Any ideas and how? We still have the same shuttle technology. Congress wanted next generation programs in 1987 but that died in the vine.

Should not we first set up a 2001:Space Odyssy type space station first before going anywhere?

Should we set up a moon base underground first?

visiting a Near earth object (NEO) would be cool

Human Space Flight Review Committee Announces Meeting Agendas

WASHINGTON -- The Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee will hold public meetings July 28, 29, 30, Aug. 5 and 12. The meetings are open to news media representatives. No registration is required, but seating is limited to the location's capacity. Agenda times are approximate and subject to change.

The first meeting will be July 28 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. CDT at the South Shore Harbour Resort and Conference Center, 2500 South Shore Blvd. in League City, Texas.

The agenda is:
10 a.m.: Committee chairman Norm Augustine opening remarks
10:30 a.m.: Mike Coats, director, NASA's Johnson Space Center
11 a.m.: Congressional perspective (presenters TBD)
Noon: Lunch break
12:30 p.m.: NASA Constellation projects managed at Johnson
1:30 p.m.: International Space Station/space shuttle subgroup (Sally Ride, moderator)
3:30 - 4: p.m.: Public comment period

The second session will be July 29 from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. CDT at the Davidson/U.S. Space and Rocket Center, 1 Tranquility Base, in Huntsville, Ala.

The agenda is:
8 a.m.: Robert Lightfoot, director, NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center
8:30 a.m.: Low Earth Orbit Access subgroup briefing (Bo Bejmuk, moderator)
10 a.m.: NASA Constellation projects managed at Marshall
11a.m.: Congressional perspective (presenters TBD)
Noon: Lunch break
1 p.m.: NASA Constellation projects continued
2 p.m.: Integration subgroup briefing (Lester Lyles, moderator)
3:30 - 4 p.m.: Public comment period

The third public session will be July 30 from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. EDT at the Hilton Cocoa Beach Oceanfront Grand Ballroom, 1550 North Atlantic Ave., in Cocoa Beach, Fla.


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2009/release-20090724.html

Any ideas and how? We still have the same shuttle technology. Congress wanted next generation programs in 1987 but that died in the vine.

Should not we first set up a 2001:Space Odyssy type space station first before going anywhere?

Should we set up a moon base underground first?

A manned expedition to Neptune. It must be done!

:D

I'm actually a lot more interested in consumer space travel than any moon base.

We first ned a new propulsion technology. Wonder if anyone is working on a high magnetic field based propulsion technology.

(some old stuff here: http://keelynet.com/energy/holt1.htm)

Should not we first set up a 2001:Space Odyssy type space station first before going anywhere?

Should we set up a moon base underground first?
We should not go anywhere.

NASA should be putting its money into discovering how to create an anti-gravity machine...the ultimate propulsion system.

We should not go anywhere.

NASA should be putting its money into discovering how to create an anti-gravity machine...the ultimate propulsion system.

You might like this one...they are working on this for quite sometime now....I worked on a similar concept in my graduate class but did not have resources to go forward.

Wormhole-Stargates: Tunneling Through The Cosmic Neighborhood (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/davis_wormholestargates.pdf)

Any ideas and how? We still have the same shuttle technology. Congress wanted next generation programs in 1987 but that died in the vine.

Should not we first set up a 2001:Space Odyssy type space station first before going anywhere?

Should we set up a moon base underground first?
Why underground?

In case of micro-meteorite showers...

NASA should be putting its money into discovering how to create an anti-gravity machine...the ultimate propulsion system.
You're assuming that
A) anti-gravity is possible and
B) it's a propulsion method. :rolleyes:

Home. Sell the furniture and computers first.

No need for tax dollars funding showmanship in space. No need for manned space flght. Insturments are cheaper and better and developng them would boost progress in AI. Private industry can do all that is needed in space, and pay taxes to the government when it gets a profit. (I would ontract them with payment of cost only when they fail and a profit when they met the contract requirements.)

Home. Sell the furniture and computers first.

No need for tax dollars funding showmanship in space. No need for manned space flght. Insturments are cheaper and better and developng them would boost progress in AI. Private industry can do all that is needed in space.

I like you Billy, you are a smart guy, but you are really out of it on this one.

Private industry will not go to space, except to fill it with garbage. There is no profit in exploration. It is the providence of collective effort, time and time again.

Why underground?


In case of micro-meteorite showers...


That's a problem on the moon?

If the US had continued with space exploration after the 1960's instead of investing in wars, we would now have a very well established base on the moon. Who knows what valuable resources are there.

My feeling is that by now, we should be heading towards Mars, but we have gone off at a tangent, and are 40 years behind.
The first objective should be to set up a working base on the moon, and exploit the resources there.
We should continue sending unmanned craft to Mars until we are ready to do more than just land there. What's the point in that?

I like you Billy, you are a smart guy, but you are really out of it on this one.
Private industry will not go to space, except to fill it with garbage. There is no profit in exploration. ...I support exploration of space and solar system objects - I just don't want to waste a lot of tax payer's money doing it. I want it to be much cheaper and better done by instruments. If private industry has no interest in for example going to the moon to explore what minerals* may be there, learn more about the geology of planet formation, the nature of micro meteorites, etc. then I conclude it is not worth doing, at least not now.

If despite the many other demands on the public purse, the people want to ignore such as finding cures for disease faster with government agencies (I note there is no NDEA, the National Disease Eradication Agency, but there is a NASA) and fund NASA anyway, I will vote against that but believe in democracy so will pay my taxes still. If the democratic decision is to explore space even when the returns are not attractive to private industry, then why not contract for private industry to do the job - paying only their cost, if for example, they fail to come back with moon rocks or Mars dust for detailed analysis on Earth.

Be honest: The USSR was first into space with a dog, then a man, so to save face Kennedy pledged to put a man on the moon. There is nothing of scientific value that has been learned that could not have been learned for 1/10 the cost. Man rated rockets are very much more expensive than three equal performance rockets carrying only instruments. Man is a nuisance in space also, requires food, water, air to breathe, and is always dropping a glove, wrench or bolt, etc. to make dangerous space junk. When the consumables man needs are also considered, (adds to the launch weight) it cost at least 10 times more to get the same scientific knowledge as if done with instruments.

Also there is the great benefit that would have come to earth bound people if the money spent to support man in space had be spent on development of artificial intelligence instead. Man in space does have a much better adaptive brain than we can now make, but if on the third try with unmanned attempt to get something done on Mars, then try a fourth time and still have less than half the cost to get the job done. If AI had progressed and money had not been wasted, perhaps the recent metro/ rail crash in DC, caused by faulty AI would not have happened - Life on Earth would be much better and safer if those wasted dollars had gone into AI development.

SUMMARY
Be rational. Not a political glory seeker. Use ~20% or less of the manned space budget to get the same exploration done with instruments and have greatly increased “spin-off” in the advancement of AI.

Do you see / understand my POV (or have any reply - counter argument)?

------------------
*Solar flux deposited He3 is the only one that might be there worth the cost of bring it to Earth. (I think essentially none is there as helium is extremely volitile and the surface of the gets very hot during the 14 days of steady sunlight.) Until, if ever, man knows how to make controlled fusion that He3 is not worth much either.

PS as I could still edit, I added a sentence to post 11.

... Who knows what valuable resources are there. ...Name one, even only one, which is not available on Earth with less than 1% of the cost of bringing it back to Earth from the moon.

I'm with Billy T.

NASA doesn't need to go anywhere. It's unnecessary spending that is best left to the private sector.

And there's many-a-profit to be made in space.

I'm with Billy T. NASA doesn't need to go anywhere. It's unnecessary spending that is best left to the private sector.

And there's many-a-profit to be made in space.Of course there is. For example:

“… Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic Ltd. commercial space venture sold a 32 percent stake to an Abu Dhabi investor, raising $280 million to help fund a test-flight program that will begin later this year. …Virgin’s prototype SpaceShipOne flew to the edge of space three times in 2004 and the successor SpaceShipTwo should begin testing this year, the statement said. Both craft use a carrier plane, WhiteKnightTwo, to travel to high altitude, from where they are launched. More than 300 people have paid almost $40 million in ticket deposits, according to London-based Virgin. …”

From: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aLaTEv9czp0Y

So long as NASA can stick you with the tax bill, they need not worry about being cost effective. They can be stupid and dangerous too* – filling the cabin with pure O2 and killing three astronauts in a launch pad fire –EVEN after the USSR had warned them. The Russian never used anything but air, but NASA did not want (could not?) lift the “useless” N2 of air.

---------------
*Unlike private industry, you cannot sue the government, except when Congress passes a private law allowing you to.

We should not go anywhere.

NASA should be putting its money into discovering how to create an anti-gravity machine...the ultimate propulsion system.
While an anti-gravity machine would be great, you have to consider the likelihood of success. NASA could definitely send people to Mars etc. with big rockets if they spend the money. You might pour a bajillion dollars into an antigravity engine and never accomplish anything.

I like you Billy, you are a smart guy, but you are really out of it on this one.

Private industry will not go to space,

Then his answer was that NASA should go nowhere. I agree with that. Space is not for humans and there is nothing in the Solar system worthy to explore it anymore when we have way bigger problems here on Earth. If they want to waste a little money, they could do deep ocean living, that is still cheaper and more practical then space exploration.

What could be done has been done already...

If the US had continued with space exploration after the 1960's instead of investing in wars, we would now have a very well established base on the moon. Who knows what valuable resources are there.

If there is no practical applications, it really doesn't matter what we waste money on, at least wars help with overpopulation.

What is a moonbase good for? And resources??? There is a thing called practicality...

Hey, good news, other countries waste their energy on space programs too!:

"India's Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) C-11 blasts off carrying India's first unmanned moon mission Chandrayaan-1 from the Satish Dhawan space centre at Sriharikota, about 100 km (62 miles) north of the southern Indian city of Chennai Wednesday."

As compared to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India

"The World Bank estimates that 456 million Indians (42% of the total Indian population) now live under the global poverty line of $1.25 per day (PPP). This means that a third of the global poor now reside in India."

If there is no practical applications, it really doesn't matter what we waste money on, at least wars help with overpopulation.

What is a moonbase good for? And resources??? There is a thing called practicality...

In 1942, the Senate of the Most Serene Republic of Venice said the same of the New World. We need hope.

There are profits to be made in space.

Tourism
Mining for resources
Colonization
Research
Satellite and comms
Etc

There are profits to be made in space.

Tourism
Mining for resources
Colonization
Research
Satellite and comms
Etc

Alrighty, let's play:

1. Tourism: we agree, but it doesn't need to be government backed enterprise.

2. Mining: bullshit. Cost / profit ratio is too high

3. Colonization: what for? Oh yes, for mining. :)

4. Research: Haven't we done everything already?

5. Satellites: No man needed. There are already way too many.

etc?

where should NASA go?

the unemployment line

Alrighty, let's play:

1. Tourism: we agree, but it doesn't need to be government backed enterprise. It isn't already


2. Mining: bullshit. Cost / profit ratio is too high This is because the current technology is not efficient enough or cost effective.

Once space travel becomes an easier feat and costs less, mining can become a very serious prospect as a source of profit



3. Colonization: what for? Oh yes, for mining. See above. Also, real estate, anyone?

Real estate on mars! Get your own villa, with all the luxuries, just $20 Million! On Mars!


4. Research: Haven't we done everything already? Nah, but I was referring to the fact that the unique gravity conditions in space allow for experimentation that couldn't be done on Earth.

I am planning to participate in NASA's Constellation project.

I think that resource mining should be the primary goal behind space exploration driving force.

However the main driving force behind space exploration will not be governmental agencies but entrepreneurs like Burt Rutain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwfSENkvJXY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXLKs_4A9fM

http://spaceinvestmentsummit.com/Logos/SIS_LogoHeader01.jpg

Once space travel becomes an easier feat and costs less, mining can become a very serious prospect as a source of profit


Only if you discover a new material that is small in volume but incredibly pricey. Even diamond doesn't qualify, because if you bring back a lot that would push its price down.

Real estate? BS.... As I said, there is more room in the oceans and easier access, oxygen and food can be harvested from the water, so it is possible to live there without outside help....

To all posting nonsense about mining the moon for “resources,” I again ask you to:

Name even one item that is not available now on Earth for less than 1% of the cost of going to moon and returning it to earth.

You CAN NOT AS THERE IS NONE.


PS to Syzygys:
There is already a huge surplus of diamonds held off the market by De Biers and a few others to keep the price from collapsing to about 5% of the current "value." They would pay you NOT to bring diamonds back from the moon, even if there were any there. If they could get laws passed to make sale of all Earth diamonds illegal, so only Moon diamonds were sold, then the price of diamond would be about 500 times higher, just to "break even" on the cost of bringing diamonds from the moon to Earth.

I know about the artifical price of diamond, I was just too lazy to post it and anyway, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

The bottomline is this: NASA officials are affraid of losing their jobs, thus they keep coming up with BS scenarios, what to do in the future.

A good analogy is the deffense industry, lots of unneeded inventions and weapons there. Submarines? We get attacked by people using $40 Microsoft Flightsimulator and knives, what nuclear subs are good for???

To nietzschefan:

Has post 15 et. al. of mine changed your POV expressed in post 12?

Post 15 et. al. seems to have made most think that NASA is useless waste of tax payers money. Do you now agree?

... Once space travel becomes an easier feat and costs less, mining can become a very serious prospect as a source of profit...Once pigs fly, unbrella sales will soar.

There is an equation using the specific impulse of chemical rocket fuels that relates the lift off weight to the payload weight. - You obviously are ignorant of it.
Until chemical rockets are not needed, the cost of bringing anything back from the moon will be at least 100 times higher than getting same material from Earth.

It is not a question of "improving technology" but a fundamental fact of physic (or chemistry) that huge masses of fuel must be burned for each pound that goes to the moon and then very large masses of fuel must be burned for every pound that is returned to Earth.

----------------------
Some actual facts:

The LEM assent module which lifted of the moon weighed 10,024 lb at launch but a large fraction of that was the fuel. Lets say 500 useful pounds was returned from the moon to the Earth. Two men, their air, water, etc. requirements being ~50% weight. The LEM structure, batteries etc. being more than 45%. Thus, the "mineral cargo" was less than 50 pounds.

The launch weight of the Saturn V used to go to the moon was 6,699,000 pounds, mostly the liquid Hydrogen Oxygen fuel which costs considerably more than $10 / pound. So the cost of just the rocket was SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN 70 million dollars (not counting the development costs or the earlier testing with Saturns, or the ground control expenses. If they were included, the cost easily exceeded 100 million dollars).

Thus the cost per pound of minerals returned was more than a million dollars a pound, probably more than two million dollars per pound of minerals returned to earth. One percent of that cost is more than $10,000 / Lb, probably more than $20,000 /Lb, but I will continue with the lower figure. Gold costs about $10,000/ pound. So gold returned from the moon would cost 100 times more than gold from the Earth.

Again there is nothing on the moon that is not available on the Earth 100 times cheaper.


And this assumes there is zero cost to extract it from them moon - I.e. if gold, I am assuming there are gold bricks just sitting on the surface to pick up.
No need to transport any mining equipment to the moon etc.

ENOUGH OF THIS NONSENSE ABOUT GOING INTO SPACE FOR THE RESOURCES THERE.

I do see one practical usage of a moon base: Making love to fat people. They lose 5/6th of their weight there...

old people will love it to 70 will be the new 60

Only if you discover a new material that is small in volume but incredibly pricey. Even diamond doesn't qualify, because if you bring back a lot that would push its price down. It doesn't have to be a new material.

And the resources don't have to come back to Earth, they could be sold to a colony.


Real estate? BS.... As I said, there is more room in the oceans and easier access, oxygen and food can be harvested from the water, so it is possible to live there without outside help.... So? People will still want Mars villas. I sure would. And under the ocean villas.

And Mars villas. Real estate and housing along with tourism will probably be the most profitable ventures.




There is an equation using the specific impulse of chemical rocket fuels that relates the lift off weight to the payload weight. - You obviously are ignorant of it.
Until chemical rockets are not needed, the cost of bringing anything back from the moon will be at least 100 times higher than getting same material from Earth. I know, which is why I said until the tech improves. As in, a new method of getting into space that is cheap and can be more open to the common man.

Your analogy is right, but that's like saying it's not profitable to mine for resources in North America if you're sending it back in one tiny canoe. Correct, which is why you want something better.

Although resources will probably become a better enterprise once the resources on Earth become scarce.

----------------

What about personal space vessels? Like cars, except they are space ships, that are mass produced and made affordable to the common man. There's a profit.

What about personal space vessels? Like cars, except they are space ships, that are mass produced and made affordable to the common man. There's a profit.
Sort of.
They'd have to be a one-time purchase since the vast majority of people are far (far, far, FAR) too dumb to actually helm (in lieu of pilot/ fly/ steer) the things reliably.
Although it would be one way (albeit expensive) of "culling the herd". :eek:

It doesn't have to be a new material.

Sure. Please list the materials that could be profitably mined on the Moon:


And the resources don't have to come back to Earth, they could be sold to a colony.

Isn't it easier not to put there anybody, so we don't need to sell anything?

Or we just colonize for consumption's sake?

The stupidity of Mars villas I am not even going to address.

Right now nothing could be profitably mined because the costs are too high for it to be worth it.


And real estate will be profitable; just 'cause you don't want a house on mars doesn't mean other people don't.

The health problems of extended space living:

http://amog.com/lifestyle/fly-outer-space-heres/

... I know, which is why I said until the tech improves. As in, a new method of getting into space that is cheap and can be more open to the common man. That will not be chemical rockets for reasons I explained related to the specific impulse limits. Hydrogen being very light and releasing a great deal of energy when oxidized is hard to beat - why it was used.


...Although resources will probably become a better enterprise once the resources on Earth become scarce. No even extracting from the oceans is much cheaper than using moon resources. Material resources do NOT get scarce - they remain on Earth. It only gets more costly as the natural concentration is reduced. Given the fact that the moon is smaller, has less internal radioactive heating and certainly less gravitational collapse heat when it formed, it is highly likely that the concentration of the "resources" there is much lower than on Earth. The moon has no volcanoes. - It is the internal heat that separates material into ore bodies. This alone, even neglecting the huge cost of going to get them and returning them to Earth, makes "moon resources" unattractive economically!

Forget about this stupid idea. If I must explain it to you a fourth time you are equally stupid.

...What about personal space vessels? Like cars, except they are space ships, that are mass produced and made affordable to the common man. There's a profit.Now you are talking. Want to invest in my "pixy dust" plant ?

Maybe they should focus on making a lasting base/enviroment bubble type structure on the moons surface before trying to launch off anywhere else. I don't know much about space travel but wouldn't it be alot more effective with a working set of factorys on the moon, making the moon a gateway too and from earth. The thrust needed to escape the earths atmosphere must use up way more energy than launching a craft directly from the moon to say ie Mars.

peace

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is supposed to be looking for water under the basalt rock. If found that would solve our settlement problem as we can get the Hydrogen and Oxygen from that to refill the tanks if we can carry them. Since there will be plenty of sunshine, we could even grow food there.

Maybe they should focus on making a lasting base/enviroment bubble type structure on the moons surface before trying to launch off anywhere else. ...I have wasted 3 minutes or so trying to find an old thread thabout the three most important /interesting inventions yet to come (or something like that) One Of my three was a Moon Base. I went into some detail about how it would be. (Underground as the sun shines continuously for 14 earth day with no clouds) and how it would be powered - large rooling sun screen keeps solar heat form the cold patch of earth during the 14 days and then moves over to cover the Hot patchwhen14days of nite come to reflect the radiant heat back into the dirt. A heat engine with coils in these two patches to collect high temperature heat and dump waste heat will have high efficiency as the temperature difference is very large.

Maybe they should focus on making a lasting base/enviroment bubble type structure on the moons surface before trying to launch off anywhere else. ...I have wasted 3 minutes or so trying to find an old thread about the three most important /interesting inventions yet to come (or something like that). One of my three was a Moon Base.

I went into some detail about how it would be. (Underground as the sun shines continuously for 14 earth day with no clouds and micro-meteors make it too dangerous to be long on the surface.) and how it would be powered - large rolling sun screen keeps solar heat from the cold patch of dirt during the 14 days and then moves over to cover the Hot patch when14days of nite comes to reflect the radiant heat back into the dirt. During this time the cold patch is cooling down by radiating to the ~10K sky.

A heat engine with coils in these two patches to collect high temperature heat and dump waste heat will have high efficiency as the temperature difference is very large and the heart sink is very cold - much colder than antartica.

Main use of the base is astronomy - long exposure during the 14 day long very black night.

I have wasted 3 minutes


I have wasted 3 minutes

I think you wasted 6 minutes, and that is way too much. We already killed the argument for NASA's future.

To all posting nonsense about mining the moon for “resources,” I again ask you to:

Name even one item that is not available now on Earth for less than 1% of the cost of going to moon and returning it to earth.

You CAN NOT AS THERE IS NONE.


Helium-3

http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html

I think you wasted 6 minutes, and that is way too much. We already killed the argument for NASA's future.Not NASA's. It is a Chinese moon base.

One of my other three inventions was a "data dot" (information source for a 3D holographic projector with information more than 1000 old fashioned blue ray DVDs could hold). I advised visitors to the Chinese moon base not to take any data dots with them that show nude ladies doing wird things in 3D as the Chinese are still quite prudish.

Helium-3I mentioned that in footnote of post 15 as follows:

"... *Solar flux deposited He3 is the only one that might be there worth the cost of bringing it to Earth. (I think essentially none is there as helium is extremely volitile and the surface of the gets very hot during the 14 days of steady sunlight.) Until, if ever, man knows how to make controlled fusion that He3 is not worth much either. ..."

That is it only value of significance and that requires the controlled fusion on Earth is both possible (I have my doubts) and economically competive. - I am almost sure it is not, never will be, against other known solar energy systems.

Yeah well in that other reply you did not care to mention it.

You seem to obstruct any idea of space being useful for humankind.

Well guess what even if there was no Helium-3, it is always will be in our best interest to spread to space and use the resources there (even under false pretenses) as a driving force to expand our civilization.

To hell?

space is heaven.

space is heaven.

So we should go there only after we died....

You're assuming that
A) anti-gravity is possible and
B) it's a propulsion method. :rolleyes:

I do not wish to get into any arguments. I only wish to get the information out there.

Reports are already out in the open, it is only up to you whether you choose to accept them

This technology already exists and is operational on several aeronautical craft.

Source 1 (http://socyberty.com/military/us-government-conspiracy-is-the-b-2-spirit-bomber-capable-of-anti-gravity-drive/)

Source 2 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/6874972/Classified-Advanced-Antigravity-Aerospace-Craftrtf)

"The TAW-50 is a hypersonic, anti-gravity space fighter-bomber" Makes for excellent reading even if you do belong to the cult of "no." lol

I do not wish to get into any arguments. I only wish to get the information out there.
Reports are already out in the open, it is only up to you whether you choose to accept them.
This technology already exists and is operational on several aeronautical craft.
Nope.
Richard Boylan - a self-confessed technological ignoramus (check out his "science and technology" reading list it's published on his website I think).
Quite simply he's wrong and has no clue as to what he's talking about.
And FYI my information comes from aerospace insiders and my own experience in that field.

space is heaven.
Indeed it is, let's not let them make it a place of war. :mad:

Self-confessed? Do provide that link.

Like I said, I do not wish to debate, I just wish to share a point of view. You are welcome to the "official" information. Of course they aren't going to let classified material to the public, even to your "insiders." This sort of stuff, if this, "Cabal" with their intentions and motives, which is highly undemocratic were to exist, would not be open public knowledge. Only whistle blowers would tell the straight facts in my view. Like I said, it's a choice. You have chosen, fine.

I have seen enough, and so have others, to know better. I am very aware that there IS a NWO. I've studied politics all my life. I am not naive. You choose your world view, I'll choose mine. I know what the truth is, I am not blinded by bias anymore.

Again there is nothing on the moon that is not available on the Earth 100 times cheaper.



With all respect Billy, because I will not reject your viewpoint out of hand, could not the same be said about the colonisation of America?
Was there anything in America at the time which could not be had in Europe at a fraction of the cost?

In my opinion, our next step is still the moon.
It's exploration and possible exploitation.
Mars is a future objective, but a current diversion from what should be our main goal.

With all respect Billy, because I will not reject your viewpoint out of hand, could not the same be said about the colonisation of America?

I said exactly the same thing, a page ago.

..could not the same be said about the colonisation of America?Was there anything in America at the time which could not be had in Europe at a fraction of the cost?

Potato, tomato, tobacco,etc. :)

Read your freaking history books!!! Not to mention, the effort and price of a trip to America was WAY smaller than colonizing the Moon, remember the Vikings did it too, with their inflatable boats...

Read your freaking history books, but I already said that....

not to mention they were looking for a faster way to the East, they were discovering the unknown. (so the analogy fails on so many levels)There is nothing interesting or unknown on the Moon..

Yeah well in that other reply you did not care to mention it.

You seem to obstruct any idea of space being useful for humankind.

Well guess what even if there was no Helium-3, it is always will be in our best interest to spread to space and use the resources there (even under false pretenses) as a driving force to expand our civilization.No, I don't obstruct idea that space is useful for humankind. I only want to be intelligent and economical how we explore and exploit it - not sending man there, at least not for a long time, ONLY to impress other nations, like some APE beating on its own chest. (Good analogy as that activity hurts the ape or nation performing it.)

Certainly near earth orbits are very valuable (GPS etc.) Stationary Orbits are so valuable for communication that they are rationed. (One pacific island nation has a UN granted right to one slot and rents it to others as its main source of foreign exchange!) I have even suggested some years ago that the back side of the Moon is very useful as an astronomy base and told how it could operate in a few decades. See, in this thread my reply to post 43 at:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2327589&postcount=46

----------
On He3, I cannot mention all points I make in every post - My post tend to be long as it is as I try to be accurate and that requires some details.

I have told two current reasons why He3 is not worth bringing to Earth, and probably never will be. One can postulate changes in current facts for most anything -For example postulate solar flux steady for 14 day makes a chemical compound on moon's surface that cures any cancer in a week with only a 1 gm single does. I don't mention that possible cargo to return in each post either. CURRENTLY I have given NOT ONLY two given reasons why not economical to bring He3 from moon to earth, but also explained why IMHO, it is highly unlikely to be there except in minute, quantities, again for physics reasons I have discussed.

--------
I think tricking the tax payers to spend their money with false claims is a bad idea, especially when there are so many serious un- meet needs on earth.
I have mentioned that there is no NDEA (National Disease Eradication Agency), which would aid humankind 1000 times more at half the cost of NASA.

I'll tell why I was invited to testify before Congress (but declined) back when the formation of NASA was being considered:

Back then to win popular support the Pro-NASA congressmen, expecting to get lots of dollars for their states & districts were explaining how in gravity free space "perfect ball bearings" could be made with ease. LBJ even pointed that falsehood out as I recall - it is not by chance that NASA's main center is in Texas.

I wrote to one of the Anti-NASA congressmen a letter pointing out that when metal liquids solidify they crystallize. These crystals have a different volume than the liquid that made them. So the radius of curvature of the still liquid metal is constantly changing as solidification proceeds. In fact, the ball bearing made in space would be rejected even by the lowest standards for any commercial ball bearings as much too much out of round to be used for anything. After my letter, the talk of "perfect ball bearings" as a reason for NASA died down in a few months.

Unfortunately, after the Russian Ape had beaten its chest so loudly that all the world heard sputnik’s feeble beeps, the US ape had to quickly hurt its self and create NASA in response. You want to continue this silliness with tax dollars in manned space efforts instead of advance AI and explore and exploit space via instruments? Let private industry take man into near space and PAY taxes instead, if there is gain to be made by that. There seems to be. See post about Virgin Galactic already getting 40 million dollars in advanced deposits for 300 places in the line to quick orbit the earth and 280 million for a ~1/3 of the company at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2324865&postcount=18

We already have far too much self serving dis-honest pork coming from congress without some new and unneeded program for NASA. Sent it home. Even forget they and accidently killed by bad design an entire crew and stupidly killed three in a launch pad fire due to use of pure O2 even after the Russians had warned of the danger etc. Just "bite tongue," while saying: “Thank you for job well done.”

AFAIK Russia has not killed anyone in one of their space ships and has had few, (or none?), fail to go into orbit as planned. They had a more cautious program. (Sent both dog and monkey into space before man; used only air, not O2, in the cabins, etc.)

...Of course they aren't going to let classified material to the public, even to your "insiders."...Yes that is 150% correct. I have it from an "insider friend" that US first used torture on that Roswell UFO crash survivor until he told how to make anti-gravity machine. That is being suppressed both for national security reasons an also because airline companies are already going bankrupt and if their planes lost all their value then the banks that financed them would go belly up too.

Take my advice don't ever mention these facts again. The CIA still knows how to disappear anyone it likes.

Self-confessed? Do provide that link.
I'll find it.
I thought I had the document on my hard drive, but if I do it's lost in the general clutter.


Of course they aren't going to let classified material to the public, even to your "insiders."
Not even when my insiders worked on the thing (I never mentioned general public)?
Wow, that IS secret.

...Was there anything in America at the time which could not be had in Europe at a fraction of the cost?...Yes gold by the Spanish galleons boat loads, available just for the killing of the native wearing it. This was known long before there was much interest in N. America

Columbus was NOT sailing west to discover a new world. The queen of Spain would not pay for that, but to find a cheaper, shorter rout to the known riches of Asia. Marco Polo had brought back proof that they existed and then the merchants of Venus were getting rich by going around the Southern tip of Africa. Isabel, wanted a shorter more profitable way to the East.

Interestingly Columbus died believing he had found it. – He never realized that "the new world” existed*. – He thought he had found a poor part of Asia.
---
*Possibly he knew, but had to keep telling the Queen he found the way to Asia so she would pay for his 2nd & final trips.

The question is not where we should go, but rather how we can reach the places we want to go!
Space travels can have a lot of perspectives to it, and shuttles or rockets are just very primitive concepts compare to the other potential avenues not yet thinkered over by our scientific community.
Actually the main hurdle to space exploration at the moment is the energy generation, which determined how fast we can reach a place and also how much prepared we can be in order to face all possibilities on the way to the place we want to go.
So in a way, we need to find a better source of energy if we are to be serious about exploring space. Also, I am not sure that it is wise to blast rockets in space every time we want to reach it!
Its like a swimmer that swim at 100m deep, holding his breath and needing to go at the surface every 6 minutes and return at 100m down... I mean thats not the way it should be done at all!!
I fear the Nasa should really put more energy on space elevators technology so they could reach space in a much more efficient fashion, then our solar system will be readily accessible, but not before that, will we really get a shot at REALLY exploring our Universe.

As for the other means of exploring our Universe, those technologies do not involve physical travel, but rather energy travel, which goes in line with Einstein theory of relativity... Thats the most efficient way of traveling in space, and I can tell you, that we aren't that far of making it...
Because with energy travel, we can copy the energy signature taken somewhere else and reproduce it here without loss, and without physically traveling there.
So in essence it looks more like a virtual teleportation than a real space travel. As for resources extraction, I said, if you can reproduce energy from another place, then you can also use energy to transform matter into what you need... But we are more far away of this than the other!

"The TAW-50 is a hypersonic, anti-gravity space fighter-bomber" Makes for excellent reading even if you do belong to the cult of "no." lol[/QUOTE]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this isn't anything close to what the US black project have in stocks right now.
The most powerful laser in the universe is based on plasma, not nucleonic garbage... Actually, in theory you could use up the energy of the sun to create a laser strong enough to blow another star, just because the sun is also a plasma... So you know what kind of power such laser can have. Actually those lasers are in the range of x-rays and even maybe gamma and take the space of a small room to use.

But the Air force has other pretty nice projects in the air, but since they are about 30 years ahead of what we know...

The question is not where we should go, but rather how we can reach the places we want to go!


Erm, no.
The question is "After Moon, where should Nasa go?"

Mars seems like the most logical step.

Actually, sentrynox is kinda right; improvements in launch systems, propulsion and power plants would be a good if not required first step to our next foray, probably Mars. With more advanced launch systems (air-breathing systems, a space elevator, etc.) raising the kind of bulk material needed for infrastructure becomes much cheaper. With more efficient-yet-powerful engine and powerplant combinations, spacecraft can be flown with smaller mass-fractions of fuel.

All this allows for moving beyond our current mindset of spacecraft design. At the moment, because it's so freaking expensive to launch mass into space, and that mass has alot of responsibility (providing an atmosphere for people to live in space, protecting against radiation, reentry, etc.), the trend is to use small, flimsy pieces if incredibly well-engineered components to build our vehicles.

However, if we can cheaply get bulk material into space, a mars vehicle wouldn't have to be a flimsy collection of pressure vessels that the ISS is, it could be built more like a nuclear submarine if we really wanted. Heavy metal skin, ultra-robust and redundant onboard systems, a powerplant and engine that can move it all, and you have a vehicle that isn't just designed to barely accomplish a mission with the least mass possible, you have a vehicle that is a proper, reusable, tough-as-nails space vehicle.

Erm, no.
The question is "After Moon, where should Nasa go?"

I just answer a derivative of its question that needs to be answered before the whole...
Nothing wrong here!

The most powerful laser in the universe is based on plasma, not nucleonic garbage...
Nonsense.


But the Air force has other pretty nice projects in the air, but since they are about 30 years ahead of what we know...
Also nonsense.

Nonsense.


Also nonsense.

Wow, what kind of arguments are those?
Plasma lasers are off record and you won't find them in wikipedias:rolleyes:

US black projects have the black Manta plane, which is neat if you know a little about it... They also have another project that looks like a triangle and use electromagnetic fields to displace air volumes around it!

As for nonsense, I am not well acquainted with English language, but it seems inappropriate when it is about contesting someone credibility, and not the meaning of something:shrug:

Wow, what kind of arguments are those?
Plasma lasers are off record and you won't find them in wikipedias
Then you can't back up your contention. :p
And I don't just look in Wiki.
Higher than the NOVA (1.25 Petawatts)?
(Although I should point out that since this thread is speculating about us travelling in space the phrase "most powerful laser in the universe" is sort of ignoring any other races that might be out there. :D "On Earth, possibly).


US black projects have the black Manta plane, which is neat if you know a little about it...
More than a little.


They also have another project that looks like a triangle and use electromagnetic fields to displace air volumes around it!
Yup, project - an idea for something they want to build.
If they can get it to work.
Rolls-Royce were trying something of that sort back in the 1970s...


As for nonsense, I am not well acquainted with English language, but it seems inappropriate when it is about contesting someone credibility, and not the meaning of something:shrug:
Your statement "but since they are about 30 years ahead of what we know... " assumes too much.
Who is the "we" you're referring to? Bearing in mind my posts #64 and 56.

And FYI my information comes from aerospace insiders and my own experience in that field.

even when my insiders worked on the thing

billy t...
I think tricking the tax payers to spend their money with false claims is a bad idea, especially when there are so many serious un- meet needs on earth.


exactly

Nonsense.


Also nonsense.

A little more details about available advance weaponry that could interest you...

The plasma laser, originate from a team at Michigan University that devise the proof of concept and which results were published in December 1992.

The laser goes across a plasma which generates series of modulating shockwaves that amplify the beam.

Their first prototype could produce 55tW in a fraction of a picosecond. Their next goal was to produce a laser beam of 1000tW of power, but that one have never been published in so far...
They were hoping to use this technique to generate X-ray laser beams. And this is over 15 years ago...

But another weapon of Universal destruction is also existing, it was develop during the Star Wars program, but cost ran too high, (as they say). Its a derivative from the Excalibur program... It is called the NPB, but the Russians call it the Elipton (as indirectly refer to by Vladimir Jirinovski in its speech in Vienna, Austria of the 21 December 1993)

NPB (for Neutral Particle Beam)
If you want to know more about the neutral particle beam, then you must know that charged particles beam have an electric charge that can interact with itself by repulsing its own particles, which limits its effectiveness and its range. Also such charged particle beams are influence by our planet magnetic field in a way that cannot be predicted.

Therefore only neutral particle beams can travel without interacting too much with its environment thus keeping its effectiveness much longer than other kinds of beams. So such beam could travel easily through our atmosphere and space.

As for common lasers, they do not work well inside our atmosphere because their radiations tend to ionized the surrounding atmosphere after reaching a certain energetic threshold thus causing molecular ionization and air conductivity that triggers "slamming" phenomenons that destroy the laser beam over certain range.

The problem for such NPB is that it is hard to produce as only charged particle beams can be accelerated inside a magnetic field, so the technique at creating such beam consist at "photoneutralizing" them by making the beam going through a laser cavity.

The Los Alamos Laboratory as well as McDonnell Douglas Aeronautics have worked on such beams.
What makes them so powerful is that they are the perfect way to deliver energy to matter, so a very nicely focused beam of a NPB, could potentially destroyed everything in its path, including a star...

For the matter some of the information above can be found in Science et Vie mag:917, February 1994, page 50... But it is in French...

Then you can't back up your contention. :p
And I don't just look in Wiki.
Higher than the NOVA (1.25 Petawatts)?
(Although I should point out that since this thread is speculating about us travelling in space the phrase "most powerful laser in the universe" is sort of ignoring any other races that might be out there. :D "On Earth, possibly).

Yup, project - an idea for something they want to build.
If they can get it to work.
Rolls-Royce were trying something of that sort back in the 1970s...

Your statement "but since they are about 30 years ahead of what we know... " assumes too much.
Who is the "we" you're referring to? Bearing in mind my posts #64 and 56.

Well, I must admit that it will be the most indirectly powerful laser in the Universe... Do you know about Quasar (the stellar bodies)? But I can't tell much more here...

I have not seen it personally, but it seems it works pretty well, and fast too!!

I agree that I should have specified 30 years ahead in some fields, not all. To give you an example, Tesla did work on things that aren't even yet available on the market today and this is over 50 years ago... Of course the FBI harvest ALL of his works after his death!!!

The "WE" is the current international market. Of course it takes a while to standardize new technology, many won't EVER make it to the surface...

To sentrynox

You clearly know something about very high power lasers, and I am sure know the difference between it power and the energy it delivers, but your post easily mis-lead those who do not.

As far as weapon is concerned, it normally is the energy delivered on target that counts. For this the gas dynamic lasers are much better than the very high power extremely short pulse lasers you are describing. Unfortunate, back when I had access to secret information, including movies of their field trial, the both from the ground and a special high altitude plane they were barely able to deliver enough ENERGY on target to destroy it AND presented great risk to the users as the gases were very toxic. I had some direct contact with a laboratory HCN laser and scared the s--t out of me. Cyanide is not nice to work with.

A little more details about available advance weaponry that could interest you...
It's devised as a weapon?
Hmm I must remonstrate with my sources...


Their first prototype could produce 55tW in a fraction of a picosecond. Their next goal was to produce a laser beam of 1000tW of power, but that one have never been published in so far...
Just under NOVA.


But another weapon of Universal destruction is also existing, it was develop during the Star Wars program, but cost ran too high, (as they say). Its a derivative from the Excalibur program... It is called the NPB, but the Russians call it the Elipton (as indirectly refer to by Vladimir Jirinovski in its speech in Vienna, Austria of the 21 December 1993)
NPBs aren't usually classed as lasers.


As for common lasers, they do not work well inside our atmosphere because their radiations tend to ionized the surrounding atmosphere after reaching a certain energetic threshold thus causing molecular ionization and air conductivity that triggers "slamming" phenomenons that destroy the laser beam over certain range.
And thermal blooming.
A US/ German study gives a power loss of ~30% per mile of atmosphere penetrated at sea level for weaponised free-electron lasers.


For the matter some of the information above can be found in Science et Vie mag:917, February 1994, page 50... But it is in French...
I'll see if I can get hold of a copy.
The only issue I have is 4 years older than that. :D


I agree that I should have specified 30 years ahead in some fields, not all. To give you an example, Tesla did work on things that aren't even yet available on the market today and this is over 50 years ago...
A large number of which were totally unworkable.


Of course the FBI harvest ALL of his works after his death!!!
And returned them later...

To sentrynox

You clearly know something about very high power lasers, and I am sure know the difference between it power and the energy it delivers, but your post easily mis-lead those who do not.

As far as weapon is concerned, it normally is the energy delivered on target that counts. For this the gas dynamic lasers are much better than the very high power extremely short pulse lasers you are describing. Unfortunate, back when I had access to secret information, including movies of their field trial, the both from the ground and a special high altitude plane they were barely able to deliver enough ENERGY on target to destroy it AND presented great risk to the users as the gases were very toxic. I had some direct contact with a laboratory HCN laser and scared the s--t out of me. Cyanide is not nice to work with.

Your are right!! Sorry if I mislead peoples, I mainly write things when working on my project which means that it is written for me to understand, as for the others...:m: ;)
You are right about gas lasers, but what if a pulse laser could generate a dynamic laser?? But I agree that it is all on paper so far as I know...
Chemical lasers are not really stable for battlefield applications even if they have tremendous efficiency, they are too much vulnerable to atmospheric variations, which will occur certainly more often during a fight than during a testing!

It's devised as a weapon?
Hmm I must remonstrate with my sources...


Just under NOVA.


NPBs aren't usually classed as lasers.


And thermal blooming.
A US/ German study gives a power loss of ~30% per mile of atmosphere penetrated at sea level for weaponized free-electron lasers.


I'll see if I can get hold of a copy.
The only issue I have is 4 years older than that. :D


A large number of which were totally unworkable.


And returned them later...

They also use such lasers for the next generation of particle accelerators, which aren't exactly weapons, but playing with Higgs particles for me, isn't something that could be seen as inoffensive...

NOVA, is not an X-ray laser, and is far from being a Gamma laser too (which plasma laser could generate), which make a very big difference in the energy delivery potential!!

I should have clarify that NPB aren't classify as lasers, but they are energy beam nonetheless for me... I wouldn't like to be shaved with this:eek:

Tesla was just an example of things that do not reach the market because of military interests.

NOVA, is not an X-ray laser
Yep.
Nd glass isn't it?


I should have clarify that NPB aren't classify as lasers, but they are energy beam nonetheless for me...
DEWs.


I wouldn't like to be shave with this:eek:
Of course not: you wouldn't find a power socket in the bathroom :D


Tesla was just and example of things that do not reach the market because of military interests.
Well that's one view...
The other is that he scammed too many people and bations with nonsense and unworkable rubbish and that conspiracy theorists ever since have ignored that fact.

Yep.
Nd glass isn't it?


DEWs.


Of course not: you wouldn't find a power socket in the bathroom :D


Well that's one view...
The other is that he scammed too many people and bations with nonsense and unworkable rubbish and that conspiracy theorists ever since have ignored that fact.


I do not know much about NOVA laser specs... Other than his said operating wavelengths. His shear size make him a bad candidate for weapons... Tha plasma laser concept fit in a small living room...
Tesla was nonetheless a genius in his field, but I wasn't there, so the only thing I can say, is that it takes a lot of errors to make great things right! So it won't embarrass me to make major mistakes if I would have been him! We still owe him our current way of life! ("current" = Tesla... That was a joke ;) )

After moon, where should NASA go?
I guess they should come back home.

I guess they should come back home.I said "Home" many pages back and added that they should sell the office furniture, computers etc. first.

Private industry can put useful things (com sats, weather sats, etc.) in orbit now. Man has never been useful in space, but his presence there increases the cost of every useful project by more than an order of magnitude.

Also the money wasted on making "man-qualified" spacecraft could have been spent on AI and robotics with much greater benefit to those of us bound to the Earth.

Man in space (or going to the moon) was a politically motivated stunt. Time to stop being so stupid - USA cannot afford it now. Kill NASA ASAP.

How do you feel about the ISS?

How do you feel about the ISS?I am not sure of my POV of it, but suspect I would scrap the ISS. I would need to see what useful things, if any, it has achieved and learn how much it has cost.

Perhaps you can help with this? I.e. tell me what it has achieved that is useful for people living on earth that only it could do. Note closed habitat projects to foster "international cooperation" could have been done much more cheaply here on Earth (or under the sea). Things like multi-national teams working to improve the lives of the poor and sick (like doctors without borders, the peace corps, etc.) also come to mind as more economical and productive alternatives.

PS
When NASA was just getting set up, one of the silly justifications advanced in Congress was that prefect ball bearings would naturally and cheaply form in zero gravity. I wrote to my congressman telling how silly this was - as the liquid metal drop began to solidify there is a volume change and when fully solidified it would not even be an acceptable "steelie" marble. He invited me to testify at the NASA set up hearings, but I declined saying he could equally well point out this silly, desperate, search for a rational. - I.e. I have consistently opposed manned space flight from the beginning. It is grossly expensive* and only a political stunt.**

Unfortuantely, China, India and Japan appear to be as stupid as the US and Russia were as they have "man in space" politically motivated programs also.
It appears that emotions dominate intelligence in this very scientific area too.

--------------
*Not to mention the space hazzards man makes by dropping wrenches, cameras, etc.

** Less wealthy countries make silly politically motivated stunts too. - The most recent is the world's tallest building, which opened yesterday. Why build >800 meters up in a country that is 95% open space? Mankind seems to have no ability to let intelligence control his ego and pride.

Actually I agree with much of your post. Its just that throughout history mankind has spent resources exploring when the money could have been used to improve the lives of those at home. I recently watched a drama about Ernest Shackleton and his failed attempt to cross the Antartic. He raised £50,000 (todays value £3,500,000). Thats a shed load of money to spend just to traverse a bland white land.

On the other hand the ISS is kind of like the first real international outpost, in the grand scheme of things it may well be inevitable that man would colonise space, and it has to start somewhere. The ISS is so costly though, and I recall reading and article stating its lifetime (cant remember how long exactly, but I was suprised that they were talking about only keeping it going for a few more years).

Actually I agree with much of your post. Its just that throughout history mankind has spent resources exploring when the money could have been used to improve the lives of those at home. I recently watched a drama about Ernest Shackleton and his failed attempt to cross the Antartic. He raised £50,000 (todays value £3,500,000). That’s a shed load of money to spend just to traverse a bland white land.Yes that is another good example of ego & pride conquering intelligence. In Shackleton's case the stupidity and ignorance was evident from the start - His taking ponies instead of sled dogs, etc.


On the other hand the ISS is kind of like the first real international outpost, in the grand scheme of things it may well be inevitable that man would colonize space, and it has to start somewhere. The ISS is so costly though, ... Even if we assume that in the very distant future man is to "colonize space" we certainly will not need or use a manned space station and certainly not send any men into deep space. (A 25kg tank of frozen sperm can replace 100,000 men.)

I doubt even a single woman will ever go there. If we go into deep space it will not be stupidly (as Shackleton's failed polar attempt was). Instead robots will go first and a few thousands of years later, after a suitable for human life planet has been confirmed to exist, some "baby factory" will be established by other robots and at most some frozen DNA will go into deep space. (Much more likely even that will not go as only the information it contains is needed.)

Probably, before this can be done, the robots will be so much smarter than humans; they may not want to bother populating other planets with such an irrational and delicate life form; unless they find humans to be silly but cute pets to take care of (and breed for currently fashionable characteristics as we do dogs and cats.)

SUMMARY: If the reason for the ISS is to take mankind's first steps into deep space, ("colonize space") then that is dumber than Shackleton going to the pole with ponies! To begin the processes of "colonizing space" we need to invest more in AI and robots.

PS: By your failure to list any usefull thing the ISS has achieved (not more economically achievable on Earth) I take it that you too know of none. Does ANY READER know of ANY useful (to earthbound people) thing the ISS has done? (That could not have been done on Earth at least 10 times cheaper.)

Oh I didnt necessarily mean deep space, rather the confines of the inner solar system.

Oh I didnt necessarily mean deep space, rather the confines of the inner solar system.I can see some slight reasons (mainly an expensive insurance policy* against some possible cosmic or volcanic disasters) to build a manned moon base, but even going to Mars is silly.

I even suggested some years ago how the moon base should be made:
Deep enough under ground to be thermally stable, despite 14 days of continuous sun, unfiltered by any atmosphere. It should be powered (assuming nothing significantly better is invented) by a thermal (Carnot limited) power plant, which would be much more efficient than any on Earth.

The power system has two shallow (~1 meter deep in the soil) "coil fields" as as the heat source and sink. There is a light-weight, rolling Aluminum sun screen a little bigger than either "coil field." The heat source coil field is of course uncovered during the 14x24 hour moon day, but then covered by the rolling reflecting cover all moon night to greatly reduce heat loss by IR. (This move of the Al sun screen every 14 earth days allows the heat sink cold coil field to only "see" the ~5 degree K cold of deep space.)

Thus if cold sink temperature, t, is 50K and hot source T is 400K the conversion efficiency could approach (400-50)/400 = 87.5%. Silicon solar cells have a theoretical limit of 21% conversion efficiency, so this thermal system is not only much cheaper but can be at least four times smaller for the same output power. (In practice ~7 times smaller than the best real solar cells.)

And it is a permanent power source, unlike a nuclear power plant, which is much heavier when the shielding, control rod system, etc. is considered.

Both systems would need heat exchanges (coils for the "working fluid") but because the "delta T" across the heat exchange coils of the thermal solar power system can be twice as great; the total coil surface of the thermal solar power system can be less. (Less weight to take to moon so much less cost)

I'm not sure, :shrug: but think wind power machines and tidal power systems are useless on the moon. :D

The main routine advantage of a moon base, I think, is the nearly 14 earth day astronomical exposures possible - much better than Hubble.

--------------
*As noted in prior post, ONLY very healthy genetically, fertile women arriving in their late teens initially occupy the moon base. (Each for approximately a 20 year tour of duty.) Lesbians I would think are best suited for this insurance station duty. Do you think the tax payers will fund that? ;)

PS people supporting man's desitiny is to go to the stars etc need to be more realistic about the cost and how it could be done.

where should NASA go?

the unemployment line

Pie Are Square?! No No No no No! A long time ago, in prehistorical times, I was taught the TRUTH. While still a guileless teenager. Back in de year nummer one.

Pie are not square! Pie are round. Cornbread are square.

Get your act straight. People are watching.

In a serious response to the Thread Opener, I vote for, first of all, a real golly-whopping Space Station.

Magnetic propulsion system? Who says Black Ops does not already have it, or a reasonable facsimile?

I'm just wildly guessing here. Excuse me, I see some black helicopters hovering over my house. Need to go out and see what's happening. Will be right ba