you claiming that that reason is bureaucracy pure and simple. If
it is it is really quite a staggering claim.
- Ian Parker
Fred J. McCall
:
:An atomic bomb is two pieces of refined U235 that are pressed together
:to form a single piece 10 cm wide with the help of explosives.
:
:It required a lot of development but nothing new had to be discovered.
Technologies to 'refine U235' did not exist. Sufficiently fast
switches to trigger the explosives did not exist. Neutron tampers did
not exist. The required explosive (probably) did not exist.
And that's just to begin with.
<much about how space technologies don't exist and that makes it
different from the Manhattan Project elided>
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Fred J. McCall
:
:Of course not, but if they have not been developed there is a reason.
:Are you claiming that that reason is bureaucracy pure and simple. If
:it is it is really quite a staggering claim.
Bureaucracy and politics. ISS would have been a much better station
without those two (which requires dropping the 'I').
For example, it probably would have been a much better station if they
had shitcanned the original design when the price kept going up and
the capabilities kept going down and had listened to Lowell Wood's
ideas.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Derek Lyons
>jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> wrote:
>:
>:An atomic bomb is two pieces of refined U235 that are pressed together
>:to form a single piece 10 cm wide with the help of explosives.
>:
>:It required a lot of development but nothing new had to be discovered.
>:
>
>Technologies to 'refine U235' did not exist. Sufficiently fast
>switches to trigger the explosives did not exist. Neutron tampers did
>not exist. The required explosive (probably) did not exist.
Actually, for the gun bomb, the only thing needed was technologies to
refine the Oralloy. The propellant was ordinary cordite ignited with
a stock igniter.
The implosion weapon was a whole different kettle of fish...
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Ian Parker
> Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :Of course not, but if they have not been developed there is a reason.
> :Are you claiming that that reason is bureaucracy pure and simple. If
> :it is it is really quite a staggering claim.
> :
>
> Bureaucracy and politics. ISS would have been a much better station
> without those two (which requires dropping the 'I').
The letter "I" depends on how you do it. If each nation gets a little
bit of each program then I would agree. If on the other hand
companies, possibly international, were awarded contracts with each
country getting roughly the proportion of work indicated by
contributions on a long term basis the "I" would be a great success.
Let us take Google. Google in International with a capital; "I". There
are servers in America, Europe and the Far East. Programs are written
in a large number of cuntries.
Google is one of the more successfult companies.
>
> For example, it probably would have been a much better station if they
> had shitcanned the original design when the price kept going up and
> the capabilities kept going down and had listened to Lowell Wood's
> ideas.
>
I googled him and his ideas. I think you are doing a certain amount of
special pleading here. How do you know that his ideas for (say) Mars
would not also go up and up in price.
- Ian Parker
Ian Parker
> Technologies like space suits, that seem common place and boring but
> when you look at the failure rates, longevity, life expectancy of
> the stuff you see that we are FAR away from mastering them.
>
> A few years ago all U.S. space suits in the ISS were down, and
> Americans needed to use their Prussian colleagues ones. Space
> suits that can be used day-in day-out for say, 2 years, do not
> exist at all.
>
Nano constructions are envisaged as having inteligent components that
hook together rather like a zip. A nanotech spacesuit would be put on
like any other garment, and would zip up and tighten once you had put
it on. A tear would be automatically repaired. You would need headgear
and breathing apparatus, but thatr yould be the only obvious
difference from everyday clothing. When you were in space the suit
would tighten and press against you with normal atmospheric pressure.
I think everyone should realize though that nanotech is extremly
advanced technology. It will not come tomorraw, it will taks a long
time to reach that stage. However it is fascinating to contemplate
what might be done.
The main incentive might not be space at all. Some bright spark has
sugested that as porn was the driving force of the Internet so
weightless sex might be a driving force. Certainly the driving force
will not be spacesuits but fashion, and possibly even augmented
movement in an exoskeleton. Fasinating, even though far in the future.
- Ian Parker
Fred J. McCall
:On 10 Jan, 23:23, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
:> Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :Of course not, but if they have not been developed there is a reason.
:> :Are you claiming that that reason is bureaucracy pure and simple. If
:> :it is it is really quite a staggering claim.
:> :
:>
:> Bureaucracy and politics. ISS would have been a much better station
:> without those two (which requires dropping the 'I').
:
:The letter "I" depends on how you do it. If each nation gets a little
:bit of each program then I would agree. If on the other hand
:companies, possibly international, were awarded contracts with each
:country getting roughly the proportion of work indicated by
:contributions on a long term basis the "I" would be a great success.
:
Preposterous ignorance of the real world.
:
:Let us take Google. Google in International with a capital; "I". There
:are servers in America, Europe and the Far East. Programs are written
:in a large number of cuntries.
:
:Google is one of the more successfult companies.
:
Note that Google is run by ONE board of directors.
:>
:> For example, it probably would have been a much better station if they
:> had shitcanned the original design when the price kept going up and
:> the capabilities kept going down and had listened to Lowell Wood's
:> ideas.
:>
:I googled him and his ideas. I think you are doing a certain amount of
:special pleading here. How do you know that his ideas for (say) Mars
:would not also go up and up in price.
:
I was referring specifically to his ideas about how to 'fix' the ISS
program back before they bent the first piece of metal.
Quadibloc
> There's a huge logical flaw with the assumption humanity is destined to
> colinize space. If humanity were truly civilized and intelligent, we'd
> understand nature enough to be able to find a sustainable equilibruim
> with our environment. So, if we were 'civilized' we wouldn't ...need...
> to colonize.
> If we need to colonize, then we're not civilized enough to...successfully...
> colonize space. Any colony would be a weak microcosm of what
> we already have on earth. So what's the point then?
No.
This argument is fallacious.
Why is it that America was so much more peaceful and prosperous than
Europe?
Americans are civilized; they live in a democratic nation and enjoy
freedom. But they can't limit their energy use, and become in harmony
with their environment, because if they did, they wouldn't be able to
maintain the enormous military strength that protects America from
being overrun by Russia, China, or the Islamic world.
A few people who get away from Earth and start a colony, with access
to the abundant resources of the Solar System, will be able to live
better than people on Earth, who have to deal with foreign enemies and
overcrowding. They can also learn the lessons of Earth's history, and
avoid allowing themselves to become divided.
After all, in over 200 years of history, the U.S. had only *one* civil
war; look how many wars they had in Europe in that time! Don't blame
Americans for the fact that Communists and terrorists are uncivilized!
John Savard
Quadibloc
> The technology for living in space is not here yet. We need
> o To be able to resist to mutations and DNA damage much better than
> now. Space is full of radiation that is lethal to our bodies as
> they are now.
> This can be solved by mdifying and enhancing our genetic repair
> mechanism to be more efficient. As a byproduct of this research
> we would have a cure for cancer, since many cancers are just
> genetic repair mechanism problems.
> o To develop a closed ecological system that can sustain itself
> with solar energy in space. We need to develop photosynthesis
> in vacuum, i.e. plants that can resist and thrive in vacuum.
> This needs (again) some genetical know how. We need a skin that
> is able to resist vacuum AND be transparent for our plants.
We don't need either of those things.
http://www.quadibloc.com/science/spaint.htm
Earth exists in space just fine without those technologies - and so
all we need to do, even if it's less efficient, is to duplicate Earth
in space.
We can't live in vacuum ourselves, and if we need air for ourselves,
why can't we also put our plants within the air?
As for radiation, we can get rock from the Moon or the asteroids until
we have as much shielding around us in space as the Earth's atmosphere
provides us on Earth.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> It is the best humans can do now because it exists. Other things can
> be maybe better but they have a big problem... they do not exist.
> Speculating what humans could do is a useful activity, but it is just
> speculation.
But for some reason this doesn't also apply to speculating what humans
_can't_ do?
But perhaps the ISS is the best humans are willing to spend the money
to do with their current technology. Some things require more
technology than we have right now. Other things just require being
willing to try harder.
John Savard
Martha Adams
news:a6272902-67cd-4207...@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
http://www.quadibloc.com/science/spaint.htm
John Savard
========================================================
This touches the very interesting question of, when people live
off-Terra, how will they do it? My own feeling is, the human race in
space will dig and tunnel a lot. My scheme for a human settlement in
space is, it's made up of a few to many oversize tunacan habs, sized for
about 120 people each, and placed down in the ground of a larger body or
inside a smaller body. The habs will be built and interconnected so
that in sets of 2 or 3, they are able to self-sustain for up to months,
in case of a disaster. I see some nice utopian schemes around, very
attractive, but I think people in space won't build that way because 1)
more costly and harder-to-make materials required; 2) a network of habs
is more disaster resistant than is a single large installation. I
expect the building material for the lifespaces shells to be riveted
soft iron or soft aluminum.
Us Terrans here on Terra's hospitable surface, think that out on the
surface is the way to live. It is, *on Terra.* But off Terra, I expect
humans to go more or less subterranean. It's interesting to ask, will
they then over generations, become Morlocks? To which my responding
question would be, if you think there's risk of that, how would you
prevent it going that way?
Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2009 Jan 11]
Quadibloc
> But off Terra, I expect
> humans to go more or less subterranean.
I expect that too:
the bottom of my page at
http://www.quadibloc.com/science/spa02.htm
shows one possibility.
> It's interesting to ask, will
> they then over generations, become Morlocks? To which my responding
> question would be, if you think there's risk of that, how would you
> prevent it going that way?
I agree that 'utopian' schemes which require extra effort to build
habitat space aren't likely to be followed. Space colonists will face
limits on their time and effort, and will not exert extra effort to
build fancier habitats than they require.
The scheme illustrated on my page probably is a little 'utopian',
since it envisages the construction of gigantic underground domes,
high enough that trees can grow in them to full height. At first, the
domes would probably be a bit smaller, and housing might be dug from
tunnels leading from the domes rather than in the form of buildings
built inside the domes - where food is grown.
John Savard
Ian Parker
> :Google is one of the more successfult companies.
> :
>
> Note that Google is run by ONE board of directors.
Google does indeed have one board, but :-
1) Anyone whatever their citizenship can join the Google board.
2) ESA likewise has a single board.
>
> :>
> :> For example, it probably would have been a much better station if they
> :> had shitcanned the original design when the price kept going up and
> :> the capabilities kept going down and had listened to Lowell Wood's
> :> ideas.
> :>
> :I googled him and his ideas. I think you are doing a certain amount of
> :special pleading here. How do you know that his ideas for (say) Mars
> :would not also go up and up in price.
> :
>
> I was referring specifically to his ideas about how to 'fix' the ISS
> program back before they bent the first piece of metal.
>
I can't help stating the truism that history is what has hapenned
rather tan what might have hapenned. It may well be that there is some
genius that if he/she had been listened to would have produced a far
better ISS far cheaper, but there is absolutely no proof of this. The
ISS is the result of a series of decisions.
In fact the long and short of it is that the ISS lacks a role.
Scientific experimentation is done with dedicated unmanned spacecraft.
This has been found to be far and away the cheapest solution. I have
pointed out that a fragmented telescope in free space is a better bet
than one on the Moon. I fear too that if, and it is a big if a Moojn
base is established in 2020 it will be a similar white elephant.
Had a real genius been around when the ISS was though of he/she would,
without question, have said that the thing to do was to develop
repairable spacecraft and swarms and also concentrate on smart pebbles
and ultrastability. OK this is again what if, but these are the
technologies with a real medium term future.
History has is fact passed the ISS by.
- Ian Parker
Ian Parker
pooh pooh the idea. I pooh pooh all grandiose ideas NOT involving VN
technology in one form or another.
- Ian Parker
Rand Simberg
Ian Parker <ianpa...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>> The scheme illustrated on my page probably is a little 'utopian',
>> since it envisages the construction of gigantic underground domes,
>> high enough that trees can grow in them to full height. At first, the
>> domes would probably be a bit smaller, and housing might be dug from
>> tunnels leading from the domes rather than in the form of buildings
>> built inside the domes - where food is grown.
>>
>Only a Von Neumann machine can achieve this. Other people continue to
>pooh pooh the idea. I pooh pooh all grandiose ideas NOT involving VN
>technology in one form or another.
Yes, we know you do--you don't have to tell us. It's one of the
primary things that makes you such a loon.
Rand Simberg
Ian Parker <ianpa...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>On 12 Jan, 13:01, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:17:22 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
>> Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
>Well aol your ideas are too.
I don't have "aol ideas." If you do, it would explain much.
And if you mean *all* of my ideas, what is it that they are, too? Why
can't you learn to write comprehensibly in English, and stick to the
topic?
Ian Parker
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:17:22 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
> Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
Well aol your ideas are too. The only future for manned spaceflight
that I can see is one of ever inceasing cost. Manned spaceflight is
simply conspicuous consumption which call be ill affored in a
recession.
OK Keynes DID advocate public works, but public works with a FUTURE,
like the Hoover Dam. Manned spaceflight has no future other than ever
increasing levels of unproductive expenditure.
That is the cold hard truth.
Another cold hard truth. America is in the state it is because it has
spent so much money unproductively. Not only on speceflight but on
Iraq. The Iraq money could have been used to produce loads of "green"
energy or in a myriad of productive ways. Asia is NOT spending on
either Iraq or Afghanistan and is outproducing the US in terms of
engineers. Their money by contrast is spent productively.
Another cold hard truth - Hamas is going to emerge bloodied but
unbowed. More extremism is going to follow. Khaled Mashaal is called
Khaled (xAlid) because he will always be there. Kill him and someone
else will take his place.
Yet another - The US has a balance of payments deficit on high tech
goods. All the evidence is that the rest of the World has not only
caught up but is acually surpassing the US. Detroit is where it is not
only because of the recession, but because it is producing cars no one
wants to buy any more. Japan has a very real technological lead.
To me the whole idea of manned spaceflight along the lines you seem to
what to suggest is absolutely insane. Any reasonable analysis says it
must be. People go the Moon. All their supplies have to be brought in
from Earth via Ares or some other rocket. If they then go on to Mars
all the material going to Mars will have to be transported up to LEO,
to the Moon? at great expense. An expedition will (let us say) weigh
2,000tons at LEO. Some 50,000 tons of expendible boosters will be
needed to get it there. About 200 tons will arrive on Mars. During the
trip to Mars, on Mars and back, food, oxygen and other consumables
will be used up. Staying on Mars will use up yetr more consumables.
The whole thing does not add up. To produce a habitat would require
about a million tons of boost from the Earth's surface.
Jacob Navia is right. The technology is not there. Not there for
plants in a vacuum, not there for plants in a prwessurized
environment.
All you seem to want is money to carry out your pet schemes, which I
will predict will come to nothing.
- Ian Parker
- Ian Parker
Ian Parker
All Japanese!
- Ian Parker
Fred J. McCall
:On 11 Jan, 20:52, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
:
:> :Google is one of the more successfult companies.
:> :
:>
:> Note that Google is run by ONE board of directors.
:
:Google does indeed have one board, but :-
:
:1) Anyone whatever their citizenship can join the Google board.
:
Oh? Try and act on that and see what it gets you.
:
:2) ESA likewise has a single board.
:
But what ESA has isn't really a 'board'.
:>
:> :>
:> :> For example, it probably would have been a much better station if they
:> :> had shitcanned the original design when the price kept going up and
:> :> the capabilities kept going down and had listened to Lowell Wood's
:> :> ideas.
:> :>
:> :I googled him and his ideas. I think you are doing a certain amount of
:> :special pleading here. How do you know that his ideas for (say) Mars
:> :would not also go up and up in price.
:> :
:>
:> I was referring specifically to his ideas about how to 'fix' the ISS
:> program back before they bent the first piece of metal.
:>
:I can't help stating the truism that history is what has hapenned
:rather tan what might have hapenned. It may well be that there is some
:genius that if he/she had been listened to would have produced a far
:better ISS far cheaper, but there is absolutely no proof of this. The
:ISS is the result of a series of decisions.
:
Ian gibbers on, saying nothing. Chatterbot.
:
:In fact the long and short of it is that the ISS lacks a role.
:Scientific experimentation is done with dedicated unmanned spacecraft.
:This has been found to be far and away the cheapest solution. I have
:pointed out that a fragmented telescope in free space is a better bet
:than one on the Moon. I fear too that if, and it is a big if a Moojn
:base is established in 2020 it will be a similar white elephant.
:
You've pointed out all sorts of silly shit.
:
:Had a real genius been around when the ISS was though of he/she would,
:without question, have said that the thing to do was to develop
:repairable spacecraft and swarms and also concentrate on smart pebbles
:and ultrastability. OK this is again what if, but these are the
:technologies with a real medium term future.
:
And so now Ian claims that his gibbering is genius. He's obviously
flirting with Guthball territory.
:
:History has is fact passed the ISS by.
:
History had, in fact, passed it by before the first piece of metal was
bent, since it was descoped and made an international political
project.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
Martha Adams
news:bd18a7fe-b401-4d6a...@y1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> needed to get it there. About 200 tons will arrive on Mars. During the
> trip to Mars, on Mars and back, food, oxygen and other consumables
> will be used up. Staying on Mars will use up yetr more consumables.
> The whole thing does not add up. To produce a habitat would require
> about a million tons of boost from the Earth's surface.
>
> Jacob Navia is right. The technology is not there. Not there for
> plants in a vacuum, not there for plants in a prwessurized
> environment.
>
> All you seem to want is money to carry out your pet schemes, which I
> will predict will come to nothing.
>
> - Ian Parker
I think I see a grain of truth in here, but most of the preceding thread
looks to me like a useless exercise at intellectualization. It goes
nowhere; it fails even to carry some core point such as mine at the top
of this thread that today's current exercise in "exploring" space could
be replaced by a hard choice to *build settlements* in space. And that
that urgently needs to be done.
In simplest terms, "space flight" and "space settlement" are two related
but very different things to do. "Space flight" is the brief period in
which you lift off and get there; "space settlement" is the very
longterm business of our human species getting off Terra into the solar
system, after which it has a hope to exist and grow for millennia to
come. As vs, if it doesn't, expectable astronomical violence or local
religious and ideological foolishness, using technologies now available,
will put an end to all this local Terran trouble.
There's a really good plan for a human future in space, written in 1893
by Frederick Jackson Turner. I see no evidence in the above thread that
anyone here ever read it. They should. It does need some translation
to bring in present and expectable future resources Turner could not
have known of, but the basic outline is there, it's well based in recent
American history, and I think that with appropriate updating its
usefulness *far* exceeds the vague and bluesky stuff I see around such
as "man must explore...."
"The Future of Human Spaceflight" is too limited in its conception. It
barely manages to recognize the present. Those of us who can think
about such matters, need to be working at "The Future of Human Culture
in Space" and of our species.
Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2009 Jan 12]
Ian Parker
>
> I think I see a grain of truth in here, but most of the preceding thread
> looks to me like a useless exercise at intellectualization. It goes
> nowhere; it fails even to carry some core point such as mine at the top
> of this thread that today's current exercise in "exploring" space could
> be replaced by a hard choice to *build settlements* in space. And that
> that urgently needs to be done.
If you are going to build a settlement in space you need to make that
settement self sufficient. It seems to me that not only is the
technology to do this not there, but any attempt to get there is
"looney". To me the only "sane" thing to do is to call it a day.
It would seem too that LISA is never going to work. If a fragmented
telescope is not feasible neither is LISA. I personally believe that
building one on the Moon is going to prove to be even more
problematic. If all the masterials have to be transported from Earth
(the only "sane" solution, would it not be far better to simply have
it in space anyway.
I have perhaps been ratrher to scathing on America, but not wholly
without justification. I think America very much represents a
bureaucracy that is in a rut and does not know how to get out. Will
Obama get them out? Doubt it.
>
> In simplest terms, "space flight" and "space settlement" are two related
> but very different things to do. "Space flight" is the brief period in
> which you lift off and get there; "space settlement" is the very
> longterm business of our human species getting off Terra into the solar
> system, after which it has a hope to exist and grow for millennia to
> come. As vs, if it doesn't, expectable astronomical violence or local
> religious and ideological foolishness, using technologies now available,
> will put an end to all this local Terran trouble.
>
> There's a really good plan for a human future in space, written in 1893
> by Frederick Jackson Turner. I see no evidence in the above thread that
> anyone here ever read it. They should. It does need some translation
> to bring in present and expectable future resources Turner could not
> have known of, but the basic outline is there, it's well based in recent
> American history, and I think that with appropriate updating its
> usefulness *far* exceeds the vague and bluesky stuff I see around such
> as "man must explore...."
>
I think we must explore, but not at any cost. What I am particularly
reacting to is the unwillingness to consider new ideas. I don't know
whether classification is a factor. All I can say is that without new
ideas the whole idea is doomed. If you needed Ares to reach California
it would not have been settled, it is as simple as that. No one has
seriously suggested crossing America with ballistic missiles. There is
a different order of magnitude in cost.
Classification is an issue. I don't know for example whether
fragmented mirrors have ever been suggested or not. I feel they must
have been. My criticism of America was made with this reasson in mind.
1) New thinking is needed, ottherwise any advance in space will become
exponentially more expensive. A trip to Mars was possible after Apollo
but would have had an exponential price tag.
2) If ideas are locked up under classification, and a disinformation
campaign initiated whenever someone else comes up with the same idea
America is doomed to futility. If there is to be human spaceflight
with new thinking America will not be the country to do it. I think
this is very clear.
> "The Future of Human Spaceflight" is too limited in its conception. It
> barely manages to recognize the present. Those of us who can think
> about such matters, need to be working at "The Future of Human Culture
> in Space" and of our species.
>
The future of human culture is I believe in a united world. It is to
do with space, yes. If we think about culture we cannot ignore other
things. We cannot, for example, ignore the Middle East and the
resentments that have been and are still being built up.
I hope that space is explored as a united world. This may be too
utopian, although if we go into space with national rivalries it will
endanger rather than protect humanity.
- Ian Parker
Quadibloc
> Another cold hard truth - Hamas is going to emerge bloodied but
> unbowed. More extremism is going to follow. Khaled Mashaal is called
> Khaled (xAlid) because he will always be there. Kill him and someone
> else will take his place.
You're probably right. But that is not a necessary truth. It is
possible to kill every last member of Hamas.
It should have been done, though, without killing so many Gazan
civilians if one does not want new terrorist groups to rise up.
I can think of two ways destroying Hamas could have been achieved with
less bloodshed.
1) Israel allows Egypt to open the border to Gaza to evacuate the
civilians of Gaza temporarily during the offensive against Hamas; or
2) Since there is mistrust concerning whether Israel is targeting
Hamas as spcifically as possible, why not have a multinational force,
made up of troops from the U.S., Britain, France, and the other
European countries, be what enters Gaza with the purpose of hunting
down and destroying Hamas utterly (the way al-Qaeda and the Taliban
are to be destroyed utterly)?
Apparently, political considerations prevent these two alternatives
from being taken. Given that, those who create these obstacles are in
no position to criticize Israel.
John Savard
Ian Parker
>
> > Another cold hard truth - Hamas is going to emerge bloodied but
> > unbowed. More extremism is going to follow. Khaled Mashaal is called
> > Khaled (xAlid) because he will always be there. Kill him and someone
> > else will take his place.
>
> You're probably right. But that is not a necessary truth. It is
> possible to kill every last member of Hamas.
>
> It should have been done, though, without killing so many Gazan
> civilians if one does not want new terrorist groups to rise up.
