Given the costs there's no point going just for the sake of going. At out current tech level what is sending a crewed mission to Mars going to tell us that the rovers can't?
"Yup. That tasted purple."
That we can do it? There wasn't much a bunch of satellites and rovers couldn't tell us about the Moon yet we went there.
The moon is also several hundred times easier to get too.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Tom: The race to the moon had more than a few objectives beyond just going there. You should frankly know better.
The sea was incredibly dangerous on the old sailing ships. Many were lost to the sea on a regular basis. We still lose ships to the waters but by and far they are a lot safer than they used to be. However the sea is a lot more forgiving than space. You don't develop bone loss, brain damage, vision damage, heart issues, bladder stones, extensive muscle atrophy, and other issues being at sea for a few months.
There is a world of difference between knowing and pointing out the reality of the situation and your constantly pointless insistence on wanting to wave the international pecker like an overly enthusiastic banner runner at a pep rally. Suicidal and poorly prepared trips to Mars achieves nothing other then condemn some bunch of people to a likely rather unpleasant death.
Like Immy notes the moon is a lot closer and we had to plan carefully for that.
Again there isn't a lack of will there is a lack of extant technology and study on the matter. In case you missed it this is a rather important topic among the nations in general. You know again those new propulsion technologies, health studies in regard to prolonged micro gravity exposure and exposure to radiation in space, studies on computers and expendables in space, a form of medically induced hibernation, construction in space, and quite a large number of other studies which are all topics of study right now and their purpose is to build the knowledge base to take us a lot further than the moon. We didn't just say fuck it and lob someone at the moon for shits and giggles. The program had all the US efforts from the first V2 to snap pictures from space to Red stone to early stages of the Apollo program.
There is no magical technology in existence that will get anyone to mars in a manner that isn't likely to cause notable harm or death to the crew.
edited 16th Sep '17 6:11:00 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
As of 1957 it wasn't. We knew fuck all about space travel then. We didn't know what we were doing period and yet 12 short years later, not 30, not 50, not another century, we had footsteps on the Moon.
From scratch and theories to men on the Moon in 12 years using only rudimentary physics knowledge and engineers' slide rules. No supercomputers, no fancy quantum technologies, nothing of the modern day as we know it. You mean to tell me 60 years of rocketry and space travel experience means nothing? It's a six month travel to Mars, we can build the craft to get there in space, we've learned how to do that by way of the ISS. Mars also has the requisite resources for both return and in time colonization. The effects of long term zero-G travel are well-known, and we've developed countermeasures for it also via the ISS (and previously Mir).
There's nothing impossible about going to Mars or anywhere in this Solar System. The only reason we're not trying is we lack the will. Go look at the (cancelled) Constellation program. Next generation spacecraft, ready to begin building and planning for future endeavors beyond the old Space Shuttle. This wasn't Buzz Aldrin's Apollo capsules from 50 years ago, it was the beginning of something new. But because of an abject idiot in charge of the White House in 2009, it got canned and manned spaceflight got set back a good decade.
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Sorry Tom, any trip beyond the moon is gonna be going one way for a very long time.
And frankly there's no point in sending dead men to Mars.
Oh really when?
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Tom: No it is not possible for us to go to Mars at this point. Where you got this hair brained idea into your head is beyond the realm of reason. WE DO NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY, PERIOD! You are so out of touch with reality on this it is hilarious. You quite apparently haven't been paying any attention at all to space development in the last decade at all.
They were not using rudimentary physics in case you missed the part where they had Nazi rocket scientists helping us build our space rockets in the first place. They did use computers for manned space flight but hey you and details Tom. It is also more than 12 years by good chunk and they spent a lot of time studying the math, physics, and the bare basics to get out to the moon. You also have no understanding at all at the vast difference in traveling to the moon and traveling to Mars. It is apples in oranges in scope, scale, cost, requirements, and hazards.
No Tom there are not countermeasures to Zero G health issues. The space stations is where the astronauts are developing the problems in their prolonged stays, where the hell did you think they did the initial testing and who were the first to be studied in the first place? It is where they sent that astronaut twin to sit up there for a very long time frame and we already are getting information back that prolonged time in space is not good for people.
Manned space flight has a shit ton of limitations like mass, expendables, the fact the squishes inside can die or develop notable health issues from exposure too much radiation and prolonged micro-gravity, need a lot of effort to be supplied for the really long journey in space to mars even one way, need even more equipment and training we don't even have for such a trip, we don't have any craft designs that can be realistically built at this point, basically we do not have the capability.
The ISS as it is now was built piece meal and it has taken years to do even that. We still aren't done building the damn thing in case you missed yet more facts and details. We are also doing tests and experiments on it right now to develop technologies for future long range manned space face. Gee i wonder why they would do such a thing. Maybe it is because we don't have the tech to do it.
You know the whole purpose of a more than few of the projects regarding manned space flight over the last decade has been in part to help develop the technology we need to realistically make that trip not your pure fantasy suicide run.
We have 60 years of rocketry...most of it is launching things that have no people aboard at all. Your purely imaginary notion of lack of will is just that purely imaginary because you have no idea what you are talking about in the slightest.
There is no magic pill, no super tech, no unique or well suited expendables options, no practical propulsion tech to make it truly viable, no return option, no colonization option, no UFO technology in a dark government basment, and frankly no real chance right now of it succeeding.
Tom saying you are lost in the sauce is an understatement. Sauce wouldn't be dense enough. Your lost in hardened reinforced cement.
edited 17th Sep '17 5:34:06 AM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
Hell, for a grossly oversimplified version, fire up Kerbal Space Program. It's basically an arcade game compared to reality, but it can help visualize how much harder interplanetary travel is than just visiting our moon. Anyway, first, land on the Mun. Pretty easy, right? Now get your Mun guy back home. A little harder, but still pretty easy. Now go to Duna. Getting trickier, but unlike humans, Kerbals can spend months or even years in deep space with no ill effects, so you can take your time and simply wait if you realize that that you didn't launch when Kerbin and Duna are close. Now get him back home. THAT is where it gets tricky. You have to use only what rocket you can bring from home instead of anything you can cram on a launch pad, fight far more gravity than on the Mun, fight an atmosphere, and have much more fuel left for exit and entry burns. And this is just looking at simplified rockety factors, without dealing with such insignificant details as food, water, fighting off muscle and bone decay, and half a million other things.
Now imagine that logistics are way harder, asparagus staging isn't a magic free boost to efficiency with perfect and instant fuel pumps, planets and atmospheres and gravity wells are much larger and further apart, budgets are much tighter, and we don't have the technology nearly as mature (or flawlessly reliable).
You could maybe make the argument that there's been a lack of commitment to space flight in terms of federal budget allocation. Maybe.
But then, just throwing more money at the problem isn't just going to magically solve it. You can put as many people on a research program as you want, it'll still take a long, long, long time.
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
Been out of town doing CAP stuff for a few days, so I'm gonna weigh in on a few separate thoughts:
Seafaring is many orders of magnitude simpler than space travel. For one thing, your ship does not need any fuel to get anywhere. You can also get more food on the way by fishing or hunting. In other words, your logistical needs are substantially easier to deal with for a variety of reasons.
Second, we were hardly starting from scratch in the 1950s. Humanity had put rockets into space in the early 1940s already, with spacecraft capable of traveling all the way to London. I'm also curious about the use of computers in the space program, considering the Army and Navy were already using computers in battlefield conditions during the early 1940s, including computers which continued to see use into the 1990s. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying, I'm pretty sure they had access to a variety of computers if they needed them, and that the sciences of rocketry and astronomy were perhaps a bit more advanced than you seem to think.
Also, regarding throwing more money at the problem, what money? We've got quite a few other bills that need paying. For example, our wars overseas, which cost no small amount of money, or infrastructure repairs which are badly needed. The Coast Guard lacks the resources to keep folks from running drugs into the country by sea, and is asking for tens of billions for new cutters. On that note, there's also that big wall which is somehow going to solve some problem we have.
edited 17th Sep '17 4:34:42 PM by AFP
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
AFP: When we had the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics they ran UNIVAC computers and that organization was what NASA replaced and NASA also used UNIVAC computers at the start. NASA has had and used computers from the very beginning. They even put computers into orbit on Gemini Missions the 2nd of the US manned missions in the form of guidance computers to help control the craft. Even our manned trips to the moon had computers in the craft. They also had some of the first and largest computer centers in the US for a long time.
As for advanced again there is a vast world of difference between what we have been doing and have done vs the manned trip to Mars. Manned missions have significantly greater number of complications and challenges to tackle before we can make it. Last I checked we are still finding out what those challenges exactly are. From Logistics concerns, negative health impacts, to limits of current propulsion technology. That is why in the last decade + NASA and other organizations have been working tech and studies related to all of those fields. Not only to find out what our actual obstacles are but to quantify the problems and develop solutions for them. That includes the possibility of medically induced suspended animation or similar states for long term travel to not only help with the consumables issue but to reduce overall stress on the crew. New food and material for maintenance technology. New propulsion so we don't need the massive chemical rocket set up with the large scale difficulty in lofting sufficient material. New ideas for rad shielding, etc.
edited 22nd Sep '17 4:58:40 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
SE Region Members Target Communications, Aerial Missions in Irma-Battered Puerto Rico
I'd just like to point out that at least one of the CAP folks pictured in the article setting up the antenna is a cadet (visible collar insignia). Judging by looks alone, the other two folks in the grey cammies are also cadets. Just in case you're curious if the youth of today are very community-minded.
The author seems to be mixing up two hurricanes. Irma and Maria aren't the same storm.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
True, but they did both hit Puerto Rico in the past couple of weeks. Puerto Rico Wing hasn't had a chance to get out of disaster recovery mode since Irma blew through.
Boeing contracts with UK Military at risk following Bombardier tariff decision
Sir Michael Fallon made the comments after the US opted to impose a tax on the C-Series jet made by Bombardier.
The proposed 220% import tariff could threaten Bombardier jobs in Belfast.
Rival Boeing had complained that Bombardier had received unfair state subsidies from the UK and Canada.
So what started as an attempt by Boeing to price a rival out of the market looks like it could backfire.
"Yup. That tasted purple."
By Allison Barrie, Fox News
Silent, invisible, deadly. The powerful ATHENA laser weapon can destroy enemy threats within seconds. It just destroyed five Outlaw drones.
For the United States, thanks to pioneering efforts of American companies like Lockheed Martin and the military, laser weapons are no longer the stuff of Star Wars and Star Trek.
In near-term future battles, the U.S. military can choose to bring laser weapons mounted on vehicles, vessels, and more, to war. By comparison, the weapons of any enemy will look like bows and arrows.
ATHENA, (Advanced Test High Energy Asset), is one of the most exciting of these new American laser weapons. During recent testing with the U.S. Army's Space and Missile Defense Command at the Army's White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, the 30-kilowatt weapon slayed five Outlaw drones. Not toy hobby sized drones, but drones with nearly 11 foot wingspans.
Scoreboard? 100 percent success.
And just two years ago, Lockheed Martin proved that ATHENA could also take down a truck by burning through its hood and engine – and from a mile away.
What are the advantages?
There are many advantages to bringing laser weapons to war. One key advantage is unlimited bullets. As long as there is power, ATHENA would have an unlimited magazine.
Another major advantage is speed. Laser weapons like ATHENA are lethal at the speed of light.
They are also silent, invisible and deadly – three characteristics very handy for stealth and surprise in the battlespace.
Threats can come from any direction. ATHENA’s beam director and turret are designed to match this so the weapons can fire 360 degrees.
How would it be used in the battlespace?
At 30-kilowatts, ATHENA is powerful enough to destroy drones, vehicles, rockets, boats and more.
One of the big challenges with lasers is how to make them truly practical. To be practical, they need to be compact, lightweight, powerful and transportable.
They also need to be both precise and flexible to defeat rapidly moving aircraft, vehicles, boats and weapons.
And for laser weapons to make their debut in the battlespace – they have to be proven to be reliable. With a 100 percent success rate against the drones, things look very promising for ATHENA to dominate.
ATHENA could be used to protect a base against rockets and mortars, for example, or defend a field hospital from swarm of drones. A special operations team could use ATHENA to burn through a terrorist vehicle’s engine carrying explosives before it reaches a town center – and they could stop that vehicle from more than a mile away.
On the homeland, lasers like ATHENA could be put in fixed defense positions to provide reliable protection as well. They could be used to protect nuclear power plants, the power grid, dams and more. Laser systems could be used to protect ports and say, for example, burn through a terrorist boat attempting to place explosives on a cruise ship.
How does it work?
On the most basic level, ATHENA destroys threats with heat. It is similar to when folks use a magnifying glass to start a fire while camping – but on an incredibly powerful level.
ATHENA is what is called a fiber laser. Fiber lasers combine individual lasers to generate a single, intense laser beam. Each laser is generated by the weapon’s fiber optics. This approach means that the power can be easily adjusted by adding more individual lasers to the combined beam or reducing the number.
Lockheed Martin’s beam control tech uses lenses, mirrors, windows and software algorithms to shape the energy into a focused beam. As the light travels through the mirrors, lenses and windows, the ATHENA system concentrates and modifies the laser’s energy.
Between the device and the target, the laser will pass through atmosphere distortions on the way so ATHENA adapts the beam in advance to compensate for the distortions.
A compact Rolls-Royce turbo generator provides the immense power ATHENA needs to unleash lasers.
Battles will never be the same
Lockheed Martin has been pioneering in laser weapon systems for more than four decades. ATHENA’s upgrades and remarkable recent performance of defeating 100 percent of the drones is the latest exciting news in their laser family.
ATHENA’s sibling, ADAM, is another laser. During testing a few years ago, ADAM proved it could destroy fast attack military grade boats by burning through their hulls in less than 30 seconds – again from about a mile away.
The company is further miniaturizing laser weapons for tactical U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps vehicles.
For Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Air Force Research Laboratory, Lockheed Martin has worked on a prototype turret to mount laser weapons on aircraft.
What’s next?
In near term battles, the US military will have the option to unleash laser weapons on vehicles, vessels and possibly even aircraft. The precision of lasers like ATHENA is already remarkable.
As the technology continues to advance at a rapid pace in the U.S., lasers like ATHENA will be able to strike farther and farther away. And destroy bigger and bigger targets.
Allison Barrie is a defense specialist with experience in more than 70 countries who consults at the highest levels of defense and national security, a lawyer with four postgraduate degrees, and author of the definitive guide, Future Weapons: Access Granted, on sale in 30 countries. Barrie hosts the new hit podcast “Tactical Talk” where she gives listeners direct access to the most fascinating Special Operations warriors each week and to find out more about the FOX Firepower host and columnist you can click here or follow her on Twitter @allison_barrie and Instagram @allisonbarriehq.
PEW PEW PEW
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Lol. Come on push the power of these things up so they can burn something more interesting like a jet fighter.
Who watches the watchmen?
Shameful Display
I don't think buying your own countries aircraft counts as a subsidy. But loosing jobs in Northern Ireland. Yikes. The Brits would do anything to keep that tinder box from going up. Strategically placing factories *sniff. They grow up so fast.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Some more info on the "Son of Blackbird" the possible successor of the SR-71.
edited 28th Sep '17 8:59:44 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
rollin' on dubs
rollin' on dubs
Oh hey they shot down a drone, no loss.
Thats kind of the advantage of drones.
edited 2nd Oct '17 5:23:35 PM by Imca
Nigh impossible for a few decades at best, yeah.
Not to mention, whats the point?
Oh really when?