You gotta understand how arms races work. Stealth is great, and yes, it would be an approach that is taken, but that's just one direction. To defend against a Big Fucking Laser you just need a mirror.. and dumb ballistic weapon will just be intercepted with another dumb ballistic weapon. So, pretty soon you need fighters.. and that will always mean people (no matter how much people want to claim UAVs are the future). You can't launch them from the ground to space whenever you need them.. that takes at least 12 minutes. You need to station them in space. Which means you need proper space stations. Which means you need a force to defend them, etc.
Gah. You're talking about space warfare as if we have already tried it. The reason why it's so easy to knock out a satellite is because they are designed with no defensive capabilities. The reason why debris is such a hazard to spacecraft today is because they are made as light as possible to reduce launch costs. Why is it that people always equate changing the status quo with the sky falling. We can adapt.
Could also be the best thing that ever happens to mankind.
In order to fight a war in space, you need a launch capability that is beyond what we have today.
You need it to launch space stations that are bigger and stronger than the flimsy tin cans that we have in orbit now.
All the arguments that have been presented for not putting nuclear reactors into space suddenly become irrelevant.. Nuclear propulsion will become a standard feature of spacecraft. Big fat military dollars would then be poured into research to develop better than nuclear propulsion systems, not to mention weapons.
To fight a war in space you really need a working space-based economy. Which also happens to give you something to fight about: control of that economy. A working space-based economy is a necessity to colonization of the solar system - also something to fight over. Colonization of the solar system is essential to the survival of the species.
I can't believe I'm explaining this, but you need a launch capability much greater and cheaper than we have today to make a space economy work. Ya know, you gotta put mining equipment, and people and all the support infrastructure for people (or, if you can do it, lots of robots instead) onto the Moon. Doing that with Apollo era technology would be doable, if it weren't for the fact that the technology is classified.
Personally, I think the solution to the problem of better and cheaper rockets is people who want to make better and cheaper rockets (instead of companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin who just want nice fat profits). And thankfully that's happening now with the NewSpace community. But hey, if we can build a space elevator, that'd be great too.
And yes, there are plenty of designs for solar powered furnaces to melt and process this material on the Moon. This isn't a topic I can cover in a Slashdot post. There's a whole lot of literature on the subject. I recommend Dennis Wingo's Moonrush as a starter.
You asked how this actually helps us ship people off world. It doesn't. That's not the goal. We're not trying to warehouse the poor in space. I've only presented one of the suggested ways that space can reduce the resource limitations of our planet. Precious metals are more than just fancy jewlry these days, they're used in all sorts of industrial processes.. and they're an integral part of the hydrogen economy, which many people recognise as our best bet for removing the world's dependancy on fossil fuels - just so long as we can get the greens to stop beating up on nuclear fission.. and it will be critical when fusion becomes a reality.
Then there's the space power satelite people. There's a heck of a lot of power out there and we could use it down here.
Then there's the people who want to teraform Mars and build giant domes over craters on the Moon. That does give you some people moving off world.. but more importantly, from Earth's perspective, is that it gives us experience doing planet sized engineering. Which, unfortunately, is exactly what we need to be doing with our own planet.
Look, I don't blame you. There has been little to no public discussion of why space is such an important place to go. Let me try to explain just a little here for you now. For starters, we have an increasing population on Earth. Traditionally, this hasn't been much of a problem because the majority of the population has been too poor to pose any real threat to using up all the resources on Earth. There's a finite amount of coal, oil, and precious metals on this planet, not to mention land you can use for growing food. As they say, they're not making any more of it. So, what to do?
Well, there's some people who think we should force people to stop breeding. Put a limit on how many children you can have so that the birth rate is less than the death rate. Stop treating the sick and old. Stop giving aid to third world countries. Just let em all die so that the population of Earth gets down to a nice manageable level. These people rally under the banner of "Limits To Growth".
Then there's the space advocates. Of which I am one. We believe that the best solution to there not being enough resources on Earth for everyone is to go get resources off Earth. There's thousands of Near Earth Asteroids which contain hundreds of times more metal than the entire crust of the Earth is believed to hold. There are only thousands of them because the Earth has this giant deflector that thankfully stops them from falling on us (although every 60 million years or so we get a big one that nearly wipes out all life on the planet, the last one was about 65 million years ago). This giant deflector is called The Moon and it has millions of craters on it, most of which were caused by these big metal asteroids.. the metal is still up there.
Getting to the Near Earth Asteroids is considered easier than getting to the Moon, but the Moon obviously has a lot more resources on it and, hey, we've done it a dozen times already. The cost of expanding our civilization into space is great. I don't argue that. But the cost of not expanding our civilization into space may well be much much greater. We're eating up this planet, and we don't (yet) have another one.
If it weren't for the costs, we could build one this year. Materials exist today that are strong enough and light enough to support the weight of the lifter and itself. The problem is the number of rocket launches it would take to get the construction started. You could build it out of Spectra but you would need hundreds of heavy lift rockets just to get started. The cost of launch for those rockets would make the project not financially viable. In fact, you could make the elevator out of other materials that each have their own set of difficulties. So, in short, your premise is incorrect. Certainly, the design would be different, and there would be other challenges that are not managed in the current design, but lets be perfectly clear - there is a big difference between ''difficult'' and ''impossible''. An elevator to space is only difficult. Right now, we still don't know enough, which is why we have spent so much on research. I don't AGREE with this claim.. I've seen no study which shows this to be the case, and all the other problems other than the material to use are not solved.. but he has already addressed the objection that you NEED carbon nanotubes.
I read the whole thing. If they want to show that it is possible to build it with existing materials, do a paper study. Or, if one has already been done, tell me where it was published.
If the only problem is that it would cost too much, tell us how much it would cost. Tell us how much needs to be lifted into orbit, and which orbits, and tell us how all the mirade of other problems have been solved.
Me: The Space Elevator is a glorious technology that may one day be built by an advanced human civilization, and when it is, it will be a modern world wonder.. but that day is not today.. it's probably not even in the next 30 years.
LiftPort: We disagree. So far as our official road map is concerned, we are on schedule - and in fact, we are even a little ahead of schedule on some projects.
Ok, that's great, but you're the ones making this amazing claim that you could build a space elevator today if only you had the money. Amazing claims require amazing proof. Your official road map doesn't exactly cut it.
And that doesn't mean that anyone has a right to supress your wrong opinion. They should embrace it and use it as a good example of how poor your math skills are.. not try to hide it like they are afraid you might be right.
It should also be clear to anyone with a brain that this is what the RIAA means when they say they are going to "educate" the public. I already know a lot of people who won't go near P2P programs because of these tactics.. regardless of the fact that we're in another country and the RIAA don't "service our area". The education program is working.
Yeah, that's what I was saying, and I think everyone got it except this guy. That's Slashdot for you, there's always 1% of people who don't get it and they always feel the need to tell the rest of us about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows are a luxury.
You gotta understand how arms races work. Stealth is great, and yes, it would be an approach that is taken, but that's just one direction. To defend against a Big Fucking Laser you just need a mirror.. and dumb ballistic weapon will just be intercepted with another dumb ballistic weapon. So, pretty soon you need fighters.. and that will always mean people (no matter how much people want to claim UAVs are the future). You can't launch them from the ground to space whenever you need them.. that takes at least 12 minutes. You need to station them in space. Which means you need proper space stations. Which means you need a force to defend them, etc.
Gah. You're talking about space warfare as if we have already tried it. The reason why it's so easy to knock out a satellite is because they are designed with no defensive capabilities. The reason why debris is such a hazard to spacecraft today is because they are made as light as possible to reduce launch costs. Why is it that people always equate changing the status quo with the sky falling. We can adapt.
Could also be the best thing that ever happens to mankind.
In order to fight a war in space, you need a launch capability that is beyond what we have today.
You need it to launch space stations that are bigger and stronger than the flimsy tin cans that we have in orbit now.
All the arguments that have been presented for not putting nuclear reactors into space suddenly become irrelevant.. Nuclear propulsion will become a standard feature of spacecraft. Big fat military dollars would then be poured into research to develop better than nuclear propulsion systems, not to mention weapons.
To fight a war in space you really need a working space-based economy. Which also happens to give you something to fight about: control of that economy. A working space-based economy is a necessity to colonization of the solar system - also something to fight over. Colonization of the solar system is essential to the survival of the species.
Yes, commercialize the research please..
We've been hearing about this technology for years now.
Get the invention out of the lab and into the hands of people who need it.
There's disable people out there living terribly poor quality lives.. they could be playing WoW.
Ummm.. he said it could be done today with suffient funds. 1000 years of global steel production isn't today.
Actually read my post! I'm not advocating shipping the poor into space.
Oh, I don't disagree, but how exactly how you going to make everyone on Earth rich enough to become educated enough to reduce population growth?
And how are you going to solve the issue of all these now rich and educated people wanting access to materials that are in limited supply?
That's what expansion into space buys you.
I can't believe I'm explaining this, but you need a launch capability much greater and cheaper than we have today to make a space economy work. Ya know, you gotta put mining equipment, and people and all the support infrastructure for people (or, if you can do it, lots of robots instead) onto the Moon. Doing that with Apollo era technology would be doable, if it weren't for the fact that the technology is classified.
Personally, I think the solution to the problem of better and cheaper rockets is people who want to make better and cheaper rockets (instead of companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin who just want nice fat profits). And thankfully that's happening now with the NewSpace community. But hey, if we can build a space elevator, that'd be great too.
And yes, there are plenty of designs for solar powered furnaces to melt and process this material on the Moon. This isn't a topic I can cover in a Slashdot post. There's a whole lot of literature on the subject. I recommend Dennis Wingo's Moonrush as a starter.
You asked how this actually helps us ship people off world. It doesn't. That's not the goal. We're not trying to warehouse the poor in space. I've only presented one of the suggested ways that space can reduce the resource limitations of our planet. Precious metals are more than just fancy jewlry these days, they're used in all sorts of industrial processes.. and they're an integral part of the hydrogen economy, which many people recognise as our best bet for removing the world's dependancy on fossil fuels - just so long as we can get the greens to stop beating up on nuclear fission.. and it will be critical when fusion becomes a reality.
Then there's the space power satelite people. There's a heck of a lot of power out there and we could use it down here.
Then there's the people who want to teraform Mars and build giant domes over craters on the Moon. That does give you some people moving off world.. but more importantly, from Earth's perspective, is that it gives us experience doing planet sized engineering. Which, unfortunately, is exactly what we need to be doing with our own planet.
Why would he make the claim when he can't back it up?
It's an extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary evidence. If you can't produce that evidence, don't make the claim.
Unless, ya know, you want your credibility to be completely shot.
Look, I don't blame you. There has been little to no public discussion of why space is such an important place to go. Let me try to explain just a little here for you now. For starters, we have an increasing population on Earth. Traditionally, this hasn't been much of a problem because the majority of the population has been too poor to pose any real threat to using up all the resources on Earth. There's a finite amount of coal, oil, and precious metals on this planet, not to mention land you can use for growing food. As they say, they're not making any more of it. So, what to do?
Well, there's some people who think we should force people to stop breeding. Put a limit on how many children you can have so that the birth rate is less than the death rate. Stop treating the sick and old. Stop giving aid to third world countries. Just let em all die so that the population of Earth gets down to a nice manageable level. These people rally under the banner of "Limits To Growth".
Then there's the space advocates. Of which I am one. We believe that the best solution to there not being enough resources on Earth for everyone is to go get resources off Earth. There's thousands of Near Earth Asteroids which contain hundreds of times more metal than the entire crust of the Earth is believed to hold. There are only thousands of them because the Earth has this giant deflector that thankfully stops them from falling on us (although every 60 million years or so we get a big one that nearly wipes out all life on the planet, the last one was about 65 million years ago). This giant deflector is called The Moon and it has millions of craters on it, most of which were caused by these big metal asteroids.. the metal is still up there.
Getting to the Near Earth Asteroids is considered easier than getting to the Moon, but the Moon obviously has a lot more resources on it and, hey, we've done it a dozen times already. The cost of expanding our civilization into space is great. I don't argue that. But the cost of not expanding our civilization into space may well be much much greater. We're eating up this planet, and we don't (yet) have another one.
I read the whole thing. If they want to show that it is possible to build it with existing materials, do a paper study. Or, if one has already been done, tell me where it was published.
If the only problem is that it would cost too much, tell us how much it would cost. Tell us how much needs to be lifted into orbit, and which orbits, and tell us how all the mirade of other problems have been solved.
Me: The Space Elevator is a glorious technology that may one day be built by an advanced human civilization, and when it is, it will be a modern world wonder.. but that day is not today.. it's probably not even in the next 30 years.
LiftPort: We disagree. So far as our official road map is concerned, we are on schedule - and in fact, we are even a little ahead of schedule on some projects.
Ok, that's great, but you're the ones making this amazing claim that you could build a space elevator today if only you had the money. Amazing claims require amazing proof. Your official road map doesn't exactly cut it.
Yep, it's just one of the great ways that copyright "promotes" the arts.
Nah, he's one of these "I don't need to participate in mainstream culture" people.
Which, ya know, is fine so long as you're happy going to extremes necessary to fit into alternative culture.
Or have no cultural drive at all.
Yeah, unless Copyright Abuse was one of the charges, I fail to see how it would be usual to forfeit copyrights.
It's a nice thought though.
And that doesn't mean that anyone has a right to supress your wrong opinion. They should embrace it and use it as a good example of how poor your math skills are.. not try to hide it like they are afraid you might be right.
It should also be clear to anyone with a brain that this is what the RIAA means when they say they are going to "educate" the public. I already know a lot of people who won't go near P2P programs because of these tactics.. regardless of the fact that we're in another country and the RIAA don't "service our area". The education program is working.
She's suing the music company, not the RIAA. Summary is wrong, as usual.
Just because he holds a different opinion doesn't mean he is "trolling" or trying to "bait" people into a flame war.
Can't you can disagree with someone without trying to supress their opinion?
at least not on the music.. Perhaps we should stop playing their game and NAME THE MUSIC COMPANIES who are suing these people.
Management always tend to have strange ideas about how long it takes to do stuff.
They want everything yesterday.
Asteroids. Lots of them. Read Dennis Wingo's Moonrush.
Yeah, that's what I was saying, and I think everyone got it except this guy. That's Slashdot for you, there's always 1% of people who don't get it and they always feel the need to tell the rest of us about it.