Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dragon Docks with the International Space Station

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Vid:

Ponder the exacting systems engineering, reliability testing, required qualifications and multiple i/o instrumentation and control involved. Observe the precise, corrective jets to keep the process under control.

This, is how a good future is going to be built: near earth colonisation and Lunar colonisation are the first stages to Solar system colonisation. (Note, they are expected to remain on the ISS for 30 – 119 days.)

Blue Danube is extra, but it speaks to the cultural patterns that lie behind that precise docking exercise and all the rich promise it reflects. END

Comments
DS, here we have some more basic issues to deal with our friend to the south. Though, GT energy is part of the picture. Similarly, investing in Sci-Tech education, digital infrastructure and digital productivity are relevant! The Global Village Industrial Civ 2.0 stuff is also relevant. DV, soon. KFkairosfocus
June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
KF, I suppose that's true to an extent. Have you suggested to your own government that they begin investing in space colonies, by the way?daveS
June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
DS,. we have been ever so busy on ruinous, manipulative divide- polarise- and- rule power games and linked manipulated crises and issues for a generation that we have largely locked out the sort of discussion that has any real hope of building a sound future. KFkairosfocus
June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT
DS, I hear you, but note equally that there is a serious question of the discussion that was not had. The timeline would not imply Grandchildren living on Mars or Moon, that would be too short a timeframe, at least if these would represent a mass population. We need to have a serious discussion, first. That is going to start with Industrial Civ 2.0 and a discussion of our alternatives. KFkairosfocus
June 3, 2020
June
06
Jun
3
03
2020
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
KF, I think you admonished us that we had to pay more attention to the residents of conservative rural counties. But it looks like you are dismissing their concerns as a "lack of vision". I can tell you their vision is very clear and pragmatic. It most likely doesn't include having their grandchildren living on Mars. Well, maybe some of the Mormons would be up for that, but most of us aren't. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, if people don't want to spend trillions trying to colonize the solar system, you can't stop them.daveS
June 3, 2020
June
06
Jun
3
03
2020
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
Sev, helicopters took over. KFkairosfocus
June 3, 2020
June
06
Jun
3
03
2020
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
DS, there has never been enough, apart from sustained transformative growth. Needs, there are indeed and will always be. But once we see the trends then the need to invest in transformational long waves becomes evident. You are right, there is lack of vision, that is at the heart of the problem and reflects what was squandered across fifty years. So the answer is, if investment in transformation seems too costly, have you pondered the true cost of stagnation? KFkairosfocus
June 3, 2020
June
06
Jun
3
03
2020
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
KF, I think a bigger factor is that there's just no money for these projects (speaking as a resident of a poor town in a rural region of the US). Our roads are in terrible shape, the water system is in need of an upgrade, the school buildings are antiquated. People are not going to be interested to hear about colonizing the solar system when critical infrastructure is crumbling. Entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are welcome to partner with NASA (and I'm glad they are). However, the "peasants" have not bought in to the very ambitious space program that you have described.daveS
June 3, 2020
June
06
Jun
3
03
2020
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
Personally, I have always had a soft spot for autogyros. Bring back the Fairey Rotodyne!Seversky
June 3, 2020
June
06
Jun
3
03
2020
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
DS, actually, the human powered aircraft is specifically dependent on fairly advanced materials technology and likely low drag design. An engine powered vehicle is less critical to design. Yes, power source and so high-energy-concentration fuels plus the internal combustion engine with good enough power to weight ratio were critical to success as at Dec 17, 1903. Which BTW used a vehicle that seemed aerodynamically inferior to the 1902 machine, less stable and less controllable. The deeper point is, that pessimism and the barrage of endless rhetorical objections we so often see are best answered by incremental demonstrations of actual function, which then cumulatively justify scaling up. In the case we are actually looking at, it is the associated want of long-term vision and commitment that will tend to box the future into a business as usual track to mediocrity or even catastrophe. Such BAU is sustained on interests of dominant factions that reap benefits from it. The answer is to move to broader stakeholder-based, transparent participative governance, foster gap analysis of outcomes between Business As Usual and reasonably credible Alternatives, building critical mass for innovation. The sort of heavy handed appeals to "consensus" and dominant narrative framing we are routinely seeing (now, complete with censorship and marginalisation) are signs of a ruinous BAU locked in in the interests of power brokers. KFkairosfocus
June 3, 2020
June
06
Jun
3
03
2020
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT
KF, I'm curious about this question: Was it reasonable for people to believe in ~1895 that flight (as would later be demonstrated by the Wrights) was impossible? I guess Lord Kelvin made such a claim then (he was wrong a number of times I gather). I'm trying to put myself into the shoes of someone in the late 19th century, which is pretty difficult since there are airplanes all over the place. But it's hard for me to understand what people thought was so impossible. These days you can cross the English Channel in a human-powered "airplane". It's not practical, but it just shows that heavier than air, powered controlled flight is far from impossible, even without advanced technology.daveS
June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
DS, heavier than air, powered controlled flight. KFkairosfocus
June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
Yeah, I followed some links and drifted from the original topic a bit.daveS
June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
DS, glider. KFkairosfocus
June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
I was just browsing some information on human-powered flight and found this photo of a Herr Lilienthal begging for a caption.daveS
June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
D, in 1903, there had been decades of failure in achieving heavier than air flight. That was part of why it took years before the Wrights' achievement was acknowledged. KFkairosfocus
June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
Drc466@12 I'll second the praise for this exhaustive and thorough debunking of the science fiction (or more accurately science fantasy) notions of near future solar system colonization. Of course, there is some rather small probability that portable fusion power technology will actually become available. It's a very small possibility based on the history of 60 years of failure in fusion power research despite billions poured into it. Anyway, if that happens our society would first have to overcome the resultant turmoil and economic tsunami that would inevitably ensue. In this unlikely eventuality travel to and establishment of stations on Mars and the asteroids would become more practical. But despite this I think the extremely hostile environments will forever prohibit establishments of actual self-sustaining colonies. We're stuck with the poor old Earth.doubter
June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
PPS: Low energy concrete composite materials https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/how-can-we-make-low-energy-concrete-for-the-moon-or-mars-or-earth/ KFkairosfocus
June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
PS: The FFC-Cambridge metalysis process and derivatives look promising to transform winning of key metals https://uncommondescent.com/moving-civilization-forward/the-ffc-cambridge-metalysis-metal-esp-ti-reduction-process/ KFkairosfocus
June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Folks, the usual route is Sci-Tech, military or strategic, then commercial spinoffs. Computers as an industry went net wealth producing in the 1980's IIRC. It took 40 years. Single stage to orbit and mass rockets look to tame a lot of costs. Ion drives and fusion look to shift the logistics. A cluster of Industrial Civilisation 2.0 technologies that collectively are near von Neumann self replicators, point to transformation on earth too. Similarly, energy breakthroughs look to shift the dynamics of Earth too. KFkairosfocus
June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
It's a long time since I read it. As I remember, he was trying to create a credible scenario for creating large solar-powered rotating habitats - a bit like the Babylon 5 station - in Earth orbit and at Lagrange points near Earth. The interesting part was that he tried to build an economic case for them by suggesting that they could pay for themselves by selling excess electricity to terrestrial grids sent down as a microwave beam. Much as I love 2001, I always wondered how on Earth they would have paid for the giant space-station and Moon-base.Seversky
June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
PS to my post #36, I don't expect our space programs to "pay for themselves" by providing net tangible benefits. Of course there will be spin-offs and perhaps some money to be made here and there, but their most important function is to evoke a sense of wonder and awe, for example in this video showing two boosters landing simultaneously.daveS
June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
Correction: I didn't read the O'Neill book after all. I confused it with something else.daveS
June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
Anyone else read The High Frontier by Gerard K O'Neill?Seversky
June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
KF, I suppose I could see some of these things happening in the extreme long-term, perhaps over hundreds or even thousands of years of incremental development. One problem is that at the moment, we're just repeating feats that were accomplished ~60 years ago. Manned space programs have been boring and lame since the space shuttle era. And it's going to be a while before there is a truly groundbreaking manned mission. Now, if someone pulls off a successful Mars landing and return, at a reasonable price, then perhaps the enthusiasm will return.daveS
June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
BR, it is true that it can be very hard to spot breakthrough opportunities. That's why we should recognise and value entrepreneurs and innovators, also why we need incubators for innovation. In the 1960's the Moon Shot programme threw out spin offs that drive technology to today. After the Moon shot, politics shifted focus and we became locked in for decades. We need to re-learn the value of hard to spot opportunities. KFkairosfocus
June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
KF @6: “it is really amazing how hard it is for us to connect dots.” Yes, it is.jawa
June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT
When thinking of colonization and the inclusion of cost and technology, it is not about what exists currently. Computers were expensive when they first came out. They took up a lot of space and were not capable of doing much. Any talk of personal computers was laughed at. It was believed they would always require too much space and the costs would remain prohibitive to most of the people. The average computer in a watch is more powerful than what was used to get us to the moon. Technological advances have made personal computers commonplace throughout much of the world. What was once impossible has become possible. We are close to a major breakthrough with hydrogen and that will change everything.BobRyan
June 1, 2020
June
06
Jun
1
01
2020
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT
ET, indeed, that is part of the reason to go back to the Moon after nearly fifty years. KFkairosfocus
June 1, 2020
June
06
Jun
1
01
2020
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
I thought the reason for going to the Moon is for a base to launch vehicles even further. That's because we won't need to burn tons of fuel lifting off from the Moon.ET
June 1, 2020
June
06
Jun
1
01
2020
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply