NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush, some weeks ago, told that the US will start a new space program that includes a permanent base on the Moon and possibily landing on Mars.

What do you think?

Will it ever be really done?
Is it a good idea or is it a waste of money?
Can the US make it alone or international effort is better?
Will it be used for scientifical purposes only? Or also for industry? Or for military uses?

I think it can certainly be done, but with the huge amount of wasteage that already happens with tax dollars, do you americans really want to have to pay the huge price for this sort of thing?

I think it can certainly be done, but with the huge amount of wasteage that already happens with tax dollars, do you americans really want to have to pay the huge price for this sort of thing?

We could do so, but it would obviously be better to get the ESA and the Cosmodrome involved. Especially with the Mars end of the project (putting a base on the moon won't be that hard, or even all that expensive - it's off-the-shelf technology now).

What we really need to do is adjust the International Space Treaty so that it's possible to make a profit from space exploitation (right now, that's pretty much impossible). That will bring private monies into the picture, and until that happens we won't see any real breakthroughs on cost and functionality.

Considering the maximum speed ever achieved by a manned spacecraft and the minimum distance between Earth and Mars... well who on Earth would willing spend 3 months of their lives on a crampt outward trip to Mars?

It's time for the human race to enter the solar system!

It's time for the human race to enter the solar system!Bush quote?

Bush quote?
Dan Quayle.

I think it can certainly be done, but with the huge amount of wasteage that already happens with tax dollars, do you americans really want to have to pay the huge price for this sort of thing?

Better than the $250,000,000 being spent daily in a certain Middle Eastern "country" I could name. Just as long as Halliburton isn't given a no-bid contract to build the base.

Bush, some weeks ago,

years

told that the US will start a new space program that includes a permanent base on the Moon and possibily landing on Mars.

only for it to lately be quietly dismissed after it was calculated to cost hundreds of billions and the crew on such mission being rendered a gooey liquid by high energy photons (?)

What do you think?

lets work on colonising Earth orbit first

Will it ever be really done?

As long as we make it that long

Is it a good idea or is it a waste of money?

Waste of money to go to Mars right now though automated mining of the Moon for hydrogen 3 is a good idea

Can the US make it alone or international effort is better?

International effort is better but I see no reason why the US can’t be anti-social

Will it be used for scientifical purposes only? Or also for industry? Or for military uses?

It will have to be for industry and commercial interest if it can have a future

I think it can certainly be done, but with the huge amount of wasteage that already happens with tax dollars, do you americans really want to have to pay the huge price for this sort of thing?

Sure.

We just stop wasting the dollars on unauthorized social programs. That would free up a butt-load of funds.

The US is wasting 40 billion on the new F-35 Lightning.

Why couldnt he use the same, or even more, on space exploration.

40 billion for a fucking place that will last for 10 years at its top. The F-22 costed billions, took 10 years to get ready and its already outdated.

The US is wasting 40 billion on the new F-35 Lightning.

Yeah, none of that defending the nation stuff, eh?

Why couldnt he use the same, or even more, on space exploration.

Well, if he'd get rid of the unconstitutional social programs, rather than constitutional defense programs, there'd be plenty of money.

40 billion for a *ing place that will last for 10 years at its top. The F-22 costed billions, took 10 years to get ready and its already outdated.

A drop in the bucket compared to the amount spent on unconstitutional social programs.

It is just propaganda, it will never be done, at least not in the next decades
however:
Placing a permanent base on the Moon is good
Going on Mars is good
Placing a permanent base on Mars is good
although:
It is ok if it is just for science/research
also:
Going on Mars? Wait, I'm coming, too!

unconstitutional social programs.

:confused:

:confused:

Indeed.

Indeed.

corporate welfare? Tax breaks for the rich?

I wish Philip K Dick was still around to see the US moving towards actually building offworld colonies.

corporate welfare? Tax breaks for the rich?

What about them?

The US doesnt even have a public medical system, and the guy is complaining about unconstitucional social programs?

And yes, the US needs another fighter, to fight against... Well, I always thought the cold war had ended. China?

I know, the US needs a new fighter to fight against the aliens.

The US is wasting 40 billion on the new F-35 Lightning.

Why couldnt he use the same, or even more, on space exploration.

40 billion for a fucking place that will last for 10 years at its top. The F-22 costed billions, took 10 years to get ready and its already outdated.

Outdated? Got something to back up that claim? Cause here I was, under the impression it was the premier fighter of the twenty-first century to date.

The US doesnt even have a public medical system, and the guy is complaining about unconstitucional social programs?

And yes, the US needs another fighter, to fight against... Well, I always thought the cold war had ended. China?

I know, the US needs a new fighter to fight against the aliens.

I agree. It's not really necessary. It's nice to have in pinch, though.

The US doesnt even have a public medical system,

It's not supposed to.

and the guy is complaining about unconstitucional social programs?

Yes, because they are against the law. Hence the phrase, "unconstitutional."

And yes, the US needs another fighter, to fight against... Well, I always thought the cold war had ended. China?

The Cold War did end. But, the War To End All Wars is a myth. Didn't World War II teachyou that?

I know, the US needs a new fighter to fight against the aliens.

Whatever. :rolleyes:

What about them?

just wondering what social programmes you where calling wasteful considering thing like child benefits tend to be profitable

Outdated? Got something to back up that claim? Cause here I was, under the impression it was the premier fighter of the twenty-first century to date.

outdated stealth technology I'd say along with the ridiculous price

It's not supposed to.

why not?

The Cold War did end. But, the War To End All Wars is a myth. Didn't World War II teachyou that?

oh dear oh dear America isn't comparative to pre WWII Britain so you will have to go read up on something else (because I’m sick and tired of hearing about it every single waking moment of my life) I suggest the Pax Britannia pre-European scramble

We should allow unrestricted exploration, colonization, and exploitation of the solar system. A single asteroid could provide trillions of dollars of materials which could be used to meet our growing demand for products and services, and we are in constant need of new space and resources to drive our economic, technological and social growth.

Full speed ahead on all sides, I say. There's no reason why should we remain on this planet when we have the limitless resources of the universe all around us.

Obscenely expensive for little more than a negligible PR gain.
It would be very easy to establish a base on the moon – probably a lot easier than even keeping an orbiting space station. The reason why I doubt it happening is that there is very little to gain from actually doing it.

The funds needed would be better invested here on Earth.

I think it's definately a good idea considering the fact of how fast this world's population is increasing. Looking towards the Future is always a Good Idea. :D

just wondering what social programmes you where calling wasteful considering thing like child benefits tend to be profitable

I didn't say "wasteful." I said, "unconstitutional."

As for which ones, all of'em.

outdated stealth technology I'd say along with the ridiculous price

Better stealth than anyone else has. I spent five years developing stealth aircraft at General Dynamics.

why not?

Because it's not provided for in the Constitution.

oh dear oh dear America isn't comparative to pre WWII Britain

I wasn't aware that the US Constitution applied to England of any time period.

I'd rather we made some attempts at fixing this planet before we just run away, but I don't see why we shouldn't at least look into just running away.

The US doesnt even have a public medical system, and the guy is complaining about unconstitucional social programs?

And yes, the US needs another fighter, to fight against... Well, I always thought the cold war had ended. China?

I know, the US needs a new fighter to fight against the aliens.

The reason we're building the F-35 is on the old axiom "hope for the best, plan for the worst."

Space colonisation is a similar issue to that of reversing climate change. Alluring though it is, the "common man" is more concerned with immediate economics and other such self-absorbed issues than anything of any greater concern, and thus no democratically elected government will entertain such policies.

We should allow unrestricted exploration, colonization, and exploitation of the solar system. A single asteroid could provide trillions of dollars of materials which could be used to meet our growing demand for products and services, and we are in constant need of new space and resources to drive our economic, technological and social growth.

Full speed ahead on all sides, I say. There's no reason why should we remain on this planet when we have the limitless resources of the universe all around us.

Agreed.

I didn't say "wasteful." I said, "unconstitutional."

great so your argument is interpretation of a constitution written hundreds of years ago

and

A drop in the bucket compared to the amount spent on unconstitutional social programs.

:p

Better stealth than anyone else has. I spent five years developing stealth aircraft at General Dynamics.

plasma stealth?

and I think destroying your enemies ways of detecting you is far better stealth :p

Because it's not provided for in the Constitution.

so if its not in the constitution it shouldn't exist?

I wasn't aware that the US Constitution applied to England of any time period.

Considering the point I was arguing about was how WWII teaching you something isn’t the case here this has nothing to do with the U.S constitution maybe you should read the quote above my post or just look at the quote below


The Cold War did end. But, the War To End All Wars is a myth. Didn't World War II teachyou that?

great so your argument is interpretation of a constitution written hundreds of years ago

The Constitution is the basis of the United States Government.



so if its not in the constitution it shouldn't exist?
Under that circumstance, it belongs under the jurisdiction of the states, rather than the Federal Government, whose powers were intentionally limited. If, say, Idaho wanted to go hardcore into the Social-Democrat Camp, and provide such programs to its people, it would be well within the rights of the state to do so.

Agreed.

Also agreed.

<snip>



plasma stealth?

and I think destroying your enemies ways of detecting you is far better stealth :p



<snip>
The US most likely uses a form of plasma stealth too.


This brings us to the B-2, an aircraft with has long been the subject of speculation. Even respected aviation writer Bill Gunston has commented on suggestions that the B-2 employs a system which charges the leading wing edge to ‘millions of volts’. (Interestingly, most such speculation is tied up with ideas of ‘electrogravitics’, anti-gravity and alien technology, which belong firmly in the disinformation category).

This would chime with a comment in Ben Rich’s book about the Skunk Works . He could not believe that Northrop’s stealth bomber design was 10% more aerodynamically efficient than Lockheed’s competing design, which was externally similar (page 338 in the Warner edition). Perhaps Northrop were exagerating, as Rich suggests; but perhaps their plane had a secret advantage.

Many have commented on a photograph of a B-2 from Edwards AFB (published in Air Forces Monthly in October 2000) in which the wing seems to be enveloped in a faint glowing cloud. This was explained by the Air Force as water vapor, but some commentators have argued that such a cloud would not form simultaneously above and below the wing.
See also the discussion and perhaps anomalous picture here.

The USAF appears to have been using plasma aerodynamics for decades. The Russians certainly know all about it , as does anyone who has bought the technology off them. According to the patents it has additional benefits too – it can muffle the noise produced by engines as well as preventing contrails from forming.

The only people not enjoying its benefits are the civilian taxpayers who funded it in the first place.

The Constitution is the basis of the United States Government.

and...

The US most likely uses a form of plasma stealth too.

the article says there using it on stealth aircraft isn’t that kind of redundant?

It's pretty much inevitable that it will happen at some point. We colonize. It's what we do.

It's a good idea, and it should be done with international support. Probably will have to be anyway, since the presently-constituted US Congress is unlikely to support financing something that won't buy votes in the next election unless they can call it "multilateral".

and...



the article says there using it on stealth aircraft isn’t that kind of redundant?

Nope. Not redundant at all. It makes the plane stealthier and it improves aerodynamic performance.

the article says there using it on stealth aircraft isn’t that kind of redundant?

Surely a plane would be much less detectable if it has both "regular" and plasma stealth than if it had one or the other. Not that I'm that knowledgable on either of those things.

What? And make holiday traffic worse?

I don't think so..

What? And make holiday traffic worse?

I don't think so..

I've heard Earthians are notorious for being poor drivers, and we're going to be fined for littering the hell out of the Scenic Highway that runs past (or through?) our planet...

Nope. Not redundant at all. It makes the plane stealthier and it improves aerodynamic performance.

thing is though you may as well use a fighter-bomber considering plasma stealth renders you invisible on radar to an insane degree

It's an excellent buffer against disaster, but keep in mind that barring several technology breakthroughs that aren't guaranteed to come, it's not a solution to the population crisis at all. It simply isn't realistic to build a large enough fleet, using current or expected technology within the next 100+ years, to move humans off-planet to any immediately noticeable degree. And if it came to having to exodus, most of us would pretty much be screwed.

Not that it wouldn't help our economy long-term. For that reason alone, I'm all for it.

The reason we're building the F-35 is on the old axiom "hope for the best, plan for the worst."

Um, I think that axiom needs to be modified in a world of finite resources and the rather infintesimal chance that international terrorists will begin using bomber aircraft against the United States. Realistically, our most serious threat is that of terrorists. On the one hand, you could buy 500 billion dollar aircraft, and then fly them around a bunch on the off chance that they spot one well enough to bomb him or a falling terrorist gets pulped in the turboprop. On the other hand, you could buy a crapload of $5 grenades and $200 dollar guns and kill them by the truckload on the ground.

Additionally, while in theory I am in full agreement with you about the ultimate need to colonize space, I nevertheless feel obliged to point out that plans for a permanent human presence on other celestial bodies will never be a reasonable option until the cost for moving any amount of weight into space becomes feasible. So long as we are spending millions of dollars to put a few tons of good into space, we will never be able to engage in more than cursory and largely perfunctory space journeys.

Bush, some weeks ago, told that the US will start a new space program that includes a permanent base on the Moon and possibily landing on Mars.

What do you think?

Will it ever be really done?
Is it a good idea or is it a waste of money?
Can the US make it alone or international effort is better?
Will it be used for scientifical purposes only? Or also for industry? Or for military uses?

going to mars to explore, sure...it's our nature to learn and the technological spin offs from the program will benefit us...

colonizing Mars, no...bloody waste of money, it serves no purpose and won't succeed...

Additionally, while in theory I am in full agreement with you about the ultimate need to colonize space, I nevertheless feel obliged to point out that plans for a permanent human presence on other celestial bodies will never be a reasonable option until the cost for moving any amount of weight into space becomes feasible. So long as we are spending millions of dollars to put a few tons of good into space, we will never be able to engage in more than cursory and largely perfunctory space journeys.

You've got to spend money to make money...the space travel of today is sorting out the technological and logistic challenges that will one day permit the mass-marketing of space travel, private enterprise, and colonization.

Space travel today is sort of like ENIAC. That computer extremely expensive, bulky, and of dubious economic utility (remember the old "worldwide market for five computers" quip back in the 1950's), but ultimately the computer became a world-changing technology that has altered our lives immeasurably. I feel space travel will soon be in the same position. Thankfully, we have a public sector capable of funding these ventures.

Especially with the Mars end of the project (putting a base on the moon won't be that hard, or even all that expensive - it's off-the-shelf technology now).

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

What off-the shelf technology are you referring to? The Saturn V rockets whose technology is more then 40 years old? Those are the only rockets with enough thrust to get a vehicle and its mass up to the proper speed needed for a successful journey to the moon. And even then, once we got there we couldn't do anymore then was done during the original Apollo moon landings. Not to mention the fact that the specs and blueprints for the Saturn V disappeared some years ago. The thought of a permanent moon base is laughable and utterly out of the question given current technology, which is the space shuttle whose design is over 30 years old.

As for your claim about it not being all that expensive, that is bullshit as well. A single space shuttle mission costs more then $2,000,000,000 and a manned moon mission including all tetsting and construction costs is estimated to cost at least $125,000,000,000. And that's just for an Apollo type mission. To set up even a semi-permanent base the costs run into the hundreds of trillions of dollars.

And as for the bleatings about terraforming Mars, it's never gonna happen. The whole business of terraforming a planet is just Star Trek fictional bullshit. It will never happen. There haven't even been the beginning inklings of thought about even dreaming about the level of tehcnology that would be required, let alone actually writing any shit down.

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

What off-the shelf technology are you referring to? The Saturn V rockets whose technology is more then 40 years old? Those are the only rockets with enough thrust to get a vehicle and its mass up to the proper speed needed for a successful journey to the moon. And even then, once we got there we couldn't do anymore then was done during the original Apollo moon landings. Not to mention the fact that the specs and blueprints for the Saturn V disappeared some years ago. The thought of a permanent moon base is laughable and utterly out of the question given current technology, which is the space shuttle whose design is over 30 years old.

As for your claim about it not being all that expensive, that is bullshit as well. A single space shuttle mission costs more then $2,000,000,000 and a manned moon mission including all tetsting and construction costs is estimated to cost at least $125,000,000,000. And that's just for an Apollo type mission. To set up even a semi-permanent base the costs run into the hundreds of trillions of dollars.

And as for the bleatings about terraforming Mars, it's never gonna happen. The whole business of terraforming a planet is just Star Trek fictional bullshit. It will never happen. There haven't even been the beginning inklings of thought about even dreaming about the level of tehcnology that would be required, let alone actually writing any shit down.

you're going to draw some flack for that rant, many folks here don't like reality checks...

thing is though you may as well use a fighter-bomber considering plasma stealth renders you invisible on radar to an insane degree

I don't know for sure how much of a reduction in radar cross section the Russian's plasma system gives them. It may not be enough to be truly effective on it's own.

I don't know for sure how much of a reduction in radar cross section the Russian's plasma system gives them. It may not be enough to be truly effective on it's own.

considering it would absorb all the radar wave I’m guessing it would be

Um, I think that axiom needs to be modified in a world of finite resources and the rather infintesimal chance that international terrorists will begin using bomber aircraft against the United States. Realistically, our most serious threat is that of terrorists. On the one hand, you could buy 500 billion dollar aircraft, and then fly them around a bunch on the off chance that they spot one well enough to bomb him or a falling terrorist gets pulped in the turboprop. On the other hand, you could buy a crapload of $5 grenades and $200 dollar guns and kill them by the truckload on the ground.

Additionally, while in theory I am in full agreement with you about the ultimate need to colonize space, I nevertheless feel obliged to point out that plans for a permanent human presence on other celestial bodies will never be a reasonable option until the cost for moving any amount of weight into space becomes feasible. So long as we are spending millions of dollars to put a few tons of good into space, we will never be able to engage in more than cursory and largely perfunctory space journeys.


If the US decides to hit a country that sponsors terrorism against us stealthy aircraft will be useful. We can get past their air defenses and hit the targets we want to hit without losing many or perhaps any of our own aircraft and pilots.

considering it would absorb all the radar wave I’m guessing it would be

What's possible in theory and what's possible in practice are two different things. If plasma covered the whole plane the plane would be completely out of contact with other aircraft and with ground forces because the plasma would ruin the radio signals. It wouldn't be able to use radar of it's own to find it's targets or guide it's missiles. Some parts of the aircraft simply couldn't be covered with plasma stealth if the airplane is to do anything more than fly blind.

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

What off-the shelf technology are you referring to? The Saturn V rockets whose technology is more then 40 years old? Those are the only rockets with enough thrust to get a vehicle and its mass up to the proper speed needed for a successful journey to the moon. And even then, once we got there we couldn't do anymore then was done during the original Apollo moon landings. Not to mention the fact that the specs and blueprints for the Saturn V disappeared some years ago. The thought of a permanent moon base is laughable and utterly out of the question given current technology, which is the space shuttle whose design is over 30 years old.

As for your claim about it not being all that expensive, that is bullshit as well. A single space shuttle mission costs more then $2,000,000,000 and a manned moon mission including all tetsting and construction costs is estimated to cost at least $125,000,000,000. And that's just for an Apollo type mission. To set up even a semi-permanent base the costs run into the hundreds of trillions of dollars.

And as for the bleatings about terraforming Mars, it's never gonna happen. The whole business of terraforming a planet is just Star Trek fictional bullshit. It will never happen. There haven't even been the beginning inklings of thought about even dreaming about the level of tehcnology that would be required, let alone actually writing any shit down.

2 billion bucks? That's 8 days expenditure in Iraq at present rates and prices. Call it 10 days just to be sure. 125 billion's maybe a year and a half.

Not the point. Sure, it's expensive and there's not a huge return on the investment. The thing is, it's cool. It's better than the stuck-in-the-mud, head-in-the-sand crap our money gets spent on now. Are there starving children all over the world? Absolutely! Should we help them? Of course. But we could also spend some money on space exploration and in research into esoteric, pie-in-the-sky endeavors like terraforming because it's fun work and because humanity needs something to look to for the future. Sheesh, I bet your ancestors were there at Kitty Hawk shaking their heads when the Wright Brothers were tesing out that flying machine thingy.

Some parts of the aircraft simply couldn't be covered with plasma stealth if the airplane is to do anything more than fly blind.

Ah but its only really the cross section that you need to be stealth to be as invisible as a B-2 now combine this with the fact that should the rare need arise you could have an aircraft fly itself on a pre-determined plan with the pilot only there to oversee the flight

Ah but its only really the cross section that you need to be stealth to be as invisible as a B-2 now combine this with the fact that should the rare need arise you could have an aircraft fly itself on a pre-determined plan with the pilot only there to oversee the flight

A B2 is stealthy from any angle. Nice thing to have since it's designed to fly toward, over and behind the enemy's air defense on it's way to bomb it's targets.

While you're drifting along on autopilot, unable to communicate with the rest of your squadron or with an AWACS type aircraft or with ground based radar your enemy could change course and you wouldn't know a thing. Your enemy could launch heat seeking missiles and you'd be blissfully unaware.

great so your argument is interpretation of a constitution written hundreds of years ago

It is the law. Further, it was updated in 1992 with the 27th Amendment.

So, the Constitution is only 14 years old.

and



:p

The majority of our budget is spent on unauthorized programs.

and I think destroying your enemies ways of detecting you is far better stealth

And, the way we can get close enough to do so, is through stealth technology.

so if its not in the constitution it shouldn't exist?

No.

If it's not in the Constitution, the US government CAN'T do it.

Considering the point I was arguing about was how WWII teaching you something isn’t the case here this has nothing to do with the U.S constitution maybe you should read the quote above my post or just look at the quote below

World War I was called, "The War To End All Wars."

World War II taught everyone who was paying attention, that such was not the case. That was in response to your Cold War comment.

This brings us to the B-2, an aircraft with has long been the subject of speculation. Even respected aviation writer Bill Gunston has commented on suggestions that the B-2 employs a system which charges the leading wing edge to ‘millions of volts’. (Interestingly, most such speculation is tied up with ideas of ‘electrogravitics’, anti-gravity and alien technology, which belong firmly in the disinformation category).

This would chime with a comment in Ben Rich’s book about the Skunk Works . He could not believe that Northrop’s stealth bomber design was 10% more aerodynamically efficient than Lockheed’s competing design, which was externally similar (page 338 in the Warner edition). Perhaps Northrop were exagerating, as Rich suggests; but perhaps their plane had a secret advantage.

Many have commented on a photograph of a B-2 from Edwards AFB (published in Air Forces Monthly in October 2000) in which the wing seems to be enveloped in a faint glowing cloud. This was explained by the Air Force as water vapor, but some commentators have argued that such a cloud would not form simultaneously above and below the wing.
See also the discussion and perhaps anomalous picture here.

The USAF appears to have been using plasma aerodynamics for decades. The Russians certainly know all about it , as does anyone who has bought the technology off them. According to the patents it has additional benefits too – it can muffle the noise produced by engines as well as preventing contrails from forming.


This would be my next three years working on the B-2 teaching crews how to get to their targets and drop their payload. (this means, knowing how the stealth tech works)

Allow me to say -

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Man, who thinks this stuff up?

This would be my next three years working on the B-2 teaching crews how to get to their targets and drop their payload. (this means, knowing how the stealth tech works)

Allow me to say -

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Man, who thinks this stuff up?

So the B-2 doesn't have plasma stealth in addition to the traditional stealth technology? The article I quoted wasn't saying that they definitely did, it was speculating.

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

What off-the shelf technology are you referring to? The Saturn V rockets whose technology is more then 40 years old? Those are the only rockets with enough thrust to get a vehicle and its mass up to the proper speed needed for a successful journey to the moon. And even then, once we got there we couldn't do anymore then was done during the original Apollo moon landings. Not to mention the fact that the specs and blueprints for the Saturn V disappeared some years ago. The thought of a permanent moon base is laughable and utterly out of the question given current technology, which is the space shuttle whose design is over 30 years old.

As for your claim about it not being all that expensive, that is bullshit as well. A single space shuttle mission costs more then $2,000,000,000 and a manned moon mission including all tetsting and construction costs is estimated to cost at least $125,000,000,000. And that's just for an Apollo type mission. To set up even a semi-permanent base the costs run into the hundreds of trillions of dollars.

And as for the bleatings about terraforming Mars, it's never gonna happen. The whole business of terraforming a planet is just Star Trek fictional bullshit. It will never happen. There haven't even been the beginning inklings of thought about even dreaming about the level of tehcnology that would be required, let alone actually writing any shit down.

Sad but true.

Considering the maximum speed ever achieved by a manned spacecraft and the minimum distance between Earth and Mars... well who on Earth would willing spend 3 months of their lives on a crampt outward trip to Mars?

The same kind of people who were willing to spend 3 months on a ship to get to america?

The same kind of people who were willing to spend 3 months on a ship to get to america?

Nicely put! ;)

A B2 is stealthy from any angle. Nice thing to have since it's designed to fly toward, over and behind the enemy's air defence on it's way to bomb it's targets.

Well you got me there however I think sacrificing stealth for speed and manoeuvrability would be best unless your bombing Moscow

While you're drifting along on autopilot, unable to communicate with the rest of your squadron or with an AWACS type aircraft or with ground based radar your enemy could change course and you wouldn't know a thing. Your enemy could launch heat seeking missiles and you'd be blissfully unaware.

If your in a true stealth aircraft and your detected your fucked anyway really

It is the law.

And law never stays the same

The majority of our budget is spent on unauthorized programs.

Yes but these programmes produce a profit hence why European liberalism hasn’t crashed and burned

And, the way we can get close enough to do so, is through stealth technology.

Cruise missiles, UAV’s and aircraft that fly so fast and high they can’t be hit come to mind

World War I was called, "The War To End All Wars."

No the league of nations was set up to make it “the war to end all wars” hence why Britain always had the issue of updating defence come up

World War II taught everyone who was paying attention, that such was not the case. That was in response to your Cold War comment.

Nope WWII was caused by the same issues as WWI as was the Cold war as is the present hence why some people refer to 1904-present as the ongoing war of the world

Both a trip to mars and establishing a moon base are goals that the international community could pursue. While it's true that we are still years away from being able to make any use of these labors, it is equally true that we will not want to be dealing with the unforeseen problems that would be inherent to such a journey.

The moon also contains many valuable resources[1] which humanity will be forced to exploit, and sooner rather than later. As another poster already said, the international community should be focusing on emphasizing the possible finacial gains, especially to large corporations. History has shown, time and time again, that the most effective means of introducing new technologies comes from unions of governments and private enterprise.

Of course, we don't really know enough about the moon to make an accurate prediction of the viability of a permanent base[2]. Continued exploration by unmanned spacecraft would most likely have to be pursued more extensively.

In my opinon, Bush's goal are possible, but not within the time frame he's set down. As to whether they should be pursued, I would say yes. When you take the long-long-long term view, colonization of space will be the only possible way for the human race to survive.








1.)http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_moon_resources_050223.html
2.)http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/April04/Campbell.testimony.deb.html

Both a trip to mars and establishing a moon base are goals that the international community could pursue. While it's true that we are still years away from being able to make any use of these labors, it is equally true that we will not want to be dealing with the unforeseen problems that would be inherent to such a journey.

The moon also contains many valuable resources[1] which humanity will be forced to exploit, and sooner rather than later. As another poster already said, the international community should be focusing on emphasizing the possible finacial gains, especially to large corporations. History has shown, time and time again, that the most effective means of introducing new technologies comes from unions of governments and private enterprise.

Of course, we don't really know enough about the moon to make an accurate prediction of the viability of a permanent base[2]. Continued exploration by unmanned spacecraft would most likely have to be pursued more extensively.

In my opinon, Bush's goal are possible, but not within the time frame he's set down. As to whether they should be pursued, I would say yes. When you take the long-long-long term view, colonization of space will be the only possible way for the human race to survive.








1.)http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_moon_resources_050223.html
2.)http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/April04/Campbell.testimony.deb.html

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

What off-the shelf technology are you referring to? The Saturn V rockets whose technology is more then 40 years old? Those are the only rockets with enough thrust to get a vehicle and its mass up to the proper speed needed for a successful journey to the moon. And even then, once we got there we couldn't do anymore then was done during the original Apollo moon landings. Not to mention the fact that the specs and blueprints for the Saturn V disappeared some years ago. The thought of a permanent moon base is laughable and utterly out of the question given current technology, which is the space shuttle whose design is over 30 years old.


Just because something hasn't been designed doesn't mean it couldn't be. There are a number of ways available besides the brute force of Saturn V-scale chemical rockets that have since become available - slow ion propulsion could be used to transport supplies, for instance, and (brace yourself), nuclear propulsion is a very viable, very safe alternative for both the moon and Mars, despite what ignorant alarmists might spout. Also, you've stated an urban legend. (http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/saturn_five_000313.html)


As for your claim about it not being all that expensive, that is bullshit as well. A single space shuttle mission costs more then $2,000,000,000 and a manned moon mission including all tetsting and construction costs is estimated to cost at least $125,000,000,000. And that's just for an Apollo type mission. To set up even a semi-permanent base the costs run into the hundreds of trillions of dollars.


Just leaving the fact that your figures are incredibly inaccurate (I'd like to know where you got them, since NASA says the average is around $450 mil per launch), NASA and the military are notorious for overspending. This is partly because they need to obey countless regs designed for both physical and legal safety, but also because they are much slower to update, compared with the commercial field. Personally I don't think NASA should be attempting this, or else they need to get their acts together if they're going to pull it off. But that doesn't mean the actual cost need be so high.


And as for the bleatings about terraforming Mars, it's never gonna happen. The whole business of terraforming a planet is just Star Trek fictional bullshit. It will never happen. There haven't even been the beginning inklings of thought about even dreaming about the level of tehcnology that would be required, let alone actually writing any shit down.

Nonsense. There have been decades of thoughts in both science-fiction and science, concrete analysis based on various possible conditions ranging from no water, to underground rivers, and a great deal of speculation on the geology of Mars and the moon. We have a better idea about what we'll find on the moon, since we have samples, and it's a much simpler environment to predict due to the lack of atmosphere, but Mars still has significant holes. Regardless, to say that it will 'never' happen is remarkably short-sighted - if nothing else, a lifeform engineered to survive and create favorable conditions for itself could manage it in a few million years. And I don't think you can really argue that we couldn't create something like that, given enough time and focus.

Just because something hasn't been designed doesn't mean it couldn't be. There are a number of ways available besides the brute force of Saturn V-scale chemical rockets that have since become available - slow ion propulsion could be used to transport supplies, for instance, and (brace yourself), nuclear propulsion is a very viable, very safe alternative for both the moon and Mars, despite what ignorant alarmists might spout. Also, you've stated an urban legend. (http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/saturn_five_000313.html)

So the blueprints for the Saturn V haven't been lost, whoop-dee-fucking-doo.

As for your bleats about ion propulsion and the use of nukes, that's yet more bullshit. Neither NASA nor any of the usual US military contractors (Northup-Grumman etc) have even hinted that tyhey are working on ion drive as a means of propulsion for spacecraft.

As for nukes, give me a fucking break. That idea is over 50 years old and comes from noted traitor and scumhound Edward Teller, who besides singlehandedly destroying the career and life of Robert Openheimer was endlessly bleating how nukes could be used for mining and construction purposes here on Earth.

Even the military thought he was fucking bonkers about that one.

Given that the failure rate for all space launches is nearly 30%, you can be damn sure that the US government has considered and rejected out of hand the use of nukes as a possible propulsion system, if for no other reason then the aforementioned failure rate. It's quite simple if a launch involving nukes did fall into that 30% and ended up with 100,000's dead and millions of square miles rendered radioactive and uninhabitable, the entire US government would collapse.



Just leaving the fact that your figures are incredibly inaccurate (I'd like to know where you got them, since NASA says the average is around $450 mil per launch), NASA and the military are notorious for overspending. This is partly because they need to obey countless regs designed for both physical and legal safety, but also because they are much slower to update, compared with the commercial field. Personally I don't think NASA should be attempting this, or else they need to get their acts together if they're going to pull it off. But that doesn't mean the actual cost need be so high.

Oh well, if NASA says that the average launch only costs $450,000,000 then it must be true. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

That number is bullshit.

The average cost of a psace shuttle mission has been around $2,000,000,000 for some time now and since the whole Columbia fiasco has climbed even higher.

As for your claim about the commercial field of spaceflight being much cheaper, what commericial field? You can't seriously consider that AssClown Dick Rutan to have a legitimate commercial spaceflight operation simply because he used 30 year old technology to blast a minsicule "craft" some 50 miles up into "space" where the big selling point is that the passenger (note that there is room for only one in Rutans craft) gets to experience about 1 1/2 minutes of weightlessness. All for a mere $250,000 per person.

Fuck that.

I can experience weightlessness for much longer and much cheaper by booking an appointment on one of NASA's "Vomit Comet" planes.

But it's really nice to know that you are willing to cut corners and that you don't give a fuck about the safety or health of the those who would go into space.



Nonsense. There have been decades of thoughts in both science-fiction and science, concrete analysis based on various possible conditions ranging from no water, to underground rivers, and a great deal of speculation on the geology of Mars and the moon. We have a better idea about what we'll find on the moon, since we have samples, and it's a much simpler environment to predict due to the lack of atmosphere, but Mars still has significant holes. Regardless, to say that it will 'never' happen is remarkably short-sighted - if nothing else, a lifeform engineered to survive and create favorable conditions for itself could manage it in a few million years. And I don't think you can really argue that we couldn't create something like that, given enough time and focus.

You 'tard, it's called science FICTION, for a reason, because it's FICTION.

It's made-up.

It's a complete and utter lie.

It's bullshit, pure and simple.

And as for your claim that "if nothing else, a lifeform engineered to survive and create favorable conditions for itself could manage it in a few million years. And I don't really think you can really argue that we couldn't create something like that, given eneough time and focus.

What type of lifeform might this be? We humans can't even control the fucking weather here on Earth, yet you have the arrogance to claim that we will be able to enable the cimtacic change of an entire planet so that it fits our specifications?

Right. :p :rolleyes:

The fact that you mentioned the phrase science fiction and tried to use it as an example of what we could do proves how shockingly ignorant you truly are about just how unadvanced the Earth's technology is in terms of space travel, and how what I said in my previous post is all true and what you have said is a load of toss.

I think it can certainly be done, but with the huge amount of wasteage that already happens with tax dollars, do you americans really want to have to pay the huge price for this sort of thing?

Nope.

I think a quote that expresses what I think of this, is Tom Hanks as Jim Lovell in the Movie Apollo 13, on the first man on the moon:

"Nothing miraculous... we just decided to go."

I think we have the scientific expertise, the technology and the resources to colonize both the Moon and Mars, but what we don't have is the will.

A project like that would take vast amounts of money, manpower and time, all of which we do have, but are currently wasting on a variety of things that are far less worthwhile. If the entire world, or even the USA alone or the EU alone woke up and colelctively decided that it was time to do it, and to hell with all the accessory nonsense money is being wasted on, it could be done.

I think a quote that expresses what I think of this, is Tom Hanks as Jim Lovell in the Movie Apollo 13, on the first man on the moon:

"Nothing miraculous... we just decided to go."

I think we have the scientific expertise, the technology and the resources to colonize both the Moon and Mars, but what we don't have is the will.

A project like that would take vast amounts of money, manpower and time, all of which we do have, but are currently wasting on a variety of things that are far less worthwhile. If the entire world, or even the USA alone or the EU alone woke up and colelctively decided that it was time to do it, and to hell with all the accessory nonsense money is being wasted on, it could be done.

Hear, hear.

Just because something looks difficult doesn't mean it can't be done. We could take Fooforah's rant above, edit it a little bit for dollar amounts and subjects, and place it in the 19th century with very little trouble. "Flying machines? Steam-powered iron ships? Horseless carriages? Communication through wires across the Atlantic? You, sir, must be mad! Go join your fellow lunatic, Jules Verne, and stop wasting my time."

Colonizing the solar system is a great idea. For too long we've been stuck in low orbit doing essentially nothing. The ISS was pretty much a waste after all the design cuts. It WAS supposed to be a starting point for Mars missions, but after funding cuts it got reduced to what it is now. It's mostly Richard Nixon's fault we haven't already established a base on the moon and made it to Mars....it would have happened if the space program had continued at the levels it was kept at during the 60s. But, after beating the Soviets to the moon, Nixon was retarded and didn't want to support it anymore.:headbang: :headbang:

So the blueprints for the Saturn V haven't been lost, whoop-dee-fucking-doo.

As for your bleats about ion propulsion and the use of nukes, that's yet more bullshit. Neither NASA nor any of the usual US military contractors (Northup-Grumman etc) have even hinted that tyhey are working on ion drive as a means of propulsion for spacecraft.

As for nukes, give me a fucking break. That idea is over 50 years old and comes from noted traitor and scumhound Edward Teller, who besides singlehandedly destroying the career and life of Robert Openheimer was endlessly bleating how nukes could be used for mining and construction purposes here on Earth.

Even the military thought he was fucking bonkers about that one.

Given that the failure rate for all space launches is nearly 30%, you can be damn sure that the US government has considered and rejected out of hand the use of nukes as a possible propulsion system, if for no other reason then the aforementioned failure rate. It's quite simple if a launch involving nukes did fall into that 30% and ended up with 100,000's dead and millions of square miles rendered radioactive and uninhabitable, the entire US government would collapse.





Oh well, if NASA says that the average launch only costs $450,000,000 then it must be true. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

That number is bullshit.

The average cost of a psace shuttle mission has been around $2,000,000,000 for some time now and since the whole Columbia fiasco has climbed even higher.

As for your claim about the commercial field of spaceflight being much cheaper, what commericial field? You can't seriously consider that AssClown Dick Rutan to have a legitimate commercial spaceflight operation simply because he used 30 year old technology to blast a minsicule "craft" some 50 miles up into "space" where the big selling point is that the passenger (note that there is room for only one in Rutans craft) gets to experience about 1 1/2 minutes of weightlessness. All for a mere $250,000 per person.

Fuck that.

I can experience weightlessness for much longer and much cheaper by booking an appointment on one of NASA's "Vomit Comet" planes.

But it's really nice to know that you are willing to cut corners and that you don't give a fuck about the safety or health of the those who would go into space.





You 'tard, it's called science FICTION, for a reason, because it's FICTION.

It's made-up.

It's a complete and utter lie.

It's bullshit, pure and simple.

And as for your claim that "if nothing else, a lifeform engineered to survive and create favorable conditions for itself could manage it in a few million years. And I don't really think you can really argue that we couldn't create something like that, given eneough time and focus.

What type of lifeform might this be? We humans can't even control the fucking weather here on Earth, yet you have the arrogance to claim that we will be able to enable the cimtacic change of an entire planet so that it fits our specifications?

Right. :p :rolleyes:

The fact that you mentioned the phrase science fiction and tried to use it as an example of what we could do proves how shockingly ignorant you truly are about just how unadvanced the Earth's technology is in terms of space travel, and how what I said in my previous post is all true and what you have said is a load of toss.



http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/nov/HQ_03377_ion_engine.html

Lots of work on ion drives. Just not for manned stuff right now.

Communication satellites were "invented" in a science fiction book, and look now. Most of all science fiction is based in part on feasible things that someone is working on.

And yes, the space shuttle is a waste. It has not lived up to its original expectations due to funding cuts while it was designed. Its barely reusable. The main engine needs to be completely rebuilt every flight, the liquid fuel tank isn't reusable, and the solid rocket boosters are only good for a few launches. It was supposed to fly over 50 flights per year, but after over 20 we're not to 150 yet. It should have been replaced ages ago. At least planes that can reach low orbit are not too far off. That will be cheap.

As for the nuclear safety issue....That's just another reason to have a base on the moon and deep space stations as launching points.

A project like that would take vast amounts of money, manpower and time, all of which we do have, but are currently wasting on a variety of things that are far less worthwhile. If the entire world, or even the USA alone or the EU alone woke up and colelctively decided that it was time to do it, and to hell with all the accessory nonsense money is being wasted on, it could be done.

What variety of things are vast amounts of money currently being wasted on that couldd better be wasted on some bullshit scheme to go back to the moon? I want specifics.

If it's not in the Constitution, the US government CAN'T do it.


Good thing it is, then.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Bush, some weeks ago, told that the US will start a new space program that includes a permanent base on the Moon and possibily landing on Mars.
He's been saying that we should go back to the moon for a while.

What do you think?
I'm all for it, but...

Will it ever be really done?
Yes. It's is only a matter of time.

Is it a good idea or is it a waste of money?
It's a great idea. You'll never get out of the system and explore other systems if you can't even land a man on another planet in your own.

Can the US make it alone or international effort is better?
Alone. We made it to the moon before alone and we can do it again. What we need now from the international community is competition to motivate us to get back there in a second space race.

Will it be used for scientifical purposes only? Or also for industry? Or for military uses?
All of the above. Though you'll have to remember that anything coming back to Earth from the moon or Mars will be very, very expensive. And as far as military uses go, missiles would be able to respond faster from orbit around Earth than from the moon. The reason you'd send some military force to the moon is to defend the moon. Aginst who or what I don't know but it never hurts to be too careful when the closest help is days, week, months, or even years away depending on where you are and whether or not we were preparing for a second launch at the time of the trouble.

The main problem with bases on either the moon or Mars is gravity, or rather the lack thereof.

Communication satellites were "invented" in a science fiction book, and look now.
That's because Clarke did the math.


Most of all science fiction is based in part on feasible things that someone is working on.
Provide examples.

What variety of things are vast amounts of money currently being wasted on that couldd better be wasted on some bullshit scheme to go back to the moon? I want specifics.

If you don't look at the US Government and see waste spending, then I woudln't know where to begin to educate you.

If you don't look at the US Government and see waste spending, then I woudln't know where to begin to educate you.

Compared to going back to the moon, an undertaking that has no value whatsoever?

If you don't look at the US Government and see waste spending, then I woudln't know where to begin to educate you.

Farm subsidies? Highway Appropriations? Defense bills? Every single piece of legislation ever proposed by Ted Stevens?

Compared to going back to the moon, an undertaking that has no value whatsoever?

It produces a lot of high-paying jobs, motivates people to go in to math and science, and helps develop expensive new technology that has significant future benefits.

Also Tang.

Considering the maximum speed ever achieved by a manned spacecraft and the minimum distance between Earth and Mars... well who on Earth would willing spend 3 months of their lives on a crampt outward trip to Mars?

Astronauts are willing to spend a year's time on the ISS so there certainly would be astronauts willing to do it.

It produces a lot of high-paying jobs, motivates people to go in to math and science, and helps develop expensive new technology that has significant future benefits.

Also Tang.

Bingo, just look at the technologies developed by NASA.

Ion engines seem promising for a Mars trip.

Astronauts are willing to spend a year's time on the ISS so there certainly would be astronauts willing to do it.

There are very few astronauts who spend a year's time on the ISS because doing so really fucks them up.

There are very few astronauts who spend a year's time on the ISS because doing so really fucks them up.

Astronauts have done it, and ion engines shorten the trip to about a month. That is definitely doable.

So the blueprints for the Saturn V haven't been lost, whoop-dee-fucking-doo.

Whoah, there, mister, no need to get pissy. You're the one who stated it in your original argument.

As for your bleats about ion propulsion and the use of nukes, that's yet more bullshit. Neither NASA nor any of the usual US military contractors (Northup-Grumman etc) have even hinted that tyhey are working on ion drive as a means of propulsion for spacecraft.

No. As they say, "Lurk more, n00b."

As for nukes, give me a fucking break. That idea is over 50 years old and comes from noted traitor and scumhound Edward Teller, who besides singlehandedly destroying the career and life of Robert Openheimer was endlessly bleating how nukes could be used for mining and construction purposes here on Earth.

Even the military thought he was fucking bonkers about that one.

Given that the failure rate for all space launches is nearly 30%, you can be damn sure that the US government has considered and rejected out of hand the use of nukes as a possible propulsion system, if for no other reason then the aforementioned failure rate. It's quite simple if a launch involving nukes did fall into that 30% and ended up with 100,000's dead and millions of square miles rendered radioactive and uninhabitable, the entire US government would collapse.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I won't touch the first statement - because one scientist involved in political scandal suggests it, you dismiss it out of hand?

NASA is already using nuclear power in several projects, and "nukes" are under serious consideration by many scientists and politicians. Not mentioning that they wouldn't be detonated in the atmosphere (I'd assume you could figure this one out on your own), elaborate precautions would be taken to make the risk much, much lower. Most people don't realize how hard it is to actually set off a nuclear device by accident, particularly a plutonium-based one. Suffice it to say, transporting shielded fuel to an orbiting craft would make the risk of even passive nuclear contamination practically zero.


Oh well, if NASA says that the average launch only costs $450,000,000 then it must be true. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

That number is bullshit.

The average cost of a psace shuttle mission has been around $2,000,000,000 for some time now and since the whole Columbia fiasco has climbed even higher.

You still haven't said where you've gotten yours.

As for your claim about the commercial field of spaceflight being much cheaper, what commericial field? You can't seriously consider that AssClown Dick Rutan to have a legitimate commercial spaceflight operation simply because he used 30 year old technology to blast a minsicule "craft" some 50 miles up into "space" where the big selling point is that the passenger (note that there is room for only one in Rutans craft) gets to experience about 1 1/2 minutes of weightlessness. All for a mere $250,000 per person.

Fuck that.

I can experience weightlessness for much longer and much cheaper by booking an appointment on one of NASA's "Vomit Comet" planes.

But it's really nice to know that you are willing to cut corners and that you don't give a fuck about the safety or health of the those who would go into space.

I never said there -was- a commercial sector. I was, in fact, speaking of airline companies and private satellite launches.

Anyway, commercial ventures are under just as much pressure to be safe as the government is, and perhaps even more, given that their existance is much more likely to be at risk due to failure. They're also under constant pressure to balance and make themselves efficient. Inefficiency causes its share of accidents, wouldn't you agree?

You 'tard, it's called science FICTION, for a reason, because it's FICTION.

It's made-up.

It's a complete and utter lie.

It's bullshit, pure and simple.

In case you didn't notice, there's a 'science' in there, too. What you're describing is fantasy, not science fiction. Good science fiction is based on good science.

And as for your claim that "if nothing else, a lifeform engineered to survive and create favorable conditions for itself could manage it in a few million years. And I don't really think you can really argue that we couldn't create something like that, given eneough time and focus.

What type of lifeform might this be? We humans can't even control the fucking weather here on Earth, yet you have the arrogance to claim that we will be able to enable the cimtacic change of an entire planet so that it fits our specifications?

Right. :p :rolleyes:

The weather, no. Climate, yes. It'd be very easy to shove Earth into another ice-age, right now. We're already changing things, anyway. Or are you one of those people who don't "believe" in global warming? I wouldn't be surprised.

I never said Mars would ever be an idyllic paradise. Unless, of course, we moved it closer, which might not be a bad idea if we did it right.

But before you burst a blood vessel, I fully acknowledge that terraforming Mars would be an extremely difficult, perhaps culturally impossible task, in the sense that we'll never cooperate long enough to make it happen unless something drastic occurs. I have to hope it will, because quite frankly, humans are pretty damned petty at this point in history.

If you can't think of a lifeform, or community of lifeforms, that could accomplish this, you obviously aren't very imaginative. Mars is pretty close to supporting life as it is, and we can do a lot more to help it along than what either it or Earth originally had. I'm not a geneticist, but I do know that there are traits in several existing bacteria that could be used to create a Mars-tolerant form of life (halophilic, radiation tolerant, and of course cold-tolerant). This completely leaves out what we might be able to do on our own once we learn how things come together to create a whole organism.

I call myself the first Emperor of Europa.

I call myself the first Emperor of Europa.

I claim Io. I'll turn it in to a gigantic refinery and smelter for my asteroid mines...those things are easily worth a few trillion a piece.

I claim Io. I'll turn it in to a gigantic refinery and smelter for my asteroid mines...those things are easily worth a few trillion a piece.

I call Empress of Titan. Heh. :cool:

I call Empress of Titan. Heh. :cool:

You could sell me natural gas for the refineries from the atmosphere, and I could buy water from Europa. Hell, Jupiter/Saturn are set when it comes to founding a gigantic corporation.

I should probably consider claiming Enceladus so I can turn it in to my mansion.

Bingo, just look at the technologies developed by NASA.

Ion engines seem promising for a Mars trip.

What technologies?

NASA hasn't developed any technologies new or otherwise. All of the technology used by NASA has developed/invented by companies such as Boeing/Northup-Grumman/Lockheed etc.

Tang wasn't developed specifically for the astronauts, fuck it's no different then Kool-Aid whyich was around long before NASA even came into existence.

Ion engines seem promising for a Mars trip.
My god man! Only if you want the trip to take 15 years. The ESA tried getting a probe to the moon with ion thrusters and they did. But it took months when it could have taken just days. You only use ion engines on those really long out-system trips and even then only after you've applied a significant amount of thrust.

What technologies?
NASA comissioned those companies to create those technologies. And NASA does occasionally crank out something of their own.

You only use ion engines on those really long out-system trips and even then only after you've applied a significant amount of thrust.


Prof.Rubbia (Nobel prize for physics) has designed a nuclear engine that would allow a spacecraft to make the whole trip to Mars in some week's time. Too bad no one at ASI (agenzia spaziale italiana) or ESA listens to him. Also I know that Greens would scream in outrage at the idea of a nuclear spacecraft. Jerks.:(

Prof.Rubbia (Nobel prize for physics) has designed a nuclear engine that would allow a spacecraft to make the whole trip to Mars in some week's time. Too bad no one at ASI (agenzia spaziale italiana) or ESA listens to him. Also I know that Greens would scream in outrage at the idea of a nuclear spacecraft. Jerks.:(
Does it run hydrogen gas through a solid fission reactor core on the verge of meltdown and out an exhaust nozzle?

Does it run hydrogen gas through a solid fission reactor core on the verge of meltdown and out an exhaust nozzle?

No, it is a subcritical thorium reactor heating a plasma and sending it off via a magnetic field.

Prof.Rubbia (Nobel prize for physics) has designed a nuclear engine that would allow a spacecraft to make the whole trip to Mars in some week's time. Too bad no one at ASI (agenzia spaziale italiana) or ESA listens to him. Also I know that Greens would scream in outrage at the idea of a nuclear spacecraft. Jerks.:(

Edward Teller designed a hydrogen bomb and kept rushing around bleating and shrieking to anyone in the US government who would listen that it was the greatest thing since the invention of the blowjob and that it had to be built this very second and refused to shut the fuck up, even after 10 other physicists proved that his design was unworkable.

Design doesn't mean shit.

Any 'tard can design anything.

Fuck, Homer Simpson designed a fucking car and in doing so bankrupted his brother.

As I stated in a previous post, when the worlkd's track record for space launches has a 33% of a catastrophic ie; explosive failure, there is no way that nukes will ever be used as a propulsion system.

And you are a 'tard as it isn't just the greens who are against it. Top management at NASA is against it because they know it's a shit idea.

I want to go.

NASA comissioned those companies to create those technologies. And NASA does occasionally crank out something of their own.

There is an ad from SAAB that boasts how it holds more patents than NASA. If people realised that NASA wasn't into developing things and registering patents for themselves, then I suppose it devalues the "message" of the SAAB advert.

As for colonising the solar system. The excited kid within me says yeah.

Design doesn't mean shit.

Any 'tard can design anything.

Fuck, Homer Simpson designed a fucking car and in doing so bankrupted his brother.

As I stated in a previous post, when the worlkd's track record for space launches has a 33% of a catastrophic ie; explosive failure, there is no way that nukes will ever be used as a propulsion system.

And you are a 'tard as it isn't just the greens who are against it. Top management at NASA is against it because they know it's a shit idea.
Without a testable design you'll never know if an idea can or cannot work. So design is really everything, or at least a very big part.

The problem with chemical rockets is that they are simply too weak and too heavy to get people to far away places in reasonable amounts of time. Nuclear Pulse Rockets, NERVAs and other designs could have much lower mass ratios and higher delta V. Space exploration is a dangerous task, not for cowards or the stupid. If you want to go up you'd better be ready to get blown up.

Nuclear Pulse Rockets, NERVAs and other designs could have much lower mass ratios and higher delta V. Space exploration is a dangerous task, not for cowards or the stupid. If you want to go up you'd better be ready to get blown up.

Convienient of you to ignore the huge danger with nukes exploding in earth's atmosphere, which is that rather then merely killing the 2 or 3 crew members in the spacecraft, you kill upwards of 1,000,000 people. There is no way on earth that any government would accept that sort of risk.

Come to think of it - I believe that we'll rather put our effort into keeping this here, our planet, inhabitable before we cast our gaze to other planets.

Come to think of it - I believe that we'll rather put our effort into keeping this here, our planet, inhabitable before we cast our gaze to other planets.

We could do that and fund space exploration. It's not an either-or situation by any stretch.

Maybe we could start by eliminating some of that $238 billion we spend on agricultural and oil subsidies, and put the money towards alternative energy, expanding access to public transportation, and aid for the Third World to attack the environmental problems caused by inadequate infrastructure, underproductive agriculture and reckless industrial development.

Convienient of you to ignore the huge danger with nukes exploding in earth's atmosphere, which is that rather then merely killing the 2 or 3 crew members in the spacecraft, you kill upwards of 1,000,000 people. There is no way on earth that any government would accept that sort of risk.
No nuke has ever killed a million people you dumb shit. It is estimated that as many as 140,000 had died in Hiroshima by the bomb and its associated effects, with the estimate for Nagasaki roughly 74,000. A little over 200,000 is a far cry from millions. Also, if you had bothered to do your research on the Orion Project and similar derivations you'd have known that the nukes are detonated in space a fair distance from the craft.

I'm not ignoring the dangers here but you seem to have been seriously misinformed about the subject which are being discussed here. It's not like a few small fission warheads with a yeild of only a few kilotons will ignite the Earth's atmosphere or cause a nuclear winter.

A chemical rocket is essentially a giant conventional warhead. If the fuel tank of the shuttle were blown up it would probably level a good chunk of the Kennedy Space Center. A rocket burn is a controlled and directed explosion. Chemical Pulse Rockets have been experimented with in aircraft already so why not scale up the power and apply it to a spacecraft?

The economics of an Orion-type interplanetary transport are really damn good. The expense of the fissionable materials required was thought high, until Ted Taylor proved that with the right designs for explosives, the amount of fissionables used on launch was close to constant for every size of Orion from 2,000 tons to 8,000,000 tons. Smaller ships actually use more fissionables, because they cannot use fusion bombs. The launch cost for the largest Orions was 5 cents per pound (11 cent/kg) to Earth orbit in 1958 dollars. In 2005 dollars, the cost would be 32 cents/lb or 70 cents/kg. The larger bombs used more explosives to super-compress the fissionables, reducing fallout. The extra debris from the explosives also serves as additional propulsion mass.

We could do that and fund space exploration. It's not an either-or situation by any stretch.

Maybe we could start by eliminating some of that $238 billion we spend on agricultural and oil subsidies, and put the money towards alternative energy, expanding access to public transportation, and aid for the Third World to attack the environmental problems caused by inadequate infrastructure, underproductive agriculture and reckless industrial development.
That would be a start.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of space exploration and could gaze at pictures of the nightly sky and such things for months and years.

It's only when people start talking about colonizing the solar system or different planets that I feel the need to point out that humankind will probably still need Earth in the future. We're not going anywhere without our home planet!

Agian, I say..

.. and make holiday traffic worse?! Hell to the no!

Convienient of you to ignore the huge danger with nukes exploding in earth's atmosphere, which is that rather then merely killing the 2 or 3 crew members in the spacecraft, you kill upwards of 1,000,000 people. There is no way on earth that any government would accept that sort of risk.

Scientific effects aside, how about a multistage journey? Take a regular rocket to a spaceport, transfer to a nuclear powered one, and then fire that baby up?

Bush, some weeks ago, told that the US will start a new space program that includes a permanent base on the Moon and possibily landing on Mars.

What do you think?

Will it ever be really done?
Is it a good idea or is it a waste of money?
Can the US make it alone or international effort is better?
Will it be used for scientifical purposes only? Or also for industry? Or for military uses?
-Yes it will be done.
-I think it is a good and a bad idea but a lot of money will be wasted.
I would hope it would be a truely international establishment, but obviously if America fronts up the cash 'they' would want it all for themselves.
-My above answer explains my thoughts.
-I see it being used for all of the above, largely for military purposes and scientific military if the USA and its allies have it all to themselves.
http://gamingevolved.com/forums/images/smilies/macarena.gifhttp://dancingfruitqueen.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/carrot.gifhttp://forums.rebelalliance.ws/images/smiles/dancing_pickle.gif

Sure.

We just stop wasting the dollars on unauthorized social programs. That would free up a butt-load of funds.

Yeah, none of that defending the nation stuff, eh?



Well, if he'd get rid of the unconstitutional social programs, rather than constitutional defense programs, there'd be plenty of money.



A drop in the bucket compared to the amount spent on unconstitutional social programs.



Here's an idea: let's herd all the unemployed, poor, and disabled onto a rocket, and then crash it on Mars! That'll teach 'em not to be so lazy! :rolleyes:

Here's an idea: let's herd all the unemployed, poor, and disabled onto a rocket, and then crash it on Mars! That'll teach 'em not to be so lazy! :rolleyes:
Why bother crashing a perfectly good ship? We could just toss 'em out the airlock :p

Going to the Moon and Mars is a super idea, I think (Well, the Moon seems like a bit of a waste, but I suppose it is a logical dry run).

In a perfect (Albeit unlikely) world, it would be a CSA/ESA joint mission.


Of course, both of my siblings are pursuing university education specifically with the intention of doing space research, so there is my bias. As for me, I am pursuing diplomacy, which is not directly related yet, but someday hopefully will be.

Of course, both of my siblings are pursuing university education specifically with the intention of doing space research, so there is my bias. As for me, I am pursuing diplomacy, which is not directly related yet, but someday hopefully will be.

The UN and each nation is going to have to draft laws and treaties on extraterrestrial territory sometime soon, so there's a lot of room there for space-related work.

Not to mention I've got to start buying property on Io for the refinery I'll need for my asteroid-mining venture. Not to mention some on Callisto for my palace...not to mention I'll need to raise a few hundred billion dollars.

The UN and each nation is going to have to draft laws and treaties on extraterrestrial territory sometime soon, so there's a lot of room there for space-related work.

Not to mention I've got to start buying property on Io for the refinery I'll need for my asteroid-mining venture. Not to mention some on Callisto for my palace...not to mention I'll need to raise a few hundred billion dollars.
The UN has no authority in space and absolutely no way of enforcing any laws or resolutions. It's all up for grabs right now but only if you can actually get there and you don't claim it in the name of a government. Billionaires could start a whole nation of their own on the moon and nobody would be able to stop them. Space is truly the final frontier.

And as for living there long-term; I hope you remembered the problem of gravity. For those of you just joining the conversation: if you stay in a low-grav environment for too long you get really weak and can never return to higher grav environments like Earth. This means that any really permanent base will end up looking like a giant pie tin so the base dwellers don't end up weak as kittens and fragile as nachos.

The UN has no authority in space and absolutely no way of enforcing any laws or resolutions. It's all up for grabs right now but only if you can actually get there and you don't claim it in the name of a government. Billionaires could start a whole nation of their own on the moon and nobody would be able to stop them. Space is truly the final frontier.

It's iffy; nobody has really established the law, but given that the UN is the one that manages many of the treaties regarding nuclear testing in space and things like that, I would say it would default to them.

Of course, if it really is first come, first serve, then it's no different than the US Wild West during the 1840's and 1850's. Not that that's a bad thing by any stretch...

And as for living there long-term; I hope you remembered the problem of gravity. For those of you just joining the conversation: if you stay in a low-grav environment for too long you get really weak and can never return to higher grav environments like Earth. This means that any really permanent base will end up looking like a giant pie tin so the base dwellers don't end up weak as kittens and fragile as nachos.

Well, ideally, by the time that I would be capable of approaching anywhere near this goal, I'm not going to have enough biological parts left in me for that to be a problem. These problems will be addressed on a situational basis, of course. I mean, the kind of money, logistics, and technology needed for something like this is easily going to be decades in development and it will take years to establish a working facility.

And, of course, there's always the possibility of artificial gravity. How this would come to pass isn't known to me, but it's not impossible.

We should concentrate on the space elevator first. After the first one is done traveling to space will become much cheaper.

Of course, if it really is first come, first serve, then it's no different than the US Wild West during the 1840's and 1850's. Not that that's a bad thing by any stretch...
That's exactly what I was thinking too. Oh man that would be so cool. There'd probably be a spice trade too. You know, to keep the sinuses clear.

Well, ideally, by the time that I would be capable of approaching anywhere near this goal, I'm not going to have enough biological parts left in me for that to be a problem. These problems will be addressed on a situational basis, of course. I mean, the kind of money, logistics, and technology needed for something like this is easily going to be decades in development and it will take years to establish a working facility.
I've always wondered something. The 6 Million Dollar Man had a robot arm and robot legs so when he picked up a car they'd be fine but shouldn't his human spine be crushed?

And, of course, there's always the possibility of artificial gravity. How this would come to pass isn't known to me, but it's not impossible.
No, spinning and acceleration are artificial gravity. A diamagnetic gravity chamber would never work on a ship (too big and consumes too much power), might not be safe for people, might fail in-flight and then be really difficult to fix...

Simulating gravity is not as simple as strapping magnets to your boots.

That's exactly what I was thinking too. Oh man that would be so cool. There'd probably be a spice trade too. You know, to keep the sinuses clear.

The spice must flow...

I can't wait until this stuff takes off; it's going to improve things on Earth considerably, and it's going to make a lot of people a lot richer. Of course, I hope to be in the latter category, but even seeing something like this happen would be cool for me. I'm ready to see space boom as huge numbers of individuals and companies all set off to stake their claims on the new territory. It'll be like the Gold Rush that never ends...

I've always wondered something. The 6 Million Dollar Man had a robot arm and robot legs so when he picked up a car they'd be fine but shouldn't his human spine be crushed?

Conceivably, unless somehow he was able to rearrange the way the weight was distributed on his body...either that, or just a big mistake on the creators' part. You'd think with all that money they would just replace the whole body and be done with it.

Of course, thanks to inflation he's now the 26.49 Million Dollar Man.

No, spinning and acceleration are artificial gravity. A diamagnetic gravity chamber would never work on a ship (too big and consumes too much power), might not be safe for people, might fail in-flight and then be really difficult to fix...

Hell, before we could even consider AG we would first have to develop space travel fast enough to make the trip in decent time. Artificial gravity is great, but if it takes a few years to make the round trip (for example, to Io) it's totally impractical except in near-Earth use.

I know that it's possible to generate gravitomagnetic fields, but they are orders of magnitude weaker than what would be necessary for even remotely Earth-like gravity. There are gigantic technical challenges before any kind of AG would be possible, not to mention the actual scaling challenges like making it fit in to a ship without consuming most of the usable space and making it energy efficient enough to make powering it affordable.

Simulating gravity is not as simple as strapping magnets to your boots.

For some reason, I think that will be a major cause of death in the first space boom...