Nibb31

Zero. .

I never said it would catch fire. I said that it might release radioactive particles into the atmosphere. The explosion of the fuel of a Saturn V on the pad would be devastating. 500kT of TNT equivalent, a 2600°C fireball. A nuclear reactor located on top, even if it was protected by a casing, would be obliterated and any fuel rods inside would end up blown to pieces all around the pad. It would be the equivalent of a dirty bomb that would shut down pad operations for years.

The S-N would only have been used once the stack was in LEO. It was lighter than the S-IVB that it would have replaced, so the S-II could have put it into orbit in one go without requiring it to do a circularization burn like the S-IVB did. If the launch had failed, it would have sank to the bottom of the Pacific. The only case in which there might have been a release of radioactive particles is if the Saturn V had exploded on the pad. However, that is no different that RTGs that have been commonly launched by both the US and Russia.

Absolutely. Why would you want to do that anyway? There is not a single rational reason to purposely contaminate other planets. In the best case, extremophiles would be in a dormant state deprived of oxygen. In the worst case, life might evolve after several billion years into something nasty that would return to bite us in the ass.

What a PR person claims and reality are often different things. It may be possible in a few century or two with a fully reusable launcher, totally different technology, and much higher launch rates, but the F-9R as we know it is incapable of reducing launch costs by 90%, unless constructing the 1st stage hardware represents more than 90% of the cost of launching the rocket. Hint: it doesn't. On the other hand, reusable hardware means less units to produce which means higher cost per unit. It means less workers are needed for the actual production work, but it doesn't cut any of the other costs for recovering, handling, sourcing, testing, processing, integrating the hardware. It also does nothing to reduce development, administration and facility support costs. The only thing that will lower the cost of launching things into space is demand. When there will actually be demand to launch once or twice a week, then costs will mechanically come down. Whether it happens through reusability, mass production, cheaper processing, or lower wages doesn't really matter because the market will find a way. The key is actual demand, not technology.

I think SpaceX is aiming for a 50% reduction in launch prices. I think that is highly optimistic. However, launch cost is only 20% of an average space project, so the global economy for customers will not exceed 10%. Even if it works, it will hardly be a Star Trek breakthrough.

The S-IVB had to burn to circularize into the parking orbit before TLI. With the S-N being lighter than the S-IVB meant that the S-II could burn all the way to circularization so that the S-N would only have been started after checkout in orbit.

It's amazing that you're able to judge the concept of Musk's MCT without knowing anything about it. SpaceX has published no plans at all about it. The only thing that we know SpaceX are working on is the Raptor. Anything else is pure speculation.

Japan has had fission power since the 1970's. Fukushima is fission power. Maybe you mean fusion power, but it simply does not exist yet, so there is nothing to invest in. Fusion has always been 20 years away ever since the 1960's. It's a bit like Mars landings and Moon bases in that respect. At any rate, it takes 20 years to plan, approve, design, and build major construction projects like airports or nuclear plants. So even if the technology magically became available next year, you won't see an operational power plant before 2040. It would still take decades to make it "widely available".

Public opinion is as anti-nuclear as anywhere else. The fact that France produces 75% of its electricity from nuclear is due to political decisions made in the 60's. Current policy is to bring the figure down to 50% or lower.

That's not how science works.

So how would it compare to a 10km² solar farm? Seriously, we have no idea what impact it would have on the wildlife or on the ionization of the upper layers of the atmosphere. For all we know, it might cause a huge hole in the ozone layer or some other imbalance.

Yes, but expertise in power plant engineering doesn't translate into expertise in propulsion systems. Besides, Europe is vastly anti-nuclear these days, especially Germany. No way would ESA ever build a nuclear rocket engine.

I don't see it becoming a high-profile failure because it most likely won't go beyond the trade study phase, which is why a lot of money is spent on trade studies in the first place: to weed out bad ideas. Not only is it uneconomical by costing more energy than it will even produce, but the whole idea of high energy microwave transmission is unproven and could potentially have some nasty side effects.

NERVA isn't a miracle solution though. It was envisioned as a replacement for the S-IVB used on Apollo. The S-N would have been lighter and more efficient, but it would have had only 25% of the thrust of the S-IVB. S-IVB: 120 tons, 1000kN thrust, Isp 421s. S-N: 53 tons, 255kN, Isp ~800s. Less thrust means that it would have had to burn longer to impart the same dV. All in all, there was some gain due to the higher Isp, but the biggest performance increase was because it was less that half the weight of a full S-IVB. In the end, it would have been much more complex, much more expensive, and more delicate to handle and integrate at the pad. The considerable increased complexity wasn't deemed worth it.

Agreed. You would pretty much have to start from scratch. Each part would have to be redesigned to fit current manufacturing, testing, and sourcing processes.

It depends on what's needed for the plot to work. This is fiction after all, so anything goes. You can just make it up as you go.

A test for who and by whom ? There is no test, and for all we know, interstellar travel might not even be possible. If at all, it won't be before several centuries. If we ever travel to the stars, we will have our reasons, but it won't be to pass a test.

The dust gets everywhere, which is why NASA needs to develop mitigation techniques for that too. Solar farms on the surface would need regular cleaning and they have to favor suitports instead of airlocks for EVA. BTW, Curiosity doesn't have tires. Rubber doesn't like very cold temperatures and it's heavy. The wheels are made of aluminium, and yes, they are concerned that they are getting more wear than anticipated. http://news.discovery.com/space/martian-wear-and-tear-curiositys-wheel-damage-photos-131220.htm

Why and how did they remove it from the LM before dumping it?

The reason you don't see stars in most photos taken from space is because of photographic exposure. When you take a picture of a bright object (the Earth's horizon, the lunar surface, or another spacecraft), you set the exposure for the subject. This means that the backdrop (the dark sky) is underexposed and the stars disappear. If you You can take pictures of the stars from space by setting the exposure on the dark sky. That's what telescopes do. But then, if you have another bright subject in the frame, it will be overexposed and the picture will be ruined. You would need to take HDR pictures to get both the stars and the bright subject. Astronauts see the stars fine (on Apollo, they even used the stars for navigation) because the human eye adapts to what its seeing and the brain combines all that information together seemlessly.

Planetary Resources' business model is to make Powerpoint Presentations and YouTube clips in order to raise funding for more Powerpoint Presentations and YouTube clips. That's common for most of the so-called "New Space" sector.

A moon mission could probably be done with two or three launches. One for the crew on Orion, one for the lander, and one for the EDS, which could be an ACES stage (the successor to Centaur that ULA has been proposing). The biggest problem with multiple launch architectures is the loitering period between the launches. Cryo propellant boils off pretty rapidly, which means that you would need to launch your crew and your EDS within a couple of days of each other. If either of those launches is scrubbed due to weather or anything else, you risk losing the whole mission. This is why a multiple launch architecture pretty much requires an orbital propellant depot. The depot would combine active and passive boiloff mitigation (sun shades and solar-powered cryo equipment) and would be replenished with tankers (there is a proposal for an ACES-derived tanker). It gives you a place to store propellant for several missions, to assemble your vehicle, and can be run as a commercial service.

It's a 50 year old industrial building. It's no surprise that it needs some modernization.

With one flight scheduled every year or two, there will should be ample time to allow visits.