Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
[Spaaaaaace!] Endeavour's/Atlantis's final flight
Zilla360
Spaaaace!EarthRegistered User regular
Spaaaace!EarthRegistered User regular
Who is best at space? Endeavour is best at space.
And it's delivering this, quite possibly the most important scientific instrument since Hubble:
It's designed to find:
Awesome, huh? But with this being the second to last mission for the shuttle program, there are doubts as to whether America will ever have such a versatile means of accessing (spaaaaace!!) again anytime soon.
What are your hopes for the future of manned space flight? Do anyone think that Obama's (Guilty! Of not being in Space! Go directly to space Jail!) promise of a Mars mission in 2030 will actually happen? Or will the private sector get there first?
STS-134 (ISS assembly flight ULF6) is the penultimate voyage of NASA's Space Shuttle program. The mission marks the final flight of Space Shuttle Endeavour. This flight will deliver the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer and an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier to the International Space Station. Mark E. Kelly is serving as the mission commander. STS-134 was expected to be the final space shuttle mission if STS-135 did not receive funding from Congress; however, in February 2011, NASA stated that STS-135 would fly "regardless" of the funding situation. The Launch On Need mission, a contingency mission to rescue a stranded STS-134 crew, would be the STS-335 flight, flown by Atlantis.
And it's delivering this, quite possibly the most important scientific instrument since Hubble:
It's designed to find:
Antimatter
Experimental evidence indicates that our galaxy is made of matter; however, scientists believe there are about 100-200 billion galaxies in the Universe and some version of the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe require equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Theories that explain this apparent asymmetry violate other measurements. Whether or not there is significant antimatter is one of the fundamental questions of the origin and nature of the Universe. Any observations of an antihelium nucleus would provide evidence for the existence of antimatter. In 1999, AMS-01 established a new upper limit of 10−6 for the antihelium/helium flux ratio in the Universe. AMS-02 will search with a sensitivity of 10−9, an improvement of three orders of magnitude over AMS-01, sufficient to reach the edge of the expanding Universe and resolve the issue definitively.
Dark matter
The visible matter in the Universe, such as stars, adds up to less than 5 percent of the total mass that is known to exist from many other observations. The other 95 percent is dark, either dark matter, which is estimated at 20 percent of the Universe by weight, or dark energy, which makes up the balance. The exact nature of both still is unknown. One of the leading candidates for dark matter is the neutralino. If neutralinos exist, they should be colliding with each other and giving off an excess of charged particles that can be detected by AMS-02. Any peaks in the background positron, anti-proton, or gamma ray flux could signal the presence of neutralinos or other dark matter candidates, but would need to be distinguished from poorly known confusing astrophysical signals.
Strangelets
Six types of quarks (up, down, strange, charm, bottom and top) have been found experimentally; however, the majority of matter on Earth is made up of only up and down quarks. It is a fundamental question whether there exists stable matter made up of strange quarks in combination with up and down quarks. Particles of such matter are known as strangelets. Strangelets might have extremely large mass and very small charge-to-mass ratios. It would be a totally new form of matter. AMS-02 may determine whether this extraordinary matter exists in our local environment.
Awesome, huh? But with this being the second to last mission for the shuttle program, there are doubts as to whether America will ever have such a versatile means of accessing (spaaaaace!!) again anytime soon.
What are your hopes for the future of manned space flight? Do anyone think that Obama's (Guilty! Of not being in Space! Go directly to space Jail!) promise of a Mars mission in 2030 will actually happen? Or will the private sector get there first?
Zilla360 on
Posts
I was heartily amused.
And no, Obama's space plan will be canceled as soon as the next president comes into office, just like Obama canceled Bush's space plan, because no president wants to carry on a program made by the person they just beat that could make their predecessor famous. I doubt corporations will go there first either, because I don't see a lot of profit on Mars, short of some bizarre super-luxury vacation spot once we figure out how to make it not take a year to get there.
There are few things that make me resent politicians in general more than the lack of enthusiasm for a coherent plan to explore outside our planet.
http://twitpic.com/4yg4ur
You can't even tell them they could be an astronaut anymore. Planetary Sedimentologist just doesn't have the same oomph.
GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
An interesting hypothesis that makes for a nice soundbite but seems beyond confirming.
I think we can depend on private corporate flight to provide at least a little kick, even if it is kind of incredibly backwards to have this sort of exploration resting on their shoulders. Hopefully some problems will be solved and by 20 fucking infinity, when NASA decides to attempt their bold new mission to reach Mars in 45 years it will actually have a chance of happening.
http://troublethinking.wordpress.com (Updated Wed) http://twitter.com/#!/Durandal4532
We've been warned to stay out (of spaaaaaace!) Ending the shuttle program is just part of certain agreements that have been made. /tinfoil hat
It's like two large air masses of stupid colliding and forming a tornado of idiocy, devastating all logic in its path.
"Roger, go at throttle up.":cry:
NPR Science Friday had a good discussion about the shuttle program a couple weeks ago for the 30th anniversary.
The shuttle had to go after Columbia, it's just a flawed design. Sad that it's not being replaced by something even more awesome. Maybe some day.
Metal suit, rail gun, and giant baseball mitt out in space?
Couldn't really see the launch today from where I was at, too much cloud cover
Another reason for hope is that many of the founders of the newer private spacecraft companies are very gung-ho about space exploration. Elon Musk is perhaps the poster boy in this regard, having plans to build rockets capable of launching a manned Mars mission in 20 years [10, on his most optimistic estimates]. "Mars is the ultimate goal of SpaceX."
On a related note:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2oXFWKpJiA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCfemmxqaRg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxsJeND_D-k&feature=related
The Battlebots Thread - It's Alive!
Which I think is a pretty impressive thing in it's own right, since they were first launched in 1966. I wonder if any of the people who worked on it then would have ever even dreamed of it being the world's shuttle to the international space station.
I wonder if there's any truth to this? At least it covers pretty well how the situation developed. Then again it could just be the U.S. government doing what it does best; allocating resources for things like completely unneeded military crap or giving rich people tax breaks, while education and science(which includes NASA) suffer.
No idea. On the other hand, the Soyuz launch platform is, apparently, not just one of the cheapest ways to go into space, but it's also the safest (for the actual passengers, mind you, not necessarily others like ground crew) going by track record. The Space Shuttle, for being so incredible and having such a heavy load capacity, is still responsible for the two worst (as in highest human cost) mission crew disasters thusfar (again, ground crew--different story). Then again, the Soyuz is not a reusable vehicle--so any comparison may very well be apples and oranges. The Soyuz is also an all-weather platform, apparently...
Eeeh...sounds like propaganda. I don't know about the USSR hoping to 'conquer' space anymore than the United States--this sounds like the sort of conspiracy theory propaganda (maybe state sponsored, maybe not) that claims Kaspustin Yar has had decades-long war against UFOs or various blac helicopter stuff. There's no doubt that both sides tried to militarize space, and have succeeded to some extent (both countries have anti-satelite missiles). You've got "Star Wars" and the proposal to use the Buran Shuttles as a weapons platform--so plenty of failed attempts to militarize space on both sides.
Plus, in terms of "space race"--there's no "victor" for the space race. America won the moon race--the Soviets even confirmed it (shortly after Apollo 11, they released their own observational data to confirm that it had happened just as the US desccribed it). That does not mean winning the space exploration race anymore than the USSR could claim to have won the space race because they won the cosmonaut race--i.e. having the first human space traveller (something the US acknowledged). Part of it's semantics, part of it is jingoistic pride you'll find in both sides of the coin.
That being said, the decline of the competitive atmosphere may have seriously hurt the progression of space exploration. It was replaced by slower, less costly cooperation. Then, in the 1990s, the USSR turned into the various separate economies of the CIS, only two of which until quite recently had any interest in space travel (Russia and Kazakhstan). Russia is a much, much smaller economy than the USSR was simply as a matter of scale, even before the Yeltsin Years saw the economy turn to complete ruin. Only recently has Russia really started catching up, since the economy has slowly risen to its feet again, and they're more interested in purely practical applications (satelite launches, payloads, etc.) like keeping the Soyuz constantly updated.
And on the other side, during the good years the US felt less obligation to keep pushing the bar. And then our economy turned to ruin (though not in the same magnitude), to make things even worse. Barring some unforeseen change, it really does seem like everyone will just accept the Soyuz for what it is.
Someone better informed could elaborate (I know there are more than a few guys at this forum who follow it), but it seems like it's really been a few really slow years for any sort of competition.
There's just not a lot of reason to go to Mars, other than the symbolic reasons. Asteroid mining would be something out of scifi that has more obvious use (especially if we can local ones rich in rare elements, and ultimately perhaps water).
It was amazing, really. An ultimate weapon system, the conquest of space, all in one. Cities launched to the stars on nuclear fire, all that.
And the price would have been, well, everything that makes modern society. Computers and comm-tech would be shit.
Road not traveled, I suppose. Still, whenever I think of abandoning the stars to automated probes, well, it cuts a part of the soul right out.
Obviously I meant in the context of space flight and such. You can't include mobile phones and facebook and whatnot into the same category. There's been some progress, it's true, but the pace at which the technology has been progressing is glacial in comparison to what it was 50 years ago.
And it's not like this is endemic to space programs alone, but the general cutting of science funding and support in the U.S. since the space race. It's unfortunate, since a lot of research gets done in the U.S., it's just that it could be so much more if the government actually cared more about education and progress than its ability to wave its dick at the international community.
On a space-related tangent, I do have to wonder if anyone will come up with a way to produce nanotubes on an industrial scale, as it's my understanding that it would enable the creation of a space elevator through hybrid materials and such. Or is this another popular science bullshit image that I've gotten somewhere?
Plus mobile phones rely heavily on satellites, as do many of the revolutions in shipping and logistics we've had over the past 20 years. Intercontinental communication pretty much requires satellites, which has and will continue to be the greatest boon to development and research we've ever had - far more than any Mars mission.
Orion is the most efficient heavy lift design ever conceived, to the best of my knowledge. ALP may beat it. Ion drives certainly beat it in vacuum, but their thrust is balls.
Not really viable for long distances, but it'll get something into orbit pretty cheaply.
As for long distance, there is a type of laser that has a kind of self reinforcing interference pattern (Bezelled, or Bevelled I think - have to dig out the notes, there is a professor at St Andrews university in Scotland who has done a lot of work with it building 'atom traps' that can pick individual cells out of stream and move them elsewhere using it.) - presumably the biggest problem with the ALP propulsion (aside from fuel) is the maintaining the focus and intensity over distance, which this would solve.
edit: Some of the problems you'll need to solve to make this work: Your thrust is very high and is coming in very short time spans. Human bodies don't like that usually. Also, you might want to have a plan for dealing with fallout.
Remember though, this is a project whose goal was a 5000-8000 ton 5 year or so voyage to Jupiter. Thinking about it relative to our current launch systems is doing it a massive disservice.
edit: For spacex, they've made an operational flight of their manned vehicle I believe. Capsule design, 7ish passengers. They're looking at around 50 tons to LEO on their heavy version if I recall correctly and should be much cheaper than the shuttle. If you're looking for something in the lifting body/plane range then I'm not sure what's out there in the realistic near future.
No, the laser one which was "not suitable for long distances but could get something into orbit". I'm all for Orion drives, they make the solar system a lot smaller and give us something to use nuclear stockpiles for.
Obviously you'd want an exclusion zones around planets for political reasons and to prevent accidents - but if we're asteroid mining a few bombs in space is the least of our worries.
"Ok, that's 97% Firefighter, 3% Princess. How do the numbers look for the girls?"
GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
Diffusion in atmosphere isn't a huge deal because you're shooting a multi-gigawatt laser. Even with diffusion (unless someone kicked on a fog machine or something) you've got enough power to burn the tungsten.
(For the record, I'm not a rocket scientist, but I know a couple of them!)
I see the problem in NASA as the reverse. Look at the astronauts of the 50-60s, they were space cowboys. They were pulled from test pilots, drove around in muscle cars. The agency seemed bold, its goal was bold. An agency were the missions are built around a Planetary Sedimentologist is an agency thats grown too timid.
A math major friend once told me that the math that a lot of the research the math field historically is 100+ years of tech advancement away from being meaningful(ex George Boole of Boolean Math fame aka computers died in 1864)), and I feel the same way about a lot of NASAs missions.
As nice as all the various telescopes/sensors/detectors are, they don't tend to generate a ton of practical information. Giving astro-physicist more data to squabble with over the number of folded dimensions need to have string theory work is nice, I can appreciate pure science, but the engineer in me looks at this and goes 'This gets a closer to a moon base/Mars how?'
NASA is spending its resources on studying the rituals and customs of the Zambozi tribe of Eastern Timor, while being such a shut in, its not able to walk to the corner 7-11.
The shuttle was always considered an intermediary vehicle; a platform for doing spacewalks, putting satellites in place, performing experiments, getting to and from stations, etc.
The next vehicles in planning are, supposedly, going to be actual exploration platforms. The sort of thing we might be able to fly to Mars, make back & forth trips to the moon with on a semi-regular basis, etc.
I wouldn't expect it to look / be used like a conventional space vehicle - it'll probably be built in orbit and remain in space for most of it's life.
Exciting and celebratory times, in any case. I look forward to Atlantis's final mission.
Well, it's not necessarily bullshit, but space elevators currently have unresolved engineering problems aside from just the cable construction (and nanotubes themselves are, it turns out, carcinogenic), like how to protect the structure from micro-meteorite impacts and how to get a crawler up and down the cable safely.
We're nowhere near being able to build this sort of thing.
Erm. I'd say SpaceX is the opposite of exciting. The Dragons are just LEO vehicles; The Falcon / Dragon system is essentially just a slimmed-down version of the old Apollo rockets (slimmed down because they don't have Apollo's capability for leaving LEO).
I mean, yes, it's always good to know that we'll continue to have traffic going to the ISS (until the ISS reaches the end of it's lifespan in a couple of years), but we don't have any (realistic) plans from private interests to build something large that will have access to more than what has been standard-fare for space travel - and the reason we don't is because such a vehicle would almost definitely have to be built in space.
Still crazy Scifi plans, but once you've got a factory that can process raw materials up there - preferably one that can build things that can harvest raw material (even if it's just railgunning the moon and catching whatever comes off) then you've drastically reduced the start up cost for other people wanting to do space stuff.
Space-based manufacturing would be an extremely distant step. Consider that you'd have to have a labor force trained to work in space, a body of quality control inspectors also trained to work in space, you'd have to have refinery infrastructure in space if you intend on just using off-world materials (say from NEOs) and you'd need to be able to provide regular maintenance & repair.
Doing all of that requires that we already have a cheap and simple way of getting goods & people off of the planet (like a space elevator).
We'll probably be building structures & spacecraft similar to how we built the ISS for quite a while - fabricate the parts on Earth, send them to LEO, assemble the machine.