# Discovery lift-off for 1st July



## Alexa (Jun 18, 2006)

Discovery shuttle was programmed for its lift-off on 1st July. It seems the shuttle is not ready and the experts are not sure about the safety of the crew.




> The launch will be just the second since space shuttle Columbia disintegrated in 2003 and several officials argued that more modifications to the shuttle's fuel tank are needed before flights are resumed.





> Nasa redesigned the tank after the Columbia accident and then again after the first post-Columbia mission last July. Both times, large pieces of insulating foam fell off the tank.




http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5B6C56A7-9EA2-41B5-90CE-905B233CCAFA.htm

Do you think a new type of shuttle could solve NASA's problem  with the fuel tank ? A different design ?

See Discovery below:


----------



## Carolyn Hill (Jun 19, 2006)

I asked a rocket fanatic about the shuttle, and he started swearing about how NASA should have built a Sanger space plane that was semi-developed in World War II by Germany.  Apparently, Sanger immigrated to the U.S. and worked for a space contractor.  But Walter Mondale, who was chair of a Senate finance committee in 1974, refused to come up with the space bucks to build the Sanger space plane, because the shuttle was half the cost that the Sanger would have been.

Redesigning the shuttle so that it could sit on top of the rocket (at the nose), like other successful rockets, and increasing the boost power by using something between a Saturn IB and a Saturn V should (according to the fanatic) solve the problem.

But NASA fired all the people who best know how to build Saturn boosters, and they supposedly destroyed many of the key blueprints.


----------



## Alexa (Jun 20, 2006)

Did he work at NASA, too ?


----------



## Carolyn Hill (Jul 4, 2006)

It launched, it launched, it rose into the sky!!  I even cried (yes, really, a single tear fell all unbidden from my left eye) as the shuttle and launch vehicle passed the sixty mile mark and crossed into space.

I remember when I was a kid in the sixties and watched all the early U.S. space missions launch, and then later, as a teenager, I cut out a newspaper article that said we'd have a human on Mars by 1984.  I saved that article until 1990--then threw it away.  Broken promises, broken dreams.  Now we just limp into space.

But at least there are a few more humans up there in orbit today.  Bittersweet.


----------



## Patrick Mahon (Jul 4, 2006)

Alexa,

The short answer, already alluded to by others, is yes. There are lots of possible designs for ways of getting to orbit, and several would be safer than the Space Shuttle, at least in respect of its recent problems. Don't know if it's still available, but there used to be lots of relevant discussion by people in the know at the alt.space newsgroups in the early 90s, when I was doing my PhD.

At the same time, the reality is that getting into space will always be risky, and if we aren't prepared to accept a 1-2% failure rate, we might as well abandon manned space flight. If you design a ship to be 100% safe, it will tend to be too heavy to carry any useful payload.

However, having watched the launch tonight with great excitement, I don't wish to criticise the shuttle programme tonight. Better to say that there might be better ways to get to orbit once the shuttle is retired.

Cheers,
Patrick.




			
				Alexa said:
			
		

> Do you think a new type of shuttle could solve NASA's problem with the fuel tank ? A different design ?


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 5, 2006)

The trouble with that argument (" there might be better ways to get to orbit once the shuttle is retired") is that the developement should be going on _now_. Can you imagine what the airlines would be like if they waited till their aircraft were falling apart before starting to develope the next generation? If the spaceplane is the next logical step, aerospace companies across the planet are bewailing the lack of orders and lining up unwanted production in deserts. A large research budget, for space rather than military aims, could be held up by governments as _not_ subsidising their companies, while preventing massive layoffs.
Now, I've no doubt that those companies have their own, independant research programs going on, but they can't put up the vast sums nescessary without a solid guarantee that their product will be chosen. Laser launchers? Orbital towers? Never be in place as the last shuttle is declared unsafe. And building more shuttles to that pattern (because it has been shown to work), is a very defeatist attitude. Better can be done; it should be.

I, too, watched the launch; awe-inspiring what a barely adapted ape can do. The shuttle was an enormous advance over the saturns; I'm sure that whatever follows the shuttle won't be the final step either. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken, just because something still better is waiting as materials science, thermal containment, MHD or whatever deliver new possibilities; compromise can push us forwards, even if the pressure isn't as high as nescessity (or pride) It should have been being taken for ten years now, but we got distracted.


----------



## Carolyn Hill (Jul 6, 2006)

chrispenycate said:
			
		

> A large research budget, for space rather than military aims, could be held up by governments as _not_ subsidising their companies, while preventing massive layoffs.



I heartily agree, Chris!


----------



## Paige Turner (Jul 6, 2006)

There was a very interesting segment on Daily Planet—you do all have the Discovery Channel, right?—of a scientist who hopes to attach a ribbon to a sattelite in a geosynchronous orbit, and build a kind of an elevator that can climb the ribbon to move goods and people into space. It seemed like a pretty good idea to me. I don't remember the details, but he anticipated a pretty respectable payload.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Jul 6, 2006)

Brown Rat said:
			
		

> It launched, it launched, it rose into the sky!! I even cried (yes, really, a single tear fell all unbidden from my left eye) as the shuttle and launch vehicle passed the sixty mile mark and crossed into space.
> 
> I remember when I was a kid in the sixties and watched all the early U.S. space missions launch, and then later, as a teenager, I cut out a newspaper article that said we'd have a human on Mars by 1984. I saved that article until 1990--then threw it away. Broken promises, broken dreams. Now we just limp into space.
> 
> But at least there are a few more humans up there in orbit today.  Bittersweet.



Don't worry too much Rat...one day they will find oil on mars, and then we will send everyone there.


----------



## Carolyn Hill (Jul 6, 2006)

LOL, Dustinzgrl!

You know, sometimes I idealize the notion of humanity moving out into space:  exploring new frontiers, going boldly or brashly or bravely--hardy, free-thinking individuals who move up yonder the way early people moved across uncharted oceans or across continents (without the moral problems inherent in wiping out indigenous species).  When I'm idealizing the notion, I gripe that Those in Power thwart space exploration because they don't want us to escape their clutches.

Other times, I'm less idealistic.  A space station, a moon base, an extraterrestrial colony:  these could easily be an authoritarian government's dream, full of survival-related imperatives to restrict a populace's freedoms.  Then I think that, if we can just convince Those in Power that there are myriad possibilities for exploitating people, maybe they'll fund space programs.


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 6, 2006)

Brown Rat said:
			
		

> LOL, Dustinzgrl!
> 
> You know, sometimes I idealize the notion of humanity moving out into space:  exploring new frontiers, going boldly or brashly or bravely--hardy, free-thinking individuals who move up yonder the way early people moved across uncharted oceans or across continents (without the moral problems inherent in wiping out indigenous species).  When I'm idealizing the notion, I gripe that Those in Power thwart space exploration because they don't want us to escape their clutches.
> 
> Other times, I'm less idealistic.  A space station, a moon base, an extraterrestrial colony:  these could easily be an authoritarian government's dream, full of survival-related imperatives to restrict a populace's freedoms.  Then I think that, if we can just convince Those in Power that there are myriad possibilities for exploitating people, maybe they'll fund space programs.


Pardon the cynicism but one of the big problems in colonizing Luna, at least, is working out who gets what slice of the pie. That would be the ideal cache for nuclear weapons, with the elimination of launching against the earth's gravity well. So we'll continue to squabble over that one for a long time to come, I fear. And colonization elsewhere is likely to remain prohibitive for far too many reasons to go into at this point, at least for the forseeable future. Much as I'd hoped to see it in my lifetime, I'm afraid I'll be long dead before we take that step. I hope we take it in time to do us some good (though I'm sure we'll foul up whatever nest we establish for a long time to come before we grow up enough to learn better, if we ever do), but I won't be around to see it. Makes me sad, it does. But then, so does so much else with our infantine behavior. We still tend to behave as if we're playing by the same rules as we did over 2000 years ago, but with toys with considerably more destructive potential -- not only weapons, but technologies in general (including medical/biological) -- and with a propinquity brought about by modern transportation that doesn't allow for a cooling-down period between first strike and overreaction. Will we survive it? Probably. But, to quote Bette Davis: "Fasten your seatbelts; it's going to be a bumpy night!" (And I use the term night in obvious reference to our continued benightedness....)


----------



## dreamwalker (Jul 6, 2006)

Would you pay 100% tax so that your nation had had a booming space program? or a significantly better one? I would, you would too probably, but I doubt Mr and Mrs everyday joe and jane would...

Don't blame the governments for problems with the space industry, like all things, if you really want to achieve a goal, you've got to really want it first.


As for the space shuttle, The problem with it is that when it was designed, the CIA wanted it to have the capiblity to deploy (spy?) statilites and as they where footing the majority of the R&D bill, NASA could do nothing but oblige. Because the shuttle is so big (only 1/10th of its volume is actually living space) it basts off in an extremely violent way, in a vertical way, in an expensive way, and in a not particulary safe way.

The shuttle retires in 4 years, within a year, a working, smaller, cheaper plane like shuttle will be in place - launches won't be as glorious as they are now, but they'll be a hell of a lot more freqent.


For the rest of us, who's heard of Virgin Galactic?


----------



## dreamwalker (Jul 6, 2006)

On your point on claiming luna worthington, whats the current deal on how antartica is managed.
Considering that the moon really doesn't provide anything more than silica and frozen water, comparing it with how antartica isn't actually sovereign territory to anyone would be a starting point in figuring out your questions on real estate - 

Antartica - population: scientists, tourists and explorers...


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 6, 2006)

dreamwalker said:
			
		

> On your point on claiming luna worthington, whats the current deal on how antartica is managed.
> Considering that the moon really doesn't provide anything more than silica and frozen water, comparing it with how antartica isn't actually sovereign territory to anyone would be a starting point in figuring out your questions on real estate -
> 
> Antartica - population: scientists, tourists and explorers...


The two aren't quite in the same category, however. Anyone who has "too much" of a slice of Antarctica, as it were, would have certain scientific advantages, etc. And, true, one could build a good nuclear arsenal there. However, splitting up the moon (which may still remain the most viable option for a way station, space stations would eventually have decaying orbits, etc.) is considerably more problematic. Any country holding a large portion of the moon would be able to set up such an arsenal, and it's a heck of a lot easier and more economical to produce and deploy such arms from the surface of the moon, once raw materials are transported there, and laboratories are established. Or even if they simply transport preconstructed weapons, it would give a tremendous advantage. While it's not quite like "dropping rocks out of a building on someone's head", it's not too far off. Our gravity well makes it much more difficult to fight back; and any power that began such shenanigans would pretty much have the run of things for a good while ... a good, long while. That advantage is likely to make the wrangling over the moon as a base especially contentious; as the smaller countries are more than ever going to live under the axe of the larger ones; and the big boys tend to play by their own rules....


----------



## dreamwalker (Jul 6, 2006)

Your saying that the moon would be fought over because governments would want to have a larger area on the moons surface in which to launch nuclear missiles from?

Simple conservation of energy means that eventualy, it'd be no cheaper (gavitational potencial energy wise) launching them from submarines than it would be from the moon as all the raw material would come from the same place.


As for the dark side of the moon however, that has it's own advantages.... 

But either way i'm all up for a war on the moon


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 6, 2006)

dreamwalker said:
			
		

> Your saying that the moon would be fought over because governments would want to have a larger area on the moons surface in which to launch nuclear missiles from?


 
Not "would be"; has been and continues to be. Started even before we'd gone into orbit for the first time, which is why Sputnik scared the crap out of the U.S.



> Simple conservation of energy means that eventualy, it'd be no cheaper (gavitational potencial energy wise) launching them from submarines than it would be from the moon as all the raw material would come from the same place.


 
I'm assuming you mean it'd be cheaper to launch from subs than from the moon's surface. Initially, that's quite correct. But fuel consumption of the rockets alone would be cut by a drastic amount, not having to contend with the initial gravity-well problems in launching, and with minimal bursts necessary for a "glider" principle once it begins to use that gravity well to aid its descent -- a much, much longer and more rapid rate of descent than if launched from anywhere on the earth's surface. And cost has scarcely been much of a factor where arms are concerned, considering that most countries give a rather large and unspecified budget to their various defense departments -- here, even Congress has no idea what they're voting on most of the time -- it's blacked out, even the sums for large programs; while the overall charge must be seen, where it's divided up is something only a very few have any idea about. So a lot of cuts in one department or a few in many, would free up enormous amounts of money for furthering development of such an arsenal.



> But either way i'm all up for a war on the moon


 
Not I. I have an allergic reaction to scorched earth policies. Especially when it's both literal and pervasive.


----------



## dreamwalker (Jul 6, 2006)

I was happy just sticking with GPE (gravitational potencial energy) conservation but theres plenty of tactical reasons why a submarine would be a better nuclear launching platform than anywhere on the moon.

If your not launching from the polar, or dark sides of the moon, everyone on earth would know where your bases are, no need for spy statilies there - direct line of sight means Mr Amateur Astronomer could find the least discreet sites.
Finding a submarine is extremely difficult, even most of the people on the submaries don't even know where they are.
When you launch your missiles, if there not traveling extremely fast (meaning more rocket fuel for the acceleration than a ground based launch), anyone, even MR Amateur Astronomer could have enough time to spot it before it reached the earths atmosphere (hours/days). If Mr Amateur Astronomer has enough cash, a more advance version of the patriot missile, or even a high altitude nuclear explosion would be enough to intercept a luna launched missile.
For the same reason, your sand would already be glass by the time your missiles hit, when compared to a submarine, launching ICBM's a few miles away from your cost. 
How would you sustain a station, logitically, surely you'd be sending a few trips to the moon for food and/or repairs every so often. My guess is one space trip would probably cost less than a submarine out at sea for a year...
Coming back to GPE, I really do not agree with your idea that costs overtime decrease. Unless you can mine and manufacture on the moon, everything you will need, would have to be blasted into space, ^^ie the same fuel an ICBM would use but instead, all the way to the Moon, Sure your gunna use less fuel to break the gravitational well when you eventually launch your missiles, but for reasons previously mentioned, that would probably be far than adiqate.
The more sites you have on the moon, the more these costs multiply.
Sure, theres plenty of military and statigic reasons of having luna territory, for some Luna war, or war outside of the Earths atmosphere that may be fought over at some later time, but right now, i'm pritty happy with my Trident ICBM's for now.


----------



## YOSSARIAN (Jul 6, 2006)

This is a question for anyone who knows a lot about space travel-Have human explorations into space (manned or unmanned) reaped any tangible improvements to our lives?  And this isn't a loaded question-I don't ask this as a subtle criticism of space travel.  I'm not a big follower of shuttle missions-for some reason it doesn't interest me-but I hate being ignorant of what space travel has done for humanity.  All I can think of is Tang. I hate Tang.


----------



## dreamwalker (Jul 6, 2006)

YOSSARIAN said:
			
		

> This is a question for anyone who knows a lot about space travel-Have human explorations into space (manned or unmanned) reaped any tangible improvements to our lives? And this isn't a loaded question-I don't ask this as a subtle criticism of space travel. I'm not a big follower of shuttle missions-for some reason it doesn't interest me-but I hate being ignorant of what space travel has done for humanity. All I can think of is Tang. I hate Tang.


Velcro (sp?)


----------



## YOSSARIAN (Jul 6, 2006)

I forgot about Velcro.  Velcro definitely falls into the "extremely useful" category.


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 6, 2006)

Well, there have been numerous advantages gained from medicine, technology, physics, biology, radiation science.... actually, a few years ago there was a survey done to find out the number of advances we'd gained from the space program, by some Congressmen who were in favor of shutting ot down. After coming up with several thousand things that have proved useful in everyday life, not to mention a huge chunk of things that have saved lives (some of the heart valves have been offshoots of some of the technologies used in space exploration, for instance), these same Congressmen started pushing a bill to massively increase the budget for same program. I'm pretty sure that, if you looked into it, you could find at least a partial list of such, or perhaps get it from the Government Printing Office here.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 6, 2006)

Velcro (like Araldite, a Swiss invention; they're good at making things stay together) predates by a fair amount space travel. It was patented in 1955, but had been developed since 1948.
The only real advantages directly atributable to space (ignoring the oft cited "non-stick" coating) are communication or scanning based; intercontinental television, cheaper, faster telephone networks, all the Clarke orbit gifts, and improved weather forecasting, rainforest loss figures (plus, evidently, accurate information on weapons of mass destruction if you consider that a gain) 
But that's not what I came to talk about. The major problem of re-entry is atmospheric friction, and heat. Admittedly, with an H-bomb, we're not attempting to keep frail organic lifeforms alive through the descent, or arrive at zero velocity at zero meters above the Earth's surface, which helps. Even so, an atomic weapon relies on a chemical explosive to force those bits of plutonium together, and at a couple of thousand degrees most chemical explosives become unreliable . (remember, in "the moon's a harsh mistress" they were "dropping rocks on them"; pure kinetic energy) Add that a missile leaving the moon is easily detected, and on a pretty predictable trajectory, making interception relatively easy (of course, if it's a rock, interception is relatively futile, too.) Add that the missiles would also require the energy of the moon's escape velocity (much lower than the earth's, but considerable nonetheless) twice, once to soft land them, once to relaunch. Energy-wise (did I really use that atrocious americanism? I will immediately go and hang myself) it would be cheaper to leave them hanging around with the rest of the junk in LEO. There are relatively few nations who could damage more than one or two of them up there, and they'd have continuous telemetry telling you if anyone tried. Decaying orbits? They're bound to burn up on re-entry if not precisely calculated, and a bit mor vaporised plutonium in the atmoshere? 100.000 years and it'll have decayed. A bit embarrassing if someone takes control of your launch sequence and wipes out Cleveland, but that's a risk with any of these systems. (or possibly an opportunity  ) Mind you, kinetic energy weapons might do the job, given pinpoint accurate guidance systems, and there the material could definitely be mined on the moon (Heinlein got it wrong. You don't need steel for a linear accelerator, any metal, indeed any conductor will doo the job. There's plenty of aluminium ready to be smelted on the moon's surface) No radioactivity, relative immunity to interception, cheap and fast to mass produce, O-level physics. Couple of tons on Jerusalem, and you've got fanatics from three religions after your blood.

There is no dark side to the moon. As a matter of fact, it's all dark


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 6, 2006)

The voice of sanity reenters. Bless you, Chris.

Now, if only our politicos understood the facts (on _anything_, not just this), I'd feel a lot better. But I fear that, practical or not, most nations with such capabilities are still likely to see the moon and a possible set of colonies up there as potential military bases/armaments caches. I hope I'm wrong. But I doubt it.


----------



## Carolyn Hill (Jul 6, 2006)

Being somewhere between idealistic and cynical today, I'm going to hope that governments fund progams in order to build totalitarian bases (perhaps threatening to drop rocks on Earth), and then the residents of the base revolt and become free-thinking (and refrain from dropping rocks). 

But, like Chris mentioned, that's _The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress_, slightly revised.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 6, 2006)

Voice of sanity, me? _checks face in mirror; yes, it's the one I was eypecting: and takes pulse_
But actually, I'm looking forward to the results of the "high ground" mentality. It they develope the launch vehicles, if they have soldiers up there that need support staff there's a limited period of time they can continue without canp follo… ahem, civilian support staff, and rotating soldiers home for R&R is economically nonviable so - Bingo! Colony. Oh, I won't see it, probably no-one here now will, but military outposts that have transformed into the front line for further exploration have been known in the past; admittedly generally when there were trading possibilities the other side of the frontier. 
And military budgets are _so_ much more interesting than space ones. After all, if your taxes are going to be spent by the military anyway, why not get the edges of space out of it? And when the research is done (and the risks have been taken by those who are paid to take risks - oops, wrong way to look at it, but I'd be happy to take those risks, if my physical form would allow it, or if they thought I'd be in any way useful) it is only a question of time before the money people spot the opportunities for profit, and then we're off.


----------



## dreamwalker (Jul 6, 2006)

I refuse to subscribe to the idea that military intentions against the earth or any terra based nation would be the spark for any collonisation of the Moon simply because if it were such a practical idea, there would have already been an arms race and feaverent development on there probably progenerating the cold war.

My reference to the dark side of the moon is the common term given to the side which perminatly faces away from the earth, which I could imagine would be of some value, something that a Luna based war could be fought over... But this would all happen after the moons initial collonisation, through methods similar to how Antartica has semi perminant residents, people who actually want to be there, supported by enties who actually value there presence and there work there. 

Either way, if a nation (probably china) did decide to set up bases on the moon, military funding would be the most likely source of funding however national pride would probably be the most significant attribute gained from that endevour as I wouldn't be more worried about rocks dropping from the moon than ICBM's launched from nuclear submaries.

Are mass drivers really that practical? moon based artilery would probably be more effective as thered be less moving parts. Given the likely length of the accelerator and moderate size of projectices, actually aiming it would be an improbible task.
And don't forget about the daily 12 hour window of opertunity to actually fire (if you actually intend to hit somewhere specific)
More a general dooms day device for a likely super vilain I imagine. *o?*


----------



## dreamwalker (Jul 6, 2006)

On second thoughts I suppose you could ark siad projectile around the earth (similar to the gliding path of the shuttle) so it could hit suface targets beyond the direct line of sight of the rail gun, burning off most the the projecties mass in a direct re-entry or significantly reducing it's impact speed in a shallow re-entry resulting in a minor metorite crater the size of a small garden... Weapon of mass destruction?
Maybe a Luna based Laser?


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 6, 2006)

_Really evil laugh Someone's landed on one of my speciality subjects!_ 
Yes, a mass driver is practical. When I was at university, one of the profs (not one of mine, he was elec. eng., but everybody knew him, and his incidental lectures were a treat) Was Prof. Laithwaite, the inventor of the linear accallerator (the basis for the mass driver and the bullet train) He would bury metal bolts in the concrete walls of the lecture hall with his gadget. Of course I built one, with a piece of plastic drainpipe and some copper wire unwound from a transformer, hardly an optimum design, but it could easily project a ball bearing or similar metallic object at mack 2.5 (about 750 metres/sec) As the ejection velocity is a function of the length (well, the distance between the last two coils actually) and the frequency of the applied polyphase current, and the escape velocity of the moon is a mere 2.350 metres/sec, with no air resistance to worry about a track of a kilometre or so would give us ample speed, ant an utterly predictable trajectory. It would require a reliable, stable, polyphase (all my experiments were done with three-phase, but a six or twelve would work even better) power supply, a mechanically rigid mounting for each of the coils (the acceleration force is transferred into the coils themselves, and it's utterly critical that the centres remain in a straight line, and that the spacing of the coils remains reasonably fixed) and that the projectile itself have a sufficiently high percentage of high conductivity material. 
The eddy currents induced into the conductor produce a magnetic field which is equal to and opposite the coil in which it finds itself, from which it is repelled towards the next one, which attracts it. As it passes through the second coil, the current in this one changes, and so on, all along the track. No moving parts except the projectile itself (and if that doesn't move the exercise is somewhat futile). With the bullet train, after a short acceleration section, the coils are equally spaced, so it runs at a constant speed. With the linear accelerator, the spacing between each pair of coils is increased in an exponential series, so acceleration continues until the projectile leaves the end of the series, at which point it's velocity is known far more accurately than that of something propelled by chemical explosives.
Obviously, for something massive enough that it would reach the earth's surface without burning out, the current through the coils would be considerable; we're not talking small generator. And I'mnot entirely convinced that chaos factors (inequality of atmospheric shock waves, and the like ) wouldn't make it considerably less accurate than R.A.H. predicted, but it would probably land within a hundred kilometres of where it was aimed; same country, anyway. And if you think a kilometre of track would be easy to see, or sabotage (or even a fifty kilometre if you want to keep currents lower) remember, no flash, just a rapidly dissipating magnetic field, and somethint whose long axis subtends less than a second of arc…


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 6, 2006)

I may be sticking my neck out here, but I'm going on what information I have. Sad(?) to say, military spending is the only thing that ever got the space program going in the first place, dating back to the early rocket experiments and later V-2s. Militarism and expansion of spheres of influence are the major forces in history, in one way or another. These, of course, are often pushed by need for lebensraum, but more often for economic or political advantage, hence the use of military force to get the other side to see things your way. It's the same aggressive instinct that allowed us to survive almost insurmountable odds as we evolved from the earlier mammals, so it's not entirely to be deplored; but we do need to learn to channel it more constructively; in many ways our mentality remains stuck somewhere around 3000 B.C. (not tactically, but basic thinking patterns on this subject). So, I repeat, yes, it will be those very advantages that will get anything like a colony going -- anywhere! Unless a government can see such an advantage, they will be extremely unlikely to pony up that kind of moolah. That's just not how they work, nor can they afford to work otherwise. Idealism is very nice, but unfortunately a truly pacifistic approach puts you in the position of the lamb to the slaughter in the long run -- until humankind actually evolves out of this, at any rate; which is not going to happen anytime in the foreseeable future. (I hate saying this; I believed very much in pacifism for a long time, and have taken part in protest marches, written petitions, voted for, etc.; but the more I learn about human history, the more I've been driven into this camp.)

This is not to say that the propaganda won't be on humanistic grounds. The Civil War here was not fought to free the slaves, contrary to popular opinion. It was for economic advantage of the North over the South, and to prevent a permanently separate and hostile country being established just across a state's border. A lot of good people died to free the slaves, or to defend the South's right to make its own decisions (remember, Lee made it known he did not support slavery, and felt this was not anywhere near the crux of the war; as he put it, very few of those under his command owned slaves or could have afforded them, and they most certainly wouldn't have fought for something that was of no advantage to them; but they resented the North telling their supposedly sovereign state governments how to run things in their own territories), but slavery was not what the Civil War was about. It was the pretext, not the fact. Look behind the hoopla and you'll find that just about every war in human history is driven by these factors; the Crusades, etc., as well as any others. I don't see this changing anytime soon -- and by soon I mean in the next few millennia.


----------



## dreamwalker (Jul 6, 2006)

My friend who was UCL (university college london) has recently applied for a patent for a Mass Driver like invention that used a rotating dounut that when a current was applied to the base plate, and the subsecent sections of the central section, the rotating donut projectile would accelerate, and apparently at a far higher G than the standard rail gun - he mesured the G by the temperature of the impact plate (the device was only 30cm in length). 
Anyway, a projectile would get extremely hot leaving a rail gun of your size, steel would probably glow, due to G or eddy currents indused by the acceleration. If not glow, it'd have a big enough infared signature that would surely stand out against the Luna back drop.....


Hell, wheren't we taking about the space shuttle anyway, or should we get a room?


----------



## dreamwalker (Jul 6, 2006)

j.d. Worthington, I 110% agree with your last post, I was really nit picking on your assumtion that the moon would be a stategic assest for any military event on Earth, thus, any progression to having Moon based collonies would need some new model > with new types of war to follow, and from that perective, the one of mankinds continued progression - that would be extremely interesting to follow, if it indeed happens within any of our lifetimes.


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 7, 2006)

dreamwalker said:
			
		

> Hell, wheren't we taking about the space shuttle anyway, or should we get a room?


 
It's all relative...  

As to your answer to my post -- well, that was more or less what I'd meant all along, although I think for a good long while it would be an earth-based government that would be calling the shots. Anyway, all of this is good grist for any writers on the forums who wish to do some heavy-duty thinking on the issues, whether they agree with any of us or not. Who knows, this sort of discussion may spark the next Heinlein or Niven or ... Besides, it's interesting to see differing opinions; there's always more to learn...


----------

