http://hypography.com/forums/ Human spaceflight, space probes and the exploration of our Solar System. en Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:55:42 GMT vBulletin 60 http://hypography.com/forums/images/styles/new_facebook/images/misc/rss.jpg http://hypography.com/forums/ http://hypography.com/forums/space/21456-new-zealand-launch-private-rocket-into-space.html Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:40:58 GMT *Private New Zealand aerospace company Rocket Lab completed its final ground-based test and is now... Private New Zealand aerospace company Rocket Lab completed its final ground-based test and is now ready to launch New Zealand into the space race with its Atea-1 launch vehicle.

The first high altitude launch of Atea-1 is scheduled for the end of November this year. Once Atea-1 has successfully concluded the development phase it will:


* Be the first privately built rocket launched from the Southern Hemisphere to enter space

* Launch the Southern Hemisphere’s first commercial space programme

* Be the first commercial sounding rocket to use hybrid fuel technology

* Give the global scientific community the first practical alternative to conventional rockets – at significantly lower cost


You may read the entire article EDIT: Or something like it http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11...hdot+(Slashdot) ]]> Space ria_river http://hypography.com/forums/space/21456-new-zealand-launch-private-rocket-into-space.html http://hypography.com/forums/space/21409-water-moon.html Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:17:52 GMT Its official--a fairly major amount of water has been found on the moon:

SPACE.com -- It's Official: Water Found on the Moon
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/science/14moon.html

According to the article Anthony Colaprete said:

“And we didn’t find just a little bit. We found a significant amount.”

Apparently a "significant amount" means 26 gallons. The article hinted that this makes the moon a much more interesting place. How do you think this discovery will do in the long run? Will it really make a space base feasible? ]]> Space Experiment Garden http://hypography.com/forums/space/21409-water-moon.html http://hypography.com/forums/space/21330-pulling-field-spaceship.html Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:22:14 GMT Moderation note: the first 3 posts of this thread were moved from the “spaceship design” poll thread, because that thread was overdue to be closed.

Why create a space craft fly through space? the fact is Gene Rodenbury, I think was very close to the fact on space travel.
I am not able to afford any of my ideas persay, but here is my idea in a nutshell:
space flight using any modern form of engine is useless, because it uses a vast amount of fuel, which costs weight space for storage and limits the engines speed as well as distance.
lets think outside of a box, way out side of a box. lets think of pulling a ship along, using a pulling field, it would only increase speed to match the field that is pulling the ship.
seeing the field is created by the ship, it only makes sense that the ship moves forward, the field moves forward with the ship at the set speed and then amplifies on a compound factor.
basically this will only limit the compounding speed to the limits of the subproccessors of the computer framework utilizing the shipboard functions. at my present guesses I am estimating just shy of the speed of light with a dual core 3 gig processor. mind you this is also under the limits of the wiring, in our example it would have to be a fiber optic system and even then it may run a little slow causing a cascade effect which could knock the engines (field) offline and a full reset of the systems (to say the least).
if a "cascade" effect comes about this is lethal to say the least for a ship such as this because without the "warp bubble" pulling this ship along. the ship would be open for even so much as a grain of dust to litterally flow through the ship like a bullet through a piece of paper.
the "bubble" effect is actually a warp field cause by the pulling field created by this controlled energy burst. the bubble would act as shields as long as the system is funtional.
the "bubble" could be produced forward of the ship, behind the ship, left, right, etc. the limits of directions are only where the energy emitters could be stationed.
the bubble would also increase in comparrison by speed, to the point it would act as a deflector shield. at one point it theoretically could be used as a defensive shield....may even deflect as much as a direct nuclear hit.....of course that would depend on speed. field intensity, angle, projection of shields, and rift.
now keep in mind that a "warp bubble" also would by theory, create a form of gravity, I am not sure how much nor if it can be controlled, afterall this is in a theory form, no one could afford this type of project at this point of time anyhow.
the biggest point to this field engine is this....the ship doesn't need any particular shape. In theory, it could look like a disc, to help with the gravity control. it could be the shape of a cigar, or a Ball, such as in WWII - foo fighters. Which is a legend, but I believe they were more than that by far.
In fact, the ship would need the engines to slow down, or stop. the field emitters, set off in a full force, directional pulse, could even act as a defensive weapon especially if it is set at a pin point location with full force, figure a "Punch" flying at an object at or near the speed of light....I would imagine it would be quit deadly.
can you imagine flying to Pluto in less than ten minutes? Can you imagine thrust would not be needed to leave a planets gravity? this ship could be almost any size with this type of engine.
Directional thrusters? not even reasonable due to fuel consumption vs weight x gravity / burst length.
a pulling engine is set up as a "conductive" system, it would conduct energy that sub support systems would be able to "recharge" off of, or supply direct power too, no a/c all D/C power....and we all know d/c power is also more compatible with heat, cold, water/moisture, etc. this ship would stand a strong chance of "water" moisture build up within the heated -vs.- non heated locations on board the ship.
I have not figured out the oxygen issues as of yet, nor food supportive systems, but with this type of power supply....who knows what could happen.

Really the term "bubble" is not even a true example. the best example of this "Pulling" system would be like putting to magnets together they would repel each other. now picture at the same time, the "magnets" would push anything out of their way as they move forward, hence "a deflector shield".

The interesting point to this is that most of the technologies are available now, some are under testing for different uses (hence - limited imaginations) some are not mentioned on the internet, some have been in use since 1980's by believe it or not GM up in Michigan. their tech center has a interesting conponent needed to make this work.

as for the engines per-say? that would need some imagination, a good team of people who could do some piecing together of different designs with their own processors and programs, work them into a main control system and a main control unit. These systems would have to work together in a long series to make the entire "drive" to work as one giant "propulsion" system.

Can this be done anytime soon? yes! how long before the full plans of how to piece it all together? within a few years (if that-depending on access to research data and plans), a full diagnostic diagram (blueprints) can be made, then it is simply up to whoever is assigned to build this system and ship to build it.
I honestly feel within 15 years we could be looking at the first long range space craft could be built.

that would only limit our range to food and air systems. I have no knowledge on how to make that part work for long range travel.

Do I have some Idea how to make what I have described? yes, to a point! truthfully, this type of work can only be done with government support, and government capability of producing access to the information needed.

I hope this is the kind of thing this site is looking for. ]]> Space Paulybadboy http://hypography.com/forums/space/21330-pulling-field-spaceship.html http://hypography.com/forums/space/21317-future-our-space-program.html Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:21:51 GMT Hello, space fans, wherever you are.

I am Pyrotex, aka Nelson, and I'm an aerospace engineer working at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas. I've been working on various NASA projects since 1980 --almost thirty years. And I have something to say.

If we are not very careful, we will lose our national space program. That's right, lose it.

Oh, we'll keep launching weather satellites, and military satellites. We'll put up a few probes to Mars, probably.

But our ability to put people into space, to put any LARGE cargo into space (like another Hubble Telescope), to take on any meaningful "manned" exploration of the Moon, other planets, or even low Earth orbit (LEO) will be gone for the foreseeable future.

The Shuttle must be retired soon, and we have NOT prepared for this eventuality. We have NO heavy lifter in the wings to replace the Shuttle. It will be five, some say seven or even nine, years before we can develop a heavy lifter from scratch. (This is called "The Gap".) The factories for building the Titan-3 and Titan-4 are gone. (And besides, the Titans were hideously expensive, designed as they were on military engineering principals.)

The Constellation Program (acronymized as "CxP" within NASA) was thrown together a decade ago by a few companies who obviously and validly did not want to disappear with the Shuttle program. But those engineers aren't around any more, and they have left with us the legacy of a poorly thought-out rocket system: The Ares-1. (Also called "the stick" within NASA.) Going for the Ares-1 will leave us with The Gap, during which we will not be able to make serious use of the International Space Station (ISS). We will lose our 100 Billion $ investment in the ISS.

There are other problems with the Ares-1, but I won't go into that yet. Just take it from me, it's a pitiful attempt to replace the Shuttle.

What we need, to not only replace the Shuttle, but also to close The Gap, was outlined by the Augustine Report. CLICK HERE

That report gave 6 options, but only ONE option replaces the Shuttle to at least some extent, is expandable so that we will eventually get even more bang/$ than the Shuttle, utilizes the best of Shuttle technology, requires only ONE rocket system, will save our aerospace workforce and expertise, AND will CLOSE The Gap.

OPTION 4B.

Here are your orders:
1. Go to that website.
2. Look at the videos.
3. Contact your Congressional Representatives and Senators, and...
4. tell them you want Option 4B, with no compromises.

Don't do this just for me -- I'm retiring in a few years.

Do this for yourselves, your kids, your grandkids, your country. ]]> Space Pyrotex http://hypography.com/forums/space/21317-future-our-space-program.html