Why Colonize Space?

In article ,
(David DeLaney) wrote:

Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
Can we build shelters for several hundred thousand that are capable of
surviving an ELE impact? Serious question, I don't know that we can.

Corse we can on the other side of the earth to the impact.

Actually directly opposite the impact is probably the 2nd worse place to be.

ObMathMention: Spherical harmonics...

Dave "it's gonna rain, rain, rain, rain, RAAAAIN, rain" DeLaney

So optimal would be N shelters and hope N survive but N-1 with a high
degree of possiblity.

In article ,
Dimensional Traveler wrote:

Greg Goss wrote:
Dimensional Traveler wrote:

Greg Goss wrote:
I believe that a ten year underground "disaster shelter" colony would
be cheaper than an equivalent one on the moon, mars or L5. It would
be trivial to build it to be survivable to a chixhulub impact, so long
as the dinosaur killer didn't hit it dead-on. So you need to build
more than one.

And you need to build it ahead of time. I don't think it can be built
after observing an approaching asteroid.

Can we build shelters for several hundred thousand that are capable of
surviving an ELE impact? Serious question, I don't know that we can.
And how many would have to be saved to do better than a subsistence
level farming society a generation after impact?

Subsistence farmers is good enough to my mind. I'm worried about
species survival. I think a thousand or two unrelated people is
considered enough for this.

Only if the species is very lucky. One bad growing season or one
epidemic would be enough to knock the population down far enough to
guarantee extinction not long after.

Not to mention that to many of us, condemning humanity to a thousand
years of subsistence farming is _not_ "good enough".

Better that than dead, and it doesn't have to be a thousand years, we'd
do well to stash books and primers etc. and, of course we assume we can
stash sperm and eggs indefinitely.

In article om,
Les Cargill wrote:

I'd be pretty skeptical of *that*, too... having dealt
with people with large installed bases of obsolete stuff,
it's just a vale of pain. You'd have to be in a state where
the value of labor was very low, and I have to wonder then if
things like the power grid and other support services
would make it worthwhile.

We didn't have computers in every home, 'till what the mid '80s?
Computers are just to give a boot to technology development in this
scenario. A solar powered steam engine could be maintained with
blacksmith level work, perhaps with support of a supply of ball bearings.

We would, if serious, give a lot of thought to making things that
*last*, instead of the highest performance for cost.

In article , jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol
wrote:

Given the scenario, anybody who spends their time fixing computers
will get no supper because s/he hasn't gathered it.

/BAH

If society is that broken, yes. But you've postulated a society with no
margin already. And while the Amish might not produce alternate
electricity they do have technology that provides a good base for an
electricity producing society.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Quite a bit, particular military stuff like the longbow etc and
fortifications etc.

Technology was always driven by military stuff, until recently when
games and p0rn came to be drivers. Even today, IIUC, the biggest users
of $500 and up graphics cards are gamers.

In article , jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol
wrote:

You have no idea what I'm talking about. To go outside those local
areas, you needed to hire protection. In today's terms, that means
that you had to hire a platoon to go with you when you wanted to
shop. This is not efficient trade.


Today it's taxes which come from you customers as well as you. But you
probably have better protection these days, unless you go near the horn
of Africa.

In article ,
Greg Goss wrote:

Walter Bushell wrote:

In article ,
Greg Goss wrote:

(Wayne Throop) wrote:

Plus too, even nowdays when there is computer control of things, they
aren't exactly just wired up to the internet and running windows so they
can catch a virus.

I've read that one of the reasons that the gyrations of the power
phasing that eventually led to the 2004 big blackout weren't caught
and corrected because several of the computers being used to monitor
and control the computers that actually controlled the system (at that
one power company) were taken offline to correct a virus or worm
infection.

What the hell were they doing connected to the internet in the first
!&##! place? And if they were running Windows, why weren't the
"responsible" parties sent to bed without dinner and have there mouths
washed out with soap?

System designers are always enamoured with the flexibility of using
off-the-shelf technology and connecting it all together. An example
(though not involving the internet), was the paralyzing of the USS
Yorkton. From wiki:

On September 21, 1997, while on maneuvers off the coast of Cape
Charles, Virginia, a crew member entered a zero into a database field
causing a divide by zero error in the ship's Remote Data Base Manager
which brought down all the machines on the network, causing the ship's
propulsion system to fail.[4]

Anthony DiGiorgio, a civilian contractor with a 26-year history of
working on Navy control systems, reported in 1998 that the Yorktown
had to be towed back to Norfolk Naval Station. Ron Redman, a deputy
technical director with the Aegis Program Executive Office, backed up
this claim, suggesting that such system failures had required Yorktown
to be towed back to port several times.[5]

Love those Windows, eh?

It's the cat's pajamas.

Walter Bushell wrote:
In article om,
Les Cargill wrote:

I'd be pretty skeptical of *that*, too... having dealt
with people with large installed bases of obsolete stuff,
it's just a vale of pain. You'd have to be in a state where
the value of labor was very low, and I have to wonder then if
things like the power grid and other support services
would make it worthwhile.

We didn't have computers in every home, 'till what the mid '80s?

Trust me, we were fine. I made it until the early '90s.

Computers are just to give a boot to technology development in this
scenario. A solar powered steam engine could be maintained with
blacksmith level work, perhaps with support of a supply of ball bearings.


That's quite a bit beyond "blacksmith level work."

We would, if serious, give a lot of thought to making things that
*last*, instead of the highest performance for cost.

No, because ... well, you essentially *defined* utility - "highest
performance for cost."

--
Les Cargill

In article ,
(William December Starr) wrote:

In article ,
jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol said:

Rod Speed wrote:
Scott Lurndal wrote

You're just a troll that can't spell.

Everyone can see that you are a silly little ****wit child
that cant do anything better than spelling flames.

Only you can see that. Scott is none of the above.

I strongly suspect that in his worldview, Rod _is_ everyone.

-- wds

If someone really believed he was everyone, he would be the most
altruistic person imaginable.

In article ,
John Stafford wrote:

On 8/5/09 12:52 PM, in article , "Rod
Speed" wrote:

jmfbahciv wrote:
Greg Goss wrote
jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol wrote

Bearings may also be made from oily woods, and often work for ships
propeller shafts, even today.

I don't think I've ever seen any wood bearings. Were any bearings
used in sailing ships (now that I'm thinking about this)?

Yes, wood bearing were used in sailing ships, in particular along steering
shafts and later for propeller bearings.

We still use lubricated wood bushings. Maple has an excellent capillary
structure to capture and yield lubrication. It is also hard. It is
especially good for wet conditions. It has about half the strength of
bronze, but is more economical and lighter.

Not to mention it doesn't corrode and cause corrosion in other metals.