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

"The Future of Human Spaceflight"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 12th 09, 03:58 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default "The Future of Human Spaceflight"

On Jan 10, 9:46*am, jacob navia wrote:

It is the best humans can do now because it exists. Other things can
be maybe better but they have a big problem... they do not exist.


Speculating what humans could do is a useful activity, but it is just
speculation.


But for some reason this doesn't also apply to speculating what humans
_can't_ do?

But perhaps the ISS is the best humans are willing to spend the money
to do with their current technology. Some things require more
technology than we have right now. Other things just require being
willing to try harder.

John Savard
  #22  
Old January 12th 09, 04:15 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Martha Adams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 371
Default "The Future of Human Spaceflight"

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Jan 10, 3:00 am, jacob navia wrote:

The technology for living in space is not here yet. We need


o To be able to resist to mutations and DNA damage much better than
now. Space is full of radiation that is lethal to our bodies as
they are now.


This can be solved by mdifying and enhancing our genetic repair
mechanism to be more efficient. As a byproduct of this research
we would have a cure for cancer, since many cancers are just
genetic repair mechanism problems.


o To develop a closed ecological system that can sustain itself
with solar energy in space. We need to develop photosynthesis
in vacuum, i.e. plants that can resist and thrive in vacuum.


This needs (again) some genetical know how. We need a skin that
is able to resist vacuum AND be transparent for our plants.


We don't need either of those things.

http://www.quadibloc.com/science/spaint.htm

Earth exists in space just fine without those technologies - and so
all we need to do, even if it's less efficient, is to duplicate Earth
in space.

We can't live in vacuum ourselves, and if we need air for ourselves,
why can't we also put our plants within the air?

As for radiation, we can get rock from the Moon or the asteroids until
we have as much shielding around us in space as the Earth's atmosphere
provides us on Earth.

John Savard

================================================== ======

This touches the very interesting question of, when people live
off-Terra, how will they do it? My own feeling is, the human race in
space will dig and tunnel a lot. My scheme for a human settlement in
space is, it's made up of a few to many oversize tunacan habs, sized for
about 120 people each, and placed down in the ground of a larger body or
inside a smaller body. The habs will be built and interconnected so
that in sets of 2 or 3, they are able to self-sustain for up to months,
in case of a disaster. I see some nice utopian schemes around, very
attractive, but I think people in space won't build that way because 1)
more costly and harder-to-make materials required; 2) a network of habs
is more disaster resistant than is a single large installation. I
expect the building material for the lifespaces shells to be riveted
soft iron or soft aluminum.

Us Terrans here on Terra's hospitable surface, think that out on the
surface is the way to live. It is, *on Terra.* But off Terra, I expect
humans to go more or less subterranean. It's interesting to ask, will
they then over generations, become Morlocks? To which my responding
question would be, if you think there's risk of that, how would you
prevent it going that way?

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2009 Jan 11]



  #23  
Old January 12th 09, 06:37 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default "The Future of Human Spaceflight"

On Jan 11, 8:15*pm, "Martha Adams" wrote:
But off Terra, I expect
humans to go more or less subterranean.


I expect that too:

the bottom of my page at

http://www.quadibloc.com/science/spa02.htm

shows one possibility.

*It's interesting to ask, will
they then over generations, become Morlocks? *To which my responding
question would be, if you think there's risk of that, how would you
prevent it going that way?


I agree that 'utopian' schemes which require extra effort to build
habitat space aren't likely to be followed. Space colonists will face
limits on their time and effort, and will not exert extra effort to
build fancier habitats than they require.

The scheme illustrated on my page probably is a little 'utopian',
since it envisages the construction of gigantic underground domes,
high enough that trees can grow in them to full height. At first, the
domes would probably be a bit smaller, and housing might be dug from
tunnels leading from the domes rather than in the form of buildings
built inside the domes - where food is grown.

John Savard
  #24  
Old January 12th 09, 12:15 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default "The Future of Human Spaceflight"

On 11 Jan, 20:52, Fred J. McCall wrote:

:Google is one of the more successfult companies.
:

Note that Google is run by ONE board of directors.


Google does indeed have one board, but :-

1) Anyone whatever their citizenship can join the Google board.

2) ESA likewise has a single board.

:
: For example, it probably would have been a much better station if they
: had ****canned the original design when the price kept going up and
: the capabilities kept going down and had listened to Lowell Wood's
: ideas.
:
:I googled him and his ideas. I think you are doing a certain amount of
:special pleading here. How do you know that his ideas for (say) Mars
:would not also go up and up in price.
:

I was referring specifically to his ideas about how to 'fix' the ISS
program back before they bent the first piece of metal.

I can't help stating the truism that history is what has hapenned
rather tan what might have hapenned. It may well be that there is some
genius that if he/she had been listened to would have produced a far
better ISS far cheaper, but there is absolutely no proof of this. The
ISS is the result of a series of decisions.

In fact the long and short of it is that the ISS lacks a role.
Scientific experimentation is done with dedicated unmanned spacecraft.
This has been found to be far and away the cheapest solution. I have
pointed out that a fragmented telescope in free space is a better bet
than one on the Moon. I fear too that if, and it is a big if a Moojn
base is established in 2020 it will be a similar white elephant.

Had a real genius been around when the ISS was though of he/she would,
without question, have said that the thing to do was to develop
repairable spacecraft and swarms and also concentrate on smart pebbles
and ultrastability. OK this is again what if, but these are the
technologies with a real medium term future.

History has is fact passed the ISS by.


- Ian Parker
  #25  
Old January 12th 09, 12:17 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default "The Future of Human Spaceflight"

On 12 Jan, 05:37, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jan 11, 8:15*pm, "Martha Adams" wrote:

But off Terra, I expect
humans to go more or less subterranean.


I expect that too:

the bottom of my page at

http://www.quadibloc.com/science/spa02.htm

shows one possibility.

*It's interesting to ask, will
they then over generations, become Morlocks? *To which my responding
question would be, if you think there's risk of that, how would you
prevent it going that way?


I agree that 'utopian' schemes which require extra effort to build
habitat space aren't likely to be followed. Space colonists will face
limits on their time and effort, and will not exert extra effort to
build fancier habitats than they require.

The scheme illustrated on my page probably is a little 'utopian',
since it envisages the construction of gigantic underground domes,
high enough that trees can grow in them to full height. At first, the
domes would probably be a bit smaller, and housing might be dug from
tunnels leading from the domes rather than in the form of buildings
built inside the domes - where food is grown.

Only a Von Neumann machine can achieve this. Other people continue to
pooh pooh the idea. I pooh pooh all grandiose ideas NOT involving VN
technology in one form or another.


- Ian Parker
  #26  
Old January 12th 09, 02:01 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default "The Future of Human Spaceflight"

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:17:22 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

The scheme illustrated on my page probably is a little 'utopian',
since it envisages the construction of gigantic underground domes,
high enough that trees can grow in them to full height. At first, the
domes would probably be a bit smaller, and housing might be dug from
tunnels leading from the domes rather than in the form of buildings
built inside the domes - where food is grown.

Only a Von Neumann machine can achieve this. Other people continue to
pooh pooh the idea. I pooh pooh all grandiose ideas NOT involving VN
technology in one form or another.


Yes, we know you do--you don't have to tell us. It's one of the
primary things that makes you such a loon.
  #27  
Old January 12th 09, 02:09 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default "The Future of Human Spaceflight"

On 12 Jan, 13:01, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:17:22 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

The scheme illustrated on my page probably is a little 'utopian',
since it envisages the construction of gigantic underground domes,
high enough that trees can grow in them to full height. At first, the
domes would probably be a bit smaller, and housing might be dug from
tunnels leading from the domes rather than in the form of buildings
built inside the domes - where food is grown.


Only a Von Neumann machine can achieve this. Other people continue to
pooh pooh the idea. I pooh pooh all grandiose ideas NOT involving VN
technology in one form or another.


Yes, we know you do--you don't have to tell us. *It's one of the
primary things that makes you such a loon.


Well aol your ideas are too. The only future for manned spaceflight
that I can see is one of ever inceasing cost. Manned spaceflight is
simply conspicuous consumption which call be ill affored in a
recession.

OK Keynes DID advocate public works, but public works with a FUTURE,
like the Hoover Dam. Manned spaceflight has no future other than ever
increasing levels of unproductive expenditure.

That is the cold hard truth.


- Ian Parker
  #28  
Old January 12th 09, 02:23 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default "The Future of Human Spaceflight"

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 05:09:25 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On 12 Jan, 13:01, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:17:22 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

The scheme illustrated on my page probably is a little 'utopian',
since it envisages the construction of gigantic underground domes,
high enough that trees can grow in them to full height. At first, the
domes would probably be a bit smaller, and housing might be dug from
tunnels leading from the domes rather than in the form of buildings
built inside the domes - where food is grown.


Only a Von Neumann machine can achieve this. Other people continue to
pooh pooh the idea. I pooh pooh all grandiose ideas NOT involving VN
technology in one form or another.


Yes, we know you do--you don't have to tell us. *It's one of the
primary things that makes you such a loon.


Well aol your ideas are too.


I don't have "aol ideas." If you do, it would explain much.

And if you mean *all* of my ideas, what is it that they are, too? Why
can't you learn to write comprehensibly in English, and stick to the
topic?
  #29  
Old January 12th 09, 02:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default "The Future of Human Spaceflight"

On 12 Jan, 13:01, (Rand Simberg) wrote:



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:17:22 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


The scheme illustrated on my page probably is a little 'utopian',
since it envisages the construction of gigantic underground domes,
high enough that trees can grow in them to full height. At first, the
domes would probably be a bit smaller, and housing might be dug from
tunnels leading from the domes rather than in the form of buildings
built inside the domes - where food is grown.



Only a Von Neumann machine can achieve this. Other people continue to
pooh pooh the idea. I pooh pooh all grandiose ideas NOT involving VN
technology in one form or another.



Yes, we know you do--you don't have to tell us. It's one of the
primary things that makes you such a loon.




Well aol your ideas are too. The only future for manned spaceflight
that I can see is one of ever inceasing cost. Manned spaceflight is
simply conspicuous consumption which call be ill affored in a
recession.

OK Keynes DID advocate public works, but public works with a FUTURE,
like the Hoover Dam. Manned spaceflight has no future other than ever
increasing levels of unproductive expenditure.


That is the cold hard truth.

Another cold hard truth. America is in the state it is because it has
spent so much money unproductively. Not only on speceflight but on
Iraq. The Iraq money could have been used to produce loads of "green"
energy or in a myriad of productive ways. Asia is NOT spending on
either Iraq or Afghanistan and is outproducing the US in terms of
engineers. Their money by contrast is spent productively.

Another cold hard truth - Hamas is going to emerge bloodied but
unbowed. More extremism is going to follow. Khaled Mashaal is called
Khaled (xAlid) because he will always be there. Kill him and someone
else will take his place.

Yet another - The US has a balance of payments deficit on high tech
goods. All the evidence is that the rest of the World has not only
caught up but is acually surpassing the US. Detroit is where it is not
only because of the recession, but because it is producing cars no one
wants to buy any more. Japan has a very real technological lead.

To me the whole idea of manned spaceflight along the lines you seem to
what to suggest is absolutely insane. Any reasonable analysis says it
must be. People go the Moon. All their supplies have to be brought in
from Earth via Ares or some other rocket. If they then go on to Mars
all the material going to Mars will have to be transported up to LEO,
to the Moon? at great expense. An expedition will (let us say) weigh
2,000tons at LEO. Some 50,000 tons of expendible boosters will be
needed to get it there. About 200 tons will arrive on Mars. During the
trip to Mars, on Mars and back, food, oxygen and other consumables
will be used up. Staying on Mars will use up yetr more consumables.
The whole thing does not add up. To produce a habitat would require
about a million tons of boost from the Earth's surface.

Jacob Navia is right. The technology is not there. Not there for
plants in a vacuum, not there for plants in a prwessurized
environment.

All you seem to want is money to carry out your pet schemes, which I
will predict will come to nothing.


- Ian Parker


- Ian Parker


  #30  
Old January 12th 09, 03:17 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default "The Future of Human Spaceflight"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...hIwXQD95L53NO0

All Japanese!


- Ian Parker
 




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
and now, Ladies and Gentlemen, the NSF "slow motion experts" have(finally) "invented" MY "Multipurpose Orbital Rescue Vehicle"... just 20 gaetanomarano Policy 9 August 30th 08 12:05 AM
US "Terror Supremacy Degradation" and "Human Rights Delagation" gb6726 Astronomy Misc 3 June 24th 07 06:50 AM
Reprint of "lost" spaceflight classic... Ron Miller History 17 January 12th 06 09:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:02 AM.


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.