[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against
In a message dated 10/21/98 10:14:06 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>> In a message dated 10/13/98 11:45:59 AM, email@example.com wrote:
>> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
>> >> In a message dated 10/9/98 10:06:44 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> >> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
>> >> >>
>> >> >[...]
>> >> >> These would not actual support real colonies. They would just do
>> >> >> suported base station. Thats about as close to a space faring
>> >> >> as our Antarctica bases are to antarctic colonization or the late
>> >> >> seabottom bases to ocean colonization.
>> >> >>
>> >> >Possibly, but you must start from something.
>> >> >Starting with a base station seems quite reasonable to me.
>> >> But its not a start. Its a conclusion to something very different.
>> >> Apollo wasn't the start of Maned use of space.
>> >So what would you consider a start?
>> >Building a viable starship from scratch?
>> What would I consider the start of manned use of space? Commercial craft
>> going to and from space (or even suborbital hops) in some profitable way.
>> A commercial, profitable, space station. The comsats are a far bigger
>> step then Apollo.
>I do not think so. They have a little impact on the improvements of
>space launching technology, while without Apollo we would know
>a lot less about the space conditions, Moon history, resources,
>an environment, not speaking about the necessary technology
>for interplanetary ships (Voyagera, Mars & Venus probes, etc.).
Further improvements in space launch technology isn't nessisary. Increased
market demand is. Comsats start a major market which in the context of the
question is far more critical.
>> So are the military aerospace craft in research (or possibly flying).
>> Space mining or manufacture would mean we had arived.
>Here I agree.
>Consider that Apollo was also partially a military craft...
Political / coldward was its porpose, but I wouldn't count them as military.
In anyeven Apollo doesn't coun't as a aerospace craft.
>> >> >> You idea was a suicide exploration mission. Send out a team
>> >> >> and abondon them there to die.
>> >> >>
>> >> >That is foul [socialist, capitalist, anyother] propaganda!
>> >> >My idea was QUITE different. I often wondered why you seem not
>> >> >to understand that!
>> >> >Geez, should we start the quarrel again? ;-))
>> >> Those were your cryteria, you just don't consider it the same if you
>> >> them the suplies to die of old age in the abonded ship/base/whatever
>> >> after the missions over. ;)
>> >I thing you should use the criteria of those who are willing
>> >to go for such a mission. If they want to go, it means the mission
>> >meets the acceptability criteria.
>> Actually I ment those were the criteria you listed.
>> As for it being the acceptable criteria if the volenteers volenteer.
>> No, they don't count.
>That is, you say that the individual freedem does not count?
Not in this context.
>> You can get people who'll burn themselves alive on
>> camera for the ten secounds of fame.
>First, this is not an analogy to one-way missions.
>The crew for such a mission does not go
>to be burned alive, nor does it go for ten seconds of fame.
Well some volenteers actual would, but thats another issue.
I used this anology since it is similar. Say a TV show agreed to televise
live anyone who volenteered to burn themselves alive on camera. Regardless of
the fact everyone voloenteered, no onewould let it go on, and the TV show
would be criminally procecuted. The show was acting in a criminally negligent
manor. So would a group sponcering a throw away one way mission.
>Second, I do not see any resons to not allow
>those your people to burn themselves.
>At least, there will be several fools less,
>of which the humanity can only benefit.
>> Its the criteria of those that fund, and
>But you propose to intimidate those willing
>to fund one-way missions too...
>> the society that supports it that counts.
>> I don't know about over in your area, but in the west
>> its hard to get public aproval of tourturing animals for a good cause.
>Kelly, don't be silly, please. Torturing animals for whatever cause
>has completely no similarity to going for a one-way mission.
Sure it does. Its been generally decided that you can't casually abuse
animals for minor convenence. The same rule also applies to humans.
>> >> >Or quite new reasons that may turn up in a quite different,
>> >> >interplanetary-space society.
>> >> Interplanetary societies of humans are unlikly to find any fudemental
>> >> new laws of society, culter, psycology, or economics.
>> >Laying aside the question of finding new laws (it has been
>> >already discussed by others on the list), my main point was
>> >that that "quite different interplanetary-space society"
>> >will have different needs, technological means, and attitudes
>> >toward space and space exploration that today's Earth-bound
>> >(or even Earth-bend...) people. And these will be very different
>> >than in the times of "Earthly colonization projects" -
>> >hence, they are likely to have also different attitudes toward
>> >interstellar missions and different reasons to undertake them.
>> I tend to be sispicious of that. Its assumed that just because people are
>> space their society will be basically and radically different somehow. So
>> far theres been no radical change (at least that fundemental) over the past
>> couple milenia. So I fully expect my no profit, no perminent colony - or -
>> not unless run out by an army rules will hold into about any
>> forceable future.
>It will be different, and possibly even basically.
>The history of humankind shows that clearly -
>transitions from hunter-gatherers, through nomadic herders,
>agriculture settlements, merchant cities, to technological
>civilization of today were mirrored with quite different social
>organizations and mentality. Even now there are great
>differences in mentality and attitudes between Western
>and Eastern societies, despite the fair amount of homogenization.
>The transition into space-inhabiting society will be an even
>more radical change that all the previous ones, hence
>we may expect quite new changes in social structures and attitudes,
>largery unpredictable now, together with quite large differences
>between Earth-bound and interplanetary societies.
Heres the primary difference. I don't see settle space as any more
fundementally different then settling the New world. The different mixing of
cultures and situations here did leed to different cultural and value paterns
in many significant ways, but nothing on the scale that would render
irrelavent the fundementals of why colonies here or anywhere else work or
>> >That is not the question of "new laws".
>> >Simply, if you have, say, an airliner handy, you may consider
>> >a fast trip to Paris to see the latest fashion show quite
>> >reasonable - very differently if you have had only a "Santa Maria",
>> >like in the old days of Earthly colonization projects.
>> >Not speaking about the fact that in those times
>> >there even were no fashion shows in Paris...
>> Oh, yeah. If we do come up with a warp drive starship, or something that
>> allows interstellar travel on a lark, we'll send scouts otr the national
>> geographic society or something out to look around; but thats way down teh
>> line, and not colonies.
>Do not take my analogy too literally.
>I want only to show that once some quite new trechnological
>possibilities open, they are put to many different uses,
>some of them quite not anticipated by their inventors
>and other people of the time when they were developed.
>So it will be with interplanetary space habitation technology.