Yes. Next question?
Okay, long answer, if this is what is actually happening, I'm not on the news here:
The USA have a pathetically bloated military budget already, the last thing they need is more weapons and armor. It doesn't exactly help the country's reputation as a regressing country of warmongers. Meanwhile education and science, are neglected more and more spreading the gap between rich and poor even further, breaking the economy apart so the already rich can get even richer with no consideration for the people.
The USA were once one of the leading countries in scientific progress, now the only record it holds is tanks per person.
In short, everything is wrong with that.
|
Realistically the US military budget probably encompasses at least a minor part of the space program due to the fact that military technology is usually the forefront of technology. Plus there are some pretty cool weapons that will be getting launched into space. This means that the space programs probably won't be cut, but rearranged in favour of more militaristic technologies such as more tracking satellites, and Project Thor; but less Voyager 1 transcending our galaxies kind of thing. It is a shame, but it's not as though they would ever shut down something as integral as N.A.S.A
|
|
Well, I have heard rumour, and I don't want to be quoted on this, but engineers are working on a way to conduct electricity wirelessly, and are trying to come up with ways to set up sort of a solar power grid in space to orbit the moon and beam the collected energy back to earth. It sounds unfeasible, but we've got some pretty smart people on this planet working on it, I wouldn't be surprised if we see this sort of technology within the next twenty years. As for using matter or anti matter as a fuel source, that's not really possible, because it's not really anything. And I don't see why we'd go to saturns rings when Enceladus, one of Saturns moons is suspected to have water under the frozen surface. If there was going to be anything that may support life, that would be the better choice.
Nasa has been described as the people's program.
Is the government wrong to cut its funding in favour of armies to protect the interests of corporations?
Which corporations? And are we talking about funding for toilet seats, jet fighters, or prosthesis technology? Do you want to cut finding to DARPA? Air Force? The VA?
As for using matter or anti matter as a fuel source, that's not really possible, because it's not really anything.
What?
Antimatter isn't a fuel source, it's a fuel. It's a medium for high-density energy storage. So, say, you have a string of stattites around the Sun soaking up solar energy and using it to produce antimatter, or you have a solar array that encircles the moon's equator, also producing antimatter. That antimatter is then loaded onto ships for a power source, or shipped somewhere else in the solar system that needs power and doesn't mind using an incredibly volatile fuel.
Well, I have heard rumour, and I don't want to be quoted on this, but engineers are working on a way to conduct electricity wirelessly, and are trying to come up with ways to set up sort of a solar power grid in space to orbit the moon and beam the collected energy back to earth. It sounds unfeasible, but we've got some pretty smart people on this planet working on it, I wouldn't be surprised if we see this sort of technology within the next twenty years. As for using matter or anti matter as a fuel source, that's not really possible, because it's not really anything. And I don't see why we'd go to saturns rings when Enceladus, one of Saturns moons is suspected to have water under the frozen surface. If there was going to be anything that may support life, that would be the better choice.
Lunar solar will probably happen. The collectors will be on the moon, not in orbit of the moon. This is because about 20% of lunar surface dust is silica which is exactly what you need to make glass and solar voltaic panels. You send machines to the moon to construct the panels and then you can transfer that power back to earth. "Wireless" energy transfer is already a thing. It's called microwaves. They can penetrate virtually any atmospheric condition and can be sent any where on earth with an antenna array equipped to receive them. Unlike solar which gets blocked by clouds/storms and that pesky rotation thing the earth does.
Lunar solar will probably happen. The collectors will be on the moon, not in orbit of the moon. This is because about 20% of lunar surface dust is silica which is exactly what you need to make glass and solar voltaic panels. You send machines to the moon to construct the panels and then you can transfer that power back to earth. "Wireless" energy transfer is already a thing. It's called microwaves. They can penetrate virtually any atmospheric condition and can be sent any where on earth with an antenna array equipped to receive them. Unlike solar which gets blocked by clouds/storms and that pesky rotation thing the earth does.Microwaves tend to get blocked by rotation as well.:)
There are also some questions about the effects of that much focused energy being shot at the earth.
That's what satellites are for.
Lunar solar will probably happen. The collectors will be on the moon, not in orbit of the moon. This is because about 20% of lunar surface dust is silica which is exactly what you need to make glass and solar voltaic panels. You send machines to the moon to construct the panels and then you can transfer that power back to earth. "Wireless" energy transfer is already a thing. It's called microwaves. They can penetrate virtually any atmospheric condition and can be sent any where on earth with an antenna array equipped to receive them. Unlike solar which gets blocked by clouds/storms and that pesky rotation thing the earth does.Microwaves tend to get blocked by rotation as well.:)
There are also some questions about the effects of that much focused energy being shot at the earth.That's what satellites are for.
The rehash of Diamonds are Forever?
|
Nasa has been described as the people's program.Is the government wrong to cut its funding in favour of armies to protect the interests of corporations?Which corporations? And are we talking about funding for toilet seats, jet fighters, or prosthesis technology? Do you want to cut finding to DARPA? Air Force? The VA?
As for using matter or anti matter as a fuel source, that's not really possible, because it's not really anything.What?
Antimatter isn't a fuel source, it's a fuel. It's a medium for high-density energy storage. So, say, you have a string of stattites around the Sun soaking up solar energy and using it to produce antimatter, or you have a solar array that encircles the moon's equator, also producing antimatter. That antimatter is then loaded onto ships for a power source, or shipped somewhere else in the solar system that needs power and doesn't mind using an incredibly volatile fuel.
'nasa is the peoples program...we are giving it back to them'
Or you toss a pound of it on the Earth and totally blow off the planet's atmosphere. The ultimate weapon grade material.
Antimatter isn't a fuel source, it's a fuel. It's a medium for high-density energy storage. So, say, you have a string of stattites around the Sun soaking up solar energy and using it to produce antimatter, or you have a solar array that encircles the moon's equator, also producing antimatter. That antimatter is then loaded onto ships for a power source, or shipped somewhere else in the solar system that needs power and doesn't mind using an incredibly volatile fuel.
The explosion would be huge as the matter/antimatter annihilated one another, but 1 pound of antimatter would only destroy 1 pound of matter, or in the atmosphere about 360L of N2 gas. Not exactly atmosphere-ending.
Okay 2 pounds make that one kilogram to make the math neat, of matter converted to energy.... run that through the Einstein E equals MC squared equation and tell me how much energy is released. And then come back to me.The explosion would be huge as the matter/antimatter annihilated one another, but 1 pound of antimatter would only destroy 1 pound of matter, or in the atmosphere about 360L of N2 gas. Not exactly atmosphere-ending.Or you toss a pound of it on the Earth and totally blow off the planet's atmosphere. The ultimate weapon grade material.
Antimatter isn't a fuel source, it's a fuel. It's a medium for high-density energy storage. So, say, you have a string of stattites around the Sun soaking up solar energy and using it to produce antimatter, or you have a solar array that encircles the moon's equator, also producing antimatter. That antimatter is then loaded onto ships for a power source, or shipped somewhere else in the solar system that needs power and doesn't mind using an incredibly volatile fuel.
Energy releasing /= atmosphere destroying.
I'm not sure how you think releasing a lot of energy locally will blow the atmosphere off the planet world-wide.
Okay 2 pounds make that one kilogram to make the math neat, of matter converted to energy.... run that through the Einstein E equals MC squared equation and tell me how much energy is released. And then come back to me. I said nothing about destroying the matter of the atmosphere just blowing it off.The explosion would be huge as the matter/antimatter annihilated one another, but 1 pound of antimatter would only destroy 1 pound of matter, or in the atmosphere about 360L of N2 gas. Not exactly atmosphere-ending.Or you toss a pound of it on the Earth and totally blow off the planet's atmosphere. The ultimate weapon grade material.
Antimatter isn't a fuel source, it's a fuel. It's a medium for high-density energy storage. So, say, you have a string of stattites around the Sun soaking up solar energy and using it to produce antimatter, or you have a solar array that encircles the moon's equator, also producing antimatter. That antimatter is then loaded onto ships for a power source, or shipped somewhere else in the solar system that needs power and doesn't mind using an incredibly volatile fuel.
The scale looks off to an eyeball check, so let me actually go do that.
[...]
[...]
2kg mass energy = 179.7 petajoules.
Double that to account for the mass energy of both matter and antimatter to 359.4 petajoules.
At 4.184 petajoules to the megaton, that's 85.9 megatons TNT equivalent or so.
Bigger than Tsar Bomba (50 megatons), smaller than Krakatoa (200 megatons), way smaller than Chixculub (100 million megatons).
Or you toss a pound of it on the Earth and totally blow off the planet's atmosphere. The ultimate weapon grade material.
Psh. Like I haven't heard that one before. "Oh, don't test that nuclear bomb, you'll set the atmosphere on fire!"
The scale looks off to an eyeball check, so let me actually go do that.
[...]
[...]
2kg mass energy = 179.7 petajoules.
Double that to account for the mass energy of both matter and antimatter to 359.4 petajoules.
At 4.184 petajoules to the megaton, that's 85.9 megatons TNT equivalent or so.
Bigger than Tsar Bomba (50 megatons), smaller than Krakatoa (200 megatons), way smaller than Chixculub (100 million megatons).
Actually, it wouldn't be more powerful than the Tsar Bomba. Half the energy from antimatter-matter reaction is lost as neutrinos, which hardly interact with anything.
And will the whole kilogram of antimatter react? Seems like the first pocket of air it encounters would vaporize it. Some might reach escape velocity, other bits would be blown into a short-lived orbit, and the rest would be forced deeper into the atmosphere.
So, no... If we want complete reaction, we may need to force it into the atmosphere with a mass driver. Perhaps even form the antimatter into little balls, like birdshot.
Regardless, could we please not do that?
Thanks.
*Dons mad scientist goggles.*
Sorry kid, but Science! calls.
Would you donate ten dollars to a nasa kickstarter to turn the iss into a three dee printer to capture stellar hydrogen and printing space ships from protons?
No. Nor would I donate money to a NASA kickstarter to forge the One Ring, which is much more likely to happen. At least we know how to forge rings.