As I wrote the other day, what a mess:
Even Nelson, who described Obama’s speech at KSC as “visionary,” has advocated continued Ares rocket testing because it could mean a few hundred jobs at the center, which is set to lose as many as 9,000 workers once the shuttle completes its final three missions.
Much of the gridlock over Obama’s plan can be traced back to one sentence inserted by Shelby into a spending bill last year that bars NASA from canceling Constellation programs this year without congressional approval. Not only has that sentence prevented NASA from quickly switching to Obama’s new plan, but it also has given Congress time to kill his proposal and save Constellation.
Indeed, the tactic has proven so effective that lawmakers loyal to Constellation are considering a similar move in upcoming spending bills. That possibility has bureaucrats on both sides of the issue combing through thick pages of appropriations measures to ensure that the other doesn’t gain ground.
With such scrutiny, the issue may not be decided until Congress ultimately approves its 2011 budget — which may not happen until the winter holiday season.
OK, someone explain to me why, if the government is operating on a continuing resolution into the winter, and the Republicans have taken over one or both houses, and will be in power in January, why they wouldn’t simply filibuster any “Mad Duck” attempt to ram through an appropriations bill in December, and then do a new one in February?
Kelly,
Faith in breakthroughs in propulsion is good, but its nothing but a Solar System version of CATS. Technology advances are driven by demand pull not push funding. That is why the Greeks never exploited the discoveries they made in steam and hydraulics, there was no demand for them beyond tricks for the temple priests.
Starships and FTL craft will come someday. But until then you still need to expand the resource base of humanity to include the Solar System if you wish to avoid old Dr. Malthus’ limit coming up to smack down humanity down with resource wars and for now the industrialization of the Moon and then the building of Asimov Habitats is the only technically feasible path.
Economics is another issue, but that requires more knowledge then we have at present of the Moon and Solar System. That is why NASA should be doing, instead of its focus on searching for ET.
Also unlike the Utopian communities Asimov Habitats will not be isolated in terms of communication and people will be free to leave as transportation permits. Also they won’t be driven by ideology like Utopian communities are, but by economics and profit.
> Faith in breakthroughs in propulsion is good, ===
Not faith, but historic norms for centuries, — and reading where physicists expect to be going over the next century.
>== Technology advances are driven by demand pull not push funding. ==
Not generally. There certainly was no demand for PCs, nuclear power, fiber optics – pulling the technologies that enabled them. On the other hand you right that the products won’t be fielded without a damand. No CATS without a demand for frequent launches etc.
>== you still need to expand the resource base of humanity to include
> the Solar System if you wish to avoid old Dr. Malthus’ limit coming
> up to smack down humanity down with resource wars ==
The Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus (not Dr) was completely wrong, and confidently predicted what history never delivered. Rather the opposite of what he expected happened. Resources from food to metals etc have gotten cheaper and more plentiful generation after generation for centuries.
Really though that irrelevant to my point. For whatever reason you want the resources of the solar system or beyond — you’re going to want to recover them as cheaply and comfortably as you can. Fielding self sufficent cities where you only need the equivalent of a oil rig — doesn’t seem to fit eiather.
And of course with our declining populations (no developed nation is having enough kids to maintain, much less grow, their populations), labor might be a resource you want to conserve.
>== and for now the industrialization of the Moon and then the building
> of Asimov Habitats is the only technically feasible path.
#1 Says who and how does that lead to floating cities vers floating mining camps?
#2 Were not talking about “for now” Were talking about generations in the future — to possibly centuies if you want to consider that far?
> Economics is another issue, but that requires more knowledge
> then we have at present of the Moon and Solar System. That is
> why NASA should be doing, instead of its focus on searching for ET.
If by ET you mean life on Mars or something, NASA doing very little toward that. If you mean SETI they arn’t doing anything.
As to resources of the solar system, We’ve identified resources laughably beyond any conceivable necessity for tens of thousands of years, assuming we could raise our population growth rate up to the highest levels in human history. — so the details don’t seem that that pressing before we can find a way to competativly deliver the stuff to a market.
>== lso unlike the Utopian communities Asimov Habitats will not be
> isolated in terms of communication and people will be free to leave
> as transportation permits. Also they won’t be driven by ideology
> like Utopian communities are, but by economics and profit.
Then your pressing for completly self sufficent colony platforms seems completly contradictory to that desire.
Kelly,
[[[The Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus (not Dr) was completely wrong, and confidently predicted what history never delivered.]]]
Actually Prof. Malthus was correct, as Dr. Angus Maddison pointed out in his research on the global economy over the last 2000 years “The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective”. The relationship Prof. Malthus stated between resources and human population held until firm until 1820. It wasn’t until the extensive use of fossil fuel starting with coal that humans were able to break through the Malthusian barrier and move to a higher level of population. The existence of humanity at the higher level of energy is dependent on continued energy inflows into the system, either from fossil fuels, nuclear power, SBSP, etc.
Many environmentalists are shocked when I tell them the main problem with biofuels like corn ethanol is that they increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil. For every gallon of bioethanol made from corn its take almost two gallons of oil to grow it and process it, both for the machinery used as well as all the petrochemicals needed for fertilizer, herbicides and insecticides. That is why food has keep up with population, the extensive use of fossil fuel as a multiplier of productivity.
Just as the real estate bubble was dependent on cheap and easy credit markets so is the current population “bubble” dependent on abundant energy. That is why space resources are so critical since space is full of energy resources that may be either imported directly (SBSP) or indirectly (manufactured goods and raw materials) to Earth.
[[[reading where physicists expect to be going over the next century.]]]
Yes, physicists are always predicting more breakthroughs like fusion power. But in business you deal with what you have not, not potential technology a century or two away. I am still waiting for my jet belt to commute to work with… Nuclear energy too cheap to meter… And my atomic powered flying car….
[[[>== lso unlike the Utopian communities Asimov Habitats will not be
> isolated in terms of communication and people will be free to leave
> as transportation permits. Also they won’t be driven by ideology
> like Utopian communities are, but by economics and profit.
Then your pressing for completly self sufficent colony platforms seems completly contradictory to that desire.]]]
You seem to be confused on what a self-sufficient space settlement is. It does not mean the people are prisoners in some kind of utopia, merely that it is capable of using energy inputs to produce the basic requirements, (Food, Water, Air,…) to sustain the population the settlement is designed for. It doesn’t mean its a closed system to ideas, communication or population exchange, as Utopian communities are. Merely that it’s doesn’t require inputs beyond energy to support its population indefinitely. You may import all the goods you wish as long as you are able to afford the shipping and to pay for them, and they will survive the months it may take to reach you.
And no, that is why beyond Cislunar space it will not be like an oil rig.
Oil rigs are only a few hours from shore so you don’t need to bring a family along. Even with miracle rockets that travel much faster then current ones you will still have Asimov Habitats that are weeks and even several months away. Even VASIMIR, will take 8 weeks to reach Mars and months more to go further…
And with the cost of transportation it will just be cheaper to build the habitats in Cislunar space and let them transport themselves out to the resource site, just as oil rigs are built in a few specialize places and shipped to distant locations.
>Thomas Matula Says:
>May 16th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
> Actually Prof. Malthus ==
Still predominantly addresses as Reverend
>==was correct, == The relationship Prof. Malthus stated between resources and human
> population held until firm until 1820. ==
Given that was only a few years after he was publishing – that doesn’t speak to well for his theory.
>== It wasn’t until the extensive use of fossil fuel starting with coal that
> humans were able to break through the Malthusian barrier and move
> to a higher level of population. ==
Debatable- but way off topic considering were talking about century or more in the future bot the past.
>== The existence of humanity at the higher level of energy is dependent on continued energy inflows into the system, either from fossil fuels, nuclear power, SBSP, etc.
>==That is why food has keep up with population, ==
Actually global food production per person has been growing since civil war era.
>== the extensive use of fossil fuel as a multiplier of productivity.
Its actually one of several multiplies. From crop rotation, better harvesters and planters, better crop and animal stocks to farm, etc..
>== That is why space resources are so critical since space is full of energy
> resources that may be either imported directly (SBSP) or indirectly
> (manufactured goods and raw materials) to Earth.
Yet non of them appear likely to be competitive with Earths own sources?
>> [[[reading where physicists expect to be going over the next century.]]]
> Yes, physicists are always predicting more breakthroughs like fusion
> power. But in business you deal with what you have not, not potential
> technology a century or two away.
Except your talking about a century or two away, so you can’t base it on technology you have now because it will be completely obsolete.
> I am still waiting for my jet belt to commute to work with…
They were built – didn’t sell. Hate to see the mid air accident during commuting.
😉
> Nuclear energy too cheap to meter… And my atomic powered flying car….
Neiather were serious
[[[>== l so unlike the Utopian communities Asimov Habitats will not be
>>> isolated in terms of communication and people will be free to leave
>>> as transportation permits. Also they won’t be driven by ideology
>>> like Utopian communities are, but by economics and profit.
>> Then your pressing for completely self sufficient colony platforms
>> seems completely contradictory to that desire.]]]
>== merely that it is capable of using energy inputs to produce the basic
> requirements, (Food, Water, Air,…) to sustain the population the
> settlement is designed for.
You actually described it as more completely self sufficient then that – but even that is uneconomical. I mean recycling your water is probably worth doing and pretty simple. Airs a good idea. Probably not worth recycling food – certainly not all food. The point is to trade with Earth or someone – non to be completely autonomous. They are there to make money.
>== Merely that it’s doesn’t require inputs beyond energy to support its population indefinitely.
Hers where you fall down. Without trade and supplies (spare parts, etc) it won’t be able to function indefinitely – and they would be far to small to have all the skills necessary to be full self repairing and maintaining – and it would be highly uneconomical to do so.
Also you seem to be overlooking that this concept is completely dependant on very low cost transport between itself and its markets?
>= and they will survive the months it may take to reach you.
Again – if it takes months (and that means outer gas giants) why move it to there rather then closer it? What is uniquely valuable enough out there, as apposed to in the belt or something.
You might want to look at “From SSTO to Saturn’s Moons” by Bussard
> And no, that is why beyond Cislunar space it will not be like an oil rig.
> Oil rigs are only a few hours from shore so you don’t need to
> bring a family along.
Oil rigs aren’t always a few hours away from the riggers homes, and often crews on distent rigs, fishermen, etc do spend months away from home. Given near term when you’ld consider these, your talking weeks to get to the belt, that would allow crew rotation, rather then permanent settlement at the camps, to be the preferred option. It does allow you to operate with a much smaller lighter platform, etc.
Longer term (2100ad+) you have to assume some extensions in physics, and normal trends in cheaper energy – or physics tricks like inertia controlor something, could make trips even out to the Oort cloud far far quicker.
> Even with miracle rockets that travel much faster then current ones
> you will still have Asimov Habitats that are weeks and even several months away.
What point would there be to them? If they are that extreamly hard to get to – tranvel costs for trade goods would also be crippling – which makes them useless?
You forget, their purpose is to recover raw materials and ship them – or finished goods built out of them – back to market.
>== Even VASIMIR, will take 8 weeks to reach Mars and months more to go further…
I doubt anyone will use VASMIR, it’s a clumsy and overly complicated design with more downside then upside. We have faster systems on the shelf – much less in the near term.
Kelly,
[[[Given that was only a few years after he was publishing – that doesn’t speak to well for his theory.]]]
But the statistics showing it were not available for a least a couple of decades and it was not recognized as being the breaking point until about 15 years ago. Economics is not as easy as physics when it comes to collecting data and the data is a lot harder to analyze.
[[[Debatable- but way off topic considering were talking about century or more in the future bot the past.]]]
No, documented. You really need to read the work of authors like Angus Maddison, folks who base their knowledge on research, not speculation.
[[[Its actually one of several multiplies. From crop rotation, better harvesters and planters, better crop and animal stocks to farm, etc..]]]
But the major gains has come from petrochemical use. Also the gain following the Civil War was from bringing prairie land once too distant from market to ship into cultivation. The key factor there was the coal powered railroads making it not practical to ship the food to markets in the east and in Europe. So yes, fossil fuel had a key role in extending the resource base even then through shipping.
[[[Neiather were serious]]]
As serious as the space propulsion breakthrough that you are predicting.
[[[They were built – didn’t sell.]]]
Jet belts didn’t sell because it proven impossible to carry more then 30 seconds of fuel, great for movie stunts but useless for anything else… In short they ran into a basic physical limitation impossible for engineers to overcome making their predictions false.
[[[Longer term (2100ad+) you have to assume some extensions in physics,]]]
The cutting edge of technology has moved from nuclear physics to biotech and nanotechnology, which will be where the key breakthroughs to make Asimov habitats practical will be found.
[[[far to small to have all the skills necessary to be full self repairing and maintaining]]]
Look up 3-D printing and some of more advance concepts being looked at for rapid prototyping and customized manufacturing.
[[[completely dependant on very low cost transport between itself and its markets?]]]
You need to look more at the economics of transportation. There is a difference between shipping commodities and manufactured goods in bulk versus food and perishables in small quantities.
[[[Oil rigs aren’t always a few hours away from the riggers homes, and often crews on distent rigs, fishermen, etc do spend months away from home. Given near term when you’ld consider these, your talking weeks to get to the belt, that would allow crew rotation, rather then permanent settlement at the camps, to be the preferred option. It does allow you to operate with a much smaller lighter platform, etc.]]]
I have had students that are trouble shooters on oil rigs. There is not a rig in the world they couldn’t get to from Houston within 48 hrs from go. And those would be in the south China Sea. The actual workers, and their families, are usually based much, much closer.
By contrast 72 hours would be the minimum travel time to the Moon. Add weeks for Mars. So the analogy would be more like the 19th century when workers families were shipped out with them when they went to develop mines, or build railroads, dams or canals in distance parts of the world.
[[[We have faster systems on the shelf – much less in the near term.]]]
There are always faster systems on the shelf. And clean fusion power has always been just one break through away. When they are here it will be nice, but its not something to bet on.
> Thomas Matula Says:
> May 17th, 2010 at 8:48 am
>> [[[Neiather were serious]]]
> As serious as the space propulsion breakthrough that you are predicting.
Quips (by folks not speaking in their fields) are not as solid as systems being built and tested.
>> [[[They were built – didn’t sell.]]]
> Jet belts didn’t sell because it proven impossible to carry more then 30 seconds of fuel, ==
Rocket belts couldn’t carry more fuel then that, JET belts could go over 20-30 min on a tankof fuel. Course you had a turbojet screaming on your back, if the engine hiccups you better have a self firing parachute, your speeds not all that great, turbojets were really expensive back then, etc.
>> [[[Longer term (2100ad+) you have to assume some extensions in physics,]]]
> The cutting edge of technology has moved from nuclear physics to biotech and
> nanotechnology, ==
I said physics changes – not technology changes. Electronics, telicomounication, etc are based on physics decades old.
>> [[[far to small to have all the skills necessary to be full self repairing and maintaining]]]
> Look up 3-D printing and some of more advance concepts
> being looked at for rapid prototyping and customized manufacturing.
I know them – To limited, and again, no nation here can manage to be self sufficient with our huge amounts of infrastructure and specialists. So taking as a given that small platforms – with a real incentive to limit scale and labor needs on the platforms – will eat the high extra costs to be more independat.
>> [[[completely dependant on very low cost transport between itself and its markets?]]]
> You need to look more at the economics of transportation. There is a
> difference between shipping commodities and manufactured goods in
> bulk versus food and perishables in small quantities.
Its only perisable is you don’t pack it right.
😉
And the transit cost for the food and supplies is really 0. The big ships have to go out, and have little if any cargo to take out. You get great rates from folks who are deadheading your way anyway.
😉
>> [[[Oil rigs aren’t always a few hours away from the riggers homes, ==
> I have had students that are trouble shooters on oil rigs. There is not a rig in
> the world they couldn’t get to from Houston within 48 hrs from go. And
> those would be in the south China Sea. ==
And that’s a few hours away?
And how reliably can you get out to distent rigs that fast? Especially if your not a trouble shooter.
> The actual workers, and their families, are usually based much, much closer.==
How much closer do you get if the rigs in the arctic or something?
And again and often crews on distent rigs, fishermen, scientists, etc do spend months away from home. Why are you assuming mining interests or whatever would go to the extra cost of building up from a mining camp to a town where families can be brought?
>> [[[We have faster systems on the shelf – much less in the near term.]]]
> There are always faster systems on the shelf. ==
On the shelf – as in we’ve already built them? In some cases flown them operationally.
> And clean fusion power has always been just one break through away. ==
You need to check up on that, its farther along then you think. As for its being able to generate power, that’s a plus, but either way it can be used as amore efficient thruster either way.