Oddity
Moderator: Outsider Moderators
Re: Oddity
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.
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
Re: Oddity
Chris Hadfield is awesome!
if all science guys were that amazing am sure lots of young children would go that way
if all science guys were that amazing am sure lots of young children would go that way
Re: Oddity
One thing's pretty sure: I'd have trouble with vertigo on the ISS.
Too close to Earth.
Too close to Earth.
Re: Oddity
SECONDED:Karst45 wrote:Chris Hadfield is awesome!
if all science guys were that amazing am sure lots of young children would go that way
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
Re: Oddity
well first we would (and by we i mean the US) need to divert some of it military budjet to scienceNOMAD wrote:SECONDED:Karst45 wrote:Chris Hadfield is awesome!
if all science guys were that amazing am sure lots of young children would go that way
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
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)
Re: Oddity
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.
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.
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.
Re: Oddity
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.
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.
Re: Oddity
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.
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.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.
Re: Oddity
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
Homeworld Fulcrum, a Homeworld Remastered Mod
- Mr Bojangles
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:12 am
Re: Oddity
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.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.
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.
Re: Oddity
great! so now not only we would have a shield of debris around the planet but we would also have a deadly radioactive dust layerMr Bojangles wrote: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.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.
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.
Re: Oddity
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.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
Atomic Space Race, a hard sci-fi orbital mechanics puzzle game.
Homeworld Fulcrum, a Homeworld Remastered Mod
Homeworld Fulcrum, a Homeworld Remastered Mod
- Mr Bojangles
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:12 am
Re: Oddity
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.Siber wrote: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.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
Re: Oddity
No NSWR proposal Ive seen has ever stipulated terrestrial launch without chemical boosters. Now that thats clear...
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.
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.So long as the rocket doesn't fail and explode, that would probably leave a fairly nasty mess.
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.
Re: Oddity
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
Homeworld Fulcrum, a Homeworld Remastered Mod
Re: Oddity
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.
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.
Re: Oddity
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)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 other example is a potential threat for those who aren't making the decision.
Re: Oddity
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.
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
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."...shield of debris around the planet but we would also have a deadly radioactive dust layer"
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
Re: Oddity
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
Homeworld Fulcrum, a Homeworld Remastered Mod