Poll

your vote

yes we should go to both
22 (91.7%)
just the moon
1 (4.2%)
just Mars
1 (4.2%)
neather, we dont need to spend money for space
0 (0%)
no idea
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 22

Author Topic: should we go to back to the moon,  (Read 8451 times)

Offline Betaray

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2897
should we go to back to the moon,
« on: January 19, 2004, 12:03:00 PM »
lets see how people who play a game where we have fusion satrships and cold fusion vote on this
I am the nincompoop, I eat atomic bombs for breakfest, fusion bombs for lunch, and anti-matter bombs for dinner

I just hope they don't explode

Offline OP2Patriot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2004, 12:15:06 PM »
I think this should best go in the debate forum.



The Forbidden Outpost 2 Forum ... they don't want you to know about it.
Yell if the above link disappears.

Offline Betaray

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2897
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2004, 12:19:23 PM »
but thats about making paper out of little ethyopion kids
I am the nincompoop, I eat atomic bombs for breakfest, fusion bombs for lunch, and anti-matter bombs for dinner

I just hope they don't explode

Offline it2000us

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 350
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2004, 12:25:16 PM »
We should colonize the whole galaxy and more so that we could be the super human rase the dominant one and everyone will bow before us. MUhahahahaha

Offline Betaray

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2897
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2004, 12:26:29 PM »
that works
I am the nincompoop, I eat atomic bombs for breakfest, fusion bombs for lunch, and anti-matter bombs for dinner

I just hope they don't explode

Offline plymoth45

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2004, 02:21:26 PM »
well, we gotta come up with that sort of ship before any of that now don't we.

Offline Betaray

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2897
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2004, 02:47:34 PM »
yea, buts its good to have long term goals
I am the nincompoop, I eat atomic bombs for breakfest, fusion bombs for lunch, and anti-matter bombs for dinner

I just hope they don't explode

Offline Zircon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2004, 10:25:30 AM »
An Ion Motor + A Fusion Plant + A Solar Pump + One big hull and we're ready to go... Hmm... We also need an agricultural section for food etc etc...
Step 1: Ion Motor
Technology exists we just need a enhanced big version of it
---------------------------------------
Smaller engine
Ion propulsion systems are less powerful than conventional chemical rockets but can run for ten times as long using the same mass of propellant. This makes it possible to reach a target with a much smaller engine, reducing overall launch costs dramatically.
SMART 1 is miniscule compared to many spacecraft. It weighs 367 kilograms and measures one metre on all sides, although its solar panels will unfurl to measure 14 metres across.
----------------------------------------

Step 2: Fusion Plant
The first (prototype) fusion power plant is ready to be constructed...
----------------------------------------
16:41 15 January 04
The debate over whether to build the world's biggest nuclear fusion facility in France or Japan is going critical. The European Union says it could pull out of the international project and build its own, if the project goes to Japan. But the US has firmly backed Japan as its preferred site.
The ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) project aims to lay the groundwork for the eventual use of nuclear fusion as an inexhaustible and environmentally friendly energy source. The French and Japanese sites are the only contenders left from a list that also included sites in Canada and Spain.
The project would heat atoms derived from seawater to millions of degrees, creating a plasma of charged particles. Magnetic fields would contain the plasma and spur the atomic nuclei to fuse. This would generate heat that, if the project worked, would sustain the reaction for about half an hour and release five times the amount of energy that was initially put in.
----------------------------------------

Solar Pump
I guess the solar pump isnt necessary as we would have a fusion plant...
We would however need a fuel shark (op2) in order to gather hydrogen from planet atmospheres...
----------------------------------------
Earth-based solar pumps can't collect enough energy to turn sunlight into laser beams because clouds and moisture get in the way of the Sun's rays. A space laser wouldn't encounter these problems, and the Japanese team say their system will have a fairly respectable efficiency of around 30 per cent. Some energy will be lost in the conversion from sunlight to laser light, and also as the laser beam travels back to Earth, if it travels through cloudy moist skies. But the researchers say they will position the collection station away from cloudy or polluted areas.
----------------------------------------

Only a couple of facts  :P
I hope i can buy a space pleasure cruise ticket to the moon when im old  :)  

Offline Betaray

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2897
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2004, 07:27:14 PM »
lol, not to brag but I have designs that are much more advanced than those, and could reach distant stars in the order of months instead of decades (it could probly do it in days, but the accelaration would kill the crew)
I am the nincompoop, I eat atomic bombs for breakfest, fusion bombs for lunch, and anti-matter bombs for dinner

I just hope they don't explode

Offline Luweeg64

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
    • http://gcuco.netfirms.com
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2004, 07:59:13 PM »
AND don't forget the duct tape.

xfir

  • Guest
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2004, 08:04:44 PM »
Actaully, as it stands now, we can reach Mars in approximately six months.

Offline Luweeg64

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
    • http://gcuco.netfirms.com
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2004, 08:06:46 PM »
LOL, eveyone voted Both....hey X, who you voting for in 2004?

xfir

  • Guest
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2004, 08:14:55 PM »
I dunno. I usually go Republican.. then again, this will be my first time to vote.

Now, back to topic please.

Offline Betaray

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2897
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #13 on: January 22, 2004, 08:16:30 PM »
the reason I made this poll is to see how the forums stand on Bush's plan to go to the moon and mars, and the way were voting here, we better vote bush if we want to see it carried out
I am the nincompoop, I eat atomic bombs for breakfest, fusion bombs for lunch, and anti-matter bombs for dinner

I just hope they don't explode

Offline Luweeg64

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
    • http://gcuco.netfirms.com
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #14 on: January 22, 2004, 08:18:29 PM »
EXACTLY....:GRIN AT GARRETT: Dean......LOL....who would vote for Dean!!! DEMOCRAT!!!

Offline Betaray

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2897
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2004, 08:24:03 PM »
what I dont get is why do the democrats want to just live their presidency in domestic matters, if you want to be remembered when you die, you have to do somthing other than that, just like everyone knows about queen isabella because she funded the voyage for Columbus, but does anyone remember the queens that came before or after her? the democrats, by dedacating their lives to domestic programs, have doomd their life to obsurity, while people that dare to explore will be remembered, people will know who president kennedy was 100 years from now, but I doubt anyone will know much about clinton, other than he was presadent and he was impeached

why am I preaching, you guys are on my side lol
I am the nincompoop, I eat atomic bombs for breakfest, fusion bombs for lunch, and anti-matter bombs for dinner

I just hope they don't explode

Offline Maveric

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #16 on: February 21, 2004, 11:45:31 PM »
ack. im the only one who voted to only go to the moon. :blink:

Anyways, my reason is that we shouldn't send some 6 or so people to a planet that's 6 months away where as we could send the same # of people to our moon (which is how long of a travel? less then 6 months, to be sure...) the 6 month travel may be a death-sentance if something goes wrong either half-way there or on the surface of mars. Atleast on the moon help would arive quicker then it would going to mars ("Help is on the way... Can you hold out for 6 months?")

As well, if we try to do 2 things at once we'll end up over-extending ourselves and possibly mucking BOTH missions up. If you're split 2 ways, how do you expect to get anything done in the normal amount of time? EX: If it takes 1 year (this is a EXAMPLE) to setup people to go to the moon and only the moon, if you want to go to both the moon and mars it'd take more then 2 years; your attention is split 2 ways, and thus you can only get half the work done on any project at any one time.

As well, we dont know how the human body will react in a less-then-earth-gravity enviroment for long periods of time and then get onto a planet with near-earth-gravity... As soon as they step out they break their legs or something and it'd take [inster # here] amount of months to rescue them.


We go to the moon, setup a research station, bring up ~50 people and see what happens over the next few months, maybe a year or two. Once that's done our tech will have advanced enough to make the journey to mars certainly quicker then 6 months and will have learnt enough on the effect of off-earth exploration to counter-act it. And if everyone on the moon goes insane and kills eachother, then we know what not to do. :rolleyes:  
That dude that seems to come out of the graveyard every once and a while to see if the OutPost is still alive is me...
One of these day's i just might have to bring it back with me.

Please, dont let that day come.

Offline ZeusBD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #17 on: March 04, 2004, 03:34:39 PM »
I think that we should go to both. The moon again just because we can, and we can put that into the rest of the world's faces about how easy it is for us, and then Mars because if we don't, someone else will. Plus, it could possibly support life one day. I think that it is worth the risk. You must understand that the first people to go the moon had to face much of the same danger, but they volunteered and went.
In the dark I'm at home, in the light I'm on the battlefield. A Dragon's life is a constant struggle for survival. But in the end, we will prevail.
Go check out my site: http://www.frankandami.com
E-mail me: ZeusBD at yahoo.com

Offline Sirbomber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3236
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #18 on: May 09, 2004, 07:25:41 AM »
I believe that we should attempt to colonize the moon before we go to Mars. If we successfuly colonize the moon, then we should attempt to colonize Mars.

Maveric:
Quote
As well, we dont know how the human body will react in a less-then-earth-gravity enviroment for long periods of time and then get onto a planet with near-earth-gravity... As soon as they step out they break their legs or something and it'd take [inster # here] amount of months to rescue them.

There have already been tests on how humans react to long periods of time in zero-gravity.
"As usual, colonist opinion is split between those who think the plague is a good idea, and those who are dying from it." - Outpost Evening Star

Outpost 2 Coding 101 Tutorials

Phantom

  • Guest
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #19 on: May 10, 2004, 10:20:01 AM »
I say we go to both, I mean why not? We have the rescorces to go to the moon again.

And a safer way to go to Mars instead of making one long mission would be to construct several relay stations for refueling/repairs etc.

Sure it would cost a ton of money, but cut the welfare program, and there you have it!
« Last Edit: May 10, 2004, 10:20:39 AM by Phantom »

Offline Kramy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #20 on: May 10, 2004, 11:28:15 AM »
Hey, can someone point out any flaws in this idea?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Big thick cone made from very hard substance. Rear is open.
Inside is a huge solar array and an ion drive.

Thick cone protects solar arrays and ion drive from space debris.

Cone possibly made from that bouncy liquid metal, to help refract debris.

"Cone starship" must be heading directly away from sun to recieve energy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-Kramy
001011000100101001110001011000000110110001111000

Offline Zircon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #21 on: May 10, 2004, 02:09:14 PM »
Yes, An ion drive needs more then electricity. The electricity is used only to "charge" another matter such as Xenon gas...

Other then that there's no fundamental flaws, it wouldn't be a pretty ship and it could probably be made much better but it should work.
Also, as the solar array is in the back it can only travel away from the sun as you said but that is in a way very limited.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2004, 02:09:59 PM by Zircon »

Offline BlackBox

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3093
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #22 on: May 10, 2004, 02:35:20 PM »
Have you ever heard of solar sails? Those are ships that create a magnetic field, similar to the Earth's magnetosphere, and cosmic radiation would hit it, pushing it away. (It would also protect the people inside from the radiation since it would simply bounce off)

Offline Zircon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #23 on: May 10, 2004, 02:38:54 PM »
I dont know what kind of solar sails you're thinking of but the "solar sail" currently being researched by US & Europe that is going to have a (another, as the first one failed to unfold) test flight in a year or two is built on the principle that photon packages both act as energy and a "matter" which literally bounces of the repellant mirror.

They are dependent on the sun and not "cosmic radiation"

I wrote a 15 page essay on it and various space technologies... (among other why i knew about the MPD & MHD in the air unit thread)
http://www.bonetweb.com/Zircon/art/3d.html

The entire deal with solar sails are unsure though because the original theory stated that the solarsail would reflect photons at a slight lower enrgy value which in turn creates propulsion, however if there is a 100% reflective surface (which would be very very difficult to create) the photons would reflect without losing energy and thus no thrust...

And without a very reflective surface it would amass little heat but in very quick waves which in turn would destroy the vessel  :yawn: Then there's also the problems with the strong interference made by the sun, and in order to gain enough propulsion so that it wouldn't take a century to reach the moon it would have to get pretty close to the sun and loop it a few times gaining momentum...
« Last Edit: May 10, 2004, 02:59:39 PM by Zircon »

Offline BlackBox

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3093
should we go to back to the moon,
« Reply #24 on: May 10, 2004, 06:42:25 PM »
It's not just photons that make it move, it's any particles that bounce off the magnetosphere of the ship.

And cosmic radiation comes from stars -- which yes it would be powered by the sun.