More space news!

**Gnaskar** · Jan 31st, '12, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by SteveZilla

Can you expand on your usage of the term "military" in the above statement? Afaik, no vessel or non-research emplacement has ever had a railgun/mass driver installed that could be used to throw stuff at someone else in a targetable way.

I was thinking more on the lines of what eventually became EMALS. Basically an electromagnetic railway with an open end used to save fuel on launch (the older variants launched missiles rather than planes, and have never been particularly far spreed), rather than the traditional gun.

Though, as it turns out, the Yugoslavian EDO-0 was the first actual gun type railgun in 1985, so I wasn't that far off in any case.

And by military I mean working prototype, not necessarily a full military deployment. We're still waiting on the first railgun battle-cruiser.
(And on that note, I'm off to GURPS vehicles to stat up one of those to pit against a Gerald R. Ford Class carrier. Hm, it would have to shoot accurately over the horizon, so some kind of satellite integration system would be needed. Also, lots of anti air and anti missile capacity. And it has to be able to outrun a carrier fleet, and avoid the outlying subs. )

**megaplayboy** · Jan 31st, '12, 06:47 AM

Most naval surface search radars have a range limit of around 50-60 miles. A threat-level railgun could easily exceed that range, although it would be dependent on satellite intelligence the same way the target naval group would be in defending against it. I dunno what the actual velocity of the round would be...I assume somewhere between Mach 6 and Mach 12(1 to 2 miles per second). That would be too fast and too small to detect or intercept readily, and would punch through a hull and do substantial damage.

**tkdguy** · Feb 1st, '12, 08:40 PM

NASA Probe Discovers Matter From Beyond Our Solar System

**tkdguy** · Feb 7th, '12, 12:41 AM

Russia's Space Woes Stress NASA's Need For Private Spaceships

**SteveZilla** · Feb 7th, '12, 01:42 AM

Originally Posted by tkdguy

Russia's Space Woes Stress NASA's Need For Private Spaceships

The recent delay of the next manned launch to the International Space Station due to a damaged Russian space capsule highlights NASA's critical need for commercially built vehicles, space policy experts say.

I may be wrong, but that seems like an example of 'Beggin the Question'.

**Christopher** · Feb 14th, '12, 02:15 AM

It almost got past me. I had to search to even find the english source, but I finally mananged:
Nasa Considers Deep Space station above the Dark Side of the Moon

(Note: EML propably means Earth/Moon Lagrange Point 2, at least according to the german interpretation of the same report)

The NASA Lunar Science Institute reports that a team of space experts has been working with Lockheed Martin to assess the possibility of a deep space moon outpost at EML-2. The LUNAR center is contemplating the possibility of human missions to EML-2, which would allow scientists to plan future missions to deep space and to conduct exciting news research projects. In a LUNAR center white paper, which was provided to Space.com, space experts contend that astronauts would travel 15 percent farther from Earth in an EML-2 mission than the Apollo astronauts did. The astronauts would also be in deep space three times longer than the Apollo astronauts were.
According to Space.com, Mr. Gerstenmaier’s memo contained six strategic principles for deep space exploration. Some of the strategic principles suggest that NASA is looking outside of its own budget in order to fund such a costly project.
One of the strategic principles highlighted by NASA is the use of International Space Station partnerships to make an EML-2 mission possible. The memo also suggests that NASA can reduce costs by utilizing the private sector. Furthermore, the memo illustrates the need to build infrastructure that can be both reused and re-purposed for other deep space adventures.
An EML-2 mission would give scientists the ability to answer a number of important questions about deep space exploration. For example, what kind of radiation would deep space astronauts be exposed to on the far side of the moon?
“This is extremely exciting from both the exploration and science sides,” Jack Burns, director of Lunar University Network for Astrophysics Research, posited to Space.com. “This mission concept seems to be really taking off now because it is unique and offers the prospects of doing something significant outside of low-Earth orbit within this decade,” Mr. Burns added.

Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articl...#ixzz1mLzOrBKe

**McCoy** · Feb 14th, '12, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher

It almost got past me. I had to search to even find the english source, but I finally mananged:
Nasa Considers Deep Space station above the Dark Side of the Moon

(Note: EML propably means Earth/Moon Lagrange Point 2, at least according to the german interpretation of the same report)

[/COLOR][/LEFT]

First, Kewl!

Second, if we are putting something at L-2, we have to put at least an automated relay station at L-4 or L-5.

**Cancer** · Feb 14th, '12, 07:00 AM

I think it'll be easier and perhaps better to put a set of relay satellites in LLO (Low Lunar Orbit) rather than L4/L5, assuming you have your primary work station at L2.

Something which has slowly come to be realized is that the L4/L5 points are stable ... which means they accumulate trash. There's a lot of debris which librates around -- and through -- the stable Lagrange points. It's almost like a backwater where trash is going to accumulate (and it'll collide with whatever you put there).

A relay satellite at L4/L5 also would double the communications lag time to the station, simply because the distance Earth <--> L4/L5 <--> L2 is fixed at slightly more than twice the Earth-Moon separation, so you're talking 2.5 second one-way lag time rather 1.25 seconds for that set of LLO relays. That may not matter, but then again it might. It'd certainly be much more annoying for voice communications.

**Christopher** · Feb 14th, '12, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by McCoy

First, Kewl!

Second, if we are putting something at L-2, we have to put at least an automated relay station at L-4 or L-5.

Are you certain? I mean L2 is pretty far out, we have a lot of sattelites we can put into outer earth orbit and afaik the moon has no radio-disrupting layers of atmosphere and no relevant magnetic field.

**Old Man** · Feb 14th, '12, 06:03 PM

This is good news, though tempered by the cuts to Mars exploration in the proposed budget. I'm not surprised given the political/economic situation, but it still sucks. I mean, we recently found evidence for flowing water on Mars. I'm anxious to see if that can be confirmed.

As for L2, I wonder if all that's needed is a relay station with a tall antenna at one of the lunar poles.

**IndianaJoe3** · Feb 14th, '12, 06:05 PM

The problem is that L2 is on the Lunar far side, directly opposite Earth. You can't transmit through the Moon.

**megaplayboy** · Feb 14th, '12, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by Old Man

This is good news, though tempered by the cuts to Mars exploration in the proposed budget. I'm not surprised given the political/economic situation, but it still sucks. I mean, we recently found evidence for flowing water on Mars. I'm anxious to see if that can be confirmed.

As for L2, I wonder if all that's needed is a relay station with a tall antenna at one of the lunar poles.

Maybe NASA can do a Kickstarter for a manned Mars mission. Those game-makers got over a million. I figure if they have the right incentive levels, and they hold it open for 10-20 years, they can get it done.