The New Space Race?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I personally would love to see NASA reignited with proper funding and in a race with China for a manned base on the moon and possibly a landing on mars.





NASA made unbelievable progress 30 years ago.....and yet it doesn't seem we have advanced nearly as much in those last 30 years as NASA did in a decade.



http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/1...oon/index.html
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 31
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    I'm all for international cooperation. Let's race with, not against, China and finally find out what those damn black monoliths mean.
  • Reply 2 of 31
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    I'm all for international cooperation. Let's race with, not against, China and finally find out what those damn black monoliths mean.



    i think competition results in the most efficient and cuthroat pace and work though.
  • Reply 3 of 31
    Quote:

    Originally posted by applenut

    i think competition results in the most efficient and cuthroat pace and work though.



    Er... Yeah. The last 'competition' of that sort resulted in a half-centruy long global standoff that could have seen the obliteration of the human race.























    But if its for a space station, that's ok then.
  • Reply 4 of 31
    drewpropsdrewprops Posts: 2,321member
    Sounds neat, we'll see if it happens. They need to go back to Big Dumb Rockets though. It worked. Hope I'm alive when Astronauts touch down on Lunar regolith again.
  • Reply 5 of 31
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Rockets aren't getting us anywhere. To bring payloads into low earth orbit it's fine , but for long distance hauls of heavy equipment (don't underestimate the weight of life support for a manned mission that will probably take years), it's out of the question. Lately there have been talks of launching solar sails for testing, technically it will work, but practically it will be a disaster considering all the debris in a solar system that will compromise the integrity of a lightweight solar sail. I say high output ion engines with high specific impulse engines (well higher than the ones we use now in satellites) will be taking humans to Mars and back. It will be hauled to space with normal chemical rockets and most likely use fuel cells with the densest fuel we have; liquid hydrogen. An idea to replenish the fuel supply on the way there and back would be to harvest trace amounts of hydrogen using an electromagnetic ram scoop to sweep up the hydrogen molecules.



    Ideally, they will employ an artificial gravity mechanism in the form of a rotating ship with an outstretched crew module (the centrifugal spin will tend to push everything outward, in this case against the inside of the module facing the center, creating a false sense of gravity). The voyage to Mars will take many months and our own tests in space show how zero gravity affects the human body. Muscles and bones just waste away. Vital organs start to weaken and the re adaptation on earth is long and painful for the most extreme cases of long term zero gravity.



    There are other ideas of the propulsion that will be used to get to the farther reaches of the solar system like nuclear propulsion and even antimatter propulsion, all within technological reach, but there are engineering and monetary roadblocks that are still limiting how we can incorporate these technologies. A few years back it was estimated the cost of producing one gram of antimatter in present colliders would cost several billion dollars. But with dedicated antimatter manufacturing plants the cost should come down to about $1million per gram.



    http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/live...factory00.html
  • Reply 6 of 31
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Lets get the space elevator. THATS a challenge.
  • Reply 7 of 31
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    What's the point in starting a race if you are the only one taking part? If the US is hell-bent on landing on the moon (again) or mars, there is noone to beat 'em to this goal. Not China, that's for sure.
  • Reply 8 of 31
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    Show...me...the...money.



    How many presidents have said they want us to go to Mars? Yet NASA's budget is now about one-fifth what is was in the mid-sixties (as a % of GDP). The recent $80B Iraq war finance bill could have funded NASA for six years. NASA is a rounding error in the DoD's budget. Without a LOT of new money, this is all just a bunch of hot air.
  • Reply 9 of 31
    majormattmajormatt Posts: 1,077member
    Egads people, we dont need no stinking rockets or solar sails, we just need a giant spring to get us off the earth! According to my calculations the velocity needed is only 8000 m/s to get to the moon!



    I, too, am excited about a moon base
  • Reply 10 of 31
    thttht Posts: 5,452member
    The USA should go to the moon to build gigantic telescopes to see other planets.
  • Reply 11 of 31
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    screw manned bases etc.



    a space elevator would be a good idea though. build it up then sell time slots on it for people to put things up in space. then you could build your giant telescope too, and not only see other planets but spy on people back on earth, w/o all the crap crashes into them.
  • Reply 12 of 31
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    The problem is that a lot of people are apathetic about this now days. It's a real shame. With the new technology we have today we could be doing great things. However our leaders are more interested in spending money on things that will garner votes for them like phoney wars and military spending.
  • Reply 13 of 31
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    The problem is that a lot of people are apathetic about this now days. It's a real shame. With the new technology we have today we could be doing great things. However our leaders are more interested in spending money on things that will garner votes for them like phoney wars and military spending.



    So true. With all the money being spent in Iraq right now...we could easily fund a manned mission to Mars. It's not impossible at this point. It just is really sad that the military, who's existance almost always results in death and destruction, gets a HUGE chunk of the United States budget, but an organization like NASA gets almost nothing. If it were the other way around, we would be launching Mars missions from manned moon bases. THAT'S how we get to Mars most efficiently too...you launch from the moon. Less gravity=less resistance=greater initial speed toward Mars. Anyway...I just wish our Presidents had their priorities straight.
  • Reply 14 of 31
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    1) Blow up a few select countries



    2) Build moon base



    3) Bring choices to the billions that have none (in large parts of africa and asia)





    Which one would you choose?
  • Reply 15 of 31
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    1) Blow up a few select countries



    2) Build moon base



    3) Bring choices to the billions that have none (in large parts of africa and asia)





    Which one would you choose?




    Well if option 3 were a consideration of presidents, most certainly it would be ideal...but most seem to select option 1.
  • Reply 16 of 31
    Quote:

    1) Blow up a few select countries



    2) Build moon base



    3) Bring choices to the billions that have none (in large parts of africa and asia)





    Which one would you choose?



    Anders...its so obvious I can't believe you missed it:



    Blow up a few select countries..from a newly built moon base.



    Thus giving choice to the billions of suffering in Asia and Africa....



    You're either with us or against us!
  • Reply 17 of 31
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Nuclear-powered spacecraft to explore Jupiter's moons







    "Jimo" won't launch until at least 2011. The unmanned ship will use uranium-fueled fission reactors to generate huge amounts electricity. It'll be 60 to 100 feet in length and the reactor section will be far from the instrument section to keep radiation to a minimum. I assume the thrusters are ion based but the article is scarce on details. Even if it's a concept drawing, the artist would have to take into account the huge tanks of fuel if it were to use chemical rockets and why else would they need such a powerful power plant? They must be working on some pretty radical ion engine designs. Can't wait for the details.
  • Reply 18 of 31
    A Moonbase? It's about goddamn time.
  • Reply 19 of 31
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    Lets get the space elevator. THATS a challenge.



    That was one of the most impracticle and impossible inventions that I've ever seen. And it was given a lot of attention in Popular Science, which makes it even less credible.



    Here's my idea: colonize the Sahara desert. Everyone talks about colonizing the Moon and Mars, but if you're doing it for more places to live and more places to sprawl, why not use the Sahara? The Sahara is a helluva lot more habitable than Mars or the Moon, that's for sure.
  • Reply 20 of 31
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Placebo

    That was one of the most impracticle and impossible inventions that I've ever seen. And it was given a lot of attention in Popular Science, which makes it even less credible.



    Yeah, the Highlift space elevator was so impractical NASA donated several million dollars to help fund additional R&D...even though they fully well know it?s a pipe dream.





Sign In or Register to comment.