nuclear space engine - would it work ??

Scott Hedrick wrote:


No. It merely has to be economic to haul.

For example, it will almost certainly be cheaper to haul water to Venus than
to try to extract it locally.

If the means to deflect asteroids or comets is developed, then the water
problem is solved.

In what time scale? You are talking about sending wessles out to the
Kuyper belt to knock snowballs down on Venus. How many snowballs would
make Venus tractable? Can we afford it? Are there more profitable ways
of investing the money? Would you want to live on Venus? It might make a
good penal colony.

There is a better order of development. We must do something about our
propulsion technology. Our current rocket systems are merely
elaborations of the rockets developed by the Chinese in the Tang
Dynasty. Burn and coast travel is slow, but that is all we can do at the
moment. This has to change. We need ways of moving larger payloads
faster. This will enable us to build wessels properly shielded against
solar radiation and able to spin up to provide a gravity substitute.
This could be done without re-inventing physics. Another thing we have
to do is length human lifetimes. The projects you are talking about
require centuries. We only live to be 70 or 80 years old. How do you
motivate people to invest and labor when the outcome is not certain and
when the final result if it comes will be enjoyed by one's great
grandchildren.

Bob Kolker

William Black wrote:



Nuclear pulse jet.

Currently we have two nuclear applications.

The "slow burn" heats water to turn generator turbines. The "fast burn"
eliminates enemy cities.

Do you have more details on "Nuclar pulse jets"? It sounds interesting,
whatever it is.

Bob Kolker

"Robert Kolker" wrote in message
. ..
In what time scale? You are talking about sending wessles out to the
Kuyper belt to knock snowballs down on Venus.

Not at all. Merely Jupiter or Saturn and catch an incoming or outgoing
comet.

How many snowballs would
make Venus tractable?

Enough. Depends on why we want the water, of course.

Can we afford it?

If it's economical, which I stated.

Are there more profitable ways
of investing the money?

Would you want to live on Venus?

If the Usenet filters are better, certainly.

It might make a
good penal colony.

Hehheh...he said "penal"...hehheh...

The projects you are talking about require centuries.

That depends on how much water you need. A single comet should suffice to
handle a modest-sized colony for decades.

How do you motivate people to invest and labor when the outcome is not
certain and when the final result if it comes will be enjoyed by one's
great grandchildren.

If the answer to that were known, we'd be able to motivate Congress into
looking beyond the next election.

Robert Kolker wrote:
We only live to be 70 or 80 years old. How do you
motivate people to invest and labor when the outcome is not certain and
when the final result if it comes will be enjoyed by one's great
grandchildren.


Sounds more like a religion than space exploration. Oh wait, maybe space
exploration IS a religion?

Dave

Robert Kolker wrote:

Going to Mars or Jupiter has no relation to national defense. It should
not be funded by the government.

It has nothing to do directly with defending the country except to make
it worth defending.

--
Dave Michelson

Scott Hedrick wrote:


If the answer to that were known, we'd be able to motivate Congress into
looking beyond the next election.

I would prefer that Congress did not mug the taxpayer to fund space
missions. If the space mission is profitable then private firms can do
the job much better.

Going to Mars or Jupiter has no relation to national defense. It should
not be funded by the government.

Bob Kolker

David Spain wrote:


Sounds more like a religion than space exploration. Oh wait, maybe space
exploration IS a religion?

The big cathedrals of Europe were built over a three to five generation
span.

If the funding is voluntary I have no objection to such nonsense. People
can do anything the want with their own money.

Bob Kolker

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:34:01 -0500, Robert Kolker
wrote:

The "slow burn" heats water to turn generator turbines. The "fast burn"
eliminates enemy cities.

....We're working on the medium one, which heats water, burns just
miltary bases, and turns at least one meek scientist into a
gamma-irradiated monster whose strenght is directly in proportion to
his anger.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:50:24 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:

Would you want to live on Venus?

If the Usenet filters are better, certainly.

....****, Scotty - if they can't keep Brad Guth out of here, what makes
you think they'll be any better on Venus?

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:13:24 -0500, Robert Kolker wrote
(in article ):

Going to Mars or Jupiter has no relation to national defense. It should not
be funded by the government.

That's not the criteria for whether the U.S. government "should"
undertake any activity. Read the Constitution.

--
Herb Schaltegger
"You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you
down." - Johnny Cash
http://www.angryherb.net