Is The Air Force The Enemy Of Space?

spacedaily.com ^ | 21 Aug 03 | Publius Rex

[hchutch]

Perhaps, but we're going to need something to replace the Shuttle. And more than one platform. I'm not going to have NASA have all its eggs in one basket.

Oh, we may also want to look at the Douglas Clipper as well. Go for a nice mix of all three systems.

[Poohbah]

The problem is that NASP and VentureStar tried to go beyond the boundaries of physics. The Douglas Clipper respected those boundaries--but didn't really have a significant payload.

Truly inexpensive spacelift is going to require something very different. Laser-powered rockets are a possibility--a very large ground-based laser heats the reaction chamber, generating very high amounts of specific impulse (I_sp) without having to carry a gazillion tons of oxidizer.

[MalcolmS]

>>>I comment about the Moon .. and how sad it was we hadn’t gone back after Apollo

>>>Well he starts acting funny and gets quite ... then said” what make you say that.. it might not necessarily be true..

>>>So I asked him what he meant.. and he said “Well the moon a natural spy satellite fo the earth best there is you not going to shoot it down

I think your friend was pulling your leg. Spy satellites in LEO (Low Earth Orbit) orbit at an altitude of about 300 miles and circle the earth in about 90 minutes. In a polar orbit, they will cover the entire planet.

The earth rotates under the moon every 24 hours (the moon orbits the earth in 28 days) at an "altitude" around 250,000 miles. That's 833 times further.

Commercial satellites have a resolution of about 1m (3 ft). It is suspected that spy satellites with advanced optics have a resolution of about .3m (1 ft).

Those same optics would have difficulty seeing a football stadium if mounted on the moon.

To put in in perspective, even the largest earth-bound telescopes cannot see the lunar landing site (NASA would love them to be able to, thus putting to rest the fake moon landing conspiracy theories).

Why would any country fly to the moon and put up a 200" telescope and end up with worse performance than a standard satellite? Sure, you can't shoot it down, but why would anyone need to? It is too far away to be a threat.