the drive to explore

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.

I don't. I just argue that the drive to explore for exploration's
sake isn't sufficient to fuel further manned space exploration without
another motivator which doesn't seem to be handy right now. Not when
manned space exploration, even if made a lot cheaper, is still so damn
expensive.





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Jordan wrote:

The really basic problem with Dave O'Neill's argument that this will
continue to be the case forever into the future is that he is assuming
that neither materials nor propulsion technology can advance any
further. He is, logically, imagining a world of 2100 or 2250 or 2500
or 3000 in which we are still, essnetially, launching ourselves into
space with chemical rocket boosters, essentially little different from
Arianes or Deltas.

Ok, let's look at the world of the 1950s compared to the world 50 years
later and consider the ways we have of launching ourselves into orbit
and, for that matter, flying distances over the planet.

Let's then look ahead another 50 years. With current technology do I
think that is going to change? No, actually I don't. Come 2050 do I
think we'll have a radically different means of boosting things to
orbit? Probably not, we migt have a space elevator thanks to advances
in other technological fields which would make things better, but not
necessarily really easy. Will we still be flying in the descendants of
747s and A380s etc... ? Yes, I think we will still be flying around
11,000metres up at about 900kph in 2050. What we might be able to do
is fly point to point further - although if we have to move over to
Hydrogen, we might actually see ranges on jets dropping.

snip strawmen

Put that way, the basic flaw in Dave's reasoning should be apparent.
Technology does NOT stand still over time.

No, as you should have realised, a strong part of my argument and one
I've referred to elsewhere and often on rasfw is the problem for manned
space development is that technology is increasing exponentially in
several areas, just not propulsion.

I suspect the whole concept of manned space exploration to largely
become something of a sideshow to a main event that I'm not even able
to speculate on at the moment, no more than a 1000CE circa "engineer"
would be able to image certain things.

Dave

Jordan wrote:
Dave O'Neill said:

It depends on what you mean by "hardware" - there's many many things we
don't and have not used aircraft to transport because it's not
practical nor economic to do so.

Space craft are going to be different because...?

They are going to be different in that there is no upwards limit on the
mass of a spacecraft, and hence no upwards limit on the mass of its
cargo.

Sorry?

They are going to be the same in that there aren't very many things
(other than very huge or very specific ones) which we haven't used
aircraft to transport; furthermore there is no reason to assume that
aircraft have reached their eternal mass limits (though they are,
ultimately, limited by the atmosphere of the planets on which they
operate).

For certain emergency things you'll use aircaft. There's a lot of
stuff which, even though aircraft are, compared to any conceivable
launch system (excepting "magic" and space elevators) "cheap", far far
too uneconomical to use to, for example, build a colony. Which is
what, this thread started out talking about.

If you want to build antartic style outposts and then "expand" them
using 5,000kg 3m^3 units, then, as we say over here, the very best of
British luck to you.

Dave

On 18 Jun 2005 05:15:03 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Let's then look ahead another 50 years. With current technology do I
think that is going to change? No, actually I don't. Come 2050 do I
think we'll have a radically different means of boosting things to
orbit? Probably not, we migt have a space elevator thanks to advances
in other technological fields which would make things better, but not
necessarily really easy. Will we still be flying in the descendants of
747s and A380s etc... ? Yes, I think we will still be flying around
11,000metres up at about 900kph in 2050.

I doubt it. We'll probably be doing Mach 3 by then, with modern
(i.e., nothing like Concorde) supersonic airliners.

Put that way, the basic flaw in Dave's reasoning should be apparent.
Technology does NOT stand still over time.

No, as you should have realised, a strong part of my argument and one
I've referred to elsewhere and often on rasfw is the problem for manned
space development is that technology is increasing exponentially in
several areas, just not propulsion.

But we don't need advances in propulsion for low-cost launch.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 05:15:03 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Let's then look ahead another 50 years. With current technology do I
think that is going to change? No, actually I don't. Come 2050 do I
think we'll have a radically different means of boosting things to
orbit? Probably not, we migt have a space elevator thanks to advances
in other technological fields which would make things better, but not
necessarily really easy. Will we still be flying in the descendants of
747s and A380s etc... ? Yes, I think we will still be flying around
11,000metres up at about 900kph in 2050.

I doubt it. We'll probably be doing Mach 3 by then, with modern
(i.e., nothing like Concorde) supersonic airliners.

