Re: Space travel by humans is not possible now

On 21 Jan, 00:39, Einar <eina...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 20, 7:17 pm, Paulf Foley <paulfxfo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





Einar wrote:
Hmm, I think humans need to get out there in the long run. However,
the emphasis ought to be on cost effective robotic crafts in the
nearterm. There is no reason for humans themselves to go beyond the
Earth/Moon system, for the next few decates.

Basigly, we need technological improvements as well as improved
reliability. As a result, I´m an advocate of going back to the Moon,
as it´s nearby and also because it´s hostile enough being there for
technological fixes applied there being applicaple once we begin to
emerge into deepspace from the Earth/Moon system.

In the meantime actual manned travel ought to be brief, and only done
when actually useful to do so. Eventually, going to Mars will be
useful...

Problem with going back to the moon is we've been there, done that.  I
see little political future for actually carrying out this mission,
paying the staggering cost in a time of budget deficit, a looming social
security crisis, and serious health care funding problems.  The best
possible outcome of Back to the Moon is repeating a past success, and
there is the real possibility of tragic and humiliating failure.  And
there's not even the incentive anymore of a space race against the
godless Commies.

Returning to the moon is supposedly a stepping stone to Mars.  If a
mission to Mars doesn't make sense, then there is no reason for the moon
mission.

Sure, there's bound to be technological improvements over the next
decades.  Most likely in electronics, communications, computers, AI,
remote sensing.  All stuff that underscores the logic of robotic
missions.  I doubt people will evolve much in the coming decades.  And
given the trouble we still have getting people into even low earth
orbit, I doubt rocketry will advance much in the coming decades either.

I doubt that any kind of manned space exporation can be called
"useful".  This is another misleading aspect of the Christopher Columbus
analogy.  He wasn't sailing the ocean blue for curiosity's sake.  He was
looking for a quick cheap trade route.

In short I don´t agree with you. We were there once, but what I´m
talking about is prencense, not a brief public relations exerzise. In
addition, Mars is just a destination among many.

What I´m talking about is to prepare humanity for space. For that the
Moon is ideal, because it´s nearby and it´s hostile enough for lessons
there to have a meaning.

The real breakthrough will come, and indeed can only come when
techniques are developed for exploiting the resources of space. We
need in essense to go to the Moon or an asteroid and extract some raaw
materials. Is this code for astronauts. Not a bit of it. The arguments
for astronauts/robots apply just as much to mining as they do for
science. Perhaps in many ways more so.

In terms of "preparing us for space", were you the person who
suggested that religious groups would be in the vanguard of space
colonists. In view of the current situation in the Middle East this
seems the craziest suggestion out.

If we can establish a manufacturing capability in space Earth will be
a much more habitable place. We can tell that that the extinction of
the dinosaurs was caused by a meterorite comes with the concentration
of Iridium. If we need more platinoid elements for catalysts etc. they
are available in space. There is Space Solar Power and the prospect of
being able to exercise fine climate control. The reason BTW for the
abundance of platinoids is that most of the platinoids on Earth are at
the center.

Let us look at people in space soberly and rationally. There is no
scientific or commercial need. Science and commerce are far better
served by robots, the technology of which is constantly improving. The
sole argument is a humanistic one. We do need adventure. A $60e9
(optimistic) price tag is rather a high price. If you could go to Mars
with money raised in sponsorship, speaking tours etc. then go. I do
not believe there is any disguising the fact that a vast tranche of
public money is required. Nobody says anything else.

Having established that we do not need a manned presence for climate/
weather control or SSP we can now start to look at the Earth. 90% of
the world's population live on 10% of the land. This simple fact tells
us that in the short/medium term at least there is little point in
space colonization. Space can indeed help us to make 90% of the
world's land habitable, principly through SSP allowing desalination
and the opening up of arid lands.

In addition, while the cold war is well past, other nations are
gearing up to do Moon missions of theyr own. If USA isn´t going, that
doesn´t mean human kind isn´t going. Mind you, I wont mind terribly if
USA chooses to stay home when the others choose to go. But, on
ballance I´d prefer the USians to be there as well.

That´s the big change really. That´s what will give USA the impetus to
go, i.e. they´ll not want to be left behind.

Anyhow, the expence isn´t going to be so huge that social security or
the economy, or the other thing you mentioned, is going to be
substantially affected one way or another.

The arguments I have put forward indicate that manned spacelight is
not a good idea for anyone. As far as social security, the economy
etc. being affected is concerned, any item of government expenditure
is likely to benefit from $60billion. Spending is a matter of
priorities. With the Cold War over (sometimes I doubt it is the way
Russia is behaving) prestige pure and simple is no longer a
justification.


- Ian Parker
.

Relevant Pages

  • No worthless, awkward, greenie, P.C. solar panels to power this craft
    ... moon Titan is about to be submitted to Nasa. ... It would be the first exploration of a planetary sea beyond Earth. ... The Cassini mission currently in orbit around Saturn has confirmed the ... but we'd love to know the overall shape of the lake basins. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Space travel by humans is not possible now
    ... Earth/Moon system, ... Problem with going back to the moon is we've been there, ... I see little political future for actually carrying out this mission, paying the staggering cost in a time of budget deficit, a looming social security crisis, and serious health care funding problems. ... If a mission to Mars doesn't make sense, then there is no reason for the moon mission. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Baxters _Moonseed_ (was Re: Civil unions for everyone?)
    ... studying one of the rocks it brought back from the Moon. ... result in the destruction of Earth. ... manned Moon mission, even though he never explains how such a mission ... on Earth who still survives is moved to the Moon. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Breaking up a rubble pile asteroid impacter
    ... damage done by a single big rock. ... Why not stuff the entire pile into the moon? ... I think there is another reason and that reason is the ... substantial effect on the "impact paramater" of the earth reducing the ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Psychokinesis??
    ... any other mission from US? ... Who knows if they send an unmanned robot to plant things in the MOON.. ... You can see the lunar lander base parts from Earth. ...
    (talk.origins)