Interesting links and notes on updates to my main website.



[to search, use Blogger search in top bar]

So I watched the video of Space Bush.
(That's why I have the 20" LCD set up with the capability to show streaming video.)

Overall it sounds like a fairly sensible plan.

First I have say there is a problem with space.
Space is boring.

Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is incredibly boring, which makes it unfortunate that most of our time for the past few decades we have been sending people there.

The Moon is gray rocks, dust, and dirt.
Mars is red rocks, dust and dirt.

This is not so very interesting unless you're a geologist.

The space program also got a bit off track.
The whole space shuttle thing made no sense.
It makes a bit more sense now that they're putting together the space station.

Also this "let's go into space so we can invent Tang" thing is a bit off the track.

anyway, on to the commentary

Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the costs of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious missions. Lifting heavy spacecraft and fuel out of the Earth's gravity is expensive. Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon could escape its far lower gravity using far less energy, and thus, far less cost. Also, the moon is home to abundant resources. Its soil contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air. We can use our time on the moon to develop and test new approaches and technologies and systems that will allow us to function in other, more challenging environments. The moon is a logical step toward further progress and achievement.

Um, yes, in theory it's much easier to send stuff into space FROM space.
However, "abundant resources"? Um, abundant rocks maybe.
The moon is so devoid of resources that the best people can manage is to get excited about Helium-3 in some unlikely fusion scenario.
As far as I know, it has no other major resources.
The only scenario where the moon has useful stuff is if there is some ice somewhere that could provide oxygen and hydrogen.

I think Near-Earth Asteroids and Comets would be much better resource candidates.

And along this journey we'll make many technological breakthroughs. We don't know yet what those breakthroughs will be, but we can be certain they'll come, and that our efforts will be repaid many times over. We may discover resources on the moon or Mars that will boggle the imagination, that will test our limits to dream. And the fascination generated by further exploration will inspire our young people to study math, and science, and engineering and create a new generation of innovators and pioneers.

Um, of course you don't know what the breakthroughs will be. They wouldn't be breakthroughs if you did.
Resources on Mars, yes. Mars is a much more sensible place from which to stage further planetary exploration. We should be going Mars mining nuts. And also with the asteroid mining.
Then you're talking some reality.

And in the end, I think the real reason to do this is to give people something to aspire to.
Otherwise, what have we got. Bigger houses, bigger cars, bigger TVs.

At some point, when we're all living in starter castles with two hummers in the driveway and 80" TVs in every room...

The fundamental point is, we may be alone in the universe. Just us as technology-using, exploratory beings. That means, amongst other things, that the entire universe is up for grabs.

At 100 billion galaxies, that's about 16 galaxies for every man, woman and child on earth.
Feel rich yet? posted by Richard at 08:26 / permalink (post) | permalink (numeric)