A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

nuclear space engine - would it work ??



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #122  
Old October 10th 06, 03:09 PM posted to sci.physics.fusion,sci.space.history,soc.history.what-if,alt.history.what-if
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default nuclear space engine - would it work ??

Pat, yes, the image is kinda funny. Henry is right, though, in fifteen
years, no one expects robots to replace a skilled human in the
applications discussed. People will still be needed for teleoperation,
high level supervision and repair.

SEEGRID's first generation, the General Purpose Transporters,GPTs or
Guppies, don't talk and they have a rudimentary form of Asimov's Three
Laws imbedded. Besides, by the time speech is available in a commercial
autonomous robot, the robots may view Henry as a godfather.;-)

  #123  
Old October 10th 06, 07:39 PM posted to sci.physics.fusion,sci.space.history,soc.history.what-if,alt.history.what-if
Bill Higgins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default water finding (was nuclear space engine - would it work ??)

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Steve Hix wrote:
Worse, on a short-term project that never did expect to be able to
explore areas that had much likelihood of containing usable amounts of
water; they didn't have enough delta-v to permit landing anywhere other
than close to the lunar equator.


The constraints on landing sites were actually a bit more complicated than
that. A polar Apollo landing *would* have been possible, although it
would have presented some difficulties. Harrison Schmitt's "do something
ambitious with the last few Apollos" proposal included a polar landing.


Would Apollo planners have taken the 1961 paper of Watson, Brown, and Murray
seriously? As I recall, for a decade or more afterward, nobody followed up
on their speculation, at least not in print. So it's not like there was a
large group of scientists clamoring to investigate the question, and making
sure it was among the priorities for Apollo missions.

Even assuming that the polar-ice idea was of enough interest to pursue,
would Apollo astronauts have been allowed to explore a permanently-shadowed
crater? I doubt it.

--
Bill Higgins | "The victors write the histories,
Fermilab | and also the DNA sequences."
| --Barry Gehm
  #124  
Old October 10th 06, 08:17 PM posted to sci.physics.fusion,sci.space.history,soc.history.what-if,alt.history.what-if
Jack Linthicum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 290
Default water finding (was nuclear space engine - would it work ??)


Bill Higgins wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Steve Hix wrote:
Worse, on a short-term project that never did expect to be able to
explore areas that had much likelihood of containing usable amounts of
water; they didn't have enough delta-v to permit landing anywhere other
than close to the lunar equator.


The constraints on landing sites were actually a bit more complicated than
that. A polar Apollo landing *would* have been possible, although it
would have presented some difficulties. Harrison Schmitt's "do something
ambitious with the last few Apollos" proposal included a polar landing.


Would Apollo planners have taken the 1961 paper of Watson, Brown, and Murray
seriously? As I recall, for a decade or more afterward, nobody followed up
on their speculation, at least not in print. So it's not like there was a
large group of scientists clamoring to investigate the question, and making
sure it was among the priorities for Apollo missions.

Even assuming that the polar-ice idea was of enough interest to pursue,
would Apollo astronauts have been allowed to explore a permanently-shadowed
crater? I doubt it.

--
Bill Higgins | "The victors write the histories,
Fermilab | and also the DNA sequences."
| --Barry Gehm


This where a junction of several technologies could perform. NASA is
not going to send men into a permanently-shadowed crater but it might
send a rover. A Rover with the capabilities of either of the two
currently on Mars or the "Mini-Cooper" sized one being readied for a
future shot a Mars.

One of the "imagined" technologies from the 60s was the "Chuck wagon"
concept where a fully equipped station would be landed at the target
and checked out over a period of time. This might include a preliminary
recce by the Rover or some form of drone. Once checked out and approved
the Chuckwagon can be the accomodation for a short or long stay
depending on the discovery of water in a form useable by the explorers.

  #125  
Old October 11th 06, 01:22 AM posted to sci.physics.fusion,sci.space.history,soc.history.what-if,alt.history.what-if
Bill Higgins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default water finding (was nuclear space engine - would it work ??)

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Jack Linthicum wrote:
Bill Higgins wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Henry Spencer wrote:
A polar Apollo landing *would* have been possible, although it
would have presented some difficulties. Harrison Schmitt's "do something
ambitious with the last few Apollos" proposal included a polar landing.


Would Apollo planners have taken the 1961 paper of Watson, Brown, and Murray
seriously? As I recall, for a decade or more afterward, nobody followed up
on their speculation, at least not in print. So it's not like there was a
large group of scientists clamoring to investigate the question, and making
sure it was among the priorities for Apollo missions.

Even assuming that the polar-ice idea was of enough interest to pursue,
would Apollo astronauts have been allowed to explore a permanently-shadowed
crater? I doubt it.


This where a junction of several technologies could perform. NASA is
not going to send men into a permanently-shadowed crater but it might
send a rover. A Rover with the capabilities of either of the two
currently on Mars or the "Mini-Cooper" sized one being readied for a
future shot a Mars.


