Is NASA Covering Up the 100-Year Starship?

[quade 4]

Quote

Is NASA Covering Up the 100-Year Starship?
By John Brandon

Source; http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/29/nasa-cover-up-hundred-year-starship/

/facepalm

Dear Fox News, please think before you post. $1 million dollars does not a "Starship" make, nor does it take 100 years to get to Mars even using the most trivial chemical rockets we already have at our disposal. What the hell?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DSE 5]

there are a lot of zeroes in that story..
maybe 100million dollars for a 10 year trip?
Maybe it's the first step towards Insanity that Stewart put into motion over the weekend.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Is NASA Covering Up the 100-Year Starship?
By John Brandon

Source; http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/29/nasa-cover-up-hundred-year-starship/

/facepalm

Dear Fox News, please think before you post. $1 million dollars does not a "Starship" make, nor does it take 100 years to get to Mars even using the most trivial chemical rockets we already have at our disposal. What the hell?

That whole article has to be a joke, its so full of bullshit you have to wonder if ANYONE did ANY fact checking at all

A huge WTF oh wait.... its FAUX NEWS... no wonder the science is so far off the "mark"

[billvon 3,119]

>$1 million dollars does not a "Starship" make, nor does it take 100 years
>to get to Mars even using the most trivial chemical rockets we already
>have at our disposal.

Indeed. Ironically the lowest energy transfer orbit would take 8.5 months if both planets were in ideal positions; any other orbit would take more energy, not less.

>What the hell?

Most likely an eager but clueless reporter overheard snippets of several different programs - NSTAR, Orion etc.

[quade 4]

Unfortunately all the major networks have gutted their science divisions. This is the type of reporting that results. Stuff that doesn't even pass a test of mathematical reasonableness gets passed off as reportage. I also detest the current trend of some news organizations to state their headlines as questions in this way. FFS, you're the news; you tell us!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Unfortunately all the major networks have gutted their science divisions. This is the type of reporting that results. Stuff that doesn't even pass a test of mathematical reasonableness gets passed off as reportage. I also detest the current trend of some news organizations to state their headlines as questions in this way. FFS, you're the news; you tell us!

Maybe they can have a meeting and discuss how best to propogate the lies.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[davjohns 1]

I don't see the problem with the article. It points out some issues with colonization. It says someone suggested that money has been put forth to explore the possibility of one way trips. Mars was just an example. The 100 years was just an example. They weren't necessarily related.

It looks to me that people who didn't like the article had that opinion before reading it. I thought it brought up some interesting questions that nobody has the answers to. The last line made it clear that the idea is only in the early stages.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[JohnMitchell 16]

"The main issue has to do with a basic physics conundrum. In order to travel the great distance to Mars (about 35 million miles), a starship would need a tremendous amount of fuel. . . . . The more fuel you add, the more you need simply to move the ship's bulk, making it impossible to go one-way to Mars, much less roundtrip. "

Well that's wrong. Do you have no problem with that?

"A NASA official may have made a 35-million-mile slip of the tongue.
The director of NASA's Ames Research Center in California casually let slip mention of the 100-Year Starship recently, a new program funded by the super-secret government agency, DARPA. In a talk at San Francisco's Long Conversation conference
, Simon “Pete” Worden said DARPA has $1M to spend, plus another $100,000 from NASA itself, for the program, which will initially develop a new kind of propulsion engine that will take us to Mars or beyond."

Sounds like DARPA, which is not that secret, might be researching a new propulsion method. I doubt they are developing plans to send astronauts on one-way colonization trips, to have their bodies modified to breathe ammonia and methane.

Sounds like FOX news being ignorant and hyperbolic, all at the same time. "Oooh, it's a secret govt. agency!!"

[davjohns 1]

Quote

"The main issue has to do with a basic physics conundrum. In order to travel the great distance to Mars (about 35 million miles), a starship would need a tremendous amount of fuel. . . . . The more fuel you add, the more you need simply to move the ship's bulk, making it impossible to go one-way to Mars, much less roundtrip. "

Well that's wrong. Do you have no problem with that?
reply]

Mmmm...not really.

1) "In order to travel the great distance to Mars (about 35 million miles)..."

"Depending on where they are in their respective orbits, they can be anywhere from 36 million miles to over 250 million miles apart." Answers.com

2) "a starship would need a tremendous amount of fuel. . . . . The more fuel you add, the more you need simply to move the ship's bulk,"

Res Ipsa Loquitur

3) "making it impossible to go one-way to Mars, much less roundtrip."

Obviously, something got quoted wrong or misspoken or taken out of context here since we have sent quite a few missions to Mars already. I give the source of that quote the benefit of the doubt and figure they were talking about a one-way manned trip (due to oxygen, food, etc. requirements) being out of the question for now. I don't know if that's true or not. I just think the statement is so clearly wrong that someone made a simple mistake.

But then, I look for points in common; not points to argue about. Just me.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

• Quote

[dgskydive 0]

The accuracy of the story aside. They are at least working on ways to deal with the loss of bone density that astronauts experience.

http://gizmodo.com/5677486/superhero+style-spacesuits-could-provide-vital-compression-for-astronauts

I think this is awesome if they do move forward with something like this. Kinda like being on of the first settlers in America. Most of those folks knew they were never gonna go home either. I would volunteer. Hell some of you would volunteer me as well.

Dom

[jtnesbitt 0]

You guys are right, no fact checking. It's a good thing we have other news sources like CNN to get us correct info about space travel. [/sarcasm]

"If this post needs to be moderated I would prefer it to be completly removed and not edited and butchered into a disney movie" - DorkZone Hero

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

With stirrups that loop around the feet, the elastic gravity skinsuit is purposely cut too short for the astronaut so that it stretches when put on-pulling the wearer's shoulders towards the feet. In normal gravity conditions on Earth, a human's legs bear more weight than the torso.

Oh, great - so I'd have to spend months with a wedgie. Pass.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Is NASA Covering Up the 100-Year Starship?
By John Brandon

Source; http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/29/nasa-cover-up-hundred-year-starship/

/facepalm

Dear Fox News, please think before you post. $1 million dollars does not a "Starship" make, nor does it take 100 years to get to Mars even using the most trivial chemical rockets we already have at our disposal. What the hell?

It would probably take 100 years if you use a 1 million dollar starship.

[Guest]

Quote

"The main issue has to do with a basic physics conundrum. In order to travel the great distance to Mars (about 35 million miles), a starship would need a tremendous amount of fuel. . . . . The more fuel you add, the more you need simply to move the ship's bulk, making it impossible to go one-way to Mars, much less roundtrip. "

Well that's wrong. Do you have no problem with that?

"A NASA official may have made a 35-million-mile slip of the tongue.
The director of NASA's Ames Research Center in California casually let slip mention of the 100-Year Starship recently, a new program funded by the super-secret government agency, DARPA. In a talk at San Francisco's Long Conversation conference
, Simon “Pete” Worden said DARPA has $1M to spend, plus another $100,000 from NASA itself, for the program, which will initially develop a new kind of propulsion engine that will take us to Mars or beyond."

Sounds like DARPA, which is not that secret, might be researching a new propulsion method. I doubt they are developing plans to send astronauts on one-way colonization trips, to have their bodies modified to breathe ammonia and methane.

Sounds like FOX news being ignorant and hyperbolic, all at the same time. "Oooh, it's a secret govt. agency!!"

Meh. Without looking at the story, I'll guess that the $1M was just to fund a feasibility study. Like other organizations DARPA does all kinds of wacky research that doesn't go anywhere or do anything useful, but might lead to other developments / breakthroughs in other areas.

Who's to say whether a feasibility study on a type of space travel might not yield new ideas for some other concepts, such as long-term waste recycling / recovery that could be applied here on Earth?

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The accuracy of the story aside. They are at least working on ways to deal with the loss of bone density that astronauts experience.

http://gizmodo.com/5677486/superhero+style-spacesuits-could-provide-vital-compression-for-astronauts


I think this is awesome if they do move forward with something like this. Kinda like being on of the first settlers in America. Most of those folks knew they were never gonna go home either. I would volunteer. Hell some of you would volunteer me as well.

The accuracy of ANY numbers in that story were attrocious. News organizations used to do a BIT of fact checking to get things like that right.


AS far as the mission:

Hell I would go... I am pretty good at keeping computer stuff working
I would LOVE to be able to use the well used line by the computer geek from the movie "Rocket Man"

"It's not my fault, I didn't do it"

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

Oh, great - so I'd have to spend months with a wedgie. Pass.

Hey some people might like that A LOT.

Dom

[nanook 1]

It must be one of those Jefferson Starships I always hear about.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[muff528 3]

Quote

It must be one of those Jefferson Starships I always hear about.

No... you're thinking of a 100-year-old Starship!

[mdrejhon 8]

Isn't it supposed to be a 100-year interplanetary space habitat/station, rather than a starship? A generational ship, perchance? It would make kinda better sense, if it was worded like that. A massive habitat (like an artifical mini-planet, which could be typically envisioned to be the size of a large skyscraper or cruise ship with self-contained facilities), with so much momentum, that it takes 100 years for it to slowly thrust itself to Mars even on nuclear (at current technologies), but that the "spaceship" itself has the advantage of being a long term mini-city that can sustain itself even without a destination? At least, that's how I interpreted it.... "Starship" for such a thing would be a massive glorification of what is just a long-term interplanetary habitat.

Personally, I'd rather see smaller and faster space transports to mars, but the self-thrusting habitat idea, does kind of make sense in different ways -- but we'd have to conquer the moon first with some colonies before we thought of something like that as being pratical. It would make sense in many ways, for a populated space station to be self-sustaining (and have secondary thrusters to slowly bring it to Mars) -- it would make sense from a human-species preservation perspective, having the spaceship itself be an insurance policy to the survival of human, not just the destination itself (Mars).

Whether this approach, is more economically practical, than just shuttling humans, remains to be seen. Building a small city in earth orbit (of the size of a large cruise ship), may later ultimately (initially) be much easier than sending supplies to Mars to begin building such a city, if raw materials couldn't pratically be used at the destination to build the said 'city'. So, perhaps the school of thought of a 100-year "starship" (really a large space station with thrusters) makes sense, if we later find that sending people group by group, to a permanent mars outpost (and construction/supplies for the Mars outpost) becomes incredibly expensive relative to this, depending on what breakthrough technologies does/does not happen between now and then...

Also, in theory, neither is completely exclusive of each other. The habitat slowly enroute to Mars could still in theory be visited by smaller spaceships and supply ships. Initial colonies might still be sent to Mars. Then 100 years from now, someone decides to build a generational ship that's as attractive as today's Caribbean mega-cruiseship, maybe even spinning for artifical gravity. And depending on thruster technologies that becomes practical by then, could be just 10 or 25 or 50 years for the space station/city to 'thrust' itself to Mars. And necessary shielding too (for solar flares, debris, etc). It might even be reused for return journies to Earth. Financially, in the future, a combination of technologies might find that it's economically cheaper or more comfortable for humans to take this route.

Once someone thinks of things in these terms, the 100-year spaceship to Mars isn't 100% nonsensical, from a mathematical/scientific/economic perspective, although it does not seem to be the ideal/preferred option at this time.