To Mars in 30 Days

[Boris_Badenov]

<br /><br /><br /><br /> "To Mars in 30 Days by Gas-Core Nuclear Rocket," Robert G. Ragsdale, <br /> Astronautics & Aeronautics, January 1972, pp. 65-71. <br /> Author Ragsdale joined NASA's Lewis Research Center (LeRC) in Cleveland, <br /> Ohio, in the early 1950s, when it was a National Advisory Committee on <br /> Astronautics (NACA) laboratory. Starting in the early 1960s, Ragsdale <br /> worked on gas-core nuclear rockets. When he published this article, he <br /> headed up LeRC's Advanced Reactor Concepts Section. According to Ragsdale, <br /> no other known form of propulsion can match the gas-core engine's <br /> "dramatic" potential for fast voyages to the nearer planets. He describes <br /> a gas-core engine design with a 12-foot-diameter spherical reactor <br /> chamber. A ball of fissioning uranium plasma would radiate at about 55,000 <br /> degrees Kelvin at the chamber's heart. Hydrogen propellant would surround <br /> the plasma and enter the chamber from all directions through a "porous" <br /> wall. The uranium plasma would float in a stagnant "dead cavity region" <br /> within the hydrogen flow. The hydrogen would contain graphite, tungsten, <br /> or uranium "seed particles" that would intercept much of the plasma's <br /> radiated energy, preventing the chamber wall from melting. The plasma <br /> would heat the hydrogen, which would expand and exhaust through a rocket <br /> nozzle into space. At full power, the gas-core engine would generate <br /> 50,000 pounds of thrust. According to Ragsdale, U.S. space program <br /> developments planned at this time - 56-day astronaut stays on Skylab space <br /> stations in low-Earth orbit (LEO) and a reusable shuttle for economically <br /> launching 50,000-pound payloads - would serve well as stepping stones to <br /> gas-core nuclear rocket missions. Ragsdale outlines a 60-day piloted Mars <br /> orbit <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[baktothemoon]

Firing non-stop for sixty hours? That would not be fun to ride. I would be content with getting to mars in 90 days at least if it would be a smoother trip. Bottom line, any nuclear propulsion to get to mars is good.

 

[scottb50]

That sounds pretty complicated if you ask me. Taking water into Space and using solar power to break it down to oxygen and Hydrogen makes a lot more sense.<br /><br />All we need is water and the Sun. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

> That sounds pretty complicated if you ask me. Taking water into Space and using solar power to break it down to oxygen and Hydrogen makes a lot more sense.<br /> /> All we need is water and the Sun.<br /><br />Solar-thermal is totally the way to go for cargo, and I think it could work (inthe right context) for human flights. However, the performance of a NGCR engine is hard to argue with. Mars in 30 days, Jupiter in several months instead of years. Direct thrust instead of gravity fly-bys. I still think the politics of launching nuclear stages is going to be a deal-breaker.<br /><br />j <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[gsuschrist]

Complicated? Accomplished by NASA who can't prevent falling chunks of foam after 3 years and billions of dollars.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

I think your idea from another thread, about building & launching our Nuc Ships from Luna is the best way to start using them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[scottb50]

Who said anything about using NASA. I'm for Commercialization of Space. Luckily smarter people were around when the airplane was invented, if that was today we would have military aircraft only. Too dangerous for the mere mortals.<br /><br />A purely commercial launcher and facilities. If Government wants to lease space that's fine with me though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

> I think your idea from another thread, about building & launching our Nuc Ships Luna is the best way to start using them.<br /><br />My most recent thread was on building a commercial facility on Phobos to mine water, support Mars exploration and develop Cis-Martian space. Water would be returned to Earth orbit using combination solar-thermal/solar-sail tugs. Initially I suggested using nuclear engines for PhobosBase, but am also comfortable with buying huge stacks of BlokDM upperstages for some of the shipping, or using massive Solar-electric trusses. What's the simplest fuel? Water and it's components. How do we use it? Steam or other. What's the quickest route to use and profit? That's the tricky part - whatever works.<br /><br />NGCR has a lot of potential, but we need to grow up as a species before it's use will be feasible. I can see some lunar construction (maybe) eventually, but the reactors would probably be built and flown un-fueled from Earth.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[scottb50]

Where have you heard of an abundance of water on Phobos?<br /><br />http://www.nineplanets.org/phobos.html<br /><br />It may be a captured Comet, but the density seems to preclude that much water. It's pretty small even if it was all water. Though if it was all water it would be much smaller and more dense.<br /><br />At least so far, there is a lot of water on Mars. If we can reasonably get to it, so much the better. There is also the possibility most of what we see is CO2 and the Hydrogen signature is from somewhere else. Either way until we can put people there we can't figure it out. Send a new probe with advanced sensors and there are still questions a person could have figured out in seconds on the first mission. <br /><br />Is it cheaper to send robots?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

> Where have you heard of an abundance of water on Phobos? <br /><br />SEveral sources have theorized water reserves on Phobos, my main source is Dr. John Lewis' writings. <br /><br />It's cheaper to send robots, if you are only interested in current cost, not the opportunity lost. Robots still can't breed.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[bamabuc]

Great idea. Unfortunately, it would cost insane amounts of money and the astronauts wouldn't even get to land!