Discussion:
nuclear space engine - would it work ??
(too old to reply)
bombardmentforce
2006-10-02 23:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Project Orion was a concept study.
And a test program. that lead into the Casaba Howitzer test program,
that was the secret core of Reagan's SDI.

http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2006/04/plasma-howitzer-concept.html
It proposed building a space-based
only "rocket" ...It was really only
seriously proposed for use strictly in space. The bombs were to be
released in a series of continuous distinct pulses.
Here's evidence it was seriously proposed for Earth launch, by a
serious player, who later was part of the team behind the World Trade
Center.

http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2006/03/nelson-rockefeller-vs-ike-re-lunar.html
bernardz
2006-10-03 05:49:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by bombardmentforce
Project Orion was a concept study.
And a test program. that lead into the Casaba Howitzer test program,
that was the secret core of Reagan's SDI.
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2006/04/plasma-howitzer-concept.html
It proposed building a space-based
only "rocket" ...It was really only
seriously proposed for use strictly in space. The bombs were to be
released in a series of continuous distinct pulses.
Here's evidence it was seriously proposed for Earth launch, by a
serious player, who later was part of the team behind the World Trade
Center.
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2006/03/nelson-rockefeller-vs-ike-re-lunar.html
An Orion rocket would work but you would not want to launch it from
Earths surface.
Robert Kolker
2006-10-03 12:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by bernardz
An Orion rocket would work but you would not want to launch it from
Earths surface.
Somewhere over N. Korea would be nice.

Bob Kolker
Jack Linthicum
2006-10-03 11:41:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by bernardz
An Orion rocket would work but you would not want to launch it from
Earths surface.
Somewhere over N. Korea would be nice.
Bob Kolker
In all seriousness the original idea was to launch it, or at least test
fire it, near the General Atomics HQ in La Jolla. Yes, using a "small"
nuclear device.
bombardmentforce
2006-10-03 23:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by bernardz
An Orion rocket would work but you would not want to launch it from
Earths surface.
Somewhere over N. Korea would be nice.
Bob Kolker
In all seriousness the original idea was to launch it, or at least test
fire it, near the General Atomics HQ in La Jolla. Yes, using a "small"
nuclear device.
Here's map of the Nerva test site, visted by Dyson as they evaluated
test options.


http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/07/jackass-flats-map-of-blast-damage-zone.html
Jack Linthicum
2006-10-04 10:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by bombardmentforce
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by bernardz
An Orion rocket would work but you would not want to launch it from
Earths surface.
Somewhere over N. Korea would be nice.
Bob Kolker
In all seriousness the original idea was to launch it, or at least test
fire it, near the General Atomics HQ in La Jolla. Yes, using a "small"
nuclear device.
Here's map of the Nerva test site, visted by Dyson as they evaluated
test options.
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/07/jackass-flats-map-of-blast-damage-zone.html
Chapter 20 Jackass Flats

"We assumed it would be somewhere near La Jolla in the Pacific",
Freeman answers, when asked about the location of the launch. A barge
is mentioned.
bombardmentforce
2006-10-03 11:49:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by bernardz
Post by bombardmentforce
Project Orion was a concept study.
And a test program. that lead into the Casaba Howitzer test program,
that was the secret core of Reagan's SDI.
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2006/04/plasma-howitzer-concept.html
.It was really only
Post by bernardz
Post by bombardmentforce
seriously proposed for use strictly in space. T
Here's evidence it was seriously proposed for Earth launch, by a
serious player, who later was part of the team behind the World Trade
Center.
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2006/03/nelson-rockefeller-vs-ike-re-lunar.html
An Orion rocket would work but you would not want to launch it from
Earths surface.
I would, the motive, 4 hr ISP.

http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/10/orion-models-in-detail-1-880-ton.html

Lofted designs can't aspire to the 5 cent / lb efficiency of Dyson's
8,000,000 ton Super-Orion.

I am in favor of large scale space conquest and development, SRBs won't
do.
Robert Kolker
2006-10-03 13:25:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by bombardmentforce
I would, the motive, 4 hr ISP.
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/10/orion-models-in-detail-1-880-ton.html
Lofted designs can't aspire to the 5 cent / lb efficiency of Dyson's
8,000,000 ton Super-Orion.
I am in favor of large scale space conquest and development, SRBs won't
do.
They surely will not. But I think your optimism is beyond your reason.

If the earth were going to be hit by a large asteroid or comet in ten
years it might be worthwhile to try to save a few souls from the
extinction. Other than that, it is a waste of time and money.

Bob Kolker
Jonathan Silverlight
2006-10-03 21:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by bombardmentforce
I would, the motive, 4 hr ISP.
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/10/orion-models-in-detail-1-8
80-ton.html
Lofted designs can't aspire to the 5 cent / lb efficiency of Dyson's
8,000,000 ton Super-Orion.
I am in favor of large scale space conquest and development, SRBs won't
do.
They surely will not. But I think your optimism is beyond your reason.
If the earth were going to be hit by a large asteroid or comet in ten
years it might be worthwhile to try to save a few souls from the
extinction. Other than that, it is a waste of time and money.
Isn't that the most likely reason for building Orion? Others are what
Arthur Clarke calls "a space equivalent of the Berlin Airlift", or the
battleship in Niven/Pournelle's "Footfall".
When you don't have time to play around with shuttle-size payloads, or
you won't be allowed more than one launch. Or when it doesn't matter
what happens to the launch site.
Henry Spencer
2006-10-03 23:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Isn't that the most likely reason for building Orion? ...
When you don't have time to play around with shuttle-size payloads, or
you won't be allowed more than one launch. Or when it doesn't matter
what happens to the launch site.
And when you don't care about some rather nasty air pollution. (Unless
you assumed hypothetical fission-free bombs -- which figured heavily into
most of the optimistic predictions about Orion -- Orion's fallout output
was up at the level that made people reading the reports say "urk!" even
in the days of routine atmospheric H-bomb testing.)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | ***@spsystems.net
bombardmentforce
2006-10-04 03:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Orion's fallout output..."urk!"
"The lifetime risk of a death due to cancer is about 20% absent the
fallout radiation exposure. The (438 megatons of airborne) fallout
putatively raises that risk to about 20.03%..."
http://newton.nap.edu/books/030909156X/html/373.html

-----
"100 megatons' worth of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere each year.
A full-fledged Orion mission would have increased the amount of fallout
from those tests by 1 percent."
http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-05/features/grandest-rocket-ever/

Q.E.D.
20.0300685
---

Do you worry enough about the 20%? Will you let the 0.0000685% cripple
our destiny?

Have you heard of the quadratic does response model?... hormesis?
Matt Giwer
2006-10-04 05:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by bombardmentforce
Orion's fallout output..."urk!"
"The lifetime risk of a death due to cancer is about 20% absent the
fallout radiation exposure. The (438 megatons of airborne) fallout
putatively raises that risk to about 20.03%..."
http://newton.nap.edu/books/030909156X/html/373.html
-----
"100 megatons' worth of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere each year.
A full-fledged Orion mission would have increased the amount of fallout
from those tests by 1 percent."
http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-05/features/grandest-rocket-ever/
Q.E.D.
20.0300685
---
Do you worry enough about the 20%? Will you let the 0.0000685% cripple
our destiny?
Have you heard of the quadratic does response model?... hormesis?
20% of all deaths are due to cancer?
--
Jews who do not condemn Israel are judged by Israel.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3691
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml a4
Jonathan Silverlight
2006-10-04 17:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by bombardmentforce
Orion's fallout output..."urk!"
"The lifetime risk of a death due to cancer is about 20% absent the
fallout radiation exposure. The (438 megatons of airborne) fallout
putatively raises that risk to about 20.03%..."
http://newton.nap.edu/books/030909156X/html/373.html
-----
"100 megatons' worth of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere each year.
A full-fledged Orion mission would have increased the amount of fallout
from those tests by 1 percent."
http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-05/features/grandest-rocket-ever/
Q.E.D.
20.0300685
---
Do you worry enough about the 20%? Will you let the 0.0000685% cripple
our destiny?
Have you heard of the quadratic does response model?... hormesis?
20% of all deaths are due to cancer?
It's more than that - nearly 30% in industrialised countries
UK <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1192952.stm>
USA <http://www.cancure.org/statistics.htm>
Canada <http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/051221/d051221b.htm>

But if the choice is between causing air pollution and _being_ air
pollution I'd go for the nuclear pulse rocket!
bombardmentforce
2006-10-03 23:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by bombardmentforce
I would, the motive, 4 hr ISP.
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/10/orion-models-in-detail-1-880-ton.html
Lofted designs can't aspire to the 5 cent / lb efficiency of Dyson's
8,000,000 ton Super-Orion.
I am in favor of large scale space conquest and development, SRBs won't
do.
They surely will not....
... (if) large asteroid or comet ...worthwhile .... ...
...(otherwise) waste of time and money.
An investment of money in Real Estate, as you hint your current options
are undiversified at the planetary level. This leads to excessive
accumulating portfolio risk if you consider the long term future of you
investments in churches, foundations and families.

The local ore is also getting played out.

http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunar-pgm1-mining.html
Robert Kolker
2006-10-04 02:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by bombardmentforce
An investment of money in Real Estate, as you hint your current options
are undiversified at the planetary level. This leads to excessive
accumulating portfolio risk if you consider the long term future of you
investments in churches, foundations and families.
The local ore is also getting played out.
Much metal can be recycled.

Bob Kolker
bombardmentforce
2006-10-04 03:44:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by bombardmentforce
An investment of money in Real Estate, as you hint your current options
are undiversified at the planetary level. This leads to excessive
accumulating portfolio risk if you consider the long term future of you
investments in churches, foundations and families.
Don't forget the portfolio.
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by bombardmentforce
The local ore is also getting played out.
Much metal can be recycled.
Bob Kolker
The doesn't do much for a growing population, and is no way for us to
get rich..
Robert Kolker
2006-10-04 15:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by bombardmentforce
The doesn't do much for a growing population, and is no way for us to
get rich..
True. Recycling buys some time but the moment of truth comes. Either the
population stops growing or we mine metal from the oceans. We do not
have to go to the asteroid belt. There is also substitution of
non-metalic substances for metal. Right now we are getting very strong
material using carbon fibres. Lots of carbon, yes?

I think the soundest approach is population limitation. That way, if our
space efforts fail to produce what is needed, we can still survive a
long time on this planet.

Bob Kolker
The Old Man
2006-10-04 17:35:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
I think the soundest approach is population limitation. That way, if our
space efforts fail to produce what is needed, we can still survive a
long time on this planet.
Until ~the~ asteroid hits.......
bombardmentforce
2006-10-05 01:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by bombardmentforce
The doesn't do much for a growing population, and is no way for us to
get rich..
True. Recycling buys some time but the moment of truth comes. Either the
population stops growing or we mine metal from the oceans.
The oceans are lousy ore.
Post by Robert Kolker
We do not
have to go to the asteroid belt. There is also substitution of
non-metalic substances for metal. Right now we are getting very strong
material using carbon fibres. Lots of carbon, yes?
I think the soundest approach is population limitation. That way, if our
space efforts
Our current space efforts are scheduled to produce _nothing_ profitable
and tangible.
Post by Robert Kolker
fail to produce what is needed, we can still survive a
long time on this planet.
The dinosaurs had no asteroid survival plans, our only plan is to plan
to plan on warning.

Any time we get is a gift from an overidulgent creator who blessed our
more fit ancestors with

"Be friutful and multiply."
Robert Kolker
2006-10-05 04:27:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by bombardmentforce
The dinosaurs had no asteroid survival plans, our only plan is to plan
to plan on warning.
And neither do we. If a big asteroid or comet hits 99.999 percent of the
human race will perish whether we have space wessels or not. There is no
way of getting more than a few off the planet regardless of how much we
spend on space wessels.

And if a few do get off, where shall they live? The Solar System is a
very bad neighborhood. The only place that is fit for humans is planet
earth hidden in a magnetosphere envelope.

Bob Kolker
Scott Hedrick
2006-10-05 02:56:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
I think the soundest approach is population limitation.
You first.
Robert Kolker
2006-10-05 04:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Hedrick
Post by Robert Kolker
I think the soundest approach is population limitation.
You first.
Right there is the problem. Heavy taxes will have to be levied on having
more than two children.

Bob Kolker
Henry Spencer
2006-10-05 04:17:00 UTC
Permalink
...Recycling buys some time but the moment of truth comes. Either the
population stops growing or we mine metal from the oceans...
Even a relatively cautious prediction concludes that Earth's population
will peak and then start falling late in this century, as the poorer
countries industrialize and go through the "demographic transition" of
falling birth rates. The trends are already visible -- half the planet's
population already lives in countries with fertility below replacement
level, whereas virtually nobody did fifty years ago. This has been coming
for a long time -- the idea that the population would just keep growing
and growing and growing was always based on a very simplistic analysis.

The tough part will be getting through the next century. The population
at peak will be a lot higher than it is today. As will energy demand --
China is already about to pass the US as the planet's #1 CO2 producer.

Earth is really quite well supplied with most resources. (For example,
there is no way we are ever going to run out of aluminum -- a significant
fraction of the total mass of Earth's crust is aluminum -- although it may
get somewhat more expensive to produce.) The handful of elements that we
really are a bit short of are likely to be hard to find in space. The one
resource that's a really good candidate for import from space is energy.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | ***@spsystems.net
Robert Kolker
2006-10-05 10:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Spencer
Earth is really quite well supplied with most resources. (For example,
there is no way we are ever going to run out of aluminum -- a significant
fraction of the total mass of Earth's crust is aluminum -- although it may
get somewhat more expensive to produce.) The handful of elements that we
really are a bit short of are likely to be hard to find in space. The one
resource that's a really good candidate for import from space is energy.
There is the Sun. We should use it.

Bob Kolker
Henry Spencer
2006-10-06 00:42:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
...The one
resource that's a really good candidate for import from space is energy.
There is the Sun. We should use it.
Yep, and much the best way to do that is to convert the sunlight to
electricity in space, and beam it down as microwaves. Ground-based solar
would work well on an airless non-rotating planet, but is poorly suited
to large-scale use on Earth.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | ***@spsystems.net
Robert Kolker
2006-10-06 13:01:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Spencer
Yep, and much the best way to do that is to convert the sunlight to
electricity in space, and beam it down as microwaves. Ground-based solar
would work well on an airless non-rotating planet, but is poorly suited
to large-scale use on Earth.
For which we do not need a manned space program. Our unmanned programs,
by and large, have earned their keep. Not so, our manned programs. They
are kind of Pyramid Building.

Bob Kolker
Henry Spencer
2006-10-07 06:38:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by Henry Spencer
Yep, and much the best way to do that is to convert the sunlight to
electricity in space, and beam it down as microwaves...
For which we do not need a manned space program.
For which we need men in space, for the same reason we generally use
hands-on machinery to build hydroelectric dams: because in the real
world, automation and remote control are not up to such complex jobs.

If all you want to do is fly around and snap pictures from afar, robots do
that fairly well. People who are optimistic about robots doing much more
complex jobs in space in the near future typically have not done any real
robotics.
Post by Robert Kolker
Our unmanned programs,
by and large, have earned their keep. Not so, our manned programs.
The only manned program to date which has tried to do something ambitious
in space -- Apollo -- cost about ten times as much as its unmanned
contemporaries did, and returned a hundred to a thousand times the
results. If that's not earning its keep, what is?

(The shuttle is a less happy example, but then, its main purpose was to
keep a lot of people employed. It did that very well.)

If you want a more modern example, it was big news a week or two ago, when
the Opportunity rover reached the edge of Victoria crater. To do this, it
has traveled *ten kilometers* in just about three years -- a stupendous
accomplishment for a remotely-operated robot. The Apollo 15 crew traveled
that far in their first day at Hadley Rille, i.e. about a factor of 1000
higher productivity. (Of course, Opportunity has done more in that time
than just travel... but so did Scott and Irwin.) The MERs cost roughly a
billion dollars; charge half of that to Opportunity, and we have a wash
on productivity per dollar if the first manned Mars expedition costs less
than five hundred billion. Even NASA could probably do it for a tenth of
that, if the project wasn't managed by JSC.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | ***@spsystems.net
Robert Kolker
2006-10-07 13:09:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Spencer
If you want a more modern example, it was big news a week or two ago, when
the Opportunity rover reached the edge of Victoria crater. To do this, it
has traveled *ten kilometers* in just about three years -- a stupendous
accomplishment for a remotely-operated robot. The Apollo 15 crew traveled
that far in their first day at Hadley Rille, i.e. about a factor of 1000
higher productivity. (Of course, Opportunity has done more in that time
than just travel... but so did Scott and Irwin.) The MERs cost roughly a
billion dollars; charge half of that to Opportunity, and we have a wash
on productivity per dollar if the first manned Mars expedition costs less
than five hundred billion. Even NASA could probably do it for a tenth of
that, if the project wasn't managed by JSC.
Did our boys find water on the Moon? If not, they were wasting time and
money with regard to building settlements or habitats on the Moon. No
water, no colonies or habitats.

Bob Kolker
Scott Hedrick
2006-10-07 13:25:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
Did our boys find water on the Moon?
1. They weren't tasked to do that, because

2. they weren't sent to where the water was expected to be, because

3. the technology at the time wasn't considered reliable enough to do
missions much beyond the lunar equator.

They weren't expected to find water, so they didn't waste their time looking
for it, since they weren't sent to scout for future colonies.

*Now*, the technology is sufficiently advanced that it should be fairly safe
to visit the lunar poles and farside.
Henry Spencer
2006-10-07 17:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by Henry Spencer
has traveled *ten kilometers* in just about three years -- a stupendous
accomplishment for a remotely-operated robot. The Apollo 15 crew traveled
that far in their first day at Hadley Rille...
Did our boys find water on the Moon?
No, but then none of the robotic landers did either. Nobody has yet found
water on the Moon. (There are definitely hydrogen deposits of some sort,
especially at the south pole, as sensed from orbit by Lunar Prospector,
but whether they are actually water ice is only conjecture.)

It has been pointed out recently that if you want to explore the polar
regions for water ice, you almost certainly want to do it with manned
landings. Robotic rovers simply aren't up to the job.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | ***@spsystems.net
Steve Hix
2006-10-07 22:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
Did our boys find water on the Moon? If not, they were wasting time and
money with regard to building settlements or habitats on the Moon. No
water, no colonies or habitats.
An awfully high bar to "useful", don't you think?

You're expecting a lot for a handful of days of hands-on checking; the
sort of thinking that bring "perfection paralysis" to mind.
Robert Kolker
2006-10-08 12:15:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hix
An awfully high bar to "useful", don't you think?
You're expecting a lot for a handful of days of hands-on checking; the
sort of thinking that bring "perfection paralysis" to mind.
Forget perfection. How about sufficient in the practical sense? No
water; no colonies no habitats. We must find water or we are stopped in
our tracks.

Robots don't need water. Humans do.

Bob Kolker
Steve Hix
2006-10-08 16:37:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by Steve Hix
An awfully high bar to "useful", don't you think?
You're expecting a lot for a handful of days of hands-on checking; the
sort of thinking that bring "perfection paralysis" to mind.
Forget perfection. How about sufficient in the practical sense? No
water; no colonies no habitats. We must find water or we are stopped in
our tracks.
Once again, you're basing your argument on a too-small sample.

Worse, on a short-term project that never did expect to be able to
explore areas that had much likelihood of containing usable amounts of
water; they didn't have enough delta-v to permit landing anywhere other
than close to the lunar equator.

We'll ignore for now that strong evidence for water at the lunar poles
didn't show up until some time later.

Perhaps your earlier comments just sounded like "it's too hard now, so
we might as well just give up flying humans at all forever", and that's
not what you meant.
Post by Robert Kolker
Robots don't need water. Humans do.
Of course humans do. (Actually, so do robots, but they don't have to
carry it around after they're constructed.)

Initially, humans're going going to have to bring it with them, and they
will continue to have to recycle stringently. Happily, fuel cells
generate water, and that will continue to be useful.

It's not so much water that's in short supply, it's hydrogen down here
where we are in the solar gravity well. Oxygen is all over the place on
the moon, hydrogen not so much.

There's lots of water (and light hydrocarbons) in the solar system; we
won't always have to haul it up from earth. Currently it's hard to get
to, but that shouldn't always be the case. The boostrapping process is
going to be annoying for quite a while, granted.
Henry Spencer
2006-10-09 00:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hix
Worse, on a short-term project that never did expect to be able to
explore areas that had much likelihood of containing usable amounts of
water; they didn't have enough delta-v to permit landing anywhere other
than close to the lunar equator.
The constraints on landing sites were actually a bit more complicated than
that. A polar Apollo landing *would* have been possible, although it
would have presented some difficulties. Harrison Schmitt's "do something
ambitious with the last few Apollos" proposal included a polar landing.
Post by Steve Hix
We'll ignore for now that strong evidence for water at the lunar poles
didn't show up until some time later.
Actual *evidence* didn't become available until quite recently... but
speculation about water deposits at the poles goes back to 1961. This was
one of the reasons why Schmitt wanted to try a polar landing.
Post by Steve Hix
Initially, humans're going going to have to bring it with them, and they
will continue to have to recycle stringently.
Alas, recycling of this level of stringency will not be easy. Notably,
there is currently no good substitute for water as an expendable coolant
for spacesuits, and you don't get to recycle that water -- it's gone. A
local source of "makeup" water, to cover losses and recycling limitations,
is highly desirable.
Post by Steve Hix
Happily, fuel cells generate water, and that will continue to be useful.
Fuel cells generate water only if you lug along LH2 to feed them, which is
no longer seen as a particularly useful approach for most applications.
Note that NASA's current Apollo remake is going to be solar-powered, with
nary a fuel cell in sight.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | ***@spsystems.net
Jeff Findley
2006-10-09 19:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Spencer
Fuel cells generate water only if you lug along LH2 to feed them, which is
no longer seen as a particularly useful approach for most applications.
Note that NASA's current Apollo remake is going to be solar-powered, with
nary a fuel cell in sight.
Fuel cells seem to fit well only when there is a use for the water and when
the mission duration is on the order of a week or two. Fuel cells,
reactants, tankage, plumbing, and etc. does tend to be fairly heavy.

The lunar version of Soyuz, the 7K-LOK, used fuel cells. It was a first,
and a last, for fuel cells on (planned) manned Russian spacecraft until the
Buran Shuttle. From the article on Astronautix.com, it sounds like there
were procedural/bureaucratic issues with LH2 fueling on the pad. From
memory, pretty much all other Soyuz and Progress spacecraft used a
combination of batteries and solar arrays to provide power.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/soy7klok.htm

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)
Scott Hedrick
2006-10-08 22:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Forget perfection. How about sufficient in the practical sense? No water;
no colonies no habitats. We must find water or we are stopped in our
tracks.
That's fine, but your example doesn't support that. Pick a mission that was
specifically tasked to find water on the moon and failed.

I note that you failed to mention that nobody has found bourbon on the moon,
either. If *I* had gone to the moon with 1960s era gear, I'd need a good
slug of booze after landing.

What about sodium choride or free oxygen? Those weren't found, either, but
there's no habitat without air.
Robots don't need water. Humans do.
Clearly, the astronauts *did* find water on the moon. They couldn't have
survived without it.
Robert Kolker
2006-10-10 01:02:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Hedrick
Clearly, the astronauts *did* find water on the moon. They couldn't have
survived without it.
They brought their water with them.

The longest Lunar mission lasted about three days.

Bob Kolker
Scott Hedrick
2006-10-10 01:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by Scott Hedrick
Clearly, the astronauts *did* find water on the moon. They couldn't have
survived without it.
They brought their water with them.
*Exactly*. So a visit, or even a colony, *isn't* impossible if there is no
local source of water. That *really* smashes the economics, but doesn't make
it impossible if something of sufficient value is obtained.

Even here on Earth, there are plenty of people who have to haul in water to
where they live. Doesn't stop them from living there.
Post by Robert Kolker
The longest Lunar mission lasted about three days.
With solar cells and a sunshade, they might have made it another day or two.
Robert Kolker
2006-10-10 04:38:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Hedrick
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by Scott Hedrick
Clearly, the astronauts *did* find water on the moon. They couldn't have
survived without it.
They brought their water with them.
*Exactly*. So a visit, or even a colony, *isn't* impossible if there is no
local source of water. That *really* smashes the economics, but doesn't make
it impossible if something of sufficient value is obtained.
Even here on Earth, there are plenty of people who have to haul in water to
There is a difference between piping water or walking to a well, and
hauling water from earth to else where out of our gravity well. Think
about it.
Post by Scott Hedrick
where they live. Doesn't stop them from living there.
For a self sustaining habitat to exist on another planet there must be
free water (or water that can be made free) on -that- planet. Water is
too dense to hault in large amounts from earth.

That is why the most likely place to build habitats is on Europa. That
moon is a water world.

Bob Kolker

Pat Flannery
2006-10-08 03:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Spencer
For which we need men in space, for the same reason we generally use
hands-on machinery to build hydroelectric dams: because in the real
world, automation and remote control are not up to such complex jobs.
At the moment; but what around twenty or thirty years in the future? We
are getting steadily better at automating things as well as
miniaturizing robotic devices, and you can see a point in the future
where robots pretty much can do everything a human explorer can do, as
well as having the dual advantages of not needing weighty life support
equipment or a means of returning home from its planetary target. Both
those advantages mean a lot of saved weight, and that means far more
payload on the planet's surface for a given mission mass.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if we never send a human crew to Mars as
we can do a better job of exploring it with robotic devices. At the
moment our two rovers are sending back lots of useful data, and the life
support that would have been required for two human explorers on Mars
for the period of time that the rovers have been operating would be
anything but trivial.
The line of what humans can do stays fairly level, aided by equipping
the human explorer with more and more high technology equipment that
must be designed in such a way as to interface with him. But what
robotics on its own, unhindered by any need to have a human interface,
can do keeps rising toward it...and at some future point it first meets
it, then crosses it...and the machine has the advantage and is more
capable than a human explorer would be.
Remember how we first had to build a space station with many cargo
rocket launches, and then head for the Moon? Everyone thought that would
be the case back in the fifties, but we improved our rockets enough that
no space station was needed, and we could do the whole mission with a
single rocket launch.
Von Braun thought his space station was immune from attack because the
weight of the guidance system that a interceptor missile would have to
carry into space to destroy it would be too heavy for it to get off of
the pad and do its mission.
I think something very much that may happen in regards to robotic
exploration.
We may be making assumptions about future machinery based on the
technology of today that time will show were wrong.

Pat
Robert Kolker
2006-10-08 12:14:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
At the moment; but what around twenty or thirty years in the future? We
are getting steadily better at automating things as well as
miniaturizing robotic devices, and you can see a point in the future
where robots pretty much can do everything a human explorer can do, as
well as having the dual advantages of not needing weighty life support
equipment or a means of returning home from its planetary target. Both
You realize that once missions at distances greater than the Moon are
undertaken, the robots would have to be autonomous or semi-autonomous.
The distances are so great that the delay in radio transmission would
make "hands on" control by a human impossible.

One really neat outcome of developing autnomous robots for space
exploration is that it would stimulate the development of AI at a
greater pace than AI has been enjoying.

Bob Kolker
Bradley K. Sherman
2006-10-08 14:19:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
One really neat outcome of developing autnomous robots for space
exploration is that it would stimulate the development of AI at a
greater pace than AI has been enjoying.
They can't even make a robot that can get the butter out
of the refrigerator, the bread out of the toaster, and
spread the former on the latter. Give me a call when
they get that far and we'll talk about autonomous robots
for multi-decade space exploration.

--bks
Pat Flannery
2006-10-08 15:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradley K. Sherman
They can't even make a robot that can get the butter out
of the refrigerator, the bread out of the toaster, and
spread the former on the latter. Give me a call when
they get that far and we'll talk about autonomous robots
for multi-decade space exploration.
And the problem here is that you are using machines to interface food
with a person in the way you'd expect it to be done, so that the
buttered slice of toasted bread will show up on your plate.
From a nutritional point of view, grind the bread up into bits, toast
it, mix it with the butter, and exude it through a tube as a paste. That
could be easily done by machinery alone and wouldn't need any computing
power at all.
We keep trying to make robots that walk around on legs like people, even
though we don't use mechanical legs on our vehicles, but rather rely on
wheels or treads. A legged planetary exploration robot may look neat,
but I doubt it's going to be able to go cross-country at 30 mph like a
M1 tank can. :-)


Pat
Steve Hix
2006-10-08 16:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by Bradley K. Sherman
They can't even make a robot that can get the butter out
of the refrigerator, the bread out of the toaster, and
spread the former on the latter. Give me a call when
they get that far and we'll talk about autonomous robots
for multi-decade space exploration.
And the problem here is that you are using machines to interface food
with a person in the way you'd expect it to be done, so that the
buttered slice of toasted bread will show up on your plate.
From a nutritional point of view, grind the bread up into bits, toast
it, mix it with the butter, and exude it through a tube as a paste. That
could be easily done by machinery alone and wouldn't need any computing
power at all.
There are reasons why food-in-a-tube isn't getting as much attention as
it did in the early space program era. Yeah, you can get the bare
nutritional requirements that way, but people get tired of it really
fast.
Post by Pat Flannery
We keep trying to make robots that walk around on legs like people,
And are getting better at them.
Post by Pat Flannery
even though we don't use mechanical legs on our vehicles, but rather rely on
wheels or treads.
Because they're a *lot* simpler to make.

How many biological organisms use wheels for movement? Other than some
microorganisms?
Post by Pat Flannery
A legged planetary exploration robot may look neat,
but I doubt it's going to be able to go cross-country at 30 mph like a
M1 tank can. :-)
IIRC, it's 45mph, until the crew rips out the governor and gets going.

Actually, as long as you don't require high speed, leg-based machines
would be able to go places that tracked and wheeled vehicles can't go at
all, or only with great difficulty.

I recall seeing a writeup of a new-ish leg-thing in development
specifically to deal with terrain that isn't suited for wheel/track
vehicles. It wouldn't replace wheels, certainly, but it could supplement
them for some environments.
c***@hotmail.com
2006-10-08 22:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hix
I recall seeing a writeup of a new-ish leg-thing in development
specifically to deal with terrain that isn't suited for wheel/track
vehicles. It wouldn't replace wheels, certainly, but it could supplement
them for some environments.
Let's launch hibernating, suited, robot-jockeyed mountain goats to
mars...
Steve Hix
2006-10-08 23:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Post by Steve Hix
I recall seeing a writeup of a new-ish leg-thing in development
specifically to deal with terrain that isn't suited for wheel/track
vehicles. It wouldn't replace wheels, certainly, but it could supplement
them for some environments.
Let's launch hibernating, suited, robot-jockeyed mountain goats to
mars...
Wonder how they'd be bbq'd...?
Pat Flannery
2006-10-09 06:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hix
Actually, as long as you don't require high speed, leg-based machines
would be able to go places that tracked and wheeled vehicles can't go at
all, or only with great difficulty.
I recall seeing a writeup of a new-ish leg-thing in development
specifically to deal with terrain that isn't suited for wheel/track
vehicles. It wouldn't replace wheels, certainly, but it could supplement
them for some environments.
The Army's been playing around with this idea since the 1960's, but the
Humvee's don't have legs on them yet.
The legged vehicle is slow, it's complex, and it's not very energy
efficient at all - compared to wheels in particular.
So you are on Mars and you come to a big pile of rocks that looks
difficult to traverse... if you've got a legged vehicle you can slowly
crawl over them and then slowly walk away from the far side. If you've
got a wheeled or treaded vehicle, you simply drive around the pile at
fairly god speed then drive quickly again once you're on the far side...
in the process of driving around the obstacle you've covered more ground
that you can examine.
Remember Dante I and its trip into the volcanic crater of Mt. Erebus on
its mechanical legs?:
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/vw_news/dante.html
Remember how Danti fell INTO the volcanic crater of Mt. Erebus?
So, they looked things over, and built Dante II, and sent it into the
volcanic crater of Mt. Spur.
Down into the crater of Mt. Spur went Dante II.... down into the crater
where the boulder hit and damaged one of its legs.
Then it tried to climb out...then Dante II fell INTO the crater of Mt. Spur.
So they tried lo lift it out with a helicopter....then Dante II fell off
the helicopter and BACK INTO the crater of Mt. Spur.
Legs didn't seem to work very well for doing stuff like this.
So if you want to look into a volcanic crater what do you do?
Simple, you drive on treads up to the edge of the crater, then you let a
spherical probe on a tether roll down into the crater, as that's what
the incline angle is going to make it want to do. Now you've got gravity
on your side, and it's your helper, not your enemy.
After the probe does its snooping, you reel it back in... if it gets
stuck you just cut it loose and move on.
Dante was trying to do something very simple in a very complex manner.
Look at the angle of the slope Dante I is trying to climb down in this
photo:
Loading Image...
This isn't a job for a legged robot, it's a job for a basketball. :-D

Pat
Steve Hix
2006-10-09 19:07:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by Steve Hix
Actually, as long as you don't require high speed, leg-based machines
would be able to go places that tracked and wheeled vehicles can't go at
all, or only with great difficulty.
I recall seeing a writeup of a new-ish leg-thing in development
specifically to deal with terrain that isn't suited for wheel/track
vehicles. It wouldn't replace wheels, certainly, but it could supplement
them for some environments.
The Army's been playing around with this idea since the 1960's, but the
Humvee's don't have legs on them yet.
Nor are they ever likely to have them. That's not at issue.
Post by Pat Flannery
The legged vehicle is slow, it's complex, and it's not very energy
efficient at all - compared to wheels in particular.
Did you bother at all to read what you quoted above your comment?

Where you *can* use wheels, there's not much that can compete with them.

Most places where you can't use wheels, wings are a better solution.

There may well be some niches where leggy gadgets might be better than
either; perhaps severe broken terrain in an area where any small flying
device used for intelligence collection is going to either get shot
down, or would compromise data collection.

In fact, we do use leg-mobile data collection equipment, it's just that
so far, it's been men hauling the gear and setting up and doing the data
collection.

Machines that could be used to cover terrain where wheels can't go might
be pretty useful. Especially in applications where speed isn't critical,
and long-term observation might be.

Not that I expect to see them in the near future.
Robert Kolker
2006-10-08 17:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradley K. Sherman
They can't even make a robot that can get the butter out
of the refrigerator, the bread out of the toaster, and
spread the former on the latter. Give me a call when
they get that far and we'll talk about autonomous robots
for multi-decade space exploration.
That is not the best use of robots. Robots can go into an environment
that would kill or disable a human.

Bob Kolker
Scott Hedrick
2006-10-08 22:41:53 UTC
Permalink
That is not the best use of robots. Robots can go into an environment that
would kill or disable a human.
Which ia *precisely* why it's not robots vs. people, and only fools discuss
which one is better for space exploration. The *correct* answer is that both
are necessary because they compliment each other. Robots are terrific for
cursory preliminary examinations, such as what the current Mars Rovers are
doing. Detailed investigation will take people. Because the expense for
people is more than the expense for machines, the use of machines will
provide the initial data needed to send people to the areas where they can
provide the greatest science, while machines continue the more routine
exploration. The results of use of people and machines together do not equal
people + machine, they are more like people * machine.

You don't need a person to provide routine weather information, like the
kind Viking provided. You don't need a person to take pictures. You do need
a person to direct the machine where to go to take pictures, and you need a
person to decide if something in the picture warrants closer investigation.
If you're short on time, people will outproduce machines by a far margin. I
believe Henry pointed out that the astronauts on Apollo 15 travelled as much
as the Mars Rovers have in three + years on their first day.

How much science did the Mars Polar Lander produce? If people had been
there, controlling the landing, would the engines have shut off early?
People are, and will be for the foreseeable future, better at thinking than
machines. However, because of that, they tend to suck at simple, boring,
routine things.
Henry Spencer
2006-10-09 00:45:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by Henry Spencer
For which we need men in space, for the same reason we generally use
hands-on machinery to build hydroelectric dams: because in the real
world, automation and remote control are not up to such complex jobs.
At the moment; but what around twenty or thirty years in the future?
Or forty, or fifty, or... Greg Benford once asked Hans Moravec how soon
we could build a robot that could climb down a geothermal vent on Mars.
The answer was "half a century"... and Moravec is a leading robotics
researcher and well known as an *optimist* about robot capabilities. But
he's actually *done* robotics work, and it shows in his time estimates.
Post by Pat Flannery
...our two rovers are sending back lots of useful data, and the life
support that would have been required for two human explorers on Mars
for the period of time that the rovers have been operating would be
anything but trivial.
You get what you pay for. The advance estimate made by Steve Squyres,
science boss for the MERs -- "the rovers will be able to do in a day what
a skilled field geologist can do in 30 seconds" -- has held up pretty
well. With that kind of multiplier in effect, the extra resources needed
to support human explorers no longer look so wasteful.
Post by Pat Flannery
The line of what humans can do stays fairly level, aided by equipping
the human explorer with more and more high technology equipment that
must be designed in such a way as to interface with him.
Make up your mind: does it stay fairly level, or does it rise with the
addition of that equipment? In fact, it has risen quite a bit.

The most effective approach is to send *both*, and use them together. In
particular, the capabilities of robotic systems expand dramatically if
humans are available for repair, refurbishment, and low-lag teleoperation.
They can be used to offload a lot of routine chores, freeing up human
hands and heads for things that robots can't do effectively.
Post by Pat Flannery
and at some future point it first meets
it, then crosses it...and the machine has the advantage and is more
capable than a human explorer would be.
Someday, possibly. Not soon.
Post by Pat Flannery
Remember how we first had to build a space station with many cargo
rocket launches, and then head for the Moon? Everyone thought that would
be the case back in the fifties, but we improved our rockets enough that
no space station was needed, and we could do the whole mission with a
single rocket launch.
Yes, but we can't any more. The one-big-rocket approach was driven by a
political imperative for haste, and the capability was lost once that
imperative was satisfied. Building a space station as an assembly base is
*still* the right approach for sustained spaceflight. We didn't bypass
the assembly station because that approach became obsolete; we bypassed it
because political expediency overruled technical merit.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | ***@spsystems.net
Pat Flannery
2006-10-09 07:11:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Spencer
Post by Pat Flannery
The line of what humans can do stays fairly level, aided by equipping
the human explorer with more and more high technology equipment that
must be designed in such a way as to interface with him.
Make up your mind: does it stay fairly level, or does it rise with the
addition of that equipment? In fact, it has risen quite a bit.
Yes it has risen... but it is all equipment that has to interface with
the human explorer- in short you are sort of turning him into a cyborg
with detachable cybernetic parts; at some point you are going to end up
with equipment so sophisticated that the explorer merely has to point it
where he wants and it does all the rest.
At that point you might want to leave out all the display screens for
the operator, and just do it all roboticly.
Our "future warrior" soldiers are already dragging several pounds of
night vision gear, thermal sights, computer interfaces and television
cameras. Soon, the poor guy is going to have no carrying capability for
ammo or food because of all the the electronic crap he has strapped on
him...so the Army is looking into powersuits to increase the soldier's
carrying capability.
And where it's going is obvious: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6852832/
First the recon drones replace the recon planes, then the robot fighters
and bombers replace the manned fighters and bombers, then the war robots
replace the infantry.
And it will go the same way in space.
Post by Henry Spencer
The most effective approach is to send *both*, and use them together.
I seriously doubt that we can afford a manned Mars flight.
It'd be extremely expensive to do, and I doubt it gives results anywhere
worth the financial outlay to do it.
The same might be said for the return to the Moon mission; it'd be
interesting to do, but it simply isn't that critically important to
justify the cost of it.
On he other hand we can give Mars a pretty good going over in a unmanned
manner at a comparatively low cost compared to a manned mission,
particularly if we come up with some good designs for fairly simple
lander/rovers and then make quite a few of them rather than our current
process of making one or two of a particular design and then moving on
to something new.
By the time we find out that we do have a great design...like our
present two rovers...we simply move on rather than exploiting it.
Although our present rovers can only land and operate on around 5-10% of
the Martian surface we should build some more to the same design and put
them down around the planet's equator where possible. This is something
we could do on the cheap for a fairly low cost with a good chance of
success.
Post by Henry Spencer
In
particular, the capabilities of robotic systems expand dramatically if
humans are available for repair, refurbishment, and low-lag teleoperation.
They can be used to offload a lot of routine chores, freeing up human
hands and heads for things that robots can't do effectively.
Again... this is today...what about around 2036? Remember what computers
were like in 1976?
Post by Henry Spencer
Post by Pat Flannery
and at some future point it first meets
it, then crosses it...and the machine has the advantage and is more
capable than a human explorer would be.
Someday, possibly. Not soon.
I'd bet within 50 years tops, probably sooner.
Dyna-Soar died when the ICBM's arrived, because they could do the job of
getting a H-bomb from point "A" to point "B" at a lower cost than a
manned system could.
Our communications satellites are unmanned yet do sterling service.
Post by Henry Spencer
Post by Pat Flannery
Remember how we first had to build a space station with many cargo
rocket launches, and then head for the Moon? Everyone thought that would
be the case back in the fifties, but we improved our rockets enough that
no space station was needed, and we could do the whole mission with a
single rocket launch.
Yes, but we can't any more. The one-big-rocket approach was driven by a
political imperative for haste, and the capability was lost once that
imperative was satisfied. Building a space station as an assembly base is
*still* the right approach for sustained spaceflight. We didn't bypass
the assembly station because that approach became obsolete; we bypassed it
because political expediency overruled technical merit.
I can guarantee if the aim was to get people on the Moon, and Moon rocks
back to Earth ASAP and at the lowest cost, Saturn V beat the hell out of
assembling a moonship at a space station von Braun style.
God knows how much all that would have all ended up costing once you
start figuring out all the things that would have had to be developed to
make the concept work.

Pat
Scott Hedrick
2006-10-09 16:28:26 UTC
Permalink
Yes it has risen... but it is all equipment that has to interface with the
human explorer- in short you are sort of turning him into a cyborg with
detachable cybernetic parts
And we can improve reaction time by then *attaching the parts*- hell, let's
just send Robocop in the first place!
First the recon drones replace the recon planes, then the robot fighters
and bombers replace the manned fighters and bombers, then the war robots
replace the infantry.
Saw that one already. "Battle of the Planets". The last episode I saw had
Mark pull the helmet off Zoltar, and we saw long flowing hair come out
before Zoltar's boss popped a strobe and helped Zoltar escape.
Jeff Findley
2006-10-09 20:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Yes it has risen... but it is all equipment that has to interface with the
human explorer- in short you are sort of turning him into a cyborg with
detachable cybernetic parts; at some point you are going to end up with
equipment so sophisticated that the explorer merely has to point it where
he wants and it does all the rest.
But you'll still benefit from having a human close enough that the RF time
lag to earth and back doesn't get in a way. Be that in a suit, rover, or
base. Only when the robots can operate autonomously, including doing
routine maintenance on themselves, and each other, without *any* human
intervention, will you do away for the need to have a "man on the spot".

I think we're hundreds of years away from that, but that's an uneducated
guess on my part based on what current robots can do. Today, the DOD can
barely get them to drive a motor vehicle autonomously, let alone design an
automated tow truck or automated vehicle repair center. :-)
At that point you might want to leave out all the display screens for the
operator, and just do it all roboticly.
Our "future warrior" soldiers are already dragging several pounds of night
vision gear, thermal sights, computer interfaces and television cameras.
Soon, the poor guy is going to have no carrying capability for ammo or
food because of all the the electronic crap he has strapped on him...so
the Army is looking into powersuits to increase the soldier's carrying
capability.
And yet we don't see Humvees driving themselves in Iraq yet, do we?
And where it's going is obvious: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6852832/
First the recon drones replace the recon planes, then the robot fighters
and bombers replace the manned fighters and bombers, then the war robots
replace the infantry.
But in the ase of recon drones and planes, there is usually a pilot sitting
in a virtual cockpit somewhere on the planet. Trying to do the same thing
with a Mars/Earth time delay makes that task orders of magnitude more
difficult.
And it will go the same way in space.
Things that are different, just aren't the same. You might eliminate a lot
of EVA with virtual control of Martain robots, but it's still far easier to
stick the controls for that robot on Mars than on Earth.
Post by Henry Spencer
The most effective approach is to send *both*, and use them together.
I seriously doubt that we can afford a manned Mars flight.
It'd be extremely expensive to do, and I doubt it gives results anywhere
worth the financial outlay to do it.
The same might be said for the return to the Moon mission; it'd be
interesting to do, but it simply isn't that critically important to
justify the cost of it.
On he other hand we can give Mars a pretty good going over in a unmanned
manner at a comparatively low cost compared to a manned mission,
particularly if we come up with some good designs for fairly simple
lander/rovers and then make quite a few of them rather than our current
process of making one or two of a particular design and then moving on to
something new.
By the time we find out that we do have a great design...like our present
two rovers...we simply move on rather than exploiting it.
Although our present rovers can only land and operate on around 5-10% of
the Martian surface we should build some more to the same design and put
them down around the planet's equator where possible. This is something we
could do on the cheap for a fairly low cost with a good chance of success.
If we'd done Apollo in a more modular way, we'd have the skills necessary to
launch a Mars mission without resorting to super huge mega launchers to put
nearly everything necessary up in one launch.
Post by Henry Spencer
In
particular, the capabilities of robotic systems expand dramatically if
humans are available for repair, refurbishment, and low-lag teleoperation.
They can be used to offload a lot of routine chores, freeing up human
hands and heads for things that robots can't do effectively.
Again... this is today...what about around 2036? Remember what computers
were like in 1976?
Computers are only as good as their programs. As the program complexity
rises, so do your software development costs. It's not clear to me that
autonomous robots will be a real cost winner until they are already deployed
in terrestrial uses, like truck driving, before they'll be cost effective to
replace an astronaut in an EVA suit or sitting behind a computer screen in a
lander, directing semi-autonomous robots without a significant time lag.
Post by Henry Spencer
and at some future point it first meets it, then crosses it...and the
machine has the advantage and is more capable than a human explorer would
be.
Someday, possibly. Not soon.
I'd bet within 50 years tops, probably sooner.
Dyna-Soar died when the ICBM's arrived, because they could do the job of
getting a H-bomb from point "A" to point "B" at a lower cost than a manned
system could.
This works for an expendable vehicle that has one function, flip the switch
that causes the bomb to explode. That's not the same as exploring Mars.
Our communications satellites are unmanned yet do sterling service.
Relaying communications is something these things are hard wired to do as
long as there aren't any hardware failures. And when there is
troubleshooting to do, the time delay to GEO isn't much compared to the time
delay to Mars. And this ignores all of the satellites that could have been
saved or had extended missions with manned servicing and refueling.
Post by Henry Spencer
Remember how we first had to build a space station with many cargo rocket
launches, and then head for the Moon? Everyone thought that would be the
case back in the fifties, but we improved our rockets enough that no
space station was needed, and we could do the whole mission with a single
rocket launch.
Yes, but we can't any more. The one-big-rocket approach was driven by a
political imperative for haste, and the capability was lost once that
imperative was satisfied. Building a space station as an assembly base is
*still* the right approach for sustained spaceflight. We didn't bypass
the assembly station because that approach became obsolete; we bypassed it
because political expediency overruled technical merit.
I can guarantee if the aim was to get people on the Moon, and Moon rocks
back to Earth ASAP and at the lowest cost, Saturn V beat the hell out of
assembling a moonship at a space station von Braun style.
God knows how much all that would have all ended up costing once you start
figuring out all the things that would have had to be developed to make
the concept work.
But what you have is far more. You have the beginnings of a manned space
station in LEO. You have the technology to do in orbit refueling making LEO
to GEO space tugs and servicing missions possible. How many comsats have
died due to fuel exhaustion or other simple failures? How many expensive
satellites have been stranded in useless orbits because their expendable,
one shot upper stages didn't work properly?

What you have is the basis of sustainable manned spaceflight coupled with
the ability to assemble, deploy, and maintain unmanned earth orbiting
satellites.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)
l***@verizon.net
2006-10-09 23:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Hans Moravec's robot company, SEEGRIDhas just sold the first handful
of commercial autonomous mobile robots. See SEEGRID.com. They truly
are autonomous, using vision to map their surroundings and navigating
from the learned map. They do not depend at all on GPS or other
external signals or tricks of site preparation. I hear that the
purchasers are very happy with their performance. Hans current timeline
for a robot capable of operating essentially unsupervised in a setting
like an asteroid mine is about fifteen years.(H.P.M. Personal comm.)
Bradley K. Sherman
2006-10-10 02:13:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@verizon.net
purchasers are very happy with their performance. Hans current timeline
for a robot capable of operating essentially unsupervised in a setting
like an asteroid mine is about fifteen years.(H.P.M. Personal comm.)
For very large values of fifteen.

--bks
Scott Hedrick
2006-10-05 15:45:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Spencer
China is already about to pass the US as the planet's #1 CO2 producer.
Gee, didn't they sign the Kyoto treaty?
Danny Dot
2006-10-04 19:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by bombardmentforce
Project Orion was a concept study.
And a test program. that lead into the Casaba Howitzer test program,
that was the secret core of Reagan's SDI.
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2006/04/plasma-howitzer-concept.html
It proposed building a space-based
only "rocket" ...It was really only
seriously proposed for use strictly in space. The bombs were to be
released in a series of continuous distinct pulses.
Here's evidence it was seriously proposed for Earth launch, by a
serious player, who later was part of the team behind the World Trade
Center.
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2006/03/nelson-rockefeller-vs-ike-re-lunar.html
As a retired engineer, I don't see how nuclear explosions could be used for
launches. The blast would tend to distroy the vehicle and anyone inside of
the vehicle.

On orbit, a nuclear explosion may not even provide a impulse via blast.
Without an atmosphere, I don't think there would be an impulse of force.
Huge amount of heat in the form of radiation, but no blast overpressure.

But a nuclear reactor with hydrogen of even water being boiled and heated
then expelled out a nozzle would make a good rocket engine.

Danny Dot
www.mobbinggonemad.org
Steve Hix
2006-10-04 19:53:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Danny Dot
As a retired engineer, I don't see how nuclear explosions could be used for
launches. The blast would tend to distroy the vehicle and anyone inside of
the vehicle.
After the Trinity test at Alamagordo (and some above-ground test later
on) parts of the tower structure that held the device remained. And some
shielded test gear within about 100yds of the device also survived the
blast.
Post by Danny Dot
On orbit, a nuclear explosion may not even provide a impulse via blast.
Without an atmosphere, I don't think there would be an impulse of force.
Huge amount of heat in the form of radiation, but no blast overpressure.
Which is OK, since the atmosphere isn't needed to produce the thrust.
The thrusters would have been surrounded with a jacket of water or wax
(for example), and the plasma produced provides the thrust.

Not hugely efficient, maybe, with plasma being wasted on each pop; but
who cares when the total energy being produced is so much over the top
of your requirements, not to mention any chemical alternatives.

Google around for "Orion nuclear rocket". Lots of stuff, including
proof-of-concept tests.
Post by Danny Dot
But a nuclear reactor with hydrogen of even water being boiled and heated
then expelled out a nozzle would make a good rocket engine.
Easy (relatively). The NERVA test engine was running in the 1960s.
Northwind is a more recent notion.

Politics stopped their use; until you can convince the Greenies that it
would be safe enough to put the (cold) engine in orbit before fueling
and lighting it off, we won't see any.
David Spain
2006-10-04 21:16:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hix
Post by Danny Dot
On orbit, a nuclear explosion may not even provide a impulse via blast.
Without an atmosphere, I don't think there would be an impulse of force.
Huge amount of heat in the form of radiation, but no blast overpressure.
Which is OK, since the atmosphere isn't needed to produce the thrust.
The thrusters would have been surrounded with a jacket of water or wax
(for example), and the plasma produced provides the thrust.
Well you could certainly embellish the pusher plate with coatings of this
kind to improve overall efficiency, but anything that reflects will work.

"Huge amount of heat in the form of radiation", is the key phrase here.
The light pressure from the emitted radiation alone is enough. Remember
those photo sensitive vanes in a evacuated bulb you may have seen in junior
high? Now scale it up. The trick is too keep the pusher plate cool enough
to maintain its reflectivity.

The physics is no different than solar sailing or using a ground or space-based
laser to propel a spacecraft. Except the light energy is coming from your own
supplied bombs.
Post by Steve Hix
Not hugely efficient, maybe, with plasma being wasted on each pop; but
who cares when the total energy being produced is so much over the top
of your requirements, not to mention any chemical alternatives.
I image only a fraction of the energy released by the bomb is actually providing
propulsion. IIRC you need some kind of super shock absorber that resonates with the
explosive pulses connecting the plate to the spacecraft if you want to provide
a comfortable experience for the occupants. Also IIRC the bomb detonates at a
goodly distance (many, many, many miles) from the spacecraft.
Post by Steve Hix
Google around for "Orion nuclear rocket". Lots of stuff, including
proof-of-concept tests.
Post by Danny Dot
But a nuclear reactor with hydrogen of even water being boiled and heated
then expelled out a nozzle would make a good rocket engine.
Easy (relatively). The NERVA test engine was running in the 1960s.
Northwind is a more recent notion.
Politics stopped their use; until you can convince the Greenies that it
would be safe enough to put the (cold) engine in orbit before fueling
and lighting it off, we won't see any.
Putting the cold engines in orbit doesn't present a problem. It's putting up
the fuel. Since the days of Three Mile Island the words nuclear and irrational
have become synonymous in the English language.

Dave
Steve Hix
2006-10-05 01:43:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
Post by Steve Hix
Post by Danny Dot
On orbit, a nuclear explosion may not even provide a impulse via blast.
Without an atmosphere, I don't think there would be an impulse of force.
Huge amount of heat in the form of radiation, but no blast overpressure.
Which is OK, since the atmosphere isn't needed to produce the thrust.
The thrusters would have been surrounded with a jacket of water or wax
(for example), and the plasma produced provides the thrust.
Well you could certainly embellish the pusher plate with coatings of this
kind to improve overall efficiency, but anything that reflects will work.
"Huge amount of heat in the form of radiation", is the key phrase here.
The light pressure from the emitted radiation alone is enough. Remember
those photo sensitive vanes in a evacuated bulb you may have seen in junior
high? Now scale it up. The trick is too keep the pusher plate cool enough
to maintain its reflectivity.
The physics is no different than solar sailing or using a ground or space-based
laser to propel a spacecraft. Except the light energy is coming from your own
supplied bombs.
Post by Steve Hix
Not hugely efficient, maybe, with plasma being wasted on each pop; but
who cares when the total energy being produced is so much over the top
of your requirements, not to mention any chemical alternatives.
I image only a fraction of the energy released by the bomb is actually providing
propulsion. IIRC you need some kind of super shock absorber that resonates with the
explosive pulses connecting the plate to the spacecraft if you want to provide
a comfortable experience for the occupants. Also IIRC the bomb detonates at a
goodly distance (many, many, many miles) from the spacecraft.
Post by Steve Hix
Google around for "Orion nuclear rocket". Lots of stuff, including
proof-of-concept tests.
Post by Danny Dot
But a nuclear reactor with hydrogen of even water being boiled and heated
then expelled out a nozzle would make a good rocket engine.
Easy (relatively). The NERVA test engine was running in the 1960s.
Northwind is a more recent notion.
Politics stopped their use; until you can convince the Greenies that it
would be safe enough to put the (cold) engine in orbit before fueling
and lighting it off, we won't see any.
Putting the cold engines in orbit doesn't present a problem. It's putting up
the fuel.
Which is what I said; you don't go hot (critical) until after you're in
orbit. But they even freak out about small radio-thermal power sources.
Post by David Spain
Since the days of Three Mile Island the words nuclear and
irrational have become synonymous in the English language.
Although it has been interesting, over the past few months, to hear some
long-time green types beginning to argue that nukes might not be so bad
after all.
Pat Flannery
2006-10-05 09:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
I image only a fraction of the energy released by the bomb is actually providing
propulsion. IIRC you need some kind of super shock absorber that resonates with the
explosive pulses connecting the plate to the spacecraft if you want to provide
a comfortable experience for the occupants. Also IIRC the bomb
detonates at a
goodly distance (many, many, many miles) from the spacecraft.
There is lot of downloadable Orion material here, including the now
declassified official reports on Project Orion:
http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/~seb/celestia/orion/index.html

Pat
P***@gmx.net
2006-10-06 09:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
Post by Steve Hix
Politics stopped their use; until you can convince the Greenies that it
would be safe enough to put the (cold) engine in orbit before fueling
and lighting it off, we won't see any.
Putting the cold engines in orbit doesn't present a problem. It's putting up
the fuel. Since the days of Three Mile Island the words nuclear and irrational
have become synonymous in the English language.
I think what Steve Hix means by "cold" engine is one that's been fully
fueled with uranium but has never gone critical. The uranium fuel
itself, although somewhat enriched, is not highly radioacitve and is
not particularly dangerous. Once the reactor is started up for the
first time, however, many radioactive elements, which have short
half-lives and are therefore highly radioactive, are created. It is at
this point that the reactor becomes a hazard.

Of course, I don't expect that this fact will make the politics of
launching a nuclear engine much easier.
David Spain
2006-10-06 17:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@gmx.net
I think what Steve Hix means by "cold" engine is one that's been fully
fueled with uranium but has never gone critical. The uranium fuel
itself, although somewhat enriched, is not highly radioactive [sp] and is
not particularly dangerous. Once the reactor is started up for the
first time, however, many radioactive elements, which have short
half-lives and are therefore highly radioactive, are created. It is at
this point that the reactor becomes a hazard.
That I understand. However it would probably be easier to sell politically
if the reactor was shipped up first unfueled with the core fuel rods brought
up on separate flights, fueling the reactor while in Earth orbit.
Post by P***@gmx.net
Of course, I don't expect that this fact will make the politics of
launching a nuclear engine much easier.
Oh it will happen. It's just that manned space exploration is passing away
from the democracies that are too narcissistic to care.

Dave
Henry Spencer
2006-10-07 06:04:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
Post by P***@gmx.net
Of course, I don't expect that this fact will make the politics of
launching a nuclear engine much easier.
Oh it will happen. It's just that manned space exploration is passing away
from the democracies that are too narcissistic to care.
Nonsense. What we've seen so far (and what NASA is trying to return to)
is just incidental dabbling. The days of real space exploration by free
men still lie ahead, and in fact are getting pretty close. The cartoons
are ending, and the curtain is about to go up on the main feature.

If all this sounds bizarre and fantastic, you need to stop thinking in
terms of the socialist dream -- spaceflight for the glory of the almighty
state, the way NASA does it -- and start considering the sort of space
exploration that free people might do for their own reasons. It's already
possible to fly in space for any reason you think sufficient, if you've
got the price of the ticket. It hasn't worked out quite the way we
thought -- who would have *imagined* a world in which the only commercial
spaceline requires you to learn Russian to get a seat assignment?!? -- and
it's too damned expensive, but these nuisances will change soon, when real
competition begins.

NASA will never, ever put men on Mars. Their target date for it is
receding more than a year per year. But the first footprints on Mars
almost certainly will be those of free men.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | ***@spsystems.net
Robert Kolker
2006-10-07 13:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Spencer
Nonsense. What we've seen so far (and what NASA is trying to return to)
is just incidental dabbling. The days of real space exploration by free
men still lie ahead, and in fact are getting pretty close. The cartoons
are ending, and the curtain is about to go up on the main feature.
Yoda says: Do not your breath hold else purple turn you will. The tqx
payers will not joyfully submit to being mugged for another Kennedyesque
Space Circus and private firms will not fund foolishness. They are
profit oriented.

Bob Kolker
Henry Spencer
2006-10-08 04:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by Henry Spencer
Nonsense. What we've seen so far (and what NASA is trying to return to)
is just incidental dabbling. The days of real space exploration by free
men still lie ahead, and in fact are getting pretty close. The cartoons
are ending, and the curtain is about to go up on the main feature.
Yoda says: Do not your breath hold else purple turn you will. The tqx
payers will not joyfully submit to being mugged for another Kennedyesque
Space Circus and private firms will not fund foolishness. They are
profit oriented.
Yoda also says: The future from the past predicting, predicts always a
future the past closely resembling, but not always is it so. Sometimes
changes the world, and often most unexpected and insignificant-looking the
cause is, until arrives the revolution and obvious in hindsight it seems.

The aforementioned circus is just another cartoon. Regardless of its
exact ending, it is unimportant, indeed irrelevant.

Private firms fund foolishness all the time, because being profit oriented
doesn't always mean being obsessed with the next quarter's returns. The
insurance firm which supplied the last of the X Prize money, by betting
*against* the prize being won by the end of 2004, expected to lose its
bet... but hoped to jumpstart a new industry that would need insurance.
And Paul Allen lost money by bankrolling Rutan to win it, since he spent
considerably more than the prize total, but you better believe Allen means
to make it back from supplying hardware and services to Virgin Galactic.
NVIDIA is unlikely to *directly* make any money at all by sponsoring
Armadillo Aerospace's participation in this year's X Prize Cup, but you
can bet your booties that they think they'll benefit by it eventually.

Moreover, there are such things as nonprofit firms, and individuals with
priorities other than return on investment. Much of Peary's funding for
becoming (allegedly) the first man to reach the North Pole came from the
National Geographic Society, and Amundsen and Scott both went to the South
Pole with private funding. Anousheh Ansari didn't expect to make a profit
on either the X Prize or her flight to ISS.

If all this sounds like it's nowhere near enough to actually do anything
in space, well, you're like a Soviet defector of the 1960s, standing
wide-eyed and slack-jawed just inside the door of a Western supermarket,
and asking his host how anyone could possibly afford all this abundance.
The answer is, if you do it the capitalist way rather than the socialist
way, your idea of what's affordable changes radically.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | ***@spsystems.net
Jim Davis
2006-10-08 16:39:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Spencer
If all this sounds like it's nowhere near enough to actually do
anything in space, well, you're like a Soviet defector of the
1960s, standing wide-eyed and slack-jawed just inside the door
of a Western supermarket, and asking his host how anyone could
possibly afford all this abundance. The answer is, if you do it
the capitalist way rather than the socialist way, your idea of
what's affordable changes radically.
Does this persuasive argument work both ways?

Can we draw any conclusions about the profitability of schemes like
solar power satellites and space colonization from the amount of
private capital invested in them?

Jim Davis
richard schumacher
2006-10-07 13:54:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Spencer
NASA will never, ever put men on Mars.
What, they'll never rent Russian equipment or buy tickets on a National
Geographic expedition?
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
2006-10-07 20:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by richard schumacher
Post by Henry Spencer
NASA will never, ever put men on Mars.
What, they'll never rent Russian equipment or buy tickets on a National
Geographic expedition?
NASA HAVING men on Mars and putting them there are two different things.

The examples you suggest imply Russian or the NGS doing the putting.
c***@hotmail.com
2006-10-07 16:04:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Spencer
It hasn't worked out quite the way we
thought -- who would have *imagined* a world in which the only commercial
spaceline requires you to learn Russian to get a seat assignment?!?
Consider the kinds of untempered-individualist-dominated, troubled,
fragmented terrestial societies depicted is SF writing with pioneering
commercial spaceflight - Heinlein for example. And then consider how
much closer post-soviet Russia is to being such a society than the US
has been at any point in the space age.

Leading edge commercial spaceflight happens in a society where
everything has a price; the question is if this (and related benefits)
are justification for having to live in such a society.
David Spain
2006-10-09 02:53:58 UTC
Permalink
[snipped for brevity]
Post by Henry Spencer
NASA will never, ever put men on Mars. Their target date for it i
receding more than a year per year. But the first footprints on Mars
almost certainly will be those of free men.
Maybe. I hope so. But I don't think history guarantees it.

Henry you and I are in complete agreement that private enterprise allowed
to work freely is likely to get us into space far ahead of what NASA and the
US gov. (working alone or jointly with other govs.) could do.*

The question is, in a time when everything under the Sun has a political
price in the US (I'll exclude Canada for now ;-), if a private enterprise
has a mishap that kills a number of people (either in Space or on the ground)
can the "democracy" keep from putting its big foot into the works? Every
politician loves a disaster. What better way to self-promote and in the process
get passed some crazed regulations or create a monster bureaucracy to regulate
(kill) space development?

Imagine this, a private enterprise embarks on a massive campaign to open
Space, but can't do so from a democracy because of the regulatory framework,
where insurance company actuaries hold the real reins of power.

So they go where? Hmm, how 'bout a beneficent ruler in the Mideast? Say
the Sultan of Brunei? Or closer to the Equator, maybe 50 years down the
road the Islamic Courts Of Sudan?

First footprint on Mars, brought to you by the Great Wall Space Development
Corp., sponsored by the Sultancy of Brunei, paid for with US/EU petrol-dollars
and dollars and euros flowing freely over decades of trade surpluses....

Dave

*Apollo 2.1 should be SHUT DOWN, NOW. NASA needs a DRASTIC overhaul, NOW.
The operational parts (Manned Spaceflight Center, Kennedy Space Center)
should be spun out into a quasi-public corp. like Amtrak, with *HEAVY* private
sector involvement**. The rest of NASA should be re-org'd and replaced with
..... NACA! YES NACA. Put NASA back on its original course. Advisory role
and laboratory expertise to the private sector. Do it NOW. While we have the
beginnings of a private sector space program that would BENEFIT from co-operation
with NACA rather than wasting taxpayer monies on doomed one-off manned missions
that long term have no chance of success w/o private sector involvement anyway.

FWIW ask the Apollo 2.1 crowd that if we take Apollo as our baseline example of
how to get to Mars, what good is a mission to Mars if you have to
wait 5 decades between flights?

**Maybe there's no real rationale for this either, other than feelings of
sympathy for those in the astronaut office. But face it, what do the
current crop of astronauts do when Space Shuttle is retired? Let's not bring
up another generation of dedicated, hard-working people stuck going down the
rat-hole of the wrong path. Note I'm focusing on the manned spaceflight programs.
The unmanned programs have been doing well at NASA and would continue to flourish
under NACA as well, since NACA better fits the role of academia/gov. co-operation
that is and has been essential for the success of the unmanned programs.

BTW, I've never felt Space Shuttle was the wrong path. Just the opposite.
The problem is that the program was never allowed to *evolve* with better
craft, newer designs etc. as it would have had it been in the competitive
private sector.

Gov. monopoly in Space must end, NOW. I do not wish my tax money going to
subsidize space monopolies like NASA in its current form.

Dave
Neil Gerace
2006-10-09 11:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
The question is, in a time when everything under the Sun has a political
price in the US (I'll exclude Canada for now)
No need to exclude it. Canada probably has a political price in the USA too
:)
Robert Kolker
2006-10-09 20:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
Gov. monopoly in Space must end, NOW. I do not wish my tax money going to
subsidize space monopolies like NASA in its current form.
After Apollo, NASA's greatest "accomplishment" has been alpha shit-can I
aka ISS. If you want something fucked up royally, get the government to
do it. It has been downhill at NASA ever since 1986. It has been over 30
years since anyone has ever set foot on the Moon.

Bob Kolker
Pat Flannery
2006-10-09 23:00:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
Henry you and I are in complete agreement that private enterprise allowed
to work freely is likely to get us into space far ahead of what NASA and the
US gov. (working alone or jointly with other govs.) could do.*
I seriously doubt this... you re probably going to have tourist flights
into orbit in around a decade, but the amount of money required for a
Mars mission is way beyond anyone outside of the income level of Bill Gates.
Governments are the only entities who have the money to engage in
something of this magnitude, and they will want control over the program
in exchange for that funding.
Post by David Spain
The question is, in a time when everything under the Sun has a political
price in the US (I'll exclude Canada for now ;-), if a private enterprise
has a mishap that kills a number of people (either in Space or on the ground)
can the "democracy" keep from putting its big foot into the works?
The FAA hinted that the laissez-faire attitude toward privately funded
spaceflight would change in a big hurry as soon as fatalities occurred.
Post by David Spain
Every
politician loves a disaster. What better way to self-promote and in the process
get passed some crazed regulations or create a monster bureaucracy to regulate
(kill) space development?
Something like SpaceShipOne doesn't pose much of a threat to people
under its ascent flightpath.
That's not the case with something that has the energy onboard to reach
orbit.
Something with half-full propellant tanks slamming into a city at a few
thousand mph is going to do private spaceflight no good at all in the
public's eyes.
Post by David Spain
Imagine this, a private enterprise embarks on a massive campaign to open
Space, but can't do so from a democracy because of the regulatory framework,
where insurance company actuaries hold the real reins of power.
The big thing that will keep private enterprise from doing that will be
the huge capital investment needed versus the very iffy prospect of
making a reasonable profit on their investment in a reasonable period of
time.
On of the few real money-making ideas that probably would work in space
is the SPS system; and no private entity has the money to come anywhere
near funding a project of that scale and its needed infrastructure.
Even major nations would have a hard time footing the bill for something
of that magnitude, and if it does come about, it might well be a U.N.
program as a way of fighting global warming with everyone kicking in the
bucks.

Pat
Jack Linthicum
2006-10-06 17:50:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@gmx.net
Post by David Spain
Post by Steve Hix
Politics stopped their use; until you can convince the Greenies that it
would be safe enough to put the (cold) engine in orbit before fueling
and lighting it off, we won't see any.
Putting the cold engines in orbit doesn't present a problem. It's putting up
the fuel. Since the days of Three Mile Island the words nuclear and irrational
have become synonymous in the English language.
I think what Steve Hix means by "cold" engine is one that's been fully
fueled with uranium but has never gone critical. The uranium fuel
itself, although somewhat enriched, is not highly radioacitve and is
not particularly dangerous. Once the reactor is started up for the
first time, however, many radioactive elements, which have short
half-lives and are therefore highly radioactive, are created. It is at
this point that the reactor becomes a hazard.
Of course, I don't expect that this fact will make the politics of
launching a nuclear engine much easier.
It may working its way into possibility, small step:


September 28, 2006

Nuclear fuel for Mars rover raises little concern

BY CHRIS KRIDLER
FLORIDA TODAY

A power generator that uses plutonium dioxide would give a 2009 Mars
rover more freedom to explore questions about life and water on the red
planet, NASA officials said in a hearing today.

In two sessions at the Florida Solar Energy Center on Wednesday, they
gave the public a chance to comment on a draft statement on the
potential dangers of a launch accident. The Mars Science Laboratory
would ride a Lockheed Martin Atlas 5 rocket from Cape Canaveral.

Less than a half percent of launches would have the potential to
release radiological material, they said.

"The risks from this mission would be low," said Mark Dahl, NASA
program executive for the mission.

They received only one comment during the afternoon session, from
engineering consultant John Martin of Indialantic.

"This thing seems to be super safe as far as actually releasing any
kind of radiation," he said. "I hardly see any possibility."

Engineers and scientists want to use the generator, instead of solar
power, so the roving laboratory can go to areas where there might be
less sunlight and more slopes to climb.

Otherwise, the mission would be limited to a narrow latitude band on
Mars.

"That certainly would limit us fairly significantly in being able to
pick a very scientifically interesting site," said project manager
Richard Cook of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California.

"I feel comfortable when we go through these kind of things," Brevard
County emergency management chief Bob Lay said. "I would not feel
comfortable if we didn't do this. This lets me see what kinds of
problems it might present for the county and then to look at those
kinds of problems and address those problems with some of the people
here that are leaders in this field in the nation."

The rovers now on Mars are about the size of golf carts. The Mars
Science Laboratory will be closer to Mini Cooper size, Cook said.

"It's just taking a step forward, not only scientifically, but
technically," Cook said.

It will include instruments that can identify chemicals that form the
basis of life.

"We want to understand if Mars has these chemicals present that life
seems to need and makes use of," said deputy project scientist Ashwin
Vasavada.

The craft would launch in fall 2009 and arrive at Mars in 10 to 12
months. It would be the first to use a Skycrane landing system, in
which a flying descent module lowers the rover to the surface with
wires.

The twin rovers, meanwhile, are still exploring, long after their early
2004 arrival at Mars. Wednesday, Opportunity made it to the highly
anticipated Victoria Crater after a nearly two-year quest.
P***@gmx.net
2006-10-06 09:32:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hix
Politics stopped their use; until you can convince the Greenies that it
would be safe enough to put the (cold) engine in orbit before fueling
and lighting it off, we won't see any.
Politics quite possibly *would* have stopped the use of nuclear
engines, but they were stopped even earlier by the lack of a mission.
The main application for nuclear engines was manned exploration of the
solar system -- Mars missions, lunar shuttles and the like. When all
prospects of such missions evaporated, the real rationale for nuclear
engines vanished.

Thanks to the efforts of pro-NERVA Senator Anderson of New Mexico, the
original unmanned Grand Tour mission to the outer solar system was
killed. This kept alive a rationale for NERVA, namely its use to
propel unmanned spacecraft to the outer solar system in the absence of
planetary alignments suitable for slingshot assits. But that was a
flimsy excuse, and NERVA expired in 1973 along with Senator Anderson's
tenure in the Senate.
Steve Hix
2006-10-06 18:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@gmx.net
Post by Steve Hix
Politics stopped their use; until you can convince the Greenies that it
would be safe enough to put the (cold) engine in orbit before fueling
and lighting it off, we won't see any.
Politics quite possibly *would* have stopped the use of nuclear
engines, but they were stopped even earlier by the lack of a mission.
It's more than nuclear-thermal engines that have been affected; any kind
of nuclear power source in space gets kicked around.
Robert Kolker
2006-10-06 20:38:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hix
It's more than nuclear-thermal engines that have been affected; any kind
of nuclear power source in space gets kicked around.
That is because the eco-weenies have decided that ionizing radiation is
Evil.

Bob Kolker
Jack Linthicum
2006-10-06 19:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by Steve Hix
It's more than nuclear-thermal engines that have been affected; any kind
of nuclear power source in space gets kicked around.
That is because the eco-weenies have decided that ionizing radiation is
Evil.
Bob Kolker
so is non-ionizing radiation

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiation_nonionizing/index.html
David Spain
2006-10-06 19:59:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by Steve Hix
It's more than nuclear-thermal engines that have been affected; any kind
of nuclear power source in space gets kicked around.
That is because the eco-weenies have decided that ionizing radiation is
Evil.
Bob Kolker
so is non-ionizing radiation
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiation_nonionizing/index.html
So is staying outdoors in the Sun too long. Therefore we should eliminate the Sun!
FearlessFerret
2006-10-06 20:17:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
That is because the eco-weenies have decided that ionizing radiation is
Evil.
Half-baked gogglebox do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you! Pernicious
nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to
have them, too.

/ff
bombardmentforce
2006-10-06 22:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by FearlessFerret
Post by Robert Kolker
That is because the eco-weenies have decided that ionizing radiation is
Evil.
Half-baked gogglebox do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you! Pernicious
nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to
have them, too.
/ff
I'm not sure one hundred / year is the correct dose, but according to
this Yale study Rachel Carson should have eaten a hormetic dose of DDT.

http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/07/hormesis-breast-cancer-and-ddt.html

"{cancer}odds ratio is ... 0.8 {20% less} ... for DDT when the highest
{exposure} quartile was compared with the lowest."
Steve Hix
2006-10-07 03:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by Steve Hix
It's more than nuclear-thermal engines that have been affected; any kind
of nuclear power source in space gets kicked around.
That is because the eco-weenies have decided that ionizing radiation is
Evil.
We ought to start a fad for granite furniture. Some with a goodly
fraction of thorium in it.
Jonathan Silverlight
2006-10-07 20:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hix
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by Steve Hix
It's more than nuclear-thermal engines that have been affected; any kind
of nuclear power source in space gets kicked around.
That is because the eco-weenies have decided that ionizing radiation is
Evil.
We ought to start a fad for granite furniture. Some with a goodly
fraction of thorium in it.
Judging by the number of hits on Google it's already here.
Uranium glass (Vaseline glass) is highly collectible, and so is
"radioactive red" glazed pottery
<http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/cwillis/rad/pottery.html> and other
types of uranium glaze.
Henry Spencer
2006-10-07 06:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hix
Post by P***@gmx.net
Politics quite possibly *would* have stopped the use of nuclear
engines, but they were stopped even earlier by the lack of a mission.
It's more than nuclear-thermal engines that have been affected; any kind
of nuclear power source in space gets kicked around.
Wrong verb tense. They *used to* get kicked around. The nuclear power
source for MSL has gone through without a murmur. The only remaining
problem is the massive paperwork overheads imposed as a defence against
now-nonexistent protests. It may be a little while before people get
brave enough to start trimming those back.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | ***@spsystems.net
Steve Hix
2006-10-07 22:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Spencer
Post by Steve Hix
Post by P***@gmx.net
Politics quite possibly *would* have stopped the use of nuclear
engines, but they were stopped even earlier by the lack of a mission.
It's more than nuclear-thermal engines that have been affected; any kind
of nuclear power source in space gets kicked around.
Wrong verb tense. They *used to* get kicked around. The nuclear power
source for MSL has gone through without a murmur.
That's good news.
Post by Henry Spencer
The only remaining
problem is the massive paperwork overheads imposed as a defence against
now-nonexistent protests. It may be a little while before people get
brave enough to start trimming those back.
Jonathan Silverlight
2006-10-04 22:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Danny Dot
As a retired engineer, I don't see how nuclear explosions could be used for
launches. The blast would tend to distroy the vehicle and anyone inside of
the vehicle.
On orbit, a nuclear explosion may not even provide a impulse via blast.
Without an atmosphere, I don't think there would be an impulse of
force. Huge amount of heat in the form of radiation, but no blast
overpressure.
Possibly, but it's my understanding - backed up by
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29>,
for instance - that the blast wouldn't even seriously damage the pusher
plate, and the acceleration on a crewed craft would be only a few G.
And you can always add reaction mass to the bombs.
David Spain
2006-10-04 22:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan Silverlight
Possibly, but it's my understanding - backed up by
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29>,
for instance - that the blast wouldn't even seriously damage the pusher
plate, and the acceleration on a crewed craft would be only a few G.
And you can always add reaction mass to the bombs.
OK. My memory is faulty. Plasma Wave. Detonation at 60 meters from the Pusher Plate.

Dave
marika
2006-10-07 21:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
Post by Jonathan Silverlight
Possibly, but it's my understanding - backed up by
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29>,
for instance - that the blast wouldn't even seriously damage the pusher
plate, and the acceleration on a crewed craft would be only a few G.
And you can always add reaction mass to the bombs.
OK. My memory is faulty. Plasma Wave. Detonation at 60 meters from the Pusher Plate.
Clew -- they made it up. That lingo is all made up. It is 200 yrs in the
future and
that stuff does not exist yet

I forget. Either
operation of newest type or an alien cured him or something. No biggie.

Tho, you should have known warp cos they used that term many times on old
tv show.

Warp drive Warp speed. IT IS ALSO MADE UP> IT DOES NOT EXIST FOR
REAL@!!!!!

--
"If sun and air damage were reduced you would feel like you were twenty
and look like you were forty because that is the point when your body stops
devolping and just ages."--John Night 6
Scott Hedrick
2006-10-08 02:17:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by marika
Warp drive Warp speed. IT IS ALSO MADE UP> IT DOES NOT EXIST FOR
Next you'll tell me the DHD isn't working right. *My* GDO is working fine.
bombardmentforce
2006-10-05 00:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Danny Dot
Post by bombardmentforce
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2006/03/nelson-rockefeller-vs-ike-re-lunar.html
As a retired engineer, I don't see how nuclear explosions could be used for
launches.
Here's a simplified view of one of the key engineering drawings.

http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2006/03/pulse-unit-extract-from-page-23-of-ga.html
bombardmentforce
2006-10-05 00:36:08 UTC
Permalink
(snipped)
<http://www.angryherb.net>
He was born in Big Beaver by the borderline
He started playing hockey by the time he was nine
His dad took the hose and froze the back yard
And Little Herb dreamed he was Rocket Richard
He grew up big and he grew up tough
He saw himself scoring for the Wings or Canucks
But he wasn't that good with a slide rule

Herb's real talent was beating people up
His heart wasn't in it but the crowd ate it up
Through pee-wee's and juniors, midgets and mites
He must have racked up more than six hundred fights
A scout from the flames came down from Saskatoon
Said, "There's always room on our team for a goon
Son, we've always got room for a goon"

There were Swedes to the left of him
Russians to the right
A Czech at the blue line looking for a fight
Brains over brawn-that might work for you
But what's a Canadian lawyer boy to do
What else can a lawyer boy from Canada to do
But what's a Canadian lawyer boy to do
What else can a lawyer boy from Canada to do

Hit somebody! was what the crowd roared
When Herb the goon came over the boards
"Coach," he'd say, "I wanna score goals"
The coach said, "Buddy, remember your role
The fast guys get paid, they shoot, they score
Protect them, Buddy, that's what you're here for

Protection is what you're here for
Protection-it's the stars that score
Protection-kick somebody's ass
Protection-don't put the biscuit in the basket just
Hit some, Buddy! it rang in his ears
Blood on the ice ran down through the years
The king of the goons with a box for a throne
A thousand stitches and broken bones
He never lost a fight on his icy patrol
But deep inside, Herb only dreamed of a goal
He just wanted one damn goal

There were Swedes at the the blue line
Finns at the red
A Russian with a stick heading straight for his head
Brains over brawn-that might work for you
But what's a Canadian lawyer boy to do
What else can a lawyer boy from Canada to do
But what's a Canadian lawyer boy to do
What else can a lawyer boy from Canada to do

In his final season, on his final night
Herb and a Finn goon were pegged for a fight
Thirty seconds left, the puck took a roll
And suddenly Herb had a shot on goal

The goalie committed, Herb picked his spot
Twenty years of waiting went into that shot
The fans jumped up, the Finn jumped too
And coldcocked Herb on his follow through
The big man crumbled but he felt all right
'Cause the last thing he saw
was the flashing red light
He saw that heavenly light

There were Swedes to the left of him
Russians to the right
A Czech at the blue line looking for a fight
Take care of your teeth-that might work for you
But what's a Canadian lawyer boy to do
What else can a lawyer boy from Canada to do
But what's a Canadian lawyer boy to do
What else can a lawyer boy from Canada to do
Steve Hix
2006-10-05 01:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by bombardmentforce
(snipped)
<http://www.angryherb.net>
He was born in Big Beaver by the borderline
He started playing hockey by the time he was nine
His dad took the hose and froze the back yard
[snip]
Oooooooooookay then.

