Comment This will not work... (Score 1) 329
...until a more efficient means of getting payload into orbit is developed. The last time I read up on this technology the info given made it clear that this propulsion was useless inside a gravity well. Until we can get to the point where the cost for payload launched into orbit costs hundreds of dollars per pound (or less)instead of thousands of dollars this is academic.
We need what has been envisioned but not delivered for the last 30 years, namely the "space bus". The shuttle was initially supposed to be a first step in this direction: a cheap, efficient, reusable means of getting cargo and people into orbit. Once we have some type of vehicle that doesn't require tons of solid/liquid fuel at enormous cost and risk to reach orbit then the moon, mars or even farther destinations are much more likely to be reached within the next 20 years.
Also, on the environmentalist side of things; from what I understand of most of the arguments made by environmentalists against nukes in the space program are it's the launching of nuclear material and not the use in space that they are against. If the worst should happen and NASA loses a nuclear payload in near earth vicinity the fallout could be devastating. Once you're actually in "space" (ie - beyond earth's magnetic field) radiation is pretty much all that there is! Spacecraft will have to be designed with heavy shielding in mind for a mars trip, otherwise one solar flare could conceivably endanger an entire mission.
We need what has been envisioned but not delivered for the last 30 years, namely the "space bus". The shuttle was initially supposed to be a first step in this direction: a cheap, efficient, reusable means of getting cargo and people into orbit. Once we have some type of vehicle that doesn't require tons of solid/liquid fuel at enormous cost and risk to reach orbit then the moon, mars or even farther destinations are much more likely to be reached within the next 20 years.
Also, on the environmentalist side of things; from what I understand of most of the arguments made by environmentalists against nukes in the space program are it's the launching of nuclear material and not the use in space that they are against. If the worst should happen and NASA loses a nuclear payload in near earth vicinity the fallout could be devastating. Once you're actually in "space" (ie - beyond earth's magnetic field) radiation is pretty much all that there is! Spacecraft will have to be designed with heavy shielding in mind for a mars trip, otherwise one solar flare could conceivably endanger an entire mission.
