|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"The Future of Human Spaceflight"
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |