szabonj@right (Nick Szabo) (01/19/89)
In article <1989Jan18.043708.27547@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > >Uh, discoveries? Leading to settlements? Can you please explain this? Every major settlement in human history has been preceded by exploration. Settling in an unexplored area is dangerous, dead-end (how do you know there are any resources to support life or to export?), and totally unecessary given modern technology. Planning such a settlement, as anything but entertainment, is an equally fruitless exercise. *Sticking* to such plans, as to a religion, is bizarre beyond belief, but a sin many space supporters are guilty of. What if we build our $100+ billion dollar lunar base, and then find out there is nothing worthwhile there?* Or a similar amount on a manned Mars mission? In fact, both the Moon and Mars might turn out to be terrible places to build space industries and settlements or to provide material for same. On the other hand, we can spend this $200+ billion sending out probes such as CRAF, Cassini, and the Observer missions, and on basic scientific research leading to new technologies. This pays for 200 probes, even if you don't account for economies of scale (I suspect we can build at least 2000 probes, much better equipped than the current generation, for this price). With these we can explore every nook and cranny of the solar system, from Pluto to Mercury, with dozens of probes to look at each moon and major asteroid, and some comets as well. The data can be distrbuted around the world; you will be able to analyze them on your home computer at leisure. This gives the scientist, the prospector, and the space settlement planner orders of magnitude more knowledge and flexibility to work with. The choice becomes no longer Moon vs. Mars (an odious debate), but pick a spot from any part of the solar system. ------------ * Lunar materials to support other space industries (eg LOX) are not worthwhile until such industries generate the $100+ billion/yr plus demand needed to pay for such a base, and such materials can be made and transported cheaper than from Earth or asteroids. He-3 is unproven and depends on other scientific discoveries to provide demand. Besides these possibilities we already know the Moon is likely a dry hole. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Szabo "Want oil? Drill lots of wells." szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu J. Paul Getty
szabonj@right (Nick Szabo) (01/19/89)
> Fusion power? Life extension? Nanotechnology? Antimatter? >AI? Sure, they're all *just* around the corner, and they'll all make ><desirable activity/goal X> *so* much easier, why bother to do >anything about it with existing technology? Space settlements are another example of *future* technology. Nanotechnology, which is based on the precision of current scientific instruments and the capabilities of living organisms, is no more speculative than space settlements. Nor is fusion or antimatter. AI is quite a bit more unpredictable. Good engineering is doing what is most economic and rewarding with current technology. Columbus and his crew, paddling to America in five hundred rowboats, would not have been good engineering. To improve the odds for tomorrow's engineers, new discoveries must be made today. This means research and exploration. ------------------------ Nick Szabo szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu
MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU (Marvin Minsky) (01/20/89)
I would not write off the National Space Society. It is reorganizing itself and, as usual in any society, only a portion of the "name" board members are actually active. If you don't like van Allen's position, it might comfort you that he is not nearly as active as, for example, Thomas Paine. The membership does include healthy remnants of both the NSI and L-5, and is reorganizing itself in what I think is a promising way: I am impressed by the breadth and intelligence of the new president, Charles Walker. (Also, there is a very capable executive director Lori Garver, and ta very professional editor, Leonard David, for the new magazine Ad Astra. If you have a really well-developed thesis or flame, consider sending it to him.) The chairman of the board of governors, Hugh Downs, is deeply involved, and could just be the person to succeed Walter Cronkite as a principal media personality to understand and promote the importance of space exploration. (He understands physics rather well.) Some of us came to NSS's board of governors from L-5, and others came from NSI. We all hope it will grow, along with the Planetary Society, to help the public appreciate both the romance and practical importance of space exploration and eventual settlement. But the growth of effectiveness and influence depend on the growth of membership. Rather than grumble about what L-5 and NSS were or should have been, consider this a new chance to do things right - whatever that might mean to you: Join NSS and help shape the society's new directions.
jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) (01/20/89)
In article <93@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@right.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >What if we build our $100+ billion dollar lunar base, and then find out >there is nothing worthwhile there?* Or a similar amount on a manned Mars >mission? In fact, both the Moon and Mars might turn out to be terrible >places to build space industries and settlements or to provide material >for same. There's one very valuable thing there: energy. We're burning up our energy reserves (the current oil glut is merely pumping more of it out of the ground.) When we're out, will we still have the capitol/energy/etc to then try to set up SPS's? The point of a moonbase (other than research), is that raw materials from the moon are cheaper than sending them from earth. Even oxygen delivered to the space station could be of very soon. Also, fuel for your outer and inner system probes can come from the moon, much cheaper than lifting the fuel from earth (given an existing mining-moonbase.) >This gives the scientist, the prospector, and the space settlement planner >orders of magnitude more knowledge and flexibility to work with. The >choice becomes no longer Moon vs. Mars (an odious debate), but pick a >spot from any part of the solar system. The moon is a good stepping stone to any other destination (or fuel base for a space-station stepping stone). It also would develop the technologies needed to go to/live on/exploit/whatever the rest of the solar system. Mars is silly as a stepping stone, it's WAY to far away to be useful for almost anything for some time to come, except scientific exploration. >------------ > >* Lunar materials to support other space industries (eg LOX) are not >worthwhile until such industries generate the $100+ billion/yr plus >demand needed to pay for such a base, and such materials can be made >and transported cheaper than from Earth or asteroids. 100 billion PER YEAR? Seems rather high to me. Asteroids are very far away (energy-wise), and are unknown quantities for the most part (compared to the moon). -- Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup
jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) (01/20/89)
In article <94@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@right.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >> Fusion power? Life extension? Nanotechnology? Antimatter? >>AI? Sure, they're all *just* around the corner, and they'll all make >><desirable activity/goal X> *so* much easier, why bother to do >>anything about it with existing technology? > >Space settlements are another example of *future* technology. >Nanotechnology, which is based on the precision of current >scientific instruments and the capabilities of living organisms, is no >more speculative than space settlements. Nor is fusion or antimatter. >AI is quite a bit more unpredictable. You don't seem to realize, nick, that space settlements were within '70's technology, easily within '80's. It doesn't mean they're not expensive, but we already have the technology needed (and then some). -- Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup
karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) (01/20/89)
>Of course James van Allen is not against building space colonies, provided >nobody suggests that any funding should be allocated to doing so... since >we all know that such funding would have to be taken out of the budget for >Space Science, which is the only space-related activity of any importance >and hence should have absolute priority. Aw, Henry, come off it! I've become more than a little irritated by people who like to whip up religious zeal in the true believers by setting up straw men and placing words in their opponents' mouths. If I were to read van Allen for the first time, having heard nothing about the man but what I'd read in this group, I'd think I was meeting an imposter doing a poor job. For anyone who is seriously interested in learning what van Allen has actually said, read his writings! You may be surprised. Uh, settlements? Leading to discoveries and/or technological progress? Can you please explain this? Why do we need settlements to lead to discoveries and/or technological progress, and what sort of deep-space settlements are likely to do so? "The court finds itself unable to follow the alleged reasoning." :-) :-) Phil
jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (THE VIKING) (01/20/89)
In article <1989Jan18.102436.12838@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >Van Allen correctly predicted the disastrous failure of the space >shuttle program to achieve its stated objective of reducing launch >costs, and so far his predictions about the space station are right on >target. >Nick Szabo (szabonj@humpback.UUCP) writes: >Who says that James van Allen is against building space colonies? James >van Allen is against current forms of manned spaceflight (ie station, shuttle). >This is a very different thing. > >In fact, the exploration of the *entire* solar system which van Allen >and myself advocate will bring about the discoveries leading to space >settlements much sooner than our current mass wastage on manned capsules in >low earth orbit. Both of these postings declare the shuttle and space station to be wasteful failures. While the shuttle did fail to live up to the preconstruction PR, and the space station might do the same, I think it's short sighted to call them "disastrous failures" and "mass wastage". In terms of manned space R&D I think they both are (will be) extremely successful. The shuttle has taught us a vast amount about how to build (and not build) a reusable space vehicle, and I'm certain the station will do the same for human space habitats. As to the perennial question of whether we should spend money on manned or unmanned space research, I think most people support both. Of course this brings up the real rub, just how much money should each program get. I think it's clear that manned space research is by its nature much more expensive than unmanned. In the one case you have to lift human size structures, life support, and human beings; in the other miniaturized computers and scientific instrumentation. Given this, unless you're part of the small minority that rejects one type of research, I think current spending priorities are close to what they should be. John L. McKernan. Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .signature currently under government sponsored basic research. Results guarenteed to advance science, satisfy every special intrest group, generate 2000 times the wealth expended, and show up the Russians expected REAL SOON NOW.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (01/21/89)
In article <94@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@right.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >Space settlements are another example of *future* technology. No, they are an example of future application of current technology. They are much less speculative than nanotechnology or the other examples cited; we could clearly build at least small space settlements today if the money could be found. (Please don't cite closed-cycle life support as a difficulty. We could not build a space settlement that was guaranteed to be entirely self-sufficient, with no outside intervention ever required in its life support, without considerably more work, but that was not my statement. Entirely self-sufficient settlements are very uncommon even on Earth.) -- Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology toast to comrade Van Allen!!" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
kcarroll@utzoo.uucp (Kieran A. Carroll) (01/21/89)
>.... I was just arguing that we shouldn't dismiss planetary >science just because it doesn't fit the Space Colonization Now mindset. > > Paul F. Dietz > dietz@cs.rochester.edu > I, for one, agree with this conclusion. However, it seems unfair that Dr. Van Allen, among others, seems to want to dismiss space colonization because it doesn't fit in with his Planetary Science Now mindset. I would like to see vigorous programs carried out in >>both<< these areas. Internal bickering about which is more important will tend only to confuse those that hold the purse-strings, leading to insufficient funding in both areas. "United we stand; divided we fall," and all that. Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!kcarroll -- Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!kcarroll
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (01/21/89)
In article <93@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@right.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >>Uh, discoveries? Leading to settlements? Can you please explain this? > >Every major settlement in human history has been preceded by >exploration. Settling in an unexplored area is dangerous, dead-end ... >and totally unecessary given modern technology... Quite true. However, near-Earth space, which is where most space-colony proposals envision initial settlement, is quite well explored already. This cannot be said of the Moon as a whole (Carl Sagan et al notwithstanding), but certain small patches of it can safely be considered well-explored. >What if we build our $100+ billion dollar lunar base, and then find out >there is nothing worthwhile there?* ... I thought you supported space science, or are you not considering exploration of the lunar surface to be "worthwhile"? Please explain what is found on, say, Mars to have made the Viking landers "worthwhile". I doubt that anyone right now can confidently expect a lunar base to be financially profitable, especially if you assume it is built by the government (which is the only way it would ever cost as much as you suggest). Most supporters of space settlement consider it worthwhile for reasons other than short-term profit. >... In fact, both the Moon and Mars might turn out to be terrible >places to build space industries and settlements or to provide material >for same. They almost certainly are terrible places for space industry; open space is far superior for industry. They are so-so places for settlements, with both advantages and disadvantages. Likewise they are so-so places for providing materials. Please explain how new discoveries could make these assessments *worse* (it is easy to see how they might get *better*). I don't think any serious space enthusiast is making more favorable assumptions than the above. >* Lunar materials to support other space industries (eg LOX) are not >worthwhile until such industries generate the $100+ billion/yr plus >demand needed to pay for such a base, and such materials can be made >and transported cheaper than from Earth or asteroids... The notion that industry would need $100+ billion to set up a lunar mining site is laughable. Only the government could make it that expensive. (I note also that the capital cost has suddenly become a yearly demand; please explain.) Also, the relevant competition is Earth, not the asteroids -- I have no objection to mining the asteroids instead of the Moon. The cost of lifting stuff from Earth is not too hard to beat. -- Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology toast to comrade Van Allen!!" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (01/21/89)
In article <1989Jan18.102436.12838@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >Van Allen correctly predicted the disastrous failure of the space >shuttle program to achieve its stated objective of reducing launch >costs, and so far his predictions about the space station are right on >target... <sarcasm> How impressive. <end sarcasm> He wasn't the only one making those predictions. Does this somehow give his other opinions more weight? >His comments about the scientific track record of manned vs. >unmanned flights are cogent... Interesting, yes. I'm not sure I would say "cogent" without first talking to people like the solar astrophysics types (remember the Skylab Solar Telescope and the Solar Max repair?), not to mention the lunar geologists. >Space colonies are at this moment pie-in-the-sky, and will, IMHO, be >so for many decades, if not generations. Space science is not -- it >can yield useful knowledge *right now*. Is it any wonder that van >Allen is upset that expensive and much less useful (albeit >ideologically correct) projects dominate? If one's priorities are short-term gain (be it financial or scientific), then of course one gets upset about long-term investments. Some would question those priorities, however. >It is disingenious to pretend that recent NASA emphasis on manned >spaceflight, the shuttle program in particular, has not had a major >negative impact on planetary and space science. It is also dishonest, not to mention foolish, to pretend that cutting back manned spaceflight would boost planetary science. >>Why do we need discoveries to lead to settlements... > >What about unmanned asteroid exploration? A lunar polar orbiter? >Probes to Phobos? Our knowledge of ET resources is still rudimentary. Agreed, but please observe the word "need". These things would indeed be useful. (I note that most of them don't seem to be high priority for the space-science bunch.) But they are in no sense prerequisites. -- Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology toast to comrade Van Allen!!" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) (01/22/89)
In article <1989Jan20.193344.9479@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: |In article <1989Jan18.102436.12838@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu |(Paul Dietz) writes: |>It is disingenious to pretend that recent NASA emphasis on manned |>spaceflight, the shuttle program in particular, has not had a major |>negative impact on planetary and space science. | |It is also dishonest, not to mention foolish, to pretend that cutting |back manned spaceflight would boost planetary science. Actually, these two statements are not incompatible. The way things have been going, you put money into staffed spaceflight, and it comes out of planetary science; however, take money out of staffed spaceflight, and it doesn't go back into planetary science. Entropy reigns supreme. -- | Lucius Chiaraviglio | ARPA: chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu BITNET: chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR) ARPA-gatewayed BITNET: chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu Alt ARPA-gatewayed BITNET: chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) (01/23/89)
In article <7199@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (THE VIKING) writes: > While the shuttle did fail to live up to the preconstruction PR, >and the space station might do the same, I think it's short sighted to call >them "disastrous failures" and "mass wastage". In terms of manned space R&D >I think they both are (will be) extremely successful. The shuttle has taught >us a vast amount about how to build (and not build) a reusable space vehicle, >and I'm certain the station will do the same for human space habitats. I think it is entirely fair to call the shuttle a disastrous failure. The central reason for building it, reducing launch costs, was not attained. Calling the shuttle a success because it taught us how not to build launchers is like calling Chernobyl a success because it taught us how not to generate electricity. The shuttle is also a continuing obstruction: NASA has so much invested in it that it cannot do the reasonable thing -- try to get a better set of launchers -- but instead is building a space station to give the shuttle the appearance of a mission. > I think >it's clear that manned space research is by its nature much more expensive >than unmanned. ... Given this, unless you're part of the small minority that >rejects one type of research, I think current spending priorities are close >to what they should be. What?! We should support a form of research, reward it with lots of money, because it is expensive? I fail to understand this argument. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) (01/23/89)
In article <1989Jan20.193344.9479@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>His comments about the scientific track record of manned vs. >>unmanned flights are cogent... > >Interesting, yes. I'm not sure I would say "cogent" without first talking >to people like the solar astrophysics types (remember the Skylab Solar >Telescope and the Solar Max repair?), not to mention the lunar geologists. Let's talk about repair of spacecraft. At current launch costs, it's a joke. You'll notice Solar Max will not be reboosted. Let's look at another example -- HST. With the shuttle it would have been cheaper to build and launch multiple HSTs than to retrieve one from orbit for refurbishment. For on-orbit servicing: three or four repair missions equals the cost of building and launching a new HST. Since putting HST into low orbit where the shuttle can reach it reduces the fraction of time it can be used by a factor of three, is it any wonder the astronomers would much rather have free flying instruments that are not dependent on the shuttle? As for lunar geologists: they will tell you that Apollo isn't around any more. It was far too expensive. An unmanned program might have taken longer, but it would have been a lot cheaper, would have let us see more of the lunar surface, and might still be ongoing. >If one's priorities are short-term gain (be it financial or scientific), >then of course one gets upset about long-term investments. Some would >question those priorities, however. I believe scientific investigation is a long term investment. This is orthogonal to the issue of the effectiveness of a particular investment. We can do a lot more science per dollar, in general, with unmanned spacecraft than with manned spacecraft, at current launch costs. Curious how NASA has decided that those areas of science that seemingly require people in space are the most important. The long term viewpoint does not require the immediate gratification of seeing people in orbit in the present. >>It is disingenious to pretend that recent NASA emphasis on manned >>spaceflight, the shuttle program in particular, has not had a major >>negative impact on planetary and space science. > >It is also dishonest, not to mention foolish, to pretend that cutting >back manned spaceflight would boost planetary science. If experience is a guide, not cutting back manned spaceflight (the station) *will* further damage unmanned spaceflight and, by delaying investment in truly useful technology, like better boosters, it will damage manned spaceflight in the long run. >>What about unmanned asteroid exploration? A lunar polar orbiter? >>Probes to Phobos? Our knowledge of ET resources is still rudimentary. > >Agreed, but please observe the word "need". These things would indeed >be useful. (I note that most of them don't seem to be high priority for >the space-science bunch.) But they are in no sense prerequisites. Something is needed then. I notice we aren't building space colonies now, and it isn't because of some epidemic of timidity. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (01/23/89)
In article <13541@bellcore.bellcore.com> karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) writes: >For anyone who is seriously interested in learning what van Allen has >actually said, read his writings! You may be surprised. Not likely in my case, because I HAVE read them. And after reading, all I can say is that the Van Allen belts -- deadly hazards to spaceflight -- are well and aptly named. -- Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology toast to comrade Van Allen!!" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
szabonj@uw-larry (Nick Szabo) (01/23/89)
In article <5740@cbmvax.UUCP> jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes: > There's one very valuable thing there: energy. There are several ways SPS technology could go: CASE 1: Greenhouse concerns, lack of good nuclear technology, and tolerance of SPS transmission effects lead to SPS as a major source of electricity. a. SPS could be built as per your scenario, with lunar materials. (Space Research Associates, with whom I participate, has done the premiere studies for Space Studies Institute on SPS from lunar materials). b. ELM, laser-launch, gas guns, etc. make Earth launch cheap. Pre-fabbing SPS's on Earth becomes cheaper than building expensive construction and living infrastructure in space. c. SPS is built with asteroidal materials, which may provide better quality materials for less delta-v to GEO. d: We learn how to generate solar power near Mercury, or tap the power of Jupiter's magnetic field at Metis (see previous discussion of this by Dietz et. al.), and transmit the power back to Earth, more inexpensively than generating and transmitting power from GEO. CASE 2: Environmental effects and real estate required for SPS energy transmissision prove too costly. CASE 3: Nuclear energy, fission and/or fusion, becomes safe and cheap, obviating the need for SPS. CASE 4: Greenhouse effect does not become a problem, and we learn to burn coal without acid rain (we have reserves to last several hundred years). Again SPS is not needed. The Moon only figures in one of these scenarios (1a). To rely on that scenario to build a $100+ billion lunar base, requires a long leap of blind faith. > Asteroids are very far away (energy-wise) Nope. Some are closer to LEO and GEO, energy-wise, than the surface of the Moon. > and are unknown quantities for the most part >(compared to the moon). Because we haven't explored them. QED. Nick Szabo szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu
szabonj@uw-larry (Nick Szabo) (01/23/89)
In article <7199@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (THE VIKING) writes: > As to the perennial question of whether we should spend money on manned or >unmanned space research.... >...it's clear that manned space research is by its nature much more expensive >than unmanned. >... Given this, unless you're part of the small minority that >rejects one type of research, I think current spending priorities are close >to what they should be. Come again? We should spend more on manned spaceflight *because* it's more expensive? I suppose, too, that we should send men to Pluto instead of Mars, because it's more expensive. We should build the English Channel Tunnel from Paris underneath Germany, Russia, America and thence to London, because it's more expensive, and would make for a more interesting commute. After all, we don't want to be narrow-minded and reject fun ways of doing things, simply because they're expensive... ;-) Nick Szabo szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu
szabonj@uw-larry (Nick Szabo) (01/23/89)
In article <1989Jan20.180404.7740@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <94@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@right.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >>Space settlements are another example of *future* technology. > >No, they are an example of future application of current technology. >They are much less speculative than nanotechnology or the other examples >cited; we could clearly build at least small space settlements today if >the money could be found. I wish this cliche could be put to rest. What exactly do you mean by "current technology"? We haven't built any space colonies, so you can't mean the exact technology needed for them. Nor have we designed the supporting structure, such as launchers of sufficient size, machines to build the launchers and the colonies, etc. No space colony has ever been designed in anything but the crudest macro detail. No full-scale or even tenth- or hundredth-scale models of colonies have been tested. We have never experimented with large spinning structures in vacuum or excavations on the Moon. We have never built any machines to extract tons of material in a vacuum, nor to extrude, bend, shape, mold, and the thousands of other industrial processes required, which all must be ported to a zero gravity and vacuum environment. We could not build any colony of >1,000 people, in ten years, even given an infinite amount of money; there is simply too much to be learned and too many people to train. (Unless you like the crude approach: 1,000 space station modules, cluttering up LEO, costing $5,000 billion, plus $500 billon per year to service, given current shuttle cost. If that is your idea of a space colony, I give up.) In contrast, we have electric motors the size of a human hair, single electrons trapped and measured, single molecules held in laser light, etc. today. It is not overly speculative to assume similar progress over the next ten years, and even to expect that nanotechnology will play a big role in both space exploration (check out the Microdevices Laboratory at JPL) and in later space colonization. Things we build in the future will use future technology. I use computer chips and bit-mapped screens, not vacuum tubes and punch cards. If I had planned a computer back in the late 50's, and stuck religiously to my plans, I'd be in pretty sad shape at the moment. Planning space colonies with today's technology is a similar mistake. Nick Szabo szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu
szabonj@uw-larry (Nick Szabo) (01/23/89)
