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
  #61  
Old January 15th 09, 08:34 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default "The Future of Human Spaceflight"

On 15 Jan, 19:04, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:42:37 -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:

There is one additional point which should be made. Venus is a
complete red herring - and you know it.


There are a whole load of classified projects that no one knows
anything about. I think the answer is if anyone delves to deeply into
what should, or should not, be done in space they come up against
classification issues. I believe two things.


1) That if classified matters are being discussed they should stay
stum rather that go for the invective. This is what would after all be
expected in a scientific conference.


A newsgroup is not a scientific conference. *It is lunacy to imagine
that it is.





2) Because peer group review is absent classified research is often
inefficient.


Ares - I don't think it is intended to go to the Mars or even the
Moon. It is intended for some highly classified project. The Moon and
Mars are merely covers. What could this project be? We can only, of
course make educated guesses. However there are some well known facts.


http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/...006-06/msg0069...
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_...nalysis_june03


An ABM laser is being developed. It is as far as I can gather based on
CO2. (9.4/10.6 microns I think)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_laser


Suppose we send the payload of the 747 to MEO with Ares. We would need
larger mirrors for the longer range, but potentially you have a global
ABM system.


The Chinese are well aware of this and that is one of the reasons why
they are conducting ASAT tests.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/A_Go...t_Two_999.html


The Chinese are clearly aware of this.


http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...e_frm/thread/8...


As far as AI is concerned I managed to trawl the following. The work
is extensive to say the least of it. Why with this extensive list do
people call me looney. It just doesn't figure at all. This is wha\t
makes me angry and causes me to go into such matters as Iraq.


No, what makes you angry and causes you to go into irrelevant matters
as Iraq is that you are completely off your nut.

rest of typical Ian lunacy snipped- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Everything in their is well and truly attested. Someone has saif that
GILA means lunacy in Indonesian. I would not know anything about this.
This is all work that is actually going on and has been well attested.
If you are calling me mad then you are a liar, it is really as simple
as that.

I would have thought that it was not just scientific conferences but a
matter of common courtesy. You do not seem to appeciate that. Iraq is
mentioned for one reason and one reason alone. Iraqis do NOT naturally
support AQ. They along with the Syrians like such things as belly
dancing. I am simply describing how attitudes that you typify get
people's backs up. Al-Qaida = the devil and the deep blue sea.

You seem to claim the right to insult people whenever you choose,
along with the dregs of your Republican Party. Could I explain just
one thing to you about the Middle East. Talking as you do will get
Arab backs up far faster than you get mine up. They are people who
(still) have rightly or wrongly a culture of honor.

No I am not talking high policy here I am talking about the ground.
Well I am talking about high policy in the training sense. It seems to
me thatr people are "trained" to wreck all discussion here as well.

You never seem to want to tell us what your views for low cost
spaceflight really are. Are you afraid they will not pass muster? I
think I recall an exchange on just this. I say, yet again, that I
think this group is becoming an excercise in sheer futility. It will
unless thee is a considerable change.

A Mars trip without new technology is simply pie in the sky. Neither
Obama nor anyone else is remotely going to vote funds, recession or no
recession. This as I said is the cold hard truth.


- Ian Parker
  #62  
Old January 16th 09, 02:33 AM posted to sci.space.policy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default "The Future of Human Spaceflight"

On Jan 15, 3:19*am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 15 Jan, 02:07, "Martha Adams" wrote:

"Ian Parker" wrote in message


...


There is one clear moral in what you say and it is this. Make sure
that aid is always distributed fairly. Make sure always that extremism
is not encouraged.


It is ironc. In Arabic "Fatah" means "youth". We see corrupt
geriatrics governing in Palestine today. Hamas would not have won if
that were not so. I keep on saying that the casting of lead will only
encourage Hamas, AQ and all those who are extreme.


I think a good idea might well be to open all the crossings. Now Hamas
what are You going to do?


*- Ian Parker


I do believe these people don't figure out they're off topic -- because,
they can't.


It IS off topic. Not quite though. The overwhelming issues are these.

1) We do not treat each other with respect. I have been to scientific
conferences and language like we have seen would be off limits. There
is the real issue of new ideas.

2) Ad hominem arguments have been introdiced by Fred and Rand not by
me. The ad hominem argument is simply this. Given that their thinking
has left Iraq and the Middle East in general in such a mess, can you
trust them to run NASA. They seem to be keeping their ideas close to
their chests. Is there any evidence they would be better than current
NASA ideas.

3) Since 1969 there has been a revolution in UNMANNED exploration.
Current spacecraft simnply do not compare with those of 1969. Real X-
ray telescopes worthy of the name, WMAP, Voyager etc. These represent
quantum leaps in capability. There is LISA too which to me represents
a milestone but other people seem to be ridiculing.

4) Where in contrast is the fresh thinking about manned spaceflight?
Ares is simply a glorified Saturn. As has been observed human
spaceflight is strictly confined to LEO.

5) To be the only way forward is increased use of automation. There is
to me only one way to Mars and that is via a series of stepping stones
NONE OF WHICH ARE DELIVERED FROM EARTH. If things are delivered from
Earth you might just as well assemble everything at LEO and simply
cast off.

6) Ares to me shows a complete lack of ANY creative thinking. It is
not only Saturn writ large, it (effectively) mandates heavy
indivisible loads rather than space assembly.

7) This group seems to discource creative thinking. Seeing our threads
creative thinkers are going to be put off.

From an ad hominem stand-point "cast lead" typifies the kind of
thinking we have.

I feel that Obama should in essence pull the plug. Get rid of NASA
lock stock and barrel. How will unmanned flights be organized. Well
there is already overlap between NASA and ESA. What I would advocate
is a slimmed down board of academics who would vet and instigate
unmanned projects.

NASA in its present form is an exercise in futility. There can be no
other way of looking at it.

* - Ian Parker


There's nothing the scientific community og Usenet fears more than
public knowledge of the truths, or perhaps even more so is their fear
of any public awareness as to their infowar lies upon lies and the
frequent exclusions of evidence in order to keep the rest of us
snookered and dumbfounded as possible.

Perhaps BHO will have little option but to shut our NASA down, at
least until everything gets sorted out.

~ BG
  #63  
Old January 16th 09, 04:18 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default "The Future of Human Spaceflight"

On Jan 15, 10:42*am, Ian Parker wrote:
There is one additional point which should be made. Venus is a
complete red herring - and you know it.


You raised the issue of why we aren't as polite here as people are at
conferences of respected scientists.

I was pointing out that there are people spouting nonsense here, and
being as polite to them as if they were respected scientists
presenting the results of hard work based on sound knowledge would
give their nonsense a credibility which it does not deserve, thereby
confusing others.

John Savard

  #64  
Old January 16th 09, 04:26 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default "The Future of Human Spaceflight"

On Jan 15, 12:34*pm, Ian Parker wrote:

A Mars trip without new technology is simply pie in the sky. Neither
Obama nor anyone else is remotely going to vote funds, recession or no
recession. This as I said is the cold hard truth.


You may well be absolutely right. But it is not certain that you are
right.

You must expect, though, that "space advocates", particularly in the
U.S., will be in favor of going to Mars when it is possible, not when
it is easy. (Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct has already made going to
Mars - or at least coming back from Mars - a lot easier than it used
to be, lowering the cost of a mission to Mars and back practically to
that of a one-way mission.)

Waiting until it is easy means that the Chinese - or even Britain -
will end up getting there first. So it is advocated that the U.S.
should send someone to Mars while it is still the case that this is a
stupendous task *of which only the U.S. is capable*.

But the heady Apollo days of Cold War showmanship are apparently past.
So they have a selling job on their hands.

John Savard
  #65  
Old January 16th 09, 08:59 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default "The Future of Human Spaceflight"

Quadibloc wrote:

:On Jan 15, 10:42*am, Ian Parker wrote:
: There is one additional point which should be made. Venus is a
: complete red herring - and you know it.
:
:You raised the issue of why we aren't as polite here as people are at
:conferences of respected scientists.
:
:I was pointing out that there are people spouting nonsense here, and
:being as polite to them as if they were respected scientists
resenting the results of hard work based on sound knowledge would
:give their nonsense a credibility which it does not deserve, thereby
:confusing others.
:

In other words, Ian, we're anti-idiot and that's why you come in for
so much abuse.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #66  
Old January 16th 09, 12:25 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default "The Future of Human Spaceflight"

On 16 Jan, 03:26, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jan 15, 12:34*pm, Ian Parker wrote:

A Mars trip without new technology is simply pie in the sky. Neither
Obama nor anyone else is remotely going to vote funds, recession or no
recession. This as I said is the cold hard truth.


You may well be absolutely right. But it is not certain that you are
right.


We seem at last to be discussing the really deep issues that lie at
the core of space. It is indeed not absolutely certain, few things
are. Certainly Mars is right at the bottom of Obama's priorities. Top,
of course, being banks and next the auto industry. I think the
questions we need to ask ourselves are these.

1) Would a manned expedition to Mars have real scientific value, or is
its justification in more humanistic terms?

2) Do we really benefit by taking on a "hard challenge" and meeting
that "hard challenge" in an expensive but pedestrian way.

3) Can we selectively advance key technologies and if so to what
extent?

