When it's done, the concept for a ship that'll take astronauts to deep space won't look like much. Actually, it kind of sounds like a mess: the "Deep Space Habitat" is being cobbled together from scrap parts of the International Space Station, and even a museum mockup. Obviously, it's not going to send anyone to deep space. But it does give us a tantalizing look at what it'll look when NASA does take the next steps in space travel.
Engineers at Marshall Space Flight Center and experts Johnson Space Center in Houston (led by astronaut Alvin Drew) are tinkering with the spaceship mockup, deciding the right size, necessary equipment, and everything else that's going to make a mission to Mars, a near-by asteroid, or the second Earth-Moon Lagrangian point (277,000 miles away from Earth) as pleasant as possible. In the same building where the Apollo Moon buggy was built, scientists can adjust the mockup to find the optimal form for the vessel to do that. Eventually, a future ship like it could be stationed at one of those spots as a jumping-off port to other parts of space.
The team's also planning what kind of toys will be sent along and built in. Some of it's the sort of thing you might expect from a trip like this--life support systems, food storage, etc.--but other parts of it are especially interesting. One of the best is a 3-D printer, which would allow astronauts to create any tools they need right on the spot. On the lower-tech side, there's also greenhouse for astronauts to grow their own and food, and a barrier of water on the outside that could be used to shield explorers from cosmic rays.
Now we just have to wait for the mission.
About d4mn time!!!!
Now can we get NASA back online with a little extra funding from the private sector and go ahead and get there?!?!?!?!?
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
New and old Science
A new and Progressive Science shows how Wavevolution, or the transformation from waves to atoms, is the connecting link that closes the circle of science to open our eyes toward new horizons never seen before.
The bureaucracy of traditional science prevents the recognition of any event unless certain criteria are first met. The problem of this science is buried deep in the compilation of these "laws" or criteria introduced by a few scientists in the name of all science and from their erroneous understanding of the relation between Space and Time. This antiquated system of rules also results in misleading theories.
For example, Space is not “curved”.
In Einstein's paradigm, a stone that falls on the ground from the window of a moving train also marks one parabola in Space. Although, this path is only apparent since the Earth is also moving and the Time spent by the stone to reach the ground has also changed to some degree that imaginary vertical line. At the Time of the initial Movement when the stone falls from the window, its potential trajectory is one perpendicular Space that is no longer the same as the stone continues to move until it hits the ground. If the scientist had known that the coordinates of Space in Time are unique and unrepeatable then all the rest would have also been "straight". That perpendicular is straight but accounted as “curve” because of the limits of science unable to recognize the issue of simultaneity. In reference to each body on each moment in Time there are always only two coordinates in Space for one perpendicular.
And with two coordinates there is no curve.
One perpendicular is unrepeatable and never the same because while the measure of it is repeatable and any measurement can be applied for different segments instead one perpendicular marked in Time is like an imprint on clay with one mold that is not repeatable. These are the limits of science in regard to simultaneity and repeatability that like a white flag surrender traditional science to Religion.
The perpendicular changes in Time but Einstein believed that the concept of Space is independent from the concept of Time.
Another example is in the special theory of relativity which denies all absolutes and meanings of truth. This is in regard to Einstein's example of two beams of light hitting one same embankment of a railroad on two Points: Point A and Point B. In between the two there is also the middle point, Point M. If one train were to run over that track then on the train we would also have Point A1 on the wagon of the train correspondent to above Point A and also one other corresponding Point B1 right above Point B. We would also have on the train the corresponding Point M1 above Point M. Einstein's theory is that as for Point M (not moving because on the embankment) those two beams are simultaneous and equidistant, instead, for the passenger sitting on M1 and moving towards Point B1 (and also toward Point B) the two beams are not simultaneous because the beam in Point B1 is being approached by the moving train, therefore closer to M1. In this example, while Einstein’s concept of Time is rigidly kept unchanged in regard to the embankment, instead, the concept of Space is extended also to the next moment in Time when the traveler will move even if in that precise instant the traveler has not moved yet. Since the concept of simultaneity had been put aside, Einstein considered Time to be the same while Space instead had changed.
Also, this same scientist erroneously believed that all colors in the light spectrum travel at the same speed.
Much confusion comes from these approximations.
One new Awareness will be found in between the winding creativity of the human mind and the rigid logic of numbers.
This is a pretty pathetic excuse for an article on a subject that is incredibly fascinating. Popsci reviewers should encourage their authors to make more effort. I mean wavetorre's comment is longer than the article and it probably took him less time than the author. It doesn't even sound like the author really interviewed the team building the habitat or if he did, he did not spend the time before and after to do the proper research to determine what are the important aspects of this engineering challenge that make it interesting and worthwhile to report. For instance what are the challenges behind implementing a successful green-house or protecting against comsic-rays? What are cosmic rays (some readers may not know their origins and why they are a concern for deep space and not orbit)? What criteria determine the optimal size of the habitat? The list of questions go on and they are questions that are easy to answer by either internet research or interviewing the engineers involved in the project. An engineer or scientist would likely be able to make a guess at what was going on from this article alone but this group of people would more likely go to technical reports and scientific literature if they wanted to know specific details. Elaboration is always important. If I weren't an engineer and I read this article I would would think this was interesting but I wouldn't learn anything. I would simply know that some NASA group is trying to develop a habitat where astronauts could live in deep space for extended periods of time. I would not know why that is good idea or what even makes that possible (what challenges must be over-come). The point of Popsci articles at one point in time seemed to be to educate as well as to peak the curiosity of the reader; it is disappointing to see that this has almost completely disappeared from the magazine. Honestly this article could have been written in a half-hour with almost all the research being done by just regurgitation the similar sized article about this habitat that is already on the NASA website, titled "About NASA's Deep Space Habitat". With just a few of hours or research the enough detail could be added to clearly describe the importance and science behind this work. I really wish that Popsci would stop ripping-off its readers. We deserve better than this from the articles we read. If we didn't want to learn we wouldn't be coming here, we would be going to the history channel where we can enjoy such popular subjects as ancient aliens and we wouldn't even have to read anything.