Thousands Of Years And What?

Smokie420

Well-Known Member
Something thats been bothering me lately is that humans have been around for thousands of years and our technology still isn't what it should be. We supposedly landed on the moon in 69 and since then we still haven't gone back, and still we wont even be able to land on mars for another 10-20 years.

Well there are some of my thoughts, I'm going to go light up again.

:joint:
 

hyphyjoose

Well-Known Member
Something thats been bothering me lately is that humans have been around for thousands of years and our technology still isn't what it should be. We supposedly landed on the moon in 69 and since then we still haven't gone back, and still we wont even be able to land on mars for another 10-20 years.

Well there are some of my thoughts, I'm going to go light up again.

:joint:
Sending life to Mars right now is pointless with all the missions there we've made. In the 1970's we had 9 successful trips to Mars with rovers, and progressively more so each decade. Space is much like the ocean--you can't go deeper and deeper without complications. It's easier to send a robot out there because of conditions. It would cost soooo much more money to sustain human life out there due to the environment.
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Something thats been bothering me lately is that humans have been around for thousands of years and our technology still isn't what it should be. We supposedly landed on the moon in 69 and since then we still haven't gone back, and still we wont even be able to land on mars for another 10-20 years.

Well there are some of my thoughts, I'm going to go light up again.

:joint:
It's not science. It's politics. Scientific advancement has been expanding exponentially since the renaissance.

After the moon landings, the Apollo program became routine. We should have colonies on the moon now, but the Space Shuttle was sexier. And moon colonies did nothing to win the Cold War.
 

Wh00p

Well-Known Member
Life on the moon is not really a smart idea considering you would need a 7 foot house of led to protect you from the radiation..

the space shuttle is huge! they plan on adding another bathroom and a another room..
 

smokeh

Well-Known Member
It's not science. It's politics. Scientific advancement has been expanding exponentially since the renaissance.

After the moon landings, the Apollo program became routine. We should have colonies on the moon now, but the Space Shuttle was sexier. And moon colonies did nothing to win the Cold War.
yer, like in the 1970's USA spend 14million on space exploration, they spent 24% more on government defence.
 

soulflyx2k

Well-Known Member
IDK what your talking about :\\
The universe is an amazing place with infinite life, space, possibility....never ending
Theres all sorts of anti-gravity devices, ships, portals, stargates... on THIS planet alone.
 

pandabear

Well-Known Member
we went to the moon i think 6 times, been there done that. Why go back?
helium-3 My freind helium-3:blsmoke::shock:

just gotta get the space elevator working first:shock:

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Researchers and space enthusiasts see helium-3 as the perfect fuel source.
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]By Julie Wakefield
Special to SPACE.com
[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]posted: 05:30 pm ET
30 June 2000
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]

[SIZE=-1]Researchers and space enthusiasts seehelium 3 as the perfect fuel source: extremely potent, nonpolluting, withvirtually no radioactive by-product. Proponents claim its the fuel ofthe 21st century. The trouble is, hardly any of it is found on Earth.But there is plenty of it on the moon.

[SIZE=-1]Society is straining to keep pace withenergy demands, expected to increase eightfold by 2050 as the world populationswells toward 12 billion. The moonjust may be the answer.

[SIZE=-1]"Helium 3 fusion energy may be thekey to future space exploration and settlement," said Gerald Kulcinski,Director of the Fusion Technology Institute (FTI) at the University ofWisconsin at Madison.
[SIZE=-1]Scientists estimate there are about1 million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the world for thousandsof years. The equivalent of a single space shuttle load or roughly 25 tonscould supply the entire United States' energy needs for a year, accordingto Apollo17 astronaut and FTI researcher Harrison Schmitt.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Cash crop of the moon[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]When the solar wind, the rapid streamof charged particles emitted by the sun, strikes the moon, helium 3 isdeposited in the powdery soil. Over billions of years that adds up. Meteoritebombardment disperses the particles throughout the top several meters ofthe lunar surface.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"Helium 3 could be the cash crop forthe moon," said Kulcinski, a longtime advocate and leading pioneer in thefield, who envisions the moon becoming "the Hudson Bay Store of Earth."Today helium 3 would have a cash value of $4 billion a ton in terms ofits energy equivalent in oil, he estimates. "When the moon becomes an independentcountry, it will have something to trade."[/SIZE]
[FONT=Courier New,Courier][SIZE=-1]~[/SIZE]



[SIZE=-1]Fusion research began in 1951 in theUnited States under military auspices. After its declassification in 1957scientists began looking for a candidate fuel source that wouldn't produceneutrons. Although Louie Alvarez and Robert Cornog discovered helium 3in 1939, only a few hundred pounds (kilograms) were known to exist on Earth,most the by-product of nuclear-weapon production.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Apollo astronauts found helium 3 onthe moon in 1969, but the link between the isotope and lunar resourceswas not made until 1986. "It took 15 years for us [lunar geologists andfusion pioneers] to stumble across each other," said Schmitt, the lastastronaut to leave footprints on the moon.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]For solving long-term energy needs,proponents contend helium 3 is a better choice than first generation nuclearfuels like deuterium and tritium (isotopes of hydrogen), which are nowbeing tested on a large scale worldwide in tokamak thermonuclear reactors.Such approaches, which generally use strong magnetic fields to containthe tremendously hot, electrically charged gas or plasma in which fusionoccurs, have cost billions and yielded little. The International ThermonuclearExperimental Reactor or ITER tokamak, for example, won't produce a singlewatt of electricity for several years yet.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Increases production and safety costs[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"I don't doubt it will eventually work,"Kulcinski said. "But I have serious doubts it will ever provide an economicpower source on Earth or in space." That's because reactors that exploitthe fusion of deuterium and tritium release 80 percent of their energyin the form of radioactive neutrons, which exponentially increase productionand safety costs.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]In contrast, helium 3 fusion wouldproduce little residual radioactivity. Helium 3, an isotope of the familiarhelium used to inflate balloons and blimps, has a nucleus with two protonsand one neutron. A nuclear reactor based on the fusion of helium 3 anddeuterium, which has a single nuclear proton and neutron, would producevery few neutrons -- about 1 percent of the number generated by the deuterium-tritiumreaction. "You could safely build a helium 3 plant in the middle of a bigcity," Kulcinski said.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Helium 3 fusion is also ideal for poweringspacecraft and interstellar travel. While offering the high performancepower of fusion -- "a classic Buck Rogers propulsion system" -- helium3 rockets would require less radioactive shielding, lightening the load,said Robert Frisbee, an advanced propulsion engineer at NASA's Jet PropulsionLaboratory in Pasadena California.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Recently Kulcinski's team reports progresstoward making helium 3 fusion possible. Inside a lab chamber, the Wisconsinresearchers have produced protons from a steady-state deuterium-helium3 plasma at a rate of 2.6 million reactions per second. That's fast enoughto produce fusion power but not churn out electricity. "It's proof of principle,but a long way from producing electricity or making a power source outof it," Kulcinski said. He will present the results in Amsterdam in midJuly at the Fourth International Conference on Exploration and Utilizationof the Moon.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Size of a basketball[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The chamber, which is roughly the sizeof a basketball, relies on the electrostatic focusing of ions into a densecore by using a spherical grid, explained Wisconsin colleague John Santarius,a study co-author. With some refinement, such Inertial Electrostatic Confinement(IEC) fusion systems could produce high-energy neutrons and protons usefulin industry and medicine. For example, the technology could generate short-livedPET (positron emission tomography) isotopes on site at hospitals, enablingsafe brain scans of young children and even pregnant women. Portable IECdevices could bridge the gap between today's science-based research andthe ultimate goal of generating electricity, Santarius said.[/SIZE]
[FONT=Courier New,Courier][SIZE=-1]~[/SIZE]



[SIZE=-1]This fall, the University of Wisconsinteam hopes to demonstrate a third-generation fusion reaction between helium3 and helium 3 particles in the lab. The reaction would be completely voidof radiation.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"Although helium 3 would be very exciting,"says Bryan Palaszewski, leader of advanced fuels at NASA Glenn ResearchCenter at Lewis Field, "first we have to go back to the moon and be capableof doing significant operations there."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Economically unfeasible[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Indeed for now, the economics of extractingand transporting helium 3 from the moon are also problematic. Even if scientistssolved the physics of helium 3 fusion, "it would be economically unfeasible,"asserted Jim Benson, chairman of SpaceDev in Poway, California, which strivesto be one of the first commercial space-exploration companies. "UnlessI'm mistaken, you'd have to strip-mine large surfaces of the moon."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]While it's true that to produce roughly70 tons of helium 3, for example, a million tons of lunar soil would needto be heated to 1,470 degrees Fahrenheit (800 degrees Celsius) to liberatethe gas, proponents say lunar strip mining is not the goal. "There's enoughin the Mare Tranquillitatis alone to last for several hundred years," Schmittsaid. The moon would be a stepping stone to other helium 3-rich sources,such as the atmospheres of Saturn and Uranus.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Benson agreed that finding fuel sourcesin space is the way to go. But for him, H2O and not helium 3 is the idealfuel source. His personal goal is to create gas stations in space by miningasteroids for water. The water can be electrolyzed into hydrogen or oxygenfuel or used straight as a propellant by superheating with solar arrays."Water is more practical and believable in the short run," he said.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]But proponents believe only helium3 can pay its own way.[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]"Water just isn't that valuable," Schmittsaid. Besides the helium, a mining process would produce water and oxygenas by-products, he says.[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
 

pandabear

Well-Known Member
Space elevator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Space_elevator_structural_diagram.pnghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Space_elevator_structural_diagram.png
A space elevator would consist of a cable [4] anchored to the Earth's surface [6], reaching into space. By attaching a counterweight [3] at the end (or by further extending the cable for the same purpose), inertia ensures that the cable remains stretched taut, countering the gravitational pull on the lower sections, thus allowing the elevator to remain in geostationary orbit [1]. Once beyond the gravitational midpoint [2], carriage [5] would be accelerated further by the planet's rotation. (Diagram not to scale.)


A space elevator is a proposed megastructure designed to transport material from a celestial body's surface into space as a way of non-rocket spacelaunch. The term most often refers to a structure that reaches from the surface of the Earth to geosynchronous orbit (GSO) and a counter-mass beyond. The concept of a structure reaching to geosynchronous orbit was first conceived by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky,[1] who proposed a compression structure, or "Tsiolkovsky tower." Most recent discussions focus on tensile structures (tethers) reaching from geosynchronous orbit to the ground. Space elevators have also sometimes been referred to as beanstalks, space bridges, space ladders, skyhooks, orbital towers, or orbital elevators.
The most common proposal is a tether, usually in the form of a cable or ribbon, spanning from the surface near the equator to a point beyond geosynchronous orbit. As the planet rotates, the inertia at the end of the tether counteracts gravity, and also keeps the cable taut. Vehicles can then climb the tether and reach orbit without the use of rocket propulsion. Such a structure could hypothetically permit delivery of cargo and people to orbit at a fraction of the cost of launching payloads by rocket.
Current technology is not capable of manufacturing materials that are sufficiently strong and light enough to build an Earth based space elevator as the total mass of conventional materials needed to construct such a structure would be far too great. Recent proposals for a space elevator are notable in their plans to use carbon nanotube-based materials as the tensile element in the tether design, since the theoretical strength of carbon nanotubes appears great enough to make this practical. Current technology may be able to support elevators in other locations in the solar system however, and other designs for space
 

hyphyjoose

Well-Known Member
Space elevator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search

A space elevator would consist of a cable [4] anchored to the Earth's surface [6], reaching into space. By attaching a counterweight [3] at the end (or by further extending the cable for the same purpose), inertia ensures that the cable remains stretched taut, countering the gravitational pull on the lower sections, thus allowing the elevator to remain in geostationary orbit [1]. Once beyond the gravitational midpoint [2], carriage [5] would be accelerated further by the planet's rotation. (Diagram not to scale.)


A space elevator is a proposed megastructure designed to transport material from a celestial body's surface into space as a way of non-rocket spacelaunch. The term most often refers to a structure that reaches from the surface of the Earth to geosynchronous orbit (GSO) and a counter-mass beyond. The concept of a structure reaching to geosynchronous orbit was first conceived by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky,[1] who proposed a compression structure, or "Tsiolkovsky tower." Most recent discussions focus on tensile structures (tethers) reaching from geosynchronous orbit to the ground. Space elevators have also sometimes been referred to as beanstalks, space bridges, space ladders, skyhooks, orbital towers, or orbital elevators.
The most common proposal is a tether, usually in the form of a cable or ribbon, spanning from the surface near the equator to a point beyond geosynchronous orbit. As the planet rotates, the inertia at the end of the tether counteracts gravity, and also keeps the cable taut. Vehicles can then climb the tether and reach orbit without the use of rocket propulsion. Such a structure could hypothetically permit delivery of cargo and people to orbit at a fraction of the cost of launching payloads by rocket.
Current technology is not capable of manufacturing materials that are sufficiently strong and light enough to build an Earth based space elevator as the total mass of conventional materials needed to construct such a structure would be far too great. Recent proposals for a space elevator are notable in their plans to use carbon nanotube-based materials as the tensile element in the tether design, since the theoretical strength of carbon nanotubes appears great enough to make this practical. Current technology may be able to support elevators in other locations in the solar system however, and other designs for space

they should conduct a space elevator that connects to one of the myriad satellites we have an orbit..or space stations..or...figure out a way dematerialize shit and have it reappear.. if molecules and appear and disappear within vacuums constantly than i don't see how that is impossible..
 

Smokie420

Well-Known Member
Wouldn't the comets and asteroids somehow effect the space elevator? any other info on when it would be built?


:joint:
 

pandabear

Well-Known Member
Wouldn't the comets and asteroids somehow effect the space elevator? any other info on when it would be built?


:joint:


i think they have some huge contest to see who can make a desiegn that works and they would win like millions to help produce it, but i think its just in the drawing board phase

they plan to build it out of nano tubes which are super lite and super strong
 

shamegame

Well-Known Member
Several corps. are already desiging the equipment and housing to mine the moon. As far as Mars goes, I think that planet holds some things that our world is not ready to be exposed to. Evidence of an intelligent, sentient species. We have sent many rovers to Mars, and only some of their footage has been public.
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Life on the moon is not really a smart idea considering you would need a 7 foot house of led to protect you from the radiation..

the space shuttle is huge! they plan on adding another bathroom and a another room..
We should stay home, then. While were at it, let's 86 undersea exploration, the research stations at the poles, and everywhere else which guarantees a harsh environment.
 

Wh00p

Well-Known Member
We should stay home, then. While were at it, let's 86 undersea exploration, the research stations at the poles, and everywhere else which guarantees a harsh environment.
yes because even though we have ships that can withstand atmospheres for ocean exploration, and stations in the poles that negate the cold..we should go live on the moon, and then die a month later because we dont have a way to prolong life on the moon..

theres brave(the test pilots that didnt give a shit and went up anyway) and then theres stupid(dying because we didnt set up a way to negate the radiation)
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
yes because even though we have ships that can withstand atmospheres for ocean exploration, and stations in the poles that negate the cold..we should go live on the moon, and then die a month later because we dont have a way to prolong life on the moon..

theres brave(the test pilots that didnt give a shit and went up anyway) and then theres stupid(dying because we didnt set up a way to negate the radiation)
You missed my point. We need that Helium 3.

Exploration involves risk. I'm not suggesting sending people to the moon without proper preparation. I'm saying do whatever preparation it takes to ensure their safe return.
 

Wh00p

Well-Known Member
You missed my point. We need that Helium 3.

Exploration involves risk. I'm not suggesting sending people to the moon without proper preparation. I'm saying do whatever preparation it takes to ensure their safe return.

Vice versa my friend, my point as well..:blsmoke:
 
Top