Science > Physics > =?windows-1252?Q?WHAT=92S_NEW___Robert_L=2E_Park__?==?windows-1252?Q?_Friday=2C_28_Dec_07___Washington=2C_DC?=
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sam Wormley" |
| Date: |
28 Dec 2007 03:45:17 PM |
| Object: |
=?windows-1252?Q?WHAT=92S_NEW___Robert_L=2E_Park__?==?windows-1252?Q?_Friday=2C_28_Dec_07___Washington=2C_DC?= |
WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC
1. HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS: SANK IN "THE GATHERING STORM."
Science-policy reps were patting each other on the back in August when
President Bush signed the bipartisan America COMPETES Act in response to
the NAS report Rising Above the Gathering Storm. It was meant to keep
America competitive by boosting basic science, including a doubling of
funding for NSF and the DOE Office of Science. Six months later, the most
basic of all the sciences, high-energy physics, is in a death spiral.
Fermilab faces major layoffs, the neutrino oscillation experiment, NOvA,
which was expected to be the lab’s principle activity after the Tevatron
shuts down, is terminated. Three quarters of the funding for the
International Linear Collider is cut. The US again stiffed ITER on our
share of the fusion program. The NSF increase was pared down to 1
percent. Meanwhile, in a letter to the research community, House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said her "commitment to the innovation agenda remains
strong and steadfast." Try spending that.
2. IT’S FUNDAMENTAL: DO WE NEED HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS?
Why would fragile, self-replicating collections of atoms, trapped on a
tiny planet for a few dozen orbits about an undistinguished star among
countless other stars in one of billions of galaxies, spend their orbits
trying to understand how it happened? Others claim to know all the
answers, but the only way to know is to experiment - and they haven’t done
it.
3. LOW-ENERGY PHYSICS: FUNDING IS UP FOR "CLEAN COAL."
The spending bill did increase funding for "clean coal." Sound like an
oxymoron? Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) generators were
supposed to be all over the place by now. They turn coal into gases and
filter out the CO2 before the gases are burned. Clean coal plants cost
more to build but are cheaper in the long run - or at least they would be
if they captured and sequestered the carbon dioxide like they’re supposed
to. The technology, however, is not there yet, and some planned clean-
coal plants are being cancelled. That’s a relief to some people in West
Virginia, where coal companies want to scrape the tops off the mountains
to get the coal, filling the valleys with the rubble.
4. IT’S A DAM SHAME: WHAT ARE WE WILLING TO LET GO?
The rules have changed. China, according to a story in today’s Wall
Street Journal, has become the dam builder for the world. Chinese
companies are now involved in deals to construct at least 47 major dams in
27 countries, not all of which have nice leaders. Construction of large
dams involves the forced relocation of people - in the case of the
gigantic Three Gorges Dam in China 1.4 million people had to be
relocated. Fifty years ago the Pacific Northwest was the envy of the rest
of the nation for its cheap hydroelectric power - the sun does all the
work. Then the public mood began to shift away from fish ladders and back
toward wild rivers. With global warming as a new term in the equation,
pressure for new dam projects is certain to increase. Although dams alter
the environment, the changes are not necessarily bad.
THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND.
Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the
University of Maryland, but they should be.
---
.
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC |
28 Dec 2007 05:47:38 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:M7edj.9112$Ux2.1411@attbi_s22...
WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC
1. HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS: SANK IN "THE GATHERING STORM."
Science-policy reps were patting each other on the back in August when
President Bush signed the bipartisan America COMPETES Act in response to
the NAS report Rising Above the Gathering Storm. It was meant to keep
America competitive by boosting basic science, including a doubling of
funding for NSF and the DOE Office of Science. Six months later, the most
basic of all the sciences, high-energy physics, is in a death spiral.
Fermilab faces major layoffs, the neutrino oscillation experiment, NOvA,
which was expected to be the lab’s principle activity after the Tevatron
shuts down, is terminated. Three quarters of the funding for the
International Linear Collider is cut. The US again stiffed ITER on our
share of the fusion program. The NSF increase was pared down to 1
percent. Meanwhile, in a letter to the research community, House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said her "commitment to the innovation agenda remains
strong and steadfast." Try spending that.
2. IT’S FUNDAMENTAL: DO WE NEED HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS?
Why would fragile, self-replicating collections of atoms, trapped on a
tiny planet for a few dozen orbits about an undistinguished star among
countless other stars in one of billions of galaxies, spend their orbits
trying to understand how it happened? Others claim to know all the
answers, but the only way to know is to experiment - and they haven’t done
it.
3. LOW-ENERGY PHYSICS: FUNDING IS UP FOR "CLEAN COAL."
The spending bill did increase funding for "clean coal." Sound like an
oxymoron? Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) generators were
supposed to be all over the place by now. They turn coal into gases and
filter out the CO2 before the gases are burned. Clean coal plants cost
more to build but are cheaper in the long run - or at least they would be
if they captured and sequestered the carbon dioxide like they’re supposed
to. The technology, however, is not there yet, and some planned clean-
coal plants are being cancelled. That’s a relief to some people in West
Virginia, where coal companies want to scrape the tops off the mountains
to get the coal, filling the valleys with the rubble.
4. IT’S A DAM SHAME: WHAT ARE WE WILLING TO LET GO?
The rules have changed. China, according to a story in today’s Wall
Street Journal, has become the dam builder for the world. Chinese
companies are now involved in deals to construct at least 47 major dams in
27 countries, not all of which have nice leaders. Construction of large
dams involves the forced relocation of people - in the case of the
gigantic Three Gorges Dam in China 1.4 million people had to be
relocated. Fifty years ago the Pacific Northwest was the envy of the rest
of the nation for its cheap hydroelectric power - the sun does all the
work. Then the public mood began to shift away from fish ladders and back
toward wild rivers. With global warming as a new term in the equation,
pressure for new dam projects is certain to increase. Although dams alter
the environment, the changes are not necessarily bad.
THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND.
Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the
University of Maryland, but they should be.
---
Have we colonized the space frontier yet (have we torn down World Utopia's
iron curtain yet and opened up the system wide open)? NO!!! Then the
resources of the Earth will be there in enormous abundance but you will
starve to death for resources. Why?! World-class entropy-like physics.
Over the last two million years Man has increased in numbers one million
fold. That is the small potatoes base. Over the base, over the last two
million years, Man has increased in its energy, infrastructure, complexity,
powers, reach and complications two million fold average per every man,
woman and child living.
When an infant is first conceived in the womb, the womb is an infinite
world infinite in its sustaining resources and wealth. But as time goes by
the infant evolves organs (space age infrastructure) and limbs (space age
tools). It develops needs and wants, complexity and powers, beyond the womb
world. It develops dimensionality beyond the dimensionality of the womb, any
womb, every womb (any planet, every planet). There is no staying. There is
no going back. There is no increasing "energy efficiency" to stay in the
womb and not expand and grow from it.
It is surprising that SCIENTISTS (particularly including 'professional
phyicists') who went before Congress to hawk the needlessness of Man's
expansion into Space (including just "at this time") will be discovered to
have been the most stupid humans the world has ever produced.
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Davis" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC |
28 Dec 2007 09:02:30 PM |
|
|
G. L. Bradford wrote:
Have we colonized the space frontier yet (have we torn down
World Utopia's iron curtain yet and opened up the system wide
open)? NO!!!
Brad, don't you think it's about time you stopped talking about
colonization and started doing some of it? No one's going to do it
for you.
Jim Davis
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC |
29 Dec 2007 04:09:24 AM |
|
|
"Jim Davis" <jimdavis2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9A14E00B1F4F5jimdavis2earthlinkne@216.168.3.70...
G. L. Bradford wrote:
Have we colonized the space frontier yet (have we torn down
World Utopia's iron curtain yet and opened up the system wide
open)? NO!!!
Brad, don't you think it's about time you stopped talking about
colonization and started doing some of it? No one's going to do it
for you.
Jim Davis
I couldn't begin to predict what you [individually] will or will not do
over time, but a world placed behind an iron curtain inside a world-class
concentration camp, a totalitarian state paradise, becomes immediately
predictable, so predictable it would be laughable if it weren't so
[implosively tragic] ("....competition becomes more severe as the
destruction of distance intensifies the confrontation of states." -- Will
Durant (All the kinds of "states" whether artificial or natural. All
"states." There being no compensating opening up of system for a closing of
system; no compensating growing expansion out there for a continuing
contraction and constriction of world, freedom, choice, peace, room to
maneuver, margins for error...., in here)).
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Davis" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC |
29 Dec 2007 11:51:19 AM |
|
|
G. L. Bradford wrote:
I couldn't begin to predict what you [individually] will or will
not do over time,
But it's fairly easy to predict what you [individually] will or will
not do over time.
but a world placed behind an iron curtain
inside a world-class concentration camp, a totalitarian state
paradise, becomes immediately predictable,...
You're going to wait for that totalitarian state to do your heavy
lifting for you.
Brad, if you think space is such a great place to live, go live
there. Stop complaining that everyone else has as little interest in
doing so as you do.
Jim Davis
.
|
|
|
| User: "BradGuth" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC |
29 Dec 2007 12:19:47 PM |
|
|
On Dec 29, 9:51 am, Jim Davis <jimdav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
G. L. Bradford wrote:
I couldn't begin to predict what you [individually] will or will
not do over time,
But it's fairly easy to predict what you [individually] will or will
not do over time.
but a world placed behind an iron curtain
inside a world-class concentration camp, a totalitarian state
paradise, becomes immediately predictable,...
You're going to wait for that totalitarian state to do your heavy
lifting for you.
Brad, if you think space is such a great place to live, go live
there. Stop complaining that everyone else has as little interest in
doing so as you do.
Jim Davis
He's more than welcome to try out Venus. At least on Venus there's no
shortage of renewable energy, as having nothing whatsoever to do with
fossil or yellowcake alternatives. Just ask how many spare/surplus
teraWatts of clean energy would you like, and I'll deliver.
- Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC |
29 Dec 2007 01:31:07 PM |
|
|
"BradGuth" <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5bc0c3f4-c4ba-4fa9-965f-c641b3b1b293@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 29, 9:51 am, Jim Davis <jimdav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
G. L. Bradford wrote:
I couldn't begin to predict what you [individually] will or will
not do over time,
But it's fairly easy to predict what you [individually] will or will
not do over time.
but a world placed behind an iron curtain
inside a world-class concentration camp, a totalitarian state
paradise, becomes immediately predictable,...
You're going to wait for that totalitarian state to do your heavy
lifting for you.
Brad, if you think space is such a great place to live, go live
there. Stop complaining that everyone else has as little interest in
doing so as you do.
Jim Davis
He's more than welcome to try out Venus. At least on Venus there's no
shortage of renewable energy, as having nothing whatsoever to do with
fossil or yellowcake alternatives. Just ask how many spare/surplus
teraWatts of clean energy would you like, and I'll deliver.
- Brad Guth
Space colonization! Your comprehension level is about nil. In our numbers
and powers and capabilities [as a species] we are now beyond the extremely
limited and limiting dimensions of Mars, Venus and so on. Equivalently, we
are now far beyond macro-mainframe systems (macro-worlds) in our needs and
wants, and in need of micro-pc systems (generalized and specialized easily
customizable micro-worlds, and local and wide area networks, or complexes,
of them).
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "BradGuth" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC |
29 Dec 2007 03:44:51 PM |
|
|
On Dec 29, 11:31 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...@insightbb.com> wrote:
"BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5bc0c3f4-c4ba-4fa9-965f-c641b3b1b293@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 29, 9:51 am, Jim Davis <jimdav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
G. L. Bradford wrote:
I couldn't begin to predict what you [individually] will or will
not do over time,
But it's fairly easy to predict what you [individually] will or will
not do over time.
but a world placed behind an iron curtain
inside a world-class concentration camp, a totalitarian state
paradise, becomes immediately predictable,...
You're going to wait for that totalitarian state to do your heavy
lifting for you.
Brad, if you think space is such a great place to live, go live
there. Stop complaining that everyone else has as little interest in
doing so as you do.
Jim Davis
He's more than welcome to try out Venus. At least on Venus there's no
shortage of renewable energy, as having nothing whatsoever to do with
fossil or yellowcake alternatives. Just ask how many spare/surplus
teraWatts of clean energy would you like, and I'll deliver.
- Brad Guth
Space colonization! Your comprehension level is about nil.
What's so freaking "nil" about other intelligent life existing/
coexisting on Venus?
Do you even understand the meaning of "existing/coexist"?
- Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC |
30 Dec 2007 05:12:33 AM |
|
|
"BradGuth" <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c9a10c4-9a35-4f03-a399-448e0eaea513@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 29, 11:31 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...@insightbb.com> wrote:
"BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5bc0c3f4-c4ba-4fa9-965f-c641b3b1b293@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 29, 9:51 am, Jim Davis <jimdav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
G. L. Bradford wrote:
I couldn't begin to predict what you [individually] will or will
not do over time,
But it's fairly easy to predict what you [individually] will or will
not do over time.
but a world placed behind an iron curtain
inside a world-class concentration camp, a totalitarian state
paradise, becomes immediately predictable,...
You're going to wait for that totalitarian state to do your heavy
lifting for you.
Brad, if you think space is such a great place to live, go live
there. Stop complaining that everyone else has as little interest in
doing so as you do.
Jim Davis
He's more than welcome to try out Venus. At least on Venus there's no
shortage of renewable energy, as having nothing whatsoever to do with
fossil or yellowcake alternatives. Just ask how many spare/surplus
teraWatts of clean energy would you like, and I'll deliver.
- Brad Guth
Space colonization! Your comprehension level is about nil.
What's so freaking "nil" about other intelligent life existing/
coexisting on Venus?
Do you even understand the meaning of "existing/coexist"?
- Brad Guth
Nil because it had nothing to do with what I wrote or Davis's response to
it. I couldn't care less about the solar system's other planetary and moon
surfaces. Total surface area (not including the gas giants) doesn't total
more than about four to five Earths' worth of surface at the very most. So
not worth much at all to the kind of dimensions and evolution I spoke of.
The human population of the Earth, TODAY, is about seven billion people. Its
two-million fold increase in energy and powers over Man of two-million
B.C.E. will be peanuts to a [spacefaring and colonizing] civilization. And
money wealth is just a token of energy and note of exchange. Those fewer (a
shrinking percentage of total humanity) who would remain on Earth would be
deeply invested and involved, whether they wanted to be or not, in the
expanding activities and fields of those growing numbers -- and their
following generations -- who would not remain.
It's too bad that far too many supposed pros in the sciences today can't
see complex infrastructure as life. Mass || energy to complex infrastructure
= LIFE. Add vastly increasing breadths and depths(!) of space. Add time. Get
increasing room to maneuver and increasing margins for error.
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "BradGuth" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC |
30 Dec 2007 01:33:57 PM |
|
|
On Dec 30, 3:12 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...@insightbb.com> wrote:
"BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c9a10c4-9a35-4f03-a399-448e0eaea513@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 29, 11:31 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...@insightbb.com> wrote:
"BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5bc0c3f4-c4ba-4fa9-965f-c641b3b1b293@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 29, 9:51 am, Jim Davis <jimdav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
G. L. Bradford wrote:
I couldn't begin to predict what you [individually] will or will
not do over time,
But it's fairly easy to predict what you [individually] will or will
not do over time.
but a world placed behind an iron curtain
inside a world-class concentration camp, a totalitarian state
paradise, becomes immediately predictable,...
You're going to wait for that totalitarian state to do your heavy
lifting for you.
Brad, if you think space is such a great place to live, go live
there. Stop complaining that everyone else has as little interest in
doing so as you do.
Jim Davis
He's more than welcome to try out Venus. At least on Venus there's no
shortage of renewable energy, as having nothing whatsoever to do with
fossil or yellowcake alternatives. Just ask how many spare/surplus
teraWatts of clean energy would you like, and I'll deliver.
- Brad Guth
Space colonization! Your comprehension level is about nil.
What's so freaking "nil" about other intelligent life existing/
coexisting on Venus?
Do you even understand the meaning of "existing/coexist"?
- Brad Guth
Nil because it had nothing to do with what I wrote or Davis's response to
it. I couldn't care less about the solar system's other planetary and moon
surfaces. Total surface area (not including the gas giants) doesn't total
more than about four to five Earths' worth of surface at the very most. So
not worth much at all to the kind of dimensions and evolution I spoke of.
The human population of the Earth, TODAY, is about seven billion people. Its
two-million fold increase in energy and powers over Man of two-million
B.C.E. will be peanuts to a [spacefaring and colonizing] civilization. And
money wealth is just a token of energy and note of exchange. Those fewer (a
shrinking percentage of total humanity) who would remain on Earth would be
deeply invested and involved, whether they wanted to be or not, in the
expanding activities and fields of those growing numbers -- and their
following generations -- who would not remain.
It's too bad that far too many supposed pros in the sciences today can't
see complex infrastructure as life. Mass || energy to complex infrastructure
= LIFE. Add vastly increasing breadths and depths(!) of space. Add time. Get
increasing room to maneuver and increasing margins for error.
GLB
I can somewhat agree with your informative mindset, however wherever
intelligent life goes there had best already exist a substantial
wealth of easily accessible energy, such as available on Venus. Since
it's not all that likely we'll ever be capable of taking enough of our
worldly energy along for the ride of migrating ourselves on those
interstellar or even interplanetary spacefaring treks, means that such
demands for local energy while situated upon whatever other planet or
moon had best exist as is, or else we're summarily screwed no matters
how fancy of space travel capabilities we've accomplished, unless it's
of something FTLS and fusion powered from whatever can be extracted
from the vacuum of space while we're on the FTLS fly(sort of speak).
0.1c isn't likely all that humanly survivable (especially if there's
any course change required), though perhaps 0.01c can eventually
become doable, which limits our interstellar range as to only the
closest of star/solar systems, unless being of those which we're
already headed for (such as Sirius).
- Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC |
30 Dec 2007 05:21:40 PM |
|
|
On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 01:44:51PM -0800, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 29, 11:31 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...@insightbb.com> wrote:
"BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5bc0c3f4-c4ba-4fa9-965f-c641b3b1b293@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 29, 9:51 am, Jim Davis <jimdav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
G. L. Bradford wrote:
I couldn't begin to predict what you [individually] will or will
not do over time,
But it's fairly easy to predict what you [individually] will or will
not do over time.
but a world placed behind an iron curtain
inside a world-class concentration camp, a totalitarian state
paradise, becomes immediately predictable,...
You're going to wait for that totalitarian state to do your heavy
lifting for you.
Brad, if you think space is such a great place to live, go live
there. Stop complaining that everyone else has as little interest in
doing so as you do.
Jim Davis
He's more than welcome to try out Venus. At least on Venus there's no
shortage of renewable energy, as having nothing whatsoever to do with
fossil or yellowcake alternatives. Just ask how many spare/surplus
teraWatts of clean energy would you like, and I'll deliver.
- Brad Guth
Space colonization! Your comprehension level is about nil.
What's so freaking "nil" about other intelligent life existing/
coexisting on Venus?
Do you even understand the meaning of "existing/coexist"?
Is your definition anything like the tragi-comic Orwellian meaning of
'freedom' that is in widespread use today?
Regards,
Steve
--
I submit you should have invested in real-estate as opposed to picturesque
yet impractical castles in the sky.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BradGuth" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC |
29 Dec 2007 07:21:32 AM |
|
|
On Dec 29, 2:09 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...@insightbb.com> wrote:
"Jim Davis" <jimdav...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9A14E00B1F4F5jimdavis2earthlinkne@216.168.3.70...
G. L. Bradford wrote:
Have we colonized the space frontier yet (have we torn down
World Utopia's iron curtain yet and opened up the system wide
open)? NO!!!
Brad, don't you think it's about time you stopped talking about
colonization and started doing some of it? No one's going to do it
for you.
Jim Davis
I couldn't begin to predict what you [individually] will or will not do
over time, but a world placed behind an iron curtain inside a world-class
concentration camp, a totalitarian state paradise, becomes immediately
predictable, so predictable it would be laughable if it weren't so
[implosively tragic] ("....competition becomes more severe as the
destruction of distance intensifies the confrontation of states." -- Will
Durant (All the kinds of "states" whether artificial or natural. All
"states." There being no compensating opening up of system for a closing of
system; no compensating growing expansion out there for a continuing
contraction and constriction of world, freedom, choice, peace, room to
maneuver, margins for error...., in here)).
GLB
As you say, it's the actions and not the words of others that'll
become important, and right now those actions of others are taking
humanity back into the dark ages of witch and book burnings that's
getting similar to WWIII, if not worse.
- Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kT" |
|
| Title: Re: =?windows-1252?Q?WHAT=92S_NEW___Robert_L=2E_Park?==?windows-1252?Q?___Friday=2C_28_Dec_07___Washington=2C?==?windows-1252?Q?_DC?= |
28 Dec 2007 11:09:57 PM |
|
|
Jim Davis wrote:
G. L. Bradford wrote:
Have we colonized the space frontier yet (have we torn down
World Utopia's iron curtain yet and opened up the system wide
open)? NO!!!
Brad, don't you think it's about time you stopped talking about
colonization and started doing some of it? No one's going to do it
for you.
We have to take what we can get, Jim.
I'm actually surprised there are any space enthusiasts left at all.
The whole process has been corrupted by lobbyists, politicians and loyal
party hacks, just like everything else this administration has touched.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BradGuth" |
|
| Title: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_WHAT'S_NEW_Robert_L._Park_Friday,_28_Dec_07_Wa?==?ISO-8859-1?Q?shington,_DC?= |
28 Dec 2007 11:13:19 PM |
|
|
On Dec 28, 9:09 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
Jim Davis wrote:
G. L. Bradford wrote:
Have we colonized the space frontier yet (have we torn down
World Utopia's iron curtain yet and opened up the system wide
open)? NO!!!
Brad, don't you think it's about time you stopped talking about
colonization and started doing some of it? No one's going to do it
for you.
We have to take what we can get, Jim.
I'm actually surprised there are any space enthusiasts left at all.
The whole process has been corrupted by lobbyists, politicians and loyal
party hacks, just like everything else this administration has touched.
But your actions imposed upon others is what seems to fully support
this administration and of most all the ones before.
- Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT?S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington,DC |
30 Dec 2007 05:21:38 PM |
|
|
On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 11:09:57PM -0600, kT wrote:
Jim Davis wrote:
G. L. Bradford wrote:
Have we colonized the space frontier yet (have we torn down
World Utopia's iron curtain yet and opened up the system wide
open)? NO!!!
Brad, don't you think it's about time you stopped talking about
colonization and started doing some of it? No one's going to do it
for you.
We have to take what we can get, Jim.
You betcha.
I'm actually surprised there are any space enthusiasts left at all.
The whole process has been corrupted by lobbyists, politicians and loyal
party hacks, just like everything else this administration has touched.
That's because violent ideologues are unable to discuss issues rationally
when the real world is seen to make incursions in to the airspace presently
occupied by their great Victorian sky-castles and all the rest. Need
examples? Well, we have the study of linguistics and neurology (among
other hard science subjects) encroaching on the domain of religious
"freedom", which is pretty much about having the freedom to control,
enslave, or destroy those who are the subject of whatever dogma is at
issue. Then we have people like the notorious Tim May whose motives are
not rooted in dogmatism as in the way of the religionist, but who
nevertheless use junk science and political maneuvering to accomplish the
same goals as the dogmatic religionist, perhaps by way of USING
the religionists.
In this environment I suppose it is no surprise we have thousands of brad
guths posting, spewing drivel all over Usenet and the Web. Someone is
underwriting their efforts, yet the frame of discussion remains too narrow
to accomodate the system that spawns their activities and the
infrastructure that supports it.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the work being done on space access and
exploration is pretty much the exclusive domain of military assets. And
those assets are controlled by whom?
Sheep, that's who.
Regards,
Steve
--
Resolve to gather your shiny pebbles and move on to better things in the
happy new year.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kT" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT?S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington,DC |
30 Dec 2007 06:21:56 PM |
|
|
Steve Thompson wrote:
On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 11:09:57PM -0600, kT wrote:
Jim Davis wrote:
G. L. Bradford wrote:
Have we colonized the space frontier yet (have we torn down
World Utopia's iron curtain yet and opened up the system wide
open)? NO!!!
Brad, don't you think it's about time you stopped talking about
colonization and started doing some of it? No one's going to do it
for you.
We have to take what we can get, Jim.
You betcha.
I'm actually surprised there are any space enthusiasts left at all.
The whole process has been corrupted by lobbyists, politicians and loyal
party hacks, just like everything else this administration has touched.
That's because violent ideologues are unable to discuss issues rationally
when the real world is seen to make incursions in to the airspace presently
occupied by their great Victorian sky-castles and all the rest. Need
examples? Well, we have the study of linguistics and neurology (among
other hard science subjects) encroaching on the domain of religious
"freedom", which is pretty much about having the freedom to control,
enslave, or destroy those who are the subject of whatever dogma is at
issue. Then we have people like the notorious Tim May whose motives are
not rooted in dogmatism as in the way of the religionist, but who
nevertheless use junk science and political maneuvering to accomplish the
same goals as the dogmatic religionist, perhaps by way of USING
the religionists.
In this environment I suppose it is no surprise we have thousands of brad
guths posting, spewing drivel all over Usenet and the Web. Someone is
underwriting their efforts, yet the frame of discussion remains too narrow
to accomodate the system that spawns their activities and the
infrastructure that supports it.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the work being done on space access and
exploration is pretty much the exclusive domain of military assets. And
those assets are controlled by whom?
Sheep, that's who.
So you're say the next frontier will be opened up by atheists fleeing
Earth because of religious persecution? I almost have to agree with you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT?S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington,DC |
31 Dec 2007 08:15:01 PM |
|
|
On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 06:21:56PM -0600, kT wrote:
Steve Thompson wrote:
Sheep, that's who.
So you're say the next frontier will be opened up by atheists fleeing
Earth because of religious persecution? I almost have to agree with you.
I do not recall making any predictions concerning any 'next frontier' and/
or escaping atheists. In fact, I work under the assumption that religious
mania in the West (no matter whether it is real or contrived) will result
in continued marginalization of non-religious persons in the context of
commonplace economic activity, let alone access to space.
Religion continues to be the Old Boys Club of preference among the mentally
retarded.
Regards,
Steve
--
I submit you should have invested in real-estate as opposed to picturesque
yet impractical castles in the sky.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kT" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT?S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington,DC |
31 Dec 2007 08:30:12 PM |
|
|
Steve Thompson wrote:
On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 06:21:56PM -0600, kT wrote:
Steve Thompson wrote:
Sheep, that's who.
So you're say the next frontier will be opened up by atheists fleeing
Earth because of religious persecution? I almost have to agree with you.
I do not recall making any predictions concerning any 'next frontier' and/
or escaping atheists. In fact, I work under the assumption that religious
mania in the West (no matter whether it is real or contrived) will result
in continued marginalization of non-religious persons in the context of
commonplace economic activity, let alone access to space.
Religion continues to be the Old Boys Club of preference among the mentally
retarded.
I agree, but I posit the primary motivation for leaving Earth among hard
core space advocates is to get away from the retarded, which in the case
of the hard core space activist, is the vast majority of humanity, and
their idiotic beliefs; their complete misunderstanding of the gravity of
their condition, situation and immediate possibilities and prospects.
Religion is but a small part of the corruption.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT?S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC |
01 Jan 2008 05:49:17 AM |
|
|
On 1 Jan, 02:30, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
Steve Thompson wrote:
On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 06:21:56PM -0600, kT wrote:
Steve Thompson wrote:
Sheep, that's who.
So you're say the next frontier will be opened up by atheists fleeing
Earth because of religious persecution? I almost have to agree with you=
..
I do not recall making any predictions concerning any 'next frontier' an=
d/
or escaping atheists. =A0In fact, I work under the assumption that relig=
ious
mania in the West (no matter whether it is real or contrived) will resul=
t
in continued marginalization of non-religious persons in the context of
commonplace economic activity, let alone access to space.
Religion continues to be the Old Boys Club of preference among the menta=
lly
retarded.
I agree, but I posit the primary motivation for leaving Earth among hard
core space advocates is to get away from the retarded, which in the case
of the hard core space activist, is the vast majority of humanity, and
their idiotic beliefs; their complete misunderstanding of the gravity of
their condition, situation and immediate possibilities and prospects.
Religion is but a small part of the corruption.
Look it will be the retarded that will want to develop their specific
form of retardation away from all the others. Like Iraq. Personally I
would form my space colony from those who had fled persecution. That
is to say all the Iraqis who have fled abroad - including those whores
of Babylon who are not paying 15% to Assad.
BTW - Has anyone had sex in the ISS?
- Ian Parker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT?S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington,DC |
31 Dec 2007 10:10:58 PM |
|
|
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 08:30:12PM -0600, kT wrote:
Steve Thompson wrote:
On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 06:21:56PM -0600, kT wrote:
Steve Thompson wrote:
Sheep, that's who.
So you're say the next frontier will be opened up by atheists fleeing
Earth because of religious persecution? I almost have to agree with you.
I do not recall making any predictions concerning any 'next frontier' and/
or escaping atheists. In fact, I work under the assumption that religious
mania in the West (no matter whether it is real or contrived) will result
in continued marginalization of non-religious persons in the context of
commonplace economic activity, let alone access to space.
Religion continues to be the Old Boys Club of preference among the mentally
retarded.
I agree, but I posit the primary motivation for leaving Earth among hard
core space advocates is to get away from the retarded, which in the case
of the hard core space activist, is the vast majority of humanity, and
their idiotic beliefs; their complete misunderstanding of the gravity of
their condition, situation and immediate possibilities and prospects.
Etc. Well, I can't say much about other space enthusiasts, but getting
away from the crazies is not my prime motive for being interested in access
to space.
Religion is but a small part of the corruption.
Sure. Religion is a special-case of abstracted mistruth.
Regards,
Steve
--
I submit you should have invested in real-estate as opposed to picturesque
yet impractical castles in the sky.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT?S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington,DC |
01 Jan 2008 03:25:54 AM |
|
|
"Steve Thompson" <steve49152@yahoo.ca.ca> wrote in message
news:ec9fd474d69ba02@nntp.myofb.org...
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 08:30:12PM -0600, kT wrote:
Steve Thompson wrote:
On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 06:21:56PM -0600, kT wrote:
Steve Thompson wrote:
Sheep, that's who.
So you're say the next frontier will be opened up by atheists fleeing
Earth because of religious persecution? I almost have to agree with
you.
I do not recall making any predictions concerning any 'next frontier'
and/
or escaping atheists. In fact, I work under the assumption that
religious
mania in the West (no matter whether it is real or contrived) will
result
in continued marginalization of non-religious persons in the context of
commonplace economic activity, let alone access to space.
Religion continues to be the Old Boys Club of preference among the
mentally
retarded.
I agree, but I posit the primary motivation for leaving Earth among hard
core space advocates is to get away from the retarded, which in the case
of the hard core space activist, is the vast majority of humanity, and
their idiotic beliefs; their complete misunderstanding of the gravity of
their condition, situation and immediate possibilities and prospects.
Etc. Well, I can't say much about other space enthusiasts, but getting
away from the crazies is not my prime motive for being interested in
access
to space.
Religion is but a small part of the corruption.
Sure. Religion is a special-case of abstracted mistruth.
Regards,
Steve
Believe what you will, it makes no difference at all. The problem is that
the U.S. and a lot of other governments have never had any intention of
opening the space frontier wide open to all. The Outer Space Treaty is a
very narrow and confining document as to belief system! Prohibitive of all
who would disagree in any way with the restrictions on [all Mankind] listed
in the Treaty. The Treaty itself is a totalitarian document; a World Control
document. A siege warfare document that really besieges Man on Earth. No one
is to be permitted off this Earth who does not accept the Big Brother state
as absolute ruler over Man (Man's every thought, every activity, every
possession).
This world sits in that [encompassing] frontier. Thus the Orwellian state
made by the Outer Space Treaty to rule over Man throughout the space
frontier in fact rules by indirection (a siege state) over all Mankind right
here on Earth. The consequences of this made universe-class totalitarian
state -- and statism -- are truly worldclass consequences effecting every
man, woman and child right here on Earth. More than that, all life on Earth.
A world that cuts itself off from the outside universe, or gets cut off from
the outside universe, turns inward (goes to all out war with itself). You
should never look at the very diverse nature of life, or the very singular
nature of Utopia (The Better More Perfect World), too closely if you have
anything like a weak stomach.
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT?S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington,DC |
01 Jan 2008 03:55:33 AM |
|
|
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:Y6mdncn4lo2_mufanZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@insightbb.com...
:
: "Steve Thompson" <steve49152@yahoo.ca.ca> wrote in message
: news:ec9fd474d69ba02@nntp.myofb.org...
: > On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 08:30:12PM -0600, kT wrote:
: >> Steve Thompson wrote:
: >> >On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 06:21:56PM -0600, kT wrote:
: >> >>Steve Thompson wrote:
: >> >>>Sheep, that's who.
: >> >>So you're say the next frontier will be opened up by atheists fleeing
: >> >>Earth because of religious persecution? I almost have to agree with
: >> >>you.
: >> >
: >> >I do not recall making any predictions concerning any 'next frontier'
: >> >and/
: >> >or escaping atheists. In fact, I work under the assumption that
: >> >religious
: >> >mania in the West (no matter whether it is real or contrived) will
: >> >result
: >> >in continued marginalization of non-religious persons in the context
of
: >> >commonplace economic activity, let alone access to space.
: >> >
: >> >Religion continues to be the Old Boys Club of preference among the
: >> >mentally
: >> >retarded.
: >>
: >> I agree, but I posit the primary motivation for leaving Earth among
hard
: >> core space advocates is to get away from the retarded, which in the
case
: >> of the hard core space activist, is the vast majority of humanity, and
: >> their idiotic beliefs; their complete misunderstanding of the gravity
of
: >> their condition, situation and immediate possibilities and prospects.
: >
: > Etc. Well, I can't say much about other space enthusiasts, but getting
: > away from the crazies is not my prime motive for being interested in
: > access
: > to space.
: >
: >> Religion is but a small part of the corruption.
: >
: > Sure. Religion is a special-case of abstracted mistruth.
: >
: >
: > Regards,
: >
: > Steve
:
: Believe what you will, it makes no difference at all. The problem is that
: the U.S. and a lot of other governments have never had any intention of
: opening the space frontier wide open to all. The Outer Space Treaty is a
: very narrow and confining document as to belief system! Prohibitive of all
: who would disagree in any way with the restrictions on [all Mankind]
listed
: in the Treaty. The Treaty itself is a totalitarian document; a World
Control
: document. A siege warfare document that really besieges Man on Earth. No
one
: is to be permitted off this Earth who does not accept the Big Brother
state
: as absolute ruler over Man (Man's every thought, every activity, every
: possession).
:
: This world sits in that [encompassing] frontier. Thus the Orwellian state
: made by the Outer Space Treaty to rule over Man throughout the space
: frontier in fact rules by indirection (a siege state) over all Mankind
right
: here on Earth. The consequences of this made universe-class totalitarian
: state -- and statism -- are truly worldclass consequences effecting every
: man, woman and child right here on Earth. More than that, all life on
Earth.
: A world that cuts itself off from the outside universe, or gets cut off
from
: the outside universe, turns inward (goes to all out war with itself). You
: should never look at the very diverse nature of life, or the very singular
: nature of Utopia (The Better More Perfect World), too closely if you have
: anything like a weak stomach.
:
: GLB
Look, you ranting psycho, if you want to build a ship and
bugger off to Mars, the Moon, Venus or wherever it is you want
to go, nobody is stopping you. If you need supplies (and you will)
I'll be more than happy to sell them to you at a reasonable profit.
Take your fellow paranoid Utopians with you. Please.
The space frontier wide open to all but you have to build or buy
your own prairie schooner to get there, just as those who trekked
across North America did 150 years ago to get to California and
build Hollywood. Now quite whining and *****. Go to Antarctica
for all I or anyone else cares, I'm not going to come looking for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT?S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington,DC |
01 Jan 2008 07:01:38 PM |
|
|
On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 09:55:33AM +0000, Androcles wrote:
[snip]
Look, you ranting psycho, if you want to build a ship and
bugger off to Mars, the Moon, Venus or wherever it is you want
to go, nobody is stopping you. If you need supplies (and you will)
I'll be more than happy to sell them to you at a reasonable profit.
Take your fellow paranoid Utopians with you. Please.
The space frontier wide open to all but you have to build or buy
your own prairie schooner to get there, just as those who trekked
across North America did 150 years ago to get to California and
build Hollywood. Now quite whining and *****. Go to Antarctica
for all I or anyone else cares, I'm not going to come looking for you.
He's probably Brad's cousin or whatever.
Regards,
Steve
--
I submit you should have invested in real-estate as opposed to picturesque
yet impractical castles in the sky.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Parker" |
|
| Title: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_WHAT'S_NEW_Robert_L._Park_Friday,_28_Dec_07_Wa?==?ISO-8859-1?Q?shington,_DC?= |
29 Dec 2007 11:01:30 AM |
|
|
On 28 Dec, 23:47, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...@insightbb.com> wrote:
=A0 It is surprising that SCIENTISTS (particularly including 'professional=
phyicists') who went before Congress to hawk the needlessness of Man's
expansion into Space (including just "at this time") will be discovered to=
have been the most stupid humans the world has ever produced.
I think that one or two questions are being begged. The first question
is whether we can colonize with existing rocket technology. I think
the answer to that must be "no". If you say "Yes, we can do greater
things in space, but on the basis of radically different technology -
like the ability to use the resouces of space."
To me the vital question is will the utilization of space resources be
done using colonists and astronauts or will it be done on the basis of
robotics. As I have not tired of pointing out, if you schedule a
landing on Mars for 2031 and "back to the Moon" for 2020, you are
wasting your time. By those dates (certainly 2031) there will be agile
robots capable of human manual dexterity.
I think perhaps the questions we should be asking is what can be done
now to influence future developments. As has been correctly pointed
out robotics will develop whatever decisions NASA takes. A space
agency will of course have to qualify components for space.
Perhaps there is one thing we can do now. That is to look at agile
robots and think about how we might use them. Do a feasibility study.
If we went to an asteroid, smelted a quantity of aluminium and made a
mirror say, it would give us some confidence in the feasibility of the
use of resources.
Doing something with robotics MUST be easier than using astronauts.
All you need is electricity, you don't need food, water or oxygen. Any
space station anywhere would work far better without the need for life
support.
Scientists are not blind either to the nationalistic elements of
space. When I talk about space being like T shirts I am talking a
little bit tongue in cheek. Scientists are however unanimous in
rejecting national prestige as being a prime motivator.
- Ian Parker
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC |
29 Dec 2007 02:31:54 PM |
|
|
"Ian Parker" <ianparker2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4c0f0c2-843b-404e-9450-2ee6dfe89a41@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On 28 Dec, 23:47, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...@insightbb.com> wrote:
It is surprising that SCIENTISTS (particularly including 'professional
phyicists') who went before Congress to hawk the needlessness of Man's
expansion into Space (including just "at this time") will be discovered to
have been the most stupid humans the world has ever produced.
I think that one or two questions are being begged. The first question
is whether we can colonize with existing rocket technology. I think
the answer to that must be "no". If you say "Yes, we can do greater
things in space, but on the basis of radically different technology -
like the ability to use the resouces of space."
To me the vital question is will the utilization of space resources be
done using colonists and astronauts or will it be done on the basis of
robotics. As I have not tired of pointing out, if you schedule a
landing on Mars for 2031 and "back to the Moon" for 2020, you are
wasting your time. By those dates (certainly 2031) there will be agile
robots capable of human manual dexterity.
I think perhaps the questions we should be asking is what can be done
now to influence future developments. As has been correctly pointed
out robotics will develop whatever decisions NASA takes. A space
agency will of course have to qualify components for space.
Perhaps there is one thing we can do now. That is to look at agile
robots and think about how we might use them. Do a feasibility study.
If we went to an asteroid, smelted a quantity of aluminium and made a
mirror say, it would give us some confidence in the feasibility of the
use of resources.
Doing something with robotics MUST be easier than using astronauts.
All you need is electricity, you don't need food, water or oxygen. Any
space station anywhere would work far better without the need for life
support.
Scientists are not blind either to the nationalistic elements of
space. When I talk about space being like T shirts I am talking a
little bit tongue in cheek. Scientists are however unanimous in
rejecting national prestige as being a prime motivator.
- Ian Parker
No planet, or number of moons or planets, is enough anymore. We are going
to have to go smaller in order to go larger, like we did with computers; a
modeling of the system. Customizable generalized and specialized units and
systems, local and wide area complex networks of island micro-worlds. Space
colonization is what I'm talking about.
Do your robots in space without Man there. You won't be able to get them
small enough to cover the graduating infinitizing cost. You can throw things
out the window, it doesn't do anything about the shrinkage of the world or
the numbing deadness of World Utopia.
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC |
30 Dec 2007 05:32:57 AM |
|
|
On 29 Dec, 20:31, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...@insightbb.com> wrote:
=A0 No planet, or number of moons or planets, is enough anymore. We are go=
ing
to have to go smaller in order to go larger, like we did with computers; a=
modeling of the system. Customizable generalized and specialized units and=
systems, local and wide area complex networks of island micro-worlds. Spac=
e
colonization is what I'm talking about.
=A0 Do your robots in space without Man there. You won't be able to get th=
em
small enough to cover the graduating infinitizing cost. You can throw thin=
gs
out the window, it doesn't do anything about the shrinkage of the world or=
the numbing deadness of World Utopia.
The logic as I see it is this. 90% of the world's population live on
10% of the Earth's surface. If you were to (say) postulate Space Solar
Power to do large scale desalination you would release, in the short
term at least, far more land than would be released by space
colonization. As I have stated it MUST be easier to colonize the
Sahara (and other deserts) than it would be Mars. You can walk around
unprotected in the Sahara now, you might like air conditioning indoors
but it is a far cry from Mars.
To assemble SSP (I am assuming for the sake of argument that this is
our technology, there may be even cheaper purely terrestral
technologies but that only reinforces my case) you require use (by
robots) of the resources of space. Much less mass is required than for
ANY type of colonization. With cheaper access you might even take
everything up from Earth. As I said for long term living the Sahara is
vastly preferable.
In the very long term, yes we will have to go into space. As the short
term arguments are so powerfully in favor of terrestrial solution I
wonder whether or not there is some ulterior motive. - The bolthole
for generals and politicians.
- Ian Parker
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC |
30 Dec 2007 11:54:06 AM |
|
|
"Ian Parker" <ianparker2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c27cf39e-208e-4cf2-9b2c-3705a3025228@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On 29 Dec, 20:31, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...@insightbb.com> wrote:
No planet, or number of moons or planets, is enough anymore. We are going
to have to go smaller in order to go larger, like we did with computers; a
modeling of the system. Customizable generalized and specialized units and
systems, local and wide area complex networks of island micro-worlds.
Space
colonization is what I'm talking about.
Do your robots in space without Man there. You won't be able to get them
small enough to cover the graduating infinitizing cost. You can throw
things
out the window, it doesn't do anything about the shrinkage of the world or
the numbing deadness of World Utopia.
The logic as I see it is this. 90% of the world's population live on
10% of the Earth's surface. If you were to (say) postulate Space Solar
Power to do large scale desalination you would release, in the short
term at least, far more land than would be released by space
colonization. As I have stated it MUST be easier to colonize the
Sahara (and other deserts) than it would be Mars. You can walk around
unprotected in the Sahara now, you might like air conditioning indoors
but it is a far cry from Mars.
To assemble SSP (I am assuming for the sake of argument that this is
our technology, there may be even cheaper purely terrestral
technologies but that only reinforces my case) you require use (by
robots) of the resources of space. Much less mass is required than for
ANY type of colonization. With cheaper access you might even take
everything up from Earth. As I said for long term living the Sahara is
vastly preferable.
For a trillion humans? For a quadrillion? For even sixty to seventy
billion humans? No!? Then the Sahara, the sea beds, Antarctica, and so on,
is not enough. Not even for the short term. GLB
In the very long term, yes we will have to go into space. As the short
term arguments are so powerfully in favor of terrestrial solution I
wonder whether or not there is some ulterior motive. - The bolthole
for generals and politicians.
- Ian Parker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC |
31 Dec 2007 05:14:52 AM |
|
|
On 30 Dec, 17:54, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...@insightbb.com> wrote:
=A0 For a trillion humans? For a quadrillion? For even sixty to seventy
billion humans? No!? Then the Sahara, the sea beds, Antarctica, and so on,=
is not enough. Not even for the short term. GLB
I think what we are arguing about is timescale. There is great
uncertainty about the Earth's population. By 2050 it will be 9-10
billion. This is a fairly certain prediction. At 9-10 billion what we
need to be thinking about is supplies of raw materials and energy, not
even primerally more land. In the further future who knows. If we do
in fact manage to achieve a vastly increased longevity and people have
second families in their sixies, this will upset al the predictions.
At the moment the prediction is for a slow decline after 2050.
In actual fact the goal for 2050 should not even be the opening up of
new land (on Earth) but a stabalization of climate and technology to
bring not deserts, but semi dererts into cultivation and to halt the
slide into desertification.
Space I believe will be crucial in the control of climate. Hurricanes
occur because of chaos and I can forsee space based mirrors being used
to prevent the build up of storms. In fact if NASA were to present
this as a major space goal they would be presenting Earth with clear
benefits. A space mirror system would be unlikely to be cancelled with
a change in administation. Everyone can see the destruction of
Katrina. On the other hand there are large numbers of people who
cannot see the benefits of a jaunt to Mars.
In the very long term, yes we will have to go into space. As the short
term arguments are so powerfully in favor of terrestrial solution I
wonder whether or not there is some ulterior motive. - The bolthole
for generals and politicians.
I still believe that any short term goal must be a bolthole. Space
must be used to bring clear cut short term benefits to Earth. If
indeed at some point we have a population of 20 billion which is
rising decisions will need to be taken as to what to do. We do not
have to take these decisions now.
In point of fact the main fear I have about population is not TOTAL
overpopulation, but of population pressure in a particular region. The
Middle East still has a rapidly rising population, OK rates of
fertility are declining even there but at a slower rate than in the
rest of the world. this is going to be of major concern in terms of
the peace of the region.
The Middle East is of course arid and will need technological
solutions for this aridity. Lets put the surplus Damascenes near to
Palymyra.
- Ian Parker
.
|
|
|
| User: "kT" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC |
31 Dec 2007 08:38:51 AM |
|
|
Ian Parker wrote:
On 30 Dec, 17:54, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...@insightbb.com> wrote:
For a trillion humans? For a quadrillion? For even sixty to seventy
billion humans? No!? Then the Sahara, the sea beds, Antarctica, and so on,
is not enough. Not even for the short term. GLB
I think what we are arguing about is timescale. There is great
uncertainty about the Earth's population. By 2050 it will be 9-10
billion. This is a fairly certain prediction. At 9-10 billion what we
need to be thinking about is supplies of raw materials and energy, not
even primerally more land. In the further future who knows. If we do
in fact manage to achieve a vastly increased longevity and people have
second families in their sixies, this will upset al the predictions.
At the moment the prediction is for a slow decline after 2050.
In actual fact the goal for 2050 should not even be the opening up of
new land (on Earth) but a stabalization of climate and technology to
bring not deserts, but semi dererts into cultivation and to halt the
slide into desertification.
Most people tend to forget about that wide swath of desert across the
tropics, the one that has been getting larger for thousands of years.
The Sahara, Arabia, the Southwest, etc. Getting bigger, not smaller.
Space I believe will be crucial in the control of climate. Hurricanes
occur because of chaos and I can forsee space based mirrors being used
to prevent the build up of storms. In fact if NASA were to present
this as a major space goal they would be presenting Earth with clear
benefits. A space mirror system would be unlikely to be cancelled with
a change in administation. Everyone can see the destruction of
Katrina. On the other hand there are large numbers of people who
cannot see the benefits of a jaunt to Mars.
In the very long term, yes we will have to go into space. As the short
term arguments are so powerfully in favor of terrestrial solution I
wonder whether or not there is some ulterior motive. - The bolthole
for generals and politicians.
I still believe that any short term goal must be a bolthole. Space
must be used to bring clear cut short term benefits to Earth. If
indeed at some point we have a population of 20 billion which is
rising decisions will need to be taken as to what to do. We do not
have to take these decisions now.
In point of fact the main fear I have about population is not TOTAL
overpopulation, but of population pressure in a particular region. The
Middle East still has a rapidly rising population, OK rates of
fertility are declining even there but at a slower rate than in the
rest of the world. this is going to be of major concern in terms of
the peace of the region.
The Middle East is of course arid and will need technological
solutions for this aridity. Lets put the surplus Damascenes near to
Palymyra.
Heh heh ... Let them eat ... coal!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC |
31 Dec 2007 10:28:08 AM |
|
|
On 31 Dec, 14:38, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:
On 30 Dec, 17:54, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...@insightbb.com> wrote:
=A0 For a trillion humans? For a quadrillion? For even sixty to seventy=
billion humans? No!? Then the Sahara, the sea beds, Antarctica, and so =
on,
is not enough. Not even for the short term. GLB
I think what we are arguing about is timescale. There is great
uncertainty about the Earth's population. By 2050 it will be 9-10
billion. This is a fairly certain prediction. At 9-10 billion what we
need to be thinking about is supplies of raw materials and energy, not
even primerally more land. In the further future who knows. If we do
in fact manage to achieve a vastly increased longevity and people have
second families in their sixies, this will upset al the predictions.
At the moment the prediction is for a slow decline after 2050.
In actual fact the goal for 2050 should not even be the opening up of
new land (on Earth) but a stabalization of climate and technology to
bring not deserts, but semi dererts into cultivation and to halt the
slide into desertification.
Most people tend to forget about that wide swath of desert across the
tropics, the one that has been getting larger for thousands of years.
The Sahara, Arabia, the Southwest, etc. Getting bigger, not smaller.
Space I believe will be crucial in the control of climate. Hurricanes
occur because of chaos and I can forsee space based mirrors being used
to prevent the build up of storms. In fact if NASA were to present
this as a major space goal they would be presenting Earth with clear
benefits. A space mirror system would be unlikely to be cancelled with
a change in administation. Everyone can see the destruction of
Katrina. On the other hand there are large numbers of people who
cannot see the benefits of a jaunt to Mars.
In the very long term, yes we will have to go into space. As the short
term arguments are so powerfully in favor of terrestrial solution I
wonder whether or not there is some ulterior motive. - The bolthole
for generals and politicians.
I still believe that any short term goal must be a bolthole. Space
must be used to bring clear cut short term benefits to Earth. If
indeed at some point we have a population of 20 billion which is
rising decisions will need to be taken as to what to do. We do not
have to take these decisions now.
In point of fact the main fear I have about population is not TOTAL
overpopulation, but of population pressure in a particular region. The
Middle East still has a rapidly rising population, OK rates of
fertility are declining even there but at a slower rate than in the
rest of the world. this is going to be of major concern in terms of
the peace of the region.
The Middle East is of course arid and will need technological
solutions for this aridity. Lets put the surplus Damascenes near to
Palymyra.
Heh heh ... Let them eat ... coal!- Hide quoted text -
That is not very constructive is it? Indeed they have been getter
larger and technology gives us the opportunity to reverse this trend.
Space, of course, provides the grandest solutions - SSP for example.
There are terrestrial technologies, available now, that can reverse
this.
The fountains of Damascus can be filled by using desalination powered
by fairly simple solar power systems. Eg, mirrors reflecting onto a
boiler and raising steam.
- Ian Parker
.
|
|
|
| User: "kT" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC |
31 Dec 2007 11:29:20 AM |
|
|
Ian Parker wrote:
On 31 Dec, 14:38, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:
On 30 Dec, 17:54, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...@insightbb.com> wrote:
For a trillion humans? For a quadrillion? For even sixty to seventy
billion humans? No!? Then the Sahara, the sea beds, Antarctica, and so on,
is not enough. Not even for the short term. GLB
I think what we are arguing about is timescale. There is great
uncertainty about the Earth's population. By 2050 it will be 9-10
billion. This is a fairly certain prediction. At 9-10 billion what we
need to be thinking about is supplies of raw materials and energy, not
even primerally more land. In the further future who knows. If we do
in fact manage to achieve a vastly increased longevity and people have
second families in their sixies, this will upset al the predictions.
At the moment the prediction is for a slow decline after 2050.
In actual fact the goal for 2050 should not even be the opening up of
new land (on Earth) but a stabalization of climate and technology to
bring not deserts, but semi dererts into cultivation and to halt the
slide into desertification.
Most people tend to forget about that wide swath of desert across the
tropics, the one that has been getting larger for thousands of years.
The Sahara, Arabia, the Southwest, etc. Getting bigger, not smaller.
Space I believe will be crucial in the control of climate. Hurricanes
occur because of chaos and I can forsee space based mirrors being used
to prevent the build up of storms. In fact if NASA were to present
this as a major space goal they would be presenting Earth with clear
benefits. A space mirror system would be unlikely to be cancelled with
a change in administation. Everyone can see the destruction of
Katrina. On the other hand there are large numbers of people who
cannot see the benefits of a jaunt to Mars.
In the very long term, yes we will have to go into space. As the short
term arguments are so powerfully in favor of terrestrial solution I
wonder whether or not there is some ulterior motive. - The bolthole
for generals and politicians.
I still believe that any short term goal must be a bolthole. Space
must be used to bring clear cut short term benefits to Earth. If
indeed at some point we have a population of 20 billion which is
rising decisions will need to be taken as to what to do. We do not
have to take these decisions now.
In point of fact the main fear I have about population is not TOTAL
overpopulation, but of population pressure in a particular region. The
Middle East still has a rapidly rising population, OK rates of
fertility are declining even there but at a slower rate than in the
rest of the world. this is going to be of major concern in terms of
the peace of the region.
The Middle East is of course arid and will need technological
solutions for this aridity. Lets put the surplus Damascenes near to
Palymyra.
Heh heh ... Let them eat ... coal!- Hide quoted text -
That is not very constructive is it? Indeed they have been getter
larger and technology gives us the opportunity to reverse this trend.
Space, of course, provides the grandest solutions - SSP for example.
There are terrestrial technologies, available now, that can reverse
this.
So, where is the rocket that can do this?
The fountains of Damascus can be filled by using desalination powered
by fairly simple solar power systems. Eg, mirrors reflecting onto a
boiler and raising steam.
So, where are all the mirrors?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
