Radio broadcast of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Utilizing the SLS to Build a Cis-Lunar Highway
 |
| The Earth seen rising above the Lunar horizon aboard Apollo 17, the last human mission to the Moon (Credit: NASA) |
by Marcel F. Williams
 |
| SLS crew & cargo vehicles |
But the Space Launch System could also be utilized to do a lot more.
The SLS could be used to deploy a reusable cis-lunar architecture that could give passengers aboard Commercial Crew vehicles easy access to the surface of the Moon and to other commercially viable regions within cis-lunar space.
Below is a possible scenario that could make this happen by using a standard reusable ETLV (Extraterrestrial Landing Vehicle) derived architecture, starting in the year 2021.
Nomenclature:
EML (Earth Moon Lagrangian point);
LEO (Low Earth Orbit);
SLS (Space Launch System);
MPCV (Multipurpose Crew Vehicle);
CM (Command Module)
ETLV-2 (crewed Extraterrestrial Land Vehicle;
ETLV-2R (Unmanned Automated ETLV-2);
C-ETLV-4 (cargo lunar lander);
WFD-OTV-5 (Water- Fuel Depot Orbital Transfer Vehicle);
WFD-LV-5 (Water- Fuel Depot Lunar Landing Vehicle);
RWT-LV-5 (Reusable Water Tanker Lunar Landing Vehicle);
LRH (Lunar Regolith Habitat);
Water Bug (Robotic Microwave Water Extraction Vehicle);
ATHLETE (All-Terrain Hex-Legged Extra-Terrestrial Explorer)
 |
| Earth-Moon Lagrangian Points (Credit: NASA) |
LEO to LLO (~2 days) - 4.5 km/s dv
LEO to LLO (~4 days) - 3.97 km/s dv
LEO to EML1 (~2 days) - 4.41 km/s dv
LEO to EML1 (~4 days) - 3.77 km/s dv
EML1 to or from LLO (~2 days) - 0.75 km/s dv
EML1 to or from LLO (~3 days) - 0.64 km/s dv
LLO to or from the Lunar surface - 1.87 to 2.1 km/s dv
LEO: Low Earth Orbit; TLI: Trans-Lunar Injection; LLO: Low Lunar Orbit;
EML1: Earth Moon Lagrange Point 1
(Credit John Connolly: NASA-JSC - 2012)
2021
 |
| Unmanned ETLV-2R docked with the WFD-OTV-5 fuel depot at ELM1 |
Derived from the Extraterrestrial Landing Vehicle (ETLV), the WFD (Water Fuel Depot) OTV (Orbital Transfer Vehicle) will utilize the same cryotanks used for the ETLV-2. But these will be five in number instead of two, fixed within a higher cruciform in order to enhance the depot's ability to store the maximum amount of cryofuel. The WFD-OTV-5 would be capable of storing nearly 70 tonnes of LOX/LH2 fuel in addition to more than 100 tonnes of water. However, when the WFD-OTV-5 fuel depot is initially deployed at EML1 by the SLS upper stage, it will contain only 20 tonnes of fuel and no water because the SLS upper stage will only be able to deliver a little more than 30 tonnes to the Lagrange point.
The first ETLV-2 mission to the lunar surface under this scenario will be an unmanned mission to the South Lunar Pole. But first the SLS will launch The ETLV-2R will be launched by the SLS to the fuel depot at EML1. Although the ETLV-2R would be nearly fully fueled, some additional fuel would be required in order for the vehicle's return to the Lagrange point after landing on the lunar surface.
Once on the lunar surface, a variety of small mobile robots will be deployed to explore the polar region, test water extraction technologies, and return a variety of samples from lunar regolith. After a few days, or a few weeks, the ETLV-2R will return to L1.
A similar mission will occur with the third launch of the SLS in 2021. But the unmanned destination will be the North Lunar Pole. Again, after a few days, or a few weeks, the ETLV-2R will return to L1.
So the end of both unmanned missions to the lunar surface will not only retrieve lunar samples from the lunar poles but will twice demonstrate the ability of the ETLV-2 vehicle to travel to and from the lunar surface from L1 on a single fueling of it's twin tanks. These two demonstrations of the ETLV-2, to and from the lunar surface, should enhance the safety of the first crewed mission of the ETLV-2 in 2022.
 |
| MPCV (Multipurpose Crew Vehicle) Credit: NASA |
Astronauts will return to Earth aboard the CM of the MPCV, demonstrating the vehicle's ability to travel within cis-lunar space while also bringing back precious regolith samples from the north and south lunar poles.
2022
 |
| C-ETLV-4 and the ETLV-2 cargo and crew lunar landing vehicles |
The first SLS launch of 2022 will send the C-ETLV-4 lunar cargo vehicle directly to the lunar surface. An ATLETE robot will deploy two small mobile excavators, two mobile sintering robots, and a single back hoe for depositing regolith into the walled interior of human habitat structures.
 |
| ATLETE robot for offloading cargo from the C-ETLV-4 (Credit: NASA) |
 |
| Lunar excavation robots (Credit: Astrobotic Technology and Carnegie Mellon) |
The mobile excavators will be used to remove rocks and level the surface area for eventual sintering. Mobile sintering machines will move over the paved area using microwaves to melt the lunar regolith, creating a hard sintered layer approximately 0.5 meters deep and a smooth solid surface approximately 3 to 5 cm deep. Two widely separated areas will be prepared by the excavators and the sintering machines. One area will be for the deployment of the Lunar Regolith Habitats. The other area will be exclusively prepared for landings by the ETLV-2, C-ETLV-2, Reusable Water Tankers, and lunar fuel depots. Both areas will be connected to each other by a paved and sintered road perhaps a kilometer or more long.
 |
| Lunar sintering robot (Credit: Credit: Larry Taylor) |
 |
| An electric powered (battery or fuel cell) back hoes would have to be deployed to the lunar surface in order to deposit lunar regolith inside of the regolith walls of a Lunar Regolith Habitat (LRH) (Credit: Volvo) |
 |
| Lunar Regolith Habitat (LRH): Lunar regolith is deposited by the back hoe within the 2 meter cavity between the pressurized SLS hydrogen tank derived habitat area and the automatically deployed exterior wall. This will provide micrometeorite and thermal protection in addition to protection against major solar events and a reduction of cosmic radiation exposure to below maximum levels for radiation workers on Earth. Power for the habitat is provided by the solar panel on top. And radiators on top of the habitat help to regulate and dissipate excess heat. A mobile water tanker will periodically pump lunar water into the habitat for washing, cooking, drinking, growing food, and for the production of air. |
Once it is in position, the LRH-1 will automatically expand its solar panel to recharge the habitat batteries. An SLS hydrogen tank derived pressurized habitat will automatically expand its wall panels to produce a rigid and continuous wall around the pressurized area, creating a 2 meter wide cavity between the wall and the pressurized habitat. The lunar back hoe will deposit lunar regolith inside of the cavity to the top of the regolith wall which will also extend approximately two meters above the top level of the pressurized habitat. This will provide astronauts, scientist, and other visitors to the habitat with thermal and micrometeorite protection while also protecting them from the radiation of major solar events and while also reducing their annual exposure to cosmic radiation to levels below that required for radiation workers on Earth. This will allow astronauts and scientist to continuously remain at such habitats for more than a decade without coming close to their lifetime NASA limits for radiation exposure.
Within the 8.4 meter in diameter pressurized housing, there would be two levels each with approximately 55 square meters of area. So each habitat level would be about the size of a one bedroom apartment on Earth. In total, these two levels would have more floor area than the average family home in Great Britain. Airlocks derived from the ETLV tanks would be located below the pressurized habitat area.
The last two SLS launches in 2022 will send the ETLV-2 and the MPCV to EML1. Again, the water will also be delivered to the fuel depot at L1 during the MPCV launch to EML1. After adding additional fuel, the ETLV-2 will deliver six astronauts, four Americans and two foreign guest to the lunar surface. But they will only spend a few days or a few days on the lunar surface to inspect the lunar habitat and to collect more lunar samples. The ETLV-2 will return the astronauts back to EML1 where it will dock with the MPCV for the crews return to Earth. The ETLV-2 will remain at L1 for future use once new fuel is being manufactured at L1 from lunar water resources. And it will be part of a fleet of three reusable vehicles starting in 2025.
2023
 |
| The solar powered WFD-LV-5 will be able to store Lunar water while also being able to convert water into liquid hydrogen and oxygen for storage and distribution. Mobile cryotankers will extract cryofuels from the fuel depot for fueling space vehicles like the ETLV-2. Mobile water tankers supply the fuel depot with Lunar water from the Water Bugs . |
The first SLS launch of 2023 will send a solar powered water storage and cryofuel producing depot to the new lunar outpost. This will be followed just a few weeks later by the C-ETLV-4 deployment of two mobile cryotankers derived from ETLV cryotank technology. The mobile cryotankers will be used to extract cryofuels from the WFD-LV-5 lunar fuel depots in order to refuel lunar landing vehicles. The mobile cryotankers will also be capable of scavenging residual fuel from the dormant C-ETLV-4 vehicles.
2023 will end with another pair of SLS launches for the ETLV-2 and MPCV in order for another temporary human visit to the lunar outpost .
2024
 |
| Mobile water tanker next to a Water Bug robotic microwave water extraction vehicle. Water Bugs will recharge their batteries in the sunlight before venturing within shadowed craters for water mining. Mobile water tankers will extract the water from the Water Bugs for deposition at the fuel depot or in lunar water bags. |
A second SLS launch in 2024 will use the C-ETLV-4 to deploy a second habitat to the lunar outpost (LRH-2). The second habitat will double the area for human accommodations at the outpost. Each habitat will also serve as backup accommodations for the other in case there is a serious malfunction at one of the habs.
Two SLS launches will end the year, bringing the first long term inhabitants to the lunar outpost. Some of these individuals will remain on the lunar surface for more than a year simply to determine if there are any deleterious physical or psychological effects for human individuals after living in a low gravity environment for more than a year. Before the first human attempts to venture to the orbit of Mars and to the Martian surface, some astronauts will have to eventually stay on the lunar surface as long as four years. The results of these simple human test on the lunar surface could have enormous implications for humanity's future in the rest of the solar system.
2025
 |
| RWT-LV-5 water tanker next to the ETLV-2 |
A single SLS launch in 2025 will deploy two reusable lunar water tankers to the lunar outpost. Each vehicle will be capable of transporting more than 50 tonnes of lunar water to the EML1 fuel depots per flight while still being able to return to the lunar surface. With their CECE engines, each vehicle should be capable of at least ten round trips between ELM1 and the lunar surface before their engines or the entire vehicle is replaced.
 |
| RWT-LV-5 transferring lunar water to the WFD-OTV-5 at ELM1 |
 |
| An OTV-2 preparing to dock with an Aerobrake Shield and another OTV-2 docked with an Aerobrake Shield |
The deployment of the reusable OTV-2 vehicles will mean that an SLS launch of the MPCV will no longer be necessary in order to transport astronauts to the Earth-Moon Lagrange points. However, NASA astronauts will still need to be able to get to LEO in order to access the OTV-2. But by 2025, NASA should have a wide variety of Commercial Crew and foreign vehicles available to give NASA astronauts access to orbit.
 |
| Russian Soyuz |
 |
| Chinese Shenzhou |
 |
| Dream Chaser (Credit: Sierra Nevada Co.) |
 |
| Dragon (Credit: Space X) |
.jpg) |
| CST-100 (Credit: Boeing) |
 |
| SKYLON (Credit: REACTION ENGINES LTD) |
 |
| OTV-2 docked with an ETLV-2 lunar landing vehicle at EML1 |
A single SLS launch will deploy two additional fuel depots (WFD-OTV-5) to LEO. One will use its own engines to reach EML1 while the other will remain at LEO to refuel the OTV-2 vehicles. Once a LEO fuel depot begins to run low on fuel, it will transport itself to EML1 to be refueled with water from the lunar tankers in order to manufacture enough fuel for its redeployment back at LEO.
 |
| X-Ray of Skylab II with its SLS derived pressurized habitat at ELM1 (Credit: Griffin) |
The final SLS launch in 2025 will be to deploy an SLS hydrogen fuel tank derived habitat with an internal hypergravity centrifuge to EML1. Lunar water exported to L1 will provide enough radiation shielding for the Lagrange point habitat to protect astronauts from a major solar event. The deployment of the lunar water shielded Skylab II will be first test of a potential interplanetary habitat for possible manned missions to the orbit of Mars.
Marcel F. Williams
© 2014 MuOmega Enterprises
© 2014 MuOmega Enterprises
Links and References
- LOW-COST LUNAR COMMUNICATION AND NAVIGATION
- Utilizing Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) for Early SLS Cargo Launches and Commercial Crew Destinations
- An SLS Launched Cargo and Crew Lunar Transportation System Utilizing an ETLV Architecture
- The SLS and the Case for a Reusable Lunar Lander
- Mission and Implementation of an Affordable Lunar Return (Spudis & Lavoie)
- Using the resources of the Moon to create a permanent, cislunar space faring system (Spudis & Lavoie)
- The Future of NASA and the Commercial Crew Program
- How ATHLETE Robots could Deploy Pressurized Habitats and other Large Payloads to the Lunar Surface
- Microwave Sintering of Lunar Soil: Properties, Theory, and Practice
- Cooking Up Water From the Moon? NASA Studies Water Extraction With Microwaves
Monday, January 27, 2014
The Future of Ocean Nuclear Synfuel Production
 |
| Artist’s rendition of the Russian floating nuclear power plant “Akademik Lomonosov” (Credit: SevMashZevod) |
Land based commercial nuclear power is the safest form of electricity production ever created. No one died as the result of radiation exposure at the Fukushima nuclear facilities in Japan-- despite three meltdowns-- thanks to the inherent safety of the containment structures. But even if you include the mortality rate of the Chernobyl nuclear accident which didn't have a containment structure, the mortality rate for commercial nuclear energy is 90 deaths per trillion kWhr compared to:
Wind, 150 deaths per trillion kWhr
Rooftop solar, 440 deaths per trillion kWhr,
Hydroelectric, 1400 deaths per trillion kWhr
Natural gas, 4000 deaths per trillion kWhr
Coal, a whopping 170,000 deaths per trillion kWhr.
Wind, 150 deaths per trillion kWhr
Rooftop solar, 440 deaths per trillion kWhr,
Hydroelectric, 1400 deaths per trillion kWhr
Natural gas, 4000 deaths per trillion kWhr
Coal, a whopping 170,000 deaths per trillion kWhr.
However, these statistical facts have not alleviated the unreasonable fear that many have of commercial nuclear energy-- nor people's paradoxical phobia of radiation in general. This seems ironic since Americans exist in a society where radioactive materials are commonly used in nearby facilities such as hospitals and clinics. Americans are also frequently exposed to much higher levels of cosmic radiation when they're flying in the upper atmosphere on airliners. Astronauts endure levels of radiation while in orbit much higher than what would be allowed for nuclear workers on Earth on a daily basis. Americans also don't seem to have any fear about joining the US Navy to serve on nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines. And families don't seem to have any fears about greeting their sons and daughters and husbands and wives when they depart from nuclear vessels on their return to shore.
Still, there are many who have an almost innate fear of commercial nuclear power. And this unreasonable fear by some American's could seriously imperil the environment and the quality of life for future generations.
Humans are currently living within an atmosphere that is alien to our species and even to our 2.6 million year old genus, Homo. Our use of fossil fuels has now pumped so much carbon dioxide into the air that CO2 now comprises more than 400 parts per million of our atmosphere. These are levels of CO2 that have not existed on the Earth since the Pliocene, a warm epoch that spanned 5.3 million years ago until 2.6 million years ago when sea levels may have been as much as 40 meters higher than they are today. And as the polar ice caps continue to melt and sea levels continue to rise, there are no signs that our civilization is currently stopping the increase of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels.
Yet the United States and most other industrial countries could easily stop the increase in CO2 levels into the atmosphere within the next 20 to 30 years if we simply built a lot more nuclear power plants for both electricity and synthetic fuel production. There's already enough room at the more than 60 nuclear sites in the US to increase nuclear generation at each site to at least 8 GWe. That would be more than enough electricity to replace the electricity from fossil fuels in the US.
But what about transportation fuels for automobiles, trucks, ships, plains, and heavy ground vehicles?
Fortunately, a new generation of small nuclear reactors is about to emerge in the United States and in the rest of the world. These small nuclear reactors offer the promise of an even more enhanced level of commercial nuclear safety while also substantially lowering the cost of manufacturing and deploying nuclear power through centralized manufacturing, mass production, and transport by barge or rail to a nuclear power facility.
The first of this new generation of small nuclear reactors is being deployed by the Russians-- not the United States. But its not a land based reactor. It is a floating nuclear reactor. And floating nuclear reactors could be the key towards finally galvanizing broad acceptance of nuclear energy for all.
Russia intends to mass produce floating 70 MWe nuclear power plants at shipbuilding facilities. These will then be towed to coastal waters near industrial centers, towns and cities for the production of electricity and desalinated water.
The US once had the intention of deploying an offshore nuclear power facility as a way to avoid the increasing difficulties of licensing land based reactors. Four larger reactors were to be deployed by Westinghouse just 16 kilometers north of Atlantic City at the mouth of Great Bay. But licensing these off-shore reactors proved to be just as publicly difficult as land based reactors. And the project was eventually canceled.
But what if we deployed some floating nuclear reactors far out to sea-- far away from the coastal environments of any town or city and the licensing headaches associated with coastal deployment. Instead, these Ocean Nuclear power plants would be deployed hundreds or even over a thousand kilometers away from continental coastlines for the production of carbon neutral synthetic fuels. These clean synthetic fuels could then be shipped to any fuel port in the world for the production of electricity or for utilization as transportation fuel for automobiles, trucks, plains, and ships.
Still, there are many who have an almost innate fear of commercial nuclear power. And this unreasonable fear by some American's could seriously imperil the environment and the quality of life for future generations.
Humans are currently living within an atmosphere that is alien to our species and even to our 2.6 million year old genus, Homo. Our use of fossil fuels has now pumped so much carbon dioxide into the air that CO2 now comprises more than 400 parts per million of our atmosphere. These are levels of CO2 that have not existed on the Earth since the Pliocene, a warm epoch that spanned 5.3 million years ago until 2.6 million years ago when sea levels may have been as much as 40 meters higher than they are today. And as the polar ice caps continue to melt and sea levels continue to rise, there are no signs that our civilization is currently stopping the increase of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels.
Yet the United States and most other industrial countries could easily stop the increase in CO2 levels into the atmosphere within the next 20 to 30 years if we simply built a lot more nuclear power plants for both electricity and synthetic fuel production. There's already enough room at the more than 60 nuclear sites in the US to increase nuclear generation at each site to at least 8 GWe. That would be more than enough electricity to replace the electricity from fossil fuels in the US.
But what about transportation fuels for automobiles, trucks, ships, plains, and heavy ground vehicles?
Fortunately, a new generation of small nuclear reactors is about to emerge in the United States and in the rest of the world. These small nuclear reactors offer the promise of an even more enhanced level of commercial nuclear safety while also substantially lowering the cost of manufacturing and deploying nuclear power through centralized manufacturing, mass production, and transport by barge or rail to a nuclear power facility.
The first of this new generation of small nuclear reactors is being deployed by the Russians-- not the United States. But its not a land based reactor. It is a floating nuclear reactor. And floating nuclear reactors could be the key towards finally galvanizing broad acceptance of nuclear energy for all.
Russia intends to mass produce floating 70 MWe nuclear power plants at shipbuilding facilities. These will then be towed to coastal waters near industrial centers, towns and cities for the production of electricity and desalinated water.
The US once had the intention of deploying an offshore nuclear power facility as a way to avoid the increasing difficulties of licensing land based reactors. Four larger reactors were to be deployed by Westinghouse just 16 kilometers north of Atlantic City at the mouth of Great Bay. But licensing these off-shore reactors proved to be just as publicly difficult as land based reactors. And the project was eventually canceled.
But what if we deployed some floating nuclear reactors far out to sea-- far away from the coastal environments of any town or city and the licensing headaches associated with coastal deployment. Instead, these Ocean Nuclear power plants would be deployed hundreds or even over a thousand kilometers away from continental coastlines for the production of carbon neutral synthetic fuels. These clean synthetic fuels could then be shipped to any fuel port in the world for the production of electricity or for utilization as transportation fuel for automobiles, trucks, plains, and ships.
 |
| The conversion of seawater into methanol through nuclear electricity |
The US Navy has recently revealed that they have developed a technology that can produce carbon neutral synthetic fuels from seawater by simply using a carbon neutral source of electricity. This technology takes advantage of the fact that the concentration of bound and dissolved carbon dioxide in seawater is approximately 140 times greater than in the atmosphere. At the same time, the hydrogen contained in the seawater could be extracted through electrolysis and synthesized with CO2 to manufacture a variety of hydrocarbon fuels.
While the US Navy is focusing its attention on using nuclear or renewable OTEC technologies for manufacturing jet fuel at sea, the Navy's new technology could be easily utilized to manufacture other carbon neutral fuels such as methanol, dimethyl ether, diesel fuel, and even gasoline.
The production of methanol at sea could allow floating nuclear power plants to ship this carbon neutral fuel to practically any coastal port on Earth-- for electricity production and for ground transportation fuel. Methanol tankers already exist and come in a wide variety of sizes for transporting large quantities of methanol.
Methanol is relatively non-corrosive fuel that remains at a liquid state at room temperature and atmospheric pressure. Methanol requires no specialized containment and can be handled the same way as other oil based liquid fuels. Since methanol is easily biodegradable in marine waters, an accidental tanker spill would be much less damaging to the marine environment and to coastal beaches than an oil or gasoline spill.
For electricity production, methanol can be easily used in modified natural gas turbines. Tests have shown that, compared to natural gas, methanol produces a higher electrical power output due to the higher mass flow, and significantly reduces NOx and while also producing no SO2 emissions at all. The clean burning characteristic of methanol are also expected to reduce maintenance costs for a converted natural gas turbine. So using carbon neutral methanol for electric power production would not only reduce global warming but would also mean cleaner air in general. Methanol can be easily pumped via pipelines to modified turbine power plants located in inland regions for distribution to electric power all over the mainland United States. Of course, on islands such as Hawaii, methanol could finally end the islands' dependence on high priced oil for electricity.
Methanol can also be used in fuel cell power plants which an be used for back up electricity for buildings or for homes. And methanol fuel cells are currently used to power portable electronic devices.
Methanol can also be used to power seagoing vessels. And some ocean vessels have already been designed to use methanol in order to reduce pollution from vessels using diesel fuel.
Methanol can also be easily converted into dimethyl ether (DME) through dehydration over a catalyst. Only moderate modifications are required to enable a diesel fuel engine to burn dimethyl ether. And dimethyl ether is a much cleaner fuel than diesel fuel for trucks and other heavy ground vehicles.
The further dehydration of dimethyl ether can convert it into high octane gasoline. This carbon neutral gasoline can be either mixed with existing fossil fuel derived sources of gasoline or can be used to completely replace gasoline derived from fossil fuels.
So nuclear power plants floating far out to sea in the worlds oceans could potentially supply carbon neutral fuels for both electricity and transportation fuel for the entire planet. Such Ocean Nuclear facilities could be easily designed to withstand the havoc of hurricanes, cyclones, and other tropical storms while also being inherently immune to earthquakes and tsunamis. But storm related production disruptions could easily be avoided by locating such facilities in regions where the frequency of tropical storm formation is very infrequent.
But Ocean Nuclear complexes could still be located at latitudes where winter snow could be avoided in order to attract more employees to work at the remote ocean facilities. Semi-permanently docked cruise ships could be purchased by a large Ocean Nuplex to provide housing,
recreation, restaurants, shopping malls, small hospitals and schools for its nuclear power plant and synfuel operators and
engineers and their families.
Since small nuclear reactors will be designed to produce 300 MWe of electricity or less, that means that thousands of small nuclear reactors would have to be mass produced and deployed to sea in order to replace America's transportation fuel needs alone. If nuclear manufactured methanol were also required to replace all of America's peak load electricity production then several hundred more small reactors would also have to be manufactured. Of course, if the US wanted to export carbon neutral fuels to other countries then thousands more small nuclear power plants would have to be built and deployed to sea.
Centrally manufacturing dozens or even hundreds of small nuclear reactors in the US every year would dramatically reduce the capital cost nuclear reactors and, therefore, the cost of synthetic fuels being produce from these Ocean Nuclear facilities. This would mean millions of high wage manufacturing jobs being created on the American continent for the production of floating nuclear power plants that most Americans would never see. Such nuclear ocean synfuel production facilities could be clustered in an area less than 100 square kilometers (a 10 kilometers by 10 kilometers) while producing 25 to 50 GWe of power for synfuel production.
Large remote Ocean Nuplexes could also be used to produce jet fuel, and even ammonia for fertilizer (synthesis of atmospheric nitrogen combined with hydrogen extracted from seawater through electrolysis).
US Navy nuclear aircraft carriers could stop by such Ocean Nuclear complexes to refuel their vessels with jet fuel and also for some R&R for the crew at one or more of the Nuplex cruise ships which could feature a large variety of entertainment and shops which could add more revenue for the Ocean Nuclear Complex.
Security for Ocean Nuclear facilities could also be provided by the US Coast Guard, easily affordable by a large nuclear complex without any tax payer expense. They would also, of course, have their own security forces.
There might also be logistical advantages for locating floating uranium extraction platforms within a few dozen or a few hundred kilometers of an Ocean Nuclear Complex. There's more than 4 billion tonnes of natural uranium in seawater, enough to power and fuel all of human civilization for over 3000 years. And if the spent fuel is eventually recycled in next generation breeder reactors then uranium could supply civilization with power for more than 300,000 years. However, since the uranium content of the oceans will be resupplied with its current uranium content in less than 150,000 years, marine uranium could, in theory, supply human energy needs for as long as humans remain on Earth. Of course, this doesn't even include terrestrial thorium supplies and potential extraterrestrial uranium and thorium supplies within the solar system in the future.
Floating airports located perhaps 10 to 100 kilometers away from an Ocean Nuplex could take advantage of their proximity to synthetic jet fuel, cheap electricity, and desalinated water supplies. Underwater electric power cables that stretch more than 500 kilometers away from their power source are already in existence.
Floating space launch facilities in the future could also take advantage of Ocean Nuclear complexes located near the Earth's equatorial regions to take full delta-v advantage of the Earth's rotation. Launch facilities located less than 80 kilometers away from an Ocean Nuplex could utilize the abundant hydrogen and oxygen produced at the floating nuclear facility-- for cryogenic rocket fuel.
Ironically, Ocean Nuclear facilities might also attract new communities of people living on floating artificial islands. Such floating island communities might be located just 100 to 500 kilometers away from an Ocean Nuclear complex, taking advantage of the cheap nuclear electricity and high paying jobs-- along with the warm climate and spectacular ocean views! But even at just 100 kilometers away from the floating Nuplex, from the balcony of your floating home, you'd still be at least 70 kilometers away from from being able to see the nuclear power facility over the curve of the beautiful blue horizon!
While the US Navy is focusing its attention on using nuclear or renewable OTEC technologies for manufacturing jet fuel at sea, the Navy's new technology could be easily utilized to manufacture other carbon neutral fuels such as methanol, dimethyl ether, diesel fuel, and even gasoline.
The production of methanol at sea could allow floating nuclear power plants to ship this carbon neutral fuel to practically any coastal port on Earth-- for electricity production and for ground transportation fuel. Methanol tankers already exist and come in a wide variety of sizes for transporting large quantities of methanol.
Methanol is relatively non-corrosive fuel that remains at a liquid state at room temperature and atmospheric pressure. Methanol requires no specialized containment and can be handled the same way as other oil based liquid fuels. Since methanol is easily biodegradable in marine waters, an accidental tanker spill would be much less damaging to the marine environment and to coastal beaches than an oil or gasoline spill.
 |
| Japanese Methanol Tanker (Credit: SHIN KURUSHIMA DOCKYARD CO) |
For electricity production, methanol can be easily used in modified natural gas turbines. Tests have shown that, compared to natural gas, methanol produces a higher electrical power output due to the higher mass flow, and significantly reduces NOx and while also producing no SO2 emissions at all. The clean burning characteristic of methanol are also expected to reduce maintenance costs for a converted natural gas turbine. So using carbon neutral methanol for electric power production would not only reduce global warming but would also mean cleaner air in general. Methanol can be easily pumped via pipelines to modified turbine power plants located in inland regions for distribution to electric power all over the mainland United States. Of course, on islands such as Hawaii, methanol could finally end the islands' dependence on high priced oil for electricity.
Methanol can also be used in fuel cell power plants which an be used for back up electricity for buildings or for homes. And methanol fuel cells are currently used to power portable electronic devices.
 |
| Methanol electric power plant at Point Lisas, Trinidad (Credit: Mendenhall Technical Services) |
Methanol can also be easily converted into dimethyl ether (DME) through dehydration over a catalyst. Only moderate modifications are required to enable a diesel fuel engine to burn dimethyl ether. And dimethyl ether is a much cleaner fuel than diesel fuel for trucks and other heavy ground vehicles.
The further dehydration of dimethyl ether can convert it into high octane gasoline. This carbon neutral gasoline can be either mixed with existing fossil fuel derived sources of gasoline or can be used to completely replace gasoline derived from fossil fuels.
 |
| Conversion of Methanol into Dimethyl Ether and Gasoline for ground transportation vehicles |
 |
| The colored areas are regions where cyclones and hurricanes are most frequently created in the world's oceans (Credit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) |
Since small nuclear reactors will be designed to produce 300 MWe of electricity or less, that means that thousands of small nuclear reactors would have to be mass produced and deployed to sea in order to replace America's transportation fuel needs alone. If nuclear manufactured methanol were also required to replace all of America's peak load electricity production then several hundred more small reactors would also have to be manufactured. Of course, if the US wanted to export carbon neutral fuels to other countries then thousands more small nuclear power plants would have to be built and deployed to sea.
Centrally manufacturing dozens or even hundreds of small nuclear reactors in the US every year would dramatically reduce the capital cost nuclear reactors and, therefore, the cost of synthetic fuels being produce from these Ocean Nuclear facilities. This would mean millions of high wage manufacturing jobs being created on the American continent for the production of floating nuclear power plants that most Americans would never see. Such nuclear ocean synfuel production facilities could be clustered in an area less than 100 square kilometers (a 10 kilometers by 10 kilometers) while producing 25 to 50 GWe of power for synfuel production.
Large remote Ocean Nuplexes could also be used to produce jet fuel, and even ammonia for fertilizer (synthesis of atmospheric nitrogen combined with hydrogen extracted from seawater through electrolysis).
US Navy nuclear aircraft carriers could stop by such Ocean Nuclear complexes to refuel their vessels with jet fuel and also for some R&R for the crew at one or more of the Nuplex cruise ships which could feature a large variety of entertainment and shops which could add more revenue for the Ocean Nuclear Complex.
Security for Ocean Nuclear facilities could also be provided by the US Coast Guard, easily affordable by a large nuclear complex without any tax payer expense. They would also, of course, have their own security forces.
There might also be logistical advantages for locating floating uranium extraction platforms within a few dozen or a few hundred kilometers of an Ocean Nuclear Complex. There's more than 4 billion tonnes of natural uranium in seawater, enough to power and fuel all of human civilization for over 3000 years. And if the spent fuel is eventually recycled in next generation breeder reactors then uranium could supply civilization with power for more than 300,000 years. However, since the uranium content of the oceans will be resupplied with its current uranium content in less than 150,000 years, marine uranium could, in theory, supply human energy needs for as long as humans remain on Earth. Of course, this doesn't even include terrestrial thorium supplies and potential extraterrestrial uranium and thorium supplies within the solar system in the future.
Floating airports located perhaps 10 to 100 kilometers away from an Ocean Nuplex could take advantage of their proximity to synthetic jet fuel, cheap electricity, and desalinated water supplies. Underwater electric power cables that stretch more than 500 kilometers away from their power source are already in existence.
Floating space launch facilities in the future could also take advantage of Ocean Nuclear complexes located near the Earth's equatorial regions to take full delta-v advantage of the Earth's rotation. Launch facilities located less than 80 kilometers away from an Ocean Nuplex could utilize the abundant hydrogen and oxygen produced at the floating nuclear facility-- for cryogenic rocket fuel.
Ironically, Ocean Nuclear facilities might also attract new communities of people living on floating artificial islands. Such floating island communities might be located just 100 to 500 kilometers away from an Ocean Nuclear complex, taking advantage of the cheap nuclear electricity and high paying jobs-- along with the warm climate and spectacular ocean views! But even at just 100 kilometers away from the floating Nuplex, from the balcony of your floating home, you'd still be at least 70 kilometers away from from being able to see the nuclear power facility over the curve of the beautiful blue horizon!
Marcel F. Williams
Links and References
- Meltdown: Despite the Fear, the Health Risks from the Fukushima Accident Are Minimal
- Small modular reactor
- Nuclear Navy's Synfuel from Seawater Program: An interview with Kathy Lewis of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
- The feasibility and current estimated capital costs of producing jet fuel at sea using carbon dioxide and hydrogen
- Better than Keystone XL: $3/gallon gasoline from seawater
- The Methanol Alternative: 2012 Methanol Forum
- Analysis of Market Characteristics for Conversion of Liquid Fueled Turbines to Methanol
- Simple Cycle Power Plants: Trinidad
- How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources
- Oak Ridge develops improved way of extracting uranium from seawater
- Russia Floats Plan for Nuclear Power Plants at Sea
- Fueling our Nuclear Future
- Floating Islands
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Dream Chaser to Fly Astronauts into Orbit in 2017
 |
| Dream Chaser launch on top of an Atlas V (Credit: Sierra Nevada Corporation) |
 |
| Dream Chaser space plane (Credit: Sierra Nevada Corporation) |
Sierra Nevada Corporation
The Future of NASA and the Commercial Crew Program
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Utilizing Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) for Early SLS Cargo Launches and Commercial Crew Destinations
 |
| Some of the SSME (RS-25D) in storage at the Kennedy Space Center (Credit NASA). |
by Marcel F. Williams
NASA's future Space Launch System (SLS) won't be
fully operational until it can utilize the new expendable RS-25E
engines which probably won't be ready until the year 2021. However, NASA
has 16 Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME: RS-25D), previously used by the Space Shuttle stored away for use
by the SLS. Since the SLS will utilize four engines per flight, the SSME
could launch up to four SLS missions before the arrival of the
expendable RS-25E engines. But the safety of astronauts launched on the SLS may depend on utilizing these engines on unmanned test missions.
2014
| Simulated Video of Delta IV Heavy Launch of the CM of the MPCV |
In 2014, NASA will use the ULA's Delta-IV
heavy to test launch the Command Module (CM) of the future Multipurpose Crew
Vehicle (MPCV), placing it in low Earth orbit for reentry back on Earth. The Service Module (SM) of the MPCV, however, will still be under development by the European Space Agency and won't be available to launch with the CM until 2017
2017
 |
| MPCV (Credit: NASA) |
 |
| SLS/MPCV (Credit: NASA) |
The SLS heavy lift vehicle will make its maiden launch in 2017 along with the complete version of the MPCV . This unmanned flight could be as simple as sending the MPCV to TLI (TransLunar Injection) or on more complex journeys to the Earth-Moon Lagrange points or to some other points of interest within cis-lunar space.
After
2017, NASA has no SLS missions scheduled until 2021 when the first
crewed missions of the SLS/MPCV are scheduled to begin and the new
RS-25E engines are scheduled to be utilized.
It would also mean that astronauts would be launched on top of the SLS
after just one unmanned test flight! But
NASA would still have 12 SSME that could be utilized for cargo missions before 2021 that could further insure the safety of the SLS for manned spaceflight.
During
the Apollo era, there were two unmanned test flights of the Saturn V
heavy lift vehicle before NASA finally took a chance and launched three American
astronauts into orbit around the Moon in December of 1968. The first
unmanned test flight of the Saturn V in November of 1967-- was a complete success. However, there were some problems with the second and third stages of the Saturn V during the
second unmanned test in April of 1968.
Of course, serious problems with the Apollo Command Module occurred during a launch rehearsal test on January 27th, 1967 which cost the lives of three American astronauts:
Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom (a former Mercury astronaut), Edward H. White
(the first American to walk in space), and Roger B. Chaffee-- an astronaut who never got a chance to fly into space.
So
as far as safety is concerned, I believe it would be prudent for NASA
to launch the SLS more than just one time-- unmanned-- before actually placing living
human beings on top of the new heavy lift vehicle.
But that doesn't mean
that such early SLS flights can't also be put to good use. Below is a proposal for two additional SLS flights before the first manned flight of the SLS/MPCV in 2021:
 |
| CST-100 Commercial Crew Vehicle docked with the Olympus BA-2100 space station (Credit: Boeing) |
 |
| Interior of the Olympus BA-2100 space station (Credit Bigelow Aerospace) |
I propose that in 2019, NASA should launch the Bigelow Aerospace company's Olympus
BA-2100 space station to LEO for-- private commercial utilization. While Bigelow
Aerospace would pay for the development of the BA-2100, under this scenario, NASA would pay
for the launch of the habitat in exchange for up to 60 days of annual exclusive use of the facility-- with the exception of Bigelow Aerospace maintenance personal aboard the space station.
This would give
Bigelow Aerospace the advantage of having a huge space station in orbit
for exclusive fee based Commercial Crew and foreign spacecraft
visitations at least 10 months out of the year. Bigelow could still pay private launch companys to deploy its smaller microgravity facilities (BA-300) nearby. This would allow small specialized microgravity labs to function without human interference while the human engineers and scientist took shelter at the larger Olympus space station until the experiments are completed and the results can be retrieved from the smaller facilities. Human access to the Olympus space station will, of course, depend on the availability of operational Commercial Crew spacecraft which should be available to NASA well before 2019.
2020
 |
| Skylab 2 (Credit: Brand Griffin) |
 |
| Hypergravity Centrifuge (Credit: NASA) |
I also propose that in 2020, an orbital habitat derived from the SLS hydrogen fuel tank, similar to the Skylab 2 proposal, also be deployed by the SLS to LEO. Such a habitat could be equipped with a six meter in diameter internal hyper gravity centrifuge-- easily accommodated within the 8.4 meter interior diameter of the space station. This will enable NASA to see if one to two hours of hypergravity per day can significantly mitigate some of the deleterious effects of microgravity on the human body. The new NASA space station will also be supplied with enough water shielding to protect astronauts from major solar events while also reducing their long term exposure to cosmic radiation. Again, NASA will need to utilize Commercial Crew services in order to access the SLS deployed NASA space station at LEO. In the 2020's, a similar SLS derived habitat will be placed at one of the Earth-Moon Lagrange points and could someday be used to house astronauts on interplanetary journeys.
So before the Space Launch System is fully operational in the early 2020s, the old Space Shuttle Main Engines could allow the SLS to deploy two enormous space stations: one privately owned and one owned by NASA. Both stations could serve as places of refuge if one of the stations had to be abandoned in an emergency. And they could both serve as way stations for future reusable Orbital Transfer Vehicles headed towards the Earth-Moon Lagrange points or to Lunar orbit. A new generation of space stations would allow NASA to finally move beyond the ISS while focusing its efforts and finances on beyond LEO missions to the Moon and beyond.
Adding two additional unmanned SLS launches should help to enhance the launch vehicles safety and reliability before manned missions begin in 2021. And, under this scenario, four SSME would still be available in case the RS-25E engines are still not ready for manned SLS missions by 2021.
Marcel F. Williams
Links and References:
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Lori Garver Questioned Astronauts about NASA's Next Destination?
In a fascinating oped in the Huffington Post, former astronaut, Clayton Anderson, reports that Lori Garver had a private meeting with the Astronaut Corp. when she was still the Associate Administrator for NASA Spaceflight-- and asked the astronauts what NASA's next destination should be:
"While I was still an astronaut, and an astronaut veteran at that, then Associate Administrator for spaceflight Lori Garver came to speak to the Astronaut Corps. A private meeting, just Ms. Garver and an attentive group of type A personalities, I would venture to guess there were about 40-45 of us "space fliers" seated in the room. A bit of a "rah, rah" meeting, touting NASA's work in the world of commercial spaceflight (and I think commercial spaceflight is a good thing, but that's another op-ed!), she asked us all a significant question.
After some perfunctory remarks, she asked us to raise our hands if "we thought that Mars should be our next destination?" Three astronauts raised their hands.
Next, she offered the question again, but this time replacing the Red Planet with the option of an asteroid as our next destination. No one... that's right, no one, raised a hand.
When she finally asked us about our near-neighbor the moon, every astronaut, save the three that voted for Mars, raised their hands.
I found this interesting. The majority of the astronaut corps, the people that actually do the space flying, agreed with me --that the moon should be our next destination." Clayton Anderson.
You can read the rest of Clayton Anderson's oped at the Huffington Post at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clayton-anderson/where-do-we-go-from-here_3_b_4495029.html
Marcel F. Williams
More Blogs about Lori Garver:
Where Do We Go From Here?
Report: NASA Astronauts Oppose Obama Asteroid Mission
How Lori Garver misled about '50 year old' Space Launch System Technology
Huntsville-designed Space Launch System should be killed, former NASA No. 2 Lori Garver says
"While I was still an astronaut, and an astronaut veteran at that, then Associate Administrator for spaceflight Lori Garver came to speak to the Astronaut Corps. A private meeting, just Ms. Garver and an attentive group of type A personalities, I would venture to guess there were about 40-45 of us "space fliers" seated in the room. A bit of a "rah, rah" meeting, touting NASA's work in the world of commercial spaceflight (and I think commercial spaceflight is a good thing, but that's another op-ed!), she asked us all a significant question.
After some perfunctory remarks, she asked us to raise our hands if "we thought that Mars should be our next destination?" Three astronauts raised their hands.
Next, she offered the question again, but this time replacing the Red Planet with the option of an asteroid as our next destination. No one... that's right, no one, raised a hand.
When she finally asked us about our near-neighbor the moon, every astronaut, save the three that voted for Mars, raised their hands.
I found this interesting. The majority of the astronaut corps, the people that actually do the space flying, agreed with me --that the moon should be our next destination." Clayton Anderson.
You can read the rest of Clayton Anderson's oped at the Huffington Post at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clayton-anderson/where-do-we-go-from-here_3_b_4495029.html
Marcel F. Williams
More Blogs about Lori Garver:
Where Do We Go From Here?
Report: NASA Astronauts Oppose Obama Asteroid Mission
How Lori Garver misled about '50 year old' Space Launch System Technology
Huntsville-designed Space Launch System should be killed, former NASA No. 2 Lori Garver says
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
An SLS Launched Cargo and Crew Lunar Transportation System Utilizing an ETLV Architecture
 |
| SLS launched ETLV-2 at EML1 liquid hydrogen and oxygen fuel depot (ETLV derived) while the MPCV waits to dock with the now fully fueled lunar landing vehicle |
Before the end of the decade, the heavy lift capability that America once had during the Apollo era-- will return in the form of the SLS. Some, however, have argued that because of the former Space Shuttle's ability to deploy a 94 tonne aerospace plane plus up to 25 tonnes of useful cargo to LEO that , technically, the Shuttle was also a heavy lift vehicle. But even the earliest versions of the Space Launch System will be far more capable than the Space Shuttle in their ability to lift huge payloads into orbit. Unmanned versions of the SLS should be capable of deploying at least 70 tonnes of payload to LEO. And with an SLS derived upperstage, as much as 105 tonnes of cargo could be lifted to orbit. Even when deploying the 22 tonne MPCV (Multipurpose Crew Vehicle), the SLS should still be capable of simultaneously lifting an additional 45 to 80 tonnes of cargo to orbital space.
