Robert J. Kolker Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 Please look at this story in the 6/5/07 edition of the New Jersey Star-Ledger Rutgers' moon mission Ex-astronaut at RU conference says profit motive will fuel new trips Tuesday, June 05, 2007 BY KEVIN COUGHLIN Star-Ledger Staff Never mind utopian visions of space colonies forged by international cooperation. The first lunar settlement will be "a company town," created by entrepreneurs driven by the same thing that makes the world go round: profit. So predicts Harrison Schmitt, who has what you might call an informed opinion. He actually lived on the moon, for three days in 1972. Speaking at Rutgers University yesterday, the Apollo 17 astronaut downplayed United Nations treaties and played up moon mining and private lunar property. "People take care of what they own. It's a fundamental principle," said Schmitt, the last person to set foot on the moon and, as a geologist, the lone scientist to make the trip. Schmitt kicked off a weeklong conference organized by Rutgers professor Haym Benaroya to discuss a return to the moon, the subject of a book Schmitt wrote two years ago. President Bush has set a 2020 target date, and NASA views it as a steppingstone to Mars missions. The conference has drawn a few dozen engineers, architects and space buffs from as far as Austria and India. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The entire story is at http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/b....xml&coll=1 I would be willing to bet Dr. Schmidt (he is a PhD geologist as well as an astronaut who walked on the Moon) read Robert Heinlein SciFi as a youngster. Schmidt and I are of an age, and I recall many happy hours reading RAH. Robert A. Heinlein was my "Ayn Rand". Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrocktor Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 Robert A. Heinlein was my "Ayn Rand". Boy did you get the short end of that stick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakarmaskannar Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 I loved 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' and 'Starship Troopers' but it's been a few years since I've read them and I'd love to find the time to reassess them (post-exposure to Objectivism, that is:) ) I'd love to see private enterprise taking to the stars (well, the moon as a start ) and also to see how many of those people who've bought plots of the moon's surface get to claim their titles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrocktor Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 (edited) I loved 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' and 'Starship Troopers' Oh Heinlein's books are great reads, no doubt. But there is really no comparison between complete works of the two. PS: I found the duty/sacrifice ethics of "Troopers" quite out of place with other writings of Heinlein's. Edited June 5, 2007 by mrocktor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 PS: I found the duty/sacrifice ethics of "Troopers" quite out of place with other writings of Heinlein's. It's been a while since I read that book, but I thought the ethic had more to do with pride and discipline than duty. It seemed like an appropriate attitude for a marine defending his country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 Oh Heinlein's books are great reads, no doubt. But there is really no comparison between complete works of the two. PS: I found the duty/sacrifice ethics of "Troopers" quite out of place with other writings of Heinlein's. I will try his books out when I get the time, but if the book Starship Troopers is at all like the movie I doubt I will like it. I did not like the movie, which admittedly I watched ages ago when my values were less consistent and less integrated. Now, as for this moon thing, I am glad to see he realises that private concerns for such things are superior to government concerns. However, i do not believe we will realistically be able to get to other planets even via privately funded and run means. Wap drive/hyperdrive just is going to happen, and even if worm holes do exist and really can save massive amounts of time, we will never be able to control them, as the amount of energy required would challaenge even the amount produced by a matter-anti-matter reaction I would bet. And that is if there really is such a thing as anti-matter and that the reaction really does produce so much energy. If anyone can link me to some good and reliable information on anti-matter, matter-anti-matter reactions, and wormholes I would appreciate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 I will try his books out when I get the time, but if the book Starship Troopers is at all like the movie I doubt I will like it. The only thing they have in common are their names. Warp drive/hyperdrive just is going to happen, and even if worm holes do exist and really can save massive amounts of time, we will never be able to control them, as the amount of energy required would challenge even the amount produced by a matter-anti-matter reaction I would bet. And that is if there really is such a thing as anti-matter and that the reaction really does produce so much energy. You should be careful making predictions about things you know little about. Physics is not understood well enough to make such predictions. (By the way, stable antimatter was first created artificially in 2002.) However, i do not believe we will realistically be able to get to other planets even via privately funded and run means Given our current knowledge of physics and the limitations of human physiology, it may be impossible for human beings in their current form to travel to other stars - or even the outer reaches of our solar system. The more interesting possibility to me is that human beings will transform not only our environment, but our physiology, and shape ourselves into beings capable of thriving in deep space. I find that possibility not only more likely, but more appealing than the prospect of short, fragile lives trying to cope with an alien, timeless environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 The only thing they have in common are their names. Then I will give it a try. You should be careful making predictions about things you know little about. Physics is not understood well enough to make such predictions. (By the way, stable antimatter was first created artificially in 2002.) Well, I am admittedly basing it on what many scientists say. But as far as I can tell, based on what I do know, which admittedly is not a great deal, it sees realistic and correct. As for antim-matter, I was merely expressing my lack of knowledge one way or the other as to whether or not it exists. If it does, that name seems contradictory. Given our current knowledge of physics and the limitations of human physiology, it may be impossible for human beings in their current form to travel to other stars - or even the outer reaches of our solar system. The more interesting possibility to me is that human beings will transform not only our environment, but our physiology, and shape ourselves into beings capable of thriving in deep space. I find that possibility not only more likely, but more appealing than the prospect of short, fragile lives trying to cope with an alien, timeless environment. I should clarify that I think, while a generation ship could get us to other planets, I do not think it would be worth the effort unless Earth became uninhabitable, which I see as only happening under an extenction level event or the sun's "death". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 (edited) Sure DragonMaci, warp drive and hyperdrive as portrayed in science-fiction seem way to far-fetched to be scientifically viable, and I would certaintly say they are physically impossible given our current understanding of physics. And actually I do not consider that they would make sense given any understanding of physics (physics may or may not degenerate further down the mystical path is is going down, but of course understanding here is based on fact, not whatever delusions physics may claim to be facts). However, I would agree with David in that he seems to believe it is premature to say that it certainly will never happen, even given radical changes in theories of physics, especially as I know you do not actually know much about physics. Read up on the matter a bit more before you declare that. Though I would agree that if we assume our current theories are correct, it seems pretty damn unlikely. But to the topic.. Yeah moon mining and some terraforming of the moon (for short stays, the system would be best automated i think, I see little reason one would want to live on the moon unless moon geology really really interests you) would be pretty cool, and if they arent pretty much the ultimate testament to the power of rational thinking, then I dont know what is. As for the Heinlein...hmm I still have not got around to trying him yet. I have Double Star I think its called around here somewhere, but if you could suggest anything else of his I might want to start with... EDIT (PS): Yes I suppose the name anti-matter might seem confusing / contradictory to some ( i am assuming it implies to you it is the opposite of existence or something), but what it refers to has been verified to exist, and been created has has been pointed out (I thought it was later than 2002, but oh well I guess not). Edited June 5, 2007 by Prometheus98876 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 Sure DragonMaci, warp drive and hyperdrive as portrayed in science-fiction seem way to far-fetched to be scientifically viable, and I would certaintly say they are physically impossible given our current understanding of physics. And actually I do not consider that they would make sense given any understanding of physics (physics may or may not degenerate further down the mystical path is is going down, but of course understanding here is based on fact, not whatever delusions physics may claim to be facts). Yes, well I am talking about the way science fictions stories, such as Star Trek, Star Wars, Stargates Atlantis and SG-1, and others, portray it. My knowledge of physics, which is admittedly not a great deal, tells me that the way they portray warp drive and hyperdrive is impossible. However, I would agree with David in that he seems to believe it is premature to say that it certainly will never happen, even given radical changes in theories of physics, especially as I know you do not actually know much about physics. Read up on the matter a bit more before you declare that. Well, that is a seperate issue to what i was talking about. I was talking about science fictions portraying of warp drive and hyperdrive. It may be possible for a different type of warp drive and hyperdrive to be possible, though I doubt it, and I am withholding my final opinion on that because, as you and David say, it is premature to do otherwise. But to the topic.. EDIT (PS): Yes I suppose the name anti-matter might seem confusing / contradictory to some ( i am assuming it implies to you it is the opposite of existence or something), but what it refers to has been verified to exist, and been created has has been pointed out (I thought it was later than 2002, but oh well I guess not). Someone, I cannot remember who, told me it is named "antimatter" because it acts the opposite of matter in some ways. I cannot remember which ways. Anyway, can the discussion on antimatter now take place in this thread I created instead of here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 Well, I think the Stargate stuff is pretty unrealistic too, though really which of those are more realistic and how realistic devices used in science fiction are is pretty unimportant. What does Farscape use again though out of curiosity? Opposite of matter? Well I dont know what they meant to say, but that is just silly. Matter as such, has no opposite of course. It is possible that two given existents are similar in some ways, yet have attributes that are "opposite" as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 (edited) Well, I think the Stargate stuff is pretty unrealistic too, though really which of those are more realistic and how realistic devices used in science fiction are is pretty unimportant. What does Farscape use again though out of curiosity? Leviathans (living ships) use something called Starburst and Extended Starburst. I have no idea what they are or how they work, but I do know Extended Starburts, which first and only appeared in one of the last ever episodes, are very dangerous. As for other types of ships, I have no idea, as it was never explained. Opposite of matter? Well I dont know what they meant to say, but that is just silly. Matter as such, has no opposite of course. It is possible that two given existents are similar in some ways, yet have attributes that are "opposite" as such. What I meant was what you said about opposite charges in my antimatter thread. Edited June 5, 2007 by DragonMaci Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 Heinlen's story to read with regards to space exploration is "The Man Who Sold The Moon." It's about how a businessman, Delos D. Harriman, goes about financing and launching the first ship to the Moon. Overall it's a good read. But I was bothered by Heinlen's positive ignorance regarding nuclear power (even if it was written in the 40s or 50s, he should have known better; but then even Asimov, the Great Explainer himself, also failed misserably in that regard in the Foundation stories). And I take great exception to Heinlen's sense of life. But to explain that requires spoiling the ending. On the other hand, it's one of a very few stories that can be called a happy commercial adventure story. "Starship Troopers" is also a good read and a very instructive novel regarding Heinlen himself. He was an individualist and favored individualism, but he was a man of mixed premises who also held on to an altruistic morality. Perhaps the novel that most clearly shows this is one of his last, "Friday." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 Thank you D'kian. I will certainly try get hold of those at some stage before too long and see if I enjoy them :-). I can live with writings from a man of mixed premises if he offers his better, and more noble premises strongly enough. I might avoid "Friday" by the sounds of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 You might enjoy his more individualistic, pro-liberty works like "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel," "The Door Into Summer," "Puppet Masters," and the short story "We Also Walk Dogs." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 Alright, I will jot those down and see if I can them somewhere, thank you :-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 Thank you D'kian. I will certainly try get hold of those at some stage before too long and see if I enjoy them :-). I can live with writings from a man of mixed premises if he offers his better, and more noble premises strongly enough. I might avoid "Friday" by the sounds of it. I, too, will give him a try, but with the same proviso as you. If they are like D'Kian says then they will be better than many other books I have read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 Might I remind you to try Asimov Kane, though personally based on the relatively few of his short stories I have read so far, I am not a huge fan, though I grant some of it is definetely worth a read, but also some of it seems to be pointless and just really really absurd. I have a collection of his works here: Robot Dreams (given my interest in that, isnt THAT a shock ? :-P) if you want to try it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 Might I remind you to try Asimov Kane, though personally based on the relatively few of his short stories I have read so far, I am not a huge fan, though I grant some of it is definetely worth a read, but also some of it seems to be pointless and just really really absurd. I have a collection of his works here: Robot Dreams (given my interest in that, isnt THAT a shock ? :-P) if you want to try it. I would love to try it. As you know I am a sci-fi nutter. However, I though you said I was not allowed to borrow your books anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 Yeap, but this one is in pretty bad condition anyway, and I will probably replace it should I wish to read a copy of it again, so I dont care what you do to this copy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenderlysharp Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 I am interested in the current practical aspects of space travel. In order for a person to want to move into space, they have to believe space is where they will find the fulfillment of their values. It seems fantastical that less than 600 years ago humans thought it was impossible to cross the ocean. The journey was hard, and the survival rate precarious, but there was something worth risking. Europe wasn't entirely uninhabitable, but the idea was strong in every person on those boats that humanity was on its way to a better place. There is an inspired aerospace engineer named Robert Zubrin working to get us to Mars sooner. Here is a link where you can watch a trailer for a documentary based on his research. http://www.themarsunderground.com/ There is also a page about him on Wikipedia. The human mind seems to be attracted to having a spectacle, a sense of the 'larger than life' feeling that space seems to offer. Private enterprises could do well to analyze what elements attract people to space, and offer such things to the market place. http://www.virgingalactic.com/ is a good place to start. If a person could visit an observatory on the moon, or an orbiting space station it could give them a look at the universe that is impossible to see through our atmosphere. An entire space experience could be crafted around the visit, the way cruises and vacations are packaged. Lots of attention could be attracted if there were some kind of bio-dome up there for newly invented sports that were impossible to coordinate on earth's gravity, as well as some kind of creative gymnastic dance group like Cirque du Soleil to marvel at. Writers, inventors, engineers, and other celebrities could have special exhibitions of their works in space faring resorts. Maybe research can be conducted into possible health boons found in zero gravity, or surgeries that can only be accomplished there. A lot can be done here on earth to inspire future generations of scientists and investors. Planetarium shows are one example, which are often sadly disappointing, not living up to the entertainment standards of today's children. The life expectancy is getting longer with each generation. It may have a lot to do with higher standards of food and water, but I believe it has a great deal to do with quality the of inspiration and information available to us today, giving us more to live for, and a greater scope to live up to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted June 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 I am interested in the current practical aspects of space travel. In order for a person to want to move into space, they have to believe space is where they will find the fulfillment of their values. It seems fantastical that less than 600 years ago humans thought it was impossible to cross the ocean. The journey was hard, and the survival rate precarious, but there was something worth risking. Europe wasn't entirely uninhabitable, but the idea was strong in every person on those boats that humanity was on its way to a better place. Thirty to forty thousand years ago humans traveled from the Asian Continent to Australia by sea (the ancestors of the so-called Aborigines). Apparently they did not think it was impossible to cross an ocean. The Vikings have been sailing the Atlantic beyond "The Pillars of Hercules" for seven or eight hundred years. That is how Iceland and Greenland were settled. For over 3000 years there has been heavy commerce on the Mediterranean Sea by ship and boat out of sight of land. It has been known for at least 2300 years that the Earth is nearly spherical and there is no edge to fall over. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 For space travel, space resorts, space hotels, etc to be feasible they need to solve problems like how to create artificial gravity and how to overcome thee bone decalsification that occurs from spending too long in space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 For space travel, space resorts, space hotels, etc to be feasible they need to solve problems like how to create artificial gravity and how to overcome thee bone decalsification that occurs from spending too long in space. You solve the bone issue by creating gravity. You create gravity by spinning the structure, or just a part of it (the part where people live). Living in the Moon may prove more problematic. But as yet we don't know what the long term effects of 1/6 gee are on earthly organims. Of course, we could build a biological lab in space, populate it with rodents, dogs, pigs, etc and spin it to 1/6 gee and find out. Anyway, most space tourists will want no gravity. The view alone wouldn't justify the exhorbitant amount of money early space tourism will cost. Nor would tourists stay up that long a time. Two weeks of zero gee are not harmful to most people. Tourism, IMO, may get things started, but business in low Earth orbit will eventually prevail. We've been hearing for years and years how many things are possible in zero gee that simply cannot be done in 1 gee. Yet no one has really set up any sort of fabrication plant in space. Largely it has to do with cost. Once costs come down to reasonable levels, I'm sure we'll see the beginning of space industries. And still perhaps the Moon will prove a better setting for business ventures. It is a great site for science. Take astronomy. You could probably build a larger mirror for a telescope in space than on the Moon, but on the Moon you are assured of twoo weeks sunlight and two weeks darkness, meaning thermal disturbances are near minnimum, nor do you need to attach a power source to the observatory. Radio astronomers who set up shop on the far side of the Moon would be guaranteed zero interference from Earth and low-Earth based radio sources; the entire body of the Moon would block them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 It seems fantastical that less than 600 years ago humans thought it was impossible to cross the ocean. The journey was hard, and the survival rate precarious, but there was something worth risking. Europe wasn't entirely uninhabitable, but the idea was strong in every person on those boats that humanity was on its way to a better place. That's simplifying things a lot, but essentially correct. Before Columbus, it was correctly believed that getting to Asia via the Atlantic Ocean would take too long. Columbus advocated a smaller circumference for the planet and he was wrong. However, the existence of a continent part-way through saved him from going down in ignomy. Long sea voyages were hard becuase there was only so much room for provisions onboard. You could fish, and I suppose most vessels did, but you couldn't count on catching enough fish. There was also scurvy from a deficciency in vitamin C, and the cause wasn't discovered for several centuries. The steam engine, plus a better understanding of nutrition put an end to all that. In the XIX century a ship, the Great Eastern, was designed and built by Isambard Kingdom Brunnel to sail non-stop from Britain to Australia (she never did, but she was the ship used to lay the first transatlantic telegraph cable). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.