Bush Wants Mission to the Moon

[jdbjdb]

WASHINGTON — President Bush (search) wants to send Americans back to the moon — and may leave a permanent presence there — in a bold new vision for space exploration, administration officials said yesterday.

The return to the moon would be for the purpose of technological advancements in technology, including energy exploration and testing a military rocket engine.

And a permanent presence likely will include robots and communication satellites.

But beyond the nuts and bolts, Bush's call for a to return to space would give Americans something new to hope for - amid a period of permanent anxiety about terrorism. It would also help move NASA beyond last February's space shuttle Columbia disaster.

Sources said the president may also give the go-ahead to pursue a manned trip to Mars - a long range goal.

NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe (search) told an advisory council yesterday that 2004 will be a "seminal time" for the agency.

"There's an effort under way that will focus the administration's view very prominently on options we can consider. We are looking at some significant changes," O'Keefe said.

Bush could spell out his new plan for space travel on the 100-year anniversary of the Wright Brothers' first flight, Dec. 17, officials said.

The White House refused to comment on Bush's future plans for NASA, saying the president hasn't yet made a decision about what he'll announce.

But high-level meetings involving the White House and NASA have been going on for months.

Sources says Vice President **** Cheney recently went up to Capitol Hill to meet with Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) and other key congressmen to discuss space exploration. They discussed resuming manned trips to the Moon, and even the idea of establishing a permanent station on the Moon, sources said.

If the president does announce his new space vision on Dec. 17, it would be 100 years after the Wright Brothers first set an airplane in flight in Kitty Hawk, N.C., and it would be two days before the 30th anniversary of the last manned lunar landing.

Two Texas Republican senators recently sent Bush a letter saying America's space program has been floundering.

[JiJoMacLE45]

I volunteer, as long as I get all the Tang I can drink.

[jdbjdb]

President Bush (search) wants to send Americans back to the moon — and may leave a permanent presence there —
I guess were going to make the moon part of the United States hehehehe

[Vance]

''To liberate the oppressed rocks of the moon...''

[Argyll]

Why?,are the moon people threatening an invasion? rofl

good idea,it will prove as well that the Apollo missions were real/or fake

[James]

Maybe Shrub thinks we'll find Iraqi WMD on the moon. :P

[Ratamacue]

Well you know, they have thought about sending waste to the moon, why not WMD to hide it? ;)

[Salty Dog]

the moon...eh....i gotta tell you guys, i've been there, and it's not that great.

[Ballistic]

It's good that President Bush has given his approval for such a mission, and hopefully he will give the go ahead for a manned mission to Mars in the not too distant future also.

The main reason for a another moon landing and a permanent presence there is to set up scientific research stations, space observatories (which can see MUCH more than earth based ones), mines for the moons natural resources and also the possibility of setting up solar energy gathering tools to be used here on earth. The power is gathered on the moon and used here, very interesting stuff, dont know how it will be developed or how it will be implemented but it's very exciting stuff.

The next logical step for the humans is to go up. A presence on the moon is just one more small step forward toward a better future.

[Trigger]

I volunteer, as long as I get all the Tang I can drink.
We know what kind of 'Tang' you want, heh.
...and NASA doesn't use Tang anymore. Ever since the Challenger disaster back in '86 they switched to 'Ocean Spray'.
[/bad NASA joke]

[Vance]

Ouch.

[wholagun]

Finally, Iv been waiting for more space exploration for the longest time ever. We really need to get into space and begin making better rockets and other techs that will make the journey back and forth easier. It is the next frontier. Although I may not agree with Bush on alot of issues at least we have common ground on this issue. Before I die I wanna go into space as a tourist,, hopefully in 30-40 years they'll have the tech that permists that kind of stuff on a larger and more cheaper scale then it exists today.

[duck]

woot

The goal should always be Mars, the Red Planet and setting up a continuous presence there.

[Ballistic]

Finally, Iv been waiting for more space exploration for the longest time ever. We really need to get into space and begin making better rockets and other techs that will make the journey back and forth easier. It is the next frontier. Although I may not agree with Bush on alot of issues at least we have common ground on this issue. Before I die I wanna go into space as a tourist,, hopefully in 30-40 years they'll have the tech that permists that kind of stuff on a larger and more cheaper scale then it exists today.

Well the NASA scientists and techs at the JPL (Jet Propulsion Labs) are developing Ion based engines, one such engine is called the HiPEP (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/ion/present/hipep.htm) (Hi Power Electric Propulsion) which can burn longer and go harder than any other space based propulsion to date.

Companies such as Boeing (who are unfortunately in a dire situation right now) Lockheed Martin are in a race to develop the first "space plane" which would be used for resupplying the ISS (International Space Station) with astronauts and the usual supplies. Other applications of the space planes could well be tourist use, flying in high orbit above earth which would be awesome. Some years away yet I think, but not that far off.

[mocking_loudly_died]

It's pretty obvious Saddam and Osama are on the moon plotting against western interests.

[jdbjdb]

It would take about 3 months to get to mars, currently we don't have the capabilities, 6 months round trip plus time there, food, water, etc. etc.

[Vance]

I thought it takes 6 months to get to Mars?

[wholagun]

Well the NASA scientists and techs at the JPL (Jet Propulsion Labs) are developing Ion based engines, one such engine is called the HiPEP (Hi Power Electric Propulsion) which can burn longer and go harder than any other space based propulsion to date.

Is this simular to the European design which is as we speak propelling the drone to Mars. Does this new ion the hiPEP thruster solve the problem of slow acceleration and little power.


Other applications of the space planes could well be tourist use, flying in high orbit above earth which would be awesome. Some years away yet I think, but not that far off.

I hope so. that would be kick ass. Here we are hoping to go to space as tourists, in 100 years they'll be like space WTF is that, its so easy, next star now thats killer. Oh you gotta hand it to the technology so great, but too slow in advancement for my licking.

[Argyll]

Marine DEP are you not getting confuse with Uranus? rofl

[Ballistic]

Well the NASA scientists and techs at the JPL (Jet Propulsion Labs) are developing Ion based engines, one such engine is called the HiPEP (Hi Power Electric Propulsion) which can burn longer and go harder than any other space based propulsion to date.

Is this simular to the European design which is as we speak propelling the drone to Mars. Does this new ion the hiPEP thruster solve the problem of slow acceleration and little power.


Other applications of the space planes could well be tourist use, flying in high orbit above earth which would be awesome. Some years away yet I think, but not that far off.

I hope so. that would be kick ass. Here we are hoping to go to space as tourists, in 100 years they'll be like space WTF is that, its so easy, next star now thats killer. Oh you gotta hand it to the technology so great, but too slow in advancement for my licking.

I know there are a few drones heading to Mars as we speak, I'm also under the impression 2 are all but rendered useless or near useless due to the massive solar storms that came off the sun last month. The flares basically fried important systems in the probes/drones and some of the most important systems on board are now useless. As to what is driving them, Im not all that sure. I would have to do more reading about it, but it's more than likely very similar technology that the ESA (European Space Agency) is using. Though the HiPEP is the most advanced Ion based engine made so far. There are some good sites on the HiPEP but I am not able to find them at this time, will keep looking though !!

What would be perfect is fussion, ramjet or anti matter powered space craft. There is also the solar sail which is being launched into space next year to see how effective and fast it really is. The only problem with solar sales is there is no coming home from what I've gathered because it would need a laser from the point of return to propel it back :). Fussion, ramjet and anti matter are unfortunately not near term solutions to high power space exploration. Some big advancements in physics and engineering knowledge are needed for the more advanced propulsion systems.

Advancement in technology is only limited by the funding that is granted to those doing the research. Unfortunately funding isnt unlimited :cantbeli:. Any steps in the right direction though are good enough for me :).

[James]

The power is gathered on the moon and used here, very interesting stuff, dont know how it will be developed or how it will be implemented but it's very exciting stuff.


How do they get the power from the moon to the earth? Giant cable linking the two planets? If that is how, then eventually we can have a train into space.

[Ballistic]

It would take about 3 months to get to mars, currently we don't have the capabilities, 6 months round trip plus time there, food, water, etc. etc.

Actually we do have the capabilities, whether or not the stay would be long term or not is the question. As much as I want to see humans on Mars, I think waiting until we are completely and utterly prepared for a long term self sufficient stay there would be the wisest move.

[Ballistic]

The power is gathered on the moon and used here, very interesting stuff, dont know how it will be developed or how it will be implemented but it's very exciting stuff.


How do they get the power from the moon to the earth? Giant cable linking the two planets? If that is how, then eventually we can have a train into space.

Probably by the same way that we gather solar power now but on a much larger scale. The suns light/heat is directed at the moon, the solar power generators there then direct the power to earth....? Once again I'm not sure how this would work, the scientists are still working on it themselves, but it's a good choice for a long term sustainable power source until stuff like nuclear fussion/fission are safer and more stable to be used for power sources.

[hahaha]

I like watching the rocket launches, but not the footage of the crashes. The astronauts (men and women) truely have no fear..

Where do most of the astonauts come from or how are they picked ? Are they from the Air Force or does NASA actively go around and head-hunt the best students, athletes from top U.S. Universities or schools ?

[Ratamacue]

As far as I know you volunteer to become an astronaut. Pilots and commanders are mostly taken from USAF and US Naval aviators. Crewmen (payload specialists, etc.) are very often scientists and engineers that volunteered to be astronauts.

[hahaha]

Volunteer ?? Whoa, that's pretty cool. I'm assuming that the pilots would have to be in peak physical condition, imagine the stress that the launch would put on your body..

[Guttorm]

NUKE THE MOON!

http://www.imao.us/archives/000715.html#000715

And get the t-shirt!

[Fioraon]

What a waste of our money...

[Haiw]

Probably by the same way that we gather solar power now but on a much larger scale. The suns light/heat is directed at the moon, the solar power generators there then direct the power to earth....? Once again I'm not sure how this would work, the scientists are still working on it themselves, but it's a good choice for a long term sustainable power source until stuff like nuclear fussion/fission are safer and more stable to be used for power sources.
I can see the whole idea of GETTING the energy on the moon, but how are you gonna transfer it to earth? I mean, in case you haven't noticed yet: wireless electricity hasn't been invented yet...

[Seiyuuki]

According to "Aviation Week & Space Technology," the Russian are also planning to set up a permanent base on the Moon by mid-century, I'll try to find the exact article.

[usa320]

It would motivate and inspire, and maybe some new technology will come out of it, but remember, every single peice of the Apollo/LEM/CM stack was made individually and the molds were destroyed, so while the Apollo rocket stack was effective, we are unable to just make another copy of it without spending trillions.

But it would still probably be cheaper than a new shuttle, but i think we should do a new shuttle if its affordable..

[StarvingStudent47]

Sweet. Cause obviously this country had SO DARNED MUCH EXTRA BUDGET FUNDS LYING AROUND. We certainly don't need to buy proper BODY ARMOR for or troops or anything. Or maybe fix public schools. Or get rid of the deficit. Or fix social security so it ain't a money hole that I lose my paychecks to, but won't get anything from in 40 years. Or make medication for seniors affordible.

No, no, we've got to PLANT ANOTHER FRICKIN' FLAG ON THAT BIG DUSTBALL IN THE SKY. Remind me again...how has the space program improved the quality of life of a single individual back here on earth?

Good plan, Dubya. Way to prioritize in a budget crisis.

[Ballistic]

What a waste of our money...

And it's attitudes like that which get us nowhere. You sir, in all respect, are a waste of time.

[Ballistic]

Sweet. Cause obviously this country had SO DARNED MUCH EXTRA BUDGET FUNDS LYING AROUND. We certainly don't need to buy proper BODY ARMOR for or troops or anything. Or maybe fix public schools. Or get rid of the deficit. Or fix social security so it ain't a money hole that I lose my paychecks to, but won't get anything from in 40 years. Or make medication for seniors affordible.

No, no, we've got to PLANT ANOTHER FRICKIN' FLAG ON THAT BIG DUSTBALL IN THE SKY. Remind me again...how has the space program improved the quality of life of a single individual back here on earth?

Good plan, Dubya. Way to prioritize in a budget crisis.

Man, what is it with people like you. Space exploration is important to finding out not just our past, but our FUTURE. If all we do is look here and now, we are all in for one bloody big wakeup call when we have no way of defending against asteroids, no way of finding another "earth" if something drastic happens in our solar system and fantastic opportunity to evolve our current technology. Without a space program we are, for all intents and purposes, ****ed. Ofcourse that is my opinion, and your points are valid, but we need a space program, it's that simple.

[jdbjdb]

It's to cold is space for me, plus no up or down would drive me crazy

[StarvingStudent47]

Man, what is it with people like you. Space exploration is important to finding out not just our past, but our FUTURE. If all we do is look here and now, we are all in for one bloody big wakeup call when we have no way of defending against asteroids, no way of finding another "earth" if something drastic happens in our solar system and fantastic opportunity to evolve our current technology. Without a space program we are, for all intents and purposes, f***. Ofcourse that is my opinion, and your points are valid, but we need a space program, it's that simple.

What do we learn about "our past" and "our future" by sticking a flag up on the moon? What did we learn last time? Nothing.

And I don't see how landing a probe on Mars is going to help save us if a big freakin' rock comes to hit Earth. We're centuries, perhaps millenia, away from having the capability to transport 8 billion people to another planet, even if we found a hospitable place. Quite frankly, there might not be enough natural resources on Planet Earth to supply such an exodus. Period. The way I see it, if a big rock hits Earth in the next 200-500 years, we're f***ed whether we've got a space program or not.

[Ballistic]

Man, what is it with people like you. Space exploration is important to finding out not just our past, but our FUTURE. If all we do is look here and now, we are all in for one bloody big wakeup call when we have no way of defending against asteroids, no way of finding another "earth" if something drastic happens in our solar system and fantastic opportunity to evolve our current technology. Without a space program we are, for all intents and purposes, f***. Ofcourse that is my opinion, and your points are valid, but we need a space program, it's that simple.

What do we learn about "our past" and "our future" by sticking a flag up on the moon? What did we learn last time? Nothing.

And I don't see how landing a probe on Mars is going to help save us if a big freakin' rock comes to hit Earth. We're centuries, perhaps millenia, away from having the capability to transport 8 billion people to another planet, even if we found a hospitable place. Quite frankly, there might not be enough natural resources on Planet Earth to supply such an exodus. Period. The way I see it, if a big rock hits Earth in the next 200-500 years, we're f***ed whether we've got a space program or not.

Thats a pretty pathetic attitude, sorry, but you've obviously skipped what was posted earlier about what another moon mission will achieve. If you dont agree with it thats fine, good for you. In the mean time people who actually give a damn will be given the chance to see history in the making again for a whole other generation, plus humans will have taken a step into moving off our world onto another...our moon atleast when we start to send scientists there. If thats not exciting to you then I feel sorry for you.

With already 100+ extra solar planets found already it's a good chance one similar to earth will be found. 2010 will see the launch of a space telescope even more powerful than Hubble that will orbit out past the moon which will be able to detect planets that have similar atmosphere to earth's. New engines are being developed which achieve speeds greater than anything built yet. The whole purpose of the space program is to EXPLORE and achieve what was thought impossible.

By looking at other galaxies, and trying to get humans into space astronomers, astronauts and scientists can get an insight into how our solar system was created, create ways of protecting us from NEO's and asteroids, (which believe it or not is achievable) if detected early enough, develop better ways of flying in space and advance the human race into a space faring people. It's not about putting a flag onto a "dustball" is scientific research which is more important that you or I. We wont be better of with or without it, any advancement or better quality in living wont be seen for some time, BUT THEY HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE !!!

Once again, if you dont like it, thats too bad for you.

[PsihoKeke]

The bold old vision. Bush is such plagiator. First he copied his father with second Gulf war, now he is copying Kenedy, what's next? Second Tonkin incident (time for rematch), second bombing of Hirosima and Nagasaki? Where is RIA when you need them?

[Ballistic]

The bold old vision. Bush is such plagiator. First he copied his father with second Gulf war, now he is copying Kenedy, what's next? Second Tonkin incident (time for rematch), second bombing of Hirosima and Nagasaki? Where is RIA when you need them?

Actually NASA and groups like The Planetary Society have been lobbying the White House to get the Space Program back on track for a while now, and hopefully it's paid off.

[Durandal]

Hmmmmm.....

Waste of time and money at this point. There are far easier ways to collect energy and safer ways to develop technologies without going to the moon.

Mars is an even bigger waste of time and money. We are not ready.

We have the oceans, why not start there. When we develop a method of colonization/outpost building then go from there...till then, and I REALLY hate to say this.

Shut up George...

You can fund it yourself, because I do not want to.

[Ballistic]

Hmmmmm.....

Waste of time and money at this point. There are far easier ways to collect energy and safer ways to develop technologies without going to the moon.

Mars is an even bigger waste of time and money. We are not ready.

We have the oceans, why not start there. When we develop a method of colonization/outpost building then go from there...till then, and I REALLY hate to say this.

Shut up George...

You can fund it yourself, because I do not want to.

Why ? Why later and not now ? What better time is there ? Answer that please ? They are already developing outposts and buildings for stays on the Moon and Mars, it's not only developing technologies but a natural human instinct....EXPLORING. We are already out there in the form of satellites but there is only so much they can do, one satellite is almost at the edge of our solar system moving into an unknown region of space, the furthest a man made object has ever gone before. Shutting down the space program or leaving and leaving it time and time again to fade away would be a crime. I guess some of the stories I've read are true, now I can really see how small minded atleast a small number of the American public is about the space program....crying shame really. Once again, my opinions, just like you have yours.

[Durandal]

Why ? Why later and not now ? What better time is there ? Answer that please ? They are already developing outposts and buildings for stays on the Moon and Mars, it's not only developing technologies but a natural human instinct....EXPLORING. We are already out there in the form of satellites but there is only so much they can do, one satellite is almost at the edge of our solar system moving into an unknown region of space, the furthest a man made object has ever gone before. Shutting down the space program or leaving and leaving it time and time again to fade away would be a crime. I guess some of the stories I've read are true, now I can really see how small minded atleast a small number of the American public is about the space program....crying shame really. Once again, my opinions, just like you have yours.

I did not say shut down the space program. I said screw the manned missions to the Moon and Mars.

We have an OCEAN to explore...MANY more people can go, similar technology can be researched, and it can be done much more cheaply and safely. We have the closest, largest body of unexplored territoryin our lives and we ignore it. There is JUST as much technology to discover and develop exploring and developing water based colonies.

Our recent success rate of Martian landers has been, well not all that great, and while I do not oppsoe doing more, sending humans to simply "go there and come back" is silly. What is the rush? Need to do it in your life time? Why not 100 years from now? Or 200? Sending a half dozen folks at the tune of MANY BILLIONS of dollars is not my idea of money well spent. However, if you want to spend the same money and colonize a vast untamed space-like region and send 1000s, then I will be more approving.

My comments were not small minded either. Quite the contrary. They are most logical and adventurous. They just are not directed towards space. If the president wants the country behind a project for political gain (that is all this truly is) then why not something that involves a WHOLE bunch of people ON the planet?

