NASA needs to refocus its priorities - Page 2

Velociryx · February 4, 2003, 15:25

Hmmm....interesting thought.....I don't know enough about magnetism to know how effective that might be, but if there's a chance it could work....it certainly bears lookin' into! Magnets....groovy...

-=Vel=-

Arrian · February 4, 2003, 15:37

That occurred to me too. If it's the Earth's magnetic field that protects us, we need to look into duplicating that effect. But we would probably need some really powerful electromanets, right? And those would draw a lot of power, right?

Issues to work out.

But I agree with the general idea that we should be shooting for stuff like that. But to realistically go for Mars, the gloves would have to come off (read: double or triple NASA's budget). Without a Cold War competitive atmosphere, I just don't see Congress doing that.

-Arrian

Velociryx · February 4, 2003, 15:42

Prediction: WHEN...not if, but WHEN a private company launches its first reuable craft (and they're working on it), NASA will suddenly find itself competing with other businesses, and at that point, the impetus to increase funding (and the will, in congress) will be there.

Thus, IMO, if you're jazzed about manned space flight, and missions to mars and such, support the private flyboys!

-=Vel=-

Az · February 4, 2003, 15:51

say... is there any way a moon colony can be viable, economically?

Velociryx · February 4, 2003, 15:54

My guess is an absolute yes! (but of course, that's just a guess)

-=Vel=-

Dauphin · February 4, 2003, 15:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Hmmm....interesting thought.....I don't know enough about magnetism to know how effective that might be, but if there's a chance it could work....it certainly bears lookin' into! Magnets....groovy...

-=Vel=-

There has been talk of plasma sails. Basically space craft have no propulsion system but have large superconducting circuits on board. They don't drain the juice (too much) and for all intents and purpose act like a very strong regular magnet. The incoming radiation is deflected away from the craft, and at the same time impart moment onto the craft.

There are serious problems with this (and solar sails) - namely it only allows you to travel in one direction, that being away from the sun.

Arrian · February 4, 2003, 16:01

An economically viable moon colony? Unlikely at first. Later, though...

I could see such a colony setting up large research facilities and renting their services to say, the Biotech industry. That could bring in some serious cash (provided the Lunar environment provides advantages to research).

Mining is a less likely money-maker, since getting what you mine off the Moon & back to Earth is prohibitively expensive, at least for the forseable future.

-Arrian

Velociryx · February 4, 2003, 16:04

Ahhhh, but getting the mined/refined materials from the moon to the ISS on the other hand....

-=Vel=-

Ozz · February 4, 2003, 16:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Mining is a less likely money-maker, since getting what you mine off the Moon & back to Earth is prohibitively expensive, at least for the forseable future.
-Arrian

Who wants it back on Earth? The savings are being able
to physically catapult heavy cargo loads off the lunar
surface for construction. Steel, lead etc.

As for space craft, orbit a bunch of electro-magnetic
rings in orbit around the earth, run your ship through
these like a rail gun. Get your speed up in earth orbit.

if you send a set of EM rings ahead of the mission,
(orbit around mars) you could use them for brakes.
and for the speed up to return.

Arrian · February 4, 2003, 16:17

Doh! I stand corrected on that one, fellas, I forgot about lobbing stuff off the Moon to build things in space.

-Arrian

Az · February 4, 2003, 17:12

There is also Helium-3 in relative abundance! We can use Helium-3 in fusion reactors even with current technology IIRC!
A ton of that stuff can yeild a lot of power, and I think it is even profitable to send it back to earth.

From the internet I learn that the moon is full with aluminum and titanium, and silicon, so if we estbalish a fusion reator then, we can also build our own buildings there.
There is a bit of ice in the capes, but using recycling, "a little bit" is all we need.

And then, when we'll head off to the big space, we'll have an economical place from which to launch spacecraft, with all the needed materials in place. There are plenty of oxides to generate oxygen, Now all we need is to either create soil there, or to mount a program to ship soil, as well as using bio-degeneration to create soil from some trash that we'll have (old cardboards, etc.)
This will be expensive at the beginning, but it will be much more beneficial than any mars landing mission. Plus, it will make the mars landing mission more economical.

Dauphin · February 4, 2003, 17:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
There is also Helium-3 in relative abundance! We can use Helium-3 in fusion reactors even with current technology IIRC!
A ton of that stuff can yeild a lot of power, and I think it is even profitable to send it back to earth.

Why send it back to Earth when you have the entire ocean as a fusion fuel source?

The benefit of He-3 and water being on the moon would be that you don't have to carry much fuel or watre to the moon with you.

Az · February 4, 2003, 17:33

we still cannot fuse Hydrogens economically.

we can do that with Helium-3.

Skanky Burns · February 4, 2003, 17:59

I wasn't aware that anyone had built a self-perpetuating fusion reaction.

Dauphin · February 4, 2003, 18:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
we still cannot fuse Hydrogens economically.

we can do that with Helium-3.

I was unaware that that has been proven. Could you provide a source. I always thought the difficulties in fusing Helium were greater than for Hydrogen.

Az · February 4, 2003, 18:25

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.08/helium.html

Quote:

Gerald Kulcinski, director of the University of Wisconsin's Fusion Technology Institute, is already halfway there. Kulcinski is in charge of an "inertial electrostatic confinement device," an experimental low-power reactor that has successfully performed continuous deuterium-helium-3 fusion - a process that produces less waste than the standard deuterium-tritium fusion reaction.

a link showing the importance of such a reaction:
http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html

Dauphin · February 4, 2003, 18:38

From the same article.

Quote:

The next step, pure helium-3 fusion (3He-3He) is a long way off,

Az · February 4, 2003, 18:50

but the He-3+D reaction is working!

Dauphin · February 4, 2003, 19:06

It looks good, but something doesn't quite feel right to me. Your source doesn't say anything about the net gains that they are making. The temperatures needed for D-He3 reactions is a lot higher than for DT, so I can't see why it is working so much better. Pulsed reactions of DT have been made and have done better than break even in some cases.

If this is the case that it is economically viable, I can see why shipping in He-3 would be a good idea. Although if it is not done soon, DT reactions will be improved enough to produce energy and also be making enough He3 that it won't be necessary to ship the stuff in.