The research project required to make such a thing work would be enormous. Why not go with less unusual nuclear propulsion technology that's already well understood and well tested?
Quote:The research project required to make such a thing work would be enormous. Why not go with less unusual nuclear propulsion technology that's already well understood and well tested?
First, that little model was created to show stability in flight before computer technology was able to do so by mathematic modeling alone.
Second, unless Newton’s laws are somehow in question there is no reason to spend a dime on research for proof of concepts as modern computers simulations had been done over the decades to check on the 1950s work and found no problems.
Therefore, I would suggest you might wish to look into the matter a little more deeply before posting complete nonsense as the "research" cost would be the cost to print out the plans already in computers around the world.
It is a simple repeat simple heavy flat plate with bombs place behind it.
Unlike the complex nightmare of a nuclear rocket there is nothing that call for or need great testing before hands in a push plate ship.
US nuclear bomb technology is as mature as any technology in the world and does not call for any testing either.
Build the thing and fly it that is all that call for in spite of your fear when someone used the words nuclear bombs as by it very nature be far far safer the betting your life on a very complex nuclear rocker motor with far less preformed beside.
Sure, it could be as the engineering is as clear-cut as anything could be.
There is nothing repeat nothing that calls for a big research program as the physic and the engineering is simple and completely understood.
Side note the gun type uranium bomb unlike the plutonian implosion type was tested by being drop on a Japanese city as we did have an understanding of that type of weapon and not a great deal of uranium to waste on tests.
In any case the complete wonderful beauty of a nuclear bomb driven ship is that is it simple not a complex nightmare of a reactor type rocket.
Once more all we need to do is build it and fly it.
For Mission to Mars, a New Road Map
By KENNETH CHANG
Published: June 7, 2010
GALVESTON, Tex. " “Game-changing” and “affordable” are perhaps the most repeated adjectives spoken by NASA officials in the last few months.
But skeptics in Congress counter that NASA has provided too few details to convince them that they should largely throw away the $10 billion that has been spent so far in NASA’s Constellation moon program and spend billions more on something new.
At a workshop last month in Galveston, members of NASA study teams looking at how to put in effect the Obama policy presented their current thinking to 450 attendees from industry and academia.
The NASA presenters, in describing how the space agency could make it to Mars on a limited budget, said their ideas represented “a point of departure” that would be revised with feedback.
The new plans place a heavy emphasis on in-orbit refueling stations, which would reduce the size of rockets needed. For propulsion to Mars, the road map envisions a nuclear-powered ion engine.
Some aspects remain fuzzy. Cristina Guidi, deputy director for NASA’s Constellation systems division, who talked about future heavy-lift rockets, said NASA had not figured out how powerful a heavy lifter it needs for human missions beyond Earth orbit, much less a specific design.
NASA is also looking at a series of robotic missions, to the Moon, to asteroids, to Mars, that would gather data needed to set the stage for future astronauts.
Developing technology before deciding on a specific mission, however, leaves some worried that programs could fall victim to the type of budget cuts that have historically affected NASA’s technology programs. For example, NASA’s last effort to develop a nuclear reactor for spacecraft was canceled after only three years.
Indeed, the proposed technology programs being considered are already facing cutbacks.
The administration has proposed continuing development of the Orion crew capsule, which was slated for cancellation with the rest of Constellation, as a lifeboat for the International Space Station.
The slimmed-down Orion would still cost $4.5 billion to complete, and that money would come at the expense of other items in the human spaceflight program. None of the cuts would come from the $6 billion proposed for the space agency’s commercial crew initiative over the next five years, so much of the money is likely to come out of the technology programs.
The plans presented at the Galveston conference did not take Orion into account.
“We’ll just have to rebalance the whole portfolio,” said Michael G. Conley, the study leader for NASA’s so-called flagship demonstration projects, which include a prototype fueling station. “I’m still optimistic we can do some things.”
A presentation on NASA’s commercial crew plans suggested that the agency would give companies wide leeway, but would also require the work to be done at a fixed cost rather than the “cost-plus” contracts that govern most of NASA’s current work.
James S. Voss, vice president of space exploration systems at Sierra Nevada Corporation, which is developing a small spaceplane called Dreamchaser that would ride atop an Atlas V rocket, said that what he heard at the workshop “was exactly what we were hoping for and working for.”
A version of this article appeared in print on June 8, 2010, on page D4 of the New York edition.
Well there is little point in going on here as I can not even dream what you could find to spend a big research budget on in connection to such a ship.
It work by Newton's laws and by placing one bomb after another behind a plate and not even our government could waste a lot of funds doing research on such a simple concept ship.
But keep repeating over and over again how somehow is must it just must require a large research program before we could build the thing and fly it by placing bombs behind a plate.
Hell ros, The way this group disagrees on everything, if we ever wound up in a burning building, nobody'd get out alive.
At this time in our development, I think we learn more by sending robots to Mars and/or the moon. It's safer and we get the information for a longer time.
So, did we decide? Should it be Mars or The Moon?
We gave you 21 pages of responses. Do you really want to rehash the same arguments?
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:At this time in our development, I think we learn more by sending robots to Mars and/or the moon. It's safer and we get the information for a longer time.
Despite the success of the Mars Rovers, I think it's important to remember that it would have taken a geologist in a space suit mere moments to gather the same info that it took the rovers months to gather. In addition, a human on the surface can actively select more interesti
Ang things to investigate. The rovers can't do that even with humans a million miles away looking through their robotic eyes.
The rovers have been on Mars for several years now, but the distances they have covered and the things they've discovered could have been done by a human in a mars-buggy in less than a week. Robots will get better over time, and they are definitely cheaper to send, but there is no comparison between them and humans when it comes to how much can be discovered in a smaller amount of time.
A human being can actively, creatively, interactively, and experientially *explore* an area. But a remotely operated vehicle can only report data. There is a world of difference. A Whole World in this case.