Slashdot Mirror
Project Orion to Bring U.S. Back to the Moon
ganjadude writes "Thirty-seven years ago yesterday, Project Apollo put the first humans on the surface of the Moon. The next time the U.S. launches its astronauts to Earth's natural satellite, they will do so as part of Project Orion." From the article: "Under Project Orion, NASA would launch crews of four astronauts aboard Orion capsules, first to Earth orbit and the International Space Station and then later to the Moon. Two teams, one led by Lockheed Martin and the other a joint effort by Northrop Grumman and The Boeing Co., are currently competing to build the CEV. NASA is expected to select the winner in September."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Apollo 18 was killed by budget cuts shortly after 19 and 20 were. :(
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Not really. In order to use a nuclear pulse rocket (or any realistically sized method of nuclear propulsion) you need a heavy lift rocket. Currently there is no heavy lift rocket that could realistically put a nuclear pulse rocket into LEO (and a nuclear pulse rocket would have to be in a very high earth orbit or in interplanetary space before any politician would allow it to be activated). Rebuilding our heavy lift capability with the CaLV or Ares V is essential.
Second, we need a cheap way to put humans into space. The CLV or Ares I will do that.
The only part that you should consider a waste would be building the lander (and perhaps the CLV if you are one of those machine-only supporters). The Ares architecture will be extremely useful for future technologies. Even large rockets like the Delta IV or the Arianne V are kids toys compared to real heavy lift rockets like the Saturn V and the Ares V. Having a 100 ton class rocket makes a lot of projects possible, not just Project Orion.
Project Orion didn't use nukes to "lift" the ship. It was an interstellar craft that would have used nukes for propulsion once well away from Earth.
Using nukes to "lift" anything would be utterly insane.
The cake is a pie
I question that we would necessarily have developed velcro...
Once again, Velcro was not developed by NASA.
From Wikipedia:
"The hook and loop fastener was invented in 1948 by Georges de Mestral, a Swiss engineer. The idea came to him after he took a close look at the Burdock seeds which kept sticking to his clothes and his dog's fur on their daily walk in the Alps. De Mestral named his invention "VELCRO" after the French words velours, meaning 'velvet', and crochet, meaning 'hook'. Today Beige-a is the leading exporter of velcro in the world."
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
I question that we would necessarily have developed velcro, microcomputers, Tang, new alloys, biomedical advances, etc., by sending robotic ships to explore space.
Tang and Velcro were devolped independently of the US space program. Velcro was invented in Europe in 1948. Tang was devolped as a breakfast drink in the 50's about 10 years before its association with the space program.
What's more, it's the manned space flights that hold the public's interest and keep the funding up.
Then why were the later Apollo missions abandoned due to lack of public interest?
Holding the public's interest is impossible, the public is far to fickle.
The Saturn V is insanely inefficient by today's standards. But they are thinking like you're thinking- they are using the same concepts as the Saturn V, but applying space shuttle technology (specifically the main engines, which are arguably the best rocket engines ever designed). SSMEs are wonderful units. Lots of money were spent on them, lots of testing was done, they've been continuously improved and have never experienced a failure. They're the way to go.
Funny, when I first read the header I thought we were going to use a large spacecraft with nuclear warheads detonated behind it to reach the moon. That's what Project Orion used to be. But that's not the point. NASA has already used ion propulsion on a mission (Deep Space One) and I believe it's fairly common for station-keeping in earth orbit. But it's spectacularly ill-suited for launches. You fire a long time to get the velocity change you want, it's not like a swift kick in the pants.
And I'm pretty sure that the cost of lunar missions is not determined by the price of the fuel you use to get into orbit.
This login name for sale.
NASA's deep space 1 launched 1998 http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/quick_facts.html
ESA's SMART-1 launched 2003 http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/SMART-1/SEMSDE1A6BD_0. html
boeing sells ion thrusters for satelites http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bss/fact sheets/xips/xips.html
additionally, these technologies will never be used to replace chemical rockets. chemical rockets throw a lot of mass out the back at a relativly slow speed, but all at once. giving you enough velocity to get off the planet.
ion thrusters throw a very little bit of mass out the back at very high speeds, but run continuously for months/years. after that length of time at a constant acceleration you end up with a very high velocity.
unless you have discovered some new physics and an antigravity engine, throwing things out of the back of the spaceship, or hauling it up an elevator are the only conceiveable methods of getting something off the planet.
According to Wikipedia, the number zero, negative numbers and binary and decimal number systems are Indian inventions. You might have heard of them sometimes ;).
According to this page, sugar (extracting it from sugarcane, to be exact) and cotton were also invented (found ?) in India.
Indeed.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.