Echoes of Sputnik in Modern Rocket Race for Space?

[Gerald]

Fifty four years after the first Sputnik, is a new race for space brewing?

The fierce Cold War boiled over with the Russian launch of Sputnik in 1957. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara answered with the legendary Nike-Zeus program, a six-year project to develop the Army's first antiballistic missile. General Ivey O'Drewry Jr., the man who led the follow-on Nike-X program from 1962-1969, tells FoxNews.com that McNamara's demands were blunt and clear: Get the job done and beat those Russians.

"I was reviewing the development of the Sprint missile, which had gone through about 12 months of failure," the 90-year old retired general said from his home in Huntsville, Alabama. "I was reviewing the details with him, what we learned and how we'll improve. His answer to me was 'Shut up and sit down, I know you're gonna make it work!'"

"What he wanted hear was, what was the Russian reaction?" O'Drewry said.

The U.S. answer was clear: If Russia wanted a space race, America was all in.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...on/?test=faces

Note: Published February 12, 2011

[UnderseaLcpl]

I guess I don't understand why this is news. It's only natural to expect that other nations would launch satellites in increasing numbers. Not that it matters, there's plenty of orbit-space available. We have the best satellites, and the most integral and comprehensive network of civilian satellites....

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Not that it matters, there's plenty of orbit-space available.

Actually GeoSync orbit is filling up fast.

We have the best satellites, and the most integral and comprehensive network of civilian satellites....

Pfft Civilian Satellites...

I'll take one of these any day...

The Nudelman cannon inherited from the Soyuz VI was retained as an active defense system in the event of an attack by an Apollo spacecraft. The cannon was supplemented with space-to-space missiles.

They seriously built this thing! Not only that but they thought that NASA was going to try and shoot it down! How F*ing awesome is that?

[razark]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

They seriously built this thing! Not only that but they thought that NASA was going to try and shoot it down! How F*ing awesome is that?

Not only did they build and launch it, but they test-fired it in orbit. However, they were too worried about problems that they fired it remotely with no crew aboard. To aim it, they had to maneuver the entire station, as well.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by razark

To aim it, they had to maneuver the entire station, as well.

Well its not like they had to quickly react to a high speed bogey sneaking up on them.

[razark]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Well its not like they had to quickly react to a high speed bogey sneaking up on them.

I would think it would make it a lot easier for them hot-shot Apollo drivers to dodge.

Dang it. Now I've got a crazy picture in my mind of one guy piloting, and another sticking out the open hatch taking potshots at the Russians.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Actually GeoSync orbit is filling up fast.

It's cluttered, but hardly in any danger of filling up. Even if we had a satellite in every geosynchronius orbital point, without taking into account the satellites that we decommmision and replace with better satellites, we'd be fine.

I hate to descend into valley-girl rhetoric, but this planet will only ever support, like, 10 billion humans in the forseeable future, and there's like, eleventy-trillion GS orbital space. It'll be fine.

Pfft Civilian Satellites...

Scoff if you like, but it will be the private sector that defines and expands space exploration and exploitation, as it always has been. Governments squander vast amounts of time and resources screwing around in space to discover the mysteries behind dead, useless rocks and stuff that is so damn far away that it will never be of any practical use. Worthless as their efforts are, they can occasionally be co-opted for some kind of productive use, though the occasions are few and far between.

They seriously built this thing! Not only that but they thought that NASA was going to try and shoot it down! How F*ing awesome is that?

It's pretty awesome. It's also pretty useless, for reasons described in the article. Space superiority is a nice ideal for any nation, but it just doesn't work, at least for now. The resources required to maintain a network of space battlestations, whether automated or manned, are entirely too steep. There's also the consideration of other nations' reactions. Being able to bomb any location on the planet really doesn't mean much if everyone hates you and won't trade with you or seeks to undermine you because you're threatning them from orbit. The time will come when orbital weapons platforms have a role to play, but it won't be for a while yet.

[razark]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Scoff if you like, but it will be the private sector that defines and expands space exploration and exploitation, as it always has been.

I agree that the future of exploitation does lie in the hands of the private sector. The business of exploration, however, will remain in the hands of governments for the foreseeable future. There is simply not enough return on the investment for an exploration mission to bring a private company into the game.

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Governments squander vast amounts of time and resources screwing around in space to discover the mysteries behind dead, useless rocks and stuff that is so damn far away that it will never be of any practical use.

I happen to think finding out more about our universe and how it works is a worthy goal in itself.

There would be no private space industry if not for the government programs. The government programs have developed (or at least driven the development of) the needed technologies. Entry into the business is quite expensive, but the companies now getting into it have had an extremely large chunk of their R&D handed to them, instead of having to pay and take risks to develop it themselves.

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Worthless as their efforts are, they can occasionally be co-opted for some kind of productive use, though the occasions are few and far between.

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/
Yeah. Very little benefit to the world from government space programs.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

It's cluttered, but hardly in any danger of filling up. Even if we had a satellite in every geosynchronius orbital point, without taking into account the satellites that we decommmision and replace with better satellites, we'd be fine.

its not just the physical space, its also the radio frequencies. For each freq band there are only 180 slots.

Physically there are about a thousand slots in GSO.

Scoff if you like, but it will be the private sector that defines and expands space exploration and exploitation, as it always has been. Governments squander vast amounts of time and resources screwing around in space to discover the mysteries behind dead, useless rocks and stuff that is so damn far away that it will never be of any practical use. Worthless as their efforts are, they can occasionally be co-opted for some kind of productive use, though the occasions are few and far between.

Dead rocks?
Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Europa, Io, and Titan are all tectonically or atmospherically active.
Useless rocks?
Asteroids are a source of heavy elements (Gold, platinum, uranium etc) we have not begun to tap. The Gas Giants are a source of lighter elements (H and He with whatever # you want after it) we have not begun to tap, if/when we get a working fusion reactor the outer planets will be a never ending source of fuel for them.

It's pretty awesome. It's also pretty useless, for reasons described in the article. Space superiority is a nice ideal for any nation, but it just doesn't work, at least for now. The resources required to maintain a network of space battlestations, whether automated or manned, are entirely too steep. There's also the consideration of other nations' reactions. Being able to bomb any location on the planet really doesn't mean much if everyone hates you and won't trade with you or seeks to undermine you because you're threatning them from orbit. The time will come when orbital weapons platforms have a role to play, but it won't be for a while yet.

Much like other weapons the time will come for them when one side makes an effort to field them. No one wanted to field large numbers of submarines when they first became practical but they had no choice, it was a weapon that other nations fielded so they must as well. Aircraft were not a weapon anyone considered important, now every branch of the service has them.

What resources are required to maintain an automated space platform? A sat dish and a computer?

Also the capabilities of a space based battle station make great counter balances to other forces, and could replace many earth bound weapons in a nations arsenal.

Plus is awesome to threaten someone with a "Fully armed and operational battle-station".

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by razark

I agree that the future of exploitation does lie in the hands of the private sector. The business of exploration, however, will remain in the hands of governments for the foreseeable future. There is simply not enough return on the investment for an exploration mission to bring a private company into the game.

And that's exactly the problem. There isn't enough return on investment because the technology and the demand are not there yet. Companies like Virgin Galactic are trying to rectify that, and doing a reasonably good job, but we're still a long ways from exploiting any of our solar system's resources. It should be telling that the most lucrative markets in private space ventures are satellites and tourism for the extremely rich.

I happen to think finding out more about our universe and how it works is a worthy goal in itself.

I used to think the same way, but nowadays I have my doubts. Certainly, there is a lot of useful data that can be gleaned from observing the galaxy, particularly when it comes to understanding energy and physical forces, but beyond that it's mostly a waste of time and money. There is nothing within reasonable range of our solar system worth visiting for any purpose other than data collection, and probes can manage that.

There would be no private space industry if not for the government programs. The government programs have developed (or at least driven the development of) the needed technologies. Entry into the business is quite expensive, but the companies now getting into it have had an extremely large chunk of their R&D handed to them, instead of having to pay and take risks to develop it themselves.

Do you really believe that? Like I said, there have been times when private industries piggybacked onto government initiatives. Why wouldn't they? It's a source of free money. Most of those attempts yielded no worthwhile results for anyone other than the people who made money off of them. Virtually every major advance in the field of space exploration and exploitation was made by private industries or individuals whose efforts were then later co-opted by the state, which went on to claim credit for them.

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/
Yeah. Very little benefit to the world from government space programs.

Your assement is correct. Your perspective is wrong. I don't need to click on the link to know what it contains. For one thing, it's a .gov site, which I expect is about as impartial and informative as any other site made by anybody with a vested interest in promoting their own livleyhood. I imagine that it has all kinds of references to ways in which NASA's efforts have benefitted private industry and made our lives better. I'd expect as much from an agency with such incredible funding levels. Somebody is bound to find something worthwhile in the mountain of useless data accumulated by their busywork.

That's what I'm talking about when I say things like "perspective" or "piggybacking". Private industry would have made those advances anyway; probably in a more expedient fashion if we weren't paying them to pursue agendas governed by people who have absolutley no goddamn idea what they're talking about and very little interest in the field concerned.

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

its not just the physical space, its also the radio frequencies. For each freq band there are only 180 slots.

Physically there are about a thousand slots in GSO.

Good observation, but you're forgetting directional transmission, microwave transmission, and frequency-hopping, to name a few. Any one of those can be used to expand the capacity of any given frequency by a large margin, and that's without going into what we could do with laser transmission and retransmission between satellites. There is no shortage of transmission capacity, only a lack of the need to use it for the moment.

We're better off worrying about atmospheric and landline comms, which are in much more danger of being overloaded.

Dead rocks?
Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Europa, Io, and Titan are all tectonically or atmospherically active.
Useless rocks?
Asteroids are a source of heavy elements (Gold, platinum, uranium etc) we have not begun to tap. The Gas Giants are a source of lighter elements (H and He with whatever # you want after it) we have not begun to tap, if/when we get a working fusion reactor the outer planets will be a never ending source of fuel for them.

And they are all very far away and very expensive to exploit, no matter how you approach it. Without some way of reliably and safely conveying spacecraft to and from other planets, and then transitioning any cargo form Earth orbit to the ground, the idea is pointless. For the moment, we're better off just focussing on this planet. There are only 6-something billion humans here. Most of them don't even manage to use non-renewable resources before they die or beget impoverished children who also die. Earth is inceredibly goddamn huge, and we've only explored a tiny fraction of the crust that we regularly draw energy and resources from. We'll be fine.

What resources are required to maintain an automated space platform? A sat dish and a computer?

In a perfect world, I'd have to agree with you. In this world, there is the need to maintain the satellite and replenish its fuel reserves so its orbit doesn't decay.

Also the capabilities of a space based battle station make great counter balances to other forces, and could replace many earth bound weapons in a nations arsenal.

That's true, but it hasn't been done yet. Why do you suppose that is?

Plus is awesome to threaten someone with a "Fully armed and operational battle-station".

Indeed. The rebels will pay for their insolence. Let's just hope that the battle-station doesn't have an accesible and volatile power source that will explode when hit with weapons fire.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

There is nothing within reasonable range of our solar system worth visiting for any purpose other than data collection, and probes can manage that.

That is why we send in probes first, to find the interesting stuff that humans would like to go out and see. But major analysis needs to be done by humans since there is only so many tests that can be packed in to a probe.

And they are all very far away and very expensive to exploit, no matter how you approach it. Without some way of reliably and safely conveying spacecraft to and from other planets, and then transitioning any cargo form Earth orbit to the ground, the idea is pointless. For the moment, we're better off just focussing on this planet. There are only 6-something billion humans here. Most of them don't even manage to use non-renewable resources before they die or beget impoverished children who also die. Earth is inceredibly goddamn huge, and we've only explored a tiny fraction of the crust that we regularly draw energy and resources from. We'll be fine.

Sometimes more distant objects are easier to get to. Less mass means less fuel needed to slow down to land on and less fuel to leave. Also some asteroids are closer to earth and the moon at some points in their orbits.

In a perfect world, I'd have to agree with you. In this world, there is the need to maintain the satellite and replenish its fuel reserves so its orbit doesn't decay.

That is why many birds now have Ion thrusters. As long at its solar panels are drawing power it can generate thrust to maintain station.

That's true, but it hasn't been done yet. Why do you suppose that is?

Treaty with those godless commies.

[Gerald]

Sex in Space? Beware the Radiation, Scientists Say.

Astronauts sent to colonize Mars would be well advised to avoid getting pregnant en route to the Red Planet, according to a review of radiation hazards by three scientists.

High-energy particles bombarding the ship would almost certainly sterilize any female fetus conceived in deep space, making it that much more difficult to establish a successful Mars colony once the crew lands.

"The present shielding capabilities would probably preclude having a pregnancy transited to Mars," said radiation biophysicist Tore Straume of NASA Ames Research Center, lead author of the review published in the Journal of Cosmology.

Note: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...y-proposition/

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

That is why we send in probes first, to find the interesting stuff that humans would like to go out and see. But major analysis needs to be done by humans since there is only so many tests that can be packed in to a probe.

Good point but how many probes could we send for the cost of one manned spaceship?

Sometimes more distant objects are easier to get to. Less mass means less fuel needed to slow down to land on and less fuel to leave. Also some asteroids are closer to earth and the moon at some points in their orbits.

Agreed, but I remain certain that there is not one damn thing in this whole solar system worth leaving this planet's gravity well for in the first place.

That is why many birds now have Ion thrusters. As long at its solar panels are drawing power it can generate thrust to maintain station.

I don't know anything about that so I'm not qualified to comment at the moment. The idea sounds expensive, but if it is cost-effective I'm all for it.

As long as we're discussing the subject, it should be noted that it would be desireable for ion engines to be installed in tandem on spacecraft, provided they can be made to emit a really cool sound.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Good point but how many probes could we send for the cost of one manned spaceship?

Its somewhere around 30/1.

For that price yea do it! Find us a place to go with a manned mission with those 30 probes!

But think of it this way as well... one manned mission can do the work of 30 unmanned missions.

Agreed, but I remain certain that there is not one damn thing in this whole solar system worth leaving this planet's gravity well for in the first place.

What about 20,000 Billion Dollars

I don't know anything about that so I'm not qualified to comment at the moment. The idea sounds expensive, but if it is cost-effective I'm all for it.

Its very cheap, I was mistaken when I said they don't need fueling just energy; they do need fuel (a gas). Xenon is a common propellant but they are doing experiments using Argon as a propellant. If you remember chemistry Argon is the 3rd most common gas found on Earth after Nitrogen and Oxygen.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Its somewhere around 30/1.

For that price yea do it! Find us a place to go with a manned mission with those 30 probes!

Oh, I think it will take more probes than that to find somewhere worth possibly maybe considering going any time in the forseeable future....

But think of it this way as well... one manned mission can do the work of 30 unmanned missions.

What makes you think so? Anything worth learning about any planet(oid) we can get to with a manned mission can be discerned via probe flybys for a fraction of the cost required to build a manned spacecraft.

What about 20,000 Billion Dollars

Sadly, even Eros is very far away (it will be around 70 times as far away as the moon at it's closest approach) and it is travelling very quickly. How, exactly, are we going to get to it and extract enough resources to recoup the cost of getting the damn ship into space in the first place, and then get the damn thing back on the ground with its payload? Methinks we are better off just waiting for a resource-rich asteroid to actually hit the planet for the time being if we want to extract resources.

I'm not saying that it can't or shouldn't be done, just that we're not even close to ready yet.

Its very cheap, I was mistaken when I said they don't need fueling just energy; they do need fuel (a gas). Xenon is a common propellant but they are doing experiments using Argon as a propellant. If you remember chemistry Argon is the 3rd most common gas found on Earth after Nitrogen and Oxygen.

I figured it would need some kind of reaction mass. I'm actually pleased to know that noble gases can be used; that's extremely convenient and practical for more reasons than availability.

Unfortunately, even with ion stabilization thrusters, there's still the small matter of getting the damn thing into orbit in the first place and maintaining/upgrading/replacing it, at the cost of millions of dollars per pound, so whatever it's doing up there had damn well better be worth it. Looming above our enemies with a payload of death does not fit that criteria, especially given the ease with which a satelite can be brought down by a developed nation.

Thus far, only the private sector has managed to recoup the investment on just getting stuff into orbit, though they have taken government help where it was available. It will be they who push space exploration and exploitation to the next level, and they'll do it profitably at exactly the right moment because they are governed by profit motive and highly replaceable.