Author Topic: Why Space?  (Read 49029 times)

Offline Cherokee43v6

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • Garner, NC
  • Liked: 935
  • Likes Given: 236
Re: Why Space?
« Reply #120 on: 02/25/2011 02:53 pm »
Here is a very interesting article that addresses the very issue I started this thread to discuss and brainstorm around.

http://www.technologyreview.com/business/26263/

Quote
A habit of thinking about the engineering first and the customers second is a perennial problem in the space industry, says Jim Baker, director of the commercial-sector efforts of the Houston-based aerospace firm MEI Technologies. The industry has many times been guilty of "pushing our solutions onto a market that doesn't quite exist yet," Baker says.

That, folks, is an arrow to the heart shot... and a call to action for us to ignite our native entrepreneurial impulses.


Here is a second article from the same publication:

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=32350&ch=computing&a=f&pw7=T
« Last Edit: 02/25/2011 03:23 pm by Cherokee43v6 »
"I didn't open the can of worms...
        ...I just pointed at it and laughed a little too loudly."

Offline IsaacKuo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Why Space?
« Reply #121 on: 02/25/2011 03:56 pm »
Here is a very interesting article that addresses the very issue I started this thread to discuss and brainstorm around.

http://www.technologyreview.com/business/26263/
Quote
A habit of thinking about the engineering first and the customers second is a perennial problem in the space industry, says Jim Baker, director of the commercial-sector efforts of the Houston-based aerospace firm MEI Technologies. The industry has many times been guilty of "pushing our solutions onto a market that doesn't quite exist yet," Baker says.
That, folks, is an arrow to the heart shot... and a call to action for us to ignite our native entrepreneurial impulses.

Well, is this potential overcapacity actually a bad thing?  Imagine if this were the plan:

A) Upon realizing that the Shuttle program was coming to an end soon and Constellation development wasn't going well, the (monolithic, rational, and competent) US Government decides to scattershot its bets.

B) While expensive, the US Government puts a lot of eggs in a lot of baskets, hoping that at least one of them succeeds in a timely manner.

C) It turns out that several of them succeed, resulting in an overcapacity.

If that were the plan, then surely that doesn't look too bad compared to the alternatives, right?

I'm just saying--even if everyone knew that demand was going to be limited to X amount of capacity for the ISS and commercial satellites and such, an overcapacity may be part of a rational plan.

Offline Cherokee43v6

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • Garner, NC
  • Liked: 935
  • Likes Given: 236
Re: Why Space?
« Reply #122 on: 02/25/2011 04:09 pm »
The problem is that the overcapacity won't last because without launches, the excess capacity will go away.  We're looking at a case of 'use it or lose it'. 

To me, the important question is how do we utilize this capacity so that it does not go away?

Space tourism and playing FedEx/American Airlines for the ISS will only go so far. 
"I didn't open the can of worms...
        ...I just pointed at it and laughed a little too loudly."

Offline IsaacKuo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Why Space?
« Reply #123 on: 02/25/2011 08:18 pm »
The problem is that the overcapacity won't last because without launches, the excess capacity will go away.  We're looking at a case of 'use it or lose it'. 

To me, the important question is how do we utilize this capacity so that it does not go away?

Well, there is no magical demand generator.  The anticipated reductions in launch costs may improve demand a little bit, but not in a game changing way.

If you want to increase demand soon enough to make a difference (like, the next decade or so), then you need a political movement to boost funding levels.  Forget about space mining or space tourism.  Space mining would take many years to pan out, at best.  Space tourism is too expensive by a couple orders of magnitude.

(And while I advocate eventual space colonization someday, it's not something that's going to happen with this next generation of space launchers.)

So, what are some "killer apps" that could save the new generation of space launchers from marketplace culling?

Asteroid Defense

One possibility I suggested is asteroid defense.  This provides a clear benefit to life here on Earth, potentially making it politically easier to garner higher budgets.

An asteroid defense program will involve launching numerous small interceptor missiles to HEO, to deflect the sort of small NEOs that pass nearby all the time.  These NEOs aren't collision threats; even if by some accident one is deflected straight for Earth, it'll just burn up in the atmosphere.

Pro: Clearly useful application
Con: Conventional wisdom is that space robots don't get the bucks of manned spaceflight missions

Space Station Evolution

Another possibility might be a next generation space station designed around eventual use as an exploration vehicle like Nautilus-X rather than a microgravity research station.  This space station won't spend its entire lifetime hugging the Earth, but will rather leave someday for the Moon, an NEO, or Mars.

Pro: Appeals to popular imagation of manned space exploration
Pro: Puts something up there sooner than later
Con: Unclear how this is supposed to be more successful at drumming up funding than Constellation

Space Radar

Who has the biggest budget?  The US military, of course.  While Congress seems to have lost interest in Space Radar, it's not inconceivable to turn it around.  The sort of system suitable for global real time tracking would certainly be expensive and involve a lot of big heavy satellites.

Pro: Big budgets possible in military
Con: Space Radar program not doing well so far

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Why Space?
« Reply #124 on: 02/25/2011 09:23 pm »
The government is the only magic demand generator. And the magic ingredient to unlocking unlimited demand generation is war.

What we need is a war against some space bugs.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline IsaacKuo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Why Space?
« Reply #125 on: 02/25/2011 09:29 pm »
The government is the only magic demand generator. And the magic ingredient to unlocking unlimited demand generation is war.

What we need is a war against some space bugs.

There are no space bugs to wage war against, but there are true space threats (Earth impactor asteroids, comets) and there are military applications which could require oodles of satellites (Space Based Radar, Brilliant Pebbles, Project Thor).

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Why Space?
« Reply #126 on: 02/25/2011 09:43 pm »
The government is the only magic demand generator. And the magic ingredient to unlocking unlimited demand generation is war.

What we need is a war against some space bugs.

There are no space bugs to wage war against, but there are true space threats (Earth impactor asteroids, comets) and there are military applications which could require oodles of satellites (Space Based Radar, Brilliant Pebbles, Project Thor).
War is the main reason we're in space. Without WWII, without the Cold War, without the military application of rockets for the last several centuries... There'd be no spaceflight.

Definitely true there are no space bugs to wage war against. And nobody seems too worried about killer space rocks... Until we get hit with a big one, that is.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline majormajor42

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Why Space?
« Reply #127 on: 02/25/2011 10:56 pm »
Well, you are both addressing the same motivator, FEAR.  Fear seems to be a great way to drum up money. But it is better for short term objectives than long term. Not sure what that threshold is but it is a lot easier to lobby money for crime fighting and jails, based on the fear of criminals, than other longer term strategies that might prevent youngsters from choosing the criminal path in the first place.

It is a lot easier to legislate money for fighting terrorism than spending on some other sort of strategy that might prevent that angst in the first place.

Fear of the long term consequences of a large federal deficit may finally being taking root. Even though it has been discussed for decades, it is finally being taken seriously, I think, because the consequence might be nearer term than people thought. We'll see.

Right now, there is no short term fear among the general populace of some sort of consequence of an underfunded space program. Many other folks, besides space advocates, are lobbying for our money and making a better argument about what is at stake. We can only hope that NASA maintains the funding levels that they have.

Nobody wants a devastating threat that would necessitate a dramatic growth of funding for aerospace. You are both right that War, whether it is space bugs or an adversary like the USSR, or natural threats could create that fear that loosens the purse strings. I'm not sure if it would necessarily lead toward greater funding for HSF. But, even if it did benefit the space program, I really don't want a legitimate reason to fear something again. I remember fearing nuclear war as a child in the 80s and I think most Americans could do without the fear felt by all for the years after 9/11. I don't want to go through that again.

So I guess I'm hoping that the answer to "Why Space?" is not based on some sort of short term threat.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2011 10:59 pm by majormajor42 »
...water is life and it is out there, where we intend to go. I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man or machine on a body such as the Moon and harvest a cup of water for a human to drink or process into fuel for their craft.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Why Space?
« Reply #128 on: 02/25/2011 11:30 pm »
Again, why do you think that humans = Ed Kyle clones (emotionally)?

Do you realize that many people never heard a bullfrog and they feel perfectly fine?

We're not talking about just visiting someplace off of our planet.  We're talking about starting a new planet.  Sure, there may be people willing to spend the remainder of their lives in a dead, sterile environment, but the vast majority of regular human beings would not.

I think you're speaking for yourself when you insist that a city without pests is a "dead, sterile environment".  The sort of space habitat we're talking about could be something like the stereotypical pictures of a Bernal Sphere or a Stanford Torus.  A vibrant city with grass and trees as well as lots of living breathing people.

The vast majority of regular human beings would not think "dead, sterile environment" when they see the interior of a Bernal Sphere.

How do you grow gardens, or crop fields, without biotic pollination?
http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pollinators/documents/factsheet_pollinator.pdf

Is a bee a "pest"?  What about "hummingbirds, bats, and small mammals such as mice .... insects like beetles, ... ants, wasps, butterflies and moths"?

