Re: NEAs an industrial resource for the 21st century

On Oct 9, 3:28 pm, Ian Parker <ianpark...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9 Oct, 19:31, Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Oct 9, 12:10 pm, Ian Parker <ianpark...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 9 Oct, 16:39, simberg.interglo...@xxxxxxxxx (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 10:42:59 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" <jeff.find...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Fred J. McCall" <fjmcc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jp3se49kht7ctu68kkrgvej6t9t7976qb6@xxxxxxxxxx
Ian Parker is also a raving lunatic.  The only people he can hold
'reasonable' conversations with are folks like the Guthball and
Mookie...

I'm getting close to sticking Ian in my killfile.  I suppose I'm reluctant
to do so because my son's name is Ian.  So I guess I'm used to talking to
someone named Ian who reasons like a 12 year old.  :)

Most twelve-year olds reason much better than Ian.

You simply will not admit the truth when faced with it. You all seem
to be failed astronauts. OK DARPAs projects are research - true.
However I am convinced that all DARPAs projects - all the sensible
ones that it - I am not talking about antigravity, will come to
fruition a long time before any Moon base is set up, or any expedition
to Mars takes off.

The ISS is a case in point. It is useless scientifically. Why?
Technology overtook it. All the things it was billed as being able to
do unmanned equipment can do so very much better. If you want a
payload, simply put it up and send it wherever you want it to go. You
don't need the ISS.

Unless that payload is a space station where you want to share the
cost and use with the international community. Then the ISS is exactly
what you want or at least a version of it.

When we were discussing Georgia people were saying that the Russians
would control access to the ISS. So what, we would do far better to
recognize reality. Has the ISS produced scientific results to justify
its cost? Has it heck.

The Japanese seem to think so as they continue to fund their space
laboratory.

If you were really looking for scientific return you would fund LISA
(see below) and not ISS. I think the main problem is that projects are
big, slow and political. Technology has simply moved faster than the
politics. No one in 1969 for example envisaged the enormous capability
and sophistication of modern robotic technology. The rovers + Phoenix
have probably found out more about Mars than a manned expedition along
1969 lines would have found out.

Apples and oranges. What about Viking? Your analogy ignore Viking.


This is really a question of technological forecasting. History seems
to tell us that large and expensive space projects are obsolete before
they are completed.

Not really. Ones that return value are good because they provided
something. Better technology with a failed mission provides nothing.

Is the Moon base destined to meet such a fate.


I have no idea what you are talking about.


People have talked about telescopes on the Moon. What the **** is the
point? A telescope is far easier to operate in deep space.

Unless you have a moon base already in plac and operational.

Even if you do. The basic fact is that if LISA works, and I assume it
will, you will have the capability to navigate to within a fraction of
a wavelength. OK with LISA the sole criterion is wanting to know the
distance rather than wanting to control it, but control it you can.
This means that we can have telescopes (partially filled) several
kilometers across. This trumps antyhing you could build on the Moon
even if you were there.

In fact the sole reason for the Moon is the ability to process
materials in space. Asteroids are in fact probably better in that
regard.

The moon and the asteroids provide potential resources, but why do you
not like the idea of a moon-based telescope?

I also feel that wrt things like SSP one should be thibnking of a
multiple spacecraft solution with phase locking.

That is a details thing before you have even completed a viable design
much less providing a proof-of-concept. How would you prove that SSPs
will work? Got a prototype?

I suppose at the end of the day it boils down to what a space program
is for. If your answer is scietific research you simply want to put
loads where they are needed. If you answer is "commercial" you first
of all have to prove your technical route is viable, and select the
best route.

Why not both?

Manned space exploration is not a cost effective way of achieving
either. Only if you make manned space exploration and end per se do
things like the ISS make any sense.

People can identify with manned spaceflight much better than unmanned.
The former is art and engineering and the latter is science and
engineering.

To me if you believe the hand evolved through a series of mutations it
means that we can reproduce it by a similar set of changes. It is a
mechanism whose functionality can be replicated.

OK - put me in your killfile if you like. However the usergroup will
simply be discussing the conceps of a bygone age. If NASA follows you
I can assure you that it would be far far better to siimply put the
money into providing bank liquidity or something similar.

The US should do nothing more than jump start the economy. It can not
drive it.

This is getting us slightly off the point. What I in fact had meant to
say is you might just as well put the money into a general pot. The
future of finance is a little bit murky. In general one would advocate
a free market solution, but the free market has proved not to work.

Because of what? 1929? Now? Everything in between?

The finance industry will have to accept a lot more regulation. This
would include compulsary insurance backed by the Government and a
limit to what banks are allowed to do, Executive pay and futures
trading being cases in point.

Jump starting the economy as you put it involes an incredible amount
of money. Now if you or I were to invrest billions in a company we
could buy voting shares. I could insist for example thast the
directors were NOT paid large bonuses. Why should the Government be
any different?


Ian, I don't want the government to act like a corproartion nor do I
want a corporation to act like the government. The end result is
communism. And as bad as capitalism is, commumism is worse.

Eric
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: NEAs an industrial resource for the 21st century
    ... someone named Ian who reasons like a 12 year old. ... Then the ISS is exactly ... Technology has simply moved faster than the ... Is the Moon base destined to meet such a fate. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: CoBOL moved to OO
    ... > reasons, such as not wanting to learn it, or being threatened by it. ... I like new technology, and enjoy using new ... I love the WSIWYG interface in my word processor, ... Just pure unadulterated failures, one after another. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Manned space flight after the moon landing
    ... >> should have happened) with a proper station (which is what Dave is ... that's what you get with a socialistic government program like ISS. ... the US could learn how to cooperate with the russians to get ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Reconsideration
    ... You were talking about how great ISS would be for the market. ... now, that equals COTS. ... government, it was dumb, it's sucking money from the RttMoon, it's ... it's not the marvelous Space Station ...
    (sci.space.moderated)
  • Re: Fermi Paradox
    ... technology seems likely, here on Earth. ... Other thinking beings may have nothing to say to a species ... reasons) not be interested in communication with other species. ... ISTM people who do as you say do so for reasons other than engaging ...
    (talk.origins)