Yay! the day has finally come!

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=7300
found that on slashdot

http://www.space.com/news/nasa_nuclear_020205.html
from space.com

The Pluto-Kupiter mission and the Europa missions have been cancelled, but I think that developing nuclear propulsion is MUCH more valuable to mankind than those two missions.

NASA is finally coming out of a 12 year long slumber.

If Nush's new budget doesn't get passed and this is cancelled, I plan to start a website to inform people that their congressman has voted against NASA, and organize to prevent their reelection.

It's about time!

But BAH! Antimatter is better! :D

It seems like a great idea but I wish they would just either leave mars alone or land someone on it already, I'm really not very interested in the minute amounts of carbon they find in martian stone, but what's underneath the surface of Europa.

Finally, a bit late, but nonthereless its a step forward.
I share your frustration Pollux V, I can not wait for the first mission to Europa. When the day comes, I promise to make a HUGE party(help me to remember this, when the time comes).
Bye!

The United States spends too much money on military, and not enough on space exploration. Thier military budget exceeds $1 trillion a year. Canada's military budget is slightly less than $40 billion. The US spends more money on military than the next 9 countries combined (that is, the next 9 biggest spenders on military). They need to channel more money into more important things, like research and exploration.

I share your feelings, Xelios, about the US and am currently seriously thinking about applying for citizenship in Canada or Britain if our leadership 'keeps sucking.'

Too bad I have to wait at least four more years.

Like about thirty years ago, when it was first considered.

Wonder how far NASA will get this time?

Take care ;)

The only HUGE problem is the possibility that a shuttle or whatever will explode. THAT would be disastrous.

Given NASA's recent complete failures, the idea that they are now developing Nuclear power as a propulsion system does not give me a feeling of comfort or bliss.

Don't worry, it won't happen on US soil. The launchpad will probably be located in Afghanistan, now tht we have thm under control:D. For a few tons of rice and seeds we will rent a good spot for a month (maybe even year);)

BTW, Afghanistan has almost ideal location for launching.

To be serious I think tht nuclear spaceships should be launched from near earth orbit and to get those ships there, use magnetic field sequence interaction. (maybe it's called different, but you know what I'm talkin' about)
Cheers!

Originally posted by Xelios
The United States spends too much money on military, and not enough on space exploration. Thier military budget exceeds $1 trillion a year. Canada's military budget is slightly less than $40 billion. The US spends more money on military than the next 9 countries combined (that is, the next 9 biggest spenders on military). They need to channel more money into more important things, like research and exploration.

Dont worry, with a seven year recession to follow, that will soon change...

The US only spends so much on military because if we don't, every hostile nation and their brother will start acting up.

IF MY DEMANDS ARE NOT MET, YOU WILL BE NUKED.

AHHHHHHHHH, YOU ARE IN SILENCE, I'll SHOW YOU!

99.......10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0

MUHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

Ups, I forgot to say my demands!
Oh well............

NASA would have to develop very sturdy containers for the nuclear fuel. I'm sure they can come up with a material that will resist a shuttle exploding on the launchpad. Buckytubes for instance, only about $1 billion a square inch :p

Well since the world will probably be outraged if they find that we're launching nuclear missiles (basically what they'd be) from Afghanistan I think a more realistic, safe place to launch shuttles from would be in the middle of the pacific on bikini atoll.

That place has already been destroyed so why not use it again?

I don't think you people understand this.

Nuclear rockets do not "blow up" like a chemical rocket; the propulsion system is even older than chemical rockets themselves, and much older than Jumbo Jets.

Chemical rockets are unstable by nature, nuclear rockets are not.
The only evidence you can point out saying nuclear rockets are unstable are movies and paranoid enviro groups, no real evidence.

When's the last time you heard of a nuclear aircraft carrier or submarine blow up as a result of its propulsion system?

Even if the rocket "fails" (it wont "blow up"), the debris would not be scattered over a large area because there is no chemical explosion to throw it out. It would rain down upon a small area and would be pretty easy to clean up.

You could probably make the argument that exaust from successful chemical rocket launches harms the enviorment more than a nuclear rocket failing.

Are you serious? ... the propulsion system is even older than chemical rockets themselves ... Even ignoring Chinese rockets, like 1200 BC, Goddard was launching chemical rockets
in the 30's, well before nuclear fission and the A-bomb.It would rain down upon a small area and would be pretty easy to clean up I imagine it would depend greatly on how long after launch the 'accident' occurred.
And as for it being 'pretty easy to clean up', check as to how easy Chernobyl has
been to clean up.

Take care ;)

I think I have to agree with Chagur on this one. Radius of damage depends on height that the incident occurred, how bad it was, prevailing winds, and the surface to which it lands. If it occured in the jet stream then the contamination would be thinned but spread over a huge area. Obviously if it lands over a metropolis area the consequences will be graver than if it lands in a desert. Spread of the contaminated area will continue through surface winds, run off of rain into watershed basins, and even animal or human life that goes through the afflicted site.

Dispersion of radiation will determine the strength of the radioactive concentration. (how many millirems or rads are present) How much this continues to spread and what it damages and how much that damage is would be anybody's guess. My guess is that it would not be pretty and would cause a lot of headaches sooner or later. Most likely later. Radiation tends to show it's affects down the road , later in life and for several generations after. If you are in the heaviest area and it concentrated then you won't have to worry about it. Radiation poisoning is not a pretty picture. Not many survive it and there is a stage at which nothing can be done and you are just dead and waiting for the body to realise it.

Plus I heard those poor bastards in russia are still working on chernobyl....

Even ignoring Chinese rockets, like 1200 BC, Goddard was launching chemical rockets

Because we are talking about NASA, I assumed we were talking about rockets capable of reaching space.

I imagine it would depend greatly on how long after launch the 'accident' occurred. And as for it being 'pretty easy to clean up', check as to how easy Chernobyl has
been to clean up.

Chernobyl was in the middle of nowhere, and very hard to access in the event of an emergency. Also, chernobyl's accident was a result of severe neglect and poverty, which would not be a factor in a fully funded program such as the one NASA is now planning on.

This isn't some rocket capable of emitting vast amounts of radiation like you apparantly think. In the event of an explosion, the only radioactive debris would be the uranium itself, which isn't radioactive on the scale that you're thinking.

I confuse easy like.

First you say:

"Nuclear rockets do not "blow up" like a chemical rocket ... "

Then you say:

"In the event of an explosion ... "

So ... Which is it?

Take care :rolleyes:

If you notice the like a chemical rocket ... part of my statement, youll find out. Anything with compressed matter can explode, but it won't explode like a million tons of rocket fuel do.

Okay lets look at this generally:

A rocket laiden with rocket propellant can suffer from exploding, which does cause the rocket to be destroyed and pieces to rain down upon the surface of the earth.

Every mission up through our atmosphere tears a hole through our ozone, and the very propellant is mixed with the ozone to create alot of damage on a molecular level.

The fuel is processed from fossil fuels and is under the same pressures as that of any other vehicle that utilises a decreasing resource.

Now for the nuke-power:

At first scientists will note "How clean it is, in comparison to Propellant", okay so the burnt output is lessened and it would do less damage to the ozone, and not eat up our valuable resources.

But there are the points that people seem to discuss.

Nuclear material becomes unstable when Heated and suffers Decay when it gets to that point. (You all know of decay through such man made disasters as Chernobyl, if there coolants had been working, then the system wouldn't have had a "Melt-down")

If such a Temperature rise was caused through a Spaceship lacking a protective coating from our atmosphere creating friction, we could end up with a nuclear meltdown that is airborn, sprinkling nuclear ionized particles across a hemisphere.

There are other ideas that could be utilised, One is using an Airballoon to get a craft to a high altitude before it ignites it's rockets, This saves on fuel and damage to the Ozone (Of course no one has tested it)

We can always build our nuclear propelled rockets in space until we have the know how for either the next generation or an environmentally friendly propulsion system to get the parts into space in the first place. :rolleyes:

I think the Ancient Greeks and a few other ancient civilizations came up with the most environmentally friendly method of placing things inot the air....

It was called a Catapult!

We have no such matterials tht would be fit for such a catapult. We need progress in the smart-materials field, maybe using nano-technology. But the idea is really good StryderU.

I had this idea for a similar device. It swings a ship around in a circle until it gains enough momentum, then it pivots upward to face the sky and at the right time launches the craft into the air. It appears that I can't post a picture, though, because .bmps are too big and I can't locate the other program I have.