"3" is in fact the most interesting. If to take a trivial example
Obama decided to invest in fiber optics certain consequences would
flow from that decision. It would give a boost to "swarm computing",
possibly even to AI. We can to a degree decide on the course of
tecnology.

You must expect, though, that "space advocates", particularly in the
U.S., will be in favor of going to Mars when it is possible, not when
it is easy. (Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct has already made going to
Mars - or at least coming back from Mars - a lot easier than it used
to be, lowering the cost of a mission to Mars and back practically to
that of a one-way mission.)

Waiting until it is easy means that the Chinese - or even Britain -
will end up getting there first. So it is advocated that the U.S.
should send someone to Mars while it is still the case that this is a
stupendous task *of which only the U.S. is capable*.

The Zubrin idea would indeed reduce the costs although not quite to
that of a one way mission. You still have to land your equipment for
converting Marian CO2 into methane. You STILL have the problem of
hydrogen. I think that Zubrin depends fundamentally on robotics.
Robots will have to make the first trips to Mars and set up equipment
for converting sunlight, ice and CO2 into methane and LOX. Actually
Zubrin would seem on the face of it to be a (partial at least)
vindication of my consistent position.

In fact what we need to get to Mars is the following. Get a heavy
spacecraft assembled at LEO. This would contain the neccessaries for
the production of methane. Use ion propulsion to get it in quadrature
with Mars. Land robots on Mars, and manufacture methane and LOX. You
now have a rocket which will get you to quadrature.

There are a number of alternatives here - Use Nerva engine to get you
to Quadrature-LMO-Quadrature. Only have the fuel to get you to LMO on
Mars. Would algae help to cut down on supplies?

As you can see there is a lot of work to be done on Mars BEFORE humans
come. This really is part and parcel of the hard trurths. In fact I do
not believe Zubrin to be feasible WIHOUT advances in robotics. His
chemistry is correct no problem with that.

But the heady Apollo days of Cold War showmanship are apparently past.
So they have a selling job on their hands.


There is indeed a selling job. Zubrin I think might be sold if it is
presented in the right terms. In my question "3" I asked about whether
technology ia advanced by challenges. Certainly Zubrin will tell us a
lot about the following.

1) Setting up a base on Mars with robotics.

2) Practical chemistry of solar power.

3) Algae?

If Zubrin can be set up so can a hydrogen economy here on Earth. In
fact I find it hard to put space and terrestrial technology in
separate compartments. They are not. Robots can set up our terrestrial
hydrogen economy. That is what is sold. Two fingers rampant to OPEC.

If you are asking, will humans go to Mars simple because it is there
to quote Mallory. Will $100 billion be voted for George Mallory I
think, particularly in the absece of a "Cold War" the answer has to be
"no".

I would hope that all this is done with all countries participating,
so to say China etc. even Britain will get to Mars first is really the
wrong way to look at it.


- Ian Parker
  #67  
Old January 16th 09, 12:28 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default "The Future of Human Spaceflight"

On 16 Jan, 03:18, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jan 15, 10:42*am, Ian Parker wrote:

There is one additional point which should be made. Venus is a
complete red herring - and you know it.


You raised the issue of why we aren't as polite here as people are at
conferences of respected scientists.

I was pointing out that there are people spouting nonsense here, and
being as polite to them as if they were respected scientists
presenting the results of hard work based on sound knowledge would
give their nonsense a credibility which it does not deserve, thereby
confusing others.

Yes, but what I say, technically at least, is backed by the majority
of academics. The dispute (amoungst academics that is) on the VN
machine is whether it is linked to nanotechnology or not.

Prince Charles in talking about "grey goo" made that inplicit linkage
and it is NOT the case. As I say robotics could very well be
associated with Zubrin.


- Ian Parker
  #68  
Old January 16th 09, 12:30 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default "The Future of Human Spaceflight"

I just thought of another point. What about our coal fired power
stations, carbon capture etc. Is Zubrin relevant?

- Ian Parker
  #69  
Old January 16th 09, 12:32 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default "The Future of Human Spaceflight"

On 16 Jan, 01:33, BradGuth wrote:
On Jan 15, 3:19*am, Ian Parker wrote:





On 15 Jan, 02:07, "Martha Adams" wrote:


"Ian Parker" wrote in message


....


There is one clear moral in what you say and it is this. Make sure
that aid is always distributed fairly. Make sure always that extremism
is not encouraged.


It is ironc. In Arabic "Fatah" means "youth". We see corrupt
geriatrics governing in Palestine today. Hamas would not have won if
that were not so. I keep on saying that the casting of lead will only
encourage Hamas, AQ and all those who are extreme.


I think a good idea might well be to open all the crossings. Now Hamas
what are You going to do?


