the drive to explore

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

After any reasonably plausible disaster, Earth is still
more habitable than any place in space would be.

Impact with large rogue object that completely melts the crust.
Until the lava oceans solidified, we'd have to live elsewhere.

--
;k

Mad Bad Rabbit wrote:
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:


After any reasonably plausible disaster, Earth is still
more habitable than any place in space would be.


Impact with large rogue object that completely melts the crust.
Until the lava oceans solidified, we'd have to live elsewhere.

Right, but no earth-crossing asteroid is that big. It would have
to be a comet. Moreover, the chance of that happening is,
unless we've been very lucky so far, very low (since it hasn't
happened for billions of years.)

Paul

Paul F. Dietz May 22, 1:20 pm hide options

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.space.policy
From: "Paul F. Dietz" - Find messages by this author
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 12:20:31 -0500
Local: Sun,May 22 2005 1:20 pm
Subject: the drive to explore
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



Mad Bad Rabbit wrote:
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

After any reasonably plausible disaster, Earth is still
more habitable than any place in space would be.


Impact with large rogue object that completely melts the crust.
Until the lava oceans solidified, we'd have to live elsewhere.



Right, but no earth-crossing asteroid is that big. It would have
to be a comet. Moreover, the chance of that happening is,
unless we've been very lucky so far, very low (since it hasn't
happened for billions of years.)

Paul


On top of which, if we had the tech in hand to make another world
habitable on short notice, one would think we could prevent whatever
the disaster was...

However, the "all our eggs in one planetary basket" argument for
colonies elsewhere - a Beta Site for you SG-1 fans - does make a
certain amount of sense, just as a "backup." However, we lack the
technology and the foresight (as a species) to set up a space colony of
any kind for only that reason.

On 22-May-2005, "Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Can a near enough star do significant damage to life on Earth?

Not any nova. A gamma ray burster pointed right in our direction
might, but it affects all the planets (and the space colonies).

All of the planets in systems close to that star, but not all planets.

On 22-May-2005, "Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

After any reasonably plausible disaster, Earth is still
more habitable than any place in space would be.


Nova?

Not plausible. We know what causes novas. The sun
can't go nova.


OK, some type of solar flare.

Sorry, that wouldn't do it either.

It can kill off people on Earth, but leave people in some other star system
alive.

On 22 May 2005 05:04:15 -0700, wrote:

Nah, even with a dire pathogen, it would -still- be cheaper, faster,
and simpler to build seal habitats on Earth than in space.

I say, if there's some sort of dire pathogen, let the damn seals fend for
themselves.

Lousy, no-good fish-eating circus performers.

open their wallets to buy your books *because* of this very
drive.
However, considering that you not only lack a sense of wonder but
project the same failing upon all humanity, your books must be
pretty
disappointing. Count me out as a potential customer.

Take a look at what most of those sf stories are about. Star Trek
and
Star Wars are about magic technology, other habitable worlds and
civilizations with light years between.

Do you have any evidence that Star Trekkish technology could never
exist? Technology tends to advance over time, in case you've never
noticed. The more we do things in space, the faster space tech will
advance. Even with present (or hell, 1970s) technology, we can build
Orion style spaceships that can traverse the solar system at decent
speeds. We already can make antimatter and contain it. Why are you so
pessimistic about the possibilities?

In case you've never noticed, we still get into space with a
chemical reaction technology that nearly three millenia ago powered
Chinese fireworks. Huge solar arrays powering a mass driver 'engine',
the reaction mass coming from the moon and asteroids is hard science,
antimatter drive is not.


There is precious little
realistic space sf because there is no market.

Not true. There's a lot of "hard" sf and it's discussed right in
these
groups.

True space stories
don't sell well either.

Tell that to the hard sf authors who make a comfortable living.

Could you give me a synopsis of such a story?

I don't think Jim Oberg has ever made the best
seller list, but he ought to have if space exploration were really
a
popular interest. How many followed the Apollo landings after Buzz
and
Neil landed?

It's a popular interest, but since so many people feel they can never
personally explore space, they often get disillusioned with the real
space program. They turn to sci-fi/fantasy to slake their curiosity
regarding the unknown. Once the space program is sufficiently
developed
that more than a few "experts" can participate directly, the popular
interest will be much more evident.

At $20000000.00 per passenger, it will be a while before non
experts can participate directly. The cost of propellant is but a bit
more than a ten thousandth of the cost of putting a pound in orbit. If
there are to be human adventures in space, bringing that cost down is
job one. Perhaps side by side boosters with hard mounted, non gimbled,
engines, could control the flight path by 'differential thrust
vectoring.


A bigger space telescope, rovers on the moon with HD cameras,
asteroid
hoppers with laser spectrometers, a mars driller, a saturn ring
explorer that orbits within the ring and cameras that orbit earth
and
take video from an angle, not just straight down, these machines
can
explore more effectively and at lower cost than a human in a space
suit, and the experience can be shared by all humanity.

More effectively is nonsense; they don't have the ingenuity and
flexibility of a human. But most importantly, they can't bring the
visceral experience of actually *being there*. Humans have a drive to
explore, and repressing this can only lead to stagnation.

The ingenuity of the humans who engineer, program and control their
counterparts on mars or the moon can give it flexibility. The pictures
taken by Viking, spirit and opportunity have brought a viceral
experience. I remember my first reaction...'my god it's a place!'.
The lack of ice cover and the warm red sky cement the illusion that it
would be like exploring a desert on earth, a place where you could
live. It is the ultimate mirage.
In 'Pioneering Space', Oberg wrote: "We cannot turn our back on
space as China once turned its back to the sea without suffering, as
the Chinese did, a stagnated civilization turned in upon itself." At
this point it isn't a choice between manned exploration of mars vs
robot exploration, the former is just too expensive and limited to even
be in the competition. Manned exploration and exploitation of the moon
from a permanant base presents a sufficiently challenging step for this
generation and will provide the experience and stir the desire for mars
in the next.

Paul F. Dietz wrote:

Not any nova. A gamma ray burster pointed right in our direction
might, but it affects all the planets (and the space colonies).

.... and all the nearby stars, too. If you know about an impending gamma
ray burster, even interstellar colonization won't help you.

--
Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
There is another world, which is not of men.
-- Li Bai

wrote:

OK, some type of solar flare.

Sorry, that wouldn't do it either.


It can kill off people on Earth, but leave people in some other star system
alive.

It would 'leave the earth more habitable than anyplace
else in the solar system'.

If you're talking about inter*stellar* colonization, then
let me off this bus. That's not in the cards on any reasonable
planning timescale.

Paul

On 22-May-2005, Erik Max Francis wrote:

Not any nova. A gamma ray burster pointed right in our direction
might, but it affects all the planets (and the space colonies).

... and all the nearby stars, too. If you know about an impending gamma
ray burster, even interstellar colonization won't help you.

For various values of 'interstellar".