{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.
My "tentative" take is "incompetently" because there's no real "reason" to keep Americans chained to this planet.
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