Ah, but you could get Hollywood in on the great conspiricy to retrain the public. For example, can you imagine a movie about the launch of the first nuclear powered craft? Hollywood would be able to depict these scientists working hard for the betterment of mankind, while protesters work against them, some even trying to kill to stop the program. Along the way, the argument heats up and someone stops an outright sabotage by convincing a guy that if he doesn't stop, he'll blow them all to kingdom come. After he's in custody, they hand him a rock of plutonium and show he was never in any danger and was duped by his own fears.
That alone would be enough for a TV movie. For a theatre movie, an artificial deadline (e.g. an asteroid coming to wipe out mankind) could be imposed to make it more exciting. That also gives Hollywood the chance to do neat CGI scenes and make things go BOOM!:-)
17,500 "short" tons for the carrier, 100-300 metric tons for the Mars craft. Sorry for mixing them like that, but facts like that are crammed in my head in "English" measurements, while I now think in "metric" measurements. It's maddening I tell you!:-) I even think in Joules instead of Calories. And yet every package of food lists calories instead of Joules.:-(
BTW, 17500 "short" tons is about 15800 metric tons.
30+ knots is the unclassified maximum speed. In reality it is probably closer to 50.
I seriously doubt that a carrier could reach 50 knots. 40, maybe. But the speed trials of the Enterprise (CV-65) are declassified, and they made 32 knots non-stop, around the world.
not sure a space station could be moved intact from earth to orbit. Would probably have to be moved in pieces.
Skylab had some troubles, but I think we learned quite a bit from it. Besides, I'm actually proposing 3-7 separate modules being launched, then assembled. Think something along the lines of large cylinders (like a submarine). If you link them together at the sides with spokes, you can spin them around and create a light gravity.
HEAVY LIFTER RIGHT HERE Liberty Ship How is a 1000 Ton payload for ya? And yes, that is the correct figure.
*chuckle* You might want to check the slashdot history. You're talking to the guy who posted the article.
Speaking with nuclear engineers on the subject, it seems that no one has yet produced a working model of the nuclear light-bulb. Thus GCNR propulsion isn't ready. It doesn't matter, though. For heavy lifters, chemical works just fine. The only reason we don't have heavy lifters is because there's no economic incentive to build them. The Sea Dragon launch study showed that a rocket has a fixed cost regardless of how big you build it. After that fixed cost, larger rockets become more cost effective than small rockets.
If nuclear power was so safe this would not happen, and that bad boy was sitting still when the shit hit the fan.
It just so happens that I know the official figures for the Chernobyl death rate. About 20 people died on site from the reactor meltdown, and about 10 more died from Thyroid cancer. Thyroid cancer from radioactive iodine was the biggest problem from the fallout because the inhabitants didn't have enough iodine in their diet. (You'll note that nearly all salt in the US is fortified with Iodine.) Most cases of Thyroid cancer were treated without death. Right now, the background radiation levels of Norway are higher than those at Chernobyl.
Compare that with 3500 people killed in one week from coal burning in London, or the millions of tons of Uranium spewed by those coal plants, and the evacuation of Centralia due to underground coal fires. Nuclear power is far from the worst destroyer. Besides, its trajectory will be such that the materials will fall in the drink. No pollution raining down on your head. And it will be far more contained than the tons of materials thrown up by the H-Bomb tests.
Now this assumes a fission reactor, what was the power source had you imagined? Last I checked controlled fusion was not feasible with todays tech.
Instead of answering that, I'm going to make you read the article. I linked to information on NERVA in my previous post. Read it. It's interesting stuff that everyone should know.:-)
You'd better pray that it all goes A-OK with that nuclear thermal powered space plane, otherwise all them fish stick are going to be glowing green.
This is *exactly* why we don't have nuclear propulsion flying. Don't you see? You (and the rest of the public) has been spoon fed rediculous ideas about glow-in-the-dark mutant creatures being the result of nuclear power. It just isn't true! Radiation is a fact of life. The Sun puts out so much of it that we'd be crispy toast without our magnetosphere and atmosphere. The background radiation of Norway is higher than the current levels in Chernobyl. Your own body even gives off radiation! Heck, your microwave uses radiation to heat your food, and you don't see your food glowing in the dark, do you?
Get me a space elevator and then we can get stuff up to GEO.
And this is exactly what I'm talking about with out of control budgets. Yes, a space elevator is probably feasible. But not now. In fact, not for 20-30 years. Since the technology is 20-30 years ahead of us, any NASA "crash project" to create a space elevator in 5-10 years would simply overrun costs and be no closer to producing a working model.
Can you imagine a nuclear space vessel going columbia on us in the atmosphere? accidents happen, but that accident could be ugly ugly. I think if we devlop nuclear vessels the nuclear part should be assembled after it launches and it should never reenter.