>
you say. "Cast lead" is a logical culmination of steadt escalation on
BOTH sides.
> I can think of two ways destroying Hamas could have been achieved with
> less bloodshed.
>
> 1) Israel allows Egypt to open the border to Gaza to evacuate the
> civilians of Gaza temporarily during the offensive against Hamas; or
>
> 2) Since there is mistrust concerning whether Israel is targeting
> Hamas as spcifically as possible, why not have a multinational force,
> made up of troops from the U.S., Britain, France, and the other
> European countries, be what enters Gaza with the purpose of hunting
> down and destroying Hamas utterly (the way al-Qaeda and the Taliban
> are to be destroyed utterly)?
Al-Qaeda has not been destroyed utterly. It has sufferered a defeat in
Iraq (where if it was not for the US military they would never havre
been anyway). It is still present in the moutains of the NW frontier.
The parallel is not quite true anyway. Al-Qaida sufferes from one very
real deficiency. It is puritanical, it is "la la land" (la = no). It
does not have an appeal to Arabs. No alcohol, no belly dancing, no
fun.
Hamas and Hezbullah have the appeal of liberation movements. The
British had to talk to Markarios and Kenyata in the end.
Why are the Palestinans expected to live differently from the people
in any other country. Gaza was strangled during the "cease fire". The
Israelis are STILL holding on to vast swathes of territory in the West
Bank in the shape of settlements.
>
> Apparently, political considerations prevent these two alternatives
> from being taken. Given that, those who create these obstacles are in
> no position to criticize Israel.
>
There are political consideration on both sides. If I remember
correctly Ms Livni failed to become Prime Minister because the
Religious Party wanted an undertaking that Jerusalem would never be a
part of negotiations. I am a great believer in "first past the post"
elections. The Israeli system of proportional representation gives far
too much power to minority parties. Do not image that Hamas/Hezbullah
are unaware of this. The "resignation" of Trippi Livni was just one
stepping stone on the road to war.
When I was in Damascus there was never any nonsense about the
positions of buttons in lifts on Fridays. Yet this is just one of the
demands that the Orthodox are making.
In any case this is only one of the "hard truths". The majority of
"hard truth" is about manned spaceflight. Everyone admits that the ISS
is going nowhere. Anything beyond LEO is prhibitavely expensive and
will remain so.
Yet another hard truth. There are probably people out there with even
better ideas than those I have put forward. I do not believe that one
will ever get anything constructive out of this group. I think its
goose is well and truly cooked.
With no really good ideas on the horizon I do not believe Mr. Obama
has any real option but to call a halt on the whole thing. The only
justification, and it is a tenuous justification at that, for manned
spaceflight is that the ISS is an important part of international
relations.
- Ian Parker
Rand Simberg
Ian Parker <ianpa...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>Hamas and Hezbullah have the appeal of liberation movements.
Hamas is not a "liberation movement." It is a genocidal movement.
>Yet another hard truth. There are probably people out there with even
>better ideas than those I have put forward.
It would be frightening to contemplate that there are people with
worse ones.
jonathan
On Jan 9, 9:05 pm, "jonathan" <H...@write.instead.net> wrote:
>> There's a huge logical flaw with the assumption humanity is destined to
>> colinize space. If humanity were truly civilized and intelligent, we'd
>> understand nature enough to be able to find a sustainable equilibruim
>> with our environment. So, if we were 'civilized' we wouldn't ...need...
>> to colonize.
>After all, in over 200 years of history, the U.S. had only *one* civil
>war; look how many wars they had in Europe in that time! Don't blame
>Americans for the fact that Communists and terrorists are uncivilized!
>John Savard
I think the point that democracy defines being civilized is correct.
Our steadily improving and stable democracy is the source
of our prosperity and ability to afford such things. But the
larger picture also indicates the more prosperous or 'civilized'
a nation is, the lower the rate of population growth, even
to the point of shrinking populations. This trend would suggest
that as democracy and prosperity spread, as the world becomes
more civilized, the population growth problem will take care
of itself.
I think it's pretty clear that if humanity gets it's house in order
then colonies would become a luxury, not a necessity for
survival.
Another trend is with our instinctive curiosity about 'outer space'.
The less we know, the more we wish to go see, and find out.
So over time, as our knowledge and wisdom concerning
our surrounding increase, our 'need' to explore will
diminish proportionally.
For instance with Mars, by the time we could put people
there, the various rovers will have told us pretty much
all we really wanted to know in the first place.
Rand Simberg
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>After all, in over 200 years of history, the U.S. had only *one* civil
>war; look how many wars they had in Europe in that time!
Only if you ignore Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, the Texas
revolution...
The War Between the States was our most spectacular one, but it wasn't
the only one.
jonathan
"Martha Adams" <mh...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:HtJal.6401$Es4....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> "space settlement" is the very long-term business of our human species
> getting
> off Terra into the solar system, after which it has a hope to exist and grow
> for millennia to come.
Reality says something else, population growth rates diminish
quickly as a nation becomes more prosperous or stable.
As democracy and freedom continues to spread, the need
to colonize to perpetuate the species becomes completely
unnecessary. Your opinions seem to spring from a mish-mash
of sci-fi imagery, such as runaway populations and some
inevitable apocalypse.
> As vs, if it doesn't, expectable astronomical violence
This also is another nonsensical argument. For instance, which
is easier or more likely to become reality? An ability to deflect
or destroy incoming astronomical threats, or quickly moving
SIX BILLION PEOPLE to another planet?
If we move our population somewhere else ahead of time, how
are we to know we didn't move ...into..the path a future collision?
Defense is the only logical, practical or moral choice.
Moral in the sense that colonies will always be for the
select few, not the general population. Colonies can't
support billions of people. They never will, not in ten
lifetimes.
Ten lifetimes is too far to plan for, only dream about.
>or local religious and ideological foolishness, using technologies now
>available, will put an end to all this local Terran trouble.
That's the silliest thing you've said, we'd take all our troubles with us
and you know it. Only unless we fix those 'troubles' first, can
we hope to successfully colonize anything. Having done that
colonies become an extravagance, let the big corporations
pay for them. Only profit driven motives can build such things
anyway.
Jonathan
s
>
Ian Parker
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:39:29 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >Hamas and Hezbullah have the appeal of liberation movements.
>
> Hamas is not a "liberation movement." It is a genocidal movement.
this is what Israei propaganda is saying. Neither Hamas nor Hezbullah
has ever proposed attacking western targets in general. Wht the great
big US of A cannot keeps its paws off I will never know.
Hamas agrees in principle to peace within the 1967 borders. They must
clearly form a part of the peace process. They were after all
DEMOCRATICALLY elected. Or, do you agree with elections only when they
produce the result you want. As in Latin America .......
>
> >Yet another hard truth. There are probably people out there with even
> >better ideas than those I have put forward.
>
> It would be frightening to contemplate that there are people with
> worse ones.
There are. You are one of them. Listen - nobody is going to buy maned
spaceflight beyond LEO at the price tag proposed. Forget it.
- Ian Parker
Rand Simberg
Ian Parker <ianpa...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>On 13 Jan, 14:04, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:39:29 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
>> Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
>> in such a way as to indicate that:
>>
>> >Hamas and Hezbullah have the appeal of liberation movements.
>>
>> Hamas is not a "liberation movement." It is a genocidal movement.
>
>this is what Israei propaganda is saying.
Because it's true.
>Neither Hamas nor Hezbullah
>has ever proposed attacking western targets in general.
What part of "killing all Jews in creation" do you not understand?
>Hamas agrees in principle to peace within the 1967 borders.
Completely insane nonsense. Its charter calls for the destruction of
Israel.
Ian Parker
There have been a number of informal contacts. Hamas (and Hezbullah)
have offices in Damascus. They are not that hard to contact.
Anyway what solutions do you propose? I can only think of one and that
is the complete extermination of the Palestinian people. We have come
to this point by means of a steady escalation by incompetant
politicians - on BOTH sides. I cannot see any goog outcome.
Barack Obama has said that he wants to set up a Middle East think
tank. This is an improvement from what has gone before. However I do
not rate his chance of success as high. I would not rate the chance of
manned spaceflight surviving as that high either. The only
justification as I have said is international goodwill over the ISS.
There is absolutely no other reason.
- Ian Parker
Fred J. McCall
:On 13 Jan, 14:04, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:39:29 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
:> Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
:> in such a way as to indicate that:
:>
:> >Hamas and Hezbullah have the appeal of liberation movements.
:>
:> Hamas is not a "liberation movement." It is a genocidal movement.
:
:this is what Israei propaganda is saying.
:
It also happens to be true, but that usually doesn't seem to penetrate
for you.
:
:Neither Hamas nor Hezbullah
:has ever proposed attacking western targets in general. Wht the great
:big US of A cannot keeps its paws off I will never know.
:
Uh, we don't have any military involvement there.
:
:Hamas agrees in principle to peace within the 1967 borders.
:
What are you smoking? That is absolutely the most preposterous thing
I've ever heard. If "Hamas agrees in principle to peace within the
1967 borders", it is only if all the Jews leave or are dead.
:
:They must
:clearly form a part of the peace process. They were after all
:DEMOCRATICALLY elected. Or, do you agree with elections only when they
:produce the result you want. As in Latin America .......
:
Even elected governments are responsible for what they do.
:>
:> >Yet another hard truth. There are probably people out there with even
:> >better ideas than those I have put forward.
:>
:> It would be frightening to contemplate that there are people with
:> worse ones.
:
:There are. You are one of them. Listen - nobody is going to buy maned
:spaceflight beyond LEO at the price tag proposed. Forget it.
:
Then get rid of all space flight. There's no point to it if we're not
going.
Ian Parker
Could you answer me one question. How did Hamas get elected?
- Ian Parker
Fred J. McCall
:>
:
:Could you answer me one question. How did Hamas get elected?
:
What does that have to do with anything, Ian?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Ian Parker
> :
> :Could you answer me one question. How did Hamas get elected?
> :
>
> What does that have to do with anything, Ian?
>
Thank you Fred! We now see the US naked. They are NOT interested in
democracy and never were.
- Ian Parker
Rand Simberg
Ian Parker <ianpa...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>On 14 Jan, 15:08, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hamas took power after having to share it with Fatah after the
election. It staged a coup, and killed many Fatah members. There
will never be another election in Gaza as long as these genocidal
monsters are in charge.
And you continue to display your abject ignorance about the subject.
Ian Parker
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:33:34 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >On 14 Jan, 15:08, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> :
> >> :Could you answer me one question. How did Hamas get elected?
> >> :
>
> >> What does that have to do with anything, Ian?
>
> >Thank you Fred! We now see the US naked. They are NOT interested in
> >democracy and never were.
>
> Hamas took power after having to share it with Fatah after the
> election. It staged a coup, and killed many Fatah members. There
> will never be another election in Gaza as long as these genocidal
> monsters are in charge.
>
> And you continue to display your abject ignorance about the subject.
I don't know where you get your information from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5016012.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_legislative_election,_2006
These are references from respected sources. Hamas won fair and square
with 74 seats to 45. The bbc reference gives the attitude to Israel.
Read carefully. Hamas official policy is the destruction of Israel BUT
will accept what amounts to 1967.
You seem to me to be simply a proagandist. You ill serve the cause of
peace. Peace in the region is vitally important for all of us.
Of course sufficiently large structures cannot be built anyway with
current technology (possibly fortunately), but the thought that the
élite are going to leg it to some space Shrangi La while the world in
general and the Middle East in particular are in flames absolutely
apals me.
- Ian Parker
Quadibloc
> Thank you Fred! We now see the US naked. They are NOT interested in
> democracy and never were.
The people who voted for Hamas, supposedly, were doing so because
Hamas was distributing aid fairly, while Fatah had descended into
corruption.
