Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #21

    Apr 17, 2010, 12:53 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    They go to the moon with stolen and /or technology obtained through shady methods. There is absolutely nothing innovative in what the Chinese will do.
    Well maybe, but they must be doing something right because they have a vibrant economy and you don't. You can suggest they stole the technology but in reality you gave it to them along with your industries.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #22

    Apr 17, 2010, 12:57 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello:

    Well, if I didn't know better, I'd say there's a bunch of right wingers on this thread who think government is pretty good and want spend some of your tax dollars on it.

    Sure sounds that way to me. But, what do I know?

    excon
    Yes it's strange what government programs are good and what are bad. Spend tax dollars on more military technology that isn't worth it and that's OK but save a life and that's bad. NASA needs new blood, its thinking is out of date and if you read between the lines that is what BO said, How do you change the guard painlessly, you pull the plug on their pet programs. Suddenly this old thinking finds a home in the private sector
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #23

    Apr 17, 2010, 03:11 AM

    Ex ,investment in science is a traditional acceptable role of government . You mischaracterize us by stating we don't think there is any role for government .

    There is also of course a national security component in space exploration.

    Clete ,the Chinese economy is a Potamkin village ballon waiting for the mother of all ballon burts .

    Much of the American technology they have was given to them for campaign funds by the Clintonoids .But much was also stolen by outright espionage,intellectual property rights violations ,and patent violation.
    There economy exists because of currency manipulation ,trade pact violation that creates trade imbalances suppression of freedom in their country that stifles consumerism and allows them to be a one sided export giant. They horde the money from foreign purchases rather than letting it be used for the purchase of imports their consumers want.

    Right now they have created a massive real estate bubble to "make work " because consumer demand world wide has slowed during the economic downturn. But there is no occupancy for their real estate development .
    Remember that massive Olympics construction that was done ? The whole thing is ready for bulldozing because it is unused .

    Back to NASA.

    The President did sort of promise to continue to fund research on heavy lift rocketry (you can't make it to an asteroid otherwise) ;but he kicked the can down the road and said that he would commit to a decision to which heavy lift plan to build in 2015 .(Well into the next President's 1st term).This could be the emptiest of his many empty promises .
    Catsmine's Avatar
    Catsmine Posts: 3,826, Reputation: 739
    Pest Control Expert
     
    #24

    Apr 17, 2010, 03:31 AM
    I do believe that more of our problems on this ball of dirt can be solved by getting industry out where energy is perpetually free and raw materials are waiting to be mined and pollution is impossible than by "exploring inner space," whether that means oceanography or psychology.

    Science fiction? Just like portable computers and television and microwave cooking and the internet, it certainly is.

    The question here is who's going to fund it. I'd rather see GE or US Steel going into orbit than NASA or the People's Army.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #25

    Apr 17, 2010, 03:40 AM

    Cats ,even when NASA was the lead agency in lunar exploration the agency was purchasing their technology from private industry. There is room for both a government role in research and scientific exploration as well as a private sector role .
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #26

    Apr 17, 2010, 06:31 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Ex ,investment in science is a traditional acceptable role of government . You mischaracterize us by stating we don't think there is any role for government .

    There is also of course a national security component in space exploration.

    Clete ,the Chinese economy is a Potamkin village ballon waiting for the mother of all ballon burts .

    Much of the American technology they have was given to them for campaign funds by the Clintonoids .But much was also stolen by outright espionage,intellectual property rights violations ,and patent violation.
    There economy exists because of currency manipulation ,trade pact violation tht creates trade imbalances suppression of freedom in their country that stifles consumerism and allows them to be a one sided export giant. They horde the money from foreign purchases rather than letting it be used for the purchase of imports their consumers want.

    Right now they have created a massive real estate bubble to "make work " because consumer demand world wide has slowed during the economic downturn. But there is no occupancy for their real estate development .
    Remember that massive Olympics construction that was done ? The whole thing is ready for bulldozing because it is unused .

    Back to NASA.

    The President did sorta promise to continue to fund research on heavy lift rocketry (you can't make it to an asteroid otherwise) ;but he kicked the can down the road and said that he would commit to a decision to which heavy lift plan to build in 2015 .(Well into the next President's 1st term).This could be the emptiest of his many empty promises .
    Tom I get the idea you have never been to China, the real estate bubble is fueled by so many people suddenly experiencing prosperity, suddenly eveyone wants to get beyond a one room house and who can blame them, sure they are offered soviet style apartment blocks in new towns but it seems good to them, wide streets, town planning, super highways, massive bridges, shopping malls, it's the communist way, I wonder where else we have seen this phenominon.

    As far as NASA is concerned, all you guys are talking about is national pride. You can't be all things to all people and the GFC demonstrated that. NASA has been going nowhere for at least twenty years, if they were serious they should have had a manned mission to Mars by now, but all they have had is the shuttle program which is really a subsititute for doing nothing, forty year old space craft and nothing to show for it. What they have in fact demonstrated is the futility of a space program when you have neither the finances or the technology
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #27

    Apr 17, 2010, 06:42 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Catsmine View Post
    I do believe that more of our problems on this ball of dirt can be solved by getting industry out where energy is perpetually free and raw materials are waiting to be mined and pollution is impossible than by "exploring inner space," whether that means oceanography or psychology.

    Science fiction? Just like portable computers and television and microwave cooking and the internet, it certainly is.

    The question here is who's going to fund it. I'd rather see GE or US Steel going into orbit than NASA or the People's Army.
    What inner space means is solving the immediate problems we have right here. Climate change, carbon fuel dependence, food security, endemic poverty, endemic warfare.

    Energy might be free out there but it is only if the technology has relevance right here that it will be developed. What is so hard about understanding that someone has to pay for the dream? Forget about mining minerals out there anytime soon, the costs of refining and shipment are prohibitive. The Moon might actually be made of a reactive material but how do you get it back here without a major calamity, It might as well be made of blue cheese for all the good it is to us and Mars might be made of aluminium or iron but what good is it to us? We can be like the Man of La Mancha and dream the impossible dream but one day we need to wake up and see that this is the space ship we have and we need to look after it. Now if we had a program focused on mining Moon rocks and generating energy here on Earth from them it would be both useful and fundable by private enterprose, they would be lining up, but what has NASA been doing, looking for our origins. No money in it but they have been doing it, so much for yankee ingenuity
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #28

    Apr 17, 2010, 07:33 AM

    Clete ;then the China housing bubble won't burst. But George Soros is betting it will. I don't have to visit the realize that when you continue to build when there is a 30% vacancy rate then something is terribly wrong .
    Catsmine's Avatar
    Catsmine Posts: 3,826, Reputation: 739
    Pest Control Expert
     
    #29

    Apr 17, 2010, 07:34 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    What inner space means is solving the immediate problems we have right here. Climate change, carbon fuel dependence, food security, endemic poverty, endemic warfare.

    Energy might be free out there but it is only if the technology has relevance right here that it will be developed. What is so hard about understanding that someone has to pay for the dream? forget about mining minerals out there anytime soon, the costs of refining and shipment are prohibitive. The Moon might actually be made of a reactive material but how do you get it back here without a major calamity, It might as well be made of blue cheese for all the good it is to us and Mars might be made of aluminium or iron but what good is it to us? We can be like the Man of La Mancha and dream the impossible dream but one day we need to wake up and see that this is the space ship we have and we need to look after it. Now if we had a program focused on mining Moon rocks and generating energy here on Earth from them it would be both useful and fundable by private enterprose, they would be lining up, but what has NASA been doing, looking for our origins. No money in it but they have been doing it, so much for yankee ingenuity
    How do you get it back? Been doing that for decades. Put your manufactured goods on a plane and land in the Outback, the Gobi, or the Mojave. Assemble the cars or washing machines and you're golden.

    Solve your carbon fuel dependence? Stop using 45% of it to manufacture goods and improve the efficiency of photovoltaic cells so you can make goods cheaper and carbon fuels will become too expensive for your SUV.

    Global Warming will be solved in about eight more years regardless of anything humans do. The wheel turns, and has for eons.

