North American Suckup Adminstration...

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by razark

A moon base makes no sense in going to Mars. The energy required to go from LEO to Lunar orbit to Mars orbit is much higher than LEO directly to Mars. It makes as much sense as driving from New York to Washington D.C. by stopping for gas in Dallas. Sure, it might be cheaper to get the gas there, but getting there doesn't make it worth it.

Not if they use the ITN for the trip from Earth Orbit to Luna. Then its free (just takes time.

That is one angle to think about. I don't think we'll need to worry about the mass driver for a few years yet, though.

I don't know, the USN is working on an impressive rail gun right now.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

I don't know, the USN is working on an impressive rail gun right now.

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

[razark]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Not if they use the ITN for the trip from Earth Orbit to Luna. Then its free (just takes time.

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.

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

I don't know, the USN is working on an impressive rail gun right now.

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

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by krashkart

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

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.

Originally Posted by razark

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.

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... )

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.

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

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.

[razark]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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... )

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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.

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?

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by razark

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

Sadly true...

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?

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

[breadcatcher101]

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.

[razark]

Originally Posted by breadcatcher101

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.

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.

Originally Posted by breadcatcher101

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.

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.

Originally Posted by breadcatcher101

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

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.

[Weiss Pinguin]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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.

And then watch as it plows right through the moon

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Weiss Pinguin

And then watch as it plows right through the moon

Doh did think of that...

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

Originally Posted by Betonov

wouldn't that be like sticking the musket on the ramrod, not the ramrod in the musket

Correct...

and that wouldnt be smart, it would shoot earth out of the orbit and into the sun

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.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Doh did think of that...

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

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.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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.

It was a joke

But still, if the railgun exerted enough force, and I do mean ENOUGH force, it would move the earth. third newtons law, the railgun would be sent plowing trough pluto, but earth would move

[tater]

http://article.nationalreview.com/43...rld/rich-lowry

A good bit:

NASA administrator Charles Bolden caused a furor when he revealed that President Obama had directed him “to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science . . . and math and engineering.”

This shouldn’t be hard to do, so long as Bolden is well versed in accomplishments rising out of the Middle East many centuries ago. It gave us what we know as Arabic numerals (although they originated in India). It gave us algebra and the rudiments of trigonometry. It gave us medical pioneers in the tenth and eleventh centuries. (A significant proportion of these scientists and physicians were Christians and Jews, according to Lewis — a fact Bolden had best keep to himself.)

It’s wonderful to feel good about the work of Ibn Sīnā of Bukhara, who compiled an indispensable medical encyclopedia before his death in 1037, but it implicitly raises the question of what Muslim science has done for us over the last millennium or so. The Muslim world would be better served by a frank discussion of how so much of it came to be sunk in backwardness and ignorance, although NASA’s administrator is not the natural person to lead such a discussion (nor, if he’s as smart as advertised, will he volunteer for the task).

Historian David Landes puts it starkly: “The vast bulk of modern science was of Europe’s making, especially that breakthrough of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that goes by the name ‘scientific revolution.’ Not only did non-Western science contribute just about nothing (though there was more there than Europeans knew), but at that point it was incapable of participating, so far had it fallen behind or taken the wrong turning.”

And the almost always spot-on, Charles Krauthammer:

Apart from the psychobabble — farcically turning a space-faring enterprise into a self-esteem enhancer — what’s the sentiment behind this charge? Sure, America has put a man on the moon, led the information revolution, and won far more Nobel Prizes than any other nation — but, on the other hand, a thousand years ago al-Khwarizmi gave us algebra.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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.

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