Russians on the moon

[Twitch]

Nationalism has nothing to do with the reality that no one has the proper hardware to mount as realistically serious venture beyond Earth. The Russians only shuttle sits is a park with kids playing on it and all they know is what we know- chemically powered rockets can shoot something into space.

We're all on the same page here. Given enough time and funding anyone could get to the moon or mars or whatnot. The thing we have to realize is that funding has to flow like water. That funding has to be massive enough that the average country can't begin to afford to conceive of a large-scale space program.

We had a concerted space program once but when the usual wishy washyness of politicians prevailed and the bored public turned away, the programs died when the $$ was turned off. We were supposed to building moon colonies after Apollo in the 1970s and the target of 1985 was set for manned Mars expeditions. Instead NASA bunted and began this redundant shuttle sillyness that has kept us in orbit for decades and learning nothing to benefit us in regard to turning outward.

It is akin to early seafaring efforts confined to coastal travel when what was needed was a fleet of global navigating vessels.

In restrospect it is almost amazing that the space program push lasted as long as it did- about a decade. We face the same problems any country does- administration changes, public pressure, national direction changes, new cultural paths, economic problems and much more.

It would be uttely amazing that any country or conglomerate could or will stay dedicated to a program as complex and expensive as colonizing the moon 18 years from now. Nothing is unachievable as long as there is a dedicated money flow.

But we still need motive power of a type that doesn't require massive amounts of fuel volume and the attendent weight to push against Earth's gravity to achive escape velocity then return in a quasi controlled near crash effort. Chemically-fuelled rockets aren't economical and what is required anyhow is a vehicle that takes off from Earth, leaves the atmosphere, travels to the moon, has fuel to make a powered landing, has fuel to take off from the moonbase, return to Earth and again, land under it's own power.

Until we have that technology it just makes no sense to slingshot some unpowered vehicles around the heavens that require costly and large-scale explosive power to launch then glide through space. More importantly, this old-fashioned way leaves no room for error and deaths will almost certainly occur.

Picture yourself in a car that fires a rocket to gain momentum. You begin your journey on the interstate at high speed, but it is a speed you can not attain again if you lose momentum for any reason for course change manuevering or braking for any reason. You can't accelerate simply because your engine is dead because the fuel is all gone.

If there is anything worth mining on the moon the real boon may come from international busness consortiums that would mine there. Of course we have to forget the naive notion that no one can own parts of the moon. Independent private enterprises for profit might be able do what rinky dink governments have been unable to do.

Until we develop a true space vehicle we have no business planning jack.

 

[Viola]

Twitch, you're not serious about the Europeans being "repulsed" by the "savagery" they encountered, are you? The New World didn't have much they hadn't seen before, just different people in charge.

God fearing men, even uneducated rank and file soldiers, no doubt harbored a deep repulsion for peoples that made murder a sport and spectacle on a scale grander than the Roman exhibitions. There have been found diary entries with their conclusion that these barbaric savages should be eradicated for their own good and for Christian sanity.

Hurrah for the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[HungaryTom]

I see the thread being split in two strands:

I. Conquista:

The Conquest of the Americas was best described by an eyewitness who saw events in the New World since 1502, a Dominican priest:

Bartolomé de las Casas, Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies (Paperback).

That book is so tragic I could only read it fragmentally.

He also wrote on the fate of Incas: De thesauris in Peru.

Look it up at wikipedia.

II. Space industry:

The conquest of the moon will happen for the same reason: pursuit of minerals. At least the mining there won't destroy civilizations, - and if they find bacteria on Mars I bet that won't stop the colonization either. Humans stopping for the sake of some microscopic beings? - We don't stop here on Earth for the sake of whole ecosystems, why should that be different elsewhere?

As mentioned before the space quest serves also another purpose:

Never put all your eggs in one basket

It is not safe that all leaders will be as statesmen as Kennedy and Chrustchev which duo finally did not escalate until a thermonuclear conflict...

There is enough WMD overkill capacity left which might spread/proliferate. It is not only meteorites or comets...
Maybe some high-potential GMO tailored virus will leave premises of one lab some day out of some banal error.

Therefore it is really not a bad idea to get some colonies outside our own planet until we might advance to the degree of using wormholes to get to other planets in other galaxies etc.

The race for the moon or the Mars project are a necessity for all mankind.

 

[Twitch]

At the time Cortez came we need to remember most of his crew were not soldiers. Even the military men had no experience in large scale combat from any venue in Europe. These guys were signed up to share in whatever spoils were obtained in exchange for them doing their jobs.

Firstly, Central and South American indigenous peoples were ruled far more harshly that their European counterparts. They basically led lives of serfdom where all their labors went to the socialist state headed by a dictator.

These dictators spread war upon their counterparts on an ongoing basis. Blood sacrifice was a rule rather than an exception. It is one thing to die or kill in battle and quite another to murder defenseless captives in ritual fashion producing public exhibitions reveling in blood for blood's sake.

This is what the Mezo Americans did on a daily basis however. Note, the North American indigenous peoples never degenerated to blood sacrifice of humans for any of their religious beliefs.

Back in the early 1970s I began finding volumes written by Spanish involved in some of the principal events in the early 1500s along with other works involving Central and South American tribal peoples' histories and lives. I realized that people then and today have developed a completely in appropriately sympathetic view of a very savage past peoples.

The relatively recent ability to deceipher glyphs have proved the Mayans were blood thirsty sacrificers too. They were all this time before incorrectly thought to be peaceful and innocent little chaps.

Spanish personal accounts reveal not a revulsion of field of battle combat fighting, but with the fact that the indigenous peoples tortured on an unprecidented scale compared to the Inquisition which no rank and file Spaniard would be privvy to anyway. No one in the entire world had see a rack of 200,000 human skulls from beheaded captives that had similtaneously had their still beating hearts ripped out.

There is simply no way to defend that class of debauchery by claiming they were simple, innocent, frolicking children of nature and the bad old Europeans ruined it all. They were engaged in this bloodsport for centuries prior.

There is nothing romantic about living under a dictatorship as an indentured serf with your possible end of being taken by warriors of another such outfit and have your heart cut out of you as you are beheaded so some mumbo jumbo medicine man can proclaim the sun, moon or whatever will continue to exist.

European-style combat on a field of battle was ugly of course but not to the extent of the peoples of the New World. There might be conflict over land, religion, trade routes and what have you but no Europeans waged conflict for the purpose of capturing opponents expressly for toture and sacrifice. None.

There are quite a few tribes and individual persons I hold high respect for in native America. But I simply can't be sympathetic for dictatorial oppressors who champion torture, slavery, murder, dismemberment and canibalism.

Sorry but after seeing yet another of a zillion inappropriate sympathetic responses for the indigs of the per-Colombian Americas I just had to interject. They weren't what you all think they were.

 

[Twitch]

Tom I believe you are correct to assume that once any large scale colonization and /or mining begins on the moon nothing will stop it.

There are any living bacteria or anythig else there so that will not be a factor. I still forsee international conglomerates funding substantal efforts there. It is best to leave Earthly governments the heck out of it. Private industry can do more faster without all the red tape, paperwork and BS associated with governments.

We do have to get outta here. We need to spread the human race. For all we know perhaps we are the result of another branch of humans seeding this section of this galaxy. Certainly a big asteroid or comet will collide with this planet eventually. And while a Mars habitat would be nice we need to think of exploration to worlds beyond this solar system.

Any moon project will require an dedicated, ongoing amount of funding. This is why I think the ebb and flow nature of individual governments should be excluded. Even so is humanity mentally ready to be dedicated to such an expensive task as maybe 15 years of research and preparation before actually embarking on a landing?

And we need that true space vehicle I mentioned. There is no way it could be economically feasible or safe to repeat the old moon trip scenarios.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Well, back to the subject of space exploration. I just saw that special about Apollo 11 on Discovery or one of those channels, and it was quite interesting. We just barely were able to land on and return from the moon. The astronauts were literally seconds away from disaster throughout the entire mission.
I think it was a great learning experience for further exploration so therefore a very successful mission.
I think the future of space exploration depends on the success of the international space station. If we could build and launch manned vehicles from that platform, we could design those vehicles to be not only more efficient, but much safer for the astronauts. The problem of cosmic radiation and it's effects on humans, could be overcome by building the heavier shielded vehicles needed to protect them, and launching them from zero gravity would be vastly more efficient and safe.

 

[dr greg]

none but the brave

Was it Von Braun who said that the Apollo astronauts were the bravest men he'd ever met, for sitting on top of a giant firecracker built by the guy who'd put in the lowest tender?

 

[Diamondback]

I don't recall von Braun saying that, but I'll look into it. Bear in mind, though, the Saturn design was his baby... (but that doesn't mean he had to be happy with how the build-contractors adapted or modified it, much as he regarded the V-2 as a perversion of the A-4 rocket he created)

 

[Story]

They didn't get anywhere people weren't already. They weren't even trying to, they'd misplaced India.

Your point being?
Economics drives exploration. You really think this space thing is any different?

 

[Twitch]

Major Nick that is exactly what I am concerned with. Re-inventing 1962 technology is simply pointless. And with the shuttles rapidly approaching or having past their usefull lives where does that leave us?

As with atmospheric aircraft they can only so many pressurization/de-pressurizations cycles before stress an be catastrophic as we've seen on airliners. What shape are the shuttles really in? How many more re-entries does any particular one have?

Thr concept of building vehicles on an orbiting station has been around since the beginning of space flight concepts. Without manned shuttles launching material from smaller rockets is without merit since there's no way to retrieve the payload from the station eveen it it is relatively nearby.

You see where I'm going here. It's a Catch 22. We're in a doldrum. The only way we know is lighting off rockets to propell people and payloads. While a vehicle launched/built in orbit would need less power to get to the moon and less to blast off again, we still have to get all the materials into orbit at the station to begin with.

If we are talking science colony on the moon it's way different than sincere, dedicated mining ventures. Any vessels transporting ore to Earth would have to get it to Earth from the moon since the space station could have nothing to do with. Perhaps cheap or disposable container would be the ticket. Launch it from the lunar surface towards Earth and it pops chutes after re-entry for recovery with no people on board.

Our whole concept of space vehicles needs to change. The danger and maintenance elements from violently explosive launches followed by explosive stage separations has always been flirting with disaster. Then when you do get it up there you're outta gas with miniscule thrusters capable of minor course correction at best.

Think of how safe and uneventful launching a craft from Earth with an ion, nuclear, or anti-magnetic engine would be. No drama simply steady acceleration to orbit and beyond. Because let's face it if all we can achieve with chemical reaction rockets pushing on atmosphere is 18,000MPH we aren't going to get very far very fast. With that limitation alone manned exploation the solar system would be a crippling consumer of time and resources.

We are far better off in that respect to continue to use robotic explorers which have proved cost efficient and capable.

The Apollo 11 lander was a grace of God thing, no doubt. One of the reasons that the conspiracy nuts say it was all fake was that in the last days leading up to launch Aldrin and Armstrong could never get it to land here on Earth! There was a huge crane and sort of bungie supporting the lander as every time "flown" it became dangerously unstable and would have kept crashing but for the tethers. So with all the other myriad components having been satisfactorily tested, the key component, the lander, was not but it actually worked on the moon[huh]

 

[plain old dave]

Put plain old Dave plain old in the "no public funded space exploration" camp. Just because it's a good idea doesn't mean what used to be OUR money should be spent on it.

Further, regarding (sic) 'overpopulation', seems like I read or heard somewhere that the ENTIRE POPULATION of the US could fit in the city of Houston TX and every one would have @ 3 square feet. At current population growth rates, it'll be several hundred to several thousand years before population density becomes an issue.

Bottom line: my family has lived right here in East TN since before the Revolution and will live here with plenty of room for the next several hundred years.

 

[carter]

Put plain old Dave plain old in the "no public funded space exploration" camp. Just because it's a good idea doesn't mean what used to be OUR money should be spent on it.

I believe at least two of the previous posts address this point. No doubt international conglomerates or multi-national corporations would be the most viable for funding any long-term space program.

Originally posted by Twitch
I still forsee international conglomerates funding substantal efforts there. It is best to leave Earthly governments the heck out of it. Private industry can do more faster without all the red tape, paperwork and BS associated with governments.

Originally posted by Carter
In his Red Mars, Blue Mars, Green Mars trilogy, Kim Stanley Robinson posits at least one possibility for colonization and Terraforming of Mars that is supported by Multinational Corporations. Not too far-fetched when we consider the companies in existence today that have a greater financial capability than many nations and not just third-world nations.

The question is, in today's world, does any entity exist that take the 25, 50, even 100 year view and enter into such an undertaking? Assuming there is no altruistic impetus, they would have to see some strategic ecomonic value that amkes the risk worth the possible reward. It's definitely a risky proposition but whoever gets there 1st will have a huge leg up on those who follow. The potential rewards could be astronomical.

When viable living conditions are established off-world, societies can begin to develop. The time will come when a generation of children will be born off-world. They will be the 1st non-terrestrial citizens. Eventually they will establish their own corporate national identities separate from nations on earth. These will be the people that explore this galaxy and mine the planets. These will be the people that develop new technologies. These will be the people who lead the next great age of explorationThese will be the people that look back at Earth with nostalgia thru rose-colored glasses.

The descendants of these people will lead another great age of exploration beyond our galaxy. In some distant time, earth will only be something they read about in a history book.

 

[carter]

OTOH, I'm still trying to determine how to get these bats into the belfrey.

 

[Twitch]

Yes Carter the dedication of any entity govermental or private to an enterprise of decades before a "profit" is seen will remain to be seen. That's one of the largest stumbling blocks I can see in any and all big time projects. They can't take an antsy day-trader approach to it.

 

[carter]

Twitch, Unfortunately, I can't envision a society fueled by instant gratification, consumerism, and profiteering being in this for the duration.

It seems to me that a culture which has historically taken the long view (i.e. the Chinese) has a better, perhaps the best, chance at suceeding in the long run.

Of course, this is based on a single-entity governmental approach.

If the joint conglomerate/multinational corporation scenario plays out, it's an entirely different ball of wax.

 

[plain old dave]

All this, of course, is predicated that there's something out there worth getting to. Which thing I don't happen to believe.

We went to the Moon. It was a big hunk of rock.

Mars and all the others we have info on appear to be the same.