GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
Couple of responses to questions brought up in the thread...
What has the space programme brought us? -
This I find rather ironic, since computers are a direct result of rocketry. Without computers, the kind of calculations that are necessary for rocketry become impossible.
World Hunger -
Hunger is caused by distribution issues, not lack of food. Those distribution issues are down to local government and starving nation's need to make interest payments that outweigh their GNP.
Nukes in Space -
Detonating nuclear weapons in low earth orbit has the unfortunate effect of causing an EMP blast, which toasts all electronic devices within a large area. To put it in perspective, a 1Mt nuclear weapon detonated around 800 miles above the continental US would be sufficient to toast every computerised system in the US, Canada and Mexico. So nukes in space = bad.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Feb 9 2005, 12:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Feb 9 2005, 12:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bullets would actually work wonders. No air resistance, basically absolute dead-on accuracy if you compensate for the vehicle's movement. Railguns would be even better. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> With projectile wepons each bullet would alter the trajectory of whatever was firing it, you'd need to correct your orbit every time. A railgun, if I'm not mistaken, would be essentially reactionless but in order to impart a significant ammount of energy into the projectile you need to put a lot more energy into the gun. Not to mention that the mass of the vessel would still be diminishing everytime you fire.
I think that conventional missiles would actually make pretty decent wepons since they are self propeled and can be guided. A minor orbit correction will probably still be nessesary after every firing though (separating the missile from the vesssel will alter the mass and, more thn likely, not be reactionless).
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Feb 9 2005, 03:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Feb 9 2005, 03:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A railgun, if I'm not mistaken, would be essentially reactionless but in order to impart a significant ammount of energy into the projectile you need to put a lot more energy into the gun. Not to mention that the mass of the vessel would still be diminishing everytime you fire. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It depends on what you mean by "reactionless", but from your context it would appear that you mean "lacking in recoil".
In which case, yes, you are mistaken. Railguns produce <b>massive</b> recoil.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They are linking telescopes, thus combining the amount of light they can gather, while still being much cheaper than hubble. Also, the newst visual telescopes have means to compensate for the blurring of the light during its travel through the atmosphere, which was the justification for a space telescope in the first place. As for the redshift: I don't know, have not heard anything according to that. I am sure however, that they were able to make redshift measurements before Hubble though. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You seem to be taking a jab not just at hubble, but at space telescopes in general, at least optical ones.
Put it in perspective. Yes, adaptive optics, active optics, inferometers, and other such tech has enabled ground telescopes to approach the resolution of hubble within recent years, you have to keep in mind that these are massive telescopes, some with primary mirrors as large as 10 meters working together. Hubble is only 2.4 meters. That's saying a lot- meter per meter, space based telescopes offer better results, and hubble has been providing these images for more than a decade, while ground telescopes are "just now" catching up.
That being said, hubble was far more expensive than ground telescopes. I think it cost something like 2.2 billion to design, build and launch hubble. Even the OWL (proposed 100 m ground telescope, which is freaking huge) was only expected to cost around 1.5 billion. Tech has come quite a ways since then however; I imagine a space telescope designed today could be lighter and cheaper while offering similar performance as hubble. James Webb is supposed to be the next large observatory, and while it doesn't quite do the same thing hubble does, it is a great deal less expensive. It also has a much smaller lifetime, since it will be launched to a lagrange point it cannot be maintained.
Personally, I'm not that broken up about losing Hubble. It would be nice to keep it going, but realistically projects can't continue forever.
It isn't true, however, that ground based telescopes can entirely replace what a space-based telescope can do. In that sense, Hubble will be missed.
And in another sense, not re-outfitting Hubble is sort of a travesty. That's because the cost of doing it is the design work + at least one manned mission to fix it. That's pretty damn expensive, and maybe its too risky and too expensive.
And yet, at the same time, we are lining up to fund at least 25 manned missions into space to the space station.
The disconnect here is incredible. Put simply, aside FROM fixing important scientific equipment, sending people into space is a HUGE waste of money from a cost benefit perspective. How can we possibly justify 25 incredibly expensive and pretty much scientifically unjustifiable missions when we can't justify upgrading ne of our best platforms for REAL scientific research?
The whole man on moon again, man on mars idea is just utterly retarded. Heck, sending a man to the moon in the first place was, scientifically speaking, stupid. The Russians did much better science than us by sending robots to the moon: it's cheaper, faster, safer, and so on.
There is no point to sending humans into space at this point. It's incredibly costly, and it gets us almost nothing for our huge investment that we couldn't have gotten with robots. When our technology advances enough so that it's much CHEAPER to send humans into space, we can do it then. Right now about the only thing you can do with a human in space is study what it's like for a human to be in space... which is doubly stupid because if we didn't send humans into space we wouldn't have to worry about it in the first place. When we are ready to colonize space, we can far far more cheaply study humans in space THEN.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Feb 9 2005, 10:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Feb 9 2005, 10:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What has the space programme brought us? -<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What about half of all modern invention since the 60s, ranging from ball point pens to sattelite communication? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is a facetious argument when you think about it though. All these discoveries were the result of putting lots and lots of money into R&D. But we could have put all that money into R&D and much much MORE into R&D if we hadn't actually put people into space. In other words, we could have achieved a lot MORE incredible technology advances if we had saved money by sticking to exploring space without manned missions. About the only real achievement from manned missions that wouldn't have happened without manned missions was TANG. Big fricking deal.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is a facetious argument when you think about it though. All these discoveries were the result of putting lots and lots of money into R&D. But we could have put all that money into R&D and much much MORE into R&D if we hadn't actually put people into space. In other words, we could have achieved a lot MORE incredible technology advances if we had saved money by sticking to exploring space without manned missions. About the only real achievement from manned missions that wouldn't have happened without manned missions was TANG. Big fricking deal.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are possiby right when you question that argument. However it stands as it it. The whole program was, in the first place, nothing more than a military project to develop ICBMs and modern communication. It was a very cost intesive program to assure military dominance in the cold war. On both sides of the Wall. The idea of manned spacetravel was the way to "sell" it to the people. It was a cover to justify enormous spendings on military research.
But, as we always can see in mankinds history, the greatest developments we achive are of military origin. Take the Internet for example ...
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
<!--QuoteBegin-Apos+Feb 9 2005, 09:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Apos @ Feb 9 2005, 09:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There is no point to sending humans into space at this point. It's incredibly costly, and it gets us almost nothing for our huge investment that we couldn't have gotten with robots. When our technology advances enough so that it's much CHEAPER to send humans into space, we can do it then. Right now about the only thing you can do with a human in space is study what it's like for a human to be in space... which is doubly stupid because if we didn't send humans into space we wouldn't have to worry about it in the first place. When we are ready to colonize space, we can far far more cheaply study humans in space THEN. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The <b>point</b> of sending people into space is to secure funding for the project in the first place. NASA have never been particularly keen on wasting massive amounts of payload space on hairless monkeys. Unfortunately, in order to secure public approval for space exploration, the administration felt it necessary to provide a "human interest" component.
The problem is, is that even true? The unmanned missions to Mars and Titan caught the public interest. And shuttle missions are regarded as so routine and boring that most of the time they never even make the news.
Not to mention that, without manned missions, space exploration would cost a lot LESS anyway, meaning that there would be a lot less cost TO have to justify.
If I actually knew when a launch was and what channel it was on, I'd watch it. They just don't really publicize it.
Of course, it'd be a lot more fun to actually be there; it's kinda like the national anthem at sports games, at home it's like, "meh, who cares, get to the game" in stadium it's, "...O'er the ramparts we watched..." [or insert anthem here.... O'Canada, O'Canada; God Save the Queen (she's saved enough, already!)]. Stuff like that is better in person.
Plus, with sending a robot to mars: it takes some time before commands can be properly administered, but a human there could react to trouble on the spot. Not so much the moon; the moon is all for robots. When we build them, and they rebel - they can go to the moon.
Comments
What has the space programme brought us? -
This I find rather ironic, since computers are a direct result of rocketry. Without computers, the kind of calculations that are necessary for rocketry become impossible.
World Hunger -
Hunger is caused by distribution issues, not lack of food. Those distribution issues are down to local government and starving nation's need to make interest payments that outweigh their GNP.
Nukes in Space -
Detonating nuclear weapons in low earth orbit has the unfortunate effect of causing an EMP blast, which toasts all electronic devices within a large area. To put it in perspective, a 1Mt nuclear weapon detonated around 800 miles above the continental US would be sufficient to toast every computerised system in the US, Canada and Mexico. So nukes in space = bad.
With projectile wepons each bullet would alter the trajectory of whatever was firing it, you'd need to correct your orbit every time. A railgun, if I'm not mistaken, would be essentially reactionless but in order to impart a significant ammount of energy into the projectile you need to put a lot more energy into the gun. Not to mention that the mass of the vessel would still be diminishing everytime you fire.
I think that conventional missiles would actually make pretty decent wepons since they are self propeled and can be guided. A minor orbit correction will probably still be nessesary after every firing though (separating the missile from the vesssel will alter the mass and, more thn likely, not be reactionless).
It depends on what you mean by "reactionless", but from your context it would appear that you mean "lacking in recoil".
In which case, yes, you are mistaken. Railguns produce <b>massive</b> recoil.
What about half of all modern invention since the 60s, ranging from ball point pens to sattelite communication?
As for the redshift: I don't know, have not heard anything according to that. I am sure however, that they were able to make redshift measurements before Hubble though. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You seem to be taking a jab not just at hubble, but at space telescopes in general, at least optical ones.
Put it in perspective. Yes, adaptive optics, active optics, inferometers, and other such tech has enabled ground telescopes to approach the resolution of hubble within recent years, you have to keep in mind that these are massive telescopes, some with primary mirrors as large as 10 meters working together. Hubble is only 2.4 meters. That's saying a lot- meter per meter, space based telescopes offer better results, and hubble has been providing these images for more than a decade, while ground telescopes are "just now" catching up.
That being said, hubble was far more expensive than ground telescopes. I think it cost something like 2.2 billion to design, build and launch hubble. Even the OWL (proposed 100 m ground telescope, which is freaking huge) was only expected to cost around 1.5 billion. Tech has come quite a ways since then however; I imagine a space telescope designed today could be lighter and cheaper while offering similar performance as hubble. James Webb is supposed to be the next large observatory, and while it doesn't quite do the same thing hubble does, it is a great deal less expensive. It also has a much smaller lifetime, since it will be launched to a lagrange point it cannot be maintained.
It isn't true, however, that ground based telescopes can entirely replace what a space-based telescope can do. In that sense, Hubble will be missed.
And in another sense, not re-outfitting Hubble is sort of a travesty. That's because the cost of doing it is the design work + at least one manned mission to fix it. That's pretty damn expensive, and maybe its too risky and too expensive.
And yet, at the same time, we are lining up to fund at least 25 manned missions into space to the space station.
The disconnect here is incredible. Put simply, aside FROM fixing important scientific equipment, sending people into space is a HUGE waste of money from a cost benefit perspective. How can we possibly justify 25 incredibly expensive and pretty much scientifically unjustifiable missions when we can't justify upgrading ne of our best platforms for REAL scientific research?
The whole man on moon again, man on mars idea is just utterly retarded. Heck, sending a man to the moon in the first place was, scientifically speaking, stupid. The Russians did much better science than us by sending robots to the moon: it's cheaper, faster, safer, and so on.
There is no point to sending humans into space at this point. It's incredibly costly, and it gets us almost nothing for our huge investment that we couldn't have gotten with robots. When our technology advances enough so that it's much CHEAPER to send humans into space, we can do it then. Right now about the only thing you can do with a human in space is study what it's like for a human to be in space... which is doubly stupid because if we didn't send humans into space we wouldn't have to worry about it in the first place. When we are ready to colonize space, we can far far more cheaply study humans in space THEN.
What about half of all modern invention since the 60s, ranging from ball point pens to sattelite communication? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a facetious argument when you think about it though. All these discoveries were the result of putting lots and lots of money into R&D. But we could have put all that money into R&D and much much MORE into R&D if we hadn't actually put people into space. In other words, we could have achieved a lot MORE incredible technology advances if we had saved money by sticking to exploring space without manned missions. About the only real achievement from manned missions that wouldn't have happened without manned missions was TANG. Big fricking deal.
You are possiby right when you question that argument. However it stands as it it.
The whole program was, in the first place, nothing more than a military project to develop ICBMs and modern communication. It was a very cost intesive program to assure military dominance in the cold war. On both sides of the Wall.
The idea of manned spacetravel was the way to "sell" it to the people. It was a cover to justify enormous spendings on military research.
But, as we always can see in mankinds history, the greatest developments we achive are of military origin. Take the Internet for example ...
The <b>point</b> of sending people into space is to secure funding for the project in the first place. NASA have never been particularly keen on wasting massive amounts of payload space on hairless monkeys. Unfortunately, in order to secure public approval for space exploration, the administration felt it necessary to provide a "human interest" component.
Not to mention that, without manned missions, space exploration would cost a lot LESS anyway, meaning that there would be a lot less cost TO have to justify.
Of course, it'd be a lot more fun to actually be there; it's kinda like the national anthem at sports games, at home it's like, "meh, who cares, get to the game" in stadium it's, "...O'er the ramparts we watched..." [or insert anthem here.... O'Canada, O'Canada; God Save the Queen (she's saved enough, already!)]. Stuff like that is better in person.
Plus, with sending a robot to mars: it takes some time before commands can be properly administered, but a human there could react to trouble on the spot. Not so much the moon; the moon is all for robots. When we build them, and they rebel - they can go to the moon.