Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The huge benefit of the project is nuclear propulsion in space. Not getting the ship into space.
I said
a huge benefit. If the saturn V were used, it would take about 30 trips. Or launch with a massive payload from the ground and do it
once.
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Many programs culminating in the ISS have proven that if you want to build something big in space, you take it up in pieces and assemble it there. It makes infinitely more sense than constraining the design of the object to the transportation limitations for a trip it is only going to make once.
OK...? This proves nothing other than man has found a way to get larger objects in space than what chemical rockets directly limit.
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Using a shuttle that wasn't designed with the purpose of building an object orders of magnitude larger than anything we have built in space so far is a stupid argument against. If you're going to build a 4000 ton space vehicle you build the fucking transportation you need to get it to space too.
Right, and one could argue that the appropriate launch vehicle is an orion vehicle with 800 nuclear detonations. Or suppose you wanted to make a far
larger spacecraft than 4000 tons? Perhaps 4000000 tons? Should we still use chemical rockets to bring the pieces to space? Orion vehicles would be far more efficient in that case. Of course, a space elevator would solve both those issues (potentially) but that doesn't exist yet.
Last edited by SenorToenails (2010-08-11 11:23:48)
