NASA budget cuts

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

The life for slaves in their society would probably be treated better than people who has a mid-level income in our society because of my last hypothesis of no penalty/limits in energy consumption.

Treated better or not, slavery is still slavery.

[Melpomene]

I'm a person and my name is anakin!

Hmm, they could have also exhausted all the resources on their planet and are now seeking to drain our remaining resources as they move on to another planet.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Treated better or not, slavery is still slavery.

What is slavery?
Philosophically speaking we are slaves within our own society chained to limitation in access to energy.
You need to work for compensation to obtain usage rights of energy and penalized when not working.
If working is to gain rights for personal time while energy usage is not limited then what is the difference?

As for aliens exhausting all resources on their own planet, if they have the capability of FTL travel then the galaxy is their oyster without bothering other life forms since they can collect MORE on various other uninhabited stellar bodies without being bothered by resistance from indigenous life species.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Alien invasion is pretty unlikely, I agree, especially by an extraterrestrial race capable of FTL travel.

What could we possibly have that they might want?

Unless they want slaves.

Cross-breeding. Duke Nukem : Land of Babes anyone?

[Ithekro]

Depends on the resource. There are resources that only are found (to out knowledge) on inhabited worlds. Fossil fuels for one thing. Farmlands for another. Most other things you can find in space. It just depends on what is more efficient. Mining in space (a hostile place) or in a habitable atmosphere.

In our case, we require more resources than we likely have on this planet...or at least that we can get to effectively. Thus interplanetary mining companies maybe in our future to sustain our technological and social needs and desires. If there was life on Mars or say Europa, to the point were the plants anaerobicly decompossed long enough to create fossil fuels, then we would have an increased supply of those as well (including oil for plastics that we seem to like).

[SaintessHeart]

Well look what we missed out :

Strange life signs found on meteorites-NASA scientist

And some good news :

U.S. military's mini space shuttle lifts off

(Reuters) - A prototype miniature space shuttle blasted off aboard an unmanned Atlas 5 rocket from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on Saturday for a demonstration run that could last as long as nine months.

The experimental vehicle, known as the Orbital Test Vehicle, or OTV, lifted off at 5:46 p.m. EST. It is the second ship to be put in space under the U.S. military's X-37B program.

The vehicles are smaller versions of NASA's space shuttle orbiters -- 29 feet long, 14 feet across. The one-third scale spaceships are solar powered, unlike the space shuttles, and are not designed to carry people.

Like OTV-1, which returned from a 224-day mission on December 3, what OTV-2 will do in orbit, as well as any cargo or experiments that are aboard are classified.

They are intended to test technologies and processes for low-cost, quick-turnaround, reusable space vehicles, as well as serve as orbital testbeds for instruments that could be incorporated into future satellites.

Once operational, the X-37B could be used for a variety of missions including reconnaissance, in-space service and repair of satellites, deploying and retrieving spacecraft, and demonstrating new technologies, the Air Force said.

OTV-1 returned from flight in good condition, paving the way for launch of its sister ship with few modifications. A more detailed inspection and analysis of OTV-1 will be undertaken as part of its refurbishment.

OTV-1 has not yet been scheduled for a second launch, but the Air Force anticipates it will return to orbit.

No significant changes were made to OTV-2 as a result of the OTV-1 flight.

Minor tweaks include a reduction in the vehicle's main landing gear tire pressure by about 15 percent to help avoid repeating the blown tire that OTV-1 experienced upon touchdown at Vandenberg Air Force Base on December 3.

The reduced pressure should better accommodate imperfections in Vandenberg's 15,000-foot-long runway, the Air Force said.

The vehicles were built by Boeing.

[Vexx]

There's also a tiny little probe heading out to our first discovered local 'dwarf planet' (Kuiper Belt object), otherwise known as Pluto. It (New Horizons) is due to arrive there in 2015.

It will be first detailed look at an object that has been little more than a blur for the entire time we've known about it. Instructions will take over 4 hours to reach it there (light-speed) and 4 hours for results to come back.

Not so widely known is that it also carries the ashes of the man who discovered it - Clyde Tombaugh. Nice little memorial for the guy.

This is basic science and research... reaching out to the edges of our little sandbox to understand how it all works and to get a handle on what might smack us if we're not clever.

Fun fact... Pluto isn't the biggest Kuiper Belt object ---> the dwarf planet Eris may be bigger than Pluto by over 25% (margin of error puts it as equal to or bigger) and circles the Sun about three times the distance of Pluto. Oh, it has at least one moon as well (Dysnomia). But many people don't know that, both a failure of news reporting of science and of K-12 education.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

There's also a tiny little probe heading out to our first discovered local 'dwarf planet' (Kuiper Belt object), otherwise known as Pluto. It (New Horizons) is due to arrive there in 2015.

It will be first detailed look at an object that has been little more than a blur for the entire time we've known about it. Instructions will take over 4 hours to reach it there (light-speed) and 4 hours for results to come back.

Not so widely known is that it also carries the ashes of the man who discovered it - Clyde Tombaugh.

This is basic science and research... reaching out to the edges of our little sandbox to understand how it all works and to get a handle on what might smack us if we're not clever.

Are you sure that is a good idea? In mythology, Pluto is the God of Death.

Pluto takes 268 years to orbit around the sun in a ellipse, meaning which there might be a 50% possibility that it is below Neptune's orbit if the probe will to fly by. Plus, if it is so small, theoretically it wouldn't have a strong gravitational field to hold the satellite in orbit long enough for us to engage it.

And it is damn freezing cold. I was wondering if it will end up having its instruments frozen up, or implode like the satellite which was dropped into Jupiter.

Another thing : with regards to the Kuiper belt and field theory, I am more inclined to think that the saturation of bodies within the belt are like a giant sandstorm of space rocks held together by the farthest reach of the Sun's gravity. Attempting to sift through it would require a really small but hardy spacecraft that is technically able to dodge the high velocities of orbiting space rocks, or at least withstand their collision without exploding or going off course in a zero-resistance environment.

[Vexx]

Um.. .heh, no. There's no "50% possibility". We know exactly where Pluto is and what its orbit is. It's orbit took it outside of Neptune's orbital range back in 1999. For the next 200 years, it'll be World no. 9. The orbit of Pluto is also inclined more than 17% from the first 8 planets.

A satellite can orbit a small asteroid with the right nudges. Pluto is almost the size of the Earth's moon.... no problem orbiting it.

Here, orbital mechanics 101: http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm I taught a course in astrodynamics and astronomy to newly hired aerospace engineers in the late 80s.

The temperature there is the same as it is in earth orbit just on the dark side of Earth -- damn cold (-200C and lower). The instruments are designed for that *and* there's a nuclear reactor on board generating electricity and, if necessary, heat.

The pressure is zero.... no implosions likely. The risks that *do* exist include:
1) smacked with a random rock (or shot at for target practice by Klingons, +10 pts for the reference)
2) unexpected degradation of electronics due to cosmic ray variation (some star blows us a blast from hundreds of light years away)
3) fuel nozzles gum up in the near absolute zero (mitigated by design).
4) Someone has an "idiot" moment in typing the directions to the craft (peer review of all actions is good).

edit: I do have a suspicion that the Kuiper Belt will prove to be a problem in the far future... kind of a "kiddie pen" providing an obstacle to us sending anything substantial out of the Solar System. OTOH... the Voyager and Pioneer probes appear to be negotiating it quite fine. AND.. its a huge amount of material that might be used in astro-engineering ---> Ringworlds, Dyson Spheres... or even just a lot of nice elements to build space colonies or whatever else we come up with in a few thousand years.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Here, orbital mechanics 101: http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm I taught a course in astrodynamics and astronomy to newly hired aerospace engineers in the late 80s.

You should have came over and given a lecture on it to students of Nanyang Technological University.

But then again, a number of the engineering students there are from China with student visas, so your ex-colleagues might want to polygraph you after you go back.

4) Someone has an "idiot" moment in typing the directions to the craft (peer review of all actions is good).

Or it could be another Mars Climate Orbiter joke : the data received are in SI-units while the onboard computer compiles it as imperial units. No amount of peer review can solve that problem.

edit: I do have a suspicion that the Kuiper Belt will prove to be a problem in the far future... kind of a "kiddie pen" providing an obstacle to us sending anything substantial out of the Solar System. OTOH... the Voyager and Pioneer probes appear to be negotiating it quite fine. AND.. its a huge amount of material that might be used in astro-engineering ---> Ringworlds, Dyson Spheres... or even just a lot of nice elements to build space colonies or whatever else we come up with in a few thousand years.

Given the rate how Earthlings exploit resources and strip-mine every single mineral mine in no time, it shouldn't be a problem "carving a hole" through the belt. The thing is, how are we going to harvest them and bring them back? It is going to take a decade or so to bring the materials back to Earth.

It kind of makes planetcracking sound like a good idea.

[Fahd]

Originally Posted by CaptnAwesomee

Why is Nasa going backwards, dumping a shuttle for a rocket?
The new rocket is called something like Orion. Weren't the shuttles a step up from the old technology of rockets? So with the Ares, are the astronauts going to splash down in the ocean like in the old days?!

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

More complex technology is not always better than simpler tech. Remember, what matters is the technology can safely do what it is designed to do for the lowest possible cost.

To be bit more specific:

Consider the top-down profile of a shuttle, plus its fuel tank and booster rockets. It's a lot larger than the same profile of a Saturn V rocket. Presumably this means more resistance during the launch phase, and thus higher fuel requirements.

Secondly there's a safety issue; during the launch phase the heat-shielding tiles on the underside of the shuttle are susceptible to damage from bits of foam coming off the fuel tank. I believe NASA has cameras trained on the shuttle underside to make sure no damage is suffered. I also think the underside is scanned a second time by cameras on the ISS, and then once again after the shuttle has returned to earth (in preparation for the next launch). For a conventional rocket the heat shield is under the capsule, which sits on top of the rocket, so there's very little chance of any damage.

Put those reasons together and it's cheaper and safer to go back to basics .

As for the discussion on colonising the universe... The economics make it a non-starter. It takes too much energy to get into orbit (for mass migration), too much time to get anywhere, and there's nowhere in our solar system that's more habitable than Earth. It'd be cheaper to colonise Antarctica than to colonise, say, Mars. If habitable worlds outside our solar system are found, and if a new area of physics opens up that permits faster than light travel, then that would change everything. I hold out hope for the first, but not too much for the second .

[Ithekro]

A much closer dwarf planet already has a probe heading for it. Ceres in the asteroid belt. It use to be considered a planet in the 19th century along with Pallas, Juno, and Vesta. Dawn Mission will reach Vesta this year and Ceres in 2015.

[Vexx]

Hmm, I wasn't aware the Big 4 of the asteroid belt were being considered dwarf planets but the definition of 'planet', dwarf or not is murky these days. Its a semantic or taxonomy debate. It is kind of interesting that the Sun has two rings of material (asteroid belt, Kuiper belt) and its distribution of rocky and gaseous planets. So far we're not spotting any extrasolar systems that come close to that arrangement. It makes me lean to the idea that though life may be relatively common in the galaxy, *intelligent* life may be quite rare and *technologically adept* intelligent life may be extremely rare.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Hmm, I wasn't aware the Big 4 of the asteroid belt were being considered dwarf planets but the definition of 'planet', dwarf or not is murky these days. Its a semantic or taxonomy debate. It is kind of interesting that the Sun has two rings of material (asteroid belt, Kuiper belt) and its distribution of rocky and gaseous planets. So far we're not spotting any extrasolar systems that come close to that arrangement. It makes me lean to the idea that though life may be relatively common in the galaxy, *intelligent* life may be quite rare and *technologically adept* intelligent life may be extremely rare.

Semantic and taxomony again : are you sure about life when you see most people simply slogging their life away without any aim?

Though I am more inclined into thinking that aliens, if they do exist and regardless of their technological advancements, will probably think along those bolded same lines as us. So what will we term it by then when it isn't called "human" nature anymore?

[Vexx]

Languages currently lack proper choices for what is meant by "human" when multiple species are involved (one of the Star Trek movies approached this topic when Kirk was speaking about Spock). The arm-waving term "sentient" is sometimes used. Some people hold its a matter of any creature who can look into a mirror and process that they see themselves wins the medal.
To me, "human" isn't a term locked into the hairless primates we call "homo sapiens". Its just the first species we've used the idea on. Even then, at times in history, various groups have tried to restrict it to subsets of homo sapiens so they could do terrible things to the others.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Languages currently lack proper choices for what is meant by "human" when multiple species are involved (one of the Star Trek movies approached this topic when Kirk was speaking about Spock). The arm-waving term "sentient" is sometimes used.
To me, "human" isn't a term locked into the hairless primates we call "homo sapiens". Its just the first species we've used the idea on. Even then, at times in history, various groups have tried to restrict it to subsets of homo sapiens so they could do terrible things to the others.

The term I am bringing close to is responsibility, being responsible to anything and everything around one. I find that many try to restrict it to the set of "myself", "immediate environment" and term it as "a matter of personal survival" when this topic is being argued upon. The real sign of power is supposed to be how much difference one can make to the benefit of everyone, but somewhat it seems to be restricted to the italicised text in modern context.

Though it remains to be seen how can one species actually survive on exclusive individuality - thus how much logic actually there is when the idea of "personal survival" is brought up. I hate semantics.

[Vexx]

I like that notion or "responsibility" ... especially since our kinds of species are cooperative because it enhances general group survivability and permits the resulting synergy to 'raise the boats of the group'. However, meerkats, wolves, orca, etc. seem to meet that criteria as well.

I believe only the lower life forms thrive on "exclusive individuality" and utter selfishness "screw the group, I got mine".... but now we're drifting subtly into politics.

[Ithekro]

Only Ceres is classed as a dwarf planet right now. The other three were once considered planets a long time ago, but their size was overestimated back then. (To being in an anime/manga reference, those four, Ceres, Vesta, Pallas, and Juno have been used for Sailor Scouts as well as the rest of the planets known in 1990.)

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Only Ceres is classed as a dwarf planet right now. The other three were once considered planets a long time ago, but their size was overestimated back then. (To being in an anime/manga reference, those four, Ceres, Vesta, Pallas, and Juno have been used for Sailor Scouts as well as the rest of the planets known in 1990.)

I'm a fan of the "roundness" criteria and having dwarf, rocky, gaseous type subcategories (like we do for stars) I'm not so keen on the IAU idea of "clears the orbital path" requirement and suspect that will fade away with pressure from planetary scientists.

[Ithekro]

Wouldn't some of Jupiter and Saturn's moons qualify?