BS: Space program goals

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 09:47 PM

Big goals require many little but amazing advances in material science.

Some of the new advances in creating new materials will knock your socks off. I'll mention just one; hydro phobic metal.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 06:21 AM

Mr Red. It is not until Global Warming/Climate Change is in your face(so to speak) that anything positive will be done about it.
But the old maxim "Better late than never" in this case will turn out to be too little, too late, tough S****t!

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Mr Red
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 06:01 AM

So, because there were problems in Europe, there should not have been colonists in the Americas?

Some of those problems were direct in causing the emigration. Religious intolerance. If privation was the only driver, then they found more privation in America. Many colonies failed. Death ensued.
And Scotland tried it, bet the farm(s) on it, which bankrupted a lot of people, and precipitated Union.
And America (I am told) has acceptable atmosphere. ;-)

The proverb about giving a starving man in the desert seems to be apt. (other genders are available)

It is not that it couldn't be done, given enough time and effort (and money let it not be forgotten). It is not that a few deaths would stop the project. But Mars has no immediate resources. All would have to be taken. Or machines to manufacture them. Water? at the poles, where the temperature is - er - colder than any part of America.

When the global warming becomes so pressing that we have to deal with it, which takes money. Mars will not be so appealing in that climate (whatever we have by then)...... Mars is not a back-up system for Earth.

Nero seems to spring to mind..................

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 05:12 PM

Not under any illusions, thanks. We have far more urgent matters to worry about.

Ah yes, Steve, but if we concentrated on matters of SUBSTANCE the Trumpists, CowFartBruce and Bubo would be at a serious disadvantage:

All this is further evidence of Trump's genius. He is master of the Art of Disorientation. He's turned Americans into cartoon characters whose heads are always spinning. How the president-elect must laugh at all the fact-based journalism (ghastly tautological phrase) dedicated to disproving things he never believed and can't remember anyway.

The disoriented are more inclined to seek saviors. Trump knows that. Before anyone else, he was onto the way that direct democracy through social media has buried representative democracy.

www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/opinion/trumps-chinese-foreign-policy.html

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 04:40 PM

Bollocks, Bruce. That's just pie in the sky and you know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 12:59 PM

punkfolkrocker,

from your clickey:

"The aim is to see if its journey up to 100,000ft (30km) changes the molecular structure of the pie making it quicker to eat. "


"There is no firm boundary where outer space starts. However the Kármán line, at an altitude of 100 km (62 mi) above sea level,[7][8] is conventionally used as the start of outer space in space treaties and for aerospace records keeping. The framework for international space law was established by the Outer Space Treaty, which was passed by the United Nations in 1967. "

So the goal there was not quite space.

Subject: RE: BS:
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 12:11 PM

Space program goals... ???

like...errrmmm... Meat and potato pie 'sent into space' from Wigan

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 11:17 AM

" I think resource wars are already occurring."

Agreed that most wars are fought over resources.


But we have yet to dive off the cliff and really start to reduce populations. A new influx of resources from space MIGHT slow this down.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Iains
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 11:02 AM

Bearded Bruce. I think resource wars are already occurring. I do not think the 1990 invasion of Iraq was purely a battle over sand dunes or ideology, or even because of the invasion of Kuwait. If there was no oil there would be no fighting over a bit of arid scrub and desert.
The same applies to the toppling of Gaddafi. The only surprise is that Saudi thus far is immune. This would be nothing to do with huge sales of weaponry to them of course.
   Prior to that Mohammad Mosaddegh was toppled in Iran in the 50's, and of coursepreviously nationalising the Anglo Iranian Oil Company(BP) had nothing to do with his fall either.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 10:31 AM

Iains,

IMO, the failure to develop technologies that provides more resources and reduces pollution here on Earth will lead to undesirable consequences- Either the living standards or the population will be reduced without them.

Probably by armed conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Iains
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 10:19 AM

unfortunately wars spur technological development, transferring these skills to space industries would create similar advances.


http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/technology/7907/top-inventions-and-technical-innovations-of-world-war-2

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 10:04 AM

Mr Red,

So, because there were problems in Europe, there should not have been colonists in the Americas?

The development of space-based industries will help deal with some of the problems we have today ( pollution, resources) while probably bringing up other concerns.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Mr Red
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 05:42 PM

Getting to Mars is expensive. Getting peeps to Mars is way beyond expensive. Expensive in things we will worry about.

In theory we could solve all the problems (eventually), and find the money. In our current world view.

But when the bogeyman that is global warming affects the USA in their pockets, methinks the political climate will change dramatically. And a death or two in striving for an airless planet will nail it for a long, long time.

They fight wars over water now. When food is difficult to grow here on earth, the fight will get worse. Meanwhile the world will be too pre-occupied with defence to address the causes of the global warming/fighting. Going to Mars will be a luxury too far by then IMHO. Don't you think we should fix this planet before fucking up another?

Events in 2016 are only a taster. I make no apologies for playing the TRUMP card. U ain't seen nuffink yet - PAL !

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 03:21 PM

Orion's quite big, Donuel...

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 02:35 PM

From the Northern hemisphere look for Orion then draw the line that would follow the path of the sun then make that solar line pass through Orion, now while keeping the intersection with Orion turn the line to the right about 20 degrees.

This is the proposed path that planet X takes way out past part of the Ort cloud.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 10:20 AM

Not under any illusions, thanks. We have far more urgent matters to worry about. In any case, you never know: a well-aimed meteorite may well take out Trump. As with God, stop worrying about it and enjoy life.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 10:02 AM

Rapparee,

Three points, actually- they are not circular orbits. The problem is in three dimensions: I will gladly take a miss above or below the plane of the planets.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 09:51 AM

Orbits are predictable, usually needing only two points to compute (although more is better). Observation of two or more points also can give the velocity of the object.

Since the Earth/Moon pair has a known orbit and speed, a point of interaction with another orbit is easy to compute even without a computer program. It's been done using slide rules and even paper and pencil/quill/pen. It's a two dimensional problem, as observation and prediction should be able take into account deviations caused by the gravity of other planets, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Iains
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 08:53 AM

Steve
Much as I hate to take you out of your comfort zone, I would not want you to be under any illusions as to frequency of impacts. They do happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_Earth

That list is not complete by any means.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 08:39 AM

Wrong again, Mr. Shaw.

1. Comets and the Oort cloud are in ORBITS- they are by definition regular.

2. When near collisions in the Oort cloud change the orbits ( by small amounts) the period remains about the same- and many of the objects in the cloud have orbits of about the same period.

3. When a long-term orbit crosses the inner solar system, it is perturbed by the planets. EACH time it comes in, it has a different path
relative to the Earth- and sometimes it WILL collide.

As long as we sit with our heads up our asses, as you and I am sure GregtrF would prefer, you are right- we can't do anything about it anyway, except for putting one's head 'twixt one's legs and kissing one's arse goodbye.

But some of us are aware that we have the means to change the orbits of objects, IF we know what they are and have the desire or need to do so. THAT is why knowing about the possible impacts is important- If we know 15 years BEFORE IMPACT we can possibly avoid "the event of everyone being dead.

Seems like a worthwhile thing to me, but perhaps you would rather be dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Iains
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 08:38 AM

Steve,
the jury is still out on periodicity.


http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/perturbing-the-oort-cloud

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 08:26 AM

That's just a load of nonsense, Bruce, and you know it. "Overdue" my arse. You know very well that regularity isn't how these things work. Anyway, never mind, as yer man sez we can't do anything about it anyway, except for putting one's head 'twixt one's legs and kissing one's arse goodbye (my addition). I do have accident cover but you can bet your life there's a getout clause for earth-destroying meteorite impacts. "Your claim will be void in the event of everyone being dead."

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 08:18 AM

I like the Star Trek and Known Space universes, but started worrying about the microbiome a while back. Now I worry that they'll get to Mars, but be blind.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 08:06 AM

Donuel,

"You misunderstand, Gravity tractors can delay or speed up asteroids to miss Earth. "

I do understand what you mean, but we do NOT have a deployable gravity tractor at this time, nor in the immediate future.


"Pure research that is not profit driven may enable needed discoveries like deflectors."

Agreed.

"Not even mining the moon of isotopes of Helium is not yet cost effective. Making a buck off space is a Trump mindset that sounds good while pure research is one of the harder things to sell to Congress."

Actually, the water found by a program I was on (Clementine/DSPSE) at the south pole of the moon would be cheaper than launching it from earth for lunar colonies/bases and deep-space missions. The potential yield of even a small asteroid in usable metals would be significant, and would be cheaper IN ORBIT than earth-produced by the launch costs ( hopefully going down, by for now a significant amount).


"I have a mental picture of a dramatic day on Earth when a less than moon sized body struck the pacific area in a trajectory slightly east to west and up from the equator. BAM the collision sent more material up into orbit that the impact body. The heavier elements in the Earth came up as the molten crater filled in."

A theory that is making the rounds- but it would have been 3-5.5 billion years ago, when the earth was a lot hotter.

Mr. Shaw,

http://theweek.com/speedreads/667239/nasa-scientist-warns-earth-due-extinctionlevel-event

I will presume you don't bother with accident insurance, either.

Mr. Red,

"The effort to get to Mars with people is going to be a very expensive venture. The Newtonian reality is the energy needed to get peeps and supplies is never going away. And getting them back needs more energy."

It requires energy, but we have the technology today to do it.

"Solving the problems of bone loss and muscle atrophy are not small projects. Once you get peeps to Mars could they stand up/walk and do anything useful? If the answer was yes it implies yet more bulk (and energy) to get it all there."

Currently, a centripetal force base ( centrifuge , spinning spacecraft, or two linked spacecraft tethered together) is the best we can do- but it can be done. We would only need Mars normal gravity, about 1/3 g. ISS has proven that long duration zero gravity can be withstood by appropriate exercise routines.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 07:40 AM

You have a lot to learn, Iains. Neither you nor Bruce (one of the most unreasonable people you'll ever encounter on an internet forum, by the way) may dictate how a discussion goes. My post was a succinct way of my saying that I think the whole issue of meteorite crashes has been over-dramatised and that disaster movies don't help, over-firing the imaginations of the gullible as they do. I'm sorry if my opinion doesn't match yours. I didn't attack you, yet here you are yet again with your Teribusesque sideswipes at my alleged lack of comprehension. You should be very careful because I won't hesitate to take your rather unfocused and occasionally less-than-literate burblings to pieces and ridicule you in similar vein if you continue. Yours in comradely warmness.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Mr Red
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 04:31 AM

The effort to get to Mars with people is going to be a very expensive venture. The Newtonian reality is the energy needed to get peeps and supplies is never going away. And getting them back needs more energy.

Solving the problems of bone loss and muscle atrophy are not small projects. Once you get peeps to Mars could they stand up/walk and do anything useful? If the answer was yes it implies yet more bulk (and energy) to get it all there.

The profligacy here on Earth and global warming may make the will to expend that energy be very politically incorrect. Times and fashions will change when we can't feed the rise in population here.

I suspect that in our lifetime and that of our children, we will be sending machines only.

But if we did try to get people to Mars soon, can I nominate someone who will have little else to conquer when reality bites in 4 years time?

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Iains
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 03:56 AM

Steve the request was for a reasonable discussion. Are you having comprehension problems yet again?

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 08:53 PM

Some people have been watching too many disaster movies.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 08:50 PM

I'd like to see all of it happen. Nobody ever lost a dime from pure research.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 06:29 PM

I have a mental picture of a dramatic day on Earth when a less than moon sized body struck the pacific area in a trajectory slightly east to west and up from the equator. BAM the collision sent more material up into orbit that the impact body. The heavier elements in the Earth came up as the molten crater filled in.

The ejecta made a bright fiery ring around the earth and settled down to several spherical bodies and finally into one called the moon. One side of the moon had heavier elements than the other which was subjected to less gravity. Only one size faces earth.

Back on Earth the heavier gold was sloshed up around the east side of the ring of fire. Some in shocked quartz and some all the way to the surface. The ring of fire may be a remnant of the smaller impact object. We have found the moon to be mostly light weight Earth stuff.

How long ago could this have happened? I dunno.

PS it also may have given the earth its seasonable wobble.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 03:45 PM

You misunderstand, Gravity tractors can delay or speed up asteroids to miss Earth. Pure research that is not profit driven may enable needed discoveries like deflectors.

You are right, only rogue 'rocks' from another star or system would be risky.

In the way people still don't believe Albert that space can move faster than light, there is a way for black holes to produce/expel elemental matter but while photographed, it is still hypothetical.

Not even mining the moon of isotopes of Helium is not yet cost effective. Making a buck off space is a Trump mindset that sounds good while pure research is one of the harder things to sell to Congress.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 03:01 PM

Donuel,

Sorry, any radioactive isotopes of gold would have decayed away, if they are not being produced in the solar system. Where do you think transmutation is happening?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_gold

Please note the half-lives- any trace amounts left after 4.5 to 5 billion years would not be a risk.

And we do not (yet) have gravity tractors of warp drives, in any deployable form. I have no problem working on them, but it would be nice to have some means of changing the orbits of bodies that would otherwise collide with the earth ASAP.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 02:49 PM

Iains,

Agreed on all points. One of the worthwhile goals we SHOULD have been working on from 1970 onward. SKYWATCH ( to identify threats) was never fully funded, and should have been. Nothing has been done to deal with any possible threats ( sort of like Climate Change).

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 02:47 PM

If we are going to use gravity tractors we should launch them now.

Not everything in space is profitable, some asteroid gold may be highly radioactive.

The top of the list should be mass deflection (more than magnetic)

After that, warp drive.

Right now some of the best new toys to come are specialized telescopes from the UK. I want one.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Iains
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 02:42 PM

If it gave the military industrial complex a series of essentially pacifist goals to strive for it would be no bad thing.

The US will build the first comprehensive system to defend Earth from hazardous asteroids and comets.
The risk of meteorite impacts has only recently had serious consideration from a few scientists and received little funding. Some argue the Younger Dryas cold period had it's genesis from an impact. Had the 1908 Tunguska event occurred over a major city the death toll would have been horrendous(700 sq miles of forest flattened by a bolide airburst.) The calculated size of tsunamis that could be generated by an oceanic impact is horrendous. Suffice it to say the destruction of coastal nuclear power stations would be one of the minor considerations in the aftermath.
Thus far it is a field of study seriously underfunded and suffering a lack of recognition. No doubt if a strike hit parliament it the funding issue would soon be solved.

For many it is a controversial subject and as yet is not mainstream.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Impact_Working_Group

Subject: BS: Space program goals
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 02:14 PM

https://www.wired.com/2016/12/dear-president-trump-heres-make-space-great/

A fairly good piece on goals we should be pursuing in space. I agree with them generally. I have been trying to get the company I work for to start working on the infrastructure to support Lunar and Martian exploration ( supply ships and depots, communication and navigational satellites).

Can we have a reasonable discussion of this, please?