Mars, nuclear ship, Bush

I recently saw a clip on the news where President Bush mentioned manned missons to the Moon and Mars. After doing some looking into I came across this- and I would be curious to hear everyone elses opinion. They're talking nuclear ship, 2 months to get to Mars- pretty amazing, and is it coincidental concerning the announcement's timing [Beagle] ?

"The United States hopes to send an astronaut to Mars in a nuclear-powered rocket, according to a senior Nasa official. Under the space agency's ambitious plan, humans would be sent on a two-month journey to Mars in a spaceship travelling at three times the current speed of space travel.
President George Bush may announce the plan, named Project Prometheus, at his State of the Union address on January 28, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times. It would commit the US to the exploration of Mars as a priority and herald the development of a nuclear-powered propulsion system. The first voyage could take place as soon as 2010.

"We're talking about doing something on a very aggressive schedule to not only develop the capabilities for nuclear propulsion and power generation but to have a mission using the new technology within this decade," said Nasa administrator Sean O'Keefe.

Currently, spacecraft travel at 18,000 miles per hour. The goal is to build a new vehicle which uses small nuclear reactors to give the engines a greater thrust and circumvent the problems of fuel supply.

This would mean that the craft could reach Mars within two months as opposed to the six-or seven-month journey time currently projected.

"We've been restricted to the same speed for 40 years," Mr O'Keefe said. "With the new technology, where we go next will be limited only by our imagination."

There may, however, be limitations of a different kind. With the US entering a recession and facing the potential costs of war with Iraq, Congress may be disinclined to sign a blank cheque for a multibillion-dollar project with no guarantee of success.

When George Bush senior proposed a similar scheme to explore Mars in 1989, he was rebuffed by Congress and there was little public enthusiasm for the idea.

Part of the attraction for President Bush in announcing the project would be the stimulus it might provide for scientists and engineers. Many of the pioneers of space travel are now retiring and have not been replaced. Numbers of students enrolling in science and engineering courses have also declined. Some experts believe a Mars project might improve the industry's image. "

Source


[Edited on 25-12-2003 by Journey]

Check our forum libraries... I recall putting a link to Prometheus there sometime earlier this month (so no, it's not Christmas news but older news.)

dose anyone know just how theys new engens work?
?

Bush just very recently announced this administations intent on mars and moon missions, and I consider this interesting, along with comment from NASA, this is an article of interest and of very recent events. I did not find any discussion in our threads of an upcoming announcement in Bush's next address, either. So, this is news to me, as I hope for you.

If they can't get to the moon how can they get to mars?

Originally posted by akummma
If they can't get to the moon how can they get to mars?


A good point- but what I find unusual is the timing of this announcement, it is like failure might have been expected from Beagle.
There was a manned moon mission also mentioned by Bush, I wish I could find a transcript of his entire statement I saw on MSNBC, I'll do some more looking today and see if I can find it.
Threre is a motivation to go to mars. I wander what it really is....I guess we will hear more during the next State of the Union Address.

news.bbc.co.uk...

We need to learn about Mars. As the most life-friendly extraterrestrial planet, Mars is the Rosetta Stone for letting us know whether the phenomenon of life is something unique to the Earth, or prevalent in the Universe.

hope this might help as to how were going to live there

here are some links on nuke engines

spacescience.nasa.gov...

www.daviddarling.info...

the ship on the second link looks like discovery

I despise Bush, yet I support this new space initiative.

If I have any criticism, it's the amount of money we plan to spend on the space program. It's not nearly enough. We've seen what being cheap can do...so we should at least put a reasonable amount of money towards space travel.

one billion less to militairy and more to space. or militair co operation is my idea.

As far as I know, the nuculear ships are steam powered. Heat from fusion, used to heat water.

euh they work with fision not fusion. fusion is to new they only have prototypes of those.
but if they use one of those on a craft and theoretical the energy could be used to creat a electro magnetic projected energy blades in the form of propellers of a plane and use this to create a magnetic vortex to bend space around the plane used like air around the wings.

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
...the energy could be used to creat a electro magnetic projected energy blades in the form of propellers of a plane and use this to create a magnetic vortex to bend space around the plane used like air around the wings.

Say what? I've never heard of this theory of space propulsion. Have any links or more info?

Hey people, its "nukular", okay? We're going to build a nukular ship. Then use it to bomb mars...and it'll only take about another 10% of what you and I pull down every month.

Well, The latest word is Bush will allocate an additional 5% each year to NASA, (MSNBC this morning) with initial efforts being placed on a manned lunar colony and then reaching out to a manned mission to Mars.
Two months to get to Mars- quite a projection to me. Could this be a possible example of "recovered technology" ? Why do we need a manned lunar colony?
That is the million dollar question IMHO. Possibly, and this is just a personal thought- if our government was on to new testing and development and needed a 100% secure installation, what better place would there be than the moon? And then Mars-
Stragetically speaking , for defense possibilitys, what better place would there be than the moon? And Mars.
Something big is happening- either we have something big to develop or there is a concern about something coming to us.
Time will tell....

Why do we need a manned lunar colony?

The rationale I've heard is that if you are going to Mars (or elsewhere) it takes much less fuel to get off the Moon than it does to get off the Earth.

Another benefit might involve these nuclear spacecraft. (Just a guess.) If you are launching an experimental nuclear spacecraft and there is an accident, wouldn't you rather have that happen ouside of the Earth's atmosphere?

Originally posted by ScienceGuyQ

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
...the energy could be used to creat a electro magnetic projected energy blades in the form of propellers of a plane and use this to create a magnetic vortex to bend space around the plane used like air around the wings.

Say what? I've never heard of this theory of space propulsion. Have any links or more info?

nope this was one of my own.