New Mars Forums

That's awfully nice of it to just ooze out of the ground so that it can be seen from orbit.

The next step is getting to it. What more would we need to determine the extent of the deposit? If it's coming out of the wall of a canyon, can we land above it and drill down to it?

With advancements in aquaponic and microponic systems, I think we can greatly simplify off world agricultural systems. LED's are cheap and effective sources of light. There is plenty of CO2 readily available to enrich the atmosphere. Conventional hydroponic systems require complex nutrient solutions, the ingredients of which would have to be found, likely refined, and mixed. Aquaponics uses fish effluent as a nutrient solution, recycling the water back to the fish. Other small animals contribute to a wider ecosystem, of which the astronauts are but a part.

The question is, can we get the fish to their destinations? It would seem that simulated gravity is essential.

Please, Elon, if your listening, stick an unmanned Dragon 2 on top of your Falcon Heavy test launch next year and do the EM-2 mission.

What if they installed the Dragon 2's LAS/Powered decent system on the top of the first stage? Seems to me that would provide some some much needed stability, if it doesn't add too much weight.

I think the Air Force operates enough support aircraft derived from civilian designs to have a vested interest in their development, and in turn those developments will filter back into the civil sector. Just a couple of examples include blended wing bodies and hybrid air vehicles. The former is a NASA project that the military and civilian markets should be all over. The latter is a heavy lift airship with great potential for military and industry applications.

The story finally hit the media.

An interesting lesson seems to have been learned here...

It seems to me that this contingency needs to play an important role in mission planning. Firefighting is a major issue on ships at sea, there is no reason to believe spacecraft and surface habs would be any different. If you don't have sufficient manpower to fight the fire, everyone is dead. There is no "jumping overboard".

And how's that been working out for us?

Your analogy is missing several decades of relevant history.

Lets try it again...

After a long and bloody history with France, that within the last several decades included the mass starvation of millions of Canadians under Parisian rule and the forced depopulation of Eastern Canadian natives to make way for the Quebecois population, who exclusively served France's imperial ambitions, Canada finally gained it's independence a quarter of a century ago when the French Empire collapsed. Nevertheless, Paris continued to dominate Canada's domestic, economic and foreign policies, particularly through it's control of Canada's primary source of energy. The Canadian people sought closer economic ties with its neighbors to alleviate this, but the Ottawa government, firmly in the pocket of Paris, resisted. Taking to the streets, the Canadian people, particularly the English speaking Western population, demanded their right to self determination from Paris, which responded with a hail of gunfire. The Canadian people took back their country, chasing out the French puppet, and threatened France's control of a strategic, but redundant, naval base on Prince Edward Island that it had leased from previous friendly governments. France promptly invaded and annexed PEI, and drummed up the Quebecois in the surrounding provinces by telling them the new government in Ottawa was run by Nazi's, and promises them independence from Ottawa and glorious reunion with the Motherland, if they fight the new government and secure the Canadian Maritime for France, threatening the viability of Western Canada and it's strategic access to the Atlantic. When Canada's neighbors point out that the Canadians have the right to make economic agreements with whomever they wanted, and the France should get the hell out of PEI and stop promising the Quebecois thins they can't deliver, Paris throws a temper tantrum, declares PEI it's "holy land", and threatens anyone who says anything to the contrary with nuclear war.

Back on the topic of updating the Nuclear Triad, a fleet of satellites in high orbit would be entirely too easy to track and intercept if we actually had to use them. A multifaceted approach to defense and deterrence is needed, and not just from threats from our fellow man.

First of all, we need to acknowledge just how essential space has become to our military operations. From targeting, to communications, to reconnaissance, we would be cut off at the knees without access to our space borne assets. Dominance of cis-lunar space, and the ability to deny the same access to our enemies will be key to future conflicts. We need a dedicated Space Command service to launch, operate, and service our fleets of orbital satellites that serve our defenses and other government missions. Those defenses are not limited to surface borne threats. This branch should be tasked with monitoring space borne threats as well. One might imagine battle fleets arrayed against flying saucers full of little green men, and though that theoretically could come to pass, the primary threats are far less organic. From maintaining order among orbital objects and combating the threat of space debris, to monitoring solar activity in preparation for geomagnetic storms, to surveying, charting, and manipulating the armada of minor planets and NEO's that threaten our planet and our people where ever else they may go, this armed service will serve as the foundation of our Planetary defenses.

Closer to home, the threat of nuclear attack from less than rational actors on the world stage is, sadly, not going away. Nuclear warfare has long been split into two categories, counter force, or strikes against military targets, and counter value, or strikes against civilian, political and infrastructure targets. I don't want to have to nuke anyone. I would much rather fight a far more protracted conventional conflict, even a guerrilla action against an occupying force, than drop civilization as a whole back a few centuries. But, there are a handful of global players who may or may not see it that way, who would seek to avoid defeat in a conventional conflict by resorting to nuclear weapons. First and foremost, we must defend the homeland from this threat. Secondly, we must deter any such attempt on our territory, or against our allies or troops in the field. Finally, we must reserve the ability to retaliate against any attempt with mass destruction, but without poisoning the planet. The first step is a robust and multi-layered missile defense system, which will be incorporated into the Space Command structure. Boost Phase, Cruise Phase and Terminal Phase interceptors need to be developed and deployed in numbers that are competitive with the number of offensive missiles our enemies deploy. We can no longer afford to simply attempt to counter the so called "rouge states", as our primary nuclear rival has gone rouge. Among the most important development here is the replacement of our current arsenal of nuclear armed ICBM's with a new generation equipped with "Multiple Kill Vehicles", the MIRV'ed equivalent of the current generation of kinetic energy impactor. Our strategic nuclear deterrence, and last resort planetary defense, would be provided by a new generation of much larger Inter Planetary Ballistic Missile, perhaps the size of a Liberty rocket, housed in large silos, capable of delivering a dozen or more large nuclear devices, observing satellites, and boost stages to escape velocities, with the primary mission of nudging dangerous asteroids or comets off course. In addition, if need be, the warheads could simply reenter to any site on Earth, at will. But our primary strategic weapon of mass destruction would be a limited number of orbital kinetic impactors, not banned by any treaty, and capable of punching large craters in military or political targets alike, without the unpleasant radioactive side effects.

On the tactical side of the Triad, developments in air breathing hyper sonic missiles, like the X-51 or the Arclight missile that can strike from thousands of miles away, with either its natural kinetic punch, conventional or bunker busting warheads, or a nuclear payload, without attracting the attention of early warning sensors. These missiles, based on the SM-3 naval ABM missile, can be easily modified to be fire from any vertical launch tube in the navy, most aircraft in the Air Force, and ground vehicles similar to the Cold War era Tomahawk launchers. The most important feature however, would be the ability to quickly swap out warheads to meet the mission.

Touchdown! Rosetta's Philae probe lands on comet

Well done!

Clearly a first stage engine blowout. What surprises me is the amount of the first stage that survived the engine explosion, only to fall back and explode on the pad. That is not going to be cheap to fix.

Video

The Europeans expressed interest in it. I doubt they have the money or desire though. The ESA discontinued its successful ATV program, despite still having perfectly good station modules in orbit.

The point seems to be to shift it into a roughly polar orbit, and eventually into the atmosphere to prevent biological contamination of the system.