14

1/23/2013 9:46:58 PM

but yeah, if we (humans) want to seriously embark on interplanetary travel, our meager chemical rockets are not going to be sustainable... we need some sort of advanced propulsion... a lot of research has gone into solar electrical propulsion - the advantage being the energy isn't carried along with the craft... the disadvantage being huge and heavy solar panels.

oh... parts of the historic F1 engine (the main engine of the Saturn V "moon rocket" from the Apollo program) were test fired for the first time in decades recently. (One of the proposals is to use an updated version of the F1 to power liquid boosters for an upgraded version of the SLS once the already contracted 5 segment solid rocket boosters are used up.)
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/f1_sls.html

1/23/2013 10:09:30 PM

Quote :

"land a supercomputer on Titan. pretty cold there "

Aside from the obvious problem that Titan is in the bum-fuck middle of nowhere and the signal delay and rate would be absolute crap.... it doesn't matter much where you locate a supercold computer. If you shield from the sun, which is the exact thing the JWST will do, then you can have it super cold.

There is the problem of shielding from the Earth too, so if you wanted to get super cold you would just go to GEO, or the Earth-moon L2 or something like that. Once you get reasonably far it just doesn't matter anymore. What matters is the size of your radiator. The best radiator will be a god-awful giant sphere, far larger than the actual computer.

Quote :

"if we (humans) want to seriously embark on interplanetary travel"

Do you mean like a nuclear thermal Mars taxi?

1/24/2013 8:56:20 AM

There is actually a lot of buzz going on here at MSFC about this nuclear propulsion thing. There are a lot of nuclear physicist and engineers that finally get to design some flight hardware. There is an old nuclear engine behind one of the buildings from the 70s that is kinda cool.

1/24/2013 9:02:51 AM

^ but for what? You can't use nuclear for Earth to LEO, so where to where would it go?

1/24/2013 9:44:39 AM

Did you read the article I posted on the previous page (It was the last post so you may have missed it). Nuclear propulsion is a consideration for upper stage engines and in-space propulsion.

1/24/2013 10:30:48 AM

Quote :

"Do you mean like a nuclear thermal Mars taxi?"

yeah... an in space stage that can be used to efficiently move astronauts from L2 (for example) to a mars orbit, and preferably reused.

1/24/2013 11:10:11 AM

Is the idea just that a nuclear thermal rocket will get you mid-range specific impulses between chemical rockets and an ion thruster? You're still going to have to replenish the propellant each time.

1/24/2013 11:17:43 AM

i'm sure wraith would know a LOT more about it than me, considering he is in the industry and I'm just a passionate fan, but without becoming an instant wikipedia expert, my understanding is that in the end you can get a lot more isp from a thermal nuclear engine than traditional chemical engines, but with a much higher thrust than a typical ion engine.

(correct me if I'm wrong here)

1/24/2013 11:33:44 AM

Yeah but along with the higher specific impulse, you have to drag along more mass for the reactor systems. If you're going to Mars and hauling 5 Falcon Heavy's worth of propellant, I'm sure that it won't matter much.

But talking about it for upper stages to orbit? The answer always has been "no" and it always will be. Think about it, the idea is pointless without re-usability. So we're going to talk about a nuclear rocket stage going up and down, and up and down? Oh hell naw. That will never happen. You can get permission to send up a space-to-space mover, but that sucker isn't going to be allowed to go critical until it is firmly in orbit.

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 1:58 PM. Reason : ]

1/24/2013 1:57:49 PM

The amount of mass you'd have to bring along for the reactor systems wouldn't nearly be as much as the propellant needed for a traditional chemical rocket. And yes the idea is to use it for upper stages but only after the vehicle has left the atmosphere. There is still quite a bit of burn time needed to get to orbit where the atmosphere would be safe from any radiation related accidents.

The obvious benefit is more thrust for less weight and essentially better specific impulse. Of course all of this leads back to money as it means you are capable of launching a heavier payload requiring less trips overall.

1/24/2013 4:01:43 PM

And all the tests that proved the viability of those designs were in the 60s and 70s, an age with a completely different disposition to nuclear power. The requirements have changed. Even their press release is making compromises, saying that they'll use low-enriched Uranium. Unless you can get >2000 K reactor temperatures you won't break the thrust to weight ratio needed for this "obvious benefit" to even exist.

Do you really think that our political environment that requires LEU for spaceflight is going to look at a nuclear rocket and say "sure you can operate at that temperature"? We can't build a boring-as-hell gas reactor at over 1000 Celsius the way things are now. The proposition is utterly insane. There was a time you could do these projects and that time is long gone.

1/24/2013 4:39:18 PM

I think it's drilling

1/26/2013 4:39:10 PM

I know that only a handful of you guys are actual students or new graduates, but I figured I'd let you all know that there is an engineering position opening up here at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in the Thermal and Mechanical Analysis Branch. This is mainly directed to students/recent graduates in Aerospace or Mechanical Engineering, but those with backgrounds in other types of engineering/applied sciences will be considered. The specific position is dealing with dynamics and stress analysis.

If you have graduated within the past year or will be graduating in May and are interested, send me a PM and I'll give you more info. Please feel free to pass along to anyone who you think may be interested.

[Edited on January 30, 2013 at 9:17 AM. Reason : ]

1/30/2013 9:14:16 AM

They should update on how the drilling is going. This image looks almost like a robot hand with a rock. It did something, don't know what.

1/30/2013 11:16:26 AM

this thread is for future space programs, but there's a special coming on pbs tonight about the shuttle columbia & her israeli crew member. looks pretty good to me. 9pm on UNCEX

1/31/2013 11:02:46 AM

I think this thread is perfectly appropriate for announcements like that

It has morphed and expanded from it's original intent.

1/31/2013 11:31:48 AM

good!

http://missionofhopemovie.com/

1/31/2013 11:52:04 AM

2/2/2013 1:59:31 PM

that is a bad ass looking arm.

2/2/2013 8:12:59 PM

It has the drill bit going into rock there. We can look forward to information about the drilling coming out soon. Some of the images apparently show dust visibly moving due to the drill, like a jackhammer moving dust.

2/3/2013 2:44:22 PM

Well it spent the last Martian day taking pictures of itself.

2/4/2013 10:32:51 AM

it's so vain.

2/4/2013 10:48:44 AM

It took a picture of its drill bit after the drill, to look for wear and stuff....



But oh my the sexual innuendos...

2/4/2013 11:08:30 AM

Here is an article discussing how the MSL rover (curiosity) is helping with future manned missions to mars.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/02/curiosity-will-help-humans-reach-mars/

2/5/2013 9:20:30 AM

I thought those previous pictures were the drilling...

turned out it was just the 2nd test before they can start drilling

2/5/2013 9:43:32 AM

I don't see any oil down there yet



Curiosity, continue drilling and report back. Over.

2/7/2013 7:51:44 AM

yet

2/7/2013 8:37:33 AM

If they found oil I cant even imagine what to think about that. I know one thing though I would start looking to invest in whatever company is gonna be sending space barges up there to transport it back because you know it would happen and all of a sudden funding wouldnt be an issue haha.

2/7/2013 11:13:57 AM

It's ironic because Mars's atmosphere doesn't even have Oxygen to burn it with.

Nonetheless, if Mars does have oil, America will be sure that it gets a big heaping serving of Democracy.

[Edited on February 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM. Reason : wait, what is that in the corner of the picture? Do I spy a WMD? Those are centrifuges no doubt]

2/7/2013 11:17:32 AM

Considering "oil" that we know of is created largely by the decomposition of organisms, it'd raise a hell of a lot of questions much greater than "how fast can we start drilling on Mars?"

2/7/2013 11:21:13 AM

All the dinosaurs that lived on mars before obviously.

2/7/2013 11:46:31 AM

well it is thought that mars had some sort of seas at some point

and oil is made from the remains of ocean-dwelling organisms

i guess it would make the case that mars at one time had simple life in it's oceans.
(which of course would be profound news)

[Edited on February 7, 2013 at 2:01 PM. Reason : ]

2/7/2013 2:00:54 PM

pew pew pew

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/725385main_pia16762-946.gif

2/8/2013 9:40:43 AM

that's a nice animation. i haven't read, but is there a maximum depth they are trying to drill to or is it just to get a sample from below the surface of individual rocks?

2/8/2013 12:03:29 PM

That thing must vibrate quite a bit while drilling. That one section had quite a bit of movement all around it while everything else seemed to barely move.

2/8/2013 3:13:59 PM

mystery object seen on mars
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/02/um-whats-this-weird-hunk-of-metal-we-just-found-on-mars/272972/

2/10/2013 10:56:41 PM

at-a-boy Curiosity

2/11/2013 8:17:11 AM

all that blackness down there... that's oil!

2/11/2013 8:30:21 AM

2/14/2013 8:06:25 AM

Well it looks like that "Golden Spike" company was a bunch of hype (as suspected)... they are turning to a "crowd sourced funding" scheme.

2/14/2013 8:35:37 AM

its not likely they would find oil so shallow if theres oil on mars. Also, it would never be feasible for anyone to get the oil. Getting it and bringing it back would literally cost billions of times more than the value of the oil.

2/15/2013 12:13:08 AM

no... if they found oil on mars (*very unlikely*) it would be most valuable as in in situ resource for future missions to the red planet, and it would become VERY valuable.

2/15/2013 7:47:00 AM

^^ You say that now. We'll see who's laughing as we're fighting insurgents and dodging IEDs 10 years from now.

Quote :

"Well it looks like that "Golden Spike" company was a bunch of hype "

No, our experts tell me it's a WMD. A clear attempt by Mars to restart its weapons program.

2/15/2013 8:54:54 AM

Did Ronald Reagan sell weapons to mars too?

2/15/2013 9:29:52 AM

ha ok lets refocus/regroup here...

with the meteor wiping out half of russia this morning, and the other one passing by within the orbits of our geosynchronous satellites this afternoon, i wonder how much renewed interest there will be when it comes time to fund space programs?

2/15/2013 10:09:46 AM

Quote :

"with the meteor wiping out half of russia this morning, and the other one passing by within the orbits of our geosynchronous satellites this afternoon"

Act of war by Mars. Look at it, sitting there right next to the asteroid belt.

2/15/2013 10:57:52 AM

2/16/2013 11:08:37 AM

why u say oil unlikely? if mars had life, even simple life, it would have built up and made oil in the same way it did on earth. it doesn't take THAT much pressure. some old ocean would have a bunch of dead crap coating the ocean floor. However, there is no way it would be found easy.

RESSIA hit by asteroid cool! more funding for space exploration?

2/16/2013 12:16:41 PM

http://www.space.com/19817-house-committee-hearing-asteroid-risk.html

2/16/2013 12:24:35 PM