Slashdot Mirror

More than the mishaps and explosions, the exciting thing about it all to me was the wide variety of people there. There were realtors selling land near the soon-to-be New Mexico Spaceport, and the Up Aerospace people who're going to inaugurate it. Carmack, Peter Diamandis, Rick Tumlinson and that bunch were all hanging out amongst everybod. There were many kids, many local residents at the event.

And though they've done it before for air-show crowds, this was the first time I'd seen the XCOR EZ-Rocket in action; truly awe-inspiring to see how easily it could maneuver. The loud rocket engines as it buzzed the crowd a few times didn't hurt the experience!

Anyway, not as exciting as if there'd been some real suborbital flights, but it looks like in just a couple of years that'll be a reality. Exciting times!

tm

It's also one of the only pieces of space sci-fi that recognizes that a loose screw flying around in orbit can totally fuck up your spaceship. Which is why the heroes are debris collectors.

It's not designed for use as a weapons platform (there is no ability to determine threats or potential targets), nor for usage on other planets -- all of the vehicles make use of GPS to some degree (they can operate without, but are handicapped) and we don't exactly have constellations of sats flying around any other stellar bodies.

The photo shows one of these Martian-like creatures at work in their natural habitat. Apparently they look just like coke dealers here on earth filling up baggies for distribution. Except they are all red with purple hands.

http://www.wonderquest.com/black-holes-proof.htm
Summarizes very neatly the default hypothesis that they exist

This leaves aside the problem of coming up with a better theory than GR (which has been extensively tested)

After all, the theory of black holes has been contested vigorously from its inception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6193

Two examples of a reasonable approximation to proof:
Massive black holes ... Here they seem to have shown that MACHOs and WIMPs do not fit the bill.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/blackhole_mi lkyway_021016.html

And for a stellar mass black hole
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/de ath_spiral_010111.html

http://www.wonderquest.com/black-holes-proof.htm
Summarizes very neatly the default hypothesis that they exist

This leaves aside the problem of coming up with a better theory than GR (which has been extensively tested)

After all, the theory of black holes has been contested vigorously from its inception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6193

Two examples of a reasonable approximation to proof:
Massive black holes ... Here they seem to have shown that MACHOs and WIMPs do not fit the bill.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/blackhole_mi lkyway_021016.html

And for a stellar mass black hole
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/de ath_spiral_010111.html

an if you want a trip to space, you go to Russia too .. is this one of those In Soviet Russia Jokes that float around here?

By definition, a moon/satellite doesn't have to be orbiting a planet. Check out Ida and Dactyl, an asteroid/moon combination. Anything out there that's massive can have a moon, it doesn't need to be a planet or even the size of a planet. Ida is only 31 km in diameter (on average), and its moon is only 0.7 km in diameter. By 2002, there were over 30 discovered asteroid/moon systems. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that it has a moon shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not it's a planet. We have planets (Mercury and Venus) which have no moons at all, and we have non-planets which do have moons.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ second_moon_991029.html mentions a second moon around Earth. Now: if Earth is capable of having two satellites VERY different in size and orbit, and yet they're both called moons, should for all clarity the word 'moon' not be abandoned and replaced by satellite? And call our major moon... well.. 'Moon'?
Just my two euro-cents.

You call it a moon.

Probably, we need to have a lot more terminology to describe satellites orbiting other objects. The terms "irregular moon", "regular moon" and "outcast moon" already exist. There are satellites of moons and also binary systems where objects sort of orbit each other. It will probably be another decade before concensus develops on all this.

Not to mention the Russians latest export venture, selling Soyuz space capsules to a country unable to fund the research and development of its own space craft...The United States (link).

As to no known usefulness of going to the moon, I'd like to at least
give partial credit to the discovery of the presence of helium-3 .

In oil equivalency at about $1.50 a barrel it was estimated worth about 12,000 Trillion dollars .

If it could be acquired at a reasonable cost it would be worth while .

Article from Space.com :

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_0006 30.html

Working helium-3 reactor in US :

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/iec/GeneralOpPics.htm

***** I really do not think ppl fully understand how truly awesome it is to hear how
cheaply this can be built, and that it already works . *****

I think sending ppl up there is a bad idea, because it cost more to feed/house them .

Send robots that can repair each other, and send 10, if one breaks down it uses the other
for spare parts . If the 10 bot project works , send 100, and so on .....

Make them Solar powered, and make them remote control .

To launch H3 canisters off lunar surface use solar powered mass driver as was
theorized by NASA a long time ago .

H3 canister sitting at a La Grange point with a space station, shuttle ( or its replacement )
picks up canister for return to earth or place canister in heat shielded re-entry capsule
and drop it in the pacific, add inertial gyros for guidance, parachute for drag .

We need better robot rovers than the ones we sent to mars, and this would be a good test bed
as the delay for RF between the earth and the moon is alot shorter than from here to mars .

Build and test the bots here on earth, get all major nations involved, offer the power to the
world with no strings attached as a total end to oil .

Once things are cranked up on moon, and lots of robots are harvesting H3, have some take some
time to dig an underground cavern that can be used as a moonbase shielded from at least smaller
meteor bombardment .

Use the moon as ur building point in an underground hangar, and then launch into space with
a H3 powered mass driver from the moon, then the transport can use zero G drive system to travel to
stable high orbit around mars thus avoiding a rocket type lift off from the moon .

A larger scale Bio-sphere type project will need to be done here on earth to see if it is feasible,
though I must say the astronauts manage well in the tin can called ISS , a underground moonbase
would offer a LOT more cu. ft.

The lunar soil needs to be heated, and this can be done like the solar heat furnace in the mojave
that is used as a 350M watt power source .

http://www.isracast.com/tech_news/130305_tech.htm

It is possible, and it is worth doing and with the world energy needs going up, we really don't
have alot of choice in the matter . We need more energy and we need it soon .

Only other hope would be bubble fusion, but it has not progressed as far as this .

Peace,
Ex-MislTech

Yeah, that's what happens when you search a site for a keyword and post the first link that comes up :)

I think they meant to post this link instead.

It's fairly well known that the space shuttle was a compromise between NASA and the military. In order to get the budget, they agreed to design requirements that involved weird payloads and the ability to launch them into polar orbit. That in turn drove the design to be what it is today.

In terms of the space station, it seemed to quickly turn into an exercise to divide up the money according to country and state. I'm not even sure what science goes on up there any more. These days the reduced crew seems to spend their time repairing the place. Crazy.

If you're interested in asteroid deflection, Jay Melosh has a few ideas.

Including: "Deploying a giant parabolic mirror to concentrate the sun's rays and vaporize rock on the surface of the asteroid. The vaporized material flies off at high speed and generates a re-coil action that pushes the asteroid, slowly but surely, in the opposite direction."

Which is great, because the parabolic mirror can double as a way for Bruce Willis to cook and refrigerate his food while he's there.

Dealing with the eccentricity of the moon's orbit is something of a pain in the butt. That gets easier to handle the less mass your counterweight has.

By the way, who the heck links to articles on msnbc? That's about the worst news site on the internet. Not to mention, the article is just a mirror from the orginal at space.com.

It's worth noting that NASA has also previously announced that they will be offering commercial contracts to US companies for transportation of cargo and eventually crew to the ISS. These would be fixed-cost contracts for services rendered, rather than the more traditional cost-plus contracts which reward inefficiency and waste. Unfortunately, none of the US companies are where they need to be yet, although it's looking like SpaceX should be there in a few years.

From this article:

NASA will soon solicit offers from firms interested in delivering cargo and crew to the international space station (ISS), but NASA Administrator Mike Griffin said he wants to buy services, not dole out development contracts to newcomers who were shut out of the competition to build the space shuttle's replacement. ...

Griffin said he also would like to see a robust commercial space transportation industry take root and thrive, and said the best way for NASA to help is "to utilize the market that is offered by the international space station's requirement to supply crew and cargo as the years unfold." ...

Griffin promised that NASA would give priority to non-government services should they become available, although he cautioned that deliberately "under utilizing" a NASA-owned and -operated system could encounter resistance from lawmakers intent on protecting government jobs. ...

Another difference between a traditional government contract and the deals Griffin hopes to make is that they would emphasize "performance rather than process." While NASA would insist on "certain standards," Griffin said "It's not up to me as the procurer of that service to determine how the engineers working for you, the provider, provide that service." ...

Charles Miller, president of Constellation Services International, said he was "enthusiastically looking forward" to NASA's crew and cargo solicitation. Constellation Services Internationals, Woodland Hills, Calif., is developing what it calls the LEO (low Earth orbit) Express standardized cargo container, which could launch atop virtually any rocket, as an affordable, near-term solution to NASA's space station re-supply needs.

Elon Musk, president of Space Exploration Technologies, said he was "definitely encouraged" by Griffin's remarks. "This is a market SpaceX has been interested in for a long time," Musk said. ...

Well I'll be! I guess I'm a bit unedjumacated :)

Though that actually just makes me more curious -- why does Mercury qualify as the single dominant body in its immediate neighborhood but Pluto does not? If Charon qualifies as a satellite, then wouldn't that mean Pluto was dominating it? What is mercury dominating? And what does Neptune do to Pluto that Venus doesn't do to Mercury? The article says that Pluto crosses Neptunes orbit... are they saying that means that Neptune and Pluto are in the same "immediate neighborhood"? But Pluto and Neptune are always more than 1.6 Tm apart, wheras Mercury and Venus are never more than .6 Tm apart, and are somtimes as close as .05 Tm (if my calculations are correct).

I'm confused or ignorant or something.

Cheers.

Yeah, I don't quite know why the question is being asked of /. but anywho, glad it is...

I don't particularly trust anything at all I read on "physorg" unless it is also published somewhere else and this search is not boosting my confidence in the article's validity. Other things which make me doubt the clam VERY VERY MUCH are the fact that lightning has a temperature usually not reported in the literature to be above 40-50,000 Kelvin while virtually all fusion devices (which are in thermal equilibrium, as this would also be the mechanism here presumably unless they are proposing some super exotically weird non-equilibrium mechanism) need to attain temperatures in the MILLIONS of K range to even begin seeing neutrons. The fact that they are also claiming that this explains why they see "100 times the background" levels of neutrons during lightning storms is, I think, bordering on the ridiculous. There is a reason it took us until just 2 years ago to discover that lightning emits x-rays, and that is because uhmmm it involves studying lightning at very close range! Interference effects in sensitive electronic equipment caused by the insanely huge magnetic and electric field pulse very close by are extremely hard to eliminate. Until I read the paper, I'll very highly doubt this neutron/fusion "discovery".

Anyway, I think the following line in the submission needs some factual clarification:
"Perhaps more controversially, and yet to be discussed on Slashdot, the NIF has possible plans for a hybrid fusion approach that uses not only deuterium and tritium, but uranium and plutonium as well in what amounts to a miniaturized version of how thermonuclear weapons achieve fusion. Fears are that this could lead directly to micro-H-bombs."

This is a bit of a convoluted misconception. Firstly when NIF (if they ever finish the damn thing) compresses and ignites its DT capsules, they will theoretically produce a gain of something like a maximum of ~50. That is to say, they will release ~50 times more energy than was delivered to them by the lasers which are used to start the reaction and this will result in the emission of a neutron pulse and other thermal and electromagnetic energy in the 10s of megajoules range. This is exactly a replica of a thermonuclear bomb in the lab (without the primary). They ARE "micro-H-bombs", that's the whole idea of the thing. Secondly NIF want's to use uranium and plutonium as reported recently not because they will increase the fusion yield of the micro-bombs but rather because the megabar, megakelvin conditions achievable with NIF will allow the examination of these metals at the conditions which are found at the cores of imploding primaries (and secondary "sparkplugs"). These are called "subcriticals" and they allow the examination of the equation of state" of these metals at energy regimes pertinent to A-bombs without having an actual chain reaction occur.

As for the question "With all the recent discoveries and developments in fusion research, my question for Slashdotters - are we on the verge of something big that will make fusion a practical reality in a much shorter time frame than the often quoted '30 years away, and always will be'"...
Don't count on it. There are lots of very promising and very very exciting ideas out there, but fusion on an economic (and laboratory; ie. not H-bombs) scale is just damn hard to do. The 30 year rule, sadly, still applies. T

or define the single dominant body in its immediate neighborhood as the only qualifying object for planetary status

Neptune would be the dominant body in Pluto's region of space

1. Pluto is a very long way from the Sun. Its average distance from the Sun is over 6 billion kilometers. The closest Pluto gets to the Sun is over 4.3 billion kilometers., and the furthest away it gets is over 7.2 billion kilometers. From Pluto,

2. Neptune is a very long way away from the Sun. Its average distance from the Sun is almost 4.5 billion kilometers, or over thirty times the distance from Earth to the Sun. The orbit, or path, Neptune follows around the Sun is almost a perfect circle. The closest Neptune gets to the Sun is about 4.3 billion kilometers., and the furthest away it gets is a little over 4.6 billion kilometers. Neptune is about 49500 kilometers wide.

3. The average distance of Uranus from the Sun is about 3 billion kilometers. It is about 51800 kilometers wide.

Because I read it in this article:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_mond ay_031124.html

Sorry for the repost, some of the stuff got cut off before due to my Slashdot noobness. Feel free to mod my other post out of existence.

I still see a lot of comments from naysayers that are based on outdated technology and SE specs. A lot has happened in the last year or two, guys. White papers dealing with everything from cable design (a ribbon seems to be the answer) to weather to electrical charge have been published.

There are still technical problems, some of which we probably don't even know about yet. But there is a design for a cable of 40 - 60% CN that should be strong enough. CN mass production facilities are being built. NASA is taking the concept seriously enough that their guys are writing white papers.

It ain't pixie dust anymore.

Detailed info and links below. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1 .htm

"The desired strength for the space elevator is about 62 GPa. Carbon nanotubes... appear to have a theoretical strength far above the desired range for space elevator structures."

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /space_elevator_020327-2.html

"The hurdle to date, Edwards said, has been the commercial fabrication of carbon nanotubes. Both U.S. and Japanese firms, among others, are ramping up production of carbon nanotubes, with tons of this now exotic matter soon to be available. "That quantity of material is going to be around well before five years time. It's not going to take long," he said."

http://www.liftport.com/faq.php

Frequently Asked Questions regarding the SE endeavour, from LiftPort Group

(a LOT of very good info here, here's a couple regarding points I've seen here)

What are some frequent Space Elevator misconceptions?

"Nothing is strong enough to make a Space Elevator."

Carbon nanotubes (CNT), discovered in 1991, are almost certainly strong enough. Theory says that they are 3-5 times as strong as we need them to be, and laboratory measurements of their strength, though very difficult to do and not yet definitive, have shown more than half the strength we need.

The longest nanotubes thus far are measured in centimeters, not kilometers, and certainly not 100,000 km.

We don't need and are not counting on individual carbon nanotube molecules running the entire length of the space elevator or any significant fraction thereof. The individual fibers in a string or rope are only a few millimeters long, yet the rope has a large fraction of the theoretical strength of the fibers. This is even more the case with MOLECULES, several orders of magnitude smaller than a fiber. A diamond is said to be the "hardest substance in the world" because of the strength of the carbon bonds that make it up, but a diamond is not a single molecule. Likewise an SE could be made with CNTs just a few centimeters or millimeters long. (In fact, a CNT several centimeters long is a wonder; they're single molecules!)

"The elevator would be susceptible to a terrorist attack. "

First of all, it's important to point out that there will be more than one Space Elevator. We plan to build a second one immediately (using the first to make it much cheaper) and expect that the second will immediately be used to build a third, fourth, etc. An attack on any one ribbon is unlikely because of the anchor stations' isolation and the relatively small number of casualties that would result. Terrorists are unlikely to be able to break the elevator anywhere higher than 15 km or so; it can then be simply flown back down to the anchor by moving some of the counterweight mass a bit further out and will be back in operation in a couple of days.

The first anchor will be located in the equatoria

I see a lot of comments from naysayers that are based on outdated technology and SE specs. A lot has happened in the last year or two, guys. White papers dealing with everything from cable design (a ribbon seems to be the answer) to weather to electrical charge have been published.

There are still technical problems, some of which we probably don't even know about yet. But there is a design for a cable of 40 - 60% CN that should be strong enough. CN mass production facilities are being built. NASA is taking the concept seriously enough that their guys are writing white papers.

It ain't pixie dust anymore.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1 .htm

"The desired strength for the space elevator is about 62 GPa. Carbon nanotubes... appear to have a theoretical strength far above the desired range for space elevator structures."

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /space_elevator_020327-2.html

"The hurdle to date, Edwards said, has been the commercial fabrication of carbon nanotubes. Both U.S. and Japanese firms, among others, are ramping up production of carbon nanotubes, with tons of this now exotic matter soon to be available. "That quantity of material is going to be around well before five years time. It's not going to take long," he said."

http://www.liftport.com/faq.php

Frequently Asked Questions regarding the SE endeavour, from LiftPort Group

(a LOT of very good info here, here's a couple regarding points I've seen here)

What are some frequent Space Elevator misconceptions?

"Nothing is strong enough to make a Space Elevator."

Carbon nanotubes (CNT), discovered in 1991, are almost certainly strong enough. Theory says that they are 3-5 times as strong as we need them to be, and laboratory measurements of their strength, though very difficult to do and not yet definitive, have shown more than half the strength we need.

The longest nanotubes thus far are measured in centimeters, not kilometers, and certainly not 100,000 km.

We don't need and are not counting on individual carbon nanotube molecules running the entire length of the space elevator or any significant fraction thereof. The individual fibers in a string or rope are only a few millimeters long, yet the rope has a large fraction of the theoretical strength of the fibers. This is even more the case with MOLECULES, several orders of magnitude smaller than a fiber. A diamond is said to be the "hardest substance in the world" because of the strength of the carbon bonds that make it up, but a diamond is not a single molecule. Likewise an SE could be made with CNTs just a few centimeters or millimeters long. (In fact, a CNT several centimeters long is a wonder; they're single molecules!)

"The elevator would be susceptible to a terrorist attack. "

First of all, it's important to point out that there will be more than one Space Elevator. We plan to build a second one immediately (using the first to make it much cheaper) and expect that the second will immediately be used to build a third, fourth, etc. An attack on any one ribbon is unlikely because of the anchor stations' isolation and the relatively small number of casualties that would result. Terrorists are unlikely to be able to break the elevator anywhere higher than 15 km or so; it can then be simply flown back down to the anchor by moving some of the counterweight mass a bit further out and will be back in operation in a couple of days.

The first anchor will be located in the equatorial Pacific 650 kilometers from any air or shipping lanes. The ribbon would also have restricted airspace around it. The ribbon and anchor would be protected like any other valuable piece

Here are the full links:
http://www.space.com/images/h_space_junk_esa_02.gi f
http://www.space.com/images/h_space_junk_nasda_02. jpg

The page they came from is here.

Sorry for the screwup.

Here are the full links:
http://www.space.com/images/h_space_junk_esa_02.gi f
http://www.space.com/images/h_space_junk_nasda_02. jpg

The page they came from is here.

Sorry for the screwup.

Here are the full links:
http://www.space.com/images/h_space_junk_esa_02.gi f
http://www.space.com/images/h_space_junk_nasda_02. jpg

The page they came from is here.

Sorry for the screwup.

Yes, the satellite itself retains the same volume, but junk comes from lots of other places. The rocket boosters that send it up shed bolts and various other pieces of foam, paint and metal on their way up and during stage seperation, and the satellite itself, it it gets hit by something, could also shed some debris. Furthermore, the satellite itself splits into 4 pieces when up there, so each one is whizzing around, and has to be tracked individually.

The problem isn't so much about mass, it's about all the individual pieces, because even something as small as a bolt is travelling fast enough to cause major damage. 1 ton of solid metal is far better than 1 ton of loose debris, because it's easier to track and easier to avoid than a cloud of junk.

Here's some graphical representations of junk:
Junk in low orbit.
Junk in higher orbits.

Yes, the satellite itself retains the same volume, but junk comes from lots of other places. The rocket boosters that send it up shed bolts and various other pieces of foam, paint and metal on their way up and during stage seperation, and the satellite itself, it it gets hit by something, could also shed some debris. Furthermore, the satellite itself splits into 4 pieces when up there, so each one is whizzing around, and has to be tracked individually.

The problem isn't so much about mass, it's about all the individual pieces, because even something as small as a bolt is travelling fast enough to cause major damage. 1 ton of solid metal is far better than 1 ton of loose debris, because it's easier to track and easier to avoid than a cloud of junk.

Here's some graphical representations of junk:
Junk in low orbit.
Junk in higher orbits.

No, you wouldn't be right. Because I'M NOT AMERICAN (OMG!). I don't think there should be a governing body, I just think that people and space agencies together should decide to limit what goes up.

And you know what, nobody has ever been killed by exploding the sun before, right? So why don't we just go and do that?

Oh, and check out the nice 500 pound piece of junk in this article that almost hit some guy's house in Texas, as an example of something that was almost damaged. In any case, I know it's unlikely junk will kill people down here, but debris in orbit could be a serious problem to satellites and other space exploration.

Read this article and you'll see what I wrote has nothing to do with a music group.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_mond ay_031124.html

Milky Way won't collide with another galaxy for several million more years, when Andromeda MAY hit us.

Don't panic! That's billon, not million:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/ga laxy_collides_020507-1.html

Reassure your children:

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/featu res/F_When_Gallaxies_Collide.html

Don't show them messy pictures like this:

http://www.noao.edu/outreach/current/collide_hilit e.html

I Loved this link at the bottom of the article... Survival Tips for Black Hole Travelers
... Since that has SO much to do with a cluster of stars in another galaxy.

Interesting that Pluto is also having unexpected global warming:

Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warmin g_021009.html

While the current NASA design for the CEV will most certainly take us to the moon as a similar technology did in the late 60's - early 70's where do we go from there? How will this design be a platform for future exploration? The answer is that it won't. I agree that the HLV is an excellent platform to have around and should be built as a sort of "Space Truck" for heavy cargo but the return to capsule technology is simply a politically charged exodus toward proven technology for the appearance of reliability and acceptance.

While the current NASA design for the CEV will most certainly take us to the moon as a similar technology did in the late 60's - early 70's where do we go from there? How will this design be a platform for future exploration? The answer is that it won't. I agree that the HLV is an excellent platform to have around and should be built as a sort of "Space Truck" for heavy cargo but the return to capsule technology is simply a politically charged exodus toward proven technology for the appearance of reliability and acceptance.

Not quite

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ap_050829_mal aysia_moon.html NASA says they are going to reach the moon in about the same time the Malaysians say they want to go the moon. NASA believes this is possiblebecause of the fact that we have all this former technology to use (Space Shuttle and Apollo). Malaysia has none of that.

You know, at first I was really pissed off when I saw this post...I mean, for those of us who actually dream of and even have been involved in having a permanent and ongoing human presence in space, what you said was just plain nasty.

However...You did get me thinking...what is my reason for wanting to go to the moon? Why am I so passionate about something so big and so far fetched?

You know what I realized...I don't NEED a REASON (at least not one that you happen to approve of)...
It is real simple...
I am passionate about the possibilities available for humanity spreading out among the planets and even the stars...

I am passionate about the possibilities for our planet, once humanity gets a chance to really look down on our planet and sees it as a whole...

I am passionate about the possiblilties in the realm technology, once we get to a place where gravity doesn't interfere with crystal growth, where a vaccum can be a real vaccum, and where I could launch a space probe by openning a door...

They may have no reason for going to the moon.
They may have bad reasons for going to the moon.
So what...I can give them some good reasons...and I suspect so can you (and in the process you might just get your orbital hotel, etc).

Hell, so can these guys:
http://www.space.com/news/moon_top10_031208-1.html

http://www.enterprisemission.com/top-ten.htm

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/82/1

http://www.nssnyc.org/amillionreasons.html

http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/John_F_Kenn edy/3.htm

Got evidence? Because last I knew, the Prometheus was still chugging along.

What you may be thinking about is that the JIMO mission was cut in favor of testing the Prometheus technologies prior to assigning the device to an expensive scientific mission.

But don't let me get in the way of a perfectly offensive rant.

Got evidence? Because last I knew, the Prometheus was still chugging along.

What you may be thinking about is that the JIMO mission was cut in favor of testing the Prometheus technologies prior to assigning the device to an expensive scientific mission.

But don't let me get in the way of a perfectly offensive rant.

As long as there are evil commies going into space, the USA will be right there with money to spend on going to the moon to keep them from stealing our precious bodily fluids.

I heard that the plans for the Saturn rockets are lost. A quick check, however, revealed that they are not.

I now have no reason for posting this message.

well the next big wars could be fought over water.

How about doubling our supply? and its probably relatively simple to mine and process in space.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050907_ceres _planet.html

You are totally, completey, even embarrassingly wrong about this. You say "Hubble falls right in line with this mission," after just saying "I think that sending people into space is a complete waste of time and money."

Don't you remember when Story Musgrave fixed the Hubble Telescope in 1993 with his bare, gloved hands? There is no 'robot' that can do that kind of precision work. If we are going to build large, complex machines and put them in orbit, they are going to have to be servicable. The idea of a private industry that can carry people in space, perhaps to even service NASA equipment under government contracts, sounds fabulous. The problem is, it doesn't exist yet, so NASA has to have a plan to service it's own equipment. There has also been thousands of man hours doing micro-gravity research in everything from pharmecuticals to fuel research.

I am more put off by the billion dollar mars probes that are repeatedly lost. I would rather see more effort put into local (earth-moon) space ventures that involve people.

Thing is, Newtonian mechanics aren't the ONLY rules they follow. They also follow the rules of chemistry, solid state physics and thermodynamics. And it is these things (and others) which appear to have the potential to lead to some very very weird things indeed. That's why people think these things are exciting.

The thing that hampers evolution is the defining the age for the universe at 13.7 billion years old. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/map_discover y_030211.html All the sudden you do not have enough time for certain astronomical things to happen like white dwarfs, black holes, and what not. http://www.wheatonma.edu/Academic/AcademicDept/Ast ronomy/TBarker120/Feb14/ClassNotes.html When our sun is having it's beginning around 10.3 billion years ago and the needed cycles to produce heavy elements to form planets like the Earth, evolution and Big Bang as people have postulated them, do not have enough time. You can clearly start to argue that things like intelligent life further along than us probably is false due to a time factor, not to mention the earth should not be possible because you have not had enough stars go supernova to create all the heavier elements required. I remember growing up and people postulating that the universe was trillion of years old, like 2.4 trillion. We see that this was false, but that amount of time is necessary for Big Bang and evolution to work as postulated. The question is what is really true and what is the cosmology make-up? Evolution is not possible because the Earth should not exist, yet it does. I like how people love Einstein but seem to forget the words of wisdom he had.

Everyone's got it so backwards and its really amusing. Global warming is caused by solar warming. This is directly related to the actions of previous democratic administrations, like Bill Clinton. Some like it hot, what can you do?

No really, check out:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_0 30320.html

FTA:
Willson said the Sun's possible influence has been largely ignored because it is so difficult to quantify over long periods.
End FTA;

As is the CO2 output and the temperature trend over the last few thousand years, which you would need to do to trend climactic conditions with a reasonable amound of accuracy to see where we are *really headed.

It's only been measured accurately for around 20 years, as has the sun's output. Coincidence? I think not.

Amazing how the solar warming trend is conveniently ignored by the birkenstock crowd when talking about this issue.

FTA:
The new study shows that the TSI has increased by about 0.1 percent over 24 years.
End FTA;
That doesn't sound like a lot, til you consider the temperatures we are talking about. and:

FTA:
A separate recent study of Sun-induced magnetic activity near Earth, going back to 1868, provides compelling evidence that the Sun's current increase in output goes back more than a century, Willson said.
End FTA;

from http://www.montana.edu/wwwpb/univ/acton.html:
For decades, scientists have known that the surface of the sun is about 6,000 degrees Celsius while the corona soars to several million degrees.
end from;
6000x.001=6 degrees every 24 years. Since 1898, that's over 25 degrees C, many many more during periods of high activity. If the earth's temp management is as fragile as the GW crowd says it is, this has to have had at least some effect.

This change is inexorable, unstoppable. While global warming may, arguably, be influenced by people, solar warming, is not, and long term, no matter what we do, we can't stop it. As stars age, they get hotter...

l8,
AC

Does anyone remember in the IMAX documentary Solarmax where a super solar flare is mentioned? If I remember correctly, a super-duper solar flare is long overdue, and it has the potential of wiping out our entire satellite fleet. Also, here you can find a more detailed account of the recent solar flare than the AP article that appears on CNN: http://space.com/scienceastronomy/050908_solar_fla re.html