Since I envision NASA
having at least two operational SLS launch pads by the early 2020s-- a
two launch scenario-- would be utilized for early manned missions to the
lunar surface. Such a launch infrastructure could also allow at least four heavy lift launches per year for both cargo and crew missions.
NASA's first manned lunar mission utilizing the SLS could send the ETLV-2 to TLI (Trans-Lunar Injection) where the remotely controlled unmanned crew lander will separate from the SLS upper stage and utilize some of its fuel to reach EML1. The ETLV-2 will then dock with the previously SLS deployed EML1 fuel depot in order to add the additional required fuel for its round trip journey to the lunar surface and back to L1.
A second SLS launch, probably a few days later, would send the MPCV plus a few tonnes of water to EML1. The MPCV will dock with the fully fueled ETLV-2 and the crew (up to 6 people) will transfer to the lunar lander for their journey to the Lunar surface and then, eventually, back to L1 after their lunar mission is over. The EML1 fuel depot will dock with the water tank, stored at the top of the SLS upper stage, and pump the water into the fuel depot water compartment where it will eventually be converted into liquid hydrogen and oxygen.
On their return trip to EML1, the crew will transfer back to the MPCV for their return to Earth. Under this scenario, the deployed ETLV-2 would remain at L1 until the EML1 fuel depot is finally being supplied with water from the lunar surface for the manufacture of extraterrestrial fuel. This will allow a small fleet of reusable lunar landers to be deployed at EML1 by the SLS over just a few years for future use for manned lunar missions. Once an ETLV-2 vehicle is reactivated, it will refuel at L1 and then travel-- unmanned back to the lunar surface-- to ensure that the reusable vehicle is fully functional for human use again. The ETLV-2's CECE engines could be utilized for at least ten round trips before they would be required to be replaced-- or the landing vehicle retired.
NASA's first manned lunar mission utilizing the SLS could send the ETLV-2 to TLI (Trans-Lunar Injection) where the remotely controlled unmanned crew lander will separate from the SLS upper stage and utilize some of its fuel to reach EML1. The ETLV-2 will then dock with the previously SLS deployed EML1 fuel depot in order to add the additional required fuel for its round trip journey to the lunar surface and back to L1.
A second SLS launch, probably a few days later, would send the MPCV plus a few tonnes of water to EML1. The MPCV will dock with the fully fueled ETLV-2 and the crew (up to 6 people) will transfer to the lunar lander for their journey to the Lunar surface and then, eventually, back to L1 after their lunar mission is over. The EML1 fuel depot will dock with the water tank, stored at the top of the SLS upper stage, and pump the water into the fuel depot water compartment where it will eventually be converted into liquid hydrogen and oxygen.
On their return trip to EML1, the crew will transfer back to the MPCV for their return to Earth. Under this scenario, the deployed ETLV-2 would remain at L1 until the EML1 fuel depot is finally being supplied with water from the lunar surface for the manufacture of extraterrestrial fuel. This will allow a small fleet of reusable lunar landers to be deployed at EML1 by the SLS over just a few years for future use for manned lunar missions. Once an ETLV-2 vehicle is reactivated, it will refuel at L1 and then travel-- unmanned back to the lunar surface-- to ensure that the reusable vehicle is fully functional for human use again. The ETLV-2's CECE engines could be utilized for at least ten round trips before they would be required to be replaced-- or the landing vehicle retired.
I should note that the two launch scenario can also be utilized-- even if their is only one launch pad for the SLS (delaying the next launch from the pad for a few months)-- since the ETLV-2 would be equiped with cryocoolers capable of re-liquifying ullage gasses from is fuel tanks, providing zero boil-off of fuel for several months or even several years. However, limiting the SLS to just two launches per year would substantially slow down progress towards establishing manned outpost on the lunar surface and eventually on the surface of Mars. But there's really no logical reason to limit heavy lift launches to just two a year since NASA was able to launch as many as-- four heavy lift vehicles per year-- during the Apollo era and as many as nine Space Shuttle missions per year during the peak of the Shuttle era!
Once the fleet of ETLV-2 landing vehicles are utilizing lunar fuel resources for their operation and lunar water is being exported to the EML1 fuel depot from ETLV derived lunar tankers, NASA should then be able to incorporate the use of Commercial Crew vehicles as a cheaper component for sending astronauts to the Lunar surface. Reusable, ETLV-2 derived reusable Orbital Transfer Vehicles (OTVs) equipped with delta-v reducing aerobrakers should allow NASA to travel between LEO and EML1 a lot more cheaply. NASA astronauts and possibly even space tourist could then travel to the Moon by first taking a Commercial Crew vehicle to LEO where they would dock with an ETLV-2 derived OTV that utilizes lunar fuel stored at EML1 and possibly also at LEO. Once at EML1, the ETLV-2 would take the passengers down to the lunar surface.
So under this proposed scenario, the SLS and the MPCV could be used to set up a reusable transportation infrastructure that could eventually give passengers aboard private Commercial Crew launch vehicles affordable and convenient access to the surface of the Moon-- just a few years after the SLS/MPCV/ETLV program begins.
Further details about the ETLV components that will give Commercial Crew passengers access to the lunar surface will be discussed in more detail in future post.
Marcel F. Williams
© 2013 MuOmega Enterprises
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
CINEMA FANTASTIC
Popular Posts
-
by Marcel F. Williams Congress has now made it clear that they want the immediate development of a heavy lift vehicle and a crew explorato... -
S tena Line , one of the largest ferry operators in the world, recently announced that it will convert its 1500 passenger ferry, the Stena... -
X-Ray of a notional regolith shielded 16 meter in diameter biosphere (Credit: NASA) by Marcel F. Williams A t least 0.1 g is required... -
by Marcel F. Williams Tuscany is renowned for its beautiful cities of Florence and Siena, and is historically famous as the birthplace ... -
by Marcel F. Williams Currently, commercial nuclear energy in the US and in the rest of the world is solely utilized for the production of e... -
by Marcel F. Williams On December 17th 1935, the Douglas Aircraft Company introduced an new airplane that revolutionized commercial air trav... -
by Marcel F. Williams Because of the dangers of climate change and America's dependence on foreign oil, there's been a lot of specul... -
by Marcel F. Williams One frequent argument against the expansion of commercial nuclear power is the the claim that our planet is simply ...
