the drive to explore

horseshoe7 wrote:

Richard Morris wrote:
horseshoe7 wrote:

The STS is just like all those old 60's/70's multi-purpose stadiums
that we are now tearing down to replace with two stadiums... we tried
to make things re-usable, and FAILED big-time.

Gee, I went to more than a few football and baseball games in the
Kingdome, and it seemed to work each time.

HA! The Kingdome is one of the WORST CASE EXAMPLES of the failure of
multi-purpose stadium design! It didn't even survive 25 years!

Some insulating ceiling tiles fell down, and, well, one thing led to
another and some wealthy special interests (like construction companies)
convinced enough politicians that we really needed a new baseball
stadium. (Safeco Field is nice, but the Kingdome was considerably
bigger.) Then Paul Allen bought the Seahawks and browbeat the
politicians into building him a new stadium for his new team, because he
had such fond memories of watching the Dawgs play in (open air) Husky
Stadium.

Ever notice how your neck hurts after going to a baseball game in
Multi-Purpose stadiums? In a baseball-specific stadium, you are always
MUCH closer to the action, AND the seats are angled towards the main
action, you don't have to constantly be straining your neck to watch
the game.

I take it you never attended a baseball game in the Kingdome.

Same thing for football-specific stadiums... you are always much closer
to the action, and the seats are oriented better than in the case of
the multi-purpose compromise.

The Kingdome had sections of bleacher seats that could be rolled into
the dome and placed along the East sidelines. There wasn't a bad seat
in the house.

And you didn't have to sit
out in the cold if the weather was bad, as it sometimes is in Seattle.

That has NOTHING to do with the issue of multi-purpose design... you
can have domed baseball and football specific stadiums for those
locations with ****ty climates... I live in San Diego - if you are
within about 10 miles of the coast, you don't need to waste your money
on domes, nor on heating and/or air conditioning.

Seattle's climate does not much resemble San Diego's.

- Stewart

Alan Anderson wrote:
wrote:

As I keep pointing out, the limits of space travel aren't
technological at the moment, it's a lack of motivation.

Okay, who are you and what have you done with John Ordover?

If you've indeed changed your mind, fine. But please don't pretend that
you never argued that we need "magic" technology in order to do space
travel.

First of all, I only ever used the term "magic technology" to refer to
Arthur C. Clarke's saying that any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic.

That said - what I have consistently argued is that we need "magic
technology" to make space travel profitable, which would provide the
missing motivation. We have the technology to do a bunch of stuff in
space we never will, because it's too bloody expensive and pointless -
we have the technology to move the Sphinx to the Moon - but why bother?

Note that the areas of space that -are- profitable, such as com-sats,
are wide-spread while the unprofitable areas are not.

Matt Giwer wrote:
Bateau wrote:
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

There was a Shoah, a disaster, just as Palestinians had a Nakbah.
When the Disaster was fed through Hollywood it was given the usual
anti-historic treatment and emerged as the holocaust. No rational person
believes Hollywood's version actually happened. Hollywood has done just
about everything but make Haman an SS officer.

Only an utter idiot, or an utterly evil and depraved person,
would believe millions of jews were not systematically murdered
by the Nazis in WW2.

What holocaust? I'm still waiting for it. I've got a shotgun and I'm
collecting sheet metal to weld to my car.

As long as this does not bring in the pimply faced jews on alt.revisionism I will respond as this
does not violate any charters.

I said the official name at Yad Vashem in Israel is SHOAH. That means disaster. There was a
disaster. If you want specifics, spell out your ****ing specifics. Even Yad Vashem does not spell
out gas chambers. Get a grip, boy.

Huh?

Jordan wrote:
Oh, that's simple. We'd just purchased the territory from Napoleon.
Jefferson WANTED Americans to head west as soon as possible, before the
American claim was seen to lapse by rivals (especially Britain, which
at the time controlled Canada, and Russia which at the time was
exploring down the Northwest of North America).

Arguably the fastest way to get space exploration back near the top of
national priorities would be to get rid of the "space is for everyone
and no one can have a claim upon it" treaties. Switch that out for "the
first nation to establish a sustainable, inhabited colony on a
celestial body gets to keep the celestial body for as long as they
maintain the colony" and you'd quickly see a space race to launch all
space races, accompanied by a long-term commitment to the same.

.... and then somebody perfects the technology for a colony on the sun
and starts charging dues on solar energy. But that seems sufficiently
distant that we don't need to worry about it immediately.

--
Justin Bacon

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 01:57:17 +0200, wrote:

We could, theoretically, build and operate
gigaton-range spaceships today (we'd have to assemble them in orbit, of
course, and there is no sane reason why we would, _right now_, do so)
(*). We could not do the same with aircraft.


As I keep pointing out, the limits of space travel aren't
technological at the moment, it's a lack of motivation.

I feel the real lack of interest is due to something more mundane.
Going to space is hazardous and there is nothing much out there.
If life had been found on Mars don't you think we would
have been there a long time ago.
It's just hard to summon the same enthusiasm for spending billions
to land on and examine a big rock.

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Jordan wrote:
Matt Giwer said:

Tell me, if this was such a natural urge why did Jefferson have to pay for it?

He didn't.

He certainly did.

If he hadn't funded the Lewis and Clark Expedition, it would have
gotten done anyway -- later, and less scientifically, and with less
establishment of a national claim to the territories of the Louisiana
Purchase. Jefferson paid to get it done NOW and with the results
reported right back to the US Government.

I find it interesting that people who make no credible claim to being able to predict the future
are so confident in their ability to predict alternate pasts. If this is such a natural thing why
did not Jefferson collect information from those who were returning before he hired L&C? Why did he
not simply collect the findings of French explorers?

Likewise, even if no nation backed space exploration, it would
eventually happen anyway, as technological improvements in powerplants,
engines, computers and metallurgy reached the point where high-altitude
aircraft eventually developed first suborbital, then orbital, and
finally interplanetary capabilities.

Certainly it would have happened in the same way the west was explored before L&C by fur traders.
To make money. Exploring for the sake of exploring? As Columbus was looking for a trade route? As
finding the Aztecs and Incas lead to searches for more gold? An Britain explored the Pacific to
extend it empire? As the French had Louisiana before selling it and nothing much in the way of
exploration to show for it apparently not much profit to be made. And the American and Russia space
programs were clearly for national prestige. They were the basis for bragging about almost totally
unrelated socio-economic systems.

I'm not sure how long it would have taken, though. Probably we'd just
be beginning to undertake Vostok and Mercury type flights right now, by
privately funded daredevils.

Comm satellites would have been up at most a decade behind the current schedule as long as ICBMs
are built the technology is there.

If you are hung up on manned exploration most of what we have done appears to be only an excuse for
sending people. I keep hearing men can do better than machines but off hand I can't think of a thing
from the moon landings that humans did better than robotics can today. So NASA sent wet robots to
the moon. I won't argue that.

Why was not his effort keeping Americans from heading west on their own and causing problems with the natives?

Oh, that's simple. We'd just purchased the territory from Napoleon.
Jefferson WANTED Americans to head west as soon as possible, before the
American claim was seen to lapse by rivals (especially Britain, which
at the time controlled Canada, and Russia which at the time was
exploring down the Northwest of North America).

What he wanted was amusing. Nothing happened until there was sufficient immigration to cause
population pressures to make it happen. And what happened was profit from farming not an urge to
explore.

Why is it the only recorded, unpaid moves to the west were fur trappers and farmers looking for new land?

You do realize that in the context of an economy based primarily on
agriculture and secondarily on hunting and trapping, which was the case
in c. 1800 frontier America, those two categories describe almost the
whole population?

All the actual examples of exploration I can find have been for a profit motive.

(You left out "miners," but Western mining didn't
become particularly important until the 1840's).

And then it was only gold and silver mining until there was sufficient population to make local
refineries cheaper than imported finished metals. But again, money.

--
When there is knowledge there is no need for belief.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3431
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
book review http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/wi...utioners.phtml a7

Justin Bacon wrote:
Jordan wrote:

Oh, that's simple. We'd just purchased the territory from Napoleon.
Jefferson WANTED Americans to head west as soon as possible, before the
American claim was seen to lapse by rivals (especially Britain, which
at the time controlled Canada, and Russia which at the time was
exploring down the Northwest of North America).

Arguably the fastest way to get space exploration back near the top of
national priorities would be to get rid of the "space is for everyone
and no one can have a claim upon it" treaties. Switch that out for "the
first nation to establish a sustainable, inhabited colony on a
celestial body gets to keep the celestial body for as long as they
maintain the colony" and you'd quickly see a space race to launch all
space races, accompanied by a long-term commitment to the same.

A great way to start a new round of colonial wars.

.... and then somebody perfects the technology for a colony on the sun
and starts charging dues on solar energy. But that seems sufficiently
distant that we don't need to worry about it immediately.

So tell me, at prices for the foreseeable future for surface to surface travel what, mineral,
element, or form of element (carbon as diamonds but of the size found on earth) were found in
refined form on pallets waiting to be picked up, would make space travel economical? There are very
few things even in refined form which would be economical. And as it is not reasonable to expect to
find anything but ore nothing is worth it even if as close as the moon.

Orbital mechanics has no mysteries. The delta V necessary to do anything is back of the envelop for
ideal conditions. It was observed many years ago, low earth orbit is half way to anywhere in the
universe. Not really true but close enough to see the problem. If solar sails were completely free
you still haven't negated the costs of getting the first 18,000 mph through the atmosphere. In fact
I saw one calculation showing if you made your rocket weightless, nullify gravity, but not massless
it doesn't save much energy in getting to orbit. Orbit is the problem.

http://www.giwersworld.org/artiii/elevat23.jpg is perhaps the only practical solution until we get
"negative" gravity.

--
If Hitler was no worse than Milosevic or Hussein
what is all the fuss about?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3436
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10

Bateau wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:

Bateau wrote:

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

There was a Shoah, a disaster, just as Palestinians had a Nakbah.
When the Disaster was fed through Hollywood it was given the usual
anti-historic treatment and emerged as the holocaust. No rational person
believes Hollywood's version actually happened. Hollywood has done just
about everything but make Haman an SS officer.

Only an utter idiot, or an utterly evil and depraved person,
would believe millions of jews were not systematically murdered
by the Nazis in WW2.

What holocaust? I'm still waiting for it. I've got a shotgun and I'm
collecting sheet metal to weld to my car.

As long as this does not bring in the pimply faced jews on alt.revisionism I will respond as this
does not violate any charters.

I said the official name at Yad Vashem in Israel is SHOAH. That means disaster. There was a
disaster. If you want specifics, spell out your ****ing specifics. Even Yad Vashem does not spell
out gas chambers. Get a grip, boy.

Huh?

What is the Huh? about? Never heard of Yad Vashem in Israel? It is an obligatory stop for all
dignitaries on their first visit to Israel. There have been photo ops for Bush and Rice visiting it.
Never heard of the Shoah? That is what the non-english speaking world calls the holocaust. Yad
Vashem does not spell out gas chambers. It has also (belatedly) discredited the jewish soap and
lampshade myths. It is more revisionist than most people on the internet who just question it.

--
The official total for number dead is 44 million. Are the
6 or 11 or 13 million holocausted included in that total
or are they in addition to that total? Watch the
holohuggers squirm to avoid answering that question.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3437
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
book review http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/wi...utioners.phtml a7

Matt Giwer wrote:
Bateau wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:

Bateau wrote:

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

There was a Shoah, a disaster, just as Palestinians had a Nakbah.
When the Disaster was fed through Hollywood it was given the usual
anti-historic treatment and emerged as the holocaust. No rational person
believes Hollywood's version actually happened. Hollywood has done just
about everything but make Haman an SS officer.

Only an utter idiot, or an utterly evil and depraved person,
would believe millions of jews were not systematically murdered
by the Nazis in WW2.

What holocaust? I'm still waiting for it. I've got a shotgun and I'm
collecting sheet metal to weld to my car.

As long as this does not bring in the pimply faced jews on alt.revisionism I will respond as this
does not violate any charters.

I said the official name at Yad Vashem in Israel is SHOAH. That means disaster. There was a
disaster. If you want specifics, spell out your ****ing specifics. Even Yad Vashem does not spell
out gas chambers. Get a grip, boy.

Huh?

What is the Huh? about? Never heard of Yad Vashem in Israel? It is an obligatory stop for all
dignitaries on their first visit to Israel. There have been photo ops for Bush and Rice visiting it.
Never heard of the Shoah? That is what the non-english speaking world calls the holocaust. Yad

Jews are the whole non english speaking world now?
Wow, you're stupid.
Bye bye stupid.

Vashem does not spell out gas chambers. It has also (belatedly) discredited the jewish soap and
lampshade myths. It is more revisionist than most people on the internet who just question it.

Matt Giwer wrote:
.... and then somebody perfects the technology for a colony on the sun
and starts charging dues on solar energy. But that seems sufficiently
distant that we don't need to worry about it immediately.

So tell me, at prices for the foreseeable future for surface to surface travel what, mineral,
element, or form of element (carbon as diamonds but of the size found on earth) were found in
refined form on pallets waiting to be picked up, would make space travel economical?

Pretty much anything and everything.

But what you really meant to ask, I think, regards prices in the *near*
future, not the foreseeable future.

Orbital mechanics has no mysteries. The delta V necessary to do anything is back of the envelop for
ideal conditions. It was observed many years ago, low earth orbit is half way to anywhere in the
universe.

The original quote is solar system, not universe.


Not really true but close enough to see the problem. If solar sails were completely free
you still haven't negated the costs of getting the first 18,000 mph through the atmosphere.

As made notable by the failure of the first two solar sail experiments
to reach orbit. (Although I understand there's some hope that the most
recent one isn't completely lost.)

In fact
I saw one calculation showing if you made your rocket weightless, nullify gravity, but not massless
it doesn't save much energy in getting to orbit.

Those must have been some pretty crappy calculations. Friction from the
air may slow you down, but without gravity it's going to be essentially
as easy to move a mass 22,000 miles straight up to the equivalent of a
geosyncronous orbit than it is to move that mass 22,000 miles in a
truck under the effects of gravity. And lots of people have moved
masses 22,000 miles without multi-million budgets to work with.

Now, using real-world physics, the only practicable away of achieving
relatively cheap orbit is a space elevator. But I'm not sure why you
think that negates my claim of the investing priorities of first-world
governments if colonial claims became the root of space exploration.

--
Justin Bacon