You are not logged in.
I believe that the planets orbit have actually grown larger as they have started to revolve slower. If so then Mars being closure to the sun may answer when it could have had liquid water and for how long it has taken to get to the present orbital distance would give us a way of estimating how long.
Bush, Kerry Go Head to Head on Science
I have not had a chance to read it yet but it looks like an interview with both.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20040 … kerry.html
Spacetoday post is that DARPA to take over X-37 program
NASA is turning over control of the X-37 RLV technology demonstrator, NASA officials confirmed Wednesday. While this ends the speculation, what does it really do for the x 37 development in the long run.
Here is a thought, every one has heard of the peace corp, job corp and a few others why not create a space volunteer corp. Where all of us budding space enthusiast can get involved. I know Mars society is sort of that and you all may know of others.
I was sort of surprised by the recent published work force numbers for Florida that all had to stay home in the recent hurricane. I think it was 14,000, why have all the development in just that one state? Lets spread it around for all to get a crack at it.
In the iss cutback thread I had put forth the idea of using the waste water oxygen units byproduct of Hydrogen as a way to seed any operations on the lunar surface since I had realized that it would be necessary to send Liquid H or water to the moon for any large quantity of mining as well as for the crew.
I was told it would be to hard to do a liquification process in space as well as under low pressure levels from the unit. I figure every little bit that is basically free counts.
I had previously posted this thought under the cold fusion topic so here it is, copied here to see if it will spark any thoughts.
The suns fusion raction is 4 H atoms squashed under intense pressure and heat to make He. Atomic fision uses either uranium or plutonium with a little H thrown in to start it going.
We also know that H2O under electrical current with the paladium rods for electrolysis breaks the bonds.
What if D2o(deutrium) and He3 where used instead under electrical current or under ultra sonic waves. How would that work out in terms of cold fusion?
Here is a thought, every one has heard of the peace corp, job corp and a few others why not create a space volunteer corp. Where all of us budding space enthusiast can get in volved. I know Mars society is sort of that and you all may know of others.
I was sort of supprised by the recent published work force numbers for Florida that all had to stay home in the recent hurricane. I think it was 14,000, why have all the developement in just that one state? Lets spread it around for all to get a crack at it.
I also remember seeing another one that had the word must in the topic but have not found it yet.
However did find an even older one.
Space Elevator pilot program?
http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....4;t=394
As for the fountain concept it is sort of like the tether one put forth under this thread.
Tethered Space Stations
http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....5;t=183
edit:
Here are a few other forms of moving your rocket but with out firing it up just yet.
Another shuttle plan for space, There using a speed rail system to space
http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....23;t=50
Rail Gun inside near vacuum tube, Railway technology to Heaven
http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....5;t=153
Mountain launch tracks revisited,, Alternative to fuelled rocket boosters.
http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....=5;t=50
I do agree if it is definately an attack.
As for there being a cost versus mars direct, We have enough materials to build what is needed it is just the time frame that hurts when going to mars with current technology.
On the elevator side carbon nano tubes are still on short supply.
I don't think it would be that hard to defend. Located in the Pacific Ocean, a terrorist organization would have either fly a plane into it or plant a bomb at the base. Jet routes can be modified so that any plane heading for the elevator would be noticed way in advance and Navy ships could guard the base with little difficulty.
Once people start being transported it becomes a little more difficult but not so bad that it shouldn't be built. Once additional ones are built using the first one the loss of one cable in a terror attack becomes less (in terms of cost).
One would have thought that to be true of the twin trade towers but it was not so.
Edit:
Here is another on the elevator
Another opinion of the Space elevator, Questioning the sanity of the Space Elevator
http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....4;t=399
Space elevator in the media, déjà vu?
http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....5;t=159
Even if possible to construct it, IMO it would be the biggest of terrorist target ever and would be the reason for why I would not build one here currently even if it could be done.
Now on the moon or on Mars, that is a different set of problems for designing one but there it could prove your point.
Edit:
here is the link to one of the other forum topics of funding
http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....=29;t=4
and there are others
Space Fountains, GEO Elevator, no nanotubes required
http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....9;t=292
Now everybody is getting into the act of suborbital flights.
REUSABLE SPACECRAFT FOR ORBITAL TOURISM
http://en.rian.ru/rian....alert=0
Amerijet and Zero-G plan parabolic flights
http://southflorida.bizjournals.com/southfl....29.html
Resource of NASA’s Nuclear Systems Initiative
http://www-rsicc.ornl.gov/ANST_site/sco … 2NERAC.pdf
RobertDyck wrote:I have argued for the "Direct Iron" method of smelting. It uses less energy, works at lower temperature (but still +900°C or slightly higher), when used on Earth it consumes less coal, produces fewer carbon emissions. Business uses it because it's lower cost, not for environmental reasons. Environmentalists should like it because it produces fewer emissions, but they never seem to like anything. On Mars it's useful because temperature is below that to melt stainless steel, so you can use the heat of a nuclear reactor directly. If you have to convert heat of a reactor to electricity, then use electricity in the smelter, it's very inefficient. It's far more efficient to use the heat directly. The catch is this method only works with very high grade ore. The good news is "hematite concretions" are very high grade ore.
But you will still need a lot of electricity. Carbon content in steel can be so excessive that it makes the steel brittle. The "Direct Iron" method uses a combination of CO and H2 to smelt. More H2 and less CO means less carbon in finished steel. H2 combines with oxygen from ore to form water, and CO becomes CO2. Use RWCS to recycle: CO2 + H2 → CO + H2O. Water is recycled via electrolysis to become H2. That means a lot of electrolysis, so a lot of electricity.
So you'll need a nuclear reactor for heat as well as electric production. Again, I suggest a thorium reactor because MGS identified thorium deposits on Mars. Produce nuclear fuel locally.
I would agree that steel production on Mars would benefit from a nuclear heat source. But the thorium reactor is unlikely, as there are too many uncertainties in long-term materials behaviour. Stainless steels and nickel alloys are both susceptible to stress corrosion cracking and in a molten salt reactor, you have a high temperature mix of literally hundreds of fission product compounds, many of which will migrate along the grain boundaries. On the plus side, it isn't pressurised. But engineering a container that will survive for decades will be a very difficult challenge.
To produce the sort of temperatures you are talking about is very difficult, as the outlet coolant temperature is always lower than cladding temperature, which again, is always lower than peak fuel temperature. Liquid metal cooled reactors have a relatively low film temperature drop, due to excellent thermal conductivity. But they lose that advantage in their heat exchangers. Gas reactors using SS cladding only work for coolant temperatures up to about 700C, after which mechanical strength declines to the point where clad thickness and neutron losses become excessive. Pebble-bed designs are reported to be capable of 900C outlet temperatures, but they have low power density largely resulting from the poor thermal conductivity of the pebble. And fuel burn-up tends to be quite low. Maybe not so bad for something you can build on Mars and never really have to decommission, but not good if you need to ship it from Earth. On the plus side, Mars has lots of CO2 that can be used as coolant.
A nuclear assisted process is achievable, with nuclear heat providing the first 700C of temperature rise and electric heating the remaining 250C.
The heat source could be pebble reactor, rtg or even a kilowatt reactor as we are not just looking for the heat source but also some electrical to make things all work together. Josh believes that this can be a low level heat source to make the dry ice go through phase change to gaseous and be pressured enough for use. I just do not know....
I do not know how well the water would work to capture co2 ..
We will be most likely going with a kilopower reactor which is a beefed up RTG design or more like a pebble reactor....as it must bring its working fluid with it as well as the radiators to make it work not just the generator system...
This is quite an old article, but it makes interesting reading.
http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/5262838
I am not sure how well this would work. Basalt has a liquidus temperature of ~1200C, which is a bit hot for a nuclear reactor. A liquid metal cooled reactor using some sort of PRISM or pebble fuel might be capable of doing this. The magma would both corrosive and abrasive and would somehow need to be removed from the tunnels, maybe by casting into bricks in situ?
Another option is to leave the reactor on the surface and use an electrically powered melt device. The problem then is the need to trail a power cable behind the device.
All the same, this provides a good solution for lunar base construction, as it practically eliminates the need to spend large amounts of time carrying out EVA on the surface. Habitation can be subsurface from the start, shielded from hard radiation, temperatures extremes and micro-meteors.
Yes and so was the Hindenburg but not in an atmosphere with no oxygen. Simply vaccum or pressurize the collection tube contents, passing it into a cooling unit and then store in an external tank for use. We do that everyday for the shuttles fuel use, how hard can it be in space.
When people think of the lunar resources available H3 always comes up but any conlony or crew of any size needs water, oxygen, food and power. Using lunar materials only makes sense if any of the for mentioned can be forfilled for as close to free as possible.
What would be needed to liberate oxygen from the mineral oxide metals?
Making of oxygen from human waste water but throwing the Hydrogen away does not make sense as done on the ISS.
Power is probably easiest from solar cells but nuclear and other potential means should be also supplied. Using fuels cells to take the hydrogen and oxygen to make water again with power output is a plus.
Which leaves making food the most difficult of all to solve. Domed stuctures might work but what are the hazards? Getting plants to grow is also a problem in the lower lunar gravity.
But yet we are willing to vent Hydrogen as a waste byproduct onboard the ISS from the russian oxygen unit into space.
The x 37 was part of the cancelled OSP programs that were announced shortly after the president announce his vision of space exploration.
Last news release on this for a Nasa site:
http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/news … 3-126.html
I wonder why continuing work is being done on a cancelled project?
Nasawatch is indicating that the partner in the research effort for the x37 is top secret.
15 September 2004 13:48
Technical hitch delays Russia space station launch
http://www.gateway2russia.com/art....72.html
postponed because of problems with the docking system
Why are we waiting the hydrogen? This is equally as valuable when looking at say an ION drive engine to keep the ISS orbit from decaying.
Yup this one was posted also in another thread as well.
page 5
http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....entry74
I thought at first it was an awakening but others though it was just a gloss over for the hidden agenda of Nasa.
GCNRevenger while Large reuseable cryogenic engines, metal heat shield, LOX-augmented jet engines, composit structures and tankage, advanced CAD/CFD design... are parts of a reuseable design. Metal shields are heavy and would need complete replacing between missions.
Why were these enhancements not implimented on the current shuttle as we go?
I think a lot of the x series demonstrators were just for that purpose but were heavily burdened with cost overrun and technical as well as material failures in implementation.
AS the topic got way off course we all saw the why funding for this project is being quashed and we have some answers to correcting the middle class issue of economics. Such that the funding could be initiated.
We also know that the pay back of every dollar invested is a long term recouperation though direct returns and by some not so direct, mainly though spin off developements.
We have a variety of taxes for funding other government projects federal as well as state. While I am not in favor of it or even want a new tax that may be used to pay for space exploration we must do something, it could be pennies on all foriegn built products that we all purchase.
In another thread we are doing star dust collection with the probe genisis. I would assume that it would have collected H3 and knowing how much versus the other chemicals might point to another means to get this material for build fusion reactors as an alternative to lunar mining.
Maybe then we have found another money maker for Nasa to get into in order to offset the cost of exploration.
Tourist space astronaut classes ect...