darkdestruction420
Well-Known Member
granted, but why send people?
Space Thread!
- Thread starter cannabineer
- Start date
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Imagine running an Apollo program with just remotes. Having people on the ground is an enormous value multiplier in terms of exploration/discovery.
I have nothing in practice against robotic exploration ... it's better to get half the martian loaf than none, for example ... but robots at the current and reasonably foreseeable levels of capability can't do much.
Imo the future belongs to an integrated immediate/remote exploration program. cn
darkdestruction420
Well-Known Member
Our technology for exploring other worlds is evolving quickly and many advances have been made and it is a hot area of active study/research that continues to speed ahead. In another 20 years i doubt their will be just about anything they couldnt do.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I've recently read the books by two mars project scientisis, one for Mars Pathfinder (the little Sojourner rover), one for the Mars Exploration Rovers (Spirit and Opportunity). I was impressed by how hard and complex it was to build/send machines that took months to do what an onsite smart operator cpould have done in minutes.
I'm not belittling these rovers, which were at the state of the art. (We're building a bigger, more capable rover now ... the Mars Scienvce Laboratory rover "Curiosity", the size and weight of a car.) But robotics have a long way to go imo. My estimate to match onsite human capabilities is closer to 200 years. cn
darkdestruction420
Well-Known Member
well, i think you've got a point. we need to keep advancing at a steady rate to reach it in 20 yrs and with the way things are going now and nasa's current budget issues and frequent going way way over budget on projects our progress could slow dramatically.(i think 200yrs is still a pretty high estimate taking that into account however) I mean sure their is still russia and the eu and probably china to keep going forward but they all seem to be struggling lately especially russia who officially "lost" their 2nd probe this year. this one heading for a martian moon and one for mars itself earlier this year, which was considered devastating to them. that and they lost that resupply iss unmanned craft. thats who we are relying on getting us into space........
Jack Harer
Well-Known Member
Richard Branson and the Virgin Group won the C.A.T.S. prize (Cheap Access to Space) and then started on the Virgin Galactic:
http://www.virgin.com/travel/news/video-inside-virgin-galactic-spaceship
Privatization of space is here!!
Also, have you ever launched the Estes rocket kits when you were a kid? Check THIS shit out!!! I was really active in HPR for several years, and still launch from time to time. I was actually on the Discovery Ch. (In the early LDRS series)
www.rocketryonline.com
www.tripoli.org
http://www.virgin.com/travel/news/video-inside-virgin-galactic-spaceship
Privatization of space is here!!
Also, have you ever launched the Estes rocket kits when you were a kid? Check THIS shit out!!! I was really active in HPR for several years, and still launch from time to time. I was actually on the Discovery Ch. (In the early LDRS series)
www.rocketryonline.com
www.tripoli.org
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
In re privatization of space ...
I don't like the Scaled Composites ships at all. Spaceship One was a directed cherrypicking project to claim the X-prize. its two key technologies - the hybrid rocket and the "shuttlecock" reentry-stabilization mode, are not scalable to orbit. Spaceship Two relies on the same tech and can only be used as a premium roller-coaster ride. same for Virgin Galactic.
Maybe I this marks me as a curmudgeon, but "real" space tourism involves ORBIT.
SSTO (single stage to orbit) technologies have clear merit in theory, but nobody's ever built one. Our own Shuttle was originally going to be SSTO, but budget limits plus a hard minimum payload requirement forced a compromise design that proved hideously pricy to operate. I was super stoked in the early 90s when VentureStar was selected for development ... then proportionately bummed when it was chopped. The Japanese (Kanko Maru) had a SSTO project going for a while, but it too got the "ono" (axe).
The British Skylon looks way cool, not least because it uses an air-breathing scramjet that reduces onboard oxidizer load, but the engines are still vaporware.
The most advanced and potentially useful private space hardware is the very traditional Falcon 9/Dragon pairing made by SpaceX.
cn
I don't like the Scaled Composites ships at all. Spaceship One was a directed cherrypicking project to claim the X-prize. its two key technologies - the hybrid rocket and the "shuttlecock" reentry-stabilization mode, are not scalable to orbit. Spaceship Two relies on the same tech and can only be used as a premium roller-coaster ride. same for Virgin Galactic.
Maybe I this marks me as a curmudgeon, but "real" space tourism involves ORBIT.
SSTO (single stage to orbit) technologies have clear merit in theory, but nobody's ever built one. Our own Shuttle was originally going to be SSTO, but budget limits plus a hard minimum payload requirement forced a compromise design that proved hideously pricy to operate. I was super stoked in the early 90s when VentureStar was selected for development ... then proportionately bummed when it was chopped. The Japanese (Kanko Maru) had a SSTO project going for a while, but it too got the "ono" (axe).
The British Skylon looks way cool, not least because it uses an air-breathing scramjet that reduces onboard oxidizer load, but the engines are still vaporware.
The most advanced and potentially useful private space hardware is the very traditional Falcon 9/Dragon pairing made by SpaceX.
cn
I read somewhere that there was a 'new and improved' space shuttle in the works. In Popular Science maybe? I don't remember.
Here's something that has me believing we're going back to the moon sometime soon (or maybe Mars?):
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/SEV.html
http://education.jsc.nasa.gov/explorers/p5.html
Here's something that has me believing we're going back to the moon sometime soon (or maybe Mars?):
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/SEV.html
http://education.jsc.nasa.gov/explorers/p5.html
Doer
Well-Known Member
No moon, if Obama is re-elected. Not against Obama, like how he pops the bad guys, etc, but I think we have secret deal w/China to allow them a breather and become a spacefaring nation. Clinton gave them precision guidance technology to counter
the threat from India, you'll remember. I think the deal is to privatize the moon's resources since that's all that's allowed by current treaty.
The moon is cover in deuterium, the key to non-neutron flux fusion. Neutron flux is
so ablative, it's very hard on it's containment and represent a hard stop on that line
of research so far. The moon is abundant in Helium-3 another good fusion candidate.
Material can be refined and launched from long fast conver belts into earth orbit.
A whole new gang of robber barons. But, at least the nations won't fight, hopefully.
the threat from India, you'll remember. I think the deal is to privatize the moon's resources since that's all that's allowed by current treaty.
The moon is cover in deuterium, the key to non-neutron flux fusion. Neutron flux is
so ablative, it's very hard on it's containment and represent a hard stop on that line
of research so far. The moon is abundant in Helium-3 another good fusion candidate.
Material can be refined and launched from long fast conver belts into earth orbit.
A whole new gang of robber barons. But, at least the nations won't fight, hopefully.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
We have plenty of deuterium here, dirtside, for cheap.
Helium-3 otoh is a viable space resource once we get fusion facilities hot enough to do the <sup>2</sup>H, <sup>3</sup> He reaction. So far the only source of helium-3 is from decay of tritium stocks ... cn
<edit> I can't do superscripts!! Why the
not!?
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Superscript one Alt + 0185We have plenty of deuterium here, dirtside, for cheap.
Helium-3 otoh is a viable space resource once we get fusion facilities hot enough to do the <sup>2</sup>H, <sup>3</sup> He reaction. So far the only source of helium-3 is from decay of tritium stocks ... cn
<edit> I can't do superscripts!! Why the
Superscript two Alt + 253 Alt + 0178
Superscript three Alt + 0179
Superscript lowercase n Alt + 252 Alt + 8319
S¹
s²
s³
sⁿ
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Because the D,D reaction produces hot neutrons ... cn
test ²H
Thanks mindphuk!! cn
<edit> The D,D fuel cycle has a tritium-formation intermediate step ...
²H + ²H→ ³H+ ¹H [or] → ³He+ n
so it's really a D,T fuel cycle with an extra step. (The second arrow reaction has about the same probability as the first arrowed reaction.) You get neutrons of 2.45MeV from the ³He formation step, and then the familiar toasty 14.1-MeV neutron from burning tritium with deuterium. cn
test ²H
Thanks mindphuk!! cn
<edit> The D,D fuel cycle has a tritium-formation intermediate step ...
²H + ²H→ ³H+ ¹H [or] → ³He+ n
so it's really a D,T fuel cycle with an extra step. (The second arrow reaction has about the same probability as the first arrowed reaction.) You get neutrons of 2.45MeV from the ³He formation step, and then the familiar toasty 14.1-MeV neutron from burning tritium with deuterium. cn
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The deuterium/ ³He reaction is "aneutronic" ... no pesky neutrons.
Apollo 17 brought back some lunar soil that contained a fair bit of helium-3 embedded in glassy beads. This leads most to believe that the regolith can be mined for practical amounts of helium-3.
The problem is that the deuterium-helium reaction runs hot - hotter than D,D and definitely hotter than D,T. We need to demontrate getting and keeping the cooler reactions ignited before we can get all excited about helium-3 as an industrial-scale energy source. cn
Apollo 17 brought back some lunar soil that contained a fair bit of helium-3 embedded in glassy beads. This leads most to believe that the regolith can be mined for practical amounts of helium-3.
The problem is that the deuterium-helium reaction runs hot - hotter than D,D and definitely hotter than D,T. We need to demontrate getting and keeping the cooler reactions ignited before we can get all excited about helium-3 as an industrial-scale energy source. cn
^NoR*CaL@420
Well-Known Member
awsome thread cn,
i think they have relized that its too expensive to send ppl out there, unless acheap disposable robot cant do the job.
we just need to find a new more efficient way to travel, cuz rockets is so 1900's lol and once that is found, we need not waste our time with our solar system, or even the closest ones. i believe the next trips up and out are going to carry way more people for a much longer term, if at all. imo we are running out of reasons to come back at all.
i think they have relized that its too expensive to send ppl out there, unless acheap disposable robot cant do the job.
we just need to find a new more efficient way to travel, cuz rockets is so 1900's lol and once that is found, we need not waste our time with our solar system, or even the closest ones. i believe the next trips up and out are going to carry way more people for a much longer term, if at all. imo we are running out of reasons to come back at all.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Norcal, I imagine that once humanity has a way to travel among planets and even stars ... we'll stop being interested in planets except as nature preserves. All the raw materials we need for living and making stuff are available in the asteroid and Kuiper belts! No need, none, zip-a-rino, to climb down into the gravitational "holes" ... except maybe to go joyriding in the "game preserves". cn
researchkitty
Well-Known Member
You would probably launch each payload from a small rocket and slowly let it glide back to a receiver on Earth to be transported down somehow............ You wouldnt put it in a ship and turn on the engine, that'd be a lot of fuel for a little helium! 
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
From the lunar surface, a linear accelerator makes good sense ... lotsa solar power, and no reaction mass. cnYou would probably launch each payload from a small rocket and slowly let it glide back to a receiver on Earth to be transported down somehow............ You wouldnt put it in a ship and turn on the engine, that'd be a lot of fuel for a little helium!