Malthusian Theory and Travel Beyond Earth Orbit

John Maxson wrote
in message ...

Does a newer space ship offer us a timely chance to beat the
Malthusian outcome (i.e.., will it help us find natural resources
on another celestial body and also lead to colonization)?

Have there been any recent advances such as this in the area of
heavy-lift technology?

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12209

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

John Maxson wrote:

What's the projected world population by the time we expect
to have completely replaced the space shuttle for ISS trips?

Does a newer space ship offer us a timely chance to beat the
Malthusian outcome (i.e.., will it help us find natural resources
on another celestial body and also lead to colonization)?

A more economical vehicle does give us a better shot at accessing
space resources, but it won't mean anything with respect to population
growth. You just won't be able to move people off Earth fast enough,
assuming you even had enough volunteers, and a waiting colony to settle
them in.

If not, should we start resigning ourselves to that now, by
investing more heavily in plans for preventing our extinction?

What would those plans consist of?

Among other things, a large, self-sustaining off-Earth human presence
would also have that effect, even if it wasn't the actual purpose.

Wouldn't that require vast reductions in military expenditures
for space, so we can find peaceful solutions to world strife?

What strife is amenable to throwing money at it?

Finding better ways to grow food is desirable (and plenty of people
research that, even if also because there's money in it, too), but you
still have to pay for the production somehow, then get ti to thpse who
need it.

On the other hand, some strife grows out of human behavior, history
and social conditions. What kind of 'research' would be required, for
example, to keep Israelis and Palestinians away from each other's
throats? How do you spend money to prevent wars in Liberia, Sri Lanka
and assorted other places on Earth?

When I hear the: "If we can put a man on the Moon... (which we havent
done *lately*, BTW)" argument, I point out that that was entirely an
engineering problem. There's no engineering soultion for the problem
they're likely to complete the question with.

Some things *are* harder than going to the Moon.


How many spy satellites does the world really need, anyhow?


The 'world' doesn't launch and use them, individual nations do. And
those that do (or want to), believe their security can be enhanced by
having a clearer idea of their possible adversary's ability and intent.

And this is good. Otherwise, they might feel the need to arm
themselves for the worst-case scenario, or even attack first, when it
wasn't necessary. With good intelligence, one can resond appropriately,
and minimuze suprises. Good reconnisance has a stabilizing effect.

Besides, a thousand spysats are still cheaper than even a minor war.
If they prevent even one, it's worth it.

John Maxson wrote:

John Maxson wrote
in message ...

Does a newer space ship offer us a timely chance to beat the
Malthusian outcome (i.e.., will it help us find natural resources
on another celestial body and also lead to colonization)?

Have there been any recent advances such as this in the area of
heavy-lift technology?

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12209

We know how to build heavy-lift ELVs, and have a good idea of what
should go into a leavy-lift RLV. But currently, there's no
mission/market for either.

We need a small RLV first. We know how to make hydrogen or
hydrocarbon rocket engines for those (With per-flight operation times
nowhere near that of the Deep Space 1 engine [cool though that is], but
operation and maintenance similar to that done on jet engines is
entirely podssible. The DC-X experience has shown us that. And with a
modified, de-rated engine [RL-10] not even *meant* to be re-usable, but
robust enough to act as one in that program.).

No new physics are needed, just new engineering, and not a whole lot
of that.

Some things aren't done because they're impossible under known
physics.

Some aren't done because they're possible, but require engineering
that's well out of reach.

Some aren't done because those who can, believe one of the first two
assertions, and/or have a stake in the status quo, and don't try.

And some things aren't done because those who believe it's
attainable, don't have the resources to really try....

But that's changing.

Joann Evans wrote in message
...

You just won't be able to move people off Earth fast enough,
assuming you even had enough volunteers, and a waiting colony
to settle them in.

That's the way it looks to me also, at the present time.

What would those plans consist of?

I've been thinking along the lines of trying to turn virtually all
waste products of our consumption into reusable resources,
redistributing population centers to less populated areas, and
limiting population growth through compassionate planning.

What strife is amenable to throwing money at it?

I wouldn't throw money at anything, other than maybe solid
education made compulsive through the junior college level.
All strife leading to our extinction should be open to remedy.

What kind of 'research' would be required, for example, to
keep Israelis and Palestinians away from each other's throats?

It would be a kind that hasn't been attempted yet, obviously.

How do you spend money to prevent wars in Liberia, Sri
Lanka and assorted other places on Earth?

If we begin soon enough, I think better education is one way.

The 'world' doesn't launch and use them, individual nations do.

That wasn't my point. Spy-sats can also be subject to treaties.
It's missile, anti-missile, nuclear, and WMD systems proliferation
that to me seem to be a dead-end, leading to our extinction.
Spy-sat overkill falls in the the category of mistrust, as I see it.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

You're the type who'd buy a box of CrackerJacks so you
could eat the toy and play with the carmeled popcorn.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)


Michael Gardner wrote in message
...

why are you bringing this up in s.s.* since space plays no role?

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 08:02:29 -0500, "John Maxson"
wrote:

What's the projected world population by the time we expect
to have completely replaced the space shuttle for ISS trips?

How does the world's population bare any relation to the space
shuttle?

Does a newer space ship offer us a timely chance to beat the
Malthusian outcome (i.e.., will it help us find natural resources
on another celestial body and also lead to colonization)?

Depends on NASA's future plans mostly. A heavy lift rocket can move a
nice amount of mass out of the local gravity well, but it depends on
what NASA plans to put on it.

No manned craft is being planned that would last a trip to even the
Moon and back. So unless they blast the ISS out of orbit and to a
Lunar orbit (a role that it is not too good at), then you won't be
seeing people around the Moon until about 2020.

If NASA has not returned to the Moon all of 50 years after they last
were there, then I for one would vote that they be got rid of.

If not, should we start resigning ourselves to that now, by
investing more heavily in plans for preventing our extinction?

Humans have been around for millions of years already, in more
primitive forms, where there is no reason to believe that we won't be
around for millions of additional years.

Wouldn't that require vast reductions in military expenditures
for space,

I can only feel that the military would have done a better job with
human space exploration (and domination and control) than what NASA
has.

so we can find peaceful solutions to world strife?

There will always be famine, disease and natural disasters, where if
you want to cure world strife, then the only answer seems to be to
kill everyone.

Not a popular choice...

So have space and solving this unending supply of world problems.

How many spy satellites does the world really need, anyhow?

When you can spy on your neighbours every actions, then we have enough
or optionally too many.

Cardman.

"John Maxson" writes:

What's the projected world population by the time we expect
to have completely replaced the space shuttle for ISS trips?

I can't see any relationship between Shuttle/ISS and world population.

Does a newer space ship offer us a timely chance to beat the
Malthusian outcome (i.e.., will it help us find natural resources
on another celestial body and also lead to colonization)?

Ditto. There is no relationship between a newer space ship and a
"Malthusian" outcome. There simply will be no space capability in
the foreseable future that will have any appreciable impact on
population and/or available resources.

We will simply have to rely on the fact that we humans are extreme
"K strategists" and therefore will self-limit our population growth.

http://fig.cox.miami.edu/Faculty/Tom/bil160sp98/16_rKselection.html

... investing more heavily in plans for preventing our extinction?

Definitely. A self sustaining colony on Mars or in space habitats
would be great and we should lay the foundations ASAP. But any
colony is not going to be self sustaining in the lifetime of anyone
around today.

Wouldn't that require vast reductions in military expenditures
for space, so we can find peaceful solutions to world strife?

It would be nice if we could all agree on reducing our military
expenditure. Ultimately it comes down to feeling secure and being
able to trust your neighbours that they won't harm you. Of course
there will always be some troublesome neighbours who have been at
each other's throats for hundreds of years and are unlikely to stop
now (f.e. in the Balkans); but 10% of current military expenditure
should be enough to police that.

--
Manfred Bartz

Cardman writes:

Humans have been around for millions of years already,

IIRC, homo sapiens has been around for approx 130000 years.

... where there is no reason to believe that we won't be
around for millions of additional years.

There are lots of reasons why we should consider the possibility
that our species is a lot closer to its End than to its Beginning.

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsst...2814/story.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...rs/2976279.stm

--
Manfred Bartz

Manfred Bartz wrote
in message ...
"John Maxson" writes:

What's the projected world population by the time we expect
to have completely replaced the space shuttle for ISS trips?

I can't see any relationship between Shuttle/ISS and world population.

That shouldn't stop you or someone else (e.g., one of the Oxford
scholars) from supplying an estimate in reply to my question.

Does a newer space ship offer us a timely chance to beat the
Malthusian outcome (i.e.., will it help us find natural resources
on another celestial body and also lead to colonization)?

There is no relationship between a newer space ship and a
"Malthusian" outcome. There simply will be no space capability
in the foreseable future that will have any appreciable impact on
population and/or available resources.

Again, I think someone should be able to define "foreseeable future"
and give a better idea of what space ship should replace the shuttle.
Look how far we have come (almost geometrically) since Kitty Hawk.
Otherwise, you added an interesting discussion, it seems to me.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

John Maxson wrote:

[snip]

That wasn't my point. Spy-sats can also be subject to treaties.

Yes, but why? Its the only way to verify some *other* treaties, and
for reasons I'll give below, it would itself be an unverifiable treaty.

It's missile, anti-missile, nuclear, and WMD systems proliferation
that to me seem to be a dead-end, leading to our extinction.
Spy-sat overkill falls in the the category of mistrust, as I see it.

Yes, but trust isn't required, if you can use them to verify for
yourself.

In any case, it almost doesn't matter. If we get the kind of human
presence in Earth orbit that pretty much everyone on this NG hope for,
with multiple space staitions for multiple purposes (tourism,
manufacturing, etc.)and orbital spacecraft being flown to and from them
(and to unmanned sats for whatever reason) hundreds of times a day
(including people transferring to deeper space flights, a'la 2001),
it'll be impossible to keep anyone from pointing whatever optics they
want (even a good hand-held camera, in some cases) toward the ground,
because it'll then be almost trivial to do so. And everyone pretty much
accepted long ago that in order to have any sort of orbital space
flight, that the satellites/vehicles must pass repeatedly over anyone's
national territory, unlike aircraft where airspace is typically
respected.

The worst that will then happen is greater effort toward
camoflaging/hiding that which you don't want seen from orbit. And this
is already an old technology.

It's like what I said earlier about how the process of human expanson
into space for economic and exploratory reasons will help insure
survival of some part of the human species. Helping insure
non-extinction may not be the goal, but it will naturally fall out of
what you *are* doing. Eventually, you just will not be able to limit
orbital reconnisance systems. Indeed, the view is a major part of the
selling point for orbital tourism....