Comments on: THE PHOENIX RISES

By: bobwire

bobwire — Fri, 30 May 2008 01:17:01 +0000

Thank you Samsel for your fascinating comment about nuclear propulsion. To shorting the journey to and from Mars to six months easily puts the Red Planet within striking distance.

I would expect a conventional booster, as it would be hard to support a nuclear blastoff with possibly dire consequences should the mission abort early.

Still, the funds necessary to research and develop this option uniquely for humans may not find the needed backing. With so much money geared for the mid-East, there is no such funding available.

Still again, considering Bush’s interest in sending humans to Mars and back, why was not nuclear propulsion funded?

By: Joseph Somsel

Joseph Somsel — Mon, 26 May 2008 17:00:31 +0000

Indeed, an impressive accomplishment. My professional respects to the engineers who designed and conducted this probe.

As to human space travel, Mr. Moran is correct that a round trip to Mars will take 3 years using conventional chemical rocket propulsion. However, this could be shortened to 6 months round trip if nuclear propulsion is used. As of 1972, the US had nuclear rocket engines ready for flight testing. However, President Nixon cancelled the whole program.

The advance that made a nuclear rocket possible was called TRISO fuel. Essentially, uranium ceramic granules the size of sand were coated with multiple layers of silicon carbide and graphite. This permitted the high operating temperatures needed for rockets.

The core technology from the US nuclear rocket program lives own in South Africa with help from Japanese and American nuclear companies. The pebble bed reactor would use TRISO fuel in its core to allow high temperature operation and a significant increase in operating efficiency in electricity generation. The reactor’s high output temperature would also be the critical milestone needed for chemical processes like hydrogen production from water and nuclear-driven coal-to-liquids conversion.

By: bour3

bour3 — Mon, 26 May 2008 07:45:20 +0000

Excellent article. Thank you. Brillo pad as always. I meant, brilliant.

Did you intended credit where it’s due? It’s a problem when sounding it in your head.

By: bobwire

bobwire — Mon, 26 May 2008 05:14:02 +0000

Rick says:
“The National Aeronautics and Space Administration may have had to endure some justifiable criticism for its shortsighted and unimaginative manned space exploration program. But when it comes to its unmanned planetary exploration achievements, the scientists and engineers at JPL and their affiliate programs at universities and other space agencies around the world can still “Wow!” us all every once and awhile.”

Bush says, Jan 15, 2004:
Bush also made his case for why manned exploration is needed, rather than sending unmanned missions, such as the Mars rover, Spirit, currently sending information back from the red planet.

“The human thirst for knowledge ultimately cannot be satisfied by even the most vivid pictures or the most detailed measurements,” he said. “We need to see and examine and touch for ourselves, and only human beings are capable of adapting to the inevitable uncertainties posed by space travel.”

Rick, don’t be too hard on NASA if they were forced to reckon with the President. If he’s so keen, could we launch him first? Oops, I almost forgot, he failed to show for his physical and lost his wings!

I am completely behind the unmanned missions around the solar system. The cost and danger of sending humans to Mars is not worth drawing resources away from unmanned explorations. I keenly await the data Phoenix will provide. Nailing the landing, I’m so excited!