Tought it were obviously, that's the shadow shield ^^
I'll try to get something like a reaction chamber.. I found some usefull references at atomic rocket...
I'm really busy right now.. today I've worked a lot on PS for the new graphic of the school's website and on a logo manual and on a lettering for an elementary school... too much projects
I've chosen the VASIMR in the end of the day, it sounds less fictional then AIM system and I think it fits better with my background.
The problem with VASIMR is that it's very low thrust though
Just remember - what we got during the cold war? Unmanned survey of the Moon, Mars, Venus. Manned space stations, thruster and re-entry technology perfected to extreme. Expeditions to the moon. Unmanned stations for deep-space exploration. Development of re-usable transatmospheric vehicles (shuttles). Manned flight to Mars planned by both sides, nuclear thrusters are in the prototype stage...
Tremendous technological and skientific burst. And why? Because both sides feared, that the opponent will be the first to place missiles/lasers, or whatever weapon they have an the strategic location - space. And cost-efficiensy was almost forgotten.
And what do we have now? Thee world is mostly monopole, with former, and possible future rivals are currently no match for the US. At least not in the way, USSR was. And what do we have in our space programs? Moon exploration program - closed. Flight to the Mars delayed on the unknown amount of time. Nuclear thruster program halted. Shuttle program canceled. Space stations program almost canceled and barely kept afloat by the collective efforts of all nations. USA purchaise the outdated (technology-wise) thrusters from Russia, to launch their sattelites...
I'm afraid I find much of that rather specious reasoning, in so much as you discount any other possible factors for the given outcomes, it's basically a tautology. For instance most of the space race was driven by the cold war, but it wasn't primarily about putting weapons in orbit, it was about pride. Both wanted to go further and farther, its the same basic psychology that drove much of European colonisation. It was rivalry, but not for strategic military gain, but to prove they were better than the other guy, i.e. pride.
Similarly many of the things you've cited being shelved since the collapse of the USSR have little to do with the lack of a rival, money is a big factor, and in part because the US doesn't really have all that much to spend. Lets remember that the US government is still without the cold war, spending more money on it's military than the rest of the world combined, that's it's government finances were harmed by the Cold War. The US and the USSR played a game of financial Chicken, the USSR blinked first, in so much as they ran out of money first, but the US is still hurtling toward that cliff. The cold war was unsustainable expenditure for both sides, it makes perfect sense that the US would cut back on it's most expensive outlays, not because space exploration requires rivalry, but because the US can't currently afford it rivalry or not. The Space Shuttle has been shelved because they're beyond end of life, and frankly fast becoming an unsafe platform. Nuclear thrusters are shelved because no one is going to let a rocket go up packed to the gills with fissionable material, not after three mile island, Chernobyl or now Japan. It might be irrational, but you tell a politician that you want to launch highly radioactive material into the sky on top of a massive firecracker and see how quickly your funding disappears.
Also as far as I can remember NASA bought Russian thruster designs because they turned out to be more efficient than the ones they'd been using. Rocket engines haven't really changed drastically since the 50's.
And why is all this happening? NO PROFIT. It is much cheaper to incite wars in third world countries to obtain their resourses, then to develop complex program for asteroid mining, HE3 mining on Moon, or colonization of Mars.
On that for the most part I agree. Space exploration isn't going to likely ever be profitable, hence why I think the whole idea that handing space exploration over to private industry and expecting miracles is silly.
Well, boosting morale is also an issue. However, the main reason is one most pragmatic - military power. Here goes spy sattelites, "Almaz" military stations, "Star Wars" programs, etc. Also, you are wrong about the budget issue. That`s not "we can`t afford space, let`s cut the budget". It`s more like "Let`s cut the most non-profitable expenses". In the cold war era, none of the two rivals could afford to cut budget to military expenses (space program included), since to have the leading edge in technology simply means to survive. So, anything other then space could be cut, to finance the expences of the military. When cold war ended, the need to rush for technological advancement disappeared, as a result, space was cut as non-necessary.
As for Russian engines - yes, even being outdated, they prove to be more potent then best engines US have now. The question was - instead of development of your own technology, you bought the product as-is.
On that for the most part I agree. Space exploration isn't going to likely ever be profitable, hence why I think the whole idea that handing space exploration over to private industry and expecting miracles is silly.
And that`s why the "peace-time" economy won`t ever begin the space colonisation IMHO.
The problem with VASIMR is that it's very low thrust though
Well, basicly ALL real thrusters, suitable for prolonged space travel are "low-thrust". AIM provide much less acceleration, then VASIMR on "low gear".
BTW, AIM is no fiction - antimatter production, as well as antimatter containment are allready developed. Problem is the extremely high cost (and once again - "no go" in peacetime economy).
Tought it were obviously, that's the shadow shield ^^
So what we are seeing isn't actually the reaction chamber, just behind the shadow shield? My mistake. I thought the part the shield was attached to was the reaction chamber itself.
Not sure what you mean by "AIM", unless you're referring to an antimatter engine, in which case I wouldn't discount it. Science has made leaps and bounds concerning antimatter in the past fifteen years or so, specifically in creating it in minute quantities. Since we currently have the ability to create it (in very small amounts) it is conceivable that in the next 100-200 years, we could create it in mass quantities and use it to power reaction drives capable of immense delta-V and continuous thrust. If that is the case, there is no reason your ship couldn't use such a drive.
Well, boosting morale is also an issue. However, the main reason is one most pragmatic - military power.
No, it really was one up man ship. The USSR and the US were competing on vast swathes of endeavours because they were both afraid of the spectre of nuclear war, they were both trying to prove their ideology was better. All those avenues of competition didn't ultimately lead back to military power, military power was one of the avenues of competition, not the only one that you claim.
Here goes spy sattelites, "Almaz" military stations, "Star Wars" programs, etc.
Ah, so by the same logic the fact we have military aircraft must mean that the Redbull air race is a military endeavour? What was the military advantage gained by being the first to put a man on the moon? Or the first to put a man in orbit?
It was all about saying "hey, we're better than you" and putting their flag down first, just like early European expansion in to the new world. Sure you're going to find military applications, but that doesn't mean that those are the only applications, nor the sole driving force. You're looking at an incredibly complex geopolitical phenomenon and dissolving it down to one simple component 'it's all about the military', but it's not. At the end of the day wars aren't simply about military pragmatism, so a Cold war is definitely not going to be.
Also, you are wrong about the budget issue. That`s not "we can`t afford space, let`s cut the budget". It`s more like "Let`s cut the most non-profitable expenses".
Actually those two statements are more or less equivalent; especially when you take into account why they have to cut the least profitable expenses.
In the cold war era, none of the two rivals could afford to cut budget to military expenses (space program included), since to have the leading edge in technology simply means to survive. So, anything other then space could be cut, to finance the expences of the military. When cold war ended, the need to rush for technological advancement disappeared, as a result, space was cut as non-necessary.
Yes, that's actually more or less what I said, you don't seem to be following through your own logic here. Neither the US nor the USSR could afford their space programs, the expenditure of the USSR was a massive factor in it's collapse, the US is still feeling the economic effects of it's Cold war debt and overspend. Arguably it won't ever recover, but the fact remains that the US doesn't actually have the money to finance a Space Race level of expenditure. You've just said that yourself in the above quote.
As for Russian engines - yes, even being outdated, they prove to be more potent then best engines US have now. The question was - instead of development of your own technology, you bought the product as-is.
They're using a technology that is better than theirs, how's that anything but a good idea? This means two things, a) it's not outdated and b) it's better to use Russian designs now, than American designs now.
I took that story to show how clever some of those soviet era Russian rocket scientists were, you seem to have taken it as how dumb NASA is?
You're also making an unfounded assumption. NASA is using Russian rocket designs, so that must mean they're not developing their own technology? The two aren't mutually exclusive, they can buy Russian designs so that they have the best that's available right now, and still develop their own technology, or for that matter the Russian technology. Which is actually what is happening, since the JPL is still very much in operation.
And that`s why the "peace-time" economy won`t ever begin the space colonisation IMHO.
Perhaps you're right that it requires some level of rivalry, it really doesn't require the desire to have military advantage though, because about 90% of the Space Race gave no practical military advantage, and wasn't supposed to. But still we're dealing with a biased sample here, we have the Cold War where money was no object, and the post-cold war where money was a big concern, and Austerity a necessary priority. Drawing conclusions about the way things must work based on the Cold war would be somewhat hasty; not least in the light of the various other national and supra-national groups with space programs, who's efforts rather fly in the face of your assumption.
In fact I'd go so far to say that a Cold War style space race is never going give us space colonisation either, because no one could afford it for long enough for it to come to fruition.
Well, basicly ALL real thrusters, suitable for prolonged space travel are "low-thrust". AIM provide much less acceleration, then VASIMR on "low gear".
Depends what you mean by "real" since neither a VASIMR nor an AIM has ever been built. They're both still theoretical, so are they really any more "real" than, say, an NSWR?
No, it really was one up man ship. The USSR and the US were competing on vast swathes of endeavours because they were both afraid of the spectre of nuclear war, they were both trying to prove their ideology was better. All those avenues of competition didn't ultimately lead back to military power, military power was one of the avenues of competition, not the only one that you claim.
I`m not saying that it was the ONLY reason. But, it was one of the most important ones (or, even the MOST important).
Ah, so by the same logic the fact we have military aircraft must mean that the Redbull air race is a military endeavour? What was the military advantage gained by being the first to put a man on the moon? Or the first to put a man in orbit?
Never heard of this race But as far as I understand, originaly, save for entertaiment purpose, it served as the tool to hone the pilot`s skill and plane technology. Same goes for most aerobatic teams and airshows nowdays. First man on the moon and first man in the orbit, are also the achievements, that have their military values.
First manned flights->manned space stations->manned orbital observation and sattelite interception (Almaz stations)-> never completed due to the fall of USSR.
First man on the moon->Advancement of space technology->never completed due to the fall of USSR
It was all about saying "hey, we're better than you" and putting their flag down first, just like early European expansion in to the new world. Sure you're going to find military applications, but that doesn't mean that those are the only applications, nor the sole driving force. You're looking at an incredibly complex geopolitical phenomenon and dissolving it down to one simple component 'it's all about the military', but it's not. At the end of the day wars aren't simply about military pragmatism, so a Cold war is definitely not going to be.
I`m not saying that competition spirit was out of question. But it was not a main issue for the governments. However, I can easily imagine it was the main one for common people.
Yes, that's actually more or less what I said, you don't seem to be following through your own logic here. Neither the US nor the USSR could afford their space programs, the expenditure of the USSR was a massive factor in it's collapse, the US is still feeling the economic effects of it's Cold war debt and overspend. Arguably it won't ever recover, but the fact remains that the US doesn't actually have the money to finance a Space Race level of expenditure. You've just said that yourself in the above quote.
No, it looks like you are the one that is not following. Or my poor english knowledge is the one to blame. What I meant, If cold war happened to continue, both countries would be able to find new balanse, and there would not be a collapse. For example, most likely we wouldn`t have personal computers, electronic games, fancy cars and personal planes with all that abyss of hygienic goods, however, USSR and US would have bases on the Moon and Mars allready, with nuclear rockets cruising between Earth and the ouposts. In my opinion, not the collapse of economy caused the end of cold war, but the end of cold war caused the collapse.
They're using a technology that is better than theirs, how's that anything but a good idea? This means two things, a) it's not outdated and b) it's better to use Russian designs now, than American designs now.
I took that story to show how clever some of those soviet era Russian rocket scientists were, you seem to have taken it as how dumb NASA is?
You're also making an unfounded assumption. NASA is using Russian rocket designs, so that must mean they're not developing their own technology? The two aren't mutually exclusive, they can buy Russian designs so that they have the best that's available right now, and still develop their own technology, or for that matter the Russian technology. Which is actually what is happening, since the JPL is still very much in operation.
Well, you got a point here. Guess it could turn the way it was with GAZ 2101, that was almost entirely copied from Ford However, I guess, it would cause the same problem. If you try to mimic the technology without base research, you are prone to make inferior copies. Same goes for said GAZ 2101. It was an awesome car, on par with the original. However, the next model, that was based of the 2101, was more then inferior to ford`s newer models.
As for engines, yes, they are more then adequate by american standarts, but still they are outdated by russian standarts. It`s sort of like some country desided to buy M1A1 instead of T-55. Yes, they are trully superior then T-55, however, don`t stand a chance in front of M1A2, T-90M or other newer tanks. And same as with the engines, you have to re-establish production lines to build what you are asked for.
Perhaps you're right that it requires some level of rivalry, it really doesn't require the desire to have military advantage though, because about 90% of the Space Race gave no practical military advantage, and wasn't supposed to.
Spy sats, GPS, GLONAS, sattelite communication, ballistic missiles and so on. Shure, no military advantage
But still we're dealing with a biased sample here, we have the Cold War where money was no object, and the post-cold war where money was a big concern, and Austerity a necessary priority. Drawing conclusions about the way things must work based on the Cold war would be somewhat hasty; not least in the light of the various other national and supra-national groups with space programs, who's efforts rather fly in the face of your assumption.
In fact I'd go so far to say that a Cold War style space race is never going give us space colonisation either, because no one could afford it for long enough for it to come to fruition.
That`s arguable at the least. Since plans WERE made, during the last stages of the cold war.
Depends what you mean by "real" since neither a VASIMR nor an AIM has ever been built. They're both still theoretical, so are they really any more "real" than, say, an NSWR?
That`s correct, but they are both calculated, so you can guess the output pretty accurately.
Never heard of this race But as far as I understand, originaly, save for entertaiment purpose, it served as the tool to hone the pilot`s skill and plane technology. Same goes for most aerobatic teams and airshows nowdays. First man on the moon and first man in the orbit, are also the achievements, that have their military values.
As I've said, something having value to the military, and something being for the military or it's military use being the most important reason for doing it, are entirely different things.
The advantages to the military of landing a man on the moon are, at best, secondary and indirect reapplication of technology. If the primary purpose of the Moon landings were military, they'd have made those breakthroughs in entirely different, and cheaper ways, that were more direct to what you claim is the primary purpose.
First manned flights->manned space stations->manned orbital observation and sattelite interception (Almaz stations)-> never completed due to the fall of USSR.
First man on the moon->Advancement of space technology->never completed due to the fall of USSR
Quite possibly, but your conclusions don't logically follow on from the premise. Either way what I've said fits this progression equally well, so it's not really a working counter-point.
I`m not saying that competition spirit was out of question. But it was not a main issue for the governments. However, I can easily imagine it was the main one for common people.
No, the main issue for the governments was propaganda and proving that their ideology was right and the other guy was wrong. Still not direct military advantage. War of Ideology was the MOST important factor, not military advantage. Military advantage was one of the symptoms of that battle, not it's driving force.
No, it looks like you are the one that is not following. Or my poor english knowledge is the one to blame.
Your English seems serviceable to me, it's somewhat better than my Russian anyway . Perhaps I am missing something, but it seems to me that you stop halfway through in you logic when you get to a specific point, rather than seeing it through to the end.
What I meant, If cold war happened to continue, both countries would be able to find new balanse, and there would not be a collapse.
But as a matter of historically fact we know this not to be the case. The USSR spent itself into collapse, and the US almost did. The Cold War didn't continue, because it couldn't.
In my opinion, not the collapse of economy caused the end of cold war, but the end of cold war caused the collapse.
That's an interesting take, but it would seem to be putting the cart before the horse, not least given the fact that the USSR's financial and economic problems can be traced back to roots in the 60s/70s, while the Cold War was still reaching new heights in the 80s.
Spy sats, GPS, GLONAS, sattelite communication, ballistic missiles and so on. Shure, no military advantage
I didn't say none, I said 90% wasn't about that. The Apollo program was entirely about putting a man on the Moon, any military use for the technology was an indirect benefit, for instance. But first and foremost it was about proving who had the best ideology. On the face of it the above would seem to be like claiming my car is a military vehicle, because it has a built in GPS navigation system.
I wonder what an NSWR would look like. We've seen Orions, ships with ring habitat, but a 1g thrust ship with down being the plates towards the engines would be nice. Nozzle would have to be rather large...
what?
Explain better pls.
and I got an entire page about the cold war.. Amazing.. XD
Anyway I've accepted the fact that I'll never know what's a NSWR is and IMO, you're both getting polemical about the cold war. Your points are both right, but the truth is that the cold war has been a combination of a huge number of factors that kept 2 super-national states busy for decades and this are just little words.
The salt refers to how the Water propellant is salted with radioactive isotopes. Essentially it's a high powered nuclear drive that gets high exhaust velocity, so high DeltaV, and high thrust.
A nuclear salt-water rocket (or NSWR) is a proposed type of nuclear thermal rocket designed by Robert Zubrin that would be fueled by water bearing dissolved salts of Plutonium or U235. These would be stored in tanks that would prevent a critical mass from forming by some combination of geometry or neutron absorption (for example: long tubes made out of boron in an array with considerable spacing between tubes). Thrust would be generated by nuclear fission reactions from the nuclear salts heating the water and being expelled through a nozzle. The water would serve as both a neutron moderator and propellant.
...
Because of their ability to harness the power of what is essentially a continuous nuclear fission explosion, NSWRs would have both very high thrust and very high exhaust velocity, a rare combination of traits in the rocket world, meaning that the rocket would be able to accelerate quickly as well as be extremely efficient in terms of propellant usage. One design would generate 13 meganewtons of thrust at 66 km/s exhaust velocity (compared to ~4.5 km/s exhaust velocity for the best chemical rockets of today). Another design would achieve much higher exhaust velocities (4,700 km/s) and use 2,700 tonnes of highly enriched Uranium salts in water to propel a 300 tonne spacecraft up to 3.6% of the speed of light.
NSWRs share many of the features of Orion propulsion systems, except that NSWRs would generate continuous rather than pulsed thrust and may be workable on much smaller scales than the smallest feasible Orion designs (which are generally large, due to the requirements of the shock-absorber system and the minimum size of efficient nuclear explosives).
About cold war - well, I can`t completely agree with you on the matter, but, just like I.g.(. said, it was a combination of all factors, not just one side.
As for fall of USSR and economical problems - the fall was due to ideological diversion (or the victory in information warfare, if you like). Economical collapse followed suite, due to the severe economical re-arrangements. Thats why I think, that economy-wise, both countries could continue the cold war for a large number of years. Yes, there were problems, but all of them were solvable, without the need to cut strategic programs.
As for the spaceship - is there a reactor in that hexagonal segment? If not - why do you put in after the shadow shield? Below, I drawn some guidelines for the provided shadow - you`ve got quite a limited space for the reaction chamber...
Also, I`ve thought the propellant tanks were those 6 cylinders attached to the hull, since, unless you choose to use NSWR as the drive - the propellant isn`t radioactive enough to hide it behind the shadow shield...
About cold war - well, I can`t completely agree with you on the matter, but, just like I.g.(. said, it was a combination of all factors, not just one side.
That's what I was saying, it was you who was saying that it was one factor over all.
NSWR as the drive - the propellant isn`t radioactive enough to hide it behind the shadow shield...
Even in an NSWR the tanks themselves will need to be neutron absorbing to prevent the fuel from going critical inside the ship.
Even in an NSWR the tanks themselves will need to be neutron absorbing to prevent the fuel from going critical inside the ship.
However, any leaks of the radioactive propellant will be a disaster. Also, massive damage to the tanks can easily cause the chain reaction with the nuklear explosion as a result.
However, any leaks of the radioactive propellant will be a disaster. Also, massive damage to the tanks can easily cause the chain reaction with the nuklear explosion as a result.
Any leakage of the tanks would potentially cause the propellant to go critical, but that's not relevant to whether the tanks should be behind the shadow shield or not, since a shadow shield isn't going to protect anything from that.
The point was that *if* it becomes an NSWR, the propellant tanks still don't need to be behind the shadow shield, and there's no advantage to placing them there.
Theoreticaly, you can just jettisson all the "tail" with tanks if something goes wrong. Shadow shield CAN be usefull in case of nuclear explosion in space. Don`t forget that main cause of damage from nuclear explosion is the shockwave. No air - no shockwave. So, the most damaging part would be the heat and harsh radiation and the shadow shield CAN protect the ship from them.
Theoreticaly, you can just jettisson all the "tail" with tanks if something goes wrong. Shadow shield CAN be usefull in case of nuclear explosion in space. Don`t forget that main cause of damage from nuclear explosion is the shockwave. No air - no shockwave. So, the most damaging part would be the heat and harsh radiation and the shadow shield CAN protect the ship from them.
That's true of a nuclear weapon in space, an NSWR going critical isn't a nuclear weapon in space. The propellant ejected when it goes critical will cause considerable damage.
Besides if you're jettisoning the drive, then you can't be sure that your crew compartments will be shielded by the shadow shield, in fact you can be more than sure they won't be.
Ehm.. as I said before, I've choose the VASIMR as engine and I'm following the references I found about it on Atomic Rocket.
Just look at that cuple of picture and you'll understand.
About the shadow shield notice that That picture is not orthogonal projection, it's not 2D. Don't worry, I've made it big enough
Posts
The problem with VASIMR is that it's very low thrust though
Similarly many of the things you've cited being shelved since the collapse of the USSR have little to do with the lack of a rival, money is a big factor, and in part because the US doesn't really have all that much to spend. Lets remember that the US government is still without the cold war, spending more money on it's military than the rest of the world combined, that's it's government finances were harmed by the Cold War. The US and the USSR played a game of financial Chicken, the USSR blinked first, in so much as they ran out of money first, but the US is still hurtling toward that cliff. The cold war was unsustainable expenditure for both sides, it makes perfect sense that the US would cut back on it's most expensive outlays, not because space exploration requires rivalry, but because the US can't currently afford it rivalry or not. The Space Shuttle has been shelved because they're beyond end of life, and frankly fast becoming an unsafe platform. Nuclear thrusters are shelved because no one is going to let a rocket go up packed to the gills with fissionable material, not after three mile island, Chernobyl or now Japan. It might be irrational, but you tell a politician that you want to launch highly radioactive material into the sky on top of a massive firecracker and see how quickly your funding disappears.
Also as far as I can remember NASA bought Russian thruster designs because they turned out to be more efficient than the ones they'd been using. Rocket engines haven't really changed drastically since the 50's. On that for the most part I agree. Space exploration isn't going to likely ever be profitable, hence why I think the whole idea that handing space exploration over to private industry and expecting miracles is silly.
As for Russian engines - yes, even being outdated, they prove to be more potent then best engines US have now. The question was - instead of development of your own technology, you bought the product as-is.
And that`s why the "peace-time" economy won`t ever begin the space colonisation IMHO.
Well, basicly ALL real thrusters, suitable for prolonged space travel are "low-thrust". AIM provide much less acceleration, then VASIMR on "low gear".
BTW, AIM is no fiction - antimatter production, as well as antimatter containment are allready developed. Problem is the extremely high cost (and once again - "no go" in peacetime economy).
So what we are seeing isn't actually the reaction chamber, just behind the shadow shield? My mistake. I thought the part the shield was attached to was the reaction chamber itself.
Not sure what you mean by "AIM", unless you're referring to an antimatter engine, in which case I wouldn't discount it. Science has made leaps and bounds concerning antimatter in the past fifteen years or so, specifically in creating it in minute quantities. Since we currently have the ability to create it (in very small amounts) it is conceivable that in the next 100-200 years, we could create it in mass quantities and use it to power reaction drives capable of immense delta-V and continuous thrust. If that is the case, there is no reason your ship couldn't use such a drive.
Problem is high cost of antimatter catalyst and relatively low thrust. However, Delta-V is really fine with this one.
It was all about saying "hey, we're better than you" and putting their flag down first, just like early European expansion in to the new world. Sure you're going to find military applications, but that doesn't mean that those are the only applications, nor the sole driving force. You're looking at an incredibly complex geopolitical phenomenon and dissolving it down to one simple component 'it's all about the military', but it's not. At the end of the day wars aren't simply about military pragmatism, so a Cold war is definitely not going to be. Actually those two statements are more or less equivalent; especially when you take into account why they have to cut the least profitable expenses. Yes, that's actually more or less what I said, you don't seem to be following through your own logic here. Neither the US nor the USSR could afford their space programs, the expenditure of the USSR was a massive factor in it's collapse, the US is still feeling the economic effects of it's Cold war debt and overspend. Arguably it won't ever recover, but the fact remains that the US doesn't actually have the money to finance a Space Race level of expenditure. You've just said that yourself in the above quote. They're using a technology that is better than theirs, how's that anything but a good idea? This means two things, a) it's not outdated and b) it's better to use Russian designs now, than American designs now.
I took that story to show how clever some of those soviet era Russian rocket scientists were, you seem to have taken it as how dumb NASA is?
You're also making an unfounded assumption. NASA is using Russian rocket designs, so that must mean they're not developing their own technology? The two aren't mutually exclusive, they can buy Russian designs so that they have the best that's available right now, and still develop their own technology, or for that matter the Russian technology. Which is actually what is happening, since the JPL is still very much in operation. Perhaps you're right that it requires some level of rivalry, it really doesn't require the desire to have military advantage though, because about 90% of the Space Race gave no practical military advantage, and wasn't supposed to. But still we're dealing with a biased sample here, we have the Cold War where money was no object, and the post-cold war where money was a big concern, and Austerity a necessary priority. Drawing conclusions about the way things must work based on the Cold war would be somewhat hasty; not least in the light of the various other national and supra-national groups with space programs, who's efforts rather fly in the face of your assumption.
In fact I'd go so far to say that a Cold War style space race is never going give us space colonisation either, because no one could afford it for long enough for it to come to fruition. Depends what you mean by "real" since neither a VASIMR nor an AIM has ever been built. They're both still theoretical, so are they really any more "real" than, say, an NSWR?
I`m not saying that it was the ONLY reason. But, it was one of the most important ones (or, even the MOST important).
Never heard of this race
First manned flights->manned space stations->manned orbital observation and sattelite interception (Almaz stations)-> never completed due to the fall of USSR.
First man on the moon->Advancement of space technology->never completed due to the fall of USSR
I`m not saying that competition spirit was out of question. But it was not a main issue for the governments. However, I can easily imagine it was the main one for common people.
No, it looks like you are the one that is not following. Or my poor english knowledge is the one to blame. What I meant, If cold war happened to continue, both countries would be able to find new balanse, and there would not be a collapse. For example, most likely we wouldn`t have personal computers, electronic games, fancy cars and personal planes with all that abyss of hygienic goods, however, USSR and US would have bases on the Moon and Mars allready, with nuclear rockets cruising between Earth and the ouposts. In my opinion, not the collapse of economy caused the end of cold war, but the end of cold war caused the collapse.
Well, you got a point here. Guess it could turn the way it was with GAZ 2101, that was almost entirely copied from Ford
As for engines, yes, they are more then adequate by american standarts, but still they are outdated by russian standarts. It`s sort of like some country desided to buy M1A1 instead of T-55. Yes, they are trully superior then T-55, however, don`t stand a chance in front of M1A2, T-90M or other newer tanks. And same as with the engines, you have to re-establish production lines to build what you are asked for. Spy sats, GPS, GLONAS, sattelite communication, ballistic missiles and so on. Shure, no military advantage
That`s arguable at the least. Since plans WERE made, during the last stages of the cold war.
That`s correct, but they are both calculated, so you can guess the output pretty accurately.
The advantages to the military of landing a man on the moon are, at best, secondary and indirect reapplication of technology. If the primary purpose of the Moon landings were military, they'd have made those breakthroughs in entirely different, and cheaper ways, that were more direct to what you claim is the primary purpose. Quite possibly, but your conclusions don't logically follow on from the premise. Either way what I've said fits this progression equally well, so it's not really a working counter-point. No, the main issue for the governments was propaganda and proving that their ideology was right and the other guy was wrong. Still not direct military advantage. War of Ideology was the MOST important factor, not military advantage. Military advantage was one of the symptoms of that battle, not it's driving force. Your English seems serviceable to me, it's somewhat better than my Russian anyway
and I got an entire page about the cold war.. Amazing.. XD
Anyway I've accepted the fact that I'll never know what's a NSWR is and IMO, you're both getting polemical about the cold war. Your points are both right, but the truth is that the cold war has been a combination of a huge number of factors that kept 2 super-national states busy for decades and this are just little words.
It's a Nuclear Salt Water Rocket.
The crew would cook spaghetti all day long with that salt water ..
And they'll die in a cuple of minutes after having their first dinner
But seriously what's it? Could you give me any references?
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/enginelist.php#nswr
little update: tanks.
Next will be the reaction chamber with radiator, and then the magnetic nozzle.
As for fall of USSR and economical problems - the fall was due to ideological diversion (or the victory in information warfare, if you like). Economical collapse followed suite, due to the severe economical re-arrangements. Thats why I think, that economy-wise, both countries could continue the cold war for a large number of years. Yes, there were problems, but all of them were solvable, without the need to cut strategic programs.
As for the spaceship - is there a reactor in that hexagonal segment? If not - why do you put in after the shadow shield? Below, I drawn some guidelines for the provided shadow - you`ve got quite a limited space for the reaction chamber...
Also, I`ve thought the propellant tanks were those 6 cylinders attached to the hull, since, unless you choose to use NSWR as the drive - the propellant isn`t radioactive enough to hide it behind the shadow shield...
However, any leaks of the radioactive propellant will be a disaster. Also, massive damage to the tanks can easily cause the chain reaction with the nuklear explosion as a result.
The point was that *if* it becomes an NSWR, the propellant tanks still don't need to be behind the shadow shield, and there's no advantage to placing them there.
Besides if you're jettisoning the drive, then you can't be sure that your crew compartments will be shielded by the shadow shield, in fact you can be more than sure they won't be.
Just look at that cuple of picture and you'll understand.
About the shadow shield notice that That picture is not orthogonal projection, it's not 2D. Don't worry, I've made it big enough
Thank you. It the most sensible of potential drive system.