• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Europe Littering up the Solar System....

PoS said:
Mars by 1980 was very doable but Congress killed the program in the early 70's. NERVA was successfully tested, Saturn V was a 100% reliable vehicle that could get us safely to orbit and beyond.

But Congress instead went with the space shuttle and that spelled the eventual doom of NASA and the spaceflight program.

Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are now driving the space race and I for one am glad that private industry is finally paving the way.
Click to expand...

NERVA would never have been cleared. BTW, you can see the NERVA test site on google earth, look for Jackass Flats, you can see the test pad, the rail lines going a few miles back to the underground control room, etc. Also, I read a book that talked about how they decided to see what it would take to cause the rocket and reactor to explode. Not a good idea, it blew radioactive plutonium all over the site, lots of clean up. It was a fascinating program though, JFK even visited the test site once.
 
beefheart said:
NERVA would never have been cleared. BTW, you can see the NERVA test site on google earth, look for Jackass Flats, you can see the test pad, the rail lines going a few miles back to the underground control room, etc. Also, I read a book that talked about how they decided to see what it would take to cause the rocket and reactor to explode. Not a good idea, it blew radioactive plutonium all over the site, lots of clean up. It was a fascinating program though, JFK even visited the test site once.
Click to expand...

I believe the plan was to use chemical rockets to get to LEO, then use NERVA when they were out of earth's atmosphere. Atomic rockets can achieve a greater exhaust velocity and there are now several proposals to restart this program. It's probably the most efficient way to get to Mars rather than chemical rockets. Russia is actively planning to use atomic rockets to go to Mars.
 
PoS said:
I believe the plan was to use chemical rockets to get to LEO, then use NERVA when they were out of earth's atmosphere. Atomic rockets can achieve a greater exhaust velocity and there are now several proposals to restart this program. It's probably the most efficient way to get to Mars rather than chemical rockets. Russia is actively planning to use atomic rockets to go to Mars.
Click to expand...

Here is a great video....music is creepy, sounds a lot like Zappa's classical stuff.

 
beefheart said:
Here is a great video....music is creepy, sounds a lot like Zappa's classical stuff.

Click to expand...


Yup, what many people dont know is that we actually had the technology to get to Mars by the 1960's. NERVA engines were smaller and would use less fuel than chemical rockets. During their test it ran almost 2 hours non-stop and almost 30 minutes at full power. With NERVA engines the upgraded Saturn V's could launch even bigger payloads of up to 340 tons into LEO.

The space shuttle was actually a step backwards because it had a small payload compared to Saturn V and it ended up with a terrible safety record, not to mention being costlier.

Project Timberwind is now the new NASA project thats looking into atomic powered rockets.
 
PoS said:
Yup, what many people dont know is that we actually had the technology to get to Mars by the 1960's. NERVA engines were smaller and would use less fuel than chemical rockets. During their test it ran almost 2 hours non-stop and almost 30 minutes at full power. With NERVA engines the upgraded Saturn V's could launch even bigger payloads of up to 340 tons into LEO.

The space shuttle was actually a step backwards because it had a small payload compared to Saturn V and it ended up with a terrible safety record, not to mention being costlier.

Project Timberwind is now the new NASA project thats looking into atomic powered rockets.
Click to expand...

Had the CCCP not died we would have been embarrassed for sure given our crap game these last 40 years. BTW given our general failure of nerve in these modern times and agreements that have been signed which would likely make a failure of an atomic launch crushingly expensive I doubt we see largeish atomic launches from Earth. Most that I have read have said that we would need to assemble and launch from the moon. However I think if we did that then we would get shut down by the NASA Planetary Protection Officer, for the crime of polluting the moon.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Had the CCCP not died we would have been embarrassed for sure given our crap game these last 40 years. BTW given our general failure of nerve in these modern times and agreements that have been signed which would likely make a failure of an atomic launch crushingly expensive I doubt we see largeish atomic launches from Earth. Most that I have read have said that we would need to assemble and launch from the moon. However I think if we did that then we would get shut down by the NASA Planetary Protection Officer, for the crime of polluting the moon.
Click to expand...

First thing you want is a vehicle that goes around and picks up all the space junk in Earth orbit.

Next you want to work on centrifugal space stations with which you can follow asteroids and comets and get comfortable with your technology; hotels, the central features are your weightless areas.

Then you want to start working on your comet defense station-vehicles.

Have them in the larang points and on the far side of the sun.

Manning the far side station would be a fun job.

Seems I've run into a problem with my mass converting lox-h2 engines that when you're accelerating at point two light the vapor trail that you can be followed by might is going to rain in the solar system you're headed for ever, rain at point two light, and you'd smash Earth in a return journey, you could cruise across the solar system at point two.

Double your efficiency is not good enough to warrant nuclear, if you want nuclear you want hundred or ten thousand times efficiency, you want a chemical stick that will convert your uranium to hydrogen, but still you have the same problem at point two light, h2 at point two.

I'll have to have the space deflector pick up the exhaust.

You can't get far without a space deflector at point two light.
 
Exquisitor said:
First thing you want is a vehicle that goes around and picks up all the space junk in Earth orbit.

Next you want to work on centrifugal space stations with which you can follow asteroids and comets and get comfortable with your technology; hotels, the central features are your weightless areas.

Then you want to start working on your comet defense station-vehicles.

Have them in the larang points and on the far side of the sun.

Manning the far side station would be a fun job.

Seems I've run into a problem with my mass converting lox-h2 engines that when you're accelerating at point two light the vapor trail that you can be followed by might is going to rain in the solar system you're headed for ever, rain at point two light, and you'd smash Earth in a return journey, you could cruise across the solar system at point two.

Double your efficiency is not good enough to warrant nuclear, if you want nuclear you want hundred or ten thousand times efficiency, you want a chemical stick that will convert your uranium to hydrogen, but still you have the same problem at point two light, h2 at point two.

I'll have to have the space deflector pick up the exhaust.

You can't get far without a space deflector at point two light.
Click to expand...

So we have a space freak in the UP....

:thumbs:


You are talking above my subject matter expertise, so I shall not respond.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
So we have a space freak in the UP....

:thumbs:


You are talking above my subject matter expertise, so I shall not respond.
Click to expand...

But you did respond.

What did you think of my space program?

I want to be the President who cleans up all the space junk.

We should have some centrifugal models in operation by the time scientists discover how to manipulate gravity but make them durable anyway.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Had the CCCP not died we would have been embarrassed for sure given our crap game these last 40 years. BTW given our general failure of nerve in these modern times and agreements that have been signed which would likely make a failure of an atomic launch crushingly expensive I doubt we see largeish atomic launches from Earth. Most that I have read have said that we would need to assemble and launch from the moon. However I think if we did that then we would get shut down by the NASA Planetary Protection Officer, for the crime of polluting the moon.
Click to expand...

The Soviet space program was dying by the mid to late 60's because they just didnt have the money to compete.

Atomic launches cannot happen from earth's surface anyway because the 1969 Space treaty. And why would we bother to launch from the moon when we can assemble such things in orbit and then launch from there since there's no gravity to hinder us- the reason why launches from earth are so costly is because we have to get past the gravity well and the thick atmosphere.

Its better to launch the vehicle piecemeal, then assemble them at LEO.
 
PoS said:
The Soviet space program was dying by the mid to late 60's because they just didnt have the money to compete.

Atomic launches cannot happen from earth's surface anyway because the 1969 Space treaty. And why would we bother to launch from the moon when we can assemble such things in orbit and then launch from there since there's no gravity to hinder us- the reason why launches from earth are so costly is because we have to get past the gravity well and the thick atmosphere.

Its better to launch the vehicle piecemeal, then assemble them at LEO.
Click to expand...

Take the helium from your h2-he fusion and make big ships that you fill with atmosphere later and launch these.

We don't have a thick atmosphere, it's just thick enough.

We need to develop some off planet resources (n2, h20, phosphorous, methane, tar and metals) to off-set this burning and launch of all this space junk.

Can you imagine mining an asteroid?

You'd have a debris field all over, even if you covered it before mining.
 
Exquisitor said:
Take the helium from your h2-he fusion and make big ships that you fill with atmosphere later and launch these.

We don't have a thick atmosphere, it's just thick enough.

We need to develop some off planet resources (n2, h20, phosphorous, methane, tar and metals) to off-set this burning and launch of all this space junk.

Can you imagine mining an asteroid?

You'd have a debris field all over, even if you covered it before mining.
Click to expand...

You should take a break from whatever it is youre smoking.
 
PoS said:
You should take a break from whatever it is youre smoking.
Click to expand...

I can't think of anything to say because I have to be at work in a couple of hours and thus I have my break from whatever it is I'm smoking.

How can you tell I'm smoking from this? It's only poetry, scientific jargon and it's not that fantastic that you need kaleidoscope vision to write it.

I should take your advice though because if I ever come up with; spaceship, I'll be the sorriest dude because the whole Hare Krishna movement will have to want to do; "same thing," and because your sick and sorry asses are going to climb all over it.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Why Schiaparelli Probe?s Mars ?Crash Land? Is No Failure

850 words of spirit bucking up from a former NASA guy.

Weak sauce.
Click to expand...

Mars isnt easy- its far and its atmosphere is very thin, so if you try to land and make a small mistake it will cost you. NASA had plenty of failures trying to land on Mars until they got it right, and thats the way it goes with space exploration, you sometimes have to fail in order to get things right later on. It's always a risk trying to get there much less to land intact. I'm pretty sure this wont be the last time this will happen. When we start bringing in manned missions over there you can be sure that people will die.

It was the first time the Europeans ever tried anything. The fact that their orbiter got to Mars the first time is a pretty good achievement. Now they just have to learn from their mistakes and keep going.
 
Exquisitor said:
Take the helium from your h2-he fusion and make big ships that you fill with atmosphere later and launch these.

We don't have a thick atmosphere, it's just thick enough.

We need to develop some off planet resources (n2, h20, phosphorous, methane, tar and metals) to off-set this burning and launch of all this space junk.

Can you imagine mining an asteroid?

You'd have a debris field all over, even if you covered it before mining.
Click to expand...

You take the asteroid in side a container and break it down to its components elements utilizing radiant solar energy.
 
PirateMk1 said:
You take the asteroid in side a container and break it down to its components elements utilizing radiant solar energy.
Click to expand...

Sweet, melt it with lenses and pour into molds. That way you don't have to figure a way to transport before you get going and do this to some asteroids. Why I can't wait to have asteroids in orbit!
 
PoS said:
Mars isnt easy- its far and its atmosphere is very thin, so if you try to land and make a small mistake it will cost you. NASA had plenty of failures trying to land on Mars until they got it right, and thats the way it goes with space exploration, you sometimes have to fail in order to get things right later on. It's always a risk trying to get there much less to land intact. I'm pretty sure this wont be the last time this will happen. When we start bringing in manned missions over there you can be sure that people will die.

It was the first time the Europeans ever tried anything. The fact that their orbiter got to Mars the first time is a pretty good achievement. Now they just have to learn from their mistakes and keep going.
Click to expand...

They have another orbiter I believe at Mars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom