Barack Obama Publishes His Space Policy

Michael Gallagher wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 04:54:36 -0800 (PST), "Mark R. Whittington"
wrote:

Senator Barack Obama has published a comprehensive space policy that
is conspicuous in what it does not mention as in what it does.
Unfortunately it constitutes a return to the 1990s during which
astronauts flew in circles in low Earth orbit and commercial space was
ignored.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ce_policy.html

Well, let's remember that two months ago, everyone was worried he
would delay Orion for five years because he said he would delay
CONSTELLATION that long. Obviously, it's not as bad as that. But he
could have said something like "Our international partners will insure
we can continue to access space even as we redirect our resources to
more important matters, until we can afford such ventures." He
didn't.

Glass Half Full isn't so bad when you realize the whole damn piture
could have been poured out.

What exactly do you not understand about Constellation being a *failed*
launch vehicle architecture, whether it is applied to the moon and mars
or whether it is applied to low Earth orbit. It has failed. Get it?

Michael Gallagher wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:10:27 +0100, jacob navia
wrote:

Humans have no place in deep space
as I have demonstrated in this forum several times. The problem of
radiation shielding, tolerance for zero G, and (above all)
the development of space hardware for life support that offers
100 reliability for long periods of time (3-4 years).


None of which are show stoppers. Once upon a time, we wondered if
astronauts could survive a round trip to the Moon. The could and did.
Deep space has its challenges. But they can be overcome.



I didn't say they can't be overcome. Until they ARE overcome however,
humans can't go into deep space unless they want to commit suicide.

Of course deep space is not the moon, a mere 300 000 Km away and a few
days from earth. I am speaking about Mars, for instance, where the
round trip is several YEARS, i.e. 2-3 orders of magnitude longer than
a trip to the moon.

But even if it is possible to send humans to the moon, progress in
robotics and computers make such a trip unnecessary since we can
travel around in the moon using robots much cheaper than going
in person.

Humans can't survive in the moon for longer periods (3-4 weeks or
more) if they have no radiation shielding. BEFORE humans go to
the moon they need to build the moon station using robots, THEN,
longer trips to the moon are possible.

Radio delay to the moon is just 1 second, short enough to make
very easy driving a robot there. Mars is between 600-1200
light seconds away, making a round trip of 1200-2400 seconds
what makes driving a robot possible but more difficult.

My point is: robotic missions allows us to explore NOW, and
develop the technology to enable the trips to space by humans
LATER.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

jacob navia wrote:
:
:But even if it is possible to send humans to the moon, progress in
:robotics and computers make such a trip unnecessary since we can
:travel around in the moon using robots much cheaper than going
:in person.
:

And if you want to send toasters to space rather than people, that's
the perfect position.

Now remove your agenda and try again.

:
:Humans can't survive in the moon for longer periods (3-4 weeks or
:more) if they have no radiation shielding. BEFORE humans go to
:the moon they need to build the moon station using robots, THEN,
:longer trips to the moon are possible.
:

Silly. Even if your 3-4 week claim is right, there's a whole
Moon-load of rock and such there. Ever heard of 'craters' and
'caves'?

:
:Radio delay to the moon is just 1 second, short enough to make
:very easy driving a robot there.
:

Not so much, no. Try walking across the room and examining objects
doing a 'step-look' sequence of a second for each one. See how long
just exploring the room takes.

:
:My point is: robotic missions allows us to explore NOW, and
:develop the technology to enable the trips to space by humans
:LATER.
:

But what are we exploring for if people aren't going? Exploring can
wait in that case and we can kill planetary science for the
foreseeable future.


--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

Fred J. McCall wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
:
:But even if it is possible to send humans to the moon, progress in
:robotics and computers make such a trip unnecessary since we can
:travel around in the moon using robots much cheaper than going
:in person.
:

And if you want to send toasters to space rather than people, that's
the perfect position.

Now remove your agenda and try again.

:
:Humans can't survive in the moon for longer periods (3-4 weeks or
:more) if they have no radiation shielding. BEFORE humans go to
:the moon they need to build the moon station using robots, THEN,
:longer trips to the moon are possible.
:

Silly. Even if your 3-4 week claim is right, there's a whole
Moon-load of rock and such there. Ever heard of 'craters' and
'caves'?



Obviously you just go into a moon cave and make a good fire,
you hunt around for food, and live from the land...

Look man, can you think a bit seriously?

Even if you find a good cave (you have to FIND it first using
robots), you have to construct a whole environment for humans
in that place:

o air-tight so that humans can breathe.
o with enough water and food so that humans can live for a
while
o With enough "amenities" so that they do not go crazy:
showers, waste disposal, communications, fuel, solar
panels, and a big ETC!

All that must be there BEFORE the humans arrive. Or you
are seriously considering sending astronauts with shovels
to the moon? How they could survive when constructing
the moon base if there is no moon base yet?

It is obvious that sending construction workers to the
moon in temporary habitats carried at great expense from
earth is so silly nobody is seriously considering that.

NASA, by the way, is not even considering a moon base
at all.

:
:Radio delay to the moon is just 1 second, short enough to make
:very easy driving a robot there.
:

Not so much, no. Try walking across the room and examining objects
doing a 'step-look' sequence of a second for each one. See how long
just exploring the room takes.


You get used to it in 1-2 hours practice.

:
:My point is: robotic missions allows us to explore NOW, and
:develop the technology to enable the trips to space by humans
:LATER.
:

But what are we exploring for if people aren't going? Exploring can
wait in that case and we can kill planetary science for the
foreseeable future.

You are not interested in knowledge or science. You just
want to send people there, and there is a lot of profit
to be made (not by you of course) in doing that, that is
why sending humans is proposed by certain people.

Personally, I do not give a dam about some guys jumping around
in the moon. I am interested in exploration and science.

I know, that is very old fashioned and not so "gee-whiz".
But, as said, I do not care about people getting disappointed.


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

jacob navia wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: jacob navia wrote:
: :
: :But even if it is possible to send humans to the moon, progress in
: :robotics and computers make such a trip unnecessary since we can
: :travel around in the moon using robots much cheaper than going
: :in person.
: :
:
: And if you want to send toasters to space rather than people, that's
: the perfect position.
:
: Now remove your agenda and try again.
:
: :
: :Humans can't survive in the moon for longer periods (3-4 weeks or
: :more) if they have no radiation shielding. BEFORE humans go to
: :the moon they need to build the moon station using robots, THEN,
: :longer trips to the moon are possible.
: :
:
: Silly. Even if your 3-4 week claim is right, there's a whole
: Moon-load of rock and such there. Ever heard of 'craters' and
: 'caves'?
:
:
:Obviously you just go into a moon cave and make a good fire,
:you hunt around for food, and live from the land...
:

Obviously you're a major dumbass who can't actually discuss issues
reasonably and so have to engage in stupid **** like the preceding...

L
:Look man, can you think a bit seriously?
:

I can, but you obviously can't.

:
:Even if you find a good cave (you have to FIND it first using
:robots), ...
:

Because obviously all of mankind is struck blind until robots can go
and do that job.

:
:... you have to construct a whole environment for humans
:in that place:
:

And this is not hard to do if you actually jettison your ideology and
engage your brain.

:
air-tight so that humans can breathe.
:

Kevlar inflatable.

:
with enough water and food so that humans can live for a
: while
:

Robots don't help with this. You're going to have to bring it with
you and recycle a lot.

:
With enough "amenities" so that they do not go crazy:
: showers, waste disposal, communications, fuel, solar
: panels, and a big ETC!
:

And the robots don't help with all that, either. Again, you have to
bring it with you initially.

:
:All that must be there BEFORE the humans arrive. Or you
:are seriously considering sending astronauts with shovels
:to the moon?
:

And once again your lack of intellectual integrity rears its ugly
head.

:
:How they could survive when constructing
:the moon base if there is no moon base yet?
:
:It is obvious that sending construction workers to the
:moon in temporary habitats carried at great expense from
:earth is so silly nobody is seriously considering that.
:

That's right, nobody is, so why are you raising it as if someone is?

:
:NASA, by the way, is not even considering a moon base
:at all.
:

Really? From a lack of intellectual integrity to outright lying in
one swell 'foop'.

http://www.world-science.net/otherne...lunar-base.htm

:
:
: :
: :Radio delay to the moon is just 1 second, short enough to make
: :very easy driving a robot there.
: :
:
: Not so much, no. Try walking across the room and examining objects
: doing a 'step-look' sequence of a second for each one. See how long
: just exploring the room takes.
:
:
:You get used to it in 1-2 hours practice.
:

It's not a matter of 'getting used to it'. It's a matter of 'you have
to move really slow because **** happens in much less than a second
and you can miss a lot otherwise'.

:
:
: :
: :My point is: robotic missions allows us to explore NOW, and
: :develop the technology to enable the trips to space by humans
: :LATER.
: :
:
: But what are we exploring for if people aren't going? Exploring can
: wait in that case and we can kill planetary science for the
: foreseeable future.
:
:You are not interested in knowledge or science.
:

You are a lying git.

:
:You just want to send people there, ...
:

Quite right, I do. If that's not the plan, why learn about the place?

:
:... and there is a lot of profit
:to be made (not by you of course) in doing that, that is
:why sending humans is proposed by certain people.
:

And your profit motive is what, precisely?

Sauce for the goose and all that, after all...

:
:Personally, I do not give a dam about some guys jumping around
:in the moon. I am interested in exploration and science.
:

Well, no, you aren't. You're against people going (exploration).

:
:I know, that is very old fashioned and not so "gee-whiz".
:But, as said, I do not care about people getting disappointed.
:

You know, they used to say "no bucks, no Buck Rogers". Each new
generation of idiots like you needs to learn that the converse also
applies - "No Buck Rogers, no bucks."

I hope you're very, very wealthy and can fund what you want on your
own, because if people aren't going you're going to find getting tax
money to do it is pretty much a non-starter.

Learn some history...


--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

Fred J. McCall wrote:

You know, they used to say "no bucks, no Buck Rogers". Each new
generation of idiots like you needs to learn that the converse also
applies - "No Buck Rogers, no bucks."

Well I guess you Americans are doubly ****ed then :

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

On Jan 13, 8:04*pm, kT wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
You know, they used to say "no bucks, no Buck Rogers". *Each new
generation of idiots like you needs to learn that the converse also
applies - "No Buck Rogers, no bucks."

Well I guess you Americans are doubly ****ed then :

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

What could possibly justify sending a fully automated
robotic mission to an Atens Asteroid? A government funded
project is run by people who are interested in what
happens during their term. With the Washington spin
machine interested in only in the immediate short-term
results, the R&D apples of something pretty far-sighted
won't last very long with only a three year interest
venture. That is why a project of this immensity has to
be privately funded. With the technology already avail-
able to determine where and how much precious metal is
contained within the first 20 feet of an asteroid, the
future of the human race cannot rely on the fact of a
few small robotic excursions to the NEA's for providing
real returns in their investment, but should include
a certain group of trained specialists. (This was dis-
cussed in message

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...89a6be94b2c15c

Whether or not NASA's new COTS proposal gets involved
in a project of this magnitude would depend on how
PRIVATE INDUSTRY decides they want to direct the
earth-to-orbit technology, because NASA COTS would,
if the NWO transnationalist cloned NSA rusemaster klepto-
green pork infested bureaucratic party of reprobate
statist robo-capitalists found at least one rich eccentric
gentile to guide the rest of the borg zionists into re-
thinking 'what are' and 'where are' the infinite resources
that a very nearby extraterrestrial space has to offer it.

Theirs can only be prospered within a fear-based economy,
because they consider ANY CHEAP, RELIABLE earth-to-orbit
technology as the ENABLER of a new type of class envy
payback:

REVISING THE GOLD STANDARD - EXTRATERRESTRIALWISE!

Only the true pioneers of this effort should be
on the receiving end of where the extraterrestrial
'payoff' lies, and Artificial Intelligence is the mask
for the intellectual capital of manipulators -

THE SECRET IS OUT. REAL MEN MAKE THE MOST
IMPRESSIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCES.

American

Maybe this is heresy. But we might be better off if NO President had
ANY space policy. Congress too.

The problem as I see it is that any of these projects, manned and
unmanned, require long-term planning and commitments that are beyond
the mayfly attention span of politicians that can only think two to
four years at a time, to the next election, and nothing beyond that.
And private sector capitalism may not be the savior either: proving
scientific theories thru direct observation and exploration does not
align with "shareholder value". Commercial space would be very narrow
space indeed, just mining and coms and defense work, stuff that pays
fast and pays big.

My feeling is that if NASA had been left alone from the beginning,
with any schedule and direction they chose to use and a modest but
constant, uninterrupted flow of money, we'd have cities on the moon
and in orbit by now, and Manned Mars missions in serious preparation.
What has messed things up since the sixties is the continuous tearing
up and re-making of plans every time some devil Congressman or
Presidon't wants to make a political point. Like a ship that could
sail a thousand miles if it hadn't spent the time running in circles
and zig-zags. Benign neglect, a steady, uninterrupted trickle, would
have given Grand Canyon-like results by now, instead of a lot of
viewgraphs and powerpoint slides that, without steady funding, fly to
nowhere.

There, I've said it. Agree or not?

D. Orbitt wrote:
Maybe this is heresy. But we might be better off if NO President had
ANY space policy. Congress too.

The problem as I see it is that any of these projects, manned and
unmanned, require long-term planning and commitments that are beyond
the mayfly attention span of politicians that can only think two to
four years at a time, to the next election, and nothing beyond that.
And private sector capitalism may not be the savior either: proving
scientific theories thru direct observation and exploration does not
align with "shareholder value". Commercial space would be very narrow
space indeed, just mining and coms and defense work, stuff that pays
fast and pays big.

My feeling is that if NASA had been left alone from the beginning,
with any schedule and direction they chose to use and a modest but
constant, uninterrupted flow of money, we'd have cities on the moon
and in orbit by now, and Manned Mars missions in serious preparation.
What has messed things up since the sixties is the continuous tearing
up and re-making of plans every time some devil Congressman or
Presidon't wants to make a political point. Like a ship that could
sail a thousand miles if it hadn't spent the time running in circles
and zig-zags. Benign neglect, a steady, uninterrupted trickle, would
have given Grand Canyon-like results by now, instead of a lot of
viewgraphs and powerpoint slides that, without steady funding, fly to
nowhere.

There, I've said it. Agree or not?

Not bad, except for the physics part of it, the moon mining and all
that. Even with congressional neglect and steady plodding, you still run
up to physical and financial barriers like expendability and cost of
large and complex infrastructure and procedures.

Think Brigadier Henry Cecil John Hunt and Mount Everest.

Think it through, there are something like 200 corpses laying around up
there, and you don't see anyone complaining about that, do you? Think
about what it takes to do those expeditions, and how they have developed
over the years, and what modern technology like solar panels and oxygen
machines and astronaut technology could do for Everest. Tea anyone?

Now extrapolate that to the Moon and Mars? No. Not for a long time.

We'll be lucky to be able to sustain anything in LEO and GEO, and the
only real possibility out there are Phobos and Deimos and the asteroids.

We need a revolution in Earth orbit, not some pipe dream about the moon.

We need propulsion and launch that is compatible with what we have, the
EELVs, the Shuttle, and the International Space Station plus the COTS.

As far as I'm concerned SSMEs and NK-33s are what we have. I'm surprised
the Russians aren't taking a second look at the RD-0120 and the NK-33.

Inventing these things should not be left to large bureaucracies, the
results are inevitably flawed, but reducing them to practice may very
well be, if as you say, there is no unnecessary negative interference.

You can read all about it :

http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkov...oposal/IPO.doc

"D. Orbitt" wrote:
:
: My feeling is that if NASA had been left alone from the beginning,
:with any schedule and direction they chose to use and a modest but
:constant, uninterrupted flow of money, we'd have cities on the moon
:and in orbit by now, and Manned Mars missions in serious preparation.
:What has messed things up since the sixties is the continuous tearing
:up and re-making of plans every time some devil Congressman or
:Presidon't wants to make a political point. Like a ship that could
:sail a thousand miles if it hadn't spent the time running in circles
:and zig-zags. Benign neglect, a steady, uninterrupted trickle, would
:have given Grand Canyon-like results by now, instead of a lot of
:viewgraphs and powerpoint slides that, without steady funding, fly to
:nowhere.
:
:There, I've said it. Agree or not?
:

Congress doesn't budget billions of dollars to "go do whatever you
want" organizations.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw