MARS OVER MOON: President Obama visited NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida to present new details of his plan for space exploration. Having proposed eliminating NASA's near-term goal of returning humans to the moon, Obama said astronauts could soon reach destinations never before visited in deep space.
Image: NASA/Bill Ingalls
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
President Obama laid out his timeline and destinations for manned space exploration during a speech Thursday, a blueprint that includes a trip to Mars orbit and back in the 2030s. At the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, Obama pledged his commitment to the space agency and to manned exploration of the solar system, at a time when his controversial budget proposal for NASA awaits approval from Congress.
"As president, I believe that space exploration is not a luxury, it is not an afterthought," Obama said. "I am 100 percent committed to the mission of NASA and its future," he added later.
In a budget request released in February for fiscal year 2011, Obama asked for an additional $6 billion for NASA over five years, but he also introduced plans to cancel the Constellation Program, a family of rockets in the works to replace the space shuttle and return humans to the moon and to other targets in deep space. He proposed that commercial firms instead would launch astronauts to orbit after the shuttle is retired this year or in early 2011. The plan drew criticism from several members of Congress, particularly those representing districts where NASA is a major economic force, and left many experts concerned that exploration would be hamstrung without the kinds of definite goals on which Constellation had been built—notably returning humans to the moon by 2020.
Obama sought to neutralize both lines of criticism in his remarks Thursday, claiming that his plan would bring 2,500 extra jobs to Florida's Space Coast compared to the Constellation Program. He added that the administration was developing a $40-million plan for economic growth and job creation in the region, where layoffs from the shuttle program's phaseout are expected to hit hard. Obama also softened his proposal to eliminate Constellation entirely, saying that he had directed NASA Administrator Charles Bolden to begin work on an escape craft for the International Space Station that would be based on Constellation's Orion crew capsule.
Bolden had vowed in prior weeks that NASA's overarching long-term goal remained a manned mission to Mars, and Obama made that official by announcing his proposed timeline for human spaceflight in a series of what he called "specific and achievable milestones." Obama said that a heavy-lift rocket to enable astronauts' return to deep space would be fast-tracked. "We will finalize a rocket design no later than 2015 and then begin to build it," he said. On April 8 Bolden had announced that NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., would receive $3.1 billion over five years under Obama's budget to develop new heavy-lift rockets.
By 2025, Obama said, the U.S. would develop a new spacecraft that can take astronauts beyond the moon and into deep space. "We'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history," Obama said. By the 2030s, he continued, it will be possible to send humans on a two-way voyage to Mars, a mission that would be akin to the Apollo 8 mission of 1968 that set the stage for Apollo 11 the following year. "A landing on Mars will follow, and I expect to be around to see it," Obama said.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
44 Comments
Add CommentA U.S. commitment and goal for a human mission destined to ORBIT Mars, not land, in 20 to 25 YEARS is admirable, but not a particularly logical or useful road until we gain a foothold on our lunar neighbor. The Moon, which is much closer, and easier to reach, is a logical beginning in our quest to expand into our solar system, particularly as a proving ground for long-term habitation and in-system planetary surface operations. In addtion to the many unmanned NASA probes sent on deep-space missions, the U.S. has already designed and developed boosters and lunar-landing vehicles capable of reaching the lunar surface within 5 to 7 years. Re-inventing the space-faring wheel, this late in the proverbial game, may fail to keep the U.S. competitive in the upcoming international move to occupy near space and the lunar surface.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere is a Cold War when you need one?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSQ, you can also flip that argument and say, sure we've already got the tech to go to the moon, we've already been there. That's part fo the point of going to Mars instead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally, I think robotic missions make more sense than sending people, but if we're going to send people, Mars is much more interesting than the Moon...
Forty years wasted, thanks to decisions made in the Nixon and Carter administrations. We should have already established bases on the moon and Mars by now, and commenced exploring the asteroid belt and the Jovian moons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's frustrating to think of all the taxes I've paid over the years, without any say over how it gets spent.
Oh well. As the saying goes, we can soar with the eagles or roost with the turkeys, and that decision has been made for us. What a shame.
tharriss: I'm excited that Mars is officially in the plans now. I think I understand why you say robotic missions make more sense, but human exploration is essential. Sooner or later, the human race will either be extinct, or we will be a space-faring and colonizing species; this dichotomy is inevitable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it's vital that each generation do it's part to reach our goals... those generations following us can only build upon the work that we've done if we actually do some work.
tharriss,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, you are correct in that we already had the tech, as we got there numerous times. And I also agree Mars is much more interesting, as planets go. But we are really nowhere near having the tech to send humans to Mars...the radiation for such a long trip would fry the unfortunate astronaut candidates, we have no man-rated shielding developed yet, or man-rated flight hardware, or anything at all for such an endeavor. However, only two hundred and fifty thousand miles away is an excellent proving ground, with all the resources and solar power to develop the technologies needed to do so. And with a lunar base and eventual colonies with a hard-vaccum environment right outside the airlock, an excellent research environment for all types of research. I agree with hawkeye also...our goverment totally screwed up the centerpiece of America's advance technology and prestege, the manned space program. Now, with a pitiful lack of vision, and continual whittling away of American education over the last 30 years, we don't have enough engineers and scientists coming out of college to fill future rolls in space technology development. I remember very clearly our original space station, Skylab, that burned up in the atmosphere after we lost the ability for a few years to get back to it...I remember the government of 1977 hemming and hawing about asking the Russians to push it into a higher orbit for us...the Russians were highly amused by our weakness then, and, asking for a ride from the Russians up to our own space station again is probably making them roll with laughter right now. We cannot afford to appear weak and technologically inferior to other major world powers in this regard.
See the Planetary Society 2008 report Beyond the Moon giving reasons for human missions to Near Earth Asteroids (that are easier to reach and safer to return from than the Moon) and Phobos:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/space_advocacy/roadmap.html
Once again the intellectual and creative capacity of society as a whole is completely ignored, putting off human colonization of space for decades. We're running out of every type of Earthbound energy resource you can imagine, and the only viable replacement for which we have already designed the technology is space-based solar power. Our investment in space should be local, and designed such that it is not simply an exploration of what's out there, but that it actually helps us to sustain ourselves here on Earth, and COLONIZE local space as well. We currently have all our eggs in this one little basket called planet Earth, and there are a multitude of extinction events just lining up to destroy us. If we actually put colonies in orbit of the Earth (in part to maintain our space solar power satellites), on the Moon and on Mars, then should a large disaster happen to one of these baskets it won't be able to destroy the entire human race, and we'd have the chance to continue to evolve elsewhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only way we can do this is if many more people than are currently employed by the space agencies of the world can come together to work on space colonization projects in concert, maximizing the use of our Earthbound energy resources while we still have them. We already have the technical skills to make colonization of space a reality, but as Mr Obama has just reminded us, we (the whole world) simply cannot afford to pay for it using our current financial models, and those financial models limit the amount of creativity that goes into space science because vast numbers of the population are excluded from contributing by default.
So consider then the open source community, including big business, small businesses, academics, scientists, inventors and tinkerers, interested individuals et al. They have tackled some incredibly difficult problems using the internet as their design platform, and won. It is now high time that these principles are applied to the design and building of our human future in space. So I implore you, open source the entire field of space colonization. Create internet-based design platforms where anyone can contribute their knowledge, skills and work-time to designing, building and operating the machines we will need to colonize space and make use of the resources there, because by 2050 our population will be the highest it has ever been (~9 billion) just at the time when we run out of energy. If we have no other solution to the energy problem by that time, we will really need the space solar power solution.
"It's frustrating to think of all the taxes I've paid over the years, without any say over how it gets spent. " - hawkeye
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only thing I hate worse than diarrhea is listening to Sniveling Undertaxed Americans whine about their tax burdens.
Society comes at a price. Americans are unwilling to pay the price and hence the ongoing collapse of their society.
"We're running out of every type of Earthbound energy resource you can imagine" - Kookie Mombookie
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYa we need to go to mars and venus to find some new oil fields to exploit.
Wooo Hoooo.
Obama is suggesting an orbital mission to mars in order to blunt the criticism of the chattering class who can't bring themselves to realize that their nation is morally, ethically, intellectually, financially bankrupt and on the eve of desolution and chaos.
The reasons that Americans don't go any further in manned missions designed to explore space are very simple and brutal: 1)it is too costly and no short term profit from space exploration can be expected; 2)USA has already the most advanced technological means among world's space agencies - no competition=no goal=no race.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs much as we all fear Chinese economic power, it could bring out the best in USA spirit again - the ability to reach further and show its performance.
Obama's plan to reach Mars is similar to his order (1 year and 3 months ago) to close Gitmo within 1 year. It won't happen because there is no actual plan with intermediate steps.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObama's taking the right steps to keep the nation's efforts in space exploration on the right track. The key to doing it will be finding ways to bring down the cost of getting propellant and other bulky massive components into space using durable and flexible systems. With cheap fuel we could get to Mars in a few weeks instead of fuel sipping our way over months and months. With cheaper launches we send up enough sheilding (water or boron doped polyethylene) and likewise engineer a robust and massive research platform that unlike the current collection of fragile school bus sized tin cans, could be rotated slowly and continuously in true zero gravity in a geo-synchronous orbit, to create the equivalent of gravity so our long term researchers could live and work in a stable and healthy environment for longer times as we examine ways to harvest asteroids, manufacture new materials, and examine the stellar neighborhood for new insights and to learn about ways to divert any potentially dangerous asteroids or comets that might have a trajectory that collides with Earth. Super large telescopes, assembly stations for other exploration platforms, research in space based solar energy systems...the list goes on, and the benefit potential is huge, and all of it dependent on getting industry into space where its innovative capacity can be scaled up to capitalize on the abundance of opportunity in both energy and matter, that awaits the first space-faring civilizaton.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe way to reduce the cost of launching massive/bulky/durable materials into space requires a new perspective, (space engineer Robert Truax in the early 60s alread laid out the guidlelines for the system we should be using), and for the first time in a long time it looks like we have a president who understands something of the scale of space engineering...maybe because he is a self-admitted trekkie and knows that the Enterprise needs to be huge in more ways than one.
By 2030 we will be eating Chinese food on Mars
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy are we so short sighted???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy 2030 we will orbit mars and see Chinese restaurants Mare Erythraeum
The US military budget is almost $700 billion annually but to save $3 billion annually on the shuttle and a few billion more on a replacement we give up the high ground?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the result of the more than 90% takeover of the US political system by attorneys at the municipal, state and federal level. Most of these folks couldn't change a tire if their life depended on it.
7 of the 9 chinese top leaders are engineers.
The Chinese could easliy bypass the US and Soviets, colonizing the moon, and denying us access to space, using the cheap and dirty modernized Orion technique from Freeman Dyson using nukes as a rocket propulsion system.
Drill a 2 mile hole in a salt formation. Put a small nuke at the bottom in a water tank, put a thick steel plate on top of the tank with a automated payload capsule on top. Light the nuke and let er rip. When the projectile exits slam the door shut and redirect the radioactive steam back underground.
3000 tons at $10 a lb straight to the moon. I'm sure the Chinese are drilling while we twiddle our thumbs.
Seal the hole and drill a new one for the next load.
www.nextbigfuture.com/2010/03/150-kiloton-nuclear-verne-gun.html
With the cargo capacity available, the Chinese will use a simple very efficient spacebased transport with the nuclear engines similar updated NASA Nerva designs - no doubt stolen. They'll be flitting around the Solar system in no time.
We will be grounded.`
2030? You must be kidding. It could be done this year. Not with that stupid One Billion Dollar Rocket but by applying the Flying Saucer Technology that I discovered , patented and suggested to Nasa in 1980. Of course the so-called propulsion experts in Cleveland Ohio had no inkling how to experiment with it when they did not contact me like I had advised and caused the big disaster in 2004 . . Since then the stupids at Nasa have concluded that only rockets are the one and only way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith the new system installed they could reach the Moon in a few hours using a constant one G for acceleration and braking and land using the VTOL Technique.. It could reach Mars inside one day and do the same thing there.
It might take a few months to install but now that the Rocket Specialists are gone with a Golden Handshake maybe someone at Nasa will be allowed to use brains.
The Russians are now already laughing all the way to the bank.
They will be howling with laughter if Nasa is not interested because I will offer it to Russia. Nasa will have to pay me my fee and I will do the advising. I will have honest people do the checking out and they will not be fired for complaining about shoddy work.
The Shuttle would not need heat-shields, very few barf-bags (if any at all) and the crew will not get osteopororis .
It will take off like an airplane, use the VTOL at the same time and will not burn up at landing.
Someone should poke the Dinosaurs at Nasa and wake them up.
Whoever rules Space, rules the World.
Nasa has my address, it is on my Patent 4,095,162.
Expired, but, I left a few particulars out, else a so-called "friendly" country would have the USA standing in it's underwear already. Maybe someone can poke the President or Nasa leadership before June 15 or sooner.
2030? You must be kidding Mr. President. We can be there this year. Not with the One Billion Dollar Rocket but with a Shuttle, that would be equipped with the Flying Saucer Technology, which I discovered in 1967 in Canada, patented and suggested the Nasa. I was asked to send a copy of the Patent to the Cleveland, Ohio, Propulsion Lab.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did, advising them strongly to contact me before experimenting with it.
A letter came back: "Not interested, thank you for the copy of your Patent!"
Yes, who would need a Rocket Propulsion Engineer, if now a Shuttle could be equipped with it, take off VTOL, like an airplane and with a constant acceleration and braking of One G would reach the Moon in a few hours or Mars within one day. No heatshields, radiation protection from the forcefield, very few barf- bags and no osteoporosis for the crew.
They had huge salaries and had no intention of killing the Goose, that laid GOLDEN EGGS.
Of course after the Space Disasters they decided to experiment with it, did not contact me and caused a disaster.
When the power is not controlled, it becomes and E-Bomb.
After that the Nasa Brass decided that Rockets were the only safe way to go.
Now that the Propulsion Experts are gone with a Golden Handshake, will someone please poke the President or Mr. Bolden ( who probably does not know anything about this, as faxes and e-mail did not seem to work)?
Russia is now already laughing all the way to the bank, they will be howling if Nasa does not wake up.
It may cost $100 million to equip all the Shuttles, that will be able to fly for another ten years at a regular weekly or monthly basis and many new Astronauts and other professions will have a chance to travel.
A Flying Saucer does not use oil or nuclear Power, it "Taps" energy right out of the aether.
Of course that Spin-off alone would be worth a Trillion Dollars, it could be used to power homes, cars , aircraft ships.
An aircraft, using it, would not have to worry about a vulcano.
I found numerous spin-offs.
Whoever rules Space, rules the World. .
Nasa has my address on my Patent, 4,095,162.
If no contact, I will offer it to Russia.
Venicar, you said, "The only thing I hate worse than diarrhea is listening to Sniveling Undertaxed Americans whine about their tax burdens.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSociety comes at a price..." You miss the message, we Americans like to get full value for the money we put out, whether it's an automobile (no Trabants here) or government expenditures (say Tea Party). Sure, we often get taken advantage of, but we do not like to accept such without complaint. We have overtaxed ourselves when necessary, such as pulling Euro ass out of Nazi chains.
So we will debate whether shooting for Mars or the Moon will be the best use of our resources--financial, political and spiritual.
Vendicar, you say, "The only thing I hate worse than diarrhea is listening to Sniveling Undertaxed Americans whine about their tax burdens. Society comes at a price..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou don't understand, we Americans want value for our expenditures, whether it's for an automobile (don't see any Trabants around here) or for government services (how about a Tea Party?). We have overtaxed ourselves when necessary, such as having to pull Euro ass out of Nazi clutches.
So debating whether shooting for Mars or the Moon will be a good use of our resources--financial, technical and spiritual--is most appropriate.
ennui,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did take some time to review your patent...very interesting invention, and, as you say in the patent, it could be used in other applications beside space vehicles. Have you renewed the patent yet? Maybe marketing it to some of the upcoming private space companies, where I'm sure it would be better received, may be a solution.
The problem with government sponsorship of the "Space program" is government sponsorship. Government is not effective nor efficient, and often retards progress because of partisanship, bribery, bureaucracy, and such.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe STS "Space Shuttle" program is a prime example. The original concept was to build a petite "Shuttle" to bring personnel to the Space Station. When the Space Station was scrapped, there was no place for the Shuttle to go to. So the bureaucrats decided to "team up" with the military, and make the shuttle into a "Space Truck", which resulted in a re-design that destroyed at least two shuttles. (The original concept was not unlike Burt Rutan's jet powered carrier, and rocket ship. Which would not have had the dangers of the two part solid fuel boosters - nor the huge exterior fuel tank.)
Frankly, the political framework will not be conducive to advances in Space Exploitation, at least not when governments take a huge share of the nation's wealth, and waste it. Private enterprise no longer has the capital to risk bold steps. The "Nanny State" is here, and no bureaucrat will risk his career on stretching beyond his comfort zone.
"The original concept was to build a petite "Shuttle" to bring personnel to the Space Station." - Conservaytive American KookTard #1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKook Tards will say almost anything as long as it supports their Conservadopian Liedeology.
The first sentence is a prime example. The Conservative KookTard who wrote it wishes for what it said to be true, but of course reality is 180' out of phase with it's sentiment.
First, the Space station didn't exist when shuttle was designed.
Second, the shuttle wasn't originally designed to be lean, but initially designed to be robust, with the ability to loft larger payloads, to higher orbits, the ability to service in place and return isosynchonous satellites, and the feature of a powered descent.
What drove the shuttle design FROM A ROBUST SPACE TRUCK to a PETITE WHITE ELEPHANT, was pressure from the KookTard's fellow Republicans who insisted on CUTTING THE SHUTTLE BUDGET to the point where it could only reach LEO - and therfore be suitable ONLY TO MILITARY and earth recon services.
So here we have a Republican Kook Tard, rewriting history and turning it completely backwards in order to cover up the fact that it's own corrupt party of intellectual inferiors was responsible for converting what would have been a space work horse, into a IMPOTENT and PETITE White Elephant.
Is there anything in this world that Conservatvies have touched that they haven't damaged or destroyed through their incompetence, deceit, ignorance and outright lies?
"You don't understand, we Americans want value for our expenditures" - Conservative KookTard #2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd that is why America has been exporting it's industry over the last 20 years. America industry produces nothing of value.
Crappy US automobiles come immediately to mind.
So tell us Quack Tard. if Ameicans are so interested in value for their money, why do theywaste so much money purchasing products that are designed to fail? Why do Americans spend 50% more than their European counterparts
for health care that is inferior to that available in Europe?
Why is 30% of the food purchased in the U.S. thrown away?
Why is Amrerica's infrastructure rotting away?
Why did Americans commit to spending $4 trillion dollars to hang Saddam Hussein?
And why did Americans decide to spend another trillion trying to find BinLaden when the Taliban - the rightfully elected government of Afghanistan - was willing to provide him for you once the evidence against him was presented?
If you can't answer these questions for yourself, then maybe you could ask your most valuable pet rock.
tharriss, we "had" the tech to reach the moon. We no longer have the tech and soon won't even have the tech to get to the ISS without the Russians.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObama's "been there done that" argument makes some sense if the benefits of a manned program were the same as those during the coldwar. We could land on Mars and plant the American flag and do a bit of research. The astronauts could come home to ticker tape parades. We would reap considerable national prestige depending upon the degree of international participation. A high degree of international participation would undermine the national pride motivation of a Mars landing but it might be worth it if we would supply the astronauts and the other countries could demonstrate their engineering prowess while footing the bill.
Engineering progress isn't made in leaps and bounds. It is the product of careful evolutionary technological development. We are far more likely to reach the goal of Mars by developing the hardware first as proven transportation to the moon. A moon landing is a challenge within the scope of our technology and national resolve. We could then extend this technology for transportation to the asteroids and Mars.
I believe that a manned mission to Mars in the search of extraterrestrial life is worth Nasa's projected 0.6% of the federal budget. Robotic probes are now, and for the foreseeable future, inadequate (not smart or agile enough) for the search for life. Life on Mars would be the greatest scientific discovery in history and would have tremendous practical, sentimental, philosopical and scientific benefits. I just believe that the Obama approach is a fanciful boondoggle.
"First, the Space station didn't exist when shuttle was designed."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong...apparently you do not remember...or most probably not aware of... America's first space station Skylab. The Space Shuttle design and construction began in the early 1970s, conceptualization actually began two decades earlier, even before the Apollo program of the 1960s. One of it's first slated missions was a 1979 flight to boost America's first space station into a higher orbit to avoid an atmospheric burnup due to Skylab's 8-year declining orbit. Final fabrication and flight-testing of the first shuttle was not completed until the early 1980's, too late to prevent Skylab's re-entry which occurred at approximately 16:37 UTC 11 July 1979.
Wrong...apparently you do not remember...or most probably not aware of... America's first space station Skylab" - sqengineer - Conservative KookTard #1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich isn't "the space station", and was in fact not evena space station but a modified Apollo 3'rd stage.
Sky lab, isn't relevant to the shuttle, although you are correct that decade before the flight of STS-2, and 5 years after sky lab had fallen into the ocean, NASA engineers had a vision of STS-2 boosting skylab to a higher orbit.
And what cause the delay in the shuttle?
A continuous defunding of the program by Congressional Republians of course, with the aim of converting the civilian program into one only suitable for military purposes.
Again I ask, is there anything Consrevatives touch that they don't destroy or otherwise screw up beyone repair?
"Vendicar, my apologies, I thought that you had something constructive to add, but now realize that you are just a flaming fool." - Scrivner
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmerica's brain disease is terminal I am happy to say. I'm sorry if you don't find that reality to be constructive.
"Wonder how that could be when the Democrats controlled Congress throughout the 1970's?"
Oh, it's simple. You see, in your congress, bills are passed by vote, not by proclamation by the party who has the most members in congress.
Republicans were hell bent on destroying NASA while the Democrats were generally supporters of science and technology.
The plurality of Democrats can still vote for something and if oh, 100% of the Republican Traitors still oppose it, it is quite possible it will lose.
Lets say it's 60/40 in favour of the democrats and 75% of the Democrats vote in favour of oh, say universal health care, but 100% of the cretinous Repubs (The party of NO) vote against it. Well then the result is a loss, even though the majority of Democrats supported the thing.
You ain't very good with yer numbers is yooze Scrivner?
Home Skoolzed was ya, by yer pappy?
to get people in to space use some thing like a gemini...couple of people at a time really old tech and works(and should be dirt cheap)...let the private industry get up to speed on putting people in orbit and then use them too.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisactual building materials to assemble platforms and crafts should be shot into space(1000+gees) several technologies to do that exist today....or so they say....
having people in space without "gravity" is naive. get rid of the zero gee and solve most of the human issues...ie build a structure that rotates....
trip times to mars being anything over a couple of weeks is stupid...and not having standby ships already there is unforgivable....
my two cents is quit building throw away crap...
ennui...the patent that you came up with this time is for a 1 terminal capacitor....what does this have to do with anything here...
Wayne asked what has the 1-terminal capacitor to do with anything...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, Wayne, I do not know, if you have ever seen a picture of a Flying Saucer. (FS)
If you did , have you noticed this big spheres underneath?
Would you have assumed that they were used for propulsion of for carrying fuel?
You know of course that a FS seems to use electronics, I hope?
In that case , have you ever asked yourself: "Where do we talk about spheres in the electrical field?"
Probably not, because nobody else did.
It is Faraday's theoretical problem:
Two concentric metal spheres do not touch and form a capacitor C. (That is a 2-terminal Capacitor)
This one is charged up to a potential V.
Then the outside sphere is removed.
The remaining sphere is a 1-terminal capacitor c.
The potential on that sphere is momentarily C/c x V.
Impossible to do in practice, right?
It even says so in the physics books.
I found that I do not need spheres to get the effect.
GE made some glass tubes for me, filled with argon.
I wrapped aluminum foil to 1 inch of each end.
I constructed a power supply.
12 volt battery, followed by a transitor convertor to 250 volts at 1900 c/s.
Followed by a diode/cap multiplier to 6000 volts, a tab at 1200 volts.
I fired the tube from the 1200 volt tab, I had established a 2-teminal capacitor.
I charged that capacitor up to 6000 volts.
When I let both (Momentary-On) switches go, the following happened:
I got the Mother of all pokes and almost broke my arm, when I hit a wooden beam in my basement workshop.
The lights went out and a big explosion happened outside. Outside , the big Power Transformer on a pole, supplying the neigbourhood, was on fire.
The Hydro Company replaced it forthwith and blamed a squirrel, whose remains were found, well-cooked, inside the ruins (THANK YOU LORD).
My TV and HiFi had been zapped.
I measured the pulse in a make-shift Faraday Cage and found that I had generated more than 150,000 volts.
A later experiment in the "sticks", using three tubes, plastic rods to work the swithes, invited a lightning strike out of the blue sky on the tree, under which I was parked, and set it afire. I had generated 500,000 Volts.
In these spheres of a FS are a number of these tubes.
As in a conductor no charge can exist, it goes ot the outside. The sphere becomes the 1-terminal capacitor.
The three spheres are giving pulses in sequence.
A simple joystick can tilt the FS in any direstion.
A simple knob increases the power.
That technology can be applied to a Shuttle.
Wayne Williamson wonders about the 1-terminal capacitor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell Wayne, these spheres underneath a Flying Saucer are
1-terminal capacitors.
They are used as a practical application of a theoretical problem that Faraday proposed in the mid 1800's :
Two metal concentric spheres do not touch and form a capacitor C. This one is charged up to a potential V.
Then the outside sphere is removed. The remaining sphere is a 1-terminal capacitor c . The potential on this sphere is momentarily C/c x V.
Impossible to do in practice.
I found how to get around it by inventing a capacitor that could be changed from a 1-terminal type to a 2-terminal type, that could be charged up to a High Voltage and then changed back into the 1-terminal type, resulting a much higher High Voltage pulse.
I changed a charge of 6000 volts into 500,000 Volts pulse.
That type of unit is every one of these spheres of a FS.
The 1-terminal type of the unit is connected to the sphere.
As inside a conductor no charge can exist it goes to the outside and the sphere becomes the 1-terminal capacitor. The pulse is directed downwards by the Saucer shape.
A joystick determines if the Saucer should go straight up or in a direction. A knob decides the amount of power. A 16-year old girl with normal IQ and heavy glasses could fly it.
Wayne, maybe your grand-daughter will take you for a ride some day. I do not know if she will let you touch the controls.
With U.S. manned space flight ending with the shuttle,and no other manned craft even planned.How does the President think were going to get to Mars?Congress simply is not going to supply any money for manned space flight ever again,with the present dept the money just isn't there.What will probably happen is that the U.S. will fund a joint venture with the same group that now supports the space station,with the manned craft being built by Russia and China.when it's said and done the U.S. may not even have a astronaut on board,but most likely Nasa supplying the lions share of money will bully at least one on the trip.By then Nasa will be a mostly robotic planetary exploration group with it's members being Earth bound,with only a handful of astronaut's,and they will be mostly military,with the dream of American youth's becoming a astronaut being lost forever.It's a shame that so many dreams of the future are going to die because of this Presidency,in the end all that's going to left is broken promises,and tears for what could have been.Perhaps the the private sector will prevale<but with our governments passion for regulation it is unlikely that privite industry will be able to afford it,but we only can hope.One profitable trip to an asteroid could turn things around,and start a modern gold rush.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Congress simply is not going to supply any money for manned space flight ever again,with the present dept the money just isn't there." - Jack
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmerica will not exist as a single nation in 20 years.
vendicar9:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople like you telling us we can't or won't only ensures that we will. We've been underestimated many times in the past, often to the detriment of our detractors and those who seek to do us harm.
It's a good news!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a good news !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I tried to contact other space connected companies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are all interested in the rocket industry, as Bolden thinks that American Engineers are too stupid to go past obosolete technology. They all hope to get some of the drippings of the $ 45 Billion Heavy Lifter.
Neither the President or Bolden has any engineering experience. Why the President made him head of Nasa will be an expensive question.
"America will not exist as a single nation in 20 years."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've been hearing that for the last 20 years. And the 20 years before that. If a rooster crows every minute of every hour of every day, eventually it will crow when the sun rises. Unless it gets eaten first. Yum!
Undertaxed? Really? The problem is how our taxes are spent, it is a matter of waste and abuse. The government obviously has holes in their pockets and a spending problem. If taxes went towards things that actually support the country directly and effectively in areas that matter to us, we wouldn't have a problem paying taxes. If you were forced to give me half of your paycheck every month and I spent a large portion of it on alcohol, would you not whine?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually no, the asteroid belt seems to be rich in mineral resources, but our energy needs can be met in space via solar and nuclear power. This will reduce our imprint on Earth. I don't think anyone expects to find or hopes to exploit oil resources on Mars or other planets. Colonizing space will teach us to be self-sustaining without damaging worlds that sustain us. Despite what humans do to their environment, we also strive to find less destructive means of living. As a liberal kook, it sounds like you might even be an example of this. Have some faith in humanity, you aren't the smartest or most concerned person on this planet. We make decisions to survive right now, but strive for something better. That's human instinct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf Nasa's Managment had decided to use the technology of the Flying Saucer which tyhey were offererd in 1980, we ould have been on the Moon in a couple of hours and on Mars within one day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPutting a Yes-man in charge will not get the USA anywhere fast.
The invention of Gravity Control, as used by the Flying Saucer, would have created hundreds of thousands of jobs, not the measly 3000 in Florida alone.
Look at > One Terminal Capacitor < and wonder about the brains in charge.
I am slowly working on that. Maybe I will have to sell it to China but hate that. They would be able to rule Space and therefore the Earth. Nasa's Management is now Yes-men instead of engineers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNasa could have been on the Moon again and even on Mars shortly after 1980. They were offered the technology of the Flying Saucer, which could have been applied to a Shuttle, which then would have reached the ISS in an hour, the Moon in a couple of hours and Mars within one day. This all by using a constant acceleration of ONE G per second (braking halfway with the same force). The invention, evaluated by the Hudson Institute at $600 Billion if the USA would have it before Russia, would cost Nasa only $50 Million. The Propulsion Engineers in Cleveland rejected it. Finally, after the second Space Disaster they decided the experiment with the circuitry, did not contact me first like I had urged, got the setting of an E-Bomb (one of the applications) and caused the big black-out of 2003 in the USA and Canada. They saved Nasa $50 million and caused billions of Dollars in damage. They blamed an innocent tree for it all and informed Mr. Griffin, that the technology, used by a Flying Saucer was unsuitable for Space Travel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook at > One Terminal Capacitor < .
If Hitler (who started the Space War) had had this, he would have been ruling the whole world. His Engineers started building a Flying Disc, first using the VandGraaff Generator (no results and changing in 1937 to Magnetics, no results either). One of the two degreed Engineers that witnessed the application was a Chief Engineer of Philco/Ford in Canada. His comment:
"My God, you found it, why did I not think about that?"
He happens to be the top expert on plasma tubes in the world with many patents to his name and worked on Hitler's Flying Disc which never came off the ground.
I thought: "A Good thing too, if Hitler had had this invention, not one Allied Aircraft would have returned home after crossing in German controlled airspace.
He would have won the war with that invention alone.
Why are we so enamored with space exploration? We have spent enough time and resources on it to last decades. There's not a lot more to discover that will in any way enlighten the human race, or make life on this planet better. We are now 99.9% sure life on Mars does not exist and even if micros were found, so what? If we are intent on exploring more of these baron celestial rocks lets do it with robots. Manned missions are a total waste of energy. And don't think that stations on the Moon and Mars could be stepping stones to the Universe, they wont be. Distances are too vast. If we could travel at a million miles per hour it would take over 3000 years to reach the nearest star (other than the Sun). And forget time shrinkage etc that can't occur until speeds close to light are reached. No, we have plenty of complex scientific problems to solve here on Earth to keep us busy for centuries so lets confine our 'space' exploration to near Earth orbit. Outer limit of 'space' should be defined as synchronous orbit (22000 mile up)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this