It would be nice, but I currently suspect my flight on Concorde is
going to be the fastest commercial scheduled flight in my lifetime, and
I'm certainly hoping to still be around in the 2050s.

Dave

In
rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.written,soc.histor y.what-if,sci.space.policy,
On 18 Jun 2005 09:03:11 -0700, "Dave O'Neill"
wrote:



Rand Simberg wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 05:15:03 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Let's then look ahead another 50 years. With current technology do I
think that is going to change? No, actually I don't. Come 2050 do I
think we'll have a radically different means of boosting things to
orbit? Probably not, we migt have a space elevator thanks to advances
in other technological fields which would make things better, but not
necessarily really easy. Will we still be flying in the descendants of
747s and A380s etc... ? Yes, I think we will still be flying around
11,000metres up at about 900kph in 2050.

I doubt it. We'll probably be doing Mach 3 by then, with modern
(i.e., nothing like Concorde) supersonic airliners.

It would be nice, but I currently suspect my flight on Concorde is
going to be the fastest commercial scheduled flight in my lifetime, and
I'm certainly hoping to still be around in the 2050s.

It may well be, but I just saw this article, someone is interested
in making a new commercial SST:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/06/...nic/index.html

Dave

-----
http://www.mindspring.com/~benbradley

On 18 Jun 2005 09:03:11 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Let's then look ahead another 50 years. With current technology do I
think that is going to change? No, actually I don't. Come 2050 do I
think we'll have a radically different means of boosting things to
orbit? Probably not, we migt have a space elevator thanks to advances
in other technological fields which would make things better, but not
necessarily really easy. Will we still be flying in the descendants of
747s and A380s etc... ? Yes, I think we will still be flying around
11,000metres up at about 900kph in 2050.

I doubt it. We'll probably be doing Mach 3 by then, with modern
(i.e., nothing like Concorde) supersonic airliners.

It would be nice, but I currently suspect my flight on Concorde is
going to be the fastest commercial scheduled flight in my lifetime, and
I'm certainly hoping to still be around in the 2050s.

Yes, as has been noted in the past, you "suspect" lots of things with
little or no basis.

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 16:16:09 GMT, in a place far, far away, Ben
Bradley made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I doubt it. We'll probably be doing Mach 3 by then, with modern
(i.e., nothing like Concorde) supersonic airliners.

It would be nice, but I currently suspect my flight on Concorde is
going to be the fastest commercial scheduled flight in my lifetime, and
I'm certainly hoping to still be around in the 2050s.

It may well be, but I just saw this article, someone is interested
in making a new commercial SST:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/06/...nic/index.html

That project looks doomed to failure from birth. The world doesn't
need "another Concorde," and there's nothing in the article to
indicate that either party has a clue as to how to build a practical
supersonic transport. Composite materials and engine noise are the
least of their problems. It's just another government boondoggle. I
doubt that it will ever make it past viewgraphs (any more than NASA's
disastrous High-Speed Research program did, and for the same reasons).

The year 2022 would be the 50th anniversary of the last US moon landing, and
approximately the 600th anniversary of Admiral Zheng-He's last - and
greatest - seventh voyage. Chinese officialdom is not unaware that,
following the Ming Dynasty's curtailment of these voyages for reasons not
dissimilar to the closing down of Apollo - it was the enterprising and
exploring West which went on to compete with them and ultimately eclipse
them.

It is quite possible that they will see a chance to have a "rematch" and
conclude that there is now a window of opportunity for them to reverse the
history of the past few centuries , in their favour.
Some scholars doubt that an analogy between Zheng-He and Apollo holds any
validity ; that hardly matters.What may matter a good deal is that China
could see this as a means of outshining the West; better this way than the
more traditional down to Earth ways of asserting top dog status, I guess.
In any event, I would not like to be a US President faced with the task of
explaining to a US Congress why Apollo's 50th anniversary is being
celebrated by Chinese on the Moon!

Wansui Zhong-guo- Fortune favours the Brave
Michael Martin-Smith
"Jordan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Rand Simberg said:

The ironic thing is, the Chinese will probably be the next to walk on
the moon...

That seems exceedingly unlikely.

We went from orbital capsule flight to the first Lunar landing in just
eight years, and America's technology in 1961 was _lower_ than China's
is today. So, why do you assume that China won't beat us to the Lunar
return?

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

"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.