It seems that some are of the opinion that Bush will use the 100th anniversary of the Kitty Hawk flights to announce a new push for manned exploration in space.
Awwww...I was hoping we were gonna eject him.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Bush proclaims Mars part of the Axis of Evil because Marvin Martian has weapons of mass destruction (the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator) and has threatened the security of the U.S. (where's the Earth-shattering kaboom?). We invade; we conquer; we begin long, drawn-out conflict with Martian freedom fighters and remaining pro-Marvin forces.
Meanwhile, we find out that the CIA got its intelligence from Cartoon Network.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Our problem now is intelligence !!
[ December 04, 2003, 12:49 AM: Message edited by: Balaam Xumucane ]
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
While I'm at it... Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
In space, no-one can hear him scream...
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
In space, no Martian gives a fu*k about G.W.B. ...
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
quote: ...China has put a man in orbit, plans a launch of three Sinonauts together...
A Sinonaut would be someone travelling to China.. Denis E. Powell is a stupid man.
I quote from the Wikipedia
quote: The term taikonaut is used for astronauts from China. The term was coined in May 1998 by Chiew Lee Yih from Malaysia, who used it first in newsgroups. Almost simultaneously, Chen Lan coined it for use in the Western media based on the term "taikong" (太空 in pinyin: tai4 kong1), Chinese for space. It is however unclear how to translate the "naut" term into Chinese, and simply using the term taikongren or taikongyuan (taikong person) is problematic since that term is used already to mean space alien.
Chinese officials and newspapers use the term yuhangyuan (宇航員) in Chinese, however, which roughly translates as "space navigator." Unlike the Soviet case, there are no Chinese objections, political or otherwise, to the English use of the term Chinese astronaut.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Austin Powers: In space, no Martian gives a fu*k about G.W.B. ...
Fuck.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
FCUK
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
So, this new push for manned space flight...
On what? The Shuttles Of Doom? Managed by NASA?
Don't make me laugh.
If he's serious then he'll free up money for private development of space-flight.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
May I just add: F**K
Oh sorry, I meant FUCK!!!! Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
quote:Originally posted by Styrofoaman: So, this new push for manned space flight...
On what? The Shuttles Of Doom? Managed by NASA?
Don't make me laugh.
If he's serious then he'll free up money for private development of space-flight.
Here we go again Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Bush, nine-fingers and the shuttle of doom?
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
make it stop
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Y'know, hold on. Okay, no one on this site likes this guy, with the exception of one or two nutjobs.
But if the rumors are true, and Bush is planning on launching a renewed US push into space, this is a VERY GOOD THING. Okay, maybe he is planning on nuking the Martians in a first-strike attack, but y'know, all joking aside ...
... isn't an expanded space program something we've wanted for a long time?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I don't know. I'd rather him forget that and concentrate on the economy, gun crime, and not blowing people up.
Well, I would if I were an Yankee-doodling.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Y'know, hold on. Okay, no one on this site likes this guy, with the exception of one or two nutjobs.
But if the rumors are true, and Bush is planning on launching a renewed US push into space, this is a VERY GOOD THING. Okay, maybe he is planning on nuking the Martians in a first-strike attack, but y'know, all joking aside ...
... isn't an expanded space program something we've wanted for a long time?
If there is a long term plan, like starting with returning to the moon, then going on to Mars, I'm up for it, but if all he says is lets go to the moon, we've been there and done that.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Yeah. Bush has to present something that shows he's capable of thinking more than four years ahead, that he isn't just securing an escape route to a second term with a last-minute boost of his own waning popularity. Then, only then, a Good Thing will this be.
[ December 06, 2003, 06:03 AM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Talk is cheap. Show me the viable space program.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'd be happy if he just allocated all the money he's dumping into perfecting low-rad yield "mini-nukes" to NASA's spaceprobe projects. It's probably the only way we'll see a probe on Europa in our lifetimes and we are already more than capable of killing large numbers of people with our old 1980's nuclear technology. Some things really dont require refinment.
What's more imporntant? The ISS or a trip to Mars We chose the ISS partly because the other countries agreed to pay for part of the cost, but it's not working out that way...and what exactly is it there for? Anybody know what it can do that was'nt accomplished on Mir? So far I've seen dick of any useful experiments come from the ISS. Fuck Iraq: I want a new fully reusable ground-to -space vehicle and I want humans on mars and possibly the asteroid belt within the next fifty years. It's completley possible too.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Nothing good can be done on the ISS due to the limited number of people who can live on it at any one time. They spend all their time maintaining the place, and don't have enough time to do anything else.
Posted by leuckinc (Member # 729) on :
Did the building of the ISS just stop? I thought it was still being worked on...
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
Kind of hard to move pieces to orbit when the Shuttles Of Death are grounded.
Poor planning on NASA's part. "Sure! The Shuttle is ALL WE NEED!"
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Ironically small, low-rad nukes may be just what NASA needs if they decide to restart the Orion project. If I recall, one of the reasons the shelved it in the first place was because they couldn't get the explosives clean enough for an atmospheric launch. I think the figures were something like, 10 out of 100 deaths from cancer would be caused by each launch. Still, Orion is the only way to get people to the Jovian end of the system in a reasonable amount of time, for the moment anyway.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Balaam Xumucane: make it stop
Looks like Strom Thurman, Bill and Hillary Clinton and G. Dubya.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I think we need a luna orbiting station. Something simple. And it could be rotating for gravity - not everything in space has to be low or null-grav!
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Orion was killed by the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, which banned nuclear explosions in space.
And W. has already proved this is nothing but a publicity grab. The House of Representatives almost killed the Pluto-Kuiyper Express, along with the rest of the New Horizons project, and it took a massive bombardment of mail, e-mail, and faxes to get them to restore the previously-alotted budget. Here's the statement the Planetary Society made to the House Appropriations Committee.
--Jonah
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Variable-Specific-Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket
Sounds really fanboyish, doesn't it?? Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Doing it right:
My plan would go something like this:
Ongoing: Continued planetary exploration. I want every object in the system located and mapped, robot landers and/or minilanders on every moon larger than Amalthea. Development of next-generation space telescopes, interferometers, and other projects designed to detect extrasolar worlds.
#1. We need reliable, reusable systems: for cargo, and for people. A passenger liner and a heavy lifter. They don't necessarily have to be the same system.
#2. Expanded orbital facilities. Including construction facilities to aid in assembly of components for large-scale missions.
#3. A network of orbital energy stations.
#4. Detailed lunar exploration, including landers. Make certain of ice on Moon, if there is any.
#5 Moonbase, if ice makes it feasible. Otherwise, it might have to be put off until we can get some.
#6 Mars mission. Moderate scale, for now.
#7 Mass drivers. Capture comets, asteroids. If H20 absent on moon, jump this priority up and drop a couple small comets onto the Moon's south pole.
#8 Near-Earth Asteroid capture, and mining facilities.
#9 Larger-scale Mars missions. Terraforming activities (presuming no life is found on Mars). Colonization.
#10 Extrasolar probe missions as soon as feasable. Ion engines will help this along. We need to be able to accelerate and decelerate a Voyager-type probe at high G's to get to nearby stars.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:#1. We need reliable, reusable systems: for cargo, and for people. A passenger liner and a heavy lifter. They don't necessarily have to be the same system.
Yes, I always thought the one shuttle does all concept was a bad idea.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
And putting people on what's essentially a glorified barge is a waste of expertise and an unnecessary risk. Using the shuttle to ferry parts for the station was a bad idea. We and Russia have existing and fully-developed concept automated launch vehicles that would do just fine to boost the components, and an on-site construction crew would then be able to assemble. Seems more sensible to me than risking the lives of seven people each time you want to put another module up.
The two fledgeling technoligies that I think will have a profound impact on humanity's presence in space are ion propulsion and plasma field manipulation. The former is currently at about the same tech level as Benz' first automobile engine. Imagine a decade's worth of intense development and refinement, let alone fifty years... The latter makes "force fields" and "energy shields" practical, which I think is useful for stations, and essential for bases on airless bodies (protection from micro and macro objects).
The remote mining of near-Earth asteroids is unofficially dubbed Project: Virgo, and is in my opinion the best source of raw materials for off-planet construction.
And in other news, what word on development of the space elevator concept?
--Jonah
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: And in other news, what word on development of the space elevator concept?
Well, we haven't built one yet...
I vote for First of Two as new NASA chief administrator person...
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Of course, none of this is going to happen with a $500 billion federal deficit looming overhead.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Then it's time to start liquidating some asset to balance the accounts. I say we start with auctioning off California and Texas and see where that puts us.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
It's amazing, isn't it... Clinton left office with a a budget surplus, and W. pissed it all away and over $500 billion into the red in under three years. Impressive.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
It's amazing, isn't it... Clinton left office with a a budget surplus, and W. pissed it all away and over $500 billion into the red in under three years. Impressive.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
It woud be amazing if there'd actually BEEN a budget surplus (rather than an imaginary projected difference between spending increases and monies to be collected), if the dotcom tech bubble hadn't burst, if the business misdeeds that went unnoticed under Clinton hadn't come to light, and if we hadn't gotten attacked on 9-11-01.
If all those things hadn't happened, and we were STILL $400+ billion in the red, THEN it would be amazing.
Otherwise it's just the same shit that would have happened to Gore.
Except the concept of Al Gore trying to fight the war on terrorism really IS scary.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:. . . and if we hadn't gotten attacked on 9-11-01.
Some days I really wish I was still at school. This would be a perfect excuse for my homework being late, Christ knows it's been used as an excuse for everything else!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I've been using it to explain why every single piece of coursework I've handed in over the past two years has been late. And why my hairline is receeding, too.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Is something burning?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Other than Rob's breath? Not really.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Except the concept of Al Gore trying to fight the war on terrorism really IS scary.
Scarier than Zombie Overlord Rumsfeld?
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Perhaps 9-11 happended especially because of W!?
**petconspiracytheory**
No, but seriously, I think having W as president of the US is the scariest scenario for almost any non-US citizen on the planet.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry:
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Except the concept of Al Gore trying to fight the war on terrorism really IS scary.
Scarier than Zombie Overlord Rumsfeld?
How 'bout Zombie Overlord Liberman? Having someone named "Liberman" as VP would have gone over soaringly with the muslim nations we're supposedly trying to work with. ....and you think middle-east paece is a pipe dream now.... Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Doing it right:
My plan would go something like this:
#7 Mass drivers. Capture comets, asteroids. If H20 absent on moon, jump this priority up and drop a couple small comets onto the Moon's south pole.
Throwing mass-driven large masses at the Moon is the begining of a very bad sci-fi diasater movie.
It'd be far better (and less potentially extinction-causing) to crash those cometary bodies into Mars' equatorial region (flat, easily accessable plains for hundreds of miles in places) and use the ice for future Martian colonization.
Of course, if we had feasible Mss-Drivers, we could set up a base in the Jovian system and take what we want from Europa or even Ganeymede.
The real trick will be engineering ourselves for low-G or null-G environments: any space explorers sent out for a mission of several years would never be able to return home (at least not without extreme health risks).
Buzz Aldrin was quoted this week as saying:
quote: I think the next step in our space program should be to create a floating launching pad for manned and unmanned missions to the Moon, Mars and beyond. This is not a task for the unfinished International Space Station, which is intended to be a floating laboratory rather than a bridge to the heavens.
A much more practical destination than the moon or the space station is a region of space called L 1, which is more than two-thirds of the way to the moon and is where the gravity fields between the Earth and Moon are in balance. Setting up a space port there would offer a highly stable platform from which spacecraft could head toward near-Earth asteroids, the lunar surface, the moons of Mars and wherever else mankind decides to travel.
Unlike the Moon and the International Space Station, which is in low-earth orbit, L 1 is not the site of strong gravitational pulls, meaning that spacecraft can leave there without using much energy. Thus L 1 would be the most sensible position for a base that would function as a test area and way-point for robotic flights as well as a support station and safe haven for human exploration of the solar system.
It would also be relatively cheap, at least in terms of space travel. To create a port at L 1 we can use the building methods that have already proved successful for Skylab and the International Space Station � and we can probably get it up and running for $10 billion to $15 billion, significantly less than the International Space Station, which will likely exceed $100 billion in the end. We can also save money by shifting away from using the space shuttle as the transport vehicle and by developing a new, more flexible launch vehicle and crew module to get people and cargo up to the L 1 port.
Intresting stuff, but NASA really doesnt want to hear from ol' Buzz. Too bad really, they could use some of his long reaching ideas instead of the shortsighted plans they've offered in the past five years.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I'm tired of outer space, I want the world's oceans to be mapped and scanned. First of all, would be nice with a live photo of that new Super-squid they discovered.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
As soon as that happens, some fuck-o will declare the squid to have magical dick-lengthening properties and it'll be on a japanese menu. It happened to the Oarfish, after all.
Let Architothis Dax(sp?) remain unseen and it'll have a better chance of survival.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
The benefits of the LaGrange Points have been known for decades.Various purpose-built stations at the first five LaGrange Points would be the best infrastructure for Earth-Luna actions...
--Jonah
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Why do people go on about Null-grav? What is so hard about rotating sections to create artificial gravity!?!?!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It's so hard to place millions of pounds of technology in space without any way to really test it on earth for starters. More imporntantly, the simulated gravity wouldnt counteract all the effects on a person's autoimmune system: it might keep your feet planted on the deck but it's not the same thing on a cellular level.
It would still help though, I'm sure.
We'll probably have to wait untill mankind has orbital manufacturing facilities before we coud attempt that kind of spinnning environment.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Why doesn't artificial gravity by rotation work on a cellular level? If it's the same acceleration, how would they notice?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, I don't know the numbers, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be the same acceleration. It would probably only simulate a fraction of Earth's gravity. Enough so that a person can walk, so that things go "down" when they're dropped, so that your drink doesn't simply float out of your glass... But it still wouldn't be what a human body is designed for.
[ December 13, 2003, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I heard about the diffrence on Science Frontiers: something about the force not being quite consistant throught the body in such a small rotation. THey were mainly concerned about screwing with the brain's chemestry during long missions.
Sad, but they said the hokey "rubberband" restraints to provide resistance at 1G levels and developing something to prevent bone loss would probably be the best they could come up with in the near future.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Why do people go on about Null-grav? What is so hard about rotating sections to create artificial gravity!?!?!"
Uh, we're not going on about null-grav INSIDE stations, we're going on about null-grav OUTSIDE them.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The Devil: Why exactly do we need people in space, again?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Because it's cool.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
And if the yanks don't, the Chinese will. Can't have that now, can we?
make it stop 
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)