New Mars Forums

Well, thanks for the lecture(s). I should never have written that nonsense about lack of emprical demonstrations of mass increase. My bad. In fact, I actually knew better, had just forgotten all about it. Happens to me all the time.
In any event we can be sure that something strange happens to sub atomic particles when accelerated to relativistic speeds. On the other hand, I read somewhere that the mass increase phenomenon in particle accelerators (if they had those around 1912) is an older observation than the theory of special relativity. So consequently, it ought to have been explained in some other way originally. Einstein, if this is correct, simply amalgated those finds into his own theory. Nevertheless, I agree there's a clear conjecture in support of it.

Related to the discussion, what would you make out of this in way of alternative science?

http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep6/ep6-vanfl.htm

Yes I know, the site also brings up issues like faces on Mars and exploding planet theories (yeah, right and how's that supposed to happen considering forces of gravity?). Nevertheless, it would be interesting to read the comments by initiated people, able to grasp the contents in full.

Spider-Man, I'm glad you share my sentiments. It's so easy to be regarded a total idiot when trying to discuss these things. To be honest, I'd hope for Einstein to be proven wrong somehow, I admit it. He destroys my space future.

I must say, because I'm not English speaking and not an expert on any of these matters, I might just have misunderstood the proposed design. Are we talking a simple cylindrical shaped life support section in rotation on a fixed frame, or something else?
(Can't wait to see those sketches, Lacodia! )

In any event, why rely on thrusters (and fuel) to provide centripedal motion at all? Couldn't a small nuclear reactor create enough electrical power to do the same thing? What about the cores of a nuclear thermal rocketed spaceship, other than providing thrust at the beginning and end of an interplanetary journey? Most of it is coast with the rockets shut down anyway, is it not (and it's precisely then, when you are not accelerating that you put the artificial gravity system in operation, yes?)?

Yet I, as a European, would trust the US with nuclear bombs in space. I only hope the US in return will trust the Germans, French and Swedes doing the same if ESA just could get its ass off the ground (very hypothetically speaking, I admit). You are not alone on this planet you know, there are other civilized nations and if you don't want to do it or 'allow' it... well, to hell with you!

You can watch the brave Chinese go to the Moon, for all I care.

In order not to get swamped by these rouge nations as you call them, we need to override them, and getting into space first in a big way is an important part of achieving just that. The way I see it, the truth is we are running out of oppurtunities to carry on a technologically driven economical development. We have for quite some time already. Space is the logical next frontier. (Yes, I'll settle for Nuclear Thermal Rockets too, if Orion somehow can't be done. Would be truly spectacular in its own right.)

Gentlemen, what about the "right stuff"... ?

So, if one or two Orions explode on the runway, what about it? Humanity hasn't ever gone anywhere without taking risks and if you're not too keen on it, then at least allow me to go! I'll be dead in 60 years anyway and there are lots of people who'd likewise volunteer, I'm sure.

Magellan set sail from Sanl?car on the 20th of September 1519 with five ships and 280 men. A single ship, the "Victoria", returned to Spain three years later with a crew of less than 20. Magellan himself was slain by locals on the Phillippines.

The right stuff... ?

I've come to like special relativity less and less. Mass increase, I think, is a purely theorethical effect of the theory, I'm not sure it has ever been proven empirically (and I have a hunch that those in the know don't even take it very seriously, it's just so absurd).
The cosmic speed limit simply feels wrong, and I mean not only the concept in itself, but the actual limit being the speed of light. 300,000 km/s isn't much. It takes 8 min for light to reach Earth from the Sun and over 5 hours to travel to Pluto. Make an experiment in the free space simulator Celestia, put the speed at c and sit there and watch for 5 hours. What fun. Remember Sun-Pluto is 40 AU and there's something like 270,000 Sol-Pluto's to Alpha Centauri. Both are cosmically insignificant distances. Why couldn't we make an Earth-Pluto flight in 3.5 hours instead of 5 hours?
It just seems so arbitrary.

So this should be the only objective measure in the material universe? The phenomenon that in itself defines space?
The day they find anything that travels faster than 300,000 km/s, the whole theory of relativity goes out the window. What about gravity?

On the other hand I guess it's a neat theory. Because of it we can say exactly how big the Universe is. If it's 13 billion years old, it's exactly 26 billion light years across (actually any deviation from this disproves the the theory of special relativity since nothing can travel faster than light and c is absolute).
Morever we can never observe further than 13 billion light years, because we can only look at things back in time. Consequently, exactly 50% of the Universe is pitch dark. The epicentre of the big bang is located in the centre, so if you look in any other direction than straight at the cosmological point zero, the light coming to you will show a curvature heading to/from this location back in time. Geometrically, the curvature makes for a longer distance travelled for the light but it accomplish this in the same time despite having the same speed as the light beams going straight (???).
When you reach the edge you'll probably fall over.

I've read George Dyson's book on the Orion Project and a good read it was. In it (too bad I can't give an exact reference since I lent it out to other interested parties) a certain nuclear bomb expert involved in bomb design since the fourties, claimed that Orion pulse units could in principle be made as clean as you want them. Thing is no one in the 'industry' has yet made that a priority.
If that's reasonably true and considering that atomic weapons generally don't go off simply by themselves, I deduce that a catastrophic failure of an Orion wouldn't be such a serious issue after all. A Nuclear Thermal Rocket, at least a "nuclear lightbulb", exploding in the atmosphere, could well be a lot worse in terms of fall out.

See if I got this straight. Are you actually suggesting that we propel nuclear heated working fluid straight through a modified VASIMR magnetoplasma engine, which later on will switch on to an Ion stream as originally intended?
Otherwise, if you are simply using an alternative way of producing the fourth state of matter, I can't really see how you are supposed to get the high thrust during ascent. Of course, it could be something very basic about rockets that I don't understand. After all, I'm only a representative for the interested public.

Hm, very interesting.

So, these kinds of experiments are carried out right now on the ISS and whatever we say, we can only safely say that we don't really know enough about it yet?

Of course the real frogs get eaten by the French frogs, so considering the fact that only the original frogs are such excessively primitive little quakers, it maybe doesn't help us much, no matter what field day they'll have, hoping around in point thirtyeight gee.

Tricky.

This might have been discussed at length before and I might even have read something about it that I have forgotten, but I'll accept the risk and throw the question out all the same.

As far as I know Martian gravity is a third that of Earth. In "zero" gravity prolonged stay results in chronically reduced bone mass apart from other negative health effects.

What's the prospect then of staying for a few years, or even a lifetime on Mars? What will happen to your body? Could there be problems related to pregnancy and procreation for instance? What do you think?

Thanks for interesting remarks.

Guess they don't tell you about the real problems or limitations when you read articles like this:

http://www.esa.int/export/esaSC/120382_index_0_m.html

My impression was that L2 was at least as good as the far side of the Moon for an interferometry telescope, but what do you know.

Very interesting about producing Helium-3 from Deuterium. So why hasn't this hit the mainstream, might people be afraid of losing their favourite reason to build Lunar settlements?

Helium-3, of course is a fusion fuel and a breakthrough for fusion power seems to be ever delayed. For how long has it been researched now? Fifty years?
With advancements in fission safety aspects and solar power from geosynchronous orbit made possible because of fission propulsion technology, who knows, maybe we'll happen to pass it by all together, at least as an energy source on Earth?

This is the way I think about it.

The way to go back to the Moon to stay must be economically driven. In the words of prometheusunbound: "only if boatloads of profit can be made" and more so industrially than as a tourist attraction (I think the idea of space tourism is hyped beyond reason, luxury hotels on the Moon are nice as a novelty, but can in no way sustain a serious expansionist effort).

The Moon instead has an important role in getting easily extractable, cheap materials to build space stations and solar power satellites. The space station in turn works like a transportation relay (or hub) between the sub orbital environment and interplanetary space, asteroidal mines and Terra as well as Luna, Terra and interplanetary space. Therefore a moonbase will precede the construction of serious toroidal space stations - artificial gravity providing contraptions of classical sci-fi that will dwarf the ISS shacks by any measure.

Near Earth transport technology will rely on some sort of NTR, probably a Timberwind derivative and maybe "steam rockets" for space only bulk freights. Fully reusable spacecraft will transport rare heavy minerals from asteroids to Earth for a multitude of industrial applications, for example Platinum, which is used in fuel cells, which in turn are charged through electrolysis, energy for which is provided by fission nuclear plants and hey - solar power satellites.
Second generation space transport would include light craft for transgravity well transportation, riding on energy beams converted and fuelled directly from space and concievably Helium-3 extraction on the Moon for interplanetary travel.

As for observatories on the far side, I wonder if not space telescope arrays at Lagrange points actually are more practical and simple, but I'm no expert.

- You are right, there are too many people. It surprises me that no one in these discussions seem to argue Marxist/Hegelian. Every mode of production, every new level of technological development, demands and forces upon humanity a respective form of social and political organization. Societies unable to change from outdated political systems and ideological beliefs will eventually break apart and be replaced by those who do.
Small communities living as hunter gatherers can certainly do away with most that resembles hierarchy and state all together - what use is it to them - but such societies don't build rocket ships. Lacking the social organization to do so, they stay in Eden till the big asteroid hits and wipes them out. 

- And what do you have when you have no civilization? You have nature and the basic social structure of nature is tyranny, like among so many primate communities. That is, a state wherein power is only there to serve the powerful.

RobertDyck,
according to that article about the "Liberty Ship" from Nuclear Space at least, the principle of the "nuclear lightbulb" was tested in the 70's and made to work. Not being aware of any further details, I wouldn't be surprised though if the separation 'glass plate' is a source of trouble with this system for the reasons you're pointing out.
Nevertheless, I would personally like to see R&D continue with the closed cycle GCNR. It has interesting potential from a space industrial expansion point of view.

"Now how do you ensure nuclear fuel and its waste products stay contained even in the event of a catastrophic loss like Columbia?"

Well, to put it bluntly, I guess I don't. The dangerous part is the waste products. On the other hand, ground control can be put into radiation proof bunker shelters during launch and provided it's done from a desolate place, I hardly see why a catastrophic event would be much dirtier than an atmospheric nuclear bomb test. Naturally, the system should be designed to be as rugged and reliable as is possible.

Speaking of safety, you previously outlined why the solid core NTR was superior in this regard. Do you know if it could be updated? The ceiling for NERVA typically ranged an Isp of 900 and used a graphite reactor. Is it possible to improve on this system at all?