Jump to content

tater

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    27,511

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by tater

  1. tater
    I never said the threats were likely, a collision with a large asteroid (large enough to be spherical) would likely be sufficient, but incredibly rare. A "backup" as I define it is difficult enough as to rule out the possibility for a long, long time, but that doesn't make it impossible. I'm not even arguing it's a good rationale, just that it's a legitimate rationale for someone with particularly long-distance foresight . That's the trouble with a useful definition of a backup, it's not 50 Mars One nuts, it requires 10s of thousands of people at the minimum (for genetic diversity) and as I said, complete self-sufficiency. On earth self-sufficiency is easy, it's far harder in space, you need every advanced resource extraction and technology manufacturing capability that exists on earth---with redundancy. Not impossible, just very, very difficult. Our 10th-great grandchildren will likely be having the same conversation. Economics (trade, etc) just makes no sense at all as transport costs would never be lower than just hauling something like an asteroid to orbit.
  2. tater
    So to be a backup it must be around another star, along with the other requirements I mentioned (clearly you need a healthy human breeding population, and they obviously have to be capable of surviving without imports from Earth)? I'd say the other star bit is extraneous for the next long while, though Earth is still at risk from catastrophic events. As I stated very clearly, the technology to actually colonize space sufficient to create a viable backup comes with the capability to divert most threats, which makes the colony sort of redundant regarding that particular rationale ("backup"). That said, the idea of a backup is entirely rational, even if (as I said at the start) it is not going to happen in the foreseeable future, if ever.
  3. tater
    You disagreeing does not make it a fallacy. Read what I described. By definition, a fully self-sufficient human settlement outside of earth is a backup copy of humanity provided the population has sufficient genetic diversity. Nothing else is required to fulfill this. It doesn't need to be a clone of Earth, it just needs the seeds of a new humanity that can actually survive. Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to present a straw man (an actual fallacy). Are you saying that a fully self-sufficient, human colony of sufficient genetic diversity to be a healthy population anywhere outside Earth is NOT a backup of humanity? If so, what is your exact definition of a "backup?"
  4. tater
    Stock-alike? Aircraft parts should look awesome, and in fact futuristic, and should have excellent mass for what they do, and every strength/advantage. Rocket parts should look awful, and be heavier with less capability than any aircraft part remotely similar.
  5. tater
    I agree, but I would argue that a "back up" of humanity on another world (or deep space colony) is a rational reason, even if we agree that it's not remotely a short-term possibility. A true colony would have to have a plausible path to self-sufficiency, which by definition makes it such a "back up" of humanity assuming it reaches that goal of standing entirely alone. Mitigating extinction-level events requires that it be outside the Earth-moon area. That said, I think that terrestrial-based efforts to mitigate those same events are clearly more cost-effective. We need to have the ability to divert threats (we're talking about "planet killer" impacts as the primary fear). I suppose you could make the argument that the capability to do this would be boosted by a truly space-faring society, to give some credit to the "colonial" proponents. Ie: a threat might be detected such that saving Earth might be more possible given launch windows from a colony, vs the Earth.
  6. tater
    I'd take all those tiny bodies off the list, even the Moon is possibly not massive enough for healthy gravity, and replace them with O'Neil colonies of some kind. Step one would be long term habitation studies under various g-loads to ensure that even 1/3 g is enough (Mars). As they say in real estate, location, location, location. If it turns out that Mars gravity is not suitable for long-term habitation, then it's the wrong choice, regardless of other factors it might have in its favor.
  7. tater
    You don't build something, then look for a use. You have a need, then design something to fill that need. Short of a lunar infrastructure that needs an elevator, there is no reason to build one on the moon. The same can be said for every other choice except Earth right now. Having done that, it's an engineering issue, and assuming it is even possible, then a cost-benefit analysis is required. For Earth there are substantial engineering issues, and even if solved, they are costly. Does the need exceed the cost such that an elevator, even assuming it is possible, is the best solution?
  8. tater
    No, the Japanese started the war outside of China entirely for oil. The goal was the NEI. Everything else they did was securing flanks, and hoping to then negotiate some gains away while keeping the NEI. That side is far more clear cut. Oil was everything in the Pacific (both the US embargo (we were 80% of their oil supply) and the growing need for even more oil). I'll grant you that in the ETO it was certainly more complex. Germany required an oil supply, however. The proximal cause was obviously the invasion of Poland, and subsequent declarations by France and Britain, but that merely changed the tempo. Look at North Africa---they were pushing East for the same ultimate reason (get British Egypt, then step off East for oil), and they tried to woo Turkey as well for similar reasons. Maybe this tangent belongs in the lounge? It'd be fun down at the pub, that's for sure
  9. tater
    It's military history, and there's no real politics. I can provide a bibliography if you like, I have many, many books on ww2 history, though I'll admit my area of greatest interest is the PTO/SWPA/CBI (particularly naval and army air forces (on both sides)), I have far fewer on the ETO, though I think my view is not at all controversial. It is, however, somewhat off topic.
  10. tater
    Derek, any perceived distance between your POV and mine regarding SLS/Orion is poor use of language on my part. I agree with you 100% on where the fault lies. NASA is indeed between a rock and a hard place.
  11. tater
    Oil was the sole reason for ww2 in he pacific. The US embargoed oil to Japan, and the IJN felt their strategic needs required a source they controlled. The IJA was content to stay in China, the sole purpose of the invasions in the SW Pacifc were cover for taking the NEI, as was disabling the USN. The German plan was not dissimilar to the WW1 Schlieffen plan. Knock out France, attack Russia. That was the point from the start, and the real goal was Soviet oil. Oil, as the working fluid of industrial societies has a deep history of violence.
  12. tater
    Wind is secondary solar. Primary solar is vastly more sensible.
  13. tater
    Wind is 2.1 watts per m2. World energy growth per year is about 2%. That means just to cover world growth in need, you'd need to entirely cover Bulgaria in wind farms. Every year.
  14. tater
    I'm in complete agreement with you. I'm arguing against SLS. Hence me saying that if NASA wanted/needed XXX MT in LEO, then, and only then would it be useful for them to develop a HLV. I share your view that it's stunning that people don't see this, which is the only reason I talk about payloads first---only build something you need.
  15. tater
    What matters are the morbidity/mortality per unit power produced, including all causes (mining, transport, etc). By this metric, nuclear is very safe, indeed. Coal is incredibly nasty, both from mining deaths, and deaths resulting from pollution. It would not be unfair to lump a percentage of deaths due to conflict over oil into the toll for oil (ww2 was entirely about oil, for example (Germans heading East for Soviet oil, and the Imperial Japanese for the oil in the NEI), but even without those, oil has associated morbidity/mortality associated with extraction and pollution. Chernobyl (a terrible reactor design, run by incompetents) certainly makes nuclear look worse than it actually is. Three Mile Island was basically a non-event, and as bad as Fukushima was, it has killed exactly no one (the 1-2 deaths were during the tsunami itself), and any future deaths will be very few, and basically just a slight increase in cancer risk. I think there were a couple acute radiation exposures, but they haven't died. I find the title odd, though, in stating that political stuff should not be said. Start a thread that is basically political, then disallow politics? Seems like it would be better to simply not start the thread in the first place.
  16. tater
    Nice to hear the moon isn't off the table, but my point stands regarding payloads. They want block II, but they don't have a payload that even needs block I. Payload should be first. Having a "capability" would be fine if it was "piece work" and you'd make one when you needed it. Having to launch once a year to have that capability when you don't need it is goofy. Launching more than once per year if you don't actually need to is insane. ARM is a great example of making a robot mission needlessly expensive by adding "make work" for SLS/Orion. How long would it actually take to develop block II? Meaning should they demonstrate they have an actual need first, since it's merely an evolution of block I?
  17. tater
    Crew: Small payloads: Large payloads should not waste throw weight with non-payload junk (an orbiter vehicle).
  18. tater
    Seemed pretty obvious I was answering the thread question. Next time my space elevator friend comes to NM from WA I'll tell him I said this just to yank his chain . Then I'll pick his brain on space elevator stuff, last time I was just hearing about his work on nanotubes, not the specifics of space elevator concepts.
  19. tater
    Cloud Cuckoo Land?
  20. tater
    My bad, I had always assumed the Michaud Assembly Facility assembled and wasn't fabricating (a horizontal VAB). My principal concern with SLS period is payloads/mission. The current manifested manned missions are busywork, IMO*. New missions to slide into a launch cadence would need to be funded pretty much immediately for launches in the late '20s. *Planetary science can be done better/cheaper by robots, the point of manned should honestly be more about the "human" aspirational aspects of space exploration, IMHO. This belongs more in a payload discussion, but payloads are what should drive SLS, instead of it being the other way around. I think the lunar surface is the obvious short-term choice for SLS/Orion, but the Moon (surface) is seemingly off the table. Orion is pretty much useless without something to dock to (3 weeks is a long time in a tiny room, and for duration missions, we have ISS).
  21. tater
    I'd rather see them actually come up with a detailed manifest of what they should be launching first. Then, if they need 1-2 SLS launches per year, then go ahead. I still think NASA should buy rockets, not build rockets. Set a spec, then take bids.
  22. tater
    Obviously it all comes from Congress, but it is not all earmarked for SLS. The trouble with SLS is that they have to launch it, but they have to come up with payloads, and they cannot launch the earmarked Orion payload every year.
  23. tater
    They should of course cancel it. They cannot afford to have SLS/Orion, it costs them money they don't have for it to even exist on paper, even if most of it is earmarked by Congress. The problem with SLS is that NASA is then forced to spend money on huge, expensive payloads since they have to use the bloody thing once a year. Real people example: I'd wager that most of us would love to get 4 first class airline tickets to a major world city once a year. Would you take the tickets if you were forced as part of the free ticket deal to have to pay for the the very best Suite at the very best hotel in that destination for 2 weeks? Think 10-20,000 a night. The answer is "no" unless some of us here are astoundingly wealthy. That's the reality of SLS for NASA. Even "free," due to extra budget earmarked for it, they cannot afford to create the payloads for it. BTW, the military is not a huge chunk of total government spending (maybe 17% federal, less if you include State), and the non-labor costs are largely to the same companies that make space hardware.
  24. tater
    The paper I have is a general paper about his vision of a lunar mining base. Given the robotic earth movers, grading the strip is not a big deal, it only takes time (as the equipment needs to be there anyway, heck, the flat surface could be the first long strip actually mined.
  25. tater
    The PBS link is great to show my kids, beats me explaining it without animation
×
×
  • Create New...