View Single Post
  #29  
Old January 18th 09, 11:30 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default Are politicians averse to leaving LEO?

On 17 Jan, 21:30, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

:On 17 Jan, 02:18, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
:
: In addition to Rand's arguments on orbital inclination, the argument on
: orbital altitude is that ISS had to be situated below the Van Allen
: belts to minimize radiation shielding requirements, and had to be
: reachable by both the space shuttle and Soyuz/Progress, the latter of
: which has an altitude ceiling of 425 km.
:
:That is the reason for the low orbit. The inlination is another
:matter, If anything a high inclination gives more radiation.
:


This in itself speaks volumes. Radiation is a technical point. The
Russian launch sites are political. An equatorial orbit would be
perfectly ascessible from Kourou where Soyuz is now based. If you are
INTERNATIONAL you make your launch facilities available to everyone.
What is the rooted objection to launcing a Proton from Kourou? Or even
a Shuttle? It is on the coast, there is good access by sea.

"I" to be implies that the best facilities are used from every nation.
Kourou is overwhemingly the best launch site in current operatrion.
This is what TRADE means. There is a site in Brazil even closer to the
equator but that lacks the facilities of Kourou.
:
:Martha Adams in fact strikes me as one of the more sensible people in
:this group.
:

This says more about how loony you are than it does about anything
else.

This is the case in point. I am beginning to see that the fact that
anyone going to a space colony would be able to build a VN machine
easily is something that the Establishment wishes to hide. A colony
may well be constructed without a closed loop, but the colonist will

1) Be able to close the loop fairly easily. Just as you can make a
machine gun very easily from a semi.

2) Despite the dangers AI will be added to the VN genome.

3) If the AI is allowed to evolve the consequences are readily
forseeable.

If colonists go into space with a united World these dangers will not
be present to the same extent. Rules like no mixing of AI with VN
machines, strict controls over the way the genome can evolve. These
rules will be enforcable with a united world.

If the "eternals" - the colony built to survive meteor strikes,
supervolcanoes etc. finds itself in competition with another colony,
they will strive to maximise "fitness" with all that that inplies.
They will already have "semis" provided for them.


- Ian Parker