|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 07/30/2004 : 13:22:09
|
From What's New last week:1. SPACE: JAMES VAN ALLEN CALLS FOR A DEBATE ON HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT.
"Risk is high, cost is enormous, science is insignificant. Does anyone have a good rationale for sending humans into space?" Van Allen asks in Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2004. For those who may not remember, or who were not yet born, the first science mission in space was Sputnik II, launched 3 Nov 1957. It carried a dog named Laika and a Geiger counter. Three months later, the US launched Explorer I. There was no dog, but Van Allen's Geiger counter was connected to a recorder. Data was therefore obtained over a complete orbit, revealing the Van Allen radiation belts: charged particles trapped by Earth's magnetic field. It was the first major discovery in the exploration of space. The USSR was ahead in putting dogs into space, but barely four months into the space age the US had taken the lead in space science. It was never relinquished. Now, our first great space scientist asks, "Is human spaceflight obsolete?" I happen to agree, from a pragmatic point-of-view. And I think manned space flight - for exploration purposes - could (or maybe should) continue once it becomes practical to fling a hundred or so scientists and an entire lab or two at a target, all at once. That would be way cool.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 15:45:30 [Permalink]
|
We need to send construction-workers to Mars to set up a habitat.
Though I'd settle for P.E.R.M.A.N.E.N.T
The ISS isn't doing enough... we should expand it's use and size. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2004 : 10:57:23 [Permalink]
|
The Russians did some science too with the Sputnik II, regarding living organisms in space, for example. But then again, that would just lead to manned spaceflight...
Manned spaceflight obsolete? Absolutely not. It depends, of course. I mean, I don't think I'm completely wrong when I say our knowledge about the moon increased greatly with the Apollo landings. But on the other hand, robotic missions are better in other cases, such as in environments too extreme, or worlds too far away for us to send humans to. I believe that from a scientific perspective, humans and robots can complement each other in the exploration of space and other worlds.
Also, I think that a lot of people have many other reasons to go to space. Simple tourism, or adventures, or colonisation, etc. I saw a documentary about possible space colonisations, where a scientist (can't remember who) said that if he wanted to go to Paris, he wouldn't simply send a camera over there, have someone to take pictures and send them back to him...
If I would be offered a place on a spaceship going anywhere beyond LEO, I would not hesitate for a second. Come to think of it, I wouldn't exactly turn down a suborbital jump, either... |
| Edited by - Maverick on 08/01/2004 10:58:09 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 17:39:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by Dave W: I happen to agree, from a pragmatic point-of-view. And I think manned space flight - for exploration purposes - could (or maybe should) continue once it becomes practical to fling a hundred or so scientists and an entire lab or two at a target, all at once. That would be way cool.
We have had way more science from our unmanned programs in the last decade. At the moment it's far more practical to send robots.
And yeah, it would be way-cool to throw a couple hundred scientists and several labs out to Jupiter...
And the ISS... currently a waste of money I think. Needs to be about 5 times it's current size and budget.
But, I think manned spaceflight is important, we should really be setting up a permanent base on the moon and be trying to get one on Mars as well. We seriously need to overcome the cost of lifting mass to orbit... |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 05:01:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
From What's New last week:1. SPACE: JAMES VAN ALLEN CALLS FOR A DEBATE ON HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT.
"Risk is high, cost is enormous, science is insignificant. Does anyone have a good rationale for sending humans into space?" Van Allen asks in Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2004. For those who may not remember, or who were not yet born, the first science mission in space was Sputnik II, launched 3 Nov 1957. It carried a dog named Laika and a Geiger counter. Three months later, the US launched Explorer I. There was no dog, but Van Allen's Geiger counter was connected to a recorder. Data was therefore obtained over a complete orbit, revealing the Van Allen radiation belts: charged particles trapped by Earth's magnetic field. It was the first major discovery in the exploration of space. The USSR was ahead in putting dogs into space, but barely four months into the space age the US had taken the lead in space science. It was never relinquished. Now, our first great space scientist asks, "Is human spaceflight obsolete?" I happen to agree, from a pragmatic point-of-view. And I think manned space flight - for exploration purposes - could (or maybe should) continue once it becomes practical to fling a hundred or so scientists and an entire lab or two at a target, all at once. That would be way cool.
I've been having a discussion on this same topic in another forum. Of course that forums full of gullible idiots compared to this one, but that's another topic. 
Anyway, clearly robotic science missions have more bang for the bucks and nobody dies when there's a major problem. So in that respect, VA is correct.
However, I happen to believe that spreading life, and not necessarily human life, to other worlds throughout the galaxy is the greatest thing humanity will ever do. Or fail to do. (Which is a whole different topic of discussion which I'd love to have if anyone's interested) And I also believe that waiting for the proper technology to arrive as a prerequisite to get serious about sending humans into space is logically flawed. The right technology will only be developed by actually doing it.
Granted, the shuttle program is a big disappointment. The ISS even bigger. Neither has come close to the lofty goals they were intended to achieve. Is this because they were bad ideas or is it because the US manned space program has been poorly led and under-funded since the Appollo program was abandoned unfinished? Sure, the ISS has eaten up 13 or so billion dollars over the past 25 or so years since it was first conceived, but considering the size of the federal budget and the other programs that money gets dumped into, the ISS is a paltry expense.
I grew up expecting to vacation on the Moon by this time. Needless to say I'm disappointed with the nonsense that the US manned space program has become. Science across the board, and space science in particular, does not get the funding and attention it should. Everything else we do as a nation is business as usual - this is the stuff of greatness, of grand history. Yeah, sure, the military budget is in its own way the stuff of history, but that's tragic history. Thank God we never put to use all the innovations we've made in nuclear weaponry and delivery systems. . . . But think of what just 10% of that money would have done in the space pogram. I can't help feeling we've really missed the boat. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 07:58:18 [Permalink]
|
Chaloobi wrote:quote:
And I also believe that waiting for the proper technology to arrive as a prerequisite to get serious about sending humans into space is logically flawed. The right technology will only be developed by actually doing it.
I think one thing absolutely has to happen - and that is it's gotta become cheaper compared to the science that gets done - and one of two other things needs to happen, as well: either A) the general populace copes with the fact that space flight is very risky, and so doesn't freak out every time a person dies going to, in, or coming back from space, or B) the technology needs to progress - on Earth - to such a degree that astronauts face billion-to-one odds of dying on the job.
We need technology that's so reliable we can continue to fly while accident investigations are underway. We don't ground all air traffic when a Delta loses an engine. We don't clear the highways when a blown tire results in a fatality.
I believe we can simulate the conditions of space flight to a good enough degree that we can create equipment which will meet the reliability of cars and/or airplanes. We can do it right here on the ground, with plenty of emergency aid at the ready. The problem is, of course, who's going to pay for it?
And until that hurdle is overcome, I'm still of a robots-only mind.
(Especially since I don't want the nasty Neptunians to be able to force our people to give 'em a ride back here. The robots we send need to be rigged with self-destruct mechanisms.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 11:18:26 [Permalink]
|
Actually Dave, if you'd have done your homework, the Neptunians are very friendly people. And wealthy too. Even if they DID want a ride here to Earth, they'd be very polite about it, and the compensation would be substantially in our favor. Nothing like putting a negative spin on an issue to back up your own flawed conclusions. . . .
About manned space flight . . . have you read anything about the proposals to build a space elevator? NASA's studying it very seriously right now. There's a company that claims that carbon nanotubes is a strong enough material to build it. . . . that would definitely solve the cost to orbit problem. About the safety . . . well, if we designed new vehicles more often than every thirty years or so, across several administrations, with fluctuating budgets, maybe we would develop something more reliable. I still contend the real problem is the whole program is just not taken very seriously. Probably the only reason we even have a manned space flight program today is that nobody wants to be responsbile for completely turning our backs, as a nation, on the grand achievements of Apollo. How about THAT for your presidential legacy? |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 11:37:46 [Permalink]
|
Damned Neptunian apologists. I should have known. It's unbelievable that you can portray those monsters as little angels. When they get here, you'd better hope they eat you quickly.
The only things I've read about the latest in space elevator technology - including the big news regarding carbon nanotubes - has come from Discover magazine, a source I take with a grain of salt. I'm not even sure why I'm still subscribed.
Well, aside from my misgivings, the article I read was gung-ho and optimistic about the nanotubes idea. Still plenty of work to be done, but it sounds plausible. The question of money, of course, will again rear its ugly head, as will that of safety. After all, with multiple "cars" going up the elevator at once, the top one falling to Earth could take out several more on its way down. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 12:40:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Damned Neptunian apologists. I should have known. It's unbelievable that you can portray those monsters as little angels. When they get here, you'd better hope they eat you quickly.
The only things I've read about the latest in space elevator technology - including the big news regarding carbon nanotubes - has come from Discover magazine, a source I take with a grain of salt. I'm not even sure why I'm still subscribed.
Well, aside from my misgivings, the article I read was gung-ho and optimistic about the nanotubes idea. Still plenty of work to be done, but it sounds plausible. The question of money, of course, will again rear its ugly head, as will that of safety. After all, with multiple "cars" going up the elevator at once, the top one falling to Earth could take out several more on its way down.
DISCOVER MAGAZINE?!?!? And you call yourself a skeptic? (Where's my insanity emoticon!) You might as well be getting your technology news from Popular Mechanics! LOL.
Anyway, there was an article about it in Scientific American last year or so. I'd have to dig it up from the pile at home... But a recent Reuter's article I read said that NASA has been funding a company to work on a preliminary design. A spokes person for the company claimed they felt they could build it for 15 billion dollars in a 15 year time period. Of course if NASA gets a chance to mismanage it over a spread of 3 different administrations....
About potential for accidents - if a car came loose I don't think it would drop, it'd probably fly off into space with no way to return to Earth. Ouch. I think I'd rather burn up in the atmosphere than suffocate/freeze/starve to death over a period of weeks in the deep dark. Kim Stanely Robinson's Red Mars featured a space elevator on Mars that in the course of the Martian independence war was broken loose from it's tether in space and collapsed to the martian surface. Since it was something like 50k miles long, it literally wrapped itself around the planet two or three times at re-entry speeds. Very destructive. Imagine such an accident on Earth.
EDIT: BTW - you really need to brush up on your history. The single case of a Neptunian eating a human being actually resulted from mistaken identity. And the Neptunian died of food poisoning as a result.
[Edited to patch up quoting - Dave W.] |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 08/03/2004 12:42:46 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2004 : 11:37:59 [Permalink]
|
Chaloobi wrote:quote:
DISCOVER MAGAZINE?!?!? And you call yourself a skeptic? (Where's my insanity emoticon!) You might as well be getting your technology news from Popular Mechanics! LOL.
Alright, already! Discover magazine: get thee behind me! I renounce you, I consign you to oblivion.
Actually, the "Vital Signs" column is pretty good.quote:
Anyway, there was an article about it in Scientific American last year or so. I'd have to dig it up from the pile at home...
Well, I remembered reading the article in Discover, but was willing to be proven wrong by searching SciAm.com... Unfortunately, I was right. And the best match I could find to "space elevator" on SciAm's site was to a four-year-old news bite.quote:
About potential for accidents - if a car came loose I don't think it would drop, it'd probably fly off into space with no way to return to Earth.
Only if it were past the point at which a ballistic takes more than 24 hours. In other words, only past about 25,000 miles out, past geosynchronous orbit.
Lower than that, and the elevator would be "orbiting" the Earth (once every 24 hours) more slowly than a purely ballistic orbit would require. In the realm of the shuttle, 300 miles up or so, you need to go around the Earth about once every 90 minutes to maintain an orbit. Go more slowly - like the elevator would - and you fall.
Now, given that the elevators are imagined to run up a nanotube ribbon, picture a car losing both traction and braking ability, say, a thousand miles up. It'll fall, for sure. If they're smart, they creators of the system will include a mechanism which can split the cars' drive systems in half, and eject both halves away from the ribbon to protect the (possibly dozens of) cars below. But if not, the cars would go straight down the ribbon, picking up speed as they went. Whether they'd start burning on re-entry or not, I couldn't say.quote:
BTW - you really need to brush up on your history. The single case of a Neptunian eating a human being actually resulted from mistaken identity. And the Neptunian died of food poisoning as a result.
And you, sir, need to brush up on the modern knowledge of Neptunians. We have clear and solid intelligence about what those buggers are doing when they think we're not looking. It isn't pretty. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2004 : 14:30:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It'll fall, for sure. If they're smart, they creators of the system will include a mechanism which can split the cars' drive systems in half, and eject both halves away from the ribbon to protect the (possibly dozens of) cars below. But if not, the cars would go straight down the ribbon, picking up speed as they went. Whether they'd start burning on re-entry or not, I couldn't say.
Given that the angular speed of the Beanstalk is constant, the horizontal speed vector would be higher with an increase in altitude. The way I see it, as the car starts falling down, it will start drifting away from the Beanstalk as the lower levels of the stalk will have a lower horizontal vector.
Did that make sense?
For non-Americans, (The Civilized World ), who are using metric system, Geostationary orbit is 35'800 km.
If it drops from high enough, the car will simply fall so far from the "root" of the Beanstalk, that it will completely miss Earth. Thus, it will enter an elliptic orbit.
What height is the upper limit for a drop deep enough in the atmosphere to fall down before first orbit? Not only is the altitude important, but also the car's speed and direction. I'm not confident my algebra is up to speed (pun intended...) for the calculations, due to several factors. (I know, excuses, but that's the way it is)
Things falling from low earth orbit will start to burn, but will not vaporise entirely upon reentry.
Like the space station MIR's zero G toilet seat that landed on the top of a girls head in Seattle (TV series reference). |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2004 : 17:44:38 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse, the currently-envisioned system has "cars" that are basically "clamped" onto a nanotube ribbon. If one falls while still being "attached," it'll start pulling the ribbon to one side. Actually, this would happen with a car travelling down the ribbon properly, too. According to the response to a letter to the editor, it's envisioned that there will be enough of a counterweight swinging around in space to keep the ribbon taught and straight, sucking up the differences in angular momentum.
Cars travelling upwards will try to pull the ribbon to the other side. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2004 : 06:59:34 [Permalink]
|
Aren't YOU guys a bunch of friggin' egg heads. Sheesh. Clearly there'll be a safety mechanism for car failure so a simple accident doesn't destroy the whole system! Probably the car will be ejected into space - not so good for the passengers. But then, safety minded designers would probably equip it with an emergency capsule complete with maneuvering jets, a re-entry resistant coating, an emergency parachute, and a GPS based transponder. No worries mates.
BTW - I read it in Sciam, I just don't remember when. 4 years ago seems a LONG time, but time flies when you have small children. . . .
EDIT-I looked it up on Sciam's site and I recognized the cover photo....I'd swear it was a longer article than that blurb though. Now I'm going to HAVE to find it - I never throw away a sciam. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 08/05/2004 07:04:57 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2004 : 19:06:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Dr. Mabuse, the currently-envisioned system has "cars" that are basically "clamped" onto a nanotube ribbon. If one falls while still being "attached," it'll start pulling the ribbon to one side. Actually, this would happen with a car travelling down the ribbon properly, too. According to the response to a letter to the editor, it's envisioned that there will be enough of a counterweight swinging around in space to keep the ribbon taught and straight, sucking up the differences in angular momentum.
Cars travelling upwards will try to pull the ribbon to the other side.
I was thinking more like, if the car attached to the ribbon starts to slide down uncontrolled, it would detatch from the ribbon so it won't bring down the next car below too.
Speed is also a factor... It has to travel 35800km. That's almost a full lap around the world.
One of my old and dusty sci-fi roleplaying games, 2300AD featured a "bean stalk" (two actually) and one campaign was about troubleshooting one of them. 2300AD relies heavily on hard core science, so, source-books are crammed with interesting scenarios. Mostly all of them feels realistic. Then I got more time, I'll see if I can scan some pics and post them. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
