Looks like Boeing were playing KSP before anyone else...

[Excalibur]

Just an interesting video I found on YouTube, shame it never happened that way.

[Binky]

I love the optimism and enthusiasm for space exploration people had in the 60's. What ever happened to that? *sigh*

But one part bugs me "...manned missions to Venus..." And these people make aircraft? Anyone who thinks sending people to Venus is a good idea shouldn't be allowed to make toast

[RC1062]

Well... As long as you don't try to land you'll be fine...

[Johno]

Binky: Maybe not.

Manned missions to the SURFACE of Venus would be impossible. However, the closest environment in the Solar System to that of Earth's troposphere (where we live) is actually in the high atmosphere levels of Venus, at least in terms of pressure and temperature. Although you wouldn't be able to land without special equipment, you could theoretically leave your spacecraft in high atmosphere with only a breathing mask (and yeah, a suit to protect you from the Sulphuric Acid clouds . . .). And to make things better still, the incredibly thick Carbon Dioxide atmosphere would also mean that Earth's atmosphere would be a lifting gas; and it could be used in conjunction with simple plants to produce oxygent for the crew.

[Exoscientist]

Nice video but I don't think nuclear rockets launched from Earth would have been acceptable. Perhaps if we had space stations on the Moon such vehicles could be launched from there.

Bob Clark

[Shortsonfire79]

Perhaps if we had space stations on the Moon such vehicles could be launched from there.

Bob Clark

I think that I have just found my method of launching large stations and bases to the other planets. Great idea.

[LaydeeDem]

Nice video but I don't think nuclear rockets launched from Earth would have been acceptable. Perhaps if we had space stations on the Moon such vehicles could be launched from there.

Bob Clark

Nuclear engines are horrible in the atmosphere anyways.

[Koschei]

They were not going to be used in the atmosphere but for for the interplanetary maneuvers.

[Markus Reese]

I think that I have just found my method of launching large stations and bases to the other planets. Great idea.

I really cannot wait for a docking mechanic for this very purpose. For one on my KSP mods version, I set up an entire series of rockets and parts designed to be coupled together for a large station. Do it ISS style where everything had to fit within the 3m hull plates. Personally, I think this also would make for alot more fun on interplanetary missions. Build your main rocket in orbit by sending up a series of booster engines.

[Audiopulse]

I heard we could connect a maximum of two vessels together...? Was that false information?

[royalkingofgames]

you can

if you use mods/lander legs and dont want to time accelerate

[mossman]

Nice video but I don't think nuclear rockets launched from Earth would have been acceptable. Perhaps if we had space stations on the Moon such vehicles could be launched from there.

And why not? We've launched several nuclear powered spacecraft before which used RTGs (The Voyager probes and the recent Curiosity Mars rover, among others).

[Pleborian]

now THAT was an inspiration to go download novapunch if I ever saw it lmao seriously though that mars excursion module at 3:03... I dont know how but somehow im going to make that, its perfect! the huge round structure to land with and an exposed pod thats actually a mini rocket, genius

[Hyperon4]

I think its sad.. Instead of moving the humanrace forward into the future. "They" wanted to kill people instead. Just imagine what could be possible if Nasa had proper funding.. well... i hope we wake up soon.

[LaydeeDem]

I heard we could connect a maximum of two vessels together...? Was that false information?

You can in. 16 even. Using landing legs, but don't timewarp!

[Shortsonfire79]

I really cannot wait for a docking mechanic for this very purpose. For one on my KSP mods version, I set up an entire series of rockets and parts designed to be coupled together for a large station. Do it ISS style where everything had to fit within the 3m hull plates. Personally, I think this also would make for alot more fun on interplanetary missions. Build your main rocket in orbit by sending up a series of booster engines.

I did exactly that last week with a Delta IV rocket. You can find the video under my name on YouTube if you're interested.

[karolus10]

NERVA like engines are designed mostly for upper-stage (J2 replacement) / in-space propulsion (they reach ready to flight staus and still they most efficient hi-thrust propulsion technology available), but it was also designs for much more powerful engines for atmospheric boosters, but they never leave concept phase - no money and political/social support - people after cold war and Chernobyl strangely afraid everything with "nuclear" in name.

Comparable technology to NERVA could be VASIMIR, but second one are unproven and any existent power source aren't able generate required electrical power and even if will exist it must be compact and lightweight enough to had reasonable trust/weight ratio.

So if we need gigantic reactor to power VASIMIR, better use few smaller, cheaper and simpler NERVA engines that are able made same job done (and NERVA really exist).

Edited September 6, 2012 by karolus10

[RoboRay]

And why not? We've launched several nuclear powered spacecraft before which used RTGs (The Voyager probes and the recent Curiosity Mars rover, among others).

There's a huge difference between a craft powered by a nuclear RTG and a craft propelled by a nuclear rocket.

The first one sits there quietly, producing a small amount of heat which is used to produce electricity for operating the onboard systems.

The second one blasts large amounts of radioactive reaction-mass out of the craft. Which if you do it in an atmosphere, is kind of bad for the inhabitants.

[LaydeeDem]

There's a huge difference between a craft powered by a nuclear RTG and a craft propelled by a nuclear rocket.

The first one sits there quietly, producing a small amount of heat which is used to produce electricity for operating the onboard systems.

The second one blasts large amounts of radioactive reaction-mass out of the craft. Which if you do it in an atmosphere, is kind of bade for the inhabitants.

They work horribly in the atmosphere. NERVAs are vacuum engines. No one is going to be firing NERVAs in our atmosphere.

[Excalibur]

Actually I've read that sea-level Isp of NTRs is comparable to bi-propellant liquid fueled engines. Unfortunately the low TWR of NTRs compared to these liquid fueled engines does kinda preclude efficient in-atmos. use. The horrible mess they make that should discourage atmospheric use also. I'm glad you made your NERVA useless in atmosphere though, even if not strictly accurate it's a good balancing mechanic.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Excalibur
Missed out two words (in bold) - made the post seem quite rude to Nutt007 regarding his NERVA. Sorry Nutt!

[karolus10]

NTR engines work good also in atmosphere (is not true that NTRs working poor in atmosphere), but problem is about jettisoning it back into earth...

normal engines are cheaper and had a lot better thrust/weight ratio.

Power in NTRs lay in specific impulse: 800-900 isp, for comparison best chemical rockets (KSP stock specific impulse for vacuum is still quite poor) like Space Shuttle Main Engines had 363 isp for sea level and 452 for vacuum, Russian RD-0146 had vacuum isp of 465 (also ESA planned 470+ engine for Ariane 5 upper stage but 480 isp seems boundary of this technology) ,quite poor compared to NTRs.

Also NERVA engines are proven reliable and capable of long duration burns (to be exact NTRs don't burn fuel at all), longer than most chemical rocket engines can take and good restart-ability capabilities (we can easily control core temperature) we need "only" heat up the core and open fuel.

Edited September 7, 2012 by karolus10

[MaverickSawyer]

I believe there were plans to use a 30-minute burn with NERVA to make it to Mars.

The big problem was the fact that the superheated hydrogen had a tendancy to erode the moderator/matrix assembly in the engine core. Seeing as they used carbon-based materials, that's not suprising. However, modern materials should be able to handle it.

[Bluejayek]

I think its sad.. Instead of moving the humanrace forward into the future. "They" wanted to kill people instead. Just imagine what could be possible if Nasa had proper funding.. well... i hope we wake up soon.

[baked_by_oven]

The sad thing is, you know the economic downturn?

One of the solutions is A proper space race, Funding put into building space craft means more jobs in engineering, manufacture. There will be demand for skilled people and so education will employ more people. It also gives an idea as to where tax money goes.

[karolus10]

Nerva engines had proper protection from hydrogen erosion, so it's not an problem .

Wars in general are costly business, especially if you don't had too much to steal from invaded country .