The space program we have is a joke

[nec209]

Fine. Convince your congress critters to ante up, and ante up a lot. It would be good to remember that for almost 40 years now, NASA has been running on 1/10 or less the budget they had in the Apollo era. It would also be good to remember that right now, the government is in a huge financial bind and will not ante up. They are looking instead to cut everything except for Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Defense. (In other words, they are looking to cut anything and everything except for the three things that really matter, but that is a different story.) That everything includes NASA.

 

It is more conplex than that most countries have little money to put into healthcare ,roads ,poor people and poverty so on than that alone money to put into space program.Also space mining is not profitable do to the cost is so high and space colony is so silly to think that will happen soon. It is not in the future will we have space mining and space colony in 50 years from now ,100 years from now , 150 years from now ,200 ,years from now ,300 years from now,500 or 900 years from now or 20,000 years from now the question is can it be down in cheap way and chemical rockets are like a alcoholic with are money .

 

 

It not when space mining and space colony are going to happen but is there a propulsion system that will make it cheap enough to make it reality.Has going into space is not cheap , space mining is not profitable and even space colony it is too costly for the upper middle class and yes even upper class to pay to go into space.

 

And yes a space colony sound nice but think about it you are living on the moon or mars you have to live in a futuristic dome city has if you go out of the dome there is no air to breath ,too hot or cold ,no water ,no food so on you will have to cargo all your food and water to your space colony not to say building material.Even vertical farming in the dome city may not be enough.My point is we can do all this but it be way way way way way too costly with chemical rockets to make this a reality.So it is not when space mining and space colony going to happen but is the technology or propulsion system that will make it cheap enough to make it reality.

 

 

You could categorize any space race in 3 stages .

 

1. Race that learns how to go in space ( satellite,space probes ,robots.spacewalk and space station.

2. Race thant learn how to bring the cost down so it can take of like the steam engine or combustion engine to open up space for the majority and allow space mining and space colony

3.Race that larns how to travel from one star system to other star system like in star trek

 

We are in stange 1 and have not found any technology or propulsion system to take us to stange 2.

 

The steam engine or combustion engine allow so much fast progress every year that is not the case with chemical rockets only astronautes can go into space and cost so much money it is like a alcoholic just to go to ISS for 4 days.

 

So the big question is there a technology or propulsion system to take us to stange 2 or does all the humans on earth have to be really really rich ?

 

 

That is why if I was commander of country I would spend money into rocket research and technology and still after 50 or 100 years of money going into rocket research and technology we still do not know if there is any technology or propulsion system to take us to stange 2.

 

Sorry but chemical rockets did not play out like the steam engine or combustion engine.

[D H]

It is more conplex than that most countries have little money to put into healthcare ,roads ,poor people and poverty so on than that alone money to put into space program.

Aside: Your writing would be a lot easier to read if you put some time into learning to write well. Watch for misspelled words (most browsers highlight them for you) and please learn how to use punctuation. If your native language is something other than English, it would help if you would try a little harder. If your native language is English, shame on you.

 

Back on topic: That most countries do not have space programs is irrelevant. It is as simple as I said (show us the money). You are implicitly demanding a huge increase in spending. Developing new technologies costs a lot. Rocket scientists don't come cheap, and labs, test facilities, and fabrication facilities all outfitted with appropriate equipment are extremely expensive.

 

 

 

Also space mining is not profitable do to the cost is so high and space colony is so silly to think that will happen soon. It is not in the future will we have space mining and space colony in 50 years from now ,100 years from now , 150 years from now ,200 ,years from now ,300 years from now,500 or 900 years from now or 20,000 years from now ...

Fine. Let those future generations solve those problems. It is just plain silly to develop (as opposed to researching) technologies now that won't be used for another 50 years or more. NASA, along with the US Department of Defense, Rokosmos, ESA, JAXA, etc., are researching technologies beyond chemical propulsion. They are not pouring huge amounts of money into it for a bunch of reasons. They don't have the money, for one thing. For another, at some point pouring monies into research is equivalent to pouring that money down the drain. It takes one woman nine months to have a baby. Adding extra women to the task does not shorten the time.

 

... the question is can it be down in cheap way

Your pipe dream of space colonies, space mining, etc right now? No, it can't.

[nec209]

Fine. Let those future generations solve those problems.

 

Read my post again ( that is why if I was commander of country I would spend money into rocket research and technology and still after 50 or 100 years of money going into rocket research and technology we still do not know if there is any technology or propulsion system to take us to stange 2. )

 

(as opposed to researching) technologies now that won't be used for another 50 years or more.

 

False if they found new propulsion system and fixed the engineering problem they would use it.No one knows what breakthroughs will happen or how fast the breakthroughs will happen or no breakthroughs .So putting number on it is immature of your part.

 

NASA, along with the US Department of Defense, Rokosmos, ESA, JAXA, etc., are researching technologies beyond chemical propulsion.

 

I'm sure they are !!

 

 

They are not pouring huge amounts of money into it for a bunch of reasons. They don't have the money, for one thing. For another, at some point pouring monies into research is equivalent to pouring that money down the drain.

 

Fine that do the same with medicine has it is pouring money down the drain to find cure for all cancer, all autoimmune disease and fountain of youth ,HIV so on not say the energy problem and mostly likely none of this will come true.

 

It takes one woman nine months to have a baby. Adding extra women to the task does not shorten the time.

 

What are you talking about what does women have do with space cost?

 

 

Your pipe dream of space colonies, space mining, etc right now? No, it can't

 

No it cannot happen now do to cost I was trying to explain that to you in my post above.

 

 

That most countries do not have space programs is irrelevant.

 

Well again you did not read my post ( Race that learn how to bring the cost down so it can take off like the steam engine or combustion engine to open up space for the majority and allow space mining and space colony )

 

The world majority would be the majority of people on earth.

 

 

Aside: Your writing would be a lot easier to read if you put some time into learning to write well. Watch for misspelled words (most browsers highlight them for you) and please learn how to use punctuation. If your native language is something other than English, it would help if you would try a little harder. If your native language is English, shame on you.

 

 

Learn how to dumb the replies to grade 9 level of no rocket science knowledge so I will understand the replies of the main engineering problems of laser and microwave so I'm not asking over and over here what is the main engineering problems are.

 

Here I will do the work for you .

 

ability to read and understand the replies here

The engineering problems with laser is we do not have a laser powerful enough and we need gigawatt power .So the 2 main problems with laser is it needs enormous power and we do not have a laser powerful enough .

 

Also the leaser will not work in space.So that is 3 main engineering problems why it is scfi and not reality.

 

And from InigoMontoya post on microwave saying that microwave like laser will not work in space has there is no air in space.

 

 

All you need do have done is reply say now nec209 you understand why laser will not work.Well I'm sure there may be other engineering problems too why laser and microwave will not work.You could say.

 

How is some one into learning science (no knowledge of rock science )go to NASA web site ,watch discovery or read a magazine so on see a post about laser ,microwave or space elevator and understand the engineering problems why this is scfi and will be scfi.

 

And yet you understand rock science and say I'm kid cought up into scfi world when I don't undertand not even 1.5% of rock science .I did not say building UFO's or star trek Enterprise D or in 50 years we will have warp-drive ? I could understand such a reply to those comments posted by me but laser ,microwave or space elevator shame on you.When even this mainstream scientist are talking about it.

Edited January 12, 2011 by nec209

[D H]

Read my post again ( that is why if I was commander of country I would spend money into rocket research and technology and still after 50 or 100 years of money going into rocket research and technology we still do not know if there is any technology or propulsion system to take us to stange 2. )

You don't have to shout (or use bold). I would however like it very much if you would try to write more clearly, and do so with fewer spelling and grammar errors.

 

The problem with your concept is here:

It takes one woman nine months to have a baby. Adding extra women to the task does not shorten the time.

What are you talking about what does women have do with space cost?

Throwing money and people at a problem does not guarantee a faster result. Often, just the opposite is true. That example of one woman taking nine months to have a baby exemplifies this issue. Adding resources does not help reduce that nine month interval. This is the problem of the Mythical Man-Month (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month). While the Mythical Man-Month addresses the specific problem of software project management, this is a must-read book for technical project managers of every sort. Just a couple of take-away points: Adding money and resources to a late project makes the project even later, and prematurely adding money and resources to an exploratory project is a recipe for failure.

 

To solve some technical problem, it just doesn't make sense to throw lots of resources at the problem until after the basic kinks have been identified and resolved. Consider the Manhattan Project and the Apollo Program. The Manhattan Project started as a small project in 1939 and didn't balloon to become a huge project until 1942. The basic science was developed during the two+ year interval between Einstein's letter and the official start of the project in 1942. Even with that, the project eventually cost more than ten times the initial cost estimate. Had the project not been utterly black (Congress was clueless about its existence) it would never have gone anywhere.

 

Most of the basic science and technology of getting people to the Moon were similarly fairly well understood at the onset of the Apollo Program. The US had been launching rockets, with some success (and some failures), for a good number of years. We had been putting people in very hostile environments for even longer (think submarines). The goals were clear, and where the technology wasn't well-known (navigation, rendezvous and docking, landing on the Moon to name a few), the roadmap to resolving those problems was fairly easy to see. Because of this (and because Congress was aware of every cent going to the program), the Apollo program overran its initial 1961 budget by only 7%.

 

You are asking for something very different. The goals are a bit fuzzier and the technology to achieve those goals is unknown. Throwing immense amounts money at the project (something that cannot happen given the current economy and the current governments in the space faring nations) will guarantee one thing: The program will be canceled in just a few years with nothing worthy coming of it. Sorry to be blunt, but that is the way R&D works. You don't throw big chunks of money at a problem until the timing is right. The timing is not right for space colonies and space mining.

 

False if they found new propulsion system and fixed the engineering problem they would use it.No one knows what breakthroughs will happen or how fast the breakthroughs will happen or no breakthroughs .So putting number on it is immature of your part.

You are asking for a magic bullet to solve the problem of making space colonies and space mining feasible. There is no such magic bullet, and wishing for one will not make that magic bullet suddenly appear out of thin air. Throwing money at people to find that magic bullet will not work for the reasons cited above.

 

Well again you did not read my post ( Race that learn how to bring the cost down so it can take off like the steam engine or combustion engine to open up space for the majority and allow space mining and space colony )

Just because something is easy in a science fiction movie does not mean it is easy in reality. The main problem here is that you have false expectations of what is achievable. Stop looking at things from the perspective of what movie directors can accomplish using props galore, lots of computer graphics, and freedom from the laws of physics. Look instead at Space X, Scaled Composites/Virgin Galactic, Orbital Sciences Corporation, and maybe even the tried-and-true aerospace companies who are feeling a lot of pressure from these newcomers. There is, right at this very moment, a whole lot in the offing in terms of space exploration if you look at things from a realistic perspective.

[nec209]

You not looking at the big picture so that me explain .The propulsion system are fusion propulsion ,fission propulsion , laser propulsion ,chemical propulsion ,Ion propulsion , plasma propulsion ,microwave propulsion ,anti-matter propulsion also many types of laser propulsion all mainstream what scientist are talking about .

 

 

The fringe propulsion are negetive energy/negetive matter,levitation,anti-gravity or megnetic propulsion and I will explain later .

 

 

Well we can put Ion propulsion or plasma propulsion in the trash can has the thrust is too low to take stuff up into space.And it looks like laser propulsion and microwave propulsion is going in the trash can too.

 

We do not have fusion so there is no point putting money into that to we get a working fusion power station. And anti-matter ( very very very costly (way more than chemical propulsion) , very hard to make and cannot be stored has fuele has we do not know how to store it yet.It is very very costly and even if in 50 or 100 years we can make anti-matter very cheap and can store it and use it like fuel well it will be banned in earth thus it can only be used for deep space .Has size of rock would destory all of New York city.No one will take that chance.

 

So anti-matter we can put in a trash can and fusion we will put on hold to we get a working fusion power station.

 

And fission propulsion not read much about it but looks like it may work .Great we just put laser propulsion ,microwave propulsion ,Ion propulsion ,plasma propulsion, anti-matter in the trash can.That gives us only fission propulsion has we have no fusion working power station.

 

So all they have is fission propulsion and chemical propulsion.

 

Now the fringe propulsion is there negetive energy/negetive matter no one has made it or seen it in world so may be one day we may make it my chance you cannot give money to people to try to make some thing that is may not be real.

 

Now levitation or anti-gravity no one has made it or seen this in world so may be it is real but no one has discovered it yet or we may never discover it do to it does not exit.

 

And megnetic propulsion well we do not know how to make a monopole. So the fringe propulsion there is no point putting money into it because it has high chance of not being real and even if some of this is real we would have no idea how to go about research it !! So if such a fringe propulsion does exit it be discovered by chance has we have no idea about how to research it has there is no math or theory about finding out if this exits or not or how to go about researching it .

 

 

some other propulsion out there we do not know about like green water ,crystal or special element well it is beyond fringe and we have no idea if such other propulsion exit or not so no point putting money into it and hope it may exit.Well great we just ruled out no money going into fringe propulsion has I explain why above.

 

So that just leaves us with fission propulsion and chemical propulsion and may be fusion propulsion if we can get a working fusion power station .

 

The only non propulsion system is space loop ,space elevator,Launch loop ,Space gun and Space fountain and these are not propulsion system and I'm sure you going to reply here and say some of these may not work do to ***** **** ***

 

Great so that gives us only fission propulsion we can put research into or one of the non propulsion ie space loop ,space elevator,Launch loop ,Space gun and Space fountain and if you reply here and say this will not work do to **** **** than the only answer well thats make a war on poverty and hope we are smart enough to make everyone rich like Bill Gates if not well we will never go to stange 2 and stange 2 will be scfi.

Edited January 13, 2011 by nec209

[D H]

You not looking at the big picture so that me explain .

You don't need to explain anything. You are wishing upon a star, a star that doesn't exist. You are not qualified to judge the quality of our space program. I am. This is my job. Part of my job is looking at the big picture with respect to space exploration.

 

 

The propulsion system are fusion propulsion ,fission propulsion , laser propulsion ,chemical propulsion ,Ion propulsion , plasma propulsion ,microwave propulsion ,anti-matter propulsion also many types of laser propulsion all mainstream what scientist are talking about .

Chemical propulsion is what we know and what we use. There remains significant room for improvement in chemical propulsion. Ion propulsion and plasma propulsion have some promise. Fission propulsion has a lot of promise but also an immense amount of political baggage, enough political baggage to make it rather dubious that it can be employed. The rest? Pipe dreams, or worse.

 

My advice: Stop dreaming and get real. The space programs we have today are not the stuff of science fiction movies. So what? They are real. There is a lot of exciting stuff going on right now. If you would just take off your sci-fi glasses you would see.

 

You refuse to see, so I am done with this thread.

Edited January 13, 2011 by D H

[nec209]

You don't need to explain anything. You are wishing upon a star, a star that doesn't exist. You are not qualified to judge the quality of our space program. I am. This is my job. Part of my job is looking at the big picture with respect to space exploration.

 

You seem to be not able to read I'm NOT I say again NOT talking about making a UFO, Enterprise D,warp drive or going to other star system?I'm qualified to say we are not close to space mining or space colony do to money problem and the last time I chacked not even 0.00000003% of people on earth have gone up into space. We are no where close to stange 2.

 

Chemical propulsion is what we know and what we use. There remains significant room for improvement in chemical propulsion. Ion propulsion and plasma propulsion have some promise. Fission propulsion has a lot of promise but also an immense amount of political baggage, enough political baggage to make it rather dubious that it can be employed. The rest? Pipe dreams, or worse.

 

Look Chemical propulsion and may be Fission propulsion if it gets enough money is the only thing that will take us up into space.In space we could use Ion propulsion ,plasma propulsion solar sails to take us places much faster.

 

My advice: Stop dreaming and get real. The space programs we have today are not the stuff of science fiction movies. So what? They are real. There is a lot of exciting stuff going on right now. If you would just take off your sci-fi glasses you would see.

 

Read my post again .What is wrong with trying to get to stange 2? No you false all scfi shows are stange 3 not stange 2.You do not seem to know too much about scfi .

 

You could categorize any space race in 3 stages .

 

1. Race that learns how to go in space ( satellite,space probes ,robots.spacewalk and space station.

2. Race thant learn how to bring the cost down so it can take of like the steam engine or combustion engine to open up space for the majority and allow space mining and space colony

3.Race that larns how to travel from one star system to other star system like in star trek

 

We are in stange 1 and have not found any technology or propulsion system to take us to stange 2.

 

You refuse to see, so I am done with this thread

 

No you seem to be worked up that I'm hooked on laser propulsion and derailing every post I make.

 

 

Also you did not say any thing about space loop ,,launch loop ,space gun and space fountain and any thing more on the space elevator why these thing will not work.

Edited January 13, 2011 by nec209

[Mr Skeptic]

Also you did not say any thing about space loop ,,launch loop ,space gun and space fountain and any thing more on the space elevator why these thing will not work.

 

They're big, expensive, untested, and some crazy person or jealous country is going to blow it up. On top of that, on one has the money to build this considering the risks.

 

The space elevator has the additional problem that it won't work. It won't work because we probably can't build one, and even if we could good luck trying to climb it.

 

The launch loop seems like the best option to me, but it requires the loop to go all the way around the earth, over countries and over international waters. Good luck keeping it safe, or getting people to agree to have something with as much energy as a nuke over their heads.

 

The space gun might work, but the acceleration would make it useless for humans or even some items.

 

As for plasma and ion, they work fine. Only you have to be in space to use them. Alone they won't work but we use them fine now, all you have to do is lift them up first.

[Moontanman]

There remains significant room for improvement in chemical propulsion.

 

 

Would you care to elaborate on that? Exactly what chemical reaction can we use to get better than 450 isp?

[nec209]

I will like more information on the space elevator and launch loop the engineering problems and the only thing I read on the space elevator if the cable snapped it would do massive damage I guess do to it being so high so it may be safety why they will not build it in the future even if we had technology to build it very high.

 

Also note I was kinda harsh with DH I would not want to get my posts removed or reputation removed do to posting being kinda rude do to kinda miniature flame war of rude posting.

Edited January 13, 2011 by nec209

[D H]

Would you care to elaborate on that? Exactly what chemical reaction can we use to get better than 450 isp?

Specific impulse is not the be-all and end-all. Look at ion propulsion. It has a huge specific impulse. Short of an incredible breakthrough, it cannot be used for launch. Look at solar sails. With no propellant whatsoever, it has an infinite specific impulse. The tiny force (tiny, tiny, tiny force) exerted by even a very large sail limits the utility of solar sails. There is a lot to be said for low Isp fuels that require much less intensive processing and much less expensive / less massive storage. This is particularly true for fuel used on-orbit. If you want fuel depots in space (and NASA does), the economics and safety that result from easily-handled, easily-stored, high thrust, but low-Isp fuels can be rather compelling.

 

There is a lot of room for improvement in operational costs. A lot of NASA's costs stem from the huge marching armies in Florida, Houston, Huntsville, Bay Saint Louis, etc. needed to plan, prepare for, operate, and recover from launch. Cut down on these marching armies and their multiple expensive facilities and you have done a lot to reduce the cost of access to space. This is the SpaceX route: Build a simpler, more reusable vehicle and keep the ground operations down to a minimum.

 

There is still room for an immense breakthrough in chemical propulsion in the form of air-breathing rockets such as scramjets. Although this is still science fiction in a sense, a lot of work has been done in this arena. While specific impulse isn't the be-all and end-all, the potential for a *huge* specific impulse of an air-breathing rocket makes this the most active future propulsion research area currently funded by NASA and by the DoD.

[Moontanman]

Specific impulse is not the be-all and end-all. Look at ion propulsion. It has a huge specific impulse. Short of an incredible breakthrough, it cannot be used for launch. Look at solar sails. With no propellant whatsoever, it has an infinite specific impulse. The tiny force (tiny, tiny, tiny force) exerted by even a very large sail limits the utility of solar sails. There is a lot to be said for low Isp fuels that require much less intensive processing and much less expensive / less massive storage. This is particularly true for fuel used on-orbit. If you want fuel depots in space (and NASA does), the economics and safety that result from easily-handled, easily-stored, high thrust, but low-Isp fuels can be rather compelling.

 

There is a lot of room for improvement in operational costs. A lot of NASA's costs stem from the huge marching armies in Florida, Houston, Huntsville, Bay Saint Louis, etc. needed to plan, prepare for, operate, and recover from launch. Cut down on these marching armies and their multiple expensive facilities and you have done a lot to reduce the cost of access to space. This is the SpaceX route: Build a simpler, more reusable vehicle and keep the ground operations down to a minimum.

 

There is still room for an immense breakthrough in chemical propulsion in the form of air-breathing rockets such as scramjets. Although this is still science fiction in a sense, a lot of work has been done in this arena. While specific impulse isn't the be-all and end-all, the potential for a *huge* specific impulse of an air-breathing rocket makes this the most active future propulsion research area currently funded by NASA and by the DoD.

 

 

You made the claim that there is room for much improvement in chemical rockets, I didn't ask about ion or any other type of propulsion. Jet engines do not work in space, yes they can be used to get a rocket closer to space but in space a jet engine is dead weight. Now I'll ask again exactly what immense break through in chemical rockets are you talking about? The space shuttles main engines are as good as it gets with chemicals (you can do a tiny bit better with fluorine instead of oxygen but the result is nasty and very dangerous)

 

Chemical rockets are at their peak at a Isp of 450, solid core nuclear rockets Isp top out at about 900, gasious core nuclear light bulb rockets top out with an Isp of about 5000. If "there remains significant room for improvement in chemical propulsion" I'd like to know what it is because ions aren't going to get us off the ground any time soon, neither is plasma or lasers or microvaves so if you know of a chemcial rocket fuel with significantly more power than the space shuttles main engines please let us in on the secrete...

 

Of course once you get into space there is this one.... capable of 3.6% of the speed of light?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_salt-water_rocket

 

A nuclear salt-water rocket (or NSWR) is a proposed type of nuclear thermal rocket designed by Robert Zubrin that would be fueled by water bearing dissolved salts of Plutonium or U235. These would be stored in tanks that would prevent a critical mass from forming by some combination of geometry or neutron absorption (for example: long tubes made out of boron in an array with considerable spacing between tubes). Thrust would be generated by nuclear fission reactions from the nuclear salts heating the water and being expelled through a nozzle. The water would serve as both a neutron moderator and propellant.

 

Because of their ability to harness the power of what is essentially a continuous nuclear fission explosion, NSWRs would have both very high thrust and very high exhaust velocity, a rare combination of traits in the rocket world, meaning that the rocket would be able to accelerate quickly as well as be extremely efficient in terms of propellant usage. One design would generate 13 meganewtons of thrust at 66 km/s exhaust velocity (compared to ~4.5 km/s exhaust velocity for the best chemical rockets of today). Another design would achieve much higher exhaust velocities (4,700 km/s) and use 2,700 tonnes of highly enriched Uranium salts in water to propel a 300 tonne spacecraft up to 3.6% of the speed of light.

 

Lots of "far out" stuff that "could" be used that is not science fiction just but still improbable...

 

There is no doubt that nuclear power has some real baggage to get to the curb, my generation grew up ducking and covering and watching the radioactive thing that ate the world moves and being in constant fear of a nuclear strike while we lay in bed at home after the movie. Then all you heard was how nuclear power was evil it killed small furry things and more or less just ruined your day if you even thought of it. I'm not sure how or even if we will find a way to get this baggage to the curb and into the taxi to the space port but if we want to expand into space or even explore it we will need nuclear power in one way or another...

 

If anyone hasn't read this article please do so it contains some interesting comparisons of the dangers of nuclear power and how risk mitigation helps us control any damage.

 

http://www.nuclearspace.com/Liberty_ship_menupg.html

Edited January 13, 2011 by Moontanman

[D H]

You made the claim that there is room for much improvement in chemical rockets, I didn't ask about ion or any other type of propulsion.

I used those as a comparison, Moontanman to illustrate that specific impulse is not the be-all and end-all in propulsion. You are acting as if specific impulse is the only thing that counts. It isn't.

 

 

Jet engines do not work in space, yes they can be used to get a rocket closer to space but in space a jet engine is dead weight. Now I'll ask again exactly what immense break through in chemical rockets are you talking about?

An air-breathing rocket would be a *huge* breakthrough. Cheap access to low Earth orbit is the first and absolutely essential step toward cheap access to space. Example: The delta-V cost from low Earth orbit to low Mars orbit is about 2/3 of the delta-V cost of just getting into low Earth orbit in the first place. Air-breathing rockets are one way to attain that cheap access to low Earth orbit. Air-breathing rockets are chemical propulsion.

 

Chemical rockets are at their peak at a Isp of 450, solid core nuclear rockets Isp top out at about 900, gasious core nuclear light bulb rockets top out with an Isp of about 5000. If "there remains significant room for improvement in chemical propulsion"

I told you exactly what those opportunities for improvement were in my previous post. I suggest you re-read it. Stop looking at specific impulse as the one and only metric for "improvement". (Besides, air-breathing rockets have a huge specific impulse, and they are chemical propulsion.) The ultimate metric is cost, e.g., dollars and cents.

[Moontanman]

Isp is a good comparator of different methods of propelling a rocket, i am aware there are others but Isp is simple and easy to understand. i understand that air breathing engines can be used with in the atmosphere but the last I read the added weight and complexity of the air breathing engines off set any advantage to using them, of course I am always prepared to read a different assesment....

[D H]

but the last I read the added weight and complexity of the air breathing engines off set any advantage to using them, of course I am always prepared to read a different assesment....

What NASA and the DoD are currently researching, and have been researching for looong time, are scramjets. Whether this will ever have a return on investment, who knows?

 

Regarding your nuclear light bulb that you raised back in posts #67 and #69 -- Some movies are "so bad they're good." "Plan 9 From Outer Space", "Twisted Brain", ... That webpage you cited in post #69 was right up there with those movies.

[nec209]

Moontanman that is why I'm not going to debate any more with DH has it is just leading to rude posts has he seems to have some fetish to chemical rockets and any thing other than chemical rockets is crackpot idea.He also seems to think I have a fetish to laser and want space mining and space colony ASAP.

 

I will take back that comment of trying to get to stange 2 and if we can get space cost down by 50% that would be major breathgrouth so it go like this.

 

1. Race that learns how to go in space ( satellite,space probes ,robots.spacewalk and space station.

1A Race that learns how to bring space cost down so we can go in space more and do more things

2. Race thant learn how to bring the cost down more so it can take of like the steam engine or combustion engine to open up space for the majority and allow space mining and space colony

3.Race that larns how to travel from one star system to other star system like in star trek

 

 

I will take back that comment of majority of people on earth going into space even 10% of the people on earth going into space and space mining and space colony has we are way way way too primitive to try to do this but may be advanced enough to try to research to get to stange 1A .

 

Also to be fair there is research going into space plane/ rocket a space plane/rocket on a rocket the rocket takes it up into space and the space plane/rocket unhooks and shoots off has little fuel is needed in space so you do not need a big fuel tank .Other is plane takes off and use a jet engine to x altitude and than the rocket engine kicks in and other is like Virgin Galactic a space plane/rocket on plane that takes it up to x altitude and the space plane/rocket unhooks and shoot off .

 

You Blue Origin the Blue Origin New Shepard reusable launch vehicle is a manned rocket which is being developed by Blue Origin the New Shepard craft is planned to be a vertical take-off/vertical landing it is SSTO a DC-X.You have Kankoh-maru vertical takeoff and landing, single-stage to orbit, reusable launch vehicle and Dream Chaser planned crewed suborbital and orbital spacecraft being .So yes there is lots of stuff happing in the private sector and some of these may be only LEO now but over years they will learn and go in space.They will bring the cost down and take up rich people and do more what are government cannot do has governments are not good at doing things like the private sector other than war time and fear of death .

 

But the reason I did not talk about it or have a big party with champagne and cake has I do not think they will bring the cost down enough .Yes a new small space shuttle ,SSTO and space plane/rock combo,reusable launch vehicle will bring cost down but I do not think it will be enough and the same with space-x.There is only so much you can do with chemical.

 

The car engine like the jet engine has moving parts that is why every year it is more fuel efficient has they making less moving parts and a rocket engine is more like plumbing and next to impossible to make more fuel efficient other than they could do is build better nozzles and valves not say new stong lightweight material with advanced chemistry and nanotechnology.But still I do not think this will bring the cost down enough.

 

That is why NASA and agency are looking into other propulsion systems not say mainstream scientist are starting to look into other propulsion systems.But this poster DH is saying everyone at NASA and other agency not say airforce and mainstream scientist are all crack pot ideas and chemical rockets are the only way too go ,and he saying get of scfi and I'm sure he is a lobbyist that wants to do away of human space flight and go to space probes ,robots and hubble only.

 

 

That is why I will not debate any more with him has he has a fetish to chemical rockets and he is not replying in constructive manner that me explain some of the engineering problems of the other propulsion systems why it is scfi now and why it is not reality now.

[Moontanman]

What NASA and the DoD are currently researching, and have been researching for looong time, are scramjets. Whether this will ever have a return on investment, who knows?

 

So if Queen Isabella and Spain had been researching better birch bark canoes Columbus should never have been financed?

 

Regarding your nuclear light bulb that you raised back in posts #67 and #69 -- Some movies are "so bad they're good." "Plan 9 From Outer Space", "Twisted Brain", ... That webpage you cited in post #69 was right up there with those movies.

 

If you read the article I don't understand what you are trying to say and if you didn't you missed quite an interesting description of why nuclear power is not as dangerous as the general population thinks it is.

 

If you didn't read the article you should, but either way your analogy still makes no sense to me.... Those movies had no basis what so ever in reality, gaseous core nuclear reactors have been made.... they work, they are not some twisted idea of a movie writer who wanted to scare people...

 

Moontanman that is why I'm not going to debate any more with DH has it is just leading to rude posts has he seems to have some fetish to chemical rockets and any thing other than chemical rockets is crackpot idea.He also seems to think I have a fetish to laser and want space mining and space colony ASAP.

 

I will take back that comment of trying to get to stange 2 and if we can get space cost down by 50% that would be major breathgrouth so it go like this.

 

1. Race that learns how to go in space ( satellite,space probes ,robots.spacewalk and space station.

1A Race that learns how to bring space cost down so we can go in space more and do more things

2. Race thant learn how to bring the cost down more so it can take of like the steam engine or combustion engine to open up space for the majority and allow space mining and space colony

3.Race that larns how to travel from one star system to other star system like in star trek

 

 

I will take back that comment of majority of people on earth going into space even 10% of the people on earth going into space and space mining and space colony has we are way way way too primitive to try to do this but may be advanced enough to try to research to get to stange 1A .

 

Also to be fair there is research going into space plane/ rocket a space plane/rocket on a rocket the rocket takes it up into space and the space plane/rocket unhooks and shoots off has little fuel is needed in space so you do not need a big fuel tank .Other is plane takes off and use a jet engine to x altitude and than the rocket engine kicks in and other is like Virgin Galactic a space plane/rocket on plane that takes it up to x altitude and the space plane/rocket unhooks and shoot off .

 

You Blue Origin the Blue Origin New Shepard reusable launch vehicle is a manned rocket which is being developed by Blue Origin the New Shepard craft is planned to be a vertical take-off/vertical landing it is SSTO a DC-X.You have Kankoh-maru vertical takeoff and landing, single-stage to orbit, reusable launch vehicle and Dream Chaser planned crewed suborbital and orbital spacecraft being .So yes there is lots of stuff happing in the private sector and some of these may be only LEO now but over years they will learn and go in space.They will bring the cost down and take up rich people and do more what are government cannot do has governments are not good at doing things like the private sector other than war time and fear of death .

 

But the reason I did not talk about it or have a big party with champagne and cake has I do not think they will bring the cost down enough .Yes a new small space shuttle ,SSTO and space plane/rock combo,reusable launch vehicle will bring cost down but I do not think it will be enough and the same with space-x.There is only so much you can do with chemical.

 

The car engine like the jet engine has moving parts that is why every year it is more fuel efficient has they making less moving parts and a rocket engine is more like plumbing and next to impossible to make more fuel efficient other than they could do is build better nozzles and valves not say new stong lightweight material with advanced chemistry and nanotechnology.But still I do not think this will bring the cost down enough.

 

That is why NASA and agency are looking into other propulsion systems not say mainstream scientist are starting to look into other propulsion systems.But this poster DH is saying everyone at NASA and other agency not say airforce and mainstream scientist are all crack pot ideas and chemical rockets are the only way too go ,and he saying get of scfi and I'm sure he is a lobbyist that wants to do away of human space flight and go to space probes ,robots and hubble only.

 

 

That is why I will not debate any more with him has he has a fetish to chemical rockets and he is not replying in constructive manner that me explain some of the engineering problems of the other propulsion systems why it is scfi now and why it is not reality now.

 

 

There are many advanced technologies that we need to perfect before we start to build huge planet changing things like space elevators, space colonies or terra form planets much less star ships and we need these technologies to get to the point where we can see if things like lasers and plasma beams to what ever can be done.

 

The sad thing is that a great many people do not see the need for incremental steps, we cannot leap to some sort of antimatter drive until we complete the steps in between where we are and where we want to be. One of the most important things to remember here is that the space program is not expensive, the budget for NASA is almost an after thought, something politicians can pledge to do something about (one way or another) with out having any real effect on the whole but make themselves look like they are doing something, much like a whipping boy that is trotted out by which ever side needs to make a point at the time.

 

This is as silly as playing the lotto to make money, spend a couple bucks to win $200,000,000, can it happen sure it can but do you want your future to depend on winning the lotto? Of course not, we as a species or at the very least as a society need to invest our money wisely and space travel will almost certainly pay off in the future. The question is do we invest now to make sure we have what we need later or do we spend our money on huge amounts of silliness that will never amount to anything but more people on increasingly smaller planet or do we invest a reasonable sum to try and escape that eventuality? i say we invest money in the technology of space travel, real technology, and if by chance we win the lotto then great, but if we don't invest now we will end up with lots of worthless lotto tickets and nothing to show for it.

 

Make no mistake, we need to stop pretending that NASA is too expensive to support, NASA is too important not to finance, it's certainly more important than a new way to murder other people more efficiently ...

Edited January 13, 2011 by Moontanman

[D H]

So if Queen Isabella and Spain had been researching better birch bark canoes Columbus should never have been financed?

Oh, please. Did I say anything like that? No. Have I said we should stop researching advanced technologies? No. So please do stop putting words in my mouth and using fallacies.

 

If you didn't read the article you should, but either way your analogy still makes no sense to me.... Those movies had no basis what so ever in reality, gaseous core nuclear reactors have been made.... they work, they are not some twisted idea of a movie writer who wanted to scare people...

I did read the article. It is just badly written sci-fi, and no, gaseous core nuclear reactors have not been made. All that has been done is paper studies and computer models.

 

Gas core nuclear rockets might well be the next big thing. It will be a long time before such a spacecraft is ever used for people or even hauling cargo. And it will be an even longer time before it is used for launch. That picture was ludicrous.

 

Nuclear power has some powerful opponents. NASA currently uses Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators on its deep space missions that go beyond Mars (solar panels just don't cut it past Mars). The amount of plutonium in those RTGs is small - less than 10 kg. Yet every launch of a probe equipped with an RTG is met with protestors. Ramp that up to the scale needed for a GCNR and it wouldn't just be wacko groups protesting. Entire nations would get in on the act.

 

The article did not address safety issues associated with gas core nuclear rockets at all. It instead said that people have died using chemical propulsion systems (and by implication, the GCNR proponents don't have to worry about safety).

 

Ignore the safety issue: Nobody knows how to build one. To repeat what I said before, nobody has built a gas core nuclear reactor, let alone a gas core nuclear rocket. That means that GCNRs, if they ever are used, will not be used for at least 20 years. It takes a long time to develop new technologies and bring them up to the state of technology readiness where they are deemed ready for prime time.

 

So what are we supposed to do for the next 20 years? Wait for the magic bullet to suddenly arrive? That would be the death of the space program, and it would be the death of any research toward finding that magic bullet. Various countries in various forms have tried this experiment before. Great Britain, for example, at the urging of their space scientists, made it illegal for British government agencies to have anything to do with human spaceflight. The end result: Britain has one of the weakest space programs amongst the Commonwealth nations. The space scientists who convinced Parliament to ban British involvement in human spaceflight had to move out of the country or find other careers. It is only in the last year or so that Britain has begun to relax its ban.

 

Putting space exploration on hiatus until the magic bullet arrives that takes us to nec209's stage 2 is a guarantee that that magic bullet will never arrive. We need to keep moving forward with the technology that we have now and research candidate new technologies at a low level -- and that is exactly what the space programs around the world are doing.

[Mr Skeptic]

Sadly, from what I checked the nuclear rockets that have actually been built, they barely generate enough thrust to lift the weight of their own engine.

[Moontanman]

The article did not address safety issues associated with gas core nuclear rockets at all. It instead said that people have died using chemical propulsion systems (and by implication, the GCNR proponents don't have to worry about safety).

 

You didn't read the article, you skimmed it, saw what you wanted to read and dismissed the rest.... It might be badly written science fiction but they did indeed address safty issues...

 

 

http://www.nuclearspace.com/Liberty_ship_pg10.html

 

Also, to repeat, due to the extremely high temperature gradient in the motor, the main cooling of the fissioning mass is not conductive but radiative, a mode which is inherently less susceptible to perturbations. (Having no working fluid for cooling means no material characteristics for the working fluid must be considered.) This radiative cooling mechanism is what allows the "lightbulb" system to work. The silica bulb just has to be transparent enough to let the gigantic power output of the fissioning core flow through, while keeping the radioactive material of the core safely contained inside the thruster. No radioactive materials leak out of the exhaust, it is completely "clean."

 

Third, a gas cored reactor has several potential "scram" modes, both fast and slow, and the speed of the reaction is easily "throttled" by adding and removing fuel or by manipulating the vortex. A 'scram' is an emergency shutdown, usually done in a very fast way. For example: a gas cored reactor can be fast scrammed by using a pressurized "shotgun" behind a weak window. If the core exceeds the design parameters of the window, which are to be slightly weaker than the silica "lightbulb," then the "shotgun" blasts 150 or so kilos of boron/cadmium pellets into the uranium gas, quenching the reaction immediately. A slightly slower scram which is implemented totally differently is to vary the gas jets in the core to instill a massive disturbance into the fuel vortex. This disturbance would drastically reduce criticality in the fission gas. A third scram mode, slightly slower still, is to implement a high-speed vacuum removal of the fuel mass into the storage system. Having three separate scram modes, one of which is passively triggered, should instill plenty of safety margin in the nuclear core of each thruster.

 

Then there is this as well, is he lying or misleading us?

 

 

Extensive work was done on gas core reactors, and 25 years ago several experimental designs were built and run successfully. There were technical challenges, but nothing that seems insurmountable or even especially difficult given our current computer and material skills.

The engine I propose is this:

 

A Gas cored NTR using a silica lightbulb. The silica bulb is cooled and pressure-balanced against the thrust chamber by high pressure hydrogen gas. The cooling gas from the silica bulb is used to power three turbopumps "borrowed" from the Space Shuttle Main Engine. These pumps are run at a very relaxed 88 percent of rated power at their maximum setting. The three pumps move 178 kilos of liquid hydrogen per second combined. Most of this is sprayed into the thrust chamber. A portion of the liquid hydrogen is forced into cooling channels for the thrust chamber and expansion nozzle, where a portion of it is bled from micropores to form a cooling gas layer. The gaseous hydrogen that is not bled then flows down the silica lightbulb to cool it, and the cycle finally goes into powering the turbopumps.

 

This engine produces 1,200,000 pounds of thrust, with an exhaust velocity of 30,000 meters per second, from a thermal output of approximately 80 gigawatts. This equates to an Isp of 3060 seconds. Several sources state that a gas core NTR can exceed 5000 seconds Isp, so 3060 is well inside the overall performance envelope. The three turbopumps from the SSME are run at low power levels, and even losing a pump allows the engine to continue running as long as there is no damage to the nuclear core. Lets assume this design is able to achieve a thrust to weight ratio of ten to one, so the engine and all of its safety systems, off-line fuel storage, etc, weighs 120,000 pounds. I think we can build this engine easily for 60 tons.

 

We have the engine. Now to design the entire vehicle.

 

Since we are using the Saturn V as our template, we will make the new machine about the same weight, or six million pounds launch weight. With our engines giving 1.2 million pounds of thrust, we need at least five to get off the ground. But, since we have the power of nuclear on our side, we will use seven engines instead of five. Why seven? The most vulnerable moments of a rocket launch are the first fifteen seconds after launch. If we have to scram a motor in those fifteen seconds, having two extras is very comforting. Engine failures further along the flight profile are much easier to recover from, and having two spare engines allows us to be very "chicken" on our criteria for scramming a motor. We can shut one down even at one second after launch if we need to with no risk of crashing the entire vehicle. This further lowers the risk of nuclear power as a means of getting off the earth.

With seven engines, we have a thrust of 8.4 million pounds available. In addition, the turbopumps can "overthrottle" the engines easily in dire straits. This gets more thrust at the expense of less Isp.

 

Let's design the vehicle for a total DeltaV of 15 km per second. This is very high for a LEO booster, but the reason for it is to allow enough reaction mass to perform a powered descent. In other words, this is a true spaceship, that flies up and then can fly back down again.

 

The formula to calculate DeltaV from a rockets mass is:

DeltaV = c * ln(M0/M1).

 

'c' is exhaust velocity of the engines and equals 30,000 m/s.

'ln' is the natural log.

'M0' is the initial mass of the vehicle, and we have set this to be 6 million pounds.

'M1' is the mass of the vehicle when it runs dry of reaction mass.

 

The value of M1 is what we need to find, since we know we want a total DeltaV of 15,000 m/s.

 

Doing a little simple math, we find we need 2,400,000 pounds of reaction mass. Since we are using liquid hydrogen, we can now calculate the size of the hydrogen tank needed, which is 15,200 cubic meters. This works out to be a whopping 20 meters in diameter and 55 meters long!

 

We look at the Saturn V and find our new booster is going to be quite plump compared to the sleek Saturn V, but we have no choice if we want to use liquid hydrogen as reaction mass. Since hydrogen is the best reaction mass physics allows, and is cheap, plentiful, and we have decades of experience handling it, we will use it.

 

A design height of 105 meters seems reasonable. We assign 15 meters to the engines, 55 meters for the hydrogen tank, 5 meters for shielding and crew space, and a modular cargo area which is 30 meters high and 20 meters in diameter. This is enough cargo space for a good sized office building!

 

How heavy is the rest of the vehicle? Well, we already decided that the engines are going to weigh 120,000 pounds each, for a total of 840,000 pounds. (To make a comparison, the entire Saturn V, all three stages, engines and all, weighed a mere 414,000 pounds dry.)

 

Let's splurge here. With nuclear power, we have the power to splurge. Let's use 760,000 pounds to build all of the structure of the new booster. We use thicker and stronger metal, we use extra layers of redundancy, we make it strong and safe and reliable.

 

We have now used 2,400,000 pounds for reaction mass, 840,000 pounds for the engines, and 760,000 pounds for the rest of the ship's dry structure. This adds up to 4,000,000 pounds, fully built, fully fueled, ready to launch.

 

But we said at the beginning, the booster has a design launch weight of 6,000,000 pounds! If it only weighs 4 million pounds ready to launch, the rest must be cargo capacity.

 

This machine has a Low Earth Orbit cargo capacity of TWO MILLION POUNDS.

 

It is fully reusable. We gave it enough fuel to fly back safely from orbit.

 

It has MASSIVE redundancy and multiple levels of safety mechanisms.

 

Its exhaust is completely clean: It is very difficult to make hydrogen radioactive in a fission reactor. It basically can't happen.

 

It flies to space with a thousand tons of cargo, and flies back using some gentle aero-braking and its thrusters with another thousand tons of cargo.

 

This means it has eight times the cargo capacity of the Saturn V, which was not reusable at all. No longer will the Saturn V be the mightiest American rocket. No more resting on our laurels.

 

With this sort of performance potential, can anyone argue that NTR's are NOT the only sensible course for heavy lift boosters?

 

There are risks, of course, but careful design and the proper launch site can easily mitigate those risks so that the huge advantages of nuclear propulsion can be realized.

 

If you are going to ridicule this mans article at least read it, I've exchanged e-mails with him, he is a very reasonable human being, I don't think he is a pro nuclear crazy or writing science fiction except in the sense that is it a fictitious account of what we could do with current technology if we could get past the idea that nuclear is evil....

 

Sadly, from what I checked the nuclear rockets that have actually been built, they barely generate enough thrust to lift the weight of their own engine.

 

 

I know only solid core reactor rockets have ever been built and they were never run at full power (I can't confirm this) I've always had my doubts about the reality of the solid core rocket and the real world results of running a ceramic core near it's melting point for long periods of time. If I remember correctly hot spots caused by vibrational cracking of the ceramics severely limited their power output.

 

Out in space a low power version of the solid core reactor could give you low level thrust of a stripped down reactor and use several different liquids as mono propellant, no oxidizer needed, just heat the reactor up and spray the hydrogen or water or ammonia into the reactor, it would have to be wildly inefficient but if you were in the outer solar system in slow orbits it might make sense, maybe with robotic missions. The space craft could refuel it's self by just finding a chuck of frozen ice of some sort and using it as reaction mass.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Moontanman

[D H]

You didn't read the article, you skimmed it, saw what you wanted to read and dismissed the rest.... It might be badly written science fiction but they did indeed address safty issues...

No, he didn't. Whether its safety of a nuclear power plant, a chemical plant, or a rocket, there is a certain lingo that is used to convince others that safety factors have been addressed. This is not it: "... should instill plenty of safety margin in the nuclear core of each thruster." The use of "should" and safety don't mix. His third scram mode, venting the fuel mass, doesn't quite mix with launching from ground.

 

Then there is this as well, is he lying or misleading us?

Given that the very top of the page says "Your independent source for nuclear advocacy," that should be viewed as a distinct possibility. More likely, though, is that the author is either exaggerating or misunderstands what has been done in the past. It's hard to tell; there are no references in his article. I've looked. I've looked and looked. I have found things like http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/science21/NuclearRocket.html, which states "A gas core nuclear rocket still remains to be built and tested." I have found many similar statements regarding gas core reactors. What I have not found is one scientific paper that describes even an experimental gas core reactor. I have found plenty of white papers on the concept. Another thing that I have not found is one scientific paper by Anthony Tate, the author of the web pages in question.

 

 

 

You are advocating a technology that is 20 or more years away from fruition. There is nothing wrong with that per se so long as you recognize (a) that the technology is 20 or more years away from fruition and (b) that it may never, and most likely will not, come to fruition. Regarding that parenthetical remark: Most advanced research projects never do come to fruition. It's the nature of the game. The gas core nuclear rocket is one of many possible technologies that are currently at a low level of technology readiness. Multiple papers at the recent Advanced Space Propulsion Workshop, which focuses on propulsion technologies in the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1-2 range, discussed gas core nuclear rockets. Most of the topics discussed at that workshop will never see the light of day. The hope is that at least one will. Which one, there is no telling. Nobody has the crystal ball that will let us see which of these myriad technologies will become the propulsion technology of the future. This is the heart of the problem. You are claiming that this specific technology, which no one has built yet, is the future.

 

Technology organizations such as NASA fund lots of basic research efforts at a small level. Most of those projects never go anywhere. Some projects show limited hope and remain at that small funding level for quite some time. A small handful of those basic R&D efforts advance to the next stage. The proportion of the initial R&D proposals eventually make it to deployment / operational use is rather small, particularly so when the initial concept is at a very low TRL. It generally takes a long time for basic research to make it from the concept stage (TRL 1) to operational use (TRL 9).

 

To illustrate, consider SpaceX again. They are using chemical propulsion, something that has been at TRL 9 for decades. SpaceX was founded in 2001. They will start flying cargo missions to the International Space Station in 2011. That is ten years from startup to operational use. That it took them only ten years is absolutely astounding -- and that is for a technology that was already at TRL 9.

[A Tripolation]

Moontanman that is why I'm not going to debate any more with DH has it is just leading to rude posts has he seems to have some fetish to chemical rockets and any thing other than chemical rockets is crackpot idea.He also seems to think I have a fetish to laser and want space mining and space colony ASAP.

 

You do realize that D H is an Aerospace Engineer, right? Probably one of the most qualified persons in this forum to discuss this topic with you? If he keeps insisting that other ideas are implausible at this moment, it's best to meet that with some belief. By all means research his claim, but he is most likely correct.

Edited January 14, 2011 by A Tripolation

[nec209]

You do realize that D H is an Aerospace Engineer, right? Probably one of the most qualified persons in this forum to discuss this topic with you? If he keeps insisting that other ideas are implausible at this moment, it's best to meet that with some belief. By all means research his claim, but he is most likely correct.

 

That is not the point his cutty behavior is inappropriate behavior for these groups.It does not take much to sum up I have no knowledge of rocket science and I have english problem has I'm having hard time understanding the replies here given to me of the engineering problems of the other propulsion system.I ask 2 or 3 times for confirmation of my ability to understand the reply given to me and has gone up in smoke.

 

It is one thing to say we cannot use this propulsion system do to xx but he seems to come off has a preacher of chemical rockets and he seems to think he knows more than what NASA,airforce and most mainstream scientist of what they are doing..He is also doing same to Moontanman posts and some of the other members here.

 

So I'm done with this thread it is not going anywhere , I will take my questions on this to other message board where the air is not contaminated and where some one is not preacher .

 

It is too bad that this thread has gone like this but it has .And I don't think the discusses with DH can go on has the last 3 or 4 post was kinda of rude posts here.And I think there is language problem here too that is also causing the posts here to go like this.

 

Well you guys can post in this thread and discusses what ever has I'm done here , please do not reply to my post here but PM me has I'm scared any more posting will get this thread locked or turn into flame war.

Edited January 14, 2011 by nec209

[Mr Skeptic]

Moontanman that is why I'm not going to debate any more with DH has it is just leading to rude posts has he seems to have some fetish to chemical rockets and any thing other than chemical rockets is crackpot idea.

 

 

I think D H has a fetish for facts. Sometimes it simply turns out that reality is a bitch. This counts double for interstellar flight.

 

Incidentally, I think D H is on the right track with air-breathing engines, for the first stage. Check out the specific impulse for commercial jet engines if you don't believe us.

[D H]

If he keeps insisting that other ideas are implausible at this moment, it's best to meet that with some belief. By all means research his claim, but he is most likely correct.

That "at this moment" is the key concept. None of the technologies proposed in this thread is ready for prime time. Many never will be; that's just the nature of the research game. The hope is that at least one of them will be sometime in the future.

 

I am not against doing research, nor am I against incorporating the fruits of a research project into an operational system. Either stance would be rather hypocritical of me; doing research is about as good as it can get.

 

What I have been railing against in this thread is that some think our "space program is a joke" because it is not using propulsion concepts that are currently at the cutting edge of research. That isn't how the R&D game works. Some of what is now a cutting edge propulsion concept will be used in the next generation space program (20 to 50 years in the future). Some of those ideas we now think are hot will turn out to be absolutely useless.

 

One last point: Some of the new technology in the next generation space program doesn't exist right now. Take a look at a 20+ year old Popular Science magazine where they tried to predict the future. The further back you go the more likely it is that they completely missed the boat.

 

 

 

I think D H has a fetish for facts. Sometimes it simply turns out that reality is a bitch. This counts double for interstellar flight.

Paying attention to facts and reality counts even for flying to low Earth orbit. Fail to do so and facts and reality will bite you hard.