nec209

 

Who, exactly, are "they"? Certainly not NASA or ESA.

Gvernment ,private and NASA.Look it up on youtube there videos of this even on discovery channel.

Russia is supposedly working on a fission engine, but we'll see. Projects like these are incredible money drains that have in the past gone nowhere.

I don't even look at Russia any more there space program died after cold war.

 

They're easy to cut because they stick out so, particularly when times are tough economically. Fission has immense technical and political hurdles to overcome. Anything nuclear in space that has even the remotest possibility of being weaponized, well, there are treaties against that. Russia will have to undertake significant efforts to prove that their new system (if it ever exists) cannot be weaponized. Failure to do so is essentially declaring war against the western world.

The space program in US and Russia died after the cold war and my prediction in 50 years we will not be sending people up into space AT ALL , but space probes , robots that can do it much CHEAPER.

The lobbyist are hard at work on this now.That me say this again lobbyist are hard at work .In 50 years we will not be sending people up .The lobbyist will see to it.

It too costly to go in space.

space mining and space colony will NEVER HAPPEN to the space cost is lower by 50%.

There is not much more for improvement with chemical that why they are turning to laser and fission and in the future fussion.

Well laser propulsion needs gigawatt power.The ground shines a laser beam to the craft to get it to go up.Other type of laser propulsion the craft shines a laser beem and it heats up the air and causes ther craft to go up.

The last type is pulse laser the craft rides on pulse of the laser going on and off very fast..If the craft use pulse laser or laser propulsion where it shines a laser beam and it heats up the air you will need a floating power station.This not a problem for the ground that has its own power station.

Well space mining and space colony is scfi has we do not have the technology to lower space cost by 50%. It is not the technology it is the cost with technology why we are not doing it.We have the technology now for space mining and space colony it is the technology is too costly.

When space cost dropped by 50% than space mining and space colony will take off big time.

I think Asia is the best for robotics and electronic stuff and European hospitals are more advanced when comes to stem cell.

The US hospitals are old and very out dated other than some hospitals run by universities or handful of mostly private hospitals that are very costly .

Science alone, for example, shows how silly the idea of laser propulsion is given our current level of technological development. The numbers just don't add up and won't add up until we are well above Type I on the Kardashev scale. That's 200-250 years off assuming a continued exponential growth.

Explain the pros and cons of laser propulsion before stabing me.I thought 300 feet is highest it gone up or some thing like that .Do you think in 50 or 100 years from now we will be using laser propulsion.

What is the engineering problems with laser propulsion .Has anyone made it go up higher than 300 feet?

Regarding fission power plants: That fission power plants are currently have too much mass per kilowatt by one to two orders of magnitude is a big problem. Think of it this way. If Robert Zubrin thinks its science fiction, it almost certainly is science fiction.

No idea what you talking about here.

I said "suppose it were", since you were wondering about the extra weight of the reactor and shielding. The actual numbers would depend on the actual efficiency, which would depend on what type of engine it was. All I'm saying is that if your engine is sufficiently better, it doesn't matter that it weighs more since most of the weight is going to be fuel of which you will need less of.

Okay I thought you where saying nuclear can take up 2 times the payload than now.So 10% of it's weight of payload not like 5% of it's weight of payload now.

Why is it all replies in this thread has nothing to so with my post?

The thread subject was country has the most state of the art health care?

Yes I hear European hospitals are more advanced when comes to stem cell.I hear people going to Europe for stem cell treatment.Also bacterial resistance is major problem and doctors in Europe are taking a radical move to use virus to kill the resistance bacterial .

When it comes to robotics and electronic stuff well Asia is the best. Many hospitals in Canada and US are old very old the new hospitals build no more than 5 years ago or hospitals run by universities do more scfi stuff like new drugs ,cloning ,stem cell and new treatments.Well the other hospitals get it 10 years later.

There was program on TV of person in a vegetable state and they used electrical pulse and over time the body stated to work .There was study of turning fat cells into heart cells and was inserted into person heart.And if that is not interesting enough there was show on discovery of person who had brain aneurysm there was no treatment do to the size and location of the aneurysm it would bleed to death the person. One a radical move they cooled the body down very cold the person was dead and did the operation than resuscitated. There has been other stuties of people in freezing water and was in for long time and person resuscitated.The cold prevents brain cells from dying or other cells and slow the body down.

Other very interesting thing on discovery they gave mice a gas and it made them go to sleep and than remove the gas and they woke up .No idea what the gas is but in the show they say in future a person that has gun shots or stabbing they can give person this gas to slow the body down .I think this the research going into hibernation.Well hibernation like in scfi on going on long space mission or putting person in hibernation and than 400 years in future wake them up is still very much scfi now .But they doing research on smaller scale a person in hibernation for short time. One of the big problems is icce crystals if the person is frozen for a long time.

But there is more study going into people and animals frozen and than resuscitated but has of now the longer the person or animals is frozen the harder it is to resuscitate the person.

I'm just saying only a handful mostly private hospitals that are very costly in the US or hospitals run by universities are using cutting edge.Some of best cancer treatment in Canada are in Toronto trying new treatment.Some new hospitals built in Toronto they put in all state of the art at the time of building and the best in Canada at the time of building.

Well, it depends on the details. But both the weight of the engine and its efficiency are important. You could compare this to ion drives, which are absurdly efficient yet can't lift something off the ground because they're so heavy for the thrust they generate.

I thought you where saying nuclear uses 8% to 10% of it's weight of payload not like 4% to 5% of it's weight of payload now.So nuclear is 2 times more more fuel efficient than what it is now.And can take up 2 times the payload .

What country has the most state of the art health care like advanced technology,stem cell ,cloning ,bioengineering ,robotic,advanced surgery so on.

I hear the the biggest problem is cost ,getting specialists ,training for new medical stuff , getting new state of the art technology so on.And the US and Canada is not doing well when comes to this only some private very expensive cancer treatment centers ,surgery so on .in the US .Where one must get on plane to fly to that city.

I hear that India and Singapore are very good.When it comes to research and doing studies I think most 98% is still done in the US,

What is wrong with China or India ?

What do you think is going hapen to the heathcare in Canada in the next 5 years?

Is it going get batter or worse?

OK, so if you have a rocket like the Saturn V, your payload (to low earth orbit) is 4% the weight of the rocket, payload to trans lunar injection is 1.5% of the rocket's mass. The fuel on the first stage only weighs 2.2 thousand tons, which is over 70% the mass of the rocket. Most of the rocket is fuel, and if you can use fuel more efficiently you need much much less of it. Of the fuel, the vast majority of the weight is the oxidizer, which is not needed with a nuclear powered rocket.

So with nuclear 8% of the weight is its payload not like 4% like now? Do to it is more fuel efficient and takes less fuel.

So it is 2 times more fuel efficient than what it is now?

Putting aside the issue that you couldn't get the electron wavelength down to the size of a photon:

 

Even if photons had a size, they move at 300 million m/s. Even if you could get a stationary photon, the Heisenburg uncertainty principle would prevent its observation.

 

The theory is that photons have a dual nature - either particles or waves. It's a bit of a mistake to think of them as physical entities or something with substance.

You cannot see some thing that is not matter or have no mass. So yes we cannot see energy or photons has they have no mass thus no matter.

And there is no light at the subatomic world has you say the wavelength of light is not on that scale.

I think I got it now.

Don't forget fuel. It doesn't matter if your engine weighs about half your fuel tank if it can use the fuel twice as effectively (actually better since if you add yet more fuel than the better engine wins). The majority of the weight of rockets is in the fuel, and of course also the fuel tanks to hold it. The reactor can do with very little shielding; all that is needed is to shield the astronauts from it (maybe 5% of the total area). This would mean people can't safely stand near the rocket, but then you can't do that anyways since you'll get torched. It will still be safe from a distance because the inverse square law reduces the radiation and air is also shielding.

 

So long as the engine is more efficient, then the overall efficiency can be increased by making everything bigger, bigger fuel tanks and much much bigger payload.

So you saying that fission propulsion the core and engine can be 5 times bigger ?The big engine is not the problem has it is more fuel efficient and takes less fuel.

The majority of the weight of rockets is in the fuel, and of course also the fuel tanks to hold it.

It does very little to help if the fuel is 50% less than what it is now to get into space and the engine is so big.Your bedroom will be bigger than the space capsule !!!

The system we have now allows for a bigger capsule than this.

majority of the weight of rockets is in the fuel, and of course also the fuel tanks to hold it.

And the majority of the weight here is the core the engine .

(maybe 5% of the total area).

What do you mean here?

The Bible is optional and a decision up to the individual, as is the addendum "so help me God." You could be sworn in with your hand on a copy of Penthouse. The decision not to is one of politics rather than a government mandate — they are not part of the Constitutional requirement of swearing the oath or affirming, the latter being included so one did not have to swear an oath to (or before) God.

Your post is hard to understand has I do not know how this works .There is not more one book.

It seems like there are supposedly quite a few ways to cure cancer, and cancer has been cured before (although sometimes it's just called a spontaneous remission from cancer). Nowhere has western medicine produced more dismal results than in the quest to defeat cancer. After more than 50 years of government-sponsored research, the rate of cancer has increased in America while the death rate remains the same.

You going get alot of flak posting that here by members..

You're not going to get better by waiting for that to happen.

If there will ever be a pill .Well medication works well for chemicals it does very bad for matter like tissue or cells that gets damage.

Has medication does not heal it is are young youth who think that medication can heal/repair tissue ,cells or organs.

Nuclear fission propulsion I think would be most practical (space is definitely not the issue there, it is weight and safety).

What do you mean? I thought the core and shielding would make it very big so payload would be more of problem with fission than chemical propulsion .

So you saying photons have no mass thus no matter and that is why we cannot see each photon under a electron microscope ?

Yes but photons do not emit photons.

 

That is why we cannot see them. They also travel to quickly. Even if you beamed them into your eyes to let them activate a receptor your brain would just tell you there is a dot. That dot wouldn't be exciting and probably indistinguishable from laser light's. It would probably also damage your eyesight.

No your eye will not see each photon has the photons must enter your eye and your eye is not built for the subatomic world.And with electron microscope we can see protons ,neutrons, ectrons so why not photons.And photons are the light .

It is only when x number of photons enter your eye we can see light .If some how only 5 photon enter your eye now ,you would not see any thing .Are eye are not built to see subatomic particles.It is only when X number of subatomic particles do we see a shape or object of matter.

Are eyes are not sensitive to see each photon it is only when x number enter are eye do we see light..

Science fiction is fun, but you two do need to remember that that is exactly what you are writing about. Things like a space elevator, a launch loop, fusion propulsion: Science fiction. They are in the realm of the possible, but they still are science fiction and will be science fiction for a long time. Our space programs may look pathetic compared to Star Trek or Star Wars, but our space programs do have one big thing over the movies: It is real.

Exactly no .There is working model for the above propulsion but there is problems that need to be fixed to make it practical.NASA has done experiments on most of the above but little money they get, it normaly does not get funded for more than 4 or 5 years of research.

Well negetive energy,levitation,anti-gravity, megnetic propulsion is Science fiction has there is no model on that at all .Basacly we don't know if it is real or not well the above is real.Understand scfi is some thing that is not real not a scientific problem

And that is just wrong fussion is not scfi they are trying to get controlled fussion it only last for second and there is more input than out put.It may be 20,50 or 100 years before we get fussion .But fussion is not some red crystal used in starship 535d .

Again with nanotubes you can build towers almost in space .The space elevator is possible with nanotechnology.But if snap it be very bad.

Yes we can look at energy...Just go look at a tesla coil or plasma ball. Electricity is energy and we see it as lightening.

 

We can see anything that reflects light. So we will never see photons as photons are light and do not give any off nor do they reflect any. Looking down any microscope that could let you see things the size of photons would just be beaming photons into your eyes. In other words you may aswell just aim a torch at your eyes.

 

 

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9057521/World_s_most_powerful_microscope_gives_3_D_look_at_atomic_structures

Well are eyes are not made to see particles .Your desk you looking at now well you eyes cannot see every particle it is when there are billions than you can see it and it looks like desk.Think of a computer monitor every dot on your screan you cannot see the dots but those millions dots make up the picture .Now if you had special eyeglasses you would see every don't not the picture of the monitor has the magnification would be very big so you would see every dot.

Mainstream Christians have established the boundaries of their religion, so for all but the fundamentalists it doesn't clash with Western culture. What I'm suggesting is that mainstream Muslims are struggling with this

Not true you cannot be atheist and get in government no one will vote for you .Look at the abortion and separation of church and state debate !! The teaching of god in school and prayer in school.Also gays and lesbians and the evolution debate in schools.The nedia use of god we trust and other quotes so on and so on like god bless America

It like that in Canada and the US.No Christians are not happy to leave it at home and the church.

Examples of Western society reacting to this mainstream struggle within the Western Muslim community include the new anti-burka law in France, ongoing clashes between unemployed Muslims and the police in Europe (they think they're being discriminated against because of their religion), and outrage in the American Muslim community over invasive body searches by the TSA.

They are the fundamentalists not the 90% of Muslim .

What I'm saying is all religion is like that and clash with separation of church and state .You seem to paint that Christians are the only people that do not clash and this is not true.

I have been having discusses about different propulsion system looking for ways to bring the space cost down. And after looking at the different propulsion system it seems chemical propulsion is the only option

--- Anti-matter ( very very very costly (way more than chemical propulsion) cannot be controlled or stored has fuel. Also hard to make you have smash atoms and it only last for second or so the anti-matter

If there was breakthrough where we can make lots and lots of anti-matter very cheap and can control it and store it and use it has fuel it be banned for use in , earth thus only used for deep space has a size of rock would destroy all of New York. It would be banned in earth and close to earth.

---Ion propulsion or plasma propulsion does not have the thrust to lift any thing to space ( must be used for deep space only)

----microwave propulsion very bad on the person health. I would think this is banned for use too .

---fusion propulsion no point talking about this to we get working fusion but you need big core and would have to be very big so payload may be a problem.

---fission not sure have not read much on it. But I would think the core and shielding would make it very big and space would be tight so payload would be a problem more so than chemical propulsion .

--Laser propulsion there is different types of Laser propulsion . one type people at the ground shine a laser beam to the craft to get it to go up , other type the craft shines a laser beam that heats up the air and the craft goes up.

The last type is pulse laser the craft rides on pulse of the laser going on and off very fast.

From what I read there is some problems with laser propulsion you need gigawatt power well find for the ground if (ground shine a laser beam to the craft but the other propulsion the craft in the air shines a laser beem you need flying power station if the craft in the air shines a laser beam that heats up the air so it goes up.

Also it could be very costly and also 300 feet is the highest we got a craft to go up than came down so it is along ways off to getting into space.

--- space elevator I don't see this happing if the cable snap it would cut any thing in path around the earth.

---Ion lifers work by having 2 electrodes one at the top and one at the bottom .There is high voltage at the top electrode that ionizes the air and the ions are strongly attracted to the downwards electrode , the ions rushing downwards impinges on air molecules causes upward force .

Problem is no one has done experiments on Ion lifers

---chemical propulsion not sure but may be they can improved it

What are the pros and cons ? And problems they have to overcome to the above propulsion system.

In the end it looks like the space program is doomed, seriously the space program is seriously flawed only 3 countries can put people into space it cost money like a leaking faucet and we are hardly done any think in past 20 years of the space program other than build the ISS !!!! And what go up into space every month or two !!!

If the space program is going to have any chance of getting any where you have to go up in space 2 or 3 times a month and quadruple the space program or even more than what we have now.

I'm not saying bring the cost down for $2,000 per person or taking up 40 people at time has this is pure scfi talking and we are billion and billion of light years from that level of technology if at all .

But if the cost came down by 50% less yes just 50% less to get into space now , and 5 or 8 countries can put people into space and the private sector can pull it of and profit that this is worth having a major party.

Has of now it is a joke only 3 countries can put people into space and most of the time do not even have monthly launches. It cost like a leaking faucet.

And it does not look like any of the propulsion is going work and shine light at the end of the tunnel .

It does not look like there is any propulsion system out there that will work other than chemical propulsion but is very very very costly and limited by a payload problem. I was hoping of the above propulsion system talk about here that fusion, fission propulsion or laser propulsion may be the answer to the problem in 50 or 100 years from now.

What is your thought? And pros and cons on the propulsion system.

I've been thinking for a while now that it might be beneficial if Computer Science and Information Technology were to embrace the field of Statistics at a more fundamental level. Currently CS/IT programs tend to treat statistics as a necessary evil. But not only is it important for our own field, but pushing the science forward benefits researchers in other fields too. Especially in the modern world of exabyte-scale "data observatories".

When computers get faster and better than virtual reality will go from scfi to reality.

Eye-Popping Microscope Images ( 10 photos 1 of 10)

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Eye-Popping-Microscope-Images/ss/events/sc/111810bioscapesimage#photoViewer=/ydownload/20101118/photos_net_web_sc/1290096617

( 4 of 10)

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Eye-Popping-Microscope-Images/ss/events/sc/111810bioscapesimage#photoViewer=/ydownload/20101118/photos_net_web_sc/1290096675

Note is this new technology that shows more detail than ever before ? Even parts of cells ?

If so than do you think one day we can look at energy or each photon of light?