mdatspace

I think this thread has gone off topic. You are stuck with the restrictions on nuclear propulsion, Crazyewok. Look at my first post on this thread.

3 will not work. The colony will still have the regulation you are trying to avoid. The government of said country will enforce that regulation. You can launch the nuclear engine into space and use it. NTR is acceptable if you do so. I am open to nuclear propulsion, but it has to abide by laws and regulations as I said(Nuclear test ban etc). NERVA is a good suggestion.

The restrictions are real. The populace thinks of Chernobyl and Fukushima when they hear the word nuclear. You know who politicians represent.

When did I say you were not allowed to use anything other then chemical engines? Quite a misrepresentation.Building a shipyard on the Moon or Mars just because you can supposedly bypass restrictions on propulsion systems does not justify the costs compared to just sticking with chemical engines and using fuel depots. This is what I think. This thread has gone off topic.

You still have to develop the engines you send there. The colony could be controlled by a certain nation, so the politicians still control what goes. That applies even if the colony is an international effort.There is simply no reason to build a whole shipyard and colony there. The base could be used for the production of fuel and oxidizer from resource extraction. That could fuel ships on their way. But that is not a way around restrictions on propulsion.

Like Kryten said, just refueling the ship would be easier than building the whole craft there. It is harder to send payloads to the moon and mars compared to LEO, and you are sending the materials needed to construct the ship. You need to supply that shipyard and its workers. It is essentially a colony. You need to launch a ship up there for assembly, which is expensive. Why not build the ship on earth and launch it? Resource extraction is a better reason to have a colony than construction. A fuel depot makes the reasoning behind a shipyard moot. You can just refuel the ship rather than launch it from there.

Why not assemble the ship in LEO? Set up resource extraction on the Moon or Mars.

It is expensive. Remember, you can utilize the resources of the objects you are landing on.But there is a lot less development cost involved. You do not need to develop new engines. You do not need to dispose of said engines. And, it has no political problems.

A mission to the asteroid belt could use depots at mars. ISRU is a way for chemical rockets to be viable for interplanetary missions going past mars. Land on the asteroids and use resources. Ceres has ice. That can be used for water, oxygen and rocket fuel. Yes. Set up a temporary fuel depot in Mars orbit. The ship will dock with the depot,fill up and get to the target asteroid.You would use launch windows, but with depots it would be less of a concern.

Chemical can go further than mars. New Horizons used mono-propellant and gravity assists to get to where it is now. Pioneer 11 used mono-propellant and gravity assists, too.

I weighed down nuclear so other options could shine. Nuclear propulsion is a very good idea. But we need to innovate rather than saying "Nuclear or nothing." What challenge is there when the easiest choice is right in front of you? You could launch NTR into space and use it. I got rid of some crazier proposals by adding environmental and political restrictions.I think chemical rockets can be used for further out than Mars, however.

I weighed down nuclear propulsion with real political and environmental problems so it would not be the easiest way out. Anybody who has used an LV-N in KSP knows why NTR is a good idea for interplanetary travel. As much as I like NERVA, I must say chemical propulsion is still our best friend.

It still needs to be validated. It has to be ready by 2050, according to my post.

A part of my design criteria:"Technology:Must be viable today." Is fusion viable today?

I know people will react that way. The engine poses no threat once it is in space. Could work. Or doesn't work at all. http://www.spacenews.com/article/vasimr-hoaxVASIMR needs an enormous amount of electricity. You should bet on other forms of propulsion.

You launch the nuclear engine into space, and then you activate it.I will edit my challenge to include this part.

Who would use a nuclear rocket in the atmosphere?I made that limitation so this topic would not become the "Project Orion thread."

That would work.

Considering how NERVA is nuclear propulsion, you need to get rid of the engine or put it somewhere where it will not encounter the earth.

The destinations are a challenge. They are just a test I think I need to make some tweaks to our challenge.

I think this thread is a need. We have had debates on the viability of some propulsion systems(Mostly Orion), but this is about systems that are practical today. Your constraints are: Technology:Must be viable today. Laws:The propulsion system must be viable, politically speaking. Thus, it cannot break any restriction on certain propulsion systems. Budget:You have 7.5 billion dollar project budget per year. Schedule:Mars landing by 2025. Large Asteroid landing by 2050. You must have a Mars colony by 2038. The second mission should use non-chemical propulsion. Safety:Some engines may need to be safely disposed of after use. Nuclear engines must be launched into space before use. The goal? -Develop a way to get to said targets on said budget and on said schedule -Complete the objectives.

I am horrified by this chapter. Where is danny2462 when you need him!

Soyuz is good. But there are differences in capability compared to the shuttle. Soyuz can carry 3 people. The largest crew the shuttle flew was 8 people. The Shuttle can carry 24,000 kg to LEO. Progress(The cargo version of Soyuz) can carry 2,350 kg.

I strongly agree with the suggestion above.

Basalt and anorthosite.