From: JAY DUGGER (duggerj1@charter.net)
Date: Fri Feb 28 2003 - 07:17:39 MST
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 21:25:19 -0000
<cryofan@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
>Yeah, I totally agree:
>
>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.03/view.html?pg=2
This misses two important points.
One, exploration and development of space and of the
oceans do not make an either/or choice. Humanity can
perfectly well do both.
Two, "space" matters more than oceans for one simple
reason. The oceans form a subset of local planetary
development. "Space" makes up _everything_ else. Simply
put, we have more "space" than we have oceans. Lots, lots,
lots more.
As an aside, the oft-repeated statement that the oceans
are a more hazardous environment than space vague and
wrong and silly. At best, parts of the oceans are more
hazardous than parts of space.
Compare the first few feet underwater off the beach at
Waikiki with the first few feet outside the airlock of the
ISS in broad daylight. Humans can't breathe either place,
but the similarity ends there. Think about the ionizing
radiation, pressure, and temperature at each spot. Let's
ignore for the moment effects of gravity, electrical
environment, and non-ionizing radiation.
Put in a single sentence, submarines must hold atmosphere
and withstand high external pressure while spacecraft must
hold atmosphere, withstand low external pressure and high
internal pressure, bear heavy ionizing radiation, manage
simultaneous extremes of heat and cold, compensate for or
withstand variable gravity and high acceleration loads,
manage charging of surfaces from the photoelectric effect,
etc.
Jay Dugger
I really should be working, but this gets my goat.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 28 2003 - 07:21:52 MST