- #1
stoned
- 83
- 0
bush said we going to go to the mars, was that just pre election gimmick ? so far they are fixing that flying piece of **** (shuttle) but nothing else is going on.
Sounds like a strange announcement for someone who believes that the Earth is flat, that people weren't meant to fly because they don't have wings, and that the sun shines out of his ass. :grumpy:Andromeda321 said:Bush first announced his whole "go to the moon then Mars" dealie in December 2003
What scares me about that is, if ancient well-understood technology has bought the biscuit that many times, who the hell would risk a new untried one?Ivan Seeking said:the reality is I think is that only a fool would make such a trip using current technologies. There is risk, and then there is risk beyond reason.
I didn't realize that Martians have probles. Is it contageous?Ivan Seeking said:IIRC, approx 2/3 of all martian probles have been lost.
I'm not so sure about that. Satellites and space habitats have far better strategic value, and that's what the cold war was all about. The moon is a great source of materials, but that's about all from a military standpoint.stoned said:it is too bad that cold war has ended, rivalry between usa and ussr would produce Mars mission or at least permanent moon base.
Danger said:What scares me about that is, if ancient well-understood technology has bought the biscuit that many times, who the hell would risk a new untried one?
Am I getting you mixed up with someone else, or did you work on this stuff? Personally, I would think that an orbital launch laser would be more efficient than a ground-based unit. Feed it with solar satellites, and not worry about atmospheric interference. Plus, you could set your orbit so that it's in constant line of sight with the ship. (I'd still just love to see a bloody fusion torch out there, though. )Ivan Seeking said:high energy, Earth based LASER propulsion, and even LASER induced evaporation of films coated on large sails or chutes for propulsion, is now discussed.
Danger said:The moon is a great source of materials, but that's about all from a military standpoint.
I say there, SOS, nice ass! Now that I've seen it, you can go anywhere with me.SOS2008 said:All I can say is if anyone can figure out how to get off this planet in time...can I please go too?
Danger said:Am I getting you mixed up with someone else, or did you work on this stuff?
Personally, I would think that an orbital launch laser would be more efficient than a ground-based unit. Feed it with solar satellites, and not worry about atmospheric interference. Plus, you could set your orbit so that it's in constant line of sight with the ship. (I'd still just love to see a bloody fusion torch out there, though. )
humanino said:After ten minutes or so, he admitted that there was a serious issue here, and that they were still working on this problem.
I should have known that, but I'm still getting used to being back in an intellectual environment. Most of the time in my normal life I have to tweak the conversation like that once in a while because most people don't realize how much they don't know.Ivan Seeking said:Oh yes, by Earth based I only meant that the primary energy source is local to earth, and transmitted to the craft via LASER, X-Ray LASER etc; or more specifically, that the fuel is not carried on the space craft.:
I studied as much as I could about the NERVA series for a book I was writing back in the early 70's. Seemed that the main problem was that they were restricted to 2727 degrees C. or the pile would melt. I'd suspect that new ceramics, nanotube technology, etc. might increase the operating temperature, and therefore specific impulse, significantly. The fusion torch that I was referring to would be basically a Bussard ramjet, but with self-contained hydrogen stores instead of the scoop.Ivan Seeking said:when they tested nuclear powered rocket engines in the 60's, they pretty much self destructed. I don't know what nuclear options may exist here other than in conjunction with ion propulsion, or some other type plasma discharge.
Yup, and a damned fine idea it was. SALT II (I think that was the one) killed it. No nuclear weapons allowed in space, even if they're for peaceful purposes.Ivan Seeking said:Was it The Orion deep space project that suggested that we explode nuclear bombs against a blasting plate, on the back of the ship?
Danger said:Yup, and a damned fine idea it was.
Subtlety is for cowards. Slow and steady doesn't win the race if the other guy is fast and steady.Ivan Seeking said:I agree, I think... , sledge hammer elegance.
I'm loathe to bring her into the conversation yet again, but you could borrow J.Lo's...Ivan Seeking said:I always used to think that nuclear bombs strapped to my butt was a bad thing. Who knew?
Danger said:Seemed that the main problem was that they were restricted to 2727 degrees C. or the pile would melt. I'd suspect that new ceramics, nanotube technology, etc. might increase the operating temperature, and therefore specific impulse, significantly.
I never read about that, but my sources were severely restricted. We didn't have a lot of technical info repositories where I was. I wonder though... they ran the liquid hydrogen in a coil around the nozzle to preheat it and cool the engine. Uneven thermal distortion, maybe...? Or maybe fluid turbulence as the turbopump output had to straighten out before going through the core...?Ivan Seeking said:I don't rememeber why but they fought tremendous vibration problems.
While I am sure that your hopes and dreams of manned space flight are well intentioned they are, in fact completely misplaced.Andromeda321 said:Bush first announced his whole "go to the moon then Mars" dealie in December 2003, then did not even mention it in his 2004 State of the Union address one month later. Really worried me because I think if he was serious then he'd've said something...
Though I still cross my fingers hoping it will happen because I'd like to go. Heck I'll settle for the moon even.
Yeah, some things never change. It's been that way for 20+ years.humanino said:. . . an ESA conference, held in Strasbourg. It was quite a big business, with all the aerodynamics mafia (not just the european one). I mean it was serious. . . . he admitted that there was a serious issue here, and that they were still working on this problem.
There are some good ideas. But there a many more ideas (competing) than opportunities or money.humanino said:Generally speaking, my opinion is that nobody came up with a brillant idea to replace the old designs of propulsion. When one think about it seriously, it is very complicated. One must find a way to greatly improve the acceleration produced, and free the ship for the need of carrying combustible (which is way too stupid to allow for long distance travels)
Too much lag time for remote control/telepresence; AI with the option of going dormant and requesting instructions seems the best way. (I'm thinking some nice new Macs...)Integral said:If there is any work to be done on the lunar or Martian surface it would be much more productive and safer to employ remote control or robotics with AI... I simply do not understand why we should waste money, time and resources putting men into space when there is no real reason to do it.
Andromeda321 said:...they are going to keep sending up astronauts, even though right now they don't really do much of anything a machine can't do. People have a huge emotional component to space and journeying among the stars even if there's no "real" purpose for it. As long as there is interest in space and astronomy people will want to go as far as they can in it.
Andromeda321 said:Integral- I know it, and I am eyeing the private sector carefully, but I've wanted to go to the moon since I was a little kid. Mars I'm willing to let slip past, but old dreams die hard. After all, the moon's right there, covered with tritium, and when fusion gets online...
I also have a VERY hard time believing that the private sector would just stop at low Earth orbit because I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who wants to go to the moon. Simple as that. Plus if NASA remains structured the way it currently is (weather it should be is a different topic) they are going to keep sending up astronauts, even though right now they don't really do much of anything a machine can't do. People have a huge emotional component to space and journeying among the stars even if there's no "real" purpose for it. As long as there is interest in space and astronomy people will want to go as far as they can in it.