New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#2551 Re: Human missions » Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers. » 2004-07-06 20:12:00
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/news/2003/ … ry.asp]ISS underwear link.
google is awesome
#2552 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Asteroid Mining - profit from space » 2004-07-06 16:41:01
What I meant with that I think the only viable industry in space at this moment is the one that makes "parts" like microchips, optical lenses and alloys that are worth many times their weight and couldn't be produced on Earth. And this if there is no space colony.
Bigelow might be able to do exactly this, very soon.
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/c … a.xml]Link
Isn't the ESA working on something called a dump box - - a small unmanned lander for sending equipment from LEO to Earth?
#2553 Re: Meta New Mars » 1000th member - Should we care? » 2004-07-06 15:57:23
I see we have 899 registered users.
Is there any point to recognition of the 1000th registered user (provided we verify he/she has never registered before) ?
A copy of Case for Mars, perhaps?
#2554 Re: Planetary transportation » Plans for mobile base - on the moon... » 2004-07-06 15:51:14
I recall from the fictional The Rocket Company an assertion that Mobil One synthetic oil would allow an internal combustion engine to work just fine in vacuum.
Obviously you need an oxygen source.
If this is true, what about a Hummer or a Suburban modified to run on methane and oxygen? Here in Illinois, many contractors buy used Chevy Suburbans from the natural gas company which routinely run on methane.
Given the cost of shipment, fabricate the body from carbon fiber and high tech plastic and remove weight as much as possible.
= = =
What are the odds Chevy or Hummer would throw in a few hundred million dollars as promotional consideration?
= = =
Oh yeah, a mobile base. What about a towed camper? :;):
= = =
Follow up. Start with http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.mv … =2017]this.
Charge Dodge a billion dollars (or two) for promotional consideration. A five year ad campaign? Peanuts. And the fee can cover the Proton launch needed to get this thing there.
Add methane/oxygen tanks. (We have Sabatiers on Mars, right?) Replace steel with high tech alloy in the frame/chassis and re-design the body from chassis up. Keep the hood ornament.
Have Mobil pay you $200 million AND buy the launch needed to send 1000 quarts of oil to Mars AND they donate a special blend of Mobil One intended for use in vacuum.
= = =
Anyone have access to a vacuum chamber and a used lawnmower engine and some Mobil One oil?
Want to assist my daughter in her science fair next year?
#2555 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Asteroid Mining - profit from space » 2004-07-06 15:05:38
I will say it one more time, you can't work your way up to orbit.
Maybe JP Aerospace and their inflatable to LEO idea?
#2556 Re: Human missions » The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush » 2004-07-06 14:35:40
It looks like Kerry just chose Edwards as his running mate.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5086822/]ht … d/5086822/
Now that we have a goodlooking Democrat to vote for Bush is toast!
Edwards has already been called "The Breck boy" by the Republicans.
http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smiths … .html]Link reference
But maybe its http://www.fortune.com/fortune/smallbus … ,00.html]a good thing.
#2557 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Asteroid Mining - profit from space » 2004-07-06 13:31:22
smurf you hit the problem on the head. It not cost effective to build industry space without having populated center in space. It not cost effective to build populated center in space with industry and a transportation system. It not cost effective to develop transportation system without have either industry or population center in outer space.
Find an aspirational reason to settle space, a motive that is price inelastic, and the ice breaks.
#2558 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Space elevator in the media - déjà vu? » 2004-07-06 13:28:13
Fiber optics can't keep up with advances in technology. Every mile you lay down is another mile you have to tear up. In the big cities (which are growing), it leads to infrastructure nightmare- ownership hassles, etc.
It also dosen't solve the rural problem. Try getting a decent conncetion out in the boonies.
Don't get me wrong, fiber optics have room to grow, but the sats are unlimted. Eventually, the fiber optics is going to hit a ceiling, then sats will take over.
Large balloons doing figure 8's at 100,000 feet offer wireless telecom without the need for satellites. Easier to repair, also.
GCBRevenger's main point is one I have agreed with for quite a while. Profit motive, in any narrow sense of that phrase, is not sufficient to justify expansion into space.
Over time (decades, centuries) expansion into space will very greatly grow the total human economy, but that is something different, IMHO.
#2559 Re: Not So Free Chat » My Gawd! I love my state - Ella - noise! » 2004-07-04 21:54:45
http://draftditka.com/why/]Da Coach!
Ever watch the Super-Fans on Saturday Night Live
#2560 Re: Not So Free Chat » Cindy's sig - Deserves its own thread » 2004-07-02 11:55:21
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/RutanSp … n.asp]This link was stolen from Cindy's sig.
Enjoy.
#2561 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Calling our rocket scientists! - Another dumb question » 2004-07-02 11:32:49
More on plastic SRBs.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm]Trident II sub launched solid rocket missiles are fabricated from graphite epoxy.
All three stages of the Trident II are made of lighter, stronger, stiffer graphite epoxy, whose integrated structure mean considerable weight savings.
Combine that technology with the Thiokol SRB and doesn't the payload to LEO on a 5 segment SRB with liquid upper stage improve greatly?
IIRC, the current 4 segment SRB has a dry mass of 192,000 pounds without fuel. Reduce that dry mass by 1/3 (64,000 pounds) and how much of that 64,000 pounds can be added to useful payload?
= = =
Allegedly, the unit cost of a Trident II was $29 million. That tells me that a graphite epoxy Thiokol SRB should not be terribly much more expensive than an aluminium SRB = IF = Thiokol partnered up with the folks having the graphite epoxy patents.
#2562 Re: Not So Free Chat » Saddam's trial - Dangerous theater » 2004-07-02 10:46:51
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common … 0.html]One report on Saddam's first day in court.
I have no intention of defending Saddam. Morally, he cannot be defended. Rather, this post is to highlight my opinion about the foolish manner in which we are proceeding.
1. The names and faces of the judge and prosecutors are to remain anonymous. Very bad from a Psy-Ops & political theater point of view. It sends a simple message. The new Iraqi government is afraid of Saddam's friends and other terrorists. Do we really want to send that message out on al Jazeera?
2. Nearly all camera time was on Saddam's face.
Ask any professional actor. Would you rather play the hero and get zero face time or play the villian and get almost all the face time? Faces shots humanize people. The back of a head or off camera voices or narrator's reading transcripts off camera are de-humanizing.
Anonymous, face-less prosecutors and judges will seem less human by TV viewers. It will be too easy for bin Laden and his ilk to spin this as a trial of a fearless Islamic man by puppets. If Saddam's face shows defiance and the other faces are not shown, the Psy-Ops subliminal message is very bad for us.
3. We should drop the charges concerning the invasion of Kuwait. In 1961 (pre-Saddam) Iraq signed a treaty to recognize a legitimate Kuwait government, under pressure from western powers.
Many Iraqi nationalists (whether pro or anti Saddam) believe Kuwait belongs as part of Iraq. We cannot allow that yet if we rub the Iraqi face in that point, we risk inflaming nationalist sentiment in favor of Saddam, since the accepted history in Iraq is that western meddling is the only reason an independent Kuwait exists today. Saddam did enough other bad things to hang him for. Drop Kuwait as one of the charges.
4. Being shot "while trying to esape" might be a better resolution than a full trial if it is like what we saw yesterday.
Saddam is right about one point. It is theater. So lets do it right.
#2563 Re: Human missions » Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft » 2004-07-01 16:18:41
Judging from te pics, i don't think it will launch in one go, so njepr is still possible, i guess...
Dnepr is smaller than Zenit. A SeaLaunch 3SL would be a better choice (perhaps) because of inclination issues.
Being on the equator really helps.
What about an unmanned Clipper? Add a cryogenic upper stage to the Progress R-7 and what is the throw weight on that?
#2564 Re: Human missions » Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft » 2004-07-01 16:11:54
And, who is Neal Stephenson and why would he be on their payroll?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Stephenson]Neal Stephenon is a sci-fi writer turned consultant.
Maybe I need a mid-life career move. :;): 
#2565 Re: Human missions » Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft » 2004-07-01 16:07:28
The actual full scale model is called Nautilus, and is expected to weigh 40-50,000 pounds. Bigelow is already working out a deal to use Dnper rockets (Satan russian ICMB's) for the Nautilus. One of these things will provide 2/3rd of the exsisting ISS space.
Dnepr is waaay too puny for 40,000 pounds to 50,000 pounds to LEO.
Even Proton is too small for a full 50,000 pounds without some added boost (or a Proton pad in Kouru?)
Check out http://www.futron.com/pdf/FutronLaunchCostWP.pdf]Futron data.
= = =
5 segment Thiokol SRB plus liquid upper stage might be able to do 45,000 - 50,000 pounds. Otherwise, we are talking Shuttle B/C if Bigelow wants his hotel.
One shuttle B with 5 segment SRBs and we are talking TWO Transhabs maybe with a utility module to connect them.
= = =
Dang, I almost wrote a magazine article 6 months ago about how to finance a space hotel.
- - Sell 10 limited partnership shares for $30-$40 million each.
- - Sell name rights for $100 million (unless Bigelow wants dibs)
- - Sell advertising and marketing (Can you hear me now? Hey Verizon!)
Sorry, clark, I am repeating myself but cDelta is fresh meat.
= = =
PS - - An empty external tank is a dandy zero-gee sound stage and sports arena!
#2566 Re: Human missions » Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft » 2004-07-01 12:29:06
Thing is, NASA didn't cut Transhab, congress did. It was a good idea, and NASA knew it, and good for them. But because it had applications for planetary exploration, it *technically* fell outside of NASA's remit. In practice it was a home goal by politicians who wanted to cut NASA/ISS's budget.
ANTIcarrot.
Any information on how TransHab fits into O'Keefe's plans for NASA?
Boeing has some drawings of inflatables yet beyond that do we know anything?
If ISS is to do anything useful, adding an inflatable crew module seems a reasonable use of that facility. If ISS cannot do anything useful, why pay for it?
= = =
In junior high basketball (I was a lousy player btw) we were taught to watch the other player's stomach to avoid head fakes and other feints and diversions.
IMHO, if the "new-NASA" ™ pursues TransHab later rather than sooner, that tells me that the exploration initiative is more show than substance. The reverse is also true.
#2567 Re: Human missions » The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush » 2004-07-01 10:40:20
Assuming the accuracy of these claims, I see no direct causal relationship to human industry, no evidence that such will with certainty lead to famine and ruin, no evidence that if so we can stop it, no evidence that we are witnessing anything but a natural shift in the climate of this planet consistent in degree and timing with previous history.
Again, clean fuel is good. Renewable energy is good. Reduced pollution to cut back on noxious clouds of smog is good. The arguments for global warming and that it's all our fault? Not so good.
Its not all our fault.
#2568 Re: Human missions » Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft » 2004-07-01 09:36:30
CEV = a sensible plan and series of spaceship parts enabiling people to go for extended duration missions beyond LEO.
Clipper = a large Soyuz that is supposed to take you to Mars?
Don't worry, American's will be first, and we'll let you European's argue with the Russians on who get's to be second.
The only thing that will take people to Mars is Transhab. A big Transhab with thick plastic walls.
#2569 Re: Human missions » The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush » 2004-07-01 09:11:43
Forget law. Forget scientific proof. How does this this stuff play politically?
Now you've got a valid point. If some dirt-farmer believes his crop failure is the result of rich American pigs then it doesn't really matter in a practical sense whether or not it's true if that motivates said farmer to join a terrorist organization and blow up an American target.
But then how far do we go to placate people with erroneous ideas? How much are we willing to bend to the misconceptions, delusions, or excuses of others before we simply have to stop?
I'm getting the impression that we all want the same things here, cleaner fuels, more efficient industry, renewable resources; we just have different motives. So yes, let's work on these things in a way that doesn't harm us economically. Let's encourage others to follow our example. If some of us want to believe that we're saving the world from melting and/or freezing brought on by greedy evil industrialists, fine. But don't scoff if someone else blames the rain on invisible flying monkeys peeing from the clouds.
Remember, people like bin Laden are engaged in psy-ops.
Lying to the rest of the world is part of his game.
= = =
We always seem to shoot ourselves in the foot. Example is the whole cigarette lawsuit business.
Part of me gets really annoyed at smokers who want to sue over lung cancer. Part of me says such lawsuits are just bullshit.
But, another part of me wants to throttle and punish tobacco makers who for decades would come before Congress and take solemn oaths and SWEAR there was no evidence tobacco use causes cancer.
Cigarettes cause cancer? Pure BS! Anti-corpoate bullshit, junk science!.
Today, those same tobacco executive solemmnly ask, how can anyone sue for cigarette caused lung cancer. I mean EVERYBODY knows tobacco use causes cancer.
= = =
A few years ago I fell off my chair laughing when a fast food franchise issued a press release saying that the dismissal of a consumer lawsuit over fast food induces obesity "was a victory for personal responsibility"
Heh!
= IF = the average American truly were "personally responsible" the fast food industry would be bankrupt!
Oh, McDonalds routinely asks for PROOF that a diet rich in Big Macs is unhealthy.
= = =
Okay, now US officials tell impoverished Pacific Islanders that global warming has nothing to do with their island vanishing between the ocean.
But if you PROVE it to our satisfaction. . .
What does that do to our credibilty (even if we are 100% correct?)
#2570 Re: Human missions » The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush » 2004-07-01 08:24:27
You seem to feel that its a case of everyone in the world trying to harm America, whereas its more like everyone in the world trying to make tough decisions while america sulks like a petulant child. Im sorry, but thats what it is.
You'd be correct if it were proven that humans are the direct cause of global warming, that it's bad, and that we can stop it, offering a clear program for doing so. None of this has been proven, merely asserted, often by people who actually are anti-American.
Offer real evidence, verifiable data and proven methods and I'll be the first to agree that we should step in to regulate the climate of our planet, but so far all we have is highly ideologized doomsday rantings based on incomplete, misunderstood and sometimes outright fabricated data. Let's not go jumping off the cliff of hysteria just yet.
Cobra, once again, FOX viewers are not the relevant jury on this question.
If uneducated Filipino's lose rice crops to unusual monsoons or droughts, and our leaders respond by saying PROVE global warming is the cause, aren't those farmers now fertile soil for planting seeds of anti-Americanism?
What is the science? I dunno.
But I do know we in the US have a very hard time adopting any perspective except our own.
= = =
Forget law. Forget scientific proof. How does this http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/a … evel/]this stuff play politically?
#2571 Re: Human missions » The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush » 2004-07-01 08:20:56
It seems to me that there are far too many people crying out for crippling the industry of certain wealthy countries
Actually its more along the lines of a majority of wealthy countries are worried about their potential detrimental effects on the environment and are trying to agree to a method to reduce their pollution in certain areas.
How exactly do you feel that industry may be crippled?
You seem to feel that its a case of everyone in the world trying to harm America, whereas its more like everyone in the world trying to make tough decisions while america sulks like a petulant child. Im sorry, but thats what it is.
China's coal burning and Brazil's clearing of rainforest may have a much greater macro-environmental effect than SUVs, but if we Westerner's preach at them to stop and then we refuse to even discuss SUVs, why should they go along with us?
IMHO, the US is best situated to deploy the technology that will promote energy conversation and reduce greenhouse emissions. Therefore, if a global ethic were formed we could comply first and then use Kyoto-like protocols as a club to pummel China into buying OUR technology - - on pain of global trade sanctions.
#2572 Re: Human missions » The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush » 2004-06-30 14:28:42
Humans who can read and write have been around maybe 10,000 years (give or take). That same period appears to have had a much more stable climate than the norm.
Therefore I believe we need to figure out how climate works and be prepared to engineer it if necessary to preserve a stable climate conducive to large human populations.
Otherwise, those who stand to lose out will not go peacefully.
= = =
Mars may not be the first planet we terra-form.
#2573 Re: Not So Free Chat » Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this! » 2004-06-30 14:10:11
It's a pretty good report, but I think it's ultimately unrealistic (the bigger the vision they harder it will fall). One thing I wonder, though, is whether or not we're talking about abolishing the science that NASA spits out. Historically, the science part of NASA has costed far far less than the manned exploration part. If we're not, then absolutely fantastic. Throw out prizes, they would definitely work. Just don't sacrifice that little bit of science (which is arguably priceless) in the name of profit.
I agree with you, Josh.
#2574 Re: Human missions » The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush » 2004-06-30 14:05:22
And I'll meet Bill halfway and agree, let's look into this, without the hysteria. And without the assumption that the Western industrialized world is to blame for any variation from some imagined baseline.
If gobal warming is a threat, China's coal burning is the biggest new danger.
I fully support safe regulated fission (fusion is too iffy for the intermediate term) and so does France by the way. I believe Illinois public power is 100% nuclear. And that reduces CO2 emissions.
#2575 Re: Human missions » The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush » 2004-06-30 13:43:03
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ … 4.php]This link is from a group advocating "cooler heads" about global warming. Apparently sympathetic to the anti-hysteria mindset. :;):
"You can make the climate cool in certain places just by redistributing the heat through changes in ocean currents, atmospheric circulation or both," said Lynch-Stieglitz. "The most fully developed theory to account for these rapid climate changes is that they do represent changes in the transport of heat into the North Atlantic by what we call overturning circulation of the ocean."
In that scenario, warm water flows northward from the Southern Hemisphere into the North Atlantic, where it gives up its heat. Being denser, the cooled water then sinks and flows back south. The scenario accounts for both heating in the north and cooling in the south.
It's possible, Lynch-Stieglitz notes, that both global warming and changes in ocean heat transport occurred simultaneously, though records of carbon dioxide concentrations do not show concentration increases that would be enough by themselves to account for the climate change.
This is precisely the Atlantic salt conveyor theory which suggests that less saline water in the Icelandic and Norweigan Seas can cause the Gulf Stream to shut down. Global average temperatures can remain the same or only increase very slightly yet if northern ice packs melt, the climate of Europe will change very drastically.
And France has nukes.
William Calvin puts it this way - - its quite possible to drown in water having an "average" depth of 6 inches if there is a deep end and a shallow end.
That said, extinction is admittedly an very over stated consequence "unless" human political and military reaction to climate change takes unpredictable turns. That is why the appearance of concern and genuine participation in research is essential no matter which way the science turns out.
Diplomacy by raised middle finger is usually bad diplomacy regardless of the truth.
= = =
First paragaph from the above link:
A paper published this week in the journal Science supports the hypothesis that heat transfer by ocean currents – rather than global heating or cooling – may have been responsible for the global temperature patterns associated with the abrupt climate changes seen in the North Atlantic during the past 80,000 years.
Global heating can melt glaciers which in turn alters ocean currents just as this report asserts.