DusterBoy Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Re: More space news! Hope it goes well' date=' but this is kind of the opposite of KISS.[/quote'] That was what I thought when I read through all that. "This looks awfully complicated". But obviously, I'm hoping that all goes smoothly and that Mr Murphy's Martian cousin doesn't stick his oar in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Re: More space news! For a long long time, Earthlings were running a sub-.500 success rate at Mars. We've been riding a hot streak for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZilla Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Re: More space news! Funny! The Curiosity's wheel(s) contain Morse Code to leave a message on the martian surface. [ATTACH=CONFIG]41415[/ATTACH] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCoy Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 "He promised them the moon!" Newt Gingrich promises Moon base by 2020 Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich promised Wednesday to build a base on the moon by the end of his second term in 2020, according to the Washington Post. Speaking to a Cocoa, Florida crowd near Cape Canaveral, home of the Kennedy Space Center and the discontinued space shuttle program, Gingrich also responded to criticism from opponent Mitt Romney, who has charged that the former House speaker is prone to “zany” and “grandiose” ideas. "The Wright Brothers standing at Kitty Hawk were grandiose. John F. Kennedy was grandiose," Gingrich said, according to the Washington Post. "I accept the charge that I am grandiose and that Americans are instinctively grandiose." NPR reported that the shuttering of the shuttle program caused a “loss of jobs on the Space Coast and a lack of well defined mission for NASA.” Recent polls have shown than Gingrich's initial poll jump after his South Carolina victory has dimmed, and projections now place him neck and neck with Mitt Romney. Romney, who hoped to take South Carolina, has gone on the attack in order to reverse Newt’s gains in Florida, which has a winner-take-all primary. The 50 delegates at stake are more then Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina combined. Nate Silver of the New York Times said of his model that suggests Gingrich has a 60 percent chance of taking Florida: “I suspect the model is being too conservative and that there is enough evidence — when you look carefully at the day-to-day results — to conclude that Mr. Romney has re-emerged as the slight favorite in Florida instead.” The Post reported that Gingrich gave no details of how his plan would be enacted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnaskar Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 Re: More space news! Don't asume anything like "Space borne laser" or "Railgun" is going to be built anytime soon. Simple political reasosn: If you can put it into Mars/Asteroid Orbit' date=' you can put it into earth orbit. Any project/solution that could be reseonably weaponized is out of the question, just to prevent us from starting a space arms race. We rather keep our "Mutual Assured Destruction" with nuclear weapons.[/quote'] A) We've had military railguns since the 1980s. By "railgun" I in this case mean what is technically called an electromagnetic launch assist device or a mass driver; a tool to put stuff into Earth capture orbit from deep space without having to lug out fuel for it. It is no more a weaponizable system than any other system capable of putting tons of payload into earth orbit is. I meant simpler things. A little gravity might slow bone deterioation. Having a "down" helps a lot when moving stuff (even if the pull is weak). This is why I prefer an old stand by: Artificial gravity. Set up a rotation crew capsule and you can easily have Martian gravity, or earth gravity with a bit of effort. As for moving things, it's generally easier to move things around when you don't have to compensate for other forces like friction gravity (at least when dealing with solids and gasses. Liquids are different, but that's why we have artificial gravity). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCoy Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 Re: More space news! A) We've had military railguns since the 1980s. By "railgun" I in this case mean what is technically called an electromagnetic launch assist device or a mass driver; a tool to put stuff into Earth capture orbit from deep space without having to lug out fuel for it. It is no more a weaponizable system than any other system capable of putting tons of payload into earth orbit is. "It is no more a weaponizable system than any other system capable of, with sufficient prep time, allowing you to call down the equivalent of a small asteroid strike on a fixed location is." Not reassuring. We'll throw rocks at them -- Mycroft Holmes I'm still waiting for the other way around, a ground based rail gun /mass driver /catapult that lets us throw bulk cargo to LEO. Cancer says the air resistance is an insurmountable problem. I'm not so sure. In this Command we do not have problems, we have opportunities. -- Curtis LeMay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZilla Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 Re: More space news! "It is no more a weaponizable system than any other system capable of, with sufficient prep time, allowing you to call down the equivalent of a small asteroid strike on a fixed location is." Not reassuring. I had the same thought. I'm still waiting for the other way around' date=' a ground based rail gun /mass driver /catapult that lets us throw bulk cargo to LEO. Cancer says the air resistance is an insurmountable problem. I'm not so sure.[/quote'] I am in agreement with Cancer. The best chance of a pure mass driver to be workable for LEO would be literally up the side of a very tall mountain. The higher you can get the muzzle, the less air you have to blast though. And blast is meant literally. Without any propulsive force continuing to come from the projectile, it has to leave the muzzle with a huge velocity, well over what it's final LEO orbital velocity will be. This means you have to devote a (imo) sizable chunk of the projectile weight to heat shielding or it could literally burn up on the way up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 Re: More space news! What do you mean "almost?" Aerobraking, parachutes, and rockets all have problems, so let's use all three? How on Mars did they not include a balloon? The "variable thrust mono propellant hydrazine rocket thrusters" sounds like they're steerable. Must be some pretty robust software to control that. Hope it goes well, but this is kind of the opposite of KISS. Rube Goldberg would have employed at least one live dog or cat in the mechanism. That (and only that) is why I said "almost". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Carman Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 Re: More space news! ... The best chance of a pure mass driver to be workable for LEO would be literally up the side of a very tall mountain... Hawaii. It even has a geothermal power source to power the catapult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCoy Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 Re: More space news! Rube Goldberg would have employed at least one live dog or cat in the mechanism. That (and only that) is why I said "almost". I stand corrected. I almost said "canary" instead of "balloon." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCoy Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 Re: More space news! I am in agreement with Cancer. The best chance of a pure mass driver to be workable for LEO would be literally up the side of a very tall mountain. The higher you can get the muzzle' date=' the less air you have to blast though. And blast is meant literally. Without any propulsive force continuing to come from the projectile, it has to leave the muzzle with a huge velocity, well over what it's final LEO orbital velocity will be. This means you have to devote a (imo) sizable chunk of the projectile weight to heat shielding or it could literally burn up on the way up.[/quote'] You're probably right, and if I had to bet it would be with you and Cancer. But I'm not yet convinced that there is not still a chance we've overlooked something. Mass driver launched ram jet? Doubtful the mechanism could take the G forces. Powerful laser beam ionizing the are along the flight path? Probably not. Shaping the progectile to minimize air resistance, and coating it with something several orders of magnitude slipperyer than Teflon? Good start, not enough by itself. Something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZilla Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 Re: More space news! Rube Goldberg would have employed at least one live dog or cat in the mechanism. That (and only that) is why I said "almost". Ooo! Ooo! We could have done that, and gone one better! Employ a Schrödinger cat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZilla Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 Re: More space news! You're probably right' date=' and if I had to bet it would be with you and Cancer. But I'm not yet convinced that there is not still a chance we've overlooked something. Mass driver launched ram jet? Doubtful the mechanism could take the G forces. Powerful laser beam ionizing the are along the flight path? Probably not. Shaping the projectile to minimize air resistance, and coating it with something several orders of magnitude slipperyer than Teflon? Good start, not enough by itself. [i']Something.[/i] A hybrid mass driver/ramjet (or other projectile-provided propulsion) imo raises the feasibility. A ground-based power source (like a Laser), being used to add the energy to the projectile continuously is a better alternative for "fragile, G-sensitive" loads like electronics & people. A space elevator of some sort (not sure what the propulsive force is that raises the elevator up the cable) is also good, but while we have right now big, continuous-duty lasers (usually gas lasers, I think), we don't yet have the tech for a ~23,000 mile cable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 Re: More space news! Hawaii. It even has a geothermal power source to power the catapult. A good choice for engineering reasons, including the low latitude. Although there'd only be 20 miles for acceleration unless you build part of the launcher in the ocean. A less good choice for local-politics reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 Re: More space news! 3D Cloaking: http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/first-3d-cloaking-effect-demonstrated.php?ref=fpnewsfeed What if the solution to the Fermi Paradox is that aliens travel around in ships so thoroughly cloaked that even their energy emissions are cloaked, and transmit communications signals using tech we haven't even theorized yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCoy Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 Re: More space news! Nasa recruiting new astronauts for International Space Station Nasa? Not NASA? Nasa has become a proper noun? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCoy Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 Re: More space news! A hybrid mass driver/ramjet (or other projectile-provided propulsion) imo raises the feasibility. A ground-based power source (like a Laser)' date=' being used to add the energy to the projectile continuously is a better alternative for "fragile, G-sensitive" loads like electronics & people.[/quote'] Yeah, railgun won't be practicle for "fragile, G-sensitive." But if we can make it work more economically than a Saturn V could use it for bulk cargo, say several tons of liquid hydrogen or MRE's. A space elevator of some sort (not sure what the propulsive force is that raises the elevator up the cable) is also good' date=' but while we have right now big, continuous-duty lasers (usually gas lasers, I think), we don't yet have the tech for a ~23,000 mile cable.[/quote'] The ideal situation in a space elevator would be like cable cars, the car coming down transfers energy to the car going up. Yes, when we are able to build one that will be the best way to reach Clarke orbit and beyond, but at our current level of engineering I think we're closer to the railgun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barwickian Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 Re: More space news! Nasa recruiting new astronauts for International Space Station Nasa? Not NASA? Nasa has become a proper noun? Style issue. Many newspapers (my own included) now use upper case for acronyms that are spelt out when spoken (such as USA or UK) and Upper/lower for acronyms that are spoken as words in their own right (such as Nasa and Nato). And yes, I suspect that eventually they will become proper nouns. Not there yet, but they're heading that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmower Boy Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 Re: More space news! Say what you will about Newt Gingrich,* he sure does get the conversation going. Foreign Policy on why there's no point in going back to the Moon. And on a less serious note... *No, seriously. Do. It's sure to be hilarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdguy Posted January 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 Re: More space news! Nasa recruiting new astronauts for International Space Station Nasa? Not NASA? Nasa has become a proper noun? I actually applied in 2008. As you can tell, I didn't make it. I considered re-applying this year, but considering my vision and hearing problems are enough to disqualify me, why go through a lengthy application process (all government applications are tedious and repetitive from my experience) just to be declined again? In other news: Blue Marble 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCoy Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 Re: More space news! I actually applied in 2008. As you can tell, I didn't make it. I considered re-applying this year, but considering my vision and hearing problems are enough to disqualify me, why go through a lengthy application process (all government applications are tedious and repetitive from my experience) just to be declined again? In other news: Blue Marble 2012 I applied a lot longer ago than that. Didn't make it past the first physical. Hay fever. Yep, having a pollen allergy is a DQ for a job that involves breathing highly filtered air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZilla Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 Re: More space news! The ideal situation in a space elevator would be like cable cars' date=' the car coming down transfers energy to the car going up.[/quote'] That sounds good on paper, but at best it would only offset the energy cost of raising the "shared" weight -- any extra in the upgoing car (like satellite/ship parts/consumables) would still need an energy input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 Re: More space news! That sounds good on paper' date=' but at best it would only offset the energy cost of raising the "shared" weight -- any extra in the upgoing car (like satellite/ship parts/consumables) would still need an energy input.[/quote'] Yes, but ultimately it's the same reason real elevators have counterweights. If your motor can raise 500 pounds, with no counterweight your max load is 500 pounds; with a 500-pound counterweight your max load is 1000 pounds. Your total round-trip energy expenditure is still the same--two 500 pound trips--but you got to pull up a single 1000-pound useful payload. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmjalund Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 Re: More space news! so load it down with ore from mining asteroids Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdguy Posted January 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 Re: More space news! Cold Plasma Discovered High Above Earth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.