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.'"
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
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!
No you can't because it hasn't been done yet... we need to walk before we run.
Zubrin't table of delta-V's has a fundamental error in it... it doesn't include the fuel required to launch an vehicle from Earth to parking orbit, the fuel for the transfer orbit to Mars, the fuel for Mars capture or the fuel required for landing at Mars. Don't forget you aren't just moving the spacecraft to Mars but all the ground support equipment, mining equipment and fuel refining equipment as well.
Don't get me wrong, Zubrin has some excellent ideas and I would never question his conviction, but we still must walk before we run.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
I'd have much less issue with performing my civic duty of paying taxes, if my elected representatives did THEIR civic duty and spent those revenues wisely.
And BOTH parties have a hideous record on that front.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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.
No, it's a problem with the US system of election. In the US system, a third party can only be successful if people are convinced that it can be successful. The reason is because there is only one round of (presidential) election: the first to have a relative majority wins. Which means that people are afraid of squandering their votes by voting for the lesser known parties: they prefer to vote Dem, rather than Green, even if deep down in their heart they would prefer Green.
In a two-turn system (such as in France), such an issue doesn't exist. To win in on turn you need an absolute majority (i.e. more than 50% of the votes; 49% against an opponent who has 48% is not enough). If no one has an absolute majority, the two top-ranking candidates face each other in a second turn, which determines the winner.
With such a system, the following might have happened in the US on the last election:
- First round: Nader gather a great bunch of votes, maybe overtaking Al Gore. Bush gets the number he really got.
- Second round: Nader vs Bush. Nader would obviously collect votes that would have gone to Al Gore otherwise (i.e. "lesser evil" reasoning in reverse, by traditional Dem voters)
- No war in Iraq
Or, if Gore had more votes than Nader:- Second round: Nader is no longer running, so Gore collects all hist votes. Together with these, Gore would have overtaken Bush
- No war in Iraq
===> in any case, a two-turn system allows people to vote honestly in the first round, without any fears of "wasted votes" because not enough fellow citizens think likewise.