Nothing first.Everything everywhere ASAP.If you think that's beyond NASA's budget, you're right.
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.
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.
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 04/28/2013 02:12 pmIf 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.
Quote from: Lar on 04/28/2013 03:58 pmQuote from: DarkenedOne on 04/28/2013 02:12 pmIf 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!
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.
Quote from: QuantumG on 04/27/2013 10:35 pmNothing 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.
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.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 04/28/2013 05:57 pmQuote from: Lar on 04/28/2013 03:58 pmQuote from: DarkenedOne on 04/28/2013 02:12 pmIf 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.
.... 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.
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.
[/sarcasm] .... 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]
... right now, it seems the factions are pushing the politicians around ....
Here's a three-stage plan that I think makes sense:1. Exploration - Explore bodies within the Solar System...
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.
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.
... Otherwise, let individuals lead the way.
Quote from: BobCarver on 05/12/2013 10:32 pm... Otherwise, let individuals lead the way.As has been pointed out, we are *cough* free *cough* to lead the way.
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.
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.
Living Planet Report reveals widening gap between nature’s supply and human demandHumanity 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.
Ok. Lets roll troll with it.
Why not try to just terraform Earth for the existing population!?
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.
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. ...
Excellent thread!
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.
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.
Quotewe 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.
Quote from: RanulfC on 05/23/2013 08:24 pmUh, 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.
Quote from: spectre9 on 05/25/2013 01:07 amTexas, 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.
...I'd point out that the launch cost thing isn't so linear as one might expect.
Quote from: RanulfC on 05/28/2013 09:08 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.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 05/30/2013 01:04 pmNever said it was linear.Quote from: RanulfC on 05/28/2013 09:08 pm...I'd point out that the launch cost thing isn't so linear as one might expect.(Fixed, ... )
Never said it was linear.Quote from: RanulfC on 05/28/2013 09:08 pm...I'd point out that the launch cost thing isn't so linear as one might expect.
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 ...
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. ...
Quote from: RanulfC on 05/30/2013 10:05 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 05/30/2013 01:04 pmNever said it was linear.Quote from: RanulfC on 05/28/2013 09:08 pm...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...
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.
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.
Chapter 3:Has any other country taken a flight crew beyond low earth orbit???
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.
Quote from: RigelFive on 06/07/2013 01:19 amChapter 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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
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 airplane1903-1914: 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 Earth1958: 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
Quote from: RanulfC on 06/03/2013 10:23 pmThe 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.
Ok.So your lasso is now in preliminary design. Sailed thru a first level gauntlet of technical review...
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...
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".
The "argument" is more often than not simply being rehashed and redefined as needed to CONTINUE to argue about it.
Designed by whom? ...
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.
Quote from: RanulfC on 06/12/2013 09:00 pmThe 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.
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...
Quote from: RandyThey 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.
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".
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.
I do agree that they like to argue for the sake of argument, and not for the sake of accomplishment.
Quote from: JFThe endless discussions about hardware are designed to limit the pragmatic discussion about the validity of tourism.Quote from: RandyDesigned by whom? ... Bigelow and SpaceX and others have designed hardware. You know this.
Quote from: RandyIf 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?
I "like" anything that builds a capability we don't already have.
Quote from: JFYou like the heist, I assume?Quote from: RanulfC on 06/14/2013 03:02 amI "like" anything that builds a capability we don't already have.So you like the heist. I don't.
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.
Quote from: RanulfC on 06/20/2013 03:28 pmAnd 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.
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.
Any ideas of where to start the process?
In full belief of the Cow catching concept.
{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
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.
Quote from: RanulfC link=topic=31777.msg1078054#msg1078054date=1374776465My "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.
QuoteThe 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".
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.
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.
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.
The general "dumbing-down" trend has stopped and even reversed itself in the general population over the last decade.
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 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 ...
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.
noone has still managed to come up with a compelling reason for public "buy-in"...
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.
Quote from: JFBest not to let that happen [colonization, with the possibility of a new off-planet government].Quote from: RanulfC on 08/12/2013 06:12 pmIt's going to happen even if everyone stays here on Earth.Huh?
Quote from: RandyThe 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: RandyThe 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: RandyThe 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: RandyI 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: Randynoone 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.
QuoteQuote 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 constructedby various laws.Let's not argue about particular laws, but instead can we acknowledge there could be problems?
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".
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.
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.
Or since government has passed laws, the government bears the responsibility of the consequences of the laws passed.
Because laws passed, it seems to me that the government should explore space in order to find resourcesin 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 peopleinterested opening the space frontier. But it was not merely Lewis and Clark. That almost a stunt or "an Apollo program" compared other surveys.
Additional factor relevant to space exploration is the government did support the Shuttle program, and not merely because they wanted a job program.
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.
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.
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.
QuoteProblem: 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 meterhttp://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2013/04/29/true-cost-waterAnd 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].
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.
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 deliveredfrom 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.
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 tonsit probably is. But important point due to lack of market demand is the least amount require toequal the cost to ship from Earth.
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?
"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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: RigelFive on 11/06/2013 04:12 amThe 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.
Quote from: RonM on 11/17/2013 01:49 pmQuote from: RigelFive on 11/06/2013 04:12 amThe 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... QuoteThe 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
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.
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.
The ISS is currently the "only" destination in LEO and being under government control their needs will always take precedent over commercial/private concerns.