Orion (poor man's Saturn V and capsule) won't be ready until at least 2023

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:31:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

No, actually all we know is that 1 G is good and that ~0 G is bad. We don't know if either 1/3 G or 1/6 G is good enough.

We have a good deal of knowledge on the subject.

Having a base on the Moon would enable use to do -science- WRT bone loss. But then, you really don't understand science, peterson.

The point is, we have little need for such research, since we have
little need to be in a low gravity environment. Maybe someday. In the
meantime, it's a very large investment returning very little of value.
It's a cost/benefit analysis.

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 1:22:32 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:31:10 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

No, actually all we know is that 1 G is good and that ~0 G is bad. We don't know if either 1/3 G or 1/6 G is good enough.

We have a good deal of knowledge on the subject.

Having a base on the Moon would enable use to do -science- WRT bone loss. But then, you really don't understand science, peterson.

The point is, we have little need for such research, since we have
little need to be in a low gravity environment.

That's a circular argument, peterson.

Did it ever occur to you that such research might have applications on Earth?

In the
meantime, it's a very large investment returning very little of value.
It's a cost/benefit analysis.

Let's see... $5 billion for 0bama's high speed rail between Tampa and Orlando... hmmm.... Cost/benefit analysis, you say?

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:09:54 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

The point is, we have little need for such research, since we have
little need to be in a low gravity environment.

That's a circular argument, peterson.

Did it ever occur to you that such research might have applications on Earth?

In the
meantime, it's a very large investment returning very little of value.
It's a cost/benefit analysis.

Which your additional comments demonstrate you don't understand.

Let's see... $5 billion for 0bama's high speed rail between Tampa and Orlando... hmmm.... Cost/benefit analysis, you say?

Non-sequitur.

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 6:58:21 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:09:54 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

The point is, we have little need for such research, since we have
little need to be in a low gravity environment.

That's a circular argument, peterson.

Did it ever occur to you that such research might have applications on Earth?

In the
meantime, it's a very large investment returning very little of value.
It's a cost/benefit analysis.

Which your additional comments demonstrate you don't understand.

Incorrect.

Let's see... $5 billion for 0bama's high speed rail between Tampa and Orlando... hmmm.... Cost/benefit analysis, you say?

Non-sequitur.

Spaceflight = beneficial. Pork barrel rail lines = not beneficial. Do the math.

On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 12:10:24 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:39:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 11:09:28 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:02:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

We have little need for manned flights to the Moon.

How would you know? Have you ever been there?

I don't need to go there to recognize that nobody has really come up
with any compelling reason humans need to be there on a regular basis.

I think it would be a great way to get a handle on the rate of bone loss under low gravity, for example.

We already have a pretty good handle on that. And it's not all that
important of information. The effects of microgravity are much more
interesting and useful, and we can do that research in low Earth
orbit. And neither really justifies the development of an expensive
launch system intended primarily for manned space flight.

F--- "low Earth orbit" and the ISS.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:11:57 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Let's see... $5 billion for 0bama's high speed rail between Tampa and Orlando... hmmm.... Cost/benefit analysis, you say?

Non-sequitur.

Spaceflight = beneficial. Pork barrel rail lines = not beneficial. Do the math.

Non sequitur.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:21:29 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 06:11:03 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

This vehicle would be good for getting to the Moon, assuming that
a lander is in the works too and that turn-around time between
launches can be kept short.

We have little need for manned flights to the Moon.

Manned lunar flights are useful as a replacement for military power
demonstrations. After all, manned lunar flights are clearly
preferable to more nukes.

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 12:15:19 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:11:57 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Let's see... $5 billion for 0bama's high speed rail between Tampa and Orlando... hmmm.... Cost/benefit analysis, you say?

Non-sequitur.

Spaceflight = beneficial. Pork barrel rail lines = not beneficial. Do the math.

Non sequitur.

Really? How so?

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 12:26:44 AM UTC-4, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:21:29 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 06:11:03 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01
wrote:

This vehicle would be good for getting to the Moon, assuming that
a lander is in the works too and that turn-around time between
launches can be kept short.

We have little need for manned flights to the Moon.

Manned lunar flights are useful as a replacement for military power
demonstrations.

Example?

After all, manned lunar flights are clearly
preferable to more nukes.

The Nazis used rockets to terrorize, the USSR used them for propaganda, whereas the US led the way in using them for exploration.

On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 06:26:44 UTC+2, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:21:29 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 06:11:03 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

This vehicle would be good for getting to the Moon, assuming that
a lander is in the works too and that turn-around time between
launches can be kept short.

We have little need for manned flights to the Moon.

Manned lunar flights are useful as a replacement for military power
demonstrations. After all, manned lunar flights are clearly
preferable to more nukes.

The Moon only has value where a profit can be made.

Adding enough gravity is as easy as adding spin to the protective human container. The multiple containers, of equal size, just to carry life support and shelter could be stuffed with AI bots and scientific apparatus instead.

Why not employ AI robots, with wide spectrum, HD vision, sound, touch and a virtual reality link straight back to home? The fully immersed bot-rider is far more useful than a flesh and blood bod in a spacesuit as far as dusty boots are concerned. The bot has far more speed, infinite stamina, far greater strength and doesn't need to stop for a pee, a rest, to cool off, more air or lunch.

Only arrogance demands a human presence once the remote viewing/sensing technology is perfected. The only obvious downside is the serious time lag on more distant worlds. Though if it were a humble spaceman he would still have to send pictures back to Earth for expert analysis. Which takes even more time!

Which is why you really need AI bots out there in the field. A global team of specialists can plug into the VR feed on demand to maximize scientific value of the remote activities. What the spacemen would trip and stumble over, the expert can spot from several million miles away. Perhaps the up and down links could be managed by FLT [quantum] communication?