If a foreign country is shooting rockets at you, no, it doesn't matter
terribly if the government that decided to do this was democratically
elected or not. Aggression is aggression.
Other factors lead to categorizing the U.S. invasion of Iraq as other
than aggression.
Technical ones: Iraq committed aggression against Kuwait; as a result,
it was bound by a peace settlement, whose terms it had violated.
Political ones: Not _only_ is the U.S. a democracy, but it is a
liberal democracy. Its people, therefore, do not support a policy of
driving the Iraqis into the sea because they are Muslims daring to
rule themselves instead of being ruled by Christians. Instead, the
invasion was due to a perceived danger that the Saddam Hussein regime
might hand weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.
Democracy is a good thing, but that is at least in part because it
leads to other good things.
It leads to peace, because ordinary people do not want to die for the
aggrandizement of their leaders.
It leads to prosperity, because what people earn is not subject to
being capriciously stolen by a despot.
The tyranny of the majority - where a ruler gets elected to pursue a
policy of persecuting minorities - is not democracy in a meaningful
sense, because the most basic element of democracy, before elections,
is respect for human rights.
John Savard
Rand Simberg
Ian Parker <ianpa...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>On 14 Jan, 16:08, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:33:34 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
>> Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
>> in such a way as to indicate that:
>>
>> >On 14 Jan, 15:08, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> :
>> >> :Could you answer me one question. How did Hamas get elected?
>> >> :
>>
>> >> What does that have to do with anything, Ian?
>>
>> >Thank you Fred! We now see the US naked. They are NOT interested in
>> >democracy and never were.
>>
>> Hamas took power after having to share it with Fatah after the
>> election. It staged a coup, and killed many Fatah members. There
>> will never be another election in Gaza as long as these genocidal
>> monsters are in charge.
>>
>> And you continue to display your abject ignorance about the subject.
>
>I don't know where you get your information from
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5016012.stm
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_legislative_election,_2006
>
>These are references from respected sources.
>The bbc reference gives the attitude to Israel.
>Read carefully. Hamas official policy is the destruction of Israel BUT
>will accept what amounts to 1967.
Oh, so we should believe them, even though their official policy is
the destruction of Israel.
>You seem to me to be simply a proagandist.
And you seem to me to be a naive fool.
Ian Parker
that aid is always distributed fairly. Make sure always that extremism
is not encouraged.
It is ironc. In Arabic "Fatah" means "youth". We see corrupt
geriatrics governing in Palestine today. Hamas would not have won if
that were not so. I keep on saying that the casting of lead will only
encourage Hamas, AQ and all those who are extreme.
I think a good idea might well be to open all the crossings. Now Hamas
what are You going to do?
- Ian Parker
Martha Adams
I do believe these people don't figure out they're off topic -- because,
they can't.
Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2009 Jan 14]
Fred J. McCall
:
Non sequitur noted. Lack of responsive answer noted. Lack of
reasoning ability noted.
Pat Flannery
Quadibloc wrote:
> The tyranny of the majority - where a ruler gets elected to pursue a
> policy of persecuting minorities - is not democracy in a meaningful
> sense, because the most basic element of democracy, before elections,
> is respect for human rights.
>
I still like this little item on who runs US foreign policy:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE50C20B20090113
Olmert calls Bush - who doesn't know jack shit about what Olmert is
talking about - so Bush calls Condi - and tells her to do what Olmert
told him to do.
Condi is Secretary Of State of _what_ nation again? :-D
Pat
Ian Parker
> "Ian Parker" <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
1) We do not treat each other with respect. I have been to scientific
conferences and language like we have seen would be off limits. There
is the real issue of new ideas.
2) Ad hominem arguments have been introdiced by Fred and Rand not by
me. The ad hominem argument is simply this. Given that their thinking
has left Iraq and the Middle East in general in such a mess, can you
trust them to run NASA. They seem to be keeping their ideas close to
their chests. Is there any evidence they would be better than current
NASA ideas.
3) Since 1969 there has been a revolution in UNMANNED exploration.
Current spacecraft simnply do not compare with those of 1969. Real X-
ray telescopes worthy of the name, WMAP, Voyager etc. These represent
quantum leaps in capability. There is LISA too which to me represents
a milestone but other people seem to be ridiculing.
4) Where in contrast is the fresh thinking about manned spaceflight?
Ares is simply a glorified Saturn. As has been observed human
spaceflight is strictly confined to LEO.
5) To be the only way forward is increased use of automation. There is
to me only one way to Mars and that is via a series of stepping stones
NONE OF WHICH ARE DELIVERED FROM EARTH. If things are delivered from
Earth you might just as well assemble everything at LEO and simply
cast off.
6) Ares to me shows a complete lack of ANY creative thinking. It is
not only Saturn writ large, it (effectively) mandates heavy
indivisible loads rather than space assembly.
7) This group seems to discource creative thinking. Seeing our threads
creative thinkers are going to be put off.
From an ad hominem stand-point "cast lead" typifies the kind of
thinking we have.
I feel that Obama should in essence pull the plug. Get rid of NASA
lock stock and barrel. How will unmanned flights be organized. Well
there is already overlap between NASA and ESA. What I would advocate
is a slimmed down board of academics who would vet and instigate
unmanned projects.
NASA in its present form is an exercise in futility. There can be no
other way of looking at it.
- Ian Parker
Quadibloc
> 1) We do not treat each other with respect. I have been to scientific
> conferences and language like we have seen would be off limits. There
> is the real issue of new ideas.
At scientific conferences, unlike on USENET,
a) contentious political issues aren't discussed, and
b) not just anyone can wander in off the street.
> 3) Since 1969 there has been a revolution in UNMANNED exploration.
> 4) Where in contrast is the fresh thinking about manned spaceflight?
Humans haven't been cutting their height in half every 54 months.
It's not surprising that unmanned vehicles are not much more capable
than they used to be. Life-support demands, however, remain constant,
and many of the technologies in spaceflight, which involves moving
heavy objects about with fossil fuels, are mature. Gas mileage doesn't
double every 18 months either.
> 5) To be the only way forward is increased use of automation. There is
> to me only one way to Mars and that is via a series of stepping stones
> NONE OF WHICH ARE DELIVERED FROM EARTH. If things are delivered from
> Earth you might just as well assemble everything at LEO and simply
> cast off.
Not necessarily. Using small rockets to launch supplies to Mars for a
Mars mission, for example, may be considerably more convenient and
cheaper than spending time on space assembly.
> 7) This group seems to discource creative thinking. Seeing our threads
> creative thinkers are going to be put off.
Wild ideas that are in flagrant contradiction to current knowledge -
such as the notion NASA is in some conspiracy to conceal that Venus is
clement, but the Moon could never have been landed on by men due to
some electrostatic problem - will not be respected, and if the people
advancing them also insult the rest of the world that doesn't see the
wisdom of their ideas, yes, they will get more insults back. Oh, yes,
throw in anti-Semitism too.
Of course, Brad Guth isn't the only person we're less than polite to,
it may be.
It's true that I don't think there's much room for original thinking
in the Middle East.
Given certain premises that I think are factual, I'm not sure there is
much room for change...
1) The Democrats may well be critical of the need to engage in
military action in Iraq. But they and the Republicans - and virtually
the entire spectrum of conventional American political discourse - is
in agreement on the following principles:
a) Although it might be useful in a tactical sense to understand the
mentality behind terrorists, there were no legitimate grievances
behind the attacks of September 11, 2001. They did not result from
anything the U.S. government did on behalf of the American people that
was unjust or unfair to Muslims or others.
b) There are to be no negotiations, no compromises, with al-Qaeda or
the Taliban. They are to be defeated (and presumably, therefore,
destroyed, as they are willing to commit suicide for their cause)
utterly.
c) While the U.S. is not perfect, and should still critically examine
its own past conduct (i.e. in Latin America), September 11, 2001 is
not, in any way, shape or form, the specific occasion for any soul-
searching on the part of the American people.
Now, this may be a bit overstated; in particular, violations of (c)
have taken place from sources that were, and continued to be,
respected. But seldom heeded.
2) Israel is a democracy which believes in universal equality; it is a
country that is a participant in, and a contributor to, world science,
technology, and culture. Its existence is legitimate; the proposition
that it sits on territory seized by aggression, that should be given
back to its original owners, is no more accepted than the equivalent
proposition in the case of the United States, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, or the countries of Latin America.
3) At the time of the Camp David peace accords, Israel agreed to allow
the West Bank and Gaza Strip to become an independent Palestinian
nation, removing all the settlements therefrom, holding on to nothing
gained in the Six-Day War except East Jerusalem.
As this is about as much as can be expected from Israel in the way of
concessions, nothing further remains to be offered to any group still
engaged in violence against Israel. It can only reasonably be
inferred, since such violence obstructs implementing the Camp David
accords (once a Palestinian state becomes an internationally-
recognized nation, Israel's options, if it were still used as a base
of operations for terrorism against it, would be more restricted),
that groups engaging in continued violence against Israel have more
ambitious goals than implementation of the Camp David accords.
Such as driving Israel into the sea.
Given these facts - and, going beyond them, partly because, yes, the
U.S. does have a large Jewish population, to the premise that:
The Jews of Israel are people too, and thus we shouldn't ask anything
of them that we wouldn't ask of ourselves.
... then, while it IS also possible to hold the premise that Gazans
are people too, that gets us no further than
civilian casualties in Gaza should cease immediately, if possible, but
military operations in Gaza should continue until Hamas is wiped out
to the last man.
If there were wiggle room for "creative thinking" of the conventional
kind, that would be nice, but I don't see any. But that doesn't mean I
don't want creative thinking - in fact, I encourage it - applied to
another step of the problem.
Based on *this* premise:
1) The only people who agree to a resolution of an issue that is
"unacceptable" from their viewpoint are those who don't have a choice.
and noting the immense power and nuclear arsenal of the U.S.,
then, unless a new cold war with Russia (given the invasion of
Georgia, that is a possibility; even World War III is possible)
constrains the freedom of action of the U.S., no resolution to the
issues raised by the September 11 attacks that isn't *the way the
American people want this to be resolved* will happen.
So al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, as well as Iran and Syria are going to
be crushed. Given the way things are going in Iraq and Gaza, what
grounds do we have that a military solution won't cause so much
suffering on the part of innocent civilians as to cause - because,
after all, Muslims are only human - so much bitterness and hatred as
to create many more terrorists? Until the whole thing ends with
genocide.
Which is what the Romans did in response to guerilla warfare. Given
Vietnam as evidence, it looks like *nobody* has yet come up with a
reasonable alternative to winning a counterinsurgency action.
One place to look for an answer is here -
*to* avoid the situation deteriorating to genocide, we should make
peace and make compromises, even though those compromises aren't
really demanded by justice. For example, surrender Israel, moving its
Jews to Canada, Australia, and the U.S..
That's one possibility. I don't think it will happen, so I'm looking
for stuff that could happen.
- Fight the war against the terrorists very selectively, so that
civilian suffering and hence alienation is minimized.
Yes, you can do that. For example, institute a draft, put as many
Americans under arms as during the height of World War II, and send
them, in turn, to Gaza, to Iraq, to Afghanistan.
- If the entire Muslim world does end up being conquered, promote
cultural changes that destroy the psychology behind terrorism.
What would a matriarchal Islam look like?
Instead of going "outside the box" of constraints that I think
realistically *do* apply (i.e. the constraint that in the end, we win,
they lose), I go outside the box of conventional thinking.
John Savard
Quadibloc
I could say something like "shame on you for even thinking such
thoughts", but that could be taken as humorously indicating agreement.
While I do think that the U.S. should indeed look out for itself,
frankly, if people in France, or Britain, or New Zealand... or Taiwan
or South Korea... were being killed, frankly, I quite fervently wish
that the U.S. would react as if it were Americans being killed.
Because only the U.S. is big and strong enough to defend against the
biggest bullies in the world - and those big bullies *do* have the
intent to attack small, weak countries that can't stand against them
alone.
As witness Russia's carefully staged attack on Georgia.
This is partly because I live in Canada, which, like Israel, is not as
militarily strong as the United States, but which, like the U.S., is
one of the democratic allies.
So if the U.S. exerts itself - on behalf of the survival of Israel -
in ways that go beyond the selfish interests of the U.S., don't expect
me to be critical of this instead of supportive. Frankly, I'd rather
that the U.S. stand up and fight, instead of being isolationist,
before, rather than after, say, the Red Chinese come to Canada and
take it over for its land and resources.
Bush wants Condoleeza Rice to back the attack in Gaza? Go for it.
John Savard
Ian Parker
> On Jan 15, 4:19 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 1) We do not treat each other with respect. I have been to scientific
> > conferences and language like we have seen would be off limits. There
> > is the real issue of new ideas.
>
> At scientific conferences, unlike on USENET,
>
> a) contentious political issues aren't discussed, and
>
insistance of people like Fred and Rand that I should take advice from
"experts". Just look where their so called "experts" have got us.
> b) not just anyone can wander in off the street.
>
I don't know. I think the military is systematically trained in
disinformation techniques. I think you too when you talk about Venus
are ducking the essential issue. The term "beni Al-kalb" carries with
it a number of implications. The disinformation techniques we see here
have been used on innumerable occaisions, most notably Iraq. The
greatest offense against science though has been the little green
mannikins of Phoenix fame.
I cannot tell whether Fred believes in LGM or not. He rubbishes in
equal measure the believers and disbelievers.
> > 3) Since 1969 there has been a revolution in UNMANNED exploration.
> > 4) Where in contrast is the fresh thinking about manned spaceflight?
>
> Humans haven't been cutting their height in half every 54 months.
>
> It's not surprising that unmanned vehicles are not much more capable
> than they used to be. Life-support demands, however, remain constant,
> and many of the technologies in spaceflight, which involves moving
> heavy objects about with fossil fuels, are mature. Gas mileage doesn't
> double every 18 months either.
>
This is true. You cannot miniaturize life support requirements. Well
at least not in the same way that you can miniaturize unmanned
spacecraft.
Moore's Law - double every 18 months. This might not go on for ever
though. If you believe in Moore though it tells us that if you (say)
want to build a telescope on the Moon, unmanned technology will
rapidly overtake you. It also tells us that if we want to do
something, let us say for the point of argument mine an asteroid that
at some point in the near future there will be technology available to
do it economically and unmanned.
> > 5) To be the only way forward is increased use of automation. There is
> > to me only one way to Mars and that is via a series of stepping stones
> > NONE OF WHICH ARE DELIVERED FROM EARTH. If things are delivered from
> > Earth you might just as well assemble everything at LEO and simply
> > cast off.
>
> Not necessarily. Using small rockets to launch supplies to Mars for a
> Mars mission, for example, may be considerably more convenient and
> cheaper than spending time on space assembly.
But the total tonnage remains the same. The avenue for cost reduction
may well be a standard rocket that would be smaller than Ares.
>
> > 7) This group seems to discource creative thinking. Seeing our threads
> > creative thinkers are going to be put off.
>
> Wild ideas that are in flagrant contradiction to current knowledge -
> such as the notion NASA is in some conspiracy to conceal that Venus is
> clement, but the Moon could never have been landed on by men due to
> some electrostatic problem - will not be respected, and if the people
> advancing them also insult the rest of the world that doesn't see the
> wisdom of their ideas, yes, they will get more insults back. Oh, yes,
> throw in anti-Semitism too.
>
> Of course, Brad Guth isn't the only person we're less than polite to,
> it may be.
All new ideas are not. I was talking not about Venus or anything like
that but about LISA, robotics, Von Neumann technology and fragmented
telescopes. You have absolutely ducked the issue.
>
I am snipping your comments on the Middle East. I do not entirely
agree, but it is off topic. Not completely. My main political points
are about Iraq and Afghanistan not about Israel or Palestine. Why do I
mention these? I feel that the reasons for the situation in Iraq is
due in no small measure to the attitude of US forces. High policy was
wrong too, but that is not really the point. There we are full square
on my main contentions. Venus - a complete red herring!
- Ian Parker
Ian Parker
complete red herring - and you know it.
There are a whole load of classified projects that no one knows
anything about. I think the answer is if anyone delves to deeply into
what should, or should not, be done in space they come up against
classification issues. I believe two things.
1) That if classified matters are being discussed they should stay
stum rather that go for the invective. This is what would after all be
expected in a scientific conference.
2) Because peer group review is absent classified research is often
inefficient.
Ares - I don't think it is intended to go to the Mars or even the
Moon. It is intended for some highly classified project. The Moon and
Mars are merely covers. What could this project be? We can only, of
course make educated guesses. However there are some well known facts.
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.space.history/2006-06/msg00698.html
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_06/mdanalysis_june03
An ABM laser is being developed. It is as far as I can gather based on
CO2. (9.4/10.6 microns I think)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_laser
Suppose we send the payload of the 747 to MEO with Ares. We would need
larger mirrors for the longer range, but potentially you have a global
ABM system.
The Chinese are well aware of this and that is one of the reasons why
they are conducting ASAT tests.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/A_Good_Year_For_ABM_Part_Two_999.html
The Chinese are clearly aware of this.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/890b8aa663974cd0?hl=en
As far as AI is concerned I managed to trawl the following. The work
is extensive to say the least of it. Why with this extensive list do
people call me looney. It just doesn't figure at all. This is wha\t
makes me angry and causes me to go into such matters as Iraq.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=military+AI+projects&meta=
The reference below is the GILA air traffic control system. The
approach is an expert system. I would BTW have approached the problem
genetically, that is to say I would have simulated aircraft behaviour
ans optimised a genome. Still that is NOT my main point.
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/24924
As far as VN machines go there is a weath of references. Why the
military don't like them I really don't know. This is one of the
puzzles. Here we are.
I think you are writing as an apologist for these sons of dogs. Venus,
as I have said is a red herring. I think you know this yourself.
The question I would ask is should we shut up shop? Should we set up a
new group not open to anyone with a military background? Hard to
enforce. There are in addition the points about vortex lift and
hypersonic flight.
This could in actual fact mean that progress in the US will be slower
than that in other countries. I have not just mentioned one issue I
have gone into a raft of issues.
- Ian Parker
Rand Simberg
Ian Parker <ianpa...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>There is one additional point which should be made. Venus is a
>complete red herring - and you know it.
>
>There are a whole load of classified projects that no one knows
>anything about. I think the answer is if anyone delves to deeply into
>what should, or should not, be done in space they come up against
>classification issues. I believe two things.
>
>1) That if classified matters are being discussed they should stay
>stum rather that go for the invective. This is what would after all be
>expected in a scientific conference.
A newsgroup is not a scientific conference. It is lunacy to imagine
that it is.
>2) Because peer group review is absent classified research is often
>inefficient.
>
>Ares - I don't think it is intended to go to the Mars or even the
>Moon. It is intended for some highly classified project. The Moon and
>Mars are merely covers. What could this project be? We can only, of
>course make educated guesses. However there are some well known facts.
>
>http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.space.history/2006-06/msg00698.html
>http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_06/mdanalysis_june03
>
>An ABM laser is being developed. It is as far as I can gather based on
>CO2. (9.4/10.6 microns I think)
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_laser
>
>Suppose we send the payload of the 747 to MEO with Ares. We would need
>larger mirrors for the longer range, but potentially you have a global
>ABM system.
>
>The Chinese are well aware of this and that is one of the reasons why
>they are conducting ASAT tests.
>http://www.spacewar.com/reports/A_Good_Year_For_ABM_Part_Two_999.html
>
>The Chinese are clearly aware of this.
>
>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/890b8aa663974cd0?hl=en
>
>As far as AI is concerned I managed to trawl the following. The work
>is extensive to say the least of it. Why with this extensive list do
>people call me looney. It just doesn't figure at all. This is wha\t
>makes me angry and causes me to go into such matters as Iraq.
No, what makes you angry and causes you to go into irrelevant matters
as Iraq is that you are completely off your nut.
<rest of typical Ian lunacy snipped>
Ian Parker
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:42:37 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >There is one additional point which should be made. Venus is a
> >complete red herring - and you know it.
>
> >There are a whole load of classified projects that no one knows
> >anything about. I think the answer is if anyone delves to deeply into
> >what should, or should not, be done in space they come up against
> >classification issues. I believe two things.
>
> >1) That if classified matters are being discussed they should stay
> >stum rather that go for the invective. This is what would after all be
> >expected in a scientific conference.
>
> A newsgroup is not a scientific conference. It is lunacy to imagine
> that it is.
>
>
>
>
>
> >2) Because peer group review is absent classified research is often
> >inefficient.
>
> >Ares - I don't think it is intended to go to the Mars or even the
> >Moon. It is intended for some highly classified project. The Moon and
> >Mars are merely covers. What could this project be? We can only, of
> >course make educated guesses. However there are some well known facts.
>
> >http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_06/mdanalysis_june03
>
> >An ABM laser is being developed. It is as far as I can gather based on
> >CO2. (9.4/10.6 microns I think)
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_laser
>
> >Suppose we send the payload of the 747 to MEO with Ares. We would need
> >larger mirrors for the longer range, but potentially you have a global
> >ABM system.
>
> >The Chinese are well aware of this and that is one of the reasons why
> >they are conducting ASAT tests.
> >http://www.spacewar.com/reports/A_Good_Year_For_ABM_Part_Two_999.html
>
> >The Chinese are clearly aware of this.
>
>
> >As far as AI is concerned I managed to trawl the following. The work
> >is extensive to say the least of it. Why with this extensive list do
> >people call me looney. It just doesn't figure at all. This is wha\t
> >makes me angry and causes me to go into such matters as Iraq.
>
> No, what makes you angry and causes you to go into irrelevant matters
> as Iraq is that you are completely off your nut.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Everything in their is well and truly attested. Someone has saif that
GILA means lunacy in Indonesian. I would not know anything about this.
This is all work that is actually going on and has been well attested.
If you are calling me mad then you are a liar, it is really as simple
as that.
I would have thought that it was not just scientific conferences but a
matter of common courtesy. You do not seem to appeciate that. Iraq is
mentioned for one reason and one reason alone. Iraqis do NOT naturally
support AQ. They along with the Syrians like such things as belly
dancing. I am simply describing how attitudes that you typify get
people's backs up. Al-Qaida = the devil and the deep blue sea.
You seem to claim the right to insult people whenever you choose,
along with the dregs of your Republican Party. Could I explain just
one thing to you about the Middle East. Talking as you do will get
Arab backs up far faster than you get mine up. They are people who
(still) have rightly or wrongly a culture of honor.
No I am not talking high policy here I am talking about the ground.
Well I am talking about high policy in the training sense. It seems to
me thatr people are "trained" to wreck all discussion here as well.
You never seem to want to tell us what your views for low cost
spaceflight really are. Are you afraid they will not pass muster? I
think I recall an exchange on just this. I say, yet again, that I
think this group is becoming an excercise in sheer futility. It will
unless thee is a considerable change.
A Mars trip without new technology is simply pie in the sky. Neither
Obama nor anyone else is remotely going to vote funds, recession or no
recession. This as I said is the cold hard truth.
- Ian Parker
BradGuth
There's nothing the scientific community og Usenet fears more than
public knowledge of the truths, or perhaps even more so is their fear
of any public awareness as to their infowar lies upon lies and the
frequent exclusions of evidence in order to keep the rest of us
snookered and dumbfounded as possible.
Perhaps BHO will have little option but to shut our NASA down, at
least until everything gets sorted out.
~ BG
Quadibloc
> There is one additional point which should be made. Venus is a
> complete red herring - and you know it.
You raised the issue of why we aren't as polite here as people are at
conferences of respected scientists.
I was pointing out that there are people spouting nonsense here, and
being as polite to them as if they were respected scientists
presenting the results of hard work based on sound knowledge would
give their nonsense a credibility which it does not deserve, thereby
confusing others.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> A Mars trip without new technology is simply pie in the sky. Neither
> Obama nor anyone else is remotely going to vote funds, recession or no
> recession. This as I said is the cold hard truth.
You may well be absolutely right. But it is not certain that you are
right.
You must expect, though, that "space advocates", particularly in the
U.S., will be in favor of going to Mars when it is possible, not when
it is easy. (Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct has already made going to
Mars - or at least coming back from Mars - a lot easier than it used
to be, lowering the cost of a mission to Mars and back practically to
that of a one-way mission.)
Waiting until it is easy means that the Chinese - or even Britain -
will end up getting there first. So it is advocated that the U.S.
should send someone to Mars while it is still the case that this is a
stupendous task *of which only the U.S. is capable*.
But the heady Apollo days of Cold War showmanship are apparently past.
So they have a selling job on their hands.
John Savard
Fred J. McCall
:
In other words, Ian, we're anti-idiot and that's why you come in for
so much abuse.
Ian Parker
> On Jan 15, 12:34 pm, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A Mars trip without new technology is simply pie in the sky. Neither
> > Obama nor anyone else is remotely going to vote funds, recession or no
> > recession. This as I said is the cold hard truth.
>
> You may well be absolutely right. But it is not certain that you are
> right.
We seem at last to be discussing the really deep issues that lie at
the core of space. It is indeed not absolutely certain, few things
are. Certainly Mars is right at the bottom of Obama's priorities. Top,
of course, being banks and next the auto industry. I think the
questions we need to ask ourselves are these.
1) Would a manned expedition to Mars have real scientific value, or is
its justification in more humanistic terms?
2) Do we really benefit by taking on a "hard challenge" and meeting
that "hard challenge" in an expensive but pedestrian way.
3) Can we selectively advance key technologies and if so to what
extent?
"3" is in fact the most interesting. If to take a trivial example
Obama decided to invest in fiber optics certain consequences would
flow from that decision. It would give a boost to "swarm computing",
possibly even to AI. We can to a degree decide on the course of
tecnology.
>
> You must expect, though, that "space advocates", particularly in the
> U.S., will be in favor of going to Mars when it is possible, not when
> it is easy. (Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct has already made going to
> Mars - or at least coming back from Mars - a lot easier than it used
> to be, lowering the cost of a mission to Mars and back practically to
> that of a one-way mission.)
>
> Waiting until it is easy means that the Chinese - or even Britain -
> will end up getting there first. So it is advocated that the U.S.
> should send someone to Mars while it is still the case that this is a
> stupendous task *of which only the U.S. is capable*.
>
The Zubrin idea would indeed reduce the costs although not quite to
that of a one way mission. You still have to land your equipment for
converting Marian CO2 into methane. You STILL have the problem of
hydrogen. I think that Zubrin depends fundamentally on robotics.
Robots will have to make the first trips to Mars and set up equipment
for converting sunlight, ice and CO2 into methane and LOX. Actually
Zubrin would seem on the face of it to be a (partial at least)
vindication of my consistent position.
In fact what we need to get to Mars is the following. Get a heavy
spacecraft assembled at LEO. This would contain the neccessaries for
the production of methane. Use ion propulsion to get it in quadrature
with Mars. Land robots on Mars, and manufacture methane and LOX. You
now have a rocket which will get you to quadrature.
There are a number of alternatives here - Use Nerva engine to get you
to Quadrature-LMO-Quadrature. Only have the fuel to get you to LMO on
Mars. Would algae help to cut down on supplies?
As you can see there is a lot of work to be done on Mars BEFORE humans
come. This really is part and parcel of the hard trurths. In fact I do
not believe Zubrin to be feasible WIHOUT advances in robotics. His
chemistry is correct no problem with that.
> But the heady Apollo days of Cold War showmanship are apparently past.
> So they have a selling job on their hands.
There is indeed a selling job. Zubrin I think might be sold if it is
presented in the right terms. In my question "3" I asked about whether
technology ia advanced by challenges. Certainly Zubrin will tell us a
lot about the following.
1) Setting up a base on Mars with robotics.
2) Practical chemistry of solar power.
3) Algae?
If Zubrin can be set up so can a hydrogen economy here on Earth. In
fact I find it hard to put space and terrestrial technology in
separate compartments. They are not. Robots can set up our terrestrial
hydrogen economy. That is what is sold. Two fingers rampant to OPEC.
>
If you are asking, will humans go to Mars simple because it is there
to quote Mallory. Will $100 billion be voted for George Mallory I
think, particularly in the absece of a "Cold War" the answer has to be
"no".
I would hope that all this is done with all countries participating,
so to say China etc. even Britain will get to Mars first is really the
wrong way to look at it.
- Ian Parker
Ian Parker
of academics. The dispute (amoungst academics that is) on the VN
machine is whether it is linked to nanotechnology or not.
Prince Charles in talking about "grey goo" made that inplicit linkage
and it is NOT the case. As I say robotics could very well be
associated with Zubrin.
- Ian Parker
Ian Parker
stations, carbon capture etc. Is Zubrin relevant?
- Ian Parker
Ian Parker
exposure of the truth. It is the shadow world of military black
projects that fears exposure.
- Ian Parker
Quadibloc
> Yes, but what I say, technically at least, is backed by the majority
> of academics. The dispute (amoungst academics that is) on the VN
> machine is whether it is linked to nanotechnology or not.
The possibility of a von Neumann machine is not nutty. That self-
reproducing machines could go wild, macroscopic or microscopic, is
borne out by our experience with life, though. Saying that they're the
ONLY WAY to space exploration, though, is where you go off the rails.
Artificial intelligence does indeed have great promise in extending
our reach in space. The Spirit and Opportunity rovers, with limited
artificial intelligence, so that they can avoid following advance
orders from Earth into obstructions and pitfalls, illustrate this.
But chemical spaceflight is not so limited that it absolutely
precludes another route to space - establishing a self-reproducing
human colony in space, along the principles outlined by Gerard
O'Neill. That future, though, isn't absolutely certain either. Nuclear
power is known to be feasible, and requires vastly less initial
investment, than a space colony to crank out solar power satellites.
Both O'Neill and Zubrin, although having contributed a great deal to
the future possibility of extensive manned space exploration, were and
are also single-minded advocates of their respective visions for space
exploration. This is an obstacle to taking even *them* entirely
seriously.
Yes, Mars has everything that's needed in one place, even if it's a
bit low on nitrogen. But it's a planet, hence in a gravity well. The
lower technological demands of establishing a self-sustaining colony
on Mars need to be weighed against the lower benefits of one, compared
to getting started on O'Neill's vision.
And maybe the best way to get started on O'Neill's vision would be to
send teleoperated mining and manufacturing machines to the Moon,
instead of trying to put people there. The costs and benefits of
different alternatives will have to be carefully weighed.
The history of artificial intelligence shows us that it has been very
difficult to figure out how to program computers in more sophisticated
ways. So there's no guarantee of rapid progress in that field -
instead, slow progress has been the rule. Thus, even though progress
is slow in the mature technology of rocketry as well, arguing that
everything depends on AI is _prima facie_ unreasonable; if exploring
space is considered important, progress in it is not going to be
allowed to be dependent on one field in which progress is slow.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Lets be frank about this. The scientific community does not fear
> exposure of the truth. It is the shadow world of military black
> projects that fears exposure.
They "fear exposure" because this would compromise the operational
advantage which they hope to present to aid the defense of the United
States, not because they're up to something naughty.
John Savard
Martha Adams
news:621fae4f-a0c3-46fc...@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
John Savard
========================================
"Both O'Neill and Zubrin, although having contributed a great deal to
the future possibility of extensive manned space exploration, were and
are also single-minded advocates of their respective visions for space
exploration. --> This is an obstacle to taking even *them* entirely
seriously. <--"
I cannot agree with that closing sentence. Because, off-Terra
exploration and the settlements there that we so urgently need, must
work against obstacles of people failing to see the well-documented need
for these; and, the problem that bigger fish in Washington snarf up the
money needed for space and our future for their own purposes. Which in
Vietnam time and again now in the (religious ideological) Bush
administration, has seemed to be for wars.
Thus the only remedy available to us non-military, future-oriented
people is advocacy -- continuous, persistent, relentless, ongoing
advocacy, as loud as possible. Of which Zubrin is our well-proven
principal champion. This advocacy is no obstacle to taking such people
seriously. It is indeed, *the only way* they will be taken seriously.
I admire Zubrin for his decades of uphill hard work at his advocacy for
Mars settlements now. (As we could have done decades ago.) We need
more such as him.
Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2009 Jan 16]
Fred J. McCall
:
:We seem at last to be discussing the really deep issues that lie at
:the core of space. It is indeed not absolutely certain, few things
:are. Certainly Mars is right at the bottom of Obama's priorities. Top,
:of course, being banks and next the auto industry. I think the
:questions we need to ask ourselves are these.
:
:1) Would a manned expedition to Mars have real scientific value, or is
:its justification in more humanistic terms?
Yes.
:
:2) Do we really benefit by taking on a "hard challenge" and meeting
:that "hard challenge" in an expensive but pedestrian way.
:
Irrelevant question. What is it intended to apply to? Ask that
question, instead.
:
:3) Can we selectively advance key technologies and if so to what
:extent?
:
Yes, but within strict limits. Most technologies rely on other
technologies. You cannot railroad until it is time to railroad.
:
:"3" is in fact the most interesting. If to take a trivial example
:Obama decided to invest in fiber optics certain consequences would
:flow from that decision. It would give a boost to "swarm computing",
:possibly even to AI. We can to a degree decide on the course of
:tecnology.
:
You seem a bit confused here. Fiber optics has little to nothing to
do with the things you say it would give a boost to.
:
:In fact what we need to get to Mars is the following. Get a heavy
:spacecraft assembled at LEO. This would contain the neccessaries for
:the production of methane. Use ion propulsion to get it in quadrature
:with Mars. Land robots on Mars, and manufacture methane and LOX. You
:now have a rocket which will get you to quadrature.
:
You seem to miss the same point that everyone else does. If you can
rendezvous with a platform that is in quadrature, what do you need the
platform for? YOU are now in quadrature, with or without the
platform. So what does the platform buy you?
:
:As you can see there is a lot of work to be done on Mars BEFORE humans
:come. This really is part and parcel of the hard trurths. In fact I do
:not believe Zubrin to be feasible WIHOUT advances in robotics. His
:chemistry is correct no problem with that.
:
I don't think an advance in robotics is particularly necessary for
something that's just going to suck air in and do chemical reactions
with it. This is a pretty simple mechanical factory operation. It
doesn't even require much, if anything, in the way of 'intelligence'.
It's a very special purpose function.
:
:There is indeed a selling job. Zubrin I think might be sold if it is
:presented in the right terms. In my question "3" I asked about whether
:technology ia advanced by challenges. Certainly Zubrin will tell us a
:lot about the following.
:
:1) Setting up a base on Mars with robotics.
:
Why do you need robotics. Land the 'base' in one piece. I don't
think Zubrin relies on a bunch of your little AI von Neumann robots
building a city.
:
:2) Practical chemistry of solar power.
:
Uh, solar power isn't chemical.
:
:3) Algae?
:
What about it?
:
:If Zubrin can be set up so can a hydrogen economy here on Earth.
:
Not even the same issues.
:
:In
:fact I find it hard to put space and terrestrial technology in
:separate compartments. They are not. Robots can set up our terrestrial
:hydrogen economy. That is what is sold. Two fingers rampant to OPEC.
:
No, that is not what is 'sold'. Your way we can't even start to move
to a hydrogen economy until we can build robots that are as good and
as flexible as people. That time is measured in large numbers of
decades, if it is possible at all.
:
:I would hope that all this is done with all countries participating,
:so to say China etc. even Britain will get to Mars first is really the
:wrong way to look at it.
:
I would hope that it isn't. Done that way, it will cost scads of
money and do very little. Rather like ISS.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Ian Parker
> "Quadibloc" <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:621fae4f-a0c3-46fc...@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 16, 4:28 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, but what I say, technically at least, is backed by the majority
> > of academics. The dispute (amoungst academics that is) on the VN
> > machine is whether it is linked to nanotechnology or not.
>
> The possibility of a von Neumann machine is not nutty. That self-
> reproducing machines could go wild, macroscopic or microscopic, is
> borne out by our experience with life, though. Saying that they're the
> ONLY WAY to space exploration, though, is where you go off the rails.
>
need to build a home on Mars. Now if you don't build a Von Neumann
machine you have come so damn close that the arument becomes hair
splitting.
No not quite. You could build a semi VN machine, something that makes
most of its parts but the chips have to be carried from Earth. This
would indeed be a viable solution and is probably the way to go.
There are indeed risk assessment issues and I am glad you mentioned
them. My suspicion is that "looney" means that there is a classified
or highly classified project somewhere which is doing just that. If
that is the case it is rather disturbing as it means that no risk
assessments will have been done.
In fact if you use error correcting codes Evoution cannot take place.
In a well known science fiction story the Thals and the Eternals have
a war lasting 1,000 years. Eventually the eternal (xAlid) develop a
Von Neumann machine that promptly extermiates both them and the Thals.
This is what could happen if you allowed Evolution to take place. The
eternals establish their space colony and their robots evolve. Maximum
fitness does not include them!
> Artificial intelligence does indeed have great promise in extending
> our reach in space. The Spirit and Opportunity rovers, with limited
> artificial intelligence, so that they can avoid following advance
> orders from Earth into obstructions and pitfalls, illustrate this.
>
Absolutely, theough Spirit and Opportunity although they have done
excellent work are NOT intelligent. Something intelligent could walk
across Mars at 5km/h.
> But chemical spaceflight is not so limited that it absolutely
> precludes another route to space - establishing a self-reproducing
> human colony in space, along the principles outlined by Gerard
> O'Neill. That future, though, isn't absolutely certain either. Nuclear
> power is known to be feasible, and requires vastly less initial
> investment, than a space colony to crank out solar power satellites.
>
The Nerva exhaust is 9km/s approx. This is a lot better than chemical.
The only fusion that is possible in space is He3. Tritium is only
suitable for large Earth based installations. This is better than
chemicals, but not really sufficient. Nuclear power can only be used
after LEO.
> Both O'Neill and Zubrin, although having contributed a great deal to
> the future possibility of extensive manned space exploration, were and
> are also single-minded advocates of their respective visions for space
> exploration. This is an obstacle to taking even *them* entirely
> seriously.
We take everthing in parts. I have stated that Zubrin is sound but
requires a lot more in the shpe of robotics than he admits.
O'Neill is possible but the massive sizes mean that nothing short of a
VN machine or some very near VN machine (chips produced in factories
on Earth) could possibly build it. If you are worried about safety
aspects you can send one small critical part from Earth.
>
> Yes, Mars has everything that's needed in one place, even if it's a
> bit low on nitrogen. But it's a planet, hence in a gravity well. The
> lower technological demands of establishing a self-sustaining colony
> on Mars need to be weighed against the lower benefits of one, compared
> to getting started on O'Neill's vision.
>
> And maybe the best way to get started on O'Neill's vision would be to
> send teleoperated mining and manufacturing machines to the Moon,
> instead of trying to put people there. The costs and benefits of
> different alternatives will have to be carefully weighed.
>
Not the Moon. I have always thought an asteroid best. Phobos/Deimos
are the best choices if you want eventually to end up on Mars.
> The history of artificial intelligence shows us that it has been very
> difficult to figure out how to program computers in more sophisticated
> ways. So there's no guarantee of rapid progress in that field -
> instead, slow progress has been the rule. Thus, even though progress
> is slow in the mature technology of rocketry as well, arguing that
> everything depends on AI is _prima facie_ unreasonable; if exploring
> space is considered important, progress in it is not going to be
> allowed to be dependent on one field in which progress is slow.
>
AI is in fact a raft of technologies. For space you basically need
manual dexterity rather than intelligence and this is evolving fast.
You do not have to think the way we do to take Hubble to bits. You
need to repair Hubble, you don't need to know the difference between
pouring concrete at 50C and fighting Israel. (My "central air battle"
posting). You just pour concrete!
Of course from the academic linguistic viewpoint understanding
fighting an air war and balling against the environment is vitally
important. It may not be all that important for your house on Mars.
>
> "Both O'Neill and Zubrin, although having contributed a great deal to
> the future possibility of extensive manned space exploration, were and
> are also single-minded advocates of their respective visions for space
> exploration. --> This is an obstacle to taking even *them* entirely
> seriously. <--"
>
> I cannot agree with that closing sentence. Because, off-Terra
> exploration and the settlements there that we so urgently need, must
> work against obstacles of people failing to see the well-documented need
> for these; and, the problem that bigger fish in Washington snarf up the
> money needed for space and our future for their own purposes. Which in
> Vietnam time and again now in the (religious ideological) Bush
> administration, has seemed to be for wars.
>
You have to present a vision where it is needed. If you could say
Zubrin is needed to kick OPEC in the arse. If we need the technology
for energy self sufficience you have a sell, at least potentially.
> Thus the only remedy available to us non-military, future-oriented
> people is advocacy -- continuous, persistent, relentless, ongoing
> advocacy, as loud as possible. Of which Zubrin is our well-proven
> principal champion. This advocacy is no obstacle to taking such people
> seriously. It is indeed, *the only way* they will be taken seriously.
> I admire Zubrin for his decades of uphill hard work at his advocacy for
> Mars settlements now. (As we could have done decades ago.) We need
> more such as him.
>
Many people say Iraq was for oil. If that is the case Zubrin would be
far more effective. The basic chemistry we need for coal fired carbon
capture looks very much the same.
- Ian Parker
Ian Parker
Lets face it, the costs in Iraq far dwarf the costs involved in any
disclosure here. Furthermore if we cannot discuss anything thast was
at any stage classified, what is left? It seems very like the sort of
blanket patent firms like Microsoft take out.
- Ian Parker
- Ian Parker
Fred J. McCall
:
:I have said that the ONLY way is to go in for advanced robotics.
:
Yes, you have. However, you have given no support for such a
proposition, so we all continue to think you're nuts. YOU saying it
multiple times is NOT 'support' that cuts any ice with anyone else.
:
:You
:need to build a home on Mars. Now if you don't build a Von Neumann
:machine you have come so damn close that the arument becomes hair
:splitting.
:
Why? My home here doesn't need to do any such thing.
:
:No not quite. You could build a semi VN machine, something that makes
:most of its parts but the chips have to be carried from Earth. This
:would indeed be a viable solution and is probably the way to go.
:
Why? My home here doesn't need to do any such thing.
:
:There are indeed risk assessment issues and I am glad you mentioned
:them. My suspicion is that "looney" means that there is a classified
:or highly classified project somewhere which is doing just that. If
:that is the case it is rather disturbing as it means that no risk
:assessments will have been done.
:
Add paranoid to your list of mental defects.
:
:In fact if you use error correcting codes Evoution cannot take place.
:In a well known science fiction story the Thals and the Eternals have
:a war lasting 1,000 years. Eventually the eternal (xAlid) develop a
:Von Neumann machine that promptly extermiates both them and the Thals.
:This is what could happen if you allowed Evolution to take place. The
:eternals establish their space colony and their robots evolve. Maximum
:fitness does not include them!
:
You do understand that this is FICTION, right?
:> Artificial intelligence does indeed have great promise in extending
:> our reach in space. The Spirit and Opportunity rovers, with limited
:> artificial intelligence, so that they can avoid following advance
:> orders from Earth into obstructions and pitfalls, illustrate this.
:>
:Absolutely, theough Spirit and Opportunity although they have done
:excellent work are NOT intelligent. Something intelligent could walk
:across Mars at 5km/h.
:
That's why we want to send people.
:> But chemical spaceflight is not so limited that it absolutely
:> precludes another route to space - establishing a self-reproducing
:> human colony in space, along the principles outlined by Gerard
:> O'Neill. That future, though, isn't absolutely certain either. Nuclear
:> power is known to be feasible, and requires vastly less initial
:> investment, than a space colony to crank out solar power satellites.
:>
:The Nerva exhaust is 9km/s approx. This is a lot better than chemical.
:The only fusion that is possible in space is He3.
:
Why? This makes no sense.
:
:Tritium is only
:suitable for large Earth based installations.
:
You claim a degree in theoretical physics and make remarks like this?
:> Both O'Neill and Zubrin, although having contributed a great deal to
:> the future possibility of extensive manned space exploration, were and
:> are also single-minded advocates of their respective visions for space
:> exploration. This is an obstacle to taking even *them* entirely
:> seriously.
:
:We take everthing in parts. I have stated that Zubrin is sound but
:requires a lot more in the shpe of robotics than he admits.
:
Yes, you've stated that, but you're wrong.
:
:O'Neill is possible but the massive sizes mean that nothing short of a
:VN machine or some very near VN machine (chips produced in factories
:on Earth) could possibly build it.
:
Absolute poppycock.
:
:If you are worried about safety
:aspects you can send one small critical part from Earth.
:
Nuts.
:
:>
:> Yes, Mars has everything that's needed in one place, even if it's a
:> bit low on nitrogen. But it's a planet, hence in a gravity well. The
:> lower technological demands of establishing a self-sustaining colony
:> on Mars need to be weighed against the lower benefits of one, compared
:> to getting started on O'Neill's vision.
:>
:> And maybe the best way to get started on O'Neill's vision would be to
:> send teleoperated mining and manufacturing machines to the Moon,
:> instead of trying to put people there. The costs and benefits of
:> different alternatives will have to be carefully weighed.
:>
:
:Not the Moon. I have always thought an asteroid best. Phobos/Deimos
:are the best choices if you want eventually to end up on Mars.
:
Yes, we know what you've 'thought', but you've offered no support for
why we should think it, too. You saying it isn't precisely considered
authoritative.
:> The history of artificial intelligence shows us that it has been very
:> difficult to figure out how to program computers in more sophisticated
:> ways. So there's no guarantee of rapid progress in that field -
:> instead, slow progress has been the rule. Thus, even though progress
:> is slow in the mature technology of rocketry as well, arguing that
:> everything depends on AI is _prima facie_ unreasonable; if exploring
:> space is considered important, progress in it is not going to be
:> allowed to be dependent on one field in which progress is slow.
:>
:AI is in fact a raft of technologies. For space you basically need
:manual dexterity rather than intelligence and this is evolving fast.
:
Dexterity has nothing to do with AI. You argue against your own
position now.
:
:You do not have to think the way we do to take Hubble to bits. You
:need to repair Hubble, you don't need to know the difference between
:pouring concrete at 50C and fighting Israel. (My "central air battle"
:posting). You just pour concrete!
:
???
Was that supposed to make sense?
:Of course from the academic linguistic viewpoint understanding
:fighting an air war and balling against the environment is vitally
:important. It may not be all that important for your house on Mars.
"Balling against the environment"? Where do I sign up for some of
that?
