nuclear space engine - would it work ??

Steve Hix wrote:

In article LYwXg.11715$2l5.1743@trnddc07,
David Spain wrote:


Herb Schaltegger wrote:

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.


So a Mars/Jupiter mission accomplishes?

A more perfect union?
Establishes justice?
Insures domestic tranquility?
Promotes the general welfare?


Possible.

How?


-or-

Secures the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?


Could happen.

How?

William Black wrote:

Nuclear pulse jet.

'Project Long Shot' is a name I have dragged from deep in my memory.



My favorite is still the Aldebaran concept:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/aldbaran.htm
Never have been able to track down which specific ocean liner that is,
but its design is fairly close to the U.S.S. United States.

Pat

In article ,
"Scott Hedrick" wrote:

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
Nor is there anything in there about authorizing congress to fund a
nuclear-powered navy.

Actually, a navy *is* mentioned.

Of course is was.

Nuclear-powered, no.

Self-powered armored divisions for the army, no.

Nor canals for transporting goods, as far as I recall.

It's more than a bit silly to attempt to set limits according to the
bare letter of the document.

Which is the direction Kolker was heading with his "nothing in the
Constitution authorizing congress to fund manned space flights", which
could reasonably be expected to lead some to argue toward "congress
should be forbidden to fund manned space flight".

That last might end up being decided in the future, but it wouldn't be
decided solely on the bare text of the Constitution alone.

In article ,
"Scott Hedrick" wrote:

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...

No mention of printing presses, pharmaceutical production, research,
education, aircraft carriers, submarines, artillery, automobiles, ...

Carriers, submarines and artillery are covered under the broad powers over
armies and navies. This includes the air force, which started out under the
army.

Of course they all are, which was my point. The text I was reponding to,
which you neatly cut, appeared very much to be arguing that if it wasn't
specifically called out in the Constitution, it couldn't happen. It's a
silly argument.

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
The text I was reponding to,
which you neatly cut, appeared very much to be arguing that if it wasn't
specifically called out in the Constitution, it couldn't happen. It's a
silly argument.

The Constitution lists what government has the authority to do. Government
is not allowed to do anything not permitted in the Constitution. It *does*
things without authority, of course, and some of them are good for us.

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Scott Hedrick" wrote:

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
Nor is there anything in there about authorizing congress to fund a
nuclear-powered navy.

Actually, a navy *is* mentioned.

Of course is was.

Nuclear-powered, no.

Detail not needed. Congress has authority to create and regulate a navy,
period.

Self-powered armored divisions for the army, no.

Detail not needed. Congress has authority to create and regulate an army,
period.

Nor canals for transporting goods, as far as I recall.

An awful lot of stuff is stuffed under the Commerce Clause, stretching it
far beyond recognition.

Steve Hix wrote:



Nor is there anything in there about authorizing congress to fund a
nuclear-powered navy.

But there is the power to fund -a- Navy. THe Constitution does not say
what kind. Armies and Navies are covered by the Constitution. Since no
kind of Army and Navy is specified the Constution applies to a -modern-
Army of Navy.

Bob Kolker

Scott Hedrick wrote:

A civilian space program is questionable. When I asked this question a while
back, I was accused of bashing NASA.

NASA has become very bashable. It is a bloated sick degenerate burocracy
and it has long lost whatever edge it had. What has NASA produced
lately. Space station Alpha ******** 1 aka ISS.

Bob Kolker

Steve Hix wrote:
Of course is was.

Nuclear-powered, no.

True. However the Constutition does not specifically restrict its scope
to the kinds of Armies, Navies and weapons of the time in which it was
written. Modern extensions are not forbidden.

The Constitution does have some flexibility, but not enough to fund
manned journies to Mars or Terraforming other planets. That would
require an Amendment.

Bob Kolker

Steve Hix wrote:

Of course they all are, which was my point. The text I was reponding to,
which you neatly cut, appeared very much to be arguing that if it wasn't
specifically called out in the Constitution, it couldn't happen. It's a
silly argument.

Journies of exploration are not among the things Congress is empowered
to authorize. In particular the Lewis and Clark expedition was
unauthorized as was the Louisian Purchase.

If you want Congress to be able to (legally) authorize journies of
exploration to other planets, write to your congresscritter to amend the
Constitution.

Bob Kolker