A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

No really new idea for Obama



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 6th 10, 04:16 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default No really new idea for Obama

On Feb 4, 6:55*am, Michael Gallagher wrote:
If President Obama wants truly new and unique ideas for what he calls
a 21st century space program, he has one problem:

There aren't any.

Everyone talks about orbital refueling as the new idea, but its not
new at all. *It was at the heart of EOR considered for Apollo, but
even then, it was an "old" idea. *Aurthur C. Clarke described it in
his book "The Exploration of Space," published in 1951, so the British
Intperlanetary Society must have kicked the idea around before that.
Did anyone come up with them before they did? *And one of Clarke's
applications for it was refueling space ships bound for the Moon; the
book has a chapter on Moon bases. *So 20th Century. *Sorry, can't do
that!

In fact, I can't think of anything we could do in space that isn't a
20th century idea first implented then: *Space shuttle, space
stations, planetary probes, observing the Earth -- all old news. *No
new ideas. *So nothing to do.

I guess there's nothing for it except to repeal the National
Aeronautics and Space Act AND ban all space research and development
by all public or private US entities unless they do a new 21st century
idea which there are none of so of course, they do nothing. *And
hopefully, when the Chinese go to Mars, they'll put a token American
on their flight.


There's always Venus and even our moon(Selene) that's new as far as
accessible and more than paying their own way.

What's not to like about either of those?

~ BG
  #2  
Old February 6th 10, 07:18 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
[email protected] |
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 307
Default No really new idea for Obama

On Feb 5, 7:16*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Feb 4, 6:55*am, Michael Gallagher wrote:



If President Obama wants truly new and unique ideas for what he calls
a 21st century space program, he has one problem:


There aren't any.


Everyone talks about orbital refueling as the new idea, but its not
new at all. *It was at the heart of EOR considered for Apollo, but
even then, it was an "old" idea. *Aurthur C. Clarke described it in
his book "The Exploration of Space," published in 1951, so the British
Intperlanetary Society must have kicked the idea around before that.
Did anyone come up with them before they did? *And one of Clarke's
applications for it was refueling space ships bound for the Moon; the
book has a chapter on Moon bases. *So 20th Century. *Sorry, can't do
that!


In fact, I can't think of anything we could do in space that isn't a
20th century idea first implented then: *Space shuttle, space
stations, planetary probes, observing the Earth -- all old news. *No
new ideas. *So nothing to do.


I guess there's nothing for it except to repeal the National
Aeronautics and Space Act AND ban all space research and development
by all public or private US entities unless they do a new 21st century
idea which there are none of so of course, they do nothing. *And
hopefully, when the Chinese go to Mars, they'll put a token American
on their flight.


There's always Venus and even our moon(Selene) that's new as far as
accessible and more than paying their own way.

What's not to like about either of those?

*~ BG


Venus is too toasty for my taste. And I don't want
to try floating around in its atmosphere. The moon
is a bleak place but does it truly offer some
resource that earth doesn't have? Space itself
offers as good or better vantage points for
space telescopes. Even Mars is pretty bleak
though it may have more resources. To live
in a settlement would mean living in a tunnel
or heavily shield air locked building. The
work would be doing repairs and upkeep on
remote vehicles or robots and doing remote
operations from the settlement to the robotics
extensions to the human presence.

Perhaps the thinking needs to be vastly bigger.
Materials, biological, and physics research in preparation
for the big jump to the next habitable star system?
Habitable meaning a detected planet in the habitable
zone, etc.

Trig
  #3  
Old February 6th 10, 07:42 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default No really new idea for Obama

On Feb 5, 10:18*pm, |"
wrote:
On Feb 5, 7:16*pm, BradGuth wrote:



On Feb 4, 6:55*am, Michael Gallagher wrote:


If President Obama wants truly new and unique ideas for what he calls
a 21st century space program, he has one problem:


There aren't any.


Everyone talks about orbital refueling as the new idea, but its not
new at all. *It was at the heart of EOR considered for Apollo, but
even then, it was an "old" idea. *Aurthur C. Clarke described it in
his book "The Exploration of Space," published in 1951, so the British
Intperlanetary Society must have kicked the idea around before that.
Did anyone come up with them before they did? *And one of Clarke's
applications for it was refueling space ships bound for the Moon; the
book has a chapter on Moon bases. *So 20th Century. *Sorry, can't do
that!


In fact, I can't think of anything we could do in space that isn't a
20th century idea first implented then: *Space shuttle, space
stations, planetary probes, observing the Earth -- all old news. *No
new ideas. *So nothing to do.


I guess there's nothing for it except to repeal the National
Aeronautics and Space Act AND ban all space research and development
by all public or private US entities unless they do a new 21st century
idea which there are none of so of course, they do nothing. *And
hopefully, when the Chinese go to Mars, they'll put a token American
on their flight.


There's always Venus and even our moon(Selene) that's new as far as
accessible and more than paying their own way.


What's not to like about either of those?


*~ BG


Venus is too toasty for my taste. And I don't want
to try floating around in its atmosphere.

In other words, you don't believe in radar imaging or in those regular
laws of physics?


The moon
is a bleak place but does it truly offer some
resource that earth doesn't have?

Yes, but there's only trillions of dollars worth, and it's zero delta-
V of Selene L1 is itself worth only a little more than a trillion per
year.


Space itself
offers as good or better vantage points for
space telescopes. Even Mars is pretty bleak
though it may have more resources. To live
in a settlement would mean living in a tunnel
or heavily shield air locked building. The
work would be doing repairs and upkeep on
remote vehicles or robots and doing remote
operations from the settlement to the robotics
extensions to the human presence.

Correct, Mars sucks in more ways than GW Bush, Dick Cheney and
Kissinger combined.


Perhaps the thinking needs to be vastly bigger.
Materials, biological, and physics research in preparation
for the big jump to the next habitable star system?

We'd still need local resources that our moon and Venus could easily
provide.


Habitable meaning a detected planet in the habitable
zone, etc.

Trig


Our moon and the planet Venus are each within "the habitable zone,
etc".

Do you know how to enlarge digital images?

~ BG

  #4  
Old February 6th 10, 06:24 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
[email protected] |
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 307
Default No really new idea for Obama

On Feb 5, 10:42*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Feb 5, 10:18*pm, |"

wrote:
On Feb 5, 7:16*pm, BradGuth wrote:


On Feb 4, 6:55*am, Michael Gallagher wrote:


If President Obama wants truly new and unique ideas for what he calls
a 21st century space program, he has one problem:


There aren't any.


Everyone talks about orbital refueling as the new idea, but its not
new at all. *It was at the heart of EOR considered for Apollo, but
even then, it was an "old" idea. *Aurthur C. Clarke described it in
his book "The Exploration of Space," published in 1951, so the British
Intperlanetary Society must have kicked the idea around before that..
Did anyone come up with them before they did? *And one of Clarke's
applications for it was refueling space ships bound for the Moon; the
book has a chapter on Moon bases. *So 20th Century. *Sorry, can't do
that!


In fact, I can't think of anything we could do in space that isn't a
20th century idea first implented then: *Space shuttle, space
stations, planetary probes, observing the Earth -- all old news. *No
new ideas. *So nothing to do.


I guess there's nothing for it except to repeal the National
Aeronautics and Space Act AND ban all space research and development
by all public or private US entities unless they do a new 21st century
idea which there are none of so of course, they do nothing. *And
hopefully, when the Chinese go to Mars, they'll put a token American
on their flight.


There's always Venus and even our moon(Selene) that's new as far as
accessible and more than paying their own way.


What's not to like about either of those?


*~ BG


Venus is too toasty for my taste. And I don't want
to try floating around in its atmosphere.


In other words, you don't believe in radar imaging or in those regular
laws of physics?



The moon
is a bleak place but does it truly offer some
resource that earth doesn't have?


Yes, but there's only trillions of dollars worth, and it's zero delta-
V of Selene L1 is itself worth only a little more than a trillion per
year.



Space itself
offers as good or better vantage points for
space telescopes. Even Mars is pretty bleak
though it may have more resources. To live
in a settlement would mean living in a tunnel
or heavily shield air locked building. The
work would be doing repairs and upkeep on
remote vehicles or robots and doing remote
operations from the settlement to the robotics
extensions to the human presence.


Correct, Mars sucks in more ways than GW Bush, Dick Cheney and
Kissinger combined.



Perhaps the thinking needs to be vastly bigger.
Materials, biological, and physics research in preparation
for the big jump to the next habitable star system?


We'd still need local resources that our moon and Venus could easily
provide.



Habitable meaning a detected planet in the habitable
zone, etc.


Trig


Our moon and the planet Venus are each within "the habitable zone,
etc".

Do you know how to enlarge digital images?

*~ BG


Venus at the surface is hot enough to soften lead. As it
stands Venus isn't habitable. It is so hot electronics don't
last. If one looks at the surface images of the
planet one doesn't see rivers, streams, or oceans.
Any habitable planet is going to have such bodies
of water.

Plus it lacks a moon, a decent day length, and
Van Allen belts.

If Venus was ever habitable it was back ~3.5
billion year ago or more when the sun wasn't
as hot and before the crust was roasted for
its CO2.

Cooked fish in submarine........................Trig
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No really new idea for Obama Jonathan Policy 2 February 7th 10 02:15 AM
No really new idea for Obama Jonathan History 2 February 7th 10 02:15 AM
Obama G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] Misc 8 November 11th 09 02:32 AM
*own* obama mother NOT WELCOME - 'Skunk' says obama preacher [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 March 24th 08 08:56 PM
I've UPDATED my first idea to CUT the Orion's mass and ADDED my SECOND idea in the same page gaetanomarano Policy 1 July 3rd 07 03:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.