:>
:> "Both O'Neill and Zubrin, although having contributed a great deal to
:> the future possibility of extensive manned space exploration, were and
:> are also single-minded advocates of their respective visions for space
:> exploration. --> This is an obstacle to taking even *them* entirely
:> seriously. <--"
:>
:> I cannot agree with that closing sentence. Because, off-Terra
:> exploration and the settlements there that we so urgently need, must
:> work against obstacles of people failing to see the well-documented need
:> for these; and, the problem that bigger fish in Washington snarf up the
:> money needed for space and our future for their own purposes. Which in
:> Vietnam time and again now in the (religious ideological) Bush
:> administration, has seemed to be for wars.
:>
:You have to present a vision where it is needed. If you could say
:Zubrin is needed to kick OPEC in the arse. If we need the technology
:for energy self sufficience you have a sell, at least potentially.
:
Two different problem spaces. Two different sets of technology
needed. Neither set fits with what you claim is needed.
:> Thus the only remedy available to us non-military, future-oriented
:> people is advocacy -- continuous, persistent, relentless, ongoing
:> advocacy, as loud as possible. Of which Zubrin is our well-proven
:> principal champion. This advocacy is no obstacle to taking such people
:> seriously. It is indeed, *the only way* they will be taken seriously.
:> I admire Zubrin for his decades of uphill hard work at his advocacy for
:> Mars settlements now. (As we could have done decades ago.) We need
:> more such as him.
:>
:Many people say Iraq was for oil.
:
Many people say all sorts of stupid shit. Ian Parker, for example.
:If that is the case Zubrin would be
:far more effective. The basic chemistry we need for coal fired carbon
:capture looks very much the same.
Only to the blind.
Fred J. McCall
:On 16 Jan, 13:05, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
:> On Jan 16, 4:32 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> > Lets be frank about this. The scientific community does not fear
:> > exposure of the truth. It is the shadow world of military black
:> > projects that fears exposure.
:>
:> They "fear exposure" because this would compromise the operational
:> advantage which they hope to present to aid the defense of the United
:> States, not because they're up to something naughty.
:>
:
:If that is indeed the explanation they could be more polite about.
:
Clue: Your delusions are WRONG.
:
:Lets face it, the costs in Iraq far dwarf the costs involved in any
:disclosure here.
:
You're acting as if your delusions are truth again.
Clue: They aren't.
Ian Parker
They seem to very accurate judging from what you say. Despite all your
best efforts you still make a mess of all your wars.
- Ian Parker
Fred J. McCall
:
Loony non sequitur noted.
Hint: This is why people think you're nuts, A.S.S.
Ian Parker
cost to LEO. You must surely know that the Pentagon has exhausttively
investigated this.
Is this yet again another example of disinformation?
- Ian Parker
Quadibloc
Actually, there was this German guy who proved that low cost to LEO is
possible - but who then ran afoul of a change in the status of his
Libyan customers. But the Pentagon is exactly what is preventing it.
If rockets were mass produced, and therefore cheap, it wouldn't just
be the residents of southern Israel who would keep having rockets
launched at them by terrorists.
John Savard
Fred J. McCall
'Ian Parker' noted.
Ian Parker <ianpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
:
:Look you and Rand are the ones with delusions.
:
Sorry, but no. I can't speak for Rand, but I can for me.
:
:Delusions about low cost to LEO.
:
Excuse me, but please point to any statements on my part that support
whatever 'delusion' you think there is.
Hint: Everyone pretty much knows that costs correlate strongly with
flight rates. This is why airlines work and why space flight
currently doesn't.
:
:You must surely know that the Pentagon has exhausttively
:investigated this.
:
Really? Where is this Pentagon research into LOW COST launches to
LEO?
:
:Is this yet again another example of disinformation?
:
I'm still waiting for your FIRST "example of disinformation", much
less "another" one.
Once again Ian has put forward his delusions and is now acting as if
they are proven facts.
This is why people treat you as a paranoid loon, Ian.
Ian Parker
before low cost spaceflight becomes possible. If that is right. I am
not at all sure you are. The Pentagon is going hell bent for unmanned
aircraft. If you go to a local hilltop you will see enthusiasts flying
model aircraft. It has always been possible to build an aircraft with
a 50Kg payload fairly cheaply. All you need to power it is a small
motorcycle engine. Motorbikes you can buy over the counter are
extremly capable in terms of their engine power. A 250cc will do well
over 160km/h. Control systems are again reasonably available.
Aircraft have always been within the reach of organizations like Hamas
and Hezbullah. You can make an airframe with basic workshop tools.
If you were to mass produce expendible rockets I will accept that you
would have to be careful that they did not fall into the "wrong
hands". Actually rockets would require a fairly large factory to
produce them. They could then be guarded on their way from manufacture
to lauch site. As they would be expendible they would be manufactured
(just in time).
AI that the Pentagon is hell bent on seems to me infinitely more
dangerous. As I have said a helicopter will go into an Eid stocking.
Sophisicated software to recognize targets, land on window sill etc
etc. need only be downloaded once.
- Ian Parker
Fred J. McCall
:On 15 Jan, 14:05, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
:> On Jan 15, 4:19 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> > 1) We do not treat each other with respect. I have been to scientific
:> > conferences and language like we have seen would be off limits. There
:> > is the real issue of new ideas.
:>
:> At scientific conferences, unlike on USENET,
:>
:> a) contentious political issues aren't discussed, and
:>
:
:The political discussion as far as I am concerned stem from the
:insistance of people like Fred and Rand that I should take advice from
:"experts". Just look where their so called "experts" have got us.
:
Ian, you stupid clot, YOU are the one who keeps dragging in politics,
which has nothing to do with people advising you that perhaps you
ought to listen to people who actually know something about the things
you hallucinate so freely on.
:
:> b) not just anyone can wander in off the street.
:
:I don't know.
:
Yes, we KNOW you don't know. And that statement seems to be true for
any selected area of knowledge.
:
:I think the military is systematically trained in
:disinformation techniques.
:
You "think" all sorts of silly shit. It's why pretty much everyone
says you're a loon. No conspiracy required.
:
:I think you too when you talk about Venus
:are ducking the essential issue. The term "beni Al-kalb" carries with
:it a number of implications. The disinformation techniques we see here
:have been used on innumerable occaisions, most notably Iraq. The
:greatest offense against science though has been the little green
:mannikins of Phoenix fame.
:
I'm still waiting for an actual citation to support the preceding
silly remark.
:
:I cannot tell whether Fred believes in LGM or not. He rubbishes in
:equal measure the believers and disbelievers.
:
You can't tell what Fred believes about pretty much anything, Ian,
since you steadfastly refuse to actually read what people write.
<snip>
:>
:> Of course, Brad Guth isn't the only person we're less than polite to,
:> it may be.
:
:All new ideas are not. I was talking not about Venus or anything like
:that but about LISA, robotics, Von Neumann technology and fragmented
:telescopes. You have absolutely ducked the issue.
:
And you're just as loony about those as the Guthball is about Venus.
:
:I am snipping your comments on the Middle East. I do not entirely
:agree, but it is off topic. Not completely.
:
Yes, completely.
<snip>
Ian Parker
> Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :On 15 Jan, 14:05, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> :> On Jan 15, 4:19 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> > 1) We do not treat each other with respect. I have been to scientific
> :> > conferences and language like we have seen would be off limits. There
> :> > is the real issue of new ideas.
> :>
> :> At scientific conferences, unlike on USENET,
> :>
> :> a) contentious political issues aren't discussed, and
> :>
> :
> :The political discussion as far as I am concerned stem from the
> :insistance of people like Fred and Rand that I should take advice from
> :"experts". Just look where their so called "experts" have got us.
> :
>
> Ian, you stupid clot, YOU are the one who keeps dragging in politics,
> which has nothing to do with people advising you that perhaps you
> ought to listen to people who actually know something about the things
> you hallucinate so freely on.
>
> :
ignorant you really are. A quick Google would reveal all this.
People do not like being called lunatics. I feel sometimes like
behaving like a REAL lunatic. You know I think what that means.
Politically I do feel that the mess in Iraq is due to people like you.
Rest of your crap snipped.
- Ian Parker
Fred J. McCall
:
:You have already shown in your attitude to the singualrity just how
:ignorant you really are. A quick Google would reveal all this.
Poor Ian. Anyone who doesn't share his delusions is "ignorant".
:
:People do not like being called lunatics. I feel sometimes like
:behaving like a REAL lunatic. You know I think what that means.
:
Knock yourself out. I seriously doubt we're going to notice any
difference.
:
:Politically I do feel that the mess in Iraq is due to people like you.
:
Of course you do. But what you 'feel' isn't in precise 1:1 accord
with our current reality, Ian, which is why everyone thinks you're a
loon.
:
:Rest of your crap snipped.
:
Get your meds adjusted, son...
Ian Parker
Have you read the references.I don't believe you have. You can't have.
I just can't uderstand you. You have obviously had the Al-kalb
training. You persist in slandering people. Facts are totally
irrelevant.
- Ian Parker
Ian Parker
- Ian Parker
Fred J. McCall
:On 26 Jan, 15:27, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
:> Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :You have already shown in your attitude to the singualrity just how
:> :ignorant you really are. A quick Google would reveal all this.
:> :
:>
:> Poor Ian. Anyone who doesn't share his delusions is "ignorant".
:>
:> :
:> :People do not like being called lunatics. I feel sometimes like
:> :behaving like a REAL lunatic. You know I think what that means.
:> :
:>
:> Knock yourself out. I seriously doubt we're going to notice any
:> difference.
:>
:> :
:> :Politically I do feel that the mess in Iraq is due to people like you.
:> :
:>
:> Of course you do. But what you 'feel' isn't in precise 1:1 accord
:> with our current reality, Ian, which is why everyone thinks you're a
:> loon.
:>
:> :
:> :Rest of your crap snipped.
:> :
:>
:> Get your meds adjusted, son...
:>
:> --
:> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
:> only stupid."
:> -- Heinrich Heine
:
:Have you read the references.I don't believe you have. You can't have.
:
I really don't much are what you can and cannot 'believe', Ian.
:
:I just can't uderstand you.
:
That's presumably because I'm sane and you, well, you're Ian.
:
:You have obviously had the Al-kalb training.
:
And so we see how Ian reinforces his delusions by calling upon his
other delusions and using them as 'evidence'.
:
:You persist in slandering people.
:
No, I persist in calling a loon a loon. It's not the same thing.
:
:Facts are totally irrelevant.
:
Yes, we've noticed that that is your attitude toward reality...
Fred J. McCall
:
:BTW - Lets get Google adjusted before you start on my meds.
:
Why? Google is irrelevant to both space and this newsgroup.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Ian Parker
What about all the references on the Singularity Insitiute that you
choose to ignore. No Google is not irrelevant. As I said you display
your ignorance every time you post. Look at the references you son of
a dog.
- Ian Parker
Fred J. McCall
:On 26 Jan, 16:28, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
:> Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :BTW - Lets get Google adjusted before you start on my meds.
:> :
:>
:> Why? Google is irrelevant to both space and this newsgroup.
:>
:
:What about all the references on the Singularity Insitiute that you
:choose to ignore.
:
What about them?
:
:No Google is not irrelevant.
:
Well, yes, in this case it is. Why do you think it is not, Ian?
:
:As I said you display
:your ignorance every time you post.
:
Yes, we've already established that you repeating something doesn't
make it any more true or more sensible than it was the first time
around.
:
:Look at the references you son of
:a dog.
:
Lick me, you consumer of dog feces.
--
You are
What you do
When it counts.
BradGuth
The mainstream status quo wants nothing to do with any public format
of exchanging and/or sharing intellectual or scientific information.
It's key to their global domination policy, as for keeping the rest of
us as bankrupted, snookered and dumbfounded as possible. Their
systematic tactics of excluding whatever evidence rocks their boat is
simply a vital from of this ongoing war of theirs.
~ BG