Is this a repost? I'm sure I read this exact post in another space thread.
But regardless, I would kill to have NASA TV. Or even consistent access to discovery or space.
If you're thinking a small town, you could easily set up a small computer shop, and do tech house calls for a relatively large area around the town you're based in.
If you're really isolated (ie. on a farm), then you will have more problems.
The only obvious thing I can think is of is the fact that the Moon is high up in Earth's gravity well. So you can shoot a big chunk of rock from the moon and have it hit somewhere on Earth. Then you get lots of destruction with no risk to friendly troops and without resorting to nuclear weapons.
I went to the Open House for the mining engineering program at my university (Queen's) and one of the professors showed us how they use computer simulations to model rock interactions. The simulations modelled the behaviour and interactions of thousands of sample rock particles. Really interesting stuff. I guess this kind of test is where they get the raw data to develop these computer models.
Mining engineering is also cool because there is a required explosives and blasting course in second year.
You know that rover thats on Mars right now? You know what it's doing? Ya, research. Or call it exploration if you want, whatever. Obviously there is knowledge to be gained from Mars.
Ever think that going to Mars might be the way to accomplish this?
Think about: NASA needs a reliable power source for a manned mission right? So they sponsor research into fusion. The scientists get their money, not to mention a source of inspiration (scientists aren't just robots that spit out advances when X amount of money is pumped into them), and NASA gets its power. Plus, we get to Mars.
Also, if we keep saying that we'll go after fusion, maybe after that we'll decide to wait until we've perfected cryogenics, or some such thing. We need to just go.
Re:Can't survive on receving supplies once in 2 yr
on
One-Way Ticket to Mars?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If you didnt't have to send:
return vehicle
return fuel
you could fit a lot of food on a rocket in exchange. We're talking many, many tons. And it woudl be very efficient, high-calorie food. I don't have any exact numbers, but it seems it could be done.
But think, if we go for a one way, long term mission, we prably get a human on Mars (like 10-20 years instead of 30-40 maybe?), plus we (hopefully) get a permanent prescence on Mars.
The long term plan has it risks of course, but when you think about it, the return mission could have more. You essentially double the launch and travel risks. What if the 6 months you spend on Mars damages you're return vehicle beyond repair? Then you're stuck on Mars, and you'll be dead before a rescue mission arrives, becasue you aren't prepared for a long stay on Mars.
The more I consider this, the more I think about this, the more I realize a one-way long term mission is by far the best option.
One interesting thing I saw in that article is that solar cells will be used to power to unmanned pre-supply modules. But aren't we seeing with Spirit that solar cells will be effectively ruined by dust covering within a few months? I think some sort of nuclear power would be necessary on a manned mission.
Also, it seems like the problem of Martian fines would have to be solved somewhat before a manned mission could be sent. How do you keep machinery working on the surface of Mars with minute dust filling everything?
Re:One-way missions will NEVER HAPPEN. Here's why:
on
One-Way Ticket to Mars?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What you're talking about is possible, but the chance of it occuring could be reduced.
As the other poster said, the people chosen to would be chosen based heavily on their mental stability. It might be a good idea to send a psychiatrist along too, just in case. This would depend on the size of the mission of course, but even in a small mission, you could just send a biologist with cross training in psychology.
As implied above, the mission won't just be one lonely guy. A crew of around half a dozen would probably be a good number. You would have the team train together og course, and try to inspire a camraderie between all the team members. The compatibility of all the crew would be a topic of extensive psychological study I'm sure.
I'm not sure if sending couples would be a good idea, or even if sending a co-ed crew ouldn't be asking for trouble. You can imagine what would happen if two of the crew had a messy break up omn Mars. (Or even worse - cheating with another crew member.) Of course, the possible implications of being on Mars for the rest of your life without sex might be a problem for a lot of people.
What else? Well, it wouldn't be a straight forward death mission, I hope. Planning to sustain the crew on Mars would be a lot more useful than an unsupported suicide mission. Knowing that supplies (and more astronauts) are continuously streaming from Earth would certainly help me feel better.
So that's all the reasons I can think of why a non-returning mission wouldn't cause madness and public death.
But an accident wouldn't have anything to do with the one-way aspect of the mission. In fact, an straight forward accident, such as a asteroid collision on the way or explosion on lift of, would be the best possible way for the astronauts to die, because there wouldn't really be anyone to blame.
What if, the Chinese altered their One Child Per Couple policy, such that, if a couple exceeded the one child they're permitted, the couple could opt that their "extra" children be sent into space for colonizing another world, instead of automatically being killed?
Good idea, but you would still have a problem with overpopulation while the extra children were growing up. They probably wouldn't know enough to be really useful in a small colony until they were ate least in their mid 20s.
Well, yeah! And the reason is that 9/11 showed EVERYONE what the penalty is for lack of action against terrorism. Those 500 deaths to eliminate terrorism are an investment which pays returns in thousands of lives saved from terrorist acts. We don't send people to war *just* to defend the idea of our country. We send them to war to defend and protect us. You're asking to send people into space - to die - in order to explore, and gain new knowledge. You're asking them to suspend their belief that life is valuable to support your belief that knowledge is more valuable. In the case of war, people aren't being asked to disbelieve in the value of life in favor of something else. They're being asked to sacrifice some lives to protect other lives. You're asking to trade lives for ideas.
I'm not saying you shouldn't ask. I'm saying that you shouldn't expect a positive answer. Because the VAST majority of people don't agree with that sentiment.
The way I see it, and they way I think it should be seen, is not as sending people out to die so we know what type of rocks are on Mars. We're sending people out who are willing to risk their lives to help the species as a whole. A sustainable, growing colony on Mars would be a priceless invesment for humanity.
Slashdot Mirror
Which Sawyer novel was that?
- The start of the battle, when you see waves of fighters attacking from the Falcon's cockpit, with the Imperial fleet in the background.
- A few seconds after that, when you see the Falcon surrounded by TIE fighters, with Endor and the Death Star in the background.
It's really incredible what they accomplished, when you consider when they did it.And the Wolf 359 fleet didn't even take out the cube.
It's all because Voyager has main character aboard - it can therefore do anything.
If I'm not mistaken, P = I^2R is a measure of the energy dissipated (as heat) as a current passes through the conductor.
Thus, you want transmit power at high voltages and low currents.
Is this a repost? I'm sure I read this exact post in another space thread. But regardless, I would kill to have NASA TV. Or even consistent access to discovery or space.
I thought the only paid results on Google were the ones in the top right of the results page? Where it says "Sponsored links"?
That's why they need a snappy name.
If you're thinking a small town, you could easily set up a small computer shop, and do tech house calls for a relatively large area around the town you're based in.
If you're really isolated (ie. on a farm), then you will have more problems.
Were the moon missions insured? (Especially the first one.)
How about the first orbital or sub-orbital flights?
Haven't you seen Blackhawk Down?
"A his means it's close, a snap-" And then the shooting started.
Presumably, a snap is not close.
I take pride in the illegibility of my handwriting. Every person who can't decipher it makes me more proud of myself.
My grade 12 AP Physics teacher co-wrote the normal Grade 12 physics text.
Oddly enough, we used a different book in AP Physics.
The only obvious thing I can think is of is the fact that the Moon is high up in Earth's gravity well. So you can shoot a big chunk of rock from the moon and have it hit somewhere on Earth. Then you get lots of destruction with no risk to friendly troops and without resorting to nuclear weapons.
Does anyone have the Bill Joy article mentioned in the story, or a link to it?
I went to the Open House for the mining engineering program at my university (Queen's) and one of the professors showed us how they use computer simulations to model rock interactions. The simulations modelled the behaviour and interactions of thousands of sample rock particles. Really interesting stuff. I guess this kind of test is where they get the raw data to develop these computer models.
Mining engineering is also cool because there is a required explosives and blasting course in second year.
Is there any way to download all the comments? A lot of them are really well written and express really interesting ideas.
I'm sorry, but you're an idiot.
You know that rover thats on Mars right now? You know what it's doing? Ya, research. Or call it exploration if you want, whatever. Obviously there is knowledge to be gained from Mars.
Ever think that going to Mars might be the way to accomplish this?
Think about: NASA needs a reliable power source for a manned mission right? So they sponsor research into fusion. The scientists get their money, not to mention a source of inspiration (scientists aren't just robots that spit out advances when X amount of money is pumped into them), and NASA gets its power. Plus, we get to Mars.
Also, if we keep saying that we'll go after fusion, maybe after that we'll decide to wait until we've perfected cryogenics, or some such thing. We need to just go.
- return vehicle
- return fuel
you could fit a lot of food on a rocket in exchange. We're talking many, many tons. And it woudl be very efficient, high-calorie food. I don't have any exact numbers, but it seems it could be done.But think, if we go for a one way, long term mission, we prably get a human on Mars (like 10-20 years instead of 30-40 maybe?), plus we (hopefully) get a permanent prescence on Mars.
The long term plan has it risks of course, but when you think about it, the return mission could have more. You essentially double the launch and travel risks. What if the 6 months you spend on Mars damages you're return vehicle beyond repair? Then you're stuck on Mars, and you'll be dead before a rescue mission arrives, becasue you aren't prepared for a long stay on Mars.
The more I consider this, the more I think about this, the more I realize a one-way long term mission is by far the best option.
One interesting thing I saw in that article is that solar cells will be used to power to unmanned pre-supply modules. But aren't we seeing with Spirit that solar cells will be effectively ruined by dust covering within a few months? I think some sort of nuclear power would be necessary on a manned mission.
Also, it seems like the problem of Martian fines would have to be solved somewhat before a manned mission could be sent. How do you keep machinery working on the surface of Mars with minute dust filling everything?
What you're talking about is possible, but the chance of it occuring could be reduced.
As the other poster said, the people chosen to would be chosen based heavily on their mental stability. It might be a good idea to send a psychiatrist along too, just in case. This would depend on the size of the mission of course, but even in a small mission, you could just send a biologist with cross training in psychology.
As implied above, the mission won't just be one lonely guy. A crew of around half a dozen would probably be a good number. You would have the team train together og course, and try to inspire a camraderie between all the team members. The compatibility of all the crew would be a topic of extensive psychological study I'm sure.
I'm not sure if sending couples would be a good idea, or even if sending a co-ed crew ouldn't be asking for trouble. You can imagine what would happen if two of the crew had a messy break up omn Mars. (Or even worse - cheating with another crew member.) Of course, the possible implications of being on Mars for the rest of your life without sex might be a problem for a lot of people.
What else? Well, it wouldn't be a straight forward death mission, I hope. Planning to sustain the crew on Mars would be a lot more useful than an unsupported suicide mission. Knowing that supplies (and more astronauts) are continuously streaming from Earth would certainly help me feel better.
So that's all the reasons I can think of why a non-returning mission wouldn't cause madness and public death.
But an accident wouldn't have anything to do with the one-way aspect of the mission. In fact, an straight forward accident, such as a asteroid collision on the way or explosion on lift of, would be the best possible way for the astronauts to die, because there wouldn't really be anyone to blame.
Good idea, but you would still have a problem with overpopulation while the extra children were growing up. They probably wouldn't know enough to be really useful in a small colony until they were ate least in their mid 20s.
The way I see it, and they way I think it should be seen, is not as sending people out to die so we know what type of rocks are on Mars. We're sending people out who are willing to risk their lives to help the species as a whole. A sustainable, growing colony on Mars would be a priceless invesment for humanity.
Until we turn Jupiter into a primordial sun a-la 2001, I think Europa would be a tad cold.
And sure, you have lots of water, but nothing else.