Boiling point

NASA is great and all for robotic missions and hubble stargazing, but they dont care about getting people on Mars, or even back to the Moon. Its cheaper and easier to put a bot on another planet then a person. You dont need to feed a bot, provide shelter for it, or worry about the social fallout in case of a catastrophic failure.

When we make it back to the Moon and onto Mars, it will be private industry and organizations, like the Mars Society who get us there. This is because they want to go, regardless of costs, and they plan to get there relatively soon.

Its a shame that private orgs have to do what world governments should already be doing. It not even a matter of exploration and research, but rather survival. Right now, the entire human race is on this one isolated rock in space. If something ever happened; war, asteroids, natural disasters, Ice Ages; its game over, only you dont get to reload a saved game. If we branched out onto neighboring planets, we could solve the population problem, expand our resource cache, and ensure the survival of our species from anything short of our sun going super-nova.

 

Actually, we could have built the Orion Rocket (that H-Bomb propulsion system) back in the 60's. That tech alone could get us around the solar-system in a decent amount of time. The only reason we haven't explored it (the tech that is) is because it is illegal to detonate (and harmful) nuclear weapons directly above the atmosphere. However once into deep space (like say, the moon or beyond) there would be no harmful effects.

----

Maximus

The government has pretty much givin NASA its mandate to send people to the Moon and Mars. NASA is currently looking at designs by private companies for potential "Crew Exploration Vehicles". I do agree though that in the end the big-push will be private industry. This won't happen though until it is easier and cheaper to get into space. Once that is overcome there are plenty of money-making opportunities out there.

 

A mandate and action are two different things. Bush was right on when he publicly said he wants to put a man on Mars. And sure, NASA says they're onboard, but the head guy there has always pushed for 'cheaper, smaller' missions, with a heavy emphasis on robotics. Not bad, unless you want to get a man on Mars.

On top of that, we've got the International Space Station eating up all the funds for manned flights, especially since our international friends have trouble finding their wallets.

The CEV being pushed forward is the one the Mars Society developed. They're a bunch of engineers, rocket scientists, etc who are actively trying to get there. They work with NASA as much as they can, and had a big boost from Bush. Unfortunately, I haven't heard squat about space since then, especially after the last shuttle accident.

The biggest problem with a nuclear-powered craft would be radioactivity issues, as I'm sure the exhaust would make the night sky glow. (and the craft & crew)

 

You all are failing to account one of the biggest factors in "Bush's Plan," which is money. The Hubble Telescope provides MASSIVE amounts of raw data each and every day. Bush's great plan involves funding lunar and martian expeditions by completely cutting funding towards the maintenance of the Hubble Telescope. It would certainly be GOOD to get onto Mars, or return to the Moon, but the Hubble has provided, and will provide, far more valuable empirical data than walking around on Mars for a week ever would.

You people put too much pressure on the government to do things. I've always known it would be private companies who did most of the pioneering work in space, because governments have too many other priorities. No one likes taxes, but if you want the government to handle all outer space expansion, they're going to have to raise taxes about 25%. It's stupid to place the expectations of scientific research and discovery on governments, who have the longest history of only using scientific discoveries for their own petty self-interest.

 

As I understand the International Spacestation has been a failure of sorts. The budget for it was drastically cut, meaning that many of the features it was supposed to have could not be added, and as such, we haven't been able to conduct as many types of experiments on it as possible. I believe it is scheduled to be completed in a few years.

Robotic Missions are nothing to be sad about. They are useful and a rational pre-cursor to manned missions. We should be sending plenty of them to survey and map everything out before we send any people to live and work out there.

Once the Shuttle is retired (Scheduled for about 2014) and the International Spacestation is finished NASA will be able to put more money towards their other projects.

The Orion Rocket was designed with a large plate on the back of the ship that would shield the crew from the radiation, and the ships themselves would not be operated close to Earth.

 

That would be quite a rush, riding a nuclear blast into space.

 

With the retirement of the space shuttle, they'll have to come up with a replacement vehicle. I've seen some of the experimental designs being toted by various contractors, and the lead one as far as I know being a spin-off of the current model, only wider.

Production of this will absorb any exess cash needed for human space exploration, which will be forgotten about with the next administration (especially if Democrats take over).
It would be nice if NASA or other space organizations pushed for R&D of the technologies needed for us to live in space. Just the interest by the governments gets many companies activly researching and developing these technologies in the hopes of landing a lucrative contract.
As far as getting into space cheaper, the curent push is for a space elevator, with a cable made out of carbon nanotubes, and the whole thing anchored in orbit.
Using nukes for space travel sounds compelling, but you still have to consider the exhaust issue. Even if the shielding completely protected he occupants, the craft itself would still collect massive abouts of rads and glow in the dark, making it hazardous to leave. On top of that, we'll be polluting the heck out of space, and the space aliens will probably take a negative interest in our activities.

 

Pollute space? Space is filled with radation anyway... very hard to pollute it in that regard.

I won't say that the Orion Rocket is a tried-and-tested technology, because it hasn't been tested or tried. I immagine though that the designers who have drawn up plans for them ought to have taken that into account, in any regard, the articles I've read about them haven't mentioned radiation being a problem. Of'course, there's no reason we have to use Orion Rockets... there are countless possibilities. I was just intending to show that as far back as the 1960's they (NASA) were giving serious consideration to technologies for inter-planetary travel.

I haven't heard anything about NASA wanting to get a replacement for the Shuttle that only serves the exact same purpose... The vehicle I've read they are gunning for is one that will be designed to carry astronaughts to the moon and Mars. Ofcourse what you say may be very true, and in either case, it is very likely. Rather irritates me that so many people have no interest in space and always think of it as something "For the far off future" ... there is no reason we shouldn't be in space right now. Someone has to spend the money and start taking the risks if we're ever going to get off this rock.

 

Unless some major cataclysmic event is either imminent or in the process of happening, there will be no real push to get off of earth. Honestly, I'd like to see the return of the Angel of Death.

 

Or an Ice Age.

What we need is an orbiting shipyard, then we could construct craft of sufficient size to allow us to travel to other planets. The biggest hinderence right now is the fact that we cant get bigger things into space without forking over obscene amounts of money.

With the development of the space elevator, costs to get into space will drop considerably; making exploration, communications, tourism, etc much cheaper, and finally within the range of entreprenuers.

On an unrelated note, I just fixed a problem with my IE, and noticed that there's a lot of animated gifs here! The wonders never cease. :-o

 

Use Firefox instead.

The extensions I recommend:

Adblock
Colorful Tabs
Download Manager Tweak
DownThemAll!
Fasterfox
IE Tab
NoScript
PDF Download
SpiderZilla
Tab Mix Plus

---

Options:

Download Manager Tweak:
- Open in a tab
DownThemAll!:
- "All files" filter; download into c:\downloads
Fasterfox:
- "Turbo Charged", or at least "Optimized"
NoScript:
- Advanced/Forbid everything (okay, I know it is a little paranoid... also, this plugins requires a little bit attention, if you see a site is fucked up, enable scripts, but only if you trust that site. clicking on a disabled flash will start it)
PDF Dowload:
- Use OS default viewer
SpiderZilla:
- When you save a webpage, make sure you always include everything, archives, videos, +*.*
Tab Mix Plus:
- Links/Open links that open in a new window in: New Tab
- Links/Open links from other applications in: New Tab
- Links/Javascript popups: Open all popups in tabs
- Events/Tab Features: disable Ctrl-Tab navigates tabs in the most recently used order
- Events/Tab Features: disable Ctrl-Tab displays a tab list popup menu
- Display/Tab Bar: enable Close tab button, disable the 2 others
- Display/Tab: disable Close tab button
- Session: Enable Session Manager
- Session: Enable Crash Recovery
- Session/Start/Exit: Restore
- Session/Start/Exit: Save Session
- Session: Startup Session: Last Session
- Session: Choose another if empty

---

Use Ctrl+Click if you want to open a link in a new tab
Use Ctrl+Tab and Ctrl+Shift+Tab for switching between tabs
Use Ctrl+T to open a new tab
Use Ctrl+W to close the actual tab
Use Ctrl+F for searching; searching is realtime, press esc to exit from it


Hmmm, I hope there's nothing I forgot

 

Its different. I'll have to play around with it and see how it works. Site looks different without all the banner ads.

 

Our Sun is than Sun that can increase and decrease it solar radiation over time. Our sun is in theoy be than a low sunspot peroid which it isnot. There is more solarflare action on the sun along with increase X-Ray from the sun hitting the earth than warming it up.

 

The amount of x-rays from the sun haven't increased, its the retention rate of heat radiation on this planet, due to greenhouse gases, that is causing temperatures to rise.

 

The world is no doubt warming up. It ought to be, since we only just came out of an ice-age. It stands to reason that Earth would be gradually warming. I'm not opposed to the idea that humans are helping cause it, but it'd happen even if we weren't building factories and belching chemicals into the air. It also isn't going to dramatically affect our lives anytime soon. It's a slow process... a long-term problem that at best can only be slowed.

 

If by recent you mean 30000 years ago, sure. Also, we've seen a rapid and artificial increase in world temperature over the last 100+ years, with a sharp peak starting only 50 years ago (about the time we entered the Industrial Age). Science has also revealed that the onset of the last ice age was rather rapid, maybe 50 years or so, and supposedly ended as fast (after 10000 years....)

It can dramatically increase our problems here. Look at all the freaky weather thats been happening for the last twenty years, with Katrina being the latest in a recent and increasing trend. Now couple that with all the scary new diseases popping up all over the place ... SARs, Ebola, Bird flu. I'm waiting for Bubonic Plague and Polio (they're still live viruses) to mutate and revisit us with a vengence.

Now look at the mass extinctions going on right now. The last time so many species died off in such a short period of time was when the dinosaurs disappeared.... Life is a symbiotic thing, and if you upset the cycle of life, we will pay.
Sure, its some dumb spotted owl today, but its disappearance might cause a repid increase in Haunta Virus carrying rodents which infect people and livestock. Or a Rain Forest being clear-cutted reduces the amount of worldwide oxygen supply by 40% percent while increasing carbon dioxide exponentially. Its being destroyed by the acre as your reading this right now.... Did I mention they also contain 50-90% of all flora and fauna on Earth? Who cares, our children will figure out how to fix our mess, right?

No worry, we'll wait until its to late and try and throw money at it and make it go away. Unfortunately, this wont be Y2K, and upgrading crap wont change a thing.

 

Every second of the day land the size of 2 football fields is lost forever in The Rain Forests of the World.

Here's a 'clock' showing how many acres have been destroyed every second....
http://stat1.realityclock.com/classRCB/ ... r=N&M=AUTO
...notice the clock says 'acres that have disappeared this year.

I'm not a tree hugger or anything but damn some things need to left alone and not messed with. These forests are literally the planets lungs, and our primary source for continued survival.

 

I think there another problem which maybe won't kill that many people but still is a big problem.

More than 50% of a fish species live in coral reefs and a hell lot of other organisms, such as worms, squids, snails, urchins, seastars and sea cucumbers also live there. There are many people, most of them living in Indonesia, New Guinea, Hawaii and other islands, who hunt and fish in those coral reefs. These people also takes living coral and sell them to those who want to buy. It takes really long time for a coral to grow so they are sold for quite much money.
There are other things that may disturb the balans in the coral reef: crown-of-horns (Acanthaster planci) and stupid tourist. The thing is that coral reef survive those "attacs" but if the water temprature increase with, let's say... 3-5 Celsius, then almost every coral and every other organism that lives within the coral reef will die. This is called bleaching (I don't want to describe it in detail).

3-5 Celsius is quite much and it will take a long time before the water temprature increases that much permanently. The problem is El Niño. El Niño brings unusually warm water to differnet parts of the Pacific Ocean and the largest coral reefs are located in areas that are exposed to those increases. Every time the El Niño occure there are large amounts of coral blechings and mortality.

Okey, we don't have any coral reefs left, so what? What will happen now?

Not much exept that more than 50% of a marine species will die and the oxygen level in the sea will degrease since corals are the major producer of oxygen. The whole things is an evil circle and we might end up with seas only filled with sulfide eating algaes.

Some marine biologists say that the coral reefs may be gone in 30 years. I think they are right.

Source: Marine Biology, written by: Peter Castro and Michael E. Huber, fifth edition, published 2005.[/i]