Applebee's are a bunch of scam-artists

'Most ambitious climate agenda in history'

'responsive records'

'Shortcut the statutory and regulatory requirements'

'It just never reversed out'

'Personality'

'Dedicated‚ hardworking‚ and resilient'

'I’m afraid we are deluded into a nightmare'

Researchers consistently complain about how difficult it is to fund breakthrough research. Most funding agencies‚ especially governmental ones‚ think funding incremental‚ evolutionary technological steps is the way to go‚ as it has the most significant immediate payback. But longer-term‚ higher-risk research is necessary to provide those incremental steps 20-30 years in the future. And in some cases‚ they are required to underpin completely new things that other researchers want to do. That is the case with space propulsion systems. Current mature technologies‚ mainly derived from chemical rockets‚ cannot provide the necessary force to allow for a gravitational lens telescope out in the Oort cloud‚ an interstellar probe‚ or a round trip to Mars that would take less than a year. But other technologies on the horizon could if only we spent more time and resources developing them. So a group of  NASA and DoE engineers recently released a paper detailing some of those and where they think America’s space agency should direct its funding when developing new propulsion systems. At the beginning of the paper‚ the authors lament that there hasn’t been any large-scale NASA investment in breakthrough propulsion technologies since the 1970s. And they’re right; the last significant effort was the Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA) project‚ which wound down in the 1970s. Despite the lack of prototyping‚ plenty of ideas were put forward then. Just none have made them into hardware. Novel propulsion systems are always fun to talk about – as Fraser proves int his interview. Those ideas can be broadly categorized into four different groups of systems: chemical propulsion‚ nuclear thermal propulsion‚ solar electric propulsion (SEP)‚ and nuclear electric propulsion (NEP). The rest of the study aimed to determine what if any‚ significant advancements could be made in those four systems that could lead to them lowering the round-trip time to Mars to less than one year. The authors discard chemical propulsion and nuclear thermal propulsion‚ stating that they are simply not cut out for the rapid technological changes that could enable their use for these game-changing propulsion systems. Chemical propulsion suffers from “the tyranny of the rocket equation‚” as Isaac Arthur puts it. But nuclear thermal propulsion suffers from the same underlying problem – they must carry too much weight in propellants to be viable for truly ground-breaking speed increases. That leaves solar electric propulsion and nuclear electric propulsion. The authors break down the current state-of-the-art technologies for each technology and calculate the weight per kilowatt of energy they produce. Neither looks particularly promising at the state of the art – with NEP coming in at 51 kg/kWe and various solar arrays that could drive a SEP system ranging from 5 kg/kWe up to 22.73 kWe. None of those weight/power tradeoffs would result in anything approaching a sub-one-year time to Mars. Ion engines could potentially be scaled to the point where we could get to Mars quickly – if we fund them enough. But why stop there? The authors do a deep dive into potential technologies on the horizon‚ ranging from materials to photovoltaics‚ that could dramatically impact those calculated ratios. The paper concludes with “transformative” technologies that could decrease the kg/kWe to below one. In that case‚ an extensive enough power system can reasonably transport humans to Mars in between 50 and 100 days.  The researchers also looked at some early-stage propulsion concepts from NASA’s Institute for Advanced Concepts – including the ever-popular “pulsed nuclear” propulsion system‚ where a nuclear explosion is intentionally initiated behind the spacecraft to push it forward. These technologies are too early to be included in a deep-dive analysis‚ but they could lead to some promising alternative technologies. To invest in those alternative technologies‚ the authors suggest NASA commit 1% of its Space Nuclear Propulsion budget to developing breakthrough technologies. At $45 million for FY2023‚ the whole budget isn’t exactly breaking the bank‚ and a mere $450‚000 probably wouldn’t make too big of waves in the industry. But‚ it is undoubtedly better than what is currently allotted toward maturing these transformative propulsion technologies. Learn More:Dankanich et al. – Transformational Propulsion for In-Space Fast TransitsUT – Solar Electric Propulsion Systems are Just What we Need for Efficient Trips to MarsUT – A Novel Propulsion System Would Hurl Hypervelocity Pellets at a Spacecraft to Speed it upUT – Magnetic Fusion Plasma Engines Could Carry us Across the Solar System and Into Interstellar Space Lead Image:Mars/Lunar Transfer OrbitsCredit – Dankanich et al. The post What Future Propulsion Technologies Should NASA Invest In? appeared first on Universe Today.

