Propulsion Isn't Just Everything, It's The Only Thing

spacedaily ^ | 6 Nov 01 | Rick Fleeter

[tim politicus]

I've read some pretty interesting stuff that suggested that interstellar space is not as empty as it seems. What if the missing 'dark matter' is to a significant extent gas giants too small to ignite. Inter stellar space may be much fuller and richer then we now think. Perhaps even able to support life or civilization.

But we would know for sure if we explored where we were going virtually, as you suggested, first. Ultimately, a space faring civilization would do most things ‘virtually’, I'd think.

[Thumper1960]

Has anyone argued that man created God is his own image, yet?

What better way to explain his own hunter/gatherer/shepherd existence than to "blame" it upon powers beyond his control.

[Illbay]

...even if he hadn't, even if the dollar had never been invented, someone still would have struck out for foreign shores.

To me, that's a non sequitur. Without "the dollar" there'd be no civilization anyway.

I do agree that if it hadn't been Columbus, it would have been someone else, but that's not the point I was making anyway. The point was there was a PRACTICAL, ECONOMIC reason behind the voyage.

I think the world of Columbus (pun intended). I think he is one of the greatest men who ever lived, but all his romantic thirst for knowledge wouldn't have gotten a single Spanish farthing out of Ferdinand and Isabella, had he not pitched it to them as a way to break the Venetian/Genoan/etc. monopoly on the spice trade, had they not thought they'd get a fantastic return on their investment.

Man's spirit is restless, and our sole reason for living seems to be to push back boundaries.

May be but consider: A GOVERNMENT has no such spirit. With government funding of space exploration, you are ALWAYS as safe as the next fiscal downturn, as the next change in administration, the next Congressional election.

See what's happening RIGHT NOW. In fact, let's look back over the entire history of the U.S. in space.

We made it part of the Cold War, which was the rationale for putting a man on the moon.

But Apollo 12, hardly anyone even remembers. We had "made it," and the political tide changed. We were no longer interested in the moonshots; for the great majority of people they had become passe'.

And so NASA had to toss around for a new "mission", and that "refocusing of mission"--which occurs ever five years or so--was always in terms of selling something POLITICALLY.

No, I think my point has ALREADY been proved: Since we landed on the moon, WHAT has been the major achievement in space technology? ONLY those things that paid a return on investment such as the vast array of technologies that utilize satellites. Manned space flight is not much further along than the days of Apollo 7 & Apollo 9--when we had people in LEO. That's our big claim to fame: We went to the moon, now what's on Oprah?

Mark my words: ONLY when private entrepeneurs figure out how to make it worth their while to go to the asteroids to mine them, say, or to the moon (now that we know water is there) to exploit it commercially somehow, will things ever begin to get interesting.

But now you have all these Socialist-inspired treaties that say that "space is for all mankind," meaning that Zimbabweans or Cambodians have a say in what American technology can achieve there. It ain't lookin' good, folks.

[RightWhale]

Are railguns or guns of any significant use at all beyond about a lunar orbit?

The old L5 Society was intending to use a lunar railgun to fire incredible amounts of mass to the Lagrangian point where the city would be located. Once it is set up, the ride wouldn't be a big deal; people could probably stand the acceleration. A railgun on earth would have to be huge and would probably serve only for the first stage; a high efficiency second stage such as NERVA would then take over. Cost of launch would be minimal compared to our fire-breathing monsters; cost of construction shouldn't exceed one year of NASA's budget.

The nuclear artillery discussed above might be enough to reach the moon in one shot without bothering with orbits. It wouldn't be man-rated.

[tim politicus]

Man-rated!?! It worked for HG Wells! What about lead underwear? Gee forces? No problem, we'll just use Texans! And think of our inter-Galactic 2nd amendment rights! No God fearing slimy tenticled alien would even imagine imposing its insidious disarmament scheme while we were packing that baby.

[IronJack]

But once NASA had achieved its laudable goal -- putting a man on the moon -- what next? They sent a couple dozen MORE men to the moon. To pick up rocks. To drive a dune buggy. To drive golf balls, for cripes' sake! It's not as though they didn't abuse the trust (and money) we'd placed in them.

Now, they're looking for funding again, so they trot out the idea of a Mars shot, a MANNED Mars shot! Aside from its PR value, there is little sense in sending a manned crew to the Red Planet.

But you're right in your point about money making the world go 'round. In the hands of free enterprise, the space program would "take off" again. And there are some incredible things occurring in the private sector to stimulate that.

As to space being a collective, not by a long shot, darlin'! Our money, our blood, and our brains bought us first claim to that frontier. And its one worth fighting for. Tell Zimbabwe and Burkina Faso to put their own satellites up, and tell the UN to stick an Atlas up their collective wazoos.

[DB]

I do believe the Queen funded his trip...

[TomSmedley]

Looking at the way the universe is designed, it almost seems to have been deliberately arranged to prevent interstellar travel and interactions between (presumed) intelligent species...

Quarantine?

[boris]

" I recall the sad story of Mr. Bull. I do think a conventional explosive driven gun could do the trick."

I suppose in theory a single impulse could cause a body to enter orbit. Probably a highly-elliptical one, which isn't good...and with a low perigee, meaning the orbit would decay rapidly. So in practice, you will always need a "circularizing" burn by a built-in propulsion system (a rocket) to stay in orbit.

[Illbay]

She did, it's true. But it was done as an investment, with the promise of great wealth--a promise that was fulfilled, in ways unimagined at the time.

That was my point, though. The money came as a result of the promise of great return on investment. Without such a tangible return, you can forget any significant strides in the exploration of space.

Government programs aren't the answer--they seldom are.

[Oleg Panczenko]

“Where does something like cubane fit in in power yields between nuclear and ordinary chemical rockets? Could it employ the same technology as the nuclear-pulse driven ships?”

I would think that the extremely low energy density of any chemical explosive makes it unsuitable for Orion-type spacecraft.

[Project Orion]

http://www.projectorion.com

http://www.angelfire.com/stars2/projectorion/orionpage.html

http://www.projectorion.org/