Author Topic: Exploration concepts and principles?  (Read 58639 times)

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8183
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 259
  • Likes Given: 107
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/36482nasaís-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: 9163
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 316
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: 9163
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 316
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: 9163
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 316
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: 4416
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 770
  • 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: 9163
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 316
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: 415
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 6
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: 4416
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 770
  • 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: 4416
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 770
  • 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: 4416
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 770
  • 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: 4416
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 770
  • 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: 2152
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1017
  • Likes Given: 793
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: 4416
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 770
  • 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 »

Tags: