The International Space Station is due to be de-orbited sometime between 2015 and 2020.
Its successor is to be of Russian design, and will be used for deep space research.
For the next generation of space stations, I have a number of possible suggestions for layout and design.
Current problems with space travel:
Flying debris can cause extreme damage to orbital spacecraft, and such debris is becoming more common.
EVA suits are extremely bulky and cannot be put on quickly.
Any damage to the spacecraft is pretty much a total loss. Any puncture in the skin is almost unrepairable.
Outdated equipment cannot be removed from the spacecraft.
My solutions:
The exterior skin of the station should be made of self-sealing stacked square panels. If the skin is damaged, the adjacent panel can unstack itself to seal the hole in a matter of seconds.
The interior should have a panel-based resource distribution system that can easily be swapped out. This will be the base layer.
Interior modules can attach to the previously mentioned panel, which has all the appropriate power and resource distribution hookups. These modules can be detached, moved and replaced easily.
The overall frame of the craft should be a rigid carbon-fiber, steel or titanium frame. This frame will be assembled in orbit. The frame should be modular so that additional rooms can be added on when needed.
Resources will be launched into space via a large electromagnetic accelerator (railgun, mass driver, etc). This will be built into mountain so that the barrel can be up to a mile long. Prefabbed materials can be launched into orbit, where they can be assembled.
Space suits will no longer be huge and bulky. Next-gen materials will allow astronauts to wear compressive space suits with built in heat and fluid exchange. Tethers will keep astronauts from floating off into space when they go out for EVA. Space suits should be worn in as well as outside the station, and each suit will be equipped with a built-in air backup, should the astronaut be caught unprepared. The astronaut will be able to pull a loop on the front of the suit to pull out a plastic bubble helmet that will seal at the back of the head and be fed by the suit's (limited) air supply. An astronaut should be able to activate this in less than 5 seconds. In an emergency, astronauts should be able to hook themselves up to an external air supply pack before the backup runs out. Because the suit uses compression to maintain body pressure, it could be used to force the heart to work harder in space. If the legs are compressed, blood flow should be slightly restricted, forcing the heart to work harder. Hopefully, this can make up for the lack of gravity's affect on the heart.
Overall, the suit should be non-restricting, comfortable for long term wear, adaptable to numerous pressure environments, stylish, and possibly help astronauts stay healthier in space.
Are these new ideas or am I just rehashing what I've heard over the last 10 years?
Well, my two cents of comments, just about some topics picked out with no special reason...
- I'm not convinced Mankind needs a space station.
- A self-healing hull is a good principle. Whether this needs some automated replacement of hull tiles is unclear. Puncture-proof tyres work well with other methods.
- Forget titanium. It was fabulous 30 years ago. Meanwhile, steel has progressed quickly and titanium nearly not, alas. Carbon fibres are excellent, and aluminium - though much worse than steel - is still useful where steel would have to be too thin.
- Electromagnetic accelerators have nothing to do with space exploration. You can't achieve an orbit if accelerating a ground level only. You can't sensibly design a piece of equipment and give it 11km/s within a km.
Electromagnetic guns are weapons and nothing else.
- I'm not convinced Mankind needs a space station.
- A self-healing hull is a good principle. Whether this needs some automated replacement of hull tiles is unclear. Puncture-proof tyres work well with other methods.
- Forget titanium. It was fabulous 30 years ago. Meanwhile, steel has progressed quickly and titanium nearly not, alas. Carbon fibres are excellent, and aluminium - though much worse than steel - is still useful where steel would have to be too thin.
- Electromagnetic accelerators have nothing to do with space exploration. You can't achieve an orbit if accelerating a ground level only. You can't sensibly design a piece of equipment and give it 11km/s within a km.
Electromagnetic guns are weapons and nothing else.
QUOTE (Enthalpy+Sep 8 2009, 09:22 PM)
- I'm not convinced Mankind needs a space station.
Any form of space exploration requires a human presence in orbit, either as a construction/staging area or as a backup if atmospheric re-entry is impossible.
Dang, now that I think about it, you're right. There has to be a better way of getting objects into space. :\
Any form of space exploration requires a human presence in orbit, either as a construction/staging area or as a backup if atmospheric re-entry is impossible.
QUOTE
- Electromagnetic accelerators have nothing to do with space exploration. You can't achieve an orbit if accelerating a ground level only. You can't sensibly design a piece of equipment and give it 11km/s within a km.
Dang, now that I think about it, you're right. There has to be a better way of getting objects into space. :\
QUOTE
The exterior skin of the station should be made of self-sealing stacked square panels. If the skin is damaged, the adjacent panel can unstack itself to seal the hole in a matter of seconds.
lol are you going to employ smurfs, or oompa lumpa's?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The exterior skin of the station should be made of self-sealing stacked square panels. If the skin is damaged, the adjacent panel can unstack itself to seal the hole in a matter of seconds. |
lol are you going to employ smurfs, or oompa lumpa's?
Interior modules can attach to the previously mentioned panel, which has all the appropriate power and resource distribution hookups. These modules can be detached, moved and replaced easily.
sounds like you played with too much lego
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 8 2009, 09:28 PM)
Any form of space exploration requires a human presence in orbit, either as a construction/staging area or as a backup if atmospheric re-entry is impossible.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/...ments/List.html
This is a site listing the science done on the ISS. If only for that I think we need a station.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/...ments/List.html
This is a site listing the science done on the ISS. If only for that I think we need a station.
QUOTE (orestis+Sep 9 2009, 11:08 AM)
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/...ments/List.html
This is a site listing the science done on the ISS. If only for that I think we need a station.
Agreed.
This is a site listing the science done on the ISS. If only for that I think we need a station.
Agreed.
Piggy-backing small rockets on commercial flights and launching them from a high altitude seems like the most cost-efficient method to me, but I don't know how much fuel this would save compared to launching from the ground.
I want to know more about the self-sealing panels. What amount of pressure would be trying to push through the sealant?
What about some form of super-strong balloons with multiple layering so that if the outer layer was punctured, there would be time to escape before subsequent layers got damaged?
What about converting moon rock to cement, metal, plastic, or some other building material that could be launched as FlyingButtress says, since there is less gravity on the moon and no atmospheric friction to slow it down during ascent?
