You should build a radio telescope! I tried to build a single-dish telescope for my university's imaging science department on co-op last summer. I managed to get all of the parts I needed except the BUD to use as an antenna.
As long as we depend on cigars with wings and chemical based propellants we will only inch our way along this journey. I had higher hopes for this crew.
You know, this is precisely the reason there are so few private companies doing this. People expect miracles, and when the miracles don't happen the public loses interest.
Yes, we need to invest more heavily in advanced propulsion concepts. However, we don't currently have any private manned platforms based on *conventional* propulsion, so how could you possibly expect this? You could never raise enough venture capital to do anything other than conventional craft, because the risks are huge enough as-is. That will hopefully change in the future, but people need to prove that this is even feasible first. The Virgin Galactic team is going a long way to demonstrating this, and they should be commended for it. And this is all you have to say? Seriously?
I shouldn't drink and post; it makes me care too much:D
There are plenty of people advocating for space exploration, both manned and otherwise (myself among them!):
http://www.spacecoalition.com/http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php,
http://marsproject.com/,
http://www.seti.org/,
http://www.committee4spaceadvocacy.org/,
http://www.planetary.org/home/
People are advocating. The problem is that no one is listening. Our country has been deaf to the benefits of space research for 20 years now, and it's not going to change. It's only going to get worse as our kids get dumber and stop getting math, science, and engineering degrees.
Is my generation going to be the last to take a shot at it? I sure hope not. But unless it gets some serious attention, and soon, the United States is finished as a space-faring nation.
I'm wondering if this might have implications beyond use in nuclear reactors. One of the big concerns with a manned trip to Mars is long-term exposure to radiation while en-route. This means that any spacecraft you use will have to be shielded, or at least have a shielded compartment for use during periods of high solar activity.
Ceramics make good radiation shields, and could be great for low(er)-weight shielding for spacecraft, especially if you can use a method like this to extend the lifetime of the shielding to put it in line with the lifetime of the craft. The potential problem I can see is that ceramics are generally brittle, so you would probably need some sort of exterior shell to provide both structural rigidity and impact resistance. But considering all current spacecraft are metal-skinned anyway, this shouldn't be a huge issue.
Plus, if you're using a nuclear rocket for your ship, these things can pull double-duty! It's like a spaceflight magic bullet.
Slashdot Mirror
I've had it with these mother*&!%$@# worms on this mother*&!%$@# space station! Everybody strap in. I'm about to open some *&!%$@# airlocks.
You should build a radio telescope! I tried to build a single-dish telescope for my university's imaging science department on co-op last summer. I managed to get all of the parts I needed except the BUD to use as an antenna.
Still don't know if anyone ever finished it :(
As long as we depend on cigars with wings and chemical based propellants we will only inch our way along this journey. I had higher hopes for this crew.
You know, this is precisely the reason there are so few private companies doing this. People expect miracles, and when the miracles don't happen the public loses interest.
Yes, we need to invest more heavily in advanced propulsion concepts. However, we don't currently have any private manned platforms based on *conventional* propulsion, so how could you possibly expect this? You could never raise enough venture capital to do anything other than conventional craft, because the risks are huge enough as-is. That will hopefully change in the future, but people need to prove that this is even feasible first. The Virgin Galactic team is going a long way to demonstrating this, and they should be commended for it. And this is all you have to say? Seriously?
I shouldn't drink and post; it makes me care too much :D
There are plenty of people advocating for space exploration, both manned and otherwise (myself among them!): http://www.spacecoalition.com/ http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php, http://marsproject.com/, http://www.seti.org/, http://www.committee4spaceadvocacy.org/, http://www.planetary.org/home/ People are advocating. The problem is that no one is listening. Our country has been deaf to the benefits of space research for 20 years now, and it's not going to change. It's only going to get worse as our kids get dumber and stop getting math, science, and engineering degrees. Is my generation going to be the last to take a shot at it? I sure hope not. But unless it gets some serious attention, and soon, the United States is finished as a space-faring nation.
I'm wondering if this might have implications beyond use in nuclear reactors. One of the big concerns with a manned trip to Mars is long-term exposure to radiation while en-route. This means that any spacecraft you use will have to be shielded, or at least have a shielded compartment for use during periods of high solar activity.
Ceramics make good radiation shields, and could be great for low(er)-weight shielding for spacecraft, especially if you can use a method like this to extend the lifetime of the shielding to put it in line with the lifetime of the craft. The potential problem I can see is that ceramics are generally brittle, so you would probably need some sort of exterior shell to provide both structural rigidity and impact resistance. But considering all current spacecraft are metal-skinned anyway, this shouldn't be a huge issue.
Plus, if you're using a nuclear rocket for your ship, these things can pull double-duty! It's like a spaceflight magic bullet.