Atheist Discussion

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/world/nas...index.html

Quote:NASA to test nuclear thermal rocket engine for the first time in 50 years

Good idea to test new concepts and methods although one line in the story caught my attention.

Quote:The more efficient nuclear process, NASA said, could allow spacecraft to traverse the 140 million-mile (225 million-kilometer) average distance between the Earth and Mars far more quickly than is possible today, greatly reducing the amount of time astronauts are exposed to dangerous levels of radiation on future deep-space missions.

Sounds good in theory but getting to Mars quicker simply increases the amount of time spent ON MARS which has minimal atmosphere and no magnetic field to protect against radiation.  I suppose they could sit there under some sort of shield but couldn't they do that on Earth for a lot less money?

As long as NASA continues to send the red shirts on these missions, costs should be kept to minimum.

(01-25-2023, 12:08 AM)Minimalist Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/world/nas...index.html

Quote:NASA to test nuclear thermal rocket engine for the first time in 50 years

Good idea to test new concepts and methods although one line in the story caught my attention.

Quote:The more efficient nuclear process, NASA said, could allow spacecraft to traverse the 140 million-mile (225 million-kilometer) average distance between the Earth and Mars far more quickly than is possible today, greatly reducing the amount of time astronauts are exposed to dangerous levels of radiation on future deep-space missions.

Sounds good in theory but getting to Mars quicker simply increases the amount of time spent ON MARS which has minimal atmosphere and no magnetic field to protect against radiation.  I suppose they could sit there under some sort of shield but couldn't they do that on Earth for a lot less money?

They'll just land the astronauts on the dark side, easy-peasy. 

We're gonna get to Mars one way or another regardless of whether it's a great idea or not.

I heard they already rented the warehouse in Burbank for this one.

They got a deal on it, everybody is warehousing from home these days.

(01-25-2023, 12:08 AM)Minimalist Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/world/nas...index.html

Quote:NASA to test nuclear thermal rocket engine for the first time in 50 years

Good idea to test new concepts and methods although one line in the story caught my attention.

Quote:The more efficient nuclear process, NASA said, could allow spacecraft to traverse the 140 million-mile (225 million-kilometer) average distance between the Earth and Mars far more quickly than is possible today, greatly reducing the amount of time astronauts are exposed to dangerous levels of radiation on future deep-space missions.

Sounds good in theory but getting to Mars quicker simply increases the amount of time spent ON MARS which has minimal atmosphere and no magnetic field to protect against radiation.  I suppose they could sit there under some sort of shield but couldn't they do that on Earth for a lot less money?

Uhm... no?

If they have the remass etc to get there quicker then there's not that much (Other than hauiling the remass) to get back just as quick.

The old 'Boom-boom' atomic Orion had enough thrust to mass that it simply didn't have to  care about orbital positioning. Just launch, point, thrust, land, lift off again, point, thrust and you're home.

 

Not at work.

(01-25-2023, 12:08 AM)Minimalist Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/world/nas...index.html

Quote:NASA to test nuclear thermal rocket engine for the first time in 50 years

Good idea to test new concepts and methods although one line in the story caught my attention.

Quote:The more efficient nuclear process, NASA said, could allow spacecraft to traverse the 140 million-mile (225 million-kilometer) average distance between the Earth and Mars far more quickly than is possible today, greatly reducing the amount of time astronauts are exposed to dangerous levels of radiation on future deep-space missions.

Sounds good in theory but getting to Mars quicker simply increases the amount of time spent ON MARS which has minimal atmosphere and no magnetic field to protect against radiation.  I suppose they could sit there under some sort of shield but couldn't they do that on Earth for a lot less money?

Ferdinand and Isabella are weeping quietly somewhere.

(01-25-2023, 01:20 AM)Fireball Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-25-2023, 12:08 AM)Minimalist Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/world/nas...index.html




Good idea to test new concepts and methods although one line in the story caught my attention.



Sounds good in theory but getting to Mars quicker simply increases the amount of time spent ON MARS which has minimal atmosphere and no magnetic field to protect against radiation.  I suppose they could sit there under some sort of shield but couldn't they do that on Earth for a lot less money?

They'll just land the astronauts on the dark side, easy-peasy. 

There is a dark side on Mars? Maybe it will be a fast mobile station. LOL!

(01-25-2023, 01:31 AM)GenesisNemesis Wrote: [ -> ]We're gonna get to Mars one way or another regardless of whether it's a great idea or not.

A nuclear rocket is dangerous to launch (and I think against most treaties). One would hope legal and safe components would be sent to an established Moon base in separate flights to be assembled at a safe launchpad for later flight to Mars.

I can't wait for NASA to get totally serious and light THIS kind of candle!



 

Cheers.

Not at work.

I read a scifi short where the guy who manned the new atomic rocket got to watch a catalytic reaction caused by the atomic engine of his space ship at launch had burned off the surface of the Earth.

(01-26-2023, 12:32 PM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: [ -> ]I read a scifi short where the guy who manned the new atomic rocket got to watch a catalytic reaction caused by the atomic engine of his space ship at launch had burned off the surface of the Earth.

I admire sci-fi. Some authors have very accurately identified current problems decades ago. But most have not. An "atomic" ship could not cause "burned off the surface of the Earth".

(01-26-2023, 02:24 PM)Cavebear Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-26-2023, 12:32 PM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: [ -> ]I read a scifi short where the guy who manned the new atomic rocket got to watch a catalytic reaction caused by the atomic engine of his space ship at launch had burned off the surface of the Earth.

I admire sci-fi.  Some authors have very accurately identified current problems decades ago.  But most have not.  An "atomic" ship  could not cause "burned off the surface of the Earth".

In the story they used a catalyst to "ignite the iron fuel". The catalyst hit the Earth's surface and triggered a runaway explosion.

(01-26-2023, 03:14 PM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-26-2023, 02:24 PM)Cavebear Wrote: [ -> ]I admire sci-fi.  Some authors have very accurately identified current problems decades ago.  But most have not.  An "atomic" ship  could not cause "burned off the surface of the Earth".

In the story they used a catalyst to "ignite the iron fuel". The catalyst hit the Earth's surface and triggered a runaway explosion.

"Catalyst". Well, OK then. That explains everything.

I do have a "williing suspension of disbelief" for certain purposes.

It's nice when inert materials explode on demand, ain't it?

(01-26-2023, 10:34 PM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: [ -> ]It's nice when inert materials explode on demand, ain't it?

I am convinced all sci-fi books are written backwards. The author thinks of a great ending and then writes a way to get there. That way, he/she can invent anything they need along the way.

(01-26-2023, 10:44 PM)Cavebear Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-26-2023, 10:34 PM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: [ -> ]It's nice when inert materials explode on demand, ain't it?

I am convinced all sci-fi books are written backwards.  The author thinks of a great ending and then writes a way to get there.  That way, he/she can invent anything they need along the way.  

That's how I did it.