Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Space is the New West.

Page 2 of 3 [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Mar 2012, 2:35 am

Joker wrote:
Living in space would be nice If jupiter was a planet that people could live on I would soo live their.


You could not handle the gravity.

ruveyn



Stargazer43
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,604

22 Mar 2012, 3:31 am

I agree! It actually kind of saddens me that it's been 50-something years since we developed space travel, but since then it hasn't really progressed all that much. Sure we've launched a ton of satellites and probes all over the place, but we haven't really expanded out at all. The international space station is our only real human presence in space, and that just kind of floats above the earth. Heck it's been ~40 years since we've even been to the moon! I remember in kindergarten my teacher told us that by the time we were all adults, we would have the technology to terraform mars and would have already begun colonizing it...looks like we've still got a few years to go though lol (I think in some ways we do have the knowledge and technology for it, but it would take a huge amount of resources that I doubt anyone's going to be proposing that any time soon). I did read in the news recently though that a company is developing plans for a space elevator by around 2025 (if I remember correctly), so that's pretty exciting!

I guess that I just have an explorer mindset, and really the only two places left for us to explore are the bottoms of the ocean and space. So I say let's get to it, and start exploring the both of them!

Also I apologize for rambling a bit in my post lol, I just re-read it and realized I jumped around a bit. I guess it's just a topic that really gets me excited!



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Mar 2012, 10:36 am

ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:

At that time the value of a dollar was a lot greater also, but even so - if Oregon Trail is any source of information - it would be quite a bit more than just pocket change needed to get everything necessary for overland wagon travel. But even so, I'm hoping that perhaps SpaceX might adopt the Mars Society's idea of the "Transorbital Railroad" which might have the potential of reducing the cost of launches tremendously. Once underway, the cost of buying a scheduled launch could even be down to $25,000 or so. It would be worth saving for, buying a house and selling it when the time is right (if it ever is, that is, which I hope it may be sooner rather than later.) A coordinated colonization effort would be the best route though, shipping everything that's not alive first - supplies, equipment, tools, etc - and then sending out the colonists after the reliability of the rockets and vehicles is more established.


If there is any off world site that will be inhabited first it will be the Moon. 1. The Moon is close enough to be supported from Earth. 2. The Moon has practical uses. Possibly as a source of Helium 3 and certainly as the place to build the best telescopes ever. No atmosphere, great seeing and enough gravity to make it possible for humans to live in a healthy fashion. And it takes only three days to get there! With a trip to Mars count on 18 months with the current burn and coast technology. An 18 month trip will leave the crew debilitated and weak. Mars is a bad choice. The Moon is the place to exploit first until we finally get decent propulsion technology.

ruveyn


The 18 month travel time would be an opposition class orbital transfer. A conjunction class transfer would be eight months and not eighteen. Also, as Zubrin had already proposed, the final booster stage could remain attached to the personnel module and thrusters fired so as to allow them to rotate about an axis between the two masses, providing centrifugal force in replacement to gravity. Notice here starting at time reference 4:30 onward for about a minute:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd4yVwK1NkA[/youtube]



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Mar 2012, 10:38 am

Stargazer43 wrote:
I agree! It actually kind of saddens me that it's been 50-something years since we developed space travel, but since then it hasn't really progressed all that much. Sure we've launched a ton of satellites and probes all over the place, but we haven't really expanded out at all. The international space station is our only real human presence in space, and that just kind of floats above the earth. Heck it's been ~40 years since we've even been to the moon! I remember in kindergarten my teacher told us that by the time we were all adults, we would have the technology to terraform mars and would have already begun colonizing it...looks like we've still got a few years to go though lol (I think in some ways we do have the knowledge and technology for it, but it would take a huge amount of resources that I doubt anyone's going to be proposing that any time soon). I did read in the news recently though that a company is developing plans for a space elevator by around 2025 (if I remember correctly), so that's pretty exciting!

I guess that I just have an explorer mindset, and really the only two places left for us to explore are the bottoms of the ocean and space. So I say let's get to it, and start exploring the both of them!

Also I apologize for rambling a bit in my post lol, I just re-read it and realized I jumped around a bit. I guess it's just a topic that really gets me excited!


Until we finally start doing what we already can do, nothing is going to be done. But if we ever do finally get around to doing what can already be done, it will be amazing to see. The problem isn't technological or even economical, it's a matter of procrastination.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Mar 2012, 10:45 am

Stargazer43 wrote:
I agree! It actually kind of saddens me that it's been 50-something years since we developed space travel, but since then it hasn't really progressed all that much. Sure we've launched a ton of satellites and probes all over the place, but we haven't really expanded out at all. The international space station is our only real human presence in space, and that just kind of floats above the earth. Heck it's been ~40 years since we've even been to the moon! I remember in kindergarten my teacher told us that by the time we were all adults, we would have the technology to terraform mars and would have already begun colonizing it...looks like we've still got a few years to go though lol (I think in some ways we do have the knowledge and technology for it, but it would take a huge amount of resources that I doubt anyone's going to be proposing that any time soon). I did read in the news recently though that a company is developing plans for a space elevator by around 2025 (if I remember correctly), so that's pretty exciting!



The space programs that have gotten the most support and have been the most successful are those with practical uses. Space telescopes and communication satellites. Adventures to Barsoom have a low payoff. Perhaps when we get half way decent propulsion systems (we do not have them yet) we can explore the Cosmos. Not now. Our vehicles are too crude and the cost is too high.

ruveyn



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Mar 2012, 10:54 am

ruveyn wrote:
Stargazer43 wrote:
I agree! It actually kind of saddens me that it's been 50-something years since we developed space travel, but since then it hasn't really progressed all that much. Sure we've launched a ton of satellites and probes all over the place, but we haven't really expanded out at all. The international space station is our only real human presence in space, and that just kind of floats above the earth. Heck it's been ~40 years since we've even been to the moon! I remember in kindergarten my teacher told us that by the time we were all adults, we would have the technology to terraform mars and would have already begun colonizing it...looks like we've still got a few years to go though lol (I think in some ways we do have the knowledge and technology for it, but it would take a huge amount of resources that I doubt anyone's going to be proposing that any time soon). I did read in the news recently though that a company is developing plans for a space elevator by around 2025 (if I remember correctly), so that's pretty exciting!



The space programs that have gotten the most support and have been the most successful are those with practical uses. Space telescopes and communication satellites. Adventures to Barsoom have a low payoff. Perhaps when we get half way decent propulsion systems (we do not have them yet) we can explore the Cosmos. Not now. Our vehicles are too crude and the cost is too high.

ruveyn


Let NASA handle that stuff if they ever will do anymore than they already have, but the private space agencies can actually see about making the destinations that people care about accessible. We don't need warp drives or even ion drives to get to Mars, we need to use what we have had for decades and just haven't used properly. The issues of replacing gravity with centrifugal acceleration and using supplies and waste for radiation protection during a solar flare have already been dealt with back in 1989 by Robert Zubrin. The amount of cosmic radiation received in the 6 to 8 months of travel time (depending on the type of conjunction class transfer used) is equivalent to that received by people aboard the International Space Station during the duration of their stay in orbit in which they are also not protected from cosmic radiation. On Mars, they can use sandbags and dirt to add extra protection for their habitats and reduce the risks even further.



enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

22 Mar 2012, 11:25 am

Stargazer43 wrote:
I agree! It actually kind of saddens me that it's been 50-something years since we developed space travel, but since then it hasn't really progressed all that much. Sure we've launched a ton of satellites and probes all over the place, but we haven't really expanded out at all. The international space station is our only real human presence in space, and that just kind of floats above the earth. Heck it's been ~40 years since we've even been to the moon! I remember in kindergarten my teacher told us that by the time we were all adults, we would have the technology to terraform mars and would have already begun colonizing it...looks like we've still got a few years to go though lol (I think in some ways we do have the knowledge and technology for it, but it would take a huge amount of resources that I doubt anyone's going to be proposing that any time soon). I did read in the news recently though that a company is developing plans for a space elevator by around 2025 (if I remember correctly), so that's pretty exciting!

I guess that I just have an explorer mindset, and really the only two places left for us to explore are the bottoms of the ocean and space. So I say let's get to it, and start exploring the both of them!

Also I apologize for rambling a bit in my post lol, I just re-read it and realized I jumped around a bit. I guess it's just a topic that really gets me excited!

That is because it is extremely costly and almost entirely useless.

As for the space elevator, I don't know where you got that information, but the concept is so impractical I am very sceptical.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

22 Mar 2012, 11:27 am

The space program might be able to do a Mars mission on a budget not that different from today. It will just take a long time to develop all the parts and systems. We spend ~9 billion on manned spaceflight, rain or shine. The problem is that the exploration program is starting from scratch post-shuttle and has to also bear the cost of ISS through the early 2020s, at least.

There is some talk today of first visiting one of the moons of Mars. That's much easier and cheaper. Getting down to the surface of Mars (and up again) with a large lander will be expensive. Best case for a moon of Mars visit is the 2030s. But that's a mission, not colonization.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Mar 2012, 11:32 am

Lord_Gareth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Not religious pluralism did the Pilgrims leave due to, but religious persecution. In the years previous, the Catholic church had attempted the slaughter of "heretics" already, at the start of the 17th century was the 30 Years War in which the Catholic Hapsburgs were attempting to stamp our Protestantism in Germany and Austria. In England, people like Bloody Mary did some fairly crappy things also. Then there's the Anglican version of the Catholic church which treated other Protestants just about as badly as regular continental Catholics did. They left not due to there being more than one branch of Christianity, but because of the insanity of dealing with this crazy situation.


