MAIN ARTICLE: Score: Nuclear 2 - Solar 2.
A brief comparison of four different space systems.
Vote@Poll: Final Poll in the "Americans In Space" Diary series of space polls. Want more polls? Click Subscribe now. Scroll down for the last poll in series 2.
Star Trek: In the News. Want more Star Trek info, click subscribe, get the latest in Star Trek news by scrolling down.
THE COUNTDOWN - 763 days until The United States of America no longer retains the ability to launch an American into space. 763 days until America goes cap in hand to Russia to beg for a ride to the 100 billion dollar Space Station. In just two years America is grounded, Russia and China take center stage, and the world is left wondering about America as a Leader of the Free World.
A look brief look at four options for space research funding:
Nuclear Engines:
TRITON: A TRImodal capable, Thrust Optimized, Nuclear Propulsion and Power System for Advanced Space Missions
"The baseline TRITON is designed for primary propulsion mode that uses only LH2 fuel for moderate thrust levels near 66.7 KN (15klbf) and ISPs near than 911 seconds. The "augmented" thrust mode provides gasified oxygen into the nozzle down-stream of the throat to get an additional 200% more thrust when needed for heavy cargo earth departure missions. In the power-generation mode a dynamic power conversion unit provides electrical power to support spacecraft systems or electric thrusters for additional maneuvering. The baseline TRITON engine is powered by a fast-spectrum beryllium-reflected CERMET-fueled nuclear reactor. It uses a dual turbopump arrangement driven by an expander cycle using the LH2 and a gas generator add-on to drive the LANTR propulsive mode. When the TRITON is operating in electrical power mode, the reactor operating at less than 10% maximum thermal capability is used to heat a mixture of helium and xenon to drive a closed-loop power conversion cycle.
This paper discusses the design analysis performed and provides information on the TRITON engine concept as it could be used for advanced manned and unmanned cargo missions within the Solar System."
Nuclear Power Plant:
NASA Eyes Nuclear Power for Moon Base
"The problem with power on the moon is that, depending on where you're located, you may have 14 days of darkness," said Lee Mason, an engineer at NASA's Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio, who heads the project. "We think nuclear offers some advantages there in terms of a continuous power source in sun or darkness."
Engineers envision a nuclear reactor buried under the surface of the moon so that lunar soil, known as regolith, can act as shielding against the reactor's radiation. Power converters would sit atop a tower jutting above the surface, changing the reactor's heat energy into electrical energy for astronauts to use." (picture here)
Space Solar Power:
Another option is Space Solar Power ( SSP )Energy in global winters:
"Space solar power would be the only means of acquiring direct solar energy to supplement the burning of fossil fuels or nuclear energy sources under the most extreme conditions of a global catastrophic volcanic winter (or similarly, nuclear winter). This could include the massive energy increases necessary to grow food crops and for increased heating requirements under ice age conditions. Such could be the case after a rhyolitic supervolcano at one of the earth's few dozen hotspots. One at Lake Toba, Indonesia 75,000 years ago caused the Millennial Ice Age lasting 1000 years, wiping out 60% of the global population. Ejecta on this scale could occur at the Yellowstone Caldera which 640,000 years ago (one also occurred 2.2 million years ago), released 800 times more (but only one third of that released at Lake Toba and one fifth of that released at the world's largest known at La Garita Caldera in the San Juan Mountains of Colorado 27.8 million years ago) ejecta than Mount St. Helens did in 1980."
Battery Systems:
Potential Space Battery
"Because of its high energy density, the NaS battery has been proposed for space applications[7][8]. Sodium sulfur cells can be made space-qualified; in fact a test sodium sulfur cell was flown on the Space Shuttle to demonstrate operation in space. The sodium sulfur flight experiment demonstrated a battery with a specific energy of 150 Wh/kg (3 x nickel hydrogen battery energy density), operating at 350 °C. It was launched on the STS-87 mission in November 1997, and demonstrated 10 days of experiment operation in orbit."
POLL RESULTS:
It was an interesting series as voters have swung from favored various options. The last pole saw an increase in the amount of "no Opinion" votes from 28% to 32% in yesterday's poll. The no opinion group that favored increased funding for space led the way with 20% versus 12% for the no increases for space funding.
The winning option was increase funding for space batteries (18%) recharged by solar power. Elon Musk of Space X also has another company, Tesla Motors. He is using batteries to power a new electric car. Instead of inventing a big battery, he networked 7000 small batteries, maybe an option for space.
SERIES 2:
Poll #1 Space Solar Power (SSP) 27%
Poll #2 Space Solar Power (SSP) 33%
Poll #3 Nuclear Engines..............33%
Poll #4 Battery Systems..............18%
STAR TREK: In The News.
By tvnz.co.nz's Darren Bevan
"As you already know there is of course, the new full length Star Trek trailer for the forthcoming JJ Abrams ( Lost, TV2 upcoming drama Fringe ) revamp of the franchise.
Wait, you say you've not experienced it in glorious HD yet? (Or want to watch it again - like many of us in the TV2 Movies office are doing)"
Interesting comments:
When responding about an excess of spending for space Rimjob wrote:
"someone worked out the cost to the American taxpayer as 15 cents a day. For 15 cents a day, the United States government puts men & women into space, robots on other worlds, and uses telescopes to peer into the unknown & furthers our understanding of the universe.
Now think of what they might be able to do if they had 30 cents a day.
I know things aren't great right now, but this country went to the Moon.....
While funding & fighting the Vietnam War & Cold War
While funding Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs
While in the middle of the Civil Rights Movement & Womens' movement."
I agree, a reason can ALWAYS be offered about WHY America shouldn't move forward in manned space. tbounnaksaid it best:
"space exploration is a matter of survival for all mankind. And there is nothing that has the potential to unite and inspire all of mankind, transcending boundaries of nationality, ethnicity, and religion, like the prospect of "new worlds and new civilizations" out there."
--Advocate's Corner--
The "Americans In Space" Diary currently advocates the following:
Manned Space Flight:
HLV - Heavy Launch Vehicle.
ARES V - 207 tons, costs: Unknown
DIRECT 2.0
- 100+ tons, costs: Unknown
Falcon 9 Heavy - 32.5 tons, costs: 94.5 million (currently advertised)
LEO Fuel Depot:
Tanker Argus: Re-supply for a LEO Cryogenic Propellant Depot.
Space-Based Economy Valuation, Analysis, and Refinement.
Propulsion:
PROJECT PROMETHEUS - Canceled, support it being refunded.
FTP Vehicle: Fly To Point Vehicle, There are 30-50 Fly To Points within a Near Mars Orbit.
Robotic Mission Types:
New Hubble - LEO Optical Space Telescope. Launched on the ARES V Heavy Launch Vehicle with the expanded fairing.
TPF - Terrestrial Planet Finder
JIMO - Jupiter Icy Moons Mission
Today's Poll
This is the Final Poll in "Americans in Space" series #2 about space issues.
POLL ERROR!!! The second choice should read: Nuclear Power Plant - Moon, Mars Base