User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 2:59:53 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think there's an agreement in place that no country can do that sort of thing. Though I think that's dumb ass fuck. If a American vessels travels there, lands, a human gets out and plants a flag, why the fuck shouldn't it be ours? And if someone else does it, same to them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:02:32 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We have lab experiment level dusty plasma. We have testbed space reactors, although not gas core. We have a working testbed VASIMR. NSWR is an interesting idea, but research is not as advanced and it is a harder to sell and much costlier. NSWR uses extremely expensive combined fuel/reaction mass. If we wanted to go interstellar, it might be the ticket, but we have a lot of stuff to do in the solar system first. VASIMR and FFRE at lower estimates of Isp are >= a NSWR at theoretical max Isp. Vasimr and FFRE are very low thrust. You lose many of the advantages of high ISP if it takes you months to accelerate to useful speeds. NSWR is high thrust and high ISP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:02:33 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I only brought up mining as in to dig out tunnels and make large chambers deep under the moon's surface, not really mining, so excavating I suppose. But it might be easier to seal up existing hollows (lava tubes). I'm just not convinced of the utility of a Moon base over Mars exploration. The moon is an airless bunch of crater riddle Earth mantle material/solidified lava... and that is all it ever was. Mars might have been a living planet once. The Moon's gravity well is plenty deep, but the dV you need to get there vs Mars isn't that different especially on account of Mars having an atmosphere for aerobraking. Mars also has nice 12.3 hour long nights while the Moon has 328 hour long nights. Thermal management is much tougher on the moon because of the long days/nights combined with (near) vacuum. The problem with Mars is the transit time to get there (and lag for emergent resupply) but nuclear propulsion reduces this problem a lot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:03:46 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No and No That’s just how I’ve understood it for a minute. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:05:23 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have serious doubts about the profitability of a government-directed lunar base to jump start asteroid mining. Which minerals are currently cost feasible to extract that way? (significantly cheaper than earth-mining), where are they/which asteroids, and what does the price have to be to make them profitable for the level of risk involved? Remember, there's a shit ton of oil on earth that oil companies know exactly where it is but don't bother extracting... yet. The price dictates which oil gets extracted first. We don't even have all the necessary technologies developed to perform asteroid mining. I have no doubt we'll develop them when the time comes. But who should decide when the time is right? The market or government? Government's track record at these kinds of things generally sucks ass. Government is the only business in the world that gets to avoid going out of business by threatening to shoot you if you don't do business with them. Well... almost the only business that does that.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:05:26 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct, which means lots of mining and other construction that's just not realistic imo. Mars makes more sense, there is an atmosphere, closer to Earths gravity and a small amount of water left. My question is what happened to the Martian core? What caused the planet to lose it's magnetic field? (As I understand it, it has and that's why the solar winds are slowly but continuously stripping away it's atmosphere) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I'd settle for a permanent Moon base first. absolutely no atmosphere everything has to be a pressure vessel extreme low gravity radiation temperature differentials micro meteor hazards regolith sticks to everything and is carcinogenic just to name a few a moon base would need to be under ground with minimal activity on the surface if i made a conjecture about mars core not moving anymore, possibly it could be the interaction of the sun's magnetic field and our iron core which keeps ours moving (sun mag field = stator , earth iron core = rotor, earth orbit = commutation => in other words an electric motor) where as mars is just far enough away (inverse cube law) that magnetic effects were not sufficient to keep its core moving |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:08:35 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: NSWR would be perfect for the solar system. Even a high thrust+Isp design would have long travel times to places like Titan, the Jovian moons, etc. Vasimr and FFRE are very low thrust. You lose many of the advantages of high ISP if it takes you months to accelerate to useful speeds. NSWR is high thrust and high ISP. Sure, we won't get sizable fractions of c like the NSWR, but you can get a FFRE manned outer solar system mission up with 3 heavy launches (one of which carriers a well contained radioactive payload) instead of 10+ heavy launches (most of which carry a poorly contained radioactive payload). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:09:05 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So enlighten me as to what we are cutting in order to make this economically feasible? Adding more to the national debt in order to skip around on the moon is not what we need right now. If you want to cut costs, cut welfare. Welfare is ripe with fraud; let the cleaned-up FBI start there and shut down able bodied people being on the dole. NASA put men on the moon, multiple missions, using less than 5% of the national budget. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:11:20 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
New technologies spur economic growth. If you want to cut costs, cut welfare. Welfare is ripe with fraud; let the cleaned-up FBI start there and shut down able bodied people being on the dole. NASA put men on the moon, multiple missions, using less than 5% of the national budget. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:11:30 PM EDT
[#10]
The essential hurdle for humanity is getting enough manufacturing capacity out of the gravity well to become self-replicating.
It doesn't matter what the economic value of the commodities are on Earth, it only matters what they're worth in space. Emerging technologies such as additive manufacturing, automation, AI, miniaturization, cheaper heavy lift, and so on are rapidly bringing the cost of clearing that hurdle down to Earth. It's just not quite there yet. At some point we're going to clear it, and then it's just a matter of time before all the resources in the system that aren't too deep in a gravity well are exploitable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:12:38 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the moon is a much much more hazardous environment for humans than mars absolutely no atmosphere everything has to be a pressure vessel extreme low gravity radiation temperature differentials micro meteor hazards regolith sticks to everything and is carcinogenic just to name a few a moon base would need to be under ground with minimal activity on the surface Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: I'd settle for a permanent Moon base first. absolutely no atmosphere everything has to be a pressure vessel extreme low gravity radiation temperature differentials micro meteor hazards regolith sticks to everything and is carcinogenic just to name a few a moon base would need to be under ground with minimal activity on the surface Mars is no picnic either, with no magnetosphere to block the solar wind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:14:06 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
"President Donald Trump[/img] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:16:22 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Might as well go full torchship and see if the Zubrin Nuclear Salt Water Rocket + Magnetic nozzles, or something along those lines, is realistic. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Actually it increased under Obummer $wise, holding steady %wise despite federal dollars being redirected elsewhere. W shouted for Mars too while killing the STS replacement program. Let's see if Trumps shouting is backed by actual funding. I doubt it. Congress doesn't give two shits about the NASA goal. They only care about $ spent in their district. I don't really care about the moon. I want to see NASA proiritize and achieve over the next 15 years: 1. Dusty Plasma Fission Fragment Propulsion 2. Nuclear gas core reactors to power VASIMR 3. Manned missions to asteroids and Mars (Requires #2) 4. Asteroid/Comet Redirect Mission (Requires #1/#2) 5. Launch landers for Europa, Callisto, Titan, and Enceladus (requires #1) If NASA funded those missions while using private sector launch systems to get them out of atmo, that would be the optimal way to go. I'd support 2% of the federal budget for that instead of the 0.5% NASA has been getting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:16:27 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The essential hurdle for humanity is getting enough manufacturing capacity out of the gravity well to become self-replicating. It doesn't matter what the economic value of the commodities are on Earth, it only matters what they're worth in space. Emerging technologies such as additive manufacturing, automation, AI, miniaturization, cheaper heavy lift, and so on are rapidly bringing the cost of clearing that hurdle down to Earth. It's just not quite there yet. At some point we're going to clear it, and then it's just a matter of time before all the resources in the system that aren't too deep in a gravity well are exploitable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:17:28 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I welcome learning about it. That’s just how I’ve understood it for a minute. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No and No That’s just how I’ve understood it for a minute. 2. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is cool and all that, but mass driver bombardment of Earth from the Moon is only sensible if one first flies up gobs and gobs of material and develops a massive mining facility over decades to include a nuclear/solar maglev launcher to return refined materials to Earth... that is nuts. Remember the gravity well maxim: never go down a gravity well to get something that you get find without going down the gravity well. We can mine more profitably on asteroids, so the moon mine maglev launcher never gets built and the moon commands nothing. Say you did build the maglev launcher, such a device would be under the tightest controls and probably have self-destruct fail-safes built in plus a backup plan to nuke it from orbit in case a madman seized control. Back to the original premise: owning the high ground... if I wanted to bombard the Earth, I don't need to go to the moon. There are plenty of rocks to redirect from unpredictable directions at much higher velocities.... or just put something in Earth orbit and drop it on command (much faster response time). Lastly, as long as nuclear submarines remain highly survivable, there is little reason to pursue deterrence weapons in outer space. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:18:20 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?t=22s&v=PtBy_ppG4hY ETA: apparently I am too dumb to post YouTube videos  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So enlighten me as to what we are cutting in order to make this economically feasible? Adding more to the national debt in order to skip around on the moon is not what we need right now. ETA: apparently I am too dumb to post YouTube videos |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:18:23 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Might want to wait for the results of NASA putting an EM drive into orbit. EM drive would be the ideal solution to getting around the inner system IF it works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:18:49 PM EDT
[#18]
You want Technology?
'Cause that's how you get Technology. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:21:01 PM EDT
[#19]
Shortly after Obummer cancelled the space shuttle and said we will use the Russians one I was at NASA taking a tour.
The guy doing the presentation of course mentioned this, and tried hard to spin it as a positive. I commented "Isn't that kinda like relying on your neighbor (who you are pretty sure is stealing your paper) to get to work every day?" The color drained out of that poor dudes face. Some of the other NASA workers were grinning so hard they had to look away. CSB |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:21:20 PM EDT
[#20]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:21:36 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd settle for a permanent Moon base first. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I hope the US claims Mars |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:21:57 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think there's an agreement in place that no country can do that sort of thing. Though I think that's dumb ass fuck. If a American vessels travels there, lands, a human gets out and plants a flag, why the fuck shouldn't it be ours? And if someone else does it, same to them. The motivations behind such agreements should be obvious. Although they made a good plot device in "Meteor", you really don't want orbital missile launchers. Also, while it's fun to think about it, the bottom line is that the US government isn't going back to the Moon. There is no real motivation and nothing to "win". Private enterprise would be much better at figuring out useful things to do in space than government supported efforts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:22:04 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Moon base is a necessary step if we ever get off this rock. Also he who owns the moon controls earth as far as i understand. Sits at the top of our gravity well and can drop little presents down to us with impunity. A moon base is NOT required for a Mars mission. In fact, putting a payload on Mars takes less fuel than putting the same payload on the Moon, since you can use Mars's atmosphere for braking. It takes longer, but does not require more fuel. As noted, the surface of Mars is much more hospitable for a base, and raw materials for life support and fuel are much more readily available on Mars than on the Moon. The Moon may (eventually) be a useful location for supporting large scale exploration/exploitation of the solar system at some point, but for the short term it would take more effort to build a useful support system on the Moon than it would to just go to where ever we plan to directly. Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:24:01 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: the moon is a much much more hazardous environment for humans than mars absolutely no atmosphere everything has to be a pressure vessel extreme low gravity radiation temperature differentials micro meteor hazards regolith sticks to everything and is carcinogenic just to name a few a moon base would need to be under ground with minimal activity on the surface |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:26:40 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Imagine a radio telescope on the "dark" side of the moon. Instead of launching a telescope to the moon, paying for the extra rocket to have it soft land, then deploying it, and launching a lunar communications satellite network to get data from it when it out of line of site with earth... itwould be about a gajillion times better to send it to a Sun-Earth L2 halo orbit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:27:47 PM EDT
[#26]
MAGA. America was at her best during the “Space Race.” Whole new technologies invented to send a man to the moon, time for another challenge.
In before the cats that bitch about government spending on such things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:28:09 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's a nice theory, but in practice you don't have enough energy available on the moon to lift enough mass to be a threat to a nation on Earth. On the other hand, any nation with spacelift capability on Earth could threaten an installation on the moon with a rocket carrying a payload not much heavier than the Apollo missions. Heck, the lift capacity required to build on the moon would be higher than the capacity required to pose a threat to it. You woulnd't even have to attack it directly - simply ensuring no supplies can get there would be enough to let everyone there die in relatively short order unless the installation was completely self-sufficient, to include manufacturing of necessary goods and especially food. A moon base is NOT required for a Mars mission. In fact, putting a payload on Mars takes less fuel than putting the same payload on the Moon, since you can use Mars's atmosphere for braking. It takes longer, but does not require more fuel. As noted, the surface of Mars is much more hospitable for a base, and raw materials for life support and fuel are much more readily available on Mars than on the Moon. The Moon may (eventually) be a useful location for supporting large scale exploration/exploitation of the solar system at some point, but for the short term it would take more effort to build a useful support system on the Moon than it would to just go to where ever we plan to directly. Mike dV from lunar surface to Earth transfer is only 2.54km/s |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:30:15 PM EDT
[#28]
Wait I thought nasa had to big up Muslims who’s going to do that now
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:30:27 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And Bush also said the same thing about the moon. And Obama said the same thing about Mars. If we get to Mars, it probably will be Elon Musk who does it. I've got an article from 1986 that says NASA should be on Mars within a decade. At this point, I have more faith in SpaceX under Musk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:37:42 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly. Every President since Kennedy has been spouting off about going to Mars... and ever administration actually kills or ignores programs that would actually do it starting when Nixon killed the nuclear space propulsion program in 1972 (we were going to put a NERVA upper stage on a Saturn V and go to Mars in the 1970s). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:40:48 PM EDT
[#31]
I really don't see another bout of exploration like we had in the 60s.
We had a clear mandate, we had motivation to do it to honor the assassinated president who gave us the mandate, we had serious competition from the USSR, we were only hiring the best and brightest not trying to fill diversity quotas, and the public gave a shit. I don't see this repeating itself. We care more about which celebrity tweeted what, obamaphones, and pointless bullshit. Its a fucking shame. If they kept up the optempo from the 60s until today we would have a base on mars and routine space tourism. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:43:27 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
EM drive is most likely bunk, unfortunately. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Might want to wait for the results of NASA putting an EM drive into orbit. EM drive would be the ideal solution to getting around the inner system IF it works. However, there were enough anomalies in testing on the Earth that NASA wants to put one in orbit for further testing. I'm keeping an open mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:45:36 PM EDT
[#33]
The scene... NASA announces the impending arrival of a large meteor that will strike Earth within ten years. The U.S. starts on an ambitious project to transport our best and brightest to a temporary safe zone on the planet Mars. The government discloses that they have secretly been preparing this base for many years. All the faculties of prestigious universities fight to get their place on the space ship. As does our political elite ruling class. Workers, southerners, and mid westerners are noticeably excluded. The media crows about how the elite is poised to remake the planet when it is safe to return.
On launch day, President Trump in his second term, pushes the button at the end of the count down. The space ship soars off. A general asks The President why he chose to stay behind and not go to the safe zone on Mars. "Safe Zone on Mars? Are you crazy? Who said anything about a Safe Zone?" And everyone rejoiced. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:50:40 PM EDT
[#34]
@Neotopiaman here are 3 pdfs worth looking at FFRE:
FFRE Mission Profiles for Mars and Jupiter manned missions 2014 FFRE v VASIMR Presentation 2012 FFRE Report 2011 If you have similar on NSWR I'd be keen to read. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:51:22 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a nice theory, but in practice you don't have enough energy available on the moon to lift enough mass to be a threat to a nation on Earth. On the other hand, any nation with spacelift capability on Earth could threaten an installation on the moon with a rocket carrying a payload not much heavier than the Apollo missions. Heck, the lift capacity required to build on the moon would be higher than the capacity required to pose a threat to it. You woulnd't even have to attack it directly - simply ensuring no supplies can get there would be enough to let everyone there die in relatively short order unless the installation was completely self-sufficient, to include manufacturing of necessary goods and especially food. A moon base is NOT required for a Mars mission. In fact, putting a payload on Mars takes less fuel than putting the same payload on the Moon, since you can use Mars's atmosphere for braking. It takes longer, but does not require more fuel. As noted, the surface of Mars is much more hospitable for a base, and raw materials for life support and fuel are much more readily available on Mars than on the Moon. The Moon may (eventually) be a useful location for supporting large scale exploration/exploitation of the solar system at some point, but for the short term it would take more effort to build a useful support system on the Moon than it would to just go to where ever we plan to directly. Mike Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Moon base is a necessary step if we ever get off this rock. Also he who owns the moon controls earth as far as i understand. Sits at the top of our gravity well and can drop little presents down to us with impunity. A moon base is NOT required for a Mars mission. In fact, putting a payload on Mars takes less fuel than putting the same payload on the Moon, since you can use Mars's atmosphere for braking. It takes longer, but does not require more fuel. As noted, the surface of Mars is much more hospitable for a base, and raw materials for life support and fuel are much more readily available on Mars than on the Moon. The Moon may (eventually) be a useful location for supporting large scale exploration/exploitation of the solar system at some point, but for the short term it would take more effort to build a useful support system on the Moon than it would to just go to where ever we plan to directly. Mike Someone upthread said that regolith is carcinogenic. This is the first I've heard of that. I know it's incredibly abrasive, but carcinogenic? Can I get a citation on that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:51:52 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Meh NERVA is barely better than hydrolox rockets anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:53:34 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So enlighten me as to what we are cutting in order to make this economically feasible? Adding more to the national debt in order to skip around on the moon is not what we need right now. We are a nation of angry little kids obsessed over what the kid next to us has done to offend us. We to need to be told and shown that it's of ok to dream and learn the knowledge to make that dream a reality. We need to be shown that drive, creativity and talent are not dead in this country. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:53:38 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So enlighten me as to what we are cutting in order to make this economically feasible? Adding more to the national debt in order to skip around on the moon is not what we need right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:53:46 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is retarded. Radio telescopes work in the day. Let's pretend you meant visible or IR. Well, the "dark side" is only dark half the time. Instead of launching a telescope to the moon, paying for the extra rocket to have it soft land, then deploying it, and launching a lunar communications satellite network to get data from it when it out of line of site with earth... itwould be about a gajillion times better to send it to a Sun-Earth L2 halo orbit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Imagine a radio telescope on the "dark" side of the moon. Instead of launching a telescope to the moon, paying for the extra rocket to have it soft land, then deploying it, and launching a lunar communications satellite network to get data from it when it out of line of site with earth... itwould be about a gajillion times better to send it to a Sun-Earth L2 halo orbit. What is a radio telescope listening for? What is the "brightest" source of that near every other radio telescope we currently have? What is the "dark" side of the moon ALWAYS dark to? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:54:15 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This. It's a total waste of money and the original moon landings were more to score political points and bragging rights. There was never any real scientific reason to send humans there or anywhere else. All the necessary science and and should be done by robots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:54:42 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
@Neotopiaman here are 3 pdfs worth looking at FFRE: FFRE Mission Profiles for Mars and Jupiter manned missions 2014 FFRE v VASIMR Presentation 2012 FFRE Report 2011 If you have similar on NSWR I'd be keen to read. FFRE would pretty much be the ultimate for space probes though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:55:32 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
+ the moon. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I hope the US claims Mars Dominate earth and space! for the the galactic children |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:56:32 PM EDT
[#43]
That's all well and good, but there's no money for it. The NASA budget would need to be increased 10 times to scratch the surface.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:56:33 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have serious doubts about the profitability of a government-directed lunar base to jump start asteroid mining. Which minerals are currently cost feasible to extract that way? (significantly cheaper than earth-mining), where are they/which asteroids, and what does the price have to be to make them profitable for the level of risk involved? Remember, there's a shit ton of oil on earth that oil companies know exactly where it is but don't bother extracting... yet. The price dictates which oil gets extracted first. We don't even have all the necessary technologies developed to perform asteroid mining. I have no doubt we'll develop them when the time comes. But who should decide when the time is right? The market or government? Government's track record at these kinds of things generally sucks ass. Government is the only business in the world that gets to avoid going out of business by threatening to shoot you if you don't do business with them. Well... almost the only business that does that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:56:56 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: the moon is a much much more hazardous environment for humans than mars absolutely no atmosphere everything has to be a pressure vessel extreme low gravity radiation temperature differentials micro meteor hazards regolith sticks to everything and is carcinogenic just to name a few a moon base would need to be under ground with minimal activity on the surface SCORE! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:59:26 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Imagine a radio telescope on the "dark" side of the moon. Mars is no picnic either, with no magnetosphere to block the solar wind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 3:59:49 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Really? What is a radio telescope listening for? What is the "brightest" source of that near every other radio telescope we currently have? What is the "dark" side of the moon ALWAYS dark to? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Imagine a radio telescope on the "dark" side of the moon. Instead of launching a telescope to the moon, paying for the extra rocket to have it soft land, then deploying it, and launching a lunar communications satellite network to get data from it when it out of line of site with earth... itwould be about a gajillion times better to send it to a Sun-Earth L2 halo orbit. What is a radio telescope listening for? What is the "brightest" source of that near every other radio telescope we currently have? What is the "dark" side of the moon ALWAYS dark to? I'll argue for a telescope at 550AU that uses the Sun as a gravitational lens over a radiotelescope on the moon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 4:03:38 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And how radio "bright" is Earth at 1 million miles? would probably take a few years but who give a fuck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 4:04:32 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And then when the next democrat is elected they will shut down everything due to "cost" and nasa will be back to researching global warming. (I still prefer private, commercial solutions to spaceflight over state solutions though.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2017 4:08:02 PM EDT
[#50]
if we want to stay on top we need to take space more seriously.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
