Quote from: RigelFive on 05/20/2013 04:58 AMOk. Lets roll troll with it.Fixed that for ya.This seems like a non problem to me. Use LOX/LH2.
Ok. Lets roll troll with it.
Real estate. That's what connects Earth to these other objects. There's no reason to look any further than what's obvious.
Quote from: Lar on 05/20/2013 05:08 AMQuote from: RigelFive on 05/20/2013 04:58 AMOk. 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!
William Barton points out that Von Braun suggested 900 launches in about a year.
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.
Darwinists may not like it, but there is nothing in evolution which requires HSF on the basis of survival.
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.
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.
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 horse2). Lots of chickens3). A jockey with a nasty whip4). One of those airport conveyor belt things5). 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.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 05/20/2013 01:11 PMNaturally, 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. ...
Naturally, colonization is a good idea. But you have to start with step one. ...
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.
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.
Like the gold of Solomon:
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
Naturally, colonization is a good idea. But you have to start with step one.
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#msg372800Quote from: JFWilliam Barton points out that Von Braun suggested 900 launches in about a year.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15838.msg373443#msg373443
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.
Uh, just a minor nit but WVB didn't USE kerolox for his shuttles...
Quote from: JFWhy 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.