btw: I have a funny story about a Russian Mars probe that was a big "oops." It landed to collect air, photo and soil samples. The first thing it does is pop its lense cap off. So, guess where the soil sample collector tries to strike "pay dirt?"
I wonder how we'll get large scientific apparatus in space without the shuttle. We've put ourselves in a bit of a box. Right now, there is no heavy lift alternative. And I don't like the idea of depending on the Russians for anything. I've have no objection with cooperation, like we're having now, but their program is operating on a wing and a prayer, chewing gum and paperclips. In short, as we all know, they're broke. Brilliant... but broke.
Space elevators. There was an earleir thread with good links on it, but for now, try these: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htm http://www.techtv.com/news/scitech/story/0,24195,3370398,00.html http://www.spacedaily.com/news/future-01f.html http://www.eurekasci.com/SPACE_ELEVATOR/Space_Elevator_Homepage.html http://members.aol.com/Nathan2go/SPELEV.HTM well, you get the point. try google, space elevator, etc.
Man oh man, me and my ranking problems. I think in terms of the following ratio: what we expected what we then got ... you'd have to give P10 some serious consideration. But I'm not really trying to knock any other mission. ... (Unless it was a Republican-backed mission, of course).
Thanks, Jay. I'm going to check those out. I read Arthur C. Clarke's "Fountains of Paradise" in '78 when it came out. (thank you once again, Science Fiction Book Club) The guy is incredibly prescient. This is an idea my kids may live to see (or their kids, lol), and not that farfetched, but the cost would be astronomical. I'm concerned with what we are going to do now if the shuttle is deemed unsuitable for further use. We're down to 3 and I doubt they will build another. We need another heavy lifter and soon.
Me too fat and lazy to read. Does being on both sides of the atmosphere have no effect (me also stupid, so don't know exactly how to word this, but you know how things burn up during re-entry...)?
I don't think it would burn up if you were only going 25mph or something like that. The problem with reentry now is the speed, it is a friction thing. The air is "rubbing" against whatever is reentering the atmosphere, at really high speeds there is a lot of friction which creates all of the heat. I think. That pic on NASA is crazy, how would you possibly stabilize the thing? Tie it up to the moon? If it fell over at least there would be a cool bridge from Florida to Australia.
Ball bearings...it's all ball bearings these days. Seriously, though, here's a little more info: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html
http://gateway.alternatehistory.com/essays/OrionProblems.html Stumbled across this article and thought it was a fairly interesting concept. Seems that 21st century tech. could produce this ship, obviously it would have to be launched from orbit. It would be about the only positive use for nuclear weapons, but there are still many problems with the idea of course.
There was a good article on nanotechnology in Sunday's Chronicle: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/health/1799940
