kunok

Why not take other approach? If the NTR is to be used in mars, use it as propellant liquid CO2 so it's easy to refuel in mars. Or nitrogen if is better/easier. It will have a poor ISP, so bigger tankage and/or dropable tanks but it will make everything else a lot simpler because there is no need for extra infrastructure. Just a unit for liquidizing the martian air that you will need anyway in any other approach. Less development, more viable concept. How problematic will be to use H2 for earth departure and then use CO2 in mars anyway? You will have big tankage for the low density H2 and then you will need it for the massive amount of CO2 needed because the low isp

You are overthinking it. Just invade/kidnap the ground station, or steal the codes.

I totally lose myself, what has that to do with what I said?

So, I'm making an assumption, that I will have time to help (dubious really). I have a telescope, a mak 127/1500, with a goto mount, and I have a "regular" photo camera with a compatible adapter. Can I somewhat help? Probably the telescope is good enough but I don't think about the camera. Astrocameras are pretty expensive... I would investigate in the holidays if I can use my camera for photometry, I know that I can unfocus the stars so the light is spread in more pixels so I can make better readings. But then my camera has a bayer pattern, photographic integrated UV and IR filters and so... I don't think I would be able to make regular observations at least until summer, and I'm not even sure of that.

I can sure you that the only people that I know that defend that proposition are from the US, and you can't accept that maybe is that you have a biased cultural view (and yes I know mine is a biased view because I only know so many people) No offense pretended. Is just that to the rest of the world (at least in my biased view) is plain weird and tiring when comes again and again.

Looks like there is people that thinks that it's wrong, sorry in Spanish http://francis.naukas.com/2016/12/17/la-incorrecta-primera-confirmacion-de-la-teoria-de-verlinde/ Apparently this hypothesis is incompatible with observed dark matter like in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster

Why every thread about space ends talking about colonization and then some post after ends being a discussion of how the US colonizations topics are not applicable?

But the point is that we don't really know how to translate that radiation to biological damage, we can make a guess, but is still a guess. Space radiation is not the same that the nuclear radiation that we have biological data.

Already done https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bion-M_No.1 I don't think that you need to strap the mices at all. I will research

Mice are good choice, because: -They are light (20 grams or so) -we can develop similar tech that we need -the tech developed will be maintenance free and more fault tolerant, because animals can't repair things -the tech will be already miniaturized, space is a field that every gram counts -Don't forget that one of the advantages of using animals instead of humans is that we can dissection animals, dissection of astronauts will have very bad PR And why keep it in moon orbit? Land in the moon, we need that 0,16g data!

The thing is that the basic research can be done with lots of 20g laboratory mice instead of 70kg humans. I propose something in the lines of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bion_(satellite) but outside LEO. It would be cheaper, safer and I think because that will get us faster development of the required techs

Add to that the radiation in space is not the same that the one from nuclear waste, and we don't really know how similar they are. We need lots of more research. I really think we need a space "biological" program, before we get a real human one.

I know what you mean, but add to the prices of the resource extraction itself the price of all geopolitics, bureaucracy and other indirect cost related to changing that international treaty. How big they are? I don't know

Unrealistic science fiction has given to us a total unrealistic approach to space flight that obviously we can't get, and people think that the real one is disappointing compared with the science fiction ones. In soft science fiction, traveling across the solar system or the galaxy is like traveling in your car, taking a flight between two airports or crossing the ocean in a boat, that gives totally unrealistic expectations. Space travel will take months or years not a couple of days like is presented in most fiction, we currently don't have life support or radiation protection for that long periods. And "real" proposals like Mars one or the ITS of Musk doesn't help, because they don't look to the real problems. And we don't really have idea if we can live in different gravity of 1g in long term, don't forget that . Venus flying outpost supporter here

I really think that the day that is really profitable the extraction of resources in Antarctica the treaty will be changed to allow that.

It isn't my field at all, so I have no idea of how good it is, but I leave this here http://phys.org/news/2016-12-verlinde-theory-gravity.html

ISS is a set of experiments of 0g, one of them is the """close""" life support, nothing to do with real close life support in martian 0,38g. And ISRU equipment is just not being done in anywhere. That what I was saying. Is not a waste of effort, research is good by itself, just is not for unrealistic "cool" ends. Then again, the launcher is not the problem. If we tomorrow have a launcher that makes 20 tons to LEO for only 5 million, it wont change that much. Space goods are already a lot more expensive than the rocket that launch them

Nobody is developing any of this, so no money wasted. And I don't think @Nibb31 is proposing any of this. Why people keep focusing in the launcher? Is not that the problem, is just a transport device

I'm almost sure that the effect is because the lower specific heat of the deuterium. Specific heat of deuterium in the game is 5,2 KJ/(kg*K) and for hydrogen is 14,3. That's a simplification because is a constant value, and not a function of the temp like the real thing. But even if you "normalize" it by doubling the specific heat of deuterium because the double density is still a lot better. If only I had time for research...

Well, if children of death earth is a valid reference here (is not in mechanical engineering, that's for sure), hydrogen deuteride or pure deuterium is better than regular LH, more dense but almost as efficient because, the lower specific heat?. In the game using the exactly same engine only changing the propellant you change from an exhaust velocity of 9km/s to 8,63km/s to 8,59km/s (for liquid hydrogen, liquid deuterium and liquid hydrogen deuteride), with a huge improvement in the density of the propellant (77 vs 160 vs 120 kg/m^3) and getting a little bigger boiling point (20k vs 24k vs 22k). (you still need to tweak other values for them to work, but the spacecrafts are pretty better this way than with regular hydrogen) Probably it isn't really a good reference. Can someone point me why?

Source?

Can I ask how much time you are in planted hunters? Because bro, your dedication is impressive.

That's the most weird thing? Why? Something of the internet cache?

Well looks like you have the problem researched before I get here @ruinzv2 @Everyonejohn @HoloYolo @Noname115 avatar's still don't appear to me

The curious thing is that they also advice savings that come from getting lower insurance cost because their reliability, and that they rarely have delays which means unprofitable time. And is not a irrelevant saving. I think this is precisely what every expensive launcher should be advertising.