Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

[Herbert]

The original question also presumes that the United States Air Force is more competent than the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I have seen no evidence that the United States Air Force is any more objective than NASA when it comes to procuring launch systems or they would be more successful if resuming moon landings and a voyage to Mars became a military mission.

[Dusty Ayres]

John Picard wrote:

---

One issue I see with a nuclear propelled vehicle is having a nuclear physicist on board to monitor and adjust the reactor as needed.

Big deal, just put one in as part of the flight crew, and they check out the reactor(s) as needed to, like any engineer usually does on a nuclear powered ship on Earth. No big whoop.

And such a ship would (and should be) built in space anyway, in a spacedock adjacent to the ISS. No protests would happen.

[Rii]

Dusty Ayres wrote:

---

And such a ship would (and should be) built in space anyway

Not this again.

[John Picard]

Dusty Ayres wrote:

---

Big deal, just put one in as part of the flight crew, and they check out the reactor(s) as needed to, like any engineer usually does on a nuclear powered ship on Earth. No big whoop.

Do you have any idea how many men it takes to monitor the reactors of a Nimitz class carrier?

And such a ship would (and should be) built in space anyway, in a spacedock adjacent to the ISS. No protests would happen.

No protests? People will be howling about what could happen should there be an accident and any nuclear material enter the earth's atmostphere.

You didn't think this one through, did you?

[Dusty Ayres]

John Picard wrote:

---

Do you have any idea how many men it takes to monitor the reactors of a Nimitz class carrier?

No protests? People will be howling about what could happen should there be an accident and any nuclear material enter the earth's atmostphere.

You didn't think this one through, did you?

Oh, but I did, since it's going to be like, what, I don't know-millions of miles up the gravity well? And also that if anything happens, the fissionables can be shot into a higher orbit? Or towards the sun? See, I do think these things through, unlike most of the people who object to this idea.

Think that I'm full of shit? Read Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars), but especially Red Mars, to see what I just said about needing NERVA.

[ProtoAvatar]

Nuclear powered propulsion systems are needed if we are to become an interplanetary civilization - if we are to cross the large distances between planets effectively.

Chemical power may have been enough for car and planes, but it's far from sufficient if we are to ever develop some form of interplanetary commerce. It just doesn't generate enough energy.
Today's chemical powered rockets are very expansive and they can barely reach the orbit. A chemical rocket will transport only a few astronauts to Mars in 6 months, after billions are spent on a single mission.
The chemical propulsion's potential is exhausted.

You want to colonize Mars, to move millions of people there? You want to exploit the asteroid belt? Even with a space elevator, you couldn't do that in less than centuries with chemically propelled interplanetary craft.

[J.T.B.]

Dusty Ayres wrote:

---

Oh, but I did, since it's going to be like, what, I don't know-millions of miles up the gravity well? And also that if anything happens, the fissionables can be shot into a higher orbit? Or towards the sun? See, I do thinks these things through, unlike most of the people who object to this idea.

Doesn't the nuclear fuel have to be lifted from surface to orbit at some point? An accident in that phase is what I thought of when I read the earlier comment.

--Justin

[Dusty Ayres]

ProtoAvatar wrote:

---

Nuclear powered propulsion systems are needed if we are to become an interplanetary civilization - if we are to cross the large distances between planets effectively.

Chemical power may have been enough for car and planes, but it's far from sufficient if we are to ever develop some form of interplanetary commerce. It just doesn't generate enough energy.
Today's chemical powered rockets are very expansive and they can barely reach the orbit. A chemical rocket will transport only a few astronauts to Mars in 6 months, after billions are spent on a single mission.
The chemical propulsion's potential is exhausted.

You want to colonize Mars, to move millions of people there? You want to exploit the asteroid belt? Even with a space elevator, you couldn't do that in less than centuries with chemically propelled interplanetary craft.

Smart words from a smart person.

[ProtoAvatar]

Dusty Ayres wrote:

---

Smart words from a smart person.

Thanks!