Space versus politics

Page 6 of 7 [ 99 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

23 Jan 2011, 8:18 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

A good method for protection from micro meteoroids:
Some kind of ballistic gel layer sandwiched in the craft's out shell. When pierced, it fills in the hole and hardens by freezing. Additionally having a liquid/gel layer provides protection from radiation

Hey, if pulverized lead were interspersed within the ballistics gel it would increase the density of material a projectile would need to pass through as well as increase protection against x-ray and gamma ray light.

Okay, how are you going to get it to the moon even, let alone Mars. The larger the payload, the more fuel you need to use for thrust, and the added fuel then has to be taken into account.

Could we make it back to the moon, maybe. Put a colony there, at this juncture probably not.

Make it to Mars, not after Obama trashed the Constellation Program. Even then, it would be iffy because the crew would be outside Earth's magnetic field, heck going to the moon could be argued as dangerous.

The amount of fuel you need to use to get to the moon is pretty constant. It isn't one long burn. That's just getting off the ground.. and we could easily sidestep that by building in space. Not to mention, if we can build a submarine that doesn't have to stop for 25 years to refuel, I see no reason why we can't build a similarly powered engine for space travel.

You mean ion drives, which provide a sustained thrust but it takes a while to get up to speed? A nuclear sub uses propellers to move through water, this isn't possible in space.

Dear god, please spare me from the imbecility of the perpetually ignorant. Amen.

Are you so very very dim that you cannot differentiate between a FUEL, an ENGINE, and the MEANS OF PROPULSION? An engine with wheels is a car, and with a screw is a submarine, and with blades its a helicopter. OF COURSE I'm not suggesting a direct translation of a submarine to space. I'm pointing out that a nuclear engine can happily run for decades without using up the resources a rocket does. It isn't relevant how that potential is transferred to motion for this point. Are we on the same page now? In fact nuclear-powered spaceships have been a staple of this whole area for decades. It isn't an unknown idea so I have no idea why you have drifted into the ludicrous concept that anyone would use a f***ing submarine propulsion system in space.....

For trips to the moon, an ion propulsion drive would be foolish at best with the current technology. For a trip to Mars, it would in theory be more reliable. However, you end up with all kinds of issues if you launch a nuclear powered spacecraft into space, not least of which it would violate treaties involving nuclear weapons and environmental groups would go bananas.

Who the hell is talking about ion drives? I'm simply pointing out the flaw in your "we can't fuel it" argument.. that alternative fuel systems already exist.

I'm sure that whoever builds a functioning nuclear reactor for use in space will be able to organise new treaties or re-organise old ones, or simply ignore them because they will have a nuclear-powered spaceship and nobody else will. And frankly as there IS no environment in space, "Greenies" haven't got a leg to stand on.

_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

23 Jan 2011, 8:19 pm

Macbeth wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

You mean ion drives, which provide a sustained thrust but it takes a while to get up to speed? A nuclear sub uses propellers to move through water, this isn't possible in space.

They would be worried about it exploding during liftoff.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

23 Jan 2011, 8:20 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Ion thrusters would be better for acceleration during interstellar flight and craft using nuclear pulse propulsion could be built and launched in lunar orbit. We do not need either of these for sending humans to the moon or to Mars though.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

23 Jan 2011, 8:23 pm

If I am not mistaken there is currently a Soviet-era nuclear reactor currently in a high stationary orbit

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

23 Jan 2011, 8:29 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

They would be worried about it exploding during liftoff.

I think there is some major miscommunication happening here.

Inuyasha, if a ship is built in orbit then how would the term "liftoff" be applicable? Also, if a ship uses a nuclear reactor to supply its electricity (rather than copious solar arrays) why would it necessarily be required to use electric propulsion alone or be required to also have nuclear pulse propulsion? Could not a ship have, say, a nuclear reactor as its primarily power source and use chemical thrusters for propulsion?

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

23 Jan 2011, 8:33 pm

Nuclear energy is already used in space in many missions going outside of Mars orbit, where solar energy is not enough. The RTG is most commonly used (Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator) and uses the heat from radioactive decay to generate power. Both Voyager and Pioneer had these, and I am pretty certain Cassini and New Horizons also have RTG

Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

23 Jan 2011, 8:39 pm

I think then that we have established that fuel is no obstacle, and nor is Obama.

_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

23 Jan 2011, 9:25 pm

Macbeth wrote:

I think then that we have established that fuel is no obstacle, and nor is Obama.

Yeah, even if America were the only nation capable of having a space industry Obama is as temporary an obstacle as the time from now until inauguration day for the next president. The Russian space agency has done a major part of sustaining the ISS after the space program in America lost popularity following the Columbia's failed re-entry. It would be cool if the other space agencies would get more active and coordinate the building of an infrastructure. Perhaps there can be some friendly competition among them so as to encourage the development of better ships and systems as an air of competition (such as the Russian-American space race) tended to encourage things to actually get done and to continually one-upping the other with better technology.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

23 Jan 2011, 9:33 pm

I'm of the opinion that the US and Russia should cooperate more. Russia has an excellent fleet of rockets that I think the US should consider adopting rather then designing something new. I guess many Americans might object to this, but it would save a lot of money. I wish my country had a domestic launch service.. God damn I hate my government sometimes, liberal or conservative

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

23 Jan 2011, 9:42 pm

Vigilans wrote:

I'm an American and I have no problem with having Russian technology used.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

23 Jan 2011, 9:46 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

I'm an American and I have no problem with having Russian technology used.

You're awesome man, I've mentioned this to a few of my friends in the US and they think Russian tech is too inferior or some other crap

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

23 Jan 2011, 10:32 pm

Vigilans wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

I'm an American and I have no problem with having Russian technology used.

You're awesome man, I've mentioned this to a few of my friends in the US and they think Russian tech is too inferior or some other crap

I am against this on the basis Russia has a tendency to price gouge us whenever they can. Furthermore their track record isn't as good as advertised.

Did you know their moon Rocket had a 100% failure rate.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

23 Jan 2011, 10:58 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

I'm an American and I have no problem with having Russian technology used.

You're awesome man, I've mentioned this to a few of my friends in the US and they think Russian tech is too inferior or some other crap

And how about their Прото́н series? Even if we were to buy their rockets at cost, I think that I'd rather we purchase their rockets than most of the other potential buyers.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

23 Jan 2011, 11:24 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

I'm an American and I have no problem with having Russian technology used.

You're awesome man, I've mentioned this to a few of my friends in the US and they think Russian tech is too inferior or some other crap

One of the main problems with the Soviet Lunar program was its decentralized nature. They had competing teams and the end result is pretty obvious. I read about one of their test launches of their Lunar rocket killing 300 people.
I am just curious what makes you think they would gouge the US on prices for rockets, is there a comparable situation you can enlighten me with?

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 Jan 2011, 9:56 am

Inuyasha wrote:

You mean charge what the market will bear, don't you. That sounds downright capitalistic to me.

Soviet quality control was an abomination.

ruveyhn

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

24 Jan 2011, 12:49 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

You mean charge what the market will bear, don't you. That sounds downright capitalistic to me.

Soviet quality control was an abomination.

ruveyhn

In this case they would have a monopoly which is about as bad as something being Government run.

Page 6 of 7 [ 99 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Jump to:

Space versus politics Post Reply New Topic

Space versus politics