Armstrong lauds another spaceman

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
Muzz wrote:

How many years was it after Chris Columbus sailed the ocean blue
to the new world before Europe finally started to colonize?

Depends on what you mean by 'colonize'. Spain had already turned
a net profit on new world activities in less time than the 'space
age' has existed.

That's a poor comparison though, as space activities started
being commercialized, and started turning a profit, almost
instantly. Restricting the playing field to manned spaceflight
is, in my opinion, not justified.

"Alain Fournier" wrote in message
...
Muzz wrote:

How many years was it after Chris Columbus sailed the ocean blue
to the new world before Europe finally started to colonize?

Colonization started at least 500 years after Leif Ericson sailed
the ocean blue to the new world.


Actually there's evidence it started soon after him, it just wasn't
successful.


Alain Fournier

Alain Fournier wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Paul F. Dietz" wrote:
:
: :Nonsense. Many many things have become affordable because
: f advances not specifically directed at those things.
:
: If you think it's nonsense, please tell us just what technologies you
: think are sufficiently 'dual use' to Mars flights and something else
: (and what that something else is) so as to drive down the costs of
: Mars flights.
:
:
:New stronger materials (a dual use, airplanes and others), electronics
dual use home computers and others),

This doesn't NECESSARILY drive down costs. I seem to recall that a
decade and more ago some folks arrived at the conclusion that using
swaged steel for the body of an expendable launcher was more
economical than using more exotic materials that would be stronger and
lighter.

:fuel cells (dual use cars and
thers) etc.

I believe we've had the sort of fuel cells you'd want to use for a
spacecraft for a long, long time. The ones for applications like
automobiles are somewhat different.

:That is not even mentioning more directly related dual uses such as
:satellite launches and space stations.

The sort of 'space stations' we're doing now don't do anything for a
Mars mission so far as I can tell. I don't see a lot of progress in
satellite launches.

Launcher advances would be lower cost of getting mass into orbit. So
far there are not any large signs of huge advances in this area.
Given the current trend-line, it's going to be a long, long time
before this drives far enough to really help much. The question
arises of just what will drive launch technologies to lower costs.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Alain Fournier wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Paul F. Dietz" wrote:
:
: :Nonsense. Many many things have become affordable because
: f advances not specifically directed at those things.
:
: If you think it's nonsense, please tell us just what technologies you
: think are sufficiently 'dual use' to Mars flights and something else
: (and what that something else is) so as to drive down the costs of
: Mars flights.
:
:
:New stronger materials (a dual use, airplanes and others), electronics
dual use home computers and others),

This doesn't NECESSARILY drive down costs. I seem to recall that a
decade and more ago some folks arrived at the conclusion that using
swaged steel for the body of an expendable launcher was more
economical than using more exotic materials that would be stronger and
lighter.

Sure. But even that gets cheaper with time -- high strength steel
is increasingly used in mundane applications like tell buildings
and automobiles, so even it will get cheaper with time. For that
matter, steel production itself will become more efficient with
time, as mills are increasingly optimized and automated.

I repeat: your position would require that the technologies for
Mars vehicles be completely disjoint from those used in the rest
of the technosphere.

Paul

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Alain Fournier wrote:
:
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : "Paul F. Dietz" wrote:
: :
: : :Nonsense. Many many things have become affordable because
: : f advances not specifically directed at those things.
: :
: : If you think it's nonsense, please tell us just what technologies you
: : think are sufficiently 'dual use' to Mars flights and something else
: : (and what that something else is) so as to drive down the costs of
: : Mars flights.
: :
: :
: :New stronger materials (a dual use, airplanes and others), electronics
: dual use home computers and others),
:
: This doesn't NECESSARILY drive down costs. I seem to recall that a
: decade and more ago some folks arrived at the conclusion that using
: swaged steel for the body of an expendable launcher was more
: economical than using more exotic materials that would be stronger and
: lighter.
:
:Sure. But even that gets cheaper with time -- high strength steel
:is increasingly used in mundane applications like tell buildings
:and automobiles, so even it will get cheaper with time. For that
:matter, steel production itself will become more efficient with
:time, as mills are increasingly optimized and automated.

But not much. Looking at 40 years worth of steel prices (1959-1998),
one does see a declining trend in price (hot rolled steel bar in
constant 1992 dollars) from around $27/100 lb down to $16/100 lb.
While there are a bunch of jumps UPWARD during the 1970's the general
trend line looks fairly constant, judging by eye. So the price is
dropping about two bits per year per 100 lbs of steel.

This is hardly a change that is going to drive down the price of
anything in a hurry and at some point it has to taper off, as I doubt
that steel is ever going to become free.

:I repeat: your position would require that the technologies for
:Mars vehicles be completely disjoint from those used in the rest
f the technosphere.

You can repeat it all you like, but you haven't shown it to be true.
That takes real data and real examples.

The data so far seem to indicate that things aren't getting cheaper
very fast at all. Certainly not fast enough to make much difference
during our lifetimes.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Fred J. McCall wrote:

:I repeat: your position would require that the technologies for
:Mars vehicles be completely disjoint from those used in the rest
f the technosphere.

You can repeat it all you like, but you haven't shown it to be true.
That takes real data and real examples.

And the evidence that you have presented for your original
position is...?

'Spin-on' technologies occur *all the time*. That's why we
have rockets in the first place -- all sorts of mundane technologies
that were developed for other reasons, but enabled the production
of spacecraft. Why should this suddenly stop? You are proposing
a sea change in how technology progresses, with no supporting
evidence whatsoever.

Paul

"Fred J. McCall" wrote:

The sort of 'space stations' we're doing now don't do anything for a
Mars mission so far as I can tell.

Experience in long term operations, logistics, etc. (That's not to
say that the ISS is the ideal (by any measure of ideal) platform.)

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

In article "Muzz" writes:
How many years was it after Chris Columbus sailed the ocean blue
to the new world before Europe finally started to colonize?

Umm, minus thousand?

Colonization was old news by the time of Columbus - there had merely
been a slight hiatus after colonization of Europe had been completed,
then recompleted according to the new definitions of "habitable" or
"arable", then recompleted again...

Little of the overseas colonization that followed the discoveries of
Columbus or his Africa-circumnavigating predecessors was technologically
or politically new ground. The economics of overseas colonization were
a bit different from the colonization of Europe, of course, in the
sense that some initial colonies were profit-hunting efforts concentrating
on perceived sources of gold or spices. But there was plenty of good
old settling being done, too.

Colonizing Mars or the Moon would be qualitatively different in some
ways. For one, there would be no hope of profits nor of arable land -
it would be a red-ink project all the way. Prestige would be a prime
motivation, far more so than in post-Columbus overseas colonization
efforts. The forces driving the effort would not be related to
the sudden emergence of means, as they were in the overseas case:
just because an expedition could go to Mars would not immediately
and automatically make Mars attractive to anybody.

I could see a scenario where Mars is inhabited for prestige alone,
very rapidly after the initial expeditions, then abandoned for good
when nothing worthwhile can be achieved there. Or then a scenario
where colonists only follow after a long succession of expeditions
has finally managed to find something attractive enough for a
profit-pursuing enterprise to exploit. Initially, such an enterprise
would be largely automated, but ultimately a human colony would emerge
from the maintenance needs of the exploiting machinery, and grow from
there.

In neither case would colonizing by itself be black-ink business,
and truly special psychological forces would have to control the
colonizing process - idealism combined with sense of duty to one's
national pride, perhaps?

Timo Saloniemi

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
'Spin-on' technologies occur *all the time*. That's why we
have rockets in the first place -- all sorts of mundane technologies
that were developed for other reasons, but enabled the production
of spacecraft. Why should this suddenly stop? You are proposing
a sea change in how technology progresses, with no supporting
evidence whatsoever.

A perfect case in point would be real time operating systems,
such as QNX or VxWorks. There is a huge market in RTOSs today
spanning a great many industries, including aerospace. It is
that market which drives and pays for the development of RTOS
technology, but aerospace vehicles very much benefit from it.

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: :I repeat: your position would require that the technologies for
: :Mars vehicles be completely disjoint from those used in the rest
: f the technosphere.
:
: You can repeat it all you like, but you haven't shown it to be true.
: That takes real data and real examples.
:
:And the evidence that you have presented for your original
osition is...?

Price trends over the past 30+ years. Look at NASA's estimated price
for duplicating what we did in the 1960's. Even then I suspect some
of the numbers are being jiggered a bit to lower current costs
compared to what was necessary back then in the way of investment in
infrastructure.

:'Spin-on' technologies occur *all the time*. That's why we
:have rockets in the first place -- all sorts of mundane technologies
:that were developed for other reasons, but enabled the production
f spacecraft. Why should this suddenly stop? You are proposing
:a sea change in how technology progresses, with no supporting
:evidence whatsoever.

Paul, it's quite simple. Look at the cost of the original trip to the
moon. Now look at the cost of getting back. Even if you buy that
NASA's numbers aren't just a bit rigged, the price reduction over all
those decades is just pretty damned small.

Look at the cost of currently getting a pound of stuff to orbit back
in the 1960s. Look at the cost of doing the same now. Again, the
price reduction over all those decades is just pretty damned small.

So you can 'spin on' all you like. The facts don't seem to bear out
your contentions. They do seem to support mine. The fact that you
don't like that doesn't change it.

Neither does your claim that I've presented no evidence when I have
done precisely that and you have not.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates