Digest Number 247

Sorry Lucio I didn't save the URL so I will see what I
can find.

http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/larryniven/niven_surprises_001109.html

This isn't what I was looking for, but interesting.
Build a first-stage lifter, and build it
thermonuclear.
Build it like the Soviets built the Soyuz. They wheel
it out horizontally, with the top stage (of four)
unsupported. They lift it to vertical on the field and
launch in up to 60 mile-per-hour winds. Its that
brutally strong. It would make a decent bridge.
Given the potential exhaust velocity of a nuke motor,
you dont mind it being heavy. Build it strong. I
picture one big tank full of liquid hydrogen, one big
motor, and one flat side with fittings for anything
you might want to launch.
With the second stage gone, there would be only the
empty tank and the motor. Itd come back to Earth like
a silvered Mylar birthday balloon weighted at one end:
butt down all the way. Land with the rocket working at
low thrust, like Heinlein and Flash Gordon always
intended. Heinlein would have filled the tank with
water.
~
This isn't it either.
http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/articles/sovermal.htm

Still haven't found it, but found another interesting
article.
http://www.nasaexplores.com/lessons/01-060/9-12_index.html
Nuclear Propulsion is as lightweight as the SEP
method, but it has the benefit of using the higher
thrust propulsion of chemical rockets. It would take
hours, rather than a year, to leave Earth's vicinity.
The down side? Public perception, Kos says, is
anti-nuclear. "Nuclear thermal propulsion is enriched
uranium, not plutonium, so it is less radioactive by a
factor of 100,000."
You're right this one is from last year. I think this
is it. I guess I just read it a couple of weeks ago. I
might have been confused about the second stage. It
just says that the flight engines are nonradioactive
at launch. I sure hope this works out it looks like
the solution to all our problems, or at least a lot of
them. J
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/nuclear_power_000718.html

> But we do not want nukes.

We want lunar and asteroidal based space
manufacturing.

Nukes are neither necessary nor desirable.<

Speak for yourself cfrjlr I love nukes. They are the
only way to get the high frontier going in my
lifetime.
They would have the power to chase down NEO's and
bring them back for processing. They could go fast
enough to visit all the interesting planets and moons,
IN MY LIFETIME. I want to see some of these things
myself and I'm not worried about polluting outer space
with radiation.
I agree that we could do it without nuclear power but
we would never see any of it. Without nuclear power we
won't get past ISS. We would continue to send probes
and learn a lot about the inner solar system, but we
would all still be sitting right here on earth.

Jim