The wikipedia entry describing the DIRECT project is here. Further reading on the subject leads me to believe that the speculative posts I made are going to be only in my imagination. It isn't going to happen unless there is a change, but that isn't likely either. Hard to say what might happen if additional changes are made.
Instead of recycling the ET, the plan is to de-orbit them just as before. That pretty much knocks my ideas out of the ballpark.
So, where is this plan going? It just looks like a modified Constellation program which uses the Shuttle derived system, but not with a sidemount. It is said to be less capable than the original Ares rockets, but much cheaper and faster to be put into service. The gap with no manned launch capability will be cut from 7 years to as little as 2 or 3 years.
There was some discussion of the RL-10 rocket engines. Another variant of this engine which is still in development, would allow the engine to "throttle well" - between 104% to 8% thrust. The RL-10 design is going to be used in the JUS (Jupiter upper stage), which will serve as the Earth Departure Stage , per Constellation plans.
It is not clear if the throttling engine is in the works for this system. Nor what it will do.
If it could shut down and restart and throttle well, it could become quite versatile, I would think. Just a bit of speculation here, this engine could seem more like a jet engine than a rocket. But much more capable than a jet engine of course. With such an engine, maneurvering could become more sophisticated. But for what purpose? This may answer that question. It will be used on the Altair lander to land on the moon.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Lunar oxygen as reaction mass
The discovery of water on the Moon seems encouraging for many reasons. Among them, there would be a way to make fuel on the Moon, as opposed to bringing it from Earth, which is expensive.
It has occurred to me that even though there may appear to be plenty of water available on the Moon, that better uses of it could be found. Before long, with overuse of this resource, you could find yourself back into the position that you were in before. Water is too scarce. It needs to be preserved.
But there is a lot of oxygen on the Moon. If there was a way to utilize that instead of burning hydrogen and oxygen together for thrust, then the fuel problem could be solved. The question arose, why not use oxygen instead of hydrogen and heat it up as the reaction mass? It would be the same concept as Parkin's , but instead of hydrogen being heated up by microwaves, do it with oxygen. Perhaps this isn't a good idea because oxygen is so reactive. But if a way could be found, then here's the way off the Moon.
It has occurred to me that even though there may appear to be plenty of water available on the Moon, that better uses of it could be found. Before long, with overuse of this resource, you could find yourself back into the position that you were in before. Water is too scarce. It needs to be preserved.
But there is a lot of oxygen on the Moon. If there was a way to utilize that instead of burning hydrogen and oxygen together for thrust, then the fuel problem could be solved. The question arose, why not use oxygen instead of hydrogen and heat it up as the reaction mass? It would be the same concept as Parkin's , but instead of hydrogen being heated up by microwaves, do it with oxygen. Perhaps this isn't a good idea because oxygen is so reactive. But if a way could be found, then here's the way off the Moon.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Lunar Polar Volatiles Explorer Mission Concept Study
A proposed mission to survey for what's inside of those permanently shaded craters on the Moon. Water is expected to be found amongst other things. Silver, for example. Silver is useful for making solar panels. The lunar craters could be rich in useful materials such as this.
I only scanned the document. I did find a price tag of over a billion dollars for such a mission. No wonder people think this stuff is expensive. In this case, it certainly seems so. Yet, at a billion dollars, the confirmation of significant amounts of water and other useful materials could justify using this resource to further the exploitation of space resources.
I only scanned the document. I did find a price tag of over a billion dollars for such a mission. No wonder people think this stuff is expensive. In this case, it certainly seems so. Yet, at a billion dollars, the confirmation of significant amounts of water and other useful materials could justify using this resource to further the exploitation of space resources.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Fuel depot at L2
Over at the Bad Astronomy and Universe today forum, I saw a thread about going to Mars. I'm doubtful about a Mars mission. Someone mentioned in flight refueling and how that makes a Mars mission plausible even with smaller rockets. Well, that is interesting.
The idea is to put a fuel depot at the L2 Lagrangian point (on the far side of the moon away from Earth). This is called the gateway to the solar system. It would also give you easy access to Geo orbit as well as lunar orbit.
I wonder how the big ET tank could fit into this? Would it be in the way, or could that idea be integrated into this somehow? Could you get that big tank all the way out there? Or would it be better in lunar orbit? A big station would seem useful for manufacturing facilities as well as help in getting to and from the lunar surface. You could use this as well as the L2 depot, it would seem.
Now if you refill this depot from lunar water, how interesting would that be? Or you could refill from NEO's. That might be even better.
Update:
It would be easier to get the ET to L1 instead. Leave the fuel depot there, and then take the ET to lunar orbit. Use a tethering system to get back and forth from the lunar surface. If the ET is in polar orbit, that would make it more accessible to water in permanently shaded craters. Mine the lunar water from these craters and take them back to the ET. Launch from the ET to get back to L1 fuel depot. Now: is this all feasible, or is it a fantasy?
Tethers have been tested in Earth orbit with not much success from my impression. But in a lunar gravity field, maybe they would work better? Perhaps, perhaps not. You could wait until carbon nanotubes become more available, and then hope that will work. Or perhaps conventional materials would work now. I just don't know.
Now some of my reading on rotovators suggest that one of these could fling payloads out with plenty of velocity. But would you want to use it? And what would be the drawbacks of using one of these setups?
Update:
I did some comparisons with the Apollo program and the Shuttle program. My calculation may not be correct, but I think that the ET can get to L1, maybe even to lunar orbit.
Now, that doesn't mean it is capable of doing this, but it may be possible at least in theory to do it.
The idea is to put a fuel depot at the L2 Lagrangian point (on the far side of the moon away from Earth). This is called the gateway to the solar system. It would also give you easy access to Geo orbit as well as lunar orbit.
I wonder how the big ET tank could fit into this? Would it be in the way, or could that idea be integrated into this somehow? Could you get that big tank all the way out there? Or would it be better in lunar orbit? A big station would seem useful for manufacturing facilities as well as help in getting to and from the lunar surface. You could use this as well as the L2 depot, it would seem.
Now if you refill this depot from lunar water, how interesting would that be? Or you could refill from NEO's. That might be even better.
Update:
It would be easier to get the ET to L1 instead. Leave the fuel depot there, and then take the ET to lunar orbit. Use a tethering system to get back and forth from the lunar surface. If the ET is in polar orbit, that would make it more accessible to water in permanently shaded craters. Mine the lunar water from these craters and take them back to the ET. Launch from the ET to get back to L1 fuel depot. Now: is this all feasible, or is it a fantasy?
Tethers have been tested in Earth orbit with not much success from my impression. But in a lunar gravity field, maybe they would work better? Perhaps, perhaps not. You could wait until carbon nanotubes become more available, and then hope that will work. Or perhaps conventional materials would work now. I just don't know.
Now some of my reading on rotovators suggest that one of these could fling payloads out with plenty of velocity. But would you want to use it? And what would be the drawbacks of using one of these setups?
Update:
I did some comparisons with the Apollo program and the Shuttle program. My calculation may not be correct, but I think that the ET can get to L1, maybe even to lunar orbit.
Now, that doesn't mean it is capable of doing this, but it may be possible at least in theory to do it.
Pardon me while I speculate
All of these posts about space. What's the point? Perhaps you can see it as a kind of inspiration. Where it may lead, who knows. Perhaps its all just idle speculation. Just the same, I like doing it.
Having read Mining the Sky, Platinum Moon, and numerous pdf's on the subject of space mining, I am of the opinion that it is mostly a human problem that prevents it. Some may argue limitation due to economics or technology, but I think that these problems can be surmounted. No, what the real problem is, is this: how do you get people interested in this as a real possibility and how do you get them to do something about it?
So pardon me while I speculate on how to do this. Maybe you can have as much fun with reading it as I get from writing about it. So, here I go again.
Let's look at the Space Shuttle external tank once again. This is a great resource that got completely wasted in the service life of the shuttle program. As was shown in my discussion of the NASA pdf, the external tank could have been used to 1) launch and retrieve satellites without rocket power by using tethers 2) melt down metals and manufacture new useful items using concentrated solar power 3) provide ample life support and 4) serve as a more or less permanent space station. From this discussion, one could use an external tank to incrementally set up a recurring mission to the moon for the purpose of exploiting its resources. What more would it take to do this?
Let's see: using a sky hook facility from the space station, you could capture a single stage to orbit vehicle that could bring supplies and crew to the station. From the station, you could launch missions to the moon, get samples and return to the station. Then you return finished goods back to Earth along with crew in the same manner they came. I realize this may not be feasible with modern technology, but why not look into it? If you can do space elevators, then a sky hook should be an easier project, I would think.
Who decides on these missions? Does NASA decide on its own? Does the President decide? Congress? What would it take do this as an experimental mission? I don't think that it would cost that much. It might actually be a quite reasonable mission. Even if it failed, it may yield useful information. Why not do this?
Update:
The shuttle at liftoff weighed about 5 million pounds. The orbiter itself fully loaded weighed 240,000 pounds. The external tank weighed in at 69,000 pounds. If you count the orbiter and external tank as payload, that's about 300,000 pounds of mass that can be orbited in space. Or about 150 tons. Repeat that over a hundred launches of the shuttle and you can see how much of a waste it was. The point is that they could have had something really humongous up there by now by doing nothing more than launching these things over a hundred times.
Update:
Checked into carbon nanotubes. They have a way to go yet, so it looks like the tether idea is out for now. But the tether idea might work in lunar orbit. Just need to get an ET up there. Don't know if this is feasible, but guessing that it is.
Having read Mining the Sky, Platinum Moon, and numerous pdf's on the subject of space mining, I am of the opinion that it is mostly a human problem that prevents it. Some may argue limitation due to economics or technology, but I think that these problems can be surmounted. No, what the real problem is, is this: how do you get people interested in this as a real possibility and how do you get them to do something about it?
So pardon me while I speculate on how to do this. Maybe you can have as much fun with reading it as I get from writing about it. So, here I go again.
Let's look at the Space Shuttle external tank once again. This is a great resource that got completely wasted in the service life of the shuttle program. As was shown in my discussion of the NASA pdf, the external tank could have been used to 1) launch and retrieve satellites without rocket power by using tethers 2) melt down metals and manufacture new useful items using concentrated solar power 3) provide ample life support and 4) serve as a more or less permanent space station. From this discussion, one could use an external tank to incrementally set up a recurring mission to the moon for the purpose of exploiting its resources. What more would it take to do this?
Let's see: using a sky hook facility from the space station, you could capture a single stage to orbit vehicle that could bring supplies and crew to the station. From the station, you could launch missions to the moon, get samples and return to the station. Then you return finished goods back to Earth along with crew in the same manner they came. I realize this may not be feasible with modern technology, but why not look into it? If you can do space elevators, then a sky hook should be an easier project, I would think.
Who decides on these missions? Does NASA decide on its own? Does the President decide? Congress? What would it take do this as an experimental mission? I don't think that it would cost that much. It might actually be a quite reasonable mission. Even if it failed, it may yield useful information. Why not do this?
Update:
The shuttle at liftoff weighed about 5 million pounds. The orbiter itself fully loaded weighed 240,000 pounds. The external tank weighed in at 69,000 pounds. If you count the orbiter and external tank as payload, that's about 300,000 pounds of mass that can be orbited in space. Or about 150 tons. Repeat that over a hundred launches of the shuttle and you can see how much of a waste it was. The point is that they could have had something really humongous up there by now by doing nothing more than launching these things over a hundred times.
Update:
Checked into carbon nanotubes. They have a way to go yet, so it looks like the tether idea is out for now. But the tether idea might work in lunar orbit. Just need to get an ET up there. Don't know if this is feasible, but guessing that it is.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Recycling the ET
Since the approval of a derived shuttle heavy lifter is a done deal, let's continue the study of using the external tank beyond its initial role of holding fuel for liftoff. I did some looking into this possibility many posts ago. It turns out that there was a NASA generated pdf for anyone interested enough to see what studies have already been done on this idea. I downloaded it and am now in the process of reading it. I think the point here is that the idea of doing this is not at all far fetched. It has been considered. Evidently, somebody in policy making circles decided not to pursue this avenue when this was produced in the early eighties. But since the external tank is still going to be available for this as a possible use, perhaps these ideas should be revisited.