Oooh, you had it going so well until you forgot a really important part. See, the Puritans (may they burn in their own Hell forever for being the crazy bastards they were) left England after causing a crapload of trouble and strife (including burning down the Globe theater - TWICE) but they didn't immediately go to the United States. They took sanctuary with the Dutch, and then left not because the Dutch were being persecuted, but because the Dutch enforced freedom of religion and the Puritans (may they burn. In. HELL) couldn't stand it.


FACTS:

*Year the Globe Theatre was burned by Parlimentarians = 1644
*Year the Puritans arrived in the New World = 1621



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Mar 2012, 11:38 am

simon_says wrote:
The space program might be able to do a Mars mission on a budget not that different from today. It will just take a long time to develop all the parts and systems. We spend ~9 billion on manned spaceflight, rain or shine. The problem is that the exploration program is starting from scratch post-shuttle and has to also bear the cost of ISS through the early 2020s, at least.

There is some talk today of first visiting one of the moons of Mars. That's much easier and cheaper. Getting down to the surface of Mars (and up again) with a large lander will be expensive. Best case for a moon of Mars visit is the 2030s. But that's a mission, not colonization.


The Obama plan is going to be scrubbed most likely anyway. The end of term for him is either this year or four years from now, and even if the intermediate presidents don't throw away the Obama space plan of doing as little as possible and taking the most time as possible and using NASA as a laboratory and jobs program, it still stinks. Mars Direct is a superior plan and it could be done with private financing through private space agencies. While the government here sits around absorbing funding and doing the least possible with it, a lot could be done for far less and hopefully will be. So much could have been done already, and yet so incredibly little has instead and it is depressing especially when such inactivity and procrastination feeds the naysayers who would have been saying that heavier than air flight is impossible if they lived before it.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

22 Mar 2012, 12:00 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
simon_says wrote:
The space program might be able to do a Mars mission on a budget not that different from today. It will just take a long time to develop all the parts and systems. We spend ~9 billion on manned spaceflight, rain or shine. The problem is that the exploration program is starting from scratch post-shuttle and has to also bear the cost of ISS through the early 2020s, at least.

There is some talk today of first visiting one of the moons of Mars. That's much easier and cheaper. Getting down to the surface of Mars (and up again) with a large lander will be expensive. Best case for a moon of Mars visit is the 2030s. But that's a mission, not colonization.


The Obama plan is going to be scrubbed most likely anyway. The end of term for him is either this year or four years from now, and even if the intermediate presidents don't throw away the Obama space plan of doing as little as possible and taking the most time as possible and using NASA as a laboratory and jobs program, it still stinks. Mars Direct is a superior plan and it could be done with private financing through private space agencies. While the government here sits around absorbing funding and doing the least possible with it, a lot could be done for far less and hopefully will be. So much could have been done already, and yet so incredibly little has instead and it is depressing especially when such inactivity and procrastination feeds the naysayers who would have been saying that heavier than air flight is impossible if they lived before it.


I know you don't like Obama but you need to try to stick to facts. His entire term (next year or 2017) will be spent building the new large rocket and capsule mandated by Congress. Almost no money is being spent on tech development, as he wanted. The SLS rocket will not be ready for Mars missions until the 2030s. It will have no upper stage until then. To do it faster will require more money. And that's just the rocket. This is reality.

I don't see any private corporation willing to go to Mars privately. Elon Musk can help enable NASA but he won't fund an expedition himself.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Mar 2012, 12:13 pm

simon_says wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
simon_says wrote:
The space program might be able to do a Mars mission on a budget not that different from today. It will just take a long time to develop all the parts and systems. We spend ~9 billion on manned spaceflight, rain or shine. The problem is that the exploration program is starting from scratch post-shuttle and has to also bear the cost of ISS through the early 2020s, at least.

There is some talk today of first visiting one of the moons of Mars. That's much easier and cheaper. Getting down to the surface of Mars (and up again) with a large lander will be expensive. Best case for a moon of Mars visit is the 2030s. But that's a mission, not colonization.


The Obama plan is going to be scrubbed most likely anyway. The end of term for him is either this year or four years from now, and even if the intermediate presidents don't throw away the Obama space plan of doing as little as possible and taking the most time as possible and using NASA as a laboratory and jobs program, it still stinks. Mars Direct is a superior plan and it could be done with private financing through private space agencies. While the government here sits around absorbing funding and doing the least possible with it, a lot could be done for far less and hopefully will be. So much could have been done already, and yet so incredibly little has instead and it is depressing especially when such inactivity and procrastination feeds the naysayers who would have been saying that heavier than air flight is impossible if they lived before it.


I know you don't like Obama but you need to try to stick to facts. His entire term (next year or 2017) will be spent building the new large rocket and capsule mandated by Congress. Almost no money is being spent on tech development, as he wanted. The SLS rocket will not be ready for Mars missions until the 2030s. It will have no upper stage until then. To do it faster will require more money. And that's just the rocket. This is reality.

I don't see any private corporation willing to go to Mars privately. Elon Musk can help enable NASA but he won't fund an expedition himself.


It's a politician mandated design that's been selected to produce the most jobs for the most amount of time, which is not how rockets or other vehicles should be built if they actually cared to really use the vehicle instead of just using NASA in place of having people dig ditches and then refill them with the same dirt they dug out of them. If space was the goal, rather than just taking up time with makework, then it should have been a simpler design that's more easily built. Heck, if they'd just rebuild the Saturn V rockets that would be great, then they wouldn't even have to do as much testing. Mass produce those and get Ruveyn the moon base which could have been build even back in the 1960's if congress had approved of von Braun's Project Horizon which was developed in the 1950's.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

22 Mar 2012, 12:29 pm

Yes, it's pork. The entire space program is based around pork. If you don't give key congressmen something for their district, they won't vote for it or advocate for it. There is a reason that they build rockets in Alabama and Louisiana, boosters in Utah, build space probes in California, develop space tech in Ohio, launch them all from Florida and monitor the flights from Texas. That won't change.

They looked at building a new Saturn V with kerosine based engines. It's a more efficient launcher. But it would have still cost an enormous amount of money to redevelop and it upset too many political apple carts. Either way, the budget is still the budget. NASA gets half a penny on the dollar and half of that is for manned flight. Unless and until it gets a penny on the dollar, things will be very slow.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Mar 2012, 12:36 pm

simon_says wrote:
Yes, it's pork. The entire space program is based around pork. If you don't give key congressmen something for their district, they won't vote for it or advocate for it. There is a reason that they build rockets in Alabama and Louisiana, boosters in Utah, build space probes in California, develop space tech in Ohio, launch them all from Florida and monitor the flights from Texas. That won't change.

They looked at building a new Saturn V with kerosine based engines. It's a more efficient launcher. But it would have still cost an enormous amount of money to redevelop and it upset too many political apple carts. Either way, the budget is still the budget. NASA gets half a penny on the dollar and half of that is for manned flight. Unless and until it gets a penny on the dollar, things will be very slow.


Well, this method of space bureaucracy needs to be tossed out the airlock. It's too slow for anything to ever be done and it's just plain a dumb way to do things. It should be that the goal is space, not everyone's district getting a benefit of some sort. NASA wastes too much time doing too little since the end of the Apollo program, so it needs to be thrown away.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

22 Mar 2012, 12:53 pm

ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:

At that time the value of a dollar was a lot greater also, but even so - if Oregon Trail is any source of information - it would be quite a bit more than just pocket change needed to get everything necessary for overland wagon travel. But even so, I'm hoping that perhaps SpaceX might adopt the Mars Society's idea of the "Transorbital Railroad" which might have the potential of reducing the cost of launches tremendously. Once underway, the cost of buying a scheduled launch could even be down to $25,000 or so. It would be worth saving for, buying a house and selling it when the time is right (if it ever is, that is, which I hope it may be sooner rather than later.) A coordinated colonization effort would be the best route though, shipping everything that's not alive first - supplies, equipment, tools, etc - and then sending out the colonists after the reliability of the rockets and vehicles is more established.


If there is any off world site that will be inhabited first it will be the Moon. 1. The Moon is close enough to be supported from Earth. 2. The Moon has practical uses. Possibly as a source of Helium 3 and certainly as the place to build the best telescopes ever. No atmosphere, great seeing and enough gravity to make it possible for humans to live in a healthy fashion. And it takes only three days to get there! With a trip to Mars count on 18 months with the current burn and coast technology. An 18 month trip will leave the crew debilitated and weak. Mars is a bad choice. The Moon is the place to exploit first until we finally get decent propulsion technology.

ruveyn

then again not even nasa is planning to use a burn and coast method, they will use ion the Vasimr thrusters, i dont know if it has been launched but it is scheduled to launch to the ISS already, way beyond pure research.

i heard they could make it in 39 days, not unheard of, nor is 18 months for that matter but space is a much harsher enviroment, simulated gravity would be a must, further increasing costs.
an added bonus is th vast magnetic field projected by the vasimr engines, especially considering the scale of manned missions.

further more the newest space tug from the company behind vasimr is due to be launched in 2014.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

22 Mar 2012, 12:56 pm

VASIMR for 39 day trips requires a power source that doesnt exist. A space based nuclear reactor that turns out enormous power at a low weight. It's a cool engine, we just won't be seeing fast travel any time soon. Six months trips at best.

NASA has not yet used VASIMR in a design reference mission. They've used chemical and NTR rockest.