    Food security would be assured if ADM were allowed to go into orbit. We've had the technology to build orbital farms for 30 years. NASA's monopoloy on US space travel has left us dependent on politicians for funding for way too long.

    Endemic poverty will not be solved. Somebody said "The poor are always with us." (Matthew 26:11)

    War won't end until Religion ends. Funding Chemical Boosters or Magnetic Rail guns might detract from the amount of war material available.
    cdad's Avatar
    cdad Posts: 12,700, Reputation: 1438
    Internet Research Expert
     
    #30

    Apr 17, 2010, 10:36 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Tom I get the idea you have never been to China, the real estate bubble is fueled by so many people suddenly experiencing prosperity, suddenly eveyone wants to get beyond a one room house and who can blame them, sure they are offered soviet style apartment blocks in new towns but it seems good to them, wide streets, town planning, super highways, massive bridges, shopping malls, it's the communist way, I wonder where else we have seen this phenominon.

    As far as NASA is concerned, all you guys are talking about is national pride. You can't be all things to all people and the GFC demonstrated that. NASA has been going nowhere for at least twenty years, if they were serious they should have had a manned mission to Mars by now, but all they have had is the shuttle program which is really a subsititute for doing nothing, forty year old space craft and nothing to show for it. What they have in fact demonstrated is the futility of a space program when you have neither the finances or the technology

    I don't know where your getting your NASA information from but they have been far from a stagnent in their ventures. This is just a short list of contributions.

    Ref:
    http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/pdf/Shuttle_spinoffs.pdf


    Is it in part national pride? I would hope so but the current administration doesn't seem to think so. NASA has been an important feature that goes well beyond the boarders of the U.S.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #31

    Apr 17, 2010, 04:05 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Catsmine View Post
    How do you get it back? Been doing that for decades. Put your manufactured goods on a plane and land in the Outback, the Gobi, or the Mojave. Assemble the cars or washing machines and you're golden..
    Cats there is a vast difference between transporting minerals on Earth and doing so in space and delivering them back to Earth. We haven't solved the problem of lifting large vehicles off Earth yet, or crossing the vast distances quickly, let alone delivering a heavy load back to Earth without it burning up. I would like to think it is as simple as flying it down but apparently it isn't
    Quote Originally Posted by Catsmine View Post
    Solve your carbon fuel dependance? Stop using 45% of it to manufacture goods and improve the efficiency of photovoltaic cells so you can make goods cheaper and carbon fuels will become too expensive for your SUV..
    So your solution is to remove the basis of economic activity in order to solve the need for fuel and to replace existing fuels with the most expensive subsititute. Do you have any idea of the environmental cost of refining silicon? How about obsoleting the SUV? Finding ways to remove the need for all the mad running back and forth we do

    Quote Originally Posted by Catsmine View Post
    Global Warming will be solved in about eight more years regardless of anything humans do. The wheel turns, and has for eons..
    Yes you may be right, it is a cycle, but there may be other issues, such as fresh water, ice, on the other hand we may not be here in eight years

    Quote Originally Posted by Catsmine View Post
    Food security would be assured if ADM were allowed to go into orbit. We've had the technology to build orbital farms for 30 years. NASA's monopoloy on US space travel has left us dependant on politicians for funding for way too long..
    Not sure what ADM refers to. Is this a corporate? Back to my earlier comment such solutions rely on solving the little problem of how to get it up there and how to get it back. Politicians want us to be dependent on them, that is unlikely to change

    Quote Originally Posted by Catsmine View Post
    Endemic poverty will not be solved. Somebody said "The poor are always with us." (Matthew 26:11).
    So if they are always with us let's forget them and get on with it, not a great solution and so we will continue to have mass migrations, famines, wasted resources

    Quote Originally Posted by Catsmine View Post
    War won't end until Religion ends. Funding Chemical Boosters or Magnetic Rail guns might detract from the amount of war material available.
    Religion won't end anytime soon, and not all war has a religious base, some of it has to do with poor allocation of resources, or scarse minerals
    Catsmine's Avatar
    Catsmine Posts: 3,826, Reputation: 739
    Pest Control Expert
     
    #32

    Apr 17, 2010, 04:29 PM
    Cats there is a vast difference between transporting minerals on Earth and doing so in space and delivering them back to Earth.
    Build the Factories up there where the materials and energy are. Only the finished goods come down.

    I would like to think it is as simple as flying it down but apparently it isn't
    It actually is just that simple.

    So your solution is to remove the basis of economic activity
    Not remove, just move.

    Not sure what ADM refers to
    Archer Daniels Midland = Agribusiness.

    Again, getting it going requires still further investment in both time and money, which is why getting shuttle/taxi services into profit making hands now is a good idea. Spy satellites and weaponry and other classified payloads can then pay for space exploitation instead of space exploration paying for them.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #33

    Apr 17, 2010, 07:23 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Catsmine View Post
    Build the Factories up there where the materials and energy are. Only the finished goods come down..
    I agree but
    1, no viable world has yet been discovered
    2, huge ships are required, we haven't got beyond a small plane at this stage 3. space is a hostile environment, prolonged weightlessness causes serious health problems and we don't have the technology for robotics on this scale. So all this is science fiction not science fact

    .
    It actually is just that simple..
    see above

    .
    Archer Daniels Midland = Agribusiness..
    I thought that is what you meant, well BO has just thrown the door open so let them make the investment, all of it including transportation systems
    Catsmine's Avatar
    Catsmine Posts: 3,826, Reputation: 739
    Pest Control Expert
     
    #34

    Apr 18, 2010, 03:17 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    I agree but
    1, no viable world has yet been discovered
    2, huge ships are required, we haven't got beyond a small plane at this stage 3. space is a hostile environment, prolonged weightlessness causes serious health problems and we don't have the technology for robotics on this scale. So all this is science fiction not science fact
    Luna has sufficient gravity to avoid health problems. We need to be there permanently. Bring in a piece of ice from an orbiting comet and you've got water, fuel, and air.

    Ships aren't required for anything but up and down. Everything else can be done with tugs.

    The Outback is a hostile environment. Siberia is a hostile environment. Sealab is set in a hostile environment.

    The technology is available. The research has been done. All it will take now is getting the funding away from Luddite vote-buying politicians or permitting private enterprise to stay private.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #35

    Apr 18, 2010, 03:48 AM

    Bring in a piece of ice from an orbiting comet and you've got water, fuel, and air.
    There is sufficient water on the moon to begin colonization already ;at least enough to support a base camp for further exploration . Gravity on the moon and Mars is sufficient to avoid the health concerns of weightlessness ;and advances have been made in that area with astronauts living in weghtless conditions for extended periods on ISS and MIR .

    Construction of an explorer vehicle can be done in space .But what is still needed is heavy lift cargo rockets to get the components there . That is why the President's defunding of the Ares booster ,which would be capable of lifting 55,000 lbs to low earth orbit is short sighted .
    Catsmine's Avatar
    Catsmine Posts: 3,826, Reputation: 739
    Pest Control Expert
     
    #36

    Apr 18, 2010, 03:51 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    There is sufficient water on the moon to begin colonization already ;at least enough to support a base camp for further exploration .
    I was thinking more of methane to be used for fuel. Much simpler than cracking water.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #37

    Apr 18, 2010, 04:42 AM

    Good call .I had forgotten that NASA once considered the possibility of methane booster propellent and dropped the concept . This was a policy mistake they should reconsider .

    But the methane boosters is still not fully developed and is conceptual whereas we know how to make hydrogen rockets .

    I was thinking in the now ,because if it were me ;I'd give a Kennedy like hard deadline for a lunar colony .At a minimum we should establish a goal to beat the Chinese and India .

    Of course to press on to Mars and maybe even Titan (where abundance methane ,nitrogen and water is available).. new technology has to be invented .Mars has plenty of methane ,so perhaps a flex booster system is the future.
    Catsmine's Avatar
    Catsmine Posts: 3,826, Reputation: 739
    Pest Control Expert
     
    #38

    Apr 18, 2010, 05:02 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    I was thinking in the now ,because if it were me ;I'd give a Kennedy like hard deadline for a lunar colony .At a minimum we should establish a goal to beat the Chinese and India .
    To quote an author (Heinlein) - "It's raining soup" We need to build a bucket.
    cdad's Avatar
    cdad Posts: 12,700, Reputation: 1438
    Internet Research Expert
     
    #39

    Apr 18, 2010, 05:14 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    good call .I had forgotten that NASA once considered the possibility of methane booster propellent and dropped the concept . This was a policy mistake they should reconsider .

    But the methane boosters is still not fully developed and is conceptual whereas we know how to make hydrogen rockets .

    I was thinking in the now ,because if it were me ;I'd give a Kennedy like hard deadline for a lunar colony .At a minimum we should establish a goal to beat the Chinese and India .

    Of course to press on to Mars and maybe even Titan (where abundance methane ,nitrogen and water is available)..new technology has to be invented .Mars has plenty of methane ,so perhaps a flex booster system is the future.
    Nasa already had one on the books for 2018. That was the starting point of a colony on the moon. The jumping off point was to take advantage of the lunar cycle and land in the south near the pole where the sun is in plenty and use inflatable rooms covered in Kevlar for protection. Also compounds on the surface can be reprocessed for radiation protection. Once everything was going and in place private enterprise can take over from there. On the moon there is plenty of realestate for solar farms that are unavailable from here on earth. One of the first export products can be electricity.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #40

    Apr 18, 2010, 06:10 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Catsmine View Post
    Luna has sufficient gravity to avoid health problems. We need to be there permanently. Bring in a piece of ice from an orbiting comet and you've got water, fuel, and air.

    Ships aren't required for anything but up and down. Everything else can be done with tugs.

    The Outback is a hostile environment. Siberia is a hostile environment. Sealab is set in a hostile environment.

    The technology is available. The research has been done. All it will take now is getting the funding away from Luddite vote-buying politicians or permitting private enterprise to stay private.
    I think you are forgetting that neither Luna or Mars has a viable atmosphere so as a hostile environment it is in a different league, Ships are required to preserve life during the trip and provide an habitable environment until a base is created. Whether they are self propelled, projectile, or tugged is incidential. You are talking about a level of sophistication we won't achieve in the next century if we continue at the pace of the last fifty years.

    There is only one way to get the funding and that is create jobs in constituencies and realisticly there aren't enough to go around so there will always be competing alternatives. It isn't like an auto plant, it is specialist work. You have to solve other major issues before space will enjoy sufficient focus and will to get the funding. Industries "up there" don't benefit the folks back home much. I think BO has spelled it out, there are more important things to do right now. What we could do when we had 4,000,000,000 people becomes much more difficult when we have 7,000,000,000 or 9,000,000,000

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

No More Missions for GTA San Andreas [ 17 Answers ]

My BF has been playing GTA San Andreas and has done all missions in Los Santos and has moved to the missions in San Fierro... he has completed all missions in San Fierro except for the one's for Zero. He's completed all the missions needed for the landing strip.. this gave him access to Los...

Raising funds for a missions trip? [ 1 Answers ]

Hello. I'm planning on going to Europe for a missions trip through my church, but I need to raise the money for my flight, lodging, and meals. I'm looking for any suggestions on what the best way to do this might be. Also, is there anything I need to be aware of? Anything I need to do a...

Work For Missions But Keep Job [ 5 Answers ]

Do you have any ideas of how I can help out with missions type work while I still work my "regular" job? I have a regular job that I have no intentions of quitting but I would love to start helping do something to help kids around the world. Any ideas?

Gta san andreas no missions [ 1 Answers ]

hi I'm playing gta san andreas & there is no new mission poping up after z missions what should I do help kinng.

Word Use: Mission vs. Missions [ 3 Answers ]

Please help me- I'm surrounded by people who say, "I'm going on a missions trip", and I believe that it's grammatically incorrect. I'm just not sure how to explain why it's wrong. Isn't the word "missions" the plural form of the word "mission". Anything you could give me would be greatly...


View more questions Search