Walking Eagle Nomination for the Ad Astra Rocket company

Dear Dr David Livingston and the Space Cynics,

I would like to submit a Walking Eagle Award nomination for the Ad Astra Rocket company for their "Human Transportation to Mars" concept.

The primary basis of my nomination is the size of the nuclear reactor proposed, but even if such a reactor and all the other support infrastructure to launch the mission from an Earth-Moon Lagrange point was available, and their propulsion technology actually worked, I think there is a very strong argument that such a fast transit decreases mission safety because it eliminates the free-return-trajectory abort mode.

The only nuclear reactor the US has ever flown in space is the SNAP-10A, which produced a mere 650 watts of electrical power, from 45 kW of heat. The SP-100 reactor program, which were never flown, was to produce 100 kW of electrical power from 2 MW of heat. The Russians flew reactors which produced 3 kW to 5 kW of electrical power, and built some 40 kW reactors that were never flown. So when Ad Astra baselines a 200 MW nuclear reactor, they're talking about a reactor 40,000 times as big as anything that has ever flown! It's even 2000 times as big as anything anyone has ever tried to build, and 5,000 times as big as anything that has ever been actually built!

There are other arguments against a nuclear reactor of this size, relating to the power per kg and the size of the radiators that would be required, however as it is obvious that no such reactor will be available, they are superfluous.

Need I say more?

Okay I will. Come with me now as we enter the fantasy land where electrical power for the VASIMR thruster is free and plentiful. Perhaps we have a nuclear fusion reactor that works in space and doesn't require any heat radiators, etc. Also, we have superconducting magnets that work at space temperatures, and all this technology is ready. Also, there's scientifically literate politicians both in the White House and the Congress and the US has paid off their national debt with the profits they received from selling ponies to North Korea.

As pointed out by Bob Zubrin last year, hurtling towards Mars at breakneck speed means you better be successful at stopping or your crew goes cruising off into the outer solar system never to be heard from again. In a six month transit, which has already been achieved using modest chemical propulsion, the crew has the option of aborting back to an Earth returning trajectory. How is throwing away this abort mode in the name of making the trip safer a good idea?

Also, their rocket doesn't actually produce any thrust.

Comments

  1. ken_anthony12:47 PM

    But let's all wait for the nuclear option so we never actually have to go anywhere.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Disabling OS-X Device Removal Warnings In Yosemite

Image
If you're anything like me you've probably seen the Disk Not Ejected Properly message so many times that you've forgotten how annoying it is.. despite the fact that you never even wrote anything to the usb drive that you're yanking out of your Mac the operating system insists that you remove it "correctly". You're supposed to click the eject button. Why? I dunno, Apple seems to think that if you can write to it then the operating system might have written to it - and being Apple, they probably have. Well ya know what? Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me. Note: this will not fix your external drive disconnecting when your Mac goes to sleep. For that problem try disabling "put hard drive to sleep when possible" in both the Battery and Power Adapter tabs of the OS energy saver settings. What appears below is a dirty hack for deliberately removing a warning that Apple insists on showing you every single time you yank out a usb stick. ...
Read more

Rebirth Of The Spaceship

Image
Over the last year the space advocate community has splintered into two major groups in answering the question "where should we go next?" Moon First or Mars First . This division was present in the Review of Human Spaceflight (aka Augustine) committee's final report in late 2009, with the surprising conclusion that there isn't the funds for either, suggesting a number of intermediate destinations first - including asteroids. However, as few people consider asteroids to be truly interesting destinations for the human utilization of space ( except me! ), the debate rages on. Many Moon First advocates are "Mars Next" advocates while most Mars First advocates are "Moon Again?" detractors. The former claim that Mars exploration will benefit from lunar exploration, particularly in experience and risk reduction, and perhaps the procurement of propellant. The latter claim that lunar exploration is just a distraction and want to avoid the risk of be...
Read more

Living Inside An Asteroid

Image
Deriders of the new NASA direction have latched on to the announced human asteroid mission in the 2025 timeframe as something they "can't imagine" and therefore is not worth doing. Of course, the administration is talking up the "science" that can be done on an asteroid, and how this could better inform us should the need arise to divert or destroy one that threatens Earth. This is good politics as nothing motivates like fear, but for those of us who think the human spaceflight program is really about preparing us to live at the future homes of humanity, asteroids would seem to be just a stop on the way - I disagree. As I've written previously, the new NASA direction isn't about asteroids - it isn't about destinations - it's about going and specifically, it's about going to Mars. I'm not sure NASA knows yet why they're going to Mars, but they're focusing on the technology to get there and get back safely, and some of the ...
Read more