ugafan
Looking for a woman
i try the opposite approach. :evil::grin:
NASA releases partially restored Apollo 11 moonwalk video.
- Thread starter Tom Shortridge
- Start date
i try the opposite approach. :evil::grin:
Kirk Gillock
Rebel with a cause
It's amazing what can be done when you're motivated by a deadline and an unlimited budget (at the time). JFK said that he wanted a man on the moon by the end of the decade and, by looking at the flight schedule for the Apollo program, it's obvious they were rushing to get it done.
SA-503 Apollo 8 December 21, 1968 First manned flight of Saturn V and lunar orbit
SA-504 Apollo 9 March 3, 1969 Earth orbit LM test
SA-505 Apollo 10 May 18, 1969 Lunar orbit LM test
SA-506 Apollo 11 July 16, 1969 First manned lunar landing
Launching every two months. That's a quick turn around, even by today's standards.
Wish we had the same kind of motivation to get us to Mars. All it would take is one sentence by the President, "By 2012 we will put a man on Mars and we will use Goldman Sachs profits to pay for it."
SA-503 Apollo 8 December 21, 1968 First manned flight of Saturn V and lunar orbit
SA-504 Apollo 9 March 3, 1969 Earth orbit LM test
SA-505 Apollo 10 May 18, 1969 Lunar orbit LM test
SA-506 Apollo 11 July 16, 1969 First manned lunar landing
Launching every two months. That's a quick turn around, even by today's standards.
Wish we had the same kind of motivation to get us to Mars. All it would take is one sentence by the President, "By 2012 we will put a man on Mars and we will use Goldman Sachs profits to pay for it."
John Morrison
Well-known member
I don't remember what the budget was at that time - something like 10% or so of the GNP. It's interesting what's expected today. NASA is now funded through HUD (falls under Housing and Urban Development's budget - has been since the end of Apollo). I think it's on the order of 4% of HUD's budget.
How cheap our dreams have become...
How cheap our dreams have become...
Tom Shortridge
Well-known member
Last number I heard, NASA's current budget was .5% of the entire federal budget. That's one-half of one percent, about 18 billion dollars.
John Morrison
Well-known member
Sad. I know, I should probably lighten up a bit.
Last edited:
Tom Shortridge
Well-known member
No need to apologize.
In response to the general public not realizing exactly how they benefit from NASA's research, (shameless plug) that's something we're trying to address with one of the shows I work on, NASA 360 (www.nasa.gov/nasa360). Essentially, we talk about NASA inspired/derived innovations that affect our daily lives, even though we might not ever think about it.
In response to the general public not realizing exactly how they benefit from NASA's research, (shameless plug) that's something we're trying to address with one of the shows I work on, NASA 360 (www.nasa.gov/nasa360). Essentially, we talk about NASA inspired/derived innovations that affect our daily lives, even though we might not ever think about it.
Last edited:
I'm skeptical about the whole lunar landing thing. But NASA is everywhere in the world recognized as a place of excelence. And it surelly contributed to many innovations. I'm also one of the people excited about a possible Mars landing, but somehow feel it will not be in my lifetime.
As for the Moon, we'll probably see Virgin Galactic flying there in the future...
As for the Moon, we'll probably see Virgin Galactic flying there in the future...
John Morrison
Well-known member
I've deleted what I'd written. Didn't think anyone saw it in time to respond to it, and I probably shouldn't have posted it in the first place. But, I thank you Sir for your kind words, and really hope your show gets good coverage! We need more Science on TV. May I recommend that someday, you do a series on the NIF (National Ignition Facility)? It's not NASA related per-se, but the implications for our energy future if theory becomes practical is awesome.
It's interesting, I've recently read a paper/proposal that was sent in that utilizes "Spooky action at a distance", in relation to a spaceship's fuel burned on earth, as applied to a spaceship engine in space. Something like, where the fuel source is on our planet, but "burns" in outer space, via entanglement, instantaneously, without actually being on-board the spacecraft. Science is very cool. If only we had an unlimited budget.
Mark Harris
Pain in the ass
Gahhhhhh!!!! If you remember where you saw that, please pass it on. I've read about the possibilities of using entanglement for instant communications, but fuel????
John Morrison
Well-known member
Entanglement transfers the information, not the mass. It's difficult to describe, and I'd do it poorly. But, I'll try. I used the wrong wording when I said "burn" (had a glass of wine prior - guess it doesn't take much any more).
The state of the particles, or the information that describes the energy as it changes state while it's converted during combustion is entangled. Easiest way to think about it (and few of the concepts presented could be described as "easy"), is as the fuel burns and provides thrust on earth, the state of those particles while transforming during combustion as well as the energy that's produced during combustion becomes entangled. It's that energy state as entangled, that provides thrust elsewhere. The entanglement itself has already been demonstrated in the real world many times, and is somewhat well understood. But the manufacturing capability required to build devices to take advantage of this on a larger and practical scale doesn't exist yet. Some of the elements of the "engine" (and possibly the entire engine) would have to be built or grown from the molecular scale upwards, twice (or more), as well as whatever we'd use as fuel, and some interesting ideas on that were presented and discussed as well.
Will I send you or direct you to the paper and proposal?
It's in the public domain and available via a google search, as are all of NASA's RFP's and research proposals from academia sent to NASA for funding requests.
The state of the particles, or the information that describes the energy as it changes state while it's converted during combustion is entangled. Easiest way to think about it (and few of the concepts presented could be described as "easy"), is as the fuel burns and provides thrust on earth, the state of those particles while transforming during combustion as well as the energy that's produced during combustion becomes entangled. It's that energy state as entangled, that provides thrust elsewhere. The entanglement itself has already been demonstrated in the real world many times, and is somewhat well understood. But the manufacturing capability required to build devices to take advantage of this on a larger and practical scale doesn't exist yet. Some of the elements of the "engine" (and possibly the entire engine) would have to be built or grown from the molecular scale upwards, twice (or more), as well as whatever we'd use as fuel, and some interesting ideas on that were presented and discussed as well.
