Author Topic: Jeff Greason on Stategy For Space Settlement  (Read 270838 times)

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jeff Greason on Stategy For Space Settlement
« Reply #20 on: 05/31/2011 05:10 am »
Next step on Greason's slide (paraphrased):

Quote
Lunar produced fuel lifted to EML depots & LEO

Lunar fuel to EML depots? Yes, absolutely yes!

Lunar fuel to LEO? Eh, maybe and maybe not.

Then on to Phobos? Yup. That is the logical next step after lunar fuel starts filling EML depots.

 
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Jeff Greason on Stategy For Space Settlement
« Reply #21 on: 05/31/2011 05:11 am »
Lunar fuel to LEO? Eh, maybe and maybe not.

Yes, only if its cheaper than launch.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jeff Greason on Stategy For Space Settlement
« Reply #22 on: 05/31/2011 05:15 am »
But you're still talking about tactics.  You need to tie those tactics into the strategy and to do that you have to keep thinking about the goal.

Actually, I am thinking more about identifying the players.

You see, I agree that settlement is the formal goal of US space policy (at least on paper).

I am very doubtful that a majority of Congress believes that in their hearts and therefore when it comes time to write checks they will not vote appropriations that are consistent with the goal of space settlement.
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jeff Greason on Stategy For Space Settlement
« Reply #23 on: 05/31/2011 05:18 am »
Lunar fuel to LEO? Eh, maybe and maybe not.

Yes, only if its cheaper than launch.

I am partial to momentum exchange tethers. Use LEO tethers to catch in bound lunar fuel payloads (thereby raising the orbital energy of the LEO tethers) and later transfer that momentum to outbound supplies.
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Jeff Greason on Stategy For Space Settlement
« Reply #24 on: 05/31/2011 05:21 am »
I'm partial to NASA saying "we need propellant in LEO", with some sort of anchor tenant guarantee, and letting the best minds in the industry dedicate their livelihood to providing it.

Oh look: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-05-25/html/2011-10917.htm

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Jeff Greason on Stategy For Space Settlement
« Reply #25 on: 05/31/2011 05:56 am »
Maybe Jeff Greason and Paul Spudis should talk about this:

Quote
The second half of the talk is the presents a strategy: hopping from body to body with the primary objective of reducing the cost of future hops by producing propellant from local resources.

Lunar propellant would seem the fastest and easiest opportunity for using local resources for making propellant.

I agree.  Greason doesn't mention Spudis during the talk, but he must be aware of the Spudis & Lavoie proposal, and I imagine he's thinking along those lines.

One thing I'm not sure about is whether lunar propellant could be cheap enough to enable human exploration by NASA on NASA's current budget, as Greason asserts.  But I think looking into the possibility ought to be a top priority.
<snip>
Therefore, maybe the best way to accomplish Greason's vision would be for the US Congress to fund an EML Gateway depot (since travel between EML-1 and EML-2 requires only modest delta v choosing either/or up front is not necessary).

I think NASA should focus on exploring the Moon.
I think EML-1 is more related to Manned Mars. Though I think Lunar exploration should be involved with looking ahead to Manned Mars.
So, I think EML-1 depots would be ok, if the related to Lunar exploration, but they aren't necessary.
I do think EML-1 depots are critical in regards to mining lunar water and making rocket fuel on the Lunar surface- as additional market for lunar rocket fuel.
But exploring the moon using humans, one needs rocket fuel send to lunar surface from earth
So, jump ahead and  let's take it from point in time where lunar water is discovered on the Moon. If private sector is to mine this water they will first need not the rocket fuel made on the Moon, but rocket fuel shipped from earth. Then once they begin mining water a making rocket fuel, earth shipped rocket fuel can't compete with lunar rocket fuel.
But earth shipped rocket fuel could compete with rocket fuel for EML-1 market.
So in the year or months before any tons of rocket fuel are made on the moon- you need to ship rocket fuel from earth to the Moon. And after 100+ tons rocket fuel made on the moon, you could still be shipping rocket fuel from earth to EML-1 [but not to the Moon]. Once rocket fuel production on the moon reaches some level, it will compete with EML-1 and eventually make unprofitable to ship rocket fuel to EML-1 from earth {though one could still ship rocket fuel from earth to LEO].

NASA Timeline.
Explore moon to determine if there is minable lunar water. And explores moon for other things minable, and does general science in regard to the Moon.
Finishes Moon exploration. Starts Manned Mars. They can designed so overlaps to some extent. Generally this has to do with funding levels- the lunar program will peak in terms of funding, and as it declines, one increases Manned Mars funding.

If there isn't minable water on the Moon, NASA should reassess, perhaps shifting more focus to other places where there could minable water. Or some other ideas related to potential ways of starting markets in space.

So, one could easily have a situation where NASA is sending humans to Mars before NASA has bought a drop of lunar rocket fuel. And all rocket fuel that has been bought has been shipped from earth.

So as far funding depots in EML, that should happen before crew is send to Mars. It's how NASA gets crew to Mars.
You can get crew to the Moon, if you have rocket fuel on the lunar surface. Having fuel Depots in EML-1 could used for manned lunar, as could having fuel depots in LEO. Generally, NASA should should support technology related to the operation of fuel depots- because that is on it's critical path to Manned Mars. NASA simply can't do Manned Mars without at least docking in space, and re-fueling at fuel depots are better.

If you have fuel depots in EML-1 and in LEO, and on the Moon- NASA doesn't even need a something like a Delta-IVH, a medium launcher like Falcon 9 or smaller can be used to get crew to the Moon.

So since you going to use a fuel depot in EML-1 for Manned Mars you might as start it when doing Manned Lunar, and resolve any problems before these problems could delay Manned Mars.

So, if private sector wants to do fuel depots, and are sure we going to do manned Lunar exploration, I suggest the lunar surface as first place to put fuel depot. If the private sector and/or NASA can manage that, it should result in speeding up Lunar exploration, and quicken Manned Mars.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Jeff Greason on Stategy For Space Settlement
« Reply #26 on: 05/31/2011 06:00 am »
And we're back to talking about tactics....

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Jeff Greason on Stategy For Space Settlement
« Reply #27 on: 05/31/2011 07:56 am »
Look,

     Let's be completely honest here.

     Space settlement will not occur until launch costs become comparable to commuter flight costs and the risk assessment profile for companies backing such endevors (sic) likewise, becomes comparable to air craft travel.  Either this has to happen, or some form of profit making process that will provide either a product or service at a vastly reduced production cost, would have to be found, that could only be provided in space.

Right, the latter. The former won't happen.
So you need a market in space for space.
What is needed in space is rocket fuel.
In terms of tons delivered to space over the decade, rocket fuel is what is most shipped to space and is what there is the most demand for- in terms of tonnage.
So rocket fuel on the surface of the Moon could be sold for $10,000 per lb.
 It should able to be made on lunar lunar surface, if there is minable lunar water, for about $1000 to $2000 per lb. Therefore making it even easier to sell than 10,000 per lb- get more potential customers.
If you could buy rocket fuel on the moon for $2000 per lb [or even 10,000 per lb] what would that mean.
You half the cost of any manned mission to the Moon. So NASA, China, India, Europe, or any private interest costs of landing crew on the Moon.

So being to able to buy rocket at 10,000 per lb at the moon is good price, if you sell rocket rocket for $2000 lb on the moon, someone will buy it to ship rocket fuel to Lunar orbit/EML-1. And make getting to the lunar surface even cheaper. Because it's possible you could sell rocket from the Moon in lunar orbit/EML-1 cheaper than shipping rocket fuel from earth.

But rather than look at what cheapest price rocket fuel could sell for, what the most amount of money you could sell lunar rocket fuel for?
I would think that liquid hydrogen is the most money you could make per lb. And it's useful for other things other than rocket fuel.
A ton of LH2 is worth more than 1 ton of LOX, or 1 ton of kerosene. I don't know of anything worth more on the Moon than Hydrogen.
Storing hydrogen might be hard, but much easier if it's in a dark craters, and dark craters are interesting places to visit.
So, is it possible that one sell Liquid Hydrogen for say 100,000 per lb?
It's possible.
I would say that if you had one ton hydrogen in some place, and you had 1 ton of LOX in another place, that the one ton of hydrogen is worth more to visit as compared to the one ton of LOX.
Could any lunar mission use hydrogen if it could buy up to 1 ton. In other words, you will sell 1 lb or 10 10lbs or up to a ton.
Could robotic lunar rover have any use for liquid hydrogen- have fuel cells, and brings extra LOX or makes oxygen from rocks. Or using the hydrogen to extract oxygen from rocks [using heated hydrogen which chemically reacts and forms water].
Now for crew, 1 ton of hydrogen is enough LH2 for return to earth- they also needs LOX, but that is enough LH2.

So suppose you are the only person who is selling LH2 on the Moon, and so without buying your LH2, they need to bring LH2 or some other rocket fuel. How much would cost to bring that much rocket fuel or how much do the save to buying the LH2 even if paying the overpriced amount of 100,000 per lb?
Might interesting to know the answer.

But getting back to point, if you sell rocket fuel for 10,000 or less you will lower the costs of going to the Moon. If you sell rocket fuel for $2000 per lb or less on lunar surface, one can lower the costs of going to Mars. One could sell possible sell 50 or 100 times more rocket fuel if you can lower the price from 10,000 to 2000.

In other words suppose you make 1 million lbs rocket fuel- and sell that for $2000 per lb you gross 2 billion. Compare say if sold 20,000 lbs and sold it for 10,000 you gross 200 million. If you only sell 10 times more rocket fuel, sell 100,000 lbs, then you gross 1 billion dollars.
Every lb of lunar rocket fuel sold in lunar orbit equals selling 2 lb on lunar surface. You need rocket fuel to lift the rocket fuel.
So one trip to the moon if price price is 2000 instead of 10,000 means selling 3 times the rocket fuel. You sell 3 lbs at $2000 instead of 1 at $10,000. So in terms of gross sales it's difference of $6000 vs $10,000 and if you lower cost and result is you can double the number of trips to the Moon, you make more gross income selling at $2000 than at $10000.

Now what is more important to a buyer of rocket fuel, saving $8000 per lb of rocket fuel on the Moon or being able to buy rocket rocket fuel at lunar orbit and lunar surface.
Or say rocket fuel is $10,000 at EML-1 and $10,000 on lunar surface, OR only rocket fuel at lunar surface for $4000 per lb.
I think they save more paying 10k at both locations than have cheaper price at the Moon. It allows a ascent/descent vehicle to be reused, one such vehicle could cost more than 50 million dollars- and that doesn't include the cost of lifting it from earth to a lunar orbit.


     "While solar power production ands asteroid materials mining seem to be potentilely high profit makers, the expense and risks involved in the initial set up and test of the equipment needed to do so are still far too daunting for any sort backing via either corporate or government backing to occur."

Yes I agree. but if you mining water on the Moon and making rocket fuel- there will be a market for solar power on the Moon- one should able to charge $5 or more per kw/h, which is 100 times a higher price per kW/h than selling space solar power to earth [even if a govt heavily subsidizes it].

Offline Space101

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 306
  • Leeds, England
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jeff Greason on Stategy For Space Settlement
« Reply #28 on: 05/31/2011 08:44 am »
Lunar fuel to LEO? Eh, maybe and maybe not.

Yes, only if its cheaper than launch.

I am partial to momentum exchange tethers. Use LEO tethers to catch in bound lunar fuel payloads (thereby raising the orbital energy of the LEO tethers) and later transfer that momentum to outbound supplies.

Thought I had heard of that!. Chris wrote an article back in 2006.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/01/sling-me-to-the-moon/
« Last Edit: 05/31/2011 08:44 am by Space101 »
Let's go and explore space.

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jeff Greason on Stategy For Space Settlement
« Reply #29 on: 05/31/2011 01:15 pm »
I'm partial to NASA saying "we need propellant in LEO", with some sort of anchor tenant guarantee, and letting the best minds in the industry dedicate their livelihood to providing it.

Oh look: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-05-25/html/2011-10917.htm

From the link:
Quote
1812.7000  Anchor tenancy contracts.

    (a) Section 401 of the Commercial Space Competitiveness Act, 15
U.S.C. 5806, allows NASA, subject to appropriations, to enter into
multi-year anchor tenancy contracts for the purchase of a good or
service if the Administrator determines that--
    (1) The good or service meets the mission requirements of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
    (2) The commercially procured good or service is cost effective;
    (3) The good or service is procured through a competitive process;
    (4) Existing or potential customers for the good or service other
than the United States Government have been specifically identified;
    (5) The long-term viability of the venture is not dependent upon a
continued Government market or other nonreimbursable Government
support
; and
    (6) Private capital is at risk in the venture.

(5) is key to me. This points to the inflection point after which a "space economy" can continue to run without NASA funding. I would like to know what business models Jeff Greason envisions could continue on after government market supports are withdrawn.

I fully support using NASA contracts as a starter motor to "jump-start a genuine space economy. However we also need to identify how (and whether) that space economy will continue to operate following the withdrawal of NASA anchor tenant support.
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Jeff Greason on Stategy For Space Settlement
« Reply #30 on: 05/31/2011 01:57 pm »
Quote from: Jason Sole
"Greason essentially saying NewSpace can do NASA's mission at lower cost to the taxpayers?" Is a fallacy. It's not about saving a billion or 20 years, its about mission success and astronaut safety.

NewSpace seems to be able to do that, but they haven't yet proven it.  The fallacy, tho is different.  When the savings argument is brought up, the profiteers seem to always insist that the only place where there can be any savings is in safety.  That is the fallacy.  Ther are plenty of savings.  Proximate destinations over distant ones for human exploration, as the largest, most obvious area of savings.  NASA should focus its talent and resources on the Moon.

The strategy of "hopping from body to body" is far too distant in time to be discussed more than as a general suggestion.  The strategy should be less grand.  Get the Moon occupied.  Get the price of tourist travel to an L1 space station down to a million dollars a pop.  Stay there.  This is what Proponent means when he sez: "Through old-fashioned earth-bound economic growth, the planet gradually becomes wealthy enough that significant numbers of people can afford non-profit-seeking trips to space".  Of course, that "radical" idea would seem to call for poverty to be reduced here on Earth.

Bill White's idea about the "inflection point" is what I'm talking about.  That should be the strategy: get to that inflection point ASAP.

No one ever says "what is the President's vision for how to get people transported from New York to San Jose?", because it is not the government which does that...

I think you miss a bit on the analogy.  It was the President and Congress, more or less, who got behind the idea of the Intercontinental Railroad for exactly this reason.  True, there was plenty of profiteering then, as now, so that's not gonna change.  But it worked, and it enabled "settlement" by private individuals.

Let's be completely honest here.

Nahhh.  Let's not and say we did....

Quote from: Bill White
However, IMHO, LEO depots have no point (no purpose or function) without missions. Without actual BEO missions, a LEO depot truly is a bridge to nowhere.

True, but remember that the decadal survey is sorta suggesting missions.  What's missing, and what Greason is pointing out is that there's no concurrency of planning, which is what a strategy needs.  Here's a weird WWII example concurrent planning.  Some years into the war, we and the Brits realized that we were going to win, but that there were some hard years left for fighting.  A great effort was made to retrieve artwork, so that it would not be destroyed in the upcoming fighting.

There is no strategy for the whole enchilada of colonization.  Which gets me thinking about the OST again, and how it is not quite correctly worded.

Quote from: Bill, again
I am very doubtful that a majority of Congress believes that in their hearts and therefore when it comes time to write checks they will not vote appropriations that are consistent with the goal of space settlement.

And I've said this about KBH recently, and it holds for the vast majority of Congress as well.  They simply don't believe in HSF and colonization.  They only "believe" in re-election.  Of course, regarding the wealth of the country, neither do they believe in narrowing the gap between rich and poor either.  So it's a big problem.

Also, not a bad link about the "anchor tenants".

Shrimp on exercise machines?  I need a drink.  How about the new Osama cocktail? 

A shot and a splash.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jeff Greason on Stategy For Space Settlement
« Reply #31 on: 05/31/2011 04:46 pm »
[W]hat Greason is pointing out is that there's no concurrency of planning, which is what a strategy needs. 

* * *

There is no strategy for the whole enchilada of colonization.

Agreed. Jeff Greason is spot on, on this point. There is no comprehensive strategy for becoming a space faring species that has been adopted by anyone capable of executing such a strategy.

But again, WHO is the actor or agent that will take the lead in developing and executing this larger strategy?

Yes, there are words on paper saying that space settlement is the official policy of the United States government however the link Trent gave us also says this:

Quote
(a) Section 401 of the Commercial Space Competitiveness Act, 15 U.S.C. 5806, allows NASA, subject to appropriations, to enter into multi-year anchor tenancy contracts for the purchase of a good or service if the Administrator determines that --


. . . subject to appropriations . . .

Appropriations bills necessarily come up every year and as of today, if I recall correctly, our nation is operating under a continuing resolution while facing a possible debt ceiling limit imposed government shut down.

EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline aquanaut99

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1049
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jeff Greason on Stategy For Space Settlement
« Reply #32 on: 05/31/2011 05:08 pm »
Humans won't settle space. It's time to forget about this silly, unrealistic dream, which is just a 1950s version of frontier romance, IMO.

Humans cannot settle space because we cannot live in space. Yes, it's true. Everything we need to survive on the ISS has to be brought up from Earth, even the air they breathe. And in 6 months of a single expedition, astronauts pick up the equivalent of a lifetime of radiation exposure on Earth (and it would be much worse in deep space: from the 24 Apollo astronauts who ventured beyond the Van Allen belt, how many died of cancer? Several, IIRC, and one, Swigert, quite quickly and unexpectedly!).

People still have this wrong 1950s romantic vision of space. It's time to throw this away. Space is incredibly hostile to human life. Much more so than anywhere on Earth. In fact, we would be much better off settling the Antarctic and the Ocean floor, which are both less hostile. Living inside the Chernobyl or Fukushima exclusion zone is also far less dangerous than in outer space. And yet, nobody is settling Antarctica, the Ocean floor and the exclusion zones (a few exceptions notwithstanding).

Also, there is no settlement if people don't stay permanently and reproduce. And human reproduction in space is unproven (there are good scientific reasons to suspect that human embryogenesis requires approx 1g to function correctly. If ever a female astronaut gets pregnant in space and the resulting child is stillborn or, worse, has a congenital malformation, then that will likely be the death-knell of any further settlement dream, for good, IMO).

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jeff Greason on Stategy For Space Settlement
« Reply #33 on: 05/31/2011 05:18 pm »
Humans won't settle space. It's time to forget about this silly, unrealistic dream, which is just a 1950s version of frontier romance, IMO.

* * *

Also, there is no settlement if people don't stay permanently and reproduce.

IMHO, you correctly state the question and you correctly define "space-faring species" and I agree genuine space settlement requires the safe and routine bearing of children at multiple celestial locations.

However I believe that whether our species should make the attempt to become spacefaring, or not, is an existential question without a definitive right or wrong answer.

EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline aquanaut99

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1049
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jeff Greason on Stategy For Space Settlement
« Reply #34 on: 05/31/2011 05:24 pm »
However I believe that whether our species should make the attempt to become spacefaring, or not, is an existential question without a definitive right or wrong answer.

Is it? Why? The more I listen to arguments of the pro-space settlement crowd (some would say: "space cadets"), the more I get the impression this is a religious, not a scientific matter. There is no scientific reason why we should settle space (species survival is no valid reason, since our species will inevitably go extinct, no matter what we do. Even if all the dreams of the proponents came true and we conquered the whole universe, we would still go extinct when said universe ends...)

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Jeff Greason on Stategy For Space Settlement
« Reply #35 on: 05/31/2011 05:40 pm »
Humans won't settle space. It's time to forget about this silly, unrealistic dream, which is just a 1950s version of frontier romance, IMO.

Humans cannot settle space because we cannot live in space. Yes, it's true.
1) Everything we need to survive on the ISS has to be brought up from Earth, even the air they breathe.
2) And in 6 months of a single expedition, astronauts pick up the equivalent of a lifetime of radiation exposure on Earth (and it would be much worse in deep space: from the 24 Apollo astronauts who ventured beyond the Van Allen belt, how many died of cancer? Several, IIRC, and one, Swigert, quite quickly and unexpectedly!).

People still have this wrong 1950s romantic vision of space. It's time to throw this away. Space is incredibly hostile to human life. Much more so than anywhere on Earth. In fact, we would be much better off settling the Antarctic and the Ocean floor, which are both less hostile. Living inside the Chernobyl or Fukushima exclusion zone is also far less dangerous than in outer space. And yet, nobody is settling Antarctica, the Ocean floor and the exclusion zones (a few exceptions notwithstanding).

Also, there is no settlement if people don't stay permanently and reproduce.
3) And human reproduction in space is unproven (there are good scientific reasons to suspect that human embryogenesis requires approx 1g to function correctly. If ever a female astronaut gets pregnant in space and the resulting child is stillborn or, worse, has a congenital malformation, then that will likely be the death-knell of any further settlement dream, for good, IMO).
So many problems with this.
1)False. Energy is produced in-situ on ISS via solar power. This energy is used to recycle many of the elements brought to ISS from Earth (this energy has even been used to produce a very limited amount of food... in addition to copious amounts of water recycling and air recycling), and is a test-bed for such closed-loop systems. Earth itself uses energy (from the Sun, like ISS) to recycle elements in much the same way (though not through machinery... mostly). And few people propose colonizing free space (hello, O'Neil fans...), most assume settling a body like Mars (which contains ALL the elements necessary for life, in abundance)--or perhaps the Moon (which certainly contains a lot more matter than ISS).

2)No effects of this radiation dose have been reported from ISS astronauts. Part of the reason for this is because the sample size is so small... but I will go out on a limb and suggest that the increase in cancer risk is more than off-set by the decrease in risk of dying in an automobile accident from commuting, since there are no automobiles on ISS (though there certainly are other risks). Some people in Ramsar, Iran experience about the same order-of-magnitude background radiation and starting at an earlier age (birth), with no statistically significant increase in epigenetic defects or cancer risk.

Not only that, but radiation can be shielded against. On Mars, the atmosphere in low-lying areas reduces the radiation dosage to below ISS levels, and there's absolutely no reason a buried habitat couldn't maintain an Earth-level of background radiation.

3)So what? Nothing is "proven"! If the only way humanity can expand into the cosmos is by having pregnant ladies sit in centrifuges for a few months, then that's what we'll do. No more difficult than some birds which must incubate their eggs for months. And I quite doubt that 1 gee is absolutely required. After all, vaginal birth is not absolutely required!!!

The survival of the human race in general is not "proven." We may all die next year. Doesn't mean that we should kill ourselves now. I have no absolutely guarantee that my own off-spring will survive, so should I just give up on having children?

Might as well have told the fish which attempted to venture on land (and which are our ancestors!!!) that they can't breathe there and that reproduction on land was impossible. Or might as well have told Adam and Eve to kill themselves in despair when they left the garden.

Life is adaptable. To give up on surviving and attempting to expand into space is equivalent to deliberate self-genocide.

The will to live and expand is either a genetic imperative or a God-given one, and such a self-destructive trait as to give up on surviving and expanding is selected against. Such philosophies or genetic traits that arrive at that conclusion are short-lived and quickly die away within a generation or two whenever they pop up, whether or not they are true. As such, I choose the genetic or God-given imperative of surviving and expanding.
« Last Edit: 05/31/2011 05:44 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline John Duncan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 453
  • Odenville, Al
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Jeff Greason on Stategy For Space Settlement
« Reply #36 on: 05/31/2011 06:05 pm »

If what you say is true, we should never have left the oceans.


:)



Humans won't settle space. It's time to forget about this silly, unrealistic dream, which is just a 1950s version of frontier romance, IMO.

Humans cannot settle space because we cannot live in space. Yes, it's true. Everything we need to survive on the ISS has to be brought up from Earth, even the air they breathe. And in 6 months of a single expedition, astronauts pick up the equivalent of a lifetime of radiation exposure on Earth (and it would be much worse in deep space: from the 24 Apollo astronauts who ventured beyond the Van Allen belt, how many died of cancer? Several, IIRC, and one, Swigert, quite quickly and unexpectedly!).

People still have this wrong 1950s romantic vision of space. It's time to throw this away. Space is incredibly hostile to human life. Much more so than anywhere on Earth. In fact, we would be much better off settling the Antarctic and the Ocean floor, which are both less hostile. Living inside the Chernobyl or Fukushima exclusion zone is also far less dangerous than in outer space. And yet, nobody is settling Antarctica, the Ocean floor and the exclusion zones (a few exceptions notwithstanding).

Also, there is no settlement if people don't stay permanently and reproduce. And human reproduction in space is unproven (there are good scientific reasons to suspect that human embryogenesis requires approx 1g to function correctly. If ever a female astronaut gets pregnant in space and the resulting child is stillborn or, worse, has a congenital malformation, then that will likely be the death-knell of any further settlement dream, for good, IMO).

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Jeff Greason on Stategy For Space Settlement
« Reply #37 on: 05/31/2011 06:06 pm »

Humans won't settle space. It's time to forget about this silly, unrealistic dream, which is just a 1950s version of frontier romance, IMO....
If what you say is true, we should never have left the oceans.
:)
Quite right, John Duncan.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline aquanaut99

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1049
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jeff Greason on Stategy For Space Settlement
« Reply #38 on: 05/31/2011 06:19 pm »
So, once again, only religious-type argument. No scientific need to settle space...

I reiterate: It is quite possible that humans cannot reproduce off-Earth. If so, then space settlement is forever out of the question. Nothing you can argue will change that fact.

Oh, sure, it is theoretically possible to create rotating artificial gravity structures for gestation purposes, but why bother? Why should a woman want to be locked up in one for 9 months in order to have a baby? And why would said child have to be locked in one 18 years in one in order to grow normally? And what if said child dies of leukaemia before sexual maturity due to damage caused by cosmic radiation?

You can argue all you want. If there is no imperative for settling space that is recognized by the majority of the human species, then it won't happen. And there is no imperative that is visible today or in the next few hundred years. Overpopulation, climate change and resource depletion are no imperatives. It is much easier, cheaper and probably better to adapt and maybe reduce our standard of living voluntarily here on Earth than expanding into space, which, incidentally, requires a far more drastic reduction in standards of living, at least initially... (another main difference to European colonization of the Americas and probably another reason why it won't happen).

We can send expeditions into space, and we can build outposts there, but that is not settling. It is the same as what we are doing in Antarctica and in underwater habitats (where conditions are much less difficult than in space).

Not comparable at all to the first fish dragging itself out to dry land.
« Last Edit: 05/31/2011 06:21 pm by aquanaut99 »

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Jeff Greason on Stategy For Space Settlement
« Reply #39 on: 05/31/2011 06:25 pm »
So, once again, only religious-type argument. No scientific need to settle space...

I reiterate: It is quite possible that humans cannot reproduce off-Earth.
No, it's not at all possible. If humans absolutely need 1 gee, then that can be done artificially. If they need Earth background levels of radiation (nor more), then that can clearly also be accommodated artificially. We know this is true. Any argument saying it's impossible to do artificially is also essentially a pseudo-religious, Gaia-centric argument because basic physics says it is possible.

Quote
If so, then space settlement is forever out of the question. Nothing you can argue will change that fact....
If the assumption is false, any conclusion is meaningless.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1