You are not logged in.
Hubble, Mars Rovers, Cassini, who can gainsay these? But, as you mention, the vast bulk of the funds are spent on engineering issues. Not to say this is a bad thing, it's part of NASA's core mission, I'm just lamenting the short sightedness that kills off any project that dares to think beyond the next election cycle or two.
I do hope someone picks up the NIAC work, but I doubt it will happen. It was quite unique.
NIAC funds "advanced concepts" for aeronautical and space technology, not science.
Perhaps you'll allow that the line between technology and science blurs a little at the "advanced concept" level?
http://www.niac.usra.edu/studies/studies.jsp
Redesigning Living Organisms to Survive on Mars
New Worlds Imager
X-ray Interferometry
High Density Storage of Antimatter
Antiproton-Driven, Magnetically Insulated Inertial Fusion
Tailored Force Fields
Feasiblity of Communications Using Quantum Correlations
The Plasma Magnet
Mini-Magnetospheric Plasma Propulsion
etc, etc, including a dozen other propulsion concepts
Each of these requires leading edge science (mostly physics) research to bring to fruition. The same is true of most of the studies listed on that page.
I have libertarian leanings myself, but agree that early settlements will be tightly regulated, absent significant technological advance, for reasons outlined in another thread ...
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic … 3388#83388
---
"You shall truly model the phenomena, and the consequent technologies shall set you free." - John 8:32 (roughly translated)
Thanks clark, I really like that one. Flowing images and a tone, not bleak, but bare - just a hint of bittersweet.
Apollo, Saturn V during the 60's into the early 70's volunteering spirit was still alive and it was not about money. Family was still first even if they were not rich, you gave of your time and not money.
I think the general consensus (in the West, at least) is that there is less traditional community, but greater individual liberty, particularly for minorities. Whether you think that is a good thing kinda depends on which you value most at a particular point in time.
I don't think people are less generous, but they generally have less unscheduled time. There has certainly been a professionalization of nonprofit organizations so that membership consists mainly of mailing a check every few months to a team of policy entrepreneurs (all with Masters degrees or first class social connections). Though their power has been moderated recently by the ability for the grassroots to give a lot more public feedback in internet forums.
but, um, anyway ... I assumed your posting was just a random "kids these days, sigh." Was there an actual connection to the NASA budget? Should they "do more with less" by engaging volunteers?
Just the last in a long line of science kills at NASA over the past few years. Incredibly short sighted.
You might be surprised to know that manned spaceflight advocates have been vocal in their approval for the cuts despite the fact that it amounts to all of 1% of NASA's budget. I don't really understand their reasoning.
Hopefully the change of government in 2008 will bring a renewal.
Hi RyanUK, welcome to New Mars!
Your unguarded optimism renews hope for the future in all of us.
Excelsior!
Wow, thanks DEChengst.
Those are craters in the icy surface, and not lumps, right? I always have trouble telling the difference.
Welcome to New Mars Cosmophobic space buff!
I don't understand what purpose the space shuttles serve in your plan. They just seem to be dead weight?
Also you don't seem to mention how people would actually transfer to the Martian surface, or how much payload they would be able to land with.
Maybe I'm missing something?
Does anyone have a favorite JPEG 2000 viewer to recommend?
I was wondering if there was some theoretical way to split the O2 out like that.
You just need energy, e.g., a high temperature solar furnace. If you wanted to be more subtle - maybe an artificial form of photosynthesis (CO2 + light -> O2 + carbon, usually in the form of plant matter). Or maybe not even artificial - carbon black feedstock can be made from plant matter like other petrochemicals (see biodiesel, bioplastics, etc).
** EDIT:
Here's an example of "artificial photosynthesis" ...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 091932.htm
Hi ven_aura,
Welcome to New Mars.
Most plans I've seen rely heavily on abundant nuclear energy for basic life support and then handwave about greenhouses.
Have you seen the Mars Home project?
http://www.marshome.org/documents.php
It has some details that you might find interesting.
Overall, for example, there is a nitrogen shortage on Mars, but for small populations (i.e, < a million) you can mine nitrate beds as long as you have enough energy.
If you don't want nuclear, then you'll need _large_ areas devoted to solar + storage, and maybe a wind farm for dust storms (upto twice a year, 100 days each)
http://www.memagazine.org/mepower03/mar … needs.html
I personally like this idea ...
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlin … ar99_1.htm
I think the most likely use for nanotech is in the manufacture of strong, lightweight materials for construction. Carbon nanotube (CNT) composites, CNT aerogels, etc. So, fancifully, you take the CO2 atmosphere, split out the O2 for lifesupport and use the carbon to create CNT composite domes.
Oh noes! Be careful Opportunity-san :cry:
Cassini & Mars Rovers are hard to beat, but you might want to check out this one ...
Dawn - Mission to asteroids Ceres and Vesta
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1503
Ceres has a diameter > 900km and is thought to have a layer of ice 100km thick. Could be interesting ...
I just posted about the MSL’s ChemCam and the laser blaster.
Nice post, thanks.
It seems like NASA has some real innovative stuff going on in the unmanned department… when will the human exploration part of NASA catch up?
My opinion: not until there is serious manned competition from an aspiring power. So realistically > 2030.
I think the planet most likely to get in the way is Mercury.
Finally the update ...
(PDF, 67 kB)
http://spacex.com/F1-DemoFlight2-Flight-Review.pdf
...
Stage Separation Re-contact
The nozzle of the Kestrel engine made contact with the interstage section as they separated after Main Engine Cut Off (MECO). The stage separation pyro-bolts and pneumatic pushers functioned correctly and were not a contributing factor.
The re-contact occurred due to higher than anticipated rotation rates, both of the combined vehicle stack prior to separation, and of the 2nd stage after separation. This rotation was caused partly by the Merlin engine pointing slightly off center-of-mass at shutdown. However, analysis now indicates that a majority of the rotation was caused by increased aerodynamic forces acting on the 2nd stage and fairing, due to the vehicle being lower than expected during stage separation and at a high angle of attack.
With corrections to the mixture ratio and helium pressurant margins, as well as improved thrust and Isp from the Merlin 1C engine that will be used in all future flights, the separation altitude will be considerably higher and aerodynamic forces will not be a factor. Merlin shutdown will also be initiated at a lower acceleration.
Marmon Clamp Joint Separation Anomaly at Fairing Jettison
The Marmon band that clamps the bottom of the payload fairing until jettison is retained by two redundant pyro-bolts. Telemetry indicates both bolts fired, but on board video shows that the two halves of this band appear to be joined as it falls away from the vehicle. The other bolt did fire and the fairing separately properly. This anomaly is still under investigation.
Upper Stage Control Anomaly
An oscillation appeared in the upper stage control system approximately 90 seconds into the burn. This instability grew in pitch and yaw axes initially and after about 30 seconds also induced a noticeable roll torque. This roll torque eventually overcame the 2nd stage’s roll control thrusters and centrifuged the propellants, causing flame-out of the Kestrel engine. There is high confidence that LOX slosh was the primary contributor to this instability. This conclusion has been verified by third party industry experts that have reviewed the flight telemetry.
Falcon 1 did not use slosh baffles in the second stage tanks, as simulations done prior to flight indicated the slosh instability was a low risk. Given that in space there are no gust or buffet effects, the simulations did not take into account a perturbation, as occurred due to the hard slew maneuver after stage separation. Extensive 2nd stage slosh baffles will be included in all future flights, as is currently the case with the 1st stage.
...
so, baffle fix it is - congratulations to SpaceX
S. Korea extracts gas hydrate
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/skorea_alternative_fuel
Someone test mining methane hydrates already!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_hydrate
It'll be interesting to see what price they can achieve.
Congratulations Rxke! That must feel pretty awesome.
Some good thoughts there rolivieri08! Thanks for posting the link to your essay.
One thing - thermoforming usually refers to a process in plastics manufacture. I understood what you meant, but terraforming might be a better word in this case.
Terra means Earth in Latin, so terraforming means "to make Earth-like."
If even one advanced civilisation had evolved and become space faring as little as 1 million years ago, we would expect them to be everywhere by now. This suggests that we are the first spacefaring civilisation to have evolved in this galaxy.
Or that the half life of spacefaring civilizations is < 10000 years.
That's for a 3000 tonne rocket using kerosene & Saturn V engines. You wouldn't actually use the same stages, 'cause they're designed for Earth's gravity well.
I can't believe these don't get more press ...
http://www.llnl.gov/global-warm/
Particularly ...
Teller et al., Global Warming & Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Change, 1997
http://www.llnl.gov/global-warm/231636.pdf
It discusses multiple scattering systems to compensate for greenhouse warming - stratospheric, LEO and Earth-Sun L1 - the only one I've even heard mentioned is SO2 injection into the stratosphere.
The L1 scattering system described uses 3400 tons of aluminum, is positioned a little sunward of L1 so that the gravitation attraction of the Sun cancels out the light pressure, and includes a stabilization system.
I guess this one isn't mentioned much because the paper also describes several systems available for < $750 million per year, and one for $70 million per year.
Quite a contrast to the multi-trillion dollar per year carbon trading schemes touted at climate conferences.
One of the problems is that some terraforming options are only really available before major settlements are established. For example, if you want to smash ammonia asteroids into Mars, you should probably do it when there are no people there.
Also, say you wait 200 years before raising the temperature enough to melt ice and create oceans. What about the people who own land (now for generations) in the areas that will be flooded? A dozen special interests will develop over 200 years that will lobby to halt the deluge. Buying them out might be your biggest terraforming expense.
The beauty of space mirrors is that it is so simple. It’d be great to keep that simplicity if possible. I’d explore parabolic shapes before converting to laser I think. A 1 km diameter parabolic “dish” mirror at GEO would need a dish depth of 1.75 millimeters to focus at a spot on the Earth’s surface (multiply by the square of the diameter for larger dishes, e.g., 10 km dish requires a depth of 175 mm). Spin stabilized of course. I wonder if you could use centrifugal force to stretch something that creates the shape – may be a support strut that bends the right direction under stress.
You’re right, GEO is the go if possible (these are kinda largish structures). Even inclination is a hassle – but may be you’d have to deal with that anyway. Aiming control will be key.
For immediate applications, I don’t see how this guy …
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/
could turn down doubling his productivity. He has a 500 MW purchase agreement with California PUC beginning Jan 2009.
In general doubling the productivity of solar plants would make them competitive with hydro.
Disadvantages:
- daytime conditions at night in production area – but the sterling solar dishes are located in the middle of nowhere (and usually a desert nowhere) anyway because they are noisy
- stopped by clouds – but as a solar producer you are already dealing with this issue.
- any others … ?
I think it’s a business.