Posting here more for visibility than relevance... Here's NASA-TV's video of the announcement. There's actually a bit of interesting Q&A at the end. (Total run-time ~20min.)
You've got a point there, it was a nice surprise that ATK missed out while SNC stayed in, despite ATK's lobbying throw-weight on Capitol Hill. Then again, like OSC they didn't really have much to go on, just a plan for stacking an Ares top stage on a modified SRB. I guess they went with Boeing because their vehicle is still sorta connected with SLS development. (I have my doubts whether SLS will ever actually fly, but that's another matter.) All in all, I'm happy with the way this turned out.
The three lucky "winners" were widely expected to make the cut, so this isn't such big news. I wish they could have continued supporting some of the other contenders a while longer, but if they have to pick three, these are the obvious ones. Even so, I'd rather they had let Boeing pull its own weight on developing the CST-100/Orion. They've got deep pockets, after all, and don't really need the help from Uncle Sam. I'd have preferred they give a boost to Blue Origin or Orbital Sciences instead, but hey, this is better than nothing.
Not sure how much of an "edge" we've had for the last 30 years anyway, unless you think spending $1bil per shuttle flight with only 20-ton payload capacity was a good idea.
IANA Nuke-E, but I think you're thinking of Thorium 233, which has a half-life of 22min.
Thorium absorbs a neutron and becomes Th233, which decays in (half-life) 22 minutes to Protactinium-233, which has a half-life of 27 days and decays to to U233. Meanwhile, if your Th233 takes another neutron during its 22min half-life, that is what will decay into U232 over time.
The trick to getting "clean" U233, uncontaminated by U232, is to isolate the Pa233 and let it decay outside of the neutron flux. Unfortunately this is also probably a necessary step in getting LFTR to work, as explained in this note by one of its most well-known proponents. I call this "unfortunate" because it would seem to negate one of the key arguments in favor of LFTR (and Thorium in general), that it is resistant to proliferation due to "inevitable" U232 contamination. Obviously if your design calls for isolating Pa233 in order to produce pure U233, then you can't also claim that your "dirty" U233 is unsuitable for weapons.
Personally I think the risk is still acceptable (I'm a strong supporter of Thorium-cycle nukes), but this contradiction will have to be addressed eventually.
Yes, in fact Eugene Wigner, who invented and patented the original water-cooled reactor design, was a staunch opponent of their widespread use. He saw them as merely a stepping stone to more advanced designs using molten salts as coolant, since their liquid phase is ideally suited to nuclear reactors. OTOH, water boils at 100C, and must be held at ~150 atmospheres of pressure to remain liquid. This single factor is what adds most of the complexity and cost to "traditional" nuke plants. A molten-salt reactor can operate at ambient pressure, obviating the need for multiple-redundant cooling systems.
Wigner was basically drummed out of the business for his views.
I can't speak for others, but I suspect he's talking about concentrated solar thermal. Some configurations use a molten salt (usually a fluoride) as the operating fluid. This also acts as a thermal mass which can be stored underground, then pumped out after sundown to run the generators at night. Personally I prefer other approaches, but there have been a few of these plants built, and they seem to work as advertised.
Another cool application of molten salts is a liquid metal battery technology recently developed at MIT. This would provide "grid-level" storage for intermittent renewables such as wind and solar, allowing them to operate 24/7 and smooth out gaps between supply and demand.
Another example: no simulated gravity in transit to Mars. Anyone who's familiar with other mission schemes would know that a tethered booster stage can be used as a counterweight to provide centrifugal force. But the Mars-One plan ignores this completely, and calls instead for an intensive 3hr/day exercise regime to prevent bone loss, etc.. That kind of oversight does not exactly instill confidence.
True 'nuff, but experts aren't always best at explaining their knowledge to non-experts. That's one the few complaints I've heard about Wikipedia, that its technical content is often too technical for non-techies to understand. While I agree that this is often true of Wikipedia, I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing. (But at least it's a more valid complaint than TFA... not "pretty" enough? Sheesh! what's next, Wikipedia with a Unity interface?)
Wasn't there talk a while back about creating a "youth" version of Wikipedia? What ever happened with that?
I posted this question to Mars-One, but never got a reply: Why are you NOT using artificial gravity in your mission profile?
Actually this was one of the biggest "red flags" for me regarding this project. Every true Mars geek knows about Zubrin's (et al) proposal to use a tethered booster stage as counterweight in a centrifugal "gravity" scheme. How TF could you be talking about all the "intensive exercise" needed to counter the bone loss of long-term weightlessness? The fact that you don't even address this idea tells me that you haven't done your homework. Therefore, why should I take your project seriously?
No, the moon is not made of cheese, it's made primarily of Oxygen (40%), Silicon (20%), Iron (12%), Calcium (8.5%), Aluminum (7.3%), Magnesium (4.8%), Titanium (4.5%), Sodium (0.33%), Chromium (0.2%), Manganese (0.16%), and Potassium (0.11%), among other things. And since it has such a shallow gravity well (with a reasonably efficient rocket you only need about 25% of payload mass in fuel to reach orbit) it's not hard to build a business case for delivering these goods to customers in orbit. One could argue that it's less "speculative" than the Planetary Resources venture that was launched last month by James Cameron et.al..
You may argue that this "on-orbit" market is not ready for prime time yet, and I would agree with you. But that's no reason to sit back and wait. If you have a "vision" in mind that you want to follow (like Elon Musk) and you happen to have oodles of money to play with, then you can be the one to enable that market.
Elon Musk doesn't need credibility with you, he has a net worth of $2 billion. And frankly, between you and him, I know who has more credibility with me.
A couple of things... First, you need to update your notion of what is "required" for a Mars mission. Second, SpaceX is developing a line of reusable launchers which will drastically cut the cost of launching mass to LEO.
Lots of very smart people have been working on this for quite a while, and they seem to think it can be done. After listening to their arguments, I tend to agree. We are on the cusp of a new "golden age" in space exploration. You may disagree, but I reckon you're in for a pleasant surprise, sooner than you think.
SpaceX will be first on both the moon and Mars. Musk has repeatedly said he intends the manned version of the Dragon capsule to be capable of propulsive landing on both bodies, and he expects it to be flying by sometime around 2015. By that time he may very well also have his "Grasshopper" reusable Falcon launchers working, which would cut the cost by a couple orders of magnitude, but leave that aside for now. Even with a disposable Falcon, the availability of a human-rated Dragon will bring the cost of a lunar landing mission well below half a billion. Given that Space Adventures has already sold one of two $100M tickets for a free-return "slingshot" ride around the moon, how many would line up for a cheaper ride to the lunar surface?
I fully expect to see a privately funded human mission to the moon, using SpaceX hardware, within the next 10 years, probably by the end of the decade. I can't think of a single entity on the planet, public or private, in a better position to reach the moon faster than SpaceX.
As for Mars, that's a lot harder to predict. But again, at this point in time, who is in a better position than SpaceX? China's the only one even claiming to try at the moment. There are plenty of others in the US and elsewhere who are "working on" various aspects of Mars exploration and settlement, but to my knowledge, Elon Musk and China are the only two contenders for actually getting there first.
Yes. Just for reference, the average burger-flipper at McD's makes about NT$90/hr (US$3.00). The average cubicle-dweller pulls in about NT$30k/month (US$1k), maybe twice that after a few years experience. The cost of living is lower here too, but in Taipei it's higher than the rest of Taiwan. These girls are making pretty good coin for part-time work, relative to the local economy. OTOH, it's intermittent, only when there's a show going on. But that tends to work ok, since most of these girls are also in school. Sure, it's a PITA to have to stand up all day, but it beats standing up all day in front of a french-fry machine.
On a similar note, I ran across this today. Chubu Electric Power Co. is investing some R&D bucks "specifically looking into an alternative reactor design that would use liquid thorium fuel in a reactor cooled by molten salt." That ought to make the thorium geeks happy.
Ironically, part of the fossil fuel damage is also radioactive. Coal contains trace amounts of thorium, uranium, radium, etc., which are simply released into the atmosphere -- far more radiation than any nuclear facility would be allowed to release in normal operations. Advocates of some Gen-IV reactor designs claim that there's more nuclear energy potential in these waste particles than is produced by the coal-fired plants that release them.
While that's all more or less true, there's one detail missing: they're still building the launch abort system. I think Musk said they'll begin testing later this year, but he doesn't expect to be flying people for 2 or 3 years yet. Anyway, I agree that SpaceX will definitely continue the manned Dragon development, with or without help from NASA. Given the number of F9/FH flights they've already sold, they should have plenty of money to do the work.
Slashdot Mirror
Posting here more for visibility than relevance... Here's NASA-TV's video of the announcement. There's actually a bit of interesting Q&A at the end. (Total run-time ~20min.)
You've got a point there, it was a nice surprise that ATK missed out while SNC stayed in, despite ATK's lobbying throw-weight on Capitol Hill. Then again, like OSC they didn't really have much to go on, just a plan for stacking an Ares top stage on a modified SRB. I guess they went with Boeing because their vehicle is still sorta connected with SLS development. (I have my doubts whether SLS will ever actually fly, but that's another matter.) All in all, I'm happy with the way this turned out.
Uh, well... $3.2B dollars that we know about anyway.
Godspeed, Godwin!
I saw this on reddit today. Sorta takes your thought to its logical conclusion.
The three lucky "winners" were widely expected to make the cut, so this isn't such big news. I wish they could have continued supporting some of the other contenders a while longer, but if they have to pick three, these are the obvious ones. Even so, I'd rather they had let Boeing pull its own weight on developing the CST-100/Orion. They've got deep pockets, after all, and don't really need the help from Uncle Sam. I'd have preferred they give a boost to Blue Origin or Orbital Sciences instead, but hey, this is better than nothing.
Not sure how much of an "edge" we've had for the last 30 years anyway, unless you think spending $1bil per shuttle flight with only 20-ton payload capacity was a good idea.
I mean Jesse, not Jess.
I like Jess Ventura's idea to have politicians wear "sponsor" patches on the suits, like NASCAR drivers.
IANA Nuke-E, but I think you're thinking of Thorium 233, which has a half-life of 22min.
Thorium absorbs a neutron and becomes Th233, which decays in (half-life) 22 minutes to Protactinium-233, which has a half-life of 27 days and decays to to U233. Meanwhile, if your Th233 takes another neutron during its 22min half-life, that is what will decay into U232 over time.
The trick to getting "clean" U233, uncontaminated by U232, is to isolate the Pa233 and let it decay outside of the neutron flux. Unfortunately this is also probably a necessary step in getting LFTR to work, as explained in this note by one of its most well-known proponents. I call this "unfortunate" because it would seem to negate one of the key arguments in favor of LFTR (and Thorium in general), that it is resistant to proliferation due to "inevitable" U232 contamination. Obviously if your design calls for isolating Pa233 in order to produce pure U233, then you can't also claim that your "dirty" U233 is unsuitable for weapons.
Personally I think the risk is still acceptable (I'm a strong supporter of Thorium-cycle nukes), but this contradiction will have to be addressed eventually.
Yes, in fact Eugene Wigner, who invented and patented the original water-cooled reactor design, was a staunch opponent of their widespread use. He saw them as merely a stepping stone to more advanced designs using molten salts as coolant, since their liquid phase is ideally suited to nuclear reactors. OTOH, water boils at 100C, and must be held at ~150 atmospheres of pressure to remain liquid. This single factor is what adds most of the complexity and cost to "traditional" nuke plants. A molten-salt reactor can operate at ambient pressure, obviating the need for multiple-redundant cooling systems.
Wigner was basically drummed out of the business for his views.
I can't speak for others, but I suspect he's talking about concentrated solar thermal. Some configurations use a molten salt (usually a fluoride) as the operating fluid. This also acts as a thermal mass which can be stored underground, then pumped out after sundown to run the generators at night. Personally I prefer other approaches, but there have been a few of these plants built, and they seem to work as advertised.
Another cool application of molten salts is a liquid metal battery technology recently developed at MIT. This would provide "grid-level" storage for intermittent renewables such as wind and solar, allowing them to operate 24/7 and smooth out gaps between supply and demand.
Another example: no simulated gravity in transit to Mars. Anyone who's familiar with other mission schemes would know that a tethered booster stage can be used as a counterweight to provide centrifugal force. But the Mars-One plan ignores this completely, and calls instead for an intensive 3hr/day exercise regime to prevent bone loss, etc.. That kind of oversight does not exactly instill confidence.
True 'nuff, but experts aren't always best at explaining their knowledge to non-experts. That's one the few complaints I've heard about Wikipedia, that its technical content is often too technical for non-techies to understand. While I agree that this is often true of Wikipedia, I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing. (But at least it's a more valid complaint than TFA... not "pretty" enough? Sheesh! what's next, Wikipedia with a Unity interface?)
Wasn't there talk a while back about creating a "youth" version of Wikipedia? What ever happened with that?
Only wizards and mad scientists fly by car.
Except for repo men who fly Chevy Malibus.
I posted this question to Mars-One, but never got a reply: Why are you NOT using artificial gravity in your mission profile?
Actually this was one of the biggest "red flags" for me regarding this project. Every true Mars geek knows about Zubrin's (et al) proposal to use a tethered booster stage as counterweight in a centrifugal "gravity" scheme. How TF could you be talking about all the "intensive exercise" needed to counter the bone loss of long-term weightlessness? The fact that you don't even address this idea tells me that you haven't done your homework. Therefore, why should I take your project seriously?
Damn, wish I still had mod points. You nailed.
No, the moon is not made of cheese, it's made primarily of Oxygen (40%), Silicon (20%), Iron (12%), Calcium (8.5%), Aluminum (7.3%), Magnesium (4.8%), Titanium (4.5%), Sodium (0.33%), Chromium (0.2%), Manganese (0.16%), and Potassium (0.11%), among other things. And since it has such a shallow gravity well (with a reasonably efficient rocket you only need about 25% of payload mass in fuel to reach orbit) it's not hard to build a business case for delivering these goods to customers in orbit. One could argue that it's less "speculative" than the Planetary Resources venture that was launched last month by James Cameron et.al..
You may argue that this "on-orbit" market is not ready for prime time yet, and I would agree with you. But that's no reason to sit back and wait. If you have a "vision" in mind that you want to follow (like Elon Musk) and you happen to have oodles of money to play with, then you can be the one to enable that market.
Elon Musk doesn't need credibility with you, he has a net worth of $2 billion. And frankly, between you and him, I know who has more credibility with me.
A couple of things... First, you need to update your notion of what is "required" for a Mars mission. Second, SpaceX is developing a line of reusable launchers which will drastically cut the cost of launching mass to LEO.
Lots of very smart people have been working on this for quite a while, and they seem to think it can be done. After listening to their arguments, I tend to agree. We are on the cusp of a new "golden age" in space exploration. You may disagree, but I reckon you're in for a pleasant surprise, sooner than you think.
SpaceX will be first on both the moon and Mars. Musk has repeatedly said he intends the manned version of the Dragon capsule to be capable of propulsive landing on both bodies, and he expects it to be flying by sometime around 2015. By that time he may very well also have his "Grasshopper" reusable Falcon launchers working, which would cut the cost by a couple orders of magnitude, but leave that aside for now. Even with a disposable Falcon, the availability of a human-rated Dragon will bring the cost of a lunar landing mission well below half a billion. Given that Space Adventures has already sold one of two $100M tickets for a free-return "slingshot" ride around the moon, how many would line up for a cheaper ride to the lunar surface?
I fully expect to see a privately funded human mission to the moon, using SpaceX hardware, within the next 10 years, probably by the end of the decade. I can't think of a single entity on the planet, public or private, in a better position to reach the moon faster than SpaceX.
As for Mars, that's a lot harder to predict. But again, at this point in time, who is in a better position than SpaceX? China's the only one even claiming to try at the moment. There are plenty of others in the US and elsewhere who are "working on" various aspects of Mars exploration and settlement, but to my knowledge, Elon Musk and China are the only two contenders for actually getting there first.
Master of first dupe!
Yes. Just for reference, the average burger-flipper at McD's makes about NT$90/hr (US$3.00). The average cubicle-dweller pulls in about NT$30k/month (US$1k), maybe twice that after a few years experience. The cost of living is lower here too, but in Taipei it's higher than the rest of Taiwan. These girls are making pretty good coin for part-time work, relative to the local economy. OTOH, it's intermittent, only when there's a show going on. But that tends to work ok, since most of these girls are also in school. Sure, it's a PITA to have to stand up all day, but it beats standing up all day in front of a french-fry machine.
On a similar note, I ran across this today. Chubu Electric Power Co. is investing some R&D bucks "specifically looking into an alternative reactor design that would use liquid thorium fuel in a reactor cooled by molten salt." That ought to make the thorium geeks happy.
Ironically, part of the fossil fuel damage is also radioactive. Coal contains trace amounts of thorium, uranium, radium, etc., which are simply released into the atmosphere -- far more radiation than any nuclear facility would be allowed to release in normal operations. Advocates of some Gen-IV reactor designs claim that there's more nuclear energy potential in these waste particles than is produced by the coal-fired plants that release them.
While that's all more or less true, there's one detail missing: they're still building the launch abort system. I think Musk said they'll begin testing later this year, but he doesn't expect to be flying people for 2 or 3 years yet. Anyway, I agree that SpaceX will definitely continue the manned Dragon development, with or without help from NASA. Given the number of F9/FH flights they've already sold, they should have plenty of money to do the work.