Author Topic: Exploration concepts and principles?  (Read 53541 times)

Offline CNYMike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Cortland, NY
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 5
Exploration concepts and principles?
« on: 04/27/2013 04:33 PM »
Although I suppose I could be considered "moon first," I was wondering if there is a more productive way to think about this than just feeding the ongoing cage match between various fiefdoms (Moon vs. elsewehere, SLS vs everyone online, etc).

So I'm wondering if, at least as an intellectual exercise, start with this principle: our BEO missions should be to bodies and regions that we can visit repeatedly.  I say "regions" because I don't see a point to visiting one asteroid one time, and I don't know if anyone asteroid would be worth visiting again and again.  But routine access to NEA orbits to study and tag passign asteroids, that would make more sense.  And so the NEA region would make the list, along with the Moon, Mars, other planets and Cruithne.

Just a thought.



"I am not A big fat panda.  I am THE big fat panda." -- Po, KUNG FU PANDA

Michael Gallagher
Cortlnd, NY

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1117
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #1 on: 04/27/2013 07:21 PM »
How little (time + cost) can you spend for one kilogram of water as far from Earth as can still engage, and stretch, but not outrun, commercial HSF partnership? Like at EML2. You can of course spend forever obtaining cut-rate water. You can of course waste anything but time to slog through deep gravity wells in quick succession. High ground is tactical. Low ground is strategic. We have good ideas which is the high ground. Which is the low ground?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7994
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2709
  • Likes Given: 655
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #2 on: 04/27/2013 10:35 PM »
Nothing first.

Everything everywhere ASAP.

If you think that's beyond NASA's budget, you're right.
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? The slowest possible.

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3310
  • Liked: 407
  • Likes Given: 94
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #3 on: 04/28/2013 01:21 AM »
First of all, by NASA and exploration I think 99% of us think HSF, not space science or earth science.

I don't think HSF is really about exploration, nor should it be about shooting clowns from cannons. Here are two popular definitions I think are closer to the mark:

Expand earth's economic sphere.
Space settlement.

I don't think these are quite right either though. The first implies we are doing it for the good of humanity, which implies not viable commercial activities in their own right. To focus just on space settlement would imply, for example, turning our back on SSP if it turned out it could only be done efficiently robotically, and that the goal was purely altruistic because most of us wont benefit from space settlement except in very indirect ways.

Here is the best I could come up with:

To open new frontiers to commercial activity.

This still isn't quite right. Some frontiers are not relevant to NASA. On the other hand some frontiers I think should be relevant but are ignored because of the underlying political assumption that the real purpose for HSF is to create missions for certain launchers. For example I think developing teleoperated mining technology for the ocean floor, or technology for self-sufficient communities living entirely separate from our biosphere should be entirely within HSF's domain.

Although from some respects it is a piddly small goal (and yes I would really love a moon base) the asteroid capture mission is not that bad to me.

It lets us practice all the things we should be practicing: robust life support away from earth, long term missons in deep space environments, EVAs to actually interact with materials not sent up from earth, ISRU even if the first uses may just be for shielding. Also as noted in the OP we could visit the location regularly, have a small base there and practice all those skills.

With these sorts of skills you can think about visiting practically any rock in the solarsystem but perhaps it isnt NASA's job to do so. If you are going to spend a lot more money and not specifically to master extra skills then probably your motive should be commercial by that point. NASA would just have solved all the problems.

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #4 on: 04/28/2013 01:54 AM »
To profit from space
Either intellectually or monetarily or both.
Need the latter in order to do the former.
Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7978
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 4779
  • Likes Given: 3230
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #5 on: 04/28/2013 04:38 AM »
Nothing first.

Everything everywhere ASAP.

If you think that's beyond NASA's budget, you're right.


It is. Nevertheless it's the right strategy. Don't focus on one objective as a project, focus on multiple objectives of opportunity as they arise.

NASA cannot do this, I think. Private Enterprise can. But will it? It's my fervent hope it will.... \\ which makes me a fan boi. However, I am rational enough to realise it may not come out the way I hope.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 922
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #6 on: 04/28/2013 02:12 PM »
First of all, by NASA and exploration I think 99% of us think HSF, not space science or earth science.

I don't think HSF is really about exploration, nor should it be about shooting clowns from cannons. Here are two popular definitions I think are closer to the mark:

Expand earth's economic sphere.
Space settlement.

I don't think these are quite right either though. The first implies we are doing it for the good of humanity, which implies not viable commercial activities in their own right. To focus just on space settlement would imply, for example, turning our back on SSP if it turned out it could only be done efficiently robotically, and that the goal was purely altruistic because most of us wont benefit from space settlement except in very indirect ways.

Here is the best I could come up with:

To open new frontiers to commercial activity.

This still isn't quite right. Some frontiers are not relevant to NASA. On the other hand some frontiers I think should be relevant but are ignored because of the underlying political assumption that the real purpose for HSF is to create missions for certain launchers. For example I think developing teleoperated mining technology for the ocean floor, or technology for self-sufficient communities living entirely separate from our biosphere should be entirely within HSF's domain.

Although from some respects it is a piddly small goal (and yes I would really love a moon base) the asteroid capture mission is not that bad to me.

It lets us practice all the things we should be practicing: robust life support away from earth, long term missons in deep space environments, EVAs to actually interact with materials not sent up from earth, ISRU even if the first uses may just be for shielding. Also as noted in the OP we could visit the location regularly, have a small base there and practice all those skills.

With these sorts of skills you can think about visiting practically any rock in the solarsystem but perhaps it isnt NASA's job to do so. If you are going to spend a lot more money and not specifically to master extra skills then probably your motive should be commercial by that point. NASA would just have solved all the problems.


In order to choose the proper path one must first choose the destination.  Ultimately I think it is the destination that ultimately divides the whole new space and old space people. 

Fact of the matter is that if you are only interested in an Apollo style mission where you send a few guys to the moon, plant a flag, "explore" for a few days, and then leave and cancel the program than the old space approach is viable.

If the objective is to have a permanent lunar or Mars base than we have to think about more than just getting there.  We have to consider how are we going to sustain, maintain, and even extend a human presence on the moon or Mars or both for many decades given budget limitations. 

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7978
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 4779
  • Likes Given: 3230
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #7 on: 04/28/2013 03:58 PM »
If the objective is to have a permanent lunar or Mars base than we have to think about more than just getting there.  We have to consider how are we going to sustain, maintain, and even extend a human presence on the moon or Mars or both for many decades given budget limitations. 

This.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #8 on: 04/28/2013 05:57 PM »
If the objective is to have a permanent lunar or Mars base than we have to think about more than just getting there.  We have to consider how are we going to sustain, maintain, and even extend a human presence on the moon or Mars or both for many decades given budget limitations. 

This.

Huh?  Even Jim probably wouldn't understand that response!
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline rcoppola

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1946
  • USA
  • Liked: 1181
  • Likes Given: 460
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #9 on: 04/28/2013 07:40 PM »
You know, I am really starting to re-think things.

I've gotten so into the weeds on the tech, the politics, the budgets, the personalities, the destinations, etc., that I feel like I lost the forest for the trees.

So focussed on the how, I forget about the why. Explorations, investigations, discoveries, both large and small is what we do, it's who we are, it's who we have always been. The results of which have been both enlightening and horrific.

Looking back over many millennia, it is the explorative journey as much if not more then the destination that has provided spiritual meaning and earthly treasure.

Now certainly, initial destinations and the environments you'll go through to reach them, provide guidance on how to actual make the journey, what will be needed, what won't and what we don't know either way.

But to me, true exploration is destination agnostic. Meaning, destinations are transitory. We rarely end up where we first set out to be. And as such, we unlock the truest, purest form of exploration. The idea of being other-then.

So for me, the only viable and most effective way to enable this, is to construct the equivalent of an ISS sized ship and send her and her crew on their way to be other-then.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
www.linkedin.com/in/rvcoppola/

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2709
  • 92111
  • Liked: 691
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #10 on: 04/28/2013 08:28 PM »
In other words, "Go where no one has gone before," Trekies will like that.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7978
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 4779
  • Likes Given: 3230
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #11 on: 04/28/2013 08:40 PM »
If the objective is to have a permanent lunar or Mars base than we have to think about more than just getting there.  We have to consider how are we going to sustain, maintain, and even extend a human presence on the moon or Mars or both for many decades given budget limitations. 

This.

Huh?  Even Jim probably wouldn't understand that response!

? Seemed obvious to me... you want a base, not just a flag? Just getting there (and back) is the smaller part of the problem. You have to sustain and maintain (live off the land, not off supplies from earth) and extend (solve ISRU ... raw materials-feedstocks-machinery-equipment) and it is not a project, it's a many decade process.

If that's not what was meant then never mind. :) But that's how I read it.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1628
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #12 on: 04/28/2013 09:15 PM »
Although I suppose I could be considered "moon first," I was wondering if there is a more productive way to think about this than just feeding the ongoing cage match between various fiefdoms (Moon vs. elsewehere, SLS vs everyone online, etc).

So I'm wondering if, at least as an intellectual exercise, start with this principle: our BEO missions should be to bodies and regions that we can visit repeatedly.  I say "regions" because I don't see a point to visiting one asteroid one time, and I don't know if anyone asteroid would be worth visiting again and again.  But routine access to NEA orbits to study and tag passign asteroids, that would make more sense.  And so the NEA region would make the list, along with the Moon, Mars, other planets and Cruithne.

Just a thought.


We explore to find opportunity. Is there some place better to farm. Is there some place better to mine gold.
At the moment, space is better high ground.
So decades ago we explored space and found that what's niffy about it, is a location of high ground. So from space we can see all of earth and can relay communications to all parts of Earth- it's value it's a very high elevation, that can "created"  with orbiting satellites.
And there is a hundred billion satellite market. And you have GPS which uses signals beamed from a few satellites, which allows you to know where you are on Earth. And of course knowing where enemy and your soldiers are is invaluable ability.

The only question is can the space environment be more useful than it is today. There obvious ways space *could be* more useful.
The space environment has potential of harvesting solar energy on a vast scale. Space can provide unlimited energy [electrical] for a human population exceeding 10 billion.
The problem with space environment providing unlimited energy is it costs too much to ship solar panels from Earth. It costs about 10 to 20 times too much.
The cost of shipping solar panels to space is a major controlling factor.
If shipping stuff into space was 10 to 20 times cheaper, one has possibility of selling power at a competitive price. Or it might be worth it.
If costs to shipping to space was 100 times cheaper, it would not question of whether or not it would worth the effort [profitable].

But 100 time cheaper is less than $50 per lb. Or it cost about this much for the rocket fuel- and currently rocket fuel is cheap, as rocket fuel is mostly about buying liquid oxygen and liquid oxygen is cheap.
So some believe that with chemical rockets it might be possible to get cost down to $100 per lb of payload, but less than $50 per lb with chemical rockets has far few people imagining this is possible.

One could say that shipping solar panel from Earth into Space is not going to happen soon.
But one can not rule it out in distance future. Or probably not going to ship solar panel from Earth to space to harvest energy for people on Earth within 50 years. Though people in the 1940's were not imagining there would communication satellites in the 1970's. Or anyone going to the Moon. So maybe safer to say we know no path at the moment of shipping solar panel at low enough cost.

Though we know that if rocket fuel on the Moon was cheap enough [10 times or less the cost of rocket fuel on Earth] you could ship stuff off the Moon for few times more than cost of the rocket fuel- so less than $50 per lb. And it's possible ship stuff off the Moon less than $1 per lb.
So if solar panel were made on the Moon, one ship them at much lower cost. Which means instead electrical costs getting at competitive price,
one might be able to get to point if the price of electrical power on Earth being 1/10th of current prices. And of course no pollution or consuming
earth resources for this electrical energy. With such lower costs, for electrical power all forms of energy on Earth become cheaper- so no problem with a shortage of energy in the future.
But there are bigger consequences then merely having cheaper electricity
on Earth, by having cheap electricity in space you transform "everything".
Or the jump from before the 20th century to present day of airplanes, computers, electrically powered homes, indoor plumbing, ect, would dwarfed by this kind of transformation- the full extent it is mind boggling.

So it seems the path forward is lower the cost of chemical energy [rocket fuel] and/or electrical power in space. And if you could commercial mine water in space, that would be going in that direction.
To split the water you need electricity, and you need lots of this rocket fuel in space and one can charge a very high price for it. Or paying 1000 times the price of rocket fuel on earth, is cheap in space, and hundreds of tons of rocket fuel per year is needed in space. And if rocket fuel were available in space- more rocket fuel would be used in space.

But one doesn't need to be in a hurry to lower the price of rocket fuel in space- in free market, all people will really worry about is the price falling too quickly. It a given price will fall- price will down, up, sideways, but over long term they will crash in prices.
So we don't need price controls on rocket fuel in space- nor are any price controls, save perhaps in time of war, needed.
Edit: Nor do we need monopolies. And in case were unaware, NASA mining or making rockets is worse than a monopoly.


« Last Edit: 04/28/2013 09:29 PM by gbaikie »

Offline CNYMike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Cortland, NY
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #13 on: 05/06/2013 05:21 AM »
Thanks for the replies, guys.
"I am not A big fat panda.  I am THE big fat panda." -- Po, KUNG FU PANDA

Michael Gallagher
Cortlnd, NY

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #14 on: 05/06/2013 08:51 AM »
There just isn't enough going on with our biggest object within our solar system.  We need to go to the sun.

Perhaps there is a somethin somethin that we could capture in closer proximity using an Aldrin cycler orbit.  Anti particles?  Lets grab something for an energy solution that you just cannot get from LEO.

Solar trajectories could be used to manipulate space time experiments.  That has to be worth something. 



Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #15 on: 05/06/2013 01:45 PM »
Nothing first.

Everything everywhere ASAP.

If you think that's beyond NASA's budget, you're right.


Sadly, I agree. 
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #16 on: 05/06/2013 01:51 PM »
Nothing first.

Everything everywhere ASAP.

If you think that's beyond NASA's budget, you're right.


It is. Nevertheless it's the right strategy. Don't focus on one objective as a project, focus on multiple objectives of opportunity as they arise.

NASA cannot do this, I think. Private Enterprise can. But will it? It's my fervent hope it will.... \\ which makes me a fan boi. However, I am rational enough to realise it may not come out the way I hope.

Unfortunately, the only "objectives" which "will arise", are those NEO's which have not yet been spotted.

There's just a handful of objectives: Stations, ring or otherwise, at LEO or the L-points; lunar polar base; martian human landing.

The official talk about taking advantage of "objectives of opportunity" is marketing bling, and devoid of practicable meaning.

It seems clear that NASA will continue to putz away its resources on study after study, and that unmanned drones are the only things that will be flying or landing anywhere, anytime soon.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #17 on: 05/06/2013 01:56 PM »
You know, I am really starting to re-think things.

I've gotten so into the weeds on the tech, the politics, the budgets, the personalities, the destinations, etc., that I feel like I lost the forest for the trees.

So focussed on the how, I forget about the why.

Good for you for admitting this.  I keep harping on the why, but my voice is drowned out by the authoritarian voices in the "weeds" that you list.

Pretty good post overall.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #18 on: 05/06/2013 02:01 PM »
If the objective is to have a permanent lunar or Mars base than we have to think about more than just getting there.  We have to consider how are we going to sustain, maintain, and even extend a human presence on the moon or Mars or both for many decades given budget limitations. 

This.

Huh?  Even Jim probably wouldn't understand that response!

? Seemed obvious to me... you want a base, not just a flag? Just getting there (and back) is the smaller part of the problem. You have to sustain and maintain (live off the land, not off supplies from earth) and extend (solve ISRU ... raw materials-feedstocks-machinery-equipment) and it is not a project, it's a many decade process.

If that's not what was meant then never mind. :) But that's how I read it.

Got it!

"This", being the objectives of which he spoke.  I am a fan of brevity, but sometimes I don't get it.  As ususal.

Anyhow, DO is correct on this principle, I'd say.  We should go back to the Moon to stay, and use it as a springboard for Mars.  However, the USG has no need of such a sustained effort, and it will not be done.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline CNYMike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Cortland, NY
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #19 on: 05/06/2013 03:01 PM »
.... We should go back to the Moon to stay, and use it as a springboard for Mars .....

I agree.

Quote
..... However, the USG has no need of such a sustained effort, and it will not be done.

I think the US government faces a very fundamental problem, and that is mixed feelings by the US public.  We don't want to stop doing it, but we don't want to make it a priority either.  Case in point: On the one hand, people mourned the "end of an era" when the Shuttle was retired.  Then only a few months later, Newt Gingrich was mercilessly ridiculed for calling for a Moon base by  2020.  "The shuttle not flying; too bad.  But a base on the Moon?  That's crazy talk!"  Never mind how many households have little dish antennas aimed at satellites or use GPS regualarly.  Making HSF a priority has a giggle factor that it hasn't lost after 50 years.  That's why when you go to whitehouse.gov and click on "issues," "space" is not on the list.

Until that somehow changes, we're stuck where we are, lost in the weeds over how to do something with no clear idea of how to do it.  I don't know how to do it.  But "big rocket v. small rockets" is kinf of acadmemic until that does.
"I am not A big fat panda.  I am THE big fat panda." -- Po, KUNG FU PANDA

Michael Gallagher
Cortlnd, NY

Offline grondilu

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #20 on: 05/07/2013 01:42 AM »
Before thinking of sending humans anywhere, why doesn't anybody talk about sending lower lifeforms along with robots, and thus show that it is possible to sustain life on other celestial bodies?

Pretty much like Elon Musk's original idea:  sending some kind of a small terrarium, with plants and stuff on Mars, and showing it to Earthlings with a webcam or something.  I think it was a good idea.

It would also be a first step for other robots to build a larger terrarium where humans could actually live and grow food.

It really seems to me that as the first species to be sent on mars, a higher mammal is a terrible choice.
« Last Edit: 05/07/2013 01:46 AM by grondilu »
Space is pretty much literally an astronomically-high hanging fruit.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7978
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 4779
  • Likes Given: 3230
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #21 on: 05/07/2013 03:47 AM »
  Making HSF a priority has a giggle factor that it hasn't lost after 50 years.  That's why when you go to whitehouse.gov and click on "issues," "space" is not on the list.


Giggle factor... Yes, and why the Star Wars petition at Whitehouse.gov got more votes than all the serious space ones put together.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline CNYMike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Cortland, NY
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #22 on: 05/11/2013 05:10 AM »
I think what has to happen is politicians have to come up with a policy they feel comfortable stating publicly and leave on their web sites.  Since Columbia, all these little factions have run hog wild: Constellation represented one faction, then rival factions (SDHLV, SpaceX "commercial" crew, and any destination other than the Moon) gained ascendancy.  It depends on which one is flavor of the month inside the Beltaway.  So we get lost in the weeds of big rocket vs. small rocket vs. TARDIS/whatever with no clear idea of what, exaclty we're doing.  But no one in DC seems to want to commit to anything, leaving the ideological cage match ongoing.  Bolden's asteroid retrieval mission and latest rebuff a Moon mission just show things are going to stay messed up.

What kind of policy?  I've been thinking this over for a couple of days, and I've settled on two ideas that are generic enough they could narrow the focus without forcing a commitment (yet):

1.  NASA should foster regular travel between the Earth and other bodies in the solar system, for scienetific purposes and to expand the human presence beyond Earth.  Vague enough so as not to commit to any one thing, but should carry the idea of no more one off missions.  And no specific desitnations are ruled in or out.

2. Missions should fly as frequently as technically possible.  So the goal is a launch rate better than once every four years, which is the plan for SLS and makes no sense because the rockets it draws on -- Shuttle, Saturn V, and the RL-10 engines flown a dozen times a year between Atlas V's and Delta IV's  -- flew several times a year.  The idea is to put whatever on an assembly line.

So nothing specific again, unfortunately, but should clarify things enough for NASA to go back and say, "Ok, out of what we have now, what do we keep, what do we drop, and what do we modify, and what new things would we need?"

I know, there's a million reasons there is no chance of this happening, but (A) I had to get it out of my system; and (B) in a nation where our attitude about space is we don't want to stop doing something we feel foolish doing, this might be the only thing that sells.  Here's hoping the idea gets around.

« Last Edit: 05/14/2013 03:30 PM by CNYMike »
"I am not A big fat panda.  I am THE big fat panda." -- Po, KUNG FU PANDA

Michael Gallagher
Cortlnd, NY

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #23 on: 05/11/2013 03:35 PM »
[/sarcasm]

I'm in a big snit about the heist right now, in part since it will fulfill Mr. Bolden's prophecy to keep humanity on planet, by pretending to go to Mars.  We are being kept on planet by our government.  And I'm not talking colonization; I'm talking HSF, and scientific bases, whether on the surface of a celestial body or as a ring station.

But still, Mike's language there is good in principle, but unfortunately, his principle will not stop the factions from fighting one another. 

I'm afraid that I don't have a better suggestion, however.

[sarcasm]
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline CNYMike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Cortland, NY
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #24 on: 05/11/2013 03:50 PM »
[/sarcasm] .... Mike's language there is good in principle, but unfortunately, his principle will not stop the factions from fighting one another. 

No, it won't stop them from fighting, but right now, it seems the factions are pushing the politicians around.  That's why we've staggered from Constellation to Anti-Constellation, and who knows where next.  We can't keep doing that.  A consistent message from inside the Beltway -- even if it's works out to a list of things they don't want -- might change that, reducing the chance of another cataclysmic change of direction, and maybe give a future administrator a chance to make some lemonade out of the lemons s/he's inherited.  If we want a chance of accomplishing anything, we're better off working with what we have now than starting over from scratch again; anyone unhappy with the status quo already knows how well that works.

Quote
I'm afraid that I don't have a better suggestion, however.

[sarcasm]


I don't think there is a better suggestion.  That's the problem.  Narrowing the focus without committing may be the best we can hope for.
"I am not A big fat panda.  I am THE big fat panda." -- Po, KUNG FU PANDA

Michael Gallagher
Cortlnd, NY

Offline CNYMike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Cortland, NY
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #25 on: 05/11/2013 04:03 PM »
... right now, it seems the factions are pushing the politicians around ....

"Push around" may be too strong, but it is worth remembering that outside the space enthusiast/aerospace community, most people, including most elected officials, don't understand the in's and out's of space policy.  We've been arguing about this stuff for a decade, but most people don't know it, not because we've kept it secret, but because they don't know where to look, and never thought about it unless they have a space nut friend who brings it up.

So in the face of benign neglect from otherwise intelligent politicians who -- understandably -- maybe be more concerned about issues that can effect his election chances -- it would be easy from someone to say, "You know, sir, this Moon thing, we've done that.  Here's an idea that's more interesting." And our politicians say "Yes, that does sound interesting!  We'll do that" and goes about his business on other issues without a clue as to the chaos he's created. And yes, this could be President Obama, but it could be any president or any legislator.  Kennedy, famously, asked NASA some questions about what we could beat the Soviets to the Moon at; he didn't come up with the idea himself. 

So maybe the only message we could get through to our leaders, "Look, I know this only matters in a part of Florida, and then only barely, so it probably won't effect you.  But it is one of the highest profile things we do, and right now, we look like we can't find our heads with both hands.  And without some guidance, we'll keep going hog wild and maybe accomplish nothing.  So if you could at least set some parameters for what you do and don't want, in a general sense, we can get back to you.  How does that sound?"

Just wanted to clarify some harshness from my stream of consciousness.
"I am not A big fat panda.  I am THE big fat panda." -- Po, KUNG FU PANDA

Michael Gallagher
Cortlnd, NY

Offline BobCarver

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #26 on: 05/12/2013 01:09 AM »
Here's a three-stage plan that I think makes sense:

1. Exploration - Explore bodies within the Solar System which can support life relatively easy. Example: Mars, where we could potentially terraform the entire planet, starting small and building large (think: bases to domed cities to full terraforming of the destination). Learn everything we can about these places so that we can choose which one or ones to start with. This could be done mostly by NASA.

Potential places we know of that might lend themselves to this activity: Mars, Enceladus, Ganymede.

2. Colonization - Colonize the best candidates found after our exploration program builds a knowledge base of the best places for this kind of activity. This would be done by commercial entities whose long term goal is to sell real estate to colonists.

3. Terraformation - Colonists would engage in terraforming their own home body. Example: from Mars bases to domed cities, colonists drill for CO2 with which the atmosphere is injected to raise the greenhouse effect to the point where the planet is much more Earth-like. Water resources are pumped to create surface lakes. As the temperature and pressure of the atmosphere rises, water is released to the atmosphere. Water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas, by the way.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #27 on: 05/12/2013 02:06 PM »
Here's a three-stage plan that I think makes sense:

1. Exploration - Explore bodies within the Solar System...

Let me stop you right there, if I may.  That is all that we can or will do, probably for the lifetime of everyone who posts on the forum today, including the newbies.  This exploration can be robotic and manned.

The key thing that is missing is the intention to work towards a permanent human presence off planet, despite the politicians holier than thou supplications to the contrary.  As long as responsible adults do not keep the fractious children from fighting each other over the mission of the month, there can't be a cooperative consensus formed, which would support a path forward for HSF.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline jtrame

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 290
  • W4FJT
  • Knoxville, TN
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #28 on: 05/12/2013 02:21 PM »
Here's a three-stage plan that I think makes sense:

1. Exploration - Explore bodies within the Solar System which can support life relatively easy. Example: Mars, where we could potentially terraform the entire planet, starting small and building large (think: bases to domed cities to full terraforming of the destination). Learn everything we can about these places so that we can choose which one or ones to start with. This could be done mostly by NASA.

Potential places we know of that might lend themselves to this activity: Mars, Enceladus, Ganymede.



I think you would enjoy reading Buzz Ardrin's new book "Mission to Mars" in which he discusses a lot of what you have outlined.  In fact I think it deserves a thread of it's own.  I'm reading it now, I'm in Chapter 5.

Offline BobCarver

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #29 on: 05/12/2013 10:32 PM »

The key thing that is missing is the intention to work towards a permanent human presence off planet, despite the politicians holier than thou supplications to the contrary.  As long as responsible adults do not keep the fractious children from fighting each other over the mission of the month, there can't be a cooperative consensus formed, which would support a path forward for HSF.

That's why I would limit NASA to Exploration and leave colonization to the private sector or, at most, a public-private partnership. I would not prefer to see the USA extending its political sphere into space. Nor any other Earth government. Keep Mars for the Martians.

We've done the standard colonization plan a few hundred years ago. It never works out for the mother country in the long run.

Let NASA do the exploration and prep work for various destinations. If they can do it, that is. Otherwise, let individuals lead the way.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #30 on: 05/13/2013 01:25 PM »
... Otherwise, let individuals lead the way.

As has been pointed out, we are *cough* free *cough* to lead the way.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline BobCarver

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #31 on: 05/13/2013 06:10 PM »
... Otherwise, let individuals lead the way.

As has been pointed out, we are *cough* free *cough* to lead the way.

Where would you start colonization? Mars, Enceladus, Ganymede, ? ? ?
« Last Edit: 05/13/2013 06:10 PM by BobCarver »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #32 on: 05/13/2013 06:23 PM »
You, as in moi?  Topic for a different thread.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #33 on: 05/19/2013 06:36 AM »
The BEO and LEO seem to be targets of the design space for the early 21st century.

Imagine somebody in the early 1900s conceptualizing that you could fuel up a horseless carriage and trek across the USA in three to five days.  Or conceptualizing that one could fly across the USA in less than six hours.

The reason that was needed was that the early pioneers wanted to get there quicker.  All of this wasn't because the chicken wanted to simply cross the road to get to the other side... the chicken knew there was corn over there (so to speak).

We haven't found a trace of a microbe or volumes of aquifers thus far on the moon or Mars. I don't think exercises in basic geology are going to initiate future exploration BEO. 

You need trace evidence of something that connects the Earth to these other objects.  I'd have to believe that meteors are about the most likely chance of finding something that will initiate an exploration boom (again, it is not going to be a common geology find that starts it off). Maybe the moon will have a lunar transient event someday to restart exploration.  Going to the moon, Mars or to the asteroids to flip rocks over isn't going to cut it.

If we found an object that is not an asteroid (i.e. chunk of neutron star, isotopes of something outside our solar system, object that naturally visits the oort cloud, etc...) Maybe something like this would be the catalyst for BEO advancements.

Once the first connection is made, the rest of the flights will exponentially increase until spaceflight is as common as driving to Pittsburgh.
« Last Edit: 05/19/2013 07:00 AM by RigelFive »

Offline BobCarver

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #34 on: 05/19/2013 07:33 PM »

You need trace evidence of something that connects the Earth to these other objects.  I'd have to believe that meteors are about the most likely chance of finding something that will initiate an exploration boom (again, it is not going to be a common geology find that starts it off). Maybe the moon will have a lunar transient event someday to restart exploration.  Going to the moon, Mars or to the asteroids to flip rocks over isn't going to cut it.


Real estate. That's what connects Earth to these other objects. There's no reason to look any further than what's obvious.

Once the real estate is developed, the buyers will come in droves. Earth is unsustainably crowded and threatens to grow more so as time goes on. There will be no lack of buyers for off-Earth real estate suitably developed.

Consequently, we need terraformation to create that desirable real estate, which will make off-Earth look more like pristine Earth before the degradation set in here on the home planet. Obviously, we have Mars, Enceladus and Ganymede as leading candidates for planetary object terraformation. Plus, we have space habitats as potential real estate as well.

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #35 on: 05/19/2013 07:51 PM »
There is plenty of real estate on Earth.  Its just that too many are located near the coastline where it is desirable.  Global warming concerns are not enough to transform peoples thinking to move inland.  Going to colonize space isnt going to change thinking about this either.

Offline BobCarver

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #36 on: 05/19/2013 11:01 PM »
There is plenty of real estate on Earth.  Its just that too many are located near the coastline where it is desirable.  Global warming concerns are not enough to transform peoples thinking to move inland.  Going to colonize space isnt going to change thinking about this either.

If you think I was talking about Global Warming, you are sadly mistaken. I am talking about the current population of this planet, which is now using 1.5 Earths in terms of resources and heading for 2 Earths' worth of resources within the next few decades. Those are facts which cannot be denied. We have overpopulated Earth with people and it will become increasingly clear in the near future.

Colonization is a viable alternative for those with the means to do so. Elon Musk is heading for Mars and others in his monetary class will be following him.

Here's a quote from http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/newsletter/det/human_demand_outstripping_natures_regenerative_capacity_at_an_alarming_rate :

Quote
Living Planet Report reveals widening gap between nature’s supply and human demand

Humanity is now using nature’s services 50 percent faster than what Earth can renew, reveals the 2010 edition of the Living Planet Report – the leading survey of the planet’s health.

“The dwindling health of the world’s species is no surprise considering how much of nature’s services humanity is taking for its own use,” said Mathis Wackernagel, President of Global Footprint Network. “Ultimately, enabling biodiversity to thrive will require bringing human demand for nature’s services to a level Earth can sustainably supply.”

The new figures released today for humanity’s Ecological Footprint and biocapacity illustrate the scope of the challenges humanity faces not only for preserving biodiversity, but also for halting climate change and meeting human development aspirations, such as reducing worldwide hunger and poverty.

Global Footprint Network calculations show that in the past five decades, the human Footprint on Earth has more than doubled. In 2007, the most recent year for which data are available, humanity used the equivalent of 1.5 planets to support its activities. Put another way, it now takes a year and six months for the Earth to absorb the CO2 emissions and regenerate the renewable resources that people use in one year.

Carbon is a major driver behind the planet to ecological overdraft. An alarming 11-fold increase in our overall carbon Footprint over the last five decades means carbon now accounts for more than half the global Ecological Footprint. Land used for food production is another major factor in humanity’s escalating Footprint. It should be noted that cheap access to fossil fuel has enabled us to get more from each hectare than we might otherwise have been able to. Moving out of fossil fuel due to climate concerns or depleted sources will reduce the carbon portion of the Footprint, but may also significantly increase pressure on other ecosystems.


I'll admit that there are ways to reduce our consumption to supply, but killing billions of people is not a nice choice (but one I think the elites may be heading for). I would much prefer colonization of other planets + space habitats as solutions to our sustainability problems.

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #37 on: 05/20/2013 04:58 AM »
Ok.  Lets roll with it.

So what happens if you launch the same number of rockets in a day that come out of one airport from a major city in one day?  Say 200..

That carbon footprint/ecology problem will not get any better...  Life diminishes even worse on Earth.  Then ultimately fails where ever the next colony starts. Natural resources will be depleted entirely on Earth and Mars.

This Elysium summer movie coming up looks to stir this pot pretty good.

Why not try to just terraform Earth for the existing population!?  Stop wasting money on space exploration.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7978
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 4779
  • Likes Given: 3230
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #38 on: 05/20/2013 05:08 AM »
Ok.  Lets roll troll with it.

Fixed that for ya.

This seems like a non problem to me. Use LOX/LH2.
« Last Edit: 05/20/2013 05:09 AM by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline BobCarver

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #39 on: 05/20/2013 05:34 AM »

Why not try to just terraform Earth for the existing population!?

Yes, indeed, we should try terraforming Earth first. That is a much more dangerous experiment as we know from the rising temperature of the planet due our ongoing fossil fuel "experiment". We should be very cautious about geo-engineering our home planet. Mars would make a much better testbed for that kind of activity. From lessons learned on Earth, we can apply them to Mars, etc., in much more aggressive ways. For instance, we have studied the effects of greenhouse gas extensively on Earth and can apply those lessons to warming Mars atmosphere. We know how much water vapor raises the temperature of the atmosphere on Earth (as I recall, about 40°C). Consequently, we might try first to raise the atmospheric pressure on Mars by melting the frozen CO₂ at the poles and underground, then extract water from what we believe to be extensive underground reservoirs and pump it into the atmosphere by creating surface lakes. That might be enough to make the Martian atmosphere capable of hosting crops, which would further help terraform the planet.

Your second sentence doesn't make any sense considering this thread is "Exploration Concepts and Principles."

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #40 on: 05/20/2013 08:20 AM »
Ok.  Lets roll troll with it.

Fixed that for ya.

This seems like a non problem to me. Use LOX/LH2.
Love it!!!! Very funny actually! 

Whatcha gonna use to make hydrogen?  And while your at it, what you going to use to make LOX?  Just trolling to to see if you have a plan for a nuclear powered rocket fuel plant...

Perhaps you can pressurize the propellants without depleting the helium reserves.  Plus your going to need some added energy to make aluminum alloys.

Think energy conservation using wind mills will last up to five-to-ten years before the turbine breaks down.

Can a wind turbine supply enough power to make the materials for more wind turbines? 


Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #41 on: 05/20/2013 08:35 AM »
You make synthetic hydrocarbons using solar power and you pressurize with nitrogen.

Harvest the carbon right out of the air if you need to. You're cleaning up the planet at the same time.

There's always wave and geothermal power if you need to tap it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #42 on: 05/20/2013 12:45 PM »
Real estate. That's what connects Earth to these other objects. There's no reason to look any further than what's obvious.

You shall not pass!

[Say it like Gandalf]

Point being, SMD will fight you tooth and nail about keeping that real estate solely for the use of rovers and drones.

Talk of terraforming is sooooo cart before horse, that it's hard to come up with the analogy.  But I'll try.  Talking about terraforming as some sort of priority is like building the cart before the horse has even evolved.

« Last Edit: 05/20/2013 12:45 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #43 on: 05/20/2013 12:46 PM »
Ok.  Lets roll troll with it.

Fixed that for ya.

This seems like a non problem to me. Use LOX/LH2.
Love it!!!! Very funny actually! 

Two points for Gryffindor.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #44 on: 05/20/2013 12:47 PM »
Also, consider it stolen.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #45 on: 05/20/2013 01:11 PM »
Naturally, colonization is a good idea.  But you have to start with step one.

As Bob points out, Earth is headed for a Malthusian solution to population, despite the arguments of the logistical trolls to the contrary.

Mr. Musk might very well transfer his wealth "off shore" so to speak, along with his chosen cadre of carefully vetted individuals and their no doubt sensibly designed equipment.

At great personal expense, the planet's population will have been reduced by about one hundred people.  Two hundred max, by my guess.  With the last few hanging off the rocket like they did that last helicopter out of Saigon, just the other day.

[I'd prefer if he'd offer me a seat.  Just puttin' the idea out there.]

Remember, once he moves his "household", his passport will be framed as a curiosity, over his new mantle.

Thimk.

SMD and the PTB don't want there to be even a base. You've got what, ten minutes?  Ten years?  To change that?

Quit jerkin' off about colonization and focus on a base/hotel.

As to the carbon footprint of 200 launches a day, not a problem.  Even with this launch rate, Malthus still wins.  Dig thru these threads for a bit.  Even in 1969, such a launch rate, with kerolox, would not have impacted the global petrodollar market significantly.  By extrapolation, it would not have affected the carbon in the atmo all that much either.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16092.msg372800#msg372800

Quote from: JF
William Barton points out that Von Braun suggested 900 launches in about a year.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15838.msg373443#msg373443

Quote from: JF
I speculate that the rate of launches ends up creating an equatorial band of rocket exhaust in the stratosphere, so I have a notion of the results of this grand effort.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17264.msg415604#msg415604

Quote from: JF
Darwinists may not like it, but there is nothing in evolution which requires HSF on the basis of survival.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18503.msg467792#msg467792

Quote from: JF
My copy of The Moon: Resources, Future Development and Settlement, by Shrunk, Sharpe, Cooper, & Thangavelu arrived yesterday, and I blasted thru the first nine chapters.  What warmed the cockles of my heart was some confirmation of, or perhaps more accurately, agreement with, my previous speculations about lunar colonization, maybe in the "What do ya do on a colony?" thread.

I claim nothing more than an honorary degree from Wile E. Coyote's School of Super Geniuses.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline BobCarver

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #46 on: 05/20/2013 08:32 PM »
Naturally, colonization is a good idea.  But you have to start with step one.

As Bob points out, Earth is headed for a Malthusian solution to population, despite the arguments of the logistical trolls to the contrary.


As I mentioned before, you would start with a base, building infrastructure toward the end goal of complete terraformation. But, you have to know the goal in order to build the steps in between, starting with exploration to find that best starting point. Initially, public-private partnerships would deliver us the exploration data we need to make decisions on where to start building bases.

I'm assuming that will be Mars. And, we have the asteroid belt as a potential source of resources. Moving them to Mars and landing them in an unoccupied area should be much easier than moving them all the way to Earth. The thin atmosphere is an advantage on Mars whereas Earth's atmosphere is a big disadvantage.

Alternatively, we could setup factories on Phobos and/or Deimos for processing raw asteroidal resources and then delivering them to the ground.

So, what do we need for step one? Sources of CO₂ and water. From what we know, Mars has an abundance of CO₂, so that should not be a big problem. And, water is likely to have abundant reservoirs under the surface (although not proven, much evidence points toward that conclusion).

Once the infrastructure is constructed for bases and domed cities, we can start pumping CO₂ and water into the atmosphere to start the process of terraformation.

All this requires a lot of energy, which we can obtain from solar power. Even though Mars has less than Earth has available, it's still a lot of energy.

(BTW, I'm working on a project which will provide clean and very cheap energy in abundance here on Earth. I don't foresee any kind of energy problems as long as this project succeeds---it's looking very good so far. It will not only provide cheap energy, that energy will undercut fossil fuel-based energy in price, which will drive fossil fuels out of the market and solve the Global Warming problem in a very economic way---no government intervention such as a carbon tax will be needed. In addition to the energy project, we have developed a storage system for electricity which doesn't use chemical batteries which will likely hit the market this year and will make solar energy the preferred method of obtaining electricity.)

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #47 on: 05/21/2013 07:39 AM »
Ok.  So the chicken crosses the road to get some corn (as well as having its motives questioned).  But before the chicken crosses the road, we need to terraform across the road.  But in order to terraform we need to bring the cart over with some corn.  But the horse cannot push the cart (it would eat all the corn, rather than pushing).  So we need to get the horse in front of the cart, to pull it.

How do we get the horse (or to be fair, perhaps a fat mule) to want pull the cart across the road?

1).  Pretty girl horse
2).  Lots of chickens
3).  A jockey with a nasty whip
4).  One of those airport conveyor belt things
5).  Science (microbes, geology, scant interstitial traces of moisture in rocks)
6).  Twin solid rocket boosters.  Its just for an added touch because the performance of the horse and cart alone is so poor to begin with.
« Last Edit: 05/21/2013 07:42 AM by RigelFive »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #48 on: 05/21/2013 01:08 PM »
Ok.  So the chicken crosses the road to get some corn ...  But before the chicken crosses the road, ... etc.

How do we get the horse ... to want pull the cart across the road?

1).  Pretty girl horse
2).  Lots of chickens
3).  A jockey with a nasty whip
4).  One of those airport conveyor belt things
5).  Science (microbes, geology, scant interstitial traces of moisture in rocks)
6).  Twin solid rocket boosters.  Its just for an added touch because the performance of the horse and cart alone is so poor to begin with.

Pretty good analogy there.

0).  The chicken wants to cross the road because this side of the road is pretty crowded; the roosters are running an oppressive regime; the chicken thinks the corn might be yellower on the other side of the road.  Oh.  It would be "cool".

Are there other purposes?  As an intellectual and as a pragmatic exercise, consider the four causes:



Aristotle held that there were four kinds of causes:

A change or movement's material cause is the aspect of the change or movement which is determined by the material which the moving or changing things are made of. For a table, that might be wood; for a statue, that might be bronze or marble.

A change or movement's formal cause is a change or movement caused by the arrangement, shape or appearance of the thing changing or moving. Aristotle says for example that the ratio 2:1, and number in general, is the cause of the octave.

A change or movement's efficient or moving cause refers to things apart from the thing being changed or moved, which interact so as to be an agency of the change or movement. For example, the efficient cause of a table is a carpenter, or a person working as one, and according to Aristotle the efficient cause of a boy is a father.

An event's final cause is the aim or purpose being served by it. That for the sake of which a thing is what it is. For a seed, it might be an adult plant. For a sailboat, it might be sailing. For a ball at the top of a ramp, it might be coming to rest at the bottom.


What's the purpose of all this effort?

Moving on, remember the scene in "2001", where one of your ancestors throws a bone at the Moon?  In some important ways, we're throwing a bone at Mars.  It is well beyond our reach by virtue of the governments which have come to power, and which refuse to countenance even the necessary first steps to the expansion of humanity beyond this planetary surface.

Technically, we're "free enough" to go anywhere we want; after all, launch permits are as easy to come by as driving permits, per one of the pundits around here.  Pragmatically, we're not.  The tribe has been pretty consistently educated over a long term to resist supporting any off-planet exploration by the "masses", and only the elites get to play in this sandbox with tribal approval. 

The famous australopithecine, WvB, suggested a colonisation plan, but his thing about 900 launches requires tribal approval, and that ain't happening soon, and doesn't look to be happening at all.  There is some hope tho.

Today's australopithecine, over there on the left coast, is on the verge of throwing a bone to the Moon, with the help of his several thousand elves, and limited tribal approval.  (Presumably, you're following the analogy here.)  That work is proceeding more quickly and seemingly at a lower cost than the traditional efforts of the tribal government.  So we shall see.

Sorry about switching from chickens to australopithecines.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #49 on: 05/21/2013 01:27 PM »
Naturally, colonization is a good idea.  But you have to start with step one. ...

1) As I mentioned before, you would start with a base, building infrastructure toward the end goal of complete terraformation.

2) But, you have to know the goal in order to build the steps in between, starting with exploration to find that best starting point. Initially, public-private partnerships would deliver us the exploration data we need to make decisions on where to start building bases.

3) I'm assuming that will be Mars. And, we have the asteroid belt as a potential source of resources. Moving them to Mars and landing them in an unoccupied area should be much easier than moving them all the way to Earth. The thin atmosphere is an advantage on Mars whereas Earth's atmosphere is a big disadvantage.

3) Alternatively, we could setup factories on Phobos and/or Deimos for processing raw asteroidal resources and then delivering them to the ground.

1) So, what do we need for step one? Sources of CO2 and water. From what we know, Mars has an abundance of CO2, so that should not be a big problem. And, water is likely to have abundant reservoirs under the surface (although not proven, much evidence points toward that conclusion).

3) Once the infrastructure is constructed for bases and domed cities, we can start pumping CO₂ and water into the atmosphere to start the process of terraformation.

3) All this requires a lot of energy, which we can obtain from solar power. Even though Mars has less than Earth has available, it's still a lot of energy.

4) (BTW, I'm working on a project which will provide clean and very cheap energy in abundance here on Earth. ...

1)  Yeah, start small.  This step is really all that should be focused on at the moment.

2)  The goal is surface colonization, medical issues permitting.  It will have to be determined empirically.

3)  A hundred years from now.  You can talk about the sizzle of the end game all you want.  If you choose to spend your efforts on the end game, you will not work on step one.  None of that stuff needs to be planned out in advance.  It will be determined by the facts on the ground.

4)  PM me on that to the extent that you choose.  I'm a harsh critic.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #50 on: 05/22/2013 02:52 AM »
Excellent thread!   ;D

When a human recites thought and reason from Aristhrottle, it really does bring the concept that the chicken must have a reason to want to cross the road. Let us consider the ways of the chicken...

If there are chickens who are nihilistic and believe that the chief end of all chickens is nothingness (or perhaps a brief transition state as a #4 KFC boneless meal), then that chicken really has no hope/or even purpose to want to leave the chicken coup.

Imagine a chicken who flies the coup and comes back to the coup and thinks... hmm, there are microbes out there on those rocks.  That is probably how we chickens must have evolved and came to be in this chicken coup.  And the explorer chicken tells all chickens there that they have to sacrifice part of their meal to study the origin of microbes.  The other chickens elect one as their wisest, to determine how much feed needs to be sacrificed.  Ultimately, before the grain is gathered - the chickens lose interest.  Then the elected wisest chicken determines that, "we will not see another chicken outside of this coup during my lifetime."  The reason given is, that failure is not an option.  It will simply cost too much corn. (if it were me, I'd ask for my corn back)

On the first orbit of astronauts around the moon on Apollo 8, the astronauts emerged from behind the moon to see the first Earth rise over the Lunar horizon.   

I was not born yet, but I'd have to bet there was not a single viewer on Earth who was probably thinking, this is a just a random moment without any purpose or meaning for mankind.  Nobody was out saying that surely all of this happend by chance... I'd like to know more about the hypothetical evolution of microbes in a highly irradiated environment on the surface of Mars.  If they did, I'd blame it on the 60s tainting their corn.

If you have a purpose - then there is a purpose.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2013 03:12 AM by RigelFive »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #51 on: 05/22/2013 02:43 PM »
Bertrand Russell, "Impact of Science on Society" (Hardcover)

Cost, of course, is no object.  Think of the science!

Excellent thread!

The power of the parable, fer shure.

Oh. "Coop", BTW.

Quote from: Rigel
On the first orbit of astronauts around the moon on Apollo 8, the astronauts emerged from behind the moon to see the first Earth rise over the Lunar horizon.   

I was not born yet, but I'd have to bet there was not a single viewer on Earth who was probably thinking, this is a just a random moment without any purpose or meaning for mankind.  Nobody was out saying that surely all of this happend by chance... I'd like to know more about the hypothetical evolution of microbes in a highly irradiated environment on the surface of Mars.  If they did, I'd blame it on the 60s tainting their corn.

If you have a purpose - then there is a purpose.

Ipso fatso, Bertrand Russell:

"Although it is still open to the philosopher or theologian to hold that everything has a 'purpose', it has been found that 'purpose' is not a useful concept when we are in search of scientific laws."

I am hoping that we are reaching an important tipping point regarding the scientificist enforcement of confirmation bias amongst its believers and proponents.  A tenured scientificist is only allowed to discover efficient causes; should she attempt to create a final cause, she will lose tenure.  That tenure could be as a government bureacrat or a member of the accredited educational community. 
Again, from the minds of the tenured scholars at FAU:

"Ideas represent the end product of the intellectual process. Before they can be publicly espoused, ideas must be subjected to rigorous and intensive examination."

The rock heist is our current case in point.  Behind closed doors, the idea of the heist has been already subjected to "rigorous and intensive examination".  What this effectively means is that there can indeed be manufactured, as a human artifact, a piece of machinery which will provide the efficient cause to bring back the rock and put it in a safe DRO around Luna.

They cannot fully answer any question about why we should attempt to do this.  Invariably, they fall back on the authority of Mr. Obama, who has directed the investigation into the creation of this efficient cause.  Back to Russell:

"Aristotle maintained that women had fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him
to verify his statement by examining his wives' mouths."

One of the biggest benefits to humanity has been the discovery by scientists of the autonomy of the physical world.  In pre-scientific times, the word of the authorities was taken as the last word.  That is still the case when it comes to the creation of final purposes, which are then used to justify the expense of creating the efficient purposes which get funded by Congress, in the case of the heist.

Why the heist?  Because the authority so ordained.  No other reason permitted.  There is no path to Mars based on this authority alone.

"Earthrise" was not a random moment which evolved from the primordial ooze without a final purpose.  We were promised a lunar base with the express expectation that we would go forward from there.  We are being kept on planet by the government which is in thrall to scientific trollsters who will not admit to any purpose in their endeavors whatsoever.

Like I said, waking up is hard to do.  Science is a tool, not an authority.  Humans can create their purpose ex nihilo, completely outside of the artificial limitations of scientificism.

OTOH, just think of the children and how inspired they will be to watch television of a spinning rock.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #52 on: 05/23/2013 08:26 AM »
Like the gold of Solomon:

Quote
One of the biggest benefits to humanity has been the discovery by scientists of the autonomy of the physical world. In pre-scientific times, the word of the authorities was taken as the last word. That is still the case when it comes to the creation of final purposes, which are then used to justify the expense of creating the efficient purposes which get funded by Congress, in the case of the heist.

Why the heist? Because the authority so ordained. No other reason permitted. There is no path to Mars based on this authority alone.
So the concept here might be that when an authority synthesises a purpose, that may be defined as a mission.  And when there is a mission without a purpose, there really was no authority.

It seems as if we have imagined missions that were never dictated by authorities (search of scientific laws, going to the planet Mars to find the origin of life).  These are not the charter of NASA. 

Yet when in equivalent manner if there is a mission with an aspect of 'our greater purpose', you get the valves opened fully toward criticism.  The machinery wants missions of banal menutia to somehow inspire children who are expected to just simply understand that the origin of life is a pool of goo.  In a museum in Cleveland, kids voted 75% AGAINST wanting to go to Mars after seeing an simulated Mars Station exhibit with algae in it.  The exhibit even had a legit full scale rover next to it.

The only experiment that has succeeded on the International Space Station 100% of the time is that every astronaut comes back with at least an understanding of a greater purpose (as well as a multimillion dollar travel reimbursement form). 

So many say that the administration isn't showing leadership. But when they formulate any mission, typically it is seen as without any purpose (a mission to nowhere).  Then they pull the plug and just give up any hope and still want the same annual budget.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #53 on: 05/23/2013 01:57 PM »
Like the gold of Solomon:

Don't applaud.  Uhhh, send gold?

Quote from: JF
Why the heist? Because the authority so ordained. No other reason permitted. There is no path to Mars based on this authority alone.

Quote from: Rigel
So the concept here might be that when an authority synthesises a purpose, that may be defined as a mission.  And when there is a mission without a purpose, there really was no authority.

We are witnessing a scientific false flag in real time. 

got proof?

Gerst has already authoritatively announced that even if they don't actually grab a rock, that the mission will still be a success.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #54 on: 05/23/2013 03:33 PM »
Yep.  This brings to mind the sage old saying... You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.  (Adding to our previous chain of analogies).

Now we have a situation where we might not be able to even bring the horse to water.  Hmmm.  (I thought this was why we invented the car.)

Going to have to pull out the Concepts and Principles Thread Psychotherapy sofa for my next proverb.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4411
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #55 on: 05/23/2013 07:31 PM »
Quote from: CNYMike
I think the US government faces a very fundamental problem, and that is mixed feelings by the US public.  We don't want to stop doing it, but we don't want to make it a priority either.
Probably the main thing to keep in mind about this is the majority of people "prioritize" according to how things effect their daily lives. Specifically "Human Space Flight" does NOT significantly impact the dailly lives of the majority of the population of the Planet Earth let alone the United States. It is a "nice-to-have" but "not-essential" subject. It is LESS than that for the majority of the rest of the world.

Quote
Never mind how many households have little dish antennas aimed at satellites or use GPS regualarly.  Making HSF a priority has a giggle factor that it hasn't lost after 50 years.  That's why when you go to whitehouse.gov and click on "issues," "space" is not on the list.
Mike, you made a fundamental, but very, very common mistake here: The "dish" antenna for TV and the GPS have NO relationship in the minds of most people with HUMAN Space Flight. Go back to the part above about impact on "daily lives" and you'll see clearly that this would have a "disconnecting" effect on how people view space flight.

Human Space Flight is NOT an "issue" simply because we have yet to find a way  it is applicable to people outside a very small segment of Humanity. (We all know who we are) On a very visceral level there is not connection between manned space flight and the "services" we have come to depend on that are connected to space. They appear (and are treated) as two seperate entities.

I'm pretty much at a lose myself on how to change that mindset.

Quote from: JohnFornaro
Let me stop you right there, if I may.  That is all that we can or will do, probably for the lifetime of everyone who posts on the forum today, including the newbies.  This exploration can be robotic and manned.
Not sure here John, did you mean this with "sarcasm" on or "/sarcasm" off? :)

(By the way, who or what is "SMD" from your later post?)

Quote
The key thing that is missing is the intention to work towards a permanent human presence off planet..
The major problem is there is no incentive for anyone to be working towards a permanent human presence off planet. Finding a reason would go a long way towards changing the overall mindset of people, but currently we got nothing...

Quote from: BobCarver
Real estate. That's what connects Earth to these other objects. There's no reason to look any further than what's obvious.
Sorry Bob but there are several very basic reasons why this is NOT obvious and not viable as an incentive. First of all in order to HAVE "real-estate" a government has to lay "claim" and "own" the "real-estate" first. Secondly there is nothing "out-there" worth the price of going out there to GET let alone pay for the price of trying to "terraform" it to make it more "attractive" than Earth. In addition, 99% of the people ON Earth do not want to even leave the city or town they were BORN in let alone this planet no matter what the conditions are like. In a huge majority of cases the actual "concept" or Real-Estate is not understood because a vast majority of people do not actually "own" the land they live on in the first place.

Anyone going into space to live (in space itself or on a planetary body) is going to have to BRING everything they need to intially survive with them and then exploit local resources to continue the process. Once the resources are GONE the "land" is going to be worthless.
(The only way around that WILL be some kind of terraforming to make the actual "land" worth something but in most cases even terraforming will not be enough to ensure this because without constant maintenance the "land" will revert and again be worthless)

Earth "reasonings" have and will continue to "fail" to be practical for motivating people to change their minds about the priority of space colonization (giggle factor) as they have done before because they simply do not apply well, if at all to the conditions and circumstances in space. As long as people keep trying to apply Earth based analogies and "reasoning" to an other-worldly situation they will fail to overcome that "giggle" factor.

Find a sensible and understandable "reason" the average person can "get-behind" and find applicable to themselves and their daily life and you have found the key to changing that perception.

Quote
If you think I was talking about Global Warming, you are sadly mistaken. I am talking about the current population of this planet, which is now using 1.5 Earths in terms of resources and heading for 2 Earths' worth of resources within the next few decades. Those are facts which cannot be denied. We have overpopulated Earth with people and it will become increasingly clear in the near future.
Sorry Bob, the "Population Bomb" fizzled and will never explode as predicted. Malthus was wrong because he had no way of knowing about the "Green Revolution" and his various disicples such as the Club of Rome have missed the profound effects of standard-of-living and technology on population growth.

The "facts" are not denied as much as proven over-blown and based on invalid assumptions. Are we using enough resources for 1.5 "Earths"? Why yes we are. What most people fail to realize is we're PRODUCING resources at well above 2.5 Earths by the "definition" being used by, for example, the study you cite. We are much better at extracting, refining, and production than anyone seems to be taking account of. It is why we rarely have "real" shortages of basic resources.

As the standard of living and technology increase around the world the birth rate drops. We have managed to "miss" every predicted population "crisis" because of this simple fact. Along with production and distribution of resources becoming simpler, cheaper, and more wide spread the lack of population growth over the long term makes any argument about Humans needing "space" to provide for the future fall flat.

Colonization of space is a good idea, as is exploiting space resources to make it more affordable and sustainable. We still face the problem of general motivation in the mind of the general public. So far we have yet to find a compelling reason to take the concept seriously.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4411
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #56 on: 05/23/2013 08:24 PM »
Naturally, colonization is a good idea.  But you have to start with step one.

Well "Step 1" has always supposed to have been routine, inexpensive access to Low Earth Orbit. That's still a wee bit of an issue :)

Quote
As to the carbon footprint of 200 launches a day, not a problem.  Even with this launch rate, Malthus still wins.  Dig thru these threads for a bit.  Even in 1969, such a launch rate, with kerolox, would not have impacted the global petrodollar market significantly.  By extrapolation, it would not have affected the carbon in the atmo all that much either.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16092.msg372800#msg372800

Quote from: JF
William Barton points out that Von Braun suggested 900 launches in about a year.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15838.msg373443#msg373443

Uh, just a minor nit but WVB didn't USE kerolox for his shuttles :) It was three stages burning nitric acid/hydrazine propellants! So the "effect" is going to be a little bit different. (You probably don't want to neglect the several hundered flights proir to the ones for the Mars mission that assembled the two space stations in orbit and the previous Lunar expedition and ships as well as the weekly supply runs to those stations. Probably call it over 1000flights.)

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/vonn1952.htm

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #57 on: 05/24/2013 01:46 AM »
Quote
we using enough resources for 1.5 "Earths"? Why yes we are. What most people fail to realize is we're PRODUCING resources at well above 2.5 Earths by the "definition" being used by, for example, the study you cite. We are much better at extracting, refining, and production than anyone seems to be taking account of.
No that is not true.  We have stated on this thread that with the chicken coup analogy, the roosters are running an oppressive regime. 

No doubt we are producing (reproducing) at a rate of 2.5 Earths.  The "too many chickens in the coup" argument does not have enough urgency to start a new exploration space race. 

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #58 on: 05/24/2013 01:31 PM »
Uh, just a minor nit but WVB didn't USE kerolox for his shuttles...

True, that is a minor nit for historians.  The major nit would be in the pointless use today of such toxic propellants.   

The point still holds that with kerolox launches, at the rate of 900 or so in a year, would not affect the global carbon footprint all that much.  The common wisdom holds that launch costs would reduce in line with the mass production of so many nearly identical rockets.

It has never been the case that the US simply has not had the money or the industrial capacity or the workforce talent to engage in such an endeavor.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #59 on: 05/24/2013 02:48 PM »

Quote from: JF
Why the heist? Because the authority so ordained. No other reason permitted. There is no path to Mars based on this authority alone.

So the concept here might be that when an authority synthesises a purpose, that may be defined as a mission.  And when there is a mission without a purpose, there really was no authority.

It seems as if we have imagined missions that were never dictated by authorities (search of scientific laws, going to the planet Mars to find the origin of life).  These are not the charter of NASA. 

Yet when in equivalent manner if there is a mission with an aspect of 'our greater purpose', you get the valves opened fully toward criticism.  The machinery wants missions of banal minutia to somehow inspire children who are expected to just simply understand that the origin of life is a pool of goo.  In a museum in Cleveland, kids voted 75% AGAINST wanting to go to Mars after seeing an simulated Mars Station exhibit with algae in it.  The exhibit even had a legit full scale rover next to it.

The only experiment that has succeeded on the International Space Station 100% of the time is that every astronaut comes back with at least an understanding of a greater purpose (as well as a multimillion dollar travel reimbursement form). 

So many say that the administration isn't showing leadership. But when they formulate any mission, typically it is seen as without any purpose (a mission to nowhere).  Then they pull the plug and just give up any hope and still want the same annual budget.

24 hours of reflection later:

The various presidential adminstrations since JFK have been allowed by the "invisible hand" to promote certain things and certain things only.  This would be the extent of their leadership.  I say "invisible hand", since if the economic markets can be agreed upon to be driven by this motive, so can the political markets.  It is a different "hand" in some respects, even tho some of the people in leadership have multiple roles in the economic future and the political future of america.  The other term is "political constituencies".

The political constituencies over the last forty years have put HSF in the half penny range of funding.  They literally, by their consistent historical actions, do not care if NASA's missions are successful or not.  The constituencies are happy to take credit for the successes when they occur.  When failures occur, they say things like KBH did recently:  "We learned a painful lesson when the space shuttle retired without a follow-on capability to take U.S. astronaut researchers to the space station."

Rocket science is hard, children.  Keep taking your meds; someday some of you will understand.  In the meantime, check out the laser rover vaporizing rocks in this latest hi-def tube.

A complete and willful abandonment of responsibility for meaningful accomplishment, even within the confines of their stated goals to stay in LEO.

The apologists' knees will jerk and they will talk about the ballot box as a means of improving the system, but it is hollow talk.  Most people don't care about HSF, and that issue is not likely to change, largely because the education budget will not change.  The electorate will be kept fat, happy, doped and dumb.  The reality TV of "astronaut selection" and "rock climbing" can be sufficiently enhanced with proper video resolution and an emo sound track, with nuanced voice over, to satisfy most of the electorate into support of the status quo on HSF.

There are some glimmers of hope in the latest hearing with Friedman, Spudis, Squyres, and Cooke.  Having focused on hearings like this since 2009, I do not see rationality taking the upper hand.  The various committee members asking the questions never really follow up on a line of reasoning; the theatrical requirements of the hearings enforce their shallow analysis.  I think the glimmers of hope might fade again, however.

But anyhow, you said, "When there is a mission without a purpose, there really was no authority".  I'd mess with your wording.  there certainly is legal authority for the prez to suggest heisting a rock.  Like it or not, that's his legal perogative, along with keeping Guantanamo open, supporting Solyndra, and doing all that really hard decision making that Mr. Bush made such a big deal about just a few short years ago.  When we still had time to replace or extend shuttle.  But I digress.

My epiphany was that when there is a mission with no final purpose, then we are faced with a scientific false flag.  The true scientific flag's colors should represent a final purpose, going to Mars.  Instead, the flag presents the false colors of the expedient purpose:  Supporting the job requirements of those political constituents who claim to know how to heist a rock.  Its falseness is two fold:  Even if they don't achieve the ostensible immediate purpose of the mission, they have already announced that the mission will be deemed a success.  Secondly, they have not costed it accurately.  Using the only current metric that we have for falsely costed missions, JWST, the mission and all of its constituent parts is more likely to cost $26B to $46B over twenty to thirty years.

A drowning man will reach for any silver lining, as the mangled proverb goes.  That silver lining is that SpaceX, Astrobotics, and others will have twenty to thirty years to establish a privately owned lunar base, complete with hotel, and may actually send something or somebody to orbit Mars.

Maybe.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #60 on: 05/25/2013 01:07 AM »
Texas, Florida and California fight hard to fund NASA.

Other states don't care.

It's not a lack of will. It's a lack of NASA jobs in your area.

That's the way the system was set up.

Apollo failed to support the big income states so those big income states will not support NASA.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4411
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #61 on: 05/28/2013 08:38 PM »
Texas, Florida and California fight hard to fund NASA.

Other states don't care.

It's not a lack of will. It's a lack of NASA jobs in your area.

That's the way the system was set up.

Apollo failed to support the big income states so those big income states will not support NASA.
'Fraid not. You missed quite a few, Mississippi, Alabama, and Utah for example and you seem to ignore the fact that the Apollo program DID in fact "support" and bring a lot of money into the "big" income states during the entire program just like the Shuttle did and SLS is doing. Several states do NOT care and this reflects with their "status" in the place they have in the various groups that actually decide policy. (And before you deride the "input" of the above mentioned states I'll quitely remind you where the EXACT specification for "130-tons" to orbit came from? That's the number the "experts" told the state delegation would REQUIRE SRBs remember :)

No it really IS a lack of will. Along with a lack of resolve and an inability to "see" anything beyond a short-term/near-term money/jobs/votes perspective that has been ALL that NASA and HSF has ever meant to the politicians.

Advocating doesn't do any good because the only thing they take away from such things is "sound-bytes" and "talking-points" that they can spout back and do not have to, (or intend to) do anything with.

In a way this can be a good thing in that without "directed" action and a mandated focus NASA can simply build up capability with slow steady progression. The down side is that eventually there comes a point where both funding and support within the political structure are required to move beyond simply building capability.
Besides, from a purely political point-of-view it is very entertaining to watch the various sub-groups and interests undercut, back-stab, and deride each other when given a public forum. The one thing they do NOT want is a consensus opinion presented...

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4411
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #62 on: 05/28/2013 08:47 PM »
Quote
we using enough resources for 1.5 "Earths"? Why yes we are. What most people fail to realize is we're PRODUCING resources at well above 2.5 Earths by the "definition" being used by, for example, the study you cite. We are much better at extracting, refining, and production than anyone seems to be taking account of.
No that is not true.
No it's true, it plays quite well into the hands of TPTB that folks think scarity is going to happen any day now. Makes the "common folks" afraid which makes them easier to deal with :)

Quote
We have stated on this thread that with the chicken coup analogy, the roosters are running an oppressive regime.
I could almost wish that were true, in which case there would be something to aim at fighting "against" for the cause... Unfortunatly you can't fight "stupid" nor can you change willful ignorance. For some strange reason those "qualities" seem to be the number one needs for being elected to office :) 

Quote
No doubt we are producing (reproducing) at a rate of 2.5 Earths.  The "too many chickens in the coup" argument does not have enough urgency to start a new exploration space race. 
There is no "urgency" because it is proven false. Worse there is nothing "out-there" worth spending money and resources on HERE to go out there and get. Whether it be "elbow-room" or gold/platinum asteroids there just isn't sufficent "need" at any level to go get it.

Short of every nation on Earth suddenly being knocked down to low level Third World food and resource production methods nothing is going to cause enough of a "scarcity" issue to push the idea of colonization off Earth as being viable. (And if THAT happens we won't have the capability of doing anything about it anyway)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4411
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #63 on: 05/28/2013 09:08 PM »
Uh, just a minor nit but WVB didn't USE kerolox for his shuttles...

True, that is a minor nit for historians.  The major nit would be in the pointless use today of such toxic propellants.
True to both "nits" :)
Quote
The point still holds that with kerolox launches, at the rate of 900 or so in a year, would not affect the global carbon footprint all that much.  The common wisdom holds that launch costs would reduce in line with the mass production of so many nearly identical rockets.
Agreed in that context though I'd point out that the launch cost thing isn't so linear as one might expect. The whole "3-reusable" stages, at a hundred flights each over the whole program, and you started with a good number of "shuttles" in the first place...
Quote
It has never been the case that the US simply has not had the money or the industrial capacity or the workforce talent to engage in such an endeavor.
Oh but we've been working on that "problem" for several decades now haven't we :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #64 on: 05/28/2013 10:46 PM »
Texas, Florida and California fight hard to fund NASA.

Other states don't care.

It's not a lack of will. It's a lack of NASA jobs in your area.

That's the way the system was set up.

Apollo failed to support the big income states so those big income states will not support NASA.
'Fraid not. You missed quite a few, Mississippi, Alabama, and Utah for example and you seem to ignore the fact that the Apollo program DID in fact "support" and bring a lot of money into the "big" income states during the entire program just like the Shuttle did and SLS is doing. Several states do NOT care and this reflects with their "status" in the place they have in the various groups that actually decide policy. (And before you deride the "input" of the above mentioned states I'll quitely remind you where the EXACT specification for "130-tons" to orbit came from? That's the number the "experts" told the state delegation would REQUIRE SRBs remember :)

No it really IS a lack of will. Along with a lack of resolve and an inability to "see" anything beyond a short-term/near-term money/jobs/votes perspective that has been ALL that NASA and HSF has ever meant to the politicians.

Advocating doesn't do any good because the only thing they take away from such things is "sound-bytes" and "talking-points" that they can spout back and do not have to, (or intend to) do anything with.

In a way this can be a good thing in that without "directed" action and a mandated focus NASA can simply build up capability with slow steady progression. The down side is that eventually there comes a point where both funding and support within the political structure are required to move beyond simply building capability.
Besides, from a purely political point-of-view it is very entertaining to watch the various sub-groups and interests undercut, back-stab, and deride each other when given a public forum. The one thing they do NOT want is a consensus opinion presented...

Randy

Those smaller states are supported by the big ones. Texas and Florida had the find the money for SLS. Nelson and KBH had to fight hard and put their reputations on the line to do that.

It's a recession. Procuring funding for projects that don't create jobs in your state is a bad idea. Texas and Florida get to support SLS in terms of mission design and launch operations.

California has JPL which fights to keep it's planetary missions funded. They don't want their money going to SLS which is what Charlie is trying to do. He'll most likely fail like when he failed to cut Mars funding and Insight was selected under another class and Mars 2020 was announced.

There is a will to do manned BEO exploration just not a way for everybody to keep all their funding for jobs in their state at the same time.

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #65 on: 05/29/2013 08:14 AM »
Surely the New York economy benefited from the construction of the Apollo Lunar Landers at Grumman.

Here is a concept.  The 60s economy really was accelerated by the development of the mainframe computer by IBM.  There was an entirely new industry that had sustainable growth and enabled a government surplus to even be capable of going to the moon.

If this had not happened, there would have been a deficit since we would have simply been attempting to go to the moon during a period of time when a war being conducted (1960-70s).

In order to even afford to go to the moon, there would need to be 10x the number of new inventions to offset the deficit, pay for new government programs (obamacare), sustain a national defense and have new missions for exploration.  With a 35% corporate tax being one of the highest in the world... All new innovations (including non NASA inventions) will wait for lower taxes or simply go to other countries.

It's like I'm saying that we will need 10x innovation to really be able to think about doing anything for exploration.  The last thing the US economy needs is another 200 billion program that is constantly behind schedule and over budget.  budgets seem tk be continuously cycled to emulate a pulse width modulation generator. 


Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4411
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #66 on: 05/29/2013 07:51 PM »
Those smaller states are supported by the big ones. Texas and Florida had the find the money for SLS. Nelson and KBH had to fight hard and put their reputations on the line to do that.
No. In fact quite the opposite in many cases. The "requirement" for 130tons to LEO, that came directly from the Utah delegation and their "experts" statement of the fact that THAT exact requirement would "guarantee" the vehicle would need SRB boosters. Then Nelson and KBH turned around and dropped support for the Utah SRBs in favor of "competing" out the booster contracts with an eye towards Texas, Alabama, or Florida based LRBs. (The infighting was so bad that PACs from Texas and Florida were funneling money into Utah to use against Hatch's reelection) Mississippi normally doesn't care and pretty much depends on the support of Florida to not get their "share" shut down but they came out in support of SRBs which has "tabled" the matter for the moment.

"Finding" funds for the SLS has never been a problem, actually getting the money allocated and released IS a problem.

Quote
It's a recession. Procuring funding for projects that don't create jobs in your state is a bad idea. Texas and Florida get to support SLS in terms of mission design and launch operations.
No this isn't about 'creating' jobs, nor actually about "saving" them, (ATK has yet to rehire any of the SRB workstaff, and they won't until they actually start producting boosters at something resembling the Shuttles rate, in other words probably never) its about money in the right places. Period. It doesn't matter to anyone at this point when of even really "if" anything actually gets built and flys. Mission support and launch operations are actually a VERY small part of the process. Production and assembly is more important but Texas and Florida have a larger percentage of actual NASA as opposed to contactor employees.

Texas and Florida would take a major "hit" if something happened to NASA itself but in the context of actually building and flying the SLS/Orion they would only be minorly effected if it was cancled. The POLITICAL fallout however would be pretty huge (Nelson and KBH et-al would feel the pain) meanwhile the smaller more contractor oriented states would not be much effected because we've ALREADY taken out hits over this.

Pretty much the one thing no one involved wants to happen is for someone to question why NASA hasn't really "done" much since 2011 and why Congress seems ok with that situation.

Quote
California has JPL which fights to keep it's planetary missions funded. They don't want their money going to SLS which is what Charlie is trying to do. He'll most likely fail like when he failed to cut Mars funding and Insight was selected under another class and Mars 2020 was announced.
Actually Bolden hasn't been that aggressive about supporting planetary missions but he's not trying to gut them either. He's had to fight tooth and nail to keep ANY funding going with Congress which I think is rather funny since Griffin and Congress were on opposite sides of the argument when HE ran NASA.

California has the best/worst of both worlds in that it has extensive NASA personnel as well as contractors in the same state. On one hand they want to pump up the contractor work, even if that means limiting the direct sponsored NASA work but on the other hand between NASA and the military they need to keep the funds flowing to keep it flowing to the contractors.

Quote
There is a will to do manned BEO exploration just not a way for everybody to keep all their funding for jobs in their state at the same time.
No there is no POLITICAL will in Washington for actual manned BEO exploration. There is currently little "will" to continue HSF at all. The fact that those in Washington would rather see American astronauts dependent on the Russians for access to space rather than a non-NASA "commercial" (not a "normal" contractor) operator is pretty much proof of that. The whole mess of the SLS/Orion and lack of full funding is another.

In Washington SLS/Orion is THE program and everything else is compared to and contrasted to that metric alone. The Shuttle workforce is pretty much "gone" in all areas, there are no plans to ramp up hireing or make large rehires of employees either NASA or contractor. The current level of funding (or lack thereof) is pretty much seen as the "norm" for the foreseable future because the people in Washington just don't 'care' enough to change it. The only danger to 'jobs' under the present circumstances is not being able to transition from the current "project" to another one should this one be canceled. Given that 90% of the "pain" is already out of the way in that regard, I don't see much chance of a major change coming out of Washington between now and the mid-2020s at least.
("Major change" being an actual Program started or shift in real policy. If SLS/Orion gets canned, there will just be another "program" started with the same funding)

Given how the infighting has now been brought out into the open I probably won't be too surprised if the whole "block" of Congressional control over NASA falls apart in the near future. The sad part is that it won't make any difference in actual support or funding and it won't open up the process enough to allow a major shift in real policy. I'm very much afraid that the result is going to be a very sharp decline in the American space program to the point where HSF for America will be a thing of the past.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #67 on: 05/30/2013 01:04 PM »
...I'd point out that the launch cost thing isn't so linear as one might expect.

Never said it was linear.  The launch cost trendline would be down, and it would accelerate over time, as the economy accomodated the demand of tourists and others.  It is not as important the rate of increasing slope of that cost line.

But anyhow... we're not going anywhere, not even where they say they're aiming.

Until there's a principled grass roots movement on HSF, the political players will struggle with divining and implementing competent and useful exploration concepts.
« Last Edit: 05/31/2013 12:54 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7994
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2709
  • Likes Given: 655
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #68 on: 05/30/2013 09:40 PM »
Fix your quotes..
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? The slowest possible.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4411
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #69 on: 05/30/2013 10:05 PM »
...I'd point out that the launch cost thing isn't so linear as one might expect.
(Fixed, had "qutoe" instead of "quote" just FYI :) )
Quote
Never said it was linear. The launch cost trendline would be down, and it would accelerate over time, as the economy accomodated the demand of tourists and others. It is not as important the rate of increasing slope of that cost line.
I wasn't meaning to imply otherwise actually, I only meant that there were a LOT of "assumptions" in the overall architecture as well as missing a lot of "factors" that didn't occur to the thinking at the time :)
(No "tourists" or others actually, while there was some "assumption" of commercial applications the general "thinking" at the level we're talking about was pretty much "government" program(s) only)

Quote
But anyhow... we're not going anywhere, not even where they say they're aiming.

Until there's a principled grass roots movement on HSF, the political players will struggle with divining and implementing competent and useful exploration concepts.
The political players don't "struggle" at all, that would imply they "care" at all and they generally don't. (As with the general population, the percentage that DO is far to small to be effective even if it WAS organized)

The general problem here is that "grassroots" implies at least a general consensus that is capable of presenting a coherent and united plan/front to the polticians. In general a "grassroots" movement doesn't even have to have a large percentage of the general population involved it just has to be able to grab and maintain enough "attention" (media, political, populist, etc) to be taken seriously. In the end though getting to that point pretty much takes one of two things:
- A lot of money
OR
- A lot of people
(Having both helps of course but overall the former will get you the latter and the latter will get you the former...)

In the case of the first you need to have either access to it from the start or a way to make "investment" attractive to those who have it.
In the second case you either have to keep your "goals-and-vision" generic enough to reach and hold a consensus over the majority of people, or find a way to gather and hold together a coalition of views that are close enough together to keep from falling apart over a long period of time. (Difficult at best)

My thinking for quite a while now has been that Government is obviously not going to ever get the job done. They have no incentive and pretty much every reason imaginable to NOT do so. Commercial is hampered by a lack of incentive in the way of profit opportunities with "Government" servicing being the only one currently available and viable. Even then it would take quite a while to reach the point where the "markets" would be available and grown enough to wean themselves off the government and really, not that much incentive to do so in the short term.

I am feeling that it will probably take an actual NPNGO (Non-Profit-Non-Government-Organization) throwing money "down-the-rat-hole" without regard to actual "return" for an amount of time at each stage (LEO, Cis-Lunar, Lunar, etc) of space development to really get the ball rolling. It is going to definatly take a very long range "vision" and some compelling reasoning to organize, raise-money, lobby, and defend such an organization but since the main REASON for HSF is actually Human Space Flight in and of itself, trying to "justify" or "explain" any other reason ends up falling flat over one point or another.

The "vision" thing is actually prett easy and has been "used" over and over again with little long term results: Spreading Human presence across the Solar System and beyond...

Getting that squeezed down into a "power-point" presentation enough to raise donations and organize around tends to be where everything falls apart due to conflicting plans and visions. That is also a very real problem.

The "idea" would be to take a step:
1) Routine, cheap access to LEO

And basiclly throw money at ALL the solutions till the viable ones come to the surface letting those that "fail" fail but also letting market and economics "prove-out" the real answers in such a way as to make them obvious AND commercially viable. Once that's done you will have built both the market AND the service and can step on to the next step and let matters take their course.

Problem is its going to take a LOT of money and a LOT of failures before the solutions shake themselves out. That's not something that a government or commercial enterprise can do on their own, the field is to broad and the pay-off to distant/obscure.

But I don't really see any other way to DO what is needed...

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #70 on: 05/31/2013 01:14 PM »
Never said it was linear.
...I'd point out that the launch cost thing isn't so linear as one might expect.
(Fixed, ... )

Thanks for the advice and the repair!  Could you two quickly solve the mission prioritization problem too?  Thanx.  Much obliged...

Quote from: JF
Never said it was linear. The launch cost trendline would be down, and it would accelerate over time, as the economy accomodated the demand of tourists and others. It is not as important the rate of increasing slope of that cost line.

Quote from: Randy
I wasn't meaning to imply otherwise actually, I only meant that there were a LOT of "assumptions" in the overall architecture as well as missing a lot of "factors" that didn't occur to the thinking at the time ...

As you mentioned, the USG has no "incentive and pretty much every reason imaginable to NOT do so"; to not support HSF.  It is the functional equivalent of "keeping" humanity in LEO at best.  It is every bit as effective as public law 'xyz' to the same end.  It is only private individuals, 'tourists", if you will, which can break the logjam.  It is tourists walking on Luna, or visiting a ring station who will pay the way.  Photoshopped selfies on a starry background will not pay the way, even on an introductory level.

Until there are people up there, there is no need to grab a rock, fry the water out of it, and have a drink.

Quote from: JF
But anyhow... we're not going anywhere, not even where they say they're aiming.

Until there's a principled grass roots movement on HSF, the political players will struggle with divining and implementing competent and useful exploration concepts.

Quote from: Randy
The political players don't "struggle" at all, that would imply they "care" at all and they generally don't. (As with the general population, the percentage that DO is far to small to be effective even if it WAS organized)

The general problem here is that "grassroots" implies at least a general consensus that is capable of presenting a coherent and united plan/front to the polticians. ...

That is correct.  And as long as the mass media continues to mock any ideas which have not been 'rigorously examined' in the invitation only scientific circles, and released for public consumption, we are simply not going to have a grassroots movement, and will not be going anywhere.

Not invented here.  Move along, move along.
« Last Edit: 05/31/2013 01:15 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4411
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #71 on: 06/03/2013 10:23 PM »
Never said it was linear.
...I'd point out that the launch cost thing isn't so linear as one might expect.
(Fixed, ... )

Thanks for the advice and the repair!  Could you two quickly solve the mission prioritization problem too?  Thanx.  Much obliged...
Oh I did that already! However it has been sent to commitee who are bringing in a panel of "experts" to varify that I can spell my name right before moving on to see if I overused comma's followed by a rigerious test period where they will establish if the paper I used was of the proper quality.... You know this IS Washington we're talking about! There are some sensative behinds that might come into contact with this stuff! ;)

Quote from: JF
As you mentioned, the USG has no "incentive and pretty much every reason imaginable to NOT do so"; to not support HSF.  It is the functional equivalent of "keeping" humanity in LEO at best.  It is every bit as effective as public law 'xyz' to the same end.  It is only private individuals, 'tourists", if you will, which can break the logjam.  It is tourists walking on Luna, or visiting a ring station who will pay the way.  Photoshopped selfies on a starry background will not pay the way, even on an introductory level.
One could actually wish this was something that the USG activily cared enough about to be an issue to them. Unfortunatly, "tourism" has never broken a logjam yet and I am highly doubtful it will do so in this case as well. It is a factor of course, but by itself it simply wouldn't be enough. Someone has to build up the "need" market for humans in space enough to bring the cost down to where many more people could afford to take a "vacation" in space. Moreso there is a direct need for places and activities for those people to go TO in space as well. And I really don't see how that can be a "bootstrapping" activity.

Quote from: JF
Until there are people up there, there is no need to grab a rock, fry the water out of it, and have a drink.
It can be argued that there is a "need" to prove it can be done at all, however there is also an argument that the government isn't really the ones to do it either.
On the gripping hand argument, the government never tends to look at the various intermediate steps from point "A" to point "B" and in this case it could be argued that SOMEONE is at least looking at some of those steps even if the actual mission doesn't ever come off.

Quote from: JF
That is correct.  And as long as the mass media continues to mock any ideas which have not been 'rigorously examined' in the invitation only scientific circles, and released for public consumption, we are simply not going to have a grassroots movement, and will not be going anywhere.

Not invented here.  Move along, move along.
The problem is more than that, the problem is even if the mass media "got-onboard" the general public is still going to dismiss the idea of a major human presence in space unless and until it becomes significantly relevent to the daily life of the avererage person. So far as can be "shown" in any significant way there isn't really a good REASON to put people into space.

The things that effect peoples daily lives in fact do NOT require humans in space and it is very hard to "argue" that there are such reasons when (so far) every one that has been tried has fallen flat in the face of reality.

That's one of the major reasons I'm wondering if it won't take a "different" approach to the subject. Putting people into space not because they are "needed" but because the program is based on putting people into space whether they are "needed" or not. There is no real way to make that a justifiable "goal" from a government or commercial perspective, it doesn't fit the mentality/fiscal model of the former and is not cost effective for the latter but in the end it has so many "uses" both would participate if someone ELSE did it.

We've had similar periods before where something like this has pushed exploration and/or colonization but it has taken a heavy "media-campaign" and a feeling of envolvment within the general public to make it happen. The problem though is those movements weren't sustainable over long periods then and with the current "attention-span" of the general public it would be even more difficult today. Probably worse though is you would not WANT to depend on public attention but a very deep and broad "attention" of public, private, commercial and government all together.

As I noted before I can see a broadly based and commited NGO doing the work necessary to get past the "logjam" we are presently at but the very high start-up costs are daunting to say the least. This is something that I simply can't see getting rolling with anything like a simple "kickstarter" program that's for sure.

Anyone have any ideas?

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #72 on: 06/07/2013 01:19 AM »
Ok... So the OP regards the thoughts and aspirations of sustained BEO missions.  Let's put our focus on some more history.  This is going to be good!

***
Chapter 1:
1903:  Wright Brothers invent the airplane
1903-1914:  United States loses leadership to Europe with the use of aircraft during WWI.
1915:  Congress approves a bill to establish a national advisory committee of aeronautics consisting of 12 members and one employee.  Organization name is NACA.  Objective:  catch up to Europe with aircraft.
..late-1940s:  Technology catch up in aircraft is accomplished.
****
Chapter 2:
1957:  Sputnik is orbiting over the Earth
1958:  Congress passes the National Aeronatics and Space Act to start NASA.
..late 60s-early 70s:  Men walk on the moon, the technology catch up is accomplished.
***

Chapter 3:
Has any other country taken a flight crew beyond low earth orbit???

Reference:
http://history.nasa.gov/naca/overview.html

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #73 on: 06/07/2013 02:41 AM »
Chapter 3:
Has any other country taken a flight crew beyond low earth orbit???

I know you know that the answer is no.

The Chinese are doing their darndest.  They quite realize that more face would be lost in a fatal accident than would be lost in proceeding slowly and cautiously.  So two points for Slytherin.

The problem is more than that, the problem is even if the mass media "got-onboard" the general public is still going to dismiss the idea of a major human presence in space unless and until it becomes significantly relevent to the daily life of the avererage person.

This is the part where I get on my knees and beg to disagree.

The general public has been instructed to mock the idea by the MSM, plain and simple.  They are called sheople for a good reason.  The MSM must do as it is instructed.

Look at the arguments on this forum how the "real" science is in the heist, and how we've been to the Moon already, and there's no scientific "there" there.  The rabbit hole's not all that deep.  It's just that the rabbits have been ritalined into submission.

The only idea that works is the honest idea of colonization, starting with tourism, open to the general public, and paid for by the general public.

The endless discussions about hardware are designed to limit the pragmatic discussion about the validity of tourism.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #74 on: 06/07/2013 04:41 AM »
Chapter 3:
Has any other country taken a flight crew beyond low earth orbit???

I know you know that the answer is no.

The Chinese are doing their darndest.  They quite realize that more face would be lost in a fatal accident than would be lost in proceeding slowly and cautiously.  So two points for Slytherin.

Ha, yes John!   ;D

You and I as well as any other guy would tell you that it doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that we haven't explored beyond earth orbit. 

But we have been stuck using a mouse with three clicky buttons to synthesize complex things that are so over designed it takes five years to prepare for a design review.

And then you have six modes of communication while you design (IM, email, desk phone, cell phone, video chat, and also common face to face yappin).  This communication also includes typing on keyboards so small that only a squirrel with zero skills in human systems integration would appreciate.

Humans have not explored beyond earth orbit.  But somebody is going to need to Google this fact to figure this out. Then they can move onto the next weblink (such as the next video from Beiber or Psy).  The internet is a black hole that prevents progress from the random distractions.

I might propose an idea to the recent national research council survey.  We probably should shut NASA down.  Then start a brand new national advisory council just decide what humans could/should do for space exploration.  Then stick a dozen people in a non-internet connected room with a pencil and paper pad.  Let them sketch out a new space plan in one week. After that, give it to *ONE* employee to do (maybe Bolden).  This person's job is to procure all the materials and resources needed to pull off the plan.  If neatness is paramount, use a typewriter or a stencil to write the plans.

I have supreme confidence that there is no way this group would come up with a 500 billion dollar boondoggle to lasso a boulder in space to return it to lunar orbit (where there are no plans to return).
« Last Edit: 06/07/2013 07:58 AM by RigelFive »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #75 on: 06/07/2013 05:20 PM »
Then stick a dozen people in a non-internet connected room with a pencil and paper pad.  Let them sketch out a new space plan in one week.

Mental apathy works.  I have made this essential proposal some years ago, and began broadcasting it to the mental ether.  Obviously, you have picked up on some of this.

Quote from: Rigel
have supreme confidence that there is no way this group would come up with a 500 billion dollar boondoggle to lasso a boulder in space to return it to lunar orbit...

Well, they are planning on a 50th anniversary redo of Apollo 8, with a sidetrack to the rock.

But that's not the epiphany.

If ya wanna catch a running cow on the prarie, you use a lasso.  The people who do this (known as cowboys for some unknown reason), do not attempt to grapple the 'tumbling' cow.  First, they lasso it, and 'detumble' it using the leverage of 20 to 40 feet of rope.  Then the guy gets off the horse, grapples the cow and brands it.

If you just gots to grab an asteroid, you do it with a lasso.  Here's how:

A.  Find your asteroid [cow] with your Ziltoid fleet.  The rate of tumbling must be accurately characterized and not exceed the capacity of the spacecraft.  The spacecraft matches the orbit of the asteroid, gets close, and opens up a pretty tough netting, attached to a ring thing.  At the open end of the net are gimballed hydrazine thrusters which can open and close the mouth of the net.  Notice that topologically speaking, the net resembles a "bag".  It is designed to actually come into contact with the rock.  The rock must be substantially one piece, and none of its constituent pieces should be able to pass thru the net openings.

Before closure, the spacecraft moves well ahead of the ring thing, deploying its tether.

B.  When the tether is extended to its design length, the net closes upon the asteroid.  This is the actual lassoing of the cow.  Because of its tumbling and its contact with the net, the asteroid/spacecraft system will also start gyrating.  The gimballed thrusters on the spacecraft work continuously to dampen the asteroid and de-tumble it. 

Because of the length of the tether (the lasso) the angle of that gyration is kept pretty small, within the angular limits of the gimbals.

C.  Eventually, within a few hours to days, the asteroid is de-tumbled, the tether retracted appropriately, and the system moves to that extremely safe DRO, missing Moscow, Shanghai, London, and New York by some 200K to 300K miles.

It won't be $500B however.  Using the JWST metric, it could cost $46B.  But I think it could be done for well under $26B.
« Last Edit: 06/08/2013 04:05 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #76 on: 06/08/2013 01:21 AM »
Yes!  Design at its greatest!
« Last Edit: 06/08/2013 01:45 AM by RigelFive »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #77 on: 06/08/2013 04:04 PM »
A bit of reflection reveals that the previous sketch does not illustrate the expected action of the rock and spacecraft accurately.

The rock, outmassing the spacecraft by a goodly amount, will not move in space that much, but the the spacecraft will have to make fairly drastic maneuvers around the sufficiently lazy tumbling asteroid, using the long, flexible moment arm of the net, ring thing, and tether to constantly apply a retarding force to the tumbling asteroid.

The tumble of the asteroid can be described by a rotating ellipse of radial force vectors which will have to be first estimated by the Ziltoid observation sat, and confirmed by the prox ops of the spacecraft.  In addition, the mass of the asteroid would have to be sufficiently accurately characterized by the Ziltoid; again, the spacecraft would determine the mass of the asteroid to a greater accuracy, in order to calculate the forces and vectors needed for detumbling along its orbit.

The gimballed thrusters of the spacecraft could then be instructed to de-tumble the asteroid.

Budget so far? Well under a billion.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 942
  • Likes Given: 663
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #78 on: 06/08/2013 05:35 PM »
How do you get the depicted moment arm with a tether? Rigid boom is required, otherwise the comet cow just winds up your tether around itself like a ball of yarn. And if cow's rotation axis points towards your spacecraft?
« Last Edit: 06/08/2013 05:41 PM by R7 »
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #79 on: 06/08/2013 09:20 PM »
I'm thinking the time required to stop tumbling will be too short. You're going to have to approach with such a slow velocity and angular velocity in order to prevent an impact.  It will be better to just land on the thing/cow.
 :-X

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #80 on: 06/09/2013 03:16 PM »
How do you get the depicted moment arm with a tether? Rigid boom is required, otherwise the comet cow just winds up your tether around itself like a ball of yarn. And if cow's rotation axis points towards your spacecraft?

Whoah!  Such artistry!  I am... well... cowed.

Cereally, the problem is tumbling.  In the released video of the "official" heist, they illustrate the bag slowly rotating, matching the rotation of the rock.  In one plane.  Perpendicular to the orbit vector.  They make it look as easy as "2001", when the shuttle approaches the ring station.  They forgot to play "Blue Danube";  the ring station is cooperatively rotating in essentially one plane at one rpm.  The rock is tumbling, an issue which they gloss over.

When I mention a "lazy" asteroid, it is one that tumbles in as few planes as possible, at a leisurely rate.  The Ziltoid fleet is to be tasked with finding that rock.  From a Drake equation standpoint, it seems to be doable.  There are over a hundred million "unique" conference table sized asteroids, of which, no doubt, there are many, many, many of them which slowly tumble, and are on a timely path which very nearly already puts them in a safe lunar DRO.

BTW: The Keck paper wisely does not include the costs of finding that rock, nor the timeliness of that search.  Obviously, NASA's expected funding stability over the next two decades is a given, so the Keck cost and schedule assumptions are already verified.  Clearly, due to the vast number of unique candidates, they appear to be already planning on de-spinning only, not de-tumbling.

But anyhow, In my first sketch, mentioned in passing, but not detailed by even my liberal standards, the net closure thingy is adjustable.  It can grab the cow lightly or tightly, to avoid the yo-yo effect you so ably illustrate.

I'm thinking that it's a one piece cow, not an aggregate of dessicated cow poop.  OTOH, were the net tightly woven it might be expected to grab an aggregate based cow.  In some ways, this would make de-tumbling easier, assuming adequate net strength, because of the internal friction of the aggregate, and the jostling and rubbing together of the pieces.  But I haven't modeled on that assumption.

The net at first, must be able to accomodate the abrasion of the rock twirling around in it.  Not mentioned, but briefly considered in the shadows of my mind, is the need for the S/C to engage in some interseting gyrating prox op maneuvers, as it maneuvers around the cow, attempting to mimic the tumble.

Not shown in my sketches are the PV panels which power the Hall thrusters.  I will have to address this in another sketch, I'm afraid.  The panels will also have to be gimballed to aim at the sun, while the S/C makes its gyrations around the cow.

The Keck Kids pretend to have already solved this problem by folding the PV panels during the time period of de-tumbling.  Not clear in their paper, is where the power comes from to expel the necessary xenon to detumble the rock, while the panels are folded.  The mission limits the "rotation" of the lazy rock to one rotation every ten minutes.  They do suggest a Stewart platform, however.

The lazy cow specification works to the advantage of the net-based capture approach, particularly regarding tether length, which I'm tentatively thinking would only be 1000 yards, not 1000 meters.  Another cost savings.  Ahem. 

