[tor dot com] Imaginary Space Programs Are Always Better Than Reality (But Reality Is Pretty Amazing)

Post by James Nicoll
Imaginary Space Programs Are Always Better Than Reality (But Reality Is Pretty Amazing)
https://www.tor.com/2020/04/06/imaginary-space-programs-are-always-better-than-reality-but-reality-is-
pretty-amazing/
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

I agree with much of this, but there have been times when technology has outpaced imagination. One example was the exponential growth of computer technology. Nuclear and then Thermonuclear weapons may have been another example (on the grounds that atomic weapons were first considered unlikely, and then early fission weapons required massive investment, even considering the explosive yield), and perhaps the success of Penicillin before resistance developed.

Quadibloc

2020-04-06 22:25:25 UTC

It is true that we have achieved a lot in space, even if it _seems_ like we
could have achieved more.

After all, there was the Cold War providing the impetus for Apollo; no reason
has existed since to spend enormous amounts on human space exploration. Still,
it looks like there will be a return to the Moon soon.

As for the passage from Poul Anderson...

It is poetic.

Certainly, it is true that through the past upheavals of human history, whatever
wars and whatever changes in religion and politics have happened, technical
progress has, for the most part, continued. The only noticeable blip was the
fall of the Roman Empire.

However, our *current* high level of technical progress... appears rather
fragile. That and nuclear weapons suggest that the next major war will lead to
at least another blip.

John Savard

Johnny1A

2020-04-07 03:08:03 UTC

It is true that we have achieved a lot in space, even if it _seems_ like we
could have achieved more.
After all, there was the Cold War providing the impetus for Apollo; no reason
has existed since to spend enormous amounts on human space exploration. Still,
it looks like there will be a return to the Moon soon.
As for the passage from Poul Anderson...
It is poetic.
Certainly, it is true that through the past upheavals of human history, whatever
wars and whatever changes in religion and politics have happened, technical
progress has, for the most part, continued. The only noticeable blip was the
fall of the Roman Empire.

Oh, there have been many 'blips'. The collapse of the Western Roman Empire is just the one we're most familiar with. But the blips are temporary things (though they can be long enough on the scale of an individual lifetime).

Back in 1950, Robert Heinlein did an essay in which he made a series of predictions about the year 2000. Interestingly, he revisited the essay in 1965 and 1980, commenting on his own previous hits and misses. He got some dead on, missed several, some were semi-on-target.

But in the same essay he posited four 'curves' of scientific/technical advancement. Curve 1 is 'project the present status quo', i.e. just about everything has either already been invested/discovered or will very soon be.

Curve 2 projects that advancement will keep accelerating for a time, then level off.

Curve 3 posits that the rate of advancement in 1950 continued indefinitely.

Curve 4 posits an exponentially, or geometrically, accelerating rate of progress. Heinlein in 1950 expected Curve 4, on which the technological changes between 1950 and 2000 would be, as he put it in 1950, 8 times greater than the changes between 1900 and 1950.

Of course in the actual event, the year 2000 was far more like 1950, scientifically/technologically, than 1950 was like 1900. But RAH's expectations were natural. He was judging the future by the immediate past, the period from, oh, say 1850 to 1950, in which the rate of advancement really did look like an exponential acceleration.

For good or ill, though, not long after RAH published that essay in 1950, the rate of advancement dropped sharply, probably down to about Curve 2, or maybe Curve 2.25.

Historically, technology doesn't advance in a smooth curve. It goes in fits and starts, surges of fast advancement interspersed with longer periods of slower change.

Quadibloc

2020-04-07 05:10:15 UTC

Post by Johnny1A
Of course in the actual event, the year 2000 was far more like 1950,
scientifically/technologically, than 1950 was like 1900. But RAH's expectations
were natural. He was judging the future by the immediate past, the period from,
oh, say 1850 to 1950, in which the rate of advancement really did look like an
exponential acceleration.

Arthur C. Clarke, in his book _Profiles of the Future_, discusses the causes of
this.

Pretty much any new technology, at first, improves at a rate that is similar to
an exponential curve. Then, when the available opportunity to improve it is
exhausted, the rate of improvement slows and flattens out.

In the realm of computers, first Dennard scaling, and then Moore's law, have
come, or are coming, to an end, so the dizzying rate of progress we've had for
some time is slowing down.

But that doesn't mean that progress in science and technology is ending.

We may not be making cars and airplanes that much faster any more. But it is
possible that biotechnology, for example, could be the "next big thing".

John Savard

Johnny1A

2020-04-08 03:38:33 UTC

True. It's the 'Tyranny of the S Curve'. But that applies mostly to specific areas of technology. Rockets, cars, computers, all work under the Tyranny.

But the historical surges of advancement are different than that, they seem to apply to lots of technologies at once, as well as being associated with periods of intense warfare (probably both cause and effect).

Post by Quadibloc
In the realm of computers, first Dennard scaling, and then Moore's law, have
come, or are coming, to an end, so the dizzying rate of progress we've had for
some time is slowing down.
But that doesn't mean that progress in science and technology is ending.
We may not be making cars and airplanes that much faster any more. But it is
possible that biotechnology, for example, could be the "next big thing".
John Savard

That's why I said we appear to be on maybe a 'Curve 2.5' in Heinlein's scheme. Advancement definitely has not stopped.

But it _has_ slowed.

A person born in 1830 in the USA was born just as the era of trains was beginning to emerge. The tech had been coming together for a while, but it started getting important in the mid 19C. A person born in 1830 grew up in a time when the speed of transportation was defined by horses, and the speed of communication by horses and sailing ships. Industrial power was mostly animal power (horses again, with some oxen and the like) and a lot of manual labor. Travelling 20 miles in a day was a major project on land.

If that person lived to be 100 years old, by 1930 the cutting edge of travel was aircraft doing hundreds of miles an hour. The speed of communication had risen to the point of being effectively instantaneous across land and sea (via telegraph lines and radio). The same person who grew up being able to speak directly to someone across the street by yelling could speak directly to someone on another _continent_ by the time of his death in 1930. It's entirely conceivable that our centenarian in 1930 might _fly_ a distance in a few hours that he travelled in months by wagon train when younger.

Weapon range and power had grown almost inconceivably during that century. Industrial power had increased by comparable levels. The changes from 1830 to 1930, in terms of science and technology, are _breathtaking_, and they cut across almost all aspects of society. Travel, communication, weaponry, industry, agriculture, observation and sensing, all saw _orders of magnitude_ improvements in _one long lifetime_.

The rate continued for a while after that. If our centenarian fathered a son when he was 20 (1850), and that lad inherited dad's longevity, by the time of his death in 1950 all those areas of activity had shown still further improvements (except for communication, which had leveled off). Our younger centenarian might also have travelled west by wagon train, and fought in the last rounds of the Indian Wars, and lived to see the age of atomic weapons and both space flight and ICBMS were on the horizon.

Since 1950, that rate of advancement simply hasn't been maintained. It's by no means stopped, and it's still fast by historical standards, but it's far slower than it once was.

A favorite indicative example of mine comes from the world of fiction. I have an old _Doc Savage_ novel from 1938. That makes it 82 years old. The interesting thing about it is that you could set it in today's America...and the only _major_ technology that would much affect the plot is radar. Radar would force a complete rewrite. But radar was just around the corner at the time it was written, too.

Other modern devices, esp. cell phones, would force changes in detail, but not the overall story. Some social changes would require some rewrite here and there, but that's not a matter of scientific/technological advancement. But only radar (and related sensing technologies) would be a _major_ issue.

But if we step back another 82 years, to 1856, as far before the story was written as we are after...that's a whole different kettle of fish. Almost _every element_ of the story would be utterly unworkable, because there had been so _many_ major technological changes in that time period.

Quadibloc

2020-04-13 15:44:55 UTC

One area where things certainly have stagnated...

would be that in 1885, the first alloy steel, Hadfield steel (or mangalloy,
manganese steel with about 12.5% manganese and 1% carbon) was developed. That
steel was much harder than regular steel, very hard to drill or cut, but it could
not keep a knife edge.

They still use it today for rock crushers and safes; not just because it's cheaper
than modern alternatives, but because it is _still_ the best steel for what it
does.

John Savard

Johnny1A

2020-04-07 03:27:46 UTC

"The fly in the ointment, particularly if one is old enough to have lived through the brief period when the US was pouring what turned out to be a wildly exceptional amount of money into their space program, is that it’s easy to imagine having done so much more."

SF was skewed by the unexpected advent of Project Apollo in various ways.

Prior to the 1960s, it was by no means rare for SF writers to recognize the challenges inherent in space travel, and either positing some huge sudden breakthrough enabling it, or positing it happening in the middle of the 21C or later.

The movie _Forbidden Planet_ is a good example, from 1956. In the narrator opening, we're told that the first human landings came when 'men and women from Earth walked on the Moon'...in the 2090s. Shortly after that, interplanetary and interstellar travel followed.

Apollo gave the illusion that what had been seen as distant future was about to become immediate reality. On top of the fast-track technological advancement that happened between 1850 and 1950, it raised hopes and expectations far beyond what the technology and sociology of the time would justify.

IMHO, three key events led to humans on the Moon decades or more ahead of the natural time for that event, and none of the key events was anything to do with space.

The first was the Bay of Pigs disaster. In the aftermath of that Charlie Foxtrot, President Kennedy had a problem at both the geopolitical and personal political level. Geopolitically, he needed something to salve the American image in the Cold War, an agitprop triumph. Personally, he had to shore up his position with regard to the 1964 election.

Kennedy was, contrary to the myth, not particularly interested in space flight _qua_ space flight. My understanding is that he and his advisors considered a number of projects and efforts, and settled on the Moon because it looked doable in a decade and they doubted the USSR could win such a race. (There was also a substantial resistance within the Kennedy Administration, who wanted the money slated for Apollo for the ambitious social agenda in the air at the time.)

So the Bay of Pigs was the first key event. Without it, Kennedy wouldn't have needed Apollo. The second, IMHO, was Kennedy's assassination in 1963. This gave him an aura of martyrdom, esp. with Schlesinger and Jackie spinning 'Camelot'. So it became politically difficult to touch the funding for it after 1963.

The third key thing, IMHO, is that Kennedy picked LBJ as his veep. As President, LBJ had a vested interest in the ongoing Houston involvement in the project. If you've ever wondered why Houston Texas is where Mission Control is, Lyndon Johnson is a substantial part of the answer.

But space enthusiasts at the time didn't necessarily understand all this. Neither did a lot of NASA personnel, for that matter. Even as the Apollo landings were happening, NASA was putting together immense expensive plans for permanent space stations and manned trips to Mars and nuclear propulsion and so forth, plans that had essentially zero chance of being funded. The shape of the Cold War had changed by 1970, the Democratic Party was becoming anti-space by the early 70s and the GOP, while not anti-space, had no particular pro-space bent either at that time.

NASA learned very quickly that they were going to have to drop basically _everything_. All they were left with was Shuttle, and that survived mostly because of Congressional pork-barrel politics.

This came as a huge shock to many, considering the triumphant Apollo landings just a couple of years earlier. But it was always pretty much inherent in the politics that led to Apollo in the first place. Apollo was decades ahead of its natural time.

Joy Beeson

2020-04-14 17:07:20 UTC

On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 20:27:46 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A

Post by Johnny1A
Apollo was decades ahead of its natural time.

And probably set the exploration of space back by decades.

If the first moon landing had happened along about now,
one of its missions would have been to check out building sites.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY

Johnny1A

2020-04-14 19:44:14 UTC

Post by Joy Beeson
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 20:27:46 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A

Post by Johnny1A
Apollo was decades ahead of its natural time.

And probably set the exploration of space back by decades.
If the first moon landing had happened along about now,
one of its missions would have been to check out building sites.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY

I don't know that it set it back, particularly. I'm not sure that the 'natural time' for the first manned Lunar voyages would be even quite yet.

Johnny1A

2020-04-14 19:46:06 UTC

Post by Joy Beeson
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 20:27:46 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A

Post by Johnny1A
Apollo was decades ahead of its natural time.

I don't know that it set it back. It's true that Apollo was ahead of its natural time, and manned space flight since then has languished for a number of reasons, some technical, some political/social/economic.

