>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >We've lost the ability to send astronauts to the Moon.
>> We've lost the ability to go there with a particular arrangement of >> hardware. That's not at all the same as losing the ability.
>We don't currently have the technology and would have to develop it >anew. Probably *not* the Apollo technology.
Only if you insist on using the word "technology" in its modern (and nearly meaningless) marketdroidbabble sense.
Apollo was a *system*, not a technology. And of the technologies it did use, it was an extremely conservative design - NASA tried, with a fair amount of success, to minimize development and programmatic risks.
IIRC, the two items considered riskiest were the heatshield for the Command Module and the pressurization system for the LEM's descent and ascent propulsion systems. The latter, to save mass, were pressurized 'soda pop' style rather than using membranes to seperate fuel and pressurant. (It's not that the membranes themselves are heavy, but that the bracing inside the tank to ensure the membrance collapses evenly without blocking the outlet and that all possible fuel is consumed is heavy.)
>We don't have the people and we don't have the machinery for an Apollo >type mission.
We don't have any engineers? I suspect that will be news to the engineers I know who for Boeing. (For just one company.)
As far as machinery goes, that's mostly a matter of designing and building it. Not necessarily simple mind you, but there are no major barriers beyond funding and politics.
>IIUC, we are going through or will go through a period where we have >no manned launch capability at all and are using the Russian launch >capacity.
Which situation is an outcome of lack of funding and dithering politics rather than lack of people of machinery.
Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote: >If there was a macguffin on the Moon that needed to be retrieved by >astronauts or else all life on Earth would be wiped out, I think it >could be fetched in reasonably short order. Considerably faster than the >1961-1969 timeline for Apollo. If not possible, it would be a political >failing, not technological.
Keep in mind that several critical bits of Apollo (E.G. the F-1 engine and the Saturn family of launchers) were under development well before 1961, and that others (the Apollo spacecraft itself, though as a general purpose LEO spacecraft) were also well along.
The lunar timeline was so short largely because the pieces required were already in the pipeline for other purposes.
>The technology *is* largely there. Some new stuff would be needed (like >a lander) but much would be putting pieces together. There aren't any >Saturn V equivalents around anymore, but modern spacecraft could be >built much more lightly, and the mission assembled in orbit if it needed >multiple launches.
In article <4b9abf72.84385...@news.supernews.com>, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
> Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote: > >If there was a macguffin on the Moon that needed to be retrieved by > >astronauts or else all life on Earth would be wiped out, I think it > >could be fetched in reasonably short order. Considerably faster than the > >1961-1969 timeline for Apollo. If not possible, it would be a political > >failing, not technological.
> Keep in mind that several critical bits of Apollo (E.G. the F-1 engine > and the Saturn family of launchers) were under development well before > 1961, and that others (the Apollo spacecraft itself, though as a > general purpose LEO spacecraft) were also well along.
> The lunar timeline was so short largely because the pieces required > were already in the pipeline for other purposes.
A good point, and one I had forgotten. People (well, I did, I think others do) tend to assume that Apollo design started with Kennedy's speech.
-- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
>Mike Ash wrote: >> In article <0fd30dd2-125d-4037-a23a-bf8e7d2ba...@d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote: >> > So suppose that after launching the interstellar planet probes, Earth >> > lost the science and the scientists necessary to interpret the results >> > correctly... >> example is the planet which experiences multi-hundred MPH winds two >> seasons out of the year. You send a tremendously expensive probe to >> another star that takes X years to arrive, planning to follow it up with >> an even more tremendously expensive colony mission that takes even >> longer to arrive, and you can't have your probe stick around for more >> than three months before deciding whether to send the colony mission? >> (And yes, as I remember it, it was explicitly stated that this colony >> ended up being founded because the probe arrived during a quiet season.)
>Maybe the payoff is not founding a colony, but having certain people >leave Earth?
In that case, why bother with unmanned probes? Send your out-of-favor politicians instead.
-- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding; Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.
In article <hn8mi5$ds...@news.eternal-september.org>, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) writes:
>In article <e320c66f-a1c8-4b40-93df-35461ff59...@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> writes: >>Maybe the payoff is not founding a colony, but having certain people >>leave Earth?
>In that case, why bother with unmanned probes? Send your out-of-favor >politicians instead.
Or telephone sanitizers, I suppose.
-- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding; Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.
> In article <h406p51bgavad0gf766onpt61h56kjs...@4ax.com>, > Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:26:38 -0500, Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >If you believe the stories, it wasn't a scheme, just a mistake, because > > >the probes were too stupid to send back important details like the fact > > >that 99.9% of a planet's surface was uninhabitable.
> > Considering the sorts of things that keep showing up in the Risks > > List time and time again, I do not find it so unbelieveable. For > > example, look up the Ariane-5 rocket launch that went boom.
> I think you misunderstand my objection. I do not object to the idea that > the probes screwed up. I object to the entire concept of building > interstellar probes which can only send back a single "yes/no" answer, > rather than sending back full sensory data and letting people back on > Earth decide whether the star system in question deserves a colony ship > or not.
> -- > Mike Ash > Radio Free Earth > Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Would we even need to sends probes out now? With Kepler, DARWIN, Terrestrial Planet Finder and whatever else is in the pipeline. Could a large enough space based telescope detect habitiable worlds and weed on the odd balls? Just my $0.02
Michael Stemper wrote: > In article <e320c66f-a1c8-4b40-93df-35461ff59...@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> writes: > >Mike Ash wrote: > >> In article <0fd30dd2-125d-4037-a23a-bf8e7d2ba...@d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> >> > So suppose that after launching the interstellar planet probes, Earth > >> > lost the science and the scientists necessary to interpret the results > >> > correctly...
> >> example is the planet which experiences multi-hundred MPH winds two > >> seasons out of the year. You send a tremendously expensive probe to > >> another star that takes X years to arrive, planning to follow it up with > >> an even more tremendously expensive colony mission that takes even > >> longer to arrive, and you can't have your probe stick around for more > >> than three months before deciding whether to send the colony mission? > >> (And yes, as I remember it, it was explicitly stated that this colony > >> ended up being founded because the probe arrived during a quiet season.)
> >Maybe the payoff is not founding a colony, but having certain people > >leave Earth?
> In that case, why bother with unmanned probes? Send your out-of-favor > politicians instead.
It could get people more interested in elections, I guess. Send both candidates up into space. The winner gets to come home.
Third candidate has to pay for his own ride...
No, but I think the point would be that they believe there /will/ be a world for them to rule at the end.
>> Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote: >> >If there was a macguffin on the Moon that needed to be retrieved by >> >astronauts or else all life on Earth would be wiped out, I think it >> >could be fetched in reasonably short order. Considerably faster than the >> >1961-1969 timeline for Apollo. If not possible, it would be a political >> >failing, not technological.
>> Keep in mind that several critical bits of Apollo (E.G. the F-1 engine >> and the Saturn family of launchers) were under development well before >> 1961, and that others (the Apollo spacecraft itself, though as a >> general purpose LEO spacecraft) were also well along.
>> The lunar timeline was so short largely because the pieces required >> were already in the pipeline for other purposes.
>A good point, and one I had forgotten. People (well, I did, I think >others do) tend to assume that Apollo design started with Kennedy's >speech.
The first public info about Apollo started coming out around then, as did the first hints of NASA's ambitions to go to the moon (maybe, someday). So part of the confusion may arise from that.
But only a very small part as I'm not aware of any popular or even specialist history that makes the Apollo backstory clear. Most make the confusion even worse by treating the programs in chronological order, thus failing to make clear that Apollo's basic design was frozen while Mercury was still flying and before Gemini was anything more than an unsolicited proposal from McDonnell to NASA for Mercury MKII. (One of the legacies of this is the Apollo 1 fire.)
> On Mar 7, 7:25 am, Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote: > > In article <h406p51bgavad0gf766onpt61h56kjs...@4ax.com>, > > Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:26:38 -0500, Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > >If you believe the stories, it wasn't a scheme, just a mistake, because > > > >the probes were too stupid to send back important details like the fact > > > >that 99.9% of a planet's surface was uninhabitable.
> > > Considering the sorts of things that keep showing up in the Risks > > > List time and time again, I do not find it so unbelieveable. For > > > example, look up the Ariane-5 rocket launch that went boom.
> > I think you misunderstand my objection. I do not object to the idea that > > the probes screwed up. I object to the entire concept of building > > interstellar probes which can only send back a single "yes/no" answer, > > rather than sending back full sensory data and letting people back on > > Earth decide whether the star system in question deserves a colony ship > > or not.
> > -- > > Mike Ash > > Radio Free Earth > > Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
> Would we even need to sends probes out now? With Kepler, DARWIN, > Terrestrial Planet Finder and whatever else is in the pipeline. Could > a large enough space based telescope detect habitiable worlds and weed > on the odd balls? > Just my $0.02
With current technology, that REALLY depends how tolerant you are of an oddball world.
If you're Richard Seaton, you just build a telescope out of fifth- order forces and use it to teleport all useful planets in the galaxy to convenient locations, but you probably use up the mass of the Sun doing it, so no do-over. :-)
I think observers currently are /fantasising/ about detecting oxygen atmosphere on an actual extra-solar planet. That's basic unless you arrive with your own supply of oxygen-making life; it also means there's life there: what if it doesn't like you?
On Mar 3, 2:53 pm, nebu...@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
> One of the newsgroup's perennial conversation topics is the > background material of Larry Niven stories, particularly the Known Space > settings. Working out the less-than-obvious reasons that the background > of the Star Trek universe is despite appearances logically consistent is > also a good bit of work.
Niven wrote one of the Star Trek cartoons. He took a story from his known space series and transplanted it onto a Star Trek cartoon. I think the original story was called "The Soft Weapon." The Star Trek cartoon used Kzinti characters. Chuft captain, Telepath, etc. were introduced with regard to a metamorphic "gun". The Kzinti empire was briefly mentioned in another Star Trek cartoon. A peace-loving scientist (mad of course) mentions all the aggressive species in the universe. The Kzinti are mentioned in the same line as the Klingons. The Kzinti were never again part of a Star Trek story.
> I don't see nearly as much fiddling around with the nooks and > crannies of, say, the Queendom of Sol, or Robert Silverberg's urbmons, > or even the main Future History of Robert Heinlein. So I'm curious what > it is about some settings that make them almost irresistible and others > that leave them highly resistable.
Star Trek was never a hard SF series, unlike Nivens work. I think the original series was worse with regard to being scientific than the later series. In my mind, the original Star Trek series was no more scientifically plausible than Dr. Who. Star Trek made it a good fantasy series, like most space opera. However, sometimes the "science" in a Dr. Who episode is better than the "science" in a Star Trek episode.
> Some of the things which seem like partial explanations to me are > that fresh Niven and original Trek were coming out in reasonable quantity > in people's personal golden ages; that they do seem to contain a wealth > of detail that encourages the belief that more could be provided without > limit (as opposed to, say, Asimov's Trantor, which was pretty much a > courtroom and a news stand, and a vaguely defined diplomatic corps, until > 1988).
I liked "Dragons Egg" and "Star Quake" by Drake. I think the guy was called Drake. At any rate, it described creatures that lived on a surface of a neutron star. I think it would have been more popular except for one thing. One had to be a PhD physicist to understand it. I happen to be a PhD physicist, and enjoyed it immensely. However, I had to refer to advanced textbooks on nuclear theory to follow it. The writer is a nuclear engineer. He really knows his stuff. He also had some very good characterizations of the slug like inhabitants of this world. However, the techno babble was nearly incomprehensible even though it was correct. If one watches Star Trek for a few weeks, one learns all the scientific rules that make up their universe. The Star Trek physics is actually simpler than physics in the universe we live in. However, the world of Dragons Egg is very complex. One would have to know thermodynamics, nuclear physics, and electrodynamics to understand the technology of the primitive inhabitants, let alone the technology of the advanced civilization that develops. I think people who watch space opera are looking for a simple universe, not a complex one. I think this is crucial.
In article <4b994235.117860...@news.supernews.com>, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
> The first public info about Apollo started coming out around then, as > did the first hints of NASA's ambitions to go to the moon (maybe, > someday). So part of the confusion may arise from that.
> But only a very small part as I'm not aware of any popular or even > specialist history that makes the Apollo backstory clear. Most make > the confusion even worse by treating the programs in chronological > order, thus failing to make clear that Apollo's basic design was > frozen while Mercury was still flying and before Gemini was anything > more than an unsolicited proposal from McDonnell to NASA for Mercury > MKII. (One of the legacies of this is the Apollo 1 fire.)
Definitely so. I was vaguely aware (I think...) of Apollo's early development, but just about everything out there presents it (or at least implies it) as being developed in the order that they flew, one after the other.
-- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
> On Mar 7, 7:25 am, Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote: > > In article <h406p51bgavad0gf766onpt61h56kjs...@4ax.com>, > > Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:26:38 -0500, Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > >If you believe the stories, it wasn't a scheme, just a mistake, because > > > >the probes were too stupid to send back important details like the fact > > > >that 99.9% of a planet's surface was uninhabitable.
> > > Considering the sorts of things that keep showing up in the Risks > > > List time and time again, I do not find it so unbelieveable. For > > > example, look up the Ariane-5 rocket launch that went boom.
> > I think you misunderstand my objection. I do not object to the idea that > > the probes screwed up. I object to the entire concept of building > > interstellar probes which can only send back a single "yes/no" answer, > > rather than sending back full sensory data and letting people back on > > Earth decide whether the star system in question deserves a colony ship > > or not.
> Would we even need to sends probes out now? With Kepler, DARWIN, > Terrestrial Planet Finder and whatever else is in the pipeline. Could > a large enough space based telescope detect habitiable worlds and weed > on the odd balls? > Just my $0.02
I think you'd want probes even so, but certainly remote sensing will play a huge part in determining where you send the probes. I think you'd want something close up before you make a decision, but these giant telescopes will give you a great first cut at what looks promising and what doesn't.
I don't fault Niven for not anticipating the huge advances in extra-solar planet finding, though.
-- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Mar 3, 2:53 pm, nebu...@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote: >> One of the newsgroup's perennial conversation topics is the >> background material of Larry Niven stories, particularly the Known Space >> settings. Working out the less-than-obvious reasons that the background >> of the Star Trek universe is despite appearances logically consistent is >> also a good bit of work. > Niven wrote one of the Star Trek cartoons. He took a story from >his known space series and transplanted it onto a Star Trek cartoon. I >think the original story was called "The Soft Weapon." > The Star Trek cartoon used Kzinti characters. Chuft captain, >Telepath, etc. were introduced with regard to a metamorphic "gun". The >Kzinti empire was briefly mentioned in another Star Trek cartoon. A >peace-loving scientist (mad of course) mentions all the aggressive >species in the universe. The Kzinti are mentioned in the same line as >the Klingons. The Kzinti were never again part of a Star Trek story.
The Kzinti play a large part in the (very non canon) game Starfleet Battle, which is set in the Star Trek universe.
> I liked "Dragons Egg" and "Star Quake" by Drake. I think the guy >was called Drake. At any rate, it described creatures that lived on a >surface of a neutron star. > I think it would have been more popular except for one thing. One >had to be a PhD physicist to understand it.
Robert Forward, and no you didn't need to be a PhD physicist to understand it.
> The writer is a nuclear engineer.
Actually, Robert Forward was a physicist,
>He really knows his stuff. He also had some very good characterizations >of the slug like inhabitants of this world. However, the techno babble >was nearly incomprehensible even though it was correct.
Given the near complete lack of technobabble in the novel, this is an amazing claim..
>However, the world of Dragons Egg is very complex. One would have to know >thermodynamics, nuclear physics, and electrodynamics to understand the >technology of the primitive inhabitants, let alone the technology of >the advanced civilization that develops.
Given the inhabitants in their primitive stage have essentially no technology... that again is an amazing claim.
In article <411e756f-a50c-47a0-9a47-8882e988d...@c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> writes:
> I liked "Dragons Egg" and "Star Quake" by Drake. I think the guy >was called Drake.
Robert Forward.
> At any rate, it described creatures that lived on a >surface of a neutron star. > I think it would have been more popular except for one thing. One >had to be a PhD physicist to understand it.
I only have a bachelor's degree (in EE), and had no trouble following it.
> I happen to be a PhD >physicist, and enjoyed it immensely. However, I had to refer to >advanced textbooks on nuclear theory to follow it.
It sounds as if being a PhD physicist detracts from enjoyment of it.
-- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> This message contains at least 95% recycled bytes.
On Mar 10, 8:03 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Read "Dragons Egg" and "Star Quake" by Forward. This is hard SF. One > needs a Phd in physics to follow it.
Bah. One needs a reasonable acquaintance with physics to follow it. Physics which out to be taught to every student in high school, but, of course, isn't...
In article <28939799-35ba-4779-8d8e-53b062f03...@g4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> I think observers currently are /fantasising/ about detecting oxygen > atmosphere on an actual extra-solar planet. That's basic unless you > arrive with your own supply of oxygen-making life; it also means > there's life there: what if it doesn't like you?
Or likes you hugely as a food source.
-- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:34:13 -0500, Mike Ash wrote: >> It's also conceivable that nobody cared. 1% of the planet is actually >> a lot of space.
> That would be reasonable. Plateau (the one with the giant inhabitable > mountain above a sea of unlivable dense atmosphere) seems like a > perfectly fine place to colonize. Not a mistake to send people there at > all.
Isn't the plateau bit of Plateau the size of California?
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:35:26 -0800, Robert Carnegie wrote: > Maybe the payoff is not founding a colony, but having certain people > leave Earth?
Wouldn't it be a lot less trouble just to shoot them? I believe we are talking about a World State here, with a population of billions. Spending many billions of dollars to get rid of troublemakers a few dozen at a time doesn't sound like much of a plan to me, especially when it doesn't do anything about the people who want to stay on Earth to Fix Things.
> In article <411e756f-a50c-47a0-9a47-8882e988d...@c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > I liked "Dragons Egg" and "Star Quake" by Drake. I think the guy > >was called Drake.
> Robert Forward.
> > At any rate, it described creatures that lived on a > >surface of a neutron star. > > I think it would have been more popular except for one thing. One > >had to be a PhD physicist to understand it.
> I only have a bachelor's degree (in EE), and had no trouble following it.
> > I happen to be a PhD > >physicist, and enjoyed it immensely. However, I had to refer to > >advanced textbooks on nuclear theory to follow it.
I am glad to hear it. I liked it alot. Maybe I was being too condescending when I said that people without a PhD couldn't read it. I was posturing at being more knowledgeable than I really am. I will put this in a more positive way: I could not find a single scientific mistake in both books even with a PhD, with reference books available, and with the inclination to look for fault. I also found most of the personal drama compelling. I am waiting for the movie and TV series.
David Cowie wrote: > On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:35:26 -0800, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > Maybe the payoff is not founding a colony, but having certain people > > leave Earth?
> Wouldn't it be a lot less trouble just to shoot them? > I believe we are talking about a World State here, with a population of > billions. Spending many billions of dollars to get rid of troublemakers a > few dozen at a time doesn't sound like much of a plan to me, especially > when it doesn't do anything about the people who want to stay on Earth to > Fix Things.
It's about style.
In /this/ world somebody apparently murdered a Russian complainer in London successfully with what apparently, again, can only be Russian government polonium. The message? Maybe "We have more of this stuff than we really need." I know that medical radioisotope availability is becoming an urgent issue because many nuclear reactors that produce the stuff that's needed, deliberately or as a byproduct, are being closed down.
In article <7vt3e2Fp6...@mid.individual.net>, David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:34:13 -0500, Mike Ash wrote:
> >> It's also conceivable that nobody cared. 1% of the planet is actually > >> a lot of space.
> > That would be reasonable. Plateau (the one with the giant inhabitable > > mountain above a sea of unlivable dense atmosphere) seems like a > > perfectly fine place to colonize. Not a mistake to send people there at > > all.
> Isn't the plateau bit of Plateau the size of California?
Half the size of California, I think. Either way, plenty big.
-- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote: >I still claim that it doesn't make sense. (And I'll keep moving the >goalposts until I win, dammit!)
>Earth is clearly capable of launching interstellar spacecraft which can >stop in the destination system. If they weren't so capable, they >couldn't send colonies!
>Of course, such a thing is much more expensive. But surely it would be >much less expensive to send a probe that could do that than to send a >colony, and thus it would make sense to send such a probe before sending >a colony.
>To make a bad analogy, it would be like taking aerial photographs of a >proposed railroad route, then building the railroad and discovering >that, whoops, there are giant cliffs that didn't show up on the photos. >Sending a ground survey team is expensive, but entirely worthwhile >before you commit.
>Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Niven's Known Space work (up through >Ringworld, anyway) and I like the idea of weird planets that got >colonized halfway by mistake, I just don't find it to be all that >*plausible*.
The three colony planets that we get a look at in enough detail to comprehend (Jinx, WeMadeIt, and whatever contained Mount Lookithat) all thrived. So, these planets were more difficult than expected, but still practical. So who are we to say that the attempt to colonize was wrong?
A failed colony looks like Roanoke, not Jinx. -- Tomorrow is today already. Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
>>Well yes, but sending a probe that doesn't stop is much cheaper. With >>the technology of the time of probe launch if they want to stop they >>have to have enough reaction mass to accelerate the reaction mass to >>stop, whereas the reaction mass to stop equals the reaction mass to >>reach cruising speed for a flyby mission.
>The UN used Bussard ramjets (but I think they had to get to a minimum >velocity wrt the interstellar medium for the ramjets to work).
Right. So you transit the system at ramjet speed. This way you can inspect as many systems as your hardware survival can handle -- fuel is irrelevant after initial launch. -- Tomorrow is today already. Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
|
