55delta

Oh boy...from a legal and business perspective, these remarks were very bad. The sort of thing that the media likes to use the term 'alleged' a lot for. I think it's safe to say that he didn't resign solely because he said that ULA can't compete with SpaceX on price. I'm pretty sure we didn't need a ULA executive to tell us that, we already knew. Fortunately for ULA, it can compete by other means, or else they would have given up the business by now. No, what forces the resignation was that too many other things were said during those remarks. I won't go over them again, or things like 'conflict of interest'. But freedom of speech doesn't protect you from implicating yourself or any of your associates in any dealings, and it doesn't protect you from embarrassing yourself or your associates. There were things said that, if substantiated, would be a world of legal hurt. It was better for ULA that he left and that they distanced themselves from his remarks.

Ah, Destination Moon, I'd thought nobody remembered that. Although I am told that NASA apparently updated and continued to use the clip for public education. A shame that the movie itself lost out to a movie like Rocketship X-M, but that's the movie for you. I initially heard of Destination Moon mostly through a some writing in one of Robert Heinlien's book of collected works.

It's all good...well, except for thread necromancy. But that I leave to others. Creating an economy in space around space travel, would be inevitable if anyone makes the infrastructure. As you figured, Earth would be involved in passing the money between parties. But that was mentioned back with the idea of mining ice asteroids to sell water to the ISS. Unfortunately, there's apparently no rush. You see, no one here knows of any thing or substance or material in space that they would want from space that they couldn't acquire on Earth. Earth, it appears, is so unique that it has everything except pretty pictures and settling that Martian meteor debate. Why is that important? Because that would be *the* springboard to get bigger investment in space travel. Otherwise, you have to wait on space being a matter of national pride...which I won't discuss here because politics attracts national debate, argument, and moderation. Best not to start. Still, I would be interested if six months has added any insights whether anything of interesting has been learned.

I assume you mean mining on the asteroid you want to impact the killer asteroid. Now, I wouldn't design a mission to mine the asteroid, I'd want to bring lots (I mean LOTS) of propellant with me. But how efficient would you expect a NTR set-up to be, seeing as it would have to add velocity to compensate for the mass mined? There will be losses regardless, I understand, because conservation of energy is an eternal frustration. A trade-off of the practical (what we might have) vs the ideal, maybe?

If I recall, the clothes did help considerably. Since the plague was spread by fleas, all that covering up reduced the area that the fleas could jump to and infest the doctor on. As an aside, it's rather ironic that they were covering up to protect against bad odours...which kept the fleas, the real carriers of the disease away...and since they weren't getting infected with black plague, they could only conclude that bad odours were the cause. This sort of pattern would continue for centuries, if what I hear about the treatment of malaria is correct, until the invention of the microscope.

Oh, that's where the mis-understanding (or at least one of them) was. Warning: wall of text ahead. Just to point out. I'm not asking if this is the easiest method...because it isn't. The easiest method I ever heard of for diverting a killer asteroid I ever heard of (mentioned by Scott Manley, I don't know who proposed it) was to send a satellite into the orbit of the asteroid and use the very minor gravity of the satellite to divert it. Second easiest might be something like Spaceception's suggestion, which I'm going to interpret as attach a Project Orion drive to the side of killer asteroid and keep detonating nukes beside it until the asteroid is diverted. The third easiest I can personally think of is to send an expedition to both mine out and slowly divert the asteroid by some method of propulsion. Right now, I'm wanting to know if it be possible, or plausible. Now, just to re-itinerate, the idea is divert a killer asteroid (we automatically assume a Earth defense scenario every time killer asteroids are mentioned) by finding an asteroid small enough that it could be maneuvered by a spacecraft, then, while trying to preserve as much momentum of that asteroid as possible, still alter the trajectory so as the two asteroid collide on perpendicular trajectories to alter the trajectory of the killer asteroid (or its resulting debris) by a few degrees radial-out from what the killer asteroid would have impacted. This would need to be as direct an impact as possible, so that as much momentum as possible is transferred between the two asteroids. As for hitting a rubble pile killer asteroid, I would be aiming to divert (at a guess) 90% of its mass from the target and scattering the rest in as wide a space as possible. Admittingly, unless the target of the killer asteroid is a planet with atmosphere, this method of attempting to scatter the killer asteroid wouldn't be effective. Then it would be better to try to divert it with a satellite anyway. Now, I wouldn't launch anything 'from Earth' directly at a killer asteroid, not even if I had another asteroid handy, because the killer asteroid would have too much momentum. If the killer asteroid is big enough and fast enough, collisions from parallel trajectories (even direct head-on) would not be enough to cancel out all that momentum. You could only divert, not stop, a killer asteroid. Even then, you need a considerable distance between a killer asteroid and its target for the few degrees you could divert it to make a difference. That's why I say that plan like this needs to occur 10 year's travel from impact. Since I haven't crafted an actual scenario, this is a guess. So, why an asteroid? The idea depends on an object of comparable (although not equal) momentum to the killer asteroid. Remember, the most important part would be momentum, which needs both mass and speed. This plan assumes that capturing and manipulating an asteroid could be done with a craft smaller than itself. Otherwise it would be easier to just put the capturing craft on that perpendicular trajectory. I figured that you either have to bring that momentum (either as larger craft, or speeder craft) from your starting point, or you need to find that momentum out in space. This idea assumes that a even a smaller asteroid would have enough momentum, by virtue of both mass and relative speed, to divert a larger asteroid, even if it couldn't stop it. By the same token, you would not want to mine or hollow out any asteroid you wanted to impact a killer asteroid. Affecting its mass would affect its momentum, which is what you'd want it to retain. Yes, you could suggest using an impactor on the killer asteroid using the same perpendicular trajectory. Just remember that unless the impactor craft had comparable mass, it would need much greater speed to compensate. So the idea of the asteroid is to try an exploit something that already has comparable momentum while being in space. That said, I couldn't begin to guess if you could get greater momentum with an asteroid than an impactor craft. As for where, assume an Earth defense scenario, you'd find an asteroid to use. Well, thanks to Scott Manley, I can think of a few suggestions. Once again, this would be a difficult method of diverting a killer asteroid. First, you need to confirm the existence and exact trajectory of that killer asteroid. Then you need to find a asteroid you could divert, capturing and anchor to the asteroid so that you could divert it (without slowing it in the process), calculating the trajectories of the captured asteroid and then calculating how you want the trajectory altered exactly in order to make that exact crossing of perpandicular trajectories at the right time to make a direct impact. That's not including N-body physics matters, or any shifting if you want to disconnect your capturing spacecraft before impact. I may have mentioned something about shooting a bullet with a bullet. Very tough, but is it impossible? Could we do it, if we had to? Would it be effective if we could do it?

Yes, it would require a lot of dv. Also, I mentioned in the OP that it would be difficult. But is it impossible to work out? Although now that I think about it, does KSP have the time-step to calculate the collision of two objects moving at such orbital speeds, not relative to each other? Maybe it can't be done in KSP after all. Who mentioned that? If anything, I was thinking of a collision of two asteroids on courses perpendicular to each other, to ensure the most direct transfer of momentum. Also, I want to note that whether the asteroids shatter each other, merge, or one was a rubble pile is more of a secondary consideration. This sort of plan (assume that it would need to be done ten years in advance of impact if you assume an Earth defense situation) really only requires that it does one thing right. Edit: I guess I should clarify one thing from the OP. I don't assume that you'd want to implement this concept one year from impact, or that it would take a year to implement the plan. Actually, I work it out to about 15 to 20 years. And as I mentioned, this plan likely requires that the asteroids collide 10 years away from an impact on a planet. No, what I mention was that I would expect it to take a year to work out the calculations of the trajectories and where the point of impact would have to be in order to ensure a direct hit. That is, an entire year (assuming supercomputer time) just to work out the math. I haven't even considered what sort of craft would have to do the re-directing yet.

Hmm...it seems that everyone who has responded so far didn't seem to understand the entirely of the concept. I thought I'd made the how's and why's of the concept clear, but I guess I couldn't. Oh well, it seems that I just couldn't find the right words to explain what I meant. I don't think I can then. Oh well, I never was good at making people understand. Well, that's it then. If the gulf of communication is too great, then there is no point in continuing discussing it. Never mind, folks.

So from what I've been told, if any of the larger asteroids were found to be on a collision course, trying to blow them apart would just result into almost equally damaging smaller pieces and that they have too much mass and momentum to directly shove off-course. So I had a crazy idea. Assuming that all nearby asteroids have comparable velocities, then why not, instead of speeding up an object to collide with a larger asteroid, find an asteroid smaller enough to be captured? Then, preserving what momentum the smaller asteroid has as much as possible (or even adding more velocity), re-direct it onto a 'side-on' collision with the larger asteroid in order to knock it a few degrees off its course? I'm not going to pretend that 'playing pool' with asteroids would be easy. I expect that this would only alter a larger asteroid's course by a few degrees. The first of two analogies I'd use to compare this would be trying to knock an out of control tractor-trailer using a speeding coupe hitting directly on the side. The second analogy I'd use is knocking a speeding bullet off-target by shooting it with another bullet. That's not including the challenges of an asteroid re-direct mission. I expect that an collision intercept at those speeds is possible to calculate in, say, a year. But I've never done that before. These are the reasons why I called it a crazy idea. Still, what do you all think about this? Impossible? Plausible? Workable? Already done in KSP?

I too have been thinking at KSP could use a stock biome scanner (something similar to the M700 survey scanner.)

Just found the series two years ago. That '1980s' setting...fiction has always been more wrong than right at predicting the future. Anyway, I'd think the more difficult thing to re-create from the series would be the air-launched 'moon transport' shown in ep. 2, which must be using quite the nuclear engine. As for Skydiver, I couldn't begin to guess how much effort it would take to re-integrate the fighter back into the sub after every flight, or if they'd have to send both to port and put the thing back together in dry-dock. As for launching, it would be much easier in KSP, where there's no issue of sudden g-forces risking the pilot during the surfacing and sudden acceleration needed to stay air-born. Edit: re-watched ep. 3 and was reminded that the aircraft that the moon transport docks with in mid-air is also a VTOL. Gerry Anderson always did love his complicated vehicles.

It isn't shown or mentioned in the movie where he gets the iridium. But in the book, he extracts it from the MDV's engine.

The suit would be trying to maintain about 21 kPa atmosphere. A pure oxygen atmosphere causing oxygen toxicity is one of the most notable errors in the book.

Squad is focused on further building up and polishing up the base game before moving on to another phase. As they should, because the exploration and effort to make that landing on the furthers reaches is still the biggest selling point of the game. Meanwhile, they feel that base-building and colonization, where it's can't be covered by stock, is covered by a number of mods right now. Maybe they'll get to it...after Unity 5, after a graphics overhaul, after multiplayer...you get the idea. If you're already bored of this, you might need to take a break and play something else for a while. Besides, I look at the screenshots for the one game and I'm reminded of how Space Engineers intends to implement planets. Keen (Space Engineer's dev) have been teasing planets in their weekly updates for a few weeks now.

Well, according to IMDb, Ben Browder has been acting and directing in his own film. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0112871/?ref_=tt_cl_t1#writer

A very odd question. Am I the only one that compares Mark Watney to Farscape's John Crichton, at least from early episodes of the series? That is, to compare the two personalities, not events or issues of their respective stories.

Yes, you are right. They never had to overcome the cost of space travel. They had to overcome the then great cost of sea travel. I find knowing some history can be very helpful. You see, ocean travel then was neither cheap, easy, or safe, like space travel now. And many explorers had to appeal to people of power and wealth to get their expeditions outfitted, like Christopher Columbus appealing to the Spanish crown for the ships and supplies for his famous voyage. Has the price risen? Yes. But we're done things like this before. I don't see any point on shying away from the matter on the basis of 'but it's more expensive.' I don't think we're run out of rich patrons. We seem to have just decided to wait for them to finance their own expeditions instead.

Okay, maybe I shouldn't be so dismissive of 'relativistic missiles', but using it as a general argument against space and space-travel strikes me as a more educated version of 'if we sail too far out to sea, we fall off the Earth.' No, that's not what it's about at all. First, when I say that it'll happen or it won't, I mean now and the near future. The thing is, we literal wouldn't be able to see it coming. So if some alien race were to find us and decide to wipe us out this way, there is nothing we can do. But, since I woke up this morning and was alive, I know it hasn't happened yet. Not that humanity hasn't always been potentially threated by unstoppable destruction by something, like an asteroid. It's just now that we're at our most awareness of these things. And as a race that saw two sides threaten to destroy all life on Earth...and did not do so...I don't think there's any point worrying about living through continuous 'coin-flips'. Trying to live under a rock won't save you, it'll just make you feel safer. Still, I suppose that given infinity, that there a very small chance that an alien race could beat the impossible odds of being paranoid and hostility xenophobic and also developing relativistic missiles. But we have some things in our favor. First, we're still far from developing relativistic vehicles, so if there is a way of detecting those, we can't be found yet. If we're afraid of relativistic missiles, then we should launch more Kepler space telescopes to find indications of planets and stars being inexplicably being destroyed. There's a lot of stars in space, so we'll need a big network of them. Then we need to detect the signs or effects of objects travelling at relativistic speeds. Not so that we can see one coming (we can't), but to try to figure out where such vehicles are being launched from, where they are going, and what happens to the destinations. But that's something I'm not sure is possible, even in theory. Instead, if we develop relativistic vehicles, we should sent a colony to another solar system almost as soon as we have the first vehicle. That way, some of humanity will still survive, and possible avenge against such rude neighbours. And that's all I have to say about that. Now, back to the topic. Are there anymore business plans involving space?

You might want to re-phrase that. If 'why go to space' isn't the question, then you don't have one. And if you're scared of relativistic missiles, Then the question was never meant for you in the first place. Why are you even bothering to post? It'll happen or it won't and our current technology is enough to set them to launch as well. Although, in a different thread I would ask how any race so paranoid of potential vague threats ever makes relativistic missiles anyway? How have they not nuked themselves to oblivion with nuclear weapons first? Are they pulp-era super villains? Yes, I agree that humans don't always do what's best for humanity in the long-term. But you see, human development rarely ever came about 'for the good of mankind' to begin with. Each inventor, each researcher had their own reasons for their part, some of which never even knew that they'd done anything more than just found an answer to a single question. I would love to just say that space is the reason itself to go there, but most people here agree that it isn't nearly a good enough reason. So we need better reasons. We must appeal to self-interest for small benefit of the whole if that's what it takes to create the whole in the first place. If we can sell whisky to rich snobs to get greater investment in space, how is that wrong? If we are selling to a market of the current six people on the ISS, is it not the start of a mining industry? People have travelled the length and breadth of this planet, on long and difficult journeys and at great personal risk, for lesser things which likely as not didn't exist. But their efforts helped map the world you live on. Should they not have done that? Would you rather not know? I've stuck to things that we know exist because we're all too educated to buy that the fountain of eternal youth is on Venus and I'd rather not just create more lies on the internet. I'm not saying the space will ever be easy, or cheap, or very simple. What makes you think that it would need to be in the first place? You're unlikely to get there with that attitude. I want to know if the benefits are there, that the spirit that sent people out to the frontiers, where the maps said there were dragons, still has a place in humanity. If it doesn't, then what does it matter if the moon landing was faked? I have every reason to believe that it wasn't. But if we've no reason to send people out past LEO again, or even to LEO, then it would as well have been faked. If space needs to make money to get the ball rolling, then that's a step we should take. But I want to believe that humanity can go further, they just need a few good reasons. Got any?

I don't want to make a thread about if a self-sustaining colonies can be created because I already have my answer. My answer is yes, if there is some further efficiently and innovation in a number of industries, and a large pool of supplies until the 'bootstrapping' of industry can begin and a large knowledge base to both overcome various issues and build that future industry, I also define, 'self-sufficient colony' as a colony that doesn't depend on shipments from elsewhere to keep the colonists alive. I know these things might be possible because we've made remote colonies before that have flourished because they needed to flourish or die. History is not a perfect example, but it is a guide and we should learn from it. In addition, I'd like to remind people that necessity is the mother of invention and to not underestimate human ingenuity. So, if I have my own beliefs and definitions on the matter, why would I make a different forum thread to ask the question? It isn't my question. My question is, 'Why go to space?' and I don't think I have all the answers yet. That is the purpose of this thread. Some people just can't stay on topic. As for a wiki-ish thing...I don't have the resources to create one and I don't have the concentration to moderate one either. Although I'm starting to suspect that Elon Musk wants a Mars colony to get away from the people who say that it cannot be done. Think it's true?

Okay folks, time to break this up. I already mentioned that discussing if a colony could be self-sustaining was a topic for another thread. You may want to move this debate elsewhere, as you have not gone back to the topic of why there should be a colony. Otherwise this is getting too heated. Please and thank you.

I'm going to step in here to split a few hairs before the argument starts. I'm going to say that creating a space colony for redundancy (in case of an unspecified disaster) is a legitimate topic to discuss here. Creating a space colony to escape an imminent or occurring disaster is a discussion already covered by other threads. Please keep this in mind in future discussion, and the matter of whether self-sustaining colonies can be created at all is also a matter better covered in other threads.

You're right, a 4700 bottle run would be a lousy way to make a specialty product. But I don't think anyone wanted to fill an entire Dragon capsule with whisky in the first place. No one can afford an entire capsule of dead-weight and the ISS doesn't have that much long-term storage. So let's cut it down a bit. This calls for a limited run. Let's say, a run of 100 fifths. As you said, a fifth is 0.76L. Assuming that we're not bothering with specialty casks, Wikipedia tells me that a wine cask holds 119L, of which only 75L is needed for the run itself. In fact that's over-kill, even with testing, tasting, and potential inefficiencies in bottling. The cask would weight a little over 113kg, which actually might not be as bad as I feared in terms of payload weight. The other 3197 kg in the capsule can be filled with things NASA or someone else actually wants to send in space. So the whisky doesn't need to pay for the whole rocket, just it's small part of it. Just keep the runs made to a hundred bottles or so and you have a small amount of a unique product for a market whose high-end market values unique products. Additionally, sometimes collectors actually consume the product they collect. So there is the possibility of a small amount of repeat business too. Yes, this plan does require that someone else want to buy up the rest of the space in a capsule to make it work. But I'd like to point out that it also currently would also use long-term storage on the ISS because the ISS is currently the only climate-controlled environment in space right now. But that's what I like about this plan. It makes use of the currently existing infrastructure to make a business. And just to note. you would only want to send up casks of alcohol, never bottles. Fears of filching by the residents aside, it would be much easier to protect a cask from the tough handling up and down from space.

Please re-read my OP. Plans for making profits off space is the purpose of the thread.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd have a merry little Christmas in space. There's a lot of potential in outer space, but there doesn't seem to be much that anyone thinks is viable. There's a lot of 'when flight costs go down', or 'when someone creates the infrastructure', or 'we'd need a pilot-project to test the concept first.' It seems that this whole thing is waiting for a major break-through. Still, let's see what we have. Orbital solar power: I see great potential here. The construction costs are huge, but the possible output is in the realm of some of our biggest power projects. However, we can't say how well transmitting that power would work, let alone the hundreds of little concerns about anything that gets between the transmitter and receiver. Additionally, a decent break-through in fusion power could make the matter irrelevant. Microprocessor manufacture: There's a lot of theory here. The idea is that better crystals could be grown or more dense microprocessors could be made in microgravity. But this is still three or four projects short of a full plan. First, crystal grown of silicon in zero-g. Second, the combining of gallium arsenide and/or gallium nitride in zero-g. Finally, modifying the machinery for creating microprocessors for zero-g and testing if zero-g allows for improvement in manufacture. Those have to be done before anyone is going to commit to any plan. I did have a thought of sourcing the materials for making zero-g microprocessors from space to reduce the up-and-down costs. However, gallium is only found as a trace element in zinc ores and bauxite, which means you'd already need to be producing aluminium before you'd find gallium and I haven't found a notable source of zinc in space. Current ISRU doesn't cover rare minerals right now. Either way, we're just not there yet. Mining ice water: This one looks easier. All of the concepts, except two, have already been proven. It has also been pointed out that there is a potential market for water in space, the ISS. Yes, it's a tiny market...but it does currently exist and has plenty of room to grow. The issue that still needs to be examined is the mining and handling of materials in zero-g. The devil's in the details here. This plan is a one-trick pony unless the vehicle can also making fuel from some of the ice it is mining. The water could be melted and electrolysed in some form into hydrogen and oxygen. But it turns out that pure water needs overpotential (that is, a lot of power) to break down into it's components. Usually an additional material is added (a salt, acid, or base) to the process to reduce the power requirement. But that means adding something to the water that can be separated from the hydrogen and oxygen afterwards before the process of compression and cryogenic cooling. Otherwise you have self-induced fuel impurities in a continuous mission. This is not to mention that materials handling now includes moving both liquids and gases in zero-g or the general power requirements of the process. Still, nothing that is, as of yet, impossible to overcome. Before I forget, you also need a big source of ice water to continuously mine. Additionally, how much is the payload fraction of average ISS re-supply made up of water? I don't exactly see this as reducing the number of ISS re-supply missions, although it would definitely extend some of the safety factors for operational crews. That said, cargo space on a re-supply mission will be filled with something. I'm just wondering if that'll be enough to get two different space agencies to sign the contract. I'm sort of wondering if this plan couldn't be sweetened a bit. What else could be mined in space, preferably near ice water, that with only a bit of refining, could be used by the ISS? But you might have calculated something here. If the vehicle could mine ice water, and make it's own fuel, then it should be able to bring liquid fuels to LEO, right? Well, possibly and sort of. The vehicle already needs fuel to both get to LEO, then back to the ice mine. Anyone who knows about cryonic fuels knows that they tend to boil off in the tanks. So the vehicle used might not have enough fuel to spare for other craft. Also, The thrusters on the ISS don't use a liquid hydrogen/oxygen mix, so that can't be re-supplied through ice mining. If anyone wanted to use any extra water for fuel, they would have to make that fuel through their own means. Sending whisky to age in LEO: I like this one. It's just the sort of thing I was hoping to see here. It can be done with current technology, it is done for a uniqueness that only continuous zero-g can provide, and it can easily absorb the launch costs to make it happen. Modern whisky, or whiskey, casks can be made of metal or plastic, so materials shouldn't be an issue. They just have to be left in long-term storage in a climate-controlled environment, which a space-station should have. The market for specialty alcohol is huge. More than a few labels go for over a thousand a bottle. A quick Google search tells me that a bottle of Black Maple Hill 21 Cask 5 goes for approx. $3,000, a bottle of Bowmore Black 1964 2nd Addition for approx. $9,300, and a bottle (likely just one in existence) of Macallan 1946 Select Reserve for over $13,000. If aging in zero-g does slightly different, yet agreeable, to whisky, specialty collectors will buy the bottles for thousands per bottle. Of course, at anywhere from 119 litres to 300 litres per cask, it likely sets the teeth of engineers and quartermasters alike to lift and return that much dead-weight whenever it would be time to rotate the stock. But it's very unlikely that space-aged alcohol will flood the market anytime soon, keeping the prices stable. That's what I have for now. Let's see what else could take us out to space.