[Ballistic]

Why ? Why later and not now ? What better time is there ? Answer that please ? They are already developing outposts and buildings for stays on the Moon and Mars, it's not only developing technologies but a natural human instinct....EXPLORING. We are already out there in the form of satellites but there is only so much they can do, one satellite is almost at the edge of our solar system moving into an unknown region of space, the furthest a man made object has ever gone before. Shutting down the space program or leaving and leaving it time and time again to fade away would be a crime. I guess some of the stories I've read are true, now I can really see how small minded atleast a small number of the American public is about the space program....crying shame really. Once again, my opinions, just like you have yours.

I did not say shut down the space program. I said screw the manned missions to the Moon and Mars.

We have an OCEAN to explore...MANY more people can go, similar technology can be researched, and it can be done much more cheaply and safely. We have the closest, largest body of unexplored territoryin our lives and we ignore it. There is JUST as much technology to discover and develop exploring and developing water based colonies.

Our recent success rate of Martian landers has been, well not all that great, and while I do not oppsoe doing more, sending humans to simply "go there and come back" is silly. What is the rush? Need to do it in your life time? Why not 100 years from now? Or 200? Sending a half dozen folks at the tune of MANY BILLIONS of dollars is not my idea of money well spent. However, if you want to spend the same money and colonize a vast untamed space-like region and send 1000s, then I will be more approving.

My comments were not small minded either. Quite the contrary. They are most logical and adventurous. They just are not directed towards space. If the president wants the country behind a project for political gain (that is all this truly is) then why not something that involves a WHOLE bunch of people ON the planet?

The worlds oceans although greatly unexplored and in their own right interesting do not hold the same fascination that space does. Current engineering achievements in the Ion based engines and others such as antimatter for future propulsion are not feasible for ocean travel, similar technologies could be developed perhaps, but they would be alike at all and would peform and work quite differently. The ocean is basically just as dangerous as space is. I would have thought vehicles are put under similar or more stress in the depths of the ocean than vehicles are in space, atleast in our solar system, plus reefs and canyons. Yes, I do think that we should also explore every inch of our planet before sending colonies to the Moon and Mars....nobody said it was going to happen tomorrow, we have the capabilties to go now, but as I also said, I would prefer to wait until we have a means of self sufficiency for the colonies, which will happen. Seeing ocean colonies would be very interesting indeed. Sorry if I got a little over the top there, Im just very enthusiastic about space, exploration and astronomy, it's a hobby of mine. :D

[Argyll]

Its not like they landed on the moon in the 1st place is it? ;)
This will be a challenge to see if a 30 tonne space craft will actuall sit in the moons surface,and not on it? ;)
Also gives these NASA boys a chance to go and find all these numbered rocks they put away in storage! ;)

[Durandal]

Sorry if I got a little over the top there, Im just very enthusiastic about space, exploration and astronomy, it's a hobby of mine. :D

While I respect your choice of hobby, I am sure you do not need us TAXPAYERS to foot your bill. :)

I mean, lets be a littl ebit reaslistic here. The United States downsized the International Spcae Station because of costs...suddenly we are looking to send folks to the Moon (again) and Mars?

I say we have enough to worry about right now. Research has been going on for years now on the projects that would make space travel easier and they will continue. You do not need to send a bunch of astronauts to Mars to test anti-matter and ion engines.

A little common sense goes a LONG way.

[StarvingStudent47]

Ballistic:

1) Ease off the caffiene a little bit. Just because someone doesn't think space exploration should be a high priority right now, doesn't mean they're Satan incarnate. Are you in NASA or something? You take this whole thing much more personally than most ;)

2) If we weren't in the middle of a budget crisis and a war on terror, I'd be more inclined to support space exploration. But I don't think that we should be funding a mission to Mars when we can't get every soldier in Iraq body armor and desert-colored fatigues. And in terms of "advancing science," how about we worry about getting every high school student a new physics textbook before we send three people to the Red Planet--have you seen the condition some of our public schools are in? There's only so many tax dollars to go around right now, and as "downright cool" as space exploration is, I have a lot of difficulty assigning it priority status. Just sayin'.

3) If we want a good place to put solar panels, I suggest the Arizona desert over the Moon. It's a lot easier to put them there, it's a lot easier to do maintainence, and it's a lot easier to get the electricity to our cities once it's collected. And more windmills in Wyoming. These methods are a lot more cost-effective and reliable than any imaginable scheme with moon-mounted solar panels.

4) Any knowledge about propulsion systems gleaned by sending manned missions to the moon or Mars could be learned just as easily by sending unmanned missions, for a tiny fraction of the cost.

5) I personally am very interested in what's at the bottom of undersea trenches, if we're just exploring "to boldly go where no man has gone before."

[Ballistic]

Ballistic:

1) Ease off the caffiene a little bit. Just because someone doesn't think space exploration should be a high priority right now, doesn't mean they're Satan incarnate. Are you in NASA or something? You take this whole thing much more personally than most ;)

2) If we weren't in the middle of a budget crisis and a war on terror, I'd be more inclined to support space exploration. But I don't think that we should be funding a mission to Mars when we can't get every soldier in Iraq body armor and desert-colored fatigues. And in terms of "advancing science," how about we worry about getting every high school student a new physics textbook before we send three people to the Red Planet--have you seen the condition some of our public schools are in? There's only so many tax dollars to go around right now, and as "downright cool" as space exploration is, I have a lot of difficulty assigning it priority status. Just sayin'.

3) If we want a good place to put solar panels, I suggest the Arizona desert over the Moon. It's a lot easier to put them there, it's a lot easier to do maintainence, and it's a lot easier to get the electricity to our cities once it's collected. And more windmills in Wyoming. These methods are a lot more cost-effective and reliable than any imaginable scheme with moon-mounted solar panels.

4) Any knowledge about propulsion systems gleaned by sending manned missions to the moon or Mars could be learned just as easily by sending unmanned missions, for a tiny fraction of the cost.

5) I personally am very interested in what's at the bottom of undersea trenches, if we're just exploring "to boldly go where no man has gone before."

Im eased mate, and yes I can see that the United States is in a budget crisis, being in Australia, I never really did take your side into account. Fact is, there will be no manned mission to the Moon or Mars for atleast another 15 - 25 years, even longer, if what I've read is correct. A long time away and plenty of time for the US to get out of it's budget problems. ;)

Propulsion systems are already tested by unmanned space vehicles. Long range satellites are being equipped with Ion based engines for longer and faster travel times. With the ESA also working on new propulsion types it could be seen as a race between the two..NASA and the ESA.

Once again, I stated that I didnt really know how the power gathering technologies would be used on the moon. It's a method though of gaining more power from the sun. The moon is also rich in metals and other resources, supposedly even water, but thats still being debated. Moon based observatories should atleast be set up, the viewing power and resolution would be greatly above anything on earth.

Near term problems should be a priority, and yes, giving all the soldiers in Iraq and other places should well and truly be a priority, although considering the fact that most soldiers are dying from roadside bombs and rocket attacks, would does a piece of kevlar do ? Practically nothing.

Advancing the school system is always a necessity, but why slow down the advancement in physics and engineering when there are already many capable people well ahead of any high school kid as far as knowledge goes making gains in the future of jet propulsion ? A good balance is needed, thats for sure.

For a while now NASA has been dwindling because of lack of vision, lack of public support and you'd be happy to know ;) ...budget cuts. One of the things that keeps the drive going for space and it's exploration is interest, public interest, and that has definately died off which is sad. Yes there a things that have a higher priority, but I think, (and once again, all I've said is my personal opinion) that a focus needs to be made on space just as much, if not coming in a close second, as a focus needs to be placed here and right now.

You'd be suprised there a alot of people who feel the way I do, so much so that they fund there own research and development of the future of space travel. Next year the first solar sail will be launched and will orbit earth to see how it goes...developed by an independant group with no Government funding or grants. The sail will be launched by a Russian nuclear sub. Thats dedication !

Anyways, yay or nay, we are all allowed our point of views and I'm sorry if I seemed alittle.....extreme :D

[StarvingStudent47]

Ballistic,

I hadn't noticed you were an Australian until now. If you are so zealous about space exploration, why don't you demand that your OWN government do it? That your tax dollars support it instead of mine? That your OWN public schools be compromised to gather the funds, instead of ours? You seem intent on getting a man to the moon, but you're essentially insisting that somebody else (namely us Americans) foot the bill.

[duck]

Let's have a poll: Space exploration or missile defense? ;)

I see many similarities...

[California Joe]

I just hope they don't bring back that frigging Alien.....

[Beowulf]

What's wrong with Alf????

[California Joe]

Not THAT Alien. The acid drooling big teeth one. I hope they don't bring back Sigourney Weaver either.

[Ratamacue]

Sorry Joe, but I heard they're making a sequel to Alien Resurrection. :|

[Haiw]

Sorry Joe, but I heard they're making a sequel to Alien Resurrection. :|
Naaaah...at least...not to my knowledge. They're gonna make Alien versus Predator tho woot woot woot

[Beowulf]

Sorry Joe, but I heard they're making a sequel to Alien Resurrection. :|
Naaaah...at least...not to my knowledge. They're gonna make Alien versus Predator tho woot woot woot

Alien vs predator would be cool woot

[California Joe]

There's a comic series by that name. I think it was written by Alan Moore. See, I have about 5000 old comic books upstairs and I know stuff like this. Jesus, I'm too old to know these things. Yes, I've heard about the Alien vs. Predator movie. I think the Predators are the goodguys. Weird. Heh.

[Ratamacue]

They also made AvP into 2 computer games (Colonial Marines vs. Aliens vs. Predators). I don't know when the movie takes place, but supposedly it's about a research team in Antarctica that stumbles into the middle of a war between a hive of aliens and 5 teenade Predators.

[Ballistic]

Ballistic,

I hadn't noticed you were an Australian until now. If you are so zealous about space exploration, why don't you demand that your OWN government do it? That your tax dollars support it instead of mine? That your OWN public schools be compromised to gather the funds, instead of ours? You seem intent on getting a man to the moon, but you're essentially insisting that somebody else (namely us Americans) foot the bill.

Simple really.....we dont have the budget. :lol:

Do you Americans really want the Europeans and Russians, Chinese and the few other countries with a space program to surpass you ? I think not. America is a leader in the field, why compromise that ? Yes, I realise that there are other priorities, but this should also be something that is held in a high position, yes maybe below education and maybe below health both of which your country definately needs...your health system is absolutely shocking.

Australia was looking at setting up a launch base in north Queensland, I dont know in what capacity that that would be used, possibly only satellites, but it's a small step forward. I dont know what happened to that program...may have been scrapped.

As far as I'm concerned, I feel space exploration (not necessarily manned missions to the moon and mars) should be a part of every countries goal, maybe an international space program....where all the countries involved can contribute to the cost and research and development. A dream, and one that would take the burben of the US as a major contributor in funds. Just a thought, although Im not quit sure that would be feasible right now, maybe in a few more years.

[Jack Mehoff]

I'm more interest in the Marina trench than Mars

[duck]

(From Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space by Carl Sagan, Random House, 1994)

... Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors, so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.

Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

[Fioraon]

[quote=Fioraon]What a waste of our money...

And it's attitudes like that which get us nowhere. You sir, in all respect, are a waste of time.[/quote

Ignorant.

I wouldn't say more in hopes that the one word would inspire you to think for a few seconds about the state of this America, but I have high doubts so let us rub it in your nose a little.

This country has problems that we need to fix before we send a shinney trillion dollar chunk of metal to the moon AGAIN for the sole reason of being the first AGAIN. America is a very prosperous nation, too prosperous at times to see we are a little off the boat. The money can go to something that will provide for the people. The people being my family, my community, my countrymen, and of course I. It is my money, so lets see it impact my life.

Dont give me any of this greater good bullsh*t either, we landed on the moon nearly fifty years ago and students still go into high debt, families still cant afford insurence or health care, not to add we are a world at war.

There are greater things that my money can go to that will impact my life and my community. Selfish, no. Practical, yes. You want NASA to go to the moon then fine, write them a big fat check. After all you have the right to persue happiness so by all means empty you wallet into the space program.

Now be on your way, I've got to go balance the check book.

[jprichard]

This might save humanity from extinction. If we ever get hit by an asteroid the size of the one that took out the dinaosaurs humanity will live on the moon and maybe Mars. One day they would repopulate and rebuild
civilization on Earth.

[Fioraon]

Humans are gonna go one way or another lad, sorry but nature says no.

How about we realisticly save humanity by envesting in it wisely starting in our homes, and in our towns. If we are to save humanity from anything we dont need to look into the stars for an excusse. Its all around us, it is us.


Running off your theory for lack of anything else to do; It's not going to take twenty years to build a safe haven on the moon if a rock was to fancy smashing us in and if we cant see one crossing our path twenty years ahead of time then what business do we have preserving ourselves.

[Ratamacue]

Thirst for exploration and curiosity are both things that nearly all humans share. What if Christopher Columbus decided that it was too risky and costly to find another route to the East Indies? Sure, North America would be discovered eventually, but not nearly as timely, which would mean technological progress would probably have been stunted.

You could argue that there was no need for anyone to go up into space in 1961. But curiosity is something that drives us. Why do people examine ancient bones? To find out about Earth's past and the creatures that inhabited it. Why do people research and put together ancient history? To find out how humans lived and acted in the past. Why do we put people and satellites in space? To find out what's outside our borders.

[James]

Thirst for exploration and curiosity are both things that nearly all humans share. What if Christopher Columbus decided that it was too risky and costly to find another route to the East Indies? Sure, North America would be discovered eventually, but not nearly as timely, which would mean technological progress would probably have been stunted.

You could argue that there was no need for anyone to go up into space in 1961. But curiosity is something that drives us. Why do people examine ancient bones? To find out about Earth's past and the creatures that inhabited it. Why do people research and put together ancient history? To find out how humans lived and acted in the past. Why do we put people and satellites in space? To find out what's outside our borders.

You are far too wise to be only 15. Tell the truth! :P

Damn, now I'm giving the young'ns guff too... :oops:

[Ballistic]

Thirst for exploration and curiosity are both things that nearly all humans share. What if Christopher Columbus decided that it was too risky and costly to find another route to the East Indies? Sure, North America would be discovered eventually, but not nearly as timely, which would mean technological progress would probably have been stunted.

You could argue that there was no need for anyone to go up into space in 1961. But curiosity is something that drives us. Why do people examine ancient bones? To find out about Earth's past and the creatures that inhabited it. Why do people research and put together ancient history? To find out how humans lived and acted in the past. Why do we put people and satellites in space? To find out what's outside our borders.

Too right !! :)

[Ballistic]

[quote=Fioraon]What a waste of our money...

And it's attitudes like that which get us nowhere. You sir, in all respect, are a waste of time.[/quote

Ignorant.

I wouldn't say more in hopes that the one word would inspire you to think for a few seconds about the state of this America, but I have high doubts so let us rub it in your nose a little.

This country has problems that we need to fix before we send a shinney trillion dollar chunk of metal to the moon AGAIN for the sole reason of being the first AGAIN. America is a very prosperous nation, too prosperous at times to see we are a little off the boat. The money can go to something that will provide for the people. The people being my family, my community, my countrymen, and of course I. It is my money, so lets see it impact my life.

Dont give me any of this greater good bullsh*t either, we landed on the moon nearly fifty years ago and students still go into high debt, families still cant afford insurence or health care, not to add we are a world at war.

There are greater things that my money can go to that will impact my life and my community. Selfish, no. Practical, yes. You want NASA to go to the moon then fine, write them a big fat check. After all you have the right to persue happiness so by all means empty you wallet into the space program.

Now be on your way, I've got to go balance the check book.

Pfft, perhaps you missed the part where I agree that there are higher priorities. But simply looking here and now and not too the future is a pathetic and simple attitude which will get the human race NOWHERE !!

Now, YOU be on your way. :bash:

[StarvingStudent47]

Thirst for exploration and curiosity are both things that nearly all humans share. What if Christopher Columbus decided that it was too risky and costly to find another route to the East Indies? Sure, North America would be discovered eventually, but not nearly as timely, which would mean technological progress would probably have been stunted.

Just for the record, Europeans didn't first "discover" the Americas in 1492. Lief Ericsson had reached Nova Scotia 500 years before, and stayed there with his crew for a couple years. It's just that Europeans forgot about that Viking discovery until 1492 ;)

[The Walrus]

Just for the record, Europeans didn't first "discover" the Americas in 1492. Lief Ericsson had reached Nova Scotia 500 years before, and stayed there with his crew for a couple years. It's just that Europeans forgot about that Viking discovery until 1492 ;)

Wouldn't one consider Scandinavia to be part of Europe as well?
Also, if memory serves, I remember reading of a Chinese expedition that took place before the Viking one, and even then let's not forget about the Indians.

[Ratamacue]

Didn't know that Student. But it seems as though Columbus was the one that really brought everything together since he thought he'd reached the Indies.

And James - nah, I'm not wise, I'm just good like that.

[Fioraon]

Pfft, perhaps you missed the part where I agree that there are higher priorities. But simply looking here and now and not too the future is a pathetic and simple attitude which will get the human race NOWHERE !!

Now, YOU be on your way. :bash:

Right, and building up our communities is not looking into the future? Spending trillions to go collect rocks that may someday have an effect on our lives while we still have kids dropping out of school, and an increase in suicide rates, is Pathetic (oh and there are more examples then you can count.) How can you not find that valid, obviously no one invested in your future.

Build a foundation today, then build the house tomorrow. It normally turns the finished product out to be something worth preserving.

[Dalleer]

It's pretty obvious Saddam and Osama are on the moon plotting against western interests.

Agreed, and there's the martians in Mars which have also sided themselves with the communists!

Did I mention they drink human blood?

[Ratamacue]

I always wondered why they call it "Red Planet."

[StarvingStudent47]

Just for the record, Europeans didn't first "discover" the Americas in 1492. Lief Ericsson had reached Nova Scotia 500 years before, and stayed there with his crew for a couple years. It's just that Europeans forgot about that Viking discovery until 1492 ;)

Wouldn't one consider Scandinavia to be part of Europe as well?

*blink blink*

Why yes, I would. Did I say anything to the contrary?

A Scandinavian dude sailed from Europe to Nova Scotia, which is in CANADA. Canada, last time I checked, is in North America, not Europe. He eventually got bored and sailed back, though there are archeological records of his camp.


Also, if memory serves, I remember reading of a Chinese expedition that took place before the Viking one, and even then let's not forget about the Indians.
If I remember correctly, there is no archeological proof of that Chinese expedition in North America. It's possible that it reached the Americas, but it's possible that it didn't. The Native Americans walked to North America tens of thousands of years ago (hundreds of thousands?) on a land bridge that no longer exists (connecting Russia to Alaska). Somehow, that doesn't seem like the same level of achievement as sailing across the Atlantic Ocean.

[Trigger]

I just hope they don't bring back that frigging Alien.....
...In space no one can hear you scream... :D

[Tane Angle]

I think the moons a waste of time, but I am for terraforming Mars and even possibly Europa. It'd certainly help with overpopulation. I also am for putting a lot more money into experimental propulsion systems, like the antimatter engine. We can start terraforming Mars very soon, before those propulsion systems are ready. We just can't move there, but that okay, as terraforming will probably take decades, if not centuries. I say go for it though. Just not the Moon, it'd be too complex and not self-sustaining enough.

I also support making a space elevator using those infamous nanotubes. The problem: we're still working on the nanotubes. But we can't efficiently build large spacecraft in space without at least one of these elevators.

Now there are alot of issues here on Earth, both domestic and foreign, that need to be taken care of. I say raise taxes. Let's get going on these necessary projects. I'll take a cut to my bank account if it means making a practical habitat on Mars.

By the way, I have a related food for thought question, but I think I'll start another post for it. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Ratamacue]

Isn't Europa one of Jupiter's moons? I'm not sure it's warm enough there for a practical habitat.

[jprichard]

Fioraon, I agree we have lots of probs here on earth to take care of. In referance to the asteroid thing we can't just roll over and die with the attititude that if we can't see it coming we aren't worth it. Maybye we won't get hit and maybe we will. We are the first species that might be able to cheat mother nature out of doing us in. It would be a tradegy to lose all the knowledge that the human race has gained because of some dumb space rock when there was the possibility of salvaging it through relocation or defence of Earth. There still so much we don't know about space and the planets around us who knows what rewards or perils may await us.

[California Joe]

Me and Tane are heading to Mars. Send women, beer and ammo. Any of you pussies wanna show up get a move on. Over.

[Tane Angle]

Ratamacue, you got it. That's the whole idea of terraforming; if we could melt the frozen oceans, maybe we could live there. Or, we could not melt the frozen oceans, build major insulating levels around our settlements, and live there with the oceans still frozen. The tides are so strong on Europa (they cause the oceans to look like the jagged ice cliffs of the Artic Circle, not like smooth glaciers) that they could very practically be used for powering heating and electricity.

But yes, it is too cold for us to live on now, but then again, so is the moon. At least on Europa pretty much all the necessary elements for humans to live are there; it's just a matter of extracting oxygen from the water and carbon dioxide and such.

On a side note: I'd say in the short term, perhaps before the decade is out, it might be a very good idea to send a burrowing probe to Europa, to get down to the liquid oceans (the ice layer is probably between a few miles to a few hundrew miles thick, depending on who you ask) to search for life. Now few people expect fish, but there are some very reputable scientists who think single-celled or very small poly-celled chemosynthetic(use chemicals/heat instead of the sun to make their own food) organisms might live in those oceans. They might use chemicals in the water, the water itself, or thermals for energy.

California Joe, since you're avatar has the guns, I guess in answer to my question on the other post, you're the governor of Mars? :D

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Ballistic]

Well Im glad there are others out there who show an interest and passion for space exploration. Thanks guys !! :D

[Tane Angle]

Ballistic. , feel free to drop me a line if you want to talk space some more.

[Ballistic]

Thanks Tane, most appreciated !!

About propulsion and some other aspects of space exploration. I found an article about the different systems they are working on, whats near term as far as technology goes and whats not. It's quite an interesting read. So if you havent read it yet check it out....if you're interested ofcourse. :D

Damn, they've changed it so you have to become a member to actually see the archived material. I might just paste up the article here, it's big but interesting. There were pictures illustrating the concepts of the propulsion systems, I have them on my computer, but no way to post them up, no matter though. :)


Star Trek
NASA thinks we can find another Earth in another nearby star. When we do, how can we possibly travel light-years to get there? It might not be as hard as you'd think . . .
By William Speed Weed
Illustrations by Don Foley
DISCOVER Vol. 24 No. 08 | August 2003


Nigel Packham, an engineer at Lockheed Martin, spent 15 days sealed in this chamber, breathing oxygen produced by the wheat plants.
Photograph courtesy of NASA.

In just the last eight years, astronomers have discovered a bewildering variety of worlds around other stars: planets so hot they vaporize like comets, planets so large they nearly shine like stars, twin planets that orbit their star in lockstep rhythm. What we have not found is a planet remotely like our own—our instruments aren't sensitive enough. That should change soon. About 10 years from now, NASA plans to launch a mission called Terrestrial Planet Finder, a space telescope specifically designed to detect another Earth. The odds are good that a survey of 150 or so nearby stars will reveal at least one small, Earth-like planet.
A sister Earth would not look like much at first, just a faint speck of light nearly lost in the glare of its nearby star. Still, a speck of light is all we need to analyze the mass, temperature, and composition of the new world. We can scan for likely chemical markers of life, such as an oxygen-rich atmosphere moistened with water vapor and seasoned with methane. If we find what we're looking for, we will suddenly know life on another planet is highly probable and that we may not be alone. The discovery would arguably be the most profound one in human history. But what then? Five hundred years ago, after Columbus brought back word of a new world across the vast Atlantic, explorers from England, France, Spain, and Portugal did not hesitate to sail west. If we find another Earth, our longing for exploration might be stirred as never before. Who could resist wanting to go there and learn more?
The technological challenges of that expedition make even a trip to Mars seem easy. Alpha Centauri, the closest star system and a plausible place to find an Earth-like world, lies 4.4 light-years away—3,000 times farther than any space probe has ever traveled. The star 55 Cancri, which has three large planets similar to those in our solar system, is another 10 times more distant. Crossing the cosmic void will require superfast spacecraft, far more advanced than anything built today but not beyond possibility.
"The physics is not out of reach," says Robert Frisbee, an engineer who directs advanced propulsion concepts studies at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. His job, and his lifelong dream, is to find a way to master interstellar travel. He is studying five distinct propulsion technologies that could get an astronaut from here to Alpha Centauri in less than 50 years. "What we're talking about here is not fantasy," Frisbee says. "It's only science fiction until someone does it." A trip to another Earth would require a research and engineering effort at least as intense as the push behind the Apollo program. But Frisbee argues that a similar level of commitment could result in the launch of our first starship in the same time frame it took us to get to the moon—a decade.
It would be the most expensive undertaking in the history of humankind. It would also be the most extraordinary.

Atomic Rockets
When we reach for the stars, we will have to retire our chemistry sets

In 1903 Russian physicist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky discovered the great impediment to interstellar travel: A rocket's ultimate speed is limited to about twice the velocity of its nozzle exhaust. The space shuttle blows out its exhaust at less than three miles per second, so it cannot exceed about six miles per second. At that rate, it would take 120,000 years to reach Alpha Centauri. To get there in a human lifetime, a rocket would have to travel at least 3,000 times faster than current propellants, such as liquid hydrogen and kerosene, can thrust. So Robert Frisbee suggests tapping into the enormous energy of nuclear reactions, which could be done three different ways:

Nuclear Fission
Pros: near-term feasibility
Cons: very heavy; needs processed fuel; requires massive radiation shielding; has limited top speed and range

Nuclear fission engineers have 60 years of experience working with fission, the process that powers atomic bombs and nuclear reactors. When the center of a radioactive atom is split apart, the resulting charged atomic fragments fly away at 3 percent of the speed of light, about 5,000 miles per second. Researchers led by George Chapline of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have designed a conceptual "fission fragment" reactor to harness those high-speed particles. Their reactor resembles a stack of vinyl records rotating into a cylindrical tower. Each "record" consists of graphite covered with radioactive fuel, such as plutonium or americium. When the fuel spins into the tower, it encounters additional radioactive material inside and triggers a controlled fission chain reaction. Powerful magnets around the reactor corral the resulting nuclear fragments so that they fly away in one direction, producing an exhaust that could accelerate a rocket to 6 percent of the speed of light.
To surpass 10 percent of the speed of light, Frisbee proposes building two fission rockets and staging them one on top of the other. The second stage effectively doubles the rocket's top speed, so the expanded version could zip along at 12 percent of the speed of light. Add another two stages to slow everything down by the end of the trip and you could pull into an orbit around a sister Earth in the Alpha Centauri system in 46 years. More-distant voyages would take more than a human lifetime, however, even using additional stages. To keep weight to a minimum, the fission rocket would require a fast-decaying nuclear fuel such as americium. Americium is not a naturally occurring element, so it would have to be processed from spent nuclear fuel. A mission to the next star would require roughly 2 million tons of americium, not to mention a considerable amount of radiation shielding. Using cheaper uranium or plutonium would drive the fuel mass even higher. But the fundamental technology is ready to go.

Antimatter
Pros: most efficient rocket; best top speed; longest range
Cons: heavy; antimatter technology undeveloped






Albert Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 shows that mass is a concentrated form of energy. Fission and fusion reactions convert just a fraction of 1 percent of their mass into energy. But there is a way to convert matter into energy at nearly 100 percent efficiency: Combine matter with antimatter, its mirror twin. Physicists have created tiny quantities of antimatter by smashing subatomic particles together at near-light speeds. Scientists at CERN, the European physics facility in Switzerland, recently managed to create 1 million antihydrogen atoms—about 10-15 of a pound. It would make a great fuel for an interstellar rocket. Scaling up the engineering to make a rocket-load of antimatter is a daunting concept. "But it is fairly straightforward because we've already got the bits and pieces. We already make the tanks, the magnets, the radiators, and the particle beams you'd need," Frisbee says.
In an antimatter rocket, a dose of antihydrogen would mix with an equal amount of hydrogen in a combustion chamber. The mutual annihilation of a half pound of each, for instance, would unleash more energy than a 10-megaton hydrogen bomb, along with a shower of subatomic particles called pions and muons. These particles, confined within a magnetic nozzle similar to the type necessary for a fission rocket, would fly out the back at one-third of the speed of light. That fast exhaust would translate to a top speed of 66 percent of the speed of light. "This is by far the most powerful rocket we can make," Frisbee says.
A two-stage antimatter rocket to Alpha Centauri would need some 900,000 tons of fuel and would arrive in about 41 years. A four-stage version (two to speed up, two to slow down) on a longer voyage would show the advantages of antimatter to better effect. According to Frisbee's calculations, it would need 38 million tons of antimatter fuel, but it would cut the trip to 55 Cancri, 41 light-years away, to an almost manageable 130 Earth years. The same trip would take 400 years using a fusion engine.

Nuclear Fussion
Pros: lighter than a fission engine; less radiation; possibly refuelable Cons: heavy; has a limited range; technology not yet practical

A fusion engine—one that draws power from smashing atomic nuclei together rather than blasting them apart—would be far preferable to a fission engine, Frisbee says. Fusion reactors potentially produce less unwanted radiation, and they should be easier to fuel: They run on deuterium (heavy hydrogen) and helium 3 (a lighter version of ordinary helium), both of which exist in large quantities on the surface of the moon and in the atmosphere of Jupiter. A fusion-powered mission might visit a fueling station in our solar system before setting out for another star. The catch is that engineers have not yet built a workable fusion reactor, despite decades of effort. We know how to build a runaway fusion reaction in an H-bomb, but controlling that energy has proven elusive.
Fusion test beds, such as the National Spherical Torus Experiment in Princeton, New Jersey, and the Joint European Torus in England, confine nuclei of deuterium in a magnetic bottle and heat it to millions of degrees; as the nuclei smash together, some fuse and release energy. These types of experiments currently consume nearly twice as much energy as they produce from fusion reactions, but the ratio has been improving. Frisbee is optimistic that the technology is now within reach. Once scientists achieve break-even fusion, they could harness the charged particles generated by these reactions and pipe them through a magnetic nozzle. The spray of particles from a fusion reactor could be used to make a two-stage rocket that would top out at 12 percent of the speed of light. Travel times using fusion power would be similar to those for the fission rocket: fast enough to reach the nearest star but probably not much beyond. A fusion rocket would also require about 2 million tons of fuel but could make do with less radiation shielding. As an added bonus, developing a fusion rocket could spur the perfection of fusion power plants on Earth.

Beyond Rocketry
The best way to reach the stars is to leave the fuel back home

The trouble with conventional rocketry, even antimatter rocketry, has been on display at every Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and space-shuttle launch: The spacecraft is dwarfed by its supply of propellant, so most of the rocket's thrust is used simply to move its own fuel. That crude approach is acceptable for a trip into Earth orbit or a brief excursion to the moon, but many space engineers argue that voyaging to other stars will require innovative propulsion systems that are lighter, more versatile, and swifter than any rocket—nearly as fast as light itself. One such concept has been under development for years and is about to be tested. Another seems as far off as Alpha Centauri.

Laser Sail
Pros:high speed; no fuel on board; near-term technology
Cons: massive laser infrastructure; can only go where laser points

In a landmark 1984 paper, the late Robert Forward, then a physicist at Hughes Aircraft's research laboratories, proposed a twist on the ancient technology of sailing. Just as wind can drive a canvas sail across the ocean, a powerful laser can push a huge sail through space. When photons in the laser beam strike the sail, they transfer their momentum and push the sail onward. The spaceship gradually but steadily builds up speed and races off to distant worlds while the laser that propels it stays put in our solar system. Frisbee regards this as the most likely technology to ferry the first spacecraft to another star.
Engineers have already built a simple space sail, one that rides on light from the sun rather than a beam of photons from a laser. Within the next few months, the Planetary Society, a private space-enthusiast organization, plans to launch its pioneering solar sail. Cosmos 1, a 50-pound, 100-foot-wide pinwheel of aluminized Mylar-like sheets, will be launched from a Russian submarine in the Barents Sea. Once in space, the sail will be pushed by sunlight to reach a higher orbit. Hoppy Price, the lead engineer for solar sails at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, thinks this type of fuel-free propulsion will allow entirely new types of planetary missions. But the strength of sunlight falls off exponentially with distance, so solar sails do not work far away from the sun.
A focused beam of laser light, in contrast, could push a craft to Alpha Centauri and beyond because a laser beam does not spread and weaken over distance nearly as much as sunlight does. Frisbee has sketched a design for a trip to 55 Cancri based on Forward's concept. His spacecraft would be powered by a 600-mile-wide aluminum-foil sail with a crew cabin at its center. A powerful laser in Earth orbit or on the lunar surface would bounce off a 600-mile-wide flexible mirror, which would focus the beam so it could drive the sail. The laser would have to pump out light for several years until the spacecraft reached its cruising speed; another couple of years of beaming would allow the craft to slow down (see below).
Frisbee's sail needs to be large in part to dissipate heat from the enormous energy of the incoming laser beam. Aluminum melts at a modest 1,220 degrees Fahrenheit. If the sail were manufactured in space, engineers could switch to lighter, more resilient materials. Geoffrey Landis at NASA's Glenn Research Center in Ohio is investigating thin films made of niobium (which melts at 4,490°F) or diamond (which breaks down into graphite at 3,270°F)—"like a soap bubble in thickness," he says. High-temperature substances could withstand a smaller, more intense laser beam. A diamond-film sail with the same capabilities as Frisbee's aluminum sail could allow faster acceleration and decrease the total trip time.
More daunting, perhaps, is the laser power needed to drive that sail to 55 Cancri: By Frisbee's estimation, it would take a steady flow of about 17,000 terawatts, or 1,200 times all the energy consumed on Earth at any moment. To meet such an enormous demand, he suggests using a solar-pumped laser, a device that gathers sunlight and transforms it into a focused, coherent beam. Physicists Roland Winston and Joseph O'Gallagher of the University of Chicago have demonstrated a system that can concentrate light to 84,000 times its normal intensity.
"Just working with solar sails, we'll wind up solving the major problems of building the laser-sail system," Frisbee says. If we can master the technology, we will no longer need to worry about how far our fuel supply can carry us. A simple design twist would even allow the laser beam to slow the ship to a halt at the other end. And the top speed of a laser sail is limited only by the velocity of light itself. In Frisbee's study, a laser sail accelerates to half light speed in less than a decade. He calculates that by using a sail 200 miles in diameter we could reach Alpha Centauri in just 121/2 years. A 600-mile-wide sail could rendezvous with a planet around 55 Cancri in 86 years.






Fusion Ramjet
Pros:near-light speeds; unlimited interstellar travel in any direction
Cons:requires major advances in physics and engineering knowledge

A dream spacecraft would blend the best attributes of a laser sail and a conventional rocket: You could steer it wherever you wanted to go, and it would never need to carry any propellant. In 1960 physicist Robert Bussard conceived a technology that could do just that. He called it a fusion ramjet. It uses a huge magnet to create a magnetic funnel tens of thousands of miles in diameter. The funnel scoops up interstellar hydrogen and dumps it into a reactor as fuel. Without any fuel tanks to weigh it down, a fusion ramjet could approach the speed of light and roam almost anywhere in the galaxy.
Frisbee cautions that the ramjet concept remains immature. "At this point, it's the least tied down," he says. It would probably operate like a fusion rocket until it hit about 4 percent of the speed of light, at which point the magnetic maw would take in enough hydrogen to keep the engines humming. Frisbee's rough projections show a travel time of 25 years to Alpha Centauri and 90 years to 55 Cancri.
There are two obvious engineering problems with the ramjet. The first is drag: The fusion particles coming out the back shove the ship forward, but the interstellar hydrogen piling up in front acts to slow it down. Passing through the denser regions of the galaxy, the spacecraft might grind to a near halt. In fact, Robert Zubrin, an engineer who runs Pioneer Astronautics, has suggested using a similar magnetic field as a brake to decelerate an interstellar spaceship without expending additional fuel.
The second difficulty is that deuterium and tritium, used in today's experimental fusion reactors, are rare in space. Most interstellar hydrogen is the regular variety with a single proton, which is more finicky. "No one has a clue how to make pure hydrogen fuse," Frisbee says. On the other hand, we know it happens every day: "A star can do it."

Personnel Issues
Can we keep an astronaut alive for 40 years?

The human equation may prove just as thorny as the rocket equation. Although we have learned how to keep astronauts healthy aboard a space station, we generally limit their tour of duty to a few months, and we send them a steady stream of supplies from the home planet. A voyage to the closest Earth-like planet in another solar system is likely to involve decades of travel with no support at all. Before the Apollo era, the difficulty of keeping a human alive and healthy in space for such time periods might have seemed insurmountable. Since then, however, life-support science has been hurtling forward as rapidly as rocket design. Donald Henninger, head of NASA's Integrity Project and a 17-year veteran of life-support sciences at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, does not even crack a smile when asked if it can be done. "Sure, it's possible," he says.

Closing the loop
Earth sustains 6 billion humans with billions of cubic miles of atmosphere, hundreds of millions of cubic miles of water, and billions of acres of arable land. Henninger calls that huge system a "buffer" against the cruel realities of the universe. But only a minuscule fraction of Earth's air and water cycles through humans at any one time—which is fortunate, because a spaceship cannot offer anything close to the resources of an entire planet. Instead, a comparatively modest supply of water, oxygen, and food on board must be recycled over and over with an almost 100 percent recovery rate. Space scientists call it closing the loops: Keeping the recycling process going for "three years, 30 years—it doesn't much matter, once you close all the loops," Henninger says.


Food A continuous supply of food for space voyagers would require growing and harvesting plants. "The task is not extremely difficult," Henninger says. "It's just a question of how efficiently we can do it." He and his colleagues are experimenting with plants such as wheat and potatoes that maximize caloric yield and compress the growing cycle. Most plants, research has shown, grow faster if they receive high doses of carbon dioxide—conveniently breathed out by astronauts. "Give me reasonable mass and power limitations and we can do it from a life-support point of view," Henninger says. "There are no intractable problems here." Reasonable power and mass should be no problem on an interstellar craft. The space station weighs 179 metric tons. Crew quarters weighing 10 times as much would increase the mass of an antimatter rocket by less than 10 percent. "A drop in the bucket," Frisbee says.


Air supply Astronauts inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Mechanical scrubbers could separate the carbon dioxide from the ambient air; chemical processes could then split the bond between the two oxygen atoms and the carbon atom, recovering the O2 part of CO2. "We're close to closing the oxygen loop," Henninger says, and scientists expect to do it on the International Space Station before long.


Water Closing the water loop means purifying shower water, crop water, urine, even sweat. Astronauts on the space shuttle get clean water as a by-product from the onboard fuel cells, which combine hydrogen and oxygen to generate electricity. That is not a long-term solution. But NASA experiments with isolation chambers on the ground have successfully recycled water for up to 90 days by condensing vapor in the air and reprocessing wastewater and urine. On an interstellar voyage, an antimatter rocket or high-powered laser would provide plenty of energy to do the job.


Gravity After a few months of weightlessness, astronauts develop a form of osteoporosis because bones grow stronger in response to constant pressure from Earth's gravity. There is a simple way to simulate gravity on a spaceship: Construct a circular crew compartment that spins like an oversize hamster wheel. Centripetal force presses the astronauts against the outer walls—their floors—giving them the sensation of weight.


Radiation shielding The solar wind, an extended atmosphere blowing out from the sun, forms a magnetic cocoon around the solar system. No spacecraft has yet traveled past its influence, so we have no clear picture of the interstellar environment. It certainly contains cosmic rays, high-speed subatomic bits that could be deadly. Fission, fusion, or antimatter rockets also generate their own radiation. Radiation shielding—perhaps lead, and even some of the onboard fuel—would be needed to protect the crew.


Debris shielding Although interstellar space is extremely empty, even a microscopic dust particle traveling at 50 percent of the speed of light relative to a spacecraft could cause a cataclysmic impact. A more thorough census of interstellar space will tell us how much shielding we will need and what kind.


Psychology There will be no return trip for the first interstellar voyagers. It will take most of a lifetime to get there, and the current designs do not allow enough fuel (or, for the laser sail, a second laser beam) to get back. What kind of astronaut has the right stuff for a one- way mission? How many people should the ship carry? Should children or reproducing couples be sent so that, on arrival, someone young and able could do the exploring? And how do you manage all the disagreements, personality conflicts, and simple claustrophobia that are sure to erupt during a decades- long journey?



Why not just send a robot? A mission to another star cannot rely on controllers back home. A desperate message from Alpha Centauri would take 4.4 years to reach Earth, and our response would take another 4.4 years to return. If the spacecraft is run by a robot, it would need a level of autonomy that baffles Steve Chien, the head of artificial intelligence at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "Your system has to be robust enough to survive all sorts of novel problems on its own," he says. Then, if it manages to arrive intact, the robot would have to perform a detailed scientific exploration without guidance from Earth. "We would hope that it would find an alien city interesting because it's unusual—with straight lines and an organizing pattern—and not throw that data away," Chien says. A human would probably recognize an alien city in an excited heartbeat. An artificial intelligence that matches the flexibility of the human brain has proved nearly as elusive as cold fusion. We have no idea how to build such a thing—and even if we did, we would still probably want the inspiring, poetic perspective of a human copilot.


Nigel Packham, an engineer at Lockheed Martin, spent 15 days sealed in this chamber, breathing oxygen produced by the wheat plants.
Photograph courtesy of NASA.

But will we go?
Some managers at NASA, frustrated that we have not even planned a manned trip to Mars, bristle at talk of voyaging to other solar systems. Get to Mars first and then the outer planets, they say. We can worry about the stars later. Frisbee counters that "stretch goals" inspire greatness. They certainly defined NASA's shining moment, when President John F. Kennedy laid down the challenge of putting a man on the moon. At the time, in 1961, only one American had flown in space, and only for about 15 minutes. No one had ever built a rocket powerful enough to launch three humans beyond Earth's orbit. No one had managed to soft-land a spacecraft on the moon, let alone get it back home. All the intermediate steps happened only because Kennedy insisted we go. Had he thought smaller, we might never have reached the moon.
To Frisbee, traveling to another star is as full of wonder as building the Egyptian pyramids or sailing around the globe for the first time. "Human beings can do amazing things when they want to," he says.



Scientists agree that interstellar space travel won't be easy. Marc Millis of NASA's Glenn Research Center has set up a useful "beginner's guide" to interstellar travel. The Web site explains the difficulties of getting to another star and outlines the many techniques—some feasible, some outright wacky—that are being considered: www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm .

Visit NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory Web site for Advanced Propulsion Concepts for more in-depth discussions of the various research avenues for interstellar travel: www.islandone.org/APC .

Information on the Planetary Society's solar sail, Cosmos 1, is available at www.planetary.org/solarsail .

Before we set out for another planet, we'll first need to find it. JPL's Terrestrial Planet Finder Web site details news and background information about the telescope that will help us scope out other Earth-like planets in distant regions of the galaxy: tpf.jpl.nasa.gov .

Read about the Terrestrial Planet Finder project in "Can We Find Another Earth?" by Michael D. Lemonick, Discover, March 2002. This article is available at http://www.discover.com/ .

To tweak your imagination and learn how scientists at the European Space Agency envision all aspects of interstellar space travel, including vehicle propulsion and colonization in space and on other planets, visit http://www.itsf.org/ .

[California Joe]

Can you build me a holodeck that I can program to look like a New Orleans cathouse in the 40's? That'd be sweet. Thanks pal.

[Ballistic]

Hahahaha :lol:

[Kriz]

VEry interesting article Ballistic ! woot

[GazB]

"Well you know, they have thought about sending waste to the moon, why not WMD to hide it?"

If you want to send waste into space, why not aim for the sun?

"mines for the moons natural resources and also the possibility of setting up solar energy gathering tools to be used here on earth. "

The moon hasn't got any natural resources. It was formed by a collision between Earth and an object nearly as big as Earth and is largely made up of the outer crust of both objects which is very low in metals or minerals. It is largely rock.

"The next logical step for the humans is to go up. A presence on the moon is just one more small step forward toward a better future."

It is not energy efficient to use the moon as a base.

"Well the NASA scientists and techs at the JPL (Jet Propulsion Labs) are developing Ion based engines, one such engine is called the HiPEP (Hi Power Electric Propulsion) which can burn longer and go harder than any other space based propulsion to date. "

Yes, the Russians invented them. They only work in space though.

"Companies such as Boeing (who are unfortunately in a dire situation right now) Lockheed Martin are in a race to develop the first "space plane" which would be used for resupplying the ISS"

The shuttle costs over $300 million for each launch. The little Soyuz cargo ship costs about $60 million.

"Other applications of the space planes could well be tourist use, flying in high orbit above earth which would be awesome. Some years away yet I think, but not that far off."

Tourists have already been to Mir.

"Is this simular to the European design which is as we speak propelling the drone to Mars. Does this new ion the hiPEP thruster solve the problem of slow acceleration and little power. "

No, but that wasn't the problem.

"Fussion, ramjet and anti matter are unfortunately not near term solutions to high power space exploration. "

What sort of ramjet are you referring to?

"I can see the whole idea of GETTING the energy on the moon, but how are you gonna transfer it to earth? I mean, in case you haven't noticed yet: wireless electricity hasn't been invented yet..."

Yes it has, energy can be transfered in the form of microwaves.

"No, no, we've got to PLANT ANOTHER FRICKIN' FLAG ON THAT BIG DUSTBALL IN THE SKY. Remind me again...how has the space program improved the quality of life of a single individual back here on earth?"

History has shown that every once in a while (that is actually reasonable regular) a big huge lump of rock falls from the sky and wipes out about 75% of all life on Earth. Having people on other rocks reduces the chances of one rock wiping us all out. So you know... that weak reason of survival.

"We're centuries, perhaps millenia, away from having the capability to transport 8 billion people to another planet, even if we found a hospitable place. "

Not everyone has to be saved. A percentage of the population will survive because they live on Mars, another percentage will live because they live in space stations orbitting Earth. Some may even survive on the ground or underwater in cities or subs.

"The way I see it, if a big rock hits Earth in the next 200-500 years, we're f***ed whether we've got a space program or not."

The last hundred years we went from the first flight to a man on the moon. In fact the time difference meant that the first man to fly could have met the first man on the moon. It will not take 500 years to get off the earth if we wanted it.

"Actually NASA and groups like The Planetary Society have been lobbying the White House to get the Space Program back on track for a while now, and hopefully it's paid off."

Hmmm, money on space exploration or mini nukes... I prefer the former to the latter.

"While I respect your choice of hobby, I am sure you do not need us TAXPAYERS to foot your bill."

So it is OK to bomb the crap out of third world countries but space exploration and development of technology is of no interest?
Space hasn't given you anything?

"And in terms of "advancing science," how about we worry about getting every high school student a new physics textbook before we "

Perhaps if America was going to Mars then that Physics text book might get opened...

"The moon is also rich in metals and other resources, supposedly even water, but thats still being debated. "

No it isn't.

"Alien vs predator would be cool"

I have that game... it is very good.

"It is my money, so lets see it impact my life."

If you don't like what your space program has brought you then hand over everything with a computer chip (which probably includes every electrical appliance including your toaster). Anything with Kevlar, gortex, carbon fibre, and teflon.

"How about we realisticly save humanity by envesting in it wisely starting in our homes, and in our towns. If we are to save humanity from anything we dont need to look into the stars for an excusse. Its all around us, it is us. "

Are you a commie?

"Didn't know that Student. But it seems as though Columbus was the one that really brought everything together since he thought he'd reached the Indies."

I heard a story that he found America because he used a map based on what was known about the Viking trip.

"A Scandinavian dude sailed from Europe to Nova Scotia, which is in CANADA."

And Canada is part of the "americas'"

"We can start terraforming Mars very soon, before those propulsion systems are ready. "

How about we start terraforming Mars by sending all the smokers there... :-)

"it's just a matter of extracting oxygen from the water"

Also with water you have hydrogen and oxygen... ie rocket fuel.

"They might use chemicals in the water, the water itself, or thermals for energy. "

Deep in the Earths oceans there are creatures that look like fish and crabs, but the water tempertaure is over 400 degrees celcius due to the proximity to volcanic vents. they eat a special type bacteria to survive in such difficult contidions... conditions close to the surface of Venus (ie pressure, temperature, and sulphur levels are very similar).

The article you posted was very interesting Ballistic, but the most sensible propulsion form for long range flight was ignored.
As mentioned in the article the velocity of a space craft is limited by the velocity of what ever is propelling it. Have you heard of particle accelerators? On Earth it is basically a round circuit up to 1 km across made up of magnets. A sub atomic particle with an electric charge is fired into and acclereated around the circuit with the magnets. Speeds close to the speed of light can be achieved and then the particle is released from the circuit to hit a target and the results are analysed. A variation of this is of course to fire the particle out the rear of a space ship. The ideal situation is to achieve a thrust of 1g. It doesn't sound like much but if it is applied to a spacecraft 24/7 then that spacecraft will within a few weeks be travelling faster than anything a rocket could propel. There is also the added benefit of of operating in normal gravity and no loss of muscle during the flight. Another advantage is no radiation as with an antimatter engine, and the magnets could do double service as protection from storms on the sun.

[Tane Angle]

GazB, you got it with the deep-ocean life. If it can occur there, where the temperatures are so low, and the waters devoid of sunlight, then why not on other planets? We're not looking for radio-intelligent life necessarily, but life at all. Also, if mathematically intelligent life existed twice on Earth, that suggests a good chance of life elsewhere.

And again, I think that colonizing the Moon is no good, there is no atmosphere from which to extract an Earth-type atmosphere inside the colony (terraforming aside) or fuels for spacecraft.

GazB, good point on the particle accelerator. I've seen the one out on Long Island, in NY. For lack of a better word, it's really cool.

Anyways, have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Ratamacue]

Wasn't there a meteorite that crashed on Earth a few years back with signs of single-cell life forms?

[Tane Angle]

Ratamacue, most scientists now think that the Mars meteorite did not contain life forms, but there are still some who think it did.

[Roger Rabbit]

WOO HOOO conspiracy time.

[Kriz]

And again, I think that colonizing the Moon is no good, there is no atmosphere from which to extract an Earth-type atmosphere inside the colony (terraforming aside) or fuels for spacecraft.



Doesn't the lack of an athmosphere also brings higher risk of impact of meteorites and other junk from space. Earth's atmosphere burns up most smaller crap and only larger ones make it trough, but since the moon and other planets like mars lack an atmosphere wouldn't that bring more risks ?

Anyone who knows anything bout this ? Thanks in advance !

[Tane Angle]

Well, Mars, and if I'm not mistaken, Europa also, has an atmosphere. And Europa is aided by the gravity of the other moons and Jupiter (meteors hit one of them instead of Europa often). But yes, it is a concern. Also, Europa is outside the asteroid belt, so we don't really know what it's like out there in terms of space debris. As for the Moon, you got it. The Moon has thankfully acted like a shield for us, but who in their right mind would stand in fron of their shield?

On a side note, I just thought of this: Who knows what kind of gravitational effects, particularly on the human body, living on Europa would have, due to the immense gravitational pulls on that moon. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Ratamacue]

What came of that study with John Glenn in space? Weren't they trying to see what effects low gravity/zero-G had on the aging process and whatnot? I would see that as being especially important for something like the colonization of Mars which has far less gravity than Earth.

[Ballistic]

1)"mines for the moons natural resources and also the possibility of setting up solar energy gathering tools to be used here on earth. "

The moon hasn't got any natural resources. It was formed by a collision between Earth and an object nearly as big as Earth and is largely made up of the outer crust of both objects which is very low in metals or minerals. It is largely rock.

2)"The next logical step for the humans is to go up. A presence on the moon is just one more small step forward toward a better future."

It is not energy efficient to use the moon as a base.

3)"Well the NASA scientists and techs at the JPL (Jet Propulsion Labs) are developing Ion based engines, one such engine is called the HiPEP (Hi Power Electric Propulsion) which can burn longer and go harder than any other space based propulsion to date. "

Yes, the Russians invented them. They only work in space though.

4)"Companies such as Boeing (who are unfortunately in a dire situation right now) Lockheed Martin are in a race to develop the first "space plane" which would be used for resupplying the ISS"

The shuttle costs over $300 million for each launch. The little Soyuz cargo ship costs about $60 million.

5)"Other applications of the space planes could well be tourist use, flying in high orbit above earth which would be awesome. Some years away yet I think, but not that far off."

Tourists have already been to Mir.

6)"Is this simular to the European design which is as we speak propelling the drone to Mars. Does this new ion the hiPEP thruster solve the problem of slow acceleration and little power. "

No, but that wasn't the problem.

7)"Fussion, ramjet and anti matter are unfortunately not near term solutions to high power space exploration. "

What sort of ramjet are you referring to?

8)"I can see the whole idea of GETTING the energy on the moon, but how are you gonna transfer it to earth? I mean, in case you haven't noticed yet: wireless electricity hasn't been invented yet..."

Yes it has, energy can be transfered in the form of microwaves.

9)"Actually NASA and groups like The Planetary Society have been lobbying the White House to get the Space Program back on track for a while now, and hopefully it's paid off."

Hmmm, money on space exploration or mini nukes... I prefer the former to the latter.


10)"The moon is also rich in metals and other resources, supposedly even water, but thats still being debated. "

No it isn't.


The article you posted was very interesting Ballistic, but the most sensible propulsion form for long range flight was ignored.
As mentioned in the article the velocity of a space craft is limited by the velocity of what ever is propelling it. Have you heard of particle accelerators? On Earth it is basically a round circuit up to 1 km across made up of magnets. A sub atomic particle with an electric charge is fired into and acclereated around the circuit with the magnets. Speeds close to the speed of light can be achieved and then the particle is released from the circuit to hit a target and the results are analysed. A variation of this is of course to fire the particle out the rear of a space ship. The ideal situation is to achieve a thrust of 1g. It doesn't sound like much but if it is applied to a spacecraft 24/7 then that spacecraft will within a few weeks be travelling faster than anything a rocket could propel. There is also the added benefit of of operating in normal gravity and no loss of muscle during the flight. Another advantage is no radiation as with an antimatter engine, and the magnets could do double service as protection from storms on the sun.

1) According to NASA and Permanent (P rojects to E mploy R esources of the M oon and A steroids N ear E arth in the N ear T erm Permanent.com (http://www.permanent.com/l-index.htm)) the moon has plenty of resources, consisting of:
Aluminum
Calcium
Titanium
Iron
Volatiles (hydrogen, water (I know water/ice and it's presence on the moon is being disputed) and others)

Space.com has articles about a future moon base and the possible mining and self sustainability of said moon base. The articles are HERE (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/moonbase_biz_021002-1.html) and HERE (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_resources_031114.html). I'm sure there are more articles out there aswell. I dont really know the reliability of these reports, but obviously these people know something is available on the moon in the form of those minerals stated, otherwise they would'nt be wasting there time on a pointless endeavour.

2) Why ? I and others think that setting up a base/colony on the moon would be a benefit to the future of humans in space. Colonising another planet/moon is obviously not going to be a simple task. Why not start on a moon that is close, one that we have been to before, one that has resources to mine (refer to question 1) and one that is significantly easier to sustain until it's up and running, then one on Mars.

3) The Russians may have invented the Ion based engine, but they have created nothing like the power and longevity of power that the HiPEP produces, please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm only fairly new to most of this propulsion stuff).

4) Shuttle ? Im talking about the Space Plane. ALthough at the moment, upon closer inspection the X-37 Space Plane is unmanned, and can be launched via a B-52. Ofcourse in the future, there is no doubt that larger versions will be created to transport humans and supplies at cheaper cost than the Shuttle. It also has much more advanced propulsion systems that the Shuttle and Soyuz space craft.

5) Yeah, they've been to Mir at the cost most would never make in a lifetime. I think flying about Earth doing a few orbits would be more enjoyable than being cramped up in a now dead space station. Ofcourse the price for such a flight would also be expensive, and probably wont happen for a long time yet.

6) What was the problem ? Once again, I'm not all that up to date with the propulsion side of things

7) Fusion Ramjet, which I know is a LONG way away. Major advances in physics are needed for it.

8) Refer to one of the links above from Space.com, they explain it better than I can, but then again, not fully I dont think.

9) Mini nukes ?? Where did that come from ?

10) Again, refer to the information in question 1.

While it probably sounds easier, waiting a few weeks to speed up is probably what the scientists are trying to beat, and then how long does it take to slow down ?? In the end, the best propulsion system would be one that doesnt take time to build up speed, has no problems slowing down, can be used in any direction (unlike something like a Laser Sail), requires little to no onboard fuel and can reach near light speeds and slow down again in a minimum amount of time. Yes, I think work on a particle accelerator for space based propulsion systems should be made aswell, but advancement should'nt stop on the more far out and long term projects such as the Fusion Ramjet. Then again, as I said, Im not all that knowledgable about such things, so maybe I'm talking ****. :D