PDA

View Full Version : Disappointed in the Space Program



Cheeze-It
10-25-2002, 02:55 PM
It isn't interesting. They're just taking too long to do anything
that I care about. I don't care how turtles adapt to living with
humans ina zero-gravity environment -- I want to see aliens,
damnit! NASA knows they exist, and I bet they even know where
they exist. Even if they're extremely primitive, I still want to know
about them. I want to see other planets... Planets with water,
and new types of berries. Intergallactic Fruit -- That's what I'm
looking forward to.

They need to start sending people to other planets. We need
a president ("we" as in the United States) that cares about
space exlporation; one that's willing to set a 10 year deadline for
humans to land on Mars.

And how they heck did they decide that they were finished exploring
the Moon? They haven't been there since the early 70's. 30 years
without a moon landing. There has to be other things they can
do over there... They should open up a hotel or something (I'm
serious about that. I'm pretty sure it's possible)..

Where the heck is Warp Speed?

salvelinus
10-25-2002, 03:48 PM
There's a division in NASA planning to go back to the moon in the next ten years or so.

Captain Penguin
10-25-2002, 03:57 PM
Taxpayers don't want to spend the $$$$$$$$$$$$$, and space exploration is very expensive.

So now NASA is going for "faster, cheaper, better", but the "cheaper" part of that can cause problems..

PJYelton
10-25-2002, 04:21 PM
No politician is willing to spend the money when the benefits don't show up for ten or more years, LONG after that politician is out of office. They increase taxes or take money from somewhere else which the public hates them for, without getting the credit once the mission accomplishes something and they're retired. I agree, it stinks! 15 years ago I expected the opportunity for me to fly in space commercially. Beginning to look like it might not happen... :(

adrianxw
10-25-2002, 11:58 PM
A real space program is so expensive and resource hungry that it would require planetary cooperation. While we are all squabbling amongst ourselves, senslessly killing each other and squandering billions on weapons systems, a real space program is a pipe dream.

Salem
10-26-2002, 02:05 AM
> And how they heck did they decide that they were finished exploring the Moon?
The moon landings were never about exploration - it was all cold-war politik and "me first" bragging rights. Only one scientist (a geologist) ever went there (on apollo 17) and that was the last of it.

Just look at how they decided to get there - big dumb rockets with 0% reusability. Imagine a trip by plane - 3 people in a boeing 777 and the only thing which reaches the destination are the 3 seats which they're sitting in. Cost effectiveness was never part of the plan, only things which were time-effective were considered.
If you're interested in re-usability, then do a search for "SSTO"

> one that's willing to set a 10 year deadline for
humans to land on Mars.
Do a web search for "Robert Zubrin", he's one of the main advocates for a mars trip.

> They need to start sending people to other planets.
This seems less likely with each passing year rather than more likely. The capabilities of explorer robots seem to be expanding faster than the capabilities needed for long duration space travel (something else the moon-shot didn't have to worry about), and which robotic exploration doesn't have to worry about.

rick barclay
10-26-2002, 03:14 AM
It would certainly be nice to go exploring outer space, and I'm sure our President is all for it. But we have certain other problems here that preclude whatever amusement space exploration might
offer. Indeed, if we don't solve our problems here, whatever fun
a space trip might have offered becomes a moot point because none of us will be around for the trip to Mars. Pollution, global warming, terrorism under the guise as religion, world hunger,
the desecration of the Amazon, crime, poverty, saving the whales, and getting people to curb their dogs all rate priority over
sending a man to Mars, which will accomplish what? And so
what?
The Russians learned far back that it is much more cost effective
to send robots out to explore the heavens than it is for a person
to go. Some in the U.S. also embrace a send-the-robots-
not-a-man philosophy for space exploration, but apparently
the management must feel differently. Otherwise, why would they continue building a space station? Assuming our problems are solved, we might launch a space quest in time for the third
millenium.

rick barclay

valar_king
10-26-2002, 07:46 AM
As someone else stated above, we'll need to finish all the fights in the world, and that won't happen. I'm sad to say, but I think it looks like we'll never really have all those cool spacecrafts everyone envisions in the future.

Fountain
10-27-2002, 05:10 PM
Some valid points-especially the Unified world stuff...see my post on the UN forum.


Besides we are constrained by technology.We can only envisage going faster than light. It probably can be done, but until it is...Ethic..You are alone .


Going to the moon? Hmmm what for.Hotel is a nice idea...but how do the guests get there?.

lightatdawn
10-27-2002, 05:32 PM
>>but how do the guests get there?

Space Elevator (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html). :)

>>Anyway, there's some great pictures of marvellous heavenly bodies available - some
>>of them are even of stellar objects, which is always a bonus.

LMAO :D

>>and I bet they even know where
they exist.

Sure we do. (http://www.cprogramming.com/cboard/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19834)

jessie23
11-25-2002, 09:32 AM
im totally agree on the unified world idea, which would probably allow the human race to get alot more done. if none of the countries of the world had to spend money on weapons and militaries then the funds would be available for a great space program. im also in favor of developing a possible long long term plan to make mars liveable, using terraforming and the such because eventually we will .......... earth up to much and need to move on.

...
11-25-2002, 09:52 AM
well, we are obviously going to need to leave our planet eventually. life dictates that we are to preserve our species at all costs. planet-wide catastrophies (collisions, dying stars, drastic climate changes, etc...) happen all the time, on a universal time scale. in order to survive as a species we need to be as spread out as possible so as to have a minimum chance of the entire species being wiped out at once.

i believe firmly that the reason depression and violent crimes are so common is that people dont believe they are enough a part of the world around them. it all seems out of control and everyone is against everyone.

i have often envisioned a world government in which all members of the human race are working together to develop advanced space technology and colonize other planets. every living person would be involved in the research and creation, rather than some obscure government lab. everyone does their part, making them feel important and giving their life purpose, therefore ridding the world of crime and hopelessness.

this government is of course purely fictional. you will never get around the stupidity of most people, or their insatiable need for 'fashion,' or their overly prevelant 'jihad's.

"the end of the world" idea brought to us by most religions is, i feel, one of the biggest mistakes ever dreamed up. now half of the world feels as if the end is near for about 99% of the course of history, and feels there is no reason to try to do anything worthwhile. of course, this is an entirely different thread, and im getting way away from the whole space-exploration thing. but hopefully you see how all of these thoughts are connected.

i dont want to ramble too much so im going to stop here. :)

valar_king
11-25-2002, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by jessie23
im totally agree on the unified world idea, which would probably allow the human race to get alot more done. if none of the countries of the world had to spend money on weapons and militaries then the funds would be available for a great space program. im also in favor of developing a possible long long term plan to make mars liveable, using terraforming and the such because eventually we will .......... earth up to much and need to move on.

dont revive old posts please

Sebastiani
11-25-2002, 04:22 PM
Just look at how they decided to get there - big dumb rockets with 0% reusability. Imagine a trip by plane - 3 people in a boeing 777 and the only thing which reaches the destination are the 3 seats which they're sitting in. Cost effectiveness was never part of the plan, only things which were time-effective were considered.
If you're interested in re-usability, then do a search for "SSTO"


Great analogy. :D

I think that deep space travel for humans, where people spend a lifetime in space will never become very popular (save for the few). We were meant to live on this green earth! But hotels on the moon and in space are a long overdue, and approaching the end of this century I'd be suprised if the were uncommon as the cost of travel will surely drop.

Sidenote: I think the idea of a world government is a bad idea. Think of the beuracracy! What kind of utopian nuts are you?!! It's bad enough we lost are independance to the union back in the 1860's! The UK is 1/3 the size of Texas, and yet you guys get your own country! Ouch!

SMurf
11-25-2002, 04:30 PM
While I'm all in favour of school bus trips to Mars (That way the Earth's pleasures will be a purely adult thing...) there is the little issue of muscle wastage. If you managed to get to Mars and back, using current technology, you'd flop to the ground when you got back, and even your own children could deck you with one swing. :p

Bottom line: Gravity has its uses.

I reckon they should have electromagnetic chambers in spacecraft and appropriate footwear, so that people could simulate *shock horror* walking properly every now and then.

dP munky
11-25-2002, 04:34 PM
i heard that japan was planning to go to the moon, but that was a while ago and im gullable :D

Sebastiani
11-25-2002, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by SMurf
While I'm all in favour of school bus trips to Mars (That way the Earth's pleasures will be a purely adult thing...) there is the little issue of muscle wastage. If you managed to get to Mars and back, using current technology, you'd flop to the ground when you got back, and even your own children could deck you with one swing. :p

Bottom line: Gravity has its uses.

I reckon they should have electromagnetic chambers in spacecraft and appropriate footwear, so that people could simulate *shock horror* walking properly every now and then.

Actually, the living areas need only be placed on a wheel-like boundary of a craft that spins. The centrifical force will simulate gravity.

crag2804
11-25-2002, 05:26 PM
That in itself could cause a problem though. In order for the effective gravity you felt to be the reasonably similar throughout the entire length of your body the ship would have to be huge.

Sebastiani
11-25-2002, 06:14 PM
Hmmm...are you sure about that?

crag2804
11-25-2002, 06:34 PM
yes, imagine standing just off centre of a spinning roundabout. You have to hold on quite hard to stay still. Now if you walked 2 metres away on the same roundabout ( its a big roundabout ) you wouldn't have to hold on nearly as hard to stay still. Turned on its side the gravity you felt pulling you down would be a lot stronger on your head than your feet. going round in a circle the force towards the centre ( effective gravity ) is mv(squared)/r.
As you increase r ( distance centre of roatation ) the gravity/force felt is less.

Its hard to explain. Anyone back me up here with this explanation of mv(squared)/r.

Sebastiani
11-26-2002, 12:30 AM
Well I certainly understand the mechanics of roundabouts quite a bit better now ( whatever they might be :D j/k ), what I'm really arguing here is just how large this structure would have to be? My (non-calculated) guess would be somewhere between 500-1000 feet (~125-250 meters?) in diameter minimum to simulate a sufficiently tolerable condition. Would you disagree?

face_master
11-26-2002, 12:53 AM
You guys know nothing:

When they landed on the moon sucessfully, they planned to create colonies there, but the aliens that already had bases there told them not to. I read all about it. Same thing was told to them about Mars. Ever wonder why so many former astronaughts have died in car accidents? ALL of them died the same way. They all were killed so they could not leak information about aliens. More info on aliens, people...

http://aliens.4thdimensional.com/
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/6683/

vasanth
11-26-2002, 03:53 AM
India is planing to have a moon landing in 2010. It is still in the planing stage.. and the ISRO(Indian Space Research organization) is debating it...

Sebastiani
11-26-2002, 04:32 AM
[random thought] Hmmm, Indians on the moon...for some reason that just seems really cosmic...[/random thought] :confused:

vasanth
11-26-2002, 04:55 AM
u expect me to laugh..

vasanth
11-26-2002, 04:58 AM
and dont forget India is also one of the 5 country's that is capable of launchung its own geo-stationary satelite...
India is proposing a 22 percent increase in the budget for the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), Space News reported Thursday. ISRO would get additional 19.5 billion rupees ($401 million) for 2002-2003 according to the budget proposal. The budget includes funding for a radar imaging satellite, communications satellites, and upgrades to the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle.

mithrandir
11-26-2002, 05:54 AM
There are already people on Mars - how stupid are you people? We all know the free masons are running NASA! :D ;)

crag2804
11-26-2002, 06:26 AM
@sebast
I don't know what level of gravity difference would be tolerable to the human body but I can do a reasonable figure. Say a change of 1% over the length of a human body. For a change of only 1%over the length of the human body, the change in total radius of the circle must be 1% over the length of a human.
Lets say an average height of 1.8m. That means that 1% of the radius of the circle must be 1.8m. This means a spaceship must have a radius of 180m. This may not sound like a lot but compare it to the size of current craft.

This gives a diameter of 360m and a circumference of 1.13km. Now it could be a lot more than this or a lot less depending on how temperamental the human body is.
Your guess then of 125-250 wasn't too far wrong.