Re: NASA Goes Deep

[Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro]

> In hindsight, maybe the pace of progress was
> predictable. Humans first explored Antarctica in
> the early 20th century. Decades passed before we
> had the technology that would allow us to
> establish a permanent presence. History will
> indicate the same for our interplanetary forays.
> Our initial “small step for a man” on the Moon
> took place in 1969. A half-century later, we will
> be there anew, to live and work.
>
Another example: Brazil was "discovered" in 1500, but
the actual colonization (or invasion...) only began one
generation later, in 1530.

Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: NASA Goes Deep

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Ronn! Blankenship
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:45 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: NASA Goes Deep
> 
> 
> 
> The cost to the nation of this misstep was
> enormous. For starters, we lost an investment,
> adjusted for inflation to 2007 dollars, of $160
> billion. That was the cost to get to, land on,
> walk on, drive on and otherwise explore the Moon.
> (Of that amount, $29 billion, in
> inflation-adjusted dollars, was the approximate cost of the Saturn V.)

But the investment paid off...there was no nuclear war.  It was a wonderful
way to show who really had the better missile technology without making each
other go boom.  

> Equally troubling is what we put in place of
> Apollo. The $38 billion developmental cost of the
> shuttle has gotten us nowhere in the solar system
> fast. And the International Space Station could
> have been built with only half a dozen Saturn V
> launchings instead of the more than two dozen
> shuttle trips that will be required to finish it.
> The bottom line: a colossal misuse of funds and a
> disheartening lack of progress and loss of time.

The whole point of the shuttle was to make space travel a lot more
straightforward: in terms of both cost and regularity.  The reusable nature
of the shuttle meant that, eventually, only the solid rockets would have to
be replaced.  The expensive shuttles would each be used a number of times a
year (> one time/month) and the maintenance costs were supposed to be
minimal.  This would result in launch to orbit costs of no more than
$100/kilo.  I remember believing this in the '70s.
 
Instead, we have a program that's actually more expensive per kilo than that
provided in the '60s. The new plan is to go back to the '60s technique of
rockets and capsules.  IMHO, this reflects the fact that we've hit a
physics/technology wall...and will need new types of space technology before
human space travel is anything more than a multi-billion dollar
entertainment expenditure.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: NASA Goes Deep

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" 
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 2:16 PM
Subject: RE: NASA Goes Deep


>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Ronn! Blankenship
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:45 AM
>> To: Killer Bs Discussion
>> Subject: NASA Goes Deep
>>
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/opinion/20porco.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1>
>>
>> The cost to the nation of this misstep was
>> enormous. For starters, we lost an investment,
>> adjusted for inflation to 2007 dollars, of $160
>> billion. That was the cost to get to, land on,
>> walk on, drive on and otherwise explore the Moon.
>> (Of that amount, $29 billion, in
>> inflation-adjusted dollars, was the approximate cost of the Saturn 
>> V.)
>
> But the investment paid off...there was no nuclear war.  It was a 
> wonderful
> way to show who really had the better missile technology without 
> making each
> other go boom.
>
>> Equally troubling is what we put in place of
>> Apollo. The $38 billion developmental cost of the
>> shuttle has gotten us nowhere in the solar system
>> fast. And the International Space Station could
>> have been built with only half a dozen Saturn V
>> launchings instead of the more than two dozen
>> shuttle trips that will be required to finish it.
>> The bottom line: a colossal misuse of funds and a
>> disheartening lack of progress and loss of time.
>
> The whole point of the shuttle was to make space travel a lot more
> straightforward: in terms of both cost and regularity.  The reusable 
> nature
> of the shuttle meant that, eventually, only the solid rockets would 
> have to
> be replaced.  The expensive shuttles would each be used a number of 
> times a
> year (> one time/month) and the maintenance costs were supposed to 
> be
> minimal.  This would result in launch to orbit costs of no more than
> $100/kilo.  I remember believing this in the '70s.
>
> Instead, we have a program that's actually more expensive per kilo 
> than that
> provided in the '60s. The new plan is to go back to the '60s 
> technique of
> rockets and capsules.  IMHO, this reflects the fact that we've hit a
> physics/technology wall...and will need new types of space 
> technology before
> human space travel is anything more than a multi-billion dollar
> entertainment expenditure.
>

IMO, the shuttle era space program (and actually the era immediately 
preceeding it) is an example of what happens when a science program 
becomes a political football.
There *were* plans for human occupation of space and the moon before 
the shuttle program. Much of what was planned then and now could be 
done by brute force methods. (Like the Saturn V)
The Shuttle was an attempt to employ a bit of finesse and bring down 
costs. It would have been a good idea if it had been designed *in 
addition* to the existing Saturn V program and what you would have 
gotten was a smaller shuttle with lower haulage requirements that 
would have likely been safer as it could have been launched atop a 
SatV.
Political decisions deemed that "there could only be one" method of 
getting people and equipment into space, and this "one size fits all" 
mentality is what wasted 30 years and billions of dollars.
If the remaining shuttles do not end up permanently in space serving 
minor duty I will be a bit pissed over the waste of resources.

xponent
Overly Opinionated Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: NASA Goes Deep

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Robert Seeberger
> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 4:48 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: NASA Goes Deep
> 
> 
> IMO, the shuttle era space program (and actually the era immediately
> preceeding it) is an example of what happens when a science program
> becomes a political football.

I'm sure you know my take on this...from what I've written above and what
I've written before.  But, let me state it explicitly: the manned space
program was never a scientific exercise.  If it had to compete for dollars
with other scientific research and the criterion "what gives us the best
chance of enhancing our knowledge of how the universe works (be it
cosmology, star physics, planetary science, ecology, biology, chemistry, or
basic physics), then we still would not have sent a human into space. 


> There *were* plans for human occupation of space and the moon before
> the shuttle program. Much of what was planned then and now could be
> done by brute force methods. (Like the Saturn V)

Sure, but once we showed that our technology would always be better than the
USSR, what was the point?  It certainly wasn't scientific advancement.

> The Shuttle was an attempt to employ a bit of finesse and bring down
> costs. It would have been a good idea if it had been designed *in
> addition* to the existing Saturn V program and what you would have
> gotten was a smaller shuttle with lower haulage requirements that
> would have likely been safer as it could have been launched atop a
> SatV.

Why would that have been safer?  There were not enough SatV launches to
properly compare zero blown up with the shuttle safety record.  

They were also hideously expensive.  Our moon program cost 0.5% of GDP in
'66...its peak year. Once we beat the Russians to the moon, the need to
spend this type of money on a program with a minimal remaining return on
investment just wasn't there.  

> Political decisions deemed that "there could only be one" method of
> getting people and equipment into space, and this "one size fits all"
> mentality is what wasted 30 years and billions of dollars.

Well, if there were multiple ways of doing it, then there would have to be a
much larger budgetwhich wasn't going to happen.  

> If the remaining shuttles do not end up permanently in space serving
> minor duty I will be a bit pissed over the waste of resources.

Well, IMHO, the manned space program is a waste of resources.  I'd guess
that the bang for the buck of this program is somewhere between 1% and 10%
of that for spending on science.  

Dan M. 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: NASA Goes Deep

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" 
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 7:20 PM
Subject: RE: NASA Goes Deep


>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Robert Seeberger
>> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 4:48 PM
>> To: Killer Bs Discussion
>> Subject: Re: NASA Goes Deep
>>
>>
>> IMO, the shuttle era space program (and actually the era 
>> immediately
>> preceeding it) is an example of what happens when a science program
>> becomes a political football.
>
> I'm sure you know my take on this...from what I've written above and 
> what
> I've written before.

Well...it is certainly true that we have travelled down this road a 
time or three!


> But, let me state it explicitly: the manned space
> program was never a scientific exercise.

It was and it wasn't, eh?
I think we will agree that as it is advertized, the science in the 
space program is a bunch of crap. It is mostly a load of PR 
misdirection used to divert attention away from the military functions 
of the program and the political "feel good" underpinnings.

But do you say that no good science has been gleaned from manned 
spaceflight?
I would say that learning to live in space is of enormous value. 
Learning to manufacture in zeroG is valuable. Repairing Hubble has 
been useful.


>  If it had to compete for dollars
> with other scientific research and the criterion "what gives us the 
> best
> chance of enhancing our knowledge of how the universe works (be it
> cosmology, star physics, planetary science, ecology, biology, 
> chemistry, or
> basic physics), then we still would not have sent a human into 
> space.
>

We still lack a robotic entity that can equal a human. Those little 
rovers on Mars are a pretty weak substitute for a geologist with 
rudimentary chemistry kit.

I could look at a picture of Dan's home and know a few things about 
it. I could learn a bit more if I were to get a hold of some samples 
of things from Dan's house. But if I were to visit Dan's home for a 
bit, I would understand a whole lot more about the dynamics of Planet 
Dan than I could from pictures or samples of flatware.

Even sample return missions have great limitations.

>
>> There *were* plans for human occupation of space and the moon 
>> before
>> the shuttle program. Much of what was planned then and now could be
>> done by brute force methods. (Like the Saturn V)
>
> Sure, but once we showed that our technology would always be better 
> than the
> USSR, what was the point?  It certainly wasn't scientific 
> advancement.

Does it always have to be about scientific advancement in the 
immediate sense?
To some degree it has to be about flexing the muscles of engineering 
(not because it is easy, but because it is hard).
To the point..Does Ford still have a better idea? Doesn't seem 
like it.
Resting on ones laurels is a sure way to fall behind and it sure looks 
to me like others are catching up. Today Iran had a successful 
sub-orbital flight.
Iran, dammit, Iran!!!



>
>> The Shuttle was an attempt to employ a bit of finesse and bring 
>> down
>> costs. It would have been a good idea if it had been designed *in
>> addition* to the existing Saturn V program and what you would have
>> gotten was a smaller shuttle with lower haulage requirements that
>> would have likely been safer as it could have been launched atop a
>> SatV.
>
> Why would that have been safer?  There were not enough SatV launches 
> to
> properly compare zero blown up with the shuttle safety record.

True, but I'm thinking the EFT next to a leaky SRB that caused the 
Challanger explosion was a poor design compared to a smaller shuttle 
atop a SatV.
But yes, that is an essentially unprovable assertion on my part, even 
though I believe it to be true ATM.

>
> They were also hideously expensive.  Our moon program cost 0.5% of 
> GDP in
> '66...its peak year. Once we beat the Russians to the moon, the need 
> to
> spend this type of money on a program with a minimal remaining 
> return on
> investment just wasn't there.
>
>> Political decisions deemed that "there could only be one" method of
>> getting people and equipment into space, and this "one size fits 
>> all"
>> mentality is what wasted 30 years and billions of dollars.
>
> Well, if there were multiple ways of doing it, then there would have 
> to be a
> much larger budgetwhich wasn't going to happen.

What reason would there be to continually re-engineer the SatV for the 
durat

RE: NASA Goes Deep

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Robert Seeberger
> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 9:29 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: NASA Goes Deep
> 
> 
> It was and it wasn't, eh?
> I think we will agree that as it is advertized, the science in the
> space program is a bunch of crap. It is mostly a load of PR
> misdirection used to divert attention away from the military functions
> of the program and the political "feel good" underpinnings.
> 
> But do you say that no good science has been gleaned from manned
> spaceflight?

No, but that's an awfully low bar, isn't it.  Good science has been gleamed
from my own work.and that has come at _a lot_ lower price than NASA.  

> I would say that learning to live in space is of enormous value.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but look at the self referential nature of
your lead statement. Learning to live in space is valuable only for a manned
space program.  There is a bit of biology that can be done on this, but the
impact of zero-G studies on our understanding of biology in general has been
small.

> Learning to manufacture in zeroG is valuable. 

How valuable?  It is certainly less valuable than the lift costs. While the
shuttle is more expensive than the Saturn V would be, it's in terms of
percentages, not factors of 10which is what we need to have real zero G
manufacturing.  If we do find a way to get lift costs down a factor of, say,
100, than we could apply what we've learned already.  But, we gained
virtually nothing by doing a very small amount of zero-G manufacturing
decades in advance of when it would be practical on even a small scale.  
 
>Repairing Hubble has been useful.

That is the one tangible action of the manned space program that's worth
real money.  But, several Hubbles could have been lifted into space for one
year's worth of the manned space cost.

> 
> 
> >
> 
> We still lack a robotic entity that can equal a human. Those little
> rovers on Mars are a pretty weak substitute for a geologist with
> rudimentary chemistry kit.

I don't know about that.  Remember, 99.9%+ of geology and geophysics is done
remotely now.  Cores are still useful and valuable for checking
instrumentation, but not with just a simple chemistry kit.  More work on
things like permeability can be done with coresand standoff is not an
issue with core density measurements.  But, wireline tools are routinely
expected to give most of the information available from cores downhole. 

While geology schools probably still teach hands on geology with simple
chemistry kits, virtually every professional geologist puts that kit away
and uses remote techniques professionally.

> I could look at a picture of Dan's home and know a few things about
> it. I could learn a bit more if I were to get a hold of some samples
> of things from Dan's house. But if I were to visit Dan's home for a
> bit, I would understand a whole lot more about the dynamics of Planet
> Dan than I could from pictures or samples of flatware.

The ability to get the gestalt of social dynamics is rather different from
being able to 

 
> Does it always have to be about scientific advancement in the
> immediate sense?

No, but what other value do you suggest? 


> To some degree it has to be about flexing the muscles of engineering
> (not because it is easy, but because it is hard).

But, the manned space program _must_ use well established engineering
techniques. Not only that, but there is ~5 years of bureaucracy involved in
adapting a technique that is new to the manned spaceflight program.   The
environmental requirements for manned space flight are very simple compared
to the requirements my equipment had to meet (with a few exceptions like the
inside of rocket engines).  I talked to a NASA engineer who was frustrated
that he couldn't use well established techniques that greatly improve
reliability, and thus safety, because it was not acceptable.


> Resting on ones laurels is a sure way to fall behind and it sure looks
> to me like others are catching up. Today Iran had a successful
> sub-orbital flight.
> Iran, dammit, Iran!!!

Sure, that just shows that there is an inherent wall in aerospace
development.  As is typically the case in mature technologies, a
breakthrough will come not by trying the same thing again, but by the
application of something else.  So, the solution is to work on a lot of
something elses, not manned space flight.  Manned space flight, due to the
high cost of failure, cannot be at the forefront of technology.


> 
> What reason would there be to continually re-engineer the SatV for the
> duration of it's use? At some point it is just manufacturing costs and
> incidental engineering costs. 

Manu

Re: NASA Goes Deep

[Max Battcher]

On 2/25/07, Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would you feel differently if the manned program was doing something
> that was actually useful?
> If the program had set up permanent zeroG manufacturing lines making
> products that could only be made in space, would the bang for the buck
> equations be more favorable to you?

One of the results from our space program that we have seen is that
yeast in low-gravity conditions generates better, more alcoholic beer.
 We just need to convince Anheuser-Busch or Coors or Miller to spend
the cash to build a giant beer manufacturing plant in Space.

Who wouldn't buy space beers?  It's makes a whole lot more sense than
a lot of the flavored beers and "energy" beers the big guys keep
putting onto shelves...

I demand to see a race for the first beer brewed in space to reach
store shelves.  Perhaps we need a Beer X-Prize.

-- 
--Max Battcher--
http://www.worldmaker.net/
All progress is based upon a universal innate desire on the part of
every organism to live beyond its income. --Samuel Butler
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: NASA Goes Deep

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 11:36 PM Sunday 2/25/2007, Max Battcher wrote:
>On 2/25/07, Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Would you feel differently if the manned program was doing something
> > that was actually useful?
> > If the program had set up permanent zeroG manufacturing lines making
> > products that could only be made in space, would the bang for the buck
> > equations be more favorable to you?
>
>One of the results from our space program that we have seen is that
>yeast in low-gravity conditions generates better, more alcoholic beer.
>  We just need to convince Anheuser-Busch or Coors or Miller to spend
>the cash to build a giant beer manufacturing plant in Space.
>
>Who wouldn't buy space beers?  It's makes a whole lot more sense than
>a lot of the flavored beers and "energy" beers the big guys keep
>putting onto shelves...
>
>I demand to see a race for the first beer brewed in space to reach
>store shelves.  Perhaps we need a Beer X-Prize.


What would really push it would be the invention of a semi-permeable 
membrane (blocks gases but lets liquids pass) so after drinking that 
beer guys can take a whizz on the Earth from 300 miles up . . .


-- Ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: NASA Goes Deep

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Original Message:
-
From: Max Battcher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:36:43 -0500
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: NASA Goes Deep


>One of the results from our space program that we have seen is that
>yeast in low-gravity conditions generates better, more alcoholic beer.
> We just need to convince Anheuser-Busch or Coors or Miller to spend
>the cash to build a giant beer manufacturing plant in Space.


Wow, you have _really_ expensive tastes Max.  When I saw a $2000 bottle of
wine in a reasturant I went to, I thought that was pricey.  But, you seem
to be interesting in ponying up $75,000 per six pack. :-)

Dan M.


mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: NASA Goes Deep

[Doug]

Dan wrote:

> Well, IMHO, the manned space program is a waste of resources.  I'd guess
> that the bang for the buck of this program is somewhere between 1% and 10%
> of that for spending on science.

How do you think the general public would rank Apollo in a list of human 
achievements?  I'm confident that it would be placed at or near the top of the 
list.  I personally consider it humankind's greatest achievement in my lifetime 
and perhaps for all time.  Not because it's a great engineering feat or because 
we proved our superiority over a competing economic system or for any other 
tangible reason, but because it's a tremendous milestone in our development as 
a life force; a magnificent triumph of the human spirit.  We cracked the egg 
and stuck our beak out!

If, a thousand years go by and we haven't destroyed ourselves (or haven't been 
destroyed by some other entity, who knows?) we will have explored much of what 
lies beyond this planet and we will look back on July 20, 1969 as the day it 
really started.

-- 
Doug
VFP Irony
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: NASA Goes Deep

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 10:08 PM Tuesday 2/27/2007, Doug wrote:
>Dan wrote:
>
> > Well, IMHO, the manned space program is a waste of resources.  I'd guess
> > that the bang for the buck of this program is somewhere between 1% and 10%
> > of that for spending on science.
>
>How do you think the general public would rank Apollo in a list of 
>human achievements?  I'm confident that it would be placed at or 
>near the top of the list.  I personally consider it humankind's 
>greatest achievement in my lifetime and perhaps for all time.  Not 
>because it's a great engineering feat or because we proved our 
>superiority over a competing economic system or for any other 
>tangible reason, but because it's a tremendous milestone in our 
>development as a life force; a magnificent triumph of the human 
>spirit.  We cracked the egg and stuck our beak out!
>
>If, a thousand years go by and we haven't destroyed ourselves (or 
>haven't been destroyed by some other entity, who knows?) we will 
>have explored much of what lies beyond this planet and we will look 
>back on July 20, 1969 as the day it really started.



Too bad that at least nine out of ten people you ask will have no 
idea what happened on that date . . .and that includes people who 
were alive and old enough to be in school then.



>--
>Doug
>VFP Irony




-- Ronn!  :)

"If a burglar is someone guilty of burglary, if a glutton is someone 
guilty of gluttony ... then God is an iron."
-- Spider Robinson (1948 - ), Canadian science fiction writer.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: NASA Goes Deep

[Horn, John]

> On Behalf Of Ronn! Blankenship
> 
> Too bad that at least nine out of ten people you ask will 
> have no idea what happened on that date . . .and that 
> includes people who were alive and old enough to be in school then.

Spoil sport!

OK.  I was 3 1/2.  I don't remember the exact date but could tell you it
was in 1969.  I do remember watching some of the later landings though.
Couldn't tell you which ones, of course...

 - jmh


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for 
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and 
privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, 
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of 
the original message.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: NASA Goes Deep

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Doug
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:08 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: NASA Goes Deep
> 
> Dan wrote:
> 
> > Well, IMHO, the manned space program is a waste of resources.  I'd guess
> > that the bang for the buck of this program is somewhere between 1% and
> 10%
> > of that for spending on science.
> 
> How do you think the general public would rank Apollo in a list of human
> achievements?  I'm confident that it would be placed at or near the top of
> the list. 

I think it depends on how the question is worded and the nationality of the
folks being asked.  I think it would be rates just after "Columbus
discovering America" in the US, but not that high elsewhere.  The age of the
people polled would also matterI think you would get a higher percentage
with that response at our age than among those <35.

> I personally consider it humankind's greatest achievement in my
> lifetime and perhaps for all time.  Not because it's a great engineering
> feat or because we proved our superiority over a competing economic system
> or for any other tangible reason, but because it's a tremendous milestone
> in our development as a life force; a magnificent triumph of the human
> spirit.  We cracked the egg and stuck our beak out!

If you have faith in Progress, as opposed to just progress, I can see that.
But, this assumes a particular future.  For example, in space exploration,
why this date instead of the date Sputnik was launched, or the day we first
soft landed a craft on the moon, or the first time we reached a planet?  

> If, a thousand years go by and we haven't destroyed ourselves (or haven't
> been destroyed by some other entity, who knows?) we will have explored
> much of what lies beyond this planet and we will look back on July 20,
> 1969 as the day it really started.

Well, this is rank speculation on both of our parts, but I don't think that
will be true.  If a significant part of humankind lives off planet, then
that might be true, but I'm guessing that living in habitats will not be an
attractive option compared to living in open spaces.  If lift costs became
minimal, I could see space tourismand I could definitely see all sorts
of automated equipment in space. 

The first explorer to get somewhere does deserve some credit, but the
importance of first contact rests somewhat on what happens next.  For
example, if it was discovered that the Vikings did reach North America, it
wouldn't make this anywhere as important as the start of the sea contact
between Europe and the Americasbecause the latter had a tremendous
effect on our lives, and the former had minimal effect.

Nearly 40 years after the moon program, we have only marginal improvements
in lift costs, even though the government has invested billions in NASA
every year.  Contrast this with the cost of computing power.  I've
personally seen, since ~1984, a million fold drop in the cost of running
MCNP...a nuclear transport model.  

The reason for this is clear to mefundamental physics.  This will need
to be chanced before it makes sense to send humans into orbit.  In a sense,
the moon is somewhat like Everestit's an achievement to get there, but
there is little practical to do once on gets there.  

Indeed, I'd argue whether we have a moon base now will have very little to
do with how extensive our present man space program is.  If we land humans
on Mars in 2015, 2025, 2050, or 2100, it will have minimal impact on how
extensive the utilization of space is in 2500.  The reason I say this is
because the practicality of an extensive presence in space relies on new
technologies that are dependent on new sciences.  There is no indication
that the development of the scientific knowledge needed to have a large
practical presence in the solar system is dependant on the nature and extent
of the manned space program in the first part of the 21st century.  Thus,
the present manned space program finds a parallel in the Viking explorers of
the early 2nd millennium.  Neither will have much of an impact on later
history.

Dan M. 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l