Author Topic: Why gov's need a new plan for space.  (Read 594 times)

Lundgren

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 4441
  • Banned
Why gov's need a new plan for space.
« on: October 21, 2010, 01:48:15 PM »
Alright I made a few threads about space and all the criticism was apparently alot of myths or nasa rhetoric. Just trying to point out alot of these things are news propaganda not facts.

1) The energy requirement for getting into orbit are huge and will never been reduced. Flat out false the amount of fuel say to get one person into space including the necessary capsule costs about 10 thousand dollars for person, alot of money but when compared to going to say a university quite cheap. The main cost is Research and design.

2) There's no atmosphere in space and very cold therefore it's extremely expensive. False again of course you do need to live in pressurized habitats. However since there is no air resistance the cost of travel is reduced to a small fraction of what it is on earth. Air causes cooling on your house, wind causes untold amounts of pressure, and wind resistance is 90 percent of your fuel costs in your car.

3) The lack of gravity makes everything up their impossible. False in fact with no air and no gravity most types of industries such as construction or transport have massive savings therefore one man can built a skyscrapper instead of a thousand no need for cranes etc.
Also artificial gravity is very easy to make, as long as your building are atleast 1kilometer Long(easy to build due to low gravity), rotational forces can be used to give a perfect simulation of gravity for us humans.

4)The amount of radiation found in space is beyond our ability to survive. Yes if exposed to direct cosmic rays, however all you need is 3 feet of ice and your completely protected, basically an igloo in space, very simple and basis to make, also since there's already loads of radiation there is no problems with using nuclear reactors.

5) There is nothing up there besides 7 uninhabitable planets(infact too much pressure, to hot or cold, and too high gravity). False again there are million of asteroids to mine. in total about 100000 times the worlds current demand of minerals can be extracted from the asteroid belt.

6) The distances are too huge to overcome. False with no friction, from air or gravity, and thfreedom to use nuclear power, you can go anywhere you want in the solar system within 10 years. Sounds long but consider this is how long it would take up until 100 years ago to circle the globe. My point is the main obstacle is nothing to do with the engineering, it's all to do with the extensive RND overhead needed to get their. If our governments and cover that cost the rest is simply a matter of economics. The more people you send the cheaper it gets to send them due to economies of scale.

Lundgren

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 4441
  • Banned
Re: Why gov's need a new plan for space.
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2010, 02:04:05 PM »
Bump I'm sorry for making a positive thread it couldn't be helped.

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Why gov's need a new plan for space.
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2010, 02:07:49 PM »
How many shitty threads about space exploration do you need to make? The first two sucked and this one isn't any better, gimmick.

Lundgren

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 4441
  • Banned
Re: Why gov's need a new plan for space.
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2010, 02:11:39 PM »
How many shitty threads about space exploration do you need to make? The first two sucked and this one isn't any better, gimmick.
Back that up, you can't crisitize it all can you. All you can do is call me a gimmick.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22715
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Why gov's need a new plan for space.
« Reply #4 on: October 21, 2010, 02:54:51 PM »
Your enthusiasm is very much acknowledged.  I am even almost curious enough to do some research.   :)

I still how ever think you are making some serous assumptions here. 

Lundgren

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 4441
  • Banned
Re: Why gov's need a new plan for space.
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2010, 03:21:51 PM »
Your enthusiasm is very much acknowledged.  I am even almost curious enough to do some research.   :)

I still how ever think you are making some serous assumptions here. 
Thank you. My only real assumption is that basic economic theory has never been applied at nasa however all of the techs do exist. Economies of scale, laws of supply and demand, and innovation through competition can make this realty. At 1/1000th the cost per person it at currently. 

The only thing goverment do is artifically creating demand. Simply because bussiness cycles cannot afford 20-30 periods of return.

If you can find a real flaw I'd like to hear it.

Lundgren

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 4441
  • Banned
Re: Why gov's need a new plan for space.
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2010, 04:11:03 PM »
Economies of scale, eh? We're going to mass produce what exactly? Props for googling some economics terms, though.
  You send 50 thousand people instead of 5, for the same price of sending 5. Launch systems get cheap if there making atleats 20 rockets  a week versus one a year.

This is just the intial investement of people. about 15 years you are able to increase the number of people into space by a 10k+ a year.

A nuclear power station is do able at pops of a city, not for one or two people.

It's like building a city in northern canada. The road will cost you 100 mil no matter how many are there, same with an airport, power systems etc. Its common sense here, but it's never applied to space.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39853
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Why gov's need a new plan for space.
« Reply #7 on: October 25, 2010, 10:43:05 AM »
Sorry - the far left freak show is already shutting this down. 

Green movement = Red movement = COMMUNISM 

________________________ ________________________ _________________

Published online 22 October 2010 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2010.558
Space tourism to accelerate climate change
Scientists predict that soot from commercial space flight will change global temperatures.
By: Adam Mann




Virgin Galactic are one of many companies pushing forward with commercial spaceflight — but at what cost to the environment?


Climate change caused by black carbon, also known as soot, emitted during a decade of commercial space flight would be comparable to that from current global aviation, researchers estimate.

The findings, reported in a paper in press in Geophysical Research Letters1, suggest that emissions from 1,000 private rocket launches a year would persist high in the stratosphere, potentially altering global atmospheric circulation and distributions of ozone. The simulations show that the changes to Earth's climate could increase polar surface temperatures by 1 °C, and reduce polar sea ice by 5–15%.

"There are fundamental limits to how much material human beings can put into orbit without having a significant impact," says Martin Ross, an atmospheric scientist at the Aerospace Corporation in Los Angeles, California and an author of the study.

Private space flight is a rapidly maturing industry. Spaceport America, a launch site in Las Cruces, New Mexico, opened its first runway on 22 October. During the next three years, companies such as Virgin Galactic, headquartered at Spaceport America, expect to make up to two launches per day for space tourists. Meanwhile, the NASA Authorization Act passed by US Congress in September provides US$1.6 billion in private space-flight investments to develop vehicles to take astronauts and cargo into orbit.

“There are fundamental limits to how much material human beings can put into orbit without having a significant impact.”


Commercial rockets burn a mixture of kerosene and liquid oxygen. But several private space-flight companies, such as Virgin Galactic, may soon use a more economical 'hybrid' rocket engine that ignites synthetic hydrocarbon with nitrous oxide, says Ross. These hybrid engines emit more black carbon than a kerosene and oxygen engine, he adds.

"Rain and weather wash out these particles from the atmosphere near Earth's surface, but in the stratosphere there isn't any rain and they can remain for 3 to 10 years," says Michael Mills, an atmospheric chemist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, and another author of the paper.

Soot surprise
The researchers ran global atmospheric models of an injection of about 600 tonnes of black carbon per year at a single location: Las Cruces. The results showed a soot layer in the stratosphere that stays within 10° latitude of the launch site, says Ross. Furthermore, around 80% of the black carbon remained in the Northern Hemisphere, spreading out to between 25° and 45° northern latitude.

The black carbon layer caused the temperature to decrease about 0.4 °C in the tropics and subtropics, whereas the temperature at the poles increased by between 0.2 and 1 °C, he says, emphasizing that the exact details would have to be refined with further models. The black carbon also caused ozone reductions of up to 1.7% in the tropics and subtropics, and increases of 5–6% in the polar regions.

ADVERTISEMENT

 
The results are surprising, says Simone Tilmes, an atmospheric chemist at NCAR who was not involved in the study. "What's interesting is that if you force the whole climate system in one point or one hemisphere you can make big changes," she says. Further, more detailed studies examining the circulation of particulates will to help to reduce some of the uncertainties in the model, she adds.

Ross and his team hope to organize scientists, engineers and members of the private space-flight industry to discuss the kinds of measurements that need to be made to produce more definitive results.

"The goal here is to support the commercial space industry so that it can develop normally," says Ross.

He compares the problem to another one facing the industry: space debris — waste that remains in orbit and can present a potential collision risk to astronauts. "We have to come together to take care of the space commons," he says.

References
1.Ross, M., Mills, M. & Toohey, D. Geophys. Res. Lett. advance online publication doi:10.1029/2010GL044548 (2010).

Lundgren

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 4441
  • Banned
Re: Why gov's need a new plan for space.
« Reply #8 on: October 25, 2010, 11:06:26 AM »
ROFL alright so they`ll just launch from india. Wow cheaper labour, and a willingness to produce for cheap, shit that was tough. 
I`m against the use of cars anyhow waste of money that should better invested somewhere else.