[QUOTE=RedAssAg05;183114]Take that you Soviet Commie bastards! The Free World OWNS the moon. muahahaha![/QUOTE]
Free world? I though USA was on the moon, and since USA is [url=http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-21-2009/the-stockholm-syndrome-pt--1]becoming[/url] [url=http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-22-2009/the-stockholm-syndrome-pt--2]Sweden[/url], I guess that means that Sweden will own the moon.. :)
I was trying to not be an arrogant American pig and claim all the glory for the US...many of the engineers/scientists involved in getting us to the moon did come from Germany, after all:)
and I figure, why can't a technological success be shared by all mankind, regardless of their involvement?
I agree with the developer of [URL="http://news.quelsolaar.com/#post52"]Love[/URL] in that we lost our spark to get things done. We can totally be back to the moon in 5 years. For some reason we can't get anything done anymore. To be honest I think private companies should start getting involved in competition with the government in returning to the moon.
I don't think we've lost our spark, but rather advanced in areas other than long distance transport devices. Had you asked an engineer at NASA in 1969 where things would be in the year 2000, he would have greatly overstated how far we'd travel and greatly understate the level of technology we'd have available. Matter of fact, one of the examples in the blog, supersonic air travel, was not lack of inspiration, but an example of one technology (internet) displacing the need for another (high speed travel).
I do like the suggestion by one of the commenter’s concerning the role of private enterprise in space travel. Take an estimate of total cost to establish a colony on the ____ (insert Moon, Mars, geosynchronous orbit etc), cut it in half and offer that amount as a prize to the first private entity to do so. Besides encouraging speed and efficiency you’d get a compound effect in the area of technology, as multiple companies develop different solutions. This multiplies one of the most significant benefits of a space program, technology that can be used to solve problems on terra firma.
Honestly, I think these singular goals of going to the moon/mars/wherever are a big waste if we don’t undertake the effort to develop the space-born infrastructure in the process. Things such as space elevator, orbital construction facilities and off-world development of raw materials will be critical to mankind’s long term existence in space.
A concept where they reuse parts from the space shuttle program:
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOnlAUpYWoc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOnlAUpYWoc[/URL]
[QUOTE=Stingray;183145]
No, I don't think that's such a good idea, besides plain rockets work just fine.[/QUOTE]
Isn't there a better way to reach orbit than simple* multistage rockets. Designing fuel-landen rocket is a bit like a designing catapult with the requirement that the catapult also be part of the projectile. I know this is a question asked all the time and that there are thousands of people, each a hundred times smarter than me working on it and they've yet to come up with a pratical answer.
That said it seems the systems we used today to access space are the single biggest limitation to expanding humanity's footprint off-world.
Jake
*This is not to imply rockets are simple, but that the concept is straight forward.
Well, as soon as these morons realize that what we need is a propulsion system that moves [I]space[/I] instead of the [I]ship,[/I] We'll be off to the races!
[QUOTE=Freejack;183305][snip] there are thousands of people, each a hundred times smarter than me working on it and they've yet to come up with a practical answer.[/QUOTE]
You are right about that and it's best explained in this episode of [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC2qlnTS7hQ"]The Universe.[/URL]
What I meant was that it looks like we've taken rocket technology as far as it can go. What we need is focus on implementing daring new ideas. Virgin Galactic is trying the White Knight approach with a plane carrying a rocket-propelled spaceship into the upper atmosphere and launch people further out from there. While it is a somewhat unconventional method and a commendable effort, I'm not sure this is the simplest and most reliable way to go about it. The more systems you have the greater the chances are something will go horribly wrong.
Until we have warp drives we'll have to find something to span the gap in between. A "fleet" of space elevator satellites could ensure permanent access to the Earth's orbit and make space much more accessible and space travel more affordable. Oddly enough, what seems to be keeping us back is still the cost of sending stuff into space, not technology.
I don't see this changing in my lifetime if we as nations keep playing those international political games and mess with each other about natural resources and economic supremacy.