But the technological developments stimulated by the effort of doing Apollo probably accelerated unmanned scientific probes considerably. I'm not sure we'd have had Viking or Voyager when we did absent Apollo.

Quadibloc

2020-04-14 23:14:09 UTC

Post by Joy Beeson
If the first moon landing had happened along about now,
one of its missions would have been to check out building sites.

Assuming we would still have 7nm microprocessors now - as it was really the
Minuteman missile program, and not Apollo, that promoted integrated circuits -
and the only thing we would be lacking is Tang breakfast juice...

in a world without Apollo, I think there would be no more reason to go to the
Moon now than there is now. True, we wouldn't have "been there, done that". But
one of the reasons a Moon mission today can be done for a fraction of the cost
of Apollo (in constant dollars) is because we can copy what was done then.

I wonder... when the COVID-19 epidemic ends, will an ambitious space mission be
seen as a way to help the economy recover? I think it would be the exact reverse
of what is needed, since the current isolation measures lead to a situation
where there is an excess of money in people's pockets, and not enough consumer
goods to fill demand... so paying people to produce a non-consumer item is the
wrong thing to do economically.

John Savard

J. Clarke

2020-04-15 01:33:22 UTC

On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 16:14:09 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Joy Beeson
If the first moon landing had happened along about now,
one of its missions would have been to check out building sites.

Assuming we would still have 7nm microprocessors now - as it was really the
Minuteman missile program, and not Apollo, that promoted integrated circuits -
and the only thing we would be lacking is Tang breakfast juice...
in a world without Apollo, I think there would be no more reason to go to the
Moon now than there is now. True, we wouldn't have "been there, done that". But
one of the reasons a Moon mission today can be done for a fraction of the cost
of Apollo (in constant dollars) is because we can copy what was done then.
I wonder... when the COVID-19 epidemic ends, will an ambitious space mission be
seen as a way to help the economy recover? I think it would be the exact reverse
of what is needed, since the current isolation measures lead to a situation
where there is an excess of money in people's pockets, and not enough consumer
goods to fill demand... so paying people to produce a non-consumer item is the
wrong thing to do economically.

What leads you to believe that most people have an excess of money? It
seems to have escaped your notice that unemployment is skyrocketing.

Post by Quadibloc
John Savard

Robert Carnegie

2020-04-15 02:43:08 UTC

Post by Joy Beeson
If the first moon landing had happened along about now,
one of its missions would have been to check out building sites.

Have we ruled out "incredibly secure nuclear
missile base"?

Post by Quadibloc
I wonder... when the COVID-19 epidemic ends, will an ambitious space mission be
seen as a way to help the economy recover? I think it would be the exact reverse
of what is needed, since the current isolation measures lead to a situation
where there is an excess of money in people's pockets, and not enough consumer
goods to fill demand... so paying people to produce a non-consumer item is the
wrong thing to do economically.

From the President's point of view, it's other people's
money, the best kind. Or nobody's, if you just tell
Fort Knox to print more of it.

Johnny1A

2020-04-15 03:03:38 UTC

Post by Joy Beeson
If the first moon landing had happened along about now,
one of its missions would have been to check out building sites.

Have we ruled out "incredibly secure nuclear
missile base"?

Secure how?

It's true that it would take days for a missile attack from Earth to reach a Lunar missile base, but it would still get there. Likewise, the missiles from a Lunar base would need days, or at least hours and hours, to get to Earth.

Further, a tech base that could establish a Lunar missile base could put a nuke-armed spacecraft in Lunar orbit, too, and the Lunar base would be vulnerable to that ship.

The Moon does have some military implications, but that isn't one of them.

Robert Carnegie

2020-04-15 09:56:18 UTC

Post by Joy Beeson
If the first moon landing had happened along about now,
one of its missions would have been to check out building sites.

Have we ruled out "incredibly secure nuclear
missile base"?

Secure how?
It's true that it would take days for a missile attack from Earth to reach a Lunar missile base, but it would still get there. Likewise, the missiles from a Lunar base would need days, or at least hours and hours, to get to Earth.
Further, a tech base that could establish a Lunar missile base could put a nuke-armed spacecraft in Lunar orbit, too, and the Lunar base would be vulnerable to that ship.
The Moon does have some military implications, but that isn't one of them.

I'm considering a situation where only one nation can
get to the Moon and they intend to keep it that way.

Currently that'd be Russia, but the argument still
works for them.

The missile bases on the Moon will be built quite
deep underground, I suppose. Or rather, excavated.

Paul S Person

2020-04-15 17:05:21 UTC

On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 02:56:18 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

Post by Joy Beeson
If the first moon landing had happened along about now,
one of its missions would have been to check out building sites.

Have we ruled out "incredibly secure nuclear
missile base"?

Secure how?
It's true that it would take days for a missile attack from Earth to reach a Lunar missile base, but it would still get there. Likewise, the missiles from a Lunar base would need days, or at least hours and hours, to get to Earth.
Further, a tech base that could establish a Lunar missile base could put a nuke-armed spacecraft in Lunar orbit, too, and the Lunar base would be vulnerable to that ship.
The Moon does have some military implications, but that isn't one of them.

I'm considering a situation where only one nation can
get to the Moon and they intend to keep it that way.
Currently that'd be Russia, but the argument still
works for them.
The missile bases on the Moon will be built quite
deep underground, I suppose. Or rather, excavated.

I believe there are certain treaties I would mention, except that
you-know-who would just pull us out of them if he learned of them.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Johnny1A

2020-04-15 18:39:46 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 02:56:18 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

Post by Joy Beeson
If the first moon landing had happened along about now,
one of its missions would have been to check out building sites.

Have we ruled out "incredibly secure nuclear
missile base"?

Secure how?
It's true that it would take days for a missile attack from Earth to reach a Lunar missile base, but it would still get there. Likewise, the missiles from a Lunar base would need days, or at least hours and hours, to get to Earth.
Further, a tech base that could establish a Lunar missile base could put a nuke-armed spacecraft in Lunar orbit, too, and the Lunar base would be vulnerable to that ship.
The Moon does have some military implications, but that isn't one of them.

I'm considering a situation where only one nation can
get to the Moon and they intend to keep it that way.
Currently that'd be Russia, but the argument still
works for them.
The missile bases on the Moon will be built quite
deep underground, I suppose. Or rather, excavated.

I believe there are certain treaties I would mention, except that
you-know-who would just pull us out of them if he learned of them.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

We _should_ pull out of them. They were a bad idea from the get-go, and they won't hold under pressure when the time comes anyway.

Peter Trei

2020-04-16 01:45:10 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 02:56:18 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

Post by Joy Beeson
If the first moon landing had happened along about now,
one of its missions would have been to check out building sites.

Have we ruled out "incredibly secure nuclear
missile base"?

Secure how?
It's true that it would take days for a missile attack from Earth to reach a Lunar missile base, but it would still get there. Likewise, the missiles from a Lunar base would need days, or at least hours and hours, to get to Earth.
Further, a tech base that could establish a Lunar missile base could put a nuke-armed spacecraft in Lunar orbit, too, and the Lunar base would be vulnerable to that ship.
The Moon does have some military implications, but that isn't one of them.

I'm considering a situation where only one nation can
get to the Moon and they intend to keep it that way.
Currently that'd be Russia, but the argument still
works for them.
The missile bases on the Moon will be built quite
deep underground, I suppose. Or rather, excavated.

I believe there are certain treaties I would mention, except that
you-know-who would just pull us out of them if he learned of them.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

We _should_ pull out of them. They were a bad idea from the get-go, and they won't hold under pressure when the time comes anyway.

The only treaties of relevance are the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and the 1979 Moon Treaty.

The US (and most other countries) signed the first, which forbids weapons of mass destruction
in space, as well as military installations.

No nation with a manned flight capability has signed the Moon Treaty, which would have made
economic exploitation impossible. In the US, opposition was led by the thoroughly fannish L5
Society.

The Moons gravity well is much easier to get out of than Earths, which makes Moon sourced
materials less costly for use in space.

The most immediately accessible lunar resource is water, known to be present in permanently
shaded craters at the poles. It may also be possible to refine metals from the regolith.

h***@gmail.com

2020-04-16 02:58:10 UTC

Post by Peter Trei
The only treaties of relevance are the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and the 1979 Moon Treaty.
The US (and most other countries) signed the first, which forbids weapons of mass destruction
in space, as well as military installations.
No nation with a manned flight capability has signed the Moon Treaty, which would have made
economic exploitation impossible. In the US, opposition was led by the thoroughly fannish L5
Society.
The Moons gravity well is much easier to get out of than Earths, which makes Moon sourced
materials less costly for use in space.

That's rather ignoring the fact that everything involved in sourcing them needs to be shipped from earth or involves bootstrapping on the moon
low g will doubtless cause problems for some of what we do.

Post by Peter Trei
The most immediately accessible lunar resource is water, known to be present in permanently
shaded craters at the poles. It may also be possible to refine metals from the regolith.

J. Clarke

2020-04-16 00:17:22 UTC

On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 02:56:18 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

Post by Joy Beeson
If the first moon landing had happened along about now,
one of its missions would have been to check out building sites.

Have we ruled out "incredibly secure nuclear
missile base"?

Secure how?
It's true that it would take days for a missile attack from Earth to reach a Lunar missile base, but it would still get there. Likewise, the missiles from a Lunar base would need days, or at least hours and hours, to get to Earth.
Further, a tech base that could establish a Lunar missile base could put a nuke-armed spacecraft in Lunar orbit, too, and the Lunar base would be vulnerable to that ship.
The Moon does have some military implications, but that isn't one of them.

I'm considering a situation where only one nation can
get to the Moon and they intend to keep it that way.
Currently that'd be Russia, but the argument still
works for them.

How would Russia get there? Their big boosters mostly blew up on the
pad. The only country with that kind of heavy lift now, today, is the
US.

Post by Robert Carnegie
The missile bases on the Moon will be built quite
deep underground, I suppose. Or rather, excavated.

If they are deep underground how do the missiles get out? That's the
problem with a missile base, it has to have a hole in it somewhere.

Robert Carnegie

2020-04-16 11:06:13 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 02:56:18 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

Post by Joy Beeson
If the first moon landing had happened along about now,
one of its missions would have been to check out building sites.

Have we ruled out "incredibly secure nuclear
missile base"?

Secure how?
It's true that it would take days for a missile attack from Earth to reach a Lunar missile base, but it would still get there. Likewise, the missiles from a Lunar base would need days, or at least hours and hours, to get to Earth.
Further, a tech base that could establish a Lunar missile base could put a nuke-armed spacecraft in Lunar orbit, too, and the Lunar base would be vulnerable to that ship.
The Moon does have some military implications, but that isn't one of them.

I'm considering a situation where only one nation can
get to the Moon and they intend to keep it that way.
Currently that'd be Russia, but the argument still
works for them.

How would Russia get there? Their big boosters mostly blew up on the
pad. The only country with that kind of heavy lift now, today, is the
US.

There's a Chinese robot rolling around the Moon
currently. Going by Wikipedia, everything else that
went there is now broken down. That they know about.

Post by Robert Carnegie
The missile bases on the Moon will be built quite
deep underground, I suppose. Or rather, excavated.

If they are deep underground how do the missiles get out? That's the
problem with a missile base, it has to have a hole in it somewhere.

Or indeed, several. Spaced out so to speak ;-)

J. Clarke

2020-04-16 21:48:11 UTC

On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 04:06:13 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 02:56:18 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

Post by Joy Beeson
If the first moon landing had happened along about now,
one of its missions would have been to check out building sites.

Have we ruled out "incredibly secure nuclear
missile base"?

Secure how?
It's true that it would take days for a missile attack from Earth to reach a Lunar missile base, but it would still get there. Likewise, the missiles from a Lunar base would need days, or at least hours and hours, to get to Earth.
Further, a tech base that could establish a Lunar missile base could put a nuke-armed spacecraft in Lunar orbit, too, and the Lunar base would be vulnerable to that ship.
The Moon does have some military implications, but that isn't one of them.

I'm considering a situation where only one nation can
get to the Moon and they intend to keep it that way.
Currently that'd be Russia, but the argument still
works for them.

How would Russia get there? Their big boosters mostly blew up on the
pad. The only country with that kind of heavy lift now, today, is the
US.

There's a Chinese robot rolling around the Moon
currently. Going by Wikipedia, everything else that
went there is now broken down. That they know about.

So? There's an American robot rolling around Mars.

That's a long way from delivering humans. The Chinese robot masses
140 KG. The Apollo lunar module masses nearly 5000 KG.

What do the Chinese have that could deliver that?

Post by Robert Carnegie
The missile bases on the Moon will be built quite
deep underground, I suppose. Or rather, excavated.

If they are deep underground how do the missiles get out? That's the
problem with a missile base, it has to have a hole in it somewhere.

Or indeed, several. Spaced out so to speak ;-)

Lawrence Watt-Evans

2020-04-15 05:33:57 UTC

On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 19:43:08 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

From the President's point of view, it's other people's
money, the best kind. Or nobody's, if you just tell
Fort Knox to print more of it.

Fort Knox?

Money is printed (to the Federal Reserve's orders) by the Bureau of
Engraving & Printing in Washington DC and Fort Worth, TX. Fort Knox
is not involved.

Of course, our current president may not know that.

--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml

Quadibloc

2020-04-16 04:44:24 UTC

Post by Robert Carnegie
From the President's point of view, it's other people's
money, the best kind. Or nobody's, if you just tell
Fort Knox to print more of it.

Fort Knox doesn't print money. In fact, its economic function is quite the
reverse: it existed to give value to the money that was printed, by containing
gold bullion for which it could be redeemed (by foreign governments if not by
ordinary Americans).

John Savard

m***@sky.com

2020-04-15 04:59:52 UTC

Post by Joy Beeson
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 20:27:46 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A

Post by Johnny1A
Apollo was decades ahead of its natural time.

I think NASA (and ESA) have done a lot of useful earth observation work, and a good deal of the skills for this were learnt during Apollo. My employers originated as a small number of ESA contractors, and some of their software development methods were heavily influenced by ESA standard PSS-05, but I don't know how general that was, and how far PSS-05 leant on Apollo experience.

J. Clarke

2020-04-16 00:19:36 UTC

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Joy Beeson
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 20:27:46 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A

Post by Johnny1A
Apollo was decades ahead of its natural time.

I think NASA (and ESA) have done a lot of useful earth observation work, and a good deal of the skills for this were learnt during Apollo.

Apollo did very little looking at Earth.

You might want to look to the NSA and the CIA instead.

Post by m***@sky.com
My employers originated as a small number of ESA contractors, and some of their software development methods were heavily influenced by ESA standard PSS-05, but I don't know how general that was, and how far PSS-05 leant on Apollo experience.

m***@sky.com

2020-04-16 04:27:03 UTC

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Joy Beeson
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 20:27:46 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A

Post by Johnny1A
Apollo was decades ahead of its natural time.

I think NASA (and ESA) have done a lot of useful earth observation work, and a good deal of the skills for this were learnt during Apollo.

Apollo did very little looking at Earth.
You might want to look to the NSA and the CIA instead.

What I was told was that a great deal of ESA's procedures and standards were heavily based on those established during Apollo. - in other words that skills learnt while trying to put boots on the moon also turned out to be valuable while trying to launch earth observation satellites.

David Johnston

2020-04-15 05:54:01 UTC

Post by Joy Beeson
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 20:27:46 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A

Post by Johnny1A
Apollo was decades ahead of its natural time.

And probably set the exploration of space back by decades.
If the first moon landing had happened along about now,
one of its missions would have been to check out building sites.

Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

Sjouke Burry

2020-04-15 06:13:57 UTC

Post by Joy Beeson
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 20:27:46 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A

Post by Johnny1A
Apollo was decades ahead of its natural time.

And probably set the exploration of space back by decades.
If the first moon landing had happened along about now,
one of its missions would have been to check out building sites.

Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

The Potus.
he said so, claiming mining rights and other things....

Johnny1A

2020-04-15 18:38:56 UTC

Post by Sjouke Burry

Post by Joy Beeson
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 20:27:46 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A

Post by Johnny1A
Apollo was decades ahead of its natural time.

And probably set the exploration of space back by decades.
If the first moon landing had happened along about now,
one of its missions would have been to check out building sites.

Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

The Potus.
he said so, claiming mining rights and other things....

That's still a long way in the future as a practical matter, but he's right to be placing the legal and political markers.

Dorothy J Heydt

2020-04-15 14:35:54 UTC

Post by Joy Beeson
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 20:27:46 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A

Post by Johnny1A
Apollo was decades ahead of its natural time.

And probably set the exploration of space back by decades.
If the first moon landing had happened along about now,
one of its missions would have been to check out building sites.

Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

Research stations. Tourist traps.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

Carl Fink

2020-04-15 16:26:00 UTC

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

Research stations. Tourist traps.

That would be a really literal tourist "trap". Leaving would require a
rocket ship (or lunar rover and EVA suit).

--
Carl Fink ***@finknetwork.com
https://reasonablyliterate.com https://nitpicking.com
If you want to make a point, somebody will take the point and stab you with it.
-Kenne Estes

Paul S Person

2020-04-15 17:08:05 UTC

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

Research stations. Tourist traps.

That would be a really literal tourist "trap". Leaving would require a
rocket ship (or lunar rover and EVA suit).

Build a colony to maintain the tourist traps (and the research
statations) and two-way traffic would become quite regular.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Dorothy J Heydt

2020-04-15 17:54:21 UTC

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

Research stations. Tourist traps.

That would be a really literal tourist "trap". Leaving would require a
rocket ship (or lunar rover and EVA suit).

Build a colony to maintain the tourist traps (and the research
statations) and two-way traffic would become quite regular.

I don't think anyone should plan on staying on the moon
long-term; just as on the ISS (at a slightly lower rate), you'd
lose bone calcium and be subjected to radiation damage. I'd
suggest researchers stay for a couple of months, tourists for
maybe a week.

Make the tourist trips sufficiently expensive, and they'd pay for
maintaining the research base[s]. Think about astronomy without
atmospheric blurring and skyglow.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

Johnny1A

2020-04-15 18:48:36 UTC

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

Research stations. Tourist traps.

That would be a really literal tourist "trap". Leaving would require a
rocket ship (or lunar rover and EVA suit).

Build a colony to maintain the tourist traps (and the research
statations) and two-way traffic would become quite regular.

We really don't know how far that's true. Radiation could be dealt with by underground construction, it's the effect of low gravity that's unknown.

We have quite a bit of data about how the human body reacts to free fall/microgravity, and it's mostly negative. But we have next to nothing on the effects lower-than-Earth-but-still-significant gravity. Pretty much _all_ we have on that subject is the data from the 12 Apollo astronauts, and none of them were subject to it for more than a few days.

So we just simply _don't know_ if the effects are similar to microgravity, better, worse, or just different. All of our 12 subjects were male, all of a comparable age range. So we have _no data at all_ on the effects on females of any age, elderly males, or male children.

_No data at all_.

We know that long-term free fall is a health disaster. But we don't know how much gravity is 'enough', because in the absence of data, anything said, even by doctors and biologists, is a WAG. The Moon as .16g. Mars and Mercury are about .38G, give or take a little. Venus has .86.

Which of those might be 'sufficient'? Your guess is as good or bad as mine, and either of our guess is as good or bad as the space medics' guess. No data.

J. Clarke

2020-04-16 00:20:52 UTC

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

Research stations. Tourist traps.

That would be a really literal tourist "trap". Leaving would require a
rocket ship (or lunar rover and EVA suit).

Build a colony to maintain the tourist traps (and the research
statations) and two-way traffic would become quite regular.

I don't think anyone should plan on staying on the moon
long-term; just as on the ISS (at a slightly lower rate), you'd
lose bone calcium and be subjected to radiation damage. I'd
suggest researchers stay for a couple of months, tourists for
maybe a week.
Make the tourist trips sufficiently expensive, and they'd pay for
maintaining the research base[s]. Think about astronomy without
atmospheric blurring and skyglow.

We've already got that though, and atmospheric blurring isn't actually
the issue that it used to be.

Quadibloc

2020-04-16 04:47:58 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
We've already got that though, and atmospheric blurring isn't actually
the issue that it used to be.

We have... workarounds. But they're inefficient, and it is still true that having
a telescope in space would allow more to be observed.

John Savard

h***@gmail.com

2020-04-16 07:40:49 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
We've already got that though, and atmospheric blurring isn't actually
the issue that it used to be.

We have... workarounds. But they're inefficient, and it is still true that having
a telescope in space would allow more to be observed.

As far as inefficient goes it's hard to go past building something on the moon...

Quadibloc

2020-04-16 08:05:36 UTC

Post by h***@gmail.com
As far as inefficient goes it's hard to go past building something on the moon...

Yes, but given that an Earth-based telescope attempting to achieve high
resolution comparable to a space telescope through use of artificial stars and
active optics wastes a lot of the photons from the star or other object on which
it is trained...

the high cost of a telescope on the moon can be considered an _investment_, if
it can be made to last.

John Savard

J. Clarke

2020-04-16 10:01:51 UTC

On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 01:05:36 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by h***@gmail.com
As far as inefficient goes it's hard to go past building something on the moon...

Yes, but given that an Earth-based telescope attempting to achieve high
resolution comparable to a space telescope through use of artificial stars and
active optics wastes a lot of the photons from the star or other object on which
it is trained...
the high cost of a telescope on the moon can be considered an _investment_, if
it can be made to last.

If you can fix it on the moon you can fix it in orbit.

Paul S Person

2020-04-16 16:21:47 UTC

On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:20:52 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

Research stations. Tourist traps.

That would be a really literal tourist "trap". Leaving would require a
rocket ship (or lunar rover and EVA suit).

Build a colony to maintain the tourist traps (and the research
statations) and two-way traffic would become quite regular.

I don't think anyone should plan on staying on the moon
long-term; just as on the ISS (at a slightly lower rate), you'd
lose bone calcium and be subjected to radiation damage. I'd
suggest researchers stay for a couple of months, tourists for
maybe a week.
Make the tourist trips sufficiently expensive, and they'd pay for
maintaining the research base[s]. Think about astronomy without
atmospheric blurring and skyglow.

We've already got that though, and atmospheric blurring isn't actually
the issue that it used to be.

Fair enough. But there is a new issue:

Really large numbers of really bright satellites in low orbits.

Which are already playing hob with astronomy.

And it's only going to get worse, as the numbers increase.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

J. Clarke

2020-04-16 21:49:20 UTC

On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 09:21:47 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:20:52 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

Research stations. Tourist traps.

That would be a really literal tourist "trap". Leaving would require a
rocket ship (or lunar rover and EVA suit).

Build a colony to maintain the tourist traps (and the research
statations) and two-way traffic would become quite regular.

I don't think anyone should plan on staying on the moon
long-term; just as on the ISS (at a slightly lower rate), you'd
lose bone calcium and be subjected to radiation damage. I'd
suggest researchers stay for a couple of months, tourists for
maybe a week.
Make the tourist trips sufficiently expensive, and they'd pay for
maintaining the research base[s]. Think about astronomy without
atmospheric blurring and skyglow.

We've already got that though, and atmospheric blurring isn't actually
the issue that it used to be.

Really large numbers of really bright satellites in low orbits.
Which are already playing hob with astronomy.
And it's only going to get worse, as the numbers increase.

They're only bright at sunrise and sunset.

And the Hubble is higher than they are.

Paul S Person

2020-04-17 16:29:46 UTC

On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 17:49:20 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 09:21:47 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:20:52 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

Research stations. Tourist traps.

That would be a really literal tourist "trap". Leaving would require a
rocket ship (or lunar rover and EVA suit).

Build a colony to maintain the tourist traps (and the research
statations) and two-way traffic would become quite regular.

I don't think anyone should plan on staying on the moon
long-term; just as on the ISS (at a slightly lower rate), you'd
lose bone calcium and be subjected to radiation damage. I'd
suggest researchers stay for a couple of months, tourists for
maybe a week.
Make the tourist trips sufficiently expensive, and they'd pay for
maintaining the research base[s]. Think about astronomy without
atmospheric blurring and skyglow.

We've already got that though, and atmospheric blurring isn't actually
the issue that it used to be.

Really large numbers of really bright satellites in low orbits.
Which are already playing hob with astronomy.
And it's only going to get worse, as the numbers increase.

They're only bright at sunrise and sunset.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/starlink-spacex-satellites-amazon-oneweb-global-internet-astronomy

scroll down past the artist's impression to the /actual photos/, or
try
Loading Image...

to see the /current/ problem.

There's also a video of them passing over Holland 24 hours after
launch. Note the darkness of the sky. Not exactly "sunrise and
sunset". OTOH, the article gives "an hour before sunrise and an hour
after twilight" as the main problem times -- for now.

The article gives 1584 as the /current/ number, but notes that they
have permission to go to 30,000 and may go higher. And there are other
players, with their own satellites.

The article does explain why they are being launched into a low orbit,
and the current disruption is treated as an annoyance. But with 20x
the number of satellites ...

Post by J. Clarke
And the Hubble is higher than they are.

It's higher than atmospheric blurring, too -- the point I was
responding to. Earth-based astronomy has a lot of money invested in
its equipment.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

J. Clarke

2020-04-17 21:56:46 UTC

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:29:46 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 17:49:20 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 09:21:47 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:20:52 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

Research stations. Tourist traps.

That would be a really literal tourist "trap". Leaving would require a
rocket ship (or lunar rover and EVA suit).

Build a colony to maintain the tourist traps (and the research
statations) and two-way traffic would become quite regular.

I don't think anyone should plan on staying on the moon
long-term; just as on the ISS (at a slightly lower rate), you'd
lose bone calcium and be subjected to radiation damage. I'd
suggest researchers stay for a couple of months, tourists for
maybe a week.
Make the tourist trips sufficiently expensive, and they'd pay for
maintaining the research base[s]. Think about astronomy without
atmospheric blurring and skyglow.

We've already got that though, and atmospheric blurring isn't actually
the issue that it used to be.

Really large numbers of really bright satellites in low orbits.
Which are already playing hob with astronomy.
And it's only going to get worse, as the numbers increase.

They're only bright at sunrise and sunset.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/starlink-spacex-satellites-amazon-oneweb-global-internet-astronomy
scroll down past the artist's impression to the /actual photos/, or
try
https://www.sciencenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/032820_CC_satellites_inline-1_512.jpg
to see the /current/ problem.

All I see there is a photo that could be of anything. If you are
going to provide photography as evidence you need to provide enough
contentextual information to permit one to determine if it is
relevant.

Post by Paul S Person
There's also a video of them passing over Holland 24 hours after
launch.

So?

Post by Paul S Person
Note the darkness of the sky. Not exactly "sunrise and
sunset". OTOH, the article gives "an hour before sunrise and an hour
after twilight" as the main problem times -- for now.

Why would the problem times change? Will physics change to permit
light to pass through planets or something?

Post by Paul S Person
The article gives 1584 as the /current/ number, but notes that they
have permission to go to 30,000 and may go higher. And there are other
players, with their own satellites.

This is not news.

Post by Paul S Person
The article does explain why they are being launched into a low orbit,
and the current disruption is treated as an annoyance. But with 20x
the number of satellites ...

They'll still be in low orbit.

Post by J. Clarke
And the Hubble is higher than they are.

It's higher than atmospheric blurring, too -- the point I was
responding to. Earth-based astronomy has a lot of money invested in
its equipment.

So? How is that supporting the argument that a telescope on the Moon
will be somehow superior or cheaper?

Paul S Person

2020-04-18 16:50:23 UTC

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 17:56:46 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:29:46 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 17:49:20 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 09:21:47 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:20:52 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

Research stations. Tourist traps.

That would be a really literal tourist "trap". Leaving would require a
rocket ship (or lunar rover and EVA suit).

Build a colony to maintain the tourist traps (and the research
statations) and two-way traffic would become quite regular.

I don't think anyone should plan on staying on the moon
long-term; just as on the ISS (at a slightly lower rate), you'd
lose bone calcium and be subjected to radiation damage. I'd
suggest researchers stay for a couple of months, tourists for
maybe a week.
Make the tourist trips sufficiently expensive, and they'd pay for
maintaining the research base[s]. Think about astronomy without
atmospheric blurring and skyglow.

We've already got that though, and atmospheric blurring isn't actually
the issue that it used to be.

Really large numbers of really bright satellites in low orbits.
Which are already playing hob with astronomy.
And it's only going to get worse, as the numbers increase.

They're only bright at sunrise and sunset.

Did you read the article? That gives the context.

Post by Paul S Person
There's also a video of them passing over Holland 24 hours after
launch.

So?

So, it's kind of dark for "sunrise and sunset", don't you think?

Why would the problem times change? Will physics change to permit
light to pass through planets or something?

Read the article. If that doesn't work, take that I got
overenthusiastic.

Post by Paul S Person
The article gives 1584 as the /current/ number, but notes that they
have permission to go to 30,000 and may go higher. And there are other
players, with their own satellites.

This is not news.

Post by Paul S Person
The article does explain why they are being launched into a low orbit,
and the current disruption is treated as an annoyance. But with 20x
the number of satellites ...

They'll still be in low orbit.

Precisely.

And if 1584 block out 5% of the pixels, how many pixels will 20x as
many block out?

Do I /really/ have to connect all the dots?

"Is it possible you will never understand anything?" (/Fistfull of
Dollars/).

Post by J. Clarke
And the Hubble is higher than they are.

It's higher than atmospheric blurring, too -- the point I was
responding to. Earth-based astronomy has a lot of money invested in
its equipment.

So? How is that supporting the argument that a telescope on the Moon
will be somehow superior or cheaper?

I addressed /that/ issue in another post.

You were talking here about "atmospheric blurring".

I am talking about it's replacement -- satellite obfuscation.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

J. Clarke

2020-04-18 19:26:18 UTC

On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 09:50:23 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 17:56:46 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:29:46 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 17:49:20 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 09:21:47 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:20:52 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

Research stations. Tourist traps.

That would be a really literal tourist "trap". Leaving would require a
rocket ship (or lunar rover and EVA suit).

Build a colony to maintain the tourist traps (and the research
statations) and two-way traffic would become quite regular.

I don't think anyone should plan on staying on the moon
long-term; just as on the ISS (at a slightly lower rate), you'd
lose bone calcium and be subjected to radiation damage. I'd
suggest researchers stay for a couple of months, tourists for
maybe a week.
Make the tourist trips sufficiently expensive, and they'd pay for
maintaining the research base[s]. Think about astronomy without
atmospheric blurring and skyglow.

We've already got that though, and atmospheric blurring isn't actually
the issue that it used to be.

Really large numbers of really bright satellites in low orbits.
Which are already playing hob with astronomy.
And it's only going to get worse, as the numbers increase.

They're only bright at sunrise and sunset.

Did you read the article? That gives the context.

What article? Your link is to a jpg.

Post by Paul S Person
There's also a video of them passing over Holland 24 hours after
launch.

So?

So, it's kind of dark for "sunrise and sunset", don't you think?

What time was it in Holland 24 hours after launch?

Why would the problem times change? Will physics change to permit
light to pass through planets or something?

Read the article. If that doesn't work, take that I got
overenthusiastic.

You got overenthusiastic. You should learn to curb your enthusiasm.

Post by Paul S Person
The article gives 1584 as the /current/ number, but notes that they
have permission to go to 30,000 and may go higher. And there are other
players, with their own satellites.

This is not news.

Post by Paul S Person
The article does explain why they are being launched into a low orbit,
and the current disruption is treated as an annoyance. But with 20x
the number of satellites ...

They'll still be in low orbit.

Precisely.
And if 1584 block out 5% of the pixels, how many pixels will 20x as
many block out?

Please find any source that states that 1584 will block 5 percent of
the pixels.

Post by Paul S Person
Do I /really/ have to connect all the dots?

If you are going to convince anybody who isn't already convinced then
yes, you do.

Post by Paul S Person
"Is it possible you will never understand anything?" (/Fistfull of
Dollars/).

Is it possible you will never adequately explain anything? The
evidence is mounting.

Post by J. Clarke
And the Hubble is higher than they are.

It's higher than atmospheric blurring, too -- the point I was
responding to. Earth-based astronomy has a lot of money invested in
its equipment.

So? How is that supporting the argument that a telescope on the Moon
will be somehow superior or cheaper?

I addressed /that/ issue in another post.
You were talking here about "atmospheric blurring".

Actually I was talking about the utility of lunar telescopes. I have
been diagnosed with ADHD and yet I can follow this argument. Why
can't you follow it through more than one post?

Post by Paul S Person
I am talking about it's replacement -- satellite obfuscation.

Which is something that nobody but you seem to be concerned about,
which suggests that you're making up things to be "concerned" about.
Maybe you should get a girlfriend, or a cat, or take your car apart,
or find some other activity that is less annoying to others.

Paul S Person

2020-04-19 16:39:29 UTC

On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 15:26:18 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 09:50:23 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 17:56:46 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:29:46 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 17:49:20 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 09:21:47 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:20:52 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

Research stations. Tourist traps.

That would be a really literal tourist "trap". Leaving would require a
rocket ship (or lunar rover and EVA suit).

Build a colony to maintain the tourist traps (and the research
statations) and two-way traffic would become quite regular.

I don't think anyone should plan on staying on the moon
long-term; just as on the ISS (at a slightly lower rate), you'd
lose bone calcium and be subjected to radiation damage. I'd
suggest researchers stay for a couple of months, tourists for
maybe a week.
Make the tourist trips sufficiently expensive, and they'd pay for
maintaining the research base[s]. Think about astronomy without
atmospheric blurring and skyglow.

We've already got that though, and atmospheric blurring isn't actually
the issue that it used to be.

Really large numbers of really bright satellites in low orbits.
Which are already playing hob with astronomy.
And it's only going to get worse, as the numbers increase.

They're only bright at sunrise and sunset.

Did you read the article? That gives the context.

What article? Your link is to a jpg.

Post by Paul S Person
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/starlink-spacex-satellites-amazon-oneweb-global-internet-astronomy

was to the article.

I linked the jpg so that, when you moved down and saw the images, you
would know which one I was talking about.

Post by Paul S Person
There's also a video of them passing over Holland 24 hours after
launch.

So?

So, it's kind of dark for "sunrise and sunset", don't you think?

What time was it in Holland 24 hours after launch?

Watch the video. It has the time embedded in it.

Why would the problem times change? Will physics change to permit
light to pass through planets or something?

Read the article. If that doesn't work, take that I got
overenthusiastic.

You got overenthusiastic. You should learn to curb your enthusiasm.

Read the article. You are far too optimistic, particularly in summer.

Post by Paul S Person
The article gives 1584 as the /current/ number, but notes that they
have permission to go to 30,000 and may go higher. And there are other
players, with their own satellites.

This is not news.

Post by Paul S Person
The article does explain why they are being launched into a low orbit,
and the current disruption is treated as an annoyance. But with 20x
the number of satellites ...

They'll still be in low orbit.

Precisely.
And if 1584 block out 5% of the pixels, how many pixels will 20x as
many block out?

Please find any source that states that 1584 will block 5 percent of
the pixels.

Read the article.

Post by Paul S Person
Do I /really/ have to connect all the dots?

If you are going to convince anybody who isn't already convinced then
yes, you do.

Most people can connect the dots by themselves.

They may not like the results, but they can do it.

Post by Paul S Person
"Is it possible you will never understand anything?" (/Fistfull of
Dollars/).

Is it possible you will never adequately explain anything? The
evidence is mounting.

Read the article. It is /much/ clearer than anything I could come up
with.

You may agree with that if you like, but there really is no need.

Post by J. Clarke
And the Hubble is higher than they are.

It's higher than atmospheric blurring, too -- the point I was
responding to. Earth-based astronomy has a lot of money invested in
its equipment.

So? How is that supporting the argument that a telescope on the Moon
will be somehow superior or cheaper?

I addressed /that/ issue in another post.
You were talking here about "atmospheric blurring".

Actually I was talking about the utility of lunar telescopes. I have
been diagnosed with ADHD and yet I can follow this argument. Why
can't you follow it through more than one post?

Post by Paul S Person
I am talking about it's replacement -- satellite obfuscation.

Read the article. Actual scientists /are/ concerned.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

J. Clarke

2020-04-19 19:25:45 UTC

On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 09:39:29 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 15:26:18 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 09:50:23 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 17:56:46 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:29:46 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 17:49:20 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 09:21:47 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:20:52 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

Research stations. Tourist traps.

That would be a really literal tourist "trap". Leaving would require a
rocket ship (or lunar rover and EVA suit).

Build a colony to maintain the tourist traps (and the research
statations) and two-way traffic would become quite regular.

I don't think anyone should plan on staying on the moon
long-term; just as on the ISS (at a slightly lower rate), you'd
lose bone calcium and be subjected to radiation damage. I'd
suggest researchers stay for a couple of months, tourists for
maybe a week.
Make the tourist trips sufficiently expensive, and they'd pay for
maintaining the research base[s]. Think about astronomy without
atmospheric blurring and skyglow.

We've already got that though, and atmospheric blurring isn't actually
the issue that it used to be.

Really large numbers of really bright satellites in low orbits.
Which are already playing hob with astronomy.
And it's only going to get worse, as the numbers increase.

They're only bright at sunrise and sunset.

Did you read the article? That gives the context.

What article? Your link is to a jpg.

Post by Paul S Person
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/starlink-spacex-satellites-amazon-oneweb-global-internet-astronomy

was to the article.
I linked the jpg so that, when you moved down and saw the images, you
would know which one I was talking about.

Post by Paul S Person
There's also a video of them passing over Holland 24 hours after
launch.

So?

So, it's kind of dark for "sunrise and sunset", don't you think?

What time was it in Holland 24 hours after launch?

Watch the video. It has the time embedded in it.

Why would the problem times change? Will physics change to permit
light to pass through planets or something?

Read the article. If that doesn't work, take that I got
overenthusiastic.

You got overenthusiastic. You should learn to curb your enthusiasm.

Read the article. You are far too optimistic, particularly in summer.

Post by Paul S Person
The article gives 1584 as the /current/ number, but notes that they
have permission to go to 30,000 and may go higher. And there are other
players, with their own satellites.

This is not news.

Post by Paul S Person
The article does explain why they are being launched into a low orbit,
and the current disruption is treated as an annoyance. But with 20x
the number of satellites ...

They'll still be in low orbit.

Precisely.
And if 1584 block out 5% of the pixels, how many pixels will 20x as
many block out?

Please find any source that states that 1584 will block 5 percent of
the pixels.

Read the article.

Post by Paul S Person
Do I /really/ have to connect all the dots?

If you are going to convince anybody who isn't already convinced then
yes, you do.

Most people can connect the dots by themselves.
They may not like the results, but they can do it.

Post by Paul S Person
"Is it possible you will never understand anything?" (/Fistfull of
Dollars/).

Is it possible you will never adequately explain anything? The
evidence is mounting.

Read the article. It is /much/ clearer than anything I could come up
with.
You may agree with that if you like, but there really is no need.

Post by J. Clarke
And the Hubble is higher than they are.

It's higher than atmospheric blurring, too -- the point I was
responding to. Earth-based astronomy has a lot of money invested in
its equipment.

So? How is that supporting the argument that a telescope on the Moon
will be somehow superior or cheaper?

I addressed /that/ issue in another post.
You were talking here about "atmospheric blurring".

Actually I was talking about the utility of lunar telescopes. I have
been diagnosed with ADHD and yet I can follow this argument. Why
can't you follow it through more than one post?

Post by Paul S Person
I am talking about it's replacement -- satellite obfuscation.

Read the article. Actual scientists /are/ concerned.

You keep saying "read the article". I've read the article and the
main thing I get out of it is that you are full of crap, as usual.

I'm totally bored with you now and no longer interested in your
twaddle.

Paul S Person

2020-04-20 16:01:19 UTC

On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 15:25:45 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 09:39:29 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 15:26:18 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 09:50:23 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 17:56:46 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:29:46 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 17:49:20 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 09:21:47 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:20:52 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

Research stations. Tourist traps.

That would be a really literal tourist "trap". Leaving would require a
rocket ship (or lunar rover and EVA suit).

Build a colony to maintain the tourist traps (and the research
statations) and two-way traffic would become quite regular.

I don't think anyone should plan on staying on the moon
long-term; just as on the ISS (at a slightly lower rate), you'd
lose bone calcium and be subjected to radiation damage. I'd
suggest researchers stay for a couple of months, tourists for
maybe a week.
Make the tourist trips sufficiently expensive, and they'd pay for
maintaining the research base[s]. Think about astronomy without
atmospheric blurring and skyglow.

We've already got that though, and atmospheric blurring isn't actually
the issue that it used to be.

Really large numbers of really bright satellites in low orbits.
Which are already playing hob with astronomy.
And it's only going to get worse, as the numbers increase.

They're only bright at sunrise and sunset.

Did you read the article? That gives the context.

What article? Your link is to a jpg.

Post by Paul S Person
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/starlink-spacex-satellites-amazon-oneweb-global-internet-astronomy

was to the article.
I linked the jpg so that, when you moved down and saw the images, you
would know which one I was talking about.

Post by Paul S Person
There's also a video of them passing over Holland 24 hours after
launch.

So?

So, it's kind of dark for "sunrise and sunset", don't you think?

What time was it in Holland 24 hours after launch?

Watch the video. It has the time embedded in it.

Why would the problem times change? Will physics change to permit
light to pass through planets or something?

Read the article. If that doesn't work, take that I got
overenthusiastic.

You got overenthusiastic. You should learn to curb your enthusiasm.

Read the article. You are far too optimistic, particularly in summer.

Post by Paul S Person
The article gives 1584 as the /current/ number, but notes that they
have permission to go to 30,000 and may go higher. And there are other
players, with their own satellites.

This is not news.

Post by Paul S Person
The article does explain why they are being launched into a low orbit,
and the current disruption is treated as an annoyance. But with 20x
the number of satellites ...

They'll still be in low orbit.

Precisely.
And if 1584 block out 5% of the pixels, how many pixels will 20x as
many block out?

Please find any source that states that 1584 will block 5 percent of
the pixels.

Read the article.

Post by Paul S Person
Do I /really/ have to connect all the dots?

If you are going to convince anybody who isn't already convinced then
yes, you do.

Most people can connect the dots by themselves.
They may not like the results, but they can do it.

Post by Paul S Person
"Is it possible you will never understand anything?" (/Fistfull of
Dollars/).

Is it possible you will never adequately explain anything? The
evidence is mounting.

Read the article. It is /much/ clearer than anything I could come up
with.
You may agree with that if you like, but there really is no need.

Post by J. Clarke
And the Hubble is higher than they are.

It's higher than atmospheric blurring, too -- the point I was
responding to. Earth-based astronomy has a lot of money invested in
its equipment.

So? How is that supporting the argument that a telescope on the Moon
will be somehow superior or cheaper?

I addressed /that/ issue in another post.
You were talking here about "atmospheric blurring".

Actually I was talking about the utility of lunar telescopes. I have
been diagnosed with ADHD and yet I can follow this argument. Why
can't you follow it through more than one post?

Post by Paul S Person
I am talking about it's replacement -- satellite obfuscation.

Read the article. Actual scientists /are/ concerned.

You keep saying "read the article". I've read the article and the
main thing I get out of it is that you are full of crap, as usual.
I'm totally bored with you now and no longer interested in your
twaddle.

Thank-you for reading the article, as opposed to continuing to ignore
it.

I am sorry you found it so disappointing. I really am not interested
in the details.

Since I never commented on the article as such, I fail to see how I
can be full of anything.

Have a nice day.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

p***@hotmail.com

2020-04-18 20:21:51 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:29:46 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 17:49:20 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 09:21:47 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:20:52 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

Research stations. Tourist traps.

That would be a really literal tourist "trap". Leaving would require a
rocket ship (or lunar rover and EVA suit).

Build a colony to maintain the tourist traps (and the research
statations) and two-way traffic would become quite regular.

I don't think anyone should plan on staying on the moon
long-term; just as on the ISS (at a slightly lower rate), you'd
lose bone calcium and be subjected to radiation damage. I'd
suggest researchers stay for a couple of months, tourists for
maybe a week.
Make the tourist trips sufficiently expensive, and they'd pay for
maintaining the research base[s]. Think about astronomy without
atmospheric blurring and skyglow.

We've already got that though, and atmospheric blurring isn't actually
the issue that it used to be.

Really large numbers of really bright satellites in low orbits.
Which are already playing hob with astronomy.
And it's only going to get worse, as the numbers increase.

They're only bright at sunrise and sunset.

Post by Paul S Person
There's also a video of them passing over Holland 24 hours after
launch.

So?

Why would the problem times change? Will physics change to permit
light to pass through planets or something?

There is an interval of time before sunrise and after sunset when it
dark enough to see planets or stars, but satellites overhead in low
Earth orbit are clear of the Earth's shadow and are illuminated by
full sunlight. It is during these intervals that it is easiest to
see satellites. I recall watching the Echo I balloon satellite with
unaided vision, and later Skylab. It is of course at these same times
that satellites make the greatest interference with astronomical
observations.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

J. Clarke

2020-04-18 22:38:05 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:29:46 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 17:49:20 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 09:21:47 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:20:52 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

Research stations. Tourist traps.

That would be a really literal tourist "trap". Leaving would require a
rocket ship (or lunar rover and EVA suit).

Build a colony to maintain the tourist traps (and the research
statations) and two-way traffic would become quite regular.

I don't think anyone should plan on staying on the moon
long-term; just as on the ISS (at a slightly lower rate), you'd
lose bone calcium and be subjected to radiation damage. I'd
suggest researchers stay for a couple of months, tourists for
maybe a week.
Make the tourist trips sufficiently expensive, and they'd pay for
maintaining the research base[s]. Think about astronomy without
atmospheric blurring and skyglow.

We've already got that though, and atmospheric blurring isn't actually
the issue that it used to be.

Really large numbers of really bright satellites in low orbits.
Which are already playing hob with astronomy.
And it's only going to get worse, as the numbers increase.

They're only bright at sunrise and sunset.

Post by Paul S Person
There's also a video of them passing over Holland 24 hours after
launch.

So?

Why would the problem times change? Will physics change to permit
light to pass through planets or something?

Are you agreeing with me, disagreeing, or just throwing in a random
comment?

p***@hotmail.com

2020-04-19 04:36:43 UTC

[Why would the problem times change? Will physics change to permit
light to pass through planets or something?]

Post by p***@hotmail.com
There is an interval of time before sunrise and after sunset when it
dark enough to see planets or stars, but satellites overhead in low
Earth orbit are clear of the Earth's shadow and are illuminated by
full sunlight. It is during these intervals that it is easiest to
see satellites. I recall watching the Echo I balloon satellite with
unaided vision, and later Skylab. It is of course at these same times
that satellites make the greatest interference with astronomical
observations.

Are you agreeing with me, disagreeing, or just throwing in a random
comment?

It is easy to lose track of who wrote what in these exchanges, but I
was replying to the sentence marked in brackets above, which seemed
to be questioning why low Earth orbit satellites would interfere with
ground based astronomical observations one hour before sunrise and
one hour after sunset more than at sunrise and sunset. I noted that
these are the same time intervals when it is easiest for a surface
observer to see satellites. I was attempting to explain the geometry
involved, using the same reasoning that Willey Ley used in one of
his books on space flight. The book had the advantage of being able
to use diagrams.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

J. Clarke

2020-04-19 12:27:46 UTC

[Why would the problem times change? Will physics change to permit
light to pass through planets or something?]

Are you agreeing with me, disagreeing, or just throwing in a random
comment?

I was not questioning why they would be visible during that hour, I
was questioning the "for now", which suggests that at some point in
the future they would become visible outside those times.

Post by p***@hotmail.com
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

p***@hotmail.com

2020-04-19 18:28:33 UTC

[Why would the problem times change? Will physics change to permit
light to pass through planets or something?]

Are you agreeing with me, disagreeing, or just throwing in a random
comment?

I was not questioning why they would be visible during that hour, I
was questioning the "for now", which suggests that at some point in
the future they would become visible outside those times.

One possible answer is that "for now" refers to Elon Musk's broadband
communications satellite array, which will be entirely in low Earth orbit.
Future projects by him or others might use satellites at higher altitudes
which would remain clear of the Earth's shadow for a greater fraction
of their orbits and so be visible from the ground earlier and later.

Does anyone know of any such projects in the planning or discussion stage?
What kind of satellites, how big, how many, in what orbits?

Of course, there's the old concept of very large solar cell arrays in
geosynchronous orbit beaming power to Earth via microwaves. What effect on
astronomy would they have?

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

Sjouke Burry

2020-04-19 18:33:47 UTC

[Why would the problem times change? Will physics change to permit
light to pass through planets or something?]

Are you agreeing with me, disagreeing, or just throwing in a random
comment?

I was not questioning why they would be visible during that hour, I
was questioning the "for now", which suggests that at some point in
the future they would become visible outside those times.

One possible answer is that "for now" refers to Elon Musk's broadband
communications satellite array, which will be entirely in low Earth orbit.
Future projects by him or others might use satellites at higher altitudes
which would remain clear of the Earth's shadow for a greater fraction
of their orbits and so be visible from the ground earlier and later.
Does anyone know of any such projects in the planning or discussion stage?
What kind of satellites, how big, how many, in what orbits?
Of course, there's the old concept of very large solar cell arrays in
geosynchronous orbit beaming power to Earth via microwaves. What effect on
astronomy would they have?
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

Beaming power from space is very useful for microwaving your enemies.
I dont think that is a fine idea.

Johnny1A

2020-04-20 14:40:25 UTC

Post by Sjouke Burry

[Why would the problem times change? Will physics change to permit
light to pass through planets or something?]

Are you agreeing with me, disagreeing, or just throwing in a random
comment?

I was not questioning why they would be visible during that hour, I
was questioning the "for now", which suggests that at some point in
the future they would become visible outside those times.

One possible answer is that "for now" refers to Elon Musk's broadband
communications satellite array, which will be entirely in low Earth orbit.
Future projects by him or others might use satellites at higher altitudes
which would remain clear of the Earth's shadow for a greater fraction
of their orbits and so be visible from the ground earlier and later.
Does anyone know of any such projects in the planning or discussion stage?
What kind of satellites, how big, how many, in what orbits?
Of course, there's the old concept of very large solar cell arrays in
geosynchronous orbit beaming power to Earth via microwaves. What effect on
astronomy would they have?
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

Beaming power from space is very useful for microwaving your enemies.
I dont think that is a fine idea.

We're not likely to see orbital solar arrays on a big scale anytime in the foreseeable future. It's one of those ingenious ideas that just doesn't work when you run the numbers. It's just too easy for ground-based power to outcompete it on cost. Even ground-based solar beats it, unless you apply weird assumptions.

As for the microwave beam...yeah, it _could_ be weaponized, but it would be a spectacularly pointless and inefficient thing to do. The power density of most proposed power beams is so low that you'd have to spend all kinds of time and effort to make it high enough to be effective as a weapon, and it would still be reliant on a very, very exposed and fragile solar array for power.

J. Clarke

2020-04-19 19:28:17 UTC

[Why would the problem times change? Will physics change to permit
light to pass through planets or something?]

Are you agreeing with me, disagreeing, or just throwing in a random
comment?

I was not questioning why they would be visible during that hour, I
was questioning the "for now", which suggests that at some point in
the future they would become visible outside those times.

The whole point of it is the low altitude and large quantity. Going
higher would make everything bigger, heavier, and more expensive. That
was tried with Iridium and it ended up horribly expensive for very low
bandwidth.

Post by p***@hotmail.com
Of course, there's the old concept of very large solar cell arrays in
geosynchronous orbit beaming power to Earth via microwaves. What effect on
astronomy would they have?

That is a much more significant risk IMO, however if the technology
exists to build such things, space telescopes will be cheap.

Paul S Person

2020-04-20 16:17:51 UTC

[Why would the problem times change? Will physics change to permit
light to pass through planets or something?]

Are you agreeing with me, disagreeing, or just throwing in a random
comment?

I was not questioning why they would be visible during that hour, I
was questioning the "for now", which suggests that at some point in
the future they would become visible outside those times.

That is a concern indeed, according to the article. One observatory,
in summer, could be affected the entire night long if they were up
higher. That might be what I was thinking of.

But I may have been misinterpreting a reference to them being visible
later in the night in the Summer: I may have taken it to mean visible
for longer after twilight, while the actual meaning may have been
that, since it gets dark later, the problem will occur later.

When the night is 14 hourse, losing 2 hours is only 1/7 of the
observation time; when the night is 8 hours, 2 hours is 1/4. The
further North or South an observatory is, the worse the impact in
Summer is likely to be.

The reason for the low orbit, it appears, is to provide world-wide
fast internet access to everybody. Keeping them low reduces the
transmission time between satellite and Earth. So there is an
incentive to keep them low rather than high. The word I would
associate with it is "latency", but that is not in the article and may
not be the right term.

Post by p***@hotmail.com
Does anyone know of any such projects in the planning or discussion stage?
What kind of satellites, how big, how many, in what orbits?

I believe the article, the link to which appears to have dropped, out,
discusses other projects. Researching them might provide more
information.

Here it is again:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/starlink-spacex-satellites-amazon-oneweb-global-internet-astronomy

There is a list of citations at the end, BTW. More info is available
to those interested enough to dig it out.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Alan Baker

2020-04-18 20:32:23 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:29:46 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 17:49:20 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 09:21:47 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:20:52 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

Research stations. Tourist traps.

That would be a really literal tourist "trap". Leaving would require a
rocket ship (or lunar rover and EVA suit).

Build a colony to maintain the tourist traps (and the research
statations) and two-way traffic would become quite regular.

I don't think anyone should plan on staying on the moon
long-term; just as on the ISS (at a slightly lower rate), you'd
lose bone calcium and be subjected to radiation damage. I'd
suggest researchers stay for a couple of months, tourists for
maybe a week.
Make the tourist trips sufficiently expensive, and they'd pay for
maintaining the research base[s]. Think about astronomy without
atmospheric blurring and skyglow.

We've already got that though, and atmospheric blurring isn't actually
the issue that it used to be.

Really large numbers of really bright satellites in low orbits.
Which are already playing hob with astronomy.
And it's only going to get worse, as the numbers increase.

They're only bright at sunrise and sunset.

"Through a webcam at Chile’s Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory,
Cliff Johnson, watching from Illinois on November 18, had a view of a
clear night sky — until he didn’t (left). Newly launched Starlink
satellites left 19 trails of light in one of his telescope images
(right), obtained during a five-minute exposure on the Victor M. Blanco
telescope."

Johnny1A

2020-04-15 18:38:03 UTC

Post by Joy Beeson
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 20:27:46 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A

Post by Johnny1A
Apollo was decades ahead of its natural time.

And probably set the exploration of space back by decades.
If the first moon landing had happened along about now,
one of its missions would have been to check out building sites.

Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

In the short term, if access could be made cheaper, scientific research stations comes to mind as a first thing. One of the successes of Apollo is that it enabled the return of over _three hundred kilograms_ of Lunar sample material, which has been of enormous value in research since. The science instruments left behind by the astronauts have also been of huge use. It's sad that the project was cancelled early, the final planned missions were meant to do quite a bit more science work.

But the Moon is _enormous_. For ex, one of the goals of the science staff in Apollo was to send a lander to the Tycho region. It was vetoed on safety grounds. But a permanent scientific facility on the Moon could access such regions 'overland'.

Quadibloc

2020-04-16 04:46:07 UTC

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

How about a big telescope?

John Savard

J. Clarke

2020-04-16 10:03:40 UTC

On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 21:46:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

How about a big telescope?

What does the moon bring to the game? It's just another gravitational
field distorting the optics. We already have the technology to build
free-flying telescopes that don't have that problem and can be
arbitrarily large.

Post by Quadibloc
John Savard

Quadibloc

2020-04-16 16:26:35 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
What does the moon bring to the game? It's just another gravitational
field distorting the optics. We already have the technology to build
free-flying telescopes that don't have that problem and can be
arbitrarily large.

Flywheels are so heavy, making it difficult to launch them into space.

Also, aluminum can be mined on the Moon.

John Savard

J. Clarke

2020-04-16 22:13:05 UTC

On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 09:26:35 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Flywheels are so heavy, making it difficult to launch them into space.

You mean "reaction wheels", and they represent less than 2 percent of
the mass of the Hubble.

Post by Quadibloc
Also, aluminum can be mined on the Moon.

So?

Peter Trei

2020-04-16 23:40:36 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 21:46:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

How about a big telescope?

The far side of the Moon is most radio-quiet spot in the entire solar system. It's an ideal
place to put radio telescopes.

Pt

Chrysi Cat

2020-04-17 00:04:21 UTC

Post by Peter Trei

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 21:46:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

How about a big telescope?

The far side of the Moon is most radio-quiet spot in the entire solar system. It's an ideal
place to put radio telescopes.
Pt

Well, it WOULD be an ideal spot if it weren't for the "minor" fact that
it's also the HECKIN' COLDEST SPOT IN THE INNER SOLAR SYSTEM, for very
similar reasons as to why it's the most radio-quiet spot.

I don't know if you could have the construction and maintenance area
under-surface and make it possible to heat to a reasonable degree or
not, but I think you have to get out past Neptune for there to be a
greater need for internal heating rather than cooling outside an atmosphere.

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

J. Clarke

2020-04-17 01:02:00 UTC

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by Peter Trei

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 21:46:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

How about a big telescope?

The far side of the Moon is most radio-quiet spot in the entire solar system. It's an ideal
place to put radio telescopes.
Pt

What leads you to believe that? It points away from Earth, not from
the Sun.

Post by Chrysi Cat
I don't know if you could have the construction and maintenance area
under-surface and make it possible to heat to a reasonable degree or
not, but I think you have to get out past Neptune for there to be a
greater need for internal heating rather than cooling outside an atmosphere.

Scott Lurndal

2020-04-17 17:07:08 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 21:46:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

How about a big telescope?

The far side of the Moon is most radio-quiet spot in the entire solar system. It's an ideal
place to put radio telescopes.
Pt

What leads you to believe that? It points away from Earth, not from
the Sun.

"There is no dark side of the moon. Matter of fact, it's all dark".

h***@gmail.com

2020-04-17 01:47:32 UTC

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by Peter Trei

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 21:46:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

How about a big telescope?

The far side of the Moon is most radio-quiet spot in the entire solar system. It's an ideal
place to put radio telescopes.
Pt

Well it can get down there for coldest temperatures

The far side of the moon is in sunlight about 1/2 the time so there is a huge temperature range from over 100C to -173C (interestingly about the same low as Mercury's night side, I guess with no atmosphere to transmit heat it's all pretty much the same)
Some areas around the poles of the moon have it worse as they never get sunlight, they can get down to about -247C which is right down there with Pluto's surface temperature

Post by Chrysi Cat
I don't know if you could have the construction and maintenance area
under-surface and make it possible to heat to a reasonable degree or
not,

If spacesuits let humans go around on the moon I'd think enough rock would let us insulate things well enough

Post by Chrysi Cat
but I think you have to get out past Neptune for there to be a
greater need for internal heating rather than cooling outside an atmosphere.

If you stick in the bits of the moon that do get sunlight you're about the same on mercury's night side (of course it gets rather hotter during the day)

Paul Colquhoun

2020-04-17 03:30:21 UTC

On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 18:04:21 -0600, Chrysi Cat <***@gmail.com> wrote:
| On 4/16/2020 5:40 PM, Peter Trei wrote:
|> On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 6:03:44 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
|>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 21:46:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
|>> <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
|>>
|>>> On Tuesday, April 14, 2020 at 11:54:04 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
|>>>
|>>>> Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?
|>>>
|>>> How about a big telescope?
|>>
|>> What does the moon bring to the game? It's just another gravitational
|>> field distorting the optics. We already have the technology to build
|>> free-flying telescopes that don't have that problem and can be
|>> arbitrarily large.
|>
|> The far side of the Moon is most radio-quiet spot in the entire solar system. It's an ideal
|> place to put radio telescopes.
|>
|> Pt
|>
|
| Well, it WOULD be an ideal spot if it weren't for the "minor" fact that
| it's also the HECKIN' COLDEST SPOT IN THE INNER SOLAR SYSTEM, for very
| similar reasons as to why it's the most radio-quiet spot.

I think you are getting mixed up with Mercury. The far side of the Moon
gets the same 4 week day/night cycle as the near side does (minus the
occasional eclipse).

| I don't know if you could have the construction and maintenance area
| under-surface and make it possible to heat to a reasonable degree or
| not, but I think you have to get out past Neptune for there to be a
| greater need for internal heating rather than cooling outside an atmosphere.

Putting everything except the dish underground would probably be the
best design anyway.

--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro

Dorothy J Heydt

2020-04-17 05:03:19 UTC

If, and only if, he's not paid much attention to Mercury over the
last several decades.

We can (most of us) remember the time Larry Niven published "The
Coldest Place," which turned out to be the dark side of Mercury,
and Mercury's INN-teresting rotational period and orbital period
were discovered before the story went to press.

Post by Paul Colquhoun
The far side of the Moon
gets the same 4 week day/night cycle as the near side does (minus the
occasional eclipse).
Putting everything except the dish underground would probably be the
best design anyway.

Quite possibly; enough rock and regolith over the living quarters
would help keep radiation damage down.

I stilld don't know how much damage living under 1/6 G for months
or years would do.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

Paul S Person

2020-04-17 16:34:03 UTC

If, and only if, he's not paid much attention to Mercury over the
last several decades.
We can (most of us) remember the time Larry Niven published "The
Coldest Place," which turned out to be the dark side of Mercury,
and Mercury's INN-teresting rotational period and orbital period
were discovered before the story went to press.

Quite possibly; enough rock and regolith over the living quarters
would help keep radiation damage down.
I stilld don't know how much damage living under 1/6 G for months
or years would do.

Well, at /some/ point we are going to have to go there and find out.

Will the kids be 9 feet tall when fully grown? Who can say?

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person

2020-04-18 16:52:49 UTC

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:34:03 -0700, Paul S Person

If, and only if, he's not paid much attention to Mercury over the
last several decades.
We can (most of us) remember the time Larry Niven published "The
Coldest Place," which turned out to be the dark side of Mercury,
and Mercury's INN-teresting rotational period and orbital period
were discovered before the story went to press.

Quite possibly; enough rock and regolith over the living quarters
would help keep radiation damage down.
I stilld don't know how much damage living under 1/6 G for months
or years would do.

Well, at /some/ point we are going to have to go there and find out.

Actually, there /is/ an alternative:

1. Invent anti-gravity.
2. Do the tests on Earth.

but the first step is a doozie.

Post by Paul S Person
Will the kids be 9 feet tall when fully grown? Who can say?

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

J. Clarke

2020-04-17 21:58:58 UTC

If, and only if, he's not paid much attention to Mercury over the
last several decades.
We can (most of us) remember the time Larry Niven published "The
Coldest Place," which turned out to be the dark side of Mercury,
and Mercury's INN-teresting rotational period and orbital period
were discovered before the story went to press.

Quite possibly; enough rock and regolith over the living quarters
would help keep radiation damage down.
I stilld don't know how much damage living under 1/6 G for months
or years would do.

Would it actually do _any_ damage relevant to someone living on the
Moon? Admittedly if one wants to be a specter haunting Texas it
should be an issue but that would be an exceptional case.

Johnny1A

2020-04-18 02:19:36 UTC

If, and only if, he's not paid much attention to Mercury over the
last several decades.
We can (most of us) remember the time Larry Niven published "The
Coldest Place," which turned out to be the dark side of Mercury,
and Mercury's INN-teresting rotational period and orbital period
were discovered before the story went to press.

Quite possibly; enough rock and regolith over the living quarters
would help keep radiation damage down.
I stilld don't know how much damage living under 1/6 G for months
or years would do.

Would it actually do _any_ damage relevant to someone living on the
Moon?

_Nobody knows._ That's the thing, we have exactly _zero_ data to work with, and science must be silent when there is no data.

It's entirely possible, and maybe plausible, that living on the Moon for years on end would leave you still healthy and functional on the Moon, but unable to safely come back to Earth. That _could_ be true.

It could also be true that even after months or years, once could eventually readjust to 1G and normal Earth surface conditions, though it would likely be difficult. That could also be true.

It could also be true that long term life on the Moon would be crippling or lethal, even in terms of Lunar residency.

We just don't know.

We also don't know if there are differences in how males and females adapt to Lunar conditions. We don't know if it's possible to carry a healthy baby to term under those conditions. We don't know what the long-term effects of growing up under 1/6G would be.

I'm not being negative. I'm simply pointing out that we have no data at all. One useful purpose of a research station on the Moon would be studying the effect of 1/6G on living creatures, including humans.

Quadibloc

2020-04-18 05:19:55 UTC

Post by Johnny1A
I'm not being negative. I'm simply pointing out that we have no data at all.
One useful purpose of a research station on the Moon would be studying the
effect of 1/6G on living creatures, including humans.

But if we're not absolutely sure if extended life under 1/6 g is absolutely
harmless to humans, surely that kind of research on humans is unethical!

Oh, of course people do risk their lives in worthy causes, otherwise men
wouldn't have walked on the Moon in the first place. Currently, the ISS is
researching what happens to humans after extended exposure to microgravity...
because we think we couldn't afford a manned mission to Mars that did things any
other way.

John Savard

h***@gmail.com

2020-04-18 09:57:27 UTC

But if we're not absolutely sure if extended life under 1/6 g is absolutely
harmless to humans, surely that kind of research on humans is unethical!

List of things that are always absolutely harmless to humans follows...

Robert Carnegie

2020-04-18 13:32:33 UTC

Post by h***@gmail.com

But if we're not absolutely sure if extended life under 1/6 g is absolutely
harmless to humans, surely that kind of research on humans is unethical!

List of things that are always absolutely harmless to humans follows...

Try it with animals first,
e.g. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_on_the_Moon_(novel)> :-)

p***@hotmail.com

2020-04-18 07:45:46 UTC

If, and only if, he's not paid much attention to Mercury over the
last several decades.
We can (most of us) remember the time Larry Niven published "The
Coldest Place," which turned out to be the dark side of Mercury,
and Mercury's INN-teresting rotational period and orbital period
were discovered before the story went to press.

Quite possibly; enough rock and regolith over the living quarters
would help keep radiation damage down.
I stilld don't know how much damage living under 1/6 G for months
or years would do.

Would it actually do _any_ damage relevant to someone living on the
Moon?

Robert Heinlein used this as a plot point in _The Moon is Harsh Mistress_.
It necessitated that the criminals and political prisoners exiled to the Moon
could never return even with a change in government policy. Workers such as
the astronomers at the Lunar observatory and tourists avoid this problem by
the use of centrifuged living quarters. Decades after the Lunar residents won
independence drugs are developed that prevent loss of gravity tolerance.

This was specific to the story; in his earlier "future history" short story
_It's Great to be Back_, a married couple returning to Earth after several
years working in Luna City find the gravity annoying but not medically
dangerous. In the YA novel _Space Cadet_, one of the entering students at
the Space Patrol academy on Earth is from a colony on one of the Jovian moons
and has difficulty at first with gravity, but this is seen as no barrier to
a career in the Patrol, and on the other hand he has no problem with space
sickness. In _Podkayne of Mars_, lifelong Mars residents Podkayne and Clark
Fries embark on a vacation to Venus and then to Earth with no great concern
over gravity. To aid adaptation the ship they are traveling on gradually
increases its spin rate to increase the artificial gravity from Mars equivalent
to Venus equivalent, and both siblings combine this with intense weight
training in the ship's gym.

Post by Johnny1A
It could also be true that even after months or years, once could eventually readjust to 1G and normal Earth surface conditions, though it would likely be difficult. That could also be true.
It could also be true that long term life on the Moon would be crippling or lethal, even in terms of Lunar residency.
We just don't know.
We also don't know if there are differences in how males and females adapt to Lunar conditions. We don't know if it's possible to carry a healthy baby to term under those conditions. We don't know what the long-term effects of growing up under 1/6G would be.
I'm not being negative. I'm simply pointing out that we have no data at all. One useful purpose of a research station on the Moon would be studying the effect of 1/6G on living creatures, including humans.

I agree, but I see no reason to think that 1/6 G will be worse than zero G,
and people have spent over a year on the space station and survived the
return to Earth. We have built up to deployments of this duration gradually
over years, with careful monitoring and using a wide variety of exercise
devices and techniques. Years ago I read about an idea for sort of a
compartmentalized pressure suit that would provide its wearer in free fall
with the same head-to-toe fluid column pressure gradient that we experience
when standing upright on Earth. It was theorized that this could help keep
their cardiovascular system in shape. I don't know if this was ever tried
in orbit or how well it worked. One thing that they have NOT tried, to my
knowledge, is the old science fiction standby, rotational artificial gravity.

Research over the last forty years on bone loss in older people has shown the
great importance of mechanical stress on the bones. Test subjects assigned
at random from a group to exercise by jogging increased bone density in their
legs, while people selected from the same group to use weight machines
increased density in the bones involved in that activity. It could be
that something as simple as a ballasted suit worn during workouts or routine
activities would be useful. Suppose an astronaut had a mass of 90 kg. A suit
with a mass of 450 kg would bring their Moon weight up to their Earth weight,
and could be built with just 0.06 cubic meters (two cubic feet) of steel.
Average thickness would be one or two centimeters, which would be no
bulkier than Iron Man.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

Jack Bohn

2020-04-18 10:40:36 UTC

Years ago I read about an idea for sort of a
compartmentalized pressure suit that would provide its wearer in free fall
with the same head-to-toe fluid column pressure gradient that we experience
when standing upright on Earth. It was theorized that this could help keep
their cardiovascular system in shape. I don't know if this was ever tried
in orbit or how well it worked. One thing that they have NOT tried, to my
knowledge, is the old science fiction standby, rotational artificial gravity.

Skylab had a sort of spsce suit pair of pants that the astronauts could get in, which would then be filled with a partial vacuum, the idea being to draw blood to the lower extremities. I don't know if it did anything besides work to that extent.

--
-Jack

James Nicoll

2020-04-17 13:24:08 UTC

So does Mercury. 3:2 spin-orbit resonance and all that.

Jack Bohn

2020-04-17 11:00:03 UTC

The far side of the Moon is most radio-quiet spot in the entire solar system. It's an ideal
place to put radio telescopes.

I imagine one of the first steps in industrializing the Moon would be to put some relay satellites up. Are there any differences in the minerals available near the surface between the Near and Far sides? For that matter, how would a Very Large Array communicate amongst itself, and with Earth? Cable, or rotating frequencies that aren't what it's observing at the moment?

--
-Jack

Robert Carnegie

2020-04-17 15:06:09 UTC

Post by Jack Bohn

The far side of the Moon is most radio-quiet spot in the entire solar system. It's an ideal
place to put radio telescopes.

I found this difficult to decipher:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang%27e_4>

I think what it's saying about radioastronomy
is that the /satellite/ is operating as a radio
telescope, and is in a "halo orbit" near the
Earth-Moon L2 point, which means that the
Moon is between, but not between, the Earth
and the satellite, if you see what I mean.

But the rover may be converting a suitable crater
or two into parabolic dishes on the quiet.

Jack Bohn

2020-04-17 20:15:18 UTC

The far side of the Moon is most radio-quiet spot in the entire solar system. It's an ideal
place to put radio telescopes.

I imagine one of the first steps in industrializing the Moon would be to put some relay satellites up. For that matter, how would a Very Large Array communicate amongst itself, and with Earth? Cable, or rotating frequencies that aren't what it's observing at the moment?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang%27e_4>
I think what it's saying about radioastronomy
is that the /satellite/ is operating as a radio
telescope, and is in a "halo orbit" near the
Earth-Moon L2 point, which means that the
Moon is between, but not between, the Earth
and the satellite, if you see what I mean.
But the rover may be converting a suitable crater
or two into parabolic dishes on the quiet.

What I gather from that article is that the relay carries a Netherlands-China Low-frequency Explorer (NCLE), from 80 kHz to 80 MHz, the lander has a Low Frequency Spectrometer(LFS), from 0.1 to 40 MHz, that works with the NCLE, and two (tagalong?) microsatellites were to go into orbit around the Moon with radio observatories reaching from 1 to 30 MHz to make observations and do interferometry with each other, one of these did not achieve lunar orbit.

From the article, it seems the idea isn't to avoid Earth as a source of these frequencies, but be above the ionosphere, which interferes with them even in LEO.

--
-Jack

J. Clarke

2020-04-17 22:01:49 UTC

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 08:06:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

Post by Jack Bohn

The far side of the Moon is most radio-quiet spot in the entire solar system. It's an ideal
place to put radio telescopes.

that aren't what it's observing at the moment?

Post by Jack Bohn
--
-Jack

Quite a task for something the size of a dishwasher that moved all of
390 feet in two weeks.

David Johnston

2020-04-17 06:08:10 UTC

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

How about a big telescope?

If there are advantages to the moon that don't apply to just putting a
telescope in space, they escape me.

Quadibloc

2020-04-17 06:49:07 UTC

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

How about a big telescope?

If there are advantages to the moon that don't apply to just putting a
telescope in space, they escape me.

Well, you can point it to different stars time after time, and...

...it will hold very still

...it won't consume any reaction mass

whereas with a space telescope, there's nothing to damp out vibration against.

John Savard

J. Clarke

2020-04-17 22:03:22 UTC

On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 23:49:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

How about a big telescope?

If there are advantages to the moon that don't apply to just putting a
telescope in space, they escape me.

Well, you can point it to different stars time after time, and...
...it will hold very still

No, it won't. The moon rotates you know.

Post by Quadibloc
...it won't consume any reaction mass

Neither does Hubble.

Post by Quadibloc
whereas with a space telescope, there's nothing to damp out vibration against.

What's going to make it vibrate to begin with?

Paul S Person

2020-04-17 16:36:35 UTC

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:08:10 -0600, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

How about a big telescope?

If there are advantages to the moon that don't apply to just putting a
telescope in space, they escape me.

Once the infrastructure is developed, the moon-telescope can be
/built/ on the moon from materials /found/ on the moon.

Try building a space telescope in space with materials /found/ in
space -- and, no, stuff orbited from Earth doesn't count.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

J. Clarke

2020-04-17 22:04:41 UTC

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:36:35 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:08:10 -0600, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

How about a big telescope?

If there are advantages to the moon that don't apply to just putting a
telescope in space, they escape me.

Once the infrastructure is developed, the moon-telescope can be
/built/ on the moon from materials /found/ on the moon.
Try building a space telescope in space with materials /found/ in
space -- and, no, stuff orbited from Earth doesn't count.

Yes, if there it an optical shop already there then it's cheaper to
use the local optical shop. But that doesn't mean that the result
will be superior and if one first has to build the optical shop that
pretty much shoots down any notion of cost savings.

Johnny1A

2020-04-18 02:20:53 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:36:35 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:08:10 -0600, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

How about a big telescope?

If there are advantages to the moon that don't apply to just putting a
telescope in space, they escape me.

Once the infrastructure is developed, the moon-telescope can be
/built/ on the moon from materials /found/ on the moon.
Try building a space telescope in space with materials /found/ in
space -- and, no, stuff orbited from Earth doesn't count.

In the short-to-near-medium term, there won't any any cost savings. New settlements always operate at a loss at first. The issue is whether that can change over reasonable time.

J. Clarke

2020-04-18 02:54:19 UTC

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 19:20:53 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:36:35 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:08:10 -0600, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

How about a big telescope?

If there are advantages to the moon that don't apply to just putting a
telescope in space, they escape me.

Once the infrastructure is developed, the moon-telescope can be
/built/ on the moon from materials /found/ on the moon.
Try building a space telescope in space with materials /found/ in
space -- and, no, stuff orbited from Earth doesn't count.

In the short-to-near-medium term, there won't any any cost savings. New settlements always operate at a loss at first. The issue is whether that can change over reasonable time.

No, the issue is what would justify the cost of building the colony.
Telescopes aren't it.

Alan Baker

2020-04-18 20:31:20 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:08:10 -0600, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

How about a big telescope?

If there are advantages to the moon that don't apply to just putting a
telescope in space, they escape me.

Once the infrastructure is developed, the moon-telescope can be
/built/ on the moon from materials /found/ on the moon.
Try building a space telescope in space with materials /found/ in
space -- and, no, stuff orbited from Earth doesn't count.

You realize that's a straw man, right?

Because you leave a HUGE issue:

"Once the infrastructure is developed"

How much effort must be expended to build that infrastructure on the moon?

How many space telescopes do you think could be built for that same effort?

Paul S Person

2020-04-19 16:59:44 UTC

On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 13:31:20 -0700, Alan Baker

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:08:10 -0600, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

How about a big telescope?

If there are advantages to the moon that don't apply to just putting a
telescope in space, they escape me.

Once the infrastructure is developed, the moon-telescope can be
/built/ on the moon from materials /found/ on the moon.
Try building a space telescope in space with materials /found/ in
space -- and, no, stuff orbited from Earth doesn't count.

You realize that's a straw man, right?
"Once the infrastructure is developed"
How much effort must be expended to build that infrastructure on the moon?
How many space telescopes do you think could be built for that same effort?

Oh, yes, I realize that building telescopes will not justify the
expense. Even adding, say, particle accelerators/colliders will not do
so.

Still, if a new telescope turns out to have a misfocused mirror, one
on the Moon is likely (given the infrastructure) to be a lot easier to
fix than one in orbit. And we wouldn't hear about how it was no longer
useable because it could no longer hold it's position; if the problem
ever arose, we could fix it.

Note: I am taking it for granted that there are no natives of the Moon
or any other body in the Solar System.

Colonizing the Moon will depend, first and foremost, on whether the
colonists can actually find/create everything they need to survive as
a culture: food, water, clothing, housing, other buildings, and so on.
At least in theory; and, in practice, enough to get by on what can be
sent from Earth.

And it will require what all colonization efforts have required -- the
will to do it.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Johnny1A

2020-04-20 14:36:39 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 13:31:20 -0700, Alan Baker

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:08:10 -0600, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

How about a big telescope?

If there are advantages to the moon that don't apply to just putting a
telescope in space, they escape me.

Once the infrastructure is developed, the moon-telescope can be
/built/ on the moon from materials /found/ on the moon.
Try building a space telescope in space with materials /found/ in
space -- and, no, stuff orbited from Earth doesn't count.

Oh, yes, I realize that building telescopes will not justify the
expense. Even adding, say, particle accelerators/colliders will not do
so.
Still, if a new telescope turns out to have a misfocused mirror, one
on the Moon is likely (given the infrastructure) to be a lot easier to
fix than one in orbit. And we wouldn't hear about how it was no longer
useable because it could no longer hold it's position; if the problem
ever arose, we could fix it.
Note: I am taking it for granted that there are no natives of the Moon
or any other body in the Solar System.
Colonizing the Moon will depend, first and foremost, on whether the
colonists can actually find/create everything they need to survive as
a culture: food, water, clothing, housing, other buildings, and so on.
At least in theory; and, in practice, enough to get by on what can be
sent from Earth.
And it will require what all colonization efforts have required -- the
will to do it.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

The will comes and goes. Contrary to common misperception, history isn't linear, it's semi-cyclical and semi-random. We all have a tendency to project the present (whatever present we're in) onto the past and (esp.!) onto the future, and judge what people did or will do by it, and it's a very effective way to go wrong when the time gap is very big. What seems like wild extravagance or pointless exercise to one era can seem imperative to another, simply because of cultural/social shifts.

More immediately, taking about Lunar _colonization_ is too much, too soon. We're not technologically or organizationally ready to even attempt it, will or no will.

A more reasonable and immediate goal would be a Lunar _base_. A place for scientific research, on both the Moon itself and the effects of 1/6G on animals and plants and people. This would be a much more manageable near-term goal. But there's no point in doing it under we're ready to do it without falling into the political traps that ISS has.

(For ex, it should be a national facility. 'International' efforts sound dreamy and 'futury', but the ISS is a good example of why it's rarely a good idea. I'd rather see 3 or 4 separate national outposts than tangle all the efforts up in internationalist futility.)

Paul S Person

2020-04-20 16:19:06 UTC

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 07:36:39 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A

Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 13:31:20 -0700, Alan Baker

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:08:10 -0600, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

How about a big telescope?

If there are advantages to the moon that don't apply to just putting a
telescope in space, they escape me.

Once the infrastructure is developed, the moon-telescope can be
/built/ on the moon from materials /found/ on the moon.
Try building a space telescope in space with materials /found/ in
space -- and, no, stuff orbited from Earth doesn't count.

Oh, yes, I realize that building telescopes will not justify the
expense. Even adding, say, particle accelerators/colliders will not do
so.
Still, if a new telescope turns out to have a misfocused mirror, one
on the Moon is likely (given the infrastructure) to be a lot easier to
fix than one in orbit. And we wouldn't hear about how it was no longer
useable because it could no longer hold it's position; if the problem
ever arose, we could fix it.
Note: I am taking it for granted that there are no natives of the Moon
or any other body in the Solar System.
Colonizing the Moon will depend, first and foremost, on whether the
colonists can actually find/create everything they need to survive as
a culture: food, water, clothing, housing, other buildings, and so on.
At least in theory; and, in practice, enough to get by on what can be
sent from Earth.
And it will require what all colonization efforts have required -- the
will to do it.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

The will comes and goes. Contrary to common misperception, history isn't linear, it's semi-cyclical and semi-random. We all have a tendency to project the present (whatever present we're in) onto the past and (esp.!) onto the future, and judge what people did or will do by it, and it's a very effective way to go wrong when the time gap is very big. What seems like wild extravagance or pointless exercise to one era can seem imperative to another, simply because of cultural/social shifts.
More immediately, taking about Lunar _colonization_ is too much, too soon. We're not technologically or organizationally ready to even attempt it, will or no will.
A more reasonable and immediate goal would be a Lunar _base_. A place for scientific research, on both the Moon itself and the effects of 1/6G on animals and plants and people. This would be a much more manageable near-term goal. But there's no point in doing it under we're ready to do it without falling into the political traps that ISS has.
(For ex, it should be a national facility. 'International' efforts sound dreamy and 'futury', but the ISS is a good example of why it's rarely a good idea. I'd rather see 3 or 4 separate national outposts than tangle all the efforts up in internationalist futility.)

You mean the fact that it /works/?

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

David Johnston

2020-04-20 15:13:50 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:08:10 -0600, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

How about a big telescope?

If there are advantages to the moon that don't apply to just putting a
telescope in space, they escape me.

Once the infrastructure is developed, the moon-telescope can be
/built/ on the moon from materials /found/ on the moon.
Try building a space telescope in space with materials /found/ in
space -- and, no, stuff orbited from Earth doesn't count.

Building the infrastructure on the moon to gather and process the
materials to build a telescope on there is wildly more expensive than
just rocketing the components into space from Earth.

Dimensional Traveler

2020-04-20 16:15:08 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:08:10 -0600, David Johnston

Not bloody likely. What would anyone want to build on the Moon?

How about a big telescope?

If there are advantages to the moon that don't apply to just putting a
telescope in space, they escape me.

Once the infrastructure is developed, the moon-telescope can be
/built/ on the moon from materials /found/ on the moon.
Try building a space telescope in space with materials /found/ in
space -- and, no, stuff orbited from Earth doesn't count.

Building the infrastructure on the moon to gather and process the
materials to build a telescope on there is wildly more expensive than
just rocketing the components into space from Earth.

If all you are going to build is one telescope, yes. The idea is make
it a base of operations for multiple on-going projects and missions.

--
<to be filled in at a later date>

Paul S Person

2020-04-20 16:20:52 UTC

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 09:13:50 -0600, David Johnston

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:08:10 -0600, David Johnston