US To Test Nuclear-powered Spacecraft by 2027 (reuters.com) 103
The United States plans to test a spacecraft engine powered by nuclear fission by 2027 as part of a long-term NASA effort to demonstrate more efficient methods of propelling astronauts to Mars in the future, the space agency's chief said Tuesday. From a report: NASA will partner with the U.S. military's research and development agency, DARPA, to develop a nuclear thermal propulsion engine and launch it to space "as soon as 2027," NASA administrator Bill Nelson said during a conference in National Harbor, Maryland.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The left wing equivalent of the Anti-vaxxers...
Re: (Score:3)
Even proponents of nuclear power accept that there are risks.
It is just the best solution to our power problems ( on Earth ) right now.
This is the second "Just like antivaxxers" post I've seen today, trying to equate antivax nutters with ( fairly ) normal people.
Is it
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe it's that the anti-anti-vax folks are the nutters?
Re: (Score:3)
Thats not a rational claim at all.
Anti-vaxers , I'm talking about the activists not your regular Aunt Karen who watched a scary shouting man on youtube and decided to nope out, have a collossal amount of blood on thier hands. They sabotaged covid erradication programs around the world, while erradication was still feasible (They certainly did in australia, being singlehandedly responsible for the melbourne outbreak that lead to a months long grueling l
Re: (Score:1)
Whoa, amazing. It's like you time traveled from late 2020 to make this post.
"covid eradication"
I'll stop you right there.
That was never a likelihood, and just barely a possibility, and we know now for certain that it wasn't, and never will be a possibility: it evolves way too fast.
We've also come to understand that the majority of infections and surges leading to and through Omnicron were vaccine-encouraged genetic drift. The "I'm not too sick" vaccinated were encouraging the virus to mutate.
"They interfere
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not aware of a large and growing group of nuclear scientists who are in staunch opposition to nuclear energy research and advancement; are you? I'm also not aware of any anti-nuclear forces within the bureaucracy other than at the DoE.
They don't seem much alike at all. Are you sure the similarity isn't just in your head?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not aware of a large and growing group of nuclear scientists who are in staunch opposition to nuclear energy research and advancement; are you?
I'm aware of some. In general, the nuclear scientists who oppose expanding nuclear power are more nuanced than simple "staunch opposition". They are more "here are some very hard problems we need to solve, and the glib solutions don't work. The problems are real and not that simple."
As for "growing," no. But the more remarkable thing is the growing number of environmentalists who are supporting nuclear power. It's no longer a sure bet that a given environmental advocate will be anti-nuclear.
I'm also not aware of any anti-nuclear forces within the bureaucracy other than at the DoE.
Not sure what y
Re: (Score:1)
I was being glib, somewhat tongue in cheek. I was making reference to the fact that vaccination skepticism (covid/mrna and "conventional") has seen a massive upswell of support from the healthcare and scientific communities as increasing evidence mounts against it.
Re: (Score:2)
I was being glib, somewhat tongue in cheek. I was making reference to the fact that vaccination skepticism (covid/mrna and "conventional") has seen a massive upswell of support from the healthcare and scientific communities as increasing evidence mounts against it.
I no longer have any idea what you said or what you mean. Is this statement "vaccination skepticism has seen a massive upswell of support from the healthcare and scientific communities" also "glib and tongue in cheek"?
Re: (Score:2)
meh. if it wasn't the expense, "space" would be a very good place for nuclear waste... just sayin'
Also there has been nuclear energy in space for decades, just not specifically for propulsion...
Big deal. Also I doubt this will be the Orion blueprint, I think that was tossed a lot time ago (i.e. explosive propulsion).
Thinking more like nuclear powered ION propulsion for long range probes or something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Overwhelmingly, from day 1, they were supporters of the Former Guy.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Please, I know this is going to get modded down to hell, but let me explain myself before you do.
Nuclear energy is extremely good. The waste is handled with absolute concern and care, there is not a lot of it, and it is stored in containment systems designed to slowly deradiate the waste over long periods of time which makes it less radioactiv
Re: (Score:1)
The vaccine was pushed so heavily onto populations who were relatively risk free from covid (like high schoolers).
The policy came about before the vaccine was available, and that was in the belief that a vaccinated person would reduce the spread of covid. After epidemiological study of empirical data, its been determined that a vaccinated person will still contract and spread the virus, but not suffer crippling side effects or mortality from covid infection.
Since unvaccinated kids are not likely to be killed or crippled from covid, but will spread it at a slightly higher rate than vaccinated kids, and vaccinated kids
Re:Anti-nuclear fanatics to post in 3... 2... 1... (Score:4, Insightful)
The policy came about before the vaccine was available, and that was in the belief that a vaccinated person would reduce the spread of covid.
And in fact, they do. Infections are less severe, so counts are lower, and transmission is reduced.
Since unvaccinated kids are not likely to be killed or crippled from covid
Yeah, only 4% [nih.gov], who gives a fuck if nearly three million of our nation's children develop lifelong health problems because some people were afraid of a vaccine, right?
We also didn't even approve the vaccine for children until well after the adults were already taking it (or not) so the idea that anti-vaxxers were created by policies requiring kids to be vaccinated is just extra stupid.
Re: Anti-nuclear fanatics to post in 3... 2... 1.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Civilian nuclear power has been a thing since the 1950s, so we are about 70 years into it. Despite that, despite this "metric fuckton" of R&D, it's still not all that safe and it's very, very expensive. Turns out that when theoretical science meets engineering and corporate reality, there is a bit of a disconnect.
Worse still, you see a lot of pro-nuke people around here whining about the cost being high because of all the "unnecessary" safety stuff. It's not that they want to build extremely safe nuclea
Re: (Score:1)
Civilian nuclear power has been a thing since the 1950s, so we are about 70 years into it. Despite that, despite this "metric fuckton" of R&D, it's still not all that safe and it's very, very expensive.
The evidence over six decades shows that nuclear power is a safe means of generating electricity. The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low and declining. The consequences of an accident or terrorist attack are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Radiological effects on people of any radioactive releases can be avoided. [world-nuclear.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that it's not just the overall risk of an accident, it's the severity of an accident. The risk of me stubbing my toe doesn't warrant wearing steel capped boots all the time, because the consequences are relatively small.
Insurance companies understand that, which is why nuclear operators can't get insurance.
Re:Anti-nuclear fanatics to post in 3... 2... 1... (Score:4, Informative)
2. The FDA gave an emergency use authorization, which does not have the same rigorous testing of the vaccine as a full fledged clinical trial to get a drug approved.
This is not true. The clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines (phase 2 and 3) were done in parallel, so a lot of time was saved on that. No safety step was skipped.
source1 [hopkinsmedicine.org] source2 [trackvaccines.org] source3 [health.govt.nz] source4 [www.nhs.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
EV's don't need nuclear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"If the wind blows for just part of the night it will charge my EV"
Are you sure about that? The Prius Prime has a battery pack that's ~8.8 kWh to fully charge, or say 6 kWh.
You're not going to charge that battery power on a 5kW personal turbine (which is going to typically generate about 1kWh under normal "windy" conditions, and even less without. overnight unless you live somewhere like a windy coastline.
Re: (Score:2)
You put it in quotes, but that's not what FeelGood314 wrote.
Re: (Score:1)
Nah, he said it'd charge everyone's EV, which is even more insane.
Which would mean everyone with an EV would need to have a wind turbine, or wind turbine power generation would need to be targeted towards power generation exclusively for EVs (industrial power factor, etc.) - a time of the day when peak utilization is already down, and conventional power generation needs to cycle down to avoid problems.
Maybe we could split the difference and make it work by just making it so people could only charge their EV
what he said [Re:EV's don't need nuclear] (Score:2)
Nah, he said it'd charge everyone's EV, which is even more insane.
No, he didn't. He referred to charging his EV during the time of night at which the wholesale price of electricity drops to negative, because wind turbines are producing power and nobody is buying it.
Which would mean everyone with an EV would need to have a wind turbine, or wind turbine power generation would need to be targeted towards power generation exclusively for EVs (industrial power factor, etc.) - a time of the day when peak utilization is already down, and conventional power generation needs to cycle down to avoid problems.
You got it. He proposed charging EVs during the time of day when peak utilization was down, and conventional power generation needs to cycle down to avoid problems. (But the wind energy is still producing, because wind doesn't stop merely because people don't need the power.)
As he said: "All we need is sane el
Re: (Score:1)
He literally said, "If the wind blows for just part of the night it will easily charge everyone's EV."
It helps to have reading comprehension.
Re:EV's don't need nuclear (Score:4, Informative)
Wait, what? We're not talking about a little windmill in somebody's yard any more. Wind and solar generated record 34% of ERCOT power in Texas Q1 2022 [ieefa.org]
Re: (Score:2)
A Prius Prime is a PHEV, not EV. Technically, it doesn't need to charge at home or at a charging station. Its carbon footprint is more significant than an EV anyway, even if you go through ecologically correct theater.
Re: (Score:3)
A Prius Prime is a PHEV, not EV. Technically, it doesn't need to charge at home or at a charging station. Its carbon footprint is more significant than an EV anyway, even if you go through ecologically correct theater.
Citation needed. If you run them in EV-only mode (that is, saving the gas engine as a back-up), they are pretty much identical to a non-hybrid EV.
(But you don't have to keep the battery topped off to nearly 100%, so you don't have range anxiety, and thus you can run in the middle of the charge range on the batteries, where they have longest life.)
Re: (Score:2)
If you factor in building the thing, with its complex drivetrain and ICE, and then carrying round the extra weight, a Prius does produce more emissions than a pure EV.
I don't really see the point of a Prius. They aren't cheap, and for similar or only a bit more money you can get a pure EV with 250 mile range. An EV will save you spending money to maintain that combustion engine. Even if you need to spend 30 minutes charging a few times a year on very long trips, how much is your time worth?
Why Prius? [Re:EV's don't need nuclear] (Score:2)
If you factor in building the thing, with its complex drivetrain and ICE, and then carrying round the extra weight,
Lightest Prius Prime weight, 3365 pounds.
Lightest Tesla model 3 weight, 3648 pounds.
Not sure the difference makes a difference, but no, the Prius does not have "extra weight" compared to a Tesla.
a Prius does produce more emissions than a pure EV.
Citation needed.
I don't really see the point of a Prius.
Eliminates range anxiety.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really see the point of a Prius. They aren't cheap,
A friend of mine, who lives in upstate NY, bought a Prius Prime. She was able to get it for ~$24K, I think, which makes it a hell of a lot cheaper than a Model 3, even minus FSD. And since the winters tend to get colder there, going PHEV may help out on the range anxiety. I really hated the lack of "pickup" with that car, but its something to consider for the northern climes. For me, I live in warmer downstate and don't do cross country driving; no way I'd choose a PHEV over a Tesla.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that depends on your definition of "more significant". 5% higher? 50%? 200%? It also depends a lot on how much it the driver is utilizing battery versus ICE - long trips versus short trips.
And since you provided no substantiation of your claim: here is a video [youtube.com] that tries to prov
Re: (Score:2)
Solar is a good alternative too, a majority of single family homes in the US have enough roof space to charge two EVs and meet household energy needs.
That said, I am in favor of both. I like solar for homes because it isn't centralized, but nuclear is great for cost and other things.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the article I remember where that happened [cleantechnica.com]. Take and be healthy.
Re: (Score:2)
By what deadline?
All the EVs [Re:Anti-nuclear fanatics...] (Score:3)
I thought the same thing yesterday while reading the story about what will be required to power all the EV's in California.
The story [slashdot.org] you're talking about is not what it would require to power all the EVS in California. It was what it would take to charge all the EVs in California if the number of EVs increased by 1,500%.
And question was answered. What it would require is... charging the EVs during off-peak hours (primarily, at night.)
That is a pipe dream
Yes, the idea of politicians doing something sensible, like charging EV owners more for electricity if they charge during peak hours, does seem like a pipe dream.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it just me, or have the anti nuclear folks just become dead weight on our entire society
It's not just you, a lot of other people who can't do math think the same thing
Re: (Score:1)
Awe, that's cute you go straight for the ad hominem attack while pretending to be supported by MATH!
Don't you feel even a little dirty taking the low road?
Re: (Score:2)
Awe, that's cute you go straight for the ad hominem attack while pretending to be supported by MATH!
You don't even know what Ad Hominem means. Figures.
Don't you feel even a little dirty taking the low road?
It's the most expensive option, during its lifecycle it produces more CO2 than wind, if we actually shifted to nuclear we'd run out of readily available fuel in less than fifty years... The numbers simply do not support nuclear power, and anyone who claims otherwise a) hasn't looked at the numbers, b) is ignoring the numbers, or c) doesn't understand the numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
ad hominem
adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
>>It's not just you, a lot of other people who can't do math think the same thing
So, saying that myself, and people who think like me, are too simple to understand math is an attack on the person (myself) rather than my claim that people who support an anti-nuclear stance are a dead weight on society
Literally an ad hominem attack
c'mon you can do better than that
fyi, wind power has sc
Re: (Score:2)
ad hominem
adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
That's fundamentally wrong. It means "from person" and it's the argument that someone's argument is bad because of who they are. Just insulting someone isn't Ad Hominem. If I said nuclear was bad because you were bad at math, that would be Ad Hominem. What a noob.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it. You can cite other people's math, without grasping whether the other person's math is relevant or correctly demonstrates favoring a particular position. They probably sucked in their statistics class as well.
Re:Anti-nuclear fanatics to post in 3... 2... 1... (Score:5, Informative)
As a child of the 60's, I can tell you I have been served up with ridiculous anti-nuclear propaganda long before Chernobyl ever happened
First they tried to build an equivalence with nuclear weapons
Then they tried to claim absurdly long half lives, or that China Syndrome was realistic in any sense
Now, they lay claim to "nowhere to put the waste" or "too expensive to build" , while ignoring that it is their own lawsuits and delay tactics that have created those situations in the first place
It would be absurdly funny, IF their propaganda had not resulted in COAL become the number one source of power generation for 50 years, resulting the current global warming tragedy that we see unfolding before us.
Add the fact that they were also funded by the fossil fuel industry and it is distinctly unfunny
Re: (Score:2)
Add the fact that they were also funded by the fossil fuel industry and it is distinctly unfunny
I've been wondering about this for while. It certainly makes sense to me. Do you have a link?
Re: (Score:2)
https://environmentalprogress.... [environmen...ogress.org]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/k... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There's some good info there, thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
Now, they lay claim to "nowhere to put the waste" or "too expensive to build" , while ignoring that it is their own lawsuits and delay tactics that have created those situations in the first place
No, we don't ignore it. We're proud of it. We're proud that our obstructionism has led to increased safety standards which are necessary given that we still have safety incidents even with the increased regulations. And "nowhere to put the waste" is in fact "nowhere to put the waste safely", or again cost effectively. Vitrification works, but it's too expensive, it makes what is already the most expensive form of power generation even more expensive. Dry casks leak, they suffer from radiation embrittlement
Re: (Score:2)
Oh... wow!
Have you considered testing yourself for cognitive decline?
https://mindcrowd.org/ [mindcrowd.org]
Good luck, as somebody who has enjoyed many of your posts in the past, it is really sad to see you slip so far
Re: (Score:2)
Have you considered testing yourself for cognitive decline?
Have you considered testing your saliva for boot polish?
Re: (Score:1)
Have you considered this? The solar power industry is evil. The wind power industry is evil. They don't care about you, they only want your money.
Here's what I believe, the energy industry can't sell energy to people that don't like them because of pollution or other dangers. If energy consumers believe fossil fuels will result in the end of humanity then these consumers will look for other energy. But then someone will inevitably come along to point out the heavy metal contamination of solar power and
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't hear about CHina Syndrome until this year. What wild propaganda.
Thank you for this insightful post.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The nuclear thermal propulsion being described in the article has nothing to do with fission power plants on Earth.
Re: (Score:3)
You're probably thinking of spacecraft RTGs (radio-thermal generators), which are quite different.
RTGs are not what's being contemplated here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At this point DRACO is simply an agreement to design something in the future, they have not been specific about the technology
Not thermonuclear [Re:Anti-nuclear fanatics...] (Score:2)
The terms sound like they ought to mean the same thing, but they don't.
Re:Not thermonuclear [Re:Anti-nuclear fanatics...] (Score:4, Informative)
Sometimes reading is a good thing [energy.gov]
The are not the old RTG's (nuclear batteries) that were used in the past [wikipedia.org]
1. NTP Systems Are Powered By Fission
NTP systems work by pumping a liquid propellant, most likely hydrogen, through a reactor core. Uranium atoms split apart inside the core and release heat through fission. This physical process heats up the propellant and converts it to a gas, which is expanded through a nozzle to produce thrust.
2. NTP Systems Are More Efficient Than Chemical Rockets
NTP rockets are more energy dense than chemical rockets and twice as efficient.
Engineers measure this performance as specific impulse, which is the amount of thrust you can get from a specific amount of propellant. The specific impulse of a chemical rocket that combusts liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen is 450 seconds, exactly half the propellant efficiency of the initial target for nuclear-powered rockets (900 seconds).
This is because lighter gases are easier to accelerate. When chemical rockets are burned, they produce water vapor, a much heavier byproduct than the hydrogen that is used in a NTP system. This leads to greater efficiency and allows the rocket to travel farther on less fuel.
3. NTP Systems Won’t Be Used At Launch
NTP systems won’t be used on Earth. Instead, they’ll be launched into space by chemical rockets before they are turned on. NTP systems are not designed to produce the amount of thrust needed to leave the Earth's surface.
4. NTP Systems Will Provide Greater Flexibility
NTP systems offer greater flexibility for deep space missions. They can reduce travel times to Mars by up to 25% and, more importantly, limit a flight crew’s exposure to cosmic radiation. They can also enable broader launch windows that are not dependent on orbital alignments and allow astronauts to abort missions and return to Earth if necessary.
Nuclear thermal propulsion and how it works.
Download our nuclear thermal propulsion infographic.
5. NTP Systems Were Developed With Support From DOE
NTP is not new. It was studied by NASA and the Atomic Energy Commission (now the U.S. Department of Energy) during the 1960s as part of the Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application program. During this time, Los Alamos National Laboratory scientists helped successfully build and test a number of nuclear rockets that current NTP designs are based off of today.
Although the program ended in 1972, research continued to improve the basic design, materials and fuels used for NTP systems.
NASA and DOE are now working with industry to develop updated nuclear thermal propulsion reactor designs. Three industry teams won a design competition in 2021 and are now further developing designs that will be submitted for evaluation for the fall of 2022.
6. NTP Systems Are Focused On Using Low-Enriched Uranium
DOE is working with NASA to help test, develop and assess the feasibility of using new fuels that require less uranium enrichment for NTP systems. This fuel may be made using new advanced manufacturing techniques and can potentially help reduce security-related costs that come with using highly enriched fuel.
Idaho National Laboratory is currently helping NASA develop and test fuel composites at its Transient Reactor Test (TREAT) facility to examine how they perform under the harsh temperatures needed for nuclear thermal propulsion. Initial testing has shown that nuclear fuels under development by NASA and DOE are capable of withstanding ramps up to operational nuclear thermal propulsion temperatures without experiencing significant damage.
Learn more about NASA’s nuclear thermal propulsion work and explore DOE’s role in space exploration.
Re: (Score:2)
But add: Nuclear thermal propulsion is not the same as thermonuclear propulsion. The two phrases refer to different things. ("Thermonuclear" is the term for a hydrogen bomb, which is fusion. "Nuclear Thermal" refers to a fission reactor heating propellant.)
Re: (Score:2)
yes the nuclear thermal propulsion being described IS similar to fission plants on Earth.
They're similar in that they both use fission, but they're different in that one is used on Earth, and the other is intended to be used in space. As such, some people will be reasonably concerned about one but not the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Anti-nuclear fanatics to post in 3... 2... 1.. (Score:2)
If it explodes after max Q somewhere out over the ocean, tho, meh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Launch [Re:Anti-nuclear fanatics to post in 3...] (Score:2)
Ahhh, there's nothing quite like a fissile uranium shower after a launch goes wrong, is there?
If the uranium in the reactor has never gone critical, it's basically just rocks. It's not radioactive yet (*).
I can think of a lot of potential problems, but "what it there's a launch failure" is not one.
(*footnote: unless they decide that they need to test the reactor before launch with a full test, including taking it critical. I could see some argument for wanting to d that, but due to the problem you note, I doubt that they would.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm, extremely not. Unless the rock you're talking about is pitchblende [wikipedia.org], (approximate composition - dirty UO2) or kakortokite [mindat.org]. Which is still radioactive, and even more radioactive than (say) your average banana, or box of low-salt "salt" (which is typically 50% potassium chloride). Just because it's a rock, doesn't mean it's not significantly radioactive.
As a moderately avid collector of uraniu
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm, extremely not. Unless the rock you're talking about is pitchblende [wikipedia.org], (approximate composition - dirty UO2) or kakortokite [mindat.org]. Which is still radioactive, and even more radioactive than (say) your average banana, or box of low-salt "salt" (which is typically 50% potassium chloride).
But (unused) reactor fuel is less radioactive than natural Uranium. Most of the radioactivity of pitchblende is due to daughter products accumulated over the 4.5 billion year half-life of the U 238. These are removed when you refine it into reactor fuel.
U 235 is slightly more radioactive than 238, but nevertheless, with a half life of 700 million years, it's significantly less radioactive than pitchblende.
Re: (Score:2)
And people wonder why social media is generally shit.
Project rover (Score:2)
NASA to launch a nuclear propulsed engine by 2027 (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds reasonable (Score:2)
All the cool spacecraft in sci-fi films don't run on single-use rockets, do they?
Re: (Score:3)
All the cool spacecraft in sci-fi films don't run on single-use rockets, do they?
Most of them seem to run on MacGuffinium, based on how often getting more of whatever they run on is a plot complication. Even in later Trek series, for example, securing more Dilithium or Trilithium or whatever is a recurring trope.
We could've done this decades ago (Score:2)
But isn't there a treaty that bans all nuclear explosions in space?
In theory, we could build a spacecraft that travels a significant portion of c using nuclear fission.
I am a little concerned about the fallout from it, but space is big.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Space consists primarily of a empty space, and uncounted trillions of unshielded nuclear reactors, You can't "pollute" space in the sense you mean, or rather, it is already "polluted" far more that we could ever manage. And this very light, hot gas blows away in a wind, so it won't just hang around to screw up future trips along the same "path".
Re: (Score:2)
A couple of hundred years ago, we believed the atmosphere, and the sea to be so unimaginably big that we couldn't possibly "fill it up" with our rubbish. We're now of course seeing how wrong we were.
I know space is big, and so even if we consume the entire earth and turn it into space-rubbish, we're not really going to put a dent in the universe, or even the galaxy we're in. However, it doesn't mean we couldn't make a mess of the solar system.
That said, this is all "early days", and so some rubbish-leaving
Re:We could've done this decades ago (Score:5, Informative)
It's not an explosion. It is a fission reactor that is used to heat a working fluid (like hydrogen) and eject it through a nozzle. This was nearly flight-ready technology in the 60's - look up NERVA.
speed [Re:We could've done this decades ago] (Score:2)
In theory, we could build a spacecraft that travels a significant portion of c using nuclear fission.
As long as by the phrase "a significant portion of c", you mean "a small fraction of a percent of c".
Freeman Dyson's Interstellar variant of the Orion bomb-powered concept assumed fusion explosions, and even with that, it could reach ~ 2.5% of the speed of light (if it stops at the target; 5% for a fly-by).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone knows you gotta use a gravitational slingshot maneuver to reach warp 10.
Well, yes, if you want to arrive before you leave
The US DID this decades ago (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you learn all your science from superhero movies?
No shuttle's going to be nuclear powered. That's for actual spaceships, not planet-to-orbit.
Already Did, SNAPSHOT (Score:3)
Someone has been watching "For All Mankind" (Score:2)
NERVA! (Score:2)
Finally, we're going back to the future!
Re: (Score:2)
Good. NERVA was great and was cancelled for the stupidest reasons. With 50 years of material science advancements, this new engine ought to be amazing. It will make a great ferry for the Earth-Moon-Mars circuit and also outer solar system travel. It won't have to land on any surfaces and scare the anti-nuclear freaks, Starship or Terran R can dock with it in orbit. Reference: https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]