Barack Obama Pits Space Explorers Against School Children

On 3 Dec, 14:56, Quadibloc wrote:
On Dec 3, 4:14 am, Ian Parker wrote:

This is the form in which space will increasingly have to
be packaged.

As it happens, I've addressed this in another thread I've started.

I feel that the main rationale for space won't be in direct benefits
to Earth. Nuclear power plants are far more cost-effective than solar
power satellites. Dealing with asteroids is important, but in itself
won't require an ambitious manned space exploration effort.

Instead, although in the long term Earth could benefit directly, the
main reason to put people in space is so that humanity - and the
valuable achievements of humanity - could survive even if problems
developed on Earth. And problems will develop on Earth, since there is
no sign that population growth is being checked.

And that is going to be hard to sell to the man in the street.

John Savard

I think I have dealt with that in another thread. I think personally
there is something to be said for a spike in the steering wheel.
Politicians and generals would take bigger risks if they felt they had
a bolt hole.

Most of the extistential risks are man made and the way to combat them
is to put in plave the appropriate controls, including controls on the
military.

Einar was wittering on about religious groups setting up space
colonies. Look at Iraq, death squads target people who say thier
prayers in the wrong way. I replied that the only people who should go
to a space colony are those who have been persecuted. They will
understand and not want a repetition. I mentioned the whore(s) of
Babylon who inhabit Syrian night clubs and don't pay 15% to Assad.

If you are not careful you will find that space colonies actually
increase the existential risk, not reduce it.

BTW - Perhaps one experiment that could be done on the ISS would be to
see how weightlessness affects sex. The thought occured to me as I was
writing this. - The whore of Babylon!

I think that at the moment SSP is too expensive and other technologies
are cheaper. This might change when we started using the resources in
space. Space colonies can't be built either without the resources of
space. There is however no compelling reason against SSP. Colonies are
another matter. They are dangerous in their own right.

As I have pointed out uselful technology will emerge from the
intermediate stages.


- Ian Parker


- Ian Parker

On 3 Dec, 15:48, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:

:Ian Parker wrote:

:
::On 3 Dec, 14:37, Fred J. McCall wrote:
:: Ian Parker wrote:
::
:: :
:: :Space has got to be packaged in terms of what directly relates to life
:: n Earth. The dinosaurs were wiped out by an Asteroid strike. We have
:: :the technology to divert asteroids, we need to spend a relatively
:: :small (in terms of the amounts of money that are spent by governments)
:: :to ensure that this does not happen. We don't want out children going
:: :the way of T Rex.
:: :
::
:: The man in the street doesn't regard that as a credible threat and
:: wouldn't spend a nickel on it until the asteroid is actually coming.
::
::
::I don't know. Depends on the amount of money involved and the risk. If
::you are talking $500 million this is small in the scheme of things. If
::more - probably not. When you talk about $500m not being that great a
::sum, it IS a big sum if the net benefit is perceived to be zero.
::
:
:Which is what I just said, above. The man in the street perceives the
:net benefit of any such scheme as zero until the asteroid is actually
n the way.
:
::
::
:: :
:: :OPEC has far to much power. Perhaps eventually space solar power has a
:: :role to play. We need NOW to work on small scale demonstrations. SSP
:: :has got one important by product. If you can produce a spot 1km in
:: :size that will have enormous implications for WiFi particularly in
:: :remote areas.
:: :
::
:: Ridiculous! Again, Ian appears ignorant of the fact that there is
:: ALREADY satellite internet.
::
::
::Indeed yes, however there is a matter of scaling. A satellites, so far
::can deal only with a very limited number of conversations. The bulk of
::comunications is carried on fiber optic cables. Satellites only
:rovide a premium service for mobile communications. Fiber optic
::capabilities are going up.
::
:
:And SPS isn't going to change that.
:
::
::Also satellites need large attennae.
::
:
:Most people don't consider a 1" dish 'large'.
:

Uh, make that 1' (actually, probably about 18"). Bloody keyboard has
a mind of its own.

:
::
::With a much larger receiver in
::space you can
::
::a) Have a WiFi transmittor/receiver.
::b) Have a lot of people connected.
::
:
:You really don't know much of anything about anything, do you?
:
:1) An SPS transmitter is not a receiver.
:
:2) You're moving the relay from LEO to GEO, so more power is required
:to talk up to it (or a much larger antenna on the ground
:transmitting).
:
:3) The physical size of the receiver has NOTHING to do with how many
eople can be connected (and I'm not aware that even current services
:are turning people away for capacity reasons).
:
:4) WiFi is *NOT* going to work at those ranges. Hell, WiFi is good
:for a couple hundred feet. Up the transmission power so that it can
:be seen from orbit and you don't need the satellite anymore (because
:everyone on the ground will be lost in the cacophony anyway).
:
::
::
:: :
:: :It will also render "Great Firewalls obsolete. You may
:: r may not be able to see the Great Wall from LEO. You are able to see
:: :neither the Great Wall nor the Great Firewall from GEO.
:: :
::
::
::Hey if we go on like this there will be no hard justification for
::space at all.
::
:
:Which brings us back to the original problem.
:
:I find it amusing, though, that Ian Parker's take on things is "knock
:down my loony schemes and there's no reason for space at all".

Look it is not JUST the size of the attenna although that is a lactor.
It is also to do with the total bandwidth. Suppose I stand somewhere
and draw a 500m radius circle center me. Now at GEO the receiver has
enough resolution to distinguish me from someone outside my circle. In
fact the receiver will take an FFT of the signal it is receiving. This
means that people in my circle will have a full satellite bandwidth
(10GHz say). If the satellite has lower resolution you will have 10GHz
on a 100km or even 1000km radius. I think I should have made that
clear.

A demonstrator will have this 500m circle.


- Ian Parker

On Dec 3, 9:42 am, Ian Parker wrote:
I think I have dealt with that in another thread. I think personally
there is something to be said for a spike in the steering wheel.
Politicians and generals would take bigger risks if they felt they had
a bolt hole.

Most of the extistential risks are man made and the way to combat them
is to put in plave the appropriate controls, including controls on the
military.

But that idea makes no sense. How do you put in place controls that
control Iran and control al-Qaeda? What this sort of proposal means in
practice is that the world's democracies place one-sided controls on
their own militaries, which leads to an *increased* risk of a
nightmare world where the other side wins, and freedom is destroyed.

Yes, the risks are "man-made". But we're not prepared to control the
growth of world population. Terrorists and foreign governments aren't
under our control. So, limiting the options available to the people
trying to solve the problems, when you can't control the people
causing them, doesn't help matters.

If you are not careful you will find that space colonies actually
increase the existential risk, not reduce it.

They may increase the risk to Earth slightly, but the overall risk to
humanity as a whole, once the colonies are independent of Earth, is
clearly lowered. But my expectation is, instead, that once the enemies
of freedom are faced with the reality that the total destruction of
freedom is beyond their power, they will be demoralized, rather than
redoubling their efforts. And because all our eggs are not in one
basket, the West's leaders can take a calmer and more determined
approach to threats.

Since I see al-Qaeda, Sudan, China, and so on as being *all* the
problem, and George W. Bush as part of the solution, not the problem,
naturally I don't find that sort of option as likely to be helpful.

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Dec 3, 9:42 am, Ian Parker wrote:
I think I have dealt with that in another thread. I think personally
They may increase the risk to Earth slightly, but the overall risk to
humanity as a whole, once the colonies are independent of Earth, is
clearly lowered. But my expectation is, instead, that once the enemies
of freedom are faced with the reality that the total destruction of
freedom is beyond their power, they will be demoralized, rather than
redoubling their efforts. And because all our eggs are not in one
basket, the West's leaders can take a calmer and more determined
approach to threats.


It's pretty clear the military will lead the way into space.
The risk to earth from colonies are numerous. For one
their immense expense could drain our national budget.
Their military uses mean society would get little in return
aside from geopolitical advantages. And the notion
that colonies are somehow more sustainable, more
civilized and stable than an earthbound community is silly.

Just because they're designed by scientists only means
trouble, not a paradise. With the rigid military like
environments too small for democratic or market forces
to play out. And the emotional and psychological stress
of isolation, and I bet long tours of duty. I would think that
colonies would be rife with conflict and difficult as
possible to sustain.

I'm picturing a job somewhat like ..oh.. spending all day
underwater welding, for the military. So there's no
money, no fun and no place to go except back to work.
Great view, but otherwise a living hell.

Why do people seem to fantasize so much about
colonies?




Since I see al-Qaeda, Sudan, China, and so on as being *all* the
problem, and George W. Bush as part of the solution, not the problem,
naturally I don't find that sort of option as likely to be helpful.


Is it the people that's the problem? Or the system?

Democracy and freedom are always the correct answers.
Doesn't really matter what the question is either.

Nature shows us a system that can produce human
intelligence, the greatest creation in the known
universe. How can we possible find a more
desirable or better method of creating???

We must simply mimic nature in our societal systems
so that nations constantly evolve to ever higher
levels of prosperity and justice.

And nature comes in threes. Our founding fathers
must have known this.

An evolutionary system begins with two primary
driving forces, the static and chaotic. And when
those two are in an unstable equilibrium with
each other, the third dynamic attractor
spontaneously emerges.

With Darwin, the static attractor is filled by that which
follows deterministic rules, or classical mechanics.
Genetics fills the static attractor.
The chaotic is filled by that which behaves chaotically
as in a gas, where statistical or quantum like
methods work. In the case of Darwin, mutation fills
the static attractor.

The way to allow those two opposite forces to interact
and find equilibrium with each other is called natural
selection.

WIth society laws fills the static attractor, and freedom
the chaotic. Where those two interact and find
their equililbrium is of course the executive branch.


Static Dynamic Chaotic

genetics....natural selection.....mutation

judicial.....executive.....legislative

No different really from any other complex adaptive system

static....dynamic....chaotic
solid.....liquid....gas

Newtonian motion..... thermodynamics.....Quantum motion

science.... art ....philosophy

truth.... beauty ......love

buyer.... market ....seller

gravity... space ....cosmic expansion

water.... cloud.....vapor


The forces which seek to coalesce or prevent change
....vs...the forces which seek to dissipate or create change.
When in balance with each other.

This is the single abstract source of our creation
/and/ that of the universe.

Try it and see for yourself, define any system at all.
And see if the paradigms above define the ideal
state.

Complexity science inverses the classical scientific
method rigorously. And inverses the results.

What was the hardest, is now the easiest.

Complexity science gives us the ideal system
structure.....the correct answer....in advance.
It's simply a matter of changing the actual
into the ideal.

And that's nothing more than grunt work now.





John Savard

On 3 Dec, 18:26, Quadibloc wrote:
On Dec 3, 9:42 am, Ian Parker wrote:

I think I have dealt with that in another thread. I think personally
there is something to be said for a spike in the steering wheel.
Politicians and generals would take bigger risks if they felt they had
a bolt hole.

Most of the extistential risks are man made and the way to combat them
is to put in plave the appropriate controls, including controls on the
military.

But that idea makes no sense. How do you put in place controls that
control Iran and control al-Qaeda? What this sort of proposal means in
practice is that the world's democracies place one-sided controls on
their own militaries, which leads to an *increased* risk of a
nightmare world where the other side wins, and freedom is destroyed.

The first thing you do to control Al Qaeda is to stop feeding it.
There is abundant evidence that the US supported OBL during the Afghan
- Soviet war. There is also disquierting evidence of support for the
KLA Kosovo Liberation Army which was supported by OBL.

I have mentioned ad nauseum the lies associated with Iraq and the
Middle East generally. There are lies associated with terror too. If
an existentially danderous weapon is built it will be built by the
United States or some other major power. The US with 50% of global
defense expenditure is very much setting the pace. People like the
Russians and Chinese are followers.

Hydogen Peroxide is unstable. People in this group have in fact
suggested using it as rocket fuel. Can anyone explain to me how anyone
with any pretensions of building an existentially dangerous weapon can
possibly go into their kitchen and distill H2O2 in an ordinary pan.
Lies, lies, lies. Saddam Hussein had WMD, Syria is danderous. Now the
CIA realises that the Staights of Hormuz would be blocked in the event
of a war with Iran and they are chaging their tune. You see a $200
barrel + petrol ratoning would be even more difficult to sell than
space clonies. They are now changing their lie accordingly.

Yes, the risks are "man-made". But we're not prepared to control the
growth of world population. Terrorists and foreign governments aren't
under our control. So, limiting the options available to the people
trying to solve the problems, when you can't control the people
causing them, doesn't help matters.

If you are not careful you will find that space colonies actually
increase the existential risk, not reduce it.

They may increase the risk to Earth slightly, but the overall risk to
humanity as a whole, once the colonies are independent of Earth, is
clearly lowered. But my expectation is, instead, that once the enemies
of freedom are faced with the reality that the total destruction of
freedom is beyond their power, they will be demoralized, rather than
redoubling their efforts. And because all our eggs are not in one
basket, the West's leaders can take a calmer and more determined
approach to threats.

Since I see al-Qaeda, Sudan, China, and so on as being *all* the
problem, and George W. Bush as part of the solution, not the problem,
naturally I don't find that sort of option as likely to be helpful.

They have no real power. The US does. The way ti stop China is by
international agreement. GWB is the prime problem. He lied his way
into office by smearing his opponents and has consistently lied and
mismanaged the situation.

My friend. A space colony is going to be impossible to sell. Would you
prefer to listen to someone who advocatred space colonies or to
someone with a deep understanding of the Middle East who offered
constructive solutions.

In the Moiddle East as I see it religion is the main problem. The US
should be building its relations with secular rulers like Assad, not
supporting Saudi Arabia. GWB ddoes not understand the ME. He has a
propaganist position that he half believes himself. No, he is simply
drifting from crisis to crisis.

Space colonies will require the resources of space in any case. If I
had these resources at my disposal a colony would NOT be the first
thing I would do. I would go for solar power, build a sunshield to
protect against global warming and I would do research on weather
control. Can the formation and path of hurricanes and typhons be
controlled?


- Ian Parker

On 4 Dec, 01:12, "Jonathan" wrote:
"Quadibloc" wrote in message

...

On Dec 3, 9:42 am, Ian Parker wrote:
I think I have dealt with that in another thread. I think personally
They may increase the risk to Earth slightly, but the overall risk to
humanity as a whole, once the colonies are independent of Earth, is
clearly lowered. But my expectation is, instead, that once the enemies
of freedom are faced with the reality that the total destruction of
freedom is beyond their power, they will be demoralized, rather than
redoubling their efforts. And because all our eggs are not in one
basket, the West's leaders can take a calmer and more determined
approach to threats.

It's pretty clear the military will lead the way into space.
The risk to earth from colonies are numerous. For one
their immense expense could drain our national budget.
Their military uses mean society would get little in return
aside from geopolitical advantages. And the notion
that colonies are somehow more sustainable, more
civilized and stable than an earthbound community is silly.

Just because they're designed by scientists only means
trouble, not a paradise. With the rigid military like
environments too small for democratic or market forces
to play out. And the emotional and psychological stress
of isolation, and I bet long tours of duty. I would think that
colonies would be rife with conflict and difficult as
possible to sustain.

I'm picturing a job somewhat like ..oh.. spending all day
underwater welding, for the military. So there's no
money, no fun and no place to go except back to work.
Great view, but otherwise a living hell.

Why do people seem to fantasize so much about
colonies?

Therin lies the horns of the dilemna. However you wrap it up space
colonists are going to have a lower standard of living than they would
expect on Earth. This is so even if you extrapolate and postulate
leaps of technology.

Space Solar Power may or may not be viable, but it is considerably
more viable than colonies. OK some people say they wish to colonize
space. I say colonize the deserts on Earth. Let us have SSP, let us
beam it down to the Mediterranean which we proceed to desalinate. Let
us have an O'Neill sized piece of land somewhere near Palmyra which we
proceed to irrigate. We also fill up the fountains in Damascus for
good measure.

Work it out. The total mass we would need at GEO would be small in
comparison to what we would need for an O'Neill colony. Now most
people, those without an axe to grind would try to increase their
standard of living. They would either stay put or go to Palmyra, they
would not think about going into space. That is not unless they had an
ideological axe to grind. Most people who came to America went because
they were promised a better life. The Pilgrim Fathers had, of course,
an axe to grind. Indeed it could be argued that the Pilgrim Fathers
are the reason for the hold which evangelical Christianity holds to
this day.

I have mentioned Iraq. Think about it this way. We do not want
Mayflowers leaving Baghdad, if they did a war in space would be
guaranteed.


- Ian Parker

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 20:12:37 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

It's pretty clear the military will lead the way into space.

That is not clear at all.

The risk to earth from colonies are numerous. For one
their immense expense could drain our national budget.
Their military uses mean society would get little in return
aside from geopolitical advantages. And the notion
that colonies are somehow more sustainable, more
civilized and stable than an earthbound community is silly.

Just because they're designed by scientists only means
trouble, not a paradise.

They won't be designed by scientists. They will be designed by
engineers and architects.

With the rigid military like
environments too small for democratic or market forces
to play out. And the emotional and psychological stress
of isolation, and I bet long tours of duty. I would think that
colonies would be rife with conflict and difficult as
possible to sustain.

I'm picturing a job somewhat like ..oh.. spending all day
underwater welding, for the military. So there's no
money, no fun and no place to go except back to work.
Great view, but otherwise a living hell.

Why do people seem to fantasize so much about
colonies?

Because they don't think about them as stupidly as you do.

rest of jonathan gibberish snipped

On 4 Dec, 12:58, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 20:12:37 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

It's pretty clear the military will lead the way into space.

That is not clear at all.

The risk to earth from colonies are numerous. For one
their immense expense could drain our national budget.
Their military uses mean society would get little in return
aside from geopolitical advantages. And the notion
that colonies are somehow more sustainable, more
civilized and stable than an earthbound community is silly.

Just because they're designed by scientists only means
trouble, not a paradise.

They won't be designed by scientists. They will be designed by
engineers and architects.

With the rigid military like
environments too small for democratic or market forces
to play out. And the emotional and psychological stress
of isolation, and I bet long tours of duty. I would think that
colonies would be rife with conflict and difficult as
possible to sustain.

I'm picturing a job somewhat like ..oh.. spending all day
underwater welding, for the military. So there's no
money, no fun and no place to go except back to work.
Great view, but otherwise a living hell.

Why do people seem to fantasize so much about
colonies?

Because they don't think about them as stupidly as you do.

An engineer who is any good works things out. 90% of the world's
population lives on 10% of the land surface. It takes far less mass to
support a desert with SSP than it does to build an O'Neill colony.
This is obvious to any engineer. You are clearly not an engineer. I
reckon you would have called Brunel looney had you lived in the 19th
century. You seem to lack any kind of scientific understanding.

OK, you might argue SSP might not be cost effective. Sure, it might be
even cheaper to have a set of terrestrial mirrors and raise steam. If
this is so it strengthens my case and that of Jonathan. I must say my
first reaction to the dry fountains was "mirrors, steam, turbines,
desalination".

This is what I say. This group seems to be getting totally negative,
totally abusive. I have not forgotten the slurs you have made on me.


- Ian Parker

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 07:58:47 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away, Ian
Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Just because they're designed by scientists only means
trouble, not a paradise.

They won't be designed by scientists. They will be designed by
engineers and architects.

With the rigid military like
environments too small for democratic or market forces
to play out. And the emotional and psychological stress
of isolation, and I bet long tours of duty. I would think that
colonies would be rife with conflict and difficult as
possible to sustain.

I'm picturing a job somewhat like ..oh.. spending all day
underwater welding, for the military. So there's no
money, no fun and no place to go except back to work.
Great view, but otherwise a living hell.

Why do people seem to fantasize so much about
colonies?

Because they don't think about them as stupidly as you do.

An engineer who is any good works things out. 90% of the world's
population lives on 10% of the land surface. It takes far less mass to
support a desert with SSP than it does to build an O'Neill colony.
This is obvious to any engineer. You are clearly not an engineer.

That doesn't seem so clear to the many people who have hired me to do
engineering.

I reckon you would have called Brunel looney had you lived in the 19th
century.

Yes, you reckon lots of nutty things.

You seem to lack any kind of scientific understanding.

I only "seem" that way to loons.

On 4 Dec, 16:09, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 07:58:47 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away, Ian
Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:





Just because they're designed by scientists only means
trouble, not a paradise.

They won't be designed by scientists. They will be designed by
engineers and architects.

With the rigid military like
environments too small for democratic or market forces
to play out. And the emotional and psychological stress
of isolation, and I bet long tours of duty. I would think that
colonies would be rife with conflict and difficult as
possible to sustain.

I'm picturing a job somewhat like ..oh.. spending all day
underwater welding, for the military. So there's no
money, no fun and no place to go except back to work.
Great view, but otherwise a living hell.

Why do people seem to fantasize so much about
colonies?

Because they don't think about them as stupidly as you do.

An engineer who is any good works things out. 90% of the world's
population lives on 10% of the land surface. It takes far less mass to
support a desert with SSP than it does to build an O'Neill colony.
This is obvious to any engineer. You are clearly not an engineer.

That doesn't seem so clear to the many people who have hired me to do
engineering.

I reckon you would have called Brunel looney had you lived in the 19th
century.

Yes, you reckon lots of nutty things.

You seem to lack any kind of scientific understanding.

I only "seem" that way to loons.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is exactly what I mean. In this group we work by insult and not
analysis. Analysis shows pretty conclusively that watering deserts
using SSP for desalination releases far more land per ton in GEO than
an O'Neill space station ever could. You cannot get away from that
fact.

You are a typical Republical. I am a pedarist. Mc Cain had an affair
with a black woman. That is the only way you can argue.

I asked a perfectly reasonable question. If I was in a scientific lab
I would be expected to learn anything that was relevant. If I was in
Google translate I would be expected to learn Arabic. If I was a
politician though I would simply be expected to know how to smear. You
don't have to be an expert on the Middle East to make decisions about
it. You smear and then get into a goddam mess. Perhaps it was
rhetorical as you claim. If that is so the point is taken and it
speaks volumes, both about you, the shrub, Iraq and the Rebublican
party in general.


- Ian Parker