Slashdot Mirror
Back to the Moon
starexplorer2001 writes "Space.com is reporting that NASA's planned trip back to the Moon isn't without a significant amount of science and technological innovation. Simply 'sponging off Apollo' won't do it. Among the issues: safer human spaceflight, lunar ice, sustainability, robotic scouting missions and more. This won't be easy."
We can't just use 60s technology to get there? I'm shocked!
I bet this question has been asked many times, but here goes:
Why was it possible to go to the moon in '69 but not possible now even using the same old technology? Has the moon/earth/atmostphere/space changed?
Please stop entering code 2,2,7,6,6,4
You mean we actually went to the moon before?
Bush wants us to go back to the moon so Red China won't be able to control all the green cheese.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
"The Apollo program cost $25 billion, equivalent to about $125 billion in today's dollars."
[Source: http://www.waltercunningham.com/op_ed_0204.htm%5D
"WHY the hell HAVEN'T they been back there YET?"
I guess you could say that the public interest in a given topic does not LET'S RIDE BIKES!!
The last time I made that statement, I got flammed up the wazoo. Any GWB loyalists left out there?
Maybe all the scientist have gottn fed up with no one listening to their warnings about the environment, and have decided to leave. Score 1 for Darwin!
We're doing this to lay down a sustainable infrastructure for continued unmanned and manned spaceflight.
We don't have the industrial setup to make new 60's gear - and doing so would be unsafe and unwise.
This is like building shipyards - so we can build ships.
Properly done - and I have some doubts about the CEVs basis in design - this will allow for much more access to space.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
It was "SCE" to Aux - Signal Conditioning Electronics to Auxiliary. The SCE was what provided the intrumentation that went to telemetry, so when the primary SCE got zapped, the telemetry itself was invalid, so you couldn't see the actual state of the spacecraft on the ground. Once that was fixed, they could then begin assessing the state and providing corrective reconfiguration commanding.
Brett
THAT is how our great, illustrius NASA is getting to the moon - by outsourcing the R&D and get low-paid foreigners to take all the risks. (Bet you 10:1 that almost all early next-gen manned lunar rockets are built and manned by India, with NASA only using their astronauts when India becomes expendable and the rocket has been constructed.)
I strongly urge all nations with space programs of their own to refuse to cooperate with the American space program unless treated with respect and as equals. I feel reasonably sure that many such programs could reach the moon without much trouble, with no help whatsoever from NASA, before NASA could reach the moon on their own. The more such programs do so, the better. If Russia, China, India and the ESA all get manned mission vehicles that outperform NASA's best at that time, maybe - just maybe - we will see greater cooperation and less nationalism. Total cooperation, total pursuit of technology (and not applause), total openness (none of this "ITAR stops us telling you why our spaceship rammed that satelite" b*shit), and we could see achievements in space taking an order of magnitude less time yet achieving an order of magnitude greater results.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
You have to ask if they will use Intel or AMD chips to power this lander. But as we all know (geek wise) they use chips which have truely tried and tested with no hidded gotcha FPU bugs or the like. they also like chips with large tracks unlike the ever decreasing die size due to beyond a certain size the chips tracks become suseptable to the more exotic matter buzzing around space and large chip tracks can take a full on hit and still leave enough wifth for the electricity top flow. They also prefer ultra redundancy and iirc the shuttle currently has 4 onboard computers with a 5th back at ground control all running the same software at the same time and checking each others results (I'm sure somebody could give a more exacting account).
:D.
So given all that do people expect to see an AMD chip in space, I would imagine that running the same x86 code on an INTEl,AMD,and selection of the many other X86 based CPU's would be a reliable way to compare and iliminate CPU errors on many levels.
As for going to the moon, well beyond seeing a Ghostbusters size marshmellow man walking on the surface, they will never convince the sceptics they ever went there.
Some argue that if we could go there then we should be on the mars by now.
But think of this, the moon project was born out of the cold war and was driven politicaly.
Today moon projects although still driven politicaly are more driven scientificaly. This means that safty and assurances of a perfect mission become more of a factor as well as costs. That alone puts how daring the first moon mission actualy was.
Some compare the first moon landing to the flight of the wright brothers. Now would you fly in one of those planes today, hell no.
It is only now that we can saftly and reliably technology wise afford to look at the moon. Also remember that it is also what we do there that has also been advanced technologywise. Even doing simple deep drill core samples would of been totaly unviable in the early days due to space suit design alone, heck maybe still unviable today but at least we will be able to build a semi automated rig that dosn't weigh more than the craft taking it there.
I await the conspiracy theories; That only now that AMD has a proven track record in doing x86 chips, are we able to go back to the moon
Yep, of course, how didn't I think of that one, the american government created 300kg of rocks that couldn't have been created anywhere on earth, shipped them all around the world, and no scientist ever realised it!
Those 419 guys are sooo beaten...
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
You guys are COMPLETELY forgetting about space oil!
The reason we won't use Apollo Hardware is because we want to do much more then land 2 guys on the moon for more then a week. The ultimate goal is to build a moon base and use that as practice for a Mars base. In order to do that you need to bring more stuff to the moon and be able to keep your service module in orbit unmanned for up to 6 months at a time. This isn't all that hard. But currently NASA is working with its current budget so things won't get really rolling until Space Station is built and shuttle retires. Those two programs ending will free up almost $10B a year for NASA. That is plenty of money to do a slow gradual build up to a moon base.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
A Funny thing happened on the way to the Moon
-- Brought to you by Carl's JR
It's not that it's physically impossible, just fiscally impossible. We haven't gone back because nobody has enough money to foot the bill for a lunar mission that's actually willing to make it happen.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
space oil - LOL. SAying that also forgot that the film experts have finished with the 9/11 pentagon film :|.
;o).
Hmmm maybe NASA during last budget request to the President slipped in:
TRACE ELEMENTS OF OIL FOUND ON THE FARSIDE OF THE MOON.
Too which the president may of thought, hmmmm yessss of course that explains the black bits, once again proving its not made of cheese. HAHA I'll get one over those French. Thereupon we have the second comming too the moon upon us.
Good chance for everybody to test out the HD TV sets dont your think, wonder if NASA has shares in a few manuufactures of HDTV's. I know I will nearer the time
I'll bet all the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are ready to join up with the moon landing conspiracy theorists to form the new conspiracy brotherhood.
We should all welcome our new conspiratorial overlords!
-h-
I have a question - once we get there, how are we supposed to get Bush back? :P
The whole "back to the Moon" thing is a load of garbage.
Your short-sightedness is amazing here. "There's nothing more to learn on the Moon"? Where do you get that from? We've sent precisely six manned missions to the moon in all of human history. Only twelve humans have actually walked on it. Almost none of them had a strong scientific background (although many learned it in order to be more effective). Yet we know everything there is to know about the moon according to you. Your hubris is absolutely mind-boggling.
Experts have long admitted that launching a mission to Mars from the Moon is far more difficult than doing it from here.
Umm...exactly who is proposing we launch a Mars mission from the Moon? Bush sure isn't, and neither is any other sane person. To build up a launch infrastructure on the Moon would be a multi-decade endeavor and would likely eclipse a Mars mission for sheer complexity and cost.
No, the Moon is a beta test site, if you will. No human has left low Earth orbit for almost four decades! All the engineers who made Apollo work are either dead or retired. Our heavy lift capacity is completely moribund. With but few exceptions, we're going to have to learn a bunch of things all over again. Which is a better place to learn these things, a spot that's only a couple of days away from the Earth via free-return trajectory, or a spot that's months away with no such option? It doesn't take much more intelligence than a turnip to understand the former is far more advantageous than the latter. It's safer, it'll cost less, and we'll get quicker "knowledge returns".
Once we rediscover how to get to the Moon, setting up a moonbase will essentially be a "dry run" for setting up a Mars habitat. True, the lunar surface and Martian surface don't have a lot in common, but they're both immensely rugged and challenging environments to construct even a sand castle. Learning how to build a moonbase will teach us in no small part how to build a Mars base. Or would you rather we get to Mars first then try to figure all this out then, when astronauts are beyond any easy help from Earth?
NASA has become the "Santa Claus" of the U.S. Government. Keep the children excited and maybe they'll think there really is a future, after all.
While I'll freely admit NASA is merely a vast sinkhole for funds and functioning solely as a reason to have a space station right now, the return to the Moon does not fit that category. There is a future if ostriches like yourself would only see it. Instead, your cynicism and politcal bias appears to be clouding what might otherwise be a capability for sound judgement on your part.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
There's nothing more to learn on the Moon
New technologies to do it faster, better, and cheaper is a very good thing to learn. If we can do it on the budget that NASA has today.. that is an awesome achievement that will produce lots of great technology not only for future NASA missions, but also to further science which has a direct positive affect on everyone's lives.
Here comes the predictible velcro and Tang rebuttles.....
Slashdot.. where people join together in deliberate ignorance.
They should still have the sets around somewhere, and I think today's CGI is FAR better than what they had in the 60s! On a more serious note, I saw a report several years ago, showing that for every $1 paid into NASA, $9 came back into the economy by way of R&D advances, and taking those advances to market. Not to mention, the amount of cutting-edge medical knowlege and equipment that has come from the space program. It is very dumb, not to fund bleeding edge technology to go to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.
The Mars Rover (wikipedia) wasn't cheap either. The total cost of building, launching, landing and operating the rovers on the surface for the initial 90 day primary mission was about US $820 million. I would love to see a mission to the Moon. It's right "there". Why not do a few marketing missions? Put up a video plaque with optional live feed from NASA? I'd like to see some addtional moving and non-moving scientific equipment that could be rented out. Would it not be nice to have a small extra-web cam that can be monitored from the net? It could point to earth and be rotated. Mmmmmmmm.
Life needs to find a way off this gravity well before the next "great extinction". For better or worse that burden falls on us, homo sapiens sapiens. People view earth as some permantent hospitable sustaining womb and that "we should just solve our problems here on earth first" before venturing out.
The truth is we will never solve our problems here and geological and life history tells a story with several instances of wide spread extinction of species. Life has come a long long long way and if our puny existance has any meaning at all it is spread self-aware intelligent life beyond our little neighborhood.
There's a whisper on the night-wind, there's a star agleam to guide us, And the Wild is calling, calling...let us go....
By putting chips on the outside of the spacecraft, they could launch at 5 ghz, and once they hit the cold of space, they could overclock them to 10ghz or more!!! It would be an Overclocker's wet dream! :-)
I think that sums it up perfectly.
How we know is more important than what we know.
NASA is hiring many Apollo engineers back as consultants to help with this. These guys did a lot with basic engineering skills and great common sence and a WHOLE lot of testing. Many are alive and in their late 60's.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Actually NASA has a lot more to offer than just ISS. They also conduct experiments in aircraft technology. Even if we were to abandon space "exploration" (read: taxpayer expenditures) altogether, NASA would still have a very good reason to exist. I for one do not wish for aviation technology to stagnate - especially technology available to general aviation.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Turning hydrogen into oxygen would be a nifty trick...
March 14, 1992: Vice President Dan Quayle, who heads the space council, made public a space policy directive approved by President Bush that assigns "major roles" to the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy...
What? President George H. W. Bush got support for a big NASA budget to put men on Mars and then diverted the money to defense and energy contractors? Must've been a fluke. That could never happen again in a million years!
January 15, 2004: President seeks $1 billion more in NASA funding
Saying "the desire to explore and understand is part of our character," President Bush Wednesday unveiled an ambitious plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020 and use the mission as a steppingstone for future manned trips to Mars and beyond.
We have to beat the terrorists to the moon!
Weapons of Moon Destruction
"This won't be easy."
Or cheap, or arguably even price competitive when compared to other scientific investments. Which begs the question, why are we going to the moon again?
Don't forget about the military advantage! Control over of the earth-moon gravity well. It takes a lot to "go around" that side. Not to mention a base on the moon is a better platform.
Going back to the moon is considered by many a 1st step to mars, but more importantly, it keeps NASA stuck funding stupid crap instead of other more worthwhile projects; such as earth studies.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
A lot of this is to just do something "innovative" as they've gotten a lot of bad press lately. With all the billions they spend, it seems they sit on their ass a lot.
You can do whatever the hell you want if you do it the way NASA did it in the 1960s-- enough money solves everything. I don't believe NASA can realistically afford to replicate the 1960s effort. Whatever they do will probably have to achieve a massive improvement in cost efficiency while simultaneously guaranteeing no fatalities or the program will be shelved for years.
Does the moon even EXIST anymore?
Give me good ratings or I will close down the internet.
Why don't we just blow up the moon and forge on to Mars.
"We have the technology. The time is now! Science can wait no longer! Children are our future! America can, should, and must blow up the moon. And we'll due it in a full moon so, we make sure we get it all.
"Let's do this!", -Guy Whitey Corngood
In the conspiracy nuts' defense, the composition of the moon is held to be similar overall to that of the earth, with a little higher surface iron content from meteors. So realistically if I was really committed I probably could find rocks on the Earth's surface similar in composition to those brought back from the moon. Atmospheric wear would probably give the game away, though.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
It's not like it's rocket science!
"sponging off Apollo"
Damn you, Slashdot! Now I'm picturing some strange Greek Hentai stuff. *goes to stab out eyes*
Space exploration as returned more in tax dollars then it cost.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You could buy a new car for $2,500. .27 a gallon.
Most people didn't wear seat belts, and most cars didn't have them.
Most cars didn't come with air conditioning, if at all.
Gas cost around
Most people watched the moon walk on a black & white TV.
Calculators were big and expensive ($500.) and did the basic stuff.
The total electric house was the "house of the future".
I don't think that it would be possible to use the old 1960's technology to get to the moon nowdays. It would be like me dropping $45,000 to restore a 1960's car, that originally retailed for $2,500. It can be done, but why? You wouldn't trust it to take a cross-country road trip, would you?
My Doctor prescribed daily nasal saline irrigation, hehe
I for one do not wish for aviation technology to stagnate - especially technology available to general aviation.
While planes like the 777 and F-22 definitely show that aviation technology is still advancing (though rather slowly), is it me or is the technology level in general aviation completely unchanged since 1950? The only thing different in today's private small planes is they've added GPS systems to supplement the ancient VOR systems; otherwise, they're still using the same old 1950s Lycoming engines with magnetos and carburetors.
Maybe NASA doesn't want China to expose all of the ancient ruins on the moon.
(just do ctrl+f and type "moon" to find the good parts right away)
I'm all for space exploration, but I will believe it when it actually happens. Talk, plan, discuss, blah-blah-blah . . . Enought talk already. Just do it.
Regards, Robert Miller http://www.rocketscientists.ca/
One of these days Alice "Pow" Right to the moon"
(Actually there does seem to be carbon in the asteroid belt as well.)
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Umm...exactly who is proposing we launch a Mars mission from the Moon? Bush sure isn't, and neither is any other sane person.
Any other sane person? Did you mean "neither is any sane person"?
-Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
...we can build a crappy space plane to carry astronauts into low earth orbit, and when people get bored with orbiting the earth for the 90 millionth time, we can build a useless space station for the plane to dock to, and then when the idiots realize we know everything there is to know about the effects of weightlessnes on tiny screws, we can go back to the moon! (just to make sure no defense contractor is left behind).
Or some other strange chip.
Maybe they use Alpha on the ships.
Last I heard they'd only use 486s. But this was in 2000.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
You mean space gas - there is lots and lots of methane here - on Jupiter moons, comets, etc. You could try to convert it to oil by flying a container close to a Sun so it heat up, though a catalyst will also help.
Jerry Pournelle likes to say that he always hoped he'd live to see the first trip to the Moon, but he never expected to see the last one. It's about time we started exploring the Universe again!
Good, inexpensive web hosting
While I generally support space exploration wholeheartedly because it pushes technology and scientific understanding, I'm not convinced that a trip back to the moon is the best way to proceed. Sure, it sounds exciting, but manned missions are very expensive and is it the best use of the money?
Many science & tech people question manned exploration and the expense involved when compared to robotic exploration. ESA has taken that path and seems to be doing very well with it despite having a budget a mere fraction of NASAs.
True- at this point a man can do in space things that you couldn't expect a robot to do. If we develop smarter and more capable robots, what will they be capable of in 10 or 20 years? If we put some effort and R&D into developing smarter and more capable control software(AI?), self-repairing machines, better sensors- we have many, many earth based applications for that technology.
From a planning standpoint, we've got to look at several things. How do we get the biggest technology return for the money AND the biggest science return for the money? At this point, it looks like robotic exploration of space is the best way to go for the next couple of decades.
Is that a SCSI connector or are you just glad to see me?
Those 419 guys should kick it up a notch to 420 and chill out.
Umm...exactly who is proposing we launch a Mars mission from the Moon? Bush sure isn't, and neither is any other sane person.
Why would you say that? The moon would make an excellent base camp for mining and construction. Saves on a lot of pollution on earth. You don't climb Everest in one big trip. Why should this be any different? What's the rush? Is there somebody else that threatening to claim Mars for themselves? Or are we just trying to get there first so we can claim it? We'll get there when we get there. Two things to consider, first, no atmosphere to fly through (on launch). Second, isn't an escape velocity of probably less than 3,000mph a big advantage as far as needed fuel is concerned? A simple rail gun might be all that is needed. I like that idea better than using a pointy tin can with sparks flying out the back, a la Flash Gordon. I think slow and methodical are better than rushing headlong just for bragging rights.
What?
The Chinese have already been there.
The old phylosopher dude, with the chair and the balloons,
and the gunpowder rockets.
emt 377 emt 4
I dont know....
Microwave cheese and you get oily stuff.....
emt 377 emt 4
As someone who's in his late 40's, I grew up with the space program. Sadly, I cannot say that I am a fan of NASA....as with ANY government agency, it is bloated, without foresight, overstaffed with "upper management" who has NO idea what is going on. The old "can't see the forest because of the trees" comes to mind. When there is a safety issue that comes up, NASA has "go fever" and launches anyway. When safety bumps into political correctness (think foam on the ET) PC wins out. I think the future of space flight is going to be with PRIVATE industry. Government only knows how to spend money...and not very well at that!
very motivating list.. i really wish that was true. here is what the article reports
:-)
"We proactively made decisions that caused those capabilities to go away," noted NASA chief, Michael Griffin "We have a decade's worth of workto be able to get back to where we were"
Note "to go back to where we were"
This sig doesnt exist.
I really want to be enthusiastic about this so, please, someone help me see the justification here. If this is a step toward Mars and/or permanent presence then why wouldn't a platform at one of the lagrange points, or other stable but high orbit be a more worthwhile effort than (literally) sinking resources into another gravity well albeit 1/6th of Earth's? It may not be a space race but still seems like grandstanding to me.
I read those stories too, years ago, and another common feature of them was that they all expected it wouldn't cost as much as it did. Heinlein, for example, expected one incredibly rich guy to bankrupt himself to do it. Others seemed to think that it would be knocked up in the back yard by some really smart mechanically-inclined boy not at all unlike the average reader of Astounding magazine.
According to another post in this thread, the total cost in 2006 dollars was $125 billion. That's about four times Bill Gates' net worth if he sold every single thing he had (though only about 50% more than his peak net worth). And it's 40 times the net worth of a random member of the Forbes 500.
Presumably, there turned out to be great numbers of unexpected problems, each of which required new equipment to be added. More equipment meant more weight which meant bigger rockets which add new layers of technological problems to handle, which means more manpower and time and therefore more money.
I like to think that we could do it cheaper today, what with readily-available computers both on board and in design, and 40 years advances in metallurgy and engineering technique. Assuming we wanted to do the same thing we did before, that is: put two guys on the moon and bring 'em right back. If you want to preserve the human race or mine the moon for treasure or whatever your reason is for wanting to go back, you'll have to spend more.
Will the moon people be nice, or scary?
2 of the 3....
Last I heard they'd only use 486s. But this was in 2000.
r s/Ch4-3.html or http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shut ref/orbiter/avionics/dps/gpc.html or even
No, not 486s. The CPUs in the 5 shuttle computers are AP-101S, which are upgrades from the AP-101B. iirc, the upgrades were circa 1991.
This CPU has its lineage in IBM 360 mainframes. See http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/compute
Private concerns initiated and developed the automotive transportation industries, distributed energy (electrical and otherwise), and telecommunications, any *one* of which is historically larger than the combined space programs of all nations to date. Granted, various governments got involved-after the fact, once they recognized the huge cash cows they could milk and regulate. You want more?? Pharmaceuticals. Ship building. Rail. Mass vertically integrated retailing. Mining. Agriculture. A to Z in other words, "space" falls under S and was hijacked immediately by governments and given a near monopoly-by law, we are just now getting "approval" for "private spaceports", because of their acknowledgement of the military potential, and NASA was ALWAYS a stealth military government branch. Want some proof? The air force had veto powers over the size and configuration of the shuttle, it had to be large enough to carry blackops satellites or it was not going to be built,endstop. Unfortunately, that left them scrambling to do anything affordable and practical with it, a PR and engineering nightmare.. If it was purely for civilian and research and exploration purposes, it would have never been built in that config and we'd already *be* to Mars following logical design evolution from Apollo, i.e. small capsules on top of big rockets, which is about as close to a successful industry standard as they have been able to come up with.
Today-no idea if that sort of money could be garnered from private industry, but a few concerns are giving it a whack irregardless of outcome, so there's some billions and some interest in it. I think the larger breakthroughs will come from "gearing", lifting various parts of a moon or mars project into orbit, assembling them there, then going forward from that point. I think it would be too expensive with one rocket lifting one shielded capsule, but in pieces-modularized-I think it's possible using tech we have right now, and because of that concept, every step could be financed and learned from, and the profits might come from there. A few commercial launches, make some money, put some into the long term project, lather, rinse, repeat.. Long term it's a gamble if there's any money in it, but who knows, people buy 30 year bonds, maybe some folks might be interested in 30 year + high stakes risks that might go with the particulars of a unique IPO offering. a lot of folks might not dropping ten bucks a paycheck in their 401k towards that, just "because" it's so dang cool.
Helium-3 is a good reason to return to the moon .
6 30.html
.....
...
r ia_and_candidates_for_terrestrial_reactions
...
It is theorized that there are over 1 million cubic tons,
with oil over $50 a barrel, and helium-3 then being worth
about 8 billion USD a ton, the total worth equalling 8,000 trillion USD .
It could smash the US deficit with 7,991 trillion USD to spare .
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Also keep in mind most of the "other" moons have this as well .
Here are some photos of the reactor at the University of Wisconsin :
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/iec/GeneralOpPics.htm
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/iec/GeneralOpPicsII.htm
25 tons could power the US electrical needs for a year :
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000
I don't need to tell anyone that the US is the largest user of electricity on
the planet at present, and slated for massive growth .
The current immmigration bill sets aside for 100 - 200 million new citizens .
Kulcinski adds that, if it sold for $4 billion a metric ton, helium-3 would still be a
good energy value: "That's the equivalent of paying $28 a barrel for oil."
It will be a cold day in hell before we see oil at $28 a barrel again
So adjust the math accordingly
It becomes more viable with every passing day .
If we can make solar mining robots for the moon to process the soil, and
then use a mass driver to fling a projectile canister into lunar orbit for pick up.
Then a lunar orbit robotic satellite mass driver to fire it into earth geo-sync orbit .
Then have either a new space station, shuttle, or satellite prep it for re-entry
into the ocean for pick up much like the apollo capsules .
The robotic equipment could be tested here on earth prior to deployment on the moon .
It might be possible to make robots that could build it all via remote control, but
most likely we would initially need ppl to go to the moon to build the mass driver
and support facilities .
Building some or all of the support facilities underground would protect it to some
degree versus leaving it exposed on the surface .
At some future point 3HE+3HE fusion will be achieved and it will have zero nuetron emissions
and thus be truly clean as per the following link .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion#Crite
Hope for the future
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your viewpoint, the FAA is quite reluctant to accept any significant changes in GA because, you know the saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." However, there has been multiple leaps in the technology implemented in small airplanes over the past few years.
For example, instead of carburetors, most new planes now come with a FADEC system that handles the fuel injection into each individual cylinder, increasing performance and ridding the pilot of that pesky mixture control lever. Also, this system gives you real time status information on each cylinder so you can monitor their performance and detect a problem before it becomes too serious. About the mags, I can't really see why you'd want to get rid of them, they really are a pilot's best friend because even a total electrical failure (well almost anyways) cannot stop the magneto from sparking the engine. You have to always remember that aviation is practically married to redundancy, and for good reason.
While you did mention GPS being added into planes now, that's really only half the story. Glass cockpits are literally revolutionizing how we fly. Take a look at the good 'ol 152 cockpit then and now, there's a pretty big difference, no? The GPS is also going to make traveling to smaller airports in IMC a much greater experience when WASS/LAAS and TLS approaches become implemented around airports in the upcoming years.
Besides the GPS, ideas such as 'live' radar via XM radio, as well as a much more affordable radar dish are making storm traversal a much easier, safer thing for light airplanes, while Mode S transponders are finally bringing collision avoidance systems down from the major airlines to general aviation which I'm sure you'll agree is a major advantage.
Going outside the cockpit, we find that airplanes are beginning to be made with composite materials which are both lighter and stronger. However the high cost associated with manufacturing them, as well its unknown safety factor, are keeping it from being too widely accepted. The cirrus even designed a parachute for the entire plane. Overall, while the major design of airplanes have basically remained the same, I would say that there has been many great innovative improvements in general aviation that are changing the way pilot's fly.
Very informative post. I didn't realize they were going to more advanced avionics in small airplanes; I thought that would be too expensive. I also didn't realize they were finally getting away from carburetors on some planes. My wife is in training to be a helicopter pilot, but all the R22s still use carburetted Lycomings, so I assumed planes were the same way. As for magnetos, I'm not an automotive or mechanical engineer, but the problem with magnetos is they're not as efficient as an automotive-style spark ignition system, especially during low-power cruising because the ignition timing cannot be advanced. Here's a web site that explains all this in much more detail. So while magnetos are reliable, with fuel economy becoming more and more important, I think they need to be replaced with something more advanced.
As for composite materials, small planes are already extremely expensive. Composites would only increase their cost, putting them out of reach of even more private pilots, so I'm not sure how much those are going to be used. Composites are great for $1+ million supercars like the McLaren F1, or for $100+ million fighter aircraft like the F-22, but they're too labor-intensive and expensive overall to be used in lower-end applications, unless someone comes up with a way of automating their assembly.
Look up the Van Allen Belt, then you tell me how we can get off this planet. I hope someone can post facts about this for the /. community, as I don't have the time to right now...
Over the past many years, over 170+ "known" bolide impacts have occured .
n d/3960955.stm
_ extinction_on_Earth
Some others unknown have been hidden due to plate tectonics .
http://www.thinklemon.com/pages/ge/
On average 30 to 40 Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) - asteroids or comets moving close to Earth -
are found "each" month.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_irela
So maybe we have just been very lucky, part of it is jupiter picking up a lot of them,
as well as the sun .
Keep in mind Tunguska happened less than a 100 years ago :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event
There are more on the way, and they easily could be bigger .
The NEAR project wasn't started out of fear mongering, Shoemaker-levy-9 was a wake up call .
I agree of all the places in this solar system, Earth is probably our best bet
with a hardened survival shelter deep underground .
All this is not even considering extinction by a large GRB source .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray_burst#Mass
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not to be redundant or anything, but the main reason that magnetos are still used is not because of the efficiency/performance but because they do not require electricity to work. As long as the brushes, magnets, plugs, etc are all functioning properly there will be a spark if the engine is rotating. If your alternators or batteries break, or if there is a short or something, the very last thing that you need at that point is to have your engines quit as well. It is true that airplanes are "gliders" with an engine, but when you lose an engine you sink, fast, and unless you happen to be in a great place such as the Midwest during daytime where there are fields everywhere, you're going to be in a heap load of trouble if you cannot find a suitable landing site quick. Also, that was an interesting article that you linked me to, thanks. About your comment on fuel burn, I believe that the FADEC system I linked to earlier solved (some) of those problems as it continuously monitors and regulates the amount of fuel being delivered to the cylinders. I don't believe that magnetos are (such) a big problem that they actually diminish fuel economy by that much. In fact, each cylinder has two spark plugs to ensure not only reliability, but also to maintain a consitant burn of fuel vapors during the combustion stage of the engine.
It is true that composite materials are expensive, however many of the kit planes, as well as some production planes like the cirrus/diamond air are using them because of the enormous performance gains you get by utilizing them. I believe that once the process is even further streamlined the cost will only continue decreasing until almost all airplanes use them. While there is the infamous starship blunder involving composite materials, the cirrus continually sets new sales records and that only goes to show that people are willing to pay for high quality, especially when it comes to an expensive hobby such as aviation where most of the people are already rich to begin with. If that seams hard to believe (it does for me too since I'm just a poor college student) you only have to look at the VLJs coming out. If people can afford to buy personal jets, then I believe that the additional price will not be a factor during these initial years when the material construction process is being perfected.
Blowing up the moon is actually a great idea - click on and see.
Nuke the moon!!
Remember that NASA funds a lot of basic research in Earth and space science. Resetting NASA's priorities in this way represents a shift in funding, away from science and to aerospace industry. To me, this seems short sighted. Most of the recent successes (robotic Mars rovers, Stardust, microwave background anisotropy measurements) come from the science portion of the budget, and not from the manned program, which is more what I'd called the "vast sinkhole for funds."
Although NASA budget is increasing overall, science is getting squeezed out. Quoting a recent New Scientist Space article:
A shockingly large fraction of this shrinking budget (30%-50%) is already committed to just one project, the James Webb Space Telescope. Smaller projects, the source of much innovation and knowledge, are being considered for cancelation or slated for "indefinite postponement." For this and other reasons, the 2007 budget request was roundly criticized by the National Research Council, mentioned in the above article.
In my opinion, from a cost/benefit/risk point of view, it is foolish to divert money from science projects with modest costs, strong research returns, and low risk (for failure and to life and limb) to expensive projects with perhaps marginal research returns and much higher risk.
Is one manned moon mission (estimate $100 billion) worth 200 mid-sized science missions (at 500 million each)? Even if my numbers are a bit off, my thinking says no.
because bush has been cuting nasa's budget year after year.
We don't use Apollo hardware because Apollo Computers is currently sued by Apollo Records. We need to wait how this comes out.
Why the funding? Alternative 3 right on schedule..
Believe it.
I agree. There are more problems with human civilizations living for geological timescales though.
:D ) this discussion may not even be relevant yet.
I recon evolution "has a lot of pressure on it" at this time since we are living in such different circumstances, then we did earlier.
Over longer timescales humans are going to change psychologically and physically. There is a danger we go dependend on medical/food technologies, increasing our vunerability.
This leaves us to choose between (1) not using some medical technologies, (2) becoming part of the technology, or (3) simply screwing up the genepool and being sad little critters dependend on medical stuff. (3 sucks, with 2 i really mean becoming part of the technology, don't think technology is near up to it though, but it probably will considering the timescales i am thinking about)
Take invitro fertilisation is an obvious case of technology screwing up the gene pool, you definitely dont want to proliferate inability to procreate without technology. At least if you choose (1). Also there are a lot of "curable" genetic diseases which could make people reliant on medical tech.
A solution could be just to artificially take out the gene that causes the disease, ofcourse humans may not be able to oversee the consequences of this. Also, this solution is a step towards choice (2). Another solution is to not allow people that have used certain medical technologies/for certain reasons, to procreate. Ofcourse this gives you the problem when to do this. What diseases are genetic? Some may have genetic aspects, but seem like chance. (like being reckless and being hurt in a car-crash) You could be drastic and say any serious medical treatment should cause a "no procreate-ticket".
Ofcourse banning people from procreating is harsh. (leading to people ignoring it) Very importantly it also may be subject to discrimination. History has examples of this, (prolly)worst of all the concentration camps of the nazi's.(for which the "reason" was the claimed superiority of the Arian race, also genetic) (though i am only talking about banning procreation, and they killed people)
For these reasons i am personally all for choosing (2) whole heartedly.
Ofcourse choice 2 also has a whole range of problems I wouldn't want to use any DRM-like or big brother-like technology that cant get rid of/am dependend of. Also you don't want to be dependend on technology that is fragile in some sense. I mean with this the technology shouldn't be easily lost by destruction of a single or a few industrial complexes or, death of people who understand the tech. And the technology must not be posibly unavailable because some bastard has taken control of it via politics.
Btw this subject is a bit beyond a single slashdot comment written in an hour, i consider this comment "think out loud", with some readability added. Also I am thinking about such long timescales (1000 yr order size, probably) relative to how long we have more serious technology (lets say 100yr tops, -?yr at worst
I seem to have assumed that in the long term future we have the ability to give nearly everyone who needs it medical attention. (which is rather optimistic)
Every time one of these back-to-space stories comes up on Slashdot, I'm forced, forced by civic duty to point out that (one) there is nothing on the moon to justify the billions of dollars to be spent going there, (two) space programs are just welfare cadillacs for unemployed aerospace engineers, and (three) spending limited government resources on space jaunts instead of serious R&D on other more urgent problems is a criminal misallocation of government funds and lack of vision on the part of the elected leaders.
There; I've said it...again.
Why? Because it needs to be said. Every time that this topic comes up.
No you can troll me and send absurd replies about how much positive results come from the research into space development, how this and that common household thing was originally developed to be used by astronauts. Hell, why not give me a shot of 'Man's Destiny To Explore' while you're at it? I've heard it all before from the Slashdot's Moonbeams. It's all bullshit, and you know it. It all just gets used to make Islam stonger among the billions of young people around the world who know intutively from their daily lives that wasting money on space is nothing more than a corrupt Western-American imperialist fantasy. Seriously, all this stuff gets used against us without our being aware of it.
Leave space exploration to Hollywood where it belongs.
Thank you,
walking on the moon
You constantly struggle for self improvement - and it shows.
Hooray for bad Engrish on fortune cookies
And also to bring freedom and democracy to the Moon, before the terrorists get there. Unfortunatelly, no mexicans will be allowed there. Sorry!
So say we all
We should just start with purely robotic / remote controlled missions, then don't need to waste money on safety and all the extra weight a human needs. We'd get three times or more bang for the buck this way.
the only way we'll go back 2 the moon is if the democrats realize that the _only_ name at the top of _every_ LDM plaque is none other than RMNixon...can't have that eternal monument;-)
In the guest quarters at Cheney's "undisclosed location"...
Good time to slip in a plug for Gaseous Core Nuclear Reactor rockets, especially the clean-burning "nuclear lightbulb" type. Basically it is a quartz bulb containing a cloud of uranium hexafluoride gas, confined in the center by a swirling cloud of a lighter buffer gas, which insulates it from the quartz and controls criticality. The uranium gas heats up to 25000C and emits intense ultraviolet through the quartz. Liquid hydrogen pumped over the outer surface of the bulb absorbs the UV, vaporizes and shoots out of the rocket nozzle. The nuclides are sealed in the bulb and the hydrogen exhaust is not radioactive. An engine of this type would have many times the lifting capability of any chemical engine possible.
Here is an article that discusses a hypothetical design for a fully reusable GCNR rocket based on the Saturn V form factor, that could lift 1000 tons of payload into Earth orbit (compared to the shuttle's 32-ton capacity) and return an equal amount of cargo to a powered landing. Nuclear rockets like this could make significant manned missions to Mars possible, drastically reducing the travel time and carrying huge amounts of supplies, equipment and radiation shielding.
One of the biggest problems with computer hardware in space is that it hasn't been tested for durability with exposure to radiation. This is why NASA still uses old, proven hardware.
One option is to bring some machines to ISS and let them run and see how space affects them but I don't know where that is on their priority list.
Hey - a friend of mine (no kidding) designed and constructed the crapper and the emergency escape lock on the ISS. I guess you could call him the overlord of orbital evacuations!
Libertas in infinitum
A very valid point. However, a simple look at NASA's budget will quickly show where the dollars are flowing. It's to the Shuttle (that fatally-flawed boondoggle result of some earlier 1970's technological compromises) and the ISS (that fatally-flawed boondoggle result of late 1990's downsizing of Space Station Freedom). Basically, NASA claims we need a Shuttle to service the space station and yet we need a space station to give the Shuttle somewhere to go. It's a circular justification that benefits almost no one except the various contractors involved in both projects.
Take the entire Shuttle and ISS budget and redirect it to a moon shot, moon base, and manned mission to Mars. Things would happen a lot faster and, quite likely, with greater efficiency.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Is one manned moon mission (estimate $100 billion) worth 200 mid-sized science missions (at 500 million each)? Even if my numbers are a bit off, my thinking says no.
Yes, it is worth it, although your opinion will undoubtedly differ from mine. Why is it worth it? Because although we'd get less "hard science" from a manned mission, ultimately the human race must leave its cradle. Unmanned missions offer us the luxury of not having to improve our life support and propulsion systems, because a probe needs no life support and doesn't care if it take five to ten years to get to its destination.
Sooner or later, though, we're going to have to expand beyond this rock we're currently on. The longer we delay manned interplanetary expeditions, the longer it's going to take us to settle something other than Earth. And there's the not-insubstantial benefit of getting all of humanity's eggs out of one basket, so to speak. After all, we're just one planetary catastrophe from extinction just like our dinosaur predecessors. That shouldn't sit well with you if you're the least bit interested in humans eventually colonizing space.
To paraphrase JFK, we should send men (and women) out into space not because it is easy, but because it is hard. Risk -- and its rewards -- moves the species forward. Exploring the universe by unmanned proxy is beneath us if we seek to inherit the stars.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky