the drive to explore

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:16:26 -0600, "john" wrote:

Lots of things are expensive. Don't mean they're not profitable. Being
expensive ain't an insurmountable barrier, as long as the put-uppers believe
they'll earn back more than they put up.

And as soon as someone can think of something on alien planets that
actually would be worth the expense, space exploration will wake up
again. So far, there's nothing.

wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:
In fact
I saw one calculation showing if you made your rocket weightless,
nullify gravity, but not massless
it doesn't save much energy in getting to orbit.

Those must have been some pretty crappy calculations. Friction from the
air may slow you down, but without gravity it's going to be essentially
as easy to move a mass 22,000 miles straight up to the equivalent of a
geosyncronous orbit than it is to move that mass 22,000 miles in a
truck under the effects of gravity. And lots of people have moved
masses 22,000 miles without multi-million budgets to work with.

Mark your calendars, everyone: Matt is right.

Orbit is not just a matter of altitude. Anything in Earth orbit is moving
fast. Most of the energy necessary to place something in orbit goes to
accelerate it sideways, not to lift it up against gravity.

::: In fact I saw one calculation showing if you made your rocket
::: weightless, nullify gravity, but not massless it doesn't save much
::: energy in getting to orbit.

:: Those must have been some pretty crappy calculations. Friction from
:: the air may slow you down, but without gravity it's going to be
:: essentially as easy to move a mass 22,000 miles straight up to the
:: equivalent of a geosyncronous orbit than it is to move that mass
:: 22,000 miles in a truck under the effects of gravity. And lots of
:: people have moved masses 22,000 miles without multi-million budgets
:: to work with.

: Mark your calendars, everyone: Matt is right.
: Orbit is not just a matter of altitude. Anything in Earth orbit is
: moving fast. Most of the energy necessary to place something in orbit
: goes to accelerate it sideways, not to lift it up against gravity.

But doesn't that have to be "getting to *low* *earth* orbit"?
If you are allowed to get to any orbit, and vertical movement
doesn't imply potential energy, you simply go straight up until you are far enough away that your orbital velocity is as low as you like.

Now, practical considerations invervene; you probably don't want to get
up above the moon and all. But to get to geosync orbit would then
have only require less than a sixth of the energy as that to get
to LEO by this method. (If I haven't dropped a decimal or something.)

Indeed, if you are allowed to get to *any* orbit, and potential
energy is free, you just rise until the orbital velocity is
a thousand kilometers an hour, and Bob's your uncle.
And Bob demands no energy for this. Sadly, you'd probably fall
out away from earth from there... oh well.

Or try this. Go *way* up. Turn off the gravity-balancing device. Fall
back down. Repeat as needed until you get as much velocity as you like.
Helps break the ice at perpetual motion parties, wink wink, nudge nudge...

So that's both "low earth orbit" and "you can't go above and fall into it".

Ah well.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

Alan Anderson wrote:
wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:
In fact
I saw one calculation showing if you made your rocket weightless,
nullify gravity, but not massless
it doesn't save much energy in getting to orbit.

Those must have been some pretty crappy calculations. Friction from the
air may slow you down, but without gravity it's going to be essentially
as easy to move a mass 22,000 miles straight up to the equivalent of a
geosyncronous orbit than it is to move that mass 22,000 miles in a
truck under the effects of gravity. And lots of people have moved
masses 22,000 miles without multi-million budgets to work with.

Mark your calendars, everyone: Matt is right.

No he's not. The problem is that he's missed the fact that the
requirements change in a universe where you can nullify gravity and
then attempted to mix two dissimilar pieces of information.

Yes, to actually achieve orbit in your gravity-nullifying spaceship you
still have to expend the energy necessary for that orbit. But being in
orbit around Earth is completely irrelevant if you're talking about
going to Mars.

That's why I used the words "equivalent of a geosynchronous orbit" in
my post.

