Slashdot Mirror
NASA Wants Astronauts on Mars by 2010
FeloniousPunk writes "According to
this article
in the UK Guardian, NASA intends to send a manned mission to Mars by 2010, using nuclear propulsion. President Bush may announce this project, called Project Prometheus, at the State of the Union address." Here's
good background and context;
for technical background, I recommend
Zubrin
or
Stern.
The JPL will be involved in developing the nuclear propulsion tech, intended to cut the interplanetary trip from six months to two. Apparently the theory is that this proposal won't get shot down like the last Mars proposal because the shorter mission will save money. Here's hoping public response has progressed beyond "oh no! did he say nuclear?!"
In related news,
jkcity writes:
"according to this article by the BBC, the Chinese plan to have a man in space by October 2003."
I wouldn't worry too much about that. It'll be more like:
"Oh no! Did he say nukuler?!"
whether or not we will send men to mars by 2010, it will be whether or not President Bush can pronounce Project Prometheus at the state of the union address.
:)
Yeah perhaps, but space is very dark and having the astronaughts glow in the dark will help track them.
This is a ploy on GW's part ... it's 3-fold:
... it increases their coffers AND their public relations. Plus, one of the 2 largest space centers is in Texas ... good for the local economy for years after he's out of office.
... it always reaps rewards in the private sector long after the completion of the trip and for much more than the cost of the program. It's just too bad I really can't see this as anything other than a political machination.
... while I believe that Kennedy -also- used it as a political device, at least Kennedy was trying to boost our national pride and point out to the world that we have the best defense technology. I don't see Bush as doing this for anything other than personal reasons and pork barrel politics.
1) The people who are most decisively against GW's politics are also those who are most for space exploration. It gives those folks something positive to see about the president. Think of it as a distraction from the pending war, which is a distraction from the fact that he has no idea how to run foreign policy.
2) Some of GW's closest friends and allies are going to reap billions from the program. Defense companies love space projects
3) There's no way that the program can be finished before 2010 (we'll be VERY lucky to get it by then). That means it gives the voters, if they are pro-space, incentive to re-elect him (this is corrollary to #1 I suppose) since anyone running against him is going to be likely to point out the budget pratfalls in such a program.
Unfortunately, I really like the idea of exploration
Worse
Here's hoping NASA at least finds a way to do it the right way, rather than turning this into a further mess like the ISS turned out to be.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
It isn't a matter of "fast" acceleration. The bonus behind using a nuclear or even an ion drive is IMPULSE. The ability to accelerate over a longer period of time. You might not accelerate as quickly (you definately won't) but you can reach higher velocities. Plus you lighten your mass somewhat by not carrying about and insanely large amount of chemical reactive mass.
Assuming they are using a pellet-bed plutonium reactor, the only fuel they will need for it will be hydrogen, not only will it act as a moderator (heh), but also as the propellant as it is super-heated and vented out the back of the craft.
I assume they will still carry chemical based thrusters to maneuver and for the initial boost once leaving mars.
Plus the design that I got to work with in college uses weapons grade plutonium! What better way to get the nuclear weapon stock down than to transform it into interplanetary engines?
Correct, and we are still talking rocket engines. Except that instead of heating and expelling propellant thanks to a chemical reaction (hydrogen + oxygen -> water), you use a nuclear reaction (pump hydrogen--or just about any gas--into a nuclear reactor, heat it like hell).
The difference is that a nuclear rocket is much more efficient: the exhaust speed is much higher. Therefore the propellant mass required for a given change in speed is exponentially lower, due to the "rocket equation":
m/m0=exp(dv/u)
where m0 is your ship's dry mass, m its total mass (including propellant), dv the change in speed you aim for, and u the exhaust speed.
It's not as cut and dried as that.
I worked at the JPL last summer with the MER group (MER: the next Mars rovers). It was a great place to be and the technology they had was impressive. Still, there's only so much a teleoperated robot can do with a 20 minute time lag, slow rad hardened processors, and one (sensor-laden) arm. If I recall correctly, the off-the-cuff figure tossed around there was that a human geologist on site could accomplish in 45 seconds what an earth-based team driving a Mars rover could do in an hour.
It has always been more cost effective to send robots to Mars instead of people. Don't think, though, that you can just send one of these guys up and find out everything you want to know!
--Tom
MAN SHOOTS ROVER!