🚀 go-pugleaf

wilson@aruba.jsc.nasa.gov (Paul Wilson) wrote:
>All in all, Philip, I would say that you need to bone up on logic and the
>construction of logical arguments.
>
>In article <DH48x9.5E6@abs.net>, pfilner <pfilner@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote:
>
 
>> Humans certainly have a place in space: earch.  The earth is our space ship.
>> 
>> The way to stop wasting natural resources is to stop wasting natural
>resources.
>> The notion that we should replenish our resources by harvesting
>spacestuff, so we
>> can waste even more, strikes me as obscene. Neither our resources on
>earth, nor 
>> humanity will last forever.
>
>You just screwed your own logic.  Something like -> humans should stay on
>earth : humans should stop waste of earth resources : earth resources are
>finite.  By that logic expansion into space and use of space resources
>_are_ required to continue the human race (note, I didn't say "expansion
>of").

I was not saying humans should stay on earth. Rath, I was pointing out the 
obvious: we are on earth, and all but maybe a handful of us will live out 
our lives on earth many generations into the future. 

Precisely what depleted earthly resources do you envision as replenishable 
from spacestuff, and on a scale sufficient to keep up with earthly humanity's
rates of consumption ?? Food ? fossil fuels for mobility, warmth and 
manufacturing? Lumber for shelter construction ? These all have a biological
origin. We are not running out of earth-rocks.


>>> There are economic and technical barriers to the sci-fi vision of mining
>> spacestuff and shipping it back to earth for human consumption which are, 
>> currently and for the foreseeable future, insurmountable.
>
>I'm not sure what timespan you envision by "forseeable".  In the late
>1800's there was (generally) no forseeable future in flying!

Humanity had envisioned humans flying for thousands of years. It was seen as
possible because birds, bats, and insects fly. In the late 1800's a few clever 
people were flying in gliders. Powered flight had to wait for the invention 
of an engine with sufficient power:weight ratio. It did not take long to put 
such an engine in a variant of a glider, and get it to work. 


>>    The cost in resources and energy that would be required to transport and 
>>    set up an extra-terrestrial mining operation would be prohibitive, even if 
>>    it were technologically feasible (which it is not for the foreseeable
>future, 
>>    considering existing knowhow).
>
>Perhaps you need to read materials from some of the more noteworthy
>advocates on extraterrestrial activities.

Please suggest the authors who have made the soundest, most convincing anlyses, 
and titles of their best books. I'll take a look.

 
> Boxes of space-rocks could never pay for their cost, even if 
>>    precious metals or radionuclides could be extracted from them. They
>are just 
>>    not valuable enough. 
>
>Wrong.  If there is a market, then the pricing will be set so that the
>customer can pay.  It may be extraordinarily high but there is much
>historical precedent for that, too.
>
That reminds me of the businessman who lost money on every
unit of product he sold. He decided to expand and make it up on volume.

May I point out that your comment on "if there is a market  .." is a tautology?
A market consists of sellers with stuff to sell and buyers willing to
pay what the sellers demand.

A basic fact of economic life: the higher the per unit price, 
the fewer sales, the less impact on society's major needs. 


>> Until someone invents a machine and power source which can provide
>transport at 
>> speeds approaching the speed of light, for stuff other than digitized
>information, 
>> the only ways we can explore the universe is by studying electromagnetic
>waves and 
>> space-debris reaching earth, and by sending out telecommunicating robots
>on very 
>> longterm (multi-generational) missions.
>
>You've made a big jump from frollicking around the solar system to
>exploration of the universe.  Let's take it one step at a time.  (Well,
>alright, let's do the two-step.:)


If I am not mistaken, our rockets are still powered mainly by controlled 
explosions of hydrogen or hydrazine. Those should have been learner's wheels
for NASA, not the end of power system development. We will need better power 
systems in order to make roundtrip interplanetary travel routine. What 
significant advances in rocket engine or fuels have occurred in the past 
25 years ? Aren't we still powering rockets pretty much the way the Germans 
were doing it at Peenumunde half a centuiry ago ? 


-Phil