Re: Barack Obama Pits Space Explorers Against School Children

On 4 Dec, 17:10, Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You keep using that line as your affirmation and see how the number of
loons keeps growing.

Not very fast. The biggest problem is that the loon/useful poster
ratio has increased dramatically here over the past few years.

Yes and your number of posts has been increasing, so by your own
admission you've been adding to the fodder.

Too bad your blog sucks, as you tend to spend a lot of time here
rather than there.- Hide quoted text -

There are basically two kinds of postings to which one might take
exception to on those grounds. The first of these are those whose
postings defy known scientific laws and established facts. Strangely
enough Rand seems to attack these very little.

The second type is someone like myself who is scientifically orthodox
but whose political beliefs and moral values he takes exception to. I
think that space colonies in the form in which they seem to be
imagined by certain people are immoral, impractical and dangerous.

If you look at space from an othodox scientific/economic perspective
one or two things become clear. The first of these is that there is no
magic formula to lower costs. If there were someone would now be
building a cheap LEO reusable vehicle. Orthodox economics can help to
reduce costs, but there will be no dramatic breakthrough. As I have
previously said. If Rand has the magic formula why is he not
approaching merchant banks?

The second fact is that unless there is a dramatic breakthough of some
nature we are going to carry on doing similar sorts of activities to
what we are doing now. In fact the main "breakthrough" if you could
call it that appears to be in the shape of lighter more capable
spacecraft. Ares, even if it works, is going to do no more than Saturn
and have a similar cost structure. Does Ares exist? This is yet
another habit Rand has of denying things that everyone else knows are
true.

The third fact is that space now needs to be sold to a skeptical
public. This is really what this thread is about. The public, through
Barak Obame is asking this question. What does spece mean for the man
in the street? What will I get out of Mars? If your answer is that
existentiakl risks will be countered by space colonies, the obvious
reply is "I want to know how you are reducing existenial risk for me
on Earth. I don't want to hear about space. Indeed space is to me an
indication that you are not looking after my interests properly."

If you were to package it up in terms of sunshiels, space solar power
or asteroid threat I might (just) go along with it.

The fourth fact is that for space not to simply be a continuation of
small scientific probes there has to be a major breakthrough. That
breakthough must come in the form of using the resources of space.

The fifth fact is that robotics is at a point where human manual
dexterity will be demonstated in the next 10 years if not the next 5.
Back to the Moon/Mars look pretty sick on this basis.

Personally I would say that anyone who did NOT accept these 5 points
was possibly not looney but out of touch with the way that modern
science is advancing.

The irony is is that when people propose things like antigravity they
do not get hauled up. Looney of course is what is generally accepted
as being the facts. If the possibility of breakthoughs is denied then
we might as well close up now.


- Ian Parker

.