*- Ian Parker


I do believe these people don't figure out they're off topic -- because,
they can't.


It IS off topic. Not quite though. The overwhelming issues are these.


1) We do not treat each other with respect. I have been to scientific
conferences and language like we have seen would be off limits. There
is the real issue of new ideas.


2) Ad hominem arguments have been introdiced by Fred and Rand not by
me. The ad hominem argument is simply this. Given that their thinking
has left Iraq and the Middle East in general in such a mess, can you
trust them to run NASA. They seem to be keeping their ideas close to
their chests. Is there any evidence they would be better than current
NASA ideas.


3) Since 1969 there has been a revolution in UNMANNED exploration.
Current spacecraft simnply do not compare with those of 1969. Real X-
ray telescopes worthy of the name, WMAP, Voyager etc. These represent
quantum leaps in capability. There is LISA too which to me represents
a milestone but other people seem to be ridiculing.


4) Where in contrast is the fresh thinking about manned spaceflight?
Ares is simply a glorified Saturn. As has been observed human
spaceflight is strictly confined to LEO.


5) To be the only way forward is increased use of automation. There is
to me only one way to Mars and that is via a series of stepping stones
NONE OF WHICH ARE DELIVERED FROM EARTH. If things are delivered from
Earth you might just as well assemble everything at LEO and simply
cast off.


6) Ares to me shows a complete lack of ANY creative thinking. It is
not only Saturn writ large, it (effectively) mandates heavy
indivisible loads rather than space assembly.


7) This group seems to discource creative thinking. Seeing our threads
creative thinkers are going to be put off.


From an ad hominem stand-point "cast lead" typifies the kind of
thinking we have.


I feel that Obama should in essence pull the plug. Get rid of NASA
lock stock and barrel. How will unmanned flights be organized. Well
there is already overlap between NASA and ESA. What I would advocate
is a slimmed down board of academics who would vet and instigate
unmanned projects.


NASA in its present form is an exercise in futility. There can be no
other way of looking at it.


* - Ian Parker


There's nothing the scientific community og Usenet fears more than
public knowledge of the truths, or perhaps even more so is their fear
of any public awareness as to their infowar lies upon lies and the
frequent exclusions of evidence in order to keep the rest of us
snookered and dumbfounded as possible.

Perhaps BHO will have little option but to shut our NASA down, at
least until everything gets sorted out.

Lets be frank about this. The scientific community does not fear
exposure of the truth. It is the shadow world of military black
projects that fears exposure.


- Ian Parker
  #70  
Old January 16th 09, 02:03 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default "The Future of Human Spaceflight"

On Jan 16, 4:28*am, Ian Parker wrote:

Yes, but what I say, technically at least, is backed by the majority
of academics. The dispute (amoungst academics that is) on the VN
machine is whether it is linked to nanotechnology or not.


The possibility of a von Neumann machine is not nutty. That self-
reproducing machines could go wild, macroscopic or microscopic, is
borne out by our experience with life, though. Saying that they're the
ONLY WAY to space exploration, though, is where you go off the rails.

Artificial intelligence does indeed have great promise in extending
our reach in space. The Spirit and Opportunity rovers, with limited
artificial intelligence, so that they can avoid following advance
orders from Earth into obstructions and pitfalls, illustrate this.

But chemical spaceflight is not so limited that it absolutely
precludes another route to space - establishing a self-reproducing
human colony in space, along the principles outlined by Gerard
O'Neill. That future, though, isn't absolutely certain either. Nuclear
power is known to be feasible, and requires vastly less initial
investment, than a space colony to crank out solar power satellites.

Both O'Neill and Zubrin, although having contributed a great deal to
the future possibility of extensive manned space exploration, were and
are also single-minded advocates of their respective visions for space
exploration. This is an obstacle to taking even *them* entirely
seriously.

Yes, Mars has everything that's needed in one place, even if it's a
bit low on nitrogen. But it's a planet, hence in a gravity well. The
lower technological demands of establishing a self-sustaining colony
on Mars need to be weighed against the lower benefits of one, compared
to getting started on O'Neill's vision.

And maybe the best way to get started on O'Neill's vision would be to
send teleoperated mining and manufacturing machines to the Moon,
instead of trying to put people there. The costs and benefits of
different alternatives will have to be carefully weighed.

The history of artificial intelligence shows us that it has been very
difficult to figure out how to program computers in more sophisticated
ways. So there's no guarantee of rapid progress in that field -
instead, slow progress has been the rule. Thus, even though progress
is slow in the mature technology of rocketry as well, arguing that
everything depends on AI is _prima facie_ unreasonable; if exploring
space is considered important, progress in it is not going to be
allowed to be dependent on one field in which progress is slow.

John Savard
 




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 12:05 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.