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

[coppercone2]

Do you think a manned mars mission would cause the same buzz as the apollo program back in the day?

I am kind of surprised that there is not more hype about the Chinese moon robots. Even the mars lander was not really that interesting in the eyes of the public, in my opinion, compared to the excitement that was said to have happen in the early days of space exploration. I kinda even feel like if we put some people on the moon it won't be that exciting for most people.

What do you need? Martian explorers? giant moon colony? giant mars colony?

I thought space-x would be an interesting company but if you read about it in popular media like slashdot (ok maybe its not that popular but more so then this forum), it seems to turn into some kind of political/economics debate about privatization of space and the conduct of Elon Musk most of the time. I never got the feeling that people feel its some kind of golden moment or whatever, it just seems to suck in politics and nationalism like a garbage disposal.

IMO space definitely has a sort of cult following with die hard fans, but in the media it seems really short lived.

[In Vacuo Veritas]

None, people are aware that space is an immense sucking vacuum, a dead end for people. People in space is a stunt.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/why-not-space/

a=ISS
d=Moon

You figure it out.



People don't get excited for bottom of the ocean dives either...

Never mind the quasi-religious fervor about "the species" and "must explore" and all this weird adolescent garbage some people believe.

[coppercone2]

yea and what prevents nuclear drives and stuff from getting there?

are people just too cheap and lazy to walk long distances?


this is what I mean, its literary hip and wise for people to hate on space exploration and novel technologies. It's like those irritating statements that tend to agree with old people that want others 'off their lawn'. Because its not powered by a v8 in a mustang or whatever.

[coppice]

No future space project could create a Buzz like Aldrin.

[coppercone2]

No future space project could create a Buzz like Aldrin.

how about multi trillion dollar mars colony? i mean colony or space university, not just some outpost cost focused on doing mars things. I feel like you are going to end up needing to teach classic literature and psychology on mars to make it 'normal' not like a mixture of siberian research center and oil rig (just look how weird the EE department is in a university, now imagine that for a entire planet.  '

but with more geologists. I think the whole idea of a one way trip to a mining shanty town is extremely negative. When I read about those ideas (driven by cost) I actually got creeped out when I started thinking about the psychology of the people that will be there for the rest of their lives.

Even with early colonization of earth you at least had indigenous culture, animals and plants there. this is like starting your own martian culture. it has to be done right or people are just gonna think its a weird idea. I kinda wonder if the public just seems to associate it with 'ghetto corporate outpost' now.

poets, filmographers and artists of mars might at least get a good youtube channel and art gallery going.. the Russian movie Stalker (kinda corny but its a philosophical film) comes to mind, kinda like mars (rather then a anomaly) maybe will allow creative people to make novel works? like writers, artists etc that are situated there. Enough to make it cool again.. Mars symphonic orchestra? new compositions made there?

some good artists/creative types go to weird places to write or write about their travels (hunter s thompsons 'rum diaries' comes to mind). Maybe it would give it some appeal to the public? Even gonzo works need a seed to start from. In terms of media output of some kind of lunar or mars mission, what can you expect more then shop/repair videos?

All the great science fiction films have alot of unique culture in them that makes them appealing and interesting. I think thats what the public wants, and not too much has been produced. Like I think you used to get hype from politicians, generals, etc.. now alot of it is kinda like watching an office work...

[mfro]

People's priorities appear having changed since the seventies.

Space is boring empty.

Even worse, it has miserable WLAN and mobile coverage.

[coppercone2]

People's priorities appear having changed since the seventies.

Space is boring empty.

Even worse, it has miserable WLAN and mobile coverage.

but how can you change that? like when I was younger I was seriously considering trying to get a job in Antarctica. But then I saw how crappy it looks, like you get stuck in an office for a year. Like I would not even have a decour to talk about or whatever.. looks like a mixture of cheap office stuck in the 70's and a machine shop. You can tell its bad as soon as you look at the corrugated walls.

About 7 years later I found a nearly identical structure to Palmer Station in the separatist part of Moldova. 

[In Vacuo Veritas]

People's priorities appear having changed since the seventies.

Space is boring empty.

Even worse, it has miserable WLAN and mobile coverage.

but how can you change that?

You can't. The end. Find some other hobby. Practical fusion power seems more likely than the 1960's LSD space dreams.

[coppercone2]

People's priorities appear having changed since the seventies.

Space is boring empty.

Even worse, it has miserable WLAN and mobile coverage.

but how can you change that?

You can't. The end. Find some other hobby. Practical fusion power seems more likely than the 1960's LSD space dreams.

a ridiculous belief, the differential equations relating to stability of reactor are just as unknown. Research could determine the solutions are completely not engineering viable.

[Fungus]

The first man/woman on Mars will be some billionaire, IMHO. I think there's a whole bunch of rich people who'd pay everything they've got to be the first person on Mars. That's something only one person in history can ever do.

Maybe one with a fatal illness, so he can justify it being a one-way trip.

(getting back from Mars is orders of magnitude more difficult than going there in the first place)

[coppercone2]

I think there's a whole bunch of rich people who'd pay everything they own to be the first person on Mars. That's something only one person in history can ever do.

The first Mars flight will be some billionaire, IMHO.

Maybe one with a fatal illness, so he can justify it being a one-way trip.

(getting back from Mars is orders of magnitude more difficult than going there in the first place)

yea the one way trip thing is not viable at all for anything but robots, people should stop trying to design solutions for one way human travel. it makes as much sense as sending dying people out on canoes into a ocean. It's antediluvian and seen as uncivilized. It's literary putting a economic price on human life. Who the hell wants to die alone in space anyway, most people want to die with their family present. Economic price on human life = what desperate ass military men do when they are trying to win a war that threatens everyone.

It's seen as brave to go on a difficult mission, but no one besides primitives straps on suicide vests. There is a difference between a scenario like in the movie "Fail-safe' where the pilots go on a suicide mission to shoot down a bomber because of fuel and lack of time, vs someone strapping on a bomb vest. At least even with a terminal illness you have hope, no matter what, and you think you might be with your friends or family for a while longer.

[Fungus]

the first person on Mars. That's something only one person in history can ever do...

...although it may be cheaper/easier to try and be the first person to have sex on the moon.

[fsr]

Probably a mission to Mars. But i don't know if it will cause the same hype, as the Moon was the first time a human set foot on another "world".
Easier said than done, however. There are many problems to solve. Like radiation.

[SiliconWizard]

This is not restricted to space missions. Looks like nothing much get people excited over great human achievements anymore. Except maybe the FIFA world cup.
Draw your own conclusions.
 

[German_EE]

I'm a space geek and I've been one since the days of Mercury amd Gemini, yes, I am that old. The answer to Coppercone's question is easy, ANYTHING, but at least do something. Mankind have been pissing around in low orbit for a generation and it's about time that we started heading out there.

[Fungus]

This is not restricted to space missions. Looks like nothing much get people excited over great human achievements anymore. Except maybe the FIFA world cup.

A lot of the need for fantasy imagination has been removed from the population since the Apollo days. These days people can sit down in front of a 50" screen and see almost anything without the need to fill in any details mentally.

[mfro]

but how can you change that?

Why would one want that?

I personally consider the overview effect one of the basic achievments of the Apollo programme. If only more humans could have that - there is no place we can flee to once we damaged our home.

[coppercone2]

that's living in fear man

but it is interesting, imagine a mars effect as a cultural evolution of writing and stuff.

[james_s]

I doubt anything will. Space is a kind of "been there, done that" thing now. We can send autonomous probes and rovers to distant planets, we have orbiting space telescopes. There will be exciting developments but nothing is going to come close to the early space race, it will be mostly incremental unless we find a way to violate the laws of physics as we currently understand them or stumble upon another inhabited planet.

[apis]

A moon base is cool and something new and will generate a lot of interesting science for a long period of time.

A person on mars is a big technical achievement but I suspect that to most people sitting at home in their sofa it is not so different to going to the moon, and the US already did that, so meh. It would look the same on TV: a guy in a space suit in a desert looking at rocks. I don't think most people have a concept of the difference in distance between mars, the moon or the international space station. A base on mars would be cool too, but it is much more difficult and probably less useful to earth and science than what a moon-base would be. (And for those who are dreaming about mars, a moon base is a logical first step.)

[coppercone2]

I doubt anything will. Space is a kind of "been there, done that" thing now. We can send autonomous probes and rovers to distant planets, we have orbiting space telescopes. There will be exciting developments but nothing is going to come close to the early space race, it will be mostly incremental unless we find a way to violate the laws of physics as we currently understand them or stumble upon another inhabited planet.

I see hot dog carts and tents, its not really impressive. I have yet to see a badass moon buggy that would make it to the cover of American muscle cars or a space structure that would be shown proudly in a architecture magazine.

[coppercone2]

A moon base is cool and something new and will generate a lot of interesting science for a long period of time.

A person on mars is a big technical achievement but I suspect that to most people sitting at home in their sofa it is not so different to going to the moon, and the US already did that, so meh. I don't think most people have a concept of the difference in distance between mars, the moon or the international space station. A base on mars would be cool too, but it is much more difficult and probably less useful to earth and science than what a moon-base would be. (And for those who are dreaming about mars, a moon base is a logical first step.)

I like the idea of a actual base, but not a corporate thing or just a research center. you would need to be able to do something there, even go shopping for unique craftsman goods. At least some kind of high end nice looking rec center for lunar sports or something.

Otherwise:

IBM in space: no one can hear the paper shredder scream.

[coppice]

No future space project could create a Buzz like Aldrin.

how about multi trillion dollar mars colony?

Apollo, and the projects which preceded it, were military spending at the height of the cold war. Although Neil Armstrong had the biggest TV audience ever, that was only partly about people watching a triumph of human achievement. It was far more about "our side got there first, and we are watching them cross the finishing line". Apollo 12 had quite weak audiences by comparison, and they went downhill rapidly from there.

If you want the public to be interested there needs to be a contest, hopefully with horrifying potential consequences for the loser. That will keep the public interested and the cash flowing, but it means you don't need one spectacularly expensive space project. You need at least two.

[coppercone2]

what sport would be good on the moon? Maybe you can bring back the olypmics.

[Fungus]

A moon base is cool and something new and will generate a lot of interesting science for a long period of time.

Yep, a lunar hotel is a lot more practical and attention-grabbing than a couple of guys going to Mars.

It would be like Disneyland for billionaires.

[coppercone2]

I swear you might get a serious Russian basketball team this way.

(lunar)Lakers vs...

How about away-from-earth jerseys?

[coppercone2]

A moon base is cool and something new and will generate a lot of interesting science for a long period of time.

Yep, a lunar hotel is a lot more practical and attention-grabbing than a couple of guys going to Mars.

It would be like Disneyland for billionaires.

I think you need some kind of events to occur there. Not just static stuff.

Obviously racing, anyone design a lunar dirt bike yet?

[T3sl4co1l]

Ignorance of the climate in which the original mission happened, and ignorance of its actual goals.

The first: people at the time were mixed on the mission.  It's a waste of money.  Clearly it is; very little can be gained by sending bags of mostly water plus their support systems into orbit.  Is it cool to do?  Hell yeah it is.  But just because it's cool doesn't mean it's worthwhile.

The second: an F-U to the Soviets.  How do you win a war?  With lots of money.  Both sides spent ludicrous amounts of money on showing up the other.  An all-out war involves traditional fighting: troops on the ground, air support, etc.  In a cold war, you just don't send out troops.  Nothing else is different.  Just as much gets spent on intel, on developing weapons and defenses (even if they're unlikely to be needed), on securing geopolitical borders, allies and enemies, offenses and defenses -- just as much as ever.

Is that a waste of money?  Well, of course, but so is everything.  There doesn't seem to be an obvious way to restructure the power dynamic in a way that doesn't involve wasting huge piles of money.  It is the piles of money which supply the power dynamic in the first place; the best we can hope for, seems to be a dynamic where the money is spread evenly about.  If we tried to constrict the money flow, we'd get a sausage effect and end up concentrating it elsewhere.

We might ask: was the space program, among others, a worthwhile show of power relative to other approaches?  Would it have been better spent, say, strengthening and expanding our allies?  Or more directly destabilizing our foes?  Who knows.  Even if we knew, hindsight is 20/20...

We might ask a completely different question.  What large project could we do today, which is likely to be looked back upon with rose-tinted glasses, by the next generation?  Is that a loaded question?  Well, of course, but so was the original question, and one must understand why, in order to construct a solution to it.

Tim

[Bicurico]

I think people are less focussed on space missions because they have realized a few things:

1) Space is big. Quoting Douglas Adams: "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
2) Space is mostly empty. Nothing to see, nothing to do.
3) The next solar system is out of reach in our life time, even if we invented some for of travelling at the speed of light, which is not possible at the current state of knowledge.
4) It took us humans millions of years of evolution to adapt to this specific planet Earth. We are specifically made for it. Quick search provided this link: https://study.com/academy/lesson/comparing-elements-on-earth-to-those-in-the-human-body.html, but there is a nice chapter in "A Short History of Nearly Everything": by Bill Bryson
5) The moon was a challenge. Done. Nothing more to see.
6) Mars is NOT habitable for humans, not just because it lacks the atmosphere. It lacks an iron core like on Earth, that produces a magnetic field which shields us against cosmic radiation.

This list could go on.

There are many more problems on Earth that could need some fixing:
1) Overpopulation
2) Pollution
3) Wars with all kind of conflicts (religious, economical, petrol, ...)
4) Starvation
5) Lack of cures for deadly or incapacitating diseases

Again this list could go on and on.

So why should we be overwhealmed with space exploration? I am pretty sure that the human kind will never leave this planet.

Regards,
Vitor

[apis]

Yep, a lunar hotel is a lot more practical and attention-grabbing than a couple of guys going to Mars.

It would be like Disneyland for billionaires.

Well, to me, research is the only really worthwhile endeavour, but I might be alone in thinking that. Of course, it would be cool if it grew into a lunar city where one could relocate permanently and not a small group of elite scientists.

If there's a hotel then anyone can go there (at least in theory, since anyone can win the lottery, right?) It is something people can daydream and get excited about.

[Fungus]

a lunar hotel is a lot more practical and attention-grabbing than a couple of guys going to Mars.

It would be like Disneyland for billionaires.

I think you need some kind of events to occur there. Not just static stuff.

Obviously racing, anyone design a lunar dirt bike yet?

Lunar golf, obviously.

[schmitt trigger]

Ignorance of the climate in which the original mission happened, and ignorance of its actual goals.

As a child growing during the Cold War, this is absolutely correct.

It was like a death match between two badass gladiators, while we (the rest of the World) watched with both excitement and terror.

Everything was politicized back then. Heck, even the Olympic games. The Space Race was just another weapon in both the US/ USSR's arsenals.

[BravoV]

Buzz only ? I think its already started, but only at very early stage.

1st you have to realize the reason of Space Race Ver.1 in 50-60s, the Sputnik 1 sparked it. With the advantages of having a communication relay hanging in the sky, thats definitely a strategic advantage. But we all know, it was also like a bitch slap at US face that challenged it's domination. Its also sort of made JF Kennedy said these ... "Hell, sending satellites is for loser, the Ruskies have done it 1st, we should make a unique bold move that we are the 1st one" ... hence Apollo program.

What you need now is, say one day, you heard the news that China Space Agency is working closely with one of the Chinese conglomerates (say Mining one  ...hint..hint ) , or China and Russia joined hand in hand for moon exploration commercialization and some private businesses also joining in as part of the deal.

Then the real Space Race Ver.2 is booting up. 

PS : If you're pretty sure that above example is about to happen, I guess its time to stock piling SpaceX stock ? 

[Tomorokoshi]

We might ask a completely different question.  What large project could we do today, which is likely to be looked back upon with rose-tinted glasses, by the next generation?  Is that a loaded question?  Well, of course, but so was the original question, and one must understand why, in order to construct a solution to it.

Tim

Part of what made Apollo exciting is that 400,000 people were involved, what at the peak? In total quite a few more over the 13 years or so. It paid a lot of mortgages. If there were a single program that employed 400,000 people, or perhaps 600,000 now, it would be exciting even if the ostensible goal was relatively mundane.

The quest for mere knowledge and achievement runs headlong into, well, a brick wall (beaded curtain?) in the current reality of placebo facts and pride in ignorance. A clear, utilitarian product would have to be the goal, such as nationwide solar, wind, etc. power. But that isn't coal or oil, so that's a non-starter for now.

[coppercone2]

I think those energy sources are good to have, so there is sustainable living, but I wonder what will happen when we start to develop those karashadev level manufacturing processes that require monsterous amounts of power.

It might even be the case that we run dangerously large reactors on other planets just to be able to process strange materials. Where it won't be a question of running out but being able to supply enough peak power for experiments and inefficent processes etc. Like terrawatt reactors.

Of course there is also atmospheric processing to think about I guess..

[apis]

The amount of solar power available isn't the bottleneck.

[coppercone2]

The amount of solar power available isn't the bottleneck.

I dunno if you need terrawatts+ of power for sustained periods of time you might run into some serious infrastructure problems compared to building a dangerous matrix of nuclear reactors. Our requirements are pretty small right now. Even if you had global grids think about all the switch gear, wiring, power converters, etc. If some ridiculous experiment or robot factory goes wrong in some caves under venus or whatever no one really gives a shit.

Look at the insane amounts of engineering time that go into high efficiency devices. Compare some 60% efficient PSU to a 98% one. We might be able to get some cool stuff if we can safely throw lots and lots of power at problems.

[duak]

I was a teen in Canada during the Apollo missions and while I was certainly interested in it I don't recall all that much buzz about it, even the first landing.  There was a slight blip for Apollo 13 but even I didn't have that much interest in the later missions.  Skylab coming down was talked about more than it going up and staying there.  I was on a trans-pacific flight when the captain announced that the first Shuttle Columbia had launched safely.  I spoke exceedingly briefly with the 2nd crew at a presentation once, does anyone remember their names?  The Challenger disaster was quite memorable and the Hubble was sort of a comedic interlude.  9/11 was the biggest & most publicy discussed event that I can remember.  Three Mile Island, Chernobyl & Fukushima, IMHO were talked about here more than Apollo.

Bottom line, if if bleeds, it leads and we tend to be more interested in bad news than good.  If some drama could be scheduled a la The Martian, there could be big interest, but it wouldn't last long.  Didn't Stalin say, "one death is a tragedy but a thousand is a statistic"?

To change the subject slightly, are you familar with Project Orion?  That's where a spacecraft used a series of fission bombs exploded sequentially to drive it into space?  George Dyson, the son of one of the scientists on the project, gave a most excellent TED talk on it - well worth the view.   Can you say unintended consequences like radioactive fallout?  Or propulsion system failure and dropping this thing on a big city at a few km per second?  That'd make the news, eh?

Cheers,

[coppercone2]

yea i think with project orion I would make sure there is

1) earth defense system capable of getting rid of debris. Like a serious one that has multiple options like pushing stuff away reliably, space tug boats, etc. not just missiles. With a serious 'dont fly within these coordinates or get pulverized'
2) do not run any of that kinda stuff close to earth, maybe from the moon at least.

[hamster_nz]

Trips to Mars take too long for the modern news cycle, and would fail to galvanise the majority. Day 24? Like day 23, like day 22 was...

It would be worse than test cricket!

[coppercone2]

nah you film it like Jersey Shore

the italian young adult culture of new jersey has already done the proofing test on the type of media that can be used to cover a mars trip.

[apis]

Every week the viewers get to vote who gets thrown out of the airlock?

[rstofer]

There are many more problems on Earth that could need some fixing:
1) Overpopulation
2) Pollution
3) Wars with all kind of conflicts (religious, economical, petrol, ...)
4) Starvation
5) Lack of cures for deadly or incapacitating diseases

All of those items are self-correcting, no research necessary.  Items 2..5 are the solution to Item 1 and Item 1 is the cause of items 2..5.  In a circular route, those solutions also solve themselves.  No population, no pollution.  No population, no starvation.  No population, no wars.  It all works out!

There used to be dinosaurs and they were around for a lot longer than humans (about 180 million years versus about 200,000 years - 1000 times as long!).  Now they're gone!  We may be the apex predator at the moment but things change.  There is no reason to believe that humans are here for the long haul (multiple hundreds of millions of years).  Richard Feynman brought up the point that if we are to survive, we must employ locational diversity.  We need to move elsewhere.

[In Vacuo Veritas]

The first man/woman on Mars will be some billionaire, IMHO. I think there's a whole bunch of rich people who'd pay everything they've got to be the first person on Mars. That's something only one person in history can ever do.

Maybe one with a fatal illness, so he can justify it being a one-way trip.

(getting back from Mars is orders of magnitude more difficult than going there in the first place)

LOL yeah, because people become billionaires chasing after quixotic puerile daydreams. Hint: billionaires rarely take even a 5 second break from their businesses. They aren't strapping themselves into a metal death trap so they can live out YOUR fantasy! 

And astronauts are typically selected for their frailty. 

Do you not see the ridiculous scenario you have here?

[Fungus]

LOL yeah, because people become billionaires chasing after quixotic puerile daydreams. Hint: billionaires rarely take even a 5 second break from their businesses. They aren't strapping themselves into a metal death trap so they can live out YOUR fantasy! 

You never hard of Richard Branson then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Branson#World_record_attempts

And astronauts are typically selected for their frailty. 

And not all billionaires are old/frail.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/101415/worlds-top-10-youngest-billionaires.asp

Do you not see the ridiculous scenario you have here?

Nope.

[Mr. Scram]

None, people are aware that space is an immense sucking vacuum, a dead end for people. People in space is a stunt.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/why-not-space/

a=ISS
d=Moon

You figure it out.



People don't get excited for bottom of the ocean dives either...

Never mind the quasi-religious fervor about "the species" and "must explore" and all this weird adolescent garbage some people believe.

We got your panties in a right bunch with that one, didn't we? I'm on team sensible and smart scientists on this one. The truth does ultimately lie in the vacuum, funnily enough.

That being said, we don't need a buzz. Buzzes the to be strong and short-lived. We need a steady acceptance and getting to a new normal.

[Mr. Scram]

LOL yeah, because people become billionaires chasing after quixotic puerile daydreams. Hint: billionaires rarely take even a 5 second break from their businesses. They aren't strapping themselves into a metal death trap so they can live out YOUR fantasy! 

And astronauts are typically selected for their frailty. 

Do you not see the ridiculous scenario you have here?

The era of the gentleman racer and pilots hasn't been gone for that long, an era where extremely affluent young men sought to challenge themselves in rather dangerous ways. Quite a few met their untimely demise in the pursuit of some record or race title.

[In Vacuo Veritas]

LOL yeah, because people become billionaires chasing after quixotic puerile daydreams. Hint: billionaires rarely take even a 5 second break from their businesses. They aren't strapping themselves into a metal death trap so they can live out YOUR fantasy! 

And astronauts are typically selected for their frailty. 

Do you not see the ridiculous scenario you have here?

The era of the gentleman racer and pilots hasn't been gone for that long, an era where extremely affluent young men sought to challenge themselves in rather dangerous ways. Quite a few met their untimely demise in the pursuit of some record or race title.

Difficulty: airplanes exist. Your fantasy spacecraft ... don't.
Difficulty: engineering exists. Your fantasy technologies... don't.
Difficulty: incremental changes from existing technologies and energy sources allowed the early 20th century explosion... you require leaps in materials and energy sources in the orders of magnitude. What is more likely? I'm right, or your fantasies that still, after DECADES, amounted to NOTHING, might happen?

bet: in the next ten years, no one will have gone farther than LEO. Or the next twenty. Just like the twenty before.

The end.

So sad.

[coppercone2]

like what advances in materials do we need?

where do you see costs being cut? what magic bullet do you need? are these solutions going to come up magically?

what do you hope for? new alloy orders of magnitude stronger then the best inconels? better ceramics? someone to fall on a toilet, hit their head and develop a new propellant?

[apis]

I never understand what point you're trying to make @In Vacuo Veritas. Everyone here knows how big the solar system is maybe it is you who are missing something? Solving problems and inventing new stuff is what engineers do.

[coppercone2]

it sounds like he is in the realm of theoretical mathematicians, hopefully some equation will solve the worlds problems in 500 years?

you can't have something show up unless you have a specification in mind, other wise its nebulous. It sounds like you are looking to hit some kind of lottery. 

[fsr]

FTL travel or finding intelligent extraterrestrial life would do the trick.

[Mr. Scram]

Difficulty: airplanes exist. Your fantasy spacecraft ... don't.
Difficulty: engineering exists. Your fantasy technologies... don't.
Difficulty: incremental changes from existing technologies and energy sources allowed the early 20th century explosion... you require leaps in materials and energy sources in the orders of magnitude. What is more likely? I'm right, or your fantasies that still, after DECADES, amounted to NOTHING, might happen?

bet: in the next ten years, no one will have gone farther than LEO. Or the next twenty. Just like the twenty before.

The end.

So sad.

I hadn't realised aircraft materialised out of thin air and spacecraft are designed through magic and the offering of goats. It's almost as if history isn't full of people looking at something more feebleminded folks considered unattainable saying "how hard van it be?" and consequently moving the goalposts for all mankind.

Not even 10 years ago a rocket landing upright and with a useful payload was pure science fiction, yet now it's already mundane. There's a car orbiting the Sun well clear of the SOI of Earth because some guy went "I'd like to do that" and figured out how to do that. Let's get back on topic.

[coppercone2]

FTL travel or finding intelligent extraterrestrial life would do the trick.

lets not degenerate into scratch tickets unless you have a serious idea for a research effort.

[Nominal Animal]

FTL travel or finding intelligent extraterrestrial life would do the trick.

lets not degenerate into scratch tickets unless you have a serious idea for a research effort.

As long as this planet is full of people like In Vacuo Veritas, any sensible scientist who has an idea about FTL travel or such, will bury the idea as deep as they can.  I know I hwould.  Even extinction is better than letting those spread.

[coppercone2]

what if it takes over? some people might rather explore then go on that date

notice how all the horrid things come from isolated areas? some people might want to leave deliverance, jawjah to go to orange county CA you know.. could prevent some 'selections' from occurring. it has to be nice though. well maybe not in this case I can see someone going to LV426 rather then on a date with a nasty creep...

point2: we need really good transit systems to prevent people from getting stuck to prevent space deliverance from developing. you might get some funny looking babies otherwise. be sure to put some violins and a musician up there so someone does not get the bright idea to make a banjo out of some rover break cables. And you can't have a dry drug free colony because you will end up getting space shiners hiding 'moon'shine stills in craters. How hilariously bad would that be?

i think I just determined the moon absolutely needs some hard woods growing on it to prevent a degenerate pure unflavored ethanol culture. Also don't rely on just grapes, you need hard woods so you don't end up with little italy on the moon. before long garlic plantations and lunar cheese cows.

and you need some kind of zen rock garden or something. i dunno how that is gonna work out if china is killing all the faung gong practitioners capable of creating such a feat.

[Nominal Animal]

point2: we need really good transit systems to prevent people from getting stuck to prevent space deliverance from developing.

If we look at humanity as a whole, a major reason for the current numbers of birth defects is the prevalence of marriage between cousins.
It's not a redneck hillbilly problem; it is much more prevalent in certain other cultures.  You'd be surprised how big a problem it is in big cities.

[cdev]

Here is the scary thing, if by "could" you mean legally, what (space or non-space) projects, presumably to help fix something, something big, could a government of a nation do, that was allowed in the current international regulatory environment? (and by regulations, I mean the kinds that limit countries.)

We might ask a completely different question.  What large project could we do today, which is likely to be looked back upon with rose-tinted glasses, by the next generation?  Is that a loaded question?  Well, of course, but so was the original question, and one must understand why, in order to construct a solution to it.

All of the great other things governments used to do, like in the US all the things done during the Great Depression, all of the big programs like Social Security, Medicare, the WPA, public works and so on, are all off the table now.

Whatever new action of any kind they do generally has to be the most minimal possible. To use the exact phrase, everything has to be minimally trade restrictive. Which has specific legal definitions.

Government 'measures' everything they do, basically, have to be "not more restrictive than necessary to ensure the quality of the service".

Note that this only applies to measures by governments at the Federal, state and local levels (or  the actions of all quasi-governmental entities defined by whether they use some tax money. In other words are subsidized, which could be in non-direct ways too. Certain laws, like minimum wage laws may be seen as a government subsidy.)

Also governments can continue things that they did in the past in exactly the same way as long as NOTHING is changed even a tiny bit. If they change them it has to be in the direction of reducing of non-conforming measures or eliminating them.

Would space programs be a 'measure?' Thats a good question but its probably irrelevant because the US and other countries already subcontract out space quite a bit commercially.

So they likely cant go back to not doing that. Since that is deregulation (privatization = deregulation) its "ratcheted" (locked) in.

[coppercone2]

point2: we need really good transit systems to prevent people from getting stuck to prevent space deliverance from developing.

If we look at humanity as a whole, a major reason for the current numbers of birth defects is the prevalence of marriage between cousins.
It's not a redneck hillbilly problem; it is much more prevalent in certain other cultures.  You'd be surprised how big a problem it is in big cities.

yea but some isolated ass shit is gonna end up being worse man

but yea this is why you don't shut down subways and buses in the city lol

if the MTA keeps hiking rates your gonna end up with some serious bobo's

[mairo]

the first person on Mars. That's something only one person in history can ever do...

...although it may be cheaper/easier to try and be the first person to have sex on the moon.

Don't you need a minimum of two people for this? If so, you will be sharing the fame with a minimum of one more person.

[coppercone2]

you also want good rad shielding so the DNA does not go judge dread. that accelerates problem areas.

if the bean counters keep pounding on those payload costs and you will end up with those Reavers from Firefly.

[Mr. Scram]

Who says people haven't already had sex on the Moon?

[coppercone2]

no wonder there are missing reels

[wraper]

you also want good rad shielding so the DNA does not go judge dread. that accelerates problem areas.

if the bean counters keep pounding on those payload costs and you will end up with those Reavers from Firefly.

There is Russian saying: "If you want to be a dad, wrap balls with lead"  .
(Если хочешь быть отцом, яйца оберни свинцом)

[coppercone2]

you also want good rad shielding so the DNA does not go judge dread. that accelerates problem areas.

if the bean counters keep pounding on those payload costs and you will end up with those Reavers from Firefly.

There is Russian saying: "If you want to be a dad, wrap balls with lead"  .
(Если хочешь быть отцом, заверни яйцо свинцом)

do they have lead lined cups on nuclear submarine emergency kits?

[Marco]

There are many more problems on Earth that could need some fixing:
1) Overpopulation
2) Pollution
3) Wars with all kind of conflicts (religious, economical, petrol, ...)
4) Starvation

Political problems, for which there is only one obvious solution everyone is simply unwilling to commit too (making me world dictator). Doing more research won't help.

5) Lack of cures for deadly or incapacitating diseases

Not everyone wants to be a doctor.

I think the main problem is that we live in a time where we've all realized we'll have a massive population collapse long before we can get off this rock. Maybe broad scientific optimism can return after the collapse. Assuming we can do it without killing ourselves entirely.

[coppercone2]

mr. optimism right there

don't let Jehovahs into your house

[james_s]

I just don't see tourist trips to the moon happening, at least not beyond a small handful of the richest people in the world who are either interested in going there or willing to endure days of mind numbing boredom on the way there.

There is a vast distance between low earth orbit and the moon. If you want to land and then take off again to get home that is hugely expensive and likely always will be. It takes a LOT or energy and that's not realistically going to change.

[coppercone2]

3 days right now is not so bad. you need something to prevent it from being a scary corpo-town

at least a hotel would bring it to banana republic status.

earth related events might make it less so.

[Mr. Scram]

I just don't see tourist trips to the moon happening, at least not beyond a small handful of the richest people in the world who are either interested in going there or willing to endure days of mind numbing boredom on the way there.

There is a vast distance between low earth orbit and the moon. If you want to land and then take off again to get home that is hugely expensive and likely always will be. It takes a LOT or energy and that's not realistically going to change.

People make longer and more boring trips on Earth.

[coppercone2]

can you imagine a limited liability lunar corporation corporate theme song? (scarily reminiscent of the movie snowpiercer). and featured in the movie 'pirates of silicon valley'.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/08/tripping-through-ibms-astonishingly-insane-1937-corporate-songbook/

i really think you will need some nonforprofit stuff there some how, even with events, which could be insanely corrupt.

    We don't pretend we're gay.
    We always feel that way,
    Because we're filling the world with sunshine.
    With I.B.M. machines,
    We've got the finest means,
    For brightly painting the clouds with sunshine.

    —from "Painting the Clouds with Sunshine"

[Marco]

mr. optimism right there

I'm a sign of the times

[Nominal Animal]

yea but some isolated ass shit is gonna end up being worse man

Space is so dangerous the stupid ones don't live long enough to procreate, and those clever enough to survive learn to control their impulses and procreation.

If you look at hillbillies, or any rural semi-isolated groups, they tend to have at most one or two inbred families that basically live off the largesse of the others (or via crime, like selling drugs, stealing stuff, and so on).  Any place where humans have to work to survive, inbreds do not.  Which is why I wouldn't worry about that.


I think any unmanned probe with a realtime VR rig (and that means a huge bandwidth to Earth orbit, comparatively speaking), that would let humans experience "firsthand" what it feels like to crawl around on the moon or Mars or in the upper atmosphere of Venus, would probably create a similarly big buzz.  I don't know why Elon and others haven't thought of that yet.

[coppercone2]

Should the moon have a government? should it be run by the UN?

[apis]

I can think of plenty of science you could do there. And I can imagine a few tourists (billionaires) who would pay to go there. Are there military reasons some would send people there? Except for mining though, 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.

[coppercone2]

mining, space port services, etc

it makes sense to subcontract routine work like maintaining loading bays or w/e to companies so NASA is not tasked with facilities maintenance for commercial shipping

government funded janitors are going to get silly eventually. also private corporation wont be effected by government politics so much, like shutting down government. or congressional saber rattling.

[rdl]

People go on week long cruises all the time. No reason why they wouldn't go to the Moon if it was possible. By far the hardest and most expensive part of going to the Moon and back is just getting into orbit around the Earth. If getting to orbit becomes reasonably cheap and easy (which is a big if), then hotels on the Moon will be almost inevitable.

[apis]

Should the moon have a government? should it be run by the UN?

If it was a bigger colony with permanent residents then it should probably be run by the people living there, Luna could be a member of the UN though.

[coppercone2]

how are land claims handled? within x feet of a structure? how do you prevent troll structure land grabs?

how do you approve stuff? what prevents someone from building a ton of shanties and taking over the moon? approved lunar building code requirements for territorial gains? proof of residency? who is gonna take census?

oh man this could turn into a shit storm so easily.

[cdev]

Corporations only have one reason they do everything, for money. So that is why they would go to the Moon. Since there are corporations offering space services, countries are required to use them (see link below).

Space missions are managed by national space agencies but they are actually implemented by various corporations. Lots of astronauts are subcontractors already.

I can think of plenty of science you could do there. And I can imagine a few tourists (billionaires) who would pay to go there. Are there military reasons some would send people there? Except for mining though, 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.

[james_s]

I just don't see tourist trips to the moon happening, at least not beyond a small handful of the richest people in the world who are either interested in going there or willing to endure days of mind numbing boredom on the way there.

There is a vast distance between low earth orbit and the moon. If you want to land and then take off again to get home that is hugely expensive and likely always will be. It takes a LOT or energy and that's not realistically going to change.

People make longer and more boring trips on Earth.

Sure, but they normally aren't paying billions of dollars for the privilige. There's just no way short of teleportation to make it affordable to the vast majority of the population. Of those that are able to afford it, most likely aren't going to find it compelling. I mean there are countless places on earth I'd rather go to than the moon, even if money wasn't an issue. There isn't much to do on the moon, it's an empty rock floating in space. I'd rather look at pictures than risk my life going there. Same applies to the top of Mt Everest and the bottom of the ocean.

[coppercone2]

if you just give lunar lands away to people who build, you will end up with von neumann machines designed just to build to acquire real estate.

[coppercone2]

i wonder what the prime lunar real estate looks like now, the best places to build bases and land on etc.

[cdev]

One point of going to the Moon for many wealthy people would be the exclusivity of it. The fact that the typical tourists could never afford it. It would be a very short list at the beginning of people who had visited the Moon as tourists. They could even (for a fee) have a crater or other landmark named after them. Like bricks in a church or synagogue named after generous donors. This would likely become the main way the space program was funded.

I just don't see tourist trips to the moon happening, at least not beyond a small handful of the richest people in the world who are either interested in going there or willing to endure days of mind numbing boredom on the way there.

There is a vast distance between low earth orbit and the moon. If you want to land and then take off again to get home that is hugely expensive and likely always will be. It takes a LOT or energy and that's not realistically going to change.

People make longer and more boring trips on Earth.

Sure, but they normally aren't paying billions of dollars for the privilige. There's just no way short of teleportation to make it affordable to the vast majority of the population. Of those that are able to afford it, most likely aren't going to find it compelling. I mean there are countless places on earth I'd rather go to than the moon, even if money wasn't an issue. There isn't much to do on the moon, it's an empty rock floating in space. I'd rather look at pictures than risk my life going there. Same applies to the top of Mt Everest and the bottom of the ocean.

Adventure tourism is really popular now. And people would love the idea of having a lunar landmark named after THEM.

So I think space tourism would 'take off'.

[coppice]

One point of going to the Moon for many wealthy people would be the exclusivity of it.

That is certainly a driver for a certain kind of person, just as some rich people actively push the price of artworks up, so they end up paying the kind of staggering price that makes them noteworthy. However, if you look at the number of tourists who have taken a much cheaper trip to the ISS on a Soyuz, the market seems very small.

[cdev]

More likely- many people will go to the Moon virtually using that nerve sensory recording and playback technique that guy in Sydney is developing or similar.

The space version of 'The Matrix' or Queen Mu's 'teledildonics'.

Sure, but they normally aren't paying billions of dollars for the privilige. There's just no way short of teleportation to make it affordable to the vast majority of the population. Of those that are able to afford it, most likely aren't going to find it compelling. I mean there are countless places on earth I'd rather go to than the moon, even if money wasn't an issue. There isn't much to do on the moon, it's an empty rock floating in space. I'd rather look at pictures than risk my life going there. Same applies to the top of Mt Everest and the bottom of the ocean.

[apis]

how are land claims handled? within x feet of a structure? how do you prevent troll structure land grabs?

how do you approve stuff? what prevents someone from building a ton of shanties and taking over the moon? approved lunar building code requirements for territorial gains? proof of residency? who is gonna take census?

oh man this could turn into a shit storm so easily.

If the moon nation (what should it be called?) is independent then they would deal with it just like on earth. However colonies are usually not independent in the beginning. So it might start as a Chinese colony for example, or it could be some sort of international project like the ISS. In a international station everything would have to be decided by a comity. If it was a Chinese colony they would distribute land as they would back on earth, basically treat it as Chinese land. The problem is, I think there are international agreements that no nation may claim land on the moon (or in space in general). So legally it would probably have to be international. Say China go there first and build a base and Chinese companies start mining there and it turns out to be lucrative. Then eventually maybe the US/Russia/India will begin being interested and other corporations want to begin mining there. Then there could be a conflict. Which answers the question if there is a reason for military to have a presence there I suppose.

[coppercone2]

yea but cant you say like 1/4 of the moon is my property? how do you determine whats reasonable. its for earth so you need a body on earth to approve it

if you define it by structures how do you prevent someone from driving around building the cheapest psuedostructure wig-wam bullshit just to get land claims?

think of a patent troll but with land on the moon. and then consider the submarine patent troll.

if someone is good they can get a boring machine to make miles and miles of tunnels to lay claim to the best realestate. Then not use it for fifty years.

i think there might be some kind of lunar troll scenario where stuff is just made to occupy space and fit some kind of legal definition but be in essence a bullshit placeholder.

[cdev]

Actually, thinking about this, I think you are right.

If any REALLY valuable resources are found or it seems are likely to be found it might play out like the situation in the South China Sea, with national interests trying to occupy more land with the typical signs of occupancy recognized by customary international law. (Or whatever they call it.)

If the moon nation (what should it be called?) is independent then they would deal with it just like on earth. However colonies are usually not independent in the beginning. So it might start as a Chinese colony for example, or it could be some sort of international project like the ISS. In a international station everything would have to be decided by a comity. If it was a Chinese colony they would distribute land as they would back on earth, basically treat it as Chinese land. The problem is, I think there are international agreements that no nation may claim land on the moon (or in space in general). So legally it would probably have to be international. Say China go there first and build a base and Chinese companies start mining there and it turns out to be lucrative. Then eventually maybe another US will begin being interested and US corporations want to begin mining there. Then there could be a conflict. Which answers the question if there is a reason for military to have a presence there I suppose.

[coppercone2]

imagine you go to the moon then it turns out some autonomous hot dog stand is gonna give you shit?

how is the first moon uprising going to look like? are they gonna send space police if someone does not wanna let someone dock or whatever? or lunar extortion.

does a private company need approval to go there?

i think each country will need some kind of space force or something. do you just rely on PMCs? what if two belligerents start fighting on the moon over claims of bogus claims or interference.

[Gr8fulFox]

yea and what prevents nuclear drives and stuff from getting there?

Umm... the immense amount of radioactivity those engines leave in their wake?

[apis]

It all depends on how it will be governed, and there are to many options to be able to predict an answer.

how is the first moon uprising going to look like?

Someone realise that earth is at the bottom of a well and there is nothing preventing them from throwing rocks at us.

are they gonna send space police if someone does not wanna let someone dock or whatever? or lunar extortion.

In the end, law lies at the end of a spear, as they used to say around here.

[CatalinaWOW]

Many people forget that something other than the Cold War was partly responsible for getting to the moon.  At the time the decisions were made the people in power had lived through one of the most amazing eras of technology growth there has ever been.  Many could remember seeing the first automobiles in their community, and the first airplane.  They had watched cars change from cranky (literally) open air jitneys that were barely better than horses to comfortable, fast, air conditioned creations.  The had watched airplanes make the same sort of transition, and watched speed barriers fall at every moment.  They had watched nuclear power transformed from a science fiction dream into something that promised to power much of the country and let military vessels run for years without refueling.  They had watched the diseases that killed their brothers and sisters in childhood driven into retreat.  It was easy to believe that anything was possible. 

It was also an era when experts predicting what was possible and impossible had been proved wrong often and in compelling ways. 

The media and public had also bought into this expansive view of the future when anything not only was possible, it was likely.

The only comparable technical change that has occurred in the fifty years since is the microelectronics revolution.  Which when you get right down to it isn't all that exciting.  You can replace stop motion animation, be bugged on the phone at all hours, and type your own documents instead of having a professional do it.  You can listen to music in your car and watch TV at home in higher and higher resolution so you can see a higher percentage of advertisements done in higher resolution. 

So part of the answer about how to get a buzz about spaceflight is to get optimism about the future back into the zeitgeist.  In Vacuo Veritas perfectly embodies much of the public.  Everything is too hard, too expensive.  We must save our limited resources to continue doing what we are doing now.  Get off my lawn, dammit!

A physics breakthrough showing that the laws of physics known today aren't the whole story, or just a new breed of media writer might do the trick.

[apis]

The only comparable technical change that has occurred in the fifty years since is the microelectronics revolution.  Which when you get right down to it isn't all that exciting.  You can replace stop motion animation, be bugged on the phone at all hours, and type your own documents instead of having a professional do it.  You can listen to music in your car and watch TV at home in higher and higher resolution so you can see a higher percentage of advertisements done in higher resolution.

That's a bit unfair isn't it? People now walk around with super computers in their pockets, wirelessly connected to a global international data network, there are self driving cars around the corner, etc.

Medical science has made lots of breakthroughs, DNA sequencing of the human genome for example, we are beginning to understand how the cells work on a molecular level which opens up the possibility of curing cancer etc.

Maybe not as amazing as it was back then, but some things are pretty exciting now as well.

[Tomorokoshi]

Maybe not as amazing as it was back then, but some things are pretty exciting now as well.

Certainly, but of course 40 years ago people had digital watches, and they still weren't happy.

[cdev]

They have abandoned curing ANYTHING, just mentioning that concept elicits protests from the industry, now they just want to manage serious illnesses with expensive drugs. And push those prices sky high with market spiral pricing techniques.

Buy or die.

[Nominal Animal]

Swarms of small independent habitats (á la Belters) being essentially subcontractors for Earth-based companies seems much more preferable to me than a moon base, in the long run.

On the moon, surface harvesting for He₃ is likely to make it a highly coveted resource; like sitting on oil or mineral resources here on Earth. Always having to worry about being overrun by someone who has enough weaponry, and the willingness to use them, for short-term gains.

[james_s]

I don't think people grasp the immense cost of going to the moon and back, it makes going into earth orbit look like a walk in the park. We send a small number of guys there a handful of times at absolutely immense expense, there are not enough people who are wealthy enough to pay for a ride there to make it a viable business. There are "only" some 2200 billionaires in the world, and of those only a portion are wealthy enough to conceivably pay for a moon ride, and of that pool how many are going to be interested in it? I just don't see it happening without some kind of major unforeseen breakthrough.

[CatalinaWOW]

The only comparable technical change that has occurred in the fifty years since is the microelectronics revolution.  Which when you get right down to it isn't all that exciting.  You can replace stop motion animation, be bugged on the phone at all hours, and type your own documents instead of having a professional do it.  You can listen to music in your car and watch TV at home in higher and higher resolution so you can see a higher percentage of advertisements done in higher resolution.

That's a bit unfair isn't it? People now walk around with super computers in their pockets, wirelessly connected to a global international data network, there are self driving cars around the corner, etc.

Medical science has made lots of breakthroughs, DNA sequencing of the human genome for example, we are beginning to understand how the cells work on a molecular level which opens up the possibility of curing cancer etc.

Maybe not as amazing as it was back then, but some things are pretty exciting now as well.

The vast majority of those pocket supercomputers are running Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, while the two way wrist radio that effectively is transmitting and endless stream of natter.

The global data network has enabled, not quashed the various anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, Holocaust deniers and the like.

Is it really exciting to gossip with people all over the world instead of just those in your neighborhood?  Except for weirdos like us who don't find similar interests locally.

[Magiciaen]

I'm with CatalinaWOW on this one. The simple fact of the matter is the West has lost it's curiosity. What made the West such a successful civilisation is the tripod of curiosity, rationality and justice. Only a few other civilisations in the past have implemented the same formula. Rising powers China and Russia are curious and rational, but they are not just. Here in the West, all three legs of the tripod are being eroded, and the end is clearly in sight. The Space Race was a window into what is possible by humanity when we strive to be our best. It was only open for a short time though. I'm sure some civilisations in the universe overcome the challenges we are facing and reach a spiritual, ethical and technological level that allows them to persist for millions of years out amongst the stars. That likely won't be humanity's fate. All sorts of things have to exist in the universe, and we just happen to be an example of something that won't quite get there.

[Fungus]

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)

[james_s]

There has got to be a cheaper way of getting He3 than going to the moon. Even if there was an infinite supply of it there, is there a market for hundreds of billions of dollars of the stuff?

[raptor1956]

Should the moon have a government? should it be run by the UN?

If it was a bigger colony with permanent residents then it should probably be run by the people living there, Luna could be a member of the UN though.

Antarctica offers an example...


Brian

[raptor1956]

If SpaceX gets to complete the design and testing of what was once known as the BFR and they have paying customers for large payloads to space its quite likely the USA will be back to the Moon within 15 years and possibly half that time.  China appears interested in turning some of the money the west has given them into technical dominance and they appear to be aiming for a Chinese Astronaut to visit the Moon within about a decade -- we'll see how that pans out.  But, if China does push towards that goal it will almost certainly light another space race that the USA will not be able to avoid -- even if it wanted to.  Russia is out of the question economically, I would think, and only the USA and China have the resources to do it alone.  The EU might get together to join the fray or they might as a union or individually team up with the USA.

Getting to Mars with people is going to take a while even if Elon Musk thinks otherwise.  The first step will be to go back to the Moon as a means of testing the things needed for Mars.  Among the things needed on Mars is a shelter from the nasties the Sun spits out and I think that will require some form or structure sent from Earth and placed inside an existing hole in the ground -- I can't see sending an excavator to Mars to dig such a hole and I think you're going to need meters of soil capped with a water tank (hydrogen).  All of that means sending rockets to Mars with lots of equipment and supplies before we send any people there.

It may be the case that a lessor structure will be sufficient for all but the worst space weather and the under ground structure might only be needed occasionally and for perhaps a few days at a time.  If that's the case the situation maybe more doable within 30 years but the challenges are daunting. 

So, putting aside the question of Mars for the moment I think the Moon will be revisited and within 15 years -- and possibly by more than one team.  If a more sustained effort is made, and that is by no means a certainty, then over the succeeding decade the additional tools and techniques needed for Mars can be tested.  Assuming the effort continues beyond that then maybe a decade more could see the first real effort to put people on Mars begin.

The elephant in the room, as always, is sustained budgets -- a long term commitment to do this.  The US has spent well in excess of $2T USD to wage wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria and even the most lavish plans for Mars wouldn't require that kind of money.  Five percent of the Pentagon budget over 20 years would total about $700B and I'd estimate a sustained program would cost closer to $500B USD over that time period or about $25B/year.  I might even imagine the USA providing $15B/year and the EU or member of it the other $10B/year.


Brian

[Fungus]

I hope the Chinese start sending stuff/people to the moon on a regular basis, it might make the USA get off it's collective butt. Bonus points for putting it on the "dark" side where people can't see it.

The elephant in the room, as always, is sustained budgets -- a long term commitment to do this.  The US has spent well in excess of $2T USD to wage wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria and even the most lavish plans for Mars wouldn't require that kind of money.  Five percent of the Pentagon budget over 20 years would total about $700B and I'd estimate a sustained program would cost closer to $500B USD over that time period or about $25B/year.  I might even imagine the USA providing $15B/year and the EU or member of it the other $10B/year.

So... less than the pointless F35 program.

[rdl]

I don't think people grasp the immense cost of going to the moon and back, it makes going into earth orbit look like a walk in the park.

No, it's the other way around. The hard part is getting into orbit. Take a look at the Saturn V, the first two stages and part of the third were needed to reach Earth orbit. Only the small skinny part at the top was needed for the rest of the trip. As the famous quote goes, as far as delta V, or energy required is concerned:

“Once you get to earth orbit, you’re halfway to anywhere in the solar system.”

     — Robert A. Heinlein

[Electro Detective]

Stay here and enjoy the last few pre-Zombie Apocalypse years we have left,
why stuff around trying to get people to Ayers Rock in space, when it's cheaper to visit the one in Australia,
easier on the fuel tank and no breathing apparatus necessary. 

Besides, in case people missed the office memos, there's no money in it for the corpoRATS, it's a no go dead zone up there, 
no gold, diamonds, oil, coal, copper, uramium, or unobtanium,
just acres and acres of stale crusty dried fetta cheese, kazillions of years past its 'use by...' date 
otherwise the Bulgarians and Greeks would have been on to it centuries ago 

Why blow good investment money building oversized fire crackers and promoting the hype to pull in the little people's interest ?


OTOH if you staged a world cup sporting event, like say a golf game etc that should work


Or better still a reality show, Mars Survivor

LOL, I reckon some serious drama will go down,

unplanned... 


"Houston, we have a problem,
the oxygen supplies are snafu,
the TV crew have dumped their gear, taken the ship during siesta time,
and done a runner...
Hello...Please Respond.."    

[Echo88]

Nazis on the moon, Terrorists on the moon or Chinese on the moon. Either way, this would get the USA of its butt and into space.
Because they could convince the public that the moon-people had weapons of mass destruction or the chinese dont want to share the moon-ressources and this demands a god damn trade-war/permanent moon-base with a wall.

And my friend Vacuo is also here, as expected, since hes made of the same material as Max Plancks teacher and less like Chuck Yeager or Peter Freuchen. Im deeply sorry about your scifi-PTSD.

[james_s]

No, it's the other way around. The hard part is getting into orbit. Take a look at the Saturn V, the first two stages and part of the third were needed to reach Earth orbit. Only the small skinny part at the top was needed for the rest of the trip. As the famous quote goes, as far as delta V, or energy required is concerned:

There's more to it than that. You have to lift anything you need for the rest of the trip into earth orbit as well, and if you want to land on the moon and then lift off from there to return, you have to carry all that fuel and equipment as well so the effect is amplified. The Saturn V was enormous because it had to get an enormous mass of stuff into space, if you just want to get to orbit that can be done by far smaller less complicated rockets, far less time and simpler logistics than going all the way to the moon. The mission becomes hugely more complicated with so many things that can go wrong. Even just getting into orbit will never be affordable for the vast majority of people, due to the energy and equipment required it will remain a novelty for the super rich. They will probably get the cost down a bit more, increasing the number of people doing it recreationally which reduces the exclusivity and pretty soon the novelty will wear off.

[coppercone2]

I hope the Chinese start sending stuff/people to the moon on a regular basis, it might make the USA get off it's collective butt. Bonus points for putting it on the "dark" side where people can't see it.

The elephant in the room, as always, is sustained budgets -- a long term commitment to do this.  The US has spent well in excess of $2T USD to wage wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria and even the most lavish plans for Mars wouldn't require that kind of money.  Five percent of the Pentagon budget over 20 years would total about $700B and I'd estimate a sustained program would cost closer to $500B USD over that time period or about $25B/year.  I might even imagine the USA providing $15B/year and the EU or member of it the other $10B/year.

So... less than the pointless F35 program.

why is it pointless? it will work great with countermeasures/decoys to have the f35. no one is just going to fly a f35 some where, there will be a giant swarm of different shit that makes it work well. its going to blend in much better in a EW environment then some big old flying antenna. then you cant target it easily. the other older aircraft will probably have problems trying to fly in a modern swarm of drones, jammers and decoys. Some how they will stand out and be able to become targeted.

[T3sl4co1l]

why is it pointless? it will work great with countermeasures/decoys to have the f35. no one is just going to fly a f35 some where, there will be a giant swarm of different shit that makes it work well. its going to blend in much better in a EW environment then some big old flying antenna. then you cant target it easily. the other older aircraft will probably have problems trying to fly in a modern swarm of drones, jammers and decoys. Some how they will stand out and be able to become targeted.

Sounds great, when can you fly it?

Tim

[sainbablo]

.."although it may be cheaper/easier to try and be the first person to have sex on the moon".

Have you taken into consideration the unpredictable side effects of nearly zero gravitational forces may have on that
physiological activity?  Cheers

[coppercone2]

why is it pointless? it will work great with countermeasures/decoys to have the f35. no one is just going to fly a f35 some where, there will be a giant swarm of different shit that makes it work well. its going to blend in much better in a EW environment then some big old flying antenna. then you cant target it easily. the other older aircraft will probably have problems trying to fly in a modern swarm of drones, jammers and decoys. Some how they will stand out and be able to become targeted.

Sounds great, when can you fly it?

Tim

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/with-iran-in-syria-israel-launched-world-s-first-air-strike-using-f-35-stealth-fighters-1.6110706

and it does seem to work well

[Fungus]

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/with-iran-in-syria-israel-launched-world-s-first-air-strike-using-f-35-stealth-fighters-1.6110706

Ironic that the first people to get one flying weren't the USA.

and it does seem to work well

Yes, but:
a) They're only flying once every five days due to all the maintenance needed after every hour of flight.
b) The airframes are already cracking.
c) Pretty soon they'll be up against swarms of thousands of disposable, unmanned drones.
d) Pretty soon the USA will have unmanned (or remotely piloted) drones for everything the F35 is supposed to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Maintenance

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a19620889/air-force-may-need-to-cut-a-third-of-f-35-fleet-due-to-high-operating-costs/

[rstofer]

I don't think people grasp the immense cost of going to the moon and back, it makes going into earth orbit look like a walk in the park. We send a small number of guys there a handful of times at absolutely immense expense, there are not enough people who are wealthy enough to pay for a ride there to make it a viable business. There are "only" some 2200 billionaires in the world, and of those only a portion are wealthy enough to conceivably pay for a moon ride, and of that pool how many are going to be interested in it? I just don't see it happening without some kind of major unforeseen breakthrough.

I see SpaceX as that breakthrough.  Now that there is a profit motive there needs to be profit.  Costs can't stay the same, there are no customers to create that profit.  So, costs have to decline.  No big deal, just turn some engineers lose on the problem.

[rstofer]

.."although it may be cheaper/easier to try and be the first person to have sex on the moon".

Have you taken into consideration the unpredictable side effects of nearly zero gravitational forces may have on that
physiological activity?  Cheers

Bondage will become mainstream!

[rstofer]

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/with-iran-in-syria-israel-launched-world-s-first-air-strike-using-f-35-stealth-fighters-1.6110706

Ironic that the first people to get one flying weren't the USA.

and it does seem to work well

Yes, but:
a) They're only flying once every five days due to all the maintenance needed after every hour of flight.
b) The airframes are already cracking.
c) Pretty soon they'll be up against swarms of thousands of disposable, unmanned drones.
d) Pretty soon the USA will have unmanned (or remotely piloted) drones for everything the F35 is supposed to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Maintenance

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a19620889/air-force-may-need-to-cut-a-third-of-f-35-fleet-due-to-high-operating-costs/

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.

A long time ago I got a bit of advice from an industry VP:  "Don't bet against technology!"  We've come a long way in the last hundred years, imagine what the next 100 years can create.  Now go out and do it!

[Marco]

It's always been my opinion that the F-35 is a project to drain resources from their "allies" and mislead their opponents to slow down supersonic/hypersonic drone development for everyone but themselves. They can more easily afford to waste billions on that boondoggle than competitors, or maybe I'm overestimating US military intelligence.

Politically it would be impossible for my country to spend money to develop drone technology which could replace the F-35 on nearly every mission profile ... they invested huge political capital into the F-35, they wouldn't dare. That thing has to fly for decades, come hell or high water.

PS. jamming tight beam communication isn't very easy, especially if it's coming from a satellite. The receiving antenna has very high gain and it's not pointed at your jammer.

[cdev]

The price in terms of energy needed to send a person and supplies - or any N kilograms of mass payload to the Moon and presumably also bring that person back to Earth is "astronomical" and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

No matter what propulsion technology we use to do it.

This is why a space elevator is so appealing if some way can be thought of to make it a reality, the cost suddenly becomes affordable.

Until then the cost of the energy needed alone is so high - barring the invention of some radical new means of propulsion space travel will likely remain out of almost everybody's price range.

Also, pollution.. CO2, etc.

[Fungus]

This is why a space elevator is so appealing if some way can be thought of to make it a reality, the cost suddenly becomes affordable.

Of course it's appealing, but... the laws of physics are against it. It's not just finding a material that can hold up its own weight, how would you install it. You can't start at the ground and work upwards and you can't start in space and work downwards.

(maybe they can start from the top of a really tall mountain)

A rail gun in a really deep shaft might be a better idea for launching heavy stuff. With a rail gun a rocket could be moving at several times the speed of sound before it even needs to fire its engine. It's like taking away a whole booster stage from a conventional rocket.

[coppercone2]

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/with-iran-in-syria-israel-launched-world-s-first-air-strike-using-f-35-stealth-fighters-1.6110706

Ironic that the first people to get one flying weren't the USA.

and it does seem to work well

Yes, but:
a) They're only flying once every five days due to all the maintenance needed after every hour of flight.
b) The airframes are already cracking.
c) Pretty soon they'll be up against swarms of thousands of disposable, unmanned drones.
d) Pretty soon the USA will have unmanned (or remotely piloted) drones for everything the F35 is supposed to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Maintenance

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a19620889/air-force-may-need-to-cut-a-third-of-f-35-fleet-due-to-high-operating-costs/

so what, they managed to dodge 100 missiles and blow a bunch of stuff up. that sounds like a excellent result. with all that crap gone they can fly cessna and throw rocks at the enemy while the f35 are being welded.

i wanna see where these invulnerable drone armies are. i have yet to see one. pretty soon means they will start developing them in 50 years and have something kinda usable in 100. and you basically need the f35 type communications system to control the drone army and have it work as a flying router that wont get shot down immediately. No one is going to cut it because its proven that it does a good job (miracle that something at all works in these type of situations).

The fact that it is proven to work is extremely important. The MIC is full of slick salesmen saying they have the next no cost golden budget solution for the last 200 years.

[rstofer]

Whenever you see Joint as part of a project descriptor, you can bet it's going to fail.  The F111 was also a joint services program and it's not highly regarded.

The F35 is the Joint Strike Fighter and only the latest proof that the Air Force and Navy can not share an airframe.  The requirements are simply too different.

In the case of the F35, they hide the difference with model designators A, B and C. The A model is for conventional runway takeoff and landing, the B model for vertical takeoff and landing and the C model is for Carrier takeoff and landing.  These are radically different airframes.

Oddly, the Air Force doesn't see the need for a tailhook and folding wings.  The Navy seems to think these things are important and the difference is significant in terms of structure.  Somehow the Navy got talked out of a rear seat.

https://www.f35.com/about/variants/f35c

The only thing these variants have in common is an overall shape.

[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?

[Marco]

i wanna see where these invulnerable drone armies are.

The point of drones is that they can do things cheaper, not that they can do more. The US has more money than everyone else, so the more money they can get their competitors to spend on the most expensive way of doing things the better.

[coppercone2]

manned aviation has proven to work for like 6 major conflicts. right now you have peace through a proven solution. are you really gonna push some kind of SIRI to defend NATO?

the military is paranoid, battlestar galactica is right up their ally. no one would even buy that shit.

seriously read a textbook about military aircraft development, even a basic encyclopedia with a good fifty pages about each aircraft. you will see how resistant the military is to new things, they could have shaved tons off those aircraft by fitting new systems. it is NOT a conspiracy. They are like your friends grandma that says you will get eye cancer if you sit less then 30 feet from a flat screen TV. It's like switching your cats food.

no one wants to pay for it, no one really knows how it really works and no one wants to fuck with it at all. Someone posted a picture of priests blessing missiles in some thread here. And they still break bottles on ships.

It would only take like one politician that saw half of stephan kings 'maximum overdrive' the night before some kind of vote to scuttle 50 billion dollars in development money.

[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.

[hamster_nz]

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.

Quick back-of-the-head calculations, ignoring that the whole thing would be dynamically unstable...

- Carbon fiber density is about 2 grams per cm^3

- A 1m x 1m box section, with paper-thin (0.1mm) walls is about 5cm^2 in cross sectional area, so would be about 0.8 kg per linear meter. Call it 1kg per meter, or 1 ton per km.

- The earth's equator is 40,075 km - 40,075,000 m.

- The weight of a paper-thin 1m x 1m box section to go around the world is 40,075,000 kg.

-  Falcon 9 can lift 22,000 kg to LEO, at a cost of $50M per launch. Assume that all of this payload can be used to build the ring.

- It will take ~1,800 launches, at a cost of $90 billion, to get the raw material for a 1m square paper-thin orbital ring into Low earth orbit.

Once it is built and you have 40,000 tons in orbit. You want to speed it up to support any wright that may be  'hung' from it.

Because centripetal acceleration is  f=v^2/r, you have to move something 1.4x as fast to speed to double the acceleration/force. Low earth orbit is ~8 km/s, so this 40,000 ton paper-thin structure would need to be accelerated to ~11 km/s.

After all this work, each meter of of ring would only be able to generate 1 kg of 'lifting' force. It it is at altitude similar to the ISS, the lifting force from 400km of ring would be needed to support the weight of a 400km box section that touches the ground. 

-

[cdev]

This is why a space elevator is so appealing if some way can be thought of to make it a reality, the cost suddenly becomes affordable.

Of course it's appealing, but... the laws of physics are against it. It's not just finding a material that can hold up its own weight, how would you install it. You can't start at the ground and work upwards and you can't start in space and work downwards.

(maybe they can start from the top of a really tall mountain)

A rail gun in a really deep shaft might be a better idea for launching heavy stuff. With a rail gun a rocket could be moving at several times the speed of sound before it even needs to fire its engine. It's like taking away a whole booster stage from a conventional rocket.

Its like they say, the devil is in the details!

[Nominal Animal]

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.

Oh, I definitely think we should research both fusion and fission technology; the materials physics advancements are probably worth the effort alone!

As an example, raw natural gas is pumped using pumps that are essentially milled from solid blocks (of about a cubic meter) of monocrystalline aluminium; not cheap. It is reasonably resistant to the corrosion (there's all sort of corrosive gases and gunk in the raw natural gas), and its lightness allows the turbine to rotate at high RPMs without tearing itself apart.  Many of the needs for materials used for such turbines are the same as the needs in both fission and fusion reactors.  Simply put, if you find a material that works for one, it will almost certainly be useful for the others, too.

For residential areas, I'd much prefer smaller self-contained nuclear reactors, dug into ground, than long high-voltage transmission lines.  Perhaps it is not feasible on Earth because we need to worry about crazies that wish to harm and kill innocents, but on the Moon or on an asteroid, such fission reactor tech is an absolute must.  (If you mined asteroids for heavier elements -- and that makes sense if you just somehow get to high Earth orbit first -- you'd probably find enough fissile materials to power such reactors "for free".)

As to getting into orbit, NASA's goal of less than $100 USD (per kilogram of payload to Earth orbit by 2040 is optimistic, but not completely unrealistic.  22.8 metric tons to LEO cost $50M USD on the Falcon 9 in 2018, or about $2200 per kg.  It was ten times that in 2000, and almost ten times that again in 1980, so something like $200 per kg to LEO in 2040 is in line with the developments during the last sixty years or so.  If we were smart, we'd launch small tugs that could redirect small metallic asteroids (fragments more like) to high Earth orbit, for use in orbital manufacturing in a decade or so.

[Mr. Scram]

Quick back-of-the-head calculations, ignoring that the whole thing would be dynamically unstable...

- Carbon fiber density is about 2 grams per cm^3

- A 1m x 1m box section, with paper-thin (0.1mm) walls is about 5cm^2 in cross sectional area, so would be about 0.8 kg per linear meter. Call it 1kg per meter, or 1 ton per km.

- The earth's equator is 40,075 km - 40,075,000 m.

- The weight of a paper-thin 1m x 1m box section to go around the world is 40,075,000 kg.

-  Falcon 9 can lift 22,000 kg to LEO, at a cost of $50M per launch. Assume that all of this payload can be used to build the ring.

- It will take ~1,800 launches, at a cost of $90 billion, to get the raw material for a 1m square paper-thin orbital ring into Low earth orbit.

Once it is built and you have 40,000 tons in orbit. You want to speed it up to support any wright that may be  'hung' from it.

Because centripetal acceleration is  f=v^2/r, you have to move something 1.4x as fast to speed to double the acceleration/force. Low earth orbit is ~8 km/s, so this 40,000 ton paper-thin structure would need to be accelerated to ~11 km/s.

After all this work, each meter of of ring would only be able to generate 1 kg of 'lifting' force. It it is at altitude similar to the ISS, the lifting force from 400km of ring would be needed to support the weight of a 400km box section that touches the ground. 

-

I don't think the idea is to shoot everything up there from Earth. There's plenty of stuff up there without insane launch costs. Not needing to go through an atmosphere and escape a somewhat deep gravity well makes a huge difference.

[Fungus]

Quick back-of-the-head calculations, ignoring that the whole thing would be dynamically unstable...

Would they whiplash the planet when they break up?

[hamster_nz]

Quick back-of-the-head calculations, ignoring that the whole thing would be dynamically unstable...

- Carbon fiber density is about 2 grams per cm^3

- A 1m x 1m box section, with paper-thin (0.1mm) walls is about 5cm^2 in cross sectional area, so would be about 0.8 kg per linear meter. Call it 1kg per meter, or 1 ton per km.

- The earth's equator is 40,075 km - 40,075,000 m.

- The weight of a paper-thin 1m x 1m box section to go around the world is 40,075,000 kg.

-  Falcon 9 can lift 22,000 kg to LEO, at a cost of $50M per launch. Assume that all of this payload can be used to build the ring.

- It will take ~1,800 launches, at a cost of $90 billion, to get the raw material for a 1m square paper-thin orbital ring into Low earth orbit.

Once it is built and you have 40,000 tons in orbit. You want to speed it up to support any wright that may be  'hung' from it.

Because centripetal acceleration is  f=v^2/r, you have to move something 1.4x as fast to speed to double the acceleration/force. Low earth orbit is ~8 km/s, so this 40,000 ton paper-thin structure would need to be accelerated to ~11 km/s.

After all this work, each meter of of ring would only be able to generate 1 kg of 'lifting' force. It it is at altitude similar to the ISS, the lifting force from 400km of ring would be needed to support the weight of a 400km box section that touches the ground. 

-

I don't think the idea is to shoot everything up there from Earth. There's plenty of stuff up there without insane launch costs. Not needing to go through an atmosphere and escape a somewhat deep gravity well makes a huge difference.

Still doesn't help.

Moving something in orbit uses non-trivial amounts of energy. As an extreme case, something that is in Polar orbit needs all it's momentum moved into a different plane, and that takes more energy than getting something into orbit from a standstill.  Likewise dropping something down from a higher orbit needs to have the excess kinetic energy removed.

As an example, once in orbit a 110,00kg Space Shuttle Orbiter with 21,660kg of OMS fuel would use it all (including the stuff it needs to deorbit and come home) to change the orbital inclination by around 3 degrees.

So using space junk is more of a fantasy than actually launching stuff.

[Kilrah]

This is not restricted to space missions. Looks like nothing much get people excited over great human achievements anymore. Except maybe the FIFA world cup.

A lot of the need for fantasy imagination has been removed from the population since the Apollo days. These days people can sit down in front of a 50" screen and see almost anything without the need to fill in any details mentally.

Even more importantly, higher levels of education and access to information. Back then you could "wow" anyone even with trivial things since they'd never have heard of it and wouldn't have a way to dig into a subject without months of studying. Nowadays people are more aware of what's around them and you can get detailed info on just about anything in a minute. And with everything that has been achieved everybody now knows that anything is possible if you throw enough money and time at it, so the "magic" aspect is lost.

Also, Apollo was just a multi billion dollar marketing operation of such a massive scale that no one has ever repeated. Pretty sure an equivalent could be done with just about any subject if presented the right way with the same massive communication investment, but no one's seen a reason to go at it again.

[Mr. Scram]

Still doesn't help.

Moving something in orbit uses non-trivial amounts of energy. As an extreme case, something that is in Polar orbit needs all it's momentum moved into a different plane, and that takes more energy than getting something into orbit from a standstill.  Likewise dropping something down from a higher orbit needs to have the excess kinetic energy removed.

As an example, once in orbit a 110,00kg Space Shuttle Orbiter with 21,660kg of OMS fuel would use it all (including the stuff it needs to deorbit and come home) to change the orbital inclination by around 3 degrees.

So using space junk is more of a fantasy than actually launching stuff.

Changing inclination is relatively expensive, especially when done at higher speeds. LEO is rather high speed in that regard. Higher orbits are much more efficient. Once you're up there, getting around is much easier.

[rdl]

Changing inclination is relatively expensive, especially when done at higher speeds. LEO is rather high speed in that regard. Higher orbits are much more efficient. Once you're up there, getting around is much easier.

Those charts illustrate pretty well what I said earlier that getting onto low Earth orbit is actually the hard part, at least as far as delta V is concerned. Of course, anyone that has played with Kerbal Space Program has known this for years.

[Nominal Animal]

As an example, once in orbit a 110,00kg Space Shuttle Orbiter with 21,660kg of OMS fuel would use it all (including the stuff it needs to deorbit and come home) to change the orbital inclination by around 3 degrees.

So using space junk is more of a fantasy than actually launching stuff.

No, you've got it bass-ackwards, kinda.  Earth is a significant gravity well, and the Sun is even bigger one, and you can use that to your advantage when tugboating stuff from the asteroid belt. Essentially, you initially need to reduce their orbital velocity to get them to an orbit that passes close enough to Earth for orbital capture. It would be easier if we could use Earths atmosphere for aerobraking, but humans tend to dislike having big stones hurled at their planet; Mars and Venus are alternatives, but the tugboat needs pretty fine control then.  Similarly for the outgoing trajectories and gravity assists.

Look into Interplanetary transport network (silly name, good paper) and Hohmann transfer orbits.

Simply put, for some of the asteroid belt asteroids, the cost of tugging one back to Earth is basically a function of how fast you want it.  If you are willing to wait a decade or two, the cost (for the entire endeavour) is likely to be rather small, something like a manned moon landing perhaps for a hill-sized asteroid; but it depends highly on the asteroid chosen.

[hamster_nz]

Changing inclination is relatively expensive, especially when done at higher speeds. LEO is rather high speed in that regard. Higher orbits are much more efficient. Once you're up there, getting around is much easier.

Sure, but it doesn't make the Orbital Rings any more feasible.

Add another 5,277 tonnes of material to this 1m x 1m x 40,000,000 m hoop, pushing the ring out from 160km to 1,000km above the Earth (just about where the radiation belts starts - any higher and you will be in an intense radiation zone). This reduces orbital velocity a little from 7.8km/s to about 7.35km/s. Even though it is slower it still takes more energy to lift material into this orbit, and now the towers used to access the ring need to be 1,000 km tall...

The other thing is stresses in the Ring. The ring needs to be spinning a little faster than orbital velocity, so it is pulling 'outwards' evenly around the hoop and can do lifting. Say we spin it 5% faster, so each kilogram of hoop will have 1N of force away from the earth. If you sum up all the forces in the ring they balance out to zero, so at first glance it seems to be very nice.

Now imagine cutting the planet-sized ring in half and sum up the the force vectors for each kg of each half. This will quickly convince you that this paper-thin structure has massive internal stresses - I can't be bothered to do the math, but it will be of the order of 20,000,000 N of force in the 1m x 1m section (with its 0.1mm paper-thin walls). This ~10x more than pure carbon fiber can withstand, and is about the strength of carbon nanotubes in reported tensile in mm-scale experiments. Definitely not achievable by using salvaging space junk, or captured piles of rock.

And given all this 40,000 tons of stuff in space, the Orbital Ring is still mostly naked.

Not convinced -  still looks like pure fantasy to me!

[coppercone2]

what if you made a giant reel of the carbon material so it can be pulled up to orbit slowly? is this feasible at all? like unraveled. Then you would not need high peak power, only some thursters to prevent your construction platform from being pulled down?

can it be spliced if damaged during transit?

[Domagoj T]

Pulled up from Earth surface? Pulled by what? That would imply either a preexisting cable attached to a "fixed" point in geostationary orbit (a huge mass), or an extremely high specific impulse rocket with high thrust capable of efficiently running in atmosphere for a long time. Neither exists.

As for the original question, of what would it take to create a buzz, I have an answer. Launch a couple of those Kardassians. They seem to interest the masses. Once the viewership ratings drop, just blow up a rocket.

[coppercone2]

you are going to need some kind of flying factory to make something that orbits the earth.

i assume trying to pull up carbon fiber with all the wind and everything would still require alot of energy. maybe you can reduce it some what by using a intermediate flying platform like a nuclear powered airplane. And beam microwave/laser energy to the platform or put a reactor on it to power some ion thursters (but I think they are too weak atm). Not sure how many you would need. But you can put them on something stiff for a wide area platform that has some pull on it.

nothing in this thread exists. what is your point in saying that

[Fungus]

what if you made a giant reel of the carbon material so it can be pulled up to orbit slowly? is this feasible at all? like unraveled. Then you would not need high peak power, only some thursters to prevent your construction platform from being pulled down?

Doesn't matter how it goes up, the total energy needed is the same.

Having a long string being pulled on by wind sounds more difficult though.

[coppercone2]

can't you get higher efficiency at low impulses though?

there are no insane power demands if you can get a balanced system going, so normal energy can be used rather then big rockets.

if you get a big nuclear powered flying platform (think like a big version of the airforce nuclear reactor powered b52) you could avoid the thicker winds. And deliver stuff to the platform as it flies around.

nuclear reactors, electric motors and ion thrusters might be safer, more environmental and cheaper then giant rocket barrages.

even if you threw massive money into rockets think of all the pollution from combustion. I think you need the power of the atom.

Also no wasteful gigantic super capacitor banks for earth based rail guns and stuff. maybe you can shoot stuff to high altitudes to be captured by some kind of skyhook system to save fuel and lessen energy requirements. Recycle the parachutes or whatever. I don't know how high a nuclear powered space platform could fly, like 50000 feet? so you shoot stuff up 60k and have it be captured by drones that bring it to the reel system.

you deliver material to be hoisted to the flying platform like mid-air refueling or ballistic midair skyhook recovery and then it gets mechanically transferred to the space platform. It would need to be far away enough to match the air platform speed, then the materials can be woven into the ring or whatever else you wanna build up there and moved around in zero gravity.

If you have a flying platform and transfer material through some kind of railgun that is drone captured you eliminate alot of flight hours, risk, maintenance, etc.

Then you can also possibly make solar panels in space made out of the carbon material (they have CNT solar panels right?) too. then you start to get some kind of dyson ring orbiting earth eventually that can adjust itself with ion thursters that use the tubes as fuel. It would be like a big yarn powered machine.

You can make all sorts of shit in orbit from pulled up CNT. Electronics, solar panels, structural stuff, fuel. You can even add small amounts of materials on it to be hoisted up there and carefully removed (i.e. required for semiconductor doping, etc).. if there is high flow you might be able to get a big of payload on the string itself. You would just need efficient machines to get it off.

I dunno if you can tie hot dogs to a string of carbon nanotubes to pull them into orbit but maybe vienna sausages? 

If it really gets going you can put ion spray machines to put some coatings on them maybe? i dunno how tight the spec is with the tensile strength, I assume you can jury rig something if they considered making a ridiculous space elevator with this. I am not saying coat the thing but maybe introduce a few meters (no idea on the limits here) that have palladium spray or whatever you need on it.

[apis]

Once you're out of the atmosphere you can use skyhooks to move up and down in the gravity well.

Production will be done in space, and on the moon. That's why we need a moon base, it's much easier to operate from the moon. 

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]

[apis]

The only comparable technical change that has occurred in the fifty years since is the microelectronics revolution.  Which when you get right down to it isn't all that exciting.  You can replace stop motion animation, be bugged on the phone at all hours, and type your own documents instead of having a professional do it.  You can listen to music in your car and watch TV at home in higher and higher resolution so you can see a higher percentage of advertisements done in higher resolution.

That's a bit unfair isn't it? People now walk around with super computers in their pockets, wirelessly connected to a global international data network, there are self driving cars around the corner, etc.

Medical science has made lots of breakthroughs, DNA sequencing of the human genome for example, we are beginning to understand how the cells work on a molecular level which opens up the possibility of curing cancer etc.

Maybe not as amazing as it was back then, but some things are pretty exciting now as well.

The vast majority of those pocket supercomputers are running Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, while the two way wrist radio that effectively is transmitting and endless stream of natter.

The global data network has enabled, not quashed the various anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, Holocaust deniers and the like.

Is it really exciting to gossip with people all over the world instead of just those in your neighborhood?  Except for weirdos like us who don't find similar interests locally.

Was it different before though? Wasn't lots of people misguided and misinformed before? What noble and enlightened activities did people end up using their transistor radios, televisions, t-fords, aircrafts, wristwatches and nuclear power for? People haven't changed for thousands of years, it's just knowledge and technology that keeps improving.

You wrote that "They had watched the diseases that killed their brothers and sisters in childhood driven into retreat" and that is still true today, and it's pretty exciting to be cured of various ailments that would have killed you 30 years ago.

And I do think it's pretty exciting to carry around the equivalent of several libraries in my pocket and to be able to search and find relatively accurate information about almost anything in less than a minute. You can also find inaccurate information about almost anything, but if you manage to sift through the noise it's pretty amazing. In combination with GPS I can get a map/satellite image showing exactly where I am and the shortest route to where I'm going. Navigation used to be non-trivial.

This forum is full of people from every continent (Antarctica?) having casual discussions about electronics and technology. Pretty amazing. My father might have travelled abroad before but he never really talked (or talks) to anyone outside the town where he lives. There is still a language barrier though, so it's mostly from English speaking countries, but maybe machine translation get good enough soon that it is possible to have a multi language forum?

[T3sl4co1l]

As an example, raw natural gas is pumped using pumps that are essentially milled from solid blocks (of about a cubic meter) of monocrystalline aluminium; not cheap. It is reasonably resistant to the corrosion (there's all sort of corrosive gases and gunk in the raw natural gas), and its lightness allows the turbine to rotate at high RPMs without tearing itself apart.  Many of the needs for materials used for such turbines are the same as the needs in both fission and fusion reactors.  Simply put, if you find a material that works for one, it will almost certainly be useful for the others, too.

I'd like to hear more about this -- I know single-crystal castings are used with superalloys for extremely demanding purposes, e.g. turbine parts.  The Fe-Ni-Co-etc. superalloys are homogeneous (solid solution) alloys, so this works nicely despite the large alloying percentages.  I wasn't aware it was used (or useful) with aluminum.  It seems to me, aluminum tends to have poor solubility for alloying elements, hence most alloys contain intermetallic grains which provide the strength.  Is it really worthwhile to make a single crystal with what little will dissolve in it?  Once made, though, I can see precipitation hardening being very effective.

Offhand, I see a few search results offering 99.999% single crystal aluminum, which is going to be about as strong as butter (literally).  Don't think that's what's being used here.

Also a bit surprised that something more conventional isn't used, like Inconel, maybe with a plating like pure nickel, or a ceramic coating or something.  Well, anything that has to be coated, would be more prone to flaking or damage and eventual failure than a bulk-resistant material, of course.

Tim

[In Vacuo Veritas]

Veritas Vacuo, your stupidity and trolling is becoming highly annoying.

Yes, you are right. I must become intelligent by babbling sci-fi nonsense like you. This is the path to intelligence.

Space Elevators. Space manufacturing! Asteroid mining!

I can feel my IQ rising already! Oh those silly people with their real-world practical engineering! So myopic!

We, the readers of sci-fi, know The Truth (tm). We have the Real Knowledge, given to us by sci-fi writers in high school.

Thank you for setting me on the Right Path to Holy Salvation In Space.

I will immediately print out leaflets and go door to door to tell people the Good News!

Hey poor, you don't need to be poor anymore! Space is here!

Just like OTRAG in the 1970s! Oh wait.... Just like Solaren! Oh wait... Just like the 1997 Space Hotel! Oh wait...

[cdev]

Have you ever read "The Sirens of Titan" by Kurt Vonnegut, Vacuo?

I think you'd enjoy it, from what you just said.

[apis]

Silly man



yet it moves.

[Fungus]

Production will be done in space, and on the moon. That's why we need a moon base, it's much easier to operate from the moon. 

Good point.

(although factories to make all the stuff needed will somehow have to be sent to the moon first)

[coppercone2]

the nature of in vacuo verditas posts in this thread remind me of the movie "carnosaur 2"

its like violent ambushes combined with weird annoying whistling noises and generally low quality, potentially a rip off of a good argument. it has some structure and a script but you can't take it seriously because he did not do any work (i.e. inserting rubber dinosaur costumes in place of xenomorphs in the little known alien ripoff).

a classic troll using a flow chart.

[apis]

Production will be done in space, and on the moon. That's why we need a moon base, it's much easier to operate from the moon. 

Good point.

(although factories to make all the stuff needed will somehow have to be sent to the moon first)

Yes, the difficulty is to get the ball rolling. There is a lot of raw material on the moon though, so you don't need to harvest asteroids in the beginning. Energy shouldn't be that hard either (solar is obviously possible, maybe fission if you can find uranium). There are some pretty amazing manufacturing machines today (MIT fab lab!), if you could get a few of them to the moon you might be able to begin building up a basic infrastructure. Small parts can be brought up from earth.

[BrianHG]

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.

Quick back-of-the-head calculations, ignoring that the whole thing would be dynamically unstable...

- Carbon fiber density is about 2 grams per cm^3

- A 1m x 1m box section, with paper-thin (0.1mm) walls is about 5cm^2 in cross sectional area, so would be about 0.8 kg per linear meter. Call it 1kg per meter, or 1 ton per km.

- The earth's equator is 40,075 km - 40,075,000 m.

- The weight of a paper-thin 1m x 1m box section to go around the world is 40,075,000 kg.

-  Falcon 9 can lift 22,000 kg to LEO, at a cost of $50M per launch. Assume that all of this payload can be used to build the ring.

- It will take ~1,800 launches, at a cost of $90 billion, to get the raw material for a 1m square paper-thin orbital ring into Low earth orbit.

Once it is built and you have 40,000 tons in orbit. You want to speed it up to support any wright that may be  'hung' from it.

Because centripetal acceleration is  f=v^2/r, you have to move something 1.4x as fast to speed to double the acceleration/force. Low earth orbit is ~8 km/s, so this 40,000 ton paper-thin structure would need to be accelerated to ~11 km/s.

After all this work, each meter of of ring would only be able to generate 1 kg of 'lifting' force. It it is at altitude similar to the ISS, the lifting force from 400km of ring would be needed to support the weight of a 400km box section that touches the ground. 

-

     Your figures aren't too outlandish, especially for a project which we could only begin to realistically think about 50 years from now, begin construction 100 years from now, given the growth of reusable rocket technology, the number of launches which are currently going up and up.  Especially if in the intern we get an intermediate launch assist technology, or, mine the material from the moon's surface and ship it to earth orbit.

[BrianHG]

Changing inclination is relatively expensive, especially when done at higher speeds. LEO is rather high speed in that regard. Higher orbits are much more efficient. Once you're up there, getting around is much easier.

Sure, but it doesn't make the Orbital Rings any more feasible.

Add another 5,277 tonnes of material to this 1m x 1m x 40,000,000 m hoop, pushing the ring out from 160km to 1,000km above the Earth (just about where the radiation belts starts - any higher and you will be in an intense radiation zone). This reduces orbital velocity a little from 7.8km/s to about 7.35km/s. Even though it is slower it still takes more energy to lift material into this orbit, and now the towers used to access the ring need to be 1,000 km tall...

I'm only interested in the ~100km altitude orbital ring.  At this altitude, once creating the stationary deck, it is much easier to gain access to Earth's surface and you get a near vacuum track to accelerate space launch vehicles.

[apis]

The romans had sewage systems, running freshwater, multi story apartment buildings, etc. Then it all collapsed (politically), the library of Alexandria was burned and the clergymen took over... It took almost 2000 years before any city was comparable. After that it didn't take so long until people figured out how to build steam engines and flying machines. Imagine if the romans would have kept going. What's holding humanity back is mostly politics and human stupidity, not physics.

[Nominal Animal]

I'd like to hear more about this -- I know single-crystal castings are used with superalloys for extremely demanding purposes, e.g. turbine parts.

That's essentially what those natural gas pumps are. If I recall correctly, even though they're milled from one chunk, the individual blades hang freely from the hub; the RPMs are so high the centripetal effect will keep them rigid in position. That way, small, inevitable shocks to blades, won't cause cracks to the blade-hub joint (as there is none). Funky designs.

"Reactive" or "self-healing" reactor vessel surface materials are another avenue: the idea is not to avoid individual defects, but handle them, and stop the defects from clustering and forming macroscopic faults.

The Fe-Ni-Co-etc. superalloys are homogeneous (solid solution) alloys, so this works nicely despite the large alloying percentages.

I'm not familiar with nickel alloys, as its outer electron interactions with other atoms are difficult to model with EAM (although I haven't evaluated the Demaske et al. one published a few years ago); with chromium, using two "bands" of electrons in EAM works surprisingly well. I did some work on modeling ferrochrome, especially modeling how the chromium is distributed (as a function of distance to surface) in molecular dynamics simulations, using multiband EAM potential model; for better understanding of certain types of corrosion resistance.  It is surprising how much individual atoms migrate even at room temperatures.

(That's also where I got my spark for a new generation of MD simulators. When the affected depth is on the order of a micrometer, and you need some surface area too, the atom count becomes large enough (hundreds of millions) so you start looking for both better ways of combining different types of simulations to fully explore the phase space, and how to get more computation out of existing hardware.)

In normal aluminium, small lattice defects often act as seeds for macroscopic defects. The hard oxide layer that naturally forms on the surfaces gives pretty good corrosion resistance, but in those turbines and RPMs (IIRC 20 kRPM for a one-meter diameter turbine? Can't remember details) any macro-scale defect means the turbine will simply rip itself apart. Heavier metals cannot be used at such high RPMs, because stress and forces would just rip them off.  I'm not sure about amorphous materials, but I think none have the tensile strength to weight ratio to beat aluminium (and not erode too fast in the corrosive atmosphere). The g-forces at the outer parts of the blades are downright ridiculous.

It'd be interesting to try and model alloys where the constant stress (at moderate temperature) was used as a tool to strengthen the material. The acceleration causes a significant gradient in the lattice tensions along each full blade.

Is it really worthwhile to make a single crystal with what little will dissolve in it?  Once made, though, I can see precipitation hardening being very effective.

As I understand it, purity is not an issue (that is, a tiny amount of impurities isn't a problem), but any kind of grain boundaries would just act as seeds for macroscopic defects to form, leading to catastrophic failure.  So, by monocrystalline, I don't mean 100% pure Al, but a 100% regular lattice structure. (Yeah, ninety-nine point something...)

Also a bit surprised that something more conventional isn't used, like Inconel, maybe with a plating like pure nickel, or a ceramic coating or something.

The acceleration at the blade tip is something ferocious. Aluminium is light, about 2.7 g/cm³; Inconel is what, 8+ g/cm³? Just to keep the blades intact, you need triple the tensile strength to account for the higher density.

The corrosion resistance might be better described as erosion resistance as well. With aluminium, the turbine blades and pipe walls can have a layer of "extra material"; basically extending the lifetime of the turbine by allowing some corrosion/resistance.  IIRC, their lifetimes are between half a year and five years, depending on several factors.

(I believe all specific figures and information is sort-of trade secrets; I only found out enough to understand what kind of simulations would be needed to be useful.)

[In Vacuo Veritas]

Silly man

yet it moves.

Yes, someone made a sketch once. Therefore, all sketches must become real.

And this is what passes for "intellect" amongst you lot?

So physics doesn't limit us either.

Wow. Just wow.

Brainless religious zealotry.

[In Vacuo Veritas]

Once you're out of the atmosphere you can use skyhooks to move up and down in the gravity well.

Oh of course, of course! It's all so simple. I suppose I can buy these on McMaster-Carr, right?

 

You know, if you ignore reality, this is all so easy!

Just use a skyhook! 

How much you wanna bet that in ten years, absolutely nothing will have changed, except the fervor and froth from you lot with ever more outlandish and impossible scenarios?

[apis]

Oh of course, of course! It's all so simple. I suppose I can buy these on McMaster-Carr, right?
 
How much you wanna bet that in ten years, absolutely nothing will have changed, except the fervor and froth from you lot with ever more outlandish and impossible scenarios?

Who said anything about ten years? You keep making up straw men, and not very good ones either.

You know, not too long ago you there wouldn't have been a McMaster-Car where you could buy anything. Things have to be invented and then designed and then built. Ten years ago you would have said the same thing about reusable rockets, can you buy those at McMaster-Car? It's obvious you don't understand how the world works or basic physics. There's a lot of ongoing research being done on tether systems.

So physics doesn't limit us either.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit either obviously. Physics isn't the bottleneck that is preventing us from undertaking big projects, like replacing fossil fuels. But I'm sure you think that's impossible as well. If it was up to you we would still be using stone tools and fire would be considered untameable.

If God intended us to fly he would have given us wings.

 

[coppercone2]

how much would a string of carbon nanotube that is usable for construction of the space halo thing weigh if it was elevated from a platform 50,000 feet in the air (maybe it would cut down on wind load and shit) to a usable space factory in a position orbiting the earth at the same speed as a aircraft (idk, 1000 km/h)?

how many  watts would you need to power enough 70% efficent ion thrusters to keep the factory from being pulled down? How much power would a electric winch need to reel it in ? what is the flow requirement to get a useful amount of material into space for manufacturing?

[BrianHG]

how much would a string of carbon nanotube that is usable for construction of the space halo thing weigh if it was elevated from a platform 50,000 feet in the air (maybe it would cut down on wind load and shit) to a usable space factory in a position orbiting the earth at the same speed as a aircraft (idk, 1000 km/h)?

how many  watts would you need to power enough 70% efficent ion thrusters to keep the factory from being pulled down? How much power would a electric winch need to reel it in ?

Standard steel/iron cable is sufficient for the ring.  Remember, the inner wire ring is spinning at standard orbital velocity as well as the outer platform when under construction, so, there is not gravity.  It would just be like a continuous space station around the earth with an inner wire core not connected but magnetically suspended like magnetic bearings.  Next, as you add magnetic power, like a linear motor or maglev train to accelerate the inner core, the outer platform which has the electro magnets doing the pushing begins to decelerate. This inner cable, like a suspension bridge cable, will begin to have an outward force as it accelerates above orbital velocity, however, the platform deck with the electromagnets doing the pushing becomes heavier as it slows down below orbital velocity loading the outward force of the accelerating inner cable.  (Nice and balanced)  Electrical power is initially required to change the speed, then a small amount is only required to maintain and regulate the speed as there is no friction other than magnetic eddie currents in this system.

Orbital rings is not a new idea and it has been well though out.  However, like the narrator said, this type of project will require a world wide investment in it's manufacturing and development with the vision of easy access to space and with world politics, this is currently out of humanities will, but not outside our technical capabilities with today's materials.  No new magic physics, no perpetual motion, carbon nanotubes cabling, or anti gravity needed.

[coppercone2]

no, I mean just a platform designed to reel in material to make a ring with later. how would that look like in regards to my questions. I would imagine you need very large amounts of material to make the ring.

you need to start with something and I feel that rockets are not a good way to bring that much shit into space. a counter weight seems hard but active propulsion may be viable with nuclear power.

unless you can reliably haul in a single strand of steel into space to build it with in the same way. I think the way to go would be to make a platform that can haul enough material in there to actually make a ring, then to stop using that and just use the ring if its feasible.

You can crash a nuclear powered jet into the ocean and a space platform can be built to disintegrate and a single strand of carbon fiber reaching to however many kilometers should not pose too much of a hazard as it falls down.
I think the power consumption of the factory would depend on fast its trying to pull in building materials.

 Maybe there is a reasonable number for accumulation of materials into space and steady state power consumption that makes electronics and everything manageable. 

[T3sl4co1l]

That's essentially what those natural gas pumps are. If I recall correctly, even though they're milled from one chunk, the individual blades hang freely from the hub; the RPMs are so high the centripetal effect will keep them rigid in position. That way, small, inevitable shocks to blades, won't cause cracks to the blade-hub joint (as there is none). Funky designs.

"Reactive" or "self-healing" reactor vessel surface materials are another avenue: the idea is not to avoid individual defects, but handle them, and stop the defects from clustering and forming macroscopic faults.

Yeah, that helps a lot too.  Bottling pure fluorine in a steel cylinder seems a bit... unlikely, but turns out it works, at least under the usual circumstances.

Guessing the difference with aluminum is, sulfur (and whatever other relevant unpleasantness, as far as transition metals are concerned) has a similar inert-ing effect to oxygen, so it behaves nicely.  Al2S3 is a fairly refractory ceramic as such, shouldn't diffuse around much.

Maybe wouldn't think titanium (or other valve metals) would be too bad, and its strength to weight ratio is much better than aluminum.  But, it's also known to be sensitive to stress raisers IIRC.  I forget if they use titanium, or superalloys (or what else) in jet compressors...

molecular dynamics simulations, using multiband EAM potential model; for better understanding of certain types of corrosion resistance.  It is surprising how much individual atoms migrate even at room temperatures.

Ah, so you were involved in surface chemistry research on this stuff?  Neato.  Hard stuff to figure out.  I suppose we're somewhat past the point where empirical testing is practical though...

It'd be interesting to try and model alloys where the constant stress (at moderate temperature) was used as a tool to strengthen the material. The acceleration causes a significant gradient in the lattice tensions along each full blade.

Gradient alloy maybe?  Something with crystal transformation under stress?  (Stabilized zirconia comes to mind, what is it, cubic with a strain transformation to tetragonal?  Shape memory alloy however would be the wrong way to go.. )

As I understand it, purity is not an issue (that is, a tiny amount of impurities isn't a problem), but any kind of grain boundaries would just act as seeds for macroscopic defects to form, leading to catastrophic failure.  So, by monocrystalline, I don't mean 100% pure Al, but a 100% regular lattice structure. (Yeah, ninety-nine point something...)

I mean, that makes even less sense, because pure aluminum is almost as soft as sodium.  Strength to weight isn't going to go anywhere...

So it would have to be precipitation hardened, no?  You'll get some amount of concentration gradient as the alloy freezes, except for very similar elements (probably Mg, Si, Zn and not many others?), which will make consistency difficult.  Unless it can be done in just such a way that it helps with the stress gradient, as mentioned.

The acceleration at the blade tip is something ferocious. Aluminium is light, about 2.7 g/cm³; Inconel is what, 8+ g/cm³? Just to keep the blades intact, you need triple the tensile strength to account for the higher density.

Well, there you go, it's easily 3 times stronger than any aluminum alloys I know of.   Unless there's something crazy going on with the single crystal structure.

(I believe all specific figures and information is sort-of trade secrets; I only found out enough to understand what kind of simulations would be needed to be useful.)

[BrianHG]

no, I mean just a platform designed to reel in material to make a ring with later. how would that look like in regards to my questions. I would imagine you need very large amounts of material to make the ring.

you need to start with something and I feel that rockets are not a good way to bring that much shit into space. a counter weight seems hard but active propulsion may be viable with nuclear power.

Agreed, if we are stuck with rockets, our best solution is getting mining and manufacturing on the moon, then shipping those manufacturing materials to earth orbit.
As on the moon, it's size, gravity, and lack of atmosphere allows for a linear motor type maglev train track to accelerate a cargo vehicle off the moon and into earth orbit for a fraction the expense of getting anything out to earth orbit.

[coppercone2]

no, I mean just a platform designed to reel in material to make a ring with later. how would that look like in regards to my questions. I would imagine you need very large amounts of material to make the ring.

you need to start with something and I feel that rockets are not a good way to bring that much shit into space. a counter weight seems hard but active propulsion may be viable with nuclear power.

Agreed, if we are stuck with rockets, our best solution is getting mining and manufacturing on the moon, then shipping those manufacturing materials to earth orbit.
As on the moon, it's size, gravity, and lack of atmosphere allows for a linear motor type maglev train track to accelerate a cargo vehicle off the moon and into earth orbit for a fraction the expense of getting anything out to earth orbit.

but like I said what about just making a space platform with a bunch of ion thrusters and a winch on it to reel it in from a airplane that follows the platform and accumulates it with some kind of capture system from cannons or midair resupply.

do the numbers look ridiclous? a ion thruster is like 70% efficient so it can counter act the pull. It could be powered by a nuclear reactor at first but I think you can make CNT solar panels and batteries? to eventually make it powered by solar electricity alone. then it would just keep reeling in stuff to build the orbital string.

is there a moon requirement for sure? it complicates stuff. You can attach whatever is needed to the string in small amounts so it can be scraped off or chemically removed or whatever to bring materials into space.

I imagined electromagnetic cannons shooting stuff near the flying plane so it can stay supplied cheaply. Like those air planes they put in blimps in WW1. You could even make it a pulley system to just continuously bring up whatever materials can be attached to the CNT in small amounts. I mean you can get a gallon of milk out of a bottle with just a shoe lace if you were desperate.

If its up and running it would be a continuous flow of whatever is needed that would not have high maintenance requirement other then the plane, but maybe that could fly for for a while before the hydraulics wear out or whatever problems planes develop. It could be built better then military disposable nuclear war stuff.

Like a conveyor belt tensioned by ion thursters and a nuclear powered airplane.
Or it could just be used to keep bringing carbon ropes into space without a return cable to recoat or whatever.

then when you get enough solar panels on it you can relocate it to a geostationary orbit point and get rid of the airplane and run it from a base.

[T3sl4co1l]

NEO asteroids are less dV than the Moon (AFAIK).  A source of volatiles in LEO (with its orbit suitably stabilized to not decay) would be a huge boon to anything coming and going from there.

Personally, I can't wait until they wrangle some metallic asteroids over to LEO, start cutting them up, and deorbiting the chunks -- small enough pieces that they're safe to land without a heat shield and without causing a crater.  Timed correctly to land in safe locations (desert, shallow sea?), of course.  It'll be a long time before PGM prices drop -- they'll be making their cool billions to pay back the investors first -- but I would love to see the day when I can pick up an iridium pipe from McMaster for just a couple grand.

Tim

[apis]

a ion thruster is like 70% efficient so it can counter act the pull. It could be powered by a nuclear reactor at first but I think you can make CNT solar panels and batteries? to eventually make it powered by solar electricity alone. then it would just keep reeling in stuff to build the orbital string.

Ion thrusters in operational use have an input power need of 1–7 kW, exhaust velocity 20–50 km/s, thrust 25–250 millinewtons and efficiency 65–80%[3][4] though experimental versions have achieved 100kW, 5N

5N can lift about 0.5 kg (at 100km altitude), your combined engine and energy source would have to have less mass than that to generate any excess thrust.

[apis]

NEO asteroids are less dV than the Moon (AFAIK).  A source of volatiles in LEO (with its orbit suitably stabilized to not decay) would be a huge boon to anything coming and going from there.

Personally, I can't wait until they wrangle some metallic asteroids over to LEO, start cutting them up, and deorbiting the chunks -- small enough pieces that they're safe to land without a heat shield and without causing a crater.  Timed correctly to land in safe locations (desert, shallow sea?), of course.  It'll be a long time before PGM prices drop -- they'll be making their cool billions to pay back the investors first -- but I would love to see the day when I can pick up an iridium pipe from McMaster for just a couple grand.

Tim

Are you saying a space station in LEO with a bit of spin gravity makes more sense for commercial space mining? But that isn't nearly as fun as a moon city.

I.e. it won't generate any buzz and it doesn't really have the same potential as a moon base for scientific purposes, etc.

[coppercone2]

if you put a nuclear reactor or tons of solar panels up there you can make a grid of thrusters. I am wondering what something reasonably useful to humanity would look like with that model to see if its ridiculous or not. Maybe you can attach some ion thruster fuel to scrape off the rope too.

what would it look like to get a orbital ring going within 20 years using that method? assuming you can muster the production.

if you have the mass of the ring you can get a feedrate requirement that would bring you the amount of material you need within 20 years.

if its a 10000 ton project, you can do it with 500 tons a year. Thats hauling 1.5 tons of rope in a day. that would basically double earths orbital mass emissions.

now you just need rope specs?

if you have 5N/100kW, what does the rest of the math look like? what would be the steady state power requirement to haul 1.5 tons of rope with thrust going for 1N/20kW?

How preposterous is it? how does this math work, since the gravity field is less, do you do distance along a field gradient integral then find a 1.5ton/24 hour power consumption with 70% efficency?

can you calculate some kind of apparent weight as a point, then figure out the distance, then get power?

i don't understand orbital mechanics at all. It would weigh 1.5 tons of earth, so something like 15000N?

am I getting this right, it would be 15000N over 100kM or 13million joules/day or 1500W average?

thats not very much.

[cdev]

Definitely this is true, especially in Western Mediterranean/Western Europe- However, if I was trying to make the same point I would use different dates..  I am probably making some mistakes below and definitely leaving out a number of important other civilizations too elsewhere that also deserve mention..
Someday we'll have a much better picture, especially now with the huge advances people are making in technologies like synthetic aperture radar, photogrammetry and 3D reconstruction which is yielding a lot of information about what covered the Earth in antiquity that is new!

The romans had sewage systems, running freshwater, multi story apartment buildings, etc. Then it all collapsed (politically), the library of Alexandria was burned and the clergymen took over... It took almost 2000 years before any city was comparable. After that it didn't take so long until people figured out how to build steam engines and flying machines. Imagine if the romans would have kept going. What's holding humanity back is mostly politics and human stupidity, not physics.

I agree with the general thought you're trying to express here but I don't think the Western Roman Empire had it in them to get off their asses because of the continued existence of slavery, which was why the Sack of Rome was successful. The lure of coercive labor is very powerful corrupting influence which undermines innovation. And now we are very much falling into a very similar trap, with so called "Mode Four" (which is based on the Middle Eastern 'kafala' system) a stealthy shift which we all need to be aware of is happening to have any hope to prevent it! In short, we need to stand up for the rights of workers to be treated equally and paid equally when they are in the same country especially, and prevent the race to the bottom in all things which is occurring, turning it into a race to the top again, somehow.

Also, the sciences, math, and human civilization existed before the Roman Empire in a great many places, contemporaneously with it and afterward. Also, in Western Mediterranean there was a similar long period of reversal between the fall of the Minoan Crete civilization after the explosion of the Theran volcano (Santorini) in approximately 1600 BC and the rise of the Greek city state around a thousand years later. So really in the West there were two millennium long reversions of civilization each totaling around a thousand years.

Cities in China at the time of Marco Polo rivaled anything else that had ever been seen in the world by a European. The population of China was also larger than that of the US today more than a thousand years ago.

Also, when Cortez arrived in the valley of Mexico he described the Aztec city there (underneath present day Mexico City which is still the largest city in the Western Hemisphere, I think)

Anyway the Aztec civilization he found there was described as incredibly rich and complex and was I think described in the historical record as the equal of any in Europe at the time.

Contrary to what many believe the sum total of New World, pre-columbian, non-Christian technology was quite substantial and left a very large mark on the world which largely has not been acknowledged. In addition to a wealth of domesticated plants which totally changed the way humans lived in the rest of the world, (making possible a substantial increase in human numbers in areas which previously had not supported them) they also had agricultural technology which revolutionized agriculture. the Aztecs for example, used woven mats covered with soil upon which they planted crops in great variety) that seem to have produced more yield per unit of space than anything we do now except for hydroponic gardening which is based on it. Plus it was sustainable, not requiring any inputs which were not renewable. Of course the whole system fell apart very rapidly after the arrival of the conquistadors and much of its legacy was destroyed before anybody thought to try to save it. The first Americans also gave the world potatoes, maize, and made agriculture aware of the need to rotate crops (nitrogen fixing)

I want to mention here the legacy of Native Americans view of the world and where they fit into it, as steweards of the Earth, obligated to not take any more from it than they needed and incredibly attuned to the world around them in a great many ways which we live ignorant of today) Also their version of democracy (superior to the Greek version in every respect) and throw out that if we are to leave Earth and travel to the stars, we should strive to transform our society to be much more part of Nature, and living in harmony with other living things and in stewardship of the planet rather than obsessed with 'dominating' Nature. This is an absolutely crucial change I suspect we will not survive long in space without making. A number of posters in this thread have expressed sentiments along the lines that if we don't treat our planet and the rest of all of us well, we wont be successful in space either, or don't deserve to control other planets - where we may meet embryonic societies of intelligent life at earlier stages than our own, just as this may have happened to us in the past.  (and soon 'we' will also include our intelligent machines, who-if we don't make the mistake of reverting back to the worst kinds of coercive societies, may I hope become our friends as well as our 'children'.)

At that point the 'need' in economic terms for humanity to be hierarchical and 'work' will have long passed however, work will most certainly continue and be transformational and I suspect far more productive than today, freed as it may be of a lot of very destructive baggage.

So, I think we should think long and hard what we want the long term goals of humanity to be, what is the path which will bring out the best in people. As its our choice. We especially need to prevent the urge to try to lock the planet or nations into anything as we are seeing.

Honesty is the road forward, dishonesty the road back. And we could learn a lot from the first Americans about democracy and living in harmony with the planet and the other creatures that we share it with too.

We probably would have learned much more had Spain not been in the midst of its centuries-long Inquisition, and the UK and the rest of Europe in the grip of a inbred incestuous group of rigid monarchies that had endless wars with one another over what amounted to family quarrels and ruthlessly eliminated any talent it could not control.

So I think your main point totally right, as far as so called Western Civilization goes, the periods of time when it has not been deliberately handicapped - when there have not been these huge barriers to progress indeed have been short.

[coppercone2]

can someone check that bootleg calculation of mine? it does not feel right for some reason. only 1500Watts?

the problem I think is that the orbital velocity is 7km/s. not sustainable for even the best boeing product

at geostationary orbit it would be 1500W still? since most of it is in space?

[In Vacuo Veritas]

Physics isn't the bottleneck that is preventing us from undertaking big projects, like replacing fossil fuels.

Right. That's why we're already on the Moon and flying supersonic across the Pacific daily.

Look, if you can't see limits and understand where they come from, you are arguing like an 8 year old who still believes in Santa Claus.

There are limits. They are real. They don't care about you or your bizarre beliefs. Whether they be biological, physical, chemical, or material. Limits.

And if I had said twelve or eight years you would have been just as upset.

The point is, you space cadets are all hot air. There will be absolutely none of your grandiose fantasies happening. Ever.

The End. I don't know why you cling to these bizarre space cultist notions. But it's a disease I see a lot with huge nerds. Nothing new. I first started noticing this rabid, blind, fact-free raving about space about ten years ago, and it hasn't stopped entertaining me since!

 

[In Vacuo Veritas]

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

Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space!

Yeah! It's politics holding us back from Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space!  Although Apollo was 100% political! Your precious free market would NEVER have sent a single bolt into Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! without the government!

We need air? Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space!
We need food? Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space!
We need gravity? Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space!
Will it hurt? Of course not! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space!

Gotta get into Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space!

We ain't traveling or exploring anything here! We want to go into Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space!

Because it's just like Star Trek! I assume I'll sit in a large comfortable ship with artificial gravity and impossible materials, sorry, densified neutronium (all very possible, just like a skyhook, a simple engineering problem that somehow hasn't been solved yet but don't worry: a bunch of nerds with computers will fix it)

Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space!

Who needs water? Who needs the ground? Space! Space! Space! Space! Space! Space!

Asteroids! Helium 3! Fusion reactors in my backyard ... on Mars!

Space! Space! Space! Space! Space!

Hurrah!



Space!

[Mr. Scram]

Who said anything about ten years? You keep making up straw men, and not very good ones either.

You know, not too long ago you there wouldn't have been a McMaster-Car where you could buy anything. Things have to be invented and then designed and then built. Ten years ago you would have said the same thing about reusable rockets, can you buy those at McMaster-Car? It's obvious you don't understand how the world works or basic physics. There's a lot of ongoing research being done on tether systems.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit either obviously. Physics isn't the bottleneck that is preventing us from undertaking big projects, like replacing fossil fuels. But I'm sure you think that's impossible as well. If it was up to you we would still be using stone tools and fire would be considered untameable.

Don't feed the troll. Some people are just on these forums to pick fights to entertain themselves. Luckily it's rather obvious.

[In Vacuo Veritas]

Who said anything about ten years? You keep making up straw men, and not very good ones either.

You know, not too long ago you there wouldn't have been a McMaster-Car where you could buy anything. Things have to be invented and then designed and then built. Ten years ago you would have said the same thing about reusable rockets, can you buy those at McMaster-Car? It's obvious you don't understand how the world works or basic physics. There's a lot of ongoing research being done on tether systems.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit either obviously. Physics isn't the bottleneck that is preventing us from undertaking big projects, like replacing fossil fuels. But I'm sure you think that's impossible as well. If it was up to you we would still be using stone tools and fire would be considered untameable.

Don't feed the troll. Some people are just on these forums to pick fights to entertain themselves.

No no, you've convinced me with the weight of your arguments. All very plausible. I don't know how come I never saw it before.

Clearly, the species, all 7.5 billion of us belong in space. It's a mistake to live on a planet.

SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE!!!!!!

Let's go! Pack your shit! Nah forget it, we'll just 3D print what we need on the way!

The way where!??

SPAAACE!!!

 

You guys are clowns.

[T3sl4co1l]

Are you saying a space station in LEO with a bit of spin gravity makes more sense for commercial space mining? But that isn't nearly as fun as a moon city.

I.e. it won't generate any buzz and it doesn't really have the same potential as a moon base for scientific purposes, etc.

It doesn't need to create buzz.  It will create money.

Money has a way of creating buzz all by itself.

Tim

[coppercone2]

Are you saying a space station in LEO with a bit of spin gravity makes more sense for commercial space mining? But that isn't nearly as fun as a moon city.

I.e. it won't generate any buzz and it doesn't really have the same potential as a moon base for scientific purposes, etc.

It doesn't need to create buzz.  It will create money.

Money has a way of creating buzz all by itself.

Tim

you still need to attract investors.

[apis]

Definitely this is true, especially in Western Mediterranean/Western Europe- However, if I was trying to make the same point I would use different dates..  I am probably making some mistakes below and definitely leaving out a number of important other civilizations too elsewhere that also deserve mention..
Someday we'll have a much better picture, especially now with the huge advances people are making in technologies like synthetic aperture radar, photogrammetry and 3D reconstruction which is yielding a lot of information about what covered the Earth in antiquity that is new!

The romans had sewage systems, running freshwater, multi story apartment buildings, etc. Then it all collapsed (politically), the library of Alexandria was burned and the clergymen took over... It took almost 2000 years before any city was comparable. After that it didn't take so long until people figured out how to build steam engines and flying machines. Imagine if the romans would have kept going. What's holding humanity back is mostly politics and human stupidity, not physics.

I agree with the general thought you're trying to express here but I don't think the Western Roman Empire had it in them to get off their asses because of the continued existence of slavery, which was why the Sack of Rome was successful. The lure of coercive labor is very powerful corrupting influence which undermines innovation. And now we are very much falling into a very similar trap, with so called "Mode Four" (which is based on the Middle Eastern 'kafala' system) a stealthy shift which we all need to be aware of is happening to have any hope to prevent it! In short, we need to stand up for the rights of workers to be treated equally and paid equally when they are in the same country especially, and prevent the race to the bottom in all things which is occurring, turning it into a race to the top again, somehow.

Also, the sciences, math, and human civilization existed before the Roman Empire in a great many places, contemporaneously with it and afterward. Also, in Western Mediterranean there was a similar long period of reversal between the fall of the Minoan Crete civilization after the explosion of the Theran volcano (Santorini) in approximately 1600 BC and the rise of the Greek city state around a thousand years later. So really in the West there were two millennium long reversions of civilization each totaling around a thousand years.

Cities in China at the time of Marco Polo rivaled anything else that had ever been seen in the world by a European. The population of China was also larger than that of the US today more than a thousand years ago.

Also, when Cortez arrived in the valley of Mexico he described the Aztec city there (underneath present day Mexico City which is still the largest city in the Western Hemisphere, I think)

Anyway the Aztec civilization he found there was described as incredibly rich and complex and was I think described in the historical record as the equal of any in Europe at the time.

Contrary to what many believe the sum total of New World, pre-columbian, non-Christian technology was quite substantial and left a very large mark on the world which largely has not been acknowledged. In addition to a wealth of domesticated plants which totally changed the way humans lived in the rest of the world, (making possible a substantial increase in human numbers in areas which previously had not supported them) they also had agricultural technology which revolutionized agriculture. the Aztecs for example, used woven mats covered with soil upon which they planted crops in great variety) that seem to have produced more yield per unit of space than anything we do now except for hydroponic gardening which is based on it. Plus it was sustainable, not requiring any inputs which were not renewable. Of course the whole system fell apart very rapidly after the arrival of the conquistadors and much of its legacy was destroyed before anybody thought to try to save it. The first Americans also gave the world potatoes, maize, and made agriculture aware of the need to rotate crops (nitrogen fixing)

I want to mention here the legacy of Native Americans view of the world and where they fit into it, as steweards of the Earth, obligated to not take any more from it than they needed and incredibly attuned to the world around them in a great many ways which we live ignorant of today) Also their version of democracy (superior to the Greek version in every respect) and throw out that if we are to leave Earth and travel to the stars, we should strive to transform our society to be much more part of Nature, and living in harmony with other living things and in stewardship of the planet rather than obsessed with 'dominating' Nature. This is an absolutely crucial change I suspect we will not survive long in space without making. A number of posters in this thread have expressed sentiments along the lines that if we don't treat our planet and the rest of all of us well, we wont be successful in space either, or don't deserve to control other planets - where we may meet embryonic societies of intelligent life at earlier stages than our own, just as this may have happened to us in the past.  (and soon 'we' will also include our intelligent machines, who-if we don't make the mistake of reverting back to the worst kinds of coercive societies, may I hope become our friends as well as our 'children'.)

At that point the 'need' in economic terms for humanity to be hierarchical and 'work' will have long passed however, work will most certainly continue and be transformational and I suspect far more productive than today, freed as it may be of a lot of very destructive baggage.

So, I think we should think long and hard what we want the long term goals of humanity to be, what is the path which will bring out the best in people. As its our choice. We especially need to prevent the urge to try to lock the planet or nations into anything as we are seeing.

Honesty is the road forward, dishonesty the road back. And we could learn a lot from the first Americans about democracy and living in harmony with the planet and the other creatures that we share it with too.

We probably would have learned much more had Spain not been in the midst of its centuries-long Inquisition, and the UK and the rest of Europe in the grip of a inbred incestuous group of rigid monarchies that had endless wars with one another over what amounted to family quarrels and ruthlessly eliminated any talent it could not control.

So I think your main point totally right, as far as so called Western Civilization goes, the periods of time when it has not been deliberately handicapped - when there have not been these huge barriers to progress indeed have been short.

Absolutely. "Pythagoras' theorem" for example was known long before Pythagoras and it has been discovered independently around the world.

The history we learn in school here is very self centred, sadly we don't really learn anything about non-european history at all. We don't even learn that much about antiquity, it's mostly national history. Many historical sources from rome have been preserved only thanks to arab traders who kept and treasured literary and mathematical works from antiquity. The medieval christians had a bad habit of burning everything (and everyone) the priests in charge didn't like or understand, like they did with the written texts by the Mayan people they came across. That mathematics book by Archimedes they recovered a few years ago (the palimpsest) had been erased and overwritten by monks with some religious text, but thanks to modern technology it was possible to recover the original. Most such books were burned. Who knows what else have been lost.

[apis]

Are you saying a space station in LEO with a bit of spin gravity makes more sense for commercial space mining? But that isn't nearly as fun as a moon city.

I.e. it won't generate any buzz and it doesn't really have the same potential as a moon base for scientific purposes, etc.

It doesn't need to create buzz.  It will create money.

Money has a way of creating buzz all by itself.

Tim

I would get nervous if people start trowing rocks down at us though, doesn't sound all that safe to bringing large metal asteroids into LEO. What if a truster malfunctions or someone made a mistake when calculating/programming the flightpath.

[hamster_nz]

Are you saying a space station in LEO with a bit of spin gravity makes more sense for commercial space mining? But that isn't nearly as fun as a moon city.

I.e. it won't generate any buzz and it doesn't really have the same potential as a moon base for scientific purposes, etc.

It doesn't need to create buzz.  It will create money.

Money has a way of creating buzz all by itself.

Tim

I would get nervous if people start trowing rocks down at us though, doesn't sound all that safe to bringing large metal asteroids into LEO. What if a truster malfunctions or someone made a mistake when calculating/programming the flightpath.

An inch here, a cm there... Nah, that would never happen!

[apis]

can someone check that bootleg calculation of mine? it does not feel right for some reason. only 1500Watts?

the problem I think is that the orbital velocity is 7km/s. not sustainable for even the best boeing product

at geostationary orbit it would be 1500W still? since most of it is in space?

At an altitude of 100km the gravitational acceleration is almost the same as on the surface, i.e. ~10 m/s². F = ma, so for a stationary object at 100 km (roughly 20 km over the top of the atmosphere), 5 N can't lift more than 5/10 = 0.5 kg (or 1.1 pound). An ion-truster that generates 5 N + 100kW solar panels/reactor will have more mass than that, so it wouldn't even be able to lift its own weight.

Once you have something in orbit you could use an ion truster to slowly accelerate until you reach the speed you need, but it can't really be used to get out of the atmosphere.

An orbital ring only relies on the same principle as a normal low earth orbit satellite, nothing fancy. I.e. spin it fast so you generate enough centrifugal force to counteract gravity. Then you use that ring as a track for a platform that moves with the same speed as the earth is spinning, that way you get a geo-stationary platform over a point on earth at an altitude of only 100 km. It is possible to create a cable (and elevator) that is 100 km long with existing materials. A space elevator on the other hand would need to reach out beyond geo-stationary orbit (35786 km) which is not possible with current materials.

The spinning ring would need some stabilisers and extra energy added to replace losses, but aside from that it doesn't need any energy to keep it in place. Constructing it would be like putting a string of satellites into LEO and joining them together. I don't see why we couldn't build one such satellite module and launch it into orbit, the problem is really only that you need a whole lot of them to create a complete ring.

[coppercone2]

nah its not stationary I was assuming its moving at some high velocity to remain in orbit where it is but it comes out to requiring some absurd hypersonic platform I believe.

so at orbit which is relatively stationary to allow for a ground platform or actual slow moving aircraft or ship to carry a spool is going to require absurd tensile strength because of the length?

the idea being just to get material there cheaply without rockets rather then to carry anything of significant heft. A carbon fiber pump if you will. Can you still call it an elevator if there is no counterweight and it just retrieves material?

[apis]

I'm not sure what you are suggesting, but it sounds a little bit like a skyhook:
http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/355Bogar.pdf

[coppercone2]

imagine they had a hypersonic plane that threw a teather to the ISS and the guys were pulling it in to make wicker baskets.

[apis]

Ah, yes, you need to get 36000 km out to have a geostationary target. ISS is only ~400 km out and has an orbital speed of 7660 m/s.

[Mr. Scram]

It should be noted that a space elevator still requires a fair bit of energy, as you still have mass which needs to be sped up or energised. It's just a lot more efficient than blasting out hot gasses and punching through the atmosphere.

[coppercone2]

Ah, yes, you need to get 36000 km out to have a geostationary target. ISS is only ~400 km out and has an orbital speed of 7660 m/s.

how do you calculate the amount of force you need to pull the string up, after its already in place? Do you just consider the first 100KM as weight affected by gravity?

so the geostationary spot is being pulled down by the energy transferred by the mass in the gravitational field? and the rest is momentum?

can you give me some realistic numbers? i want to get an idea how to calculate how much thurst you need so the station does not get pulled towards the earth and instead lifts the string. Math please.

It's an integral of the decaying field across the length of the string? then you superimpose the momentum on it (ie.. the amount of energy it would require to move a long string in space towards you)?

so you do two calculations and superimpose some how? and energy lost to flexing etc.

so you induce a momentum by integrating the field around the string with the gravitational field formula to get the voltage source lumped circuit kinda deal? and the matters physical presence is inductance?

[cdev]

Its a challenge in some ways similar to the challenge of laying the first transatlantic telegraph and telephone cables.

[StillTrying]

How would a space elevator work, the bob at the end of the string would have to be above geo-stationary to keep the string taut, but then the bob wouldn't be geo-stationary.

[apis]

Math please.

I think gravity acting on a hanging string string would be F₁ = int{ rho pi r² g(x) dx, from a to b}
x is distance to earth center, rho is cable density, r cable radius, g gravitational acceleration  = - (GM)/x^2 (G gravitational const, M earth mass)
Add a load at bottom as F₂ = m g(a)
F = rho pi r² (GM) (1/b - 1/a) - m (GM)/a² (I think, it's too late here.)

Does the forum have mathjax support or some such?

How would a space elevator work, the bob at the end of the string would have to be above geo-stationary to keep the string taut, but then the bob wouldn't be geo-stationary.

The center of gravity of the whole thing would be a bit under the bob, but overall you'd have that a bit above geosynchronous I believe so you have a net force acting outwards, that tensions the wire which counteracts that pull. Space elevators aren't really practical on earth, you could have one on the moon though.

[Nominal Animal]

Maybe wouldn't think titanium (or other valve metals) would be too bad, and its strength to weight ratio is much better than aluminum.  But, it's also known to be sensitive to stress raisers IIRC.  I forget if they use titanium, or superalloys (or what else) in jet compressors...

Then there is the lifetime cost analysis. A cubic meter of monocrystalline aluminium is relatively expensive, but overall worth it in the pumping costs; I bet titanium would be simply r

Ah, so you were involved in surface chemistry research on this stuff?

Not surface chemistry; more like the transition layer between bulk and surface, and specifically for FeCr (of 10%-20% Cr).

It is not that hard to get surface properties right in a computational simulation; it's just that bulk properties then tend to be off, and vice versa. The transition zone is harder to model. And due to the large number of atoms involved, you can't use ab initio methods (simulators like vasp).  Yet, a large fraction of the interesting effects (corrosion resistance, ion implantation, gamma radiation effects) happen in that zone.

Gradient alloy maybe?

I was thinking of doping (with high-energy ion bombardment) with cylindrical radial distribution prior to machining. Or after. Defects do tend to cluster, but we already have amorphous materials that actually diffuse them instead (self-healing solar panels); getting the same to happen in a metal alloy lattice would be a breakthrough.

I mean, that makes even less sense, because pure aluminum is almost as soft as sodium.

I am not sure which aluminium alloy is actually used. I do know it is monocrystalline, in the sense of being grainless, as close to a perfect lattice as one can get, without any macroscopic defects.

If I was unclear, let me clarify: I've worked with the simulations on FeCr, not on Al. The info I got was directly from guys who make those pump turbines, as they explained the requirements, and we discussed how similar the requirements are, fundamentally, to high-energy plasma container materials.

The acceleration at the blade tip is something ferocious. Aluminium is light, about 2.7 g/cm³; Inconel is what, 8+ g/cm³? Just to keep the blades intact, you need triple the tensile strength to account for the higher density.

Well, there you go, it's easily 3 times stronger than any aluminum alloys I know of.   Unless there's something crazy going on with the single crystal structure.

Plastic deformation characteristics, maybe? Or yield too low due to grain boundaries in such large chunks, causing early structural failures? Cost? I dunno.

What I do know, is that if we could cast those metals (and generally create the billets) in microgravity, we'd get a huge step forward in what we can actually consider viable as manufacturing materials. The vacuum helps too; the purities possible are something totally different.

If you ask me, I think we should definitely risk occasionally dropping a small hill-sized metallic asteroids on our heads, just to get some experimental foundry work going in orbit. The potential discoveries and possibilities it might open are definitely worth it.  It's not like we avoid traffic, even if it kills something like 1.25 million people worldwide each year (20 to 50 million injured).

(I forgot to mention earlier, but one really interesting way of shedding delta-V when tugging back metallic asteroid fragments from the belt to Earth, is solar sails, using low-thrust trajectories.  Slow, but nothing happens too fast, and keeps Earth impact risks low.  It is a bit surprising, but volatiles (snowballs) are much harder to handle; their unpredictable outgassing when getting closer to the Sun poses severe difficulties.)

[Nominal Animal]

How would a space elevator work, the bob at the end of the string would have to be above geo-stationary to keep the string taut, but then the bob wouldn't be geo-stationary.

You first tug a metallic asteroid to a geostationary orbit. This is your counterweight. The string is attached to the asteroid, not to Earth. (It is possible that to get the necessary purity, or tube length if carbon nanotubes are used, manufacturing the material in orbit is cheaper than on Earth.)

The center of mass of the counterweight + string system is kept at geostationary orbit, about 36 000 km above equator. This means that when you spool the string out, the counterweight drifts a bit outwards.

If the counterweight is large enough, you can use a mass driver (essentially a railgun) that shoots small slugs tangentially to the orbit, to speed up or slow down the counterweight, as a backup for chemical or ion thrusters.  But you do need to continuously control its orbit.  Safety-wise, you'd design the system so that if neglected, the string would fall down to Earth (and possibly make a lot of damage on the equator, if it does not burn up in the atmosphere), and the counterweight just drift to a higher orbit.  It's not nearly as dangerous as traffic, but it ain't perfectly safe either.

It is a wonderful idea, but I personally would prefer more practical efforts in developing better rocket engines, like aerospike engines.  We need to get a pretty heavy presence in orbit before we can build a space elevator, so getting better at chemical rocketry seems a prerequisite to me.

[T3sl4co1l]

It is not that hard to get surface properties right in a computational simulation; it's just that bulk properties then tend to be off, and vice versa. The transition zone is harder to model. And due to the large number of atoms involved, you can't use ab initio methods (simulators like vasp).  Yet, a large fraction of the interesting effects (corrosion resistance, ion implantation, gamma radiation effects) happen in that zone.

I had "surface-ish" in my mind, but didn't say so.  Yeah, near-surface effects and mobilities must be... interesting.

Coincidentally (or perhaps not), "surface" in E&M terms is ca. 100nm, because of the effective e_r of a metal at optical frequencies.  Which is, roughly speaking, the high frequency (quantum) extension to classical skin effect, but not really because of plasmon effects and other weirdness that I know very little about.

That's, for example, why you can see blue through a CD's foil layer, dimly but definitely nonzero.

If you ask me, I think we should definitely risk occasionally dropping a small hill-sized metallic asteroids on our heads, just to get some experimental foundry work going in orbit. The potential discoveries and possibilities it might open are definitely worth it.  It's not like we avoid traffic, even if it kills something like 1.25 million people worldwide each year (20 to 50 million injured).

People are fundamentally bad at statistics when E[event] < 0.01 or so.

Education would probably help, but that's probably a pipe dream.  Just critical thinking would be nice.  Alas...

(I forgot to mention earlier, but one really interesting way of shedding delta-V when tugging back metallic asteroid fragments from the belt to Earth, is solar sails, using low-thrust trajectories.  Slow, but nothing happens too fast, and keeps Earth impact risks low.  It is a bit surprising, but volatiles (snowballs) are much harder to handle; their unpredictable outgassing when getting closer to the Sun poses severe difficulties.)

Yeah, I would expect you'd want to manage an icy asteroid with some mirrors and/or sails.  It's going to evaporate, but you can control where and how much, and use that to steer it, very slowly.  Some instrumentation (a small satellite swarm?) monitoring outgassing and dV would be able to manage the unpredictability.

Also, a volatile NEO is probably heavily caked in insulating dust already, wouldn't expect putting it in orbit would be much difference.  That probably helps.

Tim

[StillTrying]

Space elevators aren't really practical on earth, you could have one on the moon though.

I think there's only 2 stable places a moon space elevator could be, directly inline between moon and earth, or directly behind on the dark side, and around 95,000kms high. That doesn't seem very practical either.
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Moon-have-a-geostationary-orbit-If-so-what-is-its-altitude

[apis]

I think I would prefer mining the moon, safer and gives more options to do other things. You can send many smaller packets of minerals back to earth instead of one large mountain.

Space elevators aren't really practical on earth, you could have one on the moon though.

I think there's only 2 stable places a moon space elevator could be, directly inline between moon and earth, or directly behind on the dark side, and around 95,000kms high. That doesn't seem very practical either.
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Moon-have-a-geostationary-orbit-If-so-what-is-its-altitude

What makes it at least feasible on the moon is that the moon has lower gravity, so the stresses on the cable will be lower, and there is no atmosphere to worry about.

It would be very valuable to reduce the cost of transferring cargo between the moon and earth.

[Nominal Animal]

I had "surface-ish" in my mind, but didn't say so.

Yup; I just wanted to make sure I'm not accidentally misleading anyone.

In computational materials physics, it is usually not easy to state the exact depth; it is much easier to say it is the region between the surface (that can be modeled pretty easily with results corresponding to real-world measurements) and the bulk (that can also be modeled easily with results corresponding to the real world) that is the interesting-but-problematic zone.  For ferrochrome, it is a few hundred nanometers; if I recall correctly, on the order of 400 nm or so.

Yeah, near-surface effects and mobilities must be... interesting.

Especially so for chrome and other metals with interacting electrons in different orbitals. One way to describe those interactions is analogous to magnetic interactions.

Multiband EAM models for chromium essentially treat the 4s electron and the 3d electrons separately.  In complexity, it is an interatomic potential (so not that complex, although the two bands make it technically challenging, regarding cache behaviour and such); nowhere near as some of the force field models chemists use.  There is an underlying physical model, but the actual parameters are obtained by fitting to real world results. If you were a chemist, things would be even harder: water molecules, for example, are fiendish to model correctly (correctly representing its solvent properties, clathrates, and similar phenomena) in molecular dynamics.

Just critical thinking would be nice.

I'd give my left pinky if it made even a tiny, but statistically measurable increase in critical thinking among humans. Not kidding.

For example: Who you listen to, does not matter.  Who you do not listen to, matters.  This is because you cannot form an informed opinion on something you do not know about.  So, when someone refuses to consider a message because it is from a source they dislike, they are doing so for ideological reasons, not because they are critical or sceptical.  It is just reverse *argumentum ab auctoritate*.  Sure, philosophers cannot agree whether argument from authority is a fallacy or valid argument; but in science, argument from authority is worthless.  I trust science more than I trust philosphers opinions.

Yeah, I would expect you'd want to manage an icy asteroid with some mirrors and/or sails.  It's going to evaporate, but you can control where and how much, and use that to steer it, very slowly.  Some instrumentation (a small satellite swarm?) monitoring outgassing and dV would be able to manage the unpredictability.

Definitely agreed.  Doing it at low thrust (trajectories several years, perhaps on the order of a decade), means the technical risks would be very small.

It's not like Earth isn't bombarded with rocks all the time.  There is another Chixculub impactor out there.  Considering typical human behaviour, robotic tracking won't cut it, because humans will lose interest in a few decades (á la "we haven't found a significantly dangerous impactor yet, so why do we spend all that money on robotic tracking? we could use it to make our nests so much more comfortable instead!"). The only long-term hope is to have some permanent human presence in orbit, up to and including at least the asteroid belt.  The further out, the likelier early detection would be, and thus more time to react to dangers.  Some of the asteroids are too dark (low albedo) to be detectable from Earth orbit, too.

I think I would prefer mining the moon, safer and gives more options to do other things. You can send many smaller packets of minerals back to earth instead of one large mountain.

Very true.  Especially something like "cannonballs" or elongated "pills" made mostly of volatiles, with a thickish metal shell, shot into orbit using solar-powered mass drivers.  Having access to low-cost volatiles in orbit (hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen) and carbon and iron would be akin to industrial revolution in Earth orbit capabilities.

That isn't "science fiction", either. The escape velocity on the moon is about 2.4 km/s, and railguns that shoot 2 kg projectiles at 3 km/s already exist here on Earth.

(I just realized that that would work for ³He mining just as well.)

[raptor1956]

How would a space elevator work on the Moon?  The Moon has a very slow 29 day rotation rate so where is the elevator to be anchored in space?  Beyond that problem how would it be useful?  If it were supposed to make accessing the Moon easier from Earth how would that work.  I mean, we'd have to reach it and that means leaving Earth at very high speed, and then coming to a near dead stop -- you'd waste about as much on deltaV as landing on the Moon.


Brian

[T3sl4co1l]

How would a space elevator work on the Moon?

It doesn't...



Stop trying to make elevators / beanstalks happen... they're not going to happen.

The racetrack thing looks neat, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop but it's probably never going to happen given the massive cost and risk in building and operating such a structure.  Not this century at least.

Tim

[apis]

I don't think it's going to happen on earth, but on the moon it's a possibility.

How would a space elevator work on the Moon?  The Moon has a very slow 29 day rotation rate so where is the elevator to be anchored in space?  Beyond that problem how would it be useful?  If it were supposed to make accessing the Moon easier from Earth how would that work.  I mean, we'd have to reach it and that means leaving Earth at very high speed, and then coming to a near dead stop -- you'd waste about as much on deltaV as landing on the Moon.

That's why it only would work at two places on the moon. You can put one between the earth and the moon, just far enough out from the moon that earths gravity becomes stronger and pulls the cable taut (L₁), or you could put it on the dark side of the moon, and use the centrifugal force it gets from rotating around the earth (together with the moon) to counteract gravity (L₂).

On the earth side you get nearer earth and you also get out of the moons gravity well, that makes it cheaper to travel to/from earth.
On the dark side you get out of both the earth and moon gravity well into the solar system, that makes it cheaper to travel into the solar system.

Otherwise you'd have to use something else, like rockets, to get off the moon. But on the moon there are other options, like a mass driver.

[apis]

Actually, having played around with this for a while, the potential energy for an object at the moon - earth L₁ point would correspond to the energy of an object in low earth orbit.

So basically you can launch LEO and higher orbit  satellites from the moon using only a mass driver. If you want to send cargo to the surface of the earth you can just "drop" them and use the atmosphere for braking (with a suitable shield).

So to send something to some point at LEO and below cost no more energy than it takes to get away from the moon's gravity. Since you can use a mass driver or elevator for that, it's very cheap.

It gets even better if you use momentum exchange tethers (skyhooks). Then you can slow down cargo when dropping it from the moon, and use the stored energy to bring cargo up again from LEO to the moon. So for every kg you transfer to the earth you could send a kg cargo up to the moon!

Building an orbital ring might not be so expensive after all, if you build modules on the moon and then shoot them into LEO.

Almost sounds too god good to be true.

[Nominal Animal]

Almost sounds too god to be true.

Funny slip of the tongue there    The technical hurdles are not that big; it is true.

But then you start thinking about the political implications.  Our current countries can barely agree on a single shared space station.  A facility that could (at least in theory) bombard any place on Earth with near pinpoint accuracy at basically zero cost, is not something the warmongers will allow (to be in someone elses hands).  Heck, if someone started building that alone, it might be enough to spark the next world war.

I do not see governments coming together on something as complex as this: their internal goals differ too much to allow this to happen.  A commercial company might get away with it, if it was profitable enough to sweeten the deals with politicians so much they handle the warmongers (out of their self-interest).  Or a breakaway group of people doing it in "secret", that is, not telling the general population on Earth anything about it; the few politicians that would know would likely keep quiet about it, again purely out of self-interest.

[Mr. Scram]

Funny slip of the tongue there    The technical hurdles are not that big; it is true.

But then you start thinking about the political implications.  Our current countries can barely agree on a single shared space station.  A facility that could (at least in theory) bombard any place on Earth with near pinpoint accuracy at basically zero cost, is not something the warmongers will allow (to be in someone elses hands).  Heck, if someone started building that alone, it might be enough to spark the next world war.

I do not see governments coming together on something as complex as this: their internal goals differ too much to allow this to happen.  A commercial company might get away with it, if it was profitable enough to sweeten the deals with politicians so much they handle the warmongers (out of their self-interest).  Or a breakaway group of people doing it in "secret", that is, not telling the general population on Earth anything about it; the few politicians that would know would likely keep quiet about it, again purely out of self-interest.

Orbital bombardments aren't as ideal as people seem to think. Due to the distances involved, it's often easier or less predictable to just use a traditional ballistic missile. Not to mention the soft target such a station would be.

[apis]

Right, both the US and Russia can wipe out humanity with the push of a button already. How big a change would it be for either of them to have a mass launcher on the moon?

On the other hand, If a moon presence is seen as a major threat, and since the Chinese appears to plan on building a moon base. Maybe that will motivate another space race between NASA, ESA, ISRO, Roscosmos and others. If only to keep an eye on each other.

[coppercone2]

you know if that thing from 'the moon is a harsh mistress' by HL is true, then you can have lunar terrorists building shit on the moon to shower the earth with. I really think you eventually need some kind of earth point defense system run by a local government after you put people on the moon.

I mean I dunno what the chances are someone can dig out a big piece of iron and launch it into the earth with a portable power source? maybe its not possible.

[coppercone2]

i mean its either space police, some kind of defense system or just being ready to blow up suspicious activity on the moon at no notice (like iraq).

It would be nice to know its not feasible. \

but who knows what kind of degenerates you can end up working on the moon if you just hire out corporate. Like the game System Shock with the mining laser run by a shitty company (trioptimum corporation). Especially if its highly automated and not manned very well.

I mean chances are if some machine shop goes rogue and starts to build big bertha some one will end up calling the police on earth. On the moon though?

Or does it need to be really big like saddams project babylon?

[apis]

You could probably have orbital defence systems at both earth and the moon that would activate and intercept rogue missiles and make sure they fall down out of harms way.

[coppercone2]

yea. I wonder if someone would try to build some rapid fire lunar artillery gun to attack the earth, if its all buried under the regolith. you may have to be ready to strike the moon in case of a overwhelming attack. I don't know if you can make a rapid fire electromagnetic rail cannon pointed at earth too easily though.

The sensible thing would be to have some kind of police force so such activity can be reported. At least a sheriff or something. Independent body of nations control on development of dangerous lunar systems? It would need to be backed by someone powerful.

[BrianHG]

Careful now, "In Vacuo Veritas' is going to have an aneurysm...

[coppercone2]

Careful now, "In Vacuo Veritas' is going to have an aneurysm...

i dunno alot of the other stuff the scifi authors came up with came true (i.e. powered exoskelletons).

[apis]

Damn, we're too late: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moon+city (EDIT: maybe I should add a considering the forum lately)

[rdl]

To shoot the Earth from the Moon you would need a pretty powerful gun since orbital velocity of the Moon is over 1000 m/s.

[coppercone2]

the cheapest way would be to bore holes in the side of mountains to make barrels maybe?

[apis]

There are rifles with higher muzzle velocity than that.

It would be very hard to hit something important though.

[coppercone2]

can't you steer it with a radio signal so long it gets out of orbit? it should not be hard to aim it into a big city as a terror weapon or some kind of shakedown tool (i.e. pay lunar terrorists off).

[apis]

You couldn't just launch a rock in that case. You would have to have a missile with reaction control system, etc, and that would probably not be something your run of the mill terrorist could put together in his basement without anyone noticing. The bigger and more expensive it is, the harder it would be to fire and easier it would be to intercept.

[Red Squirrel]

I'm thinking another moon landing would get some level of attention, but what will really get more attention is a manned Mars landing. I think that is the next big thing everyone is kind of waiting for.   Though the BFR manned lunar mission is going to get quite a lot of attention too.  Mostly because it will be "somewhat" average joes on there, and probably one of the few times people are sent that far in space privately.

What's crazy though is that space missions are so common now that they're almost routine and most people have fallen less interested.  Like the probe that was put on Mars recently where they can study seismic activity.  I think the fact that they can do this stuff is still incredible.   If you've ever played Kerbal Space Program you probably tend to use the map view a lot and eye ball stuff.  Well imagine having to do all the calculations and only go by numerical data to know where you're going.  There is no "map view".   Takes some serious skills to do that.

Heck even docking with the ISS is a pretty incredible thing to do and happens so often it's hardly news.   We've kinda taken our space advancement for granted I'd say.

[Electro Detective]

Ongoing 'Next Gen' iPhone and Samsung 'launches' will get more public gas    than any future Mars money pit proposals   

nowadays, it's all about 'the phone...'   


Even Captain Kirk would sell The Enterprise for cheap to a Ferengi pawn station to own the latest smart phone   

[apis]

Even Captain Kirk would sell The Enterprise for cheap to a Ferengi pawn station to own the latest smart phone   

TOS had pretty snazzy phones

[Electro Detective]

Yep, the perforated goldanium flip up antenna had an unbelievable bandwidth,

and no touch or cracked screen snafus to think about, when a landing party mission went south

[BrianHG]

 https://what-if.xkcd.com/157/

[Bud]

Careful now, "In Vacuo Veritas' is going to have an aneurysm...

If he is, we won't know. He is now banned, seems the Mods had enough of him.

[Red Squirrel]

Ongoing 'Next Gen' iPhone and Samsung 'launches' will get more public gas    than any future Mars money pit proposals   

nowadays, it's all about 'the phone...'   

Lol it's kinda sad but true.   I wonder how people bring a tent to a SpaceX event, vs an iphone release. 

[Mr. Scram]

I'm thinking another moon landing would get some level of attention, but what will really get more attention is a manned Mars landing. I think that is the next big thing everyone is kind of waiting for.   Though the BFR manned lunar mission is going to get quite a lot of attention too.  Mostly because it will be "somewhat" average joes on there, and probably one of the few times people are sent that far in space privately.

What's crazy though is that space missions are so common now that they're almost routine and most people have fallen less interested.  Like the probe that was put on Mars recently where they can study seismic activity.  I think the fact that they can do this stuff is still incredible.   If you've ever played Kerbal Space Program you probably tend to use the map view a lot and eye ball stuff.  Well imagine having to do all the calculations and only go by numerical data to know where you're going.  There is no "map view".   Takes some serious skills to do that.

Heck even docking with the ISS is a pretty incredible thing to do and happens so often it's hardly news.   We've kinda taken our space advancement for granted I'd say.

This is true. Unfortunately, people get complacent and jaded very quickly. Even the Apollo missions already had this problem. Apollo 11 was huge, 12 already got a lot less attention and 13 was pretty much a simmer until things went awry. Within not even a handful of flight, the shining example of human ingenuity had already become mundane for the public at large.

[Nominal Animal]

Apollo 11 was huge, 12 already got a lot less attention and 13 was pretty much a simmer until things went awry. Within not even a handful of flight, the shining example of human ingenuity had already become mundane for the public at large.

On the other hand, gossip and human stories seems to keep people hooked.  Look at the popularity of astronaut videos from ISS, for example.

It is kind of funny that NASA hasn't realized that to get public interested, they only need to drop the dull Earth control center stuff and voiceovers, and have the astronauts speak to the viewers.  You know, like Big Brother in space.

Just look at Chris Hadfields videos from ISS (one Youtube playlist here). Millions of views for every single one.

Set up a moon base, with a big swimming pool for relaxation, and lots of young, fit scientists and astronauts and a live feed to Earth, and you've got a keen audience for sure.

[apis]

That is very true. It's hard to relate to a remote controlled car, or even a billionaire sending another billionaire into moon orbit. It needs to be something more people can feel part of or at least relate to.

[GK]

Yes, this is it, NASA is so not hip and really needs to start scraping the bottom of the pop culture barrel. NASA should rocket Freedia (the queen of bounce) up to the ISS to get those stodgy astronauts bouncing and getting it on (yeeahahhhhhh!!!) with each others booties. How about Ink Master, weightless challenge!? Or maybe a weightless reefer rolling competition? F*ck That's Delicious, f*cking spaceman food edition? I think there's just not enough monosyllabic prose in NASA press releases in general. Word. Bitch.

[apis]

Yeah, because videos from ISS is like that? They do have real people talking that people can relate to though.

One doesn't have to choose the worst kind of modern tv programming as an example. Simply following the lives of people working at a moon base would probably generate a lot of interest and get people more interested in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

[cdev]

It must be hard to be 'stodgy' in microgravity, I must say.

Okay, dogs have already been in space but the story is kind of sad and nobody wants to be reminded of it. However, to the best of my knowledge, cats have never been in space for any extended length of time (although they have gone on training flights which simulate microgravity in an airplane describing a very fast curve)

I would love to see a cat (wearing diapers to prevent - well...) go into space. Maybe with the option of it being a very short period, between supply runs or something.

Oh, actually, just thought of a deal killer, human cat allergies. 

[Nominal Animal]

NASA really needs to start scraping the bottom of the pop culture barrel.

If they want to be popular, yes.  If they spend millions in stuffy PR nobody is interested in, instead of spending that money wisely (bread and circuses), they're the ones at the bottom of the barrel.

Note, I never said that is what they should be and do. I only wondered why they're so inept at playing the popularity game. Takes one to know one, eh?

I think there's just not enough monosyllabic prose in NASA press releases in general.

Most humans are utterly, utterly stupid, yes.  To get popular among them, you do need to stoop to their level.

There is a stark difference between humans are theoretically capable of, and what humans are currently doing.  As I've already mentioned, me myself am not going to do diddly shit to help current humanity get off this rock; if they do, I'd consider it a small miracle for them, and tragedy for the rest of the universe.

Yet, I do try to keep hopeful. Maybe some of the current/future generations do better, and start to do something sensible instead of building comfy nests for themselves to die out in.  If that were to happen, I'd be happy to help, even without any chance of being there myself, or immersing myself in voyeuristic videos of their exploits.

[apis]

I find this much more interesting to watch than "the dull Earth control center stuff and voiceovers" to be honest.



What point is there in making videos if no one except a few space nerds watches it. Of course they should make popular videos if they want more interest in space exploration. (They should keep it dignified of course, they don't have to do the equivalent of the worst kind of reality tv.)

If they are publicly funded they should give something back to the people funding them. Just like publicly funded research should be publicly available. One problem with the world is lack of education, so every bit of extra popular education helps.

I only wondered why they're so inept at playing the popularity game. Takes one to know one, eh?

To be fair NASA is far better at public outreach than ESA are, and most other public organisations. These ISS videos only exist because their public outreach department decided it was a good idea after all.

[Electro Detective]

Send PSY up there to perform his signature tune, that should reel in a lot of viewers and phone junkies   

[Nominal Animal]

I find this much more interesting to watch than "the dull Earth control center stuff and voiceovers" to be honest.

My point exactly.  Look at the view counts on NASA uploads on Youtube.

What point is there in making videos if no one except a few space nerds watches it. Of course they should make popular videos if they want more interest in space exploration. (They should keep it dignified of course, they don't have to do the equivalent of the worst kind of reality tv.)

I agree. I'm pretty sure there is a good valid approach somewhere in the middle: interesting to the masses like the ISS "home movies" are, and not tasteless reality porn. After all, not all media we have right now is utter crap; just the most popular part of it.

To be fair NASA is far better at public outreach than ESA are, and most other public organisations. These ISS videos only exist because their public outreach department decided it was a good idea after all.

True. (By inept at the popularity game, I was referring to myself in particular; I've always hated that stuff.)

I don't know what is with ESA people, really. Their science and tech people I've met have had a pretty strong snobbish streak, while the ESA administrators seem to be career politicians with as much interest in real science and exploration as I have in the consistency of my neighbors pets poops.  Their outreach reminds me of certain religious sects, extolling their virtues, while everything they do seems to happen pretty much behind closed doors.  But that is just par for European politically administered organisations, really.

[BrianHG]

[BrianHG]

[coppercone2]

if they keep filming that control room nasa needs a Dwight character. I honestly don't watch the control room. It stresses me out.

C-span is more interesting then the control room footage. Nasa covered by C-span is still more watchable then the control room footage from nasa.

ESA sounds like its run by royal families, I never watched them before. What is a interesting ESA thing to watch?

[mrpackethead]

Launch Trump on a mission to the outer-edge of the universe, or just past an event horizon of a nearby singularity.

[coppercone2]

he will come back as the starchild

[Electro Detective]

A wall in space to keep out aliens would blow out the space budget 

[Echo88]

Bugs from outer Space who throw plasma projectiles at Buenos Aires would make quite a Buzz. Time to watch Starship Troopers again.

[coppercone2]

the two japanese CGI starship troopers movies are actually really good. much better then final fantasies or resident evils japan made. Also arguably (by a wide margin) better then any of the live action SST sequels. Well OK maybe the federation song in the third live action movie makes it the best out of all of them 

the power armor is badass.

[wraper]

Bugs from outer Space who throw plasma projectiles at Buenos Aires would make quite a Buzz. Time to watch Starship Troopers again.

That movie is so stupid that hurt my brain, and I felt like doing endless facepalm. It could pass as satire, but implementation is goddamn too serious.

[coppercone2]

why?

I just did not like how they did not show the cooler armor suits the book described but I thought it was excellent, it was like they put the spirit of the book "the forever war" into the story of starship troopers.

Its not really a starship troopers book, more like a bad trip someone with different political views then Heinlein got after reading it (which is basically the forever war).

The original book read like a porn advertisement for bipedal fighting robots and highly militarized government. I thought the original SST book was pretty fucking creepy in terms of what the author wrote (but I heard he mellowed out a bit later in his life), wheras TFW was way more my tune.

[wraper]

why?

I just did not like how they did not show the cooler armor suits the book described but I thought it was excellent, it was like they put the spirit of the book "the forever war" into the story of starship troopers.

Its not really a starship troopers book, more like a bad trip someone with different political views then Heinlein got after reading it (which is basically the forever war).

The original book read like a porn advertisement for bipedal fighting robots and highly militarized government.

It's like let's kill ourselves for no good reason. And it does not pass as satire too. Why in the hell infantry would fight insects on that stupid remote planet.

[coppercone2]

why?

I just did not like how they did not show the cooler armor suits the book described but I thought it was excellent, it was like they put the spirit of the book "the forever war" into the story of starship troopers.

Its not really a starship troopers book, more like a bad trip someone with different political views then Heinlein got after reading it (which is basically the forever war).

The original book read like a porn advertisement for bipedal fighting robots and highly militarized government.

It's like let's kill ourselves for no good reason. And it does not pass as satire too. Why in the hell infantry would fight insects on that stupid remote planet.

its supposed to be exoskeleton robots capable of flying with highly detailed space logistics. I always imagined they were basically trying to capture the queen to get the info on some kind of quantum-link between them or something (like the queen is some sort of transmitter that works in some kind of undetectable way)

I mean in the later movies and stuff they had the planet destroying bomb and everything, but I guess the problem was they were so wide spread that they were trying to hack some sort of organic bug internet.

You could also argue the federation could lose control of all its colonies and stuff (like the japanese cgi movies go into) if they just start blowing up planets (i.e. they are not capable of defending their territory anyway, so why bother paying taxes?)

If you mean why they did not just use drones the whole time, I don't really know. I think the CGI movie basically goes into the idea that the plasma bugs also acted as really big jammers/EMP generators that would mess with electronics (but the analog suits were more immune). They were capable of targeting space ships in high orbit or even far away from planets with barrages.

I think they are better thought of an advanced biomechanical army with a hive mind rather then just dumb bugs. The zerg in starcraft kinda made this work better because they were capable of space travel and space folding etc (you would need a operator to deal with that kind of shit).

[wraper]

its supposed to be exoskeleton robots capable of flying with highly detailed space logistics. I always imagined they were basically trying to capture the queen to get the info on some kind of quantum-link between them or something (like the queen is some sort of transmitter that works in some kind of undetectable way)

I mean in the later movies and stuff they had the planet destroying bomb and everything, but I guess the problem was they were so wide spread that they were trying to hack some sort of organic bug internet.

You could also argue the federation could lose control of all its colonies and stuff (like the japanese cgi movies go into) if they just start blowing up planets (i.e. they are not capable of defending their territory anyway, so why bother paying taxes?)

IIRC Paul Verhoeven thought it's a great idea to make a joke out of militarized government. But in result it neither represents decent original, nor it satirizes original. Just shitty movie. It's somewhere in uncanny valley.

[coppercone2]

I just made it work in my head pretending there were lots of deleted scenes that justified the bloody combat.

Kinda like a in-joke that the film itself was put through military censorship where 3/4 of it was removed. It was filmed too well to not like so I just played ad-libs with it 

I find you can enjoy quite a bit of what people to be consider crap with a bit of imagination and thought. And you can kinda take it like what the uninformed grunt thought about the conflict kinda, Rico was kind of a patriotic/vengeful zelot that decided to go avenge his family, what the hell would he know what some kinda high command is thinking? Like how churchill let his cities be bombed in WW2 so he can hide the fact that his goverment could decrypt transmissions. What would some british army kid know about what the royalty/international are deciding with their strategy? If you just made a movie about what some guy on D-day knew without going to the highly classified generals had you could say the same thing about Operation Market Garden (Like a distraction I guess).

https://www.noted.co.nz/culture/books/battle-of-arnhem-doomed-to-failure-anthony-beevor/
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-11486219

They musta been thinking its a bad idea/useful as a distraction rather then something that would meet its objectives.

I mean look at the cover for the 4k, how could you not like that?


Also what comes to mind with starship troopers is the rather corny movie (but some people give this thing 9/10 and say its the best thing that came out in the last 10 years) Hunter-Prey, where there was basically a super-bomb ship developed that would destroy an entire planet. If the entire 'bug net' was linked, you could say the foot battles served as a distraction to fatigue the hive mind so that something could sneak deep into bug space, perhaps even a sleeper cell type unit, that could ambush the center CPU, destroy important nodes, etc. All the high command decisions of starship troopers were super cloak and dagger.

The book also had mention of other alien races like the Skinnies , you could kinda think about geopolitics in the sense that planet killer WMDs could provoke intergalactic war with neutral-hostile parties.  Perhaps their existence is classified in the SSM universe. Like a intergalactic super-start treaty with seldom seen races.

[CatalinaWOW]

People bring their own beliefs into these movies.  When I read Starship Troopers, many, many years ago, I took it very differently than most do now.

The vote was limited to those who had put in time in service.  Which wasn't just military though that was what most did.  The idea was that those in power, those starting wars, should have a very personal knowledge of the costs involved.  A solution to the common complaint that old men send young men off to die for old mens purposes.

And the book has to be understood in the context of the technology of the time.  While it was talking about spaceships and powered armor it was limited by imaginative extrapolation from existing technology.  Work in atomic energy had developed manipulators that mimic arm motions of the operators.  Naively it seems a straightforward extrapolation to powered armor suits.  Little did they know that it would take 50 years of development to almost get there.  Spaceships are just bigger, faster airplanes in this view, and quite reasonable considering how far airplanes had come in the previous few decades (from powered kites to supersonic jets). 

Drones, the internet and DNA weren't on the table when the book was written so they are off the table, but the Drake University experiments on ESP were recent and still somewhat credible.

All that said, the movie is a so so sci-fi shoot em up, that in my opinion misses the flavor of the book entirely.

[Mr. Scram]

People bring their own beliefs into these movies.  When I read Starship Troopers, many, many years ago, I took it very differently than most do now.

The vote was limited to those who had put in time in service.  Which wasn't just military though that was what most did.  The idea was that those in power, those starting wars, should have a very personal knowledge of the costs involved.  A solution to the common complaint that old men send young men off to die for old mens purposes.

And the book has to be understood in the context of the technology of the time.  While it was talking about spaceships and powered armor it was limited by imaginative extrapolation from existing technology.  Work in atomic energy had developed manipulators that mimic arm motions of the operators.  Naively it seems a straightforward extrapolation to powered armor suits.  Little did they know that it would take 50 years of development to almost get there.  Spaceships are just bigger, faster airplanes in this view, and quite reasonable considering how far airplanes had come in the previous few decades (from powered kites to supersonic jets). 

Drones, the internet and DNA weren't on the table when the book was written so they are off the table, but the Drake University experiments on ESP were recent and still somewhat credible.

All that said, the movie is a so so sci-fi shoot em up, that in my opinion misses the flavor of the book entirely.

It seems many people who read the book were confused by the movie, while people who just saw the movie took it for what it was. It seems both do very different things and are only loosely related. Obviously people who expect more of the book in the movie are going to be disappointed.

[CatalinaWOW]

In many ways the movie follows the book quite closely, in terms of details and overall plot.   The only big departure I can think of is the omission of the required civics class (required to take, not required to pass), and inclusion of all of the heavy handed propaganda.

Still results in a very different feel as you say.  But that always happens in movies that are patterned after books.  The only sci-fi book that I can think of that has translated well into a movie is Dune.

[wraper]

It seems many people who read the book were confused by the movie, while people who just saw the movie took it for what it was. It seems both do very different things and are only loosely related. Obviously people who expect more of the book in the movie are going to be disappointed.

I didn't read the book and still think that movie is a stupid POS. Maybe because I have allergy to stupidity.

[EEVblog]

Do you think a manned mars mission would cause the same buzz as the apollo program back in the day?

All you need a manned lunar mission.
Have a "chair" system like in Sagan's book Contact, and reality TV show to document the process.

The same buzz as Apollo though, I don't think that's possible, it was a different time and a different world.

[cdev]

Buzz?

This is making me think about the Jade Rabbit (translated) name of the recent Chinese space vehicle..

Which shares its name with a popular sex toy.

As far as chairs, there is an ancient Chinese legend about Wan Hu, an early would-be space traveler.


https://history.msfc.nasa.gov/rocketry/06.html

"According to one ancient legend, a Chinese official named Wan-Hoo attempted a flight to the moon using a large wicker chair to which were fastened 47 large rockets. Forty seven assistants, each armed with torches, rushed forward to light the fuses. In a moment there was a tremendous roar accompanied by billowing clouds of smoke. When the smoke cleared, the flying chair and Wan-Hu were gone".


(Illustration below courtesy of United States Civil Air Patrol)

[Nominal Animal]

I love Starship Troopers; it's one of my favourite movies.

For one, everyone in the movie is flawed; no perfect people in sight.  Even the heroes are just as shitty human beings as I am.  The political system is hilariously fucked up, and everything is done with the bright, sparkly eyes of the best propaganda.  What is there not to love?

Just consider the apex point of the movie: after wasting who knows how many soldiers, they triumphantly catch a "brain bug", to find out that yes, the bugs are afraid!

(Think about it. They could have just as well tried to find out whether the bugs have an even or an odd number of internal organs. Although, making it about "fear" slots in perfectly with the narrative about racism and war, that it is all about fear, spouted by those who do not understand racism or war or survival. The reason those things are claimed to be due to fear is that it allows one to assume a superior position: not suffering from that imagined fear.  Perfect posturing!)

To me, Starship Trooper is and always was the perfect middle finger to people who think in absolutes and believe in human heroism and the triumph of good over evil and similar tropes people are manipulated in current societies.

In reality, utopias do not exist, and if you try to build one, you end up in absurd hell of your own making.

Yet, as a movie, it is not really dark at all.  All the truly good things that happen in the movie, happen from small, normal human interaction.  Lots of examples how trying to change the world leads to absurd results, but working one day at a time, on stuff that are on your own scale, improving one small thing at a time, leads to moments of happiness, even if you are absolutely mired in a clusterfuck of a world.

[coppercone2]

btw I am pretty sure the book touched on DNA, there was a 'retarded' planet that was not evolving because of lack of UV light. I don't remember if they mentioned an advancement of a bioweapons program though. The forever war mentioned advanced logistics computers being in charge of driving the fleet around and stuff.

When I watch scifi though I tend to keep a components library of various concepts in my head to make it work and not irritate me during the 2 hours I am watching it lol

[Yansi]

I think there's a whole bunch of rich people who'd pay everything they own to be the first person on Mars. That's something only one person in history can ever do.

The first Mars flight will be some billionaire, IMHO.

Maybe one with a fatal illness, so he can justify it being a one-way trip.

(getting back from Mars is orders of magnitude more difficult than going there in the first place)

yea the one way trip thing is not viable at all for anything but robots, people should stop trying to design solutions for one way human travel. it makes as much sense as sending dying people out on canoes into a ocean. It's antediluvian and seen as uncivilized. It's literary putting a economic price on human life. Who the hell wants to die alone in space anyway, most people want to die with their family present. Economic price on human life = what desperate ass military men do when they are trying to win a war that threatens everyone.

It's seen as brave to go on a difficult mission, but no one besides primitives straps on suicide vests. There is a difference between a scenario like in the movie "Fail-safe' where the pilots go on a suicide mission to shoot down a bomber because of fuel and lack of time, vs someone strapping on a bomb vest. At least even with a terminal illness you have hope, no matter what, and you think you might be with your friends or family for a while longer.

Well I do not have many (if any) real friends or a family we could stand well together. Not saying I would want to die on Mars, but at least I could do something interesting about/with my life.

[coppercone2]

like what, die to corporate greed because no one decided to fund you a return trip? i dont think thats a good death at all. monopoly man wants some diamonds on his hat bro

there is absolutely no reason other then not enough rich people decided to let you live

maybe if you robbed the guy that built the one way rocket so you can buy a return trip, thats heroic

[CatalinaWOW]

like what, die to corporate greed because no one decided to fund you a return trip? i dont think thats a good death at all. monopoly man wants some diamonds on his hat bro

there is absolutely no reason other then not enough rich people decided to let you live

maybe if you robbed the guy that built the one way rocket so you can buy a return trip, thats heroic

I suspect that you don't want to climb Mt. Everest, do a solo around the world yachting trip, or traverse the Antarctic alone either.  You can't judge all of humanity by your personal point of view.  Nor should you try to force them to conform to your reality.

[coppercone2]

who the fuck does any of that on a one way trip? you are supposed to come home after doing all that.

especially everst did you ever look at the peak it looks like you climbed a junk pile

[Kilrah]

A lot of people value the experience more than coming home. For many home is boring. Live doesn't have the "religiously taught" value for everyone.

[Nominal Animal]

like what, die to corporate greed because no one decided to fund you a return trip? i dont think thats a good death at all.

Not everyone wants to live on this planet anymore.

Everyone dies at some point. What matters is what you do before that point. You want to live in a safe nest of your own making until then? That's fine. But wanting to go live somewhere else, find out something nobody else has had the opportunity to find out, even if it means you'll never be able to come back, that's fine too.

[CatalinaWOW]

who the fuck does any of that on a one way trip? you are supposed to come home after doing all that.

especially everst did you ever look at the peak it looks like you climbed a junk pile

Have you ever looked at the percentage that actually comes home?  I believe Everest has the best odds, and still several each year don't make it back.

Trips across the Antarctic are much more hazardous.

Look into how many of pioneers in hang gliding died in developing that sport. 


Now we are arguing about how realistic the chances of getting back are.  You obviously believe that the answer in the Mars case is a very good approximation to zero.  Others may differ.

[coppercone2]

yea but they have a plan at least. its not like he brings enough food just for a one way trip

danger is different then a suicide mission.

[Nominal Animal]

Now we are arguing about how realistic the chances of getting back are.

My point was that argument is not the right one: many people are willing to go there, and never come back.

It is not the same thing as going there to die. The interesting part is being there, alive, and doing stuff.

It should be obvious to everyone that at least for the first century or so, a Mars base would require constant support from Earth.  Of course, there is always a risk of losing those, say because of war; and that is the true risk.  Those willing to go on a one-way trip to Mars expect to live there and do stuff, perhaps not for as long as they could here on Earth, but they think the risk of early death is acceptable.

Another way of thinking about such endeavours is this: Say the Earth-Mars ticket is free, if you have the necessary skills, abilities, and health. The organizers do plan on sending regular supplies, but there is always a risk of interruptions, of course. However, the return ticket costs several hundred million per person, and must be paid in advance.

What is wrong with that?  Assuming the risks and probabilities are openly discussed, of course.  Why is it so odd for someone to choose the one-way ticket, knowing they will spend the rest of their lives there?

[coppercone2]

that makes sense if you are on the run lol. maybe the FBI is too cheap to arrest you on mars 

its not like they think its impossible because of a extradition treaty, more like the funds don't get approved.

and there is no reason other then being impatient and cheap fucks. its just gonna be dumb like the whole world watching a cat survive on a tree because it manages to catch some birds once in a while.

[Nominal Animal]

there is no reason other then being impatient and cheap fucks.

Really? Wow.

[coppercone2]

yea because you can't get funding for a bus ticket home

[coppercone2]

Investors: sorry we are strapped we can't buy you a return trip

*drive away sitting on solid gold bar the size of a shipping container being pulled by a giant team of ligers*

[Nominal Animal]

yea because you can't get funding for a bus ticket home

Do you know the main difference between absailing (or canyoning that Dave does), and mountain climbing?  It is relatively easy and safe in one direction, and damn dangerous in the other.

Sending supplies to Mars is relatively cheap, because all you need to do is overcome Earth's gravity. You don't need much delta-V, because it does not matter if the supplies take a couple of years or more to get there. You need minimal thruster propellant, for course corrections only. At Mars, you do aerobraking and parachutes.  The logistics are known, and we have the tech.

A crew return vehicle needs not only get there, but back as well. It needs nearly twice the delta-V, and that means a lot more than double the mass.  As mass increases, price increases exponentially.  Furthermore, if the return vehicle itself is crewed, they must spend double to triple the time in flight (in part, because the launch windows for the return trip does not occur immediately after arrival).  That increases the difficulty of such missions exponentially, because right now, we're shit poor at maintaining closed systems.

I've told you I and thousands of others would be willing to risk the 30-60 years of life they have left, for the opportunity to go to Mars and find out what is there, even if it meant that there is basically zero chance of a return vehicle.

It is not about "funding for the return ticket home".  It is about willing to take the risk to get there before we can create a bus that can take people home; and not willing to wait for a generation or three until we have the technical capability.  (Some believe that either the practical aspects of the technology, or the human werewithal needed for just Moon landings, was simply lost after the three years of Apollo missions in 1969-1972; and that it means that unless we go to Mars "early", like Apollo missions did, we never will.  That is a factor as well.)

I think you are ribbing me (if you are, don't; I don't understand English well enough to get that right -- my English skills are technical, not figurative/metaphorical), but it is downright stupid to assume that a return ticket is somehow a sensible requirement just because you yourself would not want to take the risks.  It is much more about it being worth the risks, and accepting no return as one of the costs, for early access.  Considering the tested IQ range and personality assessments of the applicants, I'd be very careful about calling them stupid or reckless, either.

Now, impatient is a more debatable term.  Personally, I don't think you can call someone impatient just because they want to do something instead of waiting to die first and their grandchildren or great-grandchildren to do it.  It's just not the same imagining that your distant descendants (especially if you know you have none) doing something interesting, because it would be "impatient" to try and do it yourself, even with considerable risk.  Staying "safe" at home is a 100% risk of death as well.

[coppercone2]

give me a break they figured out how to destroy civilization in about 25 minutes with a few phone calls and relays and your telling me you can't get shit off a planet with 0.7 earth mass with a modest engineering effort?

your acting like we are trying to figure out how to get out of a black hole. they send like 500 tons of commercial bullshit to the sky every year.

its preposterous 

its not like some big engineering 'we don't even know if its possible' problem, its a damn number crunch at this point. half the stuff they can probably just use a multiplicative scaling tool in cad to solve. some guy is gonna be paid 120 dollars an hour to make some brackets thicker by typing *0.5 in cad.

i bet you can use existing stuff if it was not shaved down to the last absolute fractional yen because of payload cost.

[Nominal Animal]

give me a break they figured out how to destroy civilization in about 25 minutes with a few phone calls and relays and your telling me you can't get shit off a planet with 0.7 earth mass with a modest engineering effort?

Yep.

There is this joke about an obstetrician who got completely fed up with their job, and went to a vocational school to become a car mechanic.  To graduate, they had to disassemble and reassemble an engine.  The assessor was truly impressed: not only was every single part cleaned and polished and all prepped up while doing so, but they did it all through the exhaust pipe.

We don't live on Mars.  Sending a vehicle to Mars is simple compared to sending a vehicle to Mars to bring people back.  Even utterly destroying the surface of the Earth, glassing most populated landmasses, is simpler.

i bet you can use existing stuff if it was not shaved down to the last absolute fractional yen because of payload cost.

Oh now I get what you mean.

True.  If we could get people to put the money they use for makeup and beauty products (those without health effects), we could use 1970s technology to maintain a Mars base.  It's just that that is never going to happen.

Even if Musk and other billionaires just donated the amounts necessary for a return vehicle, they'd be ripped apart on Earth, for not using those vast resources into making their nests more comfortable instead. Think of the children dying from malnutrition and so on.  (Even though the last fifty years have shown that every cent you put into feeding them, goes directly into making the next generation larger, and they will suffer from malnutrition at least as bad, but also expect Westerners to feed them too because Slavery and Racism.)

I would seriously expect some politically correct governments to just try and reappropriate those funds into their own social programs instead, because of Social Justice.  New taxes and surcharges at minimum -- perhaps a "go into space but not as part of a national/international space agency project" fee?

In comparison, the discussion on the funds necessary to send people one way, that is completely different.  You can even argue that the funds spent doing so will mean practical technologies that will help ordinary people here on Earth, just as space research has done this far (because a big part of it is how to keep humans alive in very small boxes for significant periods of time; we're heading such urban human storage arcologies anyway). Plus it is an order of magnitude less in scale, so much more doable.

(It is hard to keep up with the discussion level; whether it is about what we are theoretically capable of, what we are capable of if politicians were less of an obstacle, what is possible in practice with current political currents, or what we should do for credible long-term survival reasons.  Probably should state that right on, to avoid unnecessary back-and-forth due to misunderstanding.)

[coppercone2]

yea when you look at what is happening in those countries that are being offered relief it seems an equal waste of money to space travel, or at least the media coverage makes it seem that way. civil war after civil war

bill gates has alot of patience. sometimes vice news (ok not the best) just makes me think he is keeping the water supplies of the local warlords nice and clean. i think you would need to spend trillions of dollars occupying those countries in order to keep the peace there (and it will still be super bloody, as rome showed thousands of years ago). I mean you got russian communists out, now you got chinese communists going in, same sectarian bullshit going on for the last 60 years...... loopy, at least mars is something new. and if chinese communists take over its just going to get destabilized again.

Clean water is a start but jesus I can't figure out how that is going to improve in the next 100 years. Mars is easy. All the arab spring countries had much better conditions and thats no where near settled.