I want to know more about the self-sealing panels. What amount of pressure would be trying to push through the sealant?
What about some form of super-strong balloons with multiple layering so that if the outer layer was punctured, there would be time to escape before subsequent layers got damaged?
What about converting moon rock to cement, metal, plastic, or some other building material that could be launched as FlyingButtress says, since there is less gravity on the moon and no atmospheric friction to slow it down during ascent?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 10 2009, 10:37 PM)
Piggy-backing small rockets on commercial flights and launching them from a high altitude seems like the most cost-efficient method to me, but I don't know how much fuel this would save compared to launching from the ground.
Uhhhh, yeah, let's not. That method is only used for very small payloads.
1 Atmosphere. There's no killer space suction like there is in the movies.
1 Atmosphere. There's no killer space suction like there is in the movies.
What about converting moon rock to cement, metal, plastic, or some other building material that could be launched as FlyingButtress says, since there is less gravity on the moon and no atmospheric friction to slow it down during ascent?
I would rather not build a sterile environment out of rock/concrete. Otherwise, maybe, but you would have to orbit your station around the moon.
Uhhhh, yeah, let's not. That method is only used for very small payloads.
QUOTE
I want to know more about the self-sealing panels. What amount of pressure would be trying to push through the sealant?
1 Atmosphere. There's no killer space suction like there is in the movies.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I want to know more about the self-sealing panels. What amount of pressure would be trying to push through the sealant? |
1 Atmosphere. There's no killer space suction like there is in the movies.
What about converting moon rock to cement, metal, plastic, or some other building material that could be launched as FlyingButtress says, since there is less gravity on the moon and no atmospheric friction to slow it down during ascent?
I would rather not build a sterile environment out of rock/concrete. Otherwise, maybe, but you would have to orbit your station around the moon.
Why dont we convert the earth into a giant space station --> and launch it into space? 
Seriously though...
Seriously though...
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 11 2009, 11:44 AM)
Uhhhh, yeah, let's not. That method is only used for very small payloads.
Right, but that's the point. There are many commercial flights and shipping materials into space in multiple small payloads might be more cost-effective than launching very large ones.
I had to google it to convert to psi. 14.5 psi is not high pressure. I wonder if the green slime in my bike tires would work at 14.5 psi. Honestly though, the teflon bands work as well or better to protect the innertube from punctures than does the slime. So maybe space stations could be built out of teflon and green slime walls.
I had to google it to convert to psi. 14.5 psi is not high pressure. I wonder if the green slime in my bike tires would work at 14.5 psi. Honestly though, the teflon bands work as well or better to protect the innertube from punctures than does the slime. So maybe space stations could be built out of teflon and green slime walls.
I would rather not build a sterile environment out of rock/concrete. Otherwise, maybe, but you would have to orbit your station around the moon.
It would also require launching a lot more mass into space, even if it was from the moon. I wonder if metal could be mined, though, so the frame could be produced and launched from the moon. That would save loads of energy needed to launch it from Earth. Although, I don't know how you would generate heat to have a foundry without any atmosphere to burn.
Right, but that's the point. There are many commercial flights and shipping materials into space in multiple small payloads might be more cost-effective than launching very large ones.
QUOTE
1 Atmosphere. There's no killer space suction like there is in the movies.
I had to google it to convert to psi. 14.5 psi is not high pressure. I wonder if the green slime in my bike tires would work at 14.5 psi. Honestly though, the teflon bands work as well or better to protect the innertube from punctures than does the slime. So maybe space stations could be built out of teflon and green slime walls.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1 Atmosphere. There's no killer space suction like there is in the movies. |
I had to google it to convert to psi. 14.5 psi is not high pressure. I wonder if the green slime in my bike tires would work at 14.5 psi. Honestly though, the teflon bands work as well or better to protect the innertube from punctures than does the slime. So maybe space stations could be built out of teflon and green slime walls.
I would rather not build a sterile environment out of rock/concrete. Otherwise, maybe, but you would have to orbit your station around the moon.
It would also require launching a lot more mass into space, even if it was from the moon. I wonder if metal could be mined, though, so the frame could be produced and launched from the moon. That would save loads of energy needed to launch it from Earth. Although, I don't know how you would generate heat to have a foundry without any atmosphere to burn.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 11 2009, 12:58 PM)
Right, but that's the point. There are many commercial flights and shipping materials into space in multiple small payloads might be more cost-effective than launching very large ones.
Think 5 pounds or less. Plus, the only planes that are fitted to launch payloads capable of reaching space are modified B-52s. It's a pretty dumb idea.
So... You create a foundry on the moon so that you can create a station in orbit? That's what's called a gross waste of resources.
Think 5 pounds or less. Plus, the only planes that are fitted to launch payloads capable of reaching space are modified B-52s. It's a pretty dumb idea.
QUOTE
It would also require launching a lot more mass into space, even if it was from the moon. I wonder if metal could be mined, though, so the frame could be produced and launched from the moon. That would save loads of energy needed to launch it from Earth. Although, I don't know how you would generate heat to have a foundry without any atmosphere to burn.
So... You create a foundry on the moon so that you can create a station in orbit? That's what's called a gross waste of resources.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 11 2009, 05:06 PM)
So... You create a foundry on the moon so that you can create a station in orbit? That's what's called a gross waste of resources.
Isn't the whole purpose for current revitalization of moon exploration efforts having to do with the greater ease of launching interplanetary journeys from the moon than from Earth?
1) moon has no atmosphere, therefore no launch friction.
2) moon has less gravity.
3) moon revolves around Earth, so that launches from the "front" of the moon in the direction of the destination will have the orbital velocity of the moon added to their travel velocity.
4) Launching interstellar journeys from lunar orbit would increase the velocity even more if you timed the launch so that the moon's orbital vector is in the direction you want to go PLUS you launch out of orbiting the moon at a point where your orbit's vector is also in the direction of your destination.
It's like vomiting of of one of those tea-cup rides at an amusement park. Your vomit travels away from the ride at the velocity of the ride, plus the velocity of the spinning tea-cup you're sitting in. Except in the Earth/moon/moon-satellite example the whole tea-cup ride is itself a tea-cup on an even larger ride.
As you may have noticed my math-skills are elementary at best. But I would be interested to figure out what the total velocity in the direction of Mars would be if a spacecraft was launched from orbit around the moon at a point where the Earth, moon, and spacecraft were all moving in the direction of Mars.
If Mars was moving closer to Earth as well, I wonder how short atravel-time could be achieved.
Isn't the whole purpose for current revitalization of moon exploration efforts having to do with the greater ease of launching interplanetary journeys from the moon than from Earth?
1) moon has no atmosphere, therefore no launch friction.
2) moon has less gravity.
3) moon revolves around Earth, so that launches from the "front" of the moon in the direction of the destination will have the orbital velocity of the moon added to their travel velocity.
4) Launching interstellar journeys from lunar orbit would increase the velocity even more if you timed the launch so that the moon's orbital vector is in the direction you want to go PLUS you launch out of orbiting the moon at a point where your orbit's vector is also in the direction of your destination.
It's like vomiting of of one of those tea-cup rides at an amusement park. Your vomit travels away from the ride at the velocity of the ride, plus the velocity of the spinning tea-cup you're sitting in. Except in the Earth/moon/moon-satellite example the whole tea-cup ride is itself a tea-cup on an even larger ride.
As you may have noticed my math-skills are elementary at best. But I would be interested to figure out what the total velocity in the direction of Mars would be if a spacecraft was launched from orbit around the moon at a point where the Earth, moon, and spacecraft were all moving in the direction of Mars.
If Mars was moving closer to Earth as well, I wonder how short atravel-time could be achieved.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 11 2009, 01:27 PM)
Isn't the whole purpose for current revitalization of moon exploration efforts having to do with the greater ease of launching interplanetary journeys from the moon than from Earth?
No.
In space, going too fast is just as bad (if not worse) than going too slow.
In space, going too fast is just as bad (if not worse) than going too slow.
Launching interstellar journeys from lunar orbit would increase the velocity even more if you timed the launch so that the moon's orbital vector is in the direction you want to go PLUS you launch out of orbiting the moon at a point where your orbit's vector is also in the direction of your destination.
You still have to move all those resources from the Earth to the moon to begin with. What advantage does the moon have over just launching it from Earth's orbit? Spacecraft geometry is very limited by the requirement of surface launch.
Yes, I noticed.
I have it all figured out!
You already have a ship, but you want to cull the test results on prospective passengers to at least the first quartile.
No.
QUOTE
moon revolves around Earth, so that launches from the "front" of the moon in the direction of the destination will have the orbital velocity of the moon added to their travel velocity.
In space, going too fast is just as bad (if not worse) than going too slow.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| moon revolves around Earth, so that launches from the "front" of the moon in the direction of the destination will have the orbital velocity of the moon added to their travel velocity. |
In space, going too fast is just as bad (if not worse) than going too slow.
Launching interstellar journeys from lunar orbit would increase the velocity even more if you timed the launch so that the moon's orbital vector is in the direction you want to go PLUS you launch out of orbiting the moon at a point where your orbit's vector is also in the direction of your destination.
You still have to move all those resources from the Earth to the moon to begin with. What advantage does the moon have over just launching it from Earth's orbit? Spacecraft geometry is very limited by the requirement of surface launch.
QUOTE
As you may have noticed my math-skills are elementary at best.
Yes, I noticed.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 11 2009, 12:52 PM)
No.
In space, going too fast is just as bad (if not worse) than going too slow.
You still have to move all those resources from the Earth to the moon to begin with. What advantage does the moon have over just launching it from Earth's orbit? Spacecraft geometry is very limited by the requirement of surface launch.
I explained this to you a few days ago.
If Earth invests X units of energy and resources in a space refinery, then the refinery mines 10X units of energy and resources, then this is much, much cheaper and profitable than if the earth invests 10X directly.
Once the earth spends its investment of resources to make a space mining colony, it need never spend anything on space travel again, at least in terms of net cost. The colony will always more than pay for its own upkeep and still be profitable to earth for various reasons.
In space, going too fast is just as bad (if not worse) than going too slow.
You still have to move all those resources from the Earth to the moon to begin with. What advantage does the moon have over just launching it from Earth's orbit? Spacecraft geometry is very limited by the requirement of surface launch.
I explained this to you a few days ago.
If Earth invests X units of energy and resources in a space refinery, then the refinery mines 10X units of energy and resources, then this is much, much cheaper and profitable than if the earth invests 10X directly.
Once the earth spends its investment of resources to make a space mining colony, it need never spend anything on space travel again, at least in terms of net cost. The colony will always more than pay for its own upkeep and still be profitable to earth for various reasons.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 11 2009, 09:31 PM)
If Earth invests X units of energy and resources in a space refinery, then the refinery mines 10X units of energy and resources, then this is much, much cheaper and profitable than if the earth invests 10X directly.
Once the earth spends its investment of resources to make a space mining colony, it need never spend anything on space travel again, at least in terms of net cost. The colony will always more than pay for its own upkeep and still be profitable to earth for various reasons.
You have 0 knowledge of economics. That is all.
Once the earth spends its investment of resources to make a space mining colony, it need never spend anything on space travel again, at least in terms of net cost. The colony will always more than pay for its own upkeep and still be profitable to earth for various reasons.
You have 0 knowledge of economics. That is all.
I have it all figured out!
You already have a ship, but you want to cull the test results on prospective passengers to at least the first quartile.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 11 2009, 08:38 PM)
You have 0 knowledge of economics. That is all.
There is economics and then there's economics.
If you define economics as some CEO or politician getting filthy rich at everyone elses expense, well, you should feel right at home with the TARP program and the stimulus programs in the U.S.
When you learn to define Economics by the production of real goods and services AND the using of them in an efficient manner, then come back and we can talk.
There is economics and then there's economics.
If you define economics as some CEO or politician getting filthy rich at everyone elses expense, well, you should feel right at home with the TARP program and the stimulus programs in the U.S.
When you learn to define Economics by the production of real goods and services AND the using of them in an efficient manner, then come back and we can talk.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 11 2009, 10:00 PM)
There is economics and then there's economics.
If you define economics as some CEO or politician getting filthy rich at everyone elses expense, well, you should feel right at home with the TARP program and the stimulus programs in the U.S.
When you learn to define Economics by the production of real goods and services AND the using of them in an efficient manner, then come back and we can talk.
Great, a fascist-communist. Awesome.
Economics. If space is going to be colonized, it has to be done by corporations, for the purpose of making money. Otherwise, it's just an expedition.
If you define economics as some CEO or politician getting filthy rich at everyone elses expense, well, you should feel right at home with the TARP program and the stimulus programs in the U.S.
When you learn to define Economics by the production of real goods and services AND the using of them in an efficient manner, then come back and we can talk.
Great, a fascist-communist. Awesome.
Economics. If space is going to be colonized, it has to be done by corporations, for the purpose of making money. Otherwise, it's just an expedition.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 12 2009, 02:10 AM)
Great, a fascist-communist. Awesome.
Space is fraught with danger - cosmic rays, high velocity micro/macro debris etc.
Here's a start: Space shield.
Here's a start: Space shield.
Fast interstellar transit with propellant based drive will mean constructing vehicles able to withstand many kG's - How would a human survive in flight? - freeze the sucker solid, in some cryostasis chamber, and thaw on arrival.
haha, what about 'space madness' ?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 11 2009, 05:52 PM)
In space, going too fast is just as bad (if not worse) than going too slow.
Why, because you need as much energy to decelerate as accelerate?
So I take it you would prefer to develop a good system to recycle air and water, and then just plan for a long journey?
What do you do for people who want to go back and forth to Mars without spending a decade on the trip?
Isn't there some way to plan a trajectory that utilizes the gravity of sun, mars, etc. to slow down with less propulsion?
The value of the moon is in its low gravity and the fact that it orbits Earth. These are energy resources if you can figure out a way to utilize them.
As for (the cost of) getting materials to the moon, the trick is to figure out the minimum you need to start generating resources from the moon itself.
A big problem with the moon is lack of hydrogen. If hydrogen could be efficiently imported, there is plenty of oxygen for making water. I don't think there's any nitrogen, though, so you couldn't make air, I assume.
Maybe some technology could be designed to infuse oxygen directly into the blood, eliminating the need to breathe. This would probably be very bad for your lungs, though.
Why, because you need as much energy to decelerate as accelerate?
So I take it you would prefer to develop a good system to recycle air and water, and then just plan for a long journey?
What do you do for people who want to go back and forth to Mars without spending a decade on the trip?
Isn't there some way to plan a trajectory that utilizes the gravity of sun, mars, etc. to slow down with less propulsion?
The value of the moon is in its low gravity and the fact that it orbits Earth. These are energy resources if you can figure out a way to utilize them.
As for (the cost of) getting materials to the moon, the trick is to figure out the minimum you need to start generating resources from the moon itself.
A big problem with the moon is lack of hydrogen. If hydrogen could be efficiently imported, there is plenty of oxygen for making water. I don't think there's any nitrogen, though, so you couldn't make air, I assume.
Maybe some technology could be designed to infuse oxygen directly into the blood, eliminating the need to breathe. This would probably be very bad for your lungs, though.
Wow... so many people speculating without any actual info on the subject.
It's about 9 months (or so) one way. Then you have to wait for the planets to get close again... but it sure isn't a decade.
It's about 9 months (or so) one way. Then you have to wait for the planets to get close again... but it sure isn't a decade.
Isn't there some way to plan a trajectory that utilizes the gravity of sun, mars, etc. to slow down with less propulsion?
NASA has being doing that for decades to speed up or slow down.
I have looked. As far as I know, there are no current or projected missions to the Moon or Mars that could bring in more resources than they put out.
The Moon could be a source of Helium 3, which could be a massive source of energy for the Earth... but the technical issues in getting it back here and using it are immense. I have yet to see any reasonable scheme for doing so.
I have looked. As far as I know, there are no current or projected missions to the Moon or Mars that could bring in more resources than they put out.
The Moon could be a source of Helium 3, which could be a massive source of energy for the Earth... but the technical issues in getting it back here and using it are immense. I have yet to see any reasonable scheme for doing so.
A big problem with the moon is lack of hydrogen. If hydrogen could be efficiently imported, there is plenty of oxygen for making water. I don't think there's any nitrogen, though, so you couldn't make air, I assume.
I am not sure what exactly you are talking about. Ilmenite contains oxygen but it would be a lot easier if they found an actual source of water on the Moon or, even better, on Mars.
BTW.... yes, with oxygen you can make air. Oxygen is the part we use up.. so it's the part you need to replace.
I am not sure what exactly you are talking about. Ilmenite contains oxygen but it would be a lot easier if they found an actual source of water on the Moon or, even better, on Mars.
BTW.... yes, with oxygen you can make air. Oxygen is the part we use up.. so it's the part you need to replace.
And how long would it take if a spacecraft was launched from lunar orbit, at a point when the vectors of the Earth, moon, and orbiting spacecraft were all aligned in the direction of Mars?
Ok, but is it possible to do so in a way that makes the above-mentioned speed feasible?
Ok, but is it possible to do so in a way that makes the above-mentioned speed feasible?
I have looked. As far as I know, there are no current or projected missions to the Moon or Mars that could bring in more resources than they put out.
Do you mean put out more resources than they put in? . . . because that would be the point, I think. The trick is to think like a seed. Seeds carry a small amount of initial equipment and materials and then use the resources on hand to grow. The question is what a "moon seed" would need to start making use of the moon soil, sunlight, and the existing architecture and geological structure of the surface to be able to expand on itself and grow in viability.
I think you would have to start with robots that mine, build, etc. They should be solar powered. There needs to be a way for them to generate enough energy to set up a foundry so that they can build more robots to speed up the work and do more of it. Then, at some point, they could build the hollowed out mine caverns into air-tight space that could be filled with oxygen and whatever other gasses can be distilled to produce moon-air. At that point, humans could survive in the caverns and do whatever they need to do. It would require a lot of remote control work and automation-programming.
When I look at the progress made in lighting alone in the last decade or so, from 60w incandescents, to 15w fluorescents, to LEDs that use a fraction of that, I don't think such large amounts of power are going to be needed in the future.
With the right technological and cultural developments, humans should be able to live with an amount of power per/capita that is small enough to be harnessed by solar panels, etc.
The biggest obstacle is the high demand for pumping enormous quantities of heat out of enormously voluminous buildings. If a bio-physical technology could be created that would enable humans to experience higher temperatures as cooler, the need for air-conditioning would disappear.
The next step would be to work on refrigeration techniques that reduce the energy used for that. How often do you shop at a supermarket where frozen products are in open freezers for convenient shopping? Of course this energy should simply displace energy that would be used by the air-conditioning system to maintain the same thermostat level, but if air-conditioning were unnecessary, then sealed refrigerators would save energy.
Finally, if refrigerated products were produced and distributed differently, they might be kept out of refrigeration altogether. This would require more local agriculture and a more efficient supply-line between grower/farmer and consumer.
Of course food isn't all that's consumed, so you also have to take into account things like factory and construction equipment, trains, electric vehicles, etc. but all of these things can be refined in the direction of getting more units of product per kilowatt. Sustainable designs and architecture, for example, can reduce the power needed for construction by increasing the amount of time between renovation projects.
There's a lot of work that can be done that is simpler and less costly than shipping H3 from the moon to run a super reactor, imo. I'm sure others will think differently.
BTW.... yes, with oxygen you can make air. Oxygen is the part we use up.. so it's the part you need to replace.
The problem is nobody in NASA or any other space agency seems to be thinking big enough. The existing space station programs have all been so tiny. While they have provided some decent science and proof of concept models, they haven't been big enough or ambitious enough to accomplish anything long term.
I have actually seen some serious presentations on some of the science oriented television shows which have some NASA affiliates working on designing livable moon bases.
The problem is nobody in NASA or any other space agency seems to be thinking big enough. The existing space station programs have all been so tiny. While they have provided some decent science and proof of concept models, they haven't been big enough or ambitious enough to accomplish anything long term.
I have actually seen some serious presentations on some of the science oriented television shows which have some NASA affiliates working on designing livable moon bases.
I am not sure what exactly you are talking about. Ilmenite contains oxygen but it would be a lot easier if they found an actual source of water on the Moon or, even better, on Mars.
There is a relatively simple way to harvest oxygen from the rocks of the moon during the "startup" phase of any colony mission. You bake the rocks in hydrogen gas, this allows you to extract the oxygen. Then you use electrolisis to seperate the hydrogen back from the oxygen. Oxygen is compressed for later usage, or fed into the living quarters of the moon base. Hydrogen is fed back into the furnace along with a new batch of rock. In this way, a few gallons of water allows you to extract as much oxygen as you need from the available rocks, which are as much as 40% oxygen by mass. The energy to do this comes and electric oven powered by solar panel arrays.
In the long term, water isn't a big problem, as Europa and Enceladus each have more water than the entire earth. Water would be harvested from these moons for drinking, oxygen, and hydrogen for fusion(eventually.)
As to your latest 'question', you should have been looking at a cheese chart, not pie.
Unbelievable.
QUOTE
What do you do for people who want to go back and forth to Mars without spending a decade on the trip?
It's about 9 months (or so) one way. Then you have to wait for the planets to get close again... but it sure isn't a decade.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What do you do for people who want to go back and forth to Mars without spending a decade on the trip? |
It's about 9 months (or so) one way. Then you have to wait for the planets to get close again... but it sure isn't a decade.
Isn't there some way to plan a trajectory that utilizes the gravity of sun, mars, etc. to slow down with less propulsion?
NASA has being doing that for decades to speed up or slow down.
QUOTE
As for (the cost of) getting materials to the moon, the trick is to figure out the minimum you need to start generating resources from the moon itself.
I have looked. As far as I know, there are no current or projected missions to the Moon or Mars that could bring in more resources than they put out.
The Moon could be a source of Helium 3, which could be a massive source of energy for the Earth... but the technical issues in getting it back here and using it are immense. I have yet to see any reasonable scheme for doing so.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As for (the cost of) getting materials to the moon, the trick is to figure out the minimum you need to start generating resources from the moon itself. |
I have looked. As far as I know, there are no current or projected missions to the Moon or Mars that could bring in more resources than they put out.
The Moon could be a source of Helium 3, which could be a massive source of energy for the Earth... but the technical issues in getting it back here and using it are immense. I have yet to see any reasonable scheme for doing so.
A big problem with the moon is lack of hydrogen. If hydrogen could be efficiently imported, there is plenty of oxygen for making water. I don't think there's any nitrogen, though, so you couldn't make air, I assume.
I am not sure what exactly you are talking about. Ilmenite contains oxygen but it would be a lot easier if they found an actual source of water on the Moon or, even better, on Mars.
BTW.... yes, with oxygen you can make air. Oxygen is the part we use up.. so it's the part you need to replace.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 12 2009, 11:33 PM)
I am not sure what exactly you are talking about. Ilmenite contains oxygen but it would be a lot easier if they found an actual source of water on the Moon or, even better, on Mars.
BTW.... yes, with oxygen you can make air. Oxygen is the part we use up.. so it's the part you need to replace.
And how long would it take if a spacecraft was launched from lunar orbit, at a point when the vectors of the Earth, moon, and orbiting spacecraft were all aligned in the direction of Mars?
QUOTE
NASA has being doing that for decades to speed up or slow down.
Ok, but is it possible to do so in a way that makes the above-mentioned speed feasible?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| NASA has being doing that for decades to speed up or slow down. |
Ok, but is it possible to do so in a way that makes the above-mentioned speed feasible?
I have looked. As far as I know, there are no current or projected missions to the Moon or Mars that could bring in more resources than they put out.
Do you mean put out more resources than they put in? . . . because that would be the point, I think. The trick is to think like a seed. Seeds carry a small amount of initial equipment and materials and then use the resources on hand to grow. The question is what a "moon seed" would need to start making use of the moon soil, sunlight, and the existing architecture and geological structure of the surface to be able to expand on itself and grow in viability.
I think you would have to start with robots that mine, build, etc. They should be solar powered. There needs to be a way for them to generate enough energy to set up a foundry so that they can build more robots to speed up the work and do more of it. Then, at some point, they could build the hollowed out mine caverns into air-tight space that could be filled with oxygen and whatever other gasses can be distilled to produce moon-air. At that point, humans could survive in the caverns and do whatever they need to do. It would require a lot of remote control work and automation-programming.
QUOTE
The Moon could be a source of Helium 3, which could be a massive source of energy for the Earth... but the technical issues in getting it back here and using it are immense. I have yet to see any reasonable scheme for doing so.
When I look at the progress made in lighting alone in the last decade or so, from 60w incandescents, to 15w fluorescents, to LEDs that use a fraction of that, I don't think such large amounts of power are going to be needed in the future.
With the right technological and cultural developments, humans should be able to live with an amount of power per/capita that is small enough to be harnessed by solar panels, etc.
The biggest obstacle is the high demand for pumping enormous quantities of heat out of enormously voluminous buildings. If a bio-physical technology could be created that would enable humans to experience higher temperatures as cooler, the need for air-conditioning would disappear.
The next step would be to work on refrigeration techniques that reduce the energy used for that. How often do you shop at a supermarket where frozen products are in open freezers for convenient shopping? Of course this energy should simply displace energy that would be used by the air-conditioning system to maintain the same thermostat level, but if air-conditioning were unnecessary, then sealed refrigerators would save energy.
Finally, if refrigerated products were produced and distributed differently, they might be kept out of refrigeration altogether. This would require more local agriculture and a more efficient supply-line between grower/farmer and consumer.
Of course food isn't all that's consumed, so you also have to take into account things like factory and construction equipment, trains, electric vehicles, etc. but all of these things can be refined in the direction of getting more units of product per kilowatt. Sustainable designs and architecture, for example, can reduce the power needed for construction by increasing the amount of time between renovation projects.
There's a lot of work that can be done that is simpler and less costly than shipping H3 from the moon to run a super reactor, imo. I'm sure others will think differently.
light in the tunnel,
Too much television, not enough science, economics and history. Television doesn't make you smarter.
Too much television, not enough science, economics and history. Television doesn't make you smarter.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 13 2009, 01:39 AM)
light in the tunnel,
Too much television, not enough science, economics and history. Television doesn't make you smarter.
FBM, do you ever acknowledge the fact that your ideas are often corrected in this forum?
Whether you are getting your knowledge from TV or some other source, or whether you're synthesizing yourself, you should not be casting stones from your glass house.
Too much television, not enough science, economics and history. Television doesn't make you smarter.
FBM, do you ever acknowledge the fact that your ideas are often corrected in this forum?
Whether you are getting your knowledge from TV or some other source, or whether you're synthesizing yourself, you should not be casting stones from your glass house.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 12 2009, 09:49 PM)
FBM, do you ever acknowledge the fact that your ideas are often corrected in this forum?
Yes, but I only take correction from those who actually know a thing or two about the subject. Would you accept correction as to the proper pronunciation of a word from a non-English speaker?
The science presented on television is dumbed down, edited and abridged. I have done a significant amount of research on the subjects that I correct you on. I don't count watching the science channel as "research."
Yes, but I only take correction from those who actually know a thing or two about the subject. Would you accept correction as to the proper pronunciation of a word from a non-English speaker?
QUOTE
Whether you are getting your knowledge from TV or some other source, or whether you're synthesizing yourself, you should not be casting stones from your glass house.
The science presented on television is dumbed down, edited and abridged. I have done a significant amount of research on the subjects that I correct you on. I don't count watching the science channel as "research."
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 13 2009, 01:49 AM)
you should not be casting stones from your glass house.
Agreed, why cast stones, when a couple of HEAT warheads; delivered courtesy of Mr Bazooka offer greater efficiency and satisfaction?
On a personal note; I've a crate of humongous yield, thermonuclear mortar shells in my conservatory.
Agreed, why cast stones, when a couple of HEAT warheads; delivered courtesy of Mr Bazooka offer greater efficiency and satisfaction?
On a personal note; I've a crate of humongous yield, thermonuclear mortar shells in my conservatory.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 8 2009, 04:33 PM)
The International Space Station is due to be de-orbited sometime between 2015 and 2020.
The Moon is probably our best space station though a bit too far away. What would be ideal is if we could catch a large lump of rock a few miles wide, maybe using explosives to put it into orbit maybe 40,000 miles away and use that as a space station. With luck it might even have some water ice on it, and contain metals we can use.
The Moon is probably our best space station though a bit too far away. What would be ideal is if we could catch a large lump of rock a few miles wide, maybe using explosives to put it into orbit maybe 40,000 miles away and use that as a space station. With luck it might even have some water ice on it, and contain metals we can use.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 13 2009, 02:03 AM)
Yes, but I only take correction from those who actually know a thing or two about the subject. Would you accept correction as to the proper pronunciation of a word from a non-English speaker?
The science presented on television is dumbed down, edited and abridged. I have done a significant amount of research on the subjects that I correct you on. I don't count watching the science channel as "research."
Both of your examples show that you begin by labeling a person, and then are incapable of considering what they say by filtering it through your label of them.
If you had no clue how to pronounce the word "ptolemaic" and someone told you how, what would it matter what language they were speaking? They knew, you didn't, that's it. If they are wrong they are wrong. You'll find out when you use the word in conversation with someone else who knew a better way to pronounce it.
TV science is what it is. If you learn something from it, you are that much further ahead of what you knew before you turned on the TV.
Research is anything done to gather data, knowledge, and/or process it. You can put qualifiers behind the word if you want like "scientific research" or "pseudoscientific research." Still, I don't know why you would waste your time defining what kind of research you or others are doing while you could be spending it on doing your own research and analysis to iron out glitches in your own knowledge and other people's. Instead of labeling knowledge, why not contribute to it? It may cost you less energy than bullying them.
The science presented on television is dumbed down, edited and abridged. I have done a significant amount of research on the subjects that I correct you on. I don't count watching the science channel as "research."
Both of your examples show that you begin by labeling a person, and then are incapable of considering what they say by filtering it through your label of them.
If you had no clue how to pronounce the word "ptolemaic" and someone told you how, what would it matter what language they were speaking? They knew, you didn't, that's it. If they are wrong they are wrong. You'll find out when you use the word in conversation with someone else who knew a better way to pronounce it.
TV science is what it is. If you learn something from it, you are that much further ahead of what you knew before you turned on the TV.
Research is anything done to gather data, knowledge, and/or process it. You can put qualifiers behind the word if you want like "scientific research" or "pseudoscientific research." Still, I don't know why you would waste your time defining what kind of research you or others are doing while you could be spending it on doing your own research and analysis to iron out glitches in your own knowledge and other people's. Instead of labeling knowledge, why not contribute to it? It may cost you less energy than bullying them.
light in the tunnel,
You're hopeless. You don't understand the concept of research or authority. How do you reconcile to conflicting sources of data? According to you, one can learn from anything. Can you learn from a lie? How would you know whether it is a lie or not?
There is a great deal of misinformation about science out there. People will say anything to prove their viewpoint, no matter how ridiculous it is. Have you ever heard of the Flat Earth Society? There are wackos out there, don't be one.
You're hopeless. You don't understand the concept of research or authority. How do you reconcile to conflicting sources of data? According to you, one can learn from anything. Can you learn from a lie? How would you know whether it is a lie or not?
There is a great deal of misinformation about science out there. People will say anything to prove their viewpoint, no matter how ridiculous it is. Have you ever heard of the Flat Earth Society? There are wackos out there, don't be one.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 13 2009, 11:35 PM)
You're hopeless. You don't understand the concept of research or authority. How do you reconcile to conflicting sources of data? According to you, one can learn from anything. Can you learn from a lie? How would you know whether it is a lie or not?
Science is anti-authority by design. Conflicting sources of data are reconciled by investigating the process that generated the data. You learn from a lie by questioning it. If it is a lie, investigation will expose it as such. You never know if the truth is a lie until you test it. This is science.
Science is anti-authority by design. Conflicting sources of data are reconciled by investigating the process that generated the data. You learn from a lie by questioning it. If it is a lie, investigation will expose it as such. You never know if the truth is a lie until you test it. This is science.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 12 2009, 06:33 PM)
BTW.... yes, with oxygen you can make air. Oxygen is the part we use up.. so it's the part you need to replace.
QUOTE
I have looked. As far as I know, there are no current or projected missions to the Moon or Mars that could bring in more resources than they put out.
The problem is nobody in NASA or any other space agency seems to be thinking big enough. The existing space station programs have all been so tiny. While they have provided some decent science and proof of concept models, they haven't been big enough or ambitious enough to accomplish anything long term.
I have actually seen some serious presentations on some of the science oriented television shows which have some NASA affiliates working on designing livable moon bases.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have looked. As far as I know, there are no current or projected missions to the Moon or Mars that could bring in more resources than they put out. |
The problem is nobody in NASA or any other space agency seems to be thinking big enough. The existing space station programs have all been so tiny. While they have provided some decent science and proof of concept models, they haven't been big enough or ambitious enough to accomplish anything long term.
I have actually seen some serious presentations on some of the science oriented television shows which have some NASA affiliates working on designing livable moon bases.
I am not sure what exactly you are talking about. Ilmenite contains oxygen but it would be a lot easier if they found an actual source of water on the Moon or, even better, on Mars.
There is a relatively simple way to harvest oxygen from the rocks of the moon during the "startup" phase of any colony mission. You bake the rocks in hydrogen gas, this allows you to extract the oxygen. Then you use electrolisis to seperate the hydrogen back from the oxygen. Oxygen is compressed for later usage, or fed into the living quarters of the moon base. Hydrogen is fed back into the furnace along with a new batch of rock. In this way, a few gallons of water allows you to extract as much oxygen as you need from the available rocks, which are as much as 40% oxygen by mass. The energy to do this comes and electric oven powered by solar panel arrays.
In the long term, water isn't a big problem, as Europa and Enceladus each have more water than the entire earth. Water would be harvested from these moons for drinking, oxygen, and hydrogen for fusion(eventually.)
QUOTE (Hyperium+Sep 13 2009, 01:29 PM)
The Moon is probably our best space station though a bit too far away. What would be ideal is if we could catch a large lump of rock a few miles wide, maybe using explosives to put it into orbit maybe 40,000 miles away and use that as a space station. With luck it might even have some water ice on it, and contain metals we can use.
While I applaud your ambition, you are wasting your time with Flyingbuttressman. He is incapable of comprehending the long-term benefits of space exploration, mining, and colonization.
While I applaud your ambition, you are wasting your time with Flyingbuttressman. He is incapable of comprehending the long-term benefits of space exploration, mining, and colonization.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 16 2009, 02:38 PM)
There is a relatively simple way to harvest oxygen from the rocks of the moon during the "startup" phase of any colony mission. You bake the rocks in hydrogen gas, this allows you to extract the oxygen. Then you use electrolisis to seperate the hydrogen back from the oxygen. Oxygen is compressed for later usage, or fed into the living quarters of the moon base. Hydrogen is fed back into the furnace along with a new batch of rock. In this way, a few gallons of water allows you to extract as much oxygen as you need from the available rocks, which are as much as 40% oxygen by mass. The energy to do this comes and electric oven powered by solar panel arrays.
What is your projected source of hydrogen then? It is my understanding that the moon is devoid of it.
Transporting liquid hydrogen from Earth would be more efficient than transporting water, but I don't think liquid hydrogen is dense enough to make it efficient enough to generate sufficient water for sustaining life without many many payloads having to be launched.
Is helium 3 unstable enough to be fissioned into hydrogen? I can't imagine it would be since the elements used for fission always seem to be enormous, even despite their radioactive instability.
Beyond that, what else can be done for hydrogen?
What is your projected source of hydrogen then? It is my understanding that the moon is devoid of it.
Transporting liquid hydrogen from Earth would be more efficient than transporting water, but I don't think liquid hydrogen is dense enough to make it efficient enough to generate sufficient water for sustaining life without many many payloads having to be launched.
Is helium 3 unstable enough to be fissioned into hydrogen? I can't imagine it would be since the elements used for fission always seem to be enormous, even despite their radioactive instability.
Beyond that, what else can be done for hydrogen?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 17 2009, 12:26 AM)
What is your projected source of hydrogen then? It is my understanding that the moon is devoid of it.
Wrong.
Wrong.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 17 2009, 07:24 AM)
Wrong.
"Wrong," is your whole retort? Where is it located then? The pie chart I looked up did not have hydrogen on it at all. I may have been reading an inaccurate pie, though. Please enlighten me.
"Wrong," is your whole retort? Where is it located then? The pie chart I looked up did not have hydrogen on it at all. I may have been reading an inaccurate pie, though. Please enlighten me.
QUOTE
Is helium 3 unstable enough to be fissioned into hydrogen?
As to your latest 'question', you should have been looking at a cheese chart, not pie.
Unbelievable.
I looked up another source and it says lunar soil contains hydrogen at the rate of 36g per 1000kg. So if you build a nuclear-powered giant robotic "mole" to dig tunnels and process the soil as it digs, maybe it could store hydrogen, oxygen, and other precious resources while creating tunnels for inhabitants to live in later, once a sufficient amount of water was produced to live.
I don't think solar-power would be sufficient for digging, plus you would need lots of heavy extension cord for the robot to carry into the tunnel as it digs, since the solar collector would have to stay on the surface.
I don't think solar-power would be sufficient for digging, plus you would need lots of heavy extension cord for the robot to carry into the tunnel as it digs, since the solar collector would have to stay on the surface.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 17 2009, 08:20 PM)
I looked up another source and it says lunar soil contains hydrogen at the rate of 36g per 1000kg. So if you build a nuclear-powered giant robotic "mole" to dig tunnels and process the soil as it digs, maybe it could store hydrogen, oxygen, and other precious resources while creating tunnels for inhabitants to live in later, once a sufficient amount of water was produced to live.
I don't think solar-power would be sufficient for digging, plus you would need lots of heavy extension cord for the robot to carry into the tunnel as it digs, since the solar collector would have to stay on the surface.
It's been widely theorized that there is ice on the moon. Ice = water. Water = h2o.
It's been difficult to actually see if there is indeed ice, because it's probably buried underneath the lunar soil.
I don't think solar-power would be sufficient for digging, plus you would need lots of heavy extension cord for the robot to carry into the tunnel as it digs, since the solar collector would have to stay on the surface.
It's been widely theorized that there is ice on the moon. Ice = water. Water = h2o.
It's been difficult to actually see if there is indeed ice, because it's probably buried underneath the lunar soil.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 18 2009, 01:04 AM)
It's been widely theorized that there is ice on the moon. Ice = water. Water = h2o.
It's been difficult to actually see if there is indeed ice, because it's probably buried underneath the lunar soil.
Yes, that is why there is currently a mission to slingshot two probes, one with a camera behind the other, around the moon to create a high-speed impact at the location thought to be the most likely candidate for ice. One person I know asked what the point of smashing a giant crater at that point is going to be if all the ice gets sent out as debris from the impact.
I suppose if a large deposit of ice was exposed, that would be a great foundation for a moon base, but assuming it isn't, how much energy would you want to expend on searching for ice instead of just starting the long tedious process of extracting hydrogen and oxygen from the soil?
My vote is for the nuclear-powered robotic mole. (yes I'm ready for insults on this one)
It's been difficult to actually see if there is indeed ice, because it's probably buried underneath the lunar soil.
Yes, that is why there is currently a mission to slingshot two probes, one with a camera behind the other, around the moon to create a high-speed impact at the location thought to be the most likely candidate for ice. One person I know asked what the point of smashing a giant crater at that point is going to be if all the ice gets sent out as debris from the impact.
I suppose if a large deposit of ice was exposed, that would be a great foundation for a moon base, but assuming it isn't, how much energy would you want to expend on searching for ice instead of just starting the long tedious process of extracting hydrogen and oxygen from the soil?
My vote is for the nuclear-powered robotic mole. (yes I'm ready for insults on this one)
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 17 2009, 09:49 PM)
My vote is for the nuclear-powered robotic mole. (yes I'm ready for insults on this one)
What about a genetically engineered radioactive giant naked mole rat?
What about a genetically engineered radioactive giant naked mole rat?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 18 2009, 01:53 AM)
What about a genetically engineered radioactive giant naked mole rat?
True comedy genius, FBM. You should have added a citation to the thread about the moon being made of cheese, as a food source.
Seriously, though, what would be the problem with a nuclear-powered tunneling machine that separates hydrogen, oxygen, and other precious elements out of the moon soil while digging tunnels for people to live in?
That way, lunar explorers would have a sufficient, ready supply of raw materials to work with, which would speed up the process and reduce the costs of hu-manned missions once needed.
True comedy genius, FBM. You should have added a citation to the thread about the moon being made of cheese, as a food source.
Seriously, though, what would be the problem with a nuclear-powered tunneling machine that separates hydrogen, oxygen, and other precious elements out of the moon soil while digging tunnels for people to live in?
That way, lunar explorers would have a sufficient, ready supply of raw materials to work with, which would speed up the process and reduce the costs of hu-manned missions once needed.
He3 is part of the sun's solar wind, and has been considered an ideal source of nuclear power on the moon.
I know they're looking hard for water on the moon, but I haven't heard whether they've found it definitely or not. I also know there are plans to render H and O from moon regolith, but I haven't seen anything very promising yet.
Power on the moon seems a lesser problem than most of the other logistical issues, but I think it's absolutely essential that we establish a base there ASAP, because if we see a killer asteroid headed our way, we'll need the moon base to protect earth from the asteroid. The most certain approach to diverting a killer asteroid is to fire a series of moon rocks in the path of the asteroid using a mass-driver, like a big anti-aircraft gun.
I know they're looking hard for water on the moon, but I haven't heard whether they've found it definitely or not. I also know there are plans to render H and O from moon regolith, but I haven't seen anything very promising yet.
Power on the moon seems a lesser problem than most of the other logistical issues, but I think it's absolutely essential that we establish a base there ASAP, because if we see a killer asteroid headed our way, we'll need the moon base to protect earth from the asteroid. The most certain approach to diverting a killer asteroid is to fire a series of moon rocks in the path of the asteroid using a mass-driver, like a big anti-aircraft gun.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 17 2009, 10:40 PM)
The most certain approach to diverting a killer asteroid is to fire a series of moon rocks in the path of the asteroid using a mass-driver, like a big anti-aircraft gun.
*facepalm*
*facepalm*
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 17 2009, 11:55 PM)
"Wrong," is your whole retort? Where is it located then? The pie chart I looked up did not have hydrogen on it at all. I may have been reading an inaccurate pie, though. Please enlighten me.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.