DIRECT

Real Life Events.

Go off topic and I will break you!

Moderator: Dictators in Training

DIRECT

Postby Naethyn » Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:53 am

So, I saw a show on the discovery channel a while back about this rocket system called DIRECT. It was designed by a guy who didn't work for nasa. It offered a way to reach mars using current technology for 1/100 of the price of the current idea nasa has which includes building a space station on the moon and launching from it ( the amount of fuel needed to reach mars weighs to much to get it off the ground on earth).

Anyways, this guy's idea is to send a nuclear reactor to mars. It would then convert the air on mars to methane. Three years later we send a rocket to mars with only enough fuel to reach it. Before we even launch one person there is already a rocket on mars waiting to send our people back. In theory it seems like a great system. There are a lot more details available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT if you're interested in this type of thing.

The problem is NIH. Not invented here. Nasa can't take credit for the idea and scrapped it. Somehow this has reached back into the news and these same guys are trying to convince Obama to scrap nasa's overbudget current plans and use this. Get humans to mars.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513231,00.html
Maeya wrote:And then your head just aches from having your hair pulled so tight for so long...
User avatar
Naethyn
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2085
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 12:13 pm

Re: DIRECT

Postby Drem » Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:36 am

Naethyn wrote:( the amount of fuel needed to reach mars weighs to much to get it off the ground on earth)


i never thought about that in all my life. i just wondered why we weren't on mars yet
User avatar
Drem
Nappy Headed Ho
Nappy Headed Ho
 
Posts: 8902
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 3:02 pm

Re: DIRECT

Postby Zanchief » Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:49 am

They have little robot probes on Mars so I'm not sure that's true.
User avatar
Zanchief
Chief Wahoo
Chief Wahoo
 
Posts: 14532
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 7:31 pm

Re: DIRECT

Postby Gidan » Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:02 am

We are not on Mars because its is not profitable to us at this time. We are more concerned with fighting the current war, preparing for the next war and such to be bothered with science exploration for the purpose of science. At the same time, we don't want anyone in the private sector doing this either because if does turn out to be profitable, we want to unsure that the US gov't is in control over it.
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
User avatar
Gidan
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 2892
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:01 am

Re: DIRECT

Postby Drem » Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:07 am

Zanchief wrote:They have little robot probes on Mars so I'm not sure that's true.


isn't that like comparing driving a hybrid cross-country to driving a semi?
User avatar
Drem
Nappy Headed Ho
Nappy Headed Ho
 
Posts: 8902
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 3:02 pm

Re: DIRECT

Postby Naethyn » Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:45 am

Those little robots don't have to get back!
Maeya wrote:And then your head just aches from having your hair pulled so tight for so long...
User avatar
Naethyn
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2085
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 12:13 pm

Re: DIRECT

Postby brinstar » Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:43 pm

i want so badly to visit space :cry:
compost the rich
User avatar
brinstar
Cat Crew
Cat Crew
 
Posts: 13142
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: 402

Re: DIRECT

Postby Harrison » Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:47 pm

I think it will be commercially "affordable" within our lifetime.
How do you like this spoiler, motherfucker? -Lyion
User avatar
Harrison
NT Legend
NT Legend
 
Posts: 20323
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:13 am
Location: New Bedford, MA

Re: DIRECT

Postby Arlos » Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:43 pm

I do too, actually.

I don't think we'll have a space elevator in our lifetime, our materials science just isn't good enough yet, but I think we'll see major advances in space flight by about 2050 or so.

-Arlos
User avatar
Arlos
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:39 pm

Re: DIRECT

Postby Gidan » Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:26 pm

If we put support behind the private sector in space advancement, we will see remarkable achievements within our lifetime, the whole key is to support the private sector and not try and hinder them.
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
User avatar
Gidan
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 2892
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:01 am

Re: DIRECT

Postby KaiineTN » Thu Apr 09, 2009 1:08 am

There has to be profit to support private sector space advancement, and I don't think taking people into space will be sufficient. Too bad the moon appears to have little to no resources of value.
Last edited by KaiineTN on Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
KaiineTN
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 3629
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:21 pm

Re: DIRECT

Postby Arlos » Thu Apr 09, 2009 1:27 am

Moons, not much, perhaps.

Asteroid belt: massive amounts of useful stuff.


Also, space has amazing potential for materials research as well as biochem research. There are alloys that can only be created in microgravity in orbit because they'd separate out on earth. Also, microbes grow differently, chemicals can be created differently, etc. etc. etc. The problem is, the cost to put stuff into orbit is SO high right now that it's not economically viable yet to get to industrial-scale production levels.

Once we come up with a faster, cheaper and safer method of getting at least cargo into orbit, we'll see an explosion of commercial development.

Once concept I've heard that could work, at least theoretically, is a mass driver system. If you combine a mass driver with a vehicle with its own thrust, you can do low end boost with the mass driver and then have it lift off the rest of the way on it's own, and apparently this can be built in the near future largely using off-the-shelf Maglev components. Doing that with passengers is more problematic, as to prevent lethal G-forces, you have to build a launch system literally 100 miles long, but for cargo, you could basically make a circular tube in a much smaller area.

-Arlos
User avatar
Arlos
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:39 pm

Re: DIRECT

Postby Drem » Thu Apr 09, 2009 2:09 am

there are plenty of useful moons in our solar system
User avatar
Drem
Nappy Headed Ho
Nappy Headed Ho
 
Posts: 8902
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 3:02 pm

Re: DIRECT

Postby Evermore » Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:04 am

i would bet magnatizm is the answer
For you
Image
User avatar
Evermore
NT Deity
NT Deity
 
Posts: 4368
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:46 am

Re: DIRECT

Postby Tikker » Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:00 pm

Evermore wrote:i would bet magnatizm is the answer



lol wut?




the answer is clearly finding stargates
Tikker
NT Legend
NT Legend
 
Posts: 14294
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:22 pm

Re: DIRECT

Postby Gaazy » Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:09 pm

They might as well throw a few trillion into this sector, theyre already wasting it on every other godamn thing possible
User avatar
Gaazy
NT Deity
NT Deity
 
Posts: 5837
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 8:32 am
Location: West by god Virginia


Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests

cron