billvon 3,068 #1 January 17, 2003 It looks like NASA is about to get some funding to develop the next generation NERVA, or nuclear-thermal rocket. It's essentially a rocket that uses a fission reactor to heat a propellant (like hydrogen or even water) to provide thrust. They are 2-3 times as efficient as chemical engines, which either means more payload carried, less fuel carried or faster trip times. It would not be used from earth to orbit (conventional chemical engines would take care of that) but it could give extremely high efficiencies once in orbit. LATimes article Scientific American article on various engines Nuclear thermal (or more exotic technologies, like VASMIR or ion) are really required to allow us to get out and explore the solar system. Developing a workable nuclear engine is the first step in that exploration. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viking 0 #2 January 17, 2003 anyone smell a maned trip to mars in the next 10 years?I swear you must have footprints on the back of your helmet - chicagoskydiver My God has a bigger dick than your god -George Carlin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sebazz1 2 #3 January 17, 2003 Why don't they just buy one of Chromeboy's space ships? Oh, sorry to screw up a legit post. Bye now... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,534 #4 January 17, 2003 I'll read about it, but you made me wonder if Spectre230 has already jumped one during his black ops? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #5 January 18, 2003 I doubt it. The manned moon mission showed us how expensive manned missions were, and our media-consuming public gets nearly as much gratification out of watching video images, so why not just keep sending cameras? There ARE advantages to having humans actually land on Mars, but I doubt it will happen until the advantages outweigh the cost. If we could just find gold on Mars ... Also, I should really say "peopled" missions - women are generally lighter than men and have more stamina, making them in some ways better suited for space missions. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the first person on Mars is a woman.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyThomas 0 #6 January 18, 2003 sorry to tack in here, BUT: this sounds like another convincing way for the US to develop it's nuclear weapons arsenal. After all, the space program has always been considered valuable for the "spin-off" products we get from it. No, Iraq is not allowed to start a space program. Neither is N. Korea. They just want us to pay for their energy. Thomas Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtval 0 #7 January 18, 2003 Quoteanyone smell a maned trip to mars in the next 10 years? cool maybe they'll film it in Vegas. there are alot of deserts here that I will be going to soon! there are a few MOONLIKE terrain! I'll get some shots!My photos My Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveMonkey 0 #8 January 18, 2003 Maybe they won't screw up with the set like they did with the 1st moon landing ____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtval 0 #9 January 18, 2003 Ive never seen it but I bet they would at least get the lighting correctMy photos My Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RichM 0 #10 January 18, 2003 What happened to the budget for the Infinite Improbability Drive ? Rich M Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig 0 #11 January 18, 2003 QuoteIt looks like NASA is about to get some funding to develop the next generation NERVA, or nuclear-thermal rocket. It's essentially a rocket that uses a fission reactor to heat a propellant (like hydrogen or even water) to provide thrust. They are 2-3 times as efficient as chemical engines, which either means more payload carried, less fuel carried or faster trip times. It would not be used from earth to orbit (conventional chemical engines would take care of that) but it could give extremely high efficiencies once in orbit. LATimes article Scientific American article on various engines Nuclear thermal (or more exotic technologies, like VASMIR or ion) are really required to allow us to get out and explore the solar system. Developing a workable nuclear engine is the first step in that exploration. I have never came across anything saying what the capailities of the shuttle are in terms of space travel. We launch, hang around orbiting Earth, and come back...we program demonstrated this many times. What I want to know is the shuttle capable of? I have heard a good while back the we don't even use the shuttle for half of what it is capable of. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,068 #12 January 18, 2003 >this sounds like another convincing way for the US to develop it's nuclear > weapons arsenal. No more so than any commercial nuclear reactor (like the San Onofre reactor) is a way to develop nuclear weapons. >After all, the space program has always been considered valuable for the > "spin-off" products we get from it. Yep. A reactor that had no moving parts and could provide all the heat and power a small town needs for 200 years with no refueling? That would be really cool, and could be done with a really good RTG and an alpha-decay pile. >No, Iraq is not allowed to start a space program. Neither is N. Korea. I think you're mixing up a few threads here, unless Iraq's been launching some satellites lately. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,068 #13 January 18, 2003 >What I want to know is the shuttle capable of? Getting 65,000 pounds to very low earth orbit (100nm) and back. We'd need eight launches just to assemble a vehicle for the mars-direct mission, the cheapest manned mars mission. >I have heard a good while back the we don't even use the shuttle for half of >what it is capable of. I think we're pushing it a bit as it is. The design was a tremendous compromise. We could make some improvements, like adding LRB's to the program, but it would take a lot of work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VivaHeadDown 0 #14 January 18, 2003 Any mission would take roughly two years, minimum, due to our orbits. With research being continued on ISS, science is dealing with all of the draw backs to long term space missions. Anyway, wouldn't you like to see a few more satellites actually make it there and send back a signal first. This isn't the early 60's anymore. When John Glen flew in the Atlas, NASA had only a 60% success rate with that rocket. We've grown a great deal since then, and can't let a team go until the theories have been proven, the plan has been tested, and the odds are overwhelmingly in our favor. That will not happen in 10 years. We'll be lucky if it looks good in 20 years. There's just no presure to make it happen. Let's just keep our fingers crossed for the comercialization of space travel. Can you imagine Making your first AFF jump knowing your chute only had a 60% chance of not exploding when you try to open it. Holy Crap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snowflake 0 #15 January 18, 2003 Quote It looks like NASA is about to get some funding to develop the next generation NERVA, or nuclear-thermal rocket. It's essentially a rocket that uses a fission reactor to heat a propellant (like hydrogen or even water) to provide thrust. They are 2-3 times as efficient as chemical engines, which either means more payload carried, less fuel carried or faster trip times. It would not be used from earth to orbit (conventional chemical engines would take care of that) but it could give extremely high efficiencies once in orbit. Chemical rockets suck. Let me offer this to get you to orbit http://www.highliftsystems.com/ Now that gives me a woodyLet me say this exploration is cool but never forget their are tons of resources out there in the solar system. Maybe theres enough out there for us knuckleheads to stop raping mother earth. Instead of mars why don't we go get a small asteroid move it to the moons L5 point and mine the puppy. With the material you get from that you build manufacturing facilities. Then you build your exploratin vehicles. It's more time consuming and expensive up front but oh so much cheaper in the long run IMHO. Note: NASA's first plans were to build a station in earth orbit. Then a station in Lunar orbit. Then Moon base. Then mine the moon build a linear accelerator to get material in orbit. Politics changed that to just get to the moon which pisses me off because thats putting the cart in front of the horse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Designer 0 #16 January 18, 2003 About time don,t you think bill? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #17 January 18, 2003 Quotehttp://www.highliftsystems.com/ Please tell me this is a joke.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
indyz 1 #18 January 18, 2003 QuotePlease tell me this is a joke. A space elevator is one of those things that are technically doable, but I don't plan on seeing one within my lifetime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ernokaikkonen 0 #19 January 18, 2003 >Please tell me this is a joke. Sorry, unless NASA has a weird sense of humour...http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #20 January 18, 2003 QuoteWhy don't they just buy one of Chromeboy's space ships? Oh, sorry to screw up a legit post. Bye now... .................................................... I was just wondering what happened to Chromeboy. You don't suppose he was captured by Aliens??? Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Snowflake 0 #21 January 19, 2003 QuotePlease tell me this is a joke. From the NASA article QuoteDuring a speech he once gave, someone in the audience asked Arthur C. Clarke when the space elevator would become a reality. "Clarke answered, 'Probably about 50 years after everybody quits laughing,' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #22 January 19, 2003 NASA people are freaks. I had the misfortune to work with a few who looked down their noses at me because I was in commercial astronautics. A lot of what they come up with isn't all that feasible, but they are typically starved for money and try to push technology that won't work just to get funding. All of the failures with tethered satellites pretty clearly showed (IMO) that the stresses induced are too great for any material we have to-date fabricated. At some point, we may have a material that is strong enough, but there are a slew of other problems that would need to be resolved. I'm not saying it will never happen, but I think that by the time technology make is viable, we'll already have a better, cheaper solution.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites darkwing 5 #23 January 20, 2003 This is a well known theme in science fiction novels. The basic physics is fine. The holdup is materials science. I'd have to check the numbers, but it may be that nano-tubes have the required strength to make it real. I am not commenting on the economic aspects though. -- Jeff My Skydiving History Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,068 #24 January 20, 2003 >Any mission would take roughly two years, minimum, due to our orbits. With the right engine technology (like a VASMIR or something even more exotic, like ICF) you don't need to follow a Hohmann orbit; you can go straight there with little regard for orbital issues. You could get to Mars in two weeks with an ICF. The missions we plan now, like Apollo, are absolute minimum energy orbits because we barely have the power to get there. With better engines, that changes. >Anyway, wouldn't you like to see a few more satellites actually make it there >and send back a signal first. Why? We've had something like a dozen probes land on Mars. We know basically how to get there. > We've grown a great deal since then, and can't let a team go > until the theories have been proven, the plan has been tested, and the odds > are overwhelmingly in our favor. "Don't go until it's perfectly safe?" We never will, then. Why not let each team decide if they want to take the risk or not? We're becoming way too risk-averse as a society. Sometimes there are things worth risking your life for. >Can you imagine Making your first AFF jump knowing your chute only had a 60% > chance of not exploding when you try to open it. Can you imagine buying a canopy that you _knew_ killed people because it was so fast, then intentionally pushing it to go as fast as possible? Easy to imagine, we do it all the time. Thank god we don't have some governmental agency saying "you can't jump that until the odds are overwhelmingly against you getting killed." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,068 #25 January 20, 2003 > I'm not saying it will never happen, but I think that by the time > technology make is viable, we'll already have a better, cheaper solution. That may be the skyhook. It's similar to the space elevator, but 1/10th the size and it doesn't need superstrong materials. And you need only an airplane to use it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Snowflake 0 #21 January 19, 2003 QuotePlease tell me this is a joke. From the NASA article QuoteDuring a speech he once gave, someone in the audience asked Arthur C. Clarke when the space elevator would become a reality. "Clarke answered, 'Probably about 50 years after everybody quits laughing,' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #22 January 19, 2003 NASA people are freaks. I had the misfortune to work with a few who looked down their noses at me because I was in commercial astronautics. A lot of what they come up with isn't all that feasible, but they are typically starved for money and try to push technology that won't work just to get funding. All of the failures with tethered satellites pretty clearly showed (IMO) that the stresses induced are too great for any material we have to-date fabricated. At some point, we may have a material that is strong enough, but there are a slew of other problems that would need to be resolved. I'm not saying it will never happen, but I think that by the time technology make is viable, we'll already have a better, cheaper solution.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
darkwing 5 #23 January 20, 2003 This is a well known theme in science fiction novels. The basic physics is fine. The holdup is materials science. I'd have to check the numbers, but it may be that nano-tubes have the required strength to make it real. I am not commenting on the economic aspects though. -- Jeff My Skydiving History Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,068 #24 January 20, 2003 >Any mission would take roughly two years, minimum, due to our orbits. With the right engine technology (like a VASMIR or something even more exotic, like ICF) you don't need to follow a Hohmann orbit; you can go straight there with little regard for orbital issues. You could get to Mars in two weeks with an ICF. The missions we plan now, like Apollo, are absolute minimum energy orbits because we barely have the power to get there. With better engines, that changes. >Anyway, wouldn't you like to see a few more satellites actually make it there >and send back a signal first. Why? We've had something like a dozen probes land on Mars. We know basically how to get there. > We've grown a great deal since then, and can't let a team go > until the theories have been proven, the plan has been tested, and the odds > are overwhelmingly in our favor. "Don't go until it's perfectly safe?" We never will, then. Why not let each team decide if they want to take the risk or not? We're becoming way too risk-averse as a society. Sometimes there are things worth risking your life for. >Can you imagine Making your first AFF jump knowing your chute only had a 60% > chance of not exploding when you try to open it. Can you imagine buying a canopy that you _knew_ killed people because it was so fast, then intentionally pushing it to go as fast as possible? Easy to imagine, we do it all the time. Thank god we don't have some governmental agency saying "you can't jump that until the odds are overwhelmingly against you getting killed." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,068 #25 January 20, 2003 > I'm not saying it will never happen, but I think that by the time > technology make is viable, we'll already have a better, cheaper solution. That may be the skyhook. It's similar to the space elevator, but 1/10th the size and it doesn't need superstrong materials. And you need only an airplane to use it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)