Re: Barack Obama Pits Space Explorers Against School Children

On 4 Dec, 21:11, simberg.interglo...@xxxxxxxxx (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:51:58 GMT, in a place far, far away,
simberg.interglo...@xxxxxxxxx (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:17:46 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away, Ian
Parker <ianpark...@xxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
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.

Yes, of course. In fact we would have had it three thousand years
ago.

<rest of typical Ian stupidity snipped>

I should also point out how idiotic it is to, in the same paragraph,
talk about "othodox scientific/economic perspective" [sic] and "a
magic formula" for launch costs.

What a loon. Ian wouldn't know a scientific perspective if it fell on
his head from an apple tree.

Now this really is idiotic. To claim that we could have had a
technology years back in the past with no antecedents. It is on a par
with some feminist "science that insist that Newtons work was a rape
manual.

To achieve an industrial civilization you need to go though certain
stages. You first need civilization. You need a group of people living
together in a city. Then you need writing. The first phonetic script
was Ugaritic from phonecia. Then people can write down their ideas for
posterity.

The ancient world achieved a fair degree of technology. The Egyptians
built the pyramids (despite what v Daniken says) the Romans invented
concrete and built aquaducts and many impressive buildings. Recent
discoveries have shown that the classical world made some quite
complex machines.

Why did the Romans not have steam power? An explanation often given
was that they had vast numbers of slaves. A quinquireme was rowed by
slaves. However of you were to have insead of a quinquireme a "navem
vaporis" with all the slaves taken out you could travel faster and use
the space for catapults. Why was such a thing never built?

I think it is to do with the interplay between theoretical and
engineering knowledge. James Watt when he was a technician at Glasgow
university was given a Newcoman engine and told to get it to work
which he duly did. He soon found out that it consumed vast quantities
of coal for a very modest energy output. He went to Edinbourgh to
consult with James Black. Black told him that water boiled at a lower
temperature when a vacuum was created, and that Watt was heating up a
cooling a reservoir of water. Watt then proceeded to install valves in
the engine so that the boiling water was kept at a constant pressure.

This incident speaks volumes about the relationship between pure
knowledge and engineering. The Romans were expert engineers but lacked
pure knowledge. Tis also suggests to us that there is some sort of
rough order in which innovation takes place.

1421 - This is a case of economic incentive. Why is Los Angeles called
Los Angeles and not New Nanjing? Why did the Spanish starting off from
an inferior technological position innovate faster. The answer
(probably) was that Europe had a tremenous economic incentive in the
shape of the Arab stranglehold on the spice trade. We might ask
questions about oil today.

Is there a low cost route to LEO. Lots of people have sought one. I
recall a number of threads where a large number of ideas were banded
about this very topic. The front runner seems to be a 2STO with both
stages winged and completely recoverable. OK there are others there is
a hypersonic plane and some ideas that are well - way out.

Instinct tells me that a 2STO is buildable but would involve a high
development cost. This seems to be the historical conclusion. Richard
Branson and *** Rutan would have built a 2STO had they felt they
could do it economically. There is, and this is why I fell you are
particularly poisonous, a lack of willingness to discuss projects like
Blackstar, which you claim don't exist but almost certainly do. This
fails to give me, or anyone else for that matter, confidence that the
proposed solution is viable.

I will again repeat what I said about NASA management. It is all very
well to slag them, but they did (wrt Shuttle) exactly what they were
told to do by the military. Now the military is in the process of ***
shovelling. If there is a viable 2STO lets have it. Lets not have
***.

Economically the 2STO would be developed for Space Solar Power. This
would be the main driver. So :-

1) You deny the existance of blackstar and refuse to give any details
of your proposals.
2) You slag off NASA management when all they have done is what they
have been told.
3) You are trying to kill off SSP which would be the main driver for
2STO. Without it what is the point?

Now anyone living in the 21st century is a lunatic. Let me explain
what I mean. AI is the technology of this century. If anyone fails to
take cogniscence of this fact in any scientific forum they are
condeming themselves to obsolescence.

While we are on the subject of innovation there is one fact about the
Middle East which is clear. For some reason only Israel innovates.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/google-translate/browse_frm/thread/7c2e323eae1ddddb?hl=en

This has consequrences throughout society. In fact the human rights
record is a consequence of this failure, so "Amnesty International" is
a self fulfilling prophecy. (Read the thread and this allusion will
become clear).

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/google-translate/browse_frm/thread/7c2e323eae1ddddb?hl=en

My main point is this. Unless we can understand why any interference
has to be counterproductive. In fact Saddam Hussein's Iraq was close
to innovation than the present US inspired clerically based régime. It
is almost as if there is a conspiracy to deny technology to the Arab
world.


- Ian Parker
.