Chinese lander heading for far side of Moon

[Mightysword]

Which mainly come down to one bottleneck: getting from earth to space. Because going from space to the moon, moon to space and back to earth cost peanuts in comparison.

Peanuts? The delta-V required to achieve LEO (at around the level of the ISS) is 9.4km/s. To get from there to the Moon's surface requires 5.93km/s, and to then get from the Moon's surface back to LEO is another 2.74km/s*, for a total of 8.67km/s--near enough exactly the same as it took to get into space in the first place. There's a reason NASA had to build the biggest rocket ever made in order to deliver a comparatively tiny payload to the Moon and get it back again!

The delta-V number itself doesn't tell the whole story though. Rocket is much more effective in vacuum than in atmosphere. That 9.4km/s delta V cost a whole lot more to achieve than that 8.67km/s in vacuum. You're right about NASA built their biggest rocket ever to go to the moon, here I assume you you mean the Saturn V rocket. To put it in perespective:

- The first two stages are used sorely for the purpose of escaping Earth Gravity.
- About a third of the third stage is used to put the craft in a low orbit with the remaining fuel use for the moon orbit transfer. And this is a bit of a cheating because it's not a stable orbit, hang around here long enough and it''ll be dragged back to earth. To get to a stable LEO like the ISS probably gonna use at least half of the third stage.
- And those 3 stages took up most of the space and weight of the rocket. If we say that complete half of the journey, then you can see the other half is completed by just the small sections on the top of the rocket with the command module and the lunar module that handling orbiting the moon, land, go back from the surface, and tail back to Earth.

The fuel break down is like this:

First stage: 21212800L.
Second stage: 1331000L.
Third stage: 344550L.
CMS+LM: 18600L.

Factoring the fact it cost a lot more to build the engines for the first 3 stages (due to structure integrity demand, and the need of much bigger size) comparing to the much smaller size rockets that's used exclusive in space on the CMS and you get the idea why I said it's peanuts. Even when you're not talking about fuel, that's why SpaceX is already saving pretty penny by simply able to reuse the in-atmosphere rockets of the launch vehicle, after all 75% of the cost of their rocket lies in the first stage alone.

[Mightysword]

It's not going to happen with carbon nanotubes as we know them, right now. They're just not suitable. They'd sheer themselves to pieces. You'd need carbon nanotubes wrapped in graphene stabilized by an electrostatically reinforcing and rebonding fusion power system and all of it coated with magic goose-juice elastomagic polymer... Or, you'd need a "Brand New Thing" that we don't have right now. That B.N.T. might incorporate some materials we have right now, surely. But, not as they are right now or not as they're manufactured and employed right now. That's why I said we'd need "unobtainium." Though, admittedly, it's not exactly "unobtainium," but it's close enough.

It maybe Carbon nanotutes, it maybe something else we don't know. Even if we manage to produce enough qualified carbon nanotube, we still have to do something to strengthen against cosmic radiation for example. The point being is we already discover a formula that can work, like I said at ideal strength nanotube is already twice as strong as what theoretically needed for the application. Whether to improve it or derive something new from it, we already have a starting point to work from. Unlike say ... on the topic of traveling faster than light or go through wormhole where we need this "magic" material that can withstand the gravitational pull of a black-hole and all that hoopla .

We actually currently have an another alternative material that is already exist, forgot the name but it's diamond something, but it has the same problem as nanotube currently in term of industrial scale production.

I love targets of "20 years." They're awesome! They're "We Don't Know" targets. They're what you tell aging investors, who usually have more money than young people, who also won't be alive when they announce the project as being cancelled... But, announcing stuff like that makes them look all future-sciencey and stuff and it gets good press coverage.

Common, leave your cynicism in the political thread, in talking about space you need a bit of a dream

How much money have they put into this project so far? I couldn't find any entries in their 2018 prospectus (They could have been consolidated, but if so then it wasn't a bunch of money.) nor was there any mention of it on their main website. This is a project in active development? They're pursuing it right now? And, because we all know it would revolutionize the entire world and would give anyone who first developed such a project a practical monopoly on The Entire Universe, from a human perspective, it'd be the most profitable thing since sex. And... they don't even bother to mention it anymore?

My dude I just gave you the latest update

It has been launching a series of experimental satellites since 2016 (the STARS-Me project), the 2 latest satellites were launched just a few months ago back in September. Together they formed a mini-proof-of concept device somewhere in low orbit right now.

The last update they had in October is these satellites now form 2 anchor points in low orbit for a 10m long cable that has a small robot traveling between them, basically a concept proof for movement in space. And unlike Trump news space research project don't give out very frequent report ... especially if the target date is set for some 50 years later.

[Morkonan]

... Even when you're not talking about fuel, that's why SpaceX is already saving pretty penny by simply able to reuse the in-atmosphere rockets of the launch vehicle, after all 75% of the cost of their rocket lies in the first stage alone.

That's certainly a big deal and it's the primary development cost of the project - Paying for the hardware. At the time, the Saturn V was the "most complex machine ever built." That title was then claimed by the Space Shuttle. Upon until then, we had taken all of that up-front cost and just dumped it into the ocean after using it once... THAT kept us from going back to the Moon. Who's going to be enthusiastic about turning the most complex machines one can build into insta-scrap as soon as the thing is launched? Doing it multiple times to support even a temporary "Moon Base?" And, for what? Some rocks? Maybe a nice telescope installation that you'll have to close in a few years?

Reusable rockets are great, but wow we're still in the Stone Age. Space Development stuffs is haaard. The "Age of Sail" lasted roughly 300 years. How long will the "Age of Rocketry" exist before it is superseded by "The Next Age?" And, what will that be?

...strengthen against cosmic radiation for example...

^--- This. IMO, this is our truly daunting problem for space travel, even in our own solar system. The popsci "Water Shield" is not practical if you have to haul all that water up. So, you'd have to use automated systems to mine/process water for "Water Shields." While not all cosmic radiation/ray particles are charged, most of them are. In that respect, a "magnetic bubble" might be possible, or some sort of charged plasma thingie if you have the gas, literally. But, it's likely there won't be a "One Solution" for this deadly problem that represents the biggest challenge to manned solar-system exploration.

Common, leave your cynicism in the political thread, in talking about space you need a bit of a dream

LOL, fair enough. Though, I love to dream! I've been a science-fiction and then a science/tech fan since I read "Robby the Robot" as a kid. (And a bunch of children's books dealing with science/tech wizardry that got me hooked.)

You do have to note that I stated the same thing when referring to NASA's BPPP program - We need Dream Programs.

...The last update they had in October is these satellites now form 2 anchor points in low orbit for a 10m long cable that has a small robot traveling between them, basically a concept proof for movement in space. And unlike Trump news space research project don't give out very frequent report ... especially if the target date is set for some 50 years later.

I guess it's progressive towards some goal, but I don't know what it would be. There was an idea of using a system remotely resembling that to "launch" craft from a high Lunar orbit into the solar system using revolving satellites - A Slingshot sort of system. A little bit of work was done with that idea I think, but using L4/L5 Lagrange points as the location. But, you still need to get fuel there, so the "savings" is kind of minimal if it's not doing something like launching from the Moon, where supplying it is easier and there are resources on the Moon you could use elsewhere, so there would be a reason for it being there other than launching "exploration" stuff.

To be OT: SDC: China Launches Moon Far Side Lander

Of note, what's on it:

..Chang'e 4 features a total of eight scientific instruments. The landers' are called the Landing Camera (LCAM), the Terrain Camera (TCAM), the Low Frequency Spectrometer (LFS), and the Lunar Lander Neutrons and Dosimetry (LND), which was provided by Germany. [China's Moon Missions Explained (Infographic)]

The rover sports the Panoramic Camera (PCAM), the Lunar Penetrating Radar (LPR), the Visible and Near-Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (VNIS), and the Advanced Small Analyzer for Neutrals (ASAN), a contribution from Sweden...

Some of the questions they hope to answer involve the properties of the Moon's "Far Side" and why it appears to be so different. Interestingly enough, they'll be "listening" too, doing some radio astronomy in an environment that has a huge natural shield from Earth's chatter.

[pjknibbs]

First stage: 21212800L.
Second stage: 1331000L.
Third stage: 344550L.
CMS+LM: 18600L.

Pretty much all of those numbers come about because of the tyranny of the rocket equation, not because of differences in efficiency in the rocket engines used. It's worth noting here that the F-1 engines used in the Saturn V's first stage were always going to be used in atmosphere, so they were designed to be as efficient as possible with external pressure acting on them--their comparatively poor specific impulse of 260 seconds was largely because they used kerosene and LOX as fuel, rather than the more efficient hydrogen-LOX combo used in the upper stages, and the decision to use that fuel was primarily because the sheer size of a hydrogen fuel tank would have been prohibitive given the amount of fuel required in that stage.

(The only rocket engine I can find for which both sea level and vacuum specific impulse is listed is the Merlin 1B used in early versions of the Falcon rocket, which has a specific impulse of 261 seconds at sea level and 303 in vacuum--so there's definitely an improvement there, but it's certainly not the vast gulf you're implying).

[Mightysword]

Pretty much all of those numbers come about because of the tyranny of the rocket equation,

Which still translate to cost though, even if the majority of it is simply to lift those very same fuel off the ground. Cost is still cost regardless of what, be it fuel consumption, mass ratio, rocket efficiency, rocket cost ...etc... the cost to achieve that first half of total Delta-V is much more expensive than the second half (which is something the Delta-V number alone can mislead). That is the reason why I said it's a bottleneck, whether it's the Saturn V 50 years ago or the Falcon X today, the atmospheric stage still the one consume the most resource. Before we plan to go far and go often, we need to figure out away so that we don't have to spent the majority of the cost planned for the trip is simply to get out of our garage!

Imagine if we have an elevator connect to a platform in stable LEO, and that platform is used to launch things either into orbit or other celestial body, we essentially cutting off that first expensive half of the equation, and like said, the word "half" itself in this case would be misleading because we would be saving far more than half per launch. We may eleminate half of the Delta-V needed, but the dollar save is more than that, even before you factoring in complexity and safety issues.

[Bishop149]

Which mainly come down to one bottleneck: getting from earth to space. Because going from space to the moon, moon to space and back to earth cost peanuts in comparison. I think whatever we plan to do in space, that bottle neck have to be resolved first

Whilst pjk has already corrected your numbers somewhat you are correct that Earth -> Orbit is a major bottleneck that requires much of the big heavy expensive stuff.

This is also one of the primary driving factors behind the value of asteroidal resources, did a bit of quick math all number based upon about 10 mins of googling so might not be completely accurate (figures for cost per kg to GSO in particular are a little fuzzy)
A ton of iron ore on earth is worth ~$70 but a ton of iron ore in LEO is worth a minimum of ~$2,000,000
But LEO would be a rather stupid place to park an asteroid, a ton of iron ore in geosync would be worth ~$50,000,000
Add to that that the Iron Ore of 'roids can be a MUCH higher quality than that found on Earth, some of it is less ore and more just iron
Not to mention all the exotic radioactives you might find*.

We are now at the point where people are seriously talking about moving asteroids around, missions to do so are being planned. Whilst expensive the potential value of the resources they contain if combined with space based industrial processing (some what less developed) is both literally and figuratively astronomical. It makes WAY more sense to build large space things from material that is already up there.

*This is a pet peeve of mine, we generate some incredibly rare and energy dense radioactives right here on Earth, and what do we do with them? We call them "High grade nuclear waste" and do our very best to make them utterly useless. I predict a time in the not too distant future once fusion really starts to take off and the more exotic fuel cycles start look possible when the people of the future will look back at us and say "They had WHAT and they did THAT to it!! What complete Idiots!"

[Morkonan]

.. It makes WAY more sense to build large space things from material that is already up there...

I think everyone could agree with that with the exception of certain high-value elements, which are suitably rare enough even in asteroids to retain their value.

But... we don't have any experience in manufacturing in space or in micro-gravity. We have limited bench-tests, but nothing in terms that translate well to "industrial capacity." IMO, we desperately need that experience/testing/experimentation. But, it's dangerous... Smelting iron in micro-gravity is a scary proposition. We need to do it, though, 'cause it's "space stuff" and it's cool.

A moonbase, though... That could provide a good platform for this sort of thing. There's a little bit more gravity there, so we can use that as part of the tool-set, too, while learning some of the basics. Even so, "Zero G" manufacturing can produce products that are impossible to manufacture in a gravity well, or nearly so. (The source of many a "UFO" claim of "exotic materials" aside from certain isotope claims.)

*This is a pet peeve of mine, we generate some incredibly rare and energy dense radioactives right here on Earth, and what do we do with them? We call them "High grade nuclear waste" and do our very best to make them utterly useless. I predict a time in the not too distant future once fusion really starts to take off and the more exotic fuel cycles start look possible when the people of the future will look back at us and say "They had WHAT and they did THAT to it!! What complete Idiots!"

Some of those byproducts are fairly useless, or too dangerous to consider for the applications they might be useful for. The universe seems to be full of inefficient conversation equations, where something is often lost between converting one thing to something else or another form. It's finicky, that way. So, we end up with "slag" that either requires more refinement than its worth to do or is too toxic to consider messing around with, but is still a byproduct of an otherwise useful process.

If you can figure out a use for some of the more toxic materials we end up producing that doesn't require more energy/work than we can get out of the finished product, you will be a very rich person. It "could" be done, I suppose, but do we have the tools to do it with right now?

PS - I'm not a fan of the "asteroid to LEO to surface" idea. It's.. stupid, unless we come across a bunch of rare-earth elements of high value. I am more in favor of either a LEO or Moon based mnaufacturing startup. And, I have no idea how long it would take before such an endeavor could be said to be profitable or efficient.

[Mightysword]

We are now at the point where people are seriously talking about moving asteroids around, missions to do so are being planned. Whilst expensive the potential value of the resources they contain if combined with space based industrial processing (some what less developed) is both literally and figuratively astronomical. It makes WAY more sense to build large space things from material that is already up there.

But... we don't have any experience in manufacturing in space or in micro-gravity. We have limited bench-tests, but nothing in terms that translate well to "industrial capacity." IMO, we desperately need that experience/testing/experimentation. But, it's dangerous... Smelting iron in micro-gravity is a scary proposition. We need to do it, though, 'cause it's "space stuff" and it's cool.

A moonbase, though... That could provide a good platform for this sort of thing. There's a little bit more gravity there, so we can use that as part of the tool-set, too, while learning some of the basics. Even so, "Zero G" manufacturing can produce products that are impossible to manufacture in a gravity well, or nearly so. (The source of many a "UFO" claim of "exotic materials" aside from certain isotope claims.)

I wouldn't even start worrying about these things at this point. Figure out the first step of the equation and the rest of the problem will work itself out. Remember that in the early day: things like airplane, train, locomotive were first invented, most people think they were useless nonsense with no real application. While most of the time, science tend to advance on increment level in term of refining, improving, optimizing, but it also explode exponentially after an important break through is made. And easy access to space is one of those break through, once traveling to space is as convenience as moving to another continent, industrial evolution will take care of the rest. An example for perspective: Orville Wright was able to invent the first airplane, to see it being used to bomb cities in WWI and the first jet invented in WWII, all in his life time.

I'm sure even now there are plenty of brilliant minds out there that can come up with what we can do in space, but those same people probably won't start working until someone else give them access to space first.

[Morkonan]

...I'm sure even now there are plenty of brilliant minds out there that can come up with what we can do in space, but those same people probably won't start working until someone else give them access to space first.

This is the most important idea in your post and it's important that we all remember it.

The mandate and mission statement of NASA and, AFAIK, all the other space-agencies is that they are to be the "trailblazers." They're going to show everyone else how to get there, how to survive, how to discover new stuff and, importantly, "what is out there." They're the scouts.

Everything else, from what to do with all this discover to how to keep it all going is up to... everyone else. It is not NASA's responsibility, for instance, to figure out how to make all this profitable or what we're actually supposed to do with all this knowledge and capability. Those are the responsibility of private-enterprise and, perhaps, government projects.

That is why these agencies exist.

People sometimes complain about space agencies. They complain that they don't do much that is useful for the rest of us or that they''re just self-indulgent "scientists" being given a lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere. But, we know better! It's by spending that money and by discovering "what's on the Dark Side of the Moon" that we gain knowledge and capability that has real value. We can use that knowledge to do "something else" that might become very valuable to everyone.

Meanwhile, a space agency explores somewhere else, reporting on how they successfully got there, what's there, how they're continuing on and where they're going next.

In every space 4x game I've ever played, there's a stage where the player launches "scouts" to find out what's around their home planet and what resources are available. That's often a critical point in game and that one series of turns can mean the player survives to eventually conquer the galaxy or they die in the gullet of some space beast because they didn't see it coming... That's the point we're at now in "real life."

[Usenko]

*This is a pet peeve of mine, we generate some incredibly rare and energy dense radioactives right here on Earth, and what do we do with them? We call them "High grade nuclear waste" and do our very best to make them utterly useless. I predict a time in the not too distant future once fusion really starts to take off and the more exotic fuel cycles start look possible when the people of the future will look back at us and say "They had WHAT and they did THAT to it!! What complete Idiots!"

Some of those byproducts are fairly useless, or too dangerous to consider for the applications they might be useful for. The universe seems to be full of inefficient conversation equations, where something is often lost between converting one thing to something else or another form. It's finicky, that way. So, we end up with "slag" that either requires more refinement than its worth to do or is too toxic to consider messing around with, but is still a byproduct of an otherwise useful process.

If you can figure out a use for some of the more toxic materials we end up producing that doesn't require more energy/work than we can get out of the finished product, you will be a very rich person. It "could" be done, I suppose, but do we have the tools to do it with right now?

The big thing is that we HAVE uses for them. What we lack is easy methods to separate the different useful materials. For example, if you look at a "spent" nuclear fuel rod, you find that only a tiny number of the U-235 atoms are actually split for energy. The reason that the rod isn't usable is because of the actinides and other radioactive elements in it.

And those are useful. Not off in the future, NOW.

BUT . . the rod is a big chunk of metal, in solid form, and straining a few atoms out of the metal is hard to do [citation needed]. Whilst techniques exist for doing this, they're expensive and not really viable on a commercial scale.

If you DID have a method of doing this, you would be able to produce actinides on a relatively large scale for industrial/medical processes, as well as putting used nuclear fuel back into the reactor. Brilliant!

So to summarise: We have a source of expensive elements, as well as getting to use fuel rods a second time - but the process of doing this is sufficiently expensive that it's currently cheaper to bury the fuel rods after one use and make new ones (and get our industrial/medical isotopes from other sources).

We have "Collect underpants" and "Profit", but the stage in the middle is the problem.

[Morkonan]

...We have "Collect underpants" and "Profit", but the stage in the middle is the problem.

Agreed. I suppose I should have emphasized "efficiency." There's a big leap going from benchtop to factory floor. But, if you could find an extremely profitable use for them, likely something brand new, you might convince people to invest in a more efficient process to reclaim/claim them. Or, vice-versa, etc - An easy way to extract them, one that might make what waste is left behind ever less harzardous and easier to dispose of, someone might find another use for them.

Hmmm... I wonder what benefits, if any, a microgravity environment would have here. Any? A lot?

[Usenko]

...We have "Collect underpants" and "Profit", but the stage in the middle is the problem.

Agreed. I suppose I should have emphasized "efficiency." There's a big leap going from benchtop to factory floor. But, if you could find an extremely profitable use for them, likely something brand new, you might convince people to invest in a more efficient process to reclaim/claim them. Or, vice-versa, etc - An easy way to extract them, one that might make what waste is left behind ever less harzardous and easier to dispose of, someone might find another use for them.

Hmmm... I wonder what benefits, if any, a microgravity environment would have here. Any? A lot?

I don't have the necessary engineering chops to comment on that, but at a guess I'd say that there's likely some useful application possible.

[Bishop149]

So to summarise: We have a source of expensive elements, as well as getting to use fuel rods a second time - but the process of doing this is sufficiently expensive that it's currently cheaper to bury the fuel rods after one use and make new ones (and get our industrial/medical isotopes from other sources).

I wouldn't mind it so much if the prevailing attitude was: "Ok, this resource is not economically (or technologically) viable to exploit yet, lets store it somewhere safe until it is"
But no, in many cases the attitude is "ZOMG!!! Much danger! VITRIFY ALL OF IT!!!"
Vitrification being a process that takes that material Usenko correctly identifies as difficult to process and makes it astronomically MORE difficult to process. Its short sighted to say the least.

Generally speaking HLW is considered dangerous because it is highly energetic, its not hard to see how that exact same property also makes it extremely useful.
Many of the weirder and more exotic isotopes generated are also EXTREMELY good at absorbing neutrons, which is a useful property now but will suddenly become more so when/if Fusion takes off.

[Usenko]

I wouldn't mind it so much if the prevailing attitude was: "Ok, this resource is not economically (or technologically) viable to exploit yet, lets store it somewhere safe until it is"
But no, in many cases the attitude is "ZOMG!!! Much danger! VITRIFY ALL OF IT!!!"
Vitrification being a process that takes that material Usenko correctly identifies as difficult to process and makes it astronomically MORE difficult to process. Its short sighted to say the least.

Generally speaking HLW is considered dangerous because it is highly energetic, its not hard to see how that exact same property also makes it extremely useful.
Many of the weirder and more exotic isotopes generated are also EXTREMELY good at absorbing neutrons, which is a useful property now but will suddenly become more so when/if Fusion takes off.

Couldn't agree more. I find it astounding how terrified people are of HLW, when we routinely expect more dangerous things to be handled as a matter of course in daily life (at least in industrial contexts).

A friend of mine who is a senior member of the Fire Brigade is fond of pointing out that he'd far rather deal with a nuclear contamination incident than any of several dozen chemicals that are transported over the roads on a typical day!

[Morkonan]

...Couldn't agree more. I find it astounding how terrified people are of HLW, when we routinely expect more dangerous things to be handled as a matter of course in daily life (at least in industrial contexts).

I've seen both, sort of. Maybe. There is a certain number of vehicles present at either site that lets you know how bad it is. If there are a great many vehicles responding, it's manageable. If there's just one or two... Well, the amount of personnel involved in finding someone to put in prison is indirectly proportional to how many vehicles are immediately present around the location of interest. And, then there's the ones that make it into the wild they don't want anyone to know about. That's the one that has the single unmarked van going down the road with someone watching a meter. (True story, tracking "non-hazardous, don't worry about it, perfectly safe, but we're following it anyway, don't mind us, nothing to see here, these are not the droids you're looking for.")

A friend of mine who is a senior member of the Fire Brigade is fond of pointing out that he'd far rather deal with a nuclear contamination incident than any of several dozen chemicals that are transported over the roads on a typical day!

"OK, we found it. Measure out a mile around it and build a big fence. Get some of those orange and yellow signs and hang them on it. Pay a couple of guys to stand around and tell people to go away. Done! Easy peasy, plutonium squeezy. Remediation is fun!"

I can think of worse ways to die than chemical pneumonia. Granted, it ain't a nice way to go, but at least the skeleton wearing my own flesh wouldn't be trying to kill me. Oxygen scavengers suck, but the plume may not be as fatal for as far as something that liquefies one's lungs. Then, there's the really corrosive stuff, like HF... Hydroflouric Acid sucks. Anyone who manufactures it or with it is a madman. People who deal in HF don't even bother building something that will last for very long, since even the tiniest escaping vapor eats everything - They just build an entirely new building and eventually bulldoze the old one. (Though, some of the high-dollar monkey rigs surely don't do that... Riiight.) And, if you get it on you, well I'm sure you know what happens. Again, something else where your own skeleton eventually kills you if the initial exposure does not.

There is nothing I would fear in the way of "chemical spill" than HF. Even when it's shipped in limited containers, it's friggin deadly stuff that will kill via chemical pneumonia or immediate tissue damage or kill you next week, just when you thought you were going to make it... F that stuff. Give me a good ol' neurotoxin any day. At least that's not on every highway, all the time, just waiting for someone to screw up.

...I don't have the necessary engineering chops to comment on that, but at a guess I'd say that there's likely some useful application possible.

Efficiencies, for one. Biotech and metallurgy, AFAIK, are the two most promising choices. It may be that other materials sciences could benefit as well. For instance, could we produce carbon nanotubes or graphene more easily in microgravity? Maybe? (Biotech has always been my favorite, high-profit, low-payload, choice there. And, the amount of cash biotech spends on research and development would easily pay for the ISS operating budget every year.)

That is your task - Design a process to take advantage of the efficiencies of microgravity for the production of advanced materials. You will be a very rich man and you'll be having coffee with Musk and Branson on your new spacestation in no time at all! (That really isn't something beyond the realm of reason if you can actually figure out a production process that would be efficient.)

[Usenko]

A friend of mine who is a senior member of the Fire Brigade is fond of pointing out that he'd far rather deal with a nuclear contamination incident than any of several dozen chemicals that are transported over the roads on a typical day!

"OK, we found it. Measure out a mile around it and build a big fence. Get some of those orange and yellow signs and hang them on it. Pay a couple of guys to stand around and tell people to go away. Done! Easy peasy, plutonium squeezy. Remediation is fun!"

Heh! Yes, but he was actually talking about cleaning it up, not merely declaring the area "beyond help, what can we have for lunch?".

I can think of worse ways to die than chemical pneumonia. Granted, it ain't a nice way to go, but at least the skeleton wearing my own flesh wouldn't be trying to kill me. Oxygen scavengers suck, but the plume may not be as fatal for as far as something that liquefies one's lungs. Then, there's the really corrosive stuff, like HF... Hydroflouric Acid sucks. Anyone who manufactures it or with it is a madman. People who deal in HF don't even bother building something that will last for very long, since even the tiniest escaping vapor eats everything - They just build an entirely new building and eventually bulldoze the old one. (Though, some of the high-dollar monkey rigs surely don't do that... Riiight.) And, if you get it on you, well I'm sure you know what happens. Again, something else where your own skeleton eventually kills you if the initial exposure does not.

There is nothing I would fear in the way of "chemical spill" than HF. Even when it's shipped in limited containers, it's friggin deadly stuff that will kill via chemical pneumonia or immediate tissue damage or kill you next week, just when you thought you were going to make it... F that stuff. Give me a good ol' neurotoxin any day. At least that's not on every highway, all the time, just waiting for someone to screw up.

Since we're talking about rockets and the impulse of different engine technologies, it's probably worth mentioning here that Valentin Glushko, the Russian rocket engine genius, was fond of the idea of powering rockets with Liquid Hydrogen and Liquid Fluorine. Huge amounts of impulse, but there WAS the problem of the exhaust . . . .

His team eventually convinced him that the world wasn't quite ready for this.

[pjknibbs]

Since we're talking about rockets and the impulse of different engine technologies, it's probably worth mentioning here that Valentin Glushko, the Russian rocket engine genius, was fond of the idea of powering rockets with Liquid Hydrogen and Liquid Fluorine. Huge amounts of impulse, but there WAS the problem of the exhaust . . . .

It has to be said that the (fairly standard) rocket fuel combination of unsymmetric dimethyl hydrazine (UDMH) and red fuming nitric acid (RFNA) ain't all that great in terms of exhaust gases either!

[Morkonan]

..Heh! Yes, but he was actually talking about cleaning it up, not merely declaring the area "beyond help, what can we have for lunch?".

This is standard US "remediation" strategy for certain things.

"Oh, it's crapped up? Better build a fence!"

(A little simplified, but there's little in the way of "remediation" and lots in the way of "Keep Out.")

His team eventually convinced him that the world wasn't quite ready for this.

"Murdering our way to the stars!"

During the Cold War, IIRC, it was estimated that every above-ground nuclear test resulted in the deaths of about 100,000 people around the world. (Last I read, anyway.) For the US, an estimate was 1 million people, give or take, dead due to the effects of above-ground nuclear testing. These numbers are, of course, fast-and-loose, but the implication is real - Doing stuff has consequences.

One of the arguments against everyone's favorite "To the Stars!" project, Project Orion, was that every launch would likely result in thousands of people around the world dying...

For our standard chemical propulsion rockets, there's an argument that they may be contributing to needless deaths as well in much the same way. Or, in a broader sense, to Global Warming. It's a bit of a sobering thought to think that every rocket launch we rejoice at seeing vids of might mean someone, somewhere, could die as a result of it. The issue becomes even more serious now that frequency of launches is likely to dramatically increase. It's not that the "butterfly effect" of unknown effects should be enough to suspend launches, it's that we don't really know the extent of the effects. DO we want to know?

We should just go ahead with Project Orion. We could fit so much stuff in there... Launching something the size of an aircraft carrier into space just HAS to have some kind of advantage. Less people dead than the equivalent payloads of standard chemical rockets?

[Usenko]

Since we're talking about rockets and the impulse of different engine technologies, it's probably worth mentioning here that Valentin Glushko, the Russian rocket engine genius, was fond of the idea of powering rockets with Liquid Hydrogen and Liquid Fluorine. Huge amounts of impulse, but there WAS the problem of the exhaust . . . .

It has to be said that the (fairly standard) rocket fuel combination of unsymmetric dimethyl hydrazine (UDMH) and red fuming nitric acid (RFNA) ain't all that great in terms of exhaust gases either!

Indeed, and it says something that Glushko's team - who didn't blink at UDMH and HNO3 - said "No way man!" to this combination!

[Usenko]

"Murdering our way to the stars!"

During the Cold War, IIRC, it was estimated that every above-ground nuclear test resulted in the deaths of about 100,000 people around the world. (Last I read, anyway.) For the US, an estimate was 1 million people, give or take, dead due to the effects of above-ground nuclear testing. These numbers are, of course, fast-and-loose, but the implication is real - Doing stuff has consequences.

I looked this up. I would suggest that there is something VERY wrong with not only the numbers but the entire concept. One of the few good things to come out of the Chernobyl accident was a re-evaluation of the actual danger level of radiation; bluntly, humans can take a LOT more radiation than previously believed. Of course, we aren't talking about just the pure radiation, but the substances which might be incorporated into the body, but even so I would be VERY sceptical that there are even a measurable number from each test.

That said, accidental deaths are not something we want to accept, even if there are relatively few of them.

One of the arguments against everyone's favorite "To the Stars!" project, Project Orion, was that every launch would likely result in thousands of people around the world dying...

For our standard chemical propulsion rockets, there's an argument that they may be contributing to needless deaths as well in much the same way. Or, in a broader sense, to Global Warming. It's a bit of a sobering thought to think that every rocket launch we rejoice at seeing vids of might mean someone, somewhere, could die as a result of it. The issue becomes even more serious now that frequency of launches is likely to dramatically increase. It's not that the "butterfly effect" of unknown effects should be enough to suspend launches, it's that we don't really know the extent of the effects. DO we want to know?

We should just go ahead with Project Orion. We could fit so much stuff in there... Launching something the size of an aircraft carrier into space just HAS to have some kind of advantage. Less people dead than the equivalent payloads of standard chemical rockets?

I am actually a BIG fan of nuclear rockets, though a spacecraft should be well above the atmosphere before it lets fly.

The trick is actually getting it above the atmosphere, of course. You really want there to be VERY little chance of things going wrong with the rocket. . . .