Thank you for your reply.
Subjects in order of appearances:
there is a nuance: After 1945 atom bombs, collective unconcsious
oriented to the space because life on the earth potentially finished.
And there was Cold War. That is why space exploration competitively
continued till 1990's. Europe and Japan were not successful at
this
race. To me reason is that their immediate culture is not interested
in space or they are immanently closed to the Other concept.
I guess end of human being on the Earth will come at the year of 3000
(we have one millenium). This won't be an exact end. Even though
the
planet gets into the pieces somenone will survive.
Population problem has another perspective than yours. In the history
this is fourth gigantical increase of global population. The last one
will stop around 2130's. It is conceptually mutually exclusive
than
space settlenment during this period (till 3000). It depends on birth
control. I don't hope there will be Third World War. We can
imagine
that population will osilate in the interval of 15-20 billions for
many centuries.
I am not sure about money. Till today space exploration has negative
sum at the balance sheet for billions of dollars. That is why
humanists are against gong to the space. I don't mind about
humanistic behavior.
The last and added value subject:
What will happen to man in the space? We have only 500 examples. I am
not sure whether it is enough. The moon base and permanent space
station is certain to exist. (Low or) Non-gravity is still unsolved
problem.
Rest of discussion for the next steps.
rehaulku@... wrote:
No problem.
> Subjects in order of appearances:
>
> End of human kind: We have parallel mentalities on this subject. But
> there is a nuance: After 1945 atom bombs, collective unconcsious
> oriented to the space because life on the earth potentially finished.
> And there was Cold War. That is why space exploration competitively
> continued till 1990's. Europe and Japan were not successful at
> this
> race. To me reason is that their immediate culture is not interested
> in space or they are immanently closed to the Other concept.
Well, I live in the UK, so I can tell you that that isn't
true. The American and Russian and German space tech
comes out of the second world war and the cold war- it was
intimately related to ICBMs- the technology was identical.
e.g Saturn V was an ICBM launch platform. That gave them the
ability. Europe hasn't had the path to get that ability.
My father worked on 'Blue Streak' in the UK but it was
cancelled.
Also cost is crucial- America and Russia could afford to
develop these space systems- europe has been too fragmented
to build them until fairly recently. Don't forget that you need
maybe 10,000 people to launch a rocket right now and a lot
of money. The costs are going to come rapidly down from now
on I feel though. There's a lot more competition now.
Still, Ariane is a decent enough launcher, China has just
launched a 'living organism' whatever that means; Japan
is doing stuff too. Its more to do with economics and
ability.
> I am not sure about money. Till today space exploration has negative
> sum at the balance sheet for billions of dollars.
Satellites aren't negative balance. They represent most
of space at the moment. Exploration is always costly
pretty much by definition, but there's profit being
made- satellite TV?
> That is why
> humanists are against gong to the space. I don't mind about
> humanistic behavior.
'Why are we bothering with space when we haven't solved
all the problems on earth yet?' as if all problems are
ever solvable; it's not conceivable.
I actually believe that quite a lot of human problems
are easier in space, power, materials, labour and
green house gases; room for population growth. All
these problems go away in space to a large degree.
Robotics is much easier when you have massive power
supplies; massive power supplies are easier when
you have robotics. Robotics means that building
things in mass production is easier- the loop
spins around and around and O'Neills and similar
habitats come slingshotting out too.
Will robotics spell economic disaster? Probably not
unless humans cease to have any value. That doesn't
seem likely. People have much better intelligence
and skills than machines, and are likely to still
have this in 20 years time (just).
> The last and added value subject:
> What will happen to man in the space? We have only 500 examples. I am
> not sure whether it is enough.
Enough for what? Nobody has ever died in space (although
3 russians and Challenger came close to it.)
> The moon base and permanent space
> station is certain to exist. (Low or) Non-gravity is still unsolved
> problem.
The solution already exists, but the costs of implementing it
are high right now- and would interfere with the microgravity
experiments. The astronauts don't thrive, but they do
survive; but there's no reason that they won't thrive
in the better habitats we already know how to build.
--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, Ian Woollard
> rehaulku@h... wrote:
>
> > Thank you for your reply.
>
> No problem.
>
> > Subjects in order of appearances:
> >
> > End of human kind: We have parallel mentalities on this subject.
But
> > there is a nuance: After 1945 atom bombs, collective unconcsious
> > oriented to the space because life on the earth potentially
finished.
> > And there was Cold War. That is why space exploration
competitively
> > continued till 1990's. Europe and Japan were not successful at
> > this
> > race. To me reason is that their immediate culture is not
interested
> > in space or they are immanently closed to the Other concept.
>
> Well, I live in the UK, so I can tell you that that isn't
> true. The American and Russian and German space tech
> comes out of the second world war and the cold war- it was
> intimately related to ICBMs- the technology was identical.
>
> e.g Saturn V was an ICBM launch platform. That gave them the
> ability. Europe hasn't had the path to get that ability.
> My father worked on 'Blue Streak' in the UK but it was
> cancelled.
>
were quickly sent to Russia and the United States after the war.
These were brilliant men, hundreds of them. They were central
figures in both the US and Russian early manned programs. Wehrner
von Braun was the chief scientist in the US space program. All of
the early R&D work on ballistic missiles was done during world war 2,
at Peenemunde, Germany.
> Also cost is crucial- America and Russia could afford to
> develop these space systems- europe has been too fragmented
> to build them until fairly recently. Don't forget that you need
> maybe 10,000 people to launch a rocket right now and a lot
> of money. The costs are going to come rapidly down from now
> on I feel though. There's a lot more competition now.
>
> Still, Ariane is a decent enough launcher, China has just
> launched a 'living organism' whatever that means; Japan
> is doing stuff too. Its more to do with economics and
> ability.
>
The main problem with rockets for orbital insertion is that they have
to take their fuel and engines along with them. Ariane, Titan,
Energia, SaturnV, all of them are able to carry a small payload to
its destination in space. Most of the mass remains fuel, tanks,
engines, structural support and associated systems. Only a small
percentage is payload.
For a private individual or corporation, launching a payload into
space means launching all of that other weight as well. That is why
it costs $20000USD/kg to launch a payload into space.
On top of that, if you are a taxpayer in the US, Canada, or any of
the other countries that has a government-sponsored space program,
you also each contribute through taxes to the infrastructure that
make such launches possible. There are a few private launch systems
out there (SeaLaunch comes to mind), who factor the infrastructure
costs into total flight costs. They need more innovative ways to
launch for less than the Space Shuttle and still turn a profit.
The electromagnetic gun I propose could bring launch costs down by a
factor of 1000, by leaving most if not all of the fuel on the
ground. Multiple daily launches means that the same operation that
used to take tens of thousands of people could be largely automated,
with people working on payloads in an assembly line structure. Think
of something like the daily operations of a large automobile
manufacturing plant.
>
> > I am not sure about money. Till today space exploration has
negative
> > sum at the balance sheet for billions of dollars.
>
> Satellites aren't negative balance. They represent most
> of space at the moment. Exploration is always costly
> pretty much by definition, but there's profit being
> made- satellite TV?
>
The space program has always had a positive balance sheet in the long
run. All of that money is spent ON THE GROUND. McDonnell Douglass,
Boeing, Martin Marietta, SpaceHab, all have made money on the
ground. RSC Energia would, too, if they had Japanese or American
management (the Russians are still too new at capitalism, but they
are learning).
Everytime you drink Tang, somebody has made money from the space
program.
> > That is why
> > humanists are against gong to the space. I don't mind about
> > humanistic behavior.
>
> 'Why are we bothering with space when we haven't solved
> all the problems on earth yet?' as if all problems are
> ever solvable; it's not conceivable.
>
> I actually believe that quite a lot of human problems
> are easier in space, power, materials, labour and
> green house gases; room for population growth. All
> these problems go away in space to a large degree.
> Robotics is much easier when you have massive power
> supplies; massive power supplies are easier when
> you have robotics. Robotics means that building
> things in mass production is easier- the loop
> spins around and around and O'Neills and similar
> habitats come slingshotting out too.
>
Much more massive industry is also possible, particularly at
relatively stable orbits like the libration points L4 and L5. With
solar furnaces (large, flimsy sheets of reflective material, perhaps
kilometers wide, focused on a point in space) incredible temperatures
are possible, in a nearly zeroG gravity, and a nearly perfect
vacuum. The materials industry would be changed forever. Mass
production of alloys that are not possible on the earth (due to
gravitational separation) would be possible at such a location. Raw
materials rich in resources are also available in the form of Near
Earth Asteroids, belonging to whoever changes the orbit of one and
can protect their claim.
> Will robotics spell economic disaster? Probably not
> unless humans cease to have any value. That doesn't
> seem likely. People have much better intelligence
> and skills than machines, and are likely to still
> have this in 20 years time (just).
>
I have worked in the artificial intelligence field for the last ten
years. I often hear this question about when machines will be
smarter than human beings. It is like asking: which is smarter, my
dog or my cat? Is my dog smart for guarding the house, playing
fetch, rolling over, and so on, or is the cat smart for not doing
those things?
Computer programs already surpass human beings in many specialized
areas, such as chess-playing (this may change, as Deep Blue has not
played Kramnik yet). However, if he so desired, Garry Kasparov could
have literally (not figuratively) run circles around Deep Blue. The
computer program was only aware of the chess game, not of anything
going on around it.
Are Kasparov or Kramnik the smartest guys in the world, just because
they are the best chess players? Of course not. You could teach
them a thing or two about fixing a car engine, or about anything else
for that matter. Ask them anything about chess, however, and they
will know the answer.
Our chief advantage as human beings is twofold:
1) we have an existing intelligence and a self-reproducing structure
2) we are all unique, with different strengths and weaknesses
An artificial intelligence is not better or worse than a human
intelligence, it is different. It can only be compared to another
artificial intelligence for the comparasin to have meaning. I can
say that my spider robot has more intelligence than the one the MIT
team made, but I can't reasonably compare it to a human being, or
even the subtle personalities of the dog or cat.
> > The last and added value subject:
> > What will happen to man in the space? We have only 500 examples.
I am
> > not sure whether it is enough.
>
> Enough for what? Nobody has ever died in space (although
> 3 russians and Challenger came close to it.)
>
> > The moon base and permanent space
> > station is certain to exist. (Low or) Non-gravity is still
unsolved
> > problem.
Also, there have been some deaths on the launchpad (Gus Grissom died
during a test on the pad, along with two others). The Russians died
during re-entry, the Challenger during acceleration to orbital
speed. Space travel is inherently dangerous, but nobody has died as
a direct result of long term exposure to a space habitat
environment. The longest anybody has lived in space is something
like 500 days. We use the data from Skylab, Mir, Salyut and now the
International Space Station to infer the results of long term
exposure. If it turns out that we can safely send somebody to live
for more than two years in a microgravity or low gravity environment
and still live normally on earth (presuming some time spent
rehabilitating), then we can assume that longer periods are possible,
perhaps entire lifetimes.
I agree, 500 examples is far too little. There should be a permanent
presence in space, with greater expansion than is currently
underway. Millions if not billions will eventually live in space; I
want to go, too!
:) ed
Only if you use primary launch USAmerican boosters (or maybe Ariane V in
some configurations). ExSoviet ICBMS are a lot cheaper per kg; especially
the big ones like Proton.
particularly expensive in economic terms (ie, launch & related as a
percentage of the total cost is fairly low... generally between 10 & 20%).
If your geostat costs $1b & the ground infrastructure adds another $500m
(neither figure is uncommon), raising the $250m for Ariane V is pretty
easy... you won't have any strong commercial imperative to cut launch costs
until the cheaperst practical technology (currently exSoviet ICBMs for large
satellites; piggybacks for smaller units) are pricing at 50% or more of the
cost of the total package.
Unlikely, given that space economies are currently going into improving the
power of our commercial satellites (ie, improving service per dollar) rather
than cutting their nominal costs.
All the best,
Robert Clements
Ian Woollard wrote:
rehaulku@... wrote:
> I am not sure about money. Till today space exploration has negative
> sum at the balance sheet for billions of dollars.
Satellites aren't negative balance. They represent most
of space at the moment. Exploration is always costly
pretty much by definition, but there's profit being
made- satellite TV?
'Why are we bothering with space when we haven'tsolved
all the problems on earth yet?' as if all problems are
ever solvable; it's not conceivable.
I'm quite sure will never be out of problems anywhere, but space has helpedsolve several problems for us already, and we can expect future performanceto improve. Space has helped with:
-- preventing nuclear war via spy satellites. This may have been decisive. Hard to tell.
-- improving communication via communication satellites
-- helping understanding the global environmentvia Earth resources satellites
-- allowing us to say: "If we can go to the Moon,why can't we ..." via the Apollo program.
Al Globus
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an accident.
Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.
I think we should:
1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020goal of
reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01% failurerate.
This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels willneed to
develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary technologies.
2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroidare
sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about500 times
greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand spacecolonies,
each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.
3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need theircolony
to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearbystars.
Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.
Ed Minchau wrote:
The electromagnetic gun I propose could bring launchcosts down by a
factor of 1000, by leaving most if not all of the fuel on the
ground. Multiple daily launches means that the same operationthat
used to take tens of thousands of people could be largely automated,
with people working on payloads in an assembly line structure. Think
of something like the daily operations of a large automobile
manufacturing plant.
Lots of people have made claims that they would drive the cost of launchdown. The few that have actually got to implementation have missedtheir targets by fairly large margins. For example, Orbital Sciencesdeveloped a small launcher intended to cut the cost of small payloads bya factor of two. They were actually able to decrease costs by about10 percent. This was a private development, although they may have gotsome government money.
An electromagnetic gun is certainly an interesting concept, deservesR&D dollars, and might reduce cost substantially, but claiming a factorof 1000 without having actually launched anything seriously underminescredibility.
Al Globus
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an accident.
Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.
I think we should:
1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020goal of
reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01% failurerate.
This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels willneed to
develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary technologies.
2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroidare
sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about500 times
greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand spacecolonies,
each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.
3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need theircolony
to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearbystars.
Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.
"Clements, Robert" wrote:
Only if you use primary launch USAmerican boosters(or maybe Ariane V in
some configurations). ExSoviet ICBMS are a lot cheaper per kg; especially
the big ones like Proton.
... you won't have any strong commercial imperative to cut launch costs
until the cheaperst practical technology (currently exSoviet ICBMsfor large
satellites; piggybacks for smaller units) are pricing at 50% or moreof the
cost of the total package.
Actually, due to oversupply, we are beginning to see reductions in launchcosts. Industry developed a lot of launchers anticipating launchinghundreds of low earth orbit satellites for various communication constellations. When Iridium went bankrupt, most of that anticipated market disappeared.
Al Globus
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
Al Globus wrote:
> space program is definitely cash negative (lots of expenditure, very
> little income),
Um. Urrr. Excuse me; what did you expect them to do with your
tax money? Do you actually know of ANY government EVER that
made a profit? They don't have to make money, except for
the national mint of course, but that doesn't count ;-)
In fact NASA cannot make money. Any money they make goes
straight back into the government coffers. NASA cannot
grow, hence it will eventually die.
Another way to look at the same thing, the governments of
the world are investing in the future of this planet. Of
*course* they will make a loss in the short term.
Of course I expect that (actually, I work for a NASA contractor). The issue at the time was net cash flow of the world's space program. The point was that it is negative -- which is ok. Eventually, itshould be extremely positive and our investment will be repaid millionsof times -- just like the government investment in the internet over decadesis now being repaid many times over.
Ian Woollard wrote:
Al Globus wrote:
> The government
> space program is definitely cash negative (lots of expenditure, very
> little income),
Um. Urrr. Excuse me; what did you expect them to do with your
tax money? Do you actually know of ANY government EVER that
made a profit? They don't have to make money, except for
the national mint of course, but that doesn't count ;-)
In fact NASA cannot make money. Any money they make goes
straight back into the government coffers. NASA cannot
grow, hence it will eventually die.
Another way to look at the same thing, the governments of
the world are investing in the future of this planet. Of
*course* they will make a loss in the short term.
Al Globus
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an accident.
Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.
I think we should:
1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020goal of
reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01% failurerate.
This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels willneed to
develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary technologies.
2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroidare
sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about500 times
greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand spacecolonies,
each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.
3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need theircolony
to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearbystars.
Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.
Al Globus wrote:
> issue at the time was net cash flow of the world's space program.
Is this an important statistic? If so why?
I don't see how the American government will make
any money from space ever; unless they change their
current structures. And if they don't make money, the
American government space industry cannot grow.
Not being able to grow is very bad if your
competitors can grow. The days of NASA supremacy
in space are coming to an end. Government policy
guarantees this.
> The
> point was that it is negative -- which is ok. Eventually, it should be
> extremely positive and our investment will be repaid millions of times
> -- just like the government investment in the internet over decades is
> now being repaid many times over.
Perhaps, albeit very indirectly. And the whole world
is benefiting whereas in space America is losing its
lead. Arguably it lost it when the Russians took
the space endurance records. Certainly the Russian
launchers are about an order of magnitude cheaper.