You are not logged in.
Well you need common rules so everything works out. Or do you have another solutions?
Unless of course you and your bank see no reason to help in preventing the exploitation of women or children by would be smut peddlers and slave-traders.
I'm sure that east european sex-slave-traders have no problems setting a bank account in any country on Earth at this moment. As they are to small time to notice.
And if they get bigger then they can just set up a paper company in the bahamas or panama that manages their money as what happens now. Saddam Hussein had several paper companies spread over the earth to make sure his money could enter swiss under a bogus account.
You want to stop this? Then change international law first.
Ignoring the opportunity to extend would be long term collective suicide. Survival is the prime motivator and trumps all other "moral" issues.
Yes and let’s survive on Earth before we export our culture to other worlds and start killing each other there. And no survival is not a matter at this moment, what is threatening your survival in the next 100 years? I think for the USA its more its debts before anything else.
People continually are aware who is looking, (what alien wants to make a meal of them ?). What cosmic event needs to be defended against ?
Not saying that Earth shouldn't have some defense strategy against meteors and other things. I don’t believe in faster then light traveling aliens so it’s hard for me to be afraid of them.
If the Communist Chinese settle Moon or Mars first, will they start a war and conquer USA from the military high ground ?
Here you are just spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Deception). If the Chinese really wanted to destroy the USA they could do it now with nukes not fancy space thingies needed. If they do it anyway well the USA still has nukes. They want to start a war as much as the soviets wanted to.
But I think you are using FUD for what in the back of your mind and that’s: “Whose culture will dominate space.” If the Chinese settle Mars first the Chinese culture will probably dominate and if the USA has a settlement first then American culture will dominate. This is just about nationalism not science, exploration or economic value. If you still want to do it fine but you will run huge debts, which are not worth it. And the Chinese also don’t have the money to sustain a Mars colony.
And being the first to land and the first to settle doesn’t mean whose culture will dominate eventually. It’s more whose culture gets the most out of it and can afford it. The soviets were pretty much first in anything in space but who is dead and who is still alive?
Americans were the first on the Moon but what if the Chinese would setup a science outpost there? But now the USA instead of developing heavy rockets develops cheap access to space but it takes longer. Then eventually American will profit more as they are able to get more out of it.
There are easier ways to destroy the USA and that is without spilling a drop of blood. For example don’t accept Dollars anymore and only use Euros.
From a purely economic point of view, it really is a "moral" question, since we as a species really don't need space travel for much of anything if we're content with the lad of the Earth... we could probably even get away without satellites with the use of fiber optics.
I agree as most communication is done now over cables (internet + telecommunications) as its much cheaper.
However farmers like the weather forecasts but that can be solved by better radar bases. But the military still needs the spying eye. But as I gather the U2 spy plane is much better then any spy sattelite.
And about the Earth getting crowded and food, well thats mostly a problem for third world countries that have no money anyway for space. Pollution can be solved by other means (electric machines).
Space nowadays is more nationalistic then anything else. If not you would have seen more of it.
Well its a good buffer zone for asteroids that may hit us.
I'm sorry but someone had to take it up for the moon. Planets have feelings you know.
Who is saying its their objective to help criminals? Its just like in Swiss, Bahamas and I'm sure other states. A don't ask, don't tell policy. And most money will be money from companies such as Enron, tax evadors, corrupt officials and perhaps Russian Oligarchs. Terrorists are not that rich to make a big difference to the banking system.
If Martians aren't allowed to do it then the Swiss shouldn't be also.
Isn't the real utopia, like in the first Matrix movie, an imperfect world?
the upper stage could have a metal heat shield to do away with this glass tile nonsense.
What is this metal heat shield? Is it reusable like the tiles or like the early space capsules?
As a followup here is information on DARPA (The ones that created the internet):
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
is the central research and development organization for the Department of Defense (DoD). It manages and directs selected basic and applied research and development projects for DoD, and pursues research and technology where risk and payoff are both very high and where success may provide dramatic advances for traditional military roles and missions.
Take this mission statement and put it in NASA's perspective and pick one of these space orientated goals:
1. Scientific advantages
2. Social and Economic advantages
3. Military advantages
I think its that simple. DARPA has done a lot and is doing a lot http://www.darpa.mil/body/strategic_pla … ext.htm]as you can read from its strategic plan. And its still just a foundation. However if you don't care to read the whole strategic plan (I didn't) then just skim through http://www.darpa.mil/body/overtheyears.html]this.
Indeed, there are all sorts of approaches to the problem of organizing research into space travel. However, one entity would do best to focus on just a few approaches at a time. This would make evaluating proposals easier still.
Nothing wrong with setting your priorities.
For example, do you want NASA to be a foundation, research laboratory, public works, for-profit company, regulatory agency, manufacturer, publishing house, advertising agency, university, military base, retailer, amusement park, launch provider, environmental consultant, and anything else that it will ever take to please the constituents of every single member of Congress? Or, would you prefer that NASA just pick a job and go with it?
If NASA is doing all of these tasks now it should be split up. Like JPL each department would be a government-funded company. Personally I could imagine NASA as a foundation, which also sponsors certain university departments (to get the future engineers).
But overall as also money is limited, the goals should either:
1. Explore (Hubble, Mars Rovers -> Science)
2. Conquer (Colonize -> Economy and expansion)
3. Destroy (Space branch of military -> Power).
Now it’s a its more like Explore and Destroy. The New World on Earth was based on “Conquer” and its success fueled science and military power.
The individuals building the first privately financed orbital vehicles won't be if they go the route that NASA has chosen.
NASA won't continue to be if it has to keep chasing money and approval the way it does.
It’s just that the first simple rockets, planes, personal computers and Coca Cola, were brewed, made in someone’s garage.
It took an industry to make them profitable, build on a larger scale and perfect the technology but they had the same origins. And it’s not a multinational.
I just want to give this "garage" builder a chance to submit his/her plan. If its sound then get some investors to back it up and submit it to NASA. For instance the Mars Direct Plan.
Unfortunately, the people meddling the most with NASA and introducing the most ungainly projects are often the very people controlling the purse strings. Tightening up the requirements for each proposal would mean choking off money for a lot of them. NASA is highly unlikely to do that.
I agree, a reason for this is also that a lot of jobs depend on those projects even if they fail. If the shuttle gets disbanded then thousands of jobs will be lost and not everyone is happy with that.
But NASA should also be able to say: “Hey you are sending us on a wild goose chase!” NASA should know better then the government what’s good and what’s not and state so in public. If they don’t, they seem more interested in keeping as much as possible the same people employed and in general keeping the status quo and keeping a low profile in Washington.
If generals during Gulf War Two were able to criticize the Pentagon and the Whitehouse so should NASA directors be able to and wanting too.
I was thinking that as the heavier elements of the solar system tend to concentrate nearer the Sun. Venus may have more of them and more radioactive onces then Earth. Which could explain maybe for its high vulcanisme and higher temps then Mercury and other weird behavior.
And I do consider Pluto not a planet but an asteroid.
Yes but Earth mines have no light either. And to Venus, Earth rotates backwards and all the other planets are weird :;):
Maybe some of those scienctists from the Acheron Labs will cook up some synthetic drugs such as XTC, crack or whatever. Which could be in high demand in the early, hard working, loney, homesick days.
Gosh, Smurf975, that's some pretty lax rules for evaluating proposals. ??? It's harder to get a plan past the average city council. Still, the goals are desirable enough.
I definitely agree that space programs shouldn't be as susceptible to meddling at every budget cycle.
Well I was not saying to submit a plan like: Build a space elevator using nanocarbon thingies and let NASA figure it out.
No you will have to describe plan in detail. Such as the physics behind it, the forces you may encounter, how will you produce those carbon thingies and so on.
And as I gather fancy computers if given enough data are able to tell if this will work or not. However NASA engineers can also see if plan will work or not and there knowledge will be used to skim through the: would work, possible and crazy plans. Computer models and prototypes will then say which "would work" plan is the best.
I don't see what can go wrong with this?!
As I gather it were individuals that actually build the first rockets and planes (as we know them) with or without state funding. Big corps just took those ideas and are stretching those earlier ideas to what is now.
I'm interested in Venus as it may have a higher economic value then Mars. I think that Venus has a greater chance of valuable materials at greater numbers then Mars. Not talking about heavy water but other elements and minerals. That are more common on Venus then any other planet, perhaps. For instance the acid and high pressure atmosphere might have formed interesting minerals.
However Venus's climate is much more hostile then Mars and has extreme air pressure. The reason why the russion missons didn't last long.
Personally I would go to Mars for the colonization and perhaps farming but Venus (possibly) for the mining. Venus could be like Australia (good for the minerals) and Mars like Argentina (nice place for farms and people)
I think that rovers may tell more but are they possible to build, with NASA's current budget?
I have been looking up the problems that you encounter at hyper sonic speeds (above mach 8) a biggie is heat.
Looking at the http://www.key-to-steel.com/]key-to-steel site. Which is a paid for database containing 29.000 alloys and their properties. But there are some free articles. I found this http://www.key-to-steel.com/Articles/Art88.htm]article which states in this http://www.key-to-steel.com/Articles/im … if]graphic (as an example) that alloys tend to be more heat resistanced but also become more breakable, brittle, fragile.
So its my gues that you use something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel]aerogel or wait for space stations that are able to make better alloys in zero gravity.
This http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/nasp.htm]site gives more information about how such a thing may work in non marketing/press release talk.
I'm halfway through it and basically what I'm getting, its not possible, or rocket propelled planes are still better.
I thought Evil Genius had a dimensional port into which he can escape into one a timeless dimension and rebuild his army there.
But perhaps I'm getting out of touch.
To follow up it looks like that NASA already thought of the tripple engine design.
Its called the Turbine Based Combined Cycle (TBCC). Got it from this http://www.affordablespaceflight.com/nasa2.html]webpage
A quote:
Turbine Based Combined Cycle (TBCC)
TBCC as it is usually defined, is very similar to the TRCC concept we just covered in that it has turbine engines and a ramjet-scramjet, but it does not normally have ducted rockets, and the turbine engines do not have afterburners.The main difference TBCC and TRCC is that TBCC uses the turbine engines to create an ejector effect with the ramjet which has the potential of improving the ramjet's performance in the zero to Mach 2.5 speed range.
Since TBCC is usually looked at as a propulsion system for a Mach 5 to 8 aircraft and is not expected to be capable of going faster then Mach 8, we will investigate adding either rockets or ducted rockets to the system in order to increase its top speed.
TBCC
This chart shows the range of possible engine operating modes that are possible with this type of propulsion system.As shown, this vehicle takes-off and accelerates to approximately Mach 2.5 using the turbines and the ramjet. One of the options with this propulsion system is what fuel to use for the ramjet during this portion of the flight profile (hydrocarbon or liquid hydrogen) and what velocity is optimum for the transition to liquid hydrogen if hydrocarbon is used.
At Mach 2.5 the turbofans are shutdown and the vehicle continues to accelerate using only the ramjet-scramjet.
Somewhere between Mach 8 and Mach 10 the rocket motors are ignited with liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. The vehicle then continues to accelerate using both the scramjet and the rocket to somewhere between Mach 14 and Mach 18 when both are shutdown. The vehicle will then coast up to its staging altitude of 150 km where the payload with expendable upper stage is released.
However it will not be smugglers they will fire on. It will be martian cargo vessels. And it can be seen as an act of war.
And sattelites can pick up who fired.
I wonder if an alternate to rocket launch will ever be possible;
such as a space elevator, or an artificial mountain reaching above the atmosphere.
I don't think a mountain would do good as the base of such a mountain will be huge and the earth needed to construct it even huger.
However I was thinking of a space plane that has multiple kinds of engines.
It takes of from any airport and accelerates using a “normal” jet engine and reaches critical speed. Then the scramjet kicks in and takes it further until it reaches a height were there is not enough oxygen. Finally the rocket engine is kicked in and takes it to the final destination.
The stage from jet engine to scramjet could be done by using two engines that use the same air inlet and outlet. However at a certain speed the air inlet is diverted from the turbine to the ramjet using an automatic valve that closes or opens the inlet of the respective engines at a certain air pressure/speed.
Reentering Earth atmosphere it should have enough speed to go on without the scramjet. As soon as it is at a certain speed the jet engines kick in and you can fly the plane to any destination you want as you would a commercial airliner.
I like the idea of NASA working as just the order giver. Congress and Whitehouse will state the missions and goals of NASA and give it a budget, which it can't exceed. To make sure that NASA is not given new orders at every new elected government, it must pass through the senate (they are for long term things right?).
The idea is have it working in five stages.
Stage One: Bid on the projects by anyone
NASA will take the missions and goals set by the government and allow any party (even a professor) to bid on them. However to bid you will have to pay $20.000 (just to make sure that not any nutcase can bid) and each submitted bid must be fully worked out and follow certain rules. NASA is obliged to study and comment on any bid that is made. If a bid is rejected it must explain why and the bidder can counter this via by forwarding his bid to an independent council, who will then judge it.
Stage Two: Working it out
Each bid receives back comments or a rejection from NASA. Those that receive comments back are basically possible to NASA with some modifications or none.
The bidder can post a new bid with the modifications if asked and do a bid again at a cost of $20.000. Which will be studied again and commented, however now each new modification will not cost you money to bid in this stage, only to enter it, if accepted.
As at this stage it’s just about the bids and not working prototypes so the cost to submit a bid shouldn’t really hurt the serious bidders.
Stage Three: The details
A small number of final bids will only enter this stage. Lets say five of them. They are all given a budget of $8.000.000 more or less. This is to get all the details straight. I mean every little detail from what socks to wear to things that can go wrong.
Stage Four: Prototypes and computer models
In this stage the bidders need to proof their concepts with prototypes and computer models. They will get funding and help for this, however limited.
Stage Five: The decision
In this stage the final bidder is decided, the ones that were able to proof the computer models and prototypes and stay within budget and then the best of them is given orders to organize or build the mission/goal.
This plan is basically worked out so that you don’t get a plan from NASA as in the Bush I administration that stated the cost of a human mission to Mars in trillions without asking other opinions. Or so that only big companies as Boeing and Lockheed will get the project for their possibly inefficient plans. So any guy that’s able to do workable computer models and prototypes (no bigger then a car) and with a detailed plan is able to get the order.
Well this is going to cost more then the 32 Billion US dollars of Mars Direct and which NASA doesn't have.
1. Fuel factory
2. Air factory
3. Food factory
4. Plants, animal embryos send into space
5. Robots that manage things
6. Spare equipment
7. Orbital spinning lab
8. Support staff
9. Resupply missions
10. More people
This all is very expensive list. There are somethings you must consider and that is
1. cost
2. research and development
3. reason
4. return on investments.
If you want to discuss this idea with any people other then sci-fi and Mars nutheads you will need a business plan.
As congress and the budget makers already have a hard time juggling all the tax income to make a solid budget, they will be hard to confince to take your idea as something more then an idea.
So basically you will have to explain:
1. How much this will cost?
2. If the things can be done with off the shelf technology and how much time it will take to develop and test something and then apply?
3. Why would we want to invest in your idea? Why do we need humans on Mars? Why not take your money and develop anti - meteor/comet technolgy and green energy?
4. What will we get back from this investment and how long will it before we see profits and as its governmental investment: How does you plan do affect the general American public?
---
Note: In reality this does not only count for your plan but all projects put forward on this forum. Basically the idea is to sell your plan to a non idealist agency with a lot of cash.
If you can do this, then maybe you can skip NASA and the government (who still support space as an idealist thing but have limited funds and a lot of independent goals) and get corporate support. You personally can still have idealist goals of course.
From slashdot:
An anonymous reader writes "Related to the future of Mars, NASA released the transcript of an expert panel which debated terraforming the red planet. Planetary scientists including NASA's Planetary Protection Officer, John Rummel, and science fiction writers (Kim Robinson, Arthur C. Clarke, and Greg Bear) chimed in. When asked if Mars should be transformed to a place where humans could walk without life support suits ("naked"), Sir Clarke responded, "Perhaps we should ask the Martians first." Can it be done quickly-- or at all? Is terraforming ethical? If humans colonize, are the colonists on a one-way trip akin to exile?" Read on for a bit more.
"A consensus seemed to be that like waking a sleeping giant, planet building seems possible if oxygen is not a requirement and some microbial life is dormant underground. But the question of making a planet suitable for plants alone seems to span tens of thousands of years. The remaining science fiction notion was terraforming humans, instead of planets, and making us survive on what is now a very alien world."
Read the article http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl? … d=214]here
NORAD already has the technology to track the contraband of illegal drugs or nuclear waist. They may not currently have the technology to shoot it down right now, but that would change once we develop laser weapons. Those weapons would be a point and shoot kind of weapons and you would almost certainty hit what your shooting at.
It maybe able to do it someday but will it be allowed to do it? I mean space is international. For instance Marsians are selling their stuff to Iran. The cargo will never enter US airspace and so the US/NORAD has legaly nothing to say about it.
However those roque nations don't really need plutonium or other materials. What they could and what would be cheaper is technology and consultents on how to build nukes, ICBM and etc.
Another thing Martians could do and what is ilegal or semi legal on earth is bio enginering, cloning and all other un ethical stuff.
![http://www.key-to-steel.com/Articles/im … if]graphic](http://www.key-to-steel.com/Articles/images/articles/Art88_1.gif]graphic){kind=link}