New Mars Forums

I'm just gonna watch and wait for the Zubrin zealots to start complaining "no Battlestar Galactica mothership crud!"

I hate to accuse people themselves of things (I prefer to accuse only ideas), but you are extremely ignorant.  Please do significant research on any topic on which you expect people to take you seriously.  Right now, you just look like an ignoramus.

To get this aside, VTTFSH_T is well aware of how many parts there are to a computer.  He builds them himself.  To the topic, since Gerard O’Niell became a prominent figure, and since the founding of the Space Studies Institute, every knowledgeable person (i.e. those who, again, actually research) has understood that building Space Solar Power Systems (SSPSs) from lunar material dramatically reduces the launch costs.  In brief, it is because the astronauts and their equipment that they take with them have very much less mass than that of the SSPSs themselves.  They launch what they build on the moon using magnetic mass launchers, which are powered by inexpensive solar energy that they collect on the moon.  Some pieces of the SSPSs, which aren’t composed of lunar materials are launched from Earth and assembled with the lunar materials in space.  And we could do all of this with NASA’s sad level of technology.  For trivia’s sake, launching a 5 gigawatt SSPS from Earth would cost $500 billion.

When you say that space colonies are not useful, you are arguing against intellectuals like Carl Sagan, Freeman Dyson, Robert Zubrin and countless others.  I find that to be absolutely hilarious.  In any case, I see that you suggest other areas of earth before space and astronomical bodies.  The trouble is that people do not like to colonize land just because it is there.  They colonize it because it is beneficial.  Many regions of land on Earth do not contain fertile soil, lack other resources like fresh water, building materials, vegetation (perhaps because of the soil) and game.  People do export supplies that they have in abundance and import supplies that they lack, but in certain areas, that is not desirable because there may not be much to export or the cost of exporting/importing at that area may be expensive.  Here is an extreme example:  why hasn’t anyone colonized Antarctica?  (Please do not think too hard about this.)

I’m not going to waste anymore of my time on this argument.  Read some books on the topic, and you will learn much.  To target your lack of knowledge, read Robert Zubrin’s “Entering Space.”  The introduction itself will do a lot for you.

Again, to save me time, I would like you to explain why it CANNOT be done, and I will help you from there.  It is actually very simple to do.

You are again arguing against many intellectuals like, mainly in this case, John Lewis.  He is a Planetary Scientist who knows immeasurable amounts more than you (and everyone on the forum for that matter) on the subject.  You are so ignorant that I do not know where to start!  So to save me time again, read Lewis’ “Mining the Sky” and try to argue with that.  Mining asteroids can be unbelievably rewarding.

Overall, you just need to learn more information.

That is exactly were I was going.  Please continue to explain this.

I didn't mean maneuvering as in quick turns, but as in moving away from a planet or making a 180º rotation, slowly.  The ship could carry its own ion engines to do so, yes?

Furthurmore, what type of thruster would needed for slightly quicker turns, for, e.g., dodging a small asteroid that is detected ahead of time to be on a collision course with the ship?

The word of the day:  USEFUL

Let us ask, what did we do on the moon during the Apollo program?  We walked around, put up a flag, saluted, drove around, collected some rocks, and HIT TWO GOLF BALLS INTO A CRATER.  You think that this is HONORABLE?  NASA should be ashamed of themselves, wasting money like that.  The only USEFUL part was the rock collection, which could have been accomplished using a probe.

Now, about this upcoming base on the moon.  What you effectively asserted was that we are going to send astronauts to the moon to breathe, to make gas to with perhaps come back (that one is especially funny), and to open up oppertunities for science, tourism and commercial mining.  The lack of purpose in the first two reasons speak for themselves, but let us examine the science, tourism and commercial mining further.

NASA has attemted to advance scientific research with human utilization in space several times, and they failed miserably.  They put up Skylab.  That was a wreck.   They have been trying to put up the ISS (dragging other countries into funding it, kicking and screaming), and it is just going to get dumped in a few years anyway.  But the biggest disappointment was the Hubble Space Telescope.  After they fixed it (we won't go there, but it is just more ammunition for my point), it yielded such stunning and USEFUL pictures of the cosmos.  Then its equipment began to fail, and its orbit began to decay.  But due to the Colubia accident, NASA plans to just let such a USEFUL tool burn up in the atmosphere.  This is were my shuttle argument comes in.  Notice what we have been saying thus far:  NASA likes funding pointless projects, and SCREWS-OVER the USEFUL projects!  With a new shuttle, that can too reach higher orbits to service other USEFUL things, we would be able to preserve USEFUL tools like the Hubble Space Telescope.  Then again, NASA cannot seem to take political pressure without screwing up BADLY (especially when it comes to shuttles), so it would seem that NASA is flat-out incompetent at everything.  There is one exception, however.  Notice how I said "scientific research with human utilization."  NASA's probes have done good work, so I would encourage them to continue with that.

And now to space tourism.  DO NOT THINK OF GOING THERE!  NASA uses devices built by the lowest bidder on a government contract.  No sane person walks on board a vessel that says "NASA" on it (that's right, the astronauts are just asking to be killed).  I recall having a few nightmares in which I was being forced onto a NASA flight for civilians (har har, not really).  The devices are cheap and flimsy, and then there is that factor of political pressure, which has this tendency to KILL people when utilized by government monopolies.  Do NOT get me started with all of THAT!  NO SPACE TOURISM FOR NASA!

Finally, commercialization would not involve NASA beyond perhaps joint research, by definition (NASA isn't a business).  And NASA has no USEFUL reason to mine on the moon.

So, we have established that NASA has never planned to do anything useful on the moon, and should not get involved with science research in space, space tourism (PLEASE!), and commercial mining.  They should make a better shuttle (if they REALLY feel up to it), and continue with unmanned probe missions.  We must use the evidence provided to aid us in making better decisions regarding space projects in the future.

P.S.  Thank you for allowing me an oppertunity to practice my unified essay-writing skills.

What do you people think about this design?  It is SSTO, HTOL, 200,000 lbs. payload, using 3 rockets and 10 turboramjets.

http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/des … #STARRAKER

http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld047.htm

Do you all know that the first shuttle design concept was the orbiter piggy-backed on a modified 747?  The idea was scrapped because of cost.  That design does not require any re-mating or matching, just a little extra logistics on the ground, which is perfectly manageable.

Take this into consideration:

http://www.bristolspaceplanes.com/proje … ebus.shtml

There is no need to invent a good SSTO ship in the first place, at least any time soon.  TSTO is fine and simple.  It just should be 100% reusable, very durable and have good payload ability (at least 100,000 lbs.).

Was that the wind or did I say "gas pressure?"  It was the wind!

Definition of "pressure:"  "The act of pressing."  It has nothing to do with gas!  Simply put, the exhaust's "act of pressing" against the vacuum of space will cause an equal and opposite reaction, propelling the ship!

These are all basics of propulsion!  Why am I even explaining this?

First of all, if i got a nickel for every spelling or grammatical error, I'd rival Bill Gates.  And you are in COLLEGE?  Another child left behind.... 

Second, the sea level maintains equilibrium.  That means that the level will go up EVERYWHERE if the caps melt.  So what do you suggest?  That all 290,000,000 Mainlanders cram together on top of the mountains surrounding the Great Basin?  So much for the new "Holy Land!"  Texas is a flat desert!  It will be one of the first places to go!

THIRD, the temperature of the equator will always be warmer than that of the poles.  Trust me.  Texas would be frying.  Heat "haves" everywhere, baby!  My stomach is beginning hurt from laughing too much, so I should move on to my next point.

FOURTH (!), because of the horrendous spelling and grammatical errors, I couldn't understand that cryptict bit about Jews and Zealotry.  I am not a code cracker.  But the bottom line is this:  If you hate liberals so much that you want them to die, you want "GW" (or anybody for that matter) to lead the world, and you think that Texas should become a "Holy Land," you are a zealot.  End of discussion.

We are friends, so yes, different people.

Did you mean "preclude" as in prevent?  Even general relativity allows for a warp bubble.

I am going to post this once and for all!  Everybody read it!

www.members.shaw.ca/mike.anderton/WarpDrive.pdf

Furthermore, if we had the ability to induce a wormhole, then, by default, we would have the ability to create a warp bubble.  They are both distortions of spacetime.  Thus, using wormholes would be pointless because you would have to make SO many of them, concting every star, galaxy, etc. for it to compete with the convenience of a ship's personal warp drive.  And with so many wormholes, the spacetime continuum would be so messed up, the potential cosmological disasters (for humans) would be incredible.

Pollution is not the precise word to use in terms of Mars since the spreading of greenhouse gases would be a good effect.  That is why i used quotation marks.  On Earth, however, adding more greenhouse gases is harmful.  IT ALREADY HAS ENOUGH OF IT!  The Earth can only get so warm until you begin to melt the ice caps and kill life everywhere, because you would be massively flooding the land masses.  You also do not realize that if the polar caps are at tropical temperatures then that would mean that the equatorial areas (for example, oh, i don't know, say, TEXAS?!) would be broiled.

You also make too many assumtions about me.  I did not get my information from CNN.  I do read up on terraforming.  I am not a "Star Trek-watching lumbken."  And YOU accuse ME of making uneducated remarks!  That's rich.

Finally, I would highly advise that you to watch what say out the New England area.  You are religious!  You revolve around belief!  Those cities revolve around open-mindedness and the scientific method.  Mankind would be pathetic without people like them, as it was during the Dark Ages (specifically BECAUSE there was little science and plenty of religion).  I suppose you want Intelligent Design to be tought in the place of Evolution.  Look, your lack of rationality has failed you.  You are not helping yourself or Mankind to get anywhere, so when you find youself debating against someone like me, you don't even know what you are up against.  Perhaps you "believe" that you know what you are up against!  HAHAHAHAHA!  Stupid zealot...