May we have the next slide, please?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #81 on: 06/09/2013 03:26 PM »
I'm thinking the time required to stop tumbling will be too short. You're going to have to approach with such a slow velocity and angular velocity in order to prevent an impact.  It will be better to just land on the thing/cow.

First, a couple of corrections:  You did spell "ocho" correctly, but you misspelled "Junio".  And after the year 2013, you forgot to put the notation ARSH.

Second, a technical note:  You appear to have used a "3 hole standard" tripartite black hole generator, gracing the left hand vertical edge of your sketch.  Out of curiosity, what hardware are you using?  I am using an Acco "Mutual 27", which is capable of manufacturing seven or three hole standard black holes.

Third, it's hard to argue against your tentative conclusion of reducing the expected S/C properties to zero.  Could you run the numbers again, I would ask.  If you can get them into the negative range, the mission would pay for itself.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #82 on: 06/10/2013 07:14 AM »
Ok.

So your lasso is now in preliminary design.  Sailed thru a first level gauntlet of technical review...

Without tripping up anything too proprietary... Lets just assume you can use mountain climbing equipment for the tether.

Off the shelf kernmantle rope is used for mountain climbing.  It has a nylon core that is protected by a schmancy colored exterior (great for protecting the structure from the elements... especially all of the cow manure)

Linear mass runs you 66 grams per meter with a 10 mm diameter.  Load capability is 27 kN (or 6000 pounds if you prefer to use the Queen's units).

A 1 kilometer long tether will give you 66 kg of rope for one line.  How many lines will you need to catch the cow?  If you use six, then there is a possibility of some music playing like some kind of an astroguitar or something.   Blues rothers played Rawhide in the key of G.

If you have too many ropes, there is a chance you an arrange the S/C and cow to make orbiting rope patterns like the finger string game Cat's Cradle.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4411
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #83 on: 06/12/2013 08:33 PM »
Ok... So the OP regards the thoughts and aspirations of sustained BEO missions.  Let's put our focus on some more history.  This is going to be good!

***
Chapter 1:
1903:  Wright Brothers invent the airplane
1903-1914:  United States loses leadership to Europe with the use of aircraft during WWI.
1915:  Congress approves a bill to establish a national advisory committee of aeronautics consisting of 12 members and one employee.  Organization name is NACA.  Objective:  catch up to Europe with aircraft.
..late-1940s:  Technology catch up in aircraft is accomplished.
****
Chapter 2:
1957:  Sputnik is orbiting over the Earth
1958:  Congress passes the National Aeronatics and Space Act to start NASA.
..late 60s-early 70s:  Men walk on the moon, the technology catch up is accomplished.
***

Chapter 3:
Has any other country taken a flight crew beyond low earth orbit???

Reference:
http://history.nasa.gov/naca/overview.html

Don't push those analogies TOO far now, they break easily :)

While NACA started with one employee it quickly grew to encompase several dozen research laboratories as well as including commercial and university research as well.

NASA started OUT pretty big because it was thought that an "Agency" would have much more clout and ability to work out interpersonal and inter-office issues more easily.

We took flight crews "beyond Earth Orbit" for specific reasons tied to a specific program and have never done so since because there is no political or public will to do so and no definable "need" to do so. Making another "agency" won't help with the core issue which is lack of general support for human space activity specifically.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4411
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #84 on: 06/12/2013 09:00 PM »
The problem is more than that, the problem is even if the mass media "got-onboard" the general public is still going to dismiss the idea of a major human presence in space unless and until it becomes significantly relevent to the daily life of the avererage person.

This is the part where I get on my knees and beg to disagree.
Please don't its un-dignified and makes my neck hurt from looking down to much :)

Quote
The general public has been instructed to mock the idea by the MSM, plain and simple.  They are called sheople for a good reason.  The MSM must do as it is instructed.
The general public does in fact NOT "mock" human space flight in general and only "mock" plans and dreams for colonization or settelment of outers space because they see no benifit or need for doing so at this time. This is "egged" on by MSM but for the same reason that they don't see any benifit or need either.

The general public is "excited" by pictures brought home by space probes and the exotic sights of far of worlds, galaxies and stars but those images do no directly effect or influance their daily lives so there is little incentive to make space exploration (and especially human exploration) a priority. When asked people are always eager to "support" manned space flight and exploration but when pressed can not find reasonable justifications for expanding what is being done or doing large and expensive programs to "settle" space. It is just not something that effects their daily lives and priorities. This is the major issue involved.

They are called "sheeple" mostly by folks who do not understand general motivational and priority hierarchy needs and instead try to apply THEIR thinking to the mass when their "thinking" is not "main-stream" and/or able to influance the majority population. "Space cadets" are a very minor portion of the world population and need to understand and work WITH this fact rather than assuming that the majority of people are simply to stupid to "get-it".

Quote
Look at the arguments on this forum how the "real" science is in the heist, and how we've been to the Moon already, and there's no scientific "there" there.  The rabbit hole's not all that deep.  It's just that the rabbits have been ritalined into submission.
The "argument" is more often than not simply being rehashed and redefined as needed to CONTINUE to argue about it. Simply put? NASA has no funding or political support from ANYONE to go back to the Moon so they have written it off as part of their planning. Totally rational given the circumstances. An asteroid rendevous was suggested as a political goal but we don't have the capability to pull it off. So when someone suggest bringing an asteroid to us instead and in doing so we can actually ramp up and test out some capability enhancing hardware why NOT jump at the chance? Since it has to wait on the politically "mandated" HLV and manned vehicle anyway it won't hurt to plan the operation and in fact it might help with some commercial aspects of space flight which have taken a bunch of its of late due to politics.

Going back to the Moon is a POLITICAL argument and it will only be solved with a political consensus. One that has for the past 40+ years been distinctly LACKING at all levels. Going back to the Moon in a meaningful way and planning a permanent presence or settlement is simply not a political consideration and won't be unless and until it becomes something a large segment of the population want. Without that backing we'll just go back to repeating a somewhat expanded Apollo program and then end up right back where we stared... Again.

Quote
The only idea that works is the honest idea of colonization, starting with tourism, open to the general public, and paid for by the general public.
Being "honest" the idea of colonization or settlement can only become reality when and if the public in general feels an ability and need to "buy" into such a program. Tourism is limited and so far as I've seen has histoically not been able to 'bootstrap" colonization, it CAN increase public awareness though and it is possible it COULD lead to utilizations of space and or outer space resources that CAN instigate a public support campaign but nothing I've seen so far points to tourism being anything more than simple, one-off, limited, "experiance" trips which will not open the types of exploitatioin that is needed to gain massive public buy in. I'd love to be wrong but so far it just isn't being talked about or advocated within the tourism community.

Quote
The endless discussions about hardware are designed to limit the pragmatic discussion about the validity of tourism.
Designed by whom? The major issue with tourism is the hardware isn't available and especially problematical is that fact that the "tourism" ideas so far have been significantly limited both by the lack of hardware and the lack or interest in "tourism-interests" in paying to GET the needed hardware and capability in place.

If you or anyone else has a "pragmatic" tourism discussion that leads to colonization I'd love to hear/read it because the reality is there isn't anyone actually doing so at the moment.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4411
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #85 on: 06/12/2013 09:09 PM »
On tumbling control, I don't know but we spent quite a bit of time, money and effort on studies between 1970 and the late 80s on various methods of using "equipment" aboard the Shuttle to "de-tumble" a space station in case of an accident so it could dock and rescue the crew. That seems a good place to start...

(That is of course if it hasn't all been "removed" in the name of national security :) )

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #86 on: 06/13/2013 02:22 PM »
Ok.

So your lasso is now in preliminary design.  Sailed thru a first level gauntlet of technical review... 

Glad you asked!

A: Today's notion is that there is a hexagonal capture mechanism at the end of the net.  In order to put a hex on a cow, the hex needs to be strong and it needs to be able to fly in formation, pulling the net behind it.  The tether can be simply coiled, and will readily uncoil. Sorry, don't care about the mass or its manufacturer's specification at the moment.  Such a tether and such a net can be designed for the application.  As to mass, we have 18 tons to play with, the capacity of an Atlas 551 to LEO.

B: There are two reasons to have the hex fly in formation.  One, to effect the lasso.  Two, to release it should there be tumbling issues.

The bag is better than the net in that it simply needs to be reliably deployed around the cow, and doesn't need the complexity of flying in formation.

I point out that technology development is always a point of these sorts of unmanned missions.  There is a choice in which technology should be developed.  In my view, the lasso/net approach is more scalable than the bag approach.

However, the bag does serve the well known NASA predilection for one-off designs, which serves the well known political principle of always rising pork prices.  There are never, by design, cost reductions in pork projects.  Live and don't learn is the principle at hand.

In addition, there is the stated political directive from the President himself:  Thou shalt only do it once.  There will never be another asteroid mission after the current one.  Of course, I think that the allure of people in space is exactly the opposite of that parochial viewpoint, but hey.

In the next century, if we're allowed off planet, we might be able to manufacture O-Neil cylinders in the vicinity of the belt, mining larger asteroids, and leaving a trail of powder in the wake.  There will have to be a better way to grab rocks.

C: Side view of the hex fleet surrounding the cow.

D: The hex must be very strong; the connecting tabls must also be strong and easily latched and unlatched.  Not shown are the re-fillable hydrazine tanks used to fuel the notional thrusters in the illustration.

Later, I'll re-purpose my Unpressurized Deployable Hanger (R) (UDH (R)), for purposes of cow capture.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #87 on: 06/13/2013 02:36 PM »
The general public does in fact NOT "mock" human space flight in general and only "mock" plans and dreams for colonization or settelment of outers space because they see no benifit or need for doing so at this time. This is "egged" on by MSM...

The sheople do not care all that much about HSF in LEO.  But the meme that even a lunar base is a type of colony is the meme that the MSM promulgates.  Plus the MSM gets completely behind the President, who prononces that BTDT is the only issue regarding HSF that should be strictly followed.

Quote from: Randy
They are called "sheeple" mostly by folks who do not understand general motivational and priority hierarchy needs and instead try to apply THEIR thinking to the mass when their "thinking" is not "main-stream" and/or able to influance the majority population. "Space cadets" are a very minor portion of the world population and need to understand and work WITH this fact rather than assuming that the majority of people are simply to stupid to "get-it".

Spelling is at least one strong point of mine.

They are called sheople.

Even so, yur resoning is incomplet. The do not beleve anythin but whut they are told 2 buleve. That why the r sheep. HSF no big deel.

Quote from: Randy
The "argument" is more often than not simply being rehashed and redefined as needed to CONTINUE to argue about it.

I do agree that they like to argue for the sake of argument, and not for the sake of accomplishment.

Quote from: JF
The endless discussions about hardware are designed to limit the pragmatic discussion about the validity of tourism.

Quote from: Randy
Designed by whom? ...

Bigelow and SpaceX and others have designed hardware.  You know this.

Quote from: Randy
If you or anyone else has a "pragmatic" tourism discussion that leads to colonization I'd love to hear/read it because the reality is there isn't anyone actually doing so at the moment.

We know about that reality. You also know about the plethora of discussions even on this site about tourism.

Not at all clear where you stand. 

You like the heist, I assume?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4411
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #88 on: 06/14/2013 03:02 AM »
The general public does in fact NOT "mock" human space flight in general and only "mock" plans and dreams for colonization or settlement of outer space because they see no benefit or need for doing so at this time. This is "egged" on by MSM...

The sheople do not care all that much about HSF in LEO. But the meme that even a lunar base is a type of colony is the meme that the MSM promulgates. Plus the MSM gets completely behind the President, who pronounces that BTDT is the only issue regarding HSF that should be strictly followed.
People do not care at all about HSF in LEO, that was a "yawn" thing back in the early 60s. There is actually a general understanding both inside MSM and the general population that a Lunar Base does NOT equal a colony, nor does it necessarily lead to settlement of any type. The problem is that NASA HAS "BTDT" and the fact that the major "advocates" of a return-to-the-moon (non-politicians) ARE "selling" it as the first step in colonization or settlement. The general public has no "reason" to buy into such a scheme nor are they willing to pay for it. Any argument explaining more short/long-term reasoning, (ISRU for expanded space flight, extended science and looking for lunar applications, etc) gets lost in the noise.

The MSM gets just as excited as anyone else when "New Space" does something new. There has been about as much negative press about the asteroid mission and/or capture as positive, both tend to die down quickly because nothing is being done in any case. People in general get excited with the pictures from Mars and other various space probes but they are pretty bored with anything like LEO and the ISS. Space-X and Orbital are making some headlines now but once it becomes "routine" it will fade into the background again.

Again the major problem is that the public have NO "buy-in" to make space or HSF "worth" being a priority for them.
Quote
Quote from: Randy
They are called "sheeple" mostly by folks who do not understand general motivational and priority hierarchy needs and instead try to apply THEIR thinking to the mass when their "thinking" is not "main-stream" and/or able to influence the majority population. "Space cadets" are a very minor portion of the world population and need to understand and work WITH this fact rather than assuming that the majority of people are simply to stupid to "get-it".

Spelling is at least one strong point of mine.

They are called sheople.
You are correct I apologize and stand corrected.
Quote
Even so, yur resoning is incomplet. The do not beleve anythin but whut they are told 2 buleve. That why the r sheep. HSF no big deel.
No my reasoning is quite complete, I understand it is much easier to believe that everything is simple and there is no such thing as complex social dynamics and that the majority of people who don't happen to agree with ones point of view are brain dead. However the truth is much more complex and in order to have any chance of effecting change one must face it squarely and admit it or you have already failed before you begin.

The MAJORITY of people do not see a "reason" or "need" for colonization or settlement in space or any of the planets or moons. Without such a "reason" that impacts their daily lives and makes such efforts a "priority" of some type in their decision making process there will never be any large scale support for such endeavors. Find a 'reason' and take that argument before the people and you will change their minds. Cling to the incorrect notion that everyone but "you" are "sheople" and nothing will ever change. Self fulfilling prophecy at work.


Quote from: Randy
The "argument" is more often than not simply being rehashed and redefined as needed to CONTINUE to argue about it.
Quote
I do agree that they like to argue for the sake of argument, and not for the sake of accomplishment.

That's pretty much the endemic problem with "space advocacy" in general in that everyone has a "plan" that is sure-fire and as long as anyone proposes any OTHER plan everyone works to make sure "they" fail to achieve anything. Works great for the folks who don't WANT anything accomplished. They sit back and pick and choose sound bytes, nod their heads and agree on cue and then shrug their shoulders because they can't find any "consensus" to follow.

Accomplishing something would take some "compromise" and cooperation, give and take on both sides but that seems to be a forgotten concept. I'm probably just as guilty as anyone else because I "know" what needs to be done but am in a position where it is difficult at best to FIND a ... (Ok, that came out as "compromising position" which is ENTIRELY not where I was planning on going with that statement... )

Lets just say that compromise is difficult when you are advocating we go "back" to simply getting to orbit often and cheaply in general while advocating that NASA get OUT of the surface-to-orbit business entirely and get planning on going "out" there instead.
(Better I think...)
Quote
Quote from: JF
The endless discussions about hardware are designed to limit the pragmatic discussion about the validity of tourism.

Quote from: Randy
Designed by whom? ...

Bigelow and SpaceX and others have designed hardware. You know this.
Ahh yes but the way it was written made it seem as though the "endless discussion" was what had been "designed" which is what I wanted to clarify. Thanks :)

Quote
Quote from: Randy
If you or anyone else has a "pragmatic" tourism discussion that leads to colonization I'd love to hear/read it because the reality is there isn't anyone actually doing so at the moment.

We know about that reality. You also know about the plethora of discussions even on this site about tourism.

Not at all clear where you stand.
The "reality" is the main issue I think as of yet the discussion has been very "hopeful" rather than "pragmatic" for the most part. There have been many and varied discussion on these forums among others and there is, still no 'consensus' on the actual practicality of space tourism to be self funding let alone bootstrap space colonization.

My opinion is that the assumption must be made that access price and availability must be drastically cut for the former and increased for the latter in order for "tourism" to become self funding. This in turn will open up new areas of research and development as the economics of space access become more viable for such areas and in turn will increase public and private interest and investment.

But hauling millionaires back and forth will not do the job and will not bring the needed benefits and until "tourism" is opened to a large segment of the population in both price and availability it is going to only be a "niche" business at best.

The caveat here is this is something that Government in general and NASA specifically can not do because of a lack of incentive and motivation to reduce the cost of access to space. As long as a few dozen government employees are going back and forth a year there is no reason for the government to encourage savings.

Worse I think is that for Orbital Tourism to be successful there will be a need for a "destination" fitted and catering to tourists. This will not be and cannot be the ISS and must be a separate destination aimed specifically at the tourist/non-government market. The ISS is currently the "only" destination in LEO and being under government control their needs will always take precedent over commercial/private concerns. Bigelow has always said they are NOT going for the tourism market but are looking to currently non-space capable "government" as customers.

This is actually a good business decision because tourist would not put up with or pay the needed monies for what Bigelow is offering. (It's worse than a summer cabin rental because not only do you have to bring everything you need live and work for the stay but you have to do all your own maintenance and up keep yourself. That's NOT an incentive for tourists)

Space-X is looking at a similar situation and will pretty much depend on Bigelow or someone else putting up the "station" and then buying a "servicing/taxi" contract from them. (There is of course the possibility that Elon will decide to put his "own" station up be it a Bigelow module or someone else but I'm not sure he has THAT much of a cash flow and he will end up with the same "problem" of attracting customers)

There is on the other hand some "hope" that DragonLab can get some traction in the commercial sector. A huge issue with the ISS for experimental research is the fact that it's manned and in such a low orbit. People moving around and thrust pushes tend to ruin a lot of experiments far short of their optimum goal. This has limited the amount of research and development capability that can be explored on the ISS and has caused several experiments to be postponed or shut down until another solution is available. Similarly a small "Genesis" type man-tended module could be orbited and outfitted for automated research with similar values.

Again though, the main driver is going to be cost and availability of access. The more available and cost effective access to orbit is the more there will be incentive to use it and the more it will impact the daily lives of the population.

I don't know if that helps "clarify" my position, but feel free to ask more specific questions if you want :)

Quote
You like the heist, I assume?
I "like" anything that builds a capability we don't already have. However I would RATHER that it wasn't an "either/or" thing and that NASA was also building LEO fuel depots and a reusable interplanetary ship in orbit and not depending entirely on the SLS/Orion combination to be the "end-all/be-all" space transportation system that it is ending up being.

NASA does not in my opinion actually NEED a vehicle such as Orion. (I would normally argue that they could do without the SLS but that's a political argument I can't actually touch, besides an HLV can be handy :)) Orion is "designed" around direct flights "to" BLEO and back and that's not what I see as being "needed" by NASA or the US-HSF program. We should have moved beyond the direct out-and-back method decades ago with the Shuttle. Orbital assembly is not easy but then again we haven't really been working to MAKE it easier and less costly. Again, government programs and agencies don't have an "incentive" to do so.

Once astronauts are in LEO they should be transferring to dedicated space ships for operations, not re-doing Apollo on every flight. We had "good" reasons for doing things the way we did for Apollo as there wasn't any "in-space-infrastructure" to be used but we HAVE moved on since then. The ISS may not be a "perfect" space station but at least it IS one and we should use it AS one. (My preference would be to have a couple more at least, smaller and in different orbits for different needs but, again that's not something that any government or agency has incentive to do)

Most of the arguments against NASA fully utilizing commercial cargo and crew fall into two categories; Those that think that NASA and only NASA should provide surface to orbit services and those that think that C3 is a "danger" to the SLS/Orion and should be shut down to save money for that program.

The first I have no hope of convincing or arguing with because their "stance" is one that obviously sees HSF as a government only proposition and that it should never be anything else but that. To the second I'd argue that C3 is only a "danger" to SLS as long as it is "assumed" that SLS/Orion will in the end be used for only servicing the ISS. Supposedly SLS/Orion is being designed to support BLEO operations and therefore will never "compete" with C3 for ISS servicing and the politicians that argue that the two ARE competing are so full of feces their eyes are brown...

I'd also point out that we are currently paying the Russians to send out astronauts into space and far fewer than C3 plans on servicing and "we" and those in Washington do not seem to have any issues with THAT "commercial" service. (And considering the government has mandated that neither the DoD nor any agency OTHER than NASA procure services or goods from a NON-AMERICAN company if at all possible pretty much blows most of the "government" arguments out of the water from the start)

Finally I'd argue that NASA NEEDS to get out of the Earth-to-LEO business because it has SO "BTDT" by a huge margin more than it has with the Moon. There is simply no reason other than politics for NASA to continue to "reserve" the need to simply put astronauts into space. Yes the current "market" for commercial orbital services consists of "NASA" itself but this is somewhat similar to the original satellite market being that the DoD and government were the "sole" market at first.

And even though there is no government "incentive" to ever suppose that HSF will be anything BUT government owned and operated the very possibility that there can and will be possible incentives and motivations to allow such in the future. Enough that opposition makes little sense IF one can get past the current mental block that HSF equal Government space flight and nothing else.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #89 on: 06/14/2013 03:02 PM »
Quote from: JF
You like the heist, I assume?

I "like" anything that builds a capability we don't already have.

So you like the heist.  I don't.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #90 on: 06/14/2013 09:52 PM »
I want Mars but I'll accept that the rocket is too early and the technology isn't going to be developed.

The Obama plan fell flat and the money went to SLS/Orion.

SLS shouldn't even have been designed before 2015.

The advances in technology NASA could have made by now with the money spent on design cycles boggles the mind.

The best use of this technology is to visit the Lunar surface.

The problem with anything related to asteroids is that NASA doesn't want to spend the money on detection. There's no way they'd be willing to send a $3b ARM spacecraft out blind. That's just crazy talk. The time taken to detect then retrieve will be immense. Saying they can have the rock by EM-2 is very optimistic even with the snail pace of SLS development. SLS/Orion can't just sit around doing nothing or flying to Lunar orbit and back, that's a poor return on investment.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4411
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #91 on: 06/20/2013 03:28 PM »
Quote from: JF
You like the heist, I assume?

I "like" anything that builds a capability we don't already have.

So you like the heist.  I don't.
Let's be clear... I "like" the capability the "heist" entails, I however do NOT like the fact that the majority of HSF for the next several years is aimed at simply "waiting" for an automated system to bring back an asteroid so we can "visit" is because we don't have the infrastructure or capability to go outside Cis-Lunar space on manned missions. I don't like that we are "skipping" over returning to the Moon because we don't have the infrastructure and capability to support more frequent "Missions" than once every three years... Maybe...

I most definatly do not 'like' the fact that American HSF is being held back by short-sighted politics and a lack of cohesion within what should be the spaceflight advocate "community" which prefers in-fighting and back-stabbing to getting anything actually "done" and I especially do not "like" the fact that it is most likely going to be more than a half-a-century before humans once again set foot on a new world, let alone the one we set foot on then.

In fact it could be said that I in fact HATE the current "status" along with "plans" for American HSF in that other than a very few ideas which actually built up incrimental capability with an eye towards future goals and missions, everything has been forced to be focused on what we "can" do with what we have. I want the capability to go anywhere, anytime we want. And we COULD do that given the right focus and funding but neither of those is likely given the consistant lack of guidance available to, or given to those actually in charge of American HSF.

And most annoying is this seems to be perfectly acceptable to those in charge because it means they like those "options" and would rather not have any others. The fact that this simply keeps the "community" divided and unable to support ANYTHING in a coherent manner is a bonus to this.

I suppose not that it matters at this point since it would seem the "heist" has been canceled due to having its funding not approved. On the other hand I don't see funding for anything else OTHER than SLS/Orion as probably coming through either.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #92 on: 06/20/2013 03:32 PM »
And most annoying is this seems to be perfectly acceptable to those in charge because it means they like those "options" and would rather not have any others. The fact that this simply keeps the "community" divided and unable to support ANYTHING in a coherent manner is a bonus to this.

Two theories:  Deliberately or incompetently kept on planet.  Government only.  Gotta tentative take on that? 
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #93 on: 06/23/2013 11:27 PM »
#asteroidheist

Today's thinking on establishing a graphic framework to present prox ops on the heist.  Previous sketch found at:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31777.msg1063444#msg1063444
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #94 on: 07/03/2013 05:48 AM »
In full belief of the Cow catching concept. 

If NASA were to implement missions with less specificity, perhaps they could stir more interest?

Rather than going to a specific object (asteroid, moon, mars) perhaps the concept of missions to determine answers to questions would be more appropriate.

So rather than having Apollo as a mission to the moon, what we really had was over fifty years to "demonstrate human exploration in space".  Mission accomplished (now we have astronauts riding Russian launchers... But the ISS will be decomissioned eventually.).

Next mission is to "demonstrate robotic exploration".  Mission is soon to be accomplished... (New Horizons will be the end cap in the mission in a few years).

So if this pardigm continues, the mission to "discover life in space" or "determine the origin of life" might be subsequent objective. 

What other missions of great paradigms are there?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4411
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #95 on: 07/25/2013 06:21 PM »
Sorry John I actually didn't see this reply until now :)

And most annoying is this seems to be perfectly acceptable to those in charge because it means they like those "options" and would rather not have any others. The fact that this simply keeps the "community" divided and unable to support ANYTHING in a coherent manner is a bonus to this.

Two theories:  Deliberately or incompetently kept on planet.  Government only.  Gotta tentative take on that? 
My "tentative" take is "incompetently" because there's no real "reason" to keep Americans chained to this planet. Reality is quite clear that currently there isn't a damn thing "out-there" worth the time, effort, or money to go out and get. I characterize the effort as “incompetent” simply because it is not anything “personal” or a specific “agenda” but more the side-effects of the political process and the lack of any significant “markets” that could be exploited by private enterprise. With no general “incentive” to go out there and work, and live the various “reasons” for a government manned space program let alone a civilian one are very, very flimsy at best.

Yet the "truth" is simply that the only GOOD reason for manned space flight is to learn to live and work in space in preparation for permanently inhabiting that environment. If you read the SAA's for the last couple of decades the WORDING clearly points to that being supposedly understood by the Government. Yet the wording is not backed up by political support or action. There is no actual incentive, no interest, or support for building a permanent manned space effort. “Space” is of little interest to politicians and only sparks occasional spikes in interest with the general public. “Space Colonization” still has far too much of a “giggle-factor” attached to it to be taken seriously.

So “Manned Space Flight” is simply seen as an extension of what economic and political factors it influences here on Earth and no thought is given beyond that to it for the most part. The occasional “political” squabble over territory, money, or “power” drives the majority of decisions with little or no thought or regard as to the “end” goal or long term effect. The thought process that is endemic to the current situation regards Manned Space Flight is simple: HSF both BEGINS and ENDS on Earth, therefore anything that requires resources and money to be spent for “off-Earth” equipment, infrastructure, or support is very difficult to justify. ISRU while it could save money and increase productivity of manned missions beyond LEO is by this thought process of little value because it ends up building and deploying equipment that in the end will simply be abandoned because there is no thought towards manned presence in “space” as being anything permanent. Again “Earth” is the FINAL destination of all efforts under the “logic” assumed here.

The ISS is in fact a very good example of this. It was not designed to be or ever intended to be “permanent” and in fact has already been “extended” beyond its original end-of-operations date. The fact that Congress has specifically extended its “lifetime” and also declared it a “National Laboratory” is very much proof that they do not wish to “move-on” to anything else. They HAVE what they want and until and unless it catastrophically falls apart they will continue to insist it be used. And as long as every “mission” ends up with the people coming back to Earth this fits quite nicely into the “logic” of the moment.

That same “logic” dictates the on-again/off-again support for civil space efforts in that it doesn’t matter what “civilian” space does as much as how it affects the territory/money/power in ascendance at the moment. Which is why government “support” runs hot and cold with seemingly little consistency even from the same politician! There is not “long-term” view in this thought process only the very short term and THAT can and does change moment by moment.
It also clearly shows in the efforts to “politicize” and contrast efforts that SHOULD be seen logically as supporting rather than conflicting, (best example being the SLS-vs-Fuel Depots argument) because the very nature of the “conflict” is over Earth-based power struggles rather than discussion or thought to how or even if BOTH “sides” would affect the overall “goal” of a permanent human presence in space.

The ONLY way to change this situation is to find a way to fundamentally change the prevailing attitude and thought process on “space” into one more orientated towards supporting a true permanent presence of humans living and working, (and yes, being born, loving, dying and all the rest of the “normal” human  condition) in space.
Frankly that’s going to take a major effort AND a “breakthrough” in finding a politically and socially “sound” reason for politicians and the general public to change their current mind-set.

We currently have nothing to work with and it is going to take time, effort, money and resources to make those changes. Something “space” can’t be shown to provide currently and which is not very available on Earth.
I again point out that it probably will take something beyond a “simple” government or private program that will be willing and able to throw money down the rathole until something DOES come along to provide the motivation for change. Something with very long range vision and the commitment to put humans into space despite the economics and difficulty.

Any ideas of where to start the process?

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #96 on: 07/31/2013 01:45 PM »
My "tentative" take is "incompetently" because there's no real "reason" to keep Americans chained to this planet.

Again, there is at least one good reason to "keep" people on planet.  Should an off-planet democratic republican government come to be, where the people are mostly highly intelligent, and able to live and manufacture space faring equipment, it would be seen as a threat to terrestrial governments.  Virtually all of the terrestrial governments depend upon large pools of semi-skilled, poorly educated labor forces for their very existence.

It would be a conflict between two vastly different civilizations.

Best not to let that happen.

Quote from: Randy
The occasional “political” squabble over territory, money, or “power” drives the majority of decisions with little or no thought or regard as to the “end” goal or long term effect.

A bit of a nit, in that it's not "occasional", it's "around the clock".

But still, the incompetence of greed is also a good reason, and is easily manipulated by powers behind the throne.  My problem, amongst many others, is that I cannot tell the difference, and the end result is the same for both explanations.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #97 on: 07/31/2013 01:46 PM »
Any ideas of where to start the process?

Oh yeah.  My PMP demo mission.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #98 on: 07/31/2013 01:49 PM »
In full belief of the Cow catching concept.

No question but that the principle of lasooing a cow is sound.  The questions are, when and how.  When, is much later in the HSF drama than is currently proposed.  And how, seems to me at least, to be with a net, not a bag.

I have started another sketch; will have to resist the posting on the policy pages, but it is hard for me, since there is so much bachelor of science being spouted on those threads.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #99 on: 08/02/2013 03:50 AM »
Yes John, I think you and I have brought some attention and good fundamental technical truthiness to the asteroid cow catching craze.  Catching a cow is too simple.  Lori Garver wants NASA to go after something larger!!!

Holy multiple degrees of freedom Batman here we go!  WOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOO!

What could we possibaaaaly call something that is larger than a cow?

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/36482nasa’s-garver-floats-idea-of-capturing-larger-asteroid#.UfsrhRYTvjA

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8078
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 247
  • Likes Given: 94
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #100 on: 08/02/2013 08:57 AM »
{snip}
What could we possibaaaaly call something that is larger than a cow?

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/36482nasa’s-garver-floats-idea-of-capturing-larger-asteroid#.UfsrhRYTvjA

Learn to control a cow before tackling a stampede.

The first mission should be a small asteroid that will do no harm when the mission goes wrong.  After a successful mission a larger vehicle can be sent to catch a dangerous rock and divert it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #101 on: 08/02/2013 01:05 PM »
Did I not read somewhere that there is consideration being given to capturing a 100m rock?  Can't find the link at the moment.

However, Mr. Gerstenmaier appears to have been instructed to  down size the heist by an order of magnitude.

The USG is in the process of stating its *cough* need *cough* for the resources available in a one (count 'em) meter rock.

The mission requirements are clearly technical difficulty for the sake of demonstrating technical prowess.  The reasoning for the mission is self referential, with the Presoident's arbitrary direction offered as justification. 

BTW, the PD explanation is a red herring designed to cow the sheople,  so to speak.  PD is a red herring, no matter how many authorities and experts argue to the contrary, as they have been instructed so to do.

It is a "coherent" plan.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #102 on: 08/04/2013 05:13 AM »
Yes. So many red herrings, so little time. On this or that note, lets count 'em(before the Andromeda Galaxy collides).

1) Planetary defense from asteroids/comets.
2) Asteroid retrieval.
3) Mars sample storage/caching+in situ characterization with a follow on Mars sample return mission.
4) A manned Saturn five rocket configuration with strap-on solid rocket motors.
5) A manned solid rocket launcher that is somehow extensible for future exploration
6) Famous musicians, entrepreneurs and software execs in a non-certified, experimental rocket at high altitude to market their brand name of space tourism.
7) Telemetry from an autonomous submarine underneath the surface of Europa
#8) 4.0 billion year old microbes on Mars that by "random processes" managed to escape the Martian surface at the same moment that the planetary core stopped spinning from a relentless bombardment of asteroids... additionally coasting aimlessly thru space for 3+ billion years to then survive reentry on a volcanic Earth, spontaneously duplicating themselves while on a more thermally hostile planet to begin terraforming an entire planet thru over generation of oxygen to then perform ever more miraculous decompositions to manifest a symbiotic ecosystem into every living species, flora and fauna as well as every flavor of root beer whilst selectively camoflaging their presence on every object in the known solar system.
9) Commercialized Manned Mars missions using solar power generation systems for human survival that are built from legacy equipment that was used to power the lightest weight vehicles ever conceived having a ground speed of only a few inches each day.
10) A Reality Mars TV show of a diverse team of humans inspire children while suffering from starvation and radiation sickness.
11) Permanently manned US bases on the Moon with unanimous authorization from the United Nations
12) Astronauts drinking 4.5 billion year old water that was recovered from the darkest depths of the Shackleton crater on the moon.
13) Passage of a bill in Congress for construction of a Death Star in low Earth orbit.
14) Nuclear powered fusion &/o variable magnetoplama propulsion systems that were developed on university research funds to transport our finest exploration heros that have already spent a coons age on a low earth orbit space station devoid of science experiments to then travel to a faraway hostile planet in order to perform science experiments already performed by multiple rovers.... while knowingly accepting that it is a one way mission with no return to Earth.
15) Ultra large space telescopes having capabilities so finely calibrated to give a first glimpse at the infrared spectrums of the universe at magnifications that have never before been seen while in an orbit that has never been demonstrated with other space telescopes.
16) Men acheiving flight with engineered wings integrated to their arms to mimic chickens.
17) Flying cars that are approved by the department of transportation for use in/over a state that legalizes drugs.
18) Texas sized superconducting supercollider to study the smallest strucure of a nucleus of the smallest atoms.
19) The Drake equation

And lastly...
20) A T-shirt proudly displying something about the remake of Carl Sagan's TV show Cosmos
« Last Edit: 08/04/2013 10:17 AM by RigelFive »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #103 on: 08/04/2013 02:36 PM »
8) 4.0 billion year old microbes on Mars that by "random processes" managed to escape the Martian surface at the same moment that the planetary core stopped spinning from a relentless bombardment of asteroids... additionally coasting aimlessly thru space for 3+ billion years to then survive reentry on a volcanic Earth, spontaneously duplicating themselves while on a more thermally hostile planet to begin terraforming an entire planet thru over generation of oxygen to then perform ever more miraculous decompositions to manifest a symbiotic ecosystem into every living species, flora and fauna as well as every flavor of root beer whilst selectively camoflaging their presence on every object in the known solar system.

Are you mental?

This kind of thing happens all the time.  Panspermia is.  Get over it.
« Last Edit: 08/04/2013 02:36 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #104 on: 08/05/2013 12:00 AM »
Some concepts for exploration might not be Red Herrings, even though they were unrealized. 

I failed to write down reusable SSTO vehicles (single stage to ocean).  This was a purposeful omission from the Red Herring list.

There are things that can/should be done, but a party to the development simply didn't want to go forward for betterment of their existing portfolio that may make more money.  This is like the time when IBM made a decision to not develop personal computers as room sized computers were money makers.  Then the Apple II came out and transformed the red herring landscape.  Shades of Clayton Christensen here.

However, your cow catcher is a red herring as the NASA organization can really only perform one manned mission at a time (and for some reason you have to use solid rocket motors).

Perhaps smaller objects are easier to go to than the moon?  So this might be considered innovation of the destination rather than the vehicle to get there.  Small is easy, easy is NASA, then NASA can be big.
« Last Edit: 08/05/2013 12:02 AM by RigelFive »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #105 on: 08/06/2013 01:12 AM »
A hat tip to the new concept of SSTO.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4411
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #106 on: 08/12/2013 06:12 PM »
Quote from: JohnFornaro link=topic=31777.msg1079927#msg1079927
date=1375278343
Quote from: RanulfC link=topic=31777.msg1078054#msg1078054
date=1374776465
My "tentative" take is "incompetently" because there's no real "reason" to keep Americans chained to this planet.

Again, there is at least one good reason to "keep" people on planet.
Should an off-planet democratic republican government come to be, where the people are mostly highly intelligent, and able to live and manufacture space faring equipment, it would be seen as a threat to terrestrial governments.  Virtually all of the terrestrial governments depend upon large pools of semi-skilled, poorly educated labor forces for their very existence.

It would be a conflict between two vastly different civilizations.

Best not to let that happen.
It's going to happen even if everyone stays here on Earth. None of the first-world nations can depend on "large-pools of semi-skilled, poorly educated labor forces" anymore their needs have become to sophisticated.
The general "dumbing-down" trend has stopped and even reversed itself in the general population over the last decade. With first world populations trending downward in comparision to second and third world nations the need to "out-smart" rather than out-man them has become paramount.

I should probably point out here that the assumption of a "off-planet democratic republican government" is not a given no matter who goes "out-there" to stay. There is in fact just as much chance of the development of a "true" Universal Communistic, or Corperate Governmental state being the main "off-planet" way of life :)

The biggest coming conflict is between the forces dedicated to keeping the current "resource-restricted" status going and those who understand and employ the needed technology and inovation to bring about a state of "abundance" that would replace it. The former has been loosing ground steadily for decades and is having to form an 'alliance' with radical environmental forces in order to attempt to shore up the failing status-quo. The alliance won't last due to the fundemental differences but it has managed to slow down development in "abundance" technologies somewhat but only in certain first-world nations. The result has been that the "inovations" end up taking place in other first world or second world nations and filtering outward from there. Usually a slower process, but it makes the conflict no less inevitable.

Of course none of this is going to actually have much impact on space development. In either case space has never been seen as a "viable"
solution applicable to either situation.
Quote
Quote
The occasional "political" squabble over territory, money, or "power" drives the majority of decisions with little or no thought or regard as to the "end" goal or long term effect.

A bit of a nit, in that it's not "occasional", it's "around the clock".
As it applies to "space" and any applications thereof it is only occasionally that the squabbles impinge on the subject significantly. The issue is to marginal to be part of or in consideration a majority of the time. Space is simply not that important to the "powers-that-be" or the general public.

Quote
But still, the incompetence of greed is also a good reason, and is easily manipulated by powers behind the throne.  My problem, amongst many others, is that I cannot tell the difference, and the end result is the same for both explanations.
The major issue with the conclusion you've drawn is that "space" manned or otherwise has little "greed" attached to it other than the standard "government contracting" bottom line which is a very small segment of the overall government contracting budget. The majority of the "money" in space activities for the government is spent and made in "support" infrastructure and not in activities directly related to manned or unmanned operations.

The needed "change" here has to be in both a shift in public atititude as well as elected official attitude. (And the former is required to help motivate the latter)

I don't see how the PMP mission will help this as what is needed it a way to make a DIRECT connection to the everyday lives and priorities of the majority of the population. This is a very complex task that does not lend itself to easy or simple solutions that can be reduced to sound-bytes or infomercials.

There have been people pushing the agenda for human expansion into the Solar System seriously for almost a century now and noone has still managed to come up with a compelling reason for public "buy-in" to an extensive, sustainable exploration program. As I said, does anyone have any IDEAS as to where to start trying to find such "reasons"?

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #107 on: 08/12/2013 09:04 PM »
Quote from: JF
Best not to let that happen [colonization, with the possibility of a new off-planet government].

It's going to happen even if everyone stays here on Earth.

Huh?

Quote from: Randy
The general "dumbing-down" trend has stopped and even reversed itself in the general population over the last decade.

Well, our mileage is gonna hafta vary on that one.

Quote from: Randy
The biggest coming conflict is between the forces dedicated to keeping the current "resource-restricted" status going and those who understand and employ the needed technology and inovation to bring about a state of "abundance" that would replace it.

Well, if ya think about it for a sec, that's a continued part of my narrative.  Those here who run the show, like the status quo, and naturally, in an interpretation of their motives, would resist changing the status quo.

Like I said, virtually all of the terrestrial governments depend upon large pools of semi-skilled, poorly educated labor forces for their very existence.

A burger flipper is a ready example.  The barrista with a Master's degree in the development of Urban Baltic Aromatherapy Studies is another.  Call center jobs, order takers, etc.  There is more education in our labor pool than is strictly necessary.

But I agree with the idea that resources are being deliberately restricted.  Starvation is good control policy, after all, outside the Beltway.  Whatever statistics you look at, the gap between rich and poor continues to grow.

The so-called "state of abundance" which exists by virtue of the universe having more gold in it than one person could carry from point A to point B in one's lifetime does not yet have pragmatic application.  Our BOE, demonstrating that even at today's gold prices, the shuttle could have brought 20 tons of gold down to Earth at a profit, fails because that gold is not available in the convenience of a shuttle bay container in LEO.  But anyhow...

Quote from: Randy
The major issue with the conclusion you've drawn is that "space" manned or otherwise has little "greed" attached to it other than the standard "government contracting" bottom line ...

Like I said, still, the incompetence of greed is also a good reason for say, launch costs to be as high as they are.  All you need is the "standard government contracting rate" for this to be so.

Quote from: Randy
I don't see how the PMP mission will help this as what is needed it a way to make a DIRECT connection to the everyday lives and priorities of the majority of the population.

Of course you don't, but that's because you are confusing the first steps with the final state.  Imagine life on the home planet without electricity.

My $250M PMP system is designed to generate electricity because electricity is that without which nothing else can be made sustainable.

Quote from: Randy
noone has still managed to come up with a compelling reason for public "buy-in"...

The compelling reason is that they ain't no place to go.

They laid down the first module for a base in 1969, and never followed thru on it.

I'm sure there's readers on the forum who didn't realize this, and wonder what happened.  Yet another refresher course on the arbitrary reasons why the USG never followed thru on a lunar base will provide entertainment for these few readers.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2013 09:06 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 412
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #108 on: 08/13/2013 12:06 PM »

We explore to find opportunity. Is there some place better to farm. Is there some place better to mine gold.

...


The only question is can the space environment be more useful than it is today. There obvious ways space *could be* more useful.
The space environment has potential of harvesting solar energy on a vast scale. Space can provide unlimited energy [electrical] for a human population exceeding 10 billion.

...

So it seems the path forward is lower the cost of chemical energy [rocket fuel] and/or electrical power in space. And if you could commercial mine water in space, that would be going in that direction.
To split the water you need electricity, and you need lots of this rocket fuel in space and one can charge a very high price for it. Or paying 1000 times the price of rocket fuel on earth, is cheap in space, and hundreds of tons of rocket fuel per year is needed in space. And if rocket fuel were available in space- more rocket fuel would be used in space.


I didn't get to read the whole thread but of the posts I read this post best reflects my thoughts in this subject.

Exploration principles need to orbit around energy and rocket fuel, not destinations and "human exploration".

Provide energy and rocket fuel in abundance and you can (maybe) make a profit by supplying energy to earth, but also it reduces/removes the giggle factor that is (to be fair) currently quite due to human space flight.

While not thinking deeply about energy and rocket fuel, sure, practice sending humans into space, keep the dream alive and entertain us nerds.  But the long term requirements are the same as they'll ever be - nail them.

Edit - Ooops, I forgot the quote.
« Last Edit: 08/13/2013 12:10 PM by Celebrimbor »

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4411
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #109 on: 10/23/2013 04:22 PM »
Quote from: JF
Best not to let that happen [colonization, with the possibility of a new off-planet government].

It's going to happen even if everyone stays here on Earth.

Huh?

You said (for reference)
"It would be a conflict between two vastly different civilizations."

My response was directed that it (conflict) already IS happening without a "new" government and with the advent of new technologies. Change is coming no matter what those "in-charge" may want and it is only going to accelerate from here.

Quote
Quote from: Randy
The general "dumbing-down" trend has stopped and even reversed itself in the general population over the last decade.

Well, our mileage is gonna hafta vary on that one.

Probably :) But the most basic problem has always been access to information. Learning to use that information and learning to self-filter is harder and has become the main reason behind the so called "dumbing-down" phenomonon. What it really is though is a generation that grew up under the "regular" restrictions that suddenly found itself inundated with more information that it had been "trained" to handle and without the "authority" figures it had come to rely on understanding or being able to filter the information themselves.

A lot of educators in the last few years are finally getting a handle on the fact that the internet is a very capable tool for research and that the knowledge is OUT there but that it is critical for people to learn to self-filter and think through logic and rational comprehension abilities. Frankly when information was LESS controlled that was easier within a "school" framework but that is no longer true and students are having to climb a steep learning curve on how to tell fact from BS as any "google" search will show.

Quote
Quote from: Randy
The biggest coming conflict is between the forces dedicated to keeping the current "resource-restricted" status going and those who understand and employ the needed technology and inovation to bring about a state of "abundance" that would replace it.

Well, if ya think about it for a sec, that's a continued part of my narrative.  Those here who run the show, like the status quo, and naturally, in an interpretation of their motives, would resist changing the status quo.

My point is that despite their best efforts up to an including violent suppression of the "change" that tactic never works. Things are no different here and now, the folks who want to maintain the status-quo are finding they are unable to do so, mostly because the very basis of the "status-quo" have changed underneath them. It is hard to fight to maintain the "status-quo" when the needs of survival require changes simply to keep up. :)

Quote
Like I said, virtually all of the terrestrial governments depend upon large pools of semi-skilled, poorly educated labor forces for their very existence.

A burger flipper is a ready example.  The barrista with a Master's degree in the development of Urban Baltic Aromatherapy Studies is another.  Call center jobs, order takers, etc.  There is more education in our labor pool than is strictly necessary.
And that will continue to be the trend which (as is happening already) means that the "semi-skilled, poorly educated" labor force is going to be unsatisfied with the job choices available to them at the pay that the "maintainers" want to pay. Education, (not degrees mind you, I'm talking about real world education and skills development) are becoming easier and easier to access and that is driving UP the general education and knowledge level of the workers. Which means that they will be less and less inclined to simply "take" a demeaning job they don't have to and they will either move to a new, higher paying job or or create jobs to fullfill their needs.

The majority of the "semi-skilled, poorly educated" type jobs are going to go away sooner or later. My bet is sooner as more and more automation is finally introduced into those job areas. (Long overdue)

Quote
But I agree with the idea that resources are being deliberately restricted.  Starvation is good control policy, after all, outside the Beltway.  Whatever statistics you look at, the gap between rich and poor continues to grow.

That's been true for quite a while but one thing most people don't see is that this isn't simply because of the middle-class "disappearing" but actually expanding which most experts don't think can last for more than a few more decades. The "lower-middle-class" will eventually disappear sort of as they become the new "poor" and the "poor" will move upwards by default do to society as a whole becoming "richer" in the future.

Quote
The so-called "state of abundance" which exists by virtue of the universe having more gold in it than one person could carry from point A to point B in one's lifetime does not yet have pragmatic application.  Our BOE, demonstrating that even at today's gold prices, the shuttle could have brought 20 tons of gold down to Earth at a profit, fails because that gold is not available in the convenience of a shuttle bay container in LEO.  But anyhow...

Unfortunatly the state of abundance doesn't really "need" the universe at this point as we still have an "abundance" on this planet that hasn't been properly exploited yet so no I'm afraid that is not going to be the "reasons" we as a species go into space. At least not primarily at this stage.

Quote
Quote from: Randy
The major issue with the conclusion you've drawn is that "space" manned or otherwise has little "greed" attached to it other than the standard "government contracting" bottom line ...

Like I said, still, the incompetence of greed is also a good reason for say, launch costs to be as high as they are.  All you need is the "standard government contracting rate" for this to be so.

But there are  already wild cards working against that "conclusion" which in turn makes it harder to actually claim either "incompetence" or "greed" as a SOP since in fact either one will end up causing the "business" to fold. :)

Quote
Quote from: Randy
I don't see how the PMP mission will help this as what is needed it a way to make a DIRECT connection to the everyday lives and priorities of the majority of the population.

Of course you don't, but that's because you are confusing the first steps with the final state.  Imagine life on the home planet without electricity.

My $250M PMP system is designed to generate electricity because electricity is that without which nothing else can be made sustainable.

Ah, missed the sarcasm emote I suspect? :)

Quote
Quote from: Randy
noone has still managed to come up with a compelling reason for public "buy-in"...

The compelling reason is that they ain't no place to go.

They laid down the first module for a base in 1969, and never followed thru on it.

I'm sure there's readers on the forum who didn't realize this, and wonder what happened.  Yet another refresher course on the arbitrary reasons why the USG never followed thru on a lunar base will provide entertainment for these few readers.

Sorry but the "goal" was to beat the Russians to the Moon to show how much better the USA was from them "dang-godless-Commies" and no base was promised or implied. You have to look back to the 50 years BEFORE 1969 to see the start of the "promises" that space was going to be the next great "Frontier" that mankind conquered. The problem at that time was no one was really aware of how complex and costly an undertaking like that was going to be and worse yet everyone "assumed" within a decade or so that going into space would simply be an extension of air-travel and be "set-up" similarly.

Step-by-step, one upon another with first routine space access by a reusable vehicle, then an orbital base where we'd learn to live and work and then build the ships to take us to the Moon and beyond. Simple really. Except then the Russian went and put a man-in-a-can on a mediocre ICBM and embaressed the United States who had expected to be "first" at everything. So instead of the step-by-step progression we got instead a mandate to put an man on the Moon and bring him home safetly in a little under 10 years. No time to do anything complex, we now need pure, simple, brute force and a lot of it. After that we can get back on track... Maybe...

Or not. And we haven't.

The people who "promised" you a Moon-base were in fact in no position to generate that outcome. And the people who WERE in the "right" positions never promised you a damn thing other than getting a man to the Moon and back at least once safetly. They did their "job" but the other folks have never had the influance or effect to actually effect change in the public or elected official "Perception" that space is anything more than a government "stunt" program and the one time we ever came "close" to making space travel "routine" it was labeled a "failure" because it didn't generate enough excitement.

Transportation should not be "exciting" in fact in most cases that is considered a very "bad" thing. Destination is only important as it applies to WHY you're going and what you plan to do when you get there. Combined they should drive each other but only to the point where economics and convinence kick in. Ultimately what determines both of them is simply what the "ultimate-job/goal/end-use" is going to be and defined from there.

For the governments of the world they have never clearly defined let alone supported a goal of anything more than "space-flight" being more than supporting space-flight capability. Colonization, exploration, exploitation are words as far as they are concerned and very little else. This does not allow or encourage any "buy-in" by the general population as this is clearly a "government" show and little else.

As I've said over and over again: Change THAT paradigm and you begin to go places...

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline neviden

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #110 on: 11/03/2013 06:52 AM »
I think, we should think along the lines of space exploitation than space exploration. Autonomous satelites are good enough for exploring, but they don't bring back to Earth anything other than data.

To make space accessable to humans, there must be a reason for them to be there in the first place.

Reusable TSTO will get you to LEO, where you can refuel. Methane and LOX are good propelants for storage, in-space production and refueling to go to your destination resonablly fast.

What we need is a destinatination that is cheap to build and run, and that can actually pay for itself. Mars or Moon looks like a good destination, but the best destinations are asteorids that need the minimum amount of delta-v to bring to L1/L2/HLO. A BIG iron rich rock brought there would mean, that you could build large rotating cities that would be able to extract expensive metals from space rocks for export to Earth and the rest of the material to expand itself, tools, propellant, consumer products, air and food with solar energy.

You could then slowlly transfer those giant spacestations via Intestelar superhighway network to Mars, Jupiter or other asteroids. The fact, that it would be almost selfsuficient from the Earth, would mean it would be cheap to run and would be able to pay for anything it imports with things that it exports. UK doesn't have to support its former colonies, but it can trade with them to make everyone better off.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4411
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #111 on: 11/05/2013 09:22 PM »
Quote
Quote

    Instead what I think is needed is for NASA to explore space with intention of trying to find potential
    new markets in space.


Problem: It has never been NASAs "job" to "find" or "start" new markets. That's not a government agencies "job" and has always been left up to the "private-sector" because that IS what they do and how they expand and create new "markets".

As a general philosophy I don't have much problem the idea it's "not a government .... job".
But Space like the use of nuclear technology has the government restricting the private sector.

The problem Bill Gates faces with nuclear technology is largely barriers the government has constructed
by various laws.
Let's not argue about particular laws, but instead can we acknowledge there could be problems?

Yes we can agree that there are "problems" generated by government interaction with the private sector. There always are unless you can both pay-off the government and KEEP them paid off :)

Seriously, how MUCH of a "problem" there is entirely depends on how willing the private sector is to face and resolve those problems which in and of itself is wholely dependent on how much they see to "gain" from doing so. (Or not) Can we agree on this point also?

Quote
So seems that since a government is "involved" and we can assume they will not stop being involved, that government should do things that take in account what effect these government laws have.
While "I" agree in principle with this, you're making the assumption that government is always going to be logical and methodical in practice as well as principle. Unfortunatly that's very not a truism and very often government with or without the 'best-intentions' will end up hindering the private sector for trivial or generally "political" goals without due dilligence on its own laws and regulations.

Again it falls back to simply how "bad" the private sector wants to reach its goals.

Quote
Btw this also applies to development of ocean resources- methane hydrate mining or other mining or farming [or even residential development] in the government controlled waters and international waters.

Very much so. In fact the US government is currently working very hard to "spin" the last Law of the Sea treaty in an effort to open up several areas of ocean resource extraction that they "signed-away" for political and security reasons under that treaty. If there wasn't a significant private sector interest world wide which is also applying pressure to other signatory nations governments to change the "law" the effort would be useless.

Quote
Or since government has passed laws, the government bears the responsibility of the consequences of the laws passed.

That runs smack dab back into my previous point. Government by its nature very often ignores responsibility for or the consequences of the laws they pass :)

Quote
Because laws passed, it seems to me that the government should explore space in order to find resources
in space, that would encourage new markets.
And this btw, this the history of what the US government did. The Federal did and still does geological surveys- on "government land".
So beginning of existence of US government, the entire west was "government land" .
and government did conduct geological surveys to promote development in these lands.
Of course including the more famous Lewis and Clark expedition which fairly commonly discussed by people
interested opening the space frontier. But it was not merely Lewis and Clark. That almost a stunt or "an Apollo program" compared other surveys.

And here is where the argument breaks down :)

First of all by International Treaty none of Space or any planet or body IN space can be considered "government-land" (this is both a good and bad thing IMHO) so there is not incentive for government survey as they can't "sell" it to the private sector as the government did with western land. Secondly you have correctly noted that the "Lewis-and-Clark" survey was on an aproximate level with the Apollo program and for the same reasons in fact as the then government was of the majority opinion that the "west" was a huge tract of utterly wastless land and of no effective use to the then United States. While there was little active effect from the L&C expedition numerous expeditions by BOTH private and government teams soon changed the overall mindset of both government and the public that the west was indeed resource rich and not the wasteland it was generally assumed to be. The key fact here (and unlike space) is that a large majority of the survey and exploration work was done by private not government people who had relativly easy access to transportation to go "west" and seek out the resources.

The "reality" here is that the government alone has the "majority" access and they are of the firm belief that "space" IS a vast wasteland with little or not resources to offer under their current assumed "paradigm" for space. Thus all planning for "government" survey work has been based on and around ONLY the short-term, direct path "Lewis-and-Clark/Apollo" programs. There has been no "incentive" for private investment or surveys until very recently and those new inititives have an uphill battle against 40+ years of inertia to deal with. Worse still they have neither a popular support or economic clout to force the government to face and review its attitude and understand of what space is and what it offers.

Quote
Additional factor relevant to space exploration is the government did support the Shuttle program, and not merely because they wanted a job program.

Not a jobs program no, but neither did they really want cheap and easy access to space. They "wanted" a government controlled and used space access system but they didn't want to actually PAY for that system so we ended up with what we got and nothing else. It was all part of a political trap that was pretty much designed to stagnate space exploration in the name of funding cuts while still giving the appearance of "doing-something" while avoiding doing anything significant. We lost SS-Freedom for the ISS pretty much along similar pollitical rather than technical or capability based lines and are gaining Orion/SLS for the very same reasons.

The US government has no interest in "exploring" space looking for new resources and markets and in fact it is against their interests under their current paradigm to do so. That has to change but doing so requires a higher interest in making space exploration a higher priority than it is among the general population AND/OR the private sector. Nothing less will provide enough pressure to force a change in government attitude.
Quote
Quote

    So I think it's near insanity for NASA to be aware that there could minable water on the moon, back in 1998, and not move mountains to explore the moon to determine if and  where there could be minable water on the Moon.


Problem: "Minable" water has NOT been "found" yet nor in fact has ISRU been proven to be possible... Yet.
Problem: ISRU is not what I am talking about.

Problem: Yes you ARE talking about ISRU really :) It's a blanket for ANY resource extraction and/or utilization scheme and PROVING there is "minable" water takes not only surveying the possible locations but being able to show that extraction on ANY scale is possible. (Taking samples is the begining of ISRU :) )

Quote
ISRU is living in a tree fort.
The insane desire to do endless ISRU, is why we did not return to Moon back in George H. W. Bush presidential term.
What saying is manned exploration. Modern Manned Exploration that uses robotic more, because we have the robotics now.
And a focus on exploration rather than tree fort building.
Let's do the tree forts on Mars, where they are actually needed.
ISRU begins with survey and sampling work. The exploration has to come first but in the end if you're looking for "resources" you have to not only find them but show that they are accessable for use. ISRU will be useful anywhere in space, we have a large load of "minable" satellites in graveyard orbit around the Earth that while we don't have to exactly "survey-and-explore" them to make them resources we do have to at least show it can be done on SOME scale in order to generate any interest in doing so at all.

Quote
Quote
Problem: You are making the assumption that the "water" on the Moon has an inherent "value" and this is incorrect. Water or any other resource "off-Earth" has inherently NO value, especially to NASA unless it is part of a "planned" operation and therefore replaces resources that would need to be brought from Earth.

Let's start from the obvious, water has value on Earth- and is the most transported resource on Earth.

Water is generally fairly cheap on Earth.

"The environmental and social costs of global business water use add up to around $1.9 trillion per year, according to new research by Trucost for the TEEB for Business Coalition, Natural Capital at Risk: The Top 100 Externalities of Business.
...
Trucost estimates the true cost of one cubic meter of water ranges between $0.10 where it is plentiful and $15 in areas of extreme scarcity "  Per cubic meter
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2013/04/29/true-cost-water

And I think eventually [I mean a long time in future] water will be cheaper in space than on Earth.
And that in space environment will be bigger market than $1.9 trillion per year. But at the moment it is very expensive in space environment. And will remain quite expensive for about a century or so [at least].

Again I agree in principle to your argument but you're missing the point about the "value" of water in space and on the Moon. The water ONLY has value IF its use is included in any mission or program planning. Specifically that has NOT been part of the US Government plans as directed to and by NASA. It's not on the "critical-path" so it is not even considered under any "normal" planning. Water comes from Earth just like the astronauts, and in the end only the astronauts and some "samples" are coming back to Earth. Again this is an ingrained paradigm that specifically precludes seeking "resources" and "markets" for government space programs.

Delivering "resources" to the ISS is a job that the government would much rather see done BY the government rather than creating a market for the private sector to do it. This is very obvious from the up-hill battle that cargo-delivery and CCDEV have been going through. Under the current paradigm (and this is a 40+ year old "current" paradigm mind you) government is "exploring" a wasteland with no inherent "value" as the government understands it and this mind-set has to be changed or bypassed by other means.

Quote
The hard part is not getting water in space, it's getting the cheapest water in space.
And I think the cheapest water in space is on the Moon.
The metric of cost being the cost of water to delivered to high Earth orbit [cislunar orbit].
And cost is relative to volume involved.
So cheapest way to get 1 ton to high earth is to ship it from Earth.

And as you increase the tonnage from 1 ton to hundreds of tons, where is does "break" from the cheapest water being delivered from Earth as compared to it being found somewhere else in space.
Start with huge number, like 1 million tons.
Imagine you needed it , if there was demand for 1 million tons of water at L-1, where do you get it?

The better value is lowest amount needed to be the same costs as compared to being delivered
from Earth. It doesn't have to be cheaper- we looking a competitive price.
But generally I would apply this rule to rocket fuel rather than water, and there is more potential demand for rocket fuel at high earth than water.

You would be right if this were not based on the false assumption of "value" under the current paradigm. As long as the "goal" is simply to keep "manned" (government) space flight going and with no long term or specific goals in mind (such as colonization or exploitation) then "value" is defined only as it applies to Earth-bound and Earth-based concerns or priorities. No one needs "water" (or rocket fuel or anything else) from the Moon or elsewhere except where it might impact the "affordability" in financial, popular, or political support for government missions. This does NOT mean that such "affordability" will be a large factor in decsion making, in fact it will probably be a very minor consideration compared to any Earth based considerations. By its nature politics and government look to pad the "home" pockets before anything else.

Quote
Now with the Moon, there is also a potential market at the lunar surface- someone might want to leave the Moon or ship something off the moon [like lunar dirt send to Earth surface].
And shipping lunar rocket fuel [and lunar water]  to lunar orbit or beyond, is also something you export.

So it seems to me the moon is cheapest place to get rocket fuel and water and there are many "elements" involved with why it's cheaper [which I have written numerous long posts explaining].

But if you idea of where we could get cheaper rocket fuel and/or water,  I am all ears.
I used to think space rocks were a cheaper way of getting rocket fuel- and if need million of tons
it probably is. But important point due to lack of market demand is the least amount require to
equal the cost to ship from Earth.

"I" understand your argument and as I said in principle "I" agree. Unfortunatly for you (and me) I am not in a position to generate the neccessary influance over those who do NOT understand this and in fact do not see ANY logic in your argument. You keep assuming econmics and incentives that are currently not in place or being planned and that is why the argument pretty much fails to make a case. IF the government were seriously considering colonization or an intensive space exploration program then your argument would find purchase in some respects. But the truth is the government, in fact NO Earth government is seriously committed to such a program and therefore everything being planned is being planned to be based ON or FROM Earth and only the minimum needed to "sell" an idea to the general public (such as Mars propellant ISRU... Maybe...) has any part of the planning. Beyond that everything is being "planned" to "spend" as much money on Earth as possible regardless of any possible long-term savings that off-planet resources might provide.

A way or means has to be found to change the publlic, private, and especially government mind-set on space as it is to a broader more long range and extensive paradigm. I keep asking if anyone can come up with something to base such a change on and all "I" can come up with is the simple idea of ignoring all the current "common-knowledge" about space and putting people into space ANYWAY.

It would cost a lot and be a very marginal effort for a long time but with people in-space all the time then a lot of "possible" uses for people suddenly become a lot more cost effective than if you have to send someone up and back for every job. Suddenly it becomes easier to harvest and control the number of dead satellites in graveyard orbits. Suddenly it is a lot easier to upgrade and modify satellites on-orbit without the cost of launching a "new" generation every 5 years. Suddenly on-orbit materials processing and science are a lot easier to perform and experiment with. And on and on.

Suddenly the "resources" out there become a whole lot more "valuable" than they were when people were just visiting space occasionally and it becomes a lot more "sensible" to build infrastructure to support and expand that on-orbit presence.

But that first step is a doozey...

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #112 on: 11/06/2013 04:12 AM »
RanulfC has some great viewpoints.  I like his use of NASA pursuits for new "paradigms".  NASA always has a presser that wants to go to Mars, or then to an Asteroid, or to a Jovian moon... 

The concepts of quantum entanglement for wireless/secure communications are said to be pursued by Chinese researchers.  While this is probably a topic for the Advanced Concepts thread, I'd like to to use a notion of this to pursue a new paradigm.

Quantum entanglement is the equivalent of a communication system that travels according to some articles 10,000x faster than light.  WHAT IF you take two QE devices and put them on a journey into the solar system.

The space-time effects will cause the space borne device to move forward in time at a faster rate than with a communication system that is on the surface of the Earth.   Sort of like a couple of cans with wires stretched across space + time.

What if NASA were to use this to explore not only space but time as well?  If this were possible, would there need to be a space and time treaty?
« Last Edit: 11/06/2013 04:22 AM by RigelFive »

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4411
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #113 on: 11/06/2013 08:16 PM »
RanulfC has some great viewpoints.  I like his use of NASA pursuits for new "paradigms".  NASA always has a presser that wants to go to Mars, or then to an Asteroid, or to a Jovian moon...

Well thanks :) In truth NASA is made up of people, a lot of them ARE "space-cadets" and would love to be out there doing everything but the closest they can come is studies and pressers. Sucks but that's where we're at currently.

Quote
The concepts of quantum entanglement for wireless/secure communications are said to be pursued by Chinese researchers.  While this is probably a topic for the Advanced Concepts thread, I'd like to to use a notion of this to pursue a new paradigm.

Quantum entanglement is the equivalent of a communication system that travels according to some articles 10,000x faster than light.  WHAT IF you take two QE devices and put them on a journey into the solar system.

The space-time effects will cause the space borne device to move forward in time at a faster rate than with a communication system that is on the surface of the Earth.   Sort of like a couple of cans with wires stretched across space + time.

What if NASA were to use this to explore not only space but time as well?  If this were possible, would there need to be a space and time treaty?

Oh ya, I'd put this one in Advanced Concepts for sure :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1628
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #114 on: 11/07/2013 11:51 AM »
Quote
"I" understand your argument and as I said in principle "I" agree. Unfortunately for you (and me) I am not in a position to generate the necessary influence over those who do NOT understand this and in fact do not see ANY logic in your argument. You keep assuming economics and incentives that are currently not in place or being planned and that is why the argument pretty much fails to make a case. IF the government were seriously considering colonization or an intensive space exploration program then your argument would find purchase in some respects. But the truth is the government, in fact NO Earth government is seriously committed to such a program and therefore everything being planned is being planned to be based ON or FROM Earth and only the minimum needed to "sell" an idea to the general public (such as Mars propellant ISRU... Maybe...) has any part of the planning. Beyond that everything is being "planned" to "spend" as much money on Earth as possible regardless of any possible long-term savings that off-planet resources might provide.

A way or means has to be found to change the public, private, and especially government mind-set on space as it is to a broader more long range and extensive paradigm. I keep asking if anyone can come up with something to base such a change on and all "I" can come up with is the simple idea of ignoring all the current "common-knowledge" about space and putting people into space ANYWAY.

It would cost a lot and be a very marginal effort for a long time but with people in-space all the time then a lot of "possible" uses for people suddenly become a lot more cost effective than if you have to send someone up and back for every job. Suddenly it becomes easier to harvest and control the number of dead satellites in graveyard orbits. Suddenly it is a lot easier to upgrade and modify satellites on-orbit without the cost of launching a "new" generation every 5 years. Suddenly on-orbit materials processing and science are a lot easier to perform and experiment with. And on and on.

Suddenly the "resources" out there become a whole lot more "valuable" than they were when people were just visiting space occasionally and it becomes a lot more "sensible" to build infrastructure to support and expand that on-orbit presence.

But that first step is a doozey...
Regarding specifically:
"I keep asking if anyone can come up with something to base such a change on and all "I" can come up with is the simple idea of ignoring all the current "common-knowledge" about space and putting people into space ANYWAY."
And this: "dead satellites in graveyard orbits"

I think an effort should made to save ISS.
I think only way to save ISS is put into high earth orbit.
So finish up ISS in LEO, then move to high earth, so it has different task.
So this continue the International Space Station as international space station.
Instead waiting until we had used it up and/or are bored with it.
We should not end ISS because US and/or Russia don't continue playing with it.
Instead we make more international and US can stop playing it with and continues
existing until they want to or others want to play with again.
So moving the ISS will align with purposes of going beyond LEO- rocks, Moon, Mars, or whatever.
So, this something we aren't going to do within 5 years. But we should not be planning on dumping ISS
in an ocean.
Probably additional part of moving ISS is providing it with more shielding or one module with more shielding.
So, mothball it and allow it to used for long duration stays which do not have in one of module more radiation as compared to same number months when it was at LEO.
So not destroying ISS and preserving it for "future generation" could get public support.
It has symbolic value and one can put 100 billion price on it- don't throw away a 100 billion dollars.
So if put above Van Allen belts it stays up for +1000 years. So it's friggin Pyramid if nothing else.

And deciding to save the ISS [and not having to pay a dime to do it] is something Obama can do. When it's done and incurs costs he will not be in office.
Obama will not be in office at same time that NASA does any further lunar exploration- he is busy fooling himself with this rock thing.
So related what might be done in Obama's term is perhaps more funding related to finding smaller rocks. That is very cheap and would a good thing to do.
After Obama, we should explore the Moon to find areas which best to mine lunar water. This should start by
establishing a fuel depot in KSC LEO.

Next:
Quote
And here is where the argument breaks down :)

First of all by International Treaty none of Space or any planet or body IN space can be considered "government-land" (this is both a good and bad thing IMHO) so there is not incentive for government survey as they can't "sell" it to the private sector as the government did with western land.
So, what I am talking about is NASA direction.
Which is don't make lunar bases. Explore moon and have short duration program and therefore a low cost program. Keep short and simple. Get it done. Congress might be overly impress and fund a Manned Mars program.
 
« Last Edit: 11/07/2013 11:59 AM by gbaikie »

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4411
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #115 on: 11/15/2013 06:59 PM »
(4th times a charm right? Seriously this is the fourth time I've tried to answer/reply to this post and EVERY time something totally unrelated with NSF and usually related to either my computer or my internet have done in my replies within "sentences" of the ending. We're I paranoid... ;) )

Regarding specifically:
"I keep asking if anyone can come up with something to base such a change on and all "I" can come up with is the simple idea of ignoring all the current "common-knowledge" about space and putting people into space ANYWAY."
And this: "dead satellites in graveyard orbits"
I think an effort should made to save ISS.
I think only way to save ISS is put into high earth orbit.
So finish up ISS in LEO, then move to high earth, so it has different task.
So this continue the International Space Station as international space station.

Again in general I agree and would love to see the ISS put in at least a "museum" orbit. Practical problems abound of course and in a "higher-orbit" it would be less "International" than it is now. Lets face it the Russians, Chinese, and the US are the only ones who can reach it NOW...

I don't think the ISS is really capable of being "repurposed" at any rate and it would take a political will to "save" the ISS that would be atypical of the governments involved historically. The US Congress has been the main driving force to keeping the ISS going till (so far) at least 2020 with tactics such as declaring it a "National Laboratory" to back it up. My take is they will continue to insist on supporting the ISS over any other "space" based project, (Asteroid, Moon, Mars, etc) until the ISS definatly "breaks" and then abadon it. I do no in fact think that once that happens they will "transfer" any funding or priority to any other project except a possible "go-it-alone" (Non-Russian) station of small size. (Though to be honest I would not at all be "surprised" that if Obama DID propose "saving" the ISS that Congres would "oppose" it just because he proposed it!)

In the end the ISS was never intended nor designed for extensive, long-term operation and it WILL begin to fail eventually because it was designed to be "replaced" with a newer and better station. However one thing that the US government has proven quite well is they seriously lack the ability to "follow-on" successful programs and are unwilling to save "legacy" infrastructure when avoidable. I do not expect this trend to change anytime soon.

Quote
Next:
So, what I am talking about is NASA direction.
Which is don't make lunar bases. Explore moon and have short duration program and therefore a low cost program. Keep short and simple. Get it done. Congress might be overly impress and fund a Manned Mars program.

The US government has consistantly show little interest in "get(ting)-it-done" especially if they can "avoid' it. The problem with exploring the moon with short duration, limited and low flight rate missions is that it WILL cost and cost a lot to do. We know this already and the amount of "exploration" and science that can be obtained is limited and far from cost effective. None of this is going to be conducive to "impressing" Congress or the Public and risks ending right back where we were at the end of the Apollo program. Still with nothing to "show" for it.

Congress, (and lets face it everyone in the US government from the President on down to the House) do NOT really want to "fund" or support a Mars program let alone one for the Moon. Even if one section DOES wish to commit to a program of some sort they are going to be opposed by other sections if for no other reason than poltics. (Most of the "opposition" is based on financial reasoning of dubious value but the majority boils down to politics really) The simple and plain truth is that the US government as a body (and government specifically in the end) does not do "Exploration, Exploitation, Colonization" (EEC) without substantial public pressure and usually even then reluctantly. No government on Earth is "commited" to EEC in space. They "dabble" in the first "E" but have no interest or incentive to put any effort into the other two and certainly no motivation.

On Earth whenever a government has actually put major effort, support, and funding behind EEC it has usually relied primarily on private individuals/organizations to carry out the effort with some government over-site. Very rarely has a government put any real effort into EEC, space has actually been one of the few times that it has happened and the actual "reasons" were rare, specific, and probably will never repear themselves again. But the "effort" was unsustainable and was scaled back as soon as it was polticially acceptable to do so.

NASA as a government agency simply can't DO the job of EEC, and nothing short of an actual public and government commitment to the EEC of space will change that. (I would be surprised if any sort of "commitment" were possible from a government and public short of a massive rearrangment of everyones "priorities" and the radical shift in world-view that would entail is something I have a hard time imagining let alone finding justifiable)

Hence my suggestion that it is going to have to be an NGO, specifically one that does not have "short-term" payback or economics as the "top" requirement, that specifically puts people into space to live and work that will be required to begin the process of EEC. To truely "explore" you have to go to multiple places, many times and for long periods to get to "know" the place. "Exploitation" comes into effect at this point because it becomes much easier to "live-off-the-land" than import all your supplies. In the end "colonization" is the result, but the ability to put people into place, get them living and working actually exploring and looking for resources to exploit is the primary need. (Not to get into the whole "robot-Vs-human" debate as you CAN use robotic precursors but the PRIMARY need is people in place and that has to be taken into account. I see no reason NOT to use both but if it comes down to "either/or"...)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1628
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #116 on: 11/17/2013 01:20 PM »
Quote
Congress, (and lets face it everyone in the US government from the President on down to the House) do NOT really want to "fund" or support a Mars program let alone one for the Moon. Even if one section DOES wish to commit to a program of some sort they are going to be opposed by other sections if for no other reason than poltics. (Most of the "opposition" is based on financial reasoning of dubious value but the majority boils down to politics really) The simple and plain truth is that the US government as a body (and government specifically in the end) does not do "Exploration, Exploitation, Colonization" (EEC) without substantial public pressure and usually even then reluctantly. No government on Earth is "commited" to EEC in space. They "dabble" in the first "E" but have no interest or incentive to put any effort into the other two and certainly no motivation.

All I want is for NASA to focus on exploration.
But NASA is exploring so humans can exploit the space environment.
I do not want NASA doing mining or other exploitation of space environment.
But why NASA is exploring space is to find out [what &] how we can exploit space resources and exploiting space resources results in colonization space.

The only space resource we are exploiting is the location earth orbits [GEO and LEO]. Earth satellites are exploitation of space environment that do not involve colonization space, though it involves the harvesting solar energy for operation of satellites. Earth satellites are the only use of solar panels are not seen as requiring government money to encourage to use of solar panels to get electrical power. Or solar panels are used in space because they are the best way of getting electrical power.

Due to the lack of NASA, over the decades, of finding other aspects of space environment which can exploited, some have argued that NASA can not find other aspect of space environment which can be exploited. Or the lack of results of NASA and the hundreds of billions of dollars spent, is regarded as proof
that NASA in the future will not be able to do this.
If it were true that NASA could not in the future find addition other aspects of space environment which can exploited, then ending NASA as government program would be rational thing to do.

But I would argue that NASA has not spent hundreds of billions trying finding other aspects of space environment which can exploited. Instead NASA has spent hundreds of billions on Space Shuttle program,
which has been ended and did not result in this.
NASA also spent over hundred billion on ISS, ISS has been steered towards involving other nations in space projects, rather than steered towards it being a pit stop on the way beyond low earth orbit.
The involvement of other nations in space is a quasi or confused "aspect of space environment which can exploited", and though perhaps farcical, I think such approach should be continued.
Or one could argue it is a bridge going nowhere. But I think it could be made it go somewhere.
And I think splashing ISS into the Pacific though would serve as an ending to the farce, it would be grave error.
Currently NASA on path to spending hundreds of billions on SLS- assuming they allowed to do this.

What NASA has not done is spent hundred of billions on exploring the Moon. Exploring the Moon has always
been taking the  back seat. Though NASA has spent hundred billion going to the Moon with the Apollo
program, the purpose of Apollo was not to explore the Moon. Rather it's more of "since we going there, let's do some exploration of the Moon".
The scientific work to determine how to go to the Moon, and scientific work done on the Moon [laser reflector, rock samples, etc] has without doubt, fundamentally altered our understanding of the world we
live in.
Apollo directly led to understanding that we are still a target for space rocks, so tens of millions years ago [ recent in geological time] a space rock hit Earth and ended the dinosaurs. We know the Moon was cratered by nearly, exclusively by impactors. That this wasteland of the Moon no different than Earth, except that
on Earth we have processes which resurface and erode the past. And after Apollo we found huge impactor craters all over the Earth- the Apollo program allow us to see Earth.
So I don't diminish the exploration of the Moon in terms of it's usefulness, I merely pointing out that there wasn't much effort in actually doing the exploration, rather, obviously, the effort was to beat the Soviets in race to land crew on the surface of the Moon.
Part of the legacy of Apollo is we out socialized the Soviets. We in sense, stopped imperial Russia from being the first to land on the Moon and claim it as their territory. So we land on the Moon and proclaim it's a dominion of the world. So Russia, in propaganda sense, was claiming the space environment "for the world" by sending crew into orbit, and US did the same thing for the Moon.
So we did more scientific related effort on the Moon in comparison to specific equipment and effort of the stagecraft of planting a US flags and having ceremony proclaiming the moon a heritage of humankind, but it was mainly about allowing such theatre.

So what we have exploited in space is orbital location as relates to Earth, propaganda value: "firsts" and flags, and involvement of nations in the quest of exploring space.
But now we should explore space.
And if there is minable resources they should be found.
In terms of minable resource which we want to have brought back to Earth, there are "geological" type samples- stuff which can be scientifically studied. Also "samples" we can play with, "samples" which are pieces of art, "samples" which are reminders/mementos- which include stuff that children can see and/or
touch/taste/whatever.
So same thing as what we currently do with meteorites which found on Earth.   

If lunar water can be commercially mine then we will have no shortage of lunar samples. We get lots in terms or tonnage and lots in terms of variety. And the extent of this variety is probably beyond human imagination at this moment. We do know that impactors are sort of like nuclear bombs- very energetic
brief periods. We know the lunar surface is beyond what we regard as ancient. We think the Moon at one time was probably the result of hitting proto earth. With the ancient lunar surface we can find time records
like tree rings/ice core. The subsurface of the Moon barely known. It's suppose to be fractured- by impactors and cooling of Moon from a molten body. It is unlike Earth as Earth has water table, and few miles down we get geothermal heat. There is unlikely any water table or "geological" heat within 100 km
below. Or there is no possibility of "easily" going 100 km below the Earth's surface. There can be no cave or hole that goes to such a depth on Earth. There could be such a possibly on the moon- the same factors which preclude it on Earth are not part of the Moon.
Or who knows what we could find on the Moon. This also applies to Earth, but it seems the Moon is more ripe for such weirdness.
So we don't need NASA to explore everything about the moon, but instead we need exploration for stuff
which could exploited in the near term. And the volatiles in the ever dark polar craters seems like something NASA should put some serious amount effort towards exploring.

Now you say US govt "do NOT really want to "fund" or support" such things as exploring the Moon.
I say the US govt wants to continue to fund NASA, and to continue to fund NASA, NASA has to explore
space to find things which can be markets in space.

Edit: "What NASA has not done is spent hundred of billions on exploring the Moon." I want NASA not to spend 100 billion on the exploring the Moon within the next say 2 or 3 decades. Rather tens of billions of
dollars within one decade of time. So not a few tens of billions over next 50 years, nor 100 billion or more in next 2 decades. But program which has an objective, and upon completing the objective [within a decade of starting the program] do something other than exploring the Moon- such as exploration program of a Manned Mars program
« Last Edit: 11/17/2013 01:47 PM by gbaikie »

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2029
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 936
  • Likes Given: 717
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #117 on: 11/17/2013 01:49 PM »
The concepts of quantum entanglement for wireless/secure communications are said to be pursued by Chinese researchers.  While this is probably a topic for the Advanced Concepts thread, I'd like to to use a notion of this to pursue a new paradigm.

Quantum entanglement is the equivalent of a communication system that travels according to some articles 10,000x faster than light.  WHAT IF you take two QE devices and put them on a journey into the solar system.

The space-time effects will cause the space borne device to move forward in time at a faster rate than with a communication system that is on the surface of the Earth.   Sort of like a couple of cans with wires stretched across space + time.

What if NASA were to use this to explore not only space but time as well?  If this were possible, would there need to be a space and time treaty?

Theory says QE devices for communications won't work, but since this is cutting edge stuff, the theory could be wrong.

The problem with QE communications is that it would kill human spaceflight. If you could control a rover on Mars as easily as you could control one in the backyard, there is no reason to send astronauts.
 
Then again, the robotic exploration crowd would love it.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4411
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #118 on: 11/25/2013 09:10 PM »
The concepts of quantum entanglement for wireless/secure communications are said to be pursued by Chinese researchers.  While this is probably a topic for the Advanced Concepts thread, I'd like to to use a notion of this to pursue a new paradigm.

Quantum entanglement is the equivalent of a communication system that travels according to some articles 10,000x faster than light.  WHAT IF you take two QE devices and put them on a journey into the solar system.

The space-time effects will cause the space borne device to move forward in time at a faster rate than with a communication system that is on the surface of the Earth.   Sort of like a couple of cans with wires stretched across space + time.

What if NASA were to use this to explore not only space but time as well?  If this were possible, would there need to be a space and time treaty?

Theory says QE devices for communications won't work, but since this is cutting edge stuff, the theory could be wrong.

Seemed to work just fine in ME-2/3... ;)

Quote
The problem with QE communications is that it would kill human spaceflight. If you could control a rover on Mars as easily as you could control one in the backyard, there is no reason to send astronauts.
 
Then again, the robotic exploration crowd would love it.

No it wouldn't "kill" manned space flight simply because its so "marginal" right now. Oh it would "hurt" a lot come any time someone needed to "justify" HSF but then again we don't have any real "justification" now. Robots still can't repair themselves and they are still highly expensive to "send" in the first place so having a "self-reparing" machine available can always be "justified" as long as your admiting you didn't actually "need" the justification in the first place anyway :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1628
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #119 on: 11/26/2013 02:47 AM »
The concepts of quantum entanglement for wireless/secure communications are said to be pursued by Chinese researchers.  While this is probably a topic for the Advanced Concepts thread, I'd like to to use a notion of this to pursue a new paradigm.

Quantum entanglement is the equivalent of a communication system that travels according to some articles 10,000x faster than light.  WHAT IF you take two QE devices and put them on a journey into the solar system.

The space-time effects will cause the space borne device to move forward in time at a faster rate than with a communication system that is on the surface of the Earth.   Sort of like a couple of cans with wires stretched across space + time.

What if NASA were to use this to explore not only space but time as well?  If this were possible, would there need to be a space and time treaty?

Theory says QE devices for communications won't work, but since this is cutting edge stuff, the theory could be wrong.

Seemed to work just fine in ME-2/3... ;)

Quote
The problem with QE communications is that it would kill human spaceflight. If you could control a rover on Mars as easily as you could control one in the backyard, there is no reason to send astronauts.
 
Then again, the robotic exploration crowd would love it.

No it wouldn't "kill" manned space flight simply because its so "marginal" right now. Oh it would "hurt" a lot come any time someone needed to "justify" HSF but then again we don't have any real "justification" now. Robots still can't repair themselves and they are still highly expensive to "send" in the first place so having a "self-reparing" machine available can always be "justified" as long as your admiting you didn't actually "need" the justification in the first place anyway :)

Randy
It could eliminate some of the need for Mars bases.
But there are people that still want lunar bases.
I think it would encourage exploration to places like Europa.
But as you say just because you need humans on Mars to explore Mars, doesn't translate into human
missions actually going to Mars.
Also faster than light transmissions, would not translate increase of exploration of Mars. The fact that we already essential have this ability in regard to the Moon, has not caused more exploration of the Moon.
So other than making exploration easier, particularly destination, it would not be a significant factor.
Or we have the means of opening up space frontier, and it's not being done, simply because it's not a NASA priority. And not priority for Congress because NASA has failed to make space important to members of Congress and the public.
« Last Edit: 11/26/2013 02:52 AM by gbaikie »

Offline morganism

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #120 on: 11/29/2013 11:05 PM »
Randy, have to agree with you.

There are many folks with romantic visions of "free" colonies and stations wandering the system.
All of that is looking like true fantasy.
The dangers inherent of someone leaning on a door switch, or getting drunk and falling down the gravity well, are just to ominous to ignore.  Most likely will have to be structured like a military org, or at least a nuclear reactor facility. And look how that turned out.

A lot of discussion on "why's", can be found over on the Rocketpunk Manifesto, mostly in the archives.
http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/

The true "why" is going to end up being an incoming rock, or terrestrial habitat destruction.
If it is a rock, we have no chance. There isn't a single useful plan, that doesn't include tech needed for NEO mining. Paint, lasers, mirrors, etc., are all long term tech that needs to be practiced now. Gravity tractors wouldn't be useful unless you had a big enough attractor to do some actual attraction.
That means moving big rocks around too, and at KPS velocities.


"Saving" the environment , however, is a good possibility.

When we get down to IRSU arguments, there are a lot of folks that point out how much easier it is to do right here, in an atmosphere, at a reasonable temp.
 
This is absolutely correct, but misguided.

We have shown repeatedly that we will take the easy money, over long term gain for anyone else, present or future.

But, if we do go out, we need to figure out how to process these rocks for use.
This is pretty easy in microgravity in some ways, and really difficult in others. This isn't a bug tho, it is a feature.
We will have to figure out how to make non-wearing boring tools, grinders and bits. There isn't really anything in nature that we can copy to do this, except water, so we are going to have to figure it out ourselves.
Remember, most meteorites and dust we have examined are around 10% diamond.

When i see the mountaintop mining scars, or the tar sand bitumen bogs, it certainly appears we are literally going to bury ourselves in wastes, or poison the waters to unusability.
But in space, everything is valuable, even if just for shielding.  By figuring out how to process in tiers, for nearly zero waste, and precise separation, we can bring that tech home, and use it to clean up the biosphere.
Consider stepped processing of REE metals, and imagine being able to use cascaded catalysts to separate out elements. By using tuned lasers, molecular weights, vaporization temps, magnetization, and other tech, we should be able to isolate compounds and elements stepwise, while pulling out volatiles along the way.
That same tech would also be useful for running mine wastewater, and tailings piles for that matter.


This isn't anti-tech, it is forward tech.

IF we don't do this, we end up in Soylent Green.
And it is made of people, BY robots.




 

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4411
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #121 on: 12/10/2013 06:09 PM »
I think, we should think along the lines of space exploitation than space exploration. Autonomous satelites are good enough for exploring, but they don't bring back to Earth anything other than data.

We need a lot of data before we can reasonably plan "exploitation" missions though. That's part of the "Chicken-or-Egg" issue that underlies Human Space Flight in the first place...

Quote
To make space accessable to humans, there must be a reason for them to be there in the first place.

That's been the "paradigm" for the last 50 years and I think it is wrong actually. :) Once you have humans UP there you find reasons to use them usually. But you have to be able to get them UP there and in quantity to make the system work. My personnal opinion is that it will probably take simply doing that (putting humans into space to live and work) before we find enough justification to KEEP doing it. YYMV :)

Quote
Reusable TSTO will get you to LEO, where you can refuel. Methane and LOX are good propelants for storage, in-space production and refueling to go to your destination resonablly fast.

This is predicated on an "agenda" that is currently not a consideration by those who set "concepts and principles" of Space Exploration in that it assumes a well supported and planned, ever expanding program to nuture and expand human presence in space. I agree with it of course but the question is how do we "sell" this to the people in charge and the general public? Everything points to this (space) never being a "priority" with either group and without that support will always be marginal at best.

Quote
What we need is a destinatination that is cheap to build and run, and that can actually pay for itself. Mars or Moon looks like a good destination, but the best destinations are asteorids that need the minimum amount of delta-v to bring to L1/L2/HLO. A BIG iron rich rock brought there would mean, that you could build large rotating cities that would be able to extract expensive metals from space rocks for export to Earth and the rest of the material to expand itself, tools, propellant, consumer products, air and food with solar energy.

You could then slowlly transfer those giant spacestations via Intestelar superhighway network to Mars, Jupiter or other asteroids. The fact, that it would be almost selfsuficient from the Earth, would mean it would be cheap to run and would be able to pay for anything it imports with things that it exports. UK doesn't have to support its former colonies, but it can trade with them to make everyone better off.

No "destination" off Earth meets the qualifications posited: none are cheap, (to get to, to build, or to run) and none are going to be self supporting any time soon without huge upfront money subsidies. What you're suggesting is that somewhere in there a "miracle" occurs which is unlikely at best to happen :)

Space is like no "frontier" on Earth and that is a fact that has to be realized and dealt with right up front. IF, (huge two letter word there) there was an "inexpensive" and regular TSTO orbital system with a high fight rate and supporting "economy" then things begin to become a lot easier. But it IS a "Chicken-or-Egg" issue because a reliable, reusable, "cheap" TSTO (or any launch vehicle actually) NEEDS a robust and expanding market to be able to "pay" for itself over the long run and that requires a NEED for high flight rates and cheap prices in the first place! :)

Personnaly I can see ways to use what we have currently to expand HSF away from just occasional "government" visits but it takes cash as well as a more united "front" from the Space Advocacy community. Getting all the "Space Cadets" to put aside their different agendas to realize even a short-term goal seems almost impossible at the present because as with most "zelots" they already KNOW the "right" answer and will accept nothing less, so it seems "here" we will remain till we get our "act" together.

Or we throw caution to the wind and do something "wild-and-crazy" to change the situation, like maybe put people into space even if its not clear how they are going to "support" themselves in the conventional sense. As long as it is possible to keep themselves alive in a fairly "cheap" and easy fashion that's a HUGE leap from where we are not. More so, pretty much by definition, keeping them alive and supplied is going to put a huge dent in the direction of "needing" a reliable, reusable, and cheap space access system is it not? :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4411
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #122 on: 12/10/2013 06:38 PM »
Randy, have to agree with you.

There are many folks with romantic visions of "free" colonies and stations wandering the system.
All of that is looking like true fantasy.
The dangers inherent of someone leaning on a door switch, or getting drunk and falling down the gravity well, are just to ominous to ignore.  Most likely will have to be structured like a military org, or at least a nuclear reactor facility. And look how that turned out.

I'd say probably closer to being "your brother's keeper" because your brother can kill YOU as easily as he can kill himself if he's not careful, but in general I'd agree that a lot of "liberitarian" leaning space advocates are missing the essential fact that there is going to be a huge "blurring" of public and private "space" in space :)

Quote
A lot of discussion on "why's", can be found over on the Rocketpunk Manifesto, mostly in the archives.
http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/

The true "why" is going to end up being an incoming rock, or terrestrial habitat destruction.
If it is a rock, we have no chance. There isn't a single useful plan, that doesn't include tech needed for NEO mining. Paint, lasers, mirrors, etc., are all long term tech that needs to be practiced now. Gravity tractors wouldn't be useful unless you had a big enough attractor to do some actual attraction.
That means moving big rocks around too, and at KPS velocities.

The problem is that any of the "conventional" why's don't stand up to any direct scrutiny or questioning. Oh it WILL happen... someday, maybe, and it could be tomorrow! But that doesn't provide any significant "incentive" to change policy or priority. And no I'm afraid the "environmental" card is as overplayed and just as ineffective.

I'd even argue it has become counter-productive in fact using the example (joke or not) of the Voluntary Human Extiction Movement. Joke or not the FACT that it exists AND there are people who do NOT consider it a joke shows that. You're not going to get much traction with a group that sees "humans" as a mistake :)

Probably worse yet though is that a large segment of the "environmental" movement is less about "saving" the envirionment than it is about "control" over human action and technology which intentionally or not "frowns" on technological solutions and expanded options. (Including space colonization or exploitation unfortunetly)

I've actually heard/dealt with the "argument" that increased food production and "ISRU" type resource production is "bad" because it "encourages" unsustainable population and economic levels which prepetuate the "myth" of plenty for all. (And during this "argument" laws were therefore enacted to "define" organic produce as that which is ONLY grown in organicly certified "soil" with hand labor and no mechanical or chemical assitance. This was specifically because intergrated "system" production methods such as hydro/aqua/ponics were out-producing the "certified" methods and still able to claim the "organic" label)

As I've noted, we MAY just have to ignore "common-sense/wisdom" and go into space anyway because finding a viable "justification" is pretty much impossible.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #123 on: 12/24/2013 01:25 PM »
"As I've noted, we MAY just have to ignore "common-sense/wisdom" and go into space anyway because finding a viable "justification" is pretty much impossible."

There's nothing wrong in principle with faith based arguments, as long as it is acknowledged that the premise for HSF is a matter of free will choice, based on a faith in human spirit and the illogical desire to explore. 

Please accept with no obligation, implied or explicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2014, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country, nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere . This wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.

Except for Randy, for whom I wish a very Merry Christmas.  And a Happy New Year.
« Last Edit: 12/24/2013 01:26 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 988
  • Liked: 305
  • Likes Given: 89
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #124 on: 07/21/2014 10:04 PM »
Quote
The ISS is currently the "only" destination in LEO and being under government control their needs will always take precedent over commercial/private concerns.
I don't completely agree. The tourists who went to the ISS, although technically only the guests of the Russians, were treated graciously by the entire crew and, by all accounts, enjoyed their stay. There are tourists who take cabins on cargo ships, tourists who stay at government-owned accommodations in the National Parks, visitors to many government facilities. Until the traffic becomes excessive, I see no reason the ISS cannot be a destination for all who wish to make it a port of call.

Tags: