Conquer Club

Neutrino wrote:

DaGip wrote:
I agree! Who monitors the USA? Who monitors China? Space exploration should be a world party! Every government in the world should be allowed into, as soon as they quit fighting each other. The best way to institute peace in the world is to give the world a peaceful goal. A goal that produces pride in their accomplishment that the whole world can be proud of together.

Why does the US need monitoring? This isn't biological weapons research. I can't think of any part of space exploration that would require monitoring.

I am talking about militarizing space. Who monitors who when we or someone else puts weapons into space? That is all I am trying to say. To eliviate those worries and notions, space should be left up to international effort rather than a soul entity.

radiojake wrote:Space exploration is fucking stupid on a planet that can't even get its shit together here on terra firma

Pretty sure NASA's budget for 6 months could feed the planet for a couple of years

yeah but so could a large number of other programs, why pick out nasa on its own.

Personally i think as far as wasteful gov. expenditures go, space programs are better than most.

You get added bonuses of technology that end up being used in different things entirely that are widely consumed.

When landmark things are accomplished, you promote bonds that could potential spark positive steps taken toward humane goals.

Furthermore, since it seems pretty unlikely sometimes that we are gonna be able to do anything at all to save this planet most days, it makes sense to start figuring out ways to get as many of us off the rock as humanly possible.

Maybe bad timing maybe a little late. but it does seem that the UK should be one of the nations that goes to the moon.

strike wolf wrote:Maybe bad timing maybe a little late. but it does seem that the UK should be one of the nations that goes to the moon.

UK should go to the moon, I agree, but does the populace support it? Is this the right timing to accomplish this task? I would say it would be better accomplished if the UK joined forces internationally across the board. It would serve a more dignified and peace-building effort than just to do it on their own...not that the UK can't do it on their own, I am confident they can, I am just thinking about the state of affairs on the planet right now, and how does a self-serving interest like going to the moon prove anything to anyone?

Well, it would be rather difficult for the UK to even get into space by itself to begin with, mainly because it is so far from the equater. It is easier for a space shuttle to exit the Earth's atmosphere at the equator, why do you think that the shuttle launches and all of that in the US are based in Florida? Because it is closer to the equator.

DaGip wrote:
I am talking about militarizing space. Who monitors who when we or someone else puts weapons into space? That is all I am trying to say. To eliviate those worries and notions, space should be left up to international effort rather than a soul entity.

True. However, it doesn't look like the UN or any other international group is capable or willing of putting together a manned space program, so national groups look like our best bet of establishing a reasonable space program.

Plus, if you want a space program, you're going to need what are essentially nuclear weapons. Going to Mars, for example, would be far easier if you had a nuke pile providing thrust, rather than conventional chemical engines.

muy_thaiguy wrote:Well, it would be rather difficult for the UK to even get into space by itself to begin with, mainly because it is so far from the equater. It is easier for a space shuttle to exit the Earth's atmosphere at the equator, why do you think that the shuttle launches and all of that in the US are based in Florida? Because it is closer to the equator.

Not particularly. Russia is at a similar latitude to Britian and they managed to launch just fine.

Neutrino wrote:

DaGip wrote:
I am talking about militarizing space. Who monitors who when we or someone else puts weapons into space? That is all I am trying to say. To eliviate those worries and notions, space should be left up to international effort rather than a soul entity.

True. However, it doesn't look like the UN or any other international group is capable or willing of putting together a manned space program, so national groups look like our best bet of establishing a reasonable space program.

Plus, if you want a space program, you're going to need what are essentially nuclear weapons. Going to Mars, for example, would be far easier if you had a nuke pile providing thrust, rather than conventional chemical engines.

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn972

If the world could focus nuclear energy on space, maybe we'll quit fighting with eachother? But I am sure there are some major concerns about using radioactive materials for propulsion while still within earth's atmosphere.

Concerns would be what if there was an accident? What would happen to the radioactive materials?

There has got to be a better and safer way.

DaGip wrote:

Neutrino wrote:

DaGip wrote:
I am talking about militarizing space. Who monitors who when we or someone else puts weapons into space? That is all I am trying to say. To eliviate those worries and notions, space should be left up to international effort rather than a soul entity.

True. However, it doesn't look like the UN or any other international group is capable or willing of putting together a manned space program, so national groups look like our best bet of establishing a reasonable space program.

Plus, if you want a space program, you're going to need what are essentially nuclear weapons. Going to Mars, for example, would be far easier if you had a nuke pile providing thrust, rather than conventional chemical engines.

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn972

If the world could focus nuclear energy on space, maybe we'll quit fighting with eachother? But I am sure there are some major concerns about using radioactive materials for propulsion while still within earth's atmosphere.

Concerns would be what if there was an accident? What would happen to the radioactive materials?

There has got to be a better and safer way.

There is. The Space Elevator.

But, of course, an Elevator isn't going to happen.It's unfeasibly expensive and difficult to construct. That and 36 000 kilometres of tubing will not make anyone happy if it collapses...

Anyway, if venting radioactive hydrogen into the atmosphere displeases you, it's always possible to only use your nuclear engine to leave orbit. Of course, actually getting your craft into orbit will be much harder, but I suppose there are some sacrifices you have to make for not giving everyone cancer...

Neutrino wrote:

DaGip wrote:

Neutrino wrote:

DaGip wrote:
I am talking about militarizing space. Who monitors who when we or someone else puts weapons into space? That is all I am trying to say. To eliviate those worries and notions, space should be left up to international effort rather than a soul entity.

True. However, it doesn't look like the UN or any other international group is capable or willing of putting together a manned space program, so national groups look like our best bet of establishing a reasonable space program.

Plus, if you want a space program, you're going to need what are essentially nuclear weapons. Going to Mars, for example, would be far easier if you had a nuke pile providing thrust, rather than conventional chemical engines.

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn972

If the world could focus nuclear energy on space, maybe we'll quit fighting with eachother? But I am sure there are some major concerns about using radioactive materials for propulsion while still within earth's atmosphere.

Concerns would be what if there was an accident? What would happen to the radioactive materials?

There has got to be a better and safer way.

There is. The Space Elevator.

But, of course, an Elevator isn't going to happen.It's unfeasibly expensive and difficult to construct. That and 36 000 kilometres of tubing will not make anyone happy if it collapses...

Anyway, if venting radioactive hydrogen into the atmosphere displeases you, it's always possible to only use your nuclear engine to leave orbit. Of course, actually getting your craft into orbit will be much harder, but I suppose there are some sacrifices you have to make for not giving everyone cancer...

I guess the Space Elevator would be the best answer right now. That way we could get the load up as close as we can away from the atmosphere and then launch it using nukes. Still have worries about having some type of mishap on the way up the elevator though.

Here is a look at one possiblity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtH-SxqdtaA

Laser Propulsion using superheated air thrust and some type of propellant combination.

DaGip, you believe they got to the moon? Have we found a conspiracy theory you don't believe in?

Ahh yes, using the same technology that UFO's use! You could also superheat the air inside a specially shaped cavity and use that to gain lift.
There are many possible ways of attaining orbit, but the problem is only very few of them have been tested in any significant detail. Compared to those two, nuclear engines are well established technology. It would take an inordinate amount of effort to make the lightcraft man-rated. The significant stability (and in all probability, exploding) problems would see to that*.

If you want elegant and environmentally friendly ways to get into space (though I don't see how a beam several times hotter than the surface of the sun is environmentally friendly), then the lightcraft is probably a good way to go. But since it is unlikely that the ESA will be able to maintain this push, and in all likelyhood it will be one of the last pushes for space, ever, cheap and dirty will do just fine.


*Note: Did not actually watch the video. Maybe they solved that, I don't know.

I really hope we scrap the idea of going to the moon.

The amount of cash spent in doing so will be huge and for what? So some twat (who also gets paid for the privilege) can say that he/she went there?

With the cash spent on that, we could probably go invade a few former african colonies with lawyers and attempt to sort the whole place out (admittedly through unashamedly racist segregation and extortionate taxation, but I have no sympathy for civil-war-land).

muy_thaiguy wrote:Well, it would be rather difficult for the UK to even get into space by itself to begin with, mainly because it is so far from the equater. It is easier for a space shuttle to exit the Earth's atmosphere at the equator, why do you think that the shuttle launches and all of that in the US are based in Florida? Because it is closer to the equator.

we have ascension island that's near equator but yer i hope we scrap the idea and sort out whats here in the uk before we sort out whats in space

Guiscard wrote:DaGip, you believe they got to the moon? Have we found a conspiracy theory you don't believe in?

Man walked with the dinosaurs...

there is actually a museum in Alberta that says that man walked with dinosaurs...

Neutrino wrote:Ahh yes, using the same technology that UFO's use! You could also superheat the air inside a specially shaped cavity and use that to gain lift.
There are many possible ways of attaining orbit, but the problem is only very few of them have been tested in any significant detail. Compared to those two, nuclear engines are well established technology. It would take an inordinate amount of effort to make the lightcraft man-rated. The significant stability (and in all probability, exploding) problems would see to that*.

If you want elegant and environmentally friendly ways to get into space (though I don't see how a beam several times hotter than the surface of the sun is environmentally friendly), then the lightcraft is probably a good way to go. But since it is unlikely that the ESA will be able to maintain this push, and in all likelyhood it will be one of the last pushes for space, ever, cheap and dirty will do just fine.


*Note: Did not actually watch the video. Maybe they solved that, I don't know.

Well, it sounds like you know what I was talking about. I don't know how far these people have gotten with that sort of technology, but it sounded fine. The laser is trapped in reflective feedback between the craft and a large mirror at the launch pad.

It then superheats air and some type of propellant making small explosions to carry the bell shaped craft upwards. I don't really see the environmental impact, unless of course a bird flys into the laser (KFC anyone?)

Here is an article by NASA explaining the problems with supraluminal travel:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/resea ... paper.html

a good read if you are into this type of StarTrek stuff.