The space program we have is a joke

[nec209]

About 5:05 in the video I have no idea what they are talking about ,I'm thinking that may be the they mean microwave and solar is what they are going to use in space.And it looks like a big solar farm that will shine a laser to the craft in space.

 

No idea what aeoospike is or how laser will replace air places.

Edited January 10, 2011 by nec209

[D H]

If this is what you are pinning your hopes on for the future of the space program, the joke is on you.

[nec209]

If this is what you are pinning your hopes on for the future of the space program, the joke is on you.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about or how many gigawatts of power it would take just to take 3 or 4 people up into space and where they are going get that power.

 

And in spae what they are going use Microwave or solar farm that will shine a laser beam to the craft.

Edited January 10, 2011 by nec209

[D H]

It's a flippin' video from History channel or something similar, NEC. Scientists and engineers don't do videos. We do papers. Crackpots do videos.

[nec209]

It's a flippin' video from History channel or something similar, NEC. Scientists and engineers don't do videos. We do papers. Crackpots do videos.

 

Why don't you explain the pros and cons and engineering problems of laser and microwave and why NASA is not using this .Well in 50 or 100 years from now is it possible.Is NASA still doing research into it.

[D H]

Read post #36.

 

Also, it is not my job to debunk something, especially some stupid video. Science and engineering does not work that way. The burden of proof falls on the person making the proposal rather than on a reviewer.

 

Find a paper on this in some peer-reviewed journal, please. Also note that just because something is published in a peer-reviewed journal does not necessarily mean that the science and engineering is solid. A lot of junk does get past peer review. Getting some idea published is the first step in science, not the last.

 

A good step for you would be to get some education in the field. That you don't know why a laser wouldn't work to heat the air once an object gets into space is rather telling -- and rather galling. It takes a lot of gall to say that our space program is a joke when you know next to nothing about getting into space.

[nec209]

Look NASA would not be doing research and other people would not be doing research if on paper laser could work so you are false .It is one think for it to work on paper and other to test and build it .

 

Yes there is engineering problems or NASA would be using it now or in the next 10 to 15 years from now.Again NASA does not give money to crack pot ideas so please go school before posting that this all BS.And explain why NASA was doing research into it.

 

And if you think this is a crack pot idea please look at the 90's x-programs if you even know of what are the x-programs are they are nothing like what I'm posting here..

Edited January 10, 2011 by nec209

[D H]

Look NASA would not be doing research and other people would not be doing research if on paper laser could work so you are false .It is one think for it to work on paper and other to test and build it .

I have asked before for a citation. I am asking again. The money has to be significant (NASA does invest small amounts in crackpot ideas; see below), not an SBIR, and current.

 

Yes there is engineering problems or NASA would be using it now or in the next 10 to 15 years from now.Again NASA does not give money to crack pot ideas so please go school before posting that this all BS.

Yes, they do. The amount of money given to crackpots in the heyday of the Apollo program was quite astounding. NASA has, multiple times, had a Crackpot Ideas Office. It was never called that officially, but that is exactly what it was called by everyone but the tiny number of crackpots who got funded by it. The last incarnation was the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project (canceled, Oct 1 2008). The rationale apparently was that while the odds of any kind of return on investment was very small, a small investment into fringe and even crackpot ideas was worthwhile because of the potential for a huge return. The office keeps disappearing because the money spent, however small, is best spent elsewhere.

 

NASA still does fund the occasional fringy concept through its SBIR/STTR program and through other small programs. The sums are very, very small, by government standards.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2011 by D H

[nec209]

It was the cold war the cold war NASA and air force put alot of money into x-projects among many different propulsion from the 60' s to late 90's and the x-projects in the 90's was high.But the governments cut the program even when research is still being done that is why government does bad job at doing things other than cold war . The x-33 had major problems but now the problems got fixed but guess what it got cancelled and the problems got fixed way after well not surprised has goverrnments are known to do this 50% or 70% into the research .

 

NASA today putts very little money into different propulsion system than like before but it is a mistake among people that think NASA is a agency that is in the rocket science business they are not or even putting people into space.Look if it was not for the cold war we would not be going into space toady but using space probes that are way way way way cheaper than putting people into space.

 

I say this again chemical rockets will not allows us to do space mining,live on the moon or mars ,cities on the moon or mars a moon base so on.Why way way way way way way to costly.And most countries are way more than haping using space probes.

 

so yes the space program is doomed.

Edited January 10, 2011 by nec209

[D H]

No, the space program is not doomed. Just your visions for achieving something akin to Star Trek or Star Wars in the immediate future.

Edited January 10, 2011 by D H

[nec209]

No, the space program is not doomed. Just your visions for achieving something akin to Star Trek or Star Wars in the immediate future.

 

 

What is your definition of space program? My definition of space program is more than just space probes,robots and hubble. And no Star Trek or Star Wars going to other star system or warp drive is way way way way way way beyond are level of technology today.Same with building big SSTO like in scfi and big enterprise D in star trek is way way way way beyond are level of technology today.If any of these are even scientifically possible but I will give them credit that we are too primitive to give reply to this.

 

Look anyone that can bring space cost down by 30% or 50% would get a nobel prize physics.

Edited January 10, 2011 by nec209

[Mr Skeptic]

Nice video how a laser -propelled spacecraft concept would work.

 

Neat. Now they just need to make the most powerful lasers in the world about a million times stronger and we could use them to lift shuttle sized objects 40-50 feet at enormous cost!

[InigoMontoya]

Yes, they do. The amount of money given to crackpots in the heyday of the Apollo program was quite astounding. NASA has, multiple times, had a Crackpot Ideas Office. It was never called that officially, but that is exactly what it was called by everyone but the tiny number of crackpots who got funded by it. The last incarnation was the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project (canceled, Oct 1 2008). The rationale apparently was that while the odds of any kind of return on investment was very small, a small investment into fringe and even crackpot ideas was worthwhile because of the potential for a huge return. The office keeps disappearing because the money spent, however small, is best spent elsewhere.

What he said, Nec209. I can't speak for NASA, but as one who makes his living testing rocket motors for the DoD, I assure you that our government DOES fund crackpot ideas at a low level for precisely the reason stated above. The odds of a payoff are low, but they're willing to fun low-level efforts on the off chance that one of them works. DH mentions the "Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project." On my side of the fence, the efforts would have been under the IHPRPT program (IHPRPT did more than just crackpot ideas, but there were certainly crackpot ideas under IHPRPT.).

 

The government funds crackpot ideas if they're cheap. That is an absolute fact.

 

So how expensive is our "laser heated air in space" concept? Well, let's see.... It's primary piece of equipment is a laser that's left over from the SDI program. Cost? Free. Another hint: Their test set up is primarily outdoors despite the fact that a very cheap building could give them a much safer laser environment, eliminates wind affects and protects their set up from the elements when they aren't testing. Implication? There's no funding for even a simple metal building.

 

In other words.... His funding levels absolutely indicate that nobody at NASA is taking him seriously. He is a crackpot but they keep him around for the PR value.

 

Same with building big SSTO like in scfi and big enterprise D in star trek is way way way way beyond are level of technology today.If any of these are even scientifically possible but I will give them credit that we are too primitive to give reply to this.

 

Look anyone that can bring space cost down by 30% or 50% would get a nobel prize physics.

And heck, not only are you oblivious to a realistic science future, you're oblivious to current science.

 

SSTO? It's been possible for 40 years. It's called the booster for the Atlas rocket. It is SSTO capable... Of course, there isn't much point in sending a booster to orbit with no significant payload and it's not reusable, but that's not the point. Also, pay attention to SpaceX. I think you'll find that they're making huge dents in the cost of space travel but nobody is even mentioning the name Elon Musk and Nobel Prize in the same sentence (this sentence aside, of course).

[nec209]

What what ?? are you saying laser ,nuclear fission ,space elevator and microwave is all crack pot ideas?? And will not bring the cost down and will not work?

 

Neat. Now they just need to make the most powerful lasers in the world about a million times stronger and we could use them to lift shuttle sized objects 40-50 feet at enormous cost!

 

Than why is there research going into it than?

Edited January 11, 2011 by nec209

[InigoMontoya]

What what ?? are you saying laser ,nuclear fission ,space elevator and microwave is all crack pot ideas?? And will not bring the cost down and will not work?

Fission could work but the politics of it are insane.

 

Laser, space elevator, and microwave? That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. They won't bring the cost down and they will not work. At least, not in our lifetimes. Not even close.

 

Than why is there research going into it than?

Because it captures the imagination of the public (see: public relations) and there are other applications to any advances in laser technology (so even if it doesn't work, there are still benefits).

[nec209]

Laser, space elevator, and microwave? That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. They won't bring the cost down and they will not work. At least, not in our lifetimes. Not even close

 

 

What are the the main engineering problems has I do not understand rocket science.What are the main engineering problems to make this from scfi to a reality?

Edited January 11, 2011 by nec209

[Moontanman]

Some in this thread keep harping on NASA and saving money as though all NASA has to do is figure out how to save money and the problems will be all over. NASA is pitifully underfunded, the Iraq war spent more money in a day or two than NASA gets in a year. Cut the cost of NASA by 50% and the funding would still be a joke. Increase it by 500% and it would still be a joke. NASA does incredible things with almost no money, I have an outrageous amount of respect for NASA, if they had received 10% of what is given to the Military in the last 50 years I can't even imagine what they might have accomplished by now.

 

BTW, a nuclear light bulb rocket of the same mass as the Saturn V could send the entire ISS into orbit in one shot with room to spare, i am talking about the entire thing, all the parts. It has taken us decades and many launches and it is still not finished with chemical rockets.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Moontanman

[nec209]

Some in this thread keep harping on NASA and saving money as though all NASA has to do is figure out how to save money and the problems will be all over. NASA is pitifully underfunded, the Iraq war spent more money in a day or two than NASA gets in a year. Cut the cost of NASA by 50% and the funding would still be a joke. Increase it by 500% and it would still be a joke. NASA does incredible things with almost no money, I have an outrageous amount of respect for NASA, if they had received 10% of what is given to the Military in the last 50 years I can't even imagine what they might have accomplished by now.

 

BTW, a nuclear light bulb rocket of the same mass as the Saturn V could send the entire ISS into orbit in one shot with room to spare, i am talking about the entire thing, all the parts. It has taken us decades and many launches and it is still not finished with chemical rockets.

 

I agree 100% but say that to the lobbyist who will like to and at this time have major power doing away of humans in space .The European Union is full of these lobbyist and are in the US now and look at NASA in the past 5 years the 2012 retirement of space shuttle and no replacement yes no replacement the lobbyist are hard at work.

 

Look the UK,European Union,Japan,South Korea, Israel and may be Canada have the technology to put people in space but not the money why to the lobbyist !!

 

Now with China may be Japan and South Korea will have no choice now.

 

By the way what is a nuclear light bulb ?

Edited January 11, 2011 by nec209

[Moontanman]

Nuclear light bulb rocket....

 

http://nextbigfuture.com/2007/07/gaseous-core-nuclear-design-liberty.html

[nec209]

Nuclear light bulb rocket....

 

http://nextbigfuture.com/2007/07/gaseous-core-nuclear-design-liberty.html

 

It has an ISP of 3,060 and leverages existing technology to conservatively deliver 1000 tons to low earth orbit, 33% of its takeoff weight.

 

It flies to space with a thousand tons of cargo, and flies back using some gentle aero-braking and its thrusters with another thousand tons of cargo

.

 

It does not say how it flies back and land?What is gentle aero-braking? Does it land like how it takes off?

[Moontanman]

.

 

It does not say how it flies back and land?What is gentle aero-braking? Does it land like how it takes off?

 

 

It lands the same way it takes off, tail first, used to be a complete discription of the Nuclear Light bulb rocket liberty ship at that site, I'll search and see if i can find it again.

 

The entire article...

 

http://www.nuclearspace.com/Liberty_ship_menupg.html

[InigoMontoya]

What are the the main engineering problems has I do not understand rocket science.What are the main engineering problems to make this from scfi to a reality?

Laser/microwave: They're just a means to transfer energy; that does NOT make them in and of themselves propulsion systems. The laser that you're touting in this thread isn't really a propulsion system. What *IS* a propulsion system is superheated air. The laser just happens to be how they're powering it. But regardless of how you're powering it and how wonderful that power source may be, you still need reaction mass and these concepts have not even begun to realistically address the question of how/where your reaction mass is coming from.

 

Space elevator: Even if tomorrow somebody came up with the wonder fiber that would make the space elevator possible there are other issues. Most notably (IMHO), the proponents of the space elevator forget one of the most fundamental realities... Center of gravity. To get a space elevator to "stand" it's center of gravity must be at a very high orbit. What is it, like 36,000 miles? Which means that to get the center of gravity that high you must have HUGE mass at that same height (slightly above it actually, but who's counting?). Where is this mass going to come from? You can't use the elevator itself to raise it. You have to get it up there. So... Imagine turning to Congress and saying, "Yes, sir. We need to launch approximately 5,000 Saturn V rockets to get a large enough counter weight up to orbit to stabilize the elevator... But after the elevator is in place getting to space will be cheap!" Do you see the problem there?

 

 

I agree 100% but say that to the lobbyist who will like to and at this time have major power doing away of humans in space .The European Union is full of these lobbyist and are in the US now and look at NASA in the past 5 years the 2012 retirement of space shuttle and no replacement yes no replacement the lobbyist are hard at work.

Again, you are oblivious to what's going on TODAY. SpaceX (on a NASA contract) has already flown the first prototype of a manned capsule that will ultimately provide the US with it's manned capability. No, it won't have the same capabilities as the Shuttle but it will be MUCH more cost effective to fly. Will it be ready to go by the time the Shuttle retires? No, but it won't be far off either. Seriously, all the "sky is falling" talk about NASA not having a replacement for the Shuttle is ill informed at best and alarmist at worst. Again, the replacement *has already flown*. True, it was just an unmanned test flight, but the point is that it is well beyond a paper study. It's real. It's happening. And it will be operational in a couple years. Don't take my word for it... READ.

Edited January 11, 2011 by InigoMontoya

[D H]

What are the the main engineering problems has I do not understand rocket science.

THat is exactly why I have taken umbrage at your opening statement that "the space program we have is a joke." You don't know rocket science, and yet you are somehow qualified to make judgments of the quality of our programs? Give me a break.

 

 

What are the main engineering problems to make this from scfi to a reality?

NASA and DoD have developed a nomenclature, the technology readiness level (wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level), for establishing how close some proposed technology is to being useful. One problem I have seen is that purveyors of technology have no clue what this scale means. For example, that NASA has conducted a couple of experiments (failures) with tethered satellites does not mean that the deployment of the space elevator is at TRL 6. Those experiments (a) were failures and (b) used a tether that was about 20 km long; the space elevator is a tether that is about 40,000 km long.

 

That the tether is more than three orders of magnitude longer than anything dealt with outside of paper studies is one huge problem that will need to be overcome with a space elevator. That the tether experiments to date have been less than successful is yet another issue. Whether carbon nanotubes will suffice in reality (as opposed to as on paper) is yet another. The space elevator is at a very low technology readiness level, and the path to a higher level is not at all clear. The same goes for the other technologies proposed in this thread.

 

As for the nuclear light bulb: You know how some movies are in the category of "so bad they're good"? That is the nuclear light bulb.

[nec209]

Mr Skeptic .InigoMontoya and D H I have said over and over here I do not understand rocket science and even if i understood 12% of it most of the questions I would have not ask here.Do to I'm weak in understand rocket science I still do not understand the main engineering problems to make this from scfi to a reality?

 

Only InigoMontoya post above post 72 do I come close to understand some of the engineering problems.So that me summarise if this is right ( ability to read and understand the replies here) .The engineering problems with laser is we do not have a laser powerful enough and we need gigawatt power .So the 2 main problems with laser is it needs enormous power and we do not have a laser powerful enough .

 

Also the leaser will not work in space.So that is 3 main engineering problems why it is scfi and not reality.

 

And from InigoMontoya post on microwave saying that microwave like laser will not work in space has there is no air in space.

 

 

Has for space elevator I read some where on the internet if the cable snapped it would do alot of damage to the earth.The engineering problems on the space elevator I have not read up on.

 

THat is exactly why I have taken umbrage at your opening statement that "the space program we have is a joke." You don't know rocket science, and yet you are somehow qualified to make judgments of the quality of our programs? Give me a break.

 

I don't need any rocket science to say my definition of space program is more than space probes,robots ,hubble and lucky did I say lucky enough money for a space station .My definition of space program is space mining, moon base and space colony and may be in the way way way future going to other star system like in star trek.No I'm not happing with the space program I thought we would have gone to mars by now and be getting into space mining and space colony now.

[D H]

I don't need any rocket science to say my definition of space program is more than space probes,robots ,hubble and lucky did I say lucky enough money for a space station .My definition of space program is space mining, moon base and space colony and may be in the way way way future going to other star system like in star trek.No I'm not happing with the space program I thought we would have gone to mars by now and be getting into space mining and space colony now.

Fine. Convince your congress critters to ante up, and ante up a lot. It would be good to remember that for almost 40 years now, NASA has been running on 1/10 or less the budget they had in the Apollo era. It would also be good to remember that right now, the government is in a huge financial bind and will not ante up. They are looking instead to cut everything except for Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Defense. (In other words, they are looking to cut anything and everything except for the three things that really matter, but that is a different story.) That everything includes NASA.