|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
James Oberg on feel-good space stations
Johnny1A wrote: The only thing that keeps space flight going is the half-conscious thought that humans will be following the machines in 'due course'. If that is openly removed, space flight beyond Earth orbit is over, including the scientific efforts, since what public support exists* will vanish. Space flight beyond Low Earth Orbit IS over, and has been for 30 years. maintaining a fantasy that it is otherwise in the face of modern political and economic reality is to ignore the facts. Since Apollo the only true space exploration has been done by machines. I support sending machines to show us what other worlds are like, and if a dozen probes to each of the rocky inner planets are cheaper than one manned flight to Mars I would vote for the option which provides a greater variety of knowledge. I would be happy to see widespread human space exploration and O'Neill colonies but I keep waiting for any sign of such things getting started. Don Davis |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
James Oberg on feel-good space stations
Don Davis wrote in message ...
Space flight beyond Low Earth Orbit IS over, and has been for 30 years. maintaining a fantasy that it is otherwise in the face of modern political and economic reality is to ignore the facts. Since Apollo the only true space exploration has been done by machines. I support sending machines to show us what other worlds are like, and if a dozen probes to each of the rocky inner planets are cheaper than one manned flight to Mars I would vote for the option which provides a greater variety of knowledge. Don Davis No manned space flight means, in time, no space flight at all. The thing keeping the unmanned probes in business is the public perception, right or wrong, that eventually they'll be followed by humans (in whatever due time). It doesn't matter whether they're cheaper or not in that context. Shermanlee |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
James Oberg on feel-good space stations
"Johnny1A" wrote:
No manned space flight means, in time, no space flight at all. The thing keeping the unmanned probes in business is the public perception, right or wrong, that eventually they'll be followed by humans (in whatever due time). No, only, by your argument, no *non-commercial* space flight at all. Commercial spaceflight pays for itself handily, it ain't gonna stop no way no how. Nevertheless, there are only two (maybe 3) countries which have ever had manned spaceflight programs but dozens with unmanned (non-commercial) spaceflight programs so I don't think your argument holds much water. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
James Oberg on feel-good space stations
Space flight beyond Low Earth Orbit IS over, and has been for 30 years. maintaining a fantasy that it is
otherwise in the face of modern political and economic reality is to ignore the facts. Since Apollo the only true space exploration has been done by machines. I support sending machines to show us what other worlds are like, and if a dozen probes to each of the rocky inner planets are cheaper than one manned flight to Mars I would vote for the option which provides a greater variety of knowledge. I would be happy to see widespread human space exploration and O'Neill colonies but I keep waiting for any sign of such things getting started. Don Davis I'd like to see a program that would first put sensor sats in orbit around all the planets of the solar system, and then put rovers down on the ones that have surfaces and hover probes in the atmospheres of the ones that don't. Who knows - we might find something new that is so valuable it would be worth sending people out to get and bring back - like a submarine life-form on Europa. Space Exploration and O'Neill colonies aren't cost-effective (why build an O'Neill colony when we haven't filled up the Earth yet - not even the Badlands in the Dakotas?) and so will not be built. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
James Oberg on feel-good space stations
John Ordover wrote:
Space Exploration and O'Neill colonies aren't cost-effective (why build an O'Neill colony when we haven't filled up the Earth yet - not even the Badlands in the Dakotas?) and so will not be built. But I observe that Europe colonized the New World prior to every part of Europe being completely filled up. As you yourself have (correctly) pointed out, colonization beyond Earth could only happen if an economic opportunity presented itself. The only difference between you and some of the rest of us is that you dogmatically state the economic situation will never change from its present state, while some of us allow the possibility that the economics might change in the future. -- Regards, Mike Combs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely. Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is "somewhere else entirely." Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
James Oberg on feel-good space stations
"John Ordover" wrote:
Space Exploration and O'Neill colonies aren't cost-effective (why build an O'Neill colony when we haven't filled up the Earth yet - not even the Badlands in the Dakotas?) and so will not be built. Because people don't just live where they can, or where it's easiest, they live where they want. And that includes living where it's more difficult or more expensive. Living in San Francisco is much more costly than living in Los Angeles, and Los Angeles isn't even full yet, so why would anyone live in San Francisco? Why would people emigrate from any country before that country was "full"? By your argument, nobody would visit or live on Antarctica, because it's so difficult to live there and so costly to reach. Yet hundreds of people live there (which is really something, because you can't own land there, which is why nobody lives there permanently) and thousands of people visit on short trips. Antarctic tourism is a self- supporting industry. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
James Oberg on feel-good space stations
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message ...
"Johnny1A" wrote: No manned space flight means, in time, no space flight at all. The thing keeping the unmanned probes in business is the public perception, right or wrong, that eventually they'll be followed by humans (in whatever due time). No, only, by your argument, no *non-commercial* space flight at all. Commercial spaceflight pays for itself handily, it ain't gonna stop no way no how. True, I should have said non-commericial exploration. Comsats, Earth-resource and spysats, things on that order are here to stay. If someone finds a money-making enterprise beyond Earth-orbit that doesn't require manned presence, that too would work. But there's a limit to how far science for its own sake will be supported by governmental money. Nevertheless, there are only two (maybe 3) countries which have ever had manned spaceflight programs but dozens with unmanned (non-commercial) spaceflight programs so I don't think your argument holds much water. The large majority of those missions come from the same few countries that had manned flight, however. Shermanlee |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
James Oberg on feel-good space stations
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
James Oberg on feel-good space stations
I'd like to see a program that would first put sensor sats in orbit
around all the planets of the solar system, and then put rovers down on the ones that have surfaces and hover probes in the atmospheres of the ones that don't. Who knows - we might find something new that is so valuable it would be worth sending people out to get and bring back - like a submarine life-form on Europa. That IS a very, very good idea, both scientifically and from the POV of those who wish to encourage further space flight, both manned and unmanned. Thank you. Space Exploration and O'Neill colonies aren't cost-effective and so will not be built. They aren't _currently_ cost effective. In fact, I agree that it's unlikely any O'Neills will ever be built, I suspect that whatever does finally get built will be to O'Neill's ideas much as real aircraft are to the theoretical models of the 18th and 19th centuries. Which has been my point all along - for us to go into space in any significant way, we need a significant breakthrough in our technology (or to find something very, very valuable). |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
James Oberg on feel-good space stations
"John Ordover" wrote:
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message ... Because people don't just live where they can, or where it's easiest, they live where they want. And that includes living where it's more difficult or more expensive. Living in San Francisco is much more costly than living in Los Angeles, and Los Angeles isn't even full yet, so why would anyone live in San Francisco? Why would people emigrate from any country before that country was "full"? Because they have better opportunities to make money in San Fran than in LA, or they have social and emotional ties to San Fran. Clearly, nobody has or ever will have an emotional attachment to anything outside of Earth's atmosphere. Oh, and John, I just thought I'd mention, in case you hadn't noticed, that your other argument was that people only move away from places that are "full", whereas your new argument is completely different. You might want to look into that. By your argument, nobody would visit or live on Antarctica, because it's so difficult to live there and so costly to reach. [snip] The only people who live in antarctica are paid to do so. The only people who *can* live in Antarctica for any extended period of time can only do so as scientists working for national governments. Therefore, legally, the only people who can live in Antarctica *must* be paid to do so. Nevertheless, many tourists visit Antarctica without being paid to do so, many for quite a long time. Regardless, I fail to see how even your interpretation supports your argument. Why people live on Antarctica is irrelevant, the fact is that they do. And if people can and do live on Antarctica, why can't they live on Mars, or in Earth orbit? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |