|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Science is not the reason for going up - that is philosophical -
science is what you do when you are there, along with all the house keeping chores. Colonisation, if it happens at all, is generally not what you do when you first arrive on a new world, as the history of earth exploration will attest, first you look around and then you decide where to stay and why and that may take decades or centuries. In short science is a very useful activity to perform if you have decided to go to new worlds in the first place. Besides, find a politician that understands science! Rand Simberg wrote: On 19 Sep 2005 16:40:45 -0700, in a place far, far away, "dasun" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Science and lots of it, skip the political baloney and stick to the subject! Science will never justify the vast amounts of money being spent on human spaceflight, for good reason. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Not being a geologist you would not see anything special about "orange"
soil (regolith on planetary bodies)! But to a geologist that could mean regolith of volcanic origin and there was quite a "hot" debate about possible lunar volcanism in the 1960's and 70's and that is what made that observation so important. Take my word for it, for a geologist there is nothing like being there and being able to get a feel for the landscape and the forces that have acted upon it and no high quality data link is ever going to be an effective substitute for that feeling. Deep-sea geology is a good example, use robots to do general surveying but send manned submersibles down to look at interesting features. Moore's law is great, but can it go on forever? How long before we can build artificial intelligence as good as our own? What about the reasons for heading up, after all planetary disasters do happen and colonising other worlds is the best long-term bet for our species. Do not let your faith in technology blind you to much as the future seldom turns out as one expects - just ask the Apollo guys of the 1960's (one of whom was a geologist - namely Jack Schmidt (spelling?) - and the rest did extensive geological training and mostly functioned quite well). |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Why geology is so different from other sciences, say, astronomy? You
don't have to climb to the observation dome and spend a cold night there anymore. You rely on the data collected automatically. There is number factor as well. Compare a 1000 geologists investigating phenomenon remotely, versus one of the spot. Given adequate quality of remote observation, it is more likely that some of those 1000 geologists would find something interesting, that would escape the guy on the spot. dasun wrote: Moore's law is great, but can it go on forever? How long before we can build artificial intelligence as good as our own? What about the Given the average intelligence of the average Usenet poster, I bet that within 10 years we'll have Usenet bots indistingusheable of humans. What about the reasons for heading up, after all planetary disasters do happen and colonising other worlds is the best long-term bet for our species. Yes, but you have to approach it with rational thinking. How much a trip to mars costs? It will be such for a long time, if we continue rely on chemical propulsion engines. Wasting $100B on reincarnated moon landing problem solves nothing. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On 19 Sep 2005 14:47:27 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Alex
Terrell" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: NASA today unveiled an ambitious blueprint Well, I guess opinions on that may vary. I thought I was seeing the history channel - except there was no Kennedy to say by the end of decade - rather, we'll put some men on the moon, when we get round to it. With no plans for a moonbase, I'm struggling to see the point of all this. And the architecture is about 50% more expensive than it ought to be. OK, is anyone other than NASA fanboys here actually excited about this plan? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On 19 Sep 2005 15:08:09 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: OK, is anyone other than NASA fanboys here actually excited about this plan? I think it provides a good roadmap for NASA to follow for the next how-ever-many years. It is a great improvement to the space shuttle era NASA framework. This is a plan that could very well, over time, lead to a smaller, more focused NASA. More focused, certainly, but with the increasing budget, and the predilection to do more in house and less contracting, how is it smaller? It is a plan that produces something useful in the near-term - the CEV and CLV tools that will replace shuttle and could by themselves, in concert with commercial launch services and international space station partners, serve as the framework for a long- term human space program. For exactly the same (or more) cost as the Shuttle program. http://www.transterrestrial.com/arch...29.html#005729 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... Maybe we could do a commercial Skylab ? Since the launcher exists, why not a single module, 100-ton class commercial station.. ? No costly assembly and with a 100 mass maybe you can keep the consumable servicing to a minimum. Maybe build with ample design margins and simple construction techniques. Well : question, with the 125-t class launcher, assuming the Govt builds two a year for its Moon missions, what else could be done ? I'd like to see 'em launching things that will help us down here on earth. Things like this. Space Solar Power home. http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/ We'd need the stick and heavy lift, and a large space station if not several. It's conceivable that the US could someday become the world's largest energy ....supplier....instead of the largest importer. Not to mention the positive effects on global warming that solar power brings. And wars over oil? Isn't the dependence of fossil fuels the greatest single threat to our future??? If not now. Nasa's long term goals should revolve around the most acute problems on earth. And since energy certainly qualifies ...and... has it's ultimate solution in space, it's tragic that Nasa decides that collecting more Moon rocks is the best they can do. Nasa could do so much more if they only had some 'vision'. They have a lotta nerve assigning that term to their new space policy. Jonathan s |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Rand Simberg wrote:
More focused, certainly, but with the increasing budget, and the predilection to do more in house and less contracting, how is it smaller? More focused is the keyword here. NASA will be an organisation whose sole capability will be to go to the moon, pick up a few rocks and come back to the earth. No real advancement in space exploration, and a net decrease in versatility of manned space programme. In this announcement, has NASA announced automated docking development ? Without a shuttle or automated docking, NASA will not be able to build any structures in space anymore. And to build anything meaningful, they will want docking ports as big as CBMs. So either automated bertthing with existing CBMs or develop a docakble CBM size port. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 4th 05 07:50 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 5th 04 01:36 AM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | Misc | 6 | July 29th 04 06:14 AM |
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) | Nathan Jones | Astronomy Misc | 8 | February 4th 04 06:48 PM |
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) | Nathan Jones | Misc | 8 | February 4th 04 06:48 PM |