Today: Iraq

[kandrathe]

I just watched a recently made program on Hubble. At the end they talked about the work on the next generation space telescope. The size would be 3-4 times larger than Hubble and it would be a superconductor based IR spectrum detector only. The plan is to put the thing at a lagrange point between the earth and the sun, which is way beyond the moon. This is a point of gravitational stability which should require very little work to keep in position. The lagrange point is also desirable because both the earth and the sun block little of the sky from that point.

[kandrathe]

The moon is very mineral rich; It would make sense to plan for a multitude of manufacturing capabilities to be staged into a lunar base to make use of the local materials. Since only the most radical anti-nuclear activist would protest a nuclear reactor on the moon, it would seem to make the most sense for generating the power needed to smelt ores.

The real decision would probably be made against how viable it would be to send the knowledge and tools to craft a thing in place, versus building it on earth and flying it there. For instance, a 30 meter perfectly crafted refracting mirror might get warped or damaged in transit (if it would even fit in the shuttle's cargo bay), yet it might be very difficult to craft on a lunar colony as well.

The Apollo and Luna Samples

[whyBish]

Very true, but what they don't realize is that China's no longer Red; it's turning a lovely plum and within 25-30 years will be as Blue as the rest of us.

Yup :)
We had a visit from the Chinese President late last year.

[whyBish]

Also, the cold war is over and if no one noticed most everyone is disarming and scaling back nuclear stockpiles (except the terrorists).

How do you know the terrorists aren't scaling back :P

But seriously, how would you stop a nuke from just burning up on re-entry? It would have to be one large nuke, either for shielding or systems to decelerate it??

P.S. if terrorists have nuclear stockpiles in the first place, how come they a) havent used them, and b ) haven't been caught at border entries with them?

[whyBish]

Since only the most radical anti-nuclear activist would protest a nuclear reactor on the moon, it would seem to make the most sense for generating the power needed to smelt ores.

That depends. I dare say if it was announced that a nuke reactor was going to be placed on the moon this year that our country (NZ) and possibly others would protest against it through the U.N. (Not saying I'm of that opinion, but we have people here against the local American spybase, and anti-G.E. is also a big political movement)

[Chaerophon]

On the first point, re: classical liberals; fair enough.

As far as second-generation "reform" liberals, e.g. John Rawls, Charles Taylor et al, I think that you're missing the point. There is a definite distinction to be made between a philosophy promoting equality of opportunity, as is the case in modern reform liberalism and one which promotes equality of condition, as socialism tends to do. A mere concern for social welfare does not a commy make. Or even a social democrat, for that matter. Reform liberals and even some moderate social democrats (a la Bernstein) still recognize the importance of merit as an arbiter of economic success. Neo-Marxists tend not to plug such concerns into their equation (too much of a stumbling block, I guess). Now admittedly, the distinction between Social Democrats and Reform Liberals may at times appear blurry (witness some aspects of the modern NDP in Canada, e.g. their recent courting of Lloyd Axworthy, etc.) but, if anything, this is an example of the Socialists moving TOWARDS liberalism and not the other way around.

As a side note, if you really want to take such a tack, your argument becomes a double-edged sword, as the modern American "conservative" ethos, then, cannot really be named as such. Since (generally) the Republican conservative tradition is composed of "classical liberals" and the modern Democratic party has adopted a reform liberal approach, the title "conservative" is inappropriately used to label what you claim to be the one "true" branch of liberalism. In your reality, the title of "conservative", then, should be applied to the more Burkean tradition of the "Old Whigs", which is better represented, interestingly enough, by the Canadian Red Tory tradition (all but died with the death of the Conservative Party of Canada), and whom you would most likely deem to be decidedly socialist!

[Bob]

then it makes sense to cheapen payloads by launching them from Luna instead of Earth.

er... for something to be launched from the moon, it has to get up there first. How does it get up there? it has to be launched from earth. Surely launching stuff from the moon would cost more, since it has to escape the gravity of 2 pretty-hefty rocks.

Having said that, a more efficient method of launching stuff appears to be just over the horizon (well, maybe a little further than that.) Railguns. The point with these things is that they don't require chemical fuel to power them, they require electrical energy, which can be far more easily provided - You could cover 1/2 of texas with solar panels and store the electricity in batteries. If you needed an emergency launch, you could tap into the energy grid to charge it. The problem is that they've only built ones that can throw 3 KG so far, and you probably need at leats a ton (1000 Kg) throwing capacity for it to be useful in space.

Launching back from Mars could be a serious problem with the current system - it's quite a bit smaller than Earth, but you're still going to need mucho-force to get out of it's gravity. How do you get all that chemical fuel onto mars to blast back off again? Well, possibly a railgun could be the solution.

1) but too many batteries on the lander - you've got some power there
2) solar panels
3) IIRC there's wind on mars - pretty fast wind in some places.

You could blast off with the bateries, and leave them there to recharge ready for the next expedition. Or you could send robotic landers first to set up batteries and solar panels and whatnot

The probelm with the railgun idea to blast back-off if that you're going to need rails that can carry 1000's (or is it 1,000,000's ? possibly more if you want to blast 300 Kg or more off) of amps. Unfortunately enough Iron to do this is kinda heavy Unless you can find a superlight-superconductor, they'de have to make several launches from Earth first.

This could be the downfall of the Mars plan - Getting a man (or men, or women for that matter) to Mars won't be too hard, and our current technology could probably do it at a pinch. Getting them back will be the problem. Railguns aren't at the point where they could be used yet, and getting energy to do it would be near impossible anyway. And I can't see any feasability in getting enough of the current fuel used up there to use a rocket. The only other option that I an see is a directed nuke underneath the lander - I can't see that working.

Lunar Lander stats: ( Source)
Weight: Empty: 8,650 pounds
Crew & Propellant: 32,500 pounds

so the crew and propellant for the engines weighed 23,850 Lb, the crew probably weighed about 280 Lb (for both guys being 10 stone) - an almost insignificant amount in that number, 23,500 lb of fuel, to get off the moon. Mars is considerably larger.

So, anyway that's why I see it not working unless there are so very big advances made.

-Bob

[--Pete]

Hi,

But seriously, how would you stop a nuke from just burning up on re-entry?

Ablative heat shields. Just like on any reentry vehicle, including the MIRVs on top of most of the ICBMs dating back to the 60's.

if terrorists have nuclear stockpiles in the first place, how come they a) havent used them, and b ) haven't been caught at border entries with them?

Your argument is, then, that since terrorists haven't had nuclear weapons in the past (and, probably present), then they'll never have them in the future? I don't think you need me to point out the fallacy in that argument :)

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

er... for something to be launched from the moon, it has to get up there first. How does it get up there? it has to be launched from earth. Surely launching stuff from the moon would cost more, since it has to escape the gravity of 2 pretty-hefty rocks.

I think the idea is to set up the production plants on the Moon. Then the stuff launched from the Moon is simply material that was already there. Of course, setting up an industrial complex on the Moon that is sufficiently advanced to make spacecraft might take more than a few weeks :)

On the rail guns, there are a few not so minor problems. First is that the strength of materials available means that rail guns capable of sufficient energy to be useful will, at the very least, need to be extensively rebuilt after each shot. Second is that we can't get enough electrical power to the guns. We can get the energy, but not in a short enough time. Inductive reactance slows the rate at which a voltage can change. Every circuit has some inductance. Even in theory, it is not possible to reduce the inductance sufficiently to toss viable payloads at orbit achieving speeds. Third is the fact that we live at the bottom of an atmosphere. Since the velocity required at the mouth of a rail gun for the payload to achieve orbit is in the hyper-velocity range, when the payload leaves the gun it will be subjected to a huge deceleration, as well as heating great enough to need a heat shield (which adds to the throw weight but not to the payload). While this third problem applies only to a launch from Earth, the other two apply anywhere and are enough to make the rail gun concept is pretty much useless as a launch system.

Now, if you are thinking of a linear induction system, similar to what Heinlein was discussing in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, then that's another kettle of fish. But that's not a rail gun. Different technology, different problems.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

How do you know the terrorists aren't scaling back

What does the recent published evidence unearthed from al Queda strongholds tell you? What is the perfect terror weapon?

But seriously, how would you stop a nuke from just burning up on re-entry? It would have to be one large nuke, either for shielding or systems to decelerate it??

WPS - What Pete said. It is no trickier than how ICBM's operate today (they actually fly into space now)-- it would be just incredibly slow and stupid to do it from the moon.

P.S. if terrorists have nuclear stockpiles in the first place, how come they a) havent used them, and b ) haven't been caught at border entries with them?

I would hope terrorists don't have nuclear stockpiles, but that doesn't mean they aren't trying to acquire them. I think North Korea's economy is in such a desperate state that if you offered enough cash they would do most anything for you.

[kandrathe]

Yes. Launching things from the moon with a railgun may be possible someday, but you don't want to haphazardly just hurl things into space towards Earth either.

It makes me wish that if they had the foresight to plan for ore smelting and foundry operations that they would have started preparing for them say back in 1970. Even if commercial interests played a primary role, it's going to take an awfully long time to get any heavy industry set up on the moon. Based on the Apollo and Luna sample analysis, I do think a moon base is commercially viable, though not for the first 20 some years. It's a pretty steep investment for little short term return.

These earthlings really need better leaders. :)

[kandrathe]

I think my point is made. There could be no safer place for humans to have a fission reactor than the moon.

I would have to ask why? I would assume it is because they mindlessly must protest the use of the N word, no matter how it is used. Nuclear medicine, whoa! Sounds lethal!

The uranium fuel could be mined and enriched from lunar sources. The first reactors could be small enough to be delivered from Earth.

[--Pete]

Hi,

It started out as Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR). Then a few bright people figured out how to use it for medical imaging, so we got Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and the doctors and patients stayed away in droves. So, they dropped the "Nuclear", got MRI and everybody loves it.

Maybe if we rename them "Down the Packing Curve Plants", we could get a sensible reaction to the best form of energy we have available in sufficient quantity to matter. Or maybe not. "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity".

--Pete

[Guest]

Nuclear power plants to make very ugly waste, and its hard to find people willing to take it.

Also it(the waste and the plants to lesser degree than the waste) makes a wonderful target for terrorists.



Sure you can suggest reasonable solutions for both problems - but unless you are going to enact the solutions before you build more plants its a its BAD solution, no matter what you name it.
And thanks to various special interest groups I dont see the solutions being firmly in place for a long time.


Personally I think rather than waste a huge amount of money and time convincing people nuclear power is safe, we ought to convince them to use less energy.

[kandrathe]

Ok. I'll take a bite of this one, one more time.

Nuclear power plants to make very ugly waste, and its hard to find people willing to take it.

I challenge you to compare the contents of the tons of coal fly-ash to nuclear waste. What remains after burning off the coal is very toxic, containing lead, mercury, arsenic, and other heavy metals. All this waste is happily carted off to fill some landfill and pollute your water. While the "waste" from spent nuclear fuel is really not waste and is still radioactive and can be reused as fuel in other types of reactors.

Also it(the waste and the plants to lesser degree than the waste) makes a wonderful target for terrorists.

Radiological bombs. Well if they were to explode something in my neighborhood, I would rather it be radiological than most any other toxic non-radiological chemical. Why? Because it is really hard to detect where the dioxin, mercury, or arsenic went after the explosion, but radioactive material is really, really easy to find and comparitively easier clean up. Now, an air burst dioxin bomb would be 100x more scary than a radiological bomb. Or, if you were a terrorist why not go after the big special effects? Huge storages of liquified natural gas? Hydrazine? Source: Immediately Dangerous to Life Concentrations of Chemicals

Sure you can suggest reasonable solutions for both problems - but unless you are going to enact the solutions before you build more plants its a its BAD solution, no matter what you name it.  And thanks to various special interest groups I dont see the solutions being firmly in place for a long time.

The technology of today is certainly better than that when most of the operating plants were built. We have 3 fission plants within 50 miles of my house that have operated safely for 30 years. I would love to see 2 or 3 more plants built in my area insuring me of warmth in the winters of my old age. As for waste, if you insist on throwing away a valuable commodity, then I like the French solution myself. Cool down the cores, granulate them and mix them into melted glass. Seal them into large glass blocks and bury them deep within the Uranium mines where they were extracted or other geologically stable existing mine shafts.

Personally I think rather than waste a huge amount of money and time convincing people nuclear power is safe, we ought to convince them to use less energy.

Much better for people to waste a huge amount of money and time convincing people wrongly that nuclear power is unsafe. Stupidity is unsafe, no matter how it is applied.

So, dial power consumption back? Sacrificing the manufacture of your TV, your Car? Down to say what level? Zero? We are a planet of over 6 billion people now. After the age of the consuption of hydrocarbons ends, what is left for us? Solar (or Wind, Wave, or whatever form it takes)? Not likely. It is too dilute. Prior to the industrial age which included the use of hydrocarbons for fuel, the planet was capable of sustaining a few hundred thousand humans. Which of us will remain in the face of a vastly diminished food supply and no electricity?

Of course, the other, better, question now before us is; Should we continue to consume the hydrocarbons we are consuming due to its impact on the atmosphere?

[Assur]

Hi

The new speech/dream/whatever is certainly having an effect on functioning programmes! Check out this report.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/...e.ap/index.html

Hubble is of one the really big successes and has certainly advanced humanities knowledge about space and everything and now it is being screwed :angry:

good hunting

[Guest]

Edited.

[Bun-Bun]

I've been getting the feeling that the Hubble servicing mission was being sent further and further to the back-burner ever since Columbia went down. If you read the article, it points out the additional safety requirement of a backup shuttle for the servicing mission. This requirement was put in place before Shrub's vision thing got out. It looks to me like the "new priorities" are just an excuse to can a mission they were going to toss out anyway.

It's a damn shame, but not a surprise. We'll get the Webb up to replace it, in any case.

I do find it interesting that the remaining Shuttle flights are going to the ISS. I figured they'd drop that white elephant in the ocean toute-suite. It'll never do even the originally planned science with current crew limits. Maybe they think they'll come up with a decent-size crew return vehicle.

[kandrathe]

You responses are an angery combination of ignorance through blinders and hyberbole.

No anger on my part. Ignorance? Hyperbole? I thought my presentation was lucid and factual. You presented and still present no refutation of it.

1 I never said nuclear waste was worse than other wastes. I said no one want it, so plenty of it is sitting in storage now. Building a reactor that could "burn" fuel rods on the other hand is extremly unpopular- reminds people of Chernobyl.

Chernobyl was a graphite reactor where the operator removed all the safety restraints and then brought the reactor online, and the graphite caught on fire. It has nothing to do with the discussion we are having.

2 Bombs? Who f--- said anything about bombs? Right now many of our nuclear plants have rods stored above ground level in unsaticfactoraly hardened buildings. These are good targets for terrorists. Imagine the panic if one was hit by a plane. 

Are you really worried about that? I mean running into the reactor might cause some havoc if they were able to crack the containment dome (designed to stop an airplane). But, the spent fuel rods are kept in containment vessels inside fortified concrete cooling tank, usually well below ground level. It is not a good target for a terrorist flying an airplane. Btw, how likely do you think it is that if a terrorist is ever able to take over another plane over the US, that they would stay in the air for another 10 minutes before being shot down?

I am completely correct.

So you say.

Twit.

Did I get personal? Did I attack you? No. And, I won't. If you have nothing further intelligent to discuss on the topic, then, I've little time to spend on what you might think of me personally. I could really care less.

[Doc]

Using the Moon as an Earth Defense Measure is not that far fetched. People at one time just visiting the moon was an impossible dream. They also said the world was flat.

As for nukes on the moon, I dunno. Me personally, I think it's possible. However, it is more probable to have something else. I mean, lets face it. We have Star Wars Star Trek scary next level sci fi weapons now. Magnetic pulse guns. I saw one of those on the discovery channel once. When fired at an old water tank, it ripped it self into pieces, twisting and screeching metal that looked as if it's alive. I am not sure how it works completely, but from watching Buck Rogers as a kid, I can tell you, it looked like something out of a cheesy Saturday Serial.

Establishing a base now means making a stronghold later, the ultimate fear and propoganda. Let's face it. The unwashed masses won't care what's on the Moon or how it works, they will only know there is something Terrible™ up there that could possibly blow them to smithereens. Good way to keep folks in line. The Fear Factor alone would be enough for America to keep most of the world in line and playing nice and doing stuff our way. Sorry, don't wish to offend, but lets face it, that's pretty much how it is. And while the Moon would make a good launch point for said future weapons... I doubt that it would be as easy to return fire. Which would make the Moon a powerful defensive measure that would not be easily countered. Sure, you could take out much of our defense measures here, blow up our air craft carriers and toast our missile defense network, but that don't mean much when our Giant Floating Death Laser Eye in the Sky™ comes and leaves a giant smoking crater where your country used to be.

Sure. All this seems far fetched now. But then again, when I was a kid, most of the stuff we use today and never think about how amazing it is was pretty far fetched as well.

Don't say it will never happen.