I am continually astounded by the focus in past years on Mars, when we
don't yet have a space station, nor a COLONY on the moon. Geez, we have
so much to worry about with just achieving these as launching bases for
more adventurous projects, like Mars or outward expansion.
To my view, its just NASA biasing public opinion to try to bolster
idealistic future projects so they can 'justify' that outrageous 13
billion per year they spend for so many failed missions, something like
18 out of 30?
However, the recent tinkertoy mission to Mars with the pathfinder showed
the definite need for faster than light communications to be able to
reliably and efficiently transceive information.
I seem to recall seeing a report saying it took 20 minutes for a signal
to get from Earth to Mars and 20 minutes to get back. So their toy car
could be moved only in small steps so that we never saw 'realtime'
images, but rather images taken over time and played back like a cartoon
strip.
Here is an interesting article about how expansion of the Internet into
space will depend on a new method of transceiving information at useful
speeds.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/325201.asp
Back in 1997, Mars Pathfinder could only send 30 megabits of data per
day back to Earth, which averages out to 300 bits per second, he said.
In contrast, typical modems on personal computers transmit data at rates
up to 56,000 bits per second.
By 2007, Edwards said, there could be a “permanent robotic presence” on
Mars, pumping data back and forth using Internet protocols, and
communicating with Earth via a central gateway.
He even envisions a relay satellite flying 10,625 miles (17,000
kilometers) above Mars, in an orbit stationary with respect to the Red
Planet. Such a satellite could transmit 1 megabit of data per second,
enough for a continuous video feed via the Mars Channel.
-----------------
One approach for FTL that has been studied by Dr. Hal Puthoff, called
the 'Alcubierre Drive' suggests creation of a warp, the same idea should
be applicable for FTL communications;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_364000/364496.stm
Miguel Alcubierre came up with the idea of expanding the space behind a
starship and contracting it in front of it. The starship would rest in a
"warp bubble" between the two spacetime distortions. The result would be
a wave in spacetime along which the starship would surf.
It was a fantastic idea. There would be no limit to the velocity that a
starship could attain. It could travel faster than the speed of light
because the starship would, strictly speaking, be stationary in the
space of its warp bubble.
Also, the starship and its crew would be weightless and would therefore
not be crushed by the enormous G-forces of acceleration and
deceleration.
What's more, the passage of time inside the warp bubble would be the
same as that outside it. The crew would not suffer from Einstein's "time
dilation" effect where time passes at different rates for people
travelling at different speeds.
The time dilation effect means that anyone travelling to the stars at
speeds approaching that of light would experience a journey of a few
years. But when they came back to Earth they would find that thousands
of years had passed and all their friends were long dead.
---------------------
At least commerce is taking the right approach, more realistic and
achievable, to setup a space station, followed by the much more
practical approach of the moon as the next target.
If it has to be tourism, not discovery as the primary impetus for
getting into space, so be it, but in my view, it SPEAKS VOLUMES about
how useless NASA has become, looking for anything sensational that will
engender public sympathy and continue to support this out of date
dinosaur and their archaic approach to overcoming and controlling
gravity.
The public will continue to pay this outrageous 13 billion a year
(that's $13,000,000,000 every year!!), paying them to keep screwing
around with rockets, trusting these jokers until Germany, Japan, China
and other countries will take the lead.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_324000/324846.stm
The time when ordinary people can go into space as tourists is fast
approaching believes space visionary Sir Arthur C Clarke. He told BBC
News Online that it is about time we built a hotel in space.
Consider the attractions and appeal, he said. "Where else could you get
to see a sunrise and sunset every 90 minutes."
His call for a renewed effort to get tourists into space comes on the
day of the first of two conferences this year devoted to space tourism.
The conferences, in Germany and in the United States, are tapping into
the feeling that advances in technology are at last bringing the space
tourist concept within reach.
Sir Arthur points out that the market for space tourism could be
enormous. "In many countries, more than half the people who were asked
responded that they would go into space as a tourist."
---------------------
Hilton and British Airways wanting to build an orbiting space hotel and
ferry tourists back and forth.
Note NASAs comment that using spent fuel tanks as modules was 'too
simple'.....well, geez, let's go nuts, make it complex and expensive,
after all, we can get all the money we need from those gullible
taxpayers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_293000/293366.stm
The hotel group Hilton International is to become the first sponsor of a
privately funded plan to build a space station. It will be constructed
from used Space Shuttle fuel tanks.
The project, called Space Islands, will connect together Space Shuttle
fuel tanks, each the diameter of a Boeing 747 aircraft. At present they
are the only part of Nasa's Space Shuttle that is not reused.
British Airways are also said to want to become involved in the project.
Under consideration is a survey of BA and Hilton customers asking them
if they would like to take a holiday in space.
"We need $6 - $12 billion," he said, "That is a fraction of the [$40bn]
cost of the space station that is currently being built by the USA,
Russia and other countries."
The idea of using spent Space Shuttle fuel tanks is not new. It was once
considered by Nasa as the basis for its own space station.
However it was discarded as being too simple.
It was possibly also seen as too commercial for an organisation that
sees its role mainly in research and development.
--- Jerry Wayne Decker - jdecker@keelynet.com http://www.keelynet.com from an Art to a Science Voice : (214)324-8741 - FAX : (214)324-3501 KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187------------------------------------------------------------- To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com> with the body text: leave Interact list archives and on line subscription forms are at http://keelynet.com/interact/ -------------------------------------------------------------