Blue Origin Thread (merged)

[Streetwind]

18 minutes ago, kunok said:

Yeah but did ever nasa done a refueling operation? An automated one?

There were at least half a dozen dedicated ISS resupply missions using the Space Shuttle, even aside from the multiple dozen ISS assembly flights. There were also several MIR station dockings, the whole Spacelab shebang, at least seven classified DoD missions and god knows what else might have involved such technology. Unfortunately the STS-era happened largely when I wasn't paying attention to spaceflight, so I must admit that I frankly don't know if or how any of those missions transferred what kinds of liquids in space. I can merely assert that I personally consider it highly unlikely that it never happened.

[kunok]

13 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

There were at least half a dozen dedicated ISS resupply missions using the Space Shuttle, even aside from the multiple dozen ISS assembly flights. There were also several MIR station dockings, the whole Spacelab shebang, at least seven classified DoD missions and god knows what else might have involved such technology. Unfortunately the STS-era happened largely when I wasn't paying attention to spaceflight, so I must admit that I frankly don't know if or how any of those missions transferred what kinds of liquids in space. I can merely assert that I personally consider it highly unlikely that it never happened.

Maybe the DoD ones did something but that's not a tech given to SpaceX, as far I know NASA never did a refueling operation, so really it doesn't have the tech, I think you are oversimplifying it, comparing an automated refueling operation with pumping water from the inside of a capsule supervised by people.

[Kryten]

1 hour ago, Streetwind said:

There were at least half a dozen dedicated ISS resupply missions using the Space Shuttle, even aside from the multiple dozen ISS assembly flights. There were also several MIR station dockings, the whole Spacelab shebang, at least seven classified DoD missions and god knows what else might have involved such technology. Unfortunately the STS-era happened largely when I wasn't paying attention to spaceflight, so I must admit that I frankly don't know if or how any of those missions transferred what kinds of liquids in space. I can merely assert that I personally consider it highly unlikely that it never happened.

It never happened. Neither Apollo probe-and-drogue nor the APAS variant used on shuttle had the capability for fuel transfer.

[Streetwind]

Duly noted, thanks.

[tater]

http://spacenews.com/shotwell-says-spacex-homing-in-on-cause-of-falcon-9-pad-explosion/

Quote

“We’re homing in on what happened,” she said. “I think it’s going to point not to a vehicle issue or an engineering design issue but more of a business process issue.”

She didn’t elaborate on what the potential issue or issues the company is examining as a potential cause for the failure, which the company has previously stated is linked to a “large breach” in the helium system in the rocket’s second stage liquid oxygen tank. Speaking Oct. 5 at the Asia-Pacific Satellite Communications Council 2016 conference in Malaysia, Shotwell said it was unlikely there was a design flaw in the bottles used to store helium in the tank, but rather an “operations” issue.

Because it is not a design issue, Shotwell remained confident that the Falcon 9 can resume launches later this year. “Hopefully we’ll recover from this and be back flying a couple times this year,” she said.

 

Dunno what a "business process issue" is, but good to see them making progress.

[Rakaydos]

"operations" issue.

"Buisness process issue"

What DO you call it when the neibor tears up your mailbox?

[tater]

It's not some conspiracy.

[kerbiloid]

Orbital stations regularly get refueled, but with water and hypergolics (i.e. non-cryogenic fluids), and in 2-3 t amounts.

Edited October 11, 2016 by kerbiloid

[Ten Key]

5 hours ago, kunok said:

Yeah but did ever nasa done a refueling operation? An automated one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotic_Refueling_Mission

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, tater said:

http://spacenews.com/shotwell-says-spacex-homing-in-on-cause-of-falcon-9-pad-explosion/

 

Dunno what a "business process issue" is, but good to see them making progress.

My guess is that the tanks are bought from supplier and are weaker than specifications. 

Feeling Spacex uses lowest bidder too much 

[tater]

Yeah, or a failure to self-test what they buy, perhaps.

[tater]

Yeah, that was the only time a LES was ever used for real with a crew, too. 

[Basto]

A business process or operations issue to me does not necessarily imply a material defect. 

[Northstar1989]

On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 1:50 PM, magnemoe said:

Carrying capacity works well for animals. How many sheep can grass this field or how many moose do we want in the forest. it was relevant for humans at least up to civilization. With high capacity and cheap transport its pointless outside an global scale. Cities has always had far more people than its carrying capacity, as an balance farmland has far lower population than its carrying capacity.
Yes popularity density is related to ecology but lots of that is historical and that people don't want to live in wastelands. 

Humans are still animals.  Sophisticated and technologically-advanced animals, perhaps, but we still need to eat, mate, find shelter, and not die of disease.  Carrying Capacity still applies to the human species, and the planet as a whole, as literally any competent ecologist will tell you.  There is a limit to how many humans the Earth can sustain.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Northstar1989

[Northstar1989]

On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 1:54 PM, shynung said:

I think this is something we can engineer to a degree. Genetic engineering can create fast-growing crops and trees, geoengineering can make previously inhospitable areas inhabitable, and various technologies can improve our resource extraction capabilities. In short, we can intensify the processes the we require to get resources enough so that a smaller area can feed a bigger population than it was before.

On the other hand, Mars doesn't have the resources we are used to collect from our surroundings. Contrary to popular belief, Mars has no arable land, nothing to plant crops on. There are no easily accessible water on the surface; one must look for water by drilling a well, which takes time and energy. And more importantly, it doesn't have a breathable atmosphere, nor does it have a planetary magnetic field to protect its inhabitants from space radiation. The atmosphere is also very thin, which means there are little protection from incoming projectiles; falling space rocks are a dime a dozen. Compared to Earth, Mars have little to no Carrying Capacity to speak of; we'd have to build infrastructure to expand it ourselves.

And here's the kicker: anything we invent to give Mars some Carrying Capacity would be usable here. Using technology initially earmarked for colonizing Mars would make the hottest of deserts habitable. Efficient soil-less farming techniques would enable agriculture in even the harshest environments on Earth, opening more areas for settlement. Efficient water extraction, processing, and recycling technologies would help sustain cities that have limited water supplies, and so on.

In short, whatever we do to make living on Mars possible, it would improve our own planet's Carrying Capacity further. And we don't have to haul our carcasses all the way to another planet to get these benefits.

Now, if our goal of shipping people to Mars was to set up an outpost, say, for scientific research, then it starts to make sense. There are some knowledge that we can't acquire by any way other than spending some time living on Mars. This might be something like knowing environment characteristics, accurate data on resource location and richness, and some other things This knowledge may later help us colonize Mars, when we can't stretch Earth's Carrying Capacity any more.

For this purpose, building a space-railroad to Mars is unnecessarily expensive if a simpler, cheaper vehicle can do the job. Only after significant surface presence is established can we justify spending more to develop additional infrastructure to act as space-railroads.

Yes, yes, technology can increase Carrying Capacity up to a certain point.  That's actually one of the fundamental premises of the concept- that technology can increase it, but not raise it without limit...

The thing is, I don't know about you, but I don't want to see this entire planet covered in biodomes and greenhouses (at least what's not covered in solar panels and wind turbines to power it all).

The technologies that allow us to colonize Mars would completely destroy the environment here on Earth if we applied them on a large enough scale.  On Mars, by contrast, there *is* no environment to destroy.  You can only make the planet more hospitable (by providing food and shelter in pressurized habitats), not less.

Additionally, some Mars tech is poorly suited for Earth.  Mars doesn't have weather you really need to worry about.  The harshest dust storms carry a few mm of dust and theforceof a light breeze (The Martian was stupid unrealistic).  There are no tornados, hurricanes, cyclones, tsunamis, flash floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, or hailstorms that could wreck fragile closed habitats.  By contrast to Earth's disasters, the occasional meteorite is small potatoes to deal with...

Additionally, any new development on Earth has to replace some type of pre-existing development.  Cities replace farmland, tourist resorts replace lumber operatioms.  And we've already mapped out most of the easily-found metals on Earth and mine the economical deposits.  By contrast, Mars is a whole planet of unused land and untapped mineral deposits...

So, in order to preserve Earth's environment, and because Earth's biosphere is much more difficult to control to the same degree as Mar's (nonexistant) one, it makes much more sense to colonize Mars than it does to try and support twice as many people back here on Earth...

 

Regards,

Northstar 

Edited October 11, 2016 by Northstar1989

[kunok]

4 hours ago, Ten Key said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotic_Refueling_Mission

That's not exactly what we are looking for, that need an arm to refuel but yeah at least is a start point

[magnemoe]

7 minutes ago, Northstar1989 said:

Humwns are still animals.  Sophisticated and technologically-advanced animals, perhaps, but we still need to eat, mate, find shelter, and not die of disease.  Carrying Capacity still applies to the human species, and the planet as a whole, as literally any competent ecologist will tell you.  There is a limit to how many humans the Earth can sustain.

 

Regards,

Northstar

We are animals obviously, however as you say today its the entire planet, 50 years ago this was not true, 150 years ago famine was not unknown in western Europe, today its mostly restricted to hellhole places. Again its global if the US has an crop failure its not people in the US who go hungry. 
Increasing carrying capacity just cost money and energy, yes it will be bad for biodiversity, ideally we are too many people on Earth, birth predictions is likely to solve this. 
Or as I say people always worry about yesterday problems. I see an danger in that the workforce is reduced far faster than we get AI replacements and that AI is likely to plateau out at an far to low level. Increasing living age might change this but generate its own problems. 

Back to Mars, I would want to cluster bomb it with probes before an human landing, it would void most life on Mars experiments. An colony is unlikely to be independent, only benefit I see is closer to the belt, hover the transfer windows come up rarer than earth, Yes we will teraform it some time, that changes stuff, still getting people off planet will not solve our population problem, its high chance its an very short term thing anyway. 

[tater]

Carrying capacity belongs in another thread. Meanwhile, on Earth, the entire population would fit inside Australia at the population density of Orange County, CA with much room to spare, leaving the entire rest of the planet for farmland/park (not to mention aquaculture). We're no where near Make room! Make room! levels of crowding.

@magnemoe, all modern famines are entirely political. This stuff needs to leave this thread, IMO, though.

Edited October 11, 2016 by tater

[Northstar1989]

26 minutes ago, kunok said:

That's not exactly what we are looking for, that need an arm to refuel but yeah at least is a start point

The arm was just to move things together rather than docking.

The bigger problem is that, like I said ages back on this thread, that mission (which was one of the ones I was thinking of/ referring to) only transfered hypergolic propellanrs such as MMH/NTO.  Not cryogenics like CH4/LOX.

8 minutes ago, tater said:

Carrying capacity belongs in another thread. Meanwhile, on Earth, the entire population would fit inside Australia at the population density of Orange County, CA with much room to spare, leaving the entire rest of the planet for farmland/park (not to mention aquaculture). We're no where near Make room! Make room! levels of crowding.

@magnemoe, all modern famines are entirely political. This stuff needs to leave this thread, IMO, though.

It's not living space that's the issue, it's farmland.  At current average global development levels, it wouldn't matter if you moved the entire world population to Australia like you said (also, never going to happen)- you would *still* have trouble feeding 7 billion people.  In fact, more so, as you'd get food spoilage shipping crops across the globe...  When we get up to 12 or 15 billion, we'll have pretty much hit the Earth's carrying capacity without improved agricultural techniques...

 

Regards

Northstar

Edited October 11, 2016 by Northstar1989

[tater]

Prop transfer ability would need to be actually done for the tech to be mature enough for their plans. There are a few things related to Mars that would make far more sense to test near home first.

[kunok]

2 minutes ago, Northstar1989 said:

The arm was just to move things together rather than docking.

The bigger problem is that, like I said ages back on this thread, that mission (which was one of the ones I was thinking of/ referring to) only transfered hypergolic propellanrs such as MMH/NTO.  Not cryogenics like CH4/LOX.

 

Regards,

Northstar 

Hey, don't tell that to me, I don't think SpaceX isn't near anything close to the tech need to make this mars mission. Time will say.

[tater]

If the world's farming was all as efficient as it is in the first world, there would be far fewer issues. Long before carrying capacity is an issue, people will start croaking en masse because of the end of effective antibiotics, anyway.

[Northstar1989]

1 minute ago, tater said:

Prop transfer ability would need to be actually done for the tech to be mature enough for their plans. There are a few things related to Mars that would make far more sense to test near home first.

Exactly.  But it hasn't been done before yet.  Which is why I think Musk's whole ITS plan is a little risky and he should focus on developing refueling technology first...

[tater]

Yeah, I have no idea what they would do to test. I suppose you could send a small-scale test up in a couple Dragons. Then just pump cryos back and forth on orbit for a long time, and at least see what the failure modes look like.

Edited October 11, 2016 by tater

[Northstar1989]

34 minutes ago, tater said:

If the world's farming was all as efficient as it is in the first world, there would be far fewer issues. Long before carrying capacity is an issue, people will start croaking en masse because of the end of effective antibiotics, anyway.

There won't be an "end of effective antibiotics" if we're smart and make the needed investments now.  You're talking to the wrong person to try such scare-tactics/hype on (I'm a biologist with some background in microbial studies, and exposure to both veterinary and human medicine circles where solutions to such issues were actively discussed.)

The major reasons that this is currently a problem are:

(1)  Doctors prescribe antibiotics like candy, even to diseases they KNOW are viral (pharma company "gifts" might be related to this in some cases, shutting up whiny mothers is in others).

(2)  People don't take their entire course of antibiotics to completion (they stupidly try to "save" some for if they get sick again), leading to the survival and spread of resistant strains.

(3)  Doctors only prescribe one antibiotic at a time in most cases.  They SHOULD be prescrbing cocktails containing a half-dozen antibiotics or more, so that if a bacteria survives one antibiotic, it is killed by another before it lives to spread its resistant genes.

(4) Farm-factories routinely make prophylactic use of antibiotics in crowded animal living sutuations, at low doses.  This leads to the rapid development and spread of progressively more resistant strains.

 

All of these issues can be solved.  And bacteria with antibiotic-resistance genes lose them over time and generations (many bacteria reproduce as often as once a minute- so a single day can represent literally thousands of generations for natural selection to do its work) in the absence of antibiotic exposure, as there is a fitness penalty to carrying around useless genes in bacteria... (bacteria face heavy selection pressure to develop and maintain small/minimal genomes, as they can be more quickly replicated, and require fewer nucleotides to replicate...)

If we take needed precautions and invest in the development of new antibiotics while the prevalence of resistance to older types declines as they fall out of use (we will eventually need to cycle back to them), and are careful to control the spread of multi-resistant strains, then the end of effective antibiotics shouldn't be an issue.

Farming enough food to supply an ever-growing global population will ALWAYS be an issue, by contrast- and eventually famine and food shortages will prevent further population-growth.   Not before famines lead to global economic collapse, though- and colonizing Mars no longer is an option...

Far better to colonize Mars and eventually the rest of the solar systen than to try and see how far we can stretch Earth's biosphere and agricultural capabilities before population pressures lead to a collapse of one or the other...

Edited October 11, 2016 by Northstar1989