Shoule NASA be nixed?

[McCoy]

Re: Shoule NASA be nixed?

 

And there's already not quite enough lithium to meet world demand. And for direct conversion' date=' regular hydrogen and boron work much, much better than He3 ever could, and is much less radioactive, too.[/quote']

Humm, wonder why it hasn't occurred to me before. Lithium should be the third most common element in the universe, where is it all?

 

(The only reason no one talks about hydrogen/boron fusion is that it's harder to ignite than the other types. Practically impossible with magnetic confinement fusion. Laser fusion' date=' on the other hand, could be possible within a decade, plus commercialization time...[/url'])

I'll tell you the same thing I told the He3 proponents, call me when you have a demonstration of principle device.

[Christopher]

Re: Shoule NASA be nixed?

 

Humm' date=' wonder why it hasn't occurred to me before. Lithium should be the third most common element in the universe, where is it all?[/quote']

Sorry, but that was all used by stars as Fuel. The problem is that it is even easier to use as Fusion Fuel than Hydrogen.

[McCoy]

Re: Shoule NASA be nixed?

 

You are only accounting for the resources on land. But land only makes 30% of the surface of this planet. There are still a lot of resources in the sea.

So I don't think Iron will be our mayor reason to go into space. Not unless a moonbase is cheaper than a deep sea mining station (wich is unlikely, since transportation is much easier into the ocean).

Old story, company needs to hire a new accountant. HR narrows it down to three applicants. The CEO ask to interview the finalist. He walks into the room and ask all three "What's two and two."

 

Without hesitation, the first applicant answers "Four."

 

The second, sensing a trap, says "Two what two what? Could be four, could be 22, need more data to give a correct answer."

 

The third looks left and right, leans forward and whispers "What do you want them to be?"

 

Looking back the most important day of my education was the first day of my statistics class. The professor took one set of raw data, interpreted it by three equally valid methods, and got three mutually exclusive results. (In that case he used the same raw data to show that automotive transport was getting more dangerous, getting safer, and staying about the same.)

 

Current methods of mining, manufacturing, and for that matter food production are economical only because environmental damage is largely ignored.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Shoule NASA be nixed?

 

Current methods of mining' date=' manufacturing, and for that matter food production are economical only because environmental damage is largely ignored.[/quote']

 

Not trying to be any more obtuse than usual, but I am guessing that statistics had something to do with that conclusion.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Shoule NASA be nixed?

 

on the topic of aneutronioc fusion research, I'm fond of the late Dr. Bussards Polywell program

[novi]

Re: Shoule NASA be nixed?

 

Not trying to be any more obtuse than usual' date=' but I am guessing that statistics had something to do with that conclusion.[/quote']

 

Actually, gotta agree with McCoy on this one. Mining, manufacturing, and farming generally ignore the environmental aftereffects. See also, mountains of toxic mine tailings, how much topsoil is lost each year, and dead zones in river deltas due to farm runoff. This is also why conventional nuclear power seems so expensive - it's the only major energy source required to clean up after itself and account for those costs.

 

In many ways, moving manufacturing and mining into space would be the most environmentally friendly thing mankind could do, since there is essentially no environment up there to pollute. Okay, there is orbital debris, but that's more about bullets being bad for your health than toxic chemicals giving you cancer.

[novi]

Re: Shoule NASA be nixed?

 

You are only accounting for the resources on land. But land only makes 30% of the surface of this planet. There are still a lot of resources in the sea.

So I don't think Iron will be our mayor reason to go into space. Not unless a moonbase is cheaper than a deep sea mining station (wich is unlikely, since transportation is much easier into the ocean).

 

Okay, that's twice the board ate my posts. It must want a brief reply, so here goes.

 

Yes, you are technically correct. And they are starting to mine undersea resources. But there is no good answer how much stuff is down there. Just like they can't mine for gold or iron or copper just anywhere on land, the same applies to the sea floor. And it's somewhat harder to explore the ocean floor.

 

Also, not all of the elements we want are going to be on the sea floor. For those, it will be go to space or do without.

[novi]

Re: Shoule NASA be nixed?

 

on the topic of aneutronioc fusion research' date=' I'm fond of the late Dr. Bussards Polywell program

 

Me too. It is a very elegant and simple design. I'm just not sure if the laws of physics will let it work. It's close to possible, but only more research will tell.

 

To clarify, I'm referring to it being a power source. It is already a working fusion reactor, but it consumes more power than it produces. And I'm not certain they can get it past break-even. Hopeful, yes, but not optimistic.

[Christopher]

Re: Shoule NASA be nixed?

 

Looking back the most important day of my education was the first day of my statistics class. The professor took one set of raw data' date=' interpreted it by three equally valid methods, and got three mutually exclusive results. (In that case he used the same raw data to show that automotive transport was getting more dangerous, getting safer, and staying about the same.)[/quote']

"Trust no statstic you did not fake yourself".

 

Well, it sound like a very good idea to get all that mining and farming into space.

But what about the pollution created to get materials up there and down here?

 

With the sea, getting down there is a pretty esay and reliable thing (we have military submarines for 90 Years now). It's also suprisingly evironmental friendly - we literally have to use electrical engines down there.

Of course, the downside is that we have to get the energy somwhere first and that any disaster down there could wipe out the oceanic life. And without it the land life goes too.

[Lucius]

Re: Shoule NASA be nixed?

 

Okay, that's twice the board ate my posts. It must want a brief reply, so here goes.

 

Try composing offline in a word document (perhaps after cutting and pasting the quotes you want) and then when ready copy and paste into the browser.

 

Or compose online, but then copy and paste your work BEFORE hitting the "post" button, so you have it in the clipboard if you need to re-post.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary keeps eating my words

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Shoule NASA be nixed?

 

Actually, gotta agree with McCoy on this one. Mining, manufacturing, and farming generally ignore the environmental aftereffects. See also, mountains of toxic mine tailings, how much topsoil is lost each year, and dead zones in river deltas due to farm runoff. This is also why conventional nuclear power seems so expensive - it's the only major energy source required to clean up after itself and account for those costs.

 

In many ways, moving manufacturing and mining into space would be the most environmentally friendly thing mankind could do, since there is essentially no environment up there to pollute. Okay, there is orbital debris, but that's more about bullets being bad for your health than toxic chemicals giving you cancer.

 

Kindly note that I wasn't saying he was incorrect. But decrying statistics in one breath, and then jumping straight to that subject in the next, seems a lot like mixed signals to me. Just sayin'.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Shoule NASA be nixed?

 

Also, isn't deep underwater often more dangerous than space, from an engineering perspective?

[Zeropoint]

Re: Shoule NASA be nixed?

 

Also, isn't deep underwater often more dangerous than space, from an engineering perspective?

 

In either case, you're working in an environment that you can't survive in. At least in space, you've only got 15 PSI to worry about, and freefall makes some structural engineering easier. On the other hand, there are challenges to keeping people healthy in freefall, and you CAN extract some oxygen from seawater.

 

I'd expect you'd live longer in space for any given size of leak your habitat springs, though.

[Christopher]

Re: Shoule NASA be nixed?

 

Zeropoint points it out (no pun intended):

The problem is not nessesary to build something down or up there, but to get us human to survive there. So perhaps we will need reliable robots before any variant becomes feasible?

[McCoy]

Re: Shoule NASA be nixed?

 

Kindly note that I wasn't saying he was incorrect. But decrying statistics in one breath' date=' and then jumping straight to that subject in the next, seems a lot like mixed signals to me. Just sayin'.[/quote']

Wasn't my intent to decry statistics, just to point out that when comparing cost different sectors have different assumptions and space mining and manufacturing might not be so far out of reach, or undersea mining not quite as cost effective an alternative, if the cost currently ignored were all factored in. As novi points out, nuclear power seems expensive because it's the only major energy source required to clean up after itself and account for those costs. My point was that before we can say if outer space or undersea mining is more cost effective we need to make sure we are comparing apples to apples.

[McCoy]

Re: Shoule NASA be nixed?

 

Zeropoint points it out (no pun intended):

The problem is not nessesary to build something down or up there, but to get us human to survive there. So perhaps we will need reliable robots before any variant becomes feasible?

Better telepresence would help in a wide variety of situations.

[yukonhorror]

Re: Shoule NASA be nixed?

 

skipped ahead. With respect to space exploration, maybe. However, NASA is involved in a lot of fundamental research regarding areas like materials and aerospace (planes, not spaceships). That research is still applicable to non-space stuff, and important.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Shoule NASA be nixed?

 

Been re-reading James Oberg's 'STAR-CROSSED ORBITS - Inside The US - Russian Space Alliance'. According to it, the depths to which the Russian (ex-Soviet) space program has fallen is appalling. But this is minor compared to the depths NASA have plumbed due to self-delusion, internal politics and (IMO) the sort of middle-management-and-above cluelessness best typified by 'Dilbert'.

 

Frankly, based on the material here (and on all the stuff happening OUTSIDE this book's purview - such as 'Challenger' and 'Columbia'), have to wonder if NASA is actually salvageable. Plenty of good dedicated people "down in the trenches", but seems like it is the levels above that need, not to be "streamlined" or any other such corporate buzzword, but completely eliminated and rebuilt from scratch.

[McCoy]

Re: Shoule NASA be nixed?

 

Y'know' date=' if they just transferred 10% of the DoD budget over to NASA(adding about 40-60 billion a year), we could probably have a moon base, mars landing and base, controlled fusion power, and space elevators by mid-century. Food for thought.[/quote']

 

skipped ahead. With respect to space exploration' date=' maybe. However, NASA is involved in a lot of fundamental research regarding areas like materials and aerospace (planes, not spaceships). That research is still applicable to non-space stuff, and important.[/quote']

I am on record that as far as I can tell crop damage prevented by improved weather forecasting due to weather satellites ALONE would more than pay for the entire space program, crewed and uncrewed. What about a tax of a penny a month for every cell phone and satellite TV receiver that would go directly to NASA? Congress could provide oversight as to how it is spent, but not take it away.