Keep Humans Out of Space

Minutemanmedia.org ^ | 01/25/10 | William A. Collins

[KevinDavis]

Send out robots,
They work fine;
People are,
A waste of time.


President Barack Obama deserves credit for ordering a new study of NASA. The findings of his Augustine Commission review of our plans for human spaceflight are impressive as well. We needed to seriously question our financial will to send humans to Mars. Not every taxpayer is ready to sign on for that expense.

[Vaquero]

moron? Morons tend to be those who make snap statements without considering all the possibilities.... STAR TRAVEL???...not today obviously....it is a progression which will not happen if we do not take the baby steps NOW!

........................................................................................ A generation ship is a hypothetical type of interstellar ark starship that travels across great distances between stars at a speed much slower than that of light. Since such a ship might take from decades to tens or hundreds of thousands of years to reach nearby stars, the original occupants of a generation ship grow old and die, leaving their descendants to continue traveling, depending on the life span of its inhabitants and relativistic effects of time dilation.......

..................................................................................................................... Project Orion was the first engineering design study of a spacecraft powered by nuclear pulse propulsion, an idea proposed first by Stanisław Ulam during 1947. The project, initiated in 1958, envisioned the explosion of atomic bombs behind the craft and was led by Ted Taylor at General Atomics and physicist Freeman Dyson, who at Taylor's request took a year away from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton to work on the project. By using energetic nuclear power, the Orion concept offered high thrust and specific impulse at the same time; the optimum combination for spacecraft propulsion. As a qualitative comparison, traditional chemical rockets (the Moon-class Saturn V or the Space Shuttle being prime examples) provide (rather) high thrust, but low specific impulse, whereas ion engines do the opposite. Orion would have offered performance greater than the most advanced conventional or nuclear rocket engines now being studied. Cheap interplanetary travel was the goal of the Orion Project. Its supporters felt that it had potential for space travel, but it lost political approval over concerns with fallout from its propulsion.[1] The Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 is generally acknowledged to have ended the project. Ion thrusters use beams of ions (electrically charged atoms or molecules) to create thrust in accordance with Newton's third law. The method of accelerating the ions varies, but all designs take advantage of the charge/mass ratio of the ions. This ratio means that relatively small potential differences can create very high exhaust velocities. This reduces the amount of reaction mass or fuel required, but increases the amount of specific power required compared to chemical rockets. Ion thrusters are therefore able to achieve extremely high specific impulses. The drawback of the low thrust is low spacecraft acceleration because the mass of current electric power units is directly correlated with the amount of power given. This low thrust makes ion thrusters unsuited for launching spacecraft into orbit, but they are ideal for in-space propulsion applications......

.................................................................. ION thrusters have been designed and they all generally fit under two categories. The thrusters are categorized as either electrostatic or electromagnetic. The main difference is how the ions are accelerated. Electrostatic ion thrusters use the Coulomb force and are categorized as accelerating the ions in the direction of the electric field. Electromagnetic ion thrusters use the Lorentz force to accelerate the ions. [edit] Electrostatic ion thrusters

Moron, indeed...

[ThomasSawyer]

"How bout my share of taxes that pays for welfare be redirected to human space exploration."

What if we had the "entitlement programs in 1804 that we have now? This country would probably be a lot smaller and weaker.

[hellbender]

I have been a conservative for about 50 years, which might be longer than you have been alive. That's a real, constitutionalist conservative, not someone who thinks it is OK to spend billions of tax dollars on my pet enthusiasms. I made crystal clear that any spending on space related to national defense was OK by me and by the U.S. Constitution. That does not include probes of Uranus, PIF.

If someone could prove that bases on the moon were economically viable, private companies would be falling all over themselves to build them. The fact is that such projects are not viable, and probably never will be.

Far from being "a troll who has no sense of the future," I am concerned that we have in fact no future at all if we do not act sensibly and Constitutionally in the near future. Before you go bashing fellow FReepers as trolls, you should check their posting history. I checked yours, and believe it or not there is much that we agree on.

[listenhillary]

Once China control the skies above us, our options are limited.

http://www.rosettastone.com/learn-chinese

[Moltke]

My point was that humans (or anything they build) cannot go to stars. It’s just too darn hot there! (Hint: Sun is a star, and like Sun, all stars are incredibly hot thermonuclear reactors.) Are you going to volunteer for the first manned mission to Sun? Good luck with that!

[Vaquero]

Are you going to volunteer for the first manned mission to Sun? Good luck with that!

Only if I can go at night!(joke...no need to answer )......

...when people say ‘we will travel to the stars’ they generally mean that they are going to travel to planets that are in orbit around stars other than our own...

[Moltke]

OK, OK, we both got our say in. No hard feelings, but my initial response was to you calling the author a moron and then following up with a statement that you now put into perspective (like it’s common knowledge that going to stars means going to planets...). “Just sayin’” and all that. Not meaning to start a flame war.

[Vaquero]

PEACE!

[PIF]

Good for you! Glad you have been well. But you are taking the same progressive road that Teddy Roosevelt took - doesn't matter if you call yourself a conservative or not.

If you agree that spending $ for manned space exploration (which BTW is a military venture - see NASA Charter), then what are you upset about?

Economics have nothing to do with it - it is a matter of self defense. Any economic benefit can only be proved by going there - and that is just the side line. Think survival of the species.

Private companies are not falling over because the amount of money necessary is mostly beyond their means and certainly not justifiable to the shareholders.

The only reason companies are thinking LEO now is because NASA proved it could be done - something believed impossible when I was a kid.

Going to the New World was also believed not viable since one would fall off the edge of the Earth, but because the government of Spain was farsighted —— no one can say what until we as a country and a species get there.

But we do know the H3 is plentiful on the moon, that solar panels can be made cheaply and quickly on the moon, that there is water on both the moon and mars, that there is mineral wealth beyond imagining in the Asteroid Belt.

So there is money to be made - it is just the will to do so - no pain no gain. But right now nay sayers want to keep their collective heads in the sand and hope the Chinese and Russians are kind to them in the very near future. and keep their heads down so as to not see the 5 km rock coming toward them - curtsy of pissed off Chinese after the US defaults on their bonds.

[hellbender]

I really don't have time to argue with you, and I couldn't change your mind if I did. But there are some statements you make which simply will not stand scrutiny. I'm far from being like Teddy Roosevelt; in fact Roosevelt would have been enthusiastic about space travel. He was a big govt. guy who built a large fleet and sailed it around the world to show off. He actually wanted a war with someone just to show of his and the nation's machismo. He settled for war with Spain, but apparently hoped for war with Germany.

I'm sure there are all kinds of neat resources on other planets, but the expense of getting into space and bringing them back kills the deal. There are vast quantities of tar sands in Canada (a lot closer than the Moon or Mars), but they are not viable unless the cost of oil goes up. Economics most certainly do matter, even in national defense. We can't buy everything someone dreams about, esp. with the govt. completely broke.

[hellbender]

Going to the New World was also believed not viable since one would fall off the edge of the Earth, but because the government of Spain was farsighted —— no one can say what until we as a country and a species get there.

That's another fallacy I can't leave alone. Columbus knew perfectly well that the world was round. Heck, the ancient Greeks knew that. The Spanish also knew there were great riches to be had in India and SE Asia. The Portuguese and others were already accessing that wealth for trade; they just got there by sailing eastward around Africa instead of westward across the Atlantic. The idea that the Spanish were sailing for adventure or science (a la NASA) is a crock. They knew what was in Asia and what it was worth. They didn't know the dimensions of the New World, but they may have know a little about America, because the Vikings had settled there and Basques and others were fishing off Newfoundland.

[Hank Kerchief]

“I believe that people’s future lies in space”

And you want the government right there with you?

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

“The Universe is too big a place to give up so easily. It could yield vast wealth someday , but that day will never come if we give up just as we are getting started.”

Who is “we?” If you think going into space is so important, what part of your life are you sacrificing towards it, or are you planning to sacrifice other people’s wealth for it.

Hank

[MHGinTN]

Situation kind of similar to today ... two realities running side-by-side. Earth is flat was a popular belief not founded in the actual evidence; man is causing global waqrming, a myth popular today but not supported by the known facts.

[Nateman]

You are correct, I have no right to expect anybody else to pay for it. Perhaps it is a concern on my part that someday some madman from Iran or somewhere equally evil is going to turn the world into a radioactive ash heap. People living off world would ensure that civilization would continue.

The Chinese are going to the moon. Mere rocks thrown from the moon hit with the energy of atomic bombs. Not a good idea to let them have a monopoly.

I do have an idea of how space could become profitable. Imagine a self replicating factory made for the moon. Further assume radio instructions to that factory could be sent to retool and produce other useful things. One such factory would become 2, than 4,8,16,32.....a huge number of factories. Said factories could produce all the stuff people needed to live off-world and plenty more for profit. Automation has not reached that point yet, but it will soon. It's a huge windfall for whoever does it first.

[Hank Kerchief]

You are correct, I have no right to expect anybody else to pay for it. Perhaps it is a concern on my part that someday some madman from Iran or somewhere equally evil is going to turn the world into a radioactive ash heap. People living off world would ensure that civilization would continue.

I’m not very worried about Iran, at least until they’ve developed their rocket-powered camels.

As for “civilization,” it did have a pretty good start, but what there is now is probably not worth preserving. Not sure human beings doing to the rest of the universe what they’ve done here is such a hot idea.

Nobody can predict the future. In “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress,” the very nature of life on the moon “civilized” some very uncivilized people. They only threw rocks to defend themselves.

Nevertheless, I believe the day will come when some humans have fully developed their human potential as independent individualists, and will be the ones who do begin true space exploration, and then eventually, migration. I do not think you or I will see it, even if you are 50 years younger than I.

Hank

[Nateman]

Certainly the technical side of civilization would have to be maintained for people to survive in space. Otherwise you die. As for Individual rights I think it will be like the West was, a place where rugged individuals move out when things start getting too crowded. By the time the solar system is too crowded people will be ready to move out to the stars.

Sounds like you have a dim view of humanity. I think otherwise. Life up until people moved information in the form of genes. People move information with ideas making People the second level of evolution. Life moved onto land 400 million years ago and I consider myself lucky to live through a time when life from Earth is now ready to move on to other worlds.

[Hank Kerchief]

“Life moved onto land 400 million years ago and I consider myself lucky to live through a time when life from Earth is now ready to move on to other worlds.”

You know this, how?

I have no view of “mankind,” a concept of collectivists I do not share. I’m only interested in individuals, and some of those are noble and good—the rest are trash, but do not matter.

Here’s what “mankind” has done:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

Do you admire mankind for that?

I’m am not a theist of any stripe, but definitely do not buy the evolutionary fairy tales. Apparently you’ve been taken in by it, as those who buy into the “global warming” fraud (brought to you by the same “peer reviewed” scientists) do.

By the way, I did not mention “individual rights.” I spoke only about independent individualists, who have no interest in “rights,” granted or ungranted by others, only the truth and their own integrity.

Hank

[Nateman]

I think global warming is a scam but Earth’s time scale I have no problem with. The dating is done using radioactive isotopes. Uranium eventually becomes lead and the various ratios of the decay products is how you date rocks. You will never see a mine that produces Plutonium or Technetium because the longest half life of these elements are much less than the age of the Earth.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Columbus was government funded.

Obama is selling America down the river. It’s starting to look like that’s his job.