Privatized space flight
23 May 2012, 10:23 pm
It does not produce enough thrust to launch into orbit unless it is powered by nuclear engines. Nuclear power is pretty much the only known source of energy large enough to carry sizable spacecrafts fast enough for long distance space flight.
The Russian government, as it turns out, is already doing R&D on nuclear propulsion.
VASIMIR is only good for space, yes. However nuclear engines may not be necessary, there are many spaceplane concepts that could make access to LEO quite easy, and from there, to a space station with a deep space capable craft. I am for use of nuclear energy in space but for launches from Earth's surface I think it presents an unnecessary risk
Most of these concept space planes will make LEO quite easy only for passengers on a short flight. They would be as expensive and prone to failure as the shuttle if they were large enough to carry cargo. What we need is a new kind of spaceplane that can fly into LEO, and then out into deep space and return to Earth much like the Shuttle. Nuclear is by far the most efficient way to do this, and I would not be opposed to nuclear spacecraft being launched from Earth. I honestly believe that media hype, combined with years of lobbying by the greenies, have created an insane paranoia about anything nuclear among the american public.
24 May 2012, 6:40 am
It does not produce enough thrust to launch into orbit unless it is powered by nuclear engines. Nuclear power is pretty much the only known source of energy large enough to carry sizable spacecrafts fast enough for long distance space flight.
The Russian government, as it turns out, is already doing R&D on nuclear propulsion.
VASIMIR is only good for space, yes. However nuclear engines may not be necessary, there are many spaceplane concepts that could make access to LEO quite easy, and from there, to a space station with a deep space capable craft. I am for use of nuclear energy in space but for launches from Earth's surface I think it presents an unnecessary risk
Most of these concept space planes will make LEO quite easy only for passengers on a short flight. They would be as expensive and prone to failure as the shuttle if they were large enough to carry cargo. What we need is a new kind of spaceplane that can fly into LEO, and then out into deep space and return to Earth much like the Shuttle. Nuclear is by far the most efficient way to do this, and I would not be opposed to nuclear spacecraft being launched from Earth. I honestly believe that media hype, combined with years of lobbying by the greenies, have created an insane paranoia about anything nuclear among the american public.
Most of these designs are barely off the drawing board, give it time, there will be more. Besides potential irradiation that could occur if a nuclear space craft were to explode, such an accident could spell serious problems for human spaceflight if it caused public support to turn against it. Not worth the risk, just keep the nuclear stuff to deep space
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
24 May 2012, 9:04 am
Space flight started with Robert Goddard in Worcester MA. A purely private undertaking. Just as air flight was started by two private citizens at Kittyhawk. Steam propulsion started off as a private effort. Electric street lighting was initiated by Thomas Edison as a private undertaking, in New York Cit.
All inventions start off as private efforts. Then the government gets involved.
ruveyn
24 May 2012, 9:23 am
He did not achieve space flight, merely extreme altitude flight. Moreover the idea that it was "purely private" is ludicrous. Most of his background research and experimentation was done using the facilities of the (publicly funded) physics labs at Clark University. He did pay for a few of the materials he used, but soon ran out of money, at which point he was sponsored by a number of publicly-funded institutions such as the Smithsonian (his biggest financial backer). Clark University (publicly funded) kicked in more money and allowed use of its (publicly paid for) facilities, and Worcester Polytechnic Institute - also publicly funded - contributed a test launch site.
In other words, apart from paying for a few materials in his early experiments, almost all of it was publicly funded.
And indeed, even after the experiment, he did not turn to private enterprise to publish his results on his own dime or anything like that. The Smithsonian published it, after his physics professor insisted they do so. Not that he was averse to private publishing (since he did publish experiments in Popular Science magazine), just that in this case, no private publisher was interested.
24 May 2012, 9:36 am
He did not achieve space flight, .
The first step into space is a vehicle with a propulsion system that works. Goddard's liquid fuel rockets differ in no essential principle from the more modern versions. Solid Fuel boosters were initiated by the Chinese about 1500 years ago.
A journey of 10,000 miles begins with a Single Step. Goddard took that step.
ruveyn
24 May 2012, 9:41 am
A journey of 10,000 miles begins with a Single Step. Goddard took that step.
Perhaps, but he didn't achieve space flight, nor did any of the many rocketry designs which preceded him, and it was only made possible by public facilities, money, and expertise - not private.
24 May 2012, 9:46 am
You are right. He just made it possible. That is one small step for a man, once giant leap for mankind.
Without the Goddards and the von Brauns (who started out privately, but ended up in the SS) there would be no space program for the Government to screw up thoroughly.
Governments have never created anything. They have just taken over (and often ruined) what individuals or voluntary groups of individuals have started. Government at best is a cop and at worst a tyrant and a parasite.
ruveyn
24 May 2012, 10:10 am
You are right. He just made it possible. That is one small step for a man, once giant leap for mankind.
Without the Goddards and the von Brauns (who started out privately, but ended up in the SS) there would be no space program for the Government to screw up thoroughly.
Governments have never created anything. They have just taken over (and often ruined) what individuals or voluntary groups of individuals have started. Government at best is a cop and at worst a tyrant and a parasite.
ruveyn
Government isn't anything - just an idea held in the minds of people. It can't be a cop, or tyrant, or parasite. It doesn't exist, outside the minds of people. Naturally, ideas are held by people. Government is one of those ideas. So are inventions. Neither can exist apart from being held in the mind. So it is not unexpected that most inventions start off with a person thinking an idea. How else would it happen? Government doesn't really exist, let alone think.
24 May 2012, 11:02 am
Government isn't anything - just an idea held in the minds of people. It can't be a cop, or tyrant, or parasite. .
Right. The Prisons and the tax bills are only hallucinations.
And the soldiers coming home in body bags, they don't exist either.
ruveyn
All done by people, who are the physically existing causes for things like road construction, incarcerating dangerous criminals, and war.
24 May 2012, 11:49 am
All done by people, who are the physically existing causes for things like road construction, incarcerating dangerous criminals, and war.
just people who take orders from other people as prescribed by Law. Just people who do things out of the blue? Not likely.
ruveyn
Last edited by ruveyn on 24 May 2012, 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
24 May 2012, 12:01 pm
Ion engines can't provide sufficient specific impulse to lift off from Earth's surface. NERVA, a nuclear-fission-powered rocket design, could do so easily, and emit steam as its exhaust - but people are so terrified of nukes that international treaties forbid the construction of NERVA-style engines on Earth. Until laser launch systems or beanpoles come into being, chemical rockets are all we have for reaching orbit.
Once you're in orbit, of course, you're halfway there - no matter where "there" is. The VASIMR coupled-charge plasma thruster could potentially be used now, but the thrust is too low for practical manned missions. Ad Astra is working on a version with a 200kW output; a few of those on a decently-sized craft, and you could develop a constant thrust of .01g, which would be enough to make Mars orbit in about 90 days (as opposed to 2-3 years for the traditional freefall Hohmann transfer orbit). As a side benefit, as long as you're operating in the inner system (say, anywhere this side of Ceres), you could generate sufficient power with solar panels to drive your thrusters. (Personally, I'd rather rely on a reactor - far less chance of losing power to a stray meteoroid - but it'd make the anti-nuke folks happier.)
_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.
24 May 2012, 12:04 pm
the current market requirements best suit a high speed shuttle service between major cities like new york and london etc. this requirement would be best serviced by a super stratospheric (my coinage sorry) craft that may be powered by a scramjet assembly.
the concorde was able to fly from new york to london in 3 hours, but it took 10 hours to fly from london to sydney. 10 hours is a long time. now the concorde is no more, and people have to commit themselves to 20 hour flights or more to go on long haul flights.
20 hours is daunting (especially if the flight is from sydney to los angeles (as the only scenery for the whole flight is the pacific ocean)).
i would pay more for my ticket (within reason) if i could go anywhere in the world within 6 hours.
as far as interstellar travel is concerned, i am of the opinion that there must be a way of breaking through the fabric of time that will allow for the manipulation of durations. i do not believe it is possible to travel at almost the speed of light in the current universal situation (my cognitive manifestation of it).
the momentum of even an ounce traveling at the speed of light is infinite. one would never be able to "apply the brakes" if one attained the speed of light. it would take infinite energy to slow you to sub light speed once you attained the speed of light (also with infinite energy).
nothing can go faster than light in the first 3 dimensions of reality.
alpha centauri is 4.5 years away at the speed of light. whatever. to think that one can travel in a straight line at the speed of light for 4.5 years through the cosmos without colliding with even one piece of space dust is lunacy.
and if a collision with a piece of dust occurs at that speed, then it can never be described adequately using words.
24 May 2012, 2:38 pm
Once you're in orbit, of course, you're halfway there - no matter where "there" is. The VASIMR coupled-charge plasma thruster could potentially be used now, but the thrust is too low for practical manned missions. Ad Astra is working on a version with a 200kW output; a few of those on a decently-sized craft, and you could develop a constant thrust of .01g, which would be enough to make Mars orbit in about 90 days (as opposed to 2-3 years for the traditional freefall Hohmann transfer orbit). As a side benefit, as long as you're operating in the inner system (say, anywhere this side of Ceres), you could generate sufficient power with solar panels to drive your thrusters. (Personally, I'd rather rely on a reactor - far less chance of losing power to a stray meteoroid - but it'd make the anti-nuke folks happier.)
Actually, a gas core nuclear reactor would be far more efficient and produce a much greater specific impulse than the NERVA rocket, which used a solid core reactor. Furthermore, with a gas core reactor, the (required)magnetic bottle used to contain the reaction would be able to trap neutrons, protons, and long-lived unstable daughter nuclei from being released into the atmosphere.
24 May 2012, 2:40 pm
All done by people, who are the physically existing causes for things like road construction, incarcerating dangerous criminals, and war.
just people who take orders from other people as prescribed by Law. Just people who do things out of the blue? Not likely.
ruveyn
They do it because of ideas they have (such as government, or law). But these ideas don't exist outside of people's heads, and certainly aren't capable of acting on their own. This is a fallacy of reification.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Alaska Airlines Flight Carrying Pets Arrives With Cargo Door |
12 Mar 2024, 7:22 pm |
| i really like space |
09 Mar 2024, 10:32 am |
| When someone says they need space, how long do you wait... |
20 Feb 2024, 5:01 pm |
| Strong scents in your space |
19 Apr 2024, 11:42 am |