Who gets to decide what a pest is and is not? 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 02/25/2011 11:32 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Why Space?
« Reply #129 on: 02/25/2011 11:39 pm »
Majormajor42:
That's the problem with human beings... We rarely rise to greatness except for fear. And greed for power (though this far more often applies to greedy individuals who then use fear to acquire power for themselves).

Remember that wealth is also predicated on fear... Without fear, a creditor would not be able to collect from a debtor, and basically all great wealth is based on someone else's debt. It's fear of the police or private security or (sometimes) God that keeps the desperately poor from just taking from the rich. Anyways, this is just human nature.

Fear is almost always a necessary ingredient for greatness. How were the Great Pyramids built? (Fear of death, fear also kept the builders enslaved) How were the Saturn Vs built? Greed also works... How was the Burj Dubai (Khalifa) built? The Chrystler building?

Love can work, as well. Love for a deceased wife built the Taj Mahal. Love (and fear) for God built the Cathedrals.

Fear, then greed (and/or love of power... the same thing), then love (of knowledge, of individuals, of mankind, of nature, of God/gods). Those are the motivators of greatness.

How do we bring these motivators to bear on Space?

Fear is the most potent. Killer asteroids. Global warming/cooling. War (surveillance, mutually assured destruction, antiballistic missile technology, GPS).

Greed is also potent. This is commercial space exploration. Tourism. Mining. Communications. Resource exploration/mapping.

Love is a motivator, as well... Love of knowledge/nature (Hubble, exploration). Love of God (some examples of individuals being motivated in this way... RSpeck, for instance... mostly historical examples regarding other frontiers). Love of humanity (space settlements?). Love of individuals (no examples for space that I can remember).

EDIT:One more: Hunger. Hunger (or thirst or lack of shelter or need of air, etc) is a great motivator. Hunger and fear are the very lowest motivators. Hunger is sort of an anti-motivator for space, for the most part... Generally not much food, air, (liquid) water, or shelter in space unless you bring it from Earth.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2011 11:46 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Why Space?
« Reply #130 on: 02/25/2011 11:47 pm »
Who gets to decide what a pest is and is not?

Not me, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that some species will be chosen ahead of others.

The best aspect to growing things (plants and animals) in space, is that you get to be very specific about which species you bring with you and which you choose to leave behind.

Ants, butterflies, worms, bees, fish, small birds, chickens and maybe even sheep are some of the more obvious candidates to try to bring into such a new environment, because they all produce obvious benefits.   Less likely to make the cut are creatures like cockroaches, aphids, wasps, scorpions, poisonous spiders, poisonous snakes, rats, horses and hippo's! :)

But in space, we will get the unique opportunity to not just control, but to actively *design* the environment around us.   And as O'Neill pointed out back in the day, if you ever find that one of your garden modules does get infested with something really nasty by accident, all you have to do is vent it to vacuum, expose the module to pure sunlight and remove the rad shielding for a week.   The lack of oxygen, combined with the extremes of temperature and also the radiation environment will thoroughly sterilize any soil you have, without doing any permanent harm to it.   Once you button the system back up again, you can re-plant and try another mix of species, without fear of contamination from the previous attempt.

It will probably take a while to find some really good combinations, but it will be done, sooner or later.   I can even imagine it becoming a sought-after "art" in some circles.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2011 11:55 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Why Space?
« Reply #131 on: 02/25/2011 11:49 pm »

We're not talking about just visiting someplace off of our planet.  We're talking about starting a new planet.  Sure, there may be people willing to spend the remainder of their lives in a dead, sterile environment, but the vast majority of regular human beings would not. 

I wonder how long this Nerd Planet you describe would survive...

 - Ed Kyle

This could go a bit off track. I think the original point was about a habitable planet being a killer app which is different from crewing a realistic base (and eventually colony).

To pull in the average joe, and power the growth into space by the sheer number of people willing to go on a one way trip, you probably need a habitable planet with .. well i dunno if I would particularly miss the bullfrogs, but whatever.

This is simply different from what will certainly actually happen, a very small outpost moving gradually closer to self sufficiency, with under a thousand people selected from all the billions of earth, and with plenty of time to select further for those who actually end up staying as opposed to a 2 year visit..

I think we are discussing the killer app specifically and not this second more reasonable case, because the killer app is closer to the topic: what can start our "space-rush"?

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: Why Space?
« Reply #132 on: 02/26/2011 01:27 am »
The killer ap is to realize there is no killer ap.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Why Space?
« Reply #133 on: 02/26/2011 02:39 pm »
I forgot one motivation: the desire to create, procreate (not the animal sexual desire). This might be related to love, but it's a strong desire almost independent of the others...

This is also, ultimately, the most important motivator for space.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline IsaacKuo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Why Space?
« Reply #134 on: 02/26/2011 05:23 pm »
Well, you are both addressing the same motivator, FEAR.

Earth impactors are a threat which needs to be addressed, regardless of whether or not one fears it.  Fear is not necessary because it is a threat which we can definitely solve.  It's not like the threat of earthquakes or volcanoes, which we may or may not ever be able to predict/prevent.  We can expect the eventual capability for 100% defense, given sufficient resources.  The only question is how long it will take to get there, and how expensive it will be.
Quote
So I guess I'm hoping that the answer to "Why Space?" is not based on some sort of short term threat.

Earth impactors aren't a short term threat (so far as we know).  They are a long term threat.

Offline IsaacKuo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Why Space?
« Reply #135 on: 02/26/2011 05:39 pm »
I think you're speaking for yourself when you insist that a city without pests is a "dead, sterile environment".  The sort of space habitat we're talking about could be something like the stereotypical pictures of a Bernal Sphere or a Stanford Torus.  A vibrant city with grass and trees as well as lots of living breathing people.

How do you grow gardens, or crop fields, without biotic pollination?
http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pollinators/documents/factsheet_pollinator.pdf

Is a bee a "pest"?  What about "hummingbirds, bats, and small mammals such as mice .... insects like beetles, ... ants, wasps, butterflies and moths"?

Who gets to decide what a pest is and is not?

Does it really matter exactly who decides, to your argument?  Plausibly, some panel of scientists and engineers regulate and manage the ecosystem of free roaming species within the main habitat.  Ultimately, they would answer to some form of government; this government may ultimately answer to the people...who may be the inhabitants or it may be the inhabitants plus the people of a country on Earth, or...well, does it matter to this discussion?  The point is, someone decides what is a pest and what is not a pest.  Pests are not allowed into the habitat and/or exterminated.

Whoever exactly decides, honeybees are probably allowed.  Compared to other pollinators, honeybees are efficient and low impact.  Furthermore, they also produce honey--surely a popular product on board a space habitat with a limited variety of foods (compared to cities on Earth).

The bottom line is that species which are considered desirable aren't "pests".

Offline Cherokee43v6

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • Garner, NC
  • Liked: 935
  • Likes Given: 236
Re: Why Space?
« Reply #136 on: 02/26/2011 06:10 pm »
On the list of motivation emotions, you missed out on Hunger for Knowledge.  Also, you pulled a Pandora.  Hope for something better can also be a motivator for moving outward.  After-all, for the last century, it has been the hope to embrace and become part of the American Dream that has driven the legal and illegal immigration into the United States.

I think that perhaps the idea of a single 'Killer App' is a bit more than we can expect.  I mean, it would be awesome if we managed to come up with one, but barring Divine intervention, we are unlikely to see anything like that prior to having already established the robust human presence we seem to want it to help establish.

A robust presence doesn't call for one thing that drives tens or hundreds of launches.  A robust presence calls for many many things that drive several to tens of launches each.

It's not about 'it', singular.  Its about 'those', plural inclusive.

Tourism won't do it alone.
Government won't do it alone.
Solar Power Sats won't do it alone.
Science missions won't do it alone.
Asteroid and Planetary human exploration won't do it alone.
Establishing and maintaining Lunar bases won't do it alone.
Orbital commercial biomedical research won't do it alone.

But wait, why does one of these have to dominate?  This is a fairly robust list already... and surely we can come up with more small projects!

What we need now is a D. D. Harriman.  Elon Musk has stepped into part of the role, with his launch company, but the question now is "Who is going to sell the Moon?"
"I didn't open the can of worms...
        ...I just pointed at it and laughed a little too loudly."

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Why Space?
« Reply #137 on: 02/27/2011 07:10 am »
Hi Cherokee, IMO government sponsored things like science missions help, but just to keep things bubbling away. Without that and a satellite launch industry the leap to one of these other ideas becoming viable may be just too far for even a multibillion dollar company.

I think it is valid to consider a single killer app. This doesn't mean an application a hundred times better than any or all others, it is just the first business case that can reach that break even point where its profits can be turned into growth and therefore larger profits and more growth etc. If it can manage a few percent growth a year like other businesses, and is open ended like tourism and SSP might possibly be, that is enough to be a killer app.

