Slashdot Mirror
Buzz Advocates Lagrange Point Spaceport
thrasymachus writes "Buzz Aldrin has an editorial in the New York Times (free reg req) advocating a spaceport at a Lagrange point between the Earth and the moon over simply more moon missions. He emphasizes the cost and practicality of such a station, as well its potential as a 'bridge to the heavens.'"
ZZ Top
I am sure there will be legal battles about who can claim ownership of the lagrange points similar to the legal battles of Antarctica.
Saw an inteview this morning on CNN I believe. He talked about the L2 point idea as well as the dificulty with all the other things going on in the world as well as the budget deficit.
Most opponents to this idea don't consider that they are talking about realigning NASA in the direction of achieving this one big mission instead of the aimless direction it has been moving if for quite awhile. Not more money, just applying existing resources in a specific direction.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
What is he hiding?
I think this is good as it is a step out of the 'Cradle' and probably requires nearly the same energy as a trip to the moon (TLI or whatever).
However the advantage of the moon is that you can burrow in and they might be water at the poles.
Water = H2 and O2 = Fuel and Air = Explore Solar System
Sorry if this is typed fast - I am trying to config a Cisco Router at the same time!!
It's actually quite a good read but not enough to make me want to register...
Just click on the link after the text
If the URL is valid, try visiting that web page by clicking on the following link:
There is only one Heaven, and you get there by following the True Church. So, let's just call L5 a bridge to the continued Pax Americana (which, to be true, is close to a heaven on Earth, for those who like freedom, equality, liberty and guns).
A. Rightmann
I wonder if the Chinese (and maybe even the Russians) would be willing to go into a partnership with us for this. They've already said they want to place a man on the moon by 2020, and with Bush's recent indications that the US may be following suit, I'm sure a little cooperation wouldn't hurt.
It's better to build a space station on the
moon, since you can have a large radio telescope completely sheltered from Earth noise on the far
side.
Interesting article, but it still doesn't address the "building complex things in space" problem. I mean, we're pretty good at building things in gravity, with an abundance of raw materials, but we just haven't built much of note in hard vacuum zero gravity where you have to truck everything you need there. Even the space station was flown in modular format from Earth - at huge expense. Lagrange points are cool - but planets are cooler.
Everything you want to fly to somewhere else from a Lagrangian point you first have to fly to a Lagrangian point from some planet!
Frankly, the best place from which to get to pretty much anywhere in the solar system (including the Moon!) is from the surface of Mars. Two reasons: you can build things there, and the cost in fuel is lower. Here's a table which uses deltaV (total change in velocity required and thus fuel) to illustrate this very point.
First get humans to Mars, then the whole solar system is within reach.
Disclaimer: I didn't RTFNYTA for the usual reason.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Here is a link the famous Buzz Aldrin "punch" video wherein he punches some moron who calls him a liar about having ever been to the moon. Posted for your enjoyment :)
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
Something like 90% of the energy needed to get to the Moon is spent just getting to low earth orbit. While it might be an interesting project, a Lagrange point space station isn't going to make space travel much cheaper. We've got to solve the "first 100 mile problem", to paraphrase the telecomm industry.
I can't say whether a space elevator is feasible, but it seems a more useful goal to shoot for. That, or some method of launch better than strapping on a shitload of explosives and lighting the fuse.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
Return to Moon May Be on Agenda : "President Bush's aides are considering a new lunar exploration program and other unifying national goals, including a campaign to promote longevity or fight childhood illness or hunger, as they sift ideas for a fresh agenda for the final year of his term, administration officials said yesterday."
Hmm. Perhaps they would like something to distract from the whole Afghanistan-Iraq thing, and the less than stellar results of those... And the Valerie Plame affair... and vote fraude through unauditable voting systems, like Diebold... and the massive budget and trade deficits.. and the declining value of the dollar...
We can hardly get a space station built in low earth orbit. I would imagine building one at L2 to be even more difficult.
Besides, how do you explain to the Amercian people that getting to L2 is an amazing accomplishment? They barely understand the moon and mars, forget explaining Lagrange points.
Unfortunately, the US does not have a vehicle capable of carrying human cargo to any of the lagrange points. If GWB actually decides to start a new "return to the moon" program on 12/17, as some are speculating, perhaps we will see the development of a vehicle which can do more than LEO.
I question the need to attempt to set up a permament presence on the moon, unless a Lunar base could be self-sufficent. Even if we find O2 and H2O on the moon, we would still need to ship biomass from earth. Not to mention, as a jumping off point for the rest of the solar system, the moon is not ideal, as it still has a fairly deep gravity well. It is better than Earth for doing so, however.
I'm sure this point was beaten to death in yesterday's story about moon missions, but space stations don't make much sense.
We've already got ISS for better or worse as a 0g test lab. On the Moon, we could build a solar farm that would fill our energy needs on Earth pretty much entirely. We would also be able to get a telescope bigger and better than anything else in existence. Lastly, the Moon offers a nice balance of construction material and low gravity which would give us a great jump-off point to Mars and the belt.
Speaking of Mars, putting people there would have more benefits than I care to type. New world for humanity, extraterrestrial science (possibly biology), easy access to the asteroids, ability to live off the land that can't be done on the moon or deep space...
Another thing while I'm all steamed up, isn't the LaGrange point between the earth and moon L1? That's an unstable point that would probably require regular correction so it doesn't fall to earth or the moon. SOHO has to deal with issues like that. I would hope that they would at least think to put it at L4 or L5 for stability's sake.
Could someone please enumerate the benefits of a L1 station cause I don't see them.
Blaze a trail to the New World
apt-get install air water fuelstorage-tanks
then a little later.
apt-get update
apt-get station-upgrade
A manned moon base would encourage astronauts to practice In Situ Resource Utilization, making fuel and oxygen out of the moon, or mars' geological resources. This would be good practice for a future Mars mission, and would be useful in producing fuel for other missions in our solar system. Also, it would demonstrate whether or not there is commercial viability for a moon-based mining operation.
If you think that's going to be a problem, just wait till the spaceport is being build and all those people who bought 'lunar land' try to charge rent.
On the other hand, if we start building stuff on the moon we will probably get into a whole "territorial fight" with other countries and wind up killing ourselves because the weapons we used on the moon somehow changed its orbit. Thus allowing the earth to fall into natural disaster chaos.
Have you considered writing for hollywood? I hear Bruce Willis is bored...
====
Crudely Drawn Games
A really interesting article about Lagrange Points can be found here. What I found really fascinating is the fact that it seems like that the earth pulls/pushes dust around space on the earth-moon Lagrange Points L4 and L5.
That's clearly faked. The shadow cast by Buzz Aldrin's fist is all wrong.
First off you have to remember that Buzz is now in the spaceflight hardware business. While the Earth Moon L1 LaGrange point does offer intersting possibilites for being a gateway to the solar system, this really just sounds like another International Space Station. I worry about under utilization, a wandering mission objective, and massive operational costs. Not that a lunar surface base will be cheap. The big difference in my mind is the availability of raw materials on the surface. You won't have to launch as much mass from Earth. This would especially true if there really is water in the polar craters. Nevertheless, having a bunch of lunar soil to pile up for shielding would be a tremendous advantage. You also do not have to maintain the orbit of the moon (unlike an EM-L1 gateway). The other big advantage of the lunar base over EM-L1 is that once there you actually have things to do and places to explore. Just imagine having some large otpical, IR, and radio telescopes on the darkside of the moon - away from all of the earth-bound noise/light pollution. The possibilities are vast. Maybe we should go to the moon first and then build one of those carbon nanotube elevators from the surface to EM-L1 later.
-- Instant Karma's gonna get you! [320848 = 2*2*2*2*11*1823]
use the Moon as a Lagrangian point for going to mars and beond...
the moon has gravity, we don't have to worry about it drifting off cource...
other good reasons...
In the article, he recommends retooling the boosters and tanks with a new crew module and a separate cargo module. While I can see his point with regard to reuse of existing proven technology, I can't quite get away from the idea that sending people in the same craft as cargo is just a bad idea. Big Dumb Rockets (BRDs) are the only way that we should be putting cargo of any sort into space. We have become very good at orbital rendevous manuevers, so I can't see that separate launch vehicles for people and cargo will present a significant complication.
Perhaps the booster and tanks can be recycled with ONLY a crew module that can actually reach the L1 point. The current shuttles can barely make it to low orbit.
On the whole, he is right. An L1 base would be a nice permanent move into space and is probably something that should have been done in the mid-70's. The establishment of a moon base will be an easier political sell though. Once we hammer out manufacturing techniques, it should be possible to grow a spawling complex on the moon without needing to carry everything from earth. And you know we Americans love to spawl. If we can find water in sufficient quantities and are willing to take nuclear reactors with us to the moon, the fuel for future space flights will probably come from the moon.
What the heck does Buzz Aldrin know, anyway? He hasn't been in space for, like 30 years now! ;-P
$8.95/mo web hosting
The US really doesn't have the financial resources to pay for or support another sustained space program like they did in the 1960s. It's not what everyone here wants to hear, but it's the truth.
America's industrial base is overseas in China, the country runs BOTH trade and government budget deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars every year, the Ponzi/pyramid schemes of Social Security and Medicare are beginning to crack, the nation is highly dependant on foreign oil and energy resources, and NASA can't even send robots to Mars half the time.
The whole point of this new rush to space is most likely to militarize it -- not explore it -- before China does, since if they shot down our GPS satellites in a war, we'd be clueless. The next generation of space shuttles will most likely be weapons platforms used to drop kinetic-force "rods of God" on enemy cities bunkers. Then again, anyone remember why the last superpower fell?
While it is true that the US-USSR space race during the 60s and 70s was largely responsible for the quick developments and achievements, I can't help but interpret Bush's recent "space will" as not much more than political taunting, as in fear of the rise of China and potentially other powers out into space.
But since the Cold War is over, and I know it would take a huge leap of conceptual vision of how the world works, the age of competition as a worldwirde PR stance is over, and in comes the age of collaboration and friendly competition. If there was indeed a new space race, funds and efforts distributed in parallel and out of touch would be improductive to all of mankind, indeed. Joint efforts, however (very much in the spirit of Open Source in the 21st century), could certainly harness much more achievements with less time, effort and of course, money. I'm not an American, and i certainly wouldn't want the next flag on the moon to be stars and stripes, but instead something more Earth-planet-related.
Yeah, I know it's a long shot, but hell, it could happen.
http://castorexmachina.wordpress.com - Filosofía, tecnología y cultura.
Nobody wants to pay taxes, but they all want good schools, safe and well-maintained streets, etc.
I think I'm the only person on the freaking planet who actually considers paying taxes a civic duty, and that pays them willingly and with the knowledge that it is in my best interest to do so. (And no, not in some "if you don't you go to jail" way, either.) Taxes pay for bad things, taxes pay for good things. I oppose the former and support the latter.
Too many people are patriotic right up until you ask them to put their money where their mouth is.
People seem focused on the technical issues and the benefits, but how about that unpleasant, though unavoidable issue of cost?
... are we really going to fall for it?
Let's not be suckers like other interest groups, and let the government run up even more debt (remember that federal surplus of long ago?) by promising us our dreams to get our votes, ignoring the cost side of the equation
In fact, given our roles in the technology community, it's up to us to say 'it's not worth it'. Let's make the crazy assumption we must take money from something else in order to go to the moon, or build a space port -- is it worth it? What else should we sacrifice?
Yes. And while all the Lagrange points are stable, the L4 and L5 points are even more stable (more massive objects can sit in them and catch the ride, as it were).
I'm not sure why they talk about L1. All the predictions I've ever read, over the last several years, have always placed the hypothetical space station at L5. (Why L5 over L4? I'd be guessing there, sorry.)
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
"He emphasizes the cost and practicality of such a station, as well its potential as a 'bridge to the heavens.'"
:-)
I'd much prefer a stairway to the heavens.
Chaos reigns within.
Reflect, repent, and reboot.
Order shall return.
This is the crux of almost all problems in our efforts to evolve any further as a society, be it a push into space or whatever.
People are just plain ignorant. Not stupid. Ignorant. Most people I know never even crack open a book on ANY subject, much less something scientific. Sufficient scientific knowledge to graduate high school is knwoing the sky is blue and the ability to point to the sun in the sky. There's parts of the world where if you tell them the Earth revolves around the Sun, you'll get blank stares, and some of those parts are here in the USA. Smart people continue to be generally depicted in the media as outcasts and acceptable objects of ridicule.
We won't be going to L4, L5, L2 or even the L-train unless knowledge (and especially scientific knowledge) starts getting more respct in this world.
--- Ban humanity.
I would like to see a more detailed analysis of his cost estimates -- $15 billion seems rather low for "developing a new, more flexible launch vehicle," designing a sophisticated (and large) long-life station, shipping the thing up to L1 point, and assembling it.
He also doesn't address things like radiation concerns: Where are the Van Allen belts in relation to L1? L1 is outside the inner (high intensity) Van Allen belt, which means it is likely to get more solar radiation than we do on Earth. You need a lot of shielding to make long-term habitability practical.
Why pick L1 over L4 or L5? L1 is an unstable point -- items there tend to fall to one of the two major bodies; L4 and L5 are stable points.
He doesn't address the fuel cost to go the extra distance; ISS is 250 miles up, while L1 is about 190,000 miles up. Even though neither location is far down the gravity well, astronauts can't afford the slow boat, so you have to spend more fuel to get up to speed and brake at the far end.
AKA Libration Points...
For any heavenly body with a satellite in a relatively circular orbit, there are 5 points where gravitational forces and centripetal accelerations cancel each other out. Three fall on a line that connects the two bodies, and the other form a pair of equilateral triangles with the heavenly bodies.
L1 between the two bodies
L2 on the far side of the smaller body
L3 on the far side of the larger body
L4 is the "leading" equilateral point
L5 is the "trailing" equilateral point
L4 and L5 are relatively stable. Putting a station at L1-3 would require more propellant to keep it there, though not an unreasonable amount.
Personally, I'd rather go for a base on the Moon that at a libration point. Sure, it requires more propellant to get to and from there, but its also a permanent fixture, rather than something that would need to be disposed of eventually.
"Open the pod by doors, Hal" > "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sudo "Open the pod bay doors, Hal" > alright
It's actually easier to get back from the moon if you're just slingshotting a capsule around it to head back to earth....
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/05/opinion/05ALDR.h tml?ex=1071205200&en=90eb047cf8bd6794&ei=5062&part ner=GOOGLE
And anything that increases our chances of going to space *is* a good act.
Why?
I reject this "six degress of separation" approach to charity. The list of projects that are more deserving of fudning than the space program is as long as my arm. Putting stuff in space is throwing money away, especially when you look at all the ways that the money could be better spent: AIDS vaccine research, genetically modified crops, improved voting systems, implementing means to reduce pollution from coal fired power plants, improved surveilance of crooked corporate executives, increased teacher salaries and new schools, retraining programs for those who have lost manufacturing jobs to overseas labor, and on and on and on.
Money for space is feel good pie-in-the-sky money. The justifications for it are growing increasingly thin in the face of more immediate and FAR easier to justify needs.
Space: It's not a goal, it's a religion.
...would be to replace the aging shuttle orbiter with a new crew module that would hold perhaps eight or more astronauts..."
Because that would eliminate all future NASA="Need Another Seven Astronauts" jokes.
Why space? Abundant natural resources. We can find orders of magnitude more useful stuff just floating around up there than we ever could on Earth. And as an added bonus, we can extract it more easily than we could on a planet, and then use a lot of the waste products to build or improve housing for ourselves. Plus it makes getting everywhere else easier and building other things in space easier.
The Space Elevator - http://highliftsystems.com - is what we should be spending money on.
Why is it that NASA always seems more interested in the public perception than the actual progression of space exploration? The reasoning seems to be that moon landings are "cool" and "sexy" and look great in the short term.
Seems that Aldrin is at least being a little more of a visionary and thinking about where we can go from there rather than appeasing the public and its contant "what have you done for me lately" philosophy.
This comment was generated by a squadron of trained super elite albino ninja chickens for you.
How much energy does it take to balance a broom. L1 is unstable, but that is a benefit not a hinderance. It means that when you want to leave you just "lean" in the direction you want to go while to leave the moon you have to fight its gravity.
Not only can you leave without much effort, you can also get there with as little. You just have to plan well and accept a long trip.
Using the Lagrange points requires a different philosopy to mission planning.
Would you like to own your very own point in space? How about a nice lot on the moon? Well come on down to CraZy Larry's Space Realtor and check out what YOU could own tomorrow! That's right! You could be the proud owner of 30 acres, ON THE MOON! That's enough land to start your own Space Emu Farm. Or you could own your very own LaGrange point and start a Space Port! Have astronauts from around the solar system visiting your Space Port; buying from your many Space Shops; eating in your many Space Restaurants; floating in your many Space Bathrooms. And all at the low low price of $999,999.99 a month with financing! So come on down and check out the deals. You just might be blown away!
Disclaimer: For educational purposes only. Not to be used in conjuction with world domination. Not to be used in conjunction with attack on alien race. CraZy Larry is not responsible for radioactive debris or alien races currently occupying locations. Visa or Mastercard is accepted.
RTFA.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
To infinity, and beyond!
i wonder what tax cut is going to pay for this.
You're missing my point. The useful stuff floating up there is called "the Moon", "Mars" and "Asteroids". There's nothing but dust at the LaGrange points of the Moon and Earth.
It's like starting a farm in the middle of the Sahara because you heard that Africa is a fertile place.
Blaze a trail to the New World
We should cancel NASA and divvy up their budget as prizes for groups that accomplish specific goals (like building an L2 station, landing on Mars, etc.). It's a time tested model and the X PRIZE folks have shown it still works.
Okay so I'm being a little dramatic here--NASA does useful things. But certainly there's no reason they should be the sole funding mechanism for space exploration. The current approach is downright Soviet era.
Lets say it again: Build a space elevator. Same costs as Buzz cites for an L1 spaceport, but allows for a much cheaper exit from the gravity well. Best of both worlds.
What are you going to use on the Moon for construction materials? More to the point, what are you going to breathe? Or drink?
The Moon is a waste of resources (for now). Mars is where the action is.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Before you can build a space elevator, you have to have cheap enough launch to get the building materials for the space elevator into orbit. It's inherently a follow-on to routine and cheap space launch, not a replacement.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
Oh give me a locus
Where the gravitons focus
Where the three-body problem is solved
Where the microwaves play
Down at 3 degrees K
And the cold virus never evolved
Home, home on Lagrange,
Where the space debris always collects,
We possess, so it seems, two of Man's greatest dreams,
Solar power and zero-gee sex.
(to the tune of "Home on the range")
there's NO SUCH THING as a lagrange point!
sig sig sputnik
Possibly L5 over L4 (if I've got them the right way round) as the moon would act as a sweeper for some percentage of debris with the station following through slightly clearer space behind it?
--
I have no evidence or backing for this at all, so please be sparing with the informatives.
Insightfulls, on the other hand, will be fine.
kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
Throw in a Crushinator and you've got a deal!
This is why you should read your post before clicking submit, boys and girls.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they're stable enough to build stuff there. The straight-line points (L1, L2, and L3) are stable only compared to the points in other random space around them. Stuff placed there eventually falls away.
The orbital points (L4 and L5) are truly stable, in the sense of being self-correcting. Stuff placed there has to work to get out.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
I have never understood why they can not finish the ISS and simply tow it out there? What am I missing? Paul.
> Unfortunately, the US does not have a vehicle capable of carrying human cargo to any of the lagrange points.
Am I going too far out on a limb to say that the old Saturn-5 plans are probably still stuffed in a file cabinet somewhere and could be resurrected and pressed to task?
Virg
Try reading Kim Stanley Robinsons Mars series. Your plot is similar, though the earth's climate is not influenced by the colonists. I won't say anymore, wouldn't want to spoil it.
Moderators: is the parent really worth (Score: -1, Flamebait)? Why? Many others are questioning the sanity of using a point in space and not the moon, and this guy propses an unlikely but conceivable reason why people (politicians) mightn't be ready to set up camp on another planet. I personally would be very concerned about the possibility of a "territorial fight" if we went colonising/setting up permanent bases at this time, we're not stable down here by a long way. I wouldn't think it too likely we would find ourselves effecting the orbits, but given the impact we have had on earth, and the possibility that we could find ourselves doing things (like mining and processing) on new scales, we could conceivably have a drastic impact on the moon in many ways. If we tried to go for dramtic terroforming efforts (not within our grasp I don't believe) perhaps anything is possible!
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
I'm for Mars direct too. I'm just making the point that the Moon is still a better idea than any further stations.
As far as materials go, it the moon is made of the same stuff that Earth is more or less, we'll probably find enough metal up there to make it work our while. Not to send back to earth but to sent out to Mars. We can ship the Air and water that we need for a small base. I'm not crazy enough to imply terraforming the moon but a base there is not without merit.
Mars is where the action is.
Unfortunatly, to this administration and the preceding ones, Mars is where the inaction is.
Blaze a trail to the New World
Decent story, I believe by Niven. Check it out if you can find it in an anthology somewhere.
I'll tell you what's in space that's not on mars or the moon..
..and surprisinglh a 0G environment is very useful for many things... both in scientific and manufacturing fields..
A 0G environment...
But what does Woody want?
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
And once the mode of operations switches from 'maintain' to 'expand', it's pretty much permanent.
And, yes, I know a space station can be expanded, but it's a lot harder and requires large shipments from earth.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
So the plan is to build a station at L1 and use it as a jump off point. Let's think about that. We'll have to burn fuel (cash) to get away from Earth. Dock with the station for some reason, then blast off to other places. Does this really save fuel? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just blast off from Earth to Mars or the belt? Why the middle man?
Even if there is fuel savings in that plan, the infrastructure is this: launch hundreds of tons of equipment into L1. Fly up, put it together and maintain it. That would cost billions just to do that. How long until that initial investment is made up by any possible energy savings in going from Earth to L1 then outward? I would guess it would be decades if not centuries if there's any savings at all. Wouldn't we have space elevators, fusion and all that other cool stuff by then anyway?
I maintain that just blasting off to the destination remains the best way to go. No interplanetary rest stops. They'll probably smell like pee just like on Earth anyway.
Blaze a trail to the New World
You are damned right
..and surprisinglh a 0G environment is very useful for many things... both in scientific and manufacturing fields..
A 0G environment...
I would sure as hell like to know how boobies are in space...do topheavy girls have any problems with breasts floating upwards and giving them spacial black eyes?
And even more important, would they still bounce as a space-floozy runs towards me in her futuristic silver clothing?
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
Why would we schlep metal out of the Moon's gravity well and send it to Mars? Why not mine it on Mars?
Needing to send a huge rocket to the Moon each year to sustain that base gives Congress an excellent opportunity, every year, to kill that base. If there is no plan for self-sufficiency, it's only a matter of time before Congress turns the budget into pork belly price supports.
Moving out of gravity wells costs A LOT. You'll not be able to do it cost-effectively (for construction materials anyhow) until we get a space elevator, which is a long way off.
The Moon is a distraction.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Breasts in space pose momentum problems... but for the most part all the flopping 0's out. So as said space floozy is drifting weightlessly, her large breast will flop with the momentum of their last movenment while still attached to the body.
..of course if you throw in spiked heels it throws the whole equation off and you get into quatum floozy.
OO = (.)(.) * pi/floozial mass...
When you get to the moon, the notion of "Earth's nations" is relatively insignificant other than where the funding and suppies are coming from. The moon rotates around the entire planet and no nation can claim the lunar geography by fiat. Short term you could say it belongs to the U.S. because we landed on it first and there are a few U.S. Flags there. Also, we will probably be financing the entire Moon Unit Zappa project.
Long term though, the only reasonable decision is to grant the moon sovereignty and then establish trade relations and very relaxed "we help you more than you help us" international treaties. This would be a good move towards interstellar colonization: Independant sovereignty.
Arthur Clark said, "There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum."
Honestly, I think the benefits of either a moon base or a station at one of the L-points are about the same. Both are better than what we have today, but none are as good as Mars.
But neither is likely to happen as long as our space program is tied exclusively to NASA -- sorry, but it's true. NASA did great things in the past, and they have lots of really smart people, but the whole organization has devolved into nothing but a political tool. The "space race" days of the 60s and 70s are gone -- in today's political climate, no non-military government spending project will ever be able to survive for the kind of time (multiple administration changes!) it would take to build something like this.
What we need is for more really rich peope (you listening, Bill? Ross? Ted?) to take an interest in this. I mean, c'mon -- you KNOW that, if Bill Gates woke up tomorrow and decided that his new goal in life was to own the Lunar Hilton, it'd be in place within 20 years at most, and probably a lot less!
/* "Specialization is for insects." -Heinlein */
What strikes me about this plan is that since L1 is the point where Earth's gravity and the Moon's cancel each other out once you go beyond it the moon's pull starts to take over and you get a largely free ride the rest of the way in (minus some braking). So where is the advantage to putting stuff there when for a very small additional cost it could go on the moon? Though I agree with a number of the other posts the moon doesn't seem to hold a lot of promise these days other then potentially as a proving grounds for Mars.
First off, look at my sig, we're on the same side.
That aside, I'm not proposing mining the Moon and throwing ore at Mars. That makes no sense. If we build a base on the moon, build ships there and lanuch them, it would potentialy be less fule consuming to get it to Mars.
Even if that hair-brained scheme doesn't hold up, the solar farm, H3 mining and astronomy aspects of a Lunar base still give it some oomph to my eyes.
That being said, it we had to spend money on one thing, it should be Mars.
Blaze a trail to the New World
Space stations could be the ultimate "gated community". Read more of the argument here.
A spacestation at one of the Langrange points would be even less useful than the ISS is now. It would take far more energy to reach than a LEO station, it offers minimal improvement as a science platform, it would have the same (weak) justification as ISS. The "stepping stone" arguments have not panned out in 40 years. A lunar base set up and administered along the lines of the Antarctic science stations is the only goal that makes sense.
an ill wind that blows no good
Building anything at a Lagrange point reminds me of Mobile Suit Gundam. Wherein humanity built colony-clusters at each Lagrange points. There was even a settlement(!) on the moon called Von Braun City.
Of course, a great war started between the Earth Dwellers and the Spacenoids...killed off 80% of the population...blah, blah, blah, unimportant details.
When robots are capable of assembling and maintaining a fully functional and habitable environment for us on the moon or mars, that's the time to start packing our suitcases.
Once the base and (cheap unmanned) supply chain is reliably up and running people can go and do the stuff that robots/remote sensing can't accomplish (still a hell of a lot).
This also has the virtue of enforcing a severe simlicity and modularity on the design of the whole venture since everything has to be autonomously assembled. Who wants a fancy home when you're hundeds of millions of miles from the hardware store anyway.
If we don't yet have the technology to do this then I'd question our ability to reliably send people on such missions and kepp them alive for much longer than it takes to plant a flag.
"On the Moon, we could build a solar farm that would fill our energy needs on Earth pretty much entirely."
Hello Maplin? I'd like to order some extension cables. 3,850 of them.
He wrote about those in his co-autherd work Encounter at Tiber
Reasonable plans for a space elevator with near-term materials call for launching the entire thing in one shot with one of today's heavy-lift systems. You most certainly don't need cheap launch to build a space elevator.
(Disclaimer: I could have forgotten something, and in any case we are still talking about things that have not been invented yet, although it does look to be practical pretty soon.)
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Keep in mind that there can be more than one spacecraft at or near the L points-- i.e., orbiting about the point. While still stable, it takes slightly less energy to break out of that orbit than to break away from the L point itself. (Both, of course, require much less energy to escape than from lunar or Earth orbit.)
I'd rather have something useful to do with H3 before we spend a lot of money getting a cheap source of it.
The reason I'm so opposed to a Moon base is because people think it's a reasonable technology demonstrator for Mars. It's NOT. The environments are totally different. There is nothing we need to learn on the Moon to get to Mars.
And, you were right about your scheme to launch from the Moon. It is harebrained. : )
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Fundemental problems of space exploration:
--Air, Water, Food, all building materials, and the humans to operate must be lauched into orbit (first 500 miles are the hardest)
This seems to be slowly being addressed. However the best solution is to minimize the materials needed to be lifted into orbit. Most of the material needed for the construction and operation of an L2 station, Lunar Outpost, or other space infastructure should be produced in space at the lowest possible cost. The proposed NASA Tug's designed to stop small asteroids from hitting earth could quite easily push a NEAR object made of water, iron, nickle, etc into leo were the materials could be extracted.
This activity (mining, extracting, refining, and molding in 0-G) could have huge benefits scientifically in the US (and other countries) manufacturing community and bring support for further space projects.
--Radiation and 0-G are not condusive to long term life in space. This is addressed using brute force engineering on the Moon (bury yourself under a ton of regiloth. This can then be modified to be used in space. A condenced hardened shell of the lunar surface should provide a Mars mission with sufficient radiation and heat shielding at a fraction of the cost of launching that material from earth. Same with shielding manned Lagrange stations.
--Costs: Definiately difficult to justify because of the lack of positive returns on investment to date. However long term research and science along with creative problem solving are the precursers to creative success. Suriving in space nessesitates such problem solving and long term benefits will present themselves in the challeges we overcome.
Questions:
-Is the Lunar station to be preminantly manned form the start or will it resemble plans for early mars mission plans? (Completing early constuction missions using such a plan could be highly beneficial.)
-Is L1 suposed to be manned or just serviceable by passing ships? (Given radiation and other hazards of living that far from assistance it would make more sence to construct a serviceable automated platform.)
-Who is resonsible to make the New Saturn V's capable of large payloads?
--"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
I understand the idea that there are things more important from a charity perspective than space. I appreciate it greatly.
:)
But I think it needs to be put into perspective. For the sake of time, I'm not going to dig up specific figures. The gist, however, is that we (meaning the U.S. gov) has an enourmous buget and there is more than enough money to give $10 to the ISS and $10 to a hungry kid and $10 to a poor country that can't afford AIDS medication and $10 to education and $10 for research into fusion.
We're talking trillions of dollars. Hundreds of billions right now (470 billion, if I remember) are going to war-waging. Looking at the situation in Iraq -- how many of our multi-million dollar toys are actually being used in the ongoing guerilla war? -- it seems this is a clear place where we could spend less (and not by cutting soldiers' benefits, for f's sake!).
Compare NASA's funding to the DoD's. Why are you eyeing NASA's paltry pile of dollars when there's a towering mountain right next to it that is largely unneeded?
I pick on defense funding because it seems so egregiously high (honestly, how can it be justified unless we're planning on launching an offensive war against a massive military like China or something?). I'm sure there are other completely-not-charitable-in-any-way ways our money is being spent. Business subsidies pop into mind.
I've heard it estimated that it would cost only $6 billion to end world hunger -- enough food is produced by far, but it costs a lot to distribute in the timely manner required. I can't imagine our educational system, despite its problems, needs a hundred billion on its own.
The point is there's enough money for all that and NASA. And NASA serves a very important function. We need to figure out how to maintain a growing high-tech society without making all our drinking water taste like MTBE. Learning how to use space to our advantage is an important step.
So leave NASA be, please. I want those other things (and the list is a lot longer than -my- arm; maybe you're taller than me) as well, but we don't need to gut NASA to get them.
Pardon the incoherence, but the coffee is just starting to kick in.
The enemies of Democracy are
{zztop}
They got a lot of nice girls up there.
A huuagh huuugh huggh huh.
{/zz top}
There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
I mean, considering how badly US soldiers are paid, it'll likely be the only time they ever fly first class. Of course, if it's only the Generals and such who get that treatment, then take it away.
Blar.
I think Buzz Aldrin makes some very good points. Nasa seems to be going through a very tough stage at the moment and through their own mis-management are only digging themselves deeper. As Buzz points out, what point is there of making the design of the new space vehicles similar to that of the soyez capsules (apart from being able to put a 'made in the USA' sticker on it). And what point is there of doing the same as what was done 35 years ago. The building of a spaceport however would provide huge benefits to mankind as it could serve as a in-space hub for all space missions.
... who automatically thinks about his trusty old Cobra MKII when he hears the term 'Lagrange point'? :-)
Sigh.
ERROR 144 - REBOOT ?
And there's nothing wrong with *some* mindless entertainment once in a while. If you're going to kill Joe Sixpack's sitcoms, you're going to have to kill my anime, too. No thanks.
You have to educate the populace so that they demand more intellectual diversions along with their fun. It's all about b a l a n c e.
--- Ban humanity.
Imagine the scene in the White House..
......oh, the hell with this...it's in Irag..sir
NASAGuy: Mr President, we'd like to set up a station at one of the Lagrangian points.
Dubya: Lagrangian - sounds like one them cheese-eating surrender monkeys - that in France?
NASAGuy: No, Mr President, its in space
Dubya: Oh, wherebouts?
NASAGuy: Well, sir, its at an imaginary point between the Earth and the Moon
Dubya: So it ain't real?
NASAGuy: No sir, its a stable point determined by the relative gravitational attraction of
Dubya: Well why didn't ya say so - let's go
sorry, offtopic, but i like your signature.
As explained by this site: http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
I remember reading something a while back suggesting that these points may collect dust, space debris, old alien space scraft, etc. Can anybody confirm this? If true, wouldn't it be hazardous to send space craft into such a zone?
If the IRS added a line to contribute funds to NASA, I would gladly donate money to them during tax time every year.
Even if people just donated $1 on their tax forms, imagine how much money that would generate for NASA.
In fact, they can replace the "presidential campaign fund" line with the NASA one. (I think they collect enough campaign funds with $1000/per plate dinners year round.) It would be a much better use of ink.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
Moon dust makes for some nice concrete mix, if I remember correctly.
If you can find that (perhaps mythical) Moon water (in ice), you can separate it into H & O for fuel & breathing. Still want for some Nitrogen, but that may be extractable from moon dust, depending on what it is (I've no idea).
Just because it's not easy doesn't mean it's not doable.
Uh, it's that "perhaps mythical" Moon water that's problematic. There is no evidence to support the existence of water (in any form) on the Moon.
You need to educate yourself on this topic.
"Just because it's not easy doesn't mean it's not doable"
I didn't say the Moon wasn't viable because it's too hard, I said it's not USEFUL because there's nothing THERE. Your argument is called a "straw man", and it's not valid.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
allthough i'd like to see space elevators, La Grange space ports(but keep the aggies out), manned moon bases and maybe a mar mission. i think it would be far more realistic/economical to start with a robotic moon base. yea, i'd like to be out there, but more progress will be made by keeping the price down. environmental system(keeping a person alive) have always been the hard and expensive part of space exploration. let the 'bots build it. they build all the cars and computers here on earth.
the same tech can then be used later for mars and the asteroids. as they move out we move in behind.
don't get me wrong, i like all the different ideas being proposed, and they will all happen in due time, but the questions is and has always been the order. asking if we send up a bot or a man is not that different from the question, "who goes first, the man or the monkey".
which was chosen and why?
IMO, the proposal to build a station at L2 isn't that bad, but I question whether we should be building another ISS-like system. One of the major features of futurists' vision of space is a gravity system. So far the only realistic way we have of implementing this is a centripetal force method of simulating a "gravity". We haven't done it though? Why not?
Such a station would solve the problems with bone density + muscle mass loss in space, but could still provide a zero-g environment for whatever you heart desires. I have no problem expanding our space infrastructure, as long as we learn from the process and achieve meaningful goals in the process.
On the Moon, we could build a solar farm that would fill our energy needs on Earth pretty much entirely.
How do you propose getting this energy back to Earth? The only way would be an insanely accurate microwave transmitter - in which case, why not simply build the collectors in space?
qntm.org
Delegate one L point to each continent. The penguins in Antarctica don't get one, and Australia's the smallest so we'll leave it out too.
Constitutionally Correct
Some reasons to pick an unstable point:
What a Lagrange point is useful for is a place to park satellites. I envision a truss like the one for the ISS, that you can mount various systems onto (Lunar positioning system, Earth-Lunar communications, Lunar HBO/Cinemax, etc). The truss would provide a common power buss from shared solar panels, and have the station-keeping thrusters mounted on it. This would significantly reduce the complexity of the systems that are connected to it, as they could concentrate on their needed tasks, and not have to worry about all the support stuff.
Chip H.
After the explosion of the Stranger In A Strange Land III interplanetary shuttle...
NASA = "Need Another Seventy Astronauts"
Sorry, but bad humor will live forever.
The enemies of Democracy are
Don't know whether the technology is any good but the psychology sure works, at least for honest injuns like your humble servant. The examiner joked at one point that she thought "We've pretty much cleaned you out." And that was before I got wired.
True, I am a moral paragon--at least compared with anyone likely to be reading this. But I did have a past (still do). Imagine a high colonic.
Any system based on "runoff rounds" is going to fail. All the candidates need to be evaluated simultaneously not sequentially. Instant Runoff Voting is just a a dressed-up Plurality system; worse actually, because third parties are given the illusion that they can win. We need Condorcet Voting - cast votes in the same was as IRV, but count them differently. Condorcet is the only system I know of that allows voters to vote honestly instead of strategically - that in itself is a worthy goal for a voting system. Any good voting system must allow this liberty of conscience, and not ask voters to choose the "lesser of two evils".
Constitutionally Correct
What is the US population around now? ~300 million? I very much doubt that all 300 million file for taxes, so lets say 250 million. $250,000,000 Would of course help NASA, but by how much?
Constitutionally Correct
Please do not forget how/who started it all.
Before you can build a space elevator, you have to have cheap enough launch to get the building materials for the space elevator into orbit. It's inherently a follow-on to routine and cheap space launch, not a replacement.
Um, why do we need cheap lift capacity to build a space elevator? If using the elevator is cheaper than conventional launches, then the company that builds it will recoup its initial investment, even with high payload prices for construction.
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
Also don't forget that while we (the working class) are being worked to death to feed our family AND taxed until we bleed, the rich instead get tax refund !2 157,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,68
The politicians are not going to do anything about it, not when you can buy favors from them (hint: read Greg Palast's book "The best democracy money can buy")
The mind boggles.
Not quite $300 million. Nothing to sneeze at, but still less than 5% of NASA's current budget.
On the other hand, Americans are involuntarily contributing $300 or so per person to fund the Iraq invasion--this year...hm. Sometimes it's interesting to divide a budget line item by a nation's population. Helps to put things in perspective.
~Idarubicin
>Lagrange points are cool - but planets are cooler.
No, Lagrange Points hover around absolute zero while most of the planets are considerably warmer...
If we can convince the CIA of that (should be easy), we'll be on our way in force before the 2004 election. Of course, we won't have allowed for any way to come back.
Second comes right after first!
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Because if you build it in space, you have to build the panels on earth and launch them up. you waste a ton of energy doing that and it will take a long time to get back. On the Moon, you invest in a mining and fabrication facility and you can coat the "dark" side completly. That's half the size of Africa. Try putting something half the size of africa in orbit and see how many people complain.
Blaze a trail to the New World
What happened is the Chinese announced they plan to launch a moon mission by 2020.
They play us like a finely tuned cello.
Step 1: Spend $1B to get a man in orbit.
Step 2: Announce moon mission to get Americans riled up.
Step 3: Americans decide to do it too and invest trillions in research.
Step 4: Americans decide to outsource most of the manufacturing because human rights are too expensive.
Step 5: China picks up manufacturing contract, bringing in $500B to the Chinese economy.
Step 6: There is no step 6. Step 5 was PROFIT!!!
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Speaking of Mars, putting people there would have more benefits than I care to type. New world for humanity, extraterrestrial science (possibly biology), easy access to the asteroids, ability to live off the land that can't be done on the moon or deep space...
And, once self-sufficient, the classic sci-fi (Heinlien, Cerryh, etc) goal of being able to survive a planetary catastrophe - whether manmade, external (ID4esque) or incidental (passing meteor). Long-term survival of humanity becomes some dramatically-high amount more likely. Getting out of the solar system increases it likewise.
Whether or not this is a Good Thing I leave as a disucssion topic for the class... talk amongst yourselves...
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
"In fact, given our roles in the technology community, it's up to us to say 'it's not worth it'. Let's make the crazy assumption we must take money from something else in order to go to the moon, or build a space port -- is it worth it? What else should we sacrifice?"
Only the bloated US Defense (or is it Offense) Budget. The US military budget is greater than the combined military budges of China, Russian and Japan.
I would like to see a more detailed analysis of his cost estimates -- $15 billion seems rather low for "developing a new, more flexible launch vehicle," designing a sophisticated (and large) long-life station, shipping the thing up to L1 point, and assembling it.
Yup. Building a new ISS and putting it 700 times farther away, out in the searing radiation beyond the Van Allen belts, is going to cost more. ISS cost $100 billion , so I shudder to think what Buzz' rig would cost. Throw in logistics and the usual geopolitical tug-of war, and you'd better tack on one or two more zeros to the price.
BTW, I've dined with Buzz. He's a hella nice guy who asks a lot of questions, is generous with his ideas, and is patient with the tongue-tied adoration of space freaks such as myself and the two others who joined us. That's why it's so shocking to see him suggest something with such completely bogus numbers as this.
> The plans exist. The equipment to build them no longer does. We'd have to rebuild our infrastructure 1960's style to do it. It would be easier and cheaper to take cues from those designs and do a new set of drawings. Run a bunch of simulations. Improve the drawings. Then have modern machines using modern methods build it.
Well, this was actually the bent of my comment, in that although we can't build a Saturn-5 tomorrow, we could certainly build a Lagrange-shot rocket in less than a year. While your comment was specifically accurate (we don't have, at this moment, a viable heavy lifter design for better than LEO) we do have the groundwork for building one in very short order, or at least faster than any other country including China. Since designing the mission payload and training the astronauts would take longer than designing and building the propulsion, my rather snarky comment has a leg to stand on.
Virg
Actually, there is that fellow who has been legally selling real estate on the moon since the 70s. I remember seeing a newer article (perhaps via slashdot?) but see this older article for some info. He's made a good $6 million doing it, too. see google news.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Years ago there was proposed the creation of a Space Station on the L-5 LaGrange point. The working name of the Station was: "High Orbital Mini-Earth" or as some wit put it: "H.O.M.E. on LaGrange"..... ..
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
But we don't have the technology any more.
You contradict yourself.
Needing to build a huge rocket, at least one piece of which is built in each of several hundred Congressional districts, gives Congress a tremendous incentive, every year, to keep the thing going, even if it blows up on the launch pad every 6 years, and/or if there's not enough space in the moon base to do any science.
Case in point: Shuttle/ISS.
Districting laws which are anything but neutral are a DISASTER, be they Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, or Socialist Worker. I would personally not be proud of my party having 'reworked districting laws in their favor.' Restoring neutrality is one thing, and I can agree that true neutrality can be a hard target to hit. But what they're trying to do in Texas is an abomination, carving parts of Austin and diluting them in places a hundred miles away, or more.
One of the things that annoyed me most about the 2000 election was the complete non-neutrality of the Florida Attorney General. She made no pretense of fair play, neutrality, or doing the right thing. She kept yelling, "Game Over, We WON!" as many times as she could, in spite of the fact that the facts were still a bit shakey.
One of the failings of a Democracy is the Tyranny of the Majority. That's where we are, right now. Crap like Gerrymandered redistricting makes it worse. An organized party pushing its agenda without concern for the WHOLE COUNTRY is not a Good Thing.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Click, sign, send.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Oh yeah, and Shuttle/ISS are perfect examples of space policy management.
Who is contradicting who?
Building one part in each district is FISCAL INSANITY. See my posts re: lousy stewardship of my tax dollars.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
"Okay, Buzz Aldrin, if that IS your real name..."
Um, yes. I have heard about this. NASA has supposedly sent at least one husband/wife team up in the shuttle and asked them to explore exactly this. Apparently, the scientific rationale was to determine if humans can have sex, conceive, and bear children while on space flights. I can see that having a bearing on very long-term space exploration. Obviously, the "having sex" part is a pre-requisite to the rest.
Anyway, I heard that the couple found that sex was very difficult in microgravity. They would just bounce away from each other. They found the best success using a large "rubber band" that looped around both partners to help keep them together.
Don't ask me for a link - I have no idea where I read/heard this.
If we spent less money putting pushing our beliefs on other countrys and defending other countrys
The US nowadays does not spend any money on defending other countries.
>
>Building one part in each district is FISCAL INSANITY. See my posts re: lousy stewardship of my tax dollars.
*grin* - we're in violent agreement here. My point was simply that the porkbelly nature of a moon mission wouldn't guarantee that it got cut. Indeed, the more pork, the less likely it would be to get cut.
I, too, would prefer a space programme whose objective was the advancement of science and technology, rather than the distribution of pork. But if the only alternative to "no pork" is "no space programme", then bring on the ham hocks, in the hopes that there'll still be a space programme when some amateur astronomer finds a 100m-wide rock headed straight for us with only 2 years' warning.
Really, my Republican Party is successful because not everyone wants to be president, and, we are willing to "take one for the team", in order to get our overall agenda passed.
No, the Republican party is successful because they're willing to lie, cheat, slander, and prostitute themselves for the team, and becuase they will never speak ill of a fellow Republican, no matter what a scoundrel he is. So the alpha- shitheads make it to the top, and the sheeplike shitheads in the rank and file will have nothing to say about it, let alone be able to offer better alternatives. So we get morons like the Bushes, Michael Huffington, Dan Quayle, Jesse Helms, Fritz Hollings, etc., and the party thinks it's just great.
I was firmly on the Reagan bandwagon, but since then the party has gone right down the toilet. I cannot stand their Archie-Bunker-baiting, robber-baron-pandering, religious posturing, goon-squad politics.
That's just it, though. The pork space programme is contrary to the only useful purpose for space: EXPLORATION.
Therefore, we need to find another funding model. What? I dunno. I'm working on it.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Very nice metaphor.
Buzz: - smack -
idiot:Did you get that on camera?
I don't know if that's Buzz or not, but it's a nice punch for anyone, especially when surrounded by all the other idiots holding camera equipment.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I like earth a lot, and don't want to leave for some stupid dome on Mars. Living on a planet where I can't go outside to sit among the trees because there's no breathable air and no trees
and
The point is that space is a source of material and energy resources that we could harvest without stripping our own planet.
I have to dissagree with what you say and with the attitude.
First, emigrating off plantet is a desirable goal. Sooner or later a big rock is going to sterilize the earth and there's nothing we can do about it. It's happened before and it will happen again. If people do not have self sufficient colonies elsewhere, there will be no more people.
Second, your attitude will breed resentment. I agree that it is a good idea to strip resources from space. There's much more there than there is here. The differnce is that I'm willing to go do it myself and I expect conditions to be good. I further expect future colonists to look down on people who expect resources from the heavens but are unwilling to make any effort to get them. Beware of falling to the wrong side of those who DO and those who SUCK. The US is currently churning out thousands of losers a year from MBA programs who think of themselves as "leaders" but don't know squat about anything but how to manipulate people. They unabashedly think of themselves as "above" details and on a "higher" plane of thought. These are the kind of fools who think of practical tasks as boring details to be farmed out to places like India.
Sooner or later, Earth will need them more than they need Earth. By then, conditions will be better out there than here. They will remember super NIMBY attitudes some people had.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Race'em like NASCAR. Hooters and Tide logos may work, similar to the USA logo like the Saturn's had.
Did he make his point with a punch list?
Space:1999. The greatest science fiction TV show of all time.
Where the buffalo R.O.M.E.S. (Radiation Overtly Maims Everyone Silly)
Well, just to clarify things, there are 5 Lagrange points for any two bodies in space; one between the Earth and Moon L1, L2 behind the moom, L3 behind the Earth, and L4 and L5 at points at the sides.
Anyway, Buzz, a station at L1 would not be very feasible since it is extermely unstable and is constantly changing; Orbits at this point would require large amounts of stationkeeping to keep operational...
Engineering Hierarchy:
Aero Engineers >>> Rockets
Civil Engineers >>> Targets
What are you going to breathe on Mars? The thin carbon dioxide atmosphere? What are you going to drink? Melt all the ice? How are you going to protect yourself from the radiation?
Face it: Mars is about as inhospitable as the Moon. The folks who want to go to Mars don't realize how lucky we are to have this huge natural satellite in the first place; we should take advantage of it to get a leg up over the aliens so we can establish a human galactic empire.
OK, that last bit was just nonsense, but the point still stands: anyone who wants to go to Mars first doesn't understand the science of the situation, but just has some empty-headed idea about how Mars is "Earth-like"... reality check, it's fucking not even close. Terraforming? Maybe in a thousand years--whoops, no wait, they recently found that there isn't enough water on the planet to pull it off. Oh well.
The Moon is one huge chunk of construction material (not like you need anything complicated for concrete). The gravity is lower than Mars. It only takes a few days to go to the Moon; it takes years to get to Mars and back. We know how to do the former; we don't have a fucking clue how to do the second.
--Ya know, that sounds like a good idea for a Sims game.
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/05/opinion/05ALDR.h tml?pagewanted=print
Run-off systems are just as broken. Imagine a "left" candidate and a "right" candidate each with relatively broad support, and a "moderate" candidate with much smaller core support. Liken these to the US Democrat (liberal/left), Republican (conservative/right), and old (Perot) Reform (socially liberally, fiscally conservative) parties, if you will. Both the left and the right candidates would prefer Mr. Moderate over the "other" guy. Intuitively, a compromise that 10% love and 90% can live with is better than an extremist that 55% (a majority!) despise, even if the largest single block (still a minority!) do love him.
The problem is that candidates are evaluated sequentially instead of simultaneously. If you eliminate any candidates before his preferences are fully evaluated, you are cheating the voters! A runoff system only evaluates preferences of those who like one of the two most pluralistic candidates, and only against his biggest competitor. You have not evaluated the right/moderate preferences, you have not evaluated the left/moderate preferences, and you completely throw out the top preference of everyone who liked Mr. Moderate as if they had no voice at all! Everyone who voted honestly for the moderate candidate in this scenario has still "thrown their vote away".
You said that in your system, you need a true majority. The only way you can guarantee a true majority all the time is to have only two candidates. A good political system (one that cherishes freedom) has to provide more options than that. What you are really looking for is a system that puts every candidate in a true head-to-head match against every other candidate. (How can you know that Nader votes would go to Gore, if Nader was never in head-to-head with Bush? And why couldn't we also say that Gore votes would go to Nader? Why does Nader have to be the one to drop out - why doesn't Gore drop out instead?) This is what the Condorcet method does - allow voters to express a full slate of preferences, and then all possible head-to-head matches are simulated based on those preferences. Now the definition of "winning" is not "who gets more votes than anyone else" but instead "who wins more voter preferences than anyone else"! That's what we're really trying to measure - honest voter preference - isn't it?
A good system ought to be able to please most people to some degree. A simple plurality system, or even a runoff system, caters to the largest (most vocal) minority. Please please please review the Condorcet method before you promote this uninformed runoff idea any more.
Constitutionally Correct
No, there's nothing but dust... But they DO make great places to put habitats and other space stations. And they're fairly easy to get to (IIRC, easier than the moon) and they make good launching points for missions to other bodies. Or good places to park asteroids while you work on them.
So its not like starting a farm in the middle of the Sahara. Its more like building a highway through the Sahara from the Mediterranian.
First: today the only heavy lift system we have is the Delta Heavy, and it's not that potent.
Second: The space elevator plans I have read call for thousands of tons of material to be lifted into orbit. That's dozens to hundreds of launches.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.