Japan has become the fifth nation to land a functioning robot on the moon‚ but the mission could fall short of complete success due to a problem with the lander’s power-generating solar cells. The Smart Lander for Investigating Moon‚ or SLIM‚ was launched along with an X-ray space telescope called XRISM from Japan’s Tanegashima Space Center in early September — and after weeks of in-space maneuvers‚ SLIM touched down today at 1520 GMT (10:20 a.m. ET Jan. 19‚ or 12:20 a.m. JST Jan. 20). The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency reported that the landing was successful. During a news briefing‚ Hiroshi Kuninaka‚ director general of JAXA’s Institute of Space and Astronautical Science‚ said the achievement marked “a major milestone” in Japan’s effort to send spacecraft to the moon‚ and eventually to Mars. Kuninaka said SLIM was able to communicate with Earth and respond to commands. “However‚ it seems that the solar cells are not generating electricity at this point in time‚” he said. “And since we are not able to generate electricity‚ the operation is being done using batteries alone.” Mission controllers prioritized efforts to transmit the data stored on the lander back to Earth before the batteries ran out. SLIM was expected to lose power within hours if the solar panel problem couldn’t be fixed. Kuninaka said the problem could have arisen because the solar cells weren’t properly aligned toward the sun. “We are trying to analyze the data that we’re gathering at this point in time and analyzing the status‚” he said. The lander was designed to make a precision touchdown near Shioli Crater‚ in a region of the moon not far from where the Apollo 11 and Apollo 16 landings took place more than 50 years ago. SLIM’s objective was to land within 100 meters (330 feet) of the targeted landing spot. The plan for an ultra-accurate moonshot explains why SLIM came to be called “Moon Sniper.” Kuninaka said mission managers would need “a little more time” to confirm how close SLIM came to the target. He also said two mini-rovers‚ known as LEV-1 and LEV-2‚ were successfully deployed during SLIM’s descent to the surface. LEV-1 is built to capture imagery and record temperature and radiation levels as it hops around the surface. LEV-2 has the shape of a deformable sphere‚ and is designed to roll around the surface to take pictures. “If LEV-1 and LEV-2 are functioning properly‚ then SLIM’s photos and images have been taken by LEV-1 and LEV-2. I believe such data is now being sent to us‚” Kuninaka said. Despite the power problem‚ SLIM’s successful landing was a welcome development for JAXA’s space exploration program. It added Japan to a short list of countries that have guided robotic spacecraft to soft landings on the moon — a list that also includes the U.S.‚ Russia‚ China and India. Other recent developments have demonstrated that putting a robot on the moon isn’t easy. This week‚ for example‚ Astrobotic’s Peregrine lunar lander fell back to Earth after a propellant leak ruled out a moon landing. Last year‚ a different type of commercial lander — built by a Japanese startup called ispace — failed during its descent to the lunar surface. Russia’s Luna-25 mission also ended with a crash landing on the moon last year. In 2022‚ a Japanese mini-probe called Omotenashi failed to function after its deployment during NASA’s Artemis 1 moon mission. And in 2019‚ the Israeli-built Beresheet moon probe failed to stick its landing. In contrast‚ India’s Chandrayaan-3 lander/rover mission and China’s Chang’e missions stand out as notable successes in the recent wave of moon exploration efforts. The post Japan’s Moon Lander Touches Down‚ But Power Problem Mars Its Mission appeared first on Universe Today.