tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post5118999863006846427..comments2024-03-27T23:12:08.917-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: The wonders of space: Mars, comets and more...David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-73827830495683103272015-11-25T16:40:57.942-08:002015-11-25T16:40:57.942-08:00So far as Mars goes, I am enthusiastic about Phobo...So far as Mars goes, I am enthusiastic about Phobos and Deimos. <a href="http://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.com/2015/06/phobos-panama-canal-of-inner-solar.html" rel="nofollow">Phobos could be a bridge to the Main Belt</a>.<br /><br />Mars has lots of CO2, H2O plus a little argon and nitrogen. All helpful for a spacefaring civilization.<br /><br />Also a little Machiavellian scheming. I don't have much sympathy for would be Mars colonizers but they are numerous. If they can be persuaded that cislunar industry and infrastructure could make Mars colonization more doable, they might lend their support. When dealing with rivals and competitors, I look for goals we might have in common.Hop Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12923433894475072056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78745611402765905672015-11-25T16:22:38.144-08:002015-11-25T16:22:38.144-08:00Paul,
I don't buy that the sole purpose of A....Paul,<br /><br />I don't buy that the sole purpose of A.R.M. is to give SLS/Orion something to do.<br /><br />Lori Garver was an enthusiastic ARM supporter. And she is one of SLS/Orion's fiercest critics.<br /><br />The robotic portion of early versions of ARM was modeled after the Keck Report. Among the authors can be seen many prominent scientists and engineers whose focus is asteroids. So far as lobbyists for Boeing, ULA, ATK? I don't see those among the KECK report authors. <br /><br />Are there other asteroid retrieval vehicles NASA is seriously considering? Outside of OSIRIS-REx I see zip, zero, nada. And OSIRIS is just for bringing back small samples. By concentrating on the SLS albatross hung around ARM's neck, this mission is on its way to getting the ax.<br /><br />So without ARM, how would we park rocks in cislunar space? I just don't see it happening.Hop Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12923433894475072056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-77728610094555701212015-11-25T03:30:38.563-08:002015-11-25T03:30:38.563-08:00And further to my "I don't get Mars"...And further to my "I don't get Mars" aside: I can't see how Mars is a leg on the stool of space settlement.<br /><br />For me the three legs are commercial LEO operations, lunar resources, and asteroid resources. Once fully established and self-sustaining, human space settlement may be rich enough to allow a manned Mars presence. Ie, it's something that can sit <i>on</i> the stool.<br /><br />But Mars by itself is a hole. Trying to attach it to the base of the stool just makes the stool topple over. That is, focusing on Mars <i>harms</i> space development.<br /><br />(Just as focusing in manned lunar "missions" harms lunar development. ARM harms asteroid research. Etc.)Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75940711607386902342015-11-25T03:21:38.925-08:002015-11-25T03:21:38.925-08:00(Avoiding contaminating the new thread)
Hop,
Re: ...(Avoiding contaminating the new thread)<br /><br />Hop,<br />Re: ARM<br /><br />I think there are two schools of objection to ARM. For the advocated of Big Rockets and HSF stunts, they want the Moon or Mars or something big and shiny, ARM is too weak a stunt.<br /><br />Amongst proper scientists (and asteroid-ISRU advocates) ARM is recognised as just being an excuse for ARCM, a the crew mission, to justify the existence of SLS/Orion and their extraordinary costs and extremely limited value.<br /><br />The latter therefore realise that the actual science will always be sacrificed for the crew mission. Anything actually useful or interesting will be cut first to save the manned mission.<br /><br />I support the robotic portion of ARM, but have nothing but contempt for the manned component.<br /><br />The only group left as what I call the "abused spouses". People who say "well, since we have to have SLS/Orion, we might as well try to get some good out of it."Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-23303035846805710632015-11-24T14:27:54.161-08:002015-11-24T14:27:54.161-08:00"We did reports on uses for Shuttle External ..."We did reports on uses for Shuttle External Tanks and 3 D printing in orbit (in the 1980s) and I was a world expert of comets. I am currently on the advisory board for NASA’s Innovative and Advance Concepts group…."