|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Space Policy: Why Mars should be our top priority.
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message dakotatelephone... Derek Lyons wrote: They did - but by the time they did they weren't military hardware, they were obsolescent relics. Titan II wasn't obsolescent at the time; it had a far greater throw weight than Minuteman, allowing it to carry a very large yield warhead, and stayed in service till 1987. True, but they were still relics. They required large, fixed launch silos which were easier to hit than the visions for more mobile solid fueled based ICBM's (e.g. Minuteman was to be such a system, but was actually deployed in silos). I love the huge rail car at the USAF museum which was designed in the 1980's for launching Peacekeeper missiles: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...eet.asp?id=788 Jeff -- "Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today. My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Space Policy: Why Mars should be our top priority.
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
: :"Pat Flannery" wrote in message hdakotatelephone... : : Derek Lyons wrote: : They did - but by the time they did they weren't military hardware, : they were obsolescent relics. : : : Titan II wasn't obsolescent at the time; it had a far greater throw weight : than Minuteman, allowing it to carry a very large yield warhead, and : stayed in service till 1987. : :True, but they were still relics. They required large, fixed launch silos :which were easier to hit than the visions for more mobile solid fueled based :ICBM's (e.g. Minuteman was to be such a system, but was actually deployed in :silos). : Minuteman was never designed or intended to be mobile. USAF wanted to deploy a few handfuls of them on rail cars, but that never happened as anything but half a dozen test runs. Something called 'Midgetman' was intended to be a mobile system, but it was never developed and was a completely different missile. -- "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Space Policy: Why Mars should be our top priority.
In sci.space.policy message ,
Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:09:44, Jeff Findley posted: I don't know why people keep bringing up the Chinese. We're not in a "moon race" with the Chinese! We won the "moon race" back in 1969. If the Chinese put people on the moon before the end of this year, they'd still be 40 years too late! The Chinese would be extremely lucky to put a man on the moon in time for the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. The Chinese space program is moving very slowly and very deliberately. It's a source of national pride, not a means to compete with the US. The space race of the 1960's is over and done. The US won, in case you hadn't noticed. The people[*] who designed & built Apollo & Saturn rightly made front- page news. They still do, from time to time; but their details are in the obituary columns. They are the men who flourished one or two generations ago. The Altair designers (postulating that some POTUS takes an interest in getting it built) won't need to design so much (per head) food storage; just a little cash for the Chinese and Indian takeaways. [*] Like Dannenberg, Debus, von Braun, etc.; the US has long been a keen importer. -- (c) John Stockton, nr London UK. DOS 3.3 6.20 ; WinXP. Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links. PAS EXE TXT ZIP via URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/00index.htm My DOS URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/batfiles.htm - also batprogs.htm. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Space Policy: Why Mars should be our top priority.
Jeff Findley wrote: Agreed. Liquid fueled ICBM's are a dead end path. You might want to tell the Russians that. :-) Pat |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Space Policy: Why Mars should be our top priority.
"Jorge R. Frank" writes:
David Spain wrote: If I can get the public to go along with the taxation necessary to support a manned space program, why not divert some of that $$$ to the military? Because there is no military mission for man-in-space that justifies the cost. That is why every military manned program in the past (Dyna-Soar, MOL, DoD shuttle) has wound up being cancelled. It was true then and it is true today. Jorge, It was not my intension to imply that diverted $$$ would go for "manned" military missions. Just for military use period. That could be ICBMs, spysats, anti-sat weapons, next generation missile rocketry, etc. If I led anyone to believe otherwise, that was not my intention. Dave |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Space Policy: Why Mars should be our top priority.
David Spain wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" writes: David Spain wrote: If I can get the public to go along with the taxation necessary to support a manned space program, why not divert some of that $$$ to the military? Because there is no military mission for man-in-space that justifies the cost. That is why every military manned program in the past (Dyna-Soar, MOL, DoD shuttle) has wound up being cancelled. It was true then and it is true today. Jorge, It was not my intension to imply that diverted $$$ would go for "manned" military missions. Just for military use period. That could be ICBMs, spysats, anti-sat weapons, next generation missile rocketry, etc. David, The DoD's budget is already 20 times that of NASA. They do not need any more funds diverted to them. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Space Policy: Why Mars should be our top priority.
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 21:40:33 -0500, Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote: Tired of all the flame wars? Insane posts? Off topic postings? Want to try a moderated forum? Then Get your ass to Mars! http://OnToMar.org/forum/ A new forum where you can discuss space policy, particularly if you understand why Mars, and not the moon, should be our immediate goal of our space program. http://www.ontomars.org/blog/?m=200903 Why the Moon isn’t a Stepping Stone to Mars Mars has an atmosphere however thin, the moon doesn’t. A Mars day is 24 hours and 40 minutes, a moon day is about 14 earth days. Temperatures are different between Mars and the Moon. The new technologies needed to go to Mars like the simulated gravity tether and large mass aerobraking to get to the Mars surface, have nothing to do with the Moon. So, other than they require totally different technologies, the moon has little to offer in the way of Mars development. The moon has one enormous advantage: three day return trajectory from Earth. Yes. The place where you have no reason to go is quick to get to. Reminds me of the joke about the guy who lost his keys in a dark place but looked for them in the light because it was easier. That means you can learn long-duration planetary surface operations on the moon without it killing you like on Mars. The moon, last I checked, isn't a planet. Its a ... moon. Mars has twice the gravity, an atmosphere, and a day which is about 24.5 hours long. The moon is quite different. Crawl before you walk. Walk before you run. And spend money on projects with no pay back to maximize contractor profits. -- http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Space Policy: Why Mars should be our top priority.
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 21:48:00 -0500, Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:30:33 +0200, jacob navia wrote: Marvin the Martian wrote: Then Get your ass to Mars! http://OnToMar.org/forum/ (1) Mars is beyond current technology. Only machines can live in there. Any human expedition to Mars is just science fiction. Actually, NASA was planning on going to Mars right after Apollo, back in the early 1970s. This technology is almost 40 years old. And it's a good thing they didn't; they *thought* they had the technology but they didn't. There is no ****ing way that Apollo-era life support systems would have sustained a crew to Mars and back, Yet, you can't say how they would have failed. Heck, since we didn't have any life support systems designed for Mars, this claim is utterly empty. Further more, it is implicit in the "Mars program" that we develop the technology. There wasn't any problem that couldn't be solved in the 1970s for a Mars mission. We're not talking about The Confederate States of America building a nuclear powered aircraft carrier in the 1860s. plus they grossly underestimated the total radiation dose (Apollo got lucky with the timing of solar flares, pure and simple.) (4) The technology for living in an independent vessel for more than 3-4 months is just not there The Soviets had cosmonauts in LEO for over 6 months. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you seem to be making stuff up. The Soviets had Progress spacecraft sending up supplies and replacement parts every couple of months. Such would not be possible for transmars/transearth coast. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you're either ignorant of the true logistics situation or you're lying your ass off. So? What you're saying is that we know what to bring, and what we need to make on the way. The argument about long duration flight is mostly about the effects of living in cramped quarters with other people, sort of like how the colonist coming to America endured, only better than how they had it. That your argument is weak is highlighted by the irrelevant argumentum ad hominem. (6) The technology for living in Mars is not the o -50 C in the day, -100 in the night Heating energy would need a nuclear reactor to keep humans from freezing o No oxygen. All oxygen has to be brought from earth. o No food. All food must be brought from earth. o No air pressure. You must live in pressure suits all the time you are outside o Etc We have had people on the moon, where the temperature variations are even greater. Incorrect. The temperature variations *would* have been greater if we'd kept the Apollo crews there longer. But as it was, Apollo always landed within two days of lunar sunrise and never stayed more than three days. The temperature variations were therefore far more constrained and predictable. No Apollo equipment was designed for lunar night since it was never going to experience it. So, by the "logic" shown here, we shouldn't even go to the moon since it requires technology that doesn't exist yet; we don't know how to stay there more than a few days in a limited area. -- http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Space Policy: Why Mars should be our top priority.
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:13:05 -0400, Jeff Findley wrote:
"Brian Thorn" wrote in message ... On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 21:48:00 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote: And it's a good thing they didn't; they *thought* they had the technology but they didn't. There is no ****ing way that Apollo-era life support systems would have sustained a crew to Mars and back, Wait... SkyLab lasted 6 months of occupation and wasn't on the verge of breaking down when the last crew left. There was a lot of work to do, sure, but the Mars flight was tentatively planned for 1981, 8 years after SkyLab. "Life support would never have worked" sounds a little too "Capricorn One" to me. Skylab had no backup life support. Everything but the CO2 removal system was not "regenerative". O2, H2O, and food were all kept in storage until needed. Such a simple approach works when you can simply return to earth in case of an emergency. Failure of such a simple life support system on a Mars mission would mean death. Jeff You know why we can't go to Mars? It's not the lack of technology, it's the defeatist, victim mentality that says we can't do nothing that is so common with Americans today. I wouldn't want such a whiners to get off the earth. Leave these people on earth to dig there own graves and jump in like they are so want to do. -- http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Space Policy: Why Mars should be our top priority.
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 03:28:49 +0000, Derek Lyons wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:30:33 +0200, jacob navia wrote: Marvin the Martian wrote: Then Get your ass to Mars! http://OnToMar.org/forum/ (1) Mars is beyond current technology. Only machines can live in there. Any human expedition to Mars is just science fiction. Actually, NASA was planning on going to Mars right after Apollo, back in the early 1970s. This technology is almost 40 years old. Planning on doing something is not even remotely connected to the ability to do it. Folks were planning to go to the moon in the 40's, and 50's - despite the lack of technology to do so. It is very instructive to look back and see how very wrong they were about so many things. D. There wasn't much more that they had in the 1950s that they didn't have on May 25th, 1961 when Kennedy gave his moon speech. Your defeatism and can't do attitude is noted. You're off the team. -- http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
sci.space.policy impact on policy | John Schilling | Policy | 4 | June 23rd 06 02:02 AM |
Shuttle Replacement Needs to Become a National Priority!!! | jonathan | Policy | 70 | August 15th 05 06:33 PM |
"Space policy and the size of the space shuttle fleet" | MasterShrink | Space Shuttle | 0 | December 26th 04 06:35 AM |
Spaceguard-Priority List | Matthew D. Mills | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | March 4th 04 05:28 AM |
Mars Exploration and the Search for Life is a Priority Says UK ScienceMinister (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 29th 03 01:57 PM |