"The Future of Human Spaceflight"

On Jan 16, 4:32*am, Ian Parker wrote:

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.

They "fear exposure" because this would compromise the operational
advantage which they hope to present to aid the defense of the United
States, not because they're up to something naughty.

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
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

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

"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. --"

I cannot agree with that closing sentence. Because, off-Terra
exploration and the settlements there that we so urgently need, must
work against obstacles of people failing to see the well-documented need
for these; and, the problem that bigger fish in Washington snarf up the
money needed for space and our future for their own purposes. Which in
Vietnam time and again now in the (religious ideological) Bush
administration, has seemed to be for wars.

Thus the only remedy available to us non-military, future-oriented
people is advocacy -- continuous, persistent, relentless, ongoing
advocacy, as loud as possible. Of which Zubrin is our well-proven
principal champion. This advocacy is no obstacle to taking such people
seriously. It is indeed, *the only way* they will be taken seriously.
I admire Zubrin for his decades of uphill hard work at his advocacy for
Mars settlements now. (As we could have done decades ago.) We need
more such as him.

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2009 Jan 16]

Ian Parker wrote:
:
: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,
f 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?
:

Yes.

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

Irrelevant question. What is it intended to apply to? Ask that
question, instead.

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

Yes, but within strict limits. Most technologies rely on other
technologies. You cannot railroad until it is time to railroad.

:
:"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",
ossibly even to AI. We can to a degree decide on the course of
:tecnology.
:

You seem a bit confused here. Fiber optics has little to nothing to
do with the things you say it would give a boost to.

:
: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.
:

You seem to miss the same point that everyone else does. If you can
rendezvous with a platform that is in quadrature, what do you need the
platform for? YOU are now in quadrature, with or without the
platform. So what does the platform buy you?

:
: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.
:

I don't think an advance in robotics is particularly necessary for
something that's just going to suck air in and do chemical reactions
with it. This is a pretty simple mechanical factory operation. It
doesn't even require much, if anything, in the way of 'intelligence'.
It's a very special purpose function.

:
:There is indeed a selling job. Zubrin I think might be sold if it is
resented 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.
:

Why do you need robotics. Land the 'base' in one piece. I don't
think Zubrin relies on a bunch of your little AI von Neumann robots
building a city.

:
:2) Practical chemistry of solar power.
:

Uh, solar power isn't chemical.

:
:3) Algae?
:

What about it?

:
:If Zubrin can be set up so can a hydrogen economy here on Earth.
:

Not even the same issues.

:
: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.
:

No, that is not what is 'sold'. Your way we can't even start to move
to a hydrogen economy until we can build robots that are as good and
as flexible as people. That time is measured in large numbers of
decades, if it is possible at all.

:
: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.
:

I would hope that it isn't. Done that way, it will cost scads of
money and do very little. Rather like ISS.


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

On 16 Jan, 15:25, "Martha Adams" wrote:
"Quadibloc" wrote in message

...
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.

I have said that the ONLY way is to go in for advanced robotics. You
need to build a home on Mars. Now if you don't build a Von Neumann
machine you have come so damn close that the arument becomes hair
splitting.

No not quite. You could build a semi VN machine, something that makes
most of its parts but the chips have to be carried from Earth. This
would indeed be a viable solution and is probably the way to go.

There are indeed risk assessment issues and I am glad you mentioned
them. My suspicion is that "looney" means that there is a classified
or highly classified project somewhere which is doing just that. If
that is the case it is rather disturbing as it means that no risk
assessments will have been done.

In fact if you use error correcting codes Evoution cannot take place.
In a well known science fiction story the Thals and the Eternals have
a war lasting 1,000 years. Eventually the eternal (xAlid) develop a
Von Neumann machine that promptly extermiates both them and the Thals.
This is what could happen if you allowed Evolution to take place. The
eternals establish their space colony and their robots evolve. Maximum
fitness does not include them!

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.

Absolutely, theough Spirit and Opportunity although they have done
excellent work are NOT intelligent. Something intelligent could walk
across Mars at 5km/h.

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.

The Nerva exhaust is 9km/s approx. This is a lot better than chemical.
The only fusion that is possible in space is He3. Tritium is only
suitable for large Earth based installations. This is better than
chemicals, but not really sufficient. Nuclear power can only be used
after LEO.

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.

We take everthing in parts. I have stated that Zubrin is sound but
requires a lot more in the shpe of robotics than he admits.

O'Neill is possible but the massive sizes mean that nothing short of a
VN machine or some very near VN machine (chips produced in factories
on Earth) could possibly build it. If you are worried about safety
aspects you can send one small critical part from Earth.

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.

Not the Moon. I have always thought an asteroid best. Phobos/Deimos
are the best choices if you want eventually to end up on Mars.

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.

AI is in fact a raft of technologies. For space you basically need
manual dexterity rather than intelligence and this is evolving fast.
You do not have to think the way we do to take Hubble to bits. You
need to repair Hubble, you don't need to know the difference between
pouring concrete at 50C and fighting Israel. (My "central air battle"
posting). You just pour concrete!

Of course from the academic linguistic viewpoint understanding
fighting an air war and balling against the environment is vitally
important. It may not be all that important for your house on Mars.

"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. --"

I cannot agree with that closing sentence. *Because, off-Terra
exploration and the settlements there that we so urgently need, must
work against obstacles of people failing to see the well-documented need
for these; and, the problem that bigger fish in Washington snarf up the
money needed for space and our future for their own purposes. *Which in
Vietnam time and again now in the (religious ideological) Bush
administration, has seemed to be for wars.

You have to present a vision where it is needed. If you could say
Zubrin is needed to kick OPEC in the arse. If we need the technology
for energy self sufficience you have a sell, at least potentially.

Thus the only remedy available to us non-military, future-oriented
people is advocacy -- continuous, persistent, relentless, ongoing
advocacy, as loud as possible. *Of which Zubrin is our well-proven
principal champion. *This advocacy is no obstacle to taking such people
seriously. *It is indeed, *the only way* they will be taken seriously.
I admire Zubrin for his decades of uphill hard work at his advocacy for
Mars settlements now. *(As we could have done decades ago.) *We need
more such as him.

Many people say Iraq was for oil. If that is the case Zubrin would be
far more effective. The basic chemistry we need for coal fired carbon
capture looks very much the same.


- Ian Parker

On 16 Jan, 13:05, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jan 16, 4:32*am, Ian Parker wrote:

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.

They "fear exposure" because this would compromise the operational
advantage which they hope to present to aid the defense of the United
States, not because they're up to something naughty.

If that is indeed the explanation they could be more polite about.
Lets face it, the costs in Iraq far dwarf the costs involved in any
disclosure here. Furthermore if we cannot discuss anything thast was
at any stage classified, what is left? It seems very like the sort of
blanket patent firms like Microsoft take out.


- Ian Parker


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:
:
:I have said that the ONLY way is to go in for advanced robotics.
:

Yes, you have. However, you have given no support for such a
proposition, so we all continue to think you're nuts. YOU saying it
multiple times is NOT 'support' that cuts any ice with anyone else.

:
:You
:need to build a home on Mars. Now if you don't build a Von Neumann
:machine you have come so damn close that the arument becomes hair
:splitting.
:

Why? My home here doesn't need to do any such thing.

:
:No not quite. You could build a semi VN machine, something that makes
:most of its parts but the chips have to be carried from Earth. This
:would indeed be a viable solution and is probably the way to go.
:

Why? My home here doesn't need to do any such thing.

:
:There are indeed risk assessment issues and I am glad you mentioned
:them. My suspicion is that "looney" means that there is a classified
r highly classified project somewhere which is doing just that. If
:that is the case it is rather disturbing as it means that no risk
:assessments will have been done.
:

Add paranoid to your list of mental defects.

:
:In fact if you use error correcting codes Evoution cannot take place.
:In a well known science fiction story the Thals and the Eternals have
:a war lasting 1,000 years. Eventually the eternal (xAlid) develop a
:Von Neumann machine that promptly extermiates both them and the Thals.
:This is what could happen if you allowed Evolution to take place. The
:eternals establish their space colony and their robots evolve. Maximum
:fitness does not include them!
:

You do understand that this is FICTION, right?

: 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.
:
:Absolutely, theough Spirit and Opportunity although they have done
:excellent work are NOT intelligent. Something intelligent could walk
:across Mars at 5km/h.
:

That's why we want to send people.

: 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.
:
:The Nerva exhaust is 9km/s approx. This is a lot better than chemical.
:The only fusion that is possible in space is He3.
:

Why? This makes no sense.

:
:Tritium is only
:suitable for large Earth based installations.
:

You claim a degree in theoretical physics and make remarks like this?

: 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.
:
:We take everthing in parts. I have stated that Zubrin is sound but
:requires a lot more in the shpe of robotics than he admits.
:

Yes, you've stated that, but you're wrong.

:
:O'Neill is possible but the massive sizes mean that nothing short of a
:VN machine or some very near VN machine (chips produced in factories
n Earth) could possibly build it.
:

Absolute poppycock.

:
:If you are worried about safety
:aspects you can send one small critical part from Earth.
:

Nuts.

:
:
: 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.
:
:
:Not the Moon. I have always thought an asteroid best. Phobos/Deimos
:are the best choices if you want eventually to end up on Mars.
:

Yes, we know what you've 'thought', but you've offered no support for
why we should think it, too. You saying it isn't precisely considered
authoritative.

: 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.
:
:AI is in fact a raft of technologies. For space you basically need
:manual dexterity rather than intelligence and this is evolving fast.
:

Dexterity has nothing to do with AI. You argue against your own
position now.

:
:You do not have to think the way we do to take Hubble to bits. You
:need to repair Hubble, you don't need to know the difference between
ouring concrete at 50C and fighting Israel. (My "central air battle"
osting). You just pour concrete!
:

???

Was that supposed to make sense?

:Of course from the academic linguistic viewpoint understanding
:fighting an air war and balling against the environment is vitally
:important. It may not be all that important for your house on Mars.

"Balling against the environment"? Where do I sign up for some of
that?

:
: "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. --"
:
: I cannot agree with that closing sentence. *Because, off-Terra
: exploration and the settlements there that we so urgently need, must
: work against obstacles of people failing to see the well-documented need
: for these; and, the problem that bigger fish in Washington snarf up the
: money needed for space and our future for their own purposes. *Which in
: Vietnam time and again now in the (religious ideological) Bush
: administration, has seemed to be for wars.
:
:You have to present a vision where it is needed. If you could say
:Zubrin is needed to kick OPEC in the arse. If we need the technology
:for energy self sufficience you have a sell, at least potentially.
:

Two different problem spaces. Two different sets of technology
needed. Neither set fits with what you claim is needed.

: Thus the only remedy available to us non-military, future-oriented
: people is advocacy -- continuous, persistent, relentless, ongoing
: advocacy, as loud as possible. *Of which Zubrin is our well-proven
: principal champion. *This advocacy is no obstacle to taking such people
: seriously. *It is indeed, *the only way* they will be taken seriously.
: I admire Zubrin for his decades of uphill hard work at his advocacy for
: Mars settlements now. *(As we could have done decades ago.) *We need
: more such as him.
:
:Many people say Iraq was for oil.
:

Many people say all sorts of stupid ****. Ian Parker, for example.

:If that is the case Zubrin would be
:far more effective. The basic chemistry we need for coal fired carbon
:capture looks very much the same.

Only to the blind.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 16 Jan, 13:05, Quadibloc wrote:
: On Jan 16, 4:32*am, Ian Parker wrote:
:
: 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.
:
: They "fear exposure" because this would compromise the operational
: advantage which they hope to present to aid the defense of the United
: States, not because they're up to something naughty.
:
:
:If that is indeed the explanation they could be more polite about.
:

Clue: Your delusions are WRONG.

:
:Lets face it, the costs in Iraq far dwarf the costs involved in any
:disclosure here.
:

You're acting as if your delusions are truth again.

Clue: They aren't.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

On 16 Jan, 20:47, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

:On 16 Jan, 13:05, Quadibloc wrote:
: On Jan 16, 4:32*am, Ian Parker wrote:
:
: 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.
:
: They "fear exposure" because this would compromise the operational
: advantage which they hope to present to aid the defense of the United
: States, not because they're up to something naughty.
:
:
:If that is indeed the explanation they could be more polite about.
:

Clue: *Your delusions are WRONG.

:
:Lets face it, the costs in Iraq far dwarf the costs involved in any
:disclosure here.
:

You're acting as if your delusions are truth again.

Clue: *They aren't.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

They seem to very accurate judging from what you say. Despite all your
best efforts you still make a mess of all your wars.


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 16 Jan, 20:47, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: :On 16 Jan, 13:05, Quadibloc wrote:
: : On Jan 16, 4:32*am, Ian Parker wrote:
: :
: : 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.
: :
: : They "fear exposure" because this would compromise the operational
: : advantage which they hope to present to aid the defense of the United
: : States, not because they're up to something naughty.
: :
: :
: :If that is indeed the explanation they could be more polite about.
: :
:
: Clue: *Your delusions are WRONG.
:
: :
: :Lets face it, the costs in Iraq far dwarf the costs involved in any
: :disclosure here.
: :
:
: You're acting as if your delusions are truth again.
:
: Clue: *They aren't.
:
: --
: "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
: *only stupid."
: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine
:
:They seem to very accurate judging from what you say. Despite all your
:best efforts you still make a mess of all your wars.
:

Loony non sequitur noted.

Hint: This is why people think you're nuts, A.S.S.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

Look you and Rand are the ones with delusions. Delusions about low
cost to LEO. You must surely know that the Pentagon has exhausttively
investigated this.

Is this yet again another example of disinformation?


- Ian Parker