In article <1989Jan20.184633.8392@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >I thought you supported space science, or are you not considering exploration >of the lunar surface to be "worthwhile"? Yes, I support *realistic* space science, such as a Lunar Polar Orbiter. This will cost at least 100 times less than a lunar base, and be able to measure far more territory. >Please explain what is found on, >say, Mars to have made the Viking landers "worthwhile". Tons of scientific data. Theories ranging from nuclear winter to the Ozone Hole to the greenhouse effect have been helped enormously by the data from Mars. (Nuclear winter theory was directly inspired by Martian duststorms). The search for life informed SETI. We found out that Mars used to have running water. This greatly increases the chances of ore-forming processes similar to those on Earth--and absent, on, for example, the Moon. Further observations may well point us to specific concentrations of valuable minerals. There were also numerous technological spinoffs, both for Earth and future space industry. >Most supporters of space >settlement consider it worthwhile for reasons other than short-term profit. A lunar base is inadequate by several orders of magnitude for either economic or scientific profit, short or long term. >>... In fact, both the Moon and Mars might turn out to be terrible >>places to build space industries and settlements or to provide material >>for same. > >I don't think any serious space enthusiast is making more favorable >assumptions than the above. Then why all the obsession with spending hundreds of billions to send people there, when we can find out far more in far more many places, for far less? >The notion that industry would need $100+ billion to set up a lunar >mining site is laughable. I have never seen any reasonably complete speculation that it could be done for any less, public or private, with "current technology". We need research on how to port machinery and processes into a low-gravity, vacuum environment. We should spend some money *now* to find out how to do this, along with the many other tasks involved in space settlement, and more basic technological issues. We should look before we leap; it makes leaping quite a bit easier. >the relevant competition is >Earth, not the asteroids The relevant competition *is* the asteroids, when funding is cut from asteroid-exploration missions to fund the gargantuan sums needed for a space station, lunar base, or similar manned project. >Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A >toast to comrade Van Allen!!" This is beyond the bounds of rational argument. Nick Szabo szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) (01/23/89)
In article <1989Jan22.132258.6874@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > Since putting >HST into low orbit where the shuttle can reach it reduces the fraction >of time it can be used by a factor of three... I have received expressions of disbelief about this assertion, so hold on until I check my reference. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cew@venera.isi.edu (Craig E. Ward) (01/24/89)
In article <181@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >In article <6145@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@zeta.cs.unc.edu () writes: >> I glanced at the letterhead of a fund-raiser I got from NSS today >>and to my dismay found that James Van Allen is on the Board of >>Governors. Has he moderated his robots-only stance, or does NSS no >>longer want to build space colonies someday? > >I'd probably be more upset by this if I hadn't long >since written NSS off. The L-5 Society is dead and >gone, unfortunately, and there's nothing to take its >place. I wish it wasn't so. > I don't see how anyone can "give up" on the National Space Society or worry that James Van Allen in on the Board of Governors. (Remember, Boards of Governors usually lend credibility to a group, while Boards of Directors set policy.) In 1988, NSS was instrumental in getting the Space Settlement Act through Congress. The act amends the NASA charter to add space colonies as a goal of NASA research. Is this a sign that the Society has given up on space colonies? I don't think so. I think it's damn good for a two year old organization. Even if James Van Allen is anti man-in-space, I think it is appropriate that his opinions have an outlet of expression. The Society must exist in a pluralistic world and must be able to accommodate a wide variety of opinions. That he is on the Board of Governors is a good sign. It says that NSS is not run by fanatical demagogues and that Van Allen is not so single-minded that he can not face contrary opinions. What's wrong about that? As an NSS Chapter president, I have had the good fortune to meet and talk with many of the leaders of NSS. I have been uniformly impressed with their intelligence and dedication and believe that the Society will continue to grow and become stronger as the premier educational, grass-roots activist organization of the space movement. Craig E. Ward -- ==================================================================== ARPA: cew@venera.isi.edu PHONE: (213)822-1511 ext. 111 USPS: USC Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1100 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Slogan: "nemo me impune lacessit" ====================================================================
bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) (01/26/89)
From article <5740@cbmvax.UUCP>, by jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup): > In article <93@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@right.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >>What if we build our $100+ billion dollar lunar base, and then find out >>there is nothing worthwhile there?* > > There's one very valuable thing there: energy. We're burning up our > energy reserves (the current oil glut is merely pumping more of it out of > the ground.) When we're out, will we still have the capitol/energy/etc > to then try to set up SPS's? There is more coal in the intermountain west than oil left in arabia. There is a mountain of thorium in Idaho. There are huge amounts of natural gas deep under the gulf coast. Every couple of years someone adds another half percent to the efficiency of solar cells... I can imagine that Japan might get hard enough up for power that they would consider building an SPS. The US? don't hold your breath. Bob P. -- Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself. UUCP Address: decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet Reality is what you make of it.
jcbst3@cisunx.UUCP (James C. Benz) (01/27/89)
This discussion is degenerating into a religious war over the relative merits of manned versus unmanned spaceflight. This is something which has been part of NASA and the American space effort since the beginning, and the hard questions will not be resolved in any case in favor of unmanned flight anyway. The reasons of course have to do with the average person's perception of what THEY want to get out of space exploration. Remember, the average person has no idea of what the word *science* actually consists of. To Joe Citizen, his space-tax dollars are supposed to be used so that he/she, or his children, can live the reality of the Star Trek/Star Wars fantasy. This emphatically does NOT include robot probes to Io or investigations of the Oort cloud. It DOES include heroic X-nauts "flying" through space in vehicles that look like airplanes, fighting the Evil Empire and looking for little green men. This would explain the highly emotional reactions to the Apollo landing and the first shuttle flight, as well as the ho-hum reception given the pictures from the Jovian system and the rings of Saturn. Perhaps van Allen's concept of a manless space program would "get more science done", but in the abscence of the Brave Explorer with the Right Stuff, the taxpayers who foot the bills just plain ain't interested, so the whole discussion is academic and bears no relevance to the real world. Personally, I would like nothing better than a first-class window seat on the shuttle, safe or not, and my vote is emphatically for continuation of MANNED exploration. After all is said and done, space flight is EXCITING, so why let robots have all the fun? -- Disclaimer: All opinions expressed herein are mine alone. I wear an asbestos suit to work, so flame away. Pitt doesn't care *what* I do, so long as I appear to be working behind this terminal. Jim Benz, University of Pittsburgh, UCIR
jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dr. Dereference) (01/27/89)
In article <1989Jan22.124441.6014@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: [in response to my previous posting] >What?! We should support a form of research, reward it with lots of >money, because it is expensive? I fail to understand this argument. szabonj@uw-larry.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: [in response to my previous posting] >Come again? We should spend more on manned spaceflight *because* it's >more expensive? The point I tried to make is that I support a robust manned and unmanned space program. Meaningful manned space technology R&D costs sustantially more than a meaningful unmanned program (for many reasons: man rated hardware, humans and human structures in space, etc.). While I agree that unmanned space R&D is very valuable, the manned space program is important to the future and so must be persued. Therefore, unless you don't believe that manned space technology R&D is important to the future, NASA should spend much more money on manned than on unmanned space R&D. Please note that since I DO believe in a robust unmanned program, I think it would be wrong if space station costs (as one example) eviscerated the unmanned program. In article <1989Jan22.124441.6014@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: [in response to my previous posting] >I think it is entirely fair to call the shuttle a disastrous failure. >The central reason for building it, reducing launch costs, was not >attained. Calling the shuttle a success because it taught us how not >to build launchers is like calling Chernobyl a success because it >taught us how not to generate electricity. The point here is that the shuttle is a new technology developed by a government bureaucracy. Serious problems in such a situation are always a definite possibility. Given that the government is the only source of the billions required for manned space research, and that that research needs to be done, we really don't have much choice but to support NASA. While flushings billions of dollars down the toilet seems somewhat inevitable, and is certainly very bad, all we can really do is try to punish those responsible, and work to make NASA more efficient. John L. McKernan. Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .signature currently under government sponsored basic research. Results guarenteed to advance science, satisfy every special intrest group, generate 2000 times the wealth expended, and show up the Russians expected REAL SOON NOW.
szabonj@minke (Nick Szabo) (01/29/89)
> >szabonj@uw-larry.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: [in response to my previous posting] >>Come again? We should spend more on manned spaceflight *because* it's >>more expensive? > >Unless you don't believe that manned space technology >R&D is important to the future, NASA should spend much more money on manned >than on unmanned space R&D. Please note that since I DO believe in a robust >unmanned program, I think it would be wrong if space station costs (as one >example) eviscerated the unmanned program. Anybody who thinks we have an infinite budget to work with, please make yourself known so that I know where not to invest my hard-earned money. It's not a question of "believing" in anything, since presumably we are not discussing religion. It's a question of X dollars divided between manned and unmanned programs. What allocation is best for our future? Spending all or most of the money on one or two large, risky projects, which go nowhere but LEO, is the poorest allocation. Sending out a few probes, while still spending half the money on thread-bare manned projects, is still poor. The only reasonable allocation is to spend the money on unmanned projects (and research), and forego manned projects until they are affordable, and/or discoveries provide the incentive to substantially increase the budget X which the government provides. If it could be demonstrated that manned programs substantially increase the budget X we have to work with, then perhaps something could be said for them. But there is no evidence to show this, and in fact I suspect that the opposite is true, that the overwhelming bonanza from unmanned probes would greatly increase support and funding of the space program. >The point here is that the shuttle is a new technology developed by a >government bureaucracy. Serious problems in such a situation are always a >definite possibility. This is why you don't throw your eggs in one basket. Throw them in a lot of small baskets--some fail (Phobos mission), but some succeed wildly, more than making up for the failures (Voyager). Nothing can make up for a $40 billion project like the Shuttle. Nick Szabo szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu
sccowan@violet.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) (02/02/89)
In article <107@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@minke.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >> >>szabonj@uw-larry.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: [in response to my previous posting] >>>Come again? We should spend more on manned spaceflight *because* it's >>>more expensive? >> [stuff about how manned space exploration is important] >Anybody who thinks we have an infinite budget to work with, please make >yourself known so that I know where not to invest my hard-earned money. >It's not a question of "believing" in anything, since presumably we are not >discussing religion. It's a question of X dollars divided between manned and ^^^^^^^^ I take it as a religious principle that a permanent staffed presence in space is the principle goal. >unmanned programs. What allocation is best for our future? Spending all >or most of the money on one or two large, risky projects, which go nowhere >but LEO, is the poorest allocation. Sending out a few probes, while >still spending half the money on thread-bare manned projects, is still poor. >The only reasonable allocation is to spend the money on unmanned projects >(and research), and forego manned projects until they are affordable, >and/or discoveries provide the incentive to substantially increase the >budget X which the government provides. If manned exploration is done, then no research will be done on manned exploration technology, and as a consequence it will never be developed and become cheaper. Deferring manned space exploration now because it is too expensive recursively results in never doing any manned space exploration at all. >Nick Szabo szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu Crispin ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Login name: sccowan In real life: S. Crispin Cowan Post Awful: 280 Phillip St., Apt. B1-15 Waterloo, N2L 3X1 USENET: watmath!violet!sccowan or sccowan@violet.waterloo.edu "Burger Thing: Because Man is the _warmest_ place to hide." -Rob Fennalon
jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (THE VIKING) (02/02/89)
In article <107@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@minke.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: > It's a question of X dollars divided between manned and >unmanned programs. What allocation is best for our future? Spending all >or most of the money on one or two large, risky projects, which go nowhere >but LEO, is the poorest allocation. Sending out a few probes, while >still spending half the money on thread-bare manned projects, is still poor. >The only reasonable allocation is to spend the money on unmanned projects >(and research), and forego manned projects until they are affordable, >and/or discoveries provide the incentive to substantially increase the >budget X which the government provides. You imply that manned projects are worthwhile if they are affordable, and that unmanned projects are worthwhile and cheaper. I stated essentially these points in my previous postings. The difference is that I believe that because manned space R&D is important, there is much to be gained from doing it as soon as possible. Therefore, as long as NASA can get the money out of congress, the R&D should be done. The issue then is the more technical question of whether NASA's budget is sufficient for worthwhile manned R&D. I believe NASA's current budget of over $10 billion a year is enough for a small manned program, leaving $1 or $2 billion for a reasonable productive unmanned program. The point I've reiterated for three postings now is that manned space R&D is important, so if the money can be found it must be persued, even though it is much more expensive than unmanned. Unmanned space R&D is just as important and so must be persued too, though with less money because a productive program requires less. John L. McKernan. Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .signature currently under government sponsored basic research. Results guaranteed to advance science, satisfy every special interest group, generate 2000 times the wealth expended, and show up the Russians expected REAL SOON NOW.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/09/89)
In article <7359@venera.isi.edu> cew@venera.isi.edu.UUCP (Craig E. Ward) writes: >In 1988, NSS was instrumental in getting the Space Settlement Act >through Congress. The act amends the NASA charter to add space colonies >as a goal of NASA research. Is this a sign that the Society has given >up on space colonies? I don't think so. I think it's damn good for a >two year old organization... Hands up everyone who actually thinks that amending the NASA charter to add space colonization is going to do diddly-squat to advance space colonization. NASA, like all mature bureaucracies, pays attention to its charter only when it's useful as supporting evidence for funding requests. My recollection, admittedly dim, is that NASA's charter defines technology R&D as a primary goal and says nothing at all about running a launch system; NASA nowadays puts a lot of money and effort into running a launch system and very little into R&D. -- Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology toast to comrade Van Allen!!" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu