You are not logged in.
Floating cities on venus really aren't a bad Idea. I could also conceive of floating venusian life forms simmilar to Arthur C.Clark's hypothesized floating life in the atmosphere of a gas giant. I doubt that they exist but I wouldn't feel as if my worldveiw had been overturned if we found some. More to the point I think by our current methods we are incapable of detecting any venusian life. I hope if any is found it gets brought to the attention of the appropriate athorities. The new mars webboards are not an appropriate athority.
I think that the use of mars' moons in the space exploration act is to help define the kind of program. Ultimately it is foresaking the mars direct idea for a toned down version of the old huge intergrated space exploration plan of von Braun. Mars direct was a desperate plan to get some government funding for men on mars when there was a good chance of getting none, which is what happened. This new plan is mars forever. Lampson wants to build a fleet of exploration which will be reusable. There is nothing wrong with mars direct but this plan trades price for forsight, it is a different plan for different circumstances. If it gets pulled off it is obviously one of the right ones for the circumstances. I have nothing against mars direct but it is meant to be a plan on a very tight budget. Doctor Zubrin says in the case for mars that it was a plan specifically designed for the circumstances, the circumstances have changed. This plan is much harder to abandon in good concience, it isn't going to suffer the fate of the apollo program. That is my interpretation anyway.I think it will be the biggest single advance in space exploration ever.
Note the current missile defense system is to protect against a small attack of only a few missiles. It is not meant to function against a full nuclear assault from a country like china or russia. The current missle defenses limit would be blocking a couple of missiles from a country like north Korea. I think that a small missile defense system is a good idea and will work from a technical standpoint, think of the lives it could save. The problem is estranges our nuclear allies. I don't really know where the soltion lies but I wish I did.
As far as using a more eisily storable fuel, the next generation reuasable launch vehicle is supposed to use kerosine rather than hydrogen as its fuel. This is mostly because of the higher density of kerosine compared to hydrogen and its non cryogenic nature. Both of these factor allow for a decrease in tank size and weight. Tank bulkieness makes a much bigger difference on a fully reusable vehicle than on a partially reusable one as you have to sheild those tanks for reentry. Natrium used in the way you suggest is especially bad for a fuel because you have to carry the portion of the fuel which isn't hydrogen into orbit with you. This portion of the fuel weighs more than the hydrogen you get out of it. I don't think you could reach orbit at all in the space shuttle by doing what you suggest. Also liquid hydrogen is needed to cool the space shuttle engines and I doubt that the fuel injection system will functuion with a gas rather than a liquid on the space shuttle.
I think there is no need for true artificial intelligence in the sense of an artificial human. What would be useful is very sophisticated and powertful computing devices cabable of analyzing and making decisions based on external stimuli to run robots etc.
A machine which simulates human emotions is pointless for work needs, emotions makes it erratic, and we don't even know the basic premise of emotions in the human brain. The only use of such a robot would be amusement. Artificial intelligences which do not fullfill any human needs or interests or could become dangerous should be banned. Robots and computers for amusement should be kept docile and safe. That shouldn't be terribly difficult.
I think a hive mind would be a great idea to make artificial intelligence more effecient and coordinated. Is that what you meant by insect like Josh?
Pulsed detonation engines are cheaper and simpler to design and build than ramjets. Getting a reliable ramjet could take decades while reliable pulsed detonation engines will take years. Lack of complexity are pulsed detonation engines biggest (and pretty much only) advantage.
Some small news abou the bill.
5/20/2002:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.
It is moving slowly along.
Einstein, Galileo, Wright Brothers, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Tesla, Heim, Columbus, VanBraun, etc., etc all published and/or proved their theories or at least something like them. Note that Columbus insisted that he discoered a new way to JAPAN and that Tesla was sometimes secrative, which cost him much recognition untill after his death. Alexander Grahm Bell and Thomas Edison both have some serious accusations against them that they stole some of their inventions. Untill someone shows serious signs of credibility and honestey we cannot help but brand them cranks. I hope that this guy's quantum tunelling method works but untill he shows me something concrete about his design he might as well be saying that the earth is flat.
Venus' atmosphere is devoid of water. It was split into hydrogen and oxygen by solar radiation and most of the hydrogen was blown away in the solar wind. Any hydrogen in Venus' upper atmosphere was long ago blown away in the solar wind which is also powerful enough to blow away oxygen and even heavier elements. The only source of hydrogen I know of on Venus is H2SO4 or sulfuric acid which is apparently present in Venus' clouds.
I can't see your case for artificial construction of anything in the images you have posted on your websites. I would really like an explination of what you beleive signifies intelligent construction of any features in those images. I will reserve judgment about the plausible validity of you idea until I understand how you came to the conclusions you did. I must admit your hypothesis seems farfetched but I will not dismiss it until I really understand what you are trying to say.
I think there may well be a market in getting rid off space debris which is dangerous to spacecraft and a somewhat seprate buisness of getting rid of things we don't want burned up in the atmosphere. These businesses could allow a company to get together enough money for space salvage. There is a small suply of space salvage and a nonexistent demand for it. I think that it might be more cost effective to reproses space junk it into low tech parts like debris and radiation shields and simple reflectors for intensifying sunlight on solar panels. These could reduce the cost of launching many kinds of missions while requiring a smaller but still significant one time launch. I still doubt their economic feasibility however many of the same technologies could be used in mining in space. A space debris reprossesing mission could possibly be a useful proving flight for some, although not most, asteroid mining techniques. This would increase the return from such a mission as it would help with futre missions.
There is some data about it Here. Just scroll down to the last entry. There is some good, albeit limited information about advanced propultion concepts on the Marshal Space Flight center's Advanced Space Transportation website. Some of the things they are working on are facinating. I think some of the advanced chemical designs are especially interesting. My favorite advanced chemical propulsion method is the one involving monoatomic versions of various light elements suspended in hydrogen ice contained in liquid helium. It could supposedly have a specific impulse of 750 or so. I am not sure how practical it is, however it is quite "cool" and by nature a pulsed propulsion system. I unfortunatly cannot find the reference to it although I am sure it was on some official nasa site. Pulsed propulsion of any kind is useful because it is simpler to run and maintain than a constant thrust system. Most suffer a proformance hit of some kind though. The first jet engine was an airbreathing pulse detonation system used by the nazis for the v-1 flying bomb.
P.S. I am sorry for my posts fragmentedness, I am very sleepy.
I also do not beleive in the necesity of a sample return mission. The space exploration act of 2002 may well put men on mars, all it needs to do is get passed relativly unadulterated. It will put men on mars within 20 years, while I would like that to be sooner the bill stipulates a REUSABLE spacecraft which means it won't be a crash program, we will go and return at least once, otherwise the craft isn't reusable.
The amount of stuff that you need to send up to completely remake an object in space is enormus. Think of all the equipment you'd need to send up, along with replacement parts etc. You would also cut down on the reliability of your craft by using pre damaged used parts. The amount of extra labor you would need to install new communications equipment, shielding, life support systems, storage areas, initial propulsion systems, and so on is astronomical. Using 15 year old car parts (or a 15 year old car) to build a boat or plane just isn't economically competitive, and that is pretty much what you are doing. Untill there is more useful junk up there and a cheaper way of getting to it it is not worth sending the salvage equipment and construction crews necissary to utilize it for other vehicles. Right now and in the near term future it is safer and cheaper to just send up new stuff. You wouldn't wanted to have turned old breaking down
Mir into a cycler, would you? When the ISS is done with it will likely be in similar shape.
A much smaller nuclear reactor would be required if it were only used to power a fuel manufacturer for chemical mars ascent craft. That way power can be stored up rather than used all at once. I will be quite angry if anti-nuclear people hurt mars exploration. ALL men on mars mission architectures I know of including mars direct require nuclear power.
Your right, I think. However the more effecient your engine the less good altitude does for you.
This would likely pose a problem for people in Russia of whom there seem to be at least several active members. How well represented are the various time zones? We should try to set up a time which will be most convenient to most people. I suggest a time wait untill we have some more people and their time zones. If we have a few Russians or eastern europeans we might want to make the time earlier or later, depending on whether they want to stay up late or go to bed early. Anyway, post your time zones so we can try to make a good comprimise. I am EDT, I beleive Adrian is GMT.
It will be a relitivly small demostration due to the short notice which will also make it hard to organize. I am not sure who to contact but I think we should contact someone up in the marssociety. Do you have any Idea how long it will take before the bill gets seriosly considered, and how long it will take before it comes to a close wether in success or defeat. I do not have extensive knowledge of the legislative process. When I have time I will look it up. I could concievably make a demonstration this summer as I will be in DC. At any other time though school and transportation issues become a problem.
The Mars Society has a chat area which I visted. I talked to the one member there (Bruce Mackenzie) who said very little discussion goes on there. I suggested that we organize a chat time and volunteered to get some people together from the webboard. I will contact him if I can gather at least 4 people for any particular time, maybe he will be able to get some others. If you are interested in a mars chat then I recommend you go to the Mars Society webpage and make sure you can connect to the chat through one method or another. It is a MOO chat and might cause problems for some people. You don't really have to be able to use it well but just be able to connect. Once you are sure you can connect post here and we can try to work out a date and time. I hope to be able to gather a decent number of people, but only a few would be fine. I think that a chat could provide some very meaningful and stimulating discussion. Hopefully it will become a regular occurence.
It would be really great if the mars society along with the planetary society and the nss would organize a support rally in D.C for the space exploration act of 2002. If delivered at a critical moment it could possibly get the bill passed, and open the road to mars.
Robert Zubrin of Mars Society fame was involved in designing a vehicle which used jet power to get a payload to space. The vehicle took off like a plane with some fuel (for wieght reasons) and then was fueled by a tanker in mid air. The jet then accelerated to maximum speed and at it's peak altitude released a rocket which got the payload to space. It was a really facinating concept, I beleive he talked about it in entering space. Speed is more important that lifting capacity, if you need to you can fuel it once it has taken off like Zubrin proposed, but if it can only go as fast as a 747 it actually isn't much use. Speed is more important than altitude, that is why launch sites aren't high in the mountains. Starting a rocket 2 miles up at only three hundred miles an hour reduces the distance it still has to go and the additional speed it needs by less than a percent. The problem with going into orbit is simply reaching the necisary speed to continue circling the earth, the speed needed to go up a hundred miles looks relativly small in comparison to the speed needed to maintain that altitude. Look at how much more power the Atlas which carried John Glenn into orbit had than the Redstone which put Alan Shepard up a hundred miles. It just isn't worth using a jet plane if you can't reach sevral times the speed of sound, and a 747 won't. I beleived Zubrins vehicle used modifeid F-16 engines, like six or eight of them.
I get internal server errors once or twice a day. They haven't been much of a problem though.
Definately, The question is whether he has the power and the support to pull it off. I hope he does.
Apperantly my former link was not to a linkable place. Here is a link which is almost where you need to be. Lampson In Congress
Just click on sponsered under legislative resources and then scroll down to the bottom, it is bill number 10, the very last one.
Actually monoatomic hydrogen is less dense than standard hydrogen. Even if flourine is more expensive than lox it is non crygenic and so it is gonna be cheaper to store. I gather the biggest problem is that flourine and many of its compounds are HIGHLY toxic. In the event of a failure there could be a major ecological disaster. Also the rocket exaust would be toxic. Flourine was used to test new fuels and I beleive that the Soviet's original design for a moon rocket used flourine as the oxidizer.
Kerosine is favored as the fuel for the next generation reusable launch vehicle, liquid oxygen the oxidizer.