Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

I'm extremely impressed by NASA's current Mars plan (2018 originally, but pushed back a couple years, I think)... I watched a special about it on TV, and how the guy who pioneered the plan was repeatedly shot down by NASA, who back then favored Daddy Bush's Mars plan back in '89, which was apparently an engineering nightmare. Overly expensive, unnecessary steps (starting with a moon base, etc)... It was said that Bush put this plan forward to fail politically and to discredit NASA.

This new Mars plan is much more streamlined and impressively innovative. Basically, an crewless ship goes to Mars ahead of time. It lands and begins acting as a factory, using ingredients it brought along with carbon from the atmosphere to create fuel for the return trip. This ship will also be part of the astronauts' living/working quarters. Once fuel production is confirmed, a crew gets sent up in a similar ship, spends half a year travelling to Mars, spends an entire year doing all kinds of scientific tests on Mars, and uses the first ship to launch themselves back home, spending another half-year in space. I like the fact that they'll be spending so much time on the surface, unlike the stupid moon missions which were so touch-and-go that it was hardly worth it.

I have to disagree 100% with allowing all space research to be done privately. I don't want to look up into the sky to see a moon covered in strip mines and McDonalds Billboards.

When Sandrider says it will make space only for the rich it won't just be the rich, it will be those people whose wealth comes solely from trust funds and investments or large corporations. With space being basically one huge "Off Shore" tax zone, the people who can afford to live in orbit will suck earth dry.

Wow, that's a great idea!

Hey look, if liberals got ahold of the moon, at least we'd only cover it in Rice Paddies and Soy Bean Farms.

Baraka Bryan wrote:well they hardly had the ability to do much more on the moon. that lander they took there was pretty small. they couldn't exactly live there for weeks. the fact that they got there in the 60s is pretty damn impressive.

i loved the saturn V rocket on display at KSC. crazy how it took that big of a rocket to get there, and just a little capsule engine to blast off from the moon back to earth. goes to show how much it would be worth it to have a launch base from the moon. the energy needed to get off of a rock with 1/6G and no atmosphere is relatively nothing compared to getting off earth.

Your Saturn V comment reminded me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umEpXKdTm5k

My favourite part is 2:25 - 3:00

Funny stuff, definitely worth the ten-minute length.

SandRider wrote:THIS TOPIC HAS BEEN SPLIT FROM ANOTHER

As much as I think the oil industry is the Child of Satan and everything should be run off
renewable electricity, that's not going to happen for atleast 100 years.

I remember seeing a report on the Alberta oil sands back in the early 80s - the projections for
just how much oil was there were staggering. So staggering, it scared the Arabs into overproduction
and the drastic fall in prices back then. (There were other reasons, of course, but the threat of the
potential production was a part of it.)

The problem was the technology required to process the oil was incredibly expensive and in its
infancy. That's not true today. So you've got to look at the real economic benefits to Canada in
exploiting this resource and the desire to balance power with the oil-producing Arab countries.

PLEASE start pumping that oil. Let the Arabs see exactly how much the world will kowtow to them when their hydraulic despotism is weakened to the breaking point!

moreh_yeladim wrote:

SandRider wrote:THIS TOPIC HAS BEEN SPLIT FROM ANOTHER

As much as I think the oil industry is the Child of Satan and everything should be run off
renewable electricity, that's not going to happen for atleast 100 years.

I remember seeing a report on the Alberta oil sands back in the early 80s - the projections for
just how much oil was there were staggering. So staggering, it scared the Arabs into overproduction
and the drastic fall in prices back then. (There were other reasons, of course, but the threat of the
potential production was a part of it.)

The problem was the technology required to process the oil was incredibly expensive and in its
infancy. That's not true today. So you've got to look at the real economic benefits to Canada in
exploiting this resource and the desire to balance power with the oil-producing Arab countries.

PLEASE start pumping that oil. Let the Arabs see exactly how much the world will kowtow to them when their hydraulic despotism is weakened to the breaking point!

It's been pumping for quite some time now, my cousin drives one of the really (REALLY) big trucks at one of the sites.

This is a petition that is going around the internets. If you want to sign it, if not don't. Enjoy.



http://www.spacepetition.com/




Petition for Inexpensive Space Access



We, the undersigned, believe that the time has come for space flight to be opened to all people.

We recognize, however, that this cannot happen with the current high price of space flight. Humanity will never develop an economy in space — will never work, travel or live on other worlds — if it remains too expensive.

We would like the chance to go into space in our lifetimes — perhaps to orbital hotels, to the Moon, or to Mars.

We therefore appeal to all world space agencies, government leaders, and private sector organizations to challenge them in this matter. We ask them to adopt policies and help develop technologies that will take humanity into space.

Also, as a side note, they do have a 'disclaimer' stating the following:

The intent and purpose of this petition

In case there is any misunderstanding, we will first make this statement: We fully support, encourage, and applaud the persons and groups who are already making tremendous effort and progress in these areas. These people should be regarded as heroes.

This petition aims to stand alongside these persons and groups, and certainly not in opposition to them. The exhortatory language of the petition is not directed to them, but to the rest of the world -- persons, companies, and organizations who are unaware or uncommitted where spaceward expansion is concerned.

As such, this effort is primarily to raise public awareness and "get the word out" -- and here, the word "public" includes non-space-related private enterprise. It will make no difference in the long run, any more than a single Yuri's Night party makes a difference in the long run. But if it helps move space "onto the radar" of even one person or group, it will have been worthwhile.

This "intent and purpose" page was created in response to an email from a member of the space community (here reprinted anonymously):
This seems to be fly in the face of Elon and Space X, Bigelow, John Carmack, XCOR, etc. They know what it takes to get to space let alone do it cheaper. There are hundreds of millions being spent on this problem around the world. Do you think waving a magic wand with a petition like this will solve the real engineering, science, and tech issues? Don't you think Elon who is way beyond $120 million of his own money knows what it takes to lower space access costs?...

I think its well intentioned but if it has no delivery point or focus or end result in mind, its wishful thinking. Also, I think it tends to belittle those in the trenches working this problem with their life blood. Its not that the issues of low cost space access are being ignored, hell, they are being addressed on the public and the private side. $500 million and more of our tax money is trying to spur COTS players to do this cheaper than the gov. contractors.

Say, Nerd. (and I mean that kindly)

Do you have any inside (historical) information as to why
NASA ignored and shunned Freeman J. Dyson ?

It's bothered me for many years ....

SandRider wrote:Say, Nerd. (and I mean that kindly)

Do you have any inside (historical) information as to why
NASA ignored and shunned Freeman J. Dyson ?

It's bothered me for many years ....

I take pride in my being a nerd, so thanks.

No idea about the shunning. Recently in the news there was a study done by some one inside NASA talking about good ideas being shunned. I heard it on NPR, see if you can find that article, it pretty much sums up why that would have happened.

It is snowing right now in Atlanta. Must be that global warming...

Freakzilla wrote:It is snowing right now in Atlanta. Must be that global warming...

Freak, that's simply not how it works... I guess it's easy to confuse the terms "global warming" and "climate change" but allow me to clarify...

"Global warming" refers to the average global temperature increasing in recent years. This increase so far is only like 2 or 3 degrees farenheit up from the average like a hundred years ago. This certainly seems like a miniscule amount, but it has drastic effects nonetheless. I suppose some people might confuse the high temperatures and droughts in places like Australia to be "global warming" itself, but it's actually just a result of global warming. There are all kinds of fluxuations that result from that seemingly minor increase in average global temperature. These fluxuations are known as "climate change," and they come in a wide variety of forms. Some areas will experience drought, others might have heatwaves, the melting of permafrost has already caused landslides in places that usually don't have such problems. And of course, some places might see a little snow. In fact, it's widely accepted among scientists that global warming will cause winters that are more intense. This is basic stuff that scientists have had down for years and years.

So instead of:

Global Warming = crazy higher temperature = no more snow ever

Try to think of it like this:

Global Warming = mildly higher average global temperature = a variety of changes in climate[/b]

D.I. ... why bother?

Freak's the kind what ain't gonna believe things is changin' until he's standing ass-deep in water.

Oh I realize that, and even when he's ass-deep in water, I'm sure he'll still blame Al Qaeda...

I bother because it's apparent to me that many people share this ignorance when it comes to this topic, so I figured others could benefit too.

Freak's comment reminds me of this episode of South Park:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uORAyORWRAA

In it, time-travelling immigrants from the future arrive in South Park looking for work, because there is a lack of jobs 3000 years in the future. Since the immigrants work for super cheap, many of South Park's residents become unemployed, and thusly complain "Dey took ourr jeeeuuhhbbs!!" In one of the scenes, the jobless are trying to think up ways to prevent the time-travellers from ever coming back, and one guy says "Maybe if we cause more global warming, it will start an ice age, which could kill off all the people who took our jobs?" and the speaker guy responds with "How in the hell is global warming going to cause an ice-age?! You're starting to sound like a complete retard!"

Drunken Idaho wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:It is snowing right now in Atlanta. Must be that global warming...

Freak, that's simply not how it works... I guess it's easy to confuse the terms "global warming" and "climate change" but allow me to clarify...

"Global warming" refers to the average global temperature increasing in recent years. This increase so far is only like 2 or 3 degrees farenheit up from the average like a hundred years ago. This certainly seems like a miniscule amount, but it has drastic effects nonetheless. I suppose some people might confuse the high temperatures and droughts in places like Australia to be "global warming" itself, but it's actually just a result of global warming. There are all kinds of fluxuations that result from that seemingly minor increase in average global temperature. These fluxuations are known as "climate change," and they come in a wide variety of forms. Some areas will experience drought, others might have heatwaves, the melting of permafrost has already caused landslides in places that usually don't have such problems. And of course, some places might see a little snow. In fact, it's widely accepted among scientists that global warming will cause winters that are more intense. This is basic stuff that scientists have had down for years and years.

So instead of:

Global Warming = crazy higher temperature = no more snow ever

Try to think of it like this:

Global Warming = mildly higher average global temperature = a variety of changes in climate[/b]

How long have we been keeping temperature records? 200 years, tops? How can you honestly say they can accurately say what the average temperature of a 4.7 B year old planet is?

As far as observed data goes (IE keeping records, etc) it is indeed 200-300 years, but there is all kinds of data from other sources, such as sediment and tiny bubbles in ice, just to name a couple. The data gives us a picture of the earth's temperature over millennia.

I rest my case.

Drunken Idaho wrote:As far as observed data goes (IE keeping records, etc) it is indeed 200-300 years, but there is all kinds of data from other sources, such as sediment and tiny bubbles in ice, just to name a couple. The data gives us a picture of the earth's temperature over millennia.

Yes, and that picture shows that the planet's temperature is cyclical.

Freakzilla wrote:

Drunken Idaho wrote:As far as observed data goes (IE keeping records, etc) it is indeed 200-300 years, but there is all kinds of data from other sources, such as sediment and tiny bubbles in ice, just to name a couple. The data gives us a picture of the earth's temperature over millennia.

Yes, and that picture shows that the planet's temperature is cyclical.

But IIRC some of that cyclical data appears to show that we should be in the middle of an iceage atm.

DuneFishUK wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:

Drunken Idaho wrote:As far as observed data goes (IE keeping records, etc) it is indeed 200-300 years, but there is all kinds of data from other sources, such as sediment and tiny bubbles in ice, just to name a couple. The data gives us a picture of the earth's temperature over millennia.

Yes, and that picture shows that the planet's temperature is cyclical.

But IIRC some of that cyclical data appears to show that we should be in the middle of an iceage atm.

Some (real) scientist are predicting that.

Ice age atmosphere was 'warm', claim scientists

The scientists studied limestone rocks and found evidence that large amounts of greenhouse gas coincided with a prolonged period of freezing temperatures.

It SNOWED in Atlanta today.

SNOWED!!!

IN APRIL!!!

Yeah, global warming for sure...

http://www.wsbtv.com/slideshow/weather/ ... etail.html

Freakzilla wrote:It SNOWED in Atlanta today.

SNOWED!!!

IN APRIL!!!

Yeah, global warming for sure...

http://www.wsbtv.com/slideshow/weather/ ... etail.html

I know this is time number 15000000000000000000 that we've explained this... but global warming will cause some places to cool, and it is happening, not debatable. Only debatabe thing is whether it's largly or only partially human caused.


(normally I would just assume that was meant as a joke, but I'm not yet convinced you believe in global warming or the moon landing! )

I'm pretty convinced the moon landing was real.

With the current state of our environmental science, I wouldn't bet on if we were in a warming trend or a cooling trend right now.

I think asking a meteorologist, or worse, a climatologist, what the temperature will be tomorrow is about as much as you could expect in terms of accuracy.

Just look at their Hurricane "Cone of Probablility" maps.

I could do as good a job with access to the national weather data.