So, the space program

[ScAvenger001]

All we hear about it these days are expensive fuckups and occasional outright disasters. But there's still a lot of stuff out there to see and do and discover.

What do you think about the space program? Where do we go from here?

[Agent Law]

I think the space program needs to do a lot more exploring and a lot less delivery services. They should spend more time on new propulsion systems (they might be and we just might not be hearing about it) and put more effort towards replacing the 20+ year old space shuttles instead of spending so much money refurbishing them.

[whuh?]

possibly if they do that they should really sit down and plan on going to mars. But of course that will not happen for a little while.

[M123]

I think we should go for a colony on Mars.

[Vulpes Foxnik]

I think we should go for a colony on Mars.
I think we should make a moon base first.

[Krispy Joe]

I think we should make a moon base first.


There's no water on the moon, and not enough gravity. If we are considering long-term exploration and terraforming, Mars would be the best bet, but maybe the moon would be good for a temporary BOE.

[ScAvenger001]

For that matter, there's no air on the moon. Mars at least has some, even if it's super-thin and almost totally CO2. You can get some mileage out of CO2 at least.

[-V-]

Ironically I almost made a thread about this today too, anyhoo:

On propulsion NASA actually has some neat stuff already in the prototype (ie built, they are just making sure it can run indefinatley with no breakdown) phase. One of them is a variable thrust plasma engine. Yes folks, you heard it right, NASA has a prototype Plasma engine. Only problem is power consumption as modern day rocket engines need fairly limmited ammounts of electrical energy, where as this thing needs quite a bit more then can be supplied by solar panels, but nothing a small nuclear reactor, or a large isotope reactor couldn't handle. This thing runs on hydrogen, but looking at the theory of its design, I think its entirley possible to make it run on just any gaseos substance be it O2, Freon, C02, methane, etc. but I'm not a rocket scientist and thats my slightly informed guess.

The other neat propulsion sistem that they already have out and sort of "will be on next Space probe" is an ion engine. Shoots out ionized noble gas and electrons to produce a fairly mild, but very very long term push. If I remember right their test-bed space craft equiped with one of these ran for 10 months of non-stop operationon 1kg of xenon, or some other noble gas.

As for moon and mars colonies: I would definatley say a moon base is a must, as it will provide a staging area to get ready to make leaps farther out into the solar system. The reduced gravity, or heck a space station floating in a La-Grange point to construct in orbit large space-craft is propably a must if we want to send bigger toys out farther.

In the near future, the only form of colonization I can seriosly forsee in the near (see next 30 years) future is asteroid mining. As I remember a typical asteroid has many billions of dollar's worth of varios metal, such as Iron, Nickle, Zinc, etc. in it. So nothing stopping anyone from mapping the orbit of one, then when it gets close, plop down a convinient mining base to mine this stuff, and next time it swings by the earth/moon/whatever, change crews, dump the extracted metals, and off you go again. Come to think of it an Orbital Pleasure station may not be far out of the question either, with the maintinance staff being essentially permanent residents, or space-colonists if you will.

The real hurtle to overcome is to make ferrying stuff up there affordable, but as Burt Ruttan showed the world this spring, that snag is not really a hurdle as more of a curb or a speed-bump.

[ScAvenger001]

The other neat propulsion sistem that they already have out and sort of "will be on next Space probe" is an ion engine. Shoots out ionized noble gas and electrons to produce a fairly mild, but very very long term push. If I remember right their test-bed space craft equiped with one of these ran for 10 months of non-stop operationon 1kg of xenon, or some other noble gas.
I met one of the people working on that. Turns out it's more of a correction thruster than anything. It can go basically forever for really trivial expenditures of energy but it generates a very tiny amount of thrust.

http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/tech/ionpropfaq.html

How fast can DS1 go using ion propulsion and how long will it take for it to reach maximum speed? How does the amount of fuel required by an ion engine compare with the amount required by a chemical engine?
The ultimate speed of a spacecraft using ion thrust depends upon how much propellant it carries; indeed, the same principle applies to chemical propulsion systems, although they are much less efficient. The ion propulsion system on Deep Space 1 carries about 81.5 kilograms of xenon propellant, and it takes about 20 months of thrusting to use it all. It increases the speed of the spacecraft by about 4.5 kilometers per second, or about 10,000 miles per hour. If we had the same amount of chemical propellant, it would provide only one tenth as much velocity increment. If DS1 carried a larger solar array, it certainly would have a slightly higher acceleration, and if it carried more Xe propellant it could reach a much higher final velocity by simply thrusting longer. But DS1 is testing ion propulsion solely to find out if it works as well as predicted. Future missions that use it likely will carry more propellant to achieve still higher speeds.

They've gone out of their way to make that sound like a lot, but do the math. After 20 months of continuous burn, you've got 4.5km/s, or 4500m/s. 4500/m/s/20 months = 225m/s/month=7.5/m/s/day (using 30-day months as a favorable skew) = .3125m/s/hour

After an hour's continuous burn, it's going 31cm/s. If you fall out of your chair, you'll be going an order of magnitude faster than that by the time you hit the floor. For reference, 1g = 9.8m/s/s.

[PopeDragunov]

D: scav just crushed my dreams of a working humongous ion-drive.

[-V-]

Well they are good for when you need to push something a little bit for a LOOOOONG time, but if you want to get something done faster, best stick with gravity slingshot, plasma engines, and chemical rockets.

Like I said: It was a while ago that I read that stuff.

[HarryB]

What ever happend to the solar sail idea?

[Maddog]

Oh there's been a lot going on other than fuck-ups and disasters. Just don't get the media attention as much as those.

Moon and Mars
Video about going back to the moon (http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/explore_main.html)
Earth air discovered on moon (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,16146698%255E663,00.html)
Nasa's outline for the future of the moon and mars (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asec-moon073105,0,3136666.htmlstory?coll=orl-home-promo)
Ice lake discovered on mars (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4727847.stm)
Mars colony outlines (http://www.marshome.org/)
Pictures to be taken of Apollo things left on the moon (http://rednova.com/news/display/?id=171335&source=r_space)

Stars and beyond
Black holes discovered (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050803_blackholes_spitzer.html)
Super nova discovered (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/21/image/a)
Galaxy's arm's revieled (http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn7736)
Planet discovered with 3 suns (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8567313/)
10th planet discovered in our solar system (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050729_new_planet.html)
Recent violent cosmic events (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/07/21/space.catastrophe.reut/index.html)

[Violin]

Just hope there arent any more Challengers or Columbias to happen.

[ScAvenger001]

Oh there's been a lot going on other than fuck-ups and disasters. Just don't get the media attention as much as those.

Hence "all we hear about," yes. Sure, they've got other stuff going on, but we only ever hear about it when it explodes. Discovery is probably the first time the media has paid serious attention to the space shuttle in quite a while, and imo that's more than a little because they're half-hoping it will blow up too.

[-V-]

Well, the space shuttle is, what 20 years old? If not more. Seeing how they managed to function for a good 20 years its not really all that surprising that they are starting to fall appart. Or more correctly that the Duc-tape holding them together is starting to fall appart, the frames are actually fine.

I would say it really is time to replace them with something more up to date, that does more then replace the capsuel on a rocket with a plane in the farse of a totally re-usable vehicle. I say its time for NASA to get some balls back together and build a true space-plane that takes of like a plane and then goes orbital.

As Mr. Ruttan showed, its entirley within our reach, and not really a problem of takeing the first step either. Just a matter of immagination.

[Agent Law]

Space vehicles that take off life an airplane and then fire the chemical engines at high altitudes have been designed. I don't know why they haven't done anything about it, though.

And it sucks that it has to be a disaster or painfully slow day for news channels to report on science, space, and all that.

[BlindSite]

I think the space program will become worth while when we find something new, say a new metal on Mars or some kind of chemical element that can cure cancer or make penises triple in length. SOMETHING that will make up for the immense cost of what seems to have one purpose; just so we can say, been there done that.

[Agent Law]

Well, those could be goals, and we have to go to the places to find it before we... find it. Searching for the magic penile elixer...

[GoatChomper]

Goddammit, can't you idjits ever have a thread without genital references?
What ever happend to the solar sail idea?
Failed to deploy on two attempts now, most recently about two months ago. I was really looking forward to sighting it.
Well, the space shuttle is, what 20 years old? If not more.
Much more.....the current design dates to 1969, which was itself just an outgrowth of the earlier Dyna-Soar and NASA Lifting-Body programs of the same decade.

[Toastar]

but in space you don't slow down, you keep speeding up til you hit something :0

I think the big problem after spending people into space will be the need for exercise and not having their joints or cartilage dispurse or something

[ScAvenger001]

I think the space program will become worth while when we find something new, say a new metal on Mars or some kind of chemical element that can cure cancer or make penises triple in length. SOMETHING that will make up for the immense cost of what seems to have one purpose; just so we can say, been there done that.
How about velcro and disposable diapers? Are those worth anything?

but in space you don't slow down, you keep speeding up til you hit something :0 What's that in reply to?

[BlindSite]

Yes but it needs to keep producing, past success is not justification if that success does not continue.

[Violin]

I personally find this fascinating. But I would like to see more progress towards the space shuttles themselves first before we do anything. So we can ensure the lives of the brave people who undertake these missions.

[Maddog]

Hence "all we hear about," yes. Sure, they've got other stuff going on, but we only ever hear about it when it explodes. Discovery is probably the first time the media has paid serious attention to the space shuttle in quite a while, and imo that's more than a little because they're half-hoping it will blow up too.
exactly. A life or death situation is more interesting to the average viewer and makes the stations ratings go up a lot more than some discovery lightyears away. Which is a shame...

[Hunter-Killer]

Asteroid mining is the way to go ($$$-profit). Perhaps even refining the ore in space.
And trying to develop some sort of artificial gravity should really be a priority too :p

But that's just me :rolleyes:

[knute]

I personally find this fascinating. But I would like to see more progress towards the space shuttles themselves first before we do anything. So we can ensure the lives of the brave people who undertake these missions.

We have to scrap the shuttle program here and now. It'll fuck up the ISS, but it'll be worth it.

The space shuttle was desigend to be a reusable space craft. As it is now, it costs as much or more to prep a shuttle for launch than it would to build and entire disposable Apollo-ish space capsule.

The economics of the shuttle were based on having monthly if not weekly launches. Then the economies of scale would have made a reusable craft make sense. But the funding got cut, and instead NASA could only afford a few launches, which made each individual launch cost more. The whole thing turned into a Catch-22, as NASA couldn't afford to run the shuttle program as it should have been run, and then they cut the funding on shuttle replacement programs in order to afford the shuttle.

For 20 years, the shuttle has been a massive drain on NASA resources, funded at the expense of any other major manned space projects. It's time to dump the shuttle, fire the bureacrats that run NASA and get the space program back into the Kennedy/Johnson (oh it pains me to say those names) era of rapid, lean, and quality development.

[-V-]

Hunter-Killer: On artifical gravity, that's actually the simpler thing to do. You just have a rotating section creating centrifical force, to simulate gravity in everything but the means on how it is generated.

And as I mentioned before Asteroid mining is definatley the way to go. Think about it, a worthless (relativley) peace of space detritus that is an asteroid has billions upon billions of dollars worth of various metals such as iron, copper, zinc, hell who knows what else. Not to mention its not exactly like our solar system is lacking in them either.

HunterKiller: The space plane thing, I guess its more of "lets stick with what we know since the '50's then go with something new that may be better" deal. Well I guess Mr.Ruttan will build one in about 5 years just for the heck of it.

Blidsite: There's still plenty of stuff that is an indirect benifit of the space-program. Remember that these guys are developing pritty advanced stuff that may not have an instant return, but might be usefull 5-10 years down the road. Heck, when asteroid mining, orbital reserch, and zero-g industry becomes prevalent, the money spent on the space program is going to seem like a very small investemnt for huge returns. Not to mention, accept it or not, in a few thousand years were all gona be pritty fucked when the sun gets bigger, or when we get smacked up by an asteroid. As-Is all our eggs are in one basket right now. Here. Not to mention all these technologies aren't exactly the "do it last minute" affair.

[Hunter-Killer]

Hunter-Killer: On artifical gravity, that's actually the simpler thing to do. You just have a rotating section creating centrifical force, to simulate gravity in everything but the means on how it is generated..

Babylon 5 babeh :D

[Agent Law]

On artifical gravity, that's actually the simpler thing to do. You just have a rotating section creating centrifical force, to simulate gravity in everything but the means on how it is generated.

...

Not to mention, accept it or not, in a few thousand years were all gona be pritty fucked when the sun gets bigger, or when we get smacked up by an asteroid. As-Is all our eggs are in one basket right now. Here. Not to mention all these technologies aren't exactly the "do it last minute" affair.
It'd be nice to see something that can generate gravity without the use of circulation motion, but we still need to understand gravity more for that.

Our sun won't balloon up for billions of years. As the asteroid, that can happen at any time since we seem to be only able to detect them after they've passed the earth. :eek:

Space and exploration is important. It's not getting nearly the amount of attention it should have. Too many can't see the big picture and then we bicker over petty differences.

[pro kossu]

I'd put the money into use right here on planet earth. Then when things start looking good down here, I'd start thinking about up there. We have billions of years to get out of here if we play our cards right. :p

[ScAvenger001]

Part of the idea, though, is that the things we find up there will make things better down here that much faster. Also, that's a kind of vicious trap: things will *never* look "good enough" down here. There will always be a school that needs more money, or a natural disaster that requires aid, or a depressed economy that requires propping up until it can recover, or assistance to people who are unemployable through no fault of their own (mental illness, infirmity, etc), or better roads, or a better fire department, or...

[PopeDragunov]

Asteroid mining is the way to go ($$$-profit). Perhaps even refining the ore in space.
And trying to develop some sort of artificial gravity should really be a priority too :p

But that's just me :rolleyes:


Oh MAN youre back!

[Hunter-Killer]

Oh MAN youre back!

MwaHaHaHa! :D

[Toastar]

How about velcro and disposable diapers? Are those worth anything?

What's that in reply to?

velcro isnt worth anything in space because it tends to kill people with theres a lot of O2

and I was replying to the ion drive thing, I left this thread on your post and went to do other stuff and just replied, didnt feel like going back to get the quote

[ScAvenger001]

What? Velcro kills people when there's oxygen around? And all this time I've had velcro on my winter coats, and on my shoes when I was in kindergarten, never knowing it was so dangerous....

[-V-]

Pro_kusso: Well untill we find out the fundamental cause of gravity, we'll be stuck with rotating sections for the foreseeable future. Might not be elegant like all those Sci-Fi ships, but hey, it works, and it works good 'nuff.

Also if anyone is interested in NASA's plasma engine: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/travelinginspace/future_propulsion.html

[Toastar]

err, well "Tests conducted in an Apollo - type chamber since the accident have shown that an oxygen fire in the capsule will spread along the surface of Velcro and along the edges of nylon netting much faster than through the material itself."

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollo204/webb.html

[-V-]

Exept after the Apollo 8(?) disaster no NASA spacecraft has used a 100% oxygen atmosphere again.

[Agent Law]

Pro_kusso: Well untill we find out the fundamental cause of gravity, we'll be stuck with rotating sections for the foreseeable future. Might not be elegant like all those Sci-Fi ships, but hey, it works, and it works good 'nuff.
I think that's in response to me, and I already mentioned the gravity thing. And though it works well, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try for something else.

[ScAvenger001]

err, well "Tests conducted in an Apollo - type chamber since the accident have shown that an oxygen fire in the capsule will spread along the surface of Velcro and along the edges of nylon netting much faster than through the material itself."

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollo204/webb.html
Uh, yeah, that's to say that if your spacecraft is already on fire, the fire will spread more quickly along velcro pads and nylon netting than it will along metal bulkheads. If the velcro itself actually starts a fire, you're using it wrong. Further, it's still used in the spaceshuttle and on modern space suits. Saying it "isn't worth anything" in space is like saying electrical switches aren't worth anything in space because they started the fire to begin with.

-V-: Apollo 1.

[-V-]

Ah, okes, I remember a bit of the general stuff but not the specifics like names.

[Scraps]

Didn't they test some X-plane recently that was carried aloft by a B-52 mothership then lauched into the high atmospher to test Ram-Jet technology?

[-V-]

Yeah, I recall that as well. It was the 2nd one they tested, the first one (if I remember right..) the rocket boosting it to altitude blew up.

[Agent Law]

Yes, and it was SCRamjet tech.

[[Political] Slayer]

I met one of the people working on that. Turns out it's more of a correction thruster than anything. It can go basically forever for really trivial expenditures of energy but it generates a very tiny amount of thrust.

http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/tech/ionpropfaq.html



They've gone out of their way to make that sound like a lot, but do the math. After 20 months of continuous burn, you've got 4.5km/s, or 4500m/s. 4500/m/s/20 months = 225m/s/month=7.5/m/s/day (using 30-day months as a favorable skew) = .3125m/s/hour

After an hour's continuous burn, it's going 31cm/s. If you fall out of your chair, you'll be going an order of magnitude faster than that by the time you hit the floor. For reference, 1g = 9.8m/s/s.


So does this mean no TIE fighters?

[Redoubts]

Space travel isn't really about rapid movement and direction change, so probably not.

[[Political] Slayer]

yeah but space fighters and weapons will probably be needed sometime in the near future.

[Toastar]

for what?

[[Political] Slayer]

killing things in space

[Agent Law]

You think aliens are going to attack, or our space colonies are going to try to secede?

[[Political] Slayer]

you never know...

You know that by near future, I mean like 100 or more years, by then warfare will most likely have spread into outer space. You think 300 years ago they thought warfare would have spread to underwater and air fighting?

[-V-]

Well I think our first objective is to get up there. The Wright Brother's didnt start out building an F22, they built more or less a self-propelled kite.

[Agent Law]

That first objective has been achieved, more or less by attaching firecrackers to metal cans.

[GoatChomper]

Exept after the Apollo 8(?) disaster no NASA spacecraft has used a 100% oxygen atmosphere again.
That was Apollo 1.....Apollo 8 suffered no problems.
I'd put the money into use right here on planet earth. Then when things start looking good down here.....
What do you mean, "start"? We're in a Golden Age never before seen on the planet.

[-V-]

AgentLaw: At the cost at tens if not hundreds of thousnads of dollars per pound put in orbit? We really have barley learned to crawl, in respect to getting up there, were definatley in no shape to start learning how to be a pro-boxer.

Really I would expect to see a bit of the advances in the earth->orbital stage to come from the Private sector, with most space operations thereafter being headed up by pharmaceutical and mining companies with perhaps a sprinkle of heavy industry comming in late.

[Agent Law]

Nonetheless, space has been reached. (Wright Bros. and their "self-propelled kite" as to firecracker tin cans.) However, not much progress has been made on how we reach space. (Propeller to turbine engine.)

Actually, that analogy is confusing because we fail to mention gliders and such.

In my opinion, unless there is a demand for higher speed space travel, the technology will not develop very quickly because companies and industries do not find it a good venture to make money off of.

[Maddog]

speaking of space... here's a website (http://heritage.stsci.edu/gallery/gallery.html) with like 90 of the best hubble images ever, really amazing stuff

[Dave]

how long does it take an asteroid to go one revolution? Where? I dunno, where would be the best spot for mining asteroids? The asteroid belt perhaps?

I'm asking because you're going to need people there mining the stuff and if its going to take 200 years to come back to where they hopped on it just doesn't seem practical to me. But hey, maybe with all these new propulsion systems and what not maybe it won't matter.

Gravity is another thing. I don't know what it would be like on an asteroid, but what is there stopping some miner from flying off the asteroid or having his body crushed from intense gravity?

So many questions, so few answers.

edit: i know nothing of space but thats probably pretty obvious.
Just a little funny space related story.

My highschool physics was telling us a story about another class he had taught. He was telling this class about how there was no oxygen in space so there would be total silence. Apparently this kid couldn't get it through his head that EVEN IF A NUKE went off in space you wouldn't hear it.

[ScAvenger001]

how long does it take an asteroid to go one revolution? Where? I dunno, where would be the best spot for mining asteroids? The asteroid belt perhaps?

I'm asking because you're going to need people there mining the stuff and if its going to take 200 years to come back to where they hopped on it just doesn't seem practical to me. But hey, maybe with all these new propulsion systems and what not maybe it won't matter.

Gravity is another thing. I don't know what it would be like on an asteroid, but what is there stopping some miner from flying off the asteroid or having his body crushed from intense gravity?

So many questions, so few answers.

edit: i know nothing of space but thats probably pretty obvious.
Just a little funny space related story.

My highschool physics was telling us a story about another class he had taught. He was telling this class about how there was no oxygen in space so there would be total silence. Apparently this kid couldn't get it through his head that EVEN IF A NUKE went off in space you wouldn't hear it.
The answer to most of your questions are "depends on the rock." Some may be spinning damned fast, most will have little spin at all. It's safe to say that almost all of them will have negligible gravity and the only thing holding you on will be a tether.

I doubt it'd take 200 years to get there and back, though. You might be thinking of proxima.

[nyarlathotep]

I'd say NASA needs to be less gun shy but that's easy to say from where I sit.

http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/hfalcke/bh/sld1.html

^ One of my favorite sites even though I don't understand 99% of it.

[pro kossu]

What do you mean, "start"? We're in a Golden Age never before seen on the planet.

Wasnt that 50 years ago? :rolleyes:

What I'm saying is, there's more bountiful projects right here. Hell, even particle accelerators can be expected to find a new particle every once in a while, but by sending someone to mars, we'll get rock.

[Dave]

Wasnt that 50 years ago? :rolleyes:

What I'm saying is, there's more bountiful projects right here. Hell, even particle accelerators can be expected to find a new particle every once in a while, but by sending someone to mars, we'll get rock.

And instead of sending someone to mars we can create a new element that's so unstable it won't last longer than a second.

[Dave]

I doubt it'd take 200 years to get there and back, though. You might be thinking of proxima.

Proxima? Anyway, how long would it take an asteroid in the asteroid belt to go once around the sun?

[nyarlathotep]

Centauri...closest sun to ours(approx 4 ly). If we sent an expedition now, it is guaranteed that it will get passed and honked at by a later expedition. Why? Because even as close as centauri is, current propulsion would mean something on the level of a 50,000 year trip and propulsion tech would have advanced well before that time...iirc.

[nyarlathotep]

When you look into it, it gets depressing. We're pretty much holed up in our own little corner for a loooong while. My guess is we die out a lonely species.

The good news is there is plenty of stuff for us to do here. Kick rocks, screw with mars, do lines of moon dust like it's cocain, and set up NORAD to be on 24hr meteor watch...

[knute]

What I'm saying is, there's more bountiful projects right here. Hell, even particle accelerators can be expected to find a new particle every once in a while, but by sending someone to mars, we'll get rock.

That's a rediculous statement. The space program has been the impetus for so many technologies that you use every day, it's not even funny. Smoke detectors, cordless power tools, all kinds of shit in materials science, and on and on. NASA develops it, ocassionally uses it, and then a lot of the time it gets thrown out for the rest of us to use.

[Violin]

i just want a little space colony thingy on some non-earth area.

[[Political] Slayer]

Proxima? Anyway, how long would it take an asteroid in the asteroid belt to go once around the sun?

I'd imagine only a few years at most.

[-V-]

I'd say it depends on the rock your talking about. Some asteroids may frequent the earth once every 10,000 years, others might fly by once every other year.

Also gravity is a function of mass. The earth generates 1g, the moon which is ~1/16th the size of earth generates .2g, Jupiter which is several thousand times the size of eart generates...a whole lot of G's. And like Scav said, an asteroid is propably going to have no appreaciable gravity to it.

On asteroid belt mining: You can always send drones out to the belt to prospect and mine rocks and send the ore back on yet more drone transports, thus not having to bother with the anoyance of having to supply food and atmosphere for those pesky humans.

[Hunter-Killer]

Just like in Homeworld 2 (http://well-of-souls.com/homeworld/hws/hw2/images/display.htm?533091_20030827_screen002.jpg).

[ScAvenger001]

Proxima? Anyway, how long would it take an asteroid in the asteroid belt to go once around the sun?
Proxima is our nearest neighbor, Alpha Centauri C, some 4 light-years and change away. Remember the game Alpha Centauri, based on sending a colony ship from Civilization? Same place.

Unless I'm greatly mistaken, in general orbits depend almost entirely on the distance one is orbiting from. So if you want to find out how long the solar "year" is for a rock in a regular reasonably-circular orbit you can probably get a reasonable estimate based on averaging the local year of the closest two planets (meaning, the one just closer in and the one just farther out), and maybe skew it a little based on which planet it's closest to.

[pro kossu]

That's a rediculous statement. The space program has been the impetus for so many technologies that you use every day, it's not even funny. Smoke detectors, cordless power tools, all kinds of shit in materials science, and on and on. NASA develops it, ocassionally uses it, and then a lot of the time it gets thrown out for the rest of us to use.

They are side products that in no way require space testing. Military research produces tons of civilian applications, yet I dont advocate spending on that area.

I'm as pro science as they come, but I dont see any point in sending a manned mission to Mars. Think about the apollo program. Apart from winning some imaginary space race, the only thing, as far as I'm aware, it in itself produced was some evidence to the theory that moon was born when a meteor hit the earth.

Such programs have a stimulating effect on technology, but only because someone is ready to pour billions into them. I dont doubt that if the money was used in other ways, the results would be as good, if not better.

[knute]

They are side products that in no way require space testing. Military research produces tons of civilian applications, yet I dont advocate spending on that area.

I'm as pro science as they come, but I dont see any point in sending a manned mission to Mars. Think about the apollo program. Apart from winning some imaginary space race, the only thing, as far as I'm aware, it in itself produced was some evidence to the theory that moon was born when a meteor hit the earth.

Such programs have a stimulating effect on technology, but only because someone is ready to pour billions into them. I dont doubt that if the money was used in other ways, the results would be as good, if not better.

The problem is, many of the products would never have been invented were it not for the space program. Few people set out, and fewer people fund, research to improve insulation. The space program gives the researches firm goals. And when they develop technology that helps us go to the moon or whatever, only then do they realize that the technology has tangential applications in the civilian world.

Sure, it may not be the most direct way to improve the human condition, but it motivates people a lot more than researching dung beetles.

[GoatChomper]

Wasnt that 50 years ago?
We're in a continuation of the same period, denier. Your life-expectancy is much more than your grandfather's, and replying to me in writing would have taken him weeks and not less than a second.
What I'm saying is, there's more bountiful projects right here.
What, wait for the dawning of the age of Aquarius before setting foot off the planet? Dream on, just like those putting forth this sentiment were doing four decades ago in opposition to a manned space program.....there will always be underdogs. Their presence is no reason to shun going outward.
Hell, even particle accelerators can be expected to find a new particle every once in a while, but by sending someone to mars, we'll get rock.
We'd also gain expertise in trans-lunar flight.

[ScAvenger001]

And again, there will *always* be more bountiful projects right here. Attempting to complete them all will be Sisyphean.

If we send someone to Mars, we'll get rock. This rock will tell us all sorts of things about the more subtle differences between Mars and Earth, and could very well start answering questions about the history of Mars that made it become what it is, instead of being more like Earth, or more like Venus, and maybe how we could make Mars more like Earth at some point in the future.

[Psyche]

All we hear about it these days are expensive fuckups and occasional outright disasters. But there's still a lot of stuff out there to see and do and discover.

What do you think about the space program? Where do we go from here?


i think the space program needs a revamp, and to do more exploration. i mean if hollywood can come up with some nice looking/good working/have gravity spacecraft, why can't nasa? =p

[Capt. Planet]

i think the space program needs a revamp, and to do more exploration. i mean if hollywood can come up with some nice looking/good working/have gravity spacecraft, why can't nasa? =p
Physics?

-e-Oh, and money. They are on the ass end of the govt. budget, so they can't pay companies ahead of time for R/D (NASA doesn't really... DESIGN much, they are just an Administration) and because these companies aren't getting the money to pay for R/D, it doesn't get done.

Back in the "golden age" or whatever of NASA, they were giving huge grants to companies to develop shite.

[ScAvenger001]

Yeah, I can think of a few things that Hollywood can design but modern science can't. Hollywood has ships that can go faster than light, too, but most physicists will laugh at you if you talk about it seriously.

[pro kossu]

What, wait for the dawning of the age of Aquarius before setting foot off the planet?

Could you stop with them straw men? I'm not talking about some utopia where everything's perfect. We can define what we need to accomplish before setting off to where no man has gone before. Cure for cancer? End of world hunger? Efficient way to produce hydrogen?

Right now, a manned mission to mars is nothing more than a costly romantic distraction with no real benefits. It could be done, but it'd cost billions. Perhaps in another 100 years, or 200, when we're ready and can do it without bleeding to death. There's no rush to get there, Mars is not going anywhere.


Dream on, just like those putting forth this sentiment were doing four decades ago in opposition to a manned space program.....there will always be underdogs. Their presence is no reason to shun going outward.

That is the folly of democracy.


If we send someone to Mars, we'll get rock. This rock will tell us all sorts of things about the more subtle differences between Mars and Earth, and could very well start answering questions about the history of Mars that made it become what it is, instead of being more like Earth, or more like Venus, and maybe how we could make Mars more like Earth at some point in the future.


That could be accomplished with probes and robots.

It seems to me that every time things look dim down here, a President comes along and wants to send people to space. Reagan suggested it. So did Bush Senior. And now Bush jr. Bread and circus eh?

[HarryB]

I was thinking about this, and it's not completely unrelated, but I wonder what NASA thinks about the Chinese's space launches. Maybe they might be feeling some pressure to stay ahead.

[Chris R]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3119

Kinda found it ironic for this to come out since we were talking a little bit about space weapons in here, but it's an interesting read on possible plans for space weapons, in the sense of jamming and disabling other countries satalites.

[vecdran]

All we hear about it these days are expensive fuckups and occasional outright disasters. But there's still a lot of stuff out there to see and do and discover.

What do you think about the space program? Where do we go from here?

Waste of money, need to get their rear in gear and stop being a glorified repair company.

[Psyche]

Yeah, I can think of a few things that Hollywood can design but modern science can't. Hollywood has ships that can go faster than light, too, but most physicists will laugh at you if you talk about it seriously.


i was being sarcastic. but apparently it didn't come through =s. we do need new spaceships though. i think i saw something about a former/current CEO of some major internet corp (i think google) is working on a new way/ship to get to space

[-V-]

Ah, its already been done. Spaceship 1, X-Prize, and Burt Ruttan ring any bells?

Vecdran: Agreed. NASA needs to stop being Joe's Space-Tow truck comany, and start getting things that will let us have colonies on Jupiter's moons, and mines in the Asteroid Belt then spending a bunch of its budget on a space-tow truck.

[vecdran]

I personally think the government should of handed out contracts to private companies long ago. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Burt Rutan have all had designs for spacecraft for a very long time. We aren't going to be getting anywhere in space until competition is introduced. Right now NASA is stagnate, overly cautious, uses old outdated equipment, and are generally worthless. Congratulations, you send up satellites that take pictures of far away galaxies. How about actually working to GET to those galaxies.

[GoatChomper]

Could you stop with them straw men?
Not if you're going to engage in silly mytholigizing, no.
We can define what we need to accomplish before setting off to where no man has gone before. Cure for cancer?
We should hold off manned extra-terrestrial exploration to await a possible cancer cure? The two have zip to do with each other.
End of world hunger?
Ain't gonna happen.
Efficient way to produce hydrogen?
Why, when it can be extracted already? So what if the process hasn't reached an undefined efficiency level.
Right now, a manned mission to mars is nothing more than a costly romantic distraction with no real benefits.
Wrong.....the real benefit would be the expertise gained in getting them there.
It seems to me that every time things look dim down here, a President comes along and wants to send people to space.
Nonsense. Every President since Truman has touted manned space exploration, through times good and bad.

[Hunter-Killer]

The space program isn't a waste of money, what NASA does with it however, is what could be a waste of money. :p

[-V-]

So, much to the media's disappointment, the Space-Shuttle has made it back in 1 peace rather then about 500. Discuss.

[knute]

So, much to the media's disappointment, the Space-Shuttle has made it back in 1 peace rather then about 500. Discuss.

I'm certainly glad they made it back ok. Now I hope they scuttle the program in favor of building something that works. And I hope they go back to the 60's era of "let's build it as fast and as well as possible with no political bullshitting."

Ain't gonna happen.

[GoatChomper]

Now I hope they scuttle the program in favor of building something that works.
Huh? It does work.....it's just been working beyond the intended timeframe.
And I hope they go back to the 60's era of "let's build it as fast and as well as possible with no political bullshitting."
Hah. Hah. Hah. Lesson time.....MISS was all politics:
I, for one, do not intend to go to bed to the light of a Communist moon.

[Medlar]

I think what he meant instead of "politics", was more along the lines of "bureaucracy bullshitting", maybe? Back then, space was COOL. Nowadays, people seem to maintain a more pessemistic attitude about the possibilites in space travel, because they are more grounded by what is actually believed to be possible for NASA. I can remember reading books from the 60s that talked about us establishing moon bases by 1990. :/

[ScAvenger001]

Yeah, and they thought we'd have a manned mission to Jupiter by 2001. Of course, almost every one of them thought the Soviets would still be running their own space program by this point.

[knute]

I think what he meant instead of "politics", was more along the lines of "bureaucracy bullshitting", maybe? Back then, space was COOL. Nowadays, people seem to maintain a more pessemistic attitude about the possibilites in space travel, because they are more grounded by what is actually believed to be possible for NASA. I can remember reading books from the 60s that talked about us establishing moon bases by 1990. :/

Exactly.

So the Shuttle's grounded again, 'cause foam fell off the goddamn tank again, after we spent (pinky to mouth) ONE BILLION DOLLARS to try to keep the foam on the tank. This is exactly why we just need to scrap the Shuttle and start over.

[Medlar]

Yeah, we should use those shuttle-like things that Bruce Willis flies in Armageddon!

What I'd like to see is a space probe mission to Europa, followed by a probe launched into its surface to determine if there is life in its ocean.

The probe landing on Titan was so damned cool, I nearly wet my pants when I saw the first pictures.

[Agent Law]

Those shuttles in Armageddon were cool. They reached the moon in no time. Too bad it's only a Hollywood thing.

[GoatChomper]

.....after we spent (pinky to mouth) ONE BILLION DOLLARS to try to keep the foam on the tank. This is exactly why we just need to scrap the Shuttle and start over.
Or maybe just undo the environmentally-sensitive foam insulation mandated by His Impeachedness William the Prevaricator.....it was after the latter that killer holes started getting knocked in the airframe on liftoff.

[Medlar]

Or maybe just undo the environmentally-sensitive foam insulation mandated by His Impeachedness William the Prevaricator.....it was after the latter that killer holes started getting knocked in the airframe on liftoff.

Are you serious about that? I'd like to see an article on that, or something. I wanna know if Lord Shitbag is responsible for yet more deaths--remember when a few of his minor aides got killed in the airplane crash in Germany, and how he shit on the PILOTS (WHO ALSO DIED IN THAT ACCIDENT) who warned him that they should not be flying in such conditions?

[Medlar]

Yeah, and they thought we'd have a manned mission to Jupiter by 2001. Of course, almost every one of them thought the Soviets would still be running their own space program by this point.

Didn't the Soviets attempt a manned mission to one of Mars' moons?

[-V-]

No. The soviets attempted a mission to the Moon to win the space race, but their rockets kept blowing up.

[Medlar]

No. The soviets attempted a mission to the Moon to win the space race, but their rockets kept blowing up.

Yeah, I remember all the videos about that. I just googled it, looks like there were just plans. :/

[[Political] Slayer]

Are you serious about that? I'd like to see an article on that, or something. I wanna know if Lord Shitbag is responsible for yet more deaths--remember when a few of his minor aides got killed in the airplane crash in Germany, and how he shit on the PILOTS (WHO ALSO DIED IN THAT ACCIDENT) who warned him that they should not be flying in such conditions?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/28/93055.shtml
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=clinton+foam+shuttle+environmentally+friendly&btnG=Search

[Medlar]

Thank you Slayer.

[vecdran]

Ironic. Enviromentally friendly foam when a shuttle launch spews out caustic chemicals.

Assbackwards priorities if you ask me.

[Medlar]

I... DID NOT have... sexual relations with that rocket booster.

[ScAvenger001]

Ironic. Enviromentally friendly foam when a shuttle launch spews out caustic chemicals.

Assbackwards priorities if you ask me.
What caustic chemicals would these be?

[vecdran]

What caustic chemicals would these be?

Oh I don't know, spontaneous combution of various liquid chemicals.

Ok fine, maybe they aren't caustic, but it isn't exactly shitting daisies either.

[-V-]

The solid rockets boosters: No idea, the Exhaust from the space shuttle? H20, and lots of it. I mean really, think about the only thing you get when you combust Hydrogen and Oxygen together.

[knute]

The solid rockets boosters: No idea, the Exhaust from the space shuttle? H20, and lots of it. I mean really, think about the only thing you get when you combust Hydrogen and Oxygen together.

Solid fuel - The major combustion products of potassium chloride and aluminum oxide and relatively innocuous. Potassium chloride is used as a fertilizer and has medicinal uses. Aluminum oxide is an unreactive compound and is used as an abrasive.

12345

[-V-]

Guess the answer is: Its not shitting daisies, but daises will sprout up where it shits!

[ScAvenger001]

Yeah. On the whole, it could really be a lot worse.