Slashdot Log In
NASA Wants Astronauts on Mars by 2010
Posted by
jamie
on Sat Jan 18, 2003 12:05 PM
from the sell-the-sizzle-not-the-uranium dept.
from the sell-the-sizzle-not-the-uranium dept.
FeloniousPunk writes "According to
this article
in the UK Guardian, NASA intends to send a manned mission to Mars by 2010, using nuclear propulsion. President Bush may announce this project, called Project Prometheus, at the State of the Union address." Here's
good background and context;
for technical background, I recommend
Zubrin
or
Stern.
The JPL will be involved in developing the nuclear propulsion tech, intended to cut the interplanetary trip from six months to two. Apparently the theory is that this proposal won't get shot down like the last Mars proposal because the shorter mission will save money. Here's hoping public response has progressed beyond "oh no! did he say nuclear?!"
In related news,
jkcity writes:
"according to this article by the BBC, the Chinese plan to have a man in space by October 2003."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
NASA Wants Astronauts on Mars by 2010
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 713 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Repost (Score:5, Insightful)
Mars is our destiny. That is, outward. The possibilities for new expressions of freedom and humanity, and economic systems, lie in building new civilizations. On earth there is a gigantic infrastructure of economic powers that RESIST change. The best ideas are not readily implemented, or are practically impossible to implement.
America became, in some sense, what it was BECAUSE we had a frontier early in its career. That frontier, and the spirit it developed among its settlers gave America its sense of independence, innovation and a GREAT sense of self-empowerment.
To the point, a paucity of western infrastructure westward of this expanding America better empowered the formation of a culture radically different than its predecessors. Not wholly, of course, as old money still existed.
But now, America has few or no frontiers within its borders. America's infrastructure has become stiff in every corner. The people at Slashdot.org know this. Microsoft's infrastructure is outstanding. Oil industries pull our strings. We cannot fundamentally change what America is, how it conducts its economics, without a fight. The root is dug in and will not give up its space as long as it lives.
Mars has no infrastructure and therefore new social, economic, and political ideas implemented by colonists there are more apt to emerge into their natural designs undistorted by the effects of competing institutions.
Like the original colonists of America, cultural artifacts, physical and ideational, brought over to the frontier will be freely reinterpreted without undue outside influence. However, the opportunity of social self-determination on Mars is unparalleled by any in history, for none has had at its disposal the vast library of knowledge and technology available today. The coupling of knowledge and self-reliance will allow the best ideas to flourish. The culture of the second and third Martian generations has the potential of being truer to the ideals of social justice, equality, and
Re:So do I... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm recalling them from memory from a long time ago - appologies if they are wrong.
Class 1 - Uses the energy of it's sun. Has expanded throughout it's solar system.
Class 2 - Uses the energy of many suns/black holes. Has expanded throughout it's galaxy.
Class 3 - I forget the energy source. Has expanded throughout the universe.
It's humbling to think even reaching class 1 won't happen for a long time yet.
Re:So do I... (Score:4, Informative)
Russian astronomer Nikolai Kardashev.
In soviet... mars? (Score:3, Funny)
RE: "oh no! did he say nuclear?!" (Score:5, Funny)
"Oh no! Did he say nukuler?!"
The question will not be (Score:5, Funny)
All I have to say... (Score:3, Interesting)
Although, I am pretty sure GW doesn't.
Re:All I have to say... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:All I have to say... (Score:5, Interesting)
Assuming they are using a pellet-bed plutonium reactor, the only fuel they will need for it will be hydrogen, not only will it act as a moderator (heh), but also as the propellant as it is super-heated and vented out the back of the craft.
I assume they will still carry chemical based thrusters to maneuver and for the initial boost once leaving mars.
Plus the design that I got to work with in college uses weapons grade plutonium! What better way to get the nuclear weapon stock down than to transform it into interplanetary engines?
Re:All I have to say... (Score:5, Informative)
Right now, nothing even comes close to uranium/plutonium for energy density. There are really two issues: power and reaction mass. A rocket combines the two, but a nuclear propulsion system doesn't. If ice is the reaction mass, then you can "refuel" on a comet. The more energy per unit of reaction mass you can get, the less of it you need.
There are already ion engines [spacedaily.com] in existance, solar powered, but they are very low powered, incapable of moving significant mass through space at a useful speed.
But why not? (Score:5, Interesting)
I read a book in which a guy from NASA was being quizzed on the benefits of manned space exploration. He said you cannot make a rational case for sending people rather than robots on scientific or economic grounds. But that's not the point. As long as it is possible to go, people will want to go. There's no scientific or economic reason to climb Everest, travel to the poles, or circumnavigate the globe in a hot-air balloon either, but that's not stopping people.
You also can't beat the inspirational value of the Apollo program. There's something about spaceflight that galvanizes people like nothing else on Earth.
Within the next few decades, launch costs will decline by an order of magnitude. Within our lifetimes, I believe we will see the wealthiest tycoons finance (and possibly participate in) private space exploration, in much the same way that they financed earthly exploration in the past.
why (Score:4, Interesting)
Why do we want to spend that much money on going to another planet? Is there that much more we can learn by sending people there? There is probably more useful information to be learned by studing physics and space here from earth, don't you think?
Re:because (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:because (Score:5, Informative)
It's not as cut and dried as that.
I worked at the JPL last summer with the MER group (MER: the next Mars rovers). It was a great place to be and the technology they had was impressive. Still, there's only so much a teleoperated robot can do with a 20 minute time lag, slow rad hardened processors, and one (sensor-laden) arm. If I recall correctly, the off-the-cuff figure tossed around there was that a human geologist on site could accomplish in 45 seconds what an earth-based team driving a Mars rover could do in an hour.
It has always been more cost effective to send robots to Mars instead of people. Don't think, though, that you can just send one of these guys up and find out everything you want to know!
--Tom
Re:because (Score:5, Insightful)
I like how you stated this as if there is some official book on how technology based societies are supposed to act. I'm guessing that you either got this idea from Star Trek or from the Civilization games.
There is use in it (Score:4, Informative)
And lastly, "because it's there". I would entertainment in man reaching mars, it's extremely exciting don't you think? (i wonder how many extremely practical people are going to shoot me down for that)
Re:There is use in it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good for you... (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree though that missile interception is a worthy project (with nifty spinoffs), but it's too much of a fuck'n wasteful porkbarrel as it is!
I think they'd have better luck selling a missile "shield" to the public if the shield also included funding for more and better radiation-detection at ports & in cities around the country, AND they sent more of that pork towards alternative energy projects that reduce the cause of the conflict, rather than defending against the symptoms.
--
Re:There is use in it (Score:4, Interesting)
I would like to go to Mars.
Re:why indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we did learn *a whole bunch* by going to the moon, even if most of it wasn't evident until recently (technological gains).
By going to Mars, I'll be looking a few decades later for another kevlar, microchip, or similar coming out of it.
Really, what we learn from mars won't be so big. What we learn from the trip itself could be huge.
Re:why (Score:5, Insightful)
Two words for those that say I am wrong. "Superconductor Supercollider".
Value of Inspiration (Score:4, Insightful)
Seeing dreams come true is highly motivational, and as such, well worth the expense.
Talisman
No. (Score:5, Interesting)
Main Entry: nuclear
Pronunciation: 'nü-klE-&r, 'nyü-, ÷-ky&-l&r
I'm not holding my breath. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm rooting for you NASA, but you make me feel like a chicago cubs fan sometimes.
How does nuclear power help? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nuclear Propulsion (Score:5, Interesting)
They proposed that a nuke could be detonated in front of the craft, and a giant sail would capture the energy from the blast and rapidly accelerate the craft. Do that a few times, using nukes with small enough yields to not break the astronauts necks, and it should accelerate them nicely without having to lug around shitloads of fuel.
Talisman
Re:How does nuclear power help? (Score:5, Informative)
Correct, and we are still talking rocket engines. Except that instead of heating and expelling propellant thanks to a chemical reaction (hydrogen + oxygen -> water), you use a nuclear reaction (pump hydrogen--or just about any gas--into a nuclear reactor, heat it like hell).
The difference is that a nuclear rocket is much more efficient: the exhaust speed is much higher. Therefore the propellant mass required for a given change in speed is exponentially lower, due to the "rocket equation":
m/m0=exp(dv/u)
where m0 is your ship's dry mass, m its total mass (including propellant), dv the change in speed you aim for, and u the exhaust speed.
Re:How does nuclear power help? (Score:5, Informative)
Right, and it would help to use a fuel which has a low specific heat (that is, it takes little energy to heat it up) and also which doesn't take a lot of energy to go through phase changes. For each phase change a substance goes through it soaks up energy which could be better used in propulsion.
Hydrogen is better than water because hydrogen dissociates into a vapor with very little energy, where water takes a lot of energy to turn into steam. Water also will soak up a lot of energy in heating (high specific heat) up to the temperatures generated in the nuclear reaction, whereas hydrogen does not need as much energy to get up to temperature. In other words, you get more thrust out of equal masses of hydrogen and water with the same energy put into them.
However, there are other factors to consider. The main advantage of water is that it is easy to find, easy to store and pump around, can be used as a moderator for the nuclear reaction, can be used as shielding for the astronauts, the astronauts can use as their drinking supply, and they can use it to produce their oxygen supply. Hydrogen is a total mess to handle, its only real advantage is that it is a bit more energy efficient as a reaction mass. Water is generally accepted as a very good reaction mass due to these factors. The usability of water will most likely far outweigh any benefits you would get from using hydrogen.
by 2010? (Score:5, Informative)
Not that i don't think we should be going there, I just don't think it will happen by then. America lost its interest in Space Travel long ago and they will have no interest in funding this. It's going to take another country doing it first to provoke America to get on the ball. Even then we'll only be doing it out of spite. Of course if this proposal is based on one of Bush's magical projected revenue formulas they won't have enough money to even buy spacesuits by then.
Jack Handy said it best (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Jack Handy said it best (Score:4, Funny)
From the article (Score:3, Funny)
"We've been restricted to the same speed for 40 years," Mr O'Keefe said. "With the new technology, where we go next will be limited only by our imagination."
I think what he meant was, where we go will be limited only by our imagination, and the speed of light.
It's a ploy (Score:5, Interesting)
1) The people who are most decisively against GW's politics are also those who are most for space exploration. It gives those folks something positive to see about the president. Think of it as a distraction from the pending war, which is a distraction from the fact that he has no idea how to run foreign policy.
2) Some of GW's closest friends and allies are going to reap billions from the program. Defense companies love space projects
3) There's no way that the program can be finished before 2010 (we'll be VERY lucky to get it by then). That means it gives the voters, if they are pro-space, incentive to re-elect him (this is corrollary to #1 I suppose) since anyone running against him is going to be likely to point out the budget pratfalls in such a program.
Unfortunately, I really like the idea of exploration
Worse
Here's hoping NASA at least finds a way to do it the right way, rather than turning this into a further mess like the ISS turned out to be.
Re:It's a ploy (Score:5, Insightful)
Who, the Democrats? Let me show you a quote from a town hall meeting with Al Gore in '99That right there is why I didn't vote for Gore. Bush has essentially been mute on the top of space exploration to this day.
"Think of it as a distraction from the pending war,"
The same could be said about the Apollo program (Vietnam). Does that make it any less signifigant?
"Some of GW's closest friends and allies are going to reap billions from the program."
By all accounts, GW's "closest friends and allies" are in the oil industry (where he's originally from). But he seems to be pusing a nuclear solution, and nuclear power is oil's greatest foe.
"Defense companies love space projects"
They're already quite happy with the current missile defense program. A Mars mission has little (if any) defense-related spin-offs. At the very least, none of the spin-offs will be defense-only. We'll see things like more efficient nuclear reactor designs, faster/smaller computers, and other things that benefit not only the military but the private sector and consumers as well.
The only way there could possibly be military-only spin-offs from a Mars mission is if we have to fight a bunch of Martians in the near future.
"good for the local economy for years after he's out of office."
Name one president that has gone into state government after having served as president.
"There's no way that the program can be finished before 2010 (we'll be VERY lucky to get it by then)"
"There's no way that the program can be finished before 1970..."
And the nay-sayers then had better reasons to nay-say as well. Unlike the NASA of the early 1960's, we can reach LEO.
Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as the US is concerned, if it doesn't pay for itself or get someone reelected, then it doesn't happen. A manned Mars flight does neither, therefore they are not going.
Those in charge of China have a different agenda and a different set of values. They have the basic makeup to succeed in this.
Yes, Mars will be red.
Hadn't Mr Bush (senior) promised Mars by 2019? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait a minute (Score:3, Funny)
Another article (Score:4, Interesting)
NASA spokesman Glenn Mahone acknowledged that O'Keefe did talk generally about the upcoming State of the Union but did not make a prediction that Bush would use it to make any NASA-related announcements."
So don't start packing your bags, yet. There is also the question of how to keep the people making the journey alive and healthy. Even on relatively short space missions, there is a significant (~20%) muscle loss, and measurable bone loss.
I hope it works.
Man Gets 70mpg in Homemade Car-Made from a Mainframe Computer [xnewswire.com]
Use Asymetric Capacitors instead of Nuclear Power (Score:3, Informative)
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifters.htm
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0211001 [PDF file attempting to explain how it works]
To the naysayers... (Score:5, Interesting)
But Mars (even the moon) is worth going to, because:
1) Big Hairy Audacious Goals [abc.net.au] are needed for progress. Linear development is often not enough, BHAGs act like a booster shot. The 20th century saw not one, but two: WWII and the Moon-landing. We need more.
2) Space has energy and minerals that man could use. Greenpeace types should be in favour of space exploration for this reason alone.
3) Space exploration means frontier societies could potentially develop again (and challenge traditional, established societies). Today, Earth resembles 15th century Europe too much for its own good -- everything charted and explored, resources dwindling... America provided a new beginning to a lot of people in the last 500 years, non-Earth settlements could do so again.
4) and finally,
Reagan's SotU Speech 1986 (Score:5, Insightful)
Defensive concerns beyond the hype. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want a decisive advantage in any conflict, or even if you just want to intimidate somebody, you control the high ground. Space is the ultimate high ground. It allows you to spy with impunity. Deploy weapons without fear of retaliation. once the infra-structure is in place, it will be an excellent natural resource base (on the moon, asteroid belts, etc). Putting aside all the Star Trek 'space is for exploration' idealist, space is a tactical advantage you simply can't ignore, especially if you potential advesaries are looking at it.
Now I'm not so sure about Mars. I figure, like the Chinese, the moon would be a much better and profitable first target. Unless they know something we dont.... In any case, Consider the US space program alive again, if for no other reason than because Bush doesn't like the Chinese.
No nook-you-lers (Score:4, Insightful)
2. The U.S. has no nuclear (nook-you-ler, if you're a C-grade fratboy from Texas) rocket program.
3. Nook-you-ler rockets are illegal under current treaties -- I think. Not that that would stop Bush -- treaties are for the evil, not the good.
4. 8 years is not enough time. The U.S. doesn't have the infrastructure to mount a mission.
5. The U.S. is going into debt at the rate of 1.3 billion dollars a day. We're spending ourselves utterly broke while cutting taxes. I don't think even the current regime is stupid enough to go to Mars when schools are setting up two daily shifts to save money. Or are they?
6. Politically impossible -- tho I qualify this in saying that this is the first marketing-driven administration in U.S. history. They've sold us on the idea that Saddam mounted the 9-11 attacks. I may be underestimating their maniuplative abilities.
7. This story is based on the world of one, count 'em, ONE "NASA administrator". The threshold used to be at least two believeable sources. The collapse of standards in the '90's set us up for any clown to float a story now -- bubonic plague vials on the loose! News at 11!
8. As an old space junkie, I wish the story was true -- sort of. I'd have preferred an ion drive, which is easier to maintain, ulimately faster, and doesn't carry the nuke label for marketing reasons.
9. If the story is true, why do I sense that the speculative capitalists that are now in charge of the guvmint (as opposed to businessmen -- the difference between Enronomics and the local Chamber of Commerce) would be trying to wring even more tax money out of us all? That would be on top of the 100-200 billion that the current contracts to attack/rebuild Iraq are going to cost the U.S. We are getting robbed here. NASA did the moon landings on the cheap -- I don't think the prvate equity managers will be as motivated to keep costs down.
What good is Mars? (Score:3, Insightful)
We should plan missions to the asteroids. Everything we will need is in the asteroids, and the asteroids are the place to colonize someday. (How much energy would it take to move Cruithne into Earth orbit?)
Planets, pfft. Traps. They'll all still be there if somebody ever figures out a good use for them. They don't even make very good nuke-waste dumps. (Earth excepted, of course.)
Why this mission was accepted. (Score:5, Funny)
RMN
~~~
Space Elevator (Score:5, Insightful)
The only other reasonable thing you could do in space would be to mine asteroids and start building things in orbit and on the moon. But going to Mars at this point doesn't make sense. It's going to cost too much. I am all behind nuclear rockets but I think going to mars is premature. Let's put a city on the moon, and start sending politicians there.
I'll start voting republican if republicans start putting money into space research. I shit you not.