Nuclear Fuel For Superfast Interplanetary Travel 259
jdoire writes: "Using a thin metallic film of americium-242m, a rocket could reach Mars in only 2 weeks. This is made possible because the nuclear material could be used both as a source of energy and as a propellent material, making the engine very efficient and light weigth. Check ScienceDaily for the full story."
Radioactive exhaust? (Score:3)
The article is slashdotted, but from the Slashdot description, it sounds like we're talking about a radioactive substance that would be expelled for a reaction force. Is that right? If so, then it sounds like you don't want to be anywhere near or downwind of the smoke cloud this thing makes when it takes off.
I hope I'm misinterpreting this, because my first reaction is: "Gee, that's stupid." I mean, it doesn't sound as bad as Orion, but still...
---
Re:All this technology... (Score:1)
The properly attributed text is thus:
LISTER: What do you believe in, then? Do you believe in God?
RIMMER: God? Certainly not! What a preposterous thought! I believe in aliens, Lister.
LISTER: Oh, right, fine. Something sensible at last.
RIMMER: Aliens, Lister, with technology so far in advance of our own we can't even begin to imagine.
LISTER: Well, that's not difficult. Mankind hasn't even got the technology to create a toupee that doesn't get big laughs.
(Red Dwarf Scripts are here [geocities.com])
Re:Project Helios and Orion (Score:1)
Some early incarnations of Orion actually did call for launch inside Earth's atmosphere. At the time it seemed (and still seems) the cheapest way to develop "very heavy launch" capability quickly. While there is still a fallout issue, one can envision scenarios where people would trade fallout for unpleasant consequences--e.g., to get equipment into space in order to prevent Earth's colliding with a large meteor.
Re:M'nukes are bad, m'kay? (Score:1)
Screw you PG&E.
Re:Inter...PLANAR? (Score:1)
Timothy Leary pioneered interplanar travel back in the '60s. NASA just now found a legal way to do it.
--
Re:Neat Idea (Score:1)
It is at 1 G... (Score:3)
Calculating the actual orbit is a non-trivial task, but I recall that for the outer planets, at least, the straight line approximation mghiggins did wouldn't be very far off (in terms of relating travel time and acceleration) for a constant-thrust ship of even
Also, I'd assume "trip to Mars in 2 weeks" means when Earth is passing closest to Mars in it's orbit, so the
Re:Acelleration and Velocity... (Score:1)
And now back to our regular program...
Eric Gearman
--
Space is, how to put it? HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE! (Score:1)
Quoted from 'Gee-Whiz Facts about Voyager [nasa.gov]
A groovy little slide show from the Netherlands about space radiation.
Space Radiation and it's effects [estec.esa.nl]
Capt. Ron
Re:I honestly don't care (Score:5)
I want to see us go to Mars, but I don't want us to rush it. I am sure that you have taken note to the backlash that NASA took when it lost several probes in a row. Those were unmanned and they got reamed big time. Imagine what the public would do if NASA lost six astronouts while enroute to or on Mars. Chances are good that NASA would either get axed or be so horribly crippled from budget cuts that it might as well be dead. Although the technology we have currently is capable of sending manned missions to Mars, we need to do more research and more testing and patience before we can achieve a SAFE mission to Mars. I am sure we will get there, and within my lifetime. Why, because it is one of NASA's priorities. Right now they are spending most of their budget on the ISS, as you know, which IS necessary. I personally believe that having a working space station is as necessary as sending someone to another planet. Once they are done with the ISS then they can move onto providing more time and funding to the Mars project.
Re:G force issue! (Score:1)
:-)
Re:Nope, nope, nope - NOT TRUE (Score:1)
> Math isn't your strong suite, is it?
It's OK, he works for NASA.
--
Re:Nope, nope, nope - NOT TRUE (Score:1)
Mod plsander up! (Score:2)
If you want to see real exploration of space, the way to do it isn't to throw a few men to Mars, damn the cost; the way to do it is to reduce the cost!
Re:On Slashdot, we call it USiacium (Score:1)
Re:On Slashdot, we call it USiacium (Score:1)
Re:DIY space travel (Score:1)
Re:Never mind, I'm an idiot (Score:1)
I think they would used standard solid fuel boosters to get the 2nd and 3rd stages (also solid fuel propellant) into space and after the payload has made it out of "range" (?) of our atmosphere the 'high-speed' engines would kick in.
Capt. Ron
Re:Neat Idea (Score:3)
In fact the company I work for now probably has a few pellets from many years ago. I don't think they are of this isotope, but still, it can be found.
Oh, BTW, if it wasn't mentioned, the half life of Americium-242 is about 16 hours. It's relatively easy on the environment. However, Am-241 has a half life of 432 years. And to make matters worse, Am-243, the most stable isotope has a half-life of 7300 years.
Re:Neat Idea (Score:2)
Re:Reason For Power Problems In CA (Score:2)
Excellent Point! 1 G acc== MARS in 32 hours! (Score:2)
(ahem) "doing the math", one week of 1G constant acceleration will get you 182,891,520,000 km (or about 30 thousand times further than pluto!) My math may be off (:!) but you get the idea! (and yes, this may not indclude decerlartion... but still! Anyone who is math-enabled, please have at it!)
Re:Root cause is too many people. (Score:2)
why should a waitress who marries Bill Gates get millions in alimony if they later divorce? Or any of the assets that Bill owned wholly before their maiirage?
she should get $250 for an hour, like all the rest. (Extra $100 for "greek treatment")
Re:Root cause is too many people. (Score:2)
Re:Neat Idea (Score:2)
It's called being a hero. Knowing you're expendible is one thing. But knowing that it was for a cause as high as space exploration (imo, there are few higher), makes it worthwhile. Remember the proposal a couple of years ago, at a space-science conference, where a scientist said that if a Mars trip were one-way for the astronaut, it would make the whole project cost about 1/3, and who would volunteer for such a mission - go to Mars, but certain death? Every person in the audience raised their hand.
Gravity Effects (Score:2)
min: 54,500,000 km (~ 34,000,000 mi)
avg: 78,000,000 km (~ 48,750,000 mi)
max: 401,000,000 km (~250,625,000 mi)
Assuming the 2-week estimate is based on the minimum distance this means that it would take 336 hours to travel the 54,500,000 km for an average speed of about 45,000 m/s. If the acceleration of the ship could be held constant at 10 m/s^2 this means that a near Earth gravity effect could be achieved for about 75 minutes at the begining and the end of the trip. A near Mars gravity effect (3.7 m/s^2) could be maintained for over 3 hours on each end of the trip.
In order to maintain an Earth like gravity for the entire trip the ship would need to attain the speed of 740,000 m/s (accelerate at 10 m/s^2 half way out and then flip the ship around and decelerate at 10 m/s^2 the rest of the way). In order to maintain a Mars like gravity for the entire trip the ship would need to attain the speed of 450,000 m/s (accelerate at 3.7 m/s^2 half way out and then flip the ship around and decelerate at 3.7 m/s^2 the rest of the way).
Of course either 450,000 m/s or 740,000 m/s would give us measurable time/space/mass dilation problems. So you gain a little weight you get a little smaller and you age a littler slower -- basicly you would be young, short, heavy and hauling ass!!!
Re:Still not good enough! (Score:2)
this protest looks real (Score:2)
Inter...PLANAR? (Score:3)
--
SecretAsianMan (54.5% Slashdot pure)
Re:Nope, nope, nope - NOT TRUE (Score:3)
Math isn't your strong suite, is it?
150,000mph / 60 = 2500 mp minute
2500 mpm / 60 = 41.66 mps
BTW - that 150,000 mph figure - is that supposed to be peak velocity, or something else?
the dept. (Score:3)
All this technology... (Score:2)
Re:Will it be safe? (Score:2)
Re:Environmental issues? (Score:2)
What really bothers me is the number of groups that think that we shouldn't be putting our radioactive contaminants and materials into space... There's a heck of a lot more out there to worry about - just look at what's happening to Galileo everytime it flies around IO...
But yeah - liftoff issues are a bit of a bother - that's why we should have nuclear fuel production in space - preferably somewhere handy but not too close to the Earth. Use conventional rockets to ferry people to the moon base, mine, and refine the fuel there. Nuclear fuel appears to be the way to do it now - might as well try to do it right. But then again, we'd need quite the infrastructure to get us there, and that doesn't seem to be happening soon.
And no, nuclear explosions will not hurl the lunar base at interstellar speeds out of the solar system to go on a series of adventures.
How would you design a reactor using this stuff? (Score:2)
Re:Acelleration and Velocity... (Score:2)
distance = 1/2 * acceleration * time^2
so, if half way from the earth to mars is 8e10 meters, and 1 week is about 6e5 seconds, I make that only about .44 meters/second^2
or 1/20 of a Gee.
(surely I've bollixed the math someplace :)
Re:this protest looks real (Score:2)
Just like with the ion propelled rocket, the power doesn't lie in immensely high thrust but in the ability to sustain the thrust over the space of weeks or months, instead of short bursts of no more than a few minutes.
The nuclear engine would continue accellerating the vehicle slowly but steadily for weeks, accellerating it to a velocity far higher than a conventional engine, which requires you to drag a fuel tanks the size of a house along, which will be used up in a matter of minutes.
So don't worry about a nuclear rocket leaving a great radioactive mushroom cloud in it's tail.
Re:Environmental issues? (Score:2)
Re:I honestly don't care (Score:2)
Secondly, the ISS may be the biggest boon to interplanetary space travel we've come up with so far. With it, we have the possibility of starting from outside the gravity well, which is the biggest fuel burn we have with any space travel.
Finally, if you don't like what NASA is doing, why not do it yourself? Seriously, private sector space travel is getting more likely and more lucrative by the day. Go get some funding, and do it yourself!
YOU ARE A FOOL (Score:4)
Re:Automotive Industry (Score:3)
True and false. There ARE in fact things we can put together out of carbon which are superior to any petroleum-based lubricant. Unfortunately, no one has done so commercially [sciam.com]. This is mostly because it's expensive. You can see pictures of buckyballs here [sunysb.edu]. CMU has a buckyball project [cmu.edu]. So does SUNY [sunysb.edu]. You could make your own fullerenes [widener.edu]. There are a number of fullerene-related patents [godunov.com].
That last page produces the real gem: this patent [godunov.com] is for a "Magnetic recording medium comprising a solid lubrication layer of fullerene carbon having an alkyl or allyl chain". The abstract reads:
There are further supporting references. The Buckyball: An Excruciatingly Researched Report [lsi.usp.br] (which gives its references at the bottom) contains this quote:
Of course, I don't know that anyone's actually assembled such a molecule. I located an article called Just Rolling Along [199.203.151.110] which discusses tungsten disulfide, which is similar to buckyballs. It is, however, expensive to produce, and difficult to make in quantity; This is what we're waiting for. Incidentally, I did find one article that gave hope for this, under the heading "Cheap Buckyballs [lucifer.com]". Amusingly enough (to me) the anchor tag is named "cheapballs". I guess when you're hopped up on this much sugar all kinds of things are funny. If anyone has access to the text of "Journal of Organic Chemistry, March 8" perhaps they could help out here.
So in summary, there ARE better lubricants than those cracked from crude. They are not, however, currently on the market, as they are expensive and time-consuming to produce. However, science marches on, and we'll solve this problem, too.
solar radiation hazards (Score:2)
That's one reason why in designs for the mars lander/habitat, water tanks are on the top level, so during solar radiation storms, the astronauts can get underneath them.
Water, and magnetic fields, and miles and miles of rock. Not much else can stop it.
Re:Radioactive exhaust? (Score:2)
And the smoke would remain where it was expelled for a LONG time. It would not seep into the soil, or float away into the stratosphere. It would stay. Right along the path of future journeys.
Re:If Earth goes, Mars won't help. (Score:2)
Otherwise, we'd interfere with people's right to get obnoxiously rich.
Re:But what happens when they get there? (Score:2)
I imagine they would turn the ship around, thus turning the thruster into a brake, long before they get there.
Re:Automotive Industry (Score:2)
I totally agree with your point about the oil, though.
Interplanar travel (Score:3)
Re:Neat Idea (Score:2)
True, but only if there were no other solution. Remember Apollo 13 (the mission, not the very good and ultimately enjoyable movie)? NASA and friends did everything in their power to bring the boys home -- when it would have been much less expensive to just turn the radios off, send all the engineers home, and tell the media that they lost contact with the astronauts.
--
SecretAsianMan (54.5% Slashdot pure)
M'nukes are bad, m'kay? (Score:4)
Coal fired power is evil, regardless of benefit.
Oil fired power is evil, regardless of benefit.
Natural gas power plants emit pollutants and so are evil too, regardless of benefit.
Geothermal and solar... hmmm... don't seem to work like greenpeace says.
So for the last ***10 YEARS***, not one new power plant was build in CA nor any expansion of existing plants.
Waaaaah! We have an enegry shortage in CA due to... uh.... yeah!.... DEREGULATION! Surely strict environmental laws are not to blame. And repealing then would be a right wind radical thing to do.
Let's lobby the DOE to force other states on the grid to sell us power at a mandated discount. They want to suck off the grid and pollute other states so they can have blue skies?!
Well, hey, CA, you download off the grid, you have to upload too. CA is no different than a w4r3z l33ch. If you want power, you have to get dirty... you have to pay for it just like everyone else.
Re:G force issue! (Score:3)
distance = 1/2 accelleration*time^2
The closest distance between Mars and Earth is about 100 million kilometers (I refuse to do this in miles)and want to cover it in a week
0.5*acc*(7*25*3600 second)^2=5*10^10 meter
Gives you about 0.27 meters/second^2 or about 1/40th of Earth's gravity. Peachy
Re:G force issue! (Score:2)
Let's do some math:
Accelerate at 1 G for two days...
10m/s * 60 * 60 * 24 * 2 = 1728 Km/s
Mars is about 20 light minutes away at its most distant point so...
20 * 60 * 300,000km = 360,000,000 km
At the aforementioned velocity you could cover the distance in...
360000000 / 1728 = 208333 secs
That's about 2.5 days, no puree.
Re:Well hoo-bleedin'-ray for interplanetary travel (Score:2)
Sure I agree in theory that we need a cheap way to get off earth before we need a cheap interplanitory travel. However it turns out not to be stricktly true.
Assume getting off earth is expensive, but a break through tommorow turns up with cheap travel between solar systems. That means that the space station can send probes to do fly-bys of distant planets, and 20 years latter have the satilight return for repairs before going to a diffent solar system. (Of course that would be fairly close). reusable probes would be a break through, and while they are still expensive they would be a lot cheaper then starting with a new probe, and would give us data we cannot get today. (We cannot do a fly-by of other solar systems with current probes, but this might give is the ability to do fly-bys of farther out systems)
Second, and more likely is that eventially we get a fairly cheap way to get off earth. We don't want to start at ground zero devolping cheap interplanitory travel. A lot of early work in research is better done by small teams, once the theory(s) are devolped you then take a large team to impliment it. So once we have a cheap way to get off earth we really want to quickly get a cheap way to get elsewhere. Getting off earth might end up taking 3 hours, who cares, but if that super cheap drive that takes 3 hours to get off earth can't reach faster speeds it is wrothless for getting to mars. Take that cheap but slow drive as a farry trip to space, and switch to a ship with cheap interplanitory drive, and you can then reach mars in 2 weeks. Nobody would allow a ship with radio active by-products like the above in the earths atmosphere, but it si harmless in space, so we combine them.
Re:Reason For Power Problems In CA (Score:2)
Re:Automotive Industry (Score:2)
There was a project at a university supported by the automotive industry to develop a nuclear-powered car, but then there was this little problem at Three Mile Island and the funding pretty much disappeared. Add to that two things: (1) The researchers had made little progress to the auto makers goal, though they did a lot of research that is important for other things (materials research); (2) There has been a propaganda machine (mainly by the US Gov, I guess) to scare the sense out of people wrt radiation - our "nuclear deterrent" is more effective when people are afraid of it.
You can find out about the automotive research by looking for something like "nuclear-powered car" on Google. (Sorry, don't remember the name of the project off-hand.)
IEEE Spectrum had a good series about Three Mile Island some time ago; but I don't have the issue numbers.
Physics Today, Physics News, or Science had an article in the past year (or 2) about the dangers (real and imagined) of radiation et al.
Last Note:
Present day nuclear reactors use fission; fusion is still a pipe dream; Cassini (and many other space probes) used RTG's (RadioThermal Generators) which rely on natural decay processes; a nuclear bomb is a very complicated machine - a fission reactor in a car (which is probably unnecessary, see RTG's) might 'meltdown' or leak radiation, but it wouldn't become a bomb. The worst-case scenario is probably (and this is just a guess) that the car could explode just as it could with conventional fuel (and how likely is that? *shrug*) and then there would be some nasty clean up to do _if_ the design is so poor as to not contain the fissionable materials. Keeping the reactor safe from an external explosion is 'easy' - we know how to do it. Making a cheap, low-maintenance, and self-containing reactor is probably the hard part; but mostly because of the first two parts.
Re:Environmental issues? (Score:2)
I think that the prime example of stupid radiation protests has to be the banning of the process of irradiating eggs. Before that ban there was very little worry about getting salmonella (sp?) poisoning from eating raw eggs, now I have to coddle the eggs every time. Ignorance makes it possible.
It's already been done! (Score:2)
It's still toxic (Score:2)
Although Am241 is used as a alpha source in smoke detectors, most detector contain less than 5 miligrams (1 microcurie.) Most of the radiation is shielded by the smoke detector housing.
Of course, the radition risks posed by Am-242m, the isotope used by this particular space probe, will almost certainly be different.
(For instance, Am241 has a halflife of 432 years, Am 242 has a halflife of 141 years. Both emit alpha particles, though)
Project Helios and Orion (Score:4)
But, since you mentioned them, I just want to comment on Projects Orion and Helios, related to this article by the fact they too were potentially great boons to space travel way back twenty years ago: Having become aware of the projects way back in the eighties because of a children's book(!) I began to research as much as I could on the projects. I really began to gather information when I got connected to the internet back in 1996. The internet is a wealth of information but in this case 98% of what you'll find will be either pure dross or pure fiction dressed up in science sounding terms. I'll add "in my opinion" rather than just state the above as a fact - IANASY (I Am Not A Scientist Yet). I've let my search lapse in the last few years mainly because of all the extra fake and useless info that appeared on the internet after films like "Deep Impact" which briefly mention Orion or Helios. But from what I gathered, the official reasons the projects were terminated rather abruptly were highly unlikely, the main one cited being the SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) and SALT-II treaties with the Soviet Union. A second reason often given was that the '...radiation problem caused...[by the detonation of nuclear devices]...an unavoidable health risk[to the crew].."
Looking over the technical details I managed to track down, I do not believe this reason. Even with limited knowledge, most people would be able to proffer ways of protecting a crew from any major health risk - working only on a design basis. Fears of contaminating the Earth's atmosphere seem unjustified considering it would be possible to limit operation of either the Orion or Helios drive(for want of a better term) to an acceptable distance from Earth. I don't mean to spread paranoia, but at the very least the people who cancelled these projects were misguided - I leave any other alternatives up to your imagination!
I'm not an amoral person who puts science before people : NATO's use of DU(Depleted Uranium) based weapons is deplorable; fission is an unsafe and unnecessary technology for use in power stations; the use of growth hormones in livestock farming and relatively untested GM techniques in Agriculture is plain crazy in Western economies. The fact remains that Orion and Helios were two projects which shouldn't have been cancelled. I hope to goodness that, just because this new drive employs a radioactive isotope, it isn't designated 'too risky' out of hand - which seems to be a popular thing to do nowadays. (By the way, I know it's a different isotope, but check your smoke alarms....there's a good chance it contains Americium 241 (probably about 0.9 micro curie)
(By-the-by, if you're planning to look for info on Orion or Helios, try the following phrases "Advanced Propulsion Design", "JPL", "Helios" and "Orion" You'll also find that various university professors have, at one time or another, written papers on the subject - try contacting your local university's physics department. )
8)
Re:Interplanar... right (Score:2)
Think about it, it would work. For any apple story insert some lame comment about jobs from a fortune database. For linux stories some comment like "I'm glad to see that linux is finally immanitizing the eschelon".
Gack! I've figured out to much. The VA linux corporate assassins just knocked down my door and are in my office.
Fortunately since the collapse of their stock they couldn't afford competent assassins, nor weapons beyond a broken nerf gun purchased at a garage sale for a nickel.
Re:Environmental issues? (Score:2)
Re:Radioactive exhaust? (Score:3)
I can't get to the article either, but I would imagine they would blast it into space using the traditional launch mechansims then once it got safely our of our air turn on the nukes.
Re:Gravity Effects (hello, math?) (Score:2)
OK, so you're not that much younger than your twin brother, but you are by as much as 4 seconds. :>
Re:G force issue! (Score:5)
brittanica.com tells me that the distance from Earth to Mars is between 56M km and 400M km, depending on the relative position of the orbits.
Assuming constant +ve accn for the first half of the journey and constant -ve accn for the second half, and a two-week journey in total, this means an acceleration of between 0.15 m/s^2 and 1.1 m/s^2.
Since 1g = 9.8 m/s^2, these accelerations are tiny, and you'd safely avoid being pureed.
Re:Why is this posted again? (Score:2)
I've commented on this in the past, and gotten slapped down immediately, but it's worth bringing it up again.
--
The Economics of Space (Score:3)
If we have an affordable way to travel in months to the nearby planets, then the solar system and the stars are open to us.
the model is that of the Polynesians as they spread over the Pacific ocean. There plenty of small objects beyond Pluto that could act as stepping stones. never mind things like the asteroid belt. Earth crossing asteroids could suddenly become viable economic entities for carrying things between the inner and outer solar system
There are many problems of supply that would have to be worked out. But we could certainly build a network over time, terraform an asteroid or two, mine a comet for water. the challenges are formidable, but not out of the question.
Re:Automotive Industry (Score:2)
Anyway, I never could see why people get so worried about us using up all of our oil. It's all simple economics: right now, it doesn't make sense to look for a new fuel source. We have plenty of oil, and it's not doing any good where it is. When it becomes too expensive to obtain, we'll find another energy source real fast.
Re:YOU ARE A FOOL (Score:2)
Back to the future (Score:2)
Nice consistent job by the editors (Score:2)
2001-01-04 22:49:49 New Nuclear Spacecraft: Travel To Mars In Two Week (articles,science) (rejected)
Maybe each editor should be required to give his name when rejecting a story, so as to take responsibility. He might even give a short reason for the rejection--just like moderators have to give a short reason for their scoring.
What is old is news again (Score:2)
It does look like using americium would simplify things... But, since large scale americium production appears to require the use of breeder reactors it is a political dead end in the US right now.
I hope someone has the guts to try it.
stonewolf
Orbital Mechanics is not quite that simple.... (Score:5)
Firstly, you're moving about in Sol's gravity well, so you can't just point at Mars and pull the trigger. Instead, what you want to do is move into a higher (faster) orbit around the sun.
Secondly, Mars moves!
I Am Not An Orbital Mechanic, and perhaps someone who is could do the real math, but I think that the distance covered is far greater than you've assumed.
However, it seems to me that the accelerations involved are still not extreme. I may be wrong, but I think that a 1G acceleration gets you to Mars in ~ 2 weeks, taking orbital mechanics into account. 1G is a magic number, as it would simulate the gravity you're experiencing now - good for bone mass retention.
you're one of my kind (OT) (Score:2)
Re:Acelleration and Velocity... (Score:2)
Re:Neat Idea (Score:5)
It's amazing what one neutron will do....
Am242: fuel to mars
Am241: Smoke detectors!
Paul_D
Re:G force issue! (Score:2)
I just dont wouldn't want to be turned into another Deep Impact probe.
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
Re:And what precentage of space launches fail? (Score:2)
Neat Idea (Score:5)
If this can be made praticle (and lord knows getting americium is damn near impossible!) it make the possability of space exploration more inviting and less risky. The time to arrive at our destinations is greatly decreased and the saftey factor goes up. Just think, a trip to the moon could turn into a "three hour tour".
I for one hope they make it work.
where to launch Orion (Score:2)
Hell, you might even get as far away as Nevada where hundreds of above ground tests were made. Total effect = 0. Geography is large, Kenedy was stupid, Las Vegas is the perfect launch site.
Interplanar travel. (Score:2)
(I think you meant Interplanetary.)
Re:Radioactive exhaust? (Score:2)
G force issue! (Score:3)
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
Re:M'nukes are bad, m'kay? (Score:2)
Re:Smoke Detectors and AM241 Half-Life (Score:2)
In any case, it's probably a good idea to upgrade, especially if more features are in new smoke detectors (such as the ability to detect both smoldering and flaming fires, and perhaps a carbon monoxide detection system as well).
--
I honestly don't care (Score:3)
I want NASA to go to Mars, not in 50 years, not in 20 years...now, or 5 years ago even better. We have the ability and to go, we have a plan(Mars direct). All we need is some vision: from our representatives in Congress and from the public.
I'm sick of waiting and I'm sick of watching NASA shoot little AIBOs at that planet and then watching them crash and burn. Spend some money, build a good, safe ship, and send some people there. But for god's sake do it now. Everyone thinks it would be hard, and they'd rather it be easy. Well guess what, it will get easy, once we do it 100 or 1000 times.
And while I have nothing against ISS, that $60 billion could have got us a round-trip ticket to Mars, instead of Mir2.
Automotive Industry (Score:3)
Nevermind, I'll answer that myself: because oil still exists in the Earth and therefore not every penny that can be made from it, has been made by the perto companies.
So if this nuclear material can be used to send a rocket to Mars in 2 weeks, then assumming it can be controlled and throttled, for how many years could it power a car running at 60 mph.
It goes fast, but can you slow it down? (Score:2)
Reaching Mars in 2 weeks means the rocket would have to accelerate really fast. But when it gets there its going to have to slow down to land. Is this accounted for in the speed claims? Like in the movie Space Balls, they were traveling at "ludicrous speed". They wanted to stop but they were going to fast, they had to slow down first.
Re:Neat Idea (Score:2)
DIY space travel (Score:2)
-Chris
...More Powerful than Otto Preminger...
Re:Project Helios and Orion (Score:4)
NATO's use of DU(Depleted Uranium) based weapons is deplorable
Don't believe the hype. I used to be in an M1A1 Heavy tank brigade. It is a very low level of radiation in those rounds that is only dispersed in a small amount of breathable form such as particles when the round hits something. If you were in what got hit, you're probably already dead, and if you go near something that just got hit, are you fucking insane? I've seen burning tanks after a hit -- STAY AWAY.
I know, from a reliable source, of a tank that got a non-deadly hit from a DU round (butt-shot disables, but doesn't usually kill). The geiger counter registered radiation around the hit, but nothing close to dangerous levels. You probably saw worse in your high school science classes.
Remember, it's depleted uranium. Might as well get everyone paranoid and tell them that the tank armor itself is partially made of DU.
I could go on with the technical details of DU rounds, but that would get to be a kind of long post. Tell me if you want it.
Why is this posted again? (Score:3)
LEO and Zubrin (Score:2)
The ISS is in LEO. If the earth were a peach, then the ISS would lie somewhere in the fuzz. While I'll grant that it's higher than the ground, it's not enough to make a significant difference in cost. You might think to construct spacecraft in situ to reduce costs, but then there's still the expense of transporting the raw materials and/or parts up to the ISS.
You're not going to see routine trips to Mars for 10 years at least.
I'd push the date back even farther than that. Manned colonies on Mars are still pie-in-the-sky dreaming for the most part. Zubrin, while a visionary, is like most visionaries in that his ramblings need to be taken with a grain of salt and a healthy dose of reality. "Living off the land" sounds very appealing--very "Wild West" and "Lewis and Clark." But it's also foolhardy when you realize that we simply don't know what we need to know about Mars to be able to make such a scheme work. Lewis and Clark could make canoes when they needed to cross rivers. It's doubtful that a manned mission would ever have the resources to build, say, spare fuel cells or atmosphere-transmogrification-into-rocket-fuel facilities as Zubrin envisions. Then there's the problem of cosmic ray bombardment both in the trip to Mars and in the time spent on the surface. The most recent estimates based on our best information to date puts human exposure in the 0.5 heavy nuclei/year/cell in the body range for the trip there, and something like 0.1 heavy nuclei / year while there. This doesn't sound too healthy to me. Shielding won't work very well either. Unless it is very thick (and thus, very expensive), the result will just be bombardment by showers of secondary particles, rather like ricocheting bullets inside tanks.
We have to face the fact that unmanned space exploration is all there will be in the near future. When the robots teach us enough that we can bring the risk (financial and safety) down to acceptable levels, and when we find enough impetus to go there in person, then we might consider manned missions. Not until then, I'm afraid.
Re:Just say no to Mars Direct (Score:5)
Sure, we can go to Mars in a year or two with Mars Direct... but consider:
Fourty some years ago there were several methods for getting to the moon under consideration - among them were:
We went with Moon Direct - and sent 12 (14 if you count Apollo 13) people to the moon. Since then nothing.
Perhaps if we had gone the other way, we would have built the space station in LEO first. Used it as a staging point for missions to the moon and been left with an easy jumping off point for further missions to the moon, mars, and beyond.
I fear that if Mars Direct is the way we get to mars, you will be able to count the missions to mars on the fingers of one hand.
If Earth goes, Mars won't help. (Score:2)
What about other missions? (Score:2)
Right now, the biggest problem with getting to Mars is being able to keep people alive for the 2 years (or something like that) round trip. Watch out, now we'll do it for you in six minutes! Oh, wait....
Re:Oh great, not another nuclear-happy solution (Score:2)
Ya know, you're right. Let's get rid of all of that nuclear powered stuff, expecially in space. After all, we don't want to spoil that wonderfull pure environment out there with filthy dirty icky radiation.
Of course, the first, and biggest source of nuclear radiation we'd have to get rid of would be the sun, and all of those other stars. Did you know that they pump out enough radiation to kill you if you go out there without shielding? We'd best hurry to get rid of them first, since they give off a whole heck of a lot more radiation, AND radioactive crud than any rocket we build could manage to do.
other choices (Score:2)
Americium (Score:4)
It is a waste of our precious scientists time trying to speed travel to Mars. First we must have popcan sized mini-nukes, then we can move on to such ungainly pursuits as space exploitation.
Re:DIY space travel (Score:2)
There's an article about the incident here [readersdigest.com].
Re:YOU ARE A FOOL (Score:3)
-Zane
Well hoo-bleedin'-ray for interplanetary travel (Score:2)
I say start pouring money into new launch systems and bring down the cost of putting things into Earth orbit. Once orbital access is cheap and readily available... maybe have a moonbase or three established... then interplanetary travel research will do us a lot more good.