One Small Step......

Well, gentlemen, I was willing to ask: out of the options in this article:https://web.archive.org/web/2011100...10/02/five-options-for-nasas-future-1970.html, which seems the most viable for an AH scenario and more importantly: what would be the PoD side effects on Earth and in space. The PoD being: Nixon instead of stripping down the Space Transporation System's original proposal, decides to pick an option in which to make the program function. Now, this is also a part of a work in not only a timeline here, but also an extended timeline on the Future History section.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

Banned
Ok, let me try. The first two options are based on the (flawed) Shuttle / tug system, so forget that.
The nuclear tug is interesting, but scary.
The third option only has robots (although Viking was outstanding)

The last two (Saturn V) are slightly more interesting.

The bottom line is that NASA was already heavily committed to the space shuttle and nothing else. They were obesessed by it.
 
Ok, let me try. The first two options are based on the (flawed) Shuttle / tug system, so forget that.
The nuclear tug is interesting, but scary.
The third option only has robots (although Viking was outstanding)

The last two (Saturn V) are slightly more interesting.

The bottom line is that NASA was already heavily committed to the space shuttle and nothing else. They were obesessed by it.

Err....how is the nuclear shuttle/tug system flawed in any form?
 

Archibald

Banned
http://www.wired.com/2012/09/nuclear-flight-system-definition-studies-1971/

You really don't want to launch such a "hot potatoe" like NERVA into the payload bay of the shuttle, don't you ?

In February 1971, with the NFSD study set to conclude in less than two months, D. J. Osias, an analyst with Bellcomm, NASA’s Apollo planning contractor, summarized and critiqued reports prepared by the three contractors. He began by examining the ways that the contractors had approached the problem of radiation shielding. “Nuclear propulsion,” he wrote, “complicates in-space operations by introducing a radioactive environment.”
All the RNS designs included a 3000-pound radiation shield on top of the NERVA I to create a conical radiation “shadow” for crew protection, but also relied on the vehicle’s propellants and structure for supplemental shielding. Osias asserted that “in regard to radiation shielding. . .the most optimistic results are being accepted and attention to the problem is diminishing.”
He also noted that, as liquid hydrogen was expended as propellant, it would cease to be available to serve as radiation shielding. As the RNS tank or tanks emptied, crew radiation dose would thus steadily increase. To solve this problem, NAR had developed a “stand-pipe” single-tank RNS concept, in which a cylindrical “central column” running the length of the main tank stood between the crew and the NERVA I engine. The central column would remain filled with hydrogen until the surrounding main tank was emptied. MDAC, for its part, had developed a “hybrid” RNS shielding design that included a small hydrogen tank between the bottom of the main tank and the top of the NERVA I engine.

Osias postulated a maximum allowable radiation dose for an astronaut from sources other than cosmic rays of between 10 and 25 Roentgen Equivalent Man (REM) per year. Astronauts riding an RNS would, however, receive 10 REM each time its NERVA I engine operated. An astronaut 10 miles behind or to the side of an RNS operating at full power would receive a radiation dose of between 25 and 30 REM per hour. Osias noted that the NFSD contractors had recommended that no piloted spacecraft approach to within 100 miles of an operating NERVA I engine.
Radiation created other operational problems, Osias added. Spacecraft could dock with an RNS by approaching through the cone-shaped radiation shadow that protected its crew. Docking an RNS to a large vehicle that protruded beyond the shadow – for example, a space station or a liquid hydrogen propellant depot – would, however, generate obvious problems. The large vehicle’s crew might be exposed to radiation from the NERVA I; more insidiously, the large vehicle’s structure would reflect radiation back at the RNS, endangering its crew.
The NERVA I engine would emit radiation not only while it was in operation; it would also generate spent nuclear fuel that would emit harmful levels of radiation for decades or centuries. Osias noted that NAR had “repeatedly emphasized [that] maintainability is essential to economic operation of the RNS.” A spacewalking repairman who approached to within 400 feet of the side of an RNS 10 days after its tenth (and, going by MSFC’s traffic model, final) Earth-moon roundtrip would, however, receive one REM per hour from the spent fuel it contained. Maintenance robots might replace the servicing capabilities of astronauts, Osias noted, but such systems would need expensive development.
Osias also reported that the “NFSD contractors. . .devoted little effort to [studying] emergency operations and malfunctions,” adding that “[n]uclear systems, more than chemical propulsion vehicles, have the ability to involve the general population of the [E]arth in a space accident.” A NERVA I explosion in LEO, for example, could lead to “random reentry of large pieces of radioactive material” that would probably survive reentry heating and strike Earth’s surface. He urged that prevention of “return of the NERVA engine to the [E]arth’s surface. . .be a basic rule of nuclear propulsion planning.”
 
http://www.wired.com/2012/09/nuclear-flight-system-definition-studies-1971/

You really don't want to launch such a "hot potatoe" like NERVA into the payload bay of the shuttle, don't you ?

Archi my man, don't try to escape me because of smoke or pills, as some are saying or thinking.
You admit yourself in the writing, that many mistakes have been done, in consideration of the nuclear for domestic uses. That's the kind of energy you don't play with, but thanks nature, you don't need to much to realised a lot, like an accelerator for a spinner bypolar. You can tax me of stubborness so far, but you will have to show me why and answered a couple of questions, already in the air.
 

Archibald

Banned
Archi my man, don't try to escape me because of smoke or pills, as some are saying or thinking.
You admit yourself in the writing, that many mistakes have been done, in consideration of the nuclear for domestic uses. That's the kind of energy you don't play with, but thanks nature, you don't need to much to realised a lot, like an accelerator for a spinner bypolar. You can tax me of stubborness so far, but you will have to show me why and answered a couple of questions, already in the air.

Stop trolling every godam space tread with your godam unintelligible crap, damn it.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Archi my man, don't try to escape me because of smoke or pills, as some are saying or thinking.
You admit yourself in the writing, that many mistakes have been done, in consideration of the nuclear for domestic uses. That's the kind of energy you don't play with, but thanks nature, you don't need to much to realised a lot, like an accelerator for a spinner bypolar. You can tax me of stubborness so far, but you will have to show me why and answered a couple of questions, already in the air.

That's about enough of this BS.

Cease and desist. Now.
 
Well, what happened? What is the situation, gentlemen? And why the arguing?
 
Last edited:
SpaceGeek 2001: A Space-Time Odyssey deal with this scenario

in the first version Nixon is confronted with Soviets landing Cosmonaut on Moon
and in order to counter that He accept the "Odyssey" plan

Space Shuttle: 1977
Space Tug: 1981
Nuclear Shuttle: 1981

Space Station 12 Person: 1977
Space Base crew of 50: 1984
Space Base crew of 100: 1990

Lunar Orbit Base: 1981
Lunar Surface Base: 1983
First Mars Expedition: 1986
 
SpaceGeek 2001: A Space-Time Odyssey deal with this scenario

in the first version Nixon is confronted with Soviets landing Cosmonaut on Moon
and in order to counter that He accept the "Odyssey" plan

Space Shuttle: 1977
Space Tug: 1981
Nuclear Shuttle: 1981

Space Station 12 Person: 1977
Space Base crew of 50: 1984
Space Base crew of 100: 1990

Lunar Orbit Base: 1981
Lunar Surface Base: 1983
First Mars Expedition: 1986

Well, this is interesting. So, you are stating that the Soviets must have had at least succeeded in ensuring that the N-1 rocket works perfectly as a prior PoD before Nixon picks his options?
 
Top