In the end, as the professor from City University in the video stated, it's about COST, the current cost of $10,000 per lb of payload is the biggest barrier to getting off terra firma.
Now on the other hand, once we are free of Earths bonds, the biggest limitation we'll face is ourselves, or more precisely, our frail human bodies. Water and oxygen will be costly to come by (though not impossible). Of course radiation may be a problem, but the single biggest limitation to large scale space travel will be our inability to withstand significant acceleration for extended periods. There will come a day soon enough when we have the power to push vessels anywhere/any distance we want to go, but we will never be able to do it any faster than 9.8 m/s² (1 G) for any extend period of time. When you talk about the distances to be covered, just in our solar system alone, that is a long time traveling.
"Inertial dampeners" is I believe what they call it in Star Trek, to enable the crew to travel at much higher acceleration.
You should watch the entire episode, there are people researching even faster means of travel. The large hadron collider is probably involved in one way or another to find those still theoretical [I]tachyon[/I] particles.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE=Freejack;183305]Isn't there a better way to reach orbit than simple* multistage rockets.[/QUOTE]
Oh, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator]there[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop]are[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_ring]plenty[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain]of[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_gun]methods[/url]. The problem is, none of them are practical at the moment. This doesn't mean they are not feasible. With a concerted effort, most of them are probably quite doable. But for now, our best bet is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_Engines_SABRE]improved rocket-based designs[/url].
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE=Freejack;183311]There will come a day soon enough when we have the power to push vessels anywhere/any distance we want to go, but we will never be able to do it any faster than 9.8 m/s² (1 G) for any extend period of time. When you talk about the distances to be covered, just in our solar system alone, that is a long time traveling.[/QUOTE]
The problem with acceleration is that fuel is needed to do it, and the more fuel you have the more mass to the ship, so the more fuel needed to keep that acceleration, and so on
[QUOTE=croxis;183322]The problem with acceleration is that fuel is needed to do it, and the more fuel you have the more mass to the ship, so the more fuel needed to keep that acceleration, and so on[/QUOTE]
That's Star Wars physics. :D
I didn't know though that 90% of the launch weight of the Saturn V was fuel.
I like the concept of splitting the cargo. Sending the astronauts up in a separate vehicle seems to be a wiser choice. The Saturn V launch system crammed everything in one vehicle and made it more dangerous than it had to be.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
It was, however, the best solution at the time, given how risky in-space rendezvous and dockings were back then. It was best to keep the number of rendezvous to a minimum for simplicity.
As far as I can tell, the new constellation system does not require any docking in space. The astronauts will launch from Earth and fly directly to the moon. The cargo rockets will be sent to the moon beforehand so all the astronauts will have to do, once they get there, is put the pieces together. At least that's the plan. :D
Just in case some of you plan to drive around on the moon, there's a [URL="http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/lrvhand.html"]manual for the lunar rover.[/URL]
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
There is a rendezvous and docking in LEO between the crew capsule and the Earth Departure Stage, which consists of the lunar lander and a booster for translunar injection. There will obviously also be a rendezvous and docking in lunar orbit on the way home. In the lunar case, one craft will be potentially unmanned.
Comments
Free world? I though USA was on the moon, and since USA is [url=http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-21-2009/the-stockholm-syndrome-pt--1]becoming[/url] [url=http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-22-2009/the-stockholm-syndrome-pt--2]Sweden[/url], I guess that means that Sweden will own the moon.. :)
and I figure, why can't a technological success be shared by all mankind, regardless of their involvement?
I do like the suggestion by one of the commenter’s concerning the role of private enterprise in space travel. Take an estimate of total cost to establish a colony on the ____ (insert Moon, Mars, geosynchronous orbit etc), cut it in half and offer that amount as a prize to the first private entity to do so. Besides encouraging speed and efficiency you’d get a compound effect in the area of technology, as multiple companies develop different solutions. This multiplies one of the most significant benefits of a space program, technology that can be used to solve problems on terra firma.
Honestly, I think these singular goals of going to the moon/mars/wherever are a big waste if we don’t undertake the effort to develop the space-born infrastructure in the process. Things such as space elevator, orbital construction facilities and off-world development of raw materials will be critical to mankind’s long term existence in space.
Jake
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOnlAUpYWoc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOnlAUpYWoc[/URL]
Imagine they did this for everything else? We'd still be using these...
[IMG]http://www.ixibo.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/first-wireless-phonemotorola-dynatac-8000x.jpg[/IMG]
No, I don't think that's such a good idea, besides plain rockets work just fine.
I think this is what really happened:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAONkS06LFU[/url]
:laugh:
No, I don't think that's such a good idea, besides plain rockets work just fine.[/QUOTE]
Isn't there a better way to reach orbit than simple* multistage rockets. Designing fuel-landen rocket is a bit like a designing catapult with the requirement that the catapult also be part of the projectile. I know this is a question asked all the time and that there are thousands of people, each a hundred times smarter than me working on it and they've yet to come up with a pratical answer.
That said it seems the systems we used today to access space are the single biggest limitation to expanding humanity's footprint off-world.
Jake
*This is not to imply rockets are simple, but that the concept is straight forward.
You are right about that and it's best explained in this episode of [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC2qlnTS7hQ"]The Universe.[/URL]
What I meant was that it looks like we've taken rocket technology as far as it can go. What we need is focus on implementing daring new ideas. Virgin Galactic is trying the White Knight approach with a plane carrying a rocket-propelled spaceship into the upper atmosphere and launch people further out from there. While it is a somewhat unconventional method and a commendable effort, I'm not sure this is the simplest and most reliable way to go about it. The more systems you have the greater the chances are something will go horribly wrong.
Until we have warp drives we'll have to find something to span the gap in between. A "fleet" of space elevator satellites could ensure permanent access to the Earth's orbit and make space much more accessible and space travel more affordable. Oddly enough, what seems to be keeping us back is still the cost of sending stuff into space, not technology.
I don't see this changing in my lifetime if we as nations keep playing those international political games and mess with each other about natural resources and economic supremacy.
Now on the other hand, once we are free of Earths bonds, the biggest limitation we'll face is ourselves, or more precisely, our frail human bodies. Water and oxygen will be costly to come by (though not impossible). Of course radiation may be a problem, but the single biggest limitation to large scale space travel will be our inability to withstand significant acceleration for extended periods. There will come a day soon enough when we have the power to push vessels anywhere/any distance we want to go, but we will never be able to do it any faster than 9.8 m/s² (1 G) for any extend period of time. When you talk about the distances to be covered, just in our solar system alone, that is a long time traveling.
Jake
You should watch the entire episode, there are people researching even faster means of travel. The large hadron collider is probably involved in one way or another to find those still theoretical [I]tachyon[/I] particles.
Oh, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator]there[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop]are[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_ring]plenty[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain]of[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_gun]methods[/url]. The problem is, none of them are practical at the moment. This doesn't mean they are not feasible. With a concerted effort, most of them are probably quite doable. But for now, our best bet is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_Engines_SABRE]improved rocket-based designs[/url].
Yeah, 4.6 days to Jupiter is so long.
That's Star Wars physics. :D
I didn't know though that 90% of the launch weight of the Saturn V was fuel.
I like the concept of splitting the cargo. Sending the astronauts up in a separate vehicle seems to be a wiser choice. The Saturn V launch system crammed everything in one vehicle and made it more dangerous than it had to be.
[IMG]http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo8/A08_MplanFS.gif[/IMG]
I'll have to check out the new configuration in greater detail to see what the true benefits are.
Just in case some of you plan to drive around on the moon, there's a [URL="http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/lrvhand.html"]manual for the lunar rover.[/URL]
I guess this is still about keeping rocket scientists [I]technocrats[/I] employed. :rolleyes:
How disappointing, maybe I should just switch off while I'm ahead then. :(