Yes, all we need now are myomer bundles and neural control interfaces. :D

But it still doesn't make a lot of sense to go there. Much better to build a semi-self sufficient outpost at Mars, then a high-maintenance one on the Moon. We can always go back to the moon later.

And how soon until they build a lunar emplacement for it? Building a gun is one thing. Putting it on the Moon is another.

Don't want to make it too sophisticated else it try and teach its operators they don't need to be servants to Earth governance. ;)

The harshness of Luna can work for it as an outpost. Think solar collectors. What are they made of? Silicon. Lunar regolith contains lots of Silica that can be refined in to Silicon. So now that we got the mother of all solar farms on Luna what do we do?

We hook it to a laser...

... no it is not going to be my "Death Star".... (that comes latter... :03:)

we shoot it as the rear end of spaceships to propel them! Either hitting solar sails allowing the photons of the laser to push them or hitting propellant on the spaceship burning it instead of using a (heavy) engine on the ship.

Emplacement? Theoretical it could put it's self on the moon. Jon's law cuts both ways. ;)

Stick a big metal rod in ground, stick the rail gun around it (like a ramrod in a musket) then fire the rail gun at an insane power level. :o :cool:

I don't really see how using the laser to ignite propellant would gain you anything, since most of the mass that you're accelerating is still going to be propellant. And I'm not familiar with any really workable solar sail materials (yet). Also, your solar collector will only be working half the time. The rest of the time, it will be on the dark side of the moon. How well would that coincide with being able to point it in the direction you want to push the spacecraft?

Oh well, either way, Moon or Mars, it's not going to happen anyway. Not any time soon, on government funding. Maybe if some rich folks could start investing in it, without having to worry about seeing a return on it in the near future.

My comments were based on the hypothetical Iranian/Chinese mass driver you mentioned. Do they have the technology to build it and get it there?

Free floating Hydrogen gathered from space collected via ramscoop comes to mind. Too bad its as yet beyond our technological proficiency.

A series of stations around the Lunar equator would provide power all month long, or one mobile station on a massive crawler. Reflect the beam off a mirror in Polar orbit to direct it to a ship out of the LOS.

Sadly true... :cry:


China is obviously behind us unless they are doing it totally in secret. Iran would need to buy it from someone.

For those of you concerned about the a new program involving some sort of weapons system I am afraid my earlier post about flying carpets does in fact have a very capable weapons system, delivered by carpet bombing of course!

We at one time did have a program to reach Mars by the mid '80's. This was way back in the mid '60's. At the time it was all on paper of course and got cancelled due to budget cuts.

I think this was a good idea at the time. Putting ships in orbit to deploy sats, Skylab, all that reaped much more than a trip to Mars. What has always concerned me was the fact that we have been very careful to prevent microbes from being introduced back to Earth yet until recently we have not done so in introducing Earth microbes elsewhere.

It is possible we have already killed some sort of life on Mars with earlier landings in this way.

I feel the number one goal should be to get a replacement program for the shuttle and maintain it.

If the Russians had beat us to the Moon, we'd probably have gone to Mars. Apollo has always annoyed me for that reason. One of mankind's greatest technological achievements, and it was nothing but a pissing contest with the Russians. We went, we won the race, and then we quit.

If I recall correctly, this was one line of thinking that went into the Viking landers. The scientists running tests for life were concerned that any microbes from Earth would throw off the results, so they were quite careful to eliminate them.

I think NASA should be in the research and exploration business. NASA, using its government funding, should research and develop the technologies that are not viable in the commercial sphere. They should also run the exploration missions that private industry would not be willing to undertake. As new technologies and materials are developed, they could be licensed, sold, or given to private industries, and the private sector could take over running commercial launches and operations. Perhaps allow contractor companies that work with NASA first grab at new technology. For example, NASA says "Boeing, help us develop this new Hozenfartzen rocket engine, and you get a 5 year exclusive license once we release it". Have NASA build the space station, and then rent space on it for companies to do their own research. (That might be hard to do, what with all the international agreements involved.) If a company wants to develop a tourist industry, let them rent time at a docking port, and charge for oxygen, water, etc. Allow private industry a way to provide funds to maintain the station, and NASA can move on to their next project.

Oh please no! NASA ignore him! That cursed thing has kept us stuck in LEO far too long. Leave LEO "Scuttles" to the Private Industry while NASA "Boldly Goes". We don't need another shuttle we need something better and more versatile.

Funny thing when we beat the Russians to the Moon, they switched over to "beating" us in LEO with space stations so they could test the endurance of hardware and humans for a long trip to Mars. But Star Trek was then canceled and everyone forgot why we were going to Mars... to have sex with green skinned alien babes...

Yes I place the failure of manned spaceflight squarely on the shoulders of the National Broadcasting Company... :stare:

That's quite clever of you, razark.:salute:

NASA has actually already entered into agreements resembling what you posited, but it hasn't worked out yet, simply because the economic potential of doing anything other than just putting up comm satellites is negligible. Behind satellites, tourism is the next industry with the most potential, if that tells you anything about what kind of economic potential lies in space at the moment. In any case, hybridizing NASA with private industry is a wise move, one whose benefits we will see as soon as we can figure out a way to make space productive.

I agree with both of you on that. I think that mining of Near Earth Asteroids maybe what that will make space productive. (I've posted on this subject before in other threads so I won't repeat my self here, its late and I'm tired).

Whatever it takes to make sure I still have a job to go to tomorrow, and the next day, and the next...
:D

And then watch as it plows right through the moon :O:

wouldn't that be like sticking the musket on the ramrod, not the ramrod in the musket :hmmm:
and that wouldnt be smart, it would shoot earth out of the orbit and into the sun :o

:doh: Doh did think of that...

but I think it could fire rounds at the Moon to slow down.

Correct...

You forget the mass driver has much less mass than the Earth. Its pushing against the Earth when it fires- in essence using the Earth as its reaction mass. It would only impart the momentum it gained in relation to its mass when it fired on the Earth.

In other words the force required to send the mass driver to the moon is far less than the force required to send the Earth there.

Could do that, or.... we could fill a moon crater with a few million tons of surplus breast implants (big boobs are 'out' in Hollywood right now) and hope our aim is really good. :know: