What's with the hate against external pulsed plasma propulsion?

The only thing people seem to see when thinking about nuclear pulse propulsion is:"Muh nukes r bad and inherently unsafe way of space travel!!!"

What people seem to fail to comprehend is that there is literally no inherently safe method of propulsion. You need much energy to move mass anywhere so you're going to need energy dense stuff to propel you there. Also, whole Orion Mars class mission could be done with crew exposure of only 100-20 Rems, which is less than with nuclear thermal.

Why should one not be content with alternative means of propulsion which are free from obvious biological and political disadvantages of nuclear explosions? The answer to this question is that on the purely technological level, an Orion vehicle has cababilities which no other system can aproach. - Freeman Dyson

Also: "The vehicles were small enough to be lifted into space by Saturn chemical rocket, and the cost of the Saturn boosters turned out be more than half the estimated cost of the whole enterprise." - same dude

So, why the fuck is NASA wasting it's money for a new Saturn V ripoff, when for the same price it could build EPPP vehicles, with first generation having easily over 3500 s specific impulse with clear path for improvement?

Some reading:

ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20000096503.pdf

ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720025114.pdf

epizodsspace.no-ip.org/bibl/inostr-yazyki/science/1965/Dyson_Death_of_a_Project.pdf

file.scirp.org/pdf/JAMP_2016041311280742.pdf

lepp.cornell.edu/~seb/celestia/orion/files/19650058729_1965058729.pdf

commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3218&context=space-congress-proceedings

epizodsspace.no-ip.org/bibl/inostr-yazyki/IEEE_Transactions_on_Nuclear_Science/1965/Nance_Nuclear_Pulse_Propulsion.pdf

projectrho.com/rocket/supplement/GA-5009vIII.pdf

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/KobRfGqlpGc
science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Nexgen_Downloads/NexGen_ELA_Report_FINAL.pdf
faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/20140513_DragonFly_DraftEA_Appendices(reduced).pdf
nasa.gov/pdf/510449main_SLS_MPCV_90-day_Report.pdf
michaeleisen.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Science-2013-Hassler-science.1244797.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module
msnwllc.com/propulsion-publications
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Nuclear pulse propulsion is obscenely expensive
Nukes cost hundreds of millions of dollars apiece
The only practical use for nuclear pulse propulsion today is if we really, REALLY needed to leave the solar system ASAP with current technology

>why the fuck is NASA wasting it's money for a new Saturn V ripoff
Because its program cost is only half of what the Saturn V cost, and it is 86% as capable as Saturn V
>b-but muh flight rate!
Saturn V only flew 13 times and look what they accomplished with that

Only about 2 kg of plutonium would be needed per pulse unit.

>> Each year about 20 tonnes of the element [plutonium] is still produced as a by-product of the nuclear power industry.

Nukes cost alot because shitty design like needing to replace tritium all the time.

Pulse units would be much more cheaper than fission-fusion thermonuclear weapons.

General atomic projected that a large orion program would only cost about the same as apollo did (spread over longer period), back in the 60's. Nowadays much of what would have been expensive to test (the underground nuclear testing part), could be done by computer simulations.

>>The materials used in the pulse unit, relative to the fissionable material at least, are relatively common and inexpensive. They were costed at
from $2 to $12/kg for nonfabricated materials. Modest quantities of material were required in all but the larger pulse units, which use large
masses of propellant* and channel filler, which, in turn, cause a significant cost increment.

>"The vehicles were small enough to be lifted into space by Saturn chemical rocket, and the cost of the Saturn boosters turned out be more than half the estimated cost of the whole enterprise.
Grossly implausible claim, comparing the final costs of a realized system to the optimistic estimates of a physicist about an entirely new, untested technology.

Furthermore, he claims that it could send "eight men and 100 tons of cargo on fast trips to Mars and back", but Saturn V only lifts a little more than 100 tons. The smallest Orion I've seen proposed, empty, was at least half a dozen times the mass of a Saturn V payload to LEO, over twice the mass of the International Space Station, by far the largest object assembled in space four decades after Dyson wrote this article.

He says, "if you wish to go to Mars, then Orion will take you there more rapidly and cheaply than other vehicles", but he doesn't make a case for it, and it's an implausible claim. "More rapidly" (in terms of travel time) yes, if it works. But "more cheaply" doesn't make sense. Orion has a large minimum size, and that minimum applies to test vehicles as well -- testing a vehicle before using it to carry people is not optional. New technology of orbital construction would have been needed, in addition to the new technology of the nuclear pogo stick drive itself, which might simply never have worked as intended.

The thing you've got to understand about Freeman Dyson is that, despite being an accomplished physicist, he's also more than a bit of a kook. He thinks big, doesn't worry too much about the implementation details, and talks as if they're all worked out.

This is the sort of optimism for a new technology that predicted that nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter" and practical fusion power was just around the corner.

>Each year about 20 tonnes of the element [plutonium] is still produced as a by-product of the nuclear power industry.
Weapon-grade plutonium in your hand is not the same as mixed plutonium isotopes in used fuel rods. Fuel reprocessing is serious business which almost inevitably involves leakage of radioisotopes to the environment.

>Pulse units would be much more cheaper than fission-fusion thermonuclear weapons.
Bullshit. The additional low-enriched uranium and lithium deuteride required for a fusion stage are much cheaper than the plutonium and tritium required for the primary.

>Nukes cost alot because shitty design like needing to replace tritium all the time.
This would apply to the pulse units, as well. They would be fusion-boosted so their yields can be adjusted.

>Saturn V only lifts a little more than 100 tons. The smallest Orion I've seen proposed, empty, was at least half a dozen times the mass of a Saturn V payload to LEO, over twice the mass of the International Space Station, by far the largest object assembled in space four decades after Dyson wrote this article.

The plan was to only lift the Orion vehicle out of atmosphere, minimum of over 120km so as not to cause eye damage on ground and pretty much remove the risk of atmospheric contamination. In space the pulse unit fragments would have not been a problem, for the exhaust velocity of the particles exceeds earth escape velocity, resulting in no permanent contamination of near-earth space.

All the Saturn V first stage was needed was to get the Orion vehicle out of atmoshphere. Saturn V - the first stage mass is about 680 tons. That would have been the upper limit for the mass of the Orion vehicle. The orion would have achieved orbital velocity on its own.

because various nuclear arms related treaties prohibit their development, construction and usage

Yeah the fuel processing, unit production and fabrication infrastructure would have been expensive to set up. Which is one of the reasons Nasa shot down the project. They had just spent a lot of money on Saturn infrastructure and it would have looked stupid if it had all been in vain. Of course, they did spend considerable amount of money in the 70's dismantling that infrastructure.

So big spending is OK for Dyson's concept, but bad when SLS does it?

>>why the fuck is NASA wasting it's money for a new Saturn V ripoff
>Because its program cost is only half of what the Saturn V cost, and it is 86% as capable as Saturn V
Saturn V cost ~$42 billion adjusting for inflation, with the 13 launches, and that's with 1960s technology and construction of facilities which are still in use by the SLS program.

Constellation/SLS has already cost about $20 billion (SLS is a continuation of Constellation with the same technology and people, the name change largely served the purpose of erasing about $13 billion in red ink from the ledger). Saturn V was initiated in 1962 and flew its first working flight in 1968. Constellation/SLS was initiated in 2005 and its first working flight will be no sooner than 2021, with 2023 or later more likely.

SLS has already taken as much time and half as much money as the Saturn V program and produced no flights whatsoever, with none coming any time soon (EM-1, the only possible launch this decade, is a bullshit test with an upper stage they'll never use again). The work done so far has no value, since better results for money could be achieved by ignoring SLS and starting from a clean sheet.

>>b-but muh flight rate!
>Saturn V only flew 13 times and look what they accomplished with that
Saturn V's flight rate over the project lifetime from 1962 to 1973 is more than one per year. Peak launch rate was 4 in one year. Furthermore, it had a clear mission and was sized to the task.

The likely outcome of Constellation/SLS is to be cancelled in the mid 2020s after four launches and a total cost over $50 billion, with a peak rate of launches spaced two years apart, and an average rate over project life of one launch per five years. It has no clear mission, is part of a system with badly mismatched sizes (Orion capsule twice the mass of Apollo capsule, SLS considerably less powerful than Saturn V), and has no potential for ambitious new accomplishments in manned spaceflight.

Dumb shit how are you going to get your nuclear spaceship into Orbit without the Carrot V?
Someone saying something good about NASA on Veeky Forums? Well I''l be damned.
>Willing to work on future ideas
>Kook
Remember when Oberth and von Braun were kooks?
Veeky Forums doesn't like the Carrot V because it's a "boring old 60's design" Veeky Forums only wants exciting pop-sci meme shit like airbreathing SSTOs or 100 man mars rockets running on memethane. NASA is working on a fusion rocket. This will go on top of the carrot and get to Mars in 30 days. Any other way is dumb. Musk's all chemical approach is dumb and OP's all nuclear approach is even dumber.

>This would apply to the pulse units, as well. They would be fusion-boosted so their yields can be adjusted.


>> The range of yields required of the nuclear devices (less than 1 KT to approximately 15 KT), assuming current technology devices are used, reportedly do not change the amount of fissionable material required. The amount of fissionable materials used for the three lower-cost pulse units was the cost equivalent of 2.9 kg of plutonium. The plutonium cost used was $18,000 /kg.

The larger bombs used more explosives to super-compress the fissionables, increasing efficiency. The crazy big Orions would have use d fission/fusion devices, with Ispmax around 10^5 s.


I'm just arguing that Nasa's money would be better spent in pursuing external pulsed plasma technologies. SpaceX will propably be able to do what SLS would do for cheaper. Stuff like ISRU and asteroid mining become much more achievable when you're not trying to shave off every gram and when you can actually move asteroids around.

...

...

>pretty much remove the risk of atmospheric contamination. In space the pulse unit fragments would have not been a problem, for the exhaust velocity of the particles exceeds earth escape velocity, resulting in no permanent contamination of near-earth space.
...except that they go in all directions and get trapped by the Earth's magnetic field.

You'd have to go a lot higher than 120 km, where Earth takes up nearly half the sky, to prevent fallout in Earth's atmosphere.

>>Willing to work on future ideas
>>Kook
>Remember when Oberth and von Braun were kooks?
Being willing to work on future ideas isn't what makes him a kook. Being willing to do things like make authoritative pronouncements about the final costs and benefits of completely untried technology is what makes him a kook. And you have to sort through an awful lot of people who superficially seemed like kooks to find a few who were right.

Someone has gotta do it. No one will build anything without some sort of financial study however speculative.
>And you have to sort through an awful lot of people who superficially seemed like kooks to find a few who were right.
>Few who were right
Exactly, that's why Veeky Forums should have never laughed at the hoverbike guy. Sure he seems like a kook now but in 10 years you never know. I support him, Freeman and anyone really so long as it's not tinfoil.

>SpaceX will propably be able to do what SLS would do for cheaper.
Yes, lets throw out the Saturn V class rocket that's nearly ready to fly based on the assumption that a cheaper alternative may or may not be available 10 or 12 years from now

This shit again?

It's not even on your shitty chart. Go back to your IQ and degree comparison threada.

>It doesn't exist yet
>It's /x/

Yeah 120 km was the minimum.


>>A number of possible countermeasures are proposed to reduce substantially the fission-product trappage in the atmosphere. One of the most obvious is to utilize orbital start-up at a few hundred kilometers altitude and thereby reduce fission-product trappage by factors of 2 to 4 Improvements in the design of advanced pulse units might be achievable whereby fission products could be reduced by factors of 10^2 to 10^3. Such improvements would be obtained by reducing the fraction of total yield due to fission by two to three orders of magnitude, the remaining yield being contributed by fusion. A further advantage from this approach is the improvement in fuel economics.

>>It is also possible to consider the focusing of fission products upward from the point of explosion, at some sacrifice in Isp . This could reduce those fission products likely to be trapped in the atmosphere to approximately 1 percent or less of that estimated in the 2*pi expansion condition.

>>It is believed that some combination of these suggested techniques could conceivably result in a reduction of the trappage to only 10^-6 of current estimates. Considering the longer-term possibilities, if and when pure fusion devices become a reality, fission products, by definition, will not be present.


There's a lot that could be done to mitigate atmospheric contamination.

>muh alternate history thread
>meme colonization
>nuclear propulsion

>it was conceived of decades ago
>it's never existed
>this is because of legitimate reasons that make it a bad idea, that were thoroughly explained by professional scientists
>your only counterargument is to call actually-working ideas 'memes' and their supporters 'cucks'

It's /x/.

>No one will build anything without some sort of financial study however speculative.
It's one thing to estimate the costs, it's quite another to make optimistic napkin-math estimates about new technologies and then talk about them as if you're quite certain they're right.

You look at something like Saturn V, that's the end product of about four decades of work with smaller-scale liquid-fueled rockets, starting with very similar propellant (Goddard built a LOX/gasoline rocket, Saturn V's first stage was LOX/kerosene). In those four decades were thousands of tries and thousands of failures, despite the principles being understood almost perfectly before the first attempt.

The difference between Goddard and Dyson is that, while he claimed a man could be put on the moon, Goddard didn't go around telling people in 1920 that a man could be put on the moon by 1930, for $5 million dollars (based largely on estimates of the cost of the steel and gasoline required).

#1 thing that can be done to mitigate atmospheric contamination: don't ship dozens of nuclear bombs into space.

Ignore him.
I suspect it's the same retard that keeps posting the "what singularityfags believe" image in every thread, regardless of whether it's relevant or not.
Still not as bad as the gorillaposter, though.

What if I told you that I am the gorillaposter?

>What if I told you that I am the gorillaposter?
Seems unlikely. "w.s.f.a.b." poster is a hyper-realist who derives his sense of self-worth by ridiculing anyone who doesn't see reality exactly as he does.
Gorilla-poster is just a twat (probably actually a woman).

Why would you power some item with blood? I do think you are insane. The rocket or vehicle would not run on the nearest energy source.

>Yes, lets throw out the Saturn V class rocket that's nearly ready to fly based on the assumption that a cheaper alternative may or may not be available 10 or 12 years from now
First of all, the EM-1 launch is not a launch of a Saturn-V-class rocket. Without a proper upper stage, SLS is only about half the rocket Saturn V is. In fact, they're only doing EM-1 to satisfy congressional schedule requirements, or more accurately, to fail to meet those schedule requirements less egregiously.

What's "nearly ready to fly" (still over two years off) is a partial test of an incomplete rocket, in a one-of-a-kind configuration, like the Ares I-X test that flew in 2009. Your "Saturn V class rocket that's nearly ready to fly" is actually still at least five years from test-flying in complete form, about the same amount of time as Saturn V took to develop from its initial announcement.

The truth of SLS is that it may or may not be available for real missions 10 or 12 years from now, in a form somewhat inferior in performance to Saturn V, with a launch rate so low as to be nearly useless and prohibitive costs. The SpaceX BFR may or may not be available 10 or 12 years from now, with superior performance to Saturn V, capable of unprecented low costs and high launch rates as a reusable vehicle.

Falcon Heavy, on the other hand, should fly within a year, start flying routinely within the next few years, with an initial capacity of 54 tons to LEO, lots of upgrade potential, a low price, and a high launch rate. If they implement propellant crossfeed and put a big lox/h2 stage on top of it, it seems likely that it could approach SLS 1B performance, and even without upgrades it can certainly exceed SLS capabilities with multi-launch mission architectures at lower cost than a single launch on SLS.

Oh look, it's one of those famous "cancel NASA and let SpaceX do it all!" fucking retards, probably from Reddit. Where to even begin?
>First of all, the EM-1 launch is not a launch of a Saturn-V-class rocket. Without a proper upper stage, SLS is only about half the rocket Saturn V is. In fact, they're only doing EM-1 to satisfy congressional schedule requirements, or more accurately, to fail to meet those schedule requirements less egregiously.
So block 1 SLS isn't Saturn V class, but FH is?
Nice double standards, idiot.
Lets compare the specs of these rockets:
Saturn V:
>47 metric tons to TLI
SLS block 1B (will fly in 2022):
>38.5 metric tons to TLI
SLS block 1:
>25 metric tons to TLI
Falcon Heavy
>13.6 metric tons to TLI (Fully Expendable mode ONLY)
Falcon Heavy is literally a few tons away from not even making the "super heavy lift" classification
>like the Ares I-X test that flew in 2009
Not even close. Ares 1-X didn't even use the same size SRM, and everything else was boilerplate.
>The truth of SLS is that it may or may not be available for real missions 10 or 12 years from now
SLS is far more likely to be flying in 10 to 12 years than SpaceX's Mars rocket.
>with a launch rate so low as to be nearly useless and prohibitive costs.
Costs would still be lower than shuttle or Saturn V, and they have said multiple times that flight rates will increase when block 1B is flying.
>The SpaceX BFR may or may not be available 10 or 12 years from now, with superior performance to Saturn V, capable of unprecented low costs and high launch rates as a reusable vehicle.
And Falcon Heavy will first fly in 2013 amirite?
>Falcon Heavy, on the other hand, should fly within a year, start flying routinely within the next few years
only four flights manifested, two of them SpaceX owned flights. literally not much better than SLS for a rocket 1/2 to 1/3 the size

1/2

>If they implement propellant crossfeed
never going to happen. FH's limitation is the tiny ass fairing not its lift capability to LEO
>it seems likely that it could approach SLS 1B performance
HAHAHAHHA no
How will FH gain a 300% increase in TLI performance from just those two things?
>it can certainly exceed SLS capabilities with multi-launch mission architectures
Except for the part where literally nothing substantial can fit in the tiny fairing.

FH is only "superior" in high density high mass payloads to LEO. It can't even send Dragon to the moon without an all new upper stage and an all new service module to replace Dragon's trunk.

My nigga, holding the flag for NASA. Fuck SpaceX.

>> why is NASA not building an orion drive

International nuclear weapons treaties prohibit NASA from doing so. In addition chemical rockets are proven technology and reusing shuttle facilities keeps those space monies going to congressional districts.

If anything, NASA should invest in nuclear reactors for space. At the very least as a replacement for RTGs.
youtu.be/KobRfGqlpGc

We really should bring back NERVA though.

>So block 1 SLS isn't Saturn V class, but FH is?
I didn't say that FH was Saturn V class. Pay some attention:
>>If they implement propellant crossfeed and put a big lox/h2 stage on top of it, it seems likely that it could approach SLS 1B performance, and even without upgrades it can certainly exceed SLS capabilities with multi-launch mission architectures at lower cost than a single launch on SLS.

>Lets compare the specs
You mean, "Let's pretend that upgrading Falcon Heavy or multi-launch missions aren't options."? Most of the performance difference between FH and SLS is the upper stage.

In fact, the performance of Falcon Heavy to LEO with cross-feed should exceed that of SLS with no upper stage. SLS block 1 will actually treat the upper stage as part of the payload all the way to LEO. Rather than a normal staging operation, it will use a non-time-critical payload deployment. Falcon Heavy could carry it and perform EM-1. Even without upgrades, it could certainly perform equivalent missions to EM-1, EM-2, and ACRM with the lighter Dragon capsule. Orion is just crude, heavy, and inefficient.

Anyway, this is dishonest:
>Falcon Heavy
.6 metric tons to TLI (Fully Expendable mode ONLY)
Mars transfer is harder than trans-lunar insertion. This figure is for Mars transfer on Falcon Heavy without crossfeed or a lox/h2 upper stage. The figure to TLI would be a few tons higher.

SLS block 1 is not a working configuration. I've explained this. It's a one-off test configuration, like Ares I-X. Its specs don't matter, since it's not an option for any working flights. It launches an unmanned Orion capsule to TLI, to test Orion. It will never be used for anything else. It will not be available for additional flights before block 1B is ready.

EM-1 and EM-2 are test flights. It seems unlikely for a working flight of SLS to go before 2025.

>SLS block 1B (will fly in 2022)
That's optimistic.

Didn't NASA basically say that they are leaning towards nuclear powered electric propulsion for exploration missions?

>select all images with a store front
>click verify when there are none left
REEEEEEEEEEEEE

Words mean nothing until they actually put money down for it.

Why do I love ULA so much? It's pretty simple when I think about it. ULA isn't just the best launch provider in the country; they might just be the greatest launch provider of all time. Just imaging the Altas V riding through the skies of Earth, the wind on its fairing, the mighty RD-180 below it. As she rides through the red sky, NASA swoons at her very scent. They know how she smells; the essence of burning RP-1 smell is sold in Orlando under the name of "Space Orgasm." The very nature of ULA is mystery. Could they be playing a deeper game than even Tory Bruno realizes? The answer is yes, ULA has transcended such boundaries as the physical world, and has free will to do whatever they sees fit. However, ULA is filled with such guile, such arcane craft that they does not even use these powers. Why, you might ask? You will never know, for the mind of the ULA is not one that is easily penetrated. ULA rockets are such a force of nature in this realm that nothing can truly touch them, the only thing keeping them bound to this world at all is their will to exist within the preordained boundaries understood physics. ULA is not only beyond the comprehension of us, it exists within a plane of true focus and beauty. Observe the plume of exhaust gasses from this Delta IV, the gorgeous and rippling flames, the gallant fairing, and most importantly, its engines. Her engines, like cauldrons straight from hell, provide the only glimpse into the true machinations of ULA. Do not stare into them. Many good men have gone mad in the attempt. ULA is not just a launch provider, a formless collection of engineers and rockets; they are themselves the binding that holds the word together. Without ULA, Musk the Menace takes over and the entire space industry as we know it crumbles. The Mississippi would stop flowing without ULA, Kessler syndrome would take over in orbit, and the space station would fall without their fiery gaze. These are just of a few of the reasons why I like ULA so much.

>FH's limitation is the tiny ass fairing not its lift capability to LEO
You seriously think that SpaceX would struggle with something as simple as a bigger fairing, if there was customer demand for it?

>>it seems likely that it could approach SLS 1B performance
>How will FH gain a 300% increase in TLI performance from just those two things?
Even by your understated 13.6 ton figure, a 300% increase in TLI performance would bring it up to 54.4, considerably more than Saturn V. It would only need about a 140% performance boost to equal SLS 1B performance, and less to "approach" it.

SLS is shuttle-derived. It can go to LEO with just its boosters and core stage. This configuration is sometimes called "Block 0", and the amount it can take to LEO is about 70 tons. The amount Falcon Heavy can take to LEO will be 54 tons without crossfeed, and over 70 tons with it. SLS Block 0 and Falcon Heavy with crossfeed have similar capabilities to LEO or suborbital, so they can throw similar upper stages, and it's only the upper stage that makes the difference between SLS Block 0 and SLS Block 1B.

>FH is only "superior" in high density high mass payloads to LEO. It can't even send Dragon to the moon without an all new upper stage and an all new service module to replace Dragon's trunk.
What are you even talking about? Sending Dragon to the moon surface? That would be extremely ambitious, and quite an inefficient way to do a moon landing. To low lunar orbit? SLS/Orion can't go to low lunar orbit either. They're just doing high lunar orbits.

FH certainly doesn't need a new upper stage to send Dragon to high lunar orbit, like SLS is doing with Orion. Whether Dragon would need an external propulsion unit in place of the trunk depends on the specific mission -- it carries quite a lot of propellant for abort purposes.

Dragon's much more mass-efficient than Orion. It needs less rocket to get to the same places.

I must say, leaving pol and b to try visiting a dif board is pleasant surprise. I don't feel like commuting homicide while reading through these replies. Thx sci, redeemed Veeky Forums for me.

>I didn't say that FH was Saturn V class. Pay some attention:
Whatever arbitrary classes you make up in your mind are irrelevant. Saturn V and SLS block 1 (and even FH) are all super heavy lift vehicles.
>"Let's pretend that upgrading Falcon Heavy or multi-launch missions aren't options."?
Distributed launch has never been done for beyond LEO travel. In fact, the only company in the near future that will be capable of doing this is (ironically) ULA. SpaceX's upper stage is too short lived and underpowered to make it work. They would need an entirely new upper stage, just like what SLS is getting.
>In fact, the performance of Falcon Heavy to LEO with cross-feed should exceed that of SLS with no upper stage
Did you pull those numbers out of your ass? This isn't Kerbal Space Program you fucking retard. Crossfeed doesn't magically boost your performance by 50%.
> it could certainly perform equivalent missions to EM-1, EM-2, and ACRM with the lighter Dragon capsule.
No it cannot you utter retarded reddit shit.
How would dragon execute a lunar injection burn? How would dragon execute a lunar escape burn?
>Orion is just crude, heavy, and inefficient.
Orion has, quite literally, an order of magnitude better protection against MMOD damage and far superior radiation shielding. This doesn't matter for unmanned missions but it matters a ton for manned missions.
>SLS block 1 is not a working configuration. I've explained this.
Yes, and you only compare block 1 to FH despite the fact that it will only fly once.
>EM-1 and EM-2 are test flights. It seems unlikely for a working flight of SLS to go before 2025.
The Europa mission has a nominal scheduling in 2021 (which means it will likely be late 2022) and will use Block 1B.
>That's optimistic.
It's a lot less optimistic than "FH in 2013" and "BFR in 2024!"
SpaceX is absolute shit at keeping proper scheduling.

>You seriously think that SpaceX would struggle with something as simple as a bigger fairing, if there was customer demand for it?
Considering how long they're taking to fly FH (four years delayed and counting), I'd be surprised if they could develop a fairing in time to compete with SLS.
>Even by your understated 13.6 ton figure, a 300% increase in TLI performance would bring it up to 54.4, considerably more than Saturn V
Oh boy, 13.6 x 3 is 54.4? What numerical system are you using?
>SLS is shuttle-derived. It can go to LEO with just its boosters and core stage.
It will never use this configuration.
>The amount Falcon Heavy can take to LEO will be 54 tons without crossfeed, and over 70 tons with it.
FH with crossfeed is vaporware, so is the "Raptor powered upper stage"
It's about as likely to happen as SLS block 2 (i.e. 0% likely)
>SLS/Orion can't go to low lunar orbit either.
Yes it can.
>FH certainly doesn't need a new upper stage to send Dragon to high lunar orbit
A dragon with enough propellant for orbital injection would be beyond FH's payload capabilities.
>it carries quite a lot of propellant for abort purposes.
It has a few hundred dv, a tiny fraction of what is needed for these maneuvers

>Distributed launch has never been done for beyond LEO travel.
That doesn't mean it's hard. It means that it hasn't made sense.

>In fact, the only company in the near future that will be capable of doing this is (ironically) ULA. SpaceX's upper stage is too short lived and underpowered to make it work. They would need an entirely new upper stage
ULA won't be capable of it in the near future. They've had it on the drawing board for as long as they've been a company. They're not seriously working on it, they have no customer for it, and their future is very much in doubt. It's not going to happen. It's pretty much always just been a big expensive development project they hoped they could get the government to pay for.

There's a simpler way to do it, based on established technology: storable propellant. For instance, SpaceX could start from the Dragon design. It can do precision orbital maneuvering and docking, and hang around in space pretty much indefinitely. Take away everything for passengers, cargo, or re-entry and landing. Build it around big fuel tanks full of MMH and NTO, and mount SuperDraco engines so they point directly back.

If you made them as 50 ton modules, then 3 of these should be able to push a 50 ton payload from LEO to TLI, exceeding the capability of Saturn V. I'd estimate under $1.5 billion for the first such launch (including development of the propulsive module, contruction of four modules, five Falcon Heavy launches, and one Falcon 9/Dragon launch for the single-propulsive-module test that will also use one of the modules and one Falcon Heavy), under $750 million per subsequent launch, and it could be ready for 2018.

The beauty of this system is that the propulsive modules could also be used for other purposes than Earth departure, such as orbital maneuvering, de-orbit burns, and Earth return. Variants could be further developed to support aerobraking at Mars and propulsive landing on Mars or the moon.

>and [ULA's] future is very much in doubt
Not really, no. Why do you say that?

>There's a simpler way to do it, based on established technology: storable propellant.
Sure...

>For instance, SpaceX could start from the Dragon design
>Take away everything for passengers, cargo, or re-entry and landing. Build it around big fuel tanks full of MMH and NTO, and mount SuperDraco engines so they point directly back.
>If you made them as 50 ton modules, then 3 of these should be able to push a 50 ton payload from LEO to TLI
That's not "based on established technology" anymore, that's just building something entirely new that happens to reuse some existing parts.
This isn't KSP, you can't just slap a bunch of parts together in an afternoon and call it a spacecraft.

>I'd estimate under $1.5 billion for the first such launch, under $750 million per subsequent launch, and it could be ready for 2018.
I'd estimate you're completely full of shit.

>Orion has, quite literally, an order of magnitude better protection against MMOD damage and far superior radiation shielding.
I don't know whether you just made that up or you heard some other fanboy say it, but this is simply a lie. Orion's mostly heavier because of primitive tech like the Apollo-era heat shield.

>SpaceX is absolute shit at keeping proper scheduling.
Constellation was supposed to be routinely doing ISS crew rotations with Orion, and putting astronauts on the moon by 2020, and you think SpaceX is worse than MSFC at meeting its goals on time? MSFC gave up on most of its goals and pushed the rest back ten years.

One of the reasons SpaceX has taken so long to launch Falcon Heavy is that they've upgraded Falcon 9 repeatedly, and now it can fly almost all GTO launches, eliminating FH's original purpose.

>>SLS is shuttle-derived. It can go to LEO with just its boosters and core stage.
>It will never use this configuration.
That's exactly what EM-1 is. The upper stage is being treated as a LEO payload, not separating during suborbital flight.

>Oh boy, 13.6 x 3 is 54.4? What numerical system are you using?
A 300% increase is equivalent to multiplying by 4. Did you think a 100% increase is equivalent to multiplying by 1?

>>SLS/Orion can't go to low lunar orbit either.
>Yes it can.
No it can't. To go to low lunar orbit and back with storable propellants, starting from a TLI, requires about 58% of your initial mass to be propellant. Orion's only about 35% propellant. SLS Block 1B doesn't have enough capacity to support an upgrade to add the necessary propellant.

>>For instance, SpaceX could start from the Dragon design
>>Take away everything for passengers, cargo, or re-entry and landing. Build it around big fuel tanks full of MMH and NTO, and mount SuperDraco engines so they point directly back.
>>If you made them as 50 ton modules, then 3 of these should be able to push a 50 ton payload from LEO to TLI
>That's not "based on established technology" anymore, that's just building something entirely new that happens to reuse some existing parts.
>This isn't KSP, you can't just slap a bunch of parts together in an afternoon and call it a spacecraft.
>>I'd estimate under $1.5 billion for the first such launch, under $750 million per subsequent launch, and it could be ready for 2018.
2018 isn't "an afternoon" away. I allowed two years, a few hundred million dollars for its development, and about a $60 million unit price. Plus, even if it took three times as long and three times as much money to develop, it would still be ready for actual use no later than SLS, and be cheaper to develop, cheaper to use, and a much more capable system for BEO missions.

Tell me, what part of this plan sounds beyond SpaceX's competence to you? It's a much simpler vehicle than a Dragon, made mostly from the same parts.

You dont' need weapons grade plutonium

The military wants weapons grade/super grade plutonium to allow storing of the bomb for long periods of time

Something unnecessary for an Orion craft

>2018 isn't "an afternoon" away.
It basically is. Nothing in spaceflight moves fast (ironically).

>I allowed two years, a few hundred million dollars for its development, and about a $60 million unit price.
Okay, can you tell me why you think those numbers are reasonable?
Bearing in mind what you are describing is a large, complex, and entirely unprecedented spacecraft, why on Earth do expect it to be cheap and quick to design? No-one has built anything like that before.

>It's a much simpler vehicle than a Dragon,
No it isn't.
Dragon isn't modular. Dragon doesn't weight that much. Dragon was never intended to tow a payload. Dragon is a fairly traditional crew capsule, that happens to include some newer technology.

Without even touching on whether your idea could work, it's clearly not a trivial thing to attempt.

>They would need an entirely new upper stage
They ARE making an all new upper stage on their new Raptor engine

I think you greatly overestimate the difficulties
How much did it cost them to produce the Red Dragon? Not much

>Bearing in mind what you are describing is a large, complex, and entirely unprecedented spacecraft, why on Earth do expect it to be cheap and quick to design? No-one has built anything like that before.
No-one has built anything with that exact design before. Every function on it is utterly pedestrian, they just haven't been put together in exactly this configuration.

When an Apollo moon mission was launched, the Command/Service Module separated from the launch vehicle, turned around, docked with the Lunar Module, and pulled it free of the launch vehicle. Then it coasted to the moon, and the Service Module served as the propulsion to LLO, and back to Earth after docking again with the ascent stage. This is hardly "entirely unprecedented".

Falcon 1, Falcon 9, and Dragon together cost under $1 billion to develop, starting from nothing. Budgeting hundreds of millions of dollars to produce a simplified Dragon variant with large fuel tanks is not "expecting it to be cheap to design".

The propulsive unit doesn't need more thrust than Dragon V2. It just needs larger fuel tanks. SpaceX has plenty of experience building larger fuel tanks. It doesn't need to be a particularly mass-efficient vehicle or be optimized for delta-V, it's just a simple way to leverage Falcon Heavy's cheap, big LEO payloads into a Saturn-V-like capability. A TLI burn is only about 3.2 km/s. Nothing even close to the efficiency of a true upper stage is needed.

>Dragon isn't modular. Dragon doesn't weight that much. Dragon was never intended to tow a payload.
You understand that Dragon docks with things, but you think that it's meaningful to say it "isn't modular"?

Dragon can operate with large variations of mass depending on what it's loaded with, but you think it's some kind of key difficulty to increase the mass and "tow a payload"?

You're not thinking about how it would be done at all, you're just waving your hands vaguely at every difference.

If you were doing something like that, you would probably want to use rockets that had more efficiency than the Draco's
Such as the Raptor which is intended to go on the new upper stage they are making

Wrong. They have a contract to build an upper stage engine (that they were already making anyways for MCT) to be demonstrated on a test stand in 2018, that could potentially be used as an upper stage engine for one of their rockets in the distant future.

There is no solid evidence that this is actually leading to the development of a new upper stage.

It wouldn't make sense for SpaceX to begin building their big rocket using Raptors without having flight testing done using a Raptor powered upper stage.

Would also increase the payload of Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy

A vacuum optimized bell wouldn't even fit properly in the tiny diameter falcons

In the long run you might, but not as the quickest, cheapest, surest way to get a Saturn-V-like capability out of Falcon Heavy, if someone wanted SLS's capabilities for a sensible reason, or the new president decided to try and land a man on the moon again by the end of the decade.

A new engine's a big schedule risk. A high-performance engine poses risks of failure due to pushing materials too hard. An engine with cryogenic propellants poses storage difficulties, and therefore an uncertainty of success.

SuperDracos aren't ideal for the task, just good enough, available, and proven. What they lack in efficiency, they make up for in convenience.

>but this is simply a lie.
sure it is, champ.
I'll be taking the NASA office of astronaut safety's word over yours in this case.
>constellation and SLS are the same thing
top kek
retard who thinks that if the silhouettes looks similar that they are the same rocket and program
>One of the reasons SpaceX has taken so long to launch Falcon Heavy is that they've upgraded Falcon 9 repeatedly
So excuses are OK for spacex, but not OK for NASA?
>The upper stage is being treated as a LEO payload, not separating during suborbital flight.
The upper stage is not in orbit when it separates from the core stage. removing the upper stage entirely would require a completely different fairing and a complete re-analysis of the entire design.
>starting from a TLI, requires about 58% of your initial mass to be propellant
What is ISP for 400 please
>SLS Block 1B doesn't have enough capacity to support an upgrade to add the necessary propellant.
Are you seriously implying that the lunar lander on Apollo weighed less than 8 metric tons?

>blah blah blah it would be easy
Yeah except for new on orbit tanking that would be needed, all new refrigeration technology to prevent boiloff, the all new tank craft/module, the new non-kerosene engines that would be needed to use propellants that don't boil off, the all new on-orbit propulsion tug that would need to be developed and tested, not to mention all of the crap for actual Mars mission that would need to be downsized to fit in Falcon's puny 4.6 meter fairing.
It would literally take 4-5 (expendable) falcon heavies with distributed launch to assemble an Apollo class mission in LEO. That plus the 16-32 times normal operation costs to maintain the equipment in orbit would push the price sky high extremely quick

>SuperDracos
>proven

>It wouldn't make sense for SpaceX to begin building their big rocket using Raptors without having flight testing done using a Raptor powered upper stage.
Why wouldn't it? Testing a single-Raptor upper stage wouldn't tell them much about how a multi-Raptor booster would work.

Anyway, what they could do is build their rocket from the top down. This is supposed to be a fully-reusable vehicle, so they could start with something the size of an upper stage, but with non-vacuum-optimized engines, doing suborbital flights. With no payload, they could probably put one upper stage on top of another, just with different arrangements of engines and the upper only only partly filled with fuel, and still make orbit.

>It would literally take 4-5 (expendable) falcon heavies with distributed launch to assemble an Apollo class mission in LEO.
How do you get this?
Falcon Heavy lifts 50 tons when it first launches to LEO, could lift closer to 100 if they saw any need for it.
Saturn V took 120 tons
4-5 expendable falcon heavies is still cheaper than Saturn V/SLS

>to maintain the equipment in orbit
wat

>1 launch for Dragon
>1 launch for lunar lander (which, by the way, would never fit in a 4.6m fairing)
>1 launch for the in space tug
>1 fuel launch

>wat
They can't launch 4 rockets in 1 day.
They're hardly managing 1 rocket a month, before even introducing FH

Why would a modified Dragon not be the luna lander?
Why do you believe multiple launches is a negative thing?

The 50 tons payload is the reusable number
So the first stage boosters land back near the launch pad, are put back to together, refueled, launched asap

It costs them nothing to just leave the modules in LEO while they do all the necessary launches.

Oh, I found the biggest idiot in the thread.

>>constellation and SLS are the same thing
>top kek
Ares I had to be dropped because it was unsafe. Even the basic outline of the Ares V design was never finalized, and the performance figures were basically unreachable with the shuttle parts mandated by Congress.

SLS is simply the realized design of Ares V, the biggest version they thought they could actually make fly. The same people are in charge of the project, the same contractor is building it.

>except for new on orbit tanking that would be needed, all new refrigeration technology to prevent boiloff, the all new tank craft/module, the new non-kerosene engines that would be needed to use propellants that don't boil off, the all new on-orbit propulsion tug that would need to be developed and tested
Go back and read what you're replying to again. None of that is needed.

>It would literally take 4-5 (expendable) falcon heavies with distributed launch to assemble an Apollo class mission in LEO.
You think that's a problem? An expendable Falcon Heavy isn't going to cost more than $140 million, and SpaceX is planning on doing FH launches about once a month. It's not really plausible that in the next ten years, SLS will cost less than several billion dollars per launch, be available for two flights in a year, or be capable of an Apollo class mission.

>That plus the 16-32 times normal operation costs to maintain the equipment in orbit
Jesus, you are a dumb fuck. There is no maintaining equipment in orbit.

SuperDracos are proven. They've been around since 2012, have been extensively tested, and have been used for a pad abort test. They're ready to go whenever the rest of Dragon V2 is.

Oh nevermind the 54 tons is expendable.
So it'll be more like 40 tons, reusable

Still going to be better than the SLS which isn't even planning on doing a real mission before 2030

>Why would a modified Dragon not be the luna lander?
Oh I don't know, how about the

>>One of the reasons SpaceX has taken so long to launch Falcon Heavy is that they've upgraded Falcon 9 repeatedly
>So excuses are OK for spacex, but not OK for NASA?
First of all, SpaceX is a NASA creature. Like JPL or the parts of LM and Boeing that contract for NASA projects, it's not technically inside NASA, but they're closely associated in their history, current work, and foreseeable future. So it's not SpaceX vs. NASA, it's SpaceX vs. MSFC.

SpaceX has good excuses: some things have lagged while they've made spectacular progress in other areas. MSFC is just failing, lowering their ambitions, and then failing again.

>>The upper stage is being treated as a LEO payload, not separating during suborbital flight.
>The upper stage is not in orbit when it separates from the core stage
Yes it is, in SLS Block 1.

>>To go to low lunar orbit and back with storable propellants
>>starting from a TLI, requires about 58% of your initial mass to be propellant
>What is ISP for 400 please
Quote the whole thing, moron. Improving on Isp would take R&D that the Orion people just aren't doing. They're using plain-old space storables.

>>SLS Block 1B doesn't have enough capacity to support an upgrade to add the necessary propellant.
>Are you seriously implying that the lunar lander on Apollo weighed less than 8 metric tons?
I don't even want to try and guess at that idiotic thought process that led to this question.

>Ares I had to be dropped because it was unsafe.
>muh vibrations
Even the Chinese learned how to mitigate vibrations in manned vehicles.
Ares was cancelled because it was extremely over budget and way behind schedule. SLS is amazingly on schedule and on budget by comparison.
>SLS is simply the realized design of Ares V
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA you fucking idiot
How are 6 RS-68s the same as 4 RS-25s?
How is 1 or 2 J-2x the same as 4 RL-10s?
How is 180 tons to LEO the same as 70 tons to LEO?

>None of that is needed.
see >SpaceX is planning on doing FH launches about once a month
They have literally only 4 launches manifested, and only two of them to paying customers
They've lost two (2) FH customers to Arianespace in the last 6 months.

>It's not really plausible that in the next ten years, SLS will cost less than several billion dollars per launch, be available for two flights in a year, or be capable of an Apollo class mission.
And what are you basing any of that on? Your feelings?

>There is no maintaining equipment in orbit.
Why does the ISS cost money then?

>SuperDracos are proven
How many spaceflights have superdracos been on?
They are no more proven than J-2x or 5-segment SRBs

Could every country in the world be convinced to give up their nuclear weapons to build an Orion spacecraft?

>The Super Draco engine uses hypergolic propellant (NTO-MMH) with a thrust of
68,169N at an estimated specific impulse of 324s vacuum.
?

>how about the science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Nexgen_Downloads/NexGen_ELA_Report_FINAL.pdf
This estimates the specific impulse of SuperDraco engines in a vacuum at 324s. Wikipedia gives their specific impulse a 240s, but that's at sea level. Rockets perform better with decreasing air pressure, especially with low chamber pressures, as in the case of pressure-fed engines.

It also proposes a modified Dragon as quite a reasonable lunar lander.

>>Why would a modified Dragon not be the luna lander?
>Oh I don't know, how about
Do you even know what the word "modified" means?

>SpaceX has good excuses:
I wouldn't call a failure rate worse than Proton a "good" excuse
A four year delay on the first flight of FH is quite unacceptable really, especially when 98% of FH is legacy hardware.

>Yes it is, in SLS Block 1.
They will purposefully be leaving the core stage on a suborbital trajectory to crash in the Indian ocean.

>Improving on Isp would take R&D that the Orion people just aren't doing.
Let me ask you. Have you calculated the dv that Orion has? Mass ratio is only one part of this thing.

>I don't even want to try and guess at that idiotic thought process that led to this question.
I don't even want to know what idiotic thought process led you to believe that a 38.5 ton payload rocket couldn't put even a single command module in lunar orbit when a single 47 ton rocket put an entire command module and lander with room to spare in lunar orbit.

No higher than 230 in atmosphere, likely meaning no higher than 245 in vacuum
faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/20140513_DragonFly_DraftEA_Appendices(reduced).pdf

Dragon can't even land on the moon unmodified, let alone land and then return, with crew inside.

>Since you're using "Isp" and "dv" as if they're units
what?

>science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Nexgen_Downloads/NexGen_ELA_Report_FINAL.pdf
Incorrect.
Use the official FAA report for Dragon Fly testing.
faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/20140513_DragonFly_DraftEA_Appendices(reduced).pdf

>Do you even know what the word "modified" means?
Do you even know what SpaceX is doing?
They won't waste time modifying this shit unless someone pays them to do it. They are focusing on Mars and couldn't care less about the Moon.

>>muh vibrations
That's not the only reason Ares I was considered unsafe. Large solids can explode suddenly. An Air Force study concluded that abort was not possible during a key period of the Ares I ascent due to solid fuel fragments burning the parachute.

>How are 6 RS-68s the same as 4 RS-25s?
>How is 1 or 2 J-2x the same as 4 RL-10s?
You're listing possible features of proposes Ares V designs. They never settled on anything. It was going to have 6 RS-68s, or 5 RS-25s, or 4 RS-25s, or 6 RS-25s. 4 RS-25s was on the table for a long time, and was finally the selected option.

When they finalized the design, they changed the name and struck the design costs off the record.

>see
What? For more evidence that you're a moron? See >>It's not really plausible that in the next ten years, SLS will cost less than several billion dollars per launch, be available for two flights in a year, or be capable of an Apollo class mission.
>And what are you basing any of that on? Your feelings?
All available evidence. There are only 4 SLS launches manifested. 2 are test flights. 3 are Orion launches, all to high lunar orbits. The Orion capsule weighs twice as much as the Apollo capsule, while no estimate of SLS Block 1B's performance puts it on a level with Saturn V. The Orion spacecraft is about as heavy as the Apollo CSM, but where the Apollo CSM was 2/3rds propellant, Orion is 2/3rds dry mass. Fat capsule on a wimpy rocket: it's a rocket to nowhere.

Even if the SLS program was free from now on, we pretend that it has nothing to do with Constellation, and all 4 manifested missions actually get done in the next ten years, they'd still cost about $2 billion each based only on funds spent under the SLS name.

>>There is no maintaining equipment in orbit.
>Why does the ISS cost money then?
People this stupid shouldn't try to be glib.

>Dragon can't even land on the moon unmodified
>unmodified
Nobody suggested it could.

>No higher than 230 in atmosphere, likely meaning no higher than 245 in vacuum
>likely meaning
You're far too stupid to make useful guesses at this stuff. Stop trying.

>>>how about the >Since you're using "Isp" and "dv" as if they're units
>what?
Oh look, if you take it in context there's nothing to explain, and yet you still ask for an explanation.

>>Do you even know what the word "modified" means?
>Do you even know what SpaceX is doing?
>They won't waste time modifying this shit unless someone pays them to do it.
You can't even grasp what the conversation is about, can you? We discuss options and hypotheticals, and you feel a need to stupidly "correct" a position nobody is taking.

Go be garbage somewhere else.

Here's the proposed real orion program cost in 1960 dollars. 1.5 billion in 1960 would be equivalent to about 12 billion, purely on inflation. Cost of labor and stuff like that would increase the costs considerably nowadays.

Proposed costs by a government organization really are nothing close to real costs

Though looks like it gives numbers for what the pulse units would have cost.
Likely cheaper now due to less needed plutonium.

...

>That's not the only reason Ares I was considered unsafe. Large solids can explode suddenly. An Air Force study concluded that abort was not possible during a key period of the Ares I ascent due to solid fuel fragments burning the parachute.
Again, this is not why Constellation was cancelled. Did you even read my post?

>When they finalized the design, they changed the name and struck the design costs off the record.
Wrong.
nasa.gov/pdf/510449main_SLS_MPCV_90-day_Report.pdf
See pages 7-10

>See
Wrong again. See >no estimate of SLS Block 1B's performance puts it on a level with Saturn V
Nobody claims it will match or beat Saturn V's performance. 82% of Saturn V's performance is not trivial. It is the second most powerful launch vehicle ever made.

>but where the Apollo CSM was 2/3rds propellant
bull fucking shit
>Fat capsule on a wimpy rocket: it's a rocket to nowhere.
You mean a rocket not meant to emulate Apollo. It has more than enough propellant for its mission, which is to bring a crew to EML2.

>they'd still cost about $2 billion each based only on funds spent under the SLS name.
Far cheaper than Saturn V

>People this stupid shouldn't try to be glib.
>no actual rebuttal
fucking retard

Dragon can never be used for manned landings, no matter how much you modify it.
Fucking idiot retard redditor.

The plutonium required for pulse units was more or less constant at 2.9 kg per pulse unit due to critical mass limitation. I don't know how much smaller we could nowadays make pure implosion nukes.

That's from the general atomics study linked on the top, not a government study.

>there are people ITT who actually think that SpaceX can take up the mantle of all spaceflight, despite having only 29 launches with a 17% failure rate
TOP KEK

>It is the second most powerful launch vehicle ever made.
Wouldn't that be the N1?

>Dragon can never be used for manned landings, no matter how much you modify it.
Why not? Isn't that SpaceX's whole Mars plan?

>N1
never made it to orbit
With power measured as payload to TLI, N1 is behind Saturn V, Energia, and even Block 1 SLS

>Isn't that SpaceX's whole Mars plan?
What is BFR/MCT

>With power measured as payload to TLI, N1 is behind Saturn V, Energia, and even Block 1 SLS
Huh. Okay.

>What is BFR/MCT
Those are going to be involved, but I'm pretty sure SpaceX is doing the whole "Red Dragon" propulsive landing on Mars thing with a Dragon capsule variant.

Using solid core nuclear thermal rocket would result in higher radiation dosage than EPPP system.

Landing on Mars is, ironically, easier than landing on the Moon from a propellant requirement standpoint.

Dragon won't be the thing taking people to Mars. It's too small, amongst other problems.

How do those numbers compare to the dosage from CBR?

Red Dragon is just something they can do at low cost to bring payloads to mars

SpaceX funds themselves by providing services after all.
So expect to see people reserving mars missions using the Falcon Heavy & Red Dragon

>So expect to see people reserving mars missions using the Falcon Heavy & Red Dragon
No.

I don't know of the CBR shielding that would be used in other types of missions, but it would presumably be worse due to mass restrictions.

In EPP-propulsion, the same shielding which would be absulutely necassary would also be used to shield from background radiation and especially solar flares.

I don't think neither SpaceX nor current Nasa mars missions have solved the solar flare issue yet.

Except NASA cannot do EPPP because the US is signatory to the Partial Nuclear Test Treaty. The Partial Nuclear Treaty bans nuclear tests outright. And yes EPPP would classify as a nuclear test.


Heck it is hard enough to get NASA to do anything nuclear these days. NASA is running low on plutonium, they're making more, but they ain't making much. In addition, they canceled funding for the Advanced Stirling Radisotope generator that would have let them use less of their plutonium.

Oh and not to mention NASA has ZERO flight ready nuclear reactors that work in space right now. They have tried to fund them in the past, but they inevitably got cancelled.


And what the fuck is with all this butthurt over SpaceX and ULA?

if they gave that money to musk we would now be invading aliens on another galaxy

>Wouldn't that be the N1?
N1 wasnt a launch vehicle it was a big firecracker

thats like grabbing a pencil, throwing it high and saying it can carry a payload of a billion elefants to the moons of callisto

but when confronted with the obvious reality of yroufailure saying ti was just a test failure right? haha oh the funnies

>Except NASA cannot do EPPP because the US is signatory to the Partial Nuclear Test Treaty. The Partial Nuclear Treaty bans nuclear tests outright. And yes EPPP would classify as a nuclear test.

Outer space and partial nuclear test treaties could be amended to allow the use of nuclear energy in space for the benefit of all mankind. Pulse units could be weaponized just as anything with high energy density can. You can make thermobaric weapons out of gasoline, but that doesn't mean we can't use it.

>> We can't do it because we say we can't
>How do those numbers compare to the dosage from CBR?

The Curiosity rover measured average of 1.84 mSv/day of cosmic radiation during transit to mars. So shorter transit time and shielding both would reduce the absorbed dose, which Orion Mars class mission profiles would have had.

michaeleisen.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Science-2013-Hassler-science.1244797.pdf
> Table 2

i think this

radiation exposure to astronauts is negliible, they take much more rads from the trip being long than from a couple of nukes

>>but where the Apollo CSM was 2/3rds propellant
>bull fucking shit
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module
"Launch mass 63,500 pounds (28,800 kg)"
"SPS engine propellants: 40,590 lb (18,410 kg)"

The CSM had to lower itself and the Lunar Module from a free return trajectory to low lunar orbit, then return to Earth. It needed a high propellant fraction.

>>Fat capsule on a wimpy rocket: it's a rocket to nowhere.
>You mean a rocket not meant to emulate Apollo. It has more than enough propellant for its mission, which is to bring a crew to EML2.
First of all, it's not going to EML2. It's going to high lunar orbit. EML2 is a lagrange point. There are no planned missions on Orion to EML2. Going to EML2 would be something new. They don't want to try anything new, something bad might happen, they might have to solve some problems that NASA didn't solve in the 60s.

And SLS/Orion wasn't designed for the mission. The mission was designed for SLS/Orion, when Constellation was a failure and had to be drastically downgraded, but they wanted an excuse to continue giving money to the contractors. These go-nowhere, do-nothing missions are the best they can cobble together with the scraps of a failed system.

>>they'd still cost about $2 billion each based only on funds spent under the SLS name.
>Far cheaper than Saturn V
File under QUOTE THE WHOLE THING:
>>>>It's not really plausible that in the next ten years, SLS will cost less than several billion dollars per launch
>>>And what are you basing any of that on? Your feelings?
>>Even if the SLS program was free from now on, we pretend that it has nothing to do with Constellation, and all 4 manifested missions actually get done in the next ten years, they'd still cost about $2 billion each based only on funds spent under the SLS name.
>Far cheaper than Saturn V
How can you be such utter garbage? Where's your sense of shame? This is like some kind of mental disorder.

>I don't think neither SpaceX nor current Nasa mars missions have solved the solar flare issue yet.
You can't shield the whole vehicle, you have to see the flare coming and rush the astronauts into a radiation shelter (or keep them in that cramped space as much as possible).

For small missions, you just have to design your vehicle so most propellant, supplies, and waste are stored together, with a tight hole in the middle for your travellers. For pretty much any realistic mission plan, that will give them enough shielding.

Because it scales with surface area, not volume, if you're sending a lot of people at once this is less of a problem. A few guys need to nest together in their supplies. An ark for a million people might just shield the walls.

Msnw are working on a design that soesnt require hundreds of nuclear bombs to work
msnwllc.com/propulsion-publications

Its easy, just put your whole space fleet in orbit, detonate one tzar bomba behind them, in about a week they are in alpha centauri

easy