I suppose you could do it with solar but that's boring.
Honestly the mass of a nuclear reactor is probably prohibitively large to allow it to be launched anyway, short of something like Skylon cutting launch costs by a factor of 10-100.
I suppose you could do it with solar but that's boring.
Honestly the mass of a nuclear reactor is probably prohibitively large to allow it to be launched anyway, short of something like Skylon cutting launch costs by a factor of 10-100.
Er... either I am totally misunderstanding what you wrote or I am having a huge physics fail moment or....no, it wouldn't.Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa
It doesn't matter how you launch something, you will have always recoil. If you give an object some energy to accelerate its inertia will apply the same force in the opposite direction. The only way something doesn't causes recoil is if itself supplies its acceleration energy, i.e. rockets.
Please note: I'm trying to repeat what I thought I understood from various resources I've consumed over time on that topic. I'm nowhere near an experte on that matter and need to trust "the experts" on this. That implies a lot of possibilities to be wrong for me: "experts" not being experts. Science has come to new conclusions meanwhile or (the most likely reason) I was to dumb to understand the facts presented.Surely the problem is getting the fuel there in the first place no? No fossil fuels, which we're still highly reliant on for launches, and even in the lower gravity moon environment they would be needed. You'd spend a lot launching fuel to take to the moon, to then launch something else. Probably less efficient than just launching on Earth.
Harvest moon itself (H3). Harvesting other resources (asteroids etc.) might be also easier when done moon-based.
Very good point. It might be more economical to launch from a "solid ground" with a bit of gravity, though. Very trivial example: being able to lay your tools aside/on the ground for a moment without needing some extra measures to avoid them floating away. But I really have no idea. The bean counters need to figure that one out.
I've heard of that examples, too. That's basically a Gauss or Rail gun with the spacecraft as its "bullet". Not sure how serious this can be taken. The idea sounded nice. It would also solve another problem: the enormous and long persisting dust clouds (assuming moon-based launch) that would be created when using traditional chemical rocket engines.Any reason you can't use an electro-magnetic launcher? ie. spaceship sits in the middle of it, electro-magnetic rail-gun for ships "lauches"(shoots) ships out into the slingshot tragectory. Asides from it needing to be a fucking massive electro-magnetic tube, is there any reason it wouldn't work? Would solve recoil right?
The basic principle is correct, it's just the practical nature of it. Lets say we had a huge reserve of ready to use rocket fuel on the moon, and all the stuff we need to build a rocket already, just like we do on Earth. In this case then it's true that it would be significantly more fuel efficient to launch from the Moon than Earth.Please note: I'm trying to repeat what I thought I understood from various resources I've consumed over time on that topic. I'm nowhere near an experte on that matter and need to trust "the experts" on this. That implies a lot of possibilities to be wrong for me: "experts" not being experts. Science has come to new conclusions meanwhile or (the most likely reason) I was to dumb to understand the facts presented.Surely the problem is getting the fuel there in the first place no? No fossil fuels, which we're still highly reliant on for launches, and even in the lower gravity moon environment they would be needed. You'd spend a lot launching fuel to take to the moon, to then launch something else. Probably less efficient than just launching on Earth.
Harvest moon itself (H3). Harvesting other resources (asteroids etc.) might be also easier when done moon-based.
The practical problem though is that we would need to first get all these items to the Moon before we can launch from there, which of course uses fuel, probably a lot more fuel than we would stand to save from a moon launch.
Even if we built a space elevator, you would be better off building your craft at the top of the space elevator than on the moon, as then it still requires less fuel and is less constrained by the design requirements of being able to survive a launch that currently dictate rocket design.
No. No. Really: No.
Making spaceships does not work like changing a tire. Besides, you could solve that rather easily by using magnets. In general gravity would hinder construction a lot. Not only because ..well.. things weight stuff, but also because it does not really make sense to construct a spaceship under gravity.
That's a bit like creating a ship for the oceans surface 1 mile underwater. Sure, you could do it, but you would have to design the ship in such a way that it survives the underwater conditions as well as the surface conditions.
Another problem is the moon dust. Construction on the moon would have to happen in sealed halls which a rather extensive mechanism to keep them clean too. In space you can do it in the open.
I always assumed right from the start that we are talking about electromagnetic guns, it is the only thing which makes sense.I've heard of that examples, too. That's basically a Gauss or Rail gun with the spacecraft as its "bullet". Not sure how serious this can be taken. The idea sounded nice. It would also solve another problem: the enormous and long persisting dust clouds (assuming moon-based launch) that would be created when using traditional chemical rocket engines.
If you use chemical engines to shoot stuff recoil is a total nonissue anyway because you do not need to launch those from a certain object, they launch themselves.
I think the first thing we need is a real self-sustainable presence in orbit. The ISS was an amazing accomplishment for its time, but it's still essentially a cramped space-bunker that needs to be resupplied on a regular basis.
Status of Babby: 100% Formed
Dude ... I dunno understand ... can you mangle that into a car analogy?
No, serious: good example for dummies like me. Makes sense. Thx for that.
On the topic of Nuclear reactors in space, I read an interesting article today on the topic of post cold war Plutonium shortage as a result of the ceasition of Nuclear Weapons manufacture and how it is likely to impact NASA in a big way when putting together Cassini like probes in the future.
Regarding construction in space, my opinion is we should, but only once the cost of moving stuff in to space in reduced. You might argue that you won't need to build stuff in space at that point, but as has already been pointed out you wouldn't build a boat under water, and there is the concept that even with affordable access to Space there is still an economy for building stuff in space.
Last edited by Hatepeace Lovewar; August 8 2012 at 04:15:54 PM.
You're like a fluffy gerbil sat on a naked woman's crotch, you might think you're looking cool, but everybody else thinks you're a cunt.
Not really - there are plenty of other isotopes lying around in spent fuel from power stations that you can use to powe RTGs. Americium is probably the most obvious one. The only requirement is that it's active enough to get hot and ling enough lived to not run down before the rest of the probe. Ease of working, friendly chemistry etc are a bonus.
I read 'Mining The Sky' recently, written by this gentleman, and although it was written about 15 years ago it offered a lot of practical reasoning on the whys and wherefores of a lot of the issues you chaps are discussing, it even covers space elevators...
The author talks about pros and cons of basing operations on the moon/mars/asteroids etc, as well as where all the fuel for these & future expeditions would come from. The only information that felt dated was regarding automation of tasks, the fields of robotics & computing has advanced a lot since he wrote this and we will arguably be conducting any initial exploration remotely.
Anyway, definitely worth a read if you have more than a passing interest in this stuff, and the science isn't too heavy either.
Selfsustained ? Maybe by the end of our lifetime.
It's for landing on the moon/mars and using it to as a fuel. Hugely inefficient, but if setting up a long term base/fuel depot for future missions it may be a good idea. And for Mars it might allow production of return-trip fuel.
It's for converting solar or nuclear energy into useful chemical [potential] energy to shoot out of the back of a rocket. Obviously.
The article discusses other isotopes (mentions thorium in particular) and indeed even touches on Solar (and it's inability to fulfill operational requirements beyond jupiter) but it's conclusion is there are no other isotopes that are as effective as Plutionium 235 and it's going to limit and or cost NASA more to operate these sort of probes without it (given our current technological understanding which is of course subject to change).
You're like a fluffy gerbil sat on a naked woman's crotch, you might think you're looking cool, but everybody else thinks you're a cunt.
This is an interesting topic. I wonder with all the danger of the smallest thing going wrong and people dying; how many of you would go?
In a heartbeat.
Yes.
I'd volunteer for a 1-way trip to Mars. I'd rather die helping expand the knowledge of all humanity than waste away 60 years from now having had no opportunity to do anything of equivalent importance.
Re: Moon - has anyone not considered the fact that a much greater density/concentration of resources might outway the whole gravity well thing?
What makes you think the moon has a greater density/concentration (same thing) of resources than a given asteroid?
o/
You're like a fluffy gerbil sat on a naked woman's crotch, you might think you're looking cool, but everybody else thinks you're a cunt.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks