On Thursday 03 November 2005 01:29, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:09:42
> +1100:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>
> >Firstly the ISS is the dry dock not the ship. It is actually doing quite
> >a lot of quiet science; learning to live in space *was* the original
> >objective.
> >The ISS would not survive a trip to Mars. It would not survive the
> >required acceleration,
>
> I think that if you put the modules in line, rather than in their
> current configuration, it wouldn't have any problem with the
> acceleration. However I'm more curious about how long the trip
> would take using a nuclear reactor and an ion engine at low
> acceleration as opposed to the high acceleration chemical thruster
> you appear to be considering.
>
> >and it would not carry enough supplys to make the
> >round trip of three to five years.
>
> It need not be the whole ship.
>
> >About 30% of its mass would not be
> >required on a trip to Mars but can't be removed.
>
> What mass would that be, and why can't it be removed?
>
> >I'm in the Australian
> >Mars society and the National space society NSS. We're doing the design
> >work that Nasa keeps claiming the credit for.
>
> Excellent, then you should be able to answer all my questions! :)
>
> >Space exploration would be simpler if we had the heavy lift craft the
> >National Space Society NSS has been talking about for years and Nasa has
> >just announced it now will slowly design and build the thing./ /That's
> >called reinventing the wheel; given that volunteers in the NSS did a
> >full design a decade a go. The heavy lift ship could lift the remaining
> >ISS components in two shots. It can lift ~100 tons. We could do one lift
> >if all the bits fitted in one bundle but they don't. *Dou!*
>
> What's the lifting capacity of the Russian's largest rocket?
> [snip]
>
> > * An Orbiting network of data relay sats and navigation beacons.
> > Mars Net. It's been designed awaiting funds. This means that a
>
> How many satellites are already in Mars orbit, and is there any
> reason they can't talk to one another, and thus be used as relay
> satellites? I know there is at least one, if you count the trip
> vessel as a second, then you need only one other small satellite
> to form a triangle, and that could be taken along on the trip.
>
> > crew or robot on Mars can call earth at any time from anywhere on
> > Mars and no-one can get lost. It also means a team on Mars can
> > teleoperate a robot anywhere on the planet in real time at any
> > time.
> >
> >We have 3 fission options. Pebble bed, a and
> > neutron bombarded isotops. That's safer than EVA's.
>
> By the time this mission gets off the ground, you may have a CF
> option as well. BTW I don't think the Hafnium reactor is for real.
> Perhaps you could explain the "neutron bombarded isotopes" - where
> do the neutrons come from? Also, if by "Hafnium reactor" you are
> referring to Hf-178, then that's not really a fission option.
> [snip]
>
> > * Mars fuel plant launch. A robot rover equipped unmanned mars
> > lander that makes fuel from Martian atmosphere. Powered by some
> > kind of reactor. Cold fusion would be nice. We need 50 kw.
>
> Why not land the reactor portion of the main ship on Mars? Then
> you can use the power from the main reactor to create all the fuel
> you need in a short period of time. It would save the whole fuel
> plant trip. It could also make enough fuel for it's own launch for
> the return trip. The fuel plant could be taken along on the main
> ship. Might be better than landing only to discover that the
> previous fuel plant mission didn't quite work, and you now have no
> way of getting back. If the crew + fuel plant landing doesn't
> work, then the crew are probably dead, and not very interested in
> coming back anyway.
> [snip]
>
> > * Permanent base, probably part underground, part in multistory
> > buildings and part in modular glass houses. It needs to be placed
> > near a multi-ton water ice deposit. Pressure domes, farm designs
> > and other system are either in testing or on the drawing board.
>
> Given that the Martian atmosphere is so thin, wouldn't you expect
> the radiation hazard on the surface to be greater than on Earth?
> If so, can you really afford to have part of it in a multi-story
> building? (or is that just for the farms?)
> (Do the current Mars rovers have radiation detectors on board?)
> [snip]
> BTW it might be an idea to have 2 smaller reactors rather than 1
> large one. Then one can be left in orbit, while one lands. On the
> trips out and back, both can be used in tandem.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/
>
> Competition provides the motivation,
> Cooperation provides the means.
I hope all of our suggestions don't eventually prove to be just
academic. I just read an interview that the good people at
nuclearspace.com had with some government agencies:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote from webpage--
NASA's Project Prometheus is in partnership with the Department of
Energy's Office of Naval Reactors (DOE-NR) within the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) to develop a space nuclear reactor for use in
future robotic exploration activities. The Office of Naval Reactors (NR) is a
joint Navy-DOE organization having responsibility and authority in both
agencies. The Secretary of Energy assigned NR to partner with NASA in support
of Project Prometheus solely as a DOE civilian project.
We made an inquiry over current status in efforts to build a space reactor,
nuclearspace.com (NS) contributors posed questions to the agency responsible
for building a premier space nuclear reactor. DOE-NNSA/NR Public Affairs
Officer, Kevin Davis declined an NS phone interview request, but in a written
response to the following questions posed by NS contributors Ty Moore, Jaro
Franta and Bruce Behrhorst responded; excerpt of text below......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there followed a long obviousely scripted 'interview'. All of the 'questions'
appear to have been required to have prior submission and approval, and
all the answers appear to be direct from the agencies public relations branch
after being run through their general legal counsel. As such, most of the
questions are ducked and evaded by the interviewee, who appears to sound
like a classic broken record much of the time. The interviewee interjects
'probable lunar mission' or words to that effect into many of the questions
that the agency did consent to have presented; and then gives a standard
boiler plate denial of a 'lunar mission' over and over again. This is akin to
the old rhetorical game of setting up a 'straw man' and knocking him down.
The conclusions reached by NuclearSpace at the end were pessimistic about
our prospects and our intents concerning realistic space exporation. I tend
to agree with NuclearSpace in this, and wonder if the present administration
only wants the programs around with minimum funding to use as photo ops
and to show that it is 'doing something'. Even if it is wrong! It is
evidently not now percieved in the national interest to invest seriousely
in space, really. If so all our suggestions to this present administration
are going to be ignored until circumstances change. Face it, present so
called plans involve using some nebulous 'appolo' capsule of very small
size considering what might have to be done, and chemical rockets all
the way. No repair capability! If a micrometeoroid holes a tank and fuel
is lost, too bad! And if a crew is lost...throw up ones hands and give up
like the French in 1940.....as if this is the aim all along. But then the
chem ships will use a lot of petrol, happily sold to the government by the
oil and oil service people now primarily contracting in Iraq and the
administration high official with well known connections to that company and
its corporate child there with the three letters in its name.
The Russians, God bless 'em, have a better vision. The Russian President
said as much last March with an appeal for nuclear propulsion. Knowing they
lack funds to do it themselves, the Russians appealed then for international
cooperation on a joint venture or a series of them in order to go to Mars by
2017.
The Europeans appear to be listening. They are joining with them to
buy the Kliper. That little ship is 'cute', and it may prove quite practical.
If some of the above other technologies prove viable, it can be a platform
for a real shuttle all by itself.
The Chinese may be listening as well. They have sought out the Russians
for some close and secret agreements in recent months, many of which involve
technology transfers and weapons system purchases. The Chinese 'Taikonaut'
crew that just returned from orbit left behind a mystery satellite that they
are NOT talking about. It is no secret that the Chinese have military
interests in space. After all, it is the high ground. Look what we did to
Iraq with just photos of 'insane hoosain's sites.
For now we seem to have lost our ambition for space in a self fulfilling
civil service miasma of paperwork and 'mission-plans' with open ended
timelines extending to infinity, productive of nothing but 'cushy' retirements
for political hacks given GS-18 jobs for hatchet jobs done elsewhere.
And 'empire builders' that the civil list is known to be full of!
Such was our military-political establishment in 1957 with regard to space.
---- Then came Sputnik! -------
Only this 'Sputnik' may be a little larger!
And a little meaner!
And have a Chinese name!
And our government will act with its typical 'surprise'......
.........and the spin doctors will have another 'science gap'!
Standing Bear
We will go to space! The only question us under what conditions!
It IS in our national vital interest whether we effectively realize it or not!
