Several years ago I made a comment to that effect in the sci.space.tech usenet group, and unintentionally started the closest thing to a flame war I'd ever seen on that group.djolds1 wrote:Irony is that the Nuclear Salt Water Rocket makes Orion look clean and comfy by comparison.
NASA's Next 50 Years
Perhaps as micrometeorites, but I have not seen any convincing proposals to catch them.There is plenty of water in space. It is bombarding the earth all the time.
Or are you referring to the high energy atomic oxygen from the sun that is so corrosive to many materials used in space.
That stuff is very dilute and neutral and leaves the question of the hydrogen.
Long term, sure, the gas giants and their moons. But the supply pipeline is pretty long.
That is where the BFR's come in as they shorten the delivery time and widen the launch windows considerably.
I agree, the poles of the moon are unique and valuable real estate for a number of reasons.
-Tom Boydston-
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?" ~Albert Einstein
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?" ~Albert Einstein
It got moved.. here it is..djolds1 wrote:
Page no longer present. And the Internet Archive returns a 404.
Duane
I get a 403 for orionsco.jpg ..
Oh dear, I never heard of the "nuclear saltwater rocket", but I can totally understand why that could be "dirty".
Fission based rockets are a good idea, when no small fusion reactors are available. However, we do have the chance to get one soon, so lets hope the best!
After that point, I think space will be open and open to more people than ever before. Getting payloads into LEO will be as cheap as it is to fly something to Australia today. By then NASA will stop being the only space agency. I do actually think that NASA will be just one among many (most of them will be privately owned). The private ones will take care of all commercial needs and of getting payloads into orbit cheaply. NASAs job will be more science related and I can imagine them buying rides on commercial rockets most of the time. Only exception will be projects that require very unusual launch vehicle configurations.
Man, thinking of all the possibilities makes me giggle
Fission based rockets are a good idea, when no small fusion reactors are available. However, we do have the chance to get one soon, so lets hope the best!
After that point, I think space will be open and open to more people than ever before. Getting payloads into LEO will be as cheap as it is to fly something to Australia today. By then NASA will stop being the only space agency. I do actually think that NASA will be just one among many (most of them will be privately owned). The private ones will take care of all commercial needs and of getting payloads into orbit cheaply. NASAs job will be more science related and I can imagine them buying rides on commercial rockets most of the time. Only exception will be projects that require very unusual launch vehicle configurations.
Man, thinking of all the possibilities makes me giggle
Gracias.Betruger wrote:It got moved.. here it is..
Hunt up the Orion entry at the Encyclopedia Astronautica. Its one of the images on the page, comparing the tall thin NASA 10 meter diameter Orion and the squat 4000 tonne Orion.Betruger wrote:I get a 403 for orionsco.jpg ..
Duane
Vae Victis
It imposes a front end delay on the Lunar development timeline, but speeds matters once in place. And the LH2/LOX cracked from the C asteroids provides rocket fuel to get the volatiles to the Moon.rj40 wrote:True that water rich asteroids or comets won’t take all that much more energy to get to once in orbit. True also, that it will be easier to leave them wrt the Moon. But it will most likely take more time. Plus you have to wait around for one to get in a favorable position with respect to Earth or Earth orbit. Sure, you have to wait for the moon to be positioned for a favorable Lunar transfer, but the time lag is much less and the trip is shorter (faster turn-around time).
There are plenty of NEAs, and last I checked polar water was minimal and mostly hoped for.rj40 wrote:Also, if go to the lunar poles you know right where the stuff is, there is more of it per unit area – so far as we know, and you don’t have to wait for the next water rich asteroid/comet to be optimally positioned.
No need not to use both tho. Ramp down the scale of early Lunar development slightly, and use polar water as the early Lunar resource while developing NEA volatile sources. Minor sacrifices in scale early on lead to greater expansion after a few years.
I suspect that long term the DHe3 fuel cycle is based on a more reliable fuel source. Yes its more neutronic than pB11 but far less than DT.rj40 wrote:With working BFRs using Boron, not as big a deal, but if BFRs are never able to do pB11, I think a large source of water AND He3 off Earth (but near it!), with access to constant solar energy, becomes more important.
Duane
Vae Victis
Sounds like a story.hanelyp wrote:Several years ago I made a comment to that effect in the sci.space.tech usenet group, and unintentionally started the closest thing to a flame war I'd ever seen on that group.djolds1 wrote:Irony is that the Nuclear Salt Water Rocket makes Orion look clean and comfy by comparison.
Give.
Duane
Vae Victis