Will I send you or direct you to the paper and proposal?
It's in the public domain and available via a google search, as are all of NASA's RFP's and research proposals from academia sent to NASA for funding requests.
Last edited:
MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
I'm going to have to read up on that... it's going to take some explaining to understand how power or motion can be non-kinetic.
Advances that we've got from NASA? I agree with that... it seems only 3 things measurably advance civilization... military, space program, and video games
90% of everything cool that comes along usually happens as a result of the extreme investments of money, intellect, and time used to raise the bar in those three areas.
Advances that we've got from NASA? I agree with that... it seems only 3 things measurably advance civilization... military, space program, and video games
90% of everything cool that comes along usually happens as a result of the extreme investments of money, intellect, and time used to raise the bar in those three areas.
John Morrison
Well-known member
As I understand it (and I can't say I do), it's not power, kinetic energy or motion that's transferred. It's the state of the particle, described as a change of it's energy level that's entangled and transferred, and once transferred to it's entangled sibling, imparts motion. Another interesting paper, but one not connected with the same researcher, proposes a project to research study and devise ways to construct memory, something like what you'd consider RAM. However, this memory would be for storing and playing back that very same entangled state described above, as many times as required, stored within materials that lasts thousands of years.
It's research, but some of these things are way beyond Star Trek and the Science Fiction I'd read as a kid, and are taken very seriously. I read a lot of this stuff every day waiting for a job to finish compiling or a process to complete. Neat stuff.
grinner
Carbonite Member
To move forward with space exploration, we'll have to advance beyond jet propelsion. It's primative and ineffeciant because it creates resistance and inertia. To move ahead, figuratlivly and literally, we'll have to harness the positive and negative energy all around us. Doing this, one could literally enter a numeric destination, push enter and simply be there. While time travel will never be (afterall if it were to ever be, it'd be here now lol) instantaneous travel surely can. It's just a matter of evolving beyond firing up a bigass engine and holding on.
Step back and look at our consumer society. It's not as if the technology doesn't exist to have self-powered cars. That would stop milking the oil dollar though. It's not that man is ignorant... it's a greed thing. Not to know.. that is ignorant. To know but do nothing about it... that is stupid.
Step back and look at our consumer society. It's not as if the technology doesn't exist to have self-powered cars. That would stop milking the oil dollar though. It's not that man is ignorant... it's a greed thing. Not to know.. that is ignorant. To know but do nothing about it... that is stupid.
The above makes no sense whatsoever.
Inertia describes an intrinsic property of matter - the resistance of an object to changes in its acceleration (a body at rest tends to remain at rest; a body in motion tends to remain in motion). This is not something created by jet or rocket propulsion, but rather a fundamental component of Newtonian physics.
A rocket jet does not create resistance but produces thrust in order to overcome inertial resistance (the mass of the spacecraft and its contents).
Did it all the time, on Star Trek.
I agree with the sentiment, but how do you square that with the willingness you've described to lend your talents to causes which are, in your judgment, ignoble ones? (since the question references another thread please ignore it if you'd so prefer).
grinner
Carbonite Member
I'm starting by making a self-powered car. Runs on it's own energy that is generated by, well, going. Can't give away specifics yet but it's a fun project.
One day I do want to build the craft I was describing above. I'll tap into the positive and negative energies around us and really, I want to think sort of a dimmer switch. This, in a nutshell, is how I will vary how much I push and pull with those positive and negative energies. There will be no motor, so to speak, with this craft. There will be no thrust so g-forces will not be a factor whatsoever.
... in theory.
It's one thing to dream. Another to step into trial and error mode. That's where I am today.
I realize NASA has been in trial and error mode for many many years but they have not changed their way of thinking in all those years. A bigger engine with more fuel is not the answer to going further.
Not today, anyway.
One day I do want to build the craft I was describing above. I'll tap into the positive and negative energies around us and really, I want to think sort of a dimmer switch. This, in a nutshell, is how I will vary how much I push and pull with those positive and negative energies. There will be no motor, so to speak, with this craft. There will be no thrust so g-forces will not be a factor whatsoever.
... in theory.
It's one thing to dream. Another to step into trial and error mode. That's where I am today.
I realize NASA has been in trial and error mode for many many years but they have not changed their way of thinking in all those years. A bigger engine with more fuel is not the answer to going further.
Not today, anyway.
John Morrison
Well-known member
I hope you have the very best of luck in your project. As an advocate of non-fossil-fuel burning engines, as well as devices with no moving parts that are incapable of ever wearing out - I admire your tenacity.
I'll tap into the positive and negative energies around us and really, I want to think sort of a dimmer switch. This, in a nutshell, is how I will vary how much I push and pull with those positive and negative energies. There will be no motor, so to speak, with this craft. There will be no thrust so g-forces will not be a factor whatsoever.
... in theory.
Interesting. Have you given any thought to publishing this theory (of course, with all of the mathematics that support this possible view)?
How far have you gotten in development?
You should write NASA and tell them this. I'm positive they don't receive much correspondence that details how they should change the way they think, and why thinking like someone else, yourself for instance, is much more productive and much, much better. They're probably not even aware of all of their old mindset errors, and problems in their thinking, and you could provide a great service to all of mankind if you'd only show them the right way to think, and the correct method of working towards the future.
It's all on your shoulders now. Good luck.
John Morrison
Well-known member
And with that... good day.