*plonk*
Matt Giwer
2006-10-05 10:12:16 UTC
Permalink
I haven't read all the responses so this may have been said.

The point of using nukes was the high specific impulse. That allows a high
final velocity like ion engines. Unlike ion engines they would not be calibrated
in milimouse-farts so the acceleration time is not an issue.

As a design concept it was of interest and maybe still is. But the first
practical test of an ion engine was only a two years ago after decades of easy,
safe ground based lab research. That sent a European package to the moon.
Consider the engineering time required to solve the nuke propulsion details
given the ground based tests of the shock absorbing system and the like in the
New Mexico desert.
--
Bush has announced himself as a Christian Zionist.
That means he is a traitor to America.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3693
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2
Pat Flannery
2006-10-05 18:06:02 UTC
Permalink
But the first practical test of an ion engine was only a two years ago
after decades of easy, safe ground based lab research.
No, there was Deep Space 1, and decades before that SERT II (although
the NASA PAO seems to have oddly forgotten that mission when it was
talking about Deep Space 1):
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/ion/past/70s/sert2.htm

Pat
Jochem Huhmann
2006-10-05 19:27:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
But the first practical test of an ion engine was only a two years ago
after decades of easy, safe ground based lab research.
No, there was Deep Space 1, and decades before that SERT II (although
the NASA PAO seems to have oddly forgotten that mission when it was
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/ion/past/70s/sert2.htm
And I even dimly remember some russian, err, soviet mission with an
(experimental?) ion engine much earlier... can't find it right now. It
was some interplanetary probe, I think.


Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Jack Linthicum
2006-10-05 20:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jochem Huhmann
Post by Pat Flannery
But the first practical test of an ion engine was only a two years ago
after decades of easy, safe ground based lab research.
No, there was Deep Space 1, and decades before that SERT II (although
the NASA PAO seems to have oddly forgotten that mission when it was
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/ion/past/70s/sert2.htm
And I even dimly remember some russian, err, soviet mission with an
(experimental?) ion engine much earlier... can't find it right now. It
was some interplanetary probe, I think.
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Soviet Mars Propulsion - Nuclear Electric topic index
site index
surprise me!

Nucear electric ship
Credit - © Mark Wade
The serious development of nuclear electric propulsion began after
issuance of the decree of 23 June 1960, as a result of which ten design
bureaux and other organisations tackled technical questions related to
its development. OKB-1 specialised in theoretical studies, experimental
tests, materials technology, and equipment trials (including reactors).
Korolev decided to collaborate with TsNII-58 (Chief Designer V G
Grabin) for the reactor. This design bureau had designed the water
moderated reactors which were already providing power in Tashkent,
Riga, Kiev, Alma-Ata, Hungary, Rumania, DDR, Czechoslovakia, and Egypt.
Grabin was at that time developing the first experimental fast neutron
reactors using liquid metal cooling (SR-1 and SR-3) which were in
operation in Obninsk at the Physics-Energy Institute (FEI).

In the beginning, development and test work was oriented towards
providing power for an electric engine for manned interplanetary
flight. The nuclear electric engines for the initial TMK-E Mars
spacecraft design of 1960 used 7 MW of nuclear power. Later reactor
research was expanded to cover application of nuclear power for
scientific, economic, and military objectives in space.

OKB-1 and FEI studied various methods for transforming the reactor's
thermal energy to electrical energy to power the engine (steam
turbines, gas turbines, MHD, and direct thermo-electric conversion).
This analysis indicated that direct thermo-electric conversion was
clearly the best approach.

First stage testing of nuclear electric propulsion began in 1962 and
the original draft project N1 of that year foresaw the use of this form
of propulsion in multi-module orbital base stations and interplanetary
spacecraft. In 1965 Section 12 (Manager I I Raikov) of OKB-1 completed
work with FEI on a draft project for a nuclear electric propulsion
engine YaERD-2200 for interplanetary crewed spacecraft. The YaERD-2200
consisted of two independent stages. Each had a nuclear reactor and an
electric engine, with electrical output of each being 2,200 kW and
total thrust 8.3 kgf.

The engine featured direct thermo-electric conversion using a fast
neutron reactor; a coolant system using low activity isotope Lithium-7
in a single loop shared by both the reactor and engine; and an electro
plasma engine with an efficiency of 55% and a specific impulse of 5500
sec

The reactor / engine design was upgraded to 5,000 kW total power in
1966-1970. The revised design could be used in single block (YaE-1 and
YaE-1M) and multiple block (YaE-2 and YaE-3) applications. A single
Block YaE-1 would have an electrical output of 2,500-3,200 kW with fuel
for 4,000 to 8,000 hours of operation. Block YaE-1M would have an
output of 5000 kW. Total thrust of the engine would be from 6.2 to 9.5
kgf with a specific impulse of from 5,000 to 8,000 sec. In three block
applications, electric capacity would be 3 x 3,200 kW and 3 x 5,000 kW.
The Aelita MEK design of 1969 used a total of 15,000 kW.

Development of nuclear electric propulsion continued throughout the
1970's. In accordance with the decrees of 8 June 1971 and 15 June
1976 this was now concentrated on development of the more modest
nuclear electric rocket stage 11B97. This stage would have an electric
capacity of 500-600 kW and would use specialised plasma-ion electric
engines using standing plasma waves and anodes. In 1975 nuclear
electric propulsion work was reorganised within NPO Energia into a
special complex 7 (Manager M V Melnikov). In 1984 it was renamed
section 7 (Manager P I Bistrov, and from 1993 Y A Bakanov). Through all
these reorganisations functional test of the reactor and engine
components continued. Concepts for the direct thermoelectric
transformation of energy could not be realised without a new class of
refractory and high temperature materials, new heat pipe concepts, and
other new technology. To develop these technologies it was necessary to
build new materials test facilities, high temperature tests stands, new
experimental shops to develop methods to handle and work new refractory
alloys (niobium, molybdenum, wolfram, vanadium) and insulative and
magnetic materials.
Post by Jochem Huhmann
From 1966 to 1982 many test stands were built to develop these
materials and test components of the systems. The final result was the
11B97 engine, powered from a reactor with a 200 litre core containing
30 kg of uranium fuel. In 1978 this engine was studied for use as a
reusable interorbital space tug for launch by Energia-Buran. In 1982,
according to the decree of 5 February 1981, NPO Energia developed for
the Ministry of Defence the interorbital tug Gerkules with 550 kW
maximum output and continuous operation in the 50-150 kW range for 3 to
5 years. In 1986 an interorbital tug was studied to solve the specific
application of transporting heavy satellites of 100 tonnes to
geostationary orbit, launched by Energia.

In 1986 RKK Energia updated the 1969 MEK design for launch by the new
Energia launch vehicle. The propulsion section was essentially the same
except that for safety reasons two completely independent redundant
reactor / engine assemblies were used in the place of the single unit
of the MEK design.

Energia retained the electric engines of the 1969 MEK design but
dropped the nuclear ractor for its 1989 Mars expedition design. This
spacecraft used the same thruster arrays requiring the same power
output (15 MW) as the 1986 nuclear design. But in this case two
enormous panels, each 200 m x 200 m would generate a total of 15 MW of
power at earth. The use of ultra-thin (less than 50 micrometer) / low
mass (0.2 kg per square meter) photovoltaic cells with a high specific
power value (up to 200 W per square meter) minimised the weight of
these vast arrays. The total mass of the electric engines, structure,
and solar panels was 40 tonnes. The power generated would be used
primarily by two ion engine clusters mounted perpendicular to the
living block. In high-power mode these would have a specific impulse of
3500 seconds. They would consume 165 tonnes of xenon propellant during
the voyage (of 355 tonnes total spacecraft mass).

In the 1990's Energia studied use of nuclear electric propulsion for
the scientific development project 'Mars - Nuclear electric propulsion
Stage' under contract to the Russian Space Agency and the project 'Star
- Soarer' under contract to the Ministry of Atomic Industry. These
studies looked at designs for the 2005 period. At the beginning of the
1990's a new type of nuclear generator was studied, that would have a
capacity of 150 kW in the transport role and provide 10-40 kW to power
spacecraft systems while coasting. This was designated ERTA
(Elecktro-Raketniy Transportniy Apparat). Technologies and concepts for
this engine were studied by FEI and other organisations. A modular
concept was adopted. In 1994 ERTA was studied for launch by Titan,
Ariane 5, or Energia-M launch vehicles. The reactor weight was 7,500 kg
and it could provide up to 10 years of electrical power traded off
against 1.5 years of powered flight.

Aside from this work on the 150 kW design, there was also an
examination at the same time of the use of nuclear electric propulsion
for Mars expeditions. Single and multiple launch approaches were
considered. For a single-launch complex of 150 tonnes a nuclear
electric propulsion unit of 5 to 10 MW with enough fuel for 1.5 years
would be required. For the multiple launch design, a power of 1 to 1.5
MW and fuel for three years would be required.

In 1994-95, RKK Energia, and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory analysed
the project 'Mars Together'. This studied the use of spacecraft using
solar arrays or nuclear reactors of up to 30 to 40 kW for insertion
into Martian orbit and operation of a side-looking radar to digitally
map the surface. As a preliminary step a demonstration launch was
proposed of a spacecraft with a mass of 120 to 150 kg, a solar panel
area of 30 square meters and engines with a thrust of 3 kW. Objectives
of the experiment would be understanding of the changing of the orbital
altitude with continuous work of the ion engine for several hundred
hours. http://www.astronautix.com/articles/sovctric.htm
bombardmentforce
2006-10-06 01:51:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Giwer
I haven't read all the responses so this may have been said.
The point of using nukes was the high specific impulse. That allows a high
final velocity like ion engines. Unlike ion engines they would not be calibrated
in milimouse-farts so the acceleration time is not an issue.
Most engine types either fail to give thrust or ISP effciency, as shown
in this chart
chart from Spacecraft Systems Engineering (second edition),

http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/08/publishers-honest-or-lazy.html

The proposed corrected version clearly shows that all the other charted
systems are unable to compete with Orion's combination of propellant
efficiency and power.

http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-efficient-is-orion.html
Alfred Montestruc
2006-10-06 04:18:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by bombardmentforce
Project Orion was a concept study.
And a test program. that lead into the Casaba Howitzer test program,
that was the secret core of Reagan's SDI.
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2006/04/plasma-howitzer-concept.html
It proposed building a space-based
only "rocket" ...It was really only
seriously proposed for use strictly in space. The bombs were to be
released in a series of continuous distinct pulses.
Here's evidence it was seriously proposed for Earth launch, by a
serious player, who later was part of the team behind the World Trade
Center.
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2006/03/nelson-rockefeller-vs-ike-re-lunar.html
In the long term some sort of tether/skyhook transfer system would be
used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator#Brad_Edwards.27_proposal

This could be quickly implimented using such a launch method, and that
limits the pollution to one or two major lift-off events.
Loading...