It would burn up over the ocean, and all of the materials would fall in the drink and sink to the bottom. It's certainly not a desirable situation, but it's not a big deal. The RTGs NASA has sent up have been encased in an indestructable black-box that can survive reentry. Several craft have failed, but the black-box has never been compromised. In one case, NASA retrieved the RTG and reused it. In another, it sunk to the bottom of the ocean (along with the Apollo 13 capsule) and remains there today.
Since it's generally undesirable to rain down wreckage on people's heads, my plan called for all launches and reentries to happen over the ocean. Since this is a powered craft (unlike the falling refrigerator^W^W Space Shuttle) it can bank back the other direction and land at the same airfield it took off from.
Wow, a spaceplane constructed in LEO (a factory AND space dock?) that is designed to fly in an atmosphere never flown in before. That is pretty impressive considering that we dont' even have a spaceplace that has proved capable of flying in and out of Earth's gravitational pull.
Pegasus launch solution. It shows that the concept is highly workable. Nuclear Thermal Rockets are 40 year old, well understood beasts. While the original program was only running during the 60s (with great success I might add), NASA has done a lot of research with them since then. I've exchanged emails with an engineer who was working on NTR propulsion for NASA back in the 80's, so I can assure you that these engines are not a dead design.
[But if we're assuming that the ability to construct and launch ships in LEO already exists, then a plan costs far less money than from-earth launch systems.]
Why would you assume that?
Because that's what my plan called for. Look, my plan is based around building a Mars mission in a roundabout fashion. By building the infrastructure first, we can not only reduce risk, but we can make great strides toward building a space economy. If all we wanted was to go to Mars, we could simply construct heavy lifter craft to get the prep-work cargo and the Mars craft into space and toward Mars. Nothing to it. Honestly. Unfortunately, we'd also repeat the mistakes of Apollo. By creating a super-expensive mission with zero economic return, we'd manage to get there, come back, then state that it's too expensive and stay home.
What is the difference between radiation and radioactive isotopes?
Radiation is particles and energy waves emitted by radioactive materials. Radiation is absorbed by nearby matter, including simple air. Its concentration also falls off at the same rate as light. Radioisotopes are unstable isotopes that degrade by converting excess atomic particles into radiation. The "hottest" radioisotopes only last a few seconds, but the medium life stuff can last 50-100 years. While it's less likely to kill you where you stand, that stuff is still hot enough to kill you over a long enough exposure. i.e. As the number of radioisotopes you ingest goes up, your chances for getting cancer go up as well.
Besides pulling them out of your ass, what do you base your cost estimates on?
The Energia factory retooling was from Energia corp themselves. The cost per Energia launch was an extrapolation from the current launch costs for today's commercial rockets, factoring in info from various sources on the Energia rocket. Costs for station modules are based on Industrial construction of common building materials such as steel. (Advanced composites bring the cost of craft up significantly.) Development for the space plane comes from my own estimate based on the fact that most of the technology already exists.
Then I left in a $70+ billion dollar fudge factor to cover all the administration, certification, and other unexpected (and difficult to calculate) costs. A study would need to be conducted to nail down where all the money would actually go in the end, but it's not on the hardware, that's for sure.
Time to dust off the 40 year old NERVA boosters. Twice as efficient as the most powerful chemical rockets, longer burn time, energy to spare, and fueled by whatever gas you can find. Oh, and the current figures show that modern technology can get the craft's efficiency above the 1000 Isp mark. If they get it to 1200, it will be 3 times more efficient than the Space Shuttle's main engines, and still get you to Mars faster than any other propulsion method known. (Ion drivers are more efficient, but they don't produce much thrust.)
Your argument would make sense if a navy aircraft carrier could fly.
And your argument would make more sense if an interplanetary craft could fly. Which it can't. It's a big friggin', nuclear powered rocket that moves you from one orbit to the next. It's the job of the lander to actually make it to the surface. You know, sort of like the aircraft *on* the carrier.
And land where, exactly? Martian Interplantetary Airport? We can barely get a probe to the surface of Mars, and you want to fly a spaceplane there and get it back with current technology for under $100 billion?
Pretty much. The Mars version of the space plane would need modifications in order to fly (and land) on Mars. For one, its landing gear would need to be designed to be a bit more like the large wheels on tractors than the small wheels we use on runways today. Retro-thrusters would be needed for braking as parachutes wouldn't be able to grab much air at slow speeds. And of course, large wings would be required to keep aloft at subsonic speeds.
And I didn't touch upon logistics because I could be here until sometime next week typing up my post. Obviously any Mars mission would need to have the logistics pre-planned. But if we're assuming that the ability to construct and launch ships in LEO already exists, then a plan costs far less money than from-earth launch systems. For example, ION drives are an extremely cheap way of tugging cargo around the system. Anything that needs to be pre-launched to Mars could be sent there by the slow route.
Another reason why I didn't touch upon the logistics is because they've already been done to death. Most logistics estimates show relatively low cost for the prep-work. Depending on how you configure the mission, much of the prep-work could be carried with your craft instead, or sent years in advance.
BTW, NASA's 1989 estimate for both a Moon base and a Mars colony to coexist for 34 years was $500 billion dollars. The way I see it, my plan actually costs *more* in the short term.
Actually, that's not the purpose of the expensive composites. The purpose of those composites is weight. Given the cost of shuttle launches, they had to use as light of materials as possible for the space station and the shuttle. Thermal protection is usually handled by deploying a solar panel as a sun shield.
Take Skylab as an example. It was simply an empty third stage of a Saturn V rocket. Very little in the way of materials technology went into it. One of the solar panels was damaged during liftoff, causing the research lab to start cooking. It went through dozens of thermal cycles before the crew arrived and repaired it.
What I'm proposing is pretty much several "Skylabs" linked together into a larger station where actual work can get done. My estimates of 100-200 metric tons per module is significantly larger than Skylab, which weighed a mere 75 tons.
Not a single person can leave mars until launch facilities are constructed.
I could have sworn I mentioned the use of one of those cool spaceplanes as a lander vehicle. Oh wait, I did.:-)
The actual logistics are not something I touched upon, but Zubrin had a very cheap method for making rocket fuel once you get there. Not to mention that a nuclear rocket can be fueled by just about any gas. Send some compressors with them, and they could create their own rocket fuel out of CO2. Actually, it would probably be best to use the reactor to break it into O2 instead, but that's a minor issue.
A shuttle launch flight runs about $600M per. You really think you are going to do that for 10% of that cost? Get real.
I most certainly do think that figure is accurate. You want to know why? Because Energia is a Russian rocket that would be constructed and launched on Russian soil. The current exchange rate (which shows no signs of significant improvement anytime soon) allows for Russian launches on the cheap.
Besides, a large portion of the Shuttle's costs come from certifying the craft for human launches instead of cargo launches. Not to mention the costs imposed by constant refurbishment for reentry procedures.Think more along the lines of a really big BDB like a Titan or Atlas. IIRC, an Atlas launch costs only about 10-15 million dollars. I'm willing to bet that the more powerful Proton launches are comparable simply because they're launched from Russia.
No, actually I have. That's the remainder of the $100 and some change billion. If you add up my figures, you have about $20-$30 billion dollars. IIRC, NASA's current budget is ~$14 billion a year. 10 years of NASA's budget is then $140 billion. Thus $110-$120 billion is left over for labor and administration. Now it may be expensive, but I doubt that Labor & Admin would end up being more than half of that.
The primary thing to keep in mind is to spend as little money developing new technologies as possible. If you want to know why NASA projects have runaway numbers, it's because they keep trying to build thing 20 years beyond their current technical ability.
according to the navy, a bare-bones aircraft carrier costs $4.5 Billion
And holds 4,000 crew members, weighs ~17,500 tons, contains 5 acres of deck space, and has engines capable of 30+ knots around the world, non-stop. Scale it back to a craft weighing somewhere between 100-300 metric tons, burning hydrogen for a 4-8 month trip, and the $10 billion figure should look a bit more reasonable.
Do you have any speculation on where the economic growth might come from?
Here are a few off the top of my head:
1. Mining: There are asteroids out there that are nearly entirely composed of precious metals. These would fetch quite a price on the market. The less valuable materials (e.g. water, carbon, hydrogen, iron, etc.) all are very valuable for perpetuating the space economy.
2. Tourism: How many people want to visit the moon? Or Mars? Or visit an exclusive hotel in a hollowed out asteroid? Or take a cruise to Venus?
3. Shipbuilding: The military would LOVE to have a space carrier that could deliver planes and munitions to any place in the world within an hour or two. Colonists looking to explore would happily ban together to purchase a colonization ship. Exclusive cruise ships need to be built by someone. Etc, etc.
Basically, it comes down to the fact that space becomes accessible to the upper-middle class. Once space becomes accessible, many people will want to spend money on it. Support of this would produce mountains of new jobs, research and development, future defense spending (can't let our enemies and friends gain an upper-hand in weapons technology), etc.
Not really. You have to remember that Apollo was creating technology on the way. WE ALREADY HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO DO IT TODAY. What we need is the following:
1. Heavy lifters for putting 100+ tons per launch into Low Earth Orbit. Energia Vulkan can do 200 metric tons. The Space Shuttle's engines can lift ~150 metric tons. We just need to remove the 117 metric ton shuttle out of the equation.
2. A cheap method for taking people and light cargo (read: only a few tons) into LEO. A nuclear thermal powered space plane would do nicely here. If 100% of the hardware that goes up comes back down, we'll be in good shape. It's okay if it exhausts radiation as long as it doesn't exhaust radioactive isotopes. (The radiation will disperse within seconds, but radioisotopes hang around for years.)
3. Space only, nuclear thermal rockets for missions to the moon and Mars.
Here's the plan:
Use your heavy lifters to throw a *useful* space station into Low Earth Orbit. This station should act as a construction yard and staging point. Construction crews can be ferried up via space plane.
The space plane should only be launched over the ocean to prevent accidentally raining down debris on people. On return flight, it should come down over the ocean, then make a controlled flight back to the coast.
At the station, the crews should construct the Moon/Mars craft and ready it for departure. The moon would be easy for an NTR rocket. A trip of a day or less would be feasible. If we've got our heads screwed on straight, we can use these craft to start mining the moon and nearby asteroids. This will allow us to return expensive materials to LEO for a very low cost.
Once a Mars craft is built and successfully deployed to Mars (with its own NTR spaceplane on board for landing maneuvers), the station and other hardware should be rented out to commercial enterprises. These guys can then look at making a business out of the infrastructure in place and create a new space economy
Cost figures:
Engergia Vulkan Factory Retooling: 10-15 million
Energia Launch: ??? (probably ~20-50 million per)
Station Construction: 3-7, 100-200 metric ton modules built of traditional building materials. (No expensive composites!!!) ~$10 Million per module.
Construction Equipment: ??? Fill in with standard metalworks and fab costs
Nuclear Thermal Spaceplane: This should use as much proven technology as possible. Development would be expensive (Let's say $1-3 billion) but the cost savings per flight would more than make up for those costs.
Nuclear Thermal Interplatery Craft: Depends on how large you want it. The bigger it is, the more costly it is. You could probably splurge and build it for $10 billion.
If you add up the worst case figures, you're still not even approaching 100 billion. And once the infrastructure is in place, you now have a new economic frontier to explore.
FWIW, this is not science fiction. We have all these technologies today. Unfortunately, fear of nuclear power combined with several non-space administrations (Nixon, Carter, and Clinton) have stopped us from making it a reality. Arguably, Apollo happened before we had mature technology, so that was a factor in things taking so long. One way or another, Space could give our economy explosive growth, and could do so on ~10 years of NASA budget.
The PS2 and the X-Box(sic) run Linux, so let's create a distro that turns home PC into a console with development potential.
Exactly. For the purpose of creating a PC console like the X-Box.
*shrug* Or maybe my experience was rather uncharacteristic of MSDOS gaming...
Not really. MSDOS was a PITA for users. Not to mention that game programmers basically had to write a mini-OS. Having a "game OS" that does almost nothing but interface with the hardware solves that little problem. That's what Nintendo does and that's what Sony does. Only Microsoft is lame enough to use a regular OS for their console.
Rutan is developing the launch/reentry vehicle, Armadillo is developing rocket motor/controls.
My point was that neither craft will do much of anything to revolutionize the industry. The poor performance of their craft and differing design concepts would be very poorly matched.
Come on, now. Government interest in any serious space program (at least here in the US) is dying. What's wrong with private companies banding together to make it a reality?
Absolutely nothing is wrong with private entities joining in. Unfortunately, most private launch entities have gone under due to political, legal, and social entanglements that prevented them from ever reaching space. Basically, the public is standing in the way of the visionaries without even realizing it. However, the time for real progress is quickly approaching. People are actually taking an interest in space again, and *want* to develop it. Everyone's wondering why our modern technology hasn't already given rise to starships. So much so, that rumors upon rumors have been spread about miracle technologies that "should have been included in the Space Shuttle long ago". The reality that we have to hammer in their brains is: Big ass LHOx for launch, nuclear for space.
I understood the story to mean that Linux should be used for dedicated gaming machines (i.e. consoles). Instead of being a feature on those machines, memory protection becomes a liability.
Keep dreaming. Both Armadillo and Rutan are focused on very poor space vehicles. The X-Prize simply wants them to go up and come back down. Actually reaching orbital velocity would take far more energy than these two are aiming to generate. For example, the Armadillo engines are powered by a Hydrazine monoprop which has an Isp of 160. They're looking at launching the weight of the craft + two people.
In comparison, the Space Shuttle's Solid Fuel SRBs have an Isp of 250 and the Liquid Hydrogen/Oxygen main engines have an Isp of 450. Between the two propulsion methods, the Space Shuttle can lift the craft (117 metric tons), 5 astronauts, and 29 metric tons into Low Earth Orbit (LEO). And that is nothing compared to the Russian Energia Vulkan (200 metric tons to LEO!).
The real feat of the X-Prize won't be in developing new technologies. The real feat of the X-Prize will be in sparking private sector interest in space.
A shoulder launched SAM won't reach that high. If it did, terrorists wouldn't need to fire at planes near airfields. There just isn't a good way of packing enough propellent into that little missile without severely injuring the user.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but you could get Hollywood in on the great conspiricy to retrain the public. For example, can you imagine a movie about the launch of the first nuclear powered craft? Hollywood would be able to depict these scientists working hard for the betterment of mankind, while protesters work against them, some even trying to kill to stop the program. Along the way, the argument heats up and someone stops an outright sabotage by convincing a guy that if he doesn't stop, he'll blow them all to kingdom come. After he's in custody, they hand him a rock of plutonium and show he was never in any danger and was duped by his own fears.
:-)
That alone would be enough for a TV movie. For a theatre movie, an artificial deadline (e.g. an asteroid coming to wipe out mankind) could be imposed to make it more exciting. That also gives Hollywood the chance to do neat CGI scenes and make things go BOOM!
17,500 "short" tons for the carrier, 100-300 metric tons for the Mars craft. Sorry for mixing them like that, but facts like that are crammed in my head in "English" measurements, while I now think in "metric" measurements. It's maddening I tell you! :-) I even think in Joules instead of Calories. And yet every package of food lists calories instead of Joules. :-(
BTW, 17500 "short" tons is about 15800 metric tons.
30+ knots is the unclassified maximum speed. In reality it is probably closer to 50.
I seriously doubt that a carrier could reach 50 knots. 40, maybe. But the speed trials of the Enterprise (CV-65) are declassified, and they made 32 knots non-stop, around the world.
not sure a space station could be moved intact from earth to orbit. Would probably have to be moved in pieces.
Skylab had some troubles, but I think we learned quite a bit from it. Besides, I'm actually proposing 3-7 separate modules being launched, then assembled. Think something along the lines of large cylinders (like a submarine). If you link them together at the sides with spokes, you can spin them around and create a light gravity.
HEAVY LIFTER RIGHT HERE Liberty Ship How is a 1000 Ton payload for ya? And yes, that is the correct figure.
*chuckle* You might want to check the slashdot history. You're talking to the guy who posted the article.
Speaking with nuclear engineers on the subject, it seems that no one has yet produced a working model of the nuclear light-bulb. Thus GCNR propulsion isn't ready. It doesn't matter, though. For heavy lifters, chemical works just fine. The only reason we don't have heavy lifters is because there's no economic incentive to build them. The Sea Dragon launch study showed that a rocket has a fixed cost regardless of how big you build it. After that fixed cost, larger rockets become more cost effective than small rockets.
If nuclear power was so safe this would not happen, and that bad boy was sitting still when the shit hit the fan.
:-)
It just so happens that I know the official figures for the Chernobyl death rate. About 20 people died on site from the reactor meltdown, and about 10 more died from Thyroid cancer. Thyroid cancer from radioactive iodine was the biggest problem from the fallout because the inhabitants didn't have enough iodine in their diet. (You'll note that nearly all salt in the US is fortified with Iodine.) Most cases of Thyroid cancer were treated without death. Right now, the background radiation levels of Norway are higher than those at Chernobyl.
Compare that with 3500 people killed in one week from coal burning in London, or the millions of tons of Uranium spewed by those coal plants, and the evacuation of Centralia due to underground coal fires. Nuclear power is far from the worst destroyer. Besides, its trajectory will be such that the materials will fall in the drink. No pollution raining down on your head. And it will be far more contained than the tons of materials thrown up by the H-Bomb tests.
Now this assumes a fission reactor, what was the power source had you imagined? Last I checked controlled fusion was not feasible with todays tech.
Instead of answering that, I'm going to make you read the article. I linked to information on NERVA in my previous post. Read it. It's interesting stuff that everyone should know.
You'd better pray that it all goes A-OK with that nuclear thermal powered space plane, otherwise all them fish stick are going to be glowing green.
This is *exactly* why we don't have nuclear propulsion flying. Don't you see? You (and the rest of the public) has been spoon fed rediculous ideas about glow-in-the-dark mutant creatures being the result of nuclear power. It just isn't true! Radiation is a fact of life. The Sun puts out so much of it that we'd be crispy toast without our magnetosphere and atmosphere. The background radiation of Norway is higher than the current levels in Chernobyl. Your own body even gives off radiation! Heck, your microwave uses radiation to heat your food, and you don't see your food glowing in the dark, do you?
Get me a space elevator and then we can get stuff up to GEO.
And this is exactly what I'm talking about with out of control budgets. Yes, a space elevator is probably feasible. But not now. In fact, not for 20-30 years. Since the technology is 20-30 years ahead of us, any NASA "crash project" to create a space elevator in 5-10 years would simply overrun costs and be no closer to producing a working model.
Can you imagine a nuclear space vessel going columbia on us in the atmosphere? accidents happen, but that accident could be ugly ugly. I think if we devlop nuclear vessels the nuclear part should be assembled after it launches and it should never reenter.
It would burn up over the ocean, and all of the materials would fall in the drink and sink to the bottom. It's certainly not a desirable situation, but it's not a big deal. The RTGs NASA has sent up have been encased in an indestructable black-box that can survive reentry. Several craft have failed, but the black-box has never been compromised. In one case, NASA retrieved the RTG and reused it. In another, it sunk to the bottom of the ocean (along with the Apollo 13 capsule) and remains there today.
Since it's generally undesirable to rain down wreckage on people's heads, my plan called for all launches and reentries to happen over the ocean. Since this is a powered craft (unlike the falling refrigerator^W^W Space Shuttle) it can bank back the other direction and land at the same airfield it took off from.
[A Mars spaceplane...] Where's the Earth version?
That was point #2 of my plan. Read much?
Wow, a spaceplane constructed in LEO (a factory AND space dock?) that is designed to fly in an atmosphere never flown in before. That is pretty impressive considering that we dont' even have a spaceplace that has proved capable of flying in and out of Earth's gravitational pull.
Pegasus launch solution. It shows that the concept is highly workable. Nuclear Thermal Rockets are 40 year old, well understood beasts. While the original program was only running during the 60s (with great success I might add), NASA has done a lot of research with them since then. I've exchanged emails with an engineer who was working on NTR propulsion for NASA back in the 80's, so I can assure you that these engines are not a dead design.
[But if we're assuming that the ability to construct and launch ships in LEO already exists, then a plan costs far less money than from-earth launch systems.]
Why would you assume that?
Because that's what my plan called for. Look, my plan is based around building a Mars mission in a roundabout fashion. By building the infrastructure first, we can not only reduce risk, but we can make great strides toward building a space economy. If all we wanted was to go to Mars, we could simply construct heavy lifter craft to get the prep-work cargo and the Mars craft into space and toward Mars. Nothing to it. Honestly. Unfortunately, we'd also repeat the mistakes of Apollo. By creating a super-expensive mission with zero economic return, we'd manage to get there, come back, then state that it's too expensive and stay home.
What is the difference between radiation and radioactive isotopes?
Radiation is particles and energy waves emitted by radioactive materials. Radiation is absorbed by nearby matter, including simple air. Its concentration also falls off at the same rate as light. Radioisotopes are unstable isotopes that degrade by converting excess atomic particles into radiation. The "hottest" radioisotopes only last a few seconds, but the medium life stuff can last 50-100 years. While it's less likely to kill you where you stand, that stuff is still hot enough to kill you over a long enough exposure. i.e. As the number of radioisotopes you ingest goes up, your chances for getting cancer go up as well.
Besides pulling them out of your ass, what do you base your cost estimates on?
The Energia factory retooling was from Energia corp themselves. The cost per Energia launch was an extrapolation from the current launch costs for today's commercial rockets, factoring in info from various sources on the Energia rocket. Costs for station modules are based on Industrial construction of common building materials such as steel. (Advanced composites bring the cost of craft up significantly.) Development for the space plane comes from my own estimate based on the fact that most of the technology already exists.
Then I left in a $70+ billion dollar fudge factor to cover all the administration, certification, and other unexpected (and difficult to calculate) costs. A study would need to be conducted to nail down where all the money would actually go in the end, but it's not on the hardware, that's for sure.
Time to dust off the 40 year old NERVA boosters. Twice as efficient as the most powerful chemical rockets, longer burn time, energy to spare, and fueled by whatever gas you can find. Oh, and the current figures show that modern technology can get the craft's efficiency above the 1000 Isp mark. If they get it to 1200, it will be 3 times more efficient than the Space Shuttle's main engines, and still get you to Mars faster than any other propulsion method known. (Ion drivers are more efficient, but they don't produce much thrust.)
Your argument would make sense if a navy aircraft carrier could fly.
And your argument would make more sense if an interplanetary craft could fly. Which it can't. It's a big friggin', nuclear powered rocket that moves you from one orbit to the next. It's the job of the lander to actually make it to the surface. You know, sort of like the aircraft *on* the carrier.
And land where, exactly? Martian Interplantetary Airport? We can barely get a probe to the surface of Mars, and you want to fly a spaceplane there and get it back with current technology for under $100 billion?
Pretty much. The Mars version of the space plane would need modifications in order to fly (and land) on Mars. For one, its landing gear would need to be designed to be a bit more like the large wheels on tractors than the small wheels we use on runways today. Retro-thrusters would be needed for braking as parachutes wouldn't be able to grab much air at slow speeds. And of course, large wings would be required to keep aloft at subsonic speeds.
And I didn't touch upon logistics because I could be here until sometime next week typing up my post. Obviously any Mars mission would need to have the logistics pre-planned. But if we're assuming that the ability to construct and launch ships in LEO already exists, then a plan costs far less money than from-earth launch systems. For example, ION drives are an extremely cheap way of tugging cargo around the system. Anything that needs to be pre-launched to Mars could be sent there by the slow route.
Another reason why I didn't touch upon the logistics is because they've already been done to death. Most logistics estimates show relatively low cost for the prep-work. Depending on how you configure the mission, much of the prep-work could be carried with your craft instead, or sent years in advance.
BTW, NASA's 1989 estimate for both a Moon base and a Mars colony to coexist for 34 years was $500 billion dollars. The way I see it, my plan actually costs *more* in the short term.
uhm... small problem, there: thermal expansion.
Actually, that's not the purpose of the expensive composites. The purpose of those composites is weight. Given the cost of shuttle launches, they had to use as light of materials as possible for the space station and the shuttle. Thermal protection is usually handled by deploying a solar panel as a sun shield.
Take Skylab as an example. It was simply an empty third stage of a Saturn V rocket. Very little in the way of materials technology went into it. One of the solar panels was damaged during liftoff, causing the research lab to start cooking. It went through dozens of thermal cycles before the crew arrived and repaired it.
What I'm proposing is pretty much several "Skylabs" linked together into a larger station where actual work can get done. My estimates of 100-200 metric tons per module is significantly larger than Skylab, which weighed a mere 75 tons.
Not a single person can leave mars until launch facilities are constructed.
:-)
I could have sworn I mentioned the use of one of those cool spaceplanes as a lander vehicle. Oh wait, I did.
The actual logistics are not something I touched upon, but Zubrin had a very cheap method for making rocket fuel once you get there. Not to mention that a nuclear rocket can be fueled by just about any gas. Send some compressors with them, and they could create their own rocket fuel out of CO2. Actually, it would probably be best to use the reactor to break it into O2 instead, but that's a minor issue.
A shuttle launch flight runs about $600M per. You really think you are going to do that for 10% of that cost? Get real.
I most certainly do think that figure is accurate. You want to know why? Because Energia is a Russian rocket that would be constructed and launched on Russian soil. The current exchange rate (which shows no signs of significant improvement anytime soon) allows for Russian launches on the cheap.
Besides, a large portion of the Shuttle's costs come from certifying the craft for human launches instead of cargo launches. Not to mention the costs imposed by constant refurbishment for reentry procedures.Think more along the lines of a really big BDB like a Titan or Atlas. IIRC, an Atlas launch costs only about 10-15 million dollars. I'm willing to bet that the more powerful Proton launches are comparable simply because they're launched from Russia.
No, actually I have. That's the remainder of the $100 and some change billion. If you add up my figures, you have about $20-$30 billion dollars. IIRC, NASA's current budget is ~$14 billion a year. 10 years of NASA's budget is then $140 billion. Thus $110-$120 billion is left over for labor and administration. Now it may be expensive, but I doubt that Labor & Admin would end up being more than half of that.
The primary thing to keep in mind is to spend as little money developing new technologies as possible. If you want to know why NASA projects have runaway numbers, it's because they keep trying to build thing 20 years beyond their current technical ability.
according to the navy, a bare-bones aircraft carrier costs $4.5 Billion
And holds 4,000 crew members, weighs ~17,500 tons, contains 5 acres of deck space, and has engines capable of 30+ knots around the world, non-stop. Scale it back to a craft weighing somewhere between 100-300 metric tons, burning hydrogen for a 4-8 month trip, and the $10 billion figure should look a bit more reasonable.
Do you have any speculation on where the economic growth might come from?
Here are a few off the top of my head:
1. Mining: There are asteroids out there that are nearly entirely composed of precious metals. These would fetch quite a price on the market. The less valuable materials (e.g. water, carbon, hydrogen, iron, etc.) all are very valuable for perpetuating the space economy.
2. Tourism: How many people want to visit the moon? Or Mars? Or visit an exclusive hotel in a hollowed out asteroid? Or take a cruise to Venus?
3. Shipbuilding: The military would LOVE to have a space carrier that could deliver planes and munitions to any place in the world within an hour or two. Colonists looking to explore would happily ban together to purchase a colonization ship. Exclusive cruise ships need to be built by someone. Etc, etc.
Basically, it comes down to the fact that space becomes accessible to the upper-middle class. Once space becomes accessible, many people will want to spend money on it. Support of this would produce mountains of new jobs, research and development, future defense spending (can't let our enemies and friends gain an upper-hand in weapons technology), etc.
Not really. You have to remember that Apollo was creating technology on the way. WE ALREADY HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO DO IT TODAY. What we need is the following:
1. Heavy lifters for putting 100+ tons per launch into Low Earth Orbit. Energia Vulkan can do 200 metric tons. The Space Shuttle's engines can lift ~150 metric tons. We just need to remove the 117 metric ton shuttle out of the equation.
2. A cheap method for taking people and light cargo (read: only a few tons) into LEO. A nuclear thermal powered space plane would do nicely here. If 100% of the hardware that goes up comes back down, we'll be in good shape. It's okay if it exhausts radiation as long as it doesn't exhaust radioactive isotopes. (The radiation will disperse within seconds, but radioisotopes hang around for years.)
3. Space only, nuclear thermal rockets for missions to the moon and Mars.
Here's the plan:
Use your heavy lifters to throw a *useful* space station into Low Earth Orbit. This station should act as a construction yard and staging point. Construction crews can be ferried up via space plane.
The space plane should only be launched over the ocean to prevent accidentally raining down debris on people. On return flight, it should come down over the ocean, then make a controlled flight back to the coast.
At the station, the crews should construct the Moon/Mars craft and ready it for departure. The moon would be easy for an NTR rocket. A trip of a day or less would be feasible. If we've got our heads screwed on straight, we can use these craft to start mining the moon and nearby asteroids. This will allow us to return expensive materials to LEO for a very low cost.
Once a Mars craft is built and successfully deployed to Mars (with its own NTR spaceplane on board for landing maneuvers), the station and other hardware should be rented out to commercial enterprises. These guys can then look at making a business out of the infrastructure in place and create a new space economy
Cost figures:
Engergia Vulkan Factory Retooling: 10-15 million
Energia Launch: ??? (probably ~20-50 million per)
Station Construction: 3-7, 100-200 metric ton modules built of traditional building materials. (No expensive composites!!!) ~$10 Million per module.
Construction Equipment: ??? Fill in with standard metalworks and fab costs
Nuclear Thermal Spaceplane: This should use as much proven technology as possible. Development would be expensive (Let's say $1-3 billion) but the cost savings per flight would more than make up for those costs.
Nuclear Thermal Interplatery Craft: Depends on how large you want it. The bigger it is, the more costly it is. You could probably splurge and build it for $10 billion.
If you add up the worst case figures, you're still not even approaching 100 billion. And once the infrastructure is in place, you now have a new economic frontier to explore.
FWIW, this is not science fiction. We have all these technologies today. Unfortunately, fear of nuclear power combined with several non-space administrations (Nixon, Carter, and Clinton) have stopped us from making it a reality. Arguably, Apollo happened before we had mature technology, so that was a factor in things taking so long. One way or another, Space could give our economy explosive growth, and could do so on ~10 years of NASA budget.
The PS2 and the X-Box(sic) run Linux, so let's create a distro that turns home PC into a console with development potential.
Exactly. For the purpose of creating a PC console like the X-Box.
*shrug* Or maybe my experience was rather uncharacteristic of MSDOS gaming...
Not really. MSDOS was a PITA for users. Not to mention that game programmers basically had to write a mini-OS. Having a "game OS" that does almost nothing but interface with the hardware solves that little problem. That's what Nintendo does and that's what Sony does. Only Microsoft is lame enough to use a regular OS for their console.
Rutan is developing the launch/reentry vehicle, Armadillo is developing rocket motor/controls.
:-)
My point was that neither craft will do much of anything to revolutionize the industry. The poor performance of their craft and differing design concepts would be very poorly matched.
Come on, now. Government interest in any serious space program (at least here in the US) is dying. What's wrong with private companies banding together to make it a reality?
Absolutely nothing is wrong with private entities joining in. Unfortunately, most private launch entities have gone under due to political, legal, and social entanglements that prevented them from ever reaching space. Basically, the public is standing in the way of the visionaries without even realizing it. However, the time for real progress is quickly approaching. People are actually taking an interest in space again, and *want* to develop it. Everyone's wondering why our modern technology hasn't already given rise to starships. So much so, that rumors upon rumors have been spread about miracle technologies that "should have been included in the Space Shuttle long ago". The reality that we have to hammer in their brains is: Big ass LHOx for launch, nuclear for space.
You might find this discussion of interest.
I understood the story to mean that Linux should be used for dedicated gaming machines (i.e. consoles). Instead of being a feature on those machines, memory protection becomes a liability.
Keep dreaming. Both Armadillo and Rutan are focused on very poor space vehicles. The X-Prize simply wants them to go up and come back down. Actually reaching orbital velocity would take far more energy than these two are aiming to generate. For example, the Armadillo engines are powered by a Hydrazine monoprop which has an Isp of 160. They're looking at launching the weight of the craft + two people.
In comparison, the Space Shuttle's Solid Fuel SRBs have an Isp of 250 and the Liquid Hydrogen/Oxygen main engines have an Isp of 450. Between the two propulsion methods, the Space Shuttle can lift the craft (117 metric tons), 5 astronauts, and 29 metric tons into Low Earth Orbit (LEO). And that is nothing compared to the Russian Energia Vulkan (200 metric tons to LEO!).
The real feat of the X-Prize won't be in developing new technologies. The real feat of the X-Prize will be in sparking private sector interest in space.
Whoops. Typo alert! That should read, "A standard metric ton is 1000 kg".
A shoulder launched SAM won't reach that high. If it did, terrorists wouldn't need to fire at planes near airfields. There just isn't a good way of packing enough propellent into that little missile without severely injuring the user.
Now if you want to talk about SCUDs...
Key word is "short", i.e. a regular english ton. A standard metric ton is 2000 kg.