DurocShark
Lifer
Not if we have the ability to upload a virus to the mothership!
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Will NASA get it right this time?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Not if we have the ability to upload a virus to the mothership!
cKGunslinger
Lifer
Apple to the rescue!
It's a step in the right direction. With this combination of systems we will be able to conduct far more missions of all kinds at a lower cost. The lifter rockets can launch more cargo into space than the shuttle faster and cheaper than the shuttle. The crew vehicles are seperate from the other modules which gives us cheaper and less complicated and safer launch & return of humans.
I do believe we need to get to mars, but not just for the sake of getting there. It is the process of doing these things that lead to great technological advances. In order to get to mars we need to solve many complex problems, that's what leads to invention. imo exploration can largely be left to robotics which soon enough will be as smart as us anyways.
I do believe we need to get to mars, but not just for the sake of getting there. It is the process of doing these things that lead to great technological advances. In order to get to mars we need to solve many complex problems, that's what leads to invention. imo exploration can largely be left to robotics which soon enough will be as smart as us anyways.
I like the idea of Apollo on steroids...KISS theory. We know the concept works well so just improve on the idea. I always found the shuttle concept too complex and costly. I'd just like to see us getting back out there and start terraforming the moon and Mars (at least a man landing on Mars before I die).
CaptnKirk
Lifer
Military command? Was there some sort of SpySat on board?
ALL Shuttle launches are under the juristiction of the Military - the way that the Shuttle was built was a
compromise and re-design to accomodate the Military's wants and desires - thay bought a 'Space Truck'
and with that budgetary constraint came the authority to control all Shuttle launches regardless of mission.
and . . . Range Safety is in the hands of the Range Safety Officer, a Military position. They chose when to push the 'Destruct' button,
when the solid booster that had the joint failure exited the predetermined flight corridor, it was destroyed by using the FTOS
(Flight Termination Ordinance System) even though the propulsive solid fuel was spent & it was just moving on inertia.
It was on a trajectory back towards the mainland, and they blew up the one piece of the smoking gun that
they could hve let splash down and retreived for failure analysis - I think that was dead wrong,
but it was their 'Range Safety' decision, since some civil craft boaats could have been in the out of corridor retreival zone.
Mars? 3 year mission round trip - no guarantee of successful return.
If they really want to build a moon-base, this is not the right approach, they need to lift to lunar orbit, build in position,
then ferry a lander craft to place equiopment on the surface.
Might as well plan to land on the Sun . . . at night.
ALL Shuttle launches are under the juristiction of the Military - the way that the Shuttle was built was a
compromise and re-design to accomodate the Military's wants and desires - thay bought a 'Space Truck'
and with that budgetary constraint came the authority to control all Shuttle launches regardless of mission.
and . . . Range Safety is in the hands of the Range Safety Officer, a Military position. They chose when to push the 'Destruct' button,
when the solid booster that had the joint failure exited the predetermined flight corridor, it was destroyed by using the FTOS
(Flight Termination Ordinance System) even though the propulsive solid fuel was spent & it was just moving on inertia.
It was on a trajectory back towards the mainland, and they blew up the one piece of the smoking gun that
they could hve let splash down and retreived for failure analysis - I think that was dead wrong,
but it was their 'Range Safety' decision, since some civil craft boaats could have been in the out of corridor retreival zone.
Mars? 3 year mission round trip - no guarantee of successful return.
If they really want to build a moon-base, this is not the right approach, they need to lift to lunar orbit, build in position,
then ferry a lander craft to place equiopment on the surface.
Might as well plan to land on the Sun . . . at night.
Bateluer
Lifer
Terraform the moon? I don't want to say its impossible, but, it'd be entirely pointless. The moon is a ball of rock, no atmosphere, etc. In fact, I think its gravity is too weak to even hold any significant atmosphere.
Terraforming Mars is very possible and could be done with our current level of technology, the question is do we want to spend the money on it.
There's also some of the moons around Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune that might make good sites, if not for terraforming, then good bases.
DurocShark
Lifer
Nuclear pulse power would make long range missions fast and cheap.
But then you have clowns like this: http://www.space4peace.org/
I just wanna slap them silly.
But then you have clowns like this: http://www.space4peace.org/
I just wanna slap them silly.
OS
Lifer
it's easy to deride environmental protections living in a nice first world country, but in reality I believe the more important reason nuclear propulsion isn't used is because it's likely illegal according to international treaties
besides, is there anything practically useful on the moon that's worth the regular risk of radioactive fallout if there were an accident?
DurocShark
Lifer
It's not illegal in space. I agree that launching on nukes is stupidly risky when 12 boosters would get the ship above the magnetic field of the Earth.
No, these guys are, "OMGZORZ!!!one! 1 pound of Plutonium fell in the ocean!"
Forget the fact that we swim in naturally occuring radiation all day every day.
OS
Lifer
Even if you don't launch on a first nuclear stage, all it takes is a columbia or challenger accident to spread fallout over a wide or local area.
And not using a nuclear first stage erases most of the benefit of going nuclear at all, since getting anything into orbit is where most of the energy in a launch is used.
DurocShark
Lifer
The amound of fallout would be pitiful even if the entire vehicle vaporized. Fallout is from vaporized earth which would be an order of magnitude larger than a vaporized spacecraft.
Besides, even if the craft exploded, the bombs (which are much smaller and cleaner than even the Hiroshima bomb) would just crash to earth and not explode. A couple hundred pounds of fissile material would be about as harmful as walking past a Chevron station on the corner.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
I could care less about the 'Magnetic Field' of Earth - let's concentrate on dead lifting mass out of the gravity well
and to a temporal (time) stable orbit where work can be accomplished for construction of equipment for long distance
ferry flights of systems and modules that can then can be placed into orbits around intended landing points,
be they moons or planets.
Once the landing craft is down, then you can dig into and go sub-surface, or leave it topside, whichever is better.
and to a temporal (time) stable orbit where work can be accomplished for construction of equipment for long distance
ferry flights of systems and modules that can then can be placed into orbits around intended landing points,
be they moons or planets.
Once the landing craft is down, then you can dig into and go sub-surface, or leave it topside, whichever is better.
Scramjet engines may be a solution to the expensive lifting problem. It takes a scramjet a lot less fuel than a rocket engine to reach the same speed, which means it's a lot cheaper.
And then there's the whole space elevator idea, but that's way out there if it's really possible.
And then there's the whole space elevator idea, but that's way out there if it's really possible.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
