Boldly Going Nowhere

NY Times ^ | 4/13/09 | Seth Shostak

[Tublecane]

Maybe we’ll never master interstellar travel, but it’s only been fifty years since we sent objects into orbit, for pete’s sake. It would have been a bit mean to say to Democritus, “Yeah, we all like your atom theory, but when are you gonna get down to business and split it?” These things take time.

Maybe if physicists put down they’re wacky string theories and refocused on the real world we’d have forward progress.

[cripplecreek]

Exactly why reaserch into faster propulsion should be a priority.

[GeronL]

liberals want us to go back into the caves and then back to the primordeal oooze

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Yes! But we have Velcro and Tang now!

Who knows what other wonders await us... <\s>

[cripplecreek]

Maybe we’ll never master interstellar travel, but it’s only been fifty years since we sent objects into orbit, for pete’s sake.

True but I really do think we should be a lot more advanced than we are now. 60 years between the Wright brothers first flight and the moon landing, then little else over the last 50.

Artificial gravity for the sake of a space traveler's health is relatively easy. Shielding against radiation is an issue but not one that's outside the realm of possibility.

[Frank_Discussion]

“Artificial gravity for the sake of a space traveler’s health is relatively easy. Shielding against radiation is an issue but not one that’s outside the realm of possibility.”

VASIMR Rockets will do both, and are in development right now.

[fr_freak]

Yes! But we have Velcro and Tang now!

Who knows what other wonders await us... <\s>

Attempting to explore space is one of the more noble things that man has ever done, or will ever do. Why? Because we are doing it merely because we want to know, we want to see. It is kind of like art: whether there is a practical purpose for it or not, it is a sign of a people who are concerned with more than mere existence. And, as it is also one of the more difficult things mankind has ever attempted, it also produces a much greater number of technological developments than velcro (apparently Tang was NOT a space program invention).

Here is a list of some of those inventions:

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml

TV Satellite Dish

Medical Imaging

Ear Thermometer

Fire Fighter Equipment

Smoke Detector

Sun Tiger Glasses

Automobile Design Tools

Cordless Tools

Aerodynamic Bicycle Wheel

Thermal Gloves and Boots

Shock Absorbing Helmets

Invisible Braces

Joystick Controllers

Advanced Plastics

[Tublecane]

“Why? Because we are doing it merely because we want to know, we want to see.”

Oh, please. Everyone knows why the federal government poured money into the space program, and it wasn’t for love of knowledge.

[cripplecreek]

A quick study of the VASIMR Rocket looks like a promising next step.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

14 inventions! That is amazing. Plus, of course, velcro and Tang. Plus a bag of rocks.

The projected lifetime cost of the Shuttle program alone is $173 Billion. I don’t know the cost of the earlier programs.

That is roughly 10 billion per invention. I’d love to have my share back.

Noble? I hope you typed that in a hushed voice with Star Trek music in the background. Art is way cheaper.

I do favor missile technology, which should be the purpose of NASA.

[Frank_Discussion]

I’ve seen the prototype in operation, in person. Beautiful magenta plume, and a great concept. Basically, how much thrust you produce depends on how much power you can bring to bear. The magnetic field generated deflects a great deal of interplanetary radiation, and the constant thrust generates a gravity frame of reference.

Great Stuff!

[freedumb2003]

The Moon, although it appears so close, is 239,000 miles away. It is impossible for man to bridge this gap — the distance is just too far — our fastest steamships can barely do 20 miles an hour with an entire stoking company.

The idea than people will be able to telephone each other 24 hours a day and exchange messages, short and long, is just silly. There is no known technology here in the 1920’s that can allow so many messages.

The Babbage calculating machine, although a great novelty item, will never be more than a parlor novelty. The new 18th century will look back and laugh.

Well folks, these were the thought at the time.

[Erasmus]

But a trip to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star beyond the Sun and 100 million times farther from us than the Moon, would consume a tedious 800 centuries or so. You’ll want to upgrade.

At the very least, choose a flight that offers snacks.

[cripplecreek]

What I couldn’t find was what kind of terminal velocity they could get out of it. Wiki only has “ultra fast deep space transport” as one of it’s attributes.

It does sound like it will be much faster than the engine driving the probe to Pluto at 10 miles per second.

[Frank_Discussion]

The man developing the thing has a mission profile that will take you to Mars in about two weeks. Serious as a heart attack.

The spacecraft would accelerate halfway to it’s destination, go to a brief coast, turn the opposite direction, then kick in thrust again. Thrust is an acceleration, and it produces massive velocities. The spacecraft in this case would carry a great deal of fuel to do this, but not anything we couldn’t manage. Imagine a half-dozen liquid hydrogen tanks clustered around the ship, each about the size of a Shuttle external tank. You’d have to assemble the ship in orbit.

(Oh, BTW - that’s what we’ve done with ISS. Probably its greatest value, and not a small contribution to science and engineering.) :)

[JRios1968]

But a trip to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star beyond the Sun and 100 million times farther from us than the Moon, would consume a tedious 800 centuries or so. You’ll want to upgrade.

Standby for Ludicrous Speed...

[B-Chan]

"[A]fter [Dr. Robert Goddard's] rocket quits our air and really starts on its longer journey [into space] it will neither be accelerated nor maintained by the explosion of the charges it then might have left. To claim that it would be is to deny a fundamental law of dynamics... [Professor Goddard] does not know of the relation of action to reaction, and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react".
--Unsigned editorial, The New York Times, January 12, 1920

[cripplecreek]

a mission profile that will take you to Mars in about two weeks.

Wow, that's pretty incredible. Something like that would be even more effective for deeper space missions like to the Kuiper belt or even Ort cloud missions. A little gravity assist around the sun and it could pass the voyager probes that were launched in the 70s within a couple of years.

[Frank_Discussion]

Yep, it’s very exciting technology!