Oddity

Discussion regarding the Outsider webcomic, science, technology and science fiction.

Moderator: Outsider Moderators

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Oddity

Post by Nemo »


User avatar
Charlie
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:04 pm
Location: Somewhere in Middle Lane
Contact:

Re: Oddity

Post by Charlie »

This is ground control to Commander Chris, you've really made the grade...
The first music video recorded in space was pretty good.











inb4: Rock-star Astronauts, Cool Mustaches.
No sorcery lies beyond my grasp. - Rubick, the Grand Magus

Karst45
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:03 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada
Contact:

Re: Oddity

Post by Karst45 »

Chris Hadfield is awesome!

if all science guys were that amazing am sure lots of young children would go that way :)

User avatar
GeoModder
Posts: 1038
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:31 pm

Re: Oddity

Post by GeoModder »

One thing's pretty sure: I'd have trouble with vertigo on the ISS.
Too close to Earth. ;)
Image

NOMAD
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:34 am

Re: Oddity

Post by NOMAD »

Karst45 wrote:Chris Hadfield is awesome!

if all science guys were that amazing am sure lots of young children would go that way :)
SECONDED:

make you wonder how many will be inspired to join the various space agency's

Glad to see Cmdr Hadfield made a save landing and is back in North America :)
I am a wander, going from place to place without a home I am a NOMAD

Karst45
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:03 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada
Contact:

Re: Oddity

Post by Karst45 »

NOMAD wrote:
Karst45 wrote:Chris Hadfield is awesome!

if all science guys were that amazing am sure lots of young children would go that way :)
SECONDED:

make you wonder how many will be inspired to join the various space agency's

Glad to see Cmdr Hadfield made a save landing and is back in North America :)
well first we would (and by we i mean the US) need to divert some of it military budjet to science

second, i think it may be more possible than first tought, after Cmdr Hadfield put his remake , Space Oddity (the original one) Made it back to the top of the box office (or what ever you call those popularity scale for song in your country.

I see it that mr hadfield have quite the potential to advertise "space science" (space science describe any science relating to space)

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Oddity

Post by Nemo »

Question really isn't one of budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

In constant dollar terms, that is after adjusting for inflation, its remained steady for a good while. It needed the big injection in 63-64 to get itself, err, off the ground. :? Problem is that its overly risk adverse. Flatly, Congress wants every dollar spent buying votes from constituent groups (same as every government program) and no one in power wants to develop the needed engine tech to reach the next step because it involves splitting the evil atom for power. Truth be told, its a rather predictable outcome from the structure of our society. Tocqueville noted in Democracy that democratic societies are more inclined to bursts of action and less capable of sustained effort to a long term outcome.

SpoilerShow
Democracy in America - Vol. 1 Part 2: The Efforts to Which Democracy is Capable wrote:... Democracy seems to me much better suited to directing a peaceful society, or if necessary, to making some sudden and violent effort rather than to braving over a long period the great storms that beset a nation's political existence. The reason for this is simple: enthusiasm leads men to face dangers and privations, but only reflection will induce them to continue to brave them over a long period. ... it is this clear perception of the future, based on judgement and experience, which must often be lacking in a democracy.

If you want the stars dont look to NASA. Just hope they don't stop someone like spaceX from putting a nuclear salt water rocket or something into orbit. Can't wait to see how the Luddites react to anti-mater, should we ever find a way to produce it reliably.

Absalom
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:33 am

Re: Oddity

Post by Absalom »

We might be getting useful fusion by 2020, so I'm holding out more hope for that.

As for SpaceX anyone putting up a NSW rocket, haha, that's absurdly unlikely. Really, what's NASA going to do, say "after the NRC and DoE shoot it down as unacceptably risky, we want to sprinkle salt on the ashes"? Nobody wants the slightest risk of one of those things crashing within a thousand miles of themselves, including Congress's constituents, so NASA doesn't have a choice.

Anti-matter isn't better, either. Especially since it's expected to be difficult to focus most of the energy from the beam.

Really, fusion is where it's at for "fancy" space tech.

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Oddity

Post by Nemo »

2020... I assume you mean ITER? Its being engineered with a maximum acceleration tolerance of .2g. Even assuming theyre over engineering, thats a lot of delicate machinery that can't be jostled with a lot of points of failure compared to the simplicity inherent in the proposed NSWRs. Even after you generate the power from the reactor, you still need ways to turn it into impulse. Either with heat radiation or lasing I suppose? Sides, if youre going through all that trouble to generate all that plasma, may as well just simplify things and stick with vasmir. IIRC a vasmir engine would only take you 6 months to transfer from LEO to lunar. The benefits of such systems are the reduced mass requirements for fuel, theyre more efficient but not as strong as chemicals. Either way provides too little thrust to be useful for travel in human time frames. A NSWR could get your child to alpha centauri, assuming there was any reason to actually go there.
Really, what's NASA going to do, say "after the NRC and DoE shoot it down as unacceptably risky, we want to sprinkle salt on the ashes"? Nobody wants the slightest risk of one of those things crashing within a thousand miles of themselves, including Congress's constituents, so NASA doesn't have a choice.
And that was kinda my point. Its unacceptably risky because its evil atom splitting radiation, sievert scale need not apply. Its like watching Columbus going to the Spanish and getting turned down in favor of a plan to reach China by digging a tunnel. Because it can work, we just need to throw enough resources at it.

User avatar
Siber
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:10 pm

Re: Oddity

Post by Siber »

I'm as big a fan of NSWRs as anyone, but launching from a populated atmosphere with one seems like sheer insanity. I'd rather try an Orion drive and then do some tests with NSWRs far from anything important. Orion may have its own potential for mess, but at least we've got a lot of practice in making atomic bombs. Getting practice in making NSWR reaction chambers... even with a lot of computer modeling, that's a hair raising prospect.
Atomic Space Race, a hard sci-fi orbital mechanics puzzle game.
Homeworld Fulcrum, a Homeworld Remastered Mod

User avatar
Mr Bojangles
Posts: 283
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:12 am

Re: Oddity

Post by Mr Bojangles »

Nemo wrote: And that was kinda my point. Its unacceptably risky because its evil atom splitting radiation, sievert scale need not apply. Its like watching Columbus going to the Spanish and getting turned down in favor of a plan to reach China by digging a tunnel. Because it can work, we just need to throw enough resources at it.
While there is a large amount of irrational fear about anything nuclear, concerns about the terrestrial testing and launching of NSWRs are valid. The fission reaction that produces thrust occurs outside the rocket itself. The exhaust is by and large uranium or plutonium salts and their reaction byproducts. It isn't something you'd want to light off in anything resembling a biosphere.

Unless your point was to launch the materials into orbit, build it there, then fire the rocket. That would be much safer; just don't fire in the direction of the planet.

Karst45
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:03 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada
Contact:

Re: Oddity

Post by Karst45 »

Mr Bojangles wrote:
Nemo wrote: And that was kinda my point. Its unacceptably risky because its evil atom splitting radiation, sievert scale need not apply. Its like watching Columbus going to the Spanish and getting turned down in favor of a plan to reach China by digging a tunnel. Because it can work, we just need to throw enough resources at it.
While there is a large amount of irrational fear about anything nuclear, concerns about the terrestrial testing and launching of NSWRs are valid. The fission reaction that produces thrust occurs outside the rocket itself. The exhaust is by and large uranium or plutonium salts and their reaction byproducts. It isn't something you'd want to light off in anything resembling a biosphere.

Unless your point was to launch the materials into orbit, build it there, then fire the rocket. That would be much safer; just don't fire in the direction of the planet.
great! so now not only we would have a shield of debris around the planet but we would also have a deadly radioactive dust layer

User avatar
Siber
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:10 pm

Re: Oddity

Post by Siber »

great! so now not only we would have a shield of debris around the planet but we would also have a deadly radioactive dust layer
If memory serves the exhaust velocity easily passes solar escape velocity, so as long as it doesn't hit anything major or get trapped in a magnetic field or anything, it should be fine I expect. So long as the rocket doesn't fail and explode, that would probably leave a fairly nasty mess.
Atomic Space Race, a hard sci-fi orbital mechanics puzzle game.
Homeworld Fulcrum, a Homeworld Remastered Mod

User avatar
Mr Bojangles
Posts: 283
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:12 am

Re: Oddity

Post by Mr Bojangles »

Siber wrote:
great! so now not only we would have a shield of debris around the planet but we would also have a deadly radioactive dust layer
If memory serves the exhaust velocity easily passes solar escape velocity, so as long as it doesn't hit anything major or get trapped in a magnetic field or anything, it should be fine I expect. So long as the rocket doesn't fail and explode, that would probably leave a fairly nasty mess.
Your memory serves you well. :) I think the best bet would be to build it in orbit, use chemical rockets to move it out of the plane of Earth's orbit (or maybe to a Lagrange point), then fire it off (still in a direction away from anything living). The NSWR is definitely a rocket meant for the deep range.

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Oddity

Post by Nemo »

No NSWR proposal Ive seen has ever stipulated terrestrial launch without chemical boosters. Now that thats clear...

So long as the rocket doesn't fail and explode, that would probably leave a fairly nasty mess.
This is actually the fear I was referring to. Its like saying we shouldn't use anti freeze in cars because its lethal too, just think what will happen in a wreck. Just how many sieverts would that be in the absolute worst case scenario? Mention radiation or fall out or nuclear anything and progress stops dead in its tracks, because any radiation is bad radiation. Excuse me, Im going to go back and finish my snack of bananas and sun flower seeds currently resting on my marble counter top. :(


The fuel itself, what kind and how much radiation does it put off? Alpha, and not a great deal. As critical mass is a function of density, any uncontrolled dispersal of the fuel defeats the concentration required for detonation. Water itself, which the uranium salt would be suspended in, is virtually non-compressible. Low end engine projections use 20% U 235 and are still nearly 16 times more powerful/efficient than the best chemical rockets. The engineering hurdle of building the engine is something that can be tackled with existing knowledge and materials. You want a modern Apollo? Thats it.

User avatar
Siber
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:10 pm

Re: Oddity

Post by Siber »

I don't recall any of the NSWR proposals I've seen stipulating terrestrial launch at all(Edit: This is really poor wording on my part. What I mean to say is, I've never seen a serious proposal that uses a NSWR as a launch vehicle, firing at any point in the atmosphere. If such things exist, please point me at them.). I just dug up and read Zubrin's original proposal for reference, and it seems to be entirely concerned with a craft that is put into LEO by conventional means. His proposed craft is really really cool, but I'm not sure exactly how we're supposed to put a 300 tonne ship in LEO with any of chemical launchers we've got, even ones we've got on the drawing board. Getting large masses to space in the first place seems to our biggest sticking point, and NSWR doesn't seem to be the answer to that one.
Atomic Space Race, a hard sci-fi orbital mechanics puzzle game.
Homeworld Fulcrum, a Homeworld Remastered Mod

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Oddity

Post by Nemo »

As I recall, the 300 ton figure was given for a manned mission to Titan. The moon, Mars, and Phobos wouldn't need such a large mass. The under development SLS has a LEO lift figure of 130 tons. It may be possible to break out the Titan ship to three pieces and lift separately. Engine/Fuel - Propellent (water) - Service Module. Would need some good testing to make sure the seams held under the expected 3.5g acceleration.


Aside from that, just getting there is only part of the problem. Why go there if not to develop off world resource exploitation and production. Would be nice to find some metals and radioactives on Luna.

Karst45
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:03 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada
Contact:

Re: Oddity

Post by Karst45 »

Nemo wrote:This is actually the fear I was referring to. Its like saying we shouldn't use anti freeze in cars because its lethal too, just think what will happen in a wreck. Just how many sieverts would that be in the absolute worst case scenario? Mention radiation or fall out or nuclear anything and progress stops dead in its tracks, because any radiation is bad radiation. Excuse me, Im going to go back and finish my snack of bananas and sun flower seeds currently resting on my marble counter top. :(
The problem is that those example only influence the life of the one choosing that option, he know the possible consequences (if such consequence arent hidden)

The other example is a potential threat for those who aren't making the decision.

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Oddity

Post by Nemo »

But heres the thing, neither is a threat. This is what I've been trying to say. The anti freeze is a non issue. The U235 is a non issue.
"...shield of debris around the planet but we would also have a deadly radioactive dust layer"
U235 decay is weak, alpha radiation that in any release scenario poses no measurable radiological health risk. Theres no deadly layer of doom anywhere. We looked into weaponizing uranium bromide in the 40s with the Manhattan project, they couldn't do it. Youll suffer the ill effects of heavy metal poisoning before radiation becomes an issue, and youd have to nearly drink the stuff straight from the tap for even that. Worst case scenario launch pad chemical booster explosion still wouldn't threaten anyone, and it becomes less and less an issue the more dispersed it becomes.


The presence of radiation is not a boolean test for illness and death.


edit: for sanity's sake, you need 34 micrometers of water to shield from u235 decay. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=uranium+235

User avatar
Siber
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:10 pm

Re: Oddity

Post by Siber »

I'd also point out that when you're launching something into orbit, you can't really perfectly guarantee that something won't go freakishly wrong and drop a large metal can practically anywhere. If you're launching things into space, you're accepting that some level of collective risk is permissible.
Atomic Space Race, a hard sci-fi orbital mechanics puzzle game.
Homeworld Fulcrum, a Homeworld Remastered Mod

Post Reply