What direction should NASA go after SLS?

[crazyewok]

100 trillion dollars is still an absurd amount of money. Maybe1-10 trillion dollars.

And the sort of construction the poster was sugesting was pretty absurd.

Im all for pushing boundrys and more resources being placed into space expansion ect But one step at a time First step if we have a hope in hell of space expansion is getting the politcal land scape changed so that Nuclear propulsion is acceptable. Only the nuclear has any possibility to get us to that sort of level.

[Skyler4856]

And the sort of construction the poster was sugesting was pretty absurd.

Im all for pushing boundrys and more resources being placed into space expansion ect But one step at a time First step if we have a hope in hell of space expansion is getting the politcal land scape changed so that Nuclear propulsion is acceptable. Only the nuclear has any possibility to get us to that sort of level.

I concur

Regular colony ships to Mars will require nuclear propulsion be it NERVA or Longshot. Orion will NEVER EVER

be approved PERIOD.

[crazyewok]

I concur

Regular colony ships to Mars will require nuclear propulsion be it NERVA or Longshot. Orion will NEVER EVER

be approved PERIOD.

NERVA wont get you to orbit

Orion will NEVER EVER

be approved PERIOD.

I dont see how its any worse than NERVA. Ok you get a bigger bang but that why you dont launch it over a city.

Anyway I wouldnt say never, if we got to the point of building ships in orbit then there absolutly no logical reason why it cant be built and would be a far more effective engine for interplanetry travel than any other proposed engine.

Edited January 20, 2014 by crazyewok

[jfull]

NERVA wont get you to orbit

I dont see how its any worse than NERVA.

Well, obviously you wouldn't use a NERVA for getting to orbit, its for the interplanetary stage (do you even play KSP?)

And there is a BIG difference between Orion and a NERVA. The nuclear component of a NERVA is just a reactor, while ORION uses full fledged nukes for propulsion. The safety and political considerations are different.

[Skyler4856]

NERVA wont get you to orbit

I dont see how its any worse than NERVA.

Anyway I wouldnt say never, if we got to the point of building ships in orbit then there absolutly no logical reason why it cant be built and would be a far more effective engine for interplanetry travel than any other proposed engine.

SSTO spaceplane to a Martian shuttle equipped with a NERVA engine for martian injection burn.

Orion requires the public to accept nuclear explosives as safe.

[crazyewok]

Well, obviously you wouldn't use a NERVA for getting to orbit, its for the interplanetary stage (do you even play KSP?)

The real world is not KSP.

And there is a BIG difference between Orion and a NERVA.

No **** sherlock

The nuclear component of a NERVA is just a reactor, while ORION uses full fledged nukes for propulsion.

I have just read a book on Orion and going through the declassfied papers I know the diffrence full well.

The safety and political considerations are different.

For safety I would say the short lived fallout from a Orion Nuke is far more than the potential fallout from a reactor that explodes or melts down. There is a reason why you can stand at ground zero in Hiroshima and die a horrible death if you stand at ground zero in Chernobyl.

As for political, I have no time for politics. Ok the monkeys in suites and unwashed masses that they rely on for votes will never go for it like the scared little fools they are, so no I doubt we will see it. But that POLITICS. Orion still remains SCIENTIFICALLY the best method for earth to Orbit and for interplantry and possibly intersteller travel

[crazyewok]

Orion requires the public to accept nuclear explosives as safe.

I know

The original orion project scientists should never have used the word "bomb" in there reports. They should have just called them fast fission energy release devices haha

[Skyler4856]

I know

The original orion project scientists should never have used the word "bomb" in there reports. They should have just called them fast fission energy release devices haha

Damn straight.

[crazyewok]

Damn straight.

It did confuse me. I mean it stoped being a bomb as soon as it became a engine. You could call a solid fuel rocket a bomb as it can explode but we dont as it not used as a bomb.

[SargeRho]

NERVA wont get you to orbit

Actually. NERVA has a TWR greater than 1. And you can use a LOX Augmented NTR (LANTR), a dual-mode NTR that can feed LOX into the exhaust stream for a substantial increase in thrust. Kind of like an afterburner.

[crazyewok]

Actually. NERVA has a TWR greater than 1. And you can use a LOX Augmented NTR (LANTR), a dual-mode NTR that can feed LOX into the exhaust stream for a substantial increase in thrust. Kind of like an afterburner.

Ok my bad but you still have radioactive material comeing out the rear. Ok its a small amount but no more really than a orion, if your going down that route may as well go full hog and go orion as you can lift whatever you want.

[SargeRho]

Producing insane ammounts of radioactive fallout in the process. NERVA spews far less radiation than Orion, and doesn't produce those pesky EMPs that would destroy all advanced technology on the ground if it was fired in low earth orbit or anywhere near LEO. They have explosively tested the NERVA engine. It could probably survive a loss of vehicle.

[TheDarkStar]

Ok my bad but you still have radioactive material comeing out the rear. Ok its a small amount but no more really than a orion, if your going down that route may as well go full hog and go orion as you can lift whatever you want.

Except you don't have any radioactive material coming out. Just about every design was closed-cycle - the nuclear material was there simply to heat a propellent (hydrogen AFAIK) to extreme temperatures. There were a couple open-cycle ones that did far better than any closed-cycle design, but those did things far beyond what was necessary.

Also, the Orion engine would not have even gone off in the lower atmosphere; SRBs would have been used to get the craft away from the denser lower atmosphere and surface.

[crazyewok]

Except you don't have any radioactive material coming out. Just about every design was closed-cycle - the nuclear material was there simply to heat a propellent (hydrogen AFAIK) to extreme temperatures. There were a couple open-cycle ones that did far better than any closed-cycle design, but those did things far beyond what was necessary.

Also, the Orion engine would not have even gone off in the lower atmosphere; SRBs would have been used to get the craft away from the denser lower atmosphere and surface.

Actually the orginal design was from earth to orbit.

The boosted design came later.

[crazyewok]

Producing insane ammounts of radioactive fallout in the process. NERVA spews far less radiation than Orion, and doesn't produce those pesky EMPs that would destroy all advanced technology on the ground if it was fired in low earth orbit or anywhere near LEO. They have explosively tested the NERVA engine. It could probably survive a loss of vehicle.

I will admitt im only just reading up on nerva.

I would hardly call orion insane amounts of fallout.

At worse it was calculated to harm 12 world wide, that 12 in a billion. There are factorys and commom manufactureing practices that have worse stats, hell driving is worse!

Edited January 20, 2014 by crazyewok

[Nibb31]

Does every thread here have to devolve into an argument about Orion ?

[KvickFlygarn87]

Prograde.

I had to, alright?

Seriously, Mars colonies, moar stations, Orion drive.

[nhnifong]

NASA will go to Mars I hope. It seems to be what they are preparing for.

[shynung]

The original orion project scientists should never have used the word "bomb" in there reports. They should have just called them fast fission energy release devices haha

This. This struck me as brilliant.

If the scientists and engineers refer to the "bombs" as "fissile fuel", Project Orion MIGHT have been much more developed by now, or at least have some application for sending probes to further destinations.

Heck, if some sort of nuclear propulsion system (either Orion or NERVA) has been fully developed, we would have been on Mars by now, and have rovers on Titan (the moon of Saturn) or Europa (the moon of Jupiter), and have probes on Pluto, without waiting for another Grand Alignment (which was the case for Voyager missions).

If I was controlling NASA, I'd pursue these propulsion systems first, along with alternative propulsion systems (NERVA, SABRE, hybrid rockets, various electric propulsion systems), then adapting the SLS to launch these into orbit.

Next, I would build what I call a modular spacecraft, which is basically a spacecraft that's so large, it has to be launched in segments and assembled in orbit. Then, landers, rovers, manned capsules, labs, probes, and other payloads would be docked to this massive spacecraft and be carried away to other planets, acting as a mothership of some sorts.

After the mission, the spacecraft would carry its returning payload back to Earth orbit, detach the manned capsules for reentry, and stay in orbit for for its next mission, with new capsules, new crew, and (possibly) new engines. This way, the WHOLE spacecraft, other than discarded segments due to damage, is recovered, and ready for new missions without launching it to orbit again.

I have tried this concept in KSP, and while initial efforts are challenging (it cost me 19 launches, and it has 350+ part count, not including payload), the results are staggering. For every subsequent missions, all I have to do is launch a resupply mission, send manned capsules and landers, maybe a processing lab, and simply set the thing on its way. That same spacecraft did at least a dozen missions before I lost my save and had to start over, and I'm thoroughly impressed by its capabilities.

If we are actually going to send manned missions to Mars, this would be essential, especially since sending additional supplies from Earth would take months to arrive. Going there with stockpiles in reach may be a better idea.

[Nibb31]

This. This struck me as brilliant.

If the scientists and engineers refer to the "bombs" as "fissile fuel", Project Orion MIGHT have been much more developed by now, or at least have some application for sending probes to further destinations.

It still involves atmospheric nuclear blasts, which have been banned since the 60's. Nobody is going to terminate or amend the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty because it would open the door to all sorts of rogue countries blasting EMPs and spreading plutonium clouds into the stratosphere. It won't happen. Can we please stop turning each and every thread into yet another debate about Orion?

Edited January 21, 2014 by Nibb31

[crazyewok]

It still involves atmospheric nuclear blasts, which have been banned since the 60's. Nobody is going to terminate or amend the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty because it would open the door to all sorts of rogue countries blasting EMPs and spreading plutonium clouds into the stratosphere. It won't happen. Can we please stop turning each and every thread into yet another debate about Orion?

hey we are all entitled to our opinions mate. Lets leave it at that.

Fact is Scientifically is possible a very good idea.

It politics that make it a bad idea. This forum is not about politics nor im I interested in politics.

Plus we both agree human spaceflight is not going anywhere at least in regards to colonisation and other things people dream of on chems, ever. Its not happening. Ok Orion will never happen, nor will humans get off earth in any large capasity.

Edited January 21, 2014 by crazyewok

[crazyewok]

This. This struck me as brilliant.

If the scientists and engineers refer to the "bombs" as "fissile fuel", Project Orion MIGHT have been much more developed by now, or at least have some application for sending probes to further destinations.

Heck, if some sort of nuclear propulsion system (either Orion or NERVA) has been fully developed, we would have been on Mars by now, and have rovers on Titan (the moon of Saturn) or Europa (the moon of Jupiter), and have probes on Pluto, without waiting for another Grand Alignment (which was the case for Voyager missions).

If I was controlling NASA, I'd pursue these propulsion systems first, along with alternative propulsion systems (NERVA, SABRE, hybrid rockets, various electric propulsion systems), then adapting the SLS to launch these into orbit.

Next, I would build what I call a modular spacecraft, which is basically a spacecraft that's so large, it has to be launched in segments and assembled in orbit. Then, landers, rovers, manned capsules, labs, probes, and other payloads would be docked to this massive spacecraft and be carried away to other planets, acting as a mothership of some sorts.

After the mission, the spacecraft would carry its returning payload back to Earth orbit, detach the manned capsules for reentry, and stay in orbit for for its next mission, with new capsules, new crew, and (possibly) new engines. This way, the WHOLE spacecraft, other than discarded segments due to damage, is recovered, and ready for new missions without launching it to orbit again.

I have tried this concept in KSP, and while initial efforts are challenging (it cost me 19 launches, and it has 350+ part count, not including payload), the results are staggering. For every subsequent missions, all I have to do is launch a resupply mission, send manned capsules and landers, maybe a processing lab, and simply set the thing on its way. That same spacecraft did at least a dozen missions before I lost my save and had to start over, and I'm thoroughly impressed by its capabilities.

If we are actually going to send manned missions to Mars, this would be essential, especially since sending additional supplies from Earth would take months to arrive. Going there with stockpiles in reach may be a better idea.

Nibb31 is right politicaly it wont get off the ground. It is the best way, but the best isnt all ways popular and popularity in this day and age is all that matters. And the masses are violenty opposed to anything nuclear rational or not.

We can dream though.

[bigdad84]

I have read through this whole thread, but after SLS I personally wish that NASA would finally get the hint that it is best to separate cargo and crew. I loved the whole constellation idea and wish it wouldn't have been cut.

[PakledHostage]

Does every thread here have to devolve into an argument about Orion ?

I agree. It is getting a lot tedious. I know it is a bit of a stretch, but maybe we could ask the mods to sticky an Orion thread and make it a rule that all discussion about project Orion goes there and there only? I don't think the rule would affect a lot of people. After all, there's really only one member on these forums who keeps bringing it up and subjecting the rest of us to the same arguments over and over, ad nauseam.

[crazyewok]

I agree. It is getting a lot tedious. I know it is a bit of a stretch, but maybe we could ask the mods to sticky an Orion thread and make it a rule that all discussion about project Orion goes there and there only? I don't think the rule would affect a lot of people. After all, there's really only one member on these forums who keeps bringing it up and subjecting the rest of us to the same arguments over and over, ad nauseam.

http://i.imgur.com/4JpEPPN.jpg

So because I hold a different opinion I am to be punished great.

I'm allowed my opinions your allowed yours. No ones putting a gun to your head and forceing you to reply to my comments. Dont agree? Ignore me. In fact your the ones derailing the thread. I put forward a idea which the OP asked what would WE like to see. And you are the ones now engaing me in a BURN THE HERATIC argument. You could have left my idea be and move on.

My stance is people want space cololnys, intersteller tavel and all these other grand ideas. Well you have two options

1)Go nuclear

2)Go home

Not budging from that one iota.

To censor my opinion implies you are threatened by them. Scared the idea might work or something? Sad reminder of who far we could have come but never will?

People keep posting the same crap about warp drives and other completly impossible concepts ect? Why dont jump on them too? Or is it cause what they suggest is impossible so you have nothing to fear?

Funny how a science forum end up in politics and what ideas are considered politically correct.

If you make a nuclear pulse only thread I demand a Chemical rockets only thread, NERVA only thread, VASMIR thread a Space elvevator only thread , antmatter only thread ect

Edited January 21, 2014 by crazyewok