Perhaps you didn't understand that I was asking about Apollo-era NASA, the
last few landing missions circa 1969-1972.

Robot, or teleoperated, rovers were not available to NASA (though the
Soviets had two successful ones around that time).

Three Apollo landing missions were equipped with the Lunar Roving Vehicle
to carry astronauts on long "traverses."

I just don't think NASA would have risked sending astronauts into a cold,
dark place, not during the first six landings anyway. And not for the sake
of science which had very little support.

Interest in polar ice didn't really get started until James Arnold's
thorough paper on the concept in 1979, which suggested that volatiles from
comet impacts might accumulate in cold traps near the poles.

One of the "imagined" technologies from the 60s was the "Chuck wagon"
concept where a fully equipped station would be landed at the target
and checked out over a period of time. This might include a preliminary
recce by the Rover or some form of drone. Once checked out and approved
the Chuckwagon can be the accomodation for a short or long stay
depending on the discovery of water in a form useable by the explorers.


I think you'd discover the water first, and only in a later mission
make plans to use it.

--
She was only a | Bill Higgins
rocket scientist's daughter, | Fermilab
but she left the boys | Internet:
exhausted behind her. |

  #126  
Old October 11th 06, 03:05 AM posted to sci.physics.fusion,sci.space.history,soc.history.what-if,alt.history.what-if
Steve Hix
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 64
Default nuclear space engine - would it work ??

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:



Steve Hix wrote:

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:


Steve Hix wrote:



Actually, as long as you don't require high speed, leg-based machines
would be able to go places that tracked and wheeled vehicles can't go at
all, or only with great difficulty.

I recall seeing a writeup of a new-ish leg-thing in development
specifically to deal with terrain that isn't suited for wheel/track
vehicles. It wouldn't replace wheels, certainly, but it could supplement
them for some environments.


The Army's been playing around with this idea since the 1960's, but the
Humvee's don't have legs on them yet.



Nor are they ever likely to have them. That's not at issue.


Yes, it is.
You want to cover rough terrain in a wheeled vehicle?
Let me introduce you to the Mace missile Teracruzer of the
late1950's-early 1960's: http://www.mace-b.com/38TMW/Missiles/MM-1.htm
This SOB could go through swamps, up mountainsides, over slushy snow,
deep mud, sheer ice, small boulders, or tree trunks.


Haven't seen a picture of that in years.

Still, there is terrain that it can't handle...

Unless you intend to set down in some sort of Chesley Bonestell lunar
terrain, this concept will do just fine in getting you around in around
95% of the alien ground you are going to run into.


Frankly, I wasn't thinking off-earth at all.

Nor, for that matter, of replacing wheeled vehicles; supplementing them,
actually.
  #127  
Old October 11th 06, 10:45 AM posted to sci.physics.fusion,sci.space.history,soc.history.what-if,alt.history.what-if
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default nuclear space engine - would it work ??



Steve Hix wrote:.

Yes, it is.
You want to cover rough terrain in a wheeled vehicle?
Let me introduce you to the Mace missile Teracruzer of the
late1950's-early 1960's: http://www.mace-b.com/38TMW/Missiles/MM-1.htm
This SOB could go through swamps, up mountainsides, over slushy snow,
deep mud, sheer ice, small boulders, or tree trunks.


Haven't seen a picture of that in years.

Still, there is terrain that it can't handle...

I had this model of it:
http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/model...renwalm561.jpg
It was very cool, and had lots of movable parts.

Patat
  #128  
Old October 11th 06, 06:28 PM posted to sci.space.history
OM[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 686
Default nuclear space engine - would it work ??

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 04:45:18 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Still, there is terrain that it can't handle...

I had this model of it:
http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/model...renwalm561.jpg
It was very cool, and had lots of movable parts.


....Is it me, or do those wheels look like the ones off the Landmaster?

http://www.snowcrest.net/fox/landmaster/

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
  #129  
Old October 12th 06, 04:21 AM posted to sci.physics.fusion,sci.space.history,soc.history.what-if,alt.history.what-if
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default nuclear space engine - would it work ??


"Robert Kolker" wrote in message
. ..
For a self sustaining habitat to exist on another planet there must be
free water (or water that can be made free) on -that- planet.


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.


  #130  
Old October 12th 06, 02:05 PM posted to sci.physics.fusion,sci.space.history,soc.history.what-if,alt.history.what-if
William Black[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default nuclear space engine - would it work ??


"Robert Kolker" wrote in message
. ..

.. 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.


Nuclear pulse jet.

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

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) Stuf4 History 158 December 13th 14 10:50 PM
Moonbase Power [email protected] Policy 34 April 6th 06 06:47 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 1 March 2nd 05 05:35 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 August 5th 04 01:36 AM
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) Stuf4 Policy 145 July 28th 04 07:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.