How would you colonise space?

[lawcat]

Well, it might prove to be one key, sometime in the future, but many are arguing that we could do it now with today's technologies if we just think in terms of the right systems.

 

IMO, the proper approach would be to use target planet resources; not to export resources from Earth to colonize the target, because such approach would be extremely limiting, inefficient, and uneconomical--foolish in a sense. But to do that we must conquer local environments. And to do that we must adapt to those environments. That is what leads me to think that we must genetically adapt some of the known life forms to target environments. And the natural place for such testing appears to be the Moon, where we could export some resources from earth to set up workshops. But, I do not see how we can export stuff to Mars and start colonizing.

We depend on the environment, and to think that the metalic-shell environment is a safe long term solution seems to me short sighted.

[Eclipse Now]

I'm not a scientist but a wide-reading layman in technical fields, pretty much restricted to the "Executive Summary" though. I like reading what might be possible with tomorrow's technology as much as the next geeky sci-fi fan, but I also like discussing what is possible with today's technology yet with new systems thinking.

 

( slight aside again )

EG: Instead of designing electric cars that can maintain suburbia, we could ELIMINATE 80% of our need for cars by living in eco-cities and New Urbanism set ups that keep the best of modern technology, are trendier, more vital places to live, and have more robust local economies. This guy spoke at TEDx Sydney, watch his short 15 minute presentation here.

VillageForum.com

In other words, instead of energy efficient cars we build energy efficient and more attractive cities!

( ends slight aside )

 

The problem with the above example is mainly one of culture, our inherited expectations for what is "normal" and what we "should be doing". If a big throbbing car is the way to impress the chicks, then one is going to have trouble convincing that culture that living in a village with cars banned from the main street is attractive, and that when you absolutely need a car you walk your villages local hire-car scheme and use it for one of your rare trips outside the Village-Town.

 

The same with space settlement. Many of us approach it from a "What I saw in the movies" mentality that clouds what is possible and economic. What frustrates me is that the uber-geeks among us haven't "settled" (pardon the pun) on a clear cut formula that gets us out there, wherever the "there" is. That is, while I love diversity of thought and testing all manner of ideas, there doesn't seem to be a clear-cut formula that a torus colony is definitely stage 1 because of XYZ technological factors and ABC economic factors, and Mars terraforming might be stage 2 because of XYZ ecological and cultural factors, but only after economic factors ABC are established.

 

The Mars geeks LOVE Mars and want to play golf on the surface (with or without the breathing pack) within their genetically enhanced 150 year lifetimes, assuming the future pans out the way they visualise. The Torus geeks LOVE their Torus's, and want to see their nuclear & solar powered Torus's floating around the asteroid belt building other Torus's and gradually drifting out of the solar system to colonise other stars when the new drives arrive.

 

And the doomer-geeks LOVE all their theories about this civilisation collapsing as peak oil hits and we revert to the Middle Ages after 4 billion of us starve to death.

 

What I don't see is a plan for a credible middle-ground, which accounts for the fact that we'll hit peak oil & gas over the next 10 years and even peak coal sometime after 2025, and that both of these MAJOR challenges must be addressed while we also get some kind of super-space industry going. And it seems to me if we want an economic rationale, maybe the moon is the first place to set up a base so it can help with constructing an L5 colony that will manufacture space solar to beam energy back to earth? This seems especially appropriate given the energy crisis we are about to face. Maybe it requires a few Mars geeks getting their heads around the enormity of peak fossil fuels over the next few years and delaying their pet projects until after we've "done the moon"?

[Moontanman]

One this is for sure, we will need to get over our collective fear of nuclear power. space travel is just a pipe dream with out real power, chemical isn't even close, solar isn't enough, only nuclear power will do.

[Eclipse Now]

Well, I for one am a greenie TOTALLY against nuclear power here on earth where it is

a/ too expensive compared to baseload renewables :eek:

b/ too controversial politically (dirty bombs, proliferation, etc) :)

c/ too slow to deploy and build because of all the NIMBY factors :evil:

d/ too fuel dependent in a world of "peak uranium", which leads to :eek2:

e/ yet even I totally support nuclear in space where it is already the most hostile environment we'll have to face and only a tiny fraction of the total cost anyway, so do whatever it takes! ;)

 

So if a raving, ranting greenie such as myself can get behind nuclear in space, and make the distinction between over-expensive unpopular nuclear on earth using up precious uranium that should be deployed in space, then take hope! :hyper:

[Moontanman]

Well, I for one am a greenie TOTALLY against nuclear power here on earth where it is

a/ too expensive compared to baseload renewables :eek:

 

Not true, new generation nuclear can be very competitive in price with other energy sources, not to mention smaller.

 

b/ too controversial politically (dirty bombs, proliferation, etc) :)

 

Possibly, but for a hydrogen economy nuclear is the way to go, new style power plants make an order of magnitude less waste and it is much shorter lived than old style plants. Just because others can't be trusted with them doesn't mean we shouldn't use them.

 

 

c/ too slow to deploy and build because of all the NIMBY factors :evil:

 

Getting past the 1950s inspired scare stories is a problem but it can be done by educating people about the facts, not scare tactics currently in use by the nuclear opponents. I live just a few miles from a nuclear reactor, I get cheap power and in 30 some years it has been totally safe. I see no reason to think it will not always be safe. don't mention Chernobyl, it was an out dated reactor run by people who shouldn't have been running a bus.

 

d/ too fuel dependent in a world of "peak uranium", which leads to :eek2:

 

Peak uranium is bullshit, fast breeder reactors can make more fuel than they use and burn up waste, using the what we call waste to make power. Thorium reactors are even better than uranium based ones and we have lots of thorium to use. Thorium reactors cannot be used to make nuclear weapons. We can go hundreds of years on what we have here on the earth, possibly thousands.

 

 

e/ yet even I totally support nuclear in space where it is already the most hostile environment we'll have to face and only a tiny fraction of the total cost anyway, so do whatever it takes! ;)

 

Yes I agree totally...

 

 

So if a raving, ranting greenie such as myself can get behind nuclear in space, and make the distinction between over-expensive unpopular nuclear on earth using up precious uranium that should be deployed in space, then take hope! :hyper:

 

Yes but can you get your head around the nuclear light bulb rocket? and it's use for ground to orbit from the earth?

[Eclipse Now]

Have you got a page that breaks down the nuclear rocket for me in a non-technical executive summary format? What do you see as it's best points?

 

However, I think we should discuss the economics of nuclear power in this thread you started in which you had a few good rants about fear-mongering greenies (and don't worry, I like to have a few good rants when I get cranky as well :) ) but you never responded with actual data?

 

So I replied with some Lester Brown here.

 

Anyway, love to hear your 60 second summary of nuclear rockets and where they should be used etc in this thread.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/269652-post19.html

[GAHD]

Nuke bulbs should not be used for ground-air earth use. There is no real way to keep the propellant from being contaminated and thus spread radioactive waste into the atmosphere. (Self-defeating point; nuke tests in the USA alone introduce lots of radioactive waste into the air. I am also against this but that's something for a different thread)

 

Once IN space, nuke bulbs are far more attractive, but less so than a liquid metal-cooled hot nuke reactor powering Ion-drives. Plasma vortexes aren't up to snuff for say, a quick 90 degree turn&burn.

 

Edit; additionally, things like the recent improvements in atomic battery technology could put the "waste" generated by reactors to a rather good use. The waste is radio-active, why just let it sit and burn itself out when we can harness MORE energy from it's decay?

[Moontanman]

The nuclear light bulb rocket does not release radioactive material into it's exhaust. Please read this link completely so see what it really is. No 60 sec summary is able to really show the idea in it's best light.

 

 

BRUCE BEHRHORST ARTICLE LIST

[lawcat]

-

[Moontanman]

I'm not sure what you mean lawcat, how does this equate to colonizing space or space travel?

[GAHD]

The nuclear light bulb rocket does not release radioactive material into it's exhaust...

I have read this particular site (I think it was a few years ago actually). For sake of argument I have re-read it, and my original point still stands.

 

You may want to take a look beyond this one source. Lucky for me Wiki does have a quick gloss-over on the particular area I refer to(italicized and bolded by me for emphasis of important points)

 

"The fuel, evaporated by the heat produced by fission, is surrounded by liquid hydrogen. The gas core is contained by magnetic fields in a similar way to a tokamak. With such an arrangement, very high flow-out rates can be obtained, at the cost of massive radioactive contamination of the environment. Unfortunately it is not likely that this arrangement will actually work to contain the fuel, since the ratio of ionization to particle momentum is not favorable. Whereas a tokamak would generally work to contain singly-ionized deuterium or tritium with a mass of two or three daltons, the uranium vapor would be at most triply-ionized with a mass of 235 dalton (unit). Since the force imparted by a magnetic field is proportional to the charge on the particle, and the acceleration is proportional to the force divided by the mass of the particle, the magnets required to contain uranium gas would be impractically large; most such designs have focused on fuel cycles that do not depend upon retaining the fuel in the reactor"

-Gaseous fission reactor

 

If you want I can go dig up some articles from Arxiv regarding this specific subject, but I recommend you take some time yourself to dig around a familiarize yourself a little more with the subject area.B)

 

The rocket proposed by the site you link neglects that the rocket requires even more powerful magnetic fields to keep the gas from "falling" and burning right through the bottom of the reaction chamber during acceleration, or even while attempting to turn the vessel.

 

This is the very reason that most nuke bulbs do not separate fuel and propellant and the reason I in a broad sense say they would be too polluting.

 

It is a beautiful pipe dream but not practical IMHO.

 

[Moontanman]

I have wondered about the magnetic fields required but in this article the fusion gas is held behind a fused silica glass and does not contact the hydrogen. Unless the silica glass is compromised there is no reason for the uranium hexafluoride gas to leak into the exhaust.

[GAHD]

...the fusion gas is held behind a fused silica glass and does not contact the hydrogen. Unless the silica glass is compromised there is no reason for the uranium hexafluoride gas to leak into the exhaust.

As long as the gas can be contained properly and kept from burning through it's confinement, yes this holds true. This leads back to the magnetic fields and their strength vs. acceleration, gyroscopic force(the gas is moving), tensile strength of the glass involved, contraction/expansion through heat, etc...

 

I'm not saying it's impossible, just highly impractical and dangerous for an Earth to orbit or reentry vehicle. The stresses on such craft are enormous. Once IN space it's a different matter, but I still say running a liquid lead or other metal as coolant for a "hot" reactor, and then using the coolant flow to preheat and ionize the propellant for an Ionic drive is much more safe and practical.

[Moontanman]

Actually the magnetic fields have been bothering me a little bit in another way as well. How do you generate a magnetic field without having the plasma surrounded by various wires and such that would not be transparent to the UV radiation given off by the gaseous core? to me this would seem to be a big problem. I love the concept but concepts are not always doable.