http://www.lunarrepublic.com/news/jo...10292003.shtml
Printable View
ROAD-TRIP!!!!
I don't know about you guys, but I smell an MTV-produced reality show here.
I got three words for ya: free floating sex.
Hehe... so China launching people in space could reactivate the Space Race ? Don't think I could complain about that particular type of war...
Reality show ? After all, that could work. "Watch in real time the astronauts on their way to the Moon. Vote every week which one has to be tossed out of an airlock, and which will be stranded on the Moon".
Mmmh.... it would help to pay the price of the journey after all... :eek: :eek: :eek: ;)
Reality TV and sex...is that what the world has boiled down to...OK sex is good...:D
In regards to returning to the moon, lets actually do something up there other than plant a flag, have a Sunday drive, play a round of golf, take samples, and then leave.
Given the moons 1/16th gravity a few trained individuals could build a permanent structure, seal it off from vacuum, and start a research type station on micro-gravity. A hundred years from now we could have a new Silicone Valley developing useful item for humanity. Another idea, a relay station for trip farther out in to the Solar System, pump and go complete with road munchies and really bad local maps. Any body else seeing this as a good idea.
This message has been removed on request by the
poster
Pheonix you traitor! It was supposed to be SECRET. However, since it no longer is...
<<< NOW HIRING >>>
Joung female sports students (science degree an asset) for colonization project. Only applications with pictures will be considered.
:D
This message has been removed on request by the
poster
Kind of hard to do research on microgravity when you're in a 1/6g environment. (Not 1/16)Quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix
Given the moons 1/16th gravity a few trained individuals could build a permanent structure, seal it off from vacuum, and start a research type station on micro-gravity.
Research in a microgravity environment is what the ISS is being built for.
If Lockheed keeps up their present rate of development and advancement to the C-130, in about twenty years we'll have the C-130Y model, capable of delivering two jeeps and a couple dozen people to the moon and landing on a 2000 foot dirt strip. :rolleyes: :D
Unfortunately, its cruise speed is still 200 knots, so it's a loooong trip. I think I'll stick with the classic 1963 C-130E, at least until they build the C-130Z model which will replace the turboprops with warp nacelles.
Seriously, I'd love for the US, and the rest of the world, to go back to the moon. We're going to have to get off this planet eventually. It won't be long until we run out of room for all the humans on Earth, then we'll have to either spread out or thin our numbers. :( That gets really ugly.
Perhaps if we learn how to terraform the uninhabitable areas on this planet into inhabitable environment, we could put off off-world colonization. I'm sure desolate regions like Ethiopia would love that. It would go a long way to stabilizing that third-world country and be less vulnerable to terrorist infiltration.
Perhaps we could do both ... :)
Anyway, glad to know someone is seriously considering gearing up for the Space Race.
Hmm. Why isn't Brazil participating in the Space Race? All we do is train a few of their people to go on OUR spacecraft using OUR fuel. We didn't charge them rental fees. Geez, get their own!
:p
And to be a Devil's Advocate, how can you convince the US taxpayers to invest billions of $$$ to return to the moon? You're gonna say it is a matter of pride and bragging right?
"Our economy is in a recession, unemployment rate is high, but the good news is we landed on the moon for the first time since the last millenium. What is even better than that, is I save money by switching to GEICO."
:p
Yes!Quote:
Originally posted by Liz Not Beth
Sillicone is the rubber stuff they seal cracks with and make breast-implants from. Sillicon is the suff they make computer chips from.
Now wich one did you really mean? :D
Egri:
Too Bad. Oh and what's a "Joung" female?
Bill:
Typo, and yes. But how big can the ISS get and remain stable vs. building a factory sized object to work with.
Yes typo, but you aren't any better yourself. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix
Yes!
Egri:
Too Bad. Oh and what's a "Joung" female?
Since the ISS is in a stable orbit, gravitation towards earth and centrifugal forces nullify each other. Size or mass don't matter in that respect, so the designers are only restricted by the availability of resources.Quote:
[i]
Bill:
Typo, and yes. But how big can the ISS get and remain stable vs. building a factory sized object to work with. [/B]
I've heard someone say that the ISS is the biggest hindrance on our way to the other planets because just keeping it running consumes a big part of the space program budget.
This would even be worse with a station on the moon. Apart from having to shuttle radiation shielding (led) material to protect the atronauts everything will have to be transported a longer way.
What's even worse is that new space crafts will have to be developed for landing and returning from the moon surface with the ability to carry big loads.
It actually is not. It has to be lifted up on a regular base or would follow her Russian cousin down to Earth.Quote:
Originally posted by Ergi
Yes typo, but you aren't any better yourself. :)
Since the ISS is in a stable orbit,
While I see that it takes a lot of money, I think it is worth the try. First of all the cooperation aspect of this multinational project is a first time in human history ( after all Russians and US working together ), which is essential if we want to "conquer" space without again getting on our throats about its ressources.Quote:
I've heard someone say that the ISS is the biggest hindrance on our way to the other planets because just keeping it running consumes a big part of the space program budget.
Second it provides us with a steady testing range for experiments which are also essential for long-term travels, e.g. to Mars or even beyound. There is technology to be tested, experiments to be made, which you just can by simply using a shuttle, due to its short term missions.
Concerning the budget - if we would stop putting so much money into military projects and put it into space exploration a lot could be helped.
Why would we need to bring lead up the well to Luna? Plenty of free radiation shielding there already. They're called "rocks". :D With solar panels for power, you can bake the regolith to liberate useful things like oxygen, titanium, aluminium & helium-3. Incidently, aluminium dust burns quite well when combined with oxygen. In other words, you've got local fuel for your lunar heavy lifters. A metalic oxide engine won't have the thrust of a more conventionally powered rocket, but they'd only be lifting from .16667g.Quote:
Originally posted by Ergi
I've heard someone say that the ISS is the biggest hindrance on our way to the other planets because just keeping it running consumes a big part of the space program budget.
This would even be worse with a station on the moon. Apart from having to shuttle radiation shielding (led) material to protect the atronauts everything will have to be transported a longer way.
What's even worse is that new space crafts will have to be developed for landing and returning from the moon surface with the ability to carry big loads.
Of course they could use the low-tech solution But I doubt NASA will convince the senate to fund a stone pile or a hole. Besides, building either of them might take a very long time and the environment up there isn't exactly good for your health.Quote:
Originally posted by Cybrludite
Why would we need to bring lead up the well to Luna? Plenty of free radiation shielding there already. They're called "rocks". :D With solar panels for power, you can bake the regolith to liberate useful things like oxygen, titanium, aluminium & helium-3. Incidently, aluminium dust burns quite well when combined with oxygen. In other words, you've got local fuel for your lunar heavy lifters. A metalic oxide engine won't have the thrust of a more conventionally powered rocket, but they'd only be lifting from .16667g.
Evan van Eyk:
There's nothing we disagree on.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_1155103.htm
Looks like china's going fora moon probe shot at this point.
http://www.esmileys.com/mig/albums./...28alien%29.gif
I hope they go for it. It might give our space program a good kick in its complacency.
The Chinese can have the moon.
That would be a BIG mistake.
I think so as well. What do you believe will happen once the Chinese have built a real colony up there, or anything else that could make the other countries pretty envious. The colonization of North America wasn't exactly unbloody.
Or imagine what a country like China would be willing to do for a huge paycheck from a big company. I can already see the biggest Pepsi logo ever moving through the night sky. :D
Why go to the moon again - been there, done that. Has to be Mars next. I'm in thorough agreement with the guy who said:
"If you're going to explore the world outside your home, which is more sensible - go somewhere far away or just walk around the block a few times then head back?"
As for the ISS, the problem there is that the damn thing was originally costed at $8 billion and is currently coming in at $400 billion because NASA have great technical skills but didn't hire accountants. Actually, they DID hire accountants - Arthur Andersen (yep - the Enron guys)...
Add to this the fact that ALL of NASAs policy decisions were based around the ISS - at the expense of other projects, and you begin to get a sense of why it costs so much. Hell, they even had to design new booster rockets to get the shuttle to the right orbit after they brought the Russians aboard - because for the Russians to be involved (a political decision - don't want any former Soviet rocket scientists taking their paycheck from Hussein or Bin Laden...) the station's orbit had to pass over Baikonur Aerodrome. This involves a higher orbit, so the shuttle needs more fuel. The cost of those boosters? $1 million. The tail begins to wag the dog...
As for a lunar colony - go for it, as long as no-one tries anything pathetic like annexing the whole chunk of rock as sovereign territory.
The ISS got caught in a vicious circle, which is mostly the fault of the US Congress.
They were running over budget (to be expected when developing new technologies).
So Congress cut the budget and forced a redesign.
Redesigns themselves cost money. Plus it takes money to figure out ways to cope with decreased resources.
So they went over budget again.
So Congress asked for another redesign.
etc.
etc.
etc.
PLUS the stuff Capt. Hunter is talking about.
P.S. There's a UN treaty that says that no nation may declare any space body as its property, even by landing people on it.
Of course, this treaty was mainly intended as a barrier to US expansion, (as we're the only nation to have succeeded at it so far) and will probably only last as long as it takes for a non-US country to land a manned ship on said body.
Sorry, were you saying other countries wouldn't abide by it, or the USA? (Sarcasm...)
I said others. I meant others. (Although I was not specifically referring to any particular country.) The proof will come with the pudding.
If I were running things, however, I'd abrogate the treaty, and increase funding to space development initiatives. The economic benefits of exploting such resources would be, literally, astronomical.
Meanwhile I could conquer the world with the waste material. Vote my way, or I drop a chunk of rock on you from 500 miles up. :D
If it's occurred to me, then no doubt it's occurred to some bright boy in the Chinese space program. First to bring back an NEA wins the planet.
Thankfully, First, you're not running things.
Like Sarge, I wish the Chinese all the luck in the world. In Washington, space exploration is a political albatross. Speaking out against space exploration is not wise move, politically. There are too many businesses involved in it and the industries are pretty well spread out over the U.S. Besides that, it would appear to be just plain un-American (:eek:). The returns, however, haven't been getting the headlines.
On top of that, after losing two aging shuttles, NASA is a bit gun shy about full-blown manned missions these days.
The Chinese landing on the moon can reverse this. To paraphrase Sarge, it would be a good kick in the pants. A successful Chinese moon-mission would trigger congratulations...sincere congratulations, believe it or not. It would also rekindle our competitive streak. We'll be on our way to Mars.
Deep down inside, though, I want us to reach the stars. All of us.
Now to allay any fear about rocks from space...Mass Drivers are viewed as a viable weapon program only only by people who have a secret underwater base replete with turtleneck wearing thugs driving about the base in golf-carts at excrutiatingly slow speeds.
A meteor is not exactly a precision weapon. You hit a country with a meteor, other countries are going to feel it. That's counting on the fact that you are able to hit the target in the first place. You deal with fall out, disastrous weather changes, and scads of other problems that will not just affect the target country. It will affect your country as well.
I beleive that the Chinese have expansionist tendecies. I also believe that these tendencies are balancedby a modicrum of prgmatism.
"after losing two aging shuttles"
Sorry, Dave, but that's a statement that always bugs me... Columbia was less than a third through her 100-mission service life, and Challenger was lost on her 10th flight, less than three years after she first flew.
Columbia was lost due to negligence (NASA knew there was a problem with insulation hits for years and never bothered to fix it) and Challenger due to active disregard for safety parameters.
I don't know whether the fault lies in the small budget allocated by the US government, or NASA mismanaging the money. I think both are at fault, but I'd rather fix the latter first.
BTW, I'm curious. If a media conglomerate wants to send up a new communications satellite to replace the aging ones, do they pay for the shuttle service out of their own pocket, or do they negotiate on paying the service in exchange for a tax break?
The budget is definitely too small.Quote:
Originally posted by REG
I don't know whether the fault lies in the small budget allocated by the US government, or NASA mismanaging the money. I think both are at fault, but I'd rather fix the latter first.
Huh? NASA hasn't used the shuttle to lauch commercial satellites for a very long time.Quote:
BTW, I'm curious. If a media conglomerate wants to send up a new communications satellite to replace the aging ones, do they pay for the shuttle service out of their own pocket, or do they negotiate on paying the service in exchange for a tax break?
Yet.Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Biggins
Thankfully, First, you're not running things.
"Pragmatism" is another word for "delayed gratification."Quote:
Now to allay any fear about rocks from space...Mass Drivers are viewed as a viable weapon program only only by people who have a secret underwater base replete with turtleneck wearing thugs driving about the base in golf-carts at excrutiatingly slow speeds.
A meteor is not exactly a precision weapon. You hit a country with a meteor, other countries are going to feel it. That's counting on the fact that you are able to hit the target in the first place. You deal with fall out, disastrous weather changes, and scads of other problems that will not just affect the target country. It will affect your country as well.
I beleive that the Chinese have expansionist tendecies. I also believe that these tendencies are balancedby a modicrum of prgmatism.
What you say above is true... IF you're talking about using a rock the size of a mountain.
BUT, you don't take into account that meteors can come in sizes smaller than that.
And perhaps you haven't heard about the project currently being researched by the military, and colorfully referred to as "Rods from God."
This weapon would consist of orbiting platforms stocked with tungsten rods perhaps 20 feet long and one foot in diameter that could be satellite-guided to targets anywhere on Earth within minutes. Accurate within about 25 feet, they would strike at speeds upwards of 12,000 feet per second, enough to destroy even hardened bunkers several stories underground.
No explosives would be needed. The speed and weight of the rods would lend them all the force they need.
This would, of course, be somewhat easier than actually capturing a NEA and towing it back, then breaking it up. Except that with the NEA, there's nothing to launch and you get to keep the spare materials.
And, this spring at the Space Warfare Center at Schriever Air Force Base, a space-based war game set in the year 2017 pitted the U.S. Blue Team against the Chinese Red Team.
Might be interested in
this article , which I find to be a fairly good "armchair" analysis of what could happen.
That's a very bizarre world you livein, First. Very bizarre.
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally posted by Owen E Oulton
"after losing two aging shuttles"
Sorry, Dave, but that's a statement that always bugs me... Columbia was less than a third through her 100-mission service life, and Challenger was lost on her 10th flight, less than three years after she first flew.
Columbia was lost due to negligence (NASA knew there was a problem with insulation hits for years and never bothered to fix it) and Challenger due to active disregard for safety parameters.
Oh, no doubt, no doubt.Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Biggins
That's a very bizarre world you livein, First. Very bizarre.
And yet, it never quite manages to cross over that line of possibility...
This message has been removed on request by the
poster
No, warfare in space is not "illegal." It's simply agreed to, in principle, on paper. There's no force of law behind it, nor was there with the ABM treaty, which was legally and appropriately withdrawn from according to its own conditions.
This message has been removed on request by the
poster
Burger King?
They forgot to take the onions and tomatoes off when I told them to.
They must perish in flame.
Hey! Hey! Hey!
You want to kill some burgers, get the Big Mac.
But leave my Double Whoppers alone!