What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
90 Comments
- ParadiscaCorbas, on 10/30/2009, -0/+37Oooh.
Maybe it's time to start another space race! - BossKey, on 10/30/2009, -2/+31In Soviet Russia, jokes come for YOU!!!
- brickwall99, on 10/30/2009, -3/+23For once the Russians are thinking more intelligently than we are.
- immatellyouwhat, on 10/30/2009, -2/+18In Russia, Mars comes to YOU!
- duggtodeath, on 10/30/2009, -5/+19I came here for a Soviet Russia joke.
- A11YND, on 10/30/2009, -0/+11@Breadfred: As a Russian I am going to remind that the Soviet Union wasn't composed solely of Russians. Ukraine was a separate state for all intensive purposes and the Chernobyl power statioon was built by the Ukrainian-SSR not the Russian SFSR, this logic would be like blame 3 Mile Island on California.
- vaccumpony, on 10/30/2009, -0/+11 Remember Mir? With open access to western tech I have no doubt the Russians can do some amazing things in space. In many areas the Russians were ahead of NASA in space tech.
Of course there were other areas the Russians were well behind the US. I still don't expect human safety to be their top priority. - JasonCox, on 10/30/2009, -0/+10The US ditched an idea of a ship propelled by nuclear *explosions*, the Russians are looking into seems more like a NERVA concept.
Incase you don't know about NERVA, let me save you from Googling it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA - inactive, on 10/30/2009, -0/+10ukraine is not russia.
5 bucks says footbag01 was educated by US public school. - mikemil828, on 10/30/2009, -1/+11FYI, nuclear missiles usually don't use their warheads as a means of propulsion.
- thetruckert, on 10/30/2009, -1/+11Sounds legit. Strap a nuclear warhead to the bottom of a space ship and go to Mars.
- robwhite1979, on 10/30/2009, -2/+11For once?
- inactive, on 10/30/2009, -0/+8i remember chernobyl. i also remember that ukraine is not in russia.
- diggduggDOOM, on 10/30/2009, -0/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclea ...
- erkokite, on 10/30/2009, -1/+8How about Sputnik, Venera and Vostok? How about they have some of the most reliable space hardware made? Russia KNOWS astronautics. Russia KNOWS nuclear technology. This is well within their reach if they are willing to put fourth the time and money.
Contrast that to NASA who won't be able to put people into orbit after next year until 2014 at the very earliest. - A11YND, on 10/30/2009, -0/+6@KamiKage: And Chernobyl happened in Ukraine, not Russia. That's the entire point of what I was trying to say.
- A11YND, on 10/30/2009, -0/+6hate to break it to you, but the USSR wasn't Russia, Russia was a state in the USSR, the Russian SFSR.
- Howitzer86, on 10/30/2009, -0/+5Heat from the decay of PU-238 has powered the Apollo spacecraft, Viking, Pioneer, Ulysses, Galileo, Cassini, New Horizons, and both Voyager probes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoel ... - Chairboy, on 10/30/2009, -0/+5There are quite a few nuclear reactors in space already that I suspect you're unaware of, otherwise you would have mentioned accidents involving THEM.
But you didn't.
Got it. - UselessTrivia, on 10/30/2009, -0/+5That's actually a real thing, believe it or not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propuls ...
Ironically it was called the "Orion" project, which is what NASA is calling its new apollo-style space capsule system, even though that system is propelled by traditional rockets. - Chadul, on 10/30/2009, -0/+5From the wiki article on NERVA-
"Wernher von Braun also proposed a Manned Mars Mission using NERVA and a spinning donut shaped spacecraft to simulate gravity."
Maybe the Russians will decide on this design. - A11YND, on 10/30/2009, -0/+4the Saturn-V rocket, if it exploded would have had the same effect as a Hiroshima sized bomb, there's also going to be extreme safety issues when it comes to space flight, that just comes with the fact that you need so much propellant to get there. With a nuclear rocket you'd need less propellant but still get a lot more "bang for you buck" than chemical propellant, The nuclear material wouldn't be held in the cabin crew and they're already going to be behind material intended to shield deadly radiation, launching this thing via a chemical rocket to orbit and then launching the nuclear stage from orbit wouldn't be that dangerous, as the Van Allen's Belt would provide us safety from the fall-out.
- A11YND, on 10/30/2009, -0/+4@KamiKage: Yeah.. Most people don't really remember that the Soviet Union! = Russia, Russia was just another state in the USSR, albeit the biggest state, it was another state in the USSR.
- physco827, on 10/30/2009, -3/+7OHEMGEE A NUCULAR SHIP TO MARS? IS DEY GONNA BLOW UP MARS?
seriously this is not a bad idea at all. I love looking at pictures of mars and seeing the sun is smaller. Not sure why, but i think that is cool. - haikuFU, on 10/30/2009, -2/+6In soviet russia, Uranus is visited by nuclear rockets.
- appleseed1234, on 10/30/2009, -1/+4Sorry for pointing out that nuclear pulse technology exists, it can reach a top speed of 1/10 the speed of light, and seeing how the nearest solar system is 4 light years away it would take 40 years to get there...
- mabsark, on 10/30/2009, -0/+3"astronautics"
Shouldn't that be "cosmonautics". - Jbruster, on 10/30/2009, -1/+4Think Sarah Palin knows about it?
- JohnnySoftware, on 10/30/2009, -0/+3Russian satellites are traditionally powered by reactors. US satellites are traditionally powered by solar cells.
They both come down within a small number of decades, generally. None are desgined to stay up forever.
When a large US satellite comes down, it scatters some big chunks down that make it through the atmosphere. One took out a house once. The occupant was not killed.
When a large Russian satellite comes down, it scatters radiation if its power unit ruptures. And it has happened.
Radiation is an awesome power source but it has its drawbacks. It is totally awesome, if you ignore them. The odds of missing Mars, the Sun, and then hitting the Earth are a lot smaller than the odds of of a satellite striking the Earth though. :-) - erkokite, on 10/30/2009, -0/+3How else do you provide 2 MW of power to a space ship that has to be launched from Earth and needs to travel to Mars?
Is it somewhat unsafe? Yes, but there is no other practical way of providing large amounts of power for interplanetary travel (solar lacks the power density, and is less useful the further you get from the sun). And a nuclear reactor isn't going to magically put itself into orbit. It has to be launched.
So, we're welcome to ideas. - erkokite, on 10/30/2009, -1/+4I don't believe they are using nuclear propulsion. I think they are using a large nuclear reactor to provide power for electric propulsion (Ion, HAL, VASIMR, whatever). That's what I read. It's a lot easier and cleaner that way.
- MizuhoChan, on 10/31/2009, -0/+3Lack of Soviet makes Lenin cry ;_;
- Sil369, on 10/31/2009, -0/+3pls stop putting Yahoo! in the title, it makes it sound weird reading it
- ParadiscaCorbas, on 10/30/2009, -0/+3Awww. That's too bad.
But thank you for clarifying for me. I didn't realize that's how that was working out. You taught me something new. - RogerStrong, on 10/30/2009, -3/+6Nope.
The Russian space agency produces these plans like clockwork. Russian Mars missions, lunar bases, solar power satellites, space shuttles, space stations, etc. - they've all had announcements just like this one in recent years, and most have been breathlessly posted to Digg. Many even have some cool graphics to go with them.
What's never part of the announcement is any agreement by anyone to fund the project.
Usually they're hoping for European or American funding - "the west has the money and Russia has the know-how to construct it". In the real world though, those construction jobs are needed - in the west - to get a project funded. It may be horribly inefficient, but Ares/Constellation would never get funded without the jobs being spread out among a large number of Congressional districts. - RogerStrong, on 10/30/2009, -0/+3The Russians woudn't get access to any western tech that they can't already get on the international open market. The State Department's ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) wouldn't allow it.
Bigelow Aerospace's favorite example is the State Department blocking a simple shipping platform for Genesis 1 - like an upside-down card table - insisting that it violated ITAR rules.
But as you say, the Russians have plenty of technical know-how of their own. What they lack is funding. - Howitzer86, on 10/30/2009, -0/+3That's a frightening prospect.
Tell me, does it happen to be piloted by an extremely short green alien? - wintermutter, on 10/30/2009, -0/+2Go Leonov!
- katana0182, on 10/31/2009, -0/+2There are other forms of nuclear propulsion that don't require large weapon detonations and can be used to leave the atmosphere without leaving excess radiation lying around. They're also like many times more efficient than liquid and solid fuel rockets; for example, single stage to orbit is feasible with nuclear thermal engines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_propu ...
Once you're in space, though, you need an electrical drive, as nuclear thermal shoots large amounts of gas off the back of your space vehicle somewhat slowly, which isn't an efficient use of mass, while an electrical (ion/VASIMR/plasma) drive shoots small amounts of mass off the back end of the ship very quickly like near the speed of light, which is very efficient. A nuclear reactor is an ideal power source, especially when you're not near the sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR
Your friendly anti-nuclear dupes (who are also responsible for hindering the only real solution to global warming - nuclear power - which doesn't produce any CO2) are why NASA doesn't do more research of this type. The US used to do lots of nuclear space propulsion research. Thank the anti-nuclear movement for killing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prometheus
Thus, the Russians are the world leaders. Instead, NASA only has one destination for humans - low Earth orbit. Maybe the Moon, in like 20 years. Maybe Mars, in a century. - Napiertt, on 10/31/2009, -0/+2Well, their space program has always been high calibre. The funding levels dropped off after the collapse of the USSR, but their space-engineering has always been top notch. Their military aircraft and weaponry are also first class.
- mabsark, on 10/30/2009, -0/+2Well actually pointing that out instead of imagining pointing it out would have helped tremendously.
- A11YND, on 10/30/2009, -0/+2ThreeE: Size doesn't matter, earth's magnetic field protects us from almost all high energy radioactive particles and rays (aside from extremely power gamma rays) if it didn't you'd think the 1.98892×10^30 kg nuclear furnace in the middle of the solar system would've ruined the Earth's day.
- inactive, on 10/30/2009, -0/+2No by Vodka and sub standard pornography.
- HeavyWave, on 10/31/2009, -0/+2Mmm, donuts!
- gerbil20, on 10/31/2009, -0/+2That's a reasonably decent rocket fuel. What's the oxidizer?
- A11YND, on 10/30/2009, -0/+2the ideal project using current resources would involve constructing it in space or launching it from Earth with chemical rocket first stage and using the nuclear stages in a earth or lunar orbit. Although, the best way to do it would be a lunar construction and launch, although that's far from practical at this point in time.
- gerbil20, on 10/31/2009, -0/+2Bad example. Chernobyl was a result of a nuclear power plant under control of a moron who was educated enough to know how to override safety protocols but not enough to know that safety protocols are there for a reason.
Buran - Energy (russian knock-off of the space shuttle) is a more suitable example. - sgerwel1985, on 10/30/2009, -0/+1And our generations space race has officially begun, or well for the most part it has.
- RogueGenius, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1Well, good luck to them, but I just want to get back to the moon. We have the resources of a body 1/6 the size of the earth well within our technological reach. Why are we all so hot to skip that and charge to Mars?
- 3The3Dude3, on 10/31/2009, -0/+1Or launch with the Russians INSIDE of them. Either way, with talks of anti-proliferation, suggesting that it's time to build nuclear delivery mechanisms, rather than warheads is a pretty bold. Who needs detonation, if you can score a direct hit with a huge Cyberdine-propelled-missile traveling faster than the speed of the T2000 Jon Connor sent back in time to stop it?
-
Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is