--
Justin Bacon

wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:

.... and then somebody perfects the technology for a colony on the sun
and starts charging dues on solar energy. But that seems sufficiently
distant that we don't need to worry about it immediately.

So tell me, at prices for the foreseeable future for surface to surface travel what, mineral,
element, or form of element (carbon as diamonds but of the size found on earth) were found in
refined form on pallets waiting to be picked up, would make space travel economical?

Pretty much anything and everything.

Tell me what costs $50,000 per pound and thus is worth flying to the moon and bring back.

But what you really meant to ask, I think, regards prices in the *near*
future, not the foreseeable future.

The near is the foreseeable unless you find something to replace chemical rockets.

Orbital mechanics has no mysteries. The delta V necessary to do anything is back of the envelop for
ideal conditions. It was observed many years ago, low earth orbit is half way to anywhere in the
universe.

The original quote is solar system, not universe.

So much the better if you like mining asteroids.

Not really true but close enough to see the problem. If solar sails were completely free
you still haven't negated the costs of getting the first 18,000 mph through the atmosphere.

As made notable by the failure of the first two solar sail experiments
to reach orbit. (Although I understand there's some hope that the most
recent one isn't completely lost.)

Immaterial. The only cost savings is from using ICBMs scheduled to be scrapped.

In fact
I saw one calculation showing if you made your rocket weightless, nullify gravity, but not massless
it doesn't save much energy in getting to orbit.

Those must have been some pretty crappy calculations. Friction from the
air may slow you down, but without gravity it's going to be essentially
as easy to move a mass 22,000 miles straight up to the equivalent of a
geosyncronous orbit than it is to move that mass 22,000 miles in a
truck under the effects of gravity. And lots of people have moved
masses 22,000 miles without multi-million budgets to work with.

And if you take it to that altitude it falls back down. You still have to accelerate it to orbital
velocity You need to learn something about orbital mechanics. You appear to know nothing at this point.

Now, using real-world physics, the only practicable away of achieving
relatively cheap orbit is a space elevator. But I'm not sure why you
think that negates my claim of the investing priorities of first-world
governments if colonial claims became the root of space exploration.

And when the first space elevator is working we can discuss its actual cost of operation and
maintenance. It is not clear the technology can improve to what is needed. It only appears
promising. When it can first be put on line we have no idea. Every try at lowering a long line from
orbit has failed for reasons unknown. Not saying it is impossible just that we have no idea when one
can be built and we may find it cannot be built affordably for reasons we do not know yet.

And then if costs are down to $50 per pound up and down from earth and we can reasonably only
expect to bring back ore we still have the chemical costs of a moon landing and return to earth
elevator. That is a lot of expensive delta V adn you can't claim better than 1/6th the chemical
costs from earth now.

--
Now that we know Deep Throat was a deputy director of the
FBI we know the FBI was covering up the crime.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3452
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Larry Shiff http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml a8

Bateau wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:

Bateau wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

Bateau wrote:

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

There was a Shoah, a disaster, just as Palestinians had a Nakbah.
When the Disaster was fed through Hollywood it was given the usual
anti-historic treatment and emerged as the holocaust. No rational person
believes Hollywood's version actually happened. Hollywood has done just
about everything but make Haman an SS officer.

Only an utter idiot, or an utterly evil and depraved person,
would believe millions of jews were not systematically murdered
by the Nazis in WW2.

What holocaust? I'm still waiting for it. I've got a shotgun and I'm
collecting sheet metal to weld to my car.

As long as this does not bring in the pimply faced jews on alt.revisionism I will respond as this
does not violate any charters.

I said the official name at Yad Vashem in Israel is SHOAH. That means disaster. There was a
disaster. If you want specifics, spell out your ****ing specifics. Even Yad Vashem does not spell
out gas chambers. Get a grip, boy.

Huh?

What is the Huh? about? Never heard of Yad Vashem in Israel? It is an obligatory stop for all
dignitaries on their first visit to Israel. There have been photo ops for Bush and Rice visiting it.
Never heard of the Shoah? That is what the non-english speaking world calls the holocaust. Yad

Jews are the whole non english speaking world now?
Wow, you're stupid.
Bye bye stupid.

Shoah is Hebrew for disaster. That is what it was called from the beginning. It was only after the
TV miniseries Holocaust ran in the US that the word holocaust started being used in the US and
spread to english speaking countries where it ran. As I said, Yad Vashem in Israel calls it the
Shoah and one would tend to take that as the athoritative institution on the subject.

I find even Israeli Hebrew newspapers translate Shoah to holocaust for their English editions.

Vashem does not spell out gas chambers. It has also (belatedly) discredited the jewish soap and
lampshade myths. It is more revisionist than most people on the internet who just question it.

--
If you must be a Jew to criticize Israel you must also be a
Palestinian to criticize Palestine. I know the metaphor is
mixed in English but not in reality.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3451
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3

Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
So tell me, at prices for the foreseeable future for surface to surface travel what, mineral,
element, or form of element (carbon as diamonds but of the size found on earth) were found in
refined form on pallets waiting to be picked up, would make space travel economical?

Pretty much anything and everything.

Tell me what costs $50,000 per pound and thus is worth flying to the moon and bring back.

You said "foreseeable future", not "current launch prices". The fact
that you're apparently myopic is not my problem.

Not really true but close enough to see the problem. If solar sails were completely free
you still haven't negated the costs of getting the first 18,000 mph through the atmosphere.

As made notable by the failure of the first two solar sail experiments
to reach orbit. (Although I understand there's some hope that the most
recent one isn't completely lost.)

Immaterial. The only cost savings is from using ICBMs scheduled to be scrapped.

You do understand I was agreeing with you, right?

Wait, what am I saying? Of course you don't. You're incapable of
reading English for comprehension.

In fact
I saw one calculation showing if you made your rocket weightless, nullify gravity, but not massless
it doesn't save much energy in getting to orbit.

Those must have been some pretty crappy calculations. Friction from the
air may slow you down, but without gravity it's going to be essentially
as easy to move a mass 22,000 miles straight up to the equivalent of a
geosyncronous orbit than it is to move that mass 22,000 miles in a
truck under the effects of gravity. And lots of people have moved
masses 22,000 miles without multi-million budgets to work with.

And if you take it to that altitude it falls back down.

And, uh, what causes this craft -- which is unaffected by gravity -- to
"fall back down"?

Now, using real-world physics, the only practicable away of achieving
relatively cheap orbit is a space elevator. But I'm not sure why you
think that negates my claim of the investing priorities of first-world
governments if colonial claims became the root of space exploration.

And when the first space elevator is working we can discuss its actual cost of operation and
maintenance. It is not clear the technology can improve to what is needed. It only appears
promising. When it can first be put on line we have no idea.

Right. And in 1945 spaceflight was impossible. And since it was
impossible in 1945, it shall be impossible for all of the foreseeable
future.

Pity your myopic way of looking at the future has such a rotten track
record historically.

Every try at lowering a long line from
orbit has failed for reasons unknown.

Heh. Perhaps you'd care to cite a few of these "tries". (This should be
amusing.)

--
Justin Bacon

wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

wrote:

So tell me, at prices for the foreseeable future for surface to surface travel what, mineral,
element, or form of element (carbon as diamonds but of the size found on earth) were found in
refined form on pallets waiting to be picked up, would make space travel economical?

Pretty much anything and everything.

Tell me what costs $50,000 per pound and thus is worth flying to the moon and bring back.

You said "foreseeable future", not "current launch prices". The fact
that you're apparently myopic is not my problem.

Foreseeable future means the best we can do with proven technology or technology "almost proven."
You cannot claim to foresee space elevators. If you try to make that claim you have to include the
total cost of construction, operation and maintenance and there is no way to do that without knowing
the cost of the technology involved. What will be the total cost of production? What will be the
repair cost as the elevator gets hit with debris at all height above the atmosphere?

If you want to build a steel frame building you can price it. If you want to build a carbon
nanotube building you have to price the total cost of the factories to produce the nanotubes. Same
with the elevator. How will they be repaired and maintained and at what cost? What will be the
insurance cost to cover the liability of it breaking and falling?

As you can see the cost to space will be much more than just the electricity to send an object
upwards. Everything I mentioned and more and of course future R&D and amortized upgrade and
replacement will be in the cost. So tell me what do you "foresee" as the cost per pound?

Not really true but close enough to see the problem. If solar sails were completely free
you still haven't negated the costs of getting the first 18,000 mph through the atmosphere.

As made notable by the failure of the first two solar sail experiments
to reach orbit. (Although I understand there's some hope that the most
recent one isn't completely lost.)

Immaterial. The only cost savings is from using ICBMs scheduled to be scrapped.

You do understand I was agreeing with you, right?

Wait, what am I saying? Of course you don't. You're incapable of
reading English for comprehension.

It reads like you are telling me the sail will save costs. A fact not in evidence. It will reduce
the time of travel. Sounds good to say a solar sail thingy can stay in space forever without launch
costs shuttling back and forth. But together the US and Russia have trouble paying to just keep the
ISS manned with minimal science.

In fact
I saw one calculation showing if you made your rocket weightless, nullify gravity, but not massless
it doesn't save much energy in getting to orbit.

Those must have been some pretty crappy calculations. Friction from the
air may slow you down, but without gravity it's going to be essentially
as easy to move a mass 22,000 miles straight up to the equivalent of a
geosyncronous orbit than it is to move that mass 22,000 miles in a
truck under the effects of gravity. And lots of people have moved
masses 22,000 miles without multi-million budgets to work with.

And if you take it to that altitude it falls back down.

And, uh, what causes this craft -- which is unaffected by gravity -- to
"fall back down"?

Because you have not put it in orbit and it is only 22,000 miles up. Whatever is antigravity we
would not assume Cavorite and thus it needs power. And what do you do with a 22,000 mile altitude
without orbit? Better to go for 200 miles as surveillance satellites.

Now, using real-world physics, the only practicable away of achieving
relatively cheap orbit is a space elevator. But I'm not sure why you
think that negates my claim of the investing priorities of first-world
governments if colonial claims became the root of space exploration.

And when the first space elevator is working we can discuss its actual cost of operation and
maintenance. It is not clear the technology can improve to what is needed. It only appears
promising. When it can first be put on line we have no idea.

Right. And in 1945 spaceflight was impossible. And since it was
impossible in 1945, it shall be impossible for all of the foreseeable
future.

Pity your myopic way of looking at the future has such a rotten track
record historically.

I keep saying it can't be priced and because it cannot be priced it cannot be assumed cheaper. You
keep jumping to impossible.

Every try at lowering a long line from
orbit has failed for reasons unknown.

Heh. Perhaps you'd care to cite a few of these "tries". (This should be
amusing.)

If I remember correctly both were by Italy leading an ESA effort looking to draw power from
dragging a conductor down to a lower altitude from the shuttle. I suggest you pay attention.

--
If non-Jews were admitted into the holy holocaust, homosexuals
and gypsies would become the moral equals of Jews.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3447
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
environmentalism http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a9

Matt Giwer said:

If this is such a natural thing why did not Jefferson collect information from those who were returning before he hired L&C? Why did he not simply collect the findings of French explorers?

I'm not an expert on the history of Western exploration, but I would
imagine that he _did_ collect such information, before dispatching
Lewis and Clark. He dispatched them because he wanted _precise_
information faster than the natural progress of private land surveying
and exploration would get him.

What he was particularly concerned with (and which remained an issue
until at least the 1840's) was the northern border of the purchased
territory -- in other words, where the Purchase ended and California
began. At the time, America and Britain were somewhat hostile -- a
hostility that in less than ten years would erupt into war -- and thus
we were naturally worried about British ambitions in what is today the
American Northwest.

Another big concern was the development of land communications with
what is today Washington and Oregon. We were already familiar with
this region because Astor and others had established fur trading posts
there; we wanted to make sure that we could reach it overland
(preferably by portaging between the Missouri and other rivers, which
turned out to be very difficult -- the problem wasn't really solved
until the transcontinental railroads were consctructed after the end of
the Civil War).

Certainly it would have happened in the same way the west was explored before L&C by fur traders. To make money. Exploring for the sake of exploring? As Columbus was looking for a trade route? As finding the Aztecs and Incas lead to searches for more gold? An Britain explored the Pacific to extend it empire? As the French had Louisiana before selling it and nothing much in the way of exploration to show for it apparently not much profit to be made. And the American and Russia space programs were clearly for national prestige. They were the basis for bragging about almost totally unrelated socio-economic systems.

In all the cases you've given there were mixtures of motives. Greed
for wealth, ambition for power, curiosity to discover the wonders of
nature. Humans rarely do any big thing for only one reason. And in
all those cases, "prestige" was gained by demonstrating capabilities
that could be useful in future wars and future competitions for trade.
Oceanic sailing ships can carry gold or goods or troops. If America
could organize an exploration of the Purchase to the Pacific, America
could organize trading caravans or military expeditions over that same
territory (and was to do both in and right after the Mexican War). If
America or Russia could carry out complex orbital ventures they could
launch swarms of ICBM's or station weapons or orbit or put economically
useful land viewing or communications satellites into space.

Comm satellites would have been up at most a decade behind the current schedule as long as ICBMs are built the technology is there.

Well, yes, but communications satellites are just the most obvious
immediate peaceful use of space, once you have an orbital launch
capability.

If you are hung up on manned exploration most of what we have done appears to be only an excuse for sending people.

I don't think "sending people" needs to be an "excuse" -- it is the
long-term _point_ of operating in space. Unless we wipe ourselves out,
all our history on Earth up until the 1960's will one day be seen as
but the preface to a very long history on a multitude of worlds.

I keep hearing men can do better than machines but off hand I can't think of a thing
from the moon landings that humans did better than robotics can today.

I can -- the majority of our information about Lunar geology came from
the manned Apollo missions, and we still can't build robots that could
accomplish what the astronauts did in that field, if you want to play
the game of "limited to current accomplishments and technology." And
if you want to postulate future robots of greater capability, ok, but
then there will also be future spacecraft of greater capability, which
will make manned exploration easier.

(Actually, I think that a combination of manned and robotic activities
are most fruitful -- robots can blaze the trail for men).

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

Matt Giwer said:

What he wanted was amusing. Nothing happened until there was sufficient immigration to cause population pressures to make it happen.

???!!!

Are you aware of just how UNDER-populated early 19th century America
was, especially if you include the Old Northwest (the "Northwest
Territories" of pre-Purchase days)? I guess you _could_ call the
desires of the chronic pioneers (the guys who would move to get "elbow
room" if they could see the smoke of their nearest neighbor's
hearthfire) to be "population pressures," but to do so you must
seriously distort the normal meaning of the term!

All the actual examples of exploration I can find have been for a profit motive.

.... if you define "profit motive" broadly enough that it includes
almost all human attempts to gain ANYTHING other than pure knowledge;
and most of the actual examples of explorations were _also_ motivated
by the desire to gain knowledge (albiet "impure"). Humans, after all,
will not intentionally _worsen_ their situations, but some humans
consider the satisfaction of curiosity or wanderlust to be enough of a
gain that it will counterbalance a lot of hardship, and once you get a
few "first-in" pioneers, where they live ceases by definition to be a
wilderness.