Tenebrae Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 50 years of the Sky At Night (I doubt any show can boast 650 shows hosted by the same host... not that the BBC made any sing and dance about it) and they had some talk of THE FUTURE. Indeed, we've had precious little such talk of the threats by the US of new moon landing, culminating in a moon base, where is the chat, eh? Honestly, surely as the sci-fi lovers we should talk about the sci-fact? Especially as NASA is threatening to go to MARS. Genuinely surprised that no one has been talking about this renewed zeal in exploration. And let's NOT knock this to the backwater boards... as if the board is even busy enough to need them. Anyway that's irrelevant. The important fact here is - the death of the shuttle is probably going to be a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mrthumps Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 The important fact here is - the death of the shuttle is probably going to be a good thing. that I agree with. With so many private companies out there one would think NASA would be smart enough to get one of them to design and build a new shuttle. How many working shuttles are they down to now anyway? 1, 2 if they're lucky. and on this topic, if you ask me the reason why Space exploration has been so slow in recent year is NASA themselves. Anyone else recall when the first space tourist idea came up and the shitfit NASA threw over it? Methinks that NASA should be cut out or reigned in with regards to space travel and exploration as soon as possible or else we'll find money that should be going to space instead being funneled to a set of ivory backscratchers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amnot Borg Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 The shuttle did what it was designed to do but funding and government interest have decreased. A new design and funding could come up with something special for future missions. Whether it comes from private companies or government is a matter of speculation. The space plane that went to orbit last year was a new innovative design from private investors, I think. Anyone here have ideas about a design that might work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Honestly, surely as the sci-fi lovers we should talk about the sci-fact? Especially as NASA is threatening to go to MARS. Genuinely surprised that no one has been talking about this renewed zeal in exploration. Check out the Modern Science section, I regularly post new topics in there regarding such things (and others), mostly not very popular in replies though. The one on NASA going back to the Moon, which alos has some info on the race to Mars was reasonably popular though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[MM] Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 The space plane that went to orbit last year was a new innovative design from private investors, I think. Anyone here have ideas about a design that might work? In 1978 Arthur C Clarke highlighted the design of the "Space Lift" (initially a Russian idea) , at the time it was unfeasible because we lacked the materials to actually make it - however in the 1990's materials that would be suitable for the job came into being. Looks like we might have got some movement on the project : http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/lift-ups-the-ante-in-the-space-race/2005/10/02/1128191605879.html Ever since reading the basic concept , I've always been a fan of this idea - it's by far the best design I've seen for getting away from the earth's gravity field I seen to date :) (Where's beawulf ? I'm sure he's got some real interesting stuff to say on this topic :) ) [MM] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted January 11, 2007 Author Share Posted January 11, 2007 Space elevator, eh? I do recall reading that the cost of putting a kilogram of payload into orbit (via shuttle) but $57,000 is a LOT... and I assume that much of $1150 is for the fixed cost of construction? The shuttle did what it was tasked to do... but I don't think it can really have been said to be a success (if you were boiling some eggs and half of them exploded and killed people - you'd probably want to go easy on the praise) and the fact of the matter is, the shuttle showed the real problem with NASA. The fact it's an ADMINISTRATION - which is simply a roundabout way of saying bureaucracy. On paper, the shuttle looked like a good idea - allowed you to reuse the re-entry vehicle and such... but of course, it was (and is) the most complex machine EVER made... over a quarter of a million moving parts. I like the big in Armaggedon where Buscemi points out that it's a hilarious... You know we're sitting on four million pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon and a thing that has 270,000 moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn't it? Which sounds about right - minus the nuclear weapon... although, you never know. Anyway, I think the shuttle was pretty much a dead end, it paid lip service to the idea of progress. That said, it's unrealistic to expect the kind of innovation you'd expect from the private sector in the public sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x5315 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 dead end? from what i've heard, hasn't a moon base been planned? Maybe Bush is planning to invade the moon as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaha Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Space lift. The most retarded thing I've ever heard. These people should be savaged by a hamster. What's needed is a damn MAGLEV system to jettison vehicles into space, DAMNIT. It's so eFin simple, why the hell doesn't anyone use their brain! If the item is small enough it could get to 3,000 mph in seconds without needing a long launch platform. That is if the tube is vacuum sealed. But then there's the problem of it coming out the other end and hitting turbulence when that vacuum seal is broken. For christ sake, they already use this technology on some roller coaster ride if I'm not mistaken. It gets it to 70 or 100 mph in seconds. And I don't mean that ride that uses compressed gas either. I thought the name of it was superman or something. And as for their idea of a space hotel, there isn't one damn hotel on this planet that I'd want to step foot in for 3 seconds, let alone whatever ghastly design they'll come up with for orbiting this rock. If it were the mushroom head spacedock from Star Trek, I'd be on that mofo faster than the God of lightning dancing a jig in a pit of vipers, even if my job was Roger Wilco the space janitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Space elevators? Talk about impractical. Not only does it require immense quantities of materials (even if the cable's molecule thin, it's insanely long...), but the energy required to build it would be astronomical. It'd probably be WAY more power efficient simply to launch things into space. -_-' ... I won't even get into how vulnerable such a lift would be due to the incredible tensions on that cable. One molecule knocked out and BAM! Dead passengers, carbon cable embedding itself miles underground (possibly provoking a volcano), etc. etc. WAY too dangerous and impractical in comparison to launching things into space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted January 15, 2007 Author Share Posted January 15, 2007 There's actually a lot of hard science behind the space elevator idea and actually, it's not that hard to make one you get your anchor in position - relatively speaking. Naturally, it's a long term investment but when you think about the increase in the volume of traffic and the ease with which you can send into space, it's really not as pie in the sky as it sounds. Obviously, it's not the kind of thing you're going to make easily or cheaply but if you're serious about space travel, it's probably the single best solution to a gravity well and in the long term, will pay dividends. I mean, sure - it's a big elevator but that's a LOT safer than the shuttle. Orbital planes might do better. Railguns to fire stuff really only help in a vacuum, you'd manage it from the Moon but not from Earth - atmosphere mucks it up too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Railguns to fire stuff really only help in a vacuum, you'd manage it from the Moon but not from Earth - atmosphere mucks it up too much. http://forum.nitescifi.com/index.php?topic=8768.0 DoD seems to disagree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaha Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 "it is unknown what types of satellites the military plans on launching." Flat ones I presume. Jesus, 2,000 Gs? That's like being sat on by fat albert. What the hell do they need that much force for? And another thing is what fuel do they plan on putting in there that won't immediately explode at that much pressure?? For the love of humanity, get these stupid american DoD heads out of here and hand it over to the people who PATENTED this highly delicate technology, and actually use it. The GERMANS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted January 15, 2007 Author Share Posted January 15, 2007 I assume they're having to accelerate it that fast because they don't have that great a distance to impart the momentum it'll need to make orbit. 2000Gs does seem to be pretty insane though, impractically so. Thanks for the link thought TetsuoShima, interesting stuff. I suppose the important thing to say is - anything is better than the shuttle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 The 2000G is most likely a result from the centripedal force caused by the circular motion used to accelerate up to the necessary launch speed. It does seem to me too, that it seriously limits what can be send into space with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 Hahaha, they're going to spin it around and let go? Sounds like they should be headed to the Olympics rather than space. I'd have thought they'd just go for something nice and simple like a big straight railgun - LIKE ON BSG! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaha Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 That's exactly my suggestion, but there's a problem. BSG is in the vacuum of space. Unless they can solve the problem of sucking all the air out of the maglev tunnel while keeping the payload from exploding once it is ejected into normal air and experiences turbulence, they will have to build the damn ramp out above the atmosphere and into space. But it doesn't have to be propelled all the way to the end of the tunnel. Just get it started at 3,000 mph and let the vacuum do the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 I'm not really sure you can overcome the problem, as soon as you hit the atmosphere you're just going to get a big SMACK of messy deceleration ... and if you're going to have a tunnel going up out the atmosphere... well, why not make a space elevator? Then you can avoid the dangerous re-entries too... which is one of the beauties of the space elevator, very little actual energy expended if it's properly balanced - like the Falkirk Wheel. Anyway, I think it's reasonable to assume that in the short to medium term, space planes are really going to be what cuts the cost of putting stuff into space. Space elevators and even railguns aren't really particularly practical or pragmatic goals... if only because they both present large costs and large engineering problems and suggest a demand for putting things in space that doesn't really exist. Now, if someone can suggest to me how I should put a very large ship into orbit (for a science fiction story set somewhere between 2080-2100) I'm all ears. Let's say - just for laughs - it's a million tonnes. The easiest way for them to get into space would obviously be some manner of warp or something from planetside but I feel that's somewhat unsatisfactory - I'm not aiming for very hard sci-fi but it might be nice to be... firm, although I suppose that in the grand scheme of things, just so long as it SOUNDS credible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 If you do a little quick math you'll soon see why a linear accelerator is out of the question... (ie. it would have to be too long, that's why it's circular, like that length is not an issue) (this is real science (scifact) btw, not scifi ;) ) I do think that a space 'elevator' poses a lot more engineering issues than an accelerator, however, should they be overcome, it would be infinitely more usefull. For small loads (small in size and weight) than can take a beating, I think this accelerator idea can really make it, anything big is going to have to go up with a 'space plane'/rocket for a long time still, I figure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaha Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 That's easy, just build it over a big magnetic launch pad haha. Flip the switch and watch it shoot off into the sky. That's how I believe flying saucers work anyway, magnetics. They can turn some electromagnetic freq dial on their dashboard that corresponds with the magnetic property of some point in the galaxy and are automatically attracted to or repelled from that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 That's how I believe flying saucers work anyway, magnetics. They can turn some electromagnetic freq dial on their dashboard that corresponds with the magnetic property of some point in the galaxy and are automatically attracted to or repelled from that point. I get the 'sci' .. but the 'fact' is missing I figure. :P Electromagnetic force goes down by a factor r², where r is the distance. Meaning the force used for such a thing would be so extremely big it would be very disruptive and influence a lot of other things and would most certainly be measurable. Then again, what's fact today can be incorrect tomorrow when somebody finds a better theory. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now