New space race?

[Willmeister]

I don't see how the Soyuz is any more "perfectly useful" than the shuttle.

Capsules have proven that reusuable vehicles don't really save money as the skyrocketing costs for the shuttle have shown. The Shuttle didn't even save any money when first deployed. Why do you think the ESA puts their own satellites up? Pride is one thing, but it's usually in the backseat behind cost.

The moon has less gravity, but there is also no atmosphere either. Lifting off from the moon is would be a fraction of the cost than if the same was lifted from the earth. That's why moon operations are going to be critical for any future missions. I'd like to have a huge optic mirror build on the dark side of the moon. Making a mirror up there in a vacuum and in low-G should make it possible.

 

[London Geezer]

I don't see how the Soyuz is any more "perfectly useful" than the shuttle.

Capsules have proven that reusuable vehicles don't really save money as the skyrocketing costs for the shuttle have shown. The Shuttle didn't even save any money when first deployed. Why do you think the ESA puts their own satellites up? Pride is one thing, but it's usually in the backseat behind cost.

The moon has less gravity, but there is also no atmosphere either. Lifting off from the moon is would be a fraction of the cost than if the same was lifted from the earth. That's why moon operations are going to be critical for any future missions. I'd like to have a huge optic mirror build on the dark side of the moon. Making a mirror up there in a vacuum and in low-G should make it possible.

What would u do with a mirror like that? I'm serious, i don't know..

 

[Razor04]

I don't see how the Soyuz is any more "perfectly useful" than the shuttle.

Capsules have proven that reusuable vehicles don't really save money as the skyrocketing costs for the shuttle have shown. The Shuttle didn't even save any money when first deployed. Why do you think the ESA puts their own satellites up? Pride is one thing, but it's usually in the backseat behind cost.

The moon has less gravity, but there is also no atmosphere either. Lifting off from the moon is would be a fraction of the cost than if the same was lifted from the earth. That's why moon operations are going to be critical for any future missions. I'd like to have a huge optic mirror build on the dark side of the moon. Making a mirror up there in a vacuum and in low-G should make it possible.

What would u do with a mirror like that? I'm serious, i don't know..

You make a giant telescope on the dark side of the moon...it never sees the sunlight or has to deal with an atmosphere so you get much better results...well that is the short version...back to studying for my exam in a couple hours.

 

[London Geezer]

(exam tomorrow, have i even opened a book? hell no!)

anyway, one thing that always made me wonder... the so-called dark side of the moon DOES see the light of the sun right...

i mean the "special" thing about it is that it never faces earth, but that doesnt mean it never sees the Sun.... right?.. :?

I know it's a very elementary thing, i skipped that and went directly to deep space / universe theories... but that always bugged me...

 

[Willmeister]

Dark side is best because the earth would never get in the way.

 

[Fred]

I'm going to echo the plurality of the scientific establishment, and say

'Too expensive, not much of a purpose, boring physics'.

I imagine one day we'll have moon bases, and what not.. But I think ultimately it will be private ventures that lead to such an event. For the moment, Nasa should concentrate its budgets on things that really matter (eg the replacement for the Hubble telescope)

The mars landing is interesting. However its extremely risky, horrendously expensive, and also doesn't serve much of a purpose. The technology behind it though would be interesting. Basically you have something like an 8 month transit time using current propulsion. That has to be cut down to 3 months realistically.

One would need several nuclear reactors for power, a new propulsion system, and probably some type of magnetic shielding to avoid killing the astronomers on board.

I've heard talks given about such undertakings, needless to say its fascinating. I think they're trying for a 2018 launch date, tentatively.

Still I doubt it will happen for at least another 40 years.

 

[horvendile]

One would need several nuclear reactors for power, a new propulsion system, and probably some type of magnetic shielding to avoid killing the astronomers on board.

Yeah, and ain't it cool?

As for flying the space shuttle, the only person I've talked to that has actually flown it (or possibly a simulator, I'm not sure) says it's pretty much as flying a rock! Not much in the way of maneuverability and definitely no chance for a second approach should the first one fail...
When you see something with wings you (I) tend to believe that it can fly or at least glide reasonably well. I should have known better!
I don't say that its wings are useless, just that they are less usable that what many people believe.

And to chime in on the dark moon issue: There is indeed no side of the moon that never faces the sun.
But come to think of it, is that really a problem? (If it is, there's alway Mercury (the planet)...) If there's no atmosphere the sunlight shouldn't be scattered and only be a possible thermal nuisance as long as you don't look directly at the sun with your telescope.

 

[pax]

Orbital interferometry is what nasa is planning... Multiple scopes vs larger and larger ones is the way to go especially in the age of budgets. Its also easy when in orbit to build shields and orient the scopes away from sunlight. Man they cant build these new scopes soon enough... to know if earth sized planets harbor life around other stars is #1 in my book of space exploration objectives.

Only such a discovery would galvanize the next gen of space exploration. I personally dont give a rats ass about private orbital tourism or moon mining or public or private manned space program. I want robotic exploration and bigger and better scopes and new forms of propulsion and hyper light communications. Pure science.

 

[Tahir2]

pax how are they going to know if planets around other stars harbour life with telescopes?

I mean if you were on Alpha Centauri and looked down on Earth through a telescope could you pick up the fact that Earth has life? (Perhaps the man-made satellites would give it away.. hehe

What is hyper light communication? How is it possible (Scientifically)?

New forms of propulsion like nuclear and light propulsion are being designed right now.. what other kinds of propulsion? We already have Ion propulsion (I think) ... perhaps a matter, anti-matter reaction

 

[pax]

Spectroscopy. Life changes the atmosphere of a planet in ways no other mere chemical reaction can. Presence of oxygen is one major indicator.

Light has already been accelerated up to 300x its normal speed. Last I read anyway they were up to 300x... Itll mean a lot for future long distance coms tween ships travelling to other stars and earth.

There are so many promising ideas for propulsion but little money as space exploration is not deemed worthy... discovering life on other planets will or rather should change that.

I dont see why we cant swing a 2-300 billion a year international effort for space exploration...

 

[Rugor]

Yes there are certain effects which have demonstrated a superluminal velocity. I know that sounds like a mealy-mouthed way to say it, but I wanted to say it exactly. Unfortunately, as of yet there is no way to actually transmit any information faster than light.

For example, it is possible to set up a standing wave in a light beam, which has a negative phase velocity that is greater than light. Unfortunately, any time you try to impose a change in it, that change is only propagated at light speed, so no information travels faster than light.

I like interferometers, but would like to see them on the moon rather than just in orbit. You would have some more limitations on observing times, but it would probably be easier to deploy larger mirrors, at least on early generations, especially since they could probably be fabricated from local materials. When dealing with interferometers there are two issues, first the baseline, which gives your resolving power, and then the mirror size which determines how much light you can gather. Light gathering is very important when it comes to determining absolute range. When dealing with interstellar distances you often need a huge mirror to detect something to image it. Interferometers only have the ability to image something of the smallest mirror in the array. So a really good system would require both a long baseline and very large mirrors, otherwise you could end up with a system able to resolve down to ten meters at a hundred AU, but not able to image 10,000 kilometers at ten lightyears. It would be great for imaging Pluto, but not as good for interstellar observations.

 

[Tahir2]

Presence of oxygen is one major indicator.

Wasn't early Earth supposed to have an Oxygen rich atmosphere before life took place?

This is pretty interesting stuff to me by the way... 8)

 

[Rugor]

Nope, Earth is not supposed to have had an oxygen rich atmosphere before life got a foothold. Oxygen is a very reactive gas, and it would have very quickly been locked into stable compounds. We only have large amounts of free oxygen now because the Earth has a lot of plant life which releases it.

 

[pax]

Oxygen binds with virtually anything else. I read long time ago that earths atmosphere evolved over time. But I doubt oxygen freely existed before life. Somethign I need to read up more on as I suppose very high layers of atmosphere could have a mechanism of its own like the ozone layer.

But who knows if there are unknown chemical processes that could also produce free floating oxygen without life. But spectroscopy could analyze an atmosphere in other ways and with ever better scopes we could eventually read life directly on a planets surface...

 

[horvendile]

Interferometers only have the ability to image something of the smallest mirror in the array. (...)

I don't quite understand this part. Of course, all elements (mirrors) of the interferometer must be big enough to actually receive enough photons, and the smallest mirror will set the, er, light gathering limit (i.e. in practice a distance limit). Is that what you are referring to?

 

[Rugor]

Interferometers only have the ability to image something of the smallest mirror in the array. (...)

I don't quite understand this part. Of course, all elements (mirrors) of the interferometer must be big enough to actually receive enough photons, and the smallest mirror will set the, er, light gathering limit (i.e. in practice a distance limit). Is that what you are referring to?

Yes.

 

[Tahir2]

Nope, Earth is not supposed to have had an oxygen rich atmosphere before life got a foothold. Oxygen is a very reactive gas, and it would have very quickly been locked into stable compounds. We only have large amounts of free oxygen now because the Earth has a lot of plant life which releases it.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ol1.htm

Atmosphere with oxygen => No amino acids => No life possible!
Atmosphere without oxygen => No ozone => No life possible!

 

[Rugor]

There is actually quite a bit of life on this planet right now that cannot exist in the presence of free oxygen. It's called anaerobic bacteria. The standard model postulates that it arose first, and an oxygen atmosphere followed, which gave rise to more advanced life forms.

The statements about no oxygen and no life are really only appropriate to current life, not all life. Earth has been home to very different life forms in different periods and not all were comfortable in the same conditions.

 

[Tahir2]

I was just mentioing the situation is a lot more complex than you say and it is a fact that Amino Acids could not have formed in an Oxygen rich atmosphere as we understand the primordial soup. There is no escaping this fact, and no escaping the fact that the Miller-Urey experiment supposed we had an atmosphere akin to the gas giants which we now know is highly unlikely.

I doubt there was a primordial soup.. it is only a theory and has holes in it as we understand it now. I would think life first began in the oceans....

 

[pax]

One thing too is that life may be radically different elsewhere. But it likely has one thing in common and thats chemical complexity. A high quality observation of a planet's atmosphere or better, its surface, can give us a lot of details and may expose other ways life arose elsewhere from the analysis of spectroscopy.

I remember the movie 2010 when they saw chlorophyl from a probe observing the surface of europa... Im just stunned at the lack of vision for space exploration with the technology at or soon to be at our disposal...

The idea of having to wait another 30 years before such images become available just depresses me.