Why has Project Orion been ignored for 60 years now?

[Floridian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Or ... pulsion%29

We've already lost 60 years by not using this technology, which is perfectly safe, and STILL more efficient than anything in use today.

The partial test ban treaty is bunch of BS that crippled our technological advancement. It would be very easy to have weapons inspectors from all nations inspect the craft before it left orbit, and there could be many fail-safes, its not like the world doesn't have nuclear missles in unsafe countries (pakistan).

Pretty soon China is going to be launching craft into orbit, and who knows what they are sending up there, for all we know.

Obama says he wants to decrease nuclear stock-piles, well heres a great way to do so.

Utilize the fission propulsion from a nuclear pulse rocket to get us to Mars, jump-start the economy and energize the nation with the project. Too bad NASA has never had the balls to try anything worthwhile.


Besides, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty does not have the jursidiction it thinks it has, once you are in space you are not in jurisdiction of earth. Anyways, there are actually scientific ways nukes could be put to use. Including terraforming (not blowing a port in a planet but kicking up dust and creating a heat blanket for example).

The "environmentalists" have already destroyed the ozone layer by not letting us convert to nuclear power, when will we learn that they are holding us back?

I am in NO WAY advocating a fascist state that murders its population, I am a libertarian, but it is likely that the Germans, if they had won WW2, would have already established colonies on Mars and other planets by now.

 

[JeffreyNYA]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29

We've already lost 60 years by not using this technology, which is perfectly safe, and STILL more efficient than anything in use today.

The partial test ban treaty is bunch of BS that crippled our technological advancement. It would be very easy to have weapons inspectors from all nations inspect the craft before it left orbit, and there could be many fail-safes, its not like the world doesn't have nuclear missles in unsafe countries (pakistan).

Pretty soon China is going to be launching craft into orbit, and who knows what they are sending up there, for all we know.

Obama says he wants to decrease nuclear stock-piles, well heres a great way to do so.

Utilize the fission propulsion from a nuclear pulse rocket to get us to Mars, jump-start the economy and energize the nation with the project. Too bad NASA has never had the balls to try anything worthwhile.


Besides, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty does not have the jursidiction it thinks it has, once you are in space you are not in jurisdiction of earth. Anyways, there are actually scientific ways nukes could be put to use. Including terraforming (not blowing a port in a planet but kicking up dust and creating a heat blanket for example).

The "environmentalists" have already destroyed the ozone layer by not letting us convert to nuclear power, when will we learn that they are holding us back?

I am in NO WAY advocating a fascist state that murders its population, I am a libertarian, but it is likely that the Germans, if they had won WW2, would have already established colonies on Mars and other planets by now.

If Germany had won the war we would be in a constant world wide conflict. Probably would have never made it to the moon.

 

[Booban]

Why would there be world wide conflict if Germany won the war? Sounds a bit contradictory there.

 

[BurgerB75]

From what I remember reading they had the manpower to hold Europe but could not take the fight to the US. Not taking Japan into account here.

 

[JeffreyNYA]

Why would there be world wide conflict if Germany won the war? Sounds a bit contradictory there.

Like mentioned, US its self would not have fallen at least not for a long long time. I guess I should have said Germany would not be able to win the war with us. Europe yes, but not here so the war may have continued for years and years after. But who knows if that had happened our tech could possible be double what it is today. War sure does spur creativity and innovation.

 

[JonClarke]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29

We've already lost 60 years by not using this technology, which is perfectly safe, and STILL more efficient than anything in use today.

Safe? A technology that requires some 300 nuclear explosions just to get into orbit? More to go beyond.

Let's think of a few reasons why this technology is inadvisable rocket science. Global fall out. EMP over the ground track, EMP in orbit. Artifical radiation belts.

The test ban treaty was and is a very good idea.

And there are huge technological obstacles. Chemical rockets were and are easier, cheaper, safer.

 

[vulture4]

One certainly would not want nuclear explosions near the earth. Nevertheless only nuclear energy of some sort can provide sufficient power for major deep-space missions such as human flight to the planets. Even JFK recognized this, and funded a nuclear rocket program (since canceled) at the same time as he funded Apollo. I wonder whether the program the continued was really the more important one.

 

[SteveCNC]

Personally I don't like the idea of setting off nuclear explosions even if they are weak , too many potential problem for people around you , sure your safe sitting on the good side of a shield but what about everything else . Surely you don't think your the only thing in the solar system do you ? And maybe that was the thinking back when it was first concieved , that they were the only thing in the solar system . even if you don't hit the nukes till your out of range of earth , these days you don't know what you might encounter . Drive by a probe and blast it with an EMP , nice guy !

Although I am encouraged by the results on plasma drive , I believe that's the best way to use nuclear power without harming anything around you in a sustainable propulsion . But we will have to see , most likely whatever we do it will involve using He3 as it is mineable on the moon and that will most likely be the jump off point for manned travel to mars and beyond . But that's my take on things , while it may not look that way with the current administration at the helm , just remember things change , sometimes every 4 years , so mark my words . Maybe I can get a job running an electric bobcat on the moon :mrgreen:

 

[Floridian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29

We've already lost 60 years by not using this technology, which is perfectly safe, and STILL more efficient than anything in use today.

Safe? A technology that requires some 300 nuclear explosions just to get into orbit? More to go beyond.

Let's think of a few reasons why this technology is inadvisable rocket science. Global fall out. EMP over the ground track, EMP in orbit. Artifical radiation belts.

The test ban treaty was and is a very good idea.

And there are huge technological obstacles. Chemical rockets were and are easier, cheaper, safer.

You don't use nuclear explosions to get into orbit. If you actually researched this project, the idea's were modified to use chemical rockets to get the craft into orbit, then turn on the pulse rocket once you pass a certain distance where the fall out does nothing.

Besides, we've had 60 years of "advances", this technology could easily be modified for today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1vKMTYa40A



Look, YES nuclear energy is dangerous. I understand people's initial reaction is to fear something that they don't fully understand, something that is powerful, and could destroy them but why let fear cripple us. Nuclear power if used right can do immense good, not just immense evil. The fear of nuclear power, created because it was first used for destruction, lead people to fail to embrace its benefits.

The facts are:
Nuclear power is safer and cleaner than coal and other fossil fuels. The only "cleaner" alternatives are solar power, wind mills, etc. which are not cost-efficient at this point.
Nuclear power is the only way we will be able to travel efficiently once we are in space, it is multitudes more efficient than using chemical rockets.

Once you are in space, the danger of "fallout" doesn't matter. What are we afraid of?

If you analysis the cost and benefits vs. the risk and rewards, this technology would pay off big time.


The test ban treaty was short-sighted and based on fear. It did its job on Earth, but what has it done to space?

We can already destroy each other here on Earth. By not using these technologies in a peaceful and multinational effort, we have seriously crippled man's technological advancement. We have yet to hit the space age. Do I really need to advocate the benefits of exploring/colonizing space?

 

[Floridian]

"I wonder whether the program the continued was really the more important one."

Exactly!


There are virtually no dangers in using this technology if done correctly. You would not detonate nukes that would harm the Earth. Once you are in space, a pathetic nuclear explosion is not going to do anything compared to the forces that already operate in space, like solar flares.

The explosion would exist for less than a second, and would soon dissipate. Space is already full of radiation, that is why we have a magnetic field that protects us. The radiation from the sun is from a constant nuclear explosion.


People chose the goal of planting the flag on the moon, but what did it do for us? Nothing. It was a symbolic and not an actual victory. Chemical rockets haven't done much of anything over the last 60 years, nothing compared to what nuclear technology will do.



I say, stop wasting our time funding NASA, if they arn't going to invest in nuclear technology.

Nuclear technology, once properly used in space, will do more in 10 years, than 60+ years of chemical rockets. Constant thrust, larger craft, bigger computer systems, re-usable craft.

 

[Floridian]

Personally I don't like the idea of setting off nuclear explosions even if they are weak , too many potential problem for people around you , sure your safe sitting on the good side of a shield but what about everything else . Surely you don't think your the only thing in the solar system do you ? And maybe that was the thinking back when it was first concieved , that they were the only thing in the solar system . even if you don't hit the nukes till your out of range of earth , these days you don't know what you might encounter . Drive by a probe and blast it with an EMP , nice guy !

Although I am encouraged by the results on plasma drive , I believe that's the best way to use nuclear power without harming anything around you in a sustainable propulsion . But we will have to see , most likely whatever we do it will involve using He3 as it is mineable on the moon and that will most likely be the jump off point for manned travel to mars and beyond . But that's my take on things , while it may not look that way with the current administration at the helm , just remember things change , sometimes every 4 years , so mark my words . Maybe I can get a job running an electric bobcat on the moon :mrgreen:

It will be decades, if not a century before he3 mines are operating successfully on the moon, at the pace we are moving.

 

[kelvinzero]

People on this site are not generally anti-nuclear. Nasa uses nuclear power and has been pursuing various more extravagant nuclear projects if mainly on paper. Very little funding for research has been available.

Why should we accept your opinion that Orion has been the obvious direction for the last sixty years, and that multiple generations of NASA (and presumably Russian also) scientists and engineers are all incompetent or in denial over this?

 

[SteveCNC]

It will be decades, if not a century before he3 mines are operating successfully on the moon, at the pace we are moving.

:lol: do you honestly think we will be sending people to mars on any regularity any sooner at the rate we are going ?

If we are talking just once or twice there are plenty of ways with current technology but at a cost . I was thinking about a more cost effective way to do it on a regular basis . In order to colonize mars some sort of infrastructure that was efficient and cost effective would have to be in place first IMHO .

 

[Polishguy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29

We've already lost 60 years by not using this technology, which is perfectly safe, and STILL more efficient than anything in use today.

The partial test ban treaty is bunch of BS that crippled our technological advancement. It would be very easy to have weapons inspectors from all nations inspect the craft before it left orbit, and there could be many fail-safes, its not like the world doesn't have nuclear missles in unsafe countries (pakistan).

Pretty soon China is going to be launching craft into orbit, and who knows what they are sending up there, for all we know.

Obama says he wants to decrease nuclear stock-piles, well heres a great way to do so.

Utilize the fission propulsion from a nuclear pulse rocket to get us to Mars, jump-start the economy and energize the nation with the project. Too bad NASA has never had the balls to try anything worthwhile.


Besides, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty does not have the jursidiction it thinks it has, once you are in space you are not in jurisdiction of earth. Anyways, there are actually scientific ways nukes could be put to use. Including terraforming (not blowing a port in a planet but kicking up dust and creating a heat blanket for example).

The "environmentalists" have already destroyed the ozone layer by not letting us convert to nuclear power, when will we learn that they are holding us back?

I am in NO WAY advocating a fascist state that murders its population, I am a libertarian, but it is likely that the Germans, if they had won WW2, would have already established colonies on Mars and other planets by now.

http://www.alternatehistory.com/gateway ... blems.html

I too see the potential in Orion, but there were opportunities for it in the 60s that we don't have now. For example, the EMP and X-rays from the bomb would fry satellites in LEO if we tried launching one now. Sure, an Orion could be used for interstellar voyages, but, well, the link explains things better than I could.

 

[steve82]

I love Orion. George Dyson's book http://www.amazon.com/Project-Orion-Sto ... 550&sr=1-1
is probably one of the best summaries of those years. Von Braun expressed some interest in it as an upper stage for Saturn. They envisioned Orion-powered large platforms in translunar space or Lagrangian points to bring an end to the arms race by being too far for any soviet intercepters to bring down but with a good enough view that they could instantly warn of a missile launch on the other side. They even built a model that had 5-inch naval guns on it!
Some of the research they did regarding how small you could make a device and also how to direct the blast is supposedly still classified. They looked at coca-cola machines to come up with a bomb-dispenser mechanism that could drop the bombs out the back of the ship, slam the door in the shock absorbing pressure plate shut and squirt grease all over the plate to absorb heat in a fraction of a second before the blast. Their biggest fear was a dud-a nuke that had it's conventional explosive go off but didn't fission resulting in a bunch of shrapnel that would destroy the spacecraft instead of just a blast of heat and radiation.
In retrospect, it was a wonderfully insane thought experiment that produced a lot of useful results but would never be implemented due in no small part to arms proliferation concerns about mass producing thousands of little tiny nukes that might get away from us.

 

[JonClarke]

You don't use nuclear explosions to get into orbit. If you actually researched this project, the idea's were modified to use chemical rockets to get the craft into orbit, then turn on the pulse rocket once you pass a certain distance where the fall out does nothing.

Almost every Orion proposal involved launch from ground level. So it isn't me who has not researched the topic.

Besides, we've had 60 years of "advances", this technology could easily be modified for today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1vKMTYa40A

The past 60 years has also seen greatly reduced acceptance of nuclear explosions anywhere, let alone above ground, uncontained release of fission products and contaminated materialo into the environment, much greater vulnerability of critical infrastructure to EMP, and extension of critiocal infrastructure into space where it is vulnerable not only to EMP but also artifricial radiation belts.

At the same time we have been no progress in the past 60 years in reducing fallout from nuclear explosions detonated at ground level, the reduction of EMP and ions from nuclear explosions in the upper atmosphere or space.

There is also still no need for thousand tonne payloads in a single launch.

Look, YES nuclear energy is dangerous. I understand people's initial reaction is to fear something that they don't fully understand, something that is powerful, and could destroy them but why let fear cripple us. Nuclear power if used right can do immense good, not just immense evil. The fear of nuclear power, created because it was first used for destruction, lead people to fail to embrace its benefits.

Strawman argument. We are not discussing nuclear power and attitudes to it in general, but the advisability of one specific potential application.

The facts are:
Nuclear power is safer and cleaner than coal and other fossil fuels. The only "cleaner" alternatives are solar power, wind mills, etc. which are not cost-efficient at this point.

Strawman argument. The efficiency of nuclear power for electricty is not the issue here. BTW the solar panels on my roof are highly cost effective.

Nuclear power is the only way we will be able to travel efficiently once we are in space, it is multitudes more efficient than using chemical rockets.

Wrong. There are many ways of travelling efficiently in space. Chemical fuels are unsurpassed for launching into orbit and are preferable over other methods for missions to the Moon, Mars and NEOs for many reasons.

Once you are in space, the danger of "fallout" doesn't matter. What are we afraid of?

EMP and artificial radiation belts risking global damage to critical infrastrucrture on Earth and in space. There is also strategic destabilisation, any technology that can dispense hundres of nuclear weapns in the course of a few minutes is very risky.

If you analysis the cost and benefits vs. the risk and rewards, this technology would pay off big time.

Let's see....

Costs/risks

Technical risk - nothing remotely like an Orion has ever been built, other than some tiny models with convention explosives that probably bear less resemblance to the real thing than Goddards 1st rocket does a space shuttle. Unresolved issues with the basic principes of the pusher plate, shock adsorbers, control.

Environmental risk - one launch could damage to global critical indrastructure, damage to in space intrastructure, contamination of the atmosphere and oceans from fall out.

Economic risk - there is no need to launch thousand tonne payloads in one hit, no justification of the immense cost of developing such technology.

Political risk - globally people would object to the fall out from hundreds of atmospheric nuclear explosions, not to mention the loss of critical infrastructure on the ground and in space, endangering hudreds of thousands if not millions.

Strategic risk - the destablising effect of launch a system carrying up to a thousand nuclear explosive charges and able to fire them at the rate of one a second.

Benefits/rewards:

Thousand tonne payloads, missions to Jupiter and Pluto.

Seems like the benefits/rewards could be achieved by less Strangelovian means.

The test ban treaty was short-sighted and based on fear.

Most people would not consider the end to atmospheric and oceanic contamination and a slowing down of the nuclear arms race short sighted.

It did its job on Earth, but what has it done to space?

Stopped satellite-destroying tests.

We can already destroy each other here on Earth.

SO et's not develop new ways to damage ourselves.

By not using these technologies in a peaceful and multinational effort, we have seriously crippled man's technological advancement.

Crippled? We don't need Orion to send people to the Moon, Mars, asteroids or indeed anywhere else in the solar system.

We have yet to hit the space age.

Satellites, space stations, the Apollo missions don't exist?

Do I really need to advocate the benefits of exploring/colonizing space?

Strawman. The issue is not the benefits of space but the advisability of a particular technology.

 

[JonClarke]

I too see the potential in Orion, but there were opportunities for it in the 60s that we don't have now. For example, the EMP and X-rays from the bomb would fry satellites in LEO if we tried launching one now. Sure, an Orion could be used for interstellar voyages, but, well, the link explains things better than I could.

Hence the suggestion for use of a fusion equiavlent for Project Daedalus. That of course was supposed to be built in orbir round Jupiter, which is good safe distance.

 

[JonClarke]

I love Orion. George Dyson's book http://www.amazon.com/Project-Orion-Sto ... 550&sr=1-1
is probably one of the best summaries of those years. Von Braun expressed some interest in it as an upper stage for Saturn. They envisioned Orion-powered large platforms in translunar space or Lagrangian points to bring an end to the arms race by being too far for any soviet intercepters to bring down but with a good enough view that they could instantly warn of a missile launch on the other side. They even built a model that had 5-inch naval guns on it!
Some of the research they did regarding how small you could make a device and also how to direct the blast is supposedly still classified. They looked at coca-cola machines to come up with a bomb-dispenser mechanism that could drop the bombs out the back of the ship, slam the door in the shock absorbing pressure plate shut and squirt grease all over the plate to absorb heat in a fraction of a second before the blast. Their biggest fear was a dud-a nuke that had it's conventional explosive go off but didn't fission resulting in a bunch of shrapnel that would destroy the spacecraft instead of just a blast of heat and radiation.
In retrospect, it was a wonderfully insane thought experiment that produced a lot of useful results but would never be implemented due in no small part to arms proliferation concerns about mass producing thousands of little tiny nukes that might get away from us.

That is a great book.

 

[ZiraldoAerospace]

Orion is outdated, the infrastructure to make that many bombs alone is ridiculous. There are some worthy nuclear propulsion methods out there in my opinion, like nuclear thermal rockets, which don't really damage the environment and are cost effective, if we only invest the time to look into pebble bed reactors more, which is just now being done.

 

[Floridian]

Orion is outdated, the infrastructure to make that many bombs alone is ridiculous. There are some worthy nuclear propulsion methods out there in my opinion, like nuclear thermal rockets, which don't really damage the environment and are cost effective, if we only invest the time to look into pebble bed reactors more, which is just now being done.

How is it outdated, it could be easily engineered today. We have more nuclear weapons than ever and Obama wants to reduce our stockpile. I believe Russia agreed to lower its stockpile as well.

I am a proponent of thermal nuclear rockets that use ion drives but we know NASA will never attempt those, too cutting edge, and the private space industry has just gotten off its feet and will need time.

A nuclear pulse rocket would not damage the environment at all, in fact, it would help it, by reducing our stockpile of nuclear weapons on earth and slightly decreasing our chance of destroying the planet.

What would be more cost effective than a nuclear pulse rocket? This could be done with a little retrofitting easily with todays technology.

On the thermal nuclear reactors, the argument is people are scared of us taking nuclear material through the atmosphere incase the shuttle explodes on the way up. IE never will Earth be allowed to take nuclear material into space! Basically crippling our industry.

Our best option out there would be like you say using thermal nuclear reactors. It would take money but we just spent $1 trillion in the stimulus. Multiple Space-X's contract by 10, and invest about $100 billion in LEO cargo so we can build a spacecraft in space powered by nuclear reactors. Using the ISS as a space-port. Once the craft was built and functioning. (It could technically be built around the ISS.) It could be used for trips throughout the solar system, and could return to orbit to refuel with nuclear fuel.

If someone were to design a plan, I believe MNCs - Multi-national corporations would invest heavily. There are relatively small asteroids alone that are worth $20 trillion.

It might be a one-way trip for the crew, for example if we went to Mars, but there would be plenty of volunteers. Also, taking off from Mars would be relatively easy, there could be a smaller craft attached to the mothership that could go down to the planet for a manned mission.

The plan is to de-orbit the ISS and just let it burn up as it stands anyways, instead of that, we should use it, after all, the material is extremely valueable since it is already in space.

A mothership in space would draw immense public interest, across nations, and would inspire massive public support. Just the idea of a manned ship flying around the solar system.

Don't the thermal nuclear reactors/ion drives allow slow but constant thrust? Escaping orbit would just be a matter of slowly accelerating, correct? Nuclear reactors would allow for long trips, at least 6 months to 2 years, and would allow for bigger computer systems and constant thrust.


I wonder if it would be possible to use soil/water on Mars to grow food for the return trip back to Earth?


We need to take risks, what happened to mans desire for spirit and adventure, huge risks and sacrifices are what drove exploration and brought us into the modern age. As men drive forward in exploration, they drag everyone with them.

 

[JonClarke]

I am a proponent of thermal nuclear rockets that use ion drives...

Nuclear thermal rockets don't use ion drives. They are funadmentally different technology.

but we know NASA will never attempt those, too cutting edge....

To the contrary, at least half of the work on nuclear thermal propulsion has been done by NASA. Likewise ion propulsion. No NTR or nuclear electric spacecraft have flown because there has not been the justifricatioin for them

and the private space industry has just gotten off its feet and will need time.

It will be a long time before private industry will be allowed to launch weapons grade nuclear fuel.

A nuclear pulse rocket would not damage the environment at all...

Wrong again. Fallout from ground launch, EMP and artificial radiation belts from operations in orbit. Extremely damaging.

in fact, it would help it, by reducing our stockpile of nuclear weapons on earth and slightly decreasing our chance of destroying the planet.

Bombs can't be used for Orion, you need purpose0built nuclear charges. This means remachining the fissile material. It is fasterm cheaper and more productive to burn up fissile uranium in power reactors, which is what's being done.

What would be more cost effective than a nuclear pulse rocket?

Just about eveything.

This could be done with a little retrofitting easily with todays technology.

Nothing about building a nuclear pulse rocket will be easy.

On the thermal nuclear reactors, the argument is people are scared of us taking nuclear material through the atmosphere incase the shuttle explodes on the way up. IE never will Earth be allowed to take nuclear material into space! Basically crippling our industry.

It is possible to launch nuclear material safely, it has to be properly contained during launch. The greater the amount of nuclear material the harder it is do do this.

Our best option out there would be like you say using thermal nuclear reactors. It would take money but we just spent $1 trillion in the stimulus. Multiple Space-X's contract by 10, and invest about $100 billion in LEO cargo so we can build a spacecraft in space powered by nuclear reactors. Using the ISS as a space-port. Once the craft was built and functioning. (It could technically be built around the ISS.) It could be used for trips throughout the solar system, and could return to orbit to refuel with nuclear fuel.

A trillion spent on space industry might well be a better investment than bailing out the people that got the economy into trouble in the first place.

If someone were to design a plan, I believe MNCs - Multi-national corporations would invest heavily. There are relatively small asteroids alone that are worth $20 trillion.

We don't know how to mine asteroids. Or process it. Or dispose of the waste. We have not even been to one yet.Until we know these things asteroids are not worth anything. Much better spending the money exploring and mining on Earth.

It might be a one-way trip for the crew, for example if we went to Mars, but there would be plenty of volunteers.

Easy to say when you are not the one going. The sort of people who vlunteer for sucide missions are not the sort of people you might want to take.

Also, taking off from Mars would be relatively easy, there could be a smaller craft attached to the mothership that could go down to the planet for a manned mission.

Yes, but you don't need Orion to go to Mars.

The plan is to de-orbit the ISS and just let it burn up as it stands anyways, instead of that, we should use it, after all, the material is extremely valueable since it is already in space.

Nothing lasts for ever. Eventually the ISS will have to be deorbited, but not for at least 10 years.

A mothership in space would draw immense public interest, across nations, and would inspire massive public
support. Just the idea of a manned ship flying around the solar system.

Not if it is packed with nuclear explosives, cost the GDP of a medium sized country to built, and causes an international disaster everytime it is used.

Don't the thermal nuclear reactors/ion drives allow slow but constant thrust?

NTRs no. Ion yes. There is a difference.

Escaping orbit would just be a matter of slowly accelerating, correct? Nuclear reactors would allow for long trips, at least 6 months to 2 years, and would allow for bigger computer systems and constant thrust.

You don't need reactors for long trips. Computer systems don't need much power. Constant thrust thrust comes at a cost.

I wonder if it would be possible to use soil/water on Mars to grow food for the return trip back to Earth?

Probably. But not for initial missions. Once stations are established locally produced food can supply those. Producing food for the return trip would be a subsiduary of this.

We need to take risks, what happened to mans desire for spirit and adventure, huge risks and sacrifices are what drove exploration and brought us into the modern age. As men drive forward in exploration, they drag everyone with them.

Indeed, but not at the cost of burning down the house.