If such a Temperature rise was caused through a Spaceship lacking a protective coating from our atmosphere creating friction, we could end up with a nuclear meltdown that is airborn, sprinkling nuclear ionized particles across a hemisphere.

Why would we be lacking a protective coating?

If our cars had no brakes, we'd all be in deep trouble. Our cars do have brakes. eh.

Of course we could always use nuclear reactors in another way.

We could use two or three of them to power gigantic electromagnets to launch the ship from the ground.

Or power that catepult.

Tetra

Sometimes Brakes Fail (Or they get cut)

Quiote simply, Space is filled with Debris that floats/Moves at a rate that could cause concern if you collided and damaged your shielding.

so why not to build a launchpad on the moon. and manufacture spaceships there too (in large hangars)?!

also much less power (money) needed to take the spaceship up into space.

Although first you have to get to the moon...

Nowadays it should be really easy. We plan a trip to Mars and can't make a base on the moon??? It isn't really so hard to do it, only money is needed and not extremely much too.

Well upon looking inside my dresser where I store all of my money I found about five hundred dollars (american). Should that be enough? We could start a pool here on the forums and put together all the money we have, maybe we could amass a few thousand dollars a build a base on ANOTHER COSMIC BODY!!

It is VERY expensive to do ANYTHING in space.

I really love being sarcasic. (sighing) Aaaahhhh...

Yes it is EXPENSIVE, but in LONG TERME it should approve itself.
BTW, you could use and acquire materials right on the moon, not bring them all way from Earth. (not the first base though) Maybe at first put a station at moons orbit and workers go down there every two days or so with all the tools and build tht base.

Sooner or later it MUST be done, but better sooner.

Alright, alright I give in.

There is a (small) chance the reactor would meltdown on liftoff.
This small chance shouldn'trestrain any missions though, the propulsion system <i>is</i> tried and true. We've been using it in subs and carriers for almost 50 years. There isn't that much difference in a plane or spacecraft, other than a different method of releasing the power.

We should go mine a carbonacous asteroid.. After the initial down-payment, everything else is free.

After the initial down-payment, everything else is free.
well and I think you should add transportation, but in general that's exactly my point.

Re. "... the propulsion system is tried and true. We've been using it in subs and carriers for almost 50 years."

Talk about apples and oranges!

US subs and carriers use pressurized water reactors that operate at relatively
low temperatures to drive the turbines that drive the generators that provide
electricity for propulsion, life support, and various equipment.

That is a far cry from the 'propulsion' you're talking about. Maybe once in
space a heat to electricity exchange powering an ion engine may be possible,
but no way are you going to get a nuclear propelled 'rocket' off the ground
using nuclear energy.

Take care :rolleyes:

...no way are you going to get a nuclear propelled 'rocket' off the ground using nuclear energy.

Shhhh. I just placed an ad in the back of Popular Science offering building plans for the world's first steam-powered, launch-to-orbit rocket.

And here you are diss'n the idea. How 'bout I cut you in for a peace a da' action to keep you agreeable?

but I think tht you could get to orbit if launched from moon, but not as a rocket but more like a plane like (with runway). and we have alternatives of "space age steam rocket":D , magnetict acceleration from a large tunnel with magnetic rings, taking up from a huge plane near outer space and sm others.
well ok, bye I'm already late for school->

How big a peace?

Take care :D

I sure wish the fundamental enviormentalists would realize that we are either risking a nuclear accident, or risking extinction..

Chagur,

quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe once in space a heat to electricity exchange powering an ion engine may be possible, but no way are you going to get a nuclear propelled 'rocket' off the ground using nuclear energy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The important thing is that no one is talking about getting a rocket off the ground with nuclear energy, except in this message thread. They're going to be used in space. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that there was no way to get one off the ground. Probably there is. One of the engines that's being talked about has about the same thrust as a 747, and it's not clear to me that this couldn't be increased by a lot. But there would be no reason to do so, because, even if human safety were not a consideration, you wouldn't want a nuclear reactor whose real purpose and value was for the long haul - e.g., all the way to Mars and back - running at full tilt during launch and ascent, because you'd risk destroying or damaging it. (In fact, it won't be running at all during launch and ascent.)

There's no reason to quote the word "rocket," because these things really will be rockets - there's no other way to propel something in space. They won't use heat to electricity conversion; they'll directly heat a propellant. By the way, a nuclear rocket was ground-tested back in the '50s or '60s.

Xelios,

quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States spends too much money on military, and not enough on space exploration. Thier military budget exceeds $1 trillion a year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where did you hear or read this amount? It's completely absurd. The correct information is at your fingertips if you care enough to make accurate statements.

Xelios,

It turns out that nuclear rockets would work even better than I claimed in my earlier message; there would be no great obstacle to launching one from the ground, except the environmental hazard. Some of the 1950s planners had every intention of launching from ground. Others didn't. It makes sense, since a nuclear rocket could be far more powerful than a chemical rocket. A nuclear rocket that simply expels superheated hydrogen gets about twice the thrust of a rocket that burns hydrogen, and apparently that's only an engineering limit, not a theoretical limit. In fact, it may be no more than a limit that's specific to a certain design or certain circumstances. I don't know.

The longest test firing of a nuclear rocket engine ran for 11 minutes. The tests were generally very successful; people were very pleased with them.

What's even wilder, they had plans for a nuclear rocket that would detonate small A-bombs a few hundred feet behind the vehicle. Apparently this concept is quite feasible, too.

The planners in those days were talking about a Mars round trip of 4 months, and about very large and heavy vehicles that you couldn't possibly lift or propel with a chemical rocket. A nuclear rocket that NASA is now planning would make Mars one-way in about 4 months.

Plans for nuclear rockets were canceled during the late Eisenhower or early Kennedy administration, but I think they took a while to wind down, since there were moves to rescue some of them. They were canceled because it was felt that the political obstacles to flying them would be too great, or at least too great to make for an early 1st moon landing. Apparently this is the only case in history of canceling the development of a new technology for political reasons.

NASA is now re-instating nukes on a space-only basis; no ground launch. Nukes are the only reasonable way of moving humans around the solar system, short of fusion, which we don't yet have, of course.

1950s plans for nuclear airplanes are interesting, too.

Sorry, aparently that number was for the next 5 years. Don't know how I could have missed that =/

But $300 billion is still a lot of money to be spending on military.

Xelios,

quote
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, aparently that number was for the next 5 years. Don't know how I could have missed that =/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think your Canadian figure may be way too high, too. Canada spent $10 billion on defense in some recent year, but since I didn't have the very latest information, I wasn't completely sure.

quote
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But $300 billion is still a lot of money to be spending on military.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which of the following do you mean?

a. Our military is too large/strong.

b. We could get the same for less money.

c. Allied countries should spend more on defense, enabling us to spend less.

d. Something else.

I would guess you meant (a), but how am I supposed to know?

In constant dollars, we've been spending very roughly the same since the mid-1960s, but nowadays we're spending a lot less as a percentage of GDP, 3.5% very recently vs. 7% during some longish period or 8% in about 1966.

Regardless of what you mean by "too much," you're going to have to mean it for at least a 35-year period and very likely longer than that. I'd figure on 50 years.

Re. "A nuclear rocket that simply expels superheated hydrogen ... "

Do you realize how close to criticality it would have to operate to reach
those temperatures? Considering the shielding that would be required
to keep from frying the crew during a long trip, like the four months you
mentioned, forget it!

The experiments you referred to, and I alluded to early in the thread, were
not intended for a manned flight vehicle! (there, I even avoided using 'rocket')

Take care :rolleyes:

I think we should wait for fuson power... we are getting closer to get it...

Even though it appears that UFOs uses nuclear power... ;)

Besides that... we will never go above the speed of light, if it's really impossible. We could use other dimensions... but you have to be really creative to deal with the idea...

Where is the nearest star? I guess... 4 light years away, isn't it? Imagine travel 4 years to see if it has a planet...
Even inside our own solar system is pretty hard to travel in the speed we can get nowdays...

Colombo took months to cross the Atlantic Ocean. Today, we can do it in three hours. But it passed already more than 500 years! So it seems that we have to look in a veeeery long perspective unless a crazy guy develop a way to travel through another dimensions... ;)

One already had the idea... :D

Love,
Nelson