After moon, where should NASA go?

[sentrynox]

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.


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

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

 

[Dywyddyr]

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

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

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.

 

[sentrynox]

Yep.
Nd glass isn't it?


DEWs.


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


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 )

 

[Pinwheel]

After moon, where should NASA go?

I guess they should come back home.

 

[Billy T]

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.

 

[Pinwheel]

How do you feel about the ISS?

 

[Billy T]

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.

 

[Pinwheel]

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).

 

[Billy T]

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.)

 

[Pinwheel]

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

 

[Billy T]

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.

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.

 

[Uno Hoo]

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.

 

[Uno Hoo]

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