what kind of space mission would cause the same buzz as apollo?

[Marco]

some kind of SIRI to defend NATO?

Drones don't have to be autonomous, as I said, tight beam comms are very hard to jam. Especially laser, when atmospheric conditions allow ... neigh infinite attenuation of any jammer when the drone tracks the transmitter, fugget about jamming it.

So all that remains are some latency and throughput limitations, but it's not like dog fighting is still relevant.

[coppercone2]

how much of that stuff was ever used against a smart well funded adversary? how much faith do you put in your spies and military intelligence?

as appealing as it is, you can't develop an army to be cost optimized for the lowest problem (even if it is the only problem). their motto is to prepare for the worst and hope for the best. They don't even really trust their own people. No one wants to focus power like that if they can avoid it.

do you know why chyanne mountain was built? One of the direct quotes involves Russian spies driving up to their command center (used to be a hotel or something) and shooting it with bazookas. Its military logic. That made everyone scared then they decided oh we need to make some super hard facility.

[Marco]

How much trust can we put in the black boxes the US put in our F-35s?

The US can be sure they are only listening to manual input, we never can.

[coppercone2]

How much trust can we put in the black boxes the US put in our F-35s?

The US can be sure they are only listening to manual input, we never can.

more then SIRI

[In Vacuo Veritas]

I can't really think of a reason why corporations would go there. On the other hand, people are talking about mining in space already so maybe some rich people are willing to try and invest in that.

If the moon turns out to have a lot ov He3 then corporations might be falling over themselves to get there.

(I wonder if that Chinese probe is sneakily testing for He3)

LOL

To do what, exactly, you space cadet? Slightly lighter party balloons?

You guys with your religious talking points are hysterical. He3! Asteroid mining! Space based solar power! Colonies! The Species!

It reminds me of high school. Very funny stuff. Keep it up!



pew pew pew!!! 

[coppercone2]

How much trust can we put in the black boxes the US put in our F-35s?

The US can be sure they are only listening to manual input, we never can.

to put it in a less inflammatory regard, look how much a person in the military can talk about his rifle sling or holster or even canteen. They seriously analyze everything to death and if they are not in a position to do so you will have a really hard time adopting anything.

if you asked that kind of level of analysis from most people about a freaking water bottle they would think you are ill. They march around in parade drills and salute each other and posture is important. And its all supposed to analyze something.

[Echo88]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram 

[BrianHG]

Re: what kind of space mission would cause the same buzz as apollo?

There is only one left.  The first man to land on Mars, and only the first attempt, whether successful or failure.

Anything after that would be on such a long time scale that planet wide mass human interest would just not be there.  It will only be interesting to those who have such interests in space expansion.

Everything else in space will be driven by money/corporate interest and any world wide glamour/importance will never exist.

[Nominal Animal]

It's all just evolution - improving the breed.  Drones will control the sky, robots will handle the ground warfare.  People won't need to be involved.  We'll just move the borders after one side declares victory.

Unless, of course, you consider the humans killed by those drones and robots as people.

Veritas Vacuo, your stupidity and trolling is becoming highly annoying. Why don't you go back to your darkened basement before you soil yourself in fear?  Feel free to cuss out those darned scientists who research stuff you don't like, instead of spending their efforts in maximizing the comfort of your nest like they should.

The deuterium-helium three fusion reaction (D + ³He → ⁴He + p + 18.35 MeV) is relatively easy to achieve, but limited by the availability of ³He. It is not as easy to achieve as deuterium-tritium fusion (²H + ³H → ⁴He + n + 17.58 MeV), but there is much less neutron radiation (about a quarter compared to deuterium-tritium fusion at the same energy output; and that due to unavoidable deuterium-deuterium fusion, ²H + ²H → ³He + n + 3.27 MeV, in the conditions where deuterium-helium three fusion occurs).

Deuterium is relatively abundant in the oceans, and isn't expensive to extract. ³He is rare. It is estimated that you need about 20g of ³He per gigawatt-hour of energy produced, in a practical fusion reactor.

The main problem currently is the fragility of our current materials in such a high-energy environment.  High-energy charged particles (electrons, protons) escaping from confinement and impacting the container walls is a real practical problem: stainless steel, for example, becomes horribly brittle very fast.  Neutrons are even harder to handle, because they cannot be contained by magnetic fields; and good neutron absorbers we have erode too fast by those high-energy charged particles.

Completely sealed miniature fission reactors (say, the size of a shipping container) are trivial in comparison.

[coppercone2]

holy shit i wonder if this guy got fired from nasa or something

[coppercone2]

It's all just evolution - improving the breed.  Drones will control the sky, robots will handle the ground warfare.  People won't need to be involved.  We'll just move the borders after one side declares victory.

Unless, of course, you consider the humans killed by those drones and robots as people.

Veritas Vacuo, your stupidity and trolling is becoming highly annoying. Why don't you go back to your darkened basement before you soil yourself in fear?  Feel free to cuss out those darned scientists who research stuff you don't like, instead of spending their efforts in maximizing the comfort of your nest like they should.

The deuterium-helium three fusion reaction (D + ³He → ⁴He + p + 18.35 MeV) is relatively easy to achieve, but limited by the availability of ³He. It is not as easy to achieve as deuterium-tritium fusion (²H + ³H → ⁴He + n + 17.58 MeV), but there is much less neutron radiation (about a quarter compared to deuterium-tritium fusion at the same energy output; and that due to unavoidable deuterium-deuterium fusion, ²H + ²H → ³He + n + 3.27 MeV, in the conditions where deuterium-helium three fusion occurs).

Deuterium is relatively abundant in the oceans, and isn't expensive to extract. ³He is rare. It is estimated that you need about 20g of ³He per gigawatt-hour of energy produced, in a practical fusion reactor.

The main problem currently is the fragility of our current materials in such a high-energy environment.  High-energy charged particles (electrons, protons) escaping from confinement and impacting the container walls is a real practical problem: stainless steel, for example, becomes horribly brittle very fast.  Neutrons are even harder to handle, because they cannot be contained by magnetic fields; and good neutron absorbers we have erode too fast by those high-energy charged particles.

Completely sealed miniature fission reactors (say, the size of a shipping container) are trivial in comparison.

But don't you think its a bit like not building steam technology because someone thought direct combustion technology was possible?

I would think all the knowledge accumulated of space logistics, control systems and materials would still be useful if fusion power was developed for space propulsion uses.

[rstofer]

how is the f111 bad? what else would have been able to be used in the same way as the F111? You can argue the strategy it was developed around was bad but it managed to destroy iraq and also scare the soviets with nuclear weapons. who says there is another solution that would do both things? that plane is extremely scary.

what are you gonna do fly a bunch of f15's into the middle of russia with bombs? is that even a credible threat?

The program itself, McNamara's insistence on a single plane for both Navy and Air Force (only 1 F111B ever landed on a carrier), those kinds of things.

The plane worked, the electronics worked, there was some question about the wing pivot joint.  At one time I worked overhead in the shaker facility where they were testing that joint.

There are varying opinions, all related to the program and the single plane concept.  The Navy was never going to accept a bomber for a fighter role.

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/13_sep2018-cancelled-f111b-1-180969916/

[Mr. Scram]

LOL

To do what, exactly, you space cadet? Slightly lighter party balloons?

You guys with your religious talking points are hysterical. He3! Asteroid mining! Space based solar power! Colonies! The Species!

It reminds me of high school. Very funny stuff. Keep it up!



pew pew pew!!! 

We've heard your opinion. Can the adults now talk to each other without being interrupted all the time? What's up with almost every single one of your posts sounding like a challenge or an attempt to pick a fight, in this thread or elsewhere?

[apis]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop

For $30 billion, with a larger power generation capacity, the loop would be capable of launching 6 million metric tons per year, and given a five-year payback period, the costs for accessing space with a launch loop could be as low as $3/kg.[5]

[raptor1956]

Knock it off with needless diversions about the F-35 -- you want to talk about that start your own thread.  This comment thread is about future space missions not about one military project or another.


Brian

[BrianHG]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop

I'm sorry, but to really get into space cheap and travel outward, only Orbital Rings really counts, see here:

[coppercone2]

how is the f111 bad? what else would have been able to be used in the same way as the F111? You can argue the strategy it was developed around was bad but it managed to destroy iraq and also scare the soviets with nuclear weapons. who says there is another solution that would do both things? that plane is extremely scary.

what are you gonna do fly a bunch of f15's into the middle of russia with bombs? is that even a credible threat?

The program itself, McNamara's insistence on a single plane for both Navy and Air Force (only 1 F111B ever landed on a carrier), those kinds of things.

The plane worked, the electronics worked, there was some question about the wing pivot joint.  At one time I worked overhead in the shaker facility where they were testing that joint.

There are varying opinions, all related to the program and the single plane concept.  The Navy was never going to accept a bomber for a fighter role.

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/13_sep2018-cancelled-f111b-1-180969916/

I don't think they were stupid it was just a way to actually push such an ambitious project too. People might not want to make it if its only supposed to destroy Russia. Not everyone thought that was a good idea but the military felt it was necessary. I could someone easily saying 'oh you already have rockets for that, no need for redundancy' where some general thought a nuclear bomber was critical for his defense strategies.

Who knows what kind of dark pacts were made to get that project through the politics of the time.

I think the main reason someone wanted that thing was because it can fly in super low and drop nuclear bombs and precision bombs against command structures. I don't think I read much of the features related to those roles being nerfed in regards to satisfying anyone else. I think the terrain guidance and stable reliable low altitude flight was the idea they had in mind initially and they just said a whole bunch of BS all over the place to push it through. Then it was just like trying to teach it new tricks because it was probably politically attacked at every opportunity because it was easy to think we have too many Armageddon machines.

I think it was designed to do what it kind of did in Iraq 1 with the GBU-28 bomb, but they managed to make a bunker buster (where it was initially designed in the 70's to do the same thing with a nuke).

I do not think the cooperation with the Navy was honest. It was just trying to close a deal. They were used as a vector. Just the physical size of that thing proportional to the aircraft carrier is preposterous. And it makes no sense at sea, its supposed to have the special terrain radar so it can use mountains and everything as obstructions. At sea its not going to hide very well being such a monster. I think it was designed for tree covered mountain areas, like Albania.

I am pretty sure you don't need that level of fancy to fly low at sea unless its during a tsunami. 

[hamster_nz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop

I'm sorry, but to really get into space cheap and travel outward, only Orbital Rings really counts, see here:

Nice perpetual motion machine they have there! Are they actually serious?

I would expect that any tidal effects in a 40,000km long ring would rip it all apart. It would also be inherently unstable - any slight deviation from perfect will cause thing to do downhill very quickly.

How do people get the money and time to propose such things?

[apis]

I'm sorry, but to really get into space cheap and travel outward, only Orbital Rings really counts, see here:

Careful, you'll give in Vacuo a heart attack.

[BrianHG]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop

I'm sorry, but to really get into space cheap and travel outward, only Orbital Rings really counts, see here:

Nice perpetual motion machine they have there! Are they actually serious?

I would expect that any tidal effects in a 40,000km long ring would rip it all apart. It would also be inherently unstable - any slight deviation from perfect will cause thing to do downhill very quickly.

How do people get the money and time to propose such things?

It's not perpetual, it requires energy to keep the inner ring spinning.  This is not about cheap, it's about what's possible with today's materials and known physics.  Launch costs aside, it is still easier than a space elevator which needs a material longer than the distance to geostationary orbit with a cable with the tensile strength to make it that far.

Remember, the inner ring is at orbital velocity.  No gravity on it.  It is only accelerated beyond that speed to counter the mass it will support which is not orbiting, but at geostationary speed.

As for your last question, I don't know.  But, all of Apollo alone may have been dreamed up over 75 years ago, but what it took the US to achieve it 50 years ago was orders of magnitude more than any of those dreamers could imagine.  Let alone, even just the scale of something so mundane today as the internet and the data circulating through it.    Yet it was still done...

Money and profit would be the only reason for building such a ring.  Example of what's out there:

Industrializing the moon:


And asteroid mining:

[cdev]

Why are they so popular, when legislators don't want to spend anything on other kinds of projects that its widely thought, would create local jobs. 

I'm just guessing here but I would suspect that military related projects likely have a very high profit margin compared to civil projects, also whatever (international!) procurement rules that already apply to the military ones seem likely, much more likely to be restricted to a nations own firms, or those of a close ally. With some exceptions, perhaps...

Perhaps here in the US we rarely see infrastructure projects that need to be done getting done for that reason..

The same may apply in a bunch of other areas.

[BrianHG]

I'm sorry, but to really get into space cheap and travel outward, only Orbital Rings really counts, see here:

Careful, you'll give in Vacuo a heart attack.

LOL.  Don't tempt me to Youtube bomb this thread with a good 20 to 50 episodes of Isaac Arthur's space and futurism channel episodes, where he deals with the real physics and costs based on what we can achieve today...

Vacuo will be throwing a fit blowing out a few neurons... 

[CatalinaWOW]

I'm just guessing here but I would suspect that military related projects likely have a very high profit margin compared to civil projects, also whatever (international!) procurement rules that already apply to them seem likely much more likely to be restricted to a nations own firms, or those of a close ally, so the bidding likely is not as competitive.

Perhaps we rarely see infrastructure projects that need to be done getting done for that reason, as of around two or three years ago some of them must be put up for tender out all over the world so the tax money likely no longer creates jobs locally. (Unless the firms are managing it and they subcontract out the actual work)

The same applies to a bunch of other areas. As this is the least complicated, simplest, most easily verified answer its likely the reason.

While you are guessing about the profitability of military you might want to ask yourself where the military companies stand on the wealth/profits list.  Hint, it isn't at the top, which is occupied by commercial companies and banks.  Then, since as is widely pointed out the US is the largest arms builder in the world, look at US law on the subject.  There are laws limiting maximum profit on various kinds of contracts.  Limits range from 12% up to around 40%.  The high end for those defense contracts is about the bottom end of what commercial companies want.

[Electro Detective]

Perhaps Sir Ronald McDonald and Colonel KFC should consider participating in the space race too? 

They have infinite incoming money to burn, especially if it assures a 'first in' monoploy on Mars,

or duopoly if they're smart enough to not start an intergalactic war over it. 

...complete with stadium class kids playgrounds 
and Death Star sized drive-thus... 

[cdev]

Good point, very good point!

Will those domestic regulations remain standing in the current atmosphere, though? Or will they be challenged by some foreign investor? When did this policy start? Do you know what the date was? That might be very important. (I'm just speculating here!)

There is a book out there I've always wanted to read entitled "Privatizing War".

It might have some of the relevant dates in it, I bet. Also, there is a big exemption for national security which probably means they can avoid all of that stuff because "its secret".

So that market sector may be basically the only one thats relatively immune to globalization's pressures, that is, unless its challenged which I could see perhaps happening.

If so,its hard to predict how the WTO Dispute Settlement Body or UNCITRAL (or RGFS or whatever body that had jurisdiction) might rule-

IMHO its really a screwed up situation, because most Americans think we still have the options we had during the Great Depression, or can vote to fix healthcare, we just haven't.

But we can't any more Thats not abstract, its fact unless one disregards the sanctions that could be dumped on us for breaking trade rules.

A similar situation likely applies in a lot of other countries. Everything people worked for and fought for is being taken away by a sleazy lawyers trick.

I'm just guessing here but I would suspect that military related projects likely have a very high profit margin compared to civil projects, also whatever (international!) procurement rules that already apply to them seem likely much more likely to be restricted to a nations own firms, or those of a close ally, so the bidding likely is not as competitive.

Perhaps we rarely see infrastructure projects that need to be done getting done for that reason, as of around two or three years ago some of them must be put up for tender out all over the world so the tax money likely no longer creates jobs locally. (Unless the firms are managing it and they subcontract out the actual work)

The same applies to a bunch of other areas. As this is the least complicated, simplest, most easily verified answer its likely the reason.

While you are guessing about the profitability of military you might want to ask yourself where the military companies stand on the wealth/profits list.  Hint, it isn't at the top, which is occupied by commercial companies and banks.  Then, since as is widely pointed out the US is the largest arms builder in the world, look at US law on the subject.  There are laws limiting maximum profit on various kinds of contracts.  Limits range from 12% up to around 40%.  The high end for those defense contracts is about the bottom end of what commercial companies want.