In the actual shuttle configuration that this pdf studied, there was significant amount of fuel left at Main Engine Cutoff (MECO). There were ideas on what to do with this of course. One conclusion is that the external tank could be put into Earth orbit indefinitely. As for what could be done with it while it is up there, several options were considered. Here are a few ideas in line with what I have written about before:
a) use of ET for tethering techniques
b) use of ET mass as shielding
c) use of the ET as a "strong-back" to support a space station concept
The report points out that the ET will have to be modified somewhat to made more useful in space. These modifications are to be kept to a minimum. Among these modifications are:
1. an attitude control system
2. access ports to the interior of the tanks in the ET must be made accessible
3. handling attachments to facilitate movement and various connections for devices
4. a way of altering the geometry of the ET (proposed study)
5. better tools, equipment, facilities to exploit the potential of the ET
Update:
Here are some applications of tethers to enhance space station (ET) capabilities
1. De-orbiting the ET and booster the orbiter ( with shuttle this is obsolete)
2. Lowering orbiter and boosting ET or payloads ( also obsolete )
3. Controlling ET drag and prolonging orbital life ( now this is interesting, can quadruple ET orbit life)
4. Adjusting reentry zone of a decaying ET ( safety measure )
5. Lowering orbiter, raising space station and payloads, and generating power (power?)
6. Rendezvous with satellites and debris collection ( question: could these be launched, then captured?)
7. Orbiter rendezvous with space station ( same question as in 6)
8. Applications with advance materials tethers ( since this report is 30 years old, this is relevant)
In the last application (#8), much longer tethers may be possible with materials available today.
here is a list of applications using longer tethers
a) apparent gravity of .1 g or more for personnel throughout a mission
b) single state to tether vehicles ( answer to #6, 7)
c) reentry velocities low enough for hot-structure reentry vehicles ( huh?)
d) release of payloads from LEO into GEO transfer orbits without rockets ( a great deal if possible)
e) tether base transportation between lunar surface, orbit, and escape ( ditto)
Update: of course, the above is not all that can be done with the ET. Significant amount of use can be made of the materials and structures that make up the ET itself. Here is a schematic of a solar furnace that uses that liquid hydrogen tank of the ET.
The amount of heat that this furnace could generate could melt all the aluminum in the tank. The aluminum could then be reused for other purposes, even rocket fuel!
Update:
Very interesting quote from p. 107
"...They can provide the means by which we learn to develop growing manufacturing capability off-Earth in the immediate future and do so economically. The ET's can be an inexpensive, readily available resource base (350-1100 tons/yr) for use in Earth orbit rather than being wasted."
Keep in mind when reading the above quote that this was written nearly thirty years ago. If it was true then, it is even more true today.
Update:
The thought occurred to me that, before in situ resources recovery from the moon or asteroids is even considered, this plan should be executed first. The reason that the external tanks themselves are an excellent site for in situ resource extraction. It would be a great place to try out the techniques. A good knowledge base could be built on this alone, not to mention the other uses for which external tanks could be used.
In addition to the above updates and comments by me, there was even more to this report that is of interest that I haven't even gotten to yet. For example, an external tank would be a good place for space habitat, or in one recommendation, it could be used as refuge in case of a disaster in space.
In the actual shuttle configuration that this pdf studied, there was significant amount of fuel left at Main Engine Cutoff (MECO). There were ideas on what to do with this of course. One conclusion is that the external tank could be put into Earth orbit indefinitely. As for what could be done with it while it is up there, several options were considered. Here are a few ideas in line with what I have written about before:
a) use of ET for tethering techniques
b) use of ET mass as shielding
c) use of the ET as a "strong-back" to support a space station concept
The report points out that the ET will have to be modified somewhat to made more useful in space. These modifications are to be kept to a minimum. Among these modifications are:
1. an attitude control system
2. access ports to the interior of the tanks in the ET must be made accessible
3. handling attachments to facilitate movement and various connections for devices
4. a way of altering the geometry of the ET (proposed study)
5. better tools, equipment, facilities to exploit the potential of the ET
Update:
Here are some applications of tethers to enhance space station (ET) capabilities
1. De-orbiting the ET and booster the orbiter ( with shuttle this is obsolete)
2. Lowering orbiter and boosting ET or payloads ( also obsolete )
3. Controlling ET drag and prolonging orbital life ( now this is interesting, can quadruple ET orbit life)
4. Adjusting reentry zone of a decaying ET ( safety measure )
5. Lowering orbiter, raising space station and payloads, and generating power (power?)
6. Rendezvous with satellites and debris collection ( question: could these be launched, then captured?)
7. Orbiter rendezvous with space station ( same question as in 6)
8. Applications with advance materials tethers ( since this report is 30 years old, this is relevant)
In the last application (#8), much longer tethers may be possible with materials available today.
here is a list of applications using longer tethers
a) apparent gravity of .1 g or more for personnel throughout a mission
b) single state to tether vehicles ( answer to #6, 7)
c) reentry velocities low enough for hot-structure reentry vehicles ( huh?)
d) release of payloads from LEO into GEO transfer orbits without rockets ( a great deal if possible)
e) tether base transportation between lunar surface, orbit, and escape ( ditto)
Update: of course, the above is not all that can be done with the ET. Significant amount of use can be made of the materials and structures that make up the ET itself. Here is a schematic of a solar furnace that uses that liquid hydrogen tank of the ET.
The amount of heat that this furnace could generate could melt all the aluminum in the tank. The aluminum could then be reused for other purposes, even rocket fuel!
Update:
Very interesting quote from p. 107
"...They can provide the means by which we learn to develop growing manufacturing capability off-Earth in the immediate future and do so economically. The ET's can be an inexpensive, readily available resource base (350-1100 tons/yr) for use in Earth orbit rather than being wasted."
Keep in mind when reading the above quote that this was written nearly thirty years ago. If it was true then, it is even more true today.
Update:
The thought occurred to me that, before in situ resources recovery from the moon or asteroids is even considered, this plan should be executed first. The reason that the external tanks themselves are an excellent site for in situ resource extraction. It would be a great place to try out the techniques. A good knowledge base could be built on this alone, not to mention the other uses for which external tanks could be used.
In addition to the above updates and comments by me, there was even more to this report that is of interest that I haven't even gotten to yet. For example, an external tank would be a good place for space habitat, or in one recommendation, it could be used as refuge in case of a disaster in space.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Review of Platinum Moon
I really don't want to do this, but in order to be honest, I have to be a little critical of this book. One criticism that I saw on another review said there wasn't enough character development. I don't think I saw that, but what I did see was not exactly well stitched together story.
For one thing, the characters aren't used to full effect in order to move the plot along. There is this one character, named Frog, whose appearance in this story doesn't really fit exactly. She's a pilot, like the main character, Anders, but not on a mission like his. Her character is an interesting character to know, but what does anything having to do with her matter to what happens to Anders? Anders and Frog meet by the end of the novel, but by that time, the story is winding down.
Anders has two other characters that accompany him to the surface of the moon. But you don't know, since the story doesn't tell you, is that the two people are romantically involved. By the end of the book, you find out that they are getting married. Big surprise for me. I didn't have a clue.
Anders and his wife don't get along and are divorced. That plays a part in the plot. But Frog doesn't fit into this at all. She might have, but she doesn't. Anders own character may be a little too good to be believed. He is a crack pilot and a good father from what we can see. Many of his countrymen think he is a traitor, I suppose that a chink in his armor. But the story shows that this a subjective point of view, not necessarily shared by everyone. He comes off well. Maybe a little too well. I really don't believe this character.
As far as the plot itself, several opportunities to heighten the suspense are missed. There is one spot where if something wasn't caught in time, it could have led to disaster. You can see this, but what you don't see is how it all got resolved. This is just skipped over as if it wasn't very interesting to know. There could have been others, but I guess I won't mention them.
In short, the idea for the book was of intense interest to me. That is why I bought the book If I had not been interested in the idea of mining the moon in the first place, I probably wouldn't have bought the book. If I had happened across this book somewhere, and began reading it, I don't think I would have finished it. The story wasn't gripping enough to keep interest. Hate to say that. But it is the truth from my point of view.
For one thing, the characters aren't used to full effect in order to move the plot along. There is this one character, named Frog, whose appearance in this story doesn't really fit exactly. She's a pilot, like the main character, Anders, but not on a mission like his. Her character is an interesting character to know, but what does anything having to do with her matter to what happens to Anders? Anders and Frog meet by the end of the novel, but by that time, the story is winding down.
Anders has two other characters that accompany him to the surface of the moon. But you don't know, since the story doesn't tell you, is that the two people are romantically involved. By the end of the book, you find out that they are getting married. Big surprise for me. I didn't have a clue.
Anders and his wife don't get along and are divorced. That plays a part in the plot. But Frog doesn't fit into this at all. She might have, but she doesn't. Anders own character may be a little too good to be believed. He is a crack pilot and a good father from what we can see. Many of his countrymen think he is a traitor, I suppose that a chink in his armor. But the story shows that this a subjective point of view, not necessarily shared by everyone. He comes off well. Maybe a little too well. I really don't believe this character.
As far as the plot itself, several opportunities to heighten the suspense are missed. There is one spot where if something wasn't caught in time, it could have led to disaster. You can see this, but what you don't see is how it all got resolved. This is just skipped over as if it wasn't very interesting to know. There could have been others, but I guess I won't mention them.
In short, the idea for the book was of intense interest to me. That is why I bought the book If I had not been interested in the idea of mining the moon in the first place, I probably wouldn't have bought the book. If I had happened across this book somewhere, and began reading it, I don't think I would have finished it. The story wasn't gripping enough to keep interest. Hate to say that. But it is the truth from my point of view.
Finished Platinum Moon
Not much to add to what I have already written. One thing though. Everything I
have written on this subject is in that book. But, until I started reading up on
this stuff, I didn't know much of any of it. What I am saying here, is if you want
to know what's the basic story in this book, all you have to do is read all the
space stuff posts. It isn't exactly the same, but the general themes are there.
And that's about it.
This doesn't mean the end of these type of posts, though.
I have written before about wet workshop or dry workshop- terms that describe
the remodeling of the interior of a rocket after it has expended its fuel, and
while it is already in space. With respect to the external tank that the new
Direct launcher will use, lets find a way to utilize that- don't throw it away.
There should be missions which practice this technique in space. For example,
refashion the big fuel tanks into smaller tanks. Then you could use these smaller
tanks and also free up some space inside the big external tank for other uses. You
could also reuse the rocket motor. A refueling module could refill the newly
fashioned tanks which would be connected to the rocket motor. Then you'll have more
mission capability than before.
Update:
How could smaller tanks, which used the matter derived from larger tanks, be made
in space? Being no expert in these matters, and just speculating, here's a scenario:
Cut the large tanks into manageable pieces. Using molds brought from Earth and
a metal press, stamp out halves of a tank. Then weld the halves together to make
a full tank. The metal may need to be heated up so it will be soft and pliable
and will stamp easily into the mold.
Given that the original tanks are very large, plenty of metal is available. Many
smaller tanks could be made in such a fashion.
Refilling a small tank should be easier than refilling a fricking huge one. By
making a lot of small tanks, you ease a logistical problem of how to refuel in
space.
have written on this subject is in that book. But, until I started reading up on
this stuff, I didn't know much of any of it. What I am saying here, is if you want
to know what's the basic story in this book, all you have to do is read all the
space stuff posts. It isn't exactly the same, but the general themes are there.
And that's about it.
This doesn't mean the end of these type of posts, though.
I have written before about wet workshop or dry workshop- terms that describe
the remodeling of the interior of a rocket after it has expended its fuel, and
while it is already in space. With respect to the external tank that the new
Direct launcher will use, lets find a way to utilize that- don't throw it away.
There should be missions which practice this technique in space. For example,
refashion the big fuel tanks into smaller tanks. Then you could use these smaller
tanks and also free up some space inside the big external tank for other uses. You
could also reuse the rocket motor. A refueling module could refill the newly
fashioned tanks which would be connected to the rocket motor. Then you'll have more
mission capability than before.
Update:
How could smaller tanks, which used the matter derived from larger tanks, be made
in space? Being no expert in these matters, and just speculating, here's a scenario:
Cut the large tanks into manageable pieces. Using molds brought from Earth and
a metal press, stamp out halves of a tank. Then weld the halves together to make
a full tank. The metal may need to be heated up so it will be soft and pliable
and will stamp easily into the mold.
Given that the original tanks are very large, plenty of metal is available. Many
smaller tanks could be made in such a fashion.
Refilling a small tank should be easier than refilling a fricking huge one. By
making a lot of small tanks, you ease a logistical problem of how to refuel in
space.
Platinum Moon
I am reading this book right now. I'm about half finished with it. Interesting ideas here. If I may offer a thought, even though this may have been written or said somewhere else before, I'll say that art begins where science leaves off. This book is a novel, it is not nonfiction. But a lot of this book has high technological plausibility and is often consistent with current developments, yet not entirely consistent with reality as it stands today. As it is a novel, not a report of actual developments, it is a work of art. But the art involved consists of the storytelling, for the most part. The technologies presented provide the setting for the story.
Is there a purpose to the story? If there is a purpose, one may demonstrate the plausibility of something like this happening for real. It wouldn't take all that much to try what is being tried in the book. That's my opinion, and for the most part, what I have been writing about a lot in this blog. It is also why I bought the book and why I am writing about it here.
It appears that there exists a widely held belief that manned spaceflight has to be expensive. Anything like space mining would therefore seem too far fetched to be taken seriously. If this book could serve as an educational tool to inform people of this as a real possibility in our future, and that we may be much closer to doing this than anyone thinks, then perhaps the story here could serve that purpose.
I plan on finishing the book today. When I do, I'll have more to say. Until then.
Is there a purpose to the story? If there is a purpose, one may demonstrate the plausibility of something like this happening for real. It wouldn't take all that much to try what is being tried in the book. That's my opinion, and for the most part, what I have been writing about a lot in this blog. It is also why I bought the book and why I am writing about it here.
It appears that there exists a widely held belief that manned spaceflight has to be expensive. Anything like space mining would therefore seem too far fetched to be taken seriously. If this book could serve as an educational tool to inform people of this as a real possibility in our future, and that we may be much closer to doing this than anyone thinks, then perhaps the story here could serve that purpose.
I plan on finishing the book today. When I do, I'll have more to say. Until then.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Been busy so far today
More housekeeping on the blog. I have subdivided the blogroll and updated it to include more blogs. The subdivision works out roughly as political blogroll and a high tech blogroll. I found some interesting sites and have implemented some ideas. I have added a few links to joke sites, for example.
This blog (QuantumG's blog) is now on the blogroll (see left ) He mentions a novel called "Platinum Moon" by Bill White, and also mentions an extensive review which I am checking out as I type this. I have to disagree with this quote from the review:
Update: just finished reading the review. Platinum Moon may be worth reading.
Update 2: I am going to order this book, read it, and maybe review it. If I review it, I may cross post it on Amazon.
This blog (QuantumG's blog) is now on the blogroll (see left ) He mentions a novel called "Platinum Moon" by Bill White, and also mentions an extensive review which I am checking out as I type this. I have to disagree with this quote from the review:
The Apollo program cost a Super Power a super-sized fraction of its GDP to employ a vast army of engineers and technicians to build and operate a wide array of gigantic facilities, rockets and spacecraft.As I mentioned in this post, the government is spending only a tiny fraction of its budget on space. Now correlate this fact to what Wayne Hale (formerly with NASA) says:
Lots of fancy viewgraph charts. Big changes, imaginary promises, no more money. No bucks, no Buck Rodgers.The government asks of NASA more than what it is willing to provide funds for doing. When it fails, NASA gets the blame. Its almost like somebody wants it to fail. Why do so many politicians demand the impossible and why do the people let the politicians get away with failure to provide a realistic chance for success? A realistic plan is needed and a realistic plan for funding needs to be provided and then a commitment needs to be made to do it. Otherwise, you are setting up the program for failure.
Update: just finished reading the review. Platinum Moon may be worth reading.
Update 2: I am going to order this book, read it, and maybe review it. If I review it, I may cross post it on Amazon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)