If one looks at early days of Manhattan project (and slightly before it), it's a bit less clear regarding who got help from whom. Or when checking out Miles M.52 aircraft, in relation to Bell X-1.
Neal is saying, "You need to blindly pour tons of money into any fantasy wunderscenario that's pushed around, while forgetting how some of them were seriously looked at again, and again, and again"
...and ISS modules don't hit the limits of current launcher technology. We are well on our way to the most sensible approach to construction (seriously, how did you miss that was the point? W8, you don't mean physical fit, don't think other methods could be much less streamlined, right? Transporters?...)
Don't ignore the possibility of other limiting factors and/or how larger satellites are not needed for most scenarios. Generally, we are not using the heaviest rockets around to launch commercial satellites.
Heck, even quite average launchers are often used to put more than one satellite into orbit.
That doesn't, by itself, automatically mean there must be higher hills to climb. We may have purposefully or accidentally climbed the highest hill we are currently capable of climbing. Perhaps we would have been further along with some other technology if we hadn't climbed this hill, but it might not have been better overall.
It might be actually slightly the other way around - did we already forget the absolute dominance of "spaceplanes" in scifi of 30s, 40s or 50s?! (even design attempts - Silbervogel, or early winged visions of von Braun) Flying saucers even, at some point...
No doubt fueled by rapid advances in aircraft technology at the time. What almost everybody wished for. And we still do, it's easy to remember and relate common experiences of air travel, while forgetting how it's "supposed to" look like (airplanes from "our" times as envisioned ~130 years ago, no doubt influenced by rapid advanced in marine technology), when approached in the same style as "spaceplanes" (actually, I wonder how much the Shuttle was influenced by designers and decision-makers growing on spaceplane scifi... and we know how that ended, it didn't deliver on any of its main points as advertised; not a lot of flying boats around, too)
May I introduce you to the International Space Station - an artificial satellite of a mass greatly exceeding capabilities of any launcher (and before the inevitable: no, it's not simply a fiction of rocket limitations - we build even ocean going ships in segments nowadays; modularization and, eventually, mass production, is simply a very good idea)
And FYI, the new toy of USAF, X-37, is launched by "dumb rocket" (with Russian main engine...); it's a "spaceplane" mostly because of its envisioned niche usage scenarios, so it can afford wasting most of its mass for airframe.
There's one key word in that quote - "if". "There is no shortage of proposals for radically innovative space launch schemes that, if they worked..."
When we really seriously look at spaceplanes (say, HOTOL or Skylon studies), it turns out they aren't likely to end up any better (in best case scenario!) than "dumb rocket" using comparable technology, materials science... on the level which we don't have yet, and which is required to make the spaceplane even borderline doable!
We are, among few things he does is basically hoping for "proper" airplanes from our times (we CAN build them! Take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy... doesn't make it a good idea) vs. boring reality
Starting as an ICBM (the first operational ICBM, R-7 Semyorka) doesn't prevent getting "the most reliable... most frequently used launch vehicle in the world". One of the more inexpensive ones, too... (if anything, efforts at departure away from what physics & rocket equation tells us tended to end... inefficiently)
Not only photosynthesis ceasing to be viable, in 1+ billion years the oceans are at risk of disappearing. Sure, if you want to count microbes... (something should remain for a long time in the crust)
There is an estimated one trillion comets just in our Oort cloud, spanning out to a light year or two (that's perfectly comparable with close passes of other stars, nvm their clouds). Sedna is almost certainly just a first out of a whole class of bodies (heck, there are some hints it might have extra-solar origin). As I said, don't obsess about inner planetary systems / random one would be virtually certainly likewise "uninhabitable".
And I really don't think anyone suggests it would be comparably straightforward to methods of hunter-gatherers... thing is, it appears fantasy-wishful-thinking-"but I want to be Kirk" physics isn't required.
Venus is quite a bit less massive, 80% of Earth (the event which created the Moon probably stirred things up too / we ought to have much larger and more active core). That seems good enough if Earth were to be a borderline case (plus, @water... yes, and for borderline planets even small differences of other factors (like - water content) could make a huge impact. That's kinda the point of "borderline...)
I thought about how kids interact with each other in Facebook chat rooms
Or via IM and mobile short messages... In fact, assuming decent enough integration of Lyndon Baty with his peers, I expect those methods to be the main ways of communication - despite the robot.
Though his version of participation in undressing video call might get weird.
It's not clear solar wind works to such a degree... (certainly not regarding disassociation, that's the work of electromagnetic radiation; magnetosphere doesn't protect from it)
It's not for a lack of trying... Generally, "habitable" and "promoting complex life" are probably two different things (for one, comfortably habitable (by the criteria from my link) planets might be, from certain point on, way too active for stable complex ecosystems). And "promoting intelligence" - another thing. "Leading to technological civilization" - yet another. That might be enough of an explanation. We're here for a blink of an eye, so far.
Lenin? A charismatic leader of early days for sure, but he wasn't even around long enough. His biggest folly was allowing the reign of monsters like Stalin or Dzierzynski (but check out their biographies - those men were created by their times; and BTW a bit soap opera-like with Dzierzynski - Jozef Pilsudski was one of his classmates)
And ironically... during the reign of Stalin, the life expectancy in the area of Soviet Union increased dramatically (that's despite all the victims!); generally, bringing a very backwards, impoverished country up to the status of a superpower.
Or another humor of history: yes, strong censorship. But also the first largely literate generation.
But that simply tells about the history of Venusian magnetic field; nothing there about effects of its lack for real habitability (yeah, it could be somewhat tougher - but nothing too dramatic, especially in an ocean)... other possible effect, stripping of the atmosphere, isn't much of an issue - if anything, Venus has way too much of an atmosphere.
Lack of carbon cycle, lack of working carbon sinks OTOH... (perhaps)
Don't think in terms of orchestrated, direct journeys. Our first venture out of Eastern Africa wasn't a jump to Hawaii.
Whether we'll do it or not - we can't know of course. But when not being obsessed about inner planetary systems, when thinking in timescales of civilization (and not of human life) - many things become much more plausible.
It's not about magnetic field. What exactly happened to Venus isn't quite clear of course, but one of more likely hypotheses is that Venus was too small to sustain plate tectonics (Earth might be borderline) - which could help with a runaway greenhouse effect.
I am getting really used (what? They are old news, here since who-knows-when, and won't be gone before by death) to people belittling all scientific achievements because some of them run counter to their "opinions"...
It is borderline good as far as its orbit is concerned (indeed, maybe it even had oceans of water few billion years ago, perhaps even some biosphere). And for some time, we'll know only the orbits of Kepler planets / that's why some of them are considered to be in the habitable zone.
In one billion years (what you almost certainly meant), Earth itself will be most likely uninhabitable (if nature takes its course). But it shouldn't take us that long to reach the stars at which Kepler is looking (few hundred light years away, iirc), assuming we'll ever venture out - even with a gradual approach of slowly spreading throughout the Oort cloud (one of more likely ones, IMHO), and with some groups eventually hitching a ride via clouds of passing stars, colonization of whole galaxy would be very rapid in geological terms.
Curious reversal (momentary, I'm sure) - it's already available at my usually-price-disadvantaged place for $140, so not too bad (unfortunately it will probably remain near that level for some time)
And too bad also full-frame / maybe I'll yet cook something up with acquainted optician...
Of course (heck, it's the same shit at my place / they're neighbors); but for most of the time in question, during the Soviet service of R-7 rocket family, Church wasn't used much(*), was mostly frowned upon (and note "openly"... clergy never stopped being useful informants, of course). Only in the last dozen+ years the theatricality seems to have returned.
(*)The thing to really wonder about - what if it were? Could it, of all things, keep the Union together?;p
Slashdot Mirror
If one looks at early days of Manhattan project (and slightly before it), it's a bit less clear regarding who got help from whom. Or when checking out Miles M.52 aircraft, in relation to Bell X-1.
Neal is saying, "You need to blindly pour tons of money into any fantasy wunderscenario that's pushed around, while forgetting how some of them were seriously looked at again, and again, and again"
... most frequently used launch vehicle in the world".
There was nothing unobtanium-like during the 60s about R-7 Semyorka, the first operational (in 1957) ICBM. Which is used to this day as Soyuz rocket, "the most reliable
...and ISS modules don't hit the limits of current launcher technology. We are well on our way to the most sensible approach to construction (seriously, how did you miss that was the point? W8, you don't mean physical fit, don't think other methods could be much less streamlined, right? Transporters?...)
Either way it's on the level of "human tools discovered to be close to their creators in magnitude of size!" Well duh...
Don't ignore the possibility of other limiting factors and/or how larger satellites are not needed for most scenarios. Generally, we are not using the heaviest rockets around to launch commercial satellites.
Heck, even quite average launchers are often used to put more than one satellite into orbit.
That doesn't, by itself, automatically mean there must be higher hills to climb. We may have purposefully or accidentally climbed the highest hill we are currently capable of climbing. Perhaps we would have been further along with some other technology if we hadn't climbed this hill, but it might not have been better overall.
It might be actually slightly the other way around - did we already forget the absolute dominance of "spaceplanes" in scifi of 30s, 40s or 50s?! (even design attempts - Silbervogel, or early winged visions of von Braun) Flying saucers even, at some point...
... and we know how that ended, it didn't deliver on any of its main points as advertised; not a lot of flying boats around, too)
No doubt fueled by rapid advances in aircraft technology at the time. What almost everybody wished for. And we still do, it's easy to remember and relate common experiences of air travel, while forgetting how it's "supposed to" look like (airplanes from "our" times as envisioned ~130 years ago, no doubt influenced by rapid advanced in marine technology), when approached in the same style as "spaceplanes" (actually, I wonder how much the Shuttle was influenced by designers and decision-makers growing on spaceplane scifi
May I introduce you to the International Space Station - an artificial satellite of a mass greatly exceeding capabilities of any launcher (and before the inevitable: no, it's not simply a fiction of rocket limitations - we build even ocean going ships in segments nowadays; modularization and, eventually, mass production, is simply a very good idea)
And FYI, the new toy of USAF, X-37, is launched by "dumb rocket" (with Russian main engine...); it's a "spaceplane" mostly because of its envisioned niche usage scenarios, so it can afford wasting most of its mass for airframe.
There's one key word in that quote - "if". "There is no shortage of proposals for radically innovative space launch schemes that, if they worked..."
... on the level which we don't have yet, and which is required to make the spaceplane even borderline doable!
When we really seriously look at spaceplanes (say, HOTOL or Skylon studies), it turns out they aren't likely to end up any better (in best case scenario!) than "dumb rocket" using comparable technology, materials science
While, perhaps, we haven't utilized yet all the possibilities of dumb & simple approach, in some ways we are worse than first effort
We are, among few things he does is basically hoping for "proper" airplanes from our times (we CAN build them! Take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy ... doesn't make it a good idea) vs. boring reality
... most frequently used launch vehicle in the world". One of the more inexpensive ones, too... (if anything, efforts at departure away from what physics & rocket equation tells us tended to end ... inefficiently)
Starting as an ICBM (the first operational ICBM, R-7 Semyorka) doesn't prevent getting "the most reliable
When did anybody do anything that resulted in a lasting peace?
Not only photosynthesis ceasing to be viable, in 1+ billion years the oceans are at risk of disappearing. Sure, if you want to count microbes... (something should remain for a long time in the crust)
There is an estimated one trillion comets just in our Oort cloud, spanning out to a light year or two (that's perfectly comparable with close passes of other stars, nvm their clouds). Sedna is almost certainly just a first out of a whole class of bodies (heck, there are some hints it might have extra-solar origin). As I said, don't obsess about inner planetary systems / random one would be virtually certainly likewise "uninhabitable".
And I really don't think anyone suggests it would be comparably straightforward to methods of hunter-gatherers... thing is, it appears fantasy-wishful-thinking-"but I want to be Kirk" physics isn't required.
Venus is quite a bit less massive, 80% of Earth (the event which created the Moon probably stirred things up too / we ought to have much larger and more active core). That seems good enough if Earth were to be a borderline case (plus, @water... yes, and for borderline planets even small differences of other factors (like - water content) could make a huge impact. That's kinda the point of "borderline...)
I thought about how kids interact with each other in Facebook chat rooms
Or via IM and mobile short messages... In fact, assuming decent enough integration of Lyndon Baty with his peers, I expect those methods to be the main ways of communication - despite the robot.
Though his version of participation in undressing video call might get weird.
It's not clear solar wind works to such a degree... (certainly not regarding disassociation, that's the work of electromagnetic radiation; magnetosphere doesn't protect from it)
It's not for a lack of trying... Generally, "habitable" and "promoting complex life" are probably two different things (for one, comfortably habitable (by the criteria from my link) planets might be, from certain point on, way too active for stable complex ecosystems). And "promoting intelligence" - another thing. "Leading to technological civilization" - yet another. That might be enough of an explanation. We're here for a blink of an eye, so far.
Lenin? A charismatic leader of early days for sure, but he wasn't even around long enough. His biggest folly was allowing the reign of monsters like Stalin or Dzierzynski (but check out their biographies - those men were created by their times; and BTW a bit soap opera-like with Dzierzynski - Jozef Pilsudski was one of his classmates)
... during the reign of Stalin, the life expectancy in the area of Soviet Union increased dramatically (that's despite all the victims!); generally, bringing a very backwards, impoverished country up to the status of a superpower.
And ironically
Or another humor of history: yes, strong censorship. But also the first largely literate generation.
But that simply tells about the history of Venusian magnetic field; nothing there about effects of its lack for real habitability (yeah, it could be somewhat tougher - but nothing too dramatic, especially in an ocean) ... other possible effect, stripping of the atmosphere, isn't much of an issue - if anything, Venus has way too much of an atmosphere.
Lack of carbon cycle, lack of working carbon sinks OTOH... (perhaps)
Don't think in terms of orchestrated, direct journeys. Our first venture out of Eastern Africa wasn't a jump to Hawaii.
Whether we'll do it or not - we can't know of course. But when not being obsessed about inner planetary systems, when thinking in timescales of civilization (and not of human life) - many things become much more plausible.
It's not about magnetic field. What exactly happened to Venus isn't quite clear of course, but one of more likely hypotheses is that Venus was too small to sustain plate tectonics (Earth might be borderline) - which could help with a runaway greenhouse effect.
I am getting really used (what? They are old news, here since who-knows-when, and won't be gone before by death) to people belittling all scientific achievements because some of them run counter to their "opinions"...
It is borderline good as far as its orbit is concerned (indeed, maybe it even had oceans of water few billion years ago, perhaps even some biosphere). And for some time, we'll know only the orbits of Kepler planets / that's why some of them are considered to be in the habitable zone.
Light year is a unit of distance, not time.
In one billion years (what you almost certainly meant), Earth itself will be most likely uninhabitable (if nature takes its course). But it shouldn't take us that long to reach the stars at which Kepler is looking (few hundred light years away, iirc), assuming we'll ever venture out - even with a gradual approach of slowly spreading throughout the Oort cloud (one of more likely ones, IMHO), and with some groups eventually hitching a ride via clouds of passing stars, colonization of whole galaxy would be very rapid in geological terms.
Curious reversal (momentary, I'm sure) - it's already available at my usually-price-disadvantaged place for $140, so not too bad (unfortunately it will probably remain near that level for some time)
And too bad also full-frame / maybe I'll yet cook something up with acquainted optician...
Of course (heck, it's the same shit at my place / they're neighbors); but for most of the time in question, during the Soviet service of R-7 rocket family, Church wasn't used much(*), was mostly frowned upon (and note "openly"... clergy never stopped being useful informants, of course). Only in the last dozen+ years the theatricality seems to have returned.
;p
(*)The thing to really wonder about - what if it were? Could it, of all things, keep the Union together?