<br /><br />Are you invited to sit on boards because of your math and engineering expertise? Or because of your celebrity status?<br /><br />Your work on evolution of cometary mantles was good. I cite it on my <a href="http://clowder.net/hop/railroad/asteroidresources.html" rel="nofollow">asteroid resources page</a><br /><br />However that doctoral dissertation was a few years ago. Your math and physics texts are likely gathering dust in the attic.<br /><br />"The Obama Admin and NASA and the three private asteroid mining companies all know that human operations on retrieved asteroids should take place in cis-lunar space. The moon may be useless in the near term, but lunar orbit is damn near perfect. Only robots will be sent on multi year missions to fetch the rocks."<br /><br />Well, that's a lucid observation. I am (tentatively) taking back some of my unkind thoughts.<br /><br />A rock in lunar orbit doesn't suffer from infrequent launch windows, long light lag latency or poor bandwidth. Since trip time is less than a week, we could even occasionally send humans for trouble shooting.<br /><br />This is why I've been an outspoken advocate of the early version of A.R.M. on various forums. Given something like the vehicle described in the <a href="http://www.kiss.caltech.edu/study/asteroid/asteroid_final_report.pdf" rel="nofollow">Keck Report</a>, we could park 100s of tonnes in lunar orbit with small spacecraft.<br /><br />More often than not, I'm the lone voice among legions of A.R.M. haters. It's not just in space forums A.R.M.'s taking a beating. Also in testimonies before congress.<br /><br />I would think P.R. or D.S.I. would advocate development of technology to park rocks in lunar orbit. But I don't hear a peep from these guys while A.R.M. is going down in flames.<br /><br />Dr. John S. Lewis is the patron saint of asteroid miners. But even he is lukewarm to asteroid retrieval. From page 133 of <a href="https://deepspaceindustries.com/asteroid-mining-101-now-available/" rel="nofollow">Lewis' Asteroid Mining 101</a> "Since ARM is not intended to be a prototype, and does not take advantage of space-derived propellants, we must look elsewhere for sustainable, long term mission architectures such as the STP water-based system described in the previous chapter, or any electric propulsion system that can use water as the working fluid."<br /><br />The Keck vehicle has an exhaust velocity of 30 km/s. High exhaust velocity combined with low delta V budget (~.2 km/s to park some rocks in lunar orbit) means a 17 tonne vehicle can bring back hundreds of tonnes.<br /><br />But Lewis seems to be putting asteroid derived propellents on the critical path prior to fetching rocks. First we would have to establish a mine on a rock in heliocentric orbit (recall rare launch windows, long light lag latency, poor bandwidth). Also exhaust velocity of hydrogen/oxygen bipropellent is around 4 km/s. If the rock is 40% water, it would take most that water to park the rock in lunar orbit.<br /><br />If you have a voice to the inner sanctum, tell them they need to do some stumping for A.R.M.. Given present trends, we're not going to be parking rocks in lunar orbit any time soon (if ever).<br /><br />And while I'm enthusiastic about rocks in lunar orbit, I remain a lunar advocate. As well as a Mars advocate. This makes me a gadfly among the <a href="http://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.com/2013/09/one-legged-stools.html" rel="nofollow">one legged stool</a> advocates. Hop Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12923433894475072056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-79345264950918041032015-11-24T14:08:14.034-08:002015-11-24T14:08:14.034-08:00I mentioned awhile back that I was reading over Ma...I mentioned awhile back that I was reading over Machiavelli. It was interesting that way back in the early 16th C. he was writing about how so many people look back on some glorious golden age, bemoan the decadence of their own times, and try to bring back those 'glorious' times. This is hardly unique to our time. He warned that such sentiments were both foolish and dangerous. Foolish because no one really knows the past anywhere nearly as well as we know our own times, so we are naive if we think what the historians wrote, or the fallible memories of the old men, give us all the details we need to fairly evaluate the times, and dangerous because we try to enact changes based on precedents that we do not really understand.<br /><br />The funny thing was that he was cognizant enough (or metacognizant, really) to then ask if he himself had put the Roman Republic on a pedestal (this was in the Discourses on Livy) and if the whole Renaissance era's mania for all things classical might just be a house of cards, waiting to topple.Paul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78292712863048793932015-11-24T13:58:44.156-08:002015-11-24T13:58:44.156-08:00Larry,
I get how you feel when you wrote: I'...Larry, <br /><br />I get how you feel when you wrote: I've said this before, but it's a pet peeve of mine. No one seems to remember that when tv stations started using this "Red State/Blue State" terminology back around the year 2000, it had a more specific meaning than just any election result.<br /><br />But I'm afraid i don't quite feel it. Language and usage changes. It can be useful to remind people of what something originally meant sometimes, but if the terms are no longer being used that way, it's unlikely people will go back to the older usage. I had a couple linguistics classes in college and in one we looked at the American Heritage Dictionary, which was created by a bunch of reactionaries who believed that words should never change, and that they could somehow prevent them from changing. Of course, like all conservative efforts, it was an attempt not to go back to the "original" uses and meanings, but to freeze things as they were when the old coots were young, blithely ignoring how much change had taken place in the millennia before they were even born. It's a big part of why my opinion of conservatives is much lower than my opinion of so-called liberals. I have a lot of friends who are much further to right on our sociopolitical spectrum than I am, and I am willing to listen to the sense that is in some of their beliefs. However, to make it a general principle to try to prevent the inevitable (change) and utterly fail to consider the changes that led to the times they hold up on pedestals is supremely foolish. Tides and spoons, you know?Paul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81975340587750479422015-11-24T13:32:36.075-08:002015-11-24T13:32:36.075-08:00onward
onwardonward<br /><br /><br />onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-74674725694879029302015-11-24T13:26:37.178-08:002015-11-24T13:26:37.178-08:00Paul451:
"Choose your enemies wisely, for yo...Paul451:<br /><i><br />"Choose your enemies wisely, for you will become them."<br /></i><br /><br />I liked Kurt Vonnegut's take in, I believe, the introduction to "Mother Night"<br /><br />"You are who you pretend to be, so be careful who you pretend to be."LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24136791303120842012015-11-24T13:25:03.682-08:002015-11-24T13:25:03.682-08:00Dr. Brin,
Maybe locum is a survivalist. It fits i...Dr. Brin,<br /><br />Maybe locum is a survivalist. It fits in with his arguments. We have trouble understanding what he says because his logic is 180° from that of most of the people here.Deuxglasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03488986307291616948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-4824063580284831002015-11-24T13:14:30.144-08:002015-11-24T13:14:30.144-08:00Paul451,
Please don’t patronize me. Having run bu...Paul451,<br /><br />Please don’t patronize me. Having run businesses, I know what opportunity cost is and when you use a quote use the whole quote. There are many different variations of this particular one and each can be interpreted differently. Other than that I appreciate and think about what you say in this forum and am glad you are here.<br />Deuxglasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03488986307291616948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-49688052011654735802015-11-24T13:11:05.328-08:002015-11-24T13:11:05.328-08:00Though he is clearly in one of his sort-of-almost ...Though he is clearly in one of his sort-of-almost cogent phases, I still scratch my head over his actual philosophy, since he despises both collective action and the market. Just about the only things left are anarchy and feudalism... one of which always leads to the other.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89120281025316186082015-11-24T11:38:58.779-08:002015-11-24T11:38:58.779-08:00Paul SB:
I thought the "red state" thin...Paul SB:<br /><i><br />I thought the "red state" thing was pretty ironic, too, after how 'red' was used in the 20th C. to indicate communism. And yet the right wing here seems to have embraced it. I supposed it's red and blue for the colors of the flag. Maybe it should be white and blue? I know most people in my neighborhood would find that more appropriate, given the mindless insults they use.<br /></i><br /><br />Heh! I like Dr Brin's usage of Blue and <b>Gray</b> to suggest the Civil War sides are alive and well, but I'm getting a chuckle out of "Blue States and White States" too. I might try to get that to catch on.<br /><br />I've said this before, but it's a pet peeve of mine. No one seems to remember that when tv stations started using this "Red State/Blue State" terminology back around the year 2000, it had a more specific meaning than just any election result. It was very specific to the presidential election and its electoral vote system. A "Blue State" was one that was so certain to give its electoral votes to the Democrat that it was pointless to campaign there. Moving the needle from, say 60% Democratic to 55% Democratic was a waste of time and resources because the result would be the same. Ditto with a Red State in the opposite direction. So the connotation of "Red State" and "Blue State" was not just "states which lean Republican" or "states which lean Democratic". It was more along the lines of "states whose electoral votes could pretty much be counted before the election actually took place." <br /><br />The gist of it was that the real battleground for the election was the <b>other</b> states--the ones not Red or Blue.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-10675617251789563872015-11-24T11:20:26.658-08:002015-11-24T11:20:26.658-08:00General aside:
Cannot see the obsession with Mars...General aside:<br /><br />Cannot see the obsession with Mars. I can't see that it's in any way suited for human settlement, let alone the <i>only</i> place suitable as it's often depicted. "Humanity's second home", "the closest environment to Earth in the Solar System", etc.<br /><br />It seems to me that when you make a list of all the things that Earth provides humans to allow us to live, the only thing Mars has is "somewhere to stand". Everything else must be manufactured or imported.<br /><br />And if you're going to manufacture an entire artificial environment, "somewhere to stand" seems a pretty simple addition.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75005098936728495262015-11-24T11:12:36.645-08:002015-11-24T11:12:36.645-08:00"The Shuttle program [...] you just can't...<i>"The Shuttle program [...] you just can't write it off as wasted money."</i><br /><br />Oh, I really can.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I'm massively impressed that the things flew at all. A 100 tonne space-plane (130 tonnes wet and loaded), having never built a space-plane at all before. The only rocket-planes were little single seaters dropped from B52s, and the largest object ever successfully re-entered was the Apollo capsule.<br /><br />But doing a crazy hard thing is only admirable when it's at least better than the alternative.<br /><br />The Shuttle's mission, it's original primary purpose, was to drastically lower the cost of access to space and increase the rate of launch. That goal was thrown away for NASA's perpetual political goal, to keep all the centres built during the flush of Apollo money going in all the states they are in.<br /><br /><i>"but the important thing was it did do very useful work."</i><br /><br />Google the phrase "opportunity costs".<br /><br /><i>"You quoted me in ""Apollo was like one of those big USSR projects."<br />Then you said "Choose your enemies wisely..." "</i><br /><br />Sorry, I thought this was a well known aphorism: "Choose your enemies wisely, for you will become them."<br /><br />Ie, through NASA the US showed it was better at giant command-economy space programs than the USSR.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-68311750040603384262015-11-24T10:44:13.053-08:002015-11-24T10:44:13.053-08:00Dr. Brin,
I was thinking about your book “Postman...Dr. Brin,<br /><br />I was thinking about your book “Postman”. Through my daughter’s husband, I have met more than a few young scientists and I noticed that many have muscles and tattoos as well as being very smart. If civilization falls, I would expect they would rise to the top. The Holnists would be their bitches and not the opposite.<br />Deuxglasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03488986307291616948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78549647022885370352015-11-24T09:53:17.198-08:002015-11-24T09:53:17.198-08:00Many good responses from one & all, many of wi...<br />Many good responses from one & all, many of with which I agree completely, including the description of 'Right Stuff' pilots & astronauts being even-tempered, & methodical to the point of obsession, yet those qualities (including the impulse to over-control those variables that are within their actual control) do not make them 'risk adverse', otherwise they would never consent to pilot (and/or passenger) a tactical missile powered by high explosives, anymore than a nation of elementary school teachers would try to make a free-market living without massive state & federal subsidies. <br /><br />I would also argue that we are much closer to the Original Star Trek (with the noticeable absence of both Warp Drive & Manifest Destiny-based courage) than many of you are willing to admit, especially if you recognize that almost every original episode featured technological improvisation, jury-rigging, bravado, risk-taking & bluff, which are all reasonable responses to take when confronted by uncharted & unknown variables. It is in cases like that these (national defense, public works & space travel) that collective action is both appropriate & mandatory because (1) the Free Market (which cares only for profit) doesn't give a BM about Manifest Destiny, Individual Honour or National Pride and (2) the average consumer (who is powerless after being thoroughly marginalized by the New Consensus) cares only for personal security, a full belly, bread & circuses.<br /><br /><br />Best<br /><br />locumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-73792998818700860582015-11-24T09:09:12.294-08:002015-11-24T09:09:12.294-08:00Paul451,
That’s what I meant about the Apollo pro...Paul451,<br /><br />That’s what I meant about the Apollo program. It was primarily a political decision and not scientific. Had they found on the Moon something useful (meaning handwavium or something similar) then there would have been a reason to stay but they didn’t so there was no reason to stay. The Russians had already dropped out of the race so the reason was no longer there.<br /><br />After Apollo NASA had a very difficult transition to make as happens in any enterprise public or private when it’s “market” collapses. You just can’t turn on a dime and get rid of assets you don’t need any more and it also was important at the time not to let the space industries waste away thereby losing some critical expertise because once gone, that expertise would much harder to rebuild. <br /><br />The Shuttle program had its faults but it did get some very important work done in the scientific area so you just can’t write it off as wasted money. Just look at the list of scientific projects it accomplished. Could it have been done in a better way? Absolutely looking from 20-20 hindsight but the important thing was it did do very useful work.<br /><br />NASA’s mission was saved by the rank and file quietly and methodically moving resources from dead end projects to the ones worthwhile. This is what should happen in any large organization going through a radical change where the leaders are pretty much at a loss as to what to do but those lower down have better ideas on what must be done and don’t wait for orders from above. Any Grove (who started out as a scientist) of Intel described this painful transition in his book “Only the Paranoid Survive” and is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand how radical change occurs in any organization.<br /><br />You quoted me in “"Apollo was like one of those big USSR projects."<br />Then you said<br /><br />"Choose your enemies wisely..."<br />Sorry, I don’t see the connection.<br />Deuxglasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03488986307291616948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45190645554457008242015-11-24T07:13:38.040-08:002015-11-24T07:13:38.040-08:00If this hasn't been mentioned here until now, ...If this hasn't been mentioned here until now, I am surprised. NASA news on private contracts.<br />https://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-chooses-american-companies-to-transport-us-astronauts-to-international-space-stationJumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-72836406859378989962015-11-24T06:58:54.099-08:002015-11-24T06:58:54.099-08:00Catfish, good analysis here. But to go completely ...Catfish, good analysis here. But to go completely off topic, did you try the catfish? (Apologies to Dr. Brin for reducing his generally thought-provoking blog to a mundane recipe exchange!)Paul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25394791101734156422015-11-24T06:51:14.363-08:002015-11-24T06:51:14.363-08:00I'm not so sure the moon was viewed as valuele...I'm not so sure the moon was viewed as valueless before the missions. It seems to me that depressing evaluation came about as a product of the exploration, not something established prior to that.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-92024375107534858362015-11-24T06:49:55.867-08:002015-11-24T06:49:55.867-08:00Alfred, any archaeologist or historian would look ...Alfred, any archaeologist or historian would look at your taxonomy of space programs and see diachronic variation. There is an obvious historical progression here. Space exploration, as Dr. Brin rightly points out, is orders of magnitude more difficult and more expensive than just about anything the human species has endeavored to do in its history. Only the largest of social organization - nation states - could accomplish it in the early stages. But it's a progression. The O'Neill approach is only beginning to be feasible. In the future it is likely to become the dominant approach, with government regulation for safety concerns. There was a psychologist in the early 20th C. named Vyogotsky who used the term 'scaffolding' to describe adult assistance to children until they have learned to do something on their own. His work is a very standard part of teacher education, but it can also be seen as an analogy here. Big government had to create the scaffolding for the exploration and use of outer space before the private sector could make any use of it. No doubt, now that some of the groundwork has been done, the private sector will start innovating and space will start to blossom. Progress! Paul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5322558445177744362015-11-24T06:47:33.416-08:002015-11-24T06:47:33.416-08:00"As for grumpiness over space progress? Bulls..."As for grumpiness over space progress? Bullshit. Space is very very hard. Apollo was a weird anomaly. NOW we are ready to get started."<br /><br />Apollo wasn't an weird anomaly, just a different strategic appraisal in a time with no data. Apollo tried to overwhelm the difficulties of space travel with brute force labor and budget. Despite this it achieved a failure rate (in lunar missions) of one in nine. Read Lovell's Apollo 13 memoir and you will see that one hair-raising near-miss event that came within inches of killing crew was almost considered NORMAL in the Apollo program; Apollo 13's was just more prolonged and dramatic. And recall that the Russians' ship never worked at all.<br /><br />Apollo was a Cold War battle -- the only thing making it worth the "Von Braun approach". The impetus was the fear of Russian technological dominance expressed in military satellites and moonbases. The moon goal was a stretch goal to test the waters and to defeat the notion of dominance. Without that, we would have moved directly from orbital maneuvers to space station development -- which the Russians did as soon as they gave up on the lunar idea, and the Chinese are doing now. Apollo also gave assurance that the arms-control articles of the Outer Space Treaty were actually reasonable and enforceable. And finally, we learned what the relative effort required for various missions was -- something no one knew at the start. Apollo tested if moonbases were worth the effort; the answer was, at that time, no.<br /><br />The Moon was chosen for military and propaganda value -- the "high ground". It *wasn't* chosen for scientific or economic value. When it became clear that Earth orbit was the high ground worth occupying (spysats, commsats, GPS, etc.) everyone dropped the Moon back to the same priority as the other worlds of the Solar System. And now that we have surveyed everything major in the System, it's evident that Mars and the asteroids are of more use. <br /><br />Today, Luna's proximity remains its only real asset. Given the size and location (polar) of the deposits, not even water or helium-3 is worth the effort; there are otherwise no volatiles, no metals, no possibility of life. The environment is sufficiently different from Mars, the only other world we would try to live on at this time, that using it as a technology testbed is highly questionable. I can't think of anything to do on Luna that couldn't be done remotely from Earth, thanks to the one-second transmission time. Whereas operations further out need sentient, on-the-spot brains.<br /><br />Thus, I expect Luna to be developed for human occupancy only after interplanetary trade exists to support it, and primarily for scientific and tourism purposes.<br /><br />Dr. Brin: Doesn't the location of asteroid/comet resource extraction depend on what resources you seek? At minimum you'll have to extract water on-site for fuel and reaction mass. Once you've hauled that equipment there, why not use it there?Catfish N. Codnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5358525660094504262015-11-24T06:46:40.418-08:002015-11-24T06:46:40.418-08:00"As for grumpiness over space progress? Bulls..."As for grumpiness over space progress? Bullshit. Space is very very hard. Apollo was a weird anomaly. NOW we are ready to get started."<br /><br />Apollo wasn't an weird anomaly, just a different strategic appraisal in a time with no data. Apollo tried to overwhelm the difficulties of space travel with brute force labor and budget. Despite this it achieved a failure rate (in lunar missions) of one in nine. Read Lovell's Apollo 13 memoir and you will see that one hair-raising near-miss event that came within inches of killing crew was almost considered NORMAL in the Apollo program; Apollo 13's was just more prolonged and dramatic. And recall that the Russians' ship never worked at all.<br /><br />Apollo was a Cold War battle -- the only thing making it worth the "Von Braun approach". The impetus was the fear of Russian technological dominance expressed in military satellites and moonbases. The moon goal was a stretch goal to test the waters and to defeat the notion of dominance. Without that, we would have moved directly from orbital maneuvers to space station development -- which the Russians did as soon as they gave up on the lunar idea, and the Chinese are doing now. Apollo also gave assurance that the arms-control articles of the Outer Space Treaty were actually reasonable and enforceable. And finally, we learned what the relative effort required for various missions was -- something no one knew at the start. Apollo tested if moonbases were worth the effort; the answer was, at that time, no.<br /><br />The Moon was chosen for military and propaganda value -- the "high ground". It *wasn't* chosen for scientific or economic value. When it became clear that Earth orbit was the high ground worth occupying (spysats, commsats, GPS, etc.) everyone dropped the Moon back to the same priority as the other worlds of the Solar System. And now that we have surveyed everything major in the System, it's evident that Mars and the asteroids are of more use. <br /><br />Today, Luna's proximity remains its only real asset. Given the size and location (polar) of the deposits, not even water or helium-3 is worth the effort; there are otherwise no volatiles, no metals, no possibility of life. The environment is sufficiently different from Mars, the only other world we would try to live on at this time, that using it as a technology testbed is highly questionable. I can't think of anything to do on Luna that couldn't be done remotely from Earth, thanks to the one-second transmission time. Whereas operations further out need sentient, on-the-spot brains.<br /><br />Thus, I expect Luna to be developed for human occupancy only after interplanetary trade exists to support it, and primarily for scientific and tourism purposes.<br /><br />Dr. Brin: Doesn't the location of asteroid/comet resource extraction depend on what resources you seek? At minimum you'll have to extract water on-site for fuel and reaction mass. Once you've hauled that equipment there, why not use it there?Catfish N. Codnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-33610338814669823342015-11-24T06:38:08.890-08:002015-11-24T06:38:08.890-08:00Tony,
"'Fascist' is just a mindless ...Tony,<br /><br />"'Fascist' is just a mindless insult, applied in much the same way as 'commie' used to be."<br /><br />Often this is the case. Remember the old Monty Python skit where Michelangelo calls the Pope a fascist for questioning his use of kangaroos in his painting of "The Last Supper?" But that's quite old, and I don't hear young people use this word anymore. Even 'Nazi' doesn't come up like it did when we were young. The mindless insult of today is 'white,' but that might be a reflection of the neighborhoods I have been working in.<br /><br />Fascism, however, is a very real phenomenon. Any time you hear people argue against "allowing" diversity, that's what you are hearing. I'm hardly an enthusiastic supporter of the Democratic party in this country, but they are far more inclusive than the other, which plays to the paranoia of Caucasian racists, their fear that their supposedly superior culture is being supplanted and replaced by "darkies." The irony should be obvious, here, but to people who are 100% convinced of their correctness in all things, any 'tolerance' of difference is seen as moral decay, and when society started expecting them to play nice and be less insulting, they started talking about fascism. But once again, is it fascist to call people out for their fascist rhetoric? No more so than it is kidnapping when law enforcement incarcerate dangerous criminals, or murder when a soldier kills an enemy in combat.<br /><br />I thought the "red state" thing was pretty ironic, too, after how 'red' was used in the 20th C. to indicate communism. And yet the right wing here seems to have embraced it. I supposed it's red and blue for the colors of the flag. Maybe it should be white and blue? I know most people in my neighborhood would find that more appropriate, given the mindless insults they use.Paul SBnoreply@blogger.com