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: Why Space?
« Reply #138 on: 02/27/2011 01:33 pm »
I admit I never heard of Diamandis before I went looking for new TED talks. Perhaps these predictions converge to reality, perhaps they fall very far behind...
2005, 15 min, http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/peter_diamandis_on_our_next_giant_leap.html
2006, 20 mins, http://www.ted.com/talks/burt_rutan_sees_the_future_of_space.html
2008, 4 mins, http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/peter_diamandis_on_stephen_hawking_in_zero_g.html

[science provokes quest, so I include these:
2009, 3 mins, http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/carolyn_porco_could_a_saturn_moon_harbor_life.html
2009, 16 mins, http://www.ted.com/talks/joel_levine.html
2010, 7 mins, http://www.ted.com/talks/carter_emmart_demos_a_3d_atlas_of_the_universe.html]

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Why Space?
« Reply #139 on: 02/27/2011 03:07 pm »
By "most" countries, I was being facetious.

I knew that.  I was thinking that the list would include....  well, Elbonia for starters...

But seriously, I can't consider dropping an asteroid to Eaarth's surface seriously, particularly if the cargo is nickle, and even if it should be gold, or palladium.  As to the idea that there might be "perceived" safety concerns, this is to laugh, and not an indication, by my reading, that this idea could be taken seriously.  But carry on, if you all will.

I can't imagine living without all of these critters ... to become an acceptable human landscape.

Correction. "To become an acceptable Ed Kyle landscape".

This is a "correction"?  I've made the comment before, that the Powers That Be may possibly have an intention for humanity to stay on planet for the time being, and perhaps with good reason.  The action of rushing off to colonize space should not be taken at all if sound reasoning should be abandoned.  The sterile, dead lifescape that I immediately imagine after reading that "correction", makes me seriously consider that staying on planet may be necessary until better thinking can be demonstrated.

As to the "analysis" suggesting that the sound of bullfrogs is inadequate to provide pleasure to many people, fine, as far as the limited distance which it goes.  There is NSoV to live in the early settlements, which will be necessarily sterile.  It would be incorrect to lose sight of the idea that colonization should properly include large numbers of people, most of which would prefer to minimize the sterility as much as possible.  Fixating on "bullfrogs" or other simple things is a shallow analysis.  Suggesting that the issue of familiar Earth environments necessarily leads to a "pre-condition" for human habitation, is fundamentally an erroneous analysis.

Ed hits the nail on the head: "Who gets to decide what a pest is and is not?"  The Nerd Planet briefly described would probably devolve into a "Lord of the Flies" dystopia fairly quickly, because its leaders would lead by a compulsion based on an inadequately broad world view.

...if you ever find that one of your garden modules does get infested with something really nasty by accident, all you have to do is vent it to vacuum, expose the module to pure sunlight and remove the rad shielding for a week.   The lack of oxygen, combined with the extremes of temperature and also the radiation environment will thoroughly sterilize any soil you have, without doing any permanent harm to it.   Once you button the system back up again, you can re-plant and try another mix of species, without fear of contamination from the previous attempt.

So true, but I think more of living permanently on a planet's surface, say Mars.  Here, I would say, bring up 20 tons of dirt from Earth.  Start planting your corn, and learn to deal with it, as a farmer does here.  Rather than analyze the soil to no end, start planting and growing stuff.  The Earthly soil would be the feeder stock to fertilize the martian soil.  Quit treating biodiversity as an enemy, killing every creature that isn't "politically correct".  Kill the bugs that are eating your corn and keep moving. Don't make this bug or that bug the end of the colony.

Quote
Plausibly, some panel of scientists and engineers regulate and manage the ecosystem of free roaming species within the main habitat.

Vie, hex!  Keep your laws off my habitat!

Quote
It's not about 'it', singular.  Its about 'those', plural inclusive.

This is clearly true.  The space economy will build slowly but surely, due to a number of individual efforts.  But our government should carefully, appropirately, and consistently provide the seed money to create this economy.  Sadly, the current failure of Constellation has wasted many years and dollars.  The current debate over SLS has many obvious flaws for the future; the main one currently seems to be that "business as usual" might continue to be the practice, which will result in more program failure if it is not stopped.



I'm all for mining asteroids.  I believe that the correct process would be to do the mining there, and take the ingots to the Moon or wherever the manufacturing will be taking place.